Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

well that's what i said in my post, they don't care about the xbox anymore and are focusing on gamepass, but at this point why did they come out with the new xbox in the first place? just exit the console market and put gamepass on everything...sony would probably put less resistance to GP coming to PS if Microsoft was not a direct competitor anymore

No, they still care about Xbox. Xbox is, by far, the most important platform for Game Pass. I own XSX primarily for Game Pass even though I have a gaming PC. Game Pass isn't nearly as compelling as a service on non-Xbox platforms at this point. That very well may change, but to say Microsoft doesn't care about Xbox doesn't make much sense.

 

[El Pistolero]

https://www.ign.com/articles/microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-game-pass-exclusives



does seem to mostly repeat what was already stated but in a more precise and deliberate way

To me it seems like a big waste for them to not put everything under exclusivity, but seems like they don't care about xbox anymore and they are all about gamepass

A waste? It will start making them tons of money after they have recouped their colossal investment.

 

[Negotiator101]

if cod really does continue to stay multiplat, then it was microsoft who made the shit deal. getting Acti was all about who gets call of duty. if it still comes to PlayStation, whats the point? to have crash bandicoot exclusively?

No it was to get it on Gamepass day 1 and that's what will happen. PS will still get it for how ever much a game costs then. PS owners are happy and GAMEPASS subscribers are happy it's a win win.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

There shouldn't be any regulatory concern related, MS doesn't have a monopoly in gaming, in fact isn't even the marktet leader. In fact, they aren't market leaders in console, PC, mobile, VR or game subscriptions. In fact in many of these rankings they will have multiple companies above them after the acquisition.

Yes, MS will remain a smol indie company after the deal, no need for regulators to look at anything imo.

 

[Kagey K]

Sounds like Hexen and Heretic will probably not be multiplat.

Who cares, as long as we get a new Hexen or Heretic I'll be more than happy.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

If you want the absolute best for Xbox, I fully support them keeping the obvious big guns like Call of Duty multi-plat. Way too much money going back into making Xbox and its first party games operation better to pass up. Overwatch 2. Diablo 4, also multi-plat. Make a shit ton of money, Game Pass what you can day one as quickly as you can or after contracts are up.

Make specific titles like Blizzard's new survival IP potentially exclusive. Strategic exclusives of future Diablo games is something they could do, just not Diablo 4. Either way, what a massive pickup to get all Activision and Blizzard studios along with all the technology, talent and game engines, the multi player experience, the anti-cheat system they have, the incredible animation and mo cap and other talent. Huge pickup.

Make that money and keep as much multi-plat as makes sense.

 

[Kerotan]

There were some fools that said Acti-Blizz would remain entirely multiplat the way Bungie is going to be.

Idk how Sony made such a shit deal and isn't even getting a single exclusive out of it.

They're going to get a return on their investment firstly and secondly it guarantees greedy MS don't ever take Bungie games off their biggest platform. The PlayStation Quintuple.

 

[yurinka]

That's the thing - they continue to support the released games. TESO expansions and FO76 expansions are still coming to Playstation. New games are not coming.

If you still believe that TES or the next FO or new IP from Bethesda is coming to PS then you are up for a rude awakening soon

Anyway, these discussions go nowhere. We should just wait and see.

Microsoft president Brad Smith said on a blog post:
"First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make POPULAR CONTENT LIKE Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users. "(Note: "like" implies it isn't limited to CoD)

"To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty AND OTHER POPULAR ACTIVISION BLIZZARD TITLES available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business."

Then on a TV interview he said:
"One of the things we’re being very clear about as we move forward with the regulatory review of this acquisition is that GREAT TITLES LIKE Call of Duty from Activision Blizzard today, will continue to be available on the Sony PlayStation. We’d like to bring it to Nintendo devices. We’d like to bring THE OTHER POPULAR TITLES ACTIVISION BLIZZARD HAS, and ensure that they continue to be available on PlayStation, [and] that they become available on Nintendo." (Note: notice "like" means it doesn't only apply to CoD)

Regarding specifically Bethesda the Xbox CFO said similar things when mentioned their plans for Bethesda:
"What we'll do in the long run is we don't have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo or otherwise. But what we want is WE WANT THAT CONTENT, IN THE LONG RUN, TO BE EITHER FIRST OR BETTER OR BEST or pick your differentiated experience, on our platforms. We will want Bethesda content to show up the best as -- on our platforms.

Yes. That's not a point about being exclusive. That's not a point about we're being -- adjusting timing or content or road map. But if you think about something like Game Pass, if it shows up best in Game Pass, that's what we want to see, and we want to drive our Game Pass subscriber base through that Bethesda pipeline.

