A Small Percentage Of Skyrim’s Sales Were On Non-Microsoft Platforms; Its Sequel Will Be Microsoft Exclusive
from the to-spite-your-face dept
So, the fact that Microsoft would be taking the next game in the Elder Scrolls series, the 6th game, to Xbox and PC exclusively isn’t the world’s biggest surprise. Xbox chief Phil Spencer made waves back in 2021 (before all the drama surrounding Microsoft’s future acquisition of Activision Blizzard) noting that he saw advantages to making Elder Scrolls 6 exclusive to Microsoft systems. That wasn’t seen as a fully official statement of fact, however, and fans held out hope that maybe Microsoft would change its mind. With some recent reveals of internal Microsoft documents coming out of the Microsoft/FTC battle, however, we can pretty much put all that hope to rest.

The trend line is pretty clear in the image above. As time has gone on since Microsoft acquired Zenimax, more and more titles have been pulled back into Microsoft platform exclusives. Notably, this is also in contradiction to statements Spencer himself made years ago about exclusivity, in which he often made comments suggesting that wasn’t something Microsoft was particularly interested in.
Okay, so it’s interesting, but mostly confirming what was already being anticipated, so why are we talking about it? Well, because taking the next Elder Scrolls title exclusive deserves a bit deeper of a dive than we’ve done previously. Microsoft clearly has some kind of strategy in mind with all of this, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what it would be. The obvious answers really point to only three potential options: Microsoft wants to use exclusives to push more Xbox sales, to push more gamers into PC gaming and off of consoles, or some combination of the two.
Here’s the problem, though. The best sales figures I can find suggest that by August of this year the PlayStation 5 has outsold the Xbox Series X/S roughly 15 million to 11 million, respectively. And the sales delta in favor of Sony has been growing steadily over the past year, likely as supply crunch issues for the PlayStation get resolved. Sure, you say, but that’s what Microsoft is trying to combat.
Well, okay then, let’s look at sales figures for Skyrim, the prequel to the forthcoming Elder Scrolls 6. Now, the caveat that comes with those sales figures is that they are frustratingly incomplete. Steam isn’t particularly forthcoming with sales figures around specific titles, but the suspected sales figures for PC sit around 15 million units for the original version, and another 11 million for the Special Edition that was released in 2016. Xbox sales for the original version are just under 9 million on the 360 and just under 2 million on the Xone. That’s 44 million sales in total. I can’t seem to find sales figures I trust for the Special Edition on the Xbox Series X/S, but you would expect it to be something like a third less than the original, as was the case with the PC versions. Let’s call it 6 million, which might be a bit high. So we’ve got roughly 50 million unit sales of Skyrim on Microsoft systems.
Here’s the thing: recent reports indicates that Skyrim surpassed 60 million total unit sales several months ago. Let’s say the current total gross sales figures sit at something like 61 million. That would mean that Skyrim, not a Microsoft exclusive, sold something like 82% of its total units on Microsoft platforms. That isn’t the same as being totally exclusive, but it’s awfully damned close for one of the best selling games of all time.
And yet Microsoft sees taking its sequel exclusive as a strategic move. But to accomplish what, exactly? Sell more Microsoft systems? The majority of the last game was sold on Microsoft systems anyway, so what’s the point? What percentage of the 10 million or so folks who bought Skyrim on other platforms will buy an Xbox or PC instead of a PS6 because this game and few others are exclusives? The answer isn’t half. It’s probably not even a quarter. It’s probably less than one-tenth, though admittedly this is speculation, but speculation based on past evidence.
So would the additional sales of those systems really be enough to offset taking what will be one of the most hotly anticipated games ever out of several money-making platforms?
I have a hard time believing that’s the case.
Filed Under: elder scrolls, exclusives, skyrim, video games
Companies: microsoft
BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to




Comments on “A Small Percentage Of Skyrim’s Sales Were On Non-Microsoft Platforms; Its Sequel Will Be Microsoft Exclusive”
I think the end goal is something called a monopoly. The FTC leak revealed that M$ wants / considered buying Nintendo and Valve, as discussed by Gamers Nexus. In other words, the positive financial outcome is not in the immediate future, but after the accomplishment of the goal.
