Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
Sony was forced to put MLB on Xbox. Destiny was already on Xbox before purchase.
Yeah but when Sony sells MLB or Destiny VBucks on Xbox, MS gets that same 30% cut Sony gets from MS games.
Last edited:
Sony was forced to put MLB on Xbox. Destiny was already on Xbox before purchase.
And thats what people dont get it.. is not what they do...do whatever fuck they want, the controlling agencies will judge them. But for fuck sake start being honest, treating everybody as dumb stupid ignorant fanboys is insulting and melts any goodwill.Might as well drop all the PR friendly bullshit and state what they really do think about their gaming business and their various relations with their competitors.
You're possibly right, but even that scenario contradicts a lot of the stuff he spews in the media.This sounds out of context. This makes sense as an answer to the question why aren’t redfall and starfield coming to playstation? He’s saying that in addition to the percentage cut they lose out on, they’re actually supporting their competitor. I doubt Phil was simply complaining they don’t get to have all the money. Whatever, more console war fuel.
It’s no wonder that the same manifests so frequently in the Xbox fanbase.the origin of the persecution complex.
Greedyphil not happy with just adamsappleLol...
Next thing you know, Phil is going to be crying that Jim Ryan won't swallow his cumload.
What was bad in the generations speech here:I thought Jim Ryan was bad with his generations speech but Phil speaks utter bullshit all the time. Usually lying or double speak or both.
OP just posted it without giving any contextsI usually think Spencer quotes are blown out of proportion, or IQ tests that people fail at.
But yeah this one is quite bad.
Well now is clear that Ms is using money to threaten them .. and in fact we got Jimbo crying on all the media trying to convince regulators how much bad boy is msExactly, for every 30% sony makes they make more than double at 70% to "threaten PS' survival" with.
That works both ways, Phil
What? MS has been the meek child playing nice all this time? In what planet are we?Microsoft needs to accept that's the reality, Sony don't play nice, and so repay Sony is kind.
It's a very cleverly worded answer, it gives the perception of being weaker or worse off. Microsoft are the powerhouse here but Phil is trying (I'm not sure he'll succeed) to paint them as the underdog. Looks like the FTC have lost anyway so maybe it did work.I dont understand the logic. If you got 70m while your competition gets 30m, how are you bitching about what they do with that 30m. You have 70m.
If I was offered 70m on the caveat the person I hated most got 30m. I give no shits as I have 70m.
I understand the rationale for the bullshit but I think it's a stupid point to argue.It's a very cleverly worded answer, it gives the perception of being weaker or worse off. Microsoft are the powerhouse here but Phil is trying (I'm not sure he'll succeed) to paint them as the underdog. Looks like the FTC have lost anyway so maybe it did work.
Does it? Which game did Sony put on Xbox voluntarily? People don't get the meaning of this statement at all.
Those games are on Xbox, because Sony had no choice. MLB had to be multiplat because of the license and Bungie only joined Sony under the condition that their games are multiplat.MLB is on Xbox. Marathon is coming to Xbox. I don’t see Spencer putting qualifiers on his statement so you sure you understand the meaning?
So which games has MS put on PlayStation voluntarily?Those games are on Xbox, because Sony had no choice. MLB had to be multiplat because of the license and Bungie only joined Sony under the condition that their games are multiplat.
The underlying meaning of Phil's statement is that voluntarily "sharing" your games with the competition will partially weaken you, because the competition is not willing to do the same.
Personally I disagree, but it's not that hard to understand where he's coming from. Then again, some people just don't want to understand because it wouldn't fit their point of view.
Those games are on Xbox, because Sony had no choice. MLB had to be multiplat because of the license and Bungie only joined Sony under the condition that their games are multiplat.
The underlying meaning of Phil's statement is that voluntarily "sharing" your games with the competition will partially weaken you, because the competition is not willing to do the same.
Personally I disagree, but it's not that hard to understand where he's coming from. Then again, some people just don't want to understand because it wouldn't fit their point of view.
I'm pretty sure that if that 70-30 split wasn't there, Microsoft would release more games on Playstation. For the same reason they don't keep that many exclusives from PC. And that's probably the point Phil Spencer was making.Sony's buys Bungie the conditions of games still being multiplatform, but for some reason it's because Sony is forced, right.
And you are the one calling other to don't understand to fit narratives. You could fit on Xbox division just right it seems.
What about Valve's cut? Last time I checked Sony doesn't run their own front store, contrary to what microsoft does (better said tried).I'm pretty sure that if that 70-30 split wasn't there, Microsoft would release more games on Playstation. For the same reason they don't keep that many exclusives from PC. And that's probably the point Phil Spencer was making.
He's aware they also have that cost, but this is purely about releasing their games on the Sony platform. Do you think Sony would release games on PC, if for some reason Microsoft would get a 30% cut?
Good question, you should work for the FTC. Would be a great follow up question for Phil Spencer. I have no idea what his response would be.What about Valve's cut? Last time I checked Sony doesn't run their own front store, contrary to what microsoft does (better said tried).
Surely you see how stupid this sounds considering they release their games in a store that gets 30% from them.I'm pretty sure that if that 70-30 split wasn't there, Microsoft would release more games on Playstation. For the same reason they don't keep that many exclusives from PC. And that's probably the point Phil Spencer was making.
Sony have their games on xbox where MS get a 30% cut already. They even have their games published by others where they don't get 70% but MS gets a 30% cut.He's aware they also have that cost, but this is purely about releasing their games on the Sony platform. Do you think Sony would release games on PC, if for some reason Microsoft would get a 30% cut?
They haven't and they don't want to. Hence the argument.So which games has MS put on PlayStation voluntarily?
It's more than obvious that they bought Bungie because of their GAAS expertise. I own and enjoy both consoles and said that I disagree with Phil on this one. Take a look in the mirror.Sony's buys Bungie the conditions of games still being multiplatform, but for some reason it's because Sony is forced, right.
And you are the one calling other to don't understand to fit narratives. You could fit on Xbox division just right it seems.
OP just posted it without giving any contexts
I wonder are some of the FTC lawyers are gaf members? Lol. I find lot of similarities between some gaf members and ftc lawyers lol