Support NeoGAF

[SportsFan581]

Christ alive man, this is literally what Phil Harrison told people (yes I'll quote it a 3rd time, maybe you'll actually read it this time):

Harrison "pointed specifically to Microsoft's buying spree and planned acquisition of Bethesda Software later this year as one of the factors that had made Google decide to close the book on original game development."

Everyone knows the quote. It's just you have to be a bit mentally touched in order to believe that the acquisition of Bethesda could have had anything to do with Google making games with the teams they already had working for them. That's the same thing as if Sony suddenly closed down Naughty Dog because of the Bethesda deal. One has absolutely no involvement or relationship with the other. Plus, the possibility of the Bethesda games being removed from the table for Stadia should have incentivized in-house development more than anything else. Moral of the story, Phil Harrison either being an idiot running the project or doing a little spin for blame shifting purposes (trying to preserve that resume), I assume a bit of both, doesn't amount to much.

 

[adamsapple]

You should read some of Sonys bitching about how they will starve to death if this deal goes through.

^Both sides to all regulatory bodies right now.

Good guy MS.

Letting Sony know they *can* still compete without CoD.

 

[bender]

 

[ZehDon]

If you don't have Ebay in Australia I'm sure there's an equivalent, I'm sure you'll be able to find similarly specced builds there for reasonable prices.

Regardless, I think we might be talking about two different things here ...a PC version also exists and that the minimum requirements allow for builds that are cheaper than those prices to play the game.

No, we're talking about exactly the same thing: cheapest way to play COD. If you want to play COD, console is simply the cheapest option. You're incorrectly stating that PC is the cheapest place and it demonstrably isn't.

COD on Game Pass would be cheaper still - which is why Sony blocked it: they want to make sure everyone has to pay full price for the title so they can't be undercut, which is why that practice was called "anti-competitive": Sony is forcing non-Sony customers to pay more when they don't have to.

 

[bluecowboys]

And your point was Microsoft supports stadia unlike Sony.

They don't. They look out for their own business and Sony does the same

MS didn't take Bethesda games off of Stadia. I'm sure MS would be more open to put their online games/services on other platforms than Sony would. MS was the first of the three big console manufactures to support PC gaming and they kept Minecraft, ESO, fallout 76, and more on all platforms. I also guarantee they are going to do the same for COD even when the contract ends with Sony.

 

[Black_Stride]

Good guy MS.

Letting Sony know they *can* still compete without CoD.

Better yet.
Tell Sony we will give you COD...........till the contract lapses (is it two or 3 years)
You wont starve, your fans arent suddenly going to decide they dont like Playstations because Call of Duty has Xbox Game Studios splash screen at the start.
Quit your bitching, youve got more than enough games on your platform, many console exclusive to keep going without ABK.

Also Microsoft........not make a COD game till the contract lapses.

 

[adamsapple]

Everyone knows the quote. It's just you have to be a bit mentally touched in order to believe that the acquisition of Bethesda could have had anything to do with Google making games with the teams they already had working for them. That's the same thing as if Sony suddenly closed down Naughty Dog because of the Bethesda deal. One has absolutely no involvement or relationship with the other. Plus, the possibility of the Bethesda games being removed from the table for Stadia should have incentivized in-house development more than anything else. Moral of the story, Phil Harrison either being an idiot running the project or doing a little spin for blame shifting purposes (trying to preserve that resume), I assume a bit of both, doesn't amount to much.

Harrison was President of SCE at the time of the disastrous PS3 launch, joined GaiKai a little while before it got sold off, was a part of MS for the disastrous Xbox One launch and spearheaded the Stadia failure and blaming a third party acquisition for closing their own first party studios.

This guy has a spectacular career of failures. It's surprising he keeps getting into such high positions.

I wouldn't take anything he says at face value at all.

 

[Gone]

When will the CMA stop Silent Hill 2 Remake from being a PS exclusive?

