Microsoft CEO Says He Would "Love To Get Rid Of" Exclusives On Consoles

This might sound selfish, but I’m not sure if I like the idea, like what would be the point of getting other consoles? I mean obviously for different prices or portability, but I feel like when all is said and done, Pc would be the best option.

And like the comment above me said, competition is good.

And yet, Microsoft told Bethesda, who wanted Redfall and Starfield on PlayStation, that they would only be exclusive to Xbox moving forward.

Imagine (trying to) buy out some of the biggest publishers to take away games from your competitors and then saying horses*** like this.

Nintendo at least has something different to offer, with hybird gaming, motion controls, HD rumble etc., and of course their enviable library of exclusive IP. What third party wouldn't want a piece of that action?

Frankly, I see very little point in home console gaming nowadays unless one is after exclusives. I could easily hook my gaming laptop up to my TV - if I were so inclined - for so-called "high fidelity" gaming.

Microsoft CEO Says He Would "Love To Get Rid Of" Exclusives On Consoles.

Me: Okay, can we get Disneyland Adventures, Disney Rush, Viva Pinata, Fusion Frenzy 2 on Nintendo Switch / PS5 ?

At some point we would probably get more ET, moments, than Zelda. Kind of extreme, but, not really. 🤷🏿‍♂️

Okay, Halo on Switch, when?

A solid and somewhat large/consistent game library makes a solid console. The switch is this successful because of its fantastic first party library and it’s exclusive gimmick. Wouldn’t putting popular games like TOTK on PC diminish nintendo console sales? It’s such a dumb take.

Aw there’s that friendly CEO I’ve been told so much about!
Totally not some doublespeaking snake who devotes an untold amount on astroturfing to create this new friendly game emancipator image.
@TheBigBlue
What he really wants is to use their seemingly endless acquisitions to put Sony and Nintendo into a position where they have no choice but to allow gamepass likely using xcloud, Microsoft’s ultimate goal is to force the industry into a cloud streaming model that they have full control over where they don’t have to deal with things like bleeding out on expensive hardware, they’ll never have the momentum to do this by being limited to Xbox and PC so they have to strong arm their competitors into supporting it. They absolutely what PS5 players to see xcloud as an alternative for playing Starfield for example.

@TheBigBlue : In the case of a game like TOTK, the Switch would have the unique distinction of portability of a massive open-world game and also not requiring a bulky installation (when opting for physical anyway).

I think eliminating exclusivity would ultimately result in increased sales for Nintendo's games overall (potentially exceeding crazy Minecraft levels of success), but would come at the cost of diminished hardware sales (as you've already pointed out) and innovation.

…. I beg to differ.

@sanderev If only we could get a Steam app on the Switch, then we wouldn't need Steam Decks except for certain games.

Imagine the Microsoft from the 90's saying that. 😂

@Solomon_Rambling I'm not saying he is lying or not. But this was a statement in court and perjury is a serious thing most CEOs wouldn't mess with.

What benefit would he gain by lying in this example? Out of the big three - Microsoft releases the most first party games on other systems. Sony very seldom does and Nintendo never does.

GD I thought the console wars were dying but this lawsuit has really brought out the blades. MS wasn't kidding when they said that they wanted the case to move forward to get everything out in the open. That is exactly what has happened.

Nintendo has got to be absolutely LOVING all of this.

Nintendo’s whole mantra is that their games are so good that they practically sell their consoles. Without exclusives Nintendo is pretty much finished for that reason.

Nintendo was the one who basically "invented" the system selling exclusive with Super Mario Bros. Although you could argue it goes back further with Atari buying up the Pac Man rights. Either way exclusives are amazing ideally. It gives each console their own identity. What is the Xbox One's identity going to be LMAO? While it may mean you might not get to experience every game you want if you can't afford (or have some weird hang-up) about owning multiple systems, it makes each console distinct and fun to talk about. The fact that exclusives as a concept are slowly fading away is kinda sad to me honestly. Anyways yeah this Microsoft statement is dumb.

@EaglyPurahfan you can take it seriously - like you hope the courts are - or you can play fanboy and comment of the hearings. That is the joy of blogs forums -or the internette.

@Thomystic : That's actually a wicked idea.

It would come with some major downsides though... one, that we would likely need to go through online authentication before we can actually play any of our games with it, so, I definitely wouldn't favour it over native Switch ports, but it would be awesome to enjoy, I guess, less demanding games from my Steam library at home without having to boot up the PC.

The second major downside is that the games would likely guzzle a lot of space, much more so than a native port would.

And perhaps the most problematic downside is that a lot of games simply won't be fully playable (if at all) due to compatibility issues (or rather limitations) with controllers and/or the touch-screen, and Steam's customisation options may not be robust enough to alleviate this issue to broadly cover all potentialities.

And if you're having to connect a keyboard and/or mouse to your Switch, then you might as well be playing on a PC anyway.

@Anti-Matter I second the viva piñata thing!
(I remember playing the DS game and had a good time with it.)

@EaglyPurahfan I love this meme so much!

@Dom_31 Might be the wrong use of the word but.

From the above posters, can I take it they'd be happy to have all of the PC ports taken back off them?

It's the height of Hypocrisy to celebrate the length and breadth of Switch's current library, but also cry about potential Nintendo titles on other consoles.

But...doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of having multiple console options in the first place? That's like saying that Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, HBO and Peacock should all have the exact same streaming library... (which would be nice, but would also probably lead to an unhealthy monopoly...)

Of course he does, Microsoft owns the most popular game subscription service in the industry. No exclusives means more bacon for their shareholders

He’s just saying this because Xbox has practically no compelling exclusives outside of Halo, Gears of War, and Forza.

@sanderev Spider Man on Switch when?

I think the CEO is misinterpreting Phil Spencer's overall vision for the video games industry. It feels more like a petty statement rather than something fruitful.

Platform-exclusives are well justified if the company behind the platform is making the exclusives or at least funding for the development of exclusive games. This would also extend to franchises where the previous publisher refuses to provide sufficient funding for a game to be green-lit, such as Nintendo investing in the Bayonetta series. That way, there's justification for each platform to continue to exist.

What Satya really should have said was 3rd-party exclusives - Software not being developed or published by platform holders who only make their games exclusive either out of platform bias (grow up, Japan. You need to publish more stuff on Xbox), or the platform holders pay extra money on top of the money provided by the publishers for the sole reason of making games exclusive. Hardware limitations come to mind, but I'm not entirely convinced that was the only reason why Square parted ways with Nintendo, and it certainly isn't the case with today's environment.

The console business is very bizarre and I don't see how it could function in other industries. Imagine if you wanted to get Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse on DVD or BluRay but could only do so with a Sony branded DVD/BluRay player because they had a licensing deal. It would just be absurd. I guess with streaming services, that's sort of a reality now, but not with physical media; any disc can be played on any box. It's strange.

I'm not saying I want Nintendo to go third party, but like... it would be nice if Nintendo could put all their eggs just into software development and never had to worry about graphical limitations. Imagine how far Nintendo could push franchises like Mario and Zelda. We could get an open world Zelda in the style of the E3 2011 Wii U tech demo with the realistic textures and none of those gross fog effects that constantly plague TotK. When I'm skydiving, I can hardly see anything except for a blue haze until I'm almost to the surface.

Nintendo could still make zany peripherals as a third-party publisher if they wanted to. I know this is never gonna happen, given the Switch's blowout success. And again, I'm not saying I even want it to happen. I'm very satisfied with where Nintendo is right now. But it's interesting to think about, and I don't think it would be all doom and gloom. In some ways, it may be worse, but in others, I think it could be better.

@Zavijah I'm not too sure if PC is a great argument here, since there's no real 1st party that maintains that space and demands exclusivity in the same way Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo do.

Like, you'll occasionally have companies like Epic or Steam trying to incentivize purchasing games through their storefronts before others (or consoles), but what winds up being ported from PC to consoles tends to be at the discretion of 3rd party devs and publishers.

No more exclusives? That'd be like saying, "Hey, Disney, every studio can release your Star Wars stuff now. You cool with that?"

If you have no exclusive console sellers that’s easy to say.

He could start to give those few Xbox exclusives to others. Starting with fable on switch and maybe the others get more open.

I mean some ps exclusives like HZD eventually came to pc.

Films and TV are moving towards exclusivity with streaming services. If exclusivity didn't already exist in gaming, they'd be pushing for it.

How saintly. Activision should just let themselves be acquired for free when this is all said and done.

@TKundNobody and god of war 2018.

for nintendo specifically they NEED to rely on exclusives since their priority is solely in the game market, pushing consoles is important.

but other than the pride of owning X console to play Y game i really cant complain about games being more accessible in other places, but we still need a lil bit of both if not for the sake of companies trying to 1-up each and make better quality games

Exclusives on consoles are about 90% of the actual good games being made today. Also, of course Xbox would say that. They haven't had good exclusives on their systems since 2005.

@sleepinglion Hmm... not really. He is not saying that publishers should give up their distributing rights but saying consoles shouldn't be a locked down environment that prevents games being played on any console. He wants it to be more in line with PC, DVD/BluRay players or even smart TV's hosting streaming services. EG you dont need a Disney brand DVD player to play Disney DVDs. Microsoft is pretty much the only one of the big 3 that releases their titles on other consoles.

I think it’s fine for a few exclusives that are made in-house, so Nintendo keeping Mario games only on their consoles, but I agree that Sony has taken it too far. For example, their stranglehold on Spider-Man is ridiculous. I mean it went so far as making Spider-Man a PS exclusive character in Marvel’s Avengers. XBox players just straight up had one less character to play as and that isn’t right. You shouldn’t make content exclusive because it gives a certain player base a lesser experience just for owning a different console.

End of the day though, it’ll never change. The reason Sony is dominant is because of the deals they make when it comes to content. They’ve (both companies really) engineered it so the conversation isn’t about what console is better, PS or Xbox, it’s about what games do you want to play. They don’t care if some players won’t be able to experience certain games, that’s on you for owning a competitors console isntead. Content is king and that’s why you’ll never see Mario on a non-Nintendo console or Halo on a Playststion. It’s their biggest bargaining chip and they won’t lose it for anything.

I was typing a lot of words about how competition should be between publishers and game designers, and I would prefer to have one box that plays it all.

Then I caught myself when I remembered that Microsoft has already bought a buttload of publishers and game designers.

I hate the console wars, but I hate monopolies even more. What worries me is that Microsoft will make people thirsty enough to end the former that they'll ignore their attempts at the latter.

@sleepinglion @TanukiTrooper Exactly, the IP would still be protected and owned by a company. He isn’t saying that Microsoft should be able to make Uncharted, but that Uncharted should be playable on Xbox as well as PlayStation.

To use your movie example, the way the gaming market is set up would be as if Disney owned a movie theater chain and those theaters were the only place you could watch Star Wars at.

That being said, streaming is starting to get into distributor exclusives territory, but even then places like Netflix will sell shows on dvd, so customers have an option to enjoy the content without subscribing. But for gaming, there isn’t a way to play Zelda (legally) on anything other than a Nintendo console.

He says that and then proceeds to buy more publishers and make their games exclusive.

Absolute BS just to make them look like the good guys infront of the judge, sickening.

Maybe it's because I've always been a PC Gamer for as long as I've been a console gamer, but I hate exclusives with a passion.

Sony makes movies and music too, but you don't have to buy a special Sony player to access it. You buy a CD, or Blu-Ray, or MP3 or whatever and you can use it on whatever brand player you choose.

You can already do this with a PC. You can buy a Dell, or an ASUS, etc. or even build your own.

@UltimateOtaku91 Eh, it’s the classic prisoners dilemma. No company wants to be the one to forgo exclusives if their competitors are still having them, regardless of personal philosophy.

@TanukiTrooper Ah!

I think the only games Microsoft have made recently that I loved were the Ori. I used to own all 3 consoles but now I can get away with just Nintendo (Zelda, Pokemon) and Sony (last of us, GOW).

It seems Microsoft can’t make quality games anymore. I’m still waiting on my next “Good” Fable, which I guarantee will be exclusive.

Also why is there a 10 year limit on COD for Nintendo?

Why would you even want to eliminate exclusives, the whole reason there's an industry out there is because every competitors had their own exclusives in addition to third party offerings. Without exclusives nobody is gonna give a damn about your product, network, offering, or service. Exclusives is not just videogames, it's on every industry.

Wrestling promotions had their own exclusive shows and wrestlers, stores had their own exclusive products in addition to third party ones, movie streaming service had their own exclusive films and license in addition to third party ones, car manufacturers had their own exclusive gimmicks and features, restaurant chains had their own exclusive menu with exclusive recipe or food items, news broadcast even air their own exclusive news story or hot takes in addiction to third party ones, etc. If you don't had exclusives then don't even open a business, just get a hobby instead cause an industry needs competitions and competitions are what makes an industry interesting as well as thrive and evolve.

Even airports, hotels, and taxis had their own exclusive offerings and convenience. Some hotels had bed and breakfast, some hotels got swimming pools and bars, some airport had fast travel and some taxi service had autonomous vehicle. It really depends on the offerings, without these exclusive offerings, every business industry would be boring, or unneccesary I mean why tune in to NBC News when Fox News had the same story and easier to access? Exclusives makes the business world interesting, don't get rid of it.

Here's a better example, Street Fighter II had 12 unique characters, other than Ryu and Ken the rest of the 10 remaining fighters had their own unique exclusive movesets, physics, fighting styles, and stages. Now imagine instead of 10 unique fighters, all of them are just palette swap clones of Ryu and Ken just with different speed and strength of attacks. All the moves are all the same, that's what a world with no exclusives will feel like. Everything is similar and it's not cool, it's just boring.

Really would be ideal if we could just buy 1 console/PC and play everything on it - at the end of the day you're still playing the same game and having fun, you just get to choose if you wanna be a graphics snob and go for high-end or maybe go for something portable, etc.

Having the choice is nice

Lukewarm take: Exclusives make the gaming industry interesting. As a Nintendo fan, there's been plenty of games I've wanted to play but have skipped the system I own. Sometimes you got to accept your losses.
IMO, there's nothing wrong with exclusives. The biggest issue with exclusives is peoples attitude to games being exclusive to a platform they don't own.

The reason Nintendo has developed such innovative games is because they build them for the console. Think about the camera control on the N64 or DS touchpad or the Wiimote or Labo. Without them the industry wouldn’t evolve, we would just get the same sorts of games all the time.

I'm totally fine with 1st and 2nd party titles being exclusive. 3rd party titles not so much. I mean there's no reason a game like FF16 shouldn't be on Xbox. Maybe Sony and Microsoft need to take a page out of Nintendo's book and focus on quality 1st party titles of their own instead of squabbling over exclusive 3rd part content. I can see Microsoft is definitely making more of an effort in that area. Sony Just seem arrogant over this whole acquisition.

If exclusives are banned, where is the line drawn for which consoles have to be supported?

What if Macdonalds had the McConsole and Nike had the JustConsole and Mars had the WorkRest+Play Console and there were 10 others, would every game developer be expected to optimiste their games for every single console?!

im sure he would, given he doesnt really have any of his own. I mean there's halo, but that's pretty much it.

@Thomystic I think you would be rather disappointed if we got Steam on Switch. Most games wouldn't run, well if at all. Even the Steam Deck with all of it's Proton power isn't coming close to a full steam library.

And Proton on the Switch? Well, 10fps on a last gen game is going to be the max

I’ve never believed third parties should ever make exclusive deals to release games only on a single platform or for a timed period. That creates scenarios like we see with Metal Gear Solid 4, Bloodborne, and.FF7….. just to name a few, where games get locked not only to that console but possibly to that generation (depending on if the next console has BC or not).

Exclusivity can, does, and has lead to TRUE issues with game preservation and accessibility.

First and second party titles are a different matter. Those are entirely up to the companies at hand how they care to distribute them, and that’s fair. I never expected or wanted Nickelodeon to start playing Disney shows, or Disney to start playing Nick shows. I do believe if deals can be reached and such that it’s not a bad idea to release an ip on a competitor platform, like MS has done with Cuphead and Ori. It brings more sales and better brand awareness. But not all first and second parties need to go that route as you loose reason to own one console over the other. Then we all just have setup boxes.

Although admittedly this raises the issue again just like MGS4, Bloodborne, etc….. First and Second party titles being locked in last generations. The simple answer is to follow suit with MS (who is doin amazing at this!), make every console BC with previous gens.

I love the fact that I can still access, buy, and play previous generations of Xbox games, all on my Series X.

Lastly, there is one circumstance where I believe timed exclusivity is ok, new untested IPs, like Octopath Traveler originally was. If a company like Nintendo wants to take the chance and publish/fund it so it’s less of a risk for developer, by all means. No deal should ever last a year+ though. 6 Mons is more than enough time to determine if the new idea was a success or flop, then release on other platforms if it’s a success.

Tried and tested multiplatform IP should only have exclusive deals for cosmetic content at this point. Everything else is garbage business practice…. Timed windows, exclusive dlc / quests, etc. all garbage.

@Waluigi451 Ah! Thanks, man. It makes more sense now

that 10 year thing is to help the deal actually go through though, right?

i'm currently on the side of exclusives being a good thing because there's an extra stake in wanting those games being great and less like junk food. There's a chance they make a push forward for the medium?

I’m fine with nintendo going the way of sega and making software only. Means the mainline titles could maybe run at an appropriate framerate.

Great idea in theory, but who would release their dedicated console if they couldn't benefit from it? Nintendo wouldn't try to provide risky innovations if it couldn't sell more consoles with their outstandingfirst party games

Remember when the Switch had an NES Golf Easter egg about how rad Iwata was? Man. That was rad.

Poor little old Microsoft.

I've changed my mind they should be able to buy up all the studios they want!

I can understand the argument for 3rd party games. A lot of games have been initially platform exclusive before releasing on other platforms later. Like Final Fantasy VII and Cup Head among others. However, if the developer of the hardware is also developing the software then I see no problem with exclusivity. It’s their product.

Is he saying that Sony forced Microsoft to Buy Zenimax for $7.5 Billion and put in a casual $68 billion dollar offer to buy Activision Blizzard? Its not like there buying and individual studios here, there buying PUBLISHERS, buying publishers dosent really seem like competeting to me. Gaming is turning into a literal streaming service and Microsoft want to he sure they own all the rights to the best stuff to minimise costs and maximumise profit.

The one with no exclusive sure love to get rid of it lol. Funny microsoft didn't think like this in xbox / xbox 360 era where they have really big exclusive like halo 1-3 and gears 1-3

@Anti-Matter Honestly I was thinking this same thing. I'd love to see the ol Halo games pop onto Switch.
Alternatively, if you're gonna pitch gamepass on switch do it with only Microsoft owned stuff instead of all the 3rd party stuff.
Not saying I love cloud streaming but that would be a compromise.

If I was an exec at X-Box I’d love equal access to God of War, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Super Mario, Mario Kart, The Legend of Zelda, Metroid…

but I’d also know I’m never, ever going to get it.

But some PS Exclusives are available on PC...

@Snatcher What I don't understand is Microsoft stopped making exclusive console games, why not just allow a windows mode on xbox? I don't care what anyone tries to say, £449 is alot of money for a console, but for a fairly decent pc, it would be an absolute bargain.

Well he already got rid of exclusives on the Series X.

@Tony_Fuel I know, it is weird, I mean there’s a freaking reason why video games have exclusives, do they know how many people will buy a console over a single game? It’s crazy.

@Thomystic You wouldn't be able to plai 99.999% of the games on Steam because they run on x86 PC architecture and not monile ARM tech... like, what about the whole portimg job?

Rare case of Nadalla saying something true and wise. Exclusives are absolutely obsolete in a console space where we have all modern games built around mainstream PC / Mobile processor architectures. Portability is less of a problem then ever before but sadly Nintendo militantly insists on gatekeeping its games on underpowered hardware.
Of course things like ARMS or Switch Sports are difficult to pull off without appropriate input methods on Playstation and Xbox but Zelda or Xenoblade would fit perfectly on Series X/S, PS5, PC/Steam Deck.

It's likely what Nadella wants is platform exclusivity (there's a difference between console exclusivity and platform exclusivity), the concept that you can play games on any platform but you must be subscribed to Game Pass to do so. They're essentially trying to make Game Pass a monopoly in the same way Windows is.

@Matroska I mean technically Windows executables still belong to the Microsoft ecosystem. Things like Forza and Halo are not natively available on Linux or MacOS.

I would argue that Nintendo is the dominant player when it comes to console exclusives

Sounds bitter to me, obviously just can't compete with Sony, deal with it.

People really are reading far too much into that statement and not taking it as its whole. Would love to doesn't mean it's realistic to do so and then theres the second part which alot of people are ignoring which makes the point Sony has made console competition all about exclusives. Which in fair it has but its in no way going give up that competitive advantage.

Of course Xbox would love a world without exclusives as its very much lacking them and if everything that came out on ps5 was on xbox who would buy a ps5 when you could have them all on xbox plus gamepass.

It's really just saying Xbox is forced play the exclusives game by Sony which is true. Xbox wants to become a games service really with likes of Gamepass

If Nintendo dropped exclusivity that would be absolutely market changing , it would become more like Sega post consoles with the possibility of it only focused on making handheld consoles. Either way not going happen unless something bad happens like 2 wii us in a row

I'd legitimately not even consider buying a Switch if I could play Nintendo games on any other platform. Exclusives are a thing for a reason. Sony was hardly the first nor the last to have exclusives for their platform.

Heck the only reason Xbox is even a thing is because Halo was exclusive!

Yeah I bet he would his garbage company aren't capable of making good games of their own he hates how good Nintendo and PlayStation's games are and since they can't make their own stuff he wants everyone else's

Well, if they're going to say that, then it would be nice to see them back those words up by releasing the Halo Master Chief Collection on the Switch.

@Snatcher yep, i got the Wii U at launch for Tekken Tag Tournament 2 Wii U Edition.
Its odd because they (xbox/microsoft) say they have a console, but it has no exclusives. But thats the same way Sony is going, all of their exclusives are coming to PC.
I personally think both are going to struggle to gain market share over devices like Switch and Playstation 4 which are priced at what most people are willing to spend on something that just plays games.

