MS's Response to Sony's "No AAA Studio Can Match CoD" Statement + Confirms Sony Pays To Blocks Games From Game Pass
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
octiny
Banned
Last edited:
Helghan
Member
Not at all, because paying so GTA6 isn't on Game Pass doesn't bring it to PS or PSNow, it's literally only blocking it from a service.
Fess
Member
If there is a contract like this in-place for CoD, for let's say 3 years/games, then gamers won't see any upsides from the acquisition until late generation. No day 1 CoD release on Gamepass until 2026 at the earliest.This is the full subscription services related page of the leaked RE village contract.
TL;DR
- For 1 year after a games release Sony will have the exclusive/first right to negotiate for putting a game on a sub service, publisher can't approach Stadia/GamePass at all during this window.
- If Sony and publisher can't come to an agreement after the 1 year (and an additional 120 day window if SIE wants to start negotiating for putting a game on PS Plus), then the Publisher can start approaching other service holders.
- However, even after that Sony wants to know what offer publisher gets from other services and Sony has a right to hold another 60 days to match the offer or decline it.
So, even after a year is over, it still leaves a 180~ additional day window where a publisher can't put their game on another sub service if Sony declines to put it on PS+.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Not really sure I understand the point you are trying to make here, but Spider-man has already resulted in more game than a Sunset Overdrive 2 ever would. It was the success of Spider-man that brought us Miles Morales as well as the upcoming Spider-man 2 and Wolverine. This success also resulted in Insomniac's acquisition and funding that allowed them to still make Ratchet and Clank: A Rift Apart alongside their other games in development. AsAss of Can Whooping said, this is all a result of Sony choosing Insomniac for Spider-man. Comparing this to Sunset Overdrive which was a one and done title doesn't really make a lot of sense, I'm afraid.
you can't compare an established franchise name with a new franchise. of coarse Spiderman was gonna sell bucket loads just on name alone. we also haven't seen anything on wolverine and people are hyped just because its wolverine. in my opinion sunset overdrive plays every bit as good as spiderman and that's heaping high praise on it as I think the spiderman game is awesome
StealthGoblin
Banned
And water makes things wet.
Microsoft do this too. They have games that launch into GP that can't come to PS for a period of time, and you can bet, just like PS, that the retail games they have marketing rights for will take longer to come to PS+.
I seem to remember that GTAIV DLC deal being a huge dick move back in the day.
Microsoft do this too. They have games that launch into GP that can't come to PS for a period of time, and you can bet, just like PS, that the retail games they have marketing rights for will take longer to come to PS+.
I seem to remember that GTAIV DLC deal being a huge dick move back in the day.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Sony did the crying, MS simply responded.
Kagey K
Banned
Can you point to something more recent recent than 2006?
Kagey K
Banned
I'm sure parts of the contract are being amended as we speak.
New owners are privy to details of previous contracts and allowed to amend them where necessary. (As long as the partner is amicable.)
Since Sony does it for the players I'm sure it'll be easy terms.
Last edited:
StealthGoblin
Banned
Anything that isn't 1st party IP from Microsoft's side usually has an exclusivity window attached to it. Same with Sony. They both do it.
Do people really think these exclusive day 1 GamePass drops are being done out of the goodness of people's hearts? The ones that aren't launching on PS simultaneously almost always have a deal attached unless it is a budgeting issue on the Devs side.
Fess
Member
Well you'd hope so for Microsoft's sake. Paying 70 Billion USD and then be stuck to essentially do marketing for a competitor's platform is a shitty deal even if they get the money from the sales. Sounds like a shitty deal either way tbh. It'll take a long time to recoup the cost and to get it done it sounds like they have to promise things that makes it feel like they don't have full control. They've promised that popular IPs will stay multiplat, assuming that means Diablo and Overwatch and Call of Duty. So if they want to do platform exclusives to gain market share they would have to use new IPs alone?
Topher
Identifies as young
I wasn't making the comparison. I was replying to it.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Same thing with GTA 6 exclusivity. It doesn't bring it to PS. It just blocks it from Xbox.
Last edited:
Of course Sony is going to complain. Microsoft is trying to strong arm the gaming industry without having to create games or bringing anything new to gaming. They just use their endless cash to buy all publishers. But somehow Sony is the bad guy.
Last edited:
In what way is there irony. COD sell mostly on Playstation. Of course Sony is going to be pissed. Microsoft is lying their ass off talking about big bad Sony blocking games from Gamepass when they're a 2-3 trillion dollar company that can buy Sony 50 times over pretending like they can't outbid Sony or any company in gaming for any game. I can't believe you guys are falling for this BS. It's like Elon Musk crying about me, an average middle class person outbiding him on Ebay.The irony
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Sony's Pro consumerism just keeps giving.This is the full subscription services related page of the leaked RE village contract.
TL;DR
- For 1 year after a games release Sony will have the exclusive/first right to negotiate for putting a game on a sub service, publisher can't approach Stadia/GamePass at all during this window.
- If Sony and publisher can't come to an agreement after the 1 year (and an additional 120 day window if SIE wants to start negotiating for putting a game on PS Plus), then the Publisher can start approaching other service holders.
- However, even after that Sony wants to know what offer publisher gets from other services and Sony has a right to hold another 60 days to match the offer or decline it.
So, even after a year is over, it still leaves a 180~ additional day window where a publisher can't put their game on another sub service if Sony declines to put it on PS+.
In the end the devs are just as much to blame because they want easy cash (which is understandable
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Already forgot about Bungie? Deal is even more recent than ms acquiring Activision
How much did Bungie cost? And how much did Activision cost?
PlayStation has a much bigger share of the gaming market than Xbox, were investing more in gaming and easily had the upper hand in any negotiations last gen, thanks to their significantly larger install base.
The weird part is, Sony didn't even pay Capcom cash for this deal. They promised $5m worth of adverts on their channels. So YouTube , Twitter, PSN etc.
and for that they gave up rights to negotiate deals to put their games on Stadia, GP etc. how desperate was Capcom?
Literally in the post before this, you accuse MS of not using their warchest to 'outbid' Sony for exclusives. Now you're complaining that they've outspent Sony.
You seem confused.
TidusYuna
Member
Helghan
Member
No... Because it's still available on Xbox, just not on Game Pass. And that's the issue. Your paying to block stuff from a subscription service, not even from the console itself.
Do I need to point you to the meaning of the word 'context'?
With their larger marketshare, it's cheaper for Sony to negotiate exclusivity deals. That plays no part in a COD scenario where exclusivity isn't on the table, and where a marketing deal with one party will result in no sales attenuation on any of the other consoles on the market.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
You just gave a scenario where PS pays TakeTwo for console exclusivity. Which means it's not on Xbox. It's been blocked.
Topher
Identifies as young
Doesn't meant they were desperate at all. Says to me they were more focused on game sales for the first year and a half then the possibility of being part of a subscription. Furthermore, they did not give up rights to negotiate those deals. Just the first year. After that they absolutely can negotiate and frankly, use those negotiations to force Sony to match the offers they were given.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
As a consumer how does it affect me how much it cost Sony and MS paid for their acquisitions?
But I get it. The way you defend one company shows you're biased and not worth my time.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
The clause only really affects Capcom on the off-chance that Stadia or Xbox decide that they actually want their games day one.
Google's pretty much given up on Stadia, and just look at what Xbox is offering with gamepass? It's clear they're not even bothering with AAA third party games at this point.
So yeah, it's safe to say none of these big pubs give a shit about that subscription clause lol.
Last edited:
TidusYuna
Member
The guy you responded to using points about market share was specifically talking specificaly about Microsoft purchasing CoD which currently sells best on PS. I'll quote him for "context."
and your reply to him was...
So what context am I missing exactly? That was a rhetorical question. I'm glad to see you agree with me even though you probably won't admit it. Sony would have never got the CoD Activision deal if the PS4 didn't outsell the XBOXOne the way that it did. Activision was still locked in with Microsoft for 2 years and 2 CoD games after the XBOXOne launch and the PS4 still outsold the XBOXOne at launch even with TitanFall and the CallofDuty deal still in place. That is why Activision jumped ship. They saw Sony was becoming the clear market leader. They'd probably jump ship again if Microsoft became the market leader. Which is why Microsoft had to buy Activision outright to acquire Call of Duty and they couldn't simply outbid Sony.
Topher
Identifies as young
Clearly for publishers of games as big as Resident Evil Village, Game Pass is not "the best deal in gaming".
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
but .. the "blocking deals" preventing from doing that is exactly what this is about ..
they're still offering games like Plague Tale, STALKER 2, Scorn, Atomic Heart etc when they can but one of the bigger point of their rebuttal is that they're being blocked.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
They are plenty of other big AAA games Microsoft can add to gamepass outside of the ones Sony is blocking. But they're not.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
That's a lot of assumption on your part here.
We don't know how many publishers have blanket blocking contracts like this from Sony, nor do we know how many MS is/are approaching with game pass deals.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Sorry, I simply don't believe Sony has their hands in every publishers pockets for all of their games to block gamepass. If you have evidence of that by all means but the mere thought of it is just ludicrous
Gamepass has been dogshit this year. And I very much doubt that's because of Sony
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Even games like Borderlands 3 that had marketing deals with Microsoft are not on Game Pass. All Cyberpunk 2077 had on Game Pass was a trial. So no, you can't point to Sony across the board for reasons that major AAA games are not on Game Pass.
MasterCornholio
Member
Yes I also think it's dumb if anyone believes that Gamepass quality levels is completely dependent on Sonys marketing deals. While I do agree that some games won't come to gamepass due to them that's not true with all of them. Far from it to be honest. Many companies don't want to release their titles day one on it because it doesn't suit their business models. Sony in most cases has nothing to do with these titles not coming to gamepass.
Gamepass library just like PlayStation Pluses library is mostly dependent on the platform owner not the competition. If either suck then most of the blame rests on the platform holder.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Sony may not have their hands in *every* publisher, but it is a very very safe bet that they certainly do in almost all major Japanese publishers at least. You can't deny that now, come on.
Also, as far as the evidence goes, it's in the OP of this topic. They've sent redacted cases in their rebuttal.
I would love to have it all without redaction but it is what it is.
I don't want to start a list war, but game pass has been far from dog shit this year. In the absence of much of first party, game pass has been holding very well starting with ME: Legendary in the first drops of January and with games like Immortality coming in this next drop receiving 10/10 from Edge and all that.
I didn't point it to Sony has a blanket reason why not every AAA game comes to game pass, expecting every major game to be there is a little absurd in itself, but certain games being blocked from coming on game pass is happening, that's one of the key points of this topic and MS's rebuttal to the courts.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Between square and capcom, sure. Plenty more publishers than those though.
That's hardly sufficient evidence at all.
I don't want to go into what amounts to a list war either. But no handpicking two games when we're in the 8th month doesn't constitute as good to me.
Topher
Identifies as young
It is happening for select few games for a limited period of time. But that is irrelevant when, factually, games that have no deals with Sony and have deals with Microsoft are not on Game Pass. The reason is clearly because they don't want subscriptions to siphon off sales revenue. Game Pass may be a lucrative deal for the smaller devs, but let's not pretend Resident Evil Village would happily share a $15 monthly community pot like they would. Games like that are not on Game Pass because they would lose money.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You're doing what mack was doing earlier and demanding evidence that's clearly redacted in the documents. It's asking for something no one can give you in a bullet point format.
I don't see any reason why MS would give out false info to the courts. Why make their case for the acquisition more difficult on themselves. Nor has anyone from Sony come out to deny this so far.
You're practically baiting a list war but I'll refrain from biting lol.
The point of mentioning those two games was that one was in the very first drop of the year and one is in the next one. There have been a couple of dozens of fantastic AA and AAA games in between.
As a GP subscriber, I don't in any way feel that the year has been "dogshit" at all.
FYI, Borderlands 3 had no marketing deal with Xbox at all. Maybe another case where Sony's clauses struck against possible deals.
Xbox Borderlands 3 Marketing Deal Denied by Randy Pitchford; “Gearbox Signed No Such Thing With Microsoft”
Randy Pitchford, creator of the Borderlands series and CEO of Gearbox Software has denied that his company signed a deal with Microsoft about Xbox Borderlands 3 marketing.
wccftech.com
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
FYI, Borderlands 3 had no marketing deal with Xbox at all.
Xbox Borderlands 3 Marketing Deal Denied by Randy Pitchford; “Gearbox Signed No Such Thing With Microsoft”
Randy Pitchford, creator of the Borderlands series and CEO of Gearbox Software has denied that his company signed a deal with Microsoft about Xbox Borderlands 3 marketing.
I stand corrected. No marketing deal with Sony either, but still never been on Game Pass. Cyberpunk 2077 absolutely had a deal with MS, even had a Xbox bundle, and all subscribers go was a limited time trial of the game. So the only game we know about is RE V. So if we are against making assumptions then I suggest leaving it at that.
Last edited:
Goalus
Member
List wars have become more fun for Xbox gamers since then.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Yes, i want evidence to suggest Microsoft can't get AAA third party games on gamepass because of Sony. Shocking i know. You don't have that evidence so stop pushing that nonsense
I'm not baiting you into a list war at all. I think gamepass has been dogshit this year. Get over it.
Last edited:
Timberwolf25
Member
Why even have any blocking deals in the first place?
Let the publishers free to put the games on whatever platforms they want.
The back and forth of they don't have that many or we don't have evidence of how many they do block shouldn't be the point. Same with blocking crossplay or charging a fee to "allow" crossplay. In the end, it hurts the consumers more than anything else.
Marketing deals I can get behind because it dose help out the publishers mitigate the costs of advertising the games unless they are misleading.
Let the publishers free to put the games on whatever platforms they want.
The back and forth of they don't have that many or we don't have evidence of how many they do block shouldn't be the point. Same with blocking crossplay or charging a fee to "allow" crossplay. In the end, it hurts the consumers more than anything else.
Marketing deals I can get behind because it dose help out the publishers mitigate the costs of advertising the games unless they are misleading.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
These deals are not preventing publishers from putting games on other platforms at all. These are not exclusivity deals. Just marketing.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Here's your evidence, now if you want to see what's under the redacted points, you'll need to contact the relevant authorities for it. But at least you have your evidence.
I mean you'd still be wrong, but ok I'll get over that fallacy.
Game(s) are being blocked, that is not an assumption that is a fact.
Is Sony the only one who does that ? very likely no. But they're the only one who've been accused of doing that in a court filing so far.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Both of you guys are just guessing. Neither of you are right or wrong as us from the public knows.
Personally, I would find it weird if capcom is the only one Sony has paid for. Resident Evil is way past its peak, and I could think of more games hurting Microsoft.
As in Destiny 2 as an example.
Topher
Identifies as young
Anything beyond RE V is an assumption. Anyone else doing this is an assumption. And Microsoft's lawyers are giving their side, not an objective take on it.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Here's your evidence, now if you want to see what's under the redacted points, you'll need to contact the relevant authorities for it. But at least you have your evidence.
I mean you'd still be wrong, but ok I'll get over that fallacy.
Game(s) are being blocked, that is not an assumption that is a fact.
Is Sony the only one who does that ? very likely no. But they're the only one who've been accused of doing that in a court filing so far.
You're doing your usual disingenuous takes again
The fact that sony is blocking games coming to gamepass isn't being contested. It's the scope of it that is.
Microsoft: Sony is blocking games from coming to gamepass
You: Sony is blocking most games from coming to gamepass
All you're doing is twisting words
Last edited:
Timberwolf25
Member
If that's true, then why is FFVII still exclusive on console.
Similar threads
- Poll