Support NeoGAF

[reinking]

That sums up this community perfectly.

I was just going for the thread but you are probably more accurate.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Nope. I never once said anything about x, y, or z. I said plainly that a 3rd party title isn't necessary for a console to be competitive. I specifically called out CoD as just such a title. I've made several comparisons to Nintendo and Microsoft as companies that were denied a 3rd party game and continued to be competitive. You can either address my plainly spoken point or continue to go off on a tangent about algebra.

The PlayStation brand is very strong and doesn't need CoD to be successful. Nintendo proves it.

There's x, y and z.

Not much point in playing dumb at this point. Show some dignity

 

[feynoob]

Nope. I never once said anything about x, y, or z. I said plainly that a 3rd party title isn't necessary for a console to be competitive. I specifically called out CoD as just such a title. I've made several comparisons to Nintendo and Microsoft as companies that were denied a 3rd party game and continued to be competitive. You can either address my plainly spoken point or continue to go off on a tangent about algebra.

Xbox failed, due to lacking in certain game genre, which would have boosted the console to 70+m.

3rd party are what makes those system sell fast.

PS with its 115+m consoles can only account 17% for their exclusives. Take away big popular 3rd party games, and you are starting to lose userbase.

IF COD has 10m userbase on PS, that means Sony would lose 10 userbase, and PS+ would be 37m, instead of 47m. Since COD is a MP game, which needs PS+.
That is how much damage you are looking at, if COD is ever removed from PS.

 

[DarkMage619]

There's x, y and z.

Not much point in playing dumb at this point. Show some dignity

Playing dumb? It's the same conclusion CADE came up with. I don't lose any dignity just because I think they made an excellent point. Certainly better than any point I've seen anyone else make. Unless you have an actual point there isn't much point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Thirty7ven]

They keep flip flopping it's hilarious, from GP to Xcloud to oh no uh that's not cool? Mobile then! China! Culture shift! Workers Rights! Bringing gaming to more people!

🗑

 

[DarkMage619]

Xbox failed, due to lacking in certain game genre, which would have boosted the console to 70+m.

3rd party are what makes those system sell fast.

PS with its 115+m consoles can only account 17% for their exclusives. Take away big popular 3rd party games, and you are starting to lose userbase.

IF COD has 10m userbase on PS, that means Sony would lose 10 userbase, and PS+ would be 37m, instead of 47m. Since COD is a MP game, which needs PS+.
That is how much damage you are looking at, if COD is ever removed from PS.

First and off CoD won't be removed from PlayStation. Secondly PlayStation losing some customers isn't the regulatory agencies responsibility to protect. Only overall competition and consumers should be protected. Sony has some of the best first party games in the business, they would be just fine in a hypothetical removal of CoD.

 

[feynoob]

First and off CoD won't be removed from PlayStation. Secondly PlayStation losing some customers isn't the regulatory agencies responsibility to protect. Only overall competition and consumers should be protected. Sony has some of the best first party games in the business, they would be just fine in a hypothetical removal of CoD.

The same would be said to Sony, if they buy EA.

Its regulatory job to ensure, the purchaser doesnt harm the competition.

I understand you like Xbox, but this is serious matter. A trillion dollar company is not your friend. They showed their face during Xbox one E3, by giving gamers a TV ad, on a gaming event. Suites arent your friend. They want your wallet. And $68.7b proves that point.

Incase you want to know how much is that. That money can buy you entire nintendo.

 

[feynoob]

They keep flip flopping it's hilarious, from GP to Xcloud to oh no uh that's not cool? Mobile then! China! Culture shift! Workers Rights! Bringing gaming to more people!

🗑

That is something I dont get from MS.
How are you going to reach more audience, when you are essentially giving up 100+m userbase?
Consoles are limited. Cloud gaming isnt there. Since it needs time in the oven.

This is just sleezy way of manipulating audience.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Can regulators be faster? I'm like... waiting for the next PlayStation anticompetitive showcase.

