If MS offered a 3 year deal and Sony said forget it, it obviously means Sony isnt desperate enough to force themselves to take it. So where's the problem?I wonder if Sony will regret not taking the 'current deal plus 3 years' offer, as i'm 100% certain this buy will end up being passed.
This is true! They need to dust off ole Killzone and make it proper competition!I mean what can they do? It'll go exclusive in 3 years and I don't see how Sony will avert that. Competition like this can be healthy though. And spur Sony to get off their ass and start showcasing dope ass games again.
I expect the new bungie IP just became a PS5 exclusive though with this drama.
I keep hearing this and I can't understand why purchasing an Xbox or playing on PC isn't an alternative? How many hard core Call of Duty fans will absolutely refuse to play the game unless it's on PlayStation? One of the knocks against Xbox was that it has no exclusives. CoD won't be an Xbox exclusive no matter what and it will further be available on other places Game pass is available. Xbox is also cheaper in most places around the world. If a person really wants to play CoD. There will be plenty of places to play it even if it isn't on PlayStation.Whatever happens, Xbox stand to lose a big chunk of the Call of Duty playerbase and in turn millions more in revenue if they remove it from the PlayStation platform. Hardcore gamers may indeed flock out to buy PC's or Xbox's to play their favourite FPS but remains to be seen if the average Joe would part with a few hundred dollars just for COD.
MS and Xbox stand to gain more by keeping this game on as many platforms as possible.
Pretty sure Xbox and PS will eventually come to an agreement to keep it on PS as well.
Based on Ryan's comments, he wants regulatory bodies to force Microsoft into an agreement of indefinite availability for PlayStation. As long as Ryan has that card to play, any deal Microsoft offers will be shouted down as "inadequate". Once the global regulatory bodies start signing off on the deal without forcing Microsoft into that position - only one has so far - Ryan will accept Microsoft's initial offer, because Microsoft won't retract it in order to look favourable to said regulatory bodies. Make no mistake: Sony's biggest money maker is PSN, and Call of Duty is the biggest driver of that platform. Ryan is desperate - because if Call of Duty walks, PSN numbers go down, and Sony's profits and stock price with it. There's a reason they're all in on GaaS.If MS offered a 3 year deal and Sony said forget it, it obviously means Sony isnt desperate enough to force themselves to take it. So where's the problem?
Would be nice to see that deviation games title step up but with that lead guy leaving it doesn't look too good.If MS offered a 3 year deal and Sony said forget it, it obviously means Sony isnt desperate enough to force themselves to take it. So where's the problem?
I wonder if Sony will regret not taking the 'current deal plus 3 years' offer, as i'm 100% certain this buy will end up being passed.
It's kind of already hinted at in Phil's original statement. He said their offer goes "well beyond" the norm for this kind of deal or situation. Pretty sure he thinks this is bullshit. Up to the regulators to pick a side now.Has there been any response from MS/Phil Spencer yet? Maybe they don’t feel the need to respond tbh. Still, would be interesting to hear their view of this.
I don't see why Microsoft would, from their point of view, they've made what they consider a good offer. Sony have said it's inadequate, revealed what the offer is and said essentially that they want guaranteed access to COD, presumably forever.Has there been any response from MS/Phil Spencer yet? Maybe they don’t feel the need to respond tbh. Still, would be interesting to hear their view of this.
This is what I would do. Start now. Go crazy and roll it out after the three years is up. 3 years is a long time to make a killer AAA game.This is true! They need to dust off ole Killzone and make it proper competition!
You know you're in the wrong when even your fellow UK brethren say your statements make no sense
CoD segment timestamped in the video.
(ie. players who bought a PS5 having the game removed from their platforms without them knowing in the future, essentially forcing them to buy something they may not be able to afford)
wow, you're just doing the same thing...answer this, how many FF games have launched on Xbox? How many COD games have been sold at launch on PS? and give me the number of people it sold by console? Then you'll have seen how dumb your response is.There has been absolutely no indication from anyone that games will be removed from any platform. MS/Bethesda did not remove their catalog of games from the PS platforms after acquisition.
