DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
What am I missing? It seems like Sony played hard ball, Jim openly said things like i just want to block your merger and now Playstation is getting a worse deal than before?
Last edited:
-
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.
What am I missing? It seems like Sony played hard ball, Jim openly said things like i just want to block your merger and now Playstation is getting a worse deal than before?
Moses85
Member
StealthGoblin
Banned
You are aware that the split was the same on PlayStation and Xbox right?
Thirty7ven
Banned
It was a 4 year deal for COD, that turned into a 10 year deal for COD. According to the email of course.
If you want to speculate that Sony could’ve gotten a ten year deal for all AB games then go ahead, but the deal didn’t get worse than the one in the email. It got way better, and to be perfectly honest, with Diablo 4 already out there’s nothing else to AB aside from COD that matters.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
I believe someone also said the deal has a clause for renewal so it can extend past 10 years.
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier
Member
Imagine thinking MS is going to renew any of those 10 year deals. Nintendo, Nvidia, Sony can all expect to lose CoD in 2033
Last edited:
Murdok
Member
>Spend resources embargoing a merger
>Spoil the good relationship with ABK
>Gain hate from the general public
>Decline a favorable settlement proposal >Cheers for the rejection of the merger
>See the purchase being authorized
>Look for MS to make a deal without so many guarantees to use to your advantage >Get a worse contract than the initial one >Watch fanboys applaud the "business strategy"
Congratulations to Sony. It was brilliant to turn down the deal.
>Spoil the good relationship with ABK
>Gain hate from the general public
>Decline a favorable settlement proposal >Cheers for the rejection of the merger
>See the purchase being authorized
>Look for MS to make a deal without so many guarantees to use to your advantage >Get a worse contract than the initial one >Watch fanboys applaud the "business strategy"
Congratulations to Sony. It was brilliant to turn down the deal.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Depends on the contract.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Try and prove 2, 3, 6, 7 but without making shit up.
Fabieter
Member
I don't even believe that valve gonna keep getting ms games in 2033.
That kid was so fucking lucky. Very Jelly.
Sony
Nintendo
Sony must reflect on what can of worms they have opened in their efforts to order to have access to CoD. Nobody in their right minds believed that Microsoft would pull CoD from PlayStation. Yet Sony's efforts threw the dirty laundry of the industry on the streets and with what result? They ended up exactly where they began.
Bernardougf
Gold Member
Honest question since I dont follow ABK so close
Can someone please give a list of any ABK games confirmed and in development, outside of COD, to launch until 2027
I asked in the other thread and didnt get any answers... so .. lets try here
Can someone please give a list of any ABK games confirmed and in development, outside of COD, to launch until 2027
I asked in the other thread and didnt get any answers... so .. lets try here
prinz_valium
Member
Tell me then, what happens if I am playing on my PS5 and then my house loses power for whatever reason. Whoops, there goes my session. I hope I didn't lose any progress.
Quite different from playing on my phone via could, where if the power goes out, no problem, just keep playing my online game...
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Until your phone runs out of batteries.
MMaRsu
Banned
COD 2023 - 2027
Ar¢tos
Member
Stop spreading these lies.
They will get final devkits before console release like every other 3rd party studio.
They simply won't get the prototypes/alphas and will have no input in the console/controller features like 1st party studios and a few selected 3rd party partners.
JCK75
Member
How can speculation be a lie? it hasn't happened yet.
Ar¢tos
Member
So you are speculating that Activision will magically make ANY version (regardless of quality) of COD for PS6 WITHOUT any devkit?
That's not how game development works...
No devkit = no game, good or bad.
Let me get this straight.
Without MS: All future Activision Blizzard games to Playstation with no end date.
With MS: Only COD restricted to 10 years.
And with a straight face say "We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games"
"MORE CHOICE"
It's been 18 months of MS peddling this BS. From the original Halo to present day MS has done nothing but have to buy games of any relevancy.
BS filter removed
"We look forward to a future where players globally have no choice to play their favorite games"
Without MS: All future Activision Blizzard games to Playstation with no end date.
With MS: Only COD restricted to 10 years.
And with a straight face say "We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games"
"MORE CHOICE"
It's been 18 months of MS peddling this BS. From the original Halo to present day MS has done nothing but have to buy games of any relevancy.
BS filter removed
"We look forward to a future where players globally have no choice to play their favorite games"
Cyberpunkd
Member
Ar¢tos
Member
That's what consolidation gets you...Let me get this straight.
Without MS: All future Activision Blizzard games to Playstation with no end date.
With MS: Only COD restricted to 10 years.
And with a straight face say "We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games"
"MORE CHOICE"
It's been 18 months of MS peddling this BS. From the original Halo to present day MS has done nothing but have to buy games of any relevancy.
BS filter removed
"We look forward to a future where players globally have no choice to play their favorite games"
Now Sony is probably going to buy some 3rd party publisher, then MS buys another, etc until there are only 1st party studios and indies and the only way to play every game is playing on PC.
Cyberpunkd
Member
They are not, but Sony opposing ABK acquisition was a play with no downsides - they didn't risk anything from opposing the merger, and had everything to gain. It would have been stupid not to at least try and block it.
Team Andromeda
Member
Shame we don't have UK resitance anymore
You could bet they would have played on SEGA's old advertisement
To be this shit takes SONY.
You could bet they would have played on SEGA's old advertisement
To be this shit takes SONY.
Last edited:
Rhazer Fusion
Member
The reason they are keeping COD on PlayStation is because COD could not survive on the XBOX and PC only especially if it keeps it’s very high production values and budget. I’m pretty sure even Microsoft knows when COD eventually hits Gamepass, it very unlikely it will make near as money as it did before on a subscription service alone.
lughnasadh123
Member
"We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games."
Can't wait to revisit this in the coming years.
Can't wait to revisit this in the coming years.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Zok310
Banned
Ten bux every COD from here on out runs best on PS consoles?
Zok310
Banned
Regulators would have blocked the merger if MS did not guarantee COD on PS, EU and UK for sure.
TheDreadLord
Member
All the concerns were related to cloud gaming. It has nothing to do with COD being on PS.
FrankWza
Member
I agree. Which makes the forced narrative more ridiculous. MLB would have been hung out with zero legitimate representation in the video game space if Sony said no to any kind of ultimatum by MLB, which is notoriously bad at marketing compared to other major sports. Sony never had exclusivity for MLB that Xbox or Nintendo couldn't have had at any time since '06.
This ensures that it can't be leveraged. That and the exposed internal emails and Jimbo did what he needed to do. There was a Crash game that released a few weeks ago. Nobody here knows it.
JCK75
Member
If a COD game is going to be ready at launch, and as Jim Ryan says they won't tell Activision the specs of the console until they can get a Dev kit that puts a bit of a hamper on having the game
well optimized for the sytem potentially... it's all speculation but that COULD lead to early games being less than ideal on the system.. but with Sony being so whiny about this shit will they then accuse
Microsoft of sabotaging the port?
LordofAllThatIsEvil
Member
I hope all of you guys rooting on corporations get profit sharing. Otherwise, you are fools.
AmuroChan
Member
It doesn't matter by that point since the deal would already be closed. They were being whiny during the court hearings because they were trying to get the deal blocked, but now that it's through, it's back to business as usual.
Ar¢tos
Member
Studios are made aware of paper specs when they are final and final devkits are sent around 6 months before the console launches. 6 months is more than enough to optimize a crossgen game that will hardly use the new features of a console,
When did we have a launch 3rd party multiplatform crossgen game blowing minds at launch?
blakdecaf
Member
Nobody but us gamer nerds really give a shit. The general public will still be buying PlayStation's hand over fist because its PlayStation.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Good point. I didn’t know that. So basically about 22% of the buy out is getting their own money back. That’s a risk averse part of the deal. Better than activision having $0 cash and $16B of equity is it’s tied up in weird shit.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
COD splits were 80/20 for MS and Sony? Didn’t know that! Bobby Kotock master of wheeling and dealing!
Esppiral
Member
What?
Drizzlehell
Banned
In my completely unfounded and unverified opinion, Activision probably told MS that their primary money-maker will remain multi-platform or the deal is off. There's no way that they would put themselves in the same position as other studios, where MS first made promises and later cut them off from a substantial portion of a paying audience by not releasing their games on PlayStation.
This whole "We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games." is such a slimy lie, lol.
This whole "We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games." is such a slimy lie, lol.
ChiefDada
Gold Member
Why do you assume people have "forgotten" about ATVIs cash balance?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
SmurfMustard
Member
It's quite amusing seeing the same people that constantly accuse everyone with an opposing opinion being a shill now claim Jim is some sort of poker genius getting the best deal.
All I see is Jim being like:
All I see is Jim being like:
dem
Member
In my completely unfounded and unverified opinion, Activision probably told MS that their primary money-maker will remain multi-platform or the deal is off. There's no way that they would put themselves in the same position as other studios, where MS first made promises and later cut them off from a substantial portion of a paying audience by not releasing their games on PlayStation.
This whole "We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games." is such a slimy lie, lol.
You understand none of this matters to Activision anymore? The shareholders will be paid out. They sold themselves. Activision is Microsoft.
The future of the company doesn’t matter anymore to anybody but Microsoft share holders.
Last edited:
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I was not ready for this, lol.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked