Microsoft Earnings Q4 2022

[MScarpa]

Prove that Bethesda games were multiplatforms? Bethesda was not that kind of publisher like Square Enix. They didn't make permanent exclusives anymore since like Oblivion. They even supported the Switch which was obviously underpowered for their games.
Even timed Deathloop and Ghostwire was out-of-character for them.

If you're still pissed about Street Fighter then it doesn't make any sense to cheer about MS acquisitions like you've been doing for years. Major hypocrisy.

Just curious, do you own an Xbox? The amount of time you warriors spend on here complaining about the other person's console of choice, constantly shitting on one another, it's asinine. You could be playing games, spending time with your family, or anything else. But you all choose to spend HOURS here, trying to one up the other, getting virtual "attaboys' from you're fellow warriors, and trying to win this invisible war that only exists in your head.

 

[Gediminas]

Multiplatform games like Final Fantasy and Street Fighter? Show me the official announcement of Starfield for PlayStation and its subsequent cancelation. It was all speculation just like Xbox gamers speculated the next Street Fighter was coming to Xbox. Oh well. Doesn't change the fact that MS is far more likely to put their titles on other platforms than Sony is with their titles. It's all business but to act like MS is a bad actor while Sony is virtuous is laughable.

did m$ bought Square Enix? i didn't see that. can you show where?
go, and do your research, it is pretty well known fact, wasn't Howard said that? oh, yeah, it wasn't official announcement, so interview is not counting

yet again, Sony funded SF5. question is, SF6 isn't coming to xbox?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Multiplatform games like Final Fantasy and Street Fighter? Show me the official announcement of Starfield for PlayStation and its subsequent cancelation. It was all speculation just like Xbox gamers speculated the next Street Fighter was coming to Xbox. Oh well. Doesn't change the fact that MS is far more likely to put their titles on other platforms than Sony is with their titles. It's all business but to act like MS is a bad actor while Sony is virtuous is laughable.

Stop twisting the narrative.

MS didn't increase the platforms for these games. They decreased the number of platforms these games would release.

If MS hadn't meddled, Bethesda titles (as always) would have been released on PC, PlayStation, Xbox, and maybe even Nintendo. Now they'll only release on Xbox and PC.

 

[BadBurger]

DarkMage has a reputation of being a liar from NeoGaf and someone who doesn't argue in good faith. Not surprising that he has a shit take that makes no sense at all.

 

[Swift_Star]

Multiplatform games like Final Fantasy and Street Fighter? Show me the official announcement of Starfield for PlayStation and its subsequent cancelation. It was all speculation just like Xbox gamers speculated the next Street Fighter was coming to Xbox. Oh well. Doesn't change the fact that MS is far more likely to put their titles on other platforms than Sony is with their titles. It's all business but to act like MS is a bad actor while Sony is virtuous is laughable.

This is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Bethesda making exclusive titles while independent LMFAO

 

[peter42O]

Well yeah, fanboys are gonna fanboy but I don't care about what they do, personally. What we're talking about is more what MS will realistically do with IP like COD even after owning them, and to what degree stuff like GamePass will play into that. Whatever console warriors want to think doesn't really come into the picture for me except when they use it to spread FUD or concern troll.

Agreed.

Well technically speaking, Sony doesn't need to be a trillion-dollar company to buy ABK. They have the cash-on-hand combined with shares and loans they can take out, to buy a company like ABK; market cap isn't the only factor into deciding what a company can buy. We've already seen this with Disney when they bought 20th Century Fox. But Sony's priorities would have also required necessitating ABK to some degree and that simply was not the case, hence they didn't bother with the buy. Also IIRC, it was ABK board members who had Phil and Satya on the hotline when they decided to sell the company, so ABK already had a company in mind who were also the most likely to easily make the purchase (which from what I've seen someone on Twitter point out, who IIRC has an account here, they may've still taken out a loan from Goldman Sach's to put towards the ABK purchase).

I don't know how many PS diehard fanboys/fangirls feel the way you describe, but in terms of the wider install base, well there are certain expectations that come with a brand that's usually outsold its competitors by a decent margin almost every generation for the past 20+ years. There are certain expectations that come with IP from a brand that's been multiplatform since the 1970s. There's a shock associated with the looming reality that said company will be owned by a platform holder in less than a year, and it takes time to accept that. This is a WAY bigger shock than Zenimax being bought (by the same platform holder, no less), a WAYYY bigger shock than Squaresoft leaving Nintendo for Sony with the PS1.

So you have to understand on some level that acceptance of the new reality will take a while even for the non-extremists console warriors. That's normal.

Sony would have to make adjustments, take out loans and whatnot to acquire a company like ABK where as Microsoft doesn't have to do that unless they want to. The main differences is that I don't see Sony acquiring any publisher for two reasons - first, I don't see them spending around $10B+ and that's not taking into account a potential bidding war and second, I don't see them wanting to take on the cost post close. Kotick reportedly went to Facebook first and they said no. He then went to Microsoft which is a smart decision. You're going to go a rich company if you're valuable and looking to sell.

I understand having certain expectations but I see every generation like I do with a new season in sports. It doesn't matter what you did the season before because it's a clean and fresh slate. Things also don't stay the same so if major and massive changes are made like Microsoft acquiring Bethesda and now, ABK, a normal person is going to take that into account and readjust their expectations.

Perhaps. Of course, im someone who's switched primary consoles three generations in a row and not attached to any single company so when I see Microsoft acquire Bethesda and look into it, their history together makes them a perfect fit and ZeniMax was going to close down Arkane, Tango Gameworks and Machine Games in that order and I like all three of those studios so Microsoft acquiring Bethesda was the far better outcome. This deal also exposed Google with Stadia as I gave them two years. They lasted like 15 months. And I know Stadia still exists but shutting down your internal studios, allowing everyone to leave, etc. tells me you're basically done.

While Sony had dominated Microsoft and Xbox two out of three generations, they still had a war with 360/PS3, both losing to Nintendo with Wii and now, Nintendo is on fire with Switch and Microsoft has easily bounced back from their Xbox One disaster. If anything, E3 2018 should have told PlayStation fans this isn't the same Microsoft and the same Xbox. You acquire 4 studios, startup another and then 6 months later, acquire 2 more studios. If that's not waking up a PlayStation fan coming into this generation, then the Bethesda acquisition definitely should have to where now, nothing should be a shock or surprise.

When I saw the ABK acquisition, I wasn't thrilled because im not an ABK fan and would have preferred Ubisoft, WB or EA in this order instead but business wise, ABK blows all three of them away so I understand why they acquired them. As for the games being multi-platform for years/decades, yeah, I get it but at the same time, first, it's business, second, shit changes every generation and people should know this already and third, regardless of if you're an Xbox fan or not, you still have the option to play those games if you so choose. In my mind, gamers limit and restrict themselves as opposed to companies limiting or restricting them.

I think part of the issue is that for some people, MS's idea of "investing" has come at the expense of spearheading a big shift in industry consolidation of the 3P market, and that the investing is mainly only in the form of throwing money at studios and publishers, but very little in terms of creative leadership and guidance/curation from the upper management of the Xbox division.

Because, and I believe this as well, you can't have real, profound growth of studio talent and results if you don't have a strong balance of both, this is where comparisons with Sony look unfavorable for Microsoft. Look at the growth we've seen from Insomniac Games from the start of PS4 gen to where they are now. Sony didn't need to spend $70 billion to get those results, they didn't even need $7 billion to get them. The $250 million they paid in acquiring them was to lock down a studio they've already been investing in with both smart money and sound creative/leadership guidance for over two decades.

Microsoft doesn't honestly have a single studio under their belt with that type of growth from investments into them. Rare was a great chance to do that and, yes, I guess Sea of Thieves is financially their best-performing game ever. But you'd be hard-pressed to get a majority of Rare fans or gamers in general, to claim that SoT is their best work yet from a creative POV. We hadn't even really seen what type of payoff came from the Obsidian, Ninja Theory, IneXile etc. acquisitions in 2018 before MS purchased Zenimax in 2020/2021, or ABK this year going into 2023 (the latest the deal will be approved).

So the idea they have purchased yet more studios, and may purchase yet another publisher or two in the future, when we're still waiting to see results that show clear scope & creative growth for the teams MS already own and have owned for years, of course that's going to make some folks (myself included) side-eye those types of moves because otherwise it feels like a lot of money being thrown at a problem, but no direction in how that money's actually going to be applied for technical & creative growth/polish, much less growth in leadership from division management showing strong guidance for their teams.

