• 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.

VERGE:Phil Spencer told Sony back in January that Microsoft would keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for “several years” after current deal

Overall its been a slow year but without naming names certain companies have still managed to produce some absolute bangers and there's still more to come.

I don't understand the amount of excuses and leniency afforded in this situation. Remind me again, how many studios do they own? How many IP are under their ownership? You're trying to tell me they couldn't even get at least a couple of AAA products out the door?

It's piss poor scheduling and management. Other companies with far fewer resources have managed to get on with things through difficult times so I don't want to hear excuses. If what 343i have been able to get away with doesn't raise any red flags then I don't know what will.
Most of the developers they've acquired haven't had a full development period yet, such as inxile, obsidian, Bethesda, double fine, playground etc.

You're absolutely right about poor scheduling/management, but I'll give it a break with covid taking over a year of the 1.5-4 years they've had the new studios....

That being said, you're right about 343i, and something drastic needs to happen there
 

Three

Member
We're in a topic where Phil has literally name dropped PlayStation. Meanwhile you're citing Sony/Bungie, whom have not.

I know some of y'all have an irrational hate for Phil, but at least have the receipts to back it up :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Please @ me when you find a mention of Bungie/Sony saying they will continue development on Xbox platforms. Thx.

We're in a topic where Phil was quoted as saying there will be less console exclusives in the future and how they are bad for the industry but not really practicing what he preaches. You defend that as forthcoming gospel endlessly though.

The Bungie situation was brought up by someone as an example of them being more forthcoming but you want to twist words like 'anywhere' to mean not xbox even though they namedrop xbox and steam in the next question but then you say that's Destiny 2. Even though when MS mentions CoD and we have all the FUD of "is that warzone?" and you seem to think that's completely forthcoming. Maybe you do enjoy and live off that FUD after all.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
So they are taking this public via the press instead of doing it in private directly with the relevant regulatory bodies?

Not surprising unfortunately. Considering what's been going on of late I hope Jim ghosted him.
There's really no such thing as "private with regulatory bodies." If there were we wouldn't have heard that Sony insulted pretty much every third party developer out there by telling Brazilian regulators that they weren't capable of making a game as popular as Call of Duty.

Anyway, this is a response to the press, not a slight toward Sony. But even if it were it actually says more about Sony than Microsoft. Their lawyers saying what they are to regulators after signing a deal to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation is kind of scummy.
 

graywolf323

Member
They hypocrisy of some of the usual suspects around here is mindblowing. They bitch and moan that Sony signs a deal for 6-12 months exclusivity but party like it is 1999 at the thought that MS is buying up the industry to shut other gamers out of a large chunk of the market permenantly. I get that it is just fanboyism but they should be carefull what they wish for. MS has not always played nice with its customers when it does not have to. They can be just as arrogant as "arrogant Sony" when they have the freedom to do so.
it’s because Microsoft buying things mean they’ll be on Game Pass (best deal in gaming™) so they don’t honestly care beyond that, anything to advance gaining access to more games for ‘free’ is perfectly fine in their mindset but Sony getting timed exclusives (even if they still come to PC right away or shortly after) is awful since the games won’t be on Game Pass which is the most important thing to them

basically it boils down to tribalism, it’s okay for their side and somehow it’s Sony’s own fault for ’forcing’ Microsoft to buy these publishers because Sony was signing timed exclusivity deals

edit: and I do think GamePass has been a great deal at it’s current rate but we’re going to see the same thing that’s happened to streaming services, it won’t stay at $10 or $15 a month, it will go up as they stop letting it be as much of a loss leader to get the subscriber count up

or maybe they’ll somehow introduce ads like Disney+ is doing & disguise the price hike by having the higher price be ad-free?
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
We're in a topic where Phil was quoted as saying there will be less console exclusives in the future and how they are bad for the industry but not really practicing what he preaches. You defend that as forthcoming gospel endlessly though.

The Bungie situation was brought up by someone as an example of them being more forthcoming

It was a bad example and there's no examples of them being forthright.

but you want to twist words like 'anywhere' to mean not xbox even though they namedrop xbox and steam in the next question but then you say that's Destiny 2.

Because the question literally talks about continued support for DESTINY.




Even though when MS mentions CoD and we have all the FUD of "is that warzone?" and you seem to think that's completely forthcoming. Maybe you do enjoy and live off that FUD after all.

I don't care about what people are theorizing on twitter or forums, like I said, Phil literally name dropped PS by name as getting more CoD for "several more years".

That is forthright.

Your sense of whose creating FUD here is kinda warped, sorry.
 

baphomet

Member
There's some really fucking dumb takes in here.

But going from of it looks like even the PS6 will have CoD on there. Unless we have another miserably long 360/PS3 generation.
 

GHG

Member
There's really no such thing as "private with regulatory bodies." If there were we wouldn't have heard that Sony insulted pretty much every third party developer out there by telling Brazilian regulators that they weren't capable of making a game as popular as Call of Duty.

Anyway, this is a response to the press, not a slight toward Sony. But even if it were it actually says more about Sony than Microsoft. Their lawyers saying what they are to regulators after signing a deal to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation is kind of scummy.

Discussions and filings to the regulatory bodies are kept private until there is a resolution either way. The documents that came out of Brazil leaked (to the verge of all people - coincidence I think not), this has already been discussed in this thread.

Through doing this they are attempting to pressure the decision makers (the CMA in this case) via the press. One of the oldest tricks in the book and it's not uncommon to see these kinds of tactics when larger M&A deals are under scrutiny. Nvidia also did similar last year when their Arm deal was under scrutiny:

"The regulators are looking for: Is this good for competition? Is this pro-competitive and brings innovation to the market? Does it give customers more choice, does it give customers more offerings and more choice? You could see that on the first principle that our companies are completely complementary," Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang said on Wednesday at the Computex conference


Same noise different trumpet.
 
Last edited:

Unknown?

Member
lmao we made it same time. He's essentially confirming COD will go exclusive or at least that there won't be any xbox specific content perks till after a good while. Either way, Microsoft is reserving their options to make it exclusive it sounds like. God damn!
If it's exclusive it'll significantly reduce the franchise. It would be like Sony buying EA and making it exclusive, the benefit of EA is that it's on everything. If it was on only two platforms it'd be worth a tiny fraction of before.
 
I don't care about what people are theorizing on twitter or forums, like I said, Phil literally name dropped PS by name as getting more CoD for "several more years".
That can mean a lot of different things...

He said several more years after the Sony deal runs out, but we don't know when that is (to my knowledge)

Several just means more than 2 but not many, they're moving to 2 year development cycles, if the agreement ends after modern warfare that could just mean one more, 2-3 at most....

This is a written document, he didn't just say "several" haphazardly
 

fallingdove

Member
But if they do take COD away from PS, which I don't think they will, we are looking at 6 years or so from now. That's a whole new console gen away and who know what gaming even looks like by then. My belief is that MS is going to use COD as leverage to stop Sony from moneyhatting everything, but won't pull it unless they continue to play dirty.
Continue to play dirty? Lol

How delusional do you have to be to think that Sony is the only one with contract stipulations that are beneficial to their business and their fan base? Jesus.
 

Three

Member
It was a bad example and there's no examples of them being forthright.

Because the question literally talks about continued support for DESTINY.
Destiny they namedrop the platforms. In a separate question on future games they say anywhere. That to you is not forthright though.
I don't care about what people are theorizing on twitter or forums, like I said, Phil literally name dropped PS by name as getting more CoD for "several more years".

That is forthright.

Your sense of whose creating FUD here is kinda warped, sorry.
Come off it, because they namedropped PS with little to no new information of commitments or even clarity as to what game, that's forthright to you now all of a sudden?

What happened? Not long ago you were saying they aren't forthright so you yourself could spread the FUD when you were frothing at the mouth about COD becoming xbox exclusive. I mean look at all this:

My dude why do you keep talking about "commitments" ? Where have MS made commitments to FTC, can you share please ?

This is not a commitment to FTC. It's just a blog post telling normal every day folks like us about how they'll change/adapt their messaging. And even on this blog page the wording is left intentionally vague undoubtedly.

I'm just not seeing the "commitments" you've talked about 50 or so times in this thread.

At best that is them trying to sweeten the pot, if you will, and start a "we're inclusive" marketing push to make the regulatory process appear more friendly and favorable.

But none of that is, or should be taken, as a firm commitment to FTC or a roadmap to their plans going forward.

Again, it's way too early to comment on anything and the state of things and prior messaging may change drastically if and once the deal is approved/closed.

Way too early to taking anything as set in stone right now, outside of contractual obligations.

No I'm not expecting them to do a full 180, but lawyer speak in the blog will allow them a lot of wiggle room with minimal repercussion if it comes down to it.

At the very least, live service CoDs like both the Warzones will still continue to get support for the foreseeable future if nothing else.

Funny how this has all become forthright and clear to you now but mentioning destiny specifically and future games anywhere are them being sneaky with you because they didn't namedrop xbox when opting to use the word 'anywhere' for future games. You do you buddy.
 
Last edited:
What I took from it is that Sony will have 7-8 years to get its multiplayer/gass in order (and streghthen its single player offering) before the PS7/XNext, where thet may have to transition to streaming should the industry fully embrace the GP model.
Interested to see what their next titles/moves will be, knowing that big cash cows ala COD could be denied to them.
 
Last edited:

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
We're in a topic where Phil was quoted as saying there will be less console exclusives in the future and how they are bad for the industry but not really practicing what he preaches. You defend that as forthcoming gospel endlessly though.

The Bungie situation was brought up by someone as an example of them being more forthcoming but you want to twist words like 'anywhere' to mean not xbox even though they namedrop xbox and steam in the next question but then you say that's Destiny 2. Even though when MS mentions CoD and we have all the FUD of "is that warzone?" and you seem to think that's completely forthcoming. Maybe you do enjoy and live off that FUD after all.

How is he not practicing what he preach though. He didn't say COD is going to be exclusive.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Destiny they namedrop the platforms. In a separate question on future games they say anywhere. That to you is not forthright though.


The entire article you linked is specifically talking only about Destiny 2 with just 1 question about future games which is answered in PR speak without naming any platforms. This is the verbatim wording of the 'future games' part.

Q. Bungie has future games in development, will they now become PlayStation exclusives?
No. We want the worlds we are creating to extend to anywhere people play games. We will continue to be self-published, creatively independent, and we will continue to drive one, unified Bungie community.

It is vague as fuck and there is nothing to discern here. The poster I was quoting said this:

If he believed his own bullshit he’d come out and say CoD is on PS forever like Sony did with Bungie

Do you still not see what forthright means here ? The post was demanding Phil to say CoD will stay on PS *forever* like Sony did with Bungie. Which they very clearly and obviously have not.



What happened? Not long ago you were saying they aren't forthright so you yourself could spread the FUD when you were frothing at the mouth about COD becoming xbox exclusive. I mean look at all this:

Not long ago ? Those posts are literally from days after the announcement when we did not the info we have now.

Wow you sure got me :messenger_tears_of_joy:


How is he not practicing what he preach though. He didn't say COD is going to be exclusive.

No, he's going out of his way to mention that it'll continue to be on PS. No doubt the main motive is to smooth over approvals but the messaging is still there.
 
Last edited:

HYDE

Member
Sony has had over two decades to create a "Halo Killer" and they failed miserably, most notably with Killzone and Resistance franchises. What makes you think they'll have any success creating an FPS experience that will be more successful than COD?
Wtf makes you think they need either? They’re kicking the shit outta them year after year after year ad nauseum.
 
Wtf makes you think they need either? They’re kicking the shit outta them year after year after year ad nauseum.
Most FPS games are typically multiplatform and Sony has benefited from it. If COD ever did become exclusive it would be a blow to Sony even if only a small one. Honestly, it would be an interesting experiment, even if impossible, to go back in time and see what sales for xbox and playstation would have been like if COD was exclusive to xbox. There definitely would have been a bigger push by Sony to come out with something of their own that was more successful than the Killzone series.
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
I personally don't think this is a huge story. There's zero signed agreement that Destiny will remain multiplatform for several more years. This is about putting it on paper and actually making it binding. It's further than Sony has gone.

