[quote]It was a mutually agreeable contract between Sony and activision[/quote] So what does that mean? It means, Bungie said "Hey Sony, if you want your customers to have exclusives in our game, pay us this amount of money." Then Sony said "Ok heres the money, now ONLY Sony players will get these items for a year, unless we pay you again for another year." Sony already paid Bungie for another year...thats the contract and how it works. So if Bungie says "Hey Sony, we know you already paid us but, can we give the items to Microsofts customers SOONER even though the CONTRACT SAYS WE CANNOT?" Sony would now say, "No, unless you want sued by one of the biggest electronic companies in the world, why would we want our competition to have the goods WE paid for? are you crazy?" So yea, The terms cannot be changed because Activision set SOME terms and Sony did too, Thats for assurance purposes in the mutual agreement, and set in place by ALL big company contracts to prevent the other company from just changing the terms after they got paid...its illegal to do it without Sony's permission, bro.

Yes but my point is, Microsoft will still be getting it eventually anyway, so why don't they just give them back whatever they paid ( I know it's not the smartest decision ever) but I'm speaking about the core principle here, if Sony was planning on getting another year of exclusive content why even give a release date for it being released to Xbox anyway?, why tell people that you will get it in fall 2016 when you know you won't release it until fall 2017

It said "At LEAST until fall of 2016" that means 'Unless Sony pays for another year' Contracts are NON REFUNDABLE. They cant just "Give the money back" lol...Sony would refuse the money and sue if they gave it to XBox anyway. [spoiler]give up, its a dead end[/spoiler]

Well I'm just going to stop now but only because (and no offence) but you are largely missing the point I'm trying to make.

The point is, you want Activision to change a contract so you can get items. My point is, its illegal for Activision to do it...its a contract.

That's not my point at all, my point is a company that doesn't make a game shouldn't have so much leverage on how much and when exclusive content should be released more so than the company that makes it, but the main point in trying to make is that timed exclusives shouldn't exist, Sony only did it to give people incentive to buy their console, although it's a smart move from a business standpoint, it divides gamers and gives the impression that they don't actually care about the gaming industry but more about their sales figures, there are other ways to give consumers incentive to buy your product other than paying to lock other people out of the content you get

[quote]It's can't be broken but it can be renegotiated[/quote] So what was this about again? It was about the contract, you said it, get real dude.

Yes that was my initial comment, it doesn't mean my entire point is based on it