Sony could have created major trouble with the MS/Activision buy-out. They simply wanted CoD to STAY on the PS consoles. More people play CoD on the PS than almost all Xbox and PC players combined. Those are facts. CoD is a system seller for Sony and MS knows this,which, tbh, is why this whole buyout is even happening. If you think it's because of any Blizzard game you're smoking. This is ALL ABOUT Call of Duty's future in the console industry. Whether or not you like CoD any longer isn't the point. It's a gargantuan franchise and one that has broken records for selling copies of its games. It's a multi-billion dollar franchise that Xbox, undoubtedly, wants to pry from Sony's ever-reaching fingers any longer. The fact they came to some kind of agreement is moot. I'm betting that the agreement is for the expected life span of the PS5. 10 years. Max. After that, all bets are off. Activision WILL HAVE to keep making CoD profitable for this agreement to even make MS money. Sure, you'll have the occasional Blizzard drop to make some money somewhere, and, yeah, WoW still makes a TON of money but this is all about the greed of MS, the want and ability to pry something away from a competitor and the fact that Xbox has never "won" a console war. So, they're going the other way. They're going to win the "we OWN the studios that make PS games so f**k all of ya" mentality. Plain and simple. If your competitor's BEST games are on the OTHER console which console will you eventually buy then? Bingo.
Sony did create trouble for M$ acquisition, and it didn't work. It just clogged up the court system with a losing case for years, but in the end, Sony still lost.
If the buyout was strictly about control of CoD, Why did M$ even agree to a deal with playstation in the first place?
Why did M$ offer a deal previously?
The deal clearly wasn't just about CoD, since M$ won the case, and the appeal was rejected.
So M$ didn't HAVE to make a deal with Sony anymore. Sony lost.
It's only after seeing, and understanding they (Sony) lost, that they (Sony) changed their tune on this whole "make a deal" BS.
Also, corporations in general can be, and often are greedy, So saying this is 'all about the greed of MS' may be correct, if you mean that M$ is trying to get a "win" for their console (and business)
but,nSony is just as greedy. So is Nintendo... ect.
They all have shareholders to 'make happy' You can't fault anyone (or any company) for using their money, to make themselves better.
Been saying this was going to happen since the start... Congrats to XBOX!
Now, since M$ will probably keep to it's word for the foreseeable future, Call of Duty will remain a multi-platformer (for now) but, its going to be interesting to see what titles going forward, their (M$) going to keep for XBOX (and PC) players, including new/unannounced i.ps Activision has in the pipeline.
As I said numerous times, They didn't spend all that money, just to release everything on all the competitions platforms (unless Sony/Nintendo adopt game pass, which I DEFINITELY don't see Sony doing)
Microsoft is trying to build the XBOX brand, makes no sense to release EVERY title on other platforms, and further drive competition (mainly Sony) sales.
@Xylymphydyte: while its true that the impact to performance can vary, its highly unlikely that it 'can' be made to not affect the performance. Everything running (in the background or otherwise) uses system resources, thus affects the PCs performance.
I've played, and beat RE4 remake both on the steam version, and a cracked version (with denuvo stripped out) and it runs perfectly on the cracked version. Not the first time either.
If they can make the software the same as the games without denuvo, I wouldn't care either way of the developer trying to protect their games, but to spend $60, $70+ bucks, to legitimately buy a game, and have a worst experience than the 'jolly roger' player.
j3DiKNiGHtDAVE's comments