There really is something to the dialogue in Margin Call, because its a movie in which I feel like serious shit is going down, and there's some "holy shit" moments, and the only time I usually feel like that in a non-action movie is when its written by somebody who is critically acclaimed.

But it definitely doesn't feel like Aaron Sorkin. It doesn't feel like Tony Gilroy in Michael Clayton (maybe a little).

Turns out the movie is written and directed by Chandor. Who also made A Most Violent Year, which is a sometimes uneven movie but it does have some heavy moments. And he also made All Is Lost, which doesn't really have dialogue, but its a solid movie.

And then he made Triple Frontier, which I never watched. But I don't get the impression that it was that smart of a movie.

Nah, it peaked with Supremacy.

You could consider Supremacy and Ultimatum to be co-depedenant, but ultimately from Ultimatum onwards, they do the same thing.

"Oh actually, THIS GUY was the one who was there from the very beginning and is the real mastermind behind Treadstone."

"Wait, actually, there's ANOTHER secret about how you become Jason Bourne at the very beginning."

I stopped caring the moment I noticed the pattern.

What alot of people forget is that, this show may not have been as funny as the Simpsons, but it was going up against the absolute best seasons of the Simpsons.

So, The Critic was still funnier than 98% of everything else on television at the time.

They were to create a catchphrase on the show, right? I remember the television commercials showing this.

They would do a side-by-side fistbump and both say "Bad-dow!" or something like that? What's the exact spelling on that?

Well, I'm sure he was working around the limitation that it was his first movie and it was going to have almost no budget.

According to IMDB trivia, they didn't even have a wardrobe budget. All scenes before they wear black suits, the actors were asked to bring their own clothes. And the black suits were provided for free.

That was actually Michael Madsen's own car.

They kinda had to do some gorilla filmmaking. Buscemi's scene where he takes the car was done when there were no cars at that intersection. And I believe I had heard that Buscemi and the cops chasing after him on that sidewalk, they simply ran around real people that were on that sidewalk.

Seeing as though he was going to film it originally without any professional actors, Tarantino already had to make the script be as budget-friendly as possible. Once the script got in the hands of Harvey Keitel, he helped raise a little money and brought in actual actors.

I remember finally watching the movie on DVD about 20 years ago, that the audio in the movie appeared to be of higher quality than the visual aspect of the film. Seems like they wisely spent what small budget they had on that.

I'm always fascinated with movies that you can tell the premise and setting of the movie is based entirely on the fact that its low budget and they're trying to shoot in as few locations as possible. I remember watching a trailer recently for a movie in which everything takes place in a warehouse because its a photo shoot. And the photographer, assistants, make-up artists, and models are all having conversations with one another in the same area. The more I forgot that the movie is filmed in one area, the more impressive it is.

> And that was proven wrong....

No it wasn't. I actually referred you to the Metal Gear Solid HD Collection. None of the Metal Gear Solid games were ever individually made for XBox, besides MGS2.

Yet they all eventually ended up on Xbox when combined as a collection.

The same thing could happen with FF7 Remake Parts 1, 2, and I dunno if there's a Part 3. But afterwards, it can be combined and ASSIGNED A DIFFERENT TITLE, making it an entirely new sku

And this would bypass any temporary exclusivity agreement.

Not to mention that any such agreement is never permanent.

Quite frankly, I don't really care to assure you of your ridiculous fanboy complaints.

> No Microsoft legally can't fucking lie about that! They said it in court! Meaning if they did lie it Sony would've said so already....

They literally lied to the outside world about their active userbase numbers.

Once again, the exclusivity can be circumvented by Square-Enix, and almost certainly will be. As I already explained.

Why are you yelling?

> The fact I gave you proof and all you did was cry is proof you have no clue what you're talking about.

No, you didn't give me proof.

You gave me a completely unfounded claim, that you have seen that those things are NEVER PERMANENT.

Buying out Activision to own Call of Duty...............is PERMANENT.

There's really nothing you can say that changes that.

EDIT: Looks like I've outed another fanboy who went on a full fanboy meltdown. Poor guy was literally screaming at his computer at the end. And then proceeded to block me so that it looks like he could have the last word

He kept on screaming "STOP LYING!!!!"....and never once bother to explain, demonstrate, or provide anything that would be considered information or evidence, or even explanation/narrative to...y'know......actually prove I was lying.

