Official Thread Plastic Wars V2 with MOAR Jackie Fhan and guys comfortable with STRETCHING their sexuality! Tears of the Many.

Is this Topic Lame?


  • Total voters
    14

Pureshooter

Well-Known Member
Cornerstone Member
Sep 14, 2013
5,148
3,311
13,580
Wilmington, NC
JinCA already explained the console price thing with how much the euro and everything has dropped relative to the USD.

Psygnosis cost 20 million euros back then vs 68.7 billion juggernaut. You do the math.
So why didn’t Sony raise console prices in the US? Oh, because Xbox is competitive there. They are recording record profits so there is no excuse.

And in terms of price, that isn’t relevant. We’re talking about a console manufacturer purchasing a major publisher to strengthen market position. Psygnosis was one of the largest publishers at the time in an industry a fraction the size it is now.
 

DriedMangoes

Be kind because you don't know
Sep 12, 2013
14,971
4,900
3,930
So why didn’t Sony raise console prices in the US? Oh, because Xbox is competitive there. They are recording record profits so there is no excuse.

And in terms of price, that isn’t relevant. We’re talking about a console manufacturer purchasing a major publisher to strengthen market position. Psygnosis was one of the largest publishers at the time in an industry a fraction the size it is now.

This is a case of false equivalency. Psygnosis had nowhere the impact of Activision does today.

Also they continued to market and distribute computer software under their own brand. Different terms here more alike Bungie and Sony's deal than Activision and MS.
 

Pureshooter

Well-Known Member
Cornerstone Member
Sep 14, 2013
5,148
3,311
13,580
Wilmington, NC
This is a case of false equivalency. Psygnosis had nowhere the impact of Activision does today.

Also they continued to market and distribute computer software under their own brand. Different terms here more alike Bungie and Sony's deal than Activision and MS.
Never said they were equivalent, just that the purchase of a major publisher isn’t unprecedented. Plus they absolutely published console exclusives.
 
Last edited:

The Wolf King

The Night is Dark and Full of Terrors
Super Mod
Forum Mod
Sep 11, 2013
22,632
10,236
5,280
JinCA already explained the console price thing with how much the euro and everything has dropped relative to the USD.

Psygnosis cost 20 million euros back then vs 68.7 billion juggernaut. You do the math.


Back then. Would cost a crap load more if they had bought them today... then killed them.
Just like Activision would have cost literally nothing to MS back then.
 

karmakid

Bespoke Member 😉
Super Mod
Forum Mod
Sep 11, 2013
26,755
12,339
3,529
in front of your screen
But what if my platform of choice is not the cellphone, I'm forced to play it there anyways? How is that giving me a "choice"? Also why no native version option if it's a choice?

If it really is a choice, Phil would be making COD on all platforms native no strings attached. Like Bungie with Destiny where I can choose to buy and play the version I want on the platform I want.

The cell phone bit is really a jab at that dev at blizzcon 😝

I honestly think the six years is a reference to how long this gen may last. That and it’s most likely all they can say without breaking any laws/rules of the buyout/engagement. I’m no lawyer, that’s why we got aceattorney :)

My guess it’ll continue to be on every capable platform. And in a few years hopefully it’ll be on switch as well, maybe the mobile version.

And why does it seem to be the only talking point from them about the acquisition? From Brazils statements it kinda just sounds it’s about the money they make through cod.

If and when it goes through I have a feeling it’ll be a few years before most gamers associate cod with Xbox. I know people who got an Xbox one just for cod and then get upset when they became aware of the dlc exclusivity and early access on ps4.
 

menace-uk-

Apex Life!!
Sep 11, 2013
30,922
10,353
3,930
Basically but Xbox fans will defend it nonetheless and argue it's accessible!

You can play on "your platform of choice" as long as it 1) supports Xbox Game Pass and 2) you're subscribed to said Game Pass :p
Game Pass is their business model so obviously you need those. Funny how you Playstation guys have an issue with $15 subs for hundreds of games but will pony up for $10 updates.

Funny how you constantly leave out them saying "Our goal" or "Our vision" when they say the very thing you keep attacking.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Swede

JinCA

Well-Known Member
Sep 11, 2013
20,554
10,329
3,830
Back then. Would cost a crap load more if they had bought them today... then killed them.
Just like Activision would have cost literally nothing to MS back then.
Sony bought Psygnosis in 1993 a year before the first PlayStation even launched, not only that but Psygnosis still published titles for the Saturn and the N64. There is no equivalence between Psygnosis and Activision though, Psygnosis was a smalltime player while Activision is the biggest 3rd party publisher in gaming.
 

menace-uk-

Apex Life!!
Sep 11, 2013
30,922
10,353
3,930
Sony bought Psygnosis in 1993 a year before the first PlayStation even launched, not only that but Psygnosis still published titles for the Saturn and the N64. There is no equivalence between Psygnosis and Activision though, Psygnosis was a smalltime player while Activision is the biggest 3rd party publisher in gaming.
They aren't, Tencent is.

And even with the Acti deal MS would only be 3rd biggest publisher.

Ironically, Sony is the largest publisher. Go figure.
 

menace-uk-

Apex Life!!
Sep 11, 2013
30,922
10,353
3,930
If the Acti deal went through. I mean what a monopoly.

sskAe_58jD3GiVhqmValhZ8zPHIpu-NgwY-Zle-aPvc.jpg
 

DriedMangoes

Be kind because you don't know
Sep 12, 2013
14,971
4,900
3,930
Game Pass is their business model so obviously you need those. Funny how you Playstation guys have an issue with $15 subs for hundreds of games but will pony up for $10 updates.

Funny how you constantly leave out them saying "Our goal" or "Our vision" when they say the very thing you keep attacking.

Yes I'm not criticizing their business strategy. I'm criticizing how they are pushing their narrative because the blanket statement they are saying right now just isn't true. You can tell by all the dodging Phil does during interviews. He doesn't provide direct answers to the questions.

It's simple. True freedom of choice would be giving the gamer the opportunity to play wherever they want to play. It doesn't matter if I have a Switch, Xbox, PlayStation, PC, mobile phone, Steamdeck and tablet. Regardless of the reason, if I want to play the Xbox game on PlayStation, I can't. So that is not letting the gamer play wherever they want.
 

DriedMangoes

Be kind because you don't know
Sep 12, 2013
14,971
4,900
3,930
The cell phone bit is really a jab at that dev at blizzcon 😝

I honestly think the six years is a reference to how long this gen may last. That and it’s most likely all they can say without breaking any laws/rules of the buyout/engagement. I’m no lawyer, that’s why we got aceattorney :)

My guess it’ll continue to be on every capable platform. And in a few years hopefully it’ll be on switch as well, maybe the mobile version.

And why does it seem to be the only talking point from them about the acquisition? From Brazils statements it kinda just sounds it’s about the money they make through cod.

If and when it goes through I have a feeling it’ll be a few years before most gamers associate cod with Xbox. I know people who got an Xbox one just for cod and then get upset when they became aware of the dlc exclusivity and early access on ps4.

If it's all about the money from COD, why would they not try to keep COD on as many platforms as possible forever to rake in the most revenue 🤔
 

karmakid

Bespoke Member 😉
Super Mod
Forum Mod
Sep 11, 2013
26,755
12,339
3,529
in front of your screen
If it's all about the money from COD, why would they not try to keep COD on as many platforms as possible forever to rake in the most revenue 🤔
In the end it’s always about the money.

If they were to remove cod campaigns but leave multiplayer/wz on ps5 would Sony and or gamers be ok with that?
 

DriedMangoes

Be kind because you don't know
Sep 12, 2013
14,971
4,900
3,930
In the end it’s always about the money.

If they were to remove cod campaigns but leave multiplayer/wz on ps5 would Sony and or gamers be ok with that?

I don't know. My last COD was Ghosts lol. .
What if they just became a free 2 play franchise like continue and evolving warzone 2 a la Fortnite ?
 

karmakid

Bespoke Member 😉
Super Mod
Forum Mod
Sep 11, 2013
26,755
12,339
3,529
in front of your screen
I don't know. My last COD was Ghosts lol. .
What if they just became a free 2 play franchise like continue and evolving warzone 2 a la Fortnite ?
Isn’t wz f2p already?

Could be beneficial to the devs if say one or a few worked only on the mp side whilst the remaining devs worked on campaign or new/old IP….I want THPS 3-4 remakes
 

DriedMangoes

Be kind because you don't know
Sep 12, 2013
14,971
4,900
3,930
Well MS said for at least the next 6 CODs. They aren’t going to sign a lifetime commitment on something.

They also said we had a choice to play their games wherever but we really don't at least at this point in time.
 

DriedMangoes

Be kind because you don't know
Sep 12, 2013
14,971
4,900
3,930
Isn’t wz f2p already?

Could be beneficial to the devs if say one or a few worked only on the mp side whilst the remaining devs worked on campaign or new/old IP….I want THPS 3-4 remakes

Yeah but I mean if they full commit to it. So scrapping campaigns in general.
 
  • Hmm
Reactions: karmakid

menace-uk-

Apex Life!!
Sep 11, 2013
30,922
10,353
3,930
Yes I'm not criticizing their business strategy. I'm criticizing how they are pushing their narrative because the blanket statement they are saying right now just isn't true. You can tell by all the dodging Phil does during interviews. He doesn't provide direct answers to the questions.

It's simple. True freedom of choice would be giving the gamer the opportunity to play wherever they want to play. It doesn't matter if I have a Switch, Xbox, PlayStation, PC, mobile phone, Steamdeck and tablet. Regardless of the reason, if I want to play the Xbox game on PlayStation, I can't. So that is not letting the gamer play wherever they want.
There is no blanket statement being made. They always say it is their vision or goal to let you play on what you want and where you want. lol I mean jesus, dude, you are sitting here complaining about accessibility while attacking the very company and person who made not only their games but hundreds of others more accessible than ever. I mean all you need really is a damn web browser. Lol. But sure, lets not forget the very system you're defending is not very accessible at all, and recently became even less accessible across a huge part of the world because of price hikes.


And once again, that is Sony stopping that. Just like they stopped EA Access, and Cross play. You're attacking the wrong company and the wrong person. Lol.
 

DriedMangoes

Be kind because you don't know
Sep 12, 2013
14,971
4,900
3,930
There is no blanket statement being made. They always say it is their vision or goal to let you play on what you want and where you want. lol I mean jesus, dude, you are sitting here complaining about accessibility while attacking the very company and person who made not only their games but hundreds of others more accessible than ever. I mean all you need really is a damn web browser. Lol. But sure, lets not forget the very system you're defending is not very accessible at all, and recently became even less accessible across a huge part of the world because of price hikes.


And once again, that is Sony stopping that. Just like they stopped EA Access, and Cross play. You're attacking the wrong company and the wrong person. Lol.

Both are trying to keep exclusives to their own platform but one of them is at least not trying to hide it.

And no, I don't count cloud gaming as an option to replace native gaming. Convenient when necessary but not replaceable worthy.
 

menace-uk-

Apex Life!!
Sep 11, 2013
30,922
10,353
3,930
Both are trying to keep exclusives to their own platform but one of them is at least not trying to hide it.
That's it, ignore everything. Try and make out they are somehow equal while ones exclusives are locked tightly behind a $4-500 piece of hardware typically bought by only a few, while the other guy has made theirs available to billions and has low monthly cost. All after crying about accessibility no less too. Lol.
 

DriedMangoes

Be kind because you don't know
Sep 12, 2013
14,971
4,900
3,930
That's it, ignore everything. Try and make out they are somehow equal while ones exclusives are locked tightly behind a $4-500 piece of hardware typically bought by only a few, while the other guy has made theirs available to billions and has low monthly cost. All after crying about accessibility no less too. Lol.

Well I mean Sony is slowly moving towards PC market by releasing older IPs and games.

So that's making them more accessible, yeah? Also they're native versions 🫠
 

menace-uk-

Apex Life!!
Sep 11, 2013
30,922
10,353
3,930
Well I mean Sony is slowly moving towards PC market by releasing older IPs and games.

So that's making them more accessible, yeah? Also they're native versions 🫠
The irony of this post is hilarious. Desperate, pathetic, hypocritical, but hilarious.
 

The Wolf King

The Night is Dark and Full of Terrors
Super Mod
Forum Mod
Sep 11, 2013
22,632
10,236
5,280
Sony bought Psygnosis in 1993 a year before the first PlayStation even launched, not only that but Psygnosis still published titles for the Saturn and the N64. There is no equivalence between Psygnosis and Activision though, Psygnosis was a smalltime player while Activision is the biggest 3rd party publisher in gaming.

Now yes. Activision was a massive company back then. It was Sega, Nintendo and EA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kvally