Sony Alludes to Elder Scrolls VI Being Xbox Exclusive as It Argues Against Microsoft's Activision Deal - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 16 March 2023 / 11,521 Views
Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE) in a newly published document by the UK regulators, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), has released its response to the CMA's provisional findings (PF) to Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition.
Sony states the concern with the deal is about future releases of Call of Duty and not previous releases. Sony points to Microsoft making future ZeniMax games Xbox console exclusives including "Starfield and Elder Scrolls." The mention of The Elder Scrolls could allude to The Elder Scrolls VI being an Xbox console exclusive.
"Microsoft is fond of arguing that, with its prior acquisitions, it did not make the existing, already released games it acquired exclusive to Xbox," reads Sony Interactive Entertainment's response. "But the foreclosure concern in this case is not about past releases of Call of Duty.
"It is about the impact of Microsoft making new Call of Duty releases (which are launched every year) exclusive, as it has done for the new releases of Starfield and Elder Scrolls following the acquisition of ZeniMax in 2021.
"As the PFs explain, these releases were announced in 2018 and were not expected at that time to be Xbox exclusives. It was only after acquiring ZeniMax that Microsoft’s Phil Spencer revealed that, all along, the deal had been about 'delivering great exclusive games' for Xbox."
Sony added that using Minecraft as an example for keeping a game multiplatform isn't relevant as it is a single release, while Call of Duty gets a new release every year.
"Second, Microsoft points to Minecraft as an example of an acquisition where it did not pursue exclusivity. But this example is not relevant to an exclusivity strategy regarding future releases of Call of Duty," Sony added.
"Minecraft is a single release game that is already in users’ hands: unlike Call of Duty, there are no future releases of Minecraft. The CMA correctly points out that Minecraft’s 'legacy monetisation model of a one-time fee for lifetime access and updates…differs significantly from Call of Duty, where users buy the new premium iteration of the game every year for a higher fee.'
"SIE therefore agrees with the PFs that the more relevant indicator of Microsoft’s intentions on exclusivity for Call of Duty is the ZeniMax deal."
Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer recently stated Microsoft plans to treat Call of Duty the same way it does with Minecraft keeping the game multiplatform and available on as many platforms as possible.
We want to increase the places where people can play Call of Duty," said Spencer at the time. "I think a little bit like Minecraft. I think when we acquired Minecraft, our monthly active player base was 20-30 million. I'm doing this from memory, but I think that's about the size Minecraft was. And I think it's about maybe 120 million monthly players on Minecraft."
Microsoft has signed multiple 10-year deals in recent weeks to bring Call of Duty and Xbox games on PC to more platforms.
If Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition is approved Call of Duty games will release on Nintendo platforms. The new legally binding 10-year agreement will guarantee Call of Duty games will release on Nintendo platforms the same day as Xbox with "full feature and content parity." This is so those on Nintendo platforms "can experience Call of Duty just as Xbox and PlayStation gamers enjoy Call of Duty."
Microsoft has also signed 10-year agreement with three cloud streaming services to bring Xbox Games on PC to the services. This includes Nvidia's GeForce Now, Ukraine-based Boosteroid, and Ubitus.
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
Final fantasy 7 remake Sony?
What's this article about? Sony argument is a giant whataboutism.
What counteraccusation is Sony making?
This all starts at the very beginning with Sony claiming, MS will make CoD exclusive. MS saying, they won't, with the most recent deal being 10 years. Then Sony's recent counteraccusation is now, "what about ES6 and Starfield being exclusive?" Even though MS never made a deal or promise about those games coming to PS.
That’s an accusation, not a counteraccusation. Pointing out that Sony is making an accusation isn’t an argument against their accusation.
‘Minecraft is a single release game that is already in users’ hands’.
Er, Sony - Story Mode, Dungeons and the upcoming Legends all refute that point. And guess what, none of them are Xbox console exclusives.
Isnt Minecraft Legends coming to PS?
Isnt FF16 full PS5 exclusive?
Maybe thats why MS made Elder Scrolls 6 exclusive to counter FF16.
Man this is such a bad take.
