Support NeoGAF

[ChorizoPicozo]

Good thing Microsoft purchased Bethesda before they announced official platforms for Starfield then.

And what about all the obfuscation from Pete Hines ?

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Not only was/is being. It was being made and green-lit without any involvement from MS. Other words: they (Starfield, Redfall) are not First party games.

Microsoft has been funding payroll and development costs from the moment the deal went through, so 2+ years now. If that doesn't constitute a first party title, then I don't know what does.

 

[feynoob]

You guys need to stop playing dumb. Starfield was planned to be released on PS before MS acquired them. That's the point.

Planned is too much here. The game was on production and didn't have any platforms in mind, since it was asset production (making the game).
in 2018 MS went in negotiation with zenimax, which explains why Sony couldn't make the game exclusive.

If MS haven't entered a negotiation term, Bethesda would have included PS port.

So far the timeline would be "production > MS entering negotiation mode > Sony getting rejected > MS getting approval > port production(no PS) > 2020 announcement".

The trailer in 2018 so far shows that no platform at all, because of early production.

If we take MS from the timeline, Sony would have gotten their port.

Keep in mind that Bethesda games usually start production on PC, and gets platform port after the game is in playable state.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

And what about all the obfuscation from Pete Hines ?

What about it? The business world and media relations is all about making things hard to understand with no clear answer so that nothing can lead back to you in case of a lawsuit. This is taught in college courses.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Microsoft has been funding payroll and development costs from the moment the deal went through, so 2+ years now. If that doesn't constitute a first-party title, then I don't know what does.

They didn't greenlight nor managing the production or the creation of the IP.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

They didn't greenlight nor managing the production or the creation of the IP.

So SpiderMan and its upcoming sequel are not Sony first party games according to your definition.

 

[akimbo009]

Not only was/is being. It was being made and green-lit without any involvement from MS. Other words: they (Starfield, Redfall) are not First party games.

They are first party now. Sure it was expected and implied that it would be on more platforms but never came to be. There isn't some working PS4/5 version of the game floating around out there.

There are benefits to acquiring a company for the buyer and this is definitely benefiting MS and other hurt feelings it's totally reasonable for them to do that.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

So SpiderMan and its upcoming sequel are not Sony first party games according to your definition.

Sony was involved since the beginning.

Second Party then First Party.

 

[DForce]

Planned is too much here. The game was on production and didn't have any platforms in mind, since it was asset production (making the game).
in 2018 MS went in negotiation with zenimax, which explains why Sony couldn't make the game exclusive.

If MS haven't entered a negotiation term, Bethesda would have included PS port.

So far the timeline would be "production > MS entering negotiation mode > Sony getting rejected > MS getting approval > port production(no PS) > 2020 announcement".

The trailer in 2018 so far shows that no platform at all, because of early production.

If we take MS from the timeline, Sony would have gotten their port.

Keep in mind that Bethesda games usually start production on PC, and gets platform port after the game is in playable state.

Good thing Microsoft purchased Bethesda before they announced official platforms for Starfield then.

It's simple.

If Microsoft didn't acquire Bethesda, then Starfield would be on PlayStation.

That's it.

The "Well, it wasn't officially announced" doesn't work. Microsoft is the reason why it's not on PlayStation.

So based on this logic, there's no evidence that Sony stopped Street Fighter V and Final Fantasy 7: Remake from appearing on PlayStation because it wasn't officially announced.

 

[DForce]

Playing dumb is all they got.

This is why Colt, Tim Dog, and the rest of the Xbox Podcasters are so popular. They spew BS and Xbox fanboys are willing to eat it up.

 

[Three]

You guys need to stop playing dumb. Starfield was planned to be released on PS before MS acquired them. That's the point.

The "Well, it wasn't officially announced" doesn't work. Microsoft is the reason why it's not on PlayStation.

So based on this logic, there's no evidence that Sony stopped Street Fighter V and Final Fantasy 7: Remake from appearing on PlayStation because it wasn't officially announced.

Xbox fan logic:
Square Enix's FF7R on xbox was a sure thing even though it was announced exclusive. Most FF sales on PS, lower sales on xbox. Sony stopped it but powerless SE wanted it since FF crisis core is on xbox.

Bethesda's games on PS were not a sure thing. Starfield announced and not confirmed exclusive to anything. Most Bethesda sales were on PS prior to purchase. MS buying the publisher was not what stopped PS release. Bethesda for some reason just didn't want to release on PS anymore.


That's the logic they roll with.

 

[DarkMage619]

You guys need to stop playing dumb. Starfield was planned to be released on PS before MS acquired them. That's the point.

So I was right. Again no proof was provided so it's pure speculation. I already made Street Fighter 5 analogy. Not all games hit all platforms.

Microsoft has been funding payroll and development costs from the moment the deal went through, so 2+ years now. If that doesn't constitute a first party title, then I don't know what does.

At this point nothing is what it has always been anymore. Nintendo for whatever reason is no longer considered a video game platform competitor. Game pass is a separate market even with the exact same games. xCloud is a market when it isn't available by itself. People are twisting themselves into knots to make MS a villain and a much bigger player than they actually are.

Xbox fan logic:
Square Enix's FF7R on xbox was a sure thing even though it was announced exclusive. Most FF sales on PS, lower sales on xbox. Sony stopped it but powerless SE wanted it since FF crisis core is on xbox.

Bethesda's games on PS were not a sure thing. Starfield announced and not confirmed exclusive to anything. Most Bethesda sales were on PS prior to purchase. MS buying the publisher was not what stopped PS release. Bethesda for some reason just didn't want to release on PS anymore.


That's the logic they roll with.

'Yeah PlayStation really put Morrowind on the map. Bethesda never made any exclusives on Xbox until Starfield.'

Maybe it's not Xbox fan logic you should be concerned with. Bottom line is no game is guaranteed to any platform no matter how entitled you think PlayStation is.

 

[GHG]

Bottom line is no game is guaranteed to any platform no matter how entitled you think PlayStation is.

The fucking irony.

Next time you want to cry about something not being on Xbox or on Gamepass let's all remind you of this statement.

 

[Warablo]

That's the point of buying a studios. To make exclusive games for your system or services. We really gonna pretend that if Sony bought Bethesda that Starfield would be on Xbox consoles?

The very definition of competition is shrinking your competitors market share.

 

[GHG]

That's the point of buying a studios. To make exclusive games for your system or services. We really gonna pretend that if Sony bought Bethesda that Starfield would be on Xbox consoles?

The very definition of competition is shrinking your competitors market share.

Of course that's the primary reason for bringing studios in-house, everyone with a brain knows this. Does anyone really think if they could get away with making COD exclusive that they wouldn't be doing it, especially after spending $70 billion?

But the "good guy xbox" spiel is to claim no playstation versions existed (or were going to exist) so therefore nothing is being taken away. Because, you know, Xbox would never do such a thing, they are so innocent and for the gamers.

 

[DForce]

So I was right. Again no proof was provided so it's pure speculation. I already made Street Fighter 5 analogy. Not all games hit all platforms.

Franchises like Street Fighter and Final Fantasy? What about new franchises like Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo? Many Xbox gamers were annoyed these 3rd party games were denied on Xbox. MS is doing what they have to ensure they get content on their platform. It's business.

My point is an exclusive game made from the bottom up on PlayStation is not the same as paying to prevent an established franchise from coming out on another platform. The Spider-Man game was never an example of a money hat. Sony absolutely moneyhatted Street Fighter and Final Fantasy. Spider-Man is a completely different story.

You must have missed Final Fantasy 7 remake blocked on Xbox or all the Destiny 2 exclusive guns and strikes. Street Fighter 5 says hi. The Bethesda purchase did not stop the games from hitting PC, being streamed, and MS makes 2 consoles for people of different economic means. It's not the same at all.

Where's your proof Xbox fans were denied Street Fighter V and Final Fantasy 7 Remake and 16?
Where's your proof Final Fantasy 7 Remake was blocked on Xbox?

 

[Three]

'Yeah PlayStation really put Morrowind on the map. Bethesda never made any exclusives on Xbox until Starfield.'

The irony of this strawman when arguing about Final Fantasy on xbox isn't lost on me. Morrowind was 20yrs ago.

