• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft: Call of Duty and other popular AB games will continue to be released on PlayStation and Nintendo platforms beyond current agreements

Swift_Star

Banned
dJA9qy2.png


This is not for us
It’s so easy to see MS is going the office and Azure route with everything else. MS is going to have their console, yes, but they’re moving forward to be platform agnostic, just like all MS products are. I know this make fanboys angry but this is MS vision. They’ve always been a software and service company. Walled gardens makes no sense to their business model.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No, this is their pitch to regulators as they themselves admit.

Doing a 180 on their pitch to said regulators would not be a good look for them

No I'm not expecting them to do a full 180, but lawyer speak in the blog will allow them a lot of wiggle room with minimal repercussion if it comes down to it.

At the very least, live service CoDs like both the Warzones will still continue to get support for the foreseeable future if nothing else.
 
No I'm not expecting them to do a full 180, but lawyer speak in the blog will allow them a lot of wiggle room with minimal repercussion if it comes down to it.

At the very least, live service CoDs like both the Warzones will still continue to get support for the foreseeable future if nothing else.

There's not much wiggle room when addressing concerns regarding COD exclusivity on Xbox and leaving out key details like whether any COD games will actually be exclusive to Xbox.
 
Last edited:

Lupin25

Member
I am not gonna lie. It is a great bonus to watch some PS players to cry when MS buy a big publisher, a try to do 180° saying that consolidation is not good. The same PS players that were masturbating when there were news of MS abandoning Xbox.

I hope you’re not taking this kind of behaviour seriously lol…

What does consolidation have to do with funding new exclusive games never developed before by their own first-party stable and why would you be cheering on multi-platform games transitioning to the like?

Sony also does not own the Spider-Man IP.

We don’t know the exact stipulations involving Sony’s gaming rights over it, but it wasn’t until Sony made a “good” Spider-Man game that anyone truly cared for one anyway.

We’ve seen other entries from different studios, which turned out pretty underwhelming (See: Activision’s Amazing Spider-Man or Square-Enix’s Avengers).
 
Last edited:

Menzies

Banned
If MS is making COD multiplat then Starfield and especially the next Elder Scrolls or Doom need to be multiplatform too. These are just just devs they acquired. they are entire publishers.

If they want to be a multiplat publisher then go all the way. Making CoD multiplat while leaving Starfield exclusive makes no sense, and if this was to appease the regulators then the regulators will simply point to starfield and ask the same questions we are asking here. "Why CoD and not starfield?", "Are you just saying it to get the deal through?"
I read some of these posts and I'm thinking are we even living in the same reality?

Are we talking about the same Xbox vs. PlayStation in this dimension?
Xbox (24million) vs PS2 (150 million)
Xbox One (50 million) vs PS4 (120 million)

The same XGS (5x studios 2018) vs SCE (16x studios)?

- The can't buy timed exclusives because the Internet blows up.
- They can't buy studios they don't have relationships because it's not organic or some BS
- They can't buy publishers because it's not "fair"???

Sony is what 2x times their gaming revenue?

This isn't competition?
 
You clearly don't understand the direction MS is going.

You mean the direction you HOPE Microsoft goes lol.

No one should be using this statement, meant for regulatory approval purposes regarding the Activision deal, to somehow claim that all Bethesda games are also going to Playstation. You mad? Hell, by extension, if my understanding of what you're saying is correct, then you assume all Xbox Game Studios titles, Halo included, will go to Playstation as well? Not happening. Microsoft isn't even going to make all Activision games multi-platform. Blizzard's survival title is most likely going to be Xbox exclusive.

And we'll just see how things play out moving forward. I'm not convinced COD truly says multi-plat for good, though it would be smart financially. Diablo 4 and Overwatch 2 make sense to just drop on Playstation. In the short term it just makes a crap ton of sense to get all that money that they can get from COD, and that they'll make with Diablo IV, Overwatch 2, Warzone 2, Warzone etc.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
I read some of these posts and I'm thinking are we even living in the same reality?

Are we talking about the same Xbox vs. PlayStation in this dimension?
Xbox (24million) vs PS2 (150 million)
Xbox One (50 million) vs PS4 (120 million)

The same XGS (5x studios 2018) vs SCE (16x studios)?

- The can't buy timed exclusives because the Internet blows up.
- They can't buy studios they don't have relationships because it's not organic or some BS
- They can't buy publishers because it's not "fair"???

