Sony can't compete with MS in the money stakes, but they have good will and market relevance. If Sony gets enough exclusive content then people will buy their console to play those games.
What part of BUNGIE CAN SET TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF THEIR SHARES THAT ARE LEGALLY BINDING BECAUSE IT IS A PRIVATE COMPANY AND NOT A PUBLICALLY TRADED COMPANY is difficult for you to grasp, Can?
Seemed to be the only way to get through to you, considering this has been explained to you several times already. Maybe I need to add pictures to my post next time?
why are people like this? i have seen several saying the same ignorant thing. is it just an emotional reaction or actually believe in what they are saying?
You have just officially confirmed that you have not even the slightest idea of what you're talking about. You don't even have a basic understanding of how any of this works and any further discussion with you is a complete waste of time.
I'm not sure such a thing is even possible. Sony owns Bungie outright - any contract between Sony and Bungie is a contract between Sony and Sony.
Holy fuck, this thread has become infested with countless retards in the last 48 hours. Some of the worst takes I've seen thus far. I'm out for now.
And your response was that it was wrong, which it isn't. But you wouldn't know that, because your knowledge about this subject is on the same level as a playground argument.
Ok a contract between who and who?
All a private company in Bungies case means is that shares are owned by employees rather than the public. Which is why Sony have an integrated retention plan where payments are deferred to employee shareholders
And they can set conditions for them. Nothing you've posted changes the fact that a private company can absolutely set conditions that are legally binding.
What do you mean? They made $72 billion in net profit last year. They are immensely profitable.
You can't re-earn all battlepasses tho. Idk how WoW works but OW you have to pay each season.
So why did activision want to be sold
What I mean is that they want to see a profit. They wont their money without a return.
Re-earn is the norm. Warzone uses the re-earn method along with most live service games. OW is one of the outliers because Blizzard creates FOMO by including characters. The exact implementation becomes irrelevant. Microsoft can include all characters if you are subscribed to GPU similar to how its partnership with Riot works.
Legally binding to who? You're speculating on potential stipulations of an imaginary contract that nobody has seen outside Bungie and Sony
Waiting on Sony or someone else to supply new math?What stage of grief are we at guys?
Whether they can change the conditions of the agreement depends entirely whether it's signed down in the contract.
You and the Reddit post you quoted are baselessly jumping to wild conclusions. There is nothing indicating this is anything beyond a standard parent-subsidiary relationship where Bungie is allowed to stay operating as they have been.
Counter point: They bought Bethesda and then instantly declared all Bethesda games will be Xbox exclusive.
While some are being hyperbolic, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume this is setting a precedent for the industry where Sony can't compete. What's stopping MS from buying more publishers? At what point does MS control enough of the industry where Sony can't sustain 1st party development and support their own console?
Amazing retort.
The security issues around Epic is much more reduced imo but it could be a potential issue. I still suspect Tencent to force the bid up.
Like ARM/Nvidia, there would be too much question marks imo about how much of the gaming development space is reliant on UE. There was stats from Epic about the percentage of next-gen games in development using UE, it was in the 50% range. I would need to dig that out. There definitely would be some strict behavioural remedies on that acquisition including restrictions on the licensing cost.
In theory yes the Cloud SLC still exists and need to be resolved, I am still not sure about the open licensing agreement that MS is offering to the regulators. MSFT has basically approved any BYOG that running Windows or willing to do the proton work to get it working.
The reddit post is a summary of video made by a mergers and acquisitions legal lawyer who has made over 1k videos concerning legal topics in the video game industry. We're not jumping to "baseless wild conclusions"
You mean Sega. It's even more embarrassing because the failed Sega Saturn had timed Tomb Raider exclusivity. Still failed to sell consoles.
Come on, man, you don't get it! Sony's acquisition of Guerilla means we won't be getting a future Rhino Rumble sequel.
This is of course not the whole truth and you know that so we have to file this under trolling.
No doubt it would require concessions if somebody kicks up a fuss but I have a hard time believing that stat about AAA. AAA are the only ones that can afford to maintain their own engines so Epic is probably moving slightly into AA territory when coming up with that. AA I'm more likely to believe and anything lower is more likely to be Unity and mobile.
