Except from the very beginning Microsoft and Phil stated that they were not planning to make COD exclusive. They said that from the very beginning and during the hearing we literally saw emails from before acquisition where they stated they did not plan to do that at all.
Where is the except?
Well you've just gone back to what you were initially refuting, "While profiting from the largest userbase possible". You were trying to refute this idea. The point you were arguing is that they don't do this because it would mean paying 30% which outweights whatever they would make on the platform. Yet that's what they're doing on Steam anyway. Their consoles are continuing to decline 7% while doing this "not profiting from the largest userbase" too. So is it even helping?
Nothing they say is credible, otherwise they wouldn't need to make a contract. They also said they weren't taking Bethesda games away from other platforms and they did!
What???
What are you talking about and why are you so mad?What???
You can't be serious... That COD was going to be released on PS and also on Switch was known since the entire acquisition process began. Then there were those of you who claimed "not to believe MS" or "what happens to all the rest of the Ips that are not going to reach Ps?? Just a few days ago.
Nothing has changed in recent months, the idea of MS remains the same. The only thing that has changed is the narrative behind the approval of the acquisition and the crude attempt to present it as a success for PlayStation and the end of Xbox console...
That is to say, we have gone from "MS wants to buy the industry to create a monopoly on consoles and destroy PlayStation" to "buy studios and publishers to become a full 3rd party and stop making consoles."
Anyway, I suppose that if now MS announces that it wants to buy Capcom, no one will object because it will be just another publisher and will stop manufacturing Xbox consoles.... There is no longer any danger
No, the deal was proposed much earlier and is the same one offered to Nintendo and Valve. MS offered it to overcome the demands of regulators and that is the reason why it has focused only on the COD IP and the rest of the IPs have been left "free" in consoles and physical/digital format.
Who said they have to do without it? You're the one saying they shouldn't make more money from their games because it would lead to a console sales collapse. Well it's already declining while they're doing what you think should be preventing it and you still think it's not an issue. So which is it?You forgot to say "that it does not benefit its console competitor"... But good attempt to divert attention while not contributing any argument to the discussion of whether MS is going to stop making consoles that it is embracing here. ..
No, my point is that MS has no reason in the current situation to do without in the short-medium term the income generated by its console business, which in the worst case will end the generation with 45-55 million consoles and with the potential for maintain or improve in a next generation with already its 50+ Studios working with that hardware in mind.
Do you agree? No? I dont know but muy impression Is that you embrace that new narrative that has been born. During the ABK acquisition process i remenber you defended the opposite...
I already established how you disregard facts. The numbers speak for themselves.
They offered 5 years till the beginning of the next gen and there was no indication that would have pulled it from Playstation. They haven't done that with Minecraft and nobody is complaining.
No which Android phone sells more than IPhone? Samsung is a company. They make loads of different phones. Which one sells more than IPhone? We're not talking combined Android handsets vs IPhone. But which actual Android handset? S23?
Are you seriously that upset that people did not believe MS would keep COD multiplatform for 10 years before the contract got signed? I honestly don't understand where you are going with this otherwise.
Of course, because no one is saying that MS is going to stop manufacturing consoles in the short terms and that ABK has taken the step to be a simple 3rd party
" narrative (which is also a distortion of what Phil really said) is nothing short of absurd.
You don't say, "If they were supporting it" unless you mean they were not supporting it.
Thank you.
arstechnica.com
??? It is one thing to speculate on what MS's idea is to amortize its investment and what its intention is when it comes to managing the exclusivity or not of its software... another is to defend that the purchase of ABK is something like the sentence of death of the XBOX console in the short term... Responding to that statement I don't think it is "being upset with the speculations"
You're delusional. Bu bu Minecraft! Notch wouldn't sell if they made it not multiplatform.
Yeah will be great to be able to talk about these games being shit without entering fanboy wars.
Of course, AI is the future.
Hey Xbox stop pursuing being a Monopoly and exit the Console Market, so PlayStation can become a Monopoly. PlayStation GAF users are something else. With all those answers in this thread asking to Xbox going full third party, you know all that talk about the ABK Buyout about fear of becoming a Monopoly was pure hipocrisy.
There is no indication of that. Not to mention with Bethesda they haven't removed anything that was available on Playstation.
Redfall was supposed to come to PS as well. In retrospect though, Xbox can keep it, we're good.
You are not entitled to the games that were not released.
... they literally just got ownership of activision last week.
Worse (and obvious) knock knock joke in history.
If you enjoy laughing at hyperbole as much as me, just you wait until COD releases. Hyperbole leprechauns will be popping up everywhere.
Historically TES is on Playstation has always been a joke - Morrowind was not even there, Skyrim had a crappy port and Oblivion was a temporary exclusive (port quality I don't even remember).
Not really. People don't bother calling them out for making games exclusive, why would they do that from acquisiition. There would be a justification like "historical franchise" (just look at FF) or "it does not sell on Xbox" and so on and so on.
I am personally expecting a tons of articles how trash COD is and probably some low scores. It will sell a lot of course though.
You read the contract right? To know that. It is funny how people believe whatever they agree with lol. And on Bethesda - "platforms where Game Pass exists" and "case by case basis" and "established communities". Last time I checked, Playstation does not have Game Pass, some Bethesda games were still released on Playstation (including) updates and established communities (like TESO and FO76) are still receiving updates. You can't have an established community if the game is not released.
Neither of you will be dissapointed in your predictions. And the best part is many of the people raging will not even be COD players.
LMAO
I mean they tried that with "the initiative" recently and look where it got them. Home growing studios is very hard, long and grueling process, good devs just don't fall out the sky, you either poach them or wait for them to become available. Sony bought majority of it's studios, they are not home grown either, they just happened at a time when no one cared about stuff like this, Nintendo is truly the only HG company . And yes I understand they can fund 30 games, but with all those studios just from Acti/blizz alone they can have their 30 games over the next 10 years that they will OWN.
Exactly, and crazy thing is...I would bet Xbox will be around longer than PS, they aren't as sustainable as people may think, they've pivoted towards gaas for a reason
heck we know they actually re-negotiated the contract for the Indiana Jones game to explicitly remove the obligation to make a PlayStation version…
Well, it's true if I believed they were supporting PC day one we wouldn't be having this discussion. But we all know they aren't supporting PC day one at the moment, so, it's just a really weird statement to make. And they've literally said flat out that they are sticking with the delayed approach for games like Spider-man 2 because they think it benefits the console business.
Maybe you are Starborn and just got confused by a difference in this universe.
( I'm seeing a lot of wiggling, but very little sound reasoning)
