Support NeoGAF

[ManaByte]

No, he's typing from his Xperia Play phone.

FIFY. Some people just love those old Android games that run on it.

 

[lefty1117]

Sony been playing and profiting from the exclusives game for many years, even petty stupid exclusives like the short Spiderman DLC on Marvel's Avengers. Now they're getting the pie in their face and they don't like how it tastes...

 

[PendekarRajawali]

FIFY. Some people just love those old Android games that run on it.

 

[Darklor01]

I wonder which will win out if COD goes XBOX exclusive. PC players aren’t affected, XBOX players not affected… how big of a player base do they lose out of those who don’t have or get a PC or an XBOX? Enough to be happy keeping a game like this exclusive? I guess time will tell.

 

[reksveks]

Nope, more detailed, and Jim is going to set the record straight, that is a major shift in tone from the original article alone, this is very serious business, someone may get hurt emotionally and maybe even physically by way of heartache that Jims son won't be able to come home again.

Or at least you would think it's Jims son based on all the extreme reactions so far damn people calm down lol.

There is more context re the CMA decisions from last week but in terms of new news, it's the same comments.

 

[ManaByte]

I wonder which will win out if COD goes XBOX exclusive. PC players aren’t affected, XBOX players not affected… how big of a player base do they lose out of those who don’t have or get a PC or an XBOX? Enough to be happy keeping a game like this exclusive? I guess time will tell.

How many people have a web browser? That's the potential audience once it's on Game Pass.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

Make no mistake. MS could care less about their recent statement of "Not taking games away from other platforms". Allowing COD on PS for 6 more years is purely to their benefit as they do not want to take a major loss by removing their #1 customer(Sony) and loosing a ton of revenue. Allowing it to stay on PS for a few more years while they win over COD mindshare and bolster Gamepass is the main goal. Then they are safe to make it exclusive. In the end this is simply MS having enough money to hit the "I win" button.

They won't if you allow gamepass on your platform...thats what it all comes down too. buy a ps5. but you paying 15$ a month to play COD...win win for them.

 

[Hendrick's]

Hendrick's you LOL because you have nothing to say.

First I've been accused of that.

 

[dibella360]

This is coming from the company that locked down Lego Harry F'ing Potter for 2 years!

 

[Darklor01]

How many people have a web browser? That's the potential audience once it's on Game Pass.

I guess.

 

[Yoboman]

They won't if you allow gamepass on your platform...thats what it all comes down too. buy a ps5. but you paying 15$ a month to play COD...win win for them.

That's exactly the sort of tactic that the regulators will be concerned about.

 

[sainraja]

That's not accurate, the Xbox was already being worked on in some form by a team who though there was reason for MS to get into gaming because well, they already were.

What you said is the reason why Microsoft greenlit project that would eventually become the Xbox with the budget that they did. It's likely MS was going to have a console anyway, but it may have been entirely different, with lower budget allocation.

I think they are (or he is) just trying to dramatize their entry into console gaming, the same way it was done with Sony's entry. With Sony, there is some credibility — e.g. Nintendo PlayStation unit that exists, Philips announcing their deal with Nintendo the same time Sony was announcing it also.
I am doubtful, of the one he is now trying to tell, at-least in the way he wants to tell it, about Xbox. It just makes for an interesting story but he's definitely 'overselling' it.

They've been punching MS for two generations and now MS is punching back, and Jim can't seem to take the punch. In the 360/PS3 era Sony had a parity clause that said if you didn't release a game simultaneously on PS3 and 360, you had to produce exclusive PlayStation DLC for the game or else it wouldn't be approved for release on the platform. BioShock was the first game to do this. It was something to try to prevent timed exclusives. That evolved in the PS4 era to where they were just flat-out paying for exclusive DLC like the Destiny Strikes and the Arkham Knight challenges.

Hm

Link
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/gang-beasts-dev-parity-clause-means-we-cant-commit-to-xbox-one-release#:~:text=The parity stipulates that indies,from others released before it.

EDIT

How did I forget to mention the part that they are trying to mimic about Sony/Nintendo's story with why Xbox was green-lit. The CEO of Sony didn't green light the PlayStation until Nintendo "betrayed" them.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Sony accounted for $1.37 Billion in 2020 for Activision in total, why would MS cut that out?

Because the possible gains by having people buy an Xbox and or Gamepass will more than equal that out.
Sony isn't the 2nd biggest gaming company because of their exclusive games, they might release two a year if that, it's the 30% they make off every thirs parry game sold on their platform that's makes them the most money.
If by making COD exclusive on Xbox they sell 5 or 10 million more Xboxs, their profit will jump massively from the extra third party game sales.

 

[NikuNashi]

Jim Ryan crying about MS deciding the future of an IP that MS owns.

Poor Jimmy. Condolences buddy boy.

The sale did not go through yet, which is the reason for these wranglings. Last I heard it was being investigated by competition and mergers.

 

[Yoboman]

I think they are (or he is) just trying to dramatize their entry into console gaming, the same way it was done with Sony's entry. With Sony, there is some credibility — e.g. Nintendo PlayStation unit that exists, Philips announcing their deal with Nintendo the same time Sony was announcing it also.
I am doubtful, of the one he is now trying to tell, at-least in the way he wants to tell it, about Xbox. It just makes for an interesting story but he's definitely 'overselling' it.


Hm

Link
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/gang-beasts-dev-parity-clause-means-we-cant-commit-to-xbox-one-release#:~:text=The parity stipulates that indies,from others released before it.

Xbox being hypocrites, what a shock

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

It hurt you right Jimmy?

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Jim Ryan crying about MS deciding the future of an IP that MS owns.

Poor Jimmy. Condolences buddy boy.

Slow down there buddy. MS doesn't own anything yet. That's the whole reason for this back and forth.

 

[ZehDon]

They've been punching MS for two generations and now MS is punching back, and Jim can't seem to take the punch. In the 360/PS3 era Sony had a parity clause that said if you didn't release a game simultaneously on PS3 and 360, you had to produce exclusive PlayStation DLC for the game or else it wouldn't be approved for release on the platform. BioShock was the first game to do this. It was something to try to prevent timed exclusives. That evolved in the PS4 era to where they were just flat-out paying for exclusive DLC like the Destiny Strikes and the Arkham Knight challenges.

Of course; Sony wanted their stranglehold from the PS2 to continue. I believe Microsoft tried something similar last generation, which ended up impacting some indies.

For me, Ryan's comments read like an admission that Call of Duty is foundationally important to them. Dollars wise, sure, that's obvious. But, I think it goes deeper: how many PSN subs do they have thanks to Call of Duty alone? Those subs pack long tail incentives for Sony - you already play COD on PS, might as well play everything else on PS, too, since you're paying for it. That drives additional game sales, additional DLC sales, incentives friends to buy PlayStation, etc. I think Ryan sees that if Microsoft pulls CoD, they'll lose their biggest long term install base driver. I could be completely wrong, however.

 

[adamsapple]

Link
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/gang-beasts-dev-parity-clause-means-we-cant-commit-to-xbox-one-release#:~:text=The parity stipulates that indies,from others released before it.

Did you .. like read.. that article before replying to ManaByte ?

That article is strictly talking about a PARITY clause. A Party clause that ended up some indies *not* putting their games on Xbox because they could not guarantee parity.

A parity clause that has essentially been disbanded for over about half a decade now.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

If this was 2008 CoD would matter to me but it's not mattered for a while.

Nor do I really think it impacts a place like this. Mainstream is a different story but good luck to all.

 

[sainraja]

Did you .. like read.. that article before replying to ManaByte ?

That article is strictly talking about a PARITY clause. A Party clause that ended up some indies *not* putting their games on Xbox because they could not guarantee parity.

A parity clause that has essentially been disbanded for over about half a decade now.

Ah, nice try but I did read it and.....sorry, you are not going to drag me into an argument over this. If you can follow a conversation, then it should be clear why I brought that up. It doesn't matter to the point I was making if MS was unsuccessful and had to 'disband' it later or if it only applied to indies lol. I am not looking for a 1-to-1 scenario here. Point was, they utilized the same BS. They all do it. Some of you just love to make excuses for one though.

 

[I Master l]

Sony has been holding Final Fantasy hostage without actually owning Square Enix and have purchased a
lot of studios themselves. Can they really get upset over this?

 

[Baki]

Not surprised. COD is one of the biggest games on the planet. Ofcourse Jim will want COD to continue on PS beyond the current arrangement. Xbox buying the #1 3rd party publisher for $64B is a game-changer. Sony needs to be more aggressive to protect market share. They need to put in an offer for TakeTwo.

 

[Mr Moose]

Not surprised. COD is one of the biggest games on the planet. Ofcourse Jim will want COD to continue on PS beyond the current arrangement. Xbox buying the #1 3rd party publisher for $64B is a game-changer. Sony needs to be more aggressive to protect market share. They need to put in an offer for TakeTwo.

Take Two are fine where they are. No one needs to make their shit exclusive.
In an ideal world, CoD/Destiny (along with other multiplat games) would stay multiplat. Games like Starfield (new IPs) can be "exclusive".

 

[NickFire]

How many people have a web browser? That's the potential audience once it's on Game Pass.

Uggghhhh. COD via a browser? This is blasphemy.

In COD land 60 FPS is for the poors now. 120 FPS or nothing.

 

[leo-j]

Since when has Sony considered their impact on gamers with all their timed exclusivity bullshit? Did locking Spiderman down to PlayStation in a third party game matter to them? How about locking down Final Fantasy? Sony never gave a shit until Microsoft brought a bazooka to a knife fight.

Let me get my tiny violin, because the ball isn’t in your court Sony. Don’t like it? Too bad.

I mean Spiderman was a dead franchise before Sony’s first party studios turned it into a AAA jaguarnat , Call of duty was already a 20 + million selling a year franchise (the biggest franchise next to GTA) that Microsoft just bought and is about to rip away from more than half it’s install base. Also Final Fantasy was also not that big until PlayStation published FF VII.

 

[Three]

1-MS has not had temporary exclusives for AAA franchises with an impact on the sale of consoles for 8 years. From Tom Raider and all of us we remember the mobilization against that we never saw in the Sony cases.

2- Sony has squeezed its position of dominance to take over large AAA thirds that would be multiplatform. Pay to remove content and major franchises from the reach of Xbox console users.

3- Exclusivities from 1 to up to more than 3 years. The latest Xbox ones are only 3-6 months old and for Indi or AA titles.

Is the same situation for you?

You really do not think that the Xbox user can have reasons to feel annoyed?

What a post with so much incorrect info. For 8 yrs? Try again

They have had exclusivity deals for some popular ass games. Try this for example:

https://www.mcvuk.com/business-news...s-microsoft-exclusivity-deal-may-be-extended/

Extended to a year till 2018. No, Phil was saying they don't like content exclusives I hear some people saying, they don't do content exclusives you think? try again there too

https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2017/12...battlegrounds-limited-edition-cosmetic-packs/

It's such nonsense that people are trying to paint the trillion dollar company as the one who had to fight back against some kind of tyranny by buying up games and publishers like minecraft, Obsidian, Ninja Theory, Zenimax and Activision Blizzard King and countless others but I guess PR has really worked its magic on you guys where that example of FF7 was the straw that broke the camels back to dictatorship or something.

 

[Lupin25]

Sony’s response to the possible acquisition was BUNGIE: The makers of Halo/Destiny. The Destiny IP is killing it!

Obviously, it’s not FAVOURABLE to have a MULTIPLATFORM game go exclusive. Why would you WANT your userbase upheaved? And when has Sony made a multiplatform game of THIS calibre exclusive? Sony funded Spider-Man, SFV, FFVII Remake, Bloodborne, etc:

The games don’t exist without their help.

They also won’t need a COD killer with COD losing over half of its player count in a year and other GAAS games on the rise.

Also, why do people assume everyone jumps ship to PC once exclusives go day & date? Children, poor people, and those without time do not GAF about configuring PC’s let alone BUYING them lol.

 

[poppabk]

This is about respecting a regulatory process and doing it properly. If Phil didn't take it public Jim doesn't need to say anything.

And make no mistake, the desperate party in all of this right now is not the one most people are assuming.

It's Activision.

 

[plip.plop]

I find it hard to believe there is not one single Sony studio that wants to take lead on an FPS. Jimbo is literally calling his studios inadequate. How demoralizing.

 

[odhiex]

The Call of Duty franchise is a big deal for Sony, losing it could potentially be a threat for them in the short term. It will be a huge blow in the mindshare among modern military FPS gamers.

However, I think Sony's position will remain strong despite the potential loss of one of its key third-party franchises. Playstation as an identity did not build upon COD alone (only big during the PS4 era) or at least not bigger than say Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Kojima games (MGS specifically), FIFA, GTA and many more. Now, if Sony loses more and more big third-party supports then it could impact the brand in the longer term.

Ps. The last COD game that I played and enjoyed quite a bit was COD WWI. So, I have less knowledge about this franchise and how big it is currently other than from the news, twitter and forums.

 

[bender]

I find it hard to believe there is not one single Sony studio that wants to take lead on an FPS. Jimbo is literally calling his studios inadequate. How demoralizing.

There is a MAG2 joke here somewhere.

 

[BadBurger]

Is there a breakdown of CoD sales by platform?

Frankly I am surprised Microsoft wouldn't want to keep it on PlayStation for at least five more years - which is probably when this gen will be over. I don't envision a bunch of PlayStation 5 owners in 2025 suddenly switching their entire platform over one franchise. But if the gen is already in the process of concluding? Perhaps a significant number might opt for Xbox's the next time around. I mean who knows.

However - if I was in Ryan's shoes I'd stop saying things like "we just can't make a CoD on our own" or publicly complaining about what is looking like an inevitable acquisition. I'd instead be using the amazing talent I had on hand to try and make a competitor. It's not like Sony doesn't have several of the absolute best AAA studios making games right now.

 

[Lupin25]

Sony been playing and profiting from the exclusives game for many years, even petty stupid exclusives like the short Spiderman DLC on Marvel's Avengers. Now they're getting the pie in their face and they don't like how it tastes...

They made the new Spider-Man games. It’s theirs and Marvel’s game. Xbox turned Marvel down. Conversely, Activision was independent making COD games for all platforms.

I find it hard to believe there is not one single Sony studio that wants to take lead on an FPS. Jimbo is literally calling his studios inadequate. How demoralizing.

If you were a CEO would you “want” your multiplatform games going exclusive?

Plus… You’re forgetting about Destiny 2 & Bungie… which has higher engagement than COD now.

 

[bender]

Is there a breakdown of CoD sales by platform?

Frankly I am surprised Microsoft wouldn't want to keep it on PlayStation for at least five more years - which is probably when this gen will be over. I don't envision a bunch of PlayStation 5 owners in 2025 suddenly switching their entire platform over one franchise. But if the gen is already in the process of concluding? Perhaps a significant number might opt for Xbox's the next time around. I mean who knows.

However - if I was in Ryan's shoes I'd stop saying things like "we just can't make a CoD on our own" or publicly complaining about what is looking like an inevitable acquisition. I'd instead be using the amazing talent I had on hand to try and make a competitor. It's not like Sony doesn't have several of the absolute best AAA studios making games right now.

Someone posted percentages earlier in the thread. PS was #1 at 17% with MS at #4 at 11%. <I think>

Phil and Jim are just doing posturing right now which is smart negotiation tactics.

 

[Yoboman]

I find it hard to believe there is not one single Sony studio that wants to take lead on an FPS. Jimbo is literally calling his studios inadequate. How demoralizing.

Literally the dumbest thing he could say publicly now is they could replace COD with something else

 

[In Cold Blood]

Bought "some" is an interesting spin on about $80 billion worth

Is it MSs fault that Sony doesn't have the money to mirror what MS has done?
I can guarantee you if Sony had the same amount of money as MS they would be doing the exact same thing.

 

[Jigsaah]

It's negotiation which has gone public thanks to Phil and then Jim following suit. The acquisition isn't finalized. Microsoft doesn't want Sony to protest the acquisition so they've offered an olive branch. Sony doesn't like the olive branch.

But you know what, should the deal go through I bet they'll happily accept because there's no more opportunity to cock block. All of a sudden those next 3 years become very fuckin adequate.

Also an olive branch loses it's luster when you go public about something that was clearly a behind doors type of private conversation. That's on Phil.

 

[Kagey K]

Is it MSs fault that Sony doesn't have the money to mirror what MS has done?
I can guarantee you if Sony had the same amount of money as MS they would be doing the exact same thing.

Yep they have been buying the "playstation adavantage" on everything they could.

Of course they would buy thier exclusives instead of renting them if they could afford it.

Which is what MS decided to do. Those that hate subscriptions because, "I prefer to by my games rather than rent them" should be applauding MS for doing this because they took your mentality to a whole new level.

 

[delirium trigger]

COD's demise has been so long overdue. I remember when Modern Warfare hit the scene and basically ruined Halo multiplayer. Can't believe it's managed to stay on top this long. Cutting the player base in half could be the start which is why I hesitate to believe that Xbox would make it an exclusive. Could definitely see it going free on game pass but even that sounds like a stupid move for such a cash cow.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I find it hard to believe there is not one single Sony studio that wants to take lead on an FPS. Jimbo is literally calling his studios inadequate. How demoralizing.

Killzone and Resistance both stink

Maybe theyll get lucky with that new studio made up of COD vets. Respawn is huge now and had a similar path.

 

[njean777]

IDK the full extent of Sony's deal with Bungie (other than reported), but maybe having them make an exclusive shooter for PS can help. IDK if they have that authority over them at all, but it could help to have a competitor if they lose COD.

 

[Yoboman]

Is it MSs fault that Sony doesn't have the money to mirror what MS has done?
I can guarantee you if Sony had the same amount of money as MS they would be doing the exact same thing.

That's why regulators exist, to disensentivise that type of competition. Healthy markets won't exist if richer companies just buy out anybody else who can compete

Would it be an issue if Apple, Facebook and Google suddenly bought up massive publishers?

 

[jaysius]

Killzone and Resistance both stink

Maybe theyll get lucky with that new studio made up of COD vets. Respawn is huge now and had a similar path.

I mean sure, if you want to make a game for DOGS!

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Is it MSs fault that Sony doesn't have the money to mirror what MS has done?
I can guarantee you if Sony had the same amount of money as MS they would be doing the exact same thing.

Is sony's fault MS didn't create studios and IPs in a consistent basis?

All this drama is not about the acquisition of Blizzard and Activision. Is specifically about Call Of Duty.

Every time we have info about this deal (like the Brazilian papers, executives comments, etc..)CoD pop up.

If there is a condition for this acquisition to be approved is going to be around CoD.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Literally the dumbest thing he could say publicly now is they could replace COD with something else

This. Jim is being smart. Even if they are cooking up a COD competitor, it doesn't make sense to say something stupid and loose you current cash cow.

 

[John Wick]

oh fuck off hes lucky Phil isn't making it exclusive right now

Bit of a dumb statement considering MS don't own AB at the moment and the fact that Sony has a contract for COD for a couple of years.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

oh fuck off hes lucky Phil isn't making it exclusive right now

I will love to see it. More ammo for Jimbo.

 

[ArtHands]

The Call of Duty franchise is a big deal for Sony, losing it could potentially be a threat for them in the short term. It will be a huge blow in the mindshare among modern military FPS gamers.

However, I think Sony's position will remain strong despite the potential loss of one of its key third-party franchises. Playstation as an identity did not build upon COD alone (only big during the PS4 era) or at least not bigger than say Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Kojima games (MGS specifically), FIFA, GTA and many more. Now, if Sony loses more and more big third-party supports then it could impact the brand in the longer term.

Ps. The last COD game that I played and enjoyed quite a bit was COD WWI. So, I have less knowledge about this franchise and how big it is currently other than from the news, twitter and forums.

Yah. No idea why are they acting as if they will go bankrupt or sell less Playstation than Xbox without CoD. They have numerous studios and franchises under Playstation, and PS5 will continue to sell comfortably well without CoD

 

[Hestar69]

You made FF 16 exclusive along with other games and you have BLOCKED other games coming to xbox/ xbox game pass.. Sucks when it happens to you Jim Crying.

I hope xbox and Phil says fuck you and makes COD exclusive out of spite (they wont as that's billions they'd lose)