RUMOUR: Polygon - Microsoft is looking to purchase EA, Valve or PUBG

What should MS do with its 90 billion dollars in cash?

  • Buy EA, remaster every EA game ever and make it available on Gamepass and Crossbuy on PC

    Votes: 87 28.9%

  • Buy Valve, fold Xbox Live into Steam and fund DOTA3, HLife 3, Portal 3, Team Fortress 3, Left4Dead 3

    Votes: 96 31.9%

  • Buy PUBG and other small studios to include in Gamepass

    Votes: 58 19.3%

  • Make a Xbox with a 3nm Zen 3+ CPU, 24GBs of HBM3, a 2.4TB SSHD and 24 TFs of GPU Horsepower

    Votes: 55 18.3%

  • Make an OASIS (akin to Ready Player One) with a 8k wireless VR headset with 120fps and 180 fov.

    Votes: 31 10.3%

  • All of the Above

    Votes: 77 25.6%

  • Make a Xboy or Steamboy that lets you play your entire xbox library and steam library on the go

    Votes: 18 6.0%

  • Partner with Valve, EA, Oculus, Blizzard and Ubi to offer a unified library with every game you own.

    Votes: 5 1.7%
  • Total voters
    301
VGdrumCovers said:
I think the problem with GAF is we're an audience who are familiar with Valve. I think the younger audience honestly wouldn't be arsed and you're right about seeing what could happen with new management.

Edit: By 'familiar with Valve' I mean their ip. Not Steam.
Click to expand...

When half-life 2 came out I never went online checking gaming news so when I went shopping for games for my brand new computer I found half-life 2 on the shelves and I remembered half-life on the PlayStation 2. I spent so much time playing that game and the mods oh my god so many great mods, I adored valve and loved their games and steam. now that glamour has rusted off and I see them as a shell of their former selves. It shattered completely when the story of half-life 3 is just a notepad document on my desktop.
 
Last edited:
Where is the option where it doesn't buy out anyone or money hat a developer but instead fund and startup it's own creative studios with original ideas?
 
I wouldn't mind all three happening. From a business perspective it solves their biggest issue of not having game developers that can deliver the volume of game titles required to compete. Steam crossplay with Xbox Live would be great too. And everything 1st party can be lumped under their subscription package, which would be incredible value for money.

Microsoft can (and does) publish games on other consoles, so I imagine the EA sports licenses would have that in place too, even if they create a new company just to do that.
 
I'm picturing a timeline where Microsoft buys EA, and releases the Xbox Two in late 2020 with Knights of the Old Republic 3 and Titanfall 3 as exclusive launch window titles. I generally don't like giant corporate take overs but I'm going to be honest: that's a potential scenario that I'd be very happy to see happen.
 
Last edited:
3rdamention said:
Purchasing EA or Valve sounds like it would awful for gamers. PUBG, sure, we have heard that rumor for a while now. However, I cannot see how MS buying EA or Valve could be a good thing really, except for their own ecosystem. Otherwise, they are walling off anyone else that doesn't play on their Console or PC.
Click to expand...
Get a Xbox 1 X if you wanna play those games
 
3rdamention said:
Purchasing EA or Valve sounds like it would awful for gamers. PUBG, sure, we have heard that rumor for a while now. However, I cannot see how MS buying EA or Valve could be a good thing really, except for their own ecosystem. Otherwise, they are walling off anyone else that doesn't play on their Console or PC.
Click to expand...

Dabigkahuna76 said:
Get a Xbox 1 X if you wanna play those games
Click to expand...

your posts guys convince me even more that a hybrid console/pc can be the real solution for MS.
there are people on pc that want to play x1 games.
and there are people on X1 that want to play pc games.
solution is going nintendo way.
Hybrid , "PCX" .
3 points:
-reference hardware of a console but made by other companies like pc Dell, Lenovo ect.
advantages: those companies pay royalties to MS and eat any hardware cost, on the other hand they can reconvert their desktop market that is dead, xbox is still a big brand.
- OS unity, Win11 made modular with gaming "kernel" easily expandable for OEMs,
advantages: target different audience, simple OS for family and kids, pro features for pro gamers, code one for all, also easily hardware revision to keep on par with pc evolution (this way no PS5 or PS6 can beat them on hardware race)
- Unify stores
advantages: No need to buy third parties , their official store could publish first party games and exclusive indies, while third party stores can sell their games adding value to "xbox optimized" games ones (exclusive dlc , performance updates) sharing some money with MS(free money for MS in the end).

Playing Nintendo and Sony game for another gen is a risk.
switching to "consolfying" pc market ("Pcfying" console market if you like otherwise) is a better move.
they have UWP now , only they need is letting Steam or EA to publish UWP games , they can convince them showing the number of gaming pc running windows.
I can understand some people will not like MS giving up on hardware, but in their vision gaming is a service and that is their final destination, importing their pc ecosystem is such a big pie that everybody from OEM to Publishers will be so happy have a slice.
 
At this point I wouldn't mind MS buying Valve, its a dead game developer anyway, maybe this way they would be forced into making real games again.
 
alken said:
your posts guys convince me even more that a hybrid console/pc can be the real solution for MS.
there are people on pc that want to play x1 games.
and there are people on X1 that want to play pc games.
solution is going nintendo way.
Hybrid , "PCX" .
3 points:
-reference hardware of a console but made by other companies like pc Dell, Lenovo ect.
advantages: those companies pay royalties to MS and eat any hardware cost, on the other hand they can reconvert their desktop market that is dead, xbox is still a big brand.
- OS unity, Win11 made modular with gaming "kernel" easily expandable for OEMs,
advantages: target different audience, simple OS for family and kids, pro features for pro gamers, code one for all, also easily hardware revision to keep on par with pc evolution (this way no PS5 or PS6 can beat them on hardware race)
- Unify stores
advantages: No need to buy third parties , their official store could publish first party games and exclusive indies, while third party stores can sell their games adding value to "xbox optimized" games ones (exclusive dlc , performance updates) sharing some money with MS(free money for MS in the end).

Playing Nintendo and Sony game for another gen is a risk.
switching to "consolfying" pc market ("Pcfying" console market if you like otherwise) is a better move.
they have UWP now , only they need is letting Steam or EA to publish UWP games , they can convince them showing the number of gaming pc running windows.
I can understand some people will not like MS giving up on hardware, but in their vision gaming is a service and that is their final destination, importing their pc ecosystem is such a big pie that everybody from OEM to Publishers will be so happy have a slice.
Click to expand...

It'll just be a PC, with all the problems of developing with multiple configurations. No one wants that. The easiest thing would be if you want to play steam games then buy a PC. If you want to play xbox games buy an xbox.
 
Sinfamy said:
Where is the option where it doesn't buy out anyone or money hat a developer but instead fund and startup it's own creative studios with original ideas?
Click to expand...

What will give players games faster? That is a great idea that they should have been doing more of years ago but that's not really going to help much during the Xbox One generation if games can take 3 years to make. I suspect they are looking at smaller indie type of developers but it's probably easier for Microsoft to get a well known ip or a well known developer that brings a bit of recognition in. What Microsoft needs to get away from is wasting money on timed exclusives.
 
Dirk Benedict said:
........but Valve... That's a lot to contemplate. They'd probably bleed employees and the company wouldn't be the same.
Click to expand...

LOL, Valve already bled most of it's best/old employees, and hasn't been the same for almost 10 years. fuck valve, MS should buy them, for the sake of Valve's IPs if nothing else.
 
Sinfamy said:
Where is the option where it doesn't buy out anyone or money hat a developer but instead fund and startup it's own creative studios with original ideas?
Click to expand...

In today's risk-averse world, this just isn't happening. Publishers will occasionally throw a few bucks at risky/small projects, but it's much safer to buy proven talent and IP.
 
Sinfamy said:
Where is the option where it doesn't buy out anyone or money hat a developer but instead fund and startup it's own creative studios with original ideas?
Click to expand...

They're likely doing this as well, but they need something to help them immediately this gen and get next gen started on the right foot.

This is more about immediate needs and quick fixes to right the proverbial ship over long-term fixes.
 
I really want MS to buy Valve and it seems like most gamers agree with me. Think about it, every single game you own on either Xbox Live or Steam will be playable on either your Xbox, your PC, or an Xboy/Steamboy handheld device. Remastered 4K versions of all of Valves past games and Half Life 3 included with Gamepass. The convenience and value this would give to both console and PC gamers would put Xbox Steam Live at the top of both the console and PC gaming industry and would generate them tens of billions in additional revenue over the year. I would switch away from PSN to Xbox in an instant assuming the next Xbox is atleast as powerful and capable as the PS5. They may need to name the next Xbox, SteamboX, in order to be able to do all this without violating any steam licenses.
 
Last edited:
Nintendo Switch said:
I really want MS to buy Valve and it seems like most gamers agree with me. Think about it, every single game you own on either Xbox Live or Steam will be playable on either your Xbox, your PC, or an Xboy/Steamboy handheld device. Remastered 4K versions of all of Valves past games and Half Life 3 included with Gamepass. The convenience and value this would give to both console and PC gamers would put Xbox Steam Live at the top of both the console and PC gaming industry and would generate them tens of billions in additional revenue over the year. I would switch away from PSN to Xbox in an instant assuming the next Xbox is atleast as powerful and capable as the PS5. They may need to name the next Xbox, SteamboX, in order to be able to do all this without violating any steam licenses.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be opposed to an Orange Box 2 that has all their games remastered on it?
 
They can leave Gabe in charge of managing Steam on the PC side, while hiring up devs to make games using Valves IP and making everyone's entire steam libraries also playable on the Xbox consoles (rebranded as SteamboXes if necessary). Who wouldn't switch over from PS5 to Xbox if you get acccess to your entire steam backlog on Xbox.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the likelihood of MS spending this kind of money in the gaming sector. It would not be inconceivable for them to make a smaller purchase, but I don't see MS particularly wanting to be the Netflix of gaming. It's a pretty volatile market. Improving their standing in the market would make sense, but this depends on how truly dedicated MS is to gaming. MS doesn't function well as a consumer company. Most of their consumer products end up failing. What MS excels at is developing platforms that drive innovation (Windows, Azure). Their bread and butter is supplying at the high end. It stands to reason it would be better in the long-term for them to continue to invest in their strengths and preventing competition from establishing a beachhead in their bread-and-butter businesses.
 
I'm sure MS has made many offers to buy Valve over the years. They don't care about their IP, they want to buy a store that millions of people use. Buying EA makes zero sense, unless they just want the PC side of it: origin and sims.

I would probably just quit gaming if they bought valve, because I absolutely do not trust MS with pc gaming, so hopefully this doesn't happen lol.
 
What about Capcom? Why not buy them? You'll get instant credibility in the Japanese Market and a whole host of franchises you can mine in the west for Nostalgia? Just a thought
 
MilkyJoe said:
It'll just be a PC, with all the problems of developing with multiple configurations. No one wants that. The easiest thing would be if you want to play steam games then buy a PC. If you want to play xbox games buy an xbox.
Click to expand...
not a proper PC.
just ahybrid.
MS and Valve for example can agree to make a reference hardware that all OEM must follow on their version.
A minimum spec that can be then added with other features .
Steam Machines and SteamOS where this , ok Valve failed a bit, but if ever money can make them friends again with MS this time thier vision could be more solid.
everybody wins.
the problem nowdays is all here, MS,Ubisoft, EA,Valve all these companies are shifting to a "game as service" model.
also in this thread people comment about valve not being anymore a developer.
Once they find a common ground for getting a slice of this big pie the PCX will be a reality.
This model then let incremental revision of the hardware come with more flexibility.
another example SteamVR.
this year also LG will make a SteamVR hardware aside HTC.
Steam is areally ahed with this vision, and MS could really follow or ally with them.
 
Lord Malachite said:
I don't see the likelihood of MS spending this kind of money in the gaming sector. It would not be inconceivable for them to make a smaller purchase, but I don't see MS particularly wanting to be the Netflix of gaming. It's a pretty volatile market. Improving their standing in the market would make sense, but this depends on how truly dedicated MS is to gaming. MS doesn't function well as a consumer company. Most of their consumer products end up failing. What MS excels at is developing platforms that drive innovation (Windows, Azure). Their bread and butter is supplying at the high end. It stands to reason it would be better in the long-term for them to continue to invest in their strengths and preventing competition from establishing a beachhead in their bread-and-butter businesses.
Click to expand...

Everything they have shown with Game Pass, Streaming games in 3 years shows that MS is wanting to become Netflix of gaming. Netflix model is a good future investment where you need IPs. The reason EA makes sense is that they have a tone of IPs.

alken said:
not a proper PC.
just ahybrid.
MS and Valve for example can agree to make a reference hardware that all OEM must follow on their version.
A minimum spec that can be then added with other features .
Steam Machines and SteamOS where this , ok Valve failed a bit, but if ever money can make them friends again with MS this time thier vision could be more solid.
everybody wins.
the problem nowdays is all here, MS,Ubisoft, EA,Valve all these companies are shifting to a "game as service" model.
also in this thread people comment about valve not being anymore a developer.
Once they find a common ground for getting a slice of this big pie the PCX will be a reality.
This model then let incremental revision of the hardware come with more flexibility.
another example SteamVR.
this year also LG will make a SteamVR hardware aside HTC.
Steam is areally ahed with this vision, and MS could really follow or ally with them.
Click to expand...

That's definitely NOT the reason why Valve will be purchased, a more legit reason would be that the Rise of Mobile Type/lightweight and secure computing on devices like Chrome OS, IOS and soon Windows 10 S/Polaris, you need a app store for that to work, Valve and in a lot of cases Desktop Linux is simply not adapted to that environment. Another reason is that we are seeing the future of OSes that become adaptive on task, we have an OS that can change it's UI on phones, tablets and PCs (Windows Core OS CShell, Fuishia OS), Valve is not adapted to that.

The only good reason is that Valve knows that being on just open PC gaming is NOT the future for them and being bought by MS, this allows Valve to adapt to a more flexible and mobile type world that we are moving towards. Staying on hard/fat PC gaming, you're moving towards irrelevancy.

This is like any company, Gabe would put the company's future first, not stupid idealogical reasons.
 
Last edited:
People have been saying that the reason Valve may agree is that they get to create hybrid devices or whatever.

Money definitely NOT the reason why Valve will be purchased, a more legit reason would be that the Rise of Mobile Type/lightweight and secure computing on devices like Chrome OS, IOS and soon Windows 10 S/Polaris, you need a app store for that to work, Valve and in a lot of cases Desktop Linux is simply not adapted to that environment. Another reason is that we are seeing the future of OSes that become adaptive on task, we have an OS that can change it's UI on phones, tablets and PCs (Windows Core OS CShell, Fuishia OS), Valve is not adapted to that.

The only good reason is that Valve knows that being on just open PC gaming is NOT the future for them and being bought by MS, this allows Valve to adapt to a more flexible and mobile type world that we are moving towards. Staying on hard/fat PC gaming, you're moving towards irrelevancy.

This is like any company, Gabe would put the company's future first, not stupid idealogical reasons.
 
Last edited:
On EA: Buying EA would bolster their exclusive line-up in the short term, but they aren't known for maintaining franchises, or studios. Contrast this with Sony, which manages to do both. Imagine paying ~40 billion for the company, and having all the IPs and studios follow the general lifespan of anything EA owns and it all be gone in half a decade? Also how much are EA's properties worth to Microsoft shareholders if they are confined to one platform (the one with 1/3 of the market)? I'd argue not ~40 billion, which is the cheapest they'd get the publisher for.

On Valve: This would require a maasssiiivee shift in strategy. This would cost them A LOT more than most people think it would, probably more than EA. Steam is the value here and it's a PC platform. Microsoft would need to up the ante w.r.t. their unified platform (Windows). This would give them a means to get out of the hardware business and "access" to a pre-existing audience. This is ridiculously risky and I don't think it has a chance in hell of happening. The PC gaming audience would react negatively and there's no immediate net value added to re coup the investment. The only straw I can find is that "the PC is moving to the living room" mantra is dead afaik, I doubt Microsoft executive enjoy selling subsidized hardware anymore, so this could be a selling point, but I don't think it warrants the cost.

On PUBG: This seems more realistic, it'd be much cheaper, but I don't see the studio's long-term value. The player-base is on PC, the current play-base is going sour on the game and the xbox version is a train wreck. I don't think there true IP value similar to that of a series such as dark souls, I'd wager PUBG is a one hit wonder, given how they've handle the game since it's official launch.

EDIT (extra thoughts): If Microsoft wants to increase its gaming presence, they need to revert to the early 360 strategy and focus on providing value for investing in the platform. This means cultivating studios which may not release AAA blockbusters every 2 years and instead release quality, unique games similar to Sony's first party line-up. Buying exclusives is a band-aid; what they need to do is buy studios with proven IPs (I don't count PUBG as this, see above).
 
Last edited:
Yoda said:
On Valve: This would require a maasssiiivee shift in strategy. This would cost them A LOT more than most people think it would, probably more than EA. Steam is the value here and it's a PC platform. Microsoft would need to up the ante w.r.t. their unified platform (Windows). This would give them a means to get out of the hardware business and "access" to a pre-existing audience. This is ridiculously risky and I don't think it has a chance in hell of happening. The PC gaming audience would react negatively and there's no immediate net value added to re coup the investment. The only straw I can find is that "the PC is moving to the living room" mantra is dead afaik, I doubt Microsoft executive enjoy selling subsidized hardware anymore, so this could be a selling point, but I don't think it warrants the cost.
Click to expand...


As said before, in the age of lightweight/secure computing and adaptive OSes on devices like Chrome OS and Windows 10 S. Desktop Linux isn't adapted for that future. Valve would want to stay relevant, staying on Full/Fat PC Gaming forever is a terrible idea. This is just Valve wanting to be ready for the increasing future.
 
Not sure this needs to be turned into its own thread (it's from here: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/rumo...g-to-purchase-ea-valve-or-pubg.1460779/page-5). Your argument is that Valve needs to expand it's market into what I'll classify as non-traditional games. Other than making more money, they'd need a reason to do this, it isn't share-holder pressure for greater returns as they are a private company and aside from that, I don't see what would induce them to think they NEED to have a presence on stripped down OSes, hell they half ass their OSX version of steam and that is a serious slice of the "desktop" market. The mobile market has existed for a long time, and Valve hasn't felt the need to extend Steam to compete for marketshare.

I think Valve will continue to add monetization to their existing platform, they've done VERY well doing that over the last few years and I haven't seen a good reason for them to pivot.
 
12Dannu123 said:
As said before, in the age of lightweight/secure computing and adaptive OSes on devices like Chrome OS and Windows 10 S. Desktop Linux isn't adapted for that future. Valve would want to stay relevant, staying on Full/Fat PC Gaming forever is a terrible idea. This is just Valve wanting to be ready for the increasing future.
Click to expand...

I don't see gaming moving from dedicated devices (gaming PCs or consoles, but only the former matters here). On that point, if the OS can handle a browser, it can handle Steam. The PC gaming market has been growing steadily for the last half decade and there's little reason to think it'll stop, given that trend there's no reason to think their market is at risk of being ripped out from under them.
 
Last edited:
Yoda said:
Not sure this needs to be turned into its own thread (it's from here: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/rumo...g-to-purchase-ea-valve-or-pubg.1460779/page-5). Your argument is that Valve needs to expand it's market into what I'll classify as non-traditional games. Other than making more money, they'd need a reason to do this, it isn't share-holder pressure for greater returns as they are a private company and aside from that, I don't see what would induce them to think they NEED to have a presence on stripped down OSes, hell they half ass their OSX version of steam and that is a serious slice of the "desktop" market. The mobile market has existed for a long time, and Valve hasn't felt the need to extend Steam to compete for marketshare.

I think Valve will continue to add monetization to their existing platform, they've done VERY well doing that over the last few years and I haven't seen a good reason for them to pivot.
Click to expand...

I think having its own thread would get the message across. But that's the thing, no one knows the future, I think a vast majority of people will agree that lightweight, secure is an increasing future that will replace a huge chunk of users in the future. The reason why they may want to extend beyond traditional gaming is that Google Play and Apple App Store and MS Store are going to command a chunk of a growing market, whereas Valve will have no mindshare at all since this future is OS App Store based.
 
What message do you need to get across? surely this is a point of view that could be given in the large thread talking about the topic?

With regard to your actual point, Valve have little need to branch out into the slim OS market. Majority of games need better hardware to run these days than what a device that needs to run a Slim OS would have by the nature of a stripped down version of the system so unless you're going for the occasional casual, It's doubtful it will bring big returns.
 
Mathrin said:
What message do you need to get across? surely this is a point of view that could be given in the large thread talking about the topic?

With regard to your actual point, Valve have little need to branch out into the slim OS market. Majority of games need better hardware to run these days than what a device that needs to run a Slim OS would have by the nature of a stripped down version of the system so unless you're going for the occasional casual, It's doubtful it will bring big returns.
Click to expand...

The message is that Valve may not be thinking ideologically for a sale to MS. What happens if Chrome OS/IOS/Windows 10 S start scaling upwards to high end hardware. We already see that Google Pixelbook/Surface Laptop. What happens when Google Play becomes starts added more high end games. Microsoft Store already starting with this.
 
Last edited:
You miss my point - who exactly are you trying to get this point through to?

Bluntly - Anyone who cares about your point of view would surely reply to it in the long running topic about this very subject already.
 
Mathrin said:
You miss my point - who exactly are you trying to get this point through to?

Bluntly - Anyone who cares about your point of view would surely reply to it in the long running topic about this very subject already.
Click to expand...
I gotta agree with this one. Theres hardly any point in making a new thread based on personal theory regarding a rumor with no new news or evidence to support it.
 
I wouldn't want MS to buy valve. As a PC gamer i like not having to pay another fee other than my internet bill to play a game online. MS would end up putting the PC games behind another pay wall like consoles do now
 
12Dannu123 said:
People have been saying that the reason Valve may agree is that they get to create hybrid devices or whatever.

Money definitely NOT the reason why Valve will be purchased, a more legit reason would be that the Rise of Mobile Type/lightweight and secure computing on devices like Chrome OS, IOS and soon Windows 10 S/Polaris, you need a app store for that to work, Valve and in a lot of cases Desktop Linux is simply not adapted to that environment. Another reason is that we are seeing the future of OSes that become adaptive on task, we have an OS that can change it's UI on phones, tablets and PCs (Windows Core OS CShell, Fuishia OS), Valve is not adapted to that.

The only good reason is that Valve knows that being on just open PC gaming is NOT the future for them and being bought by MS, this allows Valve to adapt to a more flexible and mobile type world that we are moving towards. Staying on hard/fat PC gaming, you're moving towards irrelevancy.

This is like any company, Gabe would put the company's future first, not stupid idealogical reasons.
Click to expand...
I disagree that this gives Valve any sort of flexibility. They are privately held now which gives them the ability to go any direction they see fit. I don't think Gabe needs any more money and he knows selling to MS would create a lot of vitriol towards Steam as a platform.

I honestly don't even get why people would want Steam to go to MS. I still consider them to be one of the biggest poisons in gaming, bringing about a lot of what I hate about it. Not that they're the only ones, but they have a proven history of pushing and creating:

-Moneyhats (Tales of Vesperia)
-Exclusive DLC (CoD for a generation)
-Paid online service
-DLC being cut content of a game added back in later to charge for it
-Horse Armor
-Xbox One's original vision and reveal and everything about it until the change
-Kinect
-Don Mattrick
-Games subscription service
-Games as a service focus
-Cancellation and mismanagement of games and resources (Rare, Scalebound, Lionhead, Phantom Brave Remake)
-Ads everywhere, baked into the OS
-RRoD fiasco

Again, MS didn't create all of this, but some of it, they most certainly did. If anybody has faith that they'd improve Valve in any sort of way, I'd question why they believe that.

It's really a shame, the original Xbox, I looked at much in the same way as a Sega console. Underdog with great exclusives and a fresh take on features. Even the 360 was a great console during the Blades days when they were still investing money on games and not just using the money to lock out competitors and do underhanded business practices.

I most certainly do not want MS to buy anything I actually like or use. EA I'd be fine with, because my opinion of them wouldn't change a bit no matter who's running the company. Whenever I see positives for MS owning Valve, it almost always relates to someone wanting that checkbox on their side for "console wars".
 
Honestly Valve already let a company do this for them so I don't see them folding to MS. Nvidia has been silently as most people have forgotten allowed a lot of the Valve games to be ported onto their Shield Devices.
 
BLKTMNT said:
I wouldn't want MS to buy valve. As a PC gamer i like not having to pay another fee other than my internet bill to play a game online. MS would end up putting the PC games behind another pay wall like consoles do now
Click to expand...
They havent had a PC paywall since the Vista days. W10 store and xbox on windows is subscription free. Party chat and everything.

While I understand the paranoia that they could 180 that, I dont think theyd be stupid enough to try that again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Polygon sold to Valnet and suffers mass layoffs
2 3 4 5
210
2K
MrCunningham replied
EA CEO’s pay is up as EA worker median income drops
2 3
120
568
Shifty1897 replied
Valve is "too white"
2 3 4
178
14K
ZVWQP-9B8TM-VH9CT replied
PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS 2025 Roadmap
Trailer 
14
1K
UltimaKilo replied
Polygon just can't help themselves
Drama  2
72
1K
notseqi replied
Top Bottom