bitbydeath
Gold Member
Best outcome: MS gets Activision but is told to close it all down so nobody gets it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
bitbydeath
Gold Member
I’m not getting into your silly arguments, try someone else.
ToadMan
Member
An erroneous point nonetheless.
You can’t complain about others spinning when you’re doing it yourself.
What is bullshit? That they don't have the same priorities as console warriors?
Most hardware loses money now and has for a long time, what's your point? Everything they do is because it pushes forward their overall business strategy.
Bethesda isn't part of "this deal".
Why is it all or nothing? They're going to keep some multiplatform and some exclusive. They've decided games like Minecraft and COD are better left multiplatform.
MarkMe2525
Member
Oh I see the difference, I quoted the exact statement MS made which is being misinterpreted. The other quote you posted is from the EU assessment, and I'm not sure how EU explanation of their thought process changes the language or meaning of what MS submitted.
My position comes from the exact words on record, and later statements by Phil that expanded on their intentions. These are documents for legal precedings, if MS meant all future games, it would plainly state such.
IMO, it was not an erroneous point. It's the entire point.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
Well your misreading didn’t survive because right now, the EC, CMA and FTC have all cited the Zenimax acquisition and what happened subsequently, as a concern about the ABK deal.
And their concerns have been shown to you many times over.
ToadMan
Member
Your entire point was to be deliberately incorrect?
Sorry if English isn’t your native language - maybe we are all misunderstanding you…
ToadMan
Member
Awesome - why don’t MS avoid the risk of an acquisition and just make their own CoD killer and whatever else?
They’ve got the money evidently - what else are they missing?
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
talent
SoloKingRobert
Banned
Best Outcome: Microsoft gets Activision, but then after 10 years the contract expires, Call of Duty finally becomes an Xbox/Windows Exclusive.
Gobjuduck
Banned
I don’t understand why people here don’t understand this. The EU regulators responded to the FTC saying Xbox made no commitment to keeping Bethesda games on competitive platforms.
Past that point it shouldn’t matter. They are just using it now because that’s all they have outside of CONSOLIDATIONS BAD. That’s why I think the deal is going through, because the points against it are weak.
If the European Comission said tomorrow that xbox deceived them and the zenimax deal wouldn’t have gone through, this would be a totally different conversation. They’ve had months to say it, and they haven’t.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
best outcome: regardless of the final decision. the internet meltdown will be something to behold.
you know why
ToadMan
Member
This is the only deal that get’s passed in my opinion at this stage.
Either MS divest or they legally wall off ABK so they’re effectively third party.
If all ABK content is really on the table now with the 10 years expiry as suggested - well it’s not much of a jump from there to go to an arrangement with no expiry date and use some other termination mechanism.
It’s just motivation to do it and of course for MS to discount the effect of coercing gamers across….
MarkMe2525
Member
There definitely is someone misunderstanding the conversation.
ToadMan
Member
ToadMan
Member
This is a gaming forum where people argue what the meaning of “is” is. The regulators deal in legalities.
The premise they operate is that businesses act reasonably and rationally in pursuit of revenue.
MS spelled out the reasonable and rational reasons they would not take future Zenimax content exclusive and the EC agreed with MS’s assessment. In summary - no point because MS would never cover the costs and no rational reasonable business would waste money.
And then MS took unreasonable and irrational actions immediately after the deal was approved.
And this deal is the continuation of that unreasonable and irrational behavior which is why it remains unapproved at this time.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
Well take a nap and come back to it with fresh eyes.
It’s evident the more people have tried to aid your understanding, the more it’s leaving you confused.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Are we really on this topic that Microsoft didn't mislead the regulators or misrepresent their intention about making Zenimax games exclusives?
Microsoft DID. Here is the proof. I'm gonna clear this once and for all.
I know certain people will just ignore this post and start this argument again after 10 pages in bad faith. So I'd recommend bookmarking this post and quoting it again when it (inevitably) happens again.
This is from the EU Microsoft/Zenimax acquisition document:
Microsoft Was Not Only Referring to Older Zenimax Games
Here is another proof that Microsoft referred to older as well as newer games.
The Case-by-Case Basis Argument Is Also Wrong
Microsoft never said to EC that they would take it case-by-case basis or will make some exclusives while keeping some multiplatform.
According to Microsoft, their future strategy regarding Zenimax games was not engaging in a "total or partial" foreclosure strategy.
