DaGwaphics
Member
I'd let games get released before celebrating availability on any particular platform. But I kind of figured CoD and the biggest projects would stay multi-plat with this deal. We will see how it turns out.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft: Call of Duty and other popular AB games will continue to be released on PlayStation and Nintendo platforms beyond current agreements
- Thread starter HeisenbergFX4
- Start date
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Been saying this is probably a part of it; tailored GP app on PlayStation & Nintendo systems with just the 1P games, likely cloud-streaming versions in cases of new games with native Xbox/PC-only versions. In Sony's case, they might do something similar with a custom Spartacus (or whatever it's eventually called) app on Xbox for Sony 1P content...though I still think Sony aren't going to do Day-and-Date with 1P releases in Spartacus that aren't GaaS, unless they do per-game contractual subscriptions (which could work).
But it's all speculation for now, hopefully we'll see soon what's really happening there.
This is about getting a foothold into the mobile app store market place. I fully expect an xbox app on ios where you can buy xgs app aka King app and they don't have to give Apple 1bn in revenue a year
JerryinSoCal
Member
I don't buy COD I stopped a long time ago so this really meant nothing to me either way, that being said people who wanted this to go exclusive are console warriors and would likely fail at business lol. You don't spend that kind of money and then cut off over half of your potential revenue I don't care if you are Microsoft or Sony it just makes no sense. Cutting off Bethesda games sounds worse than it is, their top tier games only release like once every 5-7 years and frankly I'm not convinced that ES6 will even launch before this generation of consoles is about to end and by then it'll be too late to make a difference one way or the other, Starfield is still an unknown and to be quite honest Skyrim was the last good game Bethesda's main studio has made.
This is a good (and smart) move by Microsoft though, let PlayStation and possibly Nintendo players help subsidize game pass players. Once this acquisition is completed they'll have grown Microsoft's employee count by over 10%, that's a lot of new paychecks to be giving out and benefits to pay for.
Punished Miku
Member
I wouldn't count on it.
KingGhidorah
Banned
to support Nintendo's platform!?!?!?...Switch been around for 5 years, and you guys are nowhere to be seen there. Now it's a 100 million platform, suddenly you want to support Switch?!?!? .....yeah GTFO
Last edited:
Kind of being unfair to MS there. They haven't even closed on the deal, so there's no blame on their part for COD not being on Switch.
lastmessiah
Member
What are you talking about?
Cyberpunkd
Member
Sakura
Member
Microsoft is trying to make Gamepass a thing because they think they can make more money off you that way.
If you aren't spending more money on Gamepass each year than you would buying games, then the system doesn't make sense.
They aren't pushing the service because it is "good for the consumer", but because they want to increase revenue.
It's the same reason why Sony charges 70 dollars for games, and why they are looking at other strategies (GaaS). If you can't increase your install base any more, the only way to make more money than previous generations is to increase the amount of money the individual players are spending.
Once Microsoft starts to hit a wall growing Gamepass subscriptions, expect the service to get more expensive and/or less worth the money.
Plantoid
Member
Where do they say new releases or new games? They say beyond existing agreements, EXISTING, for games that exist, not new games
Its just like the continued support for elder scrolls online with dlcs and expansions, BEYOND the contract bethesda had with them
But NEW games, don't get your hopes up
COD (warzone) and some AB titles (overwatch) and maybe diablo 4?
Its just like the continued support for elder scrolls online with dlcs and expansions, BEYOND the contract bethesda had with them
But NEW games, don't get your hopes up
COD (warzone) and some AB titles (overwatch) and maybe diablo 4?
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
As in they will continue to support and release future warzone updates and iterations. Yes that makes sense if you think this means the next mainline cod single player game you’re definitely mistaken. All of the live service games as I said will continue because of the nature of those games.
Gamepass is not making money by jure, by de facto, it might be paying off, How? Unlike other subscription services like movies and music who only offer higher tiers, you can buy the titles and the DLCs that aren't included, and according to the numbers guys (Zhuge, Matt and Benji) that seems to be the case as they didn't see negative impact on sales.
Last edited:
KingGhidorah
Banned
not buying MS or AB words, none......
this is to bait Nintendo to share their first class IPs on PC or game pass....Sony is stupid to share their IPs on PC
SuperSaiyanWithDreads
Banned
Yeah they just saying this so the deal will go through. I got both so it don’t effect me, but if i only had a Playstation i would not believe this shit
It's not just that there's major revenue publishing everywhere, there's also risk that if you make those franchises exclusive, you drain the IP. Only on Xbox is a selling point for the console but not for the games, and as popular as they are, they probably don't have the gravity to attract more hardware sales.
dotnotbot
Member
I mean, let's just wait and see.
Thirty7ven
Banned
So what you're saying is that when MS says they will continue to make "Call of Duty title" available on Playstation, they are answering to a question nobody ever made which is "Will you remove past Call of Duty entries from the playstation store and shut down all of the servers?"
LeftThumbstick
Member
Oh right, i get you now, to make an irrelevant point?
Well, two can play at that game.
Given that the majority of buyers are on the PS, it seems like the 3 million-ish sales of MLB on Xbox are literal peanuts in comparison. Goold ol' Phil Spencer. "If you can't beat em, make them buy from you".
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yes. "continue to have those games available". That's the read I get from this.
And this is a part of their new ad campaign to make sure their acquisition goes through:
Microsoft appeals to regulators with new app policies so they don't kill its $69 billion Activision deal
New commitments could help Microsoft look like less of a target in Washington after the company revealed its plan to buy game publisher Activision Blizzard.
www.cnbc.com
Punished Miku
Member
Modern MS has always done this. Their first modern acquisition was Minecraft.
Any IP on the level of Minecraft, in terms of having it's own culture and high player engagement over years and years, will be treated like this potentially. Call of Duty fits this mold.
Since the Minecraft purchase, Xbox has lots of games that remain exclusive. They keep the ones multiplat that have a community they don't want to damage. I don't think Starfield fits that at all. Blizzard titles that may make sense for multiplat are Warcraft, WOW, Starcraft, Diablo, Overwatch. But honestly Diablo and Starcraft could be exclusives. They're kind of borderline cases really.
Plantoid
Member
Why not? We will get the games for free on GP and now the deal has even more chance to go throughEh i don’t trust anything MS says tbh.
One thing is for sure tho, Xbox fanboys are not having a good day with this news
Enjoy paying 70$
Zeroing
Banned
Sorry but I don’t believe him! But if true it’s a sad day for the warriors who can’t use COD on their never ending war…
Him! Having a sad day! Definitely!
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Sony moneyhatts TIME exclusives, MS goes and buy the publisher _ not the exclusivity of the game, or the dev team and the IP _ the ALL FRICKING PUBLISHER! and you saying MS is the poor guy in the story
Buying Zenimax and Activision Blizzard is not the same kind of monopoly as buying TIMED exclusives.
Don't really want to get into a discussion outside the scope of the topic, but both moves essentially have the same effect. Timed exclusives push engagement for fanbases to move towards the platform benefiting from the timed exclusive, increasing sales for that platform and future ecosystem spending by customers now buying that console for the timed exclusive...all at the detriment of the platform(s) going without that game which in most cases would've released there with time parity if the limited exclusivity was not pursued by the other platform holder.
Get into the habit of doing enough timed exclusivity deals and entire fanbases for certain game IP and genres will gradually leave the platform that either gets those games way later or not at all (if timed exclusivity is continuously extended). That's still another platform and its ecosystem being deprived of games and gamers due to another platform holder's money. It's effectively the same as buying a publisher outright; the technicalities mean nothing.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Lol, what exactly is new?
Most people thought COD would stay multiplat and apart from COD there arnt many other games that acti-blizz make on console.
