It came out for xbox in 2021, so not years. It did come out for switch in 2018.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes 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
As a publisher you are going to want to play as nice as possible to those who will potentially generate you the most money. The market leader knows this, which is where leverage can and will be used. Microsoft is making claims Sony is blocking games from being on Game Pass. You can do that when you hold the lions share of revenue.
This is not small fry when you are trying to use something like Game Pass to try and make that pendulum swing the other direction.
Does this mean I have to buy Modern Warfare Squared, since it's not coming to Game Pass anytime soon?
Best post in the thread so far.
CoD dominates the market because the rest of that market happens to suck real bad right now.
But yes, overall it's very interesting to see that 1) Sony made more direct complaints about the threat to its market share and 2) MS pointed it out.
My fear as well.
On topic: Sony is looking mighty dumb in all this. I am almost starting to want MS to take CoD away from Sony.
I have no doubt the deal will go through. We should all buy Activison-Blizzard stocks and earn 20%
In all fairness, SE is nowhere close to the level of acquisition as ActBlizz, even before SE dumped their western studios. And given SE's reluctance to put their AAA work on Xbox anyway, it would hardly affect things if they agreed to sell to Sony. Which is why I don't think such a deal ever happens: It doesn't benefit SE when they can continue to maintain independence and continue to rake in exclusivity dollars, and it doesn't really benefit Sony to spend a bunch of cash on an outfit that doesn't much put their top selling games anywhere else anyway.
The partnership they have in place is best for both worlds as it is today. I tend to think Sony only looks to buy them (if that is indeed true) to prevent Microsoft from sneaking in on their own and doing it.
You think it's SE's reluctance to put their games on Xbox or a deal being made? They didn't have a problem with KH3, FF13 or FF15 and more.
Probably. They say there's deals for the next 3 call of duty games, so theoretically...
You want a publisher that's been third party since Atari days to be a 1st party studio? I'm sorry but Microsoft is just buying publisher to shake up the industry this deal is so silly
If the revenue on Xbox is that low, do you think a publisher like Capcom is to be all that bothered by such a stipulation in the contract? For them, what really changes? When the contract expires, there's nothing from stopping them from receiving Game Pass funding.
We don't know that. The leaked documents said that RE 8 wasn't allowed on gamepass for a year after release, and well it's been over a year and it still isnt on there. It is entirely possible that major publishers have no desire to release day one or early on gamepass and that's why they are happy making this deal, it's just free money.
After all, I doubt Sony gives two shits about Soul Hackers 2, and that isn't on gamepass.
Deal possibly extended with RE8 Gold Edition. Capcom showed that at State of Play along with SF6, no?
Sure that is possible, but there are also plenty of third party that don't come out on gamepass day one. Unless we think Sony is paying everyone, which doesn't really seem feasible. So it doesn't really change my point that it doesn't necessarily mean gamepass would be better. Jeff Grubb even said that some major publishers are hesitant to release day one and we know 2k has flat out said they aren't doing that.
Devil May Cry 5 from the same publisher came to Game Pass 5 months after launch and stayed there for a year. Exact same thing for Shadow of the Tomb Raider from Square Enix.
No one is talking about day 1.
No, they're buying them because AB approached them and said they're for sale.
Wasn't that just a clause of first negotation during a year?
Last edited:
You can see how much power Game Pass (or other good subscription services that don't exist yet) has when they don't really care anymore whether game X gets released on their rivals console, they just don't want it on the subscription service. With the upgraded PS+ services this will be the new normal. We can be glad that there are only 2.5 horses in this race. (yes I am counting NSO as 0.5).
Isn't this more a problem for MS? Or do you mean the Sony exclusives are mostly sequels and that is not enough in the long run?
Last edited:
Do Capcom have any game on either service? I did a quick check and saw none on Extra (I know they have RE7 on the PS+ collection thing, which I guess is technically included with all + tiers) or GP, though could be regional or the search tool not working. Seems more likely Capcom are just not that interested in that in general.
Sony funded Destiny 1, CoD map packs, and Deathloop? News to me.
Oh and FF7R and FF XVI?
Last edited:
I'm sorry what?
Microsoft have been rapidly acquiring developers and publishers whose games, with one or two exceptions, will all be exclusive in future. They are continuing to make third party exclusive deals that see them have exclusives and times exclusives. They also have the audacity to complain about Sony blocking things from Game Pass while clearly putting together deals which block games from services that compete with game pass.
Nobody should be uncritically absorbing the words of a Microsoft lawyer.
I mean, we already knew that, but Microsoft saying it out loud to everyone is going to send a message.
I mean, look at Final Fantasy 7 Remake. It doesn't take a genius to tell you that Sony is paying to keep that off Xbox. Supposed to release on Xbox a year after PS, now it's nowhere to be seen, yet Xbox gets Crisis Core. 😂
I mean, look at Final Fantasy 7 Remake. It doesn't take a genius to tell you that Sony is paying to keep that off Xbox. Supposed to release on Xbox a year after PS, now it's nowhere to be seen, yet Xbox gets Crisis Core. 😂
Nope, knew I remembered something. It was a stadia deal I believe. Eternal didn't join all the other Bethesda games on game pass until october 2021, the other Bethesda games dropped on March 2021 so there was definitely some sort of licensing deal stoping it.
They used to have games on Game Pass. There was MHW, DMC5 and RE7 off the top of my head. RE7 came off just a couple of months ago. The others are long gone.
I was speaking about 3rd party stuff. 1st party stuff will always be exclusive. I am not taking any sides here, not sure what you (mis)understood from my post.
Some very sharp answers by MS lawyers. Not that Sonys position made much sense in the first place of course.
The response very neatly lines out what I said in the other thread. Sony wants to claim that higher production values means higher quality of games, and so cheaper services means less quality for gamers. But cheaper games is not us problem but a them problem, high production value games is their business model and they're railing against a new popular business model that would potentially wreck their competitive edge. Not the actual competition, because it would improve competition.
The argument that if Call of Duty is a genre on its own, then Sony's most popular games would also be genres on their own and they're anti competitive by keeping them to their own platform is just chefs kiss.
The response very neatly lines out what I said in the other thread. Sony wants to claim that higher production values means higher quality of games, and so cheaper services means less quality for gamers. But cheaper games is not us problem but a them problem, high production value games is their business model and they're railing against a new popular business model that would potentially wreck their competitive edge. Not the actual competition, because it would improve competition.
The argument that if Call of Duty is a genre on its own, then Sony's most popular games would also be genres on their own and they're anti competitive by keeping them to their own platform is just chefs kiss.
This can mean multiple things.
It can either mean that Sony pays for marketing and they don't want to arrive on Game Pass or other subscription services; this isn't anything anti-competitive.
But if Sony is bribing companies from releasing their game on any subscription service while forcing people to pay $70 per game across all platforms with no particular marketing, then that's another question and should absolutely be called out.
It can either mean that Sony pays for marketing and they don't want to arrive on Game Pass or other subscription services; this isn't anything anti-competitive.
But if Sony is bribing companies from releasing their game on any subscription service while forcing people to pay $70 per game across all platforms with no particular marketing, then that's another question and should absolutely be called out.
No no, clearly there is only a market for spin offs on xbox.
Regardless, people shouldn't get this caught up in corporations duking it out, we have little to no effect.
This. This forum ( Actually i think any forum ) has a habit of doing exactly that. Also this forum has basically no business sense at all, like apart from some members here and there it's apparent people have no clue.
This is a common business practice that any business in the entire World does. Ever asked why certain movies only appear on certain Streaming services? And i'm not talking about own productions.
You are also foolish to believe that MS does not do the same thing. Like imagine Microsoft getting the next Witcher game on Gamepass, announce it 6 Months beforehand that i comes to the Service make a bit fuzz about it in an Xbox Showcase, only for the game to also appear on PS+ ( which will be announced just a week before release ). That would be an incredible pathetic showing.
Last edited:
There is a huge outcry about those "blocking" statements, but what actually blocking mean?
Isn't it a clause in which Sony simply pays a game not to be added to Game Pass?
If the RE Village is the example here, that's not a blocking clause.
Isn't it a clause in which Sony simply pays a game not to be added to Game Pass?
If the RE Village is the example here, that's not a blocking clause.
I'm pretty sure Monster Hunter World was on PS Now for a good while too, but didn't see it on there anymore.
I was really surprised by the lack of RE on them, I just assumed they where a given outside of the Remakes and Village, but only Premium has some of the side games from the PS3 and 2 different versions of RE1.
The business where I work does it all the time. Pay a manufacturer rights to be their exclusive supplier. You are right, it is very common in the world. Friends used to be only on Netflix here for instance, good luck being able to get that anywhere else at that time.
Thats why I am surprised people are making it out to be a big deal. Its just... normal practice.
HBO paid James Gandolfini just to prevent him joining The Office. That's a blocking deal :D
Honestly that makes me curious to think about, if Sony owned SE would a big budget Final Fantasy be a huge priority for the film division,
also does it go classic style, modern style or direct adaptation of a game.
Seems that way at least until this marketing deal expires, kind of shitty really. It would have been nice if I didn't have to pay £70 for it.
It works like this.
Sony is heavily marketing a game -> there's a clause stopping the game to be released on Game Pass or be released only after it went to PS+ and previously on PS NOW -> It might totally be a complete block altogether, see COD games never launching on Game Pass.
It's not a total block, just a temporary one like in RE Village.
"We will pay marketing for this game and have the PS brand attached to it but you ain't going to put it on Game Pass for X months or it has to go to PS+ or PS NOW before launching on Game Pass"
Yes, even if ATVI acquisition closes soon, you ain't going to see MW2 on Game Pass anytime soon.
No.
COD dominates the market and its genre because the amount of manpower and money needed to run the COD machine is too much.
Like EA could do the same for Battlefield if you wanted but they'd have to kill every non-EA Sport IP and have everyone on Battlefield (Respawn, Maxis, BioWare, Criterion) working non-stop for years.
Activision killed everything they had to focus on COD.
Sony Pictures television is already developing Final Fantasy live-action TV Series.
Aniplex is involved in Nier Anime Series (and Fullmetal Alchemist).
Relationship between both companies is really tight.
But that's not a blocking deal/clause. That's a clause of first refusal which is part of a more complicated marketing deal, which also includes other aspects like helping in development (RE Village used Visual Arts facility for mocap/animations).
In the US yes if not more so. Outside of that no. PlayStation's success in EMEA and Asia goes far beyond COD. Decades of support and brand recognition keep PS strong.
In NA? They might even the odds and Xbox could surpass PS.
Worldwide? Not a chance.
Doubtful. The numbers don't add up. MS would just take the lead in the US.
I like how all of you are jumping on each others throats over some legal bullshit statements made by lawyers.
Of course Sony's stance is not "Yeah, we would love to see Microsoft acquire ActiBlizz", of course this is not what they would be saying. And the Microsoft response is just as predictable, positioning themselves as the poor little underdog while in the past they had their own history of anti-trust & monopolies.
And Sony "blocking" stuff from Gamepass is just as common an exclusivity deal as keeping games off Xbox through marketing deals and other stuff we have seen in the past. And I am sure at any given chance Microsoft would do the same, keeping games they have exclusive marketing deals for off other competing services.
Of course Sony's stance is not "Yeah, we would love to see Microsoft acquire ActiBlizz", of course this is not what they would be saying. And the Microsoft response is just as predictable, positioning themselves as the poor little underdog while in the past they had their own history of anti-trust & monopolies.
And Sony "blocking" stuff from Gamepass is just as common an exclusivity deal as keeping games off Xbox through marketing deals and other stuff we have seen in the past. And I am sure at any given chance Microsoft would do the same, keeping games they have exclusive marketing deals for off other competing services.
