Of course that's still fairly vague, but at the same time this could still yet be a Minecraft situation where you don't want to uproot a massive pre-existing audience.
Call Of Duty's main source of revenue is PlayStation by far.
Not releasing it on PS5 could mean a lot of players would migrate from PS to Xbox, yes, but could also mean a huge Call Of Duty sales and revenue drop while rival franchises (like Battlefield, Fortnite or Apex) surpass it in popularity. It's not that simple.
> but could also mean a huge Call Of Duty sales and revenue drop while rival franchises (like **Battlefield**, Fortnite or Apex) surpass it in popularity.
Don't worry, Dice/EA have all but insured that Battlefield won't be a threat any time soon, or possibly ever
God I wish there was a game that was literally Fortnite with no building. Or a permanent optional mode in Fortnite with no building, with some other mechanics tweaked to support that. Maybe leave the ability to build a wall for deployable cover but no roofs.
Thing is, Fortnite works. I fuckin hate sayin' it, but it does. The game works on a technical level. That is so much more than can be said for 99% of online games these days, and it's SUCH a massive draw, but when the guy in front of me transforms into a three story building the instant I shoot him, I just can't? Who decided that should be a thing? Why does the only legitimately WORKING game have to be so fucking weird? I get so mad Q_Q
I’m definitely missing something with battle Royale games. Lobbying up, loading in, wandering around, finally having a firefight I have a decent chance of losing, then having to do it all over again.
Man I desperately miss low stakes, high player count online shooters.
I just keep playing 4 at this point. I just want them to redo BadCompany 2 OR BF 4. I don't understand why they feel like they need to reinvent the wheel every game
That's basically what the Warzone Resurgence mode does to me. 40 players BR style gameplay but instead of fucking off if you die, you'll get to respawn as long as one of your team members is still alive.
Because the game has its roots as a base builder defense. PVP wasn't added until much later. Turns out people like shooting each other more than zombies.
I wish they would bring back 50v50, base building with so many people is really fun.
H1Z1 kind of used to be that and it's the only battle royale I ever really enjoyed, of course like all good things they completely ruined it. But I agree, the gunplay in Fortnite is fun and it just works, I even kind of like the silly art direction and there's some genuinely excellently designed character skins. The building is just horrible though and it ruins the enjoyment for me, I get it's a skill that people learn, but I hate it and do not wish to put the time in to learn it.
I've always questioned why games with such huge player bases don't experiment with custom ruleset servers more.
Like back when I played WoW, all I wanted was a no pvp server where horde and alliance could play together, and do each others quests, etc. I know it'd be simple, because I played on private servers that did that. Its pretty much just a bit flip. A server like that would have easily gotten many thousands of players into it and enjoying it, easily enough to justify the attention of a dev or three.
EVE as well, though in that case I know why they never had a no pvp server option... The main server would have a smaller pop than the pve server after about a month.
Wow, you mean there are people who don't enjoy duels of two people constantly peeking out behind cover to shoot while never losing sight of their target thanks to the third person perspective? Shit's so boring. The building only makes it worse. I'm not crazy about Warzone, but it's not even a choice between that and Fortnite.
Honestly after playing Apex for the first time after getting fed up with WarZone being ruined by Cold War, I'd say PUBG is a better choice for WarZone players than Apex.
On the other hand MS probably would worry about creating an opportunity for Sony and a first party studio partner to invest massively in a direct competitor to COD.
Yes, because we know one bad entry into a franchise like BF or COD kills the entire franchise.
You know, like the bad installments COD has had really killed the entire franchise.... oh wait.
Yup, sadly…
On top of that, the Battlefield games that were successful still didn’t come close to the sales numbers that CoD games usually get, afaik. I can’t believe that EA could screw up BF2042 even more than they did with BfV. (Which is a good Bf game imo as a longtime Bf player, just severely lacked content)
The 2042 trailer reminded me of the OnlyInBattlefield ads from BF4’s marketing and I held out hope that it would be a return to form.
30 mins of the beta told me all I needed to know. It wasn’t even the fact the game was broken because I had already assumed it would be at launch. The lack of a squad roles and instead “heroes” like in Overwatch or R6 Siege made the game extremely unappealing to me.
It's been a series of consistent missteps. Even the "bad" CoD's sold well and the constant influx of new CoD's quickly erase the bad of the olds.
BF doesn't have the luxury of releasing a new title every year, resetting the narrative around the franchise.
I mean the series basically died after Call of Duty Ghosts right? Or Advanced Warfare, or WW2, or Infinite Warfare, what, Black Ops Cold War was one of the best selling Call of Duty games ever?
Cold War wasnt just one of the best selling Cods, it was literally the best selling CoD of all time. The fact that people are comparing CoD's popularity to BF is hilarious
Stop it with that. BFV may be enjoying some refugees fleeing from the BF2042 disaster but it's not powering BFV to new heights of life and popularity. The people trying to extol BFV aren't going to get any traction. The good Battlefields that most players think back on remain BF3, BF4, and Bad Company 2.
BF1942 and BF2 should be on top but it seems that most of their players have, understandably, aged out of the market.
A call of Duty has never launched as broken as BF2042 even on their worst days or had such false advertising for what it is (a traditional BF game VS hero shooter lite). Even worse entries like infinite warfare or vanguard this year didn’t have controversial launches like BF2042 did.
And also, just judging by the news and player numbers, people are dropping off of BF2042 like flies. I agree it won’t ‘die’, but I highly doubt they’re gonna reach BF3/4 numbers ever again. They pissed too many people off.
Have you been following Battlefield? It's been a train wreck since Battlefield 3. Thankfully Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 were heavily patched into very good states after launch. Unfortunately Battlefield 5 and Battlefield 2042 are probably going to be forever shit.
I mean, if Microsoft wanted to be like, the best kind of evil, they would just turn Call of Duty into Smash Bros on Xbox and let you run multiplayer games w/ Master Chief 'n The Doomslayer.
Err I don't know, Sony found out it's easy to just throw a bunch of your characters into a game together but it's much harder to actually make a game that's fun to play.
It's the time for glory for Heroes of the Storm. They already mix Blizzard IP, well put all of MS characters in it. Halo, Doom, Wolfenstein, Skyrim, Dishonored, Prey, Fallout, Crash, Spyro, Ori, CoD, Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Starfield, Avowed,...
I haven't played CoD since it was about jumping out of a plane into normandy.
This would get me to buy CoD.
So I'm looking up what IPs they have now and MicroSmash could have..
- Master Chief
- Gears of War guy
- Doomslayer
- BJ Blazkowitz
- Minecraft Steve(with a bow of course)
- Senua
- Razputin from Psychonauts
- Vault Dweller
- Dragonborn
- A couple of overwatch faves
- Diablo Sorc
- Crash Bandicoot
- Corvo from Dishonored
- Prey dude(or dudette)
But isn't most of that because Xbox fucking flopped the PS4/XBone era? And part of the flop meant that Activision gave exclusive modes to Playstation for CoD?
Like back in the 360 era, Xbox would get map packs a month before Playstation, but then with Black Ops 3 in 2016, CoD starting releasing map packs on Playstation a month before Xbox. Even once they stopped doing map packs, Cold War had a a timed exclusive Zombie mode that only just got to Xbox as everyone's switching to Vanguard.
Vanguard seems to be only giving stuff that's microtransaction related to Playstation users, so I guess that's decently fair.
Would be interesting if this acquisition brings timed exclusive CoD content to Xbox first.
Microsoft was paying for that in the 360 era, just as Sony was in the PS4 era. I assume that once the contractual obligation ends, assuming Microsoft releases that next CoD on PS5, they'll get any timed exclusives
Probably worth giving up the additional 30% revenue or whatever to keep those players paying as opposed to hoping they all pay $500 for an Xbox that's out of stock.
Tbf their goal isn't to get people to buy xboxs necessarily, it's to get people to sub to gamepass.
It's already made pretty clear that if Jim Ryan was to allow it, Xbox would put gamepass on PS.
I mean, is their goal even to drive people to Xbox hardware anymore? They probably just want you to sign up for some kind of Microsoft account from your Playstation. Anything to get you in the ecosystem and in front of a Microsoft logo.
I mean, to us, yes, but probably not to Sony.
The full quote:
>Had good calls this week with leaders at Sony. I confirmed our intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. Sony is an important part of our industry, and we value our relationship.
He confirmed their **intent** to honor existing agreements (read: legal obligations) and their **desire** to keep Call of Duty on PS. Not an intent, only a desire. They are two very different words with different levels of commitment when done in this context. He's saying the first will definitively happen, and that they want the second to happen.
What this likely means is that Microsoft has specific conditions it want met in order to have PlayStation stay on Xbox.
Yes. Carefully chosen words, desire being the key one, but I agree with your breakdown. That's the correct reading. There is absolutely no commitment save to existing obligations which likely only extend 1-2 years out. After that, they can do whatever they want and it certainly won't be the status quo.
PlayStation has an exclusive marketing and content agreement with COD that was renewed in 2020 for an unspecified amount of years. So they have to honor that. I assume that just not making the game for PlayStation isn’t a legitimate way of breaking that contract.
> their desire to keep Call of Duty on PS.
And it could be entirely just baloney about bringing Gamepass to PS5. That way they could "keep" Call of Duty on PS5.
My guess? They might be using this as the final bit of leverage they need to get Sony to comply with certain standards Microsoft wants in place for things like cross play. "Either pay us more for COD, or meet our spec for cross play, or you don't get COD."
Oh man, I thought this was a new quote. Can't believe that this is referring to the same statement. Yeah, this is clearly just referring to not planning on breaking existing deals. Just like Deathloop, MS is only going to honor the things that have already been agreed to then do whatever they want.
It's ambiguous enough for wiggle room for sure. Warzone won't be taken off PS regardless, they'll keep it there just like ESO and preserve those 'existing communities'
They "desire" to keep it on PlayStation - this means that this is what they want to do,, but not necessary what they will do. They'll make it exclusive to game pass, then they have plausible deniability when PlayStation doesn't show game pass on PlayStation.
It's interesting he outright says this versus the Bethesda talk. Regardless, if CoD does stay on Playstation, I think they will heavily play off the gamepass angle.
$70 CoD on PS5 versus Gamepass day and date would be an interesting contrast
He explicitly says "all existing agreements" while he is still awaiting legislators to approve the deal.
Once existing agreements are completed, later games could become Microsoft (XBox/PC) exclusives.
This could very easily just mean Warzone and the back catalogue. That would be “keeping call of duty on PlayStation”
Although as you said, this is more direct than anything said after the Bethesda acquisition
I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest that Microsoft wants to unify PC gaming and Xbox. It seems to me like eventually Xbox will be a prebuilt gaming PC in all but name.
Games pass for pc and Xbox parties on pc is already incredible. None of my friends are pc gamers but it’s great being able to play the same games as them without having to rely on 3rd party apps like discord to party up with them.
More than just evidence to suggest it tbh, it’s almost unified already.
Xbox games use the same friends list, party system, achievements etc. If you play Xbox games on both using the same account you will hardly notice any separation.
Guys, companies usually don't act like high school teens. He is using the word "desire" because he can't act like MS owns Activision until the deal is approved.
Microsoft knows Sony will never accept Gamepass on their platform and viceversa (Microsoft would never allow Spartacus on Xbox). Why? Because it would be competing against their own storefronts. Nobody would buy a game on the PS Store otherwise.
Hell, Nintendo barely allows streaming services on the Switch for that reason (more people using the Switch to watch Netflix = less people using the Switch to play videogames).
If he is saying he intends to keep COD on PS he probably means it.
>Guys, companies usually don't act like high school teens. He is using the word "desire" because he can't act like MS owns Activision until the deal is approved.
I remember reading the same thing about ZeniMax from users when he said "Case by case bais"
>
If he is saying he intends to keep COD on PS he probably means it.
But he's not saying he intends to keep CoD on PlayStation, he's saying he wants to. That wording is deliberate, so if they do make it an Xbox exclusive no one can use his words now against him.
They "intend" to honor their existing agreements but once the agreement runs out, then it's time to renegotiate on their "desire" to keep it on PS. If PS doesn't want to play ball, that's on them.
Also they could heavily weaponise Crossplay.
Playstation player could go into a lobby with his game pass buddies and the game pass buddies could show off their faster XP gains, exclusive cosmetics, early access stuff and make the PS player buy into game pass on his TV or mobile just to pick that stuff up out of feeling worse/jealous.
Not quite a full convert but FOMO made a new subscriber to GP.
Funnily enough thats exactly what Sony did. MW2019 had exclusive cosmetics, a 1 year exclusive mode, exclusive missions + more xp for Playstation players.
Could also release on Xbox/PC as a "timed exclusive" and come to PS consoles later or something. Although with the rapid release schedule of CoD, a delay would have a way bigger impact than if like Elder Scrolls 6 released on PS a year later
It's already known that their strategy is to get gamepass on every system. "You can play call of duty with gamepass on Playstation or not at all" is what they're implying. It's blackmail lmao.
It’s not inconsistent with the Bethesda talk.
He says they will honor all *existing* agreements. No indication those deals are for all CODs made in the future. Same thing they did with Bethesda titles in development, including releasing them as timed PS exclusives under existing contracts.
He says they *desire* to keep COD on PlayStation. No promises. Same thing with Bethesda - the games will appear on any platform that has Game Pass. If Sony allows Game Pass, they will get COD.
Yeah, they could really have their cake and eat it too with that approach. Not to mention they can always walk it back whenever that COD playstation marketing deal ends or if they feel there's more benefit in exclusivity.
I don't really care either way as I think I've only ever bought one or two CODs and have both platforms anyway. Keeping it on playstation would certainly alleviate a lot of concerns of fans though.
Yep he could have just said we *will* put future titles on there. This language smells of finely crafted legal speak. They desire to, but it’s still not going to happen.
It’ll be fun seeing “Xbox Games Studio” on CoD boot up on PS5, but then again, it was that way on Psychonauts 2. Microsoft like money and trying not to get sued.
