Starfield and Indiana Jones Were Both Forecasted to Have Sold Over 10 Million Units on PS5 - Sales
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 August 2023 / 6,750 Views
Bethesda Softworks and MachineGames in collaboration with Lucasfilm Games announced in 2021 a new Indiana Jones game with an original story was in development.
It was discovered last month the game was set to release on multiple consoles, however, following Microsoft's acquisition of Bethesda's parent company, ZeniMax Media, the deal with Disney was amended. The AAA game is now an Xbox console exclusive with it also being available on PC and Xbox Game Pass.
Xbox CFO Tim Stuart during his Testimony in the recent Microsoft vs FTC hearing revealed Starfield and Indiana Jones had each forecasted to sell over 10 million units on the PlayStation 5 before the were made an Xbox console exclusive.
Microsoft believes the lost revenue of the games skipping the PlayStation 5 could be offset by the increase in the number of Xbox Game Pass subscribers and the increased in sales of Xbox consoles.
Had missed this from Xbox CFO Tim Stuart's testimony, but FTC says Microsoft had forecasted 10 million sales on PlayStation for "both Starfield and Indiana Jones" before taking them exclusive, deciding it could recoup through Game Pass and extra Xbox sales pic.twitter.com/5KdpDzKDZD
— Stephen Totilo (@stephentotilo) July 13, 2023
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
Starfield I 100% can see would've been the case. Mainline Bethesda games are always industry shaking events when they launch. But how good is Indiana Jones game looking?!? I mean, legendary character sure, but I wouldn't say he's anywhere near the fame he once was arguably decades ago. He isn't Spider-Man that's for sure.
Even the Indy movie before that from 2008 was terrible lol. The most "recent" Indiana Jones anything I can remember being really good aside from the original trilogy were the point-and-click LucasArts adventure games lol. I never played the Indiana Jones Lego games, so those could've been fun.
I'm really looking forward to what MachineGames makes with the IP. The rumor of third-person with first-person combat has me excited! They're already very familiar with games that tackle Nazi's xD
Actually reading that post, I am thinking it would be true that making Starfield and Indiana Jones exclusive would not be a big hit to the project profit margins for Bethesda compared to taking something like COD which mind you is a established IP with a much better understanding of what it will do and how it effects the purchase of ABK.
Starfield should have easily been over 10m on PS5 considering Skyrim on PS3/4 and Fallout 4 on PS4 were both over 10m.
However, 10m on PS5 alone for Indy feels a bit overzealous imo. The biggest Uncharted did 15m at last official number, while the biggest Tomb Raider also did 15m at last official number across all Platforms. In order for Indy to do 10m+ on PS5 alone it would have to sell more than the biggest Tomb Raider across all 3 platforms, and near Uncharted 4 numbers (an exclusive) on just one of it's 3 platforms. I just can't see it, the Indy IP isn't what it used to be, just look at how Indy 5 has flopped at the box office, it's looking like it won't even reach half of it's break even point. On top of that, I'm guessing that MachineGames don't have Harrison Ford voice acting or mo-cap, or even his likeness rights, it is likely similar to the Marvel deals Square and EA made with Disney, where they can use the characters but don't have the MCU actor likeness rights. You're just not going to move a likely 20m+ between all 3 platforms (PC, PS5, Xbox) with a fake, not Harrison Ford Indy. A more reasonable sales expectation at the time would have been 13m on all 3 platforms, about 5.5m of which was PS5. Now that is Xbox/PC only, I'm thinking more like 7-8m sales between Xbox and PC, and somewhere between 15-20m players thanks to Gamepass.
Indiana Jones selling 10 million sounds like a stretch, but other licensed properties have sold tons before with the right marketing and hype behind them. Hogwarts Legacy has sold 15 million so far despite Harry Potter being out of the limelight for a decade and merely decent reviews. Insomniac's Spider-Man sold 20+ million on the PS4 alone, which is quite a bit more than Insomniac's usual 2 to 3 million sales per R&C game. And then you have stuff like Cyberpunk, FIFA, some of the best-selling LEGO games, etc.
I mean, the new movie bombed, but if it hadn't, I could potentially see 10 million possibly happening.
Game companies making forecasts for their games is the biggest joke in the industry. It's really a scam to prematurely push up stock prices, or drive up player excitement about how popular a game might be.
Or the plan is to over estimate, so when a game falls under "expected" sales, the Publisher can retire a game or a series.
They wished a new IP like Indy would make 10 mil with combined multiplatform sales unless it was a great game,
But this is their first outing and Indy isn't as popular as say Marvel's Spiderman
Indiana Jones? Highly doubt it will sell half of that. The Series has become niche. Last two movies are proof of this.
Than again im open to being wrong.
Well now Xbox will sale millions more consoles to accommodate the console players and more PC copies for the master race. There will probably be a few million that will never opt in to the Xbox ecosystem.
Not saying it isn't accurate but, the FTC also said MS did make a next-gen version of Minecraft for Xbox and not PS5 and that's factually incorrect, no such version exists. So yeah... for what it's worth.
Also could this not be interpreted as 10m together? (true question, not a rhetorical one, English is not my main language may miss some subtility) This was 2020 the gen barely started, and the release of Starfield was also forecasted to be much sooner.
Even then, those are brand new Ips so forecasting will always be shaky anyway.
End even if those are accurate it still does not amount to anything CoD-like and or Minecraft-like. If MS were to do the same forecast for Forza Horizon, pretty sure they'll find likewise figure, but then again different context, a different goal, and a different result.
Their goal not having profit.
So willing to sacrifice about $500 million in revenue for each game in order to boost their own platforms. Yet they have no financial incentive to withhold COD? Right....
Right. Because COD makes billions.
No disrespect but... I think they know better :)
Call of Duty is a live service game that sells tens of million of copies EVERY year for each new entry. How Microsoft has treated Minecraft is a better look at what they will do with Call of Duty. Especially since they have a deal with Nintendo to bring the franchise to Nintendo platforms for the next 10 years.
This compares to Starfield and Indiana Jones, which are single player games that won't see any sequels for either of them for many, many years. Plus Starfield and Indiana Jones will be available on PC on day one on multiple storefronts.
COD probably sells around 10 million per year on PS. Probably less for games that aren't well received like Vanguard.
MS has the deep pockets to weather the losses and subsidize their platforms long term. They are not keeping COD on PS for financial reasons or out of the goodness of their hearts but rather just to get the deal approved. Remember their initial offer to Sony was only 3 years, as if it made any more financial sense to pull the game after that period of time.
And there are no guarantees for any other ABK games to remain multiplatform either. Just like they were caught lying about the case by case nonsense with Bethesda.
Bethesda is case by case.
Since Microsoft bought Bethesda there has been:
- Deathloop. - Available on PS5.
-
Ghostwire - Tokyo. - Available on PS5.
And Redfall. - Which is a benefit for the PS5 port not being done.
Deathloop and Ghostwire were both timed exclusive deals Sony had with Bethesda before Microsoft bought them. I don't think they were a "case by case" thing, just Microsoft living up to those already in place deals.
It's not a case by case basis. They made the decision back in 2021. Details were just revealed in the court case.
Phil Spencer apparently made a "big decision" to make all ZeniMax games Xbox exclusive in a November 2021 meeting. This reveal came to light as part of the final day of testimony in this week's Microsoft FTC hearing.
During Xbox CFO Tim Stuart's time on the witness stand, the FTC called attention to a chat conversation from November 2021 between Stuart and Xbox's Matt Booty. The two were messaging about a recent monthly business review meeting between Xbox and ZeniMax, where Spencer apparently made the call to make all ZeniMax games exclusive going forward, not just new IP. Stuart was asking Booty about what happened during the meeting.
"All games going forward?" Stuart asked. "Not just new IP, but ALL games going forward? Wow."
Booty confirmed this during the chat conversation, writing, "Phil [Spencer] told them all titles going foward, Xbox exclusive."
The two went on to discuss how pulling all Bethesda titles from PlayStation would cause profit issues in Microsoft and ZeniMax's deal model. "We will have [accountability margin] issues in the deal model as we pull a huge number of PS units out of model,” Stuart noted.
This means Xbox and ZeniMax's projected profits after the acquisition factored in releasing some Bethesda games on PlayStation, before this decision came down from Spencer.
Here is a link: https://www.ign.com/articles/xbox-ftc-trial-phil-spencer-zenimax-exclusive
Yeah I figured as much.
Good to know. Lets see how Elder Scrolls 6 pans out then.
Xbox needed exclusives, they are finally getting it.
Finally getting what? Multiplats already coming as exclusive? To hide their bad output of first party?
For YEARS gamers whinged, moaned and complained that Microsoft was just pumping out Forza, Halo and Gears.
And now they are changing that, gamers are whinging again? (As you so have eloquently demonstrated.)
You can't win, regardless of what you do.
Fact of the matter is, the gaming industry is a mature one, it's far easier and you get far better results from a pre-established developer with a solid track record than try and build one from the ground up.
Microsoft is a business, just like Sony, the cost-benefit of a buyout will always trump building a studio from the ground up... Hence why Sony is buying studios as well.
Sony bought studios the mostly had close ties with, that already worked as second party on IPs they owned. I do not think they would have done some of those purchases if MS didn't buy 3rd party ones and Bethesda, outside of Bungie and a PC converstion specialist. Bungie felt more like desperation after ABK.
Sony didn't feel like they are buying studios to acquire IPs or bolster their line up, they were buying studios to sure up their development, rely less on 2nd party and not let MS buy studios they had good relationships with.
Both are buying studios but both seem to have different reasons why.
Bethesda always had closer ties to Microsoft than Sony or Nintendo... Morrowind for Xbox was a console exclusive for example.
Oblivion and Skyrim ran better and looked better on Xbox.
Blizzard was always primarily Microsoft Windows.
Activision has a bit more of a colourful history with Spyro and Crash being published by the company, but made by Naughty Dog for Playstation.
However Activision had Mechwarrior, Dark Reign, Zork, Battlezone, Heretic, Call to Power, Soldier of Fortune and more for Microsoft Windows...
But Call of Duty 1 is the big hitter which actually started out as a Microsoft Windows title first and foremost.
Call of Duty 2 continued that trend but included an Xbox port.
So it always baffles the mind that people use the "Closer ties" argument, when it is redundant as historically Activision and Blizzard found success starting out on Microsoft's platforms and not Sony's or Nintendo's.
In the end, both companies are buying developers not because of any moral reason or obligation... But to increase marketshare, revenue and profit to appease their shareholders.
They don't care about us. - Obviously their strategies have fundamental differences.
The companies Sony has purchased (like Bluepoint, Insomniac and Housemarque, mostly working on 2nd party or commissioned projects) have a closer ties to Sony than MS does did to for Ninja Theory, Obsidian and Double Fine, who were third party studios releasing games on all platforms.
The publishers they bought are the same.
I don't know where you've been the last several years, but xbox has been called out for not delivering on exclusives. This deal is great for xbox corporate , but from a consumer standpoint, it doesn't sound assuring that they'll be getting more exclusives, it's actually worse, because these once multiplats will now be treated as first party, less budget will be put towards a bigger lineup of first party , than what what would have been if not for the aquisition.
But people on VGC won't believe when we say that Phil was lying through his teeth both when initially saying the deal wasn't to remove content from competitor and then when saying they would look for case by case and then presenting that bogus graphic of titles that would be MP and exclusives.
As Sony likes to say plenty of times when they buy content "Buy a PS"
Well go "Buy an Xbox"
Microsoft is no longer funding Xbox and are no longer willing for Xbox to lose the company money. Xbox is now its own entity within Microsoft and during the hearings we heard Xbox has to be profitable and the expectations are for it to be as profitable as other divisions at Microsoft. Removing Call of Duty from PlayStation would mean billions in lost revenue. Do we know what will happen in 10 years? No. But for now nothing is really going to change with Call of Duty other than in 2025 marketing will have the Xbox logo instead of PlayStation logo and PlayStation version no longer having exclusive content or getting content first.
As far as the case by case basis with Bethesda/Zenimax they did tell the truth. Already released games and games with contracts in place will remain multiplatform. Fallout 76, Elder Scrolls Online, Skyrim anniversary are all on PlayStation still. They honored the Deathloop and Ghostwire contracts, which meant they were exclusive to PlayStation 5 for 1 year.
I'm pretty sure it's Microsoft's money buying Activision, not Xbox's money.
You got a point there and are right with whose money is paying for the acquisition. Though, I'd think of it more of $69B being spent in assets which is Activision Blizzard King. The deal has to be profitable from year one and can't be subsidized by profits from other parts of Microsoft like in the past. OG Xbox and the Xbox 360 RROD ended up losing Microsoft billions.
100B came from where?
Incorrect. MS determining the platforms of Bethesda games on a case by case basis is unambiguously a lie. See my earlier comment in reply to Pemalite also telling me I'm wrong.
Feel free to correct yourself.
I also acknowledged you were right once you provided evidence.
Yea because no one who owns a Playstation will purchase an Xbox or buy the game for their PC.
Yet nothing indicates this to be true.
I object! on count of article 4 of the us constitution, indeed something in fact does indicate this to be true.
Well, how much is Sony doing with Spiderman or for that matter we can talk about just about any new IP. Yes, all the console OEM could make a hell of a lot of money if they put all their games on all platforms but that is not the console business nor will it ever be. The console business is about exclusives and having enough big exclusives to drive sales of the hardware. There will be some decisions where a game needs to be exclusive to prop up the hardware business and there will be some games like Minecraft that already have a huge customer base on multiple platforms that taking the game away would make the purchase of that company be much less then it was worth.
Where are you getting $500m in revenue from? This number is almost certainly LT sales which includes price cuts.
The most recent Call of Duty made $1bn in 10 days...The difference between Indiana Jones and Call of Duty is enormous, as for Starfield, Call of Duty will likely have beaten that too, in addition, Call of Duty is a predominately, massive multiplayer title, it requires a stable and very large community to keep such an expensive title alive.
Call of Duty releases every year and each entry has thousands of developers working on it, costing hundreds of millions, Indiana Jones won't come close to that level of scale or financial cost, Bethesda titles meanwhile release once every 3-5 years and have a smaller development team (no idea about Starfield's cost).
Once again, the best example of what they will do with COD is Minecraft, a title which as of recently was selling 20m copies per year, is a huge multiplayer community title, has a massive development team and is still available everywhere and expanding.
Essay Pro