Soriku said:
Mistershine said:
Soriku said:
DMeisterJ said:
Yeah, they were, as were the gaming industry at large, and probably MS too 
MS should focus on internal development though. Especially as the PS3 userbase rises closer and closer, multi-plats may wind up doing better on the sony console *cough* DMC4 *cough* and not make it worth Microsoft's while. We've all conceded that FFXIII PS3 > FFXIII 360 in sales, so I'm not too sure what it helped MS to do that for. |
This makes no sense. Even if they sell better on Sony consoles, sales will be mellowed out. FF XIII was exclusive to the PS3 and was THE reason to own a PS3. Some 360/Wii owners could've bought a PS3 for FF XIII. Now that it's on both the 360 and PS3, those 360/Wii owners could stick with their console or buy a 360 instead of a PS3 for it. Either way, it hurts the PS3 no matter what way you look at it.
But at least the guy's being honest. Looks like they're intent on proving to third parties that the sales alone would warrant exclusives (though it's not going all that great).
Also, of course Sony knew. They're share holders and if they didn't know this then Sony could EASILY sue SE. He's saying that MS likely paid for FF XIII...and since Sony is a share holder of SE that means MS likely paid for FF XIII just as I expected not because they want to expand (though that's probably a case as well, it's probably not the "prime" case). MS is really intent on hurting Sony this gen, but the Wii not so much.
|
SE is under no obligation to divulge all of their business decisions to all of their share holders. If they were then MS or Sony could easily buy a few shares in the other and demand to see all of their pending contracts. Never gonna happen.
|
True...but I thought the company always divulges decisions to share holders? What do they tell Sony then who own 8.58% of them?
|
I believe that under law, publicly listed companies are required to publish quarterly reports for their share holders, and that's about it. Most companies publish a lot more information regularily as a way to affect the share price development over time, but that's not required by law, I believe. If anybody knows this for sure, please let me know.
As for the board membership and whether Sony knew about this or not, board members have a legal obligation to work for the best interest of the company, and in this case there would be a conflict of interest and the Sony member (if there is one, dunno about that) would not be allowed to participate in the decision making and discussion. These things are pretty significant and companies tend to stick to them, so it's not just idle talk. So it is perfectly reasonable that Sony did not know about this, though they would know that Microsoft has some dealings with S-E.