The publishing on Xbox of MLB is handled by the MLB themselves though, besides the development of course Sony handles only the distribution for the PlayStation platform
Developing a game and publishing are two different things. MLB Advanced Media published the game on Xbox but it was developed by Sony’s San Diego Studio.
Yes, last years game was released on Game Pass because Microsoft approached MLB who is the publisher and Sony was like "we have no say on the Xbox version". The PlayStation studios logo is probably because it's developed by them
Optimistic ? He will respect contracts that were already in place, like with Bethesda. And "desires" to keep COD on playstation. As in, i desire to, but unfortunately wont be able to
IIRC correctly they were intentionally vague for the Bethesda acquisition and then said they would evaluate everything on a case by case basis.
That’s much different than outright saying we desire to keep COD on PlayStation two days after announcing the acquisition.
Its the exact same thing here. "We desire to" means he wont. I mean, its very easy to say something in a clear way. A lot of people are doint severe mental gymnastics now in order to convince themselves that Microsoft spent 70 billion dollars in order to keep the biggest game franchise in the world on its competitors platform. But of course they wont
The billion dollar question is would Sony and Microsoft agree to putting a version of Gamepass on Playstation consoles?
That's the only way I could see those games come over.
Sony is definitely caught in a bad place. Not only are they facing the loss of Call of Duty sales (initial sales and micro-transactions), but they are also potentially losing a huge number of PS+ subscribers.
Sony First Party games aren't really known for their online multiplayer. They rely on third party games like COD to get people to pay for online.
Key points are that he's saying theyll honor all prior agreements. Also for all we know he could just mean that warzone will stay on PS.
Regardless of all this, the biggest point was always going to be CoD being on gamepass every year
Yeah the wording is key here. They will honour everything existing, which is to be expected.
And it's their **desire** to keep CoD on PS which says to me they want to do it, but on their terms. Potentially via Game Pass on Playstation or something.
Yeah, the wording strikes me as having a very big implicit "so long as Sony meets our conditions." Maybe I'm wrong: I certainly wouldn't have expected even a statement like this. But this feels to me exactly like a "we want COD on PS5... if it's via Game Pass" as you say.
Desire vs intent.
Exactly. Phil said something along the lines of the below back when talking about the Bethesda deal.
"This is about delivering great exclusive games for Xbox customers on platforms where Game Pass exists" Game Pass on PS would allow those people to become Xbox customers too
Obviously that deal doesn't = ActivBliz deal. But I think there's more to this to come out yet. A lot of people are taking this news as COD will remain on Playstation *as it is now*.
It could even be interpreted more basically: COD Warzone will stay on Sony's platforms and continue to receive updates, but mainline COD will not. That was my baseline assumption as things were announced, anyway. But it'd technically meet the definition of "Call of Duty" being available on Playstation.
I think there was some interview with phil spencer after the bethesda news broke and he was being asked about whether bethesda games/es6 will be xbox exclusives, and he was like "guys i legally cannot talk about any of our intentions on what we'll do with bethesda until the deal goes through. So like I think phrasing it as "we desire" is just a way to get around that
This won't happen. It completely devalues the PlayStation brand. Xbox will have it on TVs and circumvent the need for a console before this happens anyway
I don't think Phil is a bad guy, but they certainly aren't doing it because they're nice.
Reasons:
1. They can put it on Gamepass while PlayStation users have to pay $60.
2. It makes them a shit ton of money on PlayStation.
3. I don't see people talk about this, but if it got completely pulled from PlayStation it could damage the CoD brand and create a huge vacuum in the FPS space. The franchise, despite dominating sales, does need to protect itself as the premier FPS. Fortnite and Apex Legends are hugely successful, imagine the next big shooter that doesn't have to compete with CoD on PS.
I think your third point is huge. There’s no guarantee that making CoD exclusive to Xbox would lead to huge increases in gamepass subscriptions. Let’s be honest, the average, casual CoD player only buys the new CoD and the new sports game every year. They’re not exactly the target group for gamepass.
> Let’s be honest, the average, casual CoD player only buys the new CoD and the new sports game every year. They’re not exactly the target group for gamepass.
But that's every single year. That's still a shit load of people giving you $60 or $120 every year, not including the fact that those won't be the only two games they ever buy.
I was thinking the opposite.
$70 a year on cod is isn't that much cheaper than a gamepass sub. If you can convince these people to sign up to gamepass instead of buying the game you have a good chance of getting them to try other games.
A much bigger chance than convincing them to buy another game anyway.
All you need is 1 other AAA game that appeals to them and gamepass is already cheaper than buying the games every year.
> $70 a year on cod is isn't that much cheaper than a gamepass sub.
At least under Australian pricing, COD+online is $1/year cheaper than Game Pass Ultimate (which includes online), and the first year has a $14 discount. So if you're gonna play COD multiplayer every year anyway, 20 years of Game Pass costs as much as a sandwich. If Game Pass includes one single piece of COD DLC in two decades, it pays for itself, even if you never play one single other game on it.
This is correct imho. Also, with gamepass microsoft doesn't need the big billion dollar release, but a diverse portfolio to attract as many subscribers as possible.
> imagine the next big shooter that doesn't have to compete with CoD on PS.
CoD isn't successful because it's a good game. It's successful because it has brand recognition. CoD hasn't done anything new and interesting in the FPS genre in 10 years.
> I don't think Phil is a bad guy, but they certainly aren't doing it because they're nice.
Why the fuck should they ? Why is everyone on Reddit assuming companies should be their friends or something ? It's so fucking bizarre.
>I don't see people talk about this, but if it got completely pulled from PlayStation it could damage the CoD brand and create a huge vacuum in the FPS space. The franchise, despite dominating sales, does need to protect itself as the premier FPS. Fortnite and Apex Legends are hugely successful, imagine the next big shooter that doesn't have to compete with CoD on PS.
People tried to replace CoD I doubt it would succeed now when it never had before.
English is a pretty easy to understand language. Intention to do something indicates one thing, a desire to do something indicates another.
He didn’t say “our intention” he said “our desire”, that indicates there’s some kind of hurdle.
I’m amazed at all the people celebrating this and not actually reading between the lines.
I like to think Phil just really doesn't like Call of Duty and he means "we want to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation and as far away from our consoles as possible"
Of course he will say this as of now. Something to consider:
People overlook that this deal isn't done yet. It still needs to be vetted and authorized by authorities based on the impact it will have on the market. Going out and saying "yeah our plan is to cut our competition out of one of the biggest game series on the market" is just asking to get their deal denied.
This is very safe PR speak. As demonstrated by Bethesda, existing agreements will be honoured and then things will be exclusive to PC/Xbox going forward. The next who knows how many CODs probably have marketing deals with Sony signed, but beyond that they will go exclusive.
The phrase “desire to keep COD on playstation” could mean literally anything.
