• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Our desire is to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation - Phil Spencer

MonarchJT

Banned
Fuck sake you can't be this naive?
Existing contracts they will honour.
Our desire means fuck all. It's just another way for saying put Gamepass on PS and you can have Cod.
Microsoft is not a community of charity. Of course will do the things that suit in the way that will benefit of course. And above all by making its users feel ... citizens of tier A
 
Last edited:


This would be a win for Gamepass and a win for PS5 users, but the death of Xbox, can't imagine this happen considering Phil Spencer is MS' Xbox CEO

Or... 👀
 

Topher

Gold Member
I'm not dramatic whatsoever. You apparently can't understand the English language, not my fault.

lol....yeah, no drama from you at all.

Cracking Up Lol GIF
 

SLB1904

Banned


they probably sign a multiple game deal, once it runs out ms will do whatver want with it
 
Last edited:

Excess

Member
As a PC player who roots against Sony because they've been so slow to release their games on PC, and as someone who plays COD, I want COD on PlayStation for not only the larger player pools, but also because the game is defined more by its community than it is by one single game. And this seems to be a major component to Microsoft and Activision's metaverse vision.

Strategically and finacially, Microsoft already has "exclusivity" because now all the games will be available on Game Pass. Who is realistically going to pay $70/yr for COD going forward? So it's a win-win to keep on PlayStation because it siphons the player base, and it maintains their goodwill, something Xbox has spent the last 10 years attempting to earn back.
 
I was and will always stay on Playstation, but people have to realize that this is the end of new Call of Duty games on Playstation. Phil is not lying, he means that they will not pull the plug on Warzone on Playstation and also keep it updated there (which makes sense for a free to play game), but he is not talking about future games.

I am not interested in CoD, so it is not a loss for me, but fans who really want to play the future titles either have to have a good enough PC to run them or buy a XBOX.

It is similar to Sony, they making exclusive titles for Playstation so that you have to buy on their console and bring in the money. They will only later release their games on PC, because their profit is less on PC, because it's not their system. Microsoft don't care if you buy on XBOX or PC, because they own both, but they will not sell on Playstation because they would need to share some of the profits with Sony.
 

Roxkis_ii

Member
By this logic why doesn't Sony publish God of War, Horizon, and GT7 on the Xbox? I'm sure they want Xbox fans' money as much if not more than PC and PS5 owners. They don't because you don't publish your biggest games on your competitor's consoles. That's why Bethesda and Activision games are going to be exclusive.
It would make since if MS dropped out the console space and become third party...
 

bender

What time is it?
I could see Microsoft asking Sony to keep the same annual marketing spend and then for them to lower the platform holder fees on game sales/MTX.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
They aint spending $70 billion for nothing.
If all they wanted was multiplat money from PlayStation they would not be making Zenimax games only available where gamepass is available.

However I could see an exception with COD because of its size, but it being available on gamepass at no additional cost is almost as good as full exclusive.
 
I could see Microsoft asking Sony to keep the same annual marketing spend and then for them to lower the platform holder fees on game sales/MTX.

This is the most likely outcome, outside of GP coming to PlayStation (In 1st party only titles) But that would probably mean MS going full publisher route, or perhaps not? Just employ the shotgun method and be on absolutely everything thus snuffing at any hope that Amazon, Google, or Meta can grab a meaningful foothold.
 

yurinka

Member
COD only sells about 5-6M a year on PS. It’s about 20-30M across all platforms.
Source?

Unless I missed something the CoD games are on 3 platforms and PS is the one where it sells more. So minimum the top of the 3 platforms should have a 33.34% of these total sales in the most tied possible case which obviously isn't the case.

If we go for the bare minimum of the range, 20M, then a 34% of 20M is 6.67M. But I think it's more realistic to think the best selling platform gets around 50% of something in the middle of that range, let's say 25M. So around 12.5M. And being generous, I'd say it sells on PS 'around less than 10-12M'.
 
Last edited:

Dr Bass

Member
wake me up when Bloodborne or any other niche game make the money that any of the worst cod made.
Activision sold because Ms had the money to make them bend (ie just that premium price you was taking about)
Activision value wasn't 68b..but Ms accepted to pay at least 20b more than their true value just and only because of the value of COD in the whole industry. probably you don't follow the fps scene .
again Sony ,entire , is a 140b company (you can accept it or not but is a reality of fact. as today 140,845,077,688 ) and also if someone want to pay premium no one is gonna pay a division that give them the 30% of the income ...the value of the entire company .
You are being so willfully obtuse that you can't possibly be this thick (or maybe on this board we only use the word thicc...)

So what part of an 8 billion dollar non-platform declining video game company is worth more than a 25 billion dollar platform, industry-defining and still growing video game company? Ignore the parent company. You think they would sell for less than roughly 2.7 their annual revenue multiple? If you actually think that you seriously have no clue about the world you live in. That is the point I am trying to get across to you, and anyone reading this. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm saying you're woefully ignorant in the tech/software realm. If you need info about tech valuations and what things are like for software multiples feel free to ask or do some research.


Something else it seems you are failing to understand. Activision wanted out. No one else would buy them. Yes, other companies could afford it but no, no one wanted it. By many accounts, they tried to shop themselves around and then returned to Microsoft when there were no other takers.


Furthermore you said CoD was the most important game in the world. Ladies and gentlemen, behold, the most important game in the world:


MS is putting a heavy spin on this but the fact of the matter is Activision wanted out, they saw no future for themselves where they could grow, and if you look at their recent results they are sharply declining, and only MS was willing to buy them. Those are just the facts.

Get a grip dude. This is not going to do what you want it to do. To anyone that likes this deal simply because of the idea you think it might hurt Sony, you are being a loser. And just to show you that I am coming at this from a place of impartiality and analysis, feel free to add me on XB Live anytime. You can probably guess my handle. Even though I think you're way in the tank for a corporation, which I think is beyond silly, I will happily add anyone on this board to my XBL friends list, or PS+ Friends list. I do not give a (green?) rat's ass about Sony.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war


This would be a win for Gamepass and a win for PS5 users, but the death of Xbox, can't imagine this happen considering Phil Spencer is MS' Xbox CEO

Or... 👀


Thats what Ive said before, having xbox 1st party on ps5 really takes away a lot of the need to own a series console.

Microsoft would make more money keeping there games xbox exclusive and increasing the xbox installbase. Putting everything on PS5 is counter intuitive.
 
Microsoft isn't playing checkers with Sony. What they're actually doing is playing chess with Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Netflix. This type of purchase is only the beginning. Microsoft is simply pulling out in front. This was inevitable, and while I know some gamers see this as addition through subtraction, it's best Activision is in Xbox hands rather than any other big tech.

With that said, I can totally envision Facebook purchasing EA for their "metaverse". Sims in the metaverse anyone?
 

John Wick

Member
Exactly

And what’s the point of not having GP on PlayStation?

At some point GP will be 100% Microsoft games anyways. They don’t need any third party deals

So it’s not like GamePass even loses them any third party sales at that point.

Going to be really interesting to see Sony’s response. At this point NOT having GP on PlayStation means a potential sale for Xbox hardware and that means NO Sony first party sales for that customer

Swallow your pride because there’s no benefit to blocking them
It would be a megaton if Sparticus is MS gamepass combined with Sony’s own GP?
 

Dr Bass

Member
Based on financial estimates if CoD goes full exclusive, the worst case is ... 260 million a year. Could be as low as 87 million.


So between .33% - 1% annual revenue hit. It's absolutely nothing given how the rest of their platform is growing. Again, much ado about nothing.
 

HoofHearted

Member
Sony aren't the ones all in on a subscription service.

Microsoft have already explored the possibility of getting gamepass on PlayStation. Some of you are in denial.

