Rozalia1

7/11 are from Washington which Microsoft is based in and if this is any indication owns. I know I know, the title might annoy some people but it does get across the level of seriousness in the attacks that Microsoft is doing towards Sony with this. They're having these representatives they've donated to a whole lot pushing for America to trade war Sony, and while hopefully that shouldn't succeed it's incredibly aggressive to do something like this. When it comes to the "console wars" I don't think it has ever been this serious, and it's coming from if you believe Microsoft's PR, "good guy Microsoft". I can't imagine what level of depravity we'd see if this is the nice side of Microsoft. This development seems to be why a few weeks ago they did their session of racebaiting, all to prepare the ground. The argument that Microsoft's massive failure in Japan is due to Sony is obviously laughable, but as has been the case with Microsoft since this began they go even further beyond. You see, western games in general don't exactly do the best in Japan even if they're on PlayStation or even the Switch. Who is to blame? Obviously Sony. Yes, Sony who makes money on such games sold (if on their platform) is behind western games not being as popular as Microsoft believes they should be. It ain't that western games largely don't appeal at all to Japanese gamers, no, it's all some big plot by Sony. I suppose them closing Japanese studios while expanding western studios is just a crafty smokescreen so people don't find them out. Then you have the deals that Sony cuts with Japanese companies. As Microsoft is non-existent in Japan they are putting forward that Sony should not be allowed to cut any such deals with Japanese developers. Nintendo, who also cuts such deals, and has way more market share of the Japanese market? No issue. Incredible. I always knew that Microsoft hated Sony ever since Sony fought off their efforts to take Sony out of gaming (which to Microsoft is a humiliation), but they've never been this open with the attacks. They've been openly smearing Sony and are openly bringing in their political agents to try and hurt Sony, and only Sony as Nintendo they aren't touching at all. Naturally if you listen to the Microsoft PR machine it ain't Microsoft that is campaigning against Sony, it is instead Sony who is carrying out a campaign against Xbox. That tried and true American as apple pie tactic of accusing others of what you are yourself are guilty of. Sony, who outside the early on comment that Spencer was lying when he was saying the meeting with Sony went great and they've offered them the best deal ever, has only responded to stuff in documents and not said anything publicly.

What I mean by tools is when a game requires another device/program to reduce something that has extreme difficulty to something manageable so you can beat the game/achieve a trophy. I've found games that have this aspect to them to be quite memorable as rather than "I sat down and played normally and got the trophies" you're instead left with "and then I had to X to have any chance of getting the trophy". Perhaps I've not explained myself well enough so I'll provide two examples so you can see what I mean: Drakengard 3 - Final sequence requires you to sync the game up with a video on a second device and then while ignoring the game itself, look at the video and press buttons in time with it. You have to do this for 7 to 8 minutes and the mistiming of even a single press will fail you. It was some time back but in my memory I remember really having that pressure build up as the time goes on and you're doing this, knowing that being off even once will force you right back to the start which is something few games can elicit out of a person. The Firefly Diary - The penultimate fight (final in normal gameplay) has the boss forcing you to choose out of three options the correct one and this goes on for ages. At first the moving around the options do to trick you is slow but eventually gets so fast that it becomes extremely difficult to know which option is correct. While you can mistakes and beat the fight, there is a trophy that requires you to beat it without making any mistakes. The way to beat the fight is to film your Vita and when it comes to decision time, pausing, and then going over the footage you made frame by frame to learn what the correct decision is. There are a few more games I know of that requires this sort of stuff, but I'll leave that to others to contribute. Interested in learning of some other titles that have this aspect that I don't know about because as I've said, I find this aspect memorable.

Certainly, but increasing the length of the process is only going to work once (they're establishing things they'll use in future big buy outs in gaming) and Microsoft ultimately still gets what it wanted. I'm holding on to the hope that the cloud concerns are enough to sink the deal or there is some turn around in America and the FTC is able to hold their ground against Microsoft and their corrupt political agents. As @tomadom64 said, it'd also be nice if what Microsoft is doing here backfires on them and it hurts them getting the Activision buyout through (future ones too would be a bonus).

While Microsoft going bankrupt is unlikely due to you know, the monopolies they've established with dirty tactics like they're trying now with gaming. If they manage to get CoD (and the rest of Activision) and that together with all their other buyouts still doesn't move the needle against Sony, then that might make time run out on the majority of their gaming division. If Microsoft's management remains committed though? They'll just buy a dozen studios + a big publisher like EA while justifying it as needed for them to "compete". What way it'd go no one can know, but I've always felt that Microsoft management hates Sony for spanking them constantly while not being "big tech". Its one thing to lose to Apple, Google, so on, but to lose to a company so much smaller is simply unacceptable. As such they may well be committed to continuing to buy and buy until they can reach the point they can finally overcome Sony no matter how much money they lose in the process. As you've put it, they'd be perfectly fine if they left gaming (better off in fact), but "surrendering" to Sony is not something they want to be doing even if it's good business. Microsoft very much is itself invested in the "console wars".

Microsoft has an effective PR machine that gets much of the gaming media on side (as we've seen, those who step out of line will get quickly attacked by Microsoft supporters), with the really heavy Xbox focused ones being suspected of straight up being paid shills. They also promote the console war like nobody else (up till now only through their proxies in the media/community) and to sweeten the pot you have their ambassador/reward programs and this cultivated Gamepass zealotry which thus far has been Microsoft subsidising these people's gaming. To these people Microsoft has been good to them, Spencer himself being a living saint. There is a saying that goes somewhere along the lines of "number 2 hates on number 1, while number 1 ignores number 2". Most of the more hardcore gamers on PlayStation for a long time now (10 years?) have not really had to focus all that much on Microsoft. They're "on top" (Nintendo never factors in) significantly enough and Microsoft wasn't changing that so no need to get fussed about anything. Gamepass made a lot of people raise eyebrows as they suspected Microsoft being up to no good, but that has been the only thing to really cause an uptick in hate towards Xbox (until the Activation deal and now this nonsense). Meanwhile for Xbox hardcore gamers these last 10 years hating on Sony has been basically been their culture. What Microsoft has been doing is what they have dreamt about Microsoft doing against Sony, so they'll very enthusiastically support and defend it. Very good explanation, I recall seeing something about that before. I'll give the post a like when I am once again able to. As you said, the very first thing they should have done was localise the name to something else but Microsoft simply has never cared about Japan. They bought a whole bunch of exclusives off Japanese developers at the start and when that didn't cause them to instantly rocket to being a strong competitor in the market they just wrote it off as pointless. As @PaintP put simply, Microsoft's "efforts" there are a joke, and to try and use that in their favour against Sony is an even bigger one. You're not wrong... and yet Microsoft is still doing this. That in itself is telling of a number of things. Sony's lack of public talking might have to change considering how hard Microsoft is openly gunning for them... but its tough. The moment they start, Microsoft's PR machine will go into overdrive to position Sony as the aggressive party and I don't trust the gaming media to do their jobs and go against that.

It is likely all 11 of these people doing this are heavily funded by Microsoft. It explains why 7/11 are from the same state which Microsoft is based in as those are always their first targets for handing out money. Microsoft is well known at this point to do this sort of lobbying and paying cash for influence. Not just in America either as they've been caught and forced to pay fines (not that they care, people hardly even know of it either) for bribing people. To get an image of how strong Microsoft is on this. The rest of the big tech of America, extremely rich and powerful companies themselves, hate Microsoft for successfully getting heat on them and none on Microsoft itself. There have been anti-big tech bills which have gotten rewritten in certain ways to exclude them from hurting Microsoft and only Microsoft, and that doesn't just happen out of nothing. The only positive in all this is that Microsoft's recent behaviour with the FTC has exposed them for what they are with the regulator, the only problem is the odds are very good that the current FTC (who have been getting smeared big time for trying to stop companies doing whatever they want) gets replaced in a few years and it'll be by a new FTC which will be completely in Microsoft's pocket. Microsoft have never appealed to me as I've always been more into Japanese games, but even if that were to change I'm at that point also. What they're doing is very ugly and I'd never reward them for it.

Yeah, completely ridiculous stuff. Its why I titled the thread as I did which perhaps the moderators won't be a fan of, but I can't see as anything but this. This is nakedly targeted against Sony and only gives credibility to the claims that Microsoft's moves be it with Gamepass or Activision are all an attempt to take out Sony. They certainly are going very hard against a company they stated publicly (internally revealed it to be a lie) wasn't even competition to them as they're actually now competing with the real big boys which are Apple/Google/Amazon. It also has to be said. How can anyone trust Microsoft's claims that they won't pull new CoDs off PlayStation after whatever contracted period (or even before, what is a fine to Microsoft afterall) if they are this against Sony?

Posted the above in its own thread as while somewhat related to this matter, it's also its own thing and very serious. I don't follow EA's stuff as I don't care for them so I can't comment if they're being fake about it or if they've really changed. I get what you're saying though obviously, never bought Microsoft's act of being good guys either and recent events keep proving me being right to do so. They would have it easier perhaps yes, but there really has been no indication Capcom will want to sell. Capcom some time back maybe sure as they weren't doing great, but for a long time now Capcom is at the top of their game. Spencer? The guy who keeps failing guys at Xbox even though they should have been fired several times over? That Spencer? I'm pretty sure Kotick would eat Spencer up in one bite, figuratively speaking. @Zephrese also makes an excellent point. If Kotick wants to do those things and Spencer actually musters up the courage to tell him no for whatever reason, Kotick can always go above Spencer. Who is Microsoft management going to trust is correct? Their new best friend who is well known for being an excellent operator? Or Spencer who even with massive backing has been completely unable to gain any ground against Sony for a great many years now? Like I've said, be very careful what you wish for because it certainly is not completely impossible they end up at some point putting Kotick in charge of Xbox. Hopefully we won't have to worry at all about that and this deal gets scrapped, but the odds are currently low (not impossible) so we'll see.

Been playing Wild Arms 2 and noticed something interesting which I can't really find any information on. The game has 3 options which are Default, CRT Retro, and Modern. Now while I did game on a CRT a long time ago I'm not exactly nostalgic for it because I either was too young, didn't do it for long enough, or it's just simply something I'm not a fan of. That leaves the default and modern which have clear differences. The modern filter is darker and more saturated than the default, whose brightness seems to eliminate a whole lot of shadows in the game. In fact even before you start the game you can notice something as on the default when the Media Vision logo disappears and the screen is black you can actually make out Media Vision still as it isn't completely black when it disappears, however under modern it goes completely black like the rest of the screen. The modern also seems to look like its the CRT Retro which I assume is trying to mimic how the games originally looked, just without having the CRT effect active. Looking up videos of Wild Arms 2 seems to present the picture that modern is indeed closer to how the game looked originally than the default is. So is the modern filter actually a retro filter? Or does it vary game by game? Brighter stuff tends to look better to people I know, perhaps why the default is as it is, but playing it how it was originally certain has its own charm and value. What are people's views on these games? Do you prefer/use the default brighter image or go for the darker and more saturated modern?

Isn't EA much better now than it used to be? Maybe I've missed it, but I'm pretty sure EA doesn't get the same level of hate that they used to either. Capcom is a family business. As such I'm pretty sure that unlike the usual with companies where if you make a big enough offer you pretty much force them to sell as management is duty bound to do the thing that makes the most money possible for shareholders, management at Capcom can just reject it with no problem. I'm sure you've heard, but family business does have some added value to people over in Japan (hence why even in tech you have companies like Capcom and Konami who are set up like that) so having the company in the family name and having a legacy might be worth more to them than making a lot of short term money. Which to me is to be commended. Too many companies are too easily bought. Why would it be at odds exactly? If he was in charge of Xbox itself then you'd have a point (not impossible that happens by the way. If even an incompetent like Spencer can have Nadella wrapped around his finger than imagine what a "killer" like Kotick might be able to do). Kotick managing as he does at an Activision under Microsoft wouldn't cause any problems as Microsoft's policy is to be hands off and let each of their top managers do as they like, which is terrible for Xbox as so many are incompetent. This is the second time they've tried to destroy gaming as we know it. First time was the Xbox One. Nothing wrong with at this point just wanting this entity that is constantly attacking to just go away for good. As for quitting Xbox and becoming the biggest third party. While better than the now it itself is a disgusting thought as none of that would be earned, but thankfully I don't believe it would last anyway. Microsoft is in gaming because they have their dream of domination. If gaming becomes in such a way that Microsoft sees no path towards such a thing than their interest in having games evaporates. Gaming makes little for a company like Microsoft and has already lost them massive amounts of money (how much who knows as they hide the figures). As such they'll either keep studios up until they start underperforming which considering Xbox management would be instantly the moment Microsoft no longer tolerates losses, hence why when Spencer first took over he was closing down studio after studio to get "lean" even though that went completely against what he actually wanted to do but had no choice in the matter due to Microsoft not being as tolerant with losses as they currently are at the time. Or, they'll look to sell off their studios straight away and make some quick money back, perhaps keeping a few just so they have a presence and can keep up with some developments that happen in tech.

Well, there is a reason why I've given 90% and not 100%. The CMA has not in fact given up in the sense that the concerns regarding Cloud gaming still exist and could stop the deal. Unlikely, but possible. Them making such a turn around though, one that has those who know the workings of the CMA are completely shocked by as the CMA overwhelmingly never goes against their findings later in this manner (they've done it all of once in all of their many cases from what I've heard) should imply that this is going through. On the other hand... it could be that they did make some errors that Microsoft with their powerful PR machine might have pressured the CAT to act on, so they're just putting a stop to such a future attempt and then will deny on Cloud gaming grounds by deeming the 10 year deals simply not good enough and that they should be in perpetuity (don't let Microsoft supporters fool you, it is certainly possible as long as who it would apply to is defined) and Microsoft refuses to accept that. As for ABK welcoming the merger... why wouldn't they? This ain't a hostile takeover and they're all going to get paid very well by Microsoft. Most of them also know that if they don't get under Microsoft's machine then they'll likely all get forced out eventually. One of the reasons they've had so little issues so aggressively attacking Sony as they have done.

Certainly won't deny that, simply stated that thankfully I'm not affected. Little point in someone like me saying I won't reward Microsoft and buy their ill gotten games because I don't buy those games already anyway. Anyone who does and have a problem with Microsoft's efforts will have to make that choice however. Them getting those next would be big stuff yeah and if they can get this through then they could get those through. Once again I would not be personally fussed in regards to my own game playing as I don't care for those companies, but anyone that does once again has to make the decision. The reality of this situation is Microsoft is buying CoD for the revenue so they can attempt to get their Gamepass strategy in the positive and expand it further with the goal of killing their competition. Making CoD exclusive right now would actually be foolish I certainly agree with their supporters on that because Gamepass simply isn't there yet. Taking money from PlayStation gamers is thus the smart move, but once they reach enough mass the smart move then becomes to remove them off PlayStation. You can only use what you have. You never want to get into the money match with someone far richer than you as you simply can't win such a thing. This is the truth in everything. A big reason the Soviet Union fell apart was them getting into a money match with America that they simply could not win. Its a heck of a gamble yes, but the only way to face off against such a crude company like Microsoft. On a positive note if Sony can succeed then they have the potential to become even greater than Nintendo, something Microsoft cannot do no matter how many of these companies they buy. Speaking of said companies... Bethesda was a failing company and that is when they weren't having their game sales cannibalised by Gamepass and were on PlayStation. Activision lives and dies with CoD and other old properties they've kept going so them having those fall apart would be very bad as replicating that success, especially with Microsoft's policies, would be difficult. Gamepass also looms over everything as that needs to be a success sometime soon or it'll mean very bad things for them. Make sure you prepare to be disappointed. You think Microsoft is going to go into Activision and remove Kotick and his guys from management? Infamously "hands off" Microsoft? Kotick's scandal was an eternity ago by this point and Microsoft has a powerful PR machine to protect him. Nadella himself has only talked up Kotick and Nadella is well known for protecting those he likes from consequences (reportedly he has it known that if there is bad stuff about someone he likes then he doesn't even want to be informed about it). If Kotick goes it'll be because he wants to retire, but his guys will certainly keep going. Yeah, you can feel the hatred those people have. Baffles me a bit because I can understand being a fanatic for Nintendo, even Sony, but Microsoft? A completely tasteless and soulless big tech company? Very odd. As for Square Microsoft would find it much harder to manage to cut that off from PlayStation. Not simply the Japanese company issue, but more that Microsoft would have to cut off Nintendo too and make an enemy of them, so Nintendo would raise problems with it. Microsoft would not be able to buy a company like that, continue to release on Nintendo, and cut off just PlayStation. The Japanese FTC should most certainly block any such attempt. The FTC knows its failure rate so its also trying to increase the length of time it takes for deals to go through. Right now the FTC doesn't need to file anything and if they did then it would only speed up Microsoft getting it through. By only filing at the last moment when they need to they expand the time it takes Microsoft. The only hope the FTC has is some manner of change to the system is gotten through before this concludes so they can block Microsoft off.

They should not be able to buy Valve or Epic. Both companies with their current management won't sell though granted there can always be new management, but even in such a case we'd have to hit a new level of corruption in the west for it to be rubber stamped. Valve you could say in a sense is the PC market, which Microsoft is a competitor in too, so they'd basically be buying up the market on that. Epic meanwhile has the Unreal Engine which would grant Microsoft massive power over companies big and small. EA would make the most sense to go after. Ubisoft from everything we know would be a very bad company to buy so Microsoft should spare them, but I suppose it is possible Microsoft gets so confident on their power to buy their way to success that they decide that they may as well just in case. The only problem is buying up all of that so quickly and brazenly might well overload their powerful PR machine and cause backlash from gamers where they refuse to buy Microsoft's bought company's games even if they're on other platforms. The Valve/Epic thing has shades of that but when it comes to other products there have been cases of such a backlash, where a company's product becomes dead to consumers for an offense they've taken to heart. Personally nothing Microsoft has been targeting is anything I care all that much about thankfully. I've played some of those company's games for the experience and so if I comment on those type of western games I'm not speaking without any first hand knowledge. I bought a CoD game way back just to see what all the fuss was about for example. For those who do and think Microsoft is wrong in doing this though? Choice to make when the time comes. If the games are on other platforms or not, purchasing them will only reward Microsoft for their tasteless behaviour. What Steve Jobs said about Microsoft was true then and it's true now. A tasteless company that knows only how to throw their money around. Sony has only 5 billion set aside for that, and while that number can certainly change it would be counter to their strategy thus far. There is no point in trying to compete with Microsoft in a buyout war as Microsoft can without issue spend x10s what Sony can. Best bet is to gamble on buying up small companies and building them up. Do it right, as Sony has done a lot of, and you turn millions into billions. Sony made the comment in one of the responses to regulators that Microsoft aims to make a Nintendo out of them so to speak. This is obviously the case as Microsoft is clearly aiming to cut off much of the third party support that Sony gets so they're left in a situation like Nintendo is. The thing with that however is... that could end up a good thing. It could also completely destroy Sony in the market of course, but if they can pull off becoming like Nintendo then they'd become very strong indeed. Microsoft meanwhile with the Frankenstein's monster they're creating would struggle in such a scenario I think. Market % isn't a concern because Microsoft is nowhere near a monopoly in it. This deal going through puts them at 14% in the overall gaming market for example. A definition only including Sony or Sony/Nintendo would be tighter but not enough to matter as regulators judge their markets and the only one that would trigger issues would be America, which will be overruled in court if they go against Microsoft. So under those parameters nothing at all stops them from continuing to buy up companies as long as they don't go beyond 40% or so. It's why Cloud gaming is the main issue here as Microsoft has 70% in that already, but if these laughable 10 year deals are enough to clear it then they'll just 10 year deal everything and get it all through. I remember journalists, supporters, and Microsoft itself basically saying they were going to crush PlayStation because Gamepass alone was going to do the job. I'm thankful that all of those listed groups are grossly incompetent and so were completely wrong as I really do not want this subscription future that these people want.

Happy to hear your issue was resolved. Thank you to @AllaTheGreat00 for helping to resolve this issue. To confirm. The guide puts forward Madia for diplomacy, Otto for security, Griselia/Cirrus for building, and Bennet dying. You tried this but it didn't work and would give you the overrun ending. Sending Willa for diplomacy, Rhiannon for diplomacy, Cirrus for builder, and having Bennet die worked however. If so then I'll make the adjustments to the guide so no one gets caught out by this again. Why this would happen is interesting to me and my guesses would be this. Before Bennett being alive putting you in overrun and dead putting you in another world implies to me that the another world ending is classed as a worse end than overrun. As such potentially they patched say Madia to have a better rating when it comes to diplomacy which would mean you wouldn't have maximum negative points anymore. On the other hand it could be in the other direction where the another world ending wrongly had more negative requirements than overrun and by fixing that it meant the ending now required more positive points than overrun to trigger. The final possibility is this is a PS5 specific issue.

There is from what I've seen 0 information out there for this game so I thought I'd create this thread for myself and others to chime in with stuff if able. I'm currently doing my first playthrough and have noted some things so once done I may be able to provide some good info. I'll list some stuff here in this post to start, for people interested in the game and also those who are playing and want to provide some help. For those interested in the game Revenants is a follow up to Sins of an Empire/Flames of Rebellion. The reason for the / there is that for those unaware both of those games were released at the same time and in essence, were the same game but with some story differences, some unique bosses, and the bonus character you got was different. Think the Pokemon games which release 2 different versions with some changes between the two, but a bit more to it I'd say. Do not worry about not having played the previous games, as while in the same universe Revenants is set in their far future. There are references such as a quote from Flames of Rebellion's hero and some place names (now ancient civilisations/ruins) but nothing that will leave you wondering what the hell they're on about. If you played those games then know that this game is from I've played a large improvement on those previous titles. Fallen Legion 1 had technically 20 characters, but really more like 8 and each version only had 7 as each version of 1 had an exclusive bonus character. Revenants has 12 characters and even better there is a lot more to these characters. Rather than equipping 3 gems you get equipment you can equip on individual characters, up to three, though to get all the slots you have to master masteries which is another new thing. Masteries being skills that require you to do X enough times with the character to unlock a skill you can then equip. Getting 2 masteries unlocks your second slot, 3 masteries your third slot, and finally getting 4 masteries unlocks that character's 5th mastery which I should be able to comment on soon. Further customization is each character has a weapon and armour now with both being able to modify your character's stats significantly. Not in an "oh this weapon is new and so has more attack" but you'll have equipment suited to making your beefy tank character even beefier, to equipment that is not as beefy but will make him much faster. That sort of stuff. Weapons also have different deathblows and from what I've seen characters now have more than 3 deathblows than they had in the first game. Due to placement being more of a thing the attack deathblows are more varied, but also there are defensive deathblows to buff your own characters also. Keep in mind though that they didn't just add all this without bumping up the difficulty of the game like some titles do where they give you new systems to strengthen you but in no way modify enemies. Enemies are now harder to block (vital to do), are far hardier than they used to be, often come in larger numbers, and with enemies that can attack your magic user that you also have to watch out for you certainly need to be more alert. All this means those who felt 1 was far to easy and button mashy happy will be pleased that this one benefits people who are much more precise in their movements. As for bosses, the end of chapter bosses are challenging and often have some manner of gimmick to them, but good gimmicks not bad ones. The choices thing from 1 is still in but is no longer done in card form. Instead, you play a character who actually moves around a castle talking to people and making choices. This is improvement though there is still some times when you're not exactly sure what a choice means. Additionally, many of these choices have to be made under a time limit which can leave you frustrated. For those interested in helping/looking for help 1- I noticed a bit in that some choices cause a red butterfly to appear. I sadly have not marked down which choices are those but I'm guessing these are the vital ones when it comes to what events happen and so what trophies you get. 2- There are certain segments where you have to sneak through places and has a treasure in places you cannot get out from. For example, there is a time you have to get to the third area area available to you in a time limit and click on something to not spoil. If you do the segment ends straight away. However, there is a 4th screen which if you go in you'll find there is a guard with a treasure chest you can pick pocket for a weapon and armour set... however you'll then notice you cannot sneak past him... however this is a trap in more ways than one. It makes you think that your choices are either get the thing on the third screen or don't, but get the equipment set on the 4th. This is not the case. What you can do is grab the stuff on the 4th screen and then simply allow a guard to see you which will then put you at the start of the 4th screen. The interesting thing is the guard with the chest can then be stolen from again (same stuff), however the game actually lets you keep what you stole from him as you get it at the end of the stage. I've come across 2 instances thus far where to do your objective and get the extra loot you had to get the loot, get seen, and then go to the objective. 3- The 1st chapter has you able to very freely get whatever result you want but it does seem like that stops after as I've failed to get certain results I've wanted as certain characters didn't like my character for whatever I'd previously done. I'm not sure if the best thing is to try and balance out the people you support or to focus on people... likely balancing I imagine as I've focused thus far and while that important character always backs me up, other characters oppose me. 4- The game has a system to allow you to go back to previous chapters, however, it is one of those that wipes your progress in any chapters after the one you go back to. With chapters having branches but likely being contained (though likely has some lockouts depending on previous chapter events), we might be able to work out all the branches and have a good idea what it takes for the 100% based off that in future. I'll need at least a second playthrough to see how much the game can branch based off what you do. 5- Each end of chapter boss drops a "mana orb" which increases the amount of mana stock you can store. Additionally each chapter I've defeated thus far has opened up another mechanic so if you see in your masteries things like "Do X Elemental Edges" and you are left wondering what the hell those are and why the game hasn't told you, it is because it something that will unlock after a boss fight. 6- I've not looked at the secret trophies in case of spoilers but in case there is some manner of "get all masteries" trophy I tend to take into stages characters who I can work on the masteries of. You may want to do the same, at the very least you'll be unlocking equipment slots for them and you may decide to use them as one of your main team in future.

Sony has only responded to Microsoft's stuff in responses to regulators. That stuff was in the most recent one so for Sony to respond, unless they do it publicly like Microsoft does everything, there would need to be another chance to respond officially to the regulator. As far as I'm aware there isn't really such a chance. --- As for the Maria Cantwell stuff. The donations do have an effect as you don't want to piss off people giving you money, but what is actually getting her talking like that is lobbying, possibly someone who donated of which Brad Smith himself is one of them, fed her those lines that she is now rattling off. Its all part of the racebaiting argument and I find it interesting that Microsoft has gone from 4% in the Japanese market to 2% in the span of a week apparently. Something to note was an article came out the day before that this Cantwell is likely going off which was so stupid I actually thought against posting here as it'd just be me mocking it... but I shouldn't have second guessed myself as Microsoft has done this tactic before. Could go into the details about how wrong and obviously corrupt that stuff is, but big news has dropped that makes going into that have little point. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-narrows-scope-of-concerns-in-microsoft-activision-review https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/641d6b7e32a8e0000cfa9381/Updated_version_-_Microsoft_Activision_Addendum_PFs__For_Publication_230324_.pdf The CMA has done a shocking 180 it seems and upended things again (contacting a moderator to change the title again). Unlike Microsoft supporters who maintained Microsoft's high chances after the last CMA report I'm not going to be delusional on this. This latest turn has turned Microsoft's to me 10% chance of getting through into a 90% chance. For the EU and CMA there is just the cloud concerns now which is what the 10 year deals are for, so the chances of them getting stopped is low on that. Post that it would leave only the FTC who may try to fight them further (always the chance they just give up of course), but with the corruption pro-business sentiment that exists in America it would be a miracle if the court sided with the FTC against Microsoft. Its all very disheartening for many I know. This getting through opens the door to companies, most being the large American tech companies, buying up company after company in a market they should have no right to owning, but at the end of the day that is how things work under the type of capitalism that rules the west. I commend those at the FTC trying to fight back, but corruption is so difficult to defeat. If you're someone who primarily buys Japanese games then thankfully Japan should be safe, but if you're someone into western games then do prepare yourself for the high likelihood of your favourite companies/games to be under new management. Perhaps it'll even be Microsoft because as I've said previously, if they can get this through on the basic grounds that they won't be a monopoly after it clears (the new FTC argues against this view as it has been abused again and again by big companies to crush others) then nothing stops Microsoft from buying up the other big western publishers one after another. They won't be a monopoly even if they buy all of them and if Sony were to in the next generation fall apart against Microsoft then oh well who could have seen that coming and all that, regulators should have stopped all those buyouts after all but what is done is done. It's a scam, but that is life. For some positive reinforcement. Lets remember that Nintendo exists and is successful even though they're largely shut out of these things. Now granted, Nintendo is the greatest video game company on the planet (significantly above 2/3/4/5 while Microsoft is so underground they don't even exist in the same reality) so not just anybody can do what Nintendo does but Sony might be able to if worse comes to worse and if they have to compete with full power monopoly seeking Microsoft. We also have to remember that Microsoft has failed at every single goal they've set in gaming. As many have said, they're not a creative company and their management in gaming are stacked with incompetents who due to the old boys network in Microsoft are largely safe from losing their positions. It's very much possible that no matter how much money Microsoft throws at gaming they continue to be unable to succeed and assets they pick up like CoD only get degraded as time goes on.

Nothing new has come out in regards to the regulators but due to the nature of documents that come out being long and Microsoft's PR machine being able to fire all of the first shots and gaming journalists generally being terrible (much of Microsoft's PR can be destroyed in the very same documents they point stuff out in if the journalists actually went over the documents), stuff in these documents even though revealed a good while ago only starts getting seen by the masses now. Within the documents was talk from Microsoft from Microsoft that they offer 10 years to Sony, which is enough time for Sony to make their own CoD. Why would Sony need to make their own CoD if they have CoD? The obvious answer is because Microsoft has only ever intended to keep CoD as long as required for this deal to pass (at first just the 2 years Sony had contracted already, then 3 on top, now the 10 years) and then were going to pull it. Any talk of "but we'd lose so much money so we wouldn't do that" is irrelevant. Microsoft has bled massive money on Xbox for a very long time. They aren't going to balk at losing a bit more especially if the idea is it'll finally move the needle against Sony. Heck, losing large amounts of money while destroying the opposition is part of Microsoft's DNA you could say. As for Minecraft. As I've said, while the documents are naturally hidden away by Microsoft I have zero doubt that Mojang as a part of being acquired required Microsoft to keep releasing Minecraft elsewhere. Redfall being developed for the PS5 until Microsoft bought the company and cancelled it has also come up... which I thought had already come out but it must have been Starfield? In any case, not exactly good timing for such statements to be getting made. Credit to his honesty? Maybe, but it's likely he is just fitting in at Xbox. Microsoft management just can't help but open its mouth and say stupid and damaging things after all. Maybe he learnt it from Brad Smith, the master. Its silly that anyone even needs to confirm it of course as logically why would Bethesda be randomly be making an Xbox exclusive when all their other games were multiplatform, but Microsoft's supporters do play that dishonest game where if it ain't 100% proven, even though everyone knows it was the case, then its simply false. Of course having it proven doesn't matter because the next step is to respond with "Well Sony does it". Key difference between what Sony and Microsoft do. Sony cuts these business deals and doesn't lie about them. Microsoft does them and lies. Spencer, a prolific liar will do these deals while saying that isn't what they do and at the same time smearing Sony for doing them. I have no issue with Microsoft doing those deals, good for them, that is what they should be doing (though needs better management to get actual good deals), but all of the lying is just low. Anyway, this sort of lying is why regulators like the FTC doesn't trust Microsoft and hopefully neither is the CMA (EU knows better also, but they love their money from fines). You cannot trust Microsoft is telling the truth and there is plenty within this very deal itself, let alone the past, that shows that.

What of the side missions in that chapter? Pretty sure I didn't do any on the run that got me that ending but if you're doing them than that could be blocking it maybe. Its a good idea to take a break yeah. Had the experience myself with the game (which was when there was 0 information for the trophies out there) where I was replaying large amounts of the game over and over again trying different stuff to see what got trophies and what didn't.

That sounds very odd if both my listed method and the one from Kletian999 didn't work. @AllaTheGreat00 & @CuzzKing both have the platinum (on PS5) so perhaps they can help shed some light on this (if they don't respond here then you could try contacting them on PSN). Potentially there could be some condition that both me and Kletian999 didn't figure out is important to it which we both had and you don't, or perhaps since the game has been updated a number of times the particulars for getting that ending have been changed. Try what you're going for because why not, and we'll see if the two people who have the platinum on the PS5 version say anything. If all that fails then try contacting the developer YummyYummyTummy. In my experience they're good and should be able to help you with an issue like this if you explain it to them.

Microsoft submitted their remedies to the EU who now has expanded the deadline so they can consider these new concessions. Many in the Microsoft camp are firm believers that the EU will be passing it... but considering both the FTC and CMA had positive talk about them being all good before they threw a wrench into Microsoft's plans... I'd caution anyone being confident in what the EU decides. Its very possible that the EU looks at Microsoft's remedies, considers them the jokes that they are, and tells Microsoft that they aren't good enough. EU is more open to discussion than the CMA and especially the FTC, but it could just be a matter of principle and they're going to reject it. Whatever the case we'll know before they'll make their decision because considering Microsoft's pathetic attacks on the FTC (unamerican, shouldn't exist) and on the CMA (calling them manipulated by the FTC, ignorant, and the racebaiting), they should do some manner of attack on the EU before the decision comes out. The CMA is still of course the main problem for Microsoft, who according to the most recent report still believes that getting things done with the EU would pressure the CMA to pass it too. Problem being of course that such pressure is nonsense. Going counter to the EU if anything would be a point of pride in the UK, not a negative, and unlike the FTC who can be starved of money if they don't play ball as the corporates want via their stooges in politics, the CMA is basically untouchable in that regard.

https://www.gematsu.com/2023/03/process-of-elimination-demo-now-available-in-the-west https://nisamerica.com/process-of-elimination/ A murder mystery VN with sections where you do investigating like say Dangenronpa, though this game seems to have the investigation be more of a game. Has a demo available right now though perhaps makes a mistake of it being simply the 1st chapter so you get a lot more VN than you do game. Dangenronpa 1 I remember for at least 1 and V3 (don't recall 2) had demos be completely original content which allows you to craft a better demo experience. You also don't get the issue of doing all that story now in the demo and then being expected to remember what could be important details a month later if you get it when it releases.

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/microsoft-slash-activision-blizzard-merger-inquiry#full-publication-update-history The CMA posted responses to the provisional findings. Once again we got another case where they also publish a bunch of third parties comments and they're all basically positive towards Microsoft. First time that happened it allowed Microsoft to PR the idea that basically everyone in gaming was on their side, which later was shown to be false when out of the bigger companies more than less were against the deal, though many were neutral to it. I expect in this case no one against the deal saw the need to badger the CMA and Sony hasn't been running a PR campaign and so didn't try and pressure anyone to aid them. Microsoft meanwhile contacted companies and got them to send in stuff in their favour. Them doing the same thing with the union letters to regulators further supports them being behind this. Thankfully like with the 1st batch of these things, the CMA appears aware this is more a result of Microsoft getting people to do it then some genuine belief that is so strong that they must simply defend Microsoft's honour. Actually looking at the responses is quite something and I'll sum them up. A is open that they're 4J Studios. Basically a Microsoft studio but for whatever reason Microsoft has seen fit to buy them yet. State that Microsoft are cool guys and with Gaming getting so big companies like Microsoft need to be allowed to buy up companies to compete (???). Microsoft also has never pressured them to favour Microsoft and in fact encouraged them to make stuff for Nintendo... I'd call that a lie but considering Xbox management its believable I suppose. B is anonymous. Different sort of customers exist and some of them don't care for the likes of CoD. So really no game is "must have". As such Microsoft should have CoD. C is anonymous. Consolidation they say is inevitable so may as well just let Microsoft have this. Also if red white and blue Microsoft doesn't purchase Activision then that'll mean those damn communists Tencent will! Would you be happy for those reds to have Activision? Because... regulators apparently can't stop Tencent if it tries to acquire Activision? D is anonymous. Agrees that its hard to tell what'll happen in the future in gaming if this deal goes through. Doesn't see any threat to their own company if it does though. E is anonymous but likely to be "No More Robots" as what is here they've basically already said openly. Attacks Sony for not being as good for Indies discoverability (has improved lately but could still be much better of course) while Microsoft is better with Gamepass being a mentioned reason for that. They say their own business is better/just as good on Xbox even though there are less of them. As such by their logic if Microsoft gets stronger due to this deal then it'll in turn be better for Indies (except we have evidence that when Microsoft feels strong they go back on these things). Also PlayStation needs to be cut down to size... certainly sounds like an unbiased person. F is anonymous. Says that Sony has exaggerated their arguments and in essence regulators are being tricked by them to carry out their will. Says that Activision is run by bad people and Microsoft are better people so put the deal through.