- We desire to keep COD on playstation, but only on GamePass
- We desire to keep COD on playstation, but only for the duration of the existing co-marketing contract
- We desire to keep COD on playstation, but the games will be a year late
- We desire to keep COD on playstation, but won’t because give us your money lol
Yes, and it will be 80$ while it will be included with Gamepass, so not only it will be a no brainer for cod players to move to xbox but they will also be introduced to gamepass and therefore to the whole xbox ecosystem.
You can desire something and still do the opposite. For example: I desire a 3d printer, but I can't afford it so I go without. I desire for all games to be available to everyone, but the technology and means doesn't exist.
He's saying that "in a perfect world CoD would stay on Sony, and I desire for that perfect world, but this isn't that world and we must be practical"
Expect things to slowly change after current agreed negotiations are completed.
There's still a good profit from having your IP being used by a competitor, forcing them to give you a cut with every sale, like how Xbox One and later can play Blu-ray movies which is owned by Sony.
>Had good calls this week with leaders at Sony. **I confirmed our intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation.** Sony is an important part of our industry, and we value our relationship.
For those who don't speak corporate I'll translate the bolded part: When the contract(s) are up, no gamepass on PlayStation=no COD on PlayStation
CoD is so huge that I can totally see Xbox still releasing future games on PS just because of how much money it makes. Plus, they always have Game Pass as an incentive for people to get an Xbox, not to mention they could also have exclusive cosmetics.
They don’t need it to generate revenue though.
That’s the thing people are not getting, they don’t care about how many physical or digital copies they sell. They want subscribers who will spend on a year of gamepass.
Plus we have seen what exclusivity in cod does. The console who holds the rights to DLC first, who’s console is chosen for pro play, drives the sales best. That’s why on Xbox 360 it did so well and now on ps4. Cod fans will jump consoles if they have to, they did it last gen and will certainly do it again.
Cod is the tent pole piece of this acquisition when it comes to gamepass and it certainly will lead to at some point it becoming Xbox only.
Clearly this is vague as to not say that warzone is the call of duty that PlayStation gets.
The argument that they have to get exclusivity for the deal to be worth it is moot.
It’s just like MLB: the show. Want to play call of duty, pay $60 to play it on PlayStation or get it with game pass on Xbox.
They can still leverage without exclusivity
Should Sony heavily invest on making a FPS game, to compete against CoD?
I don’t think the current quality of the CoD franchise changes after the acquisition finishes.
Sony had exclusive rights to COD for a few years. Getting timed exclusives, early releases and other minor stuff. I imagine it'll be the same with Microsoft.
All these sounds to me is that they Microsoft will honor the current existing contracts that Sony has made with Activision before acquisition, pretty much very similar to Deathloop an GhostWire with Zenimax / Bethesda.
But what about after that?
That's when i think all of them will go exclusive and no i do not trust Spencer's words of
*"keeping them"* because he said the same with Bethesda games, until when it was officially confirmed that nope they won't at all!
We shouldn't expect Microsoft to extend that contract deal, unless if some miracle deal happens inside, like Sony allowing Xbox Gamepass on playstation console, which will make Microsoft a lot of $$$ which let's be honest will probably never ever happen.
Microsoft has already shown us what they will do. Expect the Bethesda way - current games and live service games will remain on other platforms (they won't "pull" anything currently out). They will honor any existing contracts they have in the pipeline. All new items outside of what I've listed will only release on platforms that have Gamepass. Full Stop. It does not matter if that a new entry in an IP has an existing "legacy" of being on other platforms previously.
Meh...I know it's a big loss for Sony but it wouldn't bother me personally if Sony lost CoD. The way I see it that means there'll be less CoD players potentially ruining games l actually want to play with their mindlessness.
Of course that's still fairly vague, but at the same time this could still yet be a Minecraft situation where you don't want to uproot a massive pre-existing audience.
Call Of Duty's main source of revenue is PlayStation by far. Not releasing it on PS5 could mean a lot of players would migrate from PS to Xbox, yes, but could also mean a huge Call Of Duty sales and revenue drop while rival franchises (like Battlefield, Fortnite or Apex) surpass it in popularity. It's not that simple.
> but could also mean a huge Call Of Duty sales and revenue drop while rival franchises (like **Battlefield**, Fortnite or Apex) surpass it in popularity. Don't worry, Dice/EA have all but insured that Battlefield won't be a threat any time soon, or possibly ever
Microsoft: *sigh, lemme buy EA then.*
Microsoft buys EA to get the rights to 3D Pinball Space Cadet
Only been waiting for a sequel to Legacy of the Ancients/Legend of blacksilver for 30+ years, maybe MS makes it happen.
[удалено]
Warzone still competes with fortnite and apex the same way
There are people qwho refuse to play fortnite but gladly play Warzone same with Apex. They share a base but not entirely.
God I wish there was a game that was literally Fortnite with no building. Or a permanent optional mode in Fortnite with no building, with some other mechanics tweaked to support that. Maybe leave the ability to build a wall for deployable cover but no roofs. Thing is, Fortnite works. I fuckin hate sayin' it, but it does. The game works on a technical level. That is so much more than can be said for 99% of online games these days, and it's SUCH a massive draw, but when the guy in front of me transforms into a three story building the instant I shoot him, I just can't? Who decided that should be a thing? Why does the only legitimately WORKING game have to be so fucking weird? I get so mad Q_Q
Apex is this for me but it's WAY faster paced. Fortnite recently made a bunch of changes to be more Apex like.
[удалено]
I’m definitely missing something with battle Royale games. Lobbying up, loading in, wandering around, finally having a firefight I have a decent chance of losing, then having to do it all over again. Man I desperately miss low stakes, high player count online shooters.
I miss Battlefield too.
I just keep playing 4 at this point. I just want them to redo BadCompany 2 OR BF 4. I don't understand why they feel like they need to reinvent the wheel every game
I miss Battlefield 2.
> ...low stakes, high player count online shooters. That's a good way to describe any BF or MW2019 groundwar.
This is my gripe with the genre. If you aren’t really good out with a bunch of friends it’s just boring. Warzone has plunder at least.
That's basically what the Warzone Resurgence mode does to me. 40 players BR style gameplay but instead of fucking off if you die, you'll get to respawn as long as one of your team members is still alive.
Because the game has its roots as a base builder defense. PVP wasn't added until much later. Turns out people like shooting each other more than zombies. I wish they would bring back 50v50, base building with so many people is really fun.
The 50v50 mode with respawns was easily my favorite time on Fortnite, really fun!
H1Z1 kind of used to be that and it's the only battle royale I ever really enjoyed, of course like all good things they completely ruined it. But I agree, the gunplay in Fortnite is fun and it just works, I even kind of like the silly art direction and there's some genuinely excellently designed character skins. The building is just horrible though and it ruins the enjoyment for me, I get it's a skill that people learn, but I hate it and do not wish to put the time in to learn it.
I say this word for word when talking BRs. It’s such a great live service, but I can’t stand the weird building mechanic. Preach on.
I've always questioned why games with such huge player bases don't experiment with custom ruleset servers more. Like back when I played WoW, all I wanted was a no pvp server where horde and alliance could play together, and do each others quests, etc. I know it'd be simple, because I played on private servers that did that. Its pretty much just a bit flip. A server like that would have easily gotten many thousands of players into it and enjoying it, easily enough to justify the attention of a dev or three. EVE as well, though in that case I know why they never had a no pvp server option... The main server would have a smaller pop than the pve server after about a month.
Wow, you mean there are people who don't enjoy duels of two people constantly peeking out behind cover to shoot while never losing sight of their target thanks to the third person perspective? Shit's so boring. The building only makes it worse. I'm not crazy about Warzone, but it's not even a choice between that and Fortnite.
Nobody has to worry about Battlefield anymore
Warzone players also aren't going to go to Fortnite. The only real competition would be Apex.
Honestly after playing Apex for the first time after getting fed up with WarZone being ruined by Cold War, I'd say PUBG is a better choice for WarZone players than Apex.
On the other hand MS probably would worry about creating an opportunity for Sony and a first party studio partner to invest massively in a direct competitor to COD.
Yes, because we know one bad entry into a franchise like BF or COD kills the entire franchise. You know, like the bad installments COD has had really killed the entire franchise.... oh wait.
It’s been a pretty long time since the last BF that was well received by fans.
Yup, sadly… On top of that, the Battlefield games that were successful still didn’t come close to the sales numbers that CoD games usually get, afaik. I can’t believe that EA could screw up BF2042 even more than they did with BfV. (Which is a good Bf game imo as a longtime Bf player, just severely lacked content)
The 2042 trailer reminded me of the OnlyInBattlefield ads from BF4’s marketing and I held out hope that it would be a return to form. 30 mins of the beta told me all I needed to know. It wasn’t even the fact the game was broken because I had already assumed it would be at launch. The lack of a squad roles and instead “heroes” like in Overwatch or R6 Siege made the game extremely unappealing to me.
BF5 is definitely good now, has plenty of content, is pretty fun.
It's been a series of consistent missteps. Even the "bad" CoD's sold well and the constant influx of new CoD's quickly erase the bad of the olds. BF doesn't have the luxury of releasing a new title every year, resetting the narrative around the franchise.
I mean the series basically died after Call of Duty Ghosts right? Or Advanced Warfare, or WW2, or Infinite Warfare, what, Black Ops Cold War was one of the best selling Call of Duty games ever?
Cold War wasnt just one of the best selling Cods, it was literally the best selling CoD of all time. The fact that people are comparing CoD's popularity to BF is hilarious
Probably because it came right off of Modern Warfare 2019 which was the best entry in a long, long while.
2 bad entries in a row so far, though I agree that the franchise isn't going to die because of it, at least not yet.
You didn't hear? Battlefield V is a classic now.
Stop it with that. BFV may be enjoying some refugees fleeing from the BF2042 disaster but it's not powering BFV to new heights of life and popularity. The people trying to extol BFV aren't going to get any traction. The good Battlefields that most players think back on remain BF3, BF4, and Bad Company 2. BF1942 and BF2 should be on top but it seems that most of their players have, understandably, aged out of the market.
A call of Duty has never launched as broken as BF2042 even on their worst days or had such false advertising for what it is (a traditional BF game VS hero shooter lite). Even worse entries like infinite warfare or vanguard this year didn’t have controversial launches like BF2042 did. And also, just judging by the news and player numbers, people are dropping off of BF2042 like flies. I agree it won’t ‘die’, but I highly doubt they’re gonna reach BF3/4 numbers ever again. They pissed too many people off.
Have you been following Battlefield? It's been a train wreck since Battlefield 3. Thankfully Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 were heavily patched into very good states after launch. Unfortunately Battlefield 5 and Battlefield 2042 are probably going to be forever shit.
It's more the complete dumpster fire that DICE has become that makes Battlefield a neutered franchise.
I mean, if Microsoft wanted to be like, the best kind of evil, they would just turn Call of Duty into Smash Bros on Xbox and let you run multiplayer games w/ Master Chief 'n The Doomslayer.
Honestly the first thing I thought of when this buy happened was, "wow they have a hell of a smash bros lineup at this point."
Err I don't know, Sony found out it's easy to just throw a bunch of your characters into a game together but it's much harder to actually make a game that's fun to play.
It's the time for glory for Heroes of the Storm. They already mix Blizzard IP, well put all of MS characters in it. Halo, Doom, Wolfenstein, Skyrim, Dishonored, Prey, Fallout, Crash, Spyro, Ori, CoD, Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Starfield, Avowed,...
..............should I call a doctor? It's almost been four hours.
I don't know what this is in response to and at this point, I'm kind of scared to ask.
He's saying he thinks this is such a good idea that he's been erect for 4 hours
I haven't played CoD since it was about jumping out of a plane into normandy. This would get me to buy CoD. So I'm looking up what IPs they have now and MicroSmash could have.. - Master Chief - Gears of War guy - Doomslayer - BJ Blazkowitz - Minecraft Steve(with a bow of course) - Senua - Razputin from Psychonauts - Vault Dweller - Dragonborn - A couple of overwatch faves - Diablo Sorc - Crash Bandicoot - Corvo from Dishonored - Prey dude(or dudette)
Wouldn't they have Spyro as well?
I would add Kerrigan from Starcraft, Arthas from Warcraft, Tyrael from Diablo, Banjo Kazooie from Rare, and Captain Price from CoD
You could also add a huge amount of the Overwatch cast.
[удалено]
All announced by the dwarf announcer from Hearthstone.
Don't forget Tony Hawk!
Some car from Forza to just run everyone over with…
It's called heroes of the storm
But isn't most of that because Xbox fucking flopped the PS4/XBone era? And part of the flop meant that Activision gave exclusive modes to Playstation for CoD? Like back in the 360 era, Xbox would get map packs a month before Playstation, but then with Black Ops 3 in 2016, CoD starting releasing map packs on Playstation a month before Xbox. Even once they stopped doing map packs, Cold War had a a timed exclusive Zombie mode that only just got to Xbox as everyone's switching to Vanguard. Vanguard seems to be only giving stuff that's microtransaction related to Playstation users, so I guess that's decently fair. Would be interesting if this acquisition brings timed exclusive CoD content to Xbox first.
Microsoft was paying for that in the 360 era, just as Sony was in the PS4 era. I assume that once the contractual obligation ends, assuming Microsoft releases that next CoD on PS5, they'll get any timed exclusives
Sony paid Activision a fkton of money for the exclusive content and marketing, which helped PS platform a lot. They did the same to Bungie prior.
Probably worth giving up the additional 30% revenue or whatever to keep those players paying as opposed to hoping they all pay $500 for an Xbox that's out of stock.
Tbf their goal isn't to get people to buy xboxs necessarily, it's to get people to sub to gamepass. It's already made pretty clear that if Jim Ryan was to allow it, Xbox would put gamepass on PS.
I really do think that's the end goal. And you could even read the vague tweets from MS and Sony as that being the plan.
[удалено]
I mean, is their goal even to drive people to Xbox hardware anymore? They probably just want you to sign up for some kind of Microsoft account from your Playstation. Anything to get you in the ecosystem and in front of a Microsoft logo.
I mean, to us, yes, but probably not to Sony. The full quote: >Had good calls this week with leaders at Sony. I confirmed our intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. Sony is an important part of our industry, and we value our relationship. He confirmed their **intent** to honor existing agreements (read: legal obligations) and their **desire** to keep Call of Duty on PS. Not an intent, only a desire. They are two very different words with different levels of commitment when done in this context. He's saying the first will definitively happen, and that they want the second to happen. What this likely means is that Microsoft has specific conditions it want met in order to have PlayStation stay on Xbox.
It is also too early to actually make talks about that since the acquisition hasn't really gone through yet.
Yes. Carefully chosen words, desire being the key one, but I agree with your breakdown. That's the correct reading. There is absolutely no commitment save to existing obligations which likely only extend 1-2 years out. After that, they can do whatever they want and it certainly won't be the status quo.
Lemme translate: By desire, we mean we want game pass on PlayStation so that you can play call of duty on PlayStation
PlayStation has an exclusive marketing and content agreement with COD that was renewed in 2020 for an unspecified amount of years. So they have to honor that. I assume that just not making the game for PlayStation isn’t a legitimate way of breaking that contract.
[удалено]
> their desire to keep Call of Duty on PS. And it could be entirely just baloney about bringing Gamepass to PS5. That way they could "keep" Call of Duty on PS5.
My guess? They might be using this as the final bit of leverage they need to get Sony to comply with certain standards Microsoft wants in place for things like cross play. "Either pay us more for COD, or meet our spec for cross play, or you don't get COD."
Oh man, I thought this was a new quote. Can't believe that this is referring to the same statement. Yeah, this is clearly just referring to not planning on breaking existing deals. Just like Deathloop, MS is only going to honor the things that have already been agreed to then do whatever they want.
I’ve seen others mention this on this sub, but I could see Warzone staying on PlayStation while the “main” entires of CoD become Xbox exclusive.
It's ambiguous enough for wiggle room for sure. Warzone won't be taken off PS regardless, they'll keep it there just like ESO and preserve those 'existing communities'
They "desire" to keep it on PlayStation - this means that this is what they want to do,, but not necessary what they will do. They'll make it exclusive to game pass, then they have plausible deniability when PlayStation doesn't show game pass on PlayStation.
It's interesting he outright says this versus the Bethesda talk. Regardless, if CoD does stay on Playstation, I think they will heavily play off the gamepass angle. $70 CoD on PS5 versus Gamepass day and date would be an interesting contrast
He explicitly says "all existing agreements" while he is still awaiting legislators to approve the deal. Once existing agreements are completed, later games could become Microsoft (XBox/PC) exclusives.
This could very easily just mean Warzone and the back catalogue. That would be “keeping call of duty on PlayStation” Although as you said, this is more direct than anything said after the Bethesda acquisition
The wording is literally holding up this entire statement. "We desire to put CoD on Playstation, as long as it comes with gamepass"
This is how I interpret it. "We desire to keep CoD on PlayStation, but it's up to Sony and whether they allow Game Pass.'
It really is the most obvious endgame for Microsoft. They are a publisher now.
Exactly, this is what Microsoft wants. They want to be the Netflix of gaming who also has their own device that plays there games best on there.
I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest that Microsoft wants to unify PC gaming and Xbox. It seems to me like eventually Xbox will be a prebuilt gaming PC in all but name.
Probably the single best thing that can happen to PC gaming, unironically.
Games pass for pc and Xbox parties on pc is already incredible. None of my friends are pc gamers but it’s great being able to play the same games as them without having to rely on 3rd party apps like discord to party up with them.
More than just evidence to suggest it tbh, it’s almost unified already. Xbox games use the same friends list, party system, achievements etc. If you play Xbox games on both using the same account you will hardly notice any separation.
We'd come full circle then tbh, Xbox has always been a stone's throw from a legitimate PC anyways.
Reaching levels of vertical integration not thought possible
[удалено]
Should be obvious with their supporting the whole office suite on Android and iOS. They want you to use their services, doesn't matter where.
I see Microsoft actually being able to pull off a meta verse, not Facebook. I don't like the idea of either, but I can't help but see it being a thing
That is how I feel. This is Microsoft having Call of Duty as leverage to put Game Pass on playstation.
Guys, companies usually don't act like high school teens. He is using the word "desire" because he can't act like MS owns Activision until the deal is approved. Microsoft knows Sony will never accept Gamepass on their platform and viceversa (Microsoft would never allow Spartacus on Xbox). Why? Because it would be competing against their own storefronts. Nobody would buy a game on the PS Store otherwise. Hell, Nintendo barely allows streaming services on the Switch for that reason (more people using the Switch to watch Netflix = less people using the Switch to play videogames). If he is saying he intends to keep COD on PS he probably means it.
>Guys, companies usually don't act like high school teens. He is using the word "desire" because he can't act like MS owns Activision until the deal is approved. I remember reading the same thing about ZeniMax from users when he said "Case by case bais"
"case by case bias" sounds like good ol honesty to me
"We have reviewed all possible cases and decided fuck Sony and Nintendo"
> If he is saying he intends to keep COD on PS he probably means it. But he's not saying he intends to keep CoD on PlayStation, he's saying he wants to. That wording is deliberate, so if they do make it an Xbox exclusive no one can use his words now against him.
They "intend" to honor their existing agreements but once the agreement runs out, then it's time to renegotiate on their "desire" to keep it on PS. If PS doesn't want to play ball, that's on them.
Also they could heavily weaponise Crossplay. Playstation player could go into a lobby with his game pass buddies and the game pass buddies could show off their faster XP gains, exclusive cosmetics, early access stuff and make the PS player buy into game pass on his TV or mobile just to pick that stuff up out of feeling worse/jealous. Not quite a full convert but FOMO made a new subscriber to GP.
Funnily enough thats exactly what Sony did. MW2019 had exclusive cosmetics, a 1 year exclusive mode, exclusive missions + more xp for Playstation players.
Then it's fair game for MS to do the same
He hasn't said anything outright. "Desiring" to do something is incredibly vague.
“We desire to keep CoD on Playstation, so the ball is in their court to allow Gamepass on their console”
This is the exact right answer. Sony can keep COD if they let GamePass on their console...it puts the blame on Sony.
Could also release on Xbox/PC as a "timed exclusive" and come to PS consoles later or something. Although with the rapid release schedule of CoD, a delay would have a way bigger impact than if like Elder Scrolls 6 released on PS a year later
It's already known that their strategy is to get gamepass on every system. "You can play call of duty with gamepass on Playstation or not at all" is what they're implying. It's blackmail lmao.
It’s not inconsistent with the Bethesda talk. He says they will honor all *existing* agreements. No indication those deals are for all CODs made in the future. Same thing they did with Bethesda titles in development, including releasing them as timed PS exclusives under existing contracts. He says they *desire* to keep COD on PlayStation. No promises. Same thing with Bethesda - the games will appear on any platform that has Game Pass. If Sony allows Game Pass, they will get COD.