 

[DarkMage619]

Where's your proof Xbox fans were denied Street Fighter V and Final Fantasy 7 Remake and 16?
Where's your proof Final Fantasy 7 Remake was blocked on Xbox?

My point is that no game is promised to any platform. Sometimes games don't go to your preferred system. I suggest you deal with it like fans of other platforms that miss out.

The irony of this strawman when arguing about Final Fantasy on xbox isn't lost on me. Morrowind was 20yrs ago.

I'm sorry reality doesn't align with your narrative. Bethesda has made exclusive games on Xbox and Starfield is not the first. I'm happy to acknowledge that Street Fighter 5 wasn't guaranteed to be on Xbox just like Starfield was never promised to PlayStation. It is what it is.

 

[Three]

I'm sorry reality doesn't align with your narrative. Bethesda has made exclusive games on Xbox and Starfield is not the first. I'm happy to acknowledge that Street Fighter 5 wasn't guaranteed to be on Xbox just like Starfield was never promised to PlayStation. It is what it is.

And yet Square Enix has also made exclusives for PS and FF7R isn't the first. You seem pretty adamant that it's sony not allowing it there and not so adamant to admit that this particular exclusive is due to MS now owning the publisher. You go back 20yrs to Morrowind. Using your logic did xbox put Final Fantasy 7 "on the map"?

 

[DForce]

My point is that no game is promised to any platform. Sometimes games don't go to your preferred system. I suggest you deal with it like fans of other platforms that miss out.

You're trying to change your point.

I'll ask 2 simple questions and let's see if you can answer them honestly.

1. Was Bethseda going to on releasing Starfield on PlayStation before they were acquired by Microsoft?
2. Did Microsoft decide to make Starfield Exclusive after the acquisition?

 

[GHG]

Where's your proof Xbox fans were denied Street Fighter V and Final Fantasy 7 Remake and 16?
Where's your proof Final Fantasy 7 Remake was blocked on Xbox?

"Sony bad, Xbox Good"

The end.

This is why it's impossible to take anything people like that seriously.

Make no mistake, their reasons for desperately wanting this deal to go through are not above board. Why do I say this? Because there is no reason for anyone to desperately want this deal to go through considering they are already getting the games on their system anyway. "Gamepass" is not a valid reason and never has been, not one person ever said they needed COD (or any other title in ATVI's library) on gamepass in order to enjoy/play them prior to this deal being announced.

 

[akimbo009]

You're trying to change your point.

I'll ask 2 simple questions and let's see if you can answer them honestly.

1. Was Bethseda going to on releasing Starfield on PlayStation before they were acquired by Microsoft?
2. Did Microsoft decide to make Starfield Exclusive after the acquisition?

Doesn't matter when it was made. We do know it was planned for PlayStation because PlayStation tried to buy it's exclusivity.

That went out the door with the acquisition but if MS didn't buy it then it would probably be exclusive to PlayStation which apparently you'd be also ok with.

This just sounds like port begging at this point.

 

[DForce]

"Sony bad, Xbox Good"

The end.

This is why it's impossible to take anything people like that seriously.

Make no mistake, their reasons for desperately wanting this deal to go through are not above board. Why do I say this? Because there is no reason for anyone to desperately want this deal to go through considering they are already getting the games on their system anyway. "Gamepass" is not a valid reason and never has been, not one person ever said they needed COD (or any other title in ATVI's library) on gamepass in order to enjoy/play them prior to this deal being announced.

It's funny seeing Xbox fans on this forum coming up with excuses just to defend Microsoft. They hold a different set of standards for PlayStation than Microsoft.

 

[DForce]

Doesn't matter when it was made. We do know it was planned for PlayStation because PlayStation tried to buy it's exclusivity.

That went out the door with the acquisition but if MS didn't buy it then it would probably be exclusive to PlayStation which apparently you'd be also ok with.

This just sounds like port begging at this point.

You're clearly not keeping up with the conversation that's going on in this thread.

 

[akimbo009]

You're clearly not keeping up with the conversation that's going on in this thread.

I think I have - it's just a bunch of tears.

 

[GHG]

I think I have - it's just a bunch of tears.

Yeh from the people who were adamant they were going to be playing COD on gamepass this year.

 

[DForce]

I think I have - it's just a bunch of tears.

You haven't.

Xbox fans in this thread are saying there's no evidence or proof that it was ever planned for PlayStation and I said that it was.

You're only backing up my point.

So why would you reply to me when I'm telling the Xbox fans the exact same thing?

You would only do this if you weren't paying attention.

 

[akimbo009]

You haven't.

Xbox fans in this thread are saying there's no evidence or proof that it was ever planned for PlayStation and I said that it was.

You're only backing up my point.

So why would you reply to me when I'm telling the Xbox fans the exact same thing?

You would only do this if you weren't paying attention.

Cause I don't understand it's relevancy. We really only know 2 things - 1/ there was likely not any working console versions of the game in Sept 2020 when MS announced the acquisition and 2/ Playstation wanted exclusive rights. We can surmise it would have ended up on Playstation, but as an exclusive like a bunch of other Bethesda/Zenimax games.

I don't know why that's a good thing or what you're arguing in support of? If you hate acquisitions on the basis of 2nd or 3rd party exclusivity then all sorts of things enter that argument - and it's reasonable then to also say that MS is at a market disadvantage if the largest player int he market is using it's market power to get into exclusive deals. It's creating a non-competitive environment either way.

So it comes down to a "yeah.... but it's different" argument which gets us to a situation where MS is forced into a position - either leave status quo (Sony moneyhatting everything) or disrupt it through an acquisition (Zenimax, etc). They definition realized if Starfield, etc kept going exclusive then they'd be at a serious disadvantage (don't think that's really debatable).

So - yes - Playstation would likely have Starfield AS AN EXCLUSIVE which you seem to be OK with since that support your narrative. But doesn't matter now, cause Bethesda is now an MS first party and that's that.

 

[akimbo009]

Yeh from the people who were adamant they were going to be playing COD on gamepass this year.

This is GAF, they don't play COD

 

[feynoob]

If Microsoft didn't acquire Bethesda, then Starfield would be on PlayStation.

I stated this point.

If MS haven't entered a negotiation term, Bethesda would have included PS port.

 

[Thirty7ven]

They are desperate.

 

[Warablo]

Of course that's the primary reason for bringing studios in-house, everyone with a brain knows this. Does anyone really think if they could get away with making COD exclusive that they wouldn't be doing it, especially after spending $70 billion?

But the "good guy xbox" spiel is to claim no playstation versions existed (or were going to exist) so therefore nothing is being taken away. Because, you know, Xbox would never do such a thing, they are so innocent and for the gamers.

I think its just because people are arguing like lawyers because that is basically all the arguments of this case rely on are flimsy half truths.

 

[DForce]

Cause I don't understand it's relevancy. We really only know 2 things - 1/ there was likely not any working console versions of the game in Sept 2020 when MS announced the acquisition and 2/ Playstation wanted exclusive rights. We can surmise it would have ended up on Playstation, but as an exclusive like a bunch of other Bethesda/Zenimax games.

I don't know why that's a good thing or what you're arguing in support of? If you hate acquisitions on the basis of 2nd or 3rd party exclusivity then all sorts of things enter that argument - and it's reasonable then to also say that MS is at a market disadvantage if the largest player int he market is using it's market power to get into exclusive deals. It's creating a non-competitive environment either way.

So it comes down to a "yeah.... but it's different" argument which gets us to a situation where MS is forced into a position - either leave status quo (Sony moneyhatting everything) or disrupt it through an acquisition (Zenimax, etc). They definition realized if Starfield, etc kept going exclusive then they'd be at a serious disadvantage (don't think that's really debatable).

So - yes - Playstation would likely have Starfield AS AN EXCLUSIVE which you seem to be OK with since that support your narrative. But doesn't matter now, cause Bethesda is now an MS first party and that's that.

You don't know what the conversation is about and now you're just guessing.

Just admit that you don't know what was going on.



This conversation started A WEEK AGO. We were discussing Microsoft's statement about not removing Call of Duty from PlayStation. Xbox fans are using this statement as proof that it will not be removed from PlayStation.

