Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard Discussion Thread (Part 1)

[Weaam]

@javycane

… High-level employees at Activision have discussed moving away from the annual release schedule, according to two people familiar with the discussions. Although nothing has been finalized yet, there’s a belief among many Call of Duty developers that releasing games at a slower cadence will please players and help bolster the franchise, particularly after the weak launch of last year’s Call of Duty Vanguard, which saw a 36% decline from 2020’s entry in U.K. sales charts. The shift may not happen until next year or later, as this year’s Call of Duty is expected to redeem the franchise’s fortunes.

Slowing down the Call of Duty release schedule may lighten developers’ intense workloads and could provide new opportunities for Activision’s gamemakers to work on other titles.

so 2-3 years between each game

[TavishHill]

@GamepadX

However this is not the smart play.

I think the issue here is you are assuming ‘what is best for MS/Xbox’ is automatically a viable option on the table. I don’t think that is viable as an option because I think regulators would step in and weaken or nuke the deal without CoD staying multiplat.

Reason I say that is b/c CoD represents a huge portion of PSX’s ecosystem revenues. Were MS not to commit to the games staying multiplat, MS would be positioned to flip a switch and directly blow a huge hole in their competitors’ ecosystem. Indirectly influencing the viability of PlayStation is fine (i.e. that’s called competition) but being able to wield that power directly? That seems like the kinda thing a regulator would absolutely latch onto.

MS could maybe get super aggressive here and push their luck, but they risk the whole deal falling through at worst or being significantly weakened or even being forced to keep CoD multiplat anyhow. Better to arrive at that point via ‘good guy Phil’ PR moves than having the govt force your hand.

[ProgStopper]

Non Yearly CoD would be amazing for the teams. Both from a creative and morale stand-point.

[TavishHill]

@RelloK

Wait…did he not literally have this exact kind of tweet just a couple days ago where he proclaimed the devs were expressing “fury towards Phil Spencer” for allowing Kotick to retire?! lol

[anon81312630]

@Jeans

Yeah, I know. I’m talking about digital content. That’s why it’s harder to move from one platform to another nowadays. People keep buying stuff on the same platform for years. That’s a lot of money.

I didn’t say Sony is great, don’t be too harsh with them. I’m saying : they have to stay afloat or people will get really really pissed at MS.

Sega Gamers got really pissed at Sony too but then they end up buying a playstation later on times heals everything it will be ok if Playstation die out it whatever to me cause Playstation would have killed Xbox and Nintendo if it not for MS deep pockets and Nintendo success. Remember 2013 after Xbox was getting destroy by the press and gamers and Sony decide to rub salt in the wounds with this never forget how ruthless Playstation is.

Official PlayStation Used Game Instructional Video

[Weaam]

i’m leaning to Multiplatform on this one but xbox console would get all the advantages like early dlc releases only on xbox, main dev platform, main Esport platform, marketing to xbox…etc

[Biggzy (Hassan)]

Told you that releasing CoD every year was starting to become unsustainable.

[Twinblade]

@Resist

lol people are talking anti-trust when MS by all indications is still looking and considering sizeable publishers after this deal goes through.

Seriously whenever those journalist, pundits and other notable figures talk about anti trust and reasons why CoD should stay on PS, just post a word and a emote.

Disney

[AllianceOfficer]

@TavishHill

The Bethesda statement showed their plan was to allow remasters/DLC for existing games already on PSX systems but very much did not suggest future installments would show up on PSX as well. Phil’s tweet about CoD strongly points to future installments releasing on PSX systems. Hence, they are entirely different.

There is absolutely nothing in Phil’s statement that talked about future releases.

[Searsy82]

If I put my completely unqualified and inexperienced studio manager cap on, this is what I would do with call of duty.

• Work with each individual COD affiliated studio and find out who still wants to work on Call of Duty games.
• Create a new COD focused studio and assimilate all the talent under one roof with 2-3 teams
• Staff up studio with additional external staff or staff from other areas of the company who also want to work on COD (think something along the lines of 343 staff number wise, probably a bit bigger)
• Allow Infnity Ward, Treyarch, Raven, and Sledgehammer to pursue other passion projects
• Lastly, and most obviously, adjust the release cadence

And before you say anything, I completely realize that this probably ignores countless other factors, so please reference opening sentence. Thank you for your time.

