Yeah you won't see COD day and date on GP until 2026/2027 unless MS break the contract.
Source?
Yeah you won't see COD day and date on GP until 2026/2027 unless MS break the contract.
They should just have continued the game and just release new content.Hopefully MW2 will have better support than MW1 did. Stop trying to push yearly releases.
Why would Microsoft break a contract because the game comes to GP?Yeah you won't see COD day and date on GP until 2026/2027 unless MS break the contract.
BTW do Sony have Marketing for Wazone ? i know they have Marketing for Main games, but Warzone 2 it will be it's own standalone game. MS might get something from Warzone 2.
This decision was made independently by Activision, MS don't own them yet.MS doing good work!
He is indeed the one of the best in game industry and one of the few that can be called journalist.
But hey you guys probably believes Jeff Grubb, Jez Corden and Tom Warrior do journalism?![]()
MS played a part knowing there won't be shareholders next year, imagine telling your shareholders we won't make any money next year because we would delay COD 23. Independent Acti would release the game unfinished or cut down SP like they did with BO4 to make it in 2023This decision was made independently by Activision, MS don't own them yet.
Why would Microsoft break a contract because the game comes to GP?
Edit: funny how many suddenly giving a shit about.cod in here when it comes to defending Sony over a contract we don't know if is by years or releases, yet armchair Gaf is ready to defend it.
I've 1200 wins on warzone and love the modern Warfare series. I love cod whether I love playstation or not.Why would Microsoft break a contract because the game comes to GP?
Edit: funny how many suddenly giving a shit about.cod in here when it comes to defending Sony over a contract we don't know if is by years or releases, yet armchair Gaf is ready to defend it.
They'd have the typical clause that'd prevent it from going to competing sub services like we saw with REVillage
Well, none of us knows for sure, but sounds plausible.They'd have the typical clause that'd prevent it from going to competing sub services like we saw with REVillage
Well, none of us knows for sure, but sounds plausible.
Whats more fun is this comment is exactly 4 years old and they talk about Sony contract in years and not releases.
![]()
It's just a little too coincidental that they skip this year.
COD is an annual franchise though. The assumption of a four year contract from both parties is that it would cover four COD games. These marketing deals naturally cover circumstances like delays anyway.
Your guess is still as good as mine, unless you got insider knowledge.
If a contract didn’t deal with delays then one side could just not release any game in the contract period and be fine.Your guess is still as good as mine, unless you got insider knowledge.
The decline of COD as we transition from one gen to the next has struck already. Delaying the next one will only add to that.
By the end of this gen COD is not going to be the juggernaut it was in the PS4/XB1 gen for sure as the kids all play other FPS now and the fans of COD are fatigued and getting old!
I think every big FPS series on console have some kind of fatigue. They are not as great as before.
Spencer couldn't make Halo thrive again. He'll fail with CoD if the series depends on him. So, maybe Activision is right to breath a little and rethink the series, before Spencer becomes the boss.
Why would Microsoft break a contract because the game comes to GP?
Edit: funny how many suddenly giving a shit about.cod in here when it comes to defending Sony over a contract we don't know if is by years or releases, yet armchair Gaf is ready to defend it.
He is indeed the one of the best in game industry and one of the few that can be called journalist.
But hey you guys probably believes Jeff Grubb, Jez Corden and Tom Warrior do journalism?![]()
There is no irony, just truth.The irony of you calling Warren ‘warrior’![]()
Yes and no.They cant sadly. Usually the contracts covers these type of events.
Well, it was Jason who went through what I assume is a rigorous verification process as a journalist and wrote an article. For Tom to just go and ship a 140 characters or less tweet about it without citing the source is just awful. And his response to Jason's opposition was even worse.
Someone posted the info during one of his Livestreams. He didn't subscribe to a $2K/month bloomberg terminal and decide to rip an article as his own
SureLol he saw some tweets and ran with it without any verification on his end?
The irony of you calling Warren ‘warrior’
Sure
They cant sadly. Usually the contracts covers these type of events.
Just to you guys understand.
Bloomberg has the public site.
And the Bloomberg Terminal.
Bloomberg Terminal is like a paywall site where the news are posted before go to public site… Tom probably got the info from somebody that has access to Bloomberg Terminal… you need to pay for it (it is more like a subscription).
Edit - Most of the paid users from Bloomberg Terminal are stock market companies that wants to have access asap to these reports.
MS cant advertise COD as gamepass game, since Sony has the marketing.Why is that sad?
lol no buddy, I think they are not making those moves because they legally can't, the deal has not been finalized yet, MS doesn't own Activision YET.So you think Microsoft bought activision for almost 70 billion dollars and they are not making decisions regardless if publicly they’re are to remain independent?
They’re literally pushing ghost wire up to get out of that contract as soon as possible
This country is going straight to hell.