Support NeoGAF

[//DEVIL//]

For now. Strategies evolve over time. Day and date will come.The dollars are far too compelling.

I do not see this happening.

As I switched to be a PC gamer 5 years ago, I hope this day comes true. this way I will never have to think about consoles or exclusive games on consoles anymore.

But I do not see this happening anyway. MS doesn't care if their games are on windows, at the end of the day it's their platform. if all gaming consoles are dead and Windows is the only remaining platform, MS is winning here since it owns the OS. not the same case for Sony.

Sony counts on hardware sales ( thus increasing the price of the PS5 and securing more and more third-party exclusive games for at least a year or 2 on their platform) unlike MS which is pushing to play its games on a toaster if it can. releasing games on PC on day one defeats the purpose of the exclusivity they are trying to build.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

So, either you didn't read my posts, or you didn't understand them. In either case, your reply is the definition of "throwing shit a wall and hoping something sticks".

Let me draw it in crayon for you: Sony depends on third parties for PSN because it doesn't make multiplayer titles. With COD gone, they have - literally - nothing to drive PSN, because they don't develop those kinds of games. They've just started the GaaS initiative with their first party studios, so they're four or five years away from their live service games stepping in. What's the last major multiplayer game Sony made? And I don't mean a game with a multiplayer mode - I mean a game where multiplayer was front and centre. GT Sport? You think that's going to carry the entire PSN when COD's gone?
Microsoft has continued to make titles that people actively engage with on Xbox Live, titles like Gears, Grounded, Forza, Sea of Thieves, and Halo. If Microsoft lost COD, they still have plenty of titles to carry Xbox Live, and have shown ample willingness to build new ones.

If you fail to grasp this simple concept, this isn't the thread for you.

I understood all that. I'm just saying if MS lost COD they would be in the same spot as Sony because none of their games have the same success and engagement.

I actually think they would be in a worse position than Sony if they lost it.

 

[ZehDon]

I understood all that. I'm just saying if MS lost COD they would be in the same spot as Sony because none of their games have the same success and engagement.

I actually think they would be in a worse position than Sony if they lost it.

These statements can't exist at the same time. Pick one.

 

[twilo99]

You're re-writing history, and poorly. Halo built Xbox Live. Literally - Halo 2 established console online first person shooters and it did so on the original Xbox, and cemented Xbox Live as the place to play. Microsoft went out and built their online platform using their own titles. And when the Xbox 360 came out, right up until Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Halo 3 was the most played game on Xbox Live. Microsoft take 30% of sales made on the platform it built, and continues to maintain. Sony takes 30% of the platform Call of Duty built and maintains for them. PSN didn't blow up like Xbox Live until the PS4. Now, it's PlayStation's biggest source of revenue. Sony didn't care when Zenimax got snapped up, losing the largest western RPGs in the world with tens of millions of copies sold on PlayStation alone. Because as long as it has PSN printing money, it doesn't need them. But, now, Microsoft is pocketing Call of Duty, the game that drives PSN, pushing PlayStation platform adoption and, by extension, ancillary sales. (Already own a PS5 for Call of Duty? Might as well buy all your other console games on PS5). Without Call of Duty, Sony didn't bother to maintain a Halo, a Gears of War, a Mech Assault - titles that actually push their own platform as the place to play. That's why Ryan is terrified.

I had absolutely no clue how important CoD was for Sony..

Thank you, all of this bs makes way more sense with that in mind.

 

[T0kenAussie]

I had absolutely no clue how important CoD was for Sony..

Thank you, all of this bs makes way more sense with that in mind.

COD is also important for Sonys strategy of fencing off third parties with marketing deals. The casuals come for cod, then Sony can sell their first party to like 10-20% of them and maintain a healthy user base

When cod goes to marketing with Xbox and gamepass and all the tournaments switch consoles to Xbox and Xbox branding the casuals very well may switch with them, evening up the user base sizes to a 5:4 or 3:2 still gives Sony a device lead on Xbox but it doesn’t give them that killer market lead where they can fence off resident evil for 5-10m a game.

The third parties will see a bigger player base sitting there and won’t be as ready to give Sony 2+ years in exclusivity as cheaply as they did last gen

That’s the bigger problem for Sony imo. Their first parties are very polished experiences for their genre but they are all very formulaic and Sony relies on the third parties to make exclusive deals to fill in their catalog of content

 

[Dolomite]

Honestly haven't played a COD since Black Ops 2? More of a Battlefield guy, but that franchise has shit the bed. Which is to say that this deal, as an Xbox gamer means fuck all to me but it's fun to watch adults whine. Hopefully Blizzard and Arkane can pump out some quality IP's though with MS's infinite wallet

 

[Three]

So, either you didn't read my posts, or you didn't understand them. In either case, your reply is the definition of "throwing shit a wall and hoping something sticks".

Let me draw it in crayon for you: Sony depends on third parties for PSN because it doesn't make multiplayer titles. With COD gone, they have - literally - nothing to drive PSN, because they don't develop those kinds of games. They've just started the GaaS initiative with their first party studios, so they're four or five years away from their live service games stepping in. What's the last major multiplayer game Sony made? And I don't mean a game with a multiplayer mode - I mean a game where multiplayer was front and centre. GT Sport? You think that's going to carry the entire PSN when COD's gone?
Microsoft has continued to make titles that people actively engage with on Xbox Live, titles like Gears, Grounded, Forza, Sea of Thieves, and Halo. If Microsoft lost COD, they still have plenty of titles to carry Xbox Live, and have shown ample willingness to build new ones.

If you fail to grasp this simple concept, this isn't the thread for you.

He read them as did I but you seem confused and conflating two things. You talked about 30% sales cuts and driving subs as if they are the same thing. You've mentioned both. Whether that's a mistake on your part or not I'm not sure. Secondly you tried to frame it as if Xbox live would be fine without COD because things like Halo are the foundation of their sub which "they built and maintain", when it most certainly wouldn't. The reason they are even buying COD is so that they can get subs that they cannot build and maintain with their own franchises.
MS rely more heavily on COD to drive their 30% cut revenue from sales than Sony do, you tried to suggest they didn't.
MS rely heavily on COD for XLG subs too. More so than any of their own franchises. CoD is by far the biggest contributor.

Does Sony have fewer GaaS games than MS? Sure nobody would have refuted that. But you framed it as if Sony were simply making "30%" on a platform from the work of others while "MS built theirs" or that MS would be OK if COD left Xbox live because they can rely on their own franchises. They can't at all. No matter how popular you think Halo is online, MS rely heavily on third party games like COD to drive their subs. Halo Infinite is f2p so Halo in the here and now, 2022, doesn't even need an Xbox Live sub dummy.

Btw have you heard of a game called MLB The show? Might want to add it to the measly list of popular first party games with online from both. Funny you can mention Grounded too but forget Destiny exists. it's a little more popular than the other MS first party multiplayer games you mentioned but don't let that stop you with your narrative that:

"Microsoft take 30% of sales made on the platform it built, and continues to maintain. Sony takes 30% of the platform Call of Duty built and maintains for them."

Direct quote from you above.

 

[T0kenAussie]

The funnier thing is that cod will still be on PlayStation no one is taking it away for two reasons

1. The money xbox would make is very significant. They will get 70% of every sale to reinvest into the development of services and other titles (goes without saying Sony still get their 30%)

2. Why would anyone with the leading franchise willingly create a black hole like that for a competing game to come and take the prestige and oxygen and hype from it? Just makes no sense

But I do anticipate that Xbox strategy will be more reliant on COD Mobile and warzone on pc consoles to grow and supplement annual titles. I expect titles every 2 years personally and maybe a reinvigorated zombies all in one like warzone but for their pve players

Sony making the crux of their arguments about call of duty is hilarious for me because it’s such a red herring showing they are grasping at straws

 

[ZehDon]

He read them as did I but you seem confused and conflating two things. You talked about 30% sales cuts and driving subs as if they are the same thing. You've mentioned both. Whether that's a mistake on your part or not I'm not sure. Secondly you tried to frame it as if Xbox live would be fine without COD because things like Halo are the foundation of their sub which "they built and maintain", when it most certainly wouldn't. The reason they are even buying COD is so that they can get subs that they cannot build and maintain with their own franchises.
MS rely more heavily on COD to drive their 30% cut revenue from sales than Sony do, you tried to suggest they didn't.
MS rely heavily on COD for XLG subs too. More so than any of their own franchises. CoD is by far the biggest contributor.

Does Sony have fewer GaaS games than MS? Sure nobody would have refuted that. But you framed it as if Sony were simply making "30%" on a platform from the work of others while "MS built theirs" or that MS would be OK if COD left Xbox live because they can rely on their own franchises. They can't at all. No matter how popular you think Halo is online, MS rely heavily on third party games like COD to drive their subs. Halo Infinite is f2p so Halo in the here and now, 2022, doesn't even need an Xbox Live sub dummy.

Btw have you heard of a game called MLB The show? Might want to add it to the measly list of popular first party games with online from both. Funny you can mention Grounded too but forget Destiny exists. it's a little more popular than the other MS first party multiplayer games you mentioned but don't let that stop you with your narrative that:

"Microsoft take 30% of sales made on the platform it built, and continues to maintain. Sony takes 30% of the platform Call of Duty built and maintains for them."

Direct quote from you above.

My favourite part of this post is that its tone suggests you've posted a series of "gotchas!". "You tried...", "you conveniently forgot...". In reality, you've just posted a series poor "nah uhs". Your entire post does nothing to suggest... well, anything. You appear to just be disagreeing for the sake of it, despite being demonstrably incorrect. I'm not really sure what your post is supposed to mean at all?

When talking about PlayStation's revenue, it's PSN revenue and PS+ sub revenue are heavily intertwined, due to the nature of platform buy in. If someone buys a PS5 for Call of Duty in the first year of the PS5's life cycle, the amount of PSN revenue Sony can make from that one person across the PS5's lifecycle has enormous potential. Sony uses Call of Duty to bolster its PS+ subscriptions by requiring the subscription for multiplayer. However, once you're on the hook for PS+, you're in their ecosystem, and dramatically more likely to now buy DLC, Battle Passes, and Microtransactions, of which Sony takes a 30% cut. You're also more likely to buy other content for your PS5 - other games, movie rentals, etc. - all of which Sony now gets a cut from. The two facets are linked.

Microsoft can stand to lose Call of Duty from Xbox Live because Call of Duty isn't marketed to push Xbox Live - it's marketed to push PSN. So, objectively, Sony relies on it more than Microsoft on that fact alone. Losing COD costs Microsoft nothing other than its 30% - roughly $890 million in a year. They're Activision Blizzard's fourth biggest customer, whereas Sony is their first - by a good margin. Call of Duty generates a good amount of money for both Sony and Microsoft, true, however, other titles are the Xbox Live flag bearers, a good many of which Microsoft own. This is the crux of Sony's issue, and why Jim Rayn is upset: Call of Duty carries PSN, and Sony have nothing to pick up that flag. Microsoft aren't buying Call of Duty for Xbox Live - they're buying it for Game Pass. Microsoft doesn't rely on Call of Duty more than Sony - financially speaking, hardware wise, sales wise, or volume wise: its objectively false however you dice it.

Focusing on Halo as some kind of "gotcha" when I listed a many other foundational titles is simply disingenuous. I highlighted Halo as having built Xbox Live because Halo 2 literally built Xbox Live. Sony's PSN dominance didn't occur until the Xbox One implosion and their Call of Duty deal for the PS4 generation. Call of Duty built PSN. Once again, this is the crux of Sony's issue, and the reason for Ryan's complaint. This is simply fact.

No idea what MLB The Show has to do with anything - in terms of popularity, it doesn't really drive much. Destiny, however, was a blind spot: I don't really interact with that game since the content vaulting disaster. With that said, it'll remain third party despite Sony owning the company. That's good business, but it doesn't drive PSN yet. That'll likely change as Sony forcibly weens itself off of Call of Duty. Time will tell. Of course, you assumed this was me "pushing a narrative" because, as I said above: you appear to be disagreeing for the sake of it without actually having anything much to actually say.

 

[Schmick]

As a PS Extra and Gamepass subscriber... Sony and MS can buy as many studios as they want as far I'm concerned. I can't think of a better outcome for me (except day one on PS Extra).

 

[The_Mike]

2. Why would anyone with the leading franchise willingly create a black hole like that for a competing game to come and take the prestige and oxygen and hype from it? Just makes no sense

Doesn't make any sense to make one of the most popular games franchises exclusive to a console to make people buy their console.

Damn, what are Microsoft thinking?

Microsoft seems to be very weird and doesn't understand economics like you and me, because they were stupid to make elder scrolls 6 and Starfield as well.

I mean why on earth would they do that. No one is gonna buy an Xbox so it seems they make a game no people can play.

The Xbox has no exclusives so it's not worth buying it. Which makes it weird they make exclusive games to make their console look more attractive.

Spencer should get a lesson in basic economics.

So basically some here want to use same logic as people suing Sony here
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...-action-lawsuit-11661974646?mod=mw_latestnews


By selling ps5 de Sony is also destroying retail market, being market leader it have even worse impact than gamepass

Am I doing this right?

Microsoft forced them, just like they forced Sony to make third party purchases.

I remember some people saying it in here when Sony was buying Bungie.

I understood all that. I'm just saying if MS lost COD they would be in the same spot as Sony because none of their games have the same success and engagement.

I actually think they would be in a worse position than Sony if they lost it.

"Microsoft is doomed without call of duty"

Out of 26 most popular games on xbox 2 of them are call of duty.

And just to save you time for replying, out of the 49 games 3 of them are call of duty.

Xbox is doing fine.

And, yes, I know what you are thinking. "but only 3 of the games are are exclusives so Microsoft is in trouble".

If you don't care about the exclusives Sony brings, then there's no reason picking a PlayStation over an Xbox.

Then people pick their favored platform, either because of friends, a controller, or if you also like being able to play games from all generations, or gamepass.

Sony will lose alot, as there's many people buying a console to play fifa or call of duty.

Sony exclusives sells well at first and are forgotten within three months.

Call of duty gets played constantly until the next annual release. Buying battle passes, skins and so on.

Someone in here wrote Sony earns 400 million dollars a year on call of duty.

 

[plip.plop]

The deal is going through. Jim is making it cost more for Microsoft with these moves. (MS having to pay off officials). It is a delay tactic, nothing more. Sony doesn't don't care about COD they are trying to drag it out.

 

[Three]

My favourite part of this post is that its tone suggests you've posted a series of "gotchas!". "You tried...", "you conveniently forgot...". In reality, you've just posted a series poor "nah uhs". Your entire post does nothing to suggest... well, anything. You appear to just be disagreeing for the sake of it, despite being demonstrably incorrect. I'm not really sure what your post is supposed to mean at all?

When talking about PlayStation's revenue, it's PSN revenue and PS+ sub revenue are heavily intertwined, due to the nature of platform buy in. If someone buys a PS5 for Call of Duty in the first year of the PS5's life cycle, the amount of PSN revenue Sony can make from that one person across the PS5's lifecycle has enormous potential. Sony uses Call of Duty to bolster its PS+ subscriptions by requiring the subscription for multiplayer. However, once you're on the hook for PS+, you're in their ecosystem, and dramatically more likely to now buy DLC, Battle Passes, and Microtransactions, of which Sony takes a 30% cut. You're also more likely to buy other content for your PS5 - other games, movie rentals, etc. - all of which Sony now gets a cut from. The two facets are linked.

Microsoft can stand to lose Call of Duty from Xbox Live because Call of Duty isn't marketed to push Xbox Live - it's marketed to push PSN. So, objectively, Sony relies on it more than Microsoft on that fact alone. Losing COD costs Microsoft nothing other than its 30% - roughly $890 million in a year. They're Activision Blizzard's fourth biggest customer, whereas Sony is their first - by a good margin. Call of Duty generates a good amount of money for both Sony and Microsoft, true, however, other titles are the Xbox Live flag bearers, a good many of which Microsoft own. This is the crux of Sony's issue, and why Jim Rayn is upset: Call of Duty carries PSN, and Sony have nothing to pick up that flag. Microsoft aren't buying Call of Duty for Xbox Live - they're buying it for Game Pass. Microsoft doesn't rely on Call of Duty more than Sony - financially speaking, hardware wise, sales wise, or volume wise: its objectively false however you dice it.

Focusing on Halo as some kind of "gotcha" when I listed a many other foundational titles is simply disingenuous. I highlighted Halo as having built Xbox Live because Halo 2 literally built Xbox Live. Sony's PSN dominance didn't occur until the Xbox One implosion and their Call of Duty deal for the PS4 generation. Call of Duty built PSN. Once again, this is the crux of Sony's issue, and the reason for Ryan's complaint. This is simply fact.

No idea what MLB The Show has to do with anything - in terms of popularity, it doesn't really drive much. Destiny, however, was a blind spot: I don't really interact with that game since the content vaulting disaster. With that said, it'll remain third party despite Sony owning the company. That's good business, but it doesn't drive PSN yet. That'll likely change as Sony forcibly weens itself off of Call of Duty. Time will tell. Of course, you assumed this was me "pushing a narrative" because, as I said above: you appear to be disagreeing for the sake of it without actually having anything much to actually say.

Laughable how you say install base, 30% share cut and PS+/XBL are interwined yet don't understand the concept that PS is Activision blizzards "first biggest customer" because PS has a far bigger install base that they've built. It's not lost on me that you conflate 30% cut from game and DLC sales with PS+ subs yet think PS getting '30%' from games and DLC was built on Call of duty alone.

Losing COD costs Microsoft nothing other than its 30% - roughly $890 million in a year.

Why does your "player buys COD, then buys other games, subs to xbl etc" not apply to MS if MS were to lose COD?

It's like you are saying completely contradictory things. You're suggesting PS and PS+ is only popular due to Call of Duty and Sony didn't build that install base or earn that 30%. Yet that popularity of COD is inconsequential for MS who don't need it because they built their sub on Halo and Gears. The MS that's spending $70B on Activison right now.

How about you look at Call of duty as a percentage of game and DLC sales for xbox i.e. the 30% gained vs what they gain from Halo, Gears etc. You will be surprised.
Look at xboxs top selling games for a clue:



3-4 Out of the top 10 best selling xbox games are call of duty month after month throughout the year. The idea that 30% doesn't matter to MS because "they built xbox live on their own" is ridiculous especially when you're discussing a $70B aquisition of Activision to begin with. It's trying to get that same COD audience obviously to drive subs because that audience is not inconsequential to MS just as it isn't to Sony.


Gears currently is less popular than MLB by the way and drives very little of anything, I just mentioned MLB as an online game that you failed to mention. How can you with a straight face suggest Destiny doesn't drive PS+ subs too but Grounded does? Nobody is talking about shifting an audience there.
Your whole idea is that Sony rely on COD more than MS but that's so far from the truth it's not even worth discussing. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Sony bought CoD and removed it from xbox, xbox would be in all sorts of trouble though. As ghost said, probably worse for them.

 

[Three]

"Microsoft is doomed without call of duty"

Out of 26 most popular games on xbox 2 of them are call of duty.

And just to save you time for replying, out of the 49 games 3 of them are call of duty.

Xbox is doing fine.

And, yes, I know what you are thinking. "but only 3 of the games are are exclusives so Microsoft is in trouble".

If you don't care about the exclusives Sony brings, then there's no reason picking a PlayStation over an Xbox.

Then people pick their favored platform, either because of friends, a controller, or if you also like being able to play games from all generations, or gamepass.

Sony will lose alot, as there's many people buying a console to play fifa or call of duty.

Sony exclusives sells when and are forgotten within three months.

Call of duty gets played constantly until the next annual release. Buying battle passes, skins and so on.

Someone in here wrote Sony earns 400 million dollars a year on playstation.

He is right though. Nobody said MS are doomed but the harm removal of COD will do to xbox would very likely be worse. The same list applies to Sony and they would have 2-3 call of dutys scattered in them. The most popular PS games list would look almost identical bar the exclusives scattered between them. Both Sony and MS rely on third party games to drive XBL and PS+ subs. MS rely more on COD for game sales and so a higher "30% cut" revenue percentage than Sony does. 3-4 of their top 10 best selling games month after month would be wiped out.

 

[onesvenus]

If jim ryan got this deal blocked he would go down in history as the greatest CEO of all time.

If this deal gets blocked, Jim Ryan influence over it would be small. That people think the PlayStation CEO has so much power over regulators is laughable and just shows how much of a fanboy you are.

MS rely more on COD for game sales

How come? All COD have marketing agreements with Sony and are heavily associated with PlayStation

 

[Three]

How come? All COD have marketing agreements with Sony and are heavily associated with PlayStation

Because that's what xbox customers are buying. They are not spending more on Halo and Gears. So the idea that

"Microsoft take 30% of sales made on the platform it built, and continues to maintain. Sony takes 30% of the platform Call of Duty built and maintains for them"

Is ridiculous and nonsensical. MS "takes 30% of the platform Call of duty built and maintains for them" more than Sony currently does as a percentage. MS heavily rely on COD much the same as Sony do. I would say even more so.

 

[ZehDon]

...The idea that 30% doesn't matter to MS because "they built xbox live on their own" is ridiculous especially when you're discussing a $70B aquisition of Activision to begin with. It's trying to get that same COD audience obviously to drive subs because that audience is not inconsequential to MS just as it isn't to Sony...

If Microsoft is trying to get the COD audience, how can they rely on that audience they don't already have? You're disingenuously conflating platform adoption with monthly sales to make a point that's self-evidently wrong. Sony has a larger install base because Call of Duty helped build it for them, and without Call of Duty, their install base would smaller, making Call of Duty that much more important to PlayStation. Microsoft have a good COD audience, but they want Activision Blizzard to help drive Game Pass - hence the acquisition. Quote-posting tweets is pointless - I gave you the dollar figure: $890 million. That's a lot of money for Microsoft to lose if COD walked out the door. Sony's PSN revenue was about $3.5 billion last year - Activision Blizzard tells us they made $1.7 billion from Sony's platform(s). Microsoft is coming off a poorly performing console generation where they bled market share, into a generation where they're gaining ground. Microsoft hedged its bets with Game Pass, Xbox Live, Xbox Store, and PC, and produces its own software catalogue to drive its services, in addition to third parties. That's clearly one of the reasons they're happy to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for at least three years past the end of Sony's current deal. Meanwhile, Sony put all its multiplayer chips on Call of Duty and made single player games. It now appears to be pivoting to GaaS. Ergo, Sony knows that if COD walks - and by walks, we're really just talking its brand connection to PlayStation - they stand to lose a lot more than $890 million: they lose longtail platform adoption. It's why Ryan isn't happy with three or four more years, and wants an indefinite agreement.

... How can you with a straight face suggest Destiny doesn't drive PS+ subs too but Grounded does?...

Because Destiny is multiplatform, and we're talking about Sony and Microsoft's ability to drive their own platforms... which is the central issue of this thread: Sony needs Call of Duty because it doesn't make games to drive its online platform. Microsoft does, and has demonstrated the ability to do so successfully, Sony straight up hasn't. Destiny is a recent addition - but its staying multiplatform. Can it replace COD? It certainly hasn't yet. Given Sony's first person spotlight on it, do you think Sony can elevate it to that level?

... Your whole idea is that Sony rely on COD more than MS but that's so far from the truth it's not even worth discussing...

The idea that Sony doesn't rely on COD is demonstrably false: you're posting in a thread that details PlayStations' head, Jim Ryan, took a flight to complain to international regulators. Feels like Ryan kinda thinks Call of Duty is foundationally important for PlayStation, given he hasn't mentioned a single other game in the stable of Activision Blizzard titles, many of which make a good deal of money on PlayStation platforms. Your notion doesn't even match PlayStation's own outlook, so, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say? Jim Ryan is wrong?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Xbox users don’t need to buy Gears or Halo, they’re on GamePass

 

[The_Mike]

Because that's what xbox customers are buying.

Top-selling PS5 games on PS Store, US/Canada​

1. NBA 2K22
2. Call of Duty: Vanguard
3. Marvel’s Spider-Man: Miles Morales
4. Madden NFL 22
5. Battlefield 2042

Top-selling PS5 games on PS Store, Europe​

1. FIFA 22
2. Call of Duty: Vanguard
3. FIFA 21
4. Marvel’s Spider-Man: Miles Morales
5. Battlefield 2042

Top-selling PS4 games on PS Store, US/Canada​

1. Grand Theft Auto V
2. Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
3. Minecraft
4. NBA 2K22
5. Call of Duty: Vanguard

Top-selling PS4 games on PS Store, Europe​

• FIFA 22
• Grand Theft Auto V
• Minecraft
• FIFA 21
• Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War

Call of Duty: Vanguard and Spider-Man: Miles Morales take top PS5 digital sales spots for 2021

See the best sellers for PS5 and PS4

www.gamesradar.com

Seems like playstation gamers also have a thing for call of duty.


These lists should make people understand why Jimmy works so hard.

It's getting more and more hard to downplay it

 

[M1chl]

If this deal gets blocked, Jim Ryan influence over it would be small. That people think the PlayStation CEO has so much power over regulators is laughable and just shows how much of a fanboy you are.


How come? All COD have marketing agreements with Sony and are heavily associated with PlayStation

Yet the public perception is that when you are Xbox player, you likely to only play CoD

 

[Three]

If Microsoft is trying to get the COD audience, how can they rely on that audience they don't already have? You're disingenuously conflating platform adoption with monthly sales to make a point that's self-evidently wrong.

What are you even trying to say right now? The COD audience is currently split between and makes a large portion of both Sony and MS' platform. This doesn't need to be explained to you. They are trying to move some of that audience from one platform to the other AND drive adoption of their subscription.

Quote-posting tweets is pointless - I gave you the dollar figure: $890 million. That's a lot of money for Microsoft to lose if COD walked out the door. Sony's PSN revenue was about $3.5 billion last year - Activision Blizzard tells us they made $1.7 billion from Sony's platform(s).

What are your silly figures trying to show though? You are looking at Sony's and MS' share of Activision revenue rather than Activision's share of Sony's or MS "30% cut" revenue. The latter is what's important in trying to figure out who is more reliant on COD.

Microsoft is coming off a poorly performing console generation where they bled market share, into a generation where they're gaining ground. Microsoft hedged its bets with Game Pass, Xbox Live, Xbox Store, and PC, and produces its own software catalogue to drive its services, in addition to third parties. Sony put all its multiplayer chips on Call of Duty and made single player games. It now appears to be pivoting to GaaS. Ergo, Sony knows that if COD walks, they stand to lose a lot more than $890 million: they lose longtail platform adoption.

Ok? What's the relevance? You think Sony didn't create an ecosystem and build their platform on games to drive that install base and therefore become a higher revenue earner FOR Activision.

Sony pivoted to GaaS because it too is now trying to enter the multigame sub service and rely less on just selling games. It happened before Activision.

Because destiny is multiplatform, and we're talking about Sony and Microsoft's ability to drive their own platforms... which is the central issue of this thread: Sony needs Call of Duty because it doesn't make games to drive its online platform. Microsoft does, and has demonstrated the ability to do so successfully, Sony straight up hasn't. Destiny is a recent addition - but its staying multiplatform. Can it replace COD? It certainly hasn't yet. Given Sony's first person spotlight on it, do you think Sony can elevate it to that level?

You are saying Sony has nothing to keep PS+ subs whereas Xbox has Grounded. It's multiplatform but that has no bearing on Destiny maintaining PS+ subs. It doesn't need to replace COD. CoD is multiplatform too. Does Grounded, Gears or Halo replace COD if it were to go? They would do a far poorer job than Destiny. We are talking about MS and Sony's reliance on COD which is no different. If COD were to go from Xbox, Halo, Gears and Grounded would not maintain xbox live subs and xbox would lose a huge chunk of their 30% cut money and XLG subs. Halo doesn't even need XBLG and the others are less relevant than Destiny and drive very little.

The idea that Sony doesn't rely on COD is demonstrably false: you're posting in a thread that details PlayStations' head, Jim Ryan, took a flight to complain to international regulators. Feels like Ryan kinda thinks Call of Duty is foundationally important for PlayStation, given he hasn't mentioned a single other game in the stable of Activision Blizzard titles, many of which make a good deal of money on PlayStation platforms. Your notion is the contrary doesn't match PlayStation's own outlook, so, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say?

Where have I ever stated that Sony don't rely on COD? I've only ever stated that MS rely on them too to build and maintain subs and for getting 30%, even more so than Sony. Whereas you have been trying to make a point that MS built their platform without COD and are not reliant on it whereas Sony is only where it is because of COD.

 

[Three]

Seems like playstation gamers also have a thing for call of duty.


These lists should make people understand why Jimmy works so hard.

It's getting more and more hard to downplay it

Of course they do, no shit. The difference is that xbox's game sales are mostly COD when you compare the charts. Meaning if they lost CoD a higher proportion of their platform sales would disappear. Nobody is saying Call of Duty doesn't sell on PS.

 

[Louay]

The funnier thing is that cod will still be on PlayStation no one is taking it away for two reasons

1. The money xbox would make is very significant. They will get 70% of every sale to reinvest into the development of services and other titles (goes without saying Sony still get their 30%)

2. Why would anyone with the leading franchise willingly create a black hole like that for a competing game to come and take the prestige and oxygen and hype from it? Just makes no sense

But I do anticipate that Xbox strategy will be more reliant on COD Mobile and warzone on pc consoles to grow and supplement annual titles. I expect titles every 2 years personally and maybe a reinvigorated zombies all in one like warzone but for their pve players

Sony making the crux of their arguments about call of duty is hilarious for me because it’s such a red herring showing they are grasping at straws

yeah i expect COD to be multi when come to hardware markets like PS, XBOX , Switch 2...etc but i expect it to be exclusive to Xcloud.

 

[Louay]

Gears currently is less popular than MLB by the way and drives very little of anything, I just mentioned MLB as an online game that you failed to mention. How can you with a straight face suggest Destiny doesn't drive PS+ subs too but Grounded does? Nobody is talking about shifting an audience there.
Your whole idea is that Sony rely on COD more than MS but that's so far from the truth it's not even worth discussing. You can bet your bottom dollar that if Sony bought CoD and removed it from xbox, xbox would be in all sorts of trouble though. As ghost said, probably worse for them.

Yeah this is true Gears MP died, The Coalition pretty much killed it, the studio took great IP and downgraded it they are at the same boat as 343I but no highlight on them because gears lost popularity unlike Halo IP and they make pretty graphics game.

 

[onesvenus]

Because that's what xbox customers are buying. They are not spending more on Halo and Gears. So the idea that

"Microsoft take 30% of sales made on the platform it built, and continues to maintain. Sony takes 30% of the platform Call of Duty built and maintains for them"

Is ridiculous and nonsensical. MS "takes 30% of the platform Call of duty built and maintains for them" more than Sony currently does as a percentage. MS heavily rely on COD much the same as Sony do. I would say even more so.

You are only counting the direct impact of COD though. I don't think it's crazy to pretend that all the marketing agreements Sony had with COD attracted a huge number of players and that resulted in more sales overall.

 

[Louay]

If this deal gets blocked, Jim Ryan influence over it would be small. That people think the PlayStation CEO has so much power over regulators is laughable and just shows how much of a fanboy you are.


How come? All COD have marketing agreements with Sony and are heavily associated with PlayStation

COD is crucial to US market like FIFA to Europe, losing any of them will be blow to any platform company.

 

[reksveks]

Losing cod and fifa is a major blow to both Sony and MS, let's move on from this obvious point.

 

[Louay]

which is the central issue of this thread: Sony needs Call of Duty because it doesn't make games to drive its online platform. Microsoft does, and has demonstrated the ability to do so successfully, Sony straight up hasn't. Destiny is a recent addition - but its staying multiplatform. Can it replace COD? It certainly hasn't yet. Given Sony's first person spotlight on it, do you think Sony can elevate it to that level?

when come to online subs i have to agree on this, There is like 3-4 games that still sell at full price at the top of this list is COD. which mean they get most online subs from these games because Current market which heavily become F2P don't require online Subs.

 

[Louay]

MS will probably get rid of xbox live gold in 3 years (online free) and push more to GP. i wonder what would Sony do

 

[Three]

You are only counting the direct impact of COD though. I don't think it's crazy to pretend that all the marketing agreements Sony had with COD attracted a huge number of players and that resulted in more sales overall.

Counting the direct impact of COD on what? It likely did result in more sales of other games but to pretend it didn't and doesn't do the same for MS and that they don't rely on it is insanity while you're discussing a $70B deal and marketing agreements on the 360. To suggest one built a platform on their own that allowed COD to thrive and the other only built their platform on COD alone is nonsense. Especially when you consider PS4 was selling much better for 2 yrs before it even got the marketing agreement (xbox one had it).

 

[Three]

Yeah this is true Gears MP died, The Coalition pretty much killed it, the studio took great IP and downgraded it they are at the same boat as 343I but no highlight on them because gears lost popularity unlike Halo IP and they make pretty graphics game.

I think the online gameplay of Gears just didn't have the pulling power that it had back then. The Coalition as devs are at least competent though.

 

[reksveks]

1) does anyone know the revenue split of cod mobile between timi and Activision?
2) does anyone know if cod warzone mobile is completely in-house?

 

[Louay]

1) does anyone know the revenue split of cod mobile between timi and Activision?
2) does anyone know if cod warzone mobile is completely in-house?

Warzone completely in house they didn't want to share with Timi studio(Tencent) when they saw COD mobile success

 

[Louay]

I think the online gameplay of Gears just didn't have the pulling power that it had back then. The Coalition as devs are at least competent though.

while it true they didn't even maintain it's fans with Gears 5, Gears MP died in less than a year. MP was not good at launch.

 

[zedinen]

With COD gone, they have - literally - nothing to drive PSN,

Inside every Xbox fan lives a Sony's lawyer

During the PS4 era, Sony put all of their PSN eggs into the Call of Duty basket, and effectively abandoned attempts to drive their platform themselves. Jim Ryan's strategy for PlayStation has been to largely continue doing nothing, re-position the brand as the "premium option", and just charge more for less to increase profits.

PlayStation, a premium brand with an operating margin below 8%. Are we living in 1984?

Having said that, Jim Ryan has zero incentive to maximize profits for the simple reason that Tokyo diverts PlayStation profits to buyback programs and Music acquisitions.

PlayStation (Game) has generated 2 trillion yen in free cash flow since 2013. Where is the money?


FY21: Sony Free Cash Flow (billion yen)

Game 155.9

Other (53.7)

Sony Group 102.2



Sony: Invested Capital (billion yen)

Music 1,110.0

Pictures 955.0

Imaging 889.6

Game 561.4

Andrew House, he was good.

Andrew House only cared about short-term profits (he had no choice tbh) :

He killed the Vita

He killed the PS3 in emerging markets

He killed the PS4 in Asia

He lost the critical 2014 holiday season in NA and UK

He closed multiple studios (Bigbig, Liverpool, Zipper, Evolution, Cambridge)

He relied on Jim Ryan to make things work:


2009 - SCEE COO

2011 - SCEE CEO

2016 - PS Global Head of Sales and Marketing


Kenichiro Yoshida and John Kodera simply acknowledged the fact:

2018 - SIE deputy president

2019 - SIE president and CEO

If jim ryan got this deal blocked he would go down in history as the greatest CEO of all time.

Everyone at Sony knows PlayStation and Sony Group have been riding on Ryan's coattails since 2009 (360 leads PS3 in Europe by 1 million units - Dec 2008)

Sales in NA since start of the 7th generation

Xbox 88 m

PS 78 m

Interestingly when EU was looking into Microsoft zenimax deal their concerns were with;


https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_10001

But the activision deal is falling under different concern category;


https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_10646

Zenimax, according to the commission, was a small fish in the European Economic Area.

 

[reksveks]

Warzone completely in house they didn't want to share with Timi studio(Tencent) when they saw COD mobile success

Thought that was the case, so the main question is how much additional margin will they make out of warzone.

Will also be interesting to see their strategy converting cod mobile to cod warzone mobile users.

 

[twilo99]

If what I'm reading here is in fact how things stand for Sony, there is absolutely no way Sony would let Microsoft do this...

 

[DaGwaphics]

In terms of one side losing CoD or the other, I wouldn't say that CoD is less important to Xbox than Sony. In $ maybe, because Xbox is the smaller platform, but when you look at the year end sales charts for Xbox and where CoD falls on there, I'd say it's a super important title for Xbox, maybe more important to Xbox than Sony.

With Sony's shenanigans with the aggressive money hatting at the start of the gen, a big part of this deal (and the Zenimax deal too) is likely about securing content for the Xbox platform (whether it is exclusive or not). GP is what makes the moves make sense from a financial perspective, but MS securing the most popular content for its users plays into it as well. CoD and western RPGs like Skyrim have been some of the most popular titles on the platform and moving forward there is now no threat of those being taken away.

I don't think MS is just throwing money around loosely, the major purchases have been made because of how successful those companies have been at selling games to the Xbox user base.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Any new info or just a load of back and forth?

 

[onesvenus]

COD is crucial to US market like FIFA to Europe, losing any of them will be blow to any platform company.

Of course it will be a blow but that doesn't mean it's anticompetitive.

Counting the direct impact of COD on what? It likely did result in more sales of other games but to pretend it didn't and doesn't do the same for MS and that they don't rely on it is insanity while you're discussing a $70B deal and marketing agreements on the 360. To suggest one built a platform on their own that allowed COD to thrive and the other only built their platform on COD alone is nonsense. Especially when you consider PS4 was selling much better for 2 yrs before it even got the marketing agreement (xbox one had it).

We don't know how much impact CoD marketing deals have on users buying PlayStation consoles and by extension other games on that platform resulting in Sony getting more money.

I think it's obvious that having marketing agreements on CoD makes the impact of CoD sales much bigger than if there was no marketing agreement. Sony also seems to think that because they keep renewing those deals.

I don't think it's so crazy to say that the amount of money CoD brought to PlayStation (by itself + indirect sales of other games) is bigger than what Microsoft got from it. With that in mind, the amount of CoD money that's reinvested in the PlayStation platform is likely to be bigger than in the Microsoft platform, that's why we could say that CoD has been more important for the development of the PlayStation platform than Microsoft one.

 

[Badlucktroll]

wonder what will become of activision when the deal gets blocked

 

[Three]

I don't think it's so crazy to say that the amount of money CoD brought to PlayStation (by itself + indirect sales of other games) is bigger than what Microsoft got from it.

Based on what? Why would the networking effect of MS getting COD marketing agreements, people buying a 360, then their friends buying a 360 (especially with no cross play allowed back then) not result in the same indirect sales of consoles and other games to those people? Please tell me how.

It's silly and it's based on nothing but fanboy craziness. Bigger in terms of amount of sales on the larger install base sure but as a proportion MS gained more and stand to lose more if it were removed because a higher proportion of their sales (game and DLC, the 30%) come from COD compared to Sony.

 

[adamsapple]

Any new info or just a load of back and forth?

I don't think we'll hear the next big thing about it until the EU's preliminary report in early November.

 

[onesvenus]

Bigger in terms of amount of sales on the larger install base sure

Exactly, that's what I've been talking about all the time.

but as a proportion MS gained more and stand to lose more

Paraphrasing you: "Based on what data? It's silly and it's based on nothing but fanboy craziness"

 

[Three]

Exactly, that's what I've been talking about all the time.

That isn't what people are saying though. People are trying to suggest there is a heavier reliance on COD and that the larger install base is due to COD which built the platform. Which makes absolutely no sense because xbox one had the marketing agreement for 2 yrs at the beginning of the gen.

Paraphrasing you: "Based on what data? It's silly and it's based on nothing but fanboy craziness"

Based on the fact that the top selling games on xbox are dominated by COD whereas they are not on other platform charts. Meaning for game sales MS has a higher proportion of its sales thanks to COD.

 

[Louay]

If what I'm reading here is in fact how things stand for Sony, there is absolutely no way Sony would let Microsoft do this...

this deal going through lol, i don't expect concessions. they ( Regulates ) seem to care more about azure and cloud than COD & IPs.

 

[Louay]

In terms of one side losing CoD or the other, I wouldn't say that CoD is less important to Xbox than Sony. In $ maybe, because Xbox is the smaller platform, but when you look at the year end sales charts for Xbox and where CoD falls on there, I'd say it's a super important title for Xbox, maybe more important to Xbox than Sony.

With Sony's shenanigans with the aggressive money hatting at the start of the gen, a big part of this deal (and the Zenimax deal too) is likely about securing content for the Xbox platform (whether it is exclusive or not). GP is what makes the moves make sense from a financial perspective, but MS securing the most popular content for its users plays into it as well. CoD and western RPGs like Skyrim have been some of the most popular titles on the platform and moving forward there is now no threat of those being taken away.

I don't think MS is just throwing money around loosely, the major purchases have been made because of how successful those companies have been at selling games to the Xbox user base.

Acti deal is good deal MS couldn't pass on it, it's great investment. like imagine amount of revenue coming in 2 years from COD MW2, COD Warzone 2, COD Warzone Mobile, OW2, Diablo 4 and King mobile..... there is also COD Zombie game coming too. MS bought Acti at the right time.

 

[Louay]

Any new info or just a load of back and forth?

probably we would get major news next month.

 

[twilo99]

Acti deal is good deal MS couldn't pass on it, it's great investment. like imagine amount of revenue coming in 2 years from COD MW2, COD Warzone 2, COD Warzone Mobile, OW2, Diablo 4 and King mobile..... there is also COD Zombie game coming too. MS bought Acti at the right time.

Well, I don't think there ever was a bad time to buy Activision.

 

[Kagey K]

Well, I don't think there ever was a bad time to buy Activision.

At the peak of Guitar Hero/CoD/Wow a company would have overpaid considering 2 of those are shells of themselves.