Support NeoGAF

[graywolf323]

I mentioned google in my post as being the only other one against it, any other examples of actual people within the industry or companies being against it? Or is it just a few regulators and fanboys here? Also I get why you might consider somebody like me a "die-hard pro-Microsoft worshipper" because on Neogaf, even being neutral is way too pro-Microsoft for people here. Your last couple posts prove quite clearly you're a "die-hard pro-Sony worshipper" (using your own words) so have fun living in your bubble

that's precious, I've been on GAF for 15 years now and I highly doubt Ass of Can Whooping and the other PlayStation worshippers likely count me as their brethren, in fact a lot of the die-hard PlayStation fanboys have at this point earned permabans

I'm just old enough to remember when Microsoft was open about their "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy, now they sugercoat but have their actions actually changed?

btw I had an Xbox for the original Halo (bought the Jet Set Radio Future bundle), won an Xbox 360 from the Mountain Dew Every 10 Minutes Contest (so I had it before launch even), bought an Xbox One at launch and then upgraded to the One X, and then I bought a Series X at release

I love Game Pass, but that doesn't mean I want Microsoft to buy up the industry like they try to in other markets because I don't have rose-colored glasses about the motivations behind actions

edit: and to make it clear I don't want PlayStation to have a monopoly either, I think the industry is good how it is now with three strong competitors and wish Xbox would do more to better compete like they did during the first half of the 360 gen

 

[DeepEnigma]

OK so how does it work oh chosen one?

Go be passive aggressive somewhere else. Complete with your good vs evil fantard fiction.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I mentioned google in my post as being the only other one against it, any other examples of actual people within the industry or companies being against it? Or is it just a few regulators and fanboys here? Also I get why you might consider somebody like me a "die-hard pro-Microsoft worshipper" because on Neogaf, even being neutral is way too pro-Microsoft for people here. Your last couple posts prove quite clearly you're a "die-hard pro-Sony worshipper" (using your own words) so have fun living in your bubble

Nvidia was also against it, but seem to have been mollified with their 10 year agreement that isn't contingent on the deal going through at least for xbox games.

You'll note though that Microsoft didn't make the same offer to Sony.

It's also worth noting why some companies might not be getting involved like Apple and Epic who are already mired in their own legal issues.

 

[NeonDelta]

Sony doesn't "represent" the industry, but the lionshare of CoD customers i.e. gamers are on Sony's platform and any impacts to these consumers represent a concern for the CMA.

You can pretend otherwise simply because you don't want to listen to Sony's arguments, but at the end of the day it isn't about sony's arguments, it's about the consumers.

If you want to buy a PS5 or PS6 and your primary game is CoD being deprived of that is a huge impact to the consumer. When you look at a game that is this popular and impacts a large number of consumers, you have to address those concerns. Especially if it creates monopolies in nascent markets like subscription and cloud.

But its OK for Sony to deprive xbox and pc owners who love cod of certain cod skins. Extra load outs, extra xp gains, tier skips etc.

And final fantasy fans with an xbox of playing final fantasy 7 remake.

 

[DeepEnigma]

So what you are saying is Microsoft can not compete with Sony on a level playing field?

Apparently MS themselves think they can't. Thus they're trying to change the game/industry to benefit themselves.

But its OK for Sony to deprive xbox and pc owners who love cod of certain cod skins. Extra load outs, extra xp gains, tier skips etc.

And final fantasy fans with an xbox of playing final fantasy 7 remake.

Activision is just as responsible, if not more offering deals like this to platform holders. Deals MS takes part in as well.

 

[quest]

So what you are saying is Microsoft can not compete with Sony on a level playing field?

There is no level playing field unless you also ban Sony from money hatting games from large studios. Right now Microsoft has a less viable platform because of content starving from money hats of large studios. No its not a viable business strategy to pay over a 100 million per large studio money hat. Thats even if a company wants a deal with a company that has 20% market share. While each quarter a large studio AAA game is being taken away because deals are cheap when you have 80% market share.

 

[graywolf323]

But its OK for Sony to deprive xbox and pc owners who love cod of certain cod skins. Extra load outs, extra xp gains, tier skips etc.

And final fantasy fans with an xbox of playing final fantasy 7 remake.

yes it is, just like it was okay for Xbox to deprive PC & PlayStation owners of the epilogue DLC for Tomb Raider: Underground or how PlayStation never got Dead Rising 3, etc.

why do people keep acting like it's only bad when PlayStation does something that Xbox also practices and that justifies Microsoft buying two of the largest & oldest third-party publishers after they've already been in the market for 20+ years?

if they had bought Activision back when the original Xbox came out they likely would have had no problem with the acquisition, what's hurting them is the half-truths they told during the Bethesda purchase and now the regulators aren't willing to take them at their word

 

[DeepEnigma]

Right now Microsoft has a less viable platform because of content starving from money hats of large studios.

Bullshit.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

that's precious, I've been on GAF for 15 years now and I highly doubt Ass of Can Whooping and the other PlayStation worshippers likely count me as their brethren, in fact a lot of the die-hard PlayStation fanboys have at this point earned permabans

I'm just old enough to remember when Microsoft was open about their "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy, now they sugercoat but have their actions actually changed?

btw I had an Xbox for the original Halo (bought the Jet Set Radio Future bundle), won an Xbox 360 from the Mountain Dew Every 10 Minutes Contest (so I had it before launch even), bought an Xbox One at launch and then upgraded to the One X, and then I bought a Series X at release

I love Game Pass, but that doesn't mean I want Microsoft to buy up the industry like they try to in other markets because I don't have rose-colored glasses about the motivations behind actions

Wow you think Microsoft now is the same one from that time period, despite multiple changes in culture and completely new CEO's. Seems like you hold a grudge against something that doesn't exist anymore. Being against the acquisition is fine, but reading my first comment and thinking it was some shot at sony and calling Microsoft a saint doesn't make any sense unless you were super anti-Xbox and read everything with a heavy slant. But if that wasn't your intent I apologize, I just don't really see where I ever made this a "sony bad" type situation.

Go be passive aggressive somewhere else. Complete with your good vs evil fantard fiction.

Ok so you had no argument you just disagreed with me and put a funny GIF, if you could point to me where I said anything even remotely hinting Microsoft - good, Sony - Bad it would be appreciated, or is that simply implied by the fact I'm not strongly opposing the acquisition?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ok so you had no argument you just disagreed with me and put a funny GIF, if you could point to me where I said anything even remotely hinting Microsoft - good, Sony - Bad it would be appreciated, or is that simply implied by the fact I'm not strongly opposing the acquisition?

Your argument is juvenile and not worth engaging with. You have an entire thread the educate yourself on.

This is not "good vs evil"

 

[Three]

Yes, and if a business disagrees exclusively because it hurts their bottom line that's not an objection worth caring about, because it's not an objection about the state of the industry or the consumers it hurts, it's just "we will make less profit, so we disagree"

Are you implying Sony represents the industry and it's consumers?

Why are you adamant to exclude Sony and Google as part of the industry. Both of them are key players as platform holders. So yeah Sony and its consumers do represent a large part of this industry.

You also misconstrue what these businesses are there to do. As graywolf said MS aren't doing this because they're "good" or altruistic they are doing it for the same reason, their bottom line. The way you do that though is by serving your customers or 'gamers'.

So the reason Sony or Google would do what they do is the same reason, because they want their customers to have access to ABK games, they want them to have the same or better products and services with interoperability and equal quality.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

But its OK for Sony to deprive xbox and pc owners who love cod of certain cod skins. Extra load outs, extra xp gains, tier skips etc.

And final fantasy fans with an xbox of playing final fantasy 7 remake.

How important are cod skins, loud outs, xp, and tier skips?

How many units of FF have sold on Xbox consoles historically?

 

[Astray]

also what is up with most of the die-hard pro-Microsoft worshippers being users with accounts that even if they are from before this decade still don't have many posts until recently?

Astroturfing lmfao

 

[Topher]

So what you are saying is Microsoft can not compete with Sony on a level playing field?

That's why Microsoft bought Zenimax. Now they have more studios than Sony. It is up to Microsoft to actually make something out of that investment. Factually, Microsoft can outbid Sony on every game they wish to so no, in no way is it a matter of Microsoft "cannot compete with Sony". It is a matter of doing so would be bad business decisions. Microsoft is in the business of making money, not fulfilling fanboy fantasies.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Your argument is juvenile and not worth engaging with. You have an entire thread the educate yourself on.

This is not "good vs evil"

Please I'd like to know where I even slightly implied good vs evil, because I fail to see it anywhere in any of my posts. You can't just make an assumption based off no evidence, and then call the other person's argument "juvenile"

 

[Thirty7ven]

Regarding steam I find it curious how some PC gamers are very pro MS AKB but on the same coin they flip the fuck out of a game is say, exclusive to Epic Store.

 

[quest]

Bullshit.

Of course if you like SE games the xbox is not viable unless your willing to miss out on many of the games because of money hats by Sony.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Why are you adamant to exclude Sony and Google as part of the industry. Both of them are key players as platform holders. So yeah Sony and its consumers do represent a large part of this industry.

You also misconstrue what these businesses are there to do. As graywolf said MS aren't doing this because they're "good" or altruistic they are doing it for the same reason, their bottom line. The way you do that though is by serving your customers or 'gamers'.

So the reason Sony or Google would do what they do is the same reason, because they want their customers to have access to ABK games, they want them to have the same or better products and services with interoperability and equal quality.

I KNOW.... BECAUSE I SAID THE EXACT SAME THING. Microsoft's opinion should also be worthless in this regard because the parties directly involved have no interest in anything but their bottom line.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Of course if you like SE games the xbox is not viable unless your willing to miss out on many of the games because of money hats by Sony.

Still bullshit.

 

[NeonDelta]

yes it is, just like it was okay for Xbox to deprive PC & PlayStation owners of the epilogue DLC for Tomb Raider: Underground or how PlayStation never got Dead Rising 3, etc.

why do people keep acting like it's only bad when PlayStation does something that Xbox also practices and that justifies Microsoft buying two of the largest & oldest third-party publishers after they've already been in the market for 20+ years?

if they had bought Activision back when the original Xbox came out they likely would have had no problem with the acquisition, what's hurting them is the half-truths they told during the Bethesda purchase and now the regulators aren't willing to take them at their word

That's the point I'm making. They all do it. You are saying it's not right to deprive cod PlayStation owners, correct. But its also not right to deprive pc and xbox owners. You can't defend one and not the other.

For the record I have a ps5 and pc, Im not on any side as it doesn't affect me, personally I think Sony are being petty and need to stop crying about it

 

[Astray]

Regarding steam I find it curious how some PC gamers are very pro MS AKB but on the same coin they flip the fuck out of a game is say, exclusive to Epic Store.

Wait until Microsoft forces them onto their store and kills the "windows for $20" thing.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I KNOW.... BECAUSE I SAID THE EXACT SAME THING. Microsoft's opinion should also be worthless in this regard because the parties directly involved have no interest in anything but their bottom line.

It's important to understand that the CMA looking into Sony and Google's arguments, along with market studies, doesn't mean they are relying on their conclusions. In effect what they are doing is comparing it to their own independent market study and analysis.

The three major market regulators have all opposed to the merger in varying degrees. One of them is open to behavioral remedies, because they like to collect fines, another is seeking structural remedies because they don't conclude that behavioral remedies will suffice, and the other is seeking to outright block it.

This isn't a Sony vs MS contest, it's much more than that. What has happened is that MS have politicized it, and targeted Sony as some sort of enemy to gamers interests. They have dumbed it down for the plebes, and tried to dumb it down to the regulators.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Wait until Microsoft forces them onto their store and kills the "windows for $20" thing.

Within 10 years I assure you that the only way you could get ABK games would be through their store/GamePass.

That's literally the point of this.

They want a Console, PC, mobile store front all of which generate revenue. GamePass will also come to mobile.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's important to understand that the CMA looking into Sony and Google's arguments, along with market studies, doesn't mean they are relying on their conclusions. In effect what they are doing is comparing it to their own independent market study and analysis.

The three major market regulators have all opposed to the merger in varying degrees. One of them is open to behavioral remedies, because they like to collect fines, another is seeking structural remedies because they don't conclude that behavioral remedies will suffice, and the other is seeking to outright block it.

This isn't a Sony vs MS contest, it's much more than that. What has happened is that MS have politicized it, and targeted Sony as some sort of enemy to gamers interests. They have dumbed it down for the plebes, and tried to dumb it down to the regulators.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So what you are saying is Microsoft can not compete with Sony on a level playing field?

It's already a level-playing field. Both companies have access to the global market and equal opportunities.