Microsoft is throwing money at massive publishers but at the same time, those publishers have to accept their money and their deal. Microsoft can't just go into a company and say, "hey!!! im buying you today". lol. Also, look at the studios and publishers they've acquired. Playground was only working with Microsoft. Make amazing arcade racing games in Forza Horizon and were most likely pretty cheap since they don't own any IP's. Undead Labs worked with Microsoft for the two State of Decay games but needed more money, time and resources. Acquiring them was a perfect fit. Compulsion Games is the wild card and im not a fan of theirs as of now but they were a no name development studio so acquiring them means nothing. Starting up The Initiative. Well, we've seen how this has gone. Not well but I do have confidence in Gallagher and way more hyped now with Crystal Dynamics leading Perfect Dark. Ninja Theory worked with Sony on one game. Sony had nothing to do with Hellblade. It was all Ninja Theory and they actually worked first with Microsoft and Spencer so people that think there's a Sony connection were mistaken. They had money issues. Then, Obsidian, InXile and Double Fine all either had money issues or had to crowd fund their games or both. No one else came calling to acquire them including Sony so why shouldn't Microsoft acquire them?

Bethesda via ZeniMax was close to going bankrupt and they had to sell at some point. ZeniMax was going to shutdown Arkane, Tango Gameworks and Machine Games in that order. I'm a fan of all three studios so if them staying alive means Microsoft acquires them and they're all exclusive to Xbox, so be it. It's not changing anything for me. ABK let's be honest was only sold because of all the supposedly fucked up shit Kotick has done and all the sexual shit going on there. If none of these issues ever came out, we wouldn't be discussing ABK at all because they would still be as is.

I do agree with you in regards to the leadership and management aspects. This I will give you but to an extent. Sony's leadership and management of their studios being what they are now didn't happen overnight. Took them years and in a few cases, decades. If anything, people are expecting way too much from Microsoft which is far more massive than Sony, has far more employees and shit going on than Sony that there's no way they can make it all perfect overnight. Pre-2018, the only studio I see with constant issues is 343 Industries which if anything, is a given. The Coalition have been great and rarely hear a peep out of them. Turn 10 is great or better with Motorsport. Mojang is just Minecraft which makes Microsoft a shit ton of cash and you never hear any issues from them as that's all they really do. Rare you could argue have been worse but at the same time, all the original people are long gone. Like 95% are gone from the SNES days so people expecting the old Rare are simply either uninformed or delusional. Everwild seems to be in development hell but Sea of Thieves makes up for it. Not every game is going to hit and if it was up to me, I would have cancelled Everwild already and told that team to do something else or just put them on Sea of Thieves.

One factor that people don't take into consideration is that it's 2022 (or if you want to talk Bethesda, 2020). Either way, this isn't the late 90's or early 2000's when gaming isn't as big as it is now, didn't have any real online infrastructure, basically no mobile gaming, no subscriptions and regardless of if they ever become a threat, there's still Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Tencent and to a much lesser extent Google out there. If you're Microsoft, you can't just sit around around waiting for this or that to happen or go the way you want it to. The circumstances and scenarios are way different than 20+ years ago so people saying Microsoft should do it the Sony way simply aren't in touch with the current state of gaming, what it could become, who it could potentially involve years down the line and in some cases, are simply delusional because they choose not to see what's right in front of them.

I agree and understand your point about growth and acquiring studios paying off for Microsoft but in all honesty, that's not something I care about. That's their problem. Not mine. I just want more publishers, more development studios and in turn more games. If they make money or not, that's on Microsoft to figure out. Of course, when you have a few cash cows like Minecraft, soon to be acquired King and soon to be acquired COD IP, Microsoft doesn't need all their studios and games to be massive successes. First, if they break even, they're fine, second, the studios that do make all this extra money will offset all the money that the other studios may have lost. Also, unlike Sony which requires their studios to be very profitable, Microsoft can easily absorb the losses where as Sony can't.

As for the few studios you listed - Obsidian released Grounded which amazingly, has done extremely well for Microsoft. They also had a pre-existing contract that Take Two Interactive refused to break for The Outer Worlds which released in late 2019. They were also required to release two expansions with the last one being March 2021. They have announced Avowed and The Outer Worlds 2 which are probably 2023 and 2025 respectively if I had to guess. They also have Josh Sawyer's Pentiment later this year. As for InXile. Same thing. Deal with Embracer Group (via Deep Silver) for Wasteland 3 which released in August 2020 and their second expansion released in the Fall of 2021. You can't expect much when they had pre-existing contracts that they either weren't able to break or chose not to break. Ninja Theory was hit hard with Covid and was unable to do motion capture or really anything until recently so that's out of their hands.

In general, I get what you and others are saying but at the same time, you're all looking at it as a "NOW" scenario where as that's not what Microsoft is looking at. Everything Microsoft has done since 2018 isn't even for this generation, it's for future generations and not years down the line but decades down the line. I looked at 2018 as a "reset" for Microsoft and Xbox because that's exactly what it's been. And also, they can't have excellent leadership and management within their studios and as a whole if they don't have any studios and whatnot to begin with. Before any kind of management and leadership happens to take hold, you must have the studios first and have to get them setup, integrated into Microsoft and up and running on a bigger scale. None of this happens overnight.

I'm not expecting Microsoft to get everything setup to let's say Sony's level to at least next generation if not beyond because they're not just adding a small 200 person studio or whatever Housemarque or Bluepoint are or even a multi-studio Insomniac, they're adding publishers, massive fucking publishers with literally thousands and thousands of employees. I don't care which company you are. You're not getting this shit done for years if not a decade or more.

I didn't say COD had a small install base on Xbox, I said FF does. I know full well how big COD was on 360 compared to 360 back in the day.

My mistake. I thought you meant COD. I agree in regards to FF.

Well yeah, no doubt those reasons played into COD being bigger on PS this gen than Xbox. I'm actually curious how marketing for COD will be handled going forward because I know ABK will act somewhat independent still (just under Microsoft Gaming), but I want to know if the traditional advertising model will get pared back for individual COD releases going forward.

Because it certainly did with Halo Infinite, and that's MS's biggest, marquee FPS IP until they own ABK and get COD.

This obviously remains to be seen. Depends on what they do with COD. I hope and believe that they will make it a platform and just add to it because I can't see Spencer and others wanting 10 or whatever studios it is to be wasted away on COD every year.

I mean, maybe just don't pay attention to them as much? It's really easy to just block that stuff out.

Hahaha. Agreed and true.

From a gamer's perspective, especially if you're predominantly an Xbox gamer, then yes it makes sense to think COD should 100% be exclusive. But these companies aren't thinking about it that way. To them, it's business, and they want to recoup the money spent and then some.

Look at it this way: MS's kind of spent $70 billion for COD (this isn't actually true but COD is the biggest thing they get out of this alongside Candy Crush). Does making COD exclusive to Xbox, realistically get them on the path to recouping that $70 billion and making a lot of profit on top of that, in a realistic time frame? Let's say making COD exclusive to Xbox increases Xbox revenue by 10%, and increases Xbox net profit by 10% of whatever that is.

Say Xbox normally makes $1.5 billion a year in net profit, and say COD weighs 35% into the price of the ABK acquisition (that's $23.45 billion). Candy Crush weighs as 45%, all the other IP weigh as the remaining 20%. And now say Xbox division has a FY net profit of $1.65 billion. It'd take Xbox a little under 15 years to make back in net profit the share of COD's weight into the acquisition cost. That's the remainder of the 9th gen, and all of 10th gen (which might be the last console gen).

Do you think MS is willing to wait that long? Say GamePass starts pulling in enough new subs annually to where it's maybe bringing in an extra $1 billion of annual profit on top of what it does today (IMO, I think it brings in ~ $750 million a year); that would help cut the time to recoup down but it's a gamble because it's predicated on if GamePass growth can bring in a pure $1 billion more net per FY than it already does, and what if that takes another 5 years? What if it takes longer? What if it never happens?

There are other factors MS have to consider, too. What if the trend with Vanguard selling less, repeats itself with the next COD release, and the one after that? What if another massive FPS comes onto the scene and replaces COD in popularity? Yes a lot of these "what ifs" have a low chance of happening and MS could actually use these in a court defense to argue for making COD exclusive to Xbox & GamePass if they really wanted, but the point is these are possibilities they as a business have to keep in mind when deciding on things like making COD exclusive or keeping it multiplat.

