Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

Topher don't check that post.

 

[Topher]

I mean there was that one publication that said the deal would be done last August. Pretty sure there's a ton if stuff people didn't predict in relation to this.

Sure. I'm saying it is really easy to say this was expected after the fact.

Also this thread is funny in hindsight:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-and-activision-blizzard-the-ftc-could-approve-the-acquisition-in-august.1639176/

Some people were even thinking they would be able to play MW2 for free via Gamepass on launch. But somehow this stance changed into "it always going to be 2023".

I find my own post quite hilarious right now.

Yes. Any lawyer, and people who follow this deal would have predicted this.

MS a trillion tech company buying another big company is a nice meal for current ftc.

The next prediction I read (that was made before this recent report) saying the FTC would challenge the deal will be the first such prediction I've read. "Would have" doesn't mean "did", bro.

 

[MasterCornholio]

The article from your link is a speculation piece, it uses the word 'could' in the very title.

-

The deal was expected to close by June 2023 via MS themselves, they said this just days after the acquisition announcement itself:

http://[URL]https://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-activision-deal-expected-close-164212785.html

[/URL]

anything beyond that was speculation.

this is not the gotcha you're expecting.

I guess it just proves that some thought this deal would finish a lot quicker. Obviously its taking longer than some were expecting. I blame old men in speedos for this.

 

[Elios83]

Saying this week's news did not "move the needle one way or another" is absurd. News that FTC will challenge the purchase is significant. I've been hesitant to say this, but now it seems clear this Hoeg guy is trying hard to paint this all in a positive light for Microsoft.

It's a lawyer's job to try to go against evidence, it's just an opinion, he probably exposed himself too much in telling people there would be no issues and now he doesn't want to look bad.
They have regulators from all the western markets having concerns about the deal and now making concessions will be a necessity.
This is not what they wanted and expected at all.
And that GAF thread where the news was that the FTC could approve the deal as soon as August and some people even thought that MW2 on Gamepass this year was a possibility ended up being a fairy tale

 

[xHunter]

The article from your link is a speculation piece, it uses the word 'could' in the very title.

-

The deal was expected to close by June 2023 via MS themselves, they said this just days after the acquisition announcement itself:

Microsoft-Activision deal expected to close in FY 2023

Yahoo Finance's Dan Howley joins the Live show to discuss reports that Activision CEO Bobby Kotick would be leaving the scandal-plagued company after the acquisition by Microsoft is finalized in 2023.

news.yahoo.com

anything beyond that was speculation.

this is not the gotcha you're expecting

I think its a nice way to show that people were not always expecting it to close by June 2023, like some claimed. Nothing more, nothing less

 

[feynoob]

I guess it just proves that some thought this deal would finish a lot quicker. Obviously its taking longer than some were expecting. I blame old men in speedos for this.

June 2023 was the estimate.

 

[MasterCornholio]

June 2023 was the estimate.

Not for some people. Many didn't expect it to be this rough. Other acquisitions went a lot smoother than this one. But that's understandable given how large this acquisition is.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Also this thread is funny in hindsight:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-and-activision-blizzard-the-ftc-could-approve-the-acquisition-in-august.1639176/

Some people were even thinking they would be able to play MW2 for free via Gamepass on launch. But somehow this stance changed into "it always going to be 2023".

None of us have one bit of a fooking clue how this is going to go. lol

 

[twilo99]

We need change the thread title to "disapproval watch" …

 

[DryvBy]

Not really. The deal would pass from the looks of it.
So far, each issues has been addressed. It's up to cma to make a decision.

The 2 outlines of cma were cloud and gamepass.

• Activision isn't interested in gamepass or ps+ from now on. (Edit: this was before the purchase)
• Xcloud is facing huge issues. And one of the key issues is that fps games is hard to play on the service.
• Wow won't be on gamepass, due to the nature of subscription mode.

All that is left is call of duty, which MS made a 10 year commitment.

MS went from "as long as there's a PlayStation" to a "there's a 10 year commitment". Which MS talking point is the truth?

 

[DarkMage619]

You're one of the biggest Xbox fans on this forum and you're denying your actions?

People remember your posts.
People know which posts you agree with.

You're denying your actions that many people are aware of. Having a PlayStation console doesn't change this fact. That's like saying Tim Dog owning a PlayStation console means people should overlook every Pro Xbox tweet he makes on his account.

The problem is that you guys often play the victim and try to pretend that MS can do no wrong.

This deal doesn't benefit gamers, it benefits MS and people on their Platform.

I can easily admit that Final Fantasy 16 exclusive doesn't benefit gamers, it benefits PS gamers.

Why is so hard for you to do the same? lol.

I am a fan of video games. I have always said MS saves me the most money and I like their policies more than what other companies do. It doesn't prevent me from enjoying games on all platforms. Something many here won't do at all. I don't even know the point you are making.

This deal benefits the employees of Activision, a company facing numerous lawsuits, which was the reason they were looking for a buyer in the first place. It benefits MS for many reasons from more IP to being more competitive in gaming. And it benefits gamers who aren't solely PlayStation fanatics who refuse to use MS services even if they don't have to buy Xbox consoles to access their games.

The only entity it doesn't benefit is Sony. Of course that shouldn't matter because Sony makes moves all the time that don't benefit MS too. There is nothing ILLEGAL about this deal. It's big and it certainly should be reviewed but it's clear that MS isn't a monopoly in gaming and no one has presented a clear reason why regular consumers are harmed by it. Sony is not the embodiment of gaming and they should face more competition.

 

[ZehDon]

I highlighted that it chooses to grow market share massively but can still raise prices and remain competitive. You are saying it can't afford to raise prices like a dominant player in this economic climate and that's not true.

Have you tried looking at the link I sent you that's from 2020?
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/the-return-of-the-70-video-game-has-been-a-long-time-coming/
It has a constant dollar comparison that game prices haven't really increased even in 2020.
That's with rising cost of game development too. Did you ignore that Sony's profit margins declined? It's not posting bigger profits.

Based on what? Publishers 'instigated' it on xbox didn't they? Surely the people on xbox who couldn't give a rats ass about PS would say fuck this and not buy those publishers games. Sony didn't instigate it. It just followed the same business model of projected sales, inflation and dev cost for their games as some other publishers particular games. Especially as most of Sony's games were less likely to have mtx to recoup the inflation and dev cost increases.

Sony are not posting record profits from game sales. Its Playstation OI margin is a measly 6%, down 50% from before. Sure other publishers are posting massive OI through mtx but if you look at Sonys financial reports rising dev cost, FX and declining premium game sales is an issue for them. Go look at Sony's OI margin vs say Take2, EA or Activison.

Sony is not electing to increase it any more than MS is electing not to.

If Sony could have increased the price without fear of competition it would have priced it higher at launch. It knows it has competitors but it also doesn't want to start posting losses quarterly. Sony is doing it because it knows it would be financially disastrous for them if they dont. They had a drop to 6% OI margin even with the increase. Imagine the OI margin without it. It would be at odds with their strategy too, it would lead them to posting losses every quarter if they want to increase hardware sales. They want to produce and sell as many PS5s as possible to remain as competitive as possible long term but that increased hardware sales leads to MORE loss. During the PS4 launch Sony sold a lot of its assets to be able to maintain losses on PS4 hardware sales too.

I take issue with MS' (and your) idea of increasing the price in this economy being an abuse of a dominant position. To you abusing a market position seems to just be posting very low profit margins even with increased price due to economic climate. Regulators should see right through that.

The ability to be able to loss lead more for an install base is the dominant position. Especially if you need money to compete in supply and a consolidating market where a competitor is making billions of dollars acquisitions.

PS5 success is great but it's not making money on the consoles. MS are not "forced" to keep it lower either. They choose to because it sees it as an opportunity to gain huge market share during this Holiday while not really competing on other fronts and it can afford to do it. It's aim is to weather the loss and persuade them to get an xbox instead. You can't be saying Sony is abusing a dominant position to "increase profit margins" when its profit margins declined 50% with the increase. Its aim is to not start posting losses quarterly and produce as many consoles as possible even if that may mean market share loss. It's not a luxury.

I feel like you and I are going in circles; we're seeing the same facts, but we're interpreting them differently. In fact, this isn't the first time you and I have done this on a topic. I don't really have much more to say past what I've already said, and it's clear - based on the above - that we simply see things differently. Rather than waste our time on lengthy back forths, I'll just agree to disagree here. Thank you for taking the time to respond, though.

 

[reinking]

It would be interesting if the deal doesn't go through because of Sony and instead ABK and MS sign long term full exclusivity deal that would include gamepass ($10-$20bn).

It would be just as interesting (or entertaining) to see if the deal doesn't go through to see Sony sign another CoD deal with Activision. The meltdowns would be the likes of those that have never been seen before.

 

[reinking]

The only entity it doesn't benefit is Sony. Of course that shouldn't matter because Sony makes moves all the time that don't benefit MS too. There is nothing ILLEGAL about this deal. It's big and it certainly should be reviewed but it's clear that MS isn't a monopoly in gaming and no one has presented a clear reason why regular consumers are harmed by it. Sony is not the embodiment of gaming and they should face more competition.

Even if there is a deal in place for CoD there are many titles that will not be available on Sony's console that would have most likely been multi-console without the purchase. So yes, there are some regular consumers that will be harmed.

 

[CeeJay]

It would be just as interesting (or entertaining) to see if the deal doesn't go through to see Sony sign another CoD deal with Activision. The meltdowns would be the likes of those that have never been seen before.

I doubt it, it's just business after all. The reason why this is such a long thread is because it is the biggest deal of it's kind and has some huge ramifications going forward and it's not generating the posts because anyone is actually bothered about COD. As we keep hearing there aren't many COD players on this forum so any kind of marketing deal one way or the other isn't really going to affect many here. I'm sure though if Sony do extend their marketing agreement for COD the warriors will out to bait each other but don't expect the meltdowns to be anywhere near the scale of what we have in this thread.

 

[GHG]

Expected, by who? Did anyone predict this?

*waves*

Lots of unfounded dismissal in this thread. Look at the price ATVI is currently trading at. If you're so confident then put all your money into the stock, it'll be free money (~13.5%).

@3liteDragon it might be worth updating the OP with this:

This article from the FT is far more comprehensive than the market watch article:

http://[URL]https://www.ft.com/content/f30452bd-bf13-4841-8038-264a83c9295d

[/URL]

Lina Khan is looking to stamp her feet and EU regulators will also be looking into it.

Here's the interview with Lina Khan (starts 6 minutes in):

Please educate yourself and watch:




Lina Khan outlines everything pretty clearly throughout that interview.

He knows Lina Khan is lying in wait watching his every move preparing to pounce and put the Activision Blizzard deal in jeopardy.

When Lina Khan winds her neck in.

Right now it's fully out, so that's why the market is pricing the stock as they are.

 

[MadPanda]

MS went from "as long as there's a PlayStation" to a "there's a 10 year commitment". Which MS talking point is the truth?

Microsoft didn't go anywhere, they publicly said their intentions but first offered 3 years contract and now they're offering 10 years. It doesn't mean they'll take cod off of PlayStation the moment those 10 years expire, just like they didn't do it with minecraft.

 

[DryvBy]

Microsoft didn't go anywhere, they publicly said their intentions but first offered 3 years contract and now they're offering 10 years. It doesn't mean they'll take cod off of PlayStation the moment those 10 years expire, just like they didn't do it with minecraft.

Microsoft has never lied about anything. You're right. They also don't have any legal obligations to stock holders if they decide "ehhh 3 years is enough". You're just 100% facts and I'm an idiot.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Microsoft didn't go anywhere, they publicly said their intentions but first offered 3 years contract and now they're offering 10 years. It doesn't mean they'll take cod off of PlayStation the moment those 10 years expire, just like they didn't do it with minecraft.

I'm curious if they signed anything with Sony for Minecraft. Makes me wonder why they have to with COD. I guess its because there isn't any trust with the acquisition. That's all that I can think about.

 

[Swift_Star]

Really you seem to be the one constantly having to reassure people it will go through? You sure that reassurance isn't for your self?

Not denying it won't go through, you just seem to be coping a bit.

He's been coping for weeks. Even more now that the merger is threatened.

 

[feynoob]

He's been coping for weeks. Even more now that the merger is threatened.

I feel sorry for you if you feel that way.

 

[Swift_Star]

I am getting insight from ACTUAL lawyers, and knowledgeable people, and using logic, instead of fanboys thoughts.

So far, we havent seen any attemp to stop it. There is 80% chance on concession. Until we have the info that can actually block this deal, it will go through,

Edit: Sorry if I come strong there. I am just tired of fanboys from both side.

I, too, can say I'm getting insight from ACTUAL lawyers that are saying the deal can be blocked. Can you prove what you're saying?

Just read this post at the other place and I thought it was very well written.

Mebecomingl

Very good to see someone roasting the people that act like MS is some poor baby that can't do nothing wrong. Very good post.

 

[Pelta88]

Microsoft didn't go anywhere, they publicly said their intentions but first offered 3 years contract and now they're offering 10 years. It doesn't mean they'll take cod off of PlayStation the moment those 10 years expire, just like they didn't do it with minecraft.

It doesn't matter if they said it publicly, in private, while at the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean, on the surface of moon, or while conducting a symphony.

Promises/statements have zero legally merit and are the furthest thing from being legally binding. Once Microsoft owns Activision they can do as they please. Or let me put it in simpler terms...

Microsoft Before The Acquisition: I will treat your platform so good and even up your royalties from 33% to 99.5 for every copy of COD sold on your platform.

Microsoft After The Acquisition:

At which point Sony would have zero legal recourse because promises have zero legal standing in business law. Only written and signed contracts do.

 

[feynoob]

I, too, can say I'm getting insight from ACTUAL lawyers that are saying the deal can be blocked. Can you prove what you're saying?

Because you are focused on this Sony vs MS.
That is the reason why you don't see outside of this deal.

 

[Ozriel]

http://[URL]https://www.reuters.com...oft-scrutiny-probe-likely-sources-2022-11-24/

[/URL]

Oh look MS caught doing monopoly stuff

…that's not what that means

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Has sony offered MS to have playstation plus?

That would be cool.

Yes, according to a document sent to the CMA but they said no. I don't see a lot of anger from the green rats and journalists about this. But Sony has to bow down and allow GP or they are the devil.

So much hypocrisy. Phil will get his award

 

[gothmog]

I haven't seen any expectations of lawsuits from FTC from anyone, including Hoeg. Maybe I missed it, but primarily folks have acted like this was going to sail through. So FTC challenging the acquisition is no big deal, but Sony's vocal opposition to it is the big controversy here? Sony's position in the US isn't much different than it is in Europe and somehow, this is shocking? Hard to take this guy seriously with such bizarre takes.

I think we're seeing a willful ignorance on that front. The FTC news makes it more about government than Sony so it's easier to just dismiss it.

 

[DForce]

I am a fan of video games. I have always said MS saves me the most money and I like their policies more than what other companies do. It doesn't prevent me from enjoying games on all platforms. Something many here won't do at all. I don't even know the point you are making.

This deal benefits the employees of Activision, a company facing numerous lawsuits, which was the reason they were looking for a buyer in the first place. It benefits MS for many reasons from more IP to being more competitive in gaming. And it benefits gamers who aren't solely PlayStation fanatics who refuse to use MS services even if they don't have to buy Xbox consoles to access their games.

The only entity it doesn't benefit is Sony. Of course that shouldn't matter because Sony makes moves all the time that don't benefit MS too. There is nothing ILLEGAL about this deal. It's big and it certainly should be reviewed but it's clear that MS isn't a monopoly in gaming and no one has presented a clear reason why regular consumers are harmed by it. Sony is not the embodiment of gaming and they should face more competition.

