-
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
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
It's not worse. It's just an acceptance of the status quo.
TidusYuna
Member
=
Maybe Activision thought CoD was just a better fit for Playstation at the time since they would have been competing for marketing with Halo, Gears, and Titanfall on Xbox. Who knows.
I find it hard to believe that Activision was just looking for the highest bidder and Microsoft was outbid by Sony. Mainly because Microsoft just spent 70 billion to acquire Activision and get CoD back. Sony doesn't have that kind of money.
Maybe Activision thought CoD was just a better fit for Playstation at the time since they would have been competing for marketing with Halo, Gears, and Titanfall on Xbox. Who knows.
SmurfMustard
Member
All these threads we had over the last couple of years (different thread titles but essentially the same "discussion") boil down to one simple thing.
People made fun of Microsofts war chest for years. Now that they opened it and gave a glimpse people are crying. So many tears.
If they really release a game that you feel the need to play, just play it on PC. I mean you all got PCs, after all everybody always tells me this is an enthusiast forum.
People made fun of Microsofts war chest for years. Now that they opened it and gave a glimpse people are crying. So many tears.
If they really release a game that you feel the need to play, just play it on PC. I mean you all got PCs, after all everybody always tells me this is an enthusiast forum.
Not sure if serious.
Microsoft was certainly not investing as much cash in the gaming business as they are today.
Topher
Gold Member
How is any of that in the title? This isn't about discounts. Sorry, I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Sure......don't disagree with any of that. First party makes more sense in some regards, but the end result to the gamer is exactly the same. Games that would have been on their platform are no longer there.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Who was it though that kept bringing up war chests all those years, to be made fun of?
You leave that part of the equation out. Once again, MS nor Sony or any fanboys on either side are victims in the great mudslinging dork wars.
Topher
Gold Member
"How much money you got now, MS? 2 trillion? Pfffft.......how pathetic!"
"At least Sony isn't bloated with all that horrible money."
"If Microsoft was so great they wouldn't be the third richest company in the world. Embarrassing"
Trying to figure out how to make fun of a company for having a lot of money.
I don't think I'm doing it right.
intheinbetween
Member
Not even like in the 360 era, actually CoD was back then associated with the 360 because of marketing partnership between MS and Activision, not with PS3
DaGwaphics
Member
Very true. Hell, even half the Xbox fans never thought the Vault would open in the way it has the last couple years. LOL
I remember thinking that MS didn't sound confident enough as the early whispers of current-gen started to appear, boy was I wrong. They've never seemed more confident/committed to their gaming operation which is great for gaming in general. Competition is always a great thing.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This is the full subscription services related page of the leaked RE village contract.
TL;DR
- For 1 year after a games release Sony will have the exclusive/first right to negotiate for putting a game on a sub service, publisher can't approach Stadia/GamePass at all during this window.
- If Sony and publisher can't come to an agreement after the 1 year (and an additional 120 day window if SIE wants to start negotiating for putting a game on PS Plus), then the Publisher can start approaching other service holders.
- However, even after that Sony wants to know what offer publisher gets from other services and Sony has a right to hold another 60 days to match the offer or decline it.
So, even after a year is over, it still leaves a 180~ additional day window where a publisher can't put their game on another sub service if Sony declines to put it on PS+.
TL;DR
- For 1 year after a games release Sony will have the exclusive/first right to negotiate for putting a game on a sub service, publisher can't approach Stadia/GamePass at all during this window.
- If Sony and publisher can't come to an agreement after the 1 year (and an additional 120 day window if SIE wants to start negotiating for putting a game on PS Plus), then the Publisher can start approaching other service holders.
- However, even after that Sony wants to know what offer publisher gets from other services and Sony has a right to hold another 60 days to match the offer or decline it.
So, even after a year is over, it still leaves a 180~ additional day window where a publisher can't put their game on another sub service if Sony declines to put it on PS+.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
This is the full subscription services related page of the leaked RE village contract.
TL;DR
- For 1 year after a games release Sony will have the exclusive/first right to negotiate for putting a game on a sub service, publisher can't approach Stadia/GamePass at all during this window.
- If Sony and publisher can't come to an agreement after the 1 year (and an additional 120 day window if SIE wants to start negotiating for putting a game on PS Plus), then the Publisher can start approaching other service holders.
- However, even after that Sony wants to know what offer publisher gets from other services and Sony has a right to hold another 60 days to match the offer or decline it.
So, even after a year is over, it still leaves a 180~ additional day window where a publisher can't put their game on another sub service if Sony declines to put it on PS+.
Ah.....that has a paragraph that the one I posted earlier doesn't. Seems to confirm what R reksveks said about it being a "first/last right of refusal deal" which isn't uncommon.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yep, pretty standard shit that all corporations run with. NCAs are riddled with them as well.
Kagey K
Banned
So MS can't even negotiate with devs or publishers in confidentiality with them legally having to run back to Sony and tell them all the details.This is the full subscription services related page of the leaked RE village contract.
TL;DR
- For 1 year after a games release Sony will have the exclusive/first right to negotiate for putting a game on a sub service, publisher can't approach Stadia/GamePass at all during this window.
- If Sony and publisher can't come to an agreement after the 1 year (and an additional 120 day window if SIE wants to start negotiating for putting a game on PS Plus), then the Publisher can start approaching other service holders.
- However, even after that Sony wants to know what offer publisher gets from other services and Sony has a right to hold another 60 days to match the offer or decline it.
So, even after a year is over, it still leaves a 180~ additional day window where a publisher can't put their game on another sub service if Sony declines to put it on PS+.
People still wondering why MS chose to buy outright instead of trying to negotiate these deals?
Topher
Gold Member
So MS can't even negotiate with devs or publishers in confidentiality with them legally having to run back to Sony and tell them all the details.
People still wondering why MS chose to buy outright instead of trying to negotiate these deals?
You really think MS doesn't do first right of refusal? Seriously?
A bit disingenuous to file all those clauses under ‘right of first refusal’. There’s language there specifying one year exclusivity, followed by right of first refusal, then a contractual obligation to inform Sony of whatever financial terms were offered by the competition…and a mandatory 60 days wait while they decide if they want to hijack The deal.
As to your question, I’m not sure the company signing 3-6 month timed console exclusivity is pushing terms this tough. We’re talking about MS that let Moon Studios put Ori on Switch. Or Microsoft that approached Studio MDHR and asked them if they’d want to put their game on PlayStation.
Menzies
Banned
Sure, both sides have been guilty in the past.
I'm not sure that the current Microsoft strategy is as interested in signing up exclusive marketing deals of guaranteed AAA blockbusters, and locking them up for 1.5 years though(?)
Oh no, such horror! Capcom must negotiate terms for RE. What if I told you entire mega corporations like nvidia can't negotiate with other companies without legally having to run back to Microsoft to tell them the details.So MS can't even negotiate with devs or publishers in confidentiality with them legally having to run back to Sony and tell them all the details.
People still wondering why MS chose to buy outright instead of trying to negotiate these deals?
You clearly don't know how common right of first refusal is.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
The first/last right of refusal is what Kagey was commenting on, not the 1 year exclusivity, so no doesn't seem disingenous at all
Topher
Gold Member
I didn't say "all those clauses" at all so disingenuous to suggest I did. And I don't see these terms as "tough" at all. Too bad we don't have access to a Microsoft marketing contract. I think that would put things in perspective.
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
Not much need for them to lock them up for 1.5 years now that they can lock them up permenantly
JackMcGunns
Member
So you don't know that with GamePass day one releases it means you don't have to pay full retail for a new game, essentially saving you a ton of money? We're talking about Sony blocking games from GamePass, are we not? by blocking from Gamepass, it's not really enouraging gamers to buy PlayStation as other deals have in the past, but a dick move that forces gamers to pay full retail for the game even though MS is ready to take the hit for you to push for new subscriptions.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
It's not a dick move to protect your own interests. They're not obligated to engage Microsoft in a price war
Menzies
Banned
Sure, with some Bethesda titles.
Though there has been a bit more evening of the ledger in terms of the two companies internal studios now.
Insomniac's Spider-Man was always going to be released, the same as Starfield - no?
As far as I've been told, there's also nothing stopping Sony buying Capcom either.
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
Pretty much all of them going forward
Uh no? There was always going to be another spiderman game eventually, but if Sony wasn't involved that wouldn't have been the 2018 game we have today. Starfield by Bethesda was coming regardless.
Sure but that's still not happened
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
The games that get these marketing deals are major AAA third party titles. These are not games that come to Game Pass day one in any case. So the point you trying to make about getting some GP discount is irrelevant. Either way, a big game going on Game Pass is big news and defeats the entire purpose of the marketing deal. That's why these clauses exist. A marketing deal is an investment that expects a return. Either Sony or Microsoft agreeing to a marketing deal that allows the game to be essentially marketed on a competing subscription service would be absurdly idiotic.
Menzies
Banned
Eh, so Sony's money in to Spider-Man made it better, but Microsoft's money does nothing to improve Starfield?
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
Spiderman 2018 doesn't exist without Sony period.
Starfield exists with or without Microsoft.
Nothing to do with money
MasterCornholio
Member
I believe Sony letting Insomniac make the game was what made it better.
Menzies
Banned
I think you're being very generous to Sony for what amounts to simply moving money to a third-party studio.
We'll never know the difference in quality a Starfield release with less funding and extra pressure to release to support a financially struggling business afloat has. Pretty sure it's allowed them to improve the game.
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
You're not getting it. Sony picked Insomniac. If Sony said no then the Insomanic developed Spiderman game wouldn't exist.
It's called a most favored nation clauseSo MS can't even negotiate with devs or publishers in confidentiality with them legally having to run back to Sony and tell them all the details.
People still wondering why MS chose to buy outright instead of trying to negotiate these deals?
A most-favoured nation (MFN) provision is a contractual provision, also known as a "most-favoured-customer clause," "prudent buyer clause" or "non-discrimination clause," in which the seller, S, promises the buyer, B1, that S will not offer any other buyer, B2, better terms before offering those terms or better terms to B1. When businesses have the leverage to do so, they routinely negotiate the inclusion of an MFN provision in their supplier contracts, to provide for the business to receive pricing equal to or better than other customers. Supplier compliance with MFN provisions can be hard to validate, as pricing is often customized to fit the business’ circumstances, and confidentiality provisions restrict the sharing of information between customers.
Most favoured nation - Wikipedia
Menzies
Banned
Let me re-phrase.
Insomniac were always going to release a new game with or without Sony. I think it's fair to say they could have secured funding from a number of different sources.
Fair?
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
No, once again the issue isn't funding. Insomniac cannot secure funding on their own for a game that they weren't offered to make.
Last edited:
Menzies
Banned
The point I'm (poorly) trying to make is that there isn't more games in the market place thanks to Sony for giving bags of cash to Insomniac to make Spiderman, when they theoretically could have accepted bags of cash to make Sunset Overdrive 2.
I'll leave it there.
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
Okay, but your original question was about spiderman, which does infact exist because of Sony. Not some other hypothetical game that doesn't exist
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Not really sure I understand the point you are trying to make here, but Spider-man has already resulted in more game than a Sunset Overdrive 2 ever would. It was the success of Spider-man that brought us Miles Morales as well as the upcoming Spider-man 2 and Wolverine. This success also resulted in Insomniac's acquisition and funding that allowed them to still make Ratchet and Clank: A Rift Apart alongside their other games in development. As
Ass of Can Whooping
said, this is all a result of Sony choosing Insomniac for Spider-man. Comparing this to Sunset Overdrive which was a one and done title doesn't really make a lot of sense, I'm afraid.
Menzies
Banned
It's all framed in the context of Microsoft paying for their share of internal studios, that were once third-party is 'worse'.Not really sure I understand the point you are trying to make here, but Spider-man has already resulted in more game than a Sunset Overdrive 2 ever would. It was the success of Spider-man that brought us Miles Morales as well as the upcoming Spider-man 2 and Wolverine. This success also resulted in Insomniac's acquisition and funding that allowed them to still make Ratchet and Clank: A Rift Apart alongside their other games in development. As
My first time of actually reading key parts of that Resident Evil Village leaked contract.
Where’s that guy who kept saying we should use that as a blueprint for the Activision COD deal?
You’d have to be in cuckoo land to imagine Activision/Kotick would sign anything like that. I’m still shocked Capcom agreed to those terms.
It’s weird how you say these things yet still get really upset about Microsoft’s major acquisitions.
Where’s that guy who kept saying we should use that as a blueprint for the Activision COD deal?
You’d have to be in cuckoo land to imagine Activision/Kotick would sign anything like that. I’m still shocked Capcom agreed to those terms.
It’s weird how you say these things yet still get really upset about Microsoft’s major acquisitions.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
How many Triple-A marketing deals has sony done recently?
People are acting like Sony is out there acquiring triple A exclusive deals for most games out there.
Sony acquired exclusive rights to Street Fighter V and Final Fantasy 7 Remake (likely along with its expansions) before 2015. That was more than 6 years ago.
Outside of that have been smaller titles, something Microsoft has been doing as well.
Time exclusives are worse. It forces people to buy another console.
And these game pass deals aren't forever
Blocking a game from releasing on another platform is far worse than blocking a game from releasing on game pass for a year.
Menzies
Banned
I'm not interested in playing 'lizt warz'...but you've quoted me and I have an answer.
RE
Ghostwire Tokyo
Deathloop
FF 7, 14, 16
Forspoken (shiver keep that one)
Just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's more.
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
I see you in Sony threads. Are you in there because those upset you then? I'd get that checked
On a serious note I'm here discussing. If that offends you just put me on ignore
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
I'm not claiming it's worse if that's what you're saying. Microsoft's gone down the route of M&As. Sony is being aggressive with third party deals. Both are fair play strategies as far as i'm concerned.
If Microsoft wants to beat sony via subscriptions and value then Sony has every right to protect their base. Likewise if Microsoft announces another 5 more studios tomorrow to combat Sony's strategy i've got not problem with that.
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
You mentioned Triple A blockbusters, and you named Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo, and Forspoken, which aren't Triple A blockbusters. I said Xbox gamers are acting like Sony is acquiring them left and right.
The Final Fantasy 7 deal was made years ago, likely before 2015.
The only thing reported regarding Final Fantasy 14 was that it was due to Xbox Live regulations.
Resident Evil 8 isn't exclusive.
Final Fantasy 16 and Forspoken are probably time-exclusive titles, which only one being a tripel A title.
Ark II is timed exclusive on Xbox, considering how big the original game is, it's bigger than the likes of Deathloop, Ghostwire, and Forspoken (likely). You also had PUBG and Rise of the Tomb Raider. Microsoft has MANY other non-triple A titles (a lot of double a) titles locked down.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No, literally no one has the fortitude to crawl through someones decade old tweets
The general and widely accepted consensus is/was that Sony played a significant part in bankrolling development of the game, hence it was PS4 console exclusive. They might have done the same with FFVII as well, but all of FFVII's marketing had the fine print of "not available on other consoles until 12 months" which kept on extending, we can safely assume that was Sony using and extending via similar clauses that we see in the RE Village contract.
Deathloop is very certainly an AAA game. Ghostwire is a bit iffy and Forspoken is certainly being attempted to be presented as an AAA game, though the
I'll hold you to that
Topher
Gold Member
I'm not sure anyone is saying that is "worse" though. Effectively, games being on less platforms is the same result.
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
No, literally no one has the fortitude to crawl through someones decade old tweets
The general and widely accepted consensus is/was that Sony played a significant part in bankrolling development of the game, hence it was PS4 console exclusive. They might have done the same with FFVII as well, but all of FFVII's marketing had the fine print of "not available on other consoles until 12 months" which kept on extending, we can safely assume that was Sony using and extending via similar clauses that we see in the RE Village contract.
Deathloop is very certainly an AAA game. Ghostwire is a bit iffy and Forspoken is certainly being attempted to be presented as an AAA game, though the
I'll hold you to that
I'll go ahead and gobble phil's testicle with you if I backtrack
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
It only took a second to google search the article.No, literally no one has the fortitude to crawl through someones decade old tweets
The general and widely accepted consensus is/was that Sony played a significant part in bankrolling development of the game, hence it was PS4 console exclusive. They might have done the same with FFVII as well, but all of FFVII's marketing had the fine print of "not available on other consoles until 12 months" which kept on extending, we can safely assume that was Sony using and extending via similar clauses that we see in the RE Village contract.
The article linked the tweet.
If you can assume similar clauses, then we can assume Microsoft has made similar deals.
We're talking about triple-A blockbusters. Only a few fall into that category.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Similar threads
- Poll