Support NeoGAF

[Captain Toad]

Of course you don't understand it. Blue rats are constantly scratching your heads and asses wondering why journalists, media and gamers are not calling this "double-standard" out, because there is none to call out /quell surprise.

Some of those games on your NintendoToo list are either straight up funded by Nintendo, made from the ground up for Switch, and most importantly, Nintendo isn't paying these companies to block these games from releasing on their main rivals platform. There isn't a case of MonHun Rise being leaked by Capcom boxart to be timed console exclusive for a year while instead Nintendo re-ups the contract behind the scenes, like FF7R. Bayonetta 3 literally wouldn't ever have been in production without Nintendo (confirmed by Kamiya). Tell me how this statement compares even slightly to Final Fantasy:

"As for Bayonetta 3, it was decided from the start that the game was going to be developed using Nintendo’s funding. Without their help, we would not have been able to kick off this project. All of the rights still belong to Sega and Nintendo"

Source

You can't, so you'll move the goalposts elsewhere.

Also, Nintendo isn't paying to keep games off of Game Pass, like Microsoft confirmed Sony do (and we already knew of at least one from a leak, Resident Evil 8).

So again, it's not surprising you stoop to false equivalence to cope.

You sound mad lol (please respond how you're not mad).

Sorry, but you'd be shocked how many Japanese games choose to be on PlayStation and/or Switch, but not on Xbox with ZERO financial incentive from Sony or Nintendo. It's often just not worth the cost to bring it to that platform.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I can see the deal going through. Only game i play from Activision Blizzard is Overwatch and that will stay on PlayStation. Either way not a problem for me as i also have a very good gaming PC, so if a couple of games that interest me go Xbox/PC exclusive i won't be affected.

if you have a gaming PC why would you ever play the dead console versions of overwatch? lol

 

[onnextflix5]

After giving some promises and opening some business is eu and the uk, yeh sure, might take a while tho, end 23 or even in 24.

 

[Banjo64]

Wait is that what they actually said? Pretty sure that 5-day deadline they asked MS passed, wonder when we'll get an update next.

Apologies I’ve mis-interpreted that. The full report isn’t too long;

https://assets.publishing.service.g...osoft_Activision_Summary_phase_1_decision.pdf

22. This evidence shows that the Merger could impact competition in several ways. In investigating the Merger, and consistent with the CMA’s strict legal time constraints
Page 4 of 8

at phase 1, the CMA focused on the most important ways in which the Merger could potentially harm competition, both now and in the future. These ‘theories of harm’ assess the harm to competition that could arise from:
(a) Microsoft withholding or degrading ABK’s content—including popular games such as Call of Duty—from other consoles or multi-game subscription services; and
(b) Microsoft leveraging its broader ecosystem together with ABK’s game catalogue to strengthen network effects, raise barriers to entry and ultimately foreclose rivals in cloud gaming services.

Basically this isn’t about PlayStation, this or console sales. It’s about the future of the industry and whether any other players will ever realistically be able to challenge MS in the cloud/subscription space.

 

[Neo_game]

Who can prevent it from happening ? Are they the same people who stopped the Nvidia-Arm 50 billion $ deal ?

 

[Genx3]

If you said yes, have you put any money on Activision? Currently trading at 78.51 below the 95 dollars/share buy-out price Microsoft has agreed to.

1000 dollars gains you 210 dollars less taxes and fees.

5000 dollars gains you 1050 dollars (again less taxes and fees).

Part of me wants to but that 37% CGT is ridiculous.

 

[Infamy v1]

You sound mad lol (please respond how you're not mad).

Sorry, but you'd be shocked how many Japanese games choose to be on PlayStation and/or Switch, but not on Xbox with ZERO financial incentive from Sony or Nintendo. It's often just not worth the cost to bring it to that platform.

Explain how you surmise anger from that (please explain how you come to that conclusion).

