To some people it's Xbox becoming more competitive is the issue.
To some people it's Xbox becoming more competitive is the issue.
I understand some people can't afford it, but to a lot of people who can, it seems like the possibility of having to buy an Xbox to play some exclusive games is a punishment.
That storm started in 1995 when Sony became the default platform for many to play third party titles.
Sounds like it. The old sentiment was that Xbox didn't have games people wanted or I can play all of their games on the PC, now it's they are taking games away even though nothing announced will be taken away this generation.
Having a grudge against a corporate is stronger than enjoying a game or having fun. Idk but im not like that.
Lifetime sales for a franchise being under 20 million and decades old kind of proves my point that they don't sell like that (in regards to other big titles)
If you like jrpgs you're probably gonna skip Xbox. If you like COD, you have several platform options.
COD being widely represented isn't going to be a differentiator in the same way a missing genre is.
Last edited:
Not sure why we're arguing on what are system sellers. They're all system sellers? Duh? Different people buy different consoles for different reasons.
Sure, COD (and FIFA) are console sellers. But right now in 2022/2023, they're not the console differentiators they once were. The marketing (they both have deals with Sony) probably help. But the biggest game today in the COD franchise is free to play, has a mobile version, and can crossplay across all versions. People are missing that this debate started with a comment that MS is buying COD because it's a "system seller". False. COD ain't leaving PlayStation. That's 100% guaranteed. If MS were buying ABK because they needed COD to be a system seller, then they wouldn't have made that promise.
This whole discussion is moot. The premise is based on a fantasy. Time to move on >_<
Sure, COD (and FIFA) are console sellers. But right now in 2022/2023, they're not the console differentiators they once were. The marketing (they both have deals with Sony) probably help. But the biggest game today in the COD franchise is free to play, has a mobile version, and can crossplay across all versions. People are missing that this debate started with a comment that MS is buying COD because it's a "system seller". False. COD ain't leaving PlayStation. That's 100% guaranteed. If MS were buying ABK because they needed COD to be a system seller, then they wouldn't have made that promise.
This whole discussion is moot. The premise is based on a fantasy. Time to move on >_<
I want to add Microsoft has made zero indication that they are making COD exclusive. Microsoft has Zero Internal documents discussing the possibility of making Call of Duty exclusive.
JRPGs selling more consoles than an IP that just had $1B in sell-through in ten days....
That's...quite an argument.
That's...quite an argument.
Because it's not an exclusive, therefore not something you need a specific console to buy, and entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
Is it...somehow bad that Microsoft can drive an increasing number of people to purchase their system by having more studios and IP that people use to inform their console making decisions?
These conversations always seem to have an implied undertone of "but I'm not buying an Xbox" or "Xbox isn't allowed to ever be better than PlayStation" and I understand why the conversations tend to go that way, but it's still a very limited frame of reference from which to argue against the acquisition.
It's okay for Xbox to be a more attractive purchase than PlayStation, and the ABK purchase will help further facilitate that. Competitive pressure is good for everyone and could result in Sony providing a better competing product/service. If people only want to own one console and find themselves needing to switch, that isn't a bad thing. That's competition.
Let's be honest here the FOMO from Call of Duty sells more consoles than Final Fantasy ever will
It's not really..
the IP that sold $1B did so in part because it's on 3 different platforms. A game that's on every platform isn't going to dictate which platform people choose.
It's the experiences that can't be found elsewhere that force people to make a choice.
I mean I don't really to do with this sentence from a competitive standpoint. If it's such a strong irrational effect then Microsoft merely introducing the idea that they could buy Activision has already lead millions of COD player to sell their consoles and buy an Xbox, it's just that strong. Sony's console is already a dead man walking.
Yeah. Sony already filling its bankruptcy papers because CoD.
Soon you will be able to play CoD on a third console, while some JRPG, or japaneses games in general you can only play on playstation or switch.
You can only buy one console, which console will you choose? Xbox or playstation? Or switch?
Nah it's not like that. CoD pushes both consoles more than any exclusive is going to. Especially that first year they go all in on PS5 and Xbox Series X. The FOMO coming from your friends with new systems and the general casual not necessarily buying a new system until they have to contributes to this effect. FIFA has the same power. That's why the marketing is so important. CoD was never leaving PlayStation. It will still easily sell 10 million on PlayStation. It's just that the zeitgeist won't be saying buy this on PlayStation for the best experience. It will be play this on Gamepass day one. Final Fantasy isn't going to push consoles like that, it can't push consoles like that.
I wonder what MS' strategy will be if (or when?) the deal is blocked/abandoned.
