Mhh ok then my bad didn't read the whole thing.In the context of who I was responding to:
I still say:
You must have a very short memory or have started gaming very recently. COD used to release on Nintendo platforms until 2015 and was pulled due to the lack of support from the player base as well as the hardware.
It is not dead and u know that. If us and approves. Cma will accept. Everything depends what happens today and all point EU will approve.
Wow so they also maintained subscription service as a concern. More reason why this 10 year deal is not going to be enough, and phil just saying oh we can also do cod on ps plus is not enough either, nobody is stupid enough to give MS the power to dicatate the pricing.
Sony could never afford the pricing. MS couldn't either. Getting them Call of Duty on PS+ is pretty unfair in my opinion. Keeping it available at retail and PSN store is more than fine. MS had to spend 70 billion to be able to get COD on Gamepass. Sony would have to pay hundreds of millions for a fair price to have it on PS+ on day one, maybe more. But I don't expect anything fair from the CMA at this point.
Well this latest report isn't regarding the CMA it's the EC who are still maintaining concerns regarding subscriptions service.
, so shouldn't be a big problem agreeing on a fair price to put cod on ps plus right? As the bigger picture is mobile....
You're clearly not talking about an actual fair price though. The price would be incredibly high if it was being fair. That's what I'm saying. You seem to be arguing in favor of regulatory agencies giving Sony a massively preferential price that MS never got.Well this latest report isn't regarding the CMA it's the EC who are still maintaining concerns regarding subscriptions service.
Sony not being able to afford to put it on ps plus, is exactly the reason why EC can't be idiotic enough to let MS dictate the pricing of putting it on something ps plus.
MS biggest reasons for this acqusition is actually not cod but king as they have been telling us
We can argue what a fair price is but none of us really know and sure it may be high, i guess the point im making is MS can easily set a much high price that makes it not unaffordable for competitiors.
That’s one big chip on your shoulder mate.Not sure that deal of this size in any vertical would be smooth sailing for anyone. Sorry mate, but I tend to trust real lawyers vs forum warriors in real life. I guess we will see if he knows what he is doing when the deal closes/collapses.
Completely not related, maybe a bit.
But This reminds of these ongoing statements;
- Xbox doesn’t have games while in fact it have shit tons of games
- at XGS every developer is in development hell - while their are not
- Gampass will destroy gaming - while it is actually enable more people to play
- streaming games (especially when someone mentions xcloud) is shit - while lots of people use it (me included) and it is quite awesome, but vr is future but only by Sony others are sh*t
- any game from XGS will be delayed - literally in almost every thread about XGS you have got warriors with the same message (and magic balls
- new one - MS trillion dollar lawyers don’t know what they are doing
On this forum Ms is sh*t at everything, OS, Cloud, Streaming, Gaming etc. they lawyers don’t know what they are doing, they laying off people while having big offices and parties (how dare they, they should sell some of their offices to keep those people employed, and disregard the fact that company is pivoting). And of course no one mention about 1.2 billion severance package for these people, remember, nothing positive about MS.
Now conclusion; How the f*ck such a FUBAR company can then be valued at trillions of dollars. And keep reporting profits at levels that would allow then to afford to buy Sony after couple quarters.
Only new thing is the paperwork has been actually been signed but nothing else new
It would have been a lot more interesting if it was all Xbox games. Unfortunately it's a ploy to get the most control for the least actual commitment.
Sure, fair enough that none of us know the number. But we know it would be unbelievably high. Almost as high as paying for GTA to be on PS+ on day 1. And that would be a fair price.
Right, it says "games" not cod. Idk
en.as.com
If it's unbelievably high that competitors can't afford it then the concern about subscription won't be able to met by MS, as right out the gate putting on subs services will put most companies out of reach.
Nobody can afford to put it on sub services, and no one has put it on sub services day 1. Personally, I expected MS to gain at least a slight advantage for paying 70 billion and paying the salaries of the developers. If that advantage is they can decide to put it on GP, then fine. Other people can pay for it on sub services, but it's crazy expensive. Everyone else would be able to get it at retail like they are now. Sub services could probably afford it a year later maybe, like Sony is doing with their own first party games.
I think he’s talking about the deal in it’s original state when it was first announced.
Well MS are the ones who touted that mobile was the main reason for this, so they are getting an adavantage by getting king and instantly putting making them competitive in mobile. Problem is you want them to have an advantage in everything really, even if it means harming the market. Reality is MS will have to make concession for this to work.
They don't need cod exclusive. They only need and blizzard games on gamepass.
I'm not talking about King at all, so you can talk about that with someone else. I'm saying that it's pretty silly for MS to spend 70 billion and then be expected to put COD on PS+ and not even be fairly compensated for it. Pretty simple concept. And this is with COD still being available at retail and digital storefronts without any restriction.
They will be compensated though, just not with a silly high price tag. Whether you thinkt that's fair or not is irellevant, but regulators won't be stupid enough to allow MS to price out competitiors. Doesn;t matter what sympathy you feel towards a trillion dollar company, like i said concenssion that MS don't like will need to be made.
So you want PS to get it on their sub service and not have to pay a fair price for it. I understood you the first 2 times.
You both are saying the same thing, just differently. The original deal is being amended, which will result in a new version of the deal, OR the original deal is "dead" and a new one is being worked on — the outcome is still a "new" deal, which is not the same as the original deal.
