Why are you lying?
The when in this post means you were saying exactly that. Stop lying.
Microsoft - it ‘simply wouldn’t be profitable’ to make Call of Duty Xbox exclusive
- Thread starter Shmunter
- Start date
- Status
Some examples of they saying CoD will continue on PS, in addition to the message in the OP:
Phil Spencer: "I confirmed our intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation"
Microsoft president: “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,”
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23231931/539920386.jpg)
Microsoft is keeping Call of Duty on PlayStation because it wants more Minecrafts
It seems similar to Microsoft’s Minecraft acquisition.
www.theverge.com
"Microsoft also reiterates its intent to keep Call of Duty and other "popular Activision Blizzard franchises" on PlayStation consoles" https://www.windowscentral.com/gami...e-unfounded-will-keep-abk-games-multiplatform
P
peter42O
Guest
In no way, shape or form does this mean new and future COD releases. Doesn't imply it at all. Their desire to keep COD on PlayStation is what has already been released and whatever games are contracted for. Think about it - COW MW 2 releases on October 28th and Warzone 2 afterwards. If Microsoft leaves those games on PlayStation which they will as they won't delist any of them, then their desire to keep COD on PlayStation is fulfilled. And of course, all previously released COD games.
It's amazing how the wording is almost identical to that of Bethesda and yet, no one is reading between the lines or grasping what they're truly saying. Keeping COD on PlayStation and releasing new future COD main line games on PlayStation ARE two very different things.
But again and like I did with Bethesda, I will stay with my original prediction.
Agreed, it’s very similar to Bethesda.
I’d expect once the existing contract is fulfilled, CoD will stop coming to PlayStation. Expect WarZone to continue to be supported and get updates, sort of like ESO.
Reading between the lines was appropriate with the purely PR speak around the Bethesda purchase. There's a difference between that and commitments made to the FTC, CADE, etc. It could be you're simply smarter than the average bear, but I prefer to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude. First, the deal has to get past regulators and close. Another point is that despite all the MS is a wealthy company rhetoric, they didn't get that way by making poor financial decisions. Game sales, MTX, etc. being removed from PS would be a stupid financial decision. Banking on such a decision compelling all those people to buy into the MS ecosystem simply to play CoD would also be foolish.
If anyone wants a laugh, you should check out the resetera thread on this. It's 30 pages of "Sony bad" and how Microsoft is the "good guy".
OP
OP
OP
OP
The whole site must’ve gotten Xbox’s after Jim asked employees to respect each other’s beliefs
The whole site must’ve gotten Xbox’s after Jim asked employees to respect each other’s beliefs
As they should. Imagine expecting people to behave in a professional, mature manner in the workplace. What an insane idea.
They obviously aren't talking about delisting old games. They are talking about future games. Read the OP, MS mentions there the reasons of why CoD will continue being multiplatform. Their revenue that comes from PS is so big that it wouldn't be profitable to don't release CoD games on PS. To delist old games in PS that don't sell anymore wouldn't change anything for their profitability.
Same goes with Bethesda. Notice that all games and dlcs released by Zenimax (not only Bethesda) since the acquisitions are in PlayStation and none of them is Xbox exclusive. In Zenimax's case there was a small difference in their message: The MS gaming division (formerly Xbox) CFO said their plan for Bethesda wasn't console exclusivity but focusing instead on 'first on or best on Xbox/GP platforms'. Meaning that in addition to multiplatform they'd also have timed console exclusivities.
When talking about keeping game multis, sometimes for Zenimax and ABK they mentioned 'big existing franchises' wouldn't be removed from the platforms where they already are. Which I assume they could make their new IPs exclusive and keep exclusive the not big existing IPs. But well, who knows. We'll see.
See the message above where the Microsoft president says: “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,”
He even mentioned in that interviews plans to bring ABK games like CoD to Switch.
Last edited:
If that’s your prediction, then mine will be: CoD becoming exclusive to Xbox will lead to the franchise losing the remaining relevance it has.
P
peter42O
Guest
Nothing wrong with making a prediction. Even without PlayStation, COD will still be one of the biggest games out there and one of the biggest platforms out there. By 2024, it would be current gen only and the only platform they would be losing out on is PlayStation 5 but they'll have Xbox Series X/S, Xbox One via streaming, PC via Windows 10 Store, Steam and I wouldn't be surprised if they go on Epic Game Store as well.
One reason why I see it being exclusive is because I don't see or believe that Microsoft will keep COD yearly nor should they. They're not going to have 10+ studios working on only COD every year when those studios can do so much more. My prediction is that Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games run COD platform as well as Warzone 2 while the rest simply move on which they should.
They will simply add campaigns, maps and modes within the COD 2024 platform game. Think Rainbow Six Siege where they just keep adding to the game.
We'll know for sure in about 22 months from now.
P
peter42O
Guest
The only games that PlayStation has or will ever receive from Bethesda is Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo due to contracts which Microsoft isn't going to break. As for DLC and whatnot, that's from two games - The Elder Scrolls Online and Fallout 76. Both of which were never going to be removed and are the equivalent of what Warzone 2 will end up being.
I'm curious though, do you actually believe that PlayStation is getting Starfield and their other future games?
Just out of curiosity: what consequences do you expect the most overvalued corporation of all time, with lobbyists in every federal US commitee (including the FTC), as well as quite a few institutions overseas, to face?
All post acquisition Zenimax console releases have been released on PS: not only Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo, but also Quake Remastered and their DLCs/expansions for games like not only ESO and Fallout 76. I may miss some other ones.
But until now there's an amount of zero Zenimax (not only Bethesda) Xbox console games. They are following what the Xbox CFO said about their plans not being exclusivity, but instead to get their games on GP and their games "first or best" on their platform. But until now we saw all their games released on PS, still no console timed exclusive.
I think Redfall and Starfield won't be released on PS at launch, as MS said. But also think that they may (or may not) announce and release it for PS a year or two after launch specially if they don't sell enough on Xbox and PC and/or don't push enough new GP subscriptions. I assume that like with Minecraft and ABK they may consider that to keep exclusive won't help them against PS so may end releasing them -at least Starfield- to don't leave money on the table.
I think it's also possible that this talk about not removing the bought big IPs from the competition may only cover the IPs already published on PS or Switch. So according to this theory, new dlcs and games from Doom, Quake, Fallout, Wolfestein, Elder Scrolls etc would continue on PS (maybe some of them with a timed console exclusivity) while new IPs like Starfield or Redfall (plus their sequels and dlcs) would be -at least timed- console exclusive.
Nothing stops MS from saying "we bought this studio and all their future games will be Xbox console exclusives forever", but isn't what they said and I don't see why they would have to lie beyond announcing a game is launching only on a console and some time later announcing it for another one. Because one thing is lying to players, and another thing is to lie to their investors, market analysts and specially regulators / governments from all around the world about the strategy for a company they are acquiring. They may get in serious trouble.
Same goes with CoD, if they say they'll continue supporting PS beyond their deals with Sony it's because they'll do it. They are far from having a monopoly or even becoming market leaders so they won't have any issues with regulators, same as if they would have said that CoD and the (less relevant for the market) all the future Zenimax stuff would become exclusive once they complete the signed deals.
I don't get why some people get dramatic or act as surprised: it's well known that Sony, MS or Apple pay for exclusives for their game subs. In the same way Sony, Nintendo and MS also pay to get game exclusives (sometimes timed or console) for their consoles.
Last edited:
Doubt it. Everything that becomes an Xbox exclusive dies. It won’t be different with CoD.
P
peter42O
Guest
You'll get remasters on PS5 of old games like Quake or Skyrim when it gets remastered for the millionth time but new games releasing for the first time, Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo are basically all that PS5 will ever get. PS5 will never get Starfield or any other new Bethesda game release. Only reason Microsoft even honors contracts is so once they're done, they can keep everything exclusive meaning that they'll play nice by honoring contracts because they know exactly what they will be doing once contracts are legally completed. The only new games they've released has been Deathloop and Tokyo which we've known since 2020 that Sony was getting first. And what other DLC for games that aren't TESO or F76? There aren't any. How could there be? They haven't released anything else. LOL. If you want to count a remaster of a 20 year old game like Quake to where you think that PS5 may get Starfield and other future games, that's up to you.
Microsoft doesn't directly say that future games will be exclusive for two reasons - first and foremost is that they don't own ABK yet so legally, they have no authority with them until they actually own them and second, look at your posts and others here. Microsoft PR is basically telling all of you what you want to hear.
Just an observation but one thing that I do find coincidental and funny at the same time is that PS5 got Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo post close from Bethesda while PS5 will get Diablo IV and Warzone 2 post close from ABK. I find it funny that it's two games post close for both acquisitions.
- Status