DaedalusGrim
Banned
This is a joke, right? Both Ryan and Bungie have openly committed to staying multiplatform several times.How adequate is the non-existent Bungie commitment? Jim is definitely getting pissy lol.
This is a joke, right? Both Ryan and Bungie have openly committed to staying multiplatform several times.How adequate is the non-existent Bungie commitment? Jim is definitely getting pissy lol.
Whoa, just doubling down on Insomniac as a multiplatform publisher… are you trying to convince me or yourself here? I guess scope and details matter and do not matter depending how you look at them .
We would not, no. If they had been exclusive to Xbox I think it would have been different, far different than buying Zenimax/Bethesda and Activision-Blizzard. You do know that.
Scope and details with corporations is what matters (intent much less even if you really could prove that… but intent wise, sure… try to rally the public against exclusives pointing at your competitors and keep doing what you accuse others of helps understand intent too… it also helps when you are a serial convicted monopolist / market power abuser ).
Sure, basically as a result MS is the poor victim in all of this, whatever keeps you thinking this is totally normal I guess .
I saw MS's latest conference...the words "Console Exclusive" were the words that showed up the most on screen.
They all do that.
I’m glad we now seem to be on the same page when it comes to discussing intent vs scope.
If it’s fine to rope 6 month timed exclusivity for The Ascent and 2 year timed exclusivity for Final Fantasy XVI under the same ‘paying for timed exclusivity banner’, then it’s perfectly valid to not quibble the difference between picking up Activision Blizzard and purchasing Bungie.
Same intent (growing first party library + development talent), different scope ($3bn vs $70bn).
Hope this puts us on the same page for good.
I’m merely stating facts. Prior to acquisition, Insomniac certainly never considered themselves a ‘second party developer’ and they were a multiplatform studio in name.
Yeah, I thought this was obvious. Spider Man looks like a direct evolution of Sunset Overdrive in many ways.I’m merely stating facts. Prior to acquisition, Insomniac certainly never considered themselves a ‘second party developer’ and they were a multiplatform studio in name.
A ‘second party developer’ doesn’t go publisher shopping for their games…and they went that route as recent as 2017 when they were trying to find options for a Sunset Overdrive sequel. These are factual bits of info.
Hard to parse this rambling statement, but as far as I know, nobody’s ever convicted Xbox of being a ‘monopolist’ or ‘market abuser’. Even the parent body Microsoft hasn’t had any of that in decades, and the fact that the US DOJ, Senate and Congress excludes them from measures designed to crack down on Big Tech puts your ‘serial monopolist’ statement in the mud.
Ironically, I’ve never tried to push this as any company being the ‘victim’. My position is unwavering that these are business decisions that make sense to the corporations, and from my stand point, additional content to Gamepass provides benefits to me as a consumer.
Given that your arguments are clearly geared towards the ‘victim’ approach, this just seems like a major Freudian Slip on your part.
Is that locked in print anywhere or just a blog post? That's what we're discussing in this thread.This is a joke, right? Both Ryan and Bungie have openly committed to staying multiplatform several times.
Sony hasnt been able to make a CoD, or even a Halo killer in decades. Not to mention Sony is mad stressing the completion of this deal because theyve had no luck in creating anything close to CoD. Think it through, guy.This thread is still going on over a game that is considered by most on here to be trash. PS fans should be happy that this will most likely jumpstart Sony into creating that COD killer.
Yep, gotta be real! I don't play sales, I play games. I couldn't give a rats ass how much a game sold, as a consumer that's not my problem. I really enjoyed SSOD, easily one of my top 5 games of last gen and although a pity it never got a sequel greenlit it was still a good game.Well given how Sunset Overdrive sold, I'd argue that those who turned it down made the right call!
Gotta be real people; why should anyone bankroll a project that is likely to struggle to make its money back? Seriously, investment isn't unlimited and neither are development resources. Tying up too much of either on marginal projects is really unwise.
Yep, gotta be real! I don't play sales, I play games. I couldn't give a rats ass how much a game sold, as a consumer that's not my problem. I really enjoyed SSOD, easily one of my top 5 games of last gen and although a pity it never got a sequel greenlit.
The point though is that it exists and it was really enjoyable but by your logic it would have been better all round if it didn't exist at all?
It’ll most likely still be published by Activision Publishing but under the XGS umbrella like Bethesda so it’s all first-party anyway. My reply was to him saying Sony locked down Spider-Man “a third-party game” to their platform. Sony went to Marvel to ask for a license to publish & fund their own title (it’s a first-party title), which Microsoft could do right now & make their own Spider-Man game. If he’s talking about the Avengers exclusivity deal, that I already agree with, it’s a fucked up thing to do. Idk how they pulled that off since Marvel owns the IP.And if the deal goes through COD will be a first party title published by Xbox, what's your point?
I have Xbox fans keeping tabs on that perhaps, I do not know. Can you please check? Thanks .Sony were still paying to keep games off Xbox and people were applauding it, were you in that thread saying its good thing?
This is a joke, right? Both Ryan and Bungie have openly committed to staying multiplatform several times.
Spider-Man's a first-party title published by Sony, too bad for you MS turned Marvel down.
No I don't need to care.You need to care though, because this whole creative business runs on money. Which is why you don't have a sequel to look forward to, and likely never will.
Games aren't made by elves in Santa's grotto! They are the product of years of labour by salaried/contracted employees. All of whom need to be paid, and need to know that they will still be paid in the future. Who the hell wants to be constantly switching employers/locations after all?
Nobody wants to see projects fail; but the plain fact of the matter is that some will - and that's a happenstance that should be avoided for the good of all concerned.
Well given how Sunset Overdrive sold, I'd argue that those who turned it down made the right call!
Gotta be real people; why should anyone bankroll a project that is likely to struggle to make its money back? Seriously, investment isn't unlimited and neither are development resources. Tying up too much of either on marginal projects is really unwise.
Jimbo didn't say what the previous deal with Activision already was, and didn't mention if he accepted or rejected the MS proposal, and didn't mention if they negotiated it and finally agreed to to something else.
He also didn't mention if Phil asked Sony for certain conditions to keep CoD there 3 years more, like pretty likely asking Sony to pay MS a gazillion dollars to keep CoD there or to sign that they will really keep releasing the Bungie games on Xbox and PC forever.
Jimbo knows that for PS it would be better to keep CoD on PS, but that if CoD leaves PS the most damaged would be MS, not Sony. Because MS will lose 70% of that revenue and Sony 30%, revenue and game sales that are a tiny percent of the ones made in PS.
Jimbo also knows that regulators should really know the real deal of CoD and PS, and that MS can't (and shouldn't) lie to regulators and investors. Pretty likely regulators and investors won't like to see that MS's plan is to keep CoD for the next 3 years that Activision already had signed plus -maybe- this extra 3 more who knows under what (maybe even abusive) conditions.
Jimbo's consoles have around twice the active userbase, their game sub have around twice the subscribers than Phil's console and game subs. CoD represents a tiny portion of SIE's gaming division revenue (around 25B) and game sales on PS (CoD maybe sells maybe around 10M copies/year while there are around 300M games sold on PS/year).
If someone is scared here isn't Jimbo, maybe it's the one who paid $70B for ABK including CoD and other IPs to see if that helps them to get closer to Jimbo's console and game sub.
Jimbo mentioned 'their proposal was inadequate on many levels', so I'd bet they aren't negotiating anything and that if there was any negotiation it's already over. And pretty likely they didn't agree and signed anything because there would be NDAs forbidding to talk about it.
Maybe Phil simply sent him a mail or a letter saying "Hey Jimbo, if you want CoD for 3 more years in addition to the ones you already signed with Activision pay me X gazilion dollars" and Jimbo replied "lol fuck you". Or pretty likely was something more polite and even had some negotiations.
But who knows.
As of now, seems that MS, Activision, Phil and Microsoft's president were lying to their regulators, investors and players and their plan was only to keep CoD for the already signed years plus maybe to expand it 3 more under what conditions that apparently made Jimbo angry and seems that he didn't accept.
This could damage the acquisition more than if MS would have been honest and would have said "hey, after the years we already have signed CoD will be exclusive but may keep it there 3 more years if Sony accepts certain conditions".
But Jimbo said that -logically- what he wanted was to continue having CoD on PS so maybe they negotiated it and ended agreeing to keep CoD forever on PS or maybe the opposite, maybe the contidions to keep these 3 extra years were abusive, they didn't even agreed them and right after the current ABK+Sony deal ends CoD goes full console exclusive.
Spider-Man's a first-party title published by Sony, too bad for you MS turned Marvel down.
I didn't mean in identical terms, I assume that after the current Activision+Sony deal MS would get the exclusive for game subs and marketing. I meant what they offered was simply to continue releasing CoD on PS.LOL MS could not make or negotiate any binding agreements in regards to Activision. That's illegal until the deal closes, just like with Bethesda. I'm sure that any deals in the future will not be in Sony's favor as much as the current ones, that's the way it works. It would be unrealistic to think that MS would continue forward with a deal identical to the existing one, a deal that directly disadvantages their own platform and services. The best Sony will get is parity, which Ryan probably wouldn't be happy with.
I didn't mean in identical terms, I assume that after the current Activision+Sony deal MS would get the exclusive for game subs and marketing. I meant what they offered was simply to continue releasing CoD on PS.
Phil is the one who publicly that he contacted the Sony bosses with a signed agreement about their intent to continue publishing CoD after their deal with Activision for at least several years more and without Xbox timed exclusivity or Xbox exclusive content, not me.
“In January, we provided a SIGNED AGREEMENT to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements,” says Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer in a statement to The Verge.A signed letter of intent isn't an agreement or something that Ryan is even in a position to accept/reject. That's the laugh in regards to this whole topic.
Granted I am not an attorney but I have done a lot of business dealings over the years and a signed letter of intent is 100% legally binding unless that signed letter states otherwiseA signed letter of intent isn't an agreement or something that Ryan is even in a position to accept/reject. That's the laugh in regards to this whole topic.
As of now, seems that MS, Activision, Phil and Microsoft's president were lying to their regulators, investors and players
Granted I am not an attorney but I have done a lot of business dealings over the years and a signed letter of intent is 100% legally binding unless that signed letter states otherwise
Even the link you gave me statesA quick google search returns 100 results saying a letter of intent is not legally binding.
https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/letter-of-intent/#:~:text=What is a letter of,intent is not legally binding.
Is just one example.
[/URL]
A letter of intent is not a contract. I'm pretty sure MS can't even entertain a contract until the deal closes.
“In January, we provided a SIGNED AGREEMENT to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements,” says Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer in a statement to The Verge.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/2/2...station-letter-commitment-activision-blizzard
"A signed agreement is a signature on a piece of paper and is a powerful legal piece between two parties."
https://www.upcounsel.com/signed-agreement
Plus the court of public opinion Phil would get murdered if he reneged on something he signed
Nah pal, she told me she definitely meant adequateMy girlfriend has dyslexia and once described my sexual performance as adequate (she thought it meant great, allegedly).
For MS isn't legal to lie to market regulators and to their investors either, but it's legal to lie in Twitter or in a statement to The Verge.That's the verbiage he used in that interview, sure. Buy I don't believe it is legal for MS to make a binding agreement in regards to an entity that they don't control as of yet. They really shouldn't have any more legal control over Activision than Sony at this point. I don't know how it works. Unless they are allowed to make an agreement that becomes effective after they take over, I don't know.
No I don't need to care.
I hate how homogenised AAA game production has become and I avoid most big budget games because they suck, they generally don't do anything outside what they think will sell and feel like a box ticking exercise to include the currently popular trends. This means that generally AAA games are boring derivative beige soup that are safe regardless of how much hype they generate or how many copies they sell. Sure, if a big AAA game fails to sell then it can put that studio in trouble and I feel for anyone who loses their job and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But, from a consumer point of view those safe games don't interest me (and yes it's quite a selfish viewpoint but it's MY OWN hard earned money that I am spending and I want satisfaction). I don't want to feel like I am just going through the motions playing the same old game with a fresh coat of paint, I want the games I play to introduce new and exciting mechanics and offer fresh creative experiences. If you follow your logic to it's natural conclusion we end up with just a load of super publishers such as EA, Ubi or Activision pumping out sequel after sequel and not taking any risks. How many times have we heard people say stuff like "EA need to die" or "Ubi games are all cookie cutter"? If a big developer does fold and close then all that talent goes somewhere and it's these big development houses today that give valuable experience to young hungry creative people who then go on to found the fresh indie studios of tomorrow. It's the circle of life. It's these indie studios where all the new ideas come from, where all the freshest and most creative games come from. SSOD was one of those rarest of games where a big studio took a risk and put out a fresh exciting game. It was fully funded by Microsoft as far as I remember so Insomniac were able to take a creative risk without the financial risk and I applaud them both for making that happen. Maybe you miss-understood when I mentioned that it didn't get a sequel. I am not unhappy that it didn't but I am happy that SSOD exists at all and that is enough.
Good thing it never happened then.For MS isn't legal to lie to market regulators and to their investors either
Also never happened.but it's legal to lie in Twitter or in a statement to The Verge.
Jimbo confirmed it exists.If such signed agreement exists
Yes, it's a letter of intent.it wouldn't be in the name of Activison, it would be in the name of Phil Spencer/MS: it would say something like "if we end Acquiring ABK, we promise we'll come back to give you this if you give us that. And if we don't end buying them, then nothing".
I shown an example above. You have more in every single statement from MS, Activision, Phil Spencer or the MS president regarding CoD remaining multiplatform/or in PS, including the ones they did for regulators. There are many threads about this topic.Good thing it never happened then.
Also never happened.
Jimbo confirmed that Phil approached them to offer 3 years more on PS after their deal between PS and ABK ends.Jimbo confirmed it exists.
Yes, I think the signed agreement mentioned by Phil would be a letter of intent: a legally binding document where they commit to do something else in the future if certain conditions are met.Yes, it's a letter of intent.
MS mentioning in multiple -even legally binding- places that they plans was to keep CoD on PS beyond their current deal with ABK, even mentioning Minecraft as example, saying they were going to bring it even to Switch too ("we plan to bring it more platforms, not less"), and that would do it releasing it on PS day one and full featured.I am not sure where this idea that MS lied to anyone is coming from?
Tbh outside of black ops and world at war, battlefield was always the far better franchise, actually Cares about the wars and history more. Its a far more accurate depiction of a war and has always been more fun with destruction, vehicles, different classes, etcAs a MASSIVE Battlefield Fan, I've been saying this for decades. It's only a matter of time.
Reading comprehension is pretty low these days. Most people just read a headline and try and infer "good" or "bad" and that's it. You can see this in most news stories, particularly on MSNBC or Fox. They can often times even report the exact same story, but one is framed as good and one is framed as bad.I am not sure where this idea that MS lied to anyone is coming from?
I am not sure where this idea that MS lied to anyone is coming from?
If you ever testify in a legal proceeding, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.I am not sure where this idea that MS lied to anyone is coming from?
If you ever testify in a legal proceeding, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Phil looks bad because the PR suggested that MS was committed to keeping COD on PS. But based on the allegation that behind the scenes they told Sony the games would keep coming for only 3 more years after the existing deal ends, then an honest person might say that the whole truth should have included "only for a really short time" when the PR statements were made. It may not have been a lie when the PR was put out there, but it was still misleading by omission if Jim is telling the truth.
If it would make you happier pretend I said only for 3 more years. But since you asked, in the grand scheme of consoles and console games, 3 years is a very short time. In the MS world, it is about 1/3 to 1/2 the time it takes to make one Halo game. So not long at all.In what universe is three years beyond the existing deal a "really short time"? Most timed exclusive deals are months or one year. Three years is a very very long time in gaming.
Where does it say the existing agreement is the same 3 year deal Phil supposedly proposed back to Jim?I shown an example above. You have more in every single statement from MS, Activision, Phil Spencer or the MS president regarding CoD remaining multiplatform/or in PS, including the ones they did for regulators. There are many threads about this topic.
Jimbo confirmed that Phil approached them to offer 3 years more on PS after their deal between PS and ABK ends.
He didn't say if Sony signed the 3 more years deal it or not. But for sure he didn't liked it and sounds angry, so probably didn't signed it and there isn't agreement between Sony and MS.
Yes, I think the signed agreement mentioned by Phil would be a letter of intent: a legally binding document where they commit to do something else in the future if certain conditions are met.
MS mentioning in multiple -even legally binding- places that they plans was to keep CoD on PS beyond their current deal with ABK, even mentioning Minecraft as example, saying they were going to bring it even to Switch too ("we plan to bring it more platforms, not less"), and that would do it releasing it on PS day one and full featured.
Said it to regulators and investors in this acquisition related investigations, corporate blog posts, interviews or social media. Phil even mentioned they had a signed agreement with Sony reassuring that they'll keep CoD on PS past curent Sony+ABK deal.
Jim said this all is bullshit and that MS's plan is to make CoD console exclusive once the current ABK+Sony ends, that they only offered them 3 extra years and that was 'inappropiate in multiple levels', probably meaning that MS asked for abusive conditions -which pretty likely can't mention due to NDAs- to sign this 3 extra years deal.
For MS isn't legal to lie to market regulators and to their investors either.
That isn't what happened. MS aren't saying that CoD will go xbox exclusive after any agreement ends, they are just committing to at least that long which is likely longer than Activision ever agreed to support any given platform.If you ever testify in a legal proceeding, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Phil looks bad because the PR suggested that MS was committed to keeping COD on PS. But based on the allegation that behind the scenes they told Sony the games would keep coming for only 3 more years after the existing deal ends, then an honest person might say that the whole truth should have included "only for a really short time" when the PR statements were made. It may not have been a lie when the PR was put out there, but it was still misleading by omission if Jim is telling the truth.
That isn't what happened. MS aren't saying that CoD will go xbox exclusive after any agreement ends, they are just committing to at least that long which is likely longer than Activision ever agreed to support any given platform.
Which part of what I wrote didn't happen? Did Phil deny offering only 3 more years after the agreement ends?That isn't what happened. MS aren't saying that CoD will go xbox exclusive after any agreement ends, they are just committing to at least that long which is likely longer than Activision ever agreed to support any given platform.
Jim said this all is bullshit and that MS's plan is to make CoD console exclusive once the current ABK+Sony ends, that they only offered them 3 extra years and that was 'inappropiate in multiple levels', probably meaning that MS asked for abusive conditions -which pretty likely can't mention due to NDAs- to sign this 3 extra years deal.
Exactly.That isn't what happened. MS aren't saying that CoD will go xbox exclusive after any agreement ends, they are just committing to at least that long which is likely longer than Activision ever agreed to support any given platform.