Support NeoGAF

[The_Mike]

I'm only looking for the single player experience. As you pointed out with Titanfall, that isn't the same experience at all.

And I dare to say the reason CoD is selling well is not because of the campaign, but the multiplayer experience.

And for that, there's really no competition there.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I never said anything about which franchise can compete. Read my posts. I merely repeated what the other publishers said.

I also never said that destiny can compete with cod. But I did say that Sony has acquired an FPS powerhouse with Bungie. Which they have.

Okay, so anyone that doesn’t agree with you is presenting a dumbass take. Gotcha

You're making nothing arguments here. Again what's your point to the underlying discussion

 

[Leyasu]

How much of an impact on the industry do you think Xbox not getting Sunset Overdrive 2 has vs PS not getting Call of Duty?

That is not a direct impact on the industry though. That scenario is only impacting Sony, not the wider industry. Unless of course COD is what keeps Sony afloat and it’s loss would equal the demise of PlayStation

 

[Gavon West]

The only thing stopping Xbox was Microsoft's commitment to the division. Not Sony.

I'm not getting into a discussion about Sega, but Sony was one reason out of 10 for that

It was also Sony. Sony, up until a couple of years ago was slaughtering Microsoft with 3rd party deals left and right. Of course Microsoft not investing in the gaming division was a factor. But by all accounts, no money for the gaming division and Sony locking up 3rd party deals should have closed the Xbox gaming division. It's a miracle it didn't.

If you remember, Sony locked up Madden exclusively to playstation, keeping it off of Dreamcast. That was the nail in the coffin. Shortly after, Dreamcast was a dead stick.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That is not a direct impact on the industry though. That scenario is only impacting Sony, not the wider industry. Unless of course COD is what keeps Sony afloat and it’s loss would equal the demise of PlayStation

The console industry is PlayStation and Xbox. An impact on PlayStation is an impact on the wider industry.

 

[Fredrik]

The 15$ become quite a bit less when you consider inflation (worst case the deal could take close to another year to happen), trading fees, taxes and the small but real risk that the acquisition won't go through, which would make the stock tumble down to $60 or so... It's barely worth it imo.

Another year?? I thought the 8K form talked about few days ago meant that the deal was about to close. Aren’t those papers sent in to inform investors a few days before something big happens?

 

[Topher]

Yeah Microsoft loved a moneyhat during the 360 days and then Sony replied in kind once the ps4 took off. So what?

And Microsoft continued to moneyhat ever since just as they continue to moneyhat today. This is a normal and unfortunate part of the business at this point. Highlighting one side doing this stuff doesn't make any sense at all.

And again, who gives a fuck about revenue? I didn’t mention anything about that in my posts before you came running in

Because you said Sony is potentially in the position they won't be able to compete. That just isn't realistic considering their market position.

Sony were doing everything that they thought was needed to make Xbox unable to compete. Now they are potentially in the position that they tried to force Microsoft into.

 

[Leyasu]

You're making nothing arguments here. Again what's your point to the underlying discussion

What are you talking about? I have replied to all of your posts and it should be clear that that blocking the acquisition because it might weaken Sonys position should not considered.

Sony are going to have to deal with it

 

[Sosokrates]

Impact of the industry like I said. it's easy to objectively look at how COD impacts PlayStation. It's not so easy to see where multiple studio aquistions over 10 years leads to.

Yes, so the only difference is that the impact is more concentrated but that does not mean its bigger then buying several studios individualy.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

What are you talking about? I have replied to all of your posts and it should be clear that that blocking the acquisition because it might weaken Sonys position should not considered.

Sony are going to have to deal with it

So again i'll ask you the same question. And don't give me a cop out response like before.

Should Sony just deal with it if Microsoft decided they also wanted to grab Take Two, EA and Ubioft?

 

[Gavon West]

They are already doing it and they still can't do squabbles even when they already have more devs than Sony.

In theory MS already has enough to be competitive without the $70 bi acquisition.

You're saying Microsoft can't do anything with all the devs and publishers theyve purchased so far.

Again, this is easy to say when the games haven't released yet, or aren't close to release. Please believe that will change when these games start dropping, especially on GP day one. This is like the calm before the storm right now. Once XGS starts dropping all these games in development, things will begin to change dramatically. It'll take a little time though.

 

[skit_data]

I’m not so sure its ”irreplaceable”, CoD is not in the same popular culture hype sphere in the same way it used to be. It’s still big though, just like WoW is still big but not what it once was.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Yes, so the only difference is that the impact is more concentrated but that does not mean its bigger then buying several studios individualy.

Sure, those 8 new studios could all become new CODs and weakned Sony even more than COD itself did. But we can't predict the future, so you can only look at what we objectively see today

 

[Leyasu]

And Microsoft continued to moneyhat ever since just as they continue to moneyhat today. This is a normal and unfortunate part of the business at this point. Highlighting one side doing this stuff doesn't make any sense at all.



Because you said Sony is potentially in the position they won't be able to compete. That just isn't realistic considering their market position.

That’s right, they do potentially find themselves in a position that they wanted to put Microsoft into. I should have said that they were competing against Microsoft’s treasury and not gaming revenue. In all honesty I did think that that was clear though.

You are right about highlighting one side over the other. I was more talking about leveraging position in regards to destroying the competitive ability of the other though. Still, my bad for not being clearer.

 

[Leyasu]

So again i'll ask you the same question. And don't give me a cop out response like before.

Should Sony just deal with it if Microsoft decided they also wanted to grab Take Two, EA and Ubioft?

No, they would need to fight I mean by trying to purchase them also. or adapt accordingly. Like Nintendo has done.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No, they would need to fight or adapt accordingly. Like Nintendo has done.

Do you believe in regulation or not? Can't believe i have to spell this out

 

[El Pistolero]

Theres just too much money Sony will lose on this so I don't think Sony really cares about opinions like these.

A third party game like cod is low effort money for Sony as someone else develops the game and Sony just had to money hat it.

Much easier than develop their own game.

I'm really confused by reading posts in here.

Games like gta and cod are shit games and we are all confused over why they sell. Bad games sell good.

On the other hand, games from Sony does sell well - and that's because the games are good. For some reason the rule doesn't apply to Sony.

It's really confusing that some games sell a lot because they are good, and some because they are bad.

It's really biased, and shows which foot people have their camp in.

FPS games, especially single player games, are over saturated, but when it comes to online games it's getting narrowed down alot.

Battlefield 2042 was a mess. And it's more of a arcade sim than a twitch shooter like cod. Titanfall 1 was great, but Titanfall 2s main focus was single player, where the multiplayer was forgettable.

Halo Infinite was decent, but the lack of content killed the momentum. I'm a big halo fan, but the lack of content couldn't hold me more than a month and a half, and haven't looked back. Still not the same itch as cod.

The formulae seems easy, but ain't. Just like everyone says a Sony game is just smacking together some cinematic scenarios and boom you have a blockbuster.

You still need to know how to make a proper cinematic game, and just like cod, you know how to make a twitch shooting game.

What a weird response. The point I was making is that COD iterations do not need to be fantastic to sell phenomenally well, as proven times and times again. Some entries are really good, others are meh at best, but they all generate tons of money and engagement. I don't like them myself, but they have an incredible fanbase who obviously sees them differently. How you extrapolated fanboyism there is ridiculous.

 

[Fredrik]

But all these purchases will have an impact. It's easy to say all the publishers and studios they've purchased till now won't have an impact when the games aren't here yet. It gets SUPER real once these games start getting released, and many gamers start to understand that they REALLY aren't going to play the next ES or Doom, Starfield, Hellblade II etc unless it's on Cloud or PC. Or when the next CoD or MW name is synonymous with Xbox.
If you think that won't have an impact on the gaming landscape once these games start releasing, you're fooling yourself.

Not saying it won’t have an impact but I think they’re paying far too much for something where they end up with their arms tied behind their backs. I think Diablo will be on PS5, same thing with Overwatch, and COD of course. The new survival game might possibly skip PS5 though.

With Bethesda it’s different. I don’t think we’ll see The Elder Scrolls on PS5, neither Doom, Wolfenstein, The Outer Worlds 2. Avowed, etc etc. They’ve been clear enough that they did that deal to get more exclusive games.

On the other hand, Sony might say ”You get Destiny 3 if we get Doom. Deal?”

 

[Sosokrates]

Sure, those 8 new studios could all become new CODs and weakned Sony even more than COD itself did. But we can't predict the future, so you can only look at what we objectively see today

What? We dont need to know the future, individual studios that sony and Microsoft have acquired have been very successful for them.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

What? We dont need to know the future, individual studios that sony and Microsoft have acquired have been very successful for them.

That's called hindsight. Also none of the current studios are equivilient to COD

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

So that means Sony pays Microsoft to do all the marketing for a Microsoft game now for next 2 COD games.
Is that right?

 

[Leyasu]

Do you believe in regulation or not? Can't believe i have to spell this out

Listen, this acquisition doesn’t give Microsoft anywhere near a monopoly. We are far from that. You already know this.

And no I don’t want Microsoft to force Sony out of the industry, just like I never wanted Sony to force Microsoft out. For obvious reasons.

But, the game has changed, and Sony needs to be aggressive until the regulators feel that enough is enough for either. Sony saying that it is impossible to create a COD replacement in the hopes that the status quo continues (which is very much in their favour) should not be a reason to block this take over.

Especially when Sony rules the console business from a summit far above their main competitor.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Listen, this acquisition doesn’t give Microsoft anywhere near a monopoly. We are far from that. You already know this.

And no I don’t want Microsoft to force Sony out of the industry, just like I never wanted Sony to force Microsoft out. For obvious reasons.

But, the game has changed, and Sony needs to be aggressive until the regulators feel that enough is enough for either. Sony saying that it is impossible to create a COD replacement in the hopes that the status quo continues (which is very much in their favour) should not be a reason to block this take over.

Especially when Sony rules the console business from a summit far above their main competitor.

If you have no intention to answer honestly then yeah we're done here

 

[Leyasu]

The console industry is PlayStation and Xbox. An impact on PlayStation is an impact on the wider industry.

Yes an no. what you are implying is that without COD PlayStation is doomed. Which isn’t the case. But it would make Microsoft more competitive and would eat into Sonys install base.

Unless you consider Microsoft gaining install base at Sonys expense an impact on the industry?

 

[CheeseCake]

the responses to this thread are pretty hilarious

 

[Leyasu]

If you have no intention to answer honestly then yeah we're done here

Lol sure mate.

Keep up the good fight though.

Here’s a tip. Just ignore all the dumbasses that don’t agree with you so that you can talk to people that only share your opinion.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Yes an no. what you are implying is that without COD PlayStation is doomed. Which isn’t the case. But it would make Microsoft more competitive and would eat into Sonys install base.

No. What i'm saying, and what i've always said, is that COD is a significant to PlayStations Identify and that loss can damage them. How much remains to be seen. Your apparent argument is that regulators should stay out of it and that they should "take it", regardless of how damaging it could be for them. All that tells me is you're for a market of free reign which is ironic when you keep parroting on about not being a cheerleader for aquistions

Unless you consider Microsoft gaining install base at Sonys expense an impact on the industry?

Depending on the scale of the transition? Yes obviously.

 

[Sosokrates]

That's called hindsight. Also none of the current studios are equivilient to COD

Learn to read, I said "several studios" not "a studio" and its not hindsight, Several studios that ms and sony have acquired have been very successful.

 

[oldergamer]

Weird assumptions that Sony lawyers are using here. I am pretty sure that they know that they using bullshit maths here but ehh, anything to make a legal case.

Yeah no kidding. They were at 25 million subscribers before the activision deal. I dont see this working.

 

[Ozriel]

And Microsoft continued to moneyhat ever since just as they continue to moneyhat today. This is a normal and unfortunate part of the business at this point. Highlighting one side doing this stuff doesn't make any sense at all.

In a thread where many posts are trying to sermonize around the difference between Sony studio acquisitions and MS publisher acquisitions, it’s interesting that you’re doing ‘both sides’ with the ‘moneyhatting’ (I hate that word) when it’s clearly disproportionately skewed towards one side.

I’m fine with your ‘scale doesn’t matter’ philosophy.

 

[Elios83]

You guys are reading way too much into this.
Just like in a PR you act like everything is fine, here they have to act like something they don't like is causing irreparable damage to them.

What I read here is just that Sony doesn't want to lose COD but doesn't give a fuck about the rest of Activision.
I don't think they believe the deal can be blocked, there is no reason to since there are many publishers and developers around and they're also adapting and buying developers and publishers as well.
They probably don't trust Microsoft and would like to see regulators mandating COD to stay multiplatform to approve the thing and that's it.

But nothing is truly irreplaceble in this industry, they can pretty much try to develop new games in the same genre, making deals with other successful publishers and so on. It might take time but even in the worst case they'll adapt to it. COD, GTA, Minecraft, Fortnite, Overwatch all started from zero.
The whole reason behind Sony focusing on building their own studios was them adapting to the reality of publishers all going multiplatform during the PS3 gen.
Companies will adapt and do what they need to do in any case.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Learn to read, I said "several studios" not "a studio" and its not hindsight, Several studios that ms and sony have acquired have been very successful.

Take your own advice. I said studios dipshit.

We only know of their success AFTER the fact. That's called hindsight. And your point is moot because none of these studios once again are equivilent to COD.

 

[Punished Miku]

When you read the more balanced and reality-based statements from the other publishers, it really highlights how stupid Sony looks here.

 

[Leyasu]

No. What i'm saying, and what i've always said, is that COD is a significant to PlayStations Identify and that loss can damage them. How much remains to be seen. Your apparent argument is that regulators should stay out of it and that they should "take it", regardless of how damaging it could be for them. All that tells me is you're for a market of free reign which is ironic when you keep parroting on about not being a cheerleader for aquistions



Depending on the scale of the transition? Yes obviously.

COD was also synonymous with the 360 until it wasn’t. Coupled with the damage done by the xbone, was massive.

And yes at the moment nothing about this take over is going to put Microsoft over night into the dominant position for which they could then use the suffocate the competition. So no, it shouldn’t be blocked imo and Sony does need to deal with it.

I also don’t agree that talking install base from Sony would have an impact on the industry. We have already seen this happen before with the 360/ps3 generation. Sony lost a chunk of the ps2 players to Microsoft and the industry wasn’t affected.

 

[oldergamer]

I don’t understand…

Sony is complaining to regulatory commissions that third party publishers can’t compete with CoD, after Microsoft committed to keeping it multi-platform?

You’re 2:1 last generation.
You’ve been essentially handed exclusive Marvel IP in Spider-Man and wolverine as system sellers.
You’ve acquired Insomniac, Bungie and others.
You’ve enjoyed sweet exclusive marketing deals to CoD in the past, leveraging your dominant market position.
You’ve locked up other third-party system sellers.

Is it written in stone somewhere Sony is entitled to everything? Isn’t precisely a deal of this magnitude necessary for fairer competition?

You forgot to add that sony also tried to buy 3rd party exclusivity to a ton of games this generation in an attempt to starve off xbox being competitive.

 

[Punished Miku]

I don’t understand…

Sony is complaining to regulatory commissions that third party publishers can’t compete with CoD, after Microsoft committed to keeping it multi-platform?

You’re 2:1 last generation.
You’ve been essentially handed exclusive Marvel IP in Spider-Man and wolverine as system sellers.
You’ve acquired Insomniac, Bungie and others.
You’ve enjoyed sweet exclusive marketing deals to CoD in the past, leveraging your dominant market position.
You’ve locked up other third-party system sellers.

Is it written in stone somewhere Sony is entitled to everything? Isn’t precisely a deal of this magnitude necessary for fairer competition?

Literally nailed it. This deal is more likely to result in 3 competitive, and healthy systems. What we've seen so far is MS finally doing decent this gen, and it increasing competition and pushing Sony to do better. It's been benefiting gamers so far.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

COD was also synonymous with the 360 until it wasn’t. Coupled with the damage done by the xbone, was massive.

And yes at the moment nothing about this take over is going to put Microsoft over night into the dominant position for which they could then use the suffocate the competition. So no, it shouldn’t be blocked imo and Sony does need to deal with it.

Regluatories don't look at how aquistions affect things overnight. They look at it from the long-term perspective.

I also don’t agree that talking install base from Sony would have an impact on the industry. We have already seen this happen before with the 360/ps3 generation. Sony lost a chunk of the ps2 players to Microsoft and the industry wasn’t affected.

It positively affected the industry. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[sinnergy]

If microsoft could do it sony can too

At least they tried

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

When you read the more balanced and reality-based statements from the other publishers, it really highlights how stupid Sony looks here.

Almost like Sony is in a completely different position to those publishers. Being a console manufacturer and all

 

[Punished Miku]

Almost like Sony is in a completely different position to those publishers. Being a console manufacturer and all

Nintendo doesn't even get Call of Duty games and they're in 1st place. Battlefield is a direct competitor to Call of Duty. Bungie just got acquired.

Sony just sounds ridiculous, especially when you consider their aggressive history of exclusivity as has been pointed out in this thread.

 

[Leyasu]

Regluatories don't look at how aquistions affect things overnight. They look at it from the long-term perspective.



It positively affected the industry. What the hell are you talking about?

Where the fuck did I say that it positively afftected the industry?

Your making things up now.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Nintendo doesn't even get Call of Duty games and they're in 1st place. Battlefield is a direct competitor to Call of Duty. Bungie just got acquired.

Sony just sounds ridiculous, especially when you consider their aggressive history of exclusivity as has been pointed out in this thread.

Thanks to their own moat which no one else can replicate

Look in a mirror and say with a straight face, Destiny and Battlefield can compete with COD

 

[Sosokrates]

Take your own advice. I said studios dipshit.

We only know of their success AFTER the fact. That's called hindsight. And your point is moot because none of these studios once again are equivilent to COD.

Sorry i made a mistake, but there is
No need to call me an insulating name.

So guerilla, insomniac,bluepoint, housemarque, sucker punch, media molecule etc are not as valuable as cod?
Even if they are not, they still have significant influence on gamers. Like I already said at what point does it become a legal issue. The answer is it doesent, sony are unhappy because it negetively effects them.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Where the fuck did I say that it positively afftected the industry?

Your making things up now.

No, i'm saying it affected the industry in a positive way. Just like it could og the other way round

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Sorry i made a mistake, but there is
No need to call me an insulating name.

Don't tell me to learn to read then.

So guerilla, insomniac,bluepoint, housemarque, sucker punch, media molecule etc are not as valuable as cod?
Even if they are not, they still have significant influence on gamers. Like I already said at what point does it become a legal issue. The answer is it doesent, sony are unhappy because it negetively effects them.

Which franchise pretty much dominates the number one spot in the NPD?

 

[Punished Miku]

Thanks to their own moat which no one else can replicate

Look in a mirror and say with a straight face, Destiny and Battlefield can compete with COD

Battlefield, Halo, Call of Duty, Destiny are all fairly comparable FPS series in my opinion. It doesn't mean that they have the same sales numbers, but they're pretty comparable products. Activision doesn't have any secret developer magic that others don't have access to.

You can't just look at the sales and say it's unfair that Coke sells more than Pepsi. Look at the product itself. They're both just cola, and any off brand can try to make one if they want. You're only looking at sales, which isn't what I'm looking at.

Everyone has the ability to make AAA FPS games if they want to try and compete.

 

[onesvenus]

Almost like Sony is in a completely different position to those publishers. Being a console manufacturer and all

Well it's more like they use their tinted glasses to paint a scenario that's not real.
Looking at the answers the others publishers give about that same question it's clear they are on their own and I'm sure regulators will take what they say with a pinch of salt

 

[GymWolf]

Thank...god??!

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Battlefield, Halo, Call of Duty, Destiny are all fairly comparable FPS series in my opinion. It doesn't mean that they have the same sales numbers, but they're pretty comparable products. Activision doesn't have any secret developer magic that others don't have access to.

You can't just look at the sales and say it's unfair that Coke sells more than Pepsi. Look at the product itself. They're both just cola, and any off brand can try to make one if they want. You're only looking at sales, which isn't what I'm looking at.

Everyone has the ability to make AAA FPS games if they want.

Sony is looking at sales. Regulators are looking at sales. That's the entire point.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Well it's more like they use their tinted glasses to paint a scenario that's not real.
Looking at the answers the others publishers give about that same question it's clear they are on their own and I'm sure regulators will take what they say with a pinch of salt

I'm pretty sure regulators are going to consider Sony's views more, since they're the direct competitor to Xbox in the console space. Obviously