Support NeoGAF

[Gurish]

Highly unlikely. The reception is bad for cod because they are tying the remastered version behind the full game so you have to spend 80 dollars and the majority will begrudgingly spend it to play cod 4 remastered anyways.

That's not true, reception is negative mainly because of the space direction, people really dislike the latest trailer.

 

[atr0cious]

"You understand deeply it's also available on your console."

Just how deeply can such a thing be understood?

He's saying they get less death threats this way.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

They can slap an Xbox logo on the front of my PS4 BF1 case for all I care.

 

[Chobel]

Why lol, I think there is a good chance BF1 will outsell COD this year.

1) There's 0 chance this happens.
2) Sony's deal with CoD is multi-year, not just one year like BF1.

 

[King_Moc]

This has always seemed fine to me. It's free money for the developer, and they don't have to screw their customers over to get it. It's a win-win situation. Only a fanboy would be turned off by it (assuming no timed exclusivity etc).

 

[TalonJH]

I actually thought it's always a mutual-kind-of deal and the dev gets % of the sales. But I guess it makes sense that you need to pay beforehand already despite of the outcome.

Then my question is: does MS have to pay more than Sony, because of the whole Xbone situation?

And in marketing, typically the producer pays to the platform/media owner to get the ad up.

Sony would no doubt come to the table with more "pull", so yes if it was just looking at install base. But that's without accounting for anything else MS may offer to sweeten the deal.

 

[AmaterasuOni]

Sony would no doubt come to the table with more "pull", so yes if it was just looking at install base. But that's without accounting for anything else MS may offer to sweeten the deal.

Yeah. MS has EA Access and such.

 

[Doffen]

And in marketing, typically the producer pays to the platform/media owner to get the ad up.

Well this is a co-marketing deal. Not an unusual marketing strategy. You could possible compare it to retail products running ads with "buy it now at store X" even though it's also available at store Y.

 

[Stevey]

Lolwut
Of course it doesnt

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

When a game partners with a console you don't own, does that put you off the game?

It does, only if there is timed exclusive DLC crap or outright exclusive content. Otherwise, no, its just marketing.

 

[Thebeardofknowledge]

Why lol, I think there is a good chance BF1 will outsell COD this year.

Bruh

It's never gonna happen

 

[Crossing Eden]

900p on both consoles? this is pretty much the only thing that bothers me with Multiplatform games... i dont give a shit if one game gets 3 week exclusive content... but its when parity comes to the party that irritates me.

And when games are comarketed with XB1, im always gonna assume it will be a gimped PS4 version. Am i wrong in assuming that?

Yes.

 

[Angel_DvA]

I agree with the US market, it is not a big deal as the difference isn't too big. You are hurting yourself in other markets if you start doing exclusive content for xb1 going forward like the fifa exclusive mode must hurt when you are losing on a bigger install base.

This.

 

[MikeE21286]

They have analytics to say that the marketing partnership you are paying for doesn't effect anything....?

 

[jackdoe]

At this point, I can't help but think that this kind of co-marketing is a money sink for MS. How much more does it help their sales than if they didn't help pay for marketing?

 

[Melchiah]

i've always seen it like this.

sony are ahead by a lot. and have a fanbase already, so they don't need the help creating awareness for the third party games on that system. xbox, however does. both publisher and manufacturer are set to benefit for that partnership. sony and EA will already benefit by having the better performing version on a console with the bigger install base. that ground is covered as far as EA is concerned. no point preaching to the converted.

Then why did EA made the same deals with the 360, instead of PS3?

I'm a little confused as to why any publisher would align themselves with microsoft (looking at install base alone). Activision made the right move to switch to the PS4 because it makes sense.

But to be more on topic, I was disappointed when I found out they aligned with X1 for BF1 (I will play on PS4 and PC). I sold my xbox because it was very underwhelming. I found it funny that FO4 aligned with X1, but yet it ran the worst on X1. In fact, it was because of FO4 I sold my xbox. I had an xbox elite and it couldn't even play FO4 @ > 20fps it seemed like. Anyway, this whole aligning with a console is just fine, its the timed exclusive content that is for the birds. I love Destiny and play on PS4, but I still think it is a croc of shit X1 owners have to wait a year for some DLC. This industry makes me sick some times but we can only vote with our pockets...and we all know we wont do that!

Not to mention timed exclusive mods regarding Fallout 4, and parity with Assassin's Creed.

 

[shanafan]

Pretty sure that's the case for I think every multi-plat game.

Not every. Black Ops III on Xbox One outsold its PS4 counterpart at launch.

Interestingly, Black Ops III is one of the few games in November that sold better on Xbox One than PlayStation 4. This is probably because Call of Duty was always more popular on Xbox 360 than PlayStation 3 and that trend is continuing despite Sony’s comarketing campaign.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/10/november-npd-cod-beats-fallout/

 

[Deraj]

"You understand deeply it's also available on your console."

Just how deeply can such a thing be understood?

That was my favorite part too. I picture an anime character responding "My understanding of that knows no limits!"

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

So have the last two Call of Dutys which sold better on X1 despite the Sony comarketing deal.

Any stats to back up your claims?

 

[shanafan]

Any stats to back up your claims?

November 2015 NPDs indicate such.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/10/november-npd-cod-beats-fallout/

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

November 2015 NPDs indicate such.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/10/november-npd-cod-beats-fallout/

So this chart is only counting NA physical copies?

 

[Boke1879]

That chart only counts the actual game sales.

It doesn't track bundles into that equation. Most PS4's in the US that are selling are the COD bundle. Wouldn't be shocked if the PS4 version of COD is selling better.

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

That chart only counts the actual game sales.

It doesn't track bundles into that equation. Most PS4's in the US that are selling are the COD bundle. Wouldn't be shocked if the PS4 version of COD is selling better.

I thought so because not to hold to much weight towards Twitch but COD Black Ops 3 has been the top streamed PS4 game for months and whenever I use the dedicated app to browse streams just about every streamer is streaming from the PS4. Twitch does word of mouth marketing because when viewers are asking what platform is this game being streamed from? almost all the time the answer is PS4. The world is bigger then NA.

 

[shanafan]

So this chart is only counting NA physical copies?

Well, even if this was just comparing physical copies in NA, it is a statistic that is pretty interesting considering the marketing behind the game from Sony.

 

[fritolay]

Makes no difference. Battlefront had PS4 advertisements, almost forgot that one.

 

[Melchiah]

Not going to happen.

Its Frosbite.

The game most likely is 60fps. Either deal with 720p on Xbone or lets hope Microsoft has a Console Upgrade in the pipepline.

PS4 versions are never gimped.

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/assas...y_is_900p_30fps_on_both_ps4_and_xbox_one.html

Assassin's Creed Unity will run at 900p/30fps on both PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, Ubisoft has confirmed, with the publisher opting to aim for platform parity to avoid discussion over any differences in performance.

"We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff," senior producer Vincent Pontbriand told VideoGamer.com while explaining that it's the consoles' CPUs – not the GPU – that prevents Ubisoft Montreal from improving the game's performance.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-assassins-creed-unity-face-off

On console, the game is more stable, but clearly performance is unacceptable - the frequent dips to 25fps on Xbox One are jarring enough, but it remains truly remarkable that the PS4 game should drop just as often to 20fps.

Despite of their development slides pointing out the benefits of GPU compute to the advantage of PS4: http://www.redgamingtech.com/ubisoft-gdc-presentation-of-ps4-x1-gpu-cpu-performance/

 

[c0de]

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/assas...y_is_900p_30fps_on_both_ps4_and_xbox_one.html


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-assassins-creed-unity-face-off


Despite of their development slides pointing out the benefits of GPU compute to the advantage of PS4: http://www.redgamingtech.com/ubisoft-gdc-presentation-of-ps4-x1-gpu-cpu-performance/

This wasn't a general test but a very special, synthetic test. In real life applications there is way more stuff going on and we don't know whether they are able to use gpgpu to a certain extent to make a huge difference so this is not really supporting what you are trying to say.

 

[Leyasu]

I agree with the US market, it is not a big deal as the difference isn't too big. You are hurting yourself in other markets if you start doing exclusive content for xb1 going forward like the fifa exclusive mode must hurt when you are losing on a bigger install base.

Why does it hurt? Microsoft paid for that exclusive mode. Plus PS4 owners still bought it..

 

[Renekton]

That's weird, I always associated Xbox and CoD together. Maybe EA wants to break that perception, but I'm not sure if enough people in that demographic would like WW1.

 

[Overboost]

I wonder if MS actually had to pay for this deal.

Yes. Likely to the tune of tens of millions.

Why lol, I think there is a good chance BF1 will outsell COD this year.

Zero percent chance of this happening. Even 2010's Black Ops 1 on XB1 backwards compatibility has more concurrent players than Battlefield 4 + BF Hardline + Battlefront combined right now. COD4 Remastered alone will ensure insane numbers, and assuming there's another PS4 COD bundle this year, COD will almost certainly be the top-selling game of the year again.

Don't let the mob mentality on YouTube fool you, Battlefield will achieve nowhere near COD's sales this or any other year. Especially once people realize WW1 guns and slow vehicles might not really be what they thought they wanted after all.

 

[T-0800]

This isn't true for 2 reasons. Sony only had marketing for the last CoD so far and the PS4 version outsold the XBone version. Your forgetting a key point. Bundles.

The bigger point is worldwide sales.

 

[CraigerGamer]

I'm a little confused as to why any publisher would align themselves with microsoft (looking at install base alone). Activision made the right move to switch to the PS4 because it makes sense. !

I'm a little more confused as to why console makers partner with games at all if game sales don't suffer on the opposing platform. If EA is saying that sales are sale regardless, consoles are just giving the publishers free advertisement with little help to console associated with the game. So why would consoles make these deals at all then?

 

[Beautiful Ninja]

Speaking of the CoD bundles, remember that something like 80-90% of PS4's sold in the last few months have been CoD bundles. From the charts I saw last month, the CoD bundle represents a little more than half of the total CoD copies being sold at retail. Half from the PS4 bundle alone, the other half is PS4 and Xbox One retail sales. The PS4 version could have sold literally 0 copies at retail and still been the better selling version.

The CoD and Destiny bundles were very smart on Sony's behalf, they directly attacked the Xbox's most substantial user base and is stealing Microsoft's bread and butter straight from them. The games that typically sell best on Xbox are the ones Sony targeted for comarketing deals.

I'm a little more confused as to why console makers partner with games at all if game sales don't suffer on the opposing platform. If EA is saying that sales are sale regardless, consoles are just giving the publishers free advertisement with little help to console associated with the game. So why would consoles make these deals at all then?

I think the reason Sony made the deals it did, especially for the likes of CoD and Destiny, was to attract Microsoft's core customer to the Playstation. Sony's already got the lock on nearly everything that isn't MP shooters and Open World RPG's and the focus of many of their third party bundles have been those kind of games. Going into this generation, I don't think anyone was expecting CoD to be selling better on Playstation than Xbox, but that's where we are now thanks to the bundles.

 

[Melchiah]

This wasn't a general test but a very special, synthetic test. In real life applications there is way more stuff going on and we don't know whether they are able to use gpgpu to a certain extent to make a huge difference so this is not really supporting what you are trying to say.

Yet they said they aimed for parity, and I'm not talking about huge overall difference in favor of PS4, but the fact it runs even worse.

 

[c0de]

Yet they said they aimed for parity, and I'm not talking about huge overall difference in favor of PS4, but the fact it runs even worse.

I heard that it doesn't after several patches which was also discussed on GAF several times. Iirc nxgamer did a postpatch analysis. Go dig it up yourself, I'm on mobile currently.

 

[Melchiah]

I heard that it doesn't after several patches which was also discussed on GAF several times. Iirc nxgamer did a postpatch analysis. Go dig it up yourself, I'm on mobile currently.

Well, it's a good thing if it was improved later on after several patches, but it doesn't change how it was around the time of the release, when most of the sales occur. That's one way to avoid discussion and articles over any differences in performance during the launch window. Far less people pay attention to changes afterwards.

 

[kyser73]

Well, even if this was just comparing physical copies in NA, it is a statistic that is pretty interesting considering the marketing behind the game from Sony.

Including bundles PS4 is the lead Blops3 platform in NA. IIRC from the last couple of NPD threads the PS4 bundle+physical has been the majority sales for the game in each month.

But you'd need to check the relevant threads as I'm on mobile and can't be arsed.

I'm not worried about 900p because I'll be playing this bad boy in Neo Mode (assuming it's available before year end).

 

[Pancake Mix]

That's weird, I always associated Xbox and CoD together. Maybe EA wants to break that perception, but I'm not sure if enough people in that demographic would like WW1.

Well, COD started with WWII, so why not?

 

[c0de]

Well, it's a good thing if it was improved later on after several patches, but it doesn't change how it was around the time of the release, when most of the sales occur. That's one way to avoid discussion and articles over any differences in performance during the launch window. Far less people pay attention to changes afterwards.

Who is avoiding anything? Yes, launch was bad. So were other games this gen, many to be concrete
Far less people even pay attention to anything that is happening on forums. There are 40 million people out there owning a PS4. Guess how many people give a flying f*** at what the whole parity-resolution discussion is even about.
And let's not pretend that Unity didn't sell at least decent on PS4.
I think it's sad that after that much time you are still bothered by this so much but I think we should leave it at that. You have your opinion on that and if you are bothered that your system doesn't get enough attention from certain devs/pubs it's up to you to decide to not buy their games.

