• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PlayStation: Xbox's Call of Duty offer was "inadequate on many levels"

DaGwaphics

Member
This is understood. What I am saying is not even really about that. MS does not own Activision yet. The whole point is that MS wants to look good to regulators to get this deal done. Sony would hope that it fails. Simple as that.
Jim is simply countering Phil's good guy statements with clear cut facts about their agreement.

That's the point I'm getting at as well. I don't see how Ryan accomplishes much in regards to Spencer trying to look good to regulators by basically saying they offered us 3yrs, we wanted 5yrs. When what MS was offering was above and beyond what is normally offered to begin with, it just seems weak from a PR standpoint. IMO.
 

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
This is understood. What I am saying is not even really about that. MS does not own Activision yet. The whole point is that MS wants to look good to regulators to get this deal done. Sony would hope that it fails. Simple as that.
Jim is simply countering Phil's good guy statements with clear cut facts about their agreement.
I didn't see what wasn't factual about MS's offer. Of course they want regulators to approve the deal and all Ryan did was prove MS offered to continue to have Call of Duty beyond the current contract and it was in writing. Not much of a 'gotcha' at all. This also has to be viewed from the perspective that MS owes Sony nothing. This is business and if Sony wants more perhaps they should be prepared to offer something.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
After all the exclusivity deals sony is doing, Microsoft need to expand there first party or do deals like sony is.
 

Baki

Member
Take Two are fine where they are. No one needs to make their shit exclusive.
In an ideal world, CoD/Destiny (along with other multiplat games) would stay multiplat. Games like Starfield (new IPs) can be "exclusive".
Don’t live in an ideal world. Sony needs a big franchise they can barter with. Only GTA is big enough.
 

Three

Member
that’s what you come back with? That’s because you know if sony made those kinda deals they would go exclusive and Sony fans like yourself would be applauding it

So let me get this straight if you:

a) ignore the fact that they are making deals and not making it exclusive, eg Bungie.
And
b) ignore the fact that I don't like the consolidation going on in the industry, especially for studios who primarily made multiplatform titles:

For what? So they block future xbox games? No thanks. Sony is already funding SE projects and making games for Sony's console.

We would be living in your imaginary world of me applauding deals that sony has yet to make any kind of.
 
Counter argument is it not better that the only place you can play cod be on Microsoft devices? More sales of devices to play the game
Not really. Just look at what the movie streaming industry is going through. They’re finding they make the most by actually licensing out content.

Microsoft won’t make much from device sales. That’s why they’re loss leaders. All the money is in the games/accessories. To make the most money, you want the widest audience possible.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
Not really. Just look at what the movie streaming industry is going through. They’re finding they make the most by actually licensing out content.

Microsoft won’t make much from device sales. That’s why they’re loss leaders. All the money is in the games/accessories. To make the most money, you want the widest audience possible.
It might take someone like Apple to disrupt the industry like that. They have already 'jumped' in so I am wondering what, if anything, they will do. I thought MS was heading that way when we heard Phil's double-speak PR statements but perhaps his hands are tied. We will see I guess.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Not really. Just look at what the movie streaming industry is going through. They’re finding they make the most by actually licensing out content.

Microsoft won’t make much from device sales. That’s why they’re loss leaders. All the money is in the games/accessories. To make the most money, you want the widest audience possible.

And that's not a new phenomenon either. Historically, all console manufacturers make the brunt of their money from software, not hardware sales.
 

phil_t98

Member
And that's not a new phenomenon either. Historically, all console manufacturers make the brunt of their money from software, not hardware sales.

Yeah of coarse but if the software is only available on your platform it’s a win win because it shifts your platform more
 

Kagey K

Member
Microsoft be all about DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS! That Phil Spender purchased with papa Nadellas money.
Mommy mommy I kept punching this kid over and over and now he decided to punch me back and it's not fair cuz he's wayyy stronger.

Monsters Inc Reaction GIF by filmeditor
 
The only thing worse than port begging is thinking you are entitled to a port.
A reality check for Jim Ryan and Sony.
Microsoft owes you fucking nothing. They owe Playstation players nothing.
Sony has spent millions upon millions to stop games and content from coming to Xbox and Xbox players. Sony doesn't owe Xbox or Microsoft anything.
Sony has demonstrated that in the most obvious way.
So to hear Ryan and Sony players thinking that Microsoft owe them to keep COD multiplatform is just hilarious and dillusional. The arrogance to think this is mind blowing.
Sony even to this day continues to money hat content away from Xbox players, and they do so to make their platform more attractive and to get people to buy into their ecosystem at the expense of Xbox and its ecosystem.

