• 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.

Phil Spencer Interview with Stephen Totilo - Biggest goal is to reach a larger audience for Xbox Game Studios

WTF are you doing posting here? Do you only post here because you think Phil will read this and offer you a job?

This is a message board. This is kind of what we do here.

How old are you?
Ok have it then, I’m just trying to prevent you from making a fool of yourself (no success so far).
 

DaGwaphics

Member
What are you talking about? The entire argument is that Phil doesnt want to admit this isnt about console wars. That is the argument. No one gave a fuck when they bought Ninja Theory, Obsidian and Playground Games and made them exclusive. Just like how when Sony does it. It is expected. Do you even know what we are talking about? Have you paid even a little bit attention to the main argument in this thread.

I find these posts lazy and cheap. You first choose not to follow the discussion then you come in here on your high horse telling everyone but sony makes their games exclusive too. That is NOT what we are discussing here. The question is just why cant he just come out and say he bought those games and made them exclusive to increase the install base. Dont go around saying dumb shit like we love ALL gamers, we want to suck their dicks, and have them all play starfield while you are taking access away from them. Just say, hey if you want to play Starfield, i have got a console for you. You said it yourself. This is about selling more consoles than your competition. He just doesnt want to say it and his fanboys are trying to convince everyone that this is not about console wars.

It isn't JUST about selling consoles though. That's the rub that causes the "console wars" argument to fall on its face in an instant. Consoles are one part of the picture, maybe not even the biggest piece.

I don't get the obsession with MS needing to state that they want to "take this game away from XYZ" when in reality they are taking the game away from no one (except those with some kind of brand loyalty syndrome). As if Sony ever made lengthy statements about taking SFV away from Xbox, no, they simply talked positively and factually about the release. Would you be having this same reaction if Sony had money-hatted Starfield in the same way they did SFV, I think not.
 

FrankWza

Member
What the hell do you think you are accomplishing by pointing out hypocrisy? Do you think executives are reading your comments and taking notes? lol you guys need to get a grip.
.
Ok have it then, I’m just trying to prevent you from making a fool of yourself (no success so far).
Dude. Phil’s benefactors just put out a statement to try and appease a government agency of his intentions and what this exact thread is calling out. Being called out in his hypocrisy is peanuts compared to their views on the matter.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I never said that. I just know that PlayStation and Nintendo will sell their 100 million. So, if it’s about beating them then, great. But if it’s about reaching as many gamers as possible youre not genuinely doing that by excluding those 2 brands.

The goal is to sell as many xboxes that they get counted in the same league as the best selling PS, Nintendo consoles, no ?



this gets thrown around so much and it’s such bs. Gonna need some receipts.

Sure. Can't get as clear cut as this.


Now, in a fresh statement issued to Inverse, Sony has claimed that the decision to release The Show 21 on Xbox Game Pass was MLB’s decision.

“As part of the goal for this year’s game, MLB decided to bring the franchise to more players and baseball fans,” a PlayStation representative said.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
It isn't JUST about selling consoles though. That's the rub that causes the "console wars" argument to fall on its face in an instant. Consoles are one part of the picture, maybe not even the biggest piece.

I don't get the obsession with MS needing to state that they want to "take this game away from XYZ" when in reality they are taking the game away from no one (except those with some kind of brand loyalty syndrome). As if Sony ever made lengthy statements about taking SFV away from Xbox, no, they simply talked positively and factually about the release. Would you be having this same reaction if Sony had money-hatted Starfield in the same way they did SFV, I think not.
Speaking of obsessions, are the fellas who bent over backwards to explain how you can expand the audience by subtraction going to call MS a liar now that they announced the intent to expand the audience even further if Nintendo and them cut a deal to bring COD to Switch?
 

SlimySnake

Member
The goal is to sell as many xboxes that they get counted in the same league as the best selling PS, Nintendo consoles, no ?





Sure. Can't get as clear cut as this.

This is just Sony making excuses. No one can force any company to make games for platforms they dont want to support. MLB might have leveraged the license, but thats about it. Sony didnt have to do the ports themselves. Sony didnt have to make MLB games period. Sony had leverage. They are the only game in town. They dont own the license, but they do own the GAME. If they say no, fuck it, MLB wouldve had no revenue from games that year.

