Oddvintagechap
Member
any game is replaceable. Sony is just trying to get favorable terms. Because why not?
-
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.
PlayStation: Xbox's Call of Duty offer was "inadequate on many levels"
- Thread starter reksveks
- Start date
KellyM
Member
What about Tomb Raider 2 and series on PS1. I see Tomb Raider on ps4..so your point is invalid. it is not exclusive. Where are the FF 7 remakes and 16 on non Sony systems.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Sony has closed a lot of studios.
Snowdonhoffen
Member
It's not invalid, they payed for the exclusivity, just as probably Sony did in the past. Hell, maybe they just didn't want to release it on Xbox back in the day.
I'm sure you'll see those FF games on Xbox in the future. At the end of the day, Sony has no saying once their deal ends.
Not only that but Sega had an agreement for the first ever Tomb Raider to launch on Saturn 6 weeks before Playstation. Tomb Raider has pretty much had agreements with everyone. The comparisons are asinine. The IP owner having freedom to choose how to sell their IP isn't equivalent to the platform holder buying up the IPs and restricting access to other platform as much as people want that whataboutism to be equivalent.
Topher
Gold Member
MS knows how to play this game.
"Jon Schweppe, director of policy and government affairs at the American Principles Project, which has called for greater antitrust scrutiny of tech giants, noted that Microsoft has been less than transparent in the past about funding third-party groups to gain allies in Washington, D.C. The company’s moves to dominate the global video gaming market, he noted, have not provoked much backlash or opposition.
Compared to Amazon and Google, Schweppe continued, Microsoft receives far less scrutiny, a dynamic he attributed to Microsoft’s subtle lobbying efforts among politicians, influential political organizations, and now unions. “Microsoft,” he added, “is incredibly effective at just making itself invisible.”
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
If it were so easy every company would be raking in the cash with their own Fortnite, Minecraft, CoD, etc.
Sony couldn’t even get a successful Smash Bros clone going. They couldn’t even keep their own Socom going. They weren’t even able to create a “Halo killer”, no matter how many times we’ve seen that term thrown around by wishful thinking Playstation fans.
Last edited:
Kagey K
Banned
Isn't that exactly what the IP owner did though? They chose how they wanted to sell it, and sold it to Microsoft.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
The more I think about it, the more I think Sony should play ball with MS in order to keep CoD on PlayStation. Perhaps a stand down of sorts. Sony no longer goes after marketing rights or timed content deals, and MS allows PlayStation to keep CoD.
Seems fair.
Seems fair.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Since when do you have to own to get timed-exclusives? Nintendo is getting plenty from Capcom and Square and there is no outrage.
Did MS own Capcom when they made Dead Rising? Square for Last Remnant? Rockstar for GTA DLC? Tecmo for Ninja Gaiden? Namco for Tales Of Vesperia? Ubisoft for Splinter Cell? Bioware for Mass Effect and Jade Empire? EA for Titanfall? GSC for Stalker 2? Fatshark for Wartide? Bloober for The Medium? No? Then it's irrelevant.
They didn't own Bethesda for Morrowind and Oblivion too or Acti for the COD DLC.
Stay pressed.
Last edited:
KellyM
Member
But PS1 did get Tomb raiders so the contract didn't stop Ps1 getting the first tomb raiders. In the USA the contract didn't exsist. But core was planning a tomb Raiders 2 for Saturn till Sony came in and bought it exclusive. So I fail to see your point. Since sony got the franchise when other people paid for timed exclusive but not when Sony does. then they cry when another company buys a franchise. Sony is two faced.
I mean honestly, what did they expect? MS are paying $70b for it. They’re not letting their direct competitor continue to benefit. Sony needs to focus on cooking up their answer to call of duty. At least they have 3 years notice. It’s not like you can’t create a cod competitor - CoD is a good franchise hidden underneath years of bloat and mess that put players off, like forced dlc downloads, confusing menus, over pushing paid dlc packs. Modern Warfare became crippled by it. I ended up spending more time downloading patches and shit for it than playing it. It’s the same every year.
The problem is there’s no similar alternative. Bring out a franchise that pays and feels CoD like, with more classic style and less all bloat and you can compete. I’m sure there’s hundreds of employees in the industry, and a few creative directors, who’ve worked on past CoD titles who could build a new one.
The problem is there’s no similar alternative. Bring out a franchise that pays and feels CoD like, with more classic style and less all bloat and you can compete. I’m sure there’s hundreds of employees in the industry, and a few creative directors, who’ve worked on past CoD titles who could build a new one.
sainraja
Member
Well, maybe or maybe not, but that was basically the point I was making. The only weird thing about it, in case of Xbox, was how similar in structure they were trying to set it up their story and I wasn't really disagreeing with you. I was just saying that with Sony/Nintendo, we do have some indicators that some of the dramatization could be true — the awkward conference where both Philips and Sony announced their partnership with Nintendo. But yeah, I don't think Sony green-lit PlayStation simply because Nintendo betrayed them. I am sure they had plans to enter the market one way or the other. It could have taken the shape of the Nintendo PlayStation with Sony making it and benefiting from it, the reason Nintendo went to Philips anyway or what we know of PS today. We know what happened. Anyway, that was all.
More here:
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/business/nintendo-philips-deal-is-a-slap-at-sony.html
Last edited:
I guess it’s home will be basically PC? I’d imagine that user base already dwarves the Xbox one anyway.Will Xbox be able to produce the same quality CoD without the PS gamer market and 100% reliance on GamePass?
In a way yes but mergers and acquisitions are different and why competition law exists. in one you have an independent corporation in the industry promoting competition for platform holders hiring/working with publishers over given timeframes whereas in the other you can stifle competition by removing established industry players so that new entrants and rivals cannot compete or work with established competitors (publisher here).
As a thought exercise and one where possible console war alliances might not cloud judgement imagine a silly example of a mega rich data mining corporation that could buy Apple and Google. Even if apple and Google decide to sell to this mega rich data mining corporation for some unfathomable amount of money they wouldn't be able to because it would make new entrants and competition absolutely impossible in that space. They can make 1 yr deals with Apple and Google to, say, have chrome data here, app store data there like all other data companies can but Google and Apple being entirely bought out by this mega corp is clearly something else that people are trying to suggest is the same thing because they don't understand what competition really means. They just see 'exclusive' without the nuance.
Last edited:
The point is that these deals aren't new and MS, Sega, Sony all have done it and continue to do it to this day. Dead Rising 3 permanent, PUBG timed, you name it, it's been done.
No mega corporation has come in and bought multiple publishers in a row though to make established multiplatform franchises exclusive. These are not equivalent things as much as people try and make them seem like they are.
SEGA had a timed exclusivity deal. No that's not why Saturn didn't get it, they cancelled TR2 on Saturn because the Saturn failed by that time. It was the possible N64 version that didn't happen due to a contract agreement after.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
You know the same people are going to keep making it right?
As long as they don't let 343 touch any COD entry it will continue to churn out massive sales
Gamerguy84
Member
Sure and its why i said Sony did it. You could also argue the scale of GW and DL arent exactly COD and whatever Bethesdas main game they are working on (Star). Not to mention pretty sure Sony partially funded the games, i dont know how much though.
Fredrik
Member
Starfield is a new IP but I’m sure it’ll sting if it turn out to be great.
Being a big FF fan and missing out on mainline Final Fantasy is no doubt a bigger deal though. The serie has been around since forever and finally arrived on Xbox a couple gens ago, having it pulled now is a major bummer.
The Elder Scrolls is a serious punch in the nuts too though, no doubt about that. But it’s still far off and it’ll be on PC too day 1 so I’d say it’s no major concern right now.
ChiefDada
Gold Member
Considering Xbox commitment to GamePass, how/from where?
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Titanfall 1 and 2 were born from CoD devs. The online play was amazing, campaign in TF2 was flat out outstanding. It’s been done before. Can be done again.
OsirisBlack
Banned
Why are people pretending Sony started exclusivity ? Shit goes both ways. Sony likes to buy timed exclusives Microsoft likes to buy entire companies and publishers. Honestly it sucks both ways. You all better be happy Sony isn’t as petty as I am. I would lock up SE, Capcom and From Soft buy castlevania outright while making a deal with Nintendo to join forces and tell MS to kiss my entire ass.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Because they have said all along it was staying multiplat
You're right it has always been a massive arms race its just this Acti deal is the biggest shot fired yet and its got a lot of people shook
I went to playing COD on PS4 because they had the maps packs like 30 days early
Last edited:
bentanchorbolt
Banned
So what. The biggest mistake any of you make is taking corporate speak with anything more than a grain of salt. Y’all played yourselves.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Indeed - they’ve been very prudent. The studios not putting out games of a good standard on a regular cadence were closed. The successful ones were grown and new partnerships were made. That’s good business.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I know this whole deal really bothers a lot of people but I play on all platforms so COD going exclusive either way doesn't bother me
And I don't stress about what these CEOs don't say and make things up in my mind about what they mean
Sorry if I didn't play myself like you had hoped
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I am not so certain. Just look at what they said after the acquisition. They plan to greenlight all these dormant Activision IPs, and have studios work on new stuff. Umm, what do you think that will do to CoD?
Activision said that they literally have every single studio working on COD to ensure it comes out every year. Thats almost 30 studios working on yearly CoD, Warzone, and mobile CoD. You take away studios and you can say bye bye to yearly cod or have COD ship without coop or single player.
No other franchise has been able to continue pumping out AAA games with single player, coop and a massive MP mode every after year. Not even Ubisoft with its thousands of employees working on AC. If MS is planning on taking resources away from COD and from the sound of things they definitely are, the quality will suffer. I even heard talk of not making COD a yearly release which is insane. They should be going on hiring sprees hiring more people since next gen only COD will take even more resources instead of talking about taking away resources.
And it's not like they were able to get Bethesda better. It's the same people making the game, but MS had two years to ensure Starfield released on time and dropped the ball. With all their billions they couldnt get them the resources they needed. How do we know they will do it for COD?
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I see a lot of people that are really hung up about this issue. That’s great if you aren’t one of them. I appreciate you setting the record straight.
ChiefDada
Gold Member
Ah OK we're both on the same page here.
As I've said a million times at this point, I can't figure why some xbox players don't realize the potential boon a multiplatform CoD would be for future first party exclusive titles (well, exclusive as in Xbox/PC only).
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
MS has an army of lawyers and they’ve done this a hundred times. All that’s left is making sure the right bureaucrats get their palms greased.
sainraja
Member
Most studios that were closed got to publish multiple entries so it's not like the decision was made lightly.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
All possible
The biggest difference between Starfield and COD are the scope of each game and how much copy and paste COD has used over the years
I for one never believed Bethesda was hitting their initial target date and personally how way more faith in these COD studios
Would I be shocked if MS screws up COD in the long run?
Not in the least
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Why would Phil Spencer lie? He's just like us. He wears graphic Ts and casual footwear. Unlike that sneething, greedy, back staborious Jim Ryan!
StealthGoblin
Banned
Indeed. I think all the shut studios got a fair crack of the whip. Many just didn’t have a saleable long term vision.
Vol5
Member
Who cares who makes it. MS have a really amazing way of making good things bad. CoD is already on the decline - Watch it fall into complete obscurity under the stewardship of MS.
CeeJay
Member
The Gamepass model means that they can just switch to a GaaS with one single entry for the entire next gen which will save a hell of a lot of dev time for other projects. Third parties need to pump out new entries every year but that isn't what MS are currently switching to with a lot of their big franchises, they are moving away from reliance on boom and bust sales and more towards a steady revenue stream.
Mozza
Member
Pretty sure Microsoft are just playing ball until the deal has gone through, then we will see their real intentions with the franchise going forward, but pretty sure they did not just pay 68.7 billion dollars for everything to just remain the same, should have just saved their money. 
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I think that model is superior for some titles. It's probably cheaper to support a game 4-5 years than it would be to make 2 or 3 new titles in that same span. With the GaaS model, there is a level of continuity where the product will keep getting better and better. New games it feels like upon release the first 6 months is mostly bug fixes. I think for some titles this is the better option for corporate gaming and the end user.
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
No there's not much info in the Link, also I'm very well aware of the real story between Sony PlayStation and Philips, its like other older gaming stories, it's usually tabloid gossip for views, you need to dig for the truth. People like hero stories, or obvious plotlines.
What are you talking about? Where are you hearing this from, Vgchartz?
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
From MS. look at their interviews. They talked about making other Activision IPs.
Psyrgery ES
Member
I can deal with COD getting worse and worse in quality until it ends up fucking right off if that allows me to play more Crash and Spyro. And Tony Hawk.
sainraja
Member
We're saying the same thing.
As for the link, there is info regarding the Sony/Nintendo/Philips deal in that link. However, it looks like you can only read an article for free on your first visit, now its asking for payment but this info is easily found online and you seem to be aware.
EDIT (too late, but for context if being read later — text from article below)
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
lol funny.
However, Xbox was always getting CoD, Starfield, Doom, Diablo and whatever else these third party publishers were putting out. So technically XBox isnt getting more games. It's just that Playstation is getting fewer games.
Thats different from say Gears, Halo, Forza, and even Hellblade 2 which would not be possible without Microsoft's direct involvement. This is no different than Phil securing timed exclusivity for Rise of Tomb Raider. It was always coming to xbox. You didnt get additional value. Same goes for FF games on Playstation. There is a difference between Sony funding TLOU and Sony paying for timed FF16 exclusivity.
There is more naunce to be had in these discussions. Though I do like myself a funny meme every now and then.
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
Are you confusing Activison being mismanaged and needing to take a bunch of their studios and make them COD support teams as "resources" lol?
With MS it's more likely that the COD teams will have more resources, better tools, and less mismanagement of ips, now if new ips fail and then the studios are punished by becoming a COD support team. I don't see how MS could remove resources from COD by changing that.
We haven't seen it happen with any of the Zenimax studios so far.
Sound about right lol
CeeJay
Member
Doesn't mean that Activision have to make those games though. Microsoft will be happy to let any of their studios have a crack at any of their IP.
PG doing Fable
Initiative doing PD
Asobo doing Flight Sim
Relic did Age of Empires
Iron Galaxy did Killer Instinct
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Im gonna have to disagree on COD. I play almost every entry and while the core mechanics havent changed over the years, there is very little copy paste between the three studios that alternate every three years. For example, the sledgehammer team has been making ww2 era cod for the last two entries while Infinity Ward has made Modern era and Treyarch has stuck with vietnam. Before that, they were all using the titanfall wall running mechanics but again the settings were completely different. Infinite Warfare was set in space with space combat. Advanced Warfare was set in the modern day setting, and Blops was set in the future. All used different weapons, level design, and assets. Not something you can borrow and insert in your MP or single player campaigns.
Even their coop were different. Treyarch uses zombies and class based Coop. This was actually not their turn last year but they still made zombies for sledghammers Vanguard. Infinity War uses completely new spec ops missions. THat is A LOT of work, and a lot of different studios are pulled in to make all of that happen. Bobby Kotick isnt stupid. He knows that you need every single activision studio to make this much content every year and as found out last year, even that wasnt enough and sales plummeted because the content didnt have the same quality.
The Warzone team does indeed reuse assets from different games but thats a whole another team and they only integrate those new weapons because it incentivizes faster weapon level ups if you buy the game.
Sorry for the rant. I just feel these games dont get the appreciation they deserve for the amount of content they put in each game year after year without fail.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I play the campaign every year and look forward to MW2 its the MP of late that has let me down honestly especially Vanguard
Similar threads
- Locked