Support NeoGAF

[Bernardougf]

I said it before. If i was MS i would choose 3 - Release the new COD as a next gen launch game and make it 3-6 month exclusive. Huge marketing campaign with 'only on Xbox' and then the usual fly shit sized 'for a liminted time' that nobobdy reads below. That would be quite cheap but effective, because most COD only players would switch the console.

Sure.. its a possibility, they can do this, they can do whatever they want, they can make COD even bigger and better and swim in COD multiplat cashflow forever or they can make COD exclusive and do a final push to elevate the Xbox brand and hardware, the point is that we dont know, right now is only speculation, aside from the crazys and narcissists that like to pretend they know it all.

Ill go always by the last precedent stablished and that is Bethesda, so for me they will make eventually same kind of exclusivity attached to COD to move consoles and gamepass and grow Xbox out of the limbo, the question is when ... but of course I could be wrong and all concerned COD will remain multiplat forever, time will tell..

 

[feynoob]

But if there is a "good will" clause in the contract, it is already being breached by ATVI (IMHO) because the sale to Microsoft damages PlayStation in numerous ways that could easily be evidenced by Sony.

It doesn't. I don't know where you are getting these stuff.
Sony has no business in what activision does with their business.

 

[Goalus]

Completely plausible if PlayStation kill CoD' cross-play, but that would fall foul of degrading CoD on PlayStation and failing to honour the parity agreement because Xbox/PC players would then only have one account/password login, whereas PlayStation would have an inferior (non-parity) situation with two - PSN account & Microsoft account - so getting that remedied by regulators like the CMA should be pretty easy.

These are some remarkable mental gymnastics. If all platforms require a Microsoft account, this is the definition of parity.

 

[Three]

Of course they can. It's the exact same argument reversed. Pulling Cyberpunt from the store was a technical argument. The game was in a too bad state to sell, the product wasn't up to par. But in the case of blocking CoD, that would be purposefully blocking your competitior. It's apples and oranges.

You can't force somebody to sell your things in their store unless they had a binding contract. If regulators had an issue they would force sideloading but they can reject whatever content they like for whatever reason they like. You bring up apple yet fail to mention it just won against epic for removing its game from the store.

 

[feynoob]

You can't force somebody to sell your things in their store unless they had a binding contract. If regulators had an issue they would force sideloading but they can reject whatever content they like for whatever reason they like. You bring up apple yet fail to mention it just won against epic for removing its game from the store.

Not to mention, cyberpunk was getting tons of refunds. It was a business decision to pull the game from the store.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Of course loosing COD brand hurts Sony, I know that, I only saying that if people think that MS has so much to loose from COD at the point of damaging the brand and business making it IMPOSSIBLE to take away COD from playstation it opens the question why sony would not follow this strategy.

I just cant agree with this absolutes people use as if they had MS inside plans in their desk, IMPOSSIBLE, NEVER, are heavy words to say when you dont really know jackshit about the plans and goals of said company.

I agree, only a sith deals in absolutes! But really, I try to avoid absolutes.

People talk busness sense, charity and etc and forget the xbox beeing burning money for years without MS doing shit, if money was the only goal for xbox/MS they had 20 thousands options to grow and be lucrative, they just bought bethesda and choose to loose more money making it exclusive, "ah theres a case to be made for bla bla" a case to be made is not a fact and the only fact you have is you where going to sell millions of dollars of starfield on PS and now you will not, so money is not the ONLY driving force for xbox and untill now never has been.

ROI is the goal. I shouldn't have to explain why exclusives can lead to greater profits in the future by not maximizing present day profits.

Im not here saying MS is going to take COD away from playstation, Im not saying that it makes crude business sense or not to do it, Im only saying that for a trillion dollar company that none os us has any inside information, beeing here all high and mighty pretending to be an MS executive saying they will NEVER take COD away, that it is impossible is just ridiculous and pretentious. Is basically PR talk and wishfull thinking copied direct from the lies Spencer likes to spills all so often. As he did for bethesda.

In the case of Call of Duty, right now, given it's release schedule, popularity and Playstation's marketshare... making Call of Duty exclusive (taking it away from Playstation) doesn't make financial sense. The sacrifice of profit now would not lead to greater profit in the future (in Call of Duty's case).

This CAN change. If at anytime Microsoft thinks making CoD exclusive could lead to greater profit in the future, they would do it.

That's my stance. It's not impossible. It's not never. But the current conditions point to it being financially illogical.

 

[HoofHearted]

But if there is a "good will" clause in the contract, it is already being breached by ATVI (IMHO) because the sale to Microsoft damages PlayStation in numerous ways that could easily be evidenced by Sony.

What "good will" clause are you referring to specifically? Do you have the actual contract that you can point to for review, or are you just making up things to bolster your train of thought?

 

[reksveks]

You bring up apple yet fail to mention it just won against epic for removing its game from the store.

They won because Epic broken the app store policy, the agreement between an app store dev and Apple.

Call of Duty being owned by MS isn't necessarily going to break the current agreement between ABK or MS and Sony. They would have to find some reason to break the existing contracts between the relevant parties.

 

[feynoob]

Hope this bill stops EA and other entities from unfair digital practices.
This also includes subscription service too (game pass/Ps+ premium).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...es-and-promote-competition-in-digital-markets

 

[Three]

Call of Duty being owned by MS isn't necessarily going to break the current agreement between ABK or MS and Sony. They would have to find some reason to break the existing contracts between the relevant parties.

That's what I meant by unless they have binding contracts. Those contracts would also have a duration and they can just not renew them with MS. At the end of the day though it is their store and they can decide what they sell in it.

 

[reksveks]

Hope this bill stops EA and other entities from unfair digital practices.
This also includes subscription service too (game pass/Ps+ premium).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...es-and-promote-competition-in-digital-markets

Bet me to it. I want to see the full bill so see what they are doing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think Reksveks was saying the CMA doesn't view partial foreclosure strategies as an issue. Partial foreclosure strategies being things like exclusive modes, early betas, unique skins, double exp weekends.

I think Microsoft will want to engage in these things, it's a way to keep getting the hundreds of millions in revenue from Sony while slowly shifting the mindshare to Xbox. Kinda like having your cake and eating it too.

However, I'm not entirely sure if they will want to engage in these partial foreclosure strategies OVER being a good boy and keeping 100% parity (despite not being obligated to), so that they have this "good boy behavior" to point to during future acquisitions. Not sure which Microsoft would prefer.

Microsoft didn't care enough about pretending to be good when they took Bethesda exclusive the same day that acquisition was completed.

The reality is that MS has the regulators in their back pockets, so they won't bother pretending to be good. They learned the hard way from the antitrust action at the turn of the century that you need to control the regulators who oversee your business, there is no other way.

 

[feynoob]

I love people being adamant about MS supposedly evil future act.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

the sale to Microsoft damages PlayStation in numerous ways that could easily be evidenced by Sony.

Does it?

 

[Pelta88]

Digital markets: People and businesses benefit from vibrant, competitive digital markets which offer the latest products and services. The bill establishes a new, targeted regime built for the digital age, overseen by the Digital Markets Unit (DMU) in the CMA – that will use a proportionate approach to hold digital firms accountable for their actions – enabling all innovating businesses to compete fairly. It will set rules that will prevent firms with Strategic Market Status from using their size and power to limit digital innovation or market access – ensuring the UK remains a highly attractive place to invest and do business for all.

New bill to stamp out unfair practices and promote competition in digital markets

The CMA welcomes draft legislation enhancing its ability to promote competition and protect consumers, including new powers for its Digital Markets Unit.

www.gov.uk

If you've been following this acquisition from the start then you'll notice the almost uncanny resemblance and parallel of the above to Microsoft's PR. The ambiguity lays a foundation for regulators to strip sony of their advantages. Specifically, publishers favouring their platform for exclusive and timed content. I wouldn't be surprised if the bill goes as far as to enforce cross play...

If you live in the UK and own both consoles then you'll know that cross play is essential, vital, and crucial to XBOX. Finding a multi match on XBOX has become increasingly more difficult since 2013. Like a slow, year in year out crippling of XBOX as a viable online machine. To the point where I'm forced to buy multiplats on PS because the community on XBOX is too insignificant to sustain my online gaming.

Obviously... Someone might take offence to that reality. But I have some stats, figures, charts, and images via Microsoft that have already been laid out in this very thread. Facts that will make any attempt at damage control overt and kinda pointless.

 

[reksveks]

Digital markets: People and businesses benefit from vibrant, competitive digital markets which offer the latest products and services. The bill establishes a new, targeted regime built for the digital age, overseen by the Digital Markets Unit (DMU) in the CMA – that will use a proportionate approach to hold digital firms accountable for their actions – enabling all innovating businesses to compete fairly. It will set rules that will prevent firms with Strategic Market Status from using their size and power to limit digital innovation or market access – ensuring the UK remains a highly attractive place to invest and do business for all.

http://[URL][URL]https://www.gov.uk...es-and-promote-competition-in-digital-markets

[/URL][/URL]

If you've been following this acquisition from the start then you'll notice the almost uncanny resemblance and parallel of the above to Microsoft's PR. The ambiguity lays a foundation for regulators to strip sony of their advantages. Specifically, publishers favouring their platform for exclusive and timed content. I wouldn't be surprised if the bill goes as far as to enforce cross play...

If you live in the UK and own both consoles then you'll know that cross play is essential, vital, and crucial to XBOX. Finding a multi match on XBOX has become increasingly more difficult since 2013. Like a slow, year in year out crippling of XBOX as a viable online machine. To the point where I'm forced to buy multiplats on PS because the community on XBOX is too insignificant to sustain my online gaming.

Obviously... Someone might take offence to that reality. But I have some stats, figures, charts, and images via Microsoft that have already been laid out in this very thread. Facts that will make any attempt at damage control overt and kinda pointless.

Just wait till you see how similar Microsoft open store policy and the Open App Market Act is....

Back to the actual bill, need to check if Sony would be classed as a company with SMS.

 

[feynoob]

Obviously... Someone might take offence to that reality. But I have some stats, figures, charts, and images via Microsoft that have already been laid out in this very thread. Facts that will make any attempt at damage control overt and kinda pointless.

Considering Sony has Fifa and COD marketing rights, this shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Nothing1234]

Considering Sony has Fifa and COD marketing rights, this shouldn't be a surprise.

These marketing rights are overblown really. They didn't help the Xbox One.

 

[feynoob]

These marketing rights are overblown really. They didn't help the Xbox One.

Not really. Marketing rights gives your platform better value. From advertising to extra content.
Look at cod x360 vs PS3.

 

[Nothing1234]

Not really. Marketing rights gives your platform better value. From advertising to extra content.
Look at cod x360 vs PS3.

Several factors for that gen though. Xbox 360 launched a year earlier, was cheaper and easier to develop for. Activision threatened to pull COD from the PS3 back in the day.

 

[feynoob]

Several factors for that gen though. Xbox 360 launched a year earlier, was cheaper and easier to develop for. Activision threatened to pull COD from the PS3 back in the day.

Still, Xbox found huge success with those marketing. Especially in Europe and UK, which was PS market during that time.

The advertisement alone was worth it. As your platform name gets spread along with the name of the game.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Microsoft didn't care enough about pretending to be good when they took Bethesda exclusive the same day that acquisition was completed.

The reality is that MS has the regulators in their back pockets, so they won't bother pretending to be good. They learned the hard way from the antitrust action at the turn of the century that you need to control the regulators who oversee your business, there is no other way.

Ahh yes, regulators are corrupt. That's the only argument that makes sense! How on earth could regulators come to any other conclusion then the one you want? Has to be corruption.

 

[Nothing1234]

Still, Xbox found huge success with those marketing. Especially in Europe and UK, which was PS market during that time.

The advertisement alone was worth it. As your platform name gets spread along with the name of the game.

COD marketing is not the only factor for the Xbox 360 success though.

 

[feynoob]

COD marketing is not the only factor for the Xbox 360 success though.

For the online community, it was.
Cod plus halo made Xbox online community huge.
That shifted after Xbox lost their marketing rights.

 

[Nothing1234]

For the online community, it was.
Cod plus halo made Xbox online community huge.
That shifted after Xbox lost their marketing rights.

You think COD marketing is 30-40m console sales?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

What "good will" clause are you referring to specifically?

I guess "gentlemen's agreement"

I love people being adamant about MS supposedly evil future act.

Projection just like usual.

If you've been following this acquisition from the start then you'll notice the almost uncanny resemblance and parallel of the above to Microsoft's PR. The ambiguity lays a foundation for regulators to strip sony of their advantages. Specifically, publishers favouring their platform for exclusive and timed content. I wouldn't be surprised if the bill goes as far as to enforce cross play...

I would say, by loudly pushing "high end home console market" Sony stripped themselves of advantages. It also shows that MSFT knew where the wind was blowing.

Just wait till you see how similar Microsoft open store policy and the Open App Market Act is....

Yeah, MSFT was preparing in advance. For example Open App Market Act is basically a precursor for their mobile store.

 

[reksveks]

27.5 hrs left til 5pm Wednesday, only 3 and a hours left for today

 

[feynoob]

27.5 hrs left til 5pm Wednesday, only 3 and a hours left for today

I am ready

 

[Thirty7ven]

It's weird that people think that Gamepass needs to be profitable from the get go to survive. It's backed by one of the most profitable companies in the world. MS thinks long term. Look at how much time, money and resources it has used to develop AI, with no payback.
Look how much money they have spent setting up Azure before it became profitable. They have bought ABK and Zenimax for the long term. They are setting up Gamepass for the long term.
They believe that just like movies and music, subscription and game streaming will be the future of gaming. It might not be in 2023, but they are setting it up for years down the track.
It's going to be too big to fail. The actual Xbox console is going to be just one way to play xbox games. For Sony, the console is nearly everything.
You want to play on PC? Here you go.
You want to play via the cloud? Here you go.
You want to play on the most powerful home console? Here you go.
You want to play on a home console but don't want to pay the money for the more powerful console? Here you go.

In five years time, this is going to be a very different conversation.

In five years time you will still be writing the same bs narratives. It's the same song and dance with you lot since 2013.

 

[feynoob]

You think COD marketing is 30-40m console sales?

No, but enough to monopolize the online mode, which is the current topic.

 

[Pelta88]

Considering Sony has Fifa and COD marketing rights, this shouldn't be a surprise.

What are you talking about?

Do you think marketing rights is a practice limited to consoles? There isn't another industry or market where one entity has "potentially" augmented the regulatory process to compensate for the fact that they can't get their shit right. Do you think there will ever be legislation written to make NEtflix, Apple, Disney, Amazon, etc etc etc have to share their ip?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Do you think there will ever be legislation written to make NEtflix, Apple, Disney, Amazon, etc etc etc have to share their ip?

The point of this legislation is essentially prevent a foreclosure by market leaders. Aside that, if Disney/Fox merger happening right we would probably have arguments regarding the importance of Marvel IPs.

It is also one of the reasons why Microsoft is trying to buy stuff using their weaker position in the "high end home console" market.

 

[reksveks]

What are you talking about?

Do you think marketing rights is a practice limited to consoles?

I don't think feynoob was saying that, he was explaining the disparity between the two platforms in the UK. I don't necessarily agree with him on that front.

There isn't another industry or market where one entity has "potentially" augmented the regulatory process to compensate for the fact that they can't get their shit right. Do you think there will ever be legislation written to make NEtflix, Apple, Disney, Amazon, etc etc etc have to share their ip?

Does patents count as IP's? I don't think any media properties will ever become an essential input but patents definitely do and there is a whole system around sharing patents at a fair and reasonable cost.

 

[feynoob]

What are you talking about?

Do you think marketing rights is a practice limited to consoles? There isn't another industry or market where one entity has "potentially" augmented the regulatory process to compensate for the fact that they can't get their shit right. Do you think there will ever be legislation written to make NEtflix, Apple, Disney, Amazon, etc etc etc have to share their ip?

Marketing rights is fine. There is no dispute about that. I am not disputing Sony practices, considering Xbox was doing the same during x360.

I was mainly talking about your point for the online mode between Xbox and PS.
PS having marketing rights for big online games is why there is huge disparity of online mode between the two platforms.

 

[Thirty7ven]

So what happens when MS markets COD and it barely moves the needle in the online player base?

 

[feynoob]

So what happens when MS markets COD and it barely moves the needle in the online player base?

Then that is MS fault for not putting more effort for their online player base.

 

[adamsapple]

27.5 hrs left til 5pm Wednesday, only 3 and a hours left for today

 

[Topher]

Jez in response to Tim Sweeney on the Epic-Apple verdict. I guess the irony is lost on him....

 

[Godot25]

So what happens when MS markets COD and it barely moves the needle in the online player base?

Nothing?
Microsoft will have company that generates 2+ billions per year in pure profits

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

So what happens when MS markets COD and it barely moves the needle in the online player base?

If it barely moves the needle then it means nothing happens.

 

[feynoob]

Nothing?
Microsoft will have company that generates 2+ billions per year in pure profits

That is not an excuse.
They will lose a lot of money.

Online mode generates alot of money, especially mtx sales.

Fifa online mode on Xbox is shit. If it weren't for the controller, I would have picked fifa 23 for my PS5.

 

[GHG]

Jez in response to Tim Sweeney on the Epic-Apple verdict. I guess the irony is lost on him....

Foot meet mouth.

Thinking clearly isn't one of his strong points.

 

[Godot25]

That is not an excuse.
They will lose a lot of money.

Online mode generates alot of money, especially mtx sales.

Fifa online mode on Xbox is shit. If it weren't for the controller, I would have picked fifa 23 for my PS5.

What?
If Microsoft will buy ABK and it will not move "needle" in terms of "Xbox vs. PlayStation" then literally nothing will happen. COD is still on PlayStation. ABK is still producing same content as they are now and their profits are Microsoft's profits. Add 30% cut for Xbox into profits, since Microsoft don't need to split it.
If ABK will move a needle, than it means more Game Pass subscribers, more money in Xbox ecosystem from players etc.

Only way that Microsoft will loose a lot of money is that COD will somehow stop being relevant.

 

[feynoob]

What?
If Microsoft will buy ABK and it will not move "needle" in terms of "Xbox vs. PlayStation" then literally nothing will happen. COD is still on PlayStation. ABK is still producing same content as they are now and their profits are Microsoft's profits. Add 30% cut for Xbox into profits, since Microsoft don't need to split it.
If ABK will move a needle, than it means more Game Pass subscribers, more money in Xbox ecosystem from players etc.

Only way that Microsoft will loose a lot of money is that COD will somehow stop being relevant.

MS needs to improve Xbox online experience. Currently that experience is shit, due to low matchmaking.

If COD can't fix that, then MS in for a rude wake.

 

[SportsFan581]

That is not an excuse.
They will lose a lot of money.

Online mode generates alot of money, especially mtx sales.

Fifa online mode on Xbox is shit. If it weren't for the controller, I would have picked fifa 23 for my PS5.

There really are no excuses involved. Fifa is most popular in the European region where PS has 4x more potential players. It's normal for PS to have more players in online lobbies since they have more consoles in the wild. That != MS having a poor ratio of players in online games though.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

MS needs to improve Xbox online experience. Currently that experience is shit, due to low matchmaking.

If COD can't fix that, then MS in for a rude wake.

What? He is literally talking about the fact that nothing is gonna change if COD won't move the needle.

 

[Godot25]

MS needs to improve Xbox online experience. Currently that experience is shit, due to low matchmaking.

If COD can't fix that, then MS in for a rude wake.

And how is this relevant to the fact that they are buying company that currently generates 2 billion in profits per year?
COD has a crossplay....

So...I don't really get what are you trying to say.

 

[TheGodfather07]

When is the EU final decision?

 

[feynoob]

What? He is literally talking about the fact that nothing is gonna change if COD won't move the needle.

And how is this relevant to the fact that they are buying company that currently generates 2 billion in profits per year?
COD has a crossplay....

So...I don't really get what are you trying to say.

Online mode generates tons of mtx sales.
If Xbox continues to lose those users, then they are losing those money to other platforms. And potentially game sales.

It's why it's critical for Xbox to fix that issue asap.

If COD can't help them, the situation will be very bad.

People won't wait for you that long.

 

[feynoob]

When is the EU final decision?

May 22.