Gravemind
Member
When the Activision deal goes through, COD will 100% be on GamePass day 1, as with every Xbox first party release.
Please stop kidding yourself.
-
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.
MS's Response to Sony's "No AAA Studio Can Match CoD" Statement + Confirms Sony Pays To Blocks Games From Game Pass
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
When the Activision deal goes through, COD will 100% be on GamePass day 1, as with every Xbox first party release.
Please stop kidding yourself.
Justin9mm
Member
Maybe I am.
I'm not anti Xbox, I have a series X and a GP Ultimate subscription for the next 3 years so if it does, good for me!
CaptainSlayAHo
Banned
Of course every person wouldn't magically switch, not even half would. Pc has gamepass btw so I don't know why you mentioned them, they'd still have it and still be buying it from Microsoft.
It sounds likely it stays multiplat for the foreseeable future, but they're just not going to withhold it from gamepass dude, day one included unless contractually obligated.
Game pass price raise is exponentially more likely (would be a while after acquisition completion so the two aren't associated), why the fuck would anyone subscribed to game pass trust them going forward if they didn't put first party releases on it? Won't happen. They'd also still get sales from special editions, which WILL actually never be on gamepass
Last edited:
Justin9mm
Member
I mentioned PC because if its not on GP, PC players will have to buy it full price if they can't get it from GP, that was my whole point, you have Xbox console, PC and PlayStation all having to buy it full price because it's not on GP.. That profit margin is way bigger than any revenue from GP, I don't think people really understand how much money that actually is! But if they keep it multiplat and getting revenue from it other than GP and increase the price of GP which we know will eventually happen then maybe it will be on GP Day 1 in the future.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If there are any kind of iron-clad marketing agreements that prevent it from launching on sub services or Gold day 1 ala the Village contract, it won't even if the deal closes until that contracted term ends.
KaiserBecks
Member
Or you could pay to block a game from gamepass and call it a marketing agreement.
Kagey K
Banned
Imagine governments being able to dictate how or where you sell your product.
This would be a hell of a slippery slope, and I don't think many companies are going to agree to it.
Fredrik
Member
If it’s on a written contract, can they do that? Without spending more time count I mean.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Great points, the evidence is clearly there for us all to see.
Negotiator101
Member
The fact they're not interested in out bidding speaks volumes.2 Trillion dollar company playing the victim after they just dropped $67 BILLION to own an entire publisher. (And the $8.1 BILLION before that)
2 trillion dollar company can't afford to outbid a much smaller company?
pasterpl
Member
Don’t forget about existing Sony marketing deal that ms said they will honour. It may include no gamepass clause. So we might have to wait until this deal expire before we will see cod day1 on gamepass.
That’s kind of expected for couple of reasons;
1.MTX/DLC is how you make extra revenue and allow you to offer low cost entry subscription that offers base game only.
2. Forza Horizon HotWheels DLC offers more that lots of full games. Also they were offering premium edition with 1 week early access at launch and multiple dlc’s , it was discounted for gamepass users and it includes HotWheels.
3. This is not a rule with MS; Gears Hivebusters was free on gamepass and it was excellent DLC
93xfan
Banned
I’ll take a company that understands the importance of BC (and does it better than anyone else) and also does things like FPS and res boost and auto HDR.
With BC, Halo MCC, Forza Horizon, and of course Gamepass, I’m happier with Xbox at the moment. PS has the better (and far pricier) next gen exclusives, but that may not last due to even just the Bethesda//ID/Arcane purchase.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Advertising rights are worth a lot more than you think.
Getting that alone + stopping the game from being on subscriptions services is an incentive in and of itself.
The documents provided prove Sony wants to fight the subscription model, keeping games off subscription services helps them in this fight.
Buying advertising rights with some stipulations is worth it to Sony.
It makes it seem to the layman that the game is for Playstation.
If every Elden Ring ad you see on TV ends with the Playstation splash screen, you;d automatically assume its a Playstation game.
We have this happening even with "savvy" people on the worlds best gaming forum NeoGAF..........they watch a trailer on the Playstation Showcase, the Youtube version is also Playstation branded so they automatically assume the game is a Playstation exclusive.
IF savvy Gaffers can be fooled imagine what happens to the layman.
Once COD is on Gamepass, MS will milk that pay once - play all to death.
Im actually excited for the COD Gamepass future purely because I dont play Warzone and want to play the MP modes, get rid of the barrier to entry so MP stays full and not just with challenge hunters and im down.
Big brain Jimbo:
Crying that it is financially unfeasible to have big AAA games in subscription service day one, but instead of trying to do it, spend millions of dollars to prevent those games to come to "other" subscription service.
Like. It's honestly insane to me. Instead of trying to bring value to your customer by securing games for your subscribers, you are using same money so competitor can't bring value to their customer. All while your customers have "jack shit" from whole deal since they still have to buy those games full price. And of course meanwhile crying about "big baddy Microsoft."
What's even more funny, that one case where they could not block a deal made them look like fools, because while PS players has to spend 80$ for MLB The Show, which is their first-party game, Xbox players can play it within their subscription.
