Support NeoGAF

[FrankWza]

Nice jab at MS that had nothing to do with the baseball talk.

Besides, why have any internal studio make a baseball game when the competitor will make it for them?

My "jab" is just as legitimate at Sony being "forced"
And they had like 13-15 years to do it and didnt/couldn't. It's tough making a baseball game. The Show has been around for almost 2 decades and it's still not as good as MVP was. It's not even as good as Konamis game. And I buy the show every year.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

My "jab" is just as legitimate at Sony being "forced"
And they had like 13-15 years to do it and didnt/couldn't. It's tough making a baseball game. The Show has been around for almost 2 decades and it's still not as good as MVP was. It's not even as good as Konamis game. And I buy the show every year.

Unless a studio already has a baseball game to keep going, it's not worth the hassle. Baseball is a very US focused sport. The game series sells approximately 1M copies per year on PS systems. That's it. And this comes from The Show which is a good series and been around for ages. So it's got legacy. Any company trying to make a new fully featured baseball game like The Show from scratch wouldnt be worth the pay off as it wouldnt even come close to The Show sales to begin with never mind the risk of it being crap too.

 

[Dlacy13g]

MS only offered franchises that are already on PS. That would not have applied to any new IP including the Blizzard survival game.

You are correct, it didn't stipulate new IP, but the original offer would have included new versions of existing Acitivision IP. I guess ultimately though COD is the prize. I do wonder though... does this now mean Sony will give Acitivision dev kits for PS6 so the next COD can be there in its best form?

 

[Silver Wattle]

I CBF reading this whole thread, but does this further push MS towards being a third party developer? Use their weight to force Sony to take a lower cut on all MS games and then just sell everything on PC/PS and not make a next gen console?

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Most of the people playing right now are doing so on an X|S or maybe XB1. There are thousands playing at the moment.

With hackers

 

[Topher]

You are correct, it didn't stipulate new IP, but the original offer would have included new versions of existing Acitivision IP. I guess ultimately though COD is the prize. I do wonder though... does this now mean Sony will give Acitivision dev kits or PS6 so the next COD can be there in its best form?

I'm betting that was just noise generated for the sake of trying to win the preliminary injunction. Nothing more.

 

[Auto_aim1]

I thought Sony would bring back Zipper Interactive and make a CoD competitor with Bungie's support. Even with CoD on PlayStation I don't see how Microsoft recoups its investment in the next 10 years. With exclusivity they could have sold way more consoles and could have brought the brand back on track.

 

[Syphon Filter]

I thought Sony would bring back Zipper Interactive and make a CoD competitor with Bungie's support. Even with CoD on PlayStation I don't see how Microsoft recoups its investment in the next 10 years. With exclusivity they could have sold way more consoles and could have brought the brand back on track.

what do you mean bring back? you really think former zipper employees will agree to come together and leave wherever they are? And why would they need to create a competitor when cod is also on PS. Also i dont think MS is worried about recouping since they have a lot of money.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You are correct, it didn't stipulate new IP, but the original offer would have included new versions of existing Acitivision IP. I guess ultimately though COD is the prize. I do wonder though... does this now mean Sony will give Acitivision dev kits for PS6 so the next COD can be there in its best form?

For sake of gamers and business sense, Sony should give dev kits so PS6 COD games can be in its best performance and on time.

But going by Jim Ryan, he's willing to shut the door. Ok, if he's willing to spite MS/Activision for doing the deal I guess he doesn't care about COD quality for PS gamers.

 

[ManaByte]

Even with CoD on PlayStation I don't see how Microsoft recoups its investment in the next 10 years.

King alone made nearly $3B last year. Gotta hunt those whales.

 

[TrueGrime]

For reals, what is this from?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I thought Sony would bring back Zipper Interactive and make a CoD competitor with Bungie's support. Even with CoD on PlayStation I don't see how Microsoft recoups its investment in the next 10 years. With exclusivity they could have sold way more consoles and could have brought the brand back on track.

With the amount of sales and profits Activision will get from expanding sales to more platforms and cloud gamers spending mtx cash, Activision will be worth more than ever. Activision will be worth more than $69B, so if MS ever wants to sell them off they'll get more than that, plus keep all the profits already earned annually which is roughly $2+ billion per year.

Activision at $95/share is already a deal. MS made the offer when Activision was at rock bottom during the Activision sexual abuse shenanigans where the stock tanked to the $60s.

The $95 price is actually lower than what Activision stock was in 2021.

If it wasnt for all that scandal stuff, Activision stock would had been around $90, in which MS would need to offer probably $120 to get a deal done. But they swooped in at the lows and Activision shareholders loved it making the stock go from around $70 to $95.

 

[TrueGrime]

With the amount of sales and profits Activision will get from expanding sales to more platforms and cloud gamers spending mtx cash, Activision will be worth more than ever. Activision will be worth more than $69B, so if MS ever wants to sell them off they'll get more than that, plus keep all the profits already earned annually which is roughly $2+ billion per year.

Added to Microsoft's net profit of $72.2 billion in 2022.

 

[wolffy66]

The problem with Microsoft is they aren’t cool. They were never cool… they will never be cool. They are almost incapable of art. Even the low bar that counts for “art” in gaming. They are a dork ass software company. They are Jay Allard in a hoodie.

I say this as someone who sees nothing wrong with MS buying Activision. That’s exactly what they should be doing. This isn’t a monopoly.


Sony is a media empire in all aspects. They know cool. They know the culture. They somehow made boring ass Gran Turismo into an interesting looking movie. Sony will be the dominant player for a long time. They will be fine.

Lol there's nothing remotely interesting looking about that movie.

 

[Auto_aim1]

what do you mean bring back? you really think former zipper employees will agree to come together and leave wherever they are? And why would they need to create a competitor when cod is also on PS. Also i dont think MS is worried about recouping since they have a lot of money.

King alone made nearly $3B last year. Gotta hunt those whales.

With the amount of sales and profits Activision will get from expanding sales to more platforms and cloud gamers spending mtx cash, Activision will be worth more than ever. Activision will be worth more than $69B, so if MS ever wants to sell them off they'll get more than that, plus keep all the profits already earned annually which is roughly $2+ billion per year.

Activision at $95/share is already a deal. MS made the offer when Activision was at rock bottom during the Activision sexual abuse shenanigans where the stock tanked to the $60s.

The $95 price is actually lower than what Activision stock was in 2021.

If it wasnt for all that scandal stuff, Activision stock would had been around $90, in which MS would need to offer probably $120 to get a deal done. But they swooped in at the lows and Activision shareholders loved it making the stock go from around $70 to $95.

I was just hoping they bring back Zipper cause I loved MAG. But yeah, you guys make good points.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I was just hoping they bring back Zipper cause I loved MAG. But yeah, you guys make good points.

Zipper had the right idea at the time with SOCOM and MAG games. But for whatever reason their games werent that good during the PS3 era. I didn't play SOCOM games on PS2 but from what I read people loved the games and they got highly rated. But when PS3 came around it went down the tubes.

MAG wasnt bad. In the brief time I played it on PS3 it was way better than MOH and those shitty Crysis console games. It was just too ambitious for what they wanted to do.

 

[Auto_aim1]

Zipper had the right idea at the time with SOCOM and MAG games. But for whatever reason their games werent that good during the PS3 era. I didn't play SOCOM games on PS2 but from what I read people loved the games and they got highly rated. But when PS3 came around it went down the tubes.

MAG wasnt bad. In the brief time I played it on PS3 it was way better than MOH and those shitty Crysis console games. It was just too ambitious for what they wanted to do.

Yeah a lot of good ideas died because PS3 wasn't the right console for them. Something like that on PS5 will be crazy popular.

 

[bender]

MAG wasnt bad. In the brief time I played it on PS3 it was way better than MOH and those shitty Crysis console games. It was just too ambitious for what they wanted to do.

MAG was a lot of fun but it ran like dogshit in its' signature 256 player mode.

 

[wolffy66]

That's 3 years of cod compared to 10.

Cod is never going away

 

[Sanepar]

There's over 120K people playing Blops 1 and 80K people playing MW3.

Incredible numbers for 13~ year old games.

I thought to buy since they are on sale but in 1 week no one will be playing anymore.

 

[adamsapple]

I thought to buy since they are on sale but in 1 week no one will be playing anymore.

O'contrair, if they land on GP, it's only going to increase the count more.

 

[Sanepar]

O'contrair, if they land on GP, it's only going to increase the count more.

Something I don't get. Why people are playing mw3 instead of mw2. Mw2 is so much better...

 

[sainraja]

Sony has some great shooters they've abandoned that now would be a good time to potentially revive them:

-SOCOM
-MAG
-Resistance
-Killzone

Edit: I'm genuinely confused at the people laughing, this isn't even a "console war" comment. It's okay though, puberty will reach you at some point.

Some gamers will never grow up lol. You just gotta ignore that.

 

[adamsapple]

Something I don't get. Why people are playing mw3 instead of mw2. Mw2 is so much better...

Recency bias.

But then again, 120K people are playing BLops 1 but only 11K are playing BLops 2.

It's bizarre but I guess people have their preferences.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Tell me then, what happens if I am playing Starfield for example on my phone, and then my phone loses connection to the cloud servers for whatever reason? Whoops, there goes my session, hope I didn't lose any progress. Quite a difference from playing on my PS5 console, where if I lose internet connection, no problem, just keep playing the single player game that I was enjoying.

But it's an xbox exclusive, owned by Xbox, why would you think you should be playing it on a Playstation? If you want to play Starfield there are more options than if you want to play Spiderman 2.

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

But it's an xbox exclusive, owned by Xbox, why would you think you should be playing it on a Playstation? If you want to play Starfield there are more options than if you want to play Spiderman 2.

Yes, Microsoft absolutely has the right to make Starfield a console exclusive for Xbox, I understand that. What I rolled my eyes at is Spencer saying 'We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games' when he and Microsoft are determined to foreclose an entire console audience of PlayStation consumers from future Zenimax + non-COD ABK titles.

Again, it's their right to do so since they now directly own the IPs + studios, but for PlayStation gamers like myself our options for those titles will now be either having to have a constant internet connection to stream from a subscription service that costs at least $200 annually or spending hundreds of dollars, and for some PC setups thousands of dollars, to have hardware to run those games natively. Not a great set of choices to say the least.

It is what is at this point, so we'll just have to wait and see how things play out over the coming months and years. I will say that I'm curious if the Xbox division is going to start reporting more hard quantitative numbers in future Microsoft quarterly reports now that Microsoft has spent nearly $80 billion on the Xbox division over the last few years. Probably not for the upcoming Q4 financial report next week, but perhaps starting with the October financial report we'll see Microsoft provide more hard numbers on Gamepass subscription numbers for instance. I would think that investors would want to put the division under greater scrutiny now that the company spent so much money on them recently.

 

[ArtHands]

Tell me then, what happens if I am playing Starfield for example on my phone, and then my phone loses connection to the cloud servers for whatever reason? Whoops, there goes my session, hope I didn't lose any progress. Quite a difference from playing on my PS5 console, where if I lose internet connection, no problem, just keep playing the single player game that I was enjoying.

If you lose electricity or someone’s using the TV, yes problem.

Conclusion: buy and play it on Steam Deck

 

[twilo99]

Again, it's their right to do so since they now directly own the IPs + studios, but for PlayStation gamers like myself our options for those titles will now be either having to have a constant internet connection to stream from a subscription service that costs at least $200 annually or spending hundreds of dollars, and for some PC setups thousands of dollars, to have hardware to run those games natively. Not a great set of choices to say the least.

