ManaByte
Member
FIFY. Some people just love those old Android games that run on it.No, he's typing from his Xperia Play phone.
FIFY. Some people just love those old Android games that run on it.No, he's typing from his Xperia Play phone.
FIFY. Some people just love those old Android games that run on it.
There is more context re the CMA decisions from last week but in terms of new news, it's the same comments.Nope, more detailed, and Jim is going to set the record straight, that is a major shift in tone from the original article alone, this is very serious business, someone may get hurt emotionally and maybe even physically by way of heartache that Jims son won't be able to come home again.
Or at least you would think it's Jims son based on all the extreme reactions so far damn people calm down lol.
How many people have a web browser? That's the potential audience once it's on Game Pass.I wonder which will win out if COD goes XBOX exclusive. PC players aren’t affected, XBOX players not affected… how big of a player base do they lose out of those who don’t have or get a PC or an XBOX? Enough to be happy keeping a game like this exclusive? I guess time will tell.
Make no mistake. MS could care less about their recent statement of "Not taking games away from other platforms". Allowing COD on PS for 6 more years is purely to their benefit as they do not want to take a major loss by removing their #1 customer(Sony) and loosing a ton of revenue. Allowing it to stay on PS for a few more years while they win over COD mindshare and bolster Gamepass is the main goal. Then they are safe to make it exclusive. In the end this is simply MS having enough money to hit the "I win" button.
First I've been accused of that.Hendrick's you LOL because you have nothing to say.
I guess.How many people have a web browser? That's the potential audience once it's on Game Pass.
That's exactly the sort of tactic that the regulators will be concerned about.They won't if you allow gamepass on your platform...thats what it all comes down too. buy a ps5. but you paying 15$ a month to play COD...win win for them.
I think they are (or he is) just trying to dramatize their entry into console gaming, the same way it was done with Sony's entry. With Sony, there is some credibility — e.g. Nintendo PlayStation unit that exists, Philips announcing their deal with Nintendo the same time Sony was announcing it also.That's not accurate, the Xbox was already being worked on in some form by a team who though there was reason for MS to get into gaming because well, they already were.
What you said is the reason why Microsoft greenlit project that would eventually become the Xbox with the budget that they did. It's likely MS was going to have a console anyway, but it may have been entirely different, with lower budget allocation.
HmThey've been punching MS for two generations and now MS is punching back, and Jim can't seem to take the punch. In the 360/PS3 era Sony had a parity clause that said if you didn't release a game simultaneously on PS3 and 360, you had to produce exclusive PlayStation DLC for the game or else it wouldn't be approved for release on the platform. BioShock was the first game to do this. It was something to try to prevent timed exclusives. That evolved in the PS4 era to where they were just flat-out paying for exclusive DLC like the Destiny Strikes and the Arkham Knight challenges.
Because the possible gains by having people buy an Xbox and or Gamepass will more than equal that out.Sony accounted for $1.37 Billion in 2020 for Activision in total, why would MS cut that out?
The sale did not go through yet, which is the reason for these wranglings. Last I heard it was being investigated by competition and mergers.Jim Ryan crying about MS deciding the future of an IP that MS owns.
Poor Jimmy. Condolences buddy boy.
Xbox being hypocrites, what a shockI think they are (or he is) just trying to dramatize their entry into console gaming, the same way it was done with Sony's entry. With Sony, there is some credibility — e.g. Nintendo PlayStation unit that exists, Philips announcing their deal with Nintendo the same time Sony was announcing it also.
I am doubtful, of the one he is now trying to tell, at-least in the way he wants to tell it, about Xbox. It just makes for an interesting story but he's definitely 'overselling' it.
Hm
Link
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/gang-beasts-dev-parity-clause-means-we-cant-commit-to-xbox-one-release#:~:text=The parity stipulates that indies,from others released before it.
Slow down there buddy. MS doesn't own anything yet. That's the whole reason for this back and forth.Jim Ryan crying about MS deciding the future of an IP that MS owns.
Poor Jimmy. Condolences buddy boy.
Of course; Sony wanted their stranglehold from the PS2 to continue. I believe Microsoft tried something similar last generation, which ended up impacting some indies.They've been punching MS for two generations and now MS is punching back, and Jim can't seem to take the punch. In the 360/PS3 era Sony had a parity clause that said if you didn't release a game simultaneously on PS3 and 360, you had to produce exclusive PlayStation DLC for the game or else it wouldn't be approved for release on the platform. BioShock was the first game to do this. It was something to try to prevent timed exclusives. That evolved in the PS4 era to where they were just flat-out paying for exclusive DLC like the Destiny Strikes and the Arkham Knight challenges.
Ah, nice try but I did read it and.....sorry, you are not going to drag me into an argument over this. If you can follow a conversation, then it should be clear why I brought that up. It doesn't matter to the point I was making if MS was unsuccessful and had to 'disband' it later or if it only applied to indies lol. I am not looking for a 1-to-1 scenario here. Point was, they utilized the same BS. They all do it. Some of you just love to make excuses for one though.Did you .. like read.. that article before replying to ManaByte ?
That article is strictly talking about a PARITY clause. A Party clause that ended up some indies *not* putting their games on Xbox because they could not guarantee parity.
A parity clause that has essentially been disbanded for over about half a decade now.
Take Two are fine where they are. No one needs to make their shit exclusive.Not surprised. COD is one of the biggest games on the planet. Ofcourse Jim will want COD to continue on PS beyond the current arrangement. Xbox buying the #1 3rd party publisher for $64B is a game-changer. Sony needs to be more aggressive to protect market share. They need to put in an offer for TakeTwo.
Uggghhhh. COD via a browser? This is blasphemy.How many people have a web browser? That's the potential audience once it's on Game Pass.
I mean Spiderman was a dead franchise before Sony’s first party studios turned it into a AAA jaguarnat , Call of duty was already a 20 + million selling a year franchise (the biggest franchise next to GTA) that Microsoft just bought and is about to rip away from more than half it’s install base. Also Final Fantasy was also not that big until PlayStation published FF VII.Since when has Sony considered their impact on gamers with all their timed exclusivity bullshit? Did locking Spiderman down to PlayStation in a third party game matter to them? How about locking down Final Fantasy? Sony never gave a shit until Microsoft brought a bazooka to a knife fight.
Let me get my tiny violin, because the ball isn’t in your court Sony. Don’t like it? Too bad.
What a post with so much incorrect info. For 8 yrs? Try again1-MS has not had temporary exclusives for AAA franchises with an impact on the sale of consoles for 8 years. From Tom Raider and all of us we remember the mobilization against that we never saw in the Sony cases.
2- Sony has squeezed its position of dominance to take over large AAA thirds that would be multiplatform. Pay to remove content and major franchises from the reach of Xbox console users.
3- Exclusivities from 1 to up to more than 3 years. The latest Xbox ones are only 3-6 months old and for Indi or AA titles.
Is the same situation for you?
You really do not think that the Xbox user can have reasons to feel annoyed?
It's Activision.This is about respecting a regulatory process and doing it properly. If Phil didn't take it public Jim doesn't need to say anything.
And make no mistake, the desperate party in all of this right now is not the one most people are assuming.
I find it hard to believe there is not one single Sony studio that wants to take lead on an FPS. Jimbo is literally calling his studios inadequate. How demoralizing.
Sony been playing and profiting from the exclusives game for many years, even petty stupid exclusives like the short Spiderman DLC on Marvel's Avengers. Now they're getting the pie in their face and they don't like how it tastes...
I find it hard to believe there is not one single Sony studio that wants to take lead on an FPS. Jimbo is literally calling his studios inadequate. How demoralizing.
Is there a breakdown of CoD sales by platform?
Frankly I am surprised Microsoft wouldn't want to keep it on PlayStation for at least five more years - which is probably when this gen will be over. I don't envision a bunch of PlayStation 5 owners in 2025 suddenly switching their entire platform over one franchise. But if the gen is already in the process of concluding? Perhaps a significant number might opt for Xbox's the next time around. I mean who knows.
However - if I was in Ryan's shoes I'd stop saying things like "we just can't make a CoD on our own" or publicly complaining about what is looking like an inevitable acquisition. I'd instead be using the amazing talent I had on hand to try and make a competitor. It's not like Sony doesn't have several of the absolute best AAA studios making games right now.
Literally the dumbest thing he could say publicly now is they could replace COD with something elseI find it hard to believe there is not one single Sony studio that wants to take lead on an FPS. Jimbo is literally calling his studios inadequate. How demoralizing.
Is it MSs fault that Sony doesn't have the money to mirror what MS has done?Bought "some" is an interesting spin on about $80 billion worth
But you know what, should the deal go through I bet they'll happily accept because there's no more opportunity to cock block. All of a sudden those next 3 years become very fuckin adequate.It's negotiation which has gone public thanks to Phil and then Jim following suit. The acquisition isn't finalized. Microsoft doesn't want Sony to protest the acquisition so they've offered an olive branch. Sony doesn't like the olive branch.
Yep they have been buying the "playstation adavantage" on everything they could.Is it MSs fault that Sony doesn't have the money to mirror what MS has done?
I can guarantee you if Sony had the same amount of money as MS they would be doing the exact same thing.
I find it hard to believe there is not one single Sony studio that wants to take lead on an FPS. Jimbo is literally calling his studios inadequate. How demoralizing.
That's why regulators exist, to disensentivise that type of competition. Healthy markets won't exist if richer companies just buy out anybody else who can competeIs it MSs fault that Sony doesn't have the money to mirror what MS has done?
I can guarantee you if Sony had the same amount of money as MS they would be doing the exact same thing.
I mean sure, if you want to make a game for DOGS!Killzone and Resistance both stink
Maybe theyll get lucky with that new studio made up of COD vets. Respawn is huge now and had a similar path.
Is sony's fault MS didn't create studios and IPs in a consistent basis?Is it MSs fault that Sony doesn't have the money to mirror what MS has done?
I can guarantee you if Sony had the same amount of money as MS they would be doing the exact same thing.
This. Jim is being smart. Even if they are cooking up a COD competitor, it doesn't make sense to say something stupid and loose you current cash cow.Literally the dumbest thing he could say publicly now is they could replace COD with something else
Bit of a dumb statement considering MS don't own AB at the moment and the fact that Sony has a contract for COD for a couple of years.oh fuck off hes lucky Phil isn't making it exclusive right now
I will love to see it. More ammo for Jimbo.oh fuck off hes lucky Phil isn't making it exclusive right now
The Call of Duty franchise is a big deal for Sony, losing it could potentially be a threat for them in the short term. It will be a huge blow in the mindshare among modern military FPS gamers.
However, I think Sony's position will remain strong despite the potential loss of one of its key third-party franchises. Playstation as an identity did not build upon COD alone (only big during the PS4 era) or at least not bigger than say Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Kojima games (MGS specifically), FIFA, GTA and many more. Now, if Sony loses more and more big third-party supports then it could impact the brand in the longer term.
Ps. The last COD game that I played and enjoyed quite a bit was COD WWI. So, I have less knowledge about this franchise and how big it is currently other than from the news, twitter and forums.