Microsoft Games Are Going Third Party (Hi-Fi Rush/Pentiment/Sea of Thieves/Grounded release dates confirmed)

[ArmoredSnowman]

If it means I get to finally plat Sunset Overdrive, that'd be nice. But hopefully Spyro 4 will be released for PS5, since that's Xbox-exclusive

[Rozalia1]

4 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

People are buying PS5 for brand recognition, exclusives are just extra software that happens to be available to them.

I call someone cringe when they're being cringe. I believe I acknowledged this person was smart in the past but it's so insanely off putting that they have to follow up anything smart they say with toddler level comments. It's constant. I know people on here that have zero interest in the Xbox brand also are put off by that.

 

Another common argument from the Xbox crowd to avoid putting the blame squarely on who deserves it. It is not that PlayStation or Nintendo have simply ran a miles better business than Xbox, both simply have a stronger brand due to history. A fun element regarding that narrative is just how long it goes back. Bill Gates himself when talking about the PS3 once said that Sony could sell bricks and people would buy them.

 

You've taken getting refuted and/or me attacking Xbox so personally that you're smearing me like that? Come on now. Also, if my comments are apparently toddler level, why did you avoid responding to my post refuting you completely and instead attacked me in this manner? You're just burying yourself with that.

Edited February 16 by Rozalia1

[mcnichoj]

3 hours ago, ArmoredSnowman said:

If it means I get to finally plat Sunset Overdrive, that'd be nice. But hopefully Spyro 4 will be released for PS5, since that's Xbox-exclusive

Sony would need to have a desire to release SO. They don't care about their own old IP that has a fanbase on their own platform, so why bother with an old IP that only cut even that has its fanbase built on another platform?

 

3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

Bill Gates himself when talking about the PS3 once said that Sony could sell bricks and people would buy them.

It's crazy that he predicted the PlayStation Portal.

[fenrir54565]

14 hours ago, ASMODAIOS344 said:

Sony and Microsoft disagree with that it seems, only Nintendo will continue with the traditional close ecosystem model.

 

Pay close attention to the recent Sony financial results, the break their profit record but is not  translated to a increase in profit.

 

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/sony-wants-to-improve-playstation-profit-margins-with-more-aggressive-pc-release-strategy/

 

And from S.I.E itself , read the first and second file

 

https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/IR/library/presen/er/archive.html

 

apparently that not what was said and was taken out of context 

 

 

[ASMODAIOS344]

4 hours ago, fenrir54565 said:

apparently that not what was said and was taken out of context 

 

 

The issue here is not potential PC version the issue is that no First Party release for 2024 and is official.

 

I am little worried as a consumer with the risk they take with the GaaS model. The multiplayer Last of Us project was cancelled,  the reports that there is pressure to PlayStation studios towards that model with many staff disagree, and don't forget the Bungie fiasco that the wasted three billion for a team that is not able to fix their own game and the worst thing is that Bungie will oversee

the work of Playstation studios!!!

[Zephrese]

8 minutes ago, ASMODAIOS344 said:

The issue here is not potential PC version the issue is that no First Party release for 2024 and is official.

 

I thought Sony was specifically referring to existing, major IPs?

Edited February 17 by Zephrese

[ASMODAIOS344]

1 hour ago, Zephrese said:

 

I thought Sony was specifically referring to existing, major IPs?

 

The official quote is as follow: " Regarding first-party software, we aim to continue to focus on producing
high-quality works and developing live service games, but, while major
projects are currently under development, we do not plan to release any new
major existing franchise titles next fiscal year like God of War Ragnarök and
Marvelʼs Spider-Man"

 

You are correct, new members of existing franchise.

 

I don't think any of us expect they announce a new IP but is a little worried that nothing will come from First Party Studios in a whole fiscal year.

 

We have some indication of what Playstation Studios work but i don't expect we will hear something soon.

 

 

https://www.pushsquare.com/guides/playstation-studios-all-sony-first-party-developers-and-what-theyre-working-on

 

[Rozalia1]

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/xbox-game-pass-has-34-million-fully-paid-subscribers/

 

Quote

Spencer replied that the number of players who had Xbox Live Gold but not Game Pass and could now be added to the count was “a pretty small number”, and that the growth in subscriber numbers can be attributed more to players on PC and the cloud.