The CMA also called out Microsoft's misrepresentation of their intention
"Zenimax games" -- nowhere does it say "old or existing Zenimax games."
Is Starfield a "Zenimax game?" Yes. That means it meets this definition and, therefore, counts.
Edit: Thanks for the Gold,
Bonsaibäumchen
Microsoft DID. Here is the proof. I'm gonna clear this once and for all.
I know certain people will just ignore this post and start this argument again after 10 pages in bad faith. So I'd recommend bookmarking this post and quoting it again when it (inevitably) happens again.
This is from the EU Microsoft/Zenimax acquisition document:
- The Notifying Party in this document is Microsoft.
- Microsoft says that a significant share of Zenimax game sales will happen on PS5, as compared to XSX.
- It is evident that they are talking about future games (not old games that are available on PlayStation). Or do the naysayers think that Dishonored and Wolfenstein on PS5 (not PS4) would outsell Starfield, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush, and Elder Scrolls 6 on Xbox Series X? (lol! please say you do!)
- So the argument that Microsoft was only talking about "old Zenimax games" is bullshit. It has been proven wrong here.
- "Hypothetical console exclusive strategy." This is an industry-standard term that is applied to games that are exclusive to one console and have not been released on other consoles until the point of discussion.
- Here, Microsoft defines scenarios, and until those scenarios occur, Microsoft says that a console-exclusive strategy will not work.
- The time-frame for measuring whether Microsoft has achieved those scenarios or not was 5 years. However, they made their games exclusive 2 days after the acquisition closed. Why didn't they wait for 5 years as they implied they would?
- Microsoft clearly implied that it is extremely unlikely that they would ever achieve these results / hit those scenarios. That means they are extremely unlikely to engage in a console-exclusive strategy.
Microsoft Was Not Only Referring to Older Zenimax Games
Here is another proof that Microsoft referred to older as well as newer games.
- Cease (m. bring to an end) refers to pulling off games that are already available, i.e., Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Fallout 76.
- Limit making (m. the process of making or producing something) refers to stop making Zenimax games for PlayStation, i.e., Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush.
The Case-by-Case Basis Argument Is Also Wrong
Microsoft never said to EC that they would take it case-by-case basis or will make some exclusives while keeping some multiplatform.
According to Microsoft, their future strategy regarding Zenimax games was not engaging in a "total or partial" foreclosure strategy.
The CMA also called out Microsoft's misrepresentation of their intention
"Zenimax games" -- nowhere does it say "old or existing Zenimax games."
Is Starfield a "Zenimax game?" Yes. That means it meets this definition and, therefore, counts.
Edit: Thanks for the Gold,
Bonsaibäumchen
Last edited:
PropellerEar
Member
Last edited:
Helghan
Member
I don’t understand what you guys aren’t getting. “Hypothetical”, “might”, “incentive”.Are we really on this topic that Microsoft didn't mislead the regulators or misrepresent their intention about making Zenimax games exclusives?
Microsoft DID. Here is the proof. I'm gonna clear this once and for all.
I know certain people will just ignore this post and start this argument again after 10 pages in bad faith. So I'd recommend bookmarking this post and quoting it again when it (inevitably) happens again.
This is from the EU Microsoft/Zenimax acquisition document:
- The Notifying Party in this document is Microsoft.
- Microsoft says that a significant share of Zenimax game sales will happen on PS5, as compared to XSX.
- It is evident that they are talking about future games (not old games that are available on PlayStation). Or do the naysayers think that Dishonored and Wolfenstein on PS5 (not PS4) would outsell Starfield, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush, and Elder Scrolls 6 on Xbox Series X? (lol! please say you do!)
- So the argument that Microsoft was only talking about "old Zenimax games" is bullshit. It has been proven wrong here.
- "Hypothetical console exclusive strategy." This is an industry-standard term that is applied to games that are exclusive to one console and have not been released on other consoles until the point of discussion.
- Here, Microsoft defines scenarios, and until those scenarios occur, Microsoft says that a console-exclusive strategy will not work.
- The time-frame for measuring whether those Microsoft has achieved those scenarios or not was 5 years. However, they made their games exclusive 2 days after the acquisition closed. Why didn't they wait for 5 years as they implied they would?
- Microsoft clearly implied that it is extremely unlikely that they would ever achieve these results / hit those scenarios. That means they are extremely unlikely to engage in a console-exclusive strategy.
Microsoft Was Not Only Referring to Older Zenimax Games
Here is another proof that Microsoft referred to older as well as newer games.
