LLMs sure are crazy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840183&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969#49707124)

Doesn't matter if they lost in court. My friend is a federal agent told me Microsoft was and is still being investigated for bribery.

In any case they legally couldn't buy every dev leaving Sony with nothing but exclusives without legal issues

my friend who's a federal agent tp

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840183&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969#49707105)

Snatcher, I'm sorry about this, but I need to stop interacting you for the sake of my mental health. Take care.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840183&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969#49707492)

Can’t wait until you hit the classic gaming board again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840183&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969#49707565)

“IF MSFT bought AB without Regulatory scrutiny they’d probably make COD exclusive. FTC wouldn’t have let them do the merger if COD were exclusive.”

“but COD isn’t exclusive”

“IF they weren’t under the microscope they could get away with it. They’d take a short term hit to build their install base”

“but COD isn’t exclusive”

“But IF it were they’d sell more Xboxes and get a bigger cut of sales on their platform plus they’d get more gamepass subs”

“But COD isn’t exclusive. They could never give up the revenue of going multiplat”

Like this is exactly how that thread went. It’s hopeless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840183&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969#49708023)

Like do NFL fans understand that having ridiculous penalties called on their team causes them to lose games or is that too much of a hypothetical? “If they didn’t call that penalty we’d have played in the Super Bowl.” Is that lost on them?

I also see it in threads about history, like a solid immovable 50% bloc always insists that like WWII wouldn’t have gone somewhat differently if the aircraft carriers were sitting at port on December 7th in Pearl Harbor. Or if Hitler realized that oil was essential in like 1934. They always INSIST that everything would end up The Same.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840183&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969#49709272)

VegaObscura posted...

Making Call of Duty exclusive to a waning platform is commercial suicide.

—————————

it wasn’t waning in January 2022 when they first bid on Activision Blizzard do with all due respect you’re confusing the present, particularly after the deal closed/Starfield bombed/everything went multiplatform, with the Past. This is easy to do. A lot of people do it. Now how waning would Xbox be if it had COD exclusively iyo?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840183&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969#49709308)

you lack understanding of the passage of time imo, bethesda acquisition was in 2021, activision merger was announced early 2022. at the end of 2021, PS5 was leading by like 30%, not by like 2-3x or whatever it is now. PS1 outsold N64 over 3:1. Life went on.

Bethesda, Id Software, & etc, it'd be kind of pointless to make those games exclusive. I mean they tried it with Starfield but if anything that backfired because it made Xbox look bad to have such a bad game as an exclusive.

the thing that you are missing somehow is that MSFT decided to go full speed ahead with the activision blizzard merger even after it became apparent that they wouldn't be able to make COD exlusive. obviously they are OK with the idea of exclusives when they literally just made Starfield exclusive for quite a significant length of time, and it's not even a good game so where do you get off saying they wouldn't have made COD exclusive when it's the sort of franchise that entire console gens hinge on with sales of like 40,000,000k+ which is probably like 20x what Starfield sold so again where do you get off and quite frankly what are you thinking? if allowed by Law to make COD exclusive or at least timed exclusive msft may well have done just that and why not? they did the very same for years with all their other exclusives. yes it's leaving revenue on the table in the short run but spending money to make money is literally what they did when they bought Activision, so what's the difference fundamentally between buying a company and foregoing revenue because although the latter might hurt the P:E ratio in the short run, tech companies aren't judged by P:E ratio they're judged by future earning potential MSFT's PE is like 25 rn it'd be like 24.75 with COD exclusive so what difference does it make and I say this as a shareholder of all of the big 3 manufacturers through ETFs but that's beside the point.

with that said I think you lack mastery of the concept of time, yes 2026 Xbox screwed up this gen but they did it with a monkey's paw like that other guy said and Satya I think likes being a man of action and wanted to say damn the torpedoes and do the merger even though the calculus changed because of democratic regulatory oversight changing the course of console history. but if the FTC went their way no ifs ands or buts like carte blanche then I think they would've made COD exclusive at least for a few years or after a cycle or 2 just to rattle Sony's cage and even the odds, Sony are the ones who took Bungie for them and I know companies don't have feelings and Asha and Amy Hood have probably never played Halo or heard of Bungie but facts are facts and institutions have long memories and every competitive capitalistic company wants to win by any means necessary how every much they obfuscate. I say this as someone who's been critical of microsoft in the past.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840183&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969#49709707)

: Snatcher

New User

User Since: Feb 2026

Karma: 7

Active Posts: 50

Total Badges: 1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840183&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969#49710708)