Personally I could not care less about any ip Microsoft has acquired, but its clear they want gamepass on everything, including PlayStation.
Based on all the chatter here and numerous threads abound about this latest acquisition… Clearly others here apparently do care…
 
Last edited:

th4tguy

Member
Source?

Unless I missed something the CoD games are on 3 platforms and PS is the one where it sells more. So minimum the top of the 3 platforms should have a 33.34% of these total sales in the most tied possible case which obviously isn't the case.

If we go for the bare minimum of the range, 20M, then a 34% of 20M is 6.67M. But I think it's more realistic to think the best selling platform gets around 50% of something in the middle of that range, let's say 25M. So around 12.5M. And being generous, I'd say it sells on PS 'around less than 10-12M'.
CoD sold more on PS, last gen. On 360/PS3, it was way ahead on 360. MS is trying to set it up so that they are pulling gamers back to the Xbox eco system. Current sales trends don't mean much when you make industry changes like this.
You make industry wide changes like this to make huge player base shifts like what we are talking about.
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Why couldn't he have just ended it with the part about contractual obligations? Now people are going to go mad with speculation with that last bit
Because they're exploring options. MS might benefit just fine owning the IP, having it on GP day one, and selling it on PS as well. They do this with Minecraft. He's being unusually transparent by saying what the current state of negotiations is.
 

elliot5

Member
Because they're exploring options. MS might benefit just fine owning the IP, having it on GP day one, and selling it on PS as well. They do this with Minecraft. He's being unusually transparent by saying what the current state of negotiations is.
Yep I'm sure they have a plan already in place as they have been in talked for 3 months now for acquisition, but still have well over a year to go to still think things through.
 

On Demand

Banned
This means absolutely nothing. Please stop listening to this guy. This 80’s electronic store salesman.

Sony has signed deals with Activision. Multiple year deals. COD marketing and content exclusivity usually last many years. Probably 5.

He couldn’t do a anything about it even he wanted to. Just like when he made pathetic PR statement about Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo.

What happens after those deal Sony made ends????? Who knows. I wouldn’t trust anything this electronic clerk says.
 

Megatron

Member
So spend 70 billion to lose money?

tenor.gif
How would they be losing money? Are you expecting them to take a lot of returns of the previous games? Every CoD sale MS makes is them making money. MS has 2 things now: The asset that is Activsion/Blizard they just bought and a revenue stream that comes from the games. The asset is valued at $68 billion. If they really wanted to, they could sell it off down the road and still have pocketed all the revenue they made along the way as well as the money from selling the asset itself.

So not selling their games on Playstation won't 'LOSE' MS money, but they won't make as much as they could if they did. Same dilema they ran into with Starfield and ES6.
 

Megatron

Member
This means absolutely nothing. Please stop listening to this guy. This 80’s electronic store salesman.

Sony has signed deals with Activision. Multiple year deals. COD marketing and content exclusivity usually last many years. Probably 5.

He couldn’t do a anything about it even he wanted to. Just like when he made pathetic PR statement about Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo.

What happens after those deal Sony made ends????? Who knows. I wouldn’t trust anything this electronic clerk says.
'Probably'? I mean maybe? But '5 years' would be from the date they signed it. Which 'Probably' wasn't 3 days ago. One thing I can say for sure. Phil Spencer knows how many years they would have to put CoD on Playstation. And he paid $68 million for the company.
 
Last edited:
Thats what Ive said before, having xbox 1st party on ps5 really takes away a lot of the need to own a series console.

Microsoft would make more money keeping there games xbox exclusive and increasing the xbox installbase. Putting everything on PS5 is counter intuitive.

I mean their shtick this whole time has been they don't care where you game as long as it's within our ecosystem.

They're not looking at it as an opportunity to poach users, they're looking at it as an opportunity to get access to an established install base. Well if Sony says no then poaching users is the other route
 
Last edited:

PSYGN

Member
Keywords:
  • Existing
  • Call of Duty (he means the first one only which was never on PlayStation afaik)
 
Last edited:

Joey.

Member
Even if they were to stay on PlayStation (like future tiles)

If COD is going to be on GamePass, I’m 100% getting it on GP. That would be a huge incentive to get GamePass which is what I would think is MS’s ultimate goal and allow PS owners to buy the game too = money.

Win-win?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Even if they were to stay on PlayStation (like future tiles)

If COD is going to be on GamePass, I’m 100% getting it on GP. That would be a huge incentive to get GamePass which is what I would think is MS’s ultimate goal and allow PS owners to buy the game too = money.

Win-win?

Of course, one platform getting it for 'free' on a well priced subscription plan, which includes Online fee.

The other getting it for $70 + added Online plan.
 
Thats what Ive said before, having xbox 1st party on ps5 really takes away a lot of the need to own a series console.

Microsoft would make more money keeping there games xbox exclusive and increasing the xbox installbase. Putting everything on PS5 is counter intuitive.

You still have not realized that Gamepass is MS gaming now, not Xbox. If MS could strike a deal with Sony to have the Playstation get an App, they would not hesitate. Would give them access to tens of millions of additional subscribers, just like that.
 

yurinka

Member
CoD sold more on PS, last gen. On 360/PS3, it was way ahead on 360. MS is trying to set it up so that they are pulling gamers back to the Xbox eco system. Current sales trends don't mean much when you make industry changes like this.
You make industry wide changes like this to make huge player base shifts like what we are talking about.
Yes, it's what I think, a 360 lead on that gen and a PS4 lead on the past gen. Now that they bought it and will include it on Gamepass, I think a good chunk of the 10M or so who were playing it on PS will continue playing it there, while maybe 3M or 4M play it on PC or Xbox to 'save' money with GP.

Stop listening to him too


I don't understand why people keep giving him attention. He only makes random guesses and copies stuff random annonymous users with no credibility said in twitter, reddit or 4chan.

Phil's going to be saying a lot of nice, warm things that are designed to calm everyone down, and most importantly, reassure the regulators that MS are in no way trying to build a monopoly. It'll be a different story next year.
MS won't even be the market leader in company gaming revenue, consoles, pc, mobile, game subscriptions or VR. There's no monopoly anywhere at all, they won't have any issue with regulators. Plus, Twitter isn't the only place where they mentioned these things, they also mentioned in the SEC filling:

How does this transaction impact existing partner agreements (i.e., Sony, Google, Apple)? Will this change what we're able to offer our partners or how we structure our agreements?

·We will honor all existing commitments post close. As with Microsoft's acquisition of Minecraft, we have no intent to remove any content from platforms where it exists today.
·We would be open to discussions to enter into an agreement to confirm our intent when it is appropriate to do so.
...
  • Activision Blizzard's games exist on a variety of platforms today, and we plan to continue supporting those communities moving forward.
  • The transaction is about increasing the availability of Activision Blizzard's content across more platforms. This is consistent with Microsoft's commitment to giving players more choice to play the games they want, anywhere.

...

How will this transaction affect our pipeline and existing games? How will current projects be affected by the transaction? After the deal closes, will we work on non-Activision Blizzard titles/products within Microsoft/Xbox/Bethesda?

·We do not anticipate that this news will affect the rollout of Activision Blizzard's current pipeline or existing games

 
Last edited:

Punished Miku

Gold Member
How would they be losing money? Are you expecting them to take a lot of returns of the previous games? Every CoD sale MS makes is them making money. MS has 2 things now: The asset that is Activsion/Blizard they just bought and a revenue stream that comes from the games. The asset is valued at $68 billion. If they really wanted to, they could sell it off down the road and still have pocketed all the revenue they made along the way as well as the money from selling the asset itself.

So not selling their games on Playstation won't 'LOSE' MS money, but they won't make as much as they could if they did. Same dilema they ran into with Starfield and ES6.
I feel like you're the only person who gets this.
 
Top Bottom