^ LMAO @ 343! Oh really? So you can't just sell an IP? Microsoft couldn't just sell the Xbox division? I think it's you who doesn't understand, my friend, but this comes as zero surprise.
A parent company can sell as a whole, or be broken up for individual sale of component parts. Look, we all have different life experiences. I don't want to poke fun at people who have taken a different route from myself, but if you haven't got a clue, just stay quie...
So are we okay with them showing a trailer for a game at over 10 years before it releases now?
Might add this to my little cardio playlist! Right now it's 45 mins of Beat Saber (Expert, faster song +8%), 15 minutes of Synth Riders to warm down...and then usually just a round of Walkabout Mini Golf, because I'm addicted lol
^ Yeah, except, @rlow1, that's not what I said. I said "any future COD games", as in not with a time limit. Microsoft would only agree with caveats, showing they place value on COD and not just mobile games. The Jim Ryan misquote was just his expectations and is WAY out of date regarding the current situation.
As for "because it's up to Activision", it's up to anyone making an offer to put their terms forward and have them agreed or declined....
Shame you weren't so protective over the creative process for the AI of Redfall, Phil.
It's definitely up with the big dogs, but I think Gran Turismo, The Last of Us and Spiderman are too. Then there's Uncharted, Horizon and Ratchet & Clank - all HUGE selling franchises.
I think with the success of Ragnarok, younger players might have been curious as to the GOW past games - certainly that was the case with my nephew. He was so enamoured with it (after 2018 and Ragnarok), he went and played the entire back catalogue of games!
So why not just buy King? Why buy Activision Blizzard too, and fight so hard over COD?
If it was all about mobile, they'd have signed to say any future COD games will be on PlayStation, but they refused to do that, so it doesn't show any such thing.
Same. And as everybody knows, you NEVER buy a Bethesda game for at LEAST 2 years after launch, so that most of the bugs have been ironed out, so you can add a couple more years after launch until it's actually finished. Heck, there are still bugged Skyrim quests on PS3 stopping people from 100%ing the game!
At this stage, ES6 isn't even in the equation as it's at least one - and possibly two - generations away lol
Maybe he's thinking the way things are going, Microsoft might predominantly be a third party publisher by then anyway. At least they will have had a chance to make significant changes to their engine by the time ES6 is out, so we don't get dodgy character models and animations that look two gens old.
Gotta say though, it's not a good look showing your trailer off right after the acquisition, getting people hyped and buying into Xbox, and then pulling the rug out...
Didja miss that it's average is 9.4/10 from 45 reviewers? Mostly 10/10s.
^ LMAO I literally just replied to what you said!
The whole point here is that you said "How is this even news, who else would be making that decision Jim Ryan? lol"
I explained that sometimes that's not the case. You've yet to concede the point or counter it. Instead, you bring Sony studios into the discussion (because whataboutisms is the smoothbrain's escape route of choice) and then you claim Zenimax had the luxury of deciding wh...
^ Hubris is very impressive, too. I'd still put Red Matter 2 ahead of it, but it's not far behind and it's another stunning visual showcase for PSVR2.
It also stands to reason it's true. It's brand new technology. With it's implementation of reprojection, so people notice it, others don't. Since it's software-based, they will be looking into it, no doubt. I've only seen it in GT7 during the VR spectator mode as the cars pass you at insane speeds, but if they can improve it further, more for the better!
I've not been around to see these review rolling in. Just checked: 94/100 from 45 reviews! Bonkers! this game is clearing up. I'm pleased to see it's every bit as good as the demo indicated.
^ Okay, at this stage I'm genuinely not sure if you're being dumb or deliberately obtuse. You asked a question and I answered it. Then you start taking quotes from Bethesda out of context to try to paint a different picture. Bethesda could, at any stage in the past, have decided NOT to release on PlayStation in order to speed up development, if that was their aim. But it wasn't. Making money was. They'd like their games on PS5, but are towing the party line now they've bee...
Todd Howard said: " WE'LL decide what best makes sense when the times comes" when interviewed about exclusivity. Just more lies.
Microsoft "pays the bills" for Mojang, too, but they can't remove Minecraft from PlayStation due to the purchasing agreement. Sometimes it's left up to the developer to decide, sometimes it's contractual obligation to publish on rival platforms and sometimes it's up to the acquiring party. It all depends on ...
Man, Sabaton are an awesome band! looking forward to this dropping on PSVR2 soon.
How about the developers/publishers themselves? I.e. Bethesda could decide to put Redfall on PS5 if they so wished, heaven forbid? Quit being so defensive all the time, and think.
This proves (like any further proof was necessary) that Phil is a liar, being that he claimed to believe that exclusives are "completely counter to what gaming is about" or that he didn't want to "force someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to go buy it, ...
They'd honestly have done better to take the financial hit, if it's down to inflation. This could kill them off entirely in the regions they're already weak in.
What makes the timing even worse is the relatively new availability of PS5 in many regions. Anybody already leaning towards getting a PS5 (given the choice between that or an xbox), will now have their choice made easier when the xbox prices goes up.