Support NeoGAF

[Airbus Jr]

It can't even handle control. How the hell do you expect it to handle next COD?

Even the witcher 3 is in switch the heck are you on about it cant handle cod

Joke post

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

But the thing is, did they say all Playstation future consoles. They can use that argument, and any say we honored our ps5 commitment.

They didn't specify any PS console. They've just refered to it in the general sense

 

[Swift_Star]

Can new cod be able to support on Switch?

Only warzone comes to mind, since switch is weak, and can't handle current call of duty.

They can develop a switch version of CoD and I can’t see why not do this, it would sell like hot cakes while not being too expensive to make.

 

[Swift_Star]

Because it isn't relevant.

You guys are acting like any cod game has to come to PlayStation otherwise its not legal.

That's not how it fucking works. Then I will again refer to cod mobile 2 has to be made with a PlayStation in mind, because its illegal for them not to put it on playstation.




I'm sorry that you have reading comprehension.

He does, you don’t.

 

[Swift_Star]

The reason why they aren't fully transparent future cod on PS systems is the next gen consoles.

They can support ps5. What about ps6, ps7. Would MS be obligated to support these systems?

COD would or could be on Ps5, from their commitment. But nothing after that.

That is the important thing, we need to look at.

At that point, GP on all systems will be a reality, so whatever. It’s just software and services to MS. Like office and windows.

 

[Tiamat2san]

I am ok with this.
I play only Cod campaign once, suitable for me and my gamepass subscription, I’ll save some money.

 

[Bernkastel]

Is MS lowering their revenue by putting office on chromebooks and Macs?

So you finally came out of just saying "Its the future" or "Its their vision" only to ask me the same question I asked you? Is this really the state of armchair investors in internet forums?

What was the big source of revenue they abandoned by publishing Office on Mac?

Let me make my question simpler for you. Does Office being available in Mac poise a threat to the revenue generated by Windows? Mac is not a replacement for Windows(it is for some, but not for everyone who uses Windows), all those games and softwares are not available in Mac. There is a reason to get Windows outside of Office(and those reasons are enough to make it the most dominant OS). But both the game consoles(home consoles, not Switch) share their third parties but differentiated by console exclusives. Those third party content in your platform store front can also be negotiated to appear in your subscription services because the platform holder controls all the streams of revenue. If you take away those games why would anyone enter the platform, giving reason for companies to release games in that platform and give the platform holder access to that content that you will profit off through 30% cut in sales/MTX and further negotiate those games for the platform holders subscription services. Imagine Windows running on a Linux distro, they will loose one of their biggest sources of revenue. Its the same with Xbox, no successful platform holder will actively give you a reason not to use their platform if they generate most of their gaming revenue through that platform neither can they run a successful subscription service if they don't control all the streams of revenue. A Game Pass like that will loose its value and won't be sustainable.

Please list the years xbox has turned a profit.

Xbox is not a successful business for Ms, its a cash vacuum. Hence gamepass being the new hope to finally get some money coming in.

This model needs interested parties.

Console players spend more on products than pc gamers.

It's a fact that Ms want gamepass on PlayStation and switch.

But there's no point arguing with deluded fanboys. If you're still here when your dreams are shattered, we'll all offer you a shoulder to cry on.

Totally agree. It’s simply really and walled gardens makes no sense for MS as a whole. Their apps are everywhere, why would the games not be?

This is straight from the Epic lawsuit

Microsoft would like to remind you the Xbox definitely makes money

Xbox consoles are sold at a loss

www.theverge.com

An Epic Games lawyer asked a follow-up question: “Does Microsoft ever earn a profit on the sale of an Xbox console?” Wright replied, “No.” That doesn’t mean Xbox doesn’t make money, though. Microsoft was keen to point this out in a statement to The Verge just hours after Wright’s testimony yesterday.


“The gaming business is a profitable and high-growth business for Microsoft,” says a Microsoft spokesperson. “The console gaming business is traditionally a hardware subsidy model. Game companies sell consoles at a loss to attract new customers. Profits are generated in game sales and online service subscriptions.“

They didn't generate profit in OG Xbox and 360 generation but they do run their business profitably now thanks to an online store where they take 30% cut. Definitely enough, to not let go off all their sources of revenue and only bet on a EA Play or uplay like subscription on another platform where they only offer first party titles and give them a 30% cut instead.

Their apps are everywhere, why would the games not be?

At that point, GP on all systems will be a reality, so whatever. It’s just software and services to MS. Like office and windows.

They have a reason for people to use Windows and generate revenue from them. Windows does not need a unified subscription of a paid apps or a store front where they take the cut. They don't even take the cut for apps in Windows Store.

Microsoft will let devs keep every penny their Windows app makes — unless it’s a game

A major new policy has a big caveat.

www.theverge.com

And they won't abandon this steady source of revenue called Windows, neither will they abandon the reason that gives them a steady source of revenue from their platform and access to content that can appear in their subscription service instead of turning it into a unsustainable service dependent on another platform losing value.

 

[kingfey]

At that point, GP on all systems will be a reality, so whatever. It’s just software and services to MS. Like office and windows.

Not on Nintendo and PS systems.

I doubt those 2 will accept that. Gamepass has 3rd party games. And they won't sacrifice those sales. MS won't allow gamepass without those 3rd party games. Neither companies will come in to terms.

 

[kingfey]

They can develop a switch version of CoD and I can’t see why not do this, it would sell like hot cakes while not being too expensive to make.

I dont doubt about that. But the switch simply is too weak for those games.
They will have to use magic to make it work.

 

[kingfey]

Even the witcher 3 is in switch the heck are you on about it cant handle cod

Joke post

2015 game.
Current games are too powerful. Look at returnal and Ratchet. They can't run on base ps4.

 

[kingfey]

They didn't specify any PS console. They've just refered to it in the general sense

It could be the ps4 and ps5.
The fact they let it open to interpretation, means this is the last gen Sony will have COD.

Until they change their mind at the end of ps5.

 

[Airbus Jr]

2015 game.
Current games are too powerful. Look at returnal and Ratchet. They can't run on base ps4.

Youre really joking right swicth cant handle call of duty?

Cos i swear i saw infinite warfare there

The witcher 3 are much more demanding game than any cod game

Srsly youre nuts bro

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

It could be the ps4 and ps5.
The fact they let it open to interpretation, means this is the last gen Sony will have COD.

Until they change their mind at the end of ps5.

It's not open to interpretation. It's PlayStation Consoles period. Again this comes down to whether you believe MS is intentionally being coy with their wording towards regulators.

You'd have a difficult time justifying why you didn't specify consoles if you knew you're only going to support up to the PS5

 

[Bernkastel]

Not on Nintendo and PS systems.

I doubt those 2 will accept that. Gamepass has 3rd party games. And they won't sacrifice those sales. MS won't allow gamepass without those 3rd party games. Neither companies will come in to terms.

Worse. EA Play in consoles exists due to competition between the two home consoles. With the absence of a platform for Game Pass, there is no reason for a former competing platform to lose sales revenue from games appearing on a Game Pass like subscription and losing potential subscribers that they could drive to their own game subscription service.

 

[kingfey]

It's not open to interpretation. It's PlayStation Consoles period. Again this comes down to whether you believe MS is intentionally being coy with their wording towards regulators.

You'd have a difficult time justifying why you didn't specify consoles if you knew you're only going to support up to the PS5

Because future consoles doesnt exist. Hence, why it doesnt apply to them. Its that simple.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Because future consoles doesnt exist. Hence, why it doesnt apply to them. Its that simple.

Those future COD titles don't exist either. That's a shitty technicality that won't fly in a court room

 

[Swift_Star]

So you finally came out of just saying "Its the future" or "Its their vision" only to ask me the same question I asked you? Is this really the state of armchair investors in internet forums?

Let me make my question simpler for you. Does Office being available in Mac poise a threat to the revenue generated by Windows? Mac is not a replacement for Windows(it is for some, but not for everyone who uses Windows), all those games and softwares are not available in Mac. There is a reason to get Windows outside of Office(and those reasons are enough to make it the most dominant OS). But both the game consoles(home consoles, not Switch) share their third parties but differentiated by console exclusives. Those third party content in your platform store front can also be negotiated to appear in your subscription services because the platform holder controls all the streams of revenue. If you take away those games why would anyone enter the platform, giving reason for companies to release games in that platform and give the platform holder access to that content that you will profit off through 30% cut in sales/MTX and further negotiate those games for the platform holders subscription services. Imagine Windows running on a Linux distro, they will loose one of their biggest sources of revenue. Its the same with Xbox, no successful platform holder will actively give you a reason not to use their platform if they generate most of their gaming revenue through that platform neither can they run a successful subscription service if they don't control all the streams of revenue. A Game Pass like that will loose its value and won't be sustainable.


This is straight from the Epic lawsuit

Microsoft would like to remind you the Xbox definitely makes money

Xbox consoles are sold at a loss

www.theverge.com

They didn't generate profit in OG Xbox and 360 generation but they do run their business profitably now thanks to an online store where they take 30% cut. Definitely enough, to not let go off all their sources of revenue and only bet on a EA Play or uplay like subscription on another platform where they only offer first party titles and give them a 30% cut instead.


They have a reason for people to use Windows and generate revenue from them. Windows does not need a unified subscription of a paid apps or a store front where they take the cut. They don't even take the cut for apps in Windows Store.

Microsoft will let devs keep every penny their Windows app makes — unless it’s a game

A major new policy has a big caveat.

www.theverge.com

And they won't abandon this steady source of revenue called Windows, neither will they abandon the reason that gives them a steady source of revenue from their platform and access to content that can appear in their subscription service instead of turning it into a unsustainable service dependent on another platform losing value.

Answer the question that was made.

 

[Swift_Star]

Not on Nintendo and PS systems.

I doubt those 2 will accept that. Gamepass has 3rd party games. And they won't sacrifice those sales. MS won't allow gamepass without those 3rd party games. Neither companies will come in to terms.

I’m pretty sure it’ll happen sooner or later. It makes 100% sense that ms will offer their games in GP on Sony and Nintendo’s systems. It just how they act with all their products. MS doesn’t care about the platform.

 

[kingfey]

Worse. EA Play in consoles exists due to competition between the two home consoles. With the absence of a platform for Game Pass, there is no reason for a former competing platform to lose sales revenue from games appearing on a Game Pass like subscription and losing potential subscribers that they could drive to their own game subscription service.

EA play follows certain model, which is 6 month after sales, Which is why they can tolerate it. Not to mention, it has EA games only. They can increase the price, because there is no competition to their games. Gamepass would be competition to them on Playstation.

Unlike EA play, gamepass has day1. Imagine far cry 7 drops on gamepass day1, and gamepass is on PS system. Sony is charging 30% of the gamepass subs from their system. Far cry 7 costs $70. There are 5m Playstation users who will buy this game. Sony will earn $105m with out gamepass. If those 5m went to gamepass, they will pay Sony $22.5m. Sony will lose $82.5m because of that.

And that is just 1 game. Imagine other day1 games. Sony will be losing quite alot of money with gamepass deal. It's why it's impossible to put gamepass on Playstation.

 

[kingfey]

I’m pretty sure it’ll happen sooner or later. It makes 100% sense that ms will offer their games in GP on Sony and Nintendo’s systems. It just how they act with all their products. MS doesn’t care about the platform.

Yes MS doesn't care about platforms, since they will make alot from Sony and Nintendo. But those guys will lose alot of money in the process.

3 day1 games, and that is $100m- $200m loss per month for them. They don't want that.

 

[Fredrik]

As far as I can tell they’ve spelled it out clearly, Call of Duty will keep on coming to Playstation as usual. Microsoft want the money, same thing as with Minecraft. If they’ll make Xbox/PC exclusives it’s going to be new IPs but even that is uncertain at this point.

 

[kingfey]

Those future COD titles don't exist either. That's a shitty technicality that won't fly in a court room

It will. There are much shittier stuff than that, that flies in the court. Plus no one is forcing MS to put their games on those consoles.

They could simply say, the commitment we had is done. We can't support those system, as they weren't part of their commitment.

 

[Swift_Star]

Yes MS doesn't care about platforms, since they will make alot from Sony and Nintendo. But those guys will lose alot of money in the process.

3 day1 games, and that is $100m- $200m loss per month for them. They don't want that.

Don’t think they’ll lose money tbh. GP on Nintendo and Sony won’t have games beyond MS ones. And their games will be played by more people. It just how they works. Office is like that. It really is weird that MS hasn’t done it yet in the console space.

 

[kingfey]

Don’t think they’ll lose money tbh. GP on Nintendo and Sony won’t have games beyond MS ones. And their games will be played by more people. It just how they works. Office is like that. It really is weird that MS hasn’t done it yet in the console space.

People won't buy 70$ game, when there is 15$ subscription.

Office is long term subscription, and you renew it every year. Games aren't. Their big sales is on the 1st month, after that they kinda die out slowly. Unless the price is cheap, through sales.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

It will. There are much shittier stuff than that, that flies in the court. Plus no one is forcing MS to put their games on those consoles.

They could simply say, the commitment we had is done. We can't support those system, as they weren't part of their commitment.

If they had shit lawyers yeah they could say that. You're not thinking this through at all

 

[kingfey]

If they had shit lawyers yeah they could say that

Lawyers love to do these type of shits.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Lawyers love to do these type of shits.

Yeah they're crafty. What you're saying isn't crafty. You'd really have to be dealing with some stupid people to get away with such obvious dishonesty

 

[Swift_Star]

People won't buy 70$ game, when there is 15$ subscription.

Office is long term subscription, and you renew it every year. Games aren't. Their big sales is on the 1st month, after that they kinda die out slowly. Unless the price is cheap, through sales.

Of course they will. Only MS games will be on GP. Everything else will be normally sold. What you’re saying makes no sense since games are still sold on PC despite being on GP.

 

[kingfey]

Of course they will. Only MS games will be on GP. Everything else will be normally sold. What you’re saying makes no sense since games are still sold on PC despite being on GP.

What kind of stupid do you think MS is? Unless their is full package, they wont ever put gamepass on another device.

 

[kingfey]

Yeah they're crafty. What you're saying isn't crafty. You'd really have to be dealing with some stupid people to get away with such obvious dishonesty

You already got crafty statement "Commitment" is not obligation. God luck arguing with lawyers on that ground.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You already got crafty statement "Commitment" is not obligation. God luck arguing with lawyers on that ground.

There's no crafty statement lmao. They've outright stated COD will remain on PS platforms both now and into the future. There's no possibility of you twisting that without being called out for dishonesty

 

[Bernkastel]

Answer the question that was made.

And why should I answer a question that you already had the answer before you posted anyway? Since it was my question to you first to prove what source of revenue they lost by putting Office in Mac. If they don't lose any revenue then how can it be equivalent to going third party in gaming?

I’m pretty sure it’ll happen sooner or later. It makes 100% sense that ms will offer their games in GP on Sony and Nintendo’s systems. It just how they act with all their products. MS doesn’t care about the platform.

Don’t think they’ll lose money tbh. GP on Nintendo and Sony won’t have games beyond MS ones. And their games will be played by more people. It just how they works. Office is like that. It really is weird that MS hasn’t done it yet in the console space.

Of course they will. Only MS games will be on GP. Everything else will be normally sold.

Its just make believe now. Do these people ever try to think what they post before typing "I am sure", "This is the future", "Its their vision" etc. So,

• They lose all access to most of their existing subscribers through the platform through which Game Pass gets content from the store front by going third party and taking away all the reasons for people to use their platform.
• They will then try to launch Game Pass in their former competing platform without access to third party content or the revenue streams. The new platform can pull the plug anytime if they decide Game Pass is decreasing their own potential store sell or taking away people who could subscribe to their own future game subscription service.

Why would more people subscribe to a service that provides less? Just because more people have access does not mean they will subscribe to a service without most of the content. Microsoft's gaming division generates more revenue than any third party publisher apart from Tencent. You still have not provided a single reason as to why your fanfic makes sense, and how they will generate that revenue through Game Pass in another platform with only first party content without any control of the revenue source and said platform can pull the plug anytime. How would that Game Pass be sustainable and have the same value?

 

[kingfey]

There's no crafty statement lmao. They've outright stated COD will remain on PS platforms both now and into the future. There's no possibility of you twisting that without being called out for dishonesty

There is no twisting there.

I agree with you on the Ps5 part. MS can or cant extend that, depend on how they see it. But future consoles is off the table.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

There is no twisting there.

I agree with you on the Ps5 part. MS can or cant extend that, depend on how they see it. But future consoles is off the table.

The only way they could be off the table is if the statement went something along the lines of "COD will continue to be made available for PS users on PlayStation 5 consoles"

There's an obvious implictation that needs to be picked up on, but if that's all they promise then yeah, don't need to make them available on the PS6.

Not "COD will remain on PlayStation Consoles". There's no luxary of twisting something as concrete as that. Any lawyer worth their salt will call bullshit if they add additional caveats after the fact

 

[Swift_Star]

And why should I answer a question that you already had the answer before you posted anyway? Since it was my question to you first to prove what source of revenue they lost by putting Office in Mac. If they don't lose any revenue then how can it be equivalent to going third party in gaming?



Its just make believe now. Do these people ever try to think what they post before typing "I am sure", "This is the future", "Its their vision" etc. So,

• They lose all access to most of their existing subscribers through the platform through which Game Pass gets content from the store front by going third party and taking away all the reasons for people to use their platform.
• They will then try to launch Game Pass in their former competing platform without access to third party content or the revenue streams. The new platform can pull the plug anytime if they decide Game Pass is decreasing their own potential store sell or taking away people who could subscribe to their own future game subscription service.

Why would more people subscribe to a service that provides less? Just because more people have access does not mean they will subscribe to a service without most of the content. Microsoft's gaming division generates more revenue than any third party publisher apart from Tencent. You still have not provided a single reason as to why your fanfic makes sense, and how they will generate that revenue through Game Pass in another platform with only first party content without any control of the revenue source and said platform can pull the plug anytime. How would that Game Pass be sustainable and have the same value?

Answer the question. Stop avoiding it: does ms lose revenue from putting Office on Macs, Chromebooks, Androids and IPhones? Yes or no?

 

[Swift_Star]

What kind of stupid do you think MS is? Unless their is full package, they wont ever put gamepass on another device.

Stupid? Allowing their games everywhere will make more money for them. Stupid is not following what the whole company does. Xbox is the only weird kid in there but not for long. GP with Xbox only games will be on PS and Nintendo and that’s simply the direction they’re going.

 

[lastmessiah]

Stupid? Allowing their games everywhere will make more money for them. Stupid is not following what the whole company does. Xbox is the only weird kid in there but not for long. GP with Xbox only games will be on PS and Nintendo and that’s simply the direction they’re going.

Why do you keep making these assertions that will come back to embarrass you? Someone is going to post bomb all your silly comments when the reality becomes unavoidable.

 

[kingfey]

Stupid? Allowing their games everywhere will make more money for them. Stupid is not following what the whole company does. Xbox is the only weird kid in there but not for long. GP with Xbox only games will be on PS and Nintendo and that’s simply the direction they’re going.

Its either full package or no package at all. MS isnt stupid to put their 1st party games, without a return.

What you are demanding is crazy stuff. Only an idiot business owner will agree to your demand.

 

[Swift_Star]

Why do you keep making these assertions that will come back to embarrass you? Someone is going to post bomb all your silly comments when the reality becomes unavoidable.

yes, reality is unavoidable: GP is coming to all systems.

 

[Swift_Star]

Its either full package or no package at all. MS isnt stupid to put their 1st party games, without a return.

What you are demanding is crazy stuff. Only an idiot business owner will agree to your demand.

Amusing how they do this for other software while apple don’t release their software outside their ecosystem. This is the way MS operates. And gaming is heading towards this. The future is inexorable.
The return is the revenue they’ll receive. This isn’t rocket science.

 

[kingfey]

The only way they could be off the table is if the statement went something along the lines of "COD will continue to be made available for PS users on PlayStation 5 consoles"

There's an obvious implictation that needs to be picked up on, but if that's all they promise then yeah, don't need to make them available on the PS6.

Not "COD will remain on PlayStation Consoles". There's no luxary of twisting something as concrete as that. Any lawyer worth their salt will call bullshit if they add additional caveats after the fact

you have to understand "the open for interpretation" part. MS uses this every time. Its business tactic, which doesn't put them in any legal action.

If they outright stated systems, and future systems, they are legally allowed to put the game on those consoles. They haven't done that.

" we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love."

No mention of console at all. Its not permeant. Its all will depend on the relationship between the 2 companies, and MS willingness to support the next gen consoles.

 

[kingfey]

Amusing how they do this for other software while apple don’t release their software outside their ecosystem. This is the way MS operates. And gaming is heading towards this. The future is inexorable.

You have to renew the softwares every year. You dont do that for games. It makes sense for their stores, but not their games.

I have to renew office every year. I dont renew starfield every year. Different business.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

you have to understand "the open for interpretation" part. MS uses this every time. Its business tactic, which doesn't put them in any legal action.

If they outright stated systems, and future systems, they are legally allowed to put the game on those consoles. They haven't done that.

" we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love."

No mention of console at all. Its not permeant. Its all will depend on the relationship between the 2 companies, and MS willingness to support the next gen consoles.

They use this tactic when addressing us with their PR fluff. This on the other hand is directly addressed to regulators with the hopes of having an influence over the final decision with the aquisition.

Surely you understand the ramifications of them not being open and transparent to the people that they're appealing too?

 

[Swift_Star]

You have to renew the softwares every year. You dont do that for games. It makes sense for their stores, but not their games.

I have to renew office every year. I dont renew starfield every year. Different business.

You’ll have to renew GP always too. This is really not hard to understand. You’ll only be able to access MS games by paying for GP. I can’t understand why you’re struggling with this. MS will offer you their games within a service, called GP, on all systems. Really, it’s that simple.

 

[kingfey]

They use this tactic when addressing us with their PR fluff. This on the other hand is directly addressed to regulators with the hopes of having an influence over the final decision with the aquisition.

Surely you understand the ramifications of them not being open and transparent to the people that they're appealing too?

They have to talk to ftc first, to have ramification. You are using these words wrongly.

Unless they agreed with ftc, they have no business with them. This is business decision, can change, just like any business decision.

 

[kingfey]

You’ll have to renew GP always too. This is really not hard to understand. You’ll only be able to access MS games by paying for GP. I can’t understand why you’re struggling with this. MS will offer you their games within a service, called GP, on all systems. Really, it’s that simple.

Gamepass doesnt have those games. Those games are separate. Unlike office. You buy them.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They have to talk to ftc first, to have ramification. You are using these words wrongly.

Unless they agreed with ftc, they have no business with them. This is business decision, can change, just like any business decision.

No, they're held accountable with public statements too. All business's are

 

[Swift_Star]

Gamepass doesnt have those games. Those games are separate. Unlike office. You buy them.

What? Starfield will be available on GP since it’s a MS game. What are you struggling with here? You’re not making any sense anymore.

 

[kingfey]

What? Starfield will be available on GP since it’s a MS game. What are you struggling with here? You’re not making any sense anymore.

Starfield is a game, that can be sold separately without gamepass. Office tools needs subscription, or 1 time fee a year. Different business.

 

[kingfey]

No, they're held accountable with public statements too. All business's are

They are not. Or every company in the world would be sued, because of blog statements.