I'm convinced though that either as an update to the current xbox or a future one, they will eventually bring a true windows mode to it. Yes some people will say its no longer a console, but it instantly becomes a much more appealing device for the mass market.

Suddenly Microsoft could sell bulk units of xbox series s to schools, even offices. Sony would be smart to do the same, but microsoft will dominate that market and i'm really surprised they haven't already done it.

I think their scared over the backlash that xbox fans will say like they did over the tv features they tried to introduce to xbox one. What the fans don't understand is microsoft can offering it as a paid optional update or even sell a new xbox windows pc, perhaps slightly more expensive with some extra ram. It would kill

Then become a publisher like Sega and practice what you preach

I wonder what monopoly Microsoft would have by buying Activision...

No he's not lying guys. Because if there were no console exclusives, more games/players would be on PC where Microsoft has the Monopoly and that would make everything so much easier for them.

Man, they do these Sony versus Microsoft articles over here in the nintendo part of town as well? Can't escape em!

The way I see it, the 16 bit era often showed why console exclusives were sometimes necessary. Think of many SNES games that took full advantage of the SNES rendering hardware that could not have been done or Mega Drive, or some of the benefits (from memory) of the MD or differences in soundchips etc.

I feel theres more potential for innovation and optimisation where devs are in a position to take full advantage of specific consoles and hardware. Its what we need to see more of. This change in attitude re development and prioritising visuals really wasted the potential of the Wii U and even switch to an extent. Theres some great hardware and design choices (the Wii U was literally everything the Wii was PLUS a gamepad with a touch screen, still with 1080p graphics from memory. Its a shame its about covering as many bases as possible (yes it makes sense from a business standpoint also but), but stifling creativity and optimisation.

For me Mario games are the hallmark in justifying exclusivity gaming quality. Nintendos careful hardwork, dedication and passion to the games and how they best use the relevant consoles stand in contrast to say Sonic being on multiple consoles and (even in cases like Generations where theyre still really fun) end up being rough around the edges and lacking careful polish.

Exclusives seem to be their answer to actually doing something interesting. Nintendo comes out with e new console, sure it has their exclusives, but it also has their ideas (Wii, DS, Wii U, Switch...) that offers something new.
PS and Xbox both are boring. It's just here's some games we bought exclusive rights to, so you'll have to buy our new console that's essentially the same thing again only it makes things look a bit prettier.
And even then, most of those get PC release....so whats the point of them? Not much, IMO. I have a Switch and a PC and that covers everything I want.

Translation: "We really want Mario, Zelda, Splatoon and Metroid on Xbox."

Baloney!!! Microsoft had no problems with exclusives when they were kicking butt back in the 360 days.

Gang, I get that this is a Nintendo site, but the comments are directed against Sony. It’s not about trying to make Microsoft look angelic, it’s about pointing out the hypocrisy of Sony for arguing against the ActiBlizz acquisition over the possibility some franchises would become exclusive.
Obviously they’re all corporations in late stage capitalism and therefore completely undeserving of defense by their customers, but Microsoft is simply pointing out that Sony wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Microsoft wants to control everything, and would love to have Mario and zelda on Xbox/windows. The only way they even still relevant is because they just buy everything and make it theirs. Nintendo pushes gaming/consoles forward. They might be behind on some things, but I’ll take their consoles over anything Xbox. Microsoft just wants people paying for their service, and wouldn’t be nice if Mario was next to master chief.

Exclusives give you a reason to buy said console, and today, sad for Microsoft, but my main consoles are my steamdeck and switch and the little I used my Xbox has been replaced with playing games like Spider-Man, uncharted, days gone, re4, even Diablo 4 on my steam deck, and using my Xbox controller to play them on my tv. Sony does give up some exclusives that even Nintendo won’t.

"I would love to get rid of exclusives on consoles."

• the guy from the company with ZERO interesting exclusives on his console

@FishyS Agreed.
I....don't like the idea. Sorry, but I just don't. If everything is multiplatform...would it not also mean that every game would take longer too. There are few real exclusives anyway other than the really major players!

Says the company who had zero worthwile console exclusives in this gen.

I mean - seriously, if it weren't for their backwards program and a few good stuff from the XBox/X360 era (Ninja Gaiden Black, Crimson Skies, Panzer Dragoon Orta) there wouldn't be a reason to own their hardware. Game Pass is on PC as well.