I believe one of PS studios is assisting with the development of FF16, hence the exclusivity
Doesn't mean anything. Callisto Protocol had 150 Sony developers in its credits. There's exclusivity because Sony paid for it.
Yeah but radio, TV networks, and other platforms other than video games don't require you to purchase an entirely separate piece of plastic to enjoy the content. I prefer to not have to worry about whether a multiplatform publisher is going to have their game be multiplatform. Sony has made this process a pain for years now and I'm simply tired of it.
At least in recent years they've been loosening on the PC front with their moneyhats, so I'm good for the most part, but I still feel bad for those on Nintendo platforms, and moreso on Xbox. When it comes to outright ownership of a company, I don't have to question or wonder about it. When Sony bought Insomniac for example, I threw out any hopes for a Sunset Overdrive 2 or any multiplatform games from the developer as Sony now owned Insomniac. Just how business works whether we like it or not.
Sure, I understand your gripe, but I think the bigger issue in question is the fact that giant corporate conglomerates buying up everything isn’t how business should work. This shouldn’t be legal (and if Crony capitalism wasn’t a thing, it wouldn’t be).
We shouldn’t be permitting these companies (Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, etc…) to buy up more companies and grow even more massive. Rather, we should be looking at how to break them apart. You can compete against a company which merely has deals and partnerships, Nintendo has broken Sony’s dominance on multiple occasions, but you can’t compete against a company that simply buys everything out.
Fair enough, although Microsoft isn't a conglomerate, Sony is. But I do see your point. I'm personally not a fan of the ActiBlizz deal, and I do hope it fails because MS has MORE than enough talented studios, many of which I'm a huge fan of, to actively compete with Sony and Nintendo, but they're clearly looking to also compete with Google and Apple on the mobile side as well of that duopoly. So at the same time, this is more than just Sony and Nintendo.
What sucks is that all we can do is sit back and gripe. Nothing we can actually do about it. I'm really hoping MS won't be allowed to buy anyone like size anymore whether the deal passes or not.
Assisting is what you call it?
You're arguing a false equivalency. FF16 is owned by Square Enix, Microsoft is a big tech conglomerate literally swallowing up companies and then dictating everything about them. Your "take" is the bad one
Hoping this is sarcasm
Unless you somehow think Sony owns Final Fantasy, there’s no logic to your statement.
And FF16 is exclusive to the PS5.. the exact same thing people are worried and hating on MS with ABK, is what Sony is doing right now with massive 3rd Party IPs.
Is that what my post is arguing? No. Exclusivity deals have been common since the dawn of the video game industry and Microsoft is free to partner with other companies. But Microsoft is literally swallowing up whole companies, including the largest third party in the dedicated console space. It’s a false equivalency to equate that to partnering with third parties for exclusive content.
You cannot compete with deals when the market leader holds all the keys. This is the issue and the only way for others to grow is to purchase these studios to work around these exclusive deals. Companies like MS arent going to sit around waiting 5 to 10 years for deals to expire. So if its hardball Sony want to play than its hardball they will receive.
Look up PS Museum. Sonys entire structure was taking 3rd parties away from Nintendo and Sega to compete in the industry with the PS1. Now they have to understand, they were the big fish swallowing up deals to now an even bigger fish has been awoken and it isnt playing nice anymore
Yet Nintendo has been able compete despite Sony’s deals. They’ve sold hundreds of millions of consoles and billions of games since PSX.
You’re not defending Microsoft making deals or playing hardball, you’re literally supporting a big tech conglomerate swallowing up the largest third parties in the industry—which, if the government isn’t as run by cronies as it was last decade, won’t be permitted by legal bodies.
Except MS with ABK will be permanent exclusivity, not all of Sony's exclusivity deals will be, most are timed.
They are literally offering 10 years to keep CoD on PS. Wheres the timed deal for FF7RM and FF16?
So 2 FF games (FF16 deal isn't 100% clear yet) against all the ip ABK owns which will be permanent exclusives? CoD will become an exclusive one day.
Proof of these permanent exclusive from ABK? Assumptions are not an argument.
Because literally every ip Xbox acquired have becomes exclusives unless it was announced for PS5
Really? So why is Minecraft Legends coming to PS? Outer Worlds Spacers Choice also came to PS..
