DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Exclusive content is used to market the game for their platform.
-
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
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
True.why game when you can argue on NeoGAF instead?
I guess for many thats a more fun game
JackMcGunns
Member
No it's not lol. It's not the same thing to buy a car from a dealer, now only the owner can drive it or anyone he lends it to, as opposed to not buying the car, it's still available for purchase, but I make a deal with the dealer and say "You can sell this car to anyone, but Do not sell this car to Ass of Can Whooping, I don't like that guy", that's a deal in bad faith.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Analogies: The Thread
The real reason Sony updated it's Plus program, to possibly house some of these paid blocked from Gamepass games.
It's brilliant from a bussiness prespective, they've created a new source of income for a developer. Maybe MS will start paying the fee to block games from PS++ or whatever it's called.
It's brilliant from a bussiness prespective, they've created a new source of income for a developer. Maybe MS will start paying the fee to block games from PS++ or whatever it's called.
rnlval
Member
The difference, the Wintel PC is an open platform with a clone hardware market. You can't say the same for Sony's PlayStation platform.
TidusYuna
Member
It is ironic you mention Titanfall 1, this was a game Microsoft paid to keep off of playstation.
Electronic Arts revealed today that it came to an agreement with Microsoft that makes Titanfall an exclusive to the Xbox One, Xbox 360, and PC for the “life of the title.” That means Titanfall developer Respawn Entertainment can’t release the game on PlayStation 4.
https://venturebeat.com/games/titan...sivity-deal-we-will-make-playstation-4-games/
This was all the way back in 2014, Microsoft paid to keep TitanFall 1 off of Playstation and til this day, Playstation players have not been able to play Titanfall 1. So not only was Microsoft the one to start the Call of Duty deals, they were doing Console Exclusive deals back in 2014, & they more likely would have kept doing them if they had the marketshare.
Microsoft didn't decline to renew the deal with Activision for CoD, Activision chose not to do the deal with Microsoft. Activision saw the numbers, they saw the PS4 had the larger market share, and they chose to do a deal with the larger market at the time, which was the PS4. It is the same reason TitanFall 2 came to the PS4 and wasn't exclusive to the XBOXOne. They didn't want their game to be exclusive to a smaller market, they wanted to reach more potential buyers.
JackMcGunns
Member
Hey, some people need them. You clearly had no good reply to it, so you were forced to pivot. Nice!
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
So tales from the ass. Now I see where the confusion is
intheinbetween
Member
Then why EA went with MS for several entries of FIFA instead of Sony? Wasn't it because of the money MS put on the table?
It's always because of money, if the money offered covers the profit of selling the game on other platforms third-parties (most of them) will gladly take it, and you have a lot of examples out there.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
That's the goal no doubt.
oldergamer
Member
You guys honestly have no clue on half the things you are saying.
EA has gone with Xbox ( at times) due to Microsoft dropping development on all sports titles as first party. Sony still makes "The Show". they don't necessarily need to have exchanged money, but instead work based on a long standing relationship that they won't compete directly in the biggest market for EA.
How do i know this? I knew the lead designer working on multiple MS backed sports titles just before they backed out of the sports market. He got the reason directly from MS.
Honestly, some of posts here are so green, its silly.
Last edited:
JackMcGunns
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
Last edited:
Microsoft is mad that Sony isn’t playing fair: “Sony doesn’t want our streaming model to compete with their pay-to-play model.” But is Microsoft competing fairly?
Microsoft is bleeding money through gamepass (which their deep pockets can afford) to undercut Sony and other subscription services. PlayStation is the only thing keeping Sony afloat. They can’t afford to hemorrhage money in their gaming division.
Look at Amazon Luna, Google Stadia, and PlayStation Plus… none of them can afford to have day-one AAA games at the caliber of Starfield, Redfall, Halo, Forza, Psychonauts, Flight Sim, Gears of War, etc. Hell, possibly future Call of Duty games could become day one gamepass titles once current contracts are honored.
Gamepass undoubtedly yields less revenue to AAA game developers than traditional pay-to-play model (and if that’s not true Microsoft is bleeding even more money than I can imagine. Oh, and obviously Gamepass is the better option if your upcoming game will be a sales dud. I’m looking at you LoTR: Gollum). Less revenue means less investment in game development. Less risks, less effort, cut content… If the subscription model wins out, a lower quality future is a very real potential outcome.
Idk, I just see Gamepass tactics as being a detriment to the quality of titles that require a heavy investment. Yes, the subscription model is consumer friendly from a financial standpoint, but what about from a quality one? It’s easy to say that quality hasn’t dipped in the here-and-now, but I’m not so sure we’ll be able to say the same thing in a subscription future down the line.
All this to say: Screw Microsoft’s push for a day-one subscription game model. I hope Sony deploys any and all tactics to stifle their growth. I’ve enjoyed the best games from pay-to-play, and I can’t support anything that has the potential to suppress innovation and progress in this medium.
Microsoft is bleeding money through gamepass (which their deep pockets can afford) to undercut Sony and other subscription services. PlayStation is the only thing keeping Sony afloat. They can’t afford to hemorrhage money in their gaming division.
Look at Amazon Luna, Google Stadia, and PlayStation Plus… none of them can afford to have day-one AAA games at the caliber of Starfield, Redfall, Halo, Forza, Psychonauts, Flight Sim, Gears of War, etc. Hell, possibly future Call of Duty games could become day one gamepass titles once current contracts are honored.
Gamepass undoubtedly yields less revenue to AAA game developers than traditional pay-to-play model (and if that’s not true Microsoft is bleeding even more money than I can imagine. Oh, and obviously Gamepass is the better option if your upcoming game will be a sales dud. I’m looking at you LoTR: Gollum). Less revenue means less investment in game development. Less risks, less effort, cut content… If the subscription model wins out, a lower quality future is a very real potential outcome.
Idk, I just see Gamepass tactics as being a detriment to the quality of titles that require a heavy investment. Yes, the subscription model is consumer friendly from a financial standpoint, but what about from a quality one? It’s easy to say that quality hasn’t dipped in the here-and-now, but I’m not so sure we’ll be able to say the same thing in a subscription future down the line.
All this to say: Screw Microsoft’s push for a day-one subscription game model. I hope Sony deploys any and all tactics to stifle their growth. I’ve enjoyed the best games from pay-to-play, and I can’t support anything that has the potential to suppress innovation and progress in this medium.
Last edited:
intheinbetween
Member
What does the deal FIFA or Titanfall one has to do with that?
Microsoft dropped the support for Sports games back in the OG XBOX days, not on the XBOX 360 or XBOX ONE era, so that statement makes no sense in this discussion.
And now it's Sony the one with the FIFA partnership when they used to go with PES back in the day, but hey that's normal, isn't it?
Topher
Gold Member
Bizarre analogy. How about a real example? A guy is a PS gamer and likes Bethesda games. Now Bethesda games are no longer on that guy's platform of choice. From his perspective there isn't any difference between a game being made exclusive because of some deal or because someone bought Bethesda. Same exact result. He can't play Bethesda games unless he buys some other company's piece of plastic.
Last edited:
solidus12
Member
Tried it with my girlfriend. LOVED IT
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No, they didn't. Some of y'all are showing your ass without doing proper research in a desperate attempt to MicrosoftToo.
Respawn went to Sony first, as they were independent and needed help with the game/publishing/etc. Sony declined because PS4 info was super secret at the time (a smart decision in the end) and told them they can put the game on Vita, which as we all now know, would've been impossible without immense scalebacks and downgrades. This was a slap in the face to Respawn, who had ambitions of a massive franchise despite being less than a quarter of the size of the average AAA studios and they then went to Microsoft.
Not only did Microsoft help with the funding of the game, but publishing a new IP is incredibly expensive and risky. They saw potential, however, and spent a metric shit ton on advertising and marketing (probably some of their best live-action commercials outside of Halo). And you're crying because they re-neg'd with the EA CFO for full exclusivity versus timed? If this was Sony, they would've done the same except tried to buy out the IP, which is something Microsoft was too stupid to do. In fact, didn't Phil say that, in retrospect, they should've done these very things back in the day?
I'll never forget Respawn saying all of this publicly because of the backlash they faced from angry Sony fanboys, only for said fanboys to say they're lying. The fucking devs are "lying" because some shills on the internet are butthurt.
Funnily enough, Titanfall 1 sold far better initially over Titanfall 2, despite being exclusive and on Xbox One which was a dying console, over the sequel which was multiplat and with a VASTLY larger userbase. Sure this can be partially attributed to EA being EA and releasing it close to Battlefield, but MS marketing campaign blitz sure helped.
Try harder next time.
Edit: like clockwork y'all have to cry about how Microsoft "started" this when Sony had been doing this shit since the 90's, before Xbox was a twinkle in Microsofts eye. Keep that same energy for both companies. It's not hard.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
John Wick
Member
Some paople like to play dumb. Until recently Sony didn't have a competing service to GP. So obviously there has been no reason for MS to block games going to Playstation subscription services. Once Sony starts offering day one or new games watch MS become very active in blocking deals.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Imagine the micro sized jank with input lag.
Last edited:
John Wick
Member
Maybe Sony paid for longer exclusivity or Square can't be arsed porting it now.
onesvenus
Member
I don't know. Maybe Sony has rights to first refusal? Saying that Microsoft could have done something other than buying Activision is something that we won't know about
Well, that should be on the contract if that was the case. I'm sure it's not, otherwise they would already be there. Once the deal closes, Microsoft won't negotiate a contract like that
Leyasu
Banned
Putting COD day one on PS+ would be a lot more expensive than just paying for the marketing. Lol
Topher
Gold Member
You'd think by the comments in the pixel counting threads that streaming on mobile phones would be dismissed outright....but here we are.
Leyasu
Banned
It’s not that ABK didn’t want there games launching day one on any service, it’s that no platform holder was going to pay the exorbitant price that it would cost to do so.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
This isn't true, and with that your entire premise kinda falls apart.
Topher
Gold Member
Exactly. Somehow MS is going to pay a ton of money to market a game and allow that publisher to double dip in the PS+ pool as well?
Flutta
Banned
Lol its no me saying its in decline. its basically raw facts.
Losing 50 million players in 1 year
Now imagine what would happen IF Phil decided to remove it completely from PlayStation players…
Like i said before COD is bleeding players and it will continue to bleed even more.
Also NPD wont even give you the whole picture lol. Why even bring that up when we live in an age of FTP games…..
Here are some stats for most played online games during the last 30 days on PS.
Tracker
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Cope for what. Two companies in decadence?. Lol
jhjfss
Member
Im glad you brought this up. Here's something for you..
Sony Is The Reason Titanfall Is A Microsoft Exclusive
www.pcinvasion.com
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you but it all boiled down to who offered Activision the most money. The larger market share isn’t a material issue since COD was extremely popular across both platforms.
The deal was announced E3 2015, but would have been in the works for quite a while.
You really believe that lmao.
TidusYuna
Member
No, they didn't. Some of y'all are showing your ass without doing proper research in a desperate attempt to MicrosoftToo.
Respawn went to Sony first, as they were independent and needed help with the game/publishing/etc. Sony declined because PS4 info was super secret at the time (a smart decision in the end) and told them they can put the game on Vita, which as we all now know, would've been impossible without immense scalebacks and downgrades. This was a slap in the face to Respawn, who had ambitions of a massive franchise despite being less than a quarter of the size of the average AAA studios and they then went to Microsoft.
Not only did Microsoft help with the funding of the game, but publishing a new IP is incredibly expensive and risky. They saw potential, however, and spent a metric shit ton on advertising and marketing (probably some of their best live-action commercials outside of Halo). And you're crying because they re-neg'd with the EA CFO for full exclusivity versus timed? If this was Sony, they would've done the same except tried to buy out the IP, which is something Microsoft was too stupid to do. In fact, didn't Phil say that, in retrospect, they should've done these very things back in the day?
I'll never forget Respawn saying all of this publicly because of the backlash they faced from angry Sony fanboys, only for said fanboys to say they're lying. The fucking devs are "lying" because some shills on the internet are butthurt.
Funnily enough, Titanfall 1 sold far better initially over Titanfall 2, despite being exclusive and on Xbox One which was a dying console, over the sequel which was multiplat and with a VASTLY larger userbase. Sure this can be partially attributed to EA being EA and releasing it close to Battlefield, but MS marketing campaign blitz sure helped.
Try harder next time.
Edit: like clockwork y'all have to cry about how Microsoft "started" this when Sony had been doing this shit since the 90's, before Xbox was a twinkle in Microsofts eye. Keep that same energy for both companies. It's not hard.
Electronic Arts revealed today that it came to an agreement with Microsoft that makes Titanfall an exclusive to the Xbox One, Xbox 360, and PC for the “life of the title.” That means Titanfall developer Respawn Entertainment can’t release the game on PlayStation 4.
https://venturebeat.com/games/titan...sivity-deal-we-will-make-playstation-4-games/
I mean, I don't doubt Sony would have made TitanFall exclusive, both companies would, which is the point. I have no issue with Titanfall not coming the Playstation, shooters aren't really my jam, but just pointing out that both companies, Microsoft and Sony, keeps games off the others system. This thread is about about Sony paying to keep games off Xbox correct? How is Microsoft paying to keep Titanfall off on Playstation any different? The difference here is you can still play Call of Duty on Playstation or Xbox. You can't play Titanfall 1 on PSPlus or Playstation at all. When Microsoft acquire you Activision, you think they are going to allow Playstation users to play Call of duty on PS Plus? Of course they won't.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Have you seen the news bro?
COD lost active players due to how relatively unpopular Vanguard was, but also due to much more paltry Warzone updates as the teams focused on Warzone 2.
This year, they’re putting out a COD game with their A-Team. And Warzone 2 is in the works. They’ll gain back a ton of those MAUs.
The fact that FIFA 22 is 3rd on that chart should tell you how unrepresentative the survey is for certain regions. Do a survey with mainly North American players and FIFA won’t be anywhere near the top.
DaGwaphics
Member
That and the player counts are so low that you know the sample data is too small to build much off of.
TidusYuna
Member
Im glad you brought this up. Here's something for you..
[/URL]
Electronic Arts revealed today that it came to an agreement with Microsoft that makes Titanfall an exclusive to the Xbox One, Xbox 360, and PC for the “life of the title.” That means Titanfall developer Respawn Entertainment can’t release the game on PlayStation 4.
https://venturebeat.com/games/titan...sivity-deal-we-will-make-playstation-4-games/
I'm not complaining that Sony didn't get Titanfall. I don't really play shooters like that. I'm pointing out that even Microsoft keeps games off of Playstation, both companies do it. That is the point. So I'm glad you posted this and helped me in pointing this out. It says that Microsoft was more aggressive in approaching respawn from the start in order to get Titanfall as a console exclusive.
JackMcGunns
Member
No, because take for instance a game like MLB the Show, it's still available to either purchase on your favorite piece of plastic, it's also available to buy on the piece of pastic you hate, as well as on a paid subsciption service that a lot of people enjoy at a discount day one. Removing the option to get it at a discount is the only thing that Sony is doing if they block MLB from Gamepass. It's not incentivizing me to buy a PS5 to play MLB , all its doing is blocking the gamer from getting a great deal.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Also, MS games are available on PC. Day one too. So it's still available enough to the masses.
The second Sony or Nintendo swallows up a studio, it's Sony platforms only except recently where some games come to PC 4 years later kind of thing.
Only games that are actively multi platform are the existing Bungie games, and MLB The Show. And the only reason the baseball game is on Xbox and Switch is because if rumours are true, MLB forced Sony to have the game on more platforms because they want a wider spread of gamers to enjoy baseball games. So if any company out there knows about deals and gamer coverage, it's Sony getting forced to release it on other platforms instead of locking baseball under PS.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Uh.....ok? Has nothing to do with what was being said, but sure.....
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Another example, say fans of bigger Final Fantasy games on PC and Xbox. They can't play the games on their choice of platforms because one company paid to keep them off of other platforms with a chance of them maybe getting a PC release a year or more. That fan can't play those games unless he buys some other company's piece of plastic either.
And the worst part is Square isn't even a first party. At least with first party there is some semblance of a logical sense.
Last edited:
MikeM
Member
PS Now was before GP. Not as good as GP, but was still there if I remember correctly.
JackMcGunns
Member
It's right in the title lol, Sony is paying to keep you from getting a discount, you can however pay full price for the game on any platform.
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
He already said that
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Oh yeah just clarifying with another example that it's even worse when it's done on third party content, as with first party there is a natural expectation for it to be exclusive. Outside of fringe cases like MLB and MS's CoD promise.
Similar threads
- Poll