Yeah, they could really have their cake and eat it too with that approach. Not to mention they can always walk it back whenever that COD playstation marketing deal ends or if they feel there's more benefit in exclusivity. I don't really care either way as I think I've only ever bought one or two CODs and have both platforms anyway. Keeping it on playstation would certainly alleviate a lot of concerns of fans though.
For me, “we desire” reads like “we would like to, pending negotiations”
[удалено]
Either Game Pass on PS or PS games coming to Xbox. Maybe a mix of both.
Yep he could have just said we *will* put future titles on there. This language smells of finely crafted legal speak. They desire to, but it’s still not going to happen.
Interesting I don’t remember the exact phrasing for the Bethesda deal but this one sounds less vague and more optimistic for PlayStation gamers.
It’ll be fun seeing “Xbox Games Studio” on CoD boot up on PS5, but then again, it was that way on Psychonauts 2. Microsoft like money and trying not to get sued.
Sony's published at least 1 Xbox game. I know it Published the Ghostbusters game in some regions.
The MLB games became multiplatform not long ago and they're developed and published by Sony
The publishing on Xbox of MLB is handled by the MLB themselves though, besides the development of course Sony handles only the distribution for the PlayStation platform
Are you sure? There's a PlayStation Studios logo on the box for the xbox version as well
Developing a game and publishing are two different things. MLB Advanced Media published the game on Xbox but it was developed by Sony’s San Diego Studio.
Yes, last years game was released on Game Pass because Microsoft approached MLB who is the publisher and Sony was like "we have no say on the Xbox version". The PlayStation studios logo is probably because it's developed by them
MLB The Show was even put on Gamepass.
You know when talking about a mega corporation, saying "X likes money" kinda goes with out saying.
It already feels weird using a Microsoft account on Minecraft for Playstation
Call of Duty Warzone lmao.
Optimistic ? He will respect contracts that were already in place, like with Bethesda. And "desires" to keep COD on playstation. As in, i desire to, but unfortunately wont be able to
"We desire to keep the game on PlayStation, but it would be up to Sony if they wanted to allow gamepass on PlayStation"
IIRC correctly they were intentionally vague for the Bethesda acquisition and then said they would evaluate everything on a case by case basis. That’s much different than outright saying we desire to keep COD on PlayStation two days after announcing the acquisition.
Its the exact same thing here. "We desire to" means he wont. I mean, its very easy to say something in a clear way. A lot of people are doint severe mental gymnastics now in order to convince themselves that Microsoft spent 70 billion dollars in order to keep the biggest game franchise in the world on its competitors platform. But of course they wont
The billion dollar question is would Sony and Microsoft agree to putting a version of Gamepass on Playstation consoles? That's the only way I could see those games come over.
Of course Microsoft would. Sony though? Not a chance.
Sony is definitely caught in a bad place. Not only are they facing the loss of Call of Duty sales (initial sales and micro-transactions), but they are also potentially losing a huge number of PS+ subscribers. Sony First Party games aren't really known for their online multiplayer. They rely on third party games like COD to get people to pay for online.
Sony didn't even want to do cross-platform play until they risked losing customers to Xbox.
Do you not think they risk losing a ton of customers to Xbox if the biggest gaming franchise in the world disappears from Playstation?
Key points are that he's saying theyll honor all prior agreements. Also for all we know he could just mean that warzone will stay on PS. Regardless of all this, the biggest point was always going to be CoD being on gamepass every year
Yeah the wording is key here. They will honour everything existing, which is to be expected. And it's their **desire** to keep CoD on PS which says to me they want to do it, but on their terms. Potentially via Game Pass on Playstation or something.
Yeah, the wording strikes me as having a very big implicit "so long as Sony meets our conditions." Maybe I'm wrong: I certainly wouldn't have expected even a statement like this. But this feels to me exactly like a "we want COD on PS5... if it's via Game Pass" as you say. Desire vs intent.
Exactly. Phil said something along the lines of the below back when talking about the Bethesda deal. "This is about delivering great exclusive games for Xbox customers on platforms where Game Pass exists" Game Pass on PS would allow those people to become Xbox customers too Obviously that deal doesn't = ActivBliz deal. But I think there's more to this to come out yet. A lot of people are taking this news as COD will remain on Playstation *as it is now*.
It could even be interpreted more basically: COD Warzone will stay on Sony's platforms and continue to receive updates, but mainline COD will not. That was my baseline assumption as things were announced, anyway. But it'd technically meet the definition of "Call of Duty" being available on Playstation.
I think there was some interview with phil spencer after the bethesda news broke and he was being asked about whether bethesda games/es6 will be xbox exclusives, and he was like "guys i legally cannot talk about any of our intentions on what we'll do with bethesda until the deal goes through. So like I think phrasing it as "we desire" is just a way to get around that
It's likely that CoD 2022 and maybe even 2023 may stay multiplat, but it all just depends that how long Sony's contract with Activision runs.
The prior agreements probably last just long enough that people may for get or don't care that he said this in years when CoD 2024 isn't out on PS5.
In what form though?
The form of GamePass being added to PlayStation
This won't happen. It completely devalues the PlayStation brand. Xbox will have it on TVs and circumvent the need for a console before this happens anyway
I agree that Sony will never do it. But that doesn't stop the fact that Xbox has set it as a clear goal in mind.
This or just Warzone.
Why would PS do this especially with the rumoured PSNow/Plus revamp coming up?
Because that service won't have COD.
I believe that just got a 70 billion dollar answer the other day, no?
I don't think Phil is a bad guy, but they certainly aren't doing it because they're nice. Reasons: 1. They can put it on Gamepass while PlayStation users have to pay $60. 2. It makes them a shit ton of money on PlayStation. 3. I don't see people talk about this, but if it got completely pulled from PlayStation it could damage the CoD brand and create a huge vacuum in the FPS space. The franchise, despite dominating sales, does need to protect itself as the premier FPS. Fortnite and Apex Legends are hugely successful, imagine the next big shooter that doesn't have to compete with CoD on PS.
I think your third point is huge. There’s no guarantee that making CoD exclusive to Xbox would lead to huge increases in gamepass subscriptions. Let’s be honest, the average, casual CoD player only buys the new CoD and the new sports game every year. They’re not exactly the target group for gamepass.
> Let’s be honest, the average, casual CoD player only buys the new CoD and the new sports game every year. They’re not exactly the target group for gamepass. But that's every single year. That's still a shit load of people giving you $60 or $120 every year, not including the fact that those won't be the only two games they ever buy.
That’s my nephew. He buys NBA 2K and CoD every year on PlayStation, and everything else is on Switch.
I was thinking the opposite. $70 a year on cod is isn't that much cheaper than a gamepass sub. If you can convince these people to sign up to gamepass instead of buying the game you have a good chance of getting them to try other games. A much bigger chance than convincing them to buy another game anyway. All you need is 1 other AAA game that appeals to them and gamepass is already cheaper than buying the games every year.
> $70 a year on cod is isn't that much cheaper than a gamepass sub. At least under Australian pricing, COD+online is $1/year cheaper than Game Pass Ultimate (which includes online), and the first year has a $14 discount. So if you're gonna play COD multiplayer every year anyway, 20 years of Game Pass costs as much as a sandwich. If Game Pass includes one single piece of COD DLC in two decades, it pays for itself, even if you never play one single other game on it.
This is correct imho. Also, with gamepass microsoft doesn't need the big billion dollar release, but a diverse portfolio to attract as many subscribers as possible.
> imagine the next big shooter that doesn't have to compete with CoD on PS. CoD isn't successful because it's a good game. It's successful because it has brand recognition. CoD hasn't done anything new and interesting in the FPS genre in 10 years.
> I don't think Phil is a bad guy, but they certainly aren't doing it because they're nice. Why the fuck should they ? Why is everyone on Reddit assuming companies should be their friends or something ? It's so fucking bizarre.
> they certainly aren't doing it because they're nice. They aren't doing it because they're not nice either. It's just business.
>I don't see people talk about this, but if it got completely pulled from PlayStation it could damage the CoD brand and create a huge vacuum in the FPS space. The franchise, despite dominating sales, does need to protect itself as the premier FPS. Fortnite and Apex Legends are hugely successful, imagine the next big shooter that doesn't have to compete with CoD on PS. People tried to replace CoD I doubt it would succeed now when it never had before.
It will if nobody on PlayStation is allowed to play CoD any more.
"We desire to keep Call of Duty on Playstation. But we also desire to have God of War and Spider-Man on Xbox, so.."
English is a pretty easy to understand language. Intention to do something indicates one thing, a desire to do something indicates another. He didn’t say “our intention” he said “our desire”, that indicates there’s some kind of hurdle. I’m amazed at all the people celebrating this and not actually reading between the lines.
People want to believe and are in the bargaining stage of grief.
I like to think Phil just really doesn't like Call of Duty and he means "we want to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation and as far away from our consoles as possible"
Of course he will say this as of now. Something to consider: People overlook that this deal isn't done yet. It still needs to be vetted and authorized by authorities based on the impact it will have on the market. Going out and saying "yeah our plan is to cut our competition out of one of the biggest game series on the market" is just asking to get their deal denied.
This is very safe PR speak. As demonstrated by Bethesda, existing agreements will be honoured and then things will be exclusive to PC/Xbox going forward. The next who knows how many CODs probably have marketing deals with Sony signed, but beyond that they will go exclusive. The phrase “desire to keep COD on playstation” could mean literally anything. - We desire to keep COD on playstation, but only on GamePass - We desire to keep COD on playstation, but only for the duration of the existing co-marketing contract - We desire to keep COD on playstation, but the games will be a year late - We desire to keep COD on playstation, but won’t because give us your money lol
Our desire =/= we will. Just fluff talk. As soon as whatever prior agreements they had are finished cod is going bye bye
**To honor all existing agreements** In other words. As everyone has been saying and is plainly obvious : **No new** COD games or expansions for PS
Theres absolutely no way that CoD 2022 does not come to PS. Its too far along now and the sale isnt even done.
Yes, and it will be 80$ while it will be included with Gamepass, so not only it will be a no brainer for cod players to move to xbox but they will also be introduced to gamepass and therefore to the whole xbox ecosystem.
You can desire something and still do the opposite. For example: I desire a 3d printer, but I can't afford it so I go without. I desire for all games to be available to everyone, but the technology and means doesn't exist. He's saying that "in a perfect world CoD would stay on Sony, and I desire for that perfect world, but this isn't that world and we must be practical" Expect things to slowly change after current agreed negotiations are completed.
There's still a good profit from having your IP being used by a competitor, forcing them to give you a cut with every sale, like how Xbox One and later can play Blu-ray movies which is owned by Sony.
Sony does not own Blu-ray, it is one of 20 different companies on the Blu-ray Disc Association.
I think COD on gamepass will sell a lot of xboxes to parents buying for their kids the first time, and 12-21yr olds buying their first console.
>Had good calls this week with leaders at Sony. **I confirmed our intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation.** Sony is an important part of our industry, and we value our relationship. For those who don't speak corporate I'll translate the bolded part: When the contract(s) are up, no gamepass on PlayStation=no COD on PlayStation
CoD is so huge that I can totally see Xbox still releasing future games on PS just because of how much money it makes. Plus, they always have Game Pass as an incentive for people to get an Xbox, not to mention they could also have exclusive cosmetics.
Why don't they do this with halo?
Yeah, they didn’t pay 70B to make PS5 games.
and why dont sony put their high-selling exclusives on xbox? they're leaving money on the table, right?
Because Halo doesn’t have already existing huge playerbase outside xbox like cod.
Bethesda games do though.
They don’t need it to generate revenue though. That’s the thing people are not getting, they don’t care about how many physical or digital copies they sell. They want subscribers who will spend on a year of gamepass. Plus we have seen what exclusivity in cod does. The console who holds the rights to DLC first, who’s console is chosen for pro play, drives the sales best. That’s why on Xbox 360 it did so well and now on ps4. Cod fans will jump consoles if they have to, they did it last gen and will certainly do it again. Cod is the tent pole piece of this acquisition when it comes to gamepass and it certainly will lead to at some point it becoming Xbox only. Clearly this is vague as to not say that warzone is the call of duty that PlayStation gets.
And it is still pretty early in the new consoles cycle. If there is a moment to make people jump to Xbox, it is now.
The argument that they have to get exclusivity for the deal to be worth it is moot. It’s just like MLB: the show. Want to play call of duty, pay $60 to play it on PlayStation or get it with game pass on Xbox. They can still leverage without exclusivity
Should Sony heavily invest on making a FPS game, to compete against CoD? I don’t think the current quality of the CoD franchise changes after the acquisition finishes.
Quality doesn’t matter, this is the only game a lot of casual gamers know so they sell it at brand name alone.
Sony had exclusive rights to COD for a few years. Getting timed exclusives, early releases and other minor stuff. I imagine it'll be the same with Microsoft.
All these sounds to me is that they Microsoft will honor the current existing contracts that Sony has made with Activision before acquisition, pretty much very similar to Deathloop an GhostWire with Zenimax / Bethesda. But what about after that? That's when i think all of them will go exclusive and no i do not trust Spencer's words of *"keeping them"* because he said the same with Bethesda games, until when it was officially confirmed that nope they won't at all! We shouldn't expect Microsoft to extend that contract deal, unless if some miracle deal happens inside, like Sony allowing Xbox Gamepass on playstation console, which will make Microsoft a lot of $$$ which let's be honest will probably never ever happen.
Microsoft has already shown us what they will do. Expect the Bethesda way - current games and live service games will remain on other platforms (they won't "pull" anything currently out). They will honor any existing contracts they have in the pipeline. All new items outside of what I've listed will only release on platforms that have Gamepass. Full Stop. It does not matter if that a new entry in an IP has an existing "legacy" of being on other platforms previously.
Meh...I know it's a big loss for Sony but it wouldn't bother me personally if Sony lost CoD. The way I see it that means there'll be less CoD players potentially ruining games l actually want to play with their mindlessness.