Support NeoGAF

[Ozriel]

Insomniac had a game on Xbox befor being bought. So you could argue that stopped a sequel ever appearing but you could argue that none was ever planned for the game

Insomniac kept pushing for Microsoft to greenlight a sunset overdrive sequel. MS didn’t budge.
Same thing happened with Remedy petitioning MS for years to sign off on an Alan Wake sequel.

Some of the really poor decisions taken by Spencer last gen.

 

[Kilau]

Not sure. I would think that would fall under job duties rather than a legal obligation. When I think of legal obligations of corporate executives then I think of financial reporting to the government, things related to insider trading, etc.

Not legal as in they would go to jail necessarily like for insider trading, but they would be subject to lawsuits aplenty for negligence. You could probably face jail time if you deliberately tanked a company causing massive losses but that would be unlikely and hard to prove.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

Are there even any Xbox-only studios that Microsoft could buy? Asobo Studio (Flight Sim) is close, but they do multiplats, too.

Sony should buy then to make a VR flight Sim.

 

[Topher]

I get why Sony is doing it. They know every time a new game pops up on GP it makes their own service look even worse. They want to protect that "great thing going with COD" which is exclusive content and blocking it from GP.

No, Sony is against this because they obviously do not believe COD will be on PS once the deal term expires. Has nothing to do with their service. There is a good chance that "great thing" they had going with COD (just like MS did before PS took over the marketing rights) is probably going by the wayside regardless. Sony is fighting against what they think will one day be an Xbox exclusive Call of Duty. But Sony wasn't blocking Call of Duty from being on Game Pass. Activision said as much.

What I don't get is why the Sony fanboys in this thread and elsewhere care so much that they're spending hundreds of hours of their lives on it. Not much will change for them when the deal goes through. COD and every other new game will be full price for PS+ subs like it's always been.

Don't know about this "hundreds of hours" stuff, but why do you care if people spend their time discussing this?

 

[Zephyrus0]

You literally described what Sony was doing for the whole Xbox One and Sony's plan for this gen. Conspiracy theory? Let's see.

• Fighting genre? Sony went after SF5 and it completely decimated fighting genre on Xbox. I do wonder how many fighting games skipped Xbox due to Sony's interference but we can't neither prove or disprove that. After all Xbox 360 was a very strong FGC platform, yet suddenly all of it was erased overnight.
• JRPG? Sony went after Final Fantasy, preventing Xbox from growing the community for JRPGs altogether as Xbox only got FF13-1-2-3 (unfortunately not great FF games) and FF15 (decent). Then we had Sega essentially being a first party for Sony the whole Xbox One gen with Yakuza and Persona games. So any chance for JRPG community to grow on Xbox was lost.

So during Xbox One era, Sony contributed to a full demise of two genres. Let's take a look at this gen. There were 2 genres that were still associated with Xbox - WRPGs and FPSs.

• The attempt to destroy FPS community on Xbox arguably started with Xbox One gen, but it was partially self inflicted due to Xbox not extending COD deal. At that time there was a rumor that COD deal was extended to the platform with the biggest market share (it was neither proved or disproved). There was also that Destiny deal with content being locked to PS for the full year (especially after Bungie leaving Xbox). Probably there were some other deals but I forgot at this point. And during this gen, Sony went hard after FPS games too with Deathloop and arguably Ghostwire.
• The crusade against WRPG started this gen. Recall the deals that Sony made (or tried to make). Sony tried to make a time exclusive deal regarding Starfield. They also went after KOTOR. Both games had a long history on Xbox. Would not be surprised if Sony went after some Bioware deals. Baldur's Gate? Probably nothing, but who knows. We also know from Imran Khan that Sony offered a lot of money for those deals.

But Microsoft woke up and realized that they were actually a huge company. The irony is that both Bethesda and ABK deals were only partially planned - Bethesda was dying (if their games did not flop one after another, the situation would be different) and ABK was imploding with its lawsuits and stock's crash. We can argue whose conspiracy theory is better - "Sony was killing Xbox", "Microsoft is killing Playstation", but in the end, personally, I can only play the world's smallest violin for Sony

Especially when you were describing such a dire situation with "developers supporting a platform with a bigger userbase more" etc. Which was exactly Xbox One.

