| Machiavellian said: I guess thats the difference between our argument. You are only looking for something to support your opinion where I really have none. I see no reason to call anyone a lyer when I cannot prove it. I have not played either the PC, 360 or X1 version so do not know what benefit or none benefit MS cloud services will have. On the net its common for people to call developers liers with not a shread of proof one way or the other. |
Only I've given you a great deal of evidence that they are not being up front. But that is a pretty good summart of events: I am supporting my opinion with arguments while you profess to have no opinion but keep arguing anyway.
| Machiavellian said: Next you make assumtions without knowing how the deal between EA and Respawn is setup. You state that EA would pay for an outsourced PS4 game but who is paying for it. Meaning that is EA footing the whole bill or is this something else Respawn gets a bill for. The developer stated that their people are experience with 360 and PC. Respawn said they did not want to take on to much for the first project and there are benefits concentrating on one platform on release. There is no reason to believe they are lying because all of that is true. |
It would be profitable either way, so who cares who's paying for it? Who cares, anyway, because porting costs are not the reason that a PS4 port isn't happening? This "tactical partnership" with Microsoft('s wallet) is why.
The part about having experience with 360 and PC is also bogus. The Xbox One doesn't have the same architecture as the 360. That's why the Xbox One has no backwards compatibility. And Respawn aren't internally doing the 360 port, so why does their 360 experience factor into it at all?
| Machiavellian said: What you are basically stating is that you want MS to be the bad guy here instead of just another company looking for content and providing cash and services to make it happen. |
No, what I am basically stating is that I think moneyhatting is a terrible practice because we wind up with situations like this one where, instead of taking $50 million and greenlighting some interesting new projects that are in need of a publisher, Microsoft takes a shine to a game that already has a publisher, and which is already coming out on their console anyway, and they spend that $50 million to make the version of that game for their competitors' console go away. So Xbox owners don't have any more games to show for it, and Playstation owners only have one fewer game available for their system. Nothing new was created.
That might be a fine strategy for a company, but it's bad for gamers. And I don't care what company does it.
