adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's a very unlikely thing but imagine a Game Pass tied WoW.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
It's a very unlikely thing but imagine a Game Pass tied WoW.
12Dannu123
Member
Microsoft's shareholders are growth oriented people, they want the company gl grow. Its unlikely they will force MS to scrap the deal. To them the risk is worth it.
Sony isn't getting this for free, they will need to compensate for the lack of sales on their platform and because majority of COD sales are on PS, Sony will need to fork out hundreds of millions.
nial
Member
Yeah, but as you said, they would end up getting a LOT of money so why not?
akimbo009
Member
No reason the core games wouldn't be GP based. And diablo on GP would be pretty awesome to drive the user base. But games like Warcraft Adventures fits the model nicely so would be cool if they dusted that off.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
If WoW adds a F2P option there is a good chance there can be a premium tier of the game for Game pass subscribers. Lots of possibilities with that title. I'd love a way to play on consoles.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
HUGE
ReBurn
Gold Member
With the way WoW is losing subscribers it kind of makes sense. Plus it would artificially inflate game pass subscriber numbers if battle.net subscribers transformed into game pass subscribers. Microsoft leadership might finally make their bonuses.
HoofHearted
Member
So… should I waste 10 minutes scanning the last 15 pages since this morning? Is there anything different than the previous 260+ pages?
bender
What time is it?
Pictures floating around of Phil with only 9 fingers a few pages ago.
R3claimer117
Member
You're right If they're smart when they complete the merger they'll convert all wow accounts to game pass accounts.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
I just got that MS was bending over backwards more than anticipated.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
More likely they'd do a Game Pass benefits deal like they did with League Of Legends. As its another perfect example of how to employ so-called network effects.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
That's not fair or correct.
Topher
has an Xbox Series console (X I think) and a PS5. He is a big Game Pass fanboy. I've never seen him troll it or even say anything negative about it. There are a lot of anti-Game Pass trolls on NeoGAF, but Topher is definitely not one of them.
akimbo009
Member
That's not fair or correct.
Fine. I retract that part.
Topher
- I'm sorry. Ps. You still moved the goal posts
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
That's not fair or correct.
Topher made the topic telling people how to get free game pass, who the heck would think he's anti game-pass
Iced Arcade
Member
Lol no.
I mean it's entertaining but no, not a single ounce of useful information will be had.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Interesting, apparently Phil offered Sony COD on Playstation Plus -
Source 1, Kotaku AU (they're better than US Kotaku).
Source 2 - Bloomberg
Can we just move the industry forward and share games on whatever platform? Given the financing is there to develop those releases. I would be far more interested in the FTC/regulators focus on creating policy and laws that enabled the industry rather than block it e.g. fuck Apple and Sony with their walled gardens. Open up like Google/Pixel or Azure/Linux etc. Gaming crosses all of these globalised companies. Regulators would do well to look at the Internet and corporate takeovers of open and free frameworks to reveal the drive to walled gardens. Regulators could use this gaming opportunity for openness and sustainability over any singular entity.
Source 1, Kotaku AU (they're better than US Kotaku).
Source 2 - Bloomberg
- 10 year deal to keep COD on any platform e.g. Sony PS
- Day One parity with competing platforms for releases
- PS subs included too in the above points
- Nintendo and Steam signed off already
Can we just move the industry forward and share games on whatever platform? Given the financing is there to develop those releases. I would be far more interested in the FTC/regulators focus on creating policy and laws that enabled the industry rather than block it e.g. fuck Apple and Sony with their walled gardens. Open up like Google/Pixel or Azure/Linux etc. Gaming crosses all of these globalised companies. Regulators would do well to look at the Internet and corporate takeovers of open and free frameworks to reveal the drive to walled gardens. Regulators could use this gaming opportunity for openness and sustainability over any singular entity.
Last edited:
Interfectum
Member
Phil right now…
gothmog
Gold Member
Also bleeding money. That was one of the rumored reasons Iger is back.
bitbydeath
Member
It should be obvious by now that Sony aren't interested in concessions.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
If this acquisition does go through then they would probably implement a 5%-10% discount for WoW subscriptions if you already have an existing Game Pass subscription. That would increase Game Pass appeal and potentially encourage Game Pass subscribers to give WoW a shot. That's what I would do anyway.
bender
What time is it?
