keiser69's comments

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

It really has been a blast. It might be the best Halo MP I have ever played....and its a flight.

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@goldenageplayer: Ya know the only part of Halo anyone has played is the MP which is completely amazing. I can live without Coop and Forge for a few months. Forge especially. And if the campaign is as good as MP is then this is going to be 343's best Halo ...the MP might be Halo's best MP period.

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@voldrik: ok last time responding to you because you are oblivious. Sony bought the rights in 1999 is the same thing I said the deal was in 98 and went into affect in 99. The bought the rights to the movies AS LONG AS THEY MADE A MOVIE EVERY 5.75 YEARS. They don't own it they bought a perpetual license as long as they satisfy the terms of the deal. They don't own anything. That's why Sony keeps making Spidey films and Venom films and cartoon movies to satisfy that stipulation. On the original subject you whining about Microsoft FUNDING a game and then not allowing that game to be on Playstation. We'll that's just stupid. Sony paid for Street Fighter 5 , FF7, FFXVI, Deathloop , Ghostwire, Godfall, it goes on and on. But do you hear me whining no ...1 because I have both. 2 because they can do whatever they want with their money. Maybe if they didn't pay for all those exclusives they could have paid for some more studios themselves. Either way I am not whining about it.

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@voldrik: Google.

Sony's 1998 license, covering all Spider-Man films (including 900 characters related to Spider-Man), is perpetual provided that Sony releases a new Spider-Man film at least once every 5.75 years.

Maybe you should try Google. It's neat.

Regardless of what it takes to stream or to play on PC MS offers their games to a wider audience than PS. But I get it it's OK that PS keeps games they fund exclusive its just not ok when MS does it. Makes total sense

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@voldrik: It's hurting Gamers ESVI will be available on cloud (TV) , PC and Xbox. Meanwhile all Sony first party are restricted to PS5 when they have PS5 exclusives. Series X exclusives can still be streamed to Xbox One played on PC or played on your TV by the time this comes out. When you buy a studio and fund the development of a game you get to do whatever you want with it. That's how grown ups do business. I have both but I am not pretending that somehow what Sony is doing is noble while what MS is doing is some cheat. So who is pandering to their favorite machine here. I think that would be you. Sony licenses the movie rights from marvel/Disney. They do not "own" anything.

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By keiser69

@voldrik: First Sony has not and has never owned Spiderman. Microsoft has the Xbox and PC to sell to. Along with anyone who for whatever reason wants to stream Elder Scrolls 6 to a tablet or by then just a TV. The best selling first party game ever for Sony was about 15 million units. With an addressable market of around 120 million. Between PC , Xbox and streaming devices including PC the addressable market for all Bethesda games will be larger than the Playstation addressable market (if they get on smart TV's thats billions of people). That is not hamstringing anything. And even if it did MS wouldnt care because the point is to drive customers to devices with GP.

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@jinzo9988: Agreed. I dont actually think it will happen. The only place it may happen is on the Switch. A streaming only app for next gen games would be massive for MS and if Nintendo gets enough of a cut of subs on their platform then I could see that happening. However Switch sells a lot of Indies , and there are a lot on GP so again MS may have to offer a "first party only" flavor of Game Pass for that platform to get Nintendo to agree.

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@PrpleTrtleBuBum: Again generators ...generate electricity. You need internet , you need electricity both services people don't directly control. If you dont want to have internet on your console fine....then dont play this game. I however dont really see a problem.

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@molinars: It is the same thing since the OP was about why Microsoft would restrict a first party studio to their own platform. Its the same reason Sony does it. To funnel people into their services and hardware. If Sony allowed Game Pass on their system MS would release everything everywhere guaranteed. Phil Spencer has said as much just recently but other platforms arent very enthusiastic about having GP on their console.

Avatar image for keiser69
keiser69

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@PrpleTrtleBuBum: I dont need electricity ....."I could have charged my phone 2 days ago"....you do realize what you are doing when you "charge" a phone right ?