So again, I'm not announcing pulling content from platforms one way or the other. But I suspect you'll continue to see us shift towards a first or better or best approach on our platforms."

Do you really think that the President of Microsoft, the CEO and CFO of their gaming division, plus now in the OP booty lie to their customers, regulators and investors when saying things like these? Like Starfield, they make make a some games console exclusive -at least timed console exclusive- according to their CFO but Bethesda and Activision will continue releasing new games of their popular franchises on PS after the acquisitions, not only DLCs. As Zenimax did with Quake Remastered.

casuals do know about the acquisition, especially because they mostly play cod and nothing else.
also we are still at the start of a new gen of console, not many people already have a new gen console, and having cod exclusively on one side could help them make the decision that much easier...not anymore though.

who the heck is going to jump ship and buy an entire new console just for cod on gamepass when they could just buy a $70 copy on PS4/PS5 and call it a day? thats not very smart. casuals dont even know what gamepass is. they dont even know that microsoft acquired activision. without cod as an exclusive, its a useless deal. the bethesda one makes much more sense because the games will actually be exclusive meaning PS gamers will have no choice but to buy an XBOX to play those games.

Each CoD game sells in PS what, 10M copies? They have around 110M MAU, meaning around 90% of the PS users don't buy CoD games. Even if CoD would go full exclusive many of these less than 10% of PS users woulndn't leave PS and would play instead something else, or wouldn't join Xbox or GP because already have them.

To make CoD console exclusive wouldn't change things much in the console war, it only would make MS to stop earning like a billion of revenue per year. Instead, in the game subs war it would be a great point for them to have CoD day one on GP and to block it from appearing on rival game subs.

 

[Leyasu]

Microsoft president Brad Smith said on a blog post:
"First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make POPULAR CONTENT LIKE Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users. "(Note: "like" implies it isn't limited to CoD)

"To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty AND OTHER POPULAR ACTIVISION BLIZZARD TITLES available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business."

Then on a TV interview he said:
"One of the things we’re being very clear about as we move forward with the regulatory review of this acquisition is that GREAT TITLES LIKE Call of Duty from Activision Blizzard today, will continue to be available on the Sony PlayStation. We’d like to bring it to Nintendo devices. We’d like to bring THE OTHER POPULAR TITLES ACTIVISION BLIZZARD HAS, and ensure that they continue to be available on PlayStation, [and] that they become available on Nintendo." (Note: notice "like" means it doesn't only apply to CoD)

Regarding specifically Bethesda the Xbox CFO said similar things when mentioned their plans for Bethesda:
"What we'll do in the long run is we don't have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo or otherwise. But what we want is WE WANT THAT CONTENT, IN THE LONG RUN, TO BE EITHER FIRST OR BETTER OR BEST or pick your differentiated experience, on our platforms. We will want Bethesda content to show up the best as -- on our platforms.

Yes. That's not a point about being exclusive. That's not a point about we're being -- adjusting timing or content or road map. But if you think about something like Game Pass, if it shows up best in Game Pass, that's what we want to see, and we want to drive our Game Pass subscriber base through that Bethesda pipeline.

So again, I'm not announcing pulling content from platforms one way or the other. But I suspect you'll continue to see us shift towards a first or better or best approach on our platforms."

Do you really think that the President of Microsoft, the CEO and CFO of their gaming division, plus now in the OP booty lie to their customers, regulators and investors when saying things like these? Like Starfield, they make make a some games console exclusive -at least timed console exclusive- according to their CFO but Bethesda and Activision will continue releasing new games of their popular franchises on PS after the acquisitions, not only DLCs. As Zenimax did with Quake Remastered.

So what games are stating multi platform then?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

30% of every sale on Playstation coming back to MS to help build out Gamepass.

70%. Not 30%.

30% is for Sony. 70% goes to IP owner.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Microsoft president Brad Smith said on a blog post:
"First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make POPULAR CONTENT LIKE Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users. "(Note: "like" implies it isn't limited to CoD)

"To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty AND OTHER POPULAR ACTIVISION BLIZZARD TITLES available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business."

