If this is true, then this confirms that they have changed their strategy. And their new strategy is to make their first-party games multiplatform (and essentially act as a third-party publisher).FWIW, the same nate the hate is also saying that this is still working on a case by case basis, not that every game will be coming elsewhere.
Im sorry but buying a Xbox for EXCLUSIVITY is retarded ... you can buy for many reasons,for example if you suport the brand, you like the ecosystem and functionalities or you just want to play xbox games on a closed console.... BUT the xbox console is the ONLY platform without a single exclusive, all the others have some kind of exclusivity ( even pc ).. so yes buying a xbox console for exclusivity and crying about it is retarded imho.
There is very likely an agreement done with Kojima stating Sony would own the IP only if Kojima could release it on PC. Each cases is different. You can cound of most MS IP (excluding Halo/Forza) being released on Playstation. In the end MS need that platform. Notice that Death Stranding is on PC but still not on Xbox.Sony owns the Death Stranding trademark: https://trademarks.justia.com/871/07/death-87107685.html
And somehow that found its way to Game Pass on PCI don't want people to think anything, clearly the case is different. Microsoft itself promoted the Switch ports of Ori, nothing on any of their socials said a single thing about ADF's PS announcement. Not even an Aaron Greenberg tweet.
No. He's not a writer. At least not in games media. He generally focuses on just Nintendo leaks, but he just podcasts and has a Twitter. He's not a huge leaker, just little teases sometimes. He does know more than he says, as he always magically uploads Direct predictions episodes, recorded days before, within minutes of a Direct being formally announced, so he's clearly got some contact(s) that give him a heads up before the public is made aware.
So it turns out it's actually HFR on PS5 and not Switch? Maybe?
Virtually, you lost something the day you bought a console to play less games than the others because the manufacturer of that platform decided the first party games can finally release on the other platforms. Because it's not like it's reciprocal in any way right ? So you really should not have bought the console, it was an objective mistake. Unless you want to "support the brand"(i guess that means being a kind of Microsoft fanboy) like the post below suggests.
These are totally fake arguments, let's stop pretending for the sake of damage control or other unknown purpose.
Tim Stuart said that Bethesda games would be first or better or best on Xbox and then come to Sony -Bogus. Fobob Wza clung to Stuart's statement forever claiming Bethesda games were all coming to PS. Phil debunked that with case by case which is what it turned out to be. But yeah, Stuart is in Finance and doesn't know shit and talks out his ass.
*Jeff is reporting that Sea of Thieves might be coming to PS5 and Switch.
Yes, of course more or less depending on the context behind it, i'm talking in an abstract way. You end up with less variety and you would have been able to play the games you play anyway. It's hard to say otherwise, if they said they would port exclusives games on other consoles in the beginning of the gen a significant portion of players wouldn't have bought the console, it's not an emotional petty thing it's logic.
Same difference imo.
Saying a Nintendo version is in the works is far more accurate.
Probably not easy to get it running on there with a consistent framerate (Rhythm games tend to require that more than most other games).
No matter what form the studio currently takes, Rare's games will always belong on Nintendo's platform.
Last five pictures are t-shirts each of them meaning different platform. As far as I understand this is ripped from the game's resources
Exclusive T-shirt (comsetics) for each platform. It was Xbox and Steam. Now it includes Epic, Nintendo, and PlayStation.
