 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Microsoft now owns SONY's golden egg.
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Sony has a mere 10 years to come up with a call of duty competitor. Maybe bungie will pull their fingers out and make a decent user interface.
Honestly they could do it. What's even so special about COD? Sony makes all these other games at as high or higher production quality and none of them are games meant to fill COD's niche, they have never even tried yet
>What's even so special about COD?
It's shooter FIFA. If you look at most played PS games, you will see Current Year's FIFA game (and other sports games), GTA V, and that year's CoD
>What's even so special about COD?
the name
Didn't they want Killzone to be that?
Guess now they'll pull every stop they can to buy out EA for Battlefield and sportsball. They're fricked otherwise.
soyy doesn't have that kind of money.
EA has allegedly been in talks with Amazon, Disney and Comcast. Though it came out from those talks that EA wants a more horizontal merge where they are involved in sports output like ESPN, NBC Sports or Prime Sports. EA CEO Andrew Wilson in particular wanted the EA board to have a major role in a merger so they weren't interested in a vertical merge like Activision is doing (Where Bobby Kottick is likely going to resign from ABK when it's done and dissolve the board).
Sony would have a very hard time convincing EA to take cash and stock when Sony isn't really in the sports game. And even then the leagues EA have licensed all want a multiplatform release so they would have their hands tied like MLB. So there are a lot of moving parts that would preclude an EA acquisition, never mind the asking price being in the $40 billion plus range. Same with Take 2.
I would rather play Destiny 2 than another shitty modern warfare cod game.
They need CoD money to fund their high art film games you chud.
what ever happened to SOCOM?
Sony killed off Zipper after Unit 13 didn't do well (because it was released on the fricking Vita, despite the game being fun in short bursts). I don't trust anyone else to handle SOCOM after how badly that PS3 release was, which took a good year of updates to overhaul how fricked it was as a multiplayer-only title.
4 bombed hard plus the PSN shitshow, socom fans sent a bunch of shit to yoshida so sony japan hates socom, and sony California hates socom because all of their fans are gigachuds. It doesn't matter that socom was constantly the most requested PS2 remake, they pissed off the corp that owns the trademark, and never underestimate spiteful nips and spiteful israelites
Confrontation only really took a couple months to get good, but its release was rough, i agree.
Killzone only really had 1 great game, and guerrilla got burnt out so hard they only want to make ESGslop
>Confrontation only really took a couple months to get good, but its release was rough, i agree.
It was severely lacking in maps which the later updates rolled out more of.
Supposedly Bungie is making a new Marathon game after they're done milking Destiny 2 for all it's worth, but I don't know if that branding holds any weight these days. Doesn't help that Bungie has a non-exclusive deal with Sony, so all of their games go on PC and Xbox regardless.
Sony really made a dumbass move changing their whole Playstation plans to revolve around a single video game franchise they don't even own.
They're just recycling the Marathon name to jump on the extraction shooter trend.
They didn't buy Bungie for any of their products existing or upcoming, they've directly stated they bought them for managerial expertise on a large number of upcoming live service projects.
>Last of Us 2 multiplayer got delayed because Bungie consultants noticed they had no idea how to monetize it or have longterm support schedules
>Delayed a multiplayer game because they couldn't figure out how to be greedy enough
Good grief.
The idea of just releasing a multiplayer mode for a game that also has a single player mode to make people want to buy the full product and then they can enjoy that for a while is utterly foreign to the industry at large.
It's shit like Splatoon 3 that's the outlier. Everything gotta be "get them to spend $10 this month and next month and next month" battle pass fomo shit.
Battlepasses really were gaming's shitty answer to people objecting to skins and stuff being locked strictly behind monetization with no option to get it through gameplay.
>is utterly foreign to the industry at large NOW
Because they're greedy pieces of dogshit, this wasn't the norm before.
It's not "foreign to them", they intentionally abandoned it. When it was widespread stuff like Bioshock 2, Arkham Origins, Transformers, and Wolfenstein 2009 demonstrated that it isn't worth hiring an outsource team to tack on a multiplayer mode that doesn't have enough players to matchmake after three weeks.