I can see that as valid concern. I don’t think they will take away every game from PS gamers, there is just too much money to be made from that huge install base, but I’m sure they will keep some games exclusive to PC and Xbox.

My question is, why are you looking at the cloud thing as an annual cost? They don’t bind you to a 12 month contract with termination fees.. you can pay only when you see a game you want to play and cancel when you finish it, no need to commit $200/year.

In fact if I was Microsoft I would introduce a weekly tier for their cloud gaming lol

 

[twilo99]

If you want to play Starfield there are more options than if you want to play Spiderman 2.

That’s another major point we aren’t supposed to talk about. Microsoft’s exclusives are more inclusive than Sony’s.

“Oh but it’s their own Windows platform”

Sure, but you don’t have to use the Microsoft store if you don’t want to.

 

[hussar16]

Alright boys time to get used to opening up your credit card everytime you turn on your console

 

[In Cold Blood]

Yes, Microsoft absolutely has the right to make Starfield a console exclusive for Xbox, I understand that. What I rolled my eyes at is Spencer saying 'We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games' when he and Microsoft are determined to foreclose an entire console audience of PlayStation consumers from future Zenimax + non-COD ABK titles.

Again, it's their right to do so since they now directly own the IPs + studios, but for PlayStation gamers like myself our options for those titles will now be either having to have a constant internet connection to stream from a subscription service that costs at least $200 annually or spending hundreds of dollars, and for some PC setups thousands of dollars, to have hardware to run those games natively. Not a great set of choices to say the least.

It is what is at this point, so we'll just have to wait and see how things play out over the coming months and years. I will say that I'm curious if the Xbox division is going to start reporting more hard quantitative numbers in future Microsoft quarterly reports now that Microsoft has spent nearly $80 billion on the Xbox division over the last few years. Probably not for the upcoming Q4 financial report next week, but perhaps starting with the October financial report we'll see Microsoft provide more hard numbers on Gamepass subscription numbers for instance. I would think that investors would want to put the division under greater scrutiny now that the company spent so much money on them recently.

You are looking at his comments from the wrong angle. He is saying it against Sony, not including Sony.
It's "compared to Sony, Microsoft let's people play their games in more places".
You like console? We put our games on Xbox. If you can't afford to by a XSX, we have even made a cheaper Xbox for you.
Have a PC? We will let you play our games there as well. You don't want to have to use the Microsoft store? Fuck it, we will put them on steam as well.
You only have a mobile phone? Cool, we will let you play via Xcloud if you want.
You are on Nvidia cloud? You can play there if you want.
You want to own games outright? No problem, you can buy them outright. You prefer the subscription model where you pay a monthly fee and get access to all our games? Ok, here is Gamepass.

How does Sony compare?
You can only play their games day and date on PlayStation. They may, or may not, release the game on PC 12 months later, or maybe 24 months later. Not sure. They will get back to you.

This is what Phil is referring to. Sony isn't some over arching, important sector that is entitled to anything. He isn't saying PlayStation is one of those places you can play on. All the owners of PlayStation can play Xbox games via a number of different ways. You can play it on your fridge if you really wanted to.

 

[Helghan]

Huge blow for Sony to now have to sign a weaker deal, but it’s honestly their own fault. Jim Ryan overplayed his hand

 

[geary]

 

[THE DUCK]

Nope. It appears that Microsoft is the one who wanted this deal.... as they've given Sony a 10-year deal.

Sony can go on about their day without the COD deal and still do very well. Microsoft couldn't resist missing out on the billions from Sony.

Ms doesn't need the money, they didn't do this for the software revenue from Sony.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Just for CoD, shit....Sony played hard ball and its bitten them in the ass.

Lesson learned I guess.

 

[Erebus]

I don't get it. Was it either "every existing Activision title" until 2027 or just CoD for 10 years?

 

[bender]

I'm sure Phil will not make any of the properties exclusive as he's said before, "that this is the right thing to do for gamers and for the industry".

 

[mrmustard]

I don't get it. Was it either "every existing Activision title" until 2027 or just CoD for 10 years?

It was every existing Activision title until 2027 which was a way better deal in my opinion, because MS never planned to make COD exclusive anyways.

 

[mansoor1980]

For reals, what is this from?

im as much clueless as you are

 

[Robb]

 

[Fredrik]

I do wonder though... does this now mean Sony will give Acitivision dev kits for PS6 so the next COD can be there in its best form?

Of course, if they want a simultaneous release.

Same thing with Microsoft for Destiny.

And I’m sure they’ll both pull some bs and add a slight delay and say that they need more time on the other platform since they don’t know it as well, or optimization will be better on the home platform with similar explanation.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Just for CoD, shit....Sony played hard ball and its bitten them in the ass.

Lesson learned I guess.

Really embarrassing to see takes like this, like how hard can it be to read and use your brain?

Is this the new script?

 

[mrBarrelNut]

But I thought Sony didn't want any deals? Did Jimbo lie?

 

[Riky]

With the amount of sales and profits Activision will get from expanding sales to more platforms and cloud gamers spending mtx cash, Activision will be worth more than ever. Activision will be worth more than $69B, so if MS ever wants to sell them off they'll get more than that, plus keep all the profits already earned annually which is roughly $2+ billion per year.

Activision at $95/share is already a deal. MS made the offer when Activision was at rock bottom during the Activision sexual abuse shenanigans where the stock tanked to the $60s.

The $95 price is actually lower than what Activision stock was in 2021.

If it wasnt for all that scandal stuff, Activision stock would had been around $90, in which MS would need to offer probably $120 to get a deal done. But they swooped in at the lows and Activision shareholders loved it making the stock go from around $70 to $95.

Also people forget to factor in the cash that Activision was sitting on, which was stated as $16 billion.

 

[Robb]

But I thought Sony didn't want any deals? Did Jimbo lie?

 

[Fabieter]

That’s another major point we aren’t supposed to talk about. Microsoft’s exclusives are more inclusive than Sony’s.

“Oh but it’s their own Windows platform”

Sure, but you don’t have to use the Microsoft store if you don’t want to.

If you want to play that game. Recent Bethesda games all supported denuvo drm on steam while the late ports of sony were DRM free. I would rather wait a bit to play a drm free version tho.

 

[peish]

cod fame to last 10 more years? it is already boring with too fast ttk. i hope sony doesnt pay anything here

 

[DavJay]

CoD rev split of 80/20 was disgusting. Glad they now get 100% of Xbox CoD sales and 70% percent of Sonys.

 

[KURDISTAN YPG]

the only way sony comes back on this if they go ahead and go after take2 studio


sony got played themself,

 

[Chukhopops]

With the amount of sales and profits Activision will get from expanding sales to more platforms and cloud gamers spending mtx cash, Activision will be worth more than ever. Activision will be worth more than $69B, so if MS ever wants to sell them off they'll get more than that, plus keep all the profits already earned annually which is roughly $2+ billion per year.

Activision at $95/share is already a deal. MS made the offer when Activision was at rock bottom during the Activision sexual abuse shenanigans where the stock tanked to the $60s.

The $95 price is actually lower than what Activision stock was in 2021.

If it wasnt for all that scandal stuff, Activision stock would had been around $90, in which MS would need to offer probably $120 to get a deal done. But they swooped in at the lows and Activision shareholders loved it making the stock go from around $70 to $95.

The best part will always be this article:

Phil Spencer "evaluating" Xbox relationship with Activision Blizzard following Kotick allegations

Xbox boss Phil Spencer is considering taking action against Activision Blizzard as the outcry against its CEO, Bobby Ko…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Spencer added that he is "evaluating all aspects of our relationship with Activision Blizzard and making ongoing proactive adjustments."

I don’t think MS did the kind of “proactive adjustment” people understood initially .