I've been telling Xbox fans on this forum that their words mean nothing and that it will most likely not appear on PlayStation after the 3-10 year deal has concluded because Microsoft will no longer be obligated to put COD on PlayStation consoles.

I quoted the FTC report in which they claim Microsoft has told the FTC regulators that they have no desire to make Redfall and Starfield exclusive. This means what Microsoft says through the media is irrelevant if they're not obligated to do so.


This is where things changed.

Xbox fans started telling people it wasn't a sure thing Starfield was going to appear on PlayStation

I posted a video TODAY from Pete Hines ( Senior vice president of global marketing & communications at Bethesda Softworks ) confirming that Bethesda had no plans to make Starfield console exclusive to the Xbox platform.

Everything you just said only proves you don't know what we were talking about.

 

[onesvenus]

I and many people more linked many times here in Gaf the interviews and SEC filing or regulators investigations docs including their statemend and also info coming from MS or Sony, both when talking about this or the Zenimax acquisitions, or in other threads related to MS acquisitions or exclusives.

Those things you are talking about don't say that Microsoft will never make a Zenimax game exclusive which is what you are implying. You can keep sharing them if you want but that won't make your interpretation of them to be true

 

[DarkMage619]

And yet Square Enix has also made exclusives for PS and FF7R isn't the first. You seem pretty adamant that it's sony not allowing it there and not so adamant to admit that this particular exclusive is due to MS now owning the publisher. You go back 20yrs to Morrowind. Using your logic did xbox put Final Fantasy 7 "on the map"?

I don't recall mentioning why the game was exclusive only that no game is promised. I don't think there is anything remarkable about a first party developer making a game exclusive. It is quite interesting that Square who is not a first party developer just randomly chose the PlayStation to make their game for but it doesn't change the fundamentals of my point. Bethesda has made an exclusive game for Xbox before and no one can prove Starfield was coming to PlayStation.

You're trying to change your point.

I'll ask 2 simple questions and let's see if you can answer them honestly.

1. Was Bethseda going to on releasing Starfield on PlayStation before they were acquired by Microsoft?
2. Did Microsoft decide to make Starfield Exclusive after the acquisition?

I did no such thing.

1) There is no evidence that Starfield was coming to PlayStation. It's speculation.

2) Starfield was formally given a platform after the acquisition. For all we know it could have been a PC exclusive but MS paid to have an Xbox version added.

Still doesn't change the fact that no game is promised to any platform. Also doesn't change that fact that first party studios tend to make games for the platform they are owned by.

 

[feynoob]

 

[DForce]

I did no such thing.

1) There is no evidence that Starfield was coming to PlayStation. It's speculation.

2) Starfield was formally given a platform after the acquisition. For all we know it could have been a PC exclusive but MS paid to have an Xbox version added.

Still doesn't change the fact that no game is promised to any platform. Also doesn't change that fact that first party studios tend to make games for the platform they are owned by.

It's speculation?

Ok.

Where's proof that Sony kept Street Fighter and Final Fantasy 7 from Xbox? You said it was blocked so I want to see proof.

 

[Ezekiel_]

I don't recall mentioning why the game was exclusive only that no game is promised. I don't think there is anything remarkable about a first party developer making a game exclusive. It is quite interesting that Square who is not a first party developer just randomly chose the PlayStation to make their game for but it doesn't change the fundamentals of my point. Bethesda has made an exclusive game for Xbox before and no one can prove Starfield was coming to PlayStation.


I did no such thing.

1) There is no evidence that Starfield was coming to PlayStation. It's speculation.

2) Starfield was formally given a platform after the acquisition. For all we know it could have been a PC exclusive but MS paid to have an Xbox version added.

Still doesn't change the fact that no game is promised to any platform. Also doesn't change that fact that first party studios tend to make games for the platform they are owned by.

 

[akimbo009]

You don't know what the conversation is about and now you're just guessing.

Just admit that you don't know what was going on.



This conversation started A WEEK AGO. We were discussing Microsoft's statement about not removing Call of Duty from PlayStation. Xbox fans are using this statement as proof that it will not be removed from PlayStation.