He just kept on repeating it like as if he was using the phrase to express his own personal discontent. Like as if I was hurting him by the points I was making.

These Xbox fanboys are something. I'd rather wish that they were paid astroturfers because I could respect that more.

> Again find help! If you need to be in this level of denial where you're basically just saying no to facts you need help!

You've literally presented no facts.

And when I ask you to present them, you just start throwing empty platitudes.

> "Bloodborne was co-developed with Sony."

> There's nothing I can find to back that up! Nothing!

I literally showed you the part where Sony approached From Software for the project.

> "Bloodborne is entirely funded by Sony, since its conception."

> O wait you just don't understand how game development works.....fuck off! Funded ISN'T CREATED! The game would've been made anyways!

Oh man. You really don't anything, and now you are screaming at this point.

> "Show me where that is bought? Where's the deal for that?"

> Well for RE7 Idk the fact it's not on pc when it wouldn't be that hard to port especially when the game was very popular...is thinking that fucking hard???

You're "proof"..........is PC gamers port-begging for something that they didn't get?

Capcom allowed RE4 to be remade entirely in VR. But they didn't do it, Meta/Oculus had another studio, Armature Studio, do that job. ** You think Sony "permanently" bought out the rights to VR for RE7?** LOL that's your theory?

> Funny how you magically missed the news that Sony didn't do a temporary agreement with that game and others....

> O and you magically ignore silent hill remaster as well that's not suspicious at all...

> https://twitter.com/KoreaXboxnews/status/1605951525192617984?t=oBwOtXij3JM9MfxNiCE7hw&s=19

> There's your fucking proof! and no xbox legally can't lie about that.

"Xbox can't legally lie about that"

Oh my goodness, you are screaming at your computer screen at this point. Actually Xbox straight up revealed that they lied to consumers and media about their console userbase when people read the documents from the CMA report last month. Alot of numbers displaying growth in their "Active Users" and Console size were significantly smaller than what they have been saying publicly.

So, they lied to somebody. And they did it for marketing reasons, I suppose.

Once again..........I'm going to ask you a simple question. Did Sony buy out Konami to get Silent Hill?

> There was a new FF game it was made by a different developer which is why it was allowed(and was shit) and Microsoft paid for a ton of Japanese games for gamepass and to come to Xbox like persona 5, I mean they even made a ton of Square games as well so it doesn't make sense they would just not pay for FF7 remake.

Oh man, look at this.

For starters, I already explained to you how Square Enix can release Final Fantasy 7 Remake to Xbox. They can get around it by producing a completely different sku, that would no longer be under any such temporary exclusivity agreements.

Call it a "Complete Edition" and that's literally a different product name, and a product sku. And they can now sell it to Xbox.

That is what makes the agreement temporary. In other words, Sony is not doing what Microsoft is attempting to do with buying out a company entirely for permanent control over an entire IP.

Now you have excuses for Final Fantasy 15. Sorry those simply aren't going to work. You are now a babbling gaming fanboy at this point.

Microsoft paid for Persona 5 to come to gamepass??????? And that has WHAT to do with FF15, exactly?

Your theory is that FF15 was "allowed" on Xbox back in 2016 because Microsoft brought Persona 5 to GamePass in the year 2022?

Your incoherently babbling.

Take your own advice. Seek help. You can't prove a point to save your life.

> resident evil 7 vr

Show me where that is bought? Where's the deal for that?

> bloodborne at the top of my head

Bloodborne was co-developed with Sony.

> Sony Computer Entertainment approached FromSoftware concerning cooperative development on a title, and director Hidetaka Miyazaki asked about the possibility of developing a game for eighth-generation consoles. The concept of Bloodborne developed from there. There were no connections to FromSoftware's previous titles, even though Miyazaki conceded that it "carries the DNA of Demon's Souls and its very specific level design".[44] Development ran parallel to that of Dark Souls II.[45]

Hell, Demon Souls actually has Sony development members listed as co-producer for that game.

Bloodborne is entirely funded by Sony, since its conception.

