That’s not what this is about lol. CoD is a product and if that product makes a lot of money of your competition, you can’t simply take it away buying it and forbidding your competitor to sell it. Please this is bigger than “console exclusivity”.
Literally done constantly on consoles.. pay to take content off the other consoles.
Well said. People have to see this beyond console war lens.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.
Again, CoD is a product. It’s not only a game.
?
you never know, with the new acquisitions and talents, results may be different this time. Things changed.Just like their own Halo, we all know how that turned out
According to Jez Sony marketing rights for COD states that it can't launch into gamepass.
You're essentially stating it would be some kind of monopoly if they made the IP exclusive. That's not at all how it works. Microsoft doesn't need Sony's money. It's no different than the Bethesda merger.
Warhawk.
I hope that's true and we see an actual 12+ hour Astrobot game soon.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.
A big difference between fifa and COD for me is there are actual people who like the campaign in COD. I know people who buy COD for the campaign.
Perhaps the asking price for putting cod day one on gp meant that Microsoft would be paying nearly all/all/ or more than the game cost to make.
When you have over 100mil active users monthly is actually cheap
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.
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.
Activision is the biggest publisher in the industry and CoD is the biggest multiplat franchise in the industry. People always cared deeply about them. People took them being independent for granted, but now that MS owns them of course there's going to be endless discussions about it.
Based on? It's very likely going on Game Pass day one, a marketing deal won't stop that.
Arbitrary length is silly. Good games are good.
Exactly. As
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
said a few posts higher, if MS was able to get any COD on game pass, why haven’t they done a single one, even from the back catalog.
Exactly. As
I do think ms screwed up in not buying bungie back.
The crystal dynamics deal seems like a steal.
Only laws I know would be monopoly laws. Could you site some?
Activision and COD make more money than everything else you listed combined. It's not really hard to understand..... Like you can't be serious.
lol, no.
That's not evidence of anything. MS is in the driver's seat here, if they want COD in Game Pass day one it will be there.
Exactly. Technically Sony could be stubborn and just say no to every proposal, but Jimbo isn't stupid. He wants to collaborate. They'll figure something out.
