5 Likes
COD will probably stay multiplatform. Considering the success and production values by pushing it everywhere they will make it "the FPS IP " essentially. For Switch for example it might be the only FPS there.
I would personally make the campaigns exclusive but looking at how well MW2 is gonna do, they will keep it multiplat.
I do wonder why it took so long for Minecraft to come to Game Pass though 
100% some contractual obligations one way or another. Just like rumored PSVR vs Minecraft crossplay trade off.f
4 Likes
I donât find their argument about how long it took these titles to reach certain MAU thresholds very relevant tbh. What matters is the number of MAUâs today, not how long it took to get there. I do agree that Minecraft is exactly the right framework to use here though. And that this analysis in the article rightly undercuts the CMAâs references to Hellblade et al.
Their point about MSâs seemingly bad-faith methodology for calculating the financial benefit theyâd get if a hardcore CoD fan/PSX gamer migrated to Xbox and got GPU is entirely fair. MSâs math doesnât work out there and that is pretty clear even on the surface. MS claimed they would only get the $$ from the subscription in that scenario and nothing else, which their own data demonstrates is way off base. They ignore all the MTXâs such a hardcore CoD gamer would buy, all the various ecosystem network effects (buying other games and/or MTXâs in ecosystem), and the hw revenue from that gamer getting their console.
Letâs not just paint the CMA with such a broad brush when their analysis is pretty in depth and nuanced, even if it includes some super stupid framing and conclusions. Never smart to just dismiss things just bc ya donât like their conclusion.
Note too that Phil said before the roundtable that âsomeâ of those Zenimax games would be exclusive and some would not be. MS gives a pretty good clue in their response to the CMA stuff recently that they view these decisions through the lens of âwhere the game has an existing fanbase and online communityâ. It makes good financial sense for them to keep growing existing online communities for games as multiplat titles. For everything else, make it exclusive.
I also think TES6 should be seen as its own mini-IP like Skyrim was. TES games are not really sequels in the normal sense and this one would be shipping 15+ yrs after its predecessor, so hard to say it has its own a priori existing fan community on PSX.
A new Wolfenstein might be multiplat (if it ever exists). A new Quake from id might be too. A Deathloop sequel likely would be. But stuff like Starfield or Redfall wouldnât meet that criteria. TESO/F76 and other shared world or MMO style titles would be multiplat even if a new IP. New updates to games already on PSX also get updated on that platform too, as we saw with Skyrim and now Fallout 4.
2 Likes
7 Likes
Iâm referring to this from Zenimaxs EU conclusion
Microsoft even said they were strongly motivated to âcontinue making availableâ all Zenimax content and the EU agreed it financially made sense to do soâŚand yet they didnât, because âŚ
Oh you can see here Microsoft made $2.9B off of 20 million gamepass subscribers which which is twice what Activision made from Playstation is a previous year ($1.32B) including Microtransactions and more!
Financially Call of Duty on Playstation isnât earning anywhere close enough to offset gamepass growth, even in the medium term, let alone the cumulative effect of such critical mass you would get with exclusivity.
Jeez look at 2019âŚgamepass is practically quadruple. Hey Xbox really overperformed there didnât it! Practically equal.
1 Like
Game Pass growth isnât limited to scenarios where MS made CoD exclusive. Just releasing it on Game Pass at all will lead to enormous Xbox/Game Pass growth all by itself. Even with it remaining on Playstation. They can have the best of both worlds. They can grow it on all platforms, expand the IP to new platforms/devices like Switch and cloud too. All while enjoying the Xbox ecosystem boost having it on GP provides.
Also, Lots of Zenimax games/content have released on Playstation post-closing. To suggest MS misled the EU regs there is just nonsensical. To date, some 18 months post acquisition and counting, there have been zero Zenimax games or content of any kind that released exclusively for Xbox. They have had several projects since then be announced for multiplat and only a couple as exclusives. Itâs just patently false to act like MS made all Zenimax games exclusive. They said no such thing, ever.
Please re-read what you cited. At no point does that quote say all Zenimax content was intended to be multiplat. It merely says some will be. Which we knew literally since before the deal even closed. Here is direct lilnk for reference btw: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf
All that said, MS does make an interesting point there in paragraph 111 of that Zenimax decision though, which is that existing PSX owners are unlikely to throw out their Playstations and abandon their digital libraries/accounts/friends/etc even if they did buy an Xbox to access the exclusive games. Instead, they would likely still do a lot or even most of their game purchases on PSX. That argument should be one that can be applied with ABK too and is a good one.
5 Likes
Apply that to any game.
In a world where its on gamepass, all retail models shall flounder.
Any new announcements?
All Zenimax studios are working on Xbox exclusives now. As Phil said, for Xbox and places where gamepass is.
Microsoft clearly states they have no financial reason not to âcontinue to make availableâ Zenimax titles. After it closed they then flatly declared their titles were only for places where gamepass was
In theory it should apply to Zenimax too. But they decided gamepass was the more important platform to push. Thatâs especially relevant to ABK.
Only if GP is available to users of that platform. For gamers who are staying on PSX taht they put $500 down to own, they will keep buying CoD via retail/PSN storefront.
Also, not every game is CoD. MS is not making decisions based on a one size fits all rationale. They are examining the nuance that each title/IP brings to the table on a case by case basisâŚjust like they explained to us already.
And (again), MS has not made all Zenimax games exclusive to Xbox. Why you insist on pretending they have is beyond me. It is just clearly and objectively not the case. Literally today it was disproven with another product announced for multiple platforms.
Phil did also note that there would be stuff contracted out to be multiplat beyond Deathloop and Ghostwire, so presumably something like Indiana Jones possibly or something else. Think there have been Star Wars rumors from a while back related to TESOâs dev but canât recall. Also, if there is a new MMO type game, expect it to be multiplat imho.
Well, arguably they kept the games available - literally they did not remove the released games 
Just like with Bethesda for the next 2 years at least after the acquisition they will be some multiplatform games (except unnannounced ones that will be exclusive). ABK deal was announced 2 years and we still havenât got a single exclusive Bethesda game for example.
1 Like
Thatâs counter to gamepass growth, so would be excised, as they always do.
And as we can see from ABKs financials, they arenât particularly compelling in the medium term. No more than 3 years I would say.
Because they have.
Playstation isnât a gamepass platform and so itâs out of the picture. If you arenât for gamepass, gamepass ainât for you.
You arenât referring to the Fallout patch are you? Any new games?
Well as Phil said. He will fulphil (ha) their contractual obligationsâŚthen theyâre done.
1 Like
This article about an interview with Matt Booty from 2019 should explain why CoD will be multiplatform after the acquisition. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/08/12/games-from-new-xbox-first-party-developers-might-launch-on-playstation-and-switch-too
Because Sony is using the money Call of Duty makes to impede Microsoft in other ways. Timed exclusives and gamepass blocking deals.
Itâs better to just end that line of unearned credit. And actuallyâŚit should be the default expectation. Not only does it create a bad look for Xbox with detractors constantly questioning exclusivity, but its nothing less then what Sony and Nintendo already doâŚand in order to have the most competitive environment best for gamers, there should be exclusives.
And anyone who disagrees should be totally ok with Final Fantasy VIIR, Silent Hill, KotoR, Persona 6 and all other moneyhats being Playstation only.
Having COD on Playstation is also a risk motigation strategy. Im not sure how that is continuously ignored. Ive only seen it somewhat presented in the preservation of the value of the COD franchise. However, Xbox also decreases almost all risk exposure by
-
Not disrupting the existing COD franchise player base.
-
Benefitting from the success of other platforms the game is on. This means that if for whatever reason Xbox sales are down or the supply chain for Microsoft/Xbox ia disrupted, they have an entire other ecosystem to support the sustained success of their IP.
-
This strategy should be extended to other platforms the games currently are not on to further reduce risk and provide continued and stabilized success. Microsoft mentioned Nintendo and I do believe theyâll extend the game to Nintendo.
5 Likes
Yeah. Also donât forget mobile. Warzone cross-progression between Mobile/PC/consoles.
And also they could make some COD movie too as COD right now is literally a movie with just cinematics.
2 Likes
Huh. Brad brings up a really good point there.
5 Likes
Why do you repeatedly insist on trying to gaslight ppl reading your posts? No, nowhere did MS ever claim all future Zenimax releases would be Xbox only. That is not what Phil said. He directly said that was not the case multiple times. Please stop the gaslighting. Everyone here can read the comments without you lying about what was explicitly stated over n over again.
Not everyone here lurches between extremes as their only options for what their opinions should be. Most of us are able to explore nuances even if you are not interested in details. MS will do what is in their best interest. Lying to the public and regs over and over is not in their best interest and is not what is happening, contrary to your presumption otherwise.
Moneyhats to help a small game get funding, or to help a game exist that otherwise would not, is something everyone should be ok with. What Sony does on those titles you noted is very much not that. In those examples, Sony paid cash only to keep games from releasing on Xbox to harm that platformâs audience instead of benefitting Sonyâs. That is never something anyone should be ok with. The best approach by far is what MS does with GP deals, where the game is multiplatform but the risk is mitigated by MS covering dev costs thru the GP deal. Xbox gamers get a game on GP, other audiences still get access to it for the sticker price. That is what MS will do with CoD as well. This has nothing to do with âearningâ MSâs respect.
This might be a little off topic but does apple allow any competing storefronts on ios? I mean they do through apps but they are all obtained through the app store and have to pay a cut to apple, right? Seems super anti competitive tbh especially considering the whole anti trust case against MS in the 90s.
1 Like
Iâm not certain but I think that is correct.