Microsoft has acknowledged that its decision not to bringStarfieldand other Bethesda games to PlayStation will lead to millions of sales being missed out on. The as-yet-unconcluded court case between Microsoft and the United States Federal Trade Commission has led to some very interesting testimony regarding past and future Xbox exclusivity plans. That testimony reveals that Microsoft believes that 10 million sales will be missed out on betweenStarfieldand MachineGames’Indiana Jones, alone.
Theacquisition of Activision Blizzardremains in a somewhat tenuous position at the moment. The FTC’s court case seeking an injunction to delay the merger, which would force Microsoft to renegotiate and could effectively kill the merger, continues in appeals though it’s unlikely to succeed. Meanwhile, Microsoft’s biggest hurdle remains working out a deal with UK regulators to allow the merger to go through. The exclusivity of Activision Blizzard games remains an uncertainty, as PlayStation and Xbox users continue to ponder just what that might mean for the future.
RELATED:Bethesda Exec Explains Why Starfield Being Xbox Exclusive Is a Good Thing
A document detailing testimony from Xbox CFO Tim Stuart provides some insight into just how important exclusivity for Xbox is, and at what cost it comes. Stuart was said to have acknowledged that followingMicrosoft’s acquisition of ZeniMax in 2020it evaluated the cost of exclusivity for certain Bethesda games. Its conclusion was that, if Xbox released bothStarfieldandIndiana Joneson PlayStation, the two games would accrue an additional 10 million in sales.
Perhaps even more shocking is that Microsoft saw those forecasted sales numbers and believed exclusivity was still the better option. Stuart said that Microsoft believed it would make up for those lost sales throughincreased Xbox console sales and Game Pass. That should make clear just how profitable Microsoft sees exclusivity to be for recently-acquired studios' new games. In other words, Microsoft very likely sees a huge upside in the possibility of takingCall of Dutyexclusive.
The FTC’s framing of Stuart’s comments alleges that Microsoft’s plans to make games exclusive, and the possibility of making Activision Blizzard games exclusive, is anti-competitive. However, documents revealed in the trial have shown thatPlayStation boss Jim Ryandidn’t viewStarfieldbecoming exclusive as “anti-competitive,” which undercuts the FTC’s point. Exclusivity has been looked at as a competitive practice through the years.
While US courts have sided with Microsoft and against the FTC up to this point, that doesn’t necessarily make thepossibility of Xbox-exclusive Activision Blizzard gamesany more attractive to PlayStation gamers. Competitive or not, millions of PlayStation players are going to have to consider purchasing a PC or an Xbox to playStarfield, and likelyIndiana Jonesas well.Call of Dutyand other Activision Blizzard games are seemingly likely to follow that path eventually, too.
Starfieldreleases September 6 on PC and Xbox Series X/S.
