There is absolutely a reason for games to cost 70 bucks. Which is listed above multiple times, you should go re-read those posts. They paint a pretty clear picture, if I say so myself.
On the MS question, it’s not relevant whether they made the wrong choice. The point is they thought they would do better this way. I guarantee they wouldn’t have shut down Team Cherry if they owned that. Pretty sure they’ll keep making Call of Duty. They may suck at understanding how to get a hit made, but they can still count.
They did not think what they made out of Tango was enough.
This guy believe m$ close studio because a successful game “didn’t do well enough.”
Maybe that’s why m$ also shut down multiple game project and fired shit tons of people because "it didn’t do well enough.
I get your point, but man, it must be tiring defending multibillion corporations.
This guy believe MS like money.
This guy believe MS don’t give money away.
So if MS though that keeping something would make more money than not keeping it in the long run, MS don’t not keep it.
That’s what this guy believe.
M$ have the history of killing golden goose they just bought, we can believe what we want but that doesn’t mean M$ know what they’re doing.
And if they like money, they wouldn’t shoot their own foot.
But i digress, there’s no reason game should cost $70 is the original topic.
There is absolutely a reason for games to cost 70 bucks. Which is listed above multiple times, you should go re-read those posts. They paint a pretty clear picture, if I say so myself.
On the MS question, it’s not relevant whether they made the wrong choice. The point is they thought they would do better this way. I guarantee they wouldn’t have shut down Team Cherry if they owned that. Pretty sure they’ll keep making Call of Duty. They may suck at understanding how to get a hit made, but they can still count.
They did not think what they made out of Tango was enough.