Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

New document uploaded by the CMA from another company (AFAIK). I don't think the CMA are going to be posting random peoples documents.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6391da18d3bf7f1bcd58284a/Market_Participant_A.pdf

Largely pro the deal, obviously they may just want an world where they can be acquired.

SenjutsuSage is that you?

 

[Topher]

That's a claim you cant make without evidence to back it up. You have none other then "feelings". Really weak position to argue.

The evidence is the fact that Bethesda was entirely multiplatform for the vast majority of its existence. Then they were bought by Microsoft and suddenly PlayStation was not longer supported. The math isn't hard.

Put it another way, before this news of Activision's acquisition, was there any doubt in your mind that the next Doom game was going to be on PlayStation?

 

[feynoob]

a. Given the CMA’s role in championing consumer benefits, it should use this transaction as an opportunity towards facilitating the transition towards cloud gaming which is where the future of video games is headed to. The CMA should ensure it is focused on seeking the best outcome for consumers and not act as an impediment to greater choice, nor to the furtherment of innovation in developing markets such as cloud gaming. We feel that the direction of travel is inevitable, therefore the CMA should be at the forefront of this development to help set the agenda in a pro￾consumer manner and not be an impediment to positive developments in this space which ultimately provide greater choice.

Damn. I can't argue with this view.
Right now, Cloud gaming needs a huge support in order to be a successful in the future.

Wonder how will CMA respond to this.

 

[DavJay]

FTC is suppose to protect consumers not the competitors. This acquisition would still only put MS in third as far as size goes. If anything this will even out the market. FTC is just incompetent as ever and will need to be reform at some point.

 

[drganon]

Damn. I can't argue with this view.
Right now, Cloud gaming needs a huge support in order to be a successful in the future.

Wonder how will CMA respond to this.

Nah, cloud gaming deserves to die a miserable death.

 

[feynoob]

Nah, cloud gaming deserves to die a miserable death.

That is your opinion.
Right now, consoles can't reach wider demographics, because of the production limitations.

Cloud is the only option for wider audience.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Damn. I can't argue with this view.
Right now, Cloud gaming needs a huge support in order to be a successful in the future.

Wonder how will CMA respond to this.

Except the growth of cloud gaming and MS acquiring AB have nothing to do with each other?

 

[Topher]

FTC is suppose to protect consumers not the competitors. This acquisition would still only put MS in third as far as size goes. If anything this will even out the market. FTC is just incompetent as ever and will need to be reform at some point.

The FTC's goal is to protect competition in general. There is definitely an argument to made that this acquisition will lessen competition.

Damn. I can't argue with this view.
Right now, Cloud gaming needs a huge support in order to be a successful in the future.

Wonder how will CMA respond to this.

The FTC shouldn't be trying to drive the gaming industry towards cloud streaming at all. That take you quoted is a really bad take.

 

[feynoob]

b. While concerns have been raised by Sony in particular, ultimately the CMA’s priority
is in protecting consumers and not to preserve the status quo of competitors. This
industry is far from static and one that frequently has new entrants that have the
ability to quickly capture market share, such as had happened with Fortnite. It is
understandable that Sony is seeking to maintain its position, given it has invested a
lot of capital, time and energy towards creating this. However, the landscape is
changing given the wide adoption of subscription-based services and cloud-based
platforms in other industries. These have reduced the barriers to entry and such
innovation has allowed consumers to have new methods to pay for content, along
with having access to a wider range of content without sacrificing quality.
Increased competition promotes innovation and greater content quality for
consumers
c. We believe Microsoft is seeking to propagate innovation and embrace the move
towards subscription services and cloud gaming – it is unsurprising that a technology
company can see where the direction of travel is headed. By contrast, it seems that
Sony may be looking at this transaction through the lens of a hardware company and
not with the future development of the industry in mind. There is no evidence to
suggest that this deal would inhibit Sony or any other rival’s ability to compete in the
multi-game subscription or cloud gaming markets. The barriers to entry are low, the
market is extraordinarily dynamic and new competition can arise through innovation
and original content – all of which would be positive for consumers

 

[adamsapple]

New document uploaded by the CMA from another company (AFAIK). I don't think the CMA are going to be posting random peoples documents.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6391da18d3bf7f1bcd58284a/Market_Participant_A.pdf

Largely pro the deal, obviously they may just want an world where they can be acquired.

Based on the content, wonder if it's a company or a consumer rights organisation now.

CMA looking to make a face turn ?

Interesting.

 

[feynoob]

Except the growth of cloud gaming and MS acquiring AB have nothing to do with each other?

The FTC shouldn't be trying to drive the gaming industry towards cloud streaming at all. That take you quoted is a really bad take.

Except Activision titles are popular. And due to their popularity, it could drive cloud gaming.

CMA argument is that MS would have monopoly on cloud gaming, instead of looking at the innovation side.

 

[reksveks]

CMA looking to make a face turn ?

Interesting.

I wouldn't say that yet but might be interesting to see what else they post in the next few weeks.

 

[Topher]

CMA looking to make a face turn ?

Interesting.

Those are not the CMA's views.

 

[DavJay]

The FTC's goal is to protect competition in general. There is definitely an argument to made that this acquisition will lessen competition.



The FTC shouldn't be trying to drive the gaming industry towards cloud streaming at all. That take you quoted is a really bad take.

They are protecting Sony dominance. Now if Sony was making a huge acquisition while being the number 1 console make then the FTC would have an argument. Xbox is by far way behind PS and this would even it out. Heck, I’d still think PlayStation would still be on top even if this goes through.

 

[Schmick]

I wouldn't say that yet but might be interesting to see what else they post in the next few weeks.

Ok, so we can all image CMA receiving a lot of letters regarding this merger. Why would CMA make this one specifically, public?

 

[Banjo64]

Damn. I can't argue with this view.
Right now, Cloud gaming needs a huge support in order to be a successful in the future.

Wonder how will CMA respond to this.

I can.

The CMA should ensure it is focused on seeking the best outcome for consumers and not act as an impediment to greater choice, nor to the furtherment of innovation in developing markets such as cloud gaming.

Where will greater choice come from if Microsoft cement themselves as the only major player in the cloud streaming space with XGS, ABK, Zenimax, possible future acquisitions of major publishers, Xbox’s brand recognition in the UK market and Microsoft’s internal infrastructure?

People keep conflating choice with being inside of Microsoft’s walled garden, as they allow you to stream to most devices. That is the illusion of choice and it’s why the CMA reported that it was concerned that Microsoft could withhold ABK’s library from competing streaming platforms.

 

[reksveks]

Ok, so we can all image CMA receiving a lot of letters regarding this merger. Why would CMA make this one specifically, public?

I suspect that they will post quite a few public by the middle of jan and also suspect quite a few of them to be pro the deal and a couple negative ones.

Obviously they will filter to the larger groups/companies. I can see a world where the CMA 'override' the general concerns or lack of of market players.

 

[Topher]

They are protecting Sony dominance. Now if Sony was making a hug acquisition while being the number 1 console make then the FTC would have an argument. Xbox is by far way behind PS and this would even it out. Heck, I’d still think PlayStation would still be on top even if this goes through.

They are protecting the status quo. I don't think for a second that this is about protecting Sony specifically. And I don't think we can gauge the impact of this acquisition just by looking at financial statements of the two companies.

I suspect that they will post quite a few public by the middle of jan and also suspect quite a few of them to be pro the deal and a couple negative ones.

Obviously they will filter to the larger groups/companies. I can see a world where the CMA 'override' the general concerns or lack of of market players.

Yeah, I wouldn't read too much into any of the submissions regardless of whether they are for or against the acquisition.

 

[feynoob]

Where will greater choice come from if Microsoft cement themselves as the only major player in the cloud streaming space with XGS, ABK, Zenimax, possible future acquisitions of major publishers, Xbox’s brand recognition in the UK market and Microsoft’s internal infrastructure?

That is where you are wrong here.
Gaming isn't only for these titles that you listed.

What would happen is that, other companies would focus more on cloud gaming, and offer their products. You are only looking at singular view, from MS library. You need to look beyond MS.

Sony has great library, but they are not focusing on cloud gaming that much. They had almost 8-10 years in this market.

MS pushes this tech further through mobile and browser, while Nvidia provided play your owned games model. That is what will happen in the future.

People keep conflating choice with being inside of Microsoft’s walled garden, as they allow you to stream to most devices. That is the illusion of choice and it’s why the CMA reported that it was concerned that Microsoft could withhold ABK’s library from competing streaming platforms.

Again, Activision library isn't all gaming. We have tons of games in the world. This shouldn't be a reason to stop it.

