Ass of Can Whooping
Member
One that doesn't rely on good faith
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
One that doesn't rely on good faith
DarkMage619
$MSFT
They absolutely are.
Hilarious. Why don't you explain why Starfield is more like CoD than Minecraft Dungeons and Legends then.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Starfield is vastly more substantial than some shitty spin-offs
DarkMage619
$MSFT
How so? Is there a history of Starfield titles on PlayStation that I'm unaware of? I can certainly see a history of CoD and Minecraft on PlayStation though for sure.
Phil provided Sony with a written commitment to keep CoD on PlayStation beyond the current contract. Faith has nothing to do with it.
feynoob
Banned
He is disecting the article, which is what the video about.
My point has been explained in the first 5 min of the video, where he highlights the people who fund the site.
MS would use the people they fund, to defend their acquisition, hence the lobbying.
feynoob
Banned
Nah, this would reach 300 pages, by the time the deals gets a verdict.Sweet! Page 100......and we still don't know what's going to happen.
We have about 5-8 months left from this discussion.
GHG
Gold Member
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
There's a history of Bethesda open world RPGs doing gangbusters. Starfield is next in line. Put 1 and 1 together.
A contract with a limited time. After that, yes its good faith. I know you like to be purposely obtuse but come on.
Topher
Identifies as young
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Lol. Why do you choose the focus in this bullshit? When the point of the video is about the poor logic of these lobbyist when MS already stated way better and stronger arguments.
The answer to your question is stated in the video.
It seems you are blinded by your bias.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
That was not the point of the video.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
We can just ask SenjutsuSage since he's on such good terms with the CMA
feynoob
Banned
That isn't an excuse for that.
The game has no history or fans. No matter how many people follow the company, that game has no history on either consoles or PC.
It's weak argument.
The contract is invalid, since Phil doesn't own Activision.
He is no position to make compromise, until the deal gets the approval seal.
Any deal he makes, shouldn't be taken seriously. And Sony also has every right to ask for a better deal for their console.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
That's exactly what I've been thinking for a while now.
feynoob
Banned
I wasn't stating the point of the video.
The article was written by a writer who defends these corporations.
MS is trying the lobbying part, in order to pressure CMA.
Expect similar articles like that. Even those in power, would try to sway the public in to thinking the deal is good for them.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
The argument is valid. This is about consistency. Bethesda itself is a brand that sells and the engagment numbers for Starfield speaks for itself. Their games would make a shit ton of money on PS and MS has decided to sacrifice that. They had incentive and that same incentive applies to COD.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I told them how gangsta Phil and Satya were prepared to get if they didn't rubber stamp that thing.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Why did you said:
"They won't let anything bother this deal...
...They are king at lobbying"
This implies they (lobbyist) are doing a good job.
The video points out this lobbyist argument is counterproductive for MS.
feynoob
Banned
It is not.
Starfield is a new franchise. It doesnt any userbase. The game has no appearance on any device. No matter how big influence the brand has on that console.
There are alot of Big publishers, who have certain games excluded from certain devices. Even though, they have a big fans on those devices.
Starfield is just that type of game.
feynoob
Banned
That is your mistake here.
This article is just first, of many lobbyist articles, which would argue in favor of MS.
Even though this article is very weak, it's doing good job on the public opinion. Those people have no clue about this video, so they will take the article as face value. And if that article can generate more discussion, then it did good job for MS.
Last edited:
Orbital2060
Member
feynoob
Banned
Good luck with that.
Both won't reach any agreement, if they keep acting like kids.
Sony wants infinite, MS won't do it.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
You're not listening.
Once again this is about the incentives of pulling COD from PS. It doesn't matter if it's a new franchise. Unless you have your head in the sand you should be fully aware Starfield is probably going to be the biggest game next year. Microsoft knows that and decided exclusivity is worth more to them.
Obligation
HoofHearted
Member
Last edited:
Orbital2060
Member
As long as CoD is as popular as it is, it will never make sense to not keep it multi-platform.
Besides, good faith gets you a long way in most businesses.
feynoob
Banned
Starfield is bad example
. Starfield has 50% of being good/bad, Flop/hit.
COD is akin to ES.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
And the flipside of that is because it's so popular, there's the incentive to not keep it multiplatform
That's the crux of the argument
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Starfield is bad example
Starfield has 50% of being good/bad, Flop/hit.
COD is akin to ES.
It's going to be a hit. This isn't even up for debate
GHG
Gold Member
Starfield isn't a big deal.
What if COD suddenly becomes shit?
These statements were brought to you by the Microsoft CMA response playbook.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The argument is that MS doesn't take away games with established communities of gamers on PlayStation. Starfield was never on a PlayStation so there is no community to foreclose on. It is a single player game. The past sales history of non Starfield games is irrelevant.
There is no contract in place for Minecraft on PlayStation at all. Guess what? Minecraft titles and spin-offs still hit PlayStation. Obtuse is thinking PlayStation will get all titles in perpetuity while locking down plenty of franchises on their own platform.
I will still say that the precidence of MS taking away a franchise that has an established community has never happened. The online Bethesda titles still get supported with new content even if MS could have made a sales point to show new expansions of ESO or Fallout 76 will hit only Xbox and PC.
Minecraft is a much bigger property than Starfield and could have also been used to push exclusive titles, Dungeons and Legends, to Xbox. That never happened. There was no contract forcing them to do so. MS has put their IP on other platforms even when they didn't have to but for some reason it isn't brought up in this particular case. Why are people expecting MS to behave like Sony or Nintendo?
Sony paid to keep Street Fighter 5 off Xbox and Sony fans didn't have a problem with that at all. Previous Street Fighter titles absolutely were on Xbox. Now MS has paid to have exclusive rights to a game that has never been on PlayStation and there is a problem? Bottom line is no title is promised to any platform. Some times you may have to use a different platform to play a particular franchise regardless of history. Xbox and PlayStation fans know this.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
GHG
Gold Member
"Xbox fans" don't say 10% of the things some of y'all attribute to them ..
I know, Microsoft themselves do though.
Don't take it to heart.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
What established community does the next mainline COD have?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
An established franchise already has a greater built-in audience than a new IP, and Warzone will be the connective tissue.
Not saying Starfield will bomb, of course it won't, but it's not the same thing as the next entry in the Call of Duty franchise.
feynoob
Banned
That is what you think.
Until we have reviewed, depth gameplay, and positive reception on launch, we can't make a judgment.
Starfield isnt a good argument.
Elder scroll 6 is the one that should be concerned. Not this game.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
How are you defining "established community"?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
By the people who buy the annual franchise games like Fifa, Madden, NHL, CoD ad nauseam.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Then Microsoft has no issue pulling those established communities
GHG
Gold Member
Literally everyone who has played and enjoyed TES or Fallout entries from the last 2 generations of consoles will be interested in Starfield due to it following the same formula 1:1. That's an established community.
Look at this on nexus mods for example:
www.nexusmods.com
How is this even up for debate? The CMA aren't reading here and don't care what you say, there's no need to be disingenuous.
Look at this on nexus mods for example:
Preparing for Starfield
Starfield, the first game in a brand new series from Bethesda Game Studios, is coming to PC and Xbox in November and while that may seem to be a long way off yet, we're already excitedly preparing for...
www.nexusmods.com
How is this even up for debate? The CMA aren't reading here and don't care what you say, there's no need to be disingenuous.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
You don't understand the point being made. Just hush already
feynoob
Banned
The damage would be huge on the game itself.
CoD is like fifa. You need community to make the game big.
By excluding certain console, you are actually hurting the game. Especially with how much devs working on the game.
But people won't pay attention to these details. Because the main concern is Sony bottom line.
feynoob
Banned
Great way to twist your point.
The game isn't called fallout or elderscrolls.
The game has 0 userbase, isn't released at all, and we have no data about it.
It could be 90% meta critic or 50% metacritic. It's just guesses and nothing else.
This is type of shit point, people like to point out, in order to strengthen their point.
But guess what. It won't hold a candle in the court.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I mean you're basically pulling this out of thin air, but ok. Comparing the popularity and perceived established communities for CoD vs Starfield is a weird discussion point anyway.
I don't think MS will 'take away' CoD from PS platforms in the first place.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
And there are established communities who are fans of Bethesda games. Same result.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Well, yeah, you can find established communities for obscure games as well.
But if the point was to compare which is bigger, or comparable, hardly anything would come close to CoD.
They've said as much that it is gonna be there till at least 2027 and after that it wouldn't make sense to stop. MS didn't stop updating Minecraft on PS consoles.
Fallout 4 is getting a next gen patch on PS5 in 2023. They're more lenient about their first party IP on other consoles than any other console maker.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
The point is refuting the idea that COD will stay on PS because microsoft doesn't pull games from established communities.
if we're talking about GaaS, then yeah, they don't, If we're talking about "fans", then yes they do. The mainline titles are the latter, not the former.
GHG
Gold Member
The legacy of the studio, developer and publisher has zero impact. The fanbases from their previous games are irrelevant despite the premise of the game being identical to their previous titles.
The name of the game is all that matters, we need to treat this game as if it were coming from a developer titled baby's first indie game. Got it.
Last edited:
- Status