If you mean people not getting future releases in a franchises, spare a thought for the Final Fantasy fans on Xbox who bought FFXV and then had the next numbered game taken away from their platform without them knowing about it too.
wow, you're just doing the same thing...answer this, how many FF games have launched on Xbox? How many COD games have been sold at launch on PS? and give me the number of people it sold by console? Then you'll have seen how dumb your response is.
The problem is they could of got 3yrs of cod,3yrs is a lot better then no cod, because 3yrs gives them times to create a Cod killer.If MS offered a 3 year deal and Sony said forget it, it obviously means Sony isnt desperate enough to force themselves to take it. So where's the problem?
Answer what? "Yes Jim is right"?Has there been any response from MS/Phil Spencer yet? Maybe they don’t feel the need to respond tbh. Still, would be interesting to hear their view of this.
Jim is right about what? How is the offer Phil made 'inadequate on many levels'? What does MS owe the PlayStation platform outside of the agreement MS already said they would honor?Answer what? "Yes Jim is right"?
If anything Phil has already been all over the media and Twitter way too long, about all the nice conversations he had with PlayStation creating the narrative he wanted since Jim is always quiet.
The fact Jim took this time to answer about something he knew since maybe January says it all.
He should've said this month's ago lmao
Will Xbox be able to produce the same quality CoD without the PS gamer market and 100% reliance on GamePass?
CoD franchise has been on the decline for some time now, as I've stated previously. The irony here is that decline will be further exacerbated the moment Microsoft cuts off the PS platform. To the point where such a move could be the final death blow for the franchise.
The historical precedent is Bethesda.Besides FFXIV and FFVIIR just about every numbered FF game has launched on Xbox, and they've launched day and date on Xbox since the 3 FFXIII games and XV. You would have assumed the next numbered single player game would also launch multiplatform.
That is not the same as an acquisition, mind you despite which CoD games were going to continue coming to PS platforms.
You already made one inaccurate assumption in your last post about any studio removing games from a platform, there is no historical precedent for it. You probably shouldn't call others posts dumb.
Yup, plus FF15 sold less than 10% on Xbox, while COD sells more than 50% on PlayStation.wow, you're just doing the same thing...answer this, how many FF games have launched on Xbox? How many COD games have been sold at launch on PS? and give me the number of people it sold by console? Then you'll have seen how dumb your response is.
Big facts! It's always Microsoft that has to make accomodations for....reasons. And it's like Microsoft is helping Sony keep the status quo. Why is that?I read about Ryan's statement the other day and here's what I don't understand: why in the world do Sony/Ryan believe they have the right to make demands of Xbox and Phil Spencer?
What does Xbox get in return? I'm guessing Phil was making the offer to look good to regulators and hoping Sony would not try to interfere. But where does Ryan get off saying the offer is inadequate, like he's the one holding all the cards. I really don't understand what's going on here.
This makes sense in some ways.There has been absolutely no indication from anyone that games will be removed from any platform. MS/Bethesda did not remove their catalog of games from the PS platforms after acquisition.
If you mean people not getting future releases in a franchises, spare a thought for the Final Fantasy fans on Xbox who bought FFXV and then had the next numbered game taken away from their platform without them knowing about it too.
wow, you're just doing the same thing...answer this, how many FF games have launched on Xbox? How many COD games have been sold at launch on PS? and give me the number of people it sold by console? Then you'll have seen how dumb your response is.
If the deal goes through the wars will get worseI can’t wait for this deal to close and be done with all console war nonsense
It's not the same thing, if you truly believe that than your bias runs deep.Final fantasy doesn't release every year like cod did. It doesn't matter if 10 percent of sales or less were on xbox for final fantasy Sony are still screwing fans of that franchise who own xboxes and have been buying final fantasy games since ffxiii.
It's still the same thing. If MS gets to own Activision they can do what they want and arguing about what's the lesser evil doesn't mean shit. There's still people being screwed ona all sides with these deals it's the way it is.
(ie. players who bought a PS5 having the game removed from their platforms without them knowing in the future, essentially forcing them to buy something they may not be able to afford)
You mean like Xbox players had to do for SFV or any of the other Sony moneyhats or any other exclusive content?
because you fail to see the diff between a game that sells 20 million yearly versus a game that sells 5-7 million max every 4-7 years.No see those cases were different because.....
because you fail to see the diff between a game that sells 20 million yearly versus a game that sells 5-7 million max every 4-7 years.
Small brain thinking.
Phil should stop trying to be all nicey-nicey with his competitors. It's filthy, it's insincere, and nobody buys it.
And with that said, I cannot wait to see what sort of sabotage that MS retaliates with.
But rightly returning serve in kind, there is nothing written in stone that stipulates PlayStation owners are entitled to everything or that Sony is entitled to 100 million consoles sold. Whether PlayStation fans want to hear that or not.PS4 sold over 100 million consoles, PS5 will be on track for the same number, by allowing MS to take away even more mega franchises from this userbase it’s effectively harming consumers whether Xbox fans want to hear that or not.
It would be hilarious if the regulatory bodies sign off without any stipulations. Then Phil can tell Ryan "I'm sorry our offer was inadequate for you, but it was the best offer we were able to make. CoD will be exclusive as soon as your marketing contract expires."Based on Ryan's comments, he wants regulatory bodies to force Microsoft into an agreement of indefinite availability for PlayStation. As long as Ryan has that card to play, any deal Microsoft offers will be shouted down as "inadequate". Once the global regulatory bodies start signing off on the deal without forcing Microsoft into that position - only one has so far - Ryan will accept Microsoft's initial offer, because Microsoft won't retract it in order to look favourable to said regulatory bodies. Make no mistake: Sony's biggest money maker is PSN, and Call of Duty is the biggest driver of that platform. Ryan is desperate - because if Call of Duty walks, PSN numbers go down, and Sony's profits and stock price with it. There's a reason they're all in on GaaS.
You know you're in the wrong when even your fellow UK brethren say your statements make no sense
CoD segment timestamped in the video.
Lol the DF crew had a good chuckle at Jimbo.
They are like
It would be hilarious if the regulatory bodies sign off without any stipulations. Then Phil can tell Ryan "I'm sorry our offer was inadequate for you, but it was the best offer we were able to make. CoD will be exclusive as soon as your marketing contract expires."
Let's see what outrageous demands lyin Ryan tries to make then.
We don't know what MS was asking for to give them these 3 extra years. The offer was 'inadequate on many levels' according to Jimbo, so maybe MS made an unreasonable request.I wonder if Sony will regret not taking the 'current deal plus 3 years' offer, as i'm 100% certain this buy will end up being passed.
Now, unexpectedly, PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan has responded to Microsoft’s aforementioned signed agreement in a very public manner, saying that the offer made by the company is “inadequate on many levels.” In a statement provided to GamesIndustry, Ryan has said that Microsoft’s offer to release future Call of Duty games on PlayStation consoles only covers three years after Sony’s existing agreement with Activision ends (as per previous reports, said existing agreement lasts until 2024/25).
If the deal goes through the wars will get worse
Even if it fails everyone will find something else to war about, you know this
If the bodies wave it through and Ryan let CoD get away without a deal in place, I imagine Sony's board will be more than a little unhappy with him. The fallout would be incredible.It would be hilarious if the regulatory bodies sign off without any stipulations. Then Phil can tell Ryan "I'm sorry our offer was inadequate for you, but it was the best offer we were able to make. CoD will be exclusive as soon as your marketing contract expires."
Let's see what outrageous demands lyin Ryan tries to make then.
I dont know how concrete it is, but Spencer said the next COD and Diablo are coming to GP in an article a week or two ago (there was a GAF thread about it). His intention could be only if the deal goes through, but nobody says a deal like that cant still be done if the deal fails with regulators.It's not enough to just have it on the platform when the next several of them will be included in game pass. He's concerned about game pass in 2023 1st... and Call of Duty being exclusive in 2028 second. He probably won't even be running Playstation in 2028 the way these guys turn over.
I dont know how concrete it is, but Spencer said the next COD and Diablo are coming to GP in an article a week or two ago (there was a GAF thread about it). His intention could be only if the deal goes through, but nobody says a deal like that cant still be done if the deal fails with regulators.
He wouldnt bring it up if he wasnt confident in the buy out, or if something was already in the works regardless. And GP games are something MS (or Sony with PS+) hold in secret until it's time to release the news as locked and loaded info for gamers. And he brought up in a blog.