Can "no red lines" live alongside "case by case basis"? That's what some Xbox fans are asking today. A new interviewed poured some fresh intrigue onto the ongoing controversy of Xbox's multiplatform games strategy, codenamed "Latitude."
Earlier in 2024, Microsoft revealed that it planned to bring Sea of Thieves, Pentiment, Grounded, and Hi-Fi Rush to arch-rival PlayStation. At the time, Microsoft said the plans were for those four games only, until it wasn't. This past summer, it was revealed rather unceremoniously that Xbox's big console exclusive for the winter, Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, was in fact not exclusive at all. The game is coming to PlayStation in the Spring of 2025, with many wondering if this hints at further 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.
Speaking with Variety, Xbox's games lead Matt Booty offered a statement that some have taken to be contradictory, based on Xbox CEO Phil Spencer's recent comments about "red lines."
Xbox fans are scrambling to figure out what these below statements mean for a variety of reasons. And sure, some just seek more console war fodder, treating PlayStation vs. Xbox as some kind of sport. However, others are concerned about what it could mean for their Xbox game libraries long term. If Xbox gives way to PlayStation vacuuming up its market share on console, what would happen to all that digital content Microsoft has locked us into? Google took a write-down and refunded customers to the tune of millions of dollars on Stadia's closure. Will Xbox be in a position to refund customers billions of dollars if Xbox were to close down? Likely not. So, for customers to have a vested interest in Xbox's direction makes total and complete pragmatic sense.
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.
Get the Windows Central Newsletter
All the latest news, reviews, and guides for Windows and Xbox diehards.
So for fun, let's try and read the tea leaves on Matt Booty's comments.
"We are very much making the [exclusivity and windowing] decisions on a game by game basis," Matt Booty said. As noted, this isn't out of step with what Microsoft has previously said. But is it taking Spencer's "red lines" comment out of step? I'd say no.
The "case by case" reality isn't so much because of some philosophical red or green line, but more so the real-world reality that many of Microsoft's teams are just not set up for simultaneous multiplatform development — at least yet. Many of them don't have PlayStation dev kits, many of them don't have the personnel, or even a relationship with Sony. Ports will likely still happen, but it'll be after the fact. For many studios (at least for now), simultaneous multiplatform development is not in the budget, and that's what Matt Booty is describing here.
Booty explains. "And each of our studios is in a little bit of a different position. There’s also the production timeline on a game, so the decision on spacing comes there first. We want to make sure there’s a great experience for our Xbox players. And then the gap between [when it becomes available on PlayStation] is as much a production decision as it is anything else. [Indiana Jones] was a game that was in production before we acquired Bethesda, even."
In an algorithmic world where hype drives trending content which thus drives conversation, having your content available in as many places as possible is desirable for creators. Cutting through the zeitgeist is almost as important as making a good game from the outset, especially when competition for dwindling playtime hours has become so ferocious. Multiplatform game companies simply have a huge advantage, which is why companies like Square Enix and others have moved away from platform exclusivity.
Reading the green tea leaves
When Microsoft initially acquired Bethesda, the firm spoke up about how the acquisition was about exclusives, and reiterated as much under oath during the Activision-Blizzard trials. Starfield has thus far been Xbox exclusive, but Bethesda and its subsidiary studios are historically multi-platform teams. Focusing on one platform has its benefits, particularly for a platform holder like Xbox, who isn't ready to abandon home console hardware just yet. But, like Indiana Jones, Starfield likely will eventually make its way to PlayStation, even if it's not confirmed just yet.
Other teams at Microsoft have historically never brought games to PlayStation. So would either need to invest in that expertise internally, or get port studios involved. It's not as expensive as it once was to port games between platforms, now that everything is on an x86 structure underneath, but it's still no trivial task. There's platform considerations to make, legal and contractual obligations to check, retail relationships to set in stone, and so on. There are tons of moving parts when it comes to building games, and that invokes costs — even when bringing games to 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.
So in essence, how I'm interpreting the situation is thus: there are no philosophical red lines at a high level over what games could be considered for a multiplatform version in the future. But, there are short-term case-by-case production realities that could prevent studios from hitting PlayStation day and date, whether the reasons be budgetary, logistical — or perhaps even strategic.
TOPICS
Xbox Series XXbox Series SCATEGORIES
XboxGaming
Jez Corden
Executive Editor
Jez Corden is the Executive Editor at Windows Central, focusing primarily on all things Xbox and gaming. Jez is known for breaking exclusive news and analysis as relates to the Microsoft ecosystem while being powered by tea. Follow on Twitter (X) and Threads, and listen to his XB2 Podcast, all about, you guessed it, Xbox!
8 CommentsComment from the forums
- fjtorres5591
Both statements can be true at the same time, y'know?
Combined, all they mean is that every game is individually evaluated, case by case, for its potential exclusivity vs multiplatform value proposition, with no upfront guarantee or mandate.
The decision doesn't have to be all or nothing.And if you look at the existing catalog, it isn't.XBOX has multiplatform games and exclusive games in their catalog and their roadmap. It is truly game by game, which is exactly what Spencer said waaayyy back when they bought ZENIMAX.
Xbox hasn't really changed their position, except perhaps, extending the Spencer rules to all studios and properties.
Try this as an example of their thinking: what is the value of shipping Forza on Playstation when they already have Gran Turismo established there? Is there enough of a difference that you could reasonably expect good sales?
Conversely, Playstation fans often wish Sony had something like Halo; an online SF shooter *community* centered on the Forge. What value might offering the Master chief collection provide? Or, Halo Infinite? What's the downside?
Or Halo 6? Maybe you do the MC collection but not INFINITE or Halo 6.
The classic example is over at Bethesda: Starfield is a totally new IP and community centered around modding. It is performing adequately on XBOX and PC and offers a point of differentiation for the Console. As long as exclusives matter (somewhat) there is some value in exclusivity. If the values change, the game status might change.
In contrast, Elder Scrolls is already established on Playstation and Switch so they know what kind of return they can get from doing ES6 as multiplatform vs XBOX/PC only. And how much exclusivity would cost in actual dollars. And as long as Starfield is exclusive, ELDER SCROLLS and FALLOUT don't *have* to be.
You eat the cake and have it too.
Obsidian has a similar scenario: OUTER WORLDS is multiplatform but the PILLARS OF ETERNITY IP isn't. So AVOWED isn't required to be multiplatform. Ditto for WASTELAND. You're not depriving anybody of something they are used to. There is a cost but there is value, too.
All MS is saying is they are flexible.They have to protect their console community because it brings in good money but that protection doesn't demand they cut off existing revenue streams. That makes no business sense.
Well run businesses are not absolutists.Not all black or all white, but gray; a mix of both.Adults understand this.(Sony? Not so much, apparently.)
And for some reason I will not speculate on, the gaming media willfully ignores this.
Reply
- fatpunkslim
@fjtorres5591 exactly, i Can't agree more ! Jez Corden is sometimes binary in his way of thinking (sorry @Jez Corden if you read this). However, Matt Booty is just repeating what Phil Spencer has been saying for months. Case by case, it's very simple to understand! It means exclusive games, temporary exclusive games, and multiplatform games. Nothing new!
No red lines never meant that everything would be multiplatform. And "case by case" means that exclusive games are important! Otherwise, they wouldn't be asking the question! Even the latest annual report confirmed that exclusive games are important. It's strange that some continue to sow doubt when Xbox keeps saying the same thing.
Moreover, multiplatform games are essentially historically multiplatform games, Xbox just continued to do as before, that's all! Although, there are a few exceptions like Hellblade 2, which is an exclusive game while Hellblade 1 was multiplatform. This exception confirms this case-by-case strategy, as even multiplatform games can become exclusive.
In the end, there are only 4 games that have become multiplatform, which is very few. The case of Indiana Jones is a special case because Disney and it was already planned to be multiplatform before the acquisition, if my information is correct (FTC). And I think a compromise was found between Xbox and Disney to make the game only temporarily exclusive.
But anyway, the fact is that most new licenses are exclusive and most multiplatform games remain multiplatform, these are just facts, the rest is just assumptions and misinformation, which only affects those who want to believe it, and we know who we're talking about (not Xbox players anyway).
Xbox simply does not put all its eggs in one basket with this multi-faceted strategy: Xbox consoles, PC, cloud, Game Pass, mobile, exclusive games, multiplatform games. To maintain a sustainable Xbox ecosystem over time, this is the right strategy. Thanks to this strategy, Xbox is now more profitable than PlayStation, which has focused too much on consoles for very low profitability. PS is now making a shift towards PC, service games and remasters to gain profitability. We also see that PlayStation makes very few games, and most of their exclusive games come from third-party publishers. The problem with this is that third-party publishers, with the current situation on game industry, cannot stick to just one platform, just look at Square Enix or practically all publishers in the end. The result is that today, PlayStation has fewer and fewer exclusive games and "strangely" Xbox is getting more former PlayStation exclusive games than the other way around: Death Stranding (then Death Stranding 2), Nioh, the Yakuza series, the Persona series, Kena, Sifu, Forspoken, etc....
It's still strange that some maintain this narrative when reality shows the opposite, Xbox has never attracted so many publishers, Xbox has never had so many games, exclusive or not, and the Xbox ecosystem is getting better every day with exclusive features like Play Anywhere, cross-save (Steam, Xbox, PC), varied games, games that are increasing in quality. You can't be happier than an Xbox player today with all the advantages we have. If you are a PC player, it's very good too, you have access to the best of all worlds...
But don't forget that a PC player is an Xbox player ;).
Reply
- TLrider67
I game on xbox first, but also own a ps5. I wouldn't mind if Microsoft exclusives were timed, 6 months to a year. It would definitely help with dev costs. If you want to play these games day one, at a cheaper price with gamepass, get an xbox. If not, just wait on the ps5 release.
Reply
- fjtorres5591
fatpunkslim said:
@fjtorres5591 exactly, i Can't agree more ! Jez Corden is sometimes binary in his way of thinking (sorry Jez if you read this). However, Matt Booty is just repeating what Phil Spencer has been saying for months. Case by case, it's very simple to understand! It means exclusive games, temporary exclusive games, and multiplatform games. Nothing new!fatpunkslim said:
But don't forget that a PC player is an Xbox player ;).And an XBOX player is an entry level PC game player. 😎People forget the XBOXes have developer mode for $20. You can do...interesting...things that way. Retrogaming is most common but I wouldn't be Surprised to see somebody figuring out how to get SteamOS on XBOX dev mode.
People get XBOXes because they can't or don't want to pay PC gaming hardware money. I doubt I'm the only XBOX gamer who got an XBOX because it was cheaper than upgrading their PC video card. (For me it was MORROWIND, which I played for a year straight. Then OBLIVION. Then SKYRIM.)
Don't look now, but INDIANA JONES *requires* a video card with Ray Tracing hardware and (prefers) 12 GB VRAM. The new INTEL cards fit the bill at $250 but how many players are ready to abandon AMD or NVIDIA for Intel cards just now?
Meanwhile, the SS can do 1080P/60 stably for $250-300. And the SX can do 1800P/60 and both upscale nicely to 4K. And it is a steady 60fps, not 60FPS except when it drops to 40 or 30. $400-450 gets you in the door for the SX .
Machine Games did a great job. And funny how the SS didn't hold them back, huh?(The game is great, BTW. Better than the last two movies. The gameplay has been compared to RIDDICK: BUTCHER BAY but I also get DISHONORED and BREAKDOWN vibes.)
As to HELLBLADE, the game is niche and even though the first sold reasonably well, it wasn't and isn't a big seller. Any lost revenue was and will be made up in game Pass engagement because of its quality and reputation. Precisely the kind of tradeoff analysis that "game by game" entails.
Maximizing revenue is not a matter of blunt yes or no choices but of subtle details. Things like how does the platform user base skew. XBOX has always been the goto for WRPGs but Playstation got the bulk of the JRPGs through certain financial "incentives" 🤔. Similarly XBOX has never lacked the premiere shooters but Sony shines in single player one-and-done third person action games. (Might explain why Indiana Jones is 99% first person.)
This kind of flexibility is essential, given the way gaming is trending.The games are expensive to build, take forever to get out, and may not make a splash during the launch window.
It's hard to let go of dated paradigms but in times of disruption and change it is essential to survive to say nothing of prosper.
Reply
- fatpunkslim
Just to add another layer, this multi-faceted strategy is just business in the end. It's like a good recipe, it needs to be balanced, there are many things to consider. Some games are not profitable to be ported to other consoles, some games have more interest in staying exclusive for the attractiveness of the Xbox ecosystem, Game Pass, Xbox consoles, etc. There are already many historically multiplatform games like Call of Duty, Doom, Diablo that have real revenue potential by being multiplatform and are not really attached to the Xbox image. Other games, on the contrary, like Forza Horizon, Halo, Gears, Fable, Perfect Dark, State of Decay, etc. that are really attached to the Xbox image have more interest in staying exclusive for the attractiveness of the ecosystem.
It's funny to see that no major Xbox license has been released on PlayStation. On the other hand, Death Stranding, which is a game really very attached to the PlayStation image, which is a major PlayStation license for the majority of players, ends up on Xbox. Strangely, there is not the same type of reactions (even if it made a bit of noise and caused some rage among PS fanboys). Oh yes, it's a third-party publisher, it doesn't count! Precisely, that's the main problem of PlayStation, most of their exclusives are from third-party publishers and they don't have infinite control over them. It doesn't change the fact that in the end, first party or third party, it remains in any case a PlayStation exclusive that goes to Xbox, and as already said, there are many more in this direction than the other way around.
Reply
- fjtorres5591
More important to the Playstation community is MLB THE SHOW.The first indisputable sign of the changing times was when MLB demanded the game go day and date multi or they'd take the license away.
The 4 games MS put on PlayStation were clear tests:SEA OF THIEVES live serviceGROUNDED optional multiplayerHI FI RUSH japanese single playerPENTIMENT small RPG
Clearly testing the waters.No signature IP in the lot.
Of the XBOX franchises, FORZA HORIZON is a candidate: online multiplayer and different from whatever PlayStation has.
HALO and GEARS may be high profile but COD owns the PlayStation shooter space. No great need to bring those folks into the Halo or Gears communities so art most they might get single player campaign collections.
PERFECT DARK? No shortage of single player third person games over there.
Really, the existing franchises milk the Sony fanbase enough.
The real opportunities lie outside the console space.
Pachter recently estimated that with cloud on mobile and Samsung TV, MS has an addressable market of 1 billion potential customers vs at most 100M from other consoles. If they get xcloud on other TV brands, that goes up to 3billion.
That's why cloud is so important: its the new frontier.
Btw, I recently got a preferences survey from XBOX and their questions about cloud referred to it as xcloud to distinguish it from GeForce now. They aren't ignoring it, they just aren't ready to activate the brand, probably waiting to use XCLOUD for the standalone cloud service.
Reply
- ferlucio
How is that a controversy when Sony literally is still keeping Bloodborne hostage?
Reply
- GraniteStateColin
I don't see any difference between the phrases "no red lines" and "game-by-game basis." To me, those are literal synonyms. There are subtly different connotations that would matter from a marketing perspective, but as I think we all agree, that's something that MS is notoriously bad at managing. Therefore, in MS speak, there is no difference between those two terms.
Both terms mean that some games will remain Xbox exclusive and some will not. It seems self-evident that, absent their announcing a specific line delineating which will be in which camp (a "red line," if you will), of course they are going to decide on a game-by-game basis.
How else would they decide? And if they had a rule to answer that question, then that rule would be the red line.
Synonyms.
Reply
Show more comments