 

[GHG]

Everyone knows the quote. It's just you have to be a bit mentally touched in order to believe that the acquisition of Bethesda could have had anything to do with Google making games with the teams they already had working for them. That's the same thing as if Sony suddenly closed down Naughty Dog because of the Bethesda deal. One has absolutely no involvement or relationship with the other. Plus, the possibility of the Bethesda games being removed from the table for Stadia should have incentivized in-house development more than anything else. Moral of the story, Phil Harrison either being an idiot running the project or doing a little spin for blame shifting purposes (trying to preserve that resume), I assume a bit of both, doesn't amount to much.

Money to run internal teams doesn't grow at will on trees.

If they had reason to believe the acquisition would prevent them from getting certain games that would help them attract more customers (which leads to a revision in revenue forecasts) then the outcome is often a reduction in CapEx.

There is a knock on effect when these things happen (which is why deals like this get investigated when they can and why the CMA are saying a number of things that they have), it's just that you guys don't want to see it.

No, we're talking about exactly the same thing: cheapest way to play COD. If you want to play COD, console is simply the cheapest option. You're incorrectly stating that PC is the cheapest place and it demonstrably isn't.

COD on Game Pass would be cheaper still - which is why Sony blocked it: they want to make sure everyone has to pay full price for the title so they can't be undercut, which is why that practice was called "anti-competitive": Sony is forcing non-Sony customers to pay more when they don't have to.

COD would also be on PC gamepass if Microsoft were to aquire them and the Sony marketing clause didn't exist.

They are not forcing anyone to do anything, people still have plenty of choice across all budget levels when it comes to options available to play COD. The way you guys are talking is as if COD isn't the best selling game every year and that it needs help via gamepass and cloud in order to be successful. The market has spoken.

 

[adamsapple]

Better yet.
Tell Sony we will give you COD...........till the contract lapses (is it two or 3 years)
You wont starve, your fans arent suddenly going to decide they dont like Playstations because Call of Duty has Xbox Game Studios splash screen at the start.
Quit your bitching, youve got more than enough games on your platform, many console exclusive to keep going without ABK.

Also Microsoft........not make a COD game till the contract lapses.

Based on their posts here, some Gaf members will definitely do that

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

MS didn't take Bethesda games off of Stadia.

Sony doesn't pull games from storefronts either. Your point?

I'm sure MS would be more open to put their online games/services on other platforms than Sony would.

And where are all these services MS are supporting with their games then?

 

[Topher]

And where are all these services MS are supporting with their games then?

Sony is paying Microsoft to keep their games off those services as well.

 

[The_Mike]

COD is Activision's doing, just like all the other games that got removed

So you're saying Activision just gave the streaming rights to Sony for free in the contract because they are nice guys and not because Sony paid for it?

Sony paid for it, Activision accepted it.
If Sony isn't the bad guy in this particular case, then you can't really blame anyone in the industry for their doings.

 

[bluecowboys]

1. Sony doesn't pull games from storefronts either. Your point?



2. And where are all these services MS are supporting with their games then?

1. That is because Sony prevents the games from going to the subscription services in the first place.

2. MS tried to put game pass on playstation, but they refused it. MS did put game pass on PC and pretty much any modern device with a screen. Sorry Sony is anti consumer, they also blocked EA subscription service for a while too.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So you're saying Activision just gave the streaming rights to Sony for free in the contract because they are nice guys and not because Sony paid for it?

Sony paid for it, Activision accepted it.
If Sony isn't the bad guy in this particular case, then you can't really blame anyone in the industry for their doings.

Reading is hard, I know, but do your best

 

[MScarpa]

81 pages and still going huh? Can't wait for this to be finished one way or the other.

 

[Neofire]

Sorry bro, these are just the facts! I don't want more consolidation in the market, but Acti was and still will be looking to sell if MS doesn't pick it up. Would you rather ActiBlizz games be Netflix, Tencent, or Amazon exclusive? At least MS releases games on PC.

When did Netflix, Tencent or Amazon release a console? I actually wouldn't mind if they bought it because they would more than likely keep all Activision's IPs multiplatform unlike Microsoft which has shown they will make games exclusive(when they were previously not) after they aquire....... Bethesda ring any bells

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

1. That is because Sony prevents the games from going to the subscriptions in the first place.

The Bethesda games are not part of Stadia's subscription. Do I need to make this any clearer for you?

2. MS tried to put game pass on playstation

How the fuck is that supporting other services

 

[The_Mike]

Reading is hard, I know, but do your best

Reading is hard if your content in your posts are lacking context.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Reading is hard if your content in your posts are lacking context.

The context of the post lies in the chain of responses. Give them a read and come back

 

[adamsapple]

The Bethesda games are not part of Stadia's subscription. Do I need to make this any clearer for you?

TSO is/was in Stadia Pro

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

TSO is/was in Stadia Pro

Yeah, pre acquisition. Not after

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

So Playstation pays to keep COD off Game Pass yet going through my PS Plus library I have picked up 5 COD games for free

Probably talked about though because I simply am not reading every page

 

[bluecowboys]

1. The Bethesda games are not part of Stadia's subscription. Do I need to make this any clearer for you?



2. How the fuck is that supporting other services

1. https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/agegate?URL=/en-us/news/post/58303 Here you go.

2. All of the GAAS (games as a service) on game pass that could benefit from being on more platforms for starters. Not to mention it could potentially benefit the GAAS playstation games that Jim Ryan is developing too.

 

[Topher]

So Playstation pays to keep COD off Game Pass yet going through my PS Plus library I have picked up 5 COD games for free

Probably talked about though because I simply am not reading every page

Those have been added over the years to the monthly free PS+ games.

 

[GHG]

So Playstation pays to keep COD off Game Pass yet going through my PS Plus library I have picked up 5 COD games for free

Probably talked about though because I simply am not reading every page

I've also received a number of COD titles on PC via humble bundle (now choice). What's your point?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

1. https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/agegate?URL=/en-us/news/post/58303 Here you go.

Added before the acquisition. Was then pulled a month later

2. All of the GAAS (games as a service) on game pass that could benefit from being on more platforms for starters. Not to mention it could potentially benefit the GAAS playstation games that Jim Ryan is developing too.

Once again, putting your service on competing platforms is not supporting competing services. Weird way to change the goal post

 

[adamsapple]

So Playstation pays to keep COD off Game Pass yet going through my PS Plus library I have picked up 5 COD games for free

Probably talked about though because I simply am not reading every page

Based on their recent trends they're more than happy to let stuff go on PC related platforms as long as its not the Xbox console game pass or game pass on PC.

Even Death Stranding came to GP PC via convoluted means of another distributor holding the PC publishing rights.

 

[ReBurn]

81 pages and still going huh? Can't wait for this to be finished one way or the other.

It's rather enjoyable.

 

[The_Mike]

The context of the post lies in the chain of responses. Give them a read and come back

Forgive me if Im missing the bigger picture, but I could see you guys were primarily talking about cod, wow and destiny 2.

Which reminded me that destiny 2 including all expansions were on gamepass until it got removed in December, a month before the reveal of Bungie being bought by Sony.

I did some digging, and apparently the reason wow got removed from geforce now is because they were violating their own rules, since the eula says its not legal to play wow on a cloud service.

We all know Sony is blocking call of duty on gamepass, like it was the case with resident Evil.

But while there's no evidence for Destiny 2, is simply wouldn't make sense for Sony to allow a game from a first party developer to appear on gamepass, while they are money hatting third party games.

Destiny 2 got removed from the service around the time the deal were closing.

 

[Topher]

Based on their recent trends they're more than happy to let stuff go on PC related platforms as long as its not the Xbox console or game pass on PC.

What Call of Duty has not been on Xbox?

 

[adamsapple]

What Call of Duty has not been on Xbox?

* I meant xbox console game pass or PC game pass

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Forgive me if Im missing the bigger picture, but I could see you guys were primarily talking about cod, wow and destiny 2.

Which reminded me that destiny 2 including all expansions were on gamepass until it got removed in December, a month before the reveal of Bungie being bought by Sony.

I did some digging, and apparently the reason wow got removed from geforce now is because they were violating their own rules, since the eula says its not legal to play wow on a cloud service.

We all know Sony is blocking call of duty on gamepass, like it was the case with resident Evil.

But while there's no evidence for Destiny 2, is simply wouldn't make sense for Sony to allow a game from a first party developer to appear on gamepass, while they are money hatting third party games.

Destiny 2 got removed from the service around the time the deal were closing.

It was just about the reason why COD and every other game was removed from Geforce Now. The reason was ActBliz didn't want to be part of the official release. Nothing to do with the EULA

 

[Topher]

* I meant xbox console game pass or PC game pass

Ok, yeah. If Sony has a marketing deal then more than likely Sony and the game's publisher have agreed not to put that game on Game Pass (or the services) for a period of time. This much we know. All about maximizing sales, which is the entire point of the deal.

 

[ZehDon]

COD would also be on PC gamepass if Microsoft were to aquire them and the Sony marketing clause didn't exist.

They are not forcing anyone to do anything, people still have plenty of choice across all budget levels when it comes to options available to play COD. The way you guys are talking is as if COD isn't the best selling game every year and that it needs help via gamepass and cloud in order to be successful. The market has spoken.

The bolded part is the problem people are highlighting. Sony absolutely is forcing people to pay full price for COD: they're actively and specifically preventing it from being added to subscription services - listed by name - services that provide cheaper access to the game. And no, I'm not talking as if COD isn't successful. For several posts now, I've talked about getting the cheapest access to COD, something that directly benefits the customer - benefits Sony is actively preventing, because they don't want to compete. Hence the claims of Sony being "anti-competitive". And so, we see the market has spoken - Sony didn't like what it said, so they're trying to pretend it didn't say it.

 

[Jimmyisback]

81 pages and still going huh? Can't wait for this to be finished one way or the other.

Nah it won't be over. Hundreds of threads will be created for it. Just imagine, however unlikely, that the deal won't go through; You'll still have a hungry Microsoft willing to spend that 70+ billion on even more studios, exclusivity and ips to grow game pass. You will see constant whinining by the usual suspects as well. It won't end. Not by a longshot.

 

[GHG]

The bolded part is the problem people are highlighting. Sony absolutely is forcing people to pay full price for COD: they're actively and specifically preventing it from being added to subscription services - listed by name - services that provide cheaper access to the game. And no, I'm not talking as if COD isn't successful. For several posts now, I've talked about getting the cheapest access to COD, something that directly benefits the customer - benefits Sony is actively preventing, because they don't want to compete. Hence the claims of Sony being "anti-competitive". And so, we see the market has spoken - Sony didn't like what it said, so they're trying to pretend it didn't say it.

This is all running under the assumption that Activision would have been willing to negotiate a deal for their annual best seller to be on gamepass. If we look at other other publishers that own IP with the capability of competing with COD in terms of sales they don't seem to be so keen, regardless of any clauses that may or may not exist. At the end of the day these companies take care of themselves and if they felt that the opportunity to be on gamepass was greater than the 3rd party marketing deal Sony was offering them for COD then they wouldn't have signed it.

My belief is that the franchise is only as good as it is on a consistent basis (even though it's not for me personally I can still recognise they are well crafted games) in part due to the amount of money they are able to make via full priced sales. They rarely put the latest entry in the franchise on sale, that should tell you everything you need to know (along with the fact that they don't want any of their property on Cloud services in a way that doesn't result in extra sales revenue for them).

They have huge studios, ridiculous budgets, all of that gets put in jeopardy if they sacrifice revenue chasing a small % of people who don't have money (or had money but not enough interest in the first place). I know it might sound harsh, but it is what it is - they already have a F2P version in addition to a native mobile version for those who don't want to purchase the game and/or don't have anything but a mobile to play on.

As a franchise they already have all bases covered so what exactly would the pitch be if you're Microsoft and you want to persuade them to put their latest mainline title on gamepass day one? Anyway, this might now end up being Microsoft's problem to solve and believe me, I'm interested to see how that goes should the deal go through. It will be the ultimate litmus test.

But I'll say one thing, if it turns out Microsoft has similar clauses in their contracts with regards to competing subscription services I'm on all of your necks.

 

[Topher]

The bolded part is the problem people are highlighting. Sony absolutely is forcing people to pay full price for COD: they're actively and specifically preventing it from being added to subscription services - listed by name - services that provide cheaper access to the game.

Not just Sony. Activision Blizzard as well. Clearly AB isn't interested in giving "cheaper access". They, or more specifically, their stockholders, want to maximize revenue from their flagship title. That's why they are maximizing sales and that's why they have a marketing agreement.

Any game on Game Pass is there because Microsoft made it worth the publisher's while. Seems obvious to me that Microsoft is not going to lay out the amount of money it would require to secure a third party game like Call of Duty. Otherwise, Game Pass would be brimming with recently released AAA titles from the past few years. But that's not the case.

 

[adamsapple]

But I'll say one thing, if it turns out Microsoft has similar clauses in their contracts with regards to competing subscription services I'm on all of your necks.

Hell hath no fury like a Hassan scorned.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

COD may not appear on Game Pass ‘for a number of years’ due to a prior Activision-Sony deal | VGC

Microsoft has claimed it’s bound by “prior agreements” to keep COD off the service…

www.videogameschronicle.com

Microsoft recently published its response to the Competition and Markets Authority's (CMA) decision to review the $69 billion merger due to several concerns, including the impact of competition in the console, game streaming and subscription spaces.

In it, a footnote references a tweet from Phil Spencer alluding to "prior agreements" between Activision and Sony which would prohibit Microsoft from adding Call of Duty to Game Pass, even in the event of the acquisition being approved.

"The agreement between Activision Blizzard and Sony includes restrictions on the ability of Activision Blizzard to place Call of Duty titles on Game Pass for a number of years," the footnote reads.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

This will probably be moved to the OT. But spending money to block content instead of funding content. I hate it so much.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

This will probably be moved to the OT. But spending money to block content instead of funding content. I hate it so much.

I'm...pretty sure Xbox does the same with their Gamepass deals...and Netflix, HBO, etc.

This is everyone on their services.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

So Playstation pays to keep COD off Game Pass yet going through my PS Plus library I have picked up 5 COD games for free

Probably talked about though because I simply am not reading every page

Did you get Advanced Warfare and Ghosts from PS Plus? No? Why you think? Because MS had the marketing rights.

We got the ones after when Sony got the contract. MS has the same kind of clause.

 

[quest]

I'm...pretty sure Xbox does the same with their Gamepass deals...and Netflix, HBO, etc.

This is everyone on their services.

I need proof hbo and netflix spend money to keep content off competitors they don't have on their service. It makes zero sense for netflix to pay to keep content off hbo max when they don't have it on their sevice. That money would be spent making content or buying content. If Sony put the games on PlayStation extra it be a different story. These deals are just to try and cripple the growth of subscription and streaming services not add content to PlayStation eco system.

 

[DForce]

The bolded part is the problem people are highlighting. Sony absolutely is forcing people to pay full price for COD: they're actively and specifically preventing it from being added to subscription services - listed by name - services that provide cheaper access to the game. And no, I'm not talking as if COD isn't successful. For several posts now, I've talked about getting the cheapest access to COD, something that directly benefits the customer - benefits Sony is actively preventing, because they don't want to compete. Hence the claims of Sony being "anti-competitive". And so, we see the market has spoken - Sony didn't like what it said, so they're trying to pretend it didn't say it.

That's no evidence that Activision wanted to put Call of Duty on a subscription service at launch, or even considered it WHEN the marketing deal was made.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

When did Netflix, Tencent or Amazon release a console? I actually wouldn't mind if they bought it because they would more than likely keep all Activision's IPs multiplatform unlike Microsoft which has shown they will make games exclusive(when they were previously not) after they aquire....... Bethesda ring any bells

What about STREAMING PLATFORMS!

Exclusivity will go beyond consoles. Unfortunately.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

I'm...pretty sure Xbox does the same with their Gamepass deals...and Netflix, HBO, etc.

This is everyone on their services.

I hate it when they do it too.

 

[Lupin25]

I need proof hbo and netflix spend money to keep content off competitors they don't have on their service. It makes zero sense for netflix to pay to keep content off hbo max when they don't have it on their sevice. That money would be spent making content or buying content. If Sony put the games on PlayStation extra it be a different story. These deals are just to try and cripple the growth of subscription and streaming services not add content to PlayStation eco system.

This is the kind of reply you'd expect from a consumer and gamepass is great but…

A company won't simply give its competition a profitable advantage and the amount of coin it would cost Sony to put COD on PS Plus day one would be astronomical. Much more than their current marketing deals.

COD is an IP owned by the biggest publisher in the world and has been a consistent system-seller for over a decade. You can't just "replace" that impact lol.

Sony, nor MS has never been compelled to fund a FPS like it, because COD has mostly been third-party.

 

[ComputerBlue]

I need proof hbo and netflix spend money to keep content off competitors they don't have on their service. It makes zero sense for netflix to pay to keep content off hbo max when they don't have it on their sevice. That money would be spent making content or buying content. If Sony put the games on PlayStation extra it be a different story. These deals are just to try and cripple the growth of subscription and streaming services not add content to PlayStation eco system.

There was a reason why Seinfeld never came to Netflix until their deal with Hulu expired, and a reason why it's only on Netflix now.

This is so common in every single industry, you've got to be the least observant person to not notice it, McDonald's has Coca-Cola, Taco Bell has Pepsi because of a deal in place between Coke and McDonald's. It's everywhere.

You've never gone grocery shopping to multiple stores because certain products you want aren't carried by every store because they've got an exclusive deal with another one just down the street?

Netflix (NFLX) Gets Exclusive Deal to Stream Sony Picture Movies

Netflix (NFLX) expands content library with an exclusive five-year streaming agreement for Sony Pictures Entertainment's theatrical titles starting in 2022.

ca.finance.yahoo.com

TBS to be Exclusive Home of the National League Throughout 2021 MLB Postseason

TBS will be the exclusive home of the National League throughout the 2021 MLB Postseason, beginning with the National League Wild Card presented by Hankook

pressroom.warnermedia.com

How Coca-Cola got near-exclusive access to UBC's beverage market

This means that while UBC won’t be promoting Coca-Cola, they’ll still be offering “healthy” products like Coke Zero and Diet Nestea to consumers at the university.

ubyssey.ca

 

[DForce]

I need proof hbo and netflix spend money to keep content off competitors they don't have on their service. It makes zero sense for netflix to pay to keep content off hbo max when they don't have it on their sevice. That money would be spent making content or buying content. If Sony put the games on PlayStation extra it be a different story. These deals are just to try and cripple the growth of subscription and streaming services not add content to PlayStation eco system.

Where do you think their millions of dollars are being spent?

HBO, Netflix, Peacock....hell, even cable networks make deals to keep content off competitors streaming services/network.


This should be common knowledge.