Forums - Sony Discussion - Report: Sony looking to acquire Metal Gear, Castlevania, and Silent Hill IP's from Konami, Kojima involvement planned

Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

To Rare? I have said that even Kinect was their choice.

And you, are you going to consider the important timeframe is the present? Or current gen? Or if it fits you then 30 years ago is more important?

Mate its an easy question. Current means now not 30 years a ago.

Let me put it this way if you have. If Sony wasnt giving creative freedom to devs last gen does that mean they arent doing it now?

So you take back your post about FF originating in NES 30 something years ago? Will admit that MGS originated on PS1 while MG:S originated in MSX and not NES? It can't get simpler than that. Because if you read what I wrote you wouldn't need to ask again.



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

Around the Network
Azzanation said:
LivingMetal said:

Why start "this gen?"  Why not start since Microsoft acquired Bungie with the original Xbox when Alex Seropian left Bungie after creative differences?  And the rest of history as Runa216 already covered some of it since you make it so easy.  Also, Mojang makes more than just Minecraft, but employees were irate after Microsoft required them to concentrate on Minecraft.  Rare was used to push Kinect, not allowing them to continue a legacy they build with Nintendo.  And you have more developers who once worked exclusively with Microsoft and are now also working with Sony, but NOT the other way around such as Epic, Bungie, Remedy, Valve, etc. with projects outside of Microsoft's control.  Why do you think that there has been a more variety of titles for the PlayStation platform than the Xbox?  It's because Sony purposely allows a far less tighter control for those developers to make games that want and not heavily demanded by Microsoft in ALL GENS.  But you had to make it "this gen" to shape your narrow field of view of justification.  You're not fooling anyone but yourself. 

Why not include other gens?

Umm because that matter has been resolved. Meaning that they give creative freedom to devs. 

Honestly why are you trying to twist. We are talking about current not what MS was doing back in the DOS days.

Textbook Strawman! We don't need to go back to the DOS days, and exaggerating the timeframe like that in order to make your point does you no favours. The history of Microsoft over the last two generations has not been good. They did some great things with supporting indies on their platform in the early years of 360, but beyond that their stuff has been homogenized and anything that doesn't fit their mold is cancelled or not given the support it needs. This is drastically different from Sony's wide berth of creativity between their development teams. 

That is why people think Sony having Castlevania, Metal Gear solid, and Silent Hill would be a good idea. They're more likely to say 'hey, Kojima! Here's 100 million dollars, give us a Silent Hills game' than Microsoft would be...becuase they've done things like that with Kojima in the past. Once again, I refer to you Death Stranding. That is one hell of a weird, off-kilter piece of work from a true auteur. That sort of shit would never fly with Konami today (maybe in the 90's?) and certainly not with Microsoft (who mostly focuses on multiplayer and online functionality)

Actually, holy shit, I think I found where this goes wrong. Microsoft is up there with Ubisoft, Activision, EA, and other developers like that. you know, the big third party ones. Most of their stuff has a similar look and feel and style, leading to redundancy. too much trend chasing, not enough unique, singleplayer stuff (And even the singleplayer stuff is kinda generic). sure, there are exceptions, but those are few and far between. Again, Shooters and racers and gritty realism. 

Microsoft has a clear aesthetic, as does nintendo (Bubbly, toony, stylized fun), but I don't think Sony does. you're just as likely to get LittlebigPlanet and Ratchet & Clank as you are Uncharted and God of War. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Runa216 said:
Azzanation said:

Why not include other gens?

Umm because that matter has been resolved. Meaning that they give creative freedom to devs. 

Honestly why are you trying to twist. We are talking about current not what MS was doing back in the DOS days.

Textbook Strawman! We don't need to go back to the DOS days, and exaggerating the timeframe like that in order to make your point does you no favours. The history of Microsoft over the last two generations has not been good. They did some great things with supporting indies on their platform in the early years of 360, but beyond that their stuff has been homogenized and anything that doesn't fit their mold is cancelled or not given the support it needs. This is drastically different from Sony's wide berth of creativity between their development teams. 

That is why people think Sony having Castlevania, Metal Gear solid, and Silent Hill would be a good idea. They're more likely to say 'hey, Kojima! Here's 100 million dollars, give us a Silent Hills game' than Microsoft would be...becuase they've done things like that with Kojima in the past. Once again, I refer to you Death Stranding. That is one hell of a weird, off-kilter piece of work from a true auteur. That sort of shit would never fly with Konami today (maybe in the 90's?) and certainly not with Microsoft (who mostly focuses on multiplayer and online functionality)

Actually, holy shit, I think I found where this goes wrong. Microsoft is up there with Ubisoft, Activision, EA, and other developers like that. you know, the big third party ones. Most of their stuff has a similar look and feel and style, leading to redundancy. too much trend chasing, not enough unique, singleplayer stuff (And even the singleplayer stuff is kinda generic). sure, there are exceptions, but those are few and far between. Again, Shooters and racers and gritty realism. 

Microsoft has a clear aesthetic, as does nintendo (Bubbly, toony, stylized fun), but I don't think Sony does. you're just as likely to get LittlebigPlanet and Ratchet & Clank as you are Uncharted and God of War. 

Yep.



Azzanation said:
RedKingXIII said:

If Sony (or anyone) buying the IPs means we get good Silent Hill, Metal Gear and Castlevania games again then I'm all for it, even if they end up being exclusives. Exclusivity is better then pachinkos, nothing and Metal Gear Survive after all.

Will make no difference if only a 3rd of the console market can access it. 

Ofcourse it does make a difference,a game on only one console is better than no game at all.



DonFerrari said:

So you take back your post about FF originating in NES 30 something years ago? Will admit that MGS originated on PS1 while MG:S originated in MSX and not NES? It can't get simpler than that. Because if you read what I wrote you wouldn't need to ask again.

Umm are you saying games like FF and Castlevania didnt originate from Nintendo systems? Even Metal Gear was a running game on the NES. Because i believe you are avoiding facts here. Ill agree that MGS didnt however its the same bloody thing.

Are you going to say that Sony refusing Crossplay only months ago is now their permament decision and will never change? Same can be said for creative freedom under MS. They came out and said it. 

You clearly dont understand apples to oranges.

Still waiting on your anwser or you want to continue avoiding it..

Runa216 said:

Textbook Strawman! We don't need to go back to the DOS days, and exaggerating the timeframe like that in order to make your point does you no favours. The history of Microsoft over the last two generations has not been good. They did some great things with supporting indies on their platform in the early years of 360, but beyond that their stuff has been homogenized and anything that doesn't fit their mold is cancelled or not given the support it needs. This is drastically different from Sony's wide berth of creativity between their development teams. 

Yes that was me being exaggerated because the point means the same thing. Comparing a companies past to there reality now is blind siting facts. MS admitted they are giving creative freedom to there devs and the current crop of games showcase it, are you denying that fact? 

Lets have a look at some games here and see if your point holds up.

ORI WILL OF THE WISP 

GROUNDED

BLEEDING EDGE

PROJECT MARA

EVERWILD

SEA OF THIEVES

BATTLETOADS

CUPHEAD

FORZA HORIZON 4

AGE OF EMPIRES 4

WASTELAND 3

PHYSCONAUNTS 2

No creative freedom you say? What a joke.

And here you are calling me a strawman when you guys are comparing buying IPs to decisions companies made years ago as your counter argument. 

Your logic is this "MS will never allow creative freedom because they didnt do so in the 360 era" 

You guys can try harder atleast.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 19 March 2020

Around the Network
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

So you take back your post about FF originating in NES 30 something years ago? Will admit that MGS originated on PS1 while MG:S originated in MSX and not NES? It can't get simpler than that. Because if you read what I wrote you wouldn't need to ask again.

Umm are you saying games like FF and Castlevania didnt originate from Nintendo systems? Even Metal Gear was a running game on the NES. Because i believe you are avoiding facts here. Ill agree that MGS didnt however its the same bloody thing.

Are you going to say that Sony refusing Crossplay only months ago is now their permament decision and will never change? Same can be said for creative freedom under MS. They came out and said it. 

You clearly dont understand apples to oranges.

Still waiting on your anwser or you want to continue avoiding it..

Runa216 said:

Textbook Strawman! We don't need to go back to the DOS days, and exaggerating the timeframe like that in order to make your point does you no favours. The history of Microsoft over the last two generations has not been good. They did some great things with supporting indies on their platform in the early years of 360, but beyond that their stuff has been homogenized and anything that doesn't fit their mold is cancelled or not given the support it needs. This is drastically different from Sony's wide berth of creativity between their development teams. 

Yes that was me being exaggerated because the point means the same thing. Comparing a companies past to there reality now is blind siting facts. MS admitted they are giving creative freedom to there devs and the current crop of games showcase it, are you denying that fact? 

Lets have a look at some games here and see if your point holds up.

ORI WILL OF THE WISP 

GROUNDED

BLEEDING EDGE

PROJECT MARA

EVERWILD

SEA OF THIEVES

BATTLETOADS

CUPHEAD

FORZA HORIZON 4

AGE OF EMPIRES 4

WASTELAND 3

PHYSCONAUNTS 2

No creative freedom you say? What a joke.

And here you are calling me a strawman when you guys are comparing buying IPs to decisions companies made years ago as your counter argument. 

Your logic is this "MS will never allow creative freedom because they didnt do so in the 360 era" 

You guys can try harder atleast.

Do you not understand the difference between 'there are a few exceptions to the rule' and 'this is how ALL of their games are'?

Yes, there are games on Microsoft platforms that are quirky and unique, but are any of those multimillion sellers outside of Forza, Gears, and Halo? They have some indies, sure (I complimented Ori and Cuphead multiple times and absolutely adore those games), but where's the AAA stuff that's really pushing boundaries? Where's stuff like Death Stranding or Scalebound? Where are the niche titles with a huge budget like Bloodborne? Where are the new AAA IPs like Horizon? I use these huge, mega-budget examples becuase sony is willing to take that creative risk on something new or niche, while the only games Microsoft are willing to spend a bunch on are sequels to shooters and racers. 

And the few games that aren't Halo or Forza or Gears tend to not do well. Sunset Overdrive (An Insomniac game, now owned by sony) didn't sell all that well (Which is one of the many reasons Insomniac has sold itself to Sony) despite being critically enjoyed. Sea of Thieves and Crackdown 3 were terrible (Though Sea of Thieves got better). 

Remember how much time and energy Sony put into No Man's Sky? That game was also terrible at launch, but Sony highlighted it on the biggest stage in gaming 2-3 years in a row because it was quirky and unique and promised a wholly new experience. 

Where's Scalebound? 

Where is Scalebound? Seriously! This and a handful of other potentially unique games were cancelled. you know what series I'd LOVE to get back into? Fable. you know what franchise just got cancelled a few years back? Fable (unofficially, of course, it could come back)

the point is, having a few micro-budget exceptions does not mean that's how a publisher/platform holder generally is. Of course there will be a handful of indies and middle-tier games that break the mould - you will ALWAYS be able to find exceptions like that. Hell, even EA, Ubisoft, and Activision have a handful of games that break the mold like Unravel, Child of Light, and to a lesser extent the Spyro/Crash Bandicoot games. But as we can clearly see, nothing in Microsoft's last decade or so of history leans towards them encouraging their devs to try new things or be creative. 

On the PS4 especially, Sony has allowed their devs to break out of their comfort zones a lot. Sucker Punch has gone from a comic book game series in inFamous to a pretty serious and sombre-looking samurai game in Ghost of Tsushima. Insomniac went from wacky wild games like Sunset Overdrive and Ratchet & Clank to the outstanding Spider-Man (I figured Sucker Punch would have been better there, but I was wrong). Guerrilla Games went from generic FPS in Killzone to glorious, colourful, open-world dino-hunting game in Horizon. Sony Santa Monica was given freedom to go in a wholly different direction for God of War. Fromsoft mostly stuck to their guns but Bloodborne is undeniably a niche title unlike anything we've seen before since like, Castlevania in 1996. 

Your arguments are bad, dude. Like really bad. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Immersiveunreality said:
Azzanation said:

Will make no difference if only a 3rd of the console market can access it. 

Ofcourse it does make a difference,a game on only one console is better than no game at all.

I have no idea where he got PS is 1/3 of the market when Switch doesn't directly compete and X1 sell less than 40% of what PS4 sells.

Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

So you take back your post about FF originating in NES 30 something years ago? Will admit that MGS originated on PS1 while MG:S originated in MSX and not NES? It can't get simpler than that. Because if you read what I wrote you wouldn't need to ask again.

Umm are you saying games like FF and Castlevania didnt originate from Nintendo systems? Even Metal Gear was a running game on the NES. Because i believe you are avoiding facts here. Ill agree that MGS didnt however its the same bloody thing.

Are you going to say that Sony refusing Crossplay only months ago is now their permament decision and will never change? Same can be said for creative freedom under MS. They came out and said it. 

You clearly dont understand apples to oranges.

Still waiting on your anwser or you want to continue avoiding it..

Runa216 said:

Textbook Strawman! We don't need to go back to the DOS days, and exaggerating the timeframe like that in order to make your point does you no favours. The history of Microsoft over the last two generations has not been good. They did some great things with supporting indies on their platform in the early years of 360, but beyond that their stuff has been homogenized and anything that doesn't fit their mold is cancelled or not given the support it needs. This is drastically different from Sony's wide berth of creativity between their development teams. 

Yes that was me being exaggerated because the point means the same thing. Comparing a companies past to there reality now is blind siting facts. MS admitted they are giving creative freedom to there devs and the current crop of games showcase it, are you denying that fact? 

Lets have a look at some games here and see if your point holds up.

ORI WILL OF THE WISP 

GROUNDED

BLEEDING EDGE

PROJECT MARA

EVERWILD

SEA OF THIEVES

BATTLETOADS

CUPHEAD

FORZA HORIZON 4

AGE OF EMPIRES 4

WASTELAND 3

PHYSCONAUNTS 2

No creative freedom you say? What a joke.

And here you are calling me a strawman when you guys are comparing buying IPs to decisions companies made years ago as your counter argument. 

Your logic is this "MS will never allow creative freedom because they didnt do so in the 360 era" 

You guys can try harder atleast.

So you are ready to accept MS doesn't give creative freedom?

And last month one game have crossplay announced involving PS4, and of course you prefer to forget that MS had closed the crossplay door much before.



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

Runa216 said:

Do you not understand the difference between 'there are a few exceptions to the rule' and 'this is how ALL of their games are'?

Yes, there are games on Microsoft platforms that are quirky and unique, but are any of those multimillion sellers outside of Forza, Gears, and Halo? They have some indies, sure (I complimented Ori and Cuphead multiple times and absolutely adore those games), but where's the AAA stuff that's really pushing boundaries? Where's stuff like Death Stranding or Scalebound? Where are the niche titles with a huge budget like Bloodborne? Where are the new AAA IPs like Horizon? I use these huge, mega-budget examples becuase sony is willing to take that creative risk on something new or niche, while the only games Microsoft are willing to spend a bunch on are sequels to shooters and racers. 

And the few games that aren't Halo or Forza or Gears tend to not do well. Sunset Overdrive (An Insomniac game, now owned by sony) didn't sell all that well (Which is one of the many reasons Insomniac has sold itself to Sony) despite being critically enjoyed. Sea of Thieves and Crackdown 3 were terrible (Though Sea of Thieves got better). 

Remember how much time and energy Sony put into No Man's Sky? That game was also terrible at launch, but Sony highlighted it on the biggest stage in gaming 2-3 years in a row because it was quirky and unique and promised a wholly new experience. 

Where's Scalebound? 

Where is Scalebound? Seriously! This and a handful of other potentially unique games were cancelled. you know what series I'd LOVE to get back into? Fable. you know what franchise just got cancelled a few years back? Fable (unofficially, of course, it could come back)

the point is, having a few micro-budget exceptions does not mean that's how a publisher/platform holder generally is. Of course there will be a handful of indies and middle-tier games that break the mould - you will ALWAYS be able to find exceptions like that. Hell, even EA, Ubisoft, and Activision have a handful of games that break the mold like Unravel, Child of Light, and to a lesser extent the Spyro/Crash Bandicoot games. But as we can clearly see, nothing in Microsoft's last decade or so of history leans towards them encouraging their devs to try new things or be creative. 

On the PS4 especially, Sony has allowed their devs to break out of their comfort zones a lot. Sucker Punch has gone from a comic book game series in inFamous to a pretty serious and sombre-looking samurai game in Ghost of Tsushima. Insomniac went from wacky wild games like Sunset Overdrive and Ratchet & Clank to the outstanding Spider-Man (I figured Sucker Punch would have been better there, but I was wrong). Guerrilla Games went from generic FPS in Killzone to glorious, colourful, open-world dino-hunting game in Horizon. Sony Santa Monica was given freedom to go in a wholly different direction for God of War. Fromsoft mostly stuck to their guns but Bloodborne is undeniably a niche title unlike anything we've seen before since like, Castlevania in 1996. 

Your arguments are bad, dude. Like really bad. 

https://www.windowscentral.com/platinumgames-says-scalebound-was-cancelled-because-both-sides-failed < Google isn't that hard to use.

A budget doesn't mean a game has to be good. Id much rather play games like Ori or State of Decay than Tomb Raider. That is your preference and that doesn't mean you are correct. Its a personal opinion. Xboxes big titles are up there in-terms of budget and quality with any, weather they review the same is a completely different scenario.

The fact is MS don't grant creative freedom to there developers and people using the past to try to prove your point is a very poor argument and something I am correcting them on. Hinting that MS don't give creative freedom so them buying MGS and Silent Hills and Castlevania would be a bad idea. At least MS wont lock titles away allowing the games not only to be made with the developers intention but also sell it on multiplatforms like the PC.

https://gamingbolt.com/mike-ybarra-microsoft-wont-limit-creative-freedom-of-new-studios

I listed you a bunch of games that all have creative freedom behind them, all unique and fun titles. You clearly ignored others like Project Mara and Hellblade 2 and what the Intuitive have in the oven. 

So thank me later Runa216 and heavyMetal.

Donferrari said:

So you are ready to accept MS doesn't give creative freedom?

And last month one game have crossplay announced involving PS4, and of course you prefer to forget that MS had closed the crossplay door much before.

https://gamingbolt.com/mike-ybarra-microsoft-wont-limit-creative-freedom-of-new-studios

^ Are you going to say I am right now or are you going to find a way to twist like you always try to do? 

Don, HeavyMetal and Runa216 id be accepting apologize sometime today.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 19 March 2020

Azzanation said:
Runa216 said:

Do you not understand the difference between 'there are a few exceptions to the rule' and 'this is how ALL of their games are'?

Yes, there are games on Microsoft platforms that are quirky and unique, but are any of those multimillion sellers outside of Forza, Gears, and Halo? They have some indies, sure (I complimented Ori and Cuphead multiple times and absolutely adore those games), but where's the AAA stuff that's really pushing boundaries? Where's stuff like Death Stranding or Scalebound? Where are the niche titles with a huge budget like Bloodborne? Where are the new AAA IPs like Horizon? I use these huge, mega-budget examples becuase sony is willing to take that creative risk on something new or niche, while the only games Microsoft are willing to spend a bunch on are sequels to shooters and racers. 

And the few games that aren't Halo or Forza or Gears tend to not do well. Sunset Overdrive (An Insomniac game, now owned by sony) didn't sell all that well (Which is one of the many reasons Insomniac has sold itself to Sony) despite being critically enjoyed. Sea of Thieves and Crackdown 3 were terrible (Though Sea of Thieves got better). 

Remember how much time and energy Sony put into No Man's Sky? That game was also terrible at launch, but Sony highlighted it on the biggest stage in gaming 2-3 years in a row because it was quirky and unique and promised a wholly new experience. 

Where's Scalebound? 

Where is Scalebound? Seriously! This and a handful of other potentially unique games were cancelled. you know what series I'd LOVE to get back into? Fable. you know what franchise just got cancelled a few years back? Fable (unofficially, of course, it could come back)

the point is, having a few micro-budget exceptions does not mean that's how a publisher/platform holder generally is. Of course there will be a handful of indies and middle-tier games that break the mould - you will ALWAYS be able to find exceptions like that. Hell, even EA, Ubisoft, and Activision have a handful of games that break the mold like Unravel, Child of Light, and to a lesser extent the Spyro/Crash Bandicoot games. But as we can clearly see, nothing in Microsoft's last decade or so of history leans towards them encouraging their devs to try new things or be creative. 

On the PS4 especially, Sony has allowed their devs to break out of their comfort zones a lot. Sucker Punch has gone from a comic book game series in inFamous to a pretty serious and sombre-looking samurai game in Ghost of Tsushima. Insomniac went from wacky wild games like Sunset Overdrive and Ratchet & Clank to the outstanding Spider-Man (I figured Sucker Punch would have been better there, but I was wrong). Guerrilla Games went from generic FPS in Killzone to glorious, colourful, open-world dino-hunting game in Horizon. Sony Santa Monica was given freedom to go in a wholly different direction for God of War. Fromsoft mostly stuck to their guns but Bloodborne is undeniably a niche title unlike anything we've seen before since like, Castlevania in 1996. 

Your arguments are bad, dude. Like really bad. 

https://www.windowscentral.com/platinumgames-says-scalebound-was-cancelled-because-both-sides-failed < Google isn't that hard to use.

A budget doesn't mean a game has to be good. Id much rather play games like Ori or State of Decay than Tomb Raider. That is your preference and that doesn't mean you are correct. Its a personal opinion. Xboxes big titles are up there in-terms of budget and quality with any, weather they review the same is a completely different scenario.

The fact is MS don't grant creative freedom to there developers and people using the past to try to prove your point is a very poor argument and something I am correcting them on. Hinting that MS don't give creative freedom so them buying MGS and Silent Hills and Castlevania would be a bad idea. At least MS wont lock titles away allowing the games not only to be made with the developers intention but also sell it on multiplatforms like the PC.

https://gamingbolt.com/mike-ybarra-microsoft-wont-limit-creative-freedom-of-new-studios

I listed you a bunch of games that all have creative freedom behind them, all unique and fun titles. You clearly ignored others like Project Mara and Hellblade 2 and what the Intuitive have in the oven. 

So thank me later Runa216 and heavyMetal.

Donferrari said:

So you are ready to accept MS doesn't give creative freedom?

And last month one game have crossplay announced involving PS4, and of course you prefer to forget that MS had closed the crossplay door much before.

https://gamingbolt.com/mike-ybarra-microsoft-wont-limit-creative-freedom-of-new-studios

^ Are you going to say I am right now or are you going to find a way to twist like you always try to do? 

Don, HeavyMetal and Runa216 id be accepting apologize sometime today.

When you stop spinning and pretending to be neutral you may try to request it.

So mike ybarra saying they won't limit is like a contract not PR right? And are you going to decide if you want to stay in current gen or consider 30 years time span?



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

DonFerrari said:

When you stop spinning and pretending to be neutral you may try to request it.

So mike ybarra saying they won't limit is like a contract not PR right? And are you going to decide if you want to stay in current gen or consider 30 years time span?

Annnnnndddddddd the twist....

I linked you actual evidence and a list of games to prove my point and all you got is.. no evidence, no articles or Links or even a list of games we can go by, just the usual assumption of you THINK.

Unless you apologise, this convo is over.