Rumors say Final Fantasy 7 Remake is coming to Xbox in 2025 — as more Xbox games head to PS5 and Nintendo

Ron-F said:

Consoles are becoming more expensive and Spencer already hinted the next generation may release with a full price, without subsidies. As such, I would expect most gamers will not have multiple consoles. In this case, why one would choose Xbox over Switch or PlayStation? The best thing Xbox can offer is Gamepass. However, if the service is not your cup of tea, you’ll be better served by Nintendo or Sony. I’m not confident in the future of Xbox consoles.

And you don't think GamePass is a compelling exclusive all its own?

Look at the rumor of that dozen or so XBOX games coming this year: if you want to sample all of them on PlayStation you're talking over $800. Or $240 on XBOX. That's about 3 games worth.

More, you can play all those games (and 500 others) for that same amount on existing consoles. And last gen consoles. The newer ones you won't even need a console.

All the focus on the (soon to be over-priced) boxes forgets the interests of the developers. And when you add up all the XBOX consoles plus PCs and the streaming customers, the Xbox ecosystem might very well be bigger than Sony's. Developing for XBOX is targeting the *bigger* customer base. If not now, soon. And remember it takes five+ years to develop a game. Developers have to target the world of 2030, not 2020. If they're not careful, they can end up with a CONCORD or VEILGUARD.

We are in a time of transition from the hardware-driven model to the ecosystem model. The driver is the economics of gaming not Spencer, Bond, or Nadella. They're just the ones who saw it coming ten years ago and started to position themselves for the new era.

And at the end of the transition, the dominant ecosystem will be whichever gets there "firstest with the mostest" right now, that looks to be XBOX.
100 studios.
20+ Live service games.
Deepest library.
Broadest IP scope.
And broadest range of supported entry points.

How many of those does Sony claim?
Unless they change and fast they will be an afterthought in the battles between Tencent, XBOX, and STREAM BY 2030.

Regardless of what does or doesn't go multiplatform, Xbox hardware's only real issue is looking weaker than it's competition. Playstation similarly has less exclusives than as the majority of the platform's exclusives have always been third party games, and many of those (arguably the best) have all started to pursue multiplatform releases day one. Xbox hardware factually has more support, as in more game franchises that were formerly exclusive to other platforms, than ever before. A surprisingly big fuss was made over Bethesda and ABK as if those aren't publishers they bought which had been mostly multiplatform prior (well not surprising; Phil Spencer very vocally announced one strategy of exclusivity and has since pivoted to another). When Sony purchased Bungie (the closest purchase to them buying a publisher), they similarly didn't impose of Bungie's multiplatform release strategy. In terms of first party exclusives, Xbox factually can't even lose as any first party exclusives as they've already gained in third party exclusives (plus MLB the show). The "Xbox has no games" brigade doesn't really have a leg to stand on anymore, so they've pivoted to "most Xbox games are on/going to other platforms" which is likely true but what is left blind is that this is true of all platforms. Without their third party exclusives all of a sudden Sony's own first party game output is pitiful. Regardless of the fact the vast, vast majority of all games on each platform are third party and they're the vast majority of what people spend their time and money in.

What Xbox has failed to do, ever since they first started day one PC for first party, is rewrite this narrative that exclusives matter at all. What should be selling console hardware is the console itself and the gaming experience you get within that ecosystem. Again, most games that most people play are on every platform. Again, Xbox has more games than ever including more former exclusives from other consoles. Xbox (Microsoft) marketing has to focus on WHY people should want to use their platform for their hardware and ecosystem, and not for the privelege to play XYZ first party game. They've never really even tried to do this. For example, as digital takes over an ecosystem wherein your owned game library follows you across console, cloud, and PC (and maybe mobile down the line) is peak. You'd think this would be the focus of the "this is an Xbox" campaign and it kinda is if you read the blog posts. The campaign itself doesn't make it clear that the ecosystem puts you at the center and gives you control over your library. Most gamers on console don't even experience free cloud saves (neither PS nor Nintendo have it), so swapping between devices that probably didn't click.

A big part of the problem was that Xbox themselves were advancing the idea that exclusives sell consoles up until 2024. It was reiterated when Zenimax closed and they used it as the crux of their argument during the very public ABK court case. It was stated that Microsoft doesn't like that method of competition, but it was never stated that they intended to change it. Even in the damage control fireside chat, the Xbox execs did NOT to display the dwindling importance of console exclusives or to present Xbox's own success in pulling over many MANY games that were formerly exclusive on other platforms. They just did damage control and gave some fairly hollow words. Xbox 100% can survive making all their first party games multiplatform, because that's an archaic form of competition that the gaming industry as a whole has evolved past, but none of that matters if they don't make that clear. Xbox has always had god awful marketing and Microsoft even worse messaging, and now it is really biting them in the butt. Stagnating console sales are a failure of the market, but Xbox Series sales looking like they'll stop short of the Xbox One is a complete failure of Xbox marketing. They aren't actually taking the time to say "why Xbox" and they certainly aren't putting in the necessary work to rewrite the narrative of how consoles compete to coincide with their multiplatform strategy. Again this isn't even a new issue. They had the same problem with day one PC and have NEVER done anything about it. Like they give more focus to day one PC, more than they do Xbox Play Anywhere. That's a problem.

In my eyes consoles have utterly failed to present themselves as a desirable product. Up to this point they've presented the games they give you the privelege of buying and playing as a desirable product. (Arguments could be made for the Switch and other such console hardware which specifically used unique hardware as a selling point). I see that as a failure of the console market in general and why they really have struggled to take off. Additionally, I think the walled gardens to the point that games aren't even always available on next gen hardware in the same ecosystem have turned people off. As have the lack of basic features like cloud saves. And all of these are issues Xbox has addressed, and yet never really markets. Why not do some campaigns with all the generations of games natively on Xbox with auto improvements? Why not do a campaign with all the former exclusives that for the first time are on Xbox day one? Why not do a campaign about cloud saves and how the Xbox ecosystem is the only one remotely close to being ubiquitous across console, cloud, and PC. Xbox even has the benefit of having a handheld (many handhelds) that can play all first party games with cross progression day one because of this, and an increasing number of third party games with Xbox Play Anywhere. The Xbox One had the right idea, so why didn't it actually market it? Why did it price itself at higher than its competition of it was trying to appeal to brand new gamers without any console? All the Xbox One managed to do is turn the Xbox brand into a joke by alienating the gamers they had and failing to market to anyone new. We're at a similar crossroads where Microsoft will only fail Xbox hardware if they fail with marketing & messaging.

fjtorres5591 said:

And you don't think GamePass is a compelling exclusive all its own?

Look at the rumor of that dozen or so XBOX games coming this year: if you want to sample all of them on PlayStation you're talking over $800. Or $240 on XBOX. That's about 3 games worth.

More, you can play all those games (and 500 others) for that same amount on existing consoles. And last gen consoles. The newer ones you won't even need a console.

All the focus on the (soon to be over-priced) boxes forgets the interests of the developers. And when you add up all the XBOX consoles plus PCs and the streaming customers, the Xbox ecosystem might very well be bigger than Sony's. Developing for XBOX is targeting the *bigger* customer base. If not now, soon. And remember it takes five+ years to develop a game. Developers have to target the world of 2030, not 2020. If they're not careful, they can end up with a CONCORD or VEILGUARD.

We are in a time of transition from the hardware-driven model to the ecosystem model. The driver is the economics of gaming not Spencer, Bond, or Nadella. They're just the ones who saw it coming ten years ago and started to position themselves for the new era.

And at the end of the transition, the dominant ecosystem will be whichever gets there "firstest with the mostest" right now, that looks to be XBOX.
100 studios.
20+ Live service games.
Deepest library.
Broadest IP scope.
And broadest range of supported entry points.

