Daneel Elijah
Member
Yeah but that is the beauty of the argument. When a publisher is independent, he can choose to do this or not. We would loose that with the merger. It is not about the reality of Microsoft intentions, but of its ability to prove and demonstrate that he can do parity.The PS3 was notoriously hard to develop for, especially for multi-platform games, for a big majority of its lifespan. I don't think it's fair to say Bethesda purposefully gimped the PS3 version of Skyrim.
Imagine this stupid idea 1 second:
Sony does test before any patch and new game launch of COD. Microsoft know that Sony does that for every language there is in the game. So Microsoft deliberatly choose to put COD games in all languages, even dead ones like latin. They can pay more people to verify this themselvers and have exclusive acces to COD devellopers to help them. But it is Sony job to do that on the PS5 version. Would this scenario happen in real life? No. But can the CMA be sure of it? No either. So what? They have to make Microsoft promise not to do this? And this is a stupid example. It is easy to say that parity is hard to enforce. A independent COD would have no problem in that case. And that is what Sony want. The divesture. The point is, Microsoft can promise parity, but can they prove that parity? Sony says no. And the CMA had already said that behavioral remedies are hard to implement in this case and not the prefered choice because of problems like this.