Why is it more damaging that Bethesda games are skipping PlayStation vs pretty much all AAA Final Fantasy titles skipping Xbox?
That’s three in 4 years, if you’re counting.
In the same vein, some future Bethesda games will come to PlayStation. We’ve had releases post purchase, and you can be sure Quake 2 Remaster will be multiplatform.
Same way we’ve seen the damage of timed exclusivity. Both sides are now employing aggressive tactics in competing, but you’re solely focused on pulling one side back.
The FTC and CMA’s job isn’t to fret over Indiana Jones or Starfield being exclusive to Xbox. Their role in this case is to scrutinize the planned merger and determine if that could lead to a monopoly.
I’m not sure what ‘facts’ you say the FTC is putting forward, but they certainly aren’t doing a great job of establishing their case in court at the moment.
The never said COD would be exclusive. Disappointing that you need to lie. Especially when that would have been brought up in court
When you offer a legally binding agreement, the sensible thing to do would be to make it time bound, since it wouldn’t make any sense to sign a contract for perpetuity. They initially offered three years from 2025 which would ensure COD remained on PlayStation until 2028 at the earliest. Then changed to 10 years - a truly long time in gaming - to make the remedy more binding. Not sure why you’re characterizing the offer progression that way, but it does you a disservice.
Sony already tried to bid for Leyou in 2020, and we’ve been seeing threads of their acquisition warchest for years now. So I’m not sure it makes sense to characterize their own buying spree as a ‘fightback’. They’ve largely targeted GaaS providers in recent years to fill a hole in their lineup.
I'm not gonna bother with multi quote shit, but ok let's answer, I'll try to be fast but I'm not good at that.
I'm not lying, yes they didn't say "it'll be exclusive" but they were remaining deliberately vague. Like they did back then with Rise of the Tomb Raider "is it timed or fully exclusive ?", "we didn't buy this exclusive to see it being released on other platforms".
And I'm not pulling one side back. Those companies are here to make money and they're not any gamer's friend, that why fanboyism is dumb.
What I meant is that all this "good guy Phil" shit was ridiculous from the beginning, MS is the subject of my post, that's why I'm focusing on them. And yes timed exclusivity is shit but at the end less "damaging" than full exclusivity. For exemple I don't like the fact that FFVIIR is fully exclusive to Sony consoles (I'm just talking about consoles, I know it's on PC...). Xbox players get Crisis Core but not FFVIIR? Wtf...
I was also against the purchase of Bungie by Sony, even though for now they keep releasing all the content they're making on every platform, including the reboot of Marathon.
They're both fighting with what they have. MS have an almost unlimited wallet, and Sony has very deep / and good relationships with the biggest publishers in the word + they're leader in their field so they can get timed/full exclusives quite easily.
I hate Jim Ryan and most of what he said about gaming, like retro games are useless and nobody wanna play them, for exemple. But on the other side, all those people trying to make Spencer look like a good buddy, is sooo dumb it makes me mad.
The moment I'll be for big acquisitions like Bethesda, Bungie, etc, will be if the ABK deal happens. Then I'll think "fuck that, Sony go ahead and buy Square Enix and MS let's not stop there why not getting SEGA ? The first Xbox was like a Dreamcast 1.5 anyways".
youtube.com
I noticed it and couldn't be assed changing it...that's how forgettable that game was.
HeisenbergFX4
who I trust is that Bethesda/Zenimax were shopping themselves around as third party was showing it's strain. They wanted security. MS just ponied up the most.
