@Bleachedsmiles sorry for the late reply my man - Yeah I don’t completely disagree with what you are saying and I’m certainly not saying you are incorrect. I have both consoles and genuinely consider myself a fanboy of neither, I play where it works best for me. But It’s of course possible that I’m more biased than I think I am.
I think it’s just dependant on someones perspective. I personally see a year or two exclusivity deal with third parties less damaging to the industry than someone just buying the third party. Permanent exclusives in my mind cultivate from IP’s that studios create in house - eg God of war, halo, gears - it shouldn’t be cultivated by hoarding existing IP’s on mass (add up the IP’s involved in the Bethesda and Activision deals and it’s a VAST number). I don’t have a problem with starfield, it’s a new IP which Microsoft have now developed.
I will admit though the certainty of what is available and where is very desirable but I really don’t believe that’s what we are going to get.
I think the main thing to highlight - and my biggest bugbear with this topic - is that nobody here is the good guy, They are all here to make money - which is why regulators need to exist. Phil seems a great guy, I don’t believe he intends any damage to the industry - but - leaders change and that doesn’t mean that Microsoft won’t seek to longer term for their own gain.
@Bleachedsmiles I think the issue is more that ‘he- the competitor’ can choose to keep doom off of other platforms, not Bethesda as a third party to both companies. This is where the competition factor is questionable vs paying and competing for timed exclusives.
On mass across a large number of already existing IP’s, that already have significant fan bases, It’s easy to see why that’s an issue from a regulatory perspective. You are buying players, and removing the ability to chose.
Timed exclusives with third parties, and developing new IP with studios you own / purchase is in my eyes fair competition. Starfield for example (even though it was slated to release on PlayStation) Is a new IP, from a company that Microsoft own, it doesn’t have an existing fan base and Microsoft have created this in house. There can be no argument with that.
It’s the existing IP, fan bases and the power to control those that doesn’t sit right
Comments 2
Re: Microsoft, Sony Signed Agreement to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 'Several More Years' Beyond Current Contract
@Bleachedsmiles sorry for the late reply my man - Yeah I don’t completely disagree with what you are saying and I’m certainly not saying you are incorrect. I have both consoles and genuinely consider myself a fanboy of neither, I play where it works best for me. But It’s of course possible that I’m more biased than I think I am.
I think it’s just dependant on someones perspective. I personally see a year or two exclusivity deal with third parties less damaging to the industry than someone just buying the third party. Permanent exclusives in my mind cultivate from IP’s that studios create in house - eg God of war, halo, gears - it shouldn’t be cultivated by hoarding existing IP’s on mass (add up the IP’s involved in the Bethesda and Activision deals and it’s a VAST number). I don’t have a problem with starfield, it’s a new IP which Microsoft have now developed.
I will admit though the certainty of what is available and where is very desirable but I really don’t believe that’s what we are going to get.
I think the main thing to highlight - and my biggest bugbear with this topic - is that nobody here is the good guy, They are all here to make money - which is why regulators need to exist. Phil seems a great guy, I don’t believe he intends any damage to the industry - but - leaders change and that doesn’t mean that Microsoft won’t seek to longer term for their own gain.
Re: Microsoft, Sony Signed Agreement to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 'Several More Years' Beyond Current Contract
@Bleachedsmiles I think the issue is more that ‘he- the competitor’ can choose to keep doom off of other platforms, not Bethesda as a third party to both companies. This is where the competition factor is questionable vs paying and competing for timed exclusives.
On mass across a large number of already existing IP’s, that already have significant fan bases, It’s easy to see why that’s an issue from a regulatory perspective. You are buying players, and removing the ability to chose.
Timed exclusives with third parties, and developing new IP with studios you own / purchase is in my eyes fair competition. Starfield for example (even though it was slated to release on PlayStation) Is a new IP, from a company that Microsoft own, it doesn’t have an existing fan base and Microsoft have created this in house. There can be no argument with that.
It’s the existing IP, fan bases and the power to control those that doesn’t sit right