Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

Do we know this? Gimme receipts.

None of the leaks state Gamepass at all. In fact, the leak we did have, did not have Gamepass mentioned once. Just general language that was there from the GwG days and the like. But keep up the performative GP victim warring, it's cute.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Wait, doesn't this mean that unless MS is lying and things change in the future, that MS is actually saying they will NOT be keeping Activision games off Sony's platform?

 

[Captain Toad]

adamsapple that's quite the tag you got there. Congratulations.

 

[sainraja]

Why has it taken so long for so many of you to realize they are both businesses? Businesses who are taking steps to "continue" running that business.

Some of you have chosen sides, yes but don't you get tired of it?
If you like Xbox, great. If you like PlayStation, great. They are both working on things that you enjoy — games.

Support both if you can. Or stick with the one that aligns with you better.

If you want Sony to do the exact same thing as MS or vice versa, then what's the point in even arguing over it when you've likely made your choice. Go with what you like.
It's all going to be fine.

Yea, it's going to completely shake up the gaming landscape, so it's funny when people on here try to downplay it.

Even if MS had never acquired A&B, someone could walk into a store with $250-$300 and play the next gen version of COD out of the box. That literally wouldn't change lol. Was this suppose to be some sort of genius insight?

 

[Bernd Lauert]

None of the leaks state Gamepass at all. In fact, the leak we did have, did not have Gamepass mentioned once. Just general language that was there from the GwG days and the like. But keep up the performative GP victim warring, it's cute.

Ah yes, they include the clause so that games don't release on Amazon Luna. Must be worth the money.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Sony being petty, Microsoft are probably petty in some way. I'm sure they will have an agreement to stop a game being on ps plus if it is on game pass? If they don't that pretty damn cool but I doubt that will be happening.

MS mostly allows games to reach as many systems as possible. Their exclusivity deals are like ... 3 months.

This gen itself, look at The Ascent, Deaths Door, Tunic etc. They all are multi-platform even before a year is past their release. It is pretty much a guarantee any xbox exclusive not made by MS Game studios will go multi platform down the line.

Compare this with Kena, Sifu etc which will forever be exclusive.

Going by this I am sure they must have good policy regarding games coming to gamepass as well.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ah yes, they include the clause so that games don't release on Amazon Luna. Must be worth the money.

No, they included it originally for GwG, and every other service that was going to crop up or be out there at the time. And I can guarantee based on business economics and gaming history, MS has/had one too for PS+, etc, for games they have time exclusivity and marketing deals with.

 

[adamsapple]

adamsapple that's quite the tag you got there. Congratulations.

Thank you ! The mods have been generous..

Wait, doesn't this mean that unless MS is lying and things change in the future, that MS is actually saying they will NOT be keeping Activision games off Sony's platform?

They're saying what they have been saying since the day after the acquisition got announced in the first place ..

 

[Captain Toad]

Thank you ! The mods have been generous.

Nah, man. You've earned it.

 

[Three]

"destroy the market" lmao. Just compete bro, it's not hard.

Funny shit when months ago you were saying nobody can compete with MS' warchest in the aquisition spree. What's with the "just compete bro, it's not hard" now?

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

Anybody believing Microsoft words is naive.
You don't buy a publisher with billions then continue to act like it was nothing and promise everything will be as before.
Are you stupid ?

Pathetic Microsoft.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Funny shit when months ago you were saying nobody can compete with MS' warchest in the aquisition spree. What's with the "just compete bro, it's not hard" now?

Nobody can compete via acquisitions, but they can compete in many other ways.

 

[Three]

Do we know this? Gimme receipts.

It's been there since before GWG until that went to shit for GP and now includes GP as part of "or any other service".

 

[Three]

Nobody can compete via acquisitions, but they can compete in many other ways.

If that were the case MS can do that too no? Why do they need to buy up IPs and publishers do you think?

 

[Gamerguy84]

Wasn't it MS who bust on the scene with the Xbox 360 throwing money around for several timed exclusives as well as full exclusives.

Paying for exclusivity - why its here to stay

Will money rule the next generation?

www.gamesradar.com

Sony adopted the practice modeled after their behavior.
MS is just buying their place in the industry.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

If that were the case MS can do that too no? Why do they need to buy up IPs and publishers do you think?

They can't. Without acquisitions they would have something like 5 game studios.

The easiest and most straightforward way for Sony to compete is to kiss the dream of milking their players 70 dollars at a time goodbye and offer their games day one on Playpass. Simple and effective.

 

[adamsapple]

Wasn't it MS who bust on the scene with the Xbox 360 throwing money around for several timed exclusives as well as full exclusives.

