SportsFan581
Member
I'd let games get released before celebrating availability on any particular platform. But I kind of figured CoD and the biggest projects would stay multi-plat with this deal. We will see how it turns out.
If MS made a Gamepass version with only their first party, like EA Play, why would Sony refuse that? There's already a different version of Gamepass for PC with different games available.
Playstation gamers could play MS games on their favorite platform, Sony would get a cut from the subscription and MS could potentially increase their sub numbers. It's a win-win-win.
This is about getting a foothold into the mobile app store market place. I fully expect an xbox app on ios where you can buy xgs app aka King app and they don't have to give Apple 1bn in revenue a yeari never thought I would see the day where some guy on twitter had more common sense than the average people in this thread.
As I have said all along, was a no brainer
I wouldn't count on it.I'm laughing my ass off right now at all the warriors who wouldn't even let you say this. Now I'm pretty confident TES6 will be multiplatform as well.
To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo's successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business.
What about Bethesda?
Kind of being unfair to MS there. They haven't even closed on the deal, so there's no blame on their part for COD not being on Switch.to support Nintendo's platform!?!?!?...Switch been around for 5 years, and you guys are nowhere to be seen there. Now it's a 100 million platform, suddenly you want to support Switch?!?!? .....yeah GTFO
What are you talking about?to support Nintendo's platform!?!?!?...Switch been around for 5 years, and you guys are nowhere to be seen there. Now it's a 100 million platform, suddenly you want to support Switch?!?!? .....yeah GTFO
Now I'm pretty confident TES6 will be multiplatform as well.
Microsoft is trying to make Gamepass a thing because they think they can make more money off you that way.But you know, the problem is MS and now everyone needs to lose their minds because having a $15/month subscription with a plethora of games AAA, AA and indies alike is obviously bad for the consumer and paying $70 for each game upfront is healthy.
As in they will continue to support and release future warzone updates and iterations. Yes that makes sense if you think this means the next mainline cod single player game you're definitely mistaken. All of the live service games as I said will continue because of the nature of those games.lol. which part of "continue to make" you skipped?
Gamepass is not making money by jure, by de facto, it might be paying off, How? Unlike other subscription services like movies and music who only offer higher tiers, you can buy the titles and the DLCs that aren't included, and according to the numbers guys (Zhuge, Matt and Benji) that seems to be the case as they didn't see negative impact on sales.Microsoft is trying to make Gamepass a thing because they think they can make more money off you that way.
If you aren't spending more money on Gamepass each year than you would buying games, then the system doesn't make sense.
They aren't pushing the service because it is "good for the consumer", but because they want to increase revenue.
It's the same reason why Sony charges 70 dollars for games, and why they are looking at other strategies (GaaS). If you can't increase your install base any more, the only way to make more money than previous generations is to increase the amount of money the individual players are spending.
Once Microsoft starts to hit a wall growing Gamepass subscriptions, expect the service to get more expensive and/or less worth the money.
Kind of being unfair to MS there. They haven't even closed on the deal, so there's no blame on their part for COD not being on Switch.
I mean, let's just wait and see.
"Continue to make available" sounds like they're talking about the games that would be out and available by then getting continued support and not get taken off the storefronts.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh right, i get you now, to make an irrelevant point?..
take a guess.
So what you're saying is that when MS says they will continue to make "Call of Duty title" available on Playstation, they are answering to a question nobody ever made which is "Will you remove past Call of Duty entries from the playstation store and shut down all of the servers?"
Modern MS has always done this. Their first modern acquisition was Minecraft.I mean, let's just wait and see.
Why not? We will get the games for free on GP and now the deal has even more chance to go throughEh i don't trust anything MS says tbh.
One thing is for sure tho, Xbox fanboys are not having a good day with this news![]()
Him! Having a sad day! Definitely!I'd let games get released before celebrating availability on any particular platform. But I kind of figured CoD and the biggest projects would stay multi-plat with this deal. We will see how it turns out.
Sony moneyhatts TIME exclusives, MS goes and buy the publisher _ not the exclusivity of the game, or the dev team and the IP _ the ALL FRICKING PUBLISHER! and you saying MS is the poor guy in the story
![]()
Buying Zenimax and Activision Blizzard is not the same kind of monopoly as buying TIMED exclusives.
The denial then acceptance phase of this news will be long and painful.