The second half of your post unironically proves my point over your compadre, though. Not only are you proving my point, but you're simultaneously insinuating that FF7R isn't on Xbox because SE thinks it's not worth the cost to bring it to that platform, despite the proof from their boxart that it was originally to be a 1 year timed exclusive? Despite them recently announcing FF7 Crisis Core R on Xbox, but not FF7R2? Like, where are you even going with this in relation to the post you're quoting? Reaching hard, it seems.

 

[Infamy v1]

Who can prevent it from happening ? Are they the same people who stopped the Nvidia-Arm 50 billion $ deal ?

Regulators cannot prevent this from happening. They can delay the deal or force it to go to court, which is where Microsoft (and all big tech) truly shine due to multi-million dollar lawyers.

 

[Aranea]

if you have a gaming PC why would you ever play the dead console versions of overwatch? lol

Trophies i guess? As i like those collect those. I guess those won't be a problem anymore after the account merging as i can unlock those on PC and once i launch the game on PlayStation the trophies will auto pop.

 

[Lasha]

I think the acquisition will be approved. I have been accumulating MSFT and ATVI for over a decade. I hate ATVI's games but ATVI is a strong company to hold even if the acquisition doesn't go through. I started selling when it was peaking over 100$ per share in 2021. I started buying again in June since its 1 year from Microsoft's expected date to close the deal and no major red flags have materialized. I've bought at least 100 shares a month since then.

edit: I live somewhere which doesn't levy captial gains tax or any fees to trade so my positions tend to be fluid.

 

[CrashNBurn_281]

I'm pretty sure the deal will go through. Just hoping Microsoft keeps their word on keeping COD multiplat.

 

[Banjo64]

if you have a gaming PC why would you ever play the dead console versions of overwatch? lol

How are they dead? Overwatch has cross play doesn’t it?

 

[tmlDan]

I still completely think it will go through, but with small caveats that MS need to abide to. They will have to cave in to some regulatory mandatories before it is approved

 

[Neo_game]

Regulators cannot prevent this from happening. They can delay the deal or force it to go to court, which is where Microsoft (and all big tech) truly shine due to multi-million dollar lawyers.

If that is the worst case scenario. Then I guess there is no doubt unless the judge is a hardcore PS5 fanboy lol.

 

[Infamy v1]

If that is the worst case scenario. Then I guess there is no doubt unless the judge is a hardcore PS5 fanboy lol.

These types of things are far, far beyond console wars. A lawyer will dismantle an argument saying Microsoft is going back on their word by saying they want to bring ABK games to more gamers than ever before and therefore are liars if they remove PS access, by proving that mobile, Switch, Xbox, PC and cloud gamers dwarf the PS userbase and therefore the statement is factually true.

It's more nuanced than that, but yeah. There is a reason everybody chose to dissect Phil's words such as "desire to keep CoD on PlayStation" when the deal was announced. It's all carefully worded.

 

[Yoboman]

These types of things are far, far beyond console wars. A lawyer will dismantle an argument saying Microsoft is going back on their word by saying they want to bring ABK games to more gamers than ever before and therefore are liars if they remove PS access, by proving that mobile, Switch, Xbox, PC and cloud gamers dwarf the PS userbase and therefore the statement is factually true.

It's more nuanced than that, but yeah. There is a reason everybody chose to dissect Phil's words such as "desire to keep CoD on PlayStation" when the deal was announced. It's all carefully worded.

They are looking at this through a far broader lens than what console Modern Warfare 8 is ported to.

Based on the CMA they have concerns of how MS are understating their market position, having also a stake in Windows gaming and cloud services

They are examining Microsoft's position in the emerging multi game subscription model which they have a dominant position in and could leverage to disadvantage the single game sales market

This may draw in opinions from other parties like consumer facing retailers. How would MS controlling the best selling game every year and offering it on a subscription affect them?

They will also look at MSs cloud business of which they are the market leader and how this could impact potential competition

They will also look at things like market concentration. Ultimately this is the richest company in gaming buying the biggest publisher. It's not just about whether Sony will get ports. Though that is a factor

 

[Infamy v1]

They are looking at this through a far broader lens than what console Modern Warfare 8 is ported to.

Based on the CMA they have concerns of how MS are understating their market position, having also a stake in Windows gaming and cloud services

They are examining Microsoft's position in the emerging multi game subscription model which they have a dominant position in and could leverage to disadvantage the single game sales market

This may draw in opinions from other parties like consumer facing retailers. How would MS controlling the best selling game every year and offering it on a subscription affect them?

They will also look at MSs cloud business of which they are the market leader and how this could impact potential competition

They will also look at things like market concentration. Ultimately this is the richest company in gaming buying the biggest publisher. It's not just about whether Sony will get ports. Though that is a factor

Correct, but the majority of criticism levied against MS would be from other publishers, which is why these commissions ask for their input, to which we have proof that everybody else besides Sony is fully on board with it going through. This is why part of the CMA remarks are eerily reminiscent of the leaked Sony Brazilian documents, some of them even verbatim as Hoeg Law pointed out and is confused about, as well.

Aside from that we have entities like the CWA (union party) that are in agreement for the deal to pass due to the benefits the employees will gain, which would otherwise have been a huge detriment to Microsoft if they were against it, as harm to employees would be ammunition to be against the deal. Everything pertaining to cloud gaming, subscriptions and market position should be child's play for lawyers to sift through.

 

[legacy24]

still can't get over how much money that is

 

[DarkMage619]

If you said yes, have you put any money on Activision? Currently trading at 78.51 below the 95 dollars/share buy-out price Microsoft has agreed to.

1000 dollars gains you 210 dollars less taxes and fees.

5000 dollars gains you 1050 dollars (again less taxes and fees).

Yes and I have invested as well. Hoping for an outstanding return.

 

[Saber]

Not sure.

Normally I would say ok...but theres way too many cash involved.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Some of those games on your NintendoToo list are either straight up funded by Nintendo, made from the ground up for Switch, and most importantly, Nintendo isn't paying these companies to block these games from releasing on their main rivals platform. There isn't a case of MonHun Rise being leaked by Capcom boxart to be timed console exclusive for a year while instead Nintendo re-ups the contract behind the scenes, like FF7R. Bayonetta 3 literally wouldn't ever have been in production without Nintendo (confirmed by Kamiya). Tell me how this statement compares even slightly to Final Fantasy:

"As for Bayonetta 3, it was decided from the start that the game was going to be developed using Nintendo’s funding. Without their help, we would not have been able to kick off this project. All of the rights still belong to Sega and Nintendo"

You're basically describing the same relationship Sony has with their 3rd-parties exclusive but for them it's always nefarious. Nintendo and Xbox are "funded" while Sony does nothing. They block and that's it. You think Capcom needs help from Nintendo for Monster Hunter?

Most of those games are also on PC so they have nothing special for Switch. Octopath Traveler is on Xbox/PC, Bravely Default 2 is on PC. They could easily port them to PS but they don't.

Green rats don't care about these games because they're not on PS. If they were there would be riots on every topic here and on Twitter. You guys want absolute parity with Sony. They can't get anything extra. Nintendo moneyhats are totally fine tho. Hypocrites.

 

[93xfan]

Cool, and then Starfield also comes out on PS5 as well. You know, since fair‘s fair.

Also, thank you for not including Street Fighter 5 as that game probably wouldn’t have existed if Sony hasn’t helped financially support it. Same with Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo financially supporting it hence its exclusivity to their systems.

Why would Starfield be fair? It’s MS owned. It’s not like I’m asking for Spider-Man. Sony wasn’t the original owners of Spider Man, nor Insomniac, before you complain about Bethesda.

 

[CatLady]

I think it's more likely it will go through, hopefully without any concessions, but I won't be doing any avatar bets on it.

 

[Robb]

I voted yes. I’ve never doubted it though. I don’t think regulators will have much to say about it in the end since it doesn’t create problems for anyone but Sony, and that’s only with one single franchise within the deal. Arguably King is the biggest get, and no one seems to bat an eye at MS getting them.

 

[Infamy v1]

You're basically describing the same relationship Sony has with their 3rd-parties exclusive but for them it's always nefarious. Nintendo and Xbox are "funded" while Sony does nothing. They block and that's it. You think Capcom needs help from Nintendo for Monster Hunter?

You literally ignore my verbatim quote from Kamiya regarding Bayonetta to push your bullshit false equivalence? You're terrible at debates and terrible at cherry-picking. Monster Hunter? So you think those 3DS MonHun games made specifically for a Nintendo platform were being moneyhatted away from others and not being contributed on by Nintendo?

Most of those games are also on PC so they have nothing special for Switch. Octopath Traveler is on Xbox/PC, Bravely Default 2 is on PC. They could easily port them to PS but they don't.

You're crying about super niche games like Octopath Traveler and BD? Sony is more interested in getting SEs biggest games as exclusives, like FF7R, FF7R2. FF16 and Forspoken. You really think Xbox is paying money to prevent a 3+ year 2DHD Switch exclusive from releasing on PlayStation but don't bat an eyelash to actual proof of Sony paying money to keep FF locked down?

Green rats don't care about these games because they're not on PS. If they were there would be riots on every topic here and on Twitter. You guys want absolute parity with Sony. They can't get anything extra. Nintendo moneyhats are totally fine tho. Hypocrites.

Sounds like a victim/persecution complex here. Makes sense now. The fact that you wrote this with a straight face and are incapable of understanding that the main reason Sonys moneyhats are being brought up by YouTubers and media lately is in due to Jimmyboy's hypocritical public crying tirade...well, that speaks volumes. Crying about unrelated Nintendo "moneyhats" and talking about hypocrisy while trying to defend lil ol' Sony all at once just proves my points against you even more succinctly than I intended.

I suppose you realized I dismantled all your FUD point by point and that's why you're cherry-picking and veering from the topic at hand, so here you go, maybe reading comprehension will help you out this time:

Some of those games on your NintendoToo list are either straight up funded by Nintendo, made from the ground up for Switch, and most importantly, Nintendo isn't paying these companies to block these games from releasing on their main rivals platform. There isn't a case of MonHun Rise being leaked by Capcom boxart to be timed console exclusive for a year while instead Nintendo re-ups the contract behind the scenes, like FF7R. Bayonetta 3 literally wouldn't ever have been in production without Nintendo (confirmed by Kamiya). Tell me how this statement compares even slightly to Final Fantasy:

"As for Bayonetta 3, it was decided from the start that the game was going to be developed using Nintendo’s funding. Without their help, we would not have been able to kick off this project. All of the rights still belong to Sega and Nintendo"

Source

You can't, so you'll move the goalposts elsewhere.

Also, Nintendo isn't paying to keep games off of Game Pass, like Microsoft confirmed Sony do (and we already knew of at least one from a leak, Resident Evil 8).

 

[Ash Sparrow]

 

[Sosokrates]

I mean there buying it for $69 billion.

Politicians are cheap in comparison can probably help the ones on the fence for like $50 million.

 

[Doom85]

Why would Starfield be fair? It’s MS owned. It’s not like I’m asking for Spider-Man. Sony wasn’t the original owners of Spider Man, nor Insomniac, before you complain about Bethesda.

Because Microsoft isn’t buying just Bethesda, they’re buying all of Activision. A publisher who does not require financial support at all. That’s a LOT of titles versus Insomniac and the few others who Sony bought who are just development teams.

And we already know Spidey had a shot on Xbox and Microsoft passed on it.

Regardless, if Microsoft wants to keep Starfield exclusive because “they spent money”, then Sony can keep a FF game or two exclusive because they “spent money”. Arguing otherwise is objectively a double standard.

 

[Aion002]

Yes.

 

[flying_sq]

Daddy Gates paid the governments too much money for it not to go through. Jensen should get into farmland and pharma if he wants mega buyouts.

 

[Jaybe]

Yes. All that needs determined are what strings regulators attach to the acquisition.

 

[Stinkbug]

Yes. How do you vote in polls on this website.

 

[kikii]

Bit off a reach, that is 9 years ago...