- Cease (m. bring to an end) refers to pulling off games that are already available, i.e., Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Fallout 76.
- Limit making (m. the process of making or producing something) refers to stop making Zenimax games for PlayStation, i.e., Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush.
The Case-by-Case Basis Argument Is Also Wrong
Microsoft never said to EC that they would take it case-by-case basis or will make some exclusives while keeping some multiplatform.
According to Microsoft, their future strategy regarding Zenimax games was not engaging in a "total or partial" foreclosure strategy.
The CMA also called out Microsoft's misrepresentation of their intention
"Zenimax games" -- nowhere does it say "old or existing Zenimax games."
Is Starfield a "Zenimax game?" Yes. That means it meets this definition and, therefore, counts.
Nowhere did they promise to do this. Apparently according to Microsoft it made more sense to keep them exclusive.
Last edited:
demigod
Member
Fixed for you.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Image #1. Point #4.
Have 5 years been passed, and Microsoft increased the number of Xbox users to make it financially viable?
drganon
Member
Yikes
Helghan
Member
I don’t read it like that. I read it as, we only make it exclusive if it results in millions of more players in the next 5 years. It doesn’t say we will evaluate in 5 years.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Point #5.
Microsoft says that it is implausible that it will hit those numbers, so highly unlikely they'll ever make these games exclusive (because they won't hit those numbers in the first place).
Then Microsoft made those games exclusives 2 days later. How did an "implausible" scenario become possible in only 2 days?
Helghan
Member
Like you said “unlikely”, 2 days later they thought it was possible.
So nowhere did they actually lie.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That's not how it works lol, "What we said 2 days ago to regulators does not apply now." That's misrepresentation.
- Did Microsoft gain all those new users they said they would? No. So why did they make those games exclusive?
- Are there any signs that users are shifting from PS5 to XBS? No. They are being outsold by PS5 tremendously, and their YoY sales are decreasing now.
And if you say this, you're also accepting that what Microsoft submitted in the documents to EU was incorrect. It was so incorrect that MS had to change their minds just 2 days later.
And if their submission was wrong, it is akin to misrepresenting.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
The document is not a contract or covenant, it is an investigation and assessment.
You won’t find the word “promise” - that works on the playground but not with regulators who know that a promise is worthless.
They either want legally binding remedies or they don’t.
With zenimax they didn’t, with ABK in part because of MS behavior with Zeni, they do.
Last edited:
Gobjuduck
Banned
Appreciate your effort, impressive actually. but, there is no new information here.
The EC didn’t take this as a commitment. Exclusively was in question before and during the acquisition.
Why didn’t the EC come out right after the acquisition and say “hey, Mr xbox you just lied to us”. It wasn’t part of the equation. improbable =/= impossible.
I get where you see the contradiction in Microsoft’s points, but that really doesn’t matter. Because in the case of ABK, Microsoft is offering binding commitments. You can argue 10 years isn’t good enough for Sony, but you know that isn’t true.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That's not the discussion. In their decision, EC said that even if MS were to make all these games exclusive, they'd still have passed this acquisition because Zenimax has little to no impact. It's in the document.
The discussion is that Microsoft misrepresented their intention, which they did, as can be seen in my post.
And the CMA & FTC have called it out, and it's now a big reason why they aren't allowing ABK.
Banjo64
cumsessed
I wish that cleared it once and for all but we both know it won’t (for some). Great post though.Are we really on this topic that Microsoft didn't mislead the regulators or misrepresent their intention about making Zenimax games exclusives?
Microsoft DID. Here is the proof. I'm gonna clear this once and for all.
I know certain people will just ignore this post and start this argument again after 10 pages in bad faith. So I'd recommend bookmarking this post and quoting it again when it (inevitably) happens again.
This is from the EU Microsoft/Zenimax acquisition document:
- The Notifying Party in this document is Microsoft.
- Microsoft says that a significant share of Zenimax game sales will happen on PS5, as compared to XSX.
- It is evident that they are talking about future games (not old games that are available on PlayStation). Or do the naysayers think that Dishonored and Wolfenstein on PS5 (not PS4) would outsell Starfield, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush, and Elder Scrolls 6 on Xbox Series X? (lol! please say you do!)
- So the argument that Microsoft was only talking about "old Zenimax games" is bullshit. It has been proven wrong here.
- "Hypothetical console exclusive strategy." This is an industry-standard term that is applied to games that are exclusive to one console and have not been released on other consoles until the point of discussion.
- Here, Microsoft defines scenarios, and until those scenarios occur, Microsoft says that a console-exclusive strategy will not work.
- The time-frame for measuring whether Microsoft has achieved those scenarios or not was 5 years. However, they made their games exclusive 2 days after the acquisition closed. Why didn't they wait for 5 years as they implied they would?
- Microsoft clearly implied that it is extremely unlikely that they would ever achieve these results / hit those scenarios. That means they are extremely unlikely to engage in a console-exclusive strategy.
Microsoft Was Not Only Referring to Older Zenimax Games
Here is another proof that Microsoft referred to older as well as newer games.
- Cease (m. bring to an end) refers to pulling off games that are already available, i.e., Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Fallout 76.
- Limit making (m. the process of making or producing something) refers to stop making Zenimax games for PlayStation, i.e., Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush.
The Case-by-Case Basis Argument Is Also Wrong
Microsoft never said to EC that they would take it case-by-case basis or will make some exclusives while keeping some multiplatform.
According to Microsoft, their future strategy regarding Zenimax games was not engaging in a "total or partial" foreclosure strategy.
The CMA also called out Microsoft's misrepresentation of their intention
"Zenimax games" -- nowhere does it say "old or existing Zenimax games."
Is Starfield a "Zenimax game?" Yes. That means it meets this definition and, therefore, counts.
demigod
Member
Not to worry, incoming 50 more pages.
ToadMan
Member
True - it’s still accurate data as it was before.
Nor could they - this was not a contract or covenant.
Don’t know what that means.
Because it’s not a school yard.
Sony are irrelevant - 10 years isn’t good enough for the regulators.
Last edited:
Are we really on this topic that Microsoft didn't mislead the regulators or misrepresent their intention about making Zenimax games exclusives?
Microsoft DID. Here is the proof. I'm gonna clear this once and for all.
I know certain people will just ignore this post and start this argument again after 10 pages in bad faith. So I'd recommend bookmarking this post and quoting it again when it (inevitably) happens again.
This is from the EU Microsoft/Zenimax acquisition document:
- The Notifying Party in this document is Microsoft.
- Microsoft says that a significant share of Zenimax game sales will happen on PS5, as compared to XSX.
- It is evident that they are talking about future games (not old games that are available on PlayStation). Or do the naysayers think that Dishonored and Wolfenstein on PS5 (not PS4) would outsell Starfield, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush, and Elder Scrolls 6 on Xbox Series X? (lol! please say you do!)
- So the argument that Microsoft was only talking about "old Zenimax games" is bullshit. It has been proven wrong here.
- "Hypothetical console exclusive strategy." This is an industry-standard term that is applied to games that are exclusive to one console and have not been released on other consoles until the point of discussion.
- Here, Microsoft defines scenarios, and until those scenarios occur, Microsoft says that a console-exclusive strategy will not work.
- The time-frame for measuring whether Microsoft has achieved those scenarios or not was 5 years. However, they made their games exclusive 2 days after the acquisition closed. Why didn't they wait for 5 years as they implied they would?
- Microsoft clearly implied that it is extremely unlikely that they would ever achieve these results / hit those scenarios. That means they are extremely unlikely to engage in a console-exclusive strategy.
Microsoft Was Not Only Referring to Older Zenimax Games
Here is another proof that Microsoft referred to older as well as newer games.
- Cease (m. bring to an end) refers to pulling off games that are already available, i.e., Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Fallout 76.
- Limit making (m. the process of making or producing something) refers to stop making Zenimax games for PlayStation, i.e., Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush.
The Case-by-Case Basis Argument Is Also Wrong
Microsoft never said to EC that they would take it case-by-case basis or will make some exclusives while keeping some multiplatform.
According to Microsoft, their future strategy regarding Zenimax games was not engaging in a "total or partial" foreclosure strategy.
The CMA also called out Microsoft's misrepresentation of their intention
"Zenimax games" -- nowhere does it say "old or existing Zenimax games."
Is Starfield a "Zenimax game?" Yes. That means it meets this definition and, therefore, counts.
It's useless some people are lost in the reality they want to believe in.
Also the whole discussion is just running in circles.
No one is discussing about reality and the only thing that matters, what chances this deal has to survive the CMA final judgement in late April? With Microsoft completely unwilling to offer more than their 10 years contract, I think CMA will block and this won't even need to go to court with the FTC in summer, things will be settled much earlier.
