Begging for a 3rd release of a game. Nintendo got you all hook, line and sinker.
I like the idea of the game not being included, solves the crying about digital vs physical game. But the price in this case is clearly ridiculous.
Suggest waiting until it goes on clearance like these things usually do.
What a genius idea to put out a shitty demo if it doesn't represent the final product very well. They must love turning away customers.
Wasn't this a PS+ game or part of the Plus collection? Or am I misremembering?
Starfield absolutely was set to release.
What is hard to understand about this? This has nothing to do with old games or new games. It says they (Microsoft) has no incentive to stop making games for rival consoles.
(114) Therefore, according to the Notifying Party, Microsoft would not have the incentive
to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles.
Sony bought one of the biggest publishers in gaming? Never happened.
Sony told regulatory committees they wouldn't pull games from other consoles and then did it anyway? Never happened.
Sony then tried to buy the biggest publisher and made the exact same claims? Never happened.
Well Star field for sure. Redfall was in development for 5 years, so to think they weren't planning on putting that on Playstation would be a crock of shit.
Now name some games that they did release? The only ones they were under contract to do.
I mean the whole EU document is available to any e to read. Microsoft clearly makes claim they would not pull games from rival consoles.
https://ec.europa.eu/compet...
Section 5.2.3.2. Incentive to engage in input foreclosure
Dude are you reading the EU's actually documents? It was shown to you.
Here's the full document. https://ec.europa.eu/compet...
Scroll down to the following section and start reading.
5.2.3.2. Incentive to engage in input foreclosure
Nothing was debunked. Microsoft said it. They said it didn't make financial sense to pull the games from other consoles because it wouldn't lead to more console sales.
Link has already been shared. Here it is again.
https://ibb.co/r33g1B7
EU didn't ask. Microsoft said it. Yes, they misled them 100%.
Did you read the article because it makes sense. Microsoft doesn't want to show off all these games coming from Bethesda because they told the EU they wouldn't take Bethesda games from other consoles. They'd rather not bring attention to it.
What does it matter what they promised? The facts are that they are keeping them off. That is the FTC's issue here.
I just said it yesterday... Microsoft promising COD for 10 years... okay? What about the rest of Activision Blizzard? It is the biggest publisher in the world.
@sonyslave3
All those characters you mentioned +Ave been around for a loooong time. This was a brand new main character. That's the difference.
Not saying I agree with it.
So the Microsoft President really said the following in regards to the accusations "“That would be a huge mistake. It would hurt competition, consumers and thousands of game developers,” Smith said of the reported lawsuit."
Seems pretty stupid of him to say, because he just proved everyone right about this being an anti-competitive purchase. There are way more games than just COD involved in this, and while I understand it is probably the biggest game in a gaming...
Wait... last week the whole point was Candy Crush. Now we're onto consumer choice.
List all of Jim Ryan's lies and I guarantee you we can have a Phil Spencer list that is 5 times longer. It is hard for him to open his mouth without lying.
You don't have to pay full price for new games.
Is it common that basically a specific "department" of a company/location can unionize and not just the whole company/location?
Sony is the one you want to attack over IPs? See Nintendo fan boys are off their rockers. Even Microsoft is better than Nintendo at new IPs.