DaedalusGrim
Banned
This is a joke, right? Both Ryan and Bungie have openly committed to staying multiplatform several times.
-
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
Slothbeing1209
Member
Nice we have 29 pages and gonna be more about which company money hat first and which company does it more lol.
Keep up the good work guys.
Keep up the good work guys.
Whoa, just doubling down on Insomniac as a multiplatform publisher… are you trying to convince me or yourself here? I guess scope and details matter and do not matter depending how you look at them.
We would not, no. If they had been exclusive to Xbox I think it would have been different, far different than buying Zenimax/Bethesda and Activision-Blizzard. You do know that.
I’m merely stating facts. Prior to acquisition, Insomniac certainly never considered themselves a ‘second party developer’ and they were a multiplatform studio in name.
A ‘second party developer’ doesn’t go publisher shopping for their games…and they went that route as recent as 2017 when they were trying to find options for a Sunset Overdrive sequel. These are factual bits of info.
Scope and details with corporations is what matters (intent much less even if you really could prove that… but intent wise, sure… try to rally the public against exclusives pointing at your competitors and keep doing what you accuse others of helps understand intent too… it also helps when you are a serial convicted monopolist / market power abuser
Hard to parse this rambling statement, but as far as I know, nobody’s ever convicted Xbox of being a ‘monopolist’ or ‘market abuser’. Even the parent body Microsoft hasn’t had any of that in decades, and the fact that the US DOJ, Senate and Congress excludes them from measures designed to crack down on Big Tech puts your ‘serial monopolist’ statement in the mud.
Sure, basically as a result MS is the poor victim in all of this, whatever keeps you thinking this is totally normal I guess.
Ironically, I’ve never tried to push this as any company being the ‘victim’. My position is unwavering that these are business decisions that make sense to the corporations, and from my stand point, additional content to Gamepass provides benefits to me as a consumer.
Given that your arguments are clearly geared towards the ‘victim’ approach, this just seems like a major Freudian Slip on your part.
I’m glad we now seem to be on the same page when it comes to discussing intent vs scope.
If it’s fine to rope 6 month timed exclusivity for The Ascent and 2 year timed exclusivity for Final Fantasy XVI under the same ‘paying for timed exclusivity banner’, then it’s perfectly valid to not quibble the difference between picking up Activision Blizzard and purchasing Bungie.
Same intent (growing first party library + development talent), different scope ($3bn vs $70bn).
Hope this puts us on the same page for good.
Topher
Gold Member
I was never confused about any of it, but ok….
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I’m merely stating facts. Prior to acquisition, Insomniac certainly never considered themselves a ‘second party developer’ and they were a multiplatform studio in name.
Well given how Sunset Overdrive sold, I'd argue that those who turned it down made the right call!
Gotta be real people; why should anyone bankroll a project that is likely to struggle to make its money back? Seriously, investment isn't unlimited and neither are development resources. Tying up too much of either on marginal projects is really unwise.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Yeah, I thought this was obvious. Spider Man looks like a direct evolution of Sunset Overdrive in many ways.I’m merely stating facts. Prior to acquisition, Insomniac certainly never considered themselves a ‘second party developer’ and they were a multiplatform studio in name.
A ‘second party developer’ doesn’t go publisher shopping for their games…and they went that route as recent as 2017 when they were trying to find options for a Sunset Overdrive sequel. These are factual bits of info.
Hard to parse this rambling statement, but as far as I know, nobody’s ever convicted Xbox of being a ‘monopolist’ or ‘market abuser’. Even the parent body Microsoft hasn’t had any of that in decades, and the fact that the US DOJ, Senate and Congress excludes them from measures designed to crack down on Big Tech puts your ‘serial monopolist’ statement in the mud.
Ironically, I’ve never tried to push this as any company being the ‘victim’. My position is unwavering that these are business decisions that make sense to the corporations, and from my stand point, additional content to Gamepass provides benefits to me as a consumer.
Given that your arguments are clearly geared towards the ‘victim’ approach, this just seems like a major Freudian Slip on your part.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Is that locked in print anywhere or just a blog post? That's what we're discussing in this thread.
If I make a joke, you'll know it! ... maybe. Sometimes I go for pretty dry sarcasm and I think people don't notice ....
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Sony hasnt been able to make a CoD, or even a Halo killer in decades. Not to mention Sony is mad stressing the completion of this deal because theyve had no luck in creating anything close to CoD. Think it through, guy.
CeeJay
Member
Yep, gotta be real! I don't play sales, I play games. I couldn't give a rats ass how much a game sold, as a consumer that's not my problem. I really enjoyed SSOD, easily one of my top 5 games of last gen and although a pity it never got a sequel greenlit it was still a good game.
The point though is that it exists and it was really enjoyable but by your logic it would have been better all round if it didn't exist at all?
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
You need to care though, because this whole creative business runs on money. Which is why you don't have a sequel to look forward to, and likely never will.
Games aren't made by elves in Santa's grotto! They are the product of years of labour by salaried/contracted employees. All of whom need to be paid, and need to know that they will still be paid in the future. Who the hell wants to be constantly switching employers/locations after all?
Nobody wants to see projects fail; but the plain fact of the matter is that some will - and that's a happenstance that should be avoided for the good of all concerned.
3liteDragon
Member
It’ll most likely still be published by Activision Publishing but under the XGS umbrella like Bethesda so it’s all first-party anyway. My reply was to him saying Sony locked down Spider-Man “a third-party game” to their platform. Sony went to Marvel to ask for a license to publish & fund their own title (it’s a first-party title), which Microsoft could do right now & make their own Spider-Man game. If he’s talking about the Avengers exclusivity deal, that I already agree with, it’s a fucked up thing to do. Idk how they pulled that off since Marvel owns the IP.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I have Xbox fans keeping tabs on that perhaps, I do not know. Can you please check? Thanks
.Microsoft has also verbally committed to keeping COD multiplatform, just like minecraft. Commitments made at the highest levels.
They just will not put it in a signed and sealed guarantee because they NEED flexibility. And that’s perfectly fine. Making a legally binding commitment to the end of the generation is very generous.
Has Ryan provided a signed and sealed agreement that Bungie’s future games would remain multiplatform in all perpetuity?
To be fair, he didn’t specify a title. they’ve also paid to keep Spiderman locked down in Avengers…
And yes, it’s just business
CeeJay
Member
No I don't need to care.
I hate how homogenised AAA game production has become and I avoid most big budget games because they suck, they generally don't do anything outside what they think will sell and feel like a box ticking exercise to include the currently popular trends. This means that generally AAA games are boring derivative beige soup that are safe regardless of how much hype they generate or how many copies they sell. Sure, if a big AAA game fails to sell then it can put that studio in trouble and I feel for anyone who loses their job and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But, from a consumer point of view those safe games don't interest me (and yes it's quite a selfish viewpoint but it's MY OWN hard earned money that I am spending and I want satisfaction). I don't want to feel like I am just going through the motions playing the same old game with a fresh coat of paint, I want the games I play to introduce new and exciting mechanics and offer fresh creative experiences. If you follow your logic to it's natural conclusion we end up with just a load of super publishers such as EA, Ubi or Activision pumping out sequel after sequel and not taking any risks. How many times have we heard people say stuff like "EA need to die" or "Ubi games are all cookie cutter"? If a big developer does fold and close then all that talent goes somewhere and it's these big development houses today that give valuable experience to young hungry creative people who then go on to found the fresh indie studios of tomorrow. It's the circle of life. It's these indie studios where all the new ideas come from, where all the freshest and most creative games come from. SSOD was one of those rarest of games where a big studio took a risk and put out a fresh exciting game. It was fully funded by Microsoft as far as I remember so Insomniac were able to take a creative risk without the financial risk and I applaud them both for making that happen. Maybe you miss-understood when I mentioned that it didn't get a sequel. I am not unhappy that it didn't but I am happy that SSOD exists at all and that is enough.
I always felt MS didn’t make the right call with both that game and Alan Wake 2. Both sequels their respective creators petitioned MS to fund. At a time when Spencer was struggling to string together good exclusives for the Xbox one, those could really have helped.
sales are important, but both games would have broken even, and helped the Xbox One.
DaGwaphics
Member
LOL MS could not make or negotiate any binding agreements in regards to Activision. That's illegal until the deal closes, just like with Bethesda. I'm sure that any deals in the future will not be in Sony's favor as much as the current ones, that's the way it works. It would be unrealistic to think that MS would continue forward with a deal identical to the existing one, a deal that directly disadvantages their own platform and services. The best Sony will get is parity, which Ryan probably wouldn't be happy with.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
Let that first page be cemented as one of the most legendary first pages in not just gaf but forum history
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If/When this deal completes, Call of Duty will also become a first party title.
yurinka
Member
I didn't mean in identical terms, I assume that after the current Activision+Sony deal MS would get the exclusive for game subs and marketing. I meant what they offered was simply to continue releasing CoD on PS.
Phil is the one who publicly that he contacted the Sony bosses with a signed agreement about their intent to continue publishing CoD after their deal with Activision for at least several years more and without Xbox timed exclusivity or Xbox exclusive content, not me.
Later Jimbo confirmed that Phil approached them but clarified that what Phil, MS, MS's president or Activision said regarding their future relationship with PlayStation isn't true.
Maybe Phil can't sign the deal itself for X games, but can sign a deal saying 'if we end acquiring Acquisition I promise we'll publish X games and if we don't do it we'll pay yo Y amount of money' or something like that. And if they end acquiring ABK then they'd sign specifically the game specific (or for a certain amount of year, or even in perpetuity) deals.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
A signed letter of intent isn't an agreement or something that Ryan is even in a position to accept/reject. That's the laugh in regards to this whole topic.
Also, the fact that MS isn't guaranteeing the software for a lifetime, doesn't mean it won't be on there forever and ever. Anything can happen, what if Sony and MS hardware became more divergent and a PS port was unrealistic, etc. A contract having an end date does not signify that no future contracts can be negotiated.
Last edited:
yurinka
Member
“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,” says Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer in a statement to The Verge.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/2/2...station-letter-commitment-activision-blizzard
"A signed agreement is a signature on a piece of paper and is a powerful legal piece between two parties."
https://www.upcounsel.com/signed-agreement
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Granted I am not an attorney but I have done a lot of business dealings over the years and a signed letter of intent is 100% legally binding unless that signed letter states otherwise
Bernd Lauert
Banned
DaGwaphics
Member
A quick google search returns 100 results saying a letter of intent is not legally binding.
https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/letter-of-intent/#:~:text=What is a letter of,intent is not legally binding.
Is just one example.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/wall_street_179681980-5bfc2b9746e0fb0083c07d29.jpg)
How Legally Binding Is a Letter of Intent?
Find out when a letter of intent (LOI) is binding and non-binding. Understand the role of drafting language, and when an LOI is treated like a contract.
Though there are some instances where a courts have considered them equal to contracts.
A letter of intent is not a contract. I'm pretty sure MS can't even entertain a contract until the deal closes.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
My only takeaway from this is that Phil and Jim need to get in a boxing match with Gaben as the referee. Fuck these company wars, I want to see hands thrown
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Even the link you gave me states
A party that has signed a letter of intent (LOI) may be legally bound to honor it depending on how the letter is drafted. In a business-to-business transaction, a letter of intent normally contains a provision stating that the letter is non-binding. Even if such language is not included, it is possible a court would rule that the letter is only an expression of intent. On the other hand, the parties to a letter of intent should not rely on assumptions: Strong non-binding language is recommended.
Says it may or may not be so I change my number from 100% as I said I am not an attorney but even with that statement it sounds pretty binding to me unless stated otherwise
Plus the court of public opinion Phil would get murdered if he reneged on something he signed
DaGwaphics
Member
That's the verbiage he used in that interview, sure. Buy I don't believe it is legal for MS to make a binding agreement in regards to an entity that they don't control as of yet. They really shouldn't have any more legal control over Activision than Sony at this point. I don't know how it works. Unless they are allowed to make an agreement that becomes effective after they take over, I don't know.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
For sure. I doubt they have any intention of going against what they've already stated. Which is parity with PS, which apparently wasn't good enough for Ryan.
SirTerry-T
Member
Nah pal, she told me she definitely meant adequate
yurinka
Member
For MS isn't legal to lie to market regulators and to their investors either, but it's legal to lie in Twitter or in a statement to The Verge.
If such signed agreement exists it wouldn't be in the name of Activison, it would be in the name of Phil Spencer/MS: it would say something like "if we end Acquiring ABK, we promise we'll come back to give you this if you give us that. And if we don't end buying them, then nothing".
As you say they can't do stuff as ABK until they close the acquisition, so as I mentioned before in case that agreement would have existed and both MS would have agreed it, then later once they close the acquisition or once the current ABK+Sony deals ends they'll sign the games themselves: in that moment it's when they should do it in the name of ABK or already have owned them.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Couple of things;
First of all, when I wrote how you should care I should have qualified that by saying that you need to care if you value the future of the business; what comes next. Because there are consequences to be aware of.
I'd also stress that its not just about AAA. It works the same regardless of scale. If you're a small or even mid-sized team working on AA or lower the only difference is that the bar to break even gets lower and the margins get ever thinner. Often to the extent that one failure or cancellation will put you out of business permanently.
Having a lower budget paradoxically does not insulate against risk. If anything it makes it more of a threat. The reason why AAA became a thing was as a process of rationalized risk-mitigation. You spend big, you stand out among your peers. That investment in production cost will likely be mirrored in marketing spend. etc.
This is what I feel people are missing about the whole GamePass model. You might see more adventurousness in what gets greenlit, but you're also going to see lower budgets, less support, less promotional follow-through, less care all around about the work because its just "product" intended to fill a content pipeline.
Initially all looks good because plans won't have been formulated yet about how to precisely fine-tune the performance of that pipeline. but believe me, they will get around to it. And things will start to change as a result.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Good thing it never happened then.
Also never happened.
Jimbo confirmed it exists.
Yes, it's a letter of intent.
yurinka
Member
I shown an example above. You have more in every single statement from MS, Activision, Phil Spencer or the MS president regarding CoD remaining multiplatform/or in PS, including the ones they did for regulators. There are many threads about this topic.
Jimbo confirmed that Phil approached them to offer 3 years more on PS after their deal between PS and ABK ends.
He didn't say if Sony signed the 3 more years deal it or not. But for sure he didn't liked it and sounds angry, so probably didn't signed it and there isn't agreement between Sony and MS.
Yes, I think the signed agreement mentioned by Phil would be a letter of intent: a legally binding document where they commit to do something else in the future if certain conditions are met.
MS mentioning in multiple -even legally binding- places that they plans was to keep CoD on PS beyond their current deal with ABK, even mentioning Minecraft as example, saying they were going to bring it even to Switch too ("we plan to bring it more platforms, not less"), and that would do it releasing it on PS day one and full featured.
Said it to regulators and investors in this acquisition related investigations, corporate blog posts, interviews or social media. Phil even mentioned they had a signed agreement with Sony reassuring that they'll keep CoD on PS past curent Sony+ABK deal.
Jim said this all is bullshit and that MS's plan is to make CoD console exclusive once the current ABK+Sony ends, that they only offered them 3 extra years and that was 'inappropiate in multiple levels', probably meaning that MS asked for abusive conditions -which pretty likely can't mention due to NDAs- to sign this 3 extra years deal.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
Tbh outside of black ops and world at war, battlefield was always the far better franchise, actually Cares about the wars and history more. Its a far more accurate depiction of a war and has always been more fun with destruction, vehicles, different classes, etc
I wish it got more popular instead of brainless COD which fucked up the FPS industry more than helped
Punished Miku
Gold Member
Reading comprehension is pretty low these days. Most people just read a headline and try and infer "good" or "bad" and that's it. You can see this in most news stories, particularly on MSNBC or Fox. They can often times even report the exact same story, but one is framed as good and one is framed as bad.
Here, I think all people got was "inadequate" .... that means bad. That's it lol. He's literally confirming everything Phil said.
FalsettoVibe
Member
Not lied....more like mislead.
If you ever testify in a legal proceeding, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Phil looks bad because the PR suggested that MS was committed to keeping COD on PS. But based on the allegation that behind the scenes they told Sony the games would keep coming for only 3 more years after the existing deal ends, then an honest person might say that the whole truth should have included "only for a really short time" when the PR statements were made. It may not have been a lie when the PR was put out there, but it was still misleading by omission if Jim is telling the truth.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
In what universe is three years beyond the existing deal a "really short time"? Most timed exclusive deals are months or one year. Three years is a very very long time in gaming.
If it would make you happier pretend I said only for 3 more years. But since you asked, in the grand scheme of consoles and console games, 3 years is a very short time. In the MS world, it is about 1/3 to 1/2 the time it takes to make one Halo game. So not long at all.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Where does it say the existing agreement is the same 3 year deal Phil supposedly proposed back to Jim?
Maybe the deal ends earlier and Phil’s latest deal is 3 years beyond it.
Maybe the deal ends in 2 years, and Phil’s 3 year deal includes it, so that means it’s one year more than planned. So that would be what Phil said, it goes beyond the existing.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
Which obviously they aren't going to do. And again, for the hundredth time, just because the letter of intent had a limit in years that doesn't equate to future agreements being off the table. It's normal for these things to be done for a limited term, just like Sony was already doing with Activision (they don't have a forever deal for those games right now either).
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
That isn't what happened. MS aren't saying that CoD will go xbox exclusive after any agreement ends, they are just committing to at least that long which is likely longer than Activision ever agreed to support any given platform.
DaGwaphics
Member
It's so obvious it isn't even funny.
Which part of what I wrote didn't happen? Did Phil deny offering only 3 more years after the agreement ends?
DaGwaphics
Member
That's some big assumptions right there. More than likely the letter just removed the advantages for PS and leveled the field with Xbox. Obviously, any roadblocks for GP inclusion would be removed as well. Which Ryan probably wasn't happy about.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Exactly.
Amazing all these Sony fans care that much about COD anyway. A game pigeon holed as noobish and rehash galore suddenly has big interest.
With MS offering a 3 year deal to begin with has got to be the longest deal ever in gaming aside from I think EA doing bigger deals for the NFL license.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked