No they don't, how idiotic are you? Microsoft could easily sue bungie and Activision and win for breaking a contract.

Err lol What contract are they breaking have you seen the contract No? Thought not

Yeah I have, nice try though. There's a contract for exclusives they sign something with the other consoles that say they will get said items after a period of time. Sorry you lack average information

Are you kidding me, you saying I'm the idiot. Care to explain to me how you are privy to the bungie legal departments affairs? You don't know what bungie signed, you clearly don't know anything about how contracts work, you are clearly talking bullshit No stop embarrassing yourself kid

Calling me a kid when you're obviously still in highschool funny, you lack basic knowledge so that makes you an idiot. You need to stop embarrassing yourself. I know how contracts work exactly, there's always contracts signed between the two consoles to understand exclusivity and when the other consoles will get them.

HahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahaha You just realise you have no clue how contracts work so you're turning on the insults while at the same time trying to argue you are not a child? Good one kid

Stick to playing games

Sue them how bungie is under no contract with Microsoft

They are under contract, whenever you make a game for a console there's a contract. Xbox is supposed to get the items one year after release, that's was a signed contract, Xbox hasn't gotten them therefore Microsoft can sue.

If u go to the website is says at least Fall 2017 honestly ur not missing much and it's probably not gonna count against Xbox users

Doesn't matter what is says now, only matters what was originally said when they signed. Which was one year after release. Yeah I know we aren't missing much, I don't play anymore I only redownloaded it to this triumphs crap

That was only for year 1 stuff which you got

Nope that was for all of it, Sony only payed for a year of exclusivity for all Dlc. It's been more than a year for Jade rabbit.

You are wrong, end of story And until you post some evidence to the contrary I will continue to call you out for being a clueless moron

And I will continue to call you an idiot and a kid because those are facts.

You can call me every name under the sun, but it doesn't change the fact you're wrong

Nope, sorry I'm right anyone with basic knowledge knows it.

So I've actually gone and done some research on the legal side of what you're saying under UK law and under section 1 of the contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 I have found many reasons how what you're saying wouldn't be breaking any law [quote] Right of third party to enforce contractual term. (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if— (a)the contract expressly provides that he may, or (b)subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him. [b] (2)Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party[/b]. [b] (3)The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.[/b] (4)This section does not confer a right on a third party to enforce a term of a contract otherwise than subject to and in accordance with any other relevant terms of the contract. (5)For the purpose of exercising his right to enforce a term of the contract, there shall be available to the third party any remedy that would have been available to him in an action for breach of contract if he had been a party to the contract (and the rules relating to damages, injunctions, specific performance and other relief shall apply accordingly). (6)Where a term of a contract excludes or limits liability in relation to any matter references in this Act to the third party enforcing the term shall be construed as references to his availing himself of the exclusion or limitation. (7)In this Act, in relation to a term of a contract which is enforceable by a third party— “the promisor” means the party to the contract against whom the term is enforceable by the third party, and “the promisee” means the party to the contract by whom the term is enforceable against the promisor. [/quote]

Really uk law? Why would you bring that up, it has nothing to do with American companies those laws don't apply. Unless UK stands for something else.