Is this a serious post?
You can't possibly be thinking that the two are in any comparable.
None of those IP's are owned by sony. Sony also doesn't own capcom and/or SquareEnix. There's 0 guarantee that the next title of both street fighter and final fantasy won't be on xbox.
Case and point, Street Fighter 6 will be playable on xbox consoles.

The dimension of these deals are not equal. These are two games from these developers. Microsoft bought all the games from the publishers. It's not just two. It's all of them and a lot very influential and popular.

You're comparing a grenade to a nuke and claim they're the same.

 

[ironmang]

No, Sony is against this because they obviously do not believe COD will be on PS once the deal term expires. Has nothing to do with their service. There is a good chance that "great thing" they had going with COD (just like MS did before PS took over the marketing rights) is probably going by the wayside regardless. Sony is fighting against what they think will one day be an Xbox exclusive Call of Duty. But Sony wasn't blocking Call of Duty from being on Game Pass. Activision said as much.

It has everything to do with their service. They don't want COD on GP, that's what this is all about. MS even wants to bring it back to Nintendo. COD is becoming LESS exclusive lol.

So no part of the marketing deal Sony has is blocking the possibility of COD being on GP?

Don't know about this "hundreds of hours" stuff, but why do you care if people spend their time discussing this?

Because it's weird to spend so much time caring about something that won't impact you regardless of outcome. Actively against it becoming accessible to more players for no other reason than console warring.

 

[Topher]

It has everything to do with their service. They don't want COD on GP, that's what this is all about. MS even wants to bring it back to Nintendo. COD is becoming LESS exclusive lol.

So no part of the marketing deal Sony has is blocking the possibility of COD being on GP?

If this was about being on Game Pass but not PS+ then Sony would have accepted the offer to put COD on PS+, but Sony flatly refused stating that wasn't their business model. Yes, COD becomes less exclusive for 10 years. Then what? Obviously Sony thinks it will become fully exclusive at that point. That's why they are not interested in any deal.

We don't have access to the marketing deal with Activision, but Activision themselves said that they had no interest in being on Game Pass outside of being acquired by Microsoft.

Because it's weird to spend so much time caring about something that won't impact you regardless of outcome. Actively against it becoming accessible to more players for no other reason than console warring.

Ah.....ok, I get what you are saying. Yeah, if this is just about winning the console war then that is a pretty shallow outlook on this. But console warriors tend to be like that. Might as well just ask why do console warriors waste their time warring.

 

[ulantan]

It has everything to do with their service. They don't want COD on GP, that's what this is all about. MS even wants to bring it back to Nintendo. COD is becoming LESS exclusive lol.

So no part of the marketing deal Sony has is blocking the possibility of COD being on GP?


Because it's weird to spend so much time caring about something that won't impact you regardless of outcome. Actively against it becoming accessible to more players for no other reason than console warring.

But it will affect you maybe not now this rapid consolidation of the industry will eventually lead to even larger walled gardens if you let let Microsoft buy all the publishers they want because it's "best for gamers". It will provoke responses from rivals and then you will lots of games being taken off other platforms. Phil won't be In charge forever l, Microsoft could pivit eat the fines and make stuff exclusive. The concern isn't today it's tommrow.

 

[freefornow]

Some of the really poor decisions taken by Spencer last gen.

For all the adoration that those titles had in xbox circles, maybe the metrics just wern't there to support sequels?

Spoiler

This is not a "must defend Phil at all costs" comment

 

[adamsapple]

Insomniac kept pushing for Microsoft to greenlight a sunset overdrive sequel. MS didn’t budge.
Same thing happened with Remedy petitioning MS for years to sign off on an Alan Wake sequel.

Some of the really poor decisions taken by Spencer last gen.

On the flip side, we're getting such a unique survival horror based Alan Wake (hopefully still) this year that it makes up for them not pushing forward a very similar sequel 3 years later.

 

[reinking]

It has everything to do with their service. They don't want COD on GP, that's what this is all about. MS even wants to bring it back to Nintendo. COD is becoming LESS exclusive lol.

So no part of the marketing deal Sony has is blocking the possibility of COD being on GP?

This isn't about Game Pass. This is about CoD and Sony not wanting limited or no access to the franchise. You can spin that to Game Pass if you want to try but if you think it is only about keeping CoD off of Game Pass you have a lot of reading to do to get caught up on Sony's arguments against the acquisition.

Because it's weird to spend so much time caring about something that won't impact you regardless of outcome. Actively against it becoming accessible to more players for no other reason than console warring.

Then why are you here? Weird to me that people come into a thread to tell other people they are wasting time and then participate in the conversation. I mean, you are here so you must care, right?

 

[demigod]

At that same time Xbox had an offer for any Marvel IP and said no. So Xbox had the opportunity but rejected a Spider-Man game made by Insomniac. If they fucked up that, they were not ever making a SO sequel.

Edit: Sunset Overdrive released in 2014 and Insomniac was bought in 2020. If the sequel wasn't announced in 5 years that IP is dead

They had a survey on if folks wanted SO2, nobody gave a fuck about it.

 

[cornonthecrobb]

as an owner of xboxes from the first one and sony from ps2.. and most nintendo machines.







can see this going one of two ways.



microsoft makes friendly and offers all ABK stuff on all platforms for more than ten years in order for it to go through. then once the ten years is up they go exclusive.

or things stay as they are.. which is my preferred option

 

[ironmang]

If this was about being on Game Pass but not PS+ then Sony would have accepted the offer to put COD on PS+, but Sony flatly refused stating that wasn't their business model. Yes, COD becomes less exclusive for 10 years. Then what? Obviously Sony thinks it will become fully exclusive at that point. That's why they are not interested in any deal.

We don't have access to the marketing deal with Activision, but Activision themselves said that they had no interest in being on Game Pass outside of being acquired by Microsoft.

Well that's the thing. Sony wants to stick to their strategy of not offering new games on PS+ and not have COD be on GP. They'd rather everyone have to pay full price for COD. I really don't think Sony is worried about losing COD at the end of next gen. They're much more worried about bleeding subs if COD (and many other Activision/Blizzard games) land on GP within the next couple years.

MS claims Sony has a deal that blocks the possibility of COD on GP and nobody has refuted it. We'll find out for sure if there's an existing deal to honor whether or not MS immediately puts COD on GP after the acquisition.

This isn't about Game Pass. This is about CoD and Sony not wanting limited or no access to the franchise. You can spin that to Game Pass if you want to try but if you think it is only about keeping CoD off of Game Pass you have a lot of reading to do to get caught up on Sony's arguments against the acquisition.

There's no spinning, Sony wanting to keep the status quo is what this is all about. GP threatens that, losing exclusive content threatens that, hell probably even the game showing up on Nintendo systems threatens that.

Then why are you here? Weird to me that people come into a thread to tell other people they are wasting time and then participate in the conversation. I mean, you are here so you must care, right?

If they were here out of objective curiosity about a huge merger then I have no opinion on it. But it's weird to me to see people spending so much time actively rooting against something that doesn't impact them.

 

[gothmog]

Anyone who doesn't exclusively play on Sony devices does

I think the deal is lazy and bad for the industry. Microsoft already is using Bethesda as a lazy crutch because their previous slate of studio acquisitions aren't getting things done. Imagine how bad it's going to be when they have Blizzard and Activision?

 

[demigod]

Missing the part of the comparison where McDonalds(Sony) cried that Burger King(Xbox) would spit in every McDonalds Coke(CoD). Saying that exclusive Coke cups would be unfair, when McDonalds has had exclusive Coke cups for a decade. McDonalds(Sony) is hard refusing any agreement or talks, then telling regulators that Burger King(Xbox) and Coke (ABK) are the difficult ones.

Not many are saying Sony’s motives/reasons to challenge the deal are wrong. It’s how they conduct themselves and the bullshit concerns they’ve had.

If you want to play the "what if" game, at least do it right. Spitting in every coke is not the same as degrading the quality. You know how they can degrade Coke(CoD)? By adding in less sugar. Ever thought of that? Yeah you're not capable of it.

 

[Danwan224]

For all the adoration that those titles had in xbox circles, maybe the metrics just wern't there to support sequels?

Spoiler

This is not a "must defend Phil at all costs" comment

Was the metric bad because they came out early last gen or because they were middling games is something phil should of thought about

 

[Topher]

Well that's the thing. Sony wants to stick to their strategy of not offering new games on PS+ and not have COD be on GP. They'd rather everyone have to pay full price for COD. I really don't think Sony is worried about losing COD at the end of next gen. They're much more worried about bleeding subs if COD (and many other Activision/Blizzard games) land on GP within the next couple years.

Sony's business model is much more in line with game sales than subscriptions. Sony isn't worried about "bleeding subs". They are worried about losing a ton of sales revenue. But yes, I definitely believe Sony is worried about losing Call of Duty entirely to Xbox, but we will have to agree to disagree on that.

MS claims Sony has a deal that blocks the possibility of COD on GP and nobody has refuted it. We'll find out for sure if there's an existing deal to honor whether or not MS immediately puts COD on GP after the acquisition.

Not quite. Microsoft has said Sony has blocked games from GP. MS did not say COD was blocked. Again, it doesn't matter since Activision said they would not put Call of Duty on Game Pass regardless.

 

[Wulfer]

Jim Ryan

Nope. Agree with the points this guy made. Sony is just trying to protect themselves with this. I'm sure if the situation was flipped Microsoft would do the same.

Small Dog Tries To Move Big Dog

 

[Gobjuduck]

If you want to play the "what if" game, at least do it right. Spitting in every coke is not the same as degrading the quality. You know how they can degrade Coke(CoD)? By adding in less sugar.

“Microsoft might release a PlayStation version of Call of Duty where bugs and errors emerge only on the game’s final level or after later updates” -Sony

Spit and bugs are close enough.

Ever thought of that? Yeah you're not capable of it.

you are a baby, keep reacting to all my posts.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Small Dog Tries To Move Big Dog

I doubt Microsoft is the small dog here. They are massive compared to Sony.

 

[Wulfer]

I doubt Microsoft is the small dog here. They are massive compared to Sony.

You're right, Sony's barked one too many times.

 

[reinking]

If they were here out of objective curiosity about a huge merger then I have no opinion on it. But it's weird to me to see people spending so much time actively rooting against something that doesn't impact them.

It is no weirder than people actively rooting for it. Humans tend to have opinions on things. Something that has this large of an impact on their hobby is definitely going to get the attention of people that play games. It is also false to say that this does not impact "them." I am not sure which them you are referring to; I can only guess the "Sony fanboys" you mentioned earlier. Regardless of who you are referring to, this acquisition will impact the industry .

 

[MasterCornholio]

You're right, Sony's barked one too many times.

Not really given how things are going for them.

 

[Wulfer]

Not really given how things are going for them.

MS just fixed their biggest problem lack of exclusive games. Now let's see how things go forward for them before you play that card shall we? Also, let's see who moves dates Starfield or Spiderman 2. I don't think Sony has the balls to release Spiderman 2 in the same week as Starfield. Looking from a level playing field, Spiderman 2 better make the PS5 whistle Dixie to stand up to Starfield's release. Then again, maybe releasing SP2 on the same week is the right timing but, I wouldn't be willing to do it.

 

[IllegalLemon]

You'd think after seeing Microsoft follow Sony's lead with $70 games and price-boosted bundles that folks would realize that these companies engage in the exact same behavior.



Well, it doesn't really matter if you think it is a "dick move" if you don't have a good understanding of what it is. Sounds to me like you just want to call it a "dick move" for the sake of calling it a "dick move".

It's two sides of the same coin really. Sony isn't the only one following Microsoft's example by introducing psplus tiers to take on gamepass. Microsoft is also following on Sony's example with $70 games and unofficial console price increases masquerading as old game/console bundles, e.g. Series X/FH5 bundle, which bundles a 2 year old game at full price, FH5 can be found in several places on sale right now. So much for MS not following the pack.

 

[MasterCornholio]

MS just fixed their biggest problem lack of exclusive games. Now let's see how things go forward for them before you play that card shall we?

No idea how that's going to reduce Sony to be honest. I mean Microsoft increasing their output doesn't decrease Sonys. It would be silly to believe otherwise.

 

[ironmang]

Sony's business model is much more in line with game sales than subscriptions. Sony isn't worried about "bleeding subs". They are worried about losing a ton of sales revenue. But yes, I definitely believe Sony is worried about losing Call of Duty entirely to Xbox, but we will have to agree to disagree on that.

They still want the PS+ subs though. Having a competitor offer a much better deal on probably their biggest PS+ mover is absolutely a concern. Sony doesn't care about any deals to keep COD on PS, they've said as much.

Not quite. Microsoft has said Sony has blocked games from GP. MS did not say COD was blocked. Again, it doesn't matter since Activision said they would not put Call of Duty on Game Pass regardless.

As part of yet another document detailing Microsoft’s case to the UK’s CMA that Sony isn’t on a level playing field with all this, they said the following about the current deal between Sony and Activision Blizzard:

“The agreement between Activision Blizzard and Sony includes restrictions on the ability of Activision Blizzard to place Call of Duty title on Game Pass for a number of years.”

And whether Activision would or wouldn't is irrelevant. Sony is paying them not to, which shows where their head is at.

It is no weirder than people actively rooting for it. Humans tend to have opinions on things. Something that has this large of an impact on their hobby is definitely going to get the attention of people that play games. It is also false to say that this does not impact "them." I am not sure which them you are referring to; I can only guess the "Sony fanboys" you mentioned earlier. Regardless of who you are referring to, this acquisition will impact the industry .

It's absolutely weirder lol. People rooting for it are getting something out of it. Why would I not want the service I'm paying for to be an even better value?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

someone should make a list of the ip that was acquired by sony and microsoft over the last 5 years. nobody can argue such facts and can see the obvious difference between how both handle acquisitions. sony mostly buy shit that they helped to build and make successful or completely new studios built ground up. microsoft mostly buy shit that they had nothing to do with at all. if anyone disagrees, make the list and we'll see.

What an ironic post considering Sony is upset about this deal because they worry they will lose out on all that revenue from CoD, a franchise they had “nothing to do with at all”.

But even making your list, who cares?

Company A pays multi platform devs to make exclusive games for their console. Other console players and PC players are unable to play the games (until recently when some games started to come to PC). Company A then outright buys said devs, ensuring all future games are at least console exclusive.

Company B buys devs outright, ensuring some games are console exclusive and some are not. All games come day and date to PC.

At the end of the day all you’re doing with Sony is making excuses as to why it is better or different, when at the end of the day the result is the same in A and B; people on other consoles won’t be playing most games from those developers. Or any except Destiny in Sonys case

 

[reinking]

It's absolutely weirder lol. People rooting for it are getting something out of it. Why would I not want the service I'm paying for to be an even better value?

Oh, so you are not here out of "objective curiosity" after all.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

No idea how that's going to reduce Sony to be honest. I mean Microsoft increasing their output doesn't decrease Sonys. It would be silly to believe otherwise.

But The Xbox output will be much greater with more than double the studios, and Activision Blizard in the pocket it would be silly to believe it would not be the case....cause Sony is losing many games that would be third party . Why? Cous daddy MS dumping almost 80 bilion of dollars in the Xbox division....

 

[ironmang]

Oh, so you are not here out of "objective curiosity" after all.

Try reading what I wrote again.

If they were here out of objective curiosity about a huge merger then I have no opinion on it. But it's weird to me to see people spending so much time actively rooting against something that doesn't impact them.

 

[DeepEnigma]

But The Xbox output will be much greater with more than double the studios, and Activision Blizard in the pocket it would be silly to believe it would not be the case....cause Sony is losing many games that would be third party . Why? Cous daddy MS dumping almost 80 bilion of dollars in the Xbox division....

Receiving the same games they would have gotten regardless. But playing takeaway by "making the competition smaller."

Hostile, really.

 

[Kilau]

MS claims Sony has a deal that blocks the possibility of COD on GP and nobody has refuted it. We'll find out for sure if there's an existing deal to honor whether or not MS immediately puts COD on GP after the acquisition.

There is zero doubt that when Sony pays for marketing, they will stipulate that the games won't be on a competitor subscription service. Like it or not it makes total sense.

 

[Sleepwalker]

MS just fixed their biggest problem lack of exclusive games. Now let's see how things go forward for them before you play that card shall we? Also, let's see who moves dates Starfield or Spiderman 2. I don't think Sony has the balls to release Spiderman 2 in the same week as Starfield. Looking from a level playing field, Spiderman 2 better make the PS5 whistle Dixie to stand up to Starfield's release. Then again, maybe releasing SP2 on the same week is the right timing but, I wouldn't be willing to do it.

This post has to be satire, right?

Spider-Man sold 33 million copies and is one of the most popular ips in the world, but sure, they're going to delay it because mighty Todd is coming out with Starfield that week. A game you can rent for 30 days for $1.

 

[Topher]

They still want the PS+ subs though. Having a competitor offer a much better deal on probably their biggest PS+ mover is absolutely a concern. Sony doesn't care about any deals to keep COD on PS, they've said as much.

Right, because every deal is going to have an expiration date and so the game being on Game Pass isn't nearly the same concern as Microsoft owning COD outright.

And whether Activision would or wouldn't is irrelevant. Sony is paying them not to, which shows where their head is at.

I stand corrected on what MS said, but will simply disagree on Activision factually saying Game Pass doesn't matter to them being irrelevant. Sony is paying for marketing agreements to maximize sales. Activision also wants to maximize sales. Sales are why COD isn't on GP regardless. This is factually what Activision explicitly said.

 

[reinking]

Try reading what I wrote again.

So, if I am to understand your first point that I responded to, the only people that should spend time in this thread are people that are either objectively curious or pro-acquisition? Those opposed (or... ..Sony fanboys as you called them) are weird for being here? Regardless of how many times you say it, this acquisition is more than CoD being on Game Pass. The "them" that you seem to be referring to have concerns that they could lose access to CoD in 10 years time. I was giving you credit in the beginning thinking that you are not biased, but I see that it was my mistake. Carry on soldier boy.

 

[ironmang]

Right, because every deal is going to have an expiration date and so the game being on Game Pass isn't nearly the same concern as Microsoft owning COD outright.

Having your competitor put the biggest shooter franchise on their service for free is a way the status quo changes. That could be a massive difference maker, especially going into next gen. I think they're much less worried about their game lineup in 2 gens than they are about keeping the lead they have now.

They did mention that they don't want it effectively "exclusive to GP" because they're unwilling to pay what it'd cost to put on PS+ (Extra I assume).

So, if I am to understand your first point that I responded to, the only people that should spend time in this thread are people that are either objectively curious or pro-acquisition? Those opposed (or... ..Sony fanboys as you called them) are weird for being here? Regardless of how many times you say it, this acquisition is more than CoD being on Game Pass. The "them" that you seem to be referring to have concerns that they could lose access to CoD in 10 years time. I was giving you credit in the beginning thinking that you are not biased, but I see that it was my mistake. Carry on soldier boy.

I never said what people "should" do. Just that it's weird to me to spend so much time in these threads rooting against something that doesn't impact you. Why do you care so much about what I find weird?

And for the record, I've given Sony wayyy more money over the last few gens than I've given MS. Even supported the Vita many years after they moved on.

 

[MasterCornholio]

This post has to be satire, right?

Spider-Man sold 33 million copies and is one of the most popular ips in the world, but sure, they're going to delay it because mighty Todd is coming out with Starfield that week. A game you can rent for 30 days for $1.

Plus it will boost the sales of the system during the holidays. They should if they can.

Regardless of Starfield being a thing.

 

[Three]

So, if I am to understand your first point that I responded to, the only people that should spend time in this thread are people that are either objectively curious or pro-acquisition? Those opposed (or... ..Sony fanboys as you called them) are weird for being here? Regardless of how many times you say it, this acquisition is more than CoD being on Game Pass. The "them" that you seem to be referring to have concerns that they could lose access to CoD in 10 years time. I was giving you credit in the beginning thinking that you are not biased, but I see that it was my mistake. Carry on soldier boy.

