Microsoft acquires Bethesda/Zenimax

[ADL]

including some new titles in the future that will be exclusive to Xbox and PC players.

So after Deathloop and Ghostwire and maybe Indiana Jones, nothing?

 

[RobotSquirrel]

Indiana Jones

Not again poor indy. When you wanted Naughty Dog but you get Bethesda lol. Swing and a miss.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

 

[Borian]

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.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Praise Todd.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

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.

 

[Decado]

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.

 

[Decado]

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.

 

[Morgoth]

including some new titles in the future that will be exclusive to Xbox and PC players.

So after Deathloop and Ghostwire and maybe Indiana Jones, nothing?

My guess is that existing IP's remain multi-console, while new IP's will be Xbox exclusives. But who knows?

 

[Shitty Kitty]

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.

As long as Super Mutant Petey gets thoroughly rogered in the whole deal.

 

[Decado]

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.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

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

 

[Decado]

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]

They would not dare to make current franchises like Elder Scrolls, etc, console exclusives. That would be insane and terrifically damaging to their brand.

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?

 

[Spacer's Nugget]

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.

 

[Alienman]

Let the knife fight commence.

 

[Decado]

They would not dare to make current franchises like Elder Scrolls, etc, console exclusives. That would be insane and terrifically damaging to their brand.

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?

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]

They would not dare to make current franchises like Elder Scrolls, etc, console exclusives. That would be insane and terrifically damaging to their brand.

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?

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.

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?

 

[Decado]

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.

 

[The_Mask]

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.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

because of the horrible state of the Internet in the NA,

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

 

[The_Mask]

rusty, NA still works mostly on broadband. The rest of the world is on fiber optics. Please... okay? Don't make me explain the difference. Especially when Stadia advertised some really high specs/ FPS'.

stadia failed because you have a limited library and can't bring your own games, the service works fine

The real issue was that people had to buy the console, re-buy the games, and some (THE ONES MADE BY SONY) at a higher price because they were running them on a console that was competition.

There is a difference between Steam and XBOX.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

had to buy the console,

you don't even know what you're talking about

 

[The_Mask]

you don't even know what you're talking about

Explain how things work, for me, then.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

you don't even know what you're talking about

Explain how things work, for me, then.

What makes you think Stadia requires a console to use?
It has worked from the web browser since the day it launched.