-
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
TheInfamousKira
Reseterror Resettler
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
If MS offered a 3 year deal and Sony said forget it, it obviously means Sony isnt desperate enough to force themselves to take it. So where's the problem?
ahtlas7
Member
This is true! They need to dust off ole Killzone and make it proper competition!
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I keep hearing this and I can't understand why purchasing an Xbox or playing on PC isn't an alternative? How many hard core Call of Duty fans will absolutely refuse to play the game unless it's on PlayStation? One of the knocks against Xbox was that it has no exclusives. CoD won't be an Xbox exclusive no matter what and it will further be available on other places Game pass is available. Xbox is also cheaper in most places around the world. If a person really wants to play CoD. There will be plenty of places to play it even if it isn't on PlayStation.
ZehDon
Gold Member
Based on Ryan's comments, he wants regulatory bodies to force Microsoft into an agreement of indefinite availability for PlayStation. As long as Ryan has that card to play, any deal Microsoft offers will be shouted down as "inadequate". Once the global regulatory bodies start signing off on the deal without forcing Microsoft into that position - only one has so far - Ryan will accept Microsoft's initial offer, because Microsoft won't retract it in order to look favourable to said regulatory bodies. Make no mistake: Sony's biggest money maker is PSN, and Call of Duty is the biggest driver of that platform. Ryan is desperate - because if Call of Duty walks, PSN numbers go down, and Sony's profits and stock price with it. There's a reason they're all in on GaaS.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Would be nice to see that deviation games title step up but with that lead guy leaving it doesn't look too good.
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
Punished Miku
Gold Member
It's kind of already hinted at in Phil's original statement. He said their offer goes "well beyond" the norm for this kind of deal or situation. Pretty sure he thinks this is bullshit. Up to the regulators to pick a side now.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
I don't see why Microsoft would, from their point of view, they've made what they consider a good offer. Sony have said it's inadequate, revealed what the offer is and said essentially that they want guaranteed access to COD, presumably forever.
I assume that was the final play, that Microsoft are unprepared to give Sony more guarantees and Sony haven't offered a compromise.
metareferential
Member
What the fuck is that "we want our gamers to have CoD" principle nonsense?
Sony's gamers or Ms' gamers don't exist. Gamers are just customers, and they buy what they like. There's no right to have anything, besides actual deals between devs and publishers.
Games and devs get bought out every time. It's not like CoD is some end all be all game.
They're throwing a tantrum because they're just spoiled. It's like Nintendo in the late '90s, when - guess who? Sony - ended up kicking their asses.
Sony's gamers or Ms' gamers don't exist. Gamers are just customers, and they buy what they like. There's no right to have anything, besides actual deals between devs and publishers.
Games and devs get bought out every time. It's not like CoD is some end all be all game.
They're throwing a tantrum because they're just spoiled. It's like Nintendo in the late '90s, when - guess who? Sony - ended up kicking their asses.
This is what I would do. Start now. Go crazy and roll it out after the three years is up. 3 years is a long time to make a killer AAA game.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You know you're in the wrong when even your fellow UK brethren say your statements make no sense
CoD segment timestamped in the video.
Last edited:
tmlDan
Member
You know you're in the wrong when even your fellow UK brethren say your statements make no sense
CoD segment timestamped in the video.
why would we listen to DF on anything like this?
They have no merit in this space and they clearly don't understand why this is happening. It's sad how uninformed they are, they act like Sony hasn't addressed the GP issue as well with regulators.
like the WZ discussion/point they discussed made no sense at all, also did not address that they plan on not making them every year - also, them not understanding it, is because they have a very narrow view of what the potential impact it is to players (ie. players who bought a PS5 having the game removed from their platforms without them knowing in the future, essentially forcing them to buy something they may not be able to afford) they just regurgitate the twitter trolls points.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There has been absolutely no indication from anyone that games will be removed from any platform. MS/Bethesda did not remove their catalog of games from the PS platforms after acquisition.
If you mean people not getting future releases in a franchises, spare a thought for the Final Fantasy fans on Xbox who bought FFXV and then had the next numbered game taken away from their platform without them knowing about it too.
tmlDan
Member
wow, you're just doing the same thing...answer this, how many FF games have launched on Xbox? How many COD games have been sold at launch on PS? and give me the number of people it sold by console? Then you'll have seen how dumb your response is.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Besides FFXIV and FFVIIR just about every numbered FF game has launched on Xbox, and they've launched day and date on Xbox since the 3 FFXIII games and XV. You would have assumed the next numbered single player game would also launch multiplatform.
That is not the same as an acquisition, mind you despite which CoD games were going to continue coming to PS platforms.
You already made one inaccurate assumption in your last post about any studio removing games from a platform, there is no historical precedent for it. You probably shouldn't call others posts dumb.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
The problem is they could of got 3yrs of cod,3yrs is a lot better then no cod, because 3yrs gives them times to create a Cod killer.
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
Answer what? "Yes Jim is right"?
If anything Phil has already been all over the media and Twitter way too long, about all the nice conversations he had with PlayStation creating the narrative he wanted since Jim is always quiet.
The fact Jim took this time to answer about something he knew since maybe January says it all.
He should've said this month's ago lmao
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Jim is right about what? How is the offer Phil made 'inadequate on many levels'? What does MS owe the PlayStation platform outside of the agreement MS already said they would honor?
ChiefDada
Gold Member
tmlDan
Member
The historical precedent is Bethesda.
Prior to the purchase about Bethesda games on other platforms: "We don’t have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo or otherwise," Stuart said. "What we want is we want that content, in the long run, to be either first or better or best or pick your differentiated experience, on our platforms. We will want Bethesda content to show up the best as — on our platforms.".
Implying they were either going to launch first on Xbox then come to other platforms but that's not happening.
Source: https://www.laptopmag.com/news/beth...box-exclusives-but-microsoft-wants-first-dibs
A year later: "Xbox boss Phil Spencer has confirmed that future Bethesda games will be exclusive to "platforms where Game Pass exists", meaning PS5 players will miss out."
So yes, you can imply the first quote wasn't definitive but treading the line towards real intentions.
Source: https://www.techradar.com/news/ps5-players-wont-get-future-bethesda-games
So how can YOU definitively say that MS won't remove the content. You can't.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Regulators can point to Bethesda and establish precedence that MS goes back on their word and is basically creating a subscription monopoly, and the lesson they have from Facebook and Silicon Valley is that you don’t protect competition when it no longer exists.
Let’s not forget MS has a shady history, even a recent one when they lobbied the Trump administration to break up with Amazon.
PS4 sold over 100 million consoles, PS5 will be on track for the same number, by allowing MS to take away even more mega franchises from this userbase it’s effectively harming consumers whether Xbox fans want to hear that or not.
Let’s not forget MS has a shady history, even a recent one when they lobbied the Trump administration to break up with Amazon.
PS4 sold over 100 million consoles, PS5 will be on track for the same number, by allowing MS to take away even more mega franchises from this userbase it’s effectively harming consumers whether Xbox fans want to hear that or not.
Last edited:
SSfox
Member
Yup, plus FF15 sold less than 10% on Xbox, while COD sells more than 50% on PlayStation.
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Big facts! It's always Microsoft that has to make accomodations for....reasons. And it's like Microsoft is helping Sony keep the status quo. Why is that?
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
This makes sense in some ways.
Final fantasy doesn't release every year like cod did. It doesn't matter if 10 percent of sales or less were on xbox for final fantasy Sony are still screwing fans of that franchise who own xboxes and have been buying final fantasy games since ffxiii.
It's still the same thing. If MS gets to own Activision they can do what they want and arguing about what's the lesser evil doesn't mean shit. There's still people being screwed ona all sides with these deals it's the way it is.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
If the deal goes through the wars will get worse
Even if it fails everyone will find something else to war about, you know this
tmlDan
Member
It's not the same thing, if you truly believe that than your bias runs deep.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
You mean like Xbox players had to do for SFV or any of the other Sony moneyhats or any other exclusive content?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You mean like Xbox players had to do for SFV or any of the other Sony moneyhats or any other exclusive content?
No see those cases were different because.....
tmlDan
Member
because you fail to see the diff between a game that sells 20 million yearly versus a game that sells 5-7 million max every 4-7 years.
Small brain thinking.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Sales counts don't really matter when a studio becomes first party. However, PS platforms will continue to get CoD under MS leadership, and previous games will not be taken off of other consoles, unlike what you keep suggesting.
That's not the same as locking third party sequels which were multiplat before with paid money hats.
It's not the same thing, if you truly believe that than your bias runs deep
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't think they'll do anything at the moment. Right now they're all hands on deck with inclusive and kumbaya messaging to get the deal done.
Once it's done, then the messaging, or at least the tone, might change.
Menzies
Banned
But rightly returning serve in kind, there is nothing written in stone that stipulates PlayStation owners are entitled to everything or that Sony is entitled to 100 million consoles sold. Whether PlayStation fans want to hear that or not.
This is about increasing competition. A consistent 'right' to 100 million sales, does not sound like a healthy or competitive market. Much like abusing market powers to approach third parties with very favorable terms to secure exclusive terms.
Ideally, we end up closer to a 50/50 split where one party doesn't need to pay 'overs' for timed exclusivity.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
It would be hilarious if the regulatory bodies sign off without any stipulations. Then Phil can tell Ryan "I'm sorry our offer was inadequate for you, but it was the best offer we were able to make. CoD will be exclusive as soon as your marketing contract expires."
Let's see what outrageous demands lyin Ryan tries to make then.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
You know you're in the wrong when even your fellow UK brethren say your statements make no sense
CoD segment timestamped in the video.
Lol the DF crew had a good chuckle at Jimbo.
They are like
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Lol the DF crew had a good chuckle at Jimbo.
They are like
John's freudian slip of "Jim Mattrick ... i mean Jim Ryan" was hilarious
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
It would be hilarious if the regulatory bodies sign off without any stipulations. Then Phil can tell Ryan "I'm sorry our offer was inadequate for you, but it was the best offer we were able to make. CoD will be exclusive as soon as your marketing contract expires."
Let's see what outrageous demands lyin Ryan tries to make then.
yurinka
Member
We don't know what MS was asking for to give them these 3 extra years. The offer was 'inadequate on many levels' according to Jimbo, so maybe MS made an unreasonable request.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
So Jim Ryan has until 2025 with existing agreements and MS offered another 3 on top of that bringing it to 2028. So basically the entire PS5 generation is covered, yet he publicly complains.
The company that brags about 15-20 million copy sellers and even said they got lots of shooters and GAAS games in the works (which all would surely be released by 2028), and somehow Sony cant compete. And that even excludes buying Bungie for Destiny to ensure they got them in their books no matter what. And the fact they got more than double the combined units of last gen and this gen systems sold over Xbox, has record profits of $3+ billion in gaming alone last few years and a 3 year extension could literally still bring COD into the PS6 era depending when Sony launches it. Yet, this MS deal is the apocalypse to video gaming.
The company that brags about 15-20 million copy sellers and even said they got lots of shooters and GAAS games in the works (which all would surely be released by 2028), and somehow Sony cant compete. And that even excludes buying Bungie for Destiny to ensure they got them in their books no matter what. And the fact they got more than double the combined units of last gen and this gen systems sold over Xbox, has record profits of $3+ billion in gaming alone last few years and a 3 year extension could literally still bring COD into the PS6 era depending when Sony launches it. Yet, this MS deal is the apocalypse to video gaming.
Last edited:
HoofHearted
Member
If the deal goes through the wars will get worse
Even if it fails everyone will find something else to war about, you know this
Last edited:
AGRacing
Gold Member
It's not enough to just have it on the platform when the next several of them will be included in game pass. He's concerned about game pass in 2023 1st... and Call of Duty being exclusive in 2028 second. He probably won't even be running Playstation in 2028 the way these guys turn over.
ZehDon
Gold Member
If the bodies wave it through and Ryan let CoD get away without a deal in place, I imagine Sony's board will be more than a little unhappy with him. The fallout would be incredible.It would be hilarious if the regulatory bodies sign off without any stipulations. Then Phil can tell Ryan "I'm sorry our offer was inadequate for you, but it was the best offer we were able to make. CoD will be exclusive as soon as your marketing contract expires."
Let's see what outrageous demands lyin Ryan tries to make then.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I dont know how concrete it is, but Spencer said the next COD and Diablo are coming to GP in an article a week or two ago (there was a GAF thread about it). His intention could be only if the deal goes through, but nobody says a deal like that cant still be done if the deal fails with regulators.
He wouldnt bring it up if he wasnt confident in the buy out, or if something was already in the works regardless. And GP games are something MS (or Sony with PS+) hold in secret until it's time to release the news as locked and loaded info for gamers. And he brought up in a blog.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't think Phil specifically that the 'next' of those franchises, he just took broad names of the franchises. Even if they're not allowed to put a new one out day 1, or even year 1, there is a back catalog of 2 decades of CoDs that will be on up GP asap.
Diablo IV, for sure tho, if the deal closes before that will be on GP day 1.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked