Arguing over timed exclusives is weak. Deathloop has been available for a while now and Ghostwire is coming soon. If anything, you get the version that isn't rushed and fully patched. Sony has had their fair share of games released on the PS after Xbox timed exclusivity ends. I'm fine with it but then again I can wait for good deals or better experiences on other platforms if I have to.
Imagine being obtuse enough to think both are the same thing.
It's Schrodinger's Video Game.
I think you quoted the wrong person, chief.
"Activision needs to compete against Japanese and Chinese companies"
My statement goes both ways, I didn't say the behavior is one sided.
I don't know about others but ... wrong is wrong, whoever does it.
I mean, you aren't wrong, but it was just a reply to him saying people do that.
Yeah it has turned pretty boring.
"Activision needs to compete against Japanese and Chinese companies"
Japanese and Chinese companies:
- Activision had a 15-year business term with NetEase, a Chinese company, that just ended.
- Activision reached out to NetEase to extend the contract when it was ending. NetEase declined.
- Tencent, another Chinese company, is part owner and investor of Activision.
- Activison's biggest customer is Sony, a Japanese company.
- They also have a deeply ingrained marketing agreement with Sony that helps them increase their sales and revenue.
Gonna be funny looking back at some of these posts in a few years when Starfield does release on PS5.
My bad man, it shows your name on top of the post after I quote it for some reason. Fixed.
Contracts are basically signed before a game officially releases on a platform. You think they could just break it.
Again, they told the EU they wouldn't make it exclusive and all you're doing is saying, "Look at Minecraft." They broke promises before and bringing up Minecraft isn't going to change that.
He said after 50 posts begging for the deal not to go through.
They ain't looking at shit unless revenue continues to fall.
Does not seem like a promise though.
In a complaint issued today, the FTC pointed to Microsoft's record of acquiring and using valuable gaming content to suppress competition from rival consoles, including its acquisition of ZeniMax, parent company of Bethesda Softworks (a well-known game developer). Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles.
FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp.’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission is seeking to block technology giant Microsoft Corp. from acquiring leading video game developer Activision Blizzard, Inc.www.ftc.gov
That and ignoring Microsoft practically wrote the book on buying timed exclusives with the XB360.
It wasn't 3 year deal, but 3 years on top of existing contract which is ending in 2026 (I think) (so until 2029 probs). And If your theory is correct and Microsoft wants to took away COD from PlayStation, why on Earth would they offer 3 more years preemptively in January when no concerns from regulators was raised? You would think that if Microsoft is so obsessed about making COD exclusive, they would offer no contract until they are forced by regulators, right? Otherwise what was the point?
Sounds about right tbh.
Trojan Horse around the time a new console gen is set to launch. Now, exclusive to Xbox.
Sony fighting all the subpoenas.
Sony is officially fighting Microsoft's subpoena in FTC's Activision Blizzard merger case: public filing confirms PlayStation maker brought motion to quash on Friday
This is a follow-up to my Saturday (February 4) post, First procedural dispute between Sony and Microsoft in Activision Blizzard FTC proceed...www.fosspatents.com
And why it would not be better to offer nothing and to start pulling players towards Xbox immediately after deal is closed?Trojan Horse around the time a new console gen is set to launch. Now, exclusive to Xbox.
Harvesting the player base when it's time to choose a platform.
Strategy. The major influx of new gen is new players. PS just announced 30% of PS5 owners did not own a PS4. The % was even higher for PS4 owners not owning a PS3. Not to mention, MS was trying to entice Sony, since they knew if they were outspoken, along with Google and nViida, it can put pressure on regulators.
Some of the data requested by Microsoft is ridiculous and most likely not necessary to prove or disprove that point though. Like private information from PSN users? Why?!
That's pretty stupid strategy if you ask me. Yup. Wait for end of generation and instead trying to pull as many people as possible as soon as possible you will wait three years....because
Not at all. Launch a new gen with a digital crack IP where it can only be played on that one console platform. You then harvest all the player base that has been built up. They had to wait for the marketing contract regardless. MS is not against the long game. You also miss the part as enticing Sony so they are not outspoken, which backfired because Phil could not keep his mouth shut and brought it to the public arena, so Jim spilled the beans on the 3 years.That's pretty stupid strategy if you ask me. Yup. Wait for end of generation and instead trying to pull as many people as possible as soon as possible you will wait three years....because
No it's a very solid strategy. Brand loyalty and "sunk cost for consumers" makes inter-generational conversions harder. You also risk turning people against your brand for feeling punished / forced into it. But when a new generation starts everyone is starting over anyway (at least they have been until this generation and backwards compatibility became a thing).That's pretty stupid strategy if you ask me. Yup. Wait for end of generation and instead trying to pull as many people as possible as soon as possible you will wait three years....because
No different than a company claiming they wouldn't be able to compete if this acquisition completes. Main difference is the company wanting to compete better is in last place and the company claiming they would not be able to compete has been dominant for decades.
I don't know, some of Sony's timed exclusives are like 1-2 years or just never release on Xbox. Think there was even some entire game modes totally exclusive in Destiny or CoD. In Xbox's dominant days, the most you'd get is 1-2 months. Then they tried a 1 year exclusive with Tomb Raider and got crucified.
One of the biggest games in the PS360 era had a 1 year exclusivity for the DLC. Titanfall, Dead Rising, etc., was perm.
I'm only quoting him because Xbox fans are familiar with his YouTube channel and even he said the FTC didn't lie about that statement.
Where did Sony say they "could not survive?"
Legal strategy often has you over-ask on subpoenas or depositions or what have you, because you know the other parties will either fight it or reduce it to only relevant matter. You also get the added benefit of applying pressure to that person, typically someone you're opposing in the courtroom, and enticing them to back down.
What about the last decade? It's clear that MS has backed away from moneyhats where Sony has doubled down.