 

[adamsapple]

That is something I dont get from MS.
How are you going to reach more audience, when you are essentially giving up 100+m userbase?
Consoles are limited. Cloud gaming isnt there. Since it needs time in the oven.

This is just sleezy way of manipulating audience.

Not necessarily. CoD isn't going away from PS, but under MS publishing it will be more likely to come to Switch and definitely on Xcloud, game pass etc. Which means it'll have at least 3 massive new user streams accessible to it along with what's already there.

Fortnite became playable on Xcloud in May and by July it had amassed 4 million unique players on Xcloud including 1 million who were brand new to the Xbox eco system.

Xbox Cloud Gaming's free Fortnite port has already been played by over 4 million players

According to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Fortnite already has over four million players on Xbox Cloud Gaming, just a couple of months in.

9to5google.com

Yes, we all like to shit on streaming games but for a casual game like this, imagine how many more millions Warzone will pull.

That's how you reach more audience.

 

[feynoob]

Not necessarily. CoD isn't going away from PS, but under MS publishing it will be more likely to come to Switch and definitely on Xcloud, game pass etc. Which means it'll have at least 3 massive new user streams accessible to it along with what's already there.

Fortnite became playable on Xcloud in May and by July it had amassed 4 million unique players on Xcloud including 1 million who were brand new to the Xbox eco system.

http://[URL]https://9to5google.com/2022/07/27/xbox-cloud-gaming-fortnite-players/

[/URL]

Yes, we all like to shit on streaming games but for a casual game like this, imagine how many more millions Warzone will pull.

We are talking about other games.
Games like spyro, tony hawk, diablo, crash. Those games wont reach a bigger audience. Since they would be xbox exclusive.
MS here is talking about activision enitire division.

 

[oldergamer]

didn't MS start this shit with COD DLC and Xbox fanboys bragging through whole x360 generation ?

No, that was up to activision. Also 360 was clearly the better version of the game compared to ps3. Its not like it is now where there is no perceivable difference outside of sony paying for certain levels of exclusivity

 

[adamsapple]

We are talking about other games.
Games like spyro, tony hawk, diablo, crash. Those games wont reach a bigger audience. Since they would be xbox exclusive.
MS here is talking about activision enitire division.

Future CoDs and the next diablo are definitely multi platform games, there's gonna be a new Crash game announcement at the TGA heavily rumored and since its happening long before any takeover decision, that is 100% a multi plat release as well. In the near future for a couple of years at least, nothing from activision will be exclusive to anyone.

If it's the matter of older Activision games and legacy IP, then they're already not getting any exposure on any platform. Putting those games out on game pass will only be beneficial for them to get more audiences. If getting more studios to be able to use those IP, like Double Fine making something from a dormant Activision IP, is the result ... then again that's something that was dead in the water beforehand.

 

[feynoob]

 

[DarkMage619]

Not necessarily. CoD isn't going away from PS, but under MS publishing it will be more likely to come to Switch and definitely on Xcloud, game pass etc. Which means it'll have at least 3 massive new user streams accessible to it along with what's already there.

Fortnite became playable on Xcloud in May and by July it had amassed 4 million unique players on Xcloud including 1 million who were brand new to the Xbox eco system.

Pretty sure Minecraft reached more platforms after the MS acquisition too. People don't really bring that up though.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Playing dumb? It's the same conclusion CADE came up with. I don't lose any dignity just because I think they made an excellent point. Certainly better than any point I've seen anyone else make. Unless you have an actual point there isn't much point in continuing this discussion.

Once again, why does the attribute third party/first party matter when the crux of your argument is x doesn't have y therefore z also doesn't need y

This was my point, but until you're capable of justifying yoyrself and don't need to rely on hiding behind a different party, you're right, there isn't much point to this.

 

[DarkMage619]

This was my point, but until you're capable of justifying yoyrself and don't need to rely on hiding behind a different party, you're right, there isn't much point to this.