Things have changed and we have games that use their own servers/services (epic games for instance)

SE uses their own servers, it has nothing to do with PSN ^^ >>>> Final Fantasy XIV director says Microsoft is holding up MMO cross-play <<<< from 3 years ago if it makes u feel any better

 

[MikeM]

Hope so just to see them put out Series X patches on all their historical catalog. If they don’t, it’ll be a huge miss IMO.

In saying that, I’m curious to see what the fallout will be.

 

[Infamy v1]

Regardless, if Microsoft wants to keep Starfield exclusive because “they spent money”, then Sony can keep a FF game or two exclusive because they “spent money”. Arguing otherwise is objectively a double standard.

This kind of argument is disingenuous as all hell. Microsoft owns Starfield; if the game flops or has some massive controversy, Microsoft is the one who pays for it on many, many levels. Even something as subtle as the game being delayed caused alot of headache for Microsoft, despite this being the best thing for Bethesda. Conversely, Sony owns nothing of FF. They simply pay to keep it off Xbox. If the games flop, Sony loses absolutely nothing; it's SE that loses out. Developer retention, stock price, brand image, recouped dev and publishing costs, etc, that's all on SE.

Using "spent money" in your context is such a dishonest strawman. I own my house and get to decide whatever I want to do with it. You think because you rent that you get to do the same because we both spent money, otherwise it's a double standard?

 

[Jennings]

Yes it's going through. I'll stake my virginity on it.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

You're crying about super niche games like Octopath Traveler and BD? Sony is more interested in getting SEs biggest games as exclusives, like FF7R, FF7R2. FF16 and Forspoken. You really think Xbox is paying money to prevent a 3+ year 2DHD Switch exclusive from releasing on PlayStation but don't bat an eyelash to actual proof of Sony paying money to keep FF locked down?

I'm not and you don't see any Sony fan ask about these or Bayonetta. We understand we can't get everything from Japan unlike you guys who go absolutely ballistic anytime Sony gets something. Even a Skin dlc makes you cry for Phil.

You literally ignore my verbatim quote from Kamiya regarding Bayonetta to push your bullshit false equivalence?

Same as SFV. Funded by Sony but still talked about to this day. People complain about Spider-Man and Wolverine too and those are made from the ground up by Sony.

So you think those 3DS MonHun games made specifically for a Nintendo platform were being moneyhatted away from others and not being contributed on by Nintendo?

Anything that is not on Xbox is a moneyhat according to you guys. Funny how it doesn't apply to Monster Hunter Rise or Monster Hunter Stories 2 (both on PC too) because it's Nintendo.

 

[The Sum of Zero]

It might take some time while regulators do their due diligence, but absolutely.

 

[Markio128]

Yes it's going through. I'll stake my virginity on it.

There’s always priesthood.

 

[Doom85]

This kind of argument is disingenuous as all hell. Microsoft owns Starfield; if the game flops or has some massive controversy, Microsoft is the one who pays for it on many, many levels. Even something as subtle as the game being delayed caused alot of headache for Microsoft, despite this being the best thing for Bethesda. Conversely, Sony owns nothing of FF. They simply pay to keep it off Xbox. If the games flop, Sony loses absolutely nothing; it's SE that loses out. Developer retention, stock price, brand image, recouped dev and publishing costs, etc, that's all on SE.

Using "spent money" in your context is such a dishonest strawman. I own my house and get to decide whatever I want to do with it. You think because you rent that you get to do the same because we both spent money, otherwise it's a double standard?

So it’s okay for Microsoft to potentially deny a TON of games to tons of consumers purely because they have massive pockets and can afford to do so? But Sony denying a handful of games makes them the big old meanies here?

Also, if Sony spends money to keep FF 16 exclusive, and the game flops, then no, Sony did lose money on that. Maybe less money than if they had bought Square, but still money lost. Claiming otherwise is just pure lunacy.

They also are the ones pushing marketing for FF 16. They also pushed marketing for Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo….which Microsoft now owns both so Microsoft basically got free marketing for these games from Sony.

