MS opened it? Lol. Do you think Sony's history begins with the PS3?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Microsoft responds to Sony's claim that Call of Duty is unrivaled & unique (Claims Sony is paying to block games from Gamepass)
- Thread starter Idas
- Start date
- Activision/Blizzard
Hell yeah someone finally brought that up. Let's get the cycle going again!
User Threadbanned: Thread Whining
Read the actual content of my post instead of flipping out on me for a few words at the beginning of it. I obviously read some of it or I wouldn't have been able to point out the part where they talk about the profitability of exclusivity vs. remaining on all platforms. It's an extremely long wall of legal speak and almost nobody in this thread actually read every word of it.
They can sell Elder Scrolls on other platforms & still have it on Game Pass, just like I'm sure they're going to do with Call of Duty going forward. I'm sure going to push Game Pass HARD during that time as well.
It's legitimately a great value. Having Elder Scrolls & Call of Duty on Game Pass, even though it's also on PlayStation, is still a huge threat to Sony. Losing them completely would be even worse, which is way they're taking such a hard stance.
I just wonder what the logic is for Microsoft at the end of the day: Does everything other than Call of Duty go exclusive, or is it a case by case basis?
Thanks for the inside baseball, OP, it is kind of fascinating to get the look behind the curtain, even as someone who in not a fan of many of these consolidations and acquisitions.
And in this case, I would say that MS' arguments do kind of put paid to a lot of Sony's.
And in this case, I would say that MS' arguments do kind of put paid to a lot of Sony's.
Also in the 360 Generation it was shown that Microsoft could perfectly compete with Sony without having to make big purchases of third party publishers. Even now, without the Activision purchase, the two consoles are selling at similar rates in many markets.
Thanks OP for the translation.
"Let us explained to you why we want to spend 69 Billions dollars on a shitty company".
Also, CoD us unrivaled and unique.
Also, Destiny is unrivaled and unique.
Yeah those talk are so silly, seriously.
"Let us explained to you why we want to spend 69 Billions dollars on a shitty company".
Also, CoD us unrivaled and unique.
Also, Destiny is unrivaled and unique.
I think it's highly likely Elder Scrolls 6 will be Xbox/PC exclusive.
IMO, everything with recurring revenue streams and microtransactions will be multiplatform, everything single player/non GAAS will be exclusive
There's a big difference between 3 month indie exclusives and indefinite AAA exclusives. Microsoft and Sony could not have more different strategies here.
While that's without a doubt due to a stronger Xbox offering in terms of hardware + services, I think a good portion of the similar rates in many markets is due to availability. But that's reality, so it is what it is.
Interested in his reply too.
I actually don't think it is...its era and I could be wrong though. Difficult to detect sarcasm nowadays.
Yeah this obviously had the domino effect of Nintendo buying Rare, Sony buying Squaresoft, and Microsoft buying Sega to kickstart the original Xbox… oh wait.
Virgin acquired a publisher before that. I'll leave that one to the next poster
If you want to say someone did something first, check your facts before clicking 'post reply'. Its just common sense.
This is really Sony's fault for relying so hard on third party games to strenght their brand, i dont know if Nintendo was smart or if it was on purpose but putting so much effort on their first party IPs is the best strategy against the new model Gamepass proposes and thats why it doesnt affect them, and they went their own route since the Wii.
Sony has a lot of exclusives and great IPs dont get me wrong, but part of their cake is definetly COD, FIFA and F2P games, at some point if you're playing against a mega-giant like Microsoft, you have to wonder if it really is the best idea to rely on IPs that are not yours...Welp, now that Microsoft woke up i guess Sony needs to think in something innovative, because if not, in 5 to 10 years the market is going to look very different.
Sony has a lot of exclusives and great IPs dont get me wrong, but part of their cake is definetly COD, FIFA and F2P games, at some point if you're playing against a mega-giant like Microsoft, you have to wonder if it really is the best idea to rely on IPs that are not yours...Welp, now that Microsoft woke up i guess Sony needs to think in something innovative, because if not, in 5 to 10 years the market is going to look very different.
Microsoft isn't buying ABK and Bethesda to compete with Sony, they are buying it to support their subscription service and that is their main goal with these deals. We've already seen the reactions to not a good month for Game Pass, they need as much content as possible to feed the machine.
"My company is better and more ethical than your company!" Console warring on the internet have definitely changed recently.
At least people will be able to play COD on playstation unlike what Sony did with Final Fantasy franchise…
Excellent post once again. Not only informative but entertaining because of the content.
Also this. No one else is doing this kind of work on the subject.
To be fair I'm sure they'd have the exact same strategy if buying timed exclusivity wasn't so much more expensive for MS than it is for Sony.
![00Quan[T]](/data/avatar/31681832007/115484-m.jpg){kind=avatar}
Todd already said that working on fewer platforms helps their development, so yeah, I'm not seeing anything else from Bethesda on PS.
I'm talking about the exclusive dlc deals with sometimes months of disparity across games like Call of Duty who got map packs a month early, or Rock Band 2 having a 30 day span between 360 and ps3/wii, the GTA4 DLC.
I'm sorry the PS2 was so huge that other systems had trouble with third party games but that wasn't solely because of exclusive deals and shit. People put the games where they were selling.
The things we're seeing now with entire levels, characters, or whatever being held up for years between coming out on one system to the other started because of the 360 DLC exclusive deals, they opened the box and Sony responded hardcore during the PS4 days.
User Banned (1 Day): Platform Warring; Metacommentary
Only thing these people here care is to get cheap games and cheer about companies, giving their data in exchange is nothing. Reactions would be very different if it wasn't MS doing this move.
Battlefield never a legitimate competitor.
The only game that was in the same league was BF1 and that was against the worst performing COD which I think was down about half.
That's going to be exactly what happens. Anything that relies on having a lively online player base over an extended period of time will be multiplatform.
Simplification is single player games = exclusive and multiplayer games = multiplatform
I bought a vineyard in ac odyssey and stopped it from selling wine to markus competitors. The hole goes deeper than that
I only support a console from the most pro-consumer of pro-consumer companies.
The reality is that Microsoft only competed in that generation due to ("Arrogant") Sony and their terrible PS3 release, and by the end of the generation PS3 has sold more. That just shows how dominant Sony is, especially in the rest of the world, regardless of if their product is even good or not. Without that trip up from Sony its very likely we wouldn't have the choice between Xbox and Playstation today, given how close Microsoft was to closing down Xbox in the mid 2010s.
This is what gets me when people are arguing what legal business deals are mutually agreed upon between two businesses are more "ethical" with "ethical" somehow rooted in multiplatform and unethical rooted in exclusivity. LOL
Frankly, the COD community vocally argues that BOCW/Vanguard brought COD to it's lowest point yet.
Though they do say that every year, this time it is a bit different, with Vanguard failing with far more intensity than any other missfire before (Ghosts, WW2).
And just saying COD has no competition when Battlefield has been exactly that since day one, is an outright LIE. Just LIE.
I'm rooting for a good outcome for all parties here, but Sony are really desperate in their argumentation and MS seem to be easily countering them thus far.
I was in the mood so thought I'd give it try.
Sony would absolutely welcome an enticing service that challenges there dominance. Come on now.
The game's not going exclusive. The reason Sony is the only party that cares is it being on Game Pass will take away sales and mtx on their store.
That's not a monopoly, that's anticompetitive behavior... different things!
I think that would only drive Xbox players to spend more time in the game but wouldn't encourage the existing fanbase to switch platforms. PS and Xbox are so similar that it's easy for someone to switch from one box to the other. PC offers a very different purchase/set-up/customizability experience while Switch and mobile appeal to those who prefer to game on the go.
If they stop the Playstation ports, then that would mostly drive PS CoD players into buying an Xbox and therefore start spending money on their storefront and/or buying Game Pass.
Well COD has been the best selling game or at least top 3 selling game for what, the last decade at least? It doesnt have competition as no other franchise has done that or come close to doing that. Not sure why people are acting like it's an absurd statement. If someone else was capable of doing that then COD wouldn't be the too selling every year.
You're right, you can still play COD on all platforms (and will continue to do so), unlike FF -.-
BOCW and Vanguard have actually hurt the image of COD and it's not the normal "this game is trash" then goes on to sell a billion copies like in the past, you can actually see Activision losing a ton of players, myself included.
That's not what they're arguing.
There's plenty of games that sell well consistently, like FIFA, GTA, etc, and have for years (decades even).
What they're trying to establish that not only is there no competition for COD in it's genre, but that it's a genre unto itself (or rather, they want that to be percieved as it's own market). All of which is laughable.
Yes exactly, and while BF2042 has arguably failed "harder", COD isn't exactly in good graces with it's target audience either.
You are right and probably one of the reasons is that all big publishers are against subscription services with day 1 releases. Microsoft just used the opportunity with the scandals around Activision Blizzard. Hey, they even were among the top critics against ABK which helped stocks going down.
I won't be surprised if Microsoft target Take Two next, because they spoke publicly in favor of Sony's strategy.
You really do the most caping for Sony in these drive-by posts. The point is that despite Call of Duty is not its own market despite its popularity and cultural impact. Sony was foolish to try and claim that in the first place.