-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[GI.biz] PlayStation: Xbox's Call of Duty offer was "inadequate on many levels"
- Thread starter --R
- Start date
- Status
Not having the same exclusivity agreement they have right now when it's over.
Didn't Sony pay for exclusive Destiny content that never made it to Xbox? Now that they are part of Sony, I can expect these types of things to happen. You'll still get the "Playstation Advantage" with Bungie's games and other platforms will get the bare bones. Kind of the same situation if CoD falls in MS' lap.
No PlayStation Advantage™️ probably. Or maybe no guarantee that PS will get feature parity
I'm just going to speak for myself here.
It is just business. With the money that the gaming market exchanges and generates, consolidation was inevitable. You absolutely cannot stop companies from wanting to sell if another company is going to buy it for the right price. I'm not saying that every single deal should go through if one company has the money for it. I'm saying that it should and will get scrutinized. And for the record, the system does work. Here's my company, Lockheed, being stopped from what the FTC saw as a potential monopoly just this year.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/3764DD6NXZOONPROXIM4HJQKU4.jpg)
Lockheed scraps $4.4 billion deal to buy Aerojet amid regulatory roadblocks
U.S. arms maker Lockheed Martin Corp called off plans on Sunday to acquire rocket engine maker Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc for $4.4 billion amid opposition from U.S. antitrust enforcers.
www.reuters.com
I can see Sony wanting exactly the same they have now and guarantee that MS won't pull it from Sony consoles. Basically things that MS really don't want to guarantee if they don't have to, especially letting Sony just carry on like normal.
You state 'Sony nearly put MS under last generation' when it was Microsoft's own actions that saw them go from a strong position in the 360 generation to a weak one in the Xbox One generation. They started chasing the Wii casual audience with Kinect. Their first party stable weakened due to a lack of investment and closures. They planned to push towards an always online future people didn't want. They launched an underpowered, over priced console. They relied on third party deals garnering them exclusive features for major franchises like FIFA and timed exclusive AAA titles like Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The poor reception of the Xbox One was Microsoft's doing. Suggesting that Sony almost 'choked out MS', one of the biggest companies on Earth, is propaganda of the highest order.
Why do you feel the need to rewrite history to justify Microsoft's acquisition spree?
Microsoft are buying up companies left right and centre because they believe in their business model, with Game Pass and Cloud Gaming, more than they did any of their previous business models. That's all.
Last edited:
They have spent money to right the ship.
They are spending money to try and be the best version of themselves in gaming. Nothing wrong with that.
They made a lot of mistakes and Sony capitalized, then tried going for the jugular.
Microsoft changed the game and people seem to have a problem with that.
Not me. Let companies spend as they see fit.
How am I rewriting history? Of course Xbox stumbled out of the gate at the beginning of the generation, but Sony took advantage of that at the very beginning as well. Sony literally and officially meme'd Xbox from the get go and used its power to capitalize on that stumble. I mean, did you see the amount of 3rd party exclusive content that Sony pulled in for the PS4 generation? https://www.gematsu.com/exclusives/ps4
Sony fixed themselves after the PS3 generation in terms of more powerful hardware, undercutting Xbox One's price, and setting themselves up to spend as much money as it would take to secure all these 3rd party deals. Again, why am I going to point the finger at Microsoft trying to do the exact same thing to turn themselves around this generation? As I see it, the wheel is turning again and Sony is having a very rough start to the generation. Increased game prices, increased hardware prices, scalpers, low inventory, is making Playstation a hard sell and Microsoft is capitalizing.
Here is a theoretical for you... Let's say either party made the decision to buy, EA, Ubisoft, Take Two and Tencent. Not one of them, all of them.
What do you think would be the impact on the industry?
Activision is currently the sixth largest publisher in terms of revenue. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony all being ahead of it. Activision is larger than all of the publishers that I listed above, except Tencent.
It's a worrying trend. Anyone who doesn't see the forest through the trees is actively rooting for a subscription only, less choice gaming model that'll be geared around big franchises and ultimately hurting smaller developers because they can't even compete.
It's terrible for any of the big three to be consuming publishers of any meaningful size long term. But gamepass is a steal, until in 5-10 years time when the price gets jacked up and we start moving towards a GaaS only model. Make no mistake, Sony's endgame is exactly the same shit.
Last edited:
Sony's been making some weird decisions this gen, but with the PS5 being the best selling console in the UK so far this year, I wouldn't exactly say it's a hard sell. It's still high in demand in Europe, at least.
My guess is Jim and Sony are jockeying to try and get the FTC and/or CMA to force Microsoft to sign legal documentation stating not only will they commit to releasing Call of Duty on PlayStation day-and-date in perpetuity, but also release COD day-and-date on PS+.
If it came to that, my assumption is Microsoft would fight it in court.
"There's no chance we'll release our games on their service day-and-date, when they won't even release their games on their service day-and-date. We'd already be helping them sell consoles. Why would we help them sell subscriptions, too?"
Absolutely true. People will buy into the ecosystem that they're comfortable with. Believe it or not, there are still people that bought into an Xbox even after the launch of the Xbox One. In terms of my previous posts, Microsoft is trying to position themselves to be the better deal this generation. They are severely undercutting hardware price with the Series S with an insane amount of proposed first party content that will release Day 1 on a subscription service for $15 a month.
MS are doing a lot of things right to position themselves as an alternative that provides more value for money this gen, and so far it seems to have worked well in the US. Not sure how it'll play out over here, so far they don't seem to have put much of a dent in the European PS panzertank.
???
When the One S released, gamepass didn't exist and Microsoft only had 8 first party studios to their name. The S was still barely more powerful than a standard PS4 and only sought a resolution update I believe.
This is what is called hyperbole. There is no one getting in position to acquire all of those because............antitrust.
At some point in time, it also becomes silly to keep acquiring. You acquire to keep a reliable content pipeline, but eventually, you hit the right cadence and compare it to market size. If costs rise faster than the market expansion can absorb, you stop buying because it is no longer economical.
Some behave like Microsoft will continue buying with no end in sight.
Finally, subscription models are about choice. You will need some GAAS, you will need RPG's, shooters, pne and done games and smaller independent games. Microaoft is doing all of these.
Who on Earth thinks that releasing 40 GAAS titles is wise? They will cannibalize one another. Yet this is the myth that has been spread for years about Game Pass.
Different strokes for different folks, you know? IMO, Sony measures success on the consoles it sells. When someone says that they are strong in x market, I interpret it to hardware, as well as first party sales. I think Microsoft measures success in pulling people into the ecosystem. They're still a company that wants to sell hardware and software, but pulling people into the ecosystem is what gets people spending money in that ecosystem. They have shown that they're willing to sustain themselves on their own money if need be. I'm not saying CoD would tip the scales in their favor, but CoD is a multiplatform game and just with Sony's marketing rights, so did millions of gamers switch to Playstation as the preferred platform. I mean, why wouldn't they? Playstation users got to play CoD early, they got more betas, got DLC early, got modes that weren't even released on other platforms, got more XP events, more in-game exclusive-to-win perks, etc.
No shit but many are rooting for regulators just to move on in the name of console wars. The Activision acquisition should be heavily scrutinized.
Subscription models are about choice, for now. How is cable television going? How are many of the streaming services doing cannibalizing themselves currently? How are game prices in general trending, not just in the US but internationally?
Microsoft and Sony long term of course would want that monthly, guaranteed revenue. Every industry is trending towards *aaS, whether that be software, entertainment, even vehicle features. The economics of it are pretty simple and I wasn't talking about GaaS in terms of ongoing seasons in games or monetization, I was talking about paying a consistent monthly fee to access their content.
We are moving toward a no-ownership future in many industries. Do you honestly think this industry is immune to it? Ultimately both Gamepass and PS plus are in the growth stage, of course both companies want to present them as a bargain to ensure they get that baseline revenue and platform lock in.
I mean the obvious thing to me is money (duh)? Sony probably wants what they traditionally get on 3rd party titles for revenue splits on each copy sold, MS would obviously not want to pay anything at all (honestly they could make Sony pay them to put it on PS5).
Damn it's pretty impressive how this thread hasn't progressed one bit in the 45 pages it's gone through lmao. Just the same arguments being formed into different sentences over and over and over.
View: https://giphy.com/gifs/bill-murray-groundhog-groundhogday-UVwoTQ0OvhqohViQqC
View: https://giphy.com/gifs/bill-murray-groundhog-groundhogday-UVwoTQ0OvhqohViQqC
Not being able to moneyhat keeping modes, maps, skins, and such off competitor's systems. He just couldn't say the quiet part out loud.
I could give two shits about sales and marketshare from loosing COD, as long as Sony gives us a game with similar gameplay experience which they will so I could care less. Bring on Deviation Game's new IP, I'm ready baby, former Treyark devs, they know what they're doing.
Every single thread about this acquisition goes exactly the same. It's incredible.
You can tell the console wars are getting maxxed out when a mostly jokey post gets 5+ replies but sure lets roll with it
Irrelevant to the point. The IP was multi-plat (for actually longer than COD was) and now its exclusive. Unless it sold zero copies on Xbox over the years the situation is the same (obviously the number of "gamers" affected is on a totally different scale - shockingly I do know COD sells about 20X what Spidey games of old did)
No? Do you? I know Sony don't outright own the IP in the gaming sphere - but I do know Sony owns the rights to the Spidey movies and thus have a cushy relationship with Disney. One that has resulted in exclusive Spiderman games - and one that further got cemented when that relationship resulted in an exclusive deal to get Spidey in the Avengers game on Playstation. I and you have no idea how feasible it would be to step in and acquire the rights to a full on Spidey game but I very much doubt it's a case of simply asking and making a reasonable offer given it would majorly piss off Sony - something I don't think Disney is interested in doing for obvious reasons. You stop to think for a minute that it's a bit weird no one else is interested in the rights given the cultural and sales potential of Spidey is at an all time high?
I'm fully aware of the situation as best I can be without being board level at the companies involved. Thanks
What does this even mean
Errrr obviously I'm aware it hasn't gone through. I mean......maybe you are right and I am being a dumb dumb because I have no idea what your point is or how to respond given what you are pointing out is the most obvious thing ever
Irrelevant to the point. The IP was multi-plat (for actually longer than COD was) and now its exclusive. Unless it sold zero copies on Xbox over the years the situation is the same (obviously the number of "gamers" affected is on a totally different scale - shockingly I do know COD sells about 20X what Spidey games of old did)
No? Do you? I know Sony don't outright own the IP in the gaming sphere - but I do know Sony owns the rights to the Spidey movies and thus have a cushy relationship with Disney. One that has resulted in exclusive Spiderman games - and one that further got cemented when that relationship resulted in an exclusive deal to get Spidey in the Avengers game on Playstation. I and you have no idea how feasible it would be to step in and acquire the rights to a full on Spidey game but I very much doubt it's a case of simply asking and making a reasonable offer given it would majorly piss off Sony - something I don't think Disney is interested in doing for obvious reasons. You stop to think for a minute that it's a bit weird no one else is interested in the rights given the cultural and sales potential of Spidey is at an all time high?
I'm fully aware of the situation as best I can be without being board level at the companies involved. Thanks
What does this even mean
Errrr obviously I'm aware it hasn't gone through. I mean......maybe you are right and I am being a dumb dumb because I have no idea what your point is or how to respond given what you are pointing out is the most obvious thing ever
You can criticize Microsoft all you want and I can fully understand. But defending Sony while doing so is what's blowing my mind. Sony has been the worst example of blowing up exclusives to their advantage. And they've been at it for decades. DECADES!
Either criticize both of neither, anything else is being a hypocrit.
Either criticize both of neither, anything else is being a hypocrit.
Sony owns the movie rights to Spidey, and paid to keep Spidey an exclusive for Avengers on PS (fat lot of good that did for them in hindsight), but they have no say in it if Disney agreed to license out Spidey to other developers. Sony owns jack and shit about Spidey as a character.
I didn't know joke posts are full blown essays without a single part of it being remotely funny. And it means you look like you're "warring"
MS had the opportunity at Spider-Man and declined the offer in favor of further developing their own IP. That's how Sony ended up making the current Spider-Man games. Some "cushy relationship," alright.
If you check the post history of some, you'll see they only complain in these threads about a specific company, and some wish it was the other company doing this stuff too.
Don't care as to "why" I just hate it. It's like Windows skipping 9. FujiFilm Medical Systems skipped Synapse 6 (their medical PACS offering). Skipping numbers and doing gymnastics for what version number they're on are just infuriating to me.
Anyway, thanks for attending my TED Talk.
By the way, didn't the Spencer quote say that Playstation would get the next CoDs at the same time it releases "elsewhere," and not "at the same time Xbox does?" Curious if that is something that Jim might be referencing without outright saying it.
You don't need to wonder, that's exactly why they called it Xbox 360. Very very old news!!
Report : Marvel's Spider-Man Originally Turned Down by Microsoft as a Potential Third-Party Exclusive
How Sony was able to snag the worlds most popular super hero as an exclusive first-party game franchise has been a long speculated topic. With the game
www.google.com
So which story is true?Report : Marvel's Spider-Man Originally Turned Down by Microsoft as a Potential Third-Party Exclusive
How Sony was able to snag the worlds most popular super hero as an exclusive first-party game franchise has been a long speculated topic. With the game
Oh, I had no idea they ever actually gave their reasoning. Neat!
From what I remember of what Insomniac said, they just said Sony was approached by Marvel to make a game based on a Marvel IP and they chose Spider-Man. Those stories don't conflict.
1. Antitrust is not about stopping companies from competing, or even spending money.
2. Who determines whether we want ownership or not? Is it the producer, or is it the consumer?
The consumer drives these models, and they only exist as far as the consumer support exists. CNN tried a subscription service, how did that go?
Sony had PS Now for years, yet Game Pass has grown to surpass it. All services need value to keep people subscribed, and that value needs to be sufficient to keep a certain baseline of users. The likes of Microsoft and Sony are not going to kill sales either. In a digital world, that is simply more money for minimal cost.
Where did I say it was?
Who says we have an option? Consumer behaviour is only part of the equation. Monopolization of the industry increases the risk to consumers.
You'd have a point if CNN was one third of the global market share in simple terms. They weren't.
I don't see how the quality of the service is relevant to what I'm saying. I have GPU as well but it's pretty easy to see how a $15/month subscription pays a hell of a lot more money over the course of a console generation when average attach rate is 6-10 units, dependent on the platform.
Personally, I'd much rather agreements like EA or Ubisoft have than outright massive acquisitions like Activision but it also won't surprise me if this trend continues, eventually resulting in a significantly fractured industry returning in many loathed problems of days gone returning and cranked up to 11.
there is no Monopoly in this industry. Gaming as an industry is way too distributed across way too many platforms and the only problem we have is people trying to limiting this industry too mainly mean consoles.
If CNN actually had a good product on offer then maybe the service would still be in operation today.
you do not see how a service offering value to the consumer is relevant as to whether it receives subscribers or not?
Acquisitions are also about trying to gain control over IP and tech. Microsoft has been through this part where they make agreements with developers, have them make games for them only to see them purchased. Them repeating what they did during the 360 era and lose the best partners to other publishers or c developers go in a wildly different direction is not something that they should be repeating.
Gaming has always been fractured, and gamers have been told that if they wanted to get certain games then they needed to invest in certain platforms. I do not see how that is changing today, tomorrow or in the future.
What's your basis for the the notion that we're trending towards a subscription only model.
There's no historical trend that's suggests this, nor any argument to suggest it would make sense for any platform holder to pursue this model.
I just want someone to make dollars-and-sense of this theory that keeps coming up.
You know what pays the most though?
$15/mo subscription + selling games to people who don't want a subscription.
Last edited:
Not having marketing rights, not having exclusive DLC, not having exclusive/early beta access, not having a Game Pass block clause.
If you are really aware it hasn't gone thru, what was the point of your Phil Spencer fantasy where he tells Sony off about Spider-Man? That is in no way analogous to the current situation with Call of Duty.
Jim Ryan isn't out there making public statements about the exclusivity of Gears, or Forza, or even Starfield.
Wow 45 pages. At the end of it all if Microsoft buys abk I get day one gamepass games from em and if they fail I fork over alot more cash.
It's such a strange situation. I get people worried about consolidation but the company doing it is offering such a huge carrot on a stick that I have to get behind their initiative 😕.
I'll always hope that ps-plus and gamepass can be console agnostic in the future so buyers can get the best of both worlds.
It's such a strange situation. I get people worried about consolidation but the company doing it is offering such a huge carrot on a stick that I have to get behind their initiative 😕.
I'll always hope that ps-plus and gamepass can be console agnostic in the future so buyers can get the best of both worlds.
First I would like to say: omg that's so funny
Am I the only one who doesn't care about that?
You can buy IPs and Studios, but you can't lock talents. New studios will emerge with new games. Remember when they bought Rare? Great banjo and conker games.
Of course, this consolidation sucks, but it's not the end of the world.
Am I the only one who doesn't care about that?
You can buy IPs and Studios, but you can't lock talents. New studios will emerge with new games. Remember when they bought Rare? Great banjo and conker games.
Of course, this consolidation sucks, but it's not the end of the world.
I've seen this joke a lot in here, and people don't seem to realize this is EXACTLY what the CMA pointed out in their report.
The deal hasn't been altered it's being seen as inadequate by the company who claims that the product decides console purchasing trends. If they're willing to turn it down, and Nintendo doesn't have it, how impactful could the product really be?
- Status