Feel pretty confident in my suspicion CMA are going to block this deal. Seems like a lot of work needs to be done to change their posture.
LOL so CMA will block a deal because is technically impossible to port a game on a platform? So how is MS blocking access to a game on a platform that is not capable of running a thing in the first place?
I agree. Numbers wise it's a bit better than 7th gen. Tech wise though it's defo 8th gen, just low on numbers because it's a handheld.Nintendo left the power race with the GameCube, new HW releases for them are not about hardware relative to other players in the market, if that were the case, Switch would be placed in between 7th Gen and 8th Gen, since tech wise is better than X360-PS3 but worse than Xb1-PS4
Well, in my very humble opinion, it doesn't matter if you consider it as much eitherWith all due respect, it doesn't matter if you don't consider as such. The Switch is Nintendo' 9th gen system, as gen doesn't define how much power a system should have, will compete most of it's life against MS and Sony's 9th gen system.
Will be interesting to see what Nintendo brings to the table with the 10th gen's first system.
LOL so CMA will block a deal because is technically impossible to port a game on a platform? So how is MS blocking access to a game on a platform that is not capable of running a thing in the first place?
I agree. Numbers wise it's a bit better than 7th gen. Tech wise though it's defo 8th gen, just low on numbers because it's a handheld.
Wait, weren't you here before? Why does it show you as a Neo member?
Well, in my very humble opinion, it doesn't matter if you consider it as much either
Competing sales-wise maybe, not tech-wise though. As a portable, yes, it's the latest gen. As a home console, not really.
But let's agree to disagree.
Because they want this deal to pass. It's okay for them to commit resources to a product with poor ROI if they want to try and help the deal through.
I agree. Numbers wise it's a bit better than 7th gen. Tech wise though it's defo 8th gen, just low on numbers because it's a handheld.
Wait, weren't you here before? Why does it show you as a Neo member?
All I’m saying is they keep building on the same game year over year. So if Switch cannot handle the current one, which it cannot, then there’s no reason to believe it can handle the ones that will keep building out and demanding more resources than the most recent.I have to be misunderstanding what you mean then. With one exception, there has been a new Call of Duty every single year since 2005. I don’t know why that would change.
I swear I saw this name before... Were you on other forums? Hold on, were you on evoweb?I'm a new member as I finally got in the forum when the gates were open to the plebs, but I'm a long time lurker
MS intentionally destroying the CoD IP is I'm sure the very last thing on the regulators minds.Potential IP/property destruction is a consideration for regulators, hence they ask for an extensive outline from the acquiring party as to what their intentions are with the company and associated properties they intend to purchase.
This is especially true for vertical mergers where the company being acquired is an important partner and/or revenue producer for the companies that compete with the acquiring party.
I know you're probably joking, but that's exactly what Phil will bank on.MS just want to put the cloud.
All I’m saying is they keep building on the same game year over year. So if Switch cannot handle the current one, which it cannot, then there’s no reason to believe it can handle the ones that will keep building out and demanding more resources than the most recent.
It's a question of if they think the deal had been made in good faith.Does the CMA think you just click compile and you have a switch version? By the time a port is made there will be new hardware.