4 ms·
>Maybe Microsoft should argue this point instead. But they didn't. They argued that they would allow CoD on multi-platforms so it's only reasonable to expect pe
by SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
>Maybe Microsoft should argue this point instead. But they didn't. They argued that they would allow CoD on multi-platforms so it's only reasonable to expect people to respond to that point.
That's just basic business. If I buy a shoe factory, I'm going to say of course I'll sell them to Canadians! I wouldn't say "Eh, stuff it Canada, go make your own shoes!" even if my own internal plans didn't prioritize exports.
- lesuorac 3y agoBut there's nothing dishonest with Canada trying to block the purchase on the shoe factory on the grounds that they don't believe you'll actually sell to them considering they legitimately don't believe you. Perhaps you may feel that Canadians can be responsible for making their own shoe companies that sell to Canada. Then bring up that as your argument instead of having "oh yeah, I'll totally sell to you" as your argument.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoWhat is dishonest about MS buying Activision? Something that hasn’t happened yet but you are judging them on regardless?
- lesuorac 3y agoWell, your comment is flagged so I can no longer quote from it. But from what I remember is that you were accusing people of being dishonest because they said that Twitter could have an alternative but people aren't saying that Sony can just make a CoD alternative. And I'm saying its not dishonest because A) its different people and B) Microsoft made a claim and these response are directly in response to that claim.