Sony is doing this because they WANT more people buying their games. They are handling the port themselves because they want to earn all the revenue instead of splitting it with a porting studio. They no longer care about quality and giving PS5 owners a reason to buy their game. Look at their 2nd PS5 entry. Looks identical. No next gen upgrades. Even Fifa and NBA2k had better graphics upgrades. They are just being greedy. They have no pride in their work anymore. When you are lazier than EA sports devs and more greedy than Take2 NBA2k devs then you clearly dont mind MLB asking you to handle the port of YOUR game.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Speaking of obsessions, are the fellas who bent over backwards to explain how you can expand the audience by subtraction going to call MS a liar now that they announced the intent to expand the audience even further if Nintendo and them cut a deal to bring COD to Switch?

We were talking about Starfield. I've said I figured CoD would stay multi-plat all along (not something that I would do myself, but I figured it was coming). Try again.

It's obvious to everyone not on the shortbus that you can increase player counts when you have a large base of users that get "free" access outside of the normal fee they pay for a subscription. A much higher percentages is going to give the game a look than a base of users that needs to pay full price. Just like game that launch on PS+ and pickup millions of users in an instant. It isn't rocket science.
 
Last edited:

IDKFA

Member
Why ask the question then? Do you not understand the concept of 1st party title? Why does it bother you so much that said games won't be in the Playstation ecosystem?

If you go back and read my original post, I clearly state that the platform doesn't bother me as I'll end up playing it on my series X. I never begged for it to come to PlayStation at all, or suggested that it should come to PlayStation. I just questioned how Starfield could reach more players than Skyrim when it won't be releasing on Nintendo or Sony systems. That's it. A genuine question with no "fanboy" intentions.

Are we clear now?
 

NickFire

Member
We were talking about Starfield. I've said I figured CoD would stay multi-plat all along. Try again.
Alright, that's a fair point. I'll give you that even though the same argument would have been made by a good chunk of the usual's if Phil has said Activision Blizzard instead of Todd Howard.
 

SlimySnake

Member
It isn't JUST about selling consoles though. That's the rub that causes the "console wars" argument to fall on its face in an instant. Consoles are one part of the picture, maybe not even the biggest piece.

I don't get the obsession with MS needing to state that they want to "take this game away from XYZ" when in reality they are taking the game away from no one (except those with some kind of brand loyalty syndrome). As if Sony ever made lengthy statements about taking SFV away from Xbox, no, they simply talked positively and factually about the release. Would you be having this same reaction if Sony had money-hatted Starfield in the same way they did SFV, I think not.
I dont know how you can say that when consoles are THE biggest part of the picture when it comes to COD. Bethesda games are like CD Project games in a sense that they are primarily for the PC audience, but Skyrim is on every single console released in the last 11 years because they werent just happy with PC sales.

When you take a game that has been announced for PS5 like Starfield was then by definition you are taking games away from the PS5. And that is OK. I want to stress that I am OK with acquisitions and exclusives. Not so much timed exclusives but surely you've seen me bitch about Jimbo wasting cash on Deathloop, Godfall and Ghostwire Tokyo.

This is simply about just being honest. His latest statement on COD no longer being exclusive is pretty clear cut to me. I am ok with that. Its the doublespeak that I am taking an issue with. His quote in the OP just makes no sense whatsoever. Its like he's bumbling his way out of a tough job interview question.

This on the other hand is fine: More of this and less of what i posted above.

 

FrankWza

Member
The goal is to sell as many xboxes that they get counted in the same league as the best selling PS, Nintendo consoles, no ?
Then make it about console sales. Because I’m pretty sure half a dozen posts have claimed it isn’t and you came out and said tge subject was changing. Like this:

Sure. Can't get as clear cut as this.


Which is about gamepass. Not about releasing on xbox and Nintendo which is what you were originally referring to.
Do you think MLB is coming on Xbox/Switch out of the generosity of Sony's hearts or their willingness to gain more sales by expanding that franchise to other platforms ?

No, MLB is literally forcing Sony's hand on it.
 
It isn't JUST about selling consoles though. That's the rub that causes the "console wars" argument to fall on its face in an instant. Consoles are one part of the picture, maybe not even the biggest piece.

