Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

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

To get the acquisition done in a smooth manner, what else.

 

[Topher]

For the deal to go through without any concerns by saying they wrote and agreed to terms with those affected. People forget that MS is currently still trying to get the acquisition to go through and doesn't own them yet.

MS has to give proposals that commit to not using the acquisition to harm rivals and new entrants. The CMA for one has directly asked for a proposal from MS. It's a lot better to be able to say we have commitments/proposals to continue releasing COD on other platforms. They tried to get out ahead on that concern but it seems it wasn't adequate.

Ah....I think you are right. This isn't a deal being proposed but rather a notice of intent.

 

[Gone]

I’m not defending SONY

I don’t want any more of this nonsensical mergers and acquisitions. I wish we could have stayed in the status quo man. Enjoy your shitty subscription service AA games going forward.

That subscription service is optional, you know.

 

[CeeJay]

For the deal to go through without any concerns by saying they wrote and agreed to terms with those affected. People forget that MS is currently still trying to get the acquisition to go through and doesn't own them yet.

MS has to give proposals that commit to not using the acquisition to harm rivals and new entrants. The CMA for one has directly asked for a proposal from MS. It's a lot better to be able to say we have commitments/proposals to continue releasing COD on other platforms. They tried to get out ahead on that concern but it seems it wasn't adequate.

For Jimbo sure.

As far as for the CMA though, we don't know what they think about it. Microsoft made a "gesture of goodwill" in the form of a signed proposal and Sony turned it down. Just because Sony turned it down it doesn't nullify the offer in the first place and it's not the CMAs job to make competition in the sector easier for the competitors it's just to make sure that competition is possible. If Sony done fucked by turning down the deal it's on them not Microsoft.

Edit: adding " " for Topher

 

[jm89]

From here on out i name him Kimbo Jimbo slice

 

[Halo is Back]

Jim can say whatever he wants because Phil will just laugh all the way to the bank. It's like console waring but in real life.

 

[Three]

For Jimbo sure.

As far as for the CMA though, we don't know what they think about it. Microsoft made a gesture of goodwill in the form of a signed proposal and Sony turned it down. Just because Sony turned it down it doesn't nullify the offer in the first place and it's not the CMAs job to make competition in the sector easier for the competitors it's just to make sure that competition is possible. If Sony done fucked by turning down the deal it's on them not Microsoft.

We know exactly what the CMA thinks about it:








It's pretty clear. MS were given 5 days to put in proposals to address the CMAs concerns about how they will not refuse or hinder access to these specific games (COD even being mentioned by name) to harm rivals.

 

[Topher]

For Jimbo sure.

As far as for the CMA though, we don't know what they think about it. Microsoft made a gesture of goodwill in the form of a signed proposal and Sony turned it down. Just because Sony turned it down it doesn't nullify the offer in the first place and it's not the CMAs job to make competition in the sector easier for the competitors it's just to make sure that competition is possible. If Sony done fucked by turning down the deal it's on them not Microsoft.

That wasn't a "gesture of goodwill". Like T Three and adamsapple said it is more likely to impress the regulatory entities involved in this.

 

[CeeJay]

That wasn't a "gesture of goodwill". Like T Three and adamsapple said it is more likely to impress the regulatory entities involved in this.

obviously

Edit: See my post earlier in the thread where I said exactly the same thing https://www.neogaf.com/threads/play...dequate-on-many-levels.1641153/post-266546793

 

[CeeJay]

We know exactly what the CMA thinks about it:








It's pretty clear. MS were given 5 days to put in proposals to address the CMAs concerns about how they will not refuse or hinder access to these specific games (COD even being mentioned by name) to harm rivals.

Thanks for the story so far but I was replying specifically about CMA's opinion on the signed offer of 3 extra years. The post I was replying to suggested that he CMA were saying it was "not adequate" the same as Jim. We don't know what the CMA think about this gesture.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Console gamers cling to call of duty, it’s the most valuable shooter on consoles and I think it will be continued on all platforms we’re in the golden age of first person shooters. Activison, call of duty will miss SONY you could say they miss Nintendo. I don’t like Black Ops Cold War or Vanguard but they’re favorites amongst todays generation of gamers.

 

[Topher]

obviously

Edit: See my post earlier in the thread where I said exactly the same thing https://www.neogaf.com/threads/play...dequate-on-many-levels.1641153/post-266546793

That's fine, but it isn't a "gesture of goodwill" in any case.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

I have no care in the slightest about whether COD goes exclusive or not (unless that results in marketshare gain that makes it harder for Sony to do all their 3rd party exclusives), nor am I saying I know the in-depth financials to give an 100% accurate picture. However, to all the people saying "why would Xbox cut off that Playstation revenue?" You're not thinking of the big picture. Here's an example

Let's say the "average" COD player buys COD and 1 other game each year, as well as a year of PS+/Gold. (To clarify I'm making the specifics up but it seems like a reasonable and simple way to illustrate this point.)

If that COD player is on Playstation, Microsoft earns 70% of $70 (or $49) yearly for each "average" COD player
If that COD player in on Xbox, Microsoft earns 100% of $60, plus $60 for a year of Xbox Live (which I don't even think is possible anymore, so it would be higher), plus 30% of the cost of the extra game (we'll say it's a standard $60 game, making it $18)

COD gamers on Playstation earn $49 yearly for Microsoft
COD gamers on Xbox earn $138 yearly for Microsoft

That's 280% as much from Xbox as from Playstation. Meaning, if 1/2.8 (35.7%) of Playstation COD players switched to Xbox in order to play COD, and the other 64.3% of Playstation COD players remain on Playstation and just stop playing COD, Microsoft would be revenue neutral and would've gained a significant userbase. And obviously some people will only buy an Xbox exclusively for COD and not for any other games, but some will also buy more than 2 games a year, or end up buying DLC for COD or subscribing to Game Pass (or maybe the 1 other game they buy a year ends up being an Xbox 1st party game some years). So arguably this estimation is overstating how many COD players would need to switch. The only question is, how many Playstation people would buy an Xbox, buy on PC, or subscribe to Game Pass for streaming in order to play COD (even if Playstation remains their primary platform). I have no idea on that specific point but I'd be pretty shocked if it wasn't substantial enough to be worth the risk. COD is an incredibly popular franchise, and the huge COD fans aren't going to just go "well now I just won't play COD", even if they prefer Sony exclusives to Xbox ones. I mean there was a massive shift in COD players from Xbox to Playstation simply by having marketing rights and some timed exclusive features/etc. I can't imagine full exclusivity wouldn't bring all of them back and more

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I can't imagine thinking Spencer is lying because he's not sending an agreement letter guaranteeing MS will make CoD on PlayStation for eternity with nothing in return.

Console wars are stupid.

 

[CeeJay]

That's fine, but it isn't a "gesture of goodwill" in any case.

The statement;

"In January, we provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements,"

Particularly the last part frames the 3 year proposal as if it's being done as a "gesture of goodwill". The optics of the statement were certainly attempting to make this appear as if Microsoft are being the kind and friendly good guys going well above and beyond what is required. It obviously isn't a "gesture of goodwill" and more jumping through hoops to get the deal done but I am still going to call it that and put it in brackets in future if that makes it clearer what i'm implying.

 

[NickFire]

I have no care in the slightest about whether COD goes exclusive or not (unless that results in marketshare gain that makes it harder for Sony to do all their 3rd party exclusives), nor am I saying I know the in-depth financials to give an 100% accurate picture. However, to all the people saying "why would Xbox cut off that Playstation revenue?" You're not thinking of the big picture. Here's an example

Let's say the "average" COD player buys COD and 1 other game each year, as well as a year of PS+/Gold. (To clarify I'm making the specifics up but it seems like a reasonable and simple way to illustrate this point.)

If that COD player is on Playstation, Microsoft earns 70% of $70 (or $49) yearly for each "average" COD player
If that COD player in on Xbox, Microsoft earns 100% of $60, plus $60 for a year of Xbox Live (which I don't even think is possible anymore, so it would be higher), plus 30% of the cost of the extra game (we'll say it's a standard $60 game, making it $18)

COD gamers on Playstation earn $49 yearly for Microsoft
COD gamers on Xbox earn $138 yearly for Microsoft