Not too long ago we were in a place where fanboys were saying how Microsoft should exit the hardware business. They proclaimed that Microsoft wouldn't use its money to build up Xbox because it would only use profits from Xbox to do that. All while ignoring the fact that Sony was literally using PlayStation profits to prop up the rest of Sony's business that were losing money.

While the fanboys were busy running down COD and saying Sony didn't need it, and that COD sucked, Sony and Jim Ryan were shitting themselves thinking they could lose it.
Sony accounted for around 1.4 billion of Activision sales, which means that Sony took approx 420 million in profits from Activision games.
So of Activision goes exclusive to Xbox and PC, Sony will lose a half a billion a year in profits.
On top of that they will lose market share from the dude bros that eat COD.
There is alot to lose for Sony. Far more than MS. This is why you can smell the fear and desperation from Jim Ryan's comments.
 
Last edited:

Gamer79

Predicts the worst decade for Sony starting 2022
To tell you the truth, this back and forth is more entertaining that the past 3 CODs put together.
I am thinking the same thing? I can't believe people give a flying fuck about Call of Duty anymore. It go played out years ago and people are still buying the same cut and past job every year.
 

Kagey K

Member
Why do you need hypotheticals with EA or Capcom when they literally just bought Bungie and said they would keep Destiny multiplatform. They were pretty clear about it hence why nobody is losing their shit or bringing it up. This MS is the good guys and Sony bad thing is based on nothing.
What about the other 10 studios they acquired? Are they also going to be muliplatform?

Bungie didn't want to be bought by Sony and asked MS first. They only went to Sony as a last resort.

They will also buy thier freedom back if they feel it's not working out.
 
Last edited:

phil_t98

Member
Not really. Just look at what the movie streaming industry is going through. They’re finding they make the most by actually licensing out content.

Microsoft won’t make much from device sales. That’s why they’re loss leaders. All the money is in the games/accessories. To make the most money, you want the widest audience possible.

do you think Disney+ would be as big if their content was available on other services?
 

Three

Member
What about the other 10 studios they acquired? Are they also going to be muliplatform?

Bungie didn't want to be bought by Sony and asked MS first. They only went to Sony as a last resort.

They will also buy thier freedom back if they feel it's not working out.
Which multiplatform IP that the 10 studios owned would you like to remain multiplatform? That would be like asking if Undead Labs or Playground games are going to be multiplatform after their acquisition.

Now I've heard ot all. So Bungie was begging MS to buy them but settled for cuckold Sony. And MS and Phil, the Phil that said he thinks todays MS could have kept Bungie and the Bungie that squashed rumours that MS held repeated discussions to try and aquire them were in fact rejected by MS? Phil literally rejected his self proclaimed favourite game, Destiny. Sure jan.
 
Last edited:

Neofire

Member
The only thing worse than port begging is thinking you are entitled to a port.
A reality check for Jim Ryan and Sony.
Microsoft owes you fucking nothing. They owe Playstation players nothing.
Sony has spent millions upon millions to stop games and content from coming to Xbox and Xbox players. Sony doesn't owe Xbox or Microsoft anything.
Sony has demonstrated that in the most obvious way.
So to hear Ryan and Sony players thinking that Microsoft owe them to keep COD multiplatform is just hilarious and dillusional. The arrogance to think this is mind blowing.
Sony even to this day continues to money hat content away from Xbox players, and they do so to make their platform more attractive and to get people to buy into their ecosystem at the expense of Xbox and its ecosystem.

Not too long ago we were in a place where fanboys were saying how Microsoft should exit the hardware business. They proclaimed that Microsoft wouldn't use its money to build up Xbox because it would only use profits from Xbox to do that. All while ignoring the fact that Sony was literally using PlayStation profits to prop up the rest of Sony's business that were losing money.

While the fanboys were busy running down COD and saying Sony didn't need it, and that COD sucked, Sony and Jim Ryan were shitting themselves thinking they could lose it.
Sony accounted for around 1.4 billion of Activision sales, which means that Sony took approx 420 million in profits from Activision games.
So of Activision goes exclusive to Xbox and PC, Sony will lose a half a billion a year in profits.
On top of that they will lose market share from the dude bros that eat COD.
There is alot to lose for Sony. Far more than MS. This is why you can smell the fear and desperation from Jim Ryan's comments.
Talking about fanboys lol MS should get you on the pay roll with this wall of text.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Not really. Just look at what the movie streaming industry is going through. They’re finding they make the most by actually licensing out content.

Microsoft won’t make much from device sales. That’s why they’re loss leaders. All the money is in the games/accessories. To make the most money, you want the widest audience possible.

You have completely misunderstood Microsoft's strategy. You're right that they don't care that much about selling Xbox units, but they are also not that interested in selling games. Their primary goal above all else is to get as many Game Pass subscribers as possible, and to do that they need games that will make people want to subscribe. That's why COD will go exclusive. The Xbox itself is only a more accessible way for people to get access to Game Pass than buying a proper gaming PC.
 

Infamy v1

Member
Which multiplatform IP that the 10 studios owned would you like to remain multiplatform? That would be like asking if Undead Labs or Playground games are going to be multiplatform after their acquisition.

Now I've heard ot all. So Bungie was begging MS to buy them but settled for cuckold Sony. And MS and Phil, the Phil that said he thinks todays MS could have kept Bungie and the Bungie that squashed rumours that MS held repeated discussions to try and aquire them were in fact rejected by MS? Phil literally rejected his self proclaimed favourite game, Destiny. Sure jan.

Sony fanboys can be in denial all they want, but we know Bungie went to Microsoft first. Aside from all the rumors that kept popping up, NateDrake (NateTheHate) literally stated on ResetEra that the deal fell through because Bungie wanted to remain independent after the acquisition (surprise to nobody knowing their history and oh look, they're an independent subsidiary of SIE 🤭) and wanted $2 Billion (which, if you take out the retention bonuses Sony is paying to keep employees from leaving, is exactly the price they paid). He said this back in winter 2019, IIRC (I have the pic somewhere, gotta pull it up). You're going to pretend he doesn't have a track record for Sony/Nintendo games, let alone wasn't 100% spot on YEARS before Sony acquired them?

Obviously saying Bungie was "begging" is some low effort strawman bait. They were simply in talks, like companies do. I highly doubt MS was going to repeat what they did again with Bungie, especially seeing after they got away from Activision, too. They simply couldn't come to an amicable agreement. On top of that, Microsoft had been very vocal about expanding their portfolio and most likely had their fingers in quite a few pies before ABK fell into their lap, and combined with Bungies specialization of GaaS, they weren't their number one priority.

There is a reason most people including media assume Bungie got what they wanted here and came out on top. This isn't a slight to Sony, just shows how effective Bungie has been for almost 2 decades now.
 
Last edited:

kyussman

Member
I'm fine with all types of exclusives,buying exclusive periods like Sony are doing with SquareEnix games,buying the publisher and gaining access to exclusivity like that with COD and everything else in between....these are big boy companies,let them provide us the consumers with what they have invested in......and if one has something the other doesn't then they can create their own games to compete.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
I'm fine with all types of exclusives,buying exclusive periods like Sony are doing with SquareEnix games,buying the publisher and gaining access to exclusivity like that with COD and everything else in between....these are big boy companies,let them provide us the consumers with what they have invested in......and if one has something the other doesn't then they can create their own games to compete.

True. Iron sharpens iron as the saying goes. MS couldn't easily compete using Sony's tactics thanks to the differences in install base, they've found a new approach that better suits them.
 

Lady Jane

Banned
Sony fanboys can be in denial all they want, but we know Bungie went to Microsoft first. Aside from all the rumors that kept popping up, NateDrake (NateTheHate) literally stated on ResetEra that the deal fell through because Bungie wanted to remain independent after the acquisition (surprise to nobody knowing their history and oh look, they're an independent subsidiary of SIE 🤭) and wanted $2 Billion (which, if you take out the retention bonuses Sony is paying to keep employees from leaving, is exactly the price they paid). He said this back in winter 2019, IIRC (I have the pic somewhere, gotta pull it up). You're going to pretend he doesn't have a track record for Sony/Nintendo games, let alone wasn't 100% spot on YEARS before Sony acquired them?

Obviously saying Bungie was "begging" is some low effort strawman bait. They were simply in talks, like companies do. I highly doubt MS was going to repeat what they did again with Bungie, especially seeing after they got away from Activision, too. They simply couldn't come to an amicable agreement. On top of that, Microsoft had been very vocal about expanding their portfolio and most likely had their fingers in quite a few pies before ABK fell into their lap, and combined with Bungies specialization of GaaS, they weren't their number one priority.

There is a reason most people including media assume Bungie got what they wanted here and came out on top. This isn't a slight to Sony, just shows how effective Bungie has been for almost 2 decades now.

I expect the Bungie executives that been there for a while to phone it in after the Sony deal. I don't think it was a good purchase by Sony but time will tell.
 

Three

Member
Sony fanboys can be in denial all they want, but we know Bungie went to Microsoft first. Aside from all the rumors that kept popping up, NateDrake (NateTheHate) literally stated on ResetEra that the deal fell through because Bungie wanted to remain independent after the acquisition (surprise to nobody knowing their history and oh look, they're an independent subsidiary of SIE 🤭) and wanted $2 Billion (which, if you take out the retention bonuses Sony is paying to keep employees from leaving, is exactly the price they paid). He said this back in winter 2019, IIRC (I have the pic somewhere, gotta pull it up). You're going to pretend he doesn't have a track record for Sony/Nintendo games, let alone wasn't 100% spot on YEARS before Sony acquired them?

Obviously saying Bungie was "begging" is some low effort strawman bait. They were simply in talks, like companies do. I highly doubt MS was going to repeat what they did again with Bungie, especially seeing after they got away from Activision, too. They simply couldn't come to an amicable agreement. On top of that, Microsoft had been very vocal about expanding their portfolio and most likely had their fingers in quite a few pies before ABK fell into their lap, and combined with Bungies specialization of GaaS, they weren't their number one priority.

There is a reason most people including media assume Bungie got what they wanted here and came out on top. This isn't a slight to Sony, just shows how effective Bungie has been for almost 2 decades now.

You're making assumtions though. Nate drake on resetera made this post as part of the same rumour so it's not "aside from all the rumours" it was the same rumour in 2020 (not 2019) that was blatantly denied by Bungie:

You don't need a pic, the exact post is here and the CEO shutting down the rumour in the thread title (not sure if we can link that place):

Post in thread 'Rumor: Microsoft has been in talks to acquire Bungie multiple times but they fell through each time due to Bungie's high price [Up: CEO Denies]' https://www.resetera.com/threads/ru...high-price-up-ceo-denies.286211/post-45288653

That's what you're basing everything on and the rumour was denied by the CEO.

The second thing and why I mention the 'begging' is that you assume MS and Sony wouldn't have approached Bungie but that "Bungie went to MS first". You make it seem like Bungie approached MS asking to be bought and then as a last resort went to Sony. That's exactly what that poster i replied to said. Where is that silly assumption coming from? Companies don't go to other companies asking them to buy them.
Natedrake is a sony insider (mostly) and just knew some conditions for a possible merger, not once did he corroborate the shut down rumour of them being in talks with MS or fight the denial by the CEO.

Even if you assume that the rumour was in fact true and the CEO is lying; the fact that retaining independence (ie not being able to lock up multiplatforms to the platforms benefit rather than Bungies) shows that Sony were OK with an aquisition where the dev remains multiplatform and MS were not. That's the whole point of this discussion. The idea the poster was pushing is that Sony is the same and would have wanted to lock down the dev if it could make deals. Psygnosis and Bungie show that's not what is important to them.
 
Last edited:
do you think Disney+ would be as big if their content was available on other services?
Sure - but Disney also won't be making as much money as they used to make. The endgame for all these streamers/gamepass is to buy with as much debt as possible, knock out competition, and then price hike eventually once competition is gone. The problem is...consumes/public are kind of catching onto this. There's outcry when Netflix raises prices, they're growth is decelerating and seems to be topping out at 250-300 million and the dream for a billion+ subscribers seems to be far away. How many people will stay with Disney at $14.99/month versus the price currently? Games...I suspect will end up having a smaller total addressable market than tv shows/movies. So personally I think Gamepass tops out at maybe 75-125 million and for AAA game development to be sustainable they probably need to up the charge anywhere between $29.99-$39.99/month. Personally, the only reason I'm even subscribed to gamepass is because of the $1 deal, otherwise I don't game enough anymore to justify having that library I'll never play - I rather go buy the physical collector's edition of the game I actually intend to play. This will look pretty obvious in hindsight 10 years from now, and the gaming industry will be worse for it
 
Last edited:

phil_t98

Member
Sure - but Disney also won't be making as much money as they used to make. The endgame for all these streamers/gamepass is to buy with as much debt as possible, knock out competition, and then price hike eventually once competition is gone. The problem is...consumes/public are kind of catching onto this. There's outcry when Netflix raises prices, they're growth is decelerating and seems to be topping out at 250-300 million and the dream for a billion+ subscribers seems to be far away. How many people will stay with Disney at $14.99/month versus the price currently? Games...I suspect will end up having a smaller total addressable market than tv shows/movies. So personally I think Gamepass tops out at maybe 75-125 million and for AAA game development to be sustainable they probably need to up the charge anywhere between $29.99-$39.99/month. Personally, the only reason I'm even subscribed to gamepass is because of the $1 deal, otherwise I don't game enough anymore to justify having that library I'll never play - I rather go buy the physical collector's edition of the game I actually intend to play. This will look pretty obvious in hindsight 10 years from now, and the gaming industry will be worse for it

won't be making as much money?


I think you find they are raking it in
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
wasn't prey AAA movie?

wasn't the new Pinocchio movie with Tom Hansk AAA?
Animated GIF


Prey and those AAA CGI special effects. Bear must have been constipated.

How about the Marvel bangers they won't do day to date now? I wonder why that is?
 
Last edited:

RobertsK

Member
Animated GIF


Prey and those AAA CGI special effects. Bear must have been constipated.

How about the Marvel bangers they won't do day to date now? I wonder why that is?

Yeah, Prey is definitely a mid budget movie - AA movie, if you will. But despite that it was so much more interesting than anything Marvel spat out in the last two or three years. Tons more thrills, character, attitude.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Yeah, Prey is definitely a mid budget movie - AA movie, if you will. But despite that it was so much more interesting than anything Marvel spat out in the last two or three years. Tons more thrills, character, attitude.
I won't argue there. It had its issues, but overall it had me glued from beginning to end.

Was great to see them use an actual Carolina Wild Dog (American Dingo) for the puppers too. Great touch.
 
Last edited:

Infamy v1

Member
Nate drake on resetera made this post as part of the same rumour so it's not "aside from all the rumours" it was the same rumour in 2020 (not 2019) that was blatantly denied by Bungie:
No, NateDrake specifically stated what Bungie wanted in response to why the deal fell through. He also doubled down on his podcast.

You're seriously saying Bungie denied it, as of we would ever know otherwise when it comes to these private deals? You, the guy who constantly talks about how Phil Spencer is a PR mouthpiece and how MS is all PR this/PR that, don't understand public denial PR when it comes to companies? Y'know, that's done by practically every corp?

You don't need a pic, the exact post is here and the CEO shutting down the rumour in the thread title (not sure if we can link that place):

Post in thread 'Rumor: Microsoft has been in talks to acquire Bungie multiple times but they fell through each time due to Bungie's high price [Up: CEO Denies]' https://www.resetera.com/threads/ru...high-price-up-ceo-denies.286211/post-45288653
Perfect, thanks for doing my job for me.

I love how you're downplaying a very well known, credible leaker stating something that came out to be 100% factually correct WAY in advance (Bungie's stupulations for acquisition) as well as Bungie's very long history of wanting to stay independent and weasling their way out of not one, but two of the biggest gaming corporations in the world.

The second thing and why I mention the 'begging' is that you assume MS and Sony wouldn't have approached Bungie but that "Bungie went to MS first".
The rumors in 2019 and again in 2020 were all about Microsoft. It's not about who went to who, it's that we know MS and Bungie were in talks and the "price was too high," which Nate confirmed the price being independence and $2bil. Which is exactly what happened if you remove the retention bonuses (that is paid out over the years and not a lump sum, btw).
You make it seem like Bungie approached MS asking to be bought and then as a last resort went to Sony.

Sony were in talks with Bungie for months, and most likely didn't wholly agree to the terms Bungie wanted (notice it did not change after Microsoft bowed out) but were still trying to work out a more favorable deal that's in Sony's best interest.

This is why many believe that the ABK announcement rushed Sony's hand despite being in talks with Bungie for months prior but only just then moving forward to Bungie's terms. Rats always love to shout "but it wasn't a response since they were in talks for months prior!" as if that had any credence to the timing of the announcement. That's why, even PS fansites, mention Bungie coming out on top.

This isn't a slight to Sony, no need for your damage control. Sony might've not gotten preferential terms but they still was obviously very interested.

Companies don't go to other companies asking them to buy them.

Bethesda wanted to be acquired, only went to MS.

ABK wanted to be acquired, Bobby made phonecalls looking for the highest bidder, and out of 5 companies MS was chosen (after some back and forth).

Platinum Games said they're down to be acquired but want their creative freedom respected. (hint: we will never know if they approached a company unless it's rumored, leaked, or came to fruition).

There's probably dozens of examples in gaming alone but aside from that companies look to be acquired and/or merged all the time. Some company philosophies are predicated on just that; buy low, invest/grow, sell high. Embracer is widely believed to be doing this very thing.

Natedrake is a sony insider (mostly) and just knew some conditions for a possible merger, not once did he corroborate the shut down rumour of them being in talks with MS or fight the denial by the CEO.

So him commenting on something that ended up being true is irrelevant, but him not commenting on something is your proof? 😂

Even if you assume that the rumour was in fact true and the CEO is lying; the fact that retaining independence (ie not being able to lock up multiplatforms to the platforms benefit rather than Bungies) shows that Sony were OK with an aquisition where the dev remains multiplatform and MS were not. That's the whole point of this discussion. The idea the poster was pushing is that Sony is the same and would have wanted to lock down the dev if it could make deals.
That's some spin if I ever saw some. If Sony was so content with multiplatform first party games (despite only MLB The Show being on Xbox and that was pried out of their cold hands by MLB), then explain this: why were Sony in talks with Bungie for so many months and ultimately ended up on the leaked terms Bungie required, and ever so timely, right after MS was announced to be buying ABK? Since Bungie fit into their plans so well, why such a long wait? Let me guess, all a coincidence, just like Nate's leak years prior, amirite? Right.

Psygnosis and Bungie show that's not what is important to them.

Oh, so it's okay to mention Psygnosis now? Sorry, it's hard to keep up with the goalposts.

The fact that you believe that Sony, who pays hundreds of millions for year exclusive CoD modes and timed exclusive maps/betas/etc., will acquire CoD and suddenly stop all that and promise platform parity well beyond industry norms, is hilarious. The only reason CoD was never timed exclusive at all was due to how much it would cost them due to how much CoD makes on Xbox per year. And you're reasoning? Bungie. Despite Bungie doing known Bungie things. 😂🤭 sorry, but a Sony evangelist on a forum isn't going to change the consensus that exists.
 

Infamy v1

Member
I bet Jim is happy now:

[/URL]

Dammit, what a bad link. Anyway, I’ll try to provide another link.

I don't think that link is saying what you think it's saying, lol. It's basically Microsoft calling their bluff, which invokes confidence, not the opposite.

Microsoft opted not to offer any remedies to the CMA at this stage because there were no obvious commitments the UK regulator would be likely to accept, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

The watchdog does not generally accept behavioural remedies, such as commitments to maintain access to a product or service, at the end of a phase 1 probe apart from in rare circumstances.

One competition lawyer with knowledge of the case said it was "almost impossible" for Microsoft to offer a remedy that would prevent the investigation moving to an in-depth antitrust probe.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
literally putting Microsoft owned games Possibly COD if they end up owning it ,on PS doesn't benefit Microsoft. if it benifitted them why don't we see Sony games on Microsoft console?
My conversation was how sub services start out, to how they are doing years down the line. Was a little segway, is all.

Minecraft is on PlayStation.
Destiny is on Xbox.

But carry the water, playah. This is far more complex than traditional in-house IPs.
 

phil_t98

Member
My conversation was how sub services start out, to how they are doing years down the line. Was a little segway, is all.

Minecraft is on PlayStation.
Destiny is on Xbox.


But carry the water, playah. This is far more complex than traditional in-house IPs.

both games were on the consoles before the purchase of the studios.

you don't spend 70B to keep you competition strong
 
Top Bottom