As someone who has been closely following the gaming industry for decades, I can confidently say that Microsoft’s approach to platform exclusivity is a dance between ambition and pragmatism. Having spent my formative years with the original Xbox, I can appreciate the strategic value of exclusive titles to establish a strong foothold in the market. However, as we move forward into an increasingly multi-platform world, it’s clear that Microsoft is treading a delicate line.
Is it possible for “no strict boundaries” and “assessing situations individually” to coexist? This is a question being posed by Xbox enthusiasts as of late. The latest interview on the subject has added more mystery to the ongoing debate concerning Xbox’s strategy for multiplatform games, known as “Latitude.
In the year 2024, Microsoft initially announced its intention to release Sea of Thieves, Pentiment, Grounded, and Hi-Fi Rush on Sony’s PlayStation platform. Initially, they stated that these were the only four games in their plan, but later it turned out that wasn’t entirely true. This summer, there was a surprising revelation that Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, which was touted as an exclusive Xbox winter release, would actually be available on PlayStation in spring 2025. This has sparked speculation among many about potential future plans.
Naturally, many Xbox fans wonder if iconic games like Halo, Forza, or Gears of War could eventually hit PlayStation too. It’s been a bitter pill for many, given that Spencer himself testified under oath during the Activision acquisition that PlayStation uses the funds it gets from Xbox’s games that are already on PlayStation, like Minecraft, to cut timed exclusivity deals that harm Xbox as the challenger platform. Sony’s first-party output was relatively light this year, but it had a ton of success regardless thanks to publishing deals with games like Helldivers 2, and the timed third-party console exclusive Black Myth Wukong.
Xbox lead Phil Spencer reiterated a few weeks ago that there were “no red lines” regarding what games could eventually go multiplatform. I literally wrote “Microsoft is pushing for no red lines” when I outlined what I’d heard about Latitude internally back in May. Although I did also note on my XB2 Podcast just recently that Microsoft also views its multi-platform strategy through a case-by-case basis lens. Matt Booty recently described the strategy as such during an internal town hall meeting, where as-of-yet unseen Fable combat gameplay was also presented to staff (it looks awesome, by the way.) Indeed, it’s not the first time the phrase “case by case basis” has been used as such, even publicly, but Booty reiterated them again in a recent interview.
In a statement that has left some perplexed due to its contrast with the recent remarks made by Xbox CEO Phil Spencer regarding “boundaries,” Xbox games head Matt Booty expressed his thoughts.
Enthusiasts of Xbox are actively trying to decipher the implications of these upcoming announcements, with some seeing it as an opportunity to fuel the ongoing debate between PlayStation and Xbox, treating it like a competition. However, others are genuinely worried about the potential impact on their Xbox game collections in the long run. If Xbox were to lose significant market share to PlayStation, what would happen to the digital content Microsoft has tied us into? Google had to write off millions of dollars and issue refunds when Stadia closed down. But it’s highly unlikely that Xbox could return billions of dollars to customers if it were to shut down. Therefore, understanding Xbox’s future trajectory is crucial for those who have invested in its platform.
And that’s where the confusion comes in, because Xbox hasn’t exactly been definitively clear about what Xbox’s direction is, and perhaps more importantly, how its “This is an Xbox” strategy can be, or even deserves to be successful. Partially, this is because it’s trying something unprecedented and new. Partially, it’s because Microsoft is genuinely historically awful at messaging. Microsoft has built up decades of unease about its apparent dedication (or lack thereof) to consumer products. Microsoft is slowly intentionally killing its Surface hardware department, for example. And it’s not like Surface wasn’t successful; this was once a multi-billion dollar segment for Microsoft. Xbox customers wonder if gaming at Microsoft will eventually suffer the same fate, hence the nerves among those who are actively paying attention.
So for fun, let’s try and read the tea leaves on Matt Booty’s comments.
In my role as an analyst, I can share that we approach exclusivity and windowing decisions for each game individually, ensuring a tailored strategy for each title. This aligns with our previous statements but may not entirely coincide with Phil Spencer’s “red lines” commentary. However, I don’t believe it necessarily contradicts his perspective either.
The reality that Microsoft’s teams don’t often work on simultaneous multiplatform projects isn’t primarily due to philosophical differences, but rather practical issues such as lack of setup for simultaneous development, absence of PlayStation dev kits, insufficient personnel, or no existing partnership with Sony. In other words, while ports may still be in the pipeline, they will likely be developed after the initial release. For most studios at this time, simultaneous multiplatform development is not financially viable, as described by Matt Booty.
Booty clarifies that each of our studios operates independently due to various factors like the production schedule for games. Ensuring a top-notch experience for Xbox players is always our priority. The delay between releasing the game on PlayStation is not just about timing, but also about production decisions. Incidentally, Indiana Jones was in development before we acquired Bethesda.
In today’s digital landscape, where buzz fuels popular content that shapes discussions, it’s beneficial for creators to have their work distributed across multiple platforms. Navigating the cultural moment, or the commanding zeitgeist, is nearly as crucial as creating a high-quality product, particularly when the struggle for limited player attention has grown so intense. Companies specializing in multiplatform games hold a significant advantage, such as Square Enix and others, who have chosen to abandon platform exclusivity.
Reading the green tea leaves
Initially, when Microsoft purchased Bethesda, they made it clear that the deal was primarily for exclusives. During the Activision-Blizzard hearings, they reaffirmed this point under oath. So far, Starfield has been exclusive to Xbox, but Bethesda and its subsidiary studios have a history of working across multiple platforms. Prioritizing one platform offers advantages, especially for a company like Xbox that still hasn’t given up on home console hardware. However, much like Indiana Jones, it seems likely that Starfield will eventually find its way to PlayStation, although no confirmation has been made yet.
Historically, other teams at Microsoft haven’t developed games for PlayStation. Therefore, the option would be either to cultivate that knowledge in-house or collaborate with external port studios. Although it’s less expensive than before to adapt games for different platforms due to their shared x86 foundation, it’s still a complex process. Factors such as platform compatibility, legal and contractual matters, establishing retail partnerships, and many more need to be addressed. There are numerous components involved when creating video games, which inherently involves costs – even when releasing games on your own platform.
READ NEXT: On Xbox’s strange future.
Still, I firmly believe personally that the cost for Microsoft will be truly massive if they completely give in on developing and pushing their own home-grown platform. Losing the industry-wide clout that comes with being a platform holder would give the keys to competing tech companies to shape the destiny and future of the industry. It would force Xbox’s large and unwieldy publishing arm to bow down to the whims of companies that aren’t always historically friendly. Microsoft’s failure to get a mobile game store set up on Apple and Google’s mobile duopoly should serve as a wake up call for what it could mean if Xbox stops trying to curate its own hardware endpoint, even if Microsoft’s corporate layer seems to despise investing in hardware.
In summary, it seems to me that at a higher level, there aren’t any philosophical boundaries set on which games might be eligible for a multiplatform release in the future. However, practical considerations on a case-by-case basis in the short term could potentially prevent studios from launching simultaneously on PlayStation. This could be due to budget constraints, logistical issues, or strategic reasons.
Read More
- GBP EUR PREDICTION
- TRB PREDICTION. TRB cryptocurrency
- POL PREDICTION. POL cryptocurrency
- CNY RUB PREDICTION
- HBAR PREDICTION. HBAR cryptocurrency
- SEI PREDICTION. SEI cryptocurrency
- RLC PREDICTION. RLC cryptocurrency
- CTXC PREDICTION. CTXC cryptocurrency
- TNSR PREDICTION. TNSR cryptocurrency
- OKB PREDICTION. OKB cryptocurrency
2024-12-10 23:09