Support NeoGAF

[Godot25]

Goalpost moving. You guys are trying to make it appear not as bad by excluding indie titles. That doesn't work.

What's wrong with 2014? Oh, so I can't name a title at the tail end of 2013 and 2014, but you can name a title in Street Fighter V that was released Feb 2016?

You're telling me what Sony has been doing within the past 3 years and you're completely ignoring that Microsoft is BUYING publishers? This is straight denial lol.

Yes I can. Because as I said, nobody is "bitching" when Sony pays for exclusivity of Kena, Stray, Sifu and many other indie games. Same applies for Microsoft. It's moneyhatting AAA publishers that is a problem for me. But I don't blame Sony. They are trying to corner JRPG market to themselves, same for fighting market last gen. But now they are crying like little babies and trying to pretend that Call of Duty is genre on it's own which is pathetic.

And if you are okay with Sony paying for indefinite FF VII Remake exclusivity, why do you care that Microsoft is buying publishers? It's business after all right? Sony is competing by starving competition of entire genres and Square Enix is effectively their bitch while Microsoft is using their financial might to speed up growth of Game Pass so when day will come a subscription services will be default way to experience games, they will be top dog.

And honestly, I don't know why PlayStation fans have a problem with ActiBlizz deal. Diablo IV is multiplat, Overwatch 2 too and Call of Duty too. Benefit is, that Xbox players will have option to play Call of Duty every year without spending 80$ on game and 10$ per month on PS Plus.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Exactly! It's clear that one is worse than the other for consumers though.

Console exclusives are temporary.
Buying publishers and making games exclusives are permanent.
Sony "timed" exclusives were either released on PC the same day or released on PC a year after.


It's ridiculous to even think that timed exclusives are worse than buying publishers and keeping games off your competitor's platform OR keeping games off a subscription service.

Microsoft purchasing Obsidian likely allowed games like Grounded and Pentiment to exist as well as increase their budget and scope for their big RPGs. It's not unlikely that Microsoft's purchase of Bethesda potentially saved some of their less commercially successful studios like Arkane and Tango from folding or downsizing. I'd say those are positive impacts for consumers, especially when Xbox is easily the most accessible of the 3, given they have the Series S which is cheaper than any PS5, you can play everything on PC Day 1, and eventually streaming on any device with an internet connection. The only consumers truly hurt by this are A. the people who refuse to play on anything but Playstation, and B. the people who can only afford one console and prefer Sony exclusives. Nobody cares about A and I can sympathize with B but it's likely a relatively small amount of people compared to the new people that will experience those games via being on Game Pass and accessible via streaming


Edit: Timed Exclusives have 0 benefit to any consumers and I hate any time Microsoft does them the same amount I hate when Sony does them.

 

[modiz]

I don't agree, you think every person who plays COD would magically switch to Xbox? I personally don't think so.

Once existing deals are gone, CoD will have Xbox written all over it. The masses will see the XSS on BF, at $199, with a CoD branding, and a trial of game pass, giving them immediate access to CoD.
Obviously it won't be every person but it will be massive for Xbox console sales.

 

[BlackTron]

"destroy the market" lmao. Just compete bro, it's not hard.

I think they have the right to do it, and it was almost inevitable to eventually get to this point given the tactics Sony and MS have always used against each other.

But I don't think it's that great for competition. Being owned by MS tends to be a slippery slope to mediocrity and this is the path of homogenization. Imagine games becoming like all of Netflix's meh original series. We're getting there. It seems great now but I worry about the changes that will manifest 10 years later.

Basically, right now there's a healthy market for buying individual games. MS couldn't win in that arena, so now they want everyone to just get Gamepass instead. It's less revenue and makes MS the gatekeeper/mack daddy to distribute all profits. "If we can't compete in the market, we'll just buy it". Doesn't appear like a healthy competitive market to me, it's winning a match in a game by buying out the game.

For Sony to compete with this, they pretty much need to do the same thing with their own service and try to build a bigger stable of exclusive IP. But when your enemy is MS you will never win a spending war.

MS could mess up all their properties (see: Halo) and Sony could go back to efficiently made (even Japanese style) titles that gamers want and do ok. It's kind of relying on MS to screw up though. And even if they do have issues, mere brand recognition and being on GP could be enough to sway mass market anyway.

God Nintendo was so smart to dodge this entire war from the outset.

 

[Clear]

At what point is the penny going to drop and you nitwits realize that its not Sony who you need to worry on behalf of, but EVERYBODY ELSE.

Consider: If you as an independent dev were looking to make an entry into the FPS market how would you feel about a single corporate entity holding the strings on pretty much every historically major franchise from Doom, through Halo, to CoD?

You not think that the ability to coordinate release, support and promote all those franchises isn't going to have a chilling effect on competition?

See the critical thing is the means and motive to coordinate. Its not like there's anything "new" being added to the market, but when a single entity holds sway over so many significant chess-pieces its a whole other situation.

When you have so much material to work with sacrificing a major piece as part of an overarching gambit becomes the right move to make. Which isn't great news if its your work being sent to die in order to satisfy a strategic goal of keeping others down!

The crux of the matter is that MS simply does not need all these franchises. Especially when most of their direct competition is ALSO OWNED BY MS!

 

[DForce]

Yes I can. Because as I said, nobody is "bitching" when Sony pays for exclusivity of Kena, Stray, Sifu and many other indie games. Same applies for Microsoft. It's moneyhatting AAA publishers that is a problem for me. But I don't blame Sony. They are trying to corner JRPG market to themselves, same for fighting market last gen. But now they are crying like little babies and trying to pretend that Call of Duty is genre on it's own which is pathetic.

And if you are okay with Sony paying for indefinite FF VII Remake exclusivity, why do you care that Microsoft is buying publishers? It's business after all right? Sony is competing by starving competition of entire genres and Square Enix is effectively their bitch while Microsoft is using their financial might to speed up growth of Game Pass so when day will come a subscription services will be default way to experience games, they will be top dog.

And honestly, I don't know why PlayStation fans have a problem with ActiBlizz deal. Diablo IV is multiplat, Overwatch 2 too and Call of Duty too. Benefit is, that Xbox players will have option to play Call of Duty every year without spending 80$ on game and 10$ per month on PS Plus.

I don't care about the Activision deal. You're literally here trying to convince people that having time exclusive deals for games like Ghostwire Tokyo, and Final Fantasy 16 aren't nearly as bad as Microsoft buying entire publishers.

People look like hypocrites when they criticize sone for having third-party deals and at the same time celebrate Microsoft for acquiring big third-party publishers.

Buying publishers and keeping games off other platforms is FAR worse, but clearly, you guys are trying to say otherwise.

 

[Godot25]

I don't care about the Activision deal. You're literally here trying to convince people that having time exclusive deals for games like Ghostwire Tokyo, and Final Fantasy 16 aren't nearly as bad as Microsoft buying entire publishers.

People look like hypocrites when they criticize sone for having third-party deals and at the same time celebrate Microsoft for acquiring big third-party publishers.

Buying publishers and keeping games off other platforms is FAR worse, but clearly, you guys are trying to say otherwise.

What? All I was saying is that Sony is way more aggressive in securing those deals which is true by every metric. Quantity of titles and even by importance of those titles.

I never ever criticised Sony for buying spree and I never criticised Microsoft for that too. If you are buying "whatever" company you are paying employees and taking risk on your shoulder which is fair deal for exclusivity.

Also, why we have a conversation about "Buying publishers and keeping games off other platforms is FAR worse," when Microsoft clearly stated that Call of Duty will remain on PlayStation?

 

[ComputerBlue]

Even grocery stores pay for exclusive rights to sell certain products and brands so other grocery stores in the area can’t sell it. This has been a business tactic since forever so even though it may suck people act like it’s a crime against gamers lol

 

[DForce]

What? All I was saying is that Sony is way more aggressive in securing those deals which is true by every metric. Quantity of titles and even by importance of those titles.

No, you tried to make things not appear as bad by saying I was going back to 2014 when you named Street Fighter V, a game that was released less than 2 years later.

I never ever criticised Sony for buying spree and I never criticised Microsoft for that too. If you are buying "whatever" company you are paying employees and taking risk on your shoulder which is fair deal for exclusivity.

You're literally talking about sony for doing it more, yet downplaying the fact that MS is buying publishers and keeping games off PlayStation.

Also, why we have a conversation about "Buying publishers and keeping games off other platforms is FAR worse," when Microsoft clearly stated that Call of Duty will remain on PlayStation?

Starfield and Elder Scrolls ring a bell? Do you know Activision makes other games besides COD, right? The Outer Worlds 2?

Let's face it. What MS is currently doing is far worse and it doesn't matter if some of the games I mentioned were released as far back as 2013.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

What MS is currently doing is far worse and it doesn't matter if some of the games I mentioned were released as far back as 2013.

Worse for whom, though? For Sony? Yeah. For gamers? Hell no. Things actually got quite a bit better for gamers.

 

[DForce]

Worse for whom, though? For Sony? Yeah. For gamers? Hell no. Things actually got quite a bit better for gamers.

I don't know why I have to explain this.

We're talking about third-party time exclusive deals versus buying an entire publisher and making all (or most) of their games exclusive.

 

[12Dannu123]

I don't know why I have to explain this.

We're talking about third-party time exclusive deals versus buying an entire publisher and making all (or most) of their games exclusive.

People are more comfortable with Microsoft acquiring publishers because the benefits are apparent, i.e. Game Pass day 1, continued release on Steam, MS Store Day 1, streaming that game on any device. Whereas what benefit does Sony provide to consumers by moneyhatting a game?

 

[Three]

Come on man, you can't tell folks that they should know better in one post then feign ignorance in another.

Anyway, this is a direct copy of the text from the RE Village contract (which, to be clear is a LEAK, no one from Capcom or Sony have come and validated it 100%, but its the only leak of its kind we have).

"During the term, Publisher shall not authorise, assist or encourage any third party to include the game in any Competetive Platform subscription service, including but not limited to Google Stadia Pro subscriptions, Microsoft's Xbox Live Gold, Project xCloud or Game Pass subscription service or similar Competetive Platform subscription service,"


-


They are directly name dropping Game Pass (along with Stadia). And it makes sense, RE7 had been on game pass for roughly 2 years before it got taken out, no doubt a ton of people played it on Xbox like that and many may have opted not to get it on PS4 because of that same reason.

It existed even before gamepass with games with gold though. MS have a similar clause with all the games they have marketing rights to and it has been confirmed by the indie devs who go on gamepass.

 

[DForce]

People are more comfortable with Microsoft acquiring publishers because the benefits are apparent, i.e. Game Pass day 1, continued release on Steam, MS Store Day 1, streaming that game on any device. Whereas what benefit does Sony provide to consumers by moneyhatting a game?

You're literally just naming things that benefit Microsoft.

It doesn't benefit PlayStation gamers and that's the point. The fact that people are trying to downplay the impact is ridiculous.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

You're literally just naming things that benefit Microsoft.

It doesn't benefit PlayStation gamers and that's the point. The fact that people are trying to downplay the impact is ridiculous.

It can benefit Playstation gamers. The decision is between paying $70 for the game or accessing it for a month for $15. For most games, the latter option is the better choice.

 

[Pasta la Vista]

I treat Gamepass the way I do any video streaming subscription service. I'll sub for a month if there's anything I really want to watch/play, then cancel, granted it's the cheaper option.
That's what I did with AssCreed Valhalla with ubisofts thing, ended up hating it. Same with the last Battlefiled game with EA's thing, another stinker.

Anyhow, not really sure if I had any point, that's just my habits when it comes subscription services. The exclusivity thing, timed or not has never really bothered me. What does bother me is things like network connection requirements interfering with stuff like single player games, locking content out and such.

 

[DForce]

It can benefit Playstation gamers. The decision is between paying $70 for the game or accessing it for a month for $15. For most games, the latter option is the better choice.

No, the decision is buying the game for 70 bucks on their current platform or spending $315-$515 bucks just to play it on Game Pass on another platform.

I can't believe the mental hoops you guys will go through to defend MS lol.

 

[Basil King]

I mean one side blocked COD DLC content for 30 days, the other side blocks it for the whole year.

Let’s not even get into how they fragmented the Destiny community with their exclusivity.

FF7 remake, forspoken? That’s not regular amounts of exclusivity either.

If anything Microsoft now has a bargaining chip with COD to keep the playing field balanced.

In regards to gamepass however. Well yeah consumers are probably going to be like “why am I going to spend $70 to play one game when I can spend $70 to play 100’s”.

 

[Three]

It can benefit Playstation gamers. The decision is between paying $70 for the game or accessing it for a month for $15. For most games, the latter option is the better choice.

Delusional as always. How has the Bethesda buyout benefited Playstation gamers? Don't be ridiculous, all it has done is block games. Their old games were and still are available on PS Now/PS+ Extra and steam so this 'subs vs buying games' tangent is nonsense.

 

[Godot25]

It doesn't benefit PlayStation gamers and that's the point.

(FTFY) It doesn't benefit PlayStation gamers Sony and it's bottom line and that's the point.

ActiBlizz deal changes nothing for PlayStation gamers outside of fact that they won't have exclusives beta tests. They can still buy Call of Duty, they can still play it. Same for Overwatch and Diablo IV.

