Gabe

Well one of my first comments was perhaps hold it back until there is a DLC ready to go, then they'd have benefitted from people buying it at the start, then from any spike in new subs by effectively giving it a second launch when it hits GP (and then people might also buy the DLC too via GP). But yeah, they will probably stick it on there as soon as they can.

They'll only get meaningful revenue for subs if new people sign up though, which is one of my points. For those already on GP, sticking Diablo on there anytime soon is a net loss of they would've otherwise paid for the game. I do appreciate that the overall aim is all about the sub numbers going up, but whilst they can throw money at it and not care about whether it costs them or not, I would think another disappointing set of end of year numbers reported for the division might give them reason to consider not instantly putting it on there if they can see a better short-term alternate strategy for this particular game.

Changing topic slightly, but related, didn't they say they wouldn't (can't?) be putting previous CoD titles on GP for at least a year or so, or did I imagine that? And that new CoDs won't be day and date for at least 3 years or something due to contracts?

I'm clearly not articulating this very well What I'm saying is that, yes, MS could of course have it for sale and also stick it on GP. I'm wondering if sticking it on GP will cannabalise sales they might otherwise have got in doing so. Because whilst having GP subs is their aim, if somebody subs, burns through the game in a month and doesn't stick around beyond that, then that is a net loss in revenue. I would be one of those people - no interest in buying it, but would co-op it on GP for a month or two with a friend who loves the franchise, and then I'd be done. Whereas if they held it back for a bit, more might buy it now (or certainly not fewer) and then, down the line when sales slow (or perhaps some DLC is out) they could launch on GP and get a better bump in subs then, without having lost that initial retail income. That position would make even more sense when you think of how many current subscribers will want play it (so no net increase in subs) but currently will have to buy it - they wouldn't get that if it went GP anytime soon, and I doubt the lost sales would be made up for in subs revenue.

I don't get the bolded though - MS will see benefit regardless, both through a healthier AB balance sheet when the deal closes as well as ongoing sales, and the Diablo franchise tends to have a good tail on it. I suspect I may well be wrong, but like I say, I don't think MS needs to put it on GP straight away.

I always wish Shining Force could've continued in the SRPG world, rather than turning into rubbish ARPGs. They were tactics games without being horribly layered with systems and complexity and were bright, cheerful and accessible.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. But is that the best of both worlds for MS? I'm not so sure. I just wonder if the pull of it would convince enough people to sub (and stay subbed) long enough to make up the difference for those who choose not to buy it instead. I just don't think they need to add it to GP anytime soon. We shall see, obviously.

I can see Diablo sitting outside of game pass, at least for quite a while, as given the longevity of it I'm reckon a lot of the fan base would prefer to buy it outright rather than sub and have to continue to pay that to access their characters.

MS won't change what was in the table, because as you say it would poison any future acquisitions. But they don't have to care about courting Sony’s signature now - if Sony still refuse then as far is the CMA would be concerned that's on them rather than MS.

This puts MS in a strong position now over that 10-year deal, doesn't it? They can refuse any additional Sony demands or changes to what is on the table and potentially lose CoD over it if they refused MS's terms, and from the CMA's perspective that would be fine because it would be Sony be silly, right? That obviously won't happen (and I imagine even MS wouldn't want to lose that revenue), but would be an amusing twist on the tale.

The way this thread has gone over the last few days who can be sure?

I've not bought anything, which I feel a little sad about to be honest. But nothing from my wishlist had a discount enough for me to bite, not when I have so many other things to play through. I am enjoying the freebie Tiny Tina one-shot though, enough that I've tentatively looked at Wonderlands (even though I was horrendously bored with Borderlands 1 and the Pre-sequel). If that gets down to, say, about £7.50 by the summer I might take a punt. Roll-on the summer sale!

Surely this would be nothing more than 'make VR versions of AB games (CoD)'? Which, from Sony’s perspective would be an interesting proposition, because you'd think there would at least be some kind of bump from a PSVR CoD.

Is this official then, or just heavily rumoured?

This is the best summary we've had for about 40 pages now.

It's not a very appealing homepage on mobile, is it?

If they do sack Conte, doesn't that just prove him right? That the club wants a manager to go along with what the board wants? It was said above that Pochettino got sacked too when he pointed out the club needed to invest, so getting rid of Conte just confirms the cycle is working as intended. Tottenham seem to have fallen into the old Arsenal "4th place is a trophy" mentality; the board are unwilling to make serious efforts to push the club on but, unlike Wenger, you've at least had some managers willing to speak out (even if it hasn't achieved anything yet.) Conte is definitely out regardless, but I think when his contract ends versus now is probably a better sign the club are taking his fury seriously.

Oh, I agree that the circumstances and actual contact are different, but at the same time it did generate a fair bit of criticism, so the FA are most likely going to be mindful of that and (probably) over compensate.

I think the FA is, unsurprisingly, probably going to botch this after letting Fernandes off for pushing the assistant ref a couple of weeks ago (and seeing a lot of negative press for the failure to act) - so I expect an overreaction against Mitrovic to compensate for it.

Again, why are you focusing on whether Nintendo need it or it is good for them? Nobody is talking about whether Nintendo need CoD (indeed, the view has been 'Of course they don't', which is completely obvious). But for a consumer, if you like those games and previously played them on another console, then the Switch not having them is a negative for you if that is now the only device you have; if you don't care for those games then it doesn't matter either way.

I get that we 'care' in the sense that this whole deal is generally big news for the industry as a whole. But I don't get why, as per my reply above, it's this 'Nintendo not being viewed as a competitor' stuff is getting so much airtime (and I know I'm contributing to that.) Anyway, you say I'm wrong, but you've offered nothing in response to why. I think my reply to @Talk Show Host covers most of the same ground, but you also are helping make my point: Why, in your view if they are actually a proper competitor to what Sony & MS focus on, would it be 'potentially little return'? If there is 'massive' overlap as you say, this is surely money being left on the table, so how can your comment be correct? (And again, don't restrict this just to CoD, but the other examples I mentioned too). A lot of big games don't make it to Switch and as with any game, if they felt the market exceeded the value to port/create a Switch-specific version, they would go for it. After all, CoD, FIFA etc are worldwide and fairly 'safe' games, where's the risk with such a massive overlap of audience? MS can say they are making stuff available to x million other players, it doesn't mean they would be interested in it. I put it to you that Activision (and the other examples I gave) don't feel the market is there to make that worthwhile, hence we are where we are.

Who is doing this? I certainly didn't. People get so weirdly defensive about all consoles, but Nintendo in particular. What does this have to do with absolutely anything? Unless Nintendo were suddenly going to develop and publish CoD, any view the company has on it is irrelevant and especially to this discussion, where we are talking about Activision (among other big publishers) choosing not to invest in the Switch. Where is a full-fat version of FIFA? Where is Assassin's Creed Valhalla? The upcoming PGA Tour? Now, as @Stanley says - and I agree - we can all quite easily come up with reasons why that it the case, but it doesn't alter that fact that they don't want to. That is pretty telling. The fact Nintendo makes the most money is, again, irrelevant other than for weird fanboy reasons I suppose. Yay Nintendo! Can you give any thoughts to the open question in my post? My simplistic view of these big corporations is that if they really had lots of stats, research and evidence that they were missing out on the riches of Nintendo's massive audience, what possible reason would they not devote to creating something to capitalise on that? They love making money and that would be a sure-thing, right? Or, possibly, the information they have is that Switch owners by and large don't really care for those games all that much (whether that's because Nintendo themselves have sewn-up the genres or other reasons). Y'know, it might be because there is a different audience, perhaps. And, finally, you agree with me: Nintendo are in a different league. Sony and MS know that too, and make power and graphical grunt the keystones of their machines, Nintendo go a different way. I don't see why this notion seems to have led to so much discussion, especially when for years people always talk about Nintendo in a different, perhaps more reverent, way. The Nintendo difference, indeed.

The first thing to say is - who cares, honestly? None of the manufacturers are your friend, you don't need to stick up for them (that's aimed at everybody and nobody). That said, Nintendo compete - obviously - because they, along with Sony and MS, are all in the business of video games. But do they compete for the same audience as those two? I'm not so sure. I said this ages ago, but the fact that Activision hasn't bothered to have any CoD representation on Switch is quite telling, no? They are hardly a company shy about fleecing a series, so they must have a lot of stats and research to tell them that putting the work in isn't worth it. EA put out cut-down versions of FIFA, don't they? So again, the fact the version is different to the Xbox and PS versions suggests they've done the sums and it doesn't make sense to fully commit to it. I don't know what the situation is with racers (outside of Nintendo-made stuff) - do they have anything with feature parity against the other two consoles, or is stuff cut-down or just not released? People have said for years and years they buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games and, well, it seems a lot of publishers seem to think that too. Else why wouldn't they put time and a bit of effort to reach such a vast install base? There are a lot of games from a whole host of publishers that just skip the Switch completely/are lo-rent efforts/cut-down versions/whatever and that can't just be coincidental. So it isn't therefore unreasonable to suggest that publishers themselves don't see the Switch operating in the same battleground as the Xbox and PS.

Sorry, but as an outsider, where on earth does that sense of entitlement come from for you to say the bolded? As a club you have a board that has never really committed to investment required to push on, always to do 'just enough' (which we all know means CL qualification). I get it - to take it up to the next level costs a lot of money (now) but nowhere near as much had it been done 3/4/5 years ago. Conte may well not be a great fit for the club, but whenever I've dipped into this thread (which is very infrequently, to be fair) I always see people pining for Pochettino to come back - a man who couldn't even win the French title in his first season with the easy mode for that league (insert winky emoji here). What would he even be coming back to, anyway? Kane & Son have wasted their best years, the squad needs depth and, if we take Conte at his word, an attitude adjustment - but it will keep coming back to 'Will this board commit to (probably) at least £100-£150m to get in quality first XI players?' Until that changes, I don't know what anybody really expects regardless of who is in the hot-seat.

Oh yeah, I think this decision has been massively influenced by the optics Qatar had, so I'm sure some "arrangement" has been made for the future.