And we got another one. This particular company as far as I'm aware doesn't even sell cloud services to customers, instead giving cloud capabilities to whoever wants to set up one. Does this mean any company using this service for their own cloud service gets it too? Lulu aiming to use that PR machine again. Its really pathetic when they have the media almost completely on their side and yet will still go after anyone the least bit critical. As for her comments... first off, "gentleman's agreement" doesn't mean that before a meeting everyone has to agree to not leak stuff. That is something that is socially understood to be the case. You're not breaking any law or whatever if you go against that but you will look bad. She knows this, but pretends to not know to attack the writer who predictably instantly gets to his knees. The second is... the guy is bad for using the term "gentleman's agreement" and "bad guy" when she is a woman? Oh dear. Something tells me some writers while still very much on Microsoft's side, are at least seeing the silver lining of on failure being able to tear this fool to shreds without having to be in fear of the Microsoft PR machine. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/d09412-complaint-counsels-motion-to-compel-microsoft-corporation-and-activision-blizzard-inc-to-produce-documents.pdf Remember Microsoft supporters attacking Sony for taking too long to produce the mountains of documents that they requested off Sony (which Sony got reduced)? Well Microsoft it turns out is doing the same but for much less documents. Will the media make the same deal out of this as they did that? The answer is of course no. The main issue here is even that Microsoft is refusing to show these deals they keep talking up and naturally it has to be asked why that is. If the implication from one of the documents I posted above is correct, it'd likely destroy a significant amount of public support Microsoft has gotten if the details of these deals are seen.

Ah yes, can't forget that. Though being fair I don't think Kenny has used his possible influence (beyond getting some Japanese women hired at the start when Khan was hiring anybody with a pulse) nefariously and its just the Bucks. Omega's want was to fill AEW's women's division with Japanese women and have them as the centre piece, and while he got a number hired they might as well not exist in AEW as Khan simply won't even give the meagre TV time that he gives the women to Japanese women. Considering the sort of person Kenny is I don't think he has it in him to try and manipulate even someone as weak as Tony. The Bucks on the other hand I can certainly believe know how to work Tony to do whatever they want.

I find it very strange that Microsoft clearly put out an order for Spencer (their polished PR guy) to shut his mouth for quite a while which granted is actually wise as many of Spencer's previous comments have come back to bite them, but why are they letting Brad Smith apparently say whatever he wants? Apparently there is some suspicious stuff around this company (Boosteroid which is a cloud service with 4 million customers) and its relation to Ukraine too. It operates in Ukraine but was apparently a Romanian company until now where suddenly it is now touted as if a Ukrainian company... Shameless using of the Ukrainian war for PR purposes aside, Microsoft has signed yet another legendary 10 year deal and they say more are to follow. https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-signs-another-call-of-duty-deal-as-it-seeks-approval-to-buy-activision-blizzard-a8c5372f?st=r1twjwv61sam3uz This article speaks on that deal, but there was an interesting bit from Brad Smith who often reveals Microsoft's intentions. This is very good news if that is what Microsoft intends. It would mean that Microsoft aren't simply playing tough until the very end and then deciding to go for divestments like some Microsoft supporters believe, and instead they'll go all the way which will cause the CMA to block which then will cause Microsoft to take it to the CAT and try to get the CMA overturned. A very foolish endeavour as the CMA has played this perfectly and successfully reversing their decisions on mergers is an extremely difficult task. If so then you might ask why a company that can afford as many lawyers as Microsoft would foolishly try it. 3 possible reasons. The first is someone in management, perhaps even Brad Smith who is a former lawyer, overrules everyone and orders the fight as he thinks he knows better. The second is mismanagement where they either have gotten themselves bad lawyers or ones that don't know all the ins and outs of the CMA so their lawyer team doesn't know better and thinks they can actually win the fight as if they're in America. The final reason is Microsoft management knows that it's likely fruitless, but they see no way forward for Xbox without getting this through so they'll risk even low odds. It'll annoy a lot of people I know as it'll mean this circus will keep going for a good while longer, but keeping in mind that as long as the circus is in town Microsoft can't buy anyone its only a positive in my book. Best case scenario is the situation only worsens for Microsoft during that time they can't splash their cash and when they lose the case at the CAT, management decides to give up on their effort to destroy the traditional game market. Which yes yes, I know, might well mean the end of Xbox. As much as a good thing having an extra competitor in the market is... twice now Microsoft have tried to do this take over gaming by destroying gaming as we know it business. First with the Xbox One and now Gamepass. As funny as Microsoft unleashing their grand plans and failing can be, I'd rather they not have the capacity to even try them because they only need to win once to mess everything up.