Why should I even care about Sony and it's bottom line. I'm consumer and I go where better deal is. If Sony wants to provide better deal, they can compete. They are top dog from big 3 in terms of revenue. They have plenty of money to be able to compete.

 

[Flutta]

Once existing deals are gone, CoD will have Xbox written all over it. The masses will the XSS on BF, at $199, with a CoD branding, and a trial of game pass, giving them immediate access to CoD.
Obviously it won't be every person but it will be massive for Xbox console sales.

Not sure if you’ve noticed but COD as a franchise have been in decline for some time now. COD is not as popular as it used to be. Other online shooters have been eating from its cake for a long time now. Not sure what masses you’re talking about.

Making COD exclusive to Xbox will only hurt it even more. MS is betting on a soon to be a dead horse imo. Also not sure why Sony is having a fit over it.

 

[DForce]

(FTFY) It doesn't benefit PlayStation gamers Sony and it's bottom line and that's the point.

ActiBlizz deal changes nothing for PlayStation gamers outside of fact that they won't have exclusives beta tests. They can still buy Call of Duty, they can still play it. Same for Overwatch and Diablo IV.

Why should I even care about Sony and it's bottom line. I'm consumer and I go where better deal is. If Sony wants to provide better deal, they can compete. They are top dog from big 3 in terms of revenue. They have plenty of money to be able to compete.

Once again you ignored Starfield, Elder Scrolls, and many other games that will not appear on PlayStation.

Bottom line, this is worse than time exclusive deals or a select few games not appearing on Xbox.

 

[adamsapple]

It existed even before gamepass with games with gold though.

Do you have any leaked contracts to share and verify this ?

"It existed", as in contracts like this I have no doubt, but this contract blurb is directly naming game pass, which obviously they couldn't have before the service came out.

MS have a similar clause with all the games they have marketing rights to and it has been confirmed by the indie devs who go on gamepass.

The indie thing you're talking about is the parity clause, it was not an exclusionary clause that prevented content from being on other platforms.

Microsoft’s policy, which states that all games released via the console's ID@Xbox platform must launch on the Xbox One either before or at the same time as other devices

Besides, that clause has been officially abolished as of 2015.

If Sony had a similar PARITY clause and not a BLOCKING clause, this wouldn't even be an issue lol.

 

[Three]

Do you have any leaked contracts to share and verify this ?

I have indie dev statements that you've probably called "bitter devs" in the past when they called out MS. No need for leaked contracts.

 

[Topher]

Imagine saying something is an "explosive claim" when this has been known ever since the Apple Epic doc leaks. Fanboy journalists are something else.

 

[adamsapple]

I have indie dev statements that you've probably called "bitter devs" in the past when they called out MS. No need for leaked contracts.

Since you posted before my edit, i'll copy the relevant part again.

-


The indie thing you're talking about is the parity clause, it was not an exclusionary clause that prevented content from being on other platforms.

"""Microsoft’s policy, which states that all games released via the console's ID@Xbox platform must launch on the Xbox One either before or at the same time as other devices"""

Besides, that clause has been officially abolished as of 2015.

If Sony had a similar PARITY clause and not a BLOCKING clause, this wouldn't even be an issue lol.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

"explosive claim"...the emoji... lmao!
This guy i swear...

 

[Three]

Since you posted before my edit, i'll copy the relevant part again.

-


The indie thing you're talking about is the parity clause, it was not an exclusionary clause that prevented content from being on other platforms.

"""Microsoft’s policy, which states that all games released via the console's ID@Xbox platform must launch on the Xbox One either before or at the same time as other devices"""

Besides, that clause has been officially abolished as of 2015.

If Sony had a similar PARITY clause and not a BLOCKING clause, this wouldn't even be an issue lol.

No I'm talking about recent games, devs like the Ori devs, and not the parity clause but blocking games from coming to PS. Games like Medium, Tunic etc have had timed contracts where it prevents releases on rival services just like RE8 but a step further where it blocks even its existence for a timed period on another platform.

Not the parity clause, the parity clause fucked over xbox owners in different ways if nothing else. it blocked content from xbox itself because usually games went to PS, became popular then MS had to block that dev from their own system or offer 'exceptions' that other devs then complained about:


https://www.neogaf.com/threads/indie-dev-locked-out-of-id-xbox-for-opting-out-of-exclusivity.730852/

 

[12Dannu123]

No, the decision is buying the game for 70 bucks on their current platform or spending $315-$515 bucks just to play it on Game Pass on another platform.

I can't believe the mental hoops you guys will go through to defend MS lol.

So you admit that Sony moneyhatting marketing deals benefit no one other than Sony's bottom line? If so, then it pretty much explains why people view MS acquisitions in a much better light than Sony moneyhatting deals.

It's even more ridiculous that you're defending Sony for money-hitting games or signing up to marketing deals with those developers not allowed to put them in GP.

 

[akaFullmetal]

Corporate wars, fun to watch but usually shitty for the consumers one way or the other.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Imagine saying something is an "explosive claim" when this has been known ever since the Apple Epic doc leaks. Fanboy journalists are something else.

"explosive claim"...the emoji... lmao!
This guy i swear...

 

[Three]

So you admit that Sony moneyhatting marketing deals benefit no one other than Sony's bottom line? If so, then it pretty much explains why people view MS acquisitions in a much better light than Sony moneyhatting deals.

No, he is saying the moneyhatting only benefits MS and Sony respectfully and fucks over one side or the other for both. You can't just list features that they could even have without MS blocking/buying anything or vice versa and say it benefits you. It would be like saying I wish Resident Evil was bought by Sony to become first party and not release on xbox so that it has dualsense support hur durr. It's asnine. Minecraft was bought and didn't even release on GP until 9 months ago. There isn't even a guarantee you will get CoD on gamepass but you can't just pretend it's 'beneficial' on one side.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Thank you ! The mods have been generous..

Is it the right nut or the left one?

 

[DForce]

So you admit that Sony moneyhatting marketing deals benefit no one other than Sony's bottom line? If so, then it pretty much explains why people view MS acquisitions in a much better light than Sony moneyhatting deals.

It's even more ridiculous that you're defending Sony for money-hitting games or signing up to marketing deals with those developers not allowed to put them in GP.

Moneyhatting has been going on for decades.

Microsoft did it with Dead or Alive 3.
Microsoft did it with Mass Effect
Microsoft did it with Bioshock.

It has been going on well before Microsoft and PlayStation entered the video game market.

People don't view it in a better light, you just have Xbox fans on social media complaining yet ignoring everything Microsoft is doing on their end.

All I see is an excuse just to put MS in a better light. Fact is, Microsoft acquiring publishers and making games exclusive is far worse.

 

[Freeman76]

Sony were miles better at the end of the PS3 era, when they had ground to cover.

 

[kraspkibble]

lmao so Sony are now paying to stop games going on Gamepass?

how pathetic. Maybe use that money to improve PS+ ?

Even grocery stores pay for exclusive rights to sell certain products and brands so other grocery stores in the area can’t sell it. This has been a business tactic since forever so even though it may suck people act like it’s a crime against gamers lol

Yeah but Sony isn't using the money to get exclusive rights for their "grocery store"

They are spending their money to stop another "grocery store" selling a product.

All this really says is Sony are offering more than MS and I'm not sure that's a fight Sony can win against MS lol.

 

[Umbasaborne]

At this point will this deal ever get approved?

 

[kraspkibble]

Sony were miles better at the end of the PS3 era, when they had ground to cover.

Good thing then that Xbox/MS are doing a lot of things right this generation then. I know PS5 is still the more popular console but Sony has more competition this time around. I think they got a bit too cocky with PS4 (like PS2) so they need to be careful of the next few years and going into next generation.

 

[adamsapple]

Is it the right nut or the left one?

At this point will this deal ever get approved?

Unless there are some real revelatory claims made, I don't see why not.

Besides Sony, not a single notable entity in the video game industry has raised any issue if this Brazilian CADE filing reflects the rest of the world as well.

And Microsoft's rebuttals, as seen in this topic's OP, are pretty good at countering any of the original claims Sony made.

 

[Three]

I don't know if they do. Look at the PS Extra drop this month and it's a mostly a bunch of games that are currently on Gamepass. That wouldn't happen if they had those types of agreements.

This would be like saying look at Fall Guys on xbox or Persona 5 releasing on gamepass that means PS exclusivity contracts don't exist!? Contracts have time periods and differ.

Microsoft purchasing Obsidian likely allowed games like Grounded to exist

The game existed before they were even aquired.

 

[kraspkibble]

Is it the right nut or the left one?

Unless there are some real revelatory claims made, I don't see why not.

Besides Sony, not a single notable entity in the video game industry has raised any issue if this Brazilian CADE filing reflects the rest of the world as well.

And Microsoft's rebuttals, as seen in this topic's OP, are pretty good at countering any of the original claims Sony made.

 

[adamsapple]

The game existed before they were even aquired.

They started planning it after PoE2 came out (May 2018) and MS bought them in November 2018, they probably only had early concept work done, I can't imagine any significant development done within that time frame. And just like Psychonauts 2, the purchase and the funding received thereafter allowed them to make an actual complete game out of it.

 

[RoadHazard]

Microsoft carved themselves a very nice slice of the console market with Xbox, but it was always going to be an uphill battle trying to dethrone Nintendo and PlayStation in terms of console sales as both competitors already had decades to foster a faithful userbase and established gaming franchises.

However, now that hardware sales are becoming less and less relevant to the bottom line and user engagement paired with monetization schemes seems to be the be all- end all of the current gaming market, Sony sees themselves in uncharted waters and they are afraid of change. Microsoft meanwhile has fully embraced this and is easily the most prepared for the evolving market.

Sony was only on the market for one generation before the Xbox was released (although the PS2 was released earlier than it), for four out of the five PlayStation generations Xbox has been there. So not that big of a headstart there really, definitely not "decades", that only applies to Nintendo.

 

[JackMcGunns]

I don't know why I have to explain this.

We're talking about third-party time exclusive deals versus buying an entire publisher and making all (or most) of their games exclusive.

I don't know why we have to explain this.

Activision went for sale and could've gone to Facebook, in fact Bobby Kotick was negotiating with Mark Zuckerberg already when MS came in to the picture and if y'all weren't busy fighting the good Xbox vs PS fight, you would see that things are WAY better with MS making the acquisition, it's good for gamers. Surprisingly some people (out of spite) would rather see Activblizzard games going to Meta or Stadia, or dissolve rather than see its games come to Xbox Game Pass, one of the best things to come to gamers in a long time.

 

[SaucyJack]

So much Clickbait

 

[DETACA]

The only consumers truly hurt by this are A

 

[Three]

Yeah but Sony isn't using the money to get exclusive rights for their "grocery store"

They are spending their money to stop another "grocery store" selling a product.

But um.. that's what "exclusive rights" means.

It's not even exclusive rights they are paying for though. They are "paying money" (they don't actually pay money but mostly pledge to do marketing/promotion) to sell a game from which they get a cut and promotion of console sales and they obviously don't want it on any competing subscription services, that would reduce sales. It's bizarre how people don't get this. Do people think MS pays some publisher millions to promote and release a game on gamepass and has nothing in the contract preventing an Epic games store or Amazon Prime games giveaway for a given period? How silly would a person have to be to think that's not the case.

 

[AJUMP23]

I don't know why we have to explain this.

Activision went for sale and could've gone to Facebook, in fact Bobby Kotick was negotiating with Mark Zuckerberg already when MS came in to the picture and if y'all weren't busy fighting the good Xbox vs PS fight, you would see that things are WAY better with MS making the acquisition, it's good for gamers. Surprisingly some people (out of spite) would rather see Activblizzard games going to Meta or Stadia, or dissolve rather than see its games come to Xbox Game Pass, one of the best things to come to gamers in a long time.

MS buying Activision basically saves it from whatever Facebook would do to it. Blizzard today is not the Blizzard of old maybe they can fix their issues, but I doubt it.

 

[DForce]

I don't know why we have to explain this.

Activision went for sale and could've gone to Facebook, in fact Bobby Kotick was negotiating with Mark Zuckerberg already when MS came in to the picture and if y'all weren't busy fighting the good Xbox vs PS fight, you would see that things are WAY better with MS making the acquisition, it's good for gamers. Surprisingly some people (out of spite) would rather see Activblizzard games going to Meta or Stadia, or dissolve rather than see its games come to Xbox Game Pass, one of the best things to come to gamers in a long time.

It's funny how I mention Starfield and Elder Scrolls and you guys completely ignore that.

You're the third person to do this and obvious why you would do that. We're not talking about games they're deciding to keep multiplat, we're talking about games they're deciding to keep exclusive.

Microsoft didn't go to Activision to "save" them, they saw an opportunity to buy the publisher, just like they're trying to do with everything out there.

These purchases are for their benefit and that's why they're doing it. Keeping games like Elder Scrolls and Starfield off Playstation is far worse than time exclusive deals. You guys are coming up with excuses because you just don't want to admit that it's far worse to buy publishers and to make games exclusive.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Yeah but Sony isn't using the money to get exclusive rights for their "grocery store"

They are spending their money to stop another "grocery store" selling a product.

That's the same thing lol