 

And there is the angle on the poor numbers for Game Pass. This sort of lie was likely why Sarah Bond did her 'mistake' on the pre-recorded show of theirs where she claimed Diablo 4 was going to be available to all 34 million subscribers. Her saying the real number would have shown what number Core (Gold) is at. In terms of how much subscriptions Microsoft has suffered in the last few years I've seen from 2 million to a whopping 8 million.

 

The next great big hope is that CoD will lead to massive growth... but we'll see if Microsoft (not Xbox) management will entertain allowing that to happen. Considering the court case involving CoD, an angle they may well do is claiming that due to that they can't put it on Game Pass, so blame big bad Sony and the mean regulators.

Edited February 17 by Rozalia1

[SelectiveGamer]

PS5 came out in 2020. Ongoing pandemic or not... that's when it came out. The console/console generation has been ongoing for 4 years now. Consoles/console generations tend to last around 7 years or so (at least that's been the current pattern but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here). So it only makes sense that the PS5 is in the latter half of it's lifespan. However... it still has around 3 years left or so. PS6 isn't coming out in 2026. It's technically possible and I could be wrong here... but I would expect PS6 to come out around 2027-2028.

 

So Sony/PlayStation isn't 'burning to the ground' like a lot of people seem to be claiming (or from what I've seen at least which obviously could be a very vocal minority). Don't get me wrong... no major first party releases until at least March 2025 is definitely not a good look. But it's not the 'This is Fine' fire meme as those I've seen seem to be claiming it is.

[Rozalia1]

Looking online it seems that some influencers have turned on Spencer at last. They're still Xbox fans and all that, but the penny finally dropped on Spencer being who he is. Naturally this means they're getting attacked for not being devoted enough. Straight up been seeing people saying that 'if you hate Spencer, then you hate Xbox'. As some put it, that whole thing is a cult. You'll notice that neither PlayStation or Nintendo have cultivated this sort of thing. Meanwhile Xbox has a weird cult that worships an obvious conman, one who has been telling them 'next year will be the year' for the last 10 bloody years. Some of these accounts though that I see, they can't be real people.

 

Unless Xbox is shutting down their astroturfing I imagine they'll try and bully these influencers back in line for a while. If that fails then they'll pull whatever support they've been giving and then try to lift up smaller names who have been attacking the influencers who have fallen out of lockstep.

 

14 hours ago, SelectiveGamer said:

PS5 came out in 2020. Ongoing pandemic or not... that's when it came out. The console/console generation has been ongoing for 4 years now. Consoles/console generations tend to last around 7 years or so (at least that's been the current pattern but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here). So it only makes sense that the PS5 is in the latter half of it's lifespan. However... it still has around 3 years left or so. PS6 isn't coming out in 2026. It's technically possible and I could be wrong here... but I would expect PS6 to come out around 2027-2028.

 

So Sony/PlayStation isn't 'burning to the ground' like a lot of people seem to be claiming (or from what I've seen at least which obviously could be a very vocal minority). Don't get me wrong... no major first party releases until at least March 2025 is definitely not a good look. But it's not the 'This is Fine' fire meme as those I've seen seem to be claiming it is.

 

The 'PlayStation is doing terrible business' narrative is one solely cooked up by team green. People quite rightly say that Xbox's business is obviously terrible, so just claim that your opponent is that while claiming that your own is doing fantastic even though you hide all the numbers. Spencer said it was good, and that is all the evidence anyone needs.

 

As for debunking the matter. PlayStation under Jim Ryan increased the amount of developers and partnerships they have massively, what many know as the GaaS push. Counter to the narrative that he put all of PlayStation's current developers on such projects, he in fact expanded to do that push instead. Such a push comes with costs which aren't going to see a return for many years, and all of that comes out PlayStation's profits. Them buying Bungie was another big one, as that money came out of PlayStation's profits and it wasn't paid by Sony (the parent company). That is why the margins are low for PlayStation as they're not only investing to make more money in the future, but this likely occurred because of Microsoft's 'spend Sony out of business' strategy. The way to counter that is to become like Nintendo whereupon even losing large amounts of third party developers doesn't matter as your first party is so strong.

 

As for Xbox doing better. What a joke. To begin with Spencer in court straight up stated that Xbox's margins are below half of PlayStation's. On top of that, even if Microsoft doesn't show the numbers, we know that they cook the books on Xbox. For a start we know that the buyouts they've been doing has the money all come from Microsoft, not Xbox, as Xbox literally can't afford it. However I'm sure that the creative accounting goes beyond that to allow Spencer to be claiming they're 'profitable'. As I said when the ABK stuff was going on. If PlayStation is only making the amount of profit it was doing at the time, 3 billion I think it was, with 7-8 billion more revenue than Xbox while having lower costs... then how possibly can Xbox be making a profit? Literally impossible unless they're cooking the books and shifting numerous costs to other divisions of Microsoft that are profitable.

[boaly2008]

On 2/18/2024 at 9:58 AM, SelectiveGamer said:

PS5 came out in 2020. Ongoing pandemic or not... that's when it came out. The console/console generation has been ongoing for 4 years now. Consoles/console generations tend to last around 7 years or so (at least that's been the current pattern but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here). So it only makes sense that the PS5 is in the latter half of it's lifespan. However... it still has around 3 years left or so. PS6 isn't coming out in 2026. It's technically possible and I could be wrong here... but I would expect PS6 to come out around 2027-2028.

 

So Sony/PlayStation isn't 'burning to the ground' like a lot of people seem to be claiming (or from what I've seen at least which obviously could be a very vocal minority). Don't get me wrong... no major first party releases until at least March 2025 is definitely not a good look. But it's not the 'This is Fine' fire meme as those I've seen seem to be claiming it is.

Didnt they specifically say no major first party SEQUELS?

[Paleblood]

Imagine how the streets would burn if it was the other way around.

[TheBlaskar]

I grew up as an Xbox kid. We had all the major platforms but Xbox was home to me - the 360 era especially. I got an Xbox One, hated it, traded it in for a PS4, and never looked back. Although I still have my 360, it would be nice to replay some of these childhood games (and newer Xbox releases) on my console of choice. Idk what that means for the future of "CoNSoLe WaRs" but it would be the most extreme wide-netted pro-consumer move of any company I've seen in competition recently. Much respect to Uncle Phil for this, if it ends up happening

[The Alchemist]

13 minutes ago, TheBlaskar said:

...but it would be the most extreme wide-netted pro-consumer move of any company I've seen in competition recently. Much respect to Uncle Phil for this, if it ends up happening

 

Eh let's not get it twisted. This isn't being done with consumers best interests in mind, nor is it being done just because they want to do it. It's being done out of necessity, most likely due to pressure from the top, because nothing that Xbox has done since the Xbox One launched has moved the needle for them as a brand and both time and patience is running out for them. You won't see Sony or Nintendo pulling the same move any time soon. Why? Because they're actually successful. PC releases, sure. It's a good way to gain additional revenue and day and date PC releases may become a thing eventually for all PlayStation games. But putting (exclusive) games on competing consoles? No chance. 

 

Phil loves talking up that "exclusives are bad" schtick, and it's "just a matter of time before they go away for good" etc. only because Xbox exclusives rarely make any sort of impact nowadays, hence this move. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see through his PR spins. Exclusives are bad... while they simultaneously spend over $80 billion to keep games off other platforms. Funny that. Now that it's clear there's no chance in hell they're going to recoup those massive investments without putting those games everywhere, we now get this narrative that exclusives are bad. You can't make this stuff up. "Uncle" Phil is a serial liar, and certainly doesn't deserve any 'respect' for this move, especially considering it most likely wasn't his call to begin with lol

[ASMODAIOS344]

Now i don't think we need to talk about conspiracy theories but after Uncle Phil words is a little weird.

 

First the  " exclusives are bad for the business " and then begging for ports, a coincidence? 😀

 

https://www.purexbox.com/news/2024/02/xbox-petition-for-helldivers-2-goes-viral-overnight-aims-to-redefine-the-console-wars

Edited February 19 by ASMODAIOS344

[Rozalia1]

2 hours ago, ASMODAIOS344 said:

Now i don't think we need to talk about conspiracy theories but after Uncle Phil words is a little weird.

 

First the  " exclusives are bad for the business " and then begging for ports, a coincidence? 😀

 

https://www.purexbox.com/news/2024/02/xbox-petition-for-helldivers-2-goes-viral-overnight-aims-to-redefine-the-console-wars

 

Even the people on that site see it for the pathetic display it is. 1 second of thinking shows how stupid it is to make such a statement when 'who does it help' can be applied to many of Xbox's games which aren't yet officially being ported (but likely will be).

 

Ultimately though his comment is entirely predictable to me as I've been seeing that sort of comment, that such GaaS games should be on all platforms, from his astroturfing agents on social media and certain forums. Same deal with their big excuse regarding 'digital lock-in'. Their agents spread it all over the place, Spencer then says it, and his agents then tell people 'see, the narrative is correct as Spencer is now saying it'. He and Xbox management is simply always setting up or supporting some astroturfed narrative, as that is Microsoft as a company. It was (is) literally in their playbook to do this stuff.

[SelectiveGamer]

20 hours ago, boaly2008 said:

Didnt they specifically say no major first party SEQUELS?

 

🤷‍♂️

[mcnichoj]

On 2/17/2024 at 5:58 PM, SelectiveGamer said:

So Sony/PlayStation isn't 'burning to the ground' like a lot of people seem to be claiming

SpongeBob Narrator: One day later.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/19/sony-gaming-margin-questioned-after-ps5-sales-cut-sparks-stock-plunge.html

They're not burning but still not great.

 

17 hours ago, TheBlaskar said:

I grew up as an Xbox kid. We had all the major platforms but Xbox was home to me - the 360 era especially. I got an Xbox One, hated it, traded it in for a PS4, and never looked back. Although I still have my 360, it would be nice to replay some of these childhood games (and newer Xbox releases) on my console of choice. Idk what that means for the future of "CoNSoLe WaRs" but it would be the most extreme wide-netted pro-consumer move of any company I've seen in competition recently. Much respect to Uncle Phil for this, if it ends up happening

Why not just pick up a Series X if you have the money? I assume you know about the BC program so plenty of your old 360 games could be playable on there. Added benefit of any exclusives that you missed out after you got rid of your Xbox One. Could continue to use your PlayStation consoles for everything else.

As for what any of this means for the future industry, not much. A couple small negligible games won't lead to anything substantial. MS gets more money and more people get to play these games, it's a win-win. They already have Minecraft and all its future spin-offs set to still be multiplat so it's not like this isn't something they weren't already doing.
If they announce they're leaving the console space that would be a catastrophic tsunami for the industry.

 

17 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

 

Eh let's not get it twisted. This isn't being done with consumers best interests in mind, nor is it being done just because they want to do it. It's being done out of necessity, most likely due to pressure from the top, because nothing that Xbox has done since the Xbox One launched has moved the needle for them as a brand and both time and patience is running out for them. You won't see Sony or Nintendo pulling the same move any time soon. Why? Because they're actually successful. PC releases, sure. It's a good way to gain additional revenue and day and date PC releases may become a thing eventually for all PlayStation games. But putting (exclusive) games on competing consoles? No chance. 

MLB The Show.

If it was generating enough revenue then Sony wouldn't have been forced to port it.

 

I have a theory that Spider-Man/Wolverine will come to Xbox and that Blade is going to also come out on PlayStation so Marvel can build up a shared game universe. This all stems from that announcement trailer they showed at the game awards with no platform logos at the end, something MS hasn't done before. This being from long before this new "strategy change" and MS porting some of their old games. Spider-Man 2 didn't reach sales expectations so that just makes this seem a little more likely.

[Kessarath]

So there is no chance for Hellblade II for PlayStation?

Edited February 20 by Kessarath

[Dinniestar]

57 minutes ago, Kessarath said:

So there is no chance for Hellblade II for PlayStation?

Xbox are considering all there exclusives for third party release on case by case basis 

it will just be waiting game and if decide to port and when come out 

as in has it sold as many copies as it will on Xbox and is it worth porting over 

[shadaik]

1 hour ago, Kessarath said:

So there is no chance for Hellblade II for PlayStation?

Depends on how they handle that specific subsidiary. I'd point to how Mohjang continues to publish on all platforms despite being owned by MS.

[The Alchemist]

2 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

MLB The Show.

If it was generating enough revenue then Sony wouldn't have been forced to port it.

 

I have a theory that Spider-Man/Wolverine will come to Xbox and that Blade is going to also come out on PlayStation so Marvel can build up a shared game universe. This all stems from that announcement trailer they showed at the game awards with no platform logos at the end, something MS hasn't done before. This being from long before this new "strategy change" and MS porting some of their old games. Spider-Man 2 didn't reach sales expectations so that just makes this seem a little more likely.

 

Or... The MLB just wanted even more money and that's why they forced Sony on the matter of making it multi-platform.

 

Any source to suggest S-M2 didn't meet sales expectations? I ask because just recently we had an update that the game had reached the 10m sales milestone which appears to be the opposite of what you're suggesting, and it's very likely to sell even more as time goes on. 

 

I can definitely see Blade going to PlayStation given this new Xbox multi-platform strategy, but I don't ever see the reverse being true for Spider-Man or any other PlayStation titles. The one scenario I could possibly see is live service / multiplayer stuff going to Xbox, but even that I doubt as PlayStation and PC is more than enough to sustain such titles. I could envision PlayStation going to Nintendo first with such proposals assuming their next console is powerful enough to run such games. It's all ifs, buts, and maybes though so ultimately there's no point in speculating.

[mcnichoj]

1 hour ago, The Alchemist said:

 

Or... The MLB just wanted even more money and that's why they forced Sony on the matter of making it multi-platform.

 

Any source to suggest S-M2 didn't meet sales expectations? I ask because just recently we had an update that the game had reached the 10m sales milestone which appears to be the opposite of what you're suggesting, and it's very likely to sell even more as time goes on. 

 

I can definitely see Blade going to PlayStation given this new Xbox multi-platform strategy, but I don't ever see the reverse being true for Spider-Man or any other PlayStation titles. The one scenario I could possibly see is live service / multiplayer stuff going to Xbox, but even that I doubt as PlayStation and PC is more than enough to sustain such titles. I could envision PlayStation going to Nintendo first with such proposals assuming their next console is powerful enough to run such games. It's all ifs, buts, and maybes though so ultimately there's no point in speculating.

My guess is MLB never realized they could force Sony to make it multiplat until Phil or whoever talked to them. You could be right but why fuck up that relationship on MLB's end? They say they'll take the license away and give it to someone else if it doesn't go multiplat and Sony could have just said "fuck you, give it to someone else then". Then another studio gets the MLB license and botches it. MLB is out shitloads of money as the license contract would probably be for a few years and now stuck with a crappy studio. Then they would have to renegotiate with Sony who would have more power in the deal and can say they deserve a bigger cut.

 

Can't find the article but the expectation was 20 million supposedly.

 

Unless again Marvel is trying to build a shared game universe, they already have the branding in comic book form.

Would be hard to build a cohesive following with the content fragmented over multiple gaming platforms. If they're all on one platform you just sell more copies and content overall. Blade can show up as a DLC in Spider-Man, a character or event referenced in Spider-Man can actually show up or happen in Blade. Players won't be confused or lost and will want to buy more games to get these completed side stories.

Once this stuff is everywhere, they can get more studios and franchises into the mix. Have Ubisoft do a Loki game or something, give Deadpool to Capcom, have the Dotemu guys do a new X-Men beat 'em up for X-Men '97 (which some people believe this cartoon is going to tie back into the MCU).

Once all the games are playable everywhere they can continue to branch out from this world and into other media. Making a show about the Insomniac Spider-Man and have Arkane's Blade show up. Maybe a viewer only played Blade on Xbox, now because of the show they might go and buy the SM games on Xbox or any other combination of games they might have played and can buy now regardless of what console they have. The PlayStation brand already has the association to Spider-Man so they would continue to get the bulk of the sales. They have more global unit sales so all their made Marvel games games (and Microsoft) will sell 95% more in Europe on PlayStation.

Porting cost would be nothing compared to potential profits.

Sony would even be able to weaponize these multiplats if they ever wanted to make a big acquisition move like trying to get 2K if they got their funding up and wanted to lock down GTA as theirs. "How can we be a monopoly, one of our biggest franchises in Spider-Man is multiplat".

[boaly2008]

10 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

My guess is MLB never realized they could force Sony to make it multiplat until Phil or whoever talked to them. You could be right but why fuck up that relationship on MLB's end? They say they'll take the license away and give it to someone else if it doesn't go multiplat and Sony could have just said "fuck you, give it to someone else then". Then another studio gets the MLB license and botches it. MLB is out shitloads of money as the license contract would probably be for a few years and now stuck with a crappy studio. Then they would have to renegotiate with Sony who would have more power in the deal and can say they deserve a bigger cut.

 

Can't find the article but the expectation was 20 million supposedly.

 

Unless again Marvel is trying to build a shared game universe, they already have the branding in comic book form.

Would be hard to build a cohesive following with the content fragmented over multiple gaming platforms. If they're all on one platform you just sell more copies and content overall. Blade can show up as a DLC in Spider-Man, a character or event referenced in Spider-Man can actually show up or happen in Blade. Players won't be confused or lost and will want to buy more games to get these completed side stories.

Once this stuff is everywhere, they can get more studios and franchises into the mix. Have Ubisoft do a Loki game or something, give Deadpool to Capcom, have the Dotemu guys do a new X-Men beat 'em up for X-Men '97 (which some people believe this cartoon is going to tie back into the MCU).

Once all the games are playable everywhere they can continue to branch out from this world and into other media. Making a show about the Insomniac Spider-Man and have Arkane's Blade show up. Maybe a viewer only played Blade on Xbox, now because of the show they might go and buy the SM games on Xbox or any other combination of games they might have played and can buy now regardless of what console they have. The PlayStation brand already has the association to Spider-Man so they would continue to get the bulk of the sales. They have more global unit sales so all their made Marvel games games (and Microsoft) will sell 95% more in Europe on PlayStation.

Porting cost would be nothing compared to potential profits.

Sony would even be able to weaponize these multiplats if they ever wanted to make a big acquisition move like trying to get 2K if they got their funding up and wanted to lock down GTA as theirs. "How can we be a monopoly, one of our biggest franchises in Spider-Man is multiplat".

My understanding on the MLB thing is that it was the players union that pushed for it actually. They were sick of waiting for the MLBs plan of letting the open license create multiple viable competitors. They wanted to get that multiplat money.

 

Unless something huge has changed in the licensing deals for Spiderman/Wolverine, I dont understand why Sony would let them renegotiate their explicit platform exclusivity deal in such a way that theyre paying Marvel hundreds of millions of dollars (which they currently are) to put games on their competitors platform. Conversely, I dont know why Marvel would turn down all that guaranteed money from Sony to get extra sales on Xbox. They have a deal set in stone, weve literally seen it from the Insomniac leaks. They have it all locked up until like 2038. The only way out of that seems to be if one of the games just bombs.

 

 

[mcnichoj]

20 minutes ago, boaly2008 said:

Unless something huge has changed in the licensing deals for Spiderman/Wolverine, I dont understand why Sony would let them renegotiate their explicit platform exclusivity deal in such a way that theyre paying Marvel hundreds of millions of dollars (which they currently are) to put games on their competitors platform. Conversely, I dont know why Marvel would turn down all that guaranteed money from Sony to get extra sales on Xbox. They have a deal set in stone, weve literally seen it from the Insomniac leaks. They have it all locked up until like 2038. The only way out of that seems to be if one of the games just bombs.

Whatever deal Sony and Marvel had could stay in place, just they treat the release on other platforms like any other third party release. Sony's games released on Xbox would net MS the usual 30% with Sony/Marvel splitting the rest and vice-versa for Microsoft's games on PlayStation.

MS is making 70% profit off of two of the top current game franchises on PlayStation, I don't see why PlayStation wouldn't want to do the same. Porting costs would be peanuts and we all know Spider-Man would sell millions on Xbox and it would be to mostly people that were never going to buy a PS5.

You would see an overall boost in all Marvel related game sales just for people to see how all this is connected much like with the MCU movies. Sony can use the growth of sales as a way to lower the license to securing other potential Marvel IPs to their studios like Punisher to Naughty Dog or Ghost Rider to Santa Monica.

At some point all these game specific characters could be blended into a major End Game type of game and be an absolutely bananas project.

I feel the pros outweigh the cons.

 

Do I actually think this will happen? Definitely not. As a fan of games and comics I really wish it would though.