PlayStation: Xbox's Call of Duty offer was "inadequate on many levels"

yurinka

Member
Where does it say the existing agreement is the same 3 year deal Phil supposedly proposed back to Jim?

Maybe the deal ends earlier and Phil’s latest deal is 3 years beyond it.

Maybe the deal ends in 2 years, and Phil’s 3 year deal includes it, so that means it’s one year more than planned. So that would be what Phil said, it goes beyond the existing.
Sony, MS, and ABK said that Sony has a deal with Activision that affects current and some of the upcoming CoD games (we officially don't know how many of them, rumors say they are Warzone 2 and the next couple of normal ones).

Phil recently said:
“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

Back in January Phil said "I confirmed our intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation":

Any there are many more statements from him, corporate MS blogs, replies to market regulators, their president on tv etc. with a similar narrative of wanting to keep CoD on PS like with Minecraft etc.

And after reading all the previous comments but specially the most recent one where he said: “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" Jim Ryan clarified that MS doesn't intend to keep CoD on PS after the current ABK+Sony contract and that MS only offered them 3 extra years after the ABK+Sony deal ends.

Jim also mentioned that this 3 years offer was 'inappropiate in multiple levels', leading to think that MS asked Sony something unreasonable in exchange for this 3 years extension (probably a shit ton of money, to make certain Sony games multiplatform, or to reduce them the 30% revenue cut, or to allow them publish GP on PS, or stuff like that).

Which also probably could mean that Sony wouldn't have signed that 3 years extension, in case of which CoD may (or may not) stop being released on PS when the ABK+Sony deal ends.
 
Last edited:
Don't talk about the perks of our imaginary jobs with MS, that's against the rules. :messenger_tears_of_joy: But hey, if this is a real thing, someone please sign me up somewhere for realz.

Seriously, MS, if you are hiring random forum posters please give DaGwaphics (aka SportsFan581 ) a shot. Would be absolute dream job. I have no shame.

If you're interested in getting a whiff of Phil's BO have I got the job for you
 
See, I told you she can't resist the green hat
Neither can I...
Lick Licking GIF by Mitski
 

FergusFrost

Member
Is that locked in print anywhere or just a blog post? That's what we're discussing in this thread.

If I make a joke, you'll know it! ... maybe. Sometimes I go for pretty dry sarcasm and I think people don't notice ....

It was a condition of Bungies purchase, so yes I'd imagine there is some pretty solid writing for it.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Sony loves eating up deals with all kinds of games, but when it goes the other way you get their fearless leader publicly complaining.

Gamers should already knows MS is very liberal with their games. Minecraft is still on all systems. It’s such a good money maker they never delisted it from competing systems.
It’s just outrageous that you can say this with a straight face as though MS aren’t currently engaging in this practice with games like Octopath Traveller and a lot of the day one games they get on Game Pass.
 

sainraja

Member
The problem with this thinking is the fact Bungie settled with Sony, they tried to come back and Phil told them to piss off.

https://www.windowscentral.com/bungie-almost-went-back-microsoft-destiny-activision-deal

Never take an ex who promises she changed, while out hoeing
Nice narrative you are trying to create there but it wasn't quite like that.

"And Activision agreed to that. All of the other big players during that period would not agree to do that — including Microsoft. Was very close to making a serious... we almost went back to Microsoft, if you can believe it."

Bungie wanted to maintain control of their IP and that is why it didn't work out. They weren't told to "piss off" and this is from the article that you linked, lol.

So, the reason it didn't happen is because of Bungie themselves. Not because of Microsoft or Phil.
 
Last edited:
It’s just outrageous that you can say this with a straight face as though MS aren’t currently engaging in this practice with games like Octopath Traveller and a lot of the day one games they get on Game Pass.
I'm not sure that's MS honestly. Nintendo was heavily involved in promotions for Octopath, Bravely Default II, and Live A Live. Maybe they just didn't care if it was on Xbox since it's probably a play for Japan. Who knows.
 

Topher

Gold Member
It’s just outrageous that you can say this with a straight face as though MS aren’t currently engaging in this practice with games like Octopath Traveller and a lot of the day one games they get on Game Pass.

How the hell does anyone in this console war feel entitled to point fingers about anything? If one corporation has done something then the other corporation has done it as well. It is the same shit every generation and you've still have warriors who act like this is good vs evil and their plastic of choice is meant to save the world.

Angry Gi Joe GIF
 

JackMcGunns

Member
It’s just outrageous that you can say this with a straight face as though MS aren’t currently engaging in this practice with games like Octopath Traveller and a lot of the day one games they get on Game Pass.

You want to see straight? When it comes to locking exclusives either by acquiring studios over time or by money-hatting for time exclusivity, Sony is the leader of this practice by a country MILE! But carry on trying to negate facts by using strawman arguments and with the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Last edited:
How the hell does anyone in this console war feel entitled to point fingers about anything? If one corporation has done something then the other corporation has done it as well. It is the same shit every generation and you've still have warriors who act like this is good vs evil and their plastic of choice is meant to save the world.

Angry Gi Joe GIF

As if a console could save the world. That's a job for the best deal in gaming.
 

sainraja

Member
You want to see straight? When it comes to locking exclusives either by acquiring studios over time or by money-hatting for time exclusivity, Sony is the leader of this practice by a country MILE! But carry on trying to negate facts by using strawman arguments and with the pot calling the kettle black.
Nah man....they both engage in these practices and let's not act as if one is better than the other for it. lol.
 
Last edited:

MacReady13

Member
Ahhh ok I understand:

Knowing that you buy up to 3 retail games a year (which, including tax, costs more than the yearly cost of Gamepass Ultimate), you'll choose to play only those 3 games over having access to those same games, plus a library of new and old games you have never played?

Either you dont understand why subscription services exist or you don't actually own an Xbox and are just in here freestyling random shit now that people have quoted you.
If you think I don't have Game Pass because I'm opposed to saving money or want to play over 200 "free" games, then you don't know shit. I own many more games than what is currently on Game Pass so my backlog is substantial, and I will purchase far more than 3 games a year. I don't like subscription services. Never have. Never will. They are terrible for gaming and I am not in for it! I don't want to rent games and pay Microsoft (or anyone for that matter) a monthly fee to allow me to rent those games which I won't own UNLESS I pay for them! You do you but I'm telling you, this is a slippery slope you're all heading down...
 

MacReady13

Member
I like movie and gaming sub plans. If I'm that itching to watch a hot movie or game day one I'll do it. If not, I'll wait for sub plan. I like EA NHL, but I'll gladly wait 9 months for it to come to EA Play.

You dont do any sub plans? No gaming, movie or music sub plans? You buy all content?
Yep. I buy everything I WANT to own. I have done it my whole life. Much like I purchased my house, my cars, my washing machine, fridges, beds, TV's, gaming consoles, mobile phone, clothes etc... Life isn't all about renting and forgetting... Sometimes it's nice to own something and never have to worry about a monthly fee. They eventually build up to be a BIG bill every month.
 
Yep. I buy everything I WANT to own. I have done it my whole life. Much like I purchased my house, my cars, my washing machine, fridges, beds, TV's, gaming consoles, mobile phone, clothes etc... Life isn't all about renting and forgetting... Sometimes it's nice to own something and never have to worry about a monthly fee. They eventually build up to be a BIG bill every month.
I buy as well. But if you rent the game for a year and beat it, you don't honestly need to replay it for a few years at least.

By then it's like $10. Buy.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
It’s just outrageous that you can say this with a straight face as though MS aren’t currently engaging in this practice with games like Octopath Traveller and a lot of the day one games they get on Game Pass.
Out of the 100s of games on GP over the years, name one which MS strongarmed a studio to do a GP deal.

Sounds like the studios and publishers are all willing to do GP deals, so who are you to say it’s a bad deal or Ms forced them to sign?

You’re telling all of gaf you know better than all the employees who work at the game studios and the deals they signed are dumb and you know better?

Most games aren’t even on sub plans whether it’s MS or Sony or whatever Nintendos limited online games are.
 

MacReady13

Member
vynl holdouts
Vinyl is back in a big way, isn't it?

So change for the sake of it? Never own anything? That is not the life I want to live in. I was on reddit yesterday looking up Rocksmith 2014. It's now changed to conversations about Rocksmith +, the new Sub service Rocksmith game. Someone on their wrote that if Rocksmith + had come out the same time as Rocksmith 2014 and 2014 had been a subscription only game, they'd have paid approx $1440.00 up to today just to have had the luxury of playing that particular product! If I do that in Aussie dollars (I believe they're charging $20 a month for Rocksmith + here in Australia) then I'd have paid, up to now, approx $1920.00! I've owned Rocksmith 2014 since day 1 and I can tell you it has cost me FAR FAR FAR less to not only OWN the game but to purchase the DLC packs for the game AND purchase a bass guitar to use with the game! And I can play it whenever I want without paying a cent more for it! If you think that subscription services is the future I want for gaming, then you've got another thing coming...
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Yep. I buy everything I WANT to own. I have done it my whole life. Much like I purchased my house, my cars, my washing machine, fridges, beds, TV's, gaming consoles, mobile phone, clothes etc... Life isn't all about renting and forgetting... Sometimes it's nice to own something and never have to worry about a monthly fee. They eventually build up to be a BIG bill every month.
You didn’t list movies and music.