I don't get the obsession with MS needing to state that they want to "take this game away from XYZ" when in reality they are taking the game away from no one (except those with some kind of brand loyalty syndrome). As if Sony ever made lengthy statements about taking SFV away from Xbox, no, they simply talked positively and factually about the release. Would you be having this same reaction if Sony had money-hatted Starfield in the same way they did SFV, I think not.
Sony paid for SFV to be made just like MS paid for Dead Rising 3, capcom was in a very different financial situation at the time.
 

SlimySnake

Member
His wording still isn’t specific enough

Bungie put out a FAQ that was clear as day

Why can’t Phil do the same?

ALL CoD games released in the future will still be on PlayStation
The Bungie FAQ is still not a binding agreement. Sony owns Bungie and they can do whatever they want with them. Yes, right now they are multiplatform but if MS makes COD exclusive, that will change real quick.

Same thing with MS. I think what they have said here is pretty much the same as what Bungie said in the FAQ. They are not beholden by it, but by making a public statement like that they both risk incurring the wrath of gamers in the future.

I think both Sony and MS are in a cold war of sorts. Both know neither will use the atom bomb, but they both want it in the back of their pocket.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Which is about gamepass. Not about releasing on xbox and Nintendo which is what you were originally referring to.

I think it's fairly obvious that article is using Game pass as shorthand for bringing the game to Xbox.

The article where it was announced that it's coming to Xbox, only MLB folks gave official statements there too, no one from San Diego studio.

It's pretty easy to see what's going on.

 
Last edited:

Interfectum

Member
Dunno what everyone is arguing about here for 7 pages but it's pretty clear Starfield will make it's way to PS5 and Switch (2?) at some point. Barriers are be broken down left and right and there is no reason why Starfield would just stay forever locked to the Xbox ecosystem now.
 

FrankWza

Member
I think it's fairly obvious that article is using Game pass as shorthand for bringing the game to Xbox.

The article where it was announced that it's coming to Xbox, only MLB folks gave official statements there too, no one from San Diego studio.

It's pretty easy to see what's going on.

No, it isn’t. MLB published tge games on non-ps consoles. They can distribute it how they see fit. You were referring to MLB forcing Sony to port the games. For someone who tried calling out posters for changing the subject, you appear to have no problem doing it yourself and then doubling down after you’ve already been called out. I’m still waiting for the receipts on your original statement
Do you think MLB is coming on Xbox/Switch out of the generosity of Sony's hearts or their willingness to gain more sales by expanding that franchise to other platforms ?

No, MLB is literally forcing Sony's hand on it.
 

NickFire

Member
The Bungie FAQ is still not a binding agreement. Sony owns Bungie and they can do whatever they want with them. Yes, right now they are multiplatform but if MS makes COD exclusive, that will change real quick.

Same thing with MS. I think what they have said here is pretty much the same as what Bungie said in the FAQ. They are not beholden by it, but by making a public statement like that they both risk incurring the wrath of gamers in the future.

I think both Sony and MS are in a cold war of sorts. Both know neither will use the atom bomb, but they both want it in the back of their pocket.
I cannot dismiss the possibility that both companies intended to drop that atom bomb, only to learn the other company was thinking the same thing before they both changed course. Equally possible they both planned to be multi all along, and MS just didn't want to say it before it needed to in hopes of selling a few more consoles based on conjecture about COD.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No, it isn’t. MLB published tge games on non-ps consoles. They can distribute it how they see fit. You were referring to MLB forcing Sony to port the games. For someone who tried calling out posters for changing the subject, you appear to have no problem doing it yourself and then doubling down after you’ve already been called out. I’m still waiting for the receipts on your original statement

Frank, there literally hasn't been an MLB The Show game on any other console brand except playstation since 2006.


MLB has never published the game on any other platform, nor has MLB ported the game. All development has been done by Sony San Diego.

Now of course you won't find official minutes of the meeting but anyone who looks at this with open eyes can see MLB made Sony bring the game to other platforms, likely via threats of revoking the MLB license if they don't.

Besides that, MLB reps being the ones to comment on the Xbox/Switch announcement and not San Diego studio, and the other article where a Sony person is flat out saying MLB are responsible for bringing the game to Xbox (Game Pass). It doesn't get any more clearer than this.
 

FrankWza

Member
Frank, there literally hasn't been an MLB The Show game on any other console brand except playstation since 2006.


MLB has never published the game on any other platform, nor has MLB ported the game. All development has been done by Sony San Diego.

Now of course you won't find official minutes of the meeting but anyone who looks at this with open eyes can see MLB made Sony bring the game to other platforms, likely via threats of revoking the MLB license if they don't.

Besides that, MLB reps being the ones to comment on the Xbox/Switch announcement and not San Diego studio, and the other article where a Sony person is flat out saying MLB are responsible for bringing the game to Xbox (Game Pass). It doesn't get any more clearer than this.
So, just to be clear, you’re editorializing for the sake of console warring? It’s your interpretation?
 

NickFire

Member
Frank, there literally hasn't been an MLB The Show game on any other console brand except playstation since 2006.


MLB has never published the game on any other platform, nor has MLB ported the game. All development has been done by Sony San Diego.

Now of course you won't find official minutes of the meeting but anyone who looks at this with open eyes can see MLB made Sony bring the game to other platforms, likely via threats of revoking the MLB license if they don't.

Besides that, MLB reps being the ones to comment on the Xbox/Switch announcement and not San Diego studio, and the other article where a Sony person is flat out saying MLB are responsible for bringing the game to Xbox (Game Pass). It doesn't get any more clearer than this.
I think there's a good chance MLB forced the issue because MLB wanted to rake in the micro-transactions. But with the benefit of Sony's recent changes in philosophy (PC ports and Bungie), we should probably stop assuming that Sony did not see the wide open micro-transaction market since Xbox did not have a proper baseball sim, and then let MLB fall on the sword for why Sony was making way more money on the game.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
So, just to be clear, you’re editorializing for the sake of console warring? It’s your interpretation?

No, I'm editorializing what's pretty plainly obvious based on historical facts and recent statements, without something being literally spelled out.

If you're going to wait till Shu Yoshida officially states exactly those words on twitter, you're probably never gonna get that so I guess you can continue on your train of thought and I'll continue on mine.
I think there's a good chance MLB forced the issue because MLB wanted to rake in the micro-transactions. But with the benefit of Sony's recent changes in philosophy (PC ports and Bungie), we should probably stop assuming that Sony did not see the wide open micro-transaction market since Xbox did not have a proper baseball sim, and then let MLB fall on the sword for why Sony was making way more money on the game.


Could be, but there's never gonna be any official communique on this one way or the other, so we only have what we know to decipher.
 
Last edited:

FrankWza

Member
No, I'm editorializing what's pretty plainly obvious based on historical facts and recent statements, without something being literally spelled out.

If you're going to wait till Shu Yoshida officially states exactly those words on twitter, you're probably never gonna get that so I guess you can continue on your train of thought and I'll continue on mine.



Could be, but there's never gonna be any official communique on this one way or the other, so we only have what we know to decipher.
There’s plenty of information out there on this. You just want to make it about Sony being forced. That’s why you’re interpreting the gamepass deal and mixing it up with the initial deal to port the game. I don’t see how this statement gets made here without proof considering how absolutely sure about it you seem to be. You used the word literally.
Do you think MLB is coming on Xbox/Switch out of the generosity of Sony's hearts or their willingness to gain more sales by expanding that franchise to other platforms ?

No, MLB is literally forcing Sony's hand on it.
 

93xfan

Member
This guy knew he couldn’t compete with Nintendo or Sony in the console race so he now wants to show he’s the “good guy” by not caring about console wars (even though he will not allow certain games on competing consoles) and stating it’s about getting games into more peoples hands!!! So allow these games on PS5 and Switch if that’s your end goal! I’m done with the bullshit PR from this guy. He spins so much crap it isn’t funny.

I’m sure now all the Xbots will come after me but I don’t really care. I’m done with this bullshit PR. I’m actually really over most gaming at the moment. I just put my Aeries X on the market. I will not stand for this bullshit that Microsoft is doing within the gaming industry so I’ll speak with my wallet. If Sony go down this same path I’ll sell my PS5 as well. And if Nintendo want to follow them both then I’m out altogether.
Regardless of him being the “good guy” or not, at least he isn’t like current Sony.

Phil has pushed BC a ton. Add in FPS and resolution boosts for free for many older games. Sony released a $99 broken PS1 mini and called it a day.

Their president even says no one wants to play games that look like that.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There’s plenty of information out there on this. You just want to make it about Sony being forced. That’s why you’re interpreting the gamepass deal and mixing it up with the initial deal to port the game. I don’t see how this statement gets made here without proof considering how absolutely sure about it you seem to be. You used the word literally.

I don't know what else you would call it when a first party studio is being asked (forced) to make a game on a competing platform against their will just to appease the license holders .. and they don't even bother doing any PR or even a few statements about it ..

You can focus on individual words in my posts all you want but the scenario is as clear as a crisp sunny day.
 
Last edited:

FrankWza

Member
I don't know what else you would call it when a first party studio is being asked (forced) to make a game on a competing platform against their will just to appease the license holders ..
But where and when did this happen? Were they asked? Or were they forced? I’m pretty sure those 2 words have VERY different meanings.
 

devilNprada

Member
PS5 is a small console base compared to the platforms Starfield will be available on at launch, so it's a moot argument anyway.
Loss of Sony and Nintendo customer base seems insignificant in an ambitious long term strategy, and will prove to be an only temporary loss.
Having said that..

I just read microtransactions and DLC make up 61% of Activision/Blizzard's income which I am sure were factored in the purchase price.

Now take away microtransactions which are arguably gamings (and apparently Activision's) largest income generators.
HAS to also be a temporary loss...
 

Swift_Star

Member
People don't rage, because of those lies. People rage, because stupid comments gets thrown out on these arguments.

Phil is a business man. He can sly talks. But one thing is clear, what he says are all vague, and open for interpretation. But the end product is simple. Those games are exclusive to gamepass. And it will only be released on devices which gamepass exist.

This isn't about xbox anymore, but gamepass. Only way other consoles can get the game, is to let them put gamepass on their console. They won't allow that thing on their store, since it eats up their 3rd party revenue.
Nah, y'all rage because we call Phil out.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Loss of Sony and Nintendo customer base seems insignificant in an ambitious long term strategy, and will prove to be an only temporary loss.

Nintendo was never a factor for Starfield anyway.

But where and when did this happen? Were they asked? Or were they forced? I’m pretty sure those 2 words have VERY different meanings.

Guess we'll never know officially, but the complete radio silence from San Diego themselves over the Switch and Xbox versions paints a picture.

Nah, y'all rage because we call Phil out.

 

devilNprada

Member
Nintendo was never a factor for Starfield anyway.
Just the overall ALL Activision/Blizzard/Zenimax games...
Long term they won't miss Nintendo/Sony

People like Frank will eventually give up and just get an Xbox.
My concern is they cannot give up on the microtransactions and DLC when Gamepass subs hit a wall, and the creative ways they come up with to keep growing those corporate revenues.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Member
Ha,ha.....I get what you're saying.....but as a small business owner that's a hard thing to get my head around......granted I'm not on Microsofts level,lol.
It's funny. My local car wash place now has a subscription service. $15 per month. So even small business are going the services model.

Microsoft though, yes, they are basically a services company and they literally dont care about sales. Azure, 365, Office, windows. Everything seems to be services based, and it has made them a trillion dollar company, but a lot of that has to do with them having a monopoly in those areas. Subscriptions to businesses is one thing, entertainment is something completely different. Adding subscribers is hard and they are finding that out right now. Even Netflix with its 200 million subscribers reported slow growth and they were crucified for it. Peleton saw a boom during covid but now they went from a $50 billion to a $9 billion company on the verge of being bought out. They also modeled their business around monthly subs on top of a big expensive hardware.

And even with its 200 million subscribers, Netflix only posts revenues of around $25 billion. Their investment is $19 billion a year. They had to spend $19 billion in content just to retain those 200 million subs and only added a few million more. Sony made $25 billion just selling playstations.

Services in this the entertainment space are a cool idea, but as Sony showed with Spiderman, if you put out a good product worth going to the movies for, people will literally risk their lives in the middle of the biggest outbreak to go see it. The movie passed Avatar at the box office while the Matrix flopped with just $34 million total. This is the same franchise that once set the record for highest R rated 3 day total of $91 million.

Phil is proud of reaching 20 million people with Forza and Halo, but 20 million F2P users or 20 million gamepass subs at $10 a pop only gets you $200 million. 20 million at $60 gets you $1.2 billion or COD money.
 

SSfox

Member
So now for some people it's a bad thing to buy games? Well if you enjoy your renting service cool for you, but i have respect for games (that deserve it) and i'm whiling to put full price at a game if i think it's worth it. Sorry if i'm not interested to drop 10 bucks per months for renting some bunch of meh games, putting this 10 bucks on a cool game on sale that i will own sound like a much better deal to me also. without mentioning that i'm personally not into this overconsumption thing.

Heck then those same guys that want everything for free will whine when some companies will only release shitty games.

It's funny. My local car wash place now has a subscription service. $15 per month. So even small business are going the services model.

Microsoft though, yes, they are basically a services company and they literally dont care about sales. Azure, 365, Office, windows. Everything seems to be services based, and it has made them a trillion dollar company, but a lot of that has to do with them having a monopoly in those areas. Subscriptions to businesses is one thing, entertainment is something completely different. Adding subscribers is hard and they are finding that out right now. Even Netflix with its 200 million subscribers reported slow growth and they were crucified for it. Peleton saw a boom during covid but now they went from a $50 billion to a $9 billion company on the verge of being bought out. They also modeled their business around monthly subs on top of a big expensive hardware.

And even with its 200 million subscribers, Netflix only posts revenues of around $25 billion. Their investment is $19 billion a year. They had to spend $19 billion in content just to retain those 200 million subs and only added a few million more. Sony made $25 billion just selling playstations.

Services in this the entertainment space are a cool idea, but as Sony showed with Spiderman, if you put out a good product worth going to the movies for, people will literally risk their lives in the middle of the biggest outbreak to go see it. The movie passed Avatar at the box office while the Matrix flopped with just $34 million total. This is the same franchise that once set the record for highest R rated 3 day total of $91 million.

Phil is proud of reaching 20 million people with Forza and Halo, but 20 million F2P users or 20 million gamepass subs at $10 a pop only gets you $200 million. 20 million at $60 gets you $1.2 billion or COD money.
Well summed.

Also i'm tired of those gamepass propaganda, MS still have yet to prove, when/ if they release a game at the level of God Of War or Spierman and release it on Gamepass then we can talk, but so far it's been just promises and blabla city since 5 years.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
It's funny. My local car wash place now has a subscription service. $15 per month. So even small business are going the services model.

Microsoft though, yes, they are basically a services company and they literally dont care about sales. Azure, 365, Office, windows. Everything seems to be services based, and it has made them a trillion dollar company, but a lot of that has to do with them having a monopoly in those areas. Subscriptions to businesses is one thing, entertainment is something completely different. Adding subscribers is hard and they are finding that out right now. Even Netflix with its 200 million subscribers reported slow growth and they were crucified for it. Peleton saw a boom during covid but now they went from a $50 billion to a $9 billion company on the verge of being bought out. They also modeled their business around monthly subs on top of a big expensive hardware.

And even with its 200 million subscribers, Netflix only posts revenues of around $25 billion. Their investment is $19 billion a year. They had to spend $19 billion in content just to retain those 200 million subs and only added a few million more. Sony made $25 billion just selling playstations.

Services in this the entertainment space are a cool idea, but as Sony showed with Spiderman, if you put out a good product worth going to the movies for, people will literally risk their lives in the middle of the biggest outbreak to go see it. The movie passed Avatar at the box office while the Matrix flopped with just $34 million total. This is the same franchise that once set the record for highest R rated 3 day total of $91 million.

Phil is proud of reaching 20 million people with Forza and Halo, but 20 million F2P users or 20 million gamepass subs at $10 a pop only gets you $200 million. 20 million at $60 gets you $1.2 billion or COD money.
First, I wanna say I was wrong about COD. You were right. MS are now considering future COD games on Playstation.

As for subscription service, everyone has it now. Even the car wash in my area has it. Everything in the future would be a subscription service.

Gamepass is extra revenue as of now. It will be a business at 50m user base, as that would bring $500m a month, making COD money in just 2 month revenue.

The real potential is sales+gamepass+mtx+dlc. That is alot of revenue for MS, from their gaming division. All of that from Xbox+PC ecosystem.
 

Vognerful

Member
Then make it about console sales. Because I’m pretty sure half a dozen posts have claimed it isn’t and you came out and said tge subject was changing. Like this:



Which is about gamepass. Not about releasing on xbox and Nintendo which is what you were originally referring to.
If you missed the part:

Sony was already urged to adopt a multiplatform release strategy for The Show, as part of the multi-year extension to its MLB licensing deal signed in 2019.
 

FrankWza

Member
Guess we'll never know officially, but the complete radio silence from San Diego themselves over the Switch and Xbox versions paints a picture.
Yiu can also interpret it as an inability of xbox and Nintendo to be able to produce an mlb game on their own. That would be another painted picture
If you missed the part:
and? Urged and forced aren’t synonymous.
You can be persuaded with large bags of cash
 

Vognerful

Member
Yiu can also interpret it as an inability of xbox and Nintendo to be able to produce an mlb game on their own. That would be another painted picture

and? Urged and forced aren’t synonymous.
You can be persuaded with large bags of cash
Just so we agree, you no longer deny that MLB asked Sony to go multiplatform, and it was not Sony plan from the start.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yiu can also interpret it as an inability of xbox and Nintendo to be able to produce an mlb game on their own. That would be another painted picture

and? Urged and forced aren’t synonymous.
You can be persuaded with large bags of cash

I mean you're just debating semantics now Frank.

When I say forced, clearly I didn't mean forced in bondage.

But at least we're all clear that it was MLB's hands that "FORCED" heh .. Sony's hand to make MLB multi platform, not an internal Sony decision.
 
Last edited:

FrankWza

Member
Just so we agree, you no longer deny that MLB asked Sony to go multiplatform, and it was not Sony plan from the start.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. We were on the subject of them being “forced”
I mean you're just debating semantics now Frank.

When I say forced, clearly I didn't mean forced in bondage.

But at least we're all clear that it was MLB's hands that "FORCED" heh .. Sony's hand to make MLB multi platform, not an internal Sony decision.
no, we’re not. Enticing and forcing are 2 very different things. That’s why you brought the gamepass deal into it. Choosing a better deal or the lesser of 2 evils is not being forced. I’m not clear on MLBs hands forcing anything. These words matter. You’re just throwing them around to fit your argument because you were trying to paint a picture of Sony being held over a barrel.
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
Also i'm tired of those gamepass propaganda, MS still have yet to prove, when/ if they release a game at the level of God Of War or Spierman and release it on Gamepass then we can talk, but so far it's been just promises and blabla city since 5 years.

Last year MS released two first party Metacritic 90+ games on Gamepass, how many did Sony release in 2021?
 

Vognerful

Member
I don’t know what you’re talking about. We were on the subject of them being “forced”

no, we’re not. Enticing and forcing are 2 very different things. That’s why you brought the gamepass deal into it. Choosing a better deal or the lesser of 2 evils is not being forced. I’m not clear on MLBs hands forcing anything. These words matter. You’re just throwing them around to fit your argument because you were trying to paint a picture of Sony being held over a barrel.
Doesn't matter, my job is done.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don’t know what you’re talking about. We were on the subject of them being “forced”

no, we’re not. Enticing and forcing are 2 very different things. That’s why you brought the gamepass deal into it. Choosing a better deal or the lesser of 2 evils is not being forced. I’m not clear on MLBs hands forcing anything. These words matter. You’re just throwing them around to fit your argument because you were trying to paint a picture of Sony being held over a barrel.

Alright frank, you're right. Sony wasn't FORCED to develop the game for other platforms. They were just politely threatened (urged) with regards to keeping the MLB licence. :messenger_smiling_with_eyes:

Sony was already urged to adopt a multiplatform release strategy for The Show, as part of the multi-year extension to its MLB licensing deal signed in 2019.
 
Top Bottom