By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 14 November 2022
Edit Thread
Ryuu96 said:
Machiavellian said:

Who says he could not ship a version of Warzone just to keep to this statement.  Unless he specifically state mainline COD, it would always be in doubt which specific version he means.  The statement still have a lot of wiggle room and pretty much still keeps MS options wide open.

Lol, I understand reason to be sceptical about similar cases like this, but I think this time you're reading far too much into meanings, I really doubt Microsoft is going to make these comments intended for regulators no less only to go "sike, we meant Warzone suckers" Lol. Microsoft cares too much about their relationship with regulators.

After everything that Phil has said, multiple statements on this issue, the offered Sony contract, publicly stating it doesn't make financial sense and straight up comparing it to Minecraft which releases all its spinoffs on PlayStation too, not just mainline Minecraft, I'm 100% convinced that new mainline sequels to CoD are not leaving PlayStation.

We'll also see what Tom Warren has to say this week too.

Its not that I am reading to much in the meaning, I am reading what is not there.  When its not specific and specified then the company can easily go against a particular statement.  Basically what I am saying is that the statement from Phil means nothing without specific context.  The statement lacks any specific context and thus it means at any time Phil or MS could go against it if they so choose.  Its not a question of will they do so its the concept that they can.

Also if the statement is not in a legal binding document signed by MS and Sony then it also means nothing.  I have worked in an industry where we have to have specific binding contracts between services and customers because if you do not one party or the other will take advantage of it.  Sony or the EU do not want MS words, they would want a binding contract that would not leave any doubt on the situation.

To any authority, Phil statement is more PR than binding and it carry absolutely no weight because at any time he can just take the PR hit and go against it.  These public statements are just for support from the public but he can easily 3 years down the road just go against it and make some excuse.  For any authority, they will want a signed binding document with heavy penalties if either party breach contract to insure no BS down the line.

So to sum this up, Phil statement means nothing.  Its just words, only a binding contract on the matter resolves the situation but MS would be foolish to do so unless forced.