Playstation is absolutely not needed when the transition happens on next-gen where PS6 has 0 install base, and they add Phones, Tablets, and TVs to the list of consumers.
11 Likes
Google aside, I don’t think anything can discourage big tech giants if they really want to enter the gaming - as long as they are willing to spend money. The time is ripe as new medium of game destribution appeared - subscriptions - and as long as they sell game in retail, they can benefit from that.
But those big tech giants are not committed enough. Funnily enough Microsoft historically has been very persistent in everything that they want to take seriously.
No, I don’t think so. If Sony or Nintendo collapses, all them to blame. Though due to mind share it is difficult for them to collapse in the first place.
We don’t know the details of the deal. Maybe it was 3 year deal but nothing prevents Sony from attempt for another negotiation. I maintain my stance that Microsoft should just retract the offer and keep COD only for as long as contractual obligations require.
Why people still believe that Microsoft is planning to release anything multiplatform…
I seriously doubt Sony paid for or helped in any significant development of Street Fighter 5. This should be pretty clear based on how dismal and bare-bones the launch was. That was an exclusivity deal and rushed to market, no need to sugarcoat it. Also it doesn’t make sense that Capcom would go to MS first looking for a deal considering the XB1 had little presence in Japan.
Well we know the offer was rejected by Jim Ryan…either way its good evidence to show Microsoft is acting reasonably and in their words “beyond industry standard” and If Sony had accepted …well they would have sent that to all governing bodies as Sony accepting the buyout as long as they got 3 years.
One person on Resetera mentioned “How important can CoD possibly be if Nintendo doesnt have it and Playstation rejected an additional 3 more years?”
1 Like
I don’t think everything has to be available everywhere as long as it is not locked into a single entrypoint that is good enough.
The second part is just entitled PS-Karen talk. Everything can survive, and thrive, without PlayStation. The Cult members who absolutely cannot move outside of their console is not that many people in the grand scale of things.
2 Likes
The fun thing is that people have become so open to the ability to play anywhere as soon as Sony’s position has become threatened. If Sony had another PS4 launch, nobody would even talk about it. “Just buy Playstation”
Well, true. After all Brad Smith said that they would offer the deal to Sony, but Sony refused. Too bad.
Oh, definitely.
That’s true. And that’s why Sony put Nintendo in a separate market in their letter to regulators (and copy paste that CMA did). Sony does not have a strong position here and at best they can only delay the inevitable and also kinda burn the bridges with Microsoft and ruin their own relationships with other companies. Sony’s behaviour is basically only based on their market position.
6 Likes
Oh I agree. I don’t get why Griffin is saying this. Right now? Sure, that would not have been a good idea but once cloud has really taken off, and it works across all the devices you mentioned, plus PC, plus Xbox the console anyone that has a PS5 and doesn’t want to get an Xbox there are plenty of options. Assuming that around that time streaming games is really good and flawless for a game that requires super low input lag and stuff.
I don’t know man, right now I have a bit of a hard time really seeing MS quit bringing CoD to PS platforms. I think for this generation of consoles they won’t stop it. Also the way they talked about CoD is quite different than the Zenimax talk. Maybe this is a Minecraft situation?
Like some here said that they could renegotiate after three years for CoD (although it does seem Ryan denied the offer, so what is gonna happen is anyone’s guess.)
The difference between Zenimax and CoD is because Zenimax does not have that whole COD universe - several F2P titles, mainline series, COD subscription, several mobile games and Fornite cloud only appeared recently.
Games like Warzone 1, 2 and upcoming F2P zombie titles will be multiplatform. They also recieve skins, various crossovers and so on. There are also COD Mobile and Warzone Mobile games. There was also a rumor about CoD subscription (I guess something akin GTA+ subscription). And add to that the ability to level up stuff in mainline COD multiplayer and Warzone, COD multiplayer competing with itself (all mentioned games before) and so on. Then add to that annual COD salt mines that Microsoft will have to close or adjust one way or another as they are becoming unsustainable and COD becoming bi-ennial IP at least…
COD is in a very specific situation, but Microsoft showed that won’t put it on Playstation platform for free. Even their offer to Switch is highly likely something similar to what they offered to Sony. Or maybe not as it probably includes only F2P titles for example.
I blame Mojang for all that multiplatform talk, but there is no indication that Microsoft is even remotely interested in being a multiplatform publisher. F2P titles I can see being multiplatform and even then only those that are close to release.
Goddamn, holy crap I forgot how many different CoD already had next to the yearly mainline releases.
Yeah, we’re probably going to see CoD take a break, would not surprise me if mainline titles won’t be a yearly thing anymore and I think if they update Warzone enough that people might even be fine with that. Was it confirmed already that 2023 won’t see a mainline release? I recall reading about it but it’s just rumors right now, isn’t it?
But when MS made that offer for three years, they did mean mainline releases, right? Because Warzone is something that is a given that they won’t take it away. But after that…
Well who knows really, since it seems Sony declined, lmao.
1 Like
It was a rumor so we don’t know.
Potentially, but not necessary. They might have offered feature parity for example - like Xbox and Playstation will get skins, maps and so on together without time exclusivity for Xbox for example. Like for example Minecraft had a different version on Playstation for quite a while. And we are talking about that humongous Minecraft!
As Microsoft gets the control over COD they are essentially in control of the content that is coming to Playstation. Including map packs and so on. The deal might have included the support for Playstation in general. Something along “we won’t abandon Playstation” lines.
1 Like
Thanks for your lovely response! To answer your questions, I do think that in a perfect situation, buying any game should give you a license across all platforms, with included cross-save support. In that case, I feel like the different platforms would really have to work hard and diversify their offerings to attract customers, and yeah we wouldn’t feel compelled to get hardware we don’t love just for the odd exclusive. It almost certainly wouldn’t actually work out that, though.
As for eventual CoD exclusivity, I’m not especially well-placed to answer that since I’ve pretty much completely ignored the series (and generally multiplayer games) for its entire existence. If you’ll indulge some thinking out loud, I’d say that it depends on the timing, essentially. From what I heard on the XboxEra podcast, the biggest slice of the pie is CoD Mobile and that certainly wouldn’t change. If anything, it might mean MS get more money if they can get around Apple and Google’s cuts by having people play through the cloud rather than the phone app (though I think that’s what kicked off the whole Fortnite kerfuffle and MS probably wouldn’t want to deal with that)
But yeah, if the deal went through tomorrow and MS immediately cut off PS players, I don’t think the franchise would really “survive” in that its revenue and active users would plummet and it wouldn’t necessarily be feasible to keep pumping the insane amount of hours and money to keep it going. In a scenario where CoD is on PS5 but not PS6, where MS have managed to expand its reach through greater console sales and cloud presence, and where they’ve managed to loop Nintendo in, then I could see CoD taking a hit but not dying out from not being available on Sony consoles.
This is all supposing that CoD would have kept its same popularity, and that other factors wouldn’t change anything. Like I think that they’re newly releasing on Steam now? That’ll probably be an important distinction. Sony might actually try to build something first-party on the same level to compete (better late than never) and that might eat into CoD’s playerbase. Hell, it’s even possible that a big player enters the market in a significant way, like Apple buying SIE or something. It’s pretty much an exercise in futility to guess.
What I think is that MS has legions of people, actuaries, economists, lawyers, data scientists, people with very impressive credentials who have the job of crunching all the numbers for every scenario conceivable for every action they take. They accrue data points on everything: demographics, economic indices, brand favorability, public sentiment of all stripes by using telemetry, scouring social media, constant surveying. They project and prognosticate, they hash out legal consequences, and decide for every single acquisition if it makes more sense to keep it exclusive or not.
I don’t think it makes sense to point to MS’s past behavior to determine future exclusivity because every situation is different. Too much money to leave on the table, you don’t spend 70 billion to not make things exclusive. We just don’t have the data or the aptitude to analyze it and really know for sure. Their primary goal is establishing a strong and lucrative presence, their secondary goal is doing so in a way that makes that presence unassailable from competitors, regulators, and whatever vicissitudes the market can throw at them. “Be consistent so our fans and haters know what to expect” is way down that list of goals!
So uh, my answer is basically “idk but I expect MS to have put in a ton of thought and money into making sure they come out on top, and what we think doesn’t matter all that much”. I also don’t think that SIE need CoD. I think that they wouldn’t make as much money, which might affect the scale of their much-vaunted first-party games, but they’ll be fine regardless. After all, they have MS watching out for them 
Do you have a link for that video you mentioned? I wouldn’t mind having a watch. Thanks! 
Yes, this would surprise me as well. That said, maybe they figured MS would be willing to pay more because they weren’t doing as well and had deeper pockets? Or maybe there was an open line of communication from the Dead Rising people or something, I don’t know.
2 Likes
Outside of MH. What capcom games have presence in Japan period? Most of their sales are outside japan. I dint think a single capcom games has sold over a million since the ps1/2 days over there that isnt called MH.
And MH went from having 70 to 80 percent of sales in japan from the psp generation to now less than 20 percent. Less so when you compare World numbers.
Maybe, but PS still had the lead worldwide, and Street Fighter is assumed to sell more on PS. It doesn’t really make sense they would go to MS first unless people want to use the angle that Capcom has a better relationship with MS than Sony or something. Even the excuse that MS turned down the opportunity because they were working on KI doesn’t make sense when you frame it like “why would Capcom even go to MS first knowing they had a 1st party fighting game while Sony did not?”
You do know this is a chicken and egg thing right? and basically how sony killed sega. least poppa phill is forward thinking.
1 Like
To answer those, the info alleges that SFV was offered to Xbox before the X1 launched. So, you have a scenario when the X1 was yet to be tainted and Xbox was heading into the gen in good shape…
Also, that’d mean the leadership was Mattrick, who was under Myerson back then, so not exactly a team known for making great, sound decisions.
The video is right here 
4 Likes
Again…
3 Likes
Soon we will get to the point where Xbox was actually the first platform to which Square Enix went with FF7R, but Xbox was not interested 
With ABK deal there is a lot of energy in portraying Sony somehow not involved with anything, the games just naturally went to its platform 
5 Likes