Support NeoGAF

[Clear]

That's why I said "of course they'd never do that". It would be a stupid decision.

Agreed, and MS are not a stupid corporation. I'd kinda like to see them try just to see the sort of figures that Sony's legal would demand in reparations! It would be billions of dollars just based on raw revenue!

 

[Slicker than your average]

And now CoD will be staying on Xbox so everything is fine.

You're posts on that page alone are embarrassing.

It's amazing how people are still championing this because Sony sought exclusive deals as tough luck. Both Xbox and Sony have always done this

I've even seen posts blaming the purchase on Sony buying insomniac..is this a joke? Sony only started buying developers because Xbox did.

lie dispenser Phil decided to spend 80 billion to permanently block gamers from accessing games and he's been worshiped as a hero for it, while he lies and twists words like a clown who can't give an honest answer.

You don't spend 70 billion to not make it exclusive. Just have some balls and admit it from the start instead of pathetic word play of more choice for gamers.
Straight out of the Microsoft playbook, can't win so buy our the competition. If they're about making profit then it will take 20 years + to see a return on that total of 80 billion, Phil will probably be dead by then.

 

[lostinblue]

Jim Ryan is not an idiot. Phil Spencer is not a saint.

News at 11.

 

[modiz]

You're right, Sony have done nothing on the scale of buying two publishers

Yep, because they can't. They don't have enough money. If they had they would do the same as Microsoft, don't be foolish to think otherwise.

 

[modiz]

An opportunity for Sony to revive Socom and blow tired ass COD out of the water. That or a new Ip. Either way I don’t care cause blops2 was peak cod for me.

See, I get that, but tens of millions of gamers disagree, as well as Jim. Perhaps it's not that easy to make a CoD competitor.

 

[Kenneth Haight]

And now CoD will be staying on Xbox so everything is fine.

Schadenfreude - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So so strange, I have never understood other humans who enjoy seeing others hurt. I don't really see why people are hurt by this, as it is literally a game/toy/entertainment machine. We have way bigger problems on planet earth lol

You're posts on that page alone are embarrassing.

It's amazing how people are still championing this because Sony sought exclusive deals as tough luck. Both Xbox and Sony have always done this

I've even seen posts blaming the purchase on Sony buying insomniac..is this a joke? Sony only started buying developers because Xbox did.

lie dispenser Phil decided to spend 80 billion to permanently block gamers from accessing games and he's been worshiped as a hero for it, while he lies and twists words like a clown who can't give an honest answer.

You don't spend 70 billion to not make it exclusive. Just have some balls and admit it from the start instead of pathetic word play of more choice for gamers.
Straight out of the Microsoft playbook, can't win so buy our the competition. If they're about making profit then it will take 20 years + to see a return on that total of 80 billion, Phil will probably be dead by then.

You are 100% right , this corporate championing is so bizarre.

I like playstation and xbox, have owned both their products over the years. But they both really just want my money, as long as folks on here are self aware enough to understand that, I am willing to engage in dialogue with them.

Unfortunately a lot of people on here don't want to engage in good dialogue so I mostly just end up posting gifs/memes and laughing to myself.

 

[modiz]

Is jim fucked in the mind? He has no power in deciding what bread crumbs M is gonna leave to him, nor M should give a fuck about sony clients not getting the best offer.

Jesus i hope phil eat his words and jim doesn't even get cod for the next 3 years so instead of inadeguate, the offer is gonna be inexistent.

The thing is, they never were in such a position. The position of PlayStation is at risk apparently and this is the reaction of the CEO of PlayStation. They were never really at risk before and going into current gen they thought Xbox wouldn't be much of a competitor. But things changed and instead of using that as an opportunity to do good things they raised gaming prices: for their software and even for their hardware.
We will see how this all will turn out but gaming it's going to change a lot this gen and might very well have an outcome of a gaming landscape that is quite different to last gen.

 

[GymWolf]

The thing is, they never were in such a position. The position of PlayStation is at risk apparently and this is the reaction of the CEO of PlayStation. They were never really at risk before and going into current gen they thought Xbox wouldn't be much of a competitor. But things changed and instead of using that as an opportunity to do good things they raised gaming prices: for their software and even for their hardware.
We will see how this all will turn out but gaming it's going to change a lot this gen and might very well have an outcome of a gaming landscape that is quite different to last gen.

I don't think they are at risk tbh.

This is just jim throwing a fit to show that he cares about his clients not receiving the best cod experience (bunch of horsecrap).

 

[Kenneth Haight]

I don't think they are at risk tbh.

This is just jim throwing a fit.

The guy is a prestige master. A true OG gamer, he is just letting his emotions run away from him as he loves getting a session with his bois, a few cans of Mountain Dew, some Doritos. Just good clean wholesome fun.

And now Phil says he has to buy a new box to play with his buddies? Jim’s just speaking his mind, doubt it will have much affect though. Money talks.

 

[Topher]

Well I'm fricking glad I got rid of my PS5. I don't have to put up with all this shit from Jimbo now.

Was Jim in the box or something?

 

[Yoboman]

Yep, because they can't. They don't have enough money. If they had they would do the same as Microsoft, don't be foolish to think otherwise.

Some are too expensive now, though Sony has $30 billion in acquisition funds so could get anyone available except for EA, Tencent and Embracer. If they wanted to use up all that investment at once

But market caps have not always been the same relative to Sony's. For example in 2005 with a $50 billion market cap Sony could have easily acquired activision at $4 billion, or EA at 15 billion, or Take2 at $1.5 billion.

The move to acquire publishers has only been started by MS. Nobody was doing it before because it's not a good practice for a healthy market

 

[Bernd Lauert]

while he lies and twists words like a clown who can't give an honest answer.

Point out the lie. Pro tip: you can't.

 

[Hoppa]

Them keeping the COD games on PlayStation but releasing on Gamepass at launch would be a real power move. I could see them doing that but can also see them creating a new pricing tier for those and other big games like Starfield

 

[Topher]

Point out the lie. Pro tip: you can't.

If CoD will only be on PlayStation for three years then the claim Microsoft made that they would treat CoD like they have Minecraft will have been a lie. Remains to be seen though.

 

[tommib]

If CoD will only be on PlayStation for three years then the claim Microsoft made that they would treat CoD like they have Minecraft will have been a lie.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

If CoD will only be on PlayStation for three years then the claim Microsoft made that they would treat CoD like they have Minecraft will have been a lie. Remains to be seen though.

CoD will stay on Playstation. The only thing that won't happen is new games releasing on Playstation after 2027 or so.

 

[Topher]

CoD will stay on Playstation. The only thing that won't happen is new games releasing on Playstation after 2027 or so.

Minecraft Dungeons released on PS in 2020. Guess we will see.

 

[Banjo64]

CoD will stay on Playstation. The only thing that won't happen is new games releasing on Playstation after 2027 or so.

If you have an unspoken caveat in your statement it’s fairly safe to say you are in fact twisting words.

 

[modiz]

Some are too expensive now, though Sony has $30 billion in acquisition funds so could get anyone available except for EA, Tencent and Embracer. If they wanted to use up all that investment at once

But market caps have not always been the same relative to Sony's. For example in 2005 with a $50 billion market cap Sony could have easily acquired activision at $4 billion, or EA at 15 billion, or Take2 at $1.5 billion.

The move to acquire publishers has only been started by MS. Nobody was doing it before because it's not a good practice for a healthy market

No, it wasn't done before because it was too expensive. There's no indication it's bad for the health of the market. And let's not pretend Microsoft is the only one investing billions when there are companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google and Tencent are around. It's just Sony that doesn't play in the same league because they don't have that much money as the big fishes.

 

[Warablo]

People are really saying because Xbox isnt market lead they shouldn't be allowed to make acquisitions. Guess they should have bought everyone up in the 360 era by that logic.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

If you have an unspoken caveat in your statement it’s fairly safe to say you are in fact twisting words.

How is it unspoken? It's what Phil said ("several years").

 

[modiz]

If CoD will only be on PlayStation for three years then the claim Microsoft made that they would treat CoD like they have Minecraft will have been a lie. Remains to be seen though.

Well, perhaps this tells you more about the future of Minecraft on PlayStation consoles.

 

[tommib]

If CoD will only be on PlayStation for three years then the claim Microsoft made that they would treat CoD like they have Minecraft will have been a lie. Remains to be seen though.

To be fair, all these posts saying that Microsoft couldn’t afford to not have COD on PSX because of the MTX money always made me roll my eyes. This is not a surprise. Of course, Microsoft will take it out of PlayStation. It’s business. It’s a 70 billion dollar acquisition. Get over it, Jim! You will lose the franchise and the money that came with it.

I do wonder what COD will be under the Microsoft umbrella though. They might turn it into the next Nokia/Windows Phone and we have no idea what other undisclosed competitor shooters will come into the market.

Still crying for my Quake reboot.

 

[Yoboman]

No, it wasn't done before because it was too expensive. There's no indication it's bad for the health of the market. And let's not pretend Microsoft is the only one investing billions when there are companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google and Tencent are around. It's just Sony that doesn't play in the same league because they don't have that much money as the big fishes.

Yeah what billions have Amazon, Facebook and Google invested? Nobody is falling for the bogeyman routine. It's just MS buying up publishers in exclusive arrangements

 

[lostinblue]

I would ask Jimbo when will Final Fantasy VII Remake come to Xbox.

Which is why he speaks of precedence and prior relationship.

Xbox and Switch have no relationship with FFVII, it would be nice if they released there, but what he's alleging is that Call of Duty customers use PlayStation and hence Microsoft is doing them a disservice, by buying Activision and not guaranteeing decades of support.

He's basically saying the same he would if FFVII didn't release on Playstation but elsewhere.

 

[Banjo64]

How is it unspoken? It's what Phil said ("several years").

He said that last week (or the week before, I forget). However initially, and this is the same for Bethesda too, it was a lot more vague. For example, when they first announced this acquisition the spoken line from MS was ‘we are committed to keeping CoD on PlayStation’. Obviously that gives the impression that they mean indefinitely, or at least stretching far in to the future, because no time limit was mentioned. Also they’ve repeatedly mentioned Minecraft when being vague about CoD and Bethesda, because that’s a game that they’ve kept multi platform (without other platforms having to cut deals). Again, whilst not being explicit that creates the idea that CoD will just be like Minecraft moving forward. The CMA have picked up on this, and rightfully so. Saying ‘we will judge all future Bethesda games on a case by case basis’ makes it sound as though they are open to anything when in reality they really meant ‘all of the bangers like Doom, TES, Starfield and Fallout are exclusive now but you might get some GAAS scraps’. I don’t know why they are trying to win the PR war whilst it’s obvious they are going in for the kill; smiling assassin.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

For example, when they first announced this acquisition the spoken line from MS was ‘we are committed to keeping CoD on PlayStation’. Obviously that gives the impression that they mean indefinitely, or at least stretching far in to the future, because no time limit was mentioned.

But this is exactly what is happening. CoD will stay on Playstation forever, namely all the old games and Warzone 2 (and likely future Warzones). It never meant that all new games will come out on Playstation indefinitely, it's just how some people chose to interpret it.

 

[Topher]

To be fair, all these posts saying that Microsoft couldn’t afford to not have COD on PSX because of the MTX money always made me roll my eyes. This is not a surprise. Of course, Microsoft will take it out of PlayStation. It’s business. It’s a 70 billion dollar acquisition. Get over it, Jim! You will lose the franchise and the money that came with it.

I do wonder what COD will be under the Microsoft umbrella though. They might turn it into the next Nokia/Windows Phone and we have no idea what other undisclosed competitor shooters will come into the market.

Still crying for my Quake reboot.

I never felt that MS couldn't afford to have COD on PS. They are a two trillion dollar company. But I did think Phil Spencer was being straight with gamers about the future of Call of Duty on PlayStation. Now I'm not so sure.

Well, perhaps this tells you more about the future of Minecraft on PlayStation consoles.

Not really. Microsoft wasn't forced to make Dungeons but they did and now they are claiming that franchise is the template they are following with CoD.

 

[Bojanglez]

Yeah what billions have Amazon, Facebook and Google invested? Nobody is falling for the bogeyman routine. It's just MS buying up publishers in exclusive arrangements

Exactly, they are the only platform holder (gatekeeper) that has bought a major publisher. I'm not necessarily saying it is a problem, but it is a dangerous precedent, would people be OK with this if Google bought them and made everything Stadia and ChromeOS exclusive? A worry is that a company could 'artificially' disrupt the market by using profits from another source to wipe out competition in another sector, not sure if that is a genuine risk in the games industry as a whole, but could be in the console market specifically.

 

[Hendrick's]

Xbox being hypocrites, what a shock

 

[Banjo64]

But this is exactly what is happening. CoD will stay on Playstation forever, namely all the old games and Warzone 2 (and likely future Warzones). It never meant that all new games will come out on Playstation indefinitely,

You can’t be serious

it's just how some people chose to interpret it.

Yeah of course, because that’s exactly how it was intended to be interpreted.

Why would they say they want to bring future games to the Switch if they were only talking about their old back catalogue?

 

[Topher]

But this is exactly what is happening. CoD will stay on Playstation forever, namely all the old games and Warzone 2 (and likely future Warzones). It never meant that all new games will come out on Playstation indefinitely, it's just how some people chose to interpret it.

Come on man. Let's not pretend this was ever about old/existing CoD games remaining on PlayStation.

 

[tommib]

But this is exactly what is happening. CoD will stay on Playstation forever, namely all the old games and Warzone 2 (and likely future Warzones). It never meant that all new games will come out on Playstation indefinitely, it's just how some people chose to interpret it.

This is priceless, Bernd. Keep the posts coming.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Come on man. Let's not pretend this was ever about old/existing CoD games remaining on PlayStation.

Old, existing and some future games (like a potential Warzone 3). Some people chose to wrongly interpret what was said, and now claim that Phil was lying. Not Phil's fault imo

 

[TheGodfather07]

It is what it is. Theres no twisting it anymore. Microsoft had enough of trying to compete and want to buy themselves marketshare. Google and amazon have never been a threat. What have they done? Absolutely nothing. Microsoft are the one causing havoc in the industry. They started this acquisition war didn't they? Their goal had always been to take sonys place and if possible, eliminate them from the industry and they are going in hard. It's gonna be interesting seeing sony scratch and claw to protect their brand.

 

[Topher]

Old, existing and some future games (like a potential Warzone 3). Some people chose to wrongly interpret what was said, and now claim that Phil was lying. Not Phil's fault imo

I don't know if he is lying or not. Like I said, that remains to be seen. But not yanking old CoD games from gamers who paid for them doesn't validate any of his statements.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Them keeping the COD games on PlayStation but releasing on Gamepass at launch would be a real power move. I could see them doing that but can also see them creating a new pricing tier for those and other big games like Starfield

Gamepass is a numbers game. The whole thing hinges on getting as many people onboard as possible, not trying to squeeze an extra £5 a month out of 10% of your audience and devaluing the product for the other 90%, making it less attractive.

All first party games will definitely be free on Gamepass, for all subscribers including COD imo.

 

[Mister Wolf]

"When you pray for rain you gotta deal with the mud too" - Phil Spencer

 

[Bernd Lauert]

But not yanking old CoD games from gamers who paid for them doesn't validate any of his statements.

Not just that, the games will also stay available on the store. F2P games will also stay available, new F2P games will likely become available. It absolutely validates his statements.

 

[MikeM]

But this is exactly what is happening. CoD will stay on Playstation forever, namely all the old games and Warzone 2 (and likely future Warzones). It never meant that all new games will come out on Playstation indefinitely, it's just how some people chose to interpret it.

Just like Final Fantasy will always be on Xbox because they have everything except VIIR and 16. I hope no one on the Xbox side complains since they have FF forever.

Lol

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Just like Final Fantasy will always be on Xbox because they have everything except VIIR and 16. I hope no one on the Xbox side complains since they have FF forever.

Lol

Xbox side can complain all they want, they're not getting the games. It is what it is

 

[Topher]

Not just that, the games will also stay available on the store. F2P games will also stay available, new F2P games will likely become available. It absolutely validates his statements.

Not yanking old games from the store validates nothing. Some have said that Warzone is the only CoD game in PS future and yeah, that will technically make Phil's words true. We will see.

 

[Shi11]

Sony that scared of losing COD they resort to crying and playing the victim while they pay for games to not be on gamepass haha, Jim has no legs to stand on.

 

[kyussman]

The craziest thing about all this is that I still can't believe COD is such a big deal after all these years,lol.....it got stale for me after the second one.

 

[CeeJay]

He said that last week (or the week before, I forget). However initially, and this is the same for Bethesda too, it was a lot more vague. For example, when they first announced this acquisition the spoken line from MS was ‘we are committed to keeping CoD on PlayStation’. Obviously that gives the impression that they mean indefinitely, or at least stretching far in to the future, because no time limit was mentioned. Also they’ve repeatedly mentioned Minecraft when being vague about CoD and Bethesda, because that’s a game that they’ve kept multi platform (without other platforms having to cut deals). Again, whilst not being explicit that creates the idea that CoD will just be like Minecraft moving forward. The CMA have picked up on this, and rightfully so. Saying ‘we will judge all future Bethesda games on a case by case basis’ makes it sound as though they are open to anything when in reality they really meant ‘all of the bangers like Doom, TES, Starfield and Fallout are exclusive now but you might get some GAAS scraps’. I don’t know why they are trying to win the PR war whilst it’s obvious they are going in for the kill; smiling assassin.

No business contract should ever have "for ever and ever" in regard to stuff like this because the distant future is an unknown quantity. Within 5 years Playstation could have been bought by Google or Amazon and the landscape could be significantly different to today. 5 years in business is a hell of a long time.

 

[Banjo64]

No business contract should ever have "for ever and ever" in regard to stuff like this because the distant future is an unknown quantity. Within 5 years Playstation could have been bought by Google or Amazon and the landscape could be significantly different to today. 5 years in business is a hell of a long time.

No, but does a game like Minecraft have a contract with PlayStation? Do Xbox Game Studios make Steam sign a contract to keep their games on the platform? As far as I know literally no publisher makes a platform holder pay a fee/sign a deal to have games on their store. This is very much an outlier.

 

[CeeJay]

No, but does a game like Minecraft have a contract with PlayStation? Do Xbox Game Studios make Steam sign a contract to keep their games on the platform? As far as I know literally no publisher makes a platform holder pay a fee/sign a deal to have games on their store. This is very much an outlier.

i think it might do although i've not got sight of the contract of sale. Notch evidently wanted out but put in a load of clauses to keep the game fully multiplatform. But that was an outlier.

Edit: A contract between a buyer and a seller can have whatever either party wants to put in there, it's different when a potential buyer is making a goodwill gesture deal (even if it does have ulterior motives) with a third party that has no seat at the table.

 

[Banjo64]

i think it might do although i've not got sight of the contract of sale. Notch evidently wanted out but put in a load of clauses to keep the game fully multiplatform. But that was an outlier.

That’s hearsay

 

[Punished Miku]

No, but does a game like Minecraft have a contract with PlayStation? Do Xbox Game Studios make Steam sign a contract to keep their games on the platform? As far as I know literally no publisher makes a platform holder pay a fee/sign a deal to have games on their store. This is very much an outlier.

It's a guarantee in writing that goes further than the verbal statement that most games published rely on. It's an additional layer of assurance it will be on PS.

 

[Topher]

It's a guarantee in writing that goes further than the verbal statement that most games published rely on. It's an additional layer of assurance it will be on PS.

Microsoft isn't providing that guarantee for nothing though. What did they expect in return?