| S.T.A.G.E. said: Microsoft lied to you if they told you it was first party. |
Really? Because at this stage I think we'd be more inclined to believe the first party and the developers over you.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: For that game to be first party Epic has to be owned by Microsoft whilst Microsoft owning the IP. It's as simple as that. |
No. For EPIC to be a first party developer, they would have to be owned by Microsoft. For Gears of War to be a first party game, it would need to be published by Microsoft. They all were.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: I don't want people being misinformed. |
Yet you yourself are admitting to spreading misinformation about exclusivity contracts? Why you do that?
| S.T.A.G.E. said: This is a Michael Pachter talking about how Epic believes they made a big mistake signing a three game exclusivity contract when they could've gone multiplatform with Gears. If Epic wanted they could make Gears multiplatform next gen. Their contract allows Microsoft exclusivity of their IP for three games and then its over. They could go multiplatform with prequels for all they care even though at this point I don't think they should. http://www.industrygamers.com/news/pachter-third-party-console-exclusives-will-disappear/ |
It's interesting you say you don't want to spread misinformation, when you have blatantly made up the bolded. It isn't in that article anywhere at all...an article might I add is entirely the conjecture of an analyst.
Pachter : "I think that Microsoft has a contract to make sure that they get [Gears of War 3], but I think Epic regrets signing the contract,"
Not only conjecture , but WRONG conjecture.
Mark Rein, VP at Epic Games :"Michael is wrong."
