• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bengraven

Powered by Friendship™
Member
Oct 26, 2017
27,135
Florida
This quote is why I don't believe a single word regarding the no exclusivity bullshit with COD.

So what are they going to do? Back out of all their agreements?

Upset these companies and fans that they already have agreements and relationships with for Minecraft or Bethesda's MMOs for example? Back out on promises to government agencies?

Just absolutely destroy their credibility over COD money?

You really believe that?
 

00Quan[T]

Banned
May 12, 2022
2,990
I'm not talking about lawyer levels of truth. I'm talking practical/ethical. A version of this game existed for Playstation, MS did not HAVE TO stop the development of this version just because they bought the company.
Based on what?
They ran the numbers and found that it would be better to make it exclusive, that's all.
 

inner-G

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
14,473
PNW
Is this game supposed to be good? Haven't really been following it.

I think the laptop I just got includes a promo key for it though, need to figure out how to redeem it if it's worth it.
 

Ovvv

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Jan 11, 2019
10,030
"Taking games away" means taking games off platforms where they already exist. Redfall did not exist on PlayStation. There was nothing to take away. It releasing on PS5 was a hypothetical assumption based on Bethesda being a third party. Now they are not, and there were no deals forcing them to release on PS5, so they didn't.
It's not a hypothetical assumption. They themselves said it stopped because they got purchased lol. Would game hit PS if not for the acquisition? Dev seems to think so
 

BassForever

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
30,039
CT
They were SUPER fuzzy with PR in the beginning.

"Case by case basis"

"Not done to take away games from Playstation"

"Continue to honor contractual agreements"

It's a bad look, no matter how pro-competition anyone claims, this is actively taking games away from a userbase that would have otherwise gotten to play it.

Hell even now Phil's PR is leaving room to intepreation for future franchises like Elder Scrolls. Where he said Starfied is a new IP, and there's no established userbase on PlayStation. Well there sure as hell is for Elder Scrolls lol.
Even if this was true, it's irrelevant to the ongoing cma/eu discussions about the ABK acquisition. The EU and CMA only give a crap about CoD, and they've made that clear. Microsoft has signed legally binding contracts to keep CoD multiplatform for the next 10 years, and have acknowledge that like Minecraft, the opportunity cost of making CoD exclusive doesn't make sense, especially after they start porting it to Switch & cloud platforms.

No regulators care about Diablo, Crash, Spyro, etc, to them they could all go exclusive tomorrow and they would be "I sleep" meme. It's only becuase of how big CoD is that there's been a lot of scruitiny.
 

Theorry

Member
Oct 27, 2017
61,415
This is of course super obvious, but Microsoft and it's lawyers are probably not happy with a developer actually saying it out loud to the press in the middle of the ABK regulatory mess. Free ammo for Sony and their lawyers.
they already know and even the EU agreed with what MS said and say they didnt changed anything.
 

CabooseMSG

Member
Jun 27, 2020
2,224

Gavalanche

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 21, 2021
18,138
I'm not talking about lawyer levels of truth. I'm talking practical/ethical. A version of this game existed for Playstation, MS did not HAVE TO stop the development of this version just because they bought the company. It could've been delayed, released on GamePass day one and still released elsewhere, etc...

I'm not here for a debate about how companies should go about making deals or what makes sense for MS financially, that's been said to death. From a consumer POV its taking games away, and it was sugar-coated PR speak.

Some of ya'll are too quick to go lawyer mode, its like when Sony said Please think about the children for cross play. Like come on...

Agreed. It doesn't matter what is legal, the fact is that the game was being made for playstation, and it would have been coming out for playstation without the acquisition. Who cares about the companies, some gamers miss out, thats it really. Microsoft are well within their rights to do so, and if I was in their position I would have done the same, I would be making everything I possibly could exclusive. However, as a consumer doesn't mean I have to like it, regardless of all the legal speak and pr talk.
 

Mr Evil 37

Member
Mar 7, 2022
11,151
It's not a hypothetical assumption. They themselves said it stopped because they got purchased lol. Would game hit PS if not for the acquisition? Dev seems to think so
Of course it would have. But there's never a guarantee. We all assumed Ghostwire and Deathloop were multiplatform at launch when they were announced, and guess what? They weren't.

This isn't new information and it's also not worth breaking out the pitchforks over.
 

