Rethinking Videogame Exclusives (Premium)

For most of its history in the videogame industry, Sony has wielded its PlayStation-exclusive games as a cudgel against the competition. But now it’s asking Microsoft, a bit desperately if you ask me, to continue making Activision Blizzard’s games available on PlayStation after its acquisition of the company is complete.

“We expect that Microsoft will abide by contractual agreements and continue to ensure Activision games are multiplatform,” a Sony statement to the Wall Street Journal says.

Of course, Microsoft will abide by contractual agreements. That’s the law. But underlying this statement is a fear for the future, that once those agreements run out, it hopes that Microsoft will continue to make Activision Blizzard titles available on Sony’s platforms. And that Microsoft will make future new titles from Activision Blizzard available too.

I’m siding with Sony on this one: of course, Microsoft should do all those things, perhaps not universally, but as broadly as possible. And the reasoning here is simple: making most/all Activision Blizzard game titles available on every platform that makes sense is the right thing to do for gamers. This is, of course, the entire point of the Xbox business, according to Phil Spencer.

Consider two angles to this thinking.

One, you have gamers who play on one console, but also own a PC or Mac, an iPhone or Android smartphone, and/or a tablet of some kind. Why would Microsoft punish, say, a PlayStation owner because they’ve made that console choice? And making games available on PlayStation makes business sense: Microsoft doesn’t even turn a profit selling consoles. But it can do so by selling software and services. And if it keeps losing money on consoles, which it will, then Microsoft will make more from Activision Blizzard content from customers who don’t buy an Xbox.

(Not everyone thinks this way. The Verge, for example, opined that “it’s easy to imagine a future where Microsoft [makes] any future Call of Duty games go Xbox exclusive. After all, Microsoft isn’t spending $68.7 billion to keep publishing PlayStation games forever.” That is not easy to imagine. In fact, that would be a financial disaster, and a negative for all Call of Duty players.)

Two, consider cross-play. I know that console/PC cross-play is controversial. Right now, in fact, Halo Infinite multiplayer participants on Xbox consoles are complaining that PC gamers are either outright cheating or have some inherent keyboard/mouse advantages that make cross-play unfair to them. But cross-play between consoles makes tons of sense. All players, regardless of which platform they chose, are playing with controllers, and not keyboard and mouse, and the competition is inherently fair. Limiting multiplayer or group play to just a single console (in this case, to not include those on PlayStation) limits the number of available players and makes it worse for those that did choose an Xbox. It’s like...

Gain unlimited access to Premium articles.

With technology shaping our everyday lives, how could we not dig deeper?

Thurrott Premium delivers an honest and thorough perspective about the technologies we use and rely on everyday. Discover deeper content as a Premium member.

Tagged with

Share post

Please check our Community Guidelines before commenting

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2024 Thurrott LLC