PlayStation: Xbox's Call of Duty offer was "inadequate on many levels"

[CloudStrife]

There was ZERO lying and at no point in this thread has anyone provided a single example of anyone lying about this deal. None, no one.

He didn't lie per day.....but he knew exactly what he was doing in comparing what they plan to do with COD with how they handle Minecraft. His words were chosen very carefully to appease regulators in order to get this deal done. It was purposely worded to lead your mind in a certain direction.

He wanted everyone to believe that he has spoken with Sony, everyone is all good and on the same page and COD will remain on PS similar to Minecraft. Jim knew that was BS and chose to speak out.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Even SkillUp is taking potshots at Sony. Their crying is so fucking pathetic. Boo hoo....

Except he's kind of wrong. Sony didn't really "lock down" a ton of stuff from Japan during PS1 and PS2 gens, and we literally saw MANY Japanese studios take to the 360 that gen because of how bad the PS3 started off.

With PS1, it was kind of a perfect storm. Yes, Sony made some deals with Namco, Squaresoft, Eidos etc. ..but it's not like Sega and Nintendo made those deals very hard to be made. Sega pretty much screwed themselves with the 32X disaster, then pushing Saturn so soon afterwards, and Saturn development being a relative nightmare early on compared to the PS1, so that was already naturally pushing devs away from prioritizing the Saturn. Nintendo was not only (fashionably) late, but stuck with the cartridge format. You really think Squaresoft, who already had issues with Nintendo from the SNES/SFC era, were going to tolerate working with cartridges again when the competition had CDs capable of vastly more storage and Squaresoft being able to push their game design talents much further as a result?

And mind, I say that as someone who LIKES the Sega Saturn and N64 (the former more than the latter, but regardless). They're two of the best consoles ever made...but I call it like I see it. PS2 had quite a few of the same circumstances play out. Sony were riding off the PS1's success, even tho PS2 was notoriously difficult to work with for a long while. Sega once again screwed themselves up by not only NOT going with DVD, but also hiding the CD-ROM illegal boot code deep in the Dreamcast's own BIOS, as if no one was going to go looking for it! Nintendo, once again, late as usual and also skipped DVD for the oddest of reasons, and Xbox was literally an upstart, the new kid in town. Once again, the other platform holders all screwed up in some big ways themselves that naturally drove 3P developers to favor Sony's console, at least it had a certain healthy outlook and its business platform looked stable. Sony didn't have to go moneyhatting a ton of deals then: the other consoles were simply that low of a priority for 3P dev/pubs (publishers in particular) naturally.

Again, those consoles? Dreamcast, Gamecube, OG Xbox? Great consoles, but it is what it is. So I can't agree with dudes like SkillUp making posts like that without clarifying how things weren't exactly rosy with Sony's competitors in those generations, either. I get it's Twitter and the character limit, but just make...extra posts clarifying some things 'kay?

 

[On Demand]

When buying timed exclusives and exclusive content is compared to buying a whole publisher which removes games that was always multi platform, you know those people have no idea what they’re talking about and are just arguing to defend MS.

 

[Heisenberg007]

When buying timed exclusives and exclusive content is compared to buying a whole publisher which removes games that was always multi platform, you know those people have no idea what they’re talking about and are just arguing to defend MS.

Not to mention that Xbox also buys timed exclusive content. They have four timed exclusives releasing soon: High on Life, Warhammer, Scorn, Stalker 2.

 

[On Demand]

Not to mention that Xbox also buys timed exclusive content. They have four timed exclusives releasing soon: High on Life, Warhammer, Scorn, Stalker 2.

These deals are never brought up. Always a constant focus on what Sony is doing.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Jimbo exposed that Phil Spencer was lying in multiple places, that MS and Activision lied to the regulators from USA or Brazil (not sure if the UK too), and that Microsoft's president was even lying on tv.

I wonder what regulators are going to do now, because they were worried about CoD going exclusive after the existing deal with Activision. Seems MS offered to expand it for only 3 extra years more, and who knows under what conditions.

CoD represents a tiny percentage of Sony's game revenue (pretty likely under $1B out of their $25B aprox. per year) or game sales in PS (maybe around 10M or max. around 15M per year out of over 300M games sold for PS per year). Plus PS is in a multiyear growing pattern with a higher percentage growth higher than what CoD represents for them. Meaning that if they lose CoD they won't notice it because that growth will compensate it. Plus many PS users also own an Xbox or gaming PC so if PS loses CoD they wouldn't leave PS, they'd simply pay CoD in the other console. And other ones simply would move to other game if don't have CoD without leaving PS. Only a small portion of the around 10M who may buy CoD on PS would follow it and would leave PS.

So losing CoD won't mean a shit for PS, plus Sony has Destiny 2 plus are making new Bungie IPs and getting new IPs from the ex-Bungie guys and the ex-CoD guys, plus apparently is getting some other shooters from PS Studios internal teams.

I see where you're coming from but this particular line of thought you gotta be careful with it. Because by this logic, then Sony shouldn't care to be using COD as a chess piece in these hearings against MS at all. Especially if even when the smoke settles, COD adds little to the PS brand or revenue stream on its own.

IMO it's maybe a bit reductive to say COD means nothing to Sony or that losing COD won't have any effect; it WOULD mean less revenue and we also can't say for certain how much of that added revenue the PS division has been seeing, is coming from PS COD players who are branching out to other games, but still mainly rock COD and would potentially leave for another console if COD was in fact removed from PS, affecting overall PS revenue because those COD players leaving also may mean less of other 3P games selling in the ecosystem!

In fact, it's a very similar concern as to when I talk about potential Day-and-Date of non live-service 1P PS games on PC, you'd just replace "COD hardcore fans" with "PS hardcore fans" but it basically works out to the same argument. Again, I personally don't give a shit about COD; I've touched the series maybe once in 360 days, didn't bother afterwards, learned FPS games just weren't for me, and moved on.

But there are literally millions of people out there who disagree with you and I on that feeling; that's what MS's looking at and what Sony's looking at, too.

I provided links a shit tons of times on this thread about Phil Spencer, Microsoft, Microsoft's president and even the SEC filing mentioning about they wanting to keep CoD and the other big ABK IPs on PS, Phil the other day even specifying that mentioned Sony that would keep it there day one and fully featured "for AT LEAST several years (not 3) " and with a "signed agreement", that they "want to bring CoD to more platforms, not to less", even mentioning multiple times Minecraft as example, like did with the SEC. And also said regulators that they wouldn't make CoD console exclusive because it wouldn't be profitable for them. Their president even said on TV that they not only wanted to keep it on PS beyond their existing deal with Sony, but that they had plans to bring CoD to Switch!

They always said stuff like that. Absolutely never said that their plan was go console exclusive after the ABK+Sony deal ends and that if something they'd expand it three years more and who knows what conditions requested MS to do that. Go and check the gazillion other threads we have about this topic, you'll see posts from myself quoting a lot of sources showing several examples, here or in gaf. Won't search all of them again.

If what Jimbo says it's true MS, Phil and Microsoft's president clearly lied to multiple regulators, to their investors and to the customers.

Good points. It's getting dicey for Phil on this acquisitions dance floor. Time to bust out the mega-moves and break it down.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Jimbo exposed that Phil Spencer was lying in multiple places, that MS and Activision lied to the regulators from USA or Brazil (not sure if the UK too), and that Microsoft's president was even lying on tv.

I wonder what regulators are going to do now, because they were worried about CoD going exclusive after the existing deal with Activision. Seems MS offered to expand it for only 3 extra years more, and who knows under what conditions.

CoD represents a tiny percentage of Sony's game revenue (pretty likely under $1B out of their $25B aprox. per year) or game sales in PS (maybe around 10M or max. around 15M per year out of over 300M games sold for PS per year). Plus PS is in a multiyear growing pattern with a higher percentage growth higher than what CoD represents for them. Meaning that if they lose CoD they won't notice it because that growth will compensate it. Plus many PS users also own an Xbox or gaming PC so if PS loses CoD they wouldn't leave PS, they'd simply pay CoD in the other console. And other ones simply would move to other game if don't have CoD without leaving PS. Only a small portion of the around 10M who may buy CoD on PS would follow it and would leave PS.

So losing CoD won't mean a shit for PS, plus Sony has Destiny 2 plus are making new Bungie IPs and getting new IPs from the ex-Bungie guys and the ex-CoD guys, plus apparently is getting some other shooters from PS Studios internal teams.

Sony also sold like double the consoles and games subs than MS, so MS is way far from being a serious competitor for Sony. So if regulators look at the numbers they could think there's no problem for CoD going exclusive.

But what are the consequences for MS if they are caught lying to multiple regulators and their investors as just happened? Could the regulators stop and kill the acquisition because of that?


Jimbo wasn't crying, only did expose a loser who publicly lied about having signed an agreement with Sony that doesn't exist. And that loser also lied to regulators about plans with Sony that doesn't exist. So he had to say 'hey, this is a lie. They did offer this other thing instead, which is the opposite that what they want you to think'.

The amount is $1.37 billion to be precise.

 

[Loy310]

Jim had to come out and set the record straight, he had no choice because MS is basically using their “talk” with sony to say “see, we will work with the competition” to butter up regulators.
Jim being silent would aid ms in getting the acquisition passed because him being silent about phil’s offer would pretty much tell regulators that sie, xbox biggest competitor is ok with deal and acquisition.

 

[DynamiteCop]

Jim had to come out and set the record straight, he had no choice because MS is basically using their “talk” with sony to say “see, we will work with the competition” to butter up regulators.
Jim being silent would aid ms in getting the acquisition passed because him being silent about phil’s offer would pretty much tell regulators that sie, xbox biggest competitor is ok with deal and acquisition.

He didn't have to do anything, frankly it's unprofessional and none of his fucking business. His having a fit in public doesn't influence anything, these decisions happen realms beyond a bickering divisional President.

If I had to guess he already knows exactly where this is going, the approval is inevitable and is going scorched Earth because he's in every sense of the word butthurt. All of these companies and their views are already on record, this was just petty.

This is a personal vendetta against Xbox that not a single other competitor in the industry shares the views of Sony in. Their goal is to stifle competition and not be overtaken and they're saying and doing everything they can desperately trying to make that a reality.

As I said it's petty, it's also pathetic.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

He didn't have to do anything, frankly it's unprofessional and none of his fucking business. His having a fit in public doesn't influence anything, these decisions happen realms beyond a bickering divisional President.

If I had to guess he already knows exactly where this is going, the approval is inevitable and is going scorched Earth because he's in every sense of the word butthurt. All of these companies and their views are already on record, this was just petty.

This is a personal vendetta against Xbox that not a single other competitor in the industry shares the views of Sony in. Their goal is to stifle competition and not be overtaken and they're saying and doing everything they can desperately trying to make that a reality.

As I said it's petty, it's also pathetic.

Wow. Nice fan fiction

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The "other competitors" are 3P publishers and Nintendo. And let's be real, Nintendo has zero skin in this COD game, they couldn't care one way or the other.

Kind of disingenuous to make it seem like all of these other competitors are platform holders when only two of them are, and one of those two literally has nothing with COD anyway so they couldn't care less

 

[DynamiteCop]

The "other competitors" are 3P publishers and Nintendo. And let's be real, Nintendo has zero skin in this COD game, they couldn't care one way or the other.

Kind of disingenuous to make it seem like all of these other competitors are platform holders when only two of them are, and one of those two literally has nothing with COD anyway so they couldn't care less

These other competitors are the other biggest publishers in the world who some have products in direct competition, and still they didn't flinch and said it was fine.

All this comes down to is Sony resting on their laurels, and having nothing in their personal wheelhouse that not only reflects a Call of Duty style game but even really anything in the FPS genre.

They got lazy, they moved to the 3rd person cinematic genre and didn't bother to build something in the GaaS or multiplayer space themselves.

Microsoft isn't fucking them, their complacency and antequated need to put all their eggs in one basket is.

 

[Yobo]

He didn't have to do anything, frankly it's unprofessional and none of his fucking business. His having a fit in public doesn't influence anything, these decisions happen realms beyond a bickering divisional President.

If I had to guess he already knows exactly where this is going, the approval is inevitable and is going scorched Earth because he's in every sense of the word butthurt. All of these companies and their views are already on record, this was just petty.

This is a personal vendetta against Xbox that not a single other competitor in the industry shares the views of Sony in. Their goal is to stifle competition and not be overtaken and they're saying and doing everything they can desperately trying to make that a reality.

As I said it's petty, it's also pathetic.

Wipe away your tears, dude

 

[Yobo]

These other competitors are the other biggest publishers in the world who some have products in direct competition, and still they didn't flinch and said it was fine.

All this comes down to is Sony resting on their laurels, and having nothing in their personal wheelhouse that not only reflects a Call of Duty style game but even really anything in the FPS genre.

They got lazy, they moved to the 3rd person cinematic genre and didn't bother to build something in the GaaS or multiplayer space themselves.

Microsoft isn't fucking them, their complacency and antequated meed to put all their eggs in one basket is.

Why would other third party publishers complain about reduced competition? And argue against acquisition? All of them want the door open for acquisition possibilities

This is lirerally only a benefit to other publishers in this going ahead

 

[DynamiteCop]

Why would other third party publishers complain about reduced competition? And argue against acquisition? All of them want the door open for acquisition possibilities

This is lirerally only a benefit to other publishers in this going ahead

Because revenue poured into other games is revenue lost for another publisher. EA came out about their losses with Battlefield 2042 being the result of Halo Infinite releasing.

These large publishers are in direct competition fighting for your money. These large publishers have products which games like Call of Duty are in direct competition with, and yet none of them whined about this.

None of these companies whined about this, companies who are actually spending hundreds of millions in product investments with their own personal games which compete with games like Call of Duty.

Sony has nothing personally to stand in for this franchise, they have no personal involvement and that's their own fault. They're not even a competitor in this space, they don't exist, they're just freaking out about potential lost revenue from a product leaving their platform. They're only a store front, they don't do anything, they don't matter. They just want a free ride, and that ride is coming to an end.

Microsoft is giving them ample time to come up with something else before this series vacates their platform. That seems rather fair to me.

 

[Yobo]

Because revenue poured into other games is revenue lost for another publisher. EA came out about their losses with Battlefield 2042 being the result of Halo Infinite releasing.

These large publishers are in direct competition fighting for your money. These large publishers have products which games like Call of Duty are in direct competition with, and yet none of them whined about this.

None of these companies whined about this, companies who are actually making hundreds of millions in product investments with their own personal products which compete with games like Call of Duty.

Sony has nothing personally to stand in for this franchise, and that's their own fault. They're not even a competitor in this space, they don't exist, they're just freaking out about potential lost revenue from a product leaving their platform. They're only a store front, they don't matter.

Microsoft is giving them ample time to come up with something else before this series vacates their platform. That seems rather fair to me.

Because COD going to Xbox reduces competition and opens up opportunity for those third party publishers especially on Playstation where there will be a gap in the market. How hard is it for you to grasp that third party publishers would absolutely love that Activision is being taken out of direct competition?

And Sony has the second biggest FPS franchise of the past decade

 

[DynamiteCop]

Because COD going to Xbox reduces competition and opens up opportunity for those third party publishers especially on Playstation where there will be a gap in the market. How hard is it for you to grasp that third party publishers would absolutely love that Activision is being taken out of direct competition?

And Sony has the second biggest FPS franchise of the past decade

So other publishers would fill CoD's void on PlayStation... So what's the problem? You see, Sony can't win this argument because if there is a vacuum it will be filled regardless.

Lmao please, a loot shooter is barely even an FPS let alone a real game.

 

[Yobo]

So other publishers would fill CoD's void on PlayStation... So what's the problem? You see, Sony can't win this argument because if there is a vacuum it will be filled regardless.

Lmao please, a loot shooter is barely even an FPS let alone a real game.

Do you understand what moving the goalposts is? First you argue that other publishers not complaining somehow validates the acquisition, and now when shown how illogical that is you switch to other devs filling the void. Make it make sense

Nobody cares for your arbitrary definitions. Generic military FPS stuck in 2007 game design are barely even an FPS let alone a real game.

 

[Shmunter]

J

He didn't have to do anything, frankly it's unprofessional and none of his fucking business. His having a fit in public doesn't influence anything, these decisions happen realms beyond a bickering divisional President.

If I had to guess he already knows exactly where this is going, the approval is inevitable and is going scorched Earth because he's in every sense of the word butthurt. All of these companies and their views are already on record, this was just petty.

This is a personal vendetta against Xbox that not a single other competitor in the industry shares the views of Sony in. Their goal is to stifle competition and not be overtaken and they're saying and doing everything they can desperately trying to make that a reality.

As I said it's petty, it's also pathetic.

Jim mobilizing the Playstation Nation. Things are going to get spicy out there.

 

[Shmunter]

These other competitors are the other biggest publishers in the world who some have products in direct competition, and still they didn't flinch and said it was fine.

All this comes down to is Sony resting on their laurels, and having nothing in their personal wheelhouse that not only reflects a Call of Duty style game but even really anything in the FPS genre.

They got lazy, they moved to the 3rd person cinematic genre and didn't bother to build something in the GaaS or multiplayer space themselves.

Microsoft isn't fucking them, their complacency and antequated need to put all their eggs in one basket is.

There is truth to this. Sony has neglected segments they previously embraced. Killzone, Resistance, MAG, Driveclub, Motorstorm - not to mention the more arty and adventure genres. That is shameful and deserves backlash. But this is a different conversation.