GHG
Your friend is something else
Jesus, where are this pseudo-lawyers popping up from? There's another one born on Twitter a minute at this rate.
That's a straight gangsta response.
FTC has been humbled.
In what way? Someone should tell her that COD has been in PS+ in the past so apparently ABK aren't that adverse to multi-game subs and having selective content hosted in them as a 3P entity, if the money's talking right.
And the claims that FTC misrepresented MS's claims in statements made to regulators in the EU is still open to interpretation, because Starfield very much
WAS a game in development for PlayStation that has now been removed from the platform following MS's acquisition of Zenimax. And, given the template Starfield is built on (basically "Fallout in Space"), and considering the Fallout games (the existing Zenimax IP it's closest to in spirit) have been multiplatform since the PS3/360 gen, and have been huge sellers themselves during their day...
...it's natural to assume that if Starfield is in any way similar to those games then it would have obviously also fallen under Microsoft's own claimed criteria of being a type of game big enough to warrant a multi-platform release, yet will not be released on PlayStation systems at launch. Because that was one of the other things Microsoft mentioned in their statements to the EU: selective Zenimax content that made sense to keep multiplat would remain multiplat. How does a game billed as being Bethesda's biggest deal since Skyrim, that shares lineage with a franchise that has been multi-platform since the mid-2000s, and seen huge sales with mainline entries (among the biggest for the years new entries were released)...suddenly not warranted as a multiplatform release when it was in fact in development for multiple consoles before the acquisition was finalized?
Don't expect pseudo-lawyers on Twitter to actually apply any critical thinking and ask these questions, because that puts their arguments under too much a microscope. There are a lot of ways claims on both sides may have been looked at to come to their conclusions and statements. You gotta look at ALL the angles.
Very generous to use them on others before yourself. Tis the season and all that.
What we've seen recently is that Sony doesn't NEED CoD to be successful. They never have. The sales of games like GoW show that no third party title will make or break a platform and Sony has lots of IP they can rely on to continue their market dominance.
Well, Sony have stated that the revenue they generate from sales of 3P games like COD help enable the production and budgets of games like GOWR, HFW, etc. And there is truth to those claims. So on the one hand, they don't "need" COD for PS to survive as a console brand, that's true.
But if the result of losing games like COD leads to a decrease in overall install base sales that then causes them to lose other 3P games, and thus lose out on too much revenue on the gaming side, they may not have the budgets to keep funding games like a GOWR, and
that could be a net loss for the market directly attributable to a Microsoft acquisition strategy.
Sony is still in the preferred position. They don't need to spend the same kind of money to deny content to other platforms. It takes MS having to purchase studios to guarantee content. It makes way more sense long term but Sony being able to block content because of their market position is far more advantageous.
Again, Sony enjoys that position because they consistently provided a better platform for customers, developers and publishers over their rivals, for multiple generations. That position is a reward of the market itself rewarding them for their efforts. It isn't leverage or revenue they got through buying up other companies.
That's a very distinct factor and it can't be overlooked. The same way some may claim MS being threatened of having this acquisition shut down is a punishment to
their market success, it can very easily be argued that trying to chastise Sony for enjoying leverage with 3P publishers in favorable exclusivity deals etc. is a punishment for
their success accumulated in the gaming market since the '90s.
If Microsoft retained the success in gaming they had with the 360 and continued to grow it, they would in fact have very similar leverage with such deals and publishers as Sony has. But they didn't, and that was
Microsoft's mistake.
Their failure. At least acknowledge that much.
Swift_Star for a while. Couldnt hold himself down.
damn you
