Phil Spencer Expects There to be 'Less and Less' Console Exclusives in the Future - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 24 August 2022 / 3,827 Views
Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer in an interview with Bloomberg discussed exclusivity and how he expects to see fewer exclusives in the future as he feels releasing games on more platforms is better for the industry.
"[Console exclusives are] something we're just going to see less and less of," said Spencer.
He added, "Maybe you happen in your household to buy an Xbox and I buy a PlayStation and our kids want to play together and they can't because we bought the wrong piece of plastic to plug into our television.
"We really love to be able to bring more players in reducing friction, making people feel safe, secure when they're playing, allowing them to find their friends, play with their friends, regardless of what device. I think in the long run that is good for this industry.
"And maybe in the short run, there's some people in some companies that don't love it. But I think as we get over the hump and see where this industry can continue to grow, it proves out to be true."
Microsoft in the middle of acquiring Activision Blizzard in a deal worth $68.7 billion. The company plans to keep Activision's biggest franchise, Call of Duty, on PlayStation consoles even once the deal closes.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Considering Microsoft owns a shit load of studios I somehow doubt that. Unless he means exclusives that also don't launch on pc. But basically only Nintendo is doing those anyway.
That’s part of what he means, and frankly don’t be surprised if one or two of Sony’s upcoming service titles launches on Xbox too.
Yea I could see them doing that with the live service games. If not that they could release them on PCPS only at first to see how well it does and then later on release on xbox to.
Psychonauts 2 launched on PlayStation, when it didn't have to. Microsoft has Minecraft on everything. Call of Duty will remain on PlayStation (and if moved to a non-annual cycle, possibly expand to Switch?). If Microsoft brings back Spyro, Crash, Tony Hawk, etc., we might see games like that on Sony and/or Nintendo platforms.
is there going to be another generation of consoles from Sony and Microsoft after this one?
I don't doubt it. There's a new advantage to consoles: cheaper hardware than PCs, paired with subscription services. It used to be you had to choose between a cheap console with more expensive games, or a more expensive PC with cheaper games. Game Pass (etc.) fundamentally changes that calculation. I think consoles will become more popular than ever.
It should be obvious to anyone watching. Microsoft are attempting to disrupt the market. It started with cross-play. They want to sell the entire market on a paid subscription "We really love to be able to bring more players in". And they're willing to leverage billions to try and break down all the barriers and in the end, be holding all the cards. Of course he doesn't care about consoles "wrong piece of plastic" that long since hit a ceiling for them. They're going for the jugular. Interesting to see the ruthless business strategies at play beneath the pretence of "making people feel safe, secure when they're playing" PR nonsense.
Only those who don't know MS is as monopolistic as it can get believe the fluffies they say.
Yes, and Sony is an angle. It matters not what MS is if the competition does the same tactics. You cannot claim the high ground if you are doing dirty deeds. MS has never been and never will be an angle, they will do things because of competition and the need for your dollars but lets not act like Sony is any different. At any time when either company gets on topic they use the exact same tactics to stay on top all the while gamers place themselves in factions to support them for some reason I still do not understand.
Sorry but neither Sony nor Nintendo uses or can use the same tactics as MS. Unless of course you think they have a parent company that can throw close to 100B dollars on a BU that generates perhaps 3-5B in profit in a good year.
TIL Microsoft is a “parent company” of Xbox
You are are saying that Sony nor Nintendo has not used their marketshare advantage to stifle competition in the gaming space. Do you truly want to stand on that ground.
Nope I didn't say it. No idea how you take leveraging marketshare to get better deals (and in several cases that people claim Sony moneyhated a dev the dev said it wasn't moneyhated but their choice) is the same as buying publishers, but ok.
Whats that phil? Red fall and starfield are coming to ps5.
Or is it that once you own all the companys its doesn't matter where they go as long as Microsoft makes all the money in the end
Oh boy, can't wait to play Starfield on my PS5... oh wait.
Please don't tell.
No but you can play on PC, phone, tablet, or Xbox consoles.
So it’s not a game “made for one device” like he is saying there will be less of.
If there are going to be competitors, exclusives are important. But at this point, cross plat multiplayer shouldn't be an issue.
Exclusives aren't as important as you think. A vast majority of console gamers buy them for CoD, EA sports, GTA and other multiplat titles. The average attach ratio for PS4 exclusives is only around 10-15%, it means that out of 117m PS4 owners maybe that 17 bought it for the exclusives, the rest couldn't care less.
Even for nintendo multiplats are more important than exlcusives. Look at Wii U, had amazing first party games but next to no multiplats. The result is it only sold as many units as there were people interested in Mario Kart 8 and Smash 4.
15 millions is about the number of "exclusive" players per platform. Multiplat players are in the hundreds of millions.
So you think that all those exclusives sold were for the same people instead of 17% attach ratio of each game covering a different demographic and perhaps more than 50% of the customers have bought an exclusive perhaps even more than 50%? Because looking at it like that CoD attach ratio on PS4 isn't that massively higher than SM.
You have to consider that not everyone who buys a game that happens to be an exclusive, have bought that specifc console just to play it. So not all exclusive game sales translate to console sales. If PS4 wasn't killing it with exclusives it would still be the most selling console that gen, simply because it was the best and cheapest way to play new games at the time.
And yes the overlap in exclusive sales is huge. It's more than likely that anyone who bought a PS4 or Switch for the exclusives, owns at least several of the big first party games.
Sure not all exclusive games translate to console sales, I would say most don't. Still your assumption that only 17% of PS5 owners have bought or played an exclusive game is factually wrong.
Hmmm....How are we seeing less console exclusives when you're buying up Activision and bought Bethesda etc. and all of their games are only going to your system? If anything, you've created more exclusives because you've taken those away from Playstation and Nintendo (but mainly Playstation...I dont think anybody cared when Nintendo got a CoD game or Skyrim etc lol).
Because otherwise they would likely not be approved on the deal.
They also had said they wouldn't remove content from other platforms when buying bethesda, and said details would only be given after the deal was closed, day after we discover that meant something else.
Can you link me where they promised not to take CoD away from Playstation, thanks. I thought I read that MS will keep the CoD on Playstation that are currently in the works, but no word on any CoD for Playstation afterwards. But maybe that link will expand more on it I guess
The wording I remember was just that they would honor existing deals and wouldn't remove games already launched. Meaning any game that there wasn't a deal signed (let's say 2 years from now on CoD) could be exclusive. It was never a promise to never remove CoD from PS from what I remember.
I don't think they explicitly promised much, as their language is always carefully couched. But they gave the distinct impression that CoD was safe for the PS5 generation as a minimum, which makes sense given how big a success the PS5 is.
I think as long as Microsoft is making tonnes of money on PS, they'll keep games/franchises there. If sales decline, then all bets are off.
I wouldn't be surprised to see times exclusives for DLC, and other ways to incentive CoD on Xbox/Game Pass/Windows, though.
So you mean Elder Scrolls and Starfield will launch on PS5?
No, incorrect, that's not what I mean.
I mean they're approaching the Acti-Blizz-King purchase differently than they approached the Bethesda purchase. Bethesda did well on PS for sure, but was a huge player on Xbox and PC as well, so they were leaving less revenue on the table to not release future titles on PS.
CoD in particular brings in so much revenue from PS, that it doesn't make sense to fail to release on PS.
Put another way, Bethesda and the studios they purchased before Bethesda can create all the exclusives Microsoft will ever want/need. They therefore don't need Activision to be exclusive as well.
I think it have more to do with on Bethesda they wouldn't have any issue with regulators, but with Acti they would if not promising this. But we shall see, again they wording wasn't as clear as Sony with Bungie.
You might be right. I actually thought they might have amended some of their statements re: future Bethesda releases, to help grease the wheels of the Acti-Blizz purchase. But that hasn't happened yet that I know of.
Wouldn't that also, by proxy, mean less and less need for more than one console to exist?
No, the opposite. It would mean that more companies can create their own consoles that can actually compete. Without exclusives and with universal crossplay, the only factor in buying a console would be the hardware itself, price, aesthetics, special functions etc.
It would be like the smartphone market where many companies make phones with different hardware, but they all use the same software (except Apple, I imagine Nintendo would fill that role).
You mean PCs? Well play on PC.
The only way I can see Microsoft getting gamepass on playstation is if the service is scaled back to only include Microsoft owned content. Essentially turning it from a broad service to a narrow one like Ubisoft and ea provide.
If gamepass is profitable for Sony they will want to have as many games on it as they can, even their own exclusives. If it's not then they won't do it all, a half measure would make no sense.
Would hardly be considered profitable if what they gain in profits from it is more than what they lose in royalties for the games sold directly.
Because they are going to buy more developers and publishers, release the games on GP and even if not putting those games on PS or Nintendo say they didn't remove anything from others right?
But I think increasingly Microsoft will sell those games on PlayStation and Nintendo systems... just not also put them on PS+ or Nintendo Switch Online.
That wouldn't match with what they have done over the couple past year.
It matches with their states intentions for the Acti-Blizz-King purchase, though.
You mean the one where it is roundabout in saying that games that already launched won't be removed and deals already signed will be honored but no direct promise that all Acti-Blizz games will be multiplatform as Sony done with Bungie?
They did appear to also specifically suggest that CoD in all its forms will stay on PS for at least this generation.
That is the impression, but as I said we just can't be sure for the CoD in like 3 years from now, but sure we can give the benefit of doubt for at least this IP.
Would be like Minecraft and MLB
Oh, for sure. Even if Microsoft keeps to the impression they've given the public, if CoD sales go into a protracted decline on PlayStation, a day would come where it would no longer be a sure thing that it would get a PS release. And that's a possibility. Even if CoD keeps getting released on PS, if Xbox and Windows become the best place to play it (included on Game Pass, early release of DLC on Xbox/PC, etc.) then a day may come where so many of Call of Duty's fans have left PlayStation that it no longer makes sense to release it on that platform. Unlikely it would happen anytime soon, but it could happen some day.
Considering Microsoft has released comparatively next to no exclusives for the past 10 years...
They had like 15 and now have like 27.
I only counted the high profile ones but the proportions are the same, they have more than twice the sudios now.
Pretty poor writing here. He clearly said games made for one device, meaning an exclusive, not a console exclusive.
Exclusive: Mario Odyssey. Made for one device, the Switch.
Console exclusive: Flight Sim. Made for Series consoles and PC. Made for multiple devices .
He’s saying we’ll see less and less of the first type of game. And we all know he’s referring to Sony and we all know he’s right, because they are bringing their games to PC.
So by default, we’re seeing less and less of the games made for one device.
He is probably right, the economics of game development and the fact that the console market isn’t growing means that exclusive content makes less and less financial sense if you can’t get astronomical attach rates like Nintendo. Which is why I think by the end of this decade Nintendo will be the only console manufacturer that relies primarily on exclusive software to move units.
The writing was on the wall when PlayStation announced they were porting everything to PC. There is no reason to artificially limit your audience when costs of development continue to skyrocket
Yep not to mention no one wanting to pay more than $60 for a game which has been the same price for a very long time now.
Keep telling yoself dat while Sony and Nintendo dominates
I take it you're looking at console sales when you say that? That's an old metric. It's about the console + the PC + streaming. It's about everywhere you can get someone to pay for your content, whether it's a one-time purchase or a subscription to it. By that metric, are Sony and Nintendo actually dominating? And if they are, are they likely to continue to? I'm not at all sure that they are.
Yes, PS and Nintendo get more revenue and profit in gaming than MS. And the money used to buy these companies had to come from MS instead of Xbox exactly because of that.
You seem to miss the point, why is Sony now bringing their games to PC. Do you remember when MS stated they were bringing their games to PC and all the PS fans stated, if their games come to PC they why would I need an Xbox. The reason is that Sony has figured out what MS figured out a while ago, there is a huge market they are missing because they are trying to protect their console marketplace. Just putting your games on one system is not going to be a viable strategy in the future. Getting your games on as many different systems as possible in a global market is the better strategy. In Sony case, they can wait years before a release to PC but who is to say that mentality will last in the next 5 years.
And PS5 and Switch doesn't count as systems for MS because of reasons?
Who says that MS is not targeting both systems. You seem to forget that MS made an offer to Sony during that Epic trail but Sony turned them down. Its not like MS hasn't tried, its the fact that currently neither Sony or Nintendo are interested because they are more interested in protecting their market share more than anything else.
You mean an offer for both to open up their system to GP instead of simply keep releasing the games that were previously from multiplatform devs?
All 3 consoles do similiar numbers, nobody is dominating anything. It's not like last gen when PS4 was selling more than X1 and WiiU combined and doubled.
I mean, it means what it means :) Console exclusives... So not on PC or any other 'type' of the platform; and they have been using this definition forever. And I agree with him; I think it is true; even Sony is starting to bring games on PC; so less and fewer console exclusives in the future. Microsoft is already doing that since a while.
I think he means it more broadly. It used to be a console exclusive was just on a console. Now it's typically on a console and the PC. I think he's predicting a day where most games come out on most consoles, even from the platform holders.
In Microsoft's case that means Call of Duty comes out on PS as a physical release, but not on PS+ (but does come out on Game Pass). Perhaps there's a future where Sony returns the favour by publishing a game on Xbox (and on PS and PS+, but not Game Pass).