Cod + acti-blizz back catalogue being on gamepass is the real play.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Makes perfect sense, as otherwise would’ve been a death sentence to the PS platform’s bottom line
Thanks to FTC & Joe Biden
Not really, history tells us franchises that were the biggest selling the previous gen very rarely carry that success over to the next. The decline is already well underway with the latest COD doing significantly less sales than the previous, which was already down from the one before that. So I never saw COD as such a lucrative franchise as it once was for this PS5/XbS era.
Zeroing
Banned
Another one!!!
Thirty7ven
Banned
Yes. "continue to have those games available". That's the read I get from this.
And this is a part of their new ad campaign to make sure their acquisition goes through:
Microsoft appeals to regulators with new app policies so they don't kill its $69 billion Activision deal
New commitments could help Microsoft look like less of a target in Washington after the company revealed its plan to buy game publisher Activision Blizzard.
But they aren't saying anything about specific entries, they are talking about Call of Duty the franchise. There's no precedent for MS removing previous entries of other platforms, so you think they are answering a question nobody made because they want to fool regulators even though there's no precedence. It reads more like denial from your part, but ok.
What looks like it's actually going on is that MS doesn't see the purpose in imploding the biggest franchise of AB, just like they didn't do that with Minecraft.
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
LmAo there’s no way some of you can be serious what words those are the most vague words ever. We will continue supporting things we are currently under contract to support and will not take them away even after the contract is up so they can continue playing it. That’s all that saids. Doesn’t say anything else
akaFullmetal
Member
There we go, people were crazy thinking they would shut out a huge money maker platform due to fanboy reasons. Money always comes first, not some console warrior shit.
ChiefDada
Gold Member
Well, I along with others knew this was going to happen. And I also explained why this is a GOOD THING for future Xbox exclusives.
R3claimer117
Member
Microsoft appeals to regulators with new app policies so they don't kill its $69 billion Activision deal
New commitments could help Microsoft look like less of a target in Washington after the company revealed its plan to buy game publisher Activision Blizzard.
www.cnbc.com
Don't be in denial.
Microsoft is making an open letter to regulators to tell them they're willing to make concessions on their own will so that the deal is approved.
Microsoft appeals to regulators with new app policies so they don't kill its $69 billion Activision deal
New commitments could help Microsoft look like less of a target in Washington after the company revealed its plan to buy game publisher Activision Blizzard.
www.cnbc.com
Without these concessions it's obvious their legal team has determined that they would face a lot of resistance and they won't risk that the deal becomes an other nVidia-ARM situation for a bunch of multiplatform games that are only going to generate more money for them.
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
Going by your logic starfeild would also be on PlayStation because why not.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You're right, they're not saying anything about specific entries new or old.
I read this sentence and it seems pretty clear they're talking about keeping games available on PS and Nintendo beyond existing agreements so people who own them can continue to enjoy them, there's no mention of new projects being developed on those platforms.
I guess we'll have to wait till late 2023 early 2024 to find out how this pans out.
Last edited:
Zok310
Banned
Imagine Xbox not having the next Bungie live service game?
But all fantasy aside I don’t think it’s linked to last week Sony Bungie deal. They want to be more clear and on the record due to them seeking approval from regulators now. Their lawyers sat down and had words with them, we can get approval the easy way or the hard way.
Too bad. I think these games have been in decline for a while and was looking forward toward Sony having pressure to develop an in-house competitor.
How this is isn’t obvious to anyone with a pulse continues to astound me.
How this is isn’t obvious to anyone with a pulse continues to astound me.
Plantoid
Member
You are the one in denialDon't be in denial.
Microsoft is making an open letter to regulators to tell them they're willing to make concessions on their own will so that the deal is approved.
Microsoft appeals to regulators with new app policies so they don't kill its $69 billion Activision deal
New commitments could help Microsoft look like less of a target in Washington after the company revealed its plan to buy game publisher Activision Blizzard.
How can you keep supporting something that doesn't exist yet???
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
Plantoid
Member
It's so clear to me that I'm willing to bet, are you?
AKA the Open App Market Act; that's the regulation they are talking about.