I always knew Phil is a liar, so this shouldn't have surprise me much. To me Microsoft just gave me more reason to no buy any of their products
PlayStation: Xbox's Call of Duty offer was "inadequate on many levels"
- Thread starter Eternal_Wings
- Start date
- Status
lol people worshipping CEOs are the worst. LinkedIn is the place for you
I love that people are bringing up Square Enix wit their ties to Sony. And if Sony buys them yes they get some IP's. But mainly JRPG'S, and FF which still pale in comparison to anything like Candy Crush, COD, Diablo.
Also SE doesn't put out a game every year, and a F2P game every year that generates billions per year. They have some mobile games and FF14 makes them a good chunk of change.
But it pales to the juggernaught that is COD.
And also I find it a little revisionist history when people bring up FF and Sony's tactics. It's like PS1 era never happened and Sony didn;t help court Japanese developers into the new age, and in creating demand in other countries through their brand/relationships across the globe.
Square's success can be attributed to the PS1-PS2 era where Sony helped them with their Platform become the publisher they are today. The only Publisher that Microsoft had something similar in relationship wise was Bethesda, and they own them now.
Perspective is something a lot of people on here lack.
Also SE doesn't put out a game every year, and a F2P game every year that generates billions per year. They have some mobile games and FF14 makes them a good chunk of change.
But it pales to the juggernaught that is COD.
And also I find it a little revisionist history when people bring up FF and Sony's tactics. It's like PS1 era never happened and Sony didn;t help court Japanese developers into the new age, and in creating demand in other countries through their brand/relationships across the globe.
Square's success can be attributed to the PS1-PS2 era where Sony helped them with their Platform become the publisher they are today. The only Publisher that Microsoft had something similar in relationship wise was Bethesda, and they own them now.
Perspective is something a lot of people on here lack.
Genuinely shocked Microsoft hasnt had a response yet. I really dont think they expected sony to air dirty laundry like that.
That list looks short as fuck, even without the needed comparison breakdown to all the individual companies that constitute Bethesda-ABK.
He said it was a "signed agreement", and for "AT LEAST several years". They also said that didn't want to remove CoD and other big ABK IPs from other platforms but instead to bring them to new ones even mentioning CoD for Switch or using Minecraft as example. They also said things to regulators that they wouldn't make CoD console exclusive because it would be unprofitable for them. Etc.
Of all the statements Phil and MS gave before UK probed and Jim decided to make it public, show me where they said that COD will be on PS in the future for a limited-time only.
They shared the agreement with Sony in January and kept implying that COD will forever be a multiplatform game.
Something tells me you won't be able to share that statement
If this were true, id have a PS Vita successor that is essentially a new PS4 OS sku (like psn's nerfed PS3 XMB), and all manner of BC games would be on PS+ tier, if not just the regular PStore to buy. Who the fuck said we wanted subscriptions and streaming?
Are you really trying to equate that (mostly support studios and AA studios) with Activision and Zenimax?
Can you be more dishonest?
Basically everything Philnochle said about Activision deal...
- The wanted to keep CoD multiplatform like Minecraft.
- They signed an agreement letter in January.
- At least several years.
- They want to bring CoD to others platforms.
But they not just lied to Sony... they lied to governamental regulators across the world.
Most don't like Jimbo but at least he come public this time to correct what is being told via marketing PR by MS.
Last edited:
His list is made by 80% of studios not having a IP... they are port and remaster companies.
Except Housemarque and Bungie... well Insomniac but all IPs they worked where owned by Sony with exception of Sunset Overdrive and Fuse.
I have no ideia he is trying to make with that list.
What they will say exactly? Forget the made up public claims... what is valid is what we talked with you Jimbo.
Yes, SE is smaller way than ABK and mostly have JRPGs. If Sony buys them would be to secure the JRPG genre for them and to don't depend on 3rd parties for RPGs. Plus SE is very successful at adapting their console IPs to mobile, something Sony wants to do so could learn from them and add their catalog to their new mobile publishing brand. They also have several IPs with proven value in cinema and anime, so could milk them there.
Unless MS goes dumb making everything from Bethesda and ABK exclusive, I'm pretty sure Sony would do the same with SE than they did with Bungie: to keep them exclusive only regarding game subs and to forbid exclusives for rival consoles but to allow them to continue publishing full multiplatform even on rival consoles using their own publisher label, as a fully owned SIE subsidiary separated from PS Studios.
SE generates $2,5B per year and is a profitable company because they release many successful games every year. They have the biggest selling RPG series and the current top grossing MMORPG in all platforms.
Compared to their competition and previous consoles PS1 did offer developers cheaper development costs, cheaper and faster manufacturing of games, and to get a bigger revenue cut for devs and retailers/stores while keeping the games cheaper for gamers. Similar happened with the console hardware: the retailers/stores got a way better revenue share than in the competition. PS1 quiclky got an insane market share.
Tons of devs supported PS and even made their games exclusives because it made business sense, not only because of moneyhats (that existed, in the same way Nintendo an Sega also moneyhatted games this or in previous generations).
Square (and) Enix already was super successful in NES and SNES and already were the kings of RPG. In fact proportionally they were bigger back then.
Square did dozens of exclusives for Sony, and not sure if ever did any for MS. Did Bethesda ever had a MS exclusive game or IP? Bethesda recently released 2 Sony exclusives and traditionally has been a multiplatform publisher.
Do you guys think Jim's statement and reaction has any possibility of derailing the deal entirely if an agreement isnt met upon?
I don't think so.
The deal will happen what is probably open is if regulators across the world will ask some concessions or not.
And that's exactly what happened.
And that's exactly what's happening.
No, they said they wouldn't exclusively retain Activision games. Most Activision games will be coming to most consoles, you can be sure of that.
- Status