Oddvintagechap
Member
any game is replaceable. Sony is just trying to get favorable terms. Because why not?
What about Tomb Raider 2 and series on PS1. I see Tomb Raider on ps4..so your point is invalid. it is not exclusive. Where are the FF 7 remakes and 16 on non Sony systems.What about Tomb Raider on Xbox One?
https://www.eurogamer.net/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-exclusive-to-xbox-one
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.
It's not invalid, they payed for the exclusivity, just as probably Sony did in the past. Hell, maybe they just didn't want to release it on Xbox back in the day.What about Tomb Raider 2 and series on PS1. I see Tomb Raider on ps4..so your point is invalid. it is not exclusive. Where are the FF 7 remakes and 16 on non Sony systems.
Not only that but Sega had an agreement for the first ever Tomb Raider to launch on Saturn 6 weeks before Playstation. Tomb Raider has pretty much had agreements with everyone. The comparisons are asinine. The IP owner having freedom to choose how to sell their IP isn't equivalent to the platform holder buying up the IPs and restricting access to other platform as much as people want that whataboutism to be equivalent.What about Tomb Raider on Xbox One?
https://www.eurogamer.net/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-exclusive-to-xbox-one
Even MS was paying for exclusive games, I don't know why people is acting as if they just recently started to do this just because of Sony is paying for exclusives.
And it's so funny watching others mention "Sony blocking Japanese games on Xbox" when we have had news about Japanese developers just not wanting to make a port for Xbox, not because Sony blocked the game.
Jimbo is trying to flex what he can with UK and CMA but state side, things are almost unanimously in MS's favor
any game is replaceable. Sony is just trying to get favorable terms. Because why not?
Isn't that exactly what the IP owner did though? They chose how they wanted to sell it, and sold it to Microsoft.Not only that but Sega had an agreement for the first ever Tomb Raider to launch on Saturn 6 weeks before Playstation. Tomb Raider has pretty much had agreements with everyone. The comparisons are asinine. The IP owner having freedom to choose how to sell their IP isn't equivalent to the platform holder buying up the IPs and restricting access to other platform as much as people want that whataboutism to be equivalent.
Since when do you have to own to get timed-exclusives? Nintendo is getting plenty from Capcom and Square and there is no outrage.Sony, on the other hand, do not own Final Fantasy and have zero contributions to development and publishment. They're paying SE with the sole intention to keep it off of the rival consoles (and in FF16s case, PC release as obsfucated as possible since it's the next big mainline entry).
But PS1 did get Tomb raiders so the contract didn't stop Ps1 getting the first tomb raiders. In the USA the contract didn't exsist. But core was planning a tomb Raiders 2 for Saturn till Sony came in and bought it exclusive. So I fail to see your point. Since sony got the franchise when other people paid for timed exclusive but not when Sony does. then they cry when another company buys a franchise. Sony is two faced.Not only that but Sega had an agreement for the first ever Tomb Raider to launch on Saturn 6 weeks before Playstation. Tomb Raider has pretty much had agreements with everyone. The comparisons are asinine. The IP owner having freedom to choose how to sell their IP isn't equivalent to the platform holder buying up the IPs and restricting access to other platform as much as people want that whataboutism to be equivalent.
Well, maybe or maybe not, but that was basically the point I was making. The only weird thing about it, in case of Xbox, was how similar in structure they were trying to set it up their story and I wasn't really disagreeing with you. I was just saying that with Sony/Nintendo, we do have some indicators that some of the dramatization could be true — the awkward conference where both Philips and Sony announced their partnership with Nintendo. But yeah, I don't think Sony green-lit PlayStation simply because Nintendo betrayed them. I am sure they had plans to enter the market one way or the other. It could have taken the shape of the Nintendo PlayStation with Sony making it and benefiting from it, the reason Nintendo went to Philips anyway or what we know of PS today. We know what happened. Anyway, that was all.But the PlayStation itself was already being planned when before that change of partners, a Sony console was always coming you can't build hardware, get partners, and store logistics ready in a little over 1 year.
I guess it’s home will be basically PC? I’d imagine that user base already dwarves the Xbox one anyway.Will Xbox be able to produce the same quality CoD without the PS gamer market and 100% reliance on GamePass?
In a way yes but mergers and acquisitions are different and why competition law exists. in one you have an independent corporation in the industry promoting competition for platform holders hiring/working with publishers over given timeframes whereas in the other you can stifle competition by removing established industry players so that new entrants and rivals cannot compete or work with established competitors (publisher here).Isn't that exactly what the IP owner did though? They chose how they wanted to sell it, and sold it to Microsoft.
The point is that these deals aren't new and MS, Sega, Sony all have done it and continue to do it to this day. Dead Rising 3 permanent, PUBG timed, you name it, it's been done.But PS1 did get Tomb raiders so the contract didn't stop Ps1 getting the first tomb raiders. In the USA the contract didn't exsist. But core was planning a tomb Raiders 2 for Saturn till Sony came in and bought it exclusive. So I fail to see your point. Since sony got the franchise when other people paid for timed exclusive but not when Sony does. then they cry when another company buys a franchise. Sony is two faced.
You know the same people are going to keep making it right?CoD under the MS umbrella will be even more of a remnant in 3 years if HALO is anything to go by.
Sure and its why i said Sony did it. You could also argue the scale of GW and DL arent exactly COD and whatever Bethesdas main game they are working on (Star). Not to mention pretty sure Sony partially funded the games, i dont know how much though.Deathloop and Ghostwire say hi.
Starfield is a new IP but I’m sure it’ll sting if it turn out to be great.Starfield was going to be multiplatform. But sure, that's not a franchise yet.
And all of the ones you mention and more will become Xbox console exclusive, that's pretty much guaranteed.
As long as they don't let 343 touch any COD entry it will continue to churn out massive sales
Titanfall 1 and 2 were born from CoD devs. The online play was amazing, campaign in TF2 was flat out outstanding. It’s been done before. Can be done again.I mean honestly, what did they expect? MS are paying $70b for it. They’re not letting their direct competitor continue to benefit. Sony needs to focus on cooking up their answer to call of duty. At least they have 3 years notice. It’s not like you can’t create a cod competitor - CoD is a good franchise hidden underneath years of bloat and mess that put players off, like forced dlc downloads, confusing menus, over pushing paid dlc packs. Modern Warfare became crippled by it. I ended up spending more time downloading patches and shit for it than playing it. It’s the same every year.
The problem is there’s no similar alternative. Bring out a franchise that pays and feels CoD like, with more classic style and less all bloat and you can compete. I’m sure there’s hundreds of employees in the industry, and a few creative directors, who’ve worked on past CoD titles who could build a new one.
Because they have said all along it was staying multiplatConsidering Xbox commitment to GamePass, how/from where?
Why are people pretending Sony started exclusivity ? Shit goes both ways. Sony likes to buy timed exclusives Microsoft likes to buy entire companies and publishers. Honestly it sucks both ways. You all better be happy Sony isn’t as petty as I am. I would lock up SE, Capcom and From Soft buy castlevania outright while making a deal with Nintendo to join forces and tell MS to kiss my entire ass.
So what. The biggest mistake any of you make is taking corporate speak with anything more than a grain of salt. Y’all played yourselves.Because they have said all along it was staying multiplat
Indeed - they’ve been very prudent. The studios not putting out games of a good standard on a regular cadence were closed. The successful ones were grown and new partnerships were made. That’s good business.Sony has closed a lot of studios.
I know this whole deal really bothers a lot of people but I play on all platforms so COD going exclusive either way doesn't bother meSo what. The biggest mistake any of you make is taking corporate speak with anything more than a grain of salt. Y’all played yourselves.
I am not so certain. Just look at what they said after the acquisition. They plan to greenlight all these dormant Activision IPs, and have studios work on new stuff. Umm, what do you think that will do to CoD?You know the same people are going to keep making it right?
As long as they don't let 343 touch any COD entry it will continue to churn out massive sales
I see a lot of people that are really hung up about this issue. That’s great if you aren’t one of them. I appreciate you setting the record straight.I know this whole deal really bothers a lot of people but I play on all platforms so COD going exclusive either way doesn't bother me
And I don't stress about what these CEOs don't say and make things up in my mind about what they mean
Sorry if I didn't play myself like you had hoped
Because they have said all along it was staying multiplat
Jimbo is trying to flex what he can with UK and CMA but state side, things are almost unanimously in MS's favor
Most studios that were closed got to publish multiple entries so it's not like the decision was made lightly.Indeed - they’ve been very prudent. The studios not putting out games of a good standard on a regular cadence were closed. The successful ones were grown and new partnerships were made. That’s good business.
All possibleI am not so certain. Just look at what they said after the acquisition. They plan to greenlight all these dormant Activision IPs, and have studios work on new stuff. Umm, what do you think that will do to CoD?
Activision said that they literally have every single studio working on COD to ensure it comes out every year. Thats almost 30 studios working on yearly CoD, Warzone, and mobile CoD. You take away studios and you can say bye bye to yearly cod or have COD ship without coop or single player.
No other franchise has been able to continue pumping out AAA games with single player, coop and a massive MP mode every after year. Not even Ubisoft with its thousands of employees working on AC. If MS is planning on taking resources away from COD and from the sound of things they definitely are, the quality will suffer. I even heard talk of not making COD a yearly release which is insane. They should be going on hiring sprees hiring more people since next gen only COD will take even more resources instead of talking about taking away resources.
And it's not like they were able to get Bethesda better. It's the same people making the game, but MS had two years to ensure Starfield released on time and dropped the ball. With all their billions they couldnt get them the resources they needed. How do we know they will do it for COD?
Indeed. I think all the shut studios got a fair crack of the whip. Many just didn’t have a saleable long term vision.Most studios that were closed got to publish multiple entries so it's not like the decision was made lightly.
You know the same people are going to keep making it right?
As long as they don't let 343 touch any COD entry it will continue to churn out massive sales
The Gamepass model means that they can just switch to a GaaS with one single entry for the entire next gen which will save a hell of a lot of dev time for other projects. Third parties need to pump out new entries every year but that isn't what MS are currently switching to with a lot of their big franchises, they are moving away from reliance on boom and bust sales and more towards a steady revenue stream.I am not so certain. Just look at what they said after the acquisition. They plan to greenlight all these dormant Activision IPs, and have studios work on new stuff. Umm, what do you think that will do to CoD?
Activision said that they literally have every single studio working on COD to ensure it comes out every year. Thats almost 30 studios working on yearly CoD, Warzone, and mobile CoD. You take away studios and you can say bye bye to yearly cod or have COD ship without coop or single player.
No other franchise has been able to continue pumping out AAA games with single player, coop and a massive MP mode every after year. Not even Ubisoft with its thousands of employees working on AC. If MS is planning on taking resources away from COD and from the sound of things they definitely are, the quality will suffer. I even heard talk of not making COD a yearly release which is insane. They should be going on hiring sprees hiring more people since next gen only COD will take even more resources instead of talking about taking away resources.
And it's not like they were able to get Bethesda better. It's the same people making the game, but MS had two years to ensure Starfield released on time and dropped the ball. With all their billions they couldnt get them the resources they needed. How do we know they will do it for COD?
I think that model is superior for some titles. It's probably cheaper to support a game 4-5 years than it would be to make 2 or 3 new titles in that same span. With the GaaS model, there is a level of continuity where the product will keep getting better and better. New games it feels like upon release the first 6 months is mostly bug fixes. I think for some titles this is the better option for corporate gaming and the end user.The Gamepass model means that they can just switch to a GaaS with one single entry for the entire next gen which will save a hell of a lot of dev time for other projects. Third parties need to pump out new entries every year but that isn't what MS are currently switching to with a lot of their big franchises, they are moving away from reliance on boom and bust sales and more towards a steady revenue stream.
Well, maybe or maybe not, but that was basically the point I was making. The only weird thing about it, in case of Xbox, was how similar in structure they were trying to set it up their story and I wasn't really disagreeing with you. I was just saying that with Sony/Nintendo, we do have some indicators that some of the dramatization could be true — the awkward conference where both Philips and Sony announced their partnership with Nintendo. But yeah, I don't think Sony green-lit PlayStation simply because Nintendo betrayed them. I am sure they had plans to enter the market one way or the other. It could have taken the shape of the Nintendo PlayStation with Sony making it and benefiting from it, the reason Nintendo went to Philips anyway or what we know of PS today. We know what happened. Anyway, that was all.
More here:
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/business/nintendo-philips-deal-is-a-slap-at-sony.html
If MS is planning on taking resources away from COD and from the sound of things they definitely are, the quality will suffer.
From MS. look at their interviews. They talked about making other Activision IPs.No there's not much info in the Link, also I'm very well aware of the real story between Sony PlayStation and Philips, its like other older gaming stories, it's usually tabloid gossip for views, you need to dig for the truth. People like hero stories, or obvious plotlines.
What are you talking about? Where are you hearing this from, Vgchartz?
From MS. look at their interviews. They talked about making other Activision IPs.
We're saying the same thing.No there's not much info in the Link, also I'm very well aware of the real story between Sony PlayStation and Philips, its like other older gaming stories, it's usually tabloid gossip for views, you need to dig for the truth. People like hero stories, or obvious plotlines.
lol funny.
From MS. look at their interviews. They talked about making other Activision IPs.
Doesn't mean that Activision have to make those games though. Microsoft will be happy to let any of their studios have a crack at any of their IP.From MS. look at their interviews. They talked about making other Activision IPs.
Im gonna have to disagree on COD. I play almost every entry and while the core mechanics havent changed over the years, there is very little copy paste between the three studios that alternate every three years. For example, the sledgehammer team has been making ww2 era cod for the last two entries while Infinity Ward has made Modern era and Treyarch has stuck with vietnam. Before that, they were all using the titanfall wall running mechanics but again the settings were completely different. Infinite Warfare was set in space with space combat. Advanced Warfare was set in the modern day setting, and Blops was set in the future. All used different weapons, level design, and assets. Not something you can borrow and insert in your MP or single player campaigns.All possible
The biggest difference between Starfield and COD are the scope of each game and how much copy and paste COD has used over the years
I for one never believed Bethesda was hitting their initial target date and personally how way more faith in these COD studios
Would I be shocked if MS screws up COD in the long run?
Not in the least
I play the campaign every year and look forward to MW2 its the MP of late that has let me down honestly especially VanguardIm gonna have to disagree on COD. I play almost every entry and while the core mechanics havent changed over the years, there is very little copy paste between the three studios that alternate every three years. For example, the sledgehammer team has been making ww2 era cod for the last two entries while Infinity Ward has made Modern era and Treyarch has stuck with vietnam. Before that, they were all using the titanfall wall running mechanics but again the settings were completely different. Infinite Warfare was set in space with space combat. Advanced Warfare was set in the modern day setting, and Blops was set in the future. All used different weapons, level design, and assets. Not something you can borrow and insert in your MP or single player campaigns.
Even their coop were different. Treyarch uses zombies and class based Coop. This was actually not their turn last year but they still made zombies for sledghammers Vanguard. Infinity War uses completely new spec ops missions. THat is A LOT of work, and a lot of different studios are pulled in to make all of that happen. Bobby Kotick isnt stupid. He knows that you need every single activision studio to make this much content every year and as found out last year, even that wasnt enough and sales plummeted because the content didnt have the same quality.
The Warzone team does indeed reuse assets from different games but thats a whole another team and they only integrate those new weapons because it incentivizes faster weapon level ups if you buy the game.
Sorry for the rant. I just feel these games dont get the appreciation they deserve for the amount of content they put in each game year after year without fail.