Xbox explains to FTC judge why Halo isn't on PlayStation

News
By Michael Hoglund
published

Because God of War isn't on Xbox

Halo Infinite Disruptor hero image
(Image credit: Xbox Game Studios)

What you need to know

  • Microsoft is currently battling the FTC in U.S. court over its attempt to buy Activision Blizzard, makers of Call of Duty. 
  • The judge asked why Halo isn't on PlayStation, in response to discussions about exclusivity in the console market. 
  • Xbox chief Phil Spencer explained why exactly Halo is exclusive, including reducing costs, in addition to maximizing creativity by adhering to one platform. 

Day 2 of the FTC vs. Microsoft hearing rages on. After the FTC called Xbox lead Phil Spencer to the stand, Microsoft had an opportunity to cross-examine. During said time, Judge Corley had opportunities to ask Spencer specific questions or clarify topics. One such question was asked why Halo wasn't on PlayStation in an effort to understand exclusivity.

Read more

- PlayStation CEO said that it's OK if Xbox buys ABK
- Microsoft heard Starfield might skip Xbox
- MachineGames' Indiana Jones is an Xbox-exclusive title
- Xbox admits defeat in 'console wars'

Spencer explained that in the console space, all the platforms have exclusive games that don't launch on other platforms. "We're at a significant deficit behind the hit quality and number of exclusive games." He also stated that "Halo is much smaller than Call of Duty, Starfield is much smaller than Minecraft." in an attempt to describe the difference in scale of these games.

Phil stated that the major difference between these titles is the player count and the revenue generated from said titles. Minecraft was brought up as an example, where it is their most profitable game. Minecraft has reached a level of financial success where it's a significant profit driver and ships across all platforms. This argument correlates to the view that Call of Duty would be in a similar position and that it would be financially unreasonable to pull it from PlayStation.

Phil added more context, noting that if a game is part of the market with customers on another platform, they want to nurture and grow that. If they're building a new game, they're trying to maximize creativity and reduce costs. This details another difference in games going multiplatform rather than becoming exclusive.

The FTV v Microsoft hearing has been full of beautiful quotes on various topics. They range from Sony's use of Xbox game revenue to Sony's attempt at Starfield exclusivity. Stay tuned for what's bound to be an enjoyable second half of today.

Michael Hoglund
Michael Hoglund
Contributor

Michael has been gaming since he was five when his mother first bought a Super Nintendo from Blockbuster. Having written for a now-defunct website in the past, he's joined Windows Central as a contributor to spreading his 30+ years of love for gaming with everyone he can. His favorites include Red Dead Redemption, all the way to the controversial Dark Souls 2. 

7 Comments Comment from the forums
  • jlzimmerman
    I'm 153% convinced these knucle-draggers are being lobbied by Sony.
    Reply
  • Lurking_Lurker_Lurks
    Looking at all the posts I see now that the FTC is genius. They're being about as intelligent and sophisticated in their court case as the average Twitter discussion that breaks out over the same topics to promote the popcorn industry and keep the market lucrative. Some truly fourth-dimensional chest plays.
    Reply
  • RoguePine
    why MS should explain about Halo's exclusivity? of course it's a business logic like any other company
    does Sony also have to explain about it's hundreds of exclusives? of course not
    why? because he's mama's favorite boy!
    Reply
  • eddieoctane
    Sony's core argument against the Microsoft-Activision deal is literally "but we can't actually compete with Microsoft unless we have more exclusive deals than them."

    That's it. That's the whole of Sony's argument. The only people I see defending Sony say that it's about ensuring Microsoft doesn't take anti-consumer and anti-competitive policies, but that's exactly what Sony does with their timed exclusivity crap.

    I am not a fan of big corporate mergers. Historically, they end up eliminating choice and increasing cost to the consumer. The corporation benefits, and everyone else suffers. That said, Microsoft is simply playing the same game as everyone else. So part of me wants to tell the judge, in a very jingoistic way, that since Microsoft is an American company and Sony is foreign, the judge has to give added benefit to Microsoft by default. And since we're talking about an equal playing field rather than even giving Microsoft in advantage, Sony has no grounds to sue as a foreigner. Sucks to suck, but this is America, and we will prioritize America first, because that's what countries do. They put themselves before non-citizens. That's how they've always worked.

