Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

@ DeepEnigma At this point, everything MS releases still exists as individual purchases with support for local hardware, both PC & Console. If they are trying to funnel everything into GP and Cloud they are going about it in an ass backwards fashion.

Dude they are already full on announcing games in a way that doesn't make it clear whether or not said game is available for separate purchase without gamepass.

And there's also this:

" Xbox, as a platform which is in last place in console, seventh place in PC and nowhere in mobile game distribution globally, has no incentive to do this – instead its incentive is to encourage the widespread adoption of cloud gaming technologies by as many providers as possible to encourage the major shift in consumer behaviour required for cloud gaming to succeed,"

 

[DaGwaphics]

^ Cloud could reach a position of being successful and still only amount to a small percentage of their gaming business. One product reaching a sustainable state (something that's never happened for cloud gaming before) would not extinguish the other options available. Cloud is a tiny part of GP, it's a download service for local hardware for the most part. Somehow that gets lost in these discussions. And GP is less than 20% of MS's gaming revenue.

 

[DeepEnigma]

@ DeepEnigma At this point, everything MS releases still exists as individual purchases with support for local hardware, both PC & Console. If they are trying to funnel everything into GP and Cloud they are going about it in an ass backwards fashion.

If you are taking those dozens and dozens 3rd party games/IPs away, permanently, from "the largest group of console consumers" (MS's words, not mine, paraphrased), then you are no better, in fact, I would argue worse than timed or marketing deals.

And sales charts have proven than Xbox gamers don't buy games like they used to pre-GP. In fact, the platform that these games were being bought on at a 60%-80% split depending on the game, is now gone. All that revenue/profit is gone, hence, loss leading to narrow the market to be the only game sub service show in town.

When you are at the point where you are essentially convincing third parties to forego sales on most platforms and are footing the bill for all those lost sales you are paying for the games production entirely. Now they buy studios. Not because all of a sudden they didn't like decades old market practices but because it is the only way to secure popular third party games as exclusive indefinitely with their new strategy.

Bingo.

 

[Topher]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony kept extending the deal ala FFVIIR, the acquisition probably put a big grind in that gear though. It also kinda explains why Sony barely marketed anything for Ghostwire and the game was kinda just put out to pasture despite it being a one year exclusive.,

I doubt that if for no other reason that FFVIIR has a stature those games simply lack. But it is speculation either way.

Can you imagine how hilarious it would be? Most of the responses would be either "PlayStation is Better" or "Xbox is better"

Oh....you are being nice, Cat. These emails will be overflowing with comparisons of specific consoles to cow excrements. Hopefully the visual aids will minimal.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Games still sell above the console split in MS's favor in the most popular genres on Xbox. LOL

If GP was costing MS its software sales and being a loss leader in the process, gaming revenue would be in absolute freefall. But that's not what we are seeing at all. The console split got worse and worse as last-gen continued and that lowered the % of games sold on Xbox in comparison to PS as expected.

 

[CatLady]

And Elder Scrolls 6, obviously. Where's Redfall too?

Still in development. Like Starfield they never existed on PlayStation so how can they be removed from somewhere they never existed in the first place?

 

[Pelta88]

Dude they are already full on announcing games in a way that doesn't make it clear whether or not said game is available for separate purchase without gamepass.

And there's also this:

" Xbox, as a platform which is in last place in console, seventh place in PC and nowhere in mobile game distribution globally, has no incentive to do this – instead its incentive is to encourage the widespread adoption of cloud gaming technologies by as many providers as possible to encourage the major shift in consumer behaviour required for cloud gaming to succeed,"

Like I said... Microsoft's submissions to the CMA are going to reverberate in gaming for a long time. Since 2013 they've refused to give any insight, going to great lengths to hide XBOX financials in their quarterly reports.

Publicly, Phil Spencer's PR was that they're heading towards billions of gamers via XCLOUD/GP
Privately, Microsoft admits to the CMA that gamers are unwilling to use the service.

Just think about how much PR smoke that Phil has been blowing for years. PR about what is and isn't the future. Only for XBOX to be fully aware that the stats paint a dramatically different picture.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Still in development. Like Starfield they never existed on PlayStation so how can they be removed from somewhere they never existed in the first place?

But I thought...

Show me the contracts for your claims...Why would I believe you when evidence shows that Sony were signing next gen deals with Bethesda. Why would you sign Deathloop and GHostwire and not want Bethesdas next biggest franchise that is basically fallout/skyrim in space.

You can't honestly not see how the starfield claims about sony are true. Where theres smoke theres fire. I've listened to enough podcasts with people i trust in the right places that say theyve all heard that Sony was in talks to secure an exclusivity deal on Starfield and MS stepped in.

Its pretty damn obvious it was true.

Sony was reportedly in talks to sign Starfield before Xbox’s Bethesda buyout | VGC

Microsoft has said it will honour PS5’s existing exclusivity agreements with Bethesda…

www.videogameschronicle.com

Imran Khan aint gonna lie.

This applies to you...

So holla at your peeps in here saying it never existed. The defense is getting their wires crossed.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

UK Regulatory Board Is Asking Public Opinion On Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Proposal​

The United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is still weighing the industry costs and benefits of approving the $68.7 billion Activision Blizzard acquisition deal proposed by Microsoft, and now it is opening the floor for comment by the general public. As reported by GamesIndustry.biz, the government authority on October 20 posted a lengthy explanation of its role in the proposed acquisition deal on a UK government Website,


Microsoft had scored a big win early in the month, as a regulatory board in Brazil approved the acquisition with no restrictions, but the company's initial pitch to the CMA in the United Kingdom was met with some initial concerns. The move by the CMA this week opens the floor to anyone who would like to weigh in on the topic, although the authority has noted it will not likely have the time or resources to issue a response to every individual concern it receives.

As per the government Website, the agency is only looking at three "theories of harm" that its members are concerned may be brought about by approving the acquisition. Those theories center on potential negative market effects, which could include damage to competing consoles, game subscription services, and cloud gaming. "The CMA can only look at the effects of the merger that are related to a loss of competition," the Website clarifies. The posting on the Website comes just a day after Microsoft issued to the CMA a response that the most profitable intellectual property it seeks to acquire, the Call of Duty franchise, wouldn't be able to go on its Xbox GamePass service "for a number of years" due to pre-existing agreements with top competitor Sony PlayStation.
Additionally, the Website provides a handy info graphic explaining where the CMA currently sits in its process.

The purpose of the current stage of the investigation is for the authority to build on it's first phase and "gather more evidence from the merging businesses and others to investigate potential issues with competition that could arise as a result of the merger." Once the second phase has been completed, the CMA will move on to analyzing its evidence, producing its provisional findings, and issuing a final report.
Those who wish to offer commentary to the CMA may contact it at microsoft.activision@cma.gov.uk, although the authority requests that anyone who issues such an e-mail does so only after thoroughly reading through its informational Website and the documents on its related investigation page.

UK Regulatory Board Is Asking Public Opinion On Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Proposal

The floor is open.

www.dualshockers.com

 

[CatLady]

But I thought...


This applies to you...

Please give us links to show where these games that haven't even released were already on PlayStation and then removed.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Please give us links to show where these games that haven't even released were already on PlayStation and then removed.

Now you're being purposely obtuse.

 

[CatLady]

Now you're being purposely obtuse.

I would say you are the one being obtuse and disingenuous You keep making spurious claims that games that have NEVER been released on any platform let alone PlayStation have been removed from PlayStation. They can't be removed if they were never there in the first place. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel in trying to find a way to make the claim Xbox has already removed existing games from PlayStation.

The only Bethesda games that have been released since the acquisition have all been released on PS including 2 that launched exclusive to PS5 and were blocked on Xbox for 1 year. It seems more like Sony removed games from Xbox instead of the other way around. If I am mistaken in this, please tell me what game has actually been removed from PlayStation with a link to the source.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I would say you are the one being obtuse and disingenuous You keep making spurious claims that games that have NEVER been released on any platform let alone PlayStation have been removed from PlayStation. They can't be removed if they were never there in the first place. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel in trying to find a way to make the claim Xbox has already removed existing games from PlayStation.

The only Bethesda games that have been released since the acquisition have all been released on PS including 2 that launched exclusive to PS5 and were blocked on Xbox for 1 year. It seems more like Sony removed games from Xbox instead of the other way around. If I am mistaken in this, please tell me what game has actually been removed from PlayStation with a link to the source.

Ok.

 

[oldergamer]

The Xbox console warriors keep trying to roast Sony over a spit for making exclusivity deals, but their lord, Phil Spencer, is in cahoots with Epic Games Store who is famously known for bringing exclusivity to PC buy making agreements with a ton of developers/studios/publishers to keep games off of Steam.

Crap post for the win? i fail to see the logic there.

 

[Bernkastel]

But I thought...


This applies to you...

Bethesda like many other devs, develop on PC first and later port to Consoles. I doubt there was anything other than a PC version in 2020, and the game is supposed to launch in 2023. Weird that you are even mentioning TES VI, which was only in pre-production until 2021.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Bethesda like many other devs, develop on PC first and later port to Consoles. I doubt there was anything other than a PC version in 2020, and the game is supposed to launch in 2023. Weird that you are even mentioning TES VI, which was only in pre-production until 2021.

I know, mentioning traditional third party games for decades (especially a franchise ported on anything and everything for 3 gens in a row), now first party and exclusive. So weird to think they would have not been third party on all devices if they were never purchased.

So weird, indeed.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Bethesda like many other devs, develop on PC first and later port to Consoles. I doubt there was anything other than a PC version in 2020, and the game is supposed to launch in 2023. Weird that you are even mentioning TES VI, which was only in pre-production until 2021.

 

[feynoob]

Hi everyone

 

[xHunter]

Bethesda like many other devs, develop on PC first and later port to Consoles. I doubt there was anything other than a PC version in 2020, and the game is supposed to launch in 2023. Weird that you are even mentioning TES VI, which was only in pre-production until 2021.

Would you say there was an Xbox Version of FF7R when they announced it?

 

[bender]

Hi everyone

 

[CatLady]

Hi everyone

That's really cute. Welcome to NeoGAF.

 

[Crispy Gamer]

Would you say there was an Xbox Version of FF7R when they announced it?

Damn that's pretty good probably not I guess

 

[MasterCornholio]

Hi everyone

Hi kingfey

 

[gladdys]

That's only happening if Microsoft says fuck it and decides just to become a third party publisher. Either way, sonys never going to let gamepass on If everyone could have the option to buy any game on their console of choice,

That's only happening if Microsoft says fuck it and decides just to become a third party publisher. Either way, sonys never going to let gamepass on their system.

If gamers could buy any game on their console of choice though would that be seen as a bad thing? Would that be considered anti consumer?

 

[feynoob]

1. There several key points I want to highlight about this deal.
   1. Activision put themselves for sale. MS approached, but were rejected. They went to facebook, instead. Facebook rejected Activision deal. Activision went back to MS, and the sale happened.
   2. This wasnt a hostile takeover. This was a business that was up for sale, and anyone could have made the sale.
   3. Same thing happened to Bethesda. Bethesda were up for sale. MS bought them. There was no hostile take over.
   4. As such, both deals werent done by MS big money, in order to hurt the competition. They were companies who were on the market, and MS had the means to buy them.
2. B:
   1. Activision deal isnt just about COD, like people here make it out to be. Its about 3 division of activision.
   2. 1A: Activison with COD, and other IPs
   3. 1B: Blizzard, which opens the windows store for PC player through WOW, and battlenet integregation with windows store.
   4. 1C: King with candy crush, and COD mobile. This opens the door for MS to open Mobile store, by utilizing King, and in hopes of porting their games to mobile through King.
3. This deal wont hurt Sony, as COD needs playerbase. By excluding PS users, MS is essentially undercutting COD growth. There is also the fact, that MS has tons of FPS shooters, which would also hurt COD revenue on Xbox. Hence, why MS wont remove the game from PS.
4. This deal wont give MS leverage through cloud gaming. Cloud gaming is early experiment. It needs time, and tools to replace the traditional consoles. There are major players in cloud gaming. Players such as,
   1. 4A: Amazon with luna.
   2. 4B: Sony with PS Now, or as we call it now PS+ premium. Which includes a high catelog of library, which are much bigger than MS own cloud gaming library.
   3. 4C: Geforce, which offers the ability to play owned games on their service.
   4. As such, Activision purchase wont hurt the competition in this avenue.

Would this deal pass?
Yes, it would, since there are no major problems with this acquision.
MS/Xbox is last in console race in term of userbase, sold hardware, and 2nd in term of revenue. While MS has enermous amount of money under their belt, this acquision wont put them in advantage mode, due to userbase not being enough. Currently, Xbox has half of PS userbase, and 75% of nintendo userbase.

While this deal wont be a problem, there are future problems if this deal is passed, which would put MS in anti competitive range, should they acquire publishers like EA and take 2. If this happens, MS should face the scrunity for monopolistic tactic, as those publishers would give them alot of advantages.

 

[feynoob]

Hi kingfey

That's really cute. Welcome to NeoGAF.

Missed you guys.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

1. There ....

This deal is not only about Cod....But CoD IS the only thing that could substancially hurt Sony directly. That is all the drama about (around green-blue rats and their leaders).

 

[Torrent of Pork]

1. There several key points I want to highlight about this deal.
   1. Activision put themselves for sale. MS approached, but were rejected. They went to facebook, instead. Facebook rejected Activision deal. Activision went back to MS, and the sale happened.
   2. This wasnt a hostile takeover. This was a business that was up for sale, and anyone could have made the sale.
   3. Same thing happened to Bethesda. Bethesda were up for sale. MS bought them. There was no hostile take over.
   4. As such, both deals werent done by MS big money, in order to hurt the competition. They were companies who were on the market, and MS had the means to buy them.
2. B:
   1. Activision deal isnt just about COD, like people here make it out to be. Its about 3 division of activision.
   2. 1A: Activison with COD, and other IPs
   3. 1B: Blizzard, which opens the windows store for PC player through WOW, and battlenet integregation with windows store.
   4. 1C: King with candy crush, and COD mobile. This opens the door for MS to open Mobile store, by utilizing King, and in hopes of porting their games to mobile through King.
3. This deal wont hurt Sony, as COD needs playerbase. By excluding PS users, MS is essentially undercutting COD growth. There is also the fact, that MS has tons of FPS shooters, which would also hurt COD revenue on Xbox. Hence, why MS wont remove the game from PS.
4. This deal wont give MS leverage through cloud gaming. Cloud gaming is early experiment. It needs time, and tools to replace the traditional consoles. There are major players in cloud gaming. Players such as,
   1. 4A: Amazon with luna.
   2. 4B: Sony with PS Now, or as we call it now PS+ premium. Which includes a high catelog of library, which are much bigger than MS own cloud gaming library.
   3. 4C: Geforce, which offers the ability to play owned games on their service.
   4. As such, Activision purchase wont hurt the competition in this avenue.

Would this deal pass?
Yes, it would, since there are no major problems with this acquision.
MS/Xbox is last in console race in term of userbase, sold hardware, and 2nd in term of revenue. While MS has enermous amount of money under their belt, this acquision wont put them in advantage mode, due to userbase not being enough. Currently, Xbox has half of PS userbase, and 75% of nintendo userbase.

While this deal wont be a problem, there are future problems if this deal is passed, which would put MS in anti competitive range, should they acquire publishers like EA and take 2. If this happens, MS should face the scrunity for monopolistic tactic, as those publishers would give them alot of advantages.

From the mouth of babes.

 

[ReBurn]

I doubt that if for no other reason that FFVIIR has a stature those games simply lack. But it is speculation either way.



Oh....you are being nice, Cat. These emails will be overflowing with comparisons of specific consoles to cow excrements. Hopefully the visual aids will minimal.

CMA about to be inundated with list wars

 

[feynoob]

This deal is not only about Cod....But CoD IS the only thing that could substancially hurt Sony directly. That is all the drama about (around green-blue rats and their leaders).

Which is why I highlighted in my key point.

This deal wont hurt Sony, as COD needs playerbase. By excluding PS users, MS is essentially undercutting COD growth. There is also the fact, that MS has tons of FPS shooters, which would also hurt COD revenue on Xbox. Hence, why MS wont remove the game from PS

Removing this game from PS means, less revenue for MS, and more damage to the game.
COD is a community game, which thrives of mtx. Considering the number of shooter games xbox has, it would severely hurt the game, if they make it exclusive.
You have Halo, doom, overwatch 2, deathloop, Gears and any FPS games, which MS would make. That is tough competition, which cant be sustained by 2 groups. Hence why, COD needs to stay on PS.

 

[Topher]

CMA about to be inundated with list wars

 

[Pelta88]

Which is why I highlighted in my key point.

Removing this game from PS means, less revenue for MS, and more damage to the game.
COD is a community game, which thrives of mtx. Considering the number of shooter games xbox has, it would severely hurt the game, if they make it exclusive.
You have Halo, doom, overwatch 2, deathloop, Gears and any FPS games, which MS would make. That is tough competition, which cant be sustained by 2 groups. Hence why, COD needs to stay on PS.

Satya believes spending money is competition. Making COD a GP exclusives is all this acquisition is about. MS will absorb the costs that come with losing playstation.

Don't listen to microsoft's PR about what they will or wont do. Look at their submissions to the CMA. Gamepass is not being adopted at a rate that is sustainable and PS has more than double XBOX's total subscription. Do the math.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Missed you guys.

Wait what?

I was only joking.

 

[twilo99]

They would actually be helping Sony in the long run if they did this.

So you think all this exclusivity and separation is good for us gamers?

I can't help but feel like the whole things is rather archaic and we should move on. Let us play whatever we want on whatever platform we want, no reason to lock anyone out.

If you could play Sony games on xbox trough Sony's cloud offering, wouldn't you? I get that some people want the fidelity, but some of us don't care all that much...

 

[feynoob]

Satya believes spending money is competition. Making COD a GP exclusives is all this acquisition is about and they will absorb the costs.

Don't listen to microsoft's PR about what they will or wont do. Look at their submissions to the CMA. Gamepass is not being adopted at a rate that is sustainable and PS has more than double XBOX's total subscription. Do the math.

Gamepass is sustainable and profitable for Xbox.
Unlike netflix, gamepass is an integrated part of Xbox. This means, Xbox console is attractive, because of the service.
People who buy the console, due to gamepass would build library on xbox, meaning they would spend money on 3rd party games, which arent part of the service. This wouldnt happen without gamepass. That is what MS is looking for Xbox.

If we view gamepass as standalone only, without Xbox, it is sustainable, as it doesnt burn alot of money. Any money spent on aquisition wont affect gamepass money, because that is an asset for MS.

Lets say you buy a nintendo switch, and 10 switch 1st party games for around $1000. You are not losing $1k. You are gaing asset, which you can sell it later. And since Nintendo games dont depreciate quickly, they are worth the same money, when you sell it. You would be able to get that $1k after 1 year. That is if the device doesnt depreciate that much.

That is the same thing for MS purchases. They arent losing money on their aquision. They are gaining asset, which they can sell it later in the furture, if they desire to gain back their money. In the mean time, those assets would help their services, not just gamepass, but Xbox also.

As such, gamepass isnt shouldering that money. The only thing gamepass is shouldering is 3rd party deals, Xcloud rent money, Royalties for 3rd party. The rest would be directed to Xbox division, since gamepass uses Xbox and windows store.

Gamepass is on growth mode. That 3b revenue, is being put on gamepass to get more games. The more sub the service get, the more revenue it makes, the more that money goes to gamepass in order to get more games.

We can see that flow from their day1 3rd party games, which suggests gamepass growth. The actual profit would come from 40+m userbase. until then, any money that is made would go to gamepass.

 

[CatLady]

They absolutely have to make the responses public; this is just way too good to miss. The Twitter console wars can be entertaining for a while, but this will be the Super Bowl of console warring.

 

[NickFire]

I would say you are the one being obtuse and disingenuous You keep making spurious claims that games that have NEVER been released on any platform let alone PlayStation have been removed from PlayStation. They can't be removed if they were never there in the first place. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel in trying to find a way to make the claim Xbox has already removed existing games from PlayStation.

The only Bethesda games that have been released since the acquisition have all been released on PS including 2 that launched exclusive to PS5 and were blocked on Xbox for 1 year. It seems more like Sony removed games from Xbox instead of the other way around. If I am mistaken in this, please tell me what game has actually been removed from PlayStation with a link to the source.

How do you know the sun will actually come up tomorrow. Tomorrow has not even happened. Tomorrow may not happen. Or the sun might decide to shine somewhere new. We just don't know.

Did I do that right?

 

[DenchDeckard]

I would say you are the one being obtuse and disingenuous You keep making spurious claims that games that have NEVER been released on any platform let alone PlayStation have been removed from PlayStation. They can't be removed if they were never there in the first place. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel in trying to find a way to make the claim Xbox has already removed existing games from PlayStation.

The only Bethesda games that have been released since the acquisition have all been released on PS including 2 that launched exclusive to PS5 and were blocked on Xbox for 1 year. It seems more like Sony removed games from Xbox instead of the other way around. If I am mistaken in this, please tell me what game has actually been removed from PlayStation with a link to the source.

 

[feynoob]

I would like the hunger games style. The ultimate war for activision future.

 

[Topher]

Gamepass is sustainable and profitable for Xbox.
Unlike netflix, gamepass is an integrated part of Xbox. This means, Xbox console is attractive, because of the service.
People who buy the console, due to gamepass would build library on xbox, meaning they would spend money on 3rd party games, which arent part of the service. This wouldnt happen without gamepass. That is what MS is looking for Xbox.

If we view gamepass as standalone only, without Xbox, it is sustainable, as it doesnt burn alot of money. Any money spent on aquisition wont affect gamepass money, because that is an asset for MS.

Lets say you buy a nintendo switch, and 10 switch 1st party games for around $1000. You are not losing $1k. You are gaing asset, which you can sell it later. And since Nintendo games dont depreciate quickly, they are worth the same money, when you sell it. You would be able to get that $1k after 1 year. That is if the device doesnt depreciate that much.

That is the same thing for MS purchases. They arent losing money on their aquision. They are gaining asset, which they can sell it later in the furture, if they desire to gain back their money. In the mean time, those assets would help their services, not just gamepass, but Xbox also.

As such, gamepass isnt shouldering that money. The only thing gamepass is shouldering is 3rd party deals, Xcloud rent money, Royalties for 3rd party. The rest would be directed to Xbox division, since gamepass uses Xbox and windows store.

Gamepass is on growth mode. That 3b revenue, is being put on gamepass to get more games. The more sub the service get, the more revenue it makes, the more that money goes to gamepass in order to get more games.

We can see that flow from their day1 3rd party games, which suggests gamepass growth. The actual profit would come from 40+m userbase. until then, any money that is made would go to gamepass.

That's a kingfey post if I've ever seen one.

 

[Pelta88]

Gamepass is sustainable and profitable for Xbox.

I stopped reading here.

No disrespect intended. It's just clear that you haven't read through Microsoft submissions to the CMA. I suggest that you review those legally binding documents before you parrot Microsoft's PR.

 

[feynoob]

Wait what?

I was only joking.

 

[feynoob]

I stopped reading here.

No disrespect intended. It's just clear that you haven't read through Microsoft submissions to the CMA. I suggest that you review those legally binding documents before you parrot Microsoft's PR.

As service alone, with no xbox store detached, its sustainable with revenue it brings, as long as it doesnt overexceed with AAA day 1 games.

But this service is part of Xbox. As such, the service brings new customers, which spends on Xbox store. It increases the Xbox revenue, and 3rd party sales.

That is what you need to look at.

People have been buying Xbox due to gamepass. Number 1 reason, why I bought mine, WIthout it, I would have been PS, nintendo, or PC guy. I wouldnt have bothered with Xbox.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Technically you did ask for that ban. No idea why you didn't use your old account.

Maybe Mod of War can assist with an account merge?

 

[feynoob]

Technically you did ask for that ban. No idea why you didn't use your old account.

Maybe Mod of War Mod of War can assist with an account merge?

I would rather not. That account has been a problem for my mental.
I dont want the ability to make a thread. Its time consuming, and its a rabbit hole, which I want to avoid.

 

[CatLady]

How do you know the sun will actually come up tomorrow. Tomorrow has not even happened. Tomorrow may not happen. Or the sun might decide to shine somewhere new. We just don't know.

Did I do that right?

No you didn't.

Give me proof any of the games in question were ever released and available on the Sony platform and in order for them to be removed from the Sony platform. Just because I believe the sun will come up tomorrow doesn't prove these games were for sale on PlayStation yesterday.

 

[feynoob]

How do you know the sun will actually come up tomorrow. Tomorrow has not even happened. Tomorrow may not happen. Or the sun might decide to shine somewhere new. We just don't know.

Did I do that right?

If you pray to sun god, it would appear.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I would rather not. That account has been a problem for my mental.
I dont want the ability to make a thread. Its time consuming, and its a rabbit hole, which I want to avoid.

You can always ask the mods to take away that ability. I asked them to remove my reporting ability because I didn't enjoy jamming on that button.

 

[NickFire]

No you didn't.

Give me proof any of the games in question were ever released and available on the Sony platform and in order for them to be removed from the Sony platform. Just because I believe the sun will come up tomorrow doesn't prove these games were for sale on PlayStation yesterday.

The only way it would not have is if someone paid for perpetual exclusivity. But there is no proof anyone would pay a sufficient amount for that, so you asking us to prove a negative.

I will concede that just like we don't know for sure that the sun will come up tomorrow, we technically cannot say there is zero chance Starfield would have skipped PS5. But you, me, and everyone else knows, in mind and heart, that it would have eventually launched on it short of a permanent exclusive deal. Unless we are to believe it would make sound financial sense for Ford to stop selling cars to the 48 contiguous States and move all operations to Hawaii.

 

[DeepEnigma]

CMA about to be inundated with list wars

CMA be like,