That's even without pointing to another massive IP they own which they eventually decided to keep multiplat: Minecraft :/

I don't believe that Microsoft cares more about the money made from PlayStation as opposed to growing their Xbox platform and eco-system. Having COD exclusive will simply bring in way more consumers and gamers in the short and long term. Microsoft needs to rebuild the Xbox brand and keeping COD multi-platform quite simply isn't going to help accomplish that and if anything, would hurt it because if you're a PlayStation only gamer and play COD every year, there's no reason for you to switch to Xbox just because COD is on Game Pass. It's a bigger investment than playing $60 for COD on PS5.

For Microsoft, it's all about market share and outside of GTA, COD is literally the biggest franchise that can help them increase their Xbox market share. Short term, they could lose money just like they may be losing money on Game Pass but as I have said a few times, everything Microsoft is doing isn't for now. It's for years and decades down the line. It's for future generations.

Also, if they release the game on PS5, they have additional expenses with the manufacturing and distribution of the physical version as well as the retailers cut and they would have to spend more money, time and resources in house for the development team, testers, etc. of that version while also keeping a team for future updates and content.

Short term, makes sense to keep COD multi-platform which technically, they are. MW 2 and Warzone will be multi-platform. I believe that the reason Microsoft honors contracts isn't because they're being nice (lol) but because it benefits them in the long term to where once contracts are done, the IP is no longer multi-platform. For a platform live service game like Warzone 2, that will be the same as The Elder Scrolls Online and Fallout 76. Still fully supported on PlayStation. Also, they won't delist any games just like with Bethesda. All previously released games will stay as is.

As for Minecraft, this IP is very different than COD. For 2021, 42% of the revenue was from the mobile version of the game. And in China, the game itself is free to download and install. This is an IP in which if you make exclusive to Xbox, it basically dies or loses a shit ton of users which from 2020 to 2021 was already down from 131m to 93m. This IP isn't going to shift anything for Xbox. It's massive and brings in a lot of money but only because it's multi-platform which I think (but not 100% sure) is over 10 different platforms and whatnot.

For COD, being exclusive to Xbox is far more beneficial in every aspect for Microsoft and the Xbox brand when compared to Minecraft or being multi-platform. One other note, I don't believe that COD stays yearly. I believe that 2024 starts the exclusivity and it becomes a platform. One game until next gen and they just add to it which makes perfect sense because they would still be supporting Warzone 2 which will be multi-platform.

Again, that's the gamer's way of looking at it, but you have to think like a businessperson on this as well. Now, in the case of Sony buying SE, they could easily justify dropping Xbox for everything outside of games like a Power Wash Simulator, because they wouldn't lose much money by doing so and have a strong chance of retaining the absolute vast majority if they made things PS-exclusive (Xbox JRPG fans who really want FF/Valkyrie/Star Ocean/Dragon Quest will just end up buying a PS to play them).

But Sony would be rather dumb to stop supporting Switch with things like the 2D JRPG remasters/remixes, or smaller new JRPG releases like Octopath. Not unless they decided to make their own portable system as well

I agree with this and is one of the reasons why I don't see Sony acquiring Square Enix anyway. If anything, all Sony needs to do is lock down Final Fantasy for years and years to come and that's pretty much it. One side note - I always see people say that Square Enix doesn't own Dragon Quest. That an individual owns the IP. Don't know who but is this accurate?

 

[peter42O]

This is all true, although I think even in Apple or Amazon's case, they'd keep some of the games multiplat. No reason to lock Candy Crush behind simply our devices or service, for example, and they may want some cash from gamers on PS, Xbox & Nintendo who can access their products or apps on those consoles already.

A game like Candy Crush (similar to Minecraft above) would stay as is because that's not a game that's going to change anything but COD is. After GTA, what's actually bigger than COD? Even with a bad game, it still sells 20-30m every freaking year.

They do have a lot of options for sure, but some of these aren't going to be realistic options most of the time for certain games or certain types of gamers. How many COD players do you think want to mess with (non-mobile) COD competitively on a little smartphone or latency-ridden (compared to a native console) cloud streaming?

That aside, it doesn't take away from the fact that yeah, MS do give people a good number of options to play and that's commendable.

I agree with you here. I was just pointing out that there's so many other options if you were someone that really wanted to play COD. If you're someone like me who would only play the campaign and that's it, then I do think the streaming aspect is viable.

I don't know if buying the games would've been "horrible", that's just the status quote and still the dominant model in the market for many reasons.

Google have shown they can't really manage game studios whatsoever though, so I agree Bethesda's probably be worst under them. Tho that doesn't excuse whatever happens with them under Microsoft; IMO we need some games showing clear improvements in quality and ambition going forward and Starfield was looking kinda rough at the showcase is all I'm gonna say.

For Stadia, all the games are streamed so buying games that I can't download and can only stream is why I said "horrible".

I never said to excuse Microsoft. I was just saying that even if things are bad now, they could have been far worse under Google. With Starfield, it didn't wow me visually and yeah, there were technical issues, there was no blood which was weird, hit box/detection seemed off but I did think the space combat looked good and better than I was expecting. Loved the explosions. I also like that it's a shooter focused game instead of melee like The Elder Scrolls is. I do think that them showcasing a "moon" planet was a bad idea. It looked dull and bland. They should have showcased a foliage filled world that's lush and vibrant in my opinion. Of course, that's why the game was delayed and rightfully so.

This is true, can't really disagree there. Go where the games are, even if that means having multiple platforms. If you're forced to choose, then that's just what it is. People gotta make choices everyday.

Exactly.

Same for me, man. I've always had at least two consoles each gen (three for 7th-gen) since the 5th-gen systems. If I knew about consoles like the Saturn or SNES when I was at the point of maybe being able to game on them (I got into 4th-gen pretty late, and Saturn was basically a unicorn to me at most stores as very few carried them), I'd of probably convinced my parents to get them for me too xD.

Gaming's just better when you have as many platforms at your disposal as possible, just in case there's that big exclusive on only one of those platforms. That way you don't miss out.

I had SNES/GEN. Then the 5th and 6th generation, I had four consoles each. Then for the 7th gen, I had 360/PS3 and Wii for a month or so (lol). 8th gen was PS4/XBO and Switch for two years. For the current and 9th gen, I have XSX and PS5.

I remember buying a Sega CDX which was the Genesis and CD in one small compact system. That shit was so sweet. Anyway, I bought it for only two games - Snatcher which is one my all time favorite and best games. And Final Fight CD which is my all time favorite beat em up. So yeah, I definitely agree 100% with the last line.

 

[peter42O]

Prove that Bethesda games were multiplatforms? Bethesda was not that kind of publisher like Square Enix. They didn't make permanent exclusives anymore since like Oblivion. They even supported the Switch which was obviously underpowered for their games.
Even timed Deathloop and Ghostwire was out-of-character for them.

If you're still pissed about Street Fighter then it doesn't make any sense to cheer about MS acquisitions like you've been doing for years. Major hypocrisy.

Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo were timed for Sony because ZeniMax needed money upfront and in this case, Arkane and Tango were very close to being shutdown. If it wasn't for Microsoft, ZeniMax would have either filed for bankruptcy or shutdown those studios followed by Machine Games. Since Tango, Arkane and Machine are my favorite studios within Bethesda, im very happy that Microsoft acquired them.

As for other games being planned to be multi-platform, you technically wouldn't have gotten anything if studios were shutdown or if ZeniMax filed for bankruptcy so no one on either side would have gotten anything. Microsoft literally saved ZeniMax/Bethesda.

 

[ethomaz]

Man I was rolling the thread when I realized I could not even cross one post.
Somebody made a monography.

I had to use a word counter app... 2,433 words or 13,639 characters.
Is it the longest post in Icon?

 

[DarkMage619]

Prove that Bethesda games were multiplatforms? Bethesda was not that kind of publisher like Square Enix. They didn't make permanent exclusives anymore since like Oblivion. They even supported the Switch which was obviously underpowered for their games.
Even timed Deathloop and Ghostwire was out-of-character for them.

If you're still pissed about Street Fighter then it doesn't make any sense to cheer about MS acquisitions like you've been doing for years. Major hypocrisy.

You still can't prove MS removed any announced titles from PlayStation. You ASSUMED all titles were going there and that was your mistake. I do appreciate you again showing how Sony will block titles from Xbox with timed and permanent 3rd party exclusives though so thanks for again proving my point.

I'm not upset about Sony blocking games from other platforms I just think it's hilarious for any Sony fans to complain when Sony's practices are far worse. I cheer more in investment in a platform I use over blocking content from other platforms. MS acquisitions are about guaranteeing content on their platform not keeping from others. Proof is in what they've done historically.

 

[DonFerrari]

Bethesda officially stated that they had to scrap Starfield for Playstation after m$ bought them.

Street Fight 5 would never happened if not Playstation, they funded development. go and ask why m$ didn't funded it? go and ask m$ why they declined KOTOR remake? boohoo, Sony agreed and it's console exclusive. no shit sherlock, they are funding it.

m$ buying ips and studios to secure content, no, they bought MULTIPLATFORM, that content would been hitting m$ regardless.

Do you honestly believe fucking Street Fighter wouldn’t have happened without Sony Capcom always said the game would have come either way, it would have just taken longer without Sony money.

Idk why people bitch about one company buying exclusives or buying studios but then jump through such stupid hoops to defend another company doing it.

 

[DonFerrari]

You still can't prove MS removed any announced titles from PlayStation. You ASSUMED all titles were going there and that was your mistake. I do appreciate you again showing how Sony will block titles from Xbox with timed and permanent 3rd party exclusives though so thanks for again proving my point.

I'm not upset about Sony blocking games from other platforms I just think it's hilarious for any Sony fans to complain when Sony's practices are far worse. I cheer more in investment in a platform I use over blocking content from other platforms. MS acquisitions are about guaranteeing content on their platform not keeping from others. Proof is in what they've done historically.

Ask yourself if Sony would have honored existing deals or released games on other consoles like MS has…. answer is hell fucking no.

 

[peter42O]

Man I was rolling the thread when I realized I could not even cross one post.
Somebody made a monography.

I had to use a word counter app... 2,433 words or 13,639 characters.
Is it the longest post in Icon?

HAHAHAHA. I went past 25000 characters. I had to separate my response into two posts. lmao. Would be nice to know how many characters you're over when that happens.

 

[BadBurger]

Ask yourself if Sony would have honored existing deals or released games on other consoles like MS has…. answer is hell fucking no.

You mean just like MLB The Show?

 

[DarkMage619]

You mean just like MLB The Show?

Just an FYI Sony doesn't own the MLB license. They will release the game where they are told to release it.

 

[Gods&Monsters]

Just curious, do you own an Xbox? The amount of time you warriors spend on here complaining about the other person's console of choice, constantly shitting on one another, it's asinine. You could be playing games, spending time with your family, or anything else. But you all choose to spend HOURS here, trying to one up the other, getting virtual "attaboys' from you're fellow warriors, and trying to win this invisible war that only exists in your head.

Yes I do and you do you do something else besides going around calling out Sony fans for being "warriors"???

You never seem to have any issue with Xbox warriors tho how strange. You've been shilling for GP as far as I remember. I remember your posts on GAF quite clearly so you can drop the act. You're not fooling anyone.

Edit : I just went back to check and yeah you've been cheering for MS to buy Take 2 and Ubisoft next so you can get everything on your GP sub. You were rubbing it in Sony fans face after the Bethesda and Activision purchase and then you hide behind "I own all the consoles". I'm so tired of your act.

 

[DonFerrari]

You mean just like MLB The Show?

The one that is published by someone else on Xbox and has nothing to do with Sony?

 

[BadBurger]

The one that is published by someone else on Xbox and has nothing to do with Sony?

Except the studio who designs and develops the game for multiple platforms being owned by Sony.

Also the IP is Sony.

Sounds like Sony is involved quite significantly.

 

[Swift_Star]

Except the studio who designs and develops the game for multiple platforms being owned by Sony.

Also the IP is Sony.

Sounds like Sony is involved quite significantly.

It is, Sony pays for the development... and San Diego Studio is a Sony studio

San Diego Studio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Swift_Star]

The one that is published by someone else on Xbox and has nothing to do with Sony?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Studio

MLB The Show 22 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You might want to get your facts right.