Being in third place is not a good point. They are in third place because their own poor management has lead to consumer choice not being in their favor. This is how the economy does and should work. We don't bail them out by allowing them to buy massive chunks of the market. It also doesn't make sense since overly rich companies could take advantage if pity points were to be given for poor management to justify massive purchases. Their management has been poor and consumers put them ...
To help Sony and their developers with their online gaming, GaaS, and future multiplayer titles. Keeping Bungie independent and multiplatform is in their contract and set in stone when they were acquiring them. It's not some timed extension in response to anti-consumer monopoly investigations to try and appear like you're not doing it to keep games away from competitors.
@gangsta
No, because SFV was never planned to be made during that time and Capcom was having financial issues and not sure what to make as their next game.
Why just CoD? What about the other Activision/Blizzard games? CoD is just the biggest example. Why is there no permenant verbage in contract the same as what Bungie and Sony have?
@darth
"would this be another situation of Sony becoming complacent with their...
@Zhipp
Like he said. Irreplaceable. It's like trying to make something to rival Coca-Cola. However difficult that is. However better another cola could be. It isn't Coca-Cola or as recognizeable. Except for gaming, recognition and familiar systems are a much bigger imprint than taste buds and brand reach. They could make a game as good or better than CoD, but it doesn't even matter because it still wouldn't sell like CoD. People buy CoD because it's CoD....
Because why would they ever do that?
Just like they didn't buy Bethesda/Zenimax in order to keep games away from competitors, and then immediately did that when the deal finalized.
Motive or not, it doesn't mean they don't provide good reasons that hurt the market as to why these IP's altogether will hurt the open market if the ability to restrict them exists. The reason to downplay what owning Activision means versus buying marketing rights is ridiculous. MS does this too. This is a huge reas...
The difference is Microsoft literally got offered any Marvel game first. MS turned it down. Sony said yes and chose Spider-Man. The market worked itself out. They didn't waltz in and start making offers for the sake of removing games off competing platforms.
I feel like no thought other than odd contempt of Sony went into this comment. The only way none of their examples come true is if no Activision/Blizzard games go exclusive.
Super exciting to think about how many poor families or hobby gamers that barely afford one console would now be locked out of major games that were already on both consoles for decades. Especially with the current expensive cost of living.
@Asplundh
Sony's acquisition of Bungie wasn't mostly for their games. It was for their expertise. They want the developers that basically defined what modern online console gaming is(Halo) to help them develop their online systems, live service(meh), and just to help their studios with these things in mind as they develop their games and support existing ones.
The deal to buy Bungie only went through on one condition. It was as long as Bungie is s...
"their days as leader are numbered if this goes through."
Well, that's what makes this an anti-consumer move. If you are agreeing the weight of this acquisition will affect them, which it will, then you agree by extension that this acquisition is a monopoly style move. No, a monopoly move isn't protected just because you aren't a top performer. There will be a huge burden on consumer choice if this goes through.
Nothing to do with how good Sony games are or faith in their studios.
Activision/Blizzard have many number 1 placeholders in many genres. They are massive games. The damage to their platform does exist and this damage comes straight to the consumer as well. All these sly twists in what they're saying is petty and the people saying this isn't a problem are part of another problem so together. They just took the biggest western RPG developer off the open market. Now...
Funny that people taking 10 seconds to point out a not good joke are riled up and not someone interested in a rise out of people and commenting about it
@SonyStyled
Last of Norse, yes. It's still open to other pantheons. They only said they did not want to do a trilogy. Not that it won't have anything more. I would love to see another pantheon but I'm not sure how the story will progress into another pantheon.. unlike we play Atreus on a journey to see other realms. Though if we come back to David Jaffe's approach, perhaps other pantheons may try to invade this one and open the door for them to attack them
@Orchard
Make a good joke
@Jimmy
Okay..
Backwards Compatability. The console literally had no games to look forward to. They added this as a desperate tactic. It still isn't as versatile as people tried to make it out to be and few truly took advantage of this feature. It makes more headlines for existing than it does for being used.
GamePass. Another social media influenced campaign. PSNow was easily the best deal in gaming at $60. The only benefit of GameP...
@Orchard
Ahh my mistake. I think I was confusing the fake delay news prior to the real delay announcement.
@GamingSinceForever.
Correct. GoW was never, ever delayed. This is a rumor people kept on pushing since years ago. Fake leakers, and those that choose to believe made up info to use in their statements and disregard fact. It released the year they said it would release. Once they had a more concrete date during the actual year and gave us the date, it delivered on the date they said it would.
Sounds like an easy way to get bribed. What's this theory people have that his comment would make them void of reason and to pass the contrary?
Also.. Sony monopoly over governing bodies? What? Having a bigger fanbase does not make you a monopoly. Having control over supplies, goods, and services does. This is why despite Microsoft's ridiculous claim that being in last place justifies acquiring massive third party publishers and devs is ridiculous. They failed to g...
@343_Guilty_Spark
That's exactly what they are doing by acquiring them. Trying to do a temporary extension of CoD is just to appear nicer for when this goes to court. They also have tons of other number 1 franchises for several other genres that they would control.
While they are third party, they have shareholders that have a say in big decisions like that, and they lose hundreds of millions per IP by not being on PlayStation. They aren't going ...