[The Verge] Microsoft will keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for ‘several more years’ beyond existing deal
- Thread starter John Elden Ring
- Start date
Not needed, because he already said that future CoD games will continue on PS releasing on launch day with the same content to regulators and investors using Minecraft as example and can't lie to them specially in legal documents.
They said basically that the IPs that were on PS will continue there and that their plans for Bethesda weren't exclusivity but instead multiplatform and timed exclusivity ("first, best or better") because their main goal with buying Bethesda was to get content for GP, not to remove games from other platforms.
Probably meaning that Starfield will be a timed exclusivity or that IPs like Doom or Elder Scrolls, which already are on PS will continue with its new games on PS, while their new IPs may be (at least timed) console exclusives.
Seems that some of you don't know how to read or can't accept facts.
Phil Spencer (and the President of MS) said CoD will continue multi releasing their next games on PS. Also specified that on launch day and with the same content and at least several years more after the deals they have with Sony and did use Minecraft as example (which released all its console games and dlc on PS). They even did it with regulators, and said to regulators it won't go exclusive because it wouldn't be profitable for them.
You won't see a console exclusive CoD during at least this gen (they can't say "forever" because MS doesn't know if in the next gen or in the other one there will be PS or Xbox consoles).
Last edited:
Sorry I can't take you seriously because you STILL believe Starfield is coming to Playstation.
Sorry I can't take you seriously because you STILL believe that their CFO lied when said that their plans weren't exclusivity but instead multiplatform and timed exclusives.Sorry I can't take you seriously because you STILL believe Starfield is coming to Playstation.
We saw publish all their console games on PS but still have to know what are their timed exclusives. So I assume that if Redfall and Starfield are exclusive as they will be, pretty likely will be timed console exclusives.
Seems the UK regulator mentioned about Starfield, so MS may reply them about it.
The only person I've seen that STILL is holding on to it. Lol you are the best man. I hope you never give up hope.
Devs must be salivating right now calling up Jim pitching ideas for an online shooter.
Sie should be funding every pitch that looks promising. A platform without COD leave the door open for smaller fps shooters to rise up not having to compete with cod on that platform. Combine that with Bungie who should not be overlooked and sie have a shot at their own gaas shooter. If MS makes cod exclusive even tho Bungie is independent it won't be too hard for sie to convince them to start making their games exclusive to PS, and in that case i can't see Bungie saying "nah".
Sie should be funding every pitch that looks promising. A platform without COD leave the door open for smaller fps shooters to rise up not having to compete with cod on that platform. Combine that with Bungie who should not be overlooked and sie have a shot at their own gaas shooter. If MS makes cod exclusive even tho Bungie is independent it won't be too hard for sie to convince them to start making their games exclusive to PS, and in that case i can't see Bungie saying "nah".
So you want them to make contracts based on games they may not own and then comment on those contracts publicly.. otherwise it’s “just talk”.
Shame in business an agreement would have to benefit both parties. Dont know what cave some of yall crawl out of but MS did not get to where they are by offering up stupid irrational infantile deals like the one you fantasizing about.
They are the one saying they signed an agreement lolSo you want them to make contracts based on games they may not own and then comment on those contracts publicly.. otherwise it’s “just talk”.
Let's say each CoD sells around slightly above 10M copies on PS. That means around 90% PS active users don't buy CoD. Last FY there were 303.2M PS games sold, so the sales that a yearly CoD makes across several years it's around a 3% of the PS game sales in a single year (so sales of this game for a single year should be smaller).
And this is not counting F2P games in PS, which has monsters like Fortnite, Genshin Impact, Apex Legend and so on. And also not counting the revenue Sony gets from add-ons (DLC, IAP, season passes) from monsters like FIFA and so on. And also not counting the revenue that Sony gets from game subs.
So pretty likely CoD represents way under 1% of the game revenue that Sony gets. SIE has a multi year growth pattern higher than that, so they wouldn't notice to lose CoD. There is also a big percentage of PS users who also have XB or PC gaming, so wouldn't leave PS and could simply play CoD there. Plus there are many other super successful shooters on PS, so part of the current PS CoD players instead of playing CoD elsewhere they could play other shooters or any other games.
To keep CoD outside PS wouldn't damage Sony. It would only mean that MS would lose around a third of the revenue that CoD generates. On top of the revenue they'll lose on PC and XB for including it day one on GP so losing a ton of sales. To keep CoD outside PS would damage more MS than Sony, this is why they'll keep it multiplatform.
If Jimbo keeps CoD on PS then cool, it's better for Sony. If not they won't care because outside a few noisy guys on forums their Sony gaming business will continue growing.
It could be simply a signed letter or mail saying that they want to do or that intend to do whatever, with no consequences in case that they don't achieve what is said there.They are the one saying they signed an agreement lol
Both Phil and Jim know that CoD will continue releasing on PS because it's the best option for MS. To include brand new AAA games on a game sub of 25M subbers is already too unprofitable but could be understood as a long term investment to grow GP, and could even make sense if they keep selling the game and still have a profitable business. But to stop selling on the platform that is their main revenue source would be plain stupid, it would be a financial disaster.
Bungie is 100% owned and controlled by SIE, who allows them to continue publishing under their own publishing label in all platforms and -as happens with their PS Studios- to have creative freedom.
PS is not short of shooters. They have Destiny 2 and future Bungie IPs, Fortnite, Apex Legends, CoD, Battlefield, Rainbow Six, Far Cry, Splitgate and so on. You could even include GTA there. And at least most of them or their publishers have PS as their top grossing platform, so won't move from there, including CoD because their publishers prefer profitability over what 4 fanboys say in forums.
Sony has a couple of 2nd party games from top ex-Bungie, ex-CoD, ex-Apex Legends, ex-Rainbow Six etc. that pretty likely will be shooters. This and buying Bungie is all they needed to do to secure well their shooters area. They have all the top shooters in the market supporting them. Halo and Gears aren't what they were, Halo Infinite is a flop.
The top grossing platform for shooter is PlayStation, this is why MS made the desperate move of paying almost $100B to own CoD, Doom, Quake or Wolfenstein to put them on GP even if they won't make them exclusive, because it wouldn't be worth it. The desperate one to catch the leader here is MS, not Sony.
Last edited:
That is why I said to put in a contract if they are really honest about it…
If not it just talk talk from Uncle Phil that always promises never delivers.
I mean they don't have choice anyway, FTC wouldn't have allow the Acti purshace, also COD without Playstation will just cut more than half sales.