-
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.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
"Entirely adequate."
- Jim Ryan
- Jim Ryan
mansoor1980
Gold Member
Josemayuste
Member
CoD sells more and is played by more people on PS than on Xbox consoles, this is good for both of them
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
TheDreadLord
Member
Probably with worse terms than what was initially offered.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
"I guess I do want that Call of Duty deal afterall" - Jim
Kakax11
Banned
Thick Thighs Save Lives
Gold Member
Would've been absolutely idiotic from Jimbo if SIE wouldn't have signed the CoD deal considering the ABK acquisition is now basically done.
Last edited:
CanYouFlyBobby?
Banned
nani17
are in a big trouble
Yes but the finer details of the agreement needs to be known. Is Call of Duty staying on it with all content is the key because I believe Xbox will make exclusive modes exclusive maps etc down the line. This will happen 3 or more years from now. Could even get worse where they bring out a weapon that's completely op but it's only available on Xbox.
Hudo
Member
I mean, yeah, why the fuck not? Go all out!
Thick Thighs Save Lives
Gold Member
Jimbo right now
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
They would’ve been much happier if their CMA and FTC lawyers did a better job.. signing anything with Microsoft is absolutely last resort.
TheDreadLord
Member
So Sony is that dependent on COD revenue?
blakdecaf
Member
Still amazes me that Sony couldn't find a studio to create a game to seriously compete with CoD.
Just make a functionally competent arcade military themed shooter and not include bullshit fortnite-esque skins and mictrotransactions.
Please
I mean they have Bungie who have the ultimate FPS pedigree, albeit in sci-fi/space shooters. I'd love to see what they could do with a standard, military shooter.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
Shh. Don't be logical. We can't have reality conflicting with rabid fanboy paranoia.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
800 million per year
Hudo
Member
They could've had their (quite big) niche with a good SOCOM. Especially in multiplayer.Still amazes me that Sony couldn't find a studio to create a game to seriously compete with CoD.
Just make a functionally competent arcade military themed shooter and not include bullshit fortnite-esque skins and mictrotransactions.
Please
Fabieter
Member
Still amazes me that Sony couldn't find a studio to create a game to seriously compete with CoD.
Just make a functionally competent arcade military themed shooter and not include bullshit fortnite-esque skins and mictrotransactions.
Please
No one could and no one ever will make a competitor.
It's like saying if sony acquires t2 that it's shocking that ms can't make a gta competitor. It isn't possible.
Horseganador
Member
Umbasaborne
Banned
Misquoted
Last edited:
radewagon
Member
This is a win win for MS. In fact, it's so win win that I wonder what the point of exclusivity even is with titles that will sell well on the competitor's platform. It's hard to say no to money after all. A future DOOM release will be interesting. Can MS say no to Sony (or even Nintendo because Panic Button are wizards) DOOM dollars? We'll see. Anyway, I can see this playing one of two ways.
1. MS releases COD on PS5 but makes Call of Duty day one on gamepass and uses the discrepancy to bolster the value proposition of gamepass.
2. MS releases on PS5 but DOESN'T add Call of duty to gamepass on day one and uses some weaselly argument about how the agreement with Sony prevented them from doing so. That way MS doesn't lose a ton of money on launch sales of the game.
Personally, I think they'll go with option 2. I think it's pretty clear that MS wants money. It's one thing to give up direct revenue from smaller or niche games, it's another thing entirely to give it up for COD.
1. MS releases COD on PS5 but makes Call of Duty day one on gamepass and uses the discrepancy to bolster the value proposition of gamepass.
2. MS releases on PS5 but DOESN'T add Call of duty to gamepass on day one and uses some weaselly argument about how the agreement with Sony prevented them from doing so. That way MS doesn't lose a ton of money on launch sales of the game.
Personally, I think they'll go with option 2. I think it's pretty clear that MS wants money. It's one thing to give up direct revenue from smaller or niche games, it's another thing entirely to give it up for COD.
Last edited:
The Shepard
Member
I always preferred killzone to CoD so I'd be well up for it to return. Sony definitely need an fps.
analog_future
Banned
a multicultural team of v
Member
Or maybe Microsoft is. For every dollar that Sony would have lost from CoD Microsoft would have lost 4.
Edit: in case someone needs math explained, 80/20 platform revenue split means Sony gets one dollar from a copy of CoD sold, Activision gets 4. If they stopped selling CoD on playstation Sony would lose that one dollar, but Activision would lose 4. In reality its more like $13/$57 or something but you know what I mean.
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
GHG
Member
How do you think COD would do without the revenue it generates on Playstation?
twilo99
Member
I’ve been confused on that detail as well, considering how many amazing studios and games they have, being that reliant on someone else’s game is a big liability.
Puscifer
Member
How can it be worse than keeping 100% of in game purchases?
blakdecaf
Member
Still amazes me that Sony couldn't find a studio to create a game to seriously compete with CoD.
Just make a functionally competent arcade military themed shooter and not include bullshit fortnite-esque skins and mictrotransactions.
Please
I'm still playing MAG.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked