Support NeoGAF

[Vognerful]

Well I was responding to the idea that Gamepass is 'free' and PS titles cost $80, both are wrong. You didnt say that specifically but you intimated it.

Look at it this way: with Gamepass you're paying $15 or $10 a month to be able to play COD. Seeing as its a game people play until the next one releases and you lose access to it as soon as you stop subscribing. For 12 months you've paid $120 or $180 to play it.

If you buy it outright you pay $50 or $60 once and own it forever, you dont keep paying the longer you want to pay it.

Your argument would be sound if you are only playing or buying 1 game a year. add More games and the financial incentive deviates towards game pass like subscription

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That you were basically saying the same "I need an actually clarified quote before I take the PR to heart" thing I was before

So you don't see the difference between an editorialization from a journalist and a direct statement by Microsoft to the FTC?

 

[Hobbygaming]

If call of duty goes multi platform, then why haven't they released Forza, halo etc already on playstation as well?

If you buy one of the best selling franchises of all times and keep it multi platform, then what's the point to have other exclusives to their eco system?

They just released infinite, why didn't they release it for PlayStation? Same as Forza, why wasn't horizon 5 on playstation?

Probably because you need some reasons to attract people to your console/eco system over the competition

If everything was on PlayStation, why would people bother getting any other system?

 

[Elog]

People are missing the obvious - if X>Y then a rational player will go for X. Continuing to offer your products in a platform agnostic way is more profitable (X) than not (Y). MS is a rational actor in the market. The key question is if their key product offer is allowed on other platforms as well which I believe will be the case at least long-term (i.e. GP).

 

[Vognerful]

Would these new statements from Microsoft and last Bungie announcement guarantee that any acquisition of let’s say capcom or square, them staying multi platform?

 

[adamsapple]

So you don't see the difference between an editorialization from a journalist and a direct statement by Microsoft to the FTC?

Nah just seeing a bit of myself in your reply. This whole topic is also based on some edioralization, the original article doesn't say "release" nowhere, that's Nibels editorializing.

 

[AV]

If call of duty goes multi platform, then why haven't they released Forza, halo etc already on playstation as well?

If you buy one of the best selling franchises of all times and keep it multi platform, then what's the point to have other exclusives to their eco system?

They just released infinite, why didn't they release it for PlayStation? Same as Forza, why wasn't horizon 5 on playstation?

When was the last time Forza and Halo were on Playstation?

Right, now when was the last time Call of Duty was on Playstation?

It's about weighing up the benefits of the existing install bases vs. making things exclusive in the future to potentially draw people in. It probably took them quite a long time to weigh that up for Elder Scrolls 6 because the existing install base is massive on Playstation, but not as massive as Call of Duty.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Nah just seeing a bit of myself in your reply. This whole topic is also based on some edioralization, the original article doesn't say "release" nowhere, that's Nibels editorializing.

Nibel is editorlisaing it. I'm not using Nibels' language and I've been clear about this through our entire exchange. There's no comparison between Bungie and this.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

The best posts are the ones that think both the CEO and President are being dishonest in their messages to the FTC just to get approval.

Are you dumb?

The best posts are the ones where people think that whatever Microsoft said was a guarantee that future titles will come to Playstation, and going against that would be lying to the FTC. Talk about a reach.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The best posts are the ones where people think that whatever Microsoft said was a guarantee that future titles will come to Playstation, and going against that would be lying to the FTC. Talk about a reach.

Telling the FTC that COD would not be exclusive and then making COD exclusive would be lying to the FTC, yes.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Telling the FTC that COD would not be exclusive and then making COD exclusive would be lying to the FTC, yes.

CoD will not be exclusive, that much is guaranteed. CoD Warzone and CoD Warzone 2, for example, will be multiplatform. Promises made, promises kept.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Telling the FTC that COD would not be exclusive and then making COD exclusive would be lying to the FTC, yes.

These dudes acting like MS is a forum poster.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

CoD will not be exclusive, that much is guaranteed. CoD Warzone and CoD Warzone 2, for example, will be multiplatform. Promises made, promises kept.

Do you see them talking about COD Warzone, or COD the franchise in their blogpost?

If what you think is true, then at best they're trying to mislead them.

 

[NonPhixion]

The best posts are the ones where people think that whatever Microsoft said was a guarantee that future titles will come to Playstation, and going against that would be lying to the FTC. Talk about a reach.

Thank you for answering my question.

 

[kuncol02]

What they didn't said there is that Call of Duty 2023 is last game in series. From 2024 it will be replaced with new series called Duty Calls.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Do you see them talking about COD Warzone, or COD the franchise in their blogpost?

If what you think is true, then at best they're trying to mislead them.

They're talking about the franchise. That's what makes the statements ambiguous, they could release Warzone 2 for all platforms and make the 2024 mainline CoD Xbox exclusive, and that would still mean that they kept their promise. That's the key difference between Microsoft's statement and Sony's statement with Bungie games, although even with Bungie there is some (tiny) wiggle room.

 

[El Pistolero]

Playstation will keep COD but you'll pay $80 for it and you'll like it! Us PC and Xbox gamers on the other hand.....

I am with you, buddy. I would rather be offered shit to eat than have to pay for it. A more reasonable person would object to consuming that in the first place, but we both know that everything is tied to that sweet price tag...

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They're talking about the franchise. That's what makes the statements ambiguous, they could release Warzone 2 for all platforms and make the 2024 mainline CoD Xbox exclusive, and that would still mean that they kept their promise. That's the key difference between Microsoft's statement and Sony's statement with Bungie games, although even with Bungie there is some (tiny) wiggle room.

So you actually believe they're trying to mislead the FTC

Unbelieveable

 

[Bernd Lauert]

So you actually believe they're trying to mislead the FTC

Unbelieveable

No, because the statement is not misleading. CoD as a franchise won't be Xbox exclusive.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No, because the statement is not misleading. CoD as a franchise won't be Xbox exclusive.

Yes, it is. They've given absolutely no indication that select COD titles will be exclusive. They are sending one message to them, and that is COD the franchise will be on PlayStation beyond their contractual agreements.

I expected less naivety from you of all people

 

[Thirty7ven]

So you actually believe they're trying to mislead the FTC

Unbelieveable

The mentality of a liar, can't imagine how some of these posters behave in real life.

 

[skit_data]

What they didn't said there is that Call of Duty 2023 is last game in series. From 2024 it will be replaced with new series called Duty Calls.

Also a spinoff series named ”Dutty Calls” consisting of Sean Paul sextalk via your phone.

 

[DJ12]

I think the big reason for this multiplatform direction is that Sony and MS have seen they aren't number one for revenue in gaming anymore

Suddenly it's a third party publisher Tencent, who dont even have a system. The difference in revenues between the consoles manufacturers and third parties used to be gigantic

Weren't Sony first, followed by Tencent?

 

[Negotiator101]

Well I was responding to the idea that Gamepass is 'free' and PS titles cost $80, both are wrong. You didnt say that specifically but you intimated it.

Look at it this way: with Gamepass you're paying $15 or $10 a month to be able to play COD. Seeing as its a game people play until the next one releases and you lose access to it as soon as you stop subscribing. For 12 months you've paid $120 or $180 to play it.

If you buy it outright you pay $50 or $60 once and own it forever, you dont keep paying the longer you want to pay it.

Yes Sir but you get many other games obviously.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Weren't Sony first, followed by Tencent?

Nah that was outdated info. Tencent are at something like $30 billion in revenue almost

 

[Negotiator101]

Value marketing is the best cope.

What's wrong with value? Why is everyone on here a console fanboy? What a silly response to having value for gamers

 

[DJ12]

They're talking about the franchise. That's what makes the statements ambiguous, they could release Warzone 2 for all platforms and make the 2024 mainline CoD Xbox exclusive, and that would still mean that they kept their promise. That's the key difference between Microsoft's statement and Sony's statement with Bungie games, although even with Bungie there is some (tiny) wiggle room.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Hopefully my Sony stock bounces back from this.

 

[Negotiator101]

The same modicum of respect where you jump into civil discussion chains just to call people idiots and muppets?

Turn off your computer and go look in the mirror you clown

More lame insults, you've obviously got issues I'll leave you to it

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

More lame insults, you've obviously got issues I'll leave you to it

This is coming from the guy who literally started a convo with me just so he could call me an idiot and a muppet

Some of you have no self-awareness at all

 

[Negotiator101]

Hopefully my Sony stock bounces back from this.

You make money buying and selling stocks? Or is it more a long term investment for you? Mate of mine has made over £300,000 in 3 years but that was crypto.

 

[El Pistolero]

Only because Microsoft has a shotgun barrel to Sony’s head since they own so many franchises now. Sony would be committing suicide by trying fight xbox through aqcuistions and putting them exclusive.

Not really. Studios that will join the WWS will make exclusive content; Teams that pertain to a publisher (if Sony chooses to acquire one) will work both on mutilplatform projects, for franchises that used to launch as such, and on exclusives via new IPs. Just like what MS is doing...

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Your argument would be sound if you are only playing or buying 1 game a year. add More games and the financial incentive deviates towards game pass like subscription

There are lots of gamers like myself out there with full-time jobs and families of course. This type of demographic is time-poor alongside anything else, and only has the time to play a handful of games a year. For $180 I can pick up a bunch of titles I really want to play, not just stuff I play because there is limited selection on the service.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Yes, it is. They've given absolutely no indication that select COD titles will be exclusive.

I never said that there was.

They are sending one message to them, and that is COD the franchise will be on PlayStation beyond their contractual agreements.

Exactly. There are no contractual agreements for Warzone 2, for example. And yet, Warzone 2 is gonna be on Playstation.

I expected less naivety from you of all people

Same. Imagine popping champagne over an ambiguous statement.

 

[Vognerful]

There are lots of gamers like myself out there with full-time jobs and families of course. This type of demographic is time-poor alongside anything else, and only has the time to play a handful of games a year. For $180 I can pick up a bunch of titles I really want to play, not just stuff I play because there is limited selection on the service.

No problem with you said there.

 

[reksveks]

Weren't Sony first, followed by Tencent?

Tencent, Sony, Microsoft if you don't include Apple

 

[DJ12]

Tencent, Sony, Microsoft if you don't include Apple

MS aren't third until the acquisition is confirmed.

 

[laynelane]

There is no cope it's fantastic for PS owners to keep having COD and if Sony allowed Gamepass on PS it would be fantastic for PS owners. Gamepass is ridiculous value for us gamers, you really need to realise how much better value gaming is with Gamepass.

Why do people keep bringing up GamePass on PS? Serious question. Sony already have sub services and are creating new ones. What would be the point in putting another sub service on their platform, especially since they would make less money by doing so?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I never said that there was.

Exactly. There are no contractual agreements for Warzone 2, for example. And yet, Warzone 2 is gonna be on Playstation.

Same. Imagine popping champagne over an ambiguous statement.

Actually think about what you're saying. They're laying everything out in the open in this post. They're trying to have a good relationship with regulators. They even say this is to address concerns that COD will be exclusive to Xbox, and to address that they're point-blank saying COD will remain on PS contractual or not, but you still think they're going to omit important information related to that concern?

 

[reksveks]

MS aren't third until the acquisition is confirmed.

They will be once the numbers gets updated for 2021 using my numbers, Nintendo 15.1bn usd, Sony 24.8bn usd and MS 16.2bn usd but in 2020, they were behind Nintendo.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Actually think about what you're saying. They're laying everything out in the open in this post. They're trying to have a good relationship with regulators. They even say this is to address concerns that COD will be exclusive to Xbox, and to address that they're point-blank saying COD will remain on PS contractual or not, but you still think they're going to omit important information related to that concern?

Just saying, if you think that their statements are a guarantee that all future CoD games are going to be released on Playstation, you might be in for a rude awakening. I think the chances are 50:50 for it to go either way.

 

[TheAmazingSpiderMan]

Where are we today folks???

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Just saying, if you think that their statements are a guarantee that all future CoD games are going to be released on Playstation, you might be in for a rude awakening. I think the chances are 50:50 for it to go either way.

That is what they're telling regulators. if you think otherwise, then you think they're omitting information, and if you think MS would risk their relationship over COD of all things then I don't know what to tell you

 

[bushwookie]

I'm okay with being wrong on COD exclusivity and such, along with Diablo, Overwatch etc, but upon a further reading of that statement... it literally can still apply to Warzone and mean games people can already play on Playstation.

All that's really being committed to is games continuing to be available on Playstation, which can mean you'll always be able to purchase, download and play the existing titles, along with Warzone.

Of course COD will never be exclusively available on Xbox, Warzone and existing COD games will still be on Playstation.

Even the beyond agreement and future remarks are clever, and don't ever commit to newer call of duty releases. They could have very easily said "All future Call of Duty games will continue to release on Playstation. None of the future titles in the COD franchise will skip Playstation."

And when they end by saying Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. That again can mean ones they already possess. No commitment to newer titles past the agreement. And the CNBC interview I saw only convinced me further.

The minecraft example he brought up is common sense. Who wouldn't bring up minecraft when trying to get approval for this deal? More platforms is literally covered by game pass minus Playstation. Game Pass automatically spreads a game across more platforms than PC, Xbox and Playstation. Man even said "HOPE" when referring to support for other platforms.


Translation: Microsoft is setting the PR stage, and fully intends to take full advantage and make games exclusive if the acquisition clears. This was just them presenting their arguments.

Could you please stop with this. Like please.... Stop. I get it okay. You saw the interview, and paid attention. Congratulations.

Now could you please try and refrain from informing others about it? I'm looking at all these posts mentioning "cope", and the inevitable entertainment it will bring. And here you are trying your best to inform people and ruin it.

Just sit back and let them go on. This thread is that rare kind that needs time to simmer. But once it's ready, it has the potential to be legendary. Just let it cook.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

That is what they're telling regulators.

No they're not.

 

[bushwookie]

That is what they're telling regulators. if you think otherwise, then you think they're omitting information, and if you think MS would risk their relationship over COD of all things then I don't know what to tell you

Just tell him you'll be here in a few months to revisit this thread.

 

[Mr Moose]

If call of duty goes multi platform, then why haven't they released Forza, halo etc already on playstation as well?

If you buy one of the best selling franchises of all times and keep it multi platform, then what's the point to have other exclusives to their eco system?

They just released infinite, why didn't they release it for PlayStation? Same as Forza, why wasn't horizon 5 on playstation?

Call of Duty is multiplatform...

The main benefit for me is that I spend £70 to £100 on Call Of Duty every year and now I'll get that in my Gamepass subscription, also no doubt Xbox will get the alpha and beta tests first and be a priority technically which hasn't been the case for years.
Sony won't be able to pay to lock a mode out of the game I've paid for 12 months either, hopefully Microsoft aren't petty enough to do that PS players.
No doubt Gamepass subscribers will get exclusive gear, skins etc and the advertising push will all be about how you can get the games without spending £70.

They would, they did it before when they had the CoD marketing, maps 30 days earlier than PlayStation which switched to PS when they got it. But, they don't seem care about that now and want to extend Sony's CoD marketing deal.

Separately, Microsoft said it has committed to Sony that popular franchises it acquires from Activision Blizzard will remain available on PlayStation under Activision's existing deal with Sony, and that it has offered to extend the deal on a "multiyear basis." The existing deal with Sony runs until 2024, Smith said.

The good thing now though is that the maps are the same day for everyone, just a shitty exclusive mode (at least in Cold War, not sure about Vanguard) that no one plays.

Just saying, if you think that their statements are a guarantee that all future CoD games are going to be released on Playstation, you might be in for a rude awakening. I think the chances are 50:50 for it to go either way.

A multiyear basis deal going forward from 2024 on a free to play BR game, go sign that deal now Sony!
It's talking about the new CoDs, to extend the deal they already have on them, not shitty Warzone.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No they're not.

So, MS starting off by addressing concerns on whether or not COD will be exclusive to Xbox, and following that up by saying COD will be on PS regardless of contractual obligations and making no mention of any COD exclusivity AT ALL, isn't them telling regulators that COD will not be exclusive?

 

[Bernd Lauert]

So, MS starting off by addressing concerns on whether or not COD will be exclusive to Xbox, and following that up by saying COD will be on PS regardless of contractual obligations and making no mention of any COD exclusivity AT ALL, isn't them telling regulators that COD will not be exclusive?

Not sure what you're doing here, but go back and read what you were replying to. You claimed that MS are giving regulators a guarantee that all future CoD games are going to be on Playstation. They're not telling regulators that. Simple as.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Not sure what you're doing here, but go back and read what you were replying to. You claimed that MS are giving regulators a guarantee that all future CoD games are going to be on Playstation. They're not telling regulators that. Simple as.

Yes they are. If they're not, then they've omitted important information given the point of that section was to address exclusivity. Simple as