LogFAQs > #974872375

ConfusedTorchic posted...

and? that's not anti-consumer. that's anti-business. sony isn't the consumer. you are the consumer.

And if I've chosen to buy a Playstation over an Xbox because it offers more exclusives that interest me in addition to being able to play CoD with friends, and Playstation stops having CoD, that means I need to spend more money to keep play CoD with friends and also enjoy the exclusives that interest me. That's anti-consumer.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

ah yes, quite the opposite. meanwhile when there really weren't exclusives, the video game market collapsed, because there was no incentive to actually make something good and for the specific hardware capabilities of a single platform.

I covered that in the paragraph immediately above that that you chose not to quote. *Making* exclusives to make your platform more attractive is good for consumers, because it gives us more, higher-quality choices. Taking multiplat games and turning them into exclusives to make competitors' platforms less attractive is not, because it gives us fewer choices.

Also, when was the last time a noteworthy game was made "for the specific hardware capabilities of a single platform"? Aside from Kinect/Move/VR stuff, Playstation, Xbox, and PC have been more or less functionally identical to each other since 2001, and when Nintendo's been trying to do their own thing with unique hardware and games that take advantage of it, much of the market writes it off as meaningless gimmicks (which is true, in many cases) and they get excluded from most multiplat releases.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

if you want to argue what could happen in 10 years, then i can just as easily say that in 10 years nintendo will absorb microsoft.

Well no, because that would be you pulling a random possibility out of your ass, whereas I'm actually trying to put some thought into why Microsoft believes putting CoD on Nintendo platforms will be beneficial when ABK did not. That tells me the release likely won't be directly profitable (which is all ABK would have cared about) and instead that they're expecting some indirect benefits, such as people choosing to buy a Switch or Nintendo's next system over a PS5 and thereby weakening Sony's position. That, or they're going to pull a Wal-mart and use that contract to leverage Nintendo into producing a more powerful system than they otherwise would have (since promising full parity between the Switch and PS5/Series is obviously ludicrous), worsening their console sale margins in exchange for CoD revenue, then once the contract's up pull the rug out from under them and leave them with no CoD revenue and a system that's unsustainably expensive to produce, weakening their position.

There are many possibilities, of course, but I don't trust for a second that any of them are Microsoft being altruistic and trying to make the market better for consumers, which seems to be your fantasy. It's all about the best way to make the most money possible. Microsoft couldn't care less about who gets to play ABK games beyond the role that plays in how much they get paid for them.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

you cannot make something less available by making it more available. period.

Step 1: Add game to 6 new platforms with 47 total users
Step 2: Remove game from one platform with 35 million users
Step 3: iT's aVaIlaBlE On mOrE PlaTFoRmS!

Obviously, the Switch throws a wrench into the comparison because it's got a much larger install base than any other system currently on the market, but directly comparing the Switch and PS5 like that doesn't make a lot of sense because, as I said, literally nobody bought a Switch to be able to play CoD on it and a significant number of PS5 owners did, so I'd say it still works.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

moreover, call of duty is not leaving playstation, and not once did i ever even imply that. try again.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

sony losing the amount of revenue they get from it is what they're upset at,

ConfusedTorchic posted...

you mean sony needing to try and actually develop and utilize their ip's instead of just depending solely on call of duty

You say you haven't suggested CoD is leaving Playstation, yet you keep talking about how Sony is going to lose it or won't be able to rely on it. Pick a lane, dude.

More than that, whether CoD is leaving Playstation in the foreseeable future or not, it's hopelessly naive not to recognize that threat. With this merger, some of the most lucrative third-party franchises in the industry are now in Microsoft's hand as a bargaining chip, and both Microsoft and Sony know full well just how valuable that is (which is why Microsoft is willing to spend $69 billion on it and Sony doesn't want them to). That will be leveraged to give Microsoft an advantage, most likely in ways that yield zero benefit to consumers and will likely actually make the market worse in terms of direct impact.