I mean it makes sense. I don't expect when Sony or Nintendo buy companies for games to remain exclusive and if MS was able to work out a deal with Disney to make it exclusive then both parties are happy. Game will likely be Xbox/Xbox PC/Steam
Indiana Jones by Bethesda MachineGames with Lucasfilm Games [XB, PC]
- Thread starter eastmen
- Start date
I mean it makes sense. I don't expect when Sony or Nintendo buy companies for games to remain exclusive and if MS was able to work out a deal with Disney to make it exclusive then both parties are happy. Game will likely be Xbox/Xbox PC/Steam
Seems like a stupid move. If Disney originally makes the deal for multi-console, this is the exact kind of thing that will get your other moves blocked by the FTC.
I'd imagine that would come down to why it was changed. Perhaps the game was in a terrible state like redfall and Disney and MS agreed that making it current gen xbox exlusive would be the easiest and most cost effective way to get the game to release in a time frame that was suitable to both companies .
I would have thought Disney would want it out this year in time for the movie. But there is no word of the game at any event so far this year. Also the new Indiana jones movie has gone through product hell according to the rumors and is now tracking to be a huge bomb for them. So who knows what is going on with both sides here.
I think its easy to hear a snip bit of something and run away with it out of context.
Here is some context on the movie's tracking
'Indiana Jones 5' Early Tracking Predicts $60 Million Box Office Opening, Well Below 'Crystal Skull'
"Dial of Destiny" projected for significantly lower opening than "Crystal Skull"
www.thewrap.com
This would be roughly 40m below the Crystal Skulls opening weekend
An unannounced title: this could be 3-4 more years until release. There has to be a reasonable timeframe here in which that isn’t as relevant.
I mean, the FTC is already questioning it. Doesn't really matter. The perception will make clearing the deal for activision more difficult.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Has it though? The FTC can say it was amended to be for Xbox only, but have they shown any proof of that? It's curious that he doesn't mention the FTC asking Hines about it to which Hines would then have to truthfully answer whether it was or not.
If the FTC didn't ask Hines to confirm it that means they likely don't have any proof and they are fishing (IE - if Hines answers that it's still multiplatform, then that shoots down that "theory"). If he did ask Hines and Hines answered, why wasn't that posted?
Part of lawyer examinations is to ask questions in such a way as to infer that your argument about the guilt or innocence of a client is presumed to be true. It doesn't actually have to be true, it just has to appear to be true. That's why often people being questioned are specifically limited to only answering a question asked with a yes or no. Then you make a statement that isn't a question so that the person on the stand can't specifically comment on or contradict your statement. Then you move on to another question. Etc.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
@Silent_Buddha Isn’t it confirmed that it’s Xbox and windows only now?
www.eurogamer.net
Basically Microsoft behaving exactly in the way that the FTC is trying to stop. We can differ in whether we agree with the FTC that doing this kind of thing is bad for the consumer, but FTC now has ammo in its argument.
Bethesda's Indiana Jones game confirmed to be Xbox and PC exclusive
Speaking during today's FTC hearing, Bethesda's Pete Hines has confirmed the company's upcoming Indiana Jones and The G…
www.eurogamer.net
Basically Microsoft behaving exactly in the way that the FTC is trying to stop. We can differ in whether we agree with the FTC that doing this kind of thing is bad for the consumer, but FTC now has ammo in its argument.
It’s like saying 10 years from now how come MS isn't making games for competing platforms. You can’t ask or force a company to do that. There is no obligation to do so.
Either exclusivity practices are banned altogether, or they accept that this is part of the business.
I don’t necessarily see this as a strong argument here (it is the one they chose) but they would have to prove that this will lead to harming consumers and competition. Sony is not affected by something that is unreleased.
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
@Silent_Buddha Isn’t it confirmed that it’s Xbox and windows only now?
Bethesda's Indiana Jones game confirmed to be Xbox and PC exclusive
Speaking during today's FTC hearing, Bethesda's Pete Hines has confirmed the company's upcoming Indiana Jones and The G…
Basically Microsoft behaving exactly in the way that the FTC is trying to stop. We can differ in whether we agree with the FTC that doing this kind of thing is bad for the consumer, but FTC now has ammo in its argument.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for.
Regards,
SB
Regulators can do that. It's not about obligations. They can just break up companies or prevent mergers that would harm the market. Indiana Jones is a game that already had a deal and was already in development. Microsoft bought it, changed the deal and made it exclusive. It's not a hypothetical. I thought that UK regulator thing was stupid because it was entirely speculative. They were projecting a market in the future, who the players would be, who could compete etc. The example of this game is the here and now, a real thing that happened. If the FTC wants to prevent them from buying Activision because they'll make the games exclusive which will harm the market, then they have a working example of Microsoft doing that fairly recently. Personally, I don't care that much. Argumentatively, it's ammo for the FTC and it was a stupid play from Microsoft.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Not in the US they can't. They can if it can be shown that it will harm consumers. The market is too vague of a term. Harm competitors? That's fine. Every action any corporation takes has the potential to help or harm their competitors, almost all businesses, from the smallest mom and pop shop to the largest multinational corporation is seeking to do what is best for that entity and that often comes as the expense of its competitors.
So, in the US, where this trial is being held. Harm to the market is too broad of a term to be useful. It must be specifically harm to the consumer. Harm a competitor isn't a factor, again because almost all actions of any corporation represents harm to its competitors.
Regards,
SB
After a bit of digging I found some screenshots.
Not bad but I will say the geomety and texture detail is a bit lacking. It also seems to unfortunately run at a locked 320x240 (I resized these images to 640x480). On the flip side at least it probably won't have framerate issues at this resolution. Looking forward to the Digital Foundry analysis.
Not bad but I will say the geomety and texture detail is a bit lacking. It also seems to unfortunately run at a locked 320x240 (I resized these images to 640x480). On the flip side at least it probably won't have framerate issues at this resolution. Looking forward to the Digital Foundry analysis.
Last edited:
Must be some mistake here, because this game is going to be first person. The superior perspective. Latest leak is this:
