Aleksander Grøndal, executive producer at DICE, has gone on record stating he wishes the team had added female characters to Battlefield 1 instead of waiting until Battlefield V to do so.
Tomb Raider 12 developer has brought in an "external partner" as mysterious AAA game gets delayed to FY 2026/27 by Embracer.
Splitgate 2 is a free-to-play shooter that knows it's in a crowded market, but that isn't stopping developer 1047 Games from taking a chance.
The FTC has officially dropped its case against Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
"The sweet smell of tax dollars burning"
They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start. And yet, still, they´d decided to go ahead and double down on their bs to bleed the taxpayer even more.
The IRS demands 29bn USD in not paid taxes from Microsoft.
If we're talking bleeding.
@slate: “ The sweet smell of tax dollars burning “
The smell of political donations endorsements under the table.
There I fixed it it for you
We all knew Microsoft plan of “10 years of all systems publishing “ and some of its supporters happy that after all the games would be “exclusive to Xbox “ now that things have changed and Microsoft got humbled by the lost of money from CoD going down from OVER A BILLI🤑N to
MILLI😩NS the sales failing of games that would released on PlayStation and be forced by INVESTORS asking for their M🤑NEY to grow faster than the next 10 years it is obvious that it would be a waste of money to continue this litigation.
Edit:@obscured: “ They never stood a chance. It was a lost cause from the start “
Same as your grievance stages.
Have you passed the bargaining stage yet ? Or are you still on the anger stage 🤣
I think they're convinced now that MS won't (and can't) withhold releases from conpeting platforms. MS on the street corner now like, "Who wants a taste?!"
I wont be too sure of that. Gotta wait and see till after these deals expire
That's how it always starts, "I'll just work this street corner for a short while until I get caught up on my bills..."
Oh yeah, they're totally gonna make Xbox exclusives again, with the hardware they're totally committed to selling and making available lol
As far as I'm aware, the only 'deal' that was discussed was for Call of Duty. Xbox had no obligation to make any of their other games multiplatform. They did that of their own accord.
**btw, I'm talking about street food vendors, just in case there's any confusion!
https://external-content.du...
I've seen videos and talk a online speculating MS long game. Some think that MS multiplat move is use to appease the FTC so they can buy more and is somehow a move that could get Sony to open up their platform. In other words them going third party and letting their games go everywhere. MS possible scheme and ulterior motives, speculated by Jeff Grubb is that putting Xbox store on PS via regulation Which would hurt PS buissness very badly because that 30% cut would be even less or not a cut at all. MS buys more because they're "playing nice" by opening up its platform to Epic store and steam which would force Apple and Sony to open up their ecosystem to other stores like MS.
If that's the case that'll mean as I said before, PS fans buying Cod on PS via MS store would give 100% maybe even 90% of the money being pocketed by MS while Sony's store front wanes when it comes to third party because guess what? MS is buying more third party and preying off the extreme ignorance of the FTC. Manipulation of the FTC and MS overtaking the PS store and customers
My thing is this. I know it's a opinion and speculation but why does Sony have to open up its store or force them to go multiplat? If they still believe in selling their freakin console then let them do it. If they want to provide the best games and the best content for its fans then let them do it!? Why because the competition is trash at selling games and consoles for 14 years now Sony has to change? MS using the ignorance of the FTC to overtake gaming as we know it?
Again it's just talk and opinion but man this seems very, very possible imo.
Well, at the time, I actually did think the FTC and CMA did a poor job in court. But also the judge.
Having said that - it is what it is.
If 75bn mergers in any industry ain't a threshold to deny them, then I don't know what is.
As far as your thoughts about other 3rd parties getting taken over in the future go:
I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher.
But smaller studios ... maybe.
However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft.
That isn't to say an announcement of such couldn't drop on Monday already. Because we today know that Microsoft had approached a plethora of other studios in 2018 to 2021, such as IOI, CD Project, etc.
We'll see. And we can't do anything about it. It's up to trade commissions and then probably courts to decide.
"I think publisher buyouts are off the list now. I think it would be reeeeally difficult for MS to win another trial try taking over any other publisher."
That's the thing MS is ticking all the boxes by not have anything be exclusive so the CMA/FTC see that they're doing "fair practice" in games and content distribution. Which technically greenlits more aquisions or it makes it easier for acquisitions because MS is a mega publisher now.
"However, right now I can't see studios out there advocating for a buyout from Microsoft."
Hopefully not but them going multiplat could entice Studios to join MS because nothing is not longer exclusive which means more money for them, studio and teams.
We can't do nothing about it but Sony can. They can block xbox games on their console (lose that 30% cut) but Sony won't do that because that's money that will be lost and Sony runs a buissness. That's the only way to hurt or slow down Xbox.
I'm probably over thinking it as I do these things but it's something we shouldn't just ignore and be weary of MS motives here. I'm keeping an eye on them.
The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up. Microsoft’s multiplatform approach is 100% due to past failures and its laughable position in the gaming industry. Their best attempt was a fluke and a lie, brought on by Sony’s missteps and a poorly made machine that broke down too often.
Sony would never allow themselves to be "forced" to do anything; they control their platform and storefront perfectly fine without the need or desire to add an unnecessary Microsoft storefront. Even if, by some flaw on Sony’s part, Microsoft were able to introduce its store on PlayStation, Sony would adapt rather than collapse. Digital storefront competition already exists (Steam, Epic Games Store, Xbox Store), and PlayStation’s business won’t suddenly "wane."
Also, regulators like the FTC don’t operate on ignorance—they actively assess market behavior to prevent monopolies. Microsoft isn’t secretly overtaking gaming with some ultimate scheme. The industry might be changing or shifting (for the worse, in my opinion), but Sony will continue evolving based on market trends, not because of alleged schemes.
Gaming isn’t about one company "playing nice" or another being "forced" to change—it’s about making money with games, something Microsoft has yet to achieve in 25+ years.
"The idea that Microsoft is manipulating the FTC and forcing Sony to open its platform is silly and has no evidence to back it up."
That's why I said it was all speculation that's what Jeff Grubb opinion. I made that clear several times. You know what's funny? When Jim was in court ppl got mad at the FTC for protecting Jim Ryan instead of the consumer. Maybe he was right to worry about his business. Now look Releasing Xbox games on PS keeps MS studio an a float. Now Xbox games are all over PS now. Maybe Jim was onto something.
MS is still competing with Sony just in a very different way. The FTC back down mainly means they can buy more and MS next steps can proceed. We'll have to see what happens in the future but I wouldn't be so sure on your stance.
@Lightning77
MS putting games everywhere is the most consumer friendly thing I've seen a game company do.
@InUrFox
What does "putting everywhere" actually mean?
This book has so many pages.
• Xbox was dying in revenue
• Regulators put a 10 year deal on CoD
• Microsoft had to give away the streaming
• Spencer himself only offered 3 yrs initially
And most importantly
• Again, Xbox was dying in revenue
Xbox have the benefit of their actual financial situation giving regulators and courts the impression they release games everywhere, what they actually do.
But for reasons they can't be proven guilty of anything in court.
I'm not judging, it's just what it is.
IF the Series generation would have developed differently and was much more successful, I don't hesitate any second to believe in what Spencer had originally planned to do:
• Make everything Xbox exclusive
• We today know that Spencer had also approached Sega, From Software, CD Project, Nintendo, and even Valve was on their list of buyouts.
MS are playing a card here everyone knows why they are doing it.
Putting Doom "everywhere", which even was it already before it got bought, ain't a MS thing.
It would had hurt them in many ways if they'd put it exclusively to Xbox.
But, no matter what - it is what it is.
Xbox bought themselves back into the game. And I think many people just don't have very fond feelings towards this behaviour, wether on corporate nor private levels.
Let's see how they'll run with it.
In 2030, but most importantly after regulations will have expired we will learn better.
Seemed like a lost cause anyway. Microsoft gambled and it paid off big time. That's what you call a big boss move. Sony played a huge part in the success of that acquisition.
The game is good with or without them man, Sheesh be quiet now.
""If you take a look at Battlefield historically, it’s been about expressing yourself through gameplay, solving problems the way you want to, and these characters fall perfectly in line with that thinking."
If by expression you mean killing, sure. It's never been about picking or aiming to have a character look a certain way. The inclusion of female characters isn't a problem (to me) - the problem is the era you've decided to take this approach. In a sense you're fighting a war on two fronts.
You've angered the anti SJW crowd (they are generally as angry as the SJW crowd themselves).
You've angered those who view this as a poor portrayal of history.
While this approach will garner some applause from those who see this as a step forward for the sexes, it's given equal amount of people a head scratch. Battlefield used to harp on realism and accuracy and now it's suddenly about inclusion.
What's the message? I actually thought this was some steampunk approach but no - you're claiming this is ww2.
Get your messaging ironed out. Because I'm not buying this nonsense.
well, judging by the Battlefield V preorder.. they're not regretting that decision
You play as Bedouin Woman in Battlefield 1's campaign, which really didn't make sense. The Bedouin are very culturally strict and women fighting is a culture taboo to them. Dice is pushing for diversity and ignoring history. I was told by EA not to buy there game if i find the out of place inclusive of women in their game to be annoying and inappropriate for the setting, so I won't be buying Battlefield V.
the Troll meter is hitting the roof with this guy.