gfitzpatrick47
Giovanni_Fitzpatrick
gfitzpatrick47

For the third-party developers and publishers, accepting these deals often makes a great deal of sense.

For AB, they get a good deal after nearly 2 years of bad press and poor game releases, and by no longer being publicly traded, they don’t have to deal with the whims of public opinion to the degree that it negatively

I think people overstate the “failure” of Microsoft last gen.

Sony did really well, and MS definitely stumbled out of the gate. However, MS gaming revenue actually grew during the generation, because the main value driver for their gaming division isn’t hardware, but content and services (in fact, from the Xbox One

Then good for Bungie, since I personally think they’re wildly overpriced. And merely being “courted” isn’t 100% indicative of the quality and future-prospects of the company. Not saying Bungie is trash, or they have nothing on the pipeline, but purchases/mergers don’t always work out, and merely having interest shown

Microsoft has more than enough money, not just cash on hand, but also access to finance facilities, that this purchase isn’t going to stymie other investments in the more core businesses.

And while those are core businesses, as a percentage of overall revenue, Gaming accounts for around $16bn of revenue for Microsoft a

I haven’t the faintest idea why Sony wants Bungie, aside from the fact they might be still smarting that their attempts to have a 1st-party FPS (that also functioned as a console-mover) on par with Halo never really took off (even though the Killzone games were rather good).

Also, Bungie seems really overpriced for a

The thing is that in the gaming sphere, there simply aren’t a lot of companies the size of AB in which to buy.

When looking at the large, third-party publishers, the big three are Take-Two, EA, and AB. Then you have places like Ubisoft and Square-Enix (which are more complicated purchases since they’re foreign-based).

Microsoft is also 23x the size of Sony, and had more cash-on-hand than Sony’s entire market cap.

When it comes to financial power, Microsoft and Sony aren’t in the same league, which is why Microsoft could gobble up a powerhouse like Activision-Blizzard (with far more profitable IPs than Destiny), while Sony had to

Sony simply doesn’t have the resources to buy a publisher as large as Activision Blizzard.

Size-wise, Microsoft had more cash-on-hand than Sony’s entire market-cap (roughly $130bn). Market-cap wise, Microsoft is roughly 25x the size of Sony, which is why Activision-Blizzard was only in play for a company as large and

The misinformation isn’t the source of the problem, but rather the type of misinformation.

Defamation and libel cases are strongest when you’re speaking of someone’s career or facets which have a grave and clear impact on their life, earning power, and societal standing (this is called defamation per se). Someone

The plaintiff was represented in a fictional work as who she was, name, language, nationality, and all. For all intents and purposes, legally, her claim is that she was represented in a defamatory way.

For example. Let’s imagine that someone you know writes a wholly fictional account concerning themselves (although

I suppose it’s because those other prominent figures were one amongst many due to their race/ethnicity, and thus didn’t really stand out in an era where plenty of other white men were also successful. Woody Allen and Roman Polanski weren’t the only really successful and talented white directors in Hollywood and

The one I can immediately think of, that doesn’t fall into either category (although he’s become an entertainer within his professional field), is Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Funnily enough, the last time (or perhaps the time before) he was on the podcast, a bunch of Rogan fans were complaining because Neil was basically being

The thing is that he didn’t technically commit fraud.

It’s one thing to provide astronomical and unrealistic projections to investors as a private company: they have a responsibility to do their due diligence. What screwed Holmes was that she made claims about the efficacy of the underlying product which could either

Apple is in a unique position to do anything they want because there’s literally millions of people around the world who will buy whatever they put out just because it has an Apple logo on it (case in point: a $20 microfiber cloth that’s CONSTANTLY sold out lol).

Consoles represent a new walled garden for thim with significantly higher profit margins and would allow them to capture a market that thus far they’ve struggled to maintain (although to be fair they’ve never really actively sought it out either).

Apple makes so much money from mobile gaming that there isn’t much financial incentive to get into the console/game development market.

At this point, they’re basically Steam but with much higher revenues, profits, and upside, since smartphones will only get more powerful and ubiquitous. Why spend money on a publisher

I binged Season 1 last weekend after my friends were talking about season 2 episode 1. I enjoyed season 1. It was a very cool watch, with some really good performances with admittedly some troperific aspects (the big dumb jock is secretly gay/bi, the Latina is hyper-sexual and mean, the black girl has a missing

They wouldn’t have to make them exclusive to make more money.

They could theoretically make more money by simply increasing the licensing fees for either Nintendo or Sony to have the titles on their systems. Sure, Nintendo and Sony might balk, but then Microsoft can come out and say, “We wanted to make these games

Microsoft is sitting on a metric fuckton of cash without any real avenues to spend it, at least in the realms where Microsoft makes most of its money (purchases in those realms would trigger antitrust concerns from the DOJ and likely scuttle the deal, wasting billions in the process).

This isn’t actually that

Well shit, we’re in agreement then hahaha

In one of my replies to Straw Man, I mentioned that certain copyright holders might find it in their economic benefit to be lax with the enforcement. However, their individual laxity shouldn’t be indicative, or a leading indicator, towards laxity being beneficial on the whole.