It's not even just lose access to COD down the line either. It could be lose access to other IPs like Tony Hawks, Crash, Diablo etc in a year or so too which aren't even covered, not only just the industry impact. He's being wilfully ignorant of why others might not like this deal and calling others wierd.

 

[Topher]

Having your competitor put the biggest shooter franchise on their service for free is a way the status quo changes. That could be a massive difference maker, especially going into next gen. I think they're much less worried about their game lineup in 2 gens than they are about keeping the lead they have now.

They did mention that they don't want it effectively "exclusive to GP" because they're unwilling to pay what it'd cost to put on PS+ (Extra I assume).

Well to me it goes back to all this depends on the acquisition being approved which is why Sony is against it entirely. Whether that is the primary motivation.....doesn't really matter. They want the whole deal to be dead.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well to me it goes back to all this depends on the acquisition being approved which is why Sony is against it entirely. Whether that is the primary motivation.....doesn't really matter. They want the whole deal to be dead.

And the same would happen if this were Sony making the purchase. Only MS being a louder PR mouthpiece as they always are. And every warrior would flippy floppy.

I'd still be against consolidating the industry.

 

[Topher]

And the same would happen if this were Sony making the purchase. Only MS being a louder PR mouthpiece as they always are. And every warrior would flippy floppy.

I'd still be against consolidating the industry.

Why? Consolidation is always good. Right?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

the only good thing about this is that Jez Corden got Buuuuuutt Hurt mad. that is music to my hears.

 

[geary]

No. They will still have to make COD available on PlayStation for 10 years, as the CMA may pass the acquisition based on that promise.

I don't think CMA can oblige a company to put a product on a store/platform, if the beneficiary doesn't want to sign the minimum required by the CMA.
I believe CMA can only make sure that MS offers a contract with the minimum required agreed. That's all...

Let's say that I am a producer and make a bottle of juice and according to the CMA I need to offer Heisenberg007 company a contract to deliver this product under a minimum list of conditions, but you don't want to sign the contract with those condition. I am in no way obliged to sell my product in your store without a contract signed.

 

[mansoor1980]

the only good thing about this is that Jez Corden got Buuuuuutt Hurt mad. that is music to my hears.

how?

 

[Bernardougf]

Its amusing fans celebrating more "exclusive" games from Bethesda and now ABK that they would already have the chance to play anyway (maybe not on gamepass day one but is beside the point) ... people are really really easy to persuade when the bias is this strong ... is literally happiness because the other lost and you won virtually nothing ... so sad that this is what you got to feel happy about

MS is not creating new and exciting exclusives .. is buying out the ones already existed ... and not beeing able to see this is fanboyism to its finest

 

[MasterCornholio]

the only good thing about this is that Jez Corden got Buuuuuutt Hurt mad. that is music to my hears.

Did Jez do anything recently

 

[reinking]

It's not even just lose access to COD down the line either. It could be lose access to other IPs like Tony Hawks, Crash, Diablo etc in a year or so too which aren't even covered, not only just the industry impact. He's being wilfully ignorant of why others might not like this deal and calling others wierd.

Absolutely, CoD isn't all this merger is about. I am much more concerned about the impact of the overall market than I am an individual game. This is an unprecedented acquisition by one of the wealthiest companies in the world. It can have consequences.

What is funny to me on a personal level, when I played CoD I played it on Xbox because that is where my friends played. I would benefit from CoD being on Game Pass if I decided to start playing it again. I just don't want it to be at the expense of the market, or at least, other gamers.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Its amusing fans celebrating more "exclusive" games from Bethesda and now ABK that they would already have the chance to play anyway (maybe not on gamepass day one but is beside the point) ... people are really really easy to persuade when the bias is this strong ... is literally happiness because the other lost and you won virtually nothing ... so sad that this is what you got to feel happy about

MS is not creating new and exciting exclusives .. is buying out the ones already existed ... and not beeing able to see this is fanboyism to its finest

Fanatics see it, they just don't care. It's a misguided dopamine win.