-
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
phil_t98
#SonyToo
I KNOW! RIGHT!
We have come full circle in this world of context and nuance.
Interesting you cut out the bit where I said you don’t spend 70B to keep the competition strong. Hmmmmmmm
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
ToTTenTranz
Banned
This was going to come out in the probes regardless. Jim's statements are only relevant to the court of public opinion (which Phil dragged the subject to).
Hawking Radiation
Member
You're asking a casual player to purchase a whole new system just to continue playing their favorite game. Out of the millions of people on PS platforms currently enjoying the game right now how many will be willing to part with hundreds or thousands of dollars to purchase a console or gaming PC just to play COD.
What makes sense to me is keeping the game on PS platforms but have the Xbox version having all the exclusive access to map packs and expansions. Basically giving some PS players that incentive to switch and those that don't want to switch to Xbox still get to play and enjoy the game.
This is a win for Xbox because they retain that massive player base and revenue stream.
Take it off PS and you lose some part of that massive COD player base and you also make less money. That goes against what GamePass is trying to achieve which is giving users access to the Xbox library on as many platforms as possible.
Last edited:
Slicker than your average
Banned
The circus of moving the goal posts on denying gamers game keeps moving. Especially phils more choice has been exposed as more lies.
FullMetalx117
Member
It adds up - microsoft is looking to consolidate the industry netflix style. The cost of keeping activision up and running is 5 billion alone (don't forget about purchase price cash as well). Netflix spends 17 billion every year on content and games are more expensive. If Microsoft is looking for Netflix scale then yeah they'll be spending 20 billion+Keep in mind your floor for revenue there is 27b a year. How many frigging games do you think MS needs to develop for this service and at what cost.
Oh and I'm not even considering the premium that devs/talent will demand once the console streaming wars happen. You can see from the the movie industry - netflix/apple/warner/disney/etc. are throwing money at the biggest names/stars to differentiate their platform. I don't think it's far fetched to think dev costs will increase by at least 30%, notwithstanding the increase in dev costs anyways to make use of all the fancy new tech in gaming.
Last edited:
Neofire
Member
How did you come to this conclusion
Little Chicken
Banned
Just want this to hurry up and go through now, which it will. There's nothing remotely monopolistic about the acquisition, just Sony lobbying to hold things up.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Nah, I'm for both Sony and MS having more exclusive content. I want more difference between the two game catalogues not less.
But Sony crying like little bitches because some of their medicine was coming back to them is hilarious and cringe as fuck.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Agreed, they are complete hypocrites.
Evangelist? get out of here with that talk, especially coming from somebody like you and your post history. I'll try and keep it short. I don't know what Nate might have said in a podcast but you are clearly giving a lot of incorrect information. One was that Nates comment was separate from the initial rumour, it wasn't. The second that it was from 2019, it wasnt.No, NateDrake specifically stated what Bungie wanted in response to why the deal fell through. He also doubled down on his podcast.
You're seriously saying Bungie denied it, as of we would ever know otherwise when it comes to these private deals? You, the guy who constantly talks about how Phil Spencer is a PR mouthpiece and how MS is all PR this/PR that, don't understand public denial PR when it comes to companies? Y'know, that's done by practically every corp?
Perfect, thanks for doing my job for me.
I love how you're downplaying a very well known, credible leaker stating something that came out to be 100% factually correct WAY in advance (Bungie's stupulations for acquisition) as well as Bungie's very long history of wanting to stay independent and weasling their way out of not one, but two of the biggest gaming corporations in the world.
The rumors in 2019 and again in 2020 were all about Microsoft. It's not about who went to who, it's that we know MS and Bungie were in talks and the "price was too high," which Nate confirmed the price being independence and $2bil. Which is exactly what happened if you remove the retention bonuses (that is paid out over the years and not a lump sum, btw).
Sony were in talks with Bungie for months, and most likely didn't wholly agree to the terms Bungie wanted (notice it did not change after Microsoft bowed out) but were still trying to work out a more favorable deal that's in Sony's best interest.
This is why many believe that the ABK announcement rushed Sony's hand despite being in talks with Bungie for months prior but only just then moving forward to Bungie's terms. Rats always love to shout "but it wasn't a response since they were in talks for months prior!" as if that had any credence to the timing of the announcement. That's why, even PS fansites, mention Bungie coming out on top.
This isn't a slight to Sony, no need for your damage control. Sony might've not gotten preferential terms but they still was obviously very interested.
Bethesda wanted to be acquired, only went to MS.
ABK wanted to be acquired, Bobby made phonecalls looking for the highest bidder, and out of 5 companies MS was chosen (after some back and forth).
Platinum Games said they're down to be acquired but want their creative freedom respected. (hint: we will never know if they approached a company unless it's rumored, leaked, or came to fruition).
There's probably dozens of examples in gaming alone but aside from that companies look to be acquired and/or merged all the time. Some company philosophies are predicated on just that; buy low, invest/grow, sell high. Embracer is widely believed to be doing this very thing.
So him commenting on something that ended up being true is irrelevant, but him not commenting on something is your proof?
That's some spin if I ever saw some. If Sony was so content with multiplatform first party games (despite only MLB The Show being on Xbox and that was pried out of their cold hands by MLB), then explain this: why were Sony in talks with Bungie for so many months and ultimately ended up on the leaked terms Bungie required, and ever so timely, right after MS was announced to be buying ABK? Since Bungie fit into their plans so well, why such a long wait? Let me guess, all a coincidence, just like Nate's leak years prior, amirite? Right.
Oh, so it's okay to mention Psygnosis now? Sorry, it's hard to keep up with the goalposts.
The fact that you believe that Sony, who pays hundreds of millions for year exclusive CoD modes and timed exclusive maps/betas/etc., will acquire CoD and suddenly stop all that and promise platform parity well beyond industry norms, is hilarious. The only reason CoD was never timed exclusive at all was due to how much it would cost them due to how much CoD makes on Xbox per year. And you're reasoning? Bungie. Despite Bungie doing known Bungie things.sorry, but a Sony evangelist on a forum isn't going to change the consensus that exists.
You have no info as to what information the rumour was even based on. The conditions (asking price and requirement for independence) when a company is in the market for a buyer doesn't mean they were in talks multiple times with MS specifically. Bungie came out and categorically denied that the rumours were true. They very well could have been in the market for buyers but it was attached to MS because they were always the acquisition rumour.
And it is about who went to who. That's what the whole argument is about before you did your usual jump in to defend MS. The fact that Bungie were in the market for buyers isn't the point of contention. Are you even looking at what you're replying to?
I'm contesting this bloody ridiculous notion and post:
And you went and liked that absolute hogwash post by Kagey K. The truth is Bungie were in the market for buyers and MS would have wanted Bungie as well as Sony wanting them. They might not have even entered any talks with MS if MS knew the conditions already.
So now are you going to provide any proof thats relevant to "Bungie didn't want to be bought by Sony" or that "they asked MS first" other than pointing out somebody knew that Bungie were in the market for buyers and its acquisition price/conditions? Or maybe you want to show how "Sony was a last resort" and Bungie somehow settled for Sony because of an Activision deal.
Your idea that Bethesda wanted to be acquired and "only went to MS" is nonsense too by the way. You seem to be into 'insider' rumours but actual news reports that EA were close to acquiring Bethesda seem to evade you.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
How did you come to this conclusion
give an example outside of destiny 2 were they have done this?
Neofire
Member
Stall me out with the empty "I'm for MS and Sony" rhetoric. If I had a penny for every time someone said that on these forums alone I would be a millionaire because once you start to look at their post history it runs contrary.
As for the statement about Sony "crying" yeah they are because they've done the math. I say they did this to themselves in the form of Jim Ryan's strategy but let's not pretend that the Xbox executives haven't don't their fair share of crying either in the not so distant past.