Because they moved focus of Redfall to Xbox/Cloud/PC? You don't think Sony do this?
Because outer worlds was originally on PS. Minecraft legends is a rare exception. Don't kid yourself, you know 95% of the games that Xbox has acquired which had a history of being released on PS will eventually become exclusive unless announced for PS beforehand.
PS can't compete with the acquisitions, hence why the timed and permanent exclusivity against Xbox has increased.
If MS really cared about exclusives they will stop full support of PS but here we are, more MS games on PS than PS games on Xbox.. crazy right?
You literally think Sony only just increased their exclusives deals? Have you not played during the PS1 days?
Its been Sonys tactics since entering the market 30 years ago.
Microsoft has been amazingly hands-off with their new studios. And if they're dictating everything about them, Microsoft is being surprisingly magnanimous. Look at the free PS5 update to Doom Eternal that contained PS5-specific features, such as advanced haptics with the PS5 controller.
An free update, need I remind you, that almost certainly would have cost $10 if it had been a Sony title. :P
PS literally swallowed all the 3rd party content to become market leader with the PS1. How else do you think 250 Devs just jumped from Nintendo (Market leader at the time) to the PS1? Money talks. Thats the game Sony played and now have to compete with a company willing to go that next step.
You’re still arguing a false equivalency. Sony didn’t swallow all those companies up. The developers jumped ship from Nintendo because the PSX offered a better environment for third parties. For example, it had a cheaper and more capable medium. They remained third party. The problem with Microsoft is they’re literally swallowing up third parties rather than competing with their own innovation.
You clearly dont know your history.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CEgnzJkuZq4&list=FLr6EiK4uqhLyMa0eQ6dfl2g&index=1&t=783s
@13:00
If you would have actually checked your sources, you’d see they don’t disagree with anything I’ve been saying. And your argument is still a false equivalency.
If you decide to not spin what is being said here. PS brought their way to the top, they literally admitted it in their own official documentary just like we are seeing MS doing now. Its hypocritical to hate MS for doing it while accepting it from Sony.
Sony is still gonna be shouting from the rooftops about foreclosure literally as the next CoD after this merger is marketed for PlayStation
Guess ms can argue back for ff7 remake, kotor remake, forspoken., silent hill 2 remake and other money hats that they did?
Well yeah, this should have been expected long ago. Xbox made it pretty clear that only existing Zenimax games like Elder Scrolls Online and Fallout 76, and ports/remasters of old Zenimax Games such as remasters of old Doom games, would be on non-Xbox platforms. Brand new games are all going to be exclusives pretty much, HiFi Rush, Starfiield, Redfall, TES 6, the next game from id (Doom Eternal sequel?), Indiana Jones, the likely Deathloop sequel, etc. Microsoft themselves alluded to it's exclusivity when they listed CoD and Minecraft as IP's that are too big to make exclusive when talking to the regulators, but listed Elder Scrolls as an IP small enough to make exclusive.
Wasn't Sony trying to make Starfield exclusive to Playstation consoles? That one just seems like fair turn-about. I don't think Xbox have stated whether or not Elder Scrolls VI will be exclusive or just a timed exclusive. I thought I read that Bethesda would still consider a possible port for the PS5.
Yes, supposedly Sony tried to get a 1 year timed exclusivity deal on Starfield at the same time they negotiated the 1 year timed exclusivity deals on 2 other Zenimax games, Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo, but Zenimax was already deep into acquisition negotiations with Xbox at the time, so they turned down Sony's Starfield offer so that they could use it being able to be made Xbox exclusive as a bargaining chip for a better acquisition price.
Xbox has indeed not confirmed anything concrete about TES 6 exclusivity, they only alluded to it, twice now, once in 2021 when Phil mentioned it in an interview, once in 2022 when Xbox told regulators that it made sense for mid-sized IP like Elder Scrolls to be released as Xbox exclusives, unlike CoD and Minecraft where exclusivity would damage the IP more than the exclusivity would help Xbox sell more units:
https://www.ign.com/articles/elder-scrolls-6-xbox-exclusive-phil-spencer
https://kotaku.com/call-of-duty-xbox-exclusive-elder-scrolls-6-microsoft-1849818356
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft takes inspiration from Sony's PC release schedule, and releases major Bethesda titles for PS 18 months after the Xbox and PC versions.
I think people have short memories.
Elder Scrolls has been Xbox Exclusive before... It was Morrowind on the OG Xbox.
Oblivion got a 1-2 month delay for the Playstation 3 release verses Xbox.
Elder scrolls being a console exclusive or timed exclusive isn't actually a new thing... And it happened without Microsoft owning Bethesda.
Honestly, Microsoft needs exclusives, it was the industry joke for a few decades...
2007 was a banging year with a mix of exclusives and 3rd party... Many kickstarted franchises that are still being milked today.
Halo 3, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Assassins Creed, Blue Dragon, Forza 2, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion+Shivering Isles, Dirt, Crackdown, Assassins Creed, Naruto: Rise of a Ninja, Medal of Honor: Airborne and more.
I think xbox would have been better had he stayed. Atleast halo wouldn;t have bombed and there would be more exclusives for sure.
Are you talking about don Matrrick?
Hopefully he means Peter Moore, not Don.
Yes, don did a better job than phil.
Yeah right and the earth is flat I suppose. XD
Can't say I agree there, and I'm not even a big fan of Phil personally. Alot of the achievements that some people credit Mattrick with were actually started by Moore before he left, such as Xbox 360's Japanese exclusive initiative. Mattrick actually stopped making Japanese exclusive deals for 360 to focus on Kinect instead, which is why JP support for 360 started to dry up after 2009. Xbox is still feeling the effects of the damage that Mattrick did to the Xbox brand in Japan, a decade later.
Meanwhile Mattrick's push for an all-in-one entertainment focus on Xbox One at launch instead of a gaming focus was disastrous, leaving people with an overpriced, underpowered console that came bundled with a Kinect 2.0 that got barely any game support. Mattrick's lack of 1st party growth for Xbox during his years as head also cost Xbox big time this past generation, causing Xbox One to get only about 1/3rd of the exclusives that PS4 got, it took years for Phil to convince Microsoft leadership to give Xbox the budget needed for this 1st party expansion that began in 2018 and has now resulted in the push for the ABK acquisition.
Phil's push for Gamepass meanwhile may have fundamentally changed the industry from a sales focused industry to subscription focused industry; Ubisoft, Sony, and Nintendo have all released multi-game subscription services of their own in the years since Xbox created Gamepass.
Hahaha thanks for the chuckle
Good one! That's hilarious. Don was great for Sony, not Xbox.
Atleast games were releasing.
Kinect shovelwares maybe unless you think of games that were initiated under Moore that released under Don?
You know Don is the one responsible for nearly killing Rare right?
You know he is the one responsible for Xbox have only gears, forza and halo meme right?
You know he is the one to have stop all japaneese initiative right?
You know is the one responsible for a more expensive underpowered forced kinect, always online and tv, tv, tv... fiasco right?
You know is the one responsible for a nearly 40% market shrink gen over gen right?
You know he's responsible for MS attributing smaller budget to Xbox for years only slowing down Spencer recovery right?
He basically ruined Lionhead and Fable by getting Fable 3 rushed out the door, followed by unsuccessful Fable spinoffs nobody asked for.
So what has spence done. What games has come to xbox ?
They can make their own exclusives, instead of being dirty and stealing established multiplats
Every console manufacturer has bought out developers and used them to make their own exclusives... Moving them from Multiplats to exclusive.
Consolidation of mature markets is actually a very normal process.
When a big company like Microsoft buys out a company, they inject 10's of billions into the market, often this money flows onto investors/developers and other holders who tend to restart smaller efforts.
For example, when EA bought out Bullfrog, many of those developers went on to form Lionhead Studios... Which eventually also got bought out and shut down, but many key individuals from that studio started independent efforts or moved onto other developers.
Or when Activision bought Infinity Ward, many key personnel there went on to form Respawn Entertainment.
How many established big nultiplats got lost ?
There’s no problem with exclusives. But when Microsoft has literally bought out the company, putting them in charge of the deal and any kind of development process rather than a third party. That’s the problem. And, for the record, I agree that Microsoft should get exclusives, but they should do it by being a viable console for third parties to work with, not by just buying everything out.
Wasn't you saying it is a case by case situation?
Sounds like Sony is fishing for Microsoft to guarantee that ES6 launches on PlayStation.
While I find that to be a shitty move from a moral/ethical perspective, it makes sense from a business perspective. The deal is still likely to get approved, so they might as well get whatever they can out of Microsoft along the way.
How many of the studios Sony purchased have released games on Xbox again?
And how many of the ones purchased by Microsoft? MS definitely have a better track record at not making things exclusive than Sony do.
Sony could end the console exclusivity at any time if they allow Game pass on their PlayStation consoles.
"Second, Microsoft points to Minecraft as an example of an acquisition where it did not pursue exclusivity. But this example is not relevant to an exclusivity strategy regarding future releases of Call of Duty," really? Because I'm like 99.9% sure that Minecraft Dungeons was a full multiplat release, as well as added to PS+, and next month, Minecraft Legends will also be a full multiplat release, but whatevs.
Also, Starfield and ESVI never had platforms announced when they were revealed. While it's probably safe to assume ESVI was most likely going to be multiplat initially, Starfield was a new IP and was more up in the air. There was even that rumor that Starfield would've been PS exclusive.
So that's a pretty bad argument when FF15 was multiplat, so Xbox gamers would be forgiven for assuming FF16 initially was going to be multiplat as well. Nothing can ever be assumed if no platforms are announced.
Sony playing the victim out of (mostly) greed again.
They know Microsoft won't keep the games exclusive. There is no real reason to do that. But they also know that Microsoft is in a position to demand they not pay the full 30% platform royalties to Sony.
I wouldn't be surprised about Microsoft telling Sony "We pay only 10% royalties to you, or you don't get Doom/ElderScrolls/Overwatch/CallOfDuty/Etc/Etc at all. Your choice."
I like how Sony is basically trying to argue against the idea of exclusives lol. Yeah, Sony has never had any exclusive series and never owned any companies that makes games exclusively for them
Don't ever recall Phil saying ES6 will come to PS. Xbox owns it now, they can release it on whatever platform they want including the games that come with the ActiBliz deal if it goes through.
This keeps going on and on..... ok pick your side
MSFT buys Activision Blizzard King
Sony therefore can buy 2k & EA
Both SONY and MSFT make all their newly bought games exclusives - which side would you be on?
I'm on the side of letting successful businesses continue to be successful. Both Microsoft and Sony (at least their gaming division) are running very successful businesses. So if they think it makes sense to buy those companies, they should go ahead and do that. I trust both of them to do at least as good of a job with those companies as their current management does.
If you're asking which one of them is going to have better games, I guess I'm going to go with Sony because they have a better lineup now, and they end up with Rockstar in your scenario.
That said, I'm not going to be missing the good Xbox games either. I'll just buy both systems if I want to play the games.
Well, they were offered a 10 year deal so they would have it for that time. Afterwards who knows what MS plan is.
It's a remake , of a playstation classic.
What is? lol there's no PlayStation classics in this article.
Funny enough had Microsoft announced Starfield was coming to PS5 right off the bat and kept it, the Activison deal would have already been approved and Microsoft would probably still be allowed to go after bigger publishers like EA right after buying Activision. In a few years they could have decided to make everything they purchased Xbox exclusive.
Unlikely. Sony has gone so far to say that they make so much money off of CoD that it helps develop their first-party games. So while a game like Starfield would've brought in a decent chunk of money, it's not CoD size, and single-player. Sony would've been fighting tooth and nail still. Plus regulators haven't given a crap about Blizzard, King, or any other Activision IP outside of CoD, so not much would've changed in their eyes.
Not at all lol. Using Starfield is just one way Sony wants to block this, if not Starfield it would have been something else...
I agree. If MS kept all the short term releases from Bethesda multiplat it would have been a big indication in the intent of MS. Sony would still not budge but regulators would have 1 less reason not to trust MS. That being said MS is probably confident in this deal passing despite the actions they have taken with bethesda - and having Starfield exclusive is a relatively big deal.
