Support NeoGAF

[phil_t98]

There is a certain subset of “gamers” who pledge their undying allegiance to one plastic box and live or die on the metacritic scores of their games and want to come here and puff up their chests claiming they own the best plastic box and ridicule others for not following their lead.

Its not about the gaming to have fun for them.

If that group of people is so super concerned about MS making COD exclusive go buy a Series S for $249 with an extra included controller and play COD

as you say best to own both consoles, if I didn't have my PS4 I would if missed how awesome Spiderman game was and other exclusives

 

[PaintTinJr]

http://[URL]https://www.pcworld.idg...sells_ps3_modern_warfare_2_sells_six_million/

[/URL]


huge sales advantage for 360 over ps3 there

another google of modern warfare 3 sales results in this

More copies of Modern Warfare 3 were sold on Xbox 360 than on PlayStation 3 - 59 per cent to 41 per cent.

By November. do you have the sales figures right before it was replaced by Activision with the next CoD? I've looked, it isn't there. But do you really think that such a small % difference offsets those that would play for free on PSN - across the entire world that is dominated by PlayStation outside of the US/UK, which are naturally day one markets for most AAA games.

CoDs are also games that trade consistently and lower barrier cost entry on PS3 would also make that favour PlayStation more in that gen.

there is more to google if you want but you can see sales higher on one console than the other so it would suggest more players online



with you RROD don't forget that they offer a huge warranty for people to get it fixed for FREE so not everybody went and bought a new console as people say.
I did have a RROD on a console and got it repaired, I also bought a second 360 for playing upstairs

Being honest with yourself were forums filled with people always looking to buy the latest 360 SKU or telling people they were still rocking their repaired 1-3year models that were all defective until the Jasper(IIRC)? Even my mate that still has a perectly working launch 360, bought and used two newer models in preference. That was normal situation for reading on forums, so unless Joe average stuck with just the original repaired unit, which many didn't because they bought multiple new replacements before RRoD was fixed in engineering terms - because the repair wasn't a day 1 thing and took a year or more to fight IIRC.

 

[phil_t98]

By November. do you have the sales figures right before it was replaced by Activision with the next CoD? I've looked, it isn't there. But do you really think that such a small % difference offsets those that would play for free on PSN - across the entire world that is dominated by PlayStation outside of the US/UK, which are naturally day one markets for most AAA games.

CoDs are also games that trade consistently and lower barrier cost entry on PS3 would also make that favour PlayStation more in that gen.

Being honest with yourself were forums filled with people always looking to buy the latest 360 SKU or telling people they were still rocking their repaired 1-3year models that were all defective until the Jasper(IIRC)? Even my mate that still has a perectly working launch 360, bought and used two newer models in preference. That was normal situation for reading on forums, so unless Joe average stuck with just the original repaired unit, which many didn't because they bought multiple new replacements before RRoD was fixed in engineering terms - because the repair wasn't a day 1 thing and took a year or more to fight IIRC.

I have provided you with some statistics to more online players for 360 over PS3 and provided you with sales data for games sold with an advantage towards 360 but you just give your opinion and no facts to back it up

Also remember previously you claimed Sony had paid for COD marketing for 20 years when the whole of the 360 PS3 gen it was in Microsofts hands

 

[PaintTinJr]

I have provided you with some statistics to more online players for 360 over PS3 and provided you with sales data for games sold with an advantage towards 360 but you just give your opinion and no facts to back it up

Also remember previously you claimed Sony had paid for COD marketing for 20 years when the whole of the 360 PS3 gen it was in Microsofts hands

It isn't total sold data, just launch month.

 

[phil_t98]

It isn't total sold data, just launch month.

its data and you haven't provided any to back up your claims

 

[phil_t98]

By November. do you have the sales figures right before it was replaced by Activision with the next CoD? I've looked, it isn't there. But do you really think that such a small % difference offsets those that would play for free on PSN - across the entire world that is dominated by PlayStation outside of the US/UK, which are naturally day one markets for most AAA games.

CoDs are also games that trade consistently and lower barrier cost entry on PS3 would also make that favour PlayStation more in that gen.

Being honest with yourself were forums filled with people always looking to buy the latest 360 SKU or telling people they were still rocking their repaired 1-3year models that were all defective until the Jasper(IIRC)? Even my mate that still has a perectly working launch 360, bought and used two newer models in preference. That was normal situation for reading on forums, so unless Joe average stuck with just the original repaired unit, which many didn't because they bought multiple new replacements before RRoD was fixed in engineering terms - because the repair wasn't a day 1 thing and took a year or more to fight IIRC.

also with you SKU argument are you saying that people didn't rebut ps3's? the slim version or limited edition consoles or where they just 100% new customers only?

 

[adamsapple]

There is a certain subset of “gamers” who pledge their undying allegiance to one plastic box and live or die on the metacritic scores of their games and want to come here and puff up their chests claiming they own the best plastic box and ridicule others for not following their lead.

Its not about the gaming to have fun for them.

If that group of people is so super concerned about MS making COD exclusive go buy a Series S for $249 with an extra included controller and play COD

To be honest, I don't think more than half the folks using CoD as a talking point even play/buy it in the first place. It's just that, a talking point.

 

[Kagey K]

It isn't total sold data, just launch month.

So provid any shred, anything at all that proves your " sales data" any shred at all.

Because right now you are refuting hard numbers with "I feel like it's wrong"

 

[PaintTinJr]

also with you SKU argument are you saying that people didn't rebut ps3's? the slim version or limited edition consoles or where they just 100% new customers only?

They did, I did myself but failure rates of the smaller production run of YLoD affected fat PS3's was lower hence the lack of similarly sized RRoD lawsuits, and was replaced with a slim model much sooner than the sales of 360 until the Jasper SKU. Wiping 20m off of both is generous in favour of the 360, no matter which way you look at it.

 

[phil_t98]

They did, I did myself but failure rates of the smaller production run of YLoD affected fat PS3's was lower hence the lack of similarly sized RRoD lawsuits, and was replaced with a slim model much sooner than the sales of 360 until the Jasper SKU. Wiping 20m off of both is generous in favour of the 360, no matter which way you look at it.

So any sale data or any data to back up more online players on ps3 vs 360?

 

[adamsapple]

It isn't total sold data, just launch month.

Do you have concrete data then ?

 

[PaintTinJr]

its data and you haven't provided any to back up your claims

I didn't try and dispute the numbers you cited, despite google/reading gamesindustry.biz articles from Prachet claiming the projected figures - your artilce is likely based on - were wrong, and they are worked out from retail only projections.
I'm fine with the number for the launch month you used, but CoD has long tails through to the next iteration, and Christmas and the game drought through Jan and Feb figures when CoD would be more competitively priced isn't available, even as tracked estimates that your figures will be based on. You are using a 1month snapshot in both scenarios to make a long term projected claim, when all the other reasoning suggests that it won't hold, because price is a big driver, hence Fornite (free) has good numbers compared to CoD multiplayer.

 

[phil_t98]

I didn't try and dispute the numbers you cited, despite google/reading gamesindustry.biz articles from Prachet claiming the projected figures - your artilce is likely based on - were wrong, and they are worked out from retail only projections.
I'm fine with the number for the launch month you used, but CoD has long tails through to the next iteration, and Christmas and the game drought through Jan and Feb figures when CoD would be more competitively priced isn't available, even as tracked estimates that your figures will be based on. You are using a 1month snapshot in both scenarios to make a long term projected claim, when all the other reasoning suggests that it won't hold, because price is a big driver, hence Fornite (free) has good numbers compared to CoD multiplayer.

Is sales data I provided is wrong? Just because you think it is. Deluded mate, if you prove that something is wrong then I will accept it but you haven’t provided anything to prove your point.

As a point I provided data to show trends

Fortnite is not on the generation of consoles we are currantly discussing so it’s a mute point.


Also when are you addressing that you were wrong about the 20 year marketing deal you said Sony had?

 

[PaintTinJr]

Is sales data I provided is wrong? Just because you think it is. Deluded mate, if you prove that something is wrong then I will accept it but you haven’t provided anything to prove your point.

I don't care if the data is wrong or right, it is a small number compared to those that choose free online over sub, and the problem with the data is that it is at least 11month incomplete, and it stands to reason cost conscious buyers wanting free online would also waiting for launch day price reductions too in the January sales.

Also when are you addressing that you were wrong about the 20 year marketing deal you said Sony had?

Think you have me mixed up, but feel free to quote what I said so I know what his comment is about.

 

[Gavon West]

It will only be able to compete if MS is able to make the content they actually need to do so. Regardless of acquisitions.

Which is why they're buying developers like ABK, adding to their stable of developers all ready in place. After this acquisition goes through, Microsoft will have a pretty lengthy problem: which games to release. They'll have more than they've ever had in history. And, on a pretty consistent basis.

 

[PaintTinJr]

... Just buy every console or a PC and play everything you want to play and stop whinging.

How far should be extend that thinking? Should we buy every film, buy every book or ... buy every game too?

Back in the day, there might have been 20 different home computers all with unique games on them, would you have bought every system then?

This whole thread is about market competition, and surely if we all buy all boxes without being enticed by the platform holder's first party developed offerings, we aren't contributing to competition, are we? because we'd be rewarding everyone, regardless of if they deserve being rewarded by a sale of their console, no?

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

How far should be extend that thinking? Should we buy every film, buy every book or ... buy every game too?

Back in the day, there might have been 20 different home computers all with unique games on them, would you have bought every system then?

This whole thread is about market competition, and surely if we all buy all boxes without being enticed by the platform holder's first party developed offerings, we aren't contributing to competition, are we? because we'd be rewarding everyone, regardless of if they deserve being rewarded by a sale of their console, no?

You can't buy one film and watch every film out there.

You can't buy a single book and read everything.

Back in the day there were a shit ton of consoles that had unique games on them and yes if you wanted to play a certain game then you had to buy that particular console.

You can't buy a Playstation and expect to play Nintendo exclusives.

Besides this entire argument is null and void since all we have heard from Spencer is his plan to keep COD on PS anyhow

 

[PaintTinJr]

You can't buy one film and watch every film out there.

You can't buy a single book and read everything.

Back in the day there were a shit ton of consoles that had unique games on them and yes if you wanted to play a certain game then you had to buy that particular console.

You can't buy a Playstation and expect to play Nintendo exclusives.

Besides this entire argument is null and void since all we have heard from Spencer is his plan to keep COD on PS anyhow

But in keeping with this is about competition, us buying all the boxes regardless of being enticed actually weakens the hand of content creators - it is only because their content can shift boxes do they possess leverage to reduce the platform cut with negotiating a time exclusive fee. Is that really good for publishers/devs and good for us to remove that carrot for them to give us amazing games that then grants them that leverage?

I don't think it does.
/and even buying two boxes usually results in one being unplayed for large spells, three - unless it was Sega back - would only make things worse and triples people costs now all have online gaming subs.

 

[phil_t98]

I don't care if the data is wrong or right, it is a small number compared to those that choose free online over sub, and the problem with the data is that it is at least 11month incomplete, and it stands to reason cost conscious buyers wanting free online would also waiting for launch day price reductions too in the January sales.

Think you have me mixed up, but feel free to quote what I said so I know what his comment is about.

Again the sales data show trends. Yes they only for a portion but the data I shared about 50% more players online was from the end of the consoles life.

You’re just blinkers to your own agenda, you believe something because you made it up. Hard sales data and facts you don’t want to believe or cannot prove your own point with data

 

[phil_t98]

Crash at its best is way behind last gen game Sack Boy. So it is not AAA library, and not the main outlet of ACTIVI best AA staff that work on CoD.

What an idiotic take. Games aren't developed in 9months, in fact ACTIVI have three developers working out of sync so that they can hit the release cadence they do.

Are you saying a reasonable concession of the deal should be that ACTIVI can't release a new game in the CoD FPS genre for 5years to allow fair catchup conditions to apply for all? No, of course you are not, you are cherry picking a point while giving zero thought to how that would work in reality.

PlayStation have marketed CoD for two decades and help make it what it is, including the 3years extra they'll have to promote it, this is an attack on their normal business operation and their emploees' livelihoods IMHO.

Here is your claim of Sony marketing COD for 20 years

Sony only got the marketing deal from PS4 onwards. Microsoft had it for the entire 360 gen

 

[PaintTinJr]

Again the sales data show trends.

Sorry to break it to you, but a "trend" requires at least 3 data points.

Yes they only for a portion but the data I shared about 50% more players online was from the end of the consoles life.

In the US which is you moving the goalposts. The world was teh scope, and I ran the numbers, even gave 100% margin of error and you still can't change that far more people played online on PS3 worldwide than on 360 by the numbers we have and stupidly overly fair estimates in Live Gold's favour.

 

[phil_t98]

Sorry to break it to you, but a "trend" requires at least 3 data points.


In the US which is you moving the goalposts. The world was teh scope, and I ran the numbers, even gave 100% margin of error and you still can't change that far more people played online on PS3 worldwide than on 360 by the numbers we have and stupidly overly fair estimates in Live Gold's favour.

so trend requires 3 data points

I shared data for 2 call of duty games were xbox was clearly outselling the ps3 and I shared an article at the end of the 360 and ps3 gen that showed 50% more people on xbox 360 played online than ps3.

there is your 3 data points.


how about you replying to the 2 decades of Sony marketing deal now?

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

You can't buy one film and watch every film out there.

You can't buy a single book and read everything.

Back in the day there were a shit ton of consoles that had unique games on them and yes if you wanted to play a certain game then you had to buy that particular console.

You can't buy a Playstation and expect to play Nintendo exclusives.

Besides this entire argument is null and void since all we have heard from Spencer is his plan to keep COD on PS anyhow

And you believe the things that Spencer says? Realy?
When you look at the history what Spencer have been saying and flipfloped it a short time later, is an indication that you can NEVER trust what Phil Spencer is saying. When the deal goes trough you can wait for it that Phil will be saying something completly different, just wait for it.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

And you believe the things that Spencer says? Realy?
When you look at the history what Spencer have been saying and flipfloped it a short time later, is an indication that you can NEVER trust what Phil Spencer is saying. When the deal goes trough you can wait for it that Phil will be saying something completly different, just wait for it.

Do I personally believe him?

Nope

But I also can not go and call him a liar in this because Sony makes Acti a ton a of money to the tune of over 1 billion in 2020 and I simply do not believe they can make that money up by making those games exclusive

 

[phil_t98]

And you believe the things that Spencer says? Realy?
When you look at the history what Spencer have been saying and flipfloped it a short time later, is an indication that you can NEVER trust what Phil Spencer is saying. When the deal goes trough you can wait for it that Phil will be saying something completly different, just wait for it.

that's what happens in business doesn't it though? remember we believe in generations statement. again a business decision was made and at the time it was right but they changed their minds. it happens but with what was said with Phil was they offerd a contract to keep the game on PS

 

[The_Mike]

PlayStation have marketed CoD for two decades and help make it what it is, including the 3years extra they'll have to promote it, this is an attack on their normal business operation and their emploees' livelihoods IMHO.

The first call of duty that came for consoles was call of duty 2,which was console exclusive to xbox 360 in 2005.

The first call of duty that came to playstation was the third installment in 2006.

My man PaintTinJr is living in 2026 lmao.

Add to that, Microsoft had the promotion deal the entire x360/ps3 era.

Didn't i tell you earlier in this thread you should Google stuff instead of making a clown out of yourself by stuff you know nothing about?

You have probably always been a dedicated playstation hardcore fanboy that you completely miss the Xbox mountain few, doritos and CoD era.

 

[phil_t98]

The first call of duty that came for consoles was call of duty 2,which was console exclusive to xbox 360 in 2005.

The first call of duty that came to playstation was the third installment in 2006.

My man PaintTinJr is living in 2026 lmao.

Add to that, Microsoft had the promotion deal the entire x360/ps3 era.

Didn't i tell you earlier in this thread you should Google stuff instead of making a clown out of yourself by stuff you know nothing about?

You have probably always been a dedicated playstation hardcore fanboy that you completely miss the Xbox mountain few, doritos and CoD era.

it shows all his data is off, he makes it up in his head and believes it to one true. when you provide data he says its wrong lol

 

[The_Mike]

it shows all his data is off, he makes it up in his head and believes it to one true. when you provide data he says its wrong lol

I'm beginning to suspect that he is a professional troll and somehow makes a living out of it

 

[Topher]

There is a certain subset of “gamers” who pledge their undying allegiance to one plastic box and live or die on the metacritic scores of their games and want to come here and puff up their chests claiming they own the best plastic box and ridicule others for not following their lead.

Its not about the gaming to have fun for them.

If that group of people is so super concerned about MS making COD exclusive go buy a Series S for $249 with an extra included controller and play COD

Exactly. The games someone wants to play should dictate the platforms they buy, not the other way around. If Sony stops making games like God of War, TLOU, Spider-man, etc. then I'll stop buying PlayStation. It is just that simple. This undying loyalty to a brand doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Do I personally believe him?

Nope

But I also can not go and call him a liar in this because Sony makes Acti a ton a of money to the tune of over 1 billion in 2020 and I simply do not believe they can make that money up by making those games exclusive

And I wonder if the financials of Microsoft Gaming where Phil Spencer is the newly crowned CEO will need to be a bit more open to scrutiny by stockholders. If so, explaining a sudden dip in revenue in abandoning a key platform of a key franchise after a $60+ billion investment might be difficult to do.

 

[PaintTinJr]

so trend requires 3 data points

I shared data for 2 call of duty games were xbox was clearly outselling the ps3 and I shared an article at the end of the 360 and ps3 gen that showed 50% more people on xbox 360 played online than ps3.

there is your 3 data points.

Argue in good faith - although that's more than three data points I have of you arguing in bad faith I believe .

You need 3 data points for each of those eg Point at month 1, month 6 and month 12, and you know it only too well.

Even the two points of month one sales for CoD games can't even let you claim a trend of more preorder/launch month sales of CoD on the 360, because without a third point there's no way to measure a rate of change.

how about you replying to the 2 decades of Sony marketing deal now?

I'm pretty sure I never used the word "deal", just saying PlayStation had given it preferential treatment for 20years without directly competing against it and placing in visible positions on boxes, and PSN. You are completely misrepresenting what I tried to say,, which I assume is why you didn't quote verbatim, yes?

 

[PaintTinJr]

The first call of duty that came for consoles was call of duty 2,which was console exclusive to xbox 360 in 2005.

The first call of duty that came to playstation was the third installment in 2006.

My man PaintTinJr is living in 2026 lmao.

Add to that, Microsoft had the promotion deal the entire x360/ps3 era.

Didn't i tell you earlier in this thread you should Google stuff instead of making a clown out of yourself by stuff you know nothing about?

You have probably always been a dedicated playstation hardcore fanboy that you completely miss the Xbox mountain few, doritos and CoD era.

How could it release on a platform that didn't launch before the end of 2006 IIRC?

 

[The_Mike]

How could it release on a platform that didn't launch before the end of 2006 IIRC?

Didn't i tell you to Google instead of using your flawed memory?

I'm starting to feel like a search engine.

 

[Topher]

PlayStation have marketed CoD for two decades and help make it what it is, including the 3years extra they'll have to promote it, this is an attack on their normal business operation and their emploees' livelihoods IMHO.

PlayStation didn't have marketing right for Call of Duty until 2015.

So, This Is How Sony Took the Marketing Rights for Call of Duty Away from Microsoft

It was destiny

www.pushsquare.com

 

[DaGwaphics]

25+ studios should be able enough to make plenty of content. This will be quite the competitive generation.

For sure. The Xbox has no games meme was always dumb anyway, but it will surely die over the next couple years.

 

[The_Mike]

For sure. The Xbox has no games meme was always dumb anyway, but it will surely die over the next couple years.

I'm not so sure about that.

Xbox has plenty of exclusives, and with it the best racing game franchise, yet they still don't have any games.

Call of Duty, Diablo and so on will fall under the "no games" lost.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I'm not so sure about that.

Xbox has plenty of exclusives, and with it the best racing game franchise, yet they still don't have any games.

Call of Duty, Diablo and so on will fall under the "no games" lost.

Should have put an asterisk next to that *for rational players.

It will live on in forums of course, but to the average consumer it will soon not be something that is thought about. Xbox is guilty of having some long periods without first party releases, sometimes a year or more, that will be a thing of the past.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Didn't i tell you to Google instead of using your flawed memory?

I'm starting to feel like a search engine.

I'm obviously talking about the PS3 launch, so naturally it had to be 360 exclusive, for that gen if PS3 wasn't launched, as you've corroborated, thanks.

But as you have also proven CoD was being sold on PlayStation 2,etc, so not console exclusive to 360, and some of us have had PSN accounts for PES, Socom, Toca, MGS3SE, etc since before PS3, just saying. Did the 360 + OG xbox sell more copies of CoD than the PS2+wii that year - genuinely don't know?

 

[PaintTinJr]

PlayStation didn't have marketing right for Call of Duty until 2015.

http://[URL]https://www.pushsquare....g_rights_for_call_of_duty_away_from_microsoft

[/URL]

Sorry, as you can see by my follow ups to that, I meant without or with a deal. So not quite what I was arguing.

 

[The_Mike]

Did the 360 + OG xbox sell more copies of CoD than the PS2+wii that year - genuinely don't know?

Do your own Google search and post it here, or pay me for being your personal Alexa then I'll gladly continue to do so.

 

[phil_t98]

Argue in good faith - although that's more than three data points I have of you arguing in bad faith I believe .

You need 3 data points for each of those eg Point at month 1, month 6 and month 12, and you know it only too well.

Even the two points of month one sales for CoD games can't even let you claim a trend of more preorder/launch month sales of CoD on the 360, because without a third point there's no way to measure a rate of change.


I'm pretty sure I never used the word "deal", just saying PlayStation had given it preferential treatment for 20years without directly competing against it and placing in visible positions on boxes, and PSN. You are completely misrepresenting what I tried to say,, which I assume is why you didn't quote verbatim, yes?

you said playstation marketed COD for 2 decades explain that first and what you meant by it? then I will come to your other points.


"PlayStation have marketed CoD for two decades and help make it what it is, including the 3years extra they'll have to promote it, this is an attack on their normal business operation and their emploees' livelihoods IMHO."


that is exactly what YOU said

 

[Bernkastel]

PlayStation have marketed CoD for two decades and help make it what it is, including the 3years extra they'll have to promote it, this is an attack on their normal business operation and their emploees' livelihoods IMHO.

They only marketed it since Black Ops 3 (2015). Call of Duty 2 was a launch title for Xbox 360 and was console exclusive to the 360. It was moneyhatted by Microsoft since the second title until Activision was like "We want our brand to be tied to the more popular console".

 

[DenchDeckard]

How far should be extend that thinking? Should we buy every film, buy every book or ... buy every game too?

Back in the day, there might have been 20 different home computers all with unique games on them, would you have bought every system then?

This whole thread is about market competition, and surely if we all buy all boxes without being enticed by the platform holder's first party developed offerings, we aren't contributing to competition, are we? because we'd be rewarding everyone, regardless of if they deserve being rewarded by a sale of their console, no?

But in keeping with this is about competition, us buying all the boxes regardless of being enticed actually weakens the hand of content creators - it is only because their content can shift boxes do they possess leverage to reduce the platform cut with negotiating a time exclusive fee. Is that really good for publishers/devs and good for us to remove that carrot for them to give us amazing games that then grants them that leverage?

I don't think it does.
/and even buying two boxes usually results in one being unplayed for large spells, three - unless it was Sega back - would only make things worse and triples people costs now all have online gaming subs.

You have lost me you basically want Sony to get everything because that suits you but does nothing for competition and that's what all this is about.

Sony couldn't compete with xbox live so they had free online, the then needed to entice people to playstation plus for free games and playing online with ps3, vita and into ps4 gen. We won thanks to ps plus. Then Microsoft had to compete and Sony was buying up huge exclusivity deals with the likes of bungie and with cod etc. So Microsoft came up with gamepass and play anywhere so we started to win there, Sony saw what was happening and started bringing games to PC and improved their ps plus to include more games....so we win!

Microsoft is buying publishers and devs, Sony are buying publishers and devs...we will ultimately win. The jobs of these companies is to show us why we should spend our hard earned money with them and I will spend it with whoever I think deserves it.

Imagine if any of these companies had free reign to do what they want with no competition. It would be awful. Look at hardware and games costs this gen, accessory. Etc.

 

[Ozriel]

And you believe the things that Spencer says? Realy?
When you look at the history what Spencer have been saying and flipfloped it a short time later, is an indication that you can NEVER trust what Phil Spencer is saying. When the deal goes trough you can wait for it that Phil will be saying something completly different, just wait for it.

fanboys willfully misinterpreting Phil Spencer’s comments and convincing themselves that he’s constantly lying still remains one of the weirdest things on this site.

Meanwhile, Spencer, Satya and Brad Smith are on record with insisting COD would remain multiplatform. Phil even provided a written guarantee to Jim Ryan pledging PlayStation support for COD that should last the entire gen.

 

[DarkMage619]

I mean you said this:

"I'd also speculate that Game pass streaming is available in more places than GeForce Now so my point that the streaming will reach more devices still remains."

Now what are we discussing, about hypothetical what?
PS+GFN < Xbox+xCloud?

First off I did say speculate and I was including consoles as a device Game pass also streams which is not true for GeForce Now. The question also is Game pass available in those two GeForce Now additional countries? If so even without streaming you'd have PC and console where you could still access those games traditionally since Game pass isn't just streaming. I also will add again that I was predominantly focused on replacing PlayStation as a platform, the original point, not GeForce Now which is the platform you changed it to. GeForce Now has its own issues.

Well if we are now talking about Game pass streaming vs GeForce Now and not hypothetically replacing the PlayStation we'd have to look at game availability in general. Does nVidia actually own any of the content they stream? The games like Hellblade 2 and soon CoD are owned by MS and won't be ever removed from their service for the foreseeable future. Keeping in mind if we ARE talking strictly streaming content, streaming games gets removed from those services all the time, even on PlayStation and Xbox.

It's another reason MS would prefer to own the content so they can contol where it goes. Long term ownership makes more sense than a temporary timed deal. MS has shown they have far more interest in providing long term support for many of their games. You can also see this in their backward compatibility program.

 

[oldergamer]

It's not fact though when it has been confirmed by MS that Hellblade 2 and Elder Scrolls 6 are removed. The fact that they have yet to release those games doesn't take away from that fact and MS are saying COD some years later might be to.

You liked and defended xbox through the xbox one launch. 'Value for your dollar' MS and 'heavy handed market practices' by Sony after PS3? Ok

Lets take your example then and answer my question. Hellblade was considered an indy almost self published titled. They owned the franchise & were in control of where it lands. So I guess sony buying insomniac and preventing another sunset overdrive game releasing on xbox falls into the same category that sony is claiming? Are these situations equal in your eyes? I would barely call one game a "franchise". Another example, where is the Xbox version of Kena? I classify multiplat established franchises as:

- multiple games games released for platforms equally
- not just games that randomly skip platforms for multiple years or that occasionally appeared on other consoles
- games that only had a single prior game released
- Has a recent or new installment - isn't just a port of the same game released over and over again ( like out of this world is a franchise, that hasn't had a new installment in I don't know how long. Does anyone miss it if it went exclusive to a platform?)

Yes I'm putting some rules on my thinking, but at least I'm explaining my thought process.

IMO, with the above hellblade example, or susnset overdrive, it's not the same as buying a publisher and then restricting the #1 selling franchise on a competing platform, like Sony is saying will happen or been stated its not happening. My fact still stands, MS is the only company willing to continue to release games on competing consoles. They still sell Minecraft on all platforms, still released other new games on other platforms, still honored prior contracts with sony, stated they would look at exclusivity on a case by case basis after purchasing Bethesda, still released updates to games on PlayStation and stadia, announced new games for switch in partnership with Nintendo, and stated that they plan to keep COD on PlayStation for many years. To be frank what the hell do you want from them? If they were acting like Sony does,

Regarding my defending Xbox, I didn't expect MS to mess up so badly on the Xbox one launch. The practice of paying for non physical games that was already standard on PC at the time, was too early for console (funny how very few care about it now.). They imo did have the better slate of launch games, and the only visual difference between Xbone & PS4 for multi-plats was resolution, which I still stand by stating (which was a smaller difference between Xbox 360 and PS3 multi-plats where resolution + level of detail + textures res contributed to a overall visual gap). That huge visual gap never materialized like console warriors claimed. They however were drastically out maneuvered acquiring content and continuing first party development, and had to start from scratch after allocated too much budget towards TV TV TV. Sony was effective in paying to block certain franchises like street fighter and others from appearing at all, and the newer version of kinect was a shell of its former self after apple swooped in and bought the Israeli company that created the tech. They fucked up on multiple levels.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Do I personally believe him?

Nope

But I also can not go and call him a liar in this because Sony makes Acti a ton a of money to the tune of over 1 billion in 2020 and I simply do not believe they can make that money up by making those games exclusive

Agreed. MS's goal is to slowly get CoD gamers to move from PS to Xbox over several years. Immediately pulling it from PS and placing it on Game Pass would be a horrible decision from a financial standpoint.
Letting CoD stay on PS a few years after the agreement is not a the goodwill measure it's made out to be....lol

 

[Three]

First off I did say speculate and I was including consoles as a device Game pass also streams which is not true for GeForce Now. The question also is Game pass available in those two GeForce Now additional countries? If so even without streaming you'd have PC and console where you could still access those games traditionally since Game pass isn't just streaming. I also will add again that I was predominantly focused on replacing PlayStation as a platform, the original point, not GeForce Now which is the platform you changed it to. GeForce Now has its own issues.

Well if we are now talking about Game pass streaming vs GeForce Now and not hypothetically replacing the PlayStation we'd have to look at game availability in general. Does nVidia actually own any of the content they stream? The games like Hellblade 2 and soon CoD are owned by MS and won't be ever removed from their service for the foreseeable future. Keeping in mind if we ARE talking strictly streaming content, streaming games gets removed from those services all the time, even on PlayStation and Xbox.

gamepass isn't just streaming but neither is the other model. it's not like steam, EGS, etc don't exist for the streaming service. You buy the game on Steam or EGS and stream it on GFN. That's how the GFN model works.
Meaning you can both own indefinitely and stream your games.

The entire point was that it was on more platforms and you brought up streaming as a way it opens it up to more devices or more countries but it factually doesn't. downloading and streaming was available before with no incentive to remove it. The reason it isn't available anymore was because after 3-4 years MS removed it from the service to have it exclusive to their subscription service.

It's another reason MS would prefer to own the content so they can contol where it goes. Long term ownership makes more sense than a temporary timed deal. MS has shown they have far more interest in providing long term support for many of their games. You can also see this in their backward compatibility program.

Exactly when a platform holder controls where it goes it goes to less platforms not more but I'm not sure why we are pretending it opens it up to more platforms or more countries, it doesn't.

 

[Three]

Lets take your example then and answer my question. Hellblade was considered an indy almost self published titled. They owned the franchise & were in control of where it lands. So I guess sony buying insomniac and preventing another sunset overdrive game releasing on xbox falls into the same category that sony is claiming? Are these situations equal in your eyes? I would barely call one game a "franchise". Another example, where is the Xbox version of Kena? I classify multiplat established franchises as:

If Insomniac release a Sunset Overdrive sequel and make it PS exclusive then that established "franchise" has been removed from xbox. Any Sunset Overdrive fans on the xbox would now need to buy a PS.

My fact still stands, MS is the only company willing to continue to release games on competing consoles.

And that is what I disagree with and think is kind of bullshit. They are not. They are the only ones buying like this in the first place and removing things like Elder Scrolls like this. Name me one company that has bought established IPs like, COD, Elder scrolls, Hellblade etc and removed it from other platforms. Bayonetta maybe? You are trying to make out like MS buying them is somehow beneficial because other companies would have bought and removed it but MS are altruistic. So who has done this in your examples, Sony, Amazon, Google? Name me some examples of others removing "established franchises" like you are saying MS would never do but they would. Especially when you have examples like Bungie and nothing has been removed. "The only company willing to continue to release games on competing consoles"?

 

[PaintTinJr]

You have lost me you basically want Sony to get everything because that suits you but does nothing for competition and that's what all this is about.

Where did I say PlayStation should get everything? If a fictional company joined the market tomorrow and out PlayStation-ed, PlayStation with content and strategies I wouldn't take issue with PlayStation having to leave the market. However, if said company's main reason for doing a console was for some API supremacy reason in another market and their console was called GLBox (for example) and they started dropping larger and larger sums that no-one else had in the market to wait out the competition financially, then yeah, I wouldn't be a fan.

But I don't buy digital games, so PlayStation being replaced isn't an issue for me. I'm clear about my criteria, not a specific company attachment. I would happily see xbox decoupled from directx and MSFT spending and be doing well by games to entice me to buy.

Sony couldn't compete with xbox live so they had free online, the then needed to entice people to playstation plus for free games and playing online with ps3, vita and into ps4 gen.

Feels like I'm answering an older question - someone disputed, might have even been you. As market leader they offered online free to maximise market size. By the end of the 360 gen Sony were in bad financial shape after they had competed with the 360. But unlike xbox that had no need to make an RoI to stay active, even had an RRoD fine that would have put most players out of business, never mind out of gaming, PlayStation no longer had the finances to offer free online by PS4.

We won thanks to ps plus. Then Microsoft had to compete and Sony was buying up huge exclusivity deals with the likes of bungie and with cod etc. So Microsoft came up with gamepass and play anywhere so we started to win there, Sony saw what was happening and started bringing games to PC and improved their ps plus to include more games....so we win!

How much are they spending? I mean MSFT spends $10b-20b just advertising their company each year. I'm pretty sure these sums are small by comparison given the number that will be based on Japanese companies helping a Japanese company. It is for Xbox to internally do better with exclusives to move the needle for gamers to align gamers to them, like every platform in history has in gaming.

Microsoft is buying publishers and devs, Sony are buying publishers and devs...we will ultimately win. The jobs of these companies is to show us why we should spend our hard earned money with them and I will spend it with whoever I think deserves it.

Exactly to the bolded part, and that is why they are spending $80b to make up for their inability to show us - in the AAA-A games market - despite the unbalancing and market damage it does, it still brings nothing new.

Imagine if any of these companies had free reign to do what they want with no competition. It would be awful. Look at hardware and games costs this gen, accessory. Etc.

I agree with the first part, but that's more likely by MSFT with such a deal, than not. The second part is for consumers to push back, there's no correct price, just what we as a majority accept, value might be relative, and the Switch might be the real source of the problem for pricing because lower tech should be priced lower, and the Switch hardware is not.

 

[pasterpl]

downloading and streaming was available before with no incentive to remove it. The reason it isn't available anymore was because after 3-4 years MS removed it from the service to have it exclusive to their subscription service.

This wasn’t cloud streaming.

And that is what I disagree with and think is kind of bullshit. They are not. They are the only ones buying like this in the first place and removing things like Elder Scrolls like this. Name me one company that has bought established IPs like, COD, Elder scrolls, Hellblade etc and removed it from other platforms. Bayonetta maybe? You are trying to make out like MS buying them is somehow beneficial because other companies would have bought and removed it but MS are altruistic. So who has done this in your examples, Sony? Amazon? Google? Name me some examples of others removing "established franchises" like you are saying MS would never do but they would. Especially when you have examples like Bungie and nothing has been removed.

MS is actively developing and realising games like Minecraft and spin-offs on all platforms, no other platform holder is doing anything similar. Psychonauts 2, hit playstation as well. MS kept deals re. Deathloop and ghost wire, deathloop even hit gamepass competitor by Sony.

Sony doesn’t need to buy publishers and devs to remove games from competition, they do timed and not only timed deals to make sure that a game will not be released on competing platform.