If anything, Microsoft has more studios and more money to compete against Sony. They can compete, but they will have to release better products to compete successfully and effectively.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

How important are cod skins, loud outs, xp, and tier skips?

Sony consider them very important - to a point of writing poems about that. So we can assume they are.

 

[Topher]

There is no level playing field unless you also ban Sony from money hatting games from large studios. Right now Microsoft has a less viable platform because of content starving from money hats of large studios. No its not a viable business strategy to pay over a 100 million per large studio money hat. Thats even if a company wants a deal with a company that has 20% market share. While each quarter a large studio AAA game is being taken away because deals are cheap when you have 80% market share.

Microsoft's own first party issues last generation has more to do with Xbox being "content starved" than anything Sony has done. Phil Spencer has admitted this on many occasions.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Microsoft's own first party issues last generation has more to do with Xbox being "content starved" than anything Sony has done. Phil Spencer has admitted this on many occasions.

With the most ardent fans making excuses for them with this, no wonder they get away with it... and also don't grow either. Hence the takeaway game.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sony consider them very important - to a point of writing poems about that. So we can assume they are.

I don't think they value them all that much, rather they see them as a way of differentiating themselves from a growingly homogenous industry.

In the grand scheme of things, this is as least disruptive of an exclusivity deal as you can get. I think most people would rather not have access to some skins than to lose out on the game entirely or any amount of timed exclusivity.

 

[intheinbetween]

yes it is, just like it was okay for Xbox to deprive PC & PlayStation owners of the epilogue DLC for Tomb Raider: Underground or how PlayStation never got Dead Rising 3, etc.

why do people keep acting like it's only bad when PlayStation does something that Xbox also practices and that justifies Microsoft buying two of the largest & oldest third-party publishers after they've already been in the market for 20+ years?

if they had bought Activision back when the original Xbox came out they likely would have had no problem with the acquisition, what's hurting them is the half-truths they told during the Bethesda purchase and now the regulators aren't willing to take them at their word

Come on, list warzzz!

 

[sainraja]

I'd caution to state that valve isn't a competitor to PS5 and XSX|S. Steam basically IS PC gaming and as a result PC as a platform that competes with consoles is very much a competitor. If Steam shutdown tomorrow, where would existing Steam users go and where would potential steam users go? EGS? A lot of them, but many would probably turn to consoles.

I think Steam/PC is more of a competitor to consoles than the Switch is.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me to ignore Steam completely as a competitor, especially now that Sony is also putting their games on PC. It also doesn't make sense to me to equate the impact the acquisition will have on them and Sony as being the same, also because Sony releases its games on the Steam store. When someone says they are not a direct competitor, at least right now, that is exactly what they mean. Sony, like Microsoft, releases its games on Steam. They collaborate on the PC side.

So, if someone is arguing that there is no difference, they are just being disingenuous (not hard to guess their motivations for doing so). There is a difference, you have to acknowledge that, but I do agree that you should not completely ignore the fact that they can also be competitors. In the current landscape, until Sony gets their own store presence on PC, their relationship isn't that of a direct competitor, and they simply co-exist and support each other where it makes business sense.

 

[Pelta88]

It's already a level-playing field. Both companies have access to the global market and equal opportunities.

If anything, Microsoft has more studios and more money to compete against Sony. They can compete, but they will have to release better products to compete successfully and effectively.

No. It's not.

The difference in resources is gargantuan. Microsoft's market cap is 1.92 Trillion. While Sony's market cap is 111 Billion. Which makes the playfield so uneven, it's practically vertical. Sony only stays competitive by creating great immersive experiences. XBOX competes by being subsidised by Microsoft. We've all seen the numbers and stats posted in this very thread...

XBOX under any other company bar Microsoft would have gone out of business many years ago.

 

[Black_Stride]

Jim Ryan right now:

 

[Bojanglez]

The Fact anybody is taking Sony's word as anything other than selfish business opinions, they are not opposing for the benefit of gamers or the industry, only Sony. Sony being against this deal should be exactly as relevant as Microsoft being in favor of the deal. Sony does not represent the industry so it shouldn't matter if it hurts Sony as long as it doesn't have a big negative impact on the industry or it's consumers. Contrary to what some here believe, anti-trust/monopoly laws were not put in place to PROTECT the market leader. If this move was a massive net negative on the industry I feel like you'd see way more companies be voicing opposition against it, where now it's basically just Google.

They may well be being selfish and acting out of self interest, but this could also be of benefit to consumers and the industry as a whole.


If you accept the following as true

• Sony represents a significant part of an emerging market (multi-game subscription services) and an existing market (pay to play console games)
• Call of duty is currently (and likely to be in the future) as significant product within the pay to play market
• Call of duty's availability in the multi-game subscription market would be significant (if it was ever available)
• The existing model of Call of Duty being treated as equal access on all platforms in both markets (same price, release date and availability in both markets)

The existing model is working for consumers in the sense that they can access Call of Duty on Xbox and PS equally (in terms of price and availability), there is competition for Call of Duty and market forces are keeping it of multi-game subscription services (i.e. it doesn't make financial sense for them to offer it in this model).


Now Sony's argument is that MS owning Call of Duty will mean that it will be day and date on Gamepass, and offering it to Sony by means of a 10 year deal may have the following caveats

• Microsoft will offer Call of Duty to PS+ at the 'market rate' cost for a game of that status
• Microsoft will offer the game to retail at a market rate cost for a game of that status

Great, everyone is happy right? Wrong. Sony is arguing that the following could happen

• MS will make Call of Duty available on Gamepass and PS+ (making the pay to play model unviable)
• MS then set the 'market rate' for Call of Duty to be so high that PS+ would be forced to either
  • Increase prices to a point where PS+ is not competitive (making PS+ become irrelevant)
  • Not support Call of Duty on PS+ (making PS+ become irrelevant)

Sony argue that this kind of behaviour would potentially 'break' the multi-game subscription market for all and force them to exit, leaving Microsoft with a defacto monopoly, at which point they could then use that position in a way that is negative to the consumer and developers.

I guess we'll see if the various regulators agree.

 

[sainraja]

Nvidia was also against it, but seem to have been mollified with their 10 year agreement that isn't contingent on the deal going through at least for xbox games.

You'll note though that Microsoft didn't make the same offer to Sony.

It's also worth noting why some companies might not be getting involved like Apple and Epic who are already mired in their own legal issues.

Apple should, lol. Given how MS tried to interfere with the way they do business (Apple vs Epic). Ignite the old rivalry I say!

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me to ignore Steam completely as a competitor, especially now that Sony is also putting their games on PC. It also doesn't make sense to me to equate the impact the acquisition will have on them and Sony as being the same, also because Sony releases its games on the Steam store. When someone says they are not a direct competitor, at least right now, that is exactly what they mean. Sony, like Microsoft, releases its games on Steam. They collaborate on the PC side.

So, if someone is arguing that there is no difference, they are just being disingenuous (not hard to guess their motivations for doing so). There is a difference, you have to acknowledge that, but I do agree that you should not completely ignore the fact that they can also be competitors. In the current landscape, until Sony gets their own store presence on PC, their relationship isn't that of a direct competitor, and they simply co-exist and support each other where it makes business sense.

The future of gaming is going to be across storefronts and subscription services, not platforms. Most of the big players are recognizing that right now and we're in a race towards that future. That includes cloud gaming.

Ultimately, we're going to see storefronts across consoles, PC, and Mobile.

Epic is leading the way to opening up mobile. Eventually, we're probably going to see the de-centralization of storefronts and subscription services.

 

[sainraja]

The future of gaming is going to be across storefronts and subscription services, not platforms. Most of the big players are recognizing that right now and we're in a race towards that future. That includes cloud gaming.

Ultimately, we're going to see storefronts across consoles, PC, and Mobile.

Epic is leading the way to opening up mobile. Eventually, we're probably going to see the de-centralization of storefronts and subscription services.

I see that which is why I was saying that in the current landscape, we are not quite there yet. Sony should also adopt PC as a way to distribute their own content. This does not mean they should remove their games from Epic/Steam.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Apple should, lol. Given how MS tried to interfere with the way they do business (Apple vs Epic). Ignite the old rivalry I say!

Apple is staying out of this even though they were probably a bidder for Activision, because when they eventually want to buy a major provider they don't want to be blocked. They also don't want the same scrutiny on the Apple Store here.

Sony is in a unique situation because they don't yet have a PC or mobile store nor are they likely to make a 70 billion dollar purchase. Nor are they that far ahead in subscription or cloud gaming.

 

[graywolf323]

That's the point I'm making. They all do it. You are saying it's not right to deprive cod PlayStation owners, correct. But its also not right to deprive pc and xbox owners. You can't defend one and not the other.

For the record I have a ps5 and pc, Im not on any side as it doesn't affect me, personally I think Sony are being petty and need to stop crying about it

but that's not the same thing as buying publishers…

Come on, list warzzz!

no the point is it's not just PlayStation that does those things

 

[jm89]

Of course if you like SE games the xbox is not viable unless your willing to miss out on many of the games because of money hats by Sony.

When you say "many" how many are we talking here?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I see that which is why I was saying that in the current landscape, we are not quite there yet. Sony should also adopt PC as a way to distribute their own content. This does not mean they should remove their games from Epic/Steam.

Sony will eventually remove their content from Epic/Steam, because they ultimately don't care about their own first party revenue on PC, they care about driving revenue from royalties of other games on PC.

They will leverage exclusivity deals to have their games be exclusive on console and PC.

You look at FF16 and that's a game primed to be exclusive to Sony on PC and Console.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

I don't think they value them all that much,

They literally claim that not having them will lead to players switching to Xbox, decline in Playstation revenue and thus inability to invest in Playstation content.

Ultimately, we're going to see storefronts across consoles, PC, and Mobile.

And that makes sense. Games with cross progression across all the platforms are essentially the future - we saw that with Genshin Impact and with the Warzone Mobile where the progression persists between PC, console and mobile. Make sense that would a lot of games eventually would have mobile versions too - especially with mobiles becoming more powerful and powerful. For now we are limited by batteries in mobile though, but the breakthrough there will happen eventually.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

They literally claim that not having them will lead to players switching to Xbox, decline in Playstation revenue and thus inability to invest in Playstation content.

You're conflating not having CoD with not having skins...

 

[sainraja]

Apple is staying out of this even though they were probably a bidder for Activision, because when they eventually want to buy a major provider they don't want to be blocked. They also don't want the same scrutiny on the Apple Store here.

Sony is in a unique situation because they don't yet have a PC or mobile store nor are they likely to make a 70 billion dollar purchase. Nor are they that far ahead in subscription or cloud gaming.

Gotcha, makes sense.

Sony will eventually remove their content from Epic/Steam, because they ultimately don't care about their own first party revenue on PC, they care about driving revenue from royalties of other games on PC.

They might, but it is hard to say that right now. I would hope that if they were to get their own platform on PC, they would try to get people to buy from them using benefits such as "cross-buy" (something they have done in the past), trophies, save syncing, etc. instead of just removing their games from the PC stores they already are on. They should put their games on all PC platforms, at least I hope so anyway.

They will leverage exclusivity deals to have their games be exclusive on console and PC.

I don't think they will be able to expand on PC as quickly if they make their games exclusive only to their platform. But exclusivity for other third-party games, well, I hope they don't go that route. I know EPIC does that, but I don't think Sony should follow that on the PC. It should only be their games; probably not likely.

You look at FF16 and that's a game primed to be exclusive to Sony on PC and Console.

Hmm, yeah. I suppose they will probably want to do that on their own channels from a business perspective. I see your point.

 

[Nothing1234]

Can people please stop pretending the Xbox 360 did not happen? It's embarrassing.

 

[quest]

When you say "many" how many are we talking here?

3 in the next 12 months forespoken, ff16 and the next ff7 remake. I say thats many and it's only a 12 month period.

 

[DeepEnigma]

3 in the next 12 months forespoken, ff16 and the next ff7 remake. I say thats many and it's only a 12 month period.

This is why Japanese Square games are not on Xbox,

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/famitsu-sales-2-27-3-5-ps5-has-finally-surpassed-3-million-cumulative-sales-and-kirbys-dream-land-wii-deluxe-tops-the-list-for-a-second-week.1653985/

 

[sainraja]

Can people please stop pretending the Xbox 360 did not happen? It's embarrassing.

What is that?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

3 in the next 12 months forespoken, ff16 and the next ff7 remake. I say thats many and it's only a 12 month period.

I think there is also a bunch of smaller games that are not launching on Xbox in 2023 too.

 

[Thirty7ven]

3 in the next 12 months forespoken, ff16 and the next ff7 remake. I say thats many and it's only a 12 month period.

Maybe Xbox gamers should've spent their hard earned cash on Final Fantasy and other SE games when they had the chance.