Would it set its target at a different publisher with a big (but not that massive) catalog of IPs? Would they have a better time trying to get a 10-30b deal approved instead of a 70b one? Would it matter at all? Say could they buy EA and go "they don't have a franchise as big as CoD so it's okay now" ?
The strategy of it all is something I really appreciate looking into.
Would it set its target at a different publisher with a big (but not that massive) catalog of IPs? Would they have a better time trying to get a 10-30b deal approved instead of a 70b one? Would it matter at all? Say could they buy EA and go "they don't have a franchise as big as CoD so it's okay now" ?
The strategy of it all is something I really appreciate looking into.
So why do you think Sony is willing to pay to keep a huge series like FF off the Xbox? If the difference is so massive between it and CoD, why not put it towards getting timed CoD exclusivity? Even a month would be enough, going by your FOMO line of thought.
I'm biased as hell so my take doesn't really matter, but what's a guy gotta do for Microsoft to get a new Banjo-Kazooie rolling?
They're sitting a lot of IP that (imo) they could be utilizing.
You must be able to understand how a game like Starfield that was in multiplatform development or ES6 now being permanently locked away is a negative. I will be able to pay $1 to finish Starfield without needing to purchase an XS anyway.
The amount of money SE is willing to accept versus Acti for timed exclusivity, and COD might not even be on the table for that.
Honestly? Because they can. It's likely cheaper than funding their own AAA title and it prevents Xbox from gaining an audience that could impact their bargaining power for the title. Final Fantasy is cheaper, CoD exclusivity isn't affordable. Activision would never go for that and if they did Sony either wouldn't or couldn't pay for it. At worst CoD might be 60/40 in favor of PlayStation imo. So you're compensating Activision for 40% of their sales lost plus probably lost back end revenue. CoD exclusive for a year is effectively permanent. You're looking at at least half a billion.
How is it a negative in any other way that other exclusives are negatives? On the flip side, they probably wouldn't have been able to delay Starfield and been given as much flexibility if they weren't acquired/gone exclusive.
An IP that is on two of the consoles and not on a third console that sells even better than the former two.
Let's hear the arugment.
Will CoD coming to the third console make it's sales dwarf the other two even more?
Wii had CoD games... the console sold amazingly well.
Switch doesn't have a stitch of CoD games.... still sells amazingly well.
How much of a factor is it as far as pushing consoles?
Last edited:
There's a ton of talk about CoD, but King is the true gem for MS in this acquisition. Mobile is massive, growing, and they have nearly no foothold.
If this one falls through I expect they'll try to go for other mobile developers, they still want to fill that gap.
Just like how I would not want Bungie or any other previously big multiplatform developer or publisher to be locked away. Bethesda gone means ID, Arkane, and Machine Games as well which is a big group to suddenly be cut off from. We should also not use conjecture on their ability to delay just because they were purchased.
They could have been competing on even grounds if they cared back then. They didn't and now they're acting as crybabies because Sony has way bigger marketshare around the world.
They care now and they're still behind. Saying "they didn't care enough" is just assuming, not a fact.
*shrug* didn't see anyone super concerned when Arkane games were taken away from Xbox, until Microsoft made sure that happens again. If Arkane and Bethesda were off-limit, someone should've mentioned that long ago.
Have a studio willing to make it? I hate how people think Xbox sit on IP and can make new games in those IP but choose not to. Xbox aren't going to go into the Rare building demand them to all stop working on Sea of Thieves to make a new Conker game, nor can they just go to 3rd parties easily, they have to be the right fit as well. It's a little more complicated than, they have so many studio and so much money just do it.
When were Arkane games taken off XS besides the one year timed exclusive Deathloop? MS did not change anything about that contract.
What is the negative part though? Just access to the games on your preferred platform? What you're describing is all exclusives are bad.
This is disingenuous. The Switch doesn't get the same titles PlayStation and Xbox do, and you know that. The Switch is pushed by Nintendo's exceptionally strong IP. It has 3rd Party support but not the same as the other two. 3rd Party support is fundamental to the sales of the other two consoles. Microsoft and Sony don't have truly exclusive titles selling almost 40 million with one SKU on one system. CoD likely won't sell Switch systems like it will PS5s/Xboxes, at the same time it wouldn't be impacted by the loss of mainline support from Activision, Ubisoft, 2K, etc as it already doesn't have that.
Microsoft will honor existing contracts, I didn't expect them to do anything else, but going into the future that won't happen again to a studio that's put every game on Xbox since the OG. You know, like other studios historically tied to Sony and now owned by Sony.
And "timed" has no meaning considering how other supposedly timed deals went; timed can turn into a multi-year wait with no end in sight and derision when you even ask about it. And if you ask other people critical of the Activision in this very thread about other timed deals like FF the common attitude is that it's Microsoft's problem. So they went and fixed their problem without having to wait for it to be solved. Good business.
Why should they be satisfied with their system being an also-ran that gets games year later? What's pro-competitive about that? They don't need to play according to Sony's rules, that clearly benefit Sony.
Since JRPG'S do nothing for me, and If I'm limited to one console I would pick Xbox because of Gamepass alone. It's always going to come down to what saves me money in a strict scenario like that.
But since I have every console I guess I'm out of touch with people that can only get one and JRPG's are important to them. I just don't know people that play JRPG's which kind of lessens their importance to me further.
Yes, specifically in regards to large multiplatform publishers.
The deals SE signs are not MS's problem and Sony can only buy what they offer, any additional offers or continued re-upping of the exclusive period is also up to SE. To your second point MS's own failures let to this, not that they refused to actively participate in timed and marketing exclusives. Unless you are insinuating that anything short of purchasing a large multiplatform publisher is playing by Sony's rules.
Interesting didn't know Microsoft attempted to acquire them back in 2020I don't have bloomberg paywall access but this website references the detail coming from there.
"Among other things, the report also reveals that Microsoft had eyes on the controversial video game giant as far back as 2020.
While Microsoft had approached Activision Blizzard on the topic of acquisitions back in 2020, Kotick was not interested. Then, in November 2021 the Wall Street Journal released a bombshell report that claimed Bobby Kotick had known about numerous cases of sexual harassment and workplace abuse at the company. This resulted in Activision Blizzard's stock dropping by 15%. Bloomberg reports that these events had prompted Xbox Head Phil Spencer to approach Kotick once more with an offer to acquire the company."
Report: Bobby Kotick Tried Selling Activision Blizzard to Facebook - PlayStation LifeStyle
Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick tried to sell the company to Facebook but the company wasn't interested in the offer, a new report sayswww.playstationlifestyle.net
I still don't get the issue. The games still exist and are still on a lot of platforms and easy ways to access. Like you said, you can finish Starfield for just $1 without having to buy an Xbox! The flip side is increased spending ensuring we get far better games.
And next year CoD might make that again, with Sony getting lots of revenue from that and JRPG revenue, what is your point?
Well you can either keep paying $70 for Call of Duty or buy it on Game Pass in the future, why is that future scenario worse than the options you have now? I seriously doubt people thought twice when buying a PS5 and Minecraft being owned by Microsoft made much difference, same thing is going to happen for the next 10 years (likely longer) and Call of Duty.
This is the interesting question for me too. I think it will go through more than likely, but if it doesn't, Microsoft will first have to pay a 3 billion + dollar kill fee, which even for a company as big as Microsoft is quite a tax. Hell, that's about the price Sony paid for Bungie. You could fund about 15-20 AAA games for that amount. From there, I do see Microsoft going for a company like EA or maybe even Ubisoft.
You already said it yourself in the first post, most people are not going to buy multiple platforms and being locked out of a previously multiplatform publisher is unfortunate. Streaming is not an option for many nor borrowing a system off a friend or some other uncommon way to access.
Buy just the one IP and be done with it - and if you think Acti would refuse - wait till they're offered 20B+ just for CoD.
EA is a pretty terrible buy - they only have one IP worth a damn and it's a license, and one that they just lost the naming rights for at that. The only thing that might be worthwhile is their publishing arm&platform - but MS could have 2 of those by the time the get to them.
Ubisoft looks better on paper - but good luck dealing with the mo... I mean the Guillemots.
My views on this topic have nothing to do with not wanting to buy an Xbox or not wanting them to be more successful. I currently own a Series X and S.
I'll just never root for the rich kid who starts buying up his competition with his dad's inheritance. I'd rather they actually invest in creating their own studios and IP, and creating new things, which is mostly what their competitors have been doing for the past 25 years.
Well to be fair, the rich kid waited 20 years before asking his dad for some help. He went through some edgy years in his teens (360) and experimented too much when he got older (Xbox One) but now he needs some help and they are finally getting it. But not before coming up with a business plan worth investing in (Gamepass)
Sony literally did this. They did exactly this. In fact aside from Santa Monica, NONE of their top tier marquee studios were started by then. They were purchased.
LOL. Not only has Sony built their empire by acquisitions, they also use their money that you profess they "create" with to suffocate their competition by keeping content off other platforms. Sometimes 6 months, sometimes a year, sometimes more, sometimes forever. I can only imagine if instead of acquisitions, MS used those billions of dollars to moneyhat every single new, 3rd party game that was releasing. You and others would still be crying about the rich kid doing wrong while the competition does the same, if not in small increments that continue to add up.
