Vognerful
Member
I guess your hopes that Sony having free reign on GaaS games did not come to a fruit.
sorry for that.
Microsoft: Call of Duty and other popular AB games will continue to be released on PlayStation and Nintendo platforms beyond current agreements
- Thread starter HeisenbergFX4
- Start date
sorry for that.
Bo_Hazem
Banned
I was really excited for Acti/Blizz to go full exclusive and laugh at them becoming irrelevant. But regardless this latest news is as enjoyable as playing games with all the coping and meltdowns.
Plantoid
Member
Exactly, when Ms announces cod 2025 exclusive people will call Ms a liar, but they never said new games
Warzone 2 and cod 2024 will be the last cods on PS
Mr Moose
Gold Member
Last edited:
Vognerful
Member
Xbox guys had enough share of tear drinks last 2 weeks, it is only fair we give some to other people.
FrankWza
Member
Probably. But who cares? They get an iw mw and a next gen warzone that covers half of this gen. Meanwhile, we get to see phil have to take a backseat while the real microsoft leads have to step in and appease the ftc. It's hysterical. Does he have to give his award back now?
SportsFan581
Member
The big question is would GP be viable on PS? I would say 90% no and 10% yes, assuming we are talking about a first-party only sub.
GP in its current form is a great value and stands a good chance of keeping subscribers paying consistently, which would be needed to make the service viable. If we are talking a service with a relatively small library of pre-existing content that is adding 6 or 7 titles a year (even 15 or 16 wouldn't make much difference), you are going to lose consistency. Players will jump in and jump out based on what is releasing, because not everyone is going to be interested in every release. The day one first-party releases are the big value adds, but the older AAA content and the steady stream of more indie style content are a major component of what makes the service tick. Without being able to keep the full package MS would need a ridiculous amount of content to sustain the service entirely on their own.
Maybe it could find ground as an extreme budget option, similar to EA Play and its $30/yr price tag.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
You kidding me you had a 1 - 2 punch with Bethesda and ActiBliz
2 weeks aint enough to heal these wounds
Craig of War
Banned
The more i read into this the more i think it a PR stunt MS are saying all the rights words to get the deal push through & done ASAP
If Playstation get Warzone 2 or Warzone 3 that technically future COD game on Playstation and Nintendo i don't know how the Switch can even run COD unless it the mobile or really old version of past COD games
If Playstation get Warzone 2 or Warzone 3 that technically future COD game on Playstation and Nintendo i don't know how the Switch can even run COD unless it the mobile or really old version of past COD games
R3claimer117
Member
Lmao you don't think there are licensed deals that cover warzone it was literally in the news that the new warzone 2 was under contract reagardless if free to play. Just like fallout 76 and ESO and other live service games being on Sony platform from Microsoft they still require agreements. Didn't mean the get starfeild or es6 or fallout 5. Again if Microsoft was doing what everyone thinks then they would put startfeild on PlayStation. Being that Phil said he wants it to be bathesda most played game why leave out PlayStation? It's because they plan on carrying this the way the did bathesda. I have no doubt if they make another mmo or live service game they'll put it everywhere.
Vognerful
Member
He was promoted to Microsoft gaming, that means he now manages Microsoft games across all platforms, including Sony.
I don't know how that is considered a demotion.
Plantoid
Member
That's the way I think, most people play warzone anyways so ps doesn't lose much and cod on gamepass is already good enough for Xbox fans
I also think overwatch 2 and diablo 4 will be on PS
But to think mainline NEW cod titles that are yet to be made will be on ps is crazy
DJ12
Member
Sony don't need gamepass, and don't care if it's there or not, lets be clear.
Microsoft want it on PlayStation, ultimately I think Sony are going to allow it.
Why not take your cut, it's not stopping anything Sony are doing.
EA Play won't stop people subbing to whatever Sony are cooking up, neither would GamePass.
Like I said, allowing gamepass would be free money to Sony.
FrankWza
Member
He's the president in charge of fan hype. He was rallying the troops, tweeting about PlayStation and being vague on purpose. Now he has to watch and make sure that the actual heads of the company get the 70 billion dollar deal they okayed to go through so they're not humiliated and they're saying whatever they can to get the deal done.
Who cares if he's promoted, demoted or given any awards. He finally had to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth.
DJ12
Member
Welcome to the Content War my friend.
Also, Sony will definitely have gamepass, MS will make it too attractive for them to turn down, either through further purchases, or financial incentives.
MS Gaming wants a piece of everyone's pie.
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Or, it could sell a few million Xboxes to people that only keep buying Call of Duty every year, and the additional revenue from some people buying hardware (that they're already selling cheap) is not greater than the amount they could have made from not stopping the entire current PS userbase from buying the game there annually instead.
It's a balancing act and Call of Duty is gargantuan. All we can do here is guess, they have money men who know all the ins and outs and what's best for long term profitability and it's probably not as clear with COD as it is with something like TES6.
laynelane
Member
It doesn't strike you as counter-intuitive to allow a sub service from a competitor which would directly compete with Sony's own services?
Neo_game
Member
The reference of Minecraft is interesting. I am not sure Microsoft is worried about FTC review and had to come out and give this statement. The game will be on PC and probably also available via streaming to pretty much any other device in future. IMO Microsoft has been moving away from platform specific ecosystem, they really do not care about console sales. Microsoft CEO and Phil as well has said it couple of time, they do not care in which platform you play their games. Moreover I am not sure GP would make enough money anyways. Selling this game at 60$ or whatever on other platform will help Activision, Microsoft make money.
Last edited:
Lognor
Banned
Very poor English. Is English not your first language or are you that triggered the you're typing so furiously and making mistakes? I'm leaning toward the latter.
Since I am what myself? Your sentence makes no sense. Since I am a wonder? A MS? A FTC?
Try again, with better English this time.
Vognerful
Member
Bro it is ok, no need to vent hard.
The guy was always clear as blue sky; it is just fans wanted to read from his comments what they wanted him to say. You can go now to Sony forums or subreddits and you will see sony fans still saying that Microsoft is lying and that CoD will turn exclusive after the deal is done.
if that does not tell you about the thought process of fans, maybe reconsider what first impressions you are getting from people here and front twitter.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Still waiting on those posts you were gonna quote
Last edited:
PlaystationFan5349
Banned
How long? Because 4 years is a lot of time, you are saying they have been working on another game for a long time and they still need 4 more years to finish it?
Stuart360
Member
I dont know but a proud Japanese company allowing their rivals sub service onto Playstatation, its not exactly a great look is it. Especially as thye are about to launch their own Gamepass style service.
I suppose it could happen with Jim overseeing all this but i would still be surprised.
Last edited:
DJ12
Member
Not really.
MS are not really a competitor with gamepass, it's just a service from a third party as far as Sony will be concerned, just like EA Play.
You enjoy strong story driven, high quality games, and onine play included, you buy Sony's offering (should this be what they do)
You want multiplayer or predominately western centric games, then buy gamepass, Sony take a cut, and you still pay for PlayStation plus anyway to play online.
I really don't see any issues here, but today I'm feeling in a positive mood.
Lognor
Banned
Much better sentence. Bravo!
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Well? Are you going to post them or not?
FrankWza
Member
You're once again failing to understand. Who gives a shit if the games come to PlayStation? I don't. This public taming is more than enough. For all the fanboy rallies and phillatio that goes on, he's now relegated to bystander. You all just fell for his hype because he played everyone on taking away from PlayStation and Nintendo instead of being a creative force who's shepherding the industry like he pretends to be. Now, he has to let the adults make sure the deal goes through and he's been muzzled. He and you may get your wish, but you're going to have to dance for it for the FTC.
lastmessiah
Member
Lognor
Banned
Why? You admitted your pathetic posts. Saying it's still likely starfield will come to ps, Bethesda games will come to ps on a case by case basis, etc. No need to shame you anymore.
FrankWza
Member
Yeah post them and the "proof" of Sony begging Microsoft for CoD. We like that story.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
My point about Microsoft being a consumer company is due Amazon owning Amazon Marketplace which is a big platform that deals with the customers. It is also the reason why Amazon fights with regulators but that's a separate matter. Microsoft doesn't have anything like this - a big consumer centric platform that Microsoft controls and leverages against the competition.
Except it does because we are not in 90s anymore and Microsoft does not leverage Windows against their competitors anymore either. Microsoft does not make Stream run worse on Windows than their Microsoft Store, Microsoft doesn't force Google Chrome run worse than Edge etc. That's the whole point about that. Microsoft doesn't force other companies to install Windows on the laptops these days too as we can see there are MacBooks, Chromebooks and so on. They don't collaborate with hardware suppliers to undermine the competitors and so on.
The point of monopoly is a total control rather than having the most popular os (though it is either Android or iOs). Does Steam has a monopoly on PC gaming?
Last edited:
John Wick
Member
This is more than just that. The FTC are looking into this very closely and indepth. There will have been many complaints. After Sony's statement regarding Bungie the pressure was always on for MS.
DJ12
Member
Thats just it, xbox was a rival, I don't think MS Gaming is, at all.
Sony doesn't need Gamepass, PlayStation as a brand prints money for Sony. It's not like Sony are going to MS begging for them to get gamepass on the PlayStation. MS have already asked Sony about getting gamepass on PlayStation and were told no. If anything MS look weak if that's how you're looking at it.
My personal take is MS want to have a profitable gaming division and have realised after years of trying, they are never going to do it on their own, so they are trying to do it differently, in a way that everyone wins, especially them.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
They don't need to make it "exclusive" to reap the benefits. There's a big difference between them denying the competition content and them incentivizing play on their platform(s) over their competitors, but both roads lead to the same destination.
I don't think anyone has been saying "nothing will change" post buy-out - I certainly haven't! The realistic view is that taking any newly acquired properties fully exclusive is the most extreme case, one that will initially cost them a lot of short-term income and potentially weaken the brands due to artificially reducing their current addressable market. This strategy can be viewed as doing the most damage to their competitors, but it looks deliberately anti-competitive and as a result won't sit well with consumers or the business/regulators. Its not a slam-dunk.
Isn't it a far more smart plan to taper this transition, side-stepping all the short-term "pain"? All it requires is to make your platform appear to be the natural home of the IP and offer users a better deal if they pick that over the alternatives. That way, people will move over organically and you look like the heroes in the story, not the villain. You even get your cake and eat it because you are still making money and creating brand/platform awareness within the competition's ecosystem.
Vognerful
Member
Wow, yes we fail to see the same subject from the same view. Last time I checked, xbox released several great games last year and more are coming.
I just feel this is all built up anger in you. Is this all due to the ban you had?
John Wick
Member
This is frankly fanboy drivel at it's best. Have you stopped crying?
Sony money hatting an exclusive is not the same as buying whole publishers. MS can money hat games too.
FTC are right to scrutinise this deal. It's a tech giant using it's financial muscle to monopolise the games industry. This is money being poured in from their other businesses. They can sustain gamepass at a loss for years to come and affectively remove the opposition.
Stuart360
Member
Yeah maybe. I suppose COD being 'free' on Gamepass vs $70 on Playstation could also be a major boost for Xbox sales and Gamepass subs in itself.
Riky
$MSFT
When you read the statement I think a couple of game franchises is the side issue really. Microsoft are mainly talking about opening up stores and that the real problem is closed controlled store fronts, like Apple, Sony and Nintendo.
This is the real end game and how they plan to spread Gamepass to these platforms.
Apple and Google. Don't think the likes of Sony and Nintendo are in their aim. The largest cut of gaming revenue is in mobile, the largest sector that is growing is mobile.
Re: consoles storefronts, until Microsoft figures out how it is going to deal with it internally. They aren't going to push for PS and Nintendo HW platforms to be open.
Last edited:
Lognor
Banned
I already showed you the begging. It was hilarious shitYeah post them and the "proof" of Sony begging Microsoft for CoD. We like that story.
Flutta
Banned
FrankWza
Member
This post sums up phil right now. Phil? Is that you?
Lognor
Banned
Those are great sentences. Point out the issues, if you can...English doesnt seem to be your first language either. Just sayin
Topher
Identifies as young
Are you seriously resorting to grammar policing?
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its not just that; you cannot expect the competition not to respond in some way.
Look at it this way, if Sony keeps getting access to CoD every November they most likely aren't going to want to launch any new FPS IP (either self owned, or bought-in) the same month, because it would just be bad business for them. However if CoD goes away then they are massively incentivized to fill that spot with something competitive. Now obviously chances are that any alternative won't be as big (although its always a possibility), but its still competition within the genre where there was none previously and potentially could result in less profit and lowered mindshare.
This is a big risk especially when talking about a property like CoD which is worth billions by itself, losing as little as 5% is a lot of money when dealing with an enterprise of that scale.
What I'm getting at is that MS having spent close to $70b on the acquisition will want to protect that investment in the long term. Its not just a battering ram to bully the competition with, its a business that they will want to see grow and prosper in its own right.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
It was all he had left after he got caught lying
Lognor
Banned
Is it grammar policing if it's my own grammar?like what
DJ12
Member
From this it looks like your read the blog post, but didn't actually understand it or stopped/skipped the boring bits.
MS are perfectly happy for Sony and Nintendo to have their own store fronts, and expect their own, on xbox, also to be excluded from any regulation. They are hoping to open up the Play and app stores and are willing to "sacrifice" their own store on PC which no one uses anyway.
MS are going to be perfectly happy to pay the cut required to have these subs on the other consoles.
It's not really an end game, all 3 win from this move in reality.
Greater cooperation from the 3 will also keep the likes of Amazon, Google and "Meta" from doing something silly.
You know, like Phil pretty much said 2 weeks ago.