Alex Scott
Member
Are we really on this topic that Microsoft didn't mislead the regulators or misrepresent their intention about making Zenimax games exclusives?
Microsoft DID. Here is the proof. I'm gonna clear this once and for all.
I know certain people will just ignore this post and start this argument again after 10 pages in bad faith. So I'd recommend bookmarking this post and quoting it again when it (inevitably) happens again.
This is from the EU Microsoft/Zenimax acquisition document:
- The Notifying Party in this document is Microsoft.
- Microsoft says that a significant share of Zenimax game sales will happen on PS5, as compared to XSX.
- It is evident that they are talking about future games (not old games that are available on PlayStation). Or do the naysayers think that Dishonored and Wolfenstein on PS5 (not PS4) would outsell Starfield, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush, and Elder Scrolls 6 on Xbox Series X? (lol! please say you do!)
- So the argument that Microsoft was only talking about "old Zenimax games" is bullshit. It has been proven wrong here.
- "Hypothetical console exclusive strategy." This is an industry-standard term that is applied to games that are exclusive to one console and have not been released on other consoles until the point of discussion.
- Here, Microsoft defines scenarios, and until those scenarios occur, Microsoft says that a console-exclusive strategy will not work.
- The time-frame for measuring whether Microsoft has achieved those scenarios or not was 5 years. However, they made their games exclusive 2 days after the acquisition closed. Why didn't they wait for 5 years as they implied they would?
- Microsoft clearly implied that it is extremely unlikely that they would ever achieve these results / hit those scenarios. That means they are extremely unlikely to engage in a console-exclusive strategy.
Microsoft Was Not Only Referring to Older Zenimax Games
Here is another proof that Microsoft referred to older as well as newer games.
- Cease (m. bring to an end) refers to pulling off games that are already available, i.e., Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Fallout 76.
- Limit making (m. the process of making or producing something) refers to stop making Zenimax games for PlayStation, i.e., Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush.
The Case-by-Case Basis Argument Is Also Wrong
Microsoft never said to EC that they would take it case-by-case basis or will make some exclusives while keeping some multiplatform.
According to Microsoft, their future strategy regarding Zenimax games was not engaging in a "total or partial" foreclosure strategy.
The CMA also called out Microsoft's misrepresentation of their intention
"Zenimax games" -- nowhere does it say "old or existing Zenimax games."
Is Starfield a "Zenimax game?" Yes. That means it meets this definition and, therefore, counts.
If FTC brings this up in court, what do you think MS would counter it with?
Helghan
Member
That’s exactly how it works. Again, you are misinterpreting the text. Microsoft did nothing wrong, they didn’t lie, and didn’t do anything illegal. Your interpretation is just incorrect.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Not much. The best Microsoft can do is waive the 10-year COD agreement for PlayStation and Nintendo. But the FTC can just discard it like the CMA did.
For reference, the CMA essentially said that, after Zenimax, they don't trust Microsoft because (1) it's only a 10-year agreement when it should not be timed-barred, and (2) Even if Microsof does a legally binding agreement, they may have an incentive to break that contract and make COD exclusive down the road.
The FTC can take a similar stance.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
No. Also, you haven't answered any of my questions.
Microsoft said engaging in console exclusivity would be "implausible" because it would be highly unlikely to increase Xbox numbers to a certain % in the next 5 years.
- If Microsoft thought it was implausible (when it really wasn't), did they submit incorrect data and assessment to regulators and make them believe a situation that wasn't real?
- If Microsoft thought it was plausible (which they certainly thought after 2 days), why did Microsoft say it was implausible?
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Oh please doom, tes and fallout are legitimately something that belongs to all gamers… they’re part of the legacy of our hobby… that they’ve become exclusive is a disgrace.
Yes ff is in that bucket as well but at least the deal expires in one year.
ToadMan
Member
This is not what I think - this is exactly what MS has countered it with so far in the FTC case
Any suggestion that Microsoft’s statements to the European Commission about ZeniMax were misleading is incorrect. Microsoft explicitly said it would honor Sony’s existing exclusivity rights and approach exclusivity for future game titles on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what it has done. The European Commission agrees it was not misled, stating publicly the day after the Complaint that Microsoft did not make any “commitments” to the European Commission,
nor did the European Commission “rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax’s games.” Instead, the European Commission cleared the transaction “unconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns.”
Basically the same argument as that trotted out here.
TheGodfather07
Member
So microsofts previous statements and behaviour are finally coming back to bite them in the ass? Regulators gave them a free one with zenimax but it's real proof of Microsofts true intentions. Microsoft themselves even said Bethesda games would sell much more on PS5 than their own hardware, yet they still dropped the PS platforms for future releases, proving they don't care about that. They want to use these beloved ip to grow in a anti competitive way.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
Of course not, it is many years out. PS6 would be a hypothetical. Does it really make sense to include a franchise that has one game every 15 years or so in an argument about a merger that includes a franchise that has the top selling new game every single year?So will TES 6 be released on PS5?
Cause you know, there's a playerbase already on PlayStation for the franchise.
I still think it makes sense for MS to release Starfield on PS5 near the end of the generation. It is still money on the table. The draw is gamepass day one for no additional cost. 3 years out it is still an important exclusive, but it would do more good for the shareholders to sell a million plus copies on PS5. Of course announcing anything like this now decreases the draw of the "timed" exclusive.
Alex Scott
Member
Doesn't this kinda refute what MS said. So how would they counter this if FTC bring this up? That isn't a bullet proof statement. It got a lot of holes in it..
Last edited:
RickMasters
Member
Why would it release on PlayStation though? I’m pretty sure MS bought Bethesda, to make those games exclusive. Was there really any doubt that all future Bethesda games will be Xbox/PC/ Gamepass?So will TES 6 be released on PS5?
Cause you know, there's a playerbase already on PlayStation for the franchise.
It’s not like they pulled deathloop or Tokyo ghost wire and those games never had an established audience to begin with. It’s not like you can’t play fallout 76 or ESO on PS right now or the Skyrim remaster…. Or doom. Or Wolfenstein….
They honoured their intent. But this idea that post acquisition ES6 or Skyrim would be playable on PS is just silly. If Sony releases a bungie exclusive, I won’t suddenly feel shafted as a bungie fan since halo on OG Xbox and it’s a very real possibility that will happen. Inspite of the fact that bungie made a statement that all future games will still be multi format…. But if they or Sony change their mind….It’s just business, isn’t it? Why is that not the case when it comes to Xbox, with you guys? If Nintendo bought square would you still feel entitled to final fantasy games on PlayStation even though Nintendo are the ones that spent the money? And much like FF….. ES has its console roots on Xbox long before PS. Could you play morrowwind on PS2 when OG Xbox owners were playing it? And let’s not forget that Bethesda has always treated the PlayStation like a second platform compared to Xbox. How many times over the years did Todd Howard do his E3 presentations on an Xbox stage vs a PS one?
I’m not saying there are not fans of Bethesda games on PS but, Bethesda we’re always synonymous with Xbox in the way that square are with Sony and Nintendo.
RickMasters
Member
It makes about as much sense as Nintendo or Sony putting their exclusives on rival consoles. Sure it would sell a few extra copies on an extra platform but at the expense of diluting attraction to your own service. Utterly defeats the point given that Xbox needs excludes just as much as Nintendo or PlayStation.
I’m aware that share holders are all about money but I’m pretty sure they are aware what business they and MS/ Xbox are in too…… exclusives sell consoles. Im pretty sure they understand that by now ,when the sound of money is not jingling in their ears and their pupils are go the shape of dollar signs. Cuz you know…. Share holders apparently know nothing about anything except bean counting according to many on the GAF.
RickMasters
Member
I think people deliberately took it out of context to make MS look like they are lying about keeping COD multiformat. I don’t believe people were really so daft as to expect MS to buy a company for twice what they paid for Minecraft, that makes more than one game and has multiple studios and just throw all the future games everywhere. I also feel like this is where people make the argument that MS should be a publisher comes from. It’s just reads like flippant, circle jerking especially when they go off the deep end and suggest MS is gonna get out of the console business, if they don’t get ABK. As we have seen over the last few pages of this thread.
It’s almost as bad as the people fantasising that sony will by a publisher to ‘counter’…… video games fanfare is insane.
I tend to take a watch and see approach to things but I would never let my thoughts lead me so far astray that If sony or Nintendo buy a dev or a publisher that future games will somehow be on their rivals platforms. I know if I was running a any of these companies I would not be doing that.
Poltz
Member
With this logic GTA6 should be able to be console exclusive with no issue right?
Last edited:
Bernardougf
Gold Member
With MS terrible mismanagement of studios ??? Definitely is not the best outcome for anyone who likes ABK games in thr long term
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked