It's more like a default platform seeing as even former PlayStation exclusives are slowly getting a PC release as well. And I did call Starfield Xbox/PC exclusive, not just Xbox.
It's probably not the word to describe what's getting released where and stems from marketing but it's commonly used in gaming so most understand its meaning.
Why do people behave as if Starfield was the first game not released on PlayStation?
Who is doing that? It's just blatantly obvious that it would've been released on PlayStation without Microsoft meddling and their games sell a shitload, I mean Skyrim has been chugging along over a decade now. So I'm not really sure how Starfield is irrelevant to Ms buying shit conversation.
It's not what being an exclusive means (let not get into linguistics here, I mean strictly the gaming industry term). I agree this specific case was anticompetitive but framing it as an exclusive just weakens this point in my opinion and allows to shift the debate away from it.
Away from what? Everyone knows what it means -- or maybe I don't, please enlighten me in that case.
Microsoft is a good underdog because they have infinite money. And a really bad market leader, I bet worse than Sony. It would've been way better for the industry to not let them acquire the big boys they have.
That game seems pretty loved, I wouldn't be that surprised about a remaster. Though it would have to be a pretty barebones if it can't compete with a ten year old release.
That's the story of almost all EA studios. Respawn afaik has kept their senior staff but also have expanded too much for me to believe there's a "Respawn identity" anymore.
What's funny that happened with Bioware and Criterion, too.