It's not fact though when it has been confirmed by MS that Hellblade 2 and Elder Scrolls 6 are removed. The fact that they have yet to release those games doesn't take away from that fact and MS are saying COD some years later might be to.
You liked and defended xbox through the xbox one launch. 'Value for your dollar' MS and 'heavy handed market practices' by Sony after PS3? Ok
Lets take your example then and answer my question. Hellblade was considered an indy almost self published titled. They owned the franchise & were in control of where it lands. So I guess sony buying insomniac and preventing another sunset overdrive game releasing on xbox falls into the same category that sony is claiming? Are these situations equal in your eyes? I would barely call one game a "franchise". Another example, where is the Xbox version of Kena? I classify multiplat established franchises as:
- multiple games games released for platforms equally
- not just games that randomly skip platforms for multiple years or that occasionally appeared on other consoles
- games that only had a single prior game released
- Has a recent or new installment - isn't just a port of the same game released over and over again ( like out of this world is a franchise, that hasn't had a new installment in I don't know how long. Does anyone miss it if it went exclusive to a platform?)
Yes I'm putting some rules on my thinking, but at least I'm explaining my thought process.
IMO, with the above hellblade example, or susnset overdrive, it's not the same as buying a publisher and then restricting the #1 selling franchise on a competing platform, like Sony is saying will happen or been stated its not happening. My fact still stands, MS is the only company willing to continue to release games on competing consoles. They still sell Minecraft on
all platforms, still released other new games on other platforms, still honored prior contracts with sony, stated they would look at exclusivity on a case by case basis after purchasing Bethesda, still released updates to games on PlayStation and stadia, announced new games for switch in partnership with Nintendo, and stated that they plan to keep COD on PlayStation for many years. To be frank what the hell do you want from them? If they were acting like Sony does,
Regarding my defending Xbox, I didn't expect MS to mess up so badly on the Xbox one launch. The practice of paying for non physical games that was already standard on PC at the time, was too early for console (funny how very few care about it now.). They imo did have the better slate of launch games, and the only visual difference between Xbone & PS4 for multi-plats was resolution, which I still stand by stating (which was a smaller difference between Xbox 360 and PS3 multi-plats where resolution + level of detail + textures res contributed to a overall visual gap). That huge visual gap never materialized like console warriors claimed. They however were drastically out maneuvered acquiring content and continuing first party development, and had to start from scratch after allocated too much budget towards TV TV TV. Sony was effective in paying to block certain franchises like street fighter and others from appearing at all, and the newer version of kinect was a shell of its former self after apple swooped in and bought the Israeli company that created the tech. They fucked up on multiple levels.