Support NeoGAF

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Exactly. Technically Sony could be stubborn and just say no to every proposal, but Jimbo isn't stupid. He wants to collaborate. They'll figure something out.

There's no need for Sony to be stubborn. MS is honouring the deals already in place. That's it.

 

[CatLady]

Exactly. Technically Sony could be stubborn and just say no to every proposal, but Jimbo isn't stupid. He wants to collaborate. They'll figure something out.

Of course Sony can. Thye know Microsoft is not going to break any contracts, but if Sony decides to be dickish on CoD on Game Pass, Microsoft can certainly return the favor in 2025.

 

[nominedomine]

Just imagine how much people would be making fun o Jim Ryan if the situation was reversed.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

There's no need for Sony to be stubborn. MS is honouring the deals already in place. That's it.

Send me the link to the contract pls, I must've missed it.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Send me the link to the contract pls, I must've missed it.

A little common sense is all you need

 

[SuperSaiyanWithDreads]

They don't want to sell consoles,they want to sell subs.

You need more people with consoles so they can sub

 

[baphomet]

You need more people with consoles so they can sub

They don't care about consoles. They want to sell a $50 streaming stick so anyone can sub to game pass.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

A little common sense is all you need

Common sense tells us that if there's a "no Gamepass" clause in the contract, Microsoft might want to reneg on that after it buys ABK. And common sense also tells us that Jimbo won't be stupid enough to block every single proposal. He likely wants to collaborate with Microsoft in the future so burning bridges would be a huge unforced error.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Common sense tells us that if there's a "no Gamepass" clause in the contract, Microsoft might want to reneg on that after it buys ABK. And common sense also tells us that Jimbo won't be stupid enough to block every single proposal. He likely wants to collaborate with Microsoft in the future so burning bridges would be a huge unforced error.

Common sense should tell you there isn't a "no gamepass" clause. There's a "no subscription" clause

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Common sense should tell you there isn't a "no gamepass" clause. There's a "no subscription" clause

My point still stands.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

My point still stands.

No it doesn't, because

 

[Metnut]

So what exactly did Microsoft really spend $70 or so billion on here? Seems like an awful low return on investment

 

[Bernd Lauert]

No it doesn't, because

That doesn't tell us anything about what's in the agreement.

So what exactly did Microsoft really spend $70 or so billion on here? Seems like an awful low return on investment

ABK made more profits last year than the entirety of Playstation (and likely Xbox). The ROI is gonna be fine.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That doesn't tell us anything about what's in the agreement.

Once again, you only need a little common sense to understand that they're not going to let COD go to a competing sub-service while under contract

 

[nominedomine]

So what exactly did Microsoft really spend $70 or so billion on here? Seems like an awful low return on investment

They spent it on a company that was worth about $70B while always releasing their games on all platforms.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Once again, you only need a little common sense to understand that they're not going to let COD go to a competing sub-service while under contract

It all depends on how the agreement was worded. The Capcom agreement already allows for a loophole, for example.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

It all depends on how the agreement was worded. The Capcom agreement already allows for a loophole, for example.

Which loophole?

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Which loophole?

3rd party.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

3rd party.

MS would still be recognised as a third party.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

MS would still be recognised as a third party.

How so?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

How so?

The term assignee exists specifically to recognise third parties that take on a contract after it's already been made.

 

[Hezekiah]

They spent it on a company that was worth about $70B while always releasing their games on all platforms.

It wasn't really worth $70bn, MS paid a significant premium.

After 2025, when CoD launches on GamePass (along with other Activision Blizzard titles), MS will likely see themselves as having the justification to make a substantial increase to the price of GamePass though.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

The term assignee exists specifically to recognise third parties that take on a contract after it's already been made.

How is Microsoft a third party in this scenario?

 

[nominedomine]

It wasn't really worth $70bn, MS paid a significant premium.

After 2025, when CoD launches on GamePass (along with other Activision Blizzard titles), MS will likely see themselves as having the justification to make a substantial increase to the price of GamePass though.

So you think they spent $70B so they could increase the price of gamepass four years from now? That doesn't make any sense.

Even if CoD was an Xbox exclusive it hardly has an effect on how much they can charge on a subscription, most CoD fan would rather pay $60 upfront or play the F2P mode than pay $15 every month.

 

[baphomet]

How is Microsoft a third party in this scenario?

You do realize they don't own them right?

 

[adamsapple]

It wasn't really worth $70bn, MS paid a significant premium.

After 2025, when CoD launches on GamePass (along with other Activision Blizzard titles), MS will likely see themselves as having the justification to make a substantial increase to the price of GamePass though.

So you think they spent $70B so they could increase the price of gamepass four years from now? That doesn't make any sense.

Even if CoD was an Xbox exclusive it hardly has an effect on how much they can charge on a subscription, most CoD fan would rather pay $60 upfront or play the F2P mode than pay $15 every month.

MS didn't pay $70 bn for CoD.

They paid $70 bn for Activision, Blizzard and King studios.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

How is Microsoft a third party in this scenario?

You're not getting it. There's immediate recognition of the original party to the contract (Activision) and the third party who was assigned the contract (Microsoft)

Imagine you're in court and you try and take that stance. Wouldn't work no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[Hezekiah]

MS didn't pay $70 bn for CoD.

They paid $70 bn for Activision, Blizzard and King studios.

Probably why I specifically mentioned Activision Blizzard

 

[FalsettoVibe]

That doesn't tell us anything about what's in the agreement.

Whatever it is, they agreed to honor it. Whether that includes it appearing on GP or not.

 

[3liteDragon]

Based on? It's very likely going on Game Pass day one, a marketing deal won't stop that.

Wanna do an avatar bet?

 

[baphomet]

Wanna do an avatar bet?

Dude, I'd put $250 that MW2 will not be on game pass day 1.

I highly doubt anyone will legitimately take it though.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Well they don't own them yet obviously, so they can't just put them on for that reason. Once they do you'll likely see all of the older ones on there.

After 2 years most people are no longer playing the multiplayer, buying battle packs, buying skins, etc. So Microsoft would have no reason currently/previously to pay Activision for a game on game pass that isn't going to have a bunch of additional in game sales.

Hold on...if people are no longer playing the multiplayer, buying MTX etc., then why would MS even bother putting the old CODs into GamePass? If that's you're thinking to why they haven't made an attempt to get older CODs in there so far, for reasons completely aside the single-player campaigns, then why does that suddenly change once they own ABK?

My reason for even suggesting they try getting an older COD release in there, if they were able to do so, is because of the single-player campaigns. Because to me, I'm still under the impression GamePass is useful for games other than just the live-service side of a game's content, or only live-service GaaS-type games. But if it's not, then there is practically no reason for MS to add older CODs to GamePass if they've been unable to add them beforehand.

 

[reksveks]

But if it's not, then there is practically no reason for MS to add older CODs to GamePass if they've been unable to add them beforehand.

Just marketing

 

[Leyasu]

If there's stipulation's in the marketing contract about keeping cod off of gp and the contract does last another few years.

Then the only way that I can see it coming day one before is if Sony no longer feels comfortable in paying the marketing of a Microsoft game. And negotiate an end to said contract.

We will see. All this back and forth is a waste of effort at the moment

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Just marketing

I guess. Works for them if they want the brand associated with them going forward.

The FTC to my knowledge has no such power as granted by congress. Once it's approved they can't reconsider and change their mind after the fact. The EU does, however, I think.

The FTC may not have that power currently, but they're trying to push through legislature that would grant them that power in the future. We'll see if it actually comes to pass.

 

[reksveks]

If there's stipulation's in the marketing contract about keeping cod off of gp and the contract does last another few years.

Then the only way that I can see it coming day one before is if Sony no longer feels comfortable in paying the marketing of a Microsoft game. And negotiate an end to said contract.

We will see. All this back and forth is a waste of effort at the moment

We like endless speculation on this forum/internet though.

 

[baphomet]

Then the only way that I can see it coming day one before is if Sony no longer feels comfortable in paying the marketing of a Microsoft game. And negotiate an end to said contract.

They didn't do that with any of the Bethesda stuff, not sure why anyone would think that was a possibility now.

 

[kyliethicc]

No it doesn't, because

the PlayStation chad lol

 

[Leyasu]

They didn't do that with any of the Bethesda stuff, not sure why anyone would think that was a possibility now.

The Bethesda stuff were moneyhat exclusives. This is marketing and some extra load out slots etc.

 

[MaxwellParrish]

That doesn't tell us anything about what's in the agreement.

ABK made more profits last year than the entirety of Playstation (and likely Xbox). The ROI is gonna be fine.

I don't think this is true at all? ABK made something like 9 billion in income while PlayStation made 3 time that?

 

[StealthGoblin]

so Sony has 4-5 years to create their own COD.

Well it probably won't go off PlayStation even after that. Worldwide PlayStation is the bigger brand and is actively building a multiplayer base. It would be mad to remove it from that ecosystem in much the same way having Bungie games exclusive makes little sense.

I do wonder whether there are agreements in place for PS+ extra. That would be an interesting turn of events.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

I dont think buying Activision is even about gamepass. I think there is some other industry factor that is causing the purchase...like consoles have a decade left before they are done/niche. Or, MS want the management/headcount to make blockbusters because they feel like they can get IP but not make studios (343).



Anyways, COD will be on gamepass, but it wont be sclusive.

 

[Shmunter]

I can barely find a game in Cold War but never left wanting for Modern Warfare. We know #2 is coming now, but I'm not sure what point there is after least it be #3

 

[Shubh_C63]

Maybe pull from competitors console when COD is at its highest, because right now COD is at its lowest. Either way, honoring till 2026 seems less messy for all parties involved.

And Sony committing half of their entire budget to just GAAS games, they won't miss COD by 2026.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I don't think this is true at all? ABK made something like 9 billion in income while PlayStation made 3 time that?

That's revenue. I'm talking profits.

 

[MaxwellParrish]

That's revenue. I'm talking profits.

In that case, I think ABK was a 2.2 billion dollar net profit last year and Playstation at 2.7, if I understood correctly the data..

 

[Bernd Lauert]

In that case, I think ABK was a 2.2 billion dollar net profit last year and Playstation at 2.7, if I understood correctly the data..

ABK was at $3.5B operating income, Playstation was at $2.7B operating income. We can't compare net income because Sony doesn't publish it seperately for Playstation.

 

[John Wick]

If there's stipulation's in the marketing contract about keeping cod off of gp and the contract does last another few years.

Then the only way that I can see it coming day one before is if Sony no longer feels comfortable in paying the marketing of a Microsoft game. And negotiate an end to said contract.

We will see. All this back and forth is a waste of effort at the moment

It's funny how stupid some people are? A giant corporation like MS is gonna break contracts just so they can put a game on their service. MS want more customers, trust and honouring contracts is a major part of that. I can see Phil Nadella sat there rubbing their hands together on how they can get one over Sony by breaking the COD contract....... Lmfao

 

[Heisenberg007]

Wanna do an avatar bet?

 

[clarky]

Just a random thought, what about PC gamepass? Thats where id be playing anyways. IF the sony deal blocks xbox don't think it would cover the pc version Probably wouldn't even been a consideration. it would he a big boost to the pc side of GP while they wait for the deal to expire. Although the optics might be a bit shit.

Not got any skin in the game one way or the other, bar from wanting to avoid spending another £70 on COD