The market share numbers the FTC is working with is incorrect though as they strategically didn’t include Nintendo since it didn’t fit their narrative of a company being able to be competitive without CoD.
What is it called when Sony pays 3rd parties to keep games off Xbox permanently? The worst Microsoft ever did was pay for a one year exclusive window for a Tomb Raider game and they stopped doing that after the negative press.
Besides this doesn’t trigger the threshold for a monopoly for the market. This is a vertical merger rather than a horizontal merger, so it will go through.
The only way regulators can step in is if a purchase would violate monopoly laws. I don't know the percentages off the top of my head but I do know that even with the Activision purchase Microsoft wouldn't have crossed it due to the sheer number of studios/publishers out there. I saw somewhere that even with this purchase they would still at best be the third largest in the space behind Sony and someone else.
It takes time to make games. You can't expect them to have games ready from all of those studios right after the purchase. Some people are just impatient. The Bethesda purchase was an investment in the future and not the present.
All companies have flaws. Microsoft used to do this stuff too but what people don't realize or think through is that it comes down to leadership. The executives for both companies have been replaced multiple times over the years which ...
Not sure why anyone would downvote your comment. Not being a fanboy should be the goal. Puffing your chest out because of the plastic box you own is kid stuff.
I would argue the first reason is the only one. The second one is a byproduct of the first. I don't think any devs go into a project just to get the most out of the hardware. I think it just comes down to money but the second statement is a natural result of that process.
In a way you are correct but in another you are wrong. If Sony makes an acquisition it always goes exclusive unless staying multiplatform is part of the contractual obligation as in the case of Bungie. They don't have a history of sharing anything unless they are forced to like with MLB The Show. Microsoft on the other hand has launched new games on other platforms that they were under no obligation to do (Either with exclusives like Minecraft Legends or with publishing rights as in Or...
Your example is a bad one. Bungie made it part of their contractual terms in the acquisition that they remained multiplatform. It wasn't Sony being the good guys. All of their other acquisitions have been entirely exclusive. I don't buy what they are selling here.
I will be honest I don’t understand the people that trophy/achievement hunt. It just seems to be a massive waste of time for bragging rights that no one cares about. There are some difficult challenges for sure and those are nice to have I guess but to get them all is just not worth the time and effort.
I have a large back catalog of games purchased that I haven’t gotten to yet. Also I don’t give a damn about trophies or achievements. I would rather play games the way I want than to play them to check off a list. I just can’t bring myself to run around an open world map trying to collect 200 whatever for some worthless acknowledgement that I wasted my time.
The aiming is bad on console. I’m not sure why that is the case. It is better in the performance mode but still not perfect. I had no issues on PC with either keyboard or controller.
Game companies copy from each other all the time. It is the only way progress is made. I hope Microsoft does release an Xbox controller with both the haptic feedback and the adaptive triggers. I was surprised by how much I like the DualSense. I have always preferred Xbox controllers in the past due to the offset sticks and better triggers but that has changed this gen. I would probably still prefer the offset sticks but adding haptic feedback and less aggressive adaptive triggers would b...
Lol. The only time the Xbox was the weaker console was during the PS4/Xbox One era prior to the X and Pro models being released. This is just absurd.
Was Sony not taking away an existing IP in Spiderman, and making it exclusive by buying the studio to therefore limit access? They did literally the same thing but I never see Sony fans see a problem with it. If one of the ccompanies was going to do this I would rather it be Microsoft. At least that way it will also come to PC at the same time and not some BS 4 year window later.
What better way to make change than to buy the company and literally change it? Your comment doesn't make any sense. Do you think it would have been more impactful to just send a press release that you disagree?
You can be against the concept of exclusives on a personal level but if that is how the game is played then you have to on a business level. Have you never had to do something you disagreed with on your job? It isnt being a hypocrite as much as it is just what reality is. I am anti-exclusive as well and wish all exclusives would end but it isn't going to happen.
Why would it be bad business for Sony to put them day and date on PC? They don’t make money on selling console hardware. The point of selling the hardware is to get you into the ecosystem where each software purchase gets them a cut. They could easily create their own game launcher for PC and sell their services there as well and not lose a portion of the sale to Steam. I’m surprised they didn’t already do this to be honest.
People buy consoles for the price and ease ...
I don’t get your point. Your argument for not having same date releases looks like an argument for it to happen. Wouldn’t have to buy a PS5, check. Wouldn’t have to pay for PS+, check. Would play better there as well. Spending less money would be a win win for everyone if this move were to happen. Your only drawback is the digital only nature of PC. I hate to break it to you but that is coming for consoles as well whether you want it to happen or not. The digital only consoles this ge...
A PC doesn’t have to be the exact cost of a console. It can do more and has infinite backwards compatibility as well as full mod support. That is worth something over the price of a console.
Many experts including those that are in the legal field have scoffed at the argument this move is either anti-competitive or that it is monopolistic. You could argue the opposite in that it is pro consumer since CoD will remain multi platform yet, PC and Xbox players will have day one access to it for the monthly membership. Cheaper access to product is a pro consumer thing these regulatory bodies are supposed to support. Microsoft even offered to let Sony put CoD on PS Plus but they reje...