If MS could have easily done that, they would have. The only option they were presented with, is what they went with. They wanted the IP and talent. If they could pick and control the risk they were taking with their 70b, you think they would ignore it?
They both do what you say he cries about, but only one is purchasing decades old 3rd party publishers with those storied IPs and studios in this race to the bottom.
Those studios (the ones they would want to buy) would have to be on sale for them even to buy and let's not forget the IP — the studio willing to sell the IP/being sold to MS with it. So, that is what I am trying to tell you. It's not as easy as you are trying to make it and that 70B would be distributed, wouldn't be given to the set of studios as a whole for them to do with as they please. It's not the same situation.
Well, yeah they're CEOs of big gaming brands, if they can, they will... If they don't, clearly they can't
That's a very reductive way of looking at things, that is false as well.
The point of my previous post, the one that you are glossing over.....spending a bunch of money on random studios is one thing. Being strategic about who you want (the other side also willing) and getting the one you want with IP is another. More time/resources they would have to invest and looking at each opportunity on its own, etc etc.
Understood, but I’m eating at the table of the Gods with what they put out, and it appears many agree.
No proof and hearsay’s. Great.No, but Microsoft was probably doing that stuff in the 90s
I don't think it's false, maybe reductive, but not false... If they had the money to buy AB they probably would, therefore they wouldn't buy Bungie instead, they clearly are in purchase hunt and they said it themselves.
Uh what...I wasn't arguing otherwise lol. I don't know which direction you are trying to take this conversation now but we both know how they came across A&B. Unless you know something I don't.
I don't think they would. It's not their style.
Then that's their thing if its their style or not, in that case if they had or not the money, it's not MS business what kind of moral or philosophy Sony carry when deciding what to purchase, nor should they care.
Dominated the PS2 era in what way? Add some context instead of making a blanket statement
Well, for starter, as some have said there's still no FF7R or SFV on Xbox, I know they are smaller purchases, but when you have them more in quantities and frequency and considering they all contributed to balance things in favor of Sony, does it matter the size per deal that much?
Bruh!
Xbox owner here.......this is all true....plus, what is the last AAA 1st party game that was received great? Maybe Forza Horizon 5? There haven't been many at all. I don't think, if MS bought Activision, that they would have yearly COD releases and I doubt they will be getting the great reviews like the new COD is getting.
Yeah, I can understand not wanting to think like a "gamer" but trying to comprehend from a more realistic or neutral position.
It won't, but Sony needs to make the right people think that it will.
I mean I know I want a teleporting machine before I will see one.
Then don't sub to anything. Seems like an entirely avoidable "problem" to me.
Wrong on so many levels
It's ignorant to think of it this way lol.
A lot of people want subs, yet you can still buy movies and music and games without the need to buy into a specific ecosystem and that doesn't at all appear to be going away anytime soon.
I said a game *like* Cyberpunk, not a verbatim clone.Using Cyberpunk 2077 as an example of depth tells you everything you need to know (it's also full of cutscenes, scripted moments and times when control is taken away from you because something cool needs to happen). It also railroads you down paths while giving you the illusion of choice.
So I am supposed to be scared that something might happen because... things?short sighted and lack of imagination you are
I don't see a possible future where subscription gaming leads to a better gaming landscape... except for more casual future.
People buy DVDs and CDs far less than ever. Big budget movies can rely on box office, musicians then rely on concerts. Most streaming content is trash. There are standouts, but they are the exception to the norm. Even with large budgets on streaming, they put out trash for that casual audience (Ring of Power).
I'm glad you said that, thank you.
Of course they buy physical media at less of a rate, we have options now, and artists are losing out because of corporate greed not because the money isn't there, but that seems like another issue alltogether.People buy DVDs and CDs far less than ever. Big budget movies can rely on box office, musicians then rely on concerts. Most streaming content is trash. There are standouts, but they are the exception to the norm. Even with large budgets on streaming, they put out trash for that casual audience (Ring of Power).
This is a race to the bottom. "F2P is the future" MS/Phil recently mentioned.
No, the investment will lessen if the demand is lessened as people are conditioned to think games are only worth $14 a month per 500 of them. Which was his point entirely. Lower investment means lower production values, tech, scope, etc...
Are you comparing an exclusivity deal that in some cases is a timed release to spending $70billion on buying a publisher………..
This seems like a stupid argument, no offense. None of this has happened yet and I don't really feel like speculating on the future that none of us know about. We will see, hope youre wrong.