Sony is what 2x times their gaming revenue?

This isn't competition?

Maybe it might be because you aren’t reading the posts all that well? I never said it’s not fair, i said it’s a dumb idea and a gigantic waste of money. And i literally listed a dozen studios they could and should acquire.

Go look at my post history, you would see me asking for them to acquire Ninja theory and obsidian. Or at least partner with them. I begged them to acquire more studios and chastised them for shutting down existing studios.

I want stuff like Hellblade 2, a sequel to an indie game made by 20 people is now a proper $100 million AAA title. That’s what ms money can do. Spending 80x that to get a game like starfield you were already getting helps no one.
 

Menzies

Banned
Maybe it might be because you aren’t reading the posts all that well? I never said it’s not fair, i said it’s a dumb idea and a gigantic waste of money. And i literally listed a dozen studios they could and should acquire.

Go look at my post history, you would see me asking for them to acquire Ninja theory and obsidian. Or at least partner with them. I begged them to acquire more studios and chastised them for shutting down existing studios.

I want stuff like Hellblade 2, a sequel to an indie game made by 20 people is now a proper $100 million AAA title. That’s what ms money can do. Spending 80x that to get a game like starfield you were already getting helps no one.
I was talking broadly - I think you've been around here a while, surely you would have seen some of these posts in your travels?

But, you did seem to imply that regulators should equate Starfield exclusivity the same as CoD. As if to suggest that Xbox can't keep anything to themselves, when clearly all this helps is level out the existing disparity to increase more competition i.e. the regulators purpose.

Spending 80x that would help to even up the playing field for more competition though, right? It is also a new IP, so in a way PlayStation users have 'lost' nothing.
 

kingfey

Banned
Gamepass is supposed to be their main gaming platform going forward, no? I don't think it'd be out of desperation either. I think it just better aligns with their strategy where its easier to just sell the service to an established user base instead of trying to poach that established user base over to your hardware platform and then sell your service.
They need stable service for that. Meaning a nonstop environment, where userbase doesn't shrink after 8 years.

Ps2=155m, Ps3 =87m, Ps4=120m, Ps5=around 20m in upcoming months. Same for Xbox.
These devices are not stable. They want stable users, which can access the game fast, without a problem. PC, Mobile, and TVs have those users.
 

kingfey

Banned
Maybe it might be because you aren’t reading the posts all that well? I never said it’s not fair, i said it’s a dumb idea and a gigantic waste of money. And i literally listed a dozen studios they could and should acquire.

Go look at my post history, you would see me asking for them to acquire Ninja theory and obsidian. Or at least partner with them. I begged them to acquire more studios and chastised them for shutting down existing studios.

I want stuff like Hellblade 2, a sequel to an indie game made by 20 people is now a proper $100 million AAA title. That’s what ms money can do. Spending 80x that to get a game like starfield you were already getting helps no one.
MS needs immediate games. Big publishers provide these games. Small teams like you suggested wont be apple to bring these games fast.

Look at ninja theory and obsidian. Their games are slated 2023. That is long period of time, without games. Bethesda would have released 2 games already, if it weren't for the timed exclusive by Sony.
 

yewles1

Member
I hope you’re not taking this kind of behaviour seriously lol…

What does consolidation have to do with funding new exclusive games never developed before by their own first-party stable and why would you be cheering on multi-platform games transitioning to the like?

Sony also does not own the Spider-Man IP.

We don’t know the exact stipulations involving Sony’s gaming rights over it, but it wasn’t until Sony made a “good” Spider-Man game that anyone truly cared for one anyway.

We’ve seen other entries from different studios, which turned out pretty underwhelming (See: Activision’s Amazing Spider-Man or Square-Enix’s Avengers).
Spider-Man 2 by Treyarch was considered the best superhero game ever before Arkham ANYTHING would release and change the narrative 15 years later.
 

Swift_Star

Banned
For the last time your wrong they already announce new single player game from their new studio as exclusive you have no ground to your talking points i have facts you have nothing to back your wild claim
You mean the direction you HOPE Microsoft goes lol.

No one should be using this statement, meant for regulatory approval purposes regarding the Activision deal, to somehow claim that all Bethesda games are also going to Playstation. You mad? Hell, by extension, if my understanding of what you're saying is correct, then you assume all Xbox Game Studios titles, Halo included, will go to Playstation as well? Not happening. Microsoft isn't even going to make all Activision games multi-platform. Blizzard's survival title is most likely going to be Xbox exclusive.

And we'll just see how things play out moving forward. I'm not convinced COD truly says multi-plat for good, though it would be smart financially. Diablo 4 and Overwatch 2 make sense to just drop on Playstation. In the short term it just makes a crap ton of sense to get all that money that they can get from COD, and that they'll make with Diablo IV, Overwatch 2, Warzone 2, Warzone etc.
Believe what you want, the future is pretty clear.
 

kingfey

Banned
Believe what you want, the future is pretty clear.
You are the only who can't see it.

Also, Sony is doing pc version of their games. Its matter of time, before they do day1 pc, and commit to that platform as 3rd party publisher.

Both companies are going in that direction. But neither company would put their games on the other system.
 

kingfey

Banned
It’s so easy to see MS is going the office and Azure route with everything else. MS is going to have their console, yes, but they’re moving forward to be platform agnostic, just like all MS products are. I know this make fanboys angry but this is MS vision. They’ve always been a software and service company. Walled gardens makes no sense to their business model.
Wallet garden, doesn't mean putting your products on other consoles.

You guys are so hopeless about this one.

They have windows for god sake. They don't need SONY systems. Get it.
 

Pavillian

Neo Member
I def think MS is gonna slow down the Call Of Duty cycle and turn it more into a platform like Minecraft. I think they mostly want that sweet sweet microtranscation money from all platforms for the already established multiplayer IP while letting the other devs make new games or whatever they want. Give me that THPS please.
 

reksveks

Member
No, this is their pitch to regulators as they themselves admit.

Doing a 180 on their pitch to said regulators would not be a good look for them
It's a pitch to Congress to say that we support the Open App Market Act not the FTC.

Why? To be able to release an Xbox app on ios where you can download games and not give a cut to Apple
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
MS needs immediate games. Big publishers provide these games. Small teams like you suggested wont be apple to bring these games fast.

Look at ninja theory and obsidian. Their games are slated 2023. That is long period of time, without games. Bethesda would have released 2 games already, if it weren't for the timed exclusive by Sony.
Xbox owners were already getting Starfield and COD. Buying those two publishers does not give xbox owners any new games.

And the idea is to take small teams, invest in them and make them bigger and more productive. The fact that Ninja Theory and obsidian havent released any next gen games is on Phil Spencer or whoever is running their studios nowadays.
 
It clear that Single player Xbox 1st party games will never be on Playstation just like Playstation single player 1st party games will never be on Xbox that is crystal clear

Yep, and we can go even further. It won't just be singleplayer games, but multiplayer enabled ones like Contraband and Redfall.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
I was talking broadly - I think you've been around here a while, surely you would have seen some of these posts in your travels?

But, you did seem to imply that regulators should equate Starfield exclusivity the same as CoD. As if to suggest that Xbox can't keep anything to themselves, when clearly all this helps is level out the existing disparity to increase more competition i.e. the regulators purpose.

Spending 80x that would help to even up the playing field for more competition though, right? It is also a new IP, so in a way PlayStation users have 'lost' nothing.
I really dont understand where this evening up the playing field comes from. When MS went and bought Bethesda, they both had the same number of studios. Sony's studios were simply more productive. Just because MS was in third place doesnt mean they need to go and get entire publishers to get even in yearly revenues. Their 16 studios and their console business were simply not producing enough revenue because they were simply not good enough. They didnt produce any GOTY caliber games for an entire generation. They cancelled games left and right. Killed off several studios when they shouldve been investing in more. And pretty much sat on their laurels for 5 years of last gen until they decided they need to take gaming seriously and went out and bought NT, Obsidian, PG, Undead Labs and Double Fine.

And guess what? no one had a problem with that. Because thats simply how acquisitions are done. You buy independent studios. Not entire publishers. They couldnt even the playing field right away because this shit takes time. When Sony was in third place they went out and signed Sucker Punch, GG, Evolution Studios in the mid to late 2010s. Sucker Punch didnt make a GOTY caliber game until 2020. GG didnt make one until 2017. Evo is no more. It takes time to level out the playing field.

Aaron Greenberg once made a tweet laughing at the pathetic sales of GOW3, GT5, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2, KZ2, MAG and Infamous. Halo 3 had outsold them combined. It took Sony 10 years to hit Halo 3 numbers. 10 years after that tweet. They didnt cry that they werent seeing the sales. They didnt cry about competition being too tough. They simply went and made quality games, and built cred with gamers and critics. Thats what MS shouldve done with PG, Undead labs, Ninja Theory and Obsidian in 2018. Take a fraction of the $8 billion and build these guys 1000 man teams to make sure they have next gen games ready for the first year. No fucking around with cross gen Forza Horizon. Go work on Fable right away. No bleeding edge bs. No outer worlds B game. No one wants a game like that from a first party. Just make next gen AAA GOTY caliber shit right away. 3 years shouldve been enough time with a large team that surely MS can afford.
 

Leyasu

Banned
There's not much wiggle room when addressing concerns regarding COD exclusivity on Xbox and leaving out key details like whether any COD games will actually be exclusive to Xbox.
Regulators are not going to be looking at individual franchises. If they were then the likes of Star Wars would be streaming on every service.

The whole Sony/Nintendo part of the blog was a paragraph in piece dedicated to the changes in their store. Their store or future plans are something that the regulators will be interested in, hence the meaty blog.

I am not saying you or anyone else in this thread is wrong, but I think people on both sides have mixed up the importance of the message
 
Regulators are not going to be looking at individual franchises. If they were then the likes of Star Wars would be streaming on every service.

The whole Sony/Nintendo part of the blog was a paragraph in piece dedicated to the changes in their store. Their store or future plans are something that the regulators will be interested in, hence the meaty blog.

I am not saying you or anyone else in this thread is wrong, but I think people on both sides have mixed up the importance of the message

They're going to be looking at COD because that's the one they've specifically addressed and it's the biggest thing about this $68 billion acquisition
 
Last edited:

Menzies

Banned
I really dont understand where this evening up the playing field comes from. When MS went and bought Bethesda, they both had the same number of studios. Sony's studios were simply more productive. Just because MS was in third place doesnt mean they need to go and get entire publishers to get even in yearly revenues. Their 16 studios and their console business were simply not producing enough revenue because they were simply not good enough. They didnt produce any GOTY caliber games for an entire generation. They cancelled games left and right. Killed off several studios when they shouldve been investing in more. And pretty much sat on their laurels for 5 years of last gen until they decided they need to take gaming seriously and went out and bought NT, Obsidian, PG, Undead Labs and Double Fine.

And guess what? no one had a problem with that. Because thats simply how acquisitions are done. You buy independent studios. Not entire publishers. They couldnt even the playing field right away because this shit takes time. When Sony was in third place they went out and signed Sucker Punch, GG, Evolution Studios in the mid to late 2010s. Sucker Punch didnt make a GOTY caliber game until 2020. GG didnt make one until 2017. Evo is no more. It takes time to level out the playing field.

Aaron Greenberg once made a tweet laughing at the pathetic sales of GOW3, GT5, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2, KZ2, MAG and Infamous. Halo 3 had outsold them combined. It took Sony 10 years to hit Halo 3 numbers. 10 years after that tweet. They didnt cry that they werent seeing the sales. They didnt cry about competition being too tough. They simply went and made quality games, and built cred with gamers and critics. Thats what MS shouldve done with PG, Undead labs, Ninja Theory and Obsidian in 2018. Take a fraction of the $8 billion and build these guys 1000 man teams to make sure they have next gen games ready for the first year. No fucking around with cross gen Forza Horizon. Go work on Fable right away. No bleeding edge bs. No outer worlds B game. No one wants a game like that from a first party. Just make next gen AAA GOTY caliber shit right away. 3 years shouldve been enough time with a large team that surely MS can afford.
Because their whole position in terms of revenue in the market is a big part of what the regulators are looking at?

Why do you think Phil and Satya have repeated "third place" to the press recently? It's an angle to move this deal through, and rightly so.

I'm not sure what revisionist history you're try to spin above, but in 2018 Microsoft had exactly 5 studios. With the studios they had, they were producing arguably some of the most recognised IP's in the industry in Halo, Gears, Minecraft, Forza and Sea of Thieves. This is hardly "not good enough". The issue is Microsoft as a whole was very non-committal to the vision of Xbox.

Well those times appear to have changed and now yes they are out to even the playing field with large acquisitions. There is nothing that says they can't and shouldn't look at publishers to swing consumers. They can effect change a lot quicker than building up new studios, we are at a turning point with the start of a new-gen and now they are capitalizing on this reset time.

The issue is people on the Internet want to speak to how they are allowed to compete, and that involves nothing that upsets the current market really.
 

assurdum

Banned
The only thing I can say imo now MS is so prudent because the agreement is still work in progress. But when the dust will be settled I bet my balls they won't give a fuck about the antitrust implications and they will find a way to skip it. I seen them how they use to act in stuff like this during the years.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Banned
They're going to be looking at COD because that's the one they've specifically addressed and it's the biggest thing about this $68 billion acquisition
Really? It was mentioned in the blog, but is it or any other franchise going to be a concern for the regulators?

The point of the blog was clear, remove doubts on their store intentions. Think more along the lines of the apple vs epic. Individual franchises will be footnotes in their application like this blog or will not feature at all.

The regulators won’t rule on franchises.
 
Really? It was mentioned in the blog, but is it or any other franchise going to be a concern for the regulators?

The point of the blog was clear, remove doubts on their store intentions. Think more along the lines of the apple vs epic. Individual franchises will be footnotes in their application like this blog or will not feature at all.

The regulators won’t rule on franchises.

That's the topic of that section. Concern about COD going exclusive to Xbox. They only bothered to put this whole thing out there in order to improve their standing so they can get the acquisition through

MS lawyers felt it was important enough to make assurances on COD. If they approve of this, part of that approval is under the assumption that they're going to keep those assurances. If you're MS are you really going to risk damaging the goodwill you've been building up for years just to do a 180 and make COD exclusive? With the current MS I doubt it.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Banned
That's the topic of the subject. Concern about COD going exclusive to Xbox. They only bothered to put this whole thing out there in order to improve their standing so they can get the acquisition through

MS lawyers felt it was important enough to make assurances on COD. If they approve of this, part of that approval is under the assumption that they're going to keep those assurances. If you're MS are you really going to risk damaging the goodwill you've been building up for years just to make COD exclusive?
It’s not about goodwill or cod on it’s own. The blog wasn’t about cod and the regulators won’t be ruling on franchises. The consequences of the regulators ruling on franchises are deep and far reaching. And would then apply to many industries.

A ruling on franchises would change the landscape everywhere. It ain’t happening. Imagine that the regulators say that every franchise needs to go multi. How can they say that without ruling that existing franchises must go multi too? Sony and Nintendos franchises would also have to follow suit.

This would then spill over into the film industry etc.
 
It’s not about goodwill or cod on it’s own. The blog wasn’t about cod and the regulators won’t be ruling on franchises. The consequences of the regulators ruling on franchises are deep and far reaching. And would then apply to many industries.

A ruling on franchises would change the landscape everywhere. It ain’t happening. Imagine that the regulators say that every franchise needs to go multi. How can they say that without ruling that existing franchises must go multi too? Sony and Nintendos franchises would also have to follow suit.

This would then spill over into the film industry etc.

It is about goodwill. I don't know how you can say this isn't also about COD when they've gone out of their way to specifically make these promises. Just watch the video by Hoeg to see how important this is

This isn't a ruling on franchises. They haven't made demands that COD be multiplatform. MS is the one who's made the promise to keep COD on PS. The fact that they've decided to do that means they're fine to be held by that standard.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
Xbox owners were already getting Starfield and COD. Buying those two publishers does not give xbox owners any new games.
And Sony is paying money for timed exclusives, which are coming to other console. In the process, these games are blocked from other consoles for 1 year.

Ff7r was from square, not Sony. Paid money to not be on Xbox and pc. Deathloop was from zenimax. Sony paid money for that game, to not be on Xbox. Ghost wire tokyo was made by zenimax. Sony blocked the xbox access for 1 year.

When a platform limits access to games like these, you will have to buy the entire publisher, to make sure those games are coming to your console. Or else, your console won't be attractive.

Sony is doing all these moves to make Playstation consoles attractive. MS needs to do the same move, or bigger to make xbox attractive.


And the idea is to take small teams, invest in them and make them bigger and more productive. The fact that Ninja Theory and obsidian havent released any next gen games is on Phil Spencer or whoever is running their studios nowadays.
Games take time. Phil took over xbox, when it was a sinking ship. He started negotiating with zenimax in 2018. After that, he bought Obsidian, and ninja theory.

Hell blade 1 was released in 2017. The outer worlds was released in 2019. They couldn't have made games very fast.

This entire studios buy out should have happened during x360. But Don Mattrick fucked it up.
 

Leyasu

Banned
It is about goodwill. I don't know how you can say this isn't also about COD when they've gone out of their way to specifically make these promises. Just watch the video by Hoeg to see how important this is

This isn't a ruling on franchises. They haven't made demands that COD be multiplatform. MS is the one who has made promises to them that COD will be multiplatform.
Listen, Microsoft did mention cod that is indisputable. But what was mentioned in the blog about games is not something that they will be used to block or pass their application. It was more of an example of their commitment to an open store.

They could also just abandon the cod marketing and call their games “modern warfare” black ops” etc going forward and it would still comply.

They want goodwill for when they start their assault on the pc storefront space which will be their next focus once this deal goes through.

I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong, just that this blog wasn’t specifically about cod and is no way binding to anything
 

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Gamepass is supposed to be their main gaming platform going forward, no? I don't think it'd be out of desperation either. I think it just better aligns with their strategy where its easier to just sell the service to an established user base instead of trying to poach that established user base over to your hardware platform and then sell your service.
The first step to that would be Game Pass actually generating enough to make Xbox platform revenue irrelevant, so like 200 million subs like Netflix. As it stands Game Pass barely makes profit. No one abandons a successful business for some projection of another business. If it can't do those numbers from PC, then it can't do that from abandoning your successful platform where you get all that revenue from 30% cuts to be in the mercy of another platform where instead of hundreds of games its just your own games like EA Play or uplay and they get the 30% revenue on top of that. Game Pass won't work unless its done by a platform holder who can negotiate with various devs and publishers and they control all the channels of revenue. To think they will turn it into something like EA Play offering only first party titles and giving 30% cut to another platform completely abandoning your own successful platform and the revenue it generates is laughable. If you didn't get it they will never be close to their current revenue in that route. Netflix is its own platform, their content is not tied to content from another platform like EA Play in consoles.
It’s so easy to see MS is going the office and Azure route with everything else. MS is going to have their console, yes, but they’re moving forward to be platform agnostic, just like all MS products are. I know this make fanboys angry but this is MS vision. They’ve always been a software and service company. Walled gardens makes no sense to their business model.
Yeah, MS vision is to lower their gaming revenue to make some console warriors in gaming forums happy. What was the big source of revenue they abandoned by publishing Office on Mac?
 
Last edited:
Listen, Microsoft did mention cod that is indisputable. But what was mentioned in the blog about games is not something that they will be used to block or pass their application. It was more of an example of their commitment to an open store.

They could also just abandon the cod marketing and call their games “modern warfare” black ops” etc going forward and it would still comply.

They want goodwill for when they start their assault on the pc storefront space which will be their next focus once this deal goes through.

I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong, just that this blog wasn’t specifically about cod and is no way binding to anything

I'm not saying this is specifically about COD. COD was an important part of it otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to make promises for it. I'm also not saying going to be used to block or pass the application.

What I'm saying is they've made clear promises to regulators to influence their decision on ActiBliz. If it turns out that Microsoft, the company that's trying to get in favor of these regulators were actually being coy and not transparent with them then that has far-reaching repercussions beyond video games. Not just talking about legal action if they actually decide to take any, but how they treat them going forward with future dealings, like their assault on pc storefronts.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
It is about goodwill. I don't know how you can say this isn't also about COD when they've gone out of their way to specifically make these promises. Just watch the video by Hoeg to see how important this is

This isn't a ruling on franchises. They haven't made demands that COD be multiplatform. MS is the one who's made the promise to keep COD on PS. The fact that they've decided to do that means they're fine to be held by that standard.
What he is telling you, is that making COD multiplatform by force, would create a big ripple in the entire industry, not just gaming industry, but movies industry too.

Spiderman, would be forced to be multiplatform by that action.
 

kingfey

Banned
That's also not what i'm saying. Read again
MS is very keen on keeping past COD games and support warzone, plus those upcoming COD games.

By doing that, they are supporting their words.

Upcoming COD games isn't exclusive to Playstation. They only have the marketing deal. This means, it's up to MS to allow Sony to use their IP. And that is what MS is stating.

Deathloop, and ghost wire tokyo were timed exclusive, unlike COD. That was contractual agreement, after these are done.
From 2025 and onwards, MS would be the one to decide. They can keep their mind, and keep it Multiplatform, or they can keep it exclusive. But as long as they keep their words for 2022-2025.
 
From 2025 and onwards, MS would be the one to decide. They can keep their mind, and keep it Multiplatform, or they can keep it exclusive. But as long as they keep their words for 2022-2025.

For COD? No. Keeping their word would be COD remains on PS indefinitely.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Banned
For COD? No. Keeping their word would be COD remains on PS indefinitely.
That remains to be seen. Cod warzone only remaining on Ps would also be them keeping their word.

I think that they will eventually drop the yearly releases to free up studios for other projects so this storyline might take a fair few years to finish anyway.

To sum up what I said from the beginning, don’t think that this blog is anything binding. Just looking at it as whole and their throwaway comment on being interested in Nintendo should be enough to realise that.
 

kingfey

Banned
For COD? No. Keeping their word would be COD remains on PS indefinitely.
That won't work sadly. They have no obligation to do that. Plus, that would be unwise, for ftc or Sony to pursue it.

Right now, MS have leverage. Sony timed exclusive actions, gave MS a reason to tell the ftc, that these tactics hurts the industry, and not them keeping COD on their devices.

Not to mention, Spiderman exclusivity would be at risk, if either party pressures MS about COD.

Final fantasy is still blocked from Xbox, because of Sony paying money, to keep it of from Xbox. As long as that behavior exist, MS would never ever put COD on Sony, if they keep passing them off like that.
 
That remains to be seen. Cod warzone only remaining on Ps would also be them keeping their word.

I think that they will eventually drop the yearly releases to free up studios for other projects so this storyline might take a fair few years to finish anyway.

To sum up what I said from the beginning, don’t think that this blog is anything binding. Just looking at it as whole and their throwaway comment on being interested in Nintendo should be enough to realise that.

It wouldn't be as they were specifically addressing COD the franchise and not COD Warzone. That would be them playing coy and not being transparent like I said

It's not legally binding or anything like that. It's a simple set of promises they made to influence the regulatory decision. It's in MS best interest to make sure there is no room for them to come back and ask them things like "you told us COD would remain PS, why is COD 2025 exclusive"
 
That won't work sadly. They have no obligation to do that. Plus, that would be unwise, for ftc or Sony to pursue it.

Right now, MS have leverage. Sony timed exclusive actions, gave MS a reason to tell the ftc, that these tactics hurts the industry, and not them keeping COD on their devices.

Not to mention, Spiderman exclusivity would be at risk, if either party pressures MS about COD.

Final fantasy is still blocked from Xbox, because of Sony paying money, to keep it of from Xbox. As long as that behavior exist, MS would never ever put COD on Sony, if they keep passing them off like that.

This isn't about obligations. It's about MS having good relations with regulatory bodies. Not keeping their word is how you do the opposite of that
 

kingfey

Banned
That remains to be seen. Cod warzone only remaining on Ps would also be them keeping their word.

I think that they will eventually drop the yearly releases to free up studios for other projects so this storyline might take a fair few years to finish anyway.

To sum up what I said from the beginning, don’t think that this blog is anything binding. Just looking at it as whole and their throwaway comment on being interested in Nintendo should be enough to realise that.
Warzone would be their talking point, about that blog. SP mode, is still in the air.

Usually, these would be cleared out, during 202e e3.
 

kingfey

Banned
This isn't about obligations. It's about MS having good relations with regulatory bodies. Not keeping their word is how you do the opposite of that
They already do, with their pc commitment, and honoring Deathloop and ghost wire tokyo deals. FTC doesn't have that much issue with them. As long as the game is on pc and steam, it will be OK.

Big problem arises, when it's xbox exclusive only, and doesn't come to pc.
 
They already do, with their pc commitment, and honoring Deathloop and ghost wire tokyo deals. FTC doesn't have that much issue with them. As long as the game is on pc and steam, it will be OK.

Big problem arises, when it's xbox exclusive only, and doesn't come to pc.

No they don't. Their promise was primarily around PS, no PC.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom