And major third parties are welcome to seek out buyers and sell themselves, like when Activision went to Microsoft and asked Microsoft to buy them.
Grand Dumb Auto XXIIX
- Thread starter The Living Tribunal
- Start date
- Status
It's Metacritic was dragged down by the multiplayer component, which was undeniable trash. If they had just released the campaign for $40 it probably would be 10 points higher.
We don't even know the extent of any of the exclusivity - maybe Starfield will be a two year exclusive and will be ported eventually to Playstation.
And MS should be allowed to do what they want with first party properties.
One is anti consumer/competition the other isn't.
Starfield Is NOT a Timed Exclusive, Says Xbox
and reiterated:
Starfield Is NOT a Timed Exclusive, Says Xbox
and reiterated:
Yeah, I remember that. The game still isn't out yet though. FFVII was supposed to be a timed exclusive and it is clearly not, so no reason it can't go the other way if sales are subpar.
Well yes, anything is possible. I never thought I would see the day that Sony would make a baseball game for Xbox.
Sony Employee: Mr Ryan we are in last month of the year and second year of the PS5, we've had no events or big game announcement for over 12 months as we've been focused on PC ports as you ordered.
what should we show at the game awards?
Jim Ryan: How about....some more PC ports?
what should we show at the game awards?
Jim Ryan: How about....some more PC ports?
Which was an actual contract, the terms of which were amended. Starfield exclusivity is only documented in quotes and it's MS' IP - nothing binding them legally. The game has also been in development longer than expected since those quotes, meaning higher production costs. I don't think it is crazy for MS to want to recoup some of that.
I could see them possibly looking at Nintendo's next system to recoup, not PS. Especially now after the stink PS has made about this acquisition.
Sony might have nudged the giant a bit too much.
I don't think they care too much about putting the games on the Playstation or not. I think their main concern is keeping the games off PS Plus and growing GamePass.
MS aren't going to want to work with Sony that much after this. COD and Minecraft might be the only things they get.
Yes they are but don't act like it is not for exclusivity when asked about it. That's the main debate. Their history and actions go opposite to what they say. Again, how do you take away from one of their biggest platforms while saying you're trying to give more access to gamers ?
What actions? Minecraft? Elder Scrolls Online? Psychnauts 2? Minecraft Legends? Call of Duty? Ori and the Will of the Wisps? Fallout 76? Ghostwire?
Are you saying MS doing the largest term contract in gaming history to guarantee COD on PlayStation, Nintendo, Microsoft Windows PC, iOS, Android, xCloud is LESS access to gamers?
MS is willing to put it in writing to keep COD on the Playstation for 10 years, so even if you don't believe Phil it is literally a binding contract they are willing to negotiate.
What actions? Minecraft? Elder Scrolls Online? Psychnauts 2? Minecraft Legends? Call of Duty? Ori and the Will of the Wisps? Fallout 76? Ghostwire?
Are you saying MS doing the largest term contract in gaming history to guarantee COD on PlayStation, Nintendo, Microsoft Windows PC, iOS, Android, xCloud is LESS access to gamers?
MS has gone out of its way to end that take. Funny how it's only one side that's clinging onto it.
They have already committed to getting it to MORE gamers than before.
We will have to see if the Activision deal does go through how they handle all their IPs going forward. Hope it's not like Bethesda's new games and big IPs.
MS is never going to make COD exclusive because that would be beyond stupid. Forget the gamer backlash (which would be epic). They'd cut their revenues in half (actually more). The COD PS fans would buy a PC if anything just out of spite (since with PC nothing is really exclusive anyway).
MS wants to sell Game Pass subs, and COD microtransactions make billions and billions of dollars. Cutting out PS would be absolute lunacy. A company is not going to act against their own best interests. I would never take a company on their word, but I do know they will never do anything against their own profits.
Just look at all the billions they make now in Warzone/COD skins. Every kid is running around in the black LA Thieves skin.
MS wants to sell Game Pass subs, and COD microtransactions make billions and billions of dollars. Cutting out PS would be absolute lunacy. A company is not going to act against their own best interests. I would never take a company on their word, but I do know they will never do anything against their own profits.
Just look at all the billions they make now in Warzone/COD skins. Every kid is running around in the black LA Thieves skin.
I can tell you right now.
COD will stay multiplatform. Everything else will be xbox exclusive.
Isn't MS just doing what Sony would do in the same situation?
So both companies...
8 of the 22 studios owned by Sony got founded by Sony, rest bought.
What surprises me is, Bethesda claims to have always had a tight relationship with MS including exclusivity with previous Elder Scrolls games, etc. If they were THAT close, then why would Bethesda have even considered a 1 year Starfield exclusivity deal with PlayStation?
A lot of the time, I don't think we are getting the entire story or truth.
Simple. Money. Sony wanted to offer money for it which back then was a big plus for Bethesda.
Remember they said they would have had to ship it this year no matter what before MS bought them.
- Status