He said watch the Super Bowl, not watch the commercials anon. Don't even try to argue otherwise, we both know a good 60% of that viewship doesn't give a single frick about the game and I say that as someone who actually hates the fricking commercials.
Everyone understands that my man, it's just an utterly irrelevant statistic. You're comparing the series as a whole to one year's viewership for a completely different medium. No COD game even makes the top twenty best selling games of all time
I did not say sales are irrelevant, my illiterate friend, I said that comparison was irrelevant. Why would Superbowl viewership be used as a metric for video game sales? Shall we start using book sales as a measuring stick too? Or perhaps the import export volume of Singapore? Or the number of malaria victims in Nigeria?
>I did not say sales are irrelevant, >irrelevant statistic
you literally did. in a literal manner you literally said it.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The difference in sales between COD1 and COD3 is equal to the number of people who die from alcoholism each year.
This is a statistic about call of duty sales. Is it relevant to the topic, y/n?
Maybe the FTC should have spent time proving that instead of b***hing about how this deal hurts Sony, then clamming up the second she asks how this hurts consumers.
Halo was handed off to the most incompetent morons on the planet after its original devs abandoned it. Meanwhile CoD was handed off to devs that actually gave a shit about the series for the most part.
Based, I can't believe "man"children are fighting over this either
It just goes to show the utter banality and vacuity of the average gamer's life if this is the most exciting thing happening to them
They already had multiple concessions and arguments to show that one shooting game wasn't going to be made exclusive. The FTC had nothing else to present outside of that case (see the absolute state of Dr. Lee).
The fact that Sony can’t come up with a shooter even though they fund all this shit that doesn’t deserve it like GoW, Horizon, GT, TLoU, Spiderman, and now this Marathon reboot, which IS a shooter, just goes to show their incompetence. Bring back Killzone and Resistance, MAG, Warhawk/Starhawk reboot, or god forbid you come up with a new original IP. Games like Battlebit are outperforming pretty much every other shooter and that was three fricking dudes. It’s not rocket science.
It's too late now, Sony felted themselves too hard and either got rid of the people/developers that could make other kinds of games or converted existing ones to churn out an endless sea of movie games. The rest like Insomniac and Sucker Punch they never actually owned, so those are the few times we get to see something resembling a normal game.
I would tell that b***h there's only one shooter video game left
Which is why you're never going to be involved in the process.
CMA got busted for taking their marching orders from the FTC, so that the FTC could then point to the CMA case as 'proof' for their own case stateside
Blatant unlawful collusion
>nooo console exclusives are bad! >but sony can buy who they want
Just let them do it. The whole thing is stupid. Phil already said he’d release COD on PS5 anyway.
The U.K. only blocked cos we are in bed with Japan on trade etc.
The reason is because Sony makes billions every year just from CoD kiddies buying THEIR version of the game and purchasing in-game items using THEIR digital store. If Sony didn't waste half their money on fricking Bungie then they could have bought out Activision like Microwiener is doing now.
The judge didn't blatantly side with a party. The FTC was playing Sony Defense Force and the judge had to tell them that the point of the FTC is to protect consumers, not foreign companies
Both the Judge and the FTC were supposed to be on the same fricking side: defending the customers from evil corporations, but when the FTC did such a poor job and seemingly forgot that the customer wasn't Sony she had to do what it was more logical.
>competition law is based on boomer wordcels adjudicating on matters totally beyond their comprehension
it's not just video games that annoys me, the next case she'll deal with will be pharmaceuticals or something that she'll similarly have no idea about
She seemed to have a very good idea about what's happening here. What prevents snoy from making their own generic exclusive shooter? Buying activision doesn't give Microsoft a monopoly on bad FPS games.
I can't wait for MW3 to be a monumental flop and the sheer amount of seethe that MS goes through when they realize they bought an entire fricking company for one dying IP.
For what it's right, Sony/FTC were the ones who made this about Call of Duty because they were SO SURE that this was the path to victory on this merger.
They were SO SURE that they could make the case that this one single franchise was the make-or-break factor for market dominance.
Which they did before remembering that SONY PAYS FOR CoD MARKETING RIGHTS AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT ALL THE TIME.
All of this is so fricking stupid. Any of the blocks against this acquisition were obviously paid for by Sony and the ruling today paid for by Microsoft. Thinking any of this has to do with anyone actually concerned about creating a monopoly is incredibly naive.
The ruling does not seem paid for to me. It was simply a moronic choice by the FTC to file an anti trust suit against literally the smallest player in the market
Honestly, I cannot figure out why they decided to contract the scope of the market at risk so much. They specifically set it up so that >it was a market of two fricking players >of which Microsoft was the smaller by a lot >it put all of King's products outside the scope, which are literally more valuable than Blizzard >it put Microsoft's main vidya advantage, being the OS monopoly in PC gaming, outside the scope >it focused on an industry where titles exclusive to hardware are common and accepted
Just so fricking dumb
Because MS is a smaller part of the gaming pie if you include PC and Nintendo which meant that MS was justified in buying the company. If you included KING that meant that their competitors are Google and Apple who both have a duopoly in the market which also meant there was no reason to block the deal. OS monopoly is not only not relevant, MS no longer holds a pure monopoly on OS anymore with apple and google around.
Still seems like an easier argument to me. >hey look, if they get AB they're going to dominate console games with CoD, PLUS further cement Windows' overwhelming control of PC by restricting access to only their platform, PLUS expand significantly into mobile. this level of horizontal expansion is unprecedented, no other company has sway over all video game markets to this level
You don't have to argue that they'll have a true monopoly for anti-trust, just that too much power is being consolidated.
Google and Apple aren't competing in the actual games on mobile as far as I know, and they aren't truly competitive in OS for gaming on PC. You have to thread the needle of saying that they are dominating in different sectors via different methods, but it's still more feasible than this clown show
Google and Apple not only have a games subscription service like gamepass, they make billions off their closed off app stores from games like fortnite and genshin. They are absolutely a competitor in the gaming market.
11 months ago
Anonymous
In their position as a games marketplace, which is different than being a publisher. I'm saying you make the argument like this: >in mobile gaming they will be a very significant publisher >in pc gaming they will be an overwhelmingly significant platform >in console gaming they will be a very significant publisher and platform >while none of these individually might prompt anti-trust action, collectively they're unprecedented and should be stopped
11 months ago
Anonymous
They still face heavy competition on those markets, so even if significatant it's hard to prove how it could potentially directly harm consumers.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Oh, yeah, I'm not saying this is a definitively winning argument, just that it's a more robust one. The synergies are what you use to make your case. Maybe Microsoft uses its control over cod to push Sony to release its pc versions on the windows store instead of steam. Maybe it uses its pc dominance to push Google for more favorable Play Store terms. That sort of thing.
Like that anon pointed out, there are bigger fish in the mobile market. As for PC gaming, Steam is absolutely the overwhelming significant platform as 99% of PC gamers prefer to buy their games off steam. In console, Nintendo and Sony both control a way bigger market share than MS.
Together you have MS being in the last place in all these markets trying to be competitive and relevant in multiple markets and there's no conceivable reasons why the deal should be blocked.
It's mostly a question of if you can make the vertical monopoly argument. That's fallen pretty out of favor over the last century, but it would be harder to judge and probably could have delayed things enough to trigger the bonus payment clause
11 months ago
Anonymous
Like that anon pointed out, there are bigger fish in the mobile market. As for PC gaming, Steam is absolutely the overwhelming significant platform as 99% of PC gamers prefer to buy their games off steam. In console, Nintendo and Sony both control a way bigger market share than MS.
Together you have MS being in the last place in all these markets trying to be competitive and relevant in multiple markets and there's no conceivable reasons why the deal should be blocked.
The only argument there is the Windows one, in all other it's easily rebutted.
>Nintendo is the best selling console and it doesn't have CoD >King isn't a majority of the mobile gaming market and MS doesn't have anything on the level of the Apple/Google duopoly >Even with the combined powers of MS and ABK, it still isn't a majority of the market so they'll still have plenty of competition to keep their prices in check
And for the Windows one they can just point at their efforts to support Steam Deck and the games they still ship on MacOS.
>hey're going to dominate console games with CoD
And then people ask "well Nintendo does fine without CoD, why can't Sony?"
11 months ago
Anonymous
"Steam did fine without COD for years, why is COD so important?"
Also works
11 months ago
Anonymous
Well if they're talking about console games, Nintendo is the closer comparison but you're right too.
The FTC and Sony really fumbled this in a huge way. They could have gone for the obvious anti-trust approach and instead decided to make this a console-wars thing. Maybe they thought the community would come out and help them or that twitter shitflinging somehow matters in a legal proceeding?
YOUR HONOR
CALL OF DUTY VENDEU MAIS DO QUE QUALQUER COISA NO XBOX COMBINADO É O MELHOR JOGO DO PLAYSTATION E NÃO MERECE IR PARA A MICROSOFT SE VOCÊ NÃO RECONSIDERAR ENTÃO VOCÊ É UM moronADO DO CARALHO PAGO POR MICROSOFT SHILL E DEVE RENUNCIAR
If a person want to be Judge they should have to get a degree in the field they are judging over in addition to having the Law degree. So for example if someone wants to be a Judge in relation to the Pharmaceutical industry then they need to have a masters in a Biology or Chemistry field. People who study Law are all narcissistic buttholes who love themselves and think themselves better than everyone else.
CoD and Battlefield are the only big shooters on the market and the latter has fizzled out hard lately. CoD dominated everything, so it's not surprising of an argument to see brought up.
People with a PS5 would buy whatever FPS slop comes to their console if they didn't have COD. There's absolutely nothing special about it except the well known name, which shouldn't be a big hurdle to overcome with the marketing budget snoy games usually have.
Yeah basically she said "what about the Switch? They don't have COD" and Snoy (via the FTC) said "well, that's a budget console, we don't compete directly with them" and then she said "well then what about PC?" and Snoy said "uhhh gaming PCs are ultra-deluxe luxury items"
She's not that much of a boomer, Snoy were clearly banking on getting a judge that knew frickall about gaming but because they didn't we now have it on official court records that the PS5 is a poorgay's PC and that the Switch is the superior choice for consoles with no reason to own anything but a PC and switch.
playstation have exclusivity deal for cod skins and early dlcs since 2014 till 2024. Sony is seething hard cause cod microtransactions paid their bills
shes right
uhhh incelbros how do we cope with this?
Nope cope needed, she's right.
He doesn't know about the Matrix simulations being installed into the servers yet.
Yes because that one shooter game is one of the two major shooters released
Frick me what's the networth on COD?
and whose fault is that? Where's Sony with their shooter or Ubisoft or any other company?
sony should have kept making killzone then. stop acting as if these companies need defending,
I hate boomers.
Your honor, the Call of Duty game series has sold four times more copies than the number of people that watch the superbowl.
So? Sony can make another shooter
And women can create their own league but it will never make that much money.
Then why haven’t they?
They'd rather spend money on lawyers and bribing anti trust departments all over the world instead of spending it on new videogames.
They would rather make TLOU2.
I buy sony for exclusives
>CoD franchise sales 2003-2021
425m
>Super Bowl viewership 2003-2021
1.894B
I worded my statement carefully.
He said watch the Super Bowl, not watch the commercials anon. Don't even try to argue otherwise, we both know a good 60% of that viewship doesn't give a single frick about the game and I say that as someone who actually hates the fricking commercials.
No one has given a frick about the commercials for at least a decade and viewership has only increased.
He probably just meant every year which adds up
classic FTC move
Your honor, Pokémon sells even more and no one complains about being exclusive.
Ackchually Nintendo is not part of the power gamer console market, and therefore does not count
Ackshually consumers and legislators don't give two shits about your made up delineation of the console market
I don't like sony or xbox, but the judge is actually stupid if they don't understand this.
Everyone understands that my man, it's just an utterly irrelevant statistic. You're comparing the series as a whole to one year's viewership for a completely different medium. No COD game even makes the top twenty best selling games of all time
>sales are irrelevant in a lawsuit about competitive business practices
are you actually moronic anon?
I did not say sales are irrelevant, my illiterate friend, I said that comparison was irrelevant. Why would Superbowl viewership be used as a metric for video game sales? Shall we start using book sales as a measuring stick too? Or perhaps the import export volume of Singapore? Or the number of malaria victims in Nigeria?
>I did not say sales are irrelevant,
>irrelevant statistic
you literally did. in a literal manner you literally said it.
The difference in sales between COD1 and COD3 is equal to the number of people who die from alcoholism each year.
This is a statistic about call of duty sales. Is it relevant to the topic, y/n?
>Why would Superbowl viewership be used as a metric for video game sales?
Because in America, people don't use the metric system.
Ok but how many football fields is cod sales
The equivalent of school shooters per Walmarts
Maybe the FTC should have spent time proving that instead of b***hing about how this deal hurts Sony, then clamming up the second she asks how this hurts consumers.
Halo was on a similar level in 04-07 btw.
Nothing lasts forever there is always a bigger fish.
Halo was handed off to the most incompetent morons on the planet after its original devs abandoned it. Meanwhile CoD was handed off to devs that actually gave a shit about the series for the most part.
gg
Remind her of the $$ the game represents.
If she can take a casino serious she can be concerned about this.
>Woman judge is moronic
Unsurprising.
Start splurging about ultra luxury gaming pcs and how Microsoft might make a Santa character to cod
Based, I can't believe "man"children are fighting over this either
It just goes to show the utter banality and vacuity of the average gamer's life if this is the most exciting thing happening to them
(you)
Wasn't a COD game more profitable than any movie, making like a billion dollars? It's a pretty significant shooter game.
They already had multiple concessions and arguments to show that one shooting game wasn't going to be made exclusive. The FTC had nothing else to present outside of that case (see the absolute state of Dr. Lee).
Fricking sick, nice
A shooter game that probably will be going out of style soon. It's a very dumb case.
Two more weeks
Why would I be mad? She's right.
The fact that Sony can’t come up with a shooter even though they fund all this shit that doesn’t deserve it like GoW, Horizon, GT, TLoU, Spiderman, and now this Marathon reboot, which IS a shooter, just goes to show their incompetence. Bring back Killzone and Resistance, MAG, Warhawk/Starhawk reboot, or god forbid you come up with a new original IP. Games like Battlebit are outperforming pretty much every other shooter and that was three fricking dudes. It’s not rocket science.
It's too late now, Sony felted themselves too hard and either got rid of the people/developers that could make other kinds of games or converted existing ones to churn out an endless sea of movie games. The rest like Insomniac and Sucker Punch they never actually owned, so those are the few times we get to see something resembling a normal game.
Which is why you're never going to be involved in the process.
Ok reddit homosexual
Shit, bring back SOCOM too while they're at it. Oops, they closed the studio specialized on it years ago. Fricking idiots.
I'm glad a non gaming boomer c**t was the judge on this decision
America is a clown show. Notice how the FTC had to ask some bought judge with a MS employee to do something. Meanwhile the CMA just said no
*MS employee son
He's getting a promotion for sure
Yep he'll get promoted from code monkey to slightly less underpaid code monkey
more like VP
Cope pajeet
>Meanwhile the CMA just said no
Nobody tell him...
CMA got busted for taking their marching orders from the FTC, so that the FTC could then point to the CMA case as 'proof' for their own case stateside
Blatant unlawful collusion
>Meanwhile the CMA just said no
The CMA caved and backed off not even an hour after the FTC lost their case.
Blessed PC gayman judge knows that only 4x games deserve this much effort
>nooo console exclusives are bad!
>but sony can buy who they want
Just let them do it. The whole thing is stupid. Phil already said he’d release COD on PS5 anyway.
The U.K. only blocked cos we are in bed with Japan on trade etc.
This one shooter videogame sells more than every other shooter videogame combined
What percentage of the video game industry as a whole does it occupy? Is it more or less than Genshin?
The reason is because Sony makes billions every year just from CoD kiddies buying THEIR version of the game and purchasing in-game items using THEIR digital store. If Sony didn't waste half their money on fricking Bungie then they could have bought out Activision like Microwiener is doing now.
Sony can’t afford Activision you dumbass.
I would tell that b***h there's only one shooter video game left
My favorite part is where the judge says they're not here to protect Sony
Do judges in america really just blatantly side with one party and start defending their case?
The judge didn't blatantly side with a party. The FTC was playing Sony Defense Force and the judge had to tell them that the point of the FTC is to protect consumers, not foreign companies
Both the Judge and the FTC were supposed to be on the same fricking side: defending the customers from evil corporations, but when the FTC did such a poor job and seemingly forgot that the customer wasn't Sony she had to do what it was more logical.
When the other party is made up of moronic clowns who just want to waste everybody's time, yes.
mutt judges routinely argue in a way that would be completely unacceptable in other anglo jurisdictions
>commonwealthers are snoypnoys
>Judge telling the ftc to get off sony's wiener means she was one-sided
Lulz
Sony isn't your friend.
KYS, Eric.
>this is bad for Sony
>ok but what about the consumer we are meant to protect
>uhh
Maybe the FTC shouldn't have been moronic with their case.