Then on a TV interview he said:
"One of the things we’re being very clear about as we move forward with the regulatory review of this acquisition is that GREAT TITLES LIKE Call of Duty from Activision Blizzard today, will continue to be available on the Sony PlayStation. We’d like to bring it to Nintendo devices. We’d like to bring THE OTHER POPULAR TITLES ACTIVISION BLIZZARD HAS, and ensure that they continue to be available on PlayStation, [and] that they become available on Nintendo." (Note: notice "like" means it doesn't only apply to CoD)

Regarding specifically Bethesda the Xbox CFO said similar things when mentioned their plans for Bethesda:
"What we'll do in the long run is we don't have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo or otherwise. But what we want is WE WANT THAT CONTENT, IN THE LONG RUN, TO BE EITHER FIRST OR BETTER OR BEST or pick your differentiated experience, on our platforms. We will want Bethesda content to show up the best as -- on our platforms.

Yes. That's not a point about being exclusive. That's not a point about we're being -- adjusting timing or content or road map. But if you think about something like Game Pass, if it shows up best in Game Pass, that's what we want to see, and we want to drive our Game Pass subscriber base through that Bethesda pipeline.

So again, I'm not announcing pulling content from platforms one way or the other. But I suspect you'll continue to see us shift towards a first or better or best approach on our platforms."

Do you really think that the President of Microsoft, the CEO and CFO of their gaming division, plus now in the OP booty lie to their customers, regulators and investors when saying things like these? Like Starfield, they make make a some games console exclusive -at least timed console exclusive- according to their CFO but Bethesda and Activision will continue releasing new games of their popular franchises on PS after the acquisitions, not only DLCs. As Zenimax did with Quake Remastered.

I don't umderstand why you are conflating "available" with "continue to release".

Anyway, their words are no different from what they said with Bethesda. That pretty much is clear.

Just wait and see.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Microsoft president Brad Smith said on a blog post:
"First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make POPULAR CONTENT LIKE Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users. "(Note: "like" implies it isn't limited to CoD)

"To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty AND OTHER POPULAR ACTIVISION BLIZZARD TITLES available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business."

Then on a TV interview he said:
"One of the things we’re being very clear about as we move forward with the regulatory review of this acquisition is that GREAT TITLES LIKE Call of Duty from Activision Blizzard today, will continue to be available on the Sony PlayStation. We’d like to bring it to Nintendo devices. We’d like to bring THE OTHER POPULAR TITLES ACTIVISION BLIZZARD HAS, and ensure that they continue to be available on PlayStation, [and] that they become available on Nintendo." (Note: notice "like" means it doesn't only apply to CoD)

Regarding specifically Bethesda the Xbox CFO said similar things when mentioned their plans for Bethesda:
"What we'll do in the long run is we don't have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo or otherwise. But what we want is WE WANT THAT CONTENT, IN THE LONG RUN, TO BE EITHER FIRST OR BETTER OR BEST or pick your differentiated experience, on our platforms. We will want Bethesda content to show up the best as -- on our platforms.

Yes. That's not a point about being exclusive. That's not a point about we're being -- adjusting timing or content or road map. But if you think about something like Game Pass, if it shows up best in Game Pass, that's what we want to see, and we want to drive our Game Pass subscriber base through that Bethesda pipeline.

So again, I'm not announcing pulling content from platforms one way or the other. But I suspect you'll continue to see us shift towards a first or better or best approach on our platforms."

Do you really think that the President of Microsoft, the CEO and CFO of their gaming division, plus now in the OP booty lie to their customers, regulators and investors when saying things like these? Like Starfield, they make make a some games console exclusive -at least timed console exclusive- according to their CFO but Bethesda and Activision will continue releasing new games of their popular franchises on PS after the acquisitions, not only DLCs. As Zenimax did with Quake Remastered.

Elder Scrolls 6, Wolfenstein, a new Fallout when it comes eventually (remasters could be multi-plat), will almost certainly not be headed to Playstation.

MMOs will. Major new single player games, even from very popular previously multi-platform franchises, will no longer be going to Playstation consoles from Bethesda.

 

[AJUMP23]

70%. Not 30%.

30% is for Sony. 70% goes to IP owner.

I was giving 30%, and 30% to the developer. the other 40% split between platform holder and stuff.

 

[yurinka]

So what games are stating multi platform then?

In these quotes they say there "Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles" (so at least other popular AB franchises in addition to CoD) and that they "don't have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo... we want that content, in the long run, to be either first or better or best..." (so "first" means he's also including future titles and implies that at least some Bethesda exclusive will be timed console exclusives, and "pulling Bethesda content" pretty likely means IPs already released on rival consoles but may not be limited to them).

I assume their plan is:

• When not (temporally) blocked by Sony, release all Zenimax and AB games on GP asap, if possible day one and to block it from appearing on rival game subs
• To keep all -or at least most- existing bigger Zenimax and AB IPs multiplatform even if there may be some timed console exclusivity
• Most of their Xbox console exclusives (at least some would be timed) from AB or Bethesda would be new IPs (Deathloop and Ghostwire wouldn't count because signed with Sony before the acquisition)
• Prioritize getting revenue from anywhere over Xbox console exclusivity, and prioritize GP over Xbox
• They want to continue milking fans of popular IPs where they are, don't want to force them move to other place and piss off them as they did with Tomb Raider. Instead want new IPs being attached to the Xbox brand since their start to avoid the image that they took popular multiplatform IPs and 'took them hostage' locking them to a single console

 

[Majukun]

Each CoD game sells in PS what, 10M copies? They have around 110M MAU, meaning around 90% of the PS users don't buy CoD games. Even if CoD would go full exclusive many of these less than 10% of PS users woulndn't leave PS and would play instead something else, or wouldn't join Xbox or GP because already have them.

To make CoD console exclusive wouldn't change things much in the console war, it only would make MS to stop earning like a billion of revenue per year. Instead, in the game subs war it would be a great point for them to have CoD day one on GP and to block it from appearing on rival game subs.

AB doesn't only have cod, and 10 mln users jumping ship for one franchise it's not a small number...by that logic why have exclusives at all since apparently it's only worth it with a 50% attach rate and users will just find "something else" to play anyway.

the usual user is less attached to a console than you think, usually they would just look at the games available and where their friends play, will not stick to a console by principle.

A waste? It will start making them tons of money after they have recouped their colossal investment.

the "tons of money" it's in the best case scenario around 7 bln a year, which is what AB was making ....it will take a while to "recoup" just by pure profit

you don'do this kind of purchase for direct profit usually, but to gain something else..in this case it's gamepass dominance, but even in that case MS could have been much more aggressive with exclusivity

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

To me it seems like a big waste for them to not put everything under exclusivity, but seems like they don't care about xbox anymore and they are all about gamepass

I don't think you understand the real-world implications of them doing what you suggest. That's precisely the reason they've been so careful with how they message their handling of this acquisition; if they did as you suggest, they'd immediately be hit up with an antitrust investigation by the US government.

It's one thing to have a monopoly (or demonstrate the ability to create one) through providing genuine competition in your market with a product the customer base consider superior over other options, so overwhelmingly that they support yours at much higher rates than other offerings. It's ANOTHER thing to have a monopoly (or demonstrate the ability to create one) through simply buying up tons of assets, IPs, resources, and manpower through massive acquisitions that can be used to then push your own proprietary ecosystem products (be they hardware or software) in a competitive market against other companies.

One of those, the first one, departments like the FTC and DOJ don't actually have a problem with. That's why they never investigated Sony when the PS1 and PS2 especially had such massive market share over competing systems. The second one, though, is something they actively try preventing from happening, and if they can't prevent it, they deal with it afterwards. That's why Nintendo got hit with a guilty verdict in 1991 for antitrust violations, and it's why Microsoft was under investigations and taken to court for similar in 2000 given what they did to companies like Netscape and the creator of the ZIP compression software.

The difference in approach should be plainly visible; suggesting MS just make all ABK games exclusive after the purchase would immediately get the entire deal shut down. Microsoft could sue, but they'd lose, and then they'd be left paying $3 billion to ABK, and have wasted tons of money and time in proceedings beforehand. It would also be the absolute worst message Microsoft could send to future would-be acquisitions if they did what you suggest, because it would effectively lock them out of getting ANY Japanese publisher (for the most part, Japanese games sell much worst on Xbox than they do PlayStation and Nintendo systems), and even most Western publishers. Individual studios like Asobo would also want to avoid getting acquired by MS in the future, since such a move with ABK would make MS look greedy to the rest of the industry.

And if you don't think what I'm saying is true, just consider that when MS announced the acquisition, Sony lost $20 billion in market value. If they announced all ABK games would be exclusive, that could bankrupt Sony, and scare off any other companies from jumping into the market. However, that wouldn't be through providing genuine competition in the open market. Instead it'd just come from them throwing around a lot of money and buying up large portions of the gaming industry...which isn't in line with the idea of fair competition in the open market.

 

[yurinka]

AB doesn't only have cod, and 10 mln users jumping ship for one franchise it's not a small number...by that logic why have exclusives at all since apparently it's only worth it with a 50% attach rate and users will just find "something else" to play anyway.

the usual user is less attached to a console than you think, usually they would just look at the games available and where their friends play, will not stick to a console by principle.

I didn't say AB only has CoD. In fact noticed I highlighted in the quotes the references to their other popular IPs.

Regarding these ~10M:
-As I remember there were an average of like 14 PS4 games sold per PS4 console, meaning they play something else in PS other than CoD. And the engagement in PS5 seems it's higher than in PS4 so in the long run on average there will be more PS5 games sold per PS5 console

• A ton of them already have Xbox or PC. So these may play CoD elsewhere (or not) but would continue playing on PS because they play on multiple devices
• Sony has at least 2 exclusives in the works that would be release before CoD could go exclusive and being made one by key people from CoD and other from key people from Halo and Destiny. So -who knows- they would also help keep some of them on PS
• Recently they have been blocked by the chip shortage that seems they'll start solving in the new few months, but Sony userbase was growing so very likely will continue growing after they get rid of the chps shortage. Meaning that in a few years they would replace the ones that -out of that less than 10% of their userbase- would leave in case CoD would go full exclusive somewhere in the future. I mean, they could leave what, up to 5M? They could replace them with new users in maximum 2 or 3 years.

So to make CoD Xbox console exclusive in the future wouldn't affect PlayStation. And all other AB and Bethesda IPs are way smaller than CoD, so would affect even less. Meaning that to make ABK and Zenimax big IPs Xbox console exclusive wouldn't help MS in their console wars, it only would make MS earn less potential revenue. So it makes sense for them to continue releasing stuff on PS.

Instead for game subscriptions wars it would really help them to have all the AB and Zenimax catalog only on GP and to block them from appearing on rival game subs.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

There were some fools that said Acti-Blizz would remain entirely multiplat the way Bungie is going to be.

Idk how Sony made such a shit deal and isn't even getting a single exclusive out of it.

It's one studio vs a publisher...if xbox bough just treyarch they'd probably keep it multiplatform...but they got toys for bob too.

 

[Lognor]

The big thing that will come out of cod is xbox will be THE place to play it, much as ps was since the ps4 days. Beta first on Xbox, demo first on Xbox, dlc first on Xbox, and of course included on game pass. Even with cod remaining multi platform it's still a huge win for ms. Xbox used to be the place to play cod before Activision made the deal with Sony since the ps4 days.

 

[Lognor]

I really like Matt Booty. Seems like a good guy. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

"If anything, we feel that it's our job to be caretakers, to be shepherds, to continue to build and nurture that community, not to cut it up into pieces and try to take some of it away."

To me this plainly says that current franchises will remain on the exact same platforms as they exist now. The article speculates that future exclusive titles would more than likely be from "brand new titles".

Not sure how many different ways Microsoft has to keep saying this stuff for it to sink in.

Does this mean, in your opinion, that the next elder scrolls game will be on ps? Or does this only apply to the Activision deal?

 

[Lognor]

if cod really does continue to stay multiplat, then it was microsoft who made the shit deal. getting Acti was all about who gets call of duty. if it still comes to PlayStation, whats the point? to have crash bandicoot exclusively?

Did you not just see the news that the next cod beta will be exclusively on ps? That shit right there will stop with this acquisition. Xbox will become THE place to play cod and that alone makes this a great deal for ms.

 

[Leyasu]

In these quotes they say there "Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles" (so at least other popular AB franchises in addition to CoD) and that they "don't have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo... we want that content, in the long run, to be either first or better or best..." (so "first" means he's also including future titles and implies that at least some Bethesda exclusive will be timed console exclusives, and "pulling Bethesda content" pretty likely means IPs already released on rival consoles but may not be limited to them).

I assume their plan is:

• When not (temporally) blocked by Sony, release all Zenimax and AB games on GP asap, if possible day one and to block it from appearing on rival game subs
• To keep all -or at least most- existing bigger Zenimax and AB IPs multiplatform even if there may be some timed console exclusivity
• Most of their Xbox console exclusives (at least some would be timed) from AB or Bethesda would be new IPs (Deathloop and Ghostwire wouldn't count because signed with Sony before the acquisition)
• Prioritize getting revenue from anywhere over Xbox console exclusivity, and prioritize GP over Xbox
• They want to continue milking fans of popular IPs where they are, don't want to force them move to other place and piss off them as they did with Tomb Raider. Instead want new IPs being attached to the Xbox brand since their start to avoid the image that they took popular multiplatform IPs and 'took them hostage' locking them to a single console

Yeah I can agree with a lot of this.

Personally, for the franchises that do stay multi, it will be interesting to see what they do once the next xbox comes out and things are reset.

Apart from COD, I can't see much else staying multi in a few years or after the games that are in development now have launced. Diablo, Overwatch etc

 

[rodrigolfp]

To me it seems like a big waste for them to not put everything under exclusivity, but seems like they don't care about xbox anymore and they are all about gamepass

They already said pc is also getting everything. Exclusives never more until second order.

"- Some undefined games will be hand-picked for exclusivity"
Oh. Poor games not having glorious definitive pc versions.

 

[Kagey K]

Did you not just see the news that the next cod beta will be exclusively on ps*? That shit right there will stop with this acquisition. Xbox will become THE place to play cod and that alone makes this a great deal for ms.

*for 5 days.

 

[Topher]

Does this mean, in your opinion, that the next elder scrolls game will be on ps? Or does this only apply to the Activision deal?

Just Activision. Phil Spencer was pretty clear that they acquired Bethesda for Game Pass and Xbox. Their approach here is completely different.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Yes, MS will remain a smol indie company after the deal, no need for regulators to look at anything imo.

I totally agree with you. Absolutely nothing to see. Microsoft is but a small underdog, upstart competing against giants in an industry. One misstep and Microsoft and Xbox could be crushed by their powerful, wealthy competitors.

 

[assurdum]

I'm not want to be cynical but some gamers should have cared more about Activision and Bethesda games fate, before the MS acquisition not now. I bet whatever they want if their games would have sold with a safe margin of revenues or whatever, they would never beeen interested to the MS money, Rockstar seems a clear example. Hope for multiplat at every vague PR statement, now seems useless and deleterious. Time to go on and accept it.

 

[reksveks]

but seems like they don't care about xbox anymore and they are all about gamepass

It's not the gamepass subscription fee that they are after, it's the store transactions.

Keep having to repeat this.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Dont care if games go on PS, Nintendo, PC etc....

My main concern being the cheap ass I am, I want COD and Diablo on Game Pass! Dont care about Tony Hawk or Crash Cart etc...

 

[IntentionalPun]

They won't pull released games or stop supporting them with updates/DLC.

That's all they've really promised at this point.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

It's interesting that he mentioned "Games with established communities" and not "Franchises/IP with established communities". This leaves open the possibility that future COD titles may be Xbox/PC exclusive as each one is its own contained game experience.

 

[Lognor]

*for 5 days.

This is just one of the many perks ps owners have gotten with cod over the years. The ends once the current contract is over. Plenty of ppl went with ps over xbox because of these perks alone. It's a win for ms

 

[Mr Moose]

The big thing that will come out of cod is xbox will be THE place to play it, much as ps was since the ps4 days. Beta first on Xbox, demo first on Xbox, dlc first on Xbox, and of course included on game pass. Even with cod remaining multi platform it's still a huge win for ms. Xbox used to be the place to play cod before Activision made the deal with Sony since the ps4 days.

You don't play CoD, do you?
dlc first on Xbox - This hasn't been a thing for the last few games.

 

[00Magnum Gaming]

if cod really does continue to stay multiplat, then it was microsoft who made the shit deal. getting Acti was all about who gets call of duty. if it still comes to PlayStation, whats the point? to have crash bandicoot exclusively?

Shit deal . MS just added a guaranteed $8.8 billion in REVENUE yearly to their gaming division. Thats not counting the boost in GP numbers when CoD, Overwatch, Diablo, WoW, etc get dropped exclusively on the service. You my friend should stop talking .

 

[Lognor]

You don't play CoD, do you?
dlc first on Xbox - This hasn't been a thing for the last few games.

No, I don't actually. I stopped playing after the ps3 games. I did play on ps3 though lol

So dlc doesn't come first to ps anymore? I didn't know that. But as you can see, Sony is still getting perks like betas first. That ends soon.

 

[Mr Moose]

No, I don't actually. I stopped playing after the ps3 games. I did play on ps3 though lol

So dlc doesn't come first to ps anymore? I didn't know that. But as you can see, Sony is still getting perks like betas first. That ends soon.

Hasn't had timed DLC since 2019 if I remember correctly.
It ends when they stop making deals, not soon, not for at least another year or two.

 

[Lognor]

Hasn't had timed DLC since 2019 if I remember correctly.
It ends when they stop making deals, not soon, not for at least another year or two.

Yeah I know. That is soon though, whenever that contract ends. And 2019 was only a few years ago. So they were still doing it for most of last gen. No more!!

Hopefully ms doesn't pull that same crap but they'll likely do what they need to in order to get cod players back to xbox. Early access to beta or game pass alone might do it.

 

[Tarkus98]

While I understand that Starfield isn’t a new IP and is therefore not subject to the existing IP statement. They would make a killing releasing it on Playstation/Switch. Talk about leaving money on the table-shit.

