We are not ready for the Director’s Cut
1 Like
Phil clarified already and look how many Xbox fans decided it was coded language…I don’t think anyone can construct a sentence that couldn’t be twisted to mean the opposite of what it was meant to at this point. Ppl have it in their heads CoD will be exclusive and will die on that hill and cling to it for yrs waiting and waiting.
1 Like
They are closer to map packs or car packs or event packs in that case.
WRPGs…We did have some DLCs. But I think it will go away too. Just like with that DLC for Valhalla from the rumors where it became a full blown game.
Sony just gave us DLC for GoT. Square for FF7R. Most of us expect Starfield to have post launch content cuz BGS always does.
Anyway, I forgot what thread were in lol
It says they ‘will continue to make’ CoD games available in the future. Not that they will continue letting PSX gamers play titles already on the system today (which is obvious, but not what that statement you bolded actually says). The other thing you quote after that reiterates the same thing. It is explicitly future tense and talking about future games. When they say they ‘will also make them available’ that is a commitment about the future CoD games.
Phrases like ‘continue to enjoy X’ is NOT the same thing as ‘continue to make X available’. Also, they directly cited Minecraft as the clear indicator of their plans here and with that IP they continue to make new Minecraft games multiplat. They also cite plans to bring these games to Switch in the future. This is not about existing games not being pulled from storefronts. It is about future games releasing on PSX and Switch.
So we are gonna just ignore what Phil said and what his boss said and trust Grubb’s gut feeling (which he doesn’t even believe himself anymore)?
I would LOVE Sega. Sonic coukd give us that pillar that Nick mentioned. Plus, i love me some Sega. Always loved them. Was absolutely devastated when they left the console biz.
For anyone who still cares what actual experts like M&A lawyer Richard Hoeg thinks on the topic, and who wants to learn his views on Brad Smith’s blog post and Nick’s viewpoint, he goes into it a bit on the Bitcast podcast today. It is live so no timestamp yet. It is roughly 45mins into the stream if that helps at all.
Phil and Smith aren’t very specific. Call of Duty is 3-5 games (last game, next game, Warzone, Warzone 2, Mobile) at a given time, their committal to “keep” cod on Playstation extends to ongoing support to Warzone 1/2.
Do you honestly believe the FTC will kick up a fuss if they pull mainline CoD from Playstation once Sonys marketing deal expires, but still support Warzone 2 or even a future Warzone 3?
And release the game on Switch? How?..Activision would have done it already if it were easy …and thats the Xbox One versions…So it’s either Xcloud/Gamepass as Nick said or a reference to Call of Duty : Mobile Edition which is more of a punchline.
Well they didn’t say “all future call of duty games will 100% release on playstation and switch” which would have been more clear, only that they’ll “continue to be available”, which mirrors their comments on Zenimaxs legacy content…before everything went exclusive, except a Quake Remaster.
As I recall the media had already decided Bethesda games weren’t going to be exclusive at that point
Companies don’t talk like that.
Remember Phil confirming Zenimax exclusivity. It was something along the lines of “this move is about delivering great exclusive content”
Why didn’t he just say “We are not releasing future Zenimax games on PlayStation?”
Because it’s corporate talk.
1 Like
Before acquisition finished they said something like “this acquisition is not about pulling the content from Playstation platform”.
1 Like
You can play this game of ‘well they didn’t this specific phrase that I made up on the spot therefore it must mean the opposite!’ all day long, but it just highlights a lack of reading comprehension.
Phil was not misleading about Zenimax either btw. The media by and large was being dumb, which is a whole other topic on its own. That was just ppl foolishly misreading his comments. He said ‘some games would be exclusive’ in that case (and some of them are) and he then said games ‘that have legacy on other platforms’ will still come out on those platforms (and they did). That was all before the roundtable comments where he talked about the tentpole games being GP-only. That didn’t stop them from releasing Skyrim AE and Doom’s DLC and Quake on PSX consoles immediately after the deal was finalized. All of which slot in perfectly with what Phil had said beforehand.
For whatever reason ppl got it into their heads that with Zenimax Phil had suggested one thing and then did the opposite, but that was never true! To this point, he was consistent on the plans for Zenimax. The only confusion/debate that had any merit back then was whether games that were presumed to ship in 2021 like Starfield would release on PS5 due to the game being nearly done on that platform (or so it was presumed at the time; now we know it was a year further out than that ofc). Also, not all Zenimax games are exclusive. Atm there are more that we know about that aren’t exclusive than are. Skyrim AE, Quake remaster, Deathloop, Ghostwire, plus new content for ESO, F76 and Doom all came out or are coming out on PSX.
Also, the CFO comments about first, better, best were referring to the titles already on the platforms that had shipped by that point; the stuff he had just immediately beforehand commented on saying that stuff would not get pulled from those platforms’ marketplaces.
Importantly…the Zenimax deal has nothing to do with the ABK deal. The deals were made for entirely different reasons and have different goals within MS’s broader plans. ABK was something that fell into their lap and was an opportunity they could not miss out on.
And the FTC would sue them if they feel MS lied to them about their plans. Odds are the FTC will force MS to put taht commitment into writing before the deal is allowed. Going back on that commitment isn’t going to be an option for MS. And the comments wrt Switch are about future titles. They can certainly port the new games to Switch if they want to. No need for cloud versions. If it is just the mobile version, that would not be out of place for a Switch version tbh.
Sorry but this is just you refusing to read the actual statements properly. They said they would continue to release future games on PSX and hoped to release future games on Switch too. I already demonstrated this very directly in my other post in the thread. You are honing in on the word ‘keep’ but their actual statements say they ‘will continue to make available’, i.e. they will continue to release new games on PSX. People shojld stop playing a game of telephone and read the actual statements for themselves. The statements DO NOT limit anything to existing releases as many here seem to be assuming. It is explicit.
They quite literally said this exact same thing wrt ABK several times. That statement refers to existing games already out on competing platforms.
I mean they literally stated the same in that blogpost we were arguing about 
And that’s why I am saying that mainline COD is gonna be exclusive (Warzone will be available still). But don’t want to discuss it anymore.
The more interesting question is, what is gonna happen with other acquisitions.
What about other studios? Let’s say IO will say that they want to make multiplatform games and do that Bungie deal with Xbox. What next?
What if Bethesda studios like Arkane would want to release their games on Playstation? And we know (allegedly) that Godd was opposing time exclusive deal, but Tango and Arkane accepted it (though Godd has always been Xbox/Sega fan so he will be ok with skipping Playstation after all he literally said 20 years ago that “PSX people are crying” regarding Virtua Fighter so he is one of us)
What if they acquire SEGA and Atlus will still ignore Xbox (similarly to Mojang)? Also Virtua Fighter is not on Xbox either.
They said more than just the statement about existing games…that is what everyone here is somehow ignoring. There are OTHER statements in the blog post that lay this bare. They commit therein explicitly to releasing NEW games in the future on PSX and hopefully Switch.
They literally said that they will make them available during contract duration and even in the future. They did not commit to new releases or publishing in their statements at all. It is literally the same wording about not pulling the content from Playstation platforms. We already went through this loop and agreed to disagree.
1 Like
No, they said MORE THAN THAT. The underlined is what you are referring to. That is NOT all that they committed to.
"We also recognize that regulators may well have other important questions as they review our acquisition of Activision Blizzard. We’re committed to addressing every potential question, and we want to address publicly at the outset two such questions here.
First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make popular content like Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users.
To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business."
The things I bolded/italicized above are explicitly future tense, referring to future games beyond the games Sony has their deal in place for.
1 Like
Well thats what Jim Ryan said
“The first thing to say unequivocally is that Bungie will stay an independent, multiplatform studio and publisher,” said Ryan. "Pete [Parsons, CEO] and I have spoken about many things over recent months, and this was one of the first, and actually easiest and most straightforward, conclusions we reached together.
"Everybody wants the extremely large Destiny 2 community, whatever platform they’re on, to be able to continue to enjoy their Destiny 2 experiences. And that approach will apply to future Bungie releases. That is unequivocal.
Also worth pointing out, “continue to enjoy” is in relation to an existing title for Playstation, where for Xbox “continue to enjoy” is allegedly for future titles.
Yeah, that was at the round table after the deal closed. Previously he said he couldn’t talk about it.
I’m currently not allowed to do that, that would be illegal. Your question is completely inbound, but I get a lot of questions right now: ‘is this game exclusive? Is this game exclusive?’ And right now, that is not my job in regards to ZeniMax. "
Hey if its not specific, its vague. Most gamers already know MS isn’t going to pull existing titles. They want to know about specific titles.
So contractual games, old games and dlc for old games. No new games?
Well maybe they’re being dumb now like they were before.
So already released games would continue to remain available?
Eh, whats past is prologue. Microsoft didn’t discuss exclusivity specifically until the deal was done and only committed they would continue to make Zenimax games available.
LOL So you believe the FTC will retaliate if the Switch port is too far removed from the Series X version?
Really? They never used the word future. Here is the actual terms
continue to be available… become available on Nintendo
Well that can apply to the PS5 version as well then can’t it.
No they didn’t .
Their statements don’t explictly confirm future games either, you made that up.
4 Likes
Did you read what I JUST quoted in my other post?
If ya wanna argue about Zenimax, feel welcome to DM me. That is not relevant to this thread.
1 Like
I genuinely think it could go either way, I wouldn’t be shocked if either option happens. I don’t blame anyone for thinking one way or another, this shit is a big shift in the industry we just don’t know what will happen. Desire, legacy, wish and all the other words that we’ve all looked into all different ways it has us crazy haha.
Like I’ve said a few times now, not matter what happens we still benefit from this massively so we’re in for an even better time going ahead. Talent and IP alone is massive because it means more games for us in GP and exclusive games 
1 Like
I did. You do realise you stating “they are explicitly talking about future games” isn’t actually evidence right? Just your own interpretation. The only mention of time in any sense was implication Sonys marketing deal - which will eventually expire - was a condition of “continued availability”
I do in fact believe their last major acquisition is significantly relevant to predict likely outcomes.