 

[Topher]

That is where you are wrong here.
Gaming isn't only for these titles that you listed.

What would happen is that, other companies would focus more on cloud gaming, and offer their products. You are only looking at singular view, from MS library. You need to look beyond MS.

Microsoft has a big advantage there with Azure. Most corporations don't have a worldwide cloud architecture in a different division of the company. That is why Microsoft is so keen to promote cloud gaming. So now if the focus is to focus on cloud gaming then you have more consolidation than ever before. Big tech keeps getting bigger. This is exactly the kind of thing regulators are trying to reign in.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Microsoft has a big advantage there with Azure. Most corporations don't have a worldwide cloud architecture in a different division of the company. That is why Microsoft is so keen to promote cloud gaming. So now if the focus is to focus on cloud gaming then you have more consolidation than ever before. Big tech keeps getting bigger. This is exactly the kind of thing regulators are trying to reign in.

Mmmm they were more focused on the switch in that lawsuit.

 

[Topher]

Mmmm they were more focused on the switch in that lawsuit.

I'm talking about government regulation in general regarding big tech rather than specific arguments in this case.

 

[DarkMage619]

The evidence is the fact that Bethesda was entirely multiplatform for the vast majority of its existence. Then they were bought by Microsoft and suddenly PlayStation was not longer supported. The math isn't hard.

Put it another way, before this news of Activision's acquisition, was there any doubt in your mind that the next Doom game was going to be on PlayStation?

It is an inaccurate to say PlayStation is no longer supported. ESO and Fallout 76 continue to get the same updates other platforms get. Doom Eternal current generation update and the Quake remaster hit PlayStation too. Let's not act like MS does not continually put their IP on platforms they don't own. Other platform holders rarely if ever do that.

MS said Bethesda titles will hit on a case by case basis. Multiplatform games like Deathloop and Ghostwire Toyko skipped Xbox on release. We have no way of knowing what games will go where in the future. Only that it is unlikely those titles will skip Xbox which was part of the reason the company was acquired.

I suspect that they will post quite a few public by the middle of jan and also suspect quite a few of them to be pro the deal and a couple negative ones.

Obviously they will filter to the larger groups/companies. I can see a world where the CMA 'override' the general concerns or lack of of market players.

I just hope their review is objective. It is amazing to see any regulator conclude that MS will be or ever had been some of monopolistic presence in gaming. To exclude Nintendo or to argue that a title is an 'input' are ideas that have never been expressed before this acquisition. Even arguing that Game pass or cloud gaming are separate markets when cloud on Xbox isn't even a stand alone service strain credulity.

 

[Banjo64]

That is where you are wrong here.
Gaming isn't only for these titles that you listed.

What would happen is that, other companies would focus more on cloud gaming, and offer their products. You are only looking at singular view, from MS library. You need to look beyond MS.

Sony has great library, but they are not focusing on cloud gaming that much. They had almost 8-10 years in this market.

MS pushes this tech further through mobile and browser, while Nvidia provided play your own games model. That is what will happen in the future.

I’m not looking at it from a singular view.

If you haven’t already I’d read;

TOH1b Input foreclosure of rival multi-game subscription services

TOH2 Foreclosure of cloud-gaming service providers through leveraging Microsoft’s ecosystem

Page 51 onwards in the CMA’s report.

 

[Topher]

It is an inaccurate to say PlayStation is no longer supported.

Obviously I'm talking about new games such as Starfield, not existing.

 

[feynoob]

I’m not looking at it from a singular view.

If you haven’t already I’d read;

TOH1b Input foreclosure of rival multi-game subscription services

TOH2 Foreclosure of cloud-gaming service providers through leveraging Microsoft’s ecosystem

Page 51 onwards in the CMA’s report.

That is what this company is pointing out. They are telling CMA that their decision is hindering cloud gaming progress.

 

[Banjo64]

That is what this company is pointing out. They are telling CMA that their decision is hindering cloud gaming progress.

I know, I’m just saying that I disagree with their assertion.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft has a big advantage there with Azure. Most corporations don't have a worldwide cloud architecture in a different division of the company. That is why Microsoft is so keen to promote cloud gaming. So now if the focus is to focus on cloud gaming then you have more consolidation than ever before. Big tech keeps getting bigger. This is exactly the kind of thing regulators are trying to reign in.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com...osoft-is-deepening-following-cloud-tech-deal/

 

[Topher]

https://www.videogameschronicle.com...osoft-is-deepening-following-cloud-tech-deal/

Yep. A very good example of what I'm talking about.

 

[feynoob]

I know, I’m just saying that I disagree with their assertion.

Their opinion is valid, because cloud gaming is in critical period at this moment.

 

[adamsapple]

Those are not the CMA's views.

Sure but it's being highlighted on an official channel. Rather than snapshots of twitter comments

 

[Topher]

Sure but it's being highlighted on an official channel. Rather than snapshots of twitter comments

They asked for opinions and they are sharing a select few of them. That's how I see this anyway.

 

[Topher]

Their opinion is valid, because cloud gaming is in critical period at this moment.

Cloud gaming is a slow burn, bro. It is going to take many years for it to become widely accepted.

 

[Banjo64]

Their opinion is valid, because cloud gaming is in critical period at this moment.

All opinions are valid.

a. Given the CMA’s role in championing consumer benefits, it should use this transaction as an opportunity towards facilitating the transition towards cloud gaming which is where the future of video games is headed to. The CMA should ensure it is focused on seeking the best outcome for consumers and not act as an impediment to greater choice, nor to the furtherment of innovation in developing markets such as cloud gaming. We feel that the direction of travel is inevitable, therefore the CMA should be at the forefront of this development to help set the agenda in a pro￾consumer manner and not be an impediment to positive developments in this space which ultimately provide greater choice.

The issue is with this statement is that there’s no substance, however it tries to set the tempo that the acquisition going through = best outcome for consumers.

 

[feynoob]

Cloud gaming is a slow burn, bro. It is going to take many years for it to become widely accepted.

It won't take that long, as we already have that option in form of online games.

 

[Topher]

It won't take that long, as we already have that option in form of online games.

Not the same thing at all

 

[feynoob]

All opinions are valid.


The issue is with this statement is that there’s no substance, however it tries to set the tempo that the acquisition going through = best outcome for consumers.

They highlighted it here

For many families in the UK the upfront cost of the latest generation of console is
inaccessible as they range from £449.99 for an Xbox Series X, to £479.99 for a
PlayStation 5. The removal of upfront capital costs, whether it be for a console or a
game, is a welcome development that allows for greater consumer accessibility –
this is particularly relevant in periods such as today where the UK is in a cost-of￾living crisis. By contrast, a move towards greater adoption of subscription and cloud￾based platforms should be welcomed as it allows consumers the ability to stream
video games without the friction of large expenditure on hardware.

 

[feynoob]

Not the same thing at all

It is.
Both are online and need internet connection.
Only difference is physical vs streaming.
But without connection, you can't play them both.

 

[DarkMage619]

Obviously I'm talking about new games such as Starfield, not existing.

You of all people should appreciate accurate statements.

I continue to want to see definitive proof Starfield was going to hit PlayStation but was canceled. At this point we can't prove Ghostwire will hit Xbox it's speculation till its announced. For all we know Starfield might hit PlayStation in a few years or never. It's unknown.

 

[Banjo64]

They highlighted it here

For many families in the UK the upfront cost of the latest generation of console is
inaccessible as they range from £449.99 for an Xbox Series X, to £479.99 for a
PlayStation 5. The removal of upfront capital costs, whether it be for a console or a
game, is a welcome development that allows for greater consumer accessibility –
this is particularly relevant in periods such as today where the UK is in a cost-of￾living crisis. By contrast, a move towards greater adoption of subscription and cloud￾based platforms should be welcomed as it allows consumers the ability to stream
video games without the friction of large expenditure on hardware.

The price of the PS5/Series X are immediate term issues.

You cannot clear a $70b deal just because right now the UK economy is in the shitter. In 4 years time we’ll be in recovery. Then what?

Again, the removal of upfront capital costs is a none issue/short term issue if Microsoft can successfully foreclose its rivals in the long term and increase the prices of their subscriptions.

Nothing there are saying hasn’t already been scrutinised in the CMA’s initial report (because they are similar to what MS put forward). These bullet points won’t be news to the CMA.

 

[Arioco]

The evidence is the fact that Bethesda was entirely multiplatform for the vast majority of its existence. Then they were bought by Microsoft and suddenly PlayStation was not longer supported. The math isn't hard.

Put it another way, before this news of Activision's acquisition, was there any doubt in your mind that the next Doom game was going to be on PlayStation?

None, no doubt at all. And it's going to be one of the franchises I'll miss the most if the deal is finally approved. Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal were two of my favorite games of the last gen (and next gen patch for Eternal is incredible... and free... coff... SONY... coff... ).

I really hope it will stay multiplatform, but at this point it seems pretty clear that MS didn't spend a fortune to make multiplatform games.

 

[Banjo64]

CMA looking to make a face turn ?

Interesting.

Well no, as a government body they just have a duty to present both sides of the argument. Hard to believe for some, I know.

 

[Swift_Star]

None, no doubt at all. And it's going to be one of the franchises I'll miss the most if the deal is finally approved. Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal were two of my favorite games of the last gen (and next gen patch for Eternal is incredible... and free... coff... SONY... coff... ).

I really hope it will stay multiplatform, but at this point it seems pretty clear that MS didn't spend a fortune to make multiplatform games.

The games won't be multiplat anymore...

 

[feynoob]

The price of the PS5/Series X are immediate term issues.

You cannot clear a $70b deal just because right now the UK economy is in the shitter. In 4 years time we’ll be in recovery. Then what?

Again, the removal of upfront capital costs is a none issue/short term issue if Microsoft can successfully foreclose its rivals in the long term and increase the prices of their subscriptions.

Nothing there are saying hasn’t already been scrutinised in the CMA’s initial report (because they are similar to what MS put forward). These bullet points won’t be news to the CMA.

This isn't about clearing the deal. Just in favor.
There is bigger issues than cloud gaming here. So if we are going that route, I will let you know That I am against approving this deal, solely due to that price point 70$B, and what it will bring after it approved.

back to the cloud gaming topic.

The foreclosure part is impossible through cloud gaming, as Sony also have their library, and PS now(PS+). Activision alone isn't enough to close them down. And you know that.

CMA points in this regard is the future, rather than current development. And Activision titles isn't enough to give MS huge advantage.

 

[Topher]

You of all people should appreciate accurate statements.

I continue to want to see definitive proof Starfield was going to hit PlayStation but was canceled. At this point we can't prove Ghostwire will hit Xbox it's speculation till its announced. For all we know Starfield might hit PlayStation in a few years or never. It's unknown.

No, we don't have any proof. Do we really need proof on whether or not Bethesda was releasing their first major IP in decades only on the console with the smallest market share? I don't. If you do then that's fine. Believe what you want. Common sense is on the side of Starfield being multiplatform.

None, no doubt at all. And it's going to be one of the franchises I'll miss the most if the deal is finally approved. Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal were two of my favorite games of the last gen (and next gen patch for Eternal is incredible... and free... coff... SONY... coff... ).

I really hope it will stay multiplatform, but at this point it seems pretty clear that MS didn't spend a fortune to make multiplatform games.

I got my acquisitions confused. lol. Doom is part of Bethesda, not Activision. But yeah, example still works. It is going to be interesting to look back in a few years and see how this all turns out.

 

[feynoob]

None, no doubt at all. And it's going to be one of the franchises I'll miss the most if the deal is finally approved. Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal were two of my favorite games of the last gen (and next gen patch for Eternal is incredible... and free... coff... SONY... coff... ).

I really hope it will stay multiplatform, but at this point it seems pretty clear that MS didn't spend a fortune to make multiplatform games.

MS owns Bethesda, which is a shit for me.
As a PC player, MS is shit in PC department.

I am afraid of what will happen to my beloved Bethesda under them.

 

[Ozriel]

1. Twisted Pixel
2. Press Play
3. Lionhead
4. Team Dakota
5. Xbox Fitness
6. Decisive Games
7. BigPark
8. Lift London
9. Good Science Studio
10. Microsoft Studios Victoria

Xbox Fitness? That’s not a studio. Largely made by Sumo Digital

Most of these are really small studios set up for dedicated tasks that were no longer required. Team Dakota was exclusively working on Project Spark. Good science was made for Kinect games and was folded up after Kinect 2 bombed.

And that one IP was developed by a third party, but that was my point. All of that stopped.

And you’re missing the point. All of that stopped because MS curtailed spending. Not anything Spencer could fix

 

[Topher]

MS owns Bethesda, which is a shit for me.
As a PC player, MS is shit in PC department.

I am afraid of what will happen to my beloved Bethesda under them.

Why is MS shit in the PC department?

 

[OsirisBlack]

If the Xbone is 9, then that means 10 years ago the entire industry believed Microsoft's next Xbox would wipe PlayStation out of the console market after the disastrous PlayStation 3 generation nearly bankrupted the entire Sony corporation. COD and Xbox 360 were joined at the hip. PSN was a fraction of its current size. Now, PlayStation is an unstoppable juggernaut, it just told Governments around the world it'll go out of business without COD, and PSN is the biggest most profitable console network in the world. A decade is a life age in a tech industry.


Your post basically says Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to use its money, and yet, you also claim that it not buying its way to pole position is "ineptitude the likes of which the world has never seen before". So, which one is it?

The rest of your post is hilarious, too. For someone decrying the lack of understanding of the video game industry, you're displaying a pretty significant lack of understanding of the industry, or the way its businesses are structured. For example, Xbox is a division of Microsoft, it doesn't have "unlimited funds", and Sony Corporation has actively sought to keep Xbox small. Prior to the current generation, Sony established a clear 2.5:1 lead with PS4, meaning at a minimum, Sony have over 60% market share compared to Xbox. So, surely that was enough, right? No - heading in to PS5, Sony sought to lock up major third party releases as a PlayStation timed exclusives, or establish exclusive marketing, or establish exclusive content. They couldn't buy COD, so they locked up the marketing and timed access. Not only did they lock up two of Zenimax's titles as timed exclusives - Ghost Wire and Deathloop - Starfield too was nearly a PlayStation timed exclusive. Sony Corporation spent big, because it didn't want Xbox to be able to compete. Period. It tried to use its dominant position in the industry to make sure Xbox stayed small. Spencer convinced Nadella to invest, to give Xbox the resources it needs to compete against a competitor who has been the industry's dominant player for over twenty years. And now Xbox have it... and we're getting posts like: "Why didn't Microsoft just buy its way to number one? Shows how terrible they -- wait, they're actually spending their money? No! They shouldn't be allowed to just do what I said that they should have done!!!"

The first highlighted point, then I'm glad we're not talking about the tech industry. We are talking about the video games market which is a sub-market within the media and entertainment market. (I am always shocked by how many gamers don't know this) Ten years is literally nothing. In the Actual tech industry, ten years is a lifetime just look at GPU and processors, you know actual tech. The console/video game market is classified as media and entertainment as it revolves around largely stagnant tech (to provide entertainment and media services) for what they tend to call a generation. But you already knew that.

To the second highlighted point. I love when people take what you say out of context to attempt to make a point. No, their ineptitude was with them having access to all of the money in the world and how poorly they mismanaged their studios and public perception. I work in the same industry you know who generally does the best? The people that spend the most money on their OWN IPS and franchises. I was also against Disney buying everything just so you know. It took longer than expected but that has largely proven itself to be anti-consumer as well.

The third point shows your lack of sense in the matter. I won't spoil it for you as I personally believe research is fun. It's good to learn new things. Check out where most of the money for this merger is coming from. It's public knowledge. Free tip check NASDAQ and MS or XBOX. This is not a 7 Billion dollar acquisition. This is more money than the XBOX division has made if you toss the last several years together.

Last point. I am not going to address you comparing timed exclusives to another company buying major publishers as it feels like you're just being disingenuous.

 

[DForce]

This logic is false unless it was officially announced for the platform. For all you know it could have been cancelled on playstation before shipping.

For all you know it could still release on playstation 5 years from now. Ms doesn't have to advertise it.

You guys need pick a different hill to die on. This argument is weak as fuck.

LMFAO

That is what you are asking MS to do. The double standard you put forth is both annoying and stupid. MS has released games on playstation that never previously existed on the platform. Sony has done nothing of the sort. Minecraft legends was a new IP title. MS has been reasing games on other consoles dating back to the games they published on the nintendo DS

Did sony not pay to keep streetfighter off xbox all of last generation? did they not pay to keep GTA of xbox platforms in the past, same goes for final fantasy. Where is my copy of Kena that was announced as multiplatform? Where are my kotor remakes. You know that game that was exclusive on the original xbox but is now exclusive to Playstation?

The point you were making was as clear as mud. sorry.

Are you the same guy who complained that Sony kept Street Fighter V, Kena, and Final Fantasy off Xbox?

It wasn't officially announced remember? They could've canceled it

So it officially needs to be announced on PlayStation, but the SAME LOGIC doesn't apply with Xbox fans with Street Fighter, Final Fantasy, and Kena?

How much spinning are you going to do just to tell me it's "different?"