pleeeeeaasseeee stop comparing apples to oranges. You are making a false equivalency between the two conducts and you are either too stupid to know better or are blatantly acting the fool. Besides, doesn't MS also engage in the same sort of blocking of games? The answer is YES they DO.
and you have this insider information from...?
yeah no kidding. This business plan makes gamers pay more for the same amount of gaming. You are paying for services every month but you might also purchase a game outside of the service because lets face it, the service does not have all the games you want to play...
well, let me fix the title:
"I believe Sony is out of its mind if project Q costs more than 200".
My take on it is, shouldn't we wait until we find out about the device before talking about it like we know what it offers?
Oh god if it gets blocked I will have renewed hope in humanity. But if they couldn't stop the telecommunication monopolies from forming and ripping customers off with Internet/cellphone/cable, then what chance do we really have?
MS are utterly full of CRAP, that about sums it up.
lol these guys want to have what they have with Office and Windows. No progress, no innovation, shitty everything, but no competitors. That is what MS is after. What they are saying is akin to price fixing. No Thank YOU.
According to Spencer, MS does not do timed exclusivity. But here we are again. Seems they just say what they like with zero accountability.
I don't see anyone all that excited. Do you? Or are you preemptively taking a shot at people.
Personally, don't know this game and don't think it will be as good as the xbox fanboys made it out to be at the time like it was the best things since sliced bread.
MS, not just Phil, are liars.
unfortunately, for every person that understands how MS is feeding us buzz words, there is 10 that do not. Phill is not making these comments by chance. This is MS's corporate strategy. Disinformation in the form of simple statements. Even if the statement doesn't actually make sense.
Lets not bundle them up together when one is clearly running around with disinformation to get this deal go through though.
More like he just says buzz words for his audience to make them believe MS are the good guys in all this while they pull off the shittiest acquisition in history of the gaming industry. His statement doesn't even make sense. But that does not matter.
If he is acquiring Activision, then they wouldn't even be 3rd party soo... how would he "not do 3rd party exclusivity" if they already would own Activision? Its crazy, Spenser just says nonsense and people gobble it up. It doesn't even have to make sense. They just feed buzz words to their fans so they think that MS is the good guys despite all the shitty things they are doing. Its mass brainwashing.
But you already are though. I am confused.
Playstation pretty much outselling xbox 2 to 1 on a constant. That is insane.
PS5 is actually outpacing PS4 in comparison to their respective xbox competitor. PS5 is doubling xbox series for this month while PS4 was almost doubling xbox one sales.
@Ipunchbabiesforfun, and giovonni
You two seem to be missing the point. MS is saying their acquisition of largest mulitplatform publisher is pro competition, then we get their internal emails talking about acquisition as a means to "push Sony out of business". There is a reason why there are laws against this sort of acquisition. MS is not a good member of the game industry.
MS is not trying to compete, they are trying to make sure to deprive others so that they can get a strangle hold on the industry. There is absolutely no reason for MS to be purchasing the largest 3rd party Multiplatform publisher in the industry. They already have enough studios. They have not earned 70 BILLION dollars during their entire time in the industry. They are splashing this cash to push others out. It's not competition MS wants. Its domination through the back door.
The others are competing in the industry, MS is literally saying they want to use acquisitions to deprive oxygen to competitors. It's a different plan altogether.
Simply, because the judge decides whether they proved it or not, and if the Judge can be biased because her son worked for the Corporation, it creates a conflict of interest.
Also, the litigation is on going so I'm not sure what you mean "the FTC didn't prove".