And I have already explained, to others. Just like PlayStation has marketing Fifa for years without a deal. The give free prominence to IPs that make them bundles of cash, and with the +100m console selling machine that PlayStation has been over 2 decades with CoD making them huge money per year, why are you questioning that they have marketed it without a deal? PSN has keep spots that entice sales, and CoD, Fifa, etc always get prominence.
Wtf? Stop spreading fud and lies.
None of what you said invalidates my point that the 'loss' of a game on PlayStation is made up by the additional devices Game pass offers through streaming. GeForce Now is not really a superior alternative.
If those titles weren't guaranteed to stay on the platform it doesn't matter if there were other streaming alternatives. If those titles weren't streaming at all but now are because of Game pass they absolutely are available in more places. Hypothetically 'losing' PlayStation does not necessarily mean the game won't be available in more alternative places. PlayStation is hardly the most widely available device to play games on.
Um what? What is it then? What do you consider GFN to be?
Yes and Sony would do the same with GaaS Bungie games. So what?
Yes because they had deals prior to the acquisition.
So do MS though.
It does because you were suggesting those additional devices did not exist via streaming prior, when they did on GFN.
It's the fault of competing subscriptions and in the case of the mentioned Hellblade it absolutely is MS fault it was removed. They had it removed. It wasn't like GFN just decided to remove it arbitrarily because "that's what happens on GFN" or something.
Do you have a proof of that claim?
gamejobs.co
twistedvoxel.com
What makes you think it won't go through?
Does it even matter if you believe him?
No but people are claiming that established ips aren't being taken away from platforms but actually appearing on more. What's this got to do with what Phil has said? It's the people here saying things. I made a similar case for Bethesda and elder scrolls and people made even more excuses.
I stick "MSFT marketing spend" in bing and it returns:
and on a first time following the link it lets you see a graph showing it grow for the last 20years - from a billion IIRC.
I don't understand what's happening, you're now raising points on what a business pays in advertising? Why does that matter to you?
Game pass streaming absolutely added devices and therefore added access. Diablo currently isn't streaming anywhere it is not currently owned by MS. After the acquisition it absolutely will be. And will be available on more devices than what PlayStation currently offers. PlayStation consoles do not outnumber cell phones and tablets. GeForce Now doesn't have the ability to keep the titles available on their service so it isn't a real alternative to the titles you claim MS is taking away.
The article I linked showed Take 2 and Warner Brothers games leaving GeForce Now. That has nothing to do with Microsoft. GeForce Now is simply not the alternative to Game pass you are making it out to be especially since MS would control the main draws to the service. Stability of a game on a service is just as important as general access.
People here talk about PlayStation losing established titles but laughed at Xbox gamers who missed out on Street Fighter 5 and the new Final Fantasy games. Not every game hits every platform even if a previous title did. Octopath Traveler 2 also says hi. This is hardly a PlayStation exclusive issue. Business is business I suppose.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but all high profile games get preferential treatment on PSN even without a special deal AFAIK.
For revenue it is even if it's unfortunate for some here.Yeah, that's a great idea!
Doesn't that happen in all and every platform though?
Well you were making the point about PlayStation buying up timed exclusives, and what are timed exclusives if not just another form of marketing - it costs you money in the hope of increasing sales -, no?
It didn't because they removed it from the more widely available GFN and PS. Activison removed their games from free streaming services before the acquisition too. It didn't add more devices. Hellblade did not add more devices. Dito for Bethesda, removed its games.
Because Take 2 made deals with Stadia. Warner bros made deals with PS Now and Gamepass. Activision and Bethesda removed it and made deals with MS. MS removed their games (hellblade and co) in favour of xCloud. The subscription wars have begun but this vertical merger is in no way providing you more choice or more platforms. You have exchanged buying games and being able to independently choose who your streaming provider is for companies fighting for exclusives and removing it from other device and streaming platforms. It's less platforms not more.
Who was laughing? If some idiot said Street fighter was coming to more platforms now and is actually Sony being great though I would have laughed my ass off. Same with dead rising and other games on xbox.
Exactly, and my point about PlayStation could be transposed to any platform - like the Wii - that sold the games from the IP. PlayStation having been the market leader for at least 3 of 4 gens with +100m selling consoles could easily argue it has done most for CoD, would you not agree? - which was my original point from the beginning, they are losing something they've massively contributed to its success in this deal.
I don't have data on the platform split for CoD so I don't know if PS sales are bigger than everything else combined.
This deal isn't xbox buying ACTIVI for $70b - nor was Bethesda for $7b or Mojang for $3b - this is an MSFT acquisition, so when people claim the market has nothing to worry about from the deal, you have to consider whether they could and should have just competed for timed exclusions, which their marketing spend shows they would laugh at the tiny numbers needed - even to get games on gamepass - and then you have to ask how would current player in gaming compete, even if they used just 20% of the MSFT marketing budget for Xcloud/Gamepass and xbox to drive users to CoD on their platform. It would be no contest once they own the IP and could win any marketing battle.
Would you need them? when PS2 was one of those platforms with multiple CoDs released and it outsold Xbox OG 7:1 IIRC with 140m vs 20m, and nothing the 360 did even looks like it had more copies sold than PS3 other than the first 360 version before 10m console sales, so for CoD(SP and MP) it won't even be close IMO.
Not this again. We are going round in circles. There wasn't "a deal" in that sense. Geforce now wasn't selling the game. It was providing a complementary service that increased install base for publishers by letting subscribers use a cloud server and play games they already owned. It's like renting a PC to install software you bought elsewhere.
It is because it is the start of the extinguish phase by MSFT, where they are directly attacking a competitor's finances with nothing more than money. No talented coup with amazing games, no coup with amazing revolutionary hardware or accessories, just a straight anti-competitive monetary slugging match put down, using $70b plus marketing spend to take away - I think someone said it was - $1.6b/yr from PlayStation.
Just to avoid framing you as someone with an unbelievable hate for Microsoft.
You dont have a damn clue what goes on behind the scenes. Im going to go out on a limb here any say there was a contractual obligation just like other games on geforce now. Not even close. Do you think the game was on there for free? Seriously keep shitting up this thread with your armchair dealings.
