By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

MS still in fact pay to devs to have exclusives, be them permanent or temporary.

Actually tell me what game that MS has paid for that has not come out to another system.  I can tell you multiple games that have come to Sony that have never come out on Xbox.  The difference is that MS does not make any exclusive deals that lock out a game to a competition system.  They may help fund a game for a short period of time but that is to be expected but totally lock out, no.

There are a lot of games that didn't come to Xbox by MS choice, by dev choice and sure some because Sony paid for exclusivity on consoles (which are very minimal quantity if they actually exist since we never saw an agreement signed over it, Yakuza never showed before on Xbox but when MS gone there to negotiate they magically all were available on GP including Like a Dragon next gen version being timed exclusive on Xbox despise MS not helping to develop it, but Street Fighter 5 yes we do have confirmation that Sony paid to be forever console exclusive).

For games that aren't made by MS that are forever exclusive to their consoles I won't remember any, most likely because I don't even play on Xbox, although just this gen there have been plenty announced as exclusive just like Medium, powerwash simulator, etc, but if you ask me this in 2 years I will most likely have forgot they exist as they weren't noteworthy titles. And there is no dispute that in general the titles Sony paid for exclusivity have done a lot better than the ones Xbox paid.

Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

Not always. A lot of exclusives on Playstation didn't need any moneyhat, they were simple fruit of relationship and past success like Yakuza and Persona. It needed MS expending money to receive the content but there was 0 barriers from Sony on they getting the content after MS gone there and paid to have what Sony was getting for free.

Imaginedvl said:

Do you understand why Microsoft are showing those numbers in the first place and what was their end goal at this hearing?
I don't think you do :)

Yes I do, put themselves in the worst possible light while putting Sony as a big bully.

You actually do not know this to be true.  No one knows besides Sony and the company they negotiate with whether or not any deal was done based on money.  Instead, lets just go by MS statement that they specifically stated that Sony make deals to lock out games to their platform and services.  If this was not true, Sony would have every opportunity to dispute it.  I always find it funny when people make a case as if Sony is some benevolent company instead of a vicious player just like Nintendo and MS.

Sony is a bully just like MS is a bully.  Sony definitely use their market dominance to obtain deals their competitors cannot. The question is if they are making those deals and they truly have dominance over MS, then they risk getting tagged on antitrust laws. 

The reason we are hear is that the EU stated a lock out of COD would be hurtful to Sony.  So if lock out deals are hurtful then the whole concept of lock out deals are not put into jeopardy.  If you are the market leader and you do lock out deals, you are effectively using your market position to harm competition.  As I stated, this line MS is going benefits them more than it does Sony.

You know that the burden of the proof is on the one claiming it not on the one saying they didn't do it.

You say only Sony and the company knows what was negotiated, but them go and say MS claimed something else. It seems like you haven't been looking the news. Sony haven't gone to social media to talk about this deal, the only time they talked anything was when MS said about the contract with Sony, all the other time they let MS say whatever they wanted.

MS is still to show any proof of their claim of Sony making any deal that specifically says anywhere but Xbox. I guess you will follow lulu mersey line and perhaps say that those titles shown on SoP yesterday Sony have paid to not appear on Xbox right?

And your generalization that if CoD being locked out (which would be ALL CoD for the rest of the time) is just as harmful as any other (even single title and/or timed for a small title) then you are reaching.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."