I like to do both.
I dont recall seeing that much, most people agreed that they would get it back from expansions and MTX, but I obviously can't read every single comment on the forum.
It's not a matter of number but quality. I don't need 200 games on a service to quench my thirst. I never had that many growing up playing my consoles and I don't need that much today. There isn't that much quality out that I feel like I'm missing anything.
Everyone games differently. Your 1 or 2 games per year is no better or worse than someone else playing 60.
So true.Translation: we thought we could mooch off of multiplatform shooters forever. Please don't take COD from us!
I can assure you I buy more than 1 or 2 a year. But I don't need to pay a subscription to see what I like. I'll play a demo or watch videos of games being played. Even read reviews. Again, whatever it costs a month is not worth it for me to line their pockets to play a game or games I have no interest in playing. At the end of the day I don't want a subscription future for gaming. You see what happens with tv shows and movies now being made for Netflix and other sub services- the quality is generally awful. I don't want gaming to go the same path.
You sound like the vynl holdouts when cassettes came out and the cassette holdouts when CDs came (I was one)
I like movie and gaming sub plans. If I'm that itching to watch a hot movie or game day one I'll do it. If not, I'll wait for sub plan. I like EA NHL, but I'll gladly wait 9 months for it to come to EA Play.
You bet your ass, that dude is hzrdcore, no Netflix, Prime, Spotify in that house.
I fear for the day that Spotify leads to shorter less quality songs.
We (the Royal we) have this concern every time there is a change in distribution method or business.
Obviously Sony was to be concerned, they know it's thier bread and butter. They make a fuckton for doing nothing.
How did they feel about the Sort Music for Short Peopke compilation where every song was 30 seconds or less?
The problem with this thinking is the fact Bungie settled with Sony, they tried to come back and Phil told them to piss off.
They already got off their ass.
Under what Bungie said Sony doesn't really benefit from it short term. They are treating Sony like a Big Brother when Sony wants to fuck.
No doubt.
Problem is, like all hoes, they eventually run out of suitors and wonder why they die alone.
I guess if you wish it hard enough to be true it becomes so, but no and often it is exactly the scope and these pesky technical details that make one thing much worse and that is what anti competition laws used to and should focus on.
In summary… We double down on timed exclusives (again one company was doing it while criticising others for the same practice) at the same level as buying a publisher (let alone two of the biggest ones), then we judge rumours and speculation for a good SonyToo feeling…
.
, as you said the devil is in the detail… buying the two biggest publishers and making their games exclusive cannot be compared to that, c’mon…), FF7R not sure is there a money hat or Square did not bother bringing it to Xbox?
Wow, that's crazy....bungie really be hoeing. Interested to see what happens at Sony.
They will want to be independent again, and just terminate the contract (I think it's 5 Years for this one) and go shopping.
What you should squint and focus on is the holistic picture, and exactly when regulators should interfere with markets.I guess if you wish it hard enough to be true it becomes so, but no and often it is exactly the scope and these pesky technical details that make one thing much worse and that is what anti competition laws used to and should focus on.
Even the principle, buying Insomniac vs buying id Software and making both exclusives… ok let’s unwrap it: developer whose output was almost always exclusive to PS console anyways vs developer with almost all titles that reached all platforms since their inception (the latter bought as part of a publisher and while stating that they had no intention to restrict access but to give access to more people… only to announce games were becoming exclusive). Yep same thing if you squint real hard.
In summary… We double down on timed exclusives (again one company was doing it while criticising others for the same practice) at the same level as buying a publisher (let alone two of the biggest ones), then we judge rumours and speculation for a good SonyToo feeling…
SF5 was a case involving a Capcom in a very different financial situation but I am not saying Sony never worked to have exclusives (exclusives being bad is Good Guy Phil’s point
Again, the argument “f competition laws, my corporate daddy will crush yours and laws are toothless” would sound more credible and honest than this back and forth in this thread.
What is that interesting about Spotify that you can't do with YouTube downloader and your local music player and you need to pay money for someone to list you songs. For everything must be a service in this age ....
wccftech.com
Agreed, when a player far richer starts using outside funds from other near monopoly markets to starve the competition out of games buying large publishers would be a good time to take a gander. It could help if that same company had already been found guilty of abusing their monopoly in both the US and EU and is quite well know for abusing their control of industries too.
The reasons where their own, it was not Sony unfairly squeezing them out, this is revisionist history.
Again revisionist history and a bit hilarious too if you think about it as MS, especially compared for their size, was the one not growing their internal stable of studios and relying on timed and full exclusives a lot, locking competitors from their network (see reasons why FFXI never allowed cross platform gameplay and FFXIV never even arrived there… before they were Falling behind and suddenly cross platform gameplay became important).
.How many were those developed by their own studios they grew over time (sure compare ND now to the huge kennel it was in the post Crash Bandicoot days lol). Same thing with Insomniac which they have been growing a lot by hiring (both companies had aligned themselves to Sony from the start too).
Yes and the size and IP controlled by said studios matters too. “Next question: is hiring 50,000 people that different from buying publishers with 50,000 people working for them in one big purchase and making that publisher’s games exclusive?”…
If you are a $3 Trillion dollar company with huge margins and raise prices, cough… Apple cough…, is one thing but sure let’s compare the PS5 price increase and put it in the mix… sorry, but still feels like throwing things at the wall and false equivalences.
Sony Has Reportedly Locked PS5 Timed Exclusivity for Some Huge and Widely Known Multiplats, Imran Khan Says; People “Will Be Shocked”
During yesterday’s Kinda Funny Games Daily, co-host Imran Khan has claimed that Sony has locked down timed exclusivity for some huge and widely known multiplatform titles.
again Sony try to do there best to block games on other platforms
if people think back to just before this gen started and there is a thread on here about it Sony were offering to money hat exclusivity and approached all the big studios. to be fair this was Microsofts response. if you look in the thread people were applauding Sony for doing that approach
They can't, Bungie wouldn't allow it
Yeah they'll just call sony and say "hey guys its time again can you let us be independent again?".
So I guess leading a market 2:1 and securing favorable deals from publishers to get exclusive content doesn't make the grade for regulators?Agreed, when a player far richer starts using outside funds from other near monopoly markets to starve the competition out of games buying large publishers would be a good time to take a gander. It could help if that same company had already been found guilty of abusing their monopoly in both the US and EU and is quite well know for abusing their control of industries too.
The reasons where their own, it was not Sony unfairly squeezing them out, this is revisionist history.
Again revisionist history and a bit hilarious too if you think about it as MS, especially compared for their size, was the one not growing their internal stable of studios and relying on timed and full exclusives a lot, locking competitors from their network (see reasons why FFXI never allowed cross platform gameplay and FFXIV never even arrived there… before they were Falling behind and suddenly cross platform gameplay became important).
MS itself was thinking if they wanted to bother or not with making plastic boxes until they made a plan to use their wealth to move the battle to content streaming/subscriptions and had regulators finally off their backs after years of very close oversight… what did they do after? Took their Azure/Windows/Office money and started pouring almost $100 Billion to buy permanent exclusives while singing the praises of bringing games to more people
How many were those developed by their own studios they grew over time (sure compare ND now to the huge kennel it was in the post Crash Bandicoot days lol). Same thing with Insomniac which they have been growing a lot by hiring (both companies had aligned themselves to Sony from the start too).
Yes and the size and IP controlled by said studios matters too. “Next question: is hiring 50,000 people that different from buying publishers with 50,000 people working for them in one big purchase and making that publisher’s games exclusive?”…
If you are a $3 Trillion dollar company with huge margins and raise prices, cough… Apple cough…, is one thing but sure let’s compare the PS5 price increase and put it in the mix… sorry, but still feels like throwing things at the wall and false equivalences.
Whoa, just doubling down on Insomniac as a multiplatform publisher… are you trying to convince me or yourself here? I guess scope and details matter and do not matter depending how you look at them
.We would not, no. If they had been exclusive to Xbox I think it would have been different, far different than buying Zenimax/Bethesda and Activision-Blizzard. You do know that.
Scope and details with corporations is what matters (intent much less even if you really could prove that… but intent wise, sure… try to rally the public against exclusives pointing at your competitors and keep doing what you accuse others of helps understand intent too… it also helps when you are a serial convicted monopolist / market power abuser
).Sure, basically as a result MS is the poor victim in all of this, whatever keeps you thinking this is totally normal I guess
.Again, totally comparable
… right…More “but Sony too”. Show me how it could potentially have more effect than Sony snatching up both Gaikai and OnLive when they did and we can talk… hint: did not have that much effect.
It could, I am quite sure if Sony found some external funds to buy Zenimax/Bethesda and then Activision-Blizzard with proven intent to make them exclusive to PlayStation consoles regulators would have kicked their butts (far less lobbyist too).
Not sure, who could know… Sony doing some of that to SEGA, which is why the “hahaha payback bi74es would sound more intellectually honest” albeit not really quite the same. SEGA had far other problems and pissed publishers away more than Sony money blocking them, more on the “but Sony too” lookalike train of thought.
I guess you do not, but you were the one talking about “SonyToo” when talking about Sony’s deals and acquisitions…
. Scope… details…, not making up rules and I could just say “ditto”, but not sure the discussion would go anywhere like that.
I'm detecting this massive anti-capitalist and Sony is a victim complex shining through in all your posts.It could, I am quite sure if Sony found some external funds to buy Zenimax/Bethesda and then Activision-Blizzard with proven intent to make them exclusive to PlayStation consoles regulators would have kicked their butts (far less lobbyist too).
Not sure, who could know… Sony doing some of that to SEGA, which is why the “hahaha payback bi74es would sound more intellectually honest” albeit not really quite the same. SEGA had far other problems and pissed publishers away more than Sony money blocking them, more on the “but Sony too” lookalike train of thought.
I guess you do not, but you were the one talking about “SonyToo” when talking about Sony’s deals and acquisitions…
MS has been doing exactly the same.
And if the deal goes through COD will be a first party title published by Xbox, what's your point?
I saw MS's latest conference...the words "Console Exclusive" were the words that showed up the most on screen.