Crying that it is financially unfeasible to have big AAA games in subscription service day one, but instead of trying to do it, spend millions of dollars to prevent those games to come to "other" subscription service.
Like. It's honestly insane to me. Instead of trying to bring value to your customer by securing games for your subscribers, you are using same money so competitor can't bring value to their customer. All while your customers have "jack shit" from whole deal since they still have to buy those games full price. And of course meanwhile crying about "big baddy Microsoft."
What's even more funny, that one case where they could not block a deal made them look like fools, because while PS players has to spend 80$ for MLB The Show, which is their first-party game, Xbox players can play it within their subscription.
Last edited:
Calverz
Member
The irony lol
All Microsoft games come to PC at launch and Microsoft has embraced other storefronts like Steam. Sony pays for exclusivity that prevents PC players from playing at launch. That is why many are less concerned with Microsoft's third party acquisitions than with Sony's moves to keep everything tied to the console.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Console exclusives are temporary.
Buying publishers and making games exclusives are permanent.
Sony "timed" exclusives were either released on PC the same day or released on PC a year after.
It's ridiculous to even think that timed exclusives are worse than buying publishers and keeping games off your competitor's platform OR keeping games off a subscription service.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
It's not worse, but it ultimately has the same impact.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Same impact? LOL.
Time exclusives are temporary.
Blocking games from going on game pass temporarily means they will appear on Game Pass in the future, otherwise, games will still be able to buy the game.
Buying a publisher means you keep games off the competitor's platform forever.
It's nowhere near the same impact.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Timed exclusives being temporary doesn't mean much. Maybe for smaller games with 3 months of exclusivity (see Xbox) it's fine, but Sony has been blocking big games for a year or even longer. That's essentially the same thing as blocking them forever, because everyone remotely interested in those games will simply go to Sony.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
People who has it as main game yes.
People in here really underestimate how many people don't care or doesn't see ps exclusives as the most important thing in the world.
People who mains fifa and cod cares a lot about these games, and they will follow where the game is.
I find it very ironic that people in here says the ps platform sell better than xbox because of the exclusives, but wouldn't change platform if one of the most popular games on the PlayStation platform turned into an Xbox exclusive.
Not all casual players knows about all the exclusives on either platform, but everyone knows about fifa and call of duty.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Buying publishers not only blocks one game, but it blocks just about everything.
The fact that you would say it's essentially the same thing is just a major reach.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Why not bring up Minecraft? MS bought Mojang and they still support the same platforms as before. No one can point to even one confirmed title that was planned for PlayStation but cancelled after MS bought a studio. Plenty of examples of Sony blocking 3rd party games from Xbox and Game pass. That is far more damaging to MS than MS continuing to support other platforms after acquisitions.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Because Minecraft hasn't really got any sequel, and it was already out for the different platforms.
Why are you not bringing up elder scrolls, Starfield and fallout? MS bought Bethesda and are keeping the games exclusive.
ESO will also still get support on playstation, because the main game has already been released there.
Tomeru
Member
Yeah, imagine.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
You're ignoring the fact that MS is buying publishers and keeping games from PlayStation. Bungie is in a Minecraft situation where it's appearing on multiple platforms.
No matter how you spin this, buying an entire publisher and keeping their games off of a platform is far worse than keeping a game off game pass.
Team Andromeda
Member
Laughable from SONY. The Corp that bought the rights to Tomb Raider in the 32 bit days and looked to buy NCL share in Square to stop FF coming on other consoles.
Its so nice to see SONY having a taste of their own medicine
Its so nice to see SONY having a taste of their own medicine
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Sounds to me like a communist country where the government owns the companies.
China intensifies
GreatnessRD
Member
Microsoft needs to gain parity between GP PC and GP console. I'm willing to pay, but not for some 40-60 bullshit. Same with Sony and their pass equivalent. Bring the smoke to PC and I'll buy it. Stop fuckin' playin', Big ass Corps!
DAHGAMING
Member
I hope when I die its like the start of Skyrim, only when I open my eyes its our lord and saviour Jim Ryan laughing just like that meme of him, I will worship hes god like demeanor for eternity.
It's almost like paying for smaller game like Ascent, Kena, The Medium, Stray, Pathless etc. is different to paying for exclusivity of...Every Xbox E3
...Street Fighter V, Final Fantasy VI Remakes, Final Fantasy XVI, Deathloop, GhostWire: Toyko, Forspoken... Hell there was even a rumor, that Sony wanted to moneyhat Starfield in 2020.
If you can't tell a difference between supporting indie developer with exposure and additional funding is different to moneyhatting big publishers with AAA games then there is too late for you
I honestly don't know why people mind this deal so much. Diablo IV is multiplat. Overwatch 2 is F2P, COD will remain multiplat. Like...you can have PlayStation and play those games. Xbox players just got better deal thanks to Game Pass.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
I can only see the problem as Microsoft has to pay the developer for both a license for pc and Xbox, and therefore only pays for the Xbox license.
Not to justify it, because GP on pc is pretty weak compared to Xbox.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
There are 2 additional Minecraft games in Legends and Dungeons. Both are multi-platform. Both came out AFTER MS purchased Mojang. MS is not playing the same game Sony is and they have made multiple games with IP they own available on non-Xbox systems and promise more. Still very different than blocking Game pass games and keeping timed and permanent well known 3rd party titles off of Xbox.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Well that is true.
But you can't use Minecraft as the rule, since elder scrolls, Starfield and fallout are exclusives from now on.
Oh, let's not fool around here.
They make deals for 3-6 months only because they initially need to pay the same amount, if not more, in order to put these games on the gamepass.
Microsoft won't spend a lot of money on annual exclusives that you still need to keep in your subscription.
Sony pays simply to ensure that some game does not come out on another platform.
They need to spend less money (Except Stray)
What nonsense?
Sony literally bought a developer who will now make games on all platforms (Including xbox)
Talking about Bungie
The same thing happened with Mojang Initially, the condition was set, when buying If you want us, then our games will be on all platforms
And it benefits Microsoft too, because there's a lot of money coming in.
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
ThenIt's almost like paying for smaller game like Ascent, Kena, The Medium, Stray, Pathless etc. is different to paying for exclusivity of...
...Street Fighter V, Final Fantasy VI Remakes, Final Fantasy XVI, Deathloop, GhostWire: Toyko, Forspoken... Hell there was even a rumor, that Sony wanted to moneyhat Starfield in 2020.
If you can't tell a difference between supporting indie developer with exposure and additional funding is different to moneyhatting big publishers with AAA games then there is too late for you
I honestly don't know why people mind this deal so much. Diablo IV is multiplat. Overwatch 2 is F2P, COD will remain multiplat. Like...you can have PlayStation and play those games. Xbox players just got better deal thanks to Game Pass.
PUBG
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Dead Rising 3
Titanfall
Ryse
Now
Warhammer 40,000: Darktide - Console launch exclusive
Ark II
Stalker 2
Capcom was on the ropes and needed funding. It's unlikely Street Fighter V wouldn't exist without Sony. Xbox fans are trying to make Microsoft out to be innocent when they have been acquiring time-exclusive deals for decades.
Moving the goalpost by saying, "they were indies who needed funding" will not work.
nobody is trying to say "Microsoft is innocent," but I think that it's clear that one company is way more agressive in this space. Especially when you need to go to year 2014 to "prove it" while second company released 3 moneyhatted AAA timed exclusives in last 3 years (FF VII, Deathloop and GhostWire) and next year they have two more (Forspoken, FF XVI). And don't forget that petty moneyhat of KOTOR that bombed hard.
Also... I know that this may sound strange, but STALKER 2, Darktide and Ark II (all of them are published through ID@Xbox programme) are not games under big publishers so bringing them into conversation is kinda strange. But okay...I guess.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Lol, yes, they were. That was the point of my post if you bothered to read before getting triggered
lostinblue
Banned
Microsoft also used to pay to get the best version of a game. Which is why devs even attempted to make Xbox 1 games better than their PS2 counterparts graphically and even added free DLC on top.
Meanwhile Gamecube only got straight ports, every single time. Because they didn't pay for the added development costs.
On Xbox 360 they also moneyhatted a lot of stuff timed exclusivity deals on a regular basis. Sony's approach was that if PS3 was getting a late port they would have to have extra content so neither is a saint, but also no one was better than the other.
With Xbox One onwards they probably ran out of money and started having some kind of pressure to be lucrative, so they went from paying to have exclusives to not having exclusives other than the ones developed in-house.
Meanwhile Gamecube only got straight ports, every single time. Because they didn't pay for the added development costs.
On Xbox 360 they also moneyhatted a lot of stuff timed exclusivity deals on a regular basis. Sony's approach was that if PS3 was getting a late port they would have to have extra content so neither is a saint, but also no one was better than the other.
With Xbox One onwards they probably ran out of money and started having some kind of pressure to be lucrative, so they went from paying to have exclusives to not having exclusives other than the ones developed in-house.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
MS statement here at least is true.
Sony did not hesitate to put PS exclusive in a trailer for a game that was only timed. FF XVI I think it was.
Typical Sony communication
SaucyJack
Member
IllegalLemon
Member
Like twins fighting over who the dominant one will be. Only in this situation, both corporations are hypocrites throwing jabs at each other. One pays to block games from coming to the subscription service of the other, while the other pays to have them steadily drop in the service, it goes both ways. Microsoft is dealing with the spoiled, petulant child by becoming one themselves. One coin, same sides.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Goalpost moving. You guys are trying to make it appear not as bad by excluding indie titles. That doesn't work.
What's wrong with 2014? Oh, so I can't name a title at the tail end of 2013 and 2014, but you can name a title in Street Fighter V that was released Feb 2016?
You're telling me what Sony has been doing within the past 3 years and you're completely ignoring that Microsoft is BUYING publishers? This is straight denial lol.
Similar threads
- Poll