[Twinblade]

@Resist

like do people realize sony would be more at risk for anti-trust scrutiny if they purchased a large publisher, moreso than MS due to the state of the gaming market?

No, Sony is the hero in their story.

[javycane (Javier Ruiz)]

@Weaam

so 2-3 years between each game

Think 2

3 for CoD is a bit too much.

[ProgStopper]

@javycane

Think 2

3 for CoD is a bit too much.

Hell no, I think 2 is still too much. 3 is perfect. Forza Horizon was 3 and Forza 8 is 3 possibly 4.

Creates a long tail and by year 3 the game is already wanning and excitement is building for the next.

[Chyld989 (Tom)]

@Searsy82

…I put my completely unqualified and inexperienced studio manager cap on, this is what I would do with call of duty.

Work with each individual COD affiliated studio and find out who still wants to work on Call of Duty games. Create a new COD focused studio and assimilate all the talent under one roof with 2-3 teams Staff up studio with additional external staff or staff from other areas of the company who also want to work on COD (think something along the lines of 343 staff number wise) Allow Infnity Ward, Treyarch, Raven, and Sledgehammer to pursue other passion projects Lastly, and most obviously, adjust the release cadence

And before you say anything, I completely realize that this probably ignores countless other factors, so please reference opening sentence. Thank you for your time.

I agree with all of this, though I’d say amend “adjust the release cadence” to “seriously look at if adjusting the release cadence is needed after teams have been reorganized and you know how many people/teams you have to work on Call of Duty”.

Maybe they end up still having enough people that want to that they can still do yearly releases, or two games every three years, or something, but there’s no way of knowing without first going through all of your other bullet points.

[Searsy82]

@Chyld989

I agree with all of this, though I’d say amend “adjust the release cadence” to “seriously look at if adjusting the release cadence is needed after teams have been reorganized and you know how many people/teams you have to work on Call of Duty”.

Maybe they end up still having enough people that want to that they can still do yearly releases, or two games every three years, or something, but there’s no way of knowing without first going through all of your other bullet points.

I think the reality is that even consumers would prefer it not be yearly as well. I saw a couple COD focused twitter accounts do polls where they were unanimously in favor of ending the annual cycle.

[Vivir]

We aren’t even 4 days in and the discourse is already more toxic than the Zenimax stuff lol. Got gaming journalists fighting amonst each other on the timeline.

[TavishHill]

@AllianceOfficer

There is absolutely nothing in Phil’s statement that talked about future releases.

He referred to existing contracts in addition to keeping CoD on PSX. Games already out fall under existing agreements.

[Weaam]

i would say one thing having the game on GP while the game available on other platform then it’s not strong pull factor no matter how you make it. i think sony still have marketing deal after all, so xbox consoles won’t benefit from cod marketing for years.

[Twinblade]

@TavishHill

…eaken or nuke the deal without CoD staying multiplat. Reason I say that is b/c CoD represents a huge portion of PSX’s ecosystem revenues. Were MS not to commit to the games staying multiplat, MS would be positioned to flip a switch and directly blow a huge hole in their competitors’ ecosystem. Indirectly influencing the viability of PlayStation is fine (i.e. that’s called competition) but being able to wield that power directly? That seems like the kinda thing a regulator would absolutely latch onto. MS could maybe get super aggressive here and push their luck, but they risk the whole deal falling through at worst or being significantly weakened or even being forced to keep CoD multiplat anyhow. Better to arrive at that point via ‘good guy Phil’ PR moves than having the govt force your hand.

Care to explain why Microsoft risks anything in a world where Disney could buy fox and Sony could buy every or 90% of all anime streaming service without any fuss?

[ProgStopper]

I really didn’t think it would be that impactful, but man the Activision acquisition was like the straw that broke the camel’s back.

It BROKE some people out there, and they’re just one tweet or statement away from grabbing pitchfork and torches and heading to Xbox Campus in Redmond.

Jeez