Microsoft and Bethesda

 Sitting in a tree

So we've talked about the unexpected and out-of-nowhere move wherein Bethesda got themselves purchased by Microsoft before, right? Well as you can expect this isn't the sort of news that has just gone and swept itself under the rug never to be spoken about again, but instead become a favourite gossiping point across the Internet. "What could this means?", "How will Microsoft take advantage of this?", "What will be Sony's response?" and "7.5 Billion? Is Bethesda really worth that much!?" But at the end of the day the questions land most prominently on one specific topic: does this mean that Bethesda's library is soon to become exclusive? Well companies are strangely reticent about exclusivity, which I find odd because it's not as though public perception is ever really taken into account through processes like these. They don't make or break exclusivities depending on audience outrage levels so I don't understand why they don't just come and say things so that fans aren't left feeling hopeful for 6 months only to be ultimately disappointed. (If anything, wouldn't knowing in advance encourage people to save up for your console if they are so inclined?) But we have an industry that sustains itself on PR speak and canned statements, so we have to derive our own truths from that.

Firstly, we can go over the facts. Bethesda was bought for 7.5 Billion and that is a whole chunk of change. I know that may seem like a rather empty statement, but I'm just trying to establish for you that at the end of the day everything goes back to that number and how speedily Microsoft want to go around smoothing over that huge hole in their expense accounts. Once again, none of Microsoft or Bethesda's decisions in this matter is driven for the good of the gamer, and the more they tell you that the more they're lying. At best you can say that they hope the gamer's experience will improve through the osmosis of them enriching themselves, but the key drive at the end of the day is making that money back as painlessly as possible. (At least for Microsoft, I suspect Bethesda are just in full party mode right now.) Keep that forever in the back of your mind whenever you hear any discourse on this issue.

With that out of the way, you may have heard that Phil Spencer recently gave an interview with Kotaku in which he was delightfully vague and non-specific about what exactly this ludicrously huge purchase would mean for the future of Bethesda games on other consoles. And this is even when given direct and searching questions, something I usually wouldn't expect the Kotaku folk to be capable of, so you know this is the sort of thing that Phil and Xbox are trying to keep infuriatingly close to their chests. At one point he was even asked if Xbox could recoup that 7.5 Billion without The Elder Scrolls 6 on Playstation. Now this question could have gone a little further and been extended to all future Bethesda titles, which I would usually say is implied but with this interview you'd need to be that specific, but I commend the directness nonetheless. Phil was quick to say "Yes", before launching into a diatribe about how this move "was not done to take games away from another player base like that." But what we heard is interesting.

So according to Phil, Microsoft have considered the possibility of exclusivity and still consider it a viable option, the only question here is if they are willing to hold off on making back their investment as quickly as possible (as personally I believe that a non-exclusivity policy would be quicker) in order to win over some of that market share. Phil assured folk that this wouldn't be about destroying an ecosystem, but I think we all know that can be true at the same time that Microsoft dances on Sony's identical exclusivity policy. I think, as someone who has absolutely no business running a multi-billion dollar tech company, that the choice to go exclusive is as much about building a long term return on investment as it is about recouping at all. If Elder Scrolls VI is enough to drag people to the Xbox side of gaming, and it most certainly would be, then the Head of Xbox would be silly not to pull that switch, damned be those it would upset. But does that make any of this ethical?

Of course not, at least not in my eyes. The Elder Scrolls games have always been something of an event in the gaming world, and it really bothers me to think that soon a majority of the console gaming populace will be barred from it, it just feels wrong. And sure, in their position Sony would be doing exactly that same thing, we wouldn't even be having this "Will they/ won't they" debate, Sony are hardcore about that sort of thing; but two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, I am utterly and morally repulsed at the way that Playstation players seem to think that Dragonborn was the first Skyrim DLC (think about it people, that makes no thematic sense!) but I don't think denying them the ability to play any other Elder Scrolls is the correct response. Although if you ask the people with knowledge of these sorts of deals or merely just look at the way that products are being handled already, it seems the exclusivity train is inevitable.

The first Bethesda related product that we've seen make it's way into light since this purchase has been the Arkane bundle, which looks to package the Dishonoured games and Prey for one simple, incredibly valued, price. This is a collection that is set to hit both current gen consoles, Sony's and Mircosoft's, however it's currently only listed for Xbox Series X in the next generation of consoles. Some have said that this could have been a mistaken listing, but 'Yakuza: like a Dragon' is following that exact same model of next-gen exclusivity so this isn't unprecedented. In this light it could be argued that what Phil actually meant about 'not taking games away' was that they wouldn't take games off of the consoles that they were already on, but that they would be very situational about the consoles that those games than made it too. (Does this have the potential to hurt Nintendo too? Probably not, Nintendo plays second fiddle anyway.)

Unfortunately, I think that one of the driving forces behind this shift that we're seeing towards battle-line exclusivities may be driven by the very factor which makes this upcoming generation so exciting to some; the technological divergence. Previously both of the main consoles were attempting to do the same thing as the other, only better, which made for clear divides as to which console achieved it the best. Last generation it was Playstation, and thus they earned a lot of the accolades and sales that they needed to lead the pack. This generation, however, both consoles (or 'all three', considering Microsoft are releasing 2) have gone off in their own directions making traditional talking points complicated. Marketing departments probably don't know how to divulge the intricacies of their product in a punchy manner and thus efforts shift to something that everyone understands; putting a metaphorical-gun to the consumer's head and demanding they buy your console. (Everyone wins apart from the consumer.)

Now ultimately at the end of the day I prefer Microsoft having exclusivity over Elder Scrolls than Sony for the pure fact that, under Xbox, the game will actually see a PC launch and Elder Scrolls without PC isn't worth it. But I'm still disquiet about the fact that this choice is being made at all. It's like choosing between one's own parents, you hate to do it. In today's age of interconnectivity you'd think that concepts such as 'exclusivity' would be a relic of the past, but I suppose that the streaming age has had it's effect in re-normalising this behaviour in gaming and that sucks. It paints a sour picture for the beginning of this new generation and makes it seem like the proceeding 8 years are going to be defined by constant moments of "Oh great, my favourite game is getting a sequel! -but it's an exclusive to somewhere else so I can't play it..." Isn't that just the future that gaming deserves.