    Why isn't Halo on PlayStation? What kind of an asinine question for a judge to ask. Why isn't super Mario Brothers on Xbox? Why isn't God of War on an Atari? A judge who needs to ask a question like that is so wildly incompetent as to be immediately removed from the bench by a vote of the Senate.
    Reply
  • Thretosix
    eddieoctane said:
    Sony's core argument against the Microsoft-Activision deal is literally "but we can't actually compete with Microsoft unless we have more exclusive deals than them."

    That's it. That's the whole of Sony's argument. The only people I see defending Sony say that it's about ensuring Microsoft doesn't take anti-consumer and anti-competitive policies, but that's exactly what Sony does with their timed exclusivity crap.

    I am not a fan of big corporate mergers. Historically, they end up eliminating choice and increasing cost to the consumer. The corporation benefits, and everyone else suffers. That said, Microsoft is simply playing the same game as everyone else. So part of me wants to tell the judge, in a very jingoistic way, that since Microsoft is an American company and Sony is foreign, the judge has to give added benefit to Microsoft by default. And since we're talking about an equal playing field rather than even giving Microsoft in advantage, Sony has no grounds to sue as a foreigner. Sucks to suck, but this is America, and we will prioritize America first, because that's what countries do. They put themselves before non-citizens. That's how they've always worked.

    Why isn't Halo on PlayStation? What kind of an asinine question for a judge to ask. Why isn't super Mario Brothers on Xbox? Why isn't God of War on an Atari? A judge who needs to ask a question like that is so wildly incompetent as to be immediately removed from the bench by a vote of the Senate.
    It's clear that Sony paid lobbyists to gaslight the FTC to obstruct the ABK acquisition.
    Reply
  • NeoMahi
    You're kidding me, right? MLB The Show has been a PlayStation mainstay for decades. It's developed by Sony San Diego Studio, which is owned by and funded by PlayStation. Remember what happened here? Where was Phil Spencer when MLB insisted The Show be put on Xbox? Did he explain the business to MLB and reject the game based on that principle? No, because Xbox has nothing and can't figure out how to develop games like PlayStation does, he snapped the game up because he wanted PlayStation on Xbox, not only that, because Xbox didn't have to pay anything for the game anyway, they GAVE THE GAME AWAY FOR FREE ON GAME PASS WHILE PLAYSTATION OWNERS HAD TO PAY FULL PRICE FOR GAME. So, Nadella, don't say you don't want console exclusives, Sony was forced to put their game on your competing platform because they were strong-armed into it, Phil Spencer didn't explain that rationale to MLB, instead he gratefully took the opportunity while he could rather than standing by that principle to defend Sony and now PlayStation's biggest baseball franchise in on Xbox because it has to be, there's other licensed MLB baseball games on the market, they're just not as good as Sony's. 2K's Visual Concepts backed out and focused on basketball and WWE instead.

    What a circus. "Whoa is me." You don't want to even play the rules. You play by what SUITS YOU and when IT BENEFITS YOU
    Reply
  • NeoMahi
    Windows Central said:
    Phil Spencer says Halo isn't on PlayStation because exclusives are part of the business, and Halo is a much smaller title than something like Call of Duty.

    Xbox explains to FTC judge why Halo isn't on PlayStation : Read more
    "Don't make me laugh" - Shoa Kahn

    He's not wrong, but answer me this: Who does Sony San Diego Studios belong to? Who develops "MLB The Show" series? Who pays for that development? What happened during the MLB and PlayStation License for The Show? How did Phil Spencer defend console exclusives then and what did he do to keep that sacred? Exactly, he didn't. Spencer wanted something of significant value so much that he did nothing, he didnt explain that same position to the MLB, instead he took a Sony IP and put it on the service that benefited him AND he gave it away for free. You know what he told the MLB? "Putting The Show on Game Pass will introduce a wider audience to Sony games to help Sony" Help Sony what? They don't need Xbox's help, they outsell the Xbox 5:1. Spencer also knew what he was doing giving away a game he paid nothing for while he knew Sony wouldn't put the game as a PS Plus release I don't know, because Sony is in the business of making money. Phil Spencer didn't hold to that principle with The Show, but tried to justify it away, Sony knew better but knew it was the only way to maintain the license. There's other MLB licensed games on the market, it's just that nobody wants to put the effort into making a good game. Visual Concepts (2K Sports) gave up a long time ago and focuses on WWE and NBA now just like EA gave up on basketball and focuses on NHL and Madden. Soccer? I think you still have FIFA and PES.

    So you see, Phil Spencer plays by the rules when they best serve him
    Reply