-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PlayStation: Xbox's Call of Duty offer was "inadequate on many levels"
- Thread starter reksveks
- Start date
DerivedDataCache
Member
Within 1 day 25+ pages.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Hey guys, remember when Satya Nadella said Microsoft wouldn't need to do any concessions whatsoever to buy Activision?
And remember when Jimbo had to explain publicly why regulators are breathing down Microsoft's neck, to the dismay of some fanboys?
It could be that these two are connected, I don't know... maybe.
And remember when Jimbo had to explain publicly why regulators are breathing down Microsoft's neck, to the dismay of some fanboys?
It could be that these two are connected, I don't know... maybe.
PaintTinJr
Member
Seems like the the offer by Microsoft was to coincide with their start of the next-gen (3years+3years from now) so they could do maximum damage at the start of a new generation by taking CoD off of PlayStation and marketing it's exclusivity when it matters most.
Trying the same tactic 5years into this elongated gen(2years in already + another 3) might completely backfire for Microsoft if PlayStation repeats the PS4 vs X1 dominance (or better) with the PS5, as having the lion's share of the players on PlayStation would make it harder to take CoD Xbox console exclusive mid-gen and still preserve it's popularity - if say a PS first party just cloned the CoD experience with a FTP game and offered up big prize money in esports for it at Evo.
Microsoft also probably chose that length of contract to make it look like a far off tomorrow problem for regulators thinking about blocking the deal.
Trying the same tactic 5years into this elongated gen(2years in already + another 3) might completely backfire for Microsoft if PlayStation repeats the PS4 vs X1 dominance (or better) with the PS5, as having the lion's share of the players on PlayStation would make it harder to take CoD Xbox console exclusive mid-gen and still preserve it's popularity - if say a PS first party just cloned the CoD experience with a FTP game and offered up big prize money in esports for it at Evo.
Microsoft also probably chose that length of contract to make it look like a far off tomorrow problem for regulators thinking about blocking the deal.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Along the same line I wonder how many people only play COD and yearly releases like Fifa and NBA 2k and really don't care about exclusives
I would imagine that segment of people wouldn't care about switching to whatever box they need at the start of a new generation to get their COD fix.
If this were the case it just goes to show that even with amazing online play and flat out outstanding campaign Titanfall failed to get anywhere near the commercial success of CoD.
Dumbest meme ever because even when "xbox had no games" it always had CoD every year before too so those who were saying it clearly weren't talking about CoD.
Last edited:
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
This^^
3liteDragon
Member
Spider-Man's a first-party title published by Sony, too bad for you MS turned Marvel down.
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Another comment that has no forethought what's so ever. Jesus, you're spectacular. Smh...
Sony is fighting to keep the status quo. Period. They have the lead now, yes. But that won't last long at this rate. Microsoft has the ability to hit any screen they want with cloud, and the best game subscription on the market. Regardless if Sony still get CoD, Game pass will make em sweat and they know it.Who's going to pay $70 on PS5 for CoD when they can virtually play free on Game pass for $9.99?
And to answer your question, yes. They have a few titles that Sony STILL can't touch till this day. why do you think Sony bought Bungie? Can't they make a competent FPS on their own? Shit, no! Sony makes good games. But they're getting served on the racing, FPS, 3rd person cover shooters, gas games and WRPG's
I can't wait until this,deal,goes through. It'll shake Sony's tree, heavy. A 100_billion dollar company against a 2_trillion dollar company.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Nonsense. EA released Titanfall 2 mere weeks before Battlefield 1 and CoD WW2, which sold 15 million and 20 million copies, respectively. Titanfall 2 was doomed to fail almost entirely because of that fact. Anyone that enjoys online MP games had their sites set on CoD or BF1, not Titanfall 2. Was such a terrible move on their part.
At any rate, Respawn later went on to release Apex Legends (which is a Titanfall game) which is the 3rd most popular game on Steam, 7th on Xbox Live, 2nd on PlayStation.
Suffice to say, you can build a new IP to compete and succeed.
I'm not sure that's the reason why. If it were based purely on it being released weeks before Cod and BF the franchise would have continued and released in another period. Titanfall 1 also did not release near any other big games. It released near spring and didn't get anywhere near the commercial success. As you mention though luckily they had good reception and player count with a f2p GaaS game in Apex Legends instead. One where you don't need to get those entrenched in a franchise to spend anything to try out alternatives.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
TF2 actually released in between BF1 and COD WWII.
It was doomed with that release date, but EA being EA always has to release all their shooters before COD in hopes gamers burn out their money on their games and dont save for COD.
TF2's online was a disaster too. TF1 was much more fun. TF2 felt like COD and the titans were gimped vs TF1. It also had dumb perks like that see through walls echo perk everyone spammed every 30 seconds.
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
Exactly. Don’t underestimate the casual market. They are the majority.
Most of us Gaffers at least understand or are interested in the business side of games. The average consumer is not. If they see CoD = Xbox, they will buy that console if that’s their primary game. That’s the main point the UK regulator are making and they are researching it further. I don’t think it will stop the deal at all and I don’t really want it to or care in many ways. But it’s such an interesting story to follow.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I'm sure that is exactly why. Titanfall and Titanfall 2 were legit games, but they were new in a market that had existing fans of established franchises. As of May this year Apex generated over $2 billion in revenue since launching in 2019. Pretty big success story if you ask me, proving that you can compete.
Correct, it did release in between, appreciate the correction.
I found TF2 to be in a much better state at launch than BF1 was, which despite it being an amazing game had major server issues for months after release. Regardless, Apex proves that you can bring something new to the table and have success, compete, etc. TF2 was a bust in the end because they lined it up against the two biggest online FPS releases of the year.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I dont play F2P games like Fortnite or Apex, but I was amazed Apex blew out of the gate getting tons of gamers playing. It had no marketing. I think it literally did a stealth launch and it was an overnight success. It got good reviews too which always helps.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I'm not a fan of it per se, but I'm happy that Respawn was able to get that level of success which evaded them. It's not everyday someone working for EA does a good thing lol.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Sony doesn’t own Spiderman. They permanently blocked him in a third party game, while leaving him alone in Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3. He’s a major character, and it was targeted against Xbox/PC players.
Sony didn’t care about the impact on customers of the other platforms. It was Sony being dicks.
Now they’re crying it’s not fair when Microsoft knocked their teeth down their throats. They’re scrambling to get on PC and mobile. Their console business is going to be hurting and they know it.
Last edited:
Menzies
Banned
I really don't think there's more to it other than an unprecedented commitment in length of time to be contractually obliged to a competitor to keep up an annual release schedule.
As people have pointed out, the series is on a popularity decline even before Microsoft has been handed the reins.
How long is fair to be committed to annual release schedules? 10 years? There's a huge risk here that I don't think Microsoft would accept that general gamer interest in the series doesn't drop off a cliff, and that they can't move all these studios on to a fresh franchise beyond 6 years.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Huh? Insomniac's Spider-Man was 100% funded and published by Sony. It's a new franchise and it has no relation with the old Activision games. They didn't take that game away from anyone. It wouldn't exist without them. You should be grateful.
It's now on PC too so you lost another argument.
kikii
Member
ohmyy ..... prolly 4th time but lets make it clear for u too >>>>>>>> Xbox Declined a Marvel Exclusive Deal, Leading to Sony's Spider-Man Franchise <<<<<<<< ^^
Last edited:
FalsettoVibe
Member
ManaByte
Gold Member
They own the film rights to Spider-Man. The character itself is still owned by Marvel.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Yep. I dont think they are worried about this gen. This is about next gen. The best they can hope for is for Sony to agree to this deal so they can get the deal through saying they have Sonys blessing. Then as soon as the deal goes through, they announce that the deal expires by the end of the gen so everyone better get in the xbox eco system. I think they are betting that by announcing that the exclusivity is eventually coming they will convince at least gamers to invest in the xbox system today and start the transition now. Get a running start so to speak.
Like you said, it might backfire if the PS4 repeats the 2:1 sales performance so they might want to get the ball rolling this gen, and coming out and saying that the exclusivity is only for several years tells the casual gamer not to go buy the PS5 while also appearing to be pre-consumer to regulators.
Jimbo knows this which is why he called them out. To him, this deal cant go through because lets face it, his entire PSN business revolves around COD. He has no MP games so those 46 million PS+ subs all go away when the biggest online game disappears from his system. Thats why he went and got Bungie for a ridiculous $3.2 million. Those casuals also bring in a huge userbase that spends a lot of dollars on PSN which is where almost all the profit is generated. Jimbo's best bet is to kill this deal somehow.
Can they survive without cod? Nintendo did, but it came at the cost of them basically leaving the console business or rather merging their handheld and console business. And Nintendo had a rough few years before finding success with Switch. Sony is way too reliant on the massive PSN userbase that brings billions of dollars, and as soon as that audience leaves, it takes all those dollars with them. Can they survive with being a $10 billion a year company instead of a $20 billion a year company? Maybe, but it will come at a cost, and the cost will be fewer exclusives and a massive layoff of their first party studios. Jim Ryan doesnt want to have it to come to that.
P.S I dont remember where I read this but someone posted this back when the deal was first announced. COD userbase made up 45% of the online userbase on console and the GTA online userbase was around 40%. Sony shouldve just gone and bought Take2 instead of Bungie. If you want to save your business you go for the next best thing. Destiny is like the 10th best thing behind Pubg, Fortnite, Warzone, Fifa, Madden and NBA. Take2 was likely going to cost $20-30 billion but they shouldve done it. Right now they have ZERO leverage and are hoping against hope that regulators kill the deal which they wont.
Last edited:
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Spider-Man isn't a third party game, it's a 1st party Sony game contracted out to be developed by an external (at the time) studio. Just like all the R&C games, Demon's Souls, etc (with the difference that Sony doesn't actually own the Spider-Man IP).
Edit: Oh, you were talking about Spider-Man in The Avengers. I forgot about that game. Does anyone actually care? Lol.
