Edeprez-no you Jack the price up once you have a monopoly by cutting off your competitors and buying all the major IP's and no one has any choice anymore.
But the revenue doesn't matter to MS it does matter to Sony though- that'd why MS has an incentive to cut off its main competitors revenue streams wherever possible.
Really? They'll get more gamespass subscribers. It has 25 million subscribers... how many copies would a game like starfield have sold? 20 million? Maybe but probably not. Therefore the number of new subscribers won't be substantial .
You know except all sonys exclusives that are on pc now.... at a later date but still on pc. Moat of their exclusives dating back to at least 2016.... so your wrong the same can be said of Sony's titles.
MICROSOFT STARTED THAT TREND OF LOCKING DOWN DLC AND SKINS ETC.
Here here some sense and well after activision the regulators won't be allowing MS a third publisher... not unless they are rescuing one that has gone broke. So I think Sony have no incentive to buy square as they have alot of agreements with them anyway. Ubisoft has been struggling and is looking rather cheap and word is EA have been looking to be bought because its board and investors are grubby, greedy pricks. I'd say ubisoft would be the better bet with Sony as the purchaser. Ofc ...
You guys missed the last of us factions game....
Prefer this, no spoilers at all. They should just do a couple of trailers leading up to release but keep most of the story and villains etc a complete secret tbh. Pleasant surprise.
A game doesn't have to beat cod to be relevant but this is about a competitor buying your biggest income revenue stream with a view to cutting it off. THAT IS like the definition of an ANTI-TRUST case snd ehf the deal shouldn't go through.
Games like COD and Fortnite etc take off in a way no one expected theybwould when they made them or released them. Even to this day no one really knows why COD remains so popular a brand bur it does. There have been, are and will...
So destiny 2 sold a few million copies, literally a fraction of COD's yearly sales. Since going free to play with destiny 2 they apparently have a total of 37 million players but that's over like 7 years. They claim about 700k daily users and the title brings in about 200 million dollars a year.
https://progameguides.com/d...
It's not about matching call of duty.... you can more than match it but that doesn't mean it will take off or take COD's player base. It isn't one of those rational things. People don't buy COD because its the best shooter - they buy COD because its COD. You could produce a carbon copy and people still wouldn't buy it because it's not COD. 10 years is a long time maybe things will change but fifa games have been going strong year in year out for far, far longer so ...
@outsider more like 700 AAA exclusives unless the budgets of each of the 70 had a budget of a billion dollars lol
I thought Microsoft didn't go after third party exclusives timed or otherwise though? /s
Oh but it's been that for a long time. Everyone knows that's the case.
Ofc it is. Sony even entered negotiations to have it as a timed exclusive.... it was definitely coming to ps5.
By your logic in your other comments it's in microsofts interest not to release their AAA titles on games pass day 1 because of all the sales and revenue they subsequently miss out on which is not compensated for by the subscriptions to games pass. You are talking hundreds of millions lost income for a title like halo that cost 500 million to make.... but they still put it on games pass and ate the costs....
You could the original trailer had ps and xbox logos on the splash screen as did starfield. Starfield was in active development for ps5 and Microsoft basically shut that down and moved the devs to other parts of the game rather than ensuring they had a working ps5 build.
Streaming isn't where games are heading for a simple reason- latency. Most gamers will live too fsr from their isp. There'd a hard cap on what you can do with respect to latency and that cap is the speed of light in a fibre or in air. So you can't escape latency of between 40-100ms for a large proportion of gamers- the input lag that results in is a significant issue.
I mean quantum computing/communication coukd theoretically overcome this but the technology is...
They shouldn't be. If they force the games industry in that direction then it will mean smaller budgets for games and only games they know will keep people subscribed being made- I.e: safe franchises they know people like abd mostly free to play sequel games that are games as a service and you have to keep subscribed to retain access to.
"sony has a monopoly of 98% of Japanese games I'm told" pmsl whoever told you that just made you look like a total mug.