catfood
AGAIN
If you can afford the 7.5 bln transaction you can afford the few million bribe for the EU commissars.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Microsoft acquires Bethesda/Zenimax
- Thread starter LESS T_T
- Start date
Borian
Guest
First, discs disappeared. Downloads were really convenient.
Then, downloads disappeared. Streaming was really convenient.
"Only pirates are interested in purchasable games. As a studio, we have no incentive to release our games for permanent download."
My true thoughts below.
Then, downloads disappeared. Streaming was really convenient.
"Only pirates are interested in purchasable games. As a studio, we have no incentive to release our games for permanent download."
My true thoughts below.
I also want to point out that simultaneous changes occurred in both media and ownership each time. When physical died, so too did video game ownership. We enter upon an agreement of morality, that we buy a game from a service provider and are allowed to use it only so long as that provider both allows us to use it, and so long as that provider still exists. There hasn't been much of a problem with this, yet. Only only need to look at the deluge of dead online-only games to know what that could look like. I would also look towards the aging mobile console shops. Some day, service for those shops will end, and no doubt there will be extensive loss of access to shop exclusives. With game streaming, that day is likely to be very soon.
When physical died, we started leasing exclusive, permanent ownership within a corporate ecosystem.
What will happen when downloads die? The synonyms will change, I think. A purchasable game will be a rebellion against the system, but also a scapegoat for its own demise. As always happens when a power rules absolutely: Subversive rhetoric is created by corporations to combat backlash against the change. It's very early for movie streaming, but the waters seem pretty clear to me. Games are going that way, and what that way means is that games will be entirely exclusive to a corporate ecosystem, much the same way movies are, now.
To illustrate my point, notice this:
"When physical died, so too did video game ownership." After saying this, I then went on to say
"When physical died, we started leasing exclusive, permanent ownership within a corporate ecosystem."
What really happened is that the word itself shifted to accommodate the environment. It still essentially resembles ownership, even if it truly isn't ownership. I don't own my Steam games and Valve will not offer me any support should they go out of business. I will never be able to access those purchases again. In fact, the actuality is that the ecosystem will make it not only economically nonsensical to offer permanent ownership, but literally impossible.
The thread of continuity ends when games become a service. There truly will be nothing like ownership. Todd Howard poignantly clarified the tangible benefits it will give developers and the trickle-down positive effects that will have upon consumers. What wasn't said was that Netflix cancels shows after 3 seasons and that shows are already adapting to tell a story within that expectation. I need not say more. Please explore these implications on your own to fully comprehend how different the future will be. I can surmise by speculating that big releases like RDR2 will instead be a singleplayer server accessed via the Rockstar portal through a regular payment plan.
Obviously, I talk only about major publishing trends. The importance here is that things will change no matter what. Other venues will exist and traditional games will be made.
When physical died, we started leasing exclusive, permanent ownership within a corporate ecosystem.
What will happen when downloads die? The synonyms will change, I think. A purchasable game will be a rebellion against the system, but also a scapegoat for its own demise. As always happens when a power rules absolutely: Subversive rhetoric is created by corporations to combat backlash against the change. It's very early for movie streaming, but the waters seem pretty clear to me. Games are going that way, and what that way means is that games will be entirely exclusive to a corporate ecosystem, much the same way movies are, now.
To illustrate my point, notice this:
"When physical died, so too did video game ownership." After saying this, I then went on to say
"When physical died, we started leasing exclusive, permanent ownership within a corporate ecosystem."
What really happened is that the word itself shifted to accommodate the environment. It still essentially resembles ownership, even if it truly isn't ownership. I don't own my Steam games and Valve will not offer me any support should they go out of business. I will never be able to access those purchases again. In fact, the actuality is that the ecosystem will make it not only economically nonsensical to offer permanent ownership, but literally impossible.
The thread of continuity ends when games become a service. There truly will be nothing like ownership. Todd Howard poignantly clarified the tangible benefits it will give developers and the trickle-down positive effects that will have upon consumers. What wasn't said was that Netflix cancels shows after 3 seasons and that shows are already adapting to tell a story within that expectation. I need not say more. Please explore these implications on your own to fully comprehend how different the future will be. I can surmise by speculating that big releases like RDR2 will instead be a singleplayer server accessed via the Rockstar portal through a regular payment plan.
Obviously, I talk only about major publishing trends. The importance here is that things will change no matter what. Other venues will exist and traditional games will be made.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 97,490
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 97,490
https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2021/03/09/officially-welcoming-bethesda-to-the-xbox-family/
https://bethesda.net/en/article/193piE646914YSCGpeYxGC/bethesda-xbox-just-getting-started
https://bethesda.net/en/article/193piE646914YSCGpeYxGC/bethesda-xbox-just-getting-started
BETHESDA + XBOX: JUST GETTING STARTED
Today marks the beginning of a new chapter for Bethesda Softworks as part of the Xbox Team at Microsoft.
While you might have thought this already happened following last year's announcement, it is only now becoming official as the deal has passed the requisite regulatory approvals and been signed. If you haven’t had a chance to read what Phil Spencer, Todd Howard, and I wrote in our posts when we announced our plans last year, you should take a moment to read them each, as well as Phil’s Xbox Wire post today.
First, let me say that we’re not making any landmark announcements or changes right now. As we’ve all shared, the expectation is that Bethesda Softworks and our studios will continue as we have in the past, just with more support and resources than we’ve ever had before. Obviously, Game Pass has been an important initiative for Xbox, and we’ll be working on putting even more of our games into Game Pass than ever before. Beyond that? Stay tuned, we’re just getting started together.
Second, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that it is a bittersweet day given that our founder, Robert Altman, passed away last month. Among his many admirable qualities was the incredible spirit of family and loyalty that he shared with all of us. I will be forever grateful for his efforts to find the perfect place for ZeniMax, Bethesda, and our studios and employees to continue their excellent work going forward.
I’d also like to thank Phil Spencer and all the folks at Xbox and Microsoft who have been such a pleasure to work with as we prepare for this new chapter. The collaboration, mutual respect, and support they’ve shown to us during this process has been extraordinary. I’m pleased to continue the great relationships we’ve built together over the past few decades, first as partners and now as colleagues in the same company.
And of course, I want to say thanks to all of you for your support. It is not something we ever take lightly or for granted. This year marks 35 years since the original creation of Bethesda Softworks. Reaching a milestone like that, while also going through a historic occasion like this acquisition, puts in perspective just how far we’ve come in that time. A journey that wouldn’t be worth it without all of you to share it with.
Last edited:
RobotSquirrel
Arcane
Not again poor indy. When you wanted Naughty Dog but you get Bethesda lol. Swing and a miss.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,466
Borian
Guest
I know this isn't really relevant to the topic, but there's scummy rhetoric and public manipulation afoot.
It must be a difficult job, to attempt to create a human context where there isn't one. There's only one corporation, constantly killing other versions of itself that are called by different names. These guys are skilled at creating a false narrative. The simple concept of the anthropomorphization of corporate amalgams itself can hide so much inconvenient unsightliness. Unless you're really reading it, you'd be lead to assume things that are not true. Through clever rhetoric, the writers and presenters are trained to anthropomorphize corporate actions by equivocating intent without a single lie that can be refuted. The corporate action is buried under the managerial intent. A symbiosis of mind is implied wherein the managers are merged with the suits. The words are meant to prop up both suits and managers in whole, venerating the company and shareholders.
"Our goal is to give these teams the best foundation for doing their greatest work and to learn from them as we continue to build Xbox into an inclusive platform for all players." This can technically be true, from the perspective of a division oversight manager. However, the same person who can say this isn't the person who approved this or had oversight over the decision to acquire Zenimax. Corporations consume without imperative.
Translation: "We need them so we may regain our old edge over Sony. They will only create for us now, and we will give them a great deal of capital to produce better products to provide incentive for consumers to ingrain themselves within our ecosystem, while also protecting ourselves against a backlash we recognize to be inevitable. Our ultimate reason for this is to put other game consoles out of business so we can harvest all wealth in this industry."
"This is the next step in building an industry-leading first party studios team, a commitment we have to our Xbox community." There isn't a single lie here, but the speech is used to trick people. The implied assumption is that the corporation itself, and its actions, were made with the intent to fulfill their commitment to their community. It also falsely implies that first party exclusive studios are not only good for consumers, but desired by them.
Corporations are not humans, even if it's convenient for legal systems to pretend they are. They are a primordial ooze of autonomous systems; a gear of human spokes aboard a hivemind-machine of flesh, paper and servers. This sort of manipulation through words- it makes me wonder upon how many deaf ears it falls. Because, at least to me and I assume quite a few others, this manipulation is very transparent. Because every corporation is the same, and most of the people who write for them were educated in the same systems, every attempt at controlling the rhetoric by the corporation itself reads as if it was written by the same person. The difference in communication between the venturebeat.com article and the following Microsoft article above are humorous to me. The lies told to the masses do not, in fact, hide anything. They provide the clearest possible insight into corporate intentions because they are derived from those very same intentions.
It must be a difficult job, to attempt to create a human context where there isn't one. There's only one corporation, constantly killing other versions of itself that are called by different names. These guys are skilled at creating a false narrative. The simple concept of the anthropomorphization of corporate amalgams itself can hide so much inconvenient unsightliness. Unless you're really reading it, you'd be lead to assume things that are not true. Through clever rhetoric, the writers and presenters are trained to anthropomorphize corporate actions by equivocating intent without a single lie that can be refuted. The corporate action is buried under the managerial intent. A symbiosis of mind is implied wherein the managers are merged with the suits. The words are meant to prop up both suits and managers in whole, venerating the company and shareholders.
"Our goal is to give these teams the best foundation for doing their greatest work and to learn from them as we continue to build Xbox into an inclusive platform for all players." This can technically be true, from the perspective of a division oversight manager. However, the same person who can say this isn't the person who approved this or had oversight over the decision to acquire Zenimax. Corporations consume without imperative.
Translation: "We need them so we may regain our old edge over Sony. They will only create for us now, and we will give them a great deal of capital to produce better products to provide incentive for consumers to ingrain themselves within our ecosystem, while also protecting ourselves against a backlash we recognize to be inevitable. Our ultimate reason for this is to put other game consoles out of business so we can harvest all wealth in this industry."
"This is the next step in building an industry-leading first party studios team, a commitment we have to our Xbox community." There isn't a single lie here, but the speech is used to trick people. The implied assumption is that the corporation itself, and its actions, were made with the intent to fulfill their commitment to their community. It also falsely implies that first party exclusive studios are not only good for consumers, but desired by them.
Corporations are not humans, even if it's convenient for legal systems to pretend they are. They are a primordial ooze of autonomous systems; a gear of human spokes aboard a hivemind-machine of flesh, paper and servers. This sort of manipulation through words- it makes me wonder upon how many deaf ears it falls. Because, at least to me and I assume quite a few others, this manipulation is very transparent. Because every corporation is the same, and most of the people who write for them were educated in the same systems, every attempt at controlling the rhetoric by the corporation itself reads as if it was written by the same person. The difference in communication between the venturebeat.com article and the following Microsoft article above are humorous to me. The lies told to the masses do not, in fact, hide anything. They provide the clearest possible insight into corporate intentions because they are derived from those very same intentions.
Last edited by a moderator:
rusty_shackleford
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 50,754
Praise Todd.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,466
I can't shake the feeling that Fergus' tweet looks pathetic. It's like he's saying: yes, Microsoft fucked us, but then they fucked you too, Bethesda! Welcome to the RAPE family.
Out of everyone at Bethesda, Pete is probably the least happy to be joining Microsoft. And actually, now that Robert Altman has passed away, I think Pete's going to be shown the door sooner rather than later.
Todd, on the other hand, will be playing ball like a motherfucker. I would expect him to be the next CEO, though the presence of Robert Altman's son does confuse things. Bethesda was privately owned so Altman could have, if he wanted to, just given the business to his son (and I am told this was the original plan). But now that they are owned by a publicly traded company, they'll have to go through more official channels. I'm not sure what that means, TBH.
But if I was a betting man, my money'd be on Todd Howard getting the big boy chair.
But if I was a betting man, my money'd be on Todd Howard getting the big boy chair.
My guess is that existing IP's remain multi-console, while new IP's will be Xbox exclusives. But who knows?
Shitty Kitty
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2020
- Messages
- 556
They would not dare to make current franchises like Elder Scrolls, etc, console exclusives. That would be insane and terrifically damaging to their brand.
I would imagine, though, a From Software type deal, where they will proposition individual studios for exclusives ala Bloodborne, while still making non-exclusives for wider distribution. I have a feeling that exclusives are going to start becoming the weird, experimental testing grounds for games that would otherwise never have been made. And if they get a hit out of one, why not port it to PS4 and/or Switch? Because those two consoles are the only real access to huge pieces of the market, especially Asia, South America, etc.
On paper, MSFT owning both XBox and Bethesda looks huge. But in reality, they own two very American-centric companies, with some serious popularity in Europe (through PC gaming) but not much elsewhere. And here I'm thinking of places like Japan, Korea, China, and so forth.
I would imagine, though, a From Software type deal, where they will proposition individual studios for exclusives ala Bloodborne, while still making non-exclusives for wider distribution. I have a feeling that exclusives are going to start becoming the weird, experimental testing grounds for games that would otherwise never have been made. And if they get a hit out of one, why not port it to PS4 and/or Switch? Because those two consoles are the only real access to huge pieces of the market, especially Asia, South America, etc.
On paper, MSFT owning both XBox and Bethesda looks huge. But in reality, they own two very American-centric companies, with some serious popularity in Europe (through PC gaming) but not much elsewhere. And here I'm thinking of places like Japan, Korea, China, and so forth.
rusty_shackleford
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 50,754
of course they'll only be released on xbox and PC, microsoft doesn't give a shit about profit it's all about market dominance
This is a non-sensical statement. How does a huge multinational corporation "not care about profit," that is literally all they care about. They only care about market dominance because it nets them more profit.
Borian
Guest
You make a good point. My initial gut reaction was that they would keep these studios exclusive, especially the big releases, but I didn't consider other markets. Microsoft is expanding their reach onto other platforms with distant market shares. However, some of the articles posted in this thread has me thinking that Microsoft is fairly confident about keeping Bethesda games exclusive to their brand. I suppose it comes down to how well Elder Scrolls and Fallout (and the wider Bethesda Game Studios brand) will sell outside of the NA/EU/OCE circle. What do you think?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2021
- Messages
- 442
Nice. Now 70% of all my favorite "triple-A" game dev studios are under the Microsoft umbrella.
On a side note: hopefully, we get to see what Arkane Austin is up to in June.
On a side note: hopefully, we get to see what Arkane Austin is up to in June.
It has been my experience that most Bethesda titles are relatively unheard of in Japan, South Korea, etc. Skyrim did well there, and was the only western RPG at the time to get a perfect score in Famitsu. But people were playing on PS3/PS4 and then Switch. PC Gaming is not nearly as big of a thing there, and almost nobody owns an Xbox.
This is the position that Xbox and MSFT (therefore PC gaming, to a large degree) are in. The PS brand is simply much more popular globally. Last time I checked, the three highest console-using countries were Japan, South Korea, and the United States. PlayStation has penetration in the US, but XBox does not have penetration in Japan, not really. So they need to be very, very careful about limiting themselves to exclusives.
The other thing to consider about this whole business is that it is content driven; that is, it is driven by the games. Consoles are loss leaders and have been for almost 3 decades. MSFT needs to start thinking like a video game publisher now. And smart publishers reach as many platforms as they can, unless there is a significant advantage to going with an exclusive. Xbox is slowly becoming less about hardware, and more about games. It is clear that they will make way more money off software sales than hardware sales, at this point (again, this isn't new but something that will have been ramped up with their recent acquisitions). Spencer is a smart dude, he knows which way this business is going. It is all about content.
Shitty Kitty
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2020
- Messages
- 556
The thing that gets me about the whole "it's the games stupid" line of thinking is that we've been down that road how many times now? The PS3's sluggish start that allowed the XBox 360 to leap ahead in popularity was due to limited library, this is an experience that should be sitting somewhere in the back of some Microsoft exec's mind as a "hey remember when that happened?" They'd probably at best smugly chuckle to themselves about how they clobbered Sony in the western markets, and that's something to keep in mind - but will they remember anything more salient about that? IIRC due to the title shortage for PS3 there were a ton of overseas players still creating a huge market for PS2 titles because that's what they had and that's what had games. Microsoft wasn't able to break into foreign markets like that despite Sony screwing the pooch IIRC.
It's always been about the games, the library available, and if your game is only available on a platform that doesn't get damn well used in a target market, guess where you're not selling any fucking games?
If you're asking me why they haven't figured it out yet, I have no idea. Some of these fucking bozos need it written down for them on a napkin.
Look at Stadia -- same exact problem. Where are the fucking games? Don't they understand that if they don't have good games, nobody gives a shit? It's like they forgot the most important part of the video GAME business.
Look at Stadia -- same exact problem. Where are the fucking games? Don't they understand that if they don't have good games, nobody gives a shit? It's like they forgot the most important part of the video GAME business.
Not sure Stadia is the best comparison. Stadia failed because of the horrible state of the Internet in the NA, and the lack of foresight when it came to the fact that it would be treated as a console, not as an software platform.
The lack of games was a symptom, not a cause.
The lack of games was a symptom, not a cause.
rusty_shackleford
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 50,754
USA has some of the fastest wired broadband in the world
https://www.speedtest.net/global-index
stadia failed because you have a limited library and can't bring your own games, the service works fine
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.