ManaByte
Member
Forsythia
Member
So for years Xbox gamers have been told to just buy a PlayStation of they want to buy Sony exclusives/moneyhats. Which is fair I guess.
But now PlayStation only gamers can't buy an Xbox? Oh those poor PlayStation gamers.
It's nothing more than entitlement. Yes there are more PlayStation gamers, but there is nothing that dictates that Sony should stay on top until the end of time.
But now PlayStation only gamers can't buy an Xbox? Oh those poor PlayStation gamers.
It's nothing more than entitlement. Yes there are more PlayStation gamers, but there is nothing that dictates that Sony should stay on top until the end of time.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
You don't need to purchase an Xbox to keep playing CoD though. MS is the only company selling a budget console and isn't raising prices on gamers either something casual gamers like quite a bit. In a hypothetical where CoD is pulled off PlayStation that platform would be replaced with Cloud something that is not currently even offered. Finally MS is going to offer Sony an additional three years of the game. If they want it for longer what is stopping them from offering something of value to keep it coming? If you value it pay for it.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Two things can be true at the same time.
I can believe that more exclusive content on both consoles is better, and call Sony pathetic for bitching about the exact same thing they have been doing.
We comment on Xbox executives crying in threads about Xbox executives crying, while we comment on Sony executives crying in Sony ones, just like this one.
nemiroff
Gold Member
I'm not sure I get some of you guys.. So the conclusion is exclusives are no longer allowed? Sony is forced to bring their games to Xbox now? I mean, I would be more than happy about an exclusive free ecosystem I'm just asking because some of the replies in here is clearly double standard-ish.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Don't try and reason with the most ardent water carriers.
What's with the posts making Sony out as a bad guy who started making exclusivity deals in relation to CoD and implying that Microsoft is an innocent victim?
It seems fanboys either have the memory of a goldfish or have double standards.
https://www.eurogamer.net/after-five-years-of-xbox-exclusivity-call-of-duty-switches-to-playstation
It seems fanboys either have the memory of a goldfish or have double standards.
https://www.eurogamer.net/after-five-years-of-xbox-exclusivity-call-of-duty-switches-to-playstation
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
01011001
Banned
well, Microsoft at that moment literally stopped doing exclusive content deals, it was one of Phil's changes.
so since then there haven't been any games with deals like that on Xbox.
so at least you can say Microsoft stopped doing this shit. Sony never did
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I would join you in giving Microsoft a pat on the back for ending their participation in practices like that except they're now buying entire publishers and have said they will make games exclusive on a case by case basis.well, Microsoft at that moment literally stopped doing exclusive content deals, it was one of Phil's changes.
so since then there haven't been any games with deals like that on Xbox.
so at least you can say Microsoft stopped doing this shit. Sony never did
It appears they ended one practice that resulted in temporary exclusivity by replacing it with a futher reaching practice that creates permanent exclusivity. I'm not going to applaud that. But either way, I really don't care if other people like money-hatting or the buying of publishers/developers or not.
It's just annoying seeing arguments that imply Sony are terrible for buying temporary CoD exclusivity when it was Microsoft who did it first. It's more irrational fanboy bullshit that's flagrantly displaying a double standard.
I hope most of the people spouting this crap are actually investors so then I can take comfort in thinking that they're only acting retarded.
01011001
Banned
well everyone is doing these shitty things, Microsoft at the very least stopped doing that one shitty thing... so, that's something I guess
ChiefDada
Member
Yes, this is the vertical integration argument that potentially breaks antitrust laws. I personally believe the deal should go through because of my personal opinion on how free markets should work, and how competitive I view the gaming industry. But that doesn't prevent me from realizing that if there were ever a case in console gaming industry to appropriately invoke antitrust, it is this for many reasons.
SLB1904
Banned
see destiny...oh waitHow did you come to this conclusion
Sneakysnake
Member
Coming from the same company that just announced an exclusive operater in MW2 for PlayStation owners only. Also, as a PC gamer, I have to wait a week to play the beta bc Sony is living in 2007 and was so petty as to make the early beta a PS exclusive.
Also...it's not an "offer". MS OWNS COD now. They don't have to "offer" you ANYTHING. Sony sure as HELL wouldn't offer to keep COD on Xbox for 3 years beyond contract expiration if the shoe was on the other foot.
PS is great. Amazing games, incredible developers but as a company, Sony is very scummy. Can't wait for this dinosaur to die.
Also...it's not an "offer". MS OWNS COD now. They don't have to "offer" you ANYTHING. Sony sure as HELL wouldn't offer to keep COD on Xbox for 3 years beyond contract expiration if the shoe was on the other foot.
PS is great. Amazing games, incredible developers but as a company, Sony is very scummy. Can't wait for this dinosaur to die.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Bold statement. What would you say when the deal is approved? They were convinced it wasn't a lie? Contrary to what you might think, regulators really don't give a damn whether or not COD eventually becomes exclusive. What they care about is whether or not it and other Activision Blizzard games not being 100% available on identical terms on Playstation will somehow significantly lessen competition in the gaming space and harm consumers overall.
You may not buy this, but I have a lot more experience on this stuff than you do, and I can tell you right now that what many regulators truly care about is the overall impacts across the entire industry, and not just one specific area. I can tell you they care more about the appearance of an immediate and chaotic ripping off of a bandaid than a gradual process, and Microsoft as a company knows and understands this. While you might only think of this deal from the perspective of how it affects Playstation, this is about way more than Playstation no matter what false impression you may have gotten from the CMA's remarks. This deal is just as important to the mobile games industry, in which Microsoft is a much smaller player in a massive pond. Those are contours under which this deal must be analyzed also. So, too, must the fact that Nintendo currently doesn't get to enjoy Call of Duty and Microsoft has committed to making that a reality. PS5 and Playstation is not the ballgame here. It's just a distraction.
The games industry is far, far wider than all of that. And if you think the CMA's comments on Game Pass or the cloud gaming market and how it affects other competitors, or how unfair it might appear at a glance can stop this deal, that, too, will be very easily defeated in a more in depth analysis. CMA basically laid out the areas of concern that they have and want Microsoft to help better explain so that they can understand it all.
Innovation is welcomed in competitive markets. Microsoft is in the position that it's in, to turn Activision Blizzard into a bigger win for them than some others would be able to do with Activision, primarily due to internal business decisions, some of which are also available to their competitors, if they so choose to take them. That would be stuff like all first party, including AAA, games on Game Pass day one, dual entitlement console and PC digital purchases, the early partnerships with EA with EA Play, to then later partnering with Game Pass, creating Xcloud by using xbox console hardware in server blades and merging that with their experience and expertise on cloud and datacenters tech. Microsoft has been planning for all this for a very long time and designed the APIs and SDKs to simplify things for developers.
Hell, one of the biggest arguments Microsoft has is Jim Ryan's own words about transitioning to being multi-platform, releasing more games on PC, and the limitations of the just being on Playstation consoles alone. If that's the case and Playstation is really making a big push into PC gaming as they claim, why again should regulators view the ultimate impact on Sony solely through a prism of how it affects their consoles when even Sony already acknowledges the industry is simply much wider than the Playstation console, and they need to expand to better compete and reach more customers?
Translation: Sony is more afraid of this deal passing because they did not take the steps they needed to be in a position to better compete sooner. The deal itself isn't dangerous to competition. Sony's lack of preparedness is a danger to their own competitiveness.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Let's go all the way back shall we.
How about Sony buying publishers like Psygnosis?
How about Sony paying to keep games and content off the Sega consoles like Tomb Raider? EA Sports?
This whole industry is based on securing exclusive content for your platform by way of your own internal studios, buying new studios and buying exclusives from third party studios.
It's how it has operated for decades.
The only difference is due to Microsoft's money they are able to do things on a level that Sony can't. And, for those with a memory like a Goldfish, this was exactly what happened when Sony had more money than Sega and could do what Sega couldn't.
In Cold Blood
Banned
Just imagine if MS had of exited the console buisness instead of investing in it.
Imagine if Sony was the sole console maker. Then imagine with Jim Ryan at the helm what you would be paying for a PS5 and games.
Be thankful MS decided to reinvest in the console game.
Imagine if Sony was the sole console maker. Then imagine with Jim Ryan at the helm what you would be paying for a PS5 and games.
Be thankful MS decided to reinvest in the console game.
Apparently I didn't write CoD enough.
Stooky
Member
I think its a shitty deal. I get timed exclusives companies paying for extra content exclusive to their systems, or just funding games on exclusive on their platforms. Damn I just don't see how this works out better. It works better for Microsoft, but for gamers not so much.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Reportedly Sony wanted to price the games even higher than $70 before the system launched and were only talked out of it by pressure from major publishers. If it had happened like you described and they were the only game in town with full leverage, we would probably be seeing $80 or higher games as a norm right now.
Last edited:
Kusarigama
Member
Which report?
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I feel some will never understand how important it is that Microsoft decided to get more serious. It's literally saving gaming in my eyes. Sony can never be allowed to occupy the specific space they play in right now all by their lonesome. It would mean very bad news for the games industry.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Video Game Prices Are Going Up for the First Time in 15 Years
In spite of an economic and jobs crisis, publishers will press ahead with a price hike they see as long overdue.
www.bloomberg.com
MasterCornholio
Member
Sony added a lot to the industry by providing us with high quality games to play. If they left it we would have been much worse off in my opinion.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
You think you're the first one to bring up Psygnosis like it means something? They didn't have any multiplatforms IPs. Sega (and Nintendo) actually got MORE games from them after Sony bought them
And what about EA Sports? That wasn't Sony. You're just making shit up at this point.
Careful bringing up the past because MS is guilty of the exact same stuff.
Here it is: that was a fight between Sega and EA.
SEGA Memories: EA not supporting the Dreamcast
Recently EA has said that their upcoming video games will not be heading to the Nintendo Wii U. Ni…
segabits.com
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Can't wait for this to not go through and final fantasy vii part 2 and 16 to launch day one on xbox now Sony are protecting the gamers and realise that any form of exclusive on third party games is bad.
MasterCornholio
Member
Well they would need Part 1 first before anything. Wonder why Square just doesn't care since the deal is over?
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
We don't know the deal is over. Rumour is they locked in a new deal with integrade and that's all we have to go on. Look at crisis core. Why would square care about the smaller off shoot psp remake on xbox and not the full fledged actual remake of VII. money hats that's why. It's pretty simple to work out.
The deal maybe over as of Sonys new stance on protecting gamers though, so it should be coming soon
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Those games were never announced on Xbox so they didn't take them away. Same as Redfall and Starfield.
Why do you care so much about this game when you keep yapping you have a PS5? They literally gave it away on PS+, Intergrade is on Extra, it's on PC or you can buy it physical for $20 or less. Concern-trolling is all you do.We don't know the deal is over. Rumour is they locked in a new deal with integrade and that's all we have to go on. Look at crisis core. Why would square care about the smaller off shoot psp remake on xbox and not the full fledged actual remake of VII. money hats that's why. It's pretty simple to work out.
The deal maybe over as of Sonys new stance on protecting gamers though, so it should be coming soon
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I don't want Sony to leave, I just don't want them to be the only big player. Sony helped grow gaming tremendously, making a lot more popular, cool and mainstream. So Sony will always have my thanks for that. They're a major part of the reason so much money is poured into videogames these days. So anybody who considers themselves a gamer would have to be nuts to not give Sony their props for where gaming is today.
Similar threads
- Locked