Support NeoGAF

[DopeyFish]

Exactly and the audacity to blatantly come and say that Sony can develop something to compete with the largest fps franchise in the world lol....even though noone else has in the past two decades but Sony had 10 years to do it

it's the basis for resolving the SLC; essentially they need to give enough time for Sony to adapt to the new market condition.

they don't need to be able to create something that is equivalent 1:1 and they can choose to do nothing at all. the remedy is only in place to stop Microsoft from gaining an immediate advantage that would greatly disadvantage Sony to the point of them being unable to compete in the market. Unfortunately there's no such situation what would ever be present but MS is willing to give the CMA 10 years so Sony could figure out how to make a large scale live service game. Considering live service games have only been a thing for about 10 years it shouldn't be too difficult for Sony to figure out.

as it stands the UK is the only place on the planet which will have a remedy for this.

 

[sainraja]

Your "submitted facts" never specify that those games would be natively ported and so factually, they are 100% in line with my assertion that putting Game Pass on PS was going to be accomplished via xCloud. Do I know that? No. Neither do you. Which goes back to my point that we do not know the details of what was offered.

If that is as you say, isn't his point just as valid as yours though?
We don't really know the "exact" details and how Microsoft presented them. Game Pass as a service—is it a cloud service, or is the cloud just one aspect of it?

EDIT
It is starting to sound more like, I should be saying this to him lol.

EDIT
Another thing to consider, did MS only say Game Pass without specifying the "cloud" and if so, why were they not being clear?

 

[sainraja]

The whole 'GamePass on PlayStation' is an interesting one.

Let's posit 2 things :
1. Microsoft wants GP to be on as many devices as possible to increase subscriber numbers.
2. Sony wants third party publishers to release games on their store and get a revenue cut of each transaction.

I think both those things are fairly self evident and reasonable.

Let's posit one last thing : They both want to maximize their gains (revenue/profit/marketshare/etc.)

So, why isn't GP on PS consoles?


From the PoV of MS :

If you natively port every single first party game to PS, and make a 'EA Play' type subscription, you effectively kill one of the reasons to get an Xbox, and basically become a third party publisher. Sony sells more consoles, gains more revenue. You might get more subscribers and revenue, but you transform your business from platform holder to publisher. You could still make consoles, but buying a PlayStation would simply be a better option because it gives you access to more games. You get ~70% of every sale instead of 100% from your store.

So what can MS do to maximize their gains?

Offer a GamePass PS4/PS5 app, like Netflix and Disney+, and offer your first party catalog through cloud streaming only.

But here's the catch : since it's a streaming app, and subscriptions and microtransactions don't go through PSN, you get to keep all, or most, of the revenue.


From the PoV of Sony :

Obviously you would be interested in having a publisher publish all their games on PSN and get the revenue cut from sales and microtransactions.

If their proposition is to instead make a streaming app, allowing them to bypass your store, then what is there to gain from that? You would most likely lose out on revenue spent on your store. These consoles aren't open platforms with a number of stores.


So I think it might be true that MS offered Sony to put GP on their consoles, but evidently the terms weren't mutually benefactory.

Even EA Play took like 5 years to arrive on PS consoles, so clearly there were things that needed to be worked out.

If MS offered a 'EA Play' type deal to Sony, they would accept in a heartbeat.

I don't think MS have any intention to get 'regular publisher' terms though.

It's the same reason Steam or the Epic Games Store doesn't allow GP either.

^^ This.

 

[Topher]

If that is as you say, isn't his point just as valid as yours though?
We don't really know the "exact" details and how Microsoft presented them. Game Pass as a service—is it a cloud service, or is the cloud just one aspect of it?

EDIT
It is starting to sound more like, I should be saying this to him lol.

EDIT
Another thing to consider, did MS only say Game Pass without specifying the "cloud" and if so, why were not being clear?

My point is that we don’t know the answer. We can speculate but that is all.

 

[Topher]

So you’re saying gaming has changed a lot in ten years.

Noticeable differences in resolution has changed. Resolution is what you brought up.

 

[Pelta88]

So what if they do? They own it. So long as they keep their side of the contract that's it.

No. Not yet.

 

[ManaByte]

Noticeable differences in resolution has changed. Resolution is what you brought up.

Ten years ago they were still doing COD map pack DLC. No one can even pretend to predict what things will be like in 10 years.

 

[In Cold Blood]

No. Not yet.

If that is your response then you need to quote post that to everyone who is saying what MS might do once they own it.

 

[Pelta88]

Exactly and the audacity to blatantly come and say that Sony can develop something to compete with the largest fps franchise in the world lol....even though noone else has in the past two decades but Sony had 10 years to do it

There are 3 major studios with an additional 6 support studio churning out a COD on a consistent annual release. Microsoft is essentially telling Sony to go build a separate publisher to create a COD competitor.

 

[Topher]

No one can even pretend to predict what things will be like in 10 years.

Drudging up old console warrior bullshit isn’t the best way to make that point, dude.

 

[DopeyFish]

There are 3 major studios with an additional 6 support studio churning out a COD on a consistent annual release. Microsoft is essentially telling Sony to go build a separate publisher to create a COD competitor.

that is not what is said there, this is responding directly to the SLC.

To boil it down:
would Sony, as a platform holder, be in danger of going out of business if Call of Duty were to leave PlayStation today?
Assuming the first question was a yes: would Sony, as a platform holder, still be in danger of going out of business if Call of Duty were to leave PlayStation after being given 10 years of time to prepare for said scenario?

The answer to the first question is a no anyways so it doesn't really matter. But the point is Microsoft is talking about the SLC when they are saying Sony can build x or whatever. It's not that they want Sony to do it, and Sony probably won't do it. The point is if they have enough time to adapt to the changing market conditions to better compete against said change, which they do.

They don't need to do a 1:1 replacement of Call of Duty. All they'd need is just to be able to fill the hole with whatever it may be. Doesn't even need to be a shooter. It doesn't need to be the same scope. Doesn't need to be multiplatform or have a massive bombastic campaign. The point is does Sony have the capability or potential through growth or other means to fill a void of $1 billion in sales / 15 million unit sales of a first or third party title every year? The answer is obviously yes. That division has tripled in revenue in the last 10 years. But in this case it's not actually going to be directly $1 billion, it's going to be far less considering not everyone that plays Call of Duty would switch, and those who didn't will likely find something else to spend their money on. So the impact is expected to be fairly minimal.

 

[Clintizzle]

I was thinking about gaming 10 years ago and my mind automatically went to 2003. Then I realized....

 

[ManaByte]

I was thinking about gaming 10 years ago and my mind automatically went to 2003. Then I realized....

COD didn’t even exist until the end of 2003.

 

[DarkMage619]

You know what makes even less sense? Thinking Microsoft will keep cod on PS of their own accord. You actually believe that? You do understand that the 10 years is because Microsoft have to do that. Not because they want to right? Remember the 3 years? Lol you think Microsoft would have renegotiated with Sony after that instead of having cod as an exclusive on gamepass? I know you don't really believe this.

What forced MS to keep Minecraft on PlayStation plus all of the spin-offs? The only thing that matters is that MS honors it's commitments and that CoD remains available to the same platforms it is available today. No one can point out a gaming contract MS reneged on nor point out any titles MS intentionally put bugs in to make other platforms versions worse. The ten year contract is very fair it's just that Sony is not interested in the parity MS is offering, they want a superior version and that is obviously off the table.

 

[bitbydeath]

What forced MS to keep Minecraft on PlayStation plus all of the spin-offs?

It might have been a concession they made when purchasing them, we never got the details. If I recall correctly they were never folded under Xbox division, so likely related to that.

 

[The Pleasure]

No one can point out a contract MS reneged on nor point out any titles MS intentionally put bugs in to make other platforms versions worse.

Ibm OS/2 would like a word with you.

 

[DarkMage619]

It might have been a concession they made when purchasing them, we never got the details. If I recall correctly they were never folded under Xbox division, so likely related to that.

Taking your point then the concession made for this deal are no different. MS provided a quality PlayStation version of Minecraft including a VR version that Xbox doesn't even have. No one here can point to bugs and errors intentionally added to the PlayStation version of the game so there is no reason MS would not honor their agreements with this deal as well. It's business.

 

[In Cold Blood]

There are 3 major studios with an additional 6 support studio churning out a COD on a consistent annual release. Microsoft is essentially telling Sony to go build a separate publisher to create a COD competitor.

The absolute vast majority of Playstation owners don't buy COD to play.
It's Sony's fault they shelved all their own shooters, not MSs or ABKs.
What happened to Resistance? What happened to SOCOM? What happened to Killzone? After Killzone 2 and 3, some people were saying I was the best Shooter of that time. What, they do one other one after it and can it?
People go on about how MS should stop doing Gears and Halo because it's been done to death and they should be doing new IPs. You know, just like Sony has done, however, on the.other side we see COD being done every single year, and now it's too Important to lose? Which one is it?

At some point Sony needs to take responsibility for their own actions. They went all in on their third person adventure games, at the expense of their shooters, and become totally reliant on third parties to cover that need for them.
I guess they learnt a lesson out of this, and the good thing for PS players is that I think they might well be getting some new first party shooters in the future.

 

[DarkMage619]

Ibm OS/2 would like a word with you.

Not knowing what you are talking about, does this have anything to do with MS gaming in general or Xbox specifically? How does this relate to Activision or any other gaming acquisition MS has made? Was this even under the current MS leadership?

 

[ulantan]

The absolute vast majority of Playstation owners don't buy COD to play.
It's Sony's fault they shelved all their own shooters, not MSs or ABKs.
What happened to Resistance? What happened to SOCOM? What happened to Killzone? After Killzone 2 and 3, some people were saying I was the best Shooter of that time. What, they do one other one after it and can it?
People go on about how MS should stop doing Gears and Halo because it's been done to death and they should be doing new IPs. You know, just like Sony has done, however, on the.other side we see COD being done every single year, and now it's too Important to lose? Which one is it?

At some point Sony needs to take responsibility for their own actions. They went all in on their third person adventure games, at the expense of their shooters, and become totally reliant on third parties to cover that need for them.
I guess they learnt a lesson out of this, and the good thing for PS players is that I think they might well be getting some new first party shooters in the future.

We could say the exact same thing about Microsoft they still haven't managed to put out new halo or gears year after year for a decade straight also gears is a narrative driven third person shooter.

 

[hlm666]

Exactly and the audacity to blatantly come and say that Sony can develop something to compete with the largest fps franchise in the world lol....even though noone else has in the past two decades but Sony had 10 years to do it

Maybe they saw the early days of this thread and believed the posters saying cod wasn't a big deal and Sony could make a cod competitor easy with the couple of ex cod devs they have in one of their new studios. The energy in this thread before Sony started making waves was far different, but no doubt if this goes through we will make a return to the themes in those posts.

 

[bitbydeath]

Taking your point then the concession made for this deal are no different. MS provided a quality PlayStation version of Minecraft including a VR version that Xbox doesn't even have. No one here can point to bugs and errors intentionally added to the PlayStation version of the game so there is no reason MS would not honor their agreements with this deal as well. It's business.

We don’t know the deal for Minecraft.
They may have been forced to remain third party permanently which is why they never moved under Xbox.

 

[DarkMage619]

We don’t know the deal for Minecraft.
They may have been forced to remain third party permanently which is why they never moved under Xbox.

I still don't think there is any sort of thing as a permanent requirement for an entertainment product.

 

[adamsapple]

I was thinking about gaming 10 years ago and my mind automatically went to 2003. Then I realized....

Resident Evil 4 came out almost 10 years ago right ?

Right ?

:'(

 

[Heisenberg007]

Amazed at how many people, who were just convincing everyone that COD would always be multiplatform under Microsoft, are now trying to convince that 10 years are enough lol.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Anyway, now that Microsoft's behavioral remedies and the real substance of those remedies are out in the open, what do y'all think?

Are these behavioral access remedies (10 years max with an implication of COD going exclusive after 10 years, and a possibility to breach contracts before 10 years) enough for the CMA?

I don't think they are anywhere in line with divestment in effect.

 

[adamsapple]

Amazed at how many people, who were just convincing everyone that COD would always be multiplatform under Microsoft, are now trying to convince that 10 years are enough lol.

Most people who said the former are still saying the same. Besides, those two statements are not mutually exclusive. CoD can stay multi-platform after 10 years, and 10 years is a long time.

Are these behavioral access remedies (10 years max with an implication of COD going exclusive after 10 years, and a possibility to breach contracts before 10 years) enough for the CMA?

Comments like this, however, are using baseless speculation about things like breaching contracts before 10 years. What would even lead you to believe that other than the need to create inflammatory discussion ?

 

[bender]

Allow me to jog your memory you pathological liar:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/hard...actually-better.1617827/page-7#post-264548655

 

[The Pleasure]

Not knowing what you are talking about, does this have anything to do with MS gaming in general or Xbox specifically? How does this relate to Activision or any other gaming acquisition MS has made? Was this even under the current MS leadership?

You're a bit young for this one. Happened before Windows 95 and it was a pivotal moment that fucked computing as a whole and established a monopoly in the pc field way back when which made 9x a monopoly at the time and continues to have chilling effects to this day.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Ten years is an eternity in tech. On top of that no other deal accepted by the CMA was longer than ten years. It makes no sense after ten years and expanding the franchise to every platform under the sun for MS to suddenly remove the game and make it exclusive. It is like some are ignoring the historical precedent with Minecraft another IP expanded after acquired it.

“10 years is an eternity” he says

Yet CoD is stronger than ever after 20 years

And many top IP (like CoD) are 40+ years of stronger than ever right now

CoD isn’t “tech”, it’s a brand, with immensely entrenched moats. Nobody has been able to compete with the Activision CoD factory, despite plenty trying to

That’s of course why MS wants to buy Activision, due to the strong IP. MS claiming anyone can really compete there with 10 years time is laughable

CMA is going to reject this arrogant nonsense. I halfway think MS is just trying to save face while secretly wanting the deal to get canned at this point because their response is an insult to the CMA’s findings

 

[Smoke6]

Ten years is an eternity in tech. On top of that no other deal accepted by the CMA was longer than ten years. It makes no sense after ten years and expanding the franchise to every platform under the sun for MS to suddenly remove the game and make it exclusive. It is like some are ignoring the historical precedent with Minecraft another IP expanded after acquired it.

Man shut’Cho ass up until you respond to the guy who just jogged your memory of you lying in 4K!

I hope this deal goes thru, Sony needs to get back to using some of their IPs that’s been dormant for a while now

 

[Ozriel]

We don’t know the deal for Minecraft.
They may have been forced to remain third party permanently which is why they never moved under Xbox.

It might have been a concession they made when purchasing them, we never got the details. If I recall correctly they were never folded under Xbox division, so likely related to that.

Mojang is a subsidiary of Xbox Games Studios. There’s no deal for Minecraft. You can tell because even the spin-off games still come to rival consoles, still appear on PS+ and MS has just brought minecraft to ChromeOS

 

[Banjo64]

Allow me to jog your memory you pathological liar:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/hard...actually-better.1617827/page-7#post-264548655

Simply unbelievable.

Are these behavioral access remedies (10 years max with an implication of COD going exclusive after 10 years, and a possibility to breach contracts before 10 years) enough for the CMA?

In my opinion, the remedies put forward by Microsoft do not address the concerns the CMA have.

 

[bitbydeath]

Mojang is a subsidiary of Xbox Games Studios. There’s no deal for Minecraft. You can tell because even the spin-off games still come to rival consoles, still appear on PS+ and MS has just brought minecraft to ChromeOS

So probably enforced they remain third party.

 

[The Pleasure]

DarkVoost be all up in Microsoft's toes

Suck them toes!

Thanks for watching my animations and music parodies!My Gaming Channel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAISzci508&t=306s------------------------------------...

youtube.com

 

[MasterCornholio]

Anyway, now that Microsoft's behavioral remedies and the real substance of those remedies are out in the open, what do y'all think?

Are these behavioral access remedies (10 years max with an implication of COD going exclusive after 10 years, and a possibility to breach contracts before 10 years) enough for the CMA?

I don't think they are anywhere in line with divestment in effect.

Microsoft seems to expect the CMA to change their minds. I'm not sure why though since these remedies don't line up with what the CMA asked for in the past.

As for being equal to a divestment it doesn't seem like it's anything close to that. Maybe the CMA dropped their requirements for a divestment which is why they are doing this.

 

[Three]

DarkVoost be all up in Microsoft's toes

http://[URL]https://youtube.com/shorts/pQNFmQKKGyg?feature=share

[/URL]

I'm confused

 

[In Cold Blood]

We could say the exact same thing about Microsoft they still haven't managed to put out new halo or gears year after year for a decade straight also gears is a narrative driven third person shooter.

We all know ABK is milking COD for all its worth. It brings in the most money, sells the most and as ABK needs to provide the most profit to its shareholders they have put all their eggs in the COD basket.

Will be interesting to see if MS continues to milk COD if it becomes their IP.

 

[Yoboman]

If MS wanted Gamepass on PlayStation so badly they'd go through the same process every publisher goes through. Start publishing games on Playstation, they already have a publishers license. Start making the games, you get enough and you can roll out an EA Play like service for MS first party games

Thing is we don't know what form of Gamepass they offered so it's all moot. Could have been Cloud entirely. Proposal could have included third party games that directly undermine Sony's store

Unless we see in writing that they put in a realistic proposal then it is all hot air

 

[Fitzchiv]

Read the 27 page document posted by Reksveks.

It's clear that Microsoft is leaving the door open to do anything they want after the 10 year period. I don't think this automatically means that they will make CoD exclusive, but they want that option.

In response to the "Cliff Edge" question from the CMA, Microsoft wants to allay fears that it would be a cliff edge. They're basically saying 10 years is enough time for Sony to stop relying on CoD so heavily.

And right after they say 10 years is enough time for Sony to stop relying on CoD (in case we decide to make it exclusive after that 10 year period) they say "We probably wouldn't make it exclusive anyway, it would make too much money on Playstation".

But.. they had the same incentive line when discussing Zenimax.

I personally don't think they would take CoD full exclusive after the 10 year deal. They might engage in timed exclusivity (a week, 30 days) either for the full game or content/modes like raids/maps.

But one thing is clear. They want to door open to do anything they want after that 10 years is over.

Which is completely reasonable. Not sure where people have gone wrong in convincing themselves this has become about protecting Sony market share.

 

[Three]

10 yrs is enough to create your own COD but it isn't enough time for Phil to turn xbox first party around. How many times have I heard that.

 

[Ozriel]

So probably enforced they remain third party.

That is extremely unlikely. The deal didn’t have any issues with regulators, and no deal made in 2014 would cover the Minecraft spin-offs which have remained multiplatform.

Also, MS has touted their Minecraft access practices multiple times. If it were enforced, it would have been brought up. It also would have been brought up by the CMA and MS as an example of a successful behavioral remedy.

 

[Fitzchiv]

that is not what is said there, this is responding directly to the SLC.

To boil it down:
would Sony, as a platform holder, be in danger of going out of business if Call of Duty were to leave PlayStation today?
Assuming the first question was a yes: would Sony, as a platform holder, still be in danger of going out of business if Call of Duty were to leave PlayStation after being given 10 years of time to prepare for said scenario?

The answer to the first question is a no anyways so it doesn't really matter. But the point is Microsoft is talking about the SLC when they are saying Sony can build x or whatever. It's not that they want Sony to do it, and Sony probably won't do it. The point is if they have enough time to adapt to the changing market conditions to better compete against said change, which they do.

They don't need to do a 1:1 replacement of Call of Duty. All they'd need is just to be able to fill the hole with whatever it may be. Doesn't even need to be a shooter. It doesn't need to be the same scope. Doesn't need to be multiplatform or have a massive bombastic campaign. The point is does Sony have the capability or potential through growth or other means to fill a void of $1 billion in sales / 15 million unit sales of a first or third party title every year? The answer is obviously yes. That division has tripled in revenue in the last 10 years. But in this case it's not actually going to be directly $1 billion, it's going to be far less considering not everyone that plays Call of Duty would switch, and those who didn't will likely find something else to spend their money on. So the impact is expected to be fairly minimal.

This. It's about Sony's ability (and others) to remain competitive and thus consumers benefit from a competitive market and pricing. 10 years is enough time to make provision to be competitive in the event of a "cliff edge" end of agreement.

Just as an aside, I'm surprised how many people are just assuming consoles are a major thing in a decade tbh...

 

[Ozriel]

10 yrs is enough to create your own COD but it isn't enough time for Phil to turn xbox first party around. How many times have I heard that.

Ask this question March 2024 when it’s Phil’s 10th year anniversary as head of Xbox

 

[Duchess]

You know, Sony should just accept that 10 year deal. It'll be 2034 by the time it runs out, and from what I've read in that UN report this week, the world's gonna end in 2030 anyway ...

 

[Three]

Ask this question March 2024 when it’s Phil’s 10th year anniversary as head of Xbox

Even then I'd say Phil didn't really turn first party around. He had the luxury of just being able to buy Zenimax which might save first party come March 2024. Unless you mean Sony can buy a publisher like EA to get a possible CoD competitor it isn't realistic, people seem to constantly say Phil hasn't had enough time 9yrs later.

 

[bitbydeath]

That is extremely unlikely. The deal didn’t have any issues with regulators, and no deal made in 2014 would cover the Minecraft spin-offs which have remained multiplatform.

Also, MS has touted their Minecraft access practices multiple times. If it were enforced, it would have been brought up. It also would have been brought up by the CMA and MS as an example of a successful behavioral remedy.

Hard to say, you just said there was no deal timeframe implemented which means it may have been unlimited, we don’t have the details though so we can only speculate.

 

[azertydu91]

Hard to say, you just said there was no deal timeframe implemented which means it may have been unlimited, we don’t have the details though so we can only speculate.

Maybe we can create a comunity here, premature speculator....I think I came too soon with that concept.

 

[bitbydeath]

Maybe we can create a comunity here, premature speculator....I think I came too soon with that concept.

I’m sure we’ll have lots of mass debaters attend.

 

[azertydu91]

I’m sure we’ll have lots of mass debaters attend.

Well gaf is considered a circle jerk forum...