Sounds like you do sub plans but buy the key things you really want to own.

Most people do the same. Everything you listed I buy too except my phone which is a company phone (I don’t have a personal phone).
 
How am I rewriting history? Of course Xbox stumbled out of the gate at the beginning of the generation, but Sony took advantage of that at the very beginning as well. Sony literally and officially meme'd Xbox from the get go and used its power to capitalize on that stumble. I mean, did you see the amount of 3rd party exclusive content that Sony pulled in for the PS4 generation? https://www.gematsu.com/exclusives/ps4

Sony fixed themselves after the PS3 generation in terms of more powerful hardware, undercutting Xbox One's price, and setting themselves up to spend as much money as it would take to secure all these 3rd party deals. Again, why am I going to point the finger at Microsoft trying to do the exact same thing to turn themselves around this generation? As I see it, the wheel is turning again and Sony is having a very rough start to the generation. Increased game prices, increased hardware prices, scalpers, low inventory, is making Playstation a hard sell and Microsoft is capitalizing.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It’s just outrageous that you can say this with a straight face as though MS aren’t currently engaging in this practice with games like Octopath Traveller and a lot of the day one games they get on Game Pass.

Octopath Traveler ? The game which came out 3 years later on Xbox after its Switch release ?

What ?
 
Last edited:
Out of the 100s of games on GP over the years, name one which MS strongarmed a studio to do a GP deal.

Sounds like the studios and publishers are all willing to do GP deals, so who are you to say it’s a bad deal or Ms forced them to sign?

You’re telling all of gaf you know better than all the employees who work at the game studios and the deals they signed are dumb and you know better?

Most games aren’t even on sub plans whether it’s MS or Sony or whatever Nintendos limited online games are.

What does strongarming have to do with this?
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Out of the 100s of games on GP over the years, name one which MS strongarmed a studio to do a GP deal.
Strong armed? You think Sony are forcing these studios to sign exclusivity deals? :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Sounds like the studios and publishers are all willing to do GP deals, so who are you to say it’s a bad deal or Ms forced them to sign?
Yeah. Like companies are willing to do Sony deals.

You’re telling all of gaf you know better than all the employees who work at the game studios and the deals they signed are dumb and you know better?
:messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Octopath Traveler ? The game which came out 3 years later on Xbox after its Switch release ?

What ?
Yeah. You know, the Xbox port they made, same architecture as the PS4/5 - did SE, a company that Xboi’s constantly moan is in Sony’s pocket, just decide ‘nah fuck a port to PS’?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yeah. You know, the Xbox port they made, same architecture as the PS4/5 - did SE, a company that Xboi’s constantly moan is in Sony’s pocket, just decide ‘nah fuck a port to PS’?

The game came out on 3 different platforms before it hit Xbox.

You can't be seriously implying MS is paying to keep a 3+ year old low-budget game off of PS platforms :messenger_tears_of_joy:


Strong armed? You think Sony are forcing these studios to sign exclusivity deals? :messenger_tears_of_joy:





Last I checked there's no one at Sony accusing MS of paying SQ to keep Octopatch off of PS4/5.
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
How is this still going. If MS get blizz acti it sucks because cod and many more games are going to be removed from playstation. Its just the way it is.

It's gonna suck but Sony will make something decent, maybe.

Arguing back and forth about who did the worst exclusivity deals is going to get us no where really but let's just say everyone's fooking poo when it comes to business deals. It's just business and if we really care about certain games we will get the platform to play them. Hence why 90 percent of the time PC is winning.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
So why complain about octopath traveller on GP if both sides agreed to a deal?
Why
The game came out on 3 different platforms before it hit Xbox.

You can't be seriously implying MS is paying to keep a 3+ year old low-budget game off of PS platforms :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Yeah, I can.

[/URL]



Last I checked there's no one at Sony accusing MS of paying SQ to keep Octopatch off of PS4/5.
Oh man. Microsoft said it. It must be true then.

- you, unironically
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yeah, I can.


Oh man. Microsoft said it. It must be true then.

- you, unironically

You brought quips to a link/source fight.

:pie_roffles:

Alright man, you keep believing that MS is keeping a 3+ year old, already available on 3 platforms, game off of PS4/5, while also ignoring the very real court documents where MS says the same about Sony.
 
Last edited:

MacReady13

Member
You didn’t list movies and music.

Sounds like you do sub plans but buy the key things you really want to own.

Most people do the same. Everything you listed I buy too except my phone which is a company phone (I don’t have a personal phone).
Last CD I purchased was Chili Peppers new album so I definitely buy music I want to listen to. I also just ordered from Amazon USA the 4K versions of the 1st 3 Child's Play films. Not that it is any of your business but I mean what I say. If I want to watch something I BUY it. Only sub service I have is Tubi cause it is a free service and even then, I hardly ever use it.
 
Vinyl is back in a big way, isn't it?

So change for the sake of it? Never own anything? That is not the life I want to live in. I was on reddit yesterday looking up Rocksmith 2014. It's now changed to conversations about Rocksmith +, the new Sub service Rocksmith game. Someone on their wrote that if Rocksmith + had come out the same time as Rocksmith 2014 and 2014 had been a subscription only game, they'd have paid approx $1440.00 up to today just to have had the luxury of playing that particular product! If I do that in Aussie dollars (I believe they're charging $20 a month for Rocksmith + here in Australia) then I'd have paid, up to now, approx $1920.00! I've owned Rocksmith 2014 since day 1 and I can tell you it has cost me FAR FAR FAR less to not only OWN the game but to purchase the DLC packs for the game AND purchase a bass guitar to use with the game! And I can play it whenever I want without paying a cent more for it! If you think that subscription services is the future I want for gaming, then you've got another thing coming...

It already sucks that many productivity software are turning to sub-only options. Photoshop, Corel, etc. But at least those are applications the end-user can create stuff in to sell for a profit, offsetting what they pay for the subscription.

Video games are nothing like that (neither are films or music for that matter). The end user is only able to consumer the content, nothing more. Want to sample something? Pay up. Resell it? Better hope you get a decent price but it won't be worth what you paid Day 1. Add to that the convenience of a subscription service only goes so far; if your ISP sucks, the sub is worthless. If the content you want is removed, you may permanently lose convenient access to it forever unless it's available physically.

Gaming is in a good spot where the sub services aren't getting rid of digital and physical copies for sale...but that's definitely the direction platform holders like Microsoft (and Sony, if revenue through subscription services like GamePass ever ends up being lucrative...currently it absolutely isn't) want to take the industry. Sub services & cloud gaming should always serve as a supplement to the traditional avenue for buying & owning gaming content, not a replacement for it.
 
If anything, an Activision under MS is more likely to put out CoD on Switch/Switch 2 than ever before.
Activision also sheds itself of the baggage of Bobby Kotick and could get titles that previously not streaming on multiple additional platforms. This whole deal is much bigger than what Sony is talking about. If Sony can offer something to rank and file ABK employees they should bring it up.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Last CD I purchased was Chili Peppers new album so I definitely buy music I want to listen to. I also just ordered from Amazon USA the 4K versions of the 1st 3 Child's Play films. Not that it is any of your business but I mean what I say. If I want to watch something I BUY it. Only sub service I have is Tubi cause it is a free service and even then, I hardly ever use it.
Fair enough.

There arent too many people anymore who dont have at least one paid movie, music or gaming sub plan.
 

MacReady13

Member
Fair enough.

There arent too many people anymore who dont have at least one paid movie, music or gaming sub plan.
Sorry I (sort of) lied. I do sub (stupidly enough) to Youtube. I cannot stand the ads and I watch a fair bit of youtube (as do my kids) so it sort of makes sense, but even then I struggle to make sense of that.

Look, everyone can do what they want. I'm not here to tell people to do this or that but, and maybe cause i'm more of an old school gamer, the sub service stuff doesn't interest me in the slightest. I just don't want gaming to head down the path of subscription only without the option of ever buying physical. We lose that and I fear gaming going down a very dark path...
 

sainraja

Member
You brought quips to a link/source fight.

:pie_roffles:

Alright man, you keep believing that MS is keeping a 3+ year old, already available on 3 platforms, game off of PS4/5, while also ignoring the very real court documents where MS says the same about Sony.
I think you are missing the point.

They both are businesses whose aim is to attract people to their ecosystems and therefore they are signing deals like these. The difference is, you defend it when it's MS and do the exact opposite when it's Sony. Basically, your group is a little hypocritical there.

Majority of people who share your opinion would take no issue if Microsoft did go on to "buy" the market completely.

Right, hence my "Pot meet Kettle" reference.
What's the point in highlighting one company has done it more....specially now when the stage has completely changed and we are discussing publisher buy-outs? If Sony also had the same amount of cash as MS, this whole thing would be a lot more messy.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think you are missing the point.

They both are businesses whose aim is to attract people to their ecosystems and therefore they are signing deals like these. The difference is, you defend it when it's MS and do the exact opposite when it's Sony. Basically, your group is a little hypocritical there.

Majority of people who share your opinion would take no issue if Microsoft did go on to "buy" the market completely.

You can do that with better, more provable, examples. Octopath is not one such example. And, again, there has only been one side which has sent out legal communique that the other is specifically paying to block games from a service. The playing field is not even here, so there's nothing for anyone to defend. It's pretty black and white.
 
Sorry I (sort of) lied. I do sub (stupidly enough) to Youtube. I cannot stand the ads and I watch a fair bit of youtube (as do my kids) so it sort of makes sense, but even then I struggle to make sense of that.

There are many Chrome or Edge extensions that block all Youtube ads. Ublock Origin covers just about everything. I haven't watched a Youtube ad on my PC in years.
 

MScarpa

Member
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.

Later Jimbo confirmed that Phil approached them but clarified that what Phil, MS, MS's president or Activision said regarding their future relationship with PlayStation isn't true.

Maybe Phil can't sign the deal itself for X games, but can sign a deal saying 'if we end acquiring Acquisition I promise we'll publish X games and if we don't do it we'll pay yo Y amount of money' or something like that. And if they end acquiring ABK then they'd sign specifically the game specific (or for a certain amount of year, or even in perpetuity) deals.
Just so I understand, after 2k replies, COD is still going to be Multiplatform after all is said and done? Like Starfield?
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I’ll look into that! Thank you internet friend!
Some Chrome extensions I have that work wonders on ads and videos:

- Ad Block Plus
- AutoPlayStopper
- Youtube Video Skip Ad Trigger
- Breakthrough Twitter Login Wall (I dont have a Twitter account. This app doesnt always work but usually does)

The only problem is certain website features dont work unless you disable Ad Block Plus. For example some reason occasional online job application templates, or even my bank's website dont work properly unless I disable it. Some sites are smart enough to pop up a box saying you cant view the site unless you disable ABP too. But 95% of the time ABP works on sites no problem.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Just so I understand, after 2k replies, COD is still going to be Multiplatform after all is said and done? Like Starfield?
COD is still going multiplatform (at least for the duration of the Sony partnership deal Activision has already in place).

As for Jim Ryan accepting MS' extension, thats on Sony to agree or not. Which currently looks like not.
 

Mabdia

Member
Ehh, Respawn and the rotting corpse of Bioware are about the only thing worth getting out of EA imo. We'll see if the Dead Space remake lives up to the titanic shadow the first two games cast. MS should have snapped up Bioware after ME1.
Can u imagine PS without F1 and Fifa nowadays? It's not about the value of EA, it's all about the overkill.
 

pasterpl

Member
So if Sony rejected the proposed deal, does this mean that cod will go Xbox exclusive straight after existing acti - Sony deal expires?
 
So if Sony rejected the proposed deal, does this mean that cod will go Xbox exclusive straight after existing acti - Sony deal expires?
Whatever happens, Xbox stand to lose a big chunk of the Call of Duty playerbase and in turn millions more in revenue if they remove it from the PlayStation platform. Hardcore gamers may indeed flock out to buy PC's or Xbox's to play their favourite FPS but remains to be seen if the average Joe would part with a few hundred dollars just for COD.

MS and Xbox stand to gain more by keeping this game on as many platforms as possible.

Pretty sure Xbox and PS will eventually come to an agreement to keep it on PS as well.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Whatever happens, Xbox stand to lose a big chunk of the Call of Duty playerbase and in turn millions more in revenue if they remove it from the PlayStation platform. Hardcore gamers may indeed flock out to buy PC's or Xbox's to play their favourite FPS but remains to be seen if the average Joe would part with a few hundred dollars just for COD.

MS and Xbox stand to gain more by keeping this game on as many platforms as possible.

Pretty sure Xbox and PS will eventually come to an agreement to keep it on PS as well.
Agreed.

If MS was that scroogey with their games, Minecraft would had been delisted from competing consoles long time ago. Still everywhere after 8 years.

Even Minecraft Dungeons came out for all platforms. And thats a new game that came out in 2020.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom