With Sony CEO Jim Ryan addressing the Xbox exclusivity of the highly anticipated game Starfield, the debate over console exclusivity has reached a new peak. Now that Microsoft owns Bethesda, the major game studio working on Starfield, the game can only be played on Xbox One.
Some have likened this to Sony’s decision to make all Spider-Man games PlayStation exclusives. Recently, Xbox CEO Phil Spencer brought this up, wondering why Sony is never criticized for doing the same thing. This article explores the debated topic of console exclusivity from multiple angles.
Jim Ryan’s Thoughts On Exclusivity
Microsoft’s purchase of Bethesda, developer of classics like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout, was a seismic event in the video game industry. Concerns were raised about the future availability of Bethesda games on rival platforms following the acquisition.
Suggested Article: Godfather of Anime Hayao Miyazaki Not Happy With Studio Ghibli Not Marketing His Final Movie: “Wonder if it’ll be okay without publicity”
The announcement that Bethesda’s upcoming game Starfield would be Xbox-exclusive put those concerns to rest. The decision sparked a wave of debate about the effects of gaming industry exclusivity on consumers and competition.
Xbox CEO Phil Spencer brought up Sony’s strategy with the Spider-Man games amid the debate over Starfield’s exclusivity. Sony, however, does not own the Spider-Man video game license; that honor goes to Marvel. Sony, Insomniac Games, and Marvel have collaborated to make the Spider-Man games for the PlayStation platforms.
Sony secured an exclusive title for the PlayStation platform thanks to this partnership, and the critically acclaimed Marvel’s Spider-Man was launched exclusively for the PlayStation 4 in 2018.
Although Jim Ryan doesn’t like that Starfield is only available on Xbox consoles, he doesn’t think Microsoft’s policy is anti-competitive. Ryan stressed that he has no problem with exclusive titles as a differentiating factor during his video deposition for the ongoing FTC/Microsoft trial.
“I don’t like it but I don’t view it as anticompetitive,”
He had similar things to say about Redfall, another Bethesda game that was also an Xbox console exclusive. Despite his preference for a more inclusive approach, Ryan appreciates the value of exclusive titles in differentiating and attracting players to specific platforms.
Also Read: RoboCop: Rogue City is Free-to-Play from Monday!
Xbox Vs. PlayStation: The Case-by-Case Argument
Xbox has been criticized for its exclusive content deals, so Phil Spencer’s defense of Sony’s Spider-Man game exclusivity is illuminating. In his argument, he expresses that Microsoft has felt “it’s necessary for us to secure ownership of more content” so that they “can have more input…”
“With a competitor who’s paying third parties to skip our platform, we’ve felt it’s necessary for us to secure ownership of more content, so we can have more input into that content on our platform and in our subscription. ZeniMax is a great example that.”
The fact that Xbox is taking a case-by-case approach to exclusivity with the upcoming Indiana Jones game lends credence to this theory. Interesting questions about industry double standards are raised when Sony’s Spider-Man games and Xbox’s Starfield are compared.
Why should Xbox face criticism for striking similar exclusivity deals if Sony can do it with blockbuster properties like Spider-Man? Undoubtedly, players are impacted by console exclusivity, especially if they don’t own the platform on which the game is released.
Players frustrated at being kept from playing highly anticipated games may be prompted to switch platforms or buy additional consoles. Because of this, players have less freedom of choice and fewer options for expanding their gaming experiences.
There is still much debate about whether or not consoles should be exclusive, and the comparison between Sony’s Spider-Man exclusivity and Xbox’s Starfield exclusivity only adds fuel to the fire.
Source: IGN
