Support NeoGAF

[ChorizoPicozo]

say that with PUBG mobile in mind

I said no. Because the dude wrote like he was making a revelatory assessment.

We all know mobile prints money

 

[PaintTinJr]

They probably didn't mention swapping OS to play games because it's not a thing people regularly do. Nobody swaps the OS every time they want to play a PC game.

Complaining that Windows requires a license is probably one of your dumber takes. Being expected to pay for a Windows license isn't a new thing. But buying a license is not a requirement to install or use Windows 10 or Windows 11. Some Microsoft services are not available unless you license your copy but in general Windows is completely usable aside from a nag messaging if your copy isn't licensed. You can still play games on an unlicensed copy of Windows.

You aren't following what I said and appear to not have read the CMA's Theories of Harm (TOH) and network effects of Azure, Window and their Xbox install base. Other Cloud operators are disadvantaged by not using Windows, is the assessment - Microsoft can also zero cost their own software and use the Desktop Windows in the cloud, that has DirectX update cadence advantages over the Server OS, which is the only license option offered for competitors. Competitors would rather use Linux with a WINE derivative such as Proton - as it is cheaper option - but because the DirectX runtime is proprietary, closed source and a closed standard, they are always playing catchup enhancing Proton versus native Desktop Windows with DirectX, making them look less capable to consumers too, as a further competitive disadvantage

Also, Windows 11 security needs are not vague in any way. Microsoft did not obscure the fact that TPM 2.0 is a requirement for installing and running Windows 11. It's also not generally an issue since TPM 2.0 has existed since 2014 and most PC hardware that has shipped since then supports it. It didn't initially work on Steam Deck, but it does now after Valve updated the system to support it. If the complaint is that people can't install Windows 11 on their Gateway 2000 machines because of TPM then I guess you've found a gotcha.

Linux not requiring TPM to run is not a gotcha, either. Modern Linux distros fully support TPM 1.2 and 2.0. Corporate and government security policies these days typically require TPM-compliant hardware and implementation of the hardware-based security it allows, such as full-disk encryption. Microsoft makes more money on Windows from corporate and government sales than from gaming. Still, TPM is generally not a barrier to gaming in general. Some developers have used TPM to enforce DRM but that's not a Microsoft requirement. Valorant requires it, but Valorant isn't made by Microsoft. That's a Riot Games/Tencent thing.

That is such an insincere argument when there is an Enterprise version of desktop Windows that fits that Corporate and government need perfectly for using TPM2.0,PTT, fTPM and 8th gen or newer Intel CPUs, or slightly older AMD CPUs. And Microsoft and Bethesda are in a contract with Riot Games according to another thread here about Phil making some weirdly worded statement about Game Pass being profitable for them, so Valorant not being on PlayStation 4 at least looks like a contract/moneyhat.

Your DirectX harming Vulkan and OpenGL argument is also weird. An interview from 2007 where a guy says another guy told him he had to find a way force adoption of DirectX is interesting, but reality has been that nobody is being forced to use it. Graphics hardware vendors are supporting both DirectX and Vulkan at the hardware level and including support in their hardware drivers for Windows. Microsoft hasn't been interfering with Vulkan implementation by GPU vendors nor have they used their position to force GPU vendors to favor DirectX. Do you have any actual evidence that Microsoft has hindered Vulkan implementation on Windows?

Actually, he wasn't talking about DirectX at that early point in his career, that was his initiation as a Microsoft man. here's the link to the full interview and another interesting quote.

https://web.archive.org/web/2022080...news.com/article/46338/alex-st-john-interview

"Alex St John: Yeah, in fact, Microsoft is still executing a strategy that I wrote the proverbial book on years ago. I'd like to think that they should've gotten [here] a lot faster than they did, but I'll tell you what the original playbook said. I wrote a strategy document in late 1994 called "Taking Fun Seriously." It outlines all of the strategic reasons for Microsoft to get into gaming; predictions as to how the gaming market will evolve; and what sort of strategy Microsoft should take in the console space. It's very interesting to read that document today because that's what they're doing today.

The whole purpose of making Direct X was to make the PC a leading game platform. I said that if Microsoft can port that architecture to a game console, then the PC would act as an anchor for a Microsoft console. What happens in the console business is that you have hardware developers such as Sega that come and go. They fail to make the proper transition from one hardware generation to the next because the hardware architecture changes too radically, and they almost have to start from scratch. I told Microsoft in [my document] that the strategy they should have is to intimately link a console strategy with the PC. So essentially, the strategy for creating Xbox was to intimately tie it to Windows tools and technology. That way developers could easily create content that could run on both platforms and would give Microsoft a simple way to transition their console hardware without losing momentum."

As for the disadvantage of OpenGL on Windows. Here's a link to the embracing Microsoft did with OpenGL back in 1997, and the native OpenGL libraries in Windows would need to be version 4.6 (current version) to be given equal status to DirectX, but in those 24 years it hasn't changed from version 1.1 (or 1.2 I forget) .

https://web.archive.org/web/2021091...nd-support-of-opengl-on-the-windows-platform/

Visual Studio is super successful with huge network effect as the CMA might say and it defaults all its programming solutions to its integrated DirectX SDK in all the templates, and even the integration of the game engine: Unity (which is very popular) defaults to using DirectX. Developing with OpenGL(or Vulkan I presume) with something like the SDL library is a ball ache on Windows, just to get a first triangle rendered, compared doing the same on Linux where OpenGL has first class citizen API status. On Windows OpenGL (and other APIs) rendering is still directed through DirectX's HAL(Hardware Abstraction Layer) runtime, so the rendering can be killed off if a draw call takes more than 3secs - as was the feature brought in with Vista's new driver model - so other graphics APIs have been marginalised on Windows for a few decades and need explicit binding and redistribution of libraries/dlls with the applications, despite OpenGL (mostly ES) being the ubiquitous standard on all graphics hardware and OSes except for Xboxes and Windows operating systems

 

[BennyBlanco]

if the deal gets approved, does ezekiel drop the laughing emoji on the OP, drop the mic and walk out? i'm leaning yes

 

[feynoob]

You aren't following what I said and appear to not have read the CMA's Theories of Harm (TOH) and network effects of Azure, Window and their Xbox install base. Other Cloud operators are disadvantaged by not using Windows, is the assessment - Microsoft can also zero cost their own software and use the Desktop Windows in the cloud, that has DirectX update cadence advantages over the Server OS, which is the only license option offered for competitors. Competitors would rather use Linux with a WINE derivative such as Proton - as it is cheaper option - but because the DirectX runtime is proprietary, closed source and a closed standard, they are always playing catchup enhancing Proton versus native Desktop Windows with DirectX, making them look less capable to consumers too, as a further competitive disadvantage


That is such an insincere argument when there is an Enterprise version of desktop Windows that fits that Corporate and government need perfectly for using TPM2.0,PTT, fTPM and 8th gen or newer Intel CPUs, or slightly older AMD CPUs. And Microsoft and Bethesda are in a contract with Riot Games according to another thread here about Phil making some weirdly worded statement about Game Pass being profitable for them, so Valorant not being on PlayStation 4 at least looks like a contract/moneyhat.

Actually, he wasn't talking about DirectX at that early point in his career, that was his initiation as a Microsoft man. here's the link to the full interview and another interesting quote.

https://web.archive.org/web/2022080...news.com/article/46338/alex-st-john-interview

"Alex St John: Yeah, in fact, Microsoft is still executing a strategy that I wrote the proverbial book on years ago. I'd like to think that they should've gotten [here] a lot faster than they did, but I'll tell you what the original playbook said. I wrote a strategy document in late 1994 called "Taking Fun Seriously." It outlines all of the strategic reasons for Microsoft to get into gaming; predictions as to how the gaming market will evolve; and what sort of strategy Microsoft should take in the console space. It's very interesting to read that document today because that's what they're doing today.

The whole purpose of making Direct X was to make the PC a leading game platform. I said that if Microsoft can port that architecture to a game console, then the PC would act as an anchor for a Microsoft console. What happens in the console business is that you have hardware developers such as Sega that come and go. They fail to make the proper transition from one hardware generation to the next because the hardware architecture changes too radically, and they almost have to start from scratch. I told Microsoft in [my document] that the strategy they should have is to intimately link a console strategy with the PC. So essentially, the strategy for creating Xbox was to intimately tie it to Windows tools and technology. That way developers could easily create content that could run on both platforms and would give Microsoft a simple way to transition their console hardware without losing momentum."

As for the disadvantage of OpenGL on Windows. Here's a link to the embracing Microsoft did with OpenGL back in 1997, and the native OpenGL libraries in Windows would need to be version 4.6 (current version) to be given equal status to DirectX, but in those 24 years it hasn't changed from version 1.1 (or 1.2 I forget) .

https://web.archive.org/web/2021091...nd-support-of-opengl-on-the-windows-platform/

Visual Studio is super successful with huge network effect as the CMA might say and it defaults all its programming solutions to its integrated DirectX SDK in all the templates, and even the integration of the game engine: Unity (which is very popular) defaults to using DirectX. Developing with OpenGL(or Vulkan I presume) with something like the SDL library is a ball ache on Windows, just to get a first triangle rendered, compared doing the same on Linux where OpenGL has first class citizen API status. On Windows OpenGL (and other APIs) rendering is still directed through DirectX's HAL(Hardware Abstraction Layer) runtime, so the rendering can be killed off if a draw call takes more than 3secs - as was the feature brought in with Vista's new driver model - so other graphics APIs have been marginalised on Windows for a few decades and need explicit binding and redistribution of libraries/dlls with the applications, despite OpenGL (mostly ES) being the ubiquitous standard on all graphics hardware and OSes except for Xboxes and Windows operating systems

 

[The_Mike]

Maybe a hint for the next TES6 to be exclusive.



cloud gaming is an option.

Are there still people expecting tes 6 to not be exclusive?

Starfield will be, would be surprise if tes 6 wouldn't.

if the deal gets approved, does ezekiel drop the laughing emoji on the OP, drop the mic and walk out? i'm leaning yes

I think his shrink will have to solve some serious traumas of his if the deal goes through.

 

[adamsapple]

On Google Stadia, Spencer says "We look at cloud as an option for people maybe when they're away from their console or PC or they're on a device, like a tablet, and want to play a game."

That is, quite frankly, the best way to approach it right now until the services get better to a point where native and cloud are indistinguishable.

thanks Ezekiel_

 

[feynoob]

That is, quite frankly, the best way to approach it right now until the services get better to a point where native and cloud are indistinguishable.

GHG have been saying this for years.

 

[Iced Arcade]

I love gamepass and love more content coming to it BUT I wouldn't be surprised if they get so big they start charging subscriptions inside of subscriptions like Amazon does.

"subscribe to core gamepass and for only $4 a month you can subscribe to the Bethesda, Activision etc channel each"

that alone makes me not want more acquisitions

 

[DarkMage619]

for like the 10th time.

Yup again Phil says CoD will be treated like Minecraft. You know what title he didn't say this about? Starfield. MS has never pulled any titles off a system with an established community. Comparing Starfield to CoD never made any sense especially since Phil was direct with his plans for CoD and PlayStation.

 

[feynoob]

MS has never pulled any titles off a system with an established community.

They will, if elderscroll 6 is exclusive, or any other established bethesda games. So I wont count on that one.

 

[adamsapple]

They will, if elderscroll 6 is exclusive, or any other established bethesda games. So I wont count on that one.

TES VI will probably be console exclusive. But CoD will not, for a long time anyway.

That much we can gauge from the commentary.

thanks Ezekiel_

 

[DarkMage619]

They will, if elderscroll 6 is exclusive, or any other established bethesda games. So I wont count on that one.

Why don't we just listen to what Phil Spencer has said. Has he at any point promised Elder Scrolls would be treated like Minecraft? Has he made any statement that it was coming to PlayStation like CoD? So many people are twisting themselves into knots trying to figure out what MS will do with certain titles. Wasn't this already explained?

 

[feynoob]

Why don't we just listen to what Phil Spencer has said. Has he at any point promised Elder Scrolls would be treated like Minecraft? Has he made any statement that it was coming to PlayStation like CoD? So many people are twisting themselves into knots trying to figure out what MS will do with certain titles. Wasn't this already explained?

That is the the problem. He stated, that they wont take games from the community. And existing bethesda games has community on PS. Aside of case by case, if the game is big, then he is going back on his words.

 

[IFireflyl]

Why don't we just listen to what Phil Spencer has said. Has he at any point promised Elder Scrolls would be treated like Minecraft? Has he made any statement that it was coming to PlayStation like CoD? So many people are twisting themselves into knots trying to figure out what MS will do with certain titles. Wasn't this already explained?

https://web.archive.org/web/2021111...ticle/xbox-phil-spencer-todd-howard-interview

Microsoft’s acquisition was helped by an unofficial partnership stretching back to 2002. Bethesda develops its games with Xbox as its lead console platform. And by securing such a strong conveyor of new games, Spencer has managed to spread his bets beyond a small but storied cluster of top tier franchises in Halo, Gears of War and Forza. “There was a time when we didn’t have a lot of first-party franchises,” Spencer says, “and now we do. It’s not just four games that we’re kind of alternating every year. And if one of them doesn’t hit, then we’re not like, ‘Boy, what are we doing?’”

For that reason, exclusivity has been the elephant in the room ever since the buyout. It’s been confirmed that next year’s Starfield, arguably the biggest game of 2022, will be Xbox and PC only. Spencer says he sees the same for The Elder Scrolls VI. In his eyes, Xbox is the whole experience. Xbox Live. Game Pass. Cloud Gaming. Friends lists. Save states. “It’s not about punishing any other platform, like I fundamentally believe all of the platforms can continue to grow,” he says. “But in order to be on Xbox, I want us to be able to bring the full complete package of what we have. And that would be true when I think about Elder Scrolls VI. That would be true when I think about any of our franchises.”

Less than a year ago Phil Spencer stated that his intention is that all of their franchises would be Xbox/PC exclusive.

 

[HoofHearted]

Did they make a fucking decision yet?

 

[IFireflyl]

Did they make a fucking decision yet?

We are months away from that. This is essentially just a, "No you! Wahhh!" thread.

 

[feynoob]

Did they make a fucking decision yet?

I got bad news for you. You have 8 months of hell with this discussion.

 

[Neofire]

Yup again Phil says CoD will be treated like Minecraft. You know what title he didn't say this about? Starfield. MS has never pulled any titles off a system with an established community. Comparing Starfield to CoD never made any sense especially since Phil was direct with his plans for CoD and PlayStation.

But he's doing it with Elders scrolls and people would be supremely naive to think he won't do it with any of the IPs they would gain from the Activision Blizzard buy out. All I hear about is CoD but A/B has many many IPs that have established communities on Playstation and Nintendo platforms. Some much longer than Xbox.

 

[DarkMage619]

That is the the problem. He stated, that they wont take games from the community. And existing bethesda games has community on PS. Aside of case by case, if the game is big, then he is going back on his words.

Phil never claimed all future Bethesda games would continue to come to PlayStation. He said case by case basis. He also did say that CoD would continue for years to come. He also said that they would continue to support titles with existing communities. Elder Scrolls 6 and Starfield are both single player games, were never announced for PlayStation, and currently have no active community on PlayStation.

https://web.archive.org/web/2021111...ticle/xbox-phil-spencer-todd-howard-interview

Less than a year ago Phil Spencer stated that his intention is that all of their franchises would be Xbox/PC exclusive.

What does any of this have to do with Phil Spencer claiming CoD would remain on PlayStation? CoD is being treated like Minecraft. Phil never made that claim about all Bethesda games.

But he's doing it with Elders scrolls and people would be supremely naive to think he won't do it with any of the IPs they would gain from the Activision Blizzard buy out. All I hear about is CoD but A/B has many many IPs that have established communities on Playstation and Nintendo platforms. Some much longer than Xbox.

Well Elder Scrolls made its console debut on Xbox. So if anything Xbox has the strongest claim to an existing community. It's all moot regardless because Phil has been clear about what is happening with CoD. There is no history of MS breaking gaming contracts so if MS says they will give CoD more time on PlayStation they will.

 

[xHunter]

Phil never claimed all future Bethesda games would continue to come to PlayStation. He said case by case basis. He also did say that CoD would continue for years to come. He also said that they would continue to support titles with existing communities. Elder Scrolls 6 and Starfield are both single player games, were never announced for PlayStation, and currently have no active community on PlayStation.

I am having a hard time following this logic. Does this mean you are ok with Sony moneyhatting FF7R, SF5 and FF16 since none of these titles have an active community on Xbox? Does this also mean every future moneyhat is also viable, like GTA6 because it has no active community?

 

[Banjo64]

I see Phil has again said CoD on Switch would be good, what’s stopping Acti from doing this? 100m install base, crap competitors like Apex - release a highly optimised CoD mobile and I think they’d make tonnes of cash.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I see Phil has again said CoD on Switch would be good, what’s stopping Acti from doing this? 100m install base, crap competitors like Apex - release a highly optimised CoD mobile and I think they’d make tonnes of cash.

Prediction

They'll port MW2 to the switch by making it look like shit and then DF will talk about how it's a miracle port

 

[GHG]

I am having a hard time following this logic. Does this mean you are ok with Sony moneyhatting FF7R, SF5 and FF16 since none of these titles have an active community on Xbox? Does this also mean every future moneyhat is also viable, like GTA6 because it has no active community?

Phil likes exclusives again now that he has some that people care about. All is fair in love and war.

 

[IFireflyl]

What does any of this have to do with Phil Spencer claiming CoD would remain on PlayStation? CoD is being treated like Minecraft. Phil never made that claim about all Bethesda games.

Sorry. I thought you could read words. I'll see if I can find a nice picture book to help you understand the very simple English I used, but it may take me some time.

 

[adamsapple]

I see Phil has again said CoD on Switch would be good, what’s stopping Acti from doing this? 100m install base, crap competitors like Apex - release a highly optimised CoD mobile and I think they’d make tonnes of cash.

Not much beyond the mindset of the management and higher ups who make the decisions, I suppose.

I said months ago that there's a lot more chance of an MS led Call of Duty appearing on Switch than ever before and it looks like that's gonna be a true prediction if this deal goes through.

Less than a year ago Phil Spencer stated that his intention is that all of their franchises would be Xbox/PC exclusive.

Ok but that is before the Activision deal and the numerous times he's said specifically about keeping CoD on PS platforms.

Neither of those statements are mutually exclusive and circumstances/deals can be changed over time when new things come to light.

Shinji Mikami said he will cut off his head if RE4 ever gets a PS2 release and last I checked he still had his head firmly attached to his shoulders.

thanks Ezekiel_

 

[feynoob]

The positive thing about this deal is that, Xbox won't chase the nft market.

 

[SportsFan581]

TES VI will probably be console exclusive. But CoD will not, for a long time anyway.

That much we can gauge from the commentary.

Why don't we just listen to what Phil Spencer has said. Has he at any point promised Elder Scrolls would be treated like Minecraft? Has he made any statement that it was coming to PlayStation like CoD? So many people are twisting themselves into knots trying to figure out what MS will do with certain titles. Wasn't this already explained?

Key difference between CoD and TES is the multi-player component, CoD needs to have a huge community of players online at any given second to be at its best. Single player games are different and a better fit for a console exclusive to sell your platform on. If someone is busy playing some other game on a different platform, they can always wait a bit and then start playing TES on Xbox.

But, like you've said DarkMage619, for best results just take MS at its word. So far they've stuck to it, they've said Starfield will be exclusive and it's looking like it is, and they've said CoD would be multi-plat.

 

[Pelta88]

I know that people lean heavily one way or the other but COD on Nintendo would need some serious base level downgrades, at the development level, to get that to fit.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Key difference between CoD and TES is the multi-player component, CoD needs to have a huge community of players online at any given second to be at its best. Single player games are different and a better fit for a console exclusive to sell your platform on. If someone is busy playing some other game on a different platform, they can always wait a bit and then start playing TES on Xbox.

But, like you've said DarkMage619, for best results just take MS at its word. So far they've stuck to it, they've said Starfield will be exclusive and it's looking like it is, and they've said CoD would be multi-plat.

Replace TES with another game that has a multiplayer componenet and it's still going to be exclusive

 

[SportsFan581]

I know that people lean heavily one way or the other but COD on Nintendo would need some serious base level downgrades, at the development level, to get that to fit.

Probably just be one of those cloud releases that they do on Switch. No changes needed at all.

Or the Switch will get CoD mobile.

 

[feynoob]

I know that people lean heavily one way or the other but COD on Nintendo would need some serious base level downgrades in development to get that to fit.

Wouldn't Nintendo have the new switch by that time?

 

[adamsapple]

Probably just be one of those cloud releases that they do on Switch. No changes needed at all.

Or the Switch will get CoD mobile.

The CoD game requirements on PC are pretty low. I don't see much of an issue getting a dedicated porting studio to make a bespoke version of those games for Switch.

 

[SportsFan581]

Replace TES with another game that has a multiplayer componenet and it's still going to be exclusive

From Bethesda? Sure I'll agree with that. I think the next Doom or Wolfenstein will be exclusive as well.

Not all multi-player games are created equally though. CoD is built by a machine of thousands of developers and likely requires the maximum returns to make that work. Doom and Wolfenstein are made by relatively small teams with much the same timelines as traditional first-party. I wasn't implying that first-party couldn't make multiplayer, MS has been doing Halo all along.

The CoD game requirements on PC are pretty low. I don't see much of an issue getting a dedicated porting studio to make a bespoke version of those games for Switch.

Probably true as long as they keep supporting the X1/PS4.

 

[feynoob]

The CoD game requirements on PC are pretty low. I don't see much of an issue getting a dedicated porting studio to make a bespoke version of those games for Switch.

-

pre-emptive thanks to Ezekiel_

If the new switch is like steam deck, then it would be able to run it.

 

[DarkMage619]

I am having a hard time following this logic. Does this mean you are ok with Sony moneyhatting FF7R, SF5 and FF16 since none of these titles have an active community on Xbox? Does this also mean every future moneyhat is also viable, like GTA6 because it has no active community?

It's business. In this case Phil has said CoD is coming to PlayStation for the current contract and there is a commitment to bring the title to the PlayStation for years after that. MS has decided to follow this path for games like Minecraft and CoD. They have also extended this philosophy to games like ESO and Fallout 76.

If a developer decides to not bring a game to platform it is what it is. No platform is guaranteed any title active community or not. Apparently new single player offline titles are a case where MS would prefer to keep them on Xbox and PC/Cloud. Phil was clear that Bethesda titles would be looked at on a case by case basis. He didn't say that about CoD.

 

[IFireflyl]

Ok but that is before the Activision deal and the numerous times he's said specifically about keeping CoD on PS platforms.

That stament was made when Microsoft was already going through aquisition terms with Activision Blizzard. The announcement that they were acquiring Activision Blizzard was made only two months after his statement.

Neither of those statements are mutually exclusive and circumstances/deals can be changed over time when new things come to light.

Which is exactly why Microsoft's word that Call of Duty will be on PlayStation isn't worth the paper that it's not even printed on.

I'm really not trying to argue with you though. I was correcting DarkMage619 's post where he stated Microsoft's, and Phil Spencer's, intent. Less than a year ago Phil Spencer stated that his intention is that all Microsoft-owned franchises be Xbox/PC exclusive. Now they're stating their intention is that Call of Duty remain on PlayStation. Intent is worthless because, as you said, it can change over time.

 

[adamsapple]

That stament was made when Microsoft was already going through aquisition terms with Activision Blizzard. The announcement that they were acquiring Activision Blizzard was made only two months after his statement.

The interview was done "ahead of Xbox's 20th anniversary" according to your article.

MS approached Activision with their deal on the 19th November. MS didn't even begin talking to activision when that interview article was published, let alone the days or weeks ago when it may have actually been conducted.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2022/02/22/microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-timeline.html

Which is exactly why Microsoft's word that Call of Duty will be on PlayStation isn't worth the paper that it's not even printed on.

I'm really not trying to argue with you though. I was correcting DarkMage619 's post where he stated Microsoft's, and Phil Spencer's, intent. Less than a year ago Phil Spencer stated that his intention is that all Microsoft-owned franchises be Xbox/PC exclusive. Now they're stating their intention is that Call of Duty remain on PlayStation. Intent is worthless because, as you said, it can change over time.

I get that, but between that article last year and now, Phil, Satya and various other Xbox/MS higher ups have said they will keep CoD on PS platforms.

It's literally not the same thing as them talking about Bethesda games at all.

 

[The_Mike]

Prediction

They'll port MW2 to the switch by making it look like shit and then DF will talk about how it's a miracle port

Are we talking about mw2 2022 or mw2 2009 port?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Are we talking about mw2 2022 or mw2 2009 port?

2022

 

[The_Mike]

2022

Well both could be plausible in running like garbage with lower graphics than their original release

 

[adamsapple]

Well both could be plausible in running like garbage with lower graphics than their original release

If they manage to port MW 2009 and make it look and run worse than its original release, that'll be a miracle in itself.

 

[Schmick]

I know that people lean heavily one way or the other but COD on Nintendo would need some serious base level downgrades, at the development level, to get that to fit.

Yes... but we are surely on our way to a Switch 2. Forget Switch for the moment... its the fact that MS are considering COD for a Nintendo console is big news.

 

[IFireflyl]

The interview was done "ahead of Xbox's 20th anniversary" according to your article.

MS approached Activision with their deal on the 19th November. MS didn't even begin talking to activision when that interview article was published, let alone the days or weeks ago when it may have actually been conducted.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2022/02/22/microsoft-activision-blizzard-acquisition-timeline.html

Yes, the interview occurred eight days prior to Microsoft approaching Activision Blizzard. While I concede to that, you have to admit that it was extremely likely that Phil Spencer already knew they were planning on approaching Activision Blizzard. They almost certainly didn't wake up on November 19th and say, "You know what? We could acquire Activision Blizzard. Let's go have a chat with them out of the blue!"

I get that, but between that article last year and now, Phil, Satya and various other Xbox/MS higher ups have said they will keep CoD on PS platforms.

It's literally not the same thing as them talking about Bethesda games at all.

Again, Phil stated that it was his intention that ALL Microsoft-owned franchises remain Xbox/PC exclusive. His comment was separate from Bethesda games being exclusive. This was his quote:

“There was a time when we didn’t have a lot of first-party franchises,” Spencer says, “and now we do. It’s not just four games that we’re kind of alternating every year. And if one of them doesn’t hit, then we’re not like, ‘Boy, what are we doing?’”

For that reason, exclusivity has been the elephant in the room ever since the buyout. It’s been confirmed that next year’s Starfield, arguably the biggest game of 2022, will be Xbox and PC only. Spencer says he sees the same for The Elder Scrolls VI. In his eyes, Xbox is the whole experience. Xbox Live. Game Pass. Cloud Gaming. Friends lists. Save states. “It’s not about punishing any other platform, like I fundamentally believe all of the platforms can continue to grow,” he says. “But in order to be on Xbox, I want us to be able to bring the full complete package of what we have. And that would be true when I think about Elder Scrolls VI. That would be true when I think about any of our franchises.”

First he mentioned Bethesda games specifically. Then he doubled down and stated that this was his intention for all of their franchises (e.g. not just Bethesda).

I'll say it again: Less than a year ago Phil Spencer stated that his intention is that all Microsoft-owned franchises be Xbox/PC exclusive. Now they're stating their intention is that Call of Duty remain on PlayStation. Intent is worthless because, as you said, it can change over time.

That's really not something you can argue with. In fact, you yourself already made that claim.

Ok but that is before the Activision deal and the numerous times he's said specifically about keeping CoD on PS platforms.

Neither of those statements are mutually exclusive and circumstances/deals can be changed over time when new things come to light.

You're in the camp of people saying that everyone should take Phil Spencer at his word that Call of Duty will remain on PlayStation. But you also admitted that circumstances and deals can be changed over time when new things to light. And we also see Phil Spencer's word from less than a year ago were he stated that he wanted all Microsoft-owned franchises to be Xbox/PC exclusive.

With the above in mind, how are people supposed to trust Phil Spencer's word when he has stated conflicting intentions less than a year apart from each other, and you yourself are saying that circumstances and deals can be changed over time?

I'm trying to approach this logically, not emotionally. I don't care about Call of Duty. What I think is a mistake is that you and others have argued that we can't trust Sony with their Bungie acquisition statements, but you lot are also saying that we need to trust Microsoft/Phil Spencer because they/he wouldn't lie about this, but then you also contradict yourself by saying that circumstances and deals can change when new things come to light, so a previously stated intention could change.

 

[adamsapple]

With the above in mind, how are people supposed to trust Phil Spencer's word when he has stated conflicting intentions less than a year apart from each other, and you yourself are saying that circumstances and deals can be changed over time?

It's simple and not complicated at all.

When he made the comments about Bethesda, the Activision acquisition was not even a thing. Now that it is and Call of Duty has become a hot button topic, unlike anything Bethesda put out, they've made numerous clarification statements about the status of Call of Duty's continued existence on other platforms.

Until something else happens in 3, 4, 5 years from now on, this is the only concrete bit of information we have to go on.

Worrying about hypothetical events that may or may not happen in 2028 and beyond is a fools errand right now.

If we're so hell bent on trusting Phil's word about Bethesda games being exclusive, we should also do the same when he says Call of Duty games will continue coming out on PS platforms.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

I know that people lean heavily one way or the other but COD on Nintendo would need some serious base level downgrades, at the development level, to get that to fit.

They could possibly release a cloud version like they have done with Guardians of the Galaxy and Plague Tale.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Worrying about hypothetical events that may or may not happen in 2028 and beyond is a fools errand right now.

Like, the whole point of the CMAs concerns are these hypotheticals

 

[adamsapple]

Like, the whole point of the CMAs concerns are these hypotheticals

* Worrying about hypothetical events that have no merit

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

* Worrying about hypothetical events that have no merit

Yes they have merit. Unless you somehow believe MS can't make COD exclusive

 

[DeepEnigma]

* Worrying about hypothetical events that have no merit

He changed his tune due to the CMA, the OG Trojan Horse was originally cut the game off going into a new gen, making it a launch exclusive in effect, hoping to siphon another platforms player base when a new gen launches. It was why Jim Ryan came out and said something, spilling the beans, when Phil was playing his war with words.

 

[adamsapple]

Yes they have merit. Unless you somehow believe MS can't make COD exclusive

They can make it exclusive, it would be their prerogative to do so if Activision becomes first party.

But they've said numerous times they don't intend to do that.

"We want to treat it like Minecraft" is the most clear indication that they will keep it on other consoles long term.

Anything beyond is just some users not believing him out of sheer stubbornness.