I justified my position with common sense. CADE only affirmed my position. You have a fantastic a+b=c night though.

 

[supernova8]

You know what...I was against it but actually if Microsoft buying ActiBlizz helps to force to Sony stop fucking around with cross-gen bollocks then go for it.

I'm kinda seeing a pattern with Sony/Playstation:

PS1: totally humble, willing to do everything it takes to gain market share and win over gamers
PS2: Not resting on laurels, capitalizes on PS1 success - hits it out of the park again
PS3: Gets arrogant, takes the absolute piss with pricing, gets embarrassed by X360 initially and then stages a noble comeback, ends the generation roughly even/ever so slightly ahead with/of 360
PS4: Sure not to make the same mistake again, hits it out of the park with pricing, puts out a solid set of games throughout the generation
PS5: Puts out an ugly white wavy box (seriously what the fuck guys) for a fair price but nothing out of this world... ngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg price hike!

I can definitely envisage Sony being a shithead again this generation unless there's solid competition from Microsoft.

With alllllllllllll that said, something still rubs me wrong about Microsoft being absolutely shit with releasing its own first party games and then trying to remedy it by buying out a massive company with which it has no real (unique) existing long-term connection.

edit: look at all the xbox fanboys sucking up for a change, predictable!

 

[analog_future]

Is it just me or does Microsoft missing their Game Pass subscriber target two years in a row lend well to them and their argument that they aren't monopolizing the game subscription industry by acquiring Activision/Blizzard?

 

[adamsapple]

Is it just me or does Microsoft missing their Game Pass subscriber target two years in a row lend well to them and their argument that they aren't monopolizing the game subscription industry by acquiring Activision/Blizzard?

They'll use whatever statements they can get across to try and get the deal approved. It's a $70 bn acquisition afterall.

 

[DeepEnigma]

That is something I dont get from MS.
How are you going to reach more audience, when you are essentially giving up 100+m userbase?
Consoles are limited. Cloud gaming isnt there. Since it needs time in the oven.

This is just sleezy way of manipulating audience.

Bingo. And they have their pipers in here spreading this bullshittery.

 

[DarkMage619]

Is it just me or does Microsoft missing their Game Pass subscriber target two years in a row lend well to them and their argument that they aren't monopolizing the game subscription industry by acquiring Activision/Blizzard?

That and the fact that subscription services are not a separate market merely an additional way for customers to gain access to new games. MS is differentiating themselves in the market similar to how Nintendo did. It just goes to show how big the industry is and how all 3 platform holders can be successful.

 

[IFireflyl]

Is it just me or does Microsoft missing their Game Pass subscriber target two years in a row lend well to them and their argument that they aren't monopolizing the game subscription industry by acquiring Activision/Blizzard?

Internal targets have nothing to do with where stands in the industry as a whole. It just means they didn't grow as quickly as they thought they would.

 

[feynoob]

WTF

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

WTF

Because in the grand scheme of things, gaming is small compared to the rest in Microsoft. That's why that 70 billion is shoulder shrug money to them.

 

[feynoob]

Because in the grand scheme of things, gaming is small compared to the rest in Microsoft. That's why that 70 billion is shoulder shrug money to them.

I thought that 70b should get their attention.
It seems they really don't care about it.

 

[Cheezewizz]

So hypothetically if the EU has the same concerns that the UK has, you'd just say that they are irrational?

The US could very well also have the same concerns, but as it's the Land of the Corporations, it's nothing that a little lobbying couldn't solve.

The EU could have concerns and still be rational. Its only if they had the same unfounded and completely unsupported concerns, that when explained appeared to be written by Sony themselves that they would be considered irrational.

The US could very well have some concerns, though I doubt they'd be to extent that the UK's is. It also has nothing to do with lobbying. Only insecure Brits would suggest as much, and that's most likely because they still haven't gotten over the fact that the US overtook the UK long ago.

Let it go my friend. That baggage is far too heavy to carry around for that long.

 

[Banjo64]

The EU could have concerns and still be rational. Its only if they had the same unfounded and completely unsupported concerns, that when explained appeared to be written by Sony themselves that they would be considered irrational.

The US could very well have some concerns, though I doubt they'd be to extent that the UK's is. It also has nothing to do with lobbying. Only insecure Brits would suggest as much, and that's most likely because they still haven't gotten over the fact that the US overtook the UK long ago.

Let it go my friend. That baggage is far too heavy to carry around for that long.

 

[Windle Poons]

I don't like CoD enough to spend £70 to buy it for my PS5 but if it rocks up on GPU in six months time I'll blast through the campaign.

But Jim, for your info if your reading this mate, I was never gonna buy it for PS5 in the first place. Hope that helps

 

[The_Mike]

I don't like CoD enough to spend £70 to buy it for my PS5 but if it rocks up on GPU in six months time I'll blast through the campaign.

But Jim, for your info if your reading this mate, I was never gonna buy it for PS5 in the first place. Hope that helps

Doubt it arrives in six month as Sony has paid to block it

 

[Mr Reasonable]

I don't like CoD enough to spend £70 to buy it for my PS5 but if it rocks up on GPU in six months time I'll blast through the campaign.

But Jim, for your info if your reading this mate, I was never gonna buy it for PS5 in the first place. Hope that helps

I wonder how they'll do it if/when the deal completes. With Bethesda, they staggered the releases, IIRC, and there'll be a lot of CODs to add to the service.

Also, as noted by The_Mike , Sony's deals will preclude them putting at least the most recent game(s) on Gamepass.

 

[Windle Poons]

Indeed - my six months might have be unlikely however I would assume any DLCs would be out in six months time and if you buy it on PS5 you'll more than likely buy it in the first month to six weeks of its release so if you've invested in PS5 version you'll likely continue on PS5 for any DLCs you wont just jump ship to MS overnight because its on GPU and lose your base investment and any DLCs...

People holding off buying it for PS5 in case it rocks up on GPU were probably never going to buy it on release - if you want it you'll buy it I suppose.

 

[Topher]

So hypothetically if the EU has the same concerns that the UK has, you'd just say that they are irrational?

The US could very well also have the same concerns, but as it's the Land of the Corporations, it's nothing that a little lobbying couldn't solve.

We prefer to call it "campaign finance" these days, FYI.

The US could very well have some concerns, though I doubt they'd be to extent that the UK's is. It also has nothing to do with lobbying.

 

[adamsapple]

WTF

Gaming is a very small portion of MS's pie. The shareholders on those calls are probably more concerned with the other bigger revenue streams.

People holding off buying it for PS5 in case it rocks up on GPU were probably never going to buy it on release - if you want it you'll buy it I suppose.

If you're like me, just interested in campaigns, and it doesn't look like the game's coming to any service any time soon.

Rent it and return it.

Always works for me.

 

[NickFire]

Indeed - my six months might have be unlikely however I would assume any DLCs would be out in six months time and if you buy it on PS5 you'll more than likely buy it in the first month to six weeks of its release so if you've invested in PS5 version you'll likely continue on PS5 for any DLCs you wont just jump ship to MS overnight because its on GPU and lose your base investment and any DLCs...

People holding off buying it for PS5 in case it rocks up on GPU were probably never going to buy it on release - if you want it you'll buy it I suppose.

A lot has changed. DLCs arent what they used to be. Maps are free now.

 

[KingT731]

WTF

Because if people payed attention to MS interviews outside the gaming sector they would know that that is exactly where they are actually going. They like the metaverse idea because it's just one big ass infinite advertising space for example.

 

[ReBurn]

A lot has changed. DLCs arent what they used to be. Maps are free now.

DLC's aren't what they used to be for sure. Battle passes have created FOMO like never before. People who wouldn't pay for maps will pay to unlock weapons and cosmetics via a battle pass because they won't be able to get them any more when the next battle pass releases. Crazy behavior.

 

[NickFire]

DLC's aren't what they used to be for sure. Battle passes have created FOMO like never before. People who wouldn't pay for maps will pay to unlock weapons and cosmetics via a battle pass because they won't be able to get them any more when the next battle pass releases. Crazy behavior.

I think most base weapons (if not all) are free tiers. The blueprints might be locked to paid Though. But you can upgrade base weapon perks so missing blueprints not life or death.

I partially agree that battle passes aren't worth the money. But they're not very expensive, and unlocking stuff is fun for many people, myself included. Overall, I prefer them to the old fractured communities regarding paid map dlcs.

 

[ReBurn]

I think most base weapons (if not all) are free tiers. The blueprints might be locked to paid Though. But you can upgrade base weapon perks so missing blueprints not life or death.

I partially agree that battle passes aren't worth the money. But they're not very expensive, and unlocking stuff is fun for many people, myself included. Overall, I prefer them to the old fractured communities regarding paid map dlcs.

The social stigmas connected to battle pass unlockables amaze me. Some people, especially (but not only) kids, actually feel inferior somehow if they don't have the shiny chrome gun skin or fancy goggles or whatever. Community gets fractured in other ways as people strive to be one of the people who have all of the digital baubles and if you don't then you just aren't as good. Fortnite mastered this. I just find it fascinating.

 

[NickFire]

The social stigmas connected to battle pass unlockables amaze me. Some people, especially (but not only) kids, actually feel inferior somehow if they don't have the shiny chrome gun skin or fancy goggles or whatever. Community gets fractured in other ways as people strive to be one of the people who have all of the digital baubles and if you don't then you just aren't as good. Fortnite mastered this. I just find it fascinating.

I can believe that. but it's no different than clothes, cars, etc. someone will always be jealous of someone else.

hard disagree on community getting fractured though. current day not remotely comparable to when some guys had map pack a, some map pack b, etc.

 

[thismeinteil]

Not necessarily. CoD isn't going away from PS this gen, but under MS publishing it will be more likely to come to Switch and definitely on Xcloud, game pass etc. Which means it'll have at least 3 massive new user streams accessible to it along with what's already there.

FTFY. Quit playing ignorant when we already know what the deal is. This gen, which Xbox already lost, they're going to play the nice guy. Next gen, MS would make COD exclusive to Xbox XABCX, or whatever the hell they'll call it. Jim Ryan already aired the dirty laundry, which is why regulators are scrutinizing this even closer.

Personally, I hope this doesn't go through, just so those Xbox diehards who were bragging about COD being exclusive, but now pretending it won't be because that helps MS's case, have a complete meltdown.

 

[feynoob]

This gen, which Xbox already lost, they're going to play the nice guy. Next gen, MS would make COD exclusive to Xbox XABCX, or whatever the hell they'll call it. Jim Ryan already aired the dirty laundry, which is why regulators are scrutinizing this even closer.

Won't happen.
MTx is the breed these days. COD is king of mtx with yearly releases. Blocking PS makes them less MtX.

Jim hates gamepass. Since that means Xbox would very strong with gamepass COD. He doesn't want that.

 

[Windle Poons]

A lot has changed. DLCs arent what they used to be. Maps are free now.

Shows how out of touch I am with CoD

 

[thismeinteil]

Won't happen.
MTx is the breed these days. COD is king of mtx with yearly releases. Blocking PS makes them less MtX.

Jim hates gamepass. Since that means Xbox would very strong with gamepass COD. He doesn't want that.

MS doesn't care about MTX on PS. They want to make MTX off of GP, Xbox, and PC, while taking a HUGE game from PS, their main competitor. Again, this was already revealed by Phil Spencer and Jim Ryan. MS wanted Sony to sign a contract that guaranteed PS COD games for 3 more years after their current advertising deal is over. After that, it was up to MS's discretion.

Hmm, so about 5-6 years from now. Well, that perfectly lines up with...oh yes, next gen.

 

[feynoob]

MS doesn't care about MTX on PS. They want to make MTX off of GP, Xbox, and PC, while taking a HUGE game from PS, their main competitor. Again, this was already revealed by Phil Spencer and Jim Ryan. MS wanted Sony to sign a contract that guaranteed PS COD games for 3 more years after their current advertising deal is over. After that, it was up to MS's discretion.

Hmm, so about 5-6 years from now. Well, that perfectly lines up with...oh yes, next gen.

Won't happen.
Just like how minecraft is printing money for MS, COD would stay on PS to print money for them.

They also want it on Nintendo. That should give you a better idea, if they are going to block 1 platform or not.

 

[adamsapple]

FTFY. Quit playing ignorant when we already know what the deal is. This gen, which Xbox already lost, they're going to play the nice guy. Next gen, MS would make COD exclusive to Xbox XABCX, or whatever the hell they'll call it. Jim Ryan already aired the dirty laundry, which is why regulators are scrutinizing this even closer.

Personally, I hope this doesn't go through, just so those Xbox diehards who were bragging about COD being exclusive, but now pretending it won't be because that helps MS's case, have a complete meltdown.

They have very clearly said that they will treat call of duty like minecraft, and Minecraft has been on all platforms for three generations now.

 

[HoofHearted]

MS doesn't care about MTX on PS. They want to make MTX off of GP, Xbox, and PC, while taking a HUGE game from PS, their main competitor. Again, this was already revealed by Phil Spencer and Jim Ryan. MS wanted Sony to sign a contract that guaranteed PS COD games for 3 more years after their current advertising deal is over. After that, it was up to MS's discretion.

Hmm, so about 5-6 years from now. Well, that perfectly lines up with...oh yes, next gen.

This deal isn't about which current or "next-gen" plastic box the software resides on in the near term (i.e. 5-6 years / "next gen").

This is a strategic long term investment by MS of establishing recurring revenue and broader distribution channels for MS IPs/games/software across multiple channels and platforms, including MTX on any platform (Consoles, PC, Mobile, Streaming, VR, ???, etc.).

For all we know - there may not be a next-gen set of consoles in 5-6 years (most likely will - but past that???)... Even then - the definition of a next-gen console may simply be a hybrid streaming device.

All of this chatter and yapping about a single game that isn't that great to begin with ... yeesh.

 

[Three]

"Backed by" ? Microsoft is one of the hundred + mentioned on their website

You're calling a non-partisan, non-profit think tank Xbox fanboys as well.

At this point Christ himself could come down and say something about the CMA and you'll call him a fanboy

"Americans for Technology Leadership" that's what that is.

 

[Three]

"Do as I say, not as I do"

Why do people continue to not understand that this is different for acquisitions or mergers? In one the company has to pay another company to get extra content and companies can compete. in the other the merged entity is using its merged position to lower competition.

People bring up Minecraft dungeons as some bastion of good will yet fail to mention that MS never made a PS5 version of that game either, meaning it got higher res and higher fps for a specific console, guess which?
Companies are fighting in an acquisition for equal access on equal terms, not saying extra content is immoral. They are arguing why a company should remain independent for competition, nothing else.

 

[feynoob]

Why do people continue to not understand that this is different for acquisitions or mergers? In one the company has to pay another company to get extra content and companies can compete. in the other the merged entity is using its merged position to lower competition.

People bring up Minecraft dungeons as some bastion of good will yet fail to mention that MS never made a PS5 version of that game either, meaning it got higher res and higher fps for a specific console, guess which?
Companies are fighting in an acquisition for equal access on equal terms, not saying extra content is immoral. They are arguing why a company should remain independent for competition, nothing else.

Is this some kind of dense, which I don't understand?

Sony complained about partial content disparity, in which they are currently engaging in.

They can't complain about it, while also doing it. It doesn't matter if MS did it in the past or not. They are actively committing, what they are crying about.