I've been telling Xbox fans on this forum that their words mean nothing and that it will most likely not appear on PlayStation after the 3-10 year deal has concluded because Microsoft will no longer be obligated to put COD on PlayStation consoles.

I quoted the FTC report in which they claim Microsoft has told the FTC regulators that they have no desire to make Redfall and Starfield exclusive. This means what Microsoft says through the media is irrelevant if they're not obligated to do so.


This is where things changed.

Xbox fans started telling people it wasn't a sure thing Starfield was going to appear on PlayStation

I posted a video TODAY from Pete Hines ( Senior vice president of global marketing & communications at Bethesda Softworks ) confirming that Bethesda had no plans to make Starfield console exclusive to the Xbox platform.

Everything you just said only proves you don't know what we were talking about.

Yeah, nothing in the media is legally binding. And you can assume MS wouldn't continue publishing - I guess - after 10 years or whatever, but why is that in their financial interests at that point? COD is a significant revenue stream and after a decade of expectations the fact they publish on Playstation will have been normalized. So concluding that MS would pick up their big money ball and go home with it is a weird conclusion, but you can come to it if that's what you want to say.

But all of this is irrelevant. MS was under no contractual obligation to launch Starfield or any future IP on Playstation hardware except in the places there were contracts - and they honored those.

But who cares? If Playstation wanted to suddenly not put Destiny on MS platforms or whatever I am not aware of any agreement for them not to have the ability to do so. They aren't obligated legally or otherwise put their content on other systems. Bungie is working on new IP, and I wouldn't expect it to be on Xbox either at this point cause Sony has full rights to make whatever decision they want - and I as a consumer can either buy a Playstation or not to access that content.

You're basically creating a strawman argument and declaring it to be true and getting all worked up over "xbox fans" when it's not really a debate since it's only an argument you made up.

Take a deep breath, basically.

 

[DForce]

Yeah, nothing in the media is legally binding. And you can assume MS wouldn't continue publishing - I guess - after 10 years or whatever, but why is that in their financial interests at that point? COD is a significant revenue stream and after a decade of expectations the fact they publish on Playstation will have been normalized. So concluding that MS would pick up their big money ball and go home with it is a weird conclusion, but you can come to it if that's what you want to say.

Microsoft would make more by putting Starfield on PS. Removing COD would mean less revenue, but they'll have a better chance to remove PS from the top of the gaming market.

But all of this is irrelevant. MS was under no contractual obligation to launch Starfield or any future IP on Playstation hardware except in the places there were contracts - and they honored those.

It's not irrelevant when it's the topic being discussed.

But who cares? If Playstation wanted to suddenly not put Destiny on MS platforms or whatever I am not aware of any agreement for them not to have the ability to do so. They aren't obligated legally or otherwise put their content on other systems. Bungie is working on new IP, and I wouldn't expect it to be on Xbox either at this point cause Sony has full rights to make whatever decision they want - and I as a consumer can either buy a Playstation or not to access that content.

Who cares? People are saying that it will be on PS after 10 years and I'm making the claim that it's unlikely if the deal goes through.

You're basically creating a strawman argument and declaring it to be true and getting all worked up over "xbox fans" when it's not really a debate since it's only an argument you made up.

Take a deep breath, basically.

Basically, you're not even paying attention and you're trying to argue with me with no point at all.

I also made it clear that I was talking specifically about Xbox fans who made the claim IN THIS THREAD.

Next time don't engage in a conversation without reading what's going on first.

 

[akimbo009]

Microsoft would make more by putting Starfield on PS. Removing COD would mean less revenue, but they'll have a better chance to remove PS from the top of the gaming market.

It's not irrelevant when it's the topic being discussed.

Who cares? People are saying that it will be on PS after 10 years and I'm making the claim that it's unlikely if the deal goes through.



Basically, you're not even paying attention and you're trying to argue with me with no point at all.

I also made it clear that I was talking specifically about Xbox fans who made the claim IN THIS THREAD.

Next time don't engage in a conversation without reading what's going on first.

You shouldn't speak for everybody, nor what folks are parsing out of the conversation. You don't get to dictate how I interpret the conversation. I am also not speaking on behalf anyone else or "xbox fans" or however you've decided turn this thread into a weird console war battleground.