Last edited:
SteadyEvo
Member
How long do we think COD will continue? Surely gamers will get tired of playing the same old campaign and multiplayer. Fatigue will set in at some point. Right?
Bumblebeetuna
Member
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
It at least doesn't allow MS to lie to the public anymore.
Kagey K
Banned
Now try reading page 2 - 26. I'm sure you'll find that had been gone over to death.
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Ehh, Respawn and the rotting corpse of Bioware are about the only thing worth getting out of EA imo. We'll see if the Dead Space remake lives up to the titanic shadow the first two games cast. MS should have snapped up Bioware after ME1.
Last edited:
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
MScarpa
Member
They can't afford that. It's not magic, you can't just MAKE it happen.
MacReady13
Member
Me! Some of us out there want to own our games. So what we do is, instead of paying monthly to rent the games we want to play, some of us will go out, purchase the games we want, and play them paying a 1 off fee (Micro transactions not withstanding).
And trust me, there are still many millions of us out there who are happy buying games to own over renting games for a limited time or until they remove them from the service/you stop paying Microsoft a monthly fee.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
They can’t afford to go out of business either. Desperate times.They can't afford that. It's not magic, you can't just MAKE it happen.
modiz
Member
"Anytime now..."
According to Jim cod is on PlayStation since 20 years. If he would think his elite gamers would not be interested anymore then surely he would sing a different song and wouldn't be mad. But he is. While Xbox is paying 69bn for ABK. So, of course you can hope for fatigue so that it doesn't look like a big loss that it currently definitely would be for PlayStation, but there's no indication for that this deal isn't extremely important for Jim. It's the exact opposite.
They likely sold millions of the holiday cod PlayStation bundles. Every year.
In Cold Blood
Banned
MS has created studios and it has purchased studios just like Sony has done.
MS created Turn 10, 343i, The Coalition and The Initiative.
Sony is no different.
When was the last time Sony opened a new AAA studio, and when was the last time they acquired one?
The only difference is Sony doesn't have the same money as MS to acquire studios.
However, if Sony had of taken the money they used to buy exclusives and put that into creating or buying new studios all those years ago, their internal studios would look very different.
Never forget that Sony did everything it could to try and destroy the Xbox. They spent a ton of money buying content with the intent of increasing the sales of their platform. To then have Jim Ryan crying that MS might sell more consoles or convert some Sony players to Xbox is just so cringe and embarrassing it's not funny. Even the most stupid Sony fanboys have had a bit of a hard time running with this one.
01011001
Banned
that's what people said when Microsoft bought Minecraft.
and, well... 93 million monthly users last year in that game
Last edited:
Halo is Back
Member
I bet these "pathetic" CEOs are making more money than you.
Kagey K
Banned
That's the crux of it right there, except Sony wasn't paying for exclusivity to boost sales. They were literally trying to starve other consoles of content in order to make thier platform more attractive. It was a 2 pronged attack they had planned to continue using until thier competition gave up.
People like to say Sony hasn't done 1 thing close to the size of this, and while true, it's been more death from 1000 cuts, and the bigger share they got the cheaper new blades got to cut with.
Hopefully things are closer this gen, and that strategy becomes prohibitively expensive for them, so they can try to attract new customers by offering something they want, instead of doing it at the expense of thier competitors.
Last edited:
abacab driver
Banned
How many games will you have purchased by the end of this year? And if so, which games?
Kagey K
Banned
Thier bonuses are probably more than most of us will make all year, never mind the actual salary.
Menzies
Banned
Agree to the point about the IP 'staying power', but nothing is assured.
Minecraft is a one-off release with updates. There is no annual release schedule for brand new campaigns and multi-player. The commitment to every other platform lives and dies with the sales remaining consistent.
To be beholden to a 6-year contract for CoD, a game with annual releases, and on a current decline...is not nothing. To be honest I believe Microsoft will still continue to release CoD beyond those 6 years, but only as and if it is still profitable to do so. They probably (and fairly) don't want to be locked-in to contract terms with a competitor, on mandating supporting a franchise which may not always have the sales to support it.
Kagey K
Banned
I remember people laughing at the Minecraft deal and saying MS overpaid and they would never recoup that money.
The opinions here rarely match reality.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-announces-purchase-of-minecraft-creator-mojang.895097/
Last edited:
Menzies
Banned
Do these people buy a house and think they need to re-earn the entire cost of their house for it to be successful? Microsoft could sell Minecraft right now for 5 billion easily.
draliko
Member
Gaf and reality are two parallel tracks... this place is full of armchair experts nowadays and way less gamers that it used to have... here we argue about games not play them
FalsettoVibe
Member
Sounds similar to the Sony/Bungie acquisition threads...
Kagey K
Banned
They don't understand there are assets that have value underneath the revenue.
They just see it cost X to buy and it makes X per year so it'll take a billion years to make that money back.
They also don't understand that there are tax implications and companies would pay that money to straight taxes on profits by holding cash, and sometimes having extra assets on the balance sheet is better than having cash on hand.
But I also don't exprct them to, as that's obviously not thier area of expertise.
Similar threads
- Locked