It’s a big game
>competition law is based on boomer wordcels adjudicating on matters totally beyond their comprehension
it's not just video games that annoys me, the next case she'll deal with will be pharmaceuticals or something that she'll similarly have no idea about
I too wish uncle Jimmy was the judge, sister
She seemed to have a very good idea about what's happening here. What prevents snoy from making their own generic exclusive shooter? Buying activision doesn't give Microsoft a monopoly on bad FPS games.
Ponies seething. STARFIELD NEVER EVER btw.
I can't wait for MW3 to be a monumental flop and the sheer amount of seethe that MS goes through when they realize they bought an entire fricking company for one dying IP.
I like when she asked why Sony doesn't just make their own shooter with their billion dev studios.
I liked when she asked, "why can't Sony just make PS Plus better?" in regards to Gamepass getting more content.
Ps plus literally has the best recent cod right now while gamepass has indieshit and shovelware from a decade ago. Ps plus mogs shitpass
she's unironically right. call of duty has been in decline for a while now
It's not about the videogames, it's about sending a message. And money too.
she is kinda right, what do they have beside CoD?
The best part about this entire boogaloo and seeing all the companies shit the bed
Like, can you REALLY comprehend that we actually saw, LIVE, that Sony tried to hide their details with a fricking Sharpie?
Nintendo is not competition because they aren't
>Sony shit the bed so hard that we now have it on official court record that the Switch is the superior console
For what it's right, Sony/FTC were the ones who made this about Call of Duty because they were SO SURE that this was the path to victory on this merger.
They were SO SURE that they could make the case that this one single franchise was the make-or-break factor for market dominance.
Which they did before remembering that SONY PAYS FOR CoD MARKETING RIGHTS AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT ALL THE TIME.
Ask your son about it, he works for MS after all
This was made public before the case even started and the FTC said they didn't think there was an issue with it.
Have you played it?
All of this is so fricking stupid. Any of the blocks against this acquisition were obviously paid for by Sony and the ruling today paid for by Microsoft. Thinking any of this has to do with anyone actually concerned about creating a monopoly is incredibly naive.
The ruling does not seem paid for to me. It was simply a moronic choice by the FTC to file an anti trust suit against literally the smallest player in the market
If MS paid off the judge they wasted their money, the FTC argument was absolute nonsense and it would have gone the same way regardless.
Honestly, I cannot figure out why they decided to contract the scope of the market at risk so much. They specifically set it up so that
>it was a market of two fricking players
>of which Microsoft was the smaller by a lot
>it put all of King's products outside the scope, which are literally more valuable than Blizzard
>it put Microsoft's main vidya advantage, being the OS monopoly in PC gaming, outside the scope
>it focused on an industry where titles exclusive to hardware are common and accepted
Just so fricking dumb
Because MS is a smaller part of the gaming pie if you include PC and Nintendo which meant that MS was justified in buying the company. If you included KING that meant that their competitors are Google and Apple who both have a duopoly in the market which also meant there was no reason to block the deal. OS monopoly is not only not relevant, MS no longer holds a pure monopoly on OS anymore with apple and google around.
Still seems like an easier argument to me.
>hey look, if they get AB they're going to dominate console games with CoD, PLUS further cement Windows' overwhelming control of PC by restricting access to only their platform, PLUS expand significantly into mobile. this level of horizontal expansion is unprecedented, no other company has sway over all video game markets to this level
You don't have to argue that they'll have a true monopoly for anti-trust, just that too much power is being consolidated.
Google and Apple aren't competing in the actual games on mobile as far as I know, and they aren't truly competitive in OS for gaming on PC. You have to thread the needle of saying that they are dominating in different sectors via different methods, but it's still more feasible than this clown show
Google and Apple not only have a games subscription service like gamepass, they make billions off their closed off app stores from games like fortnite and genshin. They are absolutely a competitor in the gaming market.
In their position as a games marketplace, which is different than being a publisher. I'm saying you make the argument like this:
>in mobile gaming they will be a very significant publisher
>in pc gaming they will be an overwhelmingly significant platform
>in console gaming they will be a very significant publisher and platform
>while none of these individually might prompt anti-trust action, collectively they're unprecedented and should be stopped
They still face heavy competition on those markets, so even if significatant it's hard to prove how it could potentially directly harm consumers.
Oh, yeah, I'm not saying this is a definitively winning argument, just that it's a more robust one. The synergies are what you use to make your case. Maybe Microsoft uses its control over cod to push Sony to release its pc versions on the windows store instead of steam. Maybe it uses its pc dominance to push Google for more favorable Play Store terms. That sort of thing.
It's mostly a question of if you can make the vertical monopoly argument. That's fallen pretty out of favor over the last century, but it would be harder to judge and probably could have delayed things enough to trigger the bonus payment clause
Like that anon pointed out, there are bigger fish in the mobile market. As for PC gaming, Steam is absolutely the overwhelming significant platform as 99% of PC gamers prefer to buy their games off steam. In console, Nintendo and Sony both control a way bigger market share than MS.
Together you have MS being in the last place in all these markets trying to be competitive and relevant in multiple markets and there's no conceivable reasons why the deal should be blocked.
The only argument there is the Windows one, in all other it's easily rebutted.
>Nintendo is the best selling console and it doesn't have CoD
>King isn't a majority of the mobile gaming market and MS doesn't have anything on the level of the Apple/Google duopoly
>Even with the combined powers of MS and ABK, it still isn't a majority of the market so they'll still have plenty of competition to keep their prices in check
And for the Windows one they can just point at their efforts to support Steam Deck and the games they still ship on MacOS.
>hey're going to dominate console games with CoD
And then people ask "well Nintendo does fine without CoD, why can't Sony?"
"Steam did fine without COD for years, why is COD so important?"
Also works
Well if they're talking about console games, Nintendo is the closer comparison but you're right too.
The FTC and Sony really fumbled this in a huge way. They could have gone for the obvious anti-trust approach and instead decided to make this a console-wars thing. Maybe they thought the community would come out and help them or that twitter shitflinging somehow matters in a legal proceeding?
YOUR HONOR
CALL OF DUTY VENDEU MAIS DO QUE QUALQUER COISA NO XBOX COMBINADO É O MELHOR JOGO DO PLAYSTATION E NÃO MERECE IR PARA A MICROSOFT SE VOCÊ NÃO RECONSIDERAR ENTÃO VOCÊ É UM moronADO DO CARALHO PAGO POR MICROSOFT SHILL E DEVE RENUNCIAR
ONE GAME
You mumble about how the game is a hypothetical and you won't comment on that
If a person want to be Judge they should have to get a degree in the field they are judging over in addition to having the Law degree. So for example if someone wants to be a Judge in relation to the Pharmaceutical industry then they need to have a masters in a Biology or Chemistry field. People who study Law are all narcissistic buttholes who love themselves and think themselves better than everyone else.
uh oh lil snoy is gonna piss his diapers.
No. I dont care about video games. I just dont like Judges or Lawyers. I work in the Biopharma industry in Microbiology.
CoD and Battlefield are the only big shooters on the market and the latter has fizzled out hard lately. CoD dominated everything, so it's not surprising of an argument to see brought up.
People with a PS5 would buy whatever FPS slop comes to their console if they didn't have COD. There's absolutely nothing special about it except the well known name, which shouldn't be a big hurdle to overcome with the marketing budget snoy games usually have.
Wasnt she the one that said "Well getting a PC is the best option right?" And fricking no one said anything about it? That shit was fricking Hilarius
Yeah basically she said "what about the Switch? They don't have COD" and Snoy (via the FTC) said "well, that's a budget console, we don't compete directly with them" and then she said "well then what about PC?" and Snoy said "uhhh gaming PCs are ultra-deluxe luxury items"
Lmfaooooo
She is a total boomer in how she deals with it, but holy shit its fricking hilarius seeing people fricking fold so hard
She's not that much of a boomer, Snoy were clearly banking on getting a judge that knew frickall about gaming but because they didn't we now have it on official court records that the PS5 is a poorgay's PC and that the Switch is the superior choice for consoles with no reason to own anything but a PC and switch.
When did Call of Duty become a PlayStation franchise? 15 years ago everyone bought that shit on Xbox 360.
PS4, when they went full West.
PS4 was the lead platform the next gen,
they got DLC and stuff first.
playstation have exclusivity deal for cod skins and early dlcs since 2014 till 2024. Sony is seething hard cause cod microtransactions paid their bills
>cod microtransactions paid their bills
They paid for their flops too going by TLOU2 and Horizon's budgets
>it's just a game bro
>she doesn't understand the gravity of CoD
"the xbox judge"
you snoy b***h
CoD isn't even a good shooter.
Coming in 2025 from Sony Studios: Beckoning of Valor
She stretches her pussy for Microsoft exec dick