Fundamentally, MS has concluded they will make more money or its in their platforms best interest to launch Starfield on their platform and not on Playstation. Regardless of your feelings, or how they concluded that, it's just a reality. Any complaining happening is just port begging.

 

[DForce]

You shouldn't speak for everybody, nor what folks are parsing out of the conversation. You don't get to dictate how I interpret the conversation. I am also not speaking on behalf anyone else or "xbox fans" or however you've decided turn this thread into a weird console war battleground.

Fundamentally, MS has concluded they will make more money or its in their platforms best interest to launch Starfield on their platform and not on Playstation. Regardless of your feelings, or how they concluded that, it's just a reality. Any complaining happening is just port begging.

You shouldn't reply to my post without reading the conversation and then get upset when I point out the fact that you're not paying attention.

I have no reason to argue about this any further because all you did was prove my point and disagreed with the Xbox fans in this thread about Starfield releasing on PS.

 

[3liteDragon]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but some Xbox fans in this thread were saying a few days ago that it wasn't a sure thing that Starfield would appear on PlayStation consoles.

Does this confirm what some Xbox fans were denying in this thread?




Bethesda games going exclusive wasn't being considered until they were bought by Xbox. @oldergamer are you going to deny this one too?

Lmfao, “but stARFielD WaS never aNnOUNcEd FoR PlAYstAtion.” Anyone with half a brain cell didn’t need an official announcement to know that Starfield, a game made by a studio whose last few games were all released on PlayStation, was planned for release on PS until they got acquired.

Jimbo was just negotiating timed exclusivity for a game with no playable PS port you see.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

MLex has a new report about the case:

- MS and ABK didn’t expect the lawsuit so soon because there was little engagement from the FTC and the process seemed rushed.

- In fact, the FTC didn’t have to sue now, the speculation being that the timing of the lawsuit was a strategic choice by the FTC in light of the pending reviews in Europe and in the UK, at a critical phase in the process right now.

- It looks like the FTC believes that after the Illumina/Grail case (blocked by the EC), it's easier to get these deals blocked in Europe rather than having to litigate them in the US.

- The report literally says "Did the FTC file suit and accuse Microsoft of lying to the European Commission in order to pressure the commission not to settle this case?"

- The report says that the lawsuit could make more difficult for the European Commission to contemplate accepting remedies at an early stage without filing charges, assuming it wanted to. Therefore, the EC may prefer to wait until the CMA is done and let the process play out in UK before doing anything.

 

[bxrz]

MLex has a new report about the case:

- MS and ABK didn’t expect the lawsuit so soon because there was little engagement from the FTC and the process seemed rushed.

- In fact, the FTC didn’t have to sue now, the speculation being that the timing of the lawsuit was a strategic choice by the FTC in light of the pending reviews in Europe and in the UK, at a critical phase in the process right now.

- It looks like the FTC believes that after the Illumina/Grail case (blocked by the EC), it's easier to get these deals blocked in Europe rather than having to litigate them in the US.

- The report literally says "Did the FTC file suit and accuse Microsoft of lying to the European Commission in order to pressure the commission not to settle this case?"

- The report says that the lawsuit could make more difficult for the European Commission to contemplate accepting remedies at an early stage without filing charges, assuming it wanted to. Therefore, the EC may prefer to wait until the CMA is done and let the process play out in UK before doing anything.

FTC knows it has no chance of winning that court case so they are banking on the CMA/EU Commission

 

[feynoob]

Dplicate

 

[feynoob]

In fact, the FTC didn’t have to sue now, the speculation being that the timing of the lawsuit was a strategic choice by the FTC in light of the pending reviews in Europe and in the UK, at a critical phase in the process right now.

My hunch was right,
CMA is the spearhead of this deal,

 

[HoofHearted]

Same shit… different day…

 

[feynoob]

Same shit… different day…

People like to argue, and don't know when to stop it.
It's become You VS them like cult.

Wish they could these useless debates and enjoy some dumb YouTube videos.

 

[HoofHearted]

People like to argue, and don't know when to stop it.
It's become You VS them like cult.

Wish they could these useless debates and enjoy some dumb YouTube videos.

just sit back and enjoy the show…