How many of those does Sony claim?
Unless they change and fast they will be an afterthought in the battles between Tencent, XBOX, and STREAM BY 2030.

Gamepass offers fantastic value, but I don’t have time to enjoy it. I like long games and usually take a completionist approach. I play three or four big games in a year and thus I would rather pay a little more to choose the ones I will try.

I still like Game Pass and the value Microsoft is offering in its ecosystem, whereas I think Sony and Nintendo are pretty much after every penny they can get from their customers.

However, without exclusives, GamePass is the only thing Microsoft can offer to attract customers. Consoles are becoming very expensive and you can always stream GamePass to your TV, thus I don’t think Xbox will be the console of choice to most players.

Jez Corden said:

"A year ago, you were saying the same thing about Starfield and Forza Horizon 5, and nothing! By throwing out game names randomly, maybe one out of ten false rumors will be true."

please find where I said this. i never reported here that starfield or forza horizon 5 is coming to playstation (altho I personally believe they are). i was actually the one of the first people to report the specific games going multiplatform. i also said microsoft/squeenix would reveal pixel remasters at tokyo game show and they did.

i never said they wont have a production lead in exclusives. and I dont have time frames for how long games will be exclusive, so im not reporting it. if, like you say, im just making **** up, why wouldn't I make that up? you just dont like to face the realities here. you're arguing against things I didn't really say. im confused.

First of all, thank you @Jez Corden for your feedback and sorry if I can be a bit harsh, and I know I have been! Faced with the prevailing caricature and misinterpretations, it's just that you took a bit for everyone.

But that doesn't take away from what I say in the background, you may not have explicitly said that Starfield or Forza Horizon 5 were going to fall on other consoles but you supported it or didn't contradict it when others said it. And the proof, we understand well that this is what you think and you just confirmed it. It's normal that we understand this when you say repeatedly "without exclusives", "no longer exclusive games", it validates everything else.

The main point I want to raise is the simplification and caricature that is made when you say "any Xbox game that is capable of making a good return on investment from going multiplatform absolutely will". This is a point on which I totally disagree. By saying this, you are actually saying that Xbox has a short-term logic based solely on this simple criterion. Whereas since Xbox has existed, all the choices that have been made have always been made in a long-term logic, this was again confirmed recently by Phil Spencer, and it is surely thanks to this that Xbox still exists today and that its future looks bright. A long-term logic necessarily involves the combination of several parameters such as branding, hardware, game profitability, the attractiveness of Xbox services and ecosystem, support for development studios, etc. a reflection and choices much more subtle than you suggest, a balance and a compromise to be found which is manifested for example in the choice to make a game multiplatform or not, and if so how long after, in the choice to keep a game exclusive or not( totally exclusive, short timed exclusie, long timed exclusive, ...) because other parameters have more weight than the simple short-term search for immediate profitability.

You said "I never said they won't have a production lead in exclusives". This raises another problem which is the interpretation of what you say. If you think Xbox will keep a "production lead in exclusives", that's not really what transpires from your various statements. Why not talk about it more clearly and explicitly to better convey your point on this subject? Why not list all the exclusive games released in 2024 (first and third party) and which will be released in 2025? However, there are more exclusive games than multiplatform games (especially if we exclude games already historically multiplatform like Doom, COD, etc....). Why not say that the number of new exclusive licenses that have been released is more important than the 4 small games last year. Why not say that it is important for Xbox to keep a balance between exclusive games and multiplatform games?

The other problem is that you leave too much room for interpretation: when you say for example "I can corroborate independently with our own sources that everything above is most likely true", "most likely", and we don't really know what you're talking about in the end.

I quote: "If all of this is true — and always take rumors with a pinch of salt, as plans can change — Microsoft will probably" so we have 2 conditions (if it's true and if plans don't change) and 1 "probably", basically, if I summarize, we don't know much.

The other problem is the media treatment that is done behind. Because all these "if", "probably", "most likely", etc... disappear, all that remains are certainties and misinterpretations of what you say in the end. There for once, it's not entirely your fault, it's the media, but here is what we can read, Jez Corden claims that Xbox will become full third-party publishers, Jez Corden says that Xbox will bring all its games to PlayStation, etc...

But at some point, if that's the caricatured summary of what you say, maybe it's also that the initial message lacks clarity, right?

I quote you again "What remains to be seen is how Xbox hardware can survive no longer having exclusive games as a selling point", look at what you say! "no longer have exclusives", You say that as if it were already a reality already in place. Look at how much this kind of statement is totally out of step with the current reality, basically you attach more importance to your future assumptions (which must be surrounded by lots of "if") rather than to the present and concrete reality.

Also look at how much you contradict yourself, on the one hand you say "I never said they won't have a production lead in exclusives" and on the other hand you say "no longer having exclusive games".

Do you find that clear? This marks the transition to my last point, it is often said that Xbox is not clear in its communication, etc... but what about the "insiders" and other "opportunistic commentators", who ultimately create confusion? is it really Xbox's fault?

To return to your last point, I see reality very well, there is indeed a general trend towards more multiplatform games in the video game sector in general, from manufacturers and third-party publishers, it is undeniable. But that doesn't mean there isn't a desire from manufacturers to keep a share of exclusive games as is factually the case. And to say "no longer having exclusive games", at the current rate, I don't see that happening before several generations of consoles and all that remains very uncertain.

I see reality very well, because I simply base myself on the facts, the past, the present and also the present investments that are made which are mainly focused on the PC, the cloud, gaming operating systems, hardware, mobile, TV, handled consoles, gamepass, basically towards the Xbox ecosystem. This ecosystem revolves around a common point, gamepass! Do competing consoles have gamepass? No! Are they part of the Xbox ecosystem? No! Are competing consoles a priority? No!

And exclusive games are part of the Xbox ecosystem, you seem to believe that Xbox is too stupid not to realize that completely stopping exclusive games would be a mistake for the attractiveness of the Xbox ecosystem. Of course they know it, and it has been confirmed several times. Just look at the evolution of the number of exclusive games. With the increase in the number of Xbox studios, Xbox has both more multiplatform games AND also more exclusive games than before, why not keep the best of both worlds?

Even Indiana Jones is a good example of the importance of exclusive games. Indy is a Disney license and was already planned to be multiplatform before the acquisition. It was Xbox that wanted to keep a level of exclusivity, and they found the compromise of this temporary exclusivity, which proves that it is important!

Why sign exclusivity contracts with third parties like Stalker 2, if exclusive games are not important to them, as you say? It doesn't make sense!

If I'm wrong in interpreting your words, despite the fact that you repeatedly cite "without exclusive games", "no longer exclusive" etc... I think you should question yourself by clarifying your point, being more nuanced, making fewer assumptions, being more pragmatic, taking more into account Xbox's long-term logic, not taking Xbox for idiots, basing yourself more on the reality of the facts rather than on uncertain future assumptions, paying attention to how it can be interpreted outside and on the consequences.

@kdawg :
An exclusive game is an exclusive game, no matter what. For many players, Final Fantasy or Death Stranding are PlayStation games, but that's not the case.

Regarding your other examples, they are all bad. Indy, as I explained, Indy is a bad example; it has never been exclusive. Doom is the same; it has always been multiplatform. The same goes for Outer Worlds. So apart from these 4 games, there is nothing left (2 very old GAAS and 2 little games)!

They may consider making some games multiplatform, yes, that's obvious. But to predict the end of exclusives in 2025 or even in the near future is a big step that I wouldn't take. One does not prevent the other.

For the Switch, it is a great opportunity for Xbox to port several of their historically multiplatform games to this platform. There is a lot to do. Moreover, Xbox has committed to bringing Call of Duty to the Switch. This will allow Xbox to further support its development studios, offer great games on Game Pass, and continue to provide exclusive games to the Xbox ecosystem.

Everything is a matter of balance.