It's not totally abandoned. CoD and Halo still has single and multiplayer modes.
wasn't specifically because of monetization. It was partly because ND's engine needed to be able to patch the game quicker. It was primarily a single player engine afterall.
I chose to believe some moronic executive honestly thought they were buying halo.
>Maybe bungie will pull their fingers out and make a decent user interface.
I hope it's both of these fingers, and I hope they're in Jim Ryan's face.
>Sony making an exclusive IP like COD and expecting sony gays to buy it like nintendo gays do
Lmao not happening
Problem is
>1. They would have to come up with a new ip
>2. They would have to cultivate that ip and ensure it gets a large and dedicated playerbase like CoD
>3. Money would have to be spent on that ip which means less for movie games that CoD bux are used for anyways
>4. They'd need to do this in a decade assuming the limit is just 10 years and it's not extended/renewed
They're raping Marathon's corpse as we speak.
>more choice
>but we want to make games exclusive to PC and Xbox
????????
>exclusive
>multiple platforms
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Xbox is just a shitty PC, shill
The only platform that should exist is PC and one console anyway. It's Nintendo and Sony holding back consumer choice not Microsoft.
Xbox shills really don’t like it when someone questions their daddy Phil
Yup. At least MS puts their games on PC. Sony puts some here and there but largely is still cucking the consumer with their exclusive bullshit and paying off companies to remain exclusive. Nintendo as well.
>At least MS puts their games on PC
That's why Xbox as a console is selling at a loss.
For you to buy a plastic box there has to be a reason to buy a plastic box.
Microsoft is giving the consumer options. Not everyone can afford a gaming PC, that's why they have their Xbox. That's the only reason a console needs to exist for and unless you're doing some weird gimmick like making a portable, no more than one console should even exist.
Its mind boggling that people don't understand why MS is "gimping" themselves by not having exclusives anymore. Even ignoring that most people aren't PC gamers so that's irrelevant anyway, MS just wants you in their ecosystem so they can push shit like Game Pass on you. It doesn't matter if you're on PC or Xbox if you're paying a Game Pass sub every month.
Exactly, and Game Pass pushes the continual degradation of the concept of ownership. Microsoft is trying to use its vast wealth to create a pseudo-monopoly and push for an all-digital future. They are the most anti-consumer of the major video game publishers, and are leading the charge to ruin video games. Frick them.
the irrelevance of physical media in the industry (pushed by both the industry and fans now) did more to degrade the concept of ownership than services like sega channel or gamepass
Amazing how many people fall for Microsoft’s good guy act
Can’t wait for them to turn the screws hard when Microsoft gets what they want
>That's why Xbox as a console is selling at a loss.
Is that what you meant to say? Pretty much all consoles are sold at a loss.
Not true. Nintendo consoles are always sold for profit. Sony is sold at cost and then eventually at profit.
Grow up
Funny how you guys think Microsoft is doing this out of the kindness of their hearts and not because every Xbox exclusive sold like shit
Lets see how things get when MS is a market leader again
Good news, Microsoft will never be market leader ever again
Xbox is a dead brand
Sure bro, buying the biggest publisher in the entire industry won't make them become market leader in the long run, trust the process.
>Xbox is a dead brand
More alive than ever, after this acquisition starts paying off. But whatever helps you sleep at night.
>t. businesslet
Microsoft is trying to bring Netflix to video games, they are the Great Enemy
As long as "PC" is not synonymous with "Windows"
Preach
Lolmao at thinking Microsoft gives two shits about consumer choice. I guess if you completely ignore 30+ years of history you can make anything fit your narrative.
Microsoft doesn't give a frick about "PC", they care about WINDOWS. They don't port games to Linux or Mac, they port to Windows, which Microsoft owns and controls.
While it's good that they're even bothering to do that, let's not pretend that this isn't yet another form of corporate control and platform exclusivity that hurts consumers.
Games are not ported to linux because nobody fricking plays there. It runs on 3% of desktops and majority of those are business desktops for software development. It makes more sense to port games to mac os(despite it's shittiest performance) than to linux. Just because gaben is fapp9ng to it, doesn't mean it's any big.
3% is a big number when you're talking about many millions of people, still not enough to justify porting but we don't need that anymore.
That's not the point. That's not even close to the point. It doesn't matter how popular other platforms are. When Microsoft brings games to "PC" they still keep it in their ecosystem exclusively and force you to use their products to play the game.
So MS owns Steam as well?
You are the dumbest motherfricker.
In the next 10 years, probably.
Gabe will have uploaded his consciousness into Steam by then, it's fine.
>10 years until the dawn of the gabe newell egregore
I can't wait
Like
said, Steam is a storefront, not a platform. You need to be running Microsoft Windows to play the games that Microsoft publishes to PC. It doesn't matter where you download the game, be it Steam, EGS, Microsoft's own digital storefront, whatever, you still need to be using Microsoft's operating system to play these games. It's just another form of anti-consumer platform exclusivity.
Windows =/= PC
There's some, and honestly not enough, wiggle room to "MS games on Windows" but generally yes you are correct.
PC wouldn't have it's success without Nintendo and it's Sony/Microsoft holding everyone back. Think about it. The Wii U sold 13 million units. The PS4 sold 120 million. That's 120 million potential players on PC, supporting PC, buying PC parts. And Microsoft turned it's business into paid online and subscription games. Titles and game save data that cannot be used on PC. Yet people still buy Steam Deck and a decent PC to emulate Nintendo stuff.
Its PR speak smooth brain
It used to be no choice at all between PS5 and xbox, now there is one.
The "we want to make games exclusive to pc, xbox and streaming services without delay and switch with small delay" is more choice than "we want to make games exclusive to ps and maybe release it on pc few years later"
Maybe you’d have a point if we weren’t talking about third party multiplats
CoD is a first party game.
Yes. Xbox/Windows/XCloud, makes the game accessible to more people than ever, even without it being on SnoyStation.
Dont forget Nintendo and Steam as well.
They'll be on Steam, it's just a storefront, not a platform, lmao
>Game was already multiplat before acquisition
>More choice to play
lol
All actiblizz games are not available on steam, switch and cloud services. Now they will be
This post game me a stroke. Who acquired who? Explain it to me as if I were a child.
playstation acquired bungie, but destiny remains on xbox
xbox acquired activision, but call of duty remains on ps5
we are moving towards a post-exclusivity future
Destiny is garbage, tho, so if it stayed on PS, it wouldn't really affect nobody
"wouldn't affect nobody" means it would affect somebody. how embarassing for you. look at him - look at him and laugh.
Double negatives always filter nitwits
Microsoft bought Activision Blizzard, one of their IP is Call of Duty which is Sony's biggest earner on the Playstation.
Now all money Sony earns through Call of Duty will also be shared with Microsoft, one of their two biggest competitors. This also means that any time they try to make a game exclusive to playstation to try and hurt microsoft, microsoft could just make COD not be allowed to be sold on Playstation
>Microsoft bought Activision Blizzard
where did the blizzard part come from? wtf does it have to do with that?
Activision owns Blizzard anon
Been that way since 2008
so what did they buy, all of activision or only the blizzard part? or it's the same thing?
All of it.
WoW on xbox, look forward to it.
The deal hasn't officially gone through yet
There's no blockers for it. CMA promised result by 7th august, after initial deadline at 31st august and FTC cancelled inside hearing
It's going to happen now guaranteed, everything stopping it has been thrown out of court.
acrivision is actually called activision blizzard king
>activision
you know it, call of duty, crash, spyro etc
>blizzard
overwatch, diablo, warcraft, starcraft etc
>king
candy crush (the biggest money bringer lol)
You do realize the opposite is also true right? Without Sony Call of Duty makes no money. If Microsoft get uppity then can just cut off Call of Duty and suddenly Microsofts $70 billion acquisition will never pay it's self back because 80% of Activisions profit is made from Playstation.
>Without Sony Call of Duty makes no money
LMAO
Tell that to the CoD Mobile gays
>Without Sony Call of Duty makes no money
CoD sells like a fricking banger regardless of platform. Only thing that would change from excluding Playstation is more sales on PC and Xbox, of course Microwiener is not a fool and is letting Sony have CoD because it helps make them look good for buying out Actiblizz.
>Without Sony Call of Duty makes no money. If Microsoft get uppity then can just cut off Call of Duty and suddenly Microsofts $70 billion acquisition will never pay it's self back because 80% of Activisions profit is made from Playstation.
Absolute snoygger cope, lmao
Sony was already sharing money with Activision though. Yea Microsoft gets that money now instead but Sony hasn't lost anything if someone is buying mtx in Warzone on a PS5.
watch microshit destroy cod with their moronic management
It’s inevitable
ah yes, the mystery formula that is cod: the same game annually since 2007
Microsoft is the shitmidas.
Remember Skype? How can you frick something basic as this?
Ever hear of teams? Wow, they sure fricked up skype by rebranding it and having 99% market share in enterprise.
Funny you brag about having 99% marketshare in enterprise, the only reason they do is because they have it built in with Office 365, the company I work for uses them and we hate it. It's absolute trash. We are hoping the switch to Google or literally anything else.
>We are hoping the switch to Google or literally anything else.
Good luck with that. If you can't commit to ditching 365 you are fricked.
It will be funny if this one fails as well. They bought so many studios before but now people thing this is where it will turn around? There problem really was never a lack of studios but releasing high quality games to support game pass. It has always been a management issue and it will be a management issue if they somehow fumble this one up like the rest.
Every studio that Microsoft has ever acquired has become shit.
God I wish PlayStation will go out in a ball of fire
Microsoft will devalue it just like what they did with rest of their franchises they bought at their peak. Some ex 343 devs revealed how MS operates as a whole which is especially bad for developers who uses their in house engine such as CoD teams, they basically lay off half the studio and 50% of the devs are independent contracters who are there for 18 months max, this is MS' basic policy because they don't want to give promotion to their foot soldier workers. But you can see how it fricks up game development when it takes 4 years minimum to develop a 3A game. And if 343 fricked up with Halo due to MS' incompetence then I don't see how Infinity Ward or Treyarch or Sledgehammer won't.
Most of the people working at Activision will straight up quit when their contract is up anyway. Better to jump than be pushed.
>Call of Duty is already multiplatform
>buy its publisher with the intention of making it exclusive to your platform
>“More choice to play their favorite games”
I own Xbox and PlayStation and Switch by the way, so this is just pure PR vomit that makes zero sense.
I’m glad more people are realizing Phil is a snake
I genuinely don't think he is. I believe he wants what is best for gamers. It would have been really easy for him to dominate the industry and kill snoy if he wanted to, but he wants to be the champion of gamers, not the champion of microsoft's corporate interests. Why doesn't playstation make all their games multiplat? Why doesn't playstation offer a deal as good as gamepass? It's because you are nothing but cattle to them.
>wants what’s best for gamers
>wants to take games away from other platforms and make users reliant on a subscription service
I don’t think so Tim
they just did it for money call of duty is a good investment and somewhat futureproof
>making it exclusive to your platform
Microsoft's platform is everything except Nintendo and Sony platforms. And even then, CoD will on those platforms until 2033.
You're right it IS only bad when microsoft does it
it's nothing new, but I fricking hate this slimy language
give us a choice for every game you own, then
Transbox has no games kek
MS will end Call of Duty, rename it and keep it exclusively on Xbox and PC.
I thought you meant Crash
Sony's Mascot
>Ten years of borrowed time
Sony is fricking dead.
>gets the original face of Playstation (Crash, also even Spyro)
>probably wasn't even acknowledged since CoD is/was the golden egg now
I hate getting old sometimes.
No one has cared about Crash or Spyro for years Actual dead IPs.
I think Sony's fricked. The most baffling thing to me was their decision to release their games on PC though. I just don't get it. Pure greed on their part, zero understanding of the brand
How does porting games to PC constitute as greed?