> there's console exclusives like FF7

There is nothing permanent about that exclusive, it can absolutely come to Xbox later on. The thing is, Sony didn't buy out Square-Enix. Square-Enix made a business decision to join a temporary exclusivity agreement.

There could be a "complete edition" that features all parts of the game, combined, and that would be a completely separate product sku, and sold across all platforms in the future. (After all, that's what happened with Metal Gear Solid HD collection).

> Before you say "they don't own the IP" that's not a argument...

Yes it is the argument, because you are not placing any of your fanboyish anger at the proper people responsible for it.

Square-Enix, and Konami.

Nobody is "forcing" them. Nobody has bought them out to force them.

You are listing games that still have a major presence to the Japanese market. Whether you like it or not, Sony has deeper relationships with these companies in Japan, especially with these titles that have a long history of being successful in Japan. On Playstation.

They probably crunched the numbers and decided that being promoted by Sony worldwide will generate them more money, especially in Japan, than NOT being promoted by Sony and whatever additional sales they generate from selling on the Xbox platform.

The most damning thing about your complaints of Square-Enix is this: They released Final Fantasy 15 multiplatform, on both Playstation and Xbox, day and date. And they never did it again.

You know why. https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/5gltlp/79_of_uk_final_fantasy_xv_sales_were_on_ps4_21/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Stop getting mad at Sony because of this.

> This doesn't even make any fucking sense! I didn't ask a question! And I explained it in detail so I actually already proved what you said wrong...wtf are you talking about???

No, you didn't prove anything wrong.

I was making it very clear.............did Sony do what Microsoft has clearly done with Zenimax/bethesda, and they are going to eventually do with ActivisionBlizzard?

And the answer to that is no.

Square-Enix still has control over what they do with their Final Fantasy games.

> .....it doesn't matter if they helped create them!

Yes it does........it means Sony didn't take anything away that already existed.

Because Sony had a hand in creating God of War, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, Ghost of Tsushima, The Last of Us.

Were any of these games multiplatform IPs that were being sold on Xbox and Nintendo platforms, and then Sony purchased the developer with the eventual plan to only have them on Playstation platforms?

No.

Sony created these IPs.......they didn't "scam you" or "take" anything that you had to begin with.

> What matters is the amount they bought! I mean they just bought Bungie! Stop trying to convince yourself that they're a good company.

They don't control Bungie's main IP, Destiny.

Did you know that?

The publishing rights to Destiny and FUTURE Destiny games remains with the executives of Bungie, and a member board made up of Bungie employees.

In other words, Sony cannot restrict the platforms that Bungie decides to release Destiny on.

They literally made a deal that still gives Destiny autonomy.

You couldn't have picked a worse example to compare with what Microsoft is/has been doing.

> Not to mention funny how you seen to ignore the whole Sony buys exclusives when that's the argument....it's almost like you know you're wrong!

What "exclusives" did they buy? And are they PERMANENTLY bought?

You can't answer, or don't want to answer this....do you?

> That game was not announced at the time

This is some ridiculous internet fanboy logic.

Just like your other post in which you said "Well, they didn't PROMISE, did they"

What comes after that? "Well, they weren't crossing their fingers behind their back when they said it, did they?"

How many arbitrary rules do you want to put in place in order to defend Xbox here?

This was a game in development for Playstation, they literally were told stop for non-gaming, non-technical reasons. They were told to stop, and it clearly had an anti-consumer impact.

> You keep cherry picking to support your emotional viewpoint

After your ridiculous logic, you have no place to lecture anybody about "emotional viewpoints."

> Sony has indeed prevented games from being launched on rival platforms

No, they haven't

Please show me a permanent buyout, and them shutting down existing game development.

You do understand that marketing deals or timed exclusivity is a TWO PARTY partnership. Sony didn't FORCE anything, they didn't bully their way into anything.

> (Final Fantasy would like to have a word, it doesn’t matter if they don’t own the IP, they are paying to keep it off the Xbox).

No where near the level of what Microsoft is already doing with Zenimax, and what they will eventually do with Activision games.

Once again, Sony didn't bully Square-Enix. Squre-Enix made that business choice.

> Now Microsoft follows their established lead and everyone freaks out?

Once again, your entire basis for this line is based on making a clear and dishonest claim.

Your fanboy is absolutely showing here.

> It was only last generation that Insomniac released a game on the Xbox (Sunset Overdrive), and now that studio will never work with anyone but Sony again.

Sunset Overdrive bombed, Insomniac choose to work with Sony on a Sony-controlled IP. And they made their most successful game, and then they choose to continue doing business with Sony, and their owners chose to get bought out.

Once again..........Insomniac is NOT a publisher, and NOT even a major publisher.

Once again.........Insomniac HAD NO MAJOR GAMING IP at the time they were acquired. The IP was already in Sony's hands.

You were never getting a Spider-man game on Xbox. Zero Percent chance of that ever happening.

Do you honestly believe what you are typing? You're trying to compare these things as the same?

> Yes, some IP has been lost in the process to Microsoft

Zenimax, a publisher that averages between $500-$550 million in revenue annually--which puts them on the level of Capcom or Konami--was bought out entirely.

And Activision--which generates about $7.2 billion in revenue annually--and is probably the single biggest third-party publisher that conducts most of its business in the west, and is only behind Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo.

You're over here trying to downplay it as "well.........some IP"

> Can you name me a title which was confirmed and announced for PS5 or PS4, from an acquired studio, which has since been cancelled on Sony’s platform?

IGN France just posted a timely article, today, that gives us another example:

> During our Redfall preview session , we had the opportunity to chat with the game's creative director, Harvey Smith (who also worked on Deus Ex and Dishonored 1 and 2). This was an opportunity to ask him the question about the impact of the acquisition of Bethesda by Microsoft in 2021, right during the development of Redfall.

> Harvey Smith told us that one of the notable consequences was the immediate cancellation of the PlayStation 5 version of the game.

> "We were acquired by Microsoft and it was a change with capital C. They came in and they said 'No PlayStation 5, we're focusing on Xbox, PC and the Game Pass'."

What Microsoft executives are saying internally does not coincide with what they say to the outside world.

Good on this developer, and for IGN France, for getting a hard quote that makes it very clear about what is happening.

And then showing the humility that I already created the proper space where I should've listed it.

It seems like you think this nitpick fully discredits me, when all you've done is told me that Bluepoint belongs a little lower in my post.

And, doesn't change anything I've said because..........I will repeat again. Number of games that were taken from you? 0

Port-jobs can be done by other studios..........OR by the publisher themselves.

So if you worry about future Metal Gear games, Bluepoint never controlled any of that..........Konami did. Stop trying to give credit to Bluepoint for something Konami has full control over, and for something Konami can solve on their own if they wanted to.

Edit: ...and then he blocks me because he doesn't want to see me point out where he is being misleading and disingenuous.

So, I will point that out here, to his final post below: > Except, I already created a spot in my place where that SAME EXACT listing would be place.

> And I already told you that it shouldn't be in the first part, but rather moved downward in my post.

> Notice how you don't want to describe it in detail........you want to cling to the general phrasing of "got it wrong."

> And notice how I actually provide details that you intentionally leave out?

> Yeah.......I notice.

> So, you made a weak attempt to try and discredit my entire post by clinging onto a nitpick, that I went and admitted HOW it should be correctly placed in my post.

> Thanks for admitting that you were never being genuine to begin with.

> Look, I’ve clearly struck a chord here.

No, that internet tactic doesn't work with me, either.

> I’m not out here saying Microsoft is making the correct decisions, but the core of my position is that Sony did, and continues to acquire studios to boost their portfolio

No, you are saying that it is okay for Microsoft to do a anti-consumer move because you CLAIM that Sony does such anti-consumer moves all the time.

You are trying to say that Sony has established this practice already.

You are wrong, dishonest, and greatly exaggerating this.

> I’m not trying to diminish whatever these studios have done post acquisition, but in another 2 decades it’s incredibly likely Microsoft will have fostered similar success.

Really? Take a look at the state of the Halo brand.

You are now claiming that Microsoft is buying Call of Duty, Diablo, Warcraft..............to IMPROVE upon them and take them to new heights in terms of success?

That's laughable.

Microsoft is trying to CORNER A MARKET. Anybody with half a brain can see this from a mile away.

They started by buying a $7.5 billion dollar publisher, which is more than twice as large as any gaming acquisition Sony has ever made. And then the very next year they announced they are spending ten times that amount to buy an even bigger publisher.

These are the very first and second moves that a corporation makes when they are trying to corner a market.

Except I wasn't wrong, I had already created a category that already explains that. So I admitted that it should've been in that category.

It was accounted for.

You're trying to too hard to throw it out, because...........you don't actually want to argue the whole details of your claim.......because you know your claim is vastly wrong and dishonest, and exaggerated.

And you know that the more I get you to delve into your claim, INTO THE DETAILS, the more wrong you look.

Hence, you're trying to find a way out, quickly, right now.

Did you miss the part that I clearly called them a port-house from the very beginning?

> Could absolutely be robbing the industry of other remasters like that for Xbox.

Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhat? Have you actually played Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty on the Xbox?

You're joking right?............you're basically saying that you're not taking this discussion seriously. Right?

> Blast Factor

Which means they belong in the second group.

There you go, there's my humility, right there.

In other words, lemme repeat the final sentence of that bullet point.

Number of games that were "taken" from you? 0

That's a Sony published game from the get-go. In other words, Sony has already been doing business with Bluepoint since their very inception.

> They now own both IP’s and are free to do with them as they wish

So you just immediately went and moved your goalposts.

Did you think I wasn't going to notice that you just did that?

You literally asked me "show me where they are changing the parameters"

I went and showed you.

And then you just casually responded ".........as it is their right to do so"

You just proved my point, as to why they shouldn't be allowed to buy out Activision.

> And I’m sorry but Starfield being expected to launch on PlayStation was not confirmation of anything. You can’t claim it was lost when marketing material never said it was coming to PS5.

It was clearly a multiplatform announcement, since they were a multiplatform developer/publisher having a press conference for all of their games, which were multiplatform.

You attempting this legalspeak isn't going to dismiss basic common sense. When Todd Howard is saying this is his next major IP, its meant to be alongside Elder Scrolls and Fallout.

Games and Franchises that are multiplatform, and HAVE BEEN multiplatform for a while now. The expectation is more than obvious.

So..........to answer your question, they never permanently control FF7, because they didn't buy out the IP outright.

Which is what Microsoft is attempting to do with COD.

Correct?

This would also be a deal that Microsoft could make with Square-Enix, but chances are Square-Enix wouldn't make such a deal because Final Fantasy is an important IP in Japan where they expect to sell many copies of the game, and Xbox has almost no presence in Japan.

> O and speaking of them permanently buying things how do you think a lot of their studios came to be? They bought them!

Actually, they helped create almost half of them, to make games that they were publishing. In other words, the correct terminology would be that Sony helped create "second-party" studios that would later become "first-party" studios once they released a successful game, and Sony wanted to continue working with that studio.

Microsoft/Xbox is NOT doing that.

Activision is already successful and independent by itself.

Microsoft is trying to buy them, outright, to take control of already successful and powerful gaming IPs.

That's like one guy trying to assemble a baseball team, and scouting for good players, and developing them to become really good.

And then another guy goes and buys the New York Yankees.

And you're telling me "iT's ThE sAmE tHiNg!"

By the way, I did look at those 21 video game studios.

Just to be clear, let's state the reason WHY you felt like telling us about these studios. You are trying to make the claim that Sony "took something away", correct? That something existing in the gaming space, and by performing a business acquisition, Sony "took something" away from the gaming space.

I believe we can both agree that you are trying to say that, in order to say that what Microsoft is doing is "no worse than things Sony has already done." Correct?

Let's start by shrinking that list down by pointing out studios that they "acquired", that don't actually make games, or have no existing games to be taken away.

• Bluepoint Games doesn't make video games, never has. They are a porting studio. They are a contractor that provides a service. The number of games that have been "taken" from you because of this acquisition? 0

• Nixxess also doesn't make video games. They are also a port studio. Number of games that have been "taken" from you because of this acquisition? 0

• Haven Studios.......has yet to make a video game. This is a completely brand new studio, created by Jade Raymond. It was funded by Sony. So, has Sony "taken" anything from anyone? Nope. This is a company they help found.

