Support NeoGAF

[DarkMage619]

This thread is. The conversation was not.

How can you not understand this?

I'm keeping to the topic of the thread. I suppose if you want to dredge up things MS did in the 90s you could obviously start a thread and go to town. This acquisition does not harm normal gaming consumers. There is now even potential Switch customers to get games they aren't now. This deal is bigger than Sony.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Most people on this forum are 30+ and $500 isn’t a huge purchase that makes you lose your mind justifying that you made the right choice over the other console.

You definitely should be wearing a hat

 

[feynoob]

Eh, disagree. I think it’s fair and reasonable for the regulators to make Microsoft honest and protect the consumers who have invested in material hardware now I.e. a PS5.

I certainly think it’s very arguable that this should or needs to extend to future products, which consumers make a decision on at the beginning of every generation. To argue it’s harmful for entrenched consumers rights to be forever entitled doesn’t sound compelling to me. Consumers should not be thought of as Sony or Xbox with regards to future products that don’t yet exist.

Not every place sells Xbox/PS. Some places only have 1 system in their area, and can't afford to buy the other console, due to not existing in said market. For example Japan.

How would these be able to play COD, when the console sold like 145k last gen and now is doing 350+k in 2 years. There aren't enough Xbox there.

That is what harming means. Those users can't play the game, due to these circumstances.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Activision: "Will will fight for the Microsoft merger if necessary"

Activision: We will 'fight' for the Xbox, Microsoft merger if necessary

Activision's COO starts talkin' tough about the big $69 billion Microsoft merger.

www.windowscentral.com

I have a feeling Microsoft is giving people at Activision more than just the money in the background for Activision to release this statement. Although, I don't know why they didn't help Microsoft fight for the merger earlier as they were getting scrutinized by regulators.

 

[Menzies]

PlayStation leverage their instal base during negotiations. Andrew House confirmed this early in the PS4 generation. After 2012/2013 and onwards XB became a USA/UK console. Whose fault is that?

10/11 years later XB is still a USA and diminishing UK console. Falling mindshare and still zero momentum outside of those regions. Whose fault is that? Publishers obviously prefer their IP gets more reach and seem eager to sign those PS marketing/exclusive deals despite Microsoft's deep pockets.

There’s very few notable and high-caliber releases that the two platforms (could have) access to with Japanese market appeal such as Final Fantasy.

Sony leveraging their position to secure these deals ensures they don’t advance in these markets in any meaningful way.

Even if an unhinged Microsoft paid significant overs for a likewise deal, there’s no way it’s worth the reputation damage Square Enix would face with all the online petitions and angry death threats mailed to them.

 

[Menzies]

Not every place sells Xbox/PS. Some places only have 1 system in their area, and can't afford to buy the other console, due to not existing in said market. For example Japan.

How would these be able to play COD, when the console sold like 145k last gen and now is doing 350+k in 2 years. There aren't enough Xbox there.

That is what harming means. Those users can't play the game, due to these circumstances.

Gee whiz, what a great reason to break up a monopoly then?

 

[adamsapple]

PlayStation leverage their instal base during negotiations. Andrew House confirmed this early in the PS4 generation. After 2012/2013 and onwards XB became a USA/UK console. Whose fault is that?

I don't think that's that much relevant. The lions share of sales for recent FF games come from outside of Japan anyway.

FFVII R sold approx ~900k in Japan in the same time as it sold 3.5m world wide. Japan is less than 1/3rd of the launch window sales.

And I'm not sure where the "diminishing" comment comes from, it's the fastest seling console in that brands history.

That is not the same as owning the same franchise. Plus didn't MS get their revenge by buying bethesda?

Any way COD is bigger than all those franchises. Selling 10+m every year shows how big that game, and how many consumers would lose.

It's not a matter of "revenge". Both scenarios harm consumers. To the end-user, it really doesn't matter if its a third party paid exclusive or a first party paid exclusive, if its from a franchise that they had on their hardware before and were expecting to continue.

 

[fallingdove]

That just example. If cma forces Activision to do that, then they are opening a can of worms.

Nonsense. It’s never been about homegrown 1st party titles appearing on other consoles. It’s about Microsoft’s wholesale purchase of multi-studio publishers, the permanent lockdown of some of the most popular 3rd party franchises of all time, and the potential digital monopolies of GamePass + Xcloud and their impact on brick and mortar businesses.

 

[jumpship]

Because regulators and Sony don't like verbal promises and rather have things written down?

Well yeah that’s how it works. Verbal promises have absolutely zero substance legally.

From what I understand this is normal process. You don’t bend over to appease this regulator and this regulator and that regulator. You wait and hopefully bring them all into alignment.

Yeah could be a tactic to wait as long as possible before giving some concessions. However…..

This is the regulators prognostications. There is no in perpetuity arrangement that they can tie them down to. They still need to evaluate distant scenarios that may eventuate if either business changes strategy.

Its been months now since the deal was first announced. If Microsoft truly meant what they said in public I doubt there would be much regulator concern about the future of COD on PlayStation in phase 1 and doubt Sony would have needed to be involved much either. All this back and forth could have been avoided.

Instead MS are still answering regulator concerns and challenging Sony on something MS publicly said wouldn’t happen. Because they still refuse to formally put it in writing to regulators.

 

[feynoob]

Nonsense. It’s never been about homegrown 1st party titles appearing on other consoles. It’s about Microsoft’s wholesale purchase of multi-studio publishers, the permanent lockdown of some of the most popular 3rd party franchises of all time, and the potential digital monopolies of GamePass + Xcloud and their impact on brick and mortar businesses.

The company that MS is purchasing doesn't want their new title games on sub service, according to kotick.

CMA can go a head, and force them to do that. What happens after that is going to affect the industry, if they succeed. As that would mean, other industries aside of Nintendo would have to abide by that rule.

The consequences is unimaginable.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Battlefield "Cannot Keep Up" With Call Of Duty, Says Sony

Sony is dragging Battlefield into its fight to keep Call of Duty.

www.thegamer.com

To prove this, Sony threw some major shade at Battlefield publisher EA, claiming that the series "cannot keep up" with Call of Duty despite being its biggest rival. Sony claims that the publisher has "tried for many years" to actually make a rival to Call of Duty, but has never even come close to succeeding, and that "other publishers do not have the resources or expertise to match its success."

I'm mean to be frank Battlefield was a rival by some people's mouths but never was one in practice. Maybe Battle Field 3 or 4 may have been closest due to a luull in sales for COD but it was still far away. The time of Ghosts was pretty bad for the brand reception wise but that game still sold a ton.

Call of Duty since Modern Warfare 2 in 2009 has been arguably the most important series on consoles for moving hardware. Which is why Nintendo's reluctance to convince Activision to put more games on the Switch and market it is baffling because the handheld hybrid could have sold over 200 million by now with COD's help.

It's really only on PC where COD is stil big but not that important. There was a time when COD was basically irrelevant on PC, it's actually more relevant recently.

 

[feynoob]

It's not a matter of "revenge". Both scenarios harm consumers. To the end-user, it really doesn't matter if its a third party paid exclusive or a first party paid exclusive, if its from a franchise that they had on their hardware before and were expecting to continue.

The scenario is that, this is a full franchise that would belong to a rival company, and it would become 1st party game.

You can get those timed exclusives to your system, but you can't get 1st party games on your system.

That is the main difference between these 2.

For example, Yakuza series. Was exclusives to PS, and now they are on Xbox. Same with Persona.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Uh oh, FTC is considering blocking the deal on anti-trust charged

FTC Expected To File Antitrust Lawsuit Against Microsoft On Activision Takeover - SlashGear

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision could get hairier soon if the FTC files an antitrust lawsuit against the tech giant. Here's what both sides are arguing.

www.slashgear.com

 

[Pelta88]

And I'm not sure where the "diminishing" comment comes from, it's the fastest seling console in that brands history.

Where?

The moment you try and answer that question is the moment you'll understand how PR works. And I don't say that to be dismissive. It's a genuine question that should let you understand how the global gaming market operates and XBOX's place in it.

 

[feynoob]

Uh oh, FTC is considering blocking the deal on anti-trust charged

FTC Expected To File Antitrust Lawsuit Against Microsoft On Activision Takeover - SlashGear

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision could get hairier soon if the FTC files an antitrust lawsuit against the tech giant. Here's what both sides are arguing.

www.slashgear.com

Old news.

 

[feynoob]

Eddie-Griffin if you are interested in knowing more about this deal, read the break down between MS and Sony document. It's couple pages behind.
It would put you up to speed.

 

[jm89]

Uh oh, FTC is considering blocking the deal on anti-trust charged

FTC Expected To File Antitrust Lawsuit Against Microsoft On Activision Takeover - SlashGear

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision could get hairier soon if the FTC files an antitrust lawsuit against the tech giant. Here's what both sides are arguing.

www.slashgear.com

Your a decade late mate.

