I think most positions regarding what Sony are going to do with Bungie is extremely speculative just similar to the speculation that people had about why Mojang continues to be publishing games everywhere.
That article is word salad without any specifics.
- Dr. Ass of Can Whooping, 5 minute google search extraordinaire, when commenting on a lawyer that made a video he didn't watch.
I love your logic in this. Bungie being totally on board with an acquisition and potentially losing all control over their extremely profitable live service model, because Sony said "We Promise!" is believable, but the very thought that Bungie would go "Oh hey great, Can we maybe put that in the contract?" is inconceivable to you.
No they did a press release assuring people they would remain multiplatform and continue to be the Bungie they know.
And what you're not getting here is that a lawyer that specializes in acquisitions and mergers says that it COULD be part of the contract.
You don't know what precedence is, because you don't know the first thing about acquisitions. Your 5 minute google search does not rival an acquisition lawyer's expertise. If he makes the comment that there could be contractual grounds, then there is probably a good reason he makes that comment.
Are you aware that a private company can set terms and conditiond before it agrees with an acquisition?
It's business. If they want to buy Ubisoft, go for it. But the thing is...Sony probably can't afford to go big (Take 2/EA). And not only because they cost too much, but also because it could wake up other huge companies (Amazon/Apple) who then can outbid Sony if they go for megapublishers.
To be completely fair that isn't what was stated though. They said it doesn't make /financial sense/ for MS to foreclose on Sony but also noted that there is "uncertain future incentive" to do so based on the vague Financials provided.
Based
Any articles that doesn't fit your opinion is based.
You've dismissed a merger and acquisition lawyer's opinion after acknowledging that you never even watched his video in the first place. Not a good look? Please. I'm not answering your question because it's already blatantly obvious what the response will be: You're going to respond with another absolute take on acquisitions because you think that every acquisition is the same and that no contractual conditions can be made for an acquisition, even though an actual acquisition lawyer tells you you're wrong
Pc gamers don't want another launcher so it's steam or bust for everyone who enters the pc game market and it won't work for Microsoft either .
I didn't said "pull your games from Steam." I said "Bring on own launcher." Of course, pulling games from Steam would be stupid (even Microsoft/ABK and EA realised that). But you can still have incentives for players to prefer "your" launcher.
It literally depends on the contract, they absolutely could have made autonomy a part of the contract. It's definitely more provable than anything you have said. Theres actual evidence supporting it, you just have your opinion based on fanboy nonsense.
I know you didn't I just don't see a Sony launcher being successful at all, I guess it would also be too costly to offer incentives that'll make the difference just seems better to stay exclusively with steam imo we'll see .
I mean, except that us pc gameers use multiple different launcher's every single day, by the millions, do that is factually incorrect.
Yes, that is absolutely how it works.
Yes that's correct and none of those launchers hold a candle to steam or even make a dent in its market share.
Except they do, as Steams market share has absolutely shrunk over the last decade. It's still the leader, but its market share has absolutely shrunk.
Ok and...that's not what happened I'm talking about what actually happened. None of that changes what I said
Sony totally screwed over Nintendo when Nintendo went behind their backs and made the CD-i and abandoned the Nintendo Playstation project. /s
The ambassador money has people, including shareholder "journalists," running an entire narrative on behalf of a company with a bad track record. It really highlights how history is important. This isn't anything new thoughsome people here want playstation to die
the hate runs deep
- complains about someone with source "rewriting history"
Please post the contract
Microsoft actually changed the gaming landscape once or twice already - with Xbox Live first and online game stores second (though arguably maybe Steam was first in that regard). And Sony pushed disks and 3D in 90s.
Yeah, stuff like crossplay, crossprogression and maybe saves. I do think that Sony will introduce its own launcher sooner or later.
Yet the discussions about Microsoft going third party or leaving the console market appear more often. Like we literally had a week or two ago articles about how Microsoft was going to leave the console market if ABK deal would not pass. Now Sony is on its deathbedsome people here want playstation to die
the hate runs deep
I'm not seeing where Sony stabbed them in the back? By having a licensing fee?
Not only does that article have no details of any incident where "Sony stabbed Nintendo in the back," it also details how Nintendo was in charge of the decision making regarding PlayStation.
some people here want playstation to die
the hate runs deep
I'm honestly really curious if they are going to keep kotick or not. The obvious PR move, which xbox seems to love, is to fire kotick. This would be a massive mistake because as much as I hate him, he got ABK to where they are at now.
Where do you keep reading these things? Lol