 

[Melchiah]

Who is avoiding anything? Yes, launch was bad. So were other games this gen, many to be concrete
Far less people even pay attention to anything that is happening on forums. There are 40 million people out there owning a PS4. Guess how many people give a flying f*** at what the whole parity-resolution discussion is even about.
And let's not pretend that Unity didn't sell at least decent on PS4.
I think it's sad that after that much time you are still bothered by this so much but I think we should leave it at that. You have your opinion on that and if you are bothered that your system doesn't get enough attention from certain devs/pubs it's up to you to decide to not buy their games.

That's the wording Ubisoft's senior producer used. Many games have had bug-ridden launches, but majority of them haven't performed so poorly on the PS4, or said to have parity before the release.

There are a plenty of comparison articles published at the time of release, not so much months afterwards. The early games of this gen, like Tomb Raider remaster and COD: Ghosts, sure made unpleasant headlines from Microsoft's perspective. What company would benefit the most from the absence of such articles during the launch window?

It's not like I'm the only debating from a console-specific perspective, as I've seen you do the same on several threads. So, the holier than thou attitude seems a bit hypocritical. And yes, I don't own a single game from Ubisoft.

 

[meanspartan]

Fine, but anytime I see timed DLC for one platform, I just think "I guess my dollars aren't as good as those of people on other consoles huh?" It fucks over fans.

I'm fine with platform exclusives if their dollars make a game possible to exist, that's of course cool. Exclusive or timed DLC is garbage though. Fans on the not-favored console still paid $60 for their game too and are willing to pay for the DLC too, if you'd fucking let them.

 

[Melchiah]

Fine, but anytime I see timed DLC for one platform, I just think "I guess my dollars aren't as good as those of people on other consoles huh?" It fucks over fans.

I'm fine with platform exclusives if their dollars make a game possible to exist, that's of course cool. Exclusive or timed DLC is garbage though. Fans on the not-favored console still paid $60 for their game too and are willing to pay for the DLC too, if you'd fucking let them.

Yeah, the two months' delay for Dragon Age: Inquisition - Jaws of Hakkon DLC was particularly jarring.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Yeah, the two months' delay for Dragon Age: Inquisition - Jaws of Hakkon DLC was particularly jarring.

I was planning to buy all the DLC as it released before EA pulled that stunt with DAI. I ended buying none of it.

 

[Melchiah]

I was planning to buy all the DLC as it released before EA pulled that stunt with DAI. I ended buying none of it.

I did buy them all as I loved the game, but the delay was extremely annoying. Luckily the rest of the DLCs were released simultaneously.

 

[Caayn]

Fine, but anytime I see timed DLC for one platform, I just think "I guess my dollars aren't as good as those of people on other consoles huh?" It fucks over fans.

I'm fine with platform exclusives if their dollars make a game possible to exist, that's of course cool. Exclusive or timed DLC is garbage though. Fans on the not-favored console still paid $60 for their game too and are willing to pay for the DLC too, if you'd fucking let them.

I think that that's the general conscious.

In the case of Call of Duty this gen I got fucked over twice. Bought AW on PS4, 30 day timed content on XB1, bought BO3 on XB1, 30 day timed content on PS4.

Apparently my money isn't the correct kind.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

What their saying is then "MS offered us a daft amount of money, so fuck it"

 

[darkinstinct]

Should call it Battlefield One.

 

[Unknown One]

What's the point of season pass on the console without time exclusive dlc? You pay early and get treated like a second or third class because you still have to wait.

 

[EGM1966]

So EA are basically telling MS they're wasting their money? That's interesting.

I mean I get it. As I've noted these deals don't seem to skew anything to MS (although they do kind of work for Sony more by association with its popularity) so I can believe the analysis shows it doesn't really hamper sales on other platforms.

But... That's basically confirming MS is paying money that only benefits EA and doesn't in fact help MS disproportionately. Oddly open statement from EA in my opinion.

Wonder how MS feel about them saying the numbers show it doesn't particularly benefit the console platform.

 

[KurtSloane]

In the end, I do not see branding really mattering. Playstation has Call of Duty marketing now, but hasn't Xbox One been the top selling platform for that game in America pretty much every month since launch?

Division was tied to Xbox One but it sold more on PS4, correct?

The number of PS4 / COD bundles takes PS4 past X1 in terms of CoD sales.