 

[adamsapple]

Where?

The moment you try and answer that question is the moment you'll understand how PR works. And I don't say that to be dismissive. It's a genuine question that should let you understand how the global gaming market operates and XBOX's place in it.

Come on. You know they don't reveal public numbers since a decade or so ago.

I see absolutely no reason why both Phil and Satya would need to lie about something like this that can be legally challenged as artificially inflating numbers.

 

[Menzies]

Well yeah that’s how it works. Verbal promises have absolutely zero substance legally.



Yeah could be a tactic to wait as long as possible before giving some concessions. However…..



Its been months now since the deal was first announced. If Microsoft truly meant what they said in public I doubt there would be much regulator concern about the future of COD on PlayStation in phase 1 and doubt Sony would have needed to be involved much either. All this back and forth could have been avoided.

Instead MS are still answering regulator concerns and challenging Sony on something MS publicly said wouldn’t happen. Because they still refuse to formally put it in writing to regulators.

It’s because the future is unknown.

For now the production pipeline for developing Call of Duty scales for Xbox and PlayStation. The two platforms have virtually the same stock AMD components. The consoles both have meaningful market share, and most importantly the games sell well on both platforms. Will this always be the case? Gaze deeply into the crystal ball.

 

[Pelta88]

Come on. You know they don't reveal public numbers since a decade or so ago.

I see absolutely no reason why both Phil and Satya would need to lie about something like this that can be legally challenged as artificially inflating numbers.

Microsoft stopped releasing numbers 4th quarter 2014. They were quite boastful up and until that point.

Phil and Satya are not lying. They're putting a spin on negative facts aka PR. I live in Europe, suppose I told you XBOX's market share in Europe is down 80-90% since the 360? That's cataclysmic but they're still selling well in the United States. That's the bit of positive news they choose to focus on because it paints a positive picture.

Think of all the factual analysis we've got from this thread via legally binding submissions...

Microsoft PR: "Gamepass is the future and will be the Netflix of gaming"
CMA Submission: Gamepass has plateaued. Consumers are not persuaded by cloud and GP revenue will be 15% max

Microsoft PR: XBOX is the best place to play
CMA Submission: Playstation makes way better games than XBOX

I could go on but you've been in this thread for a minute so I'm sure you've seen a lot of the contradictions.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Eddie-Griffin if you are interested in knowing more about this deal, read the break down between MS and Sony document. It's couple pages behind.
It would put you up to speed.

You're telling me to read something I posted before what?

 

[Swift_Star]

these people are way too guillible and naive, Christ.

 

[freefornow]

Then where are all his tweets calling out all the "speciousness" of Microsoft's arguments?

111 pages to get through. Lets see what he tweets in next few days.

 

[Swift_Star]

Most people on this forum are 30+ and $500 isn’t a huge purchase that makes you lose your mind justifying that you made the right choice over the other console.

This is completely missing the point. We can afford multiple consoles. We still don’t want MS in control of the largest third party publisher.

 

[Menzies]

This is completely missing the point. We can afford multiple consoles. We still don’t want MS in control of the largest third party publisher.

The royal we.

We the (Sony) consumers have spoken that we don’t want CoD on Nintendo or CoD for $10 a month on Xbox, whilst nothing changes for us. This is our royal decree.

 

[jumpship]

It’s because the future is unknown.

For now the production pipeline for developing Call of Duty scales for Xbox and PlayStation. The two platforms have virtually the same stock AMD components. The consoles both have meaningful market share, and most importantly the games sell well on both platforms. Will this always be the case? Gaze deeply into the crystal ball.

MS said they can’t make a forever deal for COD as anything can happen in the future. But as Sony has shown with the Bungie acquisition it IS possible to buy a multi platform developer and let the business continue unchanged post purchase. And without MS having to sign a forever deal to continue getting Bungie games. It’s not impossible for MS to do the same if they really wanted.

 

[Menzies]

MS said they can’t make a forever deal for COD as anything can happen in the future. But as Sony has shown with the Bungie acquisition it IS possible to buy a multi platform developer and let the business continue unchanged post purchase. And without MS having to sign a forever deal to continue getting Bungie games. It’s not impossible for MS to do the same if really wanted.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’ll find that there’s nothing legally binding to hold Bungie to their well wishes and intentions. If and/or when it longer makes business sense, they’ll drop Xbox as a platform.

 

[ReBurn]

MS said they can’t make a forever deal for COD as anything can happen in the future. But as Sony has shown with the Bungie acquisition it IS possible to buy a multi platform developer and let the business continue unchanged post purchase. And without MS having to sign a forever deal to continue getting Bungie games. It’s not impossible for MS to do the same if really wanted.

Sony has not shown this. What game has Bungie released since their acquisition by Sony that proves other platforms will continue to get Bungie games? All we have is the PR that was released when the acquisition was announced.

 

[fallingdove]

The company that MS is purchasing doesn't want their new title games on sub service, according to kotick.

CMA can go a head, and force them to do that. What happens after that is going to affect the industry, if they succeed. As that would mean, other industries aside of Nintendo would have to abide by that rule.

The consequences is unimaginable.

By your bizarre and disconnected logic, you should be against the AB acquisition because Microsoft would force this poor helpless publisher to put their games on GamePass against their wishes.

The consequences are unimaginable.

 

[jumpship]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’ll find that there’s nothing legally binding to hold Bungie to their well wishes and intentions. If and/or when it longer makes business sense, they’ll drop Xbox as a platform.

Without knowing full details of the deal I’m sure Sony would have faced some regulatory scrutiny if they decided to remove Bungie from the open market and keep the games for themselves. Especially being the market leader. Sony must have shown intent for Bungie to do business unchanged.

Sony has not shown this. What game has Bungie released since their acquisition by Sony that proves other platforms will continue to get Bungie games? All we have is the PR that was released when the acquisition was announced.

You mean to say both companies were being dishonest about keeping Bungie games multiplatform? We can continue this conversation if the next Bungie game doesn’t release on Xbox.

 

[feynoob]

By your bizarre and disconnected logic, you should be against the AB acquisition because Microsoft would force this poor helpless publisher to put their games on GamePass against their wishes.

The consequences are unimaginable.

way to miss the point.

 

[ReBurn]

You mean to say both companies were being dishonest about keeping Bungie games multiplatform? We can continue this conversation if the next Bungie game doesn’t release on Xbox.

No, I don't mean that at all. If that's what I meant then that's what I would have said.

Neither Sony nor Bungie ever said that all future Bungie games would continue come to every platform they're on now. They said that Bungie will remain multiplatform. They have not committed to which platforms future games will release on.

 

[jumpship]

No, I don't mean that at all. If that's what I meant then that's what I would have said.

Neither Sony nor Bungie ever said that all future Bungie games would continue come to every platform they're on now. They said that Bungie will remain multiplatform. They have not committed to which platforms future games will release on.

For someone not saying Sony and Bungie are being dishonest you’re doing a lot of speculation that they will no longer make future games available on Xbox which was my point.

 

[ReBurn]

For someone not saying Sony and Bungie are being dishonest you’re doing a lot of speculation that they will no longer make future games available on Xbox which was my point.

I haven't speculated about anything. You have. You said that the Bungie acquisition is an example of a forever deal where a business can remain unchanged without having to sign a 10 year contract. I didn't say Sony and Bungie were lying, I'm saying you misrepresented what was publicly stated. I'm saying there has been no commitment that future Bungie games will remain on all of the platforms they're on now. They've only stated that they will be focusing on live-service games and that those games will remain multiplatform. You can't say that they committed to keeping future Bungie releases on Xbox because they've said no such thing.

Does that mean Bungie won't bring future games to Xbox? Who cares? It's not relevant to the topic at hand and there has never been any commitment to do so. Sony and Bungie can put their games where it makes strategic sense to do so. The Bungie acquisition is more like the Zenimax acquisition than this one. Microsoft committed to keeping Bethesda games multi-platform and they did. Existing games stayed pretty much where they were and you can still buy and play them on PlayStation. But for future games it turns out that PS5 isn't one of the platforms in the Bethesda multi-platform strategy, it's just Xbox and PC at the moment. It was technically true that Bethesda games would remain on multiple platforms but people are still accusing Microsoft of lying about it.

 

[fallingdove]

way to miss the point.

Didn’t miss the point. Your point is stupid and far from the most important aspects of what regulators are considering here.

 

[Menzies]

Without knowing full details of the deal I’m sure Sony would have faced some regulatory scrutiny if they decided to remove Bungie from the open market and keep the games for themselves. Especially being the market leader. Sony must have shown intent for Bungie to do business unchanged.

I don’t think that’s accurate. I did not see any regulator advance Sony’s Bungie acquisition to a phase 2 scrutiny, likely due to size and scale, despite their market leader status. There’s no info of any consent decree/undertakings/contracts to keep them honest beyond their intentions.

Sony/Bungie are able to freely move with the tides of an unpredictable future for a strategy that advances their own interests.

 

[feynoob]

Didn’t miss the point. Your point is stupid and far from the most important aspects of what regulators are considering here.

That is what you are missing.

CMA is invistigating about Sub service impact. MS gave them the report that said, Kotic isnt interested in putting activision new titles on sub service.

 

[gothmog]

That is what you are missing.

CMA is invistigating about Sub service impact. MS gave them the report that said, Kotic isnt interested in putting activision new titles on sub service.

Bobby gives a shit about one thing and that is getting him and his buddies on the board paid. He's probably not even interested in new titles let alone new titles on a subscription service.

 

[Warablo]

MS said they can’t make a forever deal for COD as anything can happen in the future. But as Sony has shown with the Bungie acquisition it IS possible to buy a multi platform developer and let the business continue unchanged post purchase. And without MS having to sign a forever deal to continue getting Bungie games. It’s not impossible for MS to do the same if they really wanted.

and Sony literally said to the CMA that contracts are like the wind and are worthless. So Microsoft must be stopped and not allowed to make concessions. So I guess Xbox fans should be worried about Bungie.

 

[CatLady]

Not every place sells Xbox/PS. Some places only have 1 system in their area, and can't afford to buy the other console, due to not existing in said market. For example Japan.

How would these be able to play COD, when the console sold like 145k last gen and now is doing 350+k in 2 years. There aren't enough Xbox there.

That is what harming means. Those users can't play the game, due to these circumstances.

Since CoD isn't being taken away from PlayStation they can play on PS5 if that's the only gaming system they own. PS5 sells more than Xbox in Japan but they don't sell very many either. What sells in Japan is Switch, by the MILLIONS. Xbox has said they want to put CoD on Switch.

In that case wouldn't you agree this acquisition would actually be extremely beneficial to the millions of gamers in Japan?

 

[feynoob]

Since CoD isn't being taken away from PlayStation they can play on PS5 if that's the only gaming system they own. PS5 sells more than Xbox in Japan but they don't sell very many either. What sells in Japan is Switch, by the MILLIONS. Xbox has said they want to put CoD on Switch.

In that case wouldn't you agree this acquisition would actually be extremely beneficial to the millions of gamers in Japan?

Nope. Its only beneficial for MS. As that deal strengthens their system, and their position for consumers. It's not beneficial for gamers.

Activision would put this game on switch, if they want to. Its all up to Nintendo to make a good system, which can handle their games.

 

[jumpship]

I haven't speculated about anything. You have. You said that the Bungie acquisition is an example of a forever deal where a business can remain unchanged without having to sign a 10 year contract. I didn't say Sony and Bungie were lying, I'm saying you misrepresented what was publicly stated. I'm saying there has been no commitment that future Bungie games will remain on all of the platforms they're on now. They've only stated that they will be focusing on live-service games and that those games will remain multiplatform. You can't say that they committed to keeping future Bungie releases on Xbox because they've said no such thing.

Does that mean Bungie won't bring future games to Xbox? Who cares? It's not relevant to the topic at hand and there has never been any commitment to do so. Sony and Bungie can put their games where it makes strategic sense to do so. The Bungie acquisition is more like the Zenimax acquisition than this one. Microsoft committed to keeping Bethesda games multi-platform and they did. Existing games stayed pretty much where they were and you can still buy and play them on PlayStation. But for future games it turns out that PS5 isn't one of the platforms in the Bethesda multi-platform strategy, it's just Xbox and PC at the moment. It was technically true that Bethesda games would remain on multiple platforms but people are still accusing Microsoft of lying about it.

You’re all over the place here, I never once said the Bungie deal was a forever deal. The point is there was no need for a deal. Wish I hadn’t brought it up but it was the easiest example to help explain a multiplatform publisher remaining multiplatform after being bought by a platform holder. Bungie are free to publish where they want.

This was all clearly explained by both parties when the deal was finalised.

 

[fallingdove]

That is what you are missing.

CMA is invistigating about Sub service impact. MS gave them the report that said, Kotic isnt interested in putting activision new titles on sub service.

They aren’t only investigating the impact of GamePass. And at no point has the CMA suggested that Microsoft would need to put its existing first party exclusive on other consoles. That would be a ridiculous concession.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Activision: "Will will fight for the Microsoft merger if necessary"

Activision: We will 'fight' for the Xbox, Microsoft merger if necessary

Activision's COO starts talkin' tough about the big $69 billion Microsoft merger.

www.windowscentral.com

I have a feeling Microsoft is giving people at Activision more than just the money in the background for Activision to release this statement. Although, I don't know why they didn't help Microsoft fight for the merger earlier as they were getting scrutinized by regulators.

What are you even talking about?

Microsoft has agreed to pay 95 dollars per share on a stock that is currently trading at 73.47 dollars per share. If this deal falls through, the stock is going to crash to like 35-45 dollars a share.

Imagine having say 1 million dollars in Activision stock options based on 50 dollars a share. That means you would have 20,000 shares. So currently your stock is worth 1.469 million dollars and if the deal goes through it's worth 1.9 million dollars and if the deal falls through, it's worth maybe 700K dollars.

If you don't think 1.2 million dollars is worth making a statement that you'll fight for deal to go through, you must be new at this adult stuff.

 

[jumpship]

I don’t think that’s accurate. I did not see any regulator advance Sony’s Bungie acquisition to a phase 2 scrutiny, likely due to size and scale, despite their market leader status. There’s no info of any consent decree/undertakings/contracts to keep them honest beyond their intentions.

Sony/Bungie are able to freely move with the tides of an unpredictable future for a strategy that advances their own interests.

That’s my point, there was no need to advance to phase 2 as Sony were keeping the status quo regarding Bungie. Yes it’s a smaller deal but has a very large community of players across multiple platforms. I’m sure eyebrows would raise if Sony planned to remove the Destiny franchise from competing platforms.

 

[ChiefDada]

Your a decade late mate.

Cut him some slack. He's been pre occupied keeping us informed of the latest XSS deals

I advise all of us to watch that Hoeg law video.. he really breaks down how pathetic Sonys arguments are here.

We are in for a wild ride. Its going to be one for the ages.

I'll pass. He lost material credibility months ago when he used his "lawyer math" logic to explain why Activision's dip in stock price was not indicative market skepticism of the deal going through. The idea of many his viewers buying into such an absurd and illogical concept makes me nauseous to this day.

 

[feynoob]

They aren’t only investigating the impact of GamePass. And at no point has the CMA suggested that Microsoft would need to put its existing first party exclusive on other consoles. That would be a ridiculous concession.

Lets take couple of step back. Since this is too confusing for both of us.

The entire point of this convo, was that activision werent going to put their games on sub services, and that CMA cant force them to do that. Doing that, would create problems for every publishers, who dont want to put their games on sub services. MS, Sony and Nintendo were examples.

Instead, CMA can look at other angles such as consumer harm, due to gamepass day1 COD.

Keep in mind that COD is premium product, which sells 10+m a year. A sub service day1 is impossible due to the price, and activision is going to lose money by doing that. Even post 1 year. Their games are still expensive, and still sell very well during that time.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

You’re all over the place here, I never once said the Bungie deal was a forever deal. The point is there was no need for a deal. Wish I hadn’t brought it up but it was the easiest example to help explain a multiplatform publisher remaining multiplatform after being bought by a platform holder. Bungie are free to publish where they want.

This was all clearly explained by both parties when the deal was finalised.

Sony has taken on an incredible risk by maintaining a board of directors run by Bungie's leadership team.

I would love to see the bylaws Sony might have to limit their power or what deliverables they might need to meet. This was far from a traditional buyout.

 

[CatLady]

The royal we.

We the (Sony) consumers have spoken that we don’t want CoD on Nintendo or CoD for $10 a month on Xbox, whilst nothing changes for us. This is our royal decree.

I wonder if the Blue Snakes elected her to be their official spokesperson. Some people certainly think highly of themselves.

 

[CatLady]

MS said they can’t make a forever deal for COD as anything can happen in the future. But as Sony has shown with the Bungie acquisition it IS possible to buy a multi platform developer and let the business continue unchanged post purchase. And without MS having to sign a forever deal to continue getting Bungie games. It’s not impossible for MS to do the same if they really wanted.

Sony hasn't shown us anything of what they will actually do with Bungie. All we have is what they've said. We have NO proof they will actually let business continue unchanged. We have seen what you describe though with Xbox and Minecraft without any formal perpetual contract.