We're not talking about what benefits YOU, this is about GAMERS in general.

You guys have been shouting that Sony has been doing anti-consumer practices for years by getting exclusive deals, but as soon as someone states that fact that acquiring a publisher is anti-consumer, you have an excuse as to why it's not.

The point is, don't complain about Sony's anti-consumer practices when MS has been guilty of doing the same thing.

You're known for laugh reacting to everything whenever someone is a bit critical of MS and you agree with almost anything someone criticizes sony for. People can see right through this dude, so stop pretending you're this neutral gamer. lol

 

[Topher]

He's been coping for weeks. Even more now that the merger is threatened.

I seem to remember feynoob getting heat for supposedly backing the CMA's arguments a few pages back and now he is "coping" for being consistent in his belief that the deal will still go through? I don't buy that at all. Being able to have an opinion that doesn't necessarily agree or fall in line with one side or another is a sign of clarity of thought that strives for objective analysis. It doesn't mean "coping" with anything. And frankly, this "cope" response isn't an argument at all.

 

[MScarpa]

Can't wait for this to be done with, No matter what the outcome. GAF is becoming fanboys fighting other fanboys. No longer about having fun and gaming. Just warriors wanting their plastic box to win. Don't some of you have families/jobs/responsibilities?

 

[TheGodfather07]

Are Microsoft flip flopping again? Why do they have to make the case that losing cod isn't so bad for sony? I thought Phil said they don't want to remove cod off playstation. Well they obviously eventually want to otherwise why would they need to make that point to regulators? Once again Microsoft not being straight up and saying 3 contradicting things all at once.

 

[Topher]

Can't wait for this to be done with, No matter what the outcome. GAF is becoming fanboys fighting other fanboys. No longer about having fun and gaming. Just warriors wanting their plastic box to win. Don't some of you have families/jobs/responsibilities?

There are plenty of other threads talking about different subjects, you know. You don't have to read or post in this one.

 

[Ozriel]

Yes, according to a document sent to the CMA but they said no. I don't see a lot of anger from the green rats and journalists about this. But Sony has to bow down and allow GP or they are the devil.

So much hypocrisy. Phil will get his award

But PlayStation Now streaming will work effortlessly on Xbox edge browser. Same way Luna, GeForce Now and Stadia work just fine.

 

[Chaplain]

The quicker this happens the quicker we get the eventual collaboration between Nintendo and Sony: i.e., East vs. West.

 

[Ozriel]

Are Microsoft flip flopping again? Why do they have to make the case that losing cod isn't so bad for sony? I thought Phil said they don't want to remove cod off playstation. Well they obviously eventually want to otherwise why would they need to make that point to regulators? Once again Microsoft not being straight up and saying 3 contradicting things all at once.

They don't plan to take COD off PlayStation, and they're clearly angling towards offering that as a concession.

They're downplaying COD because there's other arguments around cloud streaming and Gamepass that are being made around the franchise. Not to mention regulatory reluctance for one party in a console duopoly to own a franchise that's being construed as a 'must own'.

Nobody's going to allow MS buy Valve, for example, even if MS legally promises the whole world that they'll make Steam available on Linux or Mac.

 

[Ozriel]

Can't wait for this to be done with, No matter what the outcome. GAF is becoming fanboys fighting other fanboys. No longer about having fun and gaming. Just warriors wanting their plastic box to win. Don't some of you have families/jobs/responsibilities?

You think that started with this thread, this acquisition?

 

[GhostOfTsu]

You're known for laugh reacting to everything whenever someone is a bit critical of MS and you agree with almost anything someone criticizes sony for. People can see right through this dude, so stop pretending you're this neutral gamer. lol

Imagine Darkmage of all people saying he's neutral because he has a PS5. A PS5 that he never talks about unless he wants to shit on Sony.

But PlayStation Now streaming will work effortlessly on Xbox edge browser. Same way Luna, GeForce Now and Stadia work just fine.

That's obviously not what they meant. It was probably a native PS+ app on Xbox but we all play we all win Phil said no.

 

[gothmog]

*waves*

This is part of the reason I'm sticking firm with my belief that the deal is basically dead. The FTC is going after Meta retroactively for the Instagram and WhatsApp purchases, so I have a hard time thinking they would stay out of this one. This is exactly the type of purchase the FTC is looking to block. Making two giants into an even bigger giant does not help competition no matter what the two companies say.

Maybe they can go back and look at Disney as well. The consolidation of Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and Disney has arguably done more damage to the movie industry than Covid ever did. Disney basically offers terms to the theaters and they can either accept or lose access to the biggest money makers. Add in streaming and they can basically run an accept our terms or we put our movies day one on streaming gambit.

 

[Ozriel]

That's obviously not what they meant. It was probably a native PS+ app on Xbox but we all play we all win Phil said no.

Microsoft argued in their letter to the CMA that Sony isn't allowing subscription services come to PlayStation via browser streaming. This looks to be in response to that.

 

[MadPanda]

I'm curious if they signed anything with Sony for Minecraft. Makes me wonder why they have to with COD. I guess its because there isn't any trust with the acquisition. That's all that I can think about.

They did sign a 3 years binding contract. You can find it on the internet.

It doesn't matter if they said it publicly, in private, while at the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean, on the surface of moon, or while conducting a symphony.

Promises/statements have zero legally merit and are the furthest thing from being legally binding. Once Microsoft owns Activision they can do as they please. Or let me put it in simpler terms...

Microsoft Before The Acquisition: I will treat your platform so good and even up your royalties from 33% to 99.5 for every copy of COD sold on your platform.

Microsoft After The Acquisition:

At which point Sony would have zero legal recourse because promises have zero legal standing in business law. Only written and signed contracts do.

I think you should re-read my post. Microsoft offered a legally binding contract which would keep cod for 10 years. If you don't understand that you should work on your reading comprehension.

 

[ManaByte]

But PlayStation Now streaming will work effortlessly on Xbox edge browser. Same way Luna, GeForce Now and Stadia work just fine.

You can't stream PS Now (or now PS+) from a browser. The only way now is on a PS console or a PC only app (they got rid of the Mac version).

 

[DarkMage619]

Even if there is a deal in place for CoD there are many titles that will not be available on Sony's console that would have most likely been multi-console without the purchase. So yes, there are some regular consumers that will be harmed.

Well there are plenty games that would have been on Xbox had Sony not intervened. It is business. Nothing is stopping a customer from getting a game via an alternative method. That is not 'harm'. An example of harm is raising the price of a console. At least with Xbox you aren't required to purchase the console in the first place.

We're not talking about what benefits YOU, this is about GAMERS in general.

You guys have been shouting that Sony has been doing anti-consumer practices for years by getting exclusive deals, but as soon as someone states that fact that acquiring a publisher is anti-consumer, you have an excuse as to why it's not.

The point is, don't complain about Sony's anti-consumer practices when MS has been guilty of doing the same thing.

You're known for laugh reacting to everything whenever someone is a bit critical of MS and you agree with almost anything someone criticizes sony for. People can see right through this dude, so stop pretending you're this neutral gamer. lol

The ability to either purchase a new game via normal retail channels OR via subscription IS pro gamer. Lowering prices on consoles during the holidays is also pro gamer. Not charging for upgrades to games and offering free cloud saves IS pro gamer. Those policies don't just benefit me they benefit anyone who isn't principally opposed to getting a good deal.

I never said Sony getting exclusive content was anti-consumer, raising prices during an inflation was. You like them raising prices I do not we can simply agree to disagree. When you can point out MS charging for game upgrades and cloud saves we can about them both doing the 'same thing' but currently the differences could not be more stark.

I laugh when people make nonsense remarks about MS being a third place monopoly and destroying the game industry because of game pass and the XSS. It is pure silliness and it should be rightfully laughed at. If someome has a legitimate complaint like Kinect being forced on the X1 for more money or raising the price of XBLG I will agree. It's just that non Xbox customers make the most outlandish claims and pretend to know what they are actually talking about. It's funny and sad at the same time. At least I have a PlayStation and have a right to call out stuff I don't like as an actual customer affected by their policies. Many here cant say the same.

You can't stream PS Now (or now PS+) from a browser. The only way now is on a PS console or a PC only app (they got rid of the Mac version).

Another difference between the platforms.

 

[MasterCornholio]

They did sign a 3 years binding contract. You can find it on the internet.

I wasn't able to find a 3 three contract with Minecraft. However I did find a reference to a 3 year COD contract but one was rejected.

 

[Rob_27]

So is it dead?

 

[Pelta88]

They did sign a 3 years binding contract. You can find it on the internet.



I think you should re-read my post. Microsoft offered a legally binding contract which would keep cod for 10 years. If you don't understand that you should work on your reading comprehension.

I'm talking specifically aaboutt the notion that Phil Spencers word carries legal weight or legal merit. It's a common and repetitive theme in this thread. Not a dig at you personally.

As for the 10 year contract that news broke recently. I think Sony is looking for an in perpetuity agreement or to trap Microsoft in their own PR about the deal having little to do with COD and is really all about mobile.

 

[MadPanda]

I'm talking specifically aaboutt the notion that Phil Spencers word carries legal weight or legal merit. It's a common and repetitive theme in this thread. Not a dig at you personally.

Yeah that's just empty talk even though I'm certain he wouldn't cross his word easily as it would mean bad pr, but after a couple of years he certainly would without any contract.

 

[Thirty7ven]

…that's not what that means

Bundling teams for free and leveraging their extremely dominant market position is not a monopolistic move? You don't seem to understand how this works.

Call it anti competitive if you're so inclined.

 

[DForce]

The ability to either purchase a new game via normal retail channels OR via subscription IS pro gamer. Lowering prices on consoles during the holidays is also pro gamer. Not charging for upgrades to games and offering free cloud saves IS pro gamer. Those policies don't just benefit me they benefit anyone who isn't principally opposed to getting a good deal.

Taking away a game from a platform is NOT.

It shouldn't be that hard to admit it, yet you're struggling to do so. You're forcing gamers to purchase two consoles, something they normally didn't have to do.

I never said Sony getting exclusive content was anti-consumer, raising prices during an inflation was. You like them raising prices I do not we can simply agree to disagree. When you can point out MS charging for game upgrades and cloud saves we can about them both doing the 'same thing' but currently the differences could not be more stark.

You were complaining about exclusive games on PlayStation.

Is it possible for Sony to lock down another iteration of this series again?

You must have missed Final Fantasy 7 remake blocked on Xbox or all the Destiny 2 exclusive guns and strikes. Street Fighter 5 says hi. The Bethesda purchase did not stop the games from hitting PC, being streamed, and MS makes 2 consoles for people of different economic means. It's not the same at all.

You're trying to excuse their behavior by bringing up other practices like cloud saves, adding the game to subscription services.

That won't work, dude. lol

I laugh when people make nonsense remarks about MS being a third place monopoly and destroying the game industry because of game pass and the XSS. It is pure silliness and it should be rightfully laughed at. If someome has a legitimate complaint like Kinect being forced on the X1 for more money or raising the price of XBLG I will agree. It's just that non Xbox customers make the most outlandish claims and pretend to know what they are actually talking about. It's funny and sad at the same time. At least I have a PlayStation and have a right to call out stuff I don't like as an actual customer affected by their policies. Many here cant say the same.

So you're saying you can call out PlayStation because you own their console, yet you defend every single thing MS does and you own an Xbox console.

This neutral stuff isn't working. I don't know why so many Xbox fanboys do this. This is what Colteastwood does all the time.

 

[DForce]

Imagine Darkmage of all people saying he's neutral because he has a PS5. A PS5 that he never talks about unless he wants to shit on Sony.

They would get more respect if they were honest. lol.

 

[Pelta88]

Hmm.