This has always baffled me. Phil Spencer, and other's of Microsoft, insinuate that marketing deals aren't viable for Xbox which sounds like a money thing. Sony most cannot afford to acquire Zenimax, or Activision-Blizzard. I struggle to reconcile these two situations.
Microsoft have had exclusive marketing deals for Call of Duty previously, and they had launch exclusivity for the two GTA IV DLC packs; one was fourteen months and the other six, so it released first on Xbox and later on PC and PS3.
Sony has 120m PS4's shipped while MS has less than 60m xbox ones. PS5 is also selling faster than xbox series. So for Sony they can present their market share and the estimated amount of units the developer/publisher would sell on playstation and on xbox and perhaps switch if the company is thinking about porting it to that also. They can then use that to negotiate good exclusivity deals or in the case of something like hogwarts a marketing deal + exclusive content.
In the case of something like Final Fantasy, MS has almost no market share in Japan which is one of the titles largest markets.
MS would have to do this over and over again with every game they want to get exclusivity or additional content for it. During the 360 era Ms was pretty close to Sony and lead them in units for a while so it was a lot easier to get exclusivity. last generation was different however.
So when you look at something like Zenimax a lot of those games were most thought of as PC and Xbox games but sony started getting exclusivity rights through deals. So MS had two options. One out offer sony on all those games or simply buy out zenimax. Over the long term its a lot cheaper to have bought Zenimax since now their profits become MS's profits. So when Starfield sells 60m copies over the next decade or so like Skyrim or becomes a game that people keep subscribing to gamepass to play over the next decade MS keeps all of that and now they don't have to deal with Starfield becoming multiplatform in the future . Also remember as the series becomes more popular the company making it is going to want more for exclusivity rights. To back to to the xbox 360 era you had games like Mass effect. MS helped fund the original and have exclusivity but lost it for the sequels. With Gears of war , MS funded that project and they were exclusives and then Epic wanted to start making it multiplatform and so they decided to purchase the IP to stop that.
It would also make Sony the most masterful negotiators known to mankind, which seems unlikely. Noting that the Amazing Spider-Man movies weren't as commercially successful as the Toby Maguire movies, to get the opportunity to relaunch the character from the mega-juggernaut that was the Avengers films, with Disney picking up the cheque, should have been a no brainer. And they got a videogame licence too.
Civil War, and subequent Avengers moved, did not need Spider-Man. Having him was cool, but the films would have been great without Spider-Man.
The deal marvel made with Sony was super lopsided because the company at the time was days away from going bankrupt.
Unpacking Spider-Man's Complicated History With Disney and Sony | the disney food blog
We're breaking down the Spider-Man deal between Sony and Disney! Take a look!
www.disneyfoodblog.com
Here is a pretty good run down of where the rights stand.
Things might be changing as its rumored that Universal will be removing the Marvel section of its parks in Florida after Epic universe and then zelda is done being built