>rushed half-baked port of TLoU1
>latest R&C game flap exposed as marketing hackery
Have you been paying attention or is it your first day as a marketer at Sony?
It's to get their games released in China, Chinese regulations are too strict to be cleared through official means so Steam acts as a back door. The goal is to have their games advertised to as many people as possible for when Microsoft pivots to being a pure subscription service. They want you to play God of War so you buy a PS+ subscription for your PC.
>PORTING GAMES IS BAD
kys
Porting your biggest games without regards to quality control is bad, yes.
Based. Jim Ryan and Hermen Hulst destroyed a legendary brand in record time, in exchange for some measly short-term pennies. They're fricking insane. Not too long ago, PlayStation was run by Andrew "PC is our main competitor" House. Feels like a lifetime ago.
They're not insane, they're aware that the walled garden console model has already been on borrowed time and that now there's early warning signs they're obligated to adapt.
Tell that to Nintendo. They'd rather go out of business than cuck out their games.
Yes, Japanese Disney are experiencing financial success, for the same reason that they're also experiencing financial success at selling tickets to theme parks and Hollywood movies. The hardware is immaterial to that success, they'd be doing just as well in the market sector if it was Tiger Handhelds rather than a rebadged tablet.
>and the only time Xbox was sort of successful was when they had decent, actual exclusives on the 360 era.
Their "exclusives" demonstrably weren't successful (not least of which because of Japanese publishers actively sabotaging them), and the system enjoyed it's biggest success- wouldn't you know it- from the gargantuan launch of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.
Yea bro, the Halo 3 launch totally wasn't one of the biggest events in gaming history. And people didn't buy Xbox like crazy just for that game.
If your argument about Nintendo was correct, the Wii U wouldn't have failed.
But anon, Sony and the FTC said Nintendo does not count :^)
>Tell that to Nintendo.
Nintendo isn't trying to make games for consoles that are functionally PC's, so there's nothing to tell Nintendo. They aren't even competing in the same industry as Sony and Microsoft.
lmao cope, sony just can't make their own zelda because they're just a bunch of moron Black person californicucks
What cope have you dreamed up for me, you mouth breathing idiots? Nintendo is in an entirely different segment. You might as well claim that mobile games are competing in the same industry as Xbox and Sony. Nintendo's ecosystem is so totally removed from anything else related to gaming.
Why do you idiots spit more buzzwords now, it's clear you can't think for yourself.
>You might as well claim that mobile games are competing in the same industry as Xbox and Sony
And that's a correct claim. Different platforms, same industry. Why do you think Microsoft are spending $70,000,000,000, Call of Duty? Fricking lmao
>mobile games and xbox sony compete with each other
>its totally the same industry just because its both video games
Actual room-temp IQ. Motorcycles and cars are both personal vehicles, clearly they compete in the same industry, right? Same with Refrigerators and stoves, they're both kitchen appliances, right?
You're a jackass.
>Why do you think Microsoft are spending $70,000,000,000
You seem to know so much Mr. Wizard, why don't you bother saying it instead of pretending you've got an answer to your own question?
Guess the people calling the shots in a multi trillion dollar corporation have room-temp IQ as well.
They're spending the money to amplify their presence in the GAMING INDUSTRY, more specifically, mobile.
>they're spending money to move from where they are (not mobile) to where they want to be (mobile)
>but they were already the same industry, trust me bro you're the dumb one
Thanks for proving my point, dipshit.
>but they do compete
No, they don't. Mobile doesn't take customers away from consoles or vice versa because the customer base is completely isolated from each other. Again, it's like claiming people would choose to buy a refrigerator as opposed to an over - no, they won't, they'll almost certainly buy both. That's why kitchen appliance manufacturers often make both refrigerators AND ovens, so they don't miss out on the customers who want either.
Xbox and Sony want to get into mobile gaming because it's nearly 50% of the video games MARKET (as opposed to an industry in that market) and they are missing out on all that money by not participating in it. It has nothing to do with trying to compete with mobile, because they do not compete with each other.
They don't. There is no one who plays mobile games instead of playing a console game. They don't take customers from each other, which is what the definition of competition is. You're a fricking idiot if you believe they compete with one another.
you lost bruh.
they compete.
no amount of cope you come up with will change that.
>n-n-o, y-y-y-you l-lost!!!!
But I'm the one who's coping.
they don't compete in the console space, obviously, but they do compete. why do you think snoy want successful gaas garbage so badly?
>mobile games and xbox sony compete with each other
>he legit thinks they don't
>They aren't even competing in the same industry as Sony and Microsoft.
massive cope
>They aren't even competing in the same industry as Sony and Microsoft.
Because Microsoft and Sony realised they couldn't keep up after the Wii/DS beatdown so they branched off
Let's be real Sony and Microsoft didn't change. If you tell some 12 yo today that Nintendo made consoles that were more powerful than Sony ones they won't believe you. The switch is the handheld you get as an extra to your home console, it's not enough by itself because 3rd party experience is pure hell.
I won't be surprised if Nintendo cut loses and just made the switch 2 a pure handheld because no one actually used the home feature.
I'd expect a Switch 2 to drop the joycon shit, and it'd just be a Switch Lite situation, except it supports video-out + recharging through a simplified dock design.
Oh god no. The waggling games is selling like crazy. They would have to be insane to drop a gimmick that allows for both traditional gaming play and waggling.
>The waggling games is selling like crazy
Literally none of them are
Yeah, everyone's clamoring for that 1 2 Switch sequel.
>because no one actually used the home feature.
Lmao what?
>Let's be real Sony and Microsoft didn't change
So that's why they both went from walled garden to multiplat while nintendo didnt change. Interesting. Anyway, how not competing with nintendo working out? Surely they're more successful now right?
I exclusively use the dock on my switch. I only use it for first party games and exclusives though. I have no need for a handheld.
>If you tell some 12 yo today that Nintendo made consoles that were more powerful than Sony ones they won't believe you.
Technically true statements are irrelevant horse shit. Beta is technically better than VHS.
Doesn't fricking matter. Nobody cares except losers like you who grew up playing a grand total of 2 fricking games.
It's working out pretty well for Nintendo, and the only time Xbox was sort of successful was when they had decent, actual exclusives on the 360 era. The walled garden console model works.
The walled garden works when making the games is actually profitable on its own, not "it makes the library and advertising look nice but we need COD money to stay in the black" $200 million budgets that struggle to hit what Zelda makes in a weekend.
Then maybe they should streamline their development process, fire all their diversity hires and useless personnel, and focus on making good games with smaller budgets again.
Didn't work when Sony tried it with the PS3 and PS4. It's actually probably a more feasible idea to do R&D on a time machine so you can go back to the mid-90's and plant the seeds of an IP like Pokemon.
Xbox 360 was successful because it had a year headstart on the PS3, cost less than the PS3, and the sheer majority of multiplats ran/looked far better than the PS3.
Too bad about the RRoD/YLOD situation that plagued both consoles though
>walled garden console model
Nah this works extremely well. Only stipulation is that you make games for your garden. Which is why it fell apart when sony did it, but Nintendo is pretty much secure and not going anywhere.
I'd understand your concern if they released their shit day&date with the PS5 release, but that has yet to be the case. There's going to be people who have no care to buy a PS5, and modern Sony isn't dumb enough anymore to spend hundreds of millions on a game to be made and leaving extra money standing when the sales completely dry up on their main platform.
They will lose potential sales, and it's hard to say how many that will be. Like me for example, I have a PS5 but I also have a PC, I don't buy Sony exclusives anymore and just wait to play them for free on PC. Don't mind waiting a year or two to get it for free.
>I'd understand your concern if they released their shit day&date with the PS5 release
Who the frick cares about that other than FOMOhomosexuals? If it's not an actual exclusive, why bother buying the fricking console?
Plus, all their upcoming GAAS trash will be on Microsoft Windows day 1. Can't wait to see what excuse you gays will come up with next.
i legit believe microsoft wants to go third party but not before being able to pressure sony into accepting gamepass on ps6/7
MS doesn't want to go "third party" so much as "all parties". They have no problem keeping their first party system because it's just another way to get GamePass to consumers.
The goal is, as you meant to say, getting GamePass on everything possible.
let me rephrase then, i believe they want to stop making xboxes
Lol that doesn't matter. Didn't you see that Sony released Uncharted, Ratched and Clank and god of War on MICROSOFT Windows? Either way MS gets money.
The problem with Game Pass on PS6/7 is that Sony runs a competing service in PS+ and only wants to silo out sub-services like EA Play and Ubisoft+. Sony won't allow rival services on their platforms unless they were forced into it by the European Union. Microsoft is still going to make Xbox an entry point and that means new consoles from Microsoft
>i legit believe microsoft wants to go third party
This, but nu-PlayStation
Microsoft always wins. You don't become a trillion dollar company by losing. Get ready for more acquisitions of the likes of capcom, cdpr, Sega, take 2 etc. Microsoft will buy them all. It's only a matter of time. At least they support PC day 1 so I don't give a shit about what happens to playstation.
Tux needs YOU!
no one cares about your loser machines
sure, Bill
inb4 you try to claim android for linux, at that point android has as much in common with linux as linux has with unix so it's all unix and you still get nothing
Still butthurt about the failure that was Windows Mobile/Windows phone, aren't you Bill?
>BUT WHATABOUT
What about the fact that literally "unknown" and "other" have a higher market share than every distribution of linux combined?
Yes, I'm sure you and your handful of smelly friends that you only have over the internet care a lot about tinkering with your loser machines.
What if they just stop making games branded as Call of Duty?
Wasn't Sony huge on making games exclusive to playstation for years? Did something change, or do they just throw a fit when MS does it?
think really hard about what the difference is between funding an exclusive game and buying a massive publisher that used to always make multiplatform games.
think really hard about my company paying for exclusivity vs your company paying for exclusivity
Sony bought small studios and turned them into big-time AAA studios to make new exclusive IPs for them
Microsoft bought the biggest Western publisher on the planet for their existing IPs
Snoy are in panic mode because microsoft bying something means that it will never ps exclusive, time exclusive or have exclusive content, and they themselves cant affort to acquire shit, because the total acquisition budget for the whole sony, including movie, phone and TV divisions is 14B, and acquisition budget for xbox alone is 120B
And you're mom owns my 2 smegma balls xpajeet
Ez Boiii client allows you to play blops 3 online again. Even works on deck.
BRUH PEEP THIS ONE
LIKE REALLY PEEP THIS ONE
NO MORE COD
NO MORE MTX ROYALTIES
NO MORE FIRST PARTY VANITY PROJECTS
NOOO MOOORE JIM RYAN
What Linux distros should I try out as a newcomer?
Try Ubuntu or Fedora and their flavors first probably. Make an install usb and play with the live environment you don't need to install anything.
ubuntu or kubuntu (kubuntu is ubuntu, but with a desktop similar to windows), then experiment with other distros once you get the hang of the command line. eventually you'll settle on one you like with the knowledge to customize it to your liking
Generally the distro isn't as important as the DE when it comes to starting fresh. If you want a Windows like experience try something good with KDE like Opensuse Tumbleweed, Kubuntu or Fedora. For a more Mac like experience use Gnome with Fedora.
I always recommend Opensuse Tumbleweed for new users who want to learn since it has snapshots built in if you use the BTRFS filesystem for your root partition so if something goes wrong you can reset easily.
