OK 2.9billion in revenue but what really matters is what profit it makes as the profits are meant to be what allows you ti reinvest into new games (unless you have deep pockets and can for the time being to wedge yourself into a market take large losses subsidised by large profits in other departments that dominate other industries *cough* windows, MS 365 AND Azure servers *cough*. Realistically for a smaller company let's take Sony who rely heavily on gaming or Nintendo who basically o...
No the point he is making is that (excluding bungie but that arrangement is different to the others) Sony buy devs they are already working closely with that generally have been acting a a 2nd or 3rd party exclusive developer. They are also typically their largest customer by a large margin. Microsoft is buying whole publishers that make primarily or only 3rd
Party multiplatforn titles and regardless of what they say so far their actions speak louder than words - making their titles...
@darth if you look at their hiring and stuff at the time they had recruited people with experience on PlayStation over 3 years prior to that point. So actually that simply isn't true. As soon as the basics of the gsme are done an AAA developer will be ensuring they continuously benchmark it against each console and checking it can run. In particular PlayStation running using a Linux based OS required a fair bit of work to ensure it'd running well. You dint wait until the final year or...
Yeah but a country like the uk or the eu has the clout to say no and know MS isn't going anywhere. @christopher below the uk isn't part of the eu anymore.
Funnily enough this migration you refer ti is what both eu and uk regulators cite in their decision to take matters further. They correctly view this as a threat to competition in the console industry and Microsoft acquiring effectively a monopoly going forwards. Also the fact still remains that activisionngames sell 4th most on Microsoft platforms so this is not a natural acquisition this is one aimed at taking out the competition.
*timed exclusive
That game wasn't very far along when MS bought them. The sale only went through about a year and abut ago. At the aoiint the game had been in development for over 5 years and was about 1 year from it's targeted release window.... so yeah it was far along.
Look it's pretty simple. Timed and total 3rd party exclusives have always been a thing and both sides have had them. However only one of the two big publishers has ever bought a game as exclusive after its announcement as a multiplatform title (rise of the tomb raider). Only one has bought a major publisher and then had games at an advanced development point canned for rival platforms (starfield).
Only one if them as a company as a whole has a history of appalling anti-trust inc...
Like the agreements for marketing rights that Microsoft has almost certainly stoo games appearing on os olusbfir a period of time. They are both at it and remember Microsoft started the whole paying fir marketing rights crap. Just Sony played them at their own game and had an advantage of larger player base thanks to their fuck up early on in ps4 and xbox ibe era.
Steam deck is clearly vastly superior. You can install operating system of choice on it and have more than one as I understand. You can access entire steam library and I believe thee are ways to access MS store and thus games pass. It's clearly superior to this because it has a much larger library of titles available to use on it.
I can't see how woke politics would fit into a splinter cell game so I'm ngl I'm confused. If uts ti gel with modern day threats nations face then Russia and China arr the obvious antagonists but they were in the original anyway? Weren't they? In a funny way we have had a reset psst couple of years to a situation where we face a threat involving moat of the former Soviet union and Chinese communist territories and those that were allied to them almost as if the past 30 years d...
Not defending them blindly but the two recent controversies are ridiculous. The price 'increase' of the ps5 was no such thing. What happened is other urgencies got significantly weaker than the dollar. Attempting to eat those changes could easily have cost Sony anywhere in the region of 300-600 million dollars based on projected sales for the next 12 months.
This controversy is even more ridiculous becauae if you have a clue what you are on about you would know t...
You couldn't be more wrong. You'd need to completely rework the fundamentals of moat games to switch between the light tracking camera functionality of the first headset and the inside out tracking of the new one. Its ALOT of work. Some pc games already had this work done for them in order to work with new headsets and I expect to see patches and new versions of them released. But others...it's very unlikely.
It's a long way from done. For example uk market competition authority have escalated ot and appointed an independent panel to investigate the deal and potential consequences. Sp fsr they have made ot clear that they don't like the consequences for market competition that this acquisition could have.
Massive difference between using support studios which everyone hasbakwaysbfonr and using other development studios... the difference between insomniac games working a full team on naughty dogs next major release.
That would make the console business worthless. The result of this court case winning would be it'd be pointless releasing games consoles in the uk in future. It would kill the market.
You have played it then?
I don't think it's reluctance per se but they tried to compete with cod and the shooters used to have their multiplayer lobbies die when cod released and if they released too soon- people would buy COD instead of the exclusive fps. Of course if NS made cod exclusive and Sony announced its own military fps ir a title like a new resistance then I think it would do well
COD won't be exclusive until sonys deal for the marketing rights expires I just realised the answer to my own question. The relevance or this is most likely that MS won't be able to out COD games on games pass till they have already been out for a year..... till the 2028 release...
You are thinking about this wrong. What if MS don't care about it making a profit yet but want to use it to force out their major competitors over time simply based on how much cheaper games pass is for the individual than buying games. MS can afford the losses and the financial hit because they make so much money in other industries. Their gaming competition cannot afford to do such things and as such over a few years will be either forced out if the industry or become a small minority o...