While statements like these are common when mergers/buyouts happen, the final decision down the line will not be his to make. Not saying that things will not happen as he states, but it shouldn't be seen as a certainty.

When Facebook bought Oculus, Palmer Luckey said that a Facebook login would never be required to use Oculus products. The Oculus Quest 2 that comes out in October will require a Facebook login.

https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-guarantee-promise-facebook-l...

to be fair, Microsoft has been loosening up on exclusives as of late. Minecraft is supported on all platforms, with the dungeon side game coming to all consoles. Psychonauts 2 is still slated to come to PS4 and Switch. Ori's 2 games are multiplat (the sequel just now releasing on Switch).

I don't doubt there will be timed exclusives, but at the current moment it seems like they aren't opposed to publishing on non-MS platforms.

Xbox won't even mean the same thing then as it does now.

Would a platform agnostic game only available on the Xbox online store count as "exclusive to xbox?" What if it required an Xbox Live/GamePass subscription for significant features - but not everything? Or they introduced super-skewed pricing ($100 for ES6 w/ no sales vs. included with GamePass)?

My concern isn't that this won't be true (at the very least, they release everything for Xbox on PC anyway), it's that the platform will evolve so much that console lock-in won't matter, so the promise will elide the real concern.

Yes. When Epic bought Psyonix for Rocket League there was plenty of reassurance linux would remain supported. After waiting the absolute minimum time for people to stop paying attention Epic removed linux support and steam distribution.

Why would they limit there revenue to a single platform? That doesn't make sense to me. But I don't play videogames, haven't since my kids were teenagers, think Call of Duty. I have sold software to corporate, and I can say the revenue from software sales far outweigh hardware revenues.

Targeting all platforms means the Zenimax division within Microsoft will make more money. Targeting only Xbox means more Xbox will be sold, so Xbox division will make more money.

It's not clear which one is a better deal for MS.

They promised with last-gen Xbox One, and have followed it up, that all first-party games that launch for Xbox will also launch for PC. (Originally this extended to all games, but some late releases were xbox-only.) There are no xbox-only games for Xbox Series announced, from any publisher, that are not available for PC.

Microsoft's Xbox+PC strategy is pretty much taken for granted now, "exclusivity" between Microsoft and Sony now means "just Xbox and PC" or "just Playstation (and sometimes PC)."

I think the multi-device strategy is a clear winner. The lifetime value of a console itself is probably not terribly high. After all, most game companies do not sell hardware at all and a few who have eventually gave up (Sega, Atari).

Plus, the PC, Switch, and iPad markets are largely orthogonal to the XB/PS ones. Content for the former probably doesn't compete with the latter, so it makes sense to sell in those markets. And lastly, could you imagine how Sony execs would feel if their best selling PS titles all came from MS studios? That would certainly put them in an awkward position to suddenly be financially dependent to some degree on MS.

Its not about selling Xboxs anymore. Its about Game Pass subscribers.

It also begs the question what MS has to gain by buying Bethesda/ZeniMax besides exclusivity. Given the fact that they own the XBox/Windows gaming platform, would the revenue they get selling Doom on PlayStation really be enough to outweigh the potential of making it exclusive to drive more people to their platform?

Of course, it won't be his decision. It will be Microsoft's decision.

Yep. Don't make promises when the outcome is not up to you. See [1] for many examples of acquired companies going back on such statements.

[1]: https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/

This is a typical, vague PR statement that can mean anything and nothing at all.

Microsoft has decided that all their exclusives will also come to PC anyway. So Windows, Xbox consoles and Xcloud (streaming service) are a given.

This doesn't promise in any way that games will come to PlayStation.

And even if it weren't a bullshit vague PR statement, once the company is sold the original owners have no say over its management.

It specifically says "should bring" and not "will bring". This is a philosophical statement and neither a promise nor even a plan.

From now until acquisition, the language internally will be 'we have our own identity within Microsoft' and then 3 to 6 months later, there will be these offhand remarks from senior management about how nameless other employees are confused about their place in the company. Then within 1 year, there will be an email about how the CEO has decided to eleviate the confusion among the staff and unite the company under one name. And that name surely won't be Bethesda.

You're right that can happen in most cases, but look at Microsoft's recent acquistions: LinkedIn, GitHub, Xamarin, and game studios like Mojang, Double Fine, Obsidian, and inXile. All well-established brand names that have continued to maintain their own identity and team culture, albeit like any culture I'm sure they've evolved over time.

Lol, basically exactly what happened to the Palm group at HP. Except, I believe they ended up firing the whole palm group.

I don't read that as saying Bethesda Games aren't going to be exclusives. Or maybe it'll be xbox plus windows. Meanwhile, there's this quote from Satya Nadella from press release at the bottom of OP, speaking about this acquisition:

> Quality differentiated content is the engine behind the growth and value of Xbox Game Pass—from Minecraft to Flight Simulator.

"Differentiated content" sounds to me like exclusives.

Todd has zero power to make that promise. In my opinion it’s irresponsible to make the claim.

Given Todd's history on, well, anything the past decade... why would anyone believe literally a word out of his mouth?

As a Playstation gamer, anything Todd Howard related can stay on Xbox for all I care. What I will potentially miss are games like Wolfenstein and Doom.

And as proof of why you should never listen to Todd Howard.

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1308062702905044993...

This reminds how the Oculus founder said that logging into Facebook to hop on VR would never be required.

I believe that he is talking about diversity of Microsoft's platforms here and nothing else.

Specifically:

> Regardless of the screen size, the controller, or your ability to even use one.

"your ability to even use one" is clearly a reference to Xbox Adaptive Controller

That's merely rhetoric. Reading between the lines, it's clear Howard is saying "we're going to release Skyrim on XBox Series X on launch day".

Ask Fallout fans what they think of Todd Howard and how he disrespected gamers through the launch of Fallout 76. Better yet see it in full comedic affect in an internet historian video [1].

[1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kjyeCdd-dl8

You're right. They won't be just on Xbox. They'll be on Xbox and Windows 10.

In other news, the only 3D API that matters now for gaming is DirectX. Which was kinda always the case, except now OpenGL and VK fanboys can't go "but... idTech!"

I think this will be one of the most interesting fallout effects of this whole acquisition. Bethesda’s tech stack, as a developer, is basically worthless. But Id has plenty of tech, both tooling and engine, that are viable going into PS5/Xbox/new gen GPUs. If Microsoft does intend to push heavily for Xbox/Windows exclusives from all the acquired components the impact on DirectX as the standard 3D API is going to be pretty large. Also the internal transitions from current tooling and API will probably be prioritized to get early day titles ready for spring 2021 sales season (but surely for the holiday 2021 rush).

>Bethesda Games are not going not be exclusive to Xbox

The biggest problem that Microsoft has with the Xbox is lack of AAA exclusives. If the next Elder Scrolls game is going to be released for Xbox and PS5 - what's the point of this exercise?

"Not exclusive to XBox" could just be PC as well.

Yeah, you may be right. This may be the "sleight of hand" happening here.

They will definitely also release on Windows PCs. But that meaningless corporate speak doesn't really confirm that they will stay true multi-platform and release games on PlayStation and Switch as well.

I don’t know why anyone would think Microsoft would be against publishing on competing platforms. Minecraft is available on Switch and PlayStation. It’s all about that $$$

Why do you think platform exclusives exist then?

> Bethesda Games are not going not be exclusive to Xbox -- Confirmed by Todd Howard

eh, I read this as games will still come out on PC and probably the odd token Nintendo switch release here and there.

I doubt there will be PS5 releases of Bethedsa games.

They wouldn't; most of their games are PC games first and foremost, with ports to other platforms. Sometimes painfully complicated ports, like Skyrim's to the PS3 (due to memory constraints).

Exclsuive to Xbox doesn't make sense given what Microsoft's strategy these days but games might be exclusive to Xbox and Microsoft Store on Windows.

Given how many times Todd has lied it went back on his word, I don’t put any weight in anything he has to say.

With Doom and Quake, it would be a shock if that were the case.

No way this stands