Support NeoGAF

[Gavon West]

Don't try to reason with Gavon West

So, wait. You think Sony is going to suddenly change the terms and conditions of the contract after publicly stating that all Bungie IP will remain multiplatform? That ain't how it works, chief. Personally I don't care. It's a good purchase on Sony's part. But I never cared for Destiny. That said, I can't see Sony stating one thing and then.......hold up

Yes I can. They've done it like three times this gen already. Lol. Never mind. You could be right. Especially after going multiplatform with PC now.

 

[Amiga]

So, wait. You think Sony is going to suddenly change the terms and conditions of the contract after publicly stating that all Bungie IP will remain multiplatform? That ain't how it works, chief. Personally I don't care. It's a good purchase on Sony's part. But I never cared for Destiny. That said, I can't see Sony stating one thing and then.......hold up

Yes I can. They've done it like three times this gen already. Lol. Never mind. You could be right. Especially after going multiplatform with PC now.

"terms and conditions of the contract"
public speak =/= terms and conditions of a contract
multiplatform =/= every platform, could be as little as PS+PC.

 

[Gavon West]

"terms and conditions of the contract"
public speak =/= terms and conditions of a contract
multiplatform =/= every platform, could be as little as PS+PC.

No. Not just PS/PC. Xbox was also in that conversation. Go read the statement for yourself. Jesus Christ. It's been the conversation on multiple social media platforms since it was announced. Funny how you cats get selective reading and shit. Lol. Whatever...

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No. Not just PS/PC. Xbox was also in that conversation. Go read the statement for yourself. Jesus Christ. It's been the conversation on multiple social media platforms since it was announced. Funny how you cats get selective reading and shit. Lol. Whatever...

All they talk about is remaining multiplatform. They don't specifically mention platforms for a reason. It's lip service

 

[dotnotbot]

In an interview with GamesIndustry.biz, Sony Interactive Entertainment CEO Jim Ryan says that Destiny 2 and future Bungie games will continue to be published on other platforms, including rival consoles.

 

[Tschumi]

I want a new "BREAKING" thread, all this speculation ain't satisfaction'ing me

 

[Captain Toad]

So, wait. You think Sony is going to suddenly change the terms and conditions of the contract after publicly stating that all Bungie IP will remain multiplatform? That ain't how it works, chief. Personally I don't care. It's a good purchase on Sony's part. But I never cared for Destiny. That said, I can't see Sony stating one thing and then.......hold up

Yes I can. They've done it like three times this gen already. Lol. Never mind. You could be right. Especially after going multiplatform with PC now.

I'm saying plans can change years down the line. I don't think Sony is lying, but they are not obligated to keep any of their first-party studios multi-platform when and if they don't believe it's in their best interest.

 

[Gavon West]

I'm saying plans can change years down the line. I don't think Sony is lying, but they are not obligated to keep any of their first-party studios multi-platform when and if they don't believe it's in their best interest.

No shit. Lol. Still, it would be super dumb for Sony to retract on a public statement and would damage Bungie's brand in the end. Not to mention Sony's for our right lying to the public. It's whatever. Happy for those who like Destiny. That's cool.

 

[Captain Toad]

No shit. Lol. Still, it would be super dumb for Sony to retract on a public statement and would damage Bungie's brand in the end. Not to mention Sony's for our right lying to the public. It's whatever. Happy for those who like Destiny. That's cool.

You trying to act like you're not triggered over your hatred of PlayStation is humorous to watch.

 

[Amiga]

No shit. Lol. Still, it would be super dumb for Sony to retract on a public statement and would damage Bungie's brand in the end. Not to mention Sony's for our right lying to the public. It's whatever. Happy for those who like Destiny. That's cool.

It won't if MS dose the same. that's the whole point, it's leverage. Sony almost maxed the market share they could take from Xbox. They want to keep what they have, not take just a bit more.

Another thing is that both MS/Sony do want their online games and services on the others platform. but the terms matter. like how Epic wants Fortnite on the App store, but want to force better terms. Before this buy Sony had almost nothing to leverage.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

It won't if MS dose the same. that's the whole point, it's leverage. Sony almost maxed the market share they could take from Xbox. They want to keep what they have, not take just a bit more.

Another thing is that both MS/Sony do want their online games and services on the others platform. but the terms matter. like how Epic wants Fortnite on the App store, but want to force better terms. Before this buy Sony had almost nothing to leverage.

And that's mostly a deal in the contract with the Bungie board/CEO. If MS tries to be funny they can break or negotiate that through. They own Bungie, and that contract is to keep the people they agreed with (board) intact as they don't own them.

Also it's best for Sony's and Bungie's interest to release GaaS on every possible platform, and Switch should be next.

Same for other Sony-owned GaaS. If Sony owned Genshin they would've not struck an exclusivity deal.

Singleplayer games would remain PS only or first then PC later. Also for Sony overall, going full multiplat eventually might even be a good way as they want to connect people watching their PS IP's movies/series or at least offer them on PS Now/Spartacus on PS/PC/mobile/TV, not necessarily day one but months or years later for fresh releases.

 

[kyliethicc]

Bungie is a pivotal weapon in PlayStation's online multiplayer assault | Opinion

Shortly after last night's news of PlayStation buying Bungie, a friend of mine dropped me a text.

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[Thirty7ven]

Was listening to Last Stand Media Defining Duke analysis on this deal, and it's unbelievable how some are using all their brain into twisting this deal into something that isn't. The amount of copium is off the charts, they even go as far as sourcing Devin as some sort of contract expert. Apparently it's really hard for some people to accept that Sony actually owns Bungie, that they actually own their assets instead of this "Sony is paying for Bungie's friendship" shit.

 

[bushwookie]

It won't if MS dose the same. that's the whole point, it's leverage. Sony almost maxed the market share they could take from Xbox. They want to keep what they have, not take just a bit more.

Another thing is that both MS/Sony do want their online games and services on the others platform. but the terms matter. like how Epic wants Fortnite on the App store, but want to force better terms. Before this buy Sony had almost nothing to leverage.

I think Sony wanted the experience first and foremost. Leverage was an afterthought if it factored into it all.

Your statement is accurate enough, I just don't think it was the reason for Sony acquiring them. We probably also disagree as to the amount of leverage Bungie actually gives Sony. Compared to the hand MS is holding, I'd say it's awfully little.

 

[Amiga]

Your statement is accurate enough, I just don't think it was the reason for Sony acquiring them.

It's the whole package that create the value for Sony. if it was someone else they not find it worth 3.6. For example EA may want the IP but just 10% of the employees. Sony want the IP, the talent and the experience in running an 8 year persistent MP world.

We probably also disagree as to the amount of leverage Bungie actually gives Sony. Compared to the hand MS is holding, I'd say it's awfully little.

It's not equal at all. but it dose present a cost if MS decide to pull games from PS and Sony respond.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Sony does have legitimate leverage against Microsoft now. Don't underestimate the power of the platform and Sony marketing to preferentially promote Destiny and other Bungie games over titles they used to heavily promote like CoD.

The biggest risk to MS is that they lose relevance with their brands from Activision. Sony can do a whole lot to further marketing/promotion of Bungie games. If Microsoft removes CoD, or even parts of the CoD franchise from 70% of their playerbase, it begins to erode their userbase and the fans may move on to something else.

Before the Bungie deal, they didn't really have a feather in their cap, staple FPS franchise to promote in the future as their big game to rally the entire platform/ecosystem behind.

And GaaS titles can lose relevance without the cross-platform network effects. Something to think about

 

[kingfey]

Sony does have legitimate leverage against Microsoft now. Don't underestimate the power of the platform and Sony marketing to preferentially promote Destiny and other Bungie games over titles they used to heavily promote like CoD.

The biggest risk to MS is that they lose relevance with their brands from Activision. Sony can do a whole lot to further marketing/promotion of Bungie games. If Microsoft removes CoD, or even parts of the CoD franchise from 70% of their playerbase, it begins to erode their userbase and the fans may move on to something else.

Before the Bungie deal, they didn't really have a feather in their cap, staple FPS franchise to promote in the future as their big game to rally the entire platform/ecosystem behind.

And GaaS titles can lose relevance without the cross-platform network effects. Something to think about

Let me introduce you something called xbox 360. That is marketing. And Steam, because call of duty was battle net exclusive.

Nothing can rival call of duty sadly.

Sony will need to bring back their old Socum to compete with call of duty, because destiny is no match for call of duty.

 

[Airbus Jr]

Missed the day of ps4 xbox one when these publishers are multiplats

Companies should create their own game not taking multiplat games it left sour taste in gamers mouth

 

[ZehDon]

Sony does have legitimate leverage against Microsoft now. Don't underestimate the power of the platform and Sony marketing to preferentially promote Destiny and other Bungie games over titles they used to heavily promote like CoD.

The biggest risk to MS is that they lose relevance with their brands from Activision. Sony can do a whole lot to further marketing/promotion of Bungie games. If Microsoft removes CoD, or even parts of the CoD franchise from 70% of their playerbase, it begins to erode their userbase and the fans may move on to something else.

Before the Bungie deal, they didn't really have a feather in their cap, staple FPS franchise to promote in the future as their big game to rally the entire platform/ecosystem behind.

And GaaS titles can lose relevance without the cross-platform network effects. Something to think about

So, Microsoft having Call of Duty makes Call of Duty less relevant, but Sony having Bungie now makes Bungie more relevant - even though Sony already had marketing deals for Bungie's games? If you think yearly COD players are dropping COD because its not on PlayStation, you've failed to understand casual COD players. When COD moves to Xbox only, COD players will play COD on Xbox. They don't play COD on PlayStation because they're PlayStation gamers, they play COD on PlayStation because Sony paid for time-gated COD content and they want it.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

So, Microsoft having Call of Duty makes Call of Duty less relevant, but Sony having Bungie now makes Bungie more relevant - even though Sony already had marketing deals for Bungie's games? If you think yearly COD players are dropping COD because its not on PlayStation, you've failed to understand casual COD players. When COD moves to Xbox only, COD players will play COD on Xbox. They don't play COD on PlayStation because they're PlayStation gamers, they play COD on PlayStation because Sony paid for time-gated COD content and they want it.

That's not what I said.

Microsoft making some portions of CoD exclusive makes them less relevant, and that sort of hard break transition opens up not only Bungie but all these other partnerships to get preferential treatment now on their platform. That's why Bungie stated they want to remain multiplatform - GaaS makes no sense with artificial barriers preventing widespread viral adoption.

Essentially - is the Playstation userbase THAT dependent on CoD, or are they more likely to move on if it's not so heavily marketed on their platform? I guess that's the question.

 

[kingfey]

Microsoft making some portions of CoD exclusive makes them less relevant, and that sort of hard break transition opens up not only Bungie but all these other partnerships to get preferential treatment now on their platform. That's why Bungie stated they want to remain multiplatform - GaaS makes no sense with artificial barriers preventing widespread viral adoption.

Essentially - is the Playstation userbase THAT dependent on CoD, or are they more likely to move on if it's not so heavily marketed on their platform? I guess that's the question.

Call of duty was more popular due to xbox. Xbox owning them, means the old call of duty would be back. That what call of duty players will think. Call of duty had its highest popularity during x360.

Now days, its Yearly release, with people hating the game nonstop. Even gaffers here, would love to go back to that period.

Also, new GAAS game is hard these days. You either have to be lucky like Fortnite, or Have the chance to be made by studios like respawn. Tons of gaas games comes in to light, and die very fast.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Call of duty was more popular due to xbox. Xbox owning them, means the old call of duty would be back. That what call of duty players will think. Call of duty had its highest popularity during x360.

Now days, its Yearly release, with people hating the game nonstop. Even gaffers here, would love to go back to that period.

Also, new GAAS game is hard these days. You either have to be lucky like Fortnite, or Have the chance to be made by studios like respawn. Tons of gaas games comes in to light, and die very fast.

That's not true at all. CoD is far more popular during the PS4 era than 360 era.

 

[kingfey]

That's not true at all. CoD is far more popular during the PS4 era than 360 era.

You can ask people here. Most of the great COD come out during that time.

 

[KingGhidorah]

Was listening to Last Stand Media Defining Duke analysis on this deal, and it's unbelievable how some are using all their brain into twisting this deal into something that isn't. The amount of copium is off the charts, they even go as far as sourcing Devin as some sort of contract expert. Apparently it's really hard for some people to accept that Sony actually owns Bungie, that they actually own their assets instead of this "Sony is paying for Bungie's friendship" shit.

that's because Bungie's history, the moment they're not happy, they could just pack their bags and leave

 

[ZehDon]

That's not what I said.

Microsoft making some portions of CoD exclusive makes them less relevant, and that sort of hard break transition opens up not only Bungie but all these other partnerships to get preferential treatment now on their platform. That's why Bungie stated they want to remain multiplatform - GaaS makes no sense with artificial barriers preventing widespread viral adoption.

Essentially - is the Playstation userbase THAT dependent on CoD, or are they more likely to move on if it's not so heavily marketed on their platform? I guess that's the question.

It's exactly what you said - and you just said it again. Microsoft making COD exclusive makes them less relevant. In reality, the opposite is true: COD being exclusive to Xbox makes Xbox more relevant to COD players. How could it be any other way?

And again, you've misunderstand the relationship between Call of Duty and PlayStation. The casual players of COD on PlayStation aren't PlayStation users. They're COD users. They play on PlayStation because PlayStation is currently the best place to play COD. When Xbox becomes the home of COD, where else would COD users go to play COD? We're not talking about long-term PlayStation fans who own a COD game or two and lap up Sony's exclusives. We're talking about the fans who buy COD every year, buy all the DLC, and play little else other than COD. That's why Microsoft paid USD$70b for Activision Blizzard, and why Sony's leaders needed reassurance from Microsoft after the acquisition that Microsoft wasn't pulling the plug on COD right away. When COD leaves PlayStation, it'll leave a gargantuan whole that Sony will need to fill.

 

[ChiefDada]

Youre high AF. Bungie made those terms and conditions as far as Destiny and other Ip's they create. All their titles will remain multi platform. That was their condition if Sony we're going to purchase them.

Sony bought them to show the other teams how to create multiplatform games as that's an area where Sony needs massive help in. Google some shit.

I think you're mostly correct, with exception to the bolded; Bungie has the option to self-publish future multiplatform titles, however if Sony wishes for Bungie to develop a PS5 exclusive, that can and will also happen.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

It's exactly what you said - and you just said it again. Microsoft making COD exclusive makes them less relevant. In reality, the opposite is true: COD being exclusive to Xbox makes Xbox more relevant to COD players. How could it be any other way?

And again, you've misunderstand the relationship between Call of Duty and PlayStation. The casual players of COD on PlayStation aren't PlayStation users. They're COD users. They play on PlayStation because PlayStation is currently the best place to play COD. When Xbox becomes the home of COD, where else would COD users go to play COD? We're not talking about long-term PlayStation fans who own a COD game or two and lap up Sony's exclusives. We're talking about the fans who buy COD every year, buy all the DLC, and play little else other than COD. That's why Microsoft paid USD$70b for Activision Blizzard, and why Sony's leaders needed reassurance from Microsoft after the acquisition that Microsoft wasn't pulling the plug on COD right away. When COD leaves PlayStation, it'll leave a gargantuan whole that Sony will need to fill.

Yes, I think them making it exclusive DOES indeed make CoD less relevant IN TOTAL. It's already an established brand largely on Playstation vs anywhere else. Making it exclusive on Xbox would certainly increase the appeal/base on THAT platform at the expensive of the userbase in TOTAL. That's my argument.

If your argument were true - and the value is in the CoD IP rather than the platforms its on - then Sony would have never been able to reverse fortunes of CoD to playstation. But because PS4 was off to a great start - thanks in part to titles OTHER than CoD - the player base shited to PS4 as the platform of choice, and the marketing followed to bolster that trend.

So there's enormous risk in Microsoft playing the exclusivity game with such an enormously proven IP on Playstation.

 

[kingfey]

So there's enormous risk in Microsoft playing the exclusivity game with such an enormously proven IP on Playstation.

As long as PC exist, and xbox supports it, they have no need for playstation.

We are in new gen. Sony would need to make insane amount of ps5 consoles, in order to come close to ps4 numbers. As long as these limitation exist, MS is fine.

 

[Amiga]

Don't underestimate the power of the platform and Sony marketing to preferentially promote Destiny and other Bungie games over titles they used to heavily promote like CoD.

Yes, even digital shelf space matters. expect CoD to quietly slide off the top promotions on PSN and Destiny to move up.

 

[ChiefDada]

Was listening to Last Stand Media Defining Duke analysis on this deal, and it's unbelievable how some are using all their brain into twisting this deal into something that isn't. The amount of copium is off the charts, they even go as far as sourcing Devin as some sort of contract expert. Apparently it's really hard for some people to accept that Sony actually owns Bungie, that they actually own their assets instead of this "Sony is paying for Bungie's friendship" shit.

It's a bit more complicated. Sony does NOT own the assets outright, they are the sole shareholder of a legally separate entity. The relationship is not the same as a studio such as Guerilla or Housemarque, etc.

that's because Bungie's history, the moment they're not happy, they could just pack their bags and leave

Who is "they" and what would they be leaving with?

 

[sainraja]

It's exactly what you said - and you just said it again. Microsoft making COD exclusive makes them less relevant. In reality, the opposite is true: COD being exclusive to Xbox makes Xbox more relevant to COD players. How could it be any other way?

And again, you've misunderstand the relationship between Call of Duty and PlayStation. The casual players of COD on PlayStation aren't PlayStation users. They're COD users. They play on PlayStation because PlayStation is currently the best place to play COD. When Xbox becomes the home of COD, where else would COD users go to play COD? We're not talking about long-term PlayStation fans who own a COD game or two and lap up Sony's exclusives. We're talking about the fans who buy COD every year, buy all the DLC, and play little else other than COD. That's why Microsoft paid USD$70b for Activision Blizzard, and why Sony's leaders needed reassurance from Microsoft after the acquisition that Microsoft wasn't pulling the plug on COD right away. When COD leaves PlayStation, it'll leave a gargantuan whole that Sony will need to fill.

I think you both are making statements that you can't really back up 100%. Nobody knows what the "casuals" will do. You are banking on thinking that a casual player (if he/she has bought the game on the PS4) will simply write off the money they spent on PlayStation and buy a completely new system to play a single game (if they are as casual as we all like to think they are, they can just as easily find something else or another hobby, nothing is guaranteed). What I think his point is, if COD becomes exclusive to Xbox, it becomes less relevant on the PlayStation — Sony isn't going to promote a title that won't be on their system. Sony has put marketing money behind COD so that will naturally go to someone else.

But really no one knows shit about what casuals will do. Pretending otherwise is just stupid.

 

[dotnotbot]

As long as PC exist, and xbox supports it, they have no need for playstation.

We are in new gen. Sony would need to make insane amount of ps5 consoles, in order to come close to ps4 numbers. As long as these limitation exist, MS is fine.

By the time COD becomes exclusive there will be a ton more PS5s on the market

 

[kingfey]

I think you both are making statements that you can't really back up 100%. Nobody knows what the "casuals" will do. You are banking on thinking that a casual player (if he/she has bought the game on the PS4) will simply write off the money they spent on PlayStation and buy a completely new system to play a single game. What I think his point is, if COD becomes exclusive to Xbox, it becomes less relevant on the PlayStation — Sony isn't going to promote a title that won't be on their system. Sony has put marketing money behind COD so that will naturally go to someone else.

But really no one knows shit about what casuals will do. Pretending otherwise is just stupid.

Xbox one is clear example of your point.

COD went from x360 to ps4, and people switched to that console. Same thing would happen again.

 

[sainraja]

Xbox one is clear example of your point.

COD went from x360 to ps4, and people switched to that console. Same thing would happen again.

You are assuming people switched to the PS4 from the X360. Sure, PS3 struggled initially but it wasn't lagging that much behind the X360. That generation ended up being very close and COD was popular on the PS3, which you can't discount. Some people will switch, but banking on everyone doing so is silly. My point stands, no one knows exactly what they will do. Pretending otherwise is silly.

 

[kingfey]

By the time COD becomes exclusive there will be a ton more PS5s on the market

At this pace, I doubt it can pick up momentum. We aren't even 25m yet for either console. It will take 3 years for either of them to hit 40m-50m. Depending if the shortage eases down.

Sony had early start, and more wafers than MS, yet they managed 17.5m so far. Now with shortages being severe, it would be hard to make more consoles, due to low wafers on the market.

 

[kingfey]

You are assuming people switched to the PS4 from the X360. Sure, PS3 struggled initially but it wasn't lagging that much behind the X360. That generation ended up being very close and COD was popular on the PS3, which you can't discount. Some people will switch, but banking on everyone doing so is silly. My point stands, no one knows exactly what they will do. Pretending otherwise is stilly.

COD was the xbox live game. That is what made it so much popular. Lets not rewrite the past.

People picked the ps4, because of the disastrous xbox one launch, and Sony grabbed the marketting rights for COD.

 

[sainraja]

COD was the xbox live game. That is what made it so much popular. Lets not rewrite the past.

People picked the ps4, because of the disastrous xbox one launch, and Sony grabbed the marketting rights for COD.

You're welcome to believe that. I am not re-writing the past. You are pushing your opinion off as fact — COD was popular on both systems. That generation was tight between the two.

 

[DForce]

If Call of Duty goes exclusive to Xbox, then they're no doubt going to lose players because every single PlayStation gamer will not transition over to Xbox. Yes, it's going to bring players to Xbox, but everyone is not going to join.

You also risk players leaving Call of Duty behind in general. While Call of Duty Warzone is popular, the mainline Call of Duty series has declined.

In all, at the very least you're going to lose some COD players, but how many is the question. This is the risk you have when it comes to making the game console exclusive to one platform.

 

[kingfey]

You're welcome to believe that. I am not re-writing the past. You are pushing your opinion off as fact — COD was popular on both systems. That generation was tight between the two.

It wasnt really. Ps3 had global market, while x360 had US, and few Europe countries. It managed to sell 1.6m in japan though. Call of duty main appeal was US, and Europe. but mainly US.

 

[sainraja]

Anything can happen. It just depends on what both companies do from this point forward. Call of Duty is by no means a small IP so it will definitely influence people in a specific way and this has rightly put some pressure on Sony. Microsoft will also have some work to do to distance COD from PlayStation. We shall see how it all plays out.

It wasnt really. Ps3 had global market, while x360 had US, and few Europe countries. It managed to sell 1.6m in japan though. Call of duty main appeal was US, and Europe. but mainly US.

I am not going to go back and forth on this with you lol. We clearly don't see eye to eye on this.

 

[kyliethicc]

that's because Bungie's history, the moment they're not happy, they could just pack their bags and leave

The devs could quit sure, but Sony now owns 100% of Bungie, Destiny, and Bungie's tech. Its all fully and permanently controlled by Sony.

 

[ZehDon]

Yes, I think them making it exclusive DOES indeed make CoD less relevant IN TOTAL. It's already an established brand largely on Playstation vs anywhere else. Making it exclusive on Xbox would certainly increase the appeal/base on THAT platform at the expensive of the userbase in TOTAL. That's my argument.

If your argument were true - and the value is in the CoD IP rather than the platforms its on - then Sony would have never been able to reverse fortunes of CoD to playstation. But because PS4 was off to a great start - thanks in part to titles OTHER than CoD - the player base shited to PS4 as the platform of choice, and the marketing followed to bolster that trend.

So there's enormous risk in Microsoft playing the exclusivity game with such an enormously proven IP on Playstation.

Sony didn't reverse fortunes, Microsoft did. No one bought an Xbone because of the worst reveal and launch run up in industry history. Sony swooped in and grabbed COD when they saw their opportunity, because they knew it would help grow their PSN. I'm sure Activision was only too happy to do it because PlayStation 4 quickly became the dominant platform basically from day one. Sony was bolstered by the fact that their chief competition was basically DOA, allowing them to establish PSN as the place to play - fuelled is no small part by COD, the dominant FPS multiplayer game. That's clearly not happening this generation.
When COD goes exclusive to Xbox, PlayStation will need another "best on PlayStation" juggernaut because COD's hardcore will follow their game.

I think you both are making statements that you can't really back up 100%. Nobody knows what the "casuals" will do. You are banking on thinking that a casual player (if he/she has bought the game on the PS4) will simply write off the money they spent on PlayStation and buy a completely new system to play a single game (if they are as casual as we all like to think they are, they can just as easily find something else or another hobby, nothing is guaranteed). What I think his point is, if COD becomes exclusive to Xbox, it becomes less relevant on the PlayStation — Sony isn't going to promote a title that won't be on their system. Sony has put marketing money behind COD so that will naturally go to someone else.

But really no one knows shit about what casuals will do. Pretending otherwise is just stupid.

COD on Game Pass, and exclusive to Xbox? Yeah, the COD casuals whose investment is only COD will absolutely trade in their PlayStations for Xboxes or pick up a cheap Series S to compliment their PS5s. Everything COD being on Game Pass means that, not only will COD be potentially cheaper for them, they'll have access to every COD title at once. You're failing to understand precisely how COD is as big as it is.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Sony didn't reverse fortunes, Microsoft did. No one bought an Xbone because of the worst reveal and launch run up in industry history.

By your argument, this shouldn't matter since CoD players only play CoD, as you suggested. They would just stick to the same platform they primarily played CoD in.

 

[sainraja]

Sony didn't reverse fortunes, Microsoft did. No one bought an Xbone because of the worst reveal and launch run up in industry history. Sony swooped in and grabbed COD when they saw their opportunity, because they knew it would help grow their PSN. I'm sure Activision was only too happy to do it because PlayStation 4 quickly became the dominant platform basically from day one. Sony was bolstered by the fact that their chief competition was basically DOA, allowing them to establish PSN as the place to play - fuelled is no small part by COD, the dominant FPS multiplayer game. That's clearly not happening this generation.
When COD goes exclusive to Xbox, PlayStation will need another "best on PlayStation" juggernaut because COD's hardcore will follow their game.


COD on Game Pass, and exclusive to Xbox? Yeah, the COD casuals whose investment is only COD will absolutely trade in their PlayStations for Xboxes or pick up a cheap Series S to compliment their PS5s. Everything COD being on Game Pass means that, not only will COD be potentially cheaper for them, they'll have access to every COD title at once. You're failing to understand precisely how COD is as big as it is.

Still a lot of assumptions that you are making. What you are saying could certainly happen but I personally find it hard to believe that someone who is casually gaming will bother spending money on multiple systems (trade I can see, but it also depends on how invested they are in the PS — having to rebuy everything etc). Gaming isn't their primary hobby and I am not discounting how big COD is.

If COD is going to have the affect that you say it is going to have, we won't really see that play out until later given the next 2 will be on the PlayStation. Microsoft will have to distance the IP from PlayStation and sure they might even succeed in doing that but this ignores the fact that now there is a gap on PS side and if Sony succeeds in filling it, that will have an influence too. Now if MS keeps the game on PS (all of this ends up being irrelevant then) and whether that happens because Game Pass shows up on PS or MS pulls another Minecraft.....we just don't know.

As for reversal of fortunes, no Sony definitely did reverse their fortune. If they hadn't, there simply wouldn't have been a PS4.

 

[kingfey]

Still a lot of assumptions that you are making. What you are saying could certainly happen but I personally find it hard to believe that someone who is casually gaming will bother spending money on multiple systems (trade I can see, but it also depends on how invested they are in the PS — having to rebuy everything etc). Gaming isn't their primary hobby and I am not discounting how big COD is. If COD is going to have the affect that you say it is going to have, we won't really see that play out until later given the next 2 will be on the PlayStation. Microsoft will have to distance the IP from PlayStation and sure they might even succeed in doing that but this ignores the fact that now there is a gap on PS side and if Sony succeeds in filling it, that will have an influence too. Now if MS keeps the game on PS (all of this ends up being irrelevant then) and whether that happens because Game Pass shows up on PS or MS pulls another Minecraft.....we just don't know.

People bought ps4 for spiderman. If those people can spent $300 on ps4, expect them to buy xbox for call of duty.

 

[DForce]

that's because Bungie's history, the moment they're not happy, they could just pack their bags and leave

Microsoft wanted Bungie to only work on Halo. After their contract with Microsoft was up, they left.

Activision made many demands and was only worried about making a lot of money. They set a lot of unrealistic deadlines. We heard so many things about the culture behind Activision, so it shouldn't be that surprising at all.

Bungie still has a lot of independence and that's why they're in a totally different situation.

 

[sainraja]

By your argument, this shouldn't matter since CoD players only play CoD, as you suggested. They would just stick to the same platform they primarily played CoD in.

Yeah, that's something I was completely ignoring. COD wasn't going exclusive to the PlayStation after the X360 generation so people should have stayed with the Xbox One. So it might not be accurate to look at that transition and say if people moved or not. We will find out this time around though.

Microsoft wanted Bungie to only work on Halo. After their contract with Microsoft was up, they left.

Activision made many demands and was only worried about making a lot of money. They set a lot of unrealistic deadlines. We heard so many things about the culture behind Activision, so it shouldn't be that surprising at all.

Bungie still has a lot of independence and that's why they're in a totally different situation.

Microsoft owned Bungie. Bungie had to buy themselves out of their relationship was my understanding. They weren't second-party like how Insomniac were for a while.

 

[ZehDon]

By your argument, this shouldn't matter since CoD players only play CoD, as you suggested. They would just stick to the same platform they primarily played CoD in.

... what? COD players followed COD when Sony inked the deal to get COD DLC earlier on PlayStation. This is how Sony built up their PSN into the platform it is today.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

... what? COD players followed COD when Sony inked the deal to get COD DLC earlier on PlayStation. This is how Sony built up their PSN into the platform it is today.

DLC timed exclusivity isn't a big deal at all

Switching platforms is

There are external factors that caused those players to switch outside of CoD or exclusivity deals

 

[ZehDon]

DLC timed exclusivity isn't a big deal at all

Switching platforms is

There are external factors that caused those players to switch outside of CoD or exclusivity deals

You're once again failing to understand how sustained players behave.

If you're buying a next-gen console to play the next-gen only COD, and one of those consoles has the DLC earlier, which one do you buy? Extrapolate that to an exclusive: one console has COD, and you want to play COD. Guess which console you're buying?

Of course there are external factors - those external factors are how Sony scored the marketing deal for COD, which helped COD players make their choice, and helped Sony build PSN into what it is today. This is a major reason why Microsoft spent USD$70b to acquire the entire publisher: to create factors to help COD players make their choice.