Sony should be all at this point:

Seriously, if Microsoft wants to keep Starfield exclusive, fine. But don’t bitch about the games Sony has exclusive by spending money just because they can’t afford to spend as much money as Big Pockets Microsoft. At the end of the day, both companies are just spending what they can afford to secure exclusives, and you trying to paint Microsoft as heroes and Sony as villains just makes you look like an individual who immediately wants to kiss up to whoever can afford to light mountains of cash on fire like they’re Joker from The Dark Knight.

 

[remember_spinal]

it will go through with concessions like the fox-disney deal

 

[Skifi28]

I'm 100% certain some people believe it's going through while others believe it's not.

 

[Infamy v1]

I'm not and you don't see any Sony fan ask about these or Bayonetta. We understand we can't get everything from Japan unlike you guys who go absolutely ballistic anytime Sony gets something. Even a Skin dlc makes you cry for Phil.

You continue to project your insecurities onto others. Again, stay with me, it's not hard: this thread and all the recent threads you were crying about Microsoft in are pertaining to the ABK acquisition and hypocrisy portrayed by Jim Ryan. No clue why you can't keep thought trains together and need to constantly attack Nintendo and Microsoft.

Same as SFV. Funded by Sony but still talked about to this day.

SFV was not fully funded by Sony, lmao. Revisionist history from blue rats right there. SFV and Bayonetta couldn't be on more opposite ends of the spectrum. SFV would exist, eventually, with or without Sony, and for the better as it launched in a state so badly that it damaged the brand and conceded the fighting genre #1 franchise to Mortal Kombat in terms of revenue and reception. Here are the reasons of exclusivity from the horses mouth:

"On June 12, 2015, Capcom further clarified that the game will not be released on any other platforms due to a development partnership between Sony Computer Entertainment and themselves.[21] On the partnership, Capcom's Matt Dahlgren said "Part of the reason we partnered up with Sony is, we share the same vision for the growth potential in the fighting game space. I'd say the key aspect is working with us on executing cross platform play, this is going to be the first time we've ever united our community into a centralized player base."[22]

and here from Ono himself:

I recently got a chance to speak to Mr Street Fighter, Yoshinori Ono, about, well, Street Fighter 5 and more specifically why the title has gone with only PS4 and PC this time around. Apparently, it's all to do with making life easier for the fighting community.

"We wanted to really unify the community," Yoshinori explained through a translator. "In previous titles we’d say ‘we’re having a tournament’ and it's like 'which version? Is it PC, Xbox, PlayStation? Which joystick should I bring? Which framerate should I practice in?' It was all over the place. We wanted to have it be one place to play Street Fighter."

Obviously that's as PR as PR can get, but compare that to Kamiyas statement and it's night and day. Kamiya explicitly states the games would not exist without Nintendo and their funding.

Anything that is not on Xbox is a moneyhat according to you guys. Funny how it doesn't apply to Monster Hunter Rise or Monster Hunter Stories 2 (both on PC too) because it's Nintendo.

FF, the franchise kept being brought up, is 100% a moneyhat. Paying to keep RE8 off Game Pass, another example provided to you, is a moneyhat. Not sure how Nintendo has to do anything with that or ABK.

 

[Infamy v1]

So it’s okay for Microsoft to potentially deny a TON of games to tons of consumers purely because they have massive pockets and can afford to do so? But Sony denying a handful of games makes them the big old meanies here?

You're moving goalposts here. You originally said if they both spent money it's the same thing and arguing otherwise is a double standard. Now it's different because Microsoft have massive pockets and can potentially deny a "ton" of games and Sony are only denying a handful (lol) of games?

Also, if Sony spends money to keep FF 16 exclusive, and the game flops, then no, Sony did lose money on that. Maybe less money than if they had bought Square, but still money lost. Claiming otherwise is just pure lunacy.

Maybe less money? This comment really exposes you here. Developer retention, stock price, brand image, recouped dev and publishing costs, etc are maybe less damage compared to money spent for exclusivity?

The fact that you're arguing this is no surprise since you originally equated owning a company and renting timed exclusivity being basically the same thing, despite facts proving otherwise. Sony would be losing some money so therefore since SE is losing money it's the same thing. Samedifferentsame.gif, amirite?

They also are the ones pushing marketing for FF 16. They also pushed marketing for Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo….which Microsoft now owns both so Microsoft basically got free marketing for these games from Sony.

Sony should be all at this point:

Why wouldn't you want to market the timed exclusives you're spending tens of millions on? What's your point here?

Seriously, if Microsoft wants to keep Starfield exclusive, fine. But don’t bitch about the games Sony has exclusive by spending money just because they can’t afford to spend as much money as Big Pockets Microsoft. At the end of the day, both companies are just spending what they can afford to secure exclusives, and you trying to paint Microsoft as heroes and Sony as villains just makes you look like an individual who immediately wants to kiss up to whoever can afford to light mountains of cash on fire like they’re Joker from The Dark Knight.

Jim Ryan literally stated, publicly, that the CoD offer was inadequate and one of his main talking points was that Microsoft aren't thinking of PlayStation's customers. This is the reason you are getting tons of media and content about Sony and Jimbo being crying hypocrites, because 1) Microsoft doesn't have to appease them at all and 2) Sony doesn't care about Xbox customers when they pay to keep content off Xbox for 1 year, 2 years, or permanately in perpetuity. That's the "bitching" you're seeing regarding "heroes and villians" that your conflating for an attack on your identity. In reality, both companies are executing their best interests, but there is a stark different in owning a property and setting terms compared to renting one, setting terms, then crying about the company that owns a property doing the same.

 

[Crayon]

Seems most likely but idk much about these things but I know this is a big one.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

Yes. I'll say it closes March 2023.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

FF, the franchise kept being brought up, is 100% a moneyhat. Paying to keep RE8 off Game Pass, another example provided to you, is a moneyhat. Not sure how Nintendo has to do anything with that or ABK.

What makes you think RE8 would be on GP Day 1 if not for that marketing contract? So much entitlement. There was no reason for Capcom to do that. It's not even on PS+.

It's clear you don't have any emotions when big third-party games reach the Switch and not Xbox. You don't think Xbox gamers deserve to get these games? Even if they are on PC and ready to go?

Of course you don't because this is not about playing these games on Xbox. This is about Sony and Sony only.

Irrational double standard anytime they get a deal. Thanks for proving my point

Why wouldn't you want to market the timed exclusives you're spending tens of millions on? What's your point here?

So now Sony spends tens of millions on exclusives AKA funds the game. I thought they just blocked. If it's fine for Nintendo/Xbox to get something in return then it should be fine for them too.

 

[93xfan]

Because Microsoft isn’t buying just Bethesda, they’re buying all of Activision. A publisher who does not require financial support at all. That’s a LOT of titles versus Insomniac and the few others who Sony bought who are just development teams.

And we already know Spidey had a shot on Xbox and Microsoft passed on it.

Regardless, if Microsoft wants to keep Starfield exclusive because “they spent money”, then Sony can keep a FF game or two exclusive because they “spent money”. Arguing otherwise is objectively a double standard.

One is an exclusive and the other is a 3rd party series. Don’t care about some deals MS passed on decades ago.

Anyway, if they leverage this to stop Sony from making all these deals to keep games off Gamepass or keep games exclusive for 2 years or longer, I’m all for it. As a Series X owner and Gamepass subscriber, it would be great for me. And you would have an additional choice as well. Plus, you’d have a much more competitive Sony, that doesn’t raise their console prices and price their 1st party stuff $10 more than everyone else.

 

[kapshin]

I think it will, I am Xbox, PC, Nintendo but only bc I can't justify a PS5 at this point time/finances I will get one someday. I don't care much either way but I have been tired of COD for a long time so I don't see myself buying it on any platform.

 

[LordBlodgett]

I put about 10k on it happening at about 76.50 per share. I think US regulators won't see much in the way of issues with it.Whether other regulators do or not will likely just lead to some concessions here and there before eventual approval. In the grand scheme of all gaming (PC, consoles, cloud, mobile) this deal is big, but not monopolistic