budgetgamer
Neo Member
I'm expecting something aggresive from Microsoft after the starfield exclusive to Xbox anyway its good for players and an opportunity for both companies to take COD to new heights
Damn...so Sony ends up with a worse deal than originally intended. There's a lesson buried somewhere in this saga
Yup, dont know why people are trying to spin this as a gotcha from phil.How do you reach that conclusion?
All games for 4 years (when Diablo is already out for this gen) vs. COD for 10 years.
COD for 10 years is far, far, far away the better deal.
This is my thoughts, too. Sony gets CoD for an extra 7 years. Sony would like make more revenue in 1 year from CoD than any other Activision franchise combined.How do you reach that conclusion?
All games for 4 years (when Diablo is already out for this gen) vs. COD for 10 years.
COD for 10 years is far, far, far away the better deal.
Yup, dont know why people are trying to spin this as a gotcha from phil.
Jim knows people wont leave PS for Diablo, Crash and Sypro, so why pay MS a 70% split on those games, games that launch once a generation and only have them for 4 years?
When he can just get cod for 10. Slam dunk for Jim imo, thats what he wanted.
On top of that the contract shows that ms does want to foreclose PlayStation because of all the content they just lost as a trade off to keep cod.
A hell of a lot can happen in 10 years.None of this is a slam dunk, 10 years will go by pretty fast and then no more COD For Sony. Plus losing all other Activision titles is a negative, I wouldn't spin that as a positive either.
Of course MS wants to shrink Sony's business.....how else would they grow their share? Shakes head in disbelief.
None of this is a slam dunk, 10 years will go by pretty fast and then no more COD For Sony.
And there's the fact that CoD being owned by Microsoft means it is essentially exclusive anyway. CoD players (on console) go where the best experience is.None of this is a slam dunk, 10 years will go by pretty fast and then no more COD For Sony. Plus losing all other Activision titles is a negative, I wouldn't spin that as a positive either.
Of course MS wants to shrink Sony's business.....how else would they grow their share? Shakes head in disbelief.
A hell of a lot can happen in 10 years.
Jim Ryan is a class A CLOWN…….just look at his big BOZO nose.Imagine signing a deal that makes Crash and Spyro Xbox exclusive, great work Jim, Shawn Layden helped bring back Crash and this is what you do.
I thought the split is 70/30, but someone said yesterday Activision had an 80/20 split for COD. SO that means for every $ COD sells on PS, MS gets 80% of it (or 4x what Sony gets).10 years of letting the smaller guy reap the benefits of your user base has to sting a little bit. Every copy sold is money in Microsoft’s pocket to money hat third party titles.
Disagree. Blizzard has Soo many IP's that are prime for sequels or full reboots. Activision has a full Library of IP's no longer taking the back seat to resources pulled for annual COD releasesHow do you reach that conclusion?
All games for 4 years (when Diablo is already out for this gen) vs. COD for 10 years.
COD for 10 years is far, far, far away the better deal.
Disagree. Blizzard has Soo many IP's that are prime for sequels or full reboots. Activision has a full Library of IP's no longer taking the back seat to resources pulled for annual COD releases
Clearly. COD has been the number one selling game in the United States for the past 8 of the last 10 years (probably longer). The two years they were not number one, they were number two. And those two games that outsold COD was RDR 2 in 2018 and GTA V in 2013. And some here think losing out on 7 years of COD is worth whatever else AB has through 2027?
Of course not. There's no such thing as xbox exclusives. It just wasn't going to release on PlayStation.It was never gonna be exclusive anyway so its irrelevant
Sure it was, it's too much revenue to lose. Way too muchOf course not. There's no such thing as xbox exclusives. It just wasn't going to release on PlayStation.
Yeah .. MS is all about uplifting franchises and improving studiosI'm expecting something aggresive from Microsoft after the starfield exclusive to Xbox anyway its good for players and an opportunity for both companies to take COD to new heights
I'd love to see GP on PlayStation eventually. Imagine Microsoft stop making consoles, sell GP subs/ + controllers for various platforms and just cream in the cash on software.
Exactly. All this fear of no more cod as if MS was going to cut the cord on a cash cow franchise. Not gonna happen.It was never gonna be exclusive anyway so its irrelevant
They were offering it as many places as they could find. It was always for revenue from COD.Exactly. All this fear of no more cod as if MS was going to cut the cord on a cash cow franchise. Not gonna happen.
Ok, maybe if activision releases a remake of vigilante 8 it might be an Xbox/pc exclusive for laughs but not COD.
Considering MS offered a 10 year Cod deal goes to show MS cares more about gamers playing cod raking in the cash than cutting the cord. Who cares which platform it is. If they were that serious about banishing cod from PS they would never offered it, nor kept the offer on the table when it looked more and more likely MS was going to beat FTC and CMA no problem.
That's the time span from Halo Reach to what Microsoft has now.A hell of a lot can happen in 10 years.
For Xbox division sure. But they were able to purchase Activision because they're backed by microsoft. So it's nowhere near too much money to lose. They just got out maneuvered. Again.Sure it was, it's too much revenue to lose. Way too much
Nah that's a very poor business decision. It's just too much money and there's no path to the deal being profitable on xbox sales.For Xbox division sure. But they were able to purchase Activision because they're backed by microsoft. So it's nowhere near too much money to lose. They just got out maneuvered. Again.
You can make a lot of money in the decade leftWonder if CoD will still be the cash cow in a decade. I remember how long it took ActivisionBlizzard to milk WoW to death, I suspect that'll happen to CoD well.
playstation 7 wont have COD gamesCan anyone tell me, did sony lose?
I'm confused.
I can't play those fps games but I'm curious about this...this "war"(?).
no they signed because they did not want to alienate the COD fanbase on playstation , 10 years is good enough i reckonDid sony sign because they knew Activision Blizzard would walk away?
Ok.playstation 7 wont have COD games
I still think one of these companies is going to get their hands on Valve eventually. That really would really be a big move and maybe cheaper?
Please unplug me from the matrix if COD is still relevant in 10 years.
You must be under 30.Ten years will go by fast? What?
I guess that would be the day I return to building a gaming PC. This post made me stop to think for a moment, looking to the horizon of uncertainty...
That's all fine, but none of that would do Sony any good when the cutoff date is 2027 for any of that dormant IP. And if you think Microsoft is going to inject a ton of cash into ABK just to resurrect old IPs then I'm afraid you are going to be very disappointed.
Call of Duty for 10 years is the much better deal from a financial perspective. That's simply a fact.
As I pointed out earlier...
Maybe Sony can use this opportunity to make Killzone a thing again? Or Resistance? How about a first-party FPS?
What does this even mean ?I'm expecting something aggresive from Microsoft after the starfield exclusive to Xbox anyway its good for players and an opportunity for both companies to take COD to new heights
I have a hunch that ps6 wont either not matter what the contract says ... not all cod and/or not in the same way ... TBDplaystation 7 wont have COD games
Damn...so Sony ends up with a worse deal than originally intended. There's a lesson buried somewhere in this saga
Microsoft is a monopoly? Of what?the lesson is not to fight apparently? to let global tech companies become monopolies?
Say what you will about Jim but he did exactly what he was supposed to do, literally everyone caved in and accepted the brib... gifts that Microsoft sent them to make sure this had little to no friction.
the lesson we learnt here is that money will always win and the Law will gladly kowtow to big tech so long as their pockets are lined nicely and it doesn't affect them personally.
Basically the lesson is the end is coming and there's nothing anyone can do
A monopoly of some people‘s minds it appears my friend.Microsoft is a monopoly? Of what?
Damn...so Sony ends up with a worse deal than originally intended. There's a lesson buried somewhere in this saga
I'd argue that the lesson is negotiation > litigationthe lesson is not to fight apparently? to let global tech companies become monopolies?
Say what you will about Jim but he did exactly what he was supposed to do, literally everyone caved in and accepted the brib... gifts that Microsoft sent them to make sure this had little to no friction.
the lesson we learnt here is that money will always win and the Law will gladly kowtow to big tech so long as their pockets are lined nicely and it doesn't affect them personally.
Basically the lesson is the end is coming and there's nothing anyone can do