They aren’t being forced, but it is a competitive advantage for MS.
Sony could, for example, allow Game Pass, EA+, Ubi+, etc, on their platform for a 15% cut. Or they could structure licensing such that they get a cut of every game played on their hardware, whether sold at retail/digitally or in a subscription plan. There are lots of options.
The pop text on that IGN story isn’t technically correct. This is the quote in the article:
“We expect that Microsoft will abide by contractual agreements and continue to ensure Activision games are multiplatform,” said a Sony spokesperson to The Wall Street Journal.
Which, as we’ve discussed, they’ll all be “multiplatform” just like they are now - Xbox and PC!
Do you really care about their hardware or just their software. Personally I hardly ever use my Switch and get whatever multiplatform stuff I can for other platforms. Nintendo still puts out a great piece of software every so often so would want them around for that but on that same note I’ve actually found Sony first party has made many of my favorite games for the past 10 years so I’d regret them getting out of games even more than Nintendo (who I do like but find somewhat overrated). Prior to the acquisitions Microsoft had been kind of a wasteland for a while software wise.
It recalled the notorious quote from the late Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi about Sony cornering the market on “depressing games,”
Ha! Yamauchi got it in one. Sony really does have that market cornered. And I would personally miss that a lot. I love The Last of Us, Infamous Second Son, Ico, etc. All depressing games, no doubt, but so well done.
I don’t really care about hardware, it sits hidden in the cabinet under my TV, but at the risk of repeating myself I find the XSX design not only functional but elegant.
For a handheld device the hardware matters a great deal, of course.