 

[Badlucktroll]

Come on Silent Hill!!

 

[00Magnum Gaming]

Yeah I know. That is soon though, whenever that contract ends. And 2019 was only a few years ago. So they were still doing it for most of last gen. No more!!

Hopefully ms doesn't pull that same crap but they'll likely do what they need to in order to get cod players back to xbox. Early access to beta or game pass alone might do it.

Youd be stupid not to tie betas and perks to GP from MS perspective.

 

[Swift_Star]

They can say whatever they want BEFORE the acquisition goes through. I won't pay attention.

It's what they say AFTER the acquisition goes through is what counts.

COD remaining on PS? Sure. Is that Warzone only? Is that just until existing commitments expire (2025, I think)? Is that no change? Let's see AFTER it's approved.

If things
change they’ll get scrutiny

I don't think you understand the real-world implications of them doing what you suggest. That's precisely the reason they've been so careful with how they message their handling of this acquisition; if they did as you suggest, they'd immediately be hit up with an antitrust investigation by the US government.

It's one thing to have a monopoly (or demonstrate the ability to create one) through providing genuine competition in your market with a product the customer base consider superior over other options, so overwhelmingly that they support yours at much higher rates than other offerings. It's ANOTHER thing to have a monopoly (or demonstrate the ability to create one) through simply buying up tons of assets, IPs, resources, and manpower through massive acquisitions that can be used to then push your own proprietary ecosystem products (be they hardware or software) in a competitive market against other companies.

One of those, the first one, departments like the FTC and DOJ don't actually have a problem with. That's why they never investigated Sony when the PS1 and PS2 especially had such massive market share over competing systems. The second one, though, is something they actively try preventing from happening, and if they can't prevent it, they deal with it afterwards. That's why Nintendo got hit with a guilty verdict in 1991 for antitrust violations, and it's why Microsoft was under investigations and taken to court for similar in 2000 given what they did to companies like Netscape and the creator of the ZIP compression software.

The difference in approach should be plainly visible; suggesting MS just make all ABK games exclusive after the purchase would immediately get the entire deal shut down. Microsoft could sue, but they'd lose, and then they'd be left paying $3 billion to ABK, and have wasted tons of money and time in proceedings beforehand. It would also be the absolute worst message Microsoft could send to future would-be acquisitions if they did what you suggest, because it would effectively lock them out of getting ANY Japanese publisher (for the most part, Japanese games sell much worst on Xbox than they do PlayStation and Nintendo systems), and even most Western publishers. Individual studios like Asobo would also want to avoid getting acquired by MS in the future, since such a move with ABK would make MS look greedy to the rest of the industry.

And if you don't think what I'm saying is true, just consider that when MS announced the acquisition, Sony lost $20 billion in market value. If they announced all ABK games would be exclusive, that could bankrupt Sony, and scare off any other companies from jumping into the market. However, that wouldn't be through providing genuine competition in the open market. Instead it'd just come from them throwing around a lot of money and buying up large portions of the gaming industry...which isn't in line with the idea of fair competition in the open market.

very well said!

 

[IntentionalPun]

If things
change they’ll get scrutiny

Literally all the words they've said actually mean/promise is to keep existing games on other platforms and keep supporting them.

That's really it. I agree with you that they are under scrutiny, but if you read between the lines, they are barely promising anything.

 

[Swift_Star]

Literally all the words they've said actually mean/promise is to keep existing games on other platforms and keep supporting them.

That's really it. I agree with you that they are under scrutiny, but if you read between the lines, they are barely promising anything.

Read thicc_girls_are_teh_best 's post. It detailed quite well as why that's not the case.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Youd be stupid not to tie betas and perks to GP from MS perspective.

Yeah if anything COD/GamePass-related I expect MS to put the older campaigns there and tie Season Passes included in GamePass Ultimate subscriptions. Maybe even have some exclusive weapons and skins, or MP maps for Xbox and PC versions.

I'm still not actually expecting new CODs to release Day 1 into GamePass, though. Too much money left on the table. They might do a 3-month gap between releasing it for purchase and then bring the new campaigns (and any new MP with them) to GamePass. Guessing, anyway.

It's interesting that he mentioned "Games with established communities" and not "Franchises/IP with established communities". This leaves open the possibility that future COD titles may be Xbox/PC exclusive as each one is its own contained game experience.

That's a good point, and they could certainly do that. I guess it depends on one very big factor that will be proven sooner rather than later (once PS loses marketing rights to COD): was it COD that benefited the PlayStation brand, or was the PlayStation brand the main reason for COD's growth this past generation?

If the former, then I can see MS eventually making the annual (bi-annual?) CODs Xbox/PC exclusive. If the latter, they won't have a choice but to keep them multiplatform i.e on PlayStation (and probably extending that to Nintendo as well). I think there are some good arguments that could be made on both sides of that question, yurinka for example seems to probably be the sort to believe it's PS that's been the big reason for COD's growth, and they've made a lot of arguments on that note.

I haven't seen many people make an argument for COD being its own big factor (as in, it doesn't need PS in order to sustain its current level of popularity or gain popularity), I'd be interested to see someone do so in detail.

 

[John Wick]

There were some fools that said Acti-Blizz would remain entirely multiplat the way Bungie is going to be.

Idk how Sony made such a shit deal and isn't even getting a single exclusive out of it.

Why have you been Back to the Future?
Who's to say Bungie won't make an exclusive game for PS?
They may release the majority of their content on multiplatforms but that doesn't mean an exclusive here and there won't happen.

 

[T0minator]

Seems any franchise that could have microtransactions will stay multiplatform...anything else won't be

 

[JerryinSoCal]

Those of you who want everything made exclusive would be terrible at business, it's one thing to make your own games and have them blow up and bring people to your platform or to buy smaller titles and try to grow them but to buy something that's an established multi-platform multiplayer game and take it away from other companies would just end up losing customers. The best selling COD sold 14 million copies on PS4 alone, do you think you'd get all 14 million or even half of them to go buy an xbox just for COD? nope it wouldn't happen. They will also have a chance at making real money from an audience who's willing to pay full price vs one you are conditioning to pay a small monthly fee and think everything should come along with it. MS is spending enough on AB that it would make NO sense to make those games exclusive, they'd never make the money back.

 

[Barakov]

More AB games? Kewl.

 

[Stuart360]

I actually think COD will stay on Playstation long term. Simply because the extra Xbox sales and possible Gamepass subs gained by taking COD off Playstation, would probably be drawfed by the money COD makes on playstation through sales and obviously MTX.
I think Microsoft are probably hoping more for Playstation owners to buy an Xbox to go along with their PS5, and sub to Gamepass. That route would probably make them more money then simply taking the game off Playstation. Both Microsoft and Sony make very little money on actual hardware, even when they are turning a profit.

Not only that but ithink keeping COD on Playstation, while keeping the likes of Starfiield, DOOM4, Elder Scrolls 6 exclusive, that route IMO would certainly tempt a lot of PS owners to buy a Gamepass equipped Xbox as a second console.
COD, as popular as it is, its still only one game series, and somehting that many people may just be like 'well it sucks its not on PS anymore but fuck it, its one game'. While having the likes of Starfield, Elder Scrolls, Doom ,Wolfenstein, etc, exclusive, well IMO thats a much bigger hook to PS owners than simply COD. It would be to me anyway.

These companies usually think these things out well in advance, years often, and i dont think its a coincidence that this gen they have the XSS, a cheap possible second console ready to be a Gamepass machine.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

I didn't say AB only has CoD. In fact noticed I highlighted in the quotes the references to their other popular IPs.

Regarding these ~10M:
-As I remember there were an average of like 14 PS4 games sold per PS4 console, meaning they play something else in PS other than CoD. And the engagement in PS5 seems it's higher than in PS4 so in the long run on average there will be more PS5 games sold per PS5 console

• A ton of them already have Xbox or PC. So these may play CoD elsewhere (or not) but would continue playing on PS because they play on multiple devices
• Sony has at least 2 exclusives in the works that would be release before CoD could go exclusive and being made one by key people from CoD and other from key people from Halo and Destiny. So -who knows- they would also help keep some of them on PS
• Recently they have been blocked by the chip shortage that seems they'll start solving in the new few months, but Sony userbase was growing so very likely will continue growing after they get rid of the chps shortage. Meaning that in a few years they would replace the ones that -out of that less than 10% of their userbase- would leave in case CoD would go full exclusive somewhere in the future. I mean, they could leave what, up to 5M? They could replace them with new users in maximum 2 or 3 years.

So to make CoD Xbox console exclusive in the future wouldn't affect PlayStation. And all other AB and Bethesda IPs are way smaller than CoD, so would affect even less. Meaning that to make ABK and Zenimax big IPs Xbox console exclusive wouldn't help MS in their console wars, it only would make MS earn less potential revenue. So it makes sense for them to continue releasing stuff on PS.

Instead for game subscriptions wars it would really help them to have all the AB and Zenimax catalog only on GP and to block them from appearing on rival game subs.

So get an Xbox then.