The American government wants to own everything. You dont need to go back in Microsoft's history to see their connection to the military. Just observe how they throw money at everything thinking it'll win them the war that they started
>Capitalism lets the free market decide what's good by the power of consumer decision
>Mega corporations acquire all sources of production for products with the greatest marketing and production ability
>You are bombarded with ads for one product sold under one platform
Capitalism was a mistake
Yes we should transition to socialism where all software will be free and open source and you can pirate whatever you want
And socialism is better because instead of few megacorps you get one, which also holds the power to create laws and enforce it, yeah. I swear some people are simply moronic Black folk
Capitalism inherently rewards greed, and needs to be kept in line by law and government. Corporations buddying up with and manipulating government agencies has lead to the dystopian hellscape we find ourselves in. Corruption is to blame, not capitalism. If the people who create the law aren't morally righteous, then societal rot is the only thing that can thrive.
Adam Smith all the way back in the 18th century specifically warned about this kind of shit, that it would be too easy for the wealthy to transform "capitalism" into crony capitalism/neo-feudalism without meaningful checks against their power.
Yes I know this reeks of "not true communism" but they at least openly acknowledged this scenario way back when they were just trying to conceptualize the whole idea of economics in the first place.
It started to turn to shit thanks to Ford vs Dodge where Ford tried to lower prices of his cars, pay his workers better and give them better benefits but his shareholders sued him for being a "charity" and stopped that. Resulting in every company being forced to chase increased revenue every year. Ford started to hate the israelites after that lawsuit funnily enough.
40 years before Dodge vs Ford people were fricking dying fighting Pinkertons in labor strikes and Teddy Roosevelt made a big deal about trust busting. Shit was bad and people noticed well before Ford thought it would be smart to invest cash back into his company and do a five day work week.
Microsoft killed all their other franchises in under a decade. They’ll drive all the talent out of CoD studios immediately.
>They’ll drive all the talent out of CoD studios immediately.
lmao
"PC" is not "Windows"!
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
Malding and seething.
Well, excuse me, Mr. "Apple Gamer".
Only pedophiles run linux.
facts are cope now?
I really hope steam keeps pushing their Steam OS, making games run better on it compared to Windows and eventually making all of them compatible, and see Windows marketshare slowly get eroded just like Internet Explorer
Frick Pajeetsoft
Just call them WCs if they are currently running Windows.
heh
This acquisition sure is a kick in the balls for Sony. They should have worn a CoD piece!
It really is that easy to get (You)s here. Holy autism.
>Buy a huge studio for exclusivity
>Players will have more choice
Yes.
>huge publisher
>cloud platforms, Switch, and PS will have CoD
Yes?
>Switch, and PS will have CoD
Even when they no longer do.
>Switch, and PS will have CoD
For 10 years, hopefully Microsoft will have run it to the ground by then just like they did with Halo and gears
>Switch will have CoD
Shit is 6 years old and it hasn't had a single CoD release yet.
Yes that's exactly the point. if MS didnt buy Activision then they wouldnt be forced into making COD for the switch. This is good for gamers because it means more platforms are finally able to play the games.
They're gonna make a shitty gimped version like the Vita call of duty and no one will buy that, you know that right? This won't do any good.
Switch 2 will come out in a year and COD will run properly on that.
switch 2 is going to be a ps4 in terms of power. CoD has to support ps4 level graphics for 10 years.
>CoD has to support ps4 level graphics for 10 years
NTA but that's not that hard. The only thing these games won't have is 4k resolution on other consoles. Not a big loss.
It's fine, Switchlets are already used to 540p/barely-30fps/lower-than-low settings on their ports with Doom Eternal.
b-but it was an impossible port... digital foundry said so...
The same DigitalFoundry that peddles more sponsor links than articles these days.
Switch will just get ports of last-gen CoDs since they bothered to bring back the 360 servers for them already for backwards-compat on Series X.
all the new cod multiplayers are fricking dogshit. the campaigns are still pretty fun (I recently completed blops3 campaign which was too high IQ for me) why do you think cod games are no longer on a one per year schedule. because they are dogshit and they sell like shit
Our year fr fr
They owned minecraft and that changed nothing. They will always be looked at as the Hispanic choice of gaming.
Cod will lose its foot if it gets associated with Xbox.
call of duty 'lost its foot' over 10 years ago, it was always normalgay slop but its really there now. It was also very much originally associated with xbox. cod fans don't give a frick about what system they're on, they literally just play cod