• Plumbee, as far as I can tell, has never created any video game in the traditional video game space. The only company profile I found for this company says that it created "social casino games across all platforms" and the website www.plumbee.com (or .co.uk) isn't even working. This listing may be obsolete.

• Valkyrie Entertainment. Appears to only be a support studio that "assists developers and publishers in creating content and assets." They have existed since 2002, and this is the list of games in which they have worked on, that I was able to find. As you can see, these are all games in which the core development and creation comes from other studios. It appears that this studio creates graphics and art assets, either for a video game or for marketing used by the publisher. Number of games taken away from this acquisition? 0

• Savage Game Studios. Has not made anything yet. Their founded members were people that "had a hand" in Clash of Clans and Angry Birds. According to this article, they were founded in 2020, but were acquired in 2022 by Sony's Playstation Studios Mobile Division to "which will focus on creating games based on new or existing Playstation IP." So either they pitched a new IP, or they are being assigned to work on an existing IP, whatever it is its going to be fully owned by Sony from the time the game releases.

So, we're already down to 15.

Now, lets talk about studio "acquisitions" in which they were funded by Sony from the very beginning in order to produce a video game that was pitched to, and bought by Sony........from the very beginning.

In other words, none of these games were ever designed or funded to be multiplatform IPs, the IPs were purchased/owned by Sony from the very beginning, so that they would be published by Sony:

• Incognito Entertainment. This studio was the studio set up by David Jaffe after he was no longer part of Sony's internal studio that created the Twisted Metal series (989 Studios). Their first deal to publish their very first game was with Sony. And that's because David Jaffe was going to continue making more Twisted Metal. So, in other words, the studio was formed to continue working on an existing IP that Sony already owned. After Twisted Metal Black was released, Sony bought out the studio, and had them work on other Twisted Metal Games, and make Warhawk before the studio was dissolved, since they all left to go form Eat, Sleep, Play. Number of games taken away? 0

• Sigil Games Online. This is a studio that was created after Sony Online and their subsidaries created EverQuest. They actually were in a deal to publish their only game, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, with Microsoft, until that publishing deal fell through. Without a publisher, they went back to Sony to publish the game. And it was never designed for Playstation, it was a PC-only release. So Sony actually helped save this game in 2007 so that it can release on PC. The game came and went without much fanfare, the studio hasn't accomplished anything since.

• Media Molecule. Members from Lionhead studios went to Sony to pitch the concept for LittleBigPlanet in 2005. Sony gave them seed money to form the studio in 2006. They made a deal to fund the development of LittleBigPlanet, to be published by Sony. The IP of LittleBigPlanet would be owned by Sony from the very beginning. Once the game released, Sony bought the studio.

• Firesprite. These are ex-Psygnosis/Sony Liverpool employees. They spent their first few years working on spinoffs of existing Sony IPs. Run Sackboy! Run! is a game based on LittleBigPlanet's mascot. They developed VR games for Playstation VR. They did create and publish their own VR game, called The Persistance, for multiple platforms. And they continued supporting the game for the new platforms in 2021. They were fully purchased by Sony to work on Horizon Call of the Mountain in VR.

• Lasengle. They appear to be a Japanese mobile game developer that was spun-off from a Japanese media company. Their first game appears to have been a very big hit game in Japan, called Fate/Grand Order. The game was published by Sony Music Corp. for Android and iOS, and then came to arcades in Japan. So they don't even make traditional games, and the type of games they do make were being published by Sony subsidiaries this entire time.

We're down to 10 studios, now?

From this point forward, these remaining studios ACTUALLY HAD GAMES that were conceived, created, and published without any noticeable involvement from Sony.

And I'm going to try and list these actual games, so that maybe you can give me an honest assessment of what you think has been "taken" from you and what you believe has been taking away from the general gaming space.

> Not a single franchise that already existed on Playstation has yet to be removed from Sony’s platform

The Outer Worlds sequel definitely appears to be.

The first game was on Playstation.

This new patch that they are selling to upgrade to the new consoles, and by all accounts is the OPPOSITE of "high quality", are them still selling to Playstation consumers.

The Outer World 2 is only scheduled for Xbox and PC.

Try explaining that.

> Can you name me a title which was confirmed and announced for PS5 or PS4, from an acquired studio, which has since been cancelled on Sony’s platform?

Starfield was premiered at Bethesda's own independent E3 conference in 2018. All of their games at that conference were games that were expected on all major platforms at the time, Xbox, Playstation, and PC.

Therefore Starfield, from the very beginning, had a clear expectation that they were going to be available for all platforms that Bethesda/Zenimax had already been making games for.

You already know this. I really hope you don't start adopting Xbox marketing-speak to try and get around that one.

> Nowhere did I do that, but this is more emotuonal argument from you...

This isn't working. You need to stop this ad hominem type of attack, because its not going to work with me.

> Emotional argument. Microsoft earned their exclusives by being successful enough to buy those development houses....

No they haven't. We've been told that Microsoft's Xbox division has EARNED LESS MONEY during its lifetime than Sony's Playstation business.

Sony biggest acquisition has only half of the cost of Microsoft buying Zenimax at $7 billion dollars.

And then Microsoft, a year later, has the ability to spend something at 10x the dollar amount. $70 billion.

Xbox has never generated any such earnings or "success" to be able to buy out such large entities. They are leveraging Microsoft's success from OTHER BUSINESSES.

So......no. Xbox absolutely has not done anything to "earn" this.

This is clearly an attempt to buy out and corner a market.

> I'm against mergers generally, but gaming is massive and easier than ever to get into...there isn't a risk from this kerger of monopolising the industry.

Yes, there absolutely is. You are plainly ignorant if you think that is not the case.

> What details? That one company developed their properties and another is trying to buy properties? Nobody is denying it, but it's simply irrelevant to anything but how you personally feel.

No, it is relevant. Because you are trying to say that its okay for Microsoft to do this, because Sony has ALREADY COMMITTED such bad practices.

.........when Sony hasn't.

And you're trying to make a false-equivalency.

> You are just making up more nonsense. Nowhere did I mention that Sony or Nintendo shouldn't be able to do what they want with their properties.

Except you are trying to portray Sony that they did something "anti-consumer" for properties that they cultivated and invested in.

> they create it or buy the company that created it is functionally the same. One doesn't deserve special consideration by the law over the other.

No they aren't the same.

And yes the law should and DOES distinguish something that is created, and something that is bought.

The FCC, the CMA, doesn't not step in when Sony created a massively large IP that did not exist prior to them creating it.

They do step in when somebody is trying to buy an already existing large IP.

You ever seen a regulator come in an when Nintendo sold too many copies of a particular video game? You ever seen a regulator come in when Take-Two sold 40 million copies of Grand Theft Auto?

Really? Sony bought the Final Fantasy IP to permenantly control?

When did this happen?

No, its not an "emotional" argument.

You are trying to dismiss Sony Computer Entertainments contributions to gaming.

It absolutely has a bearing. They earned those exclusives, by having a hand in developing them. Those are their home-grown products.

You're trying to gloss over this, because you are trying to make a false-equivalency but you know it falls apart if we actually look at the details.

By your logic, Nintendo doesn't to have the right to do whatever they want to do with their Mario and Zelda IPs.

They didn't buy any of these games that we call "exclusives".

They bought studios for their talent, and created new IPs from them.

They did not TAKE CONTROL over an existing popular IP.

Yes, they did build things from the ground up.

Yes, it absolutely is different behavior.

Why are you pretending that you don't know the obvious difference?

I really don't understand how people can even think you are making a good argument.

A company creates his own things, that get universally praised and are successful.

A company fails to create good things, and goes on a massive buying spree to secure OTHER things, made by OTHER companies, for the purposes of trying to control a market.

And you think that's the same thing?

Its obvious you try to gloss over that by using the phrase "having tons of exclusives."

They made those games. Their people conceived the game idea. They created the studio to design, produce, animate, program the product.

And you think Sony "scammed" you and the gaming community by making their OWN EXCLUSIVES?

They "have them", because they went through the effort to "make them." Maybe Microsoft and the Xbox division should try doing that, if they want to compete?