Red arrows are a problem? Really?

I think the huge overhaul was necessary for the franchise to move forward in this day and age. It allowed for better storytelling and a more impressive presentation overall. I highly doubt an old style GoW would have been as successful as the new direction turned out to be.

I have played all the originals back in the day and while they were very good for their time, I was blown away by how good the new game was. I guess it also has to do with maturing as time goes by. I have a son of my own now, so the new story really spoke to me on that level as well and I believe Cory Barlog wanted to have themes of parenthood in the game as one of his main things as well.

I can see where it may have alienated some fans of the originals, but it also invited many new people in with the new approach.

First off, do you even know what marketable securities mean? What about the difference between IFRS and GAAP accounting? Do you even care?

Did you even bother to check Sony's quarterly statements to try to figure out what is going on?

I guess you haven't, have you? "lol :)"

So please abstain from talking about what you don't obviously understand.

Edit: DP...

I don't know if going on a huge buying spree to counter this move would be wise for Sony. They have done some small acquisitions in their past, sure, but those have been individual studios that have practically been under Sony for years anyways. Their success has in essence come through internal growth, so maybe money is better spent there. Bolster the existing network of studios and maybe foster some new small ones so that they can grow up big. Develop new IPs, take risks. Go mobile as well, because it seems to be a necessary evil in order to succeed in the long run. Even 10 or 20 billion would go a long way in doing those things, instead of spending it all on a big company. They know how to make good stuff, just focus on that and ramp it up even more. Those can't be taken away.

If they bought EA, they'd also have all of C&C, giving MS 3 AAA RTS's under it's belt, 3 prime ones to be exact, and that could give them the ability to bring back the genre in a big way, but I don't really trust MS to do that, seeing as how most AAA's with RTS's are either Esports or it's kept in cold storage. 

EA's not doing so hot, but at the same time, neither is Ubisoft, since they are facing sex scandals atm, their stock value is falling and their recent RB6 extraction "mode" (can't believe they are selling it like a separate brand new game at that price) isn't doing so great review-wise.

It's so weird how the stars have magically aligned at this moment, where 3 big publishers are not doing so great, game wise, sales wise and stock wise, and MS has 3 of them under it's belt now, with two remaining.

If I were Sony, I'd go for EA, then Ubisoft if possible, but at this point I don't really want to see the main 3 gobbling up anymore publishers, let alone the two holdings companies doing the same. 

How does that excite you? You are gaining nothing at all.

He will gain a metric ass load of GamePass titles, if he is a subscriber.

Those games would have come to Xbox and It would have cost less than 1 billion to get those games on GP. 

The move is to remove IP from the competition. (and push on the mobile market)

Dude the GP offer for new subscribers is 1 dollar not 1 billion dollars ;)

Microsoft pays to get 3rd party on GP. ( The deal don't make sense from a pure financial perspective. They want the market share)