Microsoft responds to Sony's claim that Call of Duty is unrivaled & unique (Claims Sony is paying to block games from Gamepass)

Bungie · Aug 10, 2022

PeskyToaster said:
Does Microsoft actually say that they failed in the console space? That would be kinda wild if they insinuated that.

Why is it wild? They realised that going head to head on console sales again PlayStation was a fight they would struggle to win. Refocusing their business model to prioritise subscription revenue by setting up a game library service was a move no one had been aggressive with. They had the server infrastructure, some of the dev studios, and the cash to expand their content pipeline, build, and then grow the service.

They started playing a different game instead of losing the same one my a different margin every 5 years. And whilst people were still making jokes about console sales not being a KPI, they were well on their way to building a service that will now be very hard for anyone to compete with.

Damn Silly · Aug 10, 2022

Idas said:
But yeah, some sites acting like they are the origin of the info is like 🤨 At least say that it comes from Resetera.

It's especially...amusing when those same folk - rightly! - get up in arms about other sites and the like about attribution when it's their original story but nada here.

Like yeah, I totally believe that a bunch of English-speaking sites just so happened to be looking through Brazilian administrative documents 😉

DuvalDevil · Aug 10, 2022

shadowsdarknes said:
It's not that great of a question, really.
Especially when we are comparing 75+ billions of dollars of industry capital absorption to something like a single exclusive

No offense mate but you're moving the goalposts. Your post I was original referring to said that "popular multi-platform games should be on as many platforms as possible". Full stop.

Were was your criticism for Sony when they did it with countless games in the past? Did you criticize that?

And while it's obviously more drastic to buy a publisher directly, that still doesn't change your original statement in combination with Sony's numerous actions in the past. Again: Did you criticize Sony in any of the exclusives they bought? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no.

renoch · Aug 10, 2022

Megabreath said:
I have never got how Sony paying for FF exclusivity is a crime against gaming, yet MS taking away all of Bethesda games off Playstation is fine. Isn't it two different ways to achieve the same goal?

MS have offered all first party games to Playstation, Sony just have to allow gamepass. All these games go to where game pass is, and Sony don't want it on Playstation
Sony are stopping Playstation users getting Starfield and other Bethesda games, not Microsoft.

Markratos · Aug 10, 2022

00Quan[T] said:
Well they're funding games from the ground up, injecting the money directly into the game.
Nothing guarantees that a moneyhat money goes directly to the game or devs, I'm sure some executives would rather take it for themselves.

Like Bethesda, Square wasn't the wealthiest company at the time, and its executives took the deals that benefited their companies the most (And yes, executives take money from their companies, like they do when they sell them).

Splader said:
Yes, actually. It's why I have no issues at all with Bloodborne or say Demon Souls. And it's also why I don't quite think S5V was "saved" by Sony, or that Sony was that instrumental in FF7re.

If a game is published by someone, then they funded that game and so can choose where to release it. But I don't think Sony funded Crash Team Racing, so yeah I'm gonna call them scummy for preventing that from releasing on other consoles for a while.

In this case, MS is purchasing ABK. Meaning that the next crash or Spyro will be funded by them entirely. So yes, I see no issue with them deciding (or not deciding) to keep those exclusive.

In other words, for you it is more beneficial for the players that a company transforms a multiplatform franchise into a permanent exclusive, than a temporary one that will end up appearing on other consoles. (Bit strange)

Biosnake · Aug 10, 2022

man it got spicy in here

RedRum · Aug 10, 2022

Splader said:
So for fun, I decided to look at just the timed lists for PS4 and Xbox One. These of course don't include PS5 titles like Deathloop, Godfall, or Tokyo Ghostwire. I removed any game that had "import" on it and I limited it to the "Retail" side, which I assume means a physical release.

ATV Drifts & Tricks (Microids)

Azur Lane: Crosswave (Idea Factory International)

Battlezone (Rebellion)

Birthdays the Beginning (NIS America)

Catherine: Full Body (Atlus)

Code: Realize ~Bouquet of Rainbows~ (Aksys Games)

Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy (Activision)

Digimon Story: Cyber Sleuth (Bandai Namco)

Digimon Story: Cyber Sleuth Hacker's Memory (Bandai Namco)

Disgaea 5: Alliance of Vengeance (NIS America)

Dragon Quest XI: Echoes of an Elusive Age [Unreal Engine 4 Ver.] (Square Enix)

Dragon Quest Builders (Square Enix)

Fairy Fencer F: Advent Dark Force (Idea Factory International)

Fate/Extella: The Umbral Star (XSEED Games)

Final Fantasy VII Remake (Square Enix)

Final Fantasy X | X-2 HD Remaster (Square Enix)

Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age (Square Enix)

God Eater 3 (Bandai Namco)

God Wars: Future Past (NIS America)

Killing Floor 2 (Deep Silver)

Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 + 2.5 Remix (Square Enix)

Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8: Final Chapter Prologue (Square Enix)

The Legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel III (NIS America)

LEGO Harry Potter Collection (Warner Bros.)

Megadimension Neptunia VII (Idea Factory International)

NieR: Automata (Square Enix)

No Man's Sky (Hello Games)

One Piece: Pirate Warriors 3 (Bandai Namco)

Raiden V: Director's Cut (UFO Interactive)

Romance of the Three Kingdoms XIV (Koei Tecmo)

Space Hulk: Ascension (Hoplite Research)

Steins;Gate 0 (PQube)

Sudden Strike 4 (Kalypso Media)

Sword Art Online: Hollow Realization (Bandai Namco)

The Talos Principle: Deluxe Edition (Devolver Digital)

Tropico 5 (Kalypso Media)

Trover Saves the Universe (Squanch Games)

Valkyria Chronicles Remastered (Sega)

Wild Guns Reloaded (Natsume)

World of Final Fantasy (Square Enix)

Yakuza 0 (Sega)

Yakuza: Kiwami (Sega)

Yakuza: Kiwami 2 (Sega)

Yonder: The Cloud Catcher Chronicles (Prideful Sloth)

Ys VIII: Lacrimosa of DANA (NIS America)

A fair bit of Japanese titles on here too of course, where I imagine Sony didn't pay for timed. Though who knows?

Dead Rising 4 (Microsoft)

Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare (EA)

Rise of the Tomb Raider (Square Enix)

So yeah, not sure how people can ever equate these. And yes, Xbox does have a fair bit of smaller timed stuff for non retail games. So does Sony!

Frankly, you can come up with a myriad of ways to remove, subtract, and/or minimize the robustness of Sony exclusivity practices however you want in that head of yours, but I'll just keep referencing the data unfiltered, thanks. Your stance was clear earlier when you mentioned that Sony "cultivates" and Microsoft "buys". Bad faith arguments will remain as such and we'll get no where. Goodbye!

Deleted member 93062 · Aug 10, 2022

Markratos said:
In other words, for you it is more beneficial for the players that a company transforms a multiplatform franchise into a permanent exclusive, than a temporary one that will end up appearing on other consoles. (Bit strange)

Yes.

That allows the company to pour more resources into the game because their goal is to get people into their ecosystem rather than get the most ROI on that individual game.

Also, that leads the competing platform to invest in a competitor to whatever game went exclusive. If Sony made Destiny exclusive, maybe we could get a Destiny-like game from Xbox. More high budget games competing with each other = better for consumers.

Astronomer · Aug 10, 2022

Interesting...
I mean, it's understandable some Sony shoots but, they are also quite weak and the Ms' replay is on point.
We will see

shadowsdarknes · Aug 10, 2022

DuvalDevil said:
No offense mate but you're moving the goalposts. Your post I was original referring to said that "popular multi-platform games should be on as many platforms as possible". Full stop.

Were was your criticism for Sony when they did it with countless games in the past? Did you criticize that?

And while it's obviously more drastic to buy a publisher directly, that still doesn't change your original statement in combination with Sony's numerous actions in the past. Again: Did you criticize Sony in any of the exclusives they bought? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no.

I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm simply rejecting the false equivalence here.

I've had plenty of criticism for calling moves like this stupid and meaningless that don't bring value to the consumer nor do I think it's a best use of Sony's money. But no, my criticism was also never going to reach the level I have towards publisher buying because its falsely equivalent.

And this also cuts two ways. Timed exclusives on this board have been met with tons of ire. And if they've disproportionately affected Xbox in the past, the permanently purchasing IPs and studios which is far more impactful is met with excitement. And that's worse.

LanceX2 · Aug 10, 2022

BabyDontHurtMe said:
Xbox is Microsoft though. Regulators aren't going to give a shit about what investors thought about a brand eight years ago.

Sony doesnt just make games either. They just tiny compared to MS

Splader · Aug 10, 2022

RedRum said:
Frankly, you can come up with a myriad of ways to remove, subtract, and/or minimize the robustness of Sony exclusivity practices however you want in that head of yours, but I'll just keep referencing the data unfiltered, thanks. Your stance was clear earlier when you mentioned that Sony "cultivates" and Microsoft "buys". Bad faith arguments will remain as such and we'll get no where. Goodbye!

I uh, think you might have gotten the wrong person lol?

Markratos said:
In other words, for you it is more beneficial for the players that a company transforms a multiplatform franchise into a permanent exclusive, than a temporary one that will end up appearing on other consoles. (Bit strange)

Beneficial? I suppose that depends on who's customer you are. And even then it won't really matter if (hopefully when) Sony starts adding their fp titles to ps plus.

But no, ideally every game is multiplatform. I don't really care where people play, but I do have a vested interested in Game Pass having more and more value, considering I'm subbed for another 3 years.

Same thing with PS Plus btw, as I'm subbed to premium for around two years right now.

RedRum · Aug 10, 2022

Rodelero said:
Are there actually people in this thread contradicting the fact that Sony's consoles, historically, have had more games on them than Microsoft's?

I can't help but feel you're conflating two very different situations:
1. A game isn't on X platform because the developer doesn't think it is worth it
2. A game isn't on X pltaform because of a deal with the platform holder

I'm not sure where you are going with this. My reply was not a general one, but a response to a specific thread reply. Did you read those?

Darkkahn · Aug 10, 2022

That's Politics, B!tch!

RedRum · Aug 10, 2022

Splader said:
I uh, think you might have gotten the wrong person lol?

Beneficial? I suppose that depends on who's customer you are. And even then it won't really matter if (hopefully when) Sony starts adding their fp titles to ps plus.

But no, ideally every game is multiplatform. I don't really care where people play, but I do have a vested interested in Game Pass having more and more value, considering I'm subbed for another 3 years.

Same thing with PS Plus btw, as I'm subbed to premium for around two years right now.

Oops. My bad. Maybe? I dunno. I am trying to juggle replies on mobile.

Markratos · Aug 10, 2022

Sullivan said:
Yes.

That allows the company to pour more resources into the game because their goal is to get people into their ecosystem rather than get the most ROI on that individual game.

Also, that leads the competing platform to invest in a competitor to whatever game went exclusive. If Sony made Destiny exclusive, maybe we could get a Destiny-like game from Xbox. More high budget games competing with each other = better for consumers.

I really want to see how many people have this reasoning if after acquiring Activision, Sony tries to compete and buy Kadokawa or Capcom and make their games exclusive. (Might be interesting to watch.)

Deleted member 93062 · Aug 10, 2022

Markratos said:
I really want to see how many people have this reasoning if after acquiring Activision, Sony tries to compete and buy Kadokawa or Capcom and make their games exclusive. (Might be interesting to watch.)

You don't know me lol…

I've shown support for Sony buying anybody just as much as I do for Nintendo, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc,.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/playstation-studios-ot26-ghost-of-spartacus.560977/post-84350579

https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...-sony-buying-square-enix.579398/post-86025809

Arn · Aug 10, 2022

Ultimately Sony are in a position of complete dominance and have used this to spend vast sums of money locking content away from other systems. That is Sony's model, it is ruthlessly successful and they charge their customers a premium to be part of that ecosystem.

It doesn't surprise me that in addition to all forms of known exclusivity deals they are spending money to block Game Pass users from accessing content.

I don't love publishers being bought up but I also think a company is absolutely justified in changing the model and making big moves in order to compete with such a significant market-leader.

shadowsdarknes · Aug 10, 2022

Markratos said:
In other words, for you it is more beneficial for the players that a company transforms a multiplatform franchise into a permanent exclusive, than a temporary one that will end up appearing on other consoles. (Bit strange)

Under the guise no less of "well now they are taking on the financial risk!" in a thread with people talking about how the company won't even notice the expense in a year.

This logic really applies to every large tech giant absorbing smaller tech companies for their exclusive use. "but now they're on the company payroll how is this bad" is literally used everywhere as big tech continues to do what it does.

Splader · Aug 10, 2022

RedRum said:
Oops. My bad. Maybe? I dunno. I am trying to juggle replies on mobile.

My reply there was just highlighting the sheer difference in (retail) timed deals between the two platforms.

MS fully learned their lesson after the whole Tomb Raider fiasco. AAA games are off-limits.

Sony, uh, didn't agree lol.

Markratos said:
I really want to see how many people have this reasoning if after acquiring Activision, Sony tries to compete and buy Kadokawa or Capcom and make their games exclusive. (Might be interesting to watch.)

If they do this, then they do this. It's just business.

Hopefully though by then they have their first party games release day one on their sub, and I'll continue to stack up PS Plus.

Witness · Aug 10, 2022

Great use of money, sure your studios would of hated to have that cash flow to them instead.

Splader · Aug 10, 2022

shadowsdarknes said:
Under the guise no less of "well now they are taking on the financial risk!" in a thread with people talking about how the company won't even notice the expense in a year.

Do you think if Xbox was bleeding money every year, with no hope in sight, MS would simply keep throwing money into the platform?

LanceX2 · Aug 10, 2022

PulseMC said:
They do console exclusive deals (Death's Door, Tunic, Rogue Legacy 2) that last for like 6 months or so nowadays, but I don't think Game Pass has any sort of exclusivity clauses. For example, the entire Yakuza series has been on Game Pass for quite some time, with some getting readded like a month ago. Now those same games have been announced for PS+. I don't think there has been enough time to really see how the two services will affect each other.

None of those compare to deathloop , Street Fighted. 4 Final Fantasy Games and more

LanceX2 · Aug 10, 2022

Fisty said:
And how is that even remotely comparable to COD

CoD is on all platforms it can be on. FF is not..what are you asking.

Splader · Aug 10, 2022

LanceX2 said:
None of those compare to deathloop , Street Fighted. 4 Final Fantasy Games and more

I don't think the user was implying they do!

AImalexia · Aug 10, 2022

MS wants content for gamepass so buying publishers/studios is the way to do it. In the long run it's going to be way cheaper to do it this way, right now it probably already would cost >100m dollars to put something like COD or Starfield day one on the service, imagine the price when gamepass has 40,50,60m users, publishers would ask for more as the service grows because they'd lose more sales.

Microsoft growth means Sony regression, because there are a limited amount of costumers, so no wonder they are doing what they can to stop MS, gamepass blocks, securing content through acquisitions and moneyhats and kicking and screaming to whoever asks them what they think.

In the end everyone will be fine, it's just that if sony wants to keep living off selling boxes and their ps store cut, they just need a lot more devs so that customers can live off their first party content, like nintendo does, and they are doing this already with like 5-6 purchases between last year and this one. But also they might want to evolve into something a bit more platform agnostic, like they are doing on the PC.

danm999 · Aug 10, 2022

Yeah the argument CoD is some irreplaceable resource was not gonna fly

Expect regulators will look at Sonys complaints and figure the acquisition will give Microsoft an advantage but probably not one that constitutes intervention

DuvalDevil · Aug 10, 2022

shadowsdarknes said:
I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm simply rejecting the false equivalence here.

I've had plenty of criticism for calling moves like this stupid and meaningless that don't bring value to the consumer nor do I think it's a best use of Sony's money. But no, my criticism was also never going to reach the level I have towards publisher buying because its falsely equivalent.

And this also cuts two ways. Timed exclusives on this board have been met with tons of ire. And if they've disproportionately affected Xbox in the past, the permanently purchasing IPs and studios which is far more impactful is met with excitement. And that's worse.

But you do tho.

Your statement is now in direct contrast to your original statement.

shadowsdarknes · Aug 10, 2022

Splader said:
Do you think if Xbox was bleeding money every year, with no hope in sight, MS would simply keep throwing money into the platform?

No.

But the end effect of a paid for exclusive and buying a publisher is very much the same to the end consumer.
We are talking about a profitable division purchasing highly lucrative talent and IPs. I don't really think your hypothetical really applies here.

Rodelero · Aug 10, 2022

Bungie said:
Why is it wild? They realised that going head to head on console sales again PlayStation was a fight they would struggle to win. Refocusing their business model to prioritise subscription revenue by setting up a game library service was a move no one had been aggressive with. They had the server infrastructure, some of the dev studios, and the cash to expand their content pipeline, build, and then grow the service.

They started playing a different game instead of losing the same one my a different margin every 5 years. And whilst people were still making jokes about console sales not being a KPI, they were well on their way to building a service that will now be very hard for anyone to compete with.

I think Microsoft could have competed in a traditional fashion if they hadn't dropped the ball enormously around the 2010 period. What they were doing with 360 was absolutely working but they squandered it chasing the Wii audience with Kinect and then the disastrous Xbox One launch. That coincided with them shrinking their first party which made it much harder for them to regain ground when Spencer put them back on a sane footing. They lacked patience back then, but in the end it's not going to matter much because of Game Pass.

Game Pass gives Microsoft the thing they've always wanted from Xbox: a pathway to success way beyond just sharing the console market. What's more, the fact that Microsoft are already a dominant tech company in many fields gives them reserves that their competitors can't match. Game Pass was growing quickly anyway, but with Bethesda, Activision and Blizzard its growth is going to be hugely accelerated. And let's be honest, would anyone bet against Microsoft buying another massive publishers in the next couple of years?

RedRum said:
I'm not sure where you are going with this. My reply was not a general one, but a response to a specific thread reply. Did you read those?

"I know a lot of people here..."

shadowsdarknes · Aug 10, 2022

DuvalDevil said:
But you do tho.

Your statement is now in direct contrast to your original statement.

I said games should be on as many platforms as possible. My statement now is that timed exclusives are bad. That's not a direct contrast. It's direct support! :D

get2sammyb · Aug 10, 2022

I feel like the way this is being framed is a little misleading. The way it's being presented is like Sony is rocking up with a suitcase full of money and saying to publishers, "Take this, and don't release on Game Pass."

What I think is actually happening is they're buying marketing rights to promote a specific game, on State of Plays and in commercials and stuff, and part of that contract/clause prevents the publisher from releasing their game on Game Pass because... Well, if they did, the marketing contract would be pointless, wouldn't it?

I mean, the end result is the same, but I do think framing it correctly is key.

Splader · Aug 10, 2022

shadowsdarknes said:
But the end effect of a paid for exclusive and buying a publisher is very much the same to the end consumer.

Not always. If Sony had bought square, for example, then I'd have known for years that FF7Re was never coming to Xbox, and I would have been okay with it.

Instead now every June I get my hopes up that this is the year it's going to be announced for Xbox. Which of course never happens.

A small example I know, but hey it's a personal one!

get2sammyb said:
What I think is actually happening is they're buying marketing rights to promote a specific game, on State of Plays and in commercials and stuff, and part of that contract/clause prevents the publisher from releasing their game on Game Pass

This is what I assumed as well. And that's also what we know from the leaked RE8 docs.

shadowsdarknes · Aug 10, 2022

Splader said:
Not always. If Sony had bought square, for example, then I'd have known for years that FF7Re was never coming to Xbox, and I would have been okay with it.

Instead now every June I get my hopes up that this is the year it's going to be announced for Xbox. Which of course never happens.

A small example I know, but hey it's a personal one!

Yeah the terms of these timed exclusive deals are not often very clear on purpose. And it's dumb. The games industry is often unpleasantly opaque.
And I'm sure with Activision IPs, there will be some uncertainty about the future or availability on competing platforms, as well.

Splader · Aug 10, 2022

shadowsdarknes said:
Yeah the terms of these timed exclusive deals are not often very clear on purpose. And it's dumb. The games industry is often unpleasantly opaque.
And I'm sure with Activision IPs, there will be some uncertainty about the future or availability on competing platforms, as well.

Hopefully whatever round table type thing they have will be more clear. Like how they were with Bethesda once they could finally talk about it.

Thorn · Aug 10, 2022

God I'm glad I'm a PC Gaming primarily.

Kuro · Aug 10, 2022

Splader said:
This will fall on deaf ears here. Most of this site played on PS for years and weren't affected at all by Sony's exclusivity deals.

So be ready for the hand waving.

Nothing about that list specifies money hats. Apparently having better 3rd party support means Sony moneyhatted all those games from appearing on the Xbox platform lol.

I'm not going to argue that Sony doesn't do it because of course they do but what a misleading statement.

Porcine prophet · Aug 10, 2022

get2sammyb said:
I feel like the way this is being framed is a little misleading. The way it's being presented is like Sony is rocking up with a suitcase full of money and saying to publishers, "Take this, and don't release on Game Pass."

What I think is actually happening is they're buying marketing rights to promote a specific game, on State of Plays and in commercials and stuff, and part of that contract/clause prevents the publisher from releasing their game on Game Pass because... Well, if they did, the marketing contract would be pointless, wouldn't it?

I mean, the end result is the same, but I do think framing it correctly is key.

I dont think framing is very relevant. Maybe from a reporting standpoint for the sake of clickbait. Its basically just a degree of hyperbole to get the point across. I mean, this isnt even new info. We knw that both Xbox and PS have policies like these in place.

LanceX2 · Aug 10, 2022

Activision WANTED to be bought and Sony cant buy them nor can most companies. MS didnt necesarily seek this out or forced a takeover.

It would have been MS or Tencent that could buy then at 70 billion.

Id much prefer MS.

edited seeled out part

BAD · Aug 10, 2022

Feels like PlayStation Now also undermine's Sony's arguments…

Mesoian · Aug 10, 2022

Microsoft literally said "console wars".

Lawd this is spicy.

vixolus · Aug 10, 2022

LanceX2 said:
MS didnt seek out Actvision. They WANTED to be bought and Sony cant buy them nor can most companies. MS didnt necesarily seek this out or forced a takeover.

It would have been MS or Tencent that could buy then at 70 billion.

Id much prefer MS.

Idk where youre getting that idea but its been reported Microsoft approached Activision about their interest. They did seek them out and Activision realized this was their best option and agreed to it.
Edit: oh i didnt realize vg chartz was banned that was the first url i found. Point being Phil approached them in November 2021

ZeniMax likely was the other scenario where they wanted to court suitors.

SolidSnakeUS · Aug 10, 2022

get2sammyb said:
I feel like the way this is being framed is a little misleading. The way it's being presented is like Sony is rocking up with a suitcase full of money and saying to publishers, "Take this, and don't release on Game Pass."

What I think is actually happening is they're buying marketing rights to promote a specific game, on State of Plays and in commercials and stuff, and part of that contract/clause prevents the publisher from releasing their game on Game Pass because... Well, if they did, the marketing contract would be pointless, wouldn't it?

I mean, the end result is the same, but I do think framing it correctly is key.

And I think people are just jumping at this like it's black and white, when it's very much not. And while both sides have presented an argument, have we seen disclosed receipts of said claims with specific examples?

And yes, you're right, marketing deals, previous deals with companies before they were bought up (such as with Deathloop) would clearly keep it from being on GP as they not only have the marketing rights, but exclusivity rights for consoles for a full year. The stuff with COD could prevent COD from being on Game Pass just because of how the whole contract is written out, even if it was not directly attacking GP.

All people need to do and realize that it's nowhere near as black and white as they want it to be and saying MS claims (claims is the keyword here) is the end all be all really needs to stop. I'm not saying one is right or wrong over the other, I'm saying we don't have enough information and even without specific info, we know that deals elsewhere make things grey.

Rodelero · Aug 10, 2022

Porcine prophet said:
I dont think framing is very relevant. Maybe from a reporting standpoint for the sake of clickbait. Its basically just a degree of hyperbole to get the point across. I mean, this isnt even new info. We knw that both Xbox and PS have policies like these in place.

Precisely. We have lots of historical examples of these kind of deals from both platform holders and a huge amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest lots of other similar deals. Does anyone really believe that Microsoft haven't protected themselves from Silk Song being stuck on PlayStation Plus day one?

LanceX2 · Aug 10, 2022

Kuro said:
Nothing about that list specifies money hats. Apparently having better 3rd party support means Sony moneyhatted all those games from appearing on the Xbox platform lol.

I'm not going to argue that Sony doesn't do it because of course they do but what a misleading statement.

I think the issue , my issue. is since Rise of Tomb Raider MS has not done any Third party AAA exclusivity to my knowledge.

Sony has done ALOT since then. Deathloop. FVII remake part 1 and 2 , FF 16(?) , FF 11(?) , Street Fighter 5( and 6? ).

Thats in the last 1 or 2 years.

Splader · Aug 10, 2022

Kuro said:
Nothing about that list specifies money hats. Apparently having better 3rd party support means Sony moneyhatted all those games from appearing on the Xbox platform lol.

I'm not going to argue that Sony doesn't do it because of course they do but what a misleading statement.

Are you serious here? Are you really saying that the games Sony moneyhat aren't significantly larger (and more often) than Xbox? Let me list a few of the ones they did according to the gematsu page here.

CTR, Nier Automata, the FF games (of which FF7re and of course FF16 seem to be exclusive who knows how long), No Man's Sky, World of Final Fantasy, Deathloop, Tokyo Ghostwire, Forspoken.

Compare the above with Xbox's Dead Rising 4, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare.

LanceX2 said:
Street Fighter 5( and 6? )

Thankfully 6 is coming to Xbox as well.

kreepmode · Aug 10, 2022

Goodacre0081 said:
does this not piss off any of the PS+ subscribers here?

your money isn't being fed back into game development, network infrastructure or something even remotely worthwhile. its being used to remove another platforms ability to bring games to it's service.

Microsoft still has contracts with ICE and the US Military, our money spent on their products go towards immigration enforcement and war. You can spend all day making these arguments.

SolidSnakeUS · Aug 10, 2022

Thorn said:
God I'm glad I'm a PC Gaming primarily.

So am I, but man, this is all hard to watch regardless. I guess as I got older, I stopped getting so emotional about this sort of stuff.

LanceX2 · Aug 10, 2022

vixolus said:
Idk where youre getting that idea but its been reported Microsoft approached Activision about their interest. They did seek them out and Activision realized this was their best option and agreed to it.

https://www.************/article/45...izzard-in-november-over-possible-acquisition/

ZeniMax likely was the other scenario where they wanted to court suitors.

Ahh because of the sexual misconduct. your right. The rest of my statement still stands.

Thorn · Aug 10, 2022

SolidSnakeUS said:
So am I, but man, this is all hard to watch regardless. I guess as I got older, I stopped getting so emotional about this sort of stuff.

I found some old reaction images from my Console Warrior days and I want to go back in time and slap myself.

Microsoft responds to Sony's claim that Call of Duty is unrivaled & unique (Claims Sony is paying to block games from Gamepass)

Hermen Hulst's Secret Account

Newbie Paper Plane Pilot

Account closed at user request

Newbie Paper Plane Pilot

Newbie Paper Plane Pilot

Hermen Hulst's Secret Account

Account closed at user request

Prophet of Truth

Prophet of Truth

Editor at Push Square

▲ Legend ▲

Prophet of Truth