UltimateOtaku91

On PS5 i will be playing Final Fantasy 16, currently 65% done and it's been a blast so far and definitely moving closer to becoming my favourite FF title. I will also be playing some Atelier Marie Remake and Cat Quest which the latter I have found to be quite fun so far.

On Switch I will be continuing with Zelda TOTK after I've had a month break, so much to do and explore I had to give it a rest but I'm looking forward to continuing, I will also be playing Master Detective Archive and of course some Splatoon 3 for the latest splatfest, team mint it is but that's only because the misses forced this choice upon me 😑.

On PS5 i will be continuing with the excellent Final Fantasy 16, currently 51% through and the story has been brilliant so far. I will also be continuing with Trails of cold steel 2.

On switch I will be continuing with Master Detective Archives and Kirby return to dreamland.

On 3DS I will be starting Detective Pikachu which I never got round to completing originally but I want to complete it before the next game comes out.

@evan23 @Sol4ris So that's the thing if these two companies can't keep anything secret from each other then Jim's point about not wanting to share future new console specs with Activision because of Microsoft finding out becomes pointless. I'd wager then that both these companies know pretty much what each other are up to and have some pretty detailed insider info. Its probably why every console gen neither console is really that far apart on specs, unless you get a situation like the ps3 by launching it a year later.

@Sol4ris I was just curious how they get hold of information from a rival competitor, same with Sony then how did they get hold of Microsoft gamepass numbers.

And how did Microsoft get hold of this information and also why share this information instead of Sony.

@Cashews I'm definitely one of those that spent more than they should lol but yet to be broke.... Yet

I think the most expensive one I bought was Phoenix Wright vs Professor Layton which was £80, Persona Q 2 cost me £68, Fire Emblem Echoes Shadow of Valentia £44.

I want yo kai watch 3 but the cheapest I've seen it is £140, and then Shin Megami Tensei 4 is going for £200. But I refuse to pay over £100 for a 3DS game.

I still don't know if I should sell a game once I've completed it or keep them for a few years to see if their prices rocket further (UK anyway).

On PS5 i will mainly be playing Final Fantasy 16 which so far has been great. I will also be playing some Dragon Quest Heroes 2.

On Switch I will be starting Master Detective Archives later today with my sexy new pastel joy con's and also hope to complete Kirby Return to Dreamland this weekend. Also my Collectors edition Zelda TOTK strategy guide got delivered yesterday so I will be continuing with that at some point.

I've recently been on a buying spree for 3DS games before they all go super rare, I must have spent over £500 on 30 games over the the last two weeks, so I think it's time I started playing them lol, I think il start with Phoenix Wright vs Professor Layton

Ah yes because all those exclusive deals Microsoft made during the 360 gen were because of sony....

Well if they were serious then they had the opportunity to get the western studios they sold to embracer.

Nintendo would of joined sony in blocking that deal.

Well that would explain why 95% of AAA games don't come to the service or PlayStation Plus, unless they are old games.

@Suda52 Also i wouldn't even consider their other purchases indie studios. Ninja theory, Obsidian, Playground games and Undead Labs are all making AA to AAA games.

@Suda52 Yeah, Activision alone has more staff than all of Sony's studios put together and then some.

@Suda52 I think people seem to forget that Sony only buy independent developer's with a handful of IP's each vs Microsoft who are buying Publishers that have multiple development studios, thousands of staff and way more than an handful of IP's.

Sony also acquire studios who didn't really put games onto xbox to begin with, and bunjie are staying multiplatform, vs Microsoft who buy publishers that sell all their biggest games on playstation.

@Sol4ris Well tbf people were saying Bethesda and Xbox were close due to releasing games on the xbox back in the day but not on Playstation. And we all know the next elder scrolls won't be on playstation as well. Same with dragon quest I'd consider that a Nintendo legacy IP with how many games they had exclusive of that series.

@cragis0001 Number 4 is on Playstation 1 but must of released a lot later then.

@Solidchief Final Fantasy has been on playstation day one since 4, and 1-16 have all released on playstation consoles since. Nintendo and Microsoft have not had all the final fantasy games not just 7Remake or 16. If anything Final Fantasy as a series since 1991 has been seen as a playstation legacy IP, they just dont own it.

I thought Microsoft don't do AAA third party exclusive deals. If this is true I hope a few people shut up about Final Fantasy 7R/16 being Playstation exclusive.

I think that's reasonable for a small team and no huge IP's to their name.

@Friendly Doesn't mean they won't go back in for them once the ABK deal is done.

Of course another huge third party publisher, hopefully these governing bodies know when to say enough is enough.

@old-dad Also the Bloodbourne and Demon Souls IP is owned by Sony, Not Nioh though as Sony are listed as the Publishers but don't own the IP.

@old-dad Which IP's do Microsoft own? Tomb Raider, Titanfall, Dead Rising and Alan Wake I know for sure they don't own due to other games from those IP's being on playstation.

This is what it says about Ryse - RYSE is licensed, not sold. RYSE and all copyrights, trademarks, and all other intellectual property rights related thereto are owned by CRYTEK.

After searching I do see that Quantum Break is the only one I mentioned that is owned by Microsoft.

@47AlphaTango Tbf the majority of games on playstation that aren't on xbox are Japanese developed games, especially a load of niches titles during the Ps3/Ps4 gen and some AA ones like trails of cold steel, Ys, Senran Kagura, Disgaea and Neptunia games. There's no way sony pays for those to skip xbox, those developers chose themselves not to ship on xbox consoles.

@old-dad Yes hence why if Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft publish a third party game it's mainly exclusive to them. But they still have to pay the developer for exclusivity due to lost sales from other systems,its basically the same as paying to keep the game off other platforms for a few years or indefinitely. These are some big devs who usually publish their own games so there's no way they went to Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo begging them to be publisher for them, they were the ones being approached.

@ValentineMeikin You're the one who said theres plenty of AAA games on playstation that are not on xbox and are not Japanese developed so I asked you to name them, and you're right Stray is not AAA and no one has ever called it one, and it's meant to be coming to xbox very soon.

And the Publisher are the ones who deal with distributing the game, they didn't have any involvement in making the game and still paid the developer a lot of money to keep it off other systems.

Microsoft have paid western developers for AAA exclusives and timed exclusives, whilst Sony have done the same with Japanese developers. Both have done it in equal measure and both still do it today.

@ValentineMeikin Also you're forgetting games like

Ryse son of Rome
Titanfall 1
Tomb Raider 2
Alan Wake 1
Quantum Break
Dead Rising 3

All AAA Third Party games Microsoft paid for, some took many years to come to playstation and some still haven't come to playstation.

@ValentineMeikin I'm curious, name me some third party AAA games that aren't Japanese that are on playstation but aren't on xbox.

Playstation so far have had two AAA third party exclusives and one of those is apparently still coming to xbox.

1, Final Fantasy 7 Remake
2, Forspoken

Both Square Enix games, so Sony aren't doing this with everyone as some people would make you believe. Timed exclusives they have more of and some indies as well but that's just the same with Microsoft with The Medium, Ark 2 and Stalker 2 and indies like High on Life and Scorn. People soon forget those though 😏, and last gen the one who had the biggest third party exclusive was actually Microsoft with Tomb Raider and even one of the biggest online games (at that time) in PUBG. But no let's all continue to single out sony with its timed exclusives of Japanese games.

Just like how Microsoft have used money from Destiny 2 and MLB the Show for purchases, or does that not fit the narrative....

I'm good until the 18th October, if I haven't completed Starfield by that day then I will re subscribe until I finish it, and then let my subscription run up until Hellblade 2 or Avowed come out.

This is exactly what he said.

“I would raise my hand, I would do whatever it takes,” he told Judge Corley in court. “My commitment is, and my testimony is, that we will continue to ship future versions of Call of Duty on Sony’s PlayStation 5"

There will be more questions raised about this as he specifically mentions playstation 5 instead of saying playstation platforms like he does with other statements on other questions.

@mousieone These are all the points made in today's courtroom.

https://www.theverge.com/23768244/ftc-microsoft-activision-blizzard-case-news-announcements/archives/2

Theres nothing about Sony's current contract with Activision meaning they can't release COD on the switch.

I have to say fair play, I can't say I blame them from buying them to make sure they get these games day one and also as a middle finger to Sony for them paying for exclusivity. My only gripe with them is the whole honouring existing contracts baloney but I won't get into that again. Also I wonder if Sony didn't pay for Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo exclusivity would Microsoft still have bought them.

Judging by phils comments today though it seems some Bethesda games will be coming to playstation in the future, most likely ones that are already established franchises on playstation like Fallout, Doom and Elders Scrolls, which the latter he refused to comment if it was still coming to playstation or not when asked by the FTC.

Phil has also said that future Bethesda games may still come to playstation and will be a case by case basis, and he couldn't confirm if Elder Scrolls 6 will be xbox exclusive or not. If it was then surely he would say, this could mean (slim chance) that it will infact be coming to playstation as its an established IP on that platform whilst the new Bethesda games released so far have been new IP's so they were xbox exclusive. Only reason I can see him not saying yet is because of the huge backlash they would get from xbox fans.

@NEStalgia Also il ask you this as you're more knowledgeable on these subjects than me, Does a third party publisher have to ship on multiple consoles? Is it illegal for a third party publisher to only make certain games for a specific platform? For Final Fantasy 16 it was only ever going to be able to run on PS5 or Series S/X so Sony saying don't put this game on xbox would that be the same as saying make it exclusive to us, as all sony would of done is name the only other platform it could possibly go to. Is it illegal to pay publishers for a console exclusive but allow it to still release on PC? Again if not then sony signing deals like that would class as "xbox exclusion" but also not be illegal.

If its not illegal to pay publishers for their games then this exclusion talk is not going to go far as its not illegal. I'm sure if it was then something would of been done about it by now surely, unless its like you said and Sony are helping these publishers with development in some capacity and that is a workaround.

@NEStalgia this is his comment according to the verge.

"When a competitor is actively signing third-party games to skip our platform, it became more important to us to secure third-party games on our platform, inclusive of Call of Duty"

@Kaloudz I think the CMA will still want to block but are probably lost for words right now and scrambling around for possible loop holes.

@Kaloudz Yeah I don't think he will go back on his word, can't say the same for whoever replaces him in the future though. Been reading the verge live feed and I've got to say I think microsoft have nailed it in court today with their honest answers which hopefully they keep to going forward. If the FTC still try to block after these few days then it's obvious that they are doing it for their own ego.

@NEStalgia They would need to go through all of Sony's Exclusivity contracts to find out if it exclusiion or not, they can't take Phil's word as he's most likely guessing as he doesn't have the details of Sony's contracts with Square Enix, Capcom, Konami etc, and if he had proof with Sony's Bethesda timed exclusives then he would of siad so. They would also most likely have to see Nintendo's contracts as well as most of these games that skip xbox also come to Nintendo such as Octopath Traveler 2, Monster Hunter Rise (for a over a year), Tactics Ogre etc

Also when he's talking about exclusion I can only think of one game so far that would possibly be full exclusion from xbox and thats the Final Fantasy 7 Remake, all other games sony have paid for have been timed exclusives only so far so would that class as exclusion? If so then any timed exclusives that Nintnedo and Microsoft pay for would they also class as exclusion? I mean I'm still waiting for SMT 5 on Playstation, so what's the deal with that game, is that exclusion or exclusivity.

When using both them terms we come to a grey area, Sony saying to Square Enix we want Final Fantasy 16 to be on playstation only, is that exclusion or exclusivity? I can't see the difference, they still both mean xbox won't get the game, but one word sounds worse than the other. Sony fans will say its exclusivity, Xbox fans will say its exclusion, that's the only difference.

@Kaloudz according to the verge this is exactly what Phil said.

“I would raise my hand, I would do whatever it takes,” he told Judge Corley in court. “My commitment is, and my testimony is, that we will continue to ship future versions of Call of Duty on Sony’s PlayStation 5"

He only says 5 which again opens up more questions about future playstation consoles.

@rustyduck I'd say they are semi open world, similar to mass effect maybe, but I wouldn't expect them to be fully open like no man's sky.

@Moonglow He's talking about the deal as a whole, the first part of his statement where he says "It is not an exclusivity play at all. They’re thinking bigger than that" he's basically saying he knew Microsoft don't want to make it exclusive and then finishes it with "I’m pretty sure we will continue to see Call of Duty on PlayStation for years to come".

Although again it's a play words and can be taken as meaning both, I can't see Sony being happy with him saying they don't care about call of duty. But if he did mean it that way then he's a fool.

I don't think what he's saying means he doesn't care if it becomes xbox exclusive, he's saying he's not worried that Microsoft would make call of duty exclusive to begin with and believes it will stay multiplatform.

But still, he needs to make his mind up.

@Friendly Does persona still feel good to play using touchscreen though? I think that's the most major setback with cloud gaming on mobile, they wanted to attract the casuals with with games like Battlefield, Starfield and Call of duty playable on your phone but its just not working due to the resolution and controls. If anything it would be in Microsofts best interest to actally make a dedicated handheld device for xcloud like the logitech g cloud for example.

I knew it, no one is interested in console gaming on a mobile phone using touch screens. You need to spend hundreds on a proper streaming device or a backbone one for it to feel right, and even then its still 720p. It's why Sony haven't bothered with a mobile app since the ps now refresh.

@Tharsman OK so even an amendment to a contract is still not honouring existing contracts, a statement that was made before even making that amendment.

@Tharsman They broke the original contract by asking Disney to change it. To me that's not honouring all existing agreements which they said before the deal went through, and they couldn't change this Contract with Disney until the deal was done. Meaning their original statement was a lie.

@themightyant And I thought Microsoft were honouring all existing contracts.

@Solidchief Don't forget the 360 released a whole year before the PS3