crispy4000

We should be seeing Humble’s bundle early next week as well. So it might be worth waiting out, or not. Prime gaming will have Force Unleashed and a handful of lesser known indies.

I'm sure it would push more than 2 million gamers in their direction to the console, at the least. Gotta think larger picture.

Undertale for $3 is a strong recommendation, if you've somehow missed it. Historical low on Steam.

Yes, but for those who do own multiple consoles, they're often picking and choosing where to play and what to buy. And it's naive to think that people dropping money on (nearly) full price Nintendo games doesn't affect Sony and Microsoft's bottom line at all.

Should go live today.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot? WWW.BLOOMBERG.COM SEGA not interested in being acquired, good.

Not really. Gaming money being spent elsewhere was one of the reasons Sony gave us for making the PS4 Pro. Project Q is attempting to address the portability factor. Even PSVR2 is trying to keep their audience from drifting too far from PlayStation. PS Extra wouldn’t exist as it does if it wasn’t for Games Pass. Etc. The closer to the vest Sony’s consumer is, the better for their pocketbook. Microsoft is less adamant about it, but they seldom ever release new Switch games anymore. Allegedly because Nintendo doesn’t want to cozy up to Games Pass. That’s their primary motivator, which also goes back to the money in the long run. There’s also the thing I tend to rant on about for each of the big 3 now: a consumer firmly rooted in their ecosystem is more likely to remain subscribed to their multiplayer paywall. It’s a more reliable stream of income if their console is all their consumer is tapped into.

I don't think you're wrong. But I don't think that places them out of competition. For example: the person who owns a Series X and PS5, would you say Microsoft and Sony aren't competing for their subscription money? The same logic holds for retail releases. They'd make more money if no one felt the need to buy another platform that wasn't theirs. Nintendo's included.

I find this "companion platform" concept suspect today, at least in terms of dedicated gaming hardware. I can't imagine many people segment their gaming budgets accordingly into what they'll spend on Switch vs Series X, etc. It likely sways more with release calendars, discounts, etc. Remember, there was a critically acclaimed, open world Zelda at launch. People ate it up after largely ignoring the Wii U and 3DS (at least compared to DS). Nintendo platforms get no automatic pass as something Microsoft/Sony buyers will inevitably pick up. They've had to earn their keep, and successfully played "red ocean" this time.

Look at it the other way around from Sony's leaks today: Half of all PS5 owners have a Switch, whereas 1/5 own a Series console. Clearly Nintendo is eating into a greater potion of Sony's mindshare if their base is so easily pulled away. Same goes vice versa. Either way, there's little to say that Spider-Man 2 would materially hurt Mario Wonder sales. People will buy both if they want both. That's the way the biggest releases tend to work.

Yes they are. Sony can't bring themselves to admit it - they're not reaching a broad enough audience with their exclusives to monopolize in the way the PS2 once did. Microsoft meanwhile is purely arguing this out of convenience, after formerly dawning the Wii60 hat. The problem with Microsoft's argument to the FTC they have yet to taste true failure in the console market in the way that Nintendo has. Their brand has always been viable, even when popularly shunned. Not even bundling Kinect into a console launch could run their operation into the ground. But look at us, the little 3rd place megacorp underdog, who never sold less than 20 million units in a generation.

Only reason he’s saying this is because he’s running a subscription based on Microsoft properties. Also, what of Nintendo? They’ve been doing this exclusive thing much longer than Sony, and still are making hardware because of it.

It's the second Kottick quote that gets me. Hey guys, in case this doesn't go through, come talk to me about making CoD a timed exclusive. I'm listening.

This is why Nintendo's stayed relevant. I'd imagine Microsoft's number would be closer to a 1/4 or 1/3rd if they never did day and date on PC.

$$$

Minecraft. Roblox.

What a weasel.

Microsoft was playing a similar game before Phil took over with timed exclusivity. Mass Effect, Oblivion, Bioshock, Dead Rising 1 and 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider, etc. It worked out well for them in the 360 era, not so much with the Xbox One. I'd consider either of these companies buying SquareEnix to be an effort to kneecap the other. Sega too, to a lesser degree. And of course, Bethesda. We don't know when/if they offered Square a deal, do we? Only that it was intended?

I'm sure they have the ability. But definitely not the interest. They see the importance of legacy IP and established development resources for their Game Pass ambitions.

Microsoft wanted to acquire Square Enix as part of plan for mobile Game Pass - The Verge WWW.THEVERGE.COM Another potential acquisition. That’s another way to buy FF exclusivity.

I think there's something to be said for a developer's room for growth though. From Software used to be a ho hum developer. I distinctly remember when people wrote off Demon's Souls pre-release as another Japanese game trying to unsuccessfully pander to Western audiences. I haven't played enough Bethesda games to notice the jank here beyond the character faces. But on the surface of things, Starfield looks quite different conceptually than everything else they've produced. And the gunplay here looks much improved over Fallout 76 on the surface of things. There's so much pressure on this game to release in a solid state, I can't wait to see where it succeeds or falls flat.

Cross referencing some of the live blogs of Jim's questioning: I don't think any new Blizzard game could be expected to come to PS5.