That's not fair or correct.
Topher
was invited to speak at my mom's funeral. It was odd enough that he wore nothing but Toro Inoue t-shirt but he kept interrupting his eulogy with "fuck Phil" and "J Allard did nothing wrong".
gothmog
Gold Member
It should also be obvious that neither is the FTC. They want divestiture.
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
I'd just make it available to all Game Pass subscribers. WoW apparently makes more money from microtransactions these days than it ever has before, so may as well open it up to as many players as possible while not going completely free-to-play.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
The issue is leaving money on the table. Businesses just won't do that. Subscriptions like WoW make most of their money via micro-transactions, but the subscription piece is steady money. Additionally, the subscription ensures that EVERYONE is paying, not just those that are willing to fork over cash for micro-transactions. I'm sure we have all been in a situation where we meant to unsubscribe from something but we continued to be billed because it kept slipping our minds. That's free money for Microsoft there. I would be shocked if they rolled WoW subscriptions into Game Pass unless that meant an increase to the monthly cost for Game Pass.
bender
What time is it?
Probably smarter to have a GPU + WOW tier for +$5 or so. It still has 4 million subscribers. Can't imagine they'd walk away from all of that subscription money.
Nothing1234
Banned
From 3 years COD deal to 10 years with PS+ (for unannounced fee). My my my.
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
You can't be fucking serious
Do you know how short 10 years truly is? Sony has been in gaming for nearly 30 now
Why in the world should Sony be happy with that deal???
3liteDragon
Member
Fess
Member
Activision wants to sell and there were other bidders, I doubt that it'll end in status quo. It'll just be someone besides Sony and MS that own ABK. Apple? Tencent? Nintendo? luls enjoy the healthy industry
pasterpl
Member
This, any ms concessions are not equal to any platform getting cod for free (maybe in case of steam it will be different), but Sony will have to pay and to include it in their sub, they would have to pay serious money based on sales and revenue that they're are making from this franchise, I woul say ms would ask for $300-400 mln per release. I am guesstimating that deal that was presented to Sony would generate approx. $10 bn in sales for ms over period of 10 years from playstation consoles.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Opposed to no deal for Sony with COD? Then the rest of mobile, PC, streaming, MTX , portables and console markets are left for all other competitors, including MS/Xbox with Sony not? The industry is more than competitive enough for COD to be refused to Sony on the grounds the market is flourishing with competitors and has a longer lifetime than 10 years. A 10-year agreement in corporate dealings of this type is a loooooooong time, far longer than usual contracts of this nature.
Let us not forget COD is/has been on more than a dozen platforms, which will 95% continue under MS in the marketplace even if Sony refuse and Xbox pulled COD entirely -
- Steam/PC/windows/linux
- Apple phones / OS X
- Google phones / Android
- Gamecube, Wii, Wii U, Switch, Nintendo DS,
- Xbox 360, One, One S, One X, Series S/X
- PS2/3/4/5
- n-cage
- Amazon Luna streaming
- Google Stadia /Chromecast streaming
- nVidia GeForce Now streaming (removed)
- xCloud / Gamepass streaming
- Shadow.tech app
There is room for Netflix gaming to replace Sony, just like Sony replaced Sega (however it came about).
We have not even entered into VR having a number of headsets and competitors, MS have no dog in that game as yet and are well positioned to support COD > VR from this year into the long foreseeable future, as volatile as the VR segment is/going to be.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Member
10 years in this industry is basically an eternity (and arguably 2 gens or near that). Why wouldn't that be a long enough commitment?
gothmog
Gold Member
I imagine the FTC would look at those others as well. And I'm sure most of the larger suitors would want to keep things third party. Microsoft would be free to put them on gamepass if they want to make a deal I'm sure.Activision wants to sell and there were other bidders, I doubt that it'll end in status quo. It'll just be someone besides Sony and MS that own ABK. Apple? Tencent? Nintendo? luls enjoy the healthy industry
ABK are not in a bad place. Where does this keep coming from. If you look at the SEC filing of the sale they were not in a bad place at all. If Activison wasn't making money those developers and projects would be cancelled with or without King anyway. King isn't funding Activision if that's what you're trying to say.
