I agree, though with elder scrolls 6 not having anything for over a decade after Skyrim wouldn't of felt great either, I honestly think there's no wining in these situations, starfield really needs to deliver too since it's a new IP, I was sure I heard they'd had a working build since summer last year too, oh well.
Dont see how since 1 they dont own them yet and 2 sony probably has it blocked in the contract
Why would Sony or any company pay tens of millions of dollars on marketing just for it to be better or cheaper to play on another system?
Damn it. Guess I know what my winter looks like this year.
Always prefer to see a game delayed than released rough though. The better the launch is, the happier I'll be in the long run. Definitely hurts to see from a BGS game though =(
Yeah. How is that worse than just paying a third party to completely skip a competitor's platform?
I don't remember that. Maybe the "parity" nonsense, but not the exclusivity window for services and all that as part of marketing.
I mean it's not a sabotage, it's just saying that we're going to give you money and market your game but don't go put it day one on a competitor's service or give the competitor exclusive features. It doesn't sound that crazy, idk.
The part that was debunked was all the arguments over "visual parity" as if the contract was preventing the Xbox version from running at 8K or something because it can't run that way on PS5. The jist of the debunk was that it was a boiler plate marketing contract that each platform holder has used before to some extent. e.g. Cyberpunk being an Xbox marketed title probably meant that Microsoft had a similar "you can't be a PS+ game for X months, we get to discuss you coming to Game Pass before you try going to PS Now", etc.
We'll probably see a deep dive next month. Do you really think they don't have anything for this game?