That's 280% as much from Xbox as from Playstation. Meaning, if 1/2.8 (35.7%) of Playstation COD players switched to Xbox in order to play COD, and the other 64.3% of Playstation COD players remain on Playstation and just stop playing COD, Microsoft would be revenue neutral and would've gained a significant userbase. And obviously some people will only buy an Xbox exclusively for COD and not for any other games, but some will also buy more than 2 games a year, or end up buying DLC for COD or subscribing to Game Pass (or maybe the 1 other game they buy a year ends up being an Xbox 1st party game some years). So arguably this estimation is overstating how many COD players would need to switch. The only question is, how many Playstation people would buy an Xbox, buy on PC, or subscribe to Game Pass for streaming in order to play COD (even if Playstation remains their primary platform). I have no idea on that specific point but I'd be pretty shocked if it wasn't substantial enough to be worth the risk. COD is an incredibly popular franchise, and the huge COD fans aren't going to just go "well now I just won't play COD", even if they prefer Sony exclusives to Xbox ones. I mean there was a massive shift in COD players from Xbox to Playstation simply by having marketing rights and some timed exclusive features/etc. I can't imagine full exclusivity wouldn't bring all of them back and more

Good starting analysis. But a complete picture needs to take mtx and lost revenue into account, plus good will. Putting mtx and good will aside, if they only get 1 of 3 to switch then the lose money (99 in lost revenue offset by only 89 gained). And mtx can alter that ratio big time depending on who migrates and who does not (lose the whales but keeping the most budget friendly gamers would be a blood bath on the financials). Good will comes into play because if it backfires (and a new or existing rival becomes top spot) they lose tremendous value obviously.

Long story short --> There are many variables and significant risk. But MS is willing to take the risk because they want to crush their competition and have free reign to charge whatever they want for GP when the dust settles in the generation after this. The aborted Gold price hike, total expenditures on acquisitions, and timeline that Phil is offering to keep it on PSN all point straight in this direction.

 

[Topher]

The statement;

"In January, we provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements,"

Particularly the last part frames the 3 year proposal as if it's being done as a "gesture of goodwill". The optics of the statement were certainly attempting to make this appear as if Microsoft are being the kind and friendly good guys going well above and beyond what is required. It obviously isn't a "gesture of goodwill" and more jumping through hoops to get the deal done but I am still going to call it that and put it in brackets in future if that makes it clearer what i'm implying.

Ok.....I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[ManaByte]

The statement;

"In January, we provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements,"

Particularly the last part frames the 3 year proposal as if it's being done as a "gesture of goodwill". The optics of the statement were certainly attempting to make this appear as if Microsoft are being the kind and friendly good guys going well above and beyond what is required. It obviously isn't a "gesture of goodwill" and more jumping through hoops to get the deal done but I am still going to call it that and put it in brackets in future if that makes it clearer what i'm implying.

If the reports of the existing agreement are true, it ends in 2025. This proposal would keep COD on PlayStation through the end of this console generation.

People are just mad that it isn't going to be there forever and Sony themselves would need to deliver something that people would want to sub to PS+ for online play instead of relying on Activision for that.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

FF7 remake is obviously an….adequate length for a timed exclusive, Forspoken? 2 years? Adequate. Year long content exclusives in COD? Oh yes….that’s been enjoyable as well.

Still crying about FF on page 23 when they have Starfield, Doom, Elder Scrolls 6, Fallout, Hellblade 2, Outer Worlds 2 and more. You guys would give it all away if you could play fucking Final Fantasy

When PS fans ask about those you guys say "it's on PC". Well, FF7 is on PC too so I don't get the complaints.

 

[HoofHearted]

Holy Shit - what a thread - is this REALLY that much a surprise to anyone?

What did everyone expect? That things would remain exactly the same as they are now? At the end of the day - post acquisition - COD will be IP owned by MS... It'll be theirs to do with as they wish.

I expect there will be other alternative options presented as well to Sony - with expectation that they will all be "unacceptable" from Sony's standpoint other than to maintain status quo (which would be reasonably "unacceptable" from MS' standpoint)..

 

[Kenneth Haight]

That subscription service is optional, you know.

It’s optional to an extent, where nobody realistically, financially will be able to compete. And then Satya Nadella can sell you all the “games” you want forever. Microsoft are so soulless and devoid of any creativity, I think that’s why people don’t really like them.

They are the epitome of the rich kid at school buying whatever they want and rubbing it in peoples faces.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

Since when has Sony considered their impact on gamers with all their timed exclusivity bullshit? Did locking Spiderman down to PlayStation in a third party game matter to them? How about locking down Final Fantasy? Sony never gave a shit until Microsoft brought a bazooka to a knife fight.

Let me get my tiny violin, because the ball isn’t in your court Sony. Don’t like it? Too bad.

Its two totally different situations. SONY never had full exclusivity on COD....wow timed exclusive, only one month ahead of xbox for some skins or maps. SONY never made the whole game exclusive to its platform. MS can talk all the shit they want, they wont do it either because they would rather make more money by having it on 2 systems because except hardore players and competitors, 50 mil people wont jsut magically jump to xbox because they cant play COD anymore lol.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Schadenfreude is the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, or humiliation of another.

Failures or humiliation of another, you know exactly what I meant when I posted that. But here we are engaging in meaningless conversation. Back to the point I really mean Roxkis, you are correct no one is getting “hurt”

But lots of people seem happy about one corporation having an advantage over another corporation somehow. It’s hilarious

Kenneth, I think your over analyzing my post. I'm not trying to play 4D chest, I'm just dumb lol.

On a basic level, people who hurt people do so because they have been hurt.

We laugh at Xbox fans all day. It's only expected that they try to get their jabs in how and whenever they can.

 

[Fake]

Microsoft have CoD and Sony have social justice.

 

[Topher]

If the reports of the existing agreement are true, it ends in 2025. This proposal would keep COD on PlayStation through the end of this console generation.

That's what HeisenbergFX4 and myself were speculating when Phil Spencer first made that announcement. If that timeline is true then I don't see a problem.

 

[ManaByte]

That's what HeisenbergFX4 and myself were speculating when Phil Spencer first made that announcement. If that timeline is true then I don't see a problem.

Phil could twist the knife by releasing the 2029 COD on PS5, but not the PS6.

 

[Kenneth Haight]

Kenneth, I think your over analyzing my post. I'm not trying to play 4D chest, I'm just dumb lol.

On a basic level, people who hurt people do so because they have been hurt.

We laugh at Xbox fans all day. It's only expected that they try to get their jabs in how and whenever they can.

No hard feelings at all with anyone at all on this forum. This is good to discuss the discourse surrounding these things. We all love games here and can get carried away at times.

I don’t want to laugh at anyone (apart from Jim Ryan and Phil Spencer!) on here. I’m not in the business of making people feel bad, it’s all a bit of fun here and it’s funny seeing people yet upset either way. I have no sides at all in this even though I currently play mostly on PS.

Next year is going to be super interesting and each company is going to be fighting hard for each and every dollar out of consumers pockets. We need to vote whatever we feel best suits our own needs about what games are to us, entertainment, art etc.

Uncharted territory.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Its two totally different situations. SONY never had full exclusivity on COD....wow timed exclusive, only one month ahead of xbox for some skins or maps. SONY never made the whole game exclusive to its platform. MS can talk all the shit they want, they wont do it either because they would rather make more money by having it on 2 systems because except hardore players and competitors, 50 mil people wont jsut magically jump to xbox because they cant play COD anymore lol.

Why do you think Sony and Microsoft paid for 30 day timed exclusivity? You realize it was to bring in more players right? To be the system to play CoD on right?

Now imagine Sony losing it along with many other big name franchises. It’s devastating.

You think people are still going to flock to PlayStation five years from now? For what? They’re guaranteed to lose users to Microsoft. Not immediately, but it’s a sure thing.
The reality is Sony isn’t even needed for CoD to be successful. Not at all. They have PC, and they can start utilizing the most popular console, the Switch.

But going back on my original comment Sony locked shit down for 1-2yrs. They never gave a shit about the impact on other gamers, yet here they are crying about that? Give me a break. Sony’s lucky Microsoft is being as nice as they are. They could be way more cut throat.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

There is a big difference in buying studio's ore buying complete publishers with many studios and many franchises under they're belt....

No there isn't. The only difference is that the majority of the plebs on this forum are pissed their preferred corporate overlord isn't able to afford the same type of large-scale purchases and instead opt to get value meal type exclusivity agreements. Both types of business dealings lead to the same outcome, games are left out of competitor platforms.

 

[kiphalfton]

oh fuck off hes lucky Phil isn't making it exclusive right now

That would be inadequate though.

Seriously though, cut Sony off completely and don't give them anything if they want to act like a bitch about it.

 

[Gone]

It’s optional to an extent, where nobody realistically, financially will be able to compete. And then Satya Nadella can sell you all the “games” you want forever. Microsoft are so soulless and devoid of any creativity, I think that’s why people don’t really like them.

They are the epitome of the rich kid at school buying whatever they want and rubbing it in peoples faces.

Sony can but they won't, do you know why? Because people like you keep justifying their stupid actions.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

I don't know why this thread needed 24 pages.

MS is going to own Activision before too long, and therefore own CoD. They don't have to release CoD after the agreements expire, they are not beholden to Sony. Jim Ryan confirmed what Phil Spencer said. What is there to really argue about here?

 

[//DEVIL//]

Is sony's fault MS didn't create studios and IPs in a consistent basis?

Lol. Because Sony did create insomniac , naughty dog, Bungie and most of their high profiles studios... Lol don't type anymore man ..

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Lol. Because Sony did create insomniac , naughty dog, Bungie and most of their high profiles studios... Lol don't type anymore man ..

Is not Sony's fault MS can't properly manage a studio to save their life.

No be hating on Sony for MS faults and mistakes.

 

[Ozriel]

I’m not defending SONY

I don’t want any more of this nonsensical mergers and acquisitions. I wish we could have stayed in the status quo man.

As someone who owns every console, I’m glad we’re not in the same status quo. Xbox is much more competitive this gen and it’s a net benefit for me as a consumer, not just from the MS side but from Sony stepping up in response.

Enjoy your shitty subscription service AA games going forward.

Now this just isn’t constructive dialogue

There is a big difference in buying studio's ore buying complete publishers with many studios and many franchises under they're belt....

There is ZERO difference in strategy and principle. Scope is the only difference.

A subscription service needs content and despite the usual fanboys trying to again paint MS as a victim and blame Sony for lack of third party games on gamepass, third parties are not that interested in forgoing sales and releasing on a sub unless they are getting very big lump sums from MS or are releasing GaaS games with heavy mtxs. In most cases with the latter they just go f2p anyway. MS decided they need to start buying studios for content because trying to convince them to stop selling games or limit the audience for their GaaS game is going to be very costly in the long run anyway. The issue is that now they are buying up a lot of the industry and they have a lot of scrutiny from competition law especially in regard to subscriptions and cloud gaming.

Sony then bought the studios that it's reliant on for their own IPs knowing they are at risk and new and porting studios for their own expansion into GaaS and PC ports.

You’re saying this as if all third party Gamepass deals are for day one access. That’s far from the truth. Sony’s deals also block some games from coming to the service even a year post release…and lump sum payments at such a time would be relatively small.

 

[Max_Po]

-_-

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Is not Sony's fault MS can't properly manage a studio to save their life.

No be hating on Sony for MS faults and mistakes.

Turn 10, Playground Games, The Coalition, all continually turn on commercially and critically well received games. The top talent at Rare left 3 years before MS purchased them and MS managed to stick it out and Rare ended up releasing the enormously successful and polished Sea of Thieves.

Sony is obviously much better than MS at this, but MS always gets the shit but never the credit.

 

[Ozriel]

Is not Sony's fault MS can't properly manage a studio to save their life.

No be hating on Sony for MS faults and mistakes.

I mean, if you’re so sure Activision and COD will be largely irrelevant due to mismanagement, then one wonders why you’re so upset at the possibility of their games leaving PlayStation by 2027

Anyway, this has nothing to do with management. As soon as they decided to go the Gamepass route, it became essential for them to grow their first party output significantly. And acquisitions were the only realistic option for that. Blame Gamepass, if you must.

 

[Max_Po]

Turn 10, Playground Games, The Coalition, all continually turn on commercially and critically well received games. The top talent at Rare left 3 years before MS purchased them and MS managed to stick it out and Rare ended up releasing the enormously successful and polished Sea of Thieves.

Sony is obviously much better than MS at this, but MS always gets the shit but never the credit.

Those are the only ones and working better on their own before Phil Spencer. IT has taken some time for Sea of Theives.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Is not Sony's fault MS can't properly manage a studio to save their life.

No be hating on Sony for MS faults and mistakes.

You are drifting to a different subject. The subject in hand is Sony being pissed off and shitting their pants about COD. It's their highest selling game on their platform.

Yet Sony goes and buy Bungie at the same time MS buying Activision.

Do not come at me and say buying publisher is not same as buying studio. Bungie was no longer a studio and it was a publishing it's own game ever since the Activision split.

It's ok for Sony to buy the makers of Halo. But it's not ok for MS to buy Cod ?

Yeah Sony Can fuck off. They have been buying whatever they can within their budget. MS is doing the same. End of the subject . Jimbo can cry a river. In fact I hope he gets fired too. This guy sucks

 

[StreetsofBeige]

What is there to really argue about here?

Gamers facing the possibility of not playing COD on PS.

The shooter franchise considered the most noobish of all, repetitive and one of Microsoft's dudebro franchises they partnered with during the 360 days is now suddenly a big risk to gamers.

 

[ManaByte]

Those are the only ones and working better on their own before Phil Spencer.

Rare under Mattrick was making Kinect games and Xbox avatar clothing. Spencer greenlit Sea of Thieves after seeing the prototype.

 

[RoadHazard]

Lol. Because Sony did create insomniac , naughty dog, Bungie and most of their high profiles studios... Lol don't type anymore man ..

Sony did build ND up into what they are, and in practice Insomniac too (they have been a de facto Sony 2nd party studio since forever, with a few exceptions). The only one you're right about is Bungie.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Sony did build ND up into what they are, and in practice Insomniac too (they have been a de facto Sony 2nd party studio since forever, with a few exceptions). The only one you're right about is Bungie.

Bullshit to the highest level. Sony bought naughty dog after crash bandicoot commercial high profile release. Their first game as exclusive was jack and daxter. So no you are wrong.

Same goes for insomniac. After millions of high profile games they get bought. And same for Bungie.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I don't know why this thread needed 24 pages.

MS is going to own Activision before too long, and therefore own CoD. They don't have to release CoD after the agreements expire, they are not beholden to Sony. Jim Ryan confirmed what Phil Spencer said. What is there to really argue about here?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You are drifting to a different subject. The subject in hand is Sony being pissed off and shitting their pants about COD. It's their highest selling game on their platform.

Yet Sony goes and buy Bungie at the same time MS buying Activision.

Do not come at me and say buying publisher is not same as buying studio. Bungie was no longer a studio and it was a publishing it's own game ever since the Activision split.

It's ok for Sony to buy the makers of Halo. But it's not ok for MS to buy Cod ?

Yeah Sony Can fuck off. They have been buying whatever they can within their budget. MS is doing the same. End of the subject . Jimbo can cry a river. In fact I hope he gets fired too. This guy sucks

Yup.

Gaming partnerships have been going on forever. I'm sure Atari and Coleco did deals too. Sony is no stranger to them too buying up Psygnosis (all their multi plat games disappeared a few years later) and read up on Tomb Raider. I dont think anyone knew this at that time since there was no internet, but turns out they swung a deal with Core to make TR sequels exclusive to PS1 until 1999 or 2000 when Dreamcast or N64 finally got a port. And at that time TR was a smash hit new IP on Saturn and PS1.

Sony has been a big time COD partner since the launch of PS4. So Jim Ryan crying publicly (notice how he never spilled the beans on PS/COD deals) is sour grapes. The only difference is MS's deal is bigger.

 

[Arun1910]

PC/PS5 combo 4 life

 

[RoadHazard]

Bullshit to the highest level. Sony bought naughty dog after crash bandicoot commercial high profile release. Their first game as exclusive was jack and daxter. So no you are wrong.

Same goes for insomniac. After millions of high profile games they get baought. And same for Bungie.

ND has been a Sony studio for over 20 years, during which time they've become a critically acclaimed AAA studio. While the Crash games were fun at the time, there's a huge difference.

And Insomniac is more or less built on R&C, a Sony franchise.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I mean, if you’re so sure Activision and COD will be largely irrelevant due to mismanagement, then one wonders why you’re so upset at the possibility of their games leaving PlayStation by 2027

Anyway, this has nothing to do with management. As soon as they decided to go the Gamepass route, it became essential for them to grow their first party output significantly. And acquisitions were the only realistic option for that. Blame Gamepass, if you must.

This is what folks call 'Moving the Goalpost"? Cuz I never mention Game Pass, you just did.

MS found themselves without Studios and IP to be competitive regardless of Game Pass or not. And because of that they are have to pay exponentially more to catch up.

 

[CRAIG667]

I couldn't care less about COD but seeing the levels of buthurt around this subject is an absolute cringe fest of embarrassment... Yikes!