I still would be extremely surprised if it ever goes exclusive. The key part to me is the "content parity" section. I always figured they'd eventually toss Xbox a small timed bonus or something like previous marketing deals have already done in the past with this series. If they actually make it a console exclusive, I'd be surprised and I've consistently said that I don't think it will be.
 

Crayon

Member
Fair notice for sony to get a work on a military shooter.

Imagine them going toe to toe with cod. Oh I just imagined them getting bodied.
 

John Wick

Member
Sony has had over two decades to create a "Halo Killer" and they failed miserably, most notably with Killzone and Resistance franchises. What makes you think they'll have any success creating an FPS experience that will be more successful than COD?
It's called experience ie Bungie and with Sony studios maturing and learning.
 

Zok310

Member
Devs must be salivating right now calling up Jim pitching ideas for an online shooter.
Sie should be funding every pitch that looks promising. A platform without COD leave the door open for smaller fps shooters to rise up not having to compete with cod on that platform. Combine that with Bungie who should not be overlooked and sie have a shot at their own gaas shooter. If MS makes cod exclusive even tho Bungie is independent it won't be too hard for sie to convince them to start making their games exclusive to PS, and in that case i can't see Bungie saying "nah".
 

Deerock71

Member
Devs must be salivating right now calling up Jim pitching ideas for an online shooter.
Sie should be funding every pitch that looks promising. A platform without COD leave the door open for smaller fps shooters to rise up not having to compete with cod on that platform. Combine that with Bungie who should not be overlooked and sie have a shot at their own gaas shooter. If MS makes cod exclusive even tho Bungie is independent it won't be too hard for sie to convince them to start making their games exclusive to PS, and in that case i can't see Bungie saying "nah".
Pretty sure SOCOM might make a comeback.
 
Fair notice for sony to get a work on a military shooter.

Imagine them going toe to toe with cod. Oh I just imagined them getting bodied.

They don’t really need to make a military shooter to compete. Fortnite for example is not a military shooter and it brings in more money than warzone, or GTA online.
They just need to replace the 30% share they get from CoD every year with their own games
 
This is gangsta as shit. He's basically confirming it's going exclusive? Or just that they won't give Xbox any kind feature or content perks until after the agreement? Either way, that tells you his confidence in the deal closing right there.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/2/2...station-letter-commitment-activision-blizzard

“In January, we provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements,” says Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer in a statement to The Verge.
i think youre about to cum.
 

Ozriel

Member
Of course they're going to take it away from PlayStation. You don't pay $70 million to own something nice, you do it because they have something that people must have.

You pay $70bn so you have extremely attractive content to put in Gamepass day one, to drive subscriptions. Gamepass is also a major console seller for Xbox.

I promise you now, Microsoft will not keep these multi-platform if it's their route to dominate the games industry. It is a $300 billion dollar industry. Microsoft paid over 20% of that to acquire a huge part of it. They now own core IP to the gaming world such as Doom, Wolfenstein (that practically started first person shooters), Elder Scrolls, Fallout, MineCraft, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon, Call of Duty, World of WarCraft, Diablo and more. They aren't going to let their opposition benefit from having that on their consoles. The second the pole position in the market is in sight, they'll move.

You can also win by making your ecosystem the best place to play. And they haven’t tried to push Minecraft exclusivity even in the terrible days of the Xbox One when they desperately needed exclusives.
This is just you worrying over absolutely nothing

They'll also hurt Sony by making them available on Game Pass day one so there's no $70/£70 purchase required day one.

how does making their own subscription service more attractive ’hurt Sony’? How is it a bad thing for consumers?


Thanks man, you going to help me buy an XBOX and a Switch? I have bills to pay and a family to feed. I can't afford multiple consoles. And yeah, I am bitter about that but it's not like Sony or Nintendo have done anything like what Microsoft are doing. If Sony acquired 2K tomorrow and Rockstar and said XBOX would never see another GTA release again there'd be fucking hell to pay. Yet somehow, Microsoft have just aggressively expanded through M&A and they're downplaying the importance to people who don't care or understand about games to get away with it.

You don’t NEED to buy an Xbox. Their games launch day one on PC. By 2024, even entry level ultrabooks will have iGPUs capable of playing every Xbox exclusive via Steam. XCloud also exists as an option.
Final Fantasy is a timed exclusive, it will come to XBOX. Does Mass Effect, Bioshock, Alan Wake, Splinter Cell Conviction or Gears of War come to mind? How about when Square were blind sided into announcing Rise of the Tomb Raider as an XBOX exclusive?

It’s far more likely for COD to remain on PlayStation than for final fantasy to be on xbox. It’s more than 2 years since FF7 Remake launched on PlayStation and there’s zero indication that the game is coming to Xbox.

Mass Effect, Bioshock, Alan Wake et Al weren’t ever multiplatform franchises. MS even owned the Alan Wake IP at a point.


Microsoft started this acquisition because Sony turned around the PS3 and excelled with the PS4 on the strength of first party studios. Microsoft never had an internal developer network like Sony had. Now it's gone from making numbers match to fuck it, let's just buy it.

However, it's not like Microsoft just designed some incredibly great games, they're just buying them.

It’s just sound business. They didn’t have an extensive first party, so acquisitions are pretty much the only viable route. Same way Sony’s acquiring studios to help them with their live service ambitions.

With a bigger dev pool, you’re definitely going to see lots more new IP coming out. Some are already announced. Lots more to come.
 
Last edited:

FergusFrost

Member
Shopping around for timed exclusives has been a thing in gaming since the very beginning. Nintendo do it, Sony do it and maybe you have a short memory, or maybe you're blind to it but Microsoft did it right up until the advent of gamepass.

Just because they have now evolved past that and are instead attempting to outright purchase any studio/publisher that is open to negotiations it doesn't mean they are suddenly the good guys. Far from it in fact when you consider it means other platforms will never get games that otherwise would have been third party. Don't kid yourself, if xbox weren't busy purchasing studios wholesale and negotiating "day one" deals for gamepass then they would still be out there shopping around for timed exclusives.

"Keep away" (isn't even the correct term for it but whatever) clauses are standard across the industry when negotiating marketing deals and/or a timed exclusive deal. It enables the negotiating party to have first dibs on the game for their own subscription service before it can arrive on any other subscription service. If Microsoft are opting to delay the release of Deathloop and Ghostwire on Xbox until they can simultaneously launch them on gamepass then that's their choice, they don't have to do that considering the deal for the games themselves is only 12 months.

If you want to complain about topics the media dare not talk about then I'd suggest looking closer to home because there's plenty that could be highlighted.

They haven't evolved past it, they're still doing it.
 

The_Mike

Member
I was replying to another user who said Sony doesn't need COD because they will make an FPS game more successful than COD.
Yeah I remember that.

"call of duty ain't special, just slam some maps together and add guns and you have a successful cod killer."

Theres a reason COD is always in top 5 over online fps games and doesn't really have any competition.

It's just nonsense from salty fanboys who doesn't play online fps and think they are all the same.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
They don’t really need to make a military shooter to compete. Fortnite for example is not a military shooter and it brings in more money than warzone, or GTA online.
They just need to replace the 30% share they get from CoD every year with their own games

It's not just about the 30% cut though, it's also about console install base. People buying a PlayStation to play COD (this is THE reason for many "casuals" to buy a console) means a larger install base to make money off in other ways. If all those people defect to Xbox, Sony's gonna be losing out on more than that COD money.
 
Last edited:

MacReady13

Member
Cannot believe anyone wants this acquisition to go through. How is this good for gaming?

Destin Legarie (sp) an IGN "journo" yesterday on twotter was comparing this acquisition to Sony buying Bungie!!! Fucking delusional but what would I expect from an IGN writer? This is no good for gaming. If all it's doing is going towards building up their sub service then this is just insanity.
 

DForce

Member
It would be funny to see the outrage if this deal falls through.

I don't blame Sony for trying to fight it because this would be a major move for Xbox. People were saying that MS would keep this multiplat for gamers, but now people are saying, "You don't spend $70b to keep this a multiplatform title."
 

sinnergy

Member
That Bungie acquisition is suddenly looking very smart.
Or a panic reaction 🤣 who knows .. personally, I am not that big of a Destiny or Halo gamer , COD has that nice arcade feel in MP that’s hard to beat imo.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom