DaGwaphics
Member
Those games do make bank like I said. But how many $$$ were spent building all the games that failed around them? These aren't slam dunks in the slightest. A much higher failure rate here than with traditional software sales.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tom Henderson - Sony’s marketing deal for CoD lasts until 2025 or 2026
- Thread starter kyliethicc
- Start date
- Rumor
Those games do make bank like I said. But how many $$$ were spent building all the games that failed around them? These aren't slam dunks in the slightest. A much higher failure rate here than with traditional software sales.
nominedomine
Banned
Who cares about the games that failed? What matter is how much of the market is dominated by F2P games.
Studios or publishers that aren't hitting with their games are either getting closed or absorbed.
I personally hate F2P games just as much as I hate the idea of subscriptions being the main way to play games going forward but it's undeniable how much the F2P model has already proven and how little the game library model has managed to do. The game library subscription business model can't even beat "the shamelessly charging for online" business model.
The biggest irony is how Gamepass will actually end up being the Netflix of gaming after all: a subscription service that was first to market but that ended up proving that being first isn't that much of an advantage when the competition shows up. It will inevitably collapse under it's own size once it can't sustain it's growth and it's value.
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I don't think that exclusivity is even up for discussion. The question is whether they can release on gamepass or not. I don't think MS would have purchased Activision without the ability to put it on gamepass, but who knows what there plan is, they may be happy to sell retail to everyone for the next couple of years, it's probably best for them revenue wise.Wow some people are living in fantasy land.... Thinking Microsoft can just shred contracts and walk away and nothing will happen. People really don't know how things work at this level of business? Why do you think it is going to take years for Microsoft to buy them?
There is a million hoops, contracts, lawyers and fine print to go through. They are not going to shred that up for some fanboy talking point or not sell their game on the biggest selling console.
How many millions do they want to throw away to just fanboy war
DaGwaphics
Member
You were the one that said you thought F2P was a better alternative over a GP type option (not a bright position to take, IMO.) I'm just pointing out the reality that most of these games are failures regardless of who is making them.
Plus, it's just laughable to me when users question the quality of content that can be created for a service like GP and then in the same breath say they think F2P is the way to go.
Edit: My goodness, just saw that edit. Oh man, now Netflix is collapsing under its own weight. You should give them a ring, they might not have noticed this yet.
Last edited:
nominedomine
Banned
What you are saying makes no sense. So what if a bunch of F2P games fail? The few hits more than compensate for all of that and more.
I never mentioned quality, I personally dislike both models. My favorite games are all regular games following the traditional model where you directly pay for the game you want to play.
Last edited:
RCU005
Member
Kill one is better. KZ3 was destroyed when devs decided to make it CoD-like!
KZ2 was near perfect! The issue is that people want every game to be like another instead of enjoying what they get.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Here’s a prediction. MW 2 and Warzone 2 will be the biggest CoDs ever.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Had they bought Ubisoft, that might have stopped Ubisoft+ from being added into PS+ for no extra cost too. All of this is weird.
How much did Sony pay for this contract?
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Remember when Sony tried to make its own Mario?
Remember when Sony tried to make its own Halo?
kyliethicc
Member
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Yeah. Kinda strange to keep their biggest IP on competing console after paying 70 billion for it. Fucking weird, man....
David Ricardo
Member
Their halo killer sucked, but they have a decent mario-type game in Astrobot and they don't seem to have noticed.
nominedomine
Banned
CoD sells well on PlayStation and on Xbox (without Gamepass) nothing strange about it. What would be strange is if they spent $70B just thinking of Gamepass.
Last edited:
kyliethicc
Member
They noticed.
Astro Bot got a 90 on metacritic and was called by some the “Mario 64 moment” for VR gaming.
So they made the director of the game, and of Team Asobi, Nicolas Doucet, head of Japan Studio. They then made Astro’s Playroom over the next 2 years, a free pack-in for every PS5 that got a great reception. So Hulst basically fired everyone at Japan Studio other than Team Asobi, making them their own full studio now. And more Astro’s on the way.
Hell he’s basically PlayStation’s mascot now.
Last edited:
ParaSeoul
Member
Which one is that? theres multiple great sony platformers over the years
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Activision had no issues putting most of the CODs until MW19 on PS Plus. Crash Trilogy and Black Ops 3 + Zombies Chronicles are still there since the PS5 came out too.
They never supported GP as far as I know. MS fans are still waiting for that big drop
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Probably a part of the marketing deal.Activision had no issues putting most of the CODs until MW19 on PS Plus. Crash Trilogy and Black Ops 3 + Zombies Chronicles are still there since the PS5 came out too.
They never supported GP as far as I know. MS fans are still waiting for that big drop
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
It's a good point.Activision had no issues putting most of the CODs until MW19 on PS Plus. Crash Trilogy and Black Ops 3 + Zombies Chronicles are still there since the PS5 came out too.
They never supported GP as far as I know. MS fans are still waiting for that big drop
But those kind of things are rarely if ever in perpetuity. But it does lend some credence to the idea that they are locked out for a decent amount of time.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I think they added the Bethesda games after the acquisition was completed. Like, almost immediately after.
Maybe MS lets Sony pay for extending marketing exclusivity with right to first refusal, I guess. But, does the money from Sony in that case outweigh the money they could potentially gain in extra GamePass subscriptions? Everyone keeps saying COD would be a massive drawing factor for GamePass; if MS had the chance to secure a COD for the service earlier, they'd of taken the chance to do so just to test how true that drawing power actually is.
Minecraft is a good example for this; it was just business as usual after that acquisition. I really think the ABK acquisition is something more driven by Microsoft themselves and not necessarily simply through the Xbox division, or even GamePass. Both of those will see benefits (they will get some exclusive games from it, it'd be crazy if they didn't, even if it's smaller IP like Crash, Spyro, Gabriel Knight, Phantasmagoria etc.), but they're cherries on top: this is really about adding COD, Candy Crush, and WOW revenue to the rest of Microsoft's revenue streams.
So for those bigger IP, especially if they're MP-centric, live service-focused too, it benefits they're on as many platforms as possible.
It's not that hard to believe when it comes to games that stay high on the XBOX sales Top charts (at a full price) for several years.
Activision's interest has surely been more in continuing to sell than in launching it to Gamepass.
The opposite would be to believe that Sony paid for no COD past or present and every Act-Blz game past and present (none of their other games have been released on Gamepass) to be released on the service.
Sorry, I find it hard to believe something like that
I just meant COD games released during the tenure of the contract phase. But maybe it is just crazy talk :/
How much could ABK realistically charge MS for adding a bunch of old CODs, some quite old, into GamePass say last year? I know the games sell well enough but the majority of their sales are around launch period.
Ghost of Caelid
Banned
Wonder if this can affect gamepass. Maybe not cause Sony promoted trek to yomi and thst went on game pass. But then again I’m sure the COD deal is far more complex. Hopefully not tho. Give me cod on gamepass please.
Swift_Star
Banned
Actually, it’s worse if they take it away from the competing console.
Buying one your competitor’s biggest money maker is unfair competition and doesn’t bode well for the industry. It doesn’t matter if MS won’t surpass Sony in gaming revenue. That’s why everyone thinks CoD will remain multiplat.
It’s one thing if MS creates something that makes them a lot of money but outright buying and taking it away from competition is a big no no.
Last edited:
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Nothing wrong with keeping your strongest IP staying on your console if you paid the sum of money to own it. Not an Xbox issue if Sony no longer has access to it, aside from what may be in the contract.
Hell, I might have offered a lower price of it need to stay on my competitors console. 70 billion is an ass load of money to keep your competition on the same playing field. Fuck that. MHO.
kyliethicc
Member
They didn’t sign any marketing deal with something like that indie game.
They sign them for big AAA games, like this one with RE Village.
Note the clauses:
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Not really if you're playing the long game. Again. Just my opinion.
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Cod kinda fell into Sonys hands last gen especially as their online got better and they frustrated Microsoft fanboys.
Negotiator101
Member
Just like their own Halo, we all know how that turned out
Negotiator101
Member
You'll get it don't you worry about that.
Jim Ryan other Clone
Banned
Microsoft can't recreate their hallo to please their own fanbase. Sometimes is not so easy to copy or recreate something but doesnt disqualify them to make another attempt. Mindset change.Just like their own Halo, we all know how that turned out
Swift_Star
Banned
That’s not how this works as I already explained. Taking away one of your biggest competitiors money maker doesn’t fly in the market. There are laws against that. This is not about opinions.
Either way, MS would keep getting their money from Sony, they literally have nothing to lose at all.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Since when has any company been stopped buying a dev and then not making games for the other consoles?
There are no laws against that
ANIMAL1975
Member
Morrie’s wig shop
Member
I don’t think they care about any of this because they get the money for it anyway. Sony will be paying Microsoft for marketing rights.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
If MS's main goal was to bolster their Xbox 1P exclusives library at all costs, they would do exactly as you suggest. However it should be more than obvious by now that while they want this deal to benefit Xbox, it won't be at the expense of jeopardizing the potential revenue that can come from keeping certain IP on as many platforms as possible.
This ABK deal is being primarily driven by Microsoft, and what it can do for Microsoft's bottom line. Xbox and GamePass are just along for the ride to get any extra perks out of it (which they will surely get). The more this goes on the less likely I think you'll see COD ever leave PlayStation (F2P or otherwise), in fact I see them also bringing it to Switch. They might not even bring the new releases to GamePass Day 1 unless they do a Forza Horizon 5 and make them available for Early Access like a week ahead of putting them in the service.
But that's probably more than okay for MS because it means the revenue and profit stream can stay as wide as possible, which they'll want in order to start recouping the costs of this acquisition.
Swift_Star
Banned
It’s not simply “a dev”. It’s a massive corporation. Yes, there are laws against that.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I think you may be exaggerating a little. Imagine if Sony decided they didn't want to pay to advertise a Microsoft game and pulled out of the deal, you really think Sony would have to pay billions in damages to MS?
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
SenjutsuSage
Banned
They also want to sell consoles since xbox consoles are Game Pass's #1 platform.
I assume no game pass for any new COD games until one year after release or until Sony's COD deal expires. We shall see. Either way, Microsoft will benefit from Diablo 4, Overwatch 2 and just about everything else Activision generally being able to enter Game Pass.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Activision had no issues putting most of the CODs until MW19 on PS Plus. Crash Trilogy and Black Ops 3 + Zombies Chronicles are still there since the PS5 came out too.
They never supported GP as far as I know. MS fans are still waiting for that big drop
Damn
Maybe that does lend credence to the idea the contract terms cover all CODs released during the period the contract covers? Question tho: have there been any COD games given away on XBLG Games with Gold?
You'd think if so but nothing for GamePass then why would ABK make that distinction since they're both services and they'd probably get more money with GamePass but who knows.
Swift_Star
's technically right in a sense though. If the FTC would view MS suddenly taking COD off of PlayStation as an abuse of their financial capacity as a company, meaning it could be seen as anti-competitive, then they would use that as a means of reconsidering the passing of the acquisition.Keep in mind when MS announced this acquisition Sony lost $20 billion in market cap in a single day. They've may've gained that back but it just goes to show that any drastic moves by Microsoft with ABK as a result of this acquisition that could suddenly, drastically negatively impact direct competitors, could potentially be seen as anti-competitive. In particular, if those things involve disrupting the financial stability of the market with sudden removal of content leveraging their money, removal or limitation of content that otherwise would've remained present if the company stayed independent/non-acquired.
It's why MS has to be careful in how they handle very large IP like COD. That's the reason they're still going to keep the Warzone games multiplat. It's the reason why they'll probably also keep the individual releases multiplatform, and also bring COD to the Switch. And while they can't do anything too drastic that would suddenly drastically impact a competitor's bottom line (or be the equivalent of a company "price-fixing" in their own favor due to having a ton of cash to absorb losses that would kill a competitor, like what a lot of people think MS did vs. Netscape or Atari tried saying Sony was doing with the PS1), they can do things like tying DLC and certain Season bonuses to Xbox & GamePass, even exclusively.
Anything that can be easily viewed as them adding value to their ecosystem while leveraging those massive IP, in a way that doesn't involve removing expected value from competitor ecosystems, should be perfectly fine.
Last edited:
GhostOfTsu
Banned
From PS Plus I have Black Ops 3, Black Ops 4, Modern Warfare 1 Remastered, Modern Warfare 2 remastered, COD WWII, Black Ops 3 again + zombies chronicles (it's a different SKU) and Crash Trilogy when the PS5 came out. I also have Overwatch in my library, I'm not sure if I got it from PS Plus. Don't remember buying it.Damn
Maybe that does lend credence to the idea the contract terms cover all CODs released during the period the contract covers? Question tho: have there been any COD games given away on XBLG Games with Gold?
You'd think if so but nothing for GamePass then why would ABK make that distinction since they're both services and they'd probably get more money with GamePass but who knows.
Lognor
Banned
Does this mean that COD will not be available day one on Game Pass until the contract is up?
Does this mean that Sony will no longer get DLC or betas, etc. first?
That would stink of nothing changes, but I'm hopeful the two items above will change and Sony won't get any first release advantages that they've been getting. That alone is a win for Microsoft. Xbox used to be THE place to play COD. If MS can regain some of that mindshare it's a win.
Does this mean that Sony will no longer get DLC or betas, etc. first?
That would stink of nothing changes, but I'm hopeful the two items above will change and Sony won't get any first release advantages that they've been getting. That alone is a win for Microsoft. Xbox used to be THE place to play COD. If MS can regain some of that mindshare it's a win.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Nobody knows. People simply assume that Sony's contract with Activision is the same as Sony's contract with Capcom. It's a rather bold assumption imo.
Lognor
Banned
What is Sony's contract with Capcom? I thought whatever came out was just speculation.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Microsoft should honor all agreements, and the aggressive statement made by Sony once the deal was announced suggested Sony indeed had some major deals in place. For all we know, Sony has a PS Plus day one deal for Modern Warfare 2 or other games that we don't know about. Imagine that one. That'd be most interesting lol. But would Activision make such a deal without being paid some serious bread? But what I do know is Sony released a super aggressive statement after the purchase was announced like they had a big stake in existing agreements, maybe bigger than we all know.
Banjo64
cumsessed
It’s hard to guess either way but IMO I find it more plausible that Sony have a standardised contract/set of terms for this kind of deal so for me I think it’s unlikely we see CoD on Game Pass until this deal expires.
baphomet
Member
Sony has no reason to pull out of the contract, but if they were to, then yes they would owe a very large amount of money. Probably a decent portion of the billion(s) that the contract was negotiated for.