My head is killing me Think its time for a cure .

Down a little bit more of the hair of the dog that bit you.

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

TGA clearly state on their website that games released by November 18th would be considered for nominations, but nominees were announced on the 14th.

Pentiment and Pokémon Scarlet/Violet received no nominations. I highly doubt they were considered.

It's more like a cover, but it usually means anything releasing close to that won't be nominated which is one of my biggest issues with The Game Awards (besides the Forza Horizon 5 snub). It's not "Game of the Year" but instead "Game of the Past 10 Months" and I will always stand by that I think TGA's should be hosted in February instead of December.

Give us a nice show to kick the year off with, I believe Dice GOTY Awards are held around March and stuff like The Oscars is hosted around March too, I don't know why TGA's is hosted in December aside from maybe it's a better time to get advertisers, which is another issue I have with TGA's, so much damn advertising, Lol.

Yes, Xbox would have had few nominations either way this year but I've no doubt that if these awards were hosted in February instead of December that Scarlet/Violet would have been nominated and even Pentiment judging from reviews deserves a Best Narrative nomination and maybe even Art-Style for how unique it is.

I also think Halo Infinite definitely would have got a nomination last year for at least Best Audio, Best OST and Best Multiplayer (at the time). I still think it deserves a Best Audio/OST and it could still be nominated for this year but when something released in the previous year it runs the risk of reviewers simply not considering it for those reasons.

Also, Best Ongoing is always the same damn 5 titles, how about Forza Horizon 5? Flight Simulator? Sea of Thieves?