Machiavellian said:
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. |
Sure, they theoretically can, it's not a legally binding statement, I just don't think they will, and I have no doubt that by their current statements they mean all CoDs will remain multiplatform, not just Warzone. They would have had a legally binding document until at least 2027 (and I also believe they would have continued that document beyond 2027) if Sony signed it 
Essay Pro