Lostplanet22 said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Lostplanet22 said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Lostplanet22 said:
They need 100% of the stock to make COD first party...The 40% other stockholders will never allow MS to make COD first party (Xbox 360 exclusive) and I think they can start a lawsuit.. |
I don't think so. While Nintendo only owned 49% of Rareware, they were a first party developer for them. And as a minority, those 40% you're talking about really have nothing to say.
Do keep in mind though that while Microsoft owned 100% of Rare they still released two DS titles. All they needed was Microsoft's permission.
Edit: Fixed the numbers.
|
But Rare was like first party from the start. The difference is that COD not releasing on PS3 etc would cut a lot of the profit and you are not allowed to do that because you are hurting your company on purpose and the other stockholders will not agree with it and they can start a case about it. Should look it up..
|
With 60% of a company, you can do basically anything you want.
Diablo III is PC exclusive and shareholders are not going crazy over a missing console port either.
According to that logic no 3rd party game that was multiplat once is allowed to be an exclusive game ever again.
|
Because their is no console port in the works either. Microsoft may make COD exclusive but everyone knows that COD is on the works for other consoles and the shareholders can with ease start a case about it because it is losing income/profit on purpose and win the case with no effort at all.
|
sure make Black Ops multiplat, because it is in the works already but next gen they can easily make every CoD game Xbox 3 exclusive. It is not like MS has to keep supporting the PS3 when they bought ActiBlizz for 10 billion.
