Consumers on the aggregate.
Delayed maps and what not doesn't even run in the same realm as not even releasing on a platform lol
Microsoft responds to Sony's claim that Call of Duty is unrivaled & unique (Claims Sony is paying to block games from Gamepass)
- Thread starter Idas
- Start date
- Activision/Blizzard
Delayed maps and what not doesn't even run in the same realm as not even releasing on a platform lol
This forum loves to hand wave the Sony moneyhats over the past decade.
Probably because a very large part of the people here weren't affected by them in the slightest.
To the extent that investors care about the revenue potential of online gaming, escalation is possible until they say no. Netflix's response to other content providers paying money to keep content off their service was to pay MORE money to get content creators exclusively on their platform.
Nintendo has gone an alternate route to preserve their new-game-sale model, moneyhats are only ever going to end with the guy with the bigger bag walking away with the spoils.
User Warned: Platform Warring
It's worse for people with sony logo avatars.
In many ways it was a 2 way street. And MS likely would have pursued them even further if they were more successful at convincing publishers not to make games for Playstation.
![00Quan[T]](/data/avatar/31681832007/115484-m.jpg){kind=avatar}
The nature of competition is really foreign for some people here.
All three companies became better with time because of competition, all three companies became worse when they saw the lack of it.
I for one welcome this whole new change, we're in for interesting new games and services again.
All three companies became better with time because of competition, all three companies became worse when they saw the lack of it.
I for one welcome this whole new change, we're in for interesting new games and services again.
I hope they make COD exclusive.
It'll open a massive vacuum on the largest console platform for a COD alternative. Sony and a bunch of third party publishers would be pouring money trying to create a proper competitor.
COD being on PlayStation and dominating any game that tries to compete with it is holding back competitors.
This is why exclusives are good!
However it wont go exclusive. Microsoft wants to keep COD dominating every FPS game that tries to compete.
Seems like you're arguing that this move is more beneficial for customers.
Do YOU speak for all customers?
It was certainly a two way street back in the 360 days, and it was a scummy strategy back then too.
But no, unless you've had your head in the ground for the last ten years, the timed exclusivity deals between the two of them are now equable. Which I've gone through in this very thread already.
It's already a competitive market without having reaped any of the benefits of this 70 billion dollar acquisition.
Dude really?
And oh it was competitive, but it wasn't threatening to Sony's position, so that was fine right?
Now that they have to come up with new strategies to maintain their position (and only them, since Nintendo is doing fine) the competition is suddenly unfair.
I'm not arguing anything.
You made the claim that this is bad for all consumers. Can you not back that up?
It's a net loss. I argued that the loss of access to millions is worse than some missing and delayed content that doesn't exist in perpetuity.
We don't have any evidence it will not go on PlayStation anymore though.
Yeah, uh, I see we're going in circles here, so let's agree to disagree I suppose.
Sure as hell isn't a net loss to me, that's for sure.
Giving consumers a lower barrier of entry for the game is bad for them?
I mean.. I *do* mention FIFA and GTA both of which sell COD-like (depending on year) numbers each year (FIFA new games, GTA amazingly the same game).
Just being first doesn't make you a market on it's own. That's preposterous. And that's their argument. They're wrong, and it's very obvious why.
I don't feel that Microsoft buying ABK is standard competition, no. I do not think the industry benefits if the arms race continues in this fashion, regardless of whether it's Microsoft continuing to buy up publishers or a different company matching them by sweeping up EA, Take Two, etc.
Out of interest how would you feel if the argument was applied to FIFA/EA Sports FC?
FIFA for me has a lot of the hallmarks of a monopoly. FIFA no longer being available on PlayStation, or Xbox, would be super damaging I think.
Last edited:
I understood exactly what you were trying to say, thanks. You want to answer in the same vain as lawyernese but I'll answer: No, it technically wasn't impossible. What I am conveying is that Sony was making single player games which reviewed and sold commercially well. We all know how long it takes to make games. Where was this GaaS coming from? Buying up studios who created them?
Yes I'm arguing that a platform not getting COD that has millions of players hurts consumers more than any sort of delayed content.
Right. I think it'll stick around for the foreseeable future.
'fer chrissakes, we're talkin' about the future of gaming, here!...'
but, yeah, this's what's at issue here, & it's a problem for sony, absolutely...
I didn't say 'standards'. I said 'standard'. I think it's fairly obvious why the biggest tech buyout of all time falls outside of what is normal.
I'm a huge Pony...but this does sorta sound like Sony is just arguing this hurts their market position and isn't fair cuz MS is too rich. lol...It's a lot deeper than that but that's the premise I got. We can't make a gamepass equivalent because AAA isn't sustainable that way for our pockets. COD can't be replaced because a competitor to it costs too much, won't be as popular and again, that's too much money for our pockets and it could fail. etc...
Eh...I don't really care for MS owning this many valuable IP, but I would just be trying to work out deals that keep COD on the platform at this point. It sucks the richest company in the world is on your turf and doing things you can't compete with, but it also shouldn't put you out of business if you pivot and gain valuable IP back in response.
I do get the worry though. Subscriptions already kinda suck, all the IP are broken up and fragmented, and rate increases once service gets popular is inevitable. But, you just have to fight for your business model. If Sony wants AAA to always be a thing, then they are gonna have to become the second Nintendo.
Eh...I don't really care for MS owning this many valuable IP, but I would just be trying to work out deals that keep COD on the platform at this point. It sucks the richest company in the world is on your turf and doing things you can't compete with, but it also shouldn't put you out of business if you pivot and gain valuable IP back in response.
I do get the worry though. Subscriptions already kinda suck, all the IP are broken up and fragmented, and rate increases once service gets popular is inevitable. But, you just have to fight for your business model. If Sony wants AAA to always be a thing, then they are gonna have to become the second Nintendo.
Not sure how PES is doing with their GaaS model (I think that's what they did?) but yeah I'd say Fifa is a much better candidate for such an argument.
A lot of the sports games are like that.
Saying COD has the monopoly on the FPS shooter market is silly, as there are *many* games like it at least available, if not successful, but sports? With licensing?
Whole different story.
For the record, I don't want COD to go exclusive, either.
I feel like MS over-sells some aspects of their argument, but generally agree with their positions.
I'm also glad to see them specifically say that making COD exclusive doesn't make financial sense, which is something that I've been saying for a long time.
That said, do I think that making COD exclusive would be potentially crippling to Playstation? Kinda! Say what you will about non-Western markets, but there's a reason Sony has pivoted so heavily towards western content. Those markets have out-sized importance, and we're early enough in the generation that "No COD on Playstation" would be hamstring the platform.
But again, as MS said, I don't think it makes economic sense to make COD exclusive. Additionally, while making COD exclusive to Xbox would pose a significant threat to the Playstation platform, it would pose an equally significant threat to the COD franchise. Ripping COD away from the platform that nearly half of its player base games on would make the franchise a lot less culturally relevant, and would open the door wide for another competitive FPS shooter to take its place as the de facto Bro Shooter in gaming. So there's a lot of reason for MS not to make COD exclusive.
I'm also glad to see them specifically say that making COD exclusive doesn't make financial sense, which is something that I've been saying for a long time.
That said, do I think that making COD exclusive would be potentially crippling to Playstation? Kinda! Say what you will about non-Western markets, but there's a reason Sony has pivoted so heavily towards western content. Those markets have out-sized importance, and we're early enough in the generation that "No COD on Playstation" would be hamstring the platform.
But again, as MS said, I don't think it makes economic sense to make COD exclusive. Additionally, while making COD exclusive to Xbox would pose a significant threat to the Playstation platform, it would pose an equally significant threat to the COD franchise. Ripping COD away from the platform that nearly half of its player base games on would make the franchise a lot less culturally relevant, and would open the door wide for another competitive FPS shooter to take its place as the de facto Bro Shooter in gaming. So there's a lot of reason for MS not to make COD exclusive.
I imagine Sony and MS will come to agreements on the continued availability of CoD and Destiny.
Sony isn't just concerned about the idea of CoD going exclusive, they are very, very concerned about the idea of CoD being on GamePass, which is a situation they could've previously blocked with marketing deals.
It isn't common, doesn't mean it isn't competition either.
Like I said before, Sony was literally blocking games from showing up on gamepass on top of moneyhatting others, this is actively trying to hamper a newly found strategy from their competitor to keep afloat.
Mind you, gamepass isn't even that big yet, they want to kill it in its infancy, is that standard competition for you?
Sony played their game, but they didn't realize that in the game of spending money they would outright lose, they need to find another way to stay relevant instead of blocking/moneyhatting stuff.
Better yet, try your absolute best and make a competing product rather than critiquing this acquisition based on potential loss of revenue/mind share .
I'm not arguing fair or unfair competition.
I'm commenting on the premise of your post. MS is having their best generation ever filled with growth opportunities without having even reaped the benefit of any exclusive Bethesda or ABK releases.
So I don't really think this acquisition really does much to improve the competitive landscape.
Yeah I'd say you're right. And yeah MS is probably the only major platform holder that could see it being financially viable to pull off moves like this. Sony couldn't replicate this business model as they aren't in a position to loss lead on their services or make acquisitions of this size.
I think it was essentially the end of their meaningful competition with EA. There are a couple of upcoming football games that would claim to be AAA called UFL and Goals, but I have low expectations, they're being developed by new studios.
eh...I'm not sure anyone in Sony's position wouldn't critique it tbh. They aren't in a position to put their AAA on a sub, that's part of the argument. From a consumer's perspective, it's like "I want the best games at the best price." But I do get a company worth not even 1/4 of MS complaining about a strategy that costs literally hundreds of billions.
I would say it's common sense to assume they are complaining while simultaneously working on a competing product. They are acquiring studios on a scale that works for them.
And if Sony had more money, they would have other moves too.
Each company - and finally Microsoft has awakened - uses their strong points. Sony leverages their market share created through the years, Microsoft finally started to leverage their coffers and Nintendo uses imagination and remasters.
The funny thing is I'm willing to bet the house on, if Sony did day and date games in PS+ Premium they would get to 50M within a year on that plan.
If Sony made a new one, that would be them competing and would be a good thing that came from the deal, that's the thing. If we suddenly get a shooter from Sony it's going to be because they know they need to plug that gap in their lineup and this deal is going to speed that up even though Call of Duty is most likely not going to be exclusive.
If Sony made a new one, that would be them competing and would be a good thing that came from the deal, that's the thing. If we suddenly get a shooter from Sony it's going to be because they know they need to plug that gap in their lineup and this deal is going to speed that up even though Call of Duty is most likely not going to be exclusive.
It would be the only way I'd engage with their ecosystem. As is, my PS5 collects dust between big titles.
GTA doesnt release every year like COD does. As for FIFA it still sells far less than COD each year despite still selling well
I had always assumed yearly call of duty, as well as throwing every able body to it's production, was solely tied to Activision greed. But the way people talk about it here and in these arguments makes me wonder if Sony, or back in the day Microsoft, were the ones pushing it.
Game Pass has over twenty million subscribers. Sony are not trying to 'kill it in its infancy'.
Sony and Microsoft both continue to put together deals which lock content away from their competitor's services and platforms.