All I ask is that uncle Jimbo just starts buying out studios to. This is an all-out war.
Considering Sony was going to make it a timed exclusive I don't really understand what kind of argument could even be made, but frankly I don't know if I could stomach pages of that thread to find out.
Microsoft would crush them if it is just a battle of money....which is sorta why this ABK merger is being blocked.All I ask is that uncle Jimbo just starts buying out studios to. This is an all-out war.
I am not sure way, but some people here are acting as if Microsoft promised to keep Bethesda Multiplatform, even to regulators before acquisition. So it comes as contrast to how people feel here about Bethesda acquisition (and accusation of lying in contracts negotiation) when Jim had no objection against it. Mind you, the guy had also no problem with Activision deal until negotiation broke down.
That's hilarious.
Stop with the Phil lying shit.
FTC was using Starfield exclusivity against MS, that this will hurt PS blah blah. So that's why its important.
PS army - Let change the narrative quick. Our leader made a fool out of us lol.Neogaf narrative change assemble!
Final Fantasy XVI, Final Fantasy VII Remake and Rebirth wouldn't have been possible at this level of quality and polish without the support and safety net provided by Sony's backing into their respective developments and marketing efforts. All sorts of Square Enix executives and creatives have stated this over and over again throughout the years, and in the case of Forspoken, it was Square Enix's CEO who said that the project wouldn't have been viable had Sony not been a partner from the very beginning - which was over half a decade ago.
Link to a post, not a 13 page thread.
venturebeat.com
Yes, Bobby kotick! Such an admirable man. Let's definitely listen to what he says.Well, going by your logic, you should support the Activision deal since Bobby Kotick says selling to Microsoft will improve quality of Activision games, deepen their talent pipeline and help them push out more IP.
Bobby Kotick interview: Why Activision Blizzard did the deal with Microsoft
Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick spoke with GamesBeat's Dean Takahashi to explain why he agreed to sell to Microsoft for $68.7 billion.
Seems hypocritical for you to cite ‘execs’ and ‘better funding’ in one case, and disregard in another case when it’s not your platform of choice.
I'm sorry, but that's false given all we know from how Microsoft has been managing their first-party lineup (be it Xbox or Bethesda) these last couple of years.
Yes, Bobby kotick! Such an admirable man. Let's definitely listen to what he says.
Ultimately that really is the main point isn't it? Say what you will but Sony has a history of helping to ensure that studios and developers engaged in making exclusives for them get the support needed to provide the best version of their vision. Even if not a exclusive Sony will send in engineers and support staff to help polish the PS versions of even third party multiplats as in the case of Callie to Protocol.
Being hands off and not providing adequate oversight and management also means that when things fall apart as in the case of Redfall, there is no one making hard decisions such as to kill a project or retooled it and then as in the case of Redfall,we see the release of games that further tarnish the brand. In the mean while Sony has internally cancelled how many projects in just the last few months? There is a reason why Sony AAA exclusives score well and push hardware sales while over on Xbox it's games barely peg the meter and once great IPs like Halo have became a joke.
And those games have done what to change the state of the Xbox? Absolutely nothing at all. I keep seeing Twitter Xbots like Peterovo and that Adriana twit post metacritic scores like it's some touchdown run but my question is, who the fuck cares that some indy level A games like Pentiment or Hifi Rush scored well in a lake of mediocrity? These titles while many hype them up, even here, aren't doing a damn thing at all to draw in new Xbox fans. Meanwhile the big AAA releases that are meant to do that are trash. That's as much a issue for Xbox and it's management as anything. No one is buying a Xbox for Pentiment. Good for them it wasn't another diaster but who cares? Personally I think we are going to see another diaster when it comes to Starfield as well. That's just how MS rolls, they fuck up everyone of their big titles lately
Thanks.
You're putting the horse before the cart. The "allowed to" component with regards to the FTC's arguments boils down to: does [X] unfairly benefit [Party A] and does it unfairly harm [Party B] with respect to consumer interests. Thus the question of whether or not the biggest game in the world for nearly 10 years becomes exclusive to one party is entirely relevant. Ryan dodged the question because the answer is self-evident, which is why Microsoft's lawyers asked it in the first place: given the ability to do so, Ryan would absolutely make Call of Duty exclusive to PlayStation. And so would Microsoft without question. Therefore, we move on to: does either party actually have the ability to make COD exclusive? Given Sony isn't buying ABK, it's just down to can Microsoft actually make COD exclusive if they buy ABK? That's what this trial is all about. Microsoft say it doesn't make financial sense to do so given the sheer costs of the deal, and so they don't have the ability to make COD exclusive. They've demonstrated as such to other regulators who happily accepted that they wouldn't make COD exclusive. The FTC is trying to make lots of different points to attack Microsoft's deal from virtually every angle, while Microsoft is really just trying to make two points: it's too expensive to make COD exclusive and making everything exclusive isn't even their current strategy. How much of their points you believe is up to you, but it all comes back to: does Microsoft benefit enough that it harms the rest of the market.
People just need to realize the ceo or similar job is to make money for the company. Just view what they say in that light.
Nothing in this post relates to my post that you quoted. I in no way said this should deal be "minimized", I never said it shouldn't be scrutinised, and I certainly never said it should be "rubber-stamped". I simply explained that what "allowed" refers to in this case and moved on to highlight that I personally don't think Microsoft can afford to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox. If you want to discuss this topic with me, please at least respond to what I actually said.
Nothing I've said indicates this at all. I'm 100% for regulators looking into literally any merger, acquisition or corporate purchase of any kind. Their job is to protect the public - which is me. I believe well enforced strong regulation makes for better business for everyone, because it ensures good, health competition in the market which benefits the public - which is still me. All I said was that I don't see the financial sense for Microsoft in making Call of Duty exclusive.
