Support NeoGAF

[Thirty7ven]

You're right, they're not saying anything about specific entries new or old.



I read this sentence and it seems pretty clear they're talking about keeping games available on PS and Nintendo beyond existing agreements so people who own them can continue to enjoy them, there's no mention of new projects being developed on those platforms.

MS wouldn't be able to take it away anyway, those licenses have been sold. What you are doing is to fight semantics and look for loopholes, but then what you are saying is that all they need to do is to make any COD entry available on Playstation and they are already delivering on this blog post. As they don't say Call of Duty titles, they say Call of Duty title. So... they only need 1 CoD available, and the rest can go?

It doesn't make sense.

 

[Punished Miku]

I like how so many here are going "I told you so!" and "I knew this was going to happen!". No. You knew jack shit. Neither PS nor Xbox fanboys knew, all you could do was guess/hope.

It's true that I'm not literally from the future. But I looked at the arguments and guessed correctly, and argued that against people on here.

Who's right?

<----- this guy

 

[SportsFan581]

Sorry but I don't believe him! But if true it's a sad day for the warriors who can't use COD on their never ending war…

Him! Having a sad day! Definitely!

It is too bad. I enjoy the tears.

Xbox is a division that has made a lot of mistakes, and could make some more. Hell they could blow up every bit of positive momentum they have going. After all this is the company that thought it was a good idea to double the rates of Live service just as a new system was launching. If you think I won't laugh at their expense as hard as I would anyone else, you've read me wrong.

 

[thismeinteil]

Why do I read his lips as saying

"Pounds of cocaine"

Well, that's probably what they were on when they came out with those initial XBO policies.

All of that actiblizz revenue goes to MS.

Well, Sony will still continue to get a decent portion from sales of COD and DLC on the PS. Same goes for MS when it comes to MLB The Show.

 

[Fess]

You can bookmark this and if I'm wrong i will delete my acc


Ms wont release cod 2024 on ps, just warzone.

I think you'll regret that post

 

[yurinka]

Microsoft, Activision and Spencer already said it.

And obviously has nothing to do with regulations or stores, since MS will continue keeping their stores as they are and as Satya said even after the ABK acquisition MS will continue 3rd in both consoles and the whole gaming market and won't even have a 15% of market share.

They will continue every single new CoD on PS as they did with Minecraft, because it's where the CoD money is and with making it exclusive they would only 'steal' a small portion of players specially considering that game sales are more profitable than day one GP. They prefer instead the get the money from the PS sales to make more money and recoup their dozens of billions invested on acquisitions faster. Which is what a company would do.

I think it's time to call out Bloomberg, who again were lying and spreading fud to throw shit over Sony:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...few-call-of-duty-games-will-be-on-playstation

I'm sure Sony saying Destiny will keep being multiplatform was key.

Nah, Microsoft, Activision and Spencer already mentioned that these were their plans before the Bungie acquisition was announced.

If I'm Jimbo, I put a 10 year contract in front of phil tomorrow. You know he's going back on this as soon as the deal closes. Phil's Phear of the FTC is real

Why? PS is by far the main revenue source for the non-mobile CoD.

For each $1 that CoD generates on PS, MS gets 70% and Sony 30%. So if MS removes CoD from PS, MS is the one who would lose/leave in the table the biggest amount of money.

CoD represents a tiny part of the money that SIE/PS makes, and only a small % of PS players buy yearly CoD games. So to remove CoD from PS wouldn't change the market a lot, basically would mean MS/Acti would lose revenue/players/market share.

Sony also have a lot of successful FPS & MP hits there, and Sony in 2 or 3 years will have one or two new IPs from Bungie, another one from ex-Bungies and another one from ex CoD BO guys. Meaning that if CoD would leave PS most PS CoD players would remain on PS playing other games, some of them would play CoD on GP using the PC or Xbox they already have and only a small percentage of them would leave PS.

MS is more interested than Sony on keeping CoD on PS, because MS would lose more than Sony by making CoD Xbox exclusive. And MS wants to grow CoD instead of to shrink it. MS wants to recoup the $80B they invested on acquisitions, they aren't a charity. And they will make more money if their games are also on PS and Switch specially if we consider that the Xbox userbase should be around 60M the PS one around 120M and the Switch one around 100M.

Specially when considering that GP is a money sink and that putting these AAA games day one there let's say it isn't the most profitable business model, so they need to get revenue from other sources, as it would be selling their games in non-MS consoles too.

Probably to satisfy FTC

I think it's to satisfy MS's finantials instead, as happened with Minecraft.

 

[reksveks]

Getting to the policies, i am trying to figure out whats new since the following announcement

Microsoft shakes up PC gaming by reducing Windows store cut to just 12 percent

Microsoft is trying to entice developers to list more games in its store.

www.theverge.com

btw they have been using the term open app store since 2019

Microsoft’s new open model for Windows and HoloLens 2 impresses Epic’s Tim Sweeney

Microsoft has made significant commitments to being open for the third era of computing

www.theverge.com

 

[Zeroing]

It is too bad. I enjoy the tears.

Xbox is a division that has made a lot of mistakes, and could make some more. Hell they could blow up every bit of positive momentum they have going. After all this is the company that thought it was a good idea to double the rates of Live service just as a new system was launching. If you think I won't laugh at their expense as hard as I would anyone else, you've read me wrong.

If I was mean I would bookmark this! But I'm not because I was joking

 

[FrankWza]

Oh right, i get you now, to make an irrelevant point?

Well, two can play at that game.

Given that the majority of buyers are on the PS, it seems like the 3 million-ish sales of MLB on Xbox are literal peanuts in comparison. Goold ol' Phil Spencer. "If you can't beat em, make them buy from you".

You lost me. When did mlb sell 3 million on Xbox and what are you talking about. I was referring to the post you made about gp being free and ps being $70. It didn't have any bearing on mlb was my point.

 

[RoadHazard]

* if Sony lets us put our app store and Game Pass on Playstation

 

[Tripolygon]

Going by your logic starfeild would also be on PlayStation because why not.

That's a logic you pulled out of your arse. I don't even know what Starfield has to do with anything here.

Here we have a publicly-traded company buying another publicly-traded company for 70 billion. In order for the deal to be approved are making concessions "voluntarily" ahead of regulatory approval. The other was a private company being sold for 7 billion. One has fuck all to do with the other.

 

[SportsFan581]

If I was mean I would bookmark this! But I'm not because I was joking

Bookmark it for what?

I'll praise the things I like and laugh at the things I don't.

 

[chromhound]

so Nintendo will finally have Call of Duty

 

[adamsapple]

MS wouldn't be able to take it away anyway, those licenses have been sold. What you are doing is to fight semantics and look for loopholes, but then what you are saying is that all they need to do is to make any COD entry available on Playstation and they are already delivering on this blog post. As they don't say Call of Duty titles, they say Call of Duty title. So... they only need 1 CoD available, and the rest can go?

It doesn't make sense.

Exactly, they said almost exactly the same statements around the Bethesda acquisition that games currently out and/or games that were contracted will release and stay on the services.

This is exactly the same. Just worded in a lot more PR of a way cause this is a much bigger acquisition and they want FTC to get off their backs about it.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That's true, but what possible monopoly scenario would Microsoft have potentially created, if they provide the games on other platforms like PC and yet other devices via xCloud? Or would the regulators only be looking at this from a "traditional" console space of purpose-built gaming machines? If so, why?

Even if you have a choice of hardware platform, the scenario that the FTC would be looking it is what options do consumers have outside of Microsoft. Even if you can play COD on a Samsung phone instead of an Xbox your options is ultimately still Microsoft via xCloud.

 

[Zeroing]

Bookmark it for what?

MS next mistake to see if you laugh!

 

[RavenSan]

I mean, couldn't MS just say "Hey, these games are available on GamePass, and we'd love to put that on Sony's platform"

Right? Then it would be 'truthful' that they intend to publish these games on Playstation -- but if Sony says "no, we don't want that deal" -- well then, they tried.

 

[NickFire]

That's a logic you pulled out of your arse. I don't even know what Starfield has to do with anything here.

Here we have a publicly-traded company buying another publicly-traded company for 70 billion. In order for the deal to be approved are making concessions "voluntarily" ahead of regulatory approval. The other was a private company being sold for 7 billion. One has fuck all to do with the other.

Hey - be gentle. Some people are feeling like the soldiers who were stuck on islands for a decade after WW2 and didn't know the wars had ended. It's hard to accept the war ended when you were still fighting 10 minutes earlier.

 

[ChiefDada]

I like how so many here are going "I told you so!" and "I knew this was going to happen!". No. You knew jack shit. Neither PS nor Xbox fanboys knew, all you could do was guess/hope.

Relax. It's not a fanboy issue. If you understood the underlying economics and especially Microsoft's goal of expanding player reach, you would/should have come to the conclusion that CoD was going to remain multiplatform.

 

[SportsFan581]

MS next mistake to see if you laugh!

Oh, I will. Just look back at the Live price hike thread. I'm in there at the start saying that can't be right, that would be the dumbest thing ever. And then I'm in there later saying this is the dumbest thing I think they've done yet.

I'm completely equal opportunity. I just happen to be a cheapass bastard so I like GP and a lot of what they do in general and I prefer their consoles and how they handle BC software.

 

[plasmawave]

The FTC has spoken.

 

[Elios83]

It's so clear to me that I'm willing to bet, are you?

The only thing that is clear is how strongly you refuse this news.
This is an open letter to regulators, it's not a post on Twitter.
They're telling regulators on their website ahead of the regulation process that, on their own will, before they're asked or forced to, they're willing to make concessions in the name of fair competition so that the deal is approved.
If they're doing this it is not because they're kind but it's because their legal team has caught wind and determined that they would have a hard battle ahead otherwise.
So by making concessions before they're asked to they want to prove their intent is not to damage competition.
Once they'll settle with these rules it's not like they can go back, market is constantly regulated, this is not a game between kids.

And no I'm not betting on anything because at my age I've grown up and this news has zero personal effect on me.
I'm just commenting on the meaning of the news and it's obvious.

 

[Zeroing]

Even if you have a choice of hardware platform, the scenario that the FTC would be looking it is what options do consumers have outside of Microsoft. Even if you can play COD on a Samsung phone instead of an Xbox you still have to use xCloud.

This! I'm sure Apple will be looking at this deal very closely. I mean it's not everyday Apple looses a lawsuit about their closed ecosystem while the plaintiff is doing the same thing!

 

[Zok310]

The backlash from the other thread was already too strong. Nobody buys Phil's bullshit anymore besides adamsapple and the likes.

COD is a "Microsoft studio game" like God Of War and Horizon lol

Even Phil knows the FTC won't buy that for 1 second and he's already in full damage control mode Big Tech is shook

After the ARM and SoftBank news dropped this week they better be shooked. FTC ain't fucking around

 

[Thief1987]

Sorry, COD, you should return to your "shit-tier games" corner.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

I don't believe anything being said right now aside from the fact that MS will honor existing deals. Whether they intend on keeping the series on other consoles or not, I would take anything said in regards to that with a huge grain of salt until the deal is actually done and MS is allowed to speak freely of their intentions.

I'm not sure why these threads keep needing several pages of speculation.

 

[reksveks]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/02/09/microsoft-app-store-principles/

"Disappointing that Microsoft would lobby so hard for a law targeting its competitors, while carving out its own exception for Xbox, which requires its own billing system, doesn't allow loading of other stores and actually charges higher fees to developers," tweeted Kent Walker, president of global affairs and chief legal officer at Google and Alphabet.

Smith said Microsoft plans to adapt the Xbox app store to embrace all of the competition principles, though it will take time to do so because of technical limitations. Sarah Bond, corporate vice president of game ecosystem for Xbox, said the company wants to enable "store within a store experiences" but that it requires tech and business model innovation.

The bit bolded is the interesting bit and I have no problem with it, MS needs to put their money where their mouth is.

The FTC has spoken.

Its not the FTC .... Its Congress and the Open App Markets Act.

 

[Lupin25]

You're right, they're not saying anything about specific entries new or old.



I read this sentence and it seems pretty clear they're talking about keeping games available on PS and Nintendo beyond existing agreements so people who own them can continue to enjoy them, there's no mention of new projects being developed on those platforms.

I guess we'll have to wait till late 2023 early 2024 to find out how this pans out.

Lol what do you mean by, "keeping games available?"

Once a game is released to the public, it's launched and supported. How often do you see a game (and many more through a gen) taken off of the shelf (or offline) after years of being readily available on all platforms just to be exclusive?

The only thing you can logically extract from that quote (same as the one Topher posted), is that they'll continue making sequential games available for all platforms post agreements.

 

[reksveks]

This! I'm sure Apple will be looking at this deal very closely. I mean it's not everyday Apple looses a lawsuit about their closed ecosystem while the plaintiff is doing the same thing!

MS isn't the plaintiff though? Epic are technically.

This is MS saying that we support the Open App Market Act.

Why? To get that iOS gaming revenue

 

[jose4gg]

I mean, couldn't MS just say "Hey, these games are available on GamePass, and we'd love to put that on Sony's platform"

Right? Then it would be 'truthful' that they intend to publish these games on Playstation -- but if Sony says "no, we don't want that deal" -- well then, they tried.

Yea, Microsoft can go to Sony and ask for 70 billion, and if Sony refuses - well then, "Microsoft still tried"...

Now, seriously, no, this is clear, MS will leave COD multiplatform, but no pre-existing deal like 1 month DLC first in PS console will happen again in the future, official COD championships will be played in Xbox too, etc.

 

[Corndog]

ALL CoD or just Warzone?

What about Bethesda?

You already know the answer

 

[Robb]

I didn't think they would but that text seems pretty clear imo, although unsurprisingly it still leaves the door open to change their mind down the line.

Good news if true though!

 

[ShaikhCroft]

Who's gonna buy Call of Duty for 70 bucks when you can play it on GamePass day one with only a few bucks?

 

[oldergamer]

Don'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

Without these concessions it's obvious their legal team has determined that they would face a lot of resistance and they won't risk that the deal becomes an other nVidia-ARM situation for a bunch of multiplatform games that are only going to generate more money for them.

How is this making a concession when they have been saying this from the DAY it was announced?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I mean, couldn't MS just say "Hey, these games are available on GamePass, and we'd love to put that on Sony's platform"

Right? Then it would be 'truthful' that they intend to publish these games on Playstation -- but if Sony says "no, we don't want that deal" -- well then, they tried.

Lol that's exactly the type of shit anti-trust laws are for

 

[Zok310]

of the FTC that's spent half of annual expert witness case on just the Meta case this year?

I am interested in see what games actually come of PS5/6.

By the way, King makes 3BN in revenue and gives almost 1Bn to Apple and Google. That's the money that MS wants to fight over imo.

Fight Apple over King?
Apple will kick that shit off the App Store and not give a single flying fucking about the moms having babies when they find out they can't play candy crush on iPhone. Apple knows them moms ain't switching phones or platforms.

 

[NickFire]

Who's gonna buy Call of Duty for 70 bucks when you can play it on GamePass day one with only a few bucks?

Literally millions of people will buy it, and none of those purchases will take anything away from Gamepass. So no need to advertise it in every thread. It's safe, not going anywhere, and everyone can be happy.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Microsoft didn't take very long to decide.

 

[Alebrije]

Maybe future COD games will perform better on Microsoft ecosystem than Sony and Nintendo ones...like yep you can play COD 5000 on your PS5 but to get the best experience you need to jump to Series X....

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

After the ARM and SoftBank news dropped this week they better be shooked. FTC ain't fucking around

Yeh, look who's in charge of the FTC now. Big Tech, of which MS trades places with Apple as the biggest in the world, will surely be taken down a peg or two if they try to flex their power too much.

 

[Zeroing]

MS isn't the plaintiff though? Epic are technically.

This is MS saying that we support the Open App Market Act.

Why? To get that iOS gaming revenue

They were the only one who joined the lawsuit and got very vocal about it!

Yes they want that iOS share! Meanwhile Apple has partnered with Nintendo and Sony! They even sell dualsense controllers on their store!!! I find all this ironic!

 

[Dry_Kill_Logic_87]

Where do they say new releases or new games? They say beyond existing agreements, EXISTING, for games that exist, not new games

Its just like the continued support for elder scrolls online with dlcs and expansions, BEYOND the contract bethesda had with them

But NEW games, don't get your hopes up


COD (warzone) and some AB titles (overwatch) and maybe diablo 4?

you know what "beyond existing" means ?

 

[mansoor1980]

thread needs it

 

[Saber]

Not on the same level as CoD, few games are. But Diablo 4 will be big and it's an always online social game with cosmetic MTX out the ass. Seems like a lock for multiplat.

Diablo 3 did a pretty great damage on the loyality of fans, no way it has the same expectations as DB3 had before launch. And I'm telling as a fan myself, got real low interest on DB4 and as far I can tell, could be just another crap trap like Warcraft was doing huge dmg on credibility. If I would have to guess, this one could even be safe doing exclusivity.

 

[Orta]

Its possible they mean that they won't pull existing AB titles from their competitors stores when they complete the takeover.

Whatever the case they'll give the Xbox versions vastly preferential treatment.

Anyway, don't really care. COD is a load of wank.

 

[Muddy]

It isn't a loss. Essentially it is a change of assets.



Yeah....no. Microsoft isn't about to say something to regulators just to do a 180 after the deal is done. That is illegal.

They try that and they will never get another acquisition past the regulators.

Honestly why don't people accept that big multiplayer games will remain multiplatform including Destiny. Simply too much money and scrutiny involved to make hem exclusive.

 

[Banjo64]

Sorry but I don't believe him! But if true it's a sad day for the warriors who can't use COD on their never ending war…

Him! Having a sad day! Definitely!

 

[Throttle]

What I would like is the Bethesda VR games on PSVR2.

PCVR is extremely expensive where I live.

 

[M1chl]

Nah, Microsoft, Activision and Spencer already mentioned that these were their plans before the Bungie acquisition was announced.


Why? PS is by far the main revenue source for the non-mobile CoD.

For each $1 that CoD generates on PS, MS gets 70% and Sony 30%. So if MS removes CoD from PS, MS is the one who would lose/leave in the table the biggest amount of money.

CoD represents a tiny part of the money that SIE/PS makes, and only a small % of PS players buy yearly CoD games. So to remove CoD from PS wouldn't change the market a lot, basically would mean MS/Acti would lose revenue/players/market share.

Sony also have a lot of successful FPS & MP hits there, and Sony in 2 or 3 years will have one or two new IPs from Bungie, another one from ex-Bungies and another one from ex CoD BO guys. Meaning that if CoD would leave PS most PS CoD players would remain on PS playing other games, some of them would play CoD on GP using the PC or Xbox they already have and only a small percentage of them would leave PS.

MS is more interested than Sony on keeping CoD on PS, because MS would lose more than Sony by making CoD Xbox exclusive. And MS wants to grow CoD instead of to shrink it. MS wants to recoup the $80B they invested on acquisitions, they aren't a charity. And they will make more money if their games are also on PS and Switch specially if we consider that the Xbox userbase should be around 60M the PS one around 120M and the Switch one around 100M.


I think it's to satisfy MS's finantials, as happened with Minecraft.

Umm, there are now all about that GamePass growth, Minecraft is not even on it, it was different time I guess.

But again make sense, I am not disputing it.

 

[Elios83]

How is this making a concession when they have been saying this from the DAY it was announced?

No they didn't write a public letter to regulators on their website before.
And no they didn't commit to keep games multiplatform beyond existing agreements in a letter to regulators before.


People should just accept that in a regulated market big companies cannot do whatever they want and the same people as consumers should be happy that's the case regardless of who's doing acquisitions (MS. nVidia, Sony whatever).
This is the price they believe is fair to pay to make sure the deal is approved, they're telling regulators what they're willing to accept.
It's crystal clear.