Deleted member 93062

Account closed at user request
Banned
Mar 4, 2021
24,767
I'm not talking about lawyer levels of truth. I'm talking practical/ethical. A version of this game existed for Playstation, MS did not HAVE TO stop the development of this version just because they bought the company. It could've been delayed, released on GamePass day one and still released elsewhere, etc...

I'm not here for a debate about how companies should go about making deals or what makes sense for MS financially, that's been said to death. From a consumer POV its taking games away, and it was sugar-coated PR speak.

Some of ya'll are too quick to go lawyer mode, its like when Sony said Please think about the children for cross play. Like come on...
How is pointing out that "removing games" requires the game to exist on the platform lawyer mode? Like if you just want to take the most uncharitable take on what they said, go ahead but don't call it fuzzy because of your willful ignorance.
Yeah? for 10 years....that's barely 3 COD entries lmao
After that they can do pretty much anything they want to ?
3 COD entries in 10 years? HUH?

Also, if why hasn't Microsoft made Minecraft and its spin-offs exclusive? They never made an agreement to keep them multiplatform.
 

platocplx

2020 Member Elect
Member
Oct 30, 2017
36,085
that would have been the case, ofc. Timed exclusivity doesn't mean they don't work on the port, it just means it gets launched later. The work would have already been finished for the most part aside from QA.
And most of the time the later port is the best version of the game.
 

Reckheim

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
9,519
Yeah? for 10 years....that's barely 3 COD entries lmao
After that they can do pretty much anything they want to ?

I don't want this acquisition to go through either, but what exactly are you arguing?

obviously they will make the games exclusive. They paid 69 billion dollars on this acquisition, that's like 2/3 of what Sony is worth as a whole. They are running a business, it makes no sense to keep releasing your own games on the competition's system.
 

Bengraven

Powered by Friendship™
Member
Oct 26, 2017
27,135
Florida
I'm sure this won't be brought up non-stop in Activision acquisition threads.

Gonna need to hand out ibuprofen because people will be putting their backs out with all this stretching.

I wish there was this much outcry after Sony made Stellar Blade exclusive AFTER that game had already announced its platforms.

Yeah but smaller games or games they're not hyped about like the one I mentioned "are different".
 

Deleted member 93062

Account closed at user request
Banned
Mar 4, 2021
24,767
I wish there was this much outcry after Sony made Stellar Blade exclusive AFTER that game had already announced its platforms.
 

CabooseMSG

Member
Jun 27, 2020
2,224
Of course it would have. But there's never a guarantee. We all assumed Ghostwire and Deathloop were multiplatform at launch when they were announced, and guess what? They weren't.

This isn't new information and it's also not worth breaking out the pitchforks over.
They were announced as multiplatform when PS5's timed exclusivity was announced. What are you even trying to say? Both of these reveals say timed console exclusive at the end.
youtu.be

GhostWire: Tokyo – Gameplay Reveal Trailer | PS5

https://www.playstation.com/games/ghostwire-tokyo?emcid=or-1s-412983"Tokyo is overrun by deadly supernatural forces after 99% of the city's population vanish...
youtu.be

DEATHLOOP - Official Gameplay Reveal Trailer | PS5

https://www.playstation.com/games/deathloop?emcid=or-1s-412983DEATHLOOP is an innovative first person shooter launching for PlayStation 5 and PC from Arkane ...

The DIFFERENCE is Redfall and Starfield NEVER got an announcement of consoles.
 

Juryvicious

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,898
Is this game supposed to be good? Haven't really been following it.

I think the laptop I just got includes a promo key for it though, need to figure out how to redeem it if it's worth it.

The most recent trailer looked really good. If you have access to Game Pass I think you'll want to check it out.
 

John Bender

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,058
Lucky they have contracts then
Will you disbelieve the legally binding documents too?
www.reuters.com

EU fines Microsoft $731 million for broken promise, warns others

The European Union fined Microsoft Corp 561 million euros ($731 million) on Wednesday for failing to offer users a choice of web browser, an unprecedented sanction that will act as a warning to other firms involved in EU antitrust disputes.
Microsoft doesn't care, because they have unlimited money.
 

Omnistalgic

self-requested temp ban
Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,973
NJ
Based on what?
They ran the numbers and found that it would be better to make it exclusive, that's all.
that's fine...again, I don't care about the richest company in the world's finances, from a consumer POV, it's fewer people that can play the game on their preferred ecosystem - period.

That's a bad look.

That's my opinion.
 

Helix

Mayor of Clown Town
Banned
Jun 8, 2019
24,101
I'm not talking about lawyer levels of truth. I'm talking practical/ethical. A version of this game existed for Playstation, MS did not HAVE TO stop the development of this version just because they bought the company. It could've been delayed, released on GamePass day one and still released elsewhere, etc...

I'm not here for a debate about how companies should go about making deals or what makes sense for MS financially, that's been said to death. From a consumer POV its taking games away, and it was sugar-coated PR speak.

Some of ya'll are too quick to go lawyer mode, its like when Sony said Please think about the children for cross play. Like come on...

While you are right to think that, MS is unfortuantely a business trying to get more subs to GP and doing that is only possible with exclusive content which Bethesda had so they used it. There is nothing ethical about business when you have competition that is very cut-throat.
 

BassForever

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
30,039
CT
It's not a hypothetical assumption. They themselves said it stopped because they got purchased lol. Would game hit PS if not for the acquisition? Dev seems to think so
The game could have also been canceled without the Microsoft acquisition, or without Sony/Microsoft paying for it to be an exclusive/timed exclusive. Maybe the game would have been f2p with microtransactions but switched to a premium title after the acquisition. We have no idea how things would have diverged if the Zenimax acquisition hadn't happened. Speculating is pointless because ultimately the CMA/EU don't give a fuck about anything other then CoD in the ABK deal. Only the FTC raised a stink about Microsoft allegedly taking away titles from Sony, and they're completely irrelevant on if this acquisition happens or not.
 

Ovvv

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Jan 11, 2019
10,030
Of course it would have. But there's never a guarantee. We all assumed Ghostwire and Deathloop were multiplatform at launch when they were announced, and guess what? They weren't.

This isn't new information and it's also not worth breaking out the pitchforks over.
I agree. There was never any pretending by Sony or people on this forum that those games weren't a paid exclusive, though. People on this forum have spent the last two years responding to the Starfield argument with "but we didn't know if it was coming to PS5!"
The game could have also been canceled without the Microsoft acquisition, or without Sony/Microsoft paying for it to be an exclusive/timed exclusive. Maybe the game would have been f2p with microtransactions but switched to a premium title after the acquisition. We have no idea how things would have diverged if the Zenimax acquisition hadn't happened. Speculating is pointless because ultimately the CMA/EU don't give a fuck about anything other then CoD in the ABK deal. Only the FTC raised a stink about Microsoft allegedly taking away titles from Sony, and they're completely irrelevant on if this acquisition happens or not.
This is such a ridiculous line of thinking that is never followed for timed exclusive deals that it's hardly worth addressing. "But 7R could have had less content if not for the exclusivity funding!" See how ridiculous that sounds?
 
Feb 19, 2023
1,913
They didn't even announce the game was coming to PS5, you can't take something away if it was never announced to begin with lol

It's always the same people coming into these topics in a transparant attempt at console warring, only to fail at proving Phil Spencer is lying regarding any of this until it repeats in another topic.

The only regulator who even brought this up (FTC: Redfall/Starfield) was embarrassed by the very regulator they used in their example (EU) and has absolutely zero sway on the deal closing at this point.

Agreed. If I was Sony I wouldn't bother taking any of Microsoft's "deals" and just rip the Band-Aid off in 2025
Sony has absolutely zero say regarding what they will not accept at this point; it's entirely up to the CMA (EU and China don't care about console concerns and FTC is irrelevant).

And, and here is a recent example of actual "taking games away"
XqpHFm4.jpg

Agendas only work one way. Didn't you know?
 

00Quan[T]

Banned
May 12, 2022
2,990
that's fine...again, I don't care about the richest company in the world's finances, from a consumer POV, it's fewer people that can play the game on their preferred ecosystem - period.

That's a bad look.

That's my opinion.
Oh sure, but that's how the industry has worked for forever, it isn't new and it isn't stopping.
 
Dec 9, 2018
21,538
New Jersey
A lot of this thread is just boiling down to people explaining why their preferred platform getting exclusives is Okay and Normal whereas the other platform getting exclusives is Concerning and Anti-Competitive.
 

Ombala

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,251
Phil would never take away games from other platforms he promises more games too more platforms, how is this even possible then?
 

Reckheim

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
9,519
Why would they? If it's 6 years or 10 years, it's going to be gone eventually. I'd would just end it ASAP and try to build FPS competitor or something.
You guys treat these companies as sports teams too much. COD brings in a lot of revenue for Sony, and that's all that madders to them.

All this 'for the players' BS you hear from both MS and Sony is just a load of crap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.