Ah, the loophole to make money hats look better: "funding". And funding a game from Activision, no less! But it worked for SFV so they might just ride that narrative over next years.
-
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.
[Rumor] Modern Warfare 2 Remastered Campaign released first on PS4 because Sony Funded It - Similar Deal for MW3 in place
- Thread starter bob100
- Start date
Hey they are getting better at telling people what hey want to hear, just what you guys always wanted lol
I knew it would eventually come to this. This is what happens when people put caveats or move goalposts on what behavior they find acceptable depending on how it fits their agenda.
I knew it would eventually come to this. This is what happens when people put caveats or move goalposts on what behavior they find acceptable depending on how it fits their agenda.
Same reason why Sony was wanting to do Crash for so long, Acti didn't want to
Are you telling me Activision needed Sony money to make COD MW2
what
It's not even comparable.
I can see Sony pushing for Crash since it's an iconic PS brand, but COD MW2? Really? Activision didn't want to remastered one of the best selling and highly regarded COD title? I call bullshit.
what
It's not even comparable.
I can see Sony pushing for Crash since it's an iconic PS brand, but COD MW2? Really? Activision didn't want to remastered one of the best selling and highly regarded COD title? I call bullshit.
Except it's quite obvious it's BS PR in an attempt to spin it off as consumer-friendly rather than blatant moneyhatting. Acitivision isn't a small company that needed help with making a certain game. So sure, they can say it, but nobody's buying it.
Absolutely. Acti are the last company that is in need of financial assistance. This messaging massaging to make it look less bad.
Sony funded Death Stranding and it's not exclusive, nor are the publishing the ports. Same with SFV. None of these agreements are 100% identical, nor do they have to be.
But it's not BS PR to think that Capcom wouldn't have made SFV if not for Sony? Are they a small company? Again why take one possibility at face value but not the other? Is it because its what people want to believe?
Because they saw/projected enough value in 30 days of exclusivity to make it worth their investment?
I didn't believe that either, so you're asking the wrong person.
Yeah of course. Poor Activision that can't afford to develop a campaign for CoD, specially knowing it will sell so badly.
MS helped with PUBG's console development yet it's out now on PS4, people bought that story, right?
It wasnt okay when xbox did it for rise of the tomb raider and titanfall, and it wasnt okay when sony did it with street fighter and this game
They fund a game to get a 30 days exclusivity? Interesting strategy.
(This news sounds fake as hell tbh)
(This news sounds fake as hell tbh)
PSO 2 too. SEGA isn't poor.
These things are not changing and it's simple to me, if it isn't on the platform I want I ignore it.
Don't see much of a difference between Modern Warfare 3 Remastered and Modern Warfare 2 Remastered if they're both just the campaigns
What makes it not OK? Once again these are business deals between businesses. It has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future.
Marketing is expensive, sometimes unreasonably so, and if you can spend someone else's money for marketing rather than your own and all you have to give up is 30 days exclusivity of your product on one platform, I'd call that a good deal for Activision. It makes sense for Sony to step up and want to market these remakes as well, its a safe bet for marketing dollars and ROI plus it drives more people to the PlayStation platform.
There's more to making a game than just the programming/QA/dev side :)
Edit: Also - I think the difference between Rise of the Tomb Raider, Street Fighter V, Titanfall and this deal is pretty evident:
All those details also included funds to cover some devs costs, this was mainly just a marketing deal.
There's more to making a game than just the programming/QA/dev side :)
Edit: Also - I think the difference between Rise of the Tomb Raider, Street Fighter V, Titanfall and this deal is pretty evident:
All those details also included funds to cover some devs costs, this was mainly just a marketing deal.
Why can't people accept Sony paid for 30 days exclusivity and move on? Activision certainly don't require money to remaster one of the most loved COD campaigns.
This deal is a result of the previous 30 day early (or delay on other platforms) deal for DLC. With no season pass this is the alternative.
This deal is a result of the previous 30 day early (or delay on other platforms) deal for DLC. With no season pass this is the alternative.
Eh, there's a very real possibility Titanfall wouldn't exist without MS so that's not really the best example. Tomb Raider for sure though
Investment in this case = "here's X amount of money to keep this content exclusive to our platform for a month."
lol they didnt need sony to fund this. sony is just trying to buy timed exclusivity and its really shady.
Activision made Modern Warfare remastered which is incredibly successful. Thank you Sony for saving Modern Warfare 2 remastered.
If Sony really funded this it would have been exclusive forever (similar to Bayonetta 2 and 3), this is just a "funded the timed exclusivity deal".
Absolute BS. Sony funded a COD (lol). And even let's say they did, they then allow it on Xbox after 30 days (bigger lol).
Did Sony also fund the MW remake from a couple of years back? That had a 30 day window exclusive to Sony as well.
People who make up this shit don't have the first clue about videogames.
Did Sony also fund the MW remake from a couple of years back? That had a 30 day window exclusive to Sony as well.
People who make up this shit don't have the first clue about videogames.
I mean true but also MW2 Remastered had been leaked like 4 times before hand it's been all over the place since 2018, and Warzone was sorta datamined.
The first Titanfall had the initial backing of EA. Why is it easier to stomach that EA somehow needed help/money to let Respawn finish development than it is to accept for Activision? The reality is that most of the companies striking these deals aren't in poverty. None of them really need these deals most of the time. Activision has been striking marketing deals with MS and Sony for a decade now for Call of Duty (which is a blue print most company follow for all of their big games now in terms of platform partners), do you think they do this because they need the money? They can't fund marketing for a game like CoD or Assasssins Creed on their own?
Probably, yes. But I've always believed that about all these deals. Its why I always thought it was silly when people would make exceptions. Unless we get access to these companies' books and can follow the money trail to see where Sony's money went directly to the salaries of Activision programmers, there is no fundamental difference to any of these deals. People just hear what they want to believe.
Maybe I'm thinking of something else but I could have sworn that we had info from solid sources that Titanfall was in development hell and in very real danger of being shitcanned before MS stepped in with funding
Better to spend someone else's marketing dime than your own if what you are giving up is a minimal headache. Not to mention that Sony has some marketing reach that Activision does not (most notably in Asia). In addition to that, a platform holder, like Sony or Microsoft, have ways of marketing "important products" (re: exclusives and exclusive deals) that'll give the product additional marketing exposure it might not have got otherwise.
So yea, not a matter of Activision not being able to afford it. More a matter of it making more business sense to take a deal like this.
Not really a shock here, being the lead platform for COD was likely one of Sony's main goals and one of their biggest gets of this gen.
They don't need it, but it doesn't mean they wanted to spend money remastering and marketing a SP campaign that won't make 1% of Warzone.
OP
OP
MW2 remastered was leaked by him and as I posted before. He posted 9 months ago (June 2019) most of Warzone details. Just 2 examples
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
Agreed, but I think this applies to every facet of the industry. These deals are complex, but its almost never a case of a company (particularly say, a company as big as Capcom, and an IP as big as Street Fighter) not having the means themselves.
Yes, companies always want more money. Why not take Sony's money if it's there, and only delays other systems by a month?