The argument was that MS is taking third party IPs away to force people into their ecosystem. They are forcing people to buy their hardware or use their service to access the games. A service that they now say is pretty useless and inefficient so nobody uses it apparently.
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
What exactly is the goal of Sony? To block the sale to MS and/or any other larger player? What does that achieve in the future market?
It plays out bad most likely e.g. Tencent or oil money swallow the industry and Apple/Google duopoly continues uncontested?
Seems like MS is a solid candidate to tackle the likes of the dominant players such as Tencent, Apple and Sony. The exact opposite of what Sony and FTC claim.
It plays out bad most likely e.g. Tencent or oil money swallow the industry and Apple/Google duopoly continues uncontested?
Seems like MS is a solid candidate to tackle the likes of the dominant players such as Tencent, Apple and Sony. The exact opposite of what Sony and FTC claim.
Last edited:
SoloKingRobert
Banned
Microsoft doesn't own steam or Nintendo.
ZehDon
Member
Sony doesn't want Call of Duty on PS Plus; that's great for gamers, not so great for Sony. It wants to maintain the status quo: a 30% platform holder cut of Call of Duty's PlayStation sales, a cut of Call of Duty's DLC and MTX sold on PlayStation, and to use Call of Duty to drive its own PS+ subscriptions on top of that. Call of Duty on PS Plus wouldn't make Sony anywhere near as much money. It would also put Sony against a wall with its own day one releases on PS Plus - something Sony really doesn't want to do. I feel that offer was Microsoft calling Sony's bluff; Nintendo happily accepted, and now Sony will need to explain to regulators why it didn't.
COD was on steam already and unfortunately doesn't officially run on anything but windows. MS made the offer to Nintendo knowing full well that they aren't going to lose CoD players to people buying a Switch instead of Xbox. They know the audience and market well. They are trying to force a certain other audience over with those exclusives. We were talking about their past behaviour for Zenimax and all their other dev purchases anyway and not specifically COD. They are only offering these now (including to PS) because they want this to go through.
Last edited:
Sony has had 5 CoD games on PS+ already. It's Activision who wouldn't want it because it wouldn't make near as much money and they would ask for money for all those lost sales.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Member
Why don't gamers want COD on PS+?
drganon
Member
Abk is in a bad place PR wise, but that's their fault for turning a blind eye toward abuse. If the deal falls through and they go under, they have themselves to blame.
ZehDon
Member
You've already asked, answered, and explained why your own post is incorrect:
- Sony has not had 5 CoD games on PS+ on Day One.
- Activision would've asked Sony to make up for the missing sales revenue for the titles to be included on PS+ on Day One.
- Ergo, Sony is the limiting factor.
Gamers do, because it would be cheaper for them. Sony doesn't, because it would be cheaper for gamers.
Last edited:
anthony2690
Member
Yes I was in agreement when another user pointed that out and said my initial view was obviously wrong
I didn't even ask a question. What are you talking about?
- Nobody in the filings has ever talked about wanting day one access. This is just something brought up by xbox folks. Sony would love day one Call of Duty on PS+ it would cost too much though. This is completely different to "not wanting COD on PS+". Once it becomes a competitor those terms can become even more unfavourable, day one or not.
- which would have been more costly than any 30% loss from the "status quo".
- Me: You don't want a Ferrari.You: but I've bought some older ones already. Me: not the new one though, you're the limiting factor.
Your point was bizarre. You were making it seem like Sony doesn't want COD on PS+ because it would rather have
"a 30% platform holder cut of Call of Duty's PlayStation sales, a cut of Call of Duty's DLC and MTX sold on PlayStation, and to use Call of Duty to drive its own PS+ subscriptions"
which if you think about it doesn't make any fucking sense. The 30% is nothing compared to the 70% they would need to pay, DLC and MTXs would still be a thing with the game on PS+, and the last point is a contradiction about wanting to drive PS+. The one thing you failed to mention is the only valid point you have. Sony doesn't do day one COD on PS+ because Activison would ask for a lot of money to be convinced. The 70% in lost sales.
MS seems to be putting a lot of eggs into the Call of duty basket too. 70B is probably more than the xbox division has ever made in profits. Let's not pretend that Sony relied too much on a third party when that's what MS have been buying up with a lot of money.
Last edited:
- Status