@rushiosan Hi-Fi Rush is phenomenal.

Exclusives are what sells consoles. It also what keeps your loyal customers to the XBox brand. I have an XBox One and I only use it play to Rare Replay, and a few other backward compatible games exclusive to XBox consoles but otherwise, I don't use it. I don't even have it plugged in right now. I bought the console to play the then-exclusive Sunset Overdrive, but that too was also released on PC. The game didn't even get a FPS boost for the Series X. I don't really have an interest in buying a Series X since every game is also released on PC where I can run games better.

Strange they say this but back when yet were the leader with the 360 they had no problem making games exclusive, spending money for timed exclusive games/DLC. I mean Titanfall had a PS4 version that was scrapped because MS bought exclusivity. They still are doing it with the Bethesda games that they said wouldn't be taken from PS. It's only an issue now because they haven't released a good game in years. They want this deal to go through because just like how COD only changes a few things and it's a new game, that is what they are great at, Forza and Halo are just very small changes/upgrades and they release every year or two.

MS honestly needs to just become a streaming platform and avoid trying to create/buystudios

@Rafie It's also no PC (Steam), but wouldn't really call it a console seller.

All platforms have exclusives for example streaming platforms (which sucks true) it is well known that are the exclusives that drive the respective platform. So I find this a very dishonest attempt to look good on the FTC hearing cuz if this scenario happens they know they would win because MS pockets are much deeper than those of their competitors

Weird coming from the company racing Embracer to own all the game comoanies imaginable.

Xbox wanted to shift to games as a service for a long time now. The only reason they didn't pull this stunt sooner is because PS4 stomped on their DRM approach to gaming. This is just their plan B.

This is not about exclusives! I swear Microsoft is acting like this poor innocent do-gooder and trying to tap into console war bs! It is actually about monopolies and how they are not good for anyone but the CEOs. Microsoft is unquestionably attempting to do something with this aquisition that would have huge negative consequences and they are trying to distract everyone from what this is really about.

@HammerKirby
The concept of exclusivity as we currently think of it was cemented by Nintendo's third-party contracts during the Famicom/NES era.

In the classic era, companies often made their games for multiple companies. For example, Atari ported PacMan to the Intellivision and was working on a Colecovision version (finished, unreleased) when the North American Video Game Crash occurred.

More BS from Phil. Why not make the 10 year deal 50 then?

This guy is so hypocritical, his words usually say the opposite to his actions. Very good at PR speak though.

@mike_intv exclusvity isn't just for third parties tho. Most of Sony's and Nintendo's exclusives are first party.

lol then start by making Halo and other Xbox exclusives available in other platforms other than PC then. Pointing fingers to Sony is pointless. If you want for exclusivity to end then start with your own "exclusive" games. MS can talk the talk but they still can't walk the walk

I’m sure they would, given they don’t have any worth playing.

For many, the issue of exclusivity seems to be unpleasant because the fact that, in this case, video games, we have to play a certain title on a single console and not on all those available on the market, makes it difficult for us economic factor, of course this is a good valid point, but!!, if we see it from another perspective, especially that of business, exclusivity is important since it is "the hook" to attract the public to the console and this does It is valid since, without thinking for a moment, if all the consoles and platforms had the same games, there would be no incentive to buy, which could be the case that only one system is the best seller and the other options are no longer They would be worth it, also, as in the case of Nintendo, the extras on the console adding to how the exclusive games are developed on that console provide that plus and the hook that, with the Switch, has catapulted Nintendo to have a good economy and to the players, to have unique and interesting games; If Nintendo made consoles like the others, without those extras, and the games were on any other console or platform, it would be another story and quite possibly not a very good one..

This is pointless posturing. Microsoft says nonsense like this in public and then behind closed doors talks about buying up studios and using money to spend competition out of business. Even stopping to engage with this ridiculous assertion is giving it more attention than it deserves.

I bet MS, personally I believe there should be more exclusives - it's what keeps systems unique, it's what keeps healthy competition going. Game pass is failing, so the claws are out!

Lmao seeing MS and Sony flinging crap at each other with flawed rhetoric is popcorn material.

@FishyS also there wouldn’t be any point to even buy another console you just only need one but I totally agree with what your saying.

While releasing Starfield exclusive to Xbox/PC in less then 3 months.

I like Switch exclusive games. I'm not sure if it's really that great of an idea to change this.

But I do wish we could play classic Nintendo games on the Switch console with ease.

If there were no exclusives I would simply own a Switch for the portability, leaving both Sony and Microsoft out of luck with my business. Because otherwise there are a number of practices that those companies employ that I'm not a fan of.

Sounds to me like Microsoft only gets my business if it HAS exclusives because I'm picking up an Xbox Series X because I want to play Starfield.

@Solomon_Rambling
"I, too, like to lie in order to seem more virtuous to others around me."
Well said, well said!!

Yeah, it'll be thanks to Microsoft that I can finally play Sonic 3 & Knuckles in the SNES and Mario Kart: Double Dash!! on a PS5.

If there were no exclusives all that would determine which console you bought would be brand loyalty and whatever perks the console manufacturer could build into their system, and honestly Microsoft loses in that scenario as well. I'm guessing they're only saying this to try to prove that they won't make COD exclusive tho and don't actually believe this.

Also, maybe it's my bias but I would absolutely pin the concept of console exclusives on Nintendo or even Sega before I would Sony. It's a well known fact that Nintendo lives and dies by their first party exclusives and Sega having games and features that Ninten-dont is what started the console wars in the first place.

There have been exclusives on consoles, in one form or another, since probably the 1980s. All console makers have done it. Why is this being seen as such a bad thing now? Where has the outrage been the last 30+ years?

And are people pissed off about exclusive deals with third party publishers or with first party? Should a first party studio from Nintendo really be expected to make their games for other systems, PC or console?

I think exclusives are good. They promote competition which can lead to new and unique games. If it weren’t for exclusives a consoles worth would be based largely off of its graphical capabilities.

The Console Wars will never die!

I've felt this way for over 20 years. You don't need to buy separate TVs to watch different channels. I always buy every console from Nintendo, Sony and MS, and I'd much rather just buy one.

I wonder why Nintendo or Sony won't ever brag about not having Forza or Halo on their systems...oh, right...they don't need to Talking about "shaping the market" in the context of one generic FPS (yes, that's exactly what I think COD is) is simply silly and nonsense.

@Cashews Nintendo probably looks on nervously in hope that no further leaks occur

I don't like the idea of exclusives, because you end up not playing certain games or paying too much to play them (like buying a Wii u just for Windwaker HD). Microsoft is not a monopoly on Xbox or PC gaming. They pretty much handed the PC market to valve and the browser and word/excel to Google. They are not monopolists by any stretch of the imagination.

@jsty3105 surely. There might be contracts in place saying people have to be quiet. I bet there is a Nintendo lawyer on retainer involved somehow.

@Moistnado I'm going to argue with you on handing word/excel to google. In the business world no one uses google to work on documents. billions of people use MS and likely always will since google has been fairly stagnant on innovation the past few years.

@jorel262 all the outrage tends to focus on how Nintendo games should no longer be exclusive

@Cashews in the last few places I've worked it's all been Google docs, for the last decade or so.

@Cashews Yeah - though there have already been a few reveals of information that Nintendo probably prefers to keep/reveal on their own terms

I DO want everything on PC at least, even Nintendo games, but not if it's something that Microsoft is pushing for, I don't trust them one bit.

I agree with the idea (that some are saying) that exclusives is not a game-console-only thing. It is everywhere you look.

If I want to watch a Netflix show, I need to have Netflix. If I want to watch an Apple show, I need to have Apple.

If your exclusive is strong enough and people want it enough, then everyone is happy.

But having said that . . . I am so glad that Minecraft is available on Switch!

Exclusives are what give any given system value. If exclusives were gone, the company with the most money would automatically muscle out every other business because they could be very aggressive with the pricing, selling well below cost to increase their initial install base and would then coast to a monopoly. Companies like Nintendo that mainly profit from selling games and consoles would be unable to compete.

I mean exclusives drive competition which ultimately results in better and more games, thats the so called 'market' that sony developed.
And for one I am grateful for it, we get to see every year what a market built of multiplatforms looks like, its all the tripe we get from Ubisoft every year...
Xbox are just salty because they forgot about their exclusives when they started this gen and now nobody cares about xbox, just wait Starfield comes out, Fable comes out, etc, people will care about Xbox again, it really is that simple.
I want to play ______ therefore I need to have __________. I want to play with ___________ therefore I need to have ________.

it works, keep up Phil, its not that hard

Sony shaped the market?! Cornering the market with exclusive games was originally Nintendo's idea!

Besides, while the idea might work for Microsoft or Sony (keyword: might), Nintendo's current business model of more unique hardware features and making a profit on both game and console sales means that their exclusive games (that often take advantage of their hardware features) are a very important selling point, especially with how high quality their first and second party games tend to be.