Support NeoGAF

[Yoboman]

Considering how twitter works, most of those followers don't actually exist.

True

 

[DenchDeckard]

True

I don't even use twitter but every day since Elon took over I have some hot new 18 year old adding me who "wants to talk"...I had to turn notifications off and I just don't access the app.

 

[fallingdove]

Yeah, will be good to see what they come out with. I imagine it would just be something simple like "-we last attempted on wii u and that proved to not be commercially viable so we didn't assign resources for future iterations" no idea.


Cod hasn't been on a Nintendo system since cross accounts and cross play were a thing. I would 100 percent pick up cod on switch 2 if I have my account and can blast a few games in the hotel rooms when travelling for business. Its a whole new world of business opportunities and increased revenue for activision/MS so I can see why Ms are pushing it now.

I bet theres millions of customers who also own a switch that would play the game if they had their cod account on the system.


It would increase competition as Nintendo fan base would add an extra 150 million potential sales alone, 20 million in nvidias geforce now and also all xbox users being able to get it on xbox game pass in their sub a cheaper alternative to current 70 dollar games. Sony players may also be able to get it on ps plus extra or premium so could drive business there and a better deal for consumers.

Can you now be specific, and everyone else in this thread who is against it explain how it is harming us as consumers?

Be specific.

Activision/Blizzard are currently a 3rd party publisher. They could do ALL of the things you highlighted without the deal.

Harmful to consumers is when Microsoft enters the picture and says:

- we will offer COD on these platforms but they will be stripped down versions.
- you can play the latest COD but servers will be turned off for older games
- today you can play all Activision/Blizzard games on any supported console, but in the future, all of those games are Xbox exclusive
- our trillion dollar company and continued mass purchase of publishers means that we can treat GamePass as a loss leader forever and no other company can ever challenge us

From there, the situation gets worse and worse as Microsoft pushes Game Pass and forces consumers to give up game ownership in favor of a “pay me monthly for the handful of games you are interested in” model.

It’s not super complex. People have laid it out for you and so many others over hundreds of pages. It’s a lot easier to process when you take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Activision/Blizzard are currently a 3rd party publisher. They could do ALL of the things you highlighted without the deal.

Harmful to consumers is when Microsoft enters the picture and says:

- we will offer COD on these platforms but they will be stripped down versions.
- you can play the latest COD but servers will be turned off for older games
- today you can play all Activision/Blizzard games on any supported console, but in the future, all of those games are Xbox exclusive
- our trillion dollar company and continued mass purchase of publishers means that we can treat GamePass as a loss leader forever and no other company can ever challenge us

From there, the situation gets worse and worse as Microsoft pushes Game Pass and forces consumers to give up game ownership in favor of a “pay me monthly for the handful of games you are interested in” model.

It’s not super complex. People have laid it out for you and so many others over hundreds of pages. It’s a lot easier to process when you take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

So basically, the usual Activision could put it on these platforms but they haven't and Microsoft have signed a deal to promise these platforms the games...but that's bad.

And the rest of it is what could happen in 10 to 15 years?
But no immediate concerns then?

 

[ikbalCO]

Yeah sony did in the hearing on tuesday. All we know right now is the same thing MS showed to the public was also shown to the EC in the hearing.

Will have to wait and see how the EC received the presentation. But i'm of the opinion if this is what microsoft thought was enough to convince them, then maybe EC are very easily swayed. Whatever people think of brad smith his worked with the EC before so maybe he knows what it takes to convince them. Just my take.

But the biggest thing people ignore is without Sony's position there wouldnt be no deals and/or remedies for other companys to sign/have. So even with their lates lets all sign a deal approach MS is proving they would have got away with no concession if it werent for sony.

At this point why would anyone trust MS's position of keeping COD cross platform without any legal/regulatory concession.

I feel like Sony could easily convience ec and cma with one question. If MS is that clear about their position on COD why dont they let regulatory bodies make legal arrangements?

I dont know. I am so sick and tired of this deal tbh. Even the arguing and bickering are not fun anymore.

People feeling sorry for a trillion dolar company with possibly the most hostile business history is really taken its toll on me.

This shit needs to end now.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Yeah, I'm sure they wish it were like that in the UK. This thread would be 500 pages lighter if it was, I suspect. Here in the UK our press are awful for damaging individuals when news is slow, but they are very good with corruption coverage, almost too good. The parliamentary expenses scandal some years back was small money across 700 MPs and the in-depth coverage it got was quality. More recently a PM was grilled for months over a lousy £40k from a donner to pay for temporarily decorating 10 Downing Street - which is no longer his residence and of zero residual value for him, and will have been redecorate by the Tax payer twice, since - so any chance of moving the CMA with anything but real solutions is virtually zero IMO.

 

[Wind's Howling]

You haven't said anything in this post that is of any form of fact. The fact is Activision didn't put cod on Nintendo platforms...MS have promised to and have also promised it will be given the resources to perform well. Activision didn't put call of duty on geforce now but Microsoft will.

It doesn't matter what Activision "could" do. They haven't. Your arguing in bad faith, what happens if only a million people want cod on Nintendo platforms...they don't deserve it because you want to talk percentages?

How do you know what it will sell with cross platform, cross play and the same overall experience and accounts? Tell me what revenue it will generate?

Also, Microsoft did not sign binding contracts to say that Bethesda would be multiplatform, they stated that it was to improve their exclusive output.

Be specific in who this deal jeopardises please? I want actual factual statements.

No one has answered these questions yet?

What cracks me up is all this talk, and while it may not be you specifically...there are those that welcome and champion the hope of Sony buying square Enix, buying capcom to make their games exclusive to playstation....but that's OK?

Do you think Sony would let monster hunter come out on switch if they bought capcom?

But, back on topic. Please be specific on who this deal harms? You can just say sonys bottom line...that's fine. At least you would be honest then.

I find this sense of thinking wildly amusing. Capcom and Square Enix can and should never be compared to the powerhouse that is Activision.
Why should we? Because of Final Fantasy and Resident Evil? I never once heard a casual gamer wanting to purchase a system because of those two franchises.
The total of the Final Fantasy franchise sold over 175 million titles over a span of 30+ years while Call of Duty sold 400+ million titles of the course of 20 years.
These are numbers that only Rockstar can compete with. We would have the same argument here if Sony was planning to take over Rockstar.

Activision IP's:

• Call of Duty (400+ million total lifetime sales)
• Crash Bandicoot,
• Guitar Hero,
• Tony Hawk's,
• Spyro,
• Skylanders,
• World of Warcraft
• StarCraft,
• Diablo
• Hearthstone,
• Heroes of the Storm,
• Overwatch
• Candy Crush Saga.

Not only that but the general consensus in this thread is that these type of acquisitions are bad for the general gaming audience. The majority do not want this deal to go through because it will push people to purchase two systems instead of one in an already fucked up economy. Some people here just tend to make this a dick measuring contest about Microsoft vs Sony. It almost feels like some of the people here are desperate for this deal to happen so they have some sort of gratification that they actually bought the ''right system'' - Like they are burdened with a bad choice.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Activision/Blizzard are currently a 3rd party publisher. They could do ALL of the things you highlighted without the deal.

Harmful to consumers is when Microsoft enters the picture and says:

- we will offer COD on these platforms but they will be stripped down versions.
- you can play the latest COD but servers will be turned off for older games
- today you can play all Activision/Blizzard games on any supported console, but in the future, all of those games are Xbox exclusive
- our trillion dollar company and continued mass purchase of publishers means that we can treat GamePass as a loss leader forever and no other company can ever challenge us

From there, the situation gets worse and worse as Microsoft pushes Game Pass and forces consumers to give up game ownership in favor of a “pay me monthly for the handful of games you are interested in” model.

It’s not super complex. People have laid it out for you and so many others over hundreds of pages. It’s a lot easier to process when you take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

There's some interesting stuff there, but generally speaking is this possible? In ten years time if COD comes out and only has half the maps on PlayStation or whatever, is it still getting bought? If people don't like the subscription model, aren't they just going to buy games outright? Or go to a different platform where they can?

I personally don't see COD being powerful enough to make that happen. I don't see it dramatically changing Microsoft's position from the one they're already in. I genuinely don't think they see this game as much to do with Sony at all.

 

[ArcaneNLSC]

Did something blow up?
What’s going on?

dotnotbot blow up doll of Phil Spencer by the sounds of it

cause of death popped by small prick

 

[Mephisto40]

There's some interesting stuff there, but generally speaking is this possible? In ten years time if COD comes out and only has half the maps on PlayStation or whatever, is it still getting bought? If people don't like the subscription model, aren't they just going to buy games outright? Or go to a different platform where they can?

I personally don't see COD being powerful enough to make that happen. I don't see it dramatically changing Microsoft's position from the one they're already in. I genuinely don't think they see this game as much to do with Sony at all.

In ten years time I will be very surprised if call of duty is still even relevent

 

[TheGodfather07]

It's sad that so much of xbox first party is now full of previously multiplatform ip, with more to come. Why create when others can do it and than you can buy it and take credit for all their work? It's clear Microsoft will not stop and will take as much as they possible can if they are allowed. Regulators are there only thing between Microsoft owning half the ips in the entire industry. Microsoft boastfully said that they are not done.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I find this sense of thinking wildly amusing. Capcom and Square Enix can and should never be compared to the powerhouse that is Activision.
Why should we? Because of Final Fantasy and Resident Evil? I never once heard a casual gamer wanting to purchase a system because of those two franchises.
The total of the Final Fantasy franchise sold over 175 million titles over a span of 30+ years while Call of Duty sold 400+ million titles of the course of 20 years.
These are numbers that only Rockstar can compete with. We would have the same argument here if Sony was planning to take over Rockstar.

Activision IP's:

• Call of Duty (400+ million total lifetime sales)
• Crash Bandicoot,
• Guitar Hero,
• Tony Hawk's,
• Spyro,
• Skylanders,
• World of Warcraft
• StarCraft,
• Diablo
• Hearthstone,
• Heroes of the Storm,
• Overwatch
• Candy Crush Saga.

Not only that but the general consensus in this thread is that these type of acquisitions are bad for the general gaming audience. The majority do not want this deal to go through because it will push people to purchase two systems instead of one in an already fucked up economy. Some people here just tend to make this a dick measuring contest about Microsoft vs Sony. It almost feels like some of the people here are desperate for this deal to happen so they have some sort of gratification that they actually bought the ''right system'' - Like they are burdened with a bad choice.

So it's OK for all those games to be cut off from a user base because....its not sold as much?

Many bought a gamecube for resi 4....

Infact I'm not even entertaining this. Gg

 

[Mr Reasonable]

In ten years time I will be very surprised if call of duty is still even relevent

Well, there's that as well, if I were a betting man, I'm not sure I'd take the bet or not. Ten years is a hell of a long time and the brand has weathered a number of poorly received games, but a few duds in a row, and things could look quite different.

 

[TheGodfather07]

I would literally bet my life that cod is still at the top of the charts in 10 years from now. Nothing has come close to replacing it in like 15 years. Why would the next 10 be different? Some ips will always be huge and call of duty is one of them. It's the kind of name your parents know even though they haven't played a game in their life. You know how difficult it is to hit the masses like that?

 

[Wind's Howling]

So it's OK for all those games to be cut off from a user base because....its not sold as much?

Many bought a gamecube for resi 4....

Infact I'm not even entertaining this. Gg

Did you even read my post any further? If you did, you would have also read that I mentioned this:

Not only that but the general consensus in this thread is that these type of acquisitions are bad for the general gaming audience. The majority do not want this deal to go through because it will push people to purchase two systems instead of one in an already fucked up economy.

 

[Nothing1234]

Comparing Square Enix and Capcom to Activision Blizzard King is embarrassing. Even worse when Microsoft already bought a publisher on their level in Bethesda.

 

[ToadMan]

In ten years time I will be very surprised if call of duty is still even relevent

Who knows.

But this acquisition and opposition to it isn’t just about CoD. It’s about the erosion of competition in general not through innovation or consumer satisfaction, but through acquisition.

Its about who runs the gaming market in 10 or 15 years. MS is probably (actually I thought about it - setting aside government controlled companies…) the worst outcome.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Did you even read my post any further? If you did, you would have also read that I mentioned this:

No I stopped reading once I got to your crazy statement of "those games do not compare to cod" and implied that because they sold less it's OK to cut off a platform.

In reality, Microsoft have signed agreements to ensure call of duty games are available on more platforms for at least another ten years.

Do you think Microsoft will take Minecraft away from PlayStation and Nintendo?

 

[Nothing1234]

Imagine saying Pokemon, Zelda and Mario won’t be big in 10 years in the early 2000s.

 

[TheGodfather07]

No I stopped reading once I got to your crazy statement of "those games do not compare to cod" and implied that because they sold less it's OK to cut off a platform.

In reality, Microsoft have signed agreements to ensure call of duty games are available on more platforms for at least another ten years.

Do you think Microsoft will take Minecraft away from PlayStation and Nintendo?

Do you think Microsoft will take fallout and elder scrolls away from playstation? Why use one game as an example but forget the others?

 

[jm89]

Do you think Microsoft will take fallout and elder scrolls away from playstation? Why use one game as an example but forget the others?

 

[demigod]

I would literally bet my life that cod is still at the top of the charts in 10 years from now. Nothing has come close to replacing it in like 15 years. Why would the next 10 be different? Some ips will always be huge and call of duty is one of them. It's the kind of name your parents know even though they haven't played a game in their life. You know how difficult it is to hit the masses like that?

The shit that people say just to want the deal to pass is embarrassing. This is like saying Mario/Zelda/GTA won’t be relevant. Deep down we know they don’t even believe it themselves.

 

[Drell]

In reality, Microsoft have signed agreements to ensure call of duty games are available on more platforms for at least another ten years.

Yeah keep living in your PR wonderland.

 

[Helghan]

Yeah keep living in your PR wonderland.

How so? They didn't sign a contract with Nintendo? They faked signing a contract with Nintendo, and Nintendo just goes along with the lie for shit and giggles? Who is actually living in a wonderland now?

 

[Nothing1234]

GTA, FIFA, Madden, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Monster Hunter, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy etc are all evergreen IPs but COD won’t be big in 10 years.

 

[TheGodfather07]

The shit that people say just to want the deal to pass is embarrassing. This is like saying Mario/Zelda/GTA won’t be relevant. Deep down we know they don’t even believe it themselves.

It's stupid. Just say you want the deal to pass because your a xbox fan. We all know it anyway. No point making yourself look like an ass by trying to explain why the deal should go through. You just end up looking like a hypocrite by making contradictions.

How so? They didn't sign a contract with Nintendo? They faked signing a contract with Nintendo, and Nintendo just goes along with the lie for shit and giggles? Who is actually living in a wonderland now?

And how does that help their Case with regulators? One are trying to block and another is suggesting divestment. What does signing a contract with Nintendo do to change that?

 

[Wind's Howling]

No I stopped reading once I got to your crazy statement of "those games do not compare to cod" and implied that because they sold less it's OK to cut off a platform.

In reality, Microsoft have signed agreements to ensure call of duty games are available on more platforms for at least another ten years.

Do you think Microsoft will take Minecraft away from PlayStation and Nintendo?

That is one way to cut off an argument.

And in all honesty I really can not give an answer if Microsoft is willing to take away Minecraft from other consoles and neither do I have an answer if they decide to do this with Diablo or Overwatch if they have Activision.

But that is where all the regulators come in. They have the same concerns and signing 10-15 year contracts does not really solve the issue when contracts can very easily be broken.

The best solution is no takeovers, not when it can impact tens of millions of users for not being able to play a wildly popular franchise unless they decide to purchase another $500,- machine.

 

[Drell]

How so? They didn't sign a contract with Nintendo? They faked signing a contract with Nintendo, and Nintendo just goes along with the lie for shit and giggles? Who is actually living in a wonderland now?

And? I wasn't talking about Nintendo nor about that "contract" (twitter post) nobody knows nothing about.

I'm talking about this guy using the same arguments that MS PR use: That they want to buy Activision because they want their games to be available to more people. Nobody, here, except fanboys believe this...

 

[ManaByte]

 

[Nothing1234]

So it's OK for all those games to be cut off from a user base because....its not sold as much?

Many bought a gamecube for resi 4....

Infact I'm not even entertaining this.

But that's exactly what Microsoft themselves say.

 

[D A R K]

The industry will die if this deal approved

Ms will take more and more publishers

 

[DenchDeckard]

Do you think Microsoft will take fallout and elder scrolls away from playstation? Why use one game as an example but forget the others?

They are taking those games awY, I'm not happy about that but they literally said that purchase was to bolster their first party line up and exclusivity for stuff like game pass and xbox. It's completely different to Activision and call of duty.
, where the conversation has been the complete opposite.

It's stupid. Just say you want the deal to pass because your a xbox fan. We all know it anyway. No point making yourself look like an ass by trying to explain why the deal should go through. You just end up looking like a hypocrite by making contradictions.

And how does that help their Case with regulators? One are trying to block and another is suggesting divestment. What does signing a contract with Nintendo do to change that?

But that's exactly what Microsoft themselves say.

I have not once championed a studio or games being cut off from a userbase as a good thing. All I have requested is for comments on how this immediate purchase would hurt any consumer?

I literally just want more games on my game pass subscription, I'm not hiding that. That is literally all I want to happen. I couldn't care about any other lunacy lol.

 

[silent head]

But that's exactly what Microsoft themselves say.

https://www.gamespot.com/amp-articl...million-copies-in-one-day-break/1100-6432277/
Fallout 4's launch was a huge success. Bethesda announced today that the game shipped 12 million copies worldwide for launch day alone, "representing sales in excess of $750 million." In addition, the game is generating "record sales" at brick and mortar stores and across Xbox Live, PlayStation Network, and PC.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Lol so some twitter snowflakes got Ding to change the tone or whatever of his article?

 

[DenchDeckard]

Lol so some twitter snowflakes got Ding to change the tone or whatever of his article?

He's far too invested you can smell it in his words, even in the latest article....he's invested emotionally. So many are.

 

[Nothing1234]

They are taking those games awY, I'm not happy about that but they literally said that purchase was to bolster their first party line up and exclusivity for stuff like game pass and xbox. It's completely different to Activision and call of duty.
, where the conversation has been the complete opposite.





I have not once championed a studio or games being cut off from a userbase as a good thing. All I have requested is for comments on how this immediate purchase would hurt any consumer?

I literally just want more games on my game pass subscription, I'm not hiding that. That is literally all I want to happen. I couldn't care about any other lunacy lol.

The effects are not immediate though that’s why regulators take a long term view.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

He's far too invested you can smell it in his words, even in the latest article....he's invested emotionally. So many are.

I'm not sure where you're seeing this. He's one of the tamest commentators of this clown show

 

[Nothing1234]

Regarding RE4, that was supposed to be an Xbox exclusive but as usual they made a poor decision so it went to Gamecube.

What is your philosophy? Sony says games are entertainment, something larger, fueled by the emotion engine. Nintendo says games are toys, created by the legendary Shigeru Miyamoto, perhaps the greatest game developer of all time. What do you feel?

Microsoft’s Japanese team reportedly had no good answer to this question, so Mikami left the meeting, and the possibility of Resident Evil 4 with him. Microsoft’s Kevin Bachus lamented this failure, as he believed he could have convinced Mikami. He saw Xbox as enabling games to become art, much like films. Unfortunately for Microsoft, he was too late at getting this message to Mikami.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

 

[mansoor1980]

she was brought in to fix problems at activision , turns out she is a karen herself

 

[Hendrick's]

I don't even use twitter but every day since Elon took over I have some hot new 18 year old adding me who "wants to talk"...I had to turn notifications off and I just don't access the app.

You could have just told me you weren't interested.

 

[Astray]

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

 

[Hendrick's]

That's right Chris. Bow down to your betters.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

she was brought in to fix problems at activision , turns out she is a karen herself

She wasn't brought in to fix any problems at activision. She was brought in to communication that there aren't any problems at Activision.

She's been in her position less than 6 months, she's a 36 year old kid who has no real experience in the video game industry.

The reality is that after this deal falls through and after 2024, Sony's deals with Activision expire. The position they're in post 2024, they won't need to continue giving activision a deal for reduced margins on royalties and they probably won't.

Not saying that is her fault but she is certainly contributing towards a landscape where Sony doesn't necessarily feel obligated to renew deals when it might have been on the fence about how worthwhile it was going forward.

 

[Loxus]

I thought someone posted that his Twitter account was deleted?

I saw more controversial articles than his.
Articles that was full of lies got free passes.
I didn't see nothing but facts from his article.

I bet Lulu is responsible for him having to edit it. I like how she think it's ok to make fun at Sony executives but can't handle facts from one person's opinion.

 

[GHG]

I don't even use twitter but every day since Elon took over I have some hot new 18 year old adding me who "wants to talk"...I had to turn notifications off and I just don't access the app.

Lmao the ad under this post is on point:

Come on DenchDeckard , don't be shy.

 

[MikeM]

Plain language should be applauded in a world full of corporate buzz words.

But if the message is shit, then the message will be shit no matter if plain language or corporate verbiage is being used.

 

[ManaByte]

Lmao the ad under this post is on point:

Ads are based on what you’ve been browsing for. Someone is looking for a happy ending.

 

[drganon]

That's right Chris. Bow down to your betters.

If that's the case, you should be the one bowing down. Everyone is better than you.