Paying for exclusivity - why its here to stay

Will money rule the next generation?

www.gamesradar.com

Sony adopted the practice modeled after their behavior.
MS is just buying their place in the industry.

Oh boy if you think paying to keep games on/off platform was invented by MS for the 360 .. lol

 

[cireza]

Wasn't it MS who bust on the scene with the Xbox 360 throwing money around for several timed exclusives as well as full exclusives.

http://[URL]https://www.gamesradar.com/paying-exclusivity-why-its-here-stay/

[/URL]
Sony adopted the practice modeled after their behavior.
MS is just buying their place in the industry.

Sony have been cock blocking games and buying exclusives ever since they entered the market. They are the absolute champions, with old school Nintendo.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

They can't. Without acquisitions they would have something like 5 game studios.

The easiest and most straightforward way for Sony to compete is to kiss the dream of milking their players 70 dollars at a time goodbye and offer their games day one on Playpass. Simple and effective.

And Sony had bought up studios too. Most of their best game franchises come from studios they bought out who were once independent. The only key games that are grassroots from forever Sony internal studios are GoW, GT and baseball.

The key difference is Sony didn't think MS would leap frog them and buy out entire publishers. And when they did, Sony bought Bungie to counter.

 

[Three]

They can't. Without acquisitions they would have something like 5 game studios.

The easiest and most straightforward way for Sony to compete is to kiss the dream of milking their players 70 dollars at a time goodbye and offer their games day one on Playpass. Simple and effective.

Yet Activision will start charging $70 for last gen versions of COD MW on xbox and PS come this fall. Maybe give that dream up there too? No that's the money MS are chasing. Not sure what this has to do with anything though. MS had plenty of studios before the Activision Blizzard deal but whatever. It's that they couldn't compete with CoD, minecraft, Candy Crush etc that they bought them. Their mobile and console ventures were failing against the established IPs.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I'm going to say that Genshin Impact is one of those Recacted games. I've got money on that. A whale is holding my money and that whale will pay if I lose.

 

[Captain Toad]

Wasn't it MS who bust on the scene with the Xbox 360 throwing money around for several timed exclusives as well as full exclusives.

http://[URL]https://www.gamesradar.com/paying-exclusivity-why-its-here-stay/

[/URL]
Sony adopted the practice modeled after their behavior.
MS is just buying their place in the industry.

I expect Microsoft to tweet "Can you believe Sony charges for online play?" next.

 

[pasterpl]

lol Yeah. I never bought into the good guy act of these suits. Singing kumbaya while stabbing each other in the back with multi billion acquistions then saying hey we only spent billions to keep everything multiplatform. Nonsense.

This is a business. No one spends $70 billion to add the mere $2-3 billion profits to their portfolio. It would take 20-30 years to pay off this purchase. Nah, this deal was made to get Sony to fold or bring sony into gamepass. Plain and simple. It's console wars at its finest. Whether or not it is a monopoly or ethical is besides the point. I just dont care for the whole congratulating each other on twitter while going out there and fighting in court like a divorced couple. Be honest FFS.

You do understand that they are gaining asset worth $70b that is generating profit? That $70b asset does not magically disappear after acquisition and you have got $70b hole that you need to recoup with profits.

 

[John Wick]

Corporate profiting is good because I can explain it: the post.

So how do you explain MS profiting? What a stupid statement to make. It's something all corporations are guilty of or do you think they are doing it from the goodness of their hearts?

 

[Helghan]

I get you pay for exclusivity of a game on your platform, but this means that they aren't paying to get the game on their service they are paying to not get it on Game Pass but still on Xbox... That's just ridiculous

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Sony have been cock blocking games and buying exclusives ever since they entered the market. They are the absolute champions, with old school Nintendo.

 

[Lupin25]

People keep reverberating Ubisoft and the like as if they are console-makers. Of course, they have no interest as 3rd party publishers.

Most of COD's userbase is on PLAYSTATION, why wouldn't that be a conflict to them lol? That's regardless of the fact that both of them "moneyhat".

MS acquired Activision, because of COD for nearly $70 Billion, but it's not a must-have game "to them". Who has spent $70 billion on no must-have games? Who's that financially incompetent? (Edit: They know what they're doing to fulfill this acquisition lol).

They want to put the game on XGP, because they know it's way more attractive/cheaper to rent the game forever than to buy it elsewhere.

That's fine, but don't act like either company is in "right".

MS is desperate to beat Sony at this point, ANY way they can. While Sony here is being disingenuous to maintain their userbase/subsequent sales because judging by the trend, COD has only gone downhill in every metric. Sony is not worried about GAAS content with Bungie in their wing… Like at all lol.

They could do without COD, but that's not "preferential" obviously if most of COD's current base is on PS.

 

[adamsapple]

Sony have been cock blocking games and buying exclusives ever since they entered the market. They are the absolute champions, with old school Nintendo.

Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave.

MS acquired Activision, because of COD for nearly $70 Billion, but it's not a must-have game "to them". Who has spent $70 billion on no must-have games?Who's that financially incompetent?

Don't get fooled by the CoD messaging, the most lucrative part of Activision Blizzard is King, which makes multiple billions with the least amount of money put in.

If MS gets a choice of one of the three, they will probably choose to keep King.

 

[John Wick]

Sony clearly fears Game Pass and what putting CoD day and date will mean for them. But not wanting to compete with the Game Pass model is not the same as can't compete. They basically are crying and have no real argument.

You mean like when MS was crying about Google with search and advertising? Or Apple?
Like you say why didn't they just compete?
I think we know which company has a history of stifling competition, anti competitive behaviour and monopolistic practises.

 

[01011001]

People keep reverberating Ubisoft and the like as if they are console-makers. Of course, they have no interest as 3rd party publishers.

Most of COD's userbase is on PLAYSTATION, why wouldn't that be a conflict to them lol? That's regardless of the fact that both of them "moneyhat".

MS acquired Activision, because of COD for nearly $70 Billion, but it's not a must-have game "to them". Who has spent $70 billion on no must-have games?Who's that financially incompetent?

They want to put the game on XGP, because they know it's way more attractive/cheaper to rent the game forever than to buy it elsewhere.

That's fine, but don't act like either company is in "right".

MS is desperate to beat Sony at this point, ANY way they can. While Sony here is being disingenuous to maintain their userbase/subsequent sales because judging by the trend, COD has only gone downhill in every metric. Sony is not worried about GAAS content with Bungie in their wing… Like at all lol.

They could do without COD, but that's not "preferential" obviously if most of COD's current base is on PS currently.

both companies are shit companies. Sony is ridiculously anti-consumer just like most companies... but people pretend like they aren't, that's the kicker here

 

[ManaByte]

I look forward to the deal closing, and MS putting COD on Game Pass followed by the lawsuit by Sony suing Microsoft for putting a game they own an their subscription service due to a marketing deal signed years ago.

 

[DarkBatman]

both companies are shit companies. Sony is ridiculously anti-consumer just like most companies... but people pretend like they aren't, that's the kicker here

And some people pretend like Sony is the only company being anti-consumer. That's also a kicker.

 

[MikeM]

And Sony had bought up studios too. Most of their best game franchises come from studios they bought out who were once independent. The only key games that are grassroots from forever Sony internal studios are GoW, GT and baseball.

The key difference is Sony didn't think MS would leap frog them and buy out entire publishers. And when they did, Sony bought Bungie to counter.

Lets be real though. Sony didn't drop the kind of money MS has in any way.

As an owner of both, I stand to benefit. But lets not pretend that MS nurtured their studios to drop bangers. MS is purely using serious fuck you money to buy market share. What I want to ensure is that MS brings back good IP that has laid dorment, something i'm not confident in with their track record (looking at you Rare).

 

[01011001]

And some people pretend like Sony is the only company being anti-consumer. That's also a kicker.

well like always in life, games, politics... both extremes are made up of retards

 

[Topher]

Are we back on the "my favorite company is less evil than your favorite company" bullshit routine again?

 

[DarkBatman]

well like always in life, games, politics... both extremes are made up of retards

True. It's just important to acknowledge that both extremes suck terribly imo.
And that video game companies (or any other companies) aren't your friends. They just want your money. And a good explanation for why they want it NOW.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Are we back on the "my favorite company is less evil than your favorite company" bullshit routine again?

It's of vital importance that we all understand who's shit smells worse

 

[Topher]

There's no arguing in the OP, just fact-based rubbutal.

 

[John Wick]

Pay $100 for each fall for COD vs $15 a month is an easy choice for most people who actually play COD.

COD is $100 to buy now?

 

[Chronicle]

CoD is so heavy filled with mtx of stupid skins and shit which people buy anyways in an annual game.

Giving access to cod across 25 million players which would maybe buy skins because game is "free anyway" = easy cash.

Paying for an Xbox and pay 10 bucks a month for yearly releases as well as other Microsoft first party games day one wouldn't be a system seller?

I see your side of the argument but people buy the game plus tons of skins anyways. So we can agree to disagree here. The game is a money maker on its own by a long shot and for me I wouldn't change that at the moment. COD MW2 is gonna sell hotcakes. I'm in on this version this year.

What I really fear is people saying sony is making it that Microsoft can't put COD on Gamepass yet in reality it's just a cover for not being let down by your own console of choice which was never going to put it on gamepass anyways.

 

[ManaByte]

COD is $100 to buy now?

The version the hardcore players buy is. Just like with Madden, FIFA, NBA2K, etc.

Hell the highest end NBA2K23 this year is $150 (which is actually an amazing deal because it gets you $270 worth of stuff for half price).

 

[Negotiator101]

That's pretty much how marketing agreements work, would be kind of stupid of Sony to market a game heavily without making sure it doesn't end up on a competitors subscription service.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

The version the hardcore players buy is. Just like with Madden, FIFA, NBA2K, etc.

Hell the highest end NBA2K23 this year is $150 (which is actually an amazing deal because it gets you $270 worth of stuff for half price).

Games that have future DLC I almost always buy the highest version because of like you said in the long run its by far the best deal

Even games that are coming to Gamepass if I know I will play it a lot I buy the best version like Forza and usually get to play a few days early

 

[IntentionalPun]

Because the narrative is made up by Microsoft lawyers. You're smarter than this dude. That's a lawyer's spin on what those Sony dollars are for. The MS lawyers are making everything about them (smartly I'd say), when it's money that Sony is spending to market a game so that it's attached to their brand first and foremost. People seem to be acting as if Sony is forcing a company like Capcom to accept the deal. Obviously, Capcom felt like it was better to accept Sony's marketing money or MS' money to be on GamePass Day-and-Date.

I'm just super confused what your point is... Sony, is making deals, that they pay for, that include a clause stopping those games from coming to Gamepass w/i a time period (when the games are on Xbox already.)

Of course Capcom isn't forced to take the deal.. that's how any deal works.

Sony is still paying people to keep their games off of Gamepass lol You are smarter than this dude.

 

[John Wick]

No, I'm talking about paying to keep them off WITHOUT a marketing deal. People are in here acting stupid. As if it makes sense for Sony to have a marketing deal for a 3rd party game, while allowing it on GamePass. That's stupid!



Because the narrative is made up by Microsoft lawyers. You're smarter than this dude. That's a lawyer's spin on what those Sony dollars are for. The MS lawyers are making everything about them (smartly I'd say), when it's money that Sony is spending to market a game so that it's attached to their brand first and foremost. People seem to be acting as if Sony is forcing a company like Capcom to accept the deal. Obviously, Capcom felt like it was better to accept Sony's marketing money or MS' money to be on GamePass Day-and-Date.



That's not the context of the conversation in this thread. That's not paying to keep a game off of GamePass. That's paying to market a 3rd party game. We've seen these deals 40,000 times! It's not new. Why would Sony pay to market a game that's going to be on GamePass on Day 1?

You should know by now how this goes.......
It's like when people say Sony bought all those out of thousands of games to be exclusive for PS1 yet outside Tomb Raider no one has provided any proof yet.

 

[Menzies]

"Microsoft is monopolistic" is definitely an optic from a certain point of view.

In this industry, the game is rigged towards the market leader. We saw all the court documents filed for the Apple v Epic case, where all the dirty laundry was aired. We saw the dominant market leader leverage their position for extra revenue streams and cheap marketing and exclusivity deals. Their position as leader was/is being 'protected'.

This deal needs to go through to bring back some fairness to the competition.

 

[John Wick]

MS mostly allows games to reach as many systems as possible. Their exclusivity deals are like ... 3 months.

This gen itself, look at The Ascent, Deaths Door, Tunic etc. They all are multi-platform even before a year is past their release. It is pretty much a guarantee any xbox exclusive not made by MS Game studios will go multi platform down the line.

Compare this with Kena, Sifu etc which will forever be exclusive.

Going by this I am sure they must have good policy regarding games coming to gamepass as well.

Go back to the 360 gen then tell me....

 

[adamsapple]

This deal needs to go through to bring back some fairness to the competition.

The thing is MS has already pledged that they will continue to do multiplatform releases, but even that isn't enough for Sony, whom love to throw money to keep marquee games off of other platform when they don't have the capital to outright buy studios.

 

[Kagey K]

You should know by now how this goes.......
It's like when people say Sony bought all those thousands of games to be exclusive for PS1 yet outside Tomb Raider no one has provided any proof yet.

Not PS1 but here's another, and they paid for extra exclusive time (for 3 and Vice City) right before San Andreas came out.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/e3-2002-sony-gets-grand-theft-auto-exclusive/1100-2866884/

 

[prinz_valium]

None of the leaks state Gamepass at all. In fact, the leak we did have, did not have Gamepass mentioned once. Just general language that was there from the GwG days and the like. But keep up the performative GP victim warring, it's cute.

What? Of course they explicitly name Gamepass.
Otherwise the games would just come to Gamepass.