Makes perfect sense, as otherwise would've been a death sentence to the PS platform's bottom line
Thanks to FTC & Joe Biden![]()
Another one!!!Why not? We will get the games for free on GP and now the deal has even more chance to go through
Enjoy paying 70$
Yes. "continue to have those games available". That's the read I get from this.
And this is a part of their new ad campaign to make sure their acquisition goes through:
![]()
Microsoft appeals to regulators with new app policies so they don't kill its $69 billion Activision deal
New commitments could help Microsoft look like less of a target in Washington after the company revealed its plan to buy game publisher Activision Blizzard.www.cnbc.com
LmAo there's no way some of you can be serious what words those are the most vague words ever. We will continue supporting things we are currently under contract to support and will not take them away even after the contract is up so they can continue playing it. That's all that saids. Doesn't say anything elseRegulators will make sure that these aren't just words on a blog.
Also regulators don't go away after a deal is approved.
The article is not a post on twitter it's a message to regulators:
Adapting ahead of regulation
They're making concessions to make it happen on their own will.
COD will NOT be exclusive to Xbox, and Game pass fans should be happy about this. Microsoft can subsidize the investment of much more interesting IPs that also came with the acquisition, or elsewhere in their growing catalog, with earnings from a multi platform COD. This is literally the same strategy Sony has used to develop their world class IP catalog.
Thank God Microsoft isn't as short-sighted as some of the takes going on around here.
LmAo there's no way some of you can be serious what words those are the most vague words ever. We will continue supporting things we are currently under contract to support and will not take them away even after the contract is up so they can continue playing it. That's all that saids. Doesn't say anything else
Going by your logic starfeild would also be on PlayStation because why not.That Twitter post makes no sense.
You can't make a concession for a deal to be approved then say whoopsie it was a lie.
Bethesda deal is not on the scale as Activision deal.
But they aren't saying anything about specific entries, they are talking about Call of Duty the franchise. There's no precedent for MS removing previous entries of other platforms, so you think they are answering a question nobody made because they want to fool regulators even though there's no precedence. It reads more like denial from your part, but ok.
What looks like it's actually going on is that MS doesn't see the purpose in imploding the biggest franchise of AB, just like they didn't do that with Minecraft.
To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love
Imagine Xbox not having the next Bungie live service game?I'm sure Sony saying Destiny will keep being multiplatform was key.
Microsoft is trying to make Gamepass a thing because they think they can make more money off you that way.
If you aren't spending more money on Gamepass each year than you would buying games, then the system doesn't make sense.
They aren't pushing the service because it is "good for the consumer", but because they want to increase revenue.
It's the same reason why Sony charges 70 dollars for games, and why they are looking at other strategies (GaaS). If you can't increase your install base any more, the only way to make more money than previous generations is to increase the amount of money the individual players are spending.
Once Microsoft starts to hit a wall growing Gamepass subscriptions, expect the service to get more expensive and/or less worth the money.
You are the one in denialDon't be in denial.
Microsoft is making an open letter to regulators to tell them they're willing to make concessions on their own will so that the deal is approved.
![]()
Microsoft appeals to regulators with new app policies so they don't kill its $69 billion Activision deal
New commitments could help Microsoft look like less of a target in Washington after the company revealed its plan to buy game publisher Activision Blizzard.www.cnbc.com
Microsoft is trying to make Gamepass a thing because they think they can make more money off you that way.
If you aren't spending more money on Gamepass each year than you would buying games, then the system doesn't make sense.
They aren't pushing the service because it is "good for the consumer", but because they want to increase revenue.
It's the same reason why Sony charges 70 dollars for games, and why they are looking at other strategies (GaaS). If you can't increase your install base any more, the only way to make more money than previous generations is to increase the amount of money the individual players are spending.
Once Microsoft starts to hit a wall growing Gamepass subscriptions, expect the service to get more expensive and/or less worth the money.
You are the one in denial
How can you keep supporting something that doesn't exist yet???
You can bookmark this and if I'm wrong i will delete my acc
Ms wont release cod 2024 on ps, just warzone.
It's so clear to me that I'm willing to bet, are you?You're just too invested into this:
AKA the Open App Market Act; that's the regulation they are talking about.Regulators will make sure that these aren't just words on a blog.
Also regulators don't go away after a deal is approved.
The article is not a post on twitter it's a message to regulators:
Adapting ahead of regulation
They're making concessions to make it happen on their own will.