I wonder what the evidence could be... because it's a simple fact that the majority of gamers of a particular platform do not play any one game.
Oh yeah. I just saw where it is being said that Exhibit was already seen by the Judge Corley, who wasn't impressed by it at all back on May 12th.Let's think about it even further... This document is from the "gamers lawsuit" which was already dismissed by the judge.........who just happens to be the same judge that is presiding over the FTC case
..and there's why you haven't heard a single thing about this until today. It always was nothing.
How it is nothing ? 2019 emails about plans to put playstation out of buisnes, 2020 buying zenimax next buying activision :d Or it is nothing becasue it was abvious ?
No, it's nothing because the judge already dismissed this document in the gamers lawsuit.. and that same judge is presiding over this case. You don't think the FTC and the CMA know about this document? You think that MS hasn't already responded to this document?How it is nothing ? 2019 emails about plans to put playstation out of buisnes, 2020 buying zenimax next buying activision :d Or it is nothing becasue it was abvious ?
Im not a lawyer so dont want to decide what is important or not but what I understand form this tweets this info from emails appear first in appeal.
So foreclosing games is just making any game exclusive to the platform. So that can be an issue for any game that has a development build of a competitors platform.
True. (Notice I can answer Yes/No questions when asked instead of evading them)
No, Disney did. Why are you ignoring Disney's role in this?
It can be important for other reasons though. Might have nothing to do with the ABK acquisitoin or Sony and the plaintiffs could be trolling.
Gotcha. When Disney went to MS and Sony looking for an exclusive partnership, and when they offered Sony "...one game at least and maybe multiple games that could drive adoption of your platform’,” Sony should have said, "sure, but we want to make to the game multiplatform."
Your line comes from the plaintiff, not an independent investigator, and so is only their biased take on what happened. Did the court fail to look at that piece of evidence, or did the court consider it and decide it irrelevant?
Oh of course. All of this stuff is based off the interpretation of what was said by the "gamer's lawsuit" lawyers. Nobody else knows what was said... except the judge.. and she already decided it was irrelevant one way or the other.
I'm out of the loop on that one, whats the deal with the gamespot fanboy review bullet point? Are all their xbox reviews negative or something?
