sales2099 said:
If you need me to clarify “nice” I mean honouring the multiplat contracts. If they were to say treat 1st party games like Nintendo and Sony do, which I sincerely do not like that MS doesn’t, then they would proceed to nullify said contracts and swiftly cancel the PS versions of all games concerned. That’s what I meant by “nice”. Because they aren’t playing by the cutthroat traditions regarding 1st party games where they are only regulated to the owners console and nowhere else. And yes, I stand by the dirty comment, as Sony’s moneyhatts have been getting more egregious the last few years. Of course you make more money making games more available, that goes without saying. The point I’m saying is that MS is the only one really sharing of the big 3. |
The problem is you're applying positive human adjectives and emotions to calculated decisions that are based on running numbers. Microsoft aren't nice, or pleasant or accommodating. They're a business. This decision was reviewed and it was deemed better for the purpose of their bottom line (potentially PR as well). If they could make more money pulling the games and paying the fees, they would do it in a heartbeat. They didn't sit down in a board room and say- you know what guys? lets just be nice.
You can stand by it, we both know if the shoe was on the other foot you would be cheering it on. The label and context is amusing though, as a practice you're condemning restricting content, when this very thread is a testament to MS restricting content to over 100 million gamers- but they're not cutthroat, they're nice.
Of course they're the only ones sharing. They've abandoned the need for traditional hardware. MS basically are a third party publisher at this point. They're selling millions of games across all platforms.
