Support NeoGAF

[JohnnyFootball]

Yeah, the news that it's just for COD. Sony done fucked up and basically cucked their own userbase.

Nothing but COD coming to playstation now. Well probably big service games but nothing else.

Completely unsurprising tbh. Sony gave MS a massive headache through all this, so they will be doing whatever they can to hurt them back now.

Please tell me which Activision games Sony are missing out on that will really matter to gamers. There won't be another Diablo game for 10+ years. 3 years and all ABK or 10 years and CoD was a no brainer.

 

[yurinka]

We have to wait and see if Microsoft is successful at eliminating PlayStation.

Yeah, the news that it's just for COD. Sony done fucked up and basically cucked their own userbase.

Nothing but COD coming to playstation now. Well probably big service games but nothing else.

Lol! CoD PS MAU represents only under 8% of the PS MAU and the CoD related Sony revenue is under 7% of Sony's game division revenue. And this is with Sony supporting CoD with marketing, money that Sony will spend on marketing other games.

Losing CoD -something that won't happen for at least 10 years- most of these players would remain on PS buying other games, as could be the Sony 1st party shooters under development. Considering Sony is in a revenue and userbase long term growth pattern, to lose CoD wouldn't have a very noticiably effect on them because that growth will compensate it.

And that's CoD. The rest of Activision Blizzard games are way, way smaller for Sony.

I think MS could have played the Nintendo one better. They could have asked for some Nintendo games in return at least.

Nintendo doesn't give a fuck about having Activision Blizzard games on their platform because the AB sale on Nintendo are and will be a tiny portion of their revenue, they wouldn't have given anything in exchange.

CoD is a bit more important for Sony, but again Sony wouldn't give anything in exchange for it (see my reply above).

These deals were about MS begging for the support of other platform holders to get the approval from regulators, not about the other platform holders begging to get these games. Here who had to make concessions was Microsoft, not the other ones. Because Microsoft, like the other 3rd party publishers on PS and Switch, if they want to publish their games they can simply do it, no 10 years deal is needed.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Financially speaking, Cod revenue through 2033 > cod + the rest through 2027.

They got a better deal than what was proposed initially.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Do you think Microsoft would have kept COD on PlayStation past 10 years without the deal?
I think Microsoft made the decision to Minecraft COD for good and they mean that for the longest period.

Predicting what MS is going to do so is pointless. Sony has no reason to trust MS or vice versa.

 

[Valonquar]

I guess I'm just out of touch with how big the console FPS market really is. Over the last 30 years I've played FPS, RTS, and MMOs on PC and everything else on consoles. I still remember people going nuts over Goldeneye on N64 or Halo on OG Xbox and being like "Yeah but have you played Team Fortress 1 with the Rocket Crowbar mod, or Unreal Tournament 2K4 on a big map with all the vehicles?"
I probably have nostalgia goggles on, but I still miss LAN party days of local co-op and multiplayer, hosting our own maps, turning on low gravity, or luring people to their deaths with low rez porn sprays and backstabbing them with spy. I feel like most FPS these days have to go so big that it's just utter chaos.

I really don't care about COD, Diablo or WoW. I also don't really care about Skyrim or Fallout. Even if I DID care, I'd play any of those on PC. It doesn't matter which console signed exclusivity to me. I wouldn't buy any them. It also just seems like a real waste every time MS\Sony\EA\etc buys out a company, but cause they really are just buying the empty husk of the franchise and mismanaging it into oblivion with completely different staff in most cases.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Please tell me which Activision games Sony are missing out on that will really matter to gamers. There won't be another Diablo game for 10+ years. 3 years and all ABK or 10 years and CoD was a no brainer.

Apparently Infinity Ward have been making a new IP, as have Trayarch for awhile now.
You then have any future.
Blizzard have a new survival horror game in development, which if it's a GAAS game will be on PlayStation.

Microsoft has the money to long term invest, and you should see a build up of employees in the major COD studios like IW and Trayarch etc, meaning that there won't be as much need for the other studios just being support studios.

 

[Robb]

They could have asked for some Nintendo games in return at least.

If they would have suggested that it would probably have been the second time MS got laughed at by Nintendo in a negotiation.

 

[Kilau]

I think MS could have played the Nintendo one better. They could have asked for some Nintendo games in return at least.

I think we all know how Nintendo would respond to that.

 

[twilo99]

Is this article factually correct?

Brief history of Sony’s M&A deals: how PlayStation brought together 20+ first-party studios | Game World Observer

Sony remains one of the largest game publishers in the world, constantly expanding both through nurturing internal teams and buying new studios (e.g. its latest acquisition of Firewalk Studios). Here’s a brief guide to the history of PlayStation’s M&A deals and all the developers it currently owns.

gameworldobserver.com

 

[Moriarty1889]

Either way, in the end, Jim Ryan had to agree to terms with Phil Spencer and sign the deal.

 

[Ansphn]

Help. Went from 3 year contract to 10.

 

[Hustler]

When negotiating deals like this, it's always best to hold out as long as possible. Trust me, this was a win for Sony. They got the best deal possible given the circumstances.

 

[SlicedBread3]

Apparently Infinity Ward have been making a new IP, as have Trayarch for awhile now.
You then have any future.
Blizzard have a new survival horror game in development, which if it's a GAAS game will be on PlayStation.

Microsoft has the money to long term invest, and you should see a build up of employees in the major COD studios like IW and Trayarch etc, meaning that there won't be as much need for the other studios just being support studios.

The original deal was for existing Activision franchises on Playstation. New IP wasn't included.

 

[Topher]

Helped since they have MS and Phil Spencer on record that COD would be on PlayStation as long as PlayStation exists. Would not have repeated public commitment and testimony under oath to that effect otherwise.

 

[Sanepar]

Apparently Infinity Ward have been making a new IP, as have Trayarch for awhile now.
You then have any future.
Blizzard have a new survival horror game in development, which if it's a GAAS game will be on PlayStation.

Microsoft has the money to long term invest, and you should see a build up of employees in the major COD studios like IW and Trayarch etc, meaning that there won't be as much need for the other studios just being support studios.

new IP from Treyarch is just a rumor and can be good or not, Blizzard game same and can take years and years to make. For consoles ABK is Diablo and COD, next Diablo is min 8 years away...

 

[FoxMcChief]

I mean, I don't think it matters. The end result was always going to be the same, at some point, all the Activision/Blizzard games will be off Sony consoles forever. Sony was never really going to get exactly what they wanted, nor should they.

 

[akaFullmetal]

10 year deal > 3 year deal

They ended up with a better deal. Regarding other Activision games, what is coming out for the next 3 years on consoles from Activision?

 

[ManaByte]

How could it possibly have been self-own?

They had nothing to lose trying to fight the deal.

Because they went from getting all Activision games like Nintendo is getting to only getting COD.