Imagine the dystopia: no more Valve helping to run games on Linux, no more Nintendo hardware, exclusives to pressure Sony for the next console generation, just bloated with spyware Win 12 and Xbox Something-Silly.
Re:
The sad irony is that Sony wants that as well.
The sadder fact? Nintendo did for a few years, right down to being able to dictate where NES consoles could go.
So fucking nope.
The goal: developer share
Developer share. Making more games Xbox-exclusive means more game developers with experience developing only Xbox-exclusive games and fewer with experience developing cross-platform games. That translates into other software houses having more trouble finding experienced cross-platform game developers and having to either go Xbox-exclusive or ending up with inferior non-Xbox versions because of inexperienced developers. Eventually there’s fewer job openings asking for cross-platform experience and you end up shifting the developer population away from being able to do games for anything but the Xbox. And then when you get accused of being a monopoly you get to claim that it’s not your fault that developers like your platform more than the others.
Re:
I think its more the cost of having to hire these developers, port and debug the game, and provide support for the next decade for a title that makes up less than 20% of it’s sales. Microsoft probably looked at the cost of supporting the title on PS vs the revenue it brings in and concluded it wasn’t worth the outlay.
Re: Re:
If your using the maths where Star Wars produced no profit, sure.
But in the end they do not care about a few million or hundred million from playstation users, Its all about the big dream of getting the games market as a monopoly and the billions they could make if they succeed in this effort.
After all playstation users are not there users.
coming soon, all blizzard and activision games are pc and xbox only….
Trying to figure out the sales metrics for special edition on steam is a even less straightforward than you’d think.
In this case, having special edition on steam dose not equal having bought it. It was given for free to those who already had legendary edition (or otherwise had all dlc for the original) when special edition launched.
'We would never do that thing we've been doing for years now...'
Worth keeping front and center that this is the same company that argued that regulators were being downright silly in objecting to them buying another game company because after all, what reason would MS have for making games exclusive to their own platforms?
Clearly they’ve decided they’ve got some reason to do it.
Microsoft used to love adventurers like us but then they took an arrow (corporate greed) to the knee (commitment to the Skyrim series.)
Re:
Nah.
MS were always about that corpo greed.
I mean, they were facing an actual antitrust lawsuit in CA a long fuckin’ time ago.
Re:
It’s Bethesda who had no interest for over a decade in making another Elder Scrolls title and instead just milking the existing games while they focused on ruining other franchises.
The point with the chart specifically listing several of them being multiplayer has been a Zenimax strategy for many years before the acquisition. This was a top-down imposition by Zenimax execs that many devs, like the Redfall team, hoped in vain Microsoft would reverse (MS take a hands off approach to the actual games under development at acquired publishers) so it’s not really relevant to MS’ making them exclusive.
Re:
Plus, when it comes to the multiplayer titles not having cross-platform play, most of them (ESO, FO76, Deathloop) were released or developed BEFORE the takeover, and for multiple console platforms, but during the period when Sony, sitting victorious on top of the 8th console generation, prohibited console cross-platform play on PS4/5 to protect their own monopoly.
The old Alien Vs Predator situation.
I love how everyone is all “Oh noes! MS is making games exclusive! what monsters!” ignoring the overwhelming amount of crap sony has done in this very vein, inlcluding attempting to stop any efforts at crossplay because they were the leader in sale at the time.
I genuinely believe the quote was something like “Why would we do crossplay when everyone buys our consoles for gaming?”
Re:
mihoyo has a very good reason: a 1.3 billion people market and all that gacha money.
Turns out you can force crossplay when your threat is a massive market. Though don’t count on that for other companies.
Not trying to defend Microsoft here, but if they picked up Bethesda because they thought it was a good value, and then see that they’re spending more on PS porting development than they’re making in PS sales, doesn’t it make sense to just not support that pathway anymore?
A more benign explanation?
How about ROI? If you get 90% of your sales from Microsoft platforms, why spend extra development work porting your game for small marginal gains in sales? Such ports are non-trivial.
One reason Skyrim was on so many platforms and repackaged so many times at the end was to keep the Elder Scrolls IP alive during the long hiatus before TES 6. If they take another 15 years before TES 7 I’m sure we’ll see ports of TES 6 to other platforms.
Re:
We wouldn’t assume its purely an ROI issue because generally, it would be assumed that Bethesda, a successful company that doesn’t have to guess at sales numbers, would have calculated the ROI, and determined playstation sales were worth the port. In the end, regardless of ROI, they were making money.
makes sense though
If it hardly sold on other platforms why would they make the effort to program for those platforms?
Exclusive!
Isn’t Exclusivity the entire reason antitrust laws were made?
Re:
That’s socialism you sonypony anti-freedom terrorist COMMIE
The solution is always to buy more companies to not make games for the Paperweight series x because that means some other console maker won’t get those games that my company killed.
Re:
Didn’t fuckin’ work in the mid-1980s, when, yanno, Nintendo had a fucking effective monopoly to the point it could deny their product to any store for no fucking reason.
Sure, the FTC managed to break up Ma Bell, but…
Re:
They’re more about leveraging a dominant position in an industry to gain unfair advantages. Such as, Sony having bought developers, making titles exclusive and forcing people to buy a PlayStation to play their games.
Which, as much as my 2000s self would be confused by, is why I tend to defend MicroSoft in these discussions. They absolutely failed antitrust many times, but compared to Sony? I can play Starfield if I don’t have a PC or an XBox, where’s my access to God Of War?
There solution is to buy more companies so when Phil goes on another “BUHHHHH WE ARE LOSING SO HARD” cry fest on IGN he has more games to scuttle and shut down to prove his company is losing.
Light the industry on fire for a potential profit maybe ten years down the line. That’s the Microsoft way from web browsers to office software
Did not skyrim have a multitude of issues on the PS though?: Like major major technical problems related to its processor?
Re:
That could be the ps3, Skyrim is in the interesting place of being released between three console gens
Re:
Eh, Skyrim has a multitude of issues on all platforms. It’s just that those issues very by platform…
Skyrim is so notoriously buggy that the Wiki(s) keep notes about bugs (including platform specific ones) in the footnotes of relevant articles. One of the wikis (can’t remember if the other dose) even keep notation if a bug was fixed by the most used bugfix mod in the entire player base.
wait, what?
Is there an eta on ES6?
Re:
sometime between halley’s comet’s next flyby and the sun burning out, my money is on the sun
“What percentage of the 10 million or so folks who bought Skyrim on other platforms will buy an Xbox or PC instead of a PS6 because this game and few others are exclusives?”
Well, the first mistake there is not recognising that MS aren’t focussing as much on individual sales and hardware as much as they are on Game Pass and making it available everywhere. They’re using this to promote xCloud and subscription. You can play Starfield on a tablet or a MacBook if you pay them the monthly fee.
Whether that’s the right strategy remains to be seen, but if you’re going to judge this purely by units sold and new hardware shipped, you might need to adjust your outlook. I recently obtained a Series X so I can play natively if I want, but before that I still had at least 4 options to play the game if I wanted to – and I don’t own a Windows PC. Whereas, I just don’t bother with Sony exclusives right now because I don’t have enough time to play everything and I’m not buying a PS for 6 games.
We get it. Author owns a PlayStation.
you forget that Microsoft has been working directly with both Corel and codeweavers on compatibility for MacOS and Linux.
So you have PC and Xbox officially, and Linux and MacOS indirectly. And BSD for those that want to.
Hardly exclusive on four different platforms.
You also ignore that a large part of PS sales in the last 2 years are USED systems. Official and partner “refurbished” units.
The platform is bleeding developers. And dedicated users left in droves.