Absolutely nothing they're doing at the moment supports that, but go off
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Absolutely nothing they're doing at the moment supports that, but go off
tmlDan
Member
This is what is wild with arguments like yours, why would you believe one side and not the other. How do you know who is actually lying? were you there?
Maybe take everything with a grain of salt and remember, both companies are walking the edge of truth to get things to work in their favour.
Thirty7ven
Banned
You keep swinging and missing. Kotick doesn’t work for MS.
Drell
Member
Forcing a subscription model instead of owning products is not a sign of new management changing things. I'm sure Balmer would've loved the idea of a customer paying yearly subscriptions.
You may be right for your other points (don't fell like checking everything but it seems fair) but not really this one.
bender
What time is it?
graywolf323
Member
I mean he definitely did, Office 365 started under Ballmer
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Wrong and wrong. Sony hasn't said either of these things.
For the first one, they actually mentioned the proposal Microsoft sent.
As for your second point, Sony never said that Microsoft would sabotage PS versions of COD. They mentioned a few things that "could" happen -- which, of course, is true, as in they could happen.
So, no, unlike what you said, Sony has not lied.
If you disagree, please share screenshots of where Sony has lied in the document.
fred420170
Member
Well, MS owns Bethesda, they already said elder scrolls & starfield are not coming to Playstation. No bethesda games will be on playstation they are exclusive to the xbox ecosystem. Just like GOW will never be on Xbox.
Topher
Identifies as young
That's a stupid argument but that doesn't make it a lie.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Weird comparison. Did Sony buy God of War, and was it previously a multiplatform game, released on Xbox?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Which are deals they would have had a much easier time violating vs. a deal regarding one of the biggest acquisitions in video game history. The fact remains there is no evidence of MS breaking any gaming contracts and they have done everything they have said they would do with regard to IP they control ie. Minecraft, Psychonauts 2 and continued support of titles like ESO and Fallout.
GHG
Gold Member
What are you talking about? They will have records of all the times Microsoft have attempted to contact them directly about this via email and phone calls. Activision have nothing to do with this side of the negotiation, they are powerless at this stage.
If Bobby is hassling them to try and get them to contact Microsoft then he will rightfully be ignored. If Bobby is contacting them about potential future deals should the Microsoft merge fail then they are also free to ignore him if they wish due to the fact that this legal process is still on going.
The onus is on Microsoft to reach out and contact Sony and talk to them via the official channels.
Last edited:
DrFigs
Member
Thanks for sharing this section. it does seem like all of these are likely, except the first one. But then they also went on to talk about the bug thing, which was silly. Even the last one sounds silly, but it's been seriously proposed on this and other forums, especially when this deal first got announced.Wrong and wrong. Sony hasn't said either of these things.
For the first one, they actually mentioned the proposal Microsoft sent.
As for your second point, Sony never said that Microsoft would sabotage PS versions of COD. They mentioned a few things that "could" happen -- which, of course, is true, as in they could happen.
So, no, unlike what you said, Sony has not lied.
If you disagree, please share screenshots of where Sony has lied in the document.
edit: i misread the last point. it thought it was saying that cod would only be available on gamepass, but it seems like it's just saying that it wouldn't be available on ps plus. either way, i think all these are plausible
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
If you are saying something you know isn't true it's a lie.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Buying up the largest third party publishers to play takeaway of games they would already have, does.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
FYI - Sony never said that MS would purposefully put bugs in there.
When it was first posted here (via fanboys tweets), I called it out saying it was a stupid and weakass argument by Sony. Then I read the entire document and, yes, it was cherry-picked by Twitter fanboys. The full paragraph makes much more sense.
Sony was actually referring to how enforcing behavioral remedies would be tough and kind of impractical. They mentioned multiple scenarios. One of them is this one.
It merely says that what if the PS version has bugs that appear in the later stages of the game (like the final level), so it doesn't get caught early on -- unless the CMA (who is enforcing the behavioral remedies compliance) plays the ENTIRE game carefully to catch any bugs and ensure that both Xbox and PS versions have parity for the ENTIRE game.
That's impractical, right?
Add to it patches and updates, which can introduce bugs on one console (happens quite often actually). Will the CMA test the entire game (until credits roll) every time a patch is released?
That's why Sony is saying that "ensuring compliance would be challenging."
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Yep. Good thing they are not saying something they know isn't true then.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
You are better than this. You think they believe MS will intentionally put bugs into PS versions of COD?
Gobjuduck
Banned
Dial back the disingenuous clowning or be removed from the thread.
Jim Ryan is going to kill Phil Spencer tonight with a rubber hose, im not lying because I don’t know it’s true. Just have a feeling…
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Even that isn't silly. Twitter fanboys just took one section, twisted it, and ran with it. It actually pays to read the full document.
I'm quoting this comment that I just posted. That clarifies the situation which is being misreported.
FYI - Sony never said that MS would purposefully put bugs in there.
When it was first posted here (via fanboys tweets), I called it out saying it was a stupid and weakass argument by Sony. Then I read the entire document and, yes, it was cherry-picked by Twitter fanboys. The full paragraph makes much more sense.
Sony was actually referring to how enforcing behavioral remedies would be tough and kind of impractical. They mentioned multiple scenarios. One of them is this one.
It merely says that what if the PS version has bugs that appear in the later stages of the game (like the final level), so it doesn't get caught early on -- unless the CMA (who is enforcing the behavioral remedies compliance) plays the ENTIRE game carefully to catch any bugs and ensure that both Xbox and PS versions have parity for the ENTIRE game.
That's impractical, right?
Add to it patches and updates, which can introduce bugs on one console (happens quite often actually). Will the CMA test the entire game (until credits roll) every time a patch is released?
That's why Sony is saying that "ensuring compliance would be challenging."
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
But you're saying that there are evidences of Microsoft breaking other contracts and getting fined for those, right?
Topher
Identifies as young
It is a hypothetical. Read
Heisenberg007
's post above. Well.....I was just talking about stupid arguments and that is one so....
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
GHG
Gold Member
Nobody ever disputed that, it's how the business has always operated (its how many industries operate in fact - ever wonder why certain fast food chains only offer Coca Cola products and not Pepsi ones?).
So if they wanted to do that kind of deal they've always had the opportunity to try.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
This is normal shit and a nothing burger that fantards are blowing up bigger than it is. Stupid cunts.FYI - Sony never said that MS would purposefully put bugs in there.
When it was first posted here (via fanboys tweets), I called it out saying it was a stupid and weakass argument by Sony. Then I read the entire document and, yes, it was cherry-picked by Twitter fanboys. The full paragraph makes much more sense.
Sony was actually referring to how enforcing behavioral remedies would be tough and kind of impractical. They mentioned multiple scenarios. One of them is this one.
It merely says that what if the PS version has bugs that appear in the later stages of the game (like the final level), so it doesn't get caught early on -- unless the CMA (who is enforcing the behavioral remedies compliance) plays the ENTIRE game carefully to catch any bugs and ensure that both Xbox and PS versions have parity for the ENTIRE game.
That's impractical, right?
Add to it patches and updates, which can introduce bugs on one console (happens quite often actually). Will the CMA test the entire game (until credits roll) every time a patch is released?
That's why Sony is saying that "ensuring compliance would be challenging."
bender
What time is it?
Topher
Identifies as young
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
We all know which way you lean, but I thought this ridiculous statement from Sony would be a step too far for anyone who is honest.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Actually, I think this is a really important point by Sony. How exactly will the CMA ensure Microsoft's compliance with behavioral remedies?
It's a freakin' regulatory body, and they will be expected to play (or have someone else play and oversee/sign-off) every Call of Duty game on PlayStation released by Microsoft to ensure there's parity? And play it every time a new patch is released?
Then play the game on Xbox to compare the two versions?
Will the CMA be relegated to this buffoonery? LOL
This is an excellent point raised by Sony, and I'm sure the CMA would be like:
In that case, behavioral remedies will look like an awful / impractical option to the CMA, and they will stick with divestment or prohibition.
Topher
Identifies as young
What part of me calling it a "stupid argument" did you not understand?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Notice how he completely ignored your reply pointing him to my post that would clarify his confusion
And here comes another
My post is right there. It clarifies everything and eliminates the confusion, but why would we read that!
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
People aren't interested in that.My post is right there. It clarifies everything and eliminates the confusion, but why would we read that!
intheinbetween
Member
Pretty much like including intentional bugs on the macOS version of Office, or Apple including intentional bugs on the Windows version of iTunes
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Why reeeeeeeead when you can get your hottakes from the cuntsolewar ether.FYI - Sony never said that MS would purposefully put bugs in there.
When it was first posted here (via fanboys tweets), I called it out saying it was a stupid and weakass argument by Sony. Then I read the entire document and, yes, it was cherry-picked by Twitter fanboys. The full paragraph makes much more sense.
Sony was actually referring to how enforcing behavioral remedies would be tough and kind of impractical. They mentioned multiple scenarios. One of them is this one.
It merely says that what if the PS version has bugs that appear in the later stages of the game (like the final level), so it doesn't get caught early on -- unless the CMA (who is enforcing the behavioral remedies compliance) plays the ENTIRE game carefully to catch any bugs and ensure that both Xbox and PS versions have parity for the ENTIRE game.
That's impractical, right?
Add to it patches and updates, which can introduce bugs on one console (happens quite often actually). Will the CMA test the entire game (until credits roll) every time a patch is released?
That's why Sony is saying that "ensuring compliance would be challenging."
Last edited:
Varteras
Member
You'll have a better outcome using sandpaper to wipe your ass than trusting anything that piece of work says.
I'm sure the developers at the COD factory would be happy to ruin thier reputations and hurt future job prospects to tank the playstation version of the game
. Not to mention hurt the reputation of the frachise by releasing a shit version . I'm sure Microsoft would be down for tanking a franchise worth 10's of billions to screw over Sony.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
We trust the "piece of shit that needs MS to save the employees from," when he talks about Sony. Oh, and he is not MS, but why stop there.
Last edited:
Helghan
Member
Your argument was “that they could”, it’s ridiculous, everyone knows this. Sony is getting seriously silly at the moment if these are their last arguments. Deal is going to be approved.My post is right there. It clarifies everything and eliminates the confusion, but why would we read that!
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That's ... not even the point.
If there are bugs in the PS5 version, who would ensure compliance for parity between the two platforms, and how? Will the CMA play the game after release and every time a patch is released?
Last edited:
This is Sony Music Entertainment, which is a separate entity from Sony Interactive Entertainment aka the PlayStation* subsidiary
In case you’re aware, other sony divisions nor Sony group in itself are present in this case, only SIE
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
I don’t think breaking the contract is the problem - the problem is writing a contract that doesn’t allow MS to deviate from the intent of the CMA.
Bearing in mind their intent is divestment, and that the gaming market is fast evolving and changing, writing a contract that isn’t full of grey areas would be extremely difficult. And then it has to be policed effectively.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The developer/publisher of the game so as not to receive refund requests for a product they're selling.
The whole line of argument is petty and defending it is borderline nihilism.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked