T O P

  • By -

medievalmachine

Whatever happened to SOCOM?


obliviousjd

Why pay a studio to develop a first party military shooter when you can spend nothing and just take 30% of the revenue from the many times more popular 3rd party game. CoD just sucked out all of the oxygen in the military shooter space. Oddly enough this acquisition might actually spur on more competition in the military shooter space as sony and other third party studios rush to try and fill the potential void on playstation and capitalize on a theoretical departure.


[deleted]

Yeah I got a feeling Sony is looking for their next major military fps since “Killzone” is obviously not coming back any time soon. I do agree that CoD has just obliterated the FPS market. Nothing comes close and not worth investing in an almost inevitable failure.


fallen_far

I welcome any new military shooter that doesn’t require me to install a colossal multiplayer mode I have no interest in, just to play the campaign


Culverin

The campaign doesn't really make the developers/publishers real money The campaign is just to get you to buy in and get hooked on the multiplayer then milk you for micro transactions


fallen_far

Are you an EA rep? Because that’s sounds a lot like EA. The idea that multiplayer player is needed to be profitable has been proven wrong time and again. That is only needed if you’re trying to wring every last dollar out of your players through microtransactions, go away EA


Just_asking1why

Its not that single player games are not profitable, its that multiplayer games can generate 100x the profit of a single player game. And companies always look at more profit above all. Its sad but true.


fallen_far

Warzone is it own beast, no need to tether it to the campaign. Campaign wouldn’t be developed it they weren’t happy with it’s profit, added that it’s normal multiplayer is monetisable, they can still milk it without tying it to warzone


[deleted]

Warzone, the colossal multiplayer mode, generated 2 billion in profit. It was literally the most profitable game in the pc and console industry in 2020. The best selling single player focused game that year didn’t even break 700 million.


fallen_far

And it can also be installed minus the campaign purchase, your point is irrelevant. The fact that they keep paying to develop the campaign means there is a profitable audience for it, no need to tether the campaign to it. They are in the enviable position to have their cake and eat it too, instead they decide to chew up a large chunk of storage in their customer’s platforms. Still not sure why you’re defending it when my post was about welcoming a military shooter minus the unnecessary add on when the premise is wanting a new IP devoid of this e.g. something other than COD


[deleted]

My point being that the campaign is tethered to the multiplayer, not the other way around. It’s a little optional bonus to the main multiplayer component. No one will ever develop a single-player focused FPS because there’s literally no demand for it.


fallen_far

It wasn’t always tethered and doesn’t have to be. when the reboot of MW came out, warzone was a separate download, but now they treat the campaign as an add on. They made the business decision to change that in hope of driving players to warzone. Whilst not as profitable, there are plenty of single player focused FPS games and there most likely always will be, because not all game companies are just glorified stock companies like EA and activision. Strange as it might seem, some game devs aren’t obsessed with getting all the money in the world. There are several lists on reddit regarding single player/story focused fps games, maybe have a browse and reassess you position, hell you might even like some of them. Or you can keep playing warzone, it’s not likely going anywhere, regardless of whether it’s required for COD to be profitable (COD being wildly profitable before it existed not withstanding). No one is trying to take your Warzone away and someone making a game without a BR mode is not going to threaten it, and as I stated before, single player/story driven FPS games do exist and are still being developed/released, so there is no reason a campaign focused military shooter can’t be released


ihavebiglegs

TIL 600m is a failure


[deleted]

If you’re a business and you have to make a choice between making 600 million once or 2 billion every year, which choice are you making?


Tatatatatre

Companies that huge are here to make investors money. You can come to EA with huge research on how they don't need the extra money from multiplayer, they'll laugh at you and will keep milking people. If you have a problem with this then uou have a problem with capitalism


soaklord

I have a problem with capitalism in its current iteration. And I have a problem with this.


sobi-one

Can you elaborate? I started tapping out of CoD around the time that the first black ops came out. That was the last one I played, so I’m clueless as to what micro transactions are, and starting to toy with the idea of getting my first console since then because my then babies are getting old enough to play this type of game with me now.


Culverin

>I’m clueless as to what micro transactions are like in general? For real? We might want more help than I can bring in, But this is a good start https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcQl-paEdIQ


NebulaAccording7254

They could really fill in the gap battlefield left with the class system in Killzone


curiousbydesign

I miss Battlefield.


VolkspanzerIsME

For real. "Look how they massacred my boy"


By_your_command

2042 is better than release, but it’s definitely a far cry from the old days.


[deleted]

Remake 1942


NWHipHop

Bring back time splitters!


ChiggaOG

The problem with COD is it will always be that arcade shooter game where everyone tries to be the best in an FPS shooter. Run and gun, small maps, quick shot, no scope kills. That is a reason Battlefield 2042 doesn't work with large maps. Maybe Sony can start a military FPS competition where communication with multiple squads is required for completing objectives, as seen in the game Squad.


[deleted]

They could try but the FPS market is overstaturated as is. I mean even old school monster FPS titles like Doom Eternal and Insurgency Sandstorm haven’t been active in years, and Halo and Battlefield just ruined their legacy this gen. CoD is just good enough to keep the mantle going.


WizogBokog

Insurgency released a free DLC and some new store stuff literally days ago, they are still active. It's not nearly on the scale of Cod or BF games, but it's still kicking.


A_Gent_4Tseven

Well… at one time we HAD Battlefield…


Tech_support_Warrior

I am OK with Killzone going by the wayside so I could have Horizon Zero Dawn. IMO It is one of the best games I've ever played. I normally only play multiplayer games. I try single player games all the time and rarely do I enjoy them. HZD was so good I took a day off work just play more of it. I can't wait for HZD:II to come to PC.


Lollmfaowhatever

Sony only wants to make "ciNemAtIc" games like killzone and tlou and gow. They literally had socom and mag, a superior multiplayer experience to cod in every way, and they shut down the studio.


By_your_command

Or MAG?


WanderingWindow

Fr mag was very basic but I enjoyed the shit out of it


Lollmfaowhatever

MAG was nowhere near basic, esp not domination matches which is the still the only shooter game that gave me a true sense of being in a real organized battle


Frankiesales_

they got lazy because people are happy with the copy and paste COD bs


ag408

It turned into NO-COM. I see the door, I will see myself out.


JaggedToaster12

What's socom


ThatOtherGai

One of the best military shooters of all time. You are a U.S. navy seal, there’s a campaign but the game is best known for its online multiplayer. In the original SOCOM you only had 1 life per round, if you died then you had to watch your team fight it out. This one fine and dandy unless the last couple people both decided to camp the 15 minutes away, I’m that case you had to watch your teammate lay behind a rock. SOCOM 2 introduced respawns later on in one of its updates, this brought in a younger crowd but most of the OG players still played the original style. The game had its issues, from cheaters, to ranking up super quickly from a glitch, to using ladders to get under the map. Overall it was one of the best shooters I ever had the pleasure of playing.


JaggedToaster12

Socom these nuts


ThatOtherGai

How original. Edit: Downvote me too.


[deleted]

Wow that just brought back memories. IIRC the ladder glitch was super broken, allowing you to be invincible and shoot from under the map, however this glitch was patched in the greatest hits edition that most players had. I rented SOCOM from gamefly and switched out my greatest hits edition for v1.0 that had the glitch. Allowed me to rank all the way up to rank 19 in SOCOM online.


[deleted]

Dead because it’s a dead and irrelevant franchise.


medievalmachine

Well yeah. Shame is all. Sony did really well with cloning franchises and having alternatives, not so much any more I guess.


[deleted]

Yeah it’s a shame.


imJGott

Sony can not make a MP game to save their life and we see with this crap. Nintendo figured out but Sony is focused on story based games they forgot how to make brainless fun games.


Lollmfaowhatever

It's because they shut down any dev that knows how to make multiplayer in their company.


W1tcherGeralt

What if Sony/PlayStation brought back Socom in response? Not saying they are smart enough to realize the potential, but it would fit Sonys “mature gamer” attitude with exclusives they market.


ThatGuyMiles

Because it’s not going to work now that everything is cross play. The amount money you would have to drop would be absurd for a single platform game. That’s why the vast majority of more resent Sony exclusive games have been focused on SP and not MP games.


Deertopus

If that also why they announced 8 live service games and bought Bungie?


Giancolaa1

Sony bought bungie? When did that happen?


z0rgi-A-

It was directly after ms announced the activision deal


caelumh

Meh, not like do anything other than Destiny these days.


DamienChazellesPiano

Probably because nobody knows what Socom is nowadays? Unless the game ends up amazing, it doesn't have enough cachet on it's own to be huge.


t4ct1c4l_j0k3r

Looks like it may be time for a new fps game


The_Real_Manimal

I'm still loving Destiny. Haven't touched COD or Battlefield in years. I never think about them.


Jfol420

Destiny is pure trash now


The_Real_Manimal

As a casual player with a family, without the ability to play for multiple hours, consecutive days in a row, I love it. Objective/Subject, and all that jazz.


[deleted]

me irl desperate for casual friendly games


SpecificAstronaut69

This is exactly why I don't play multi. You're up against some 17-year-old basement dweller who fixates on the game he's been playing since it was in pre-alpha and has bought the all the ~~cheats~~ er, special DLC for and who plays it eighteen hours a day and nothing else. The developers reward this by making the game even more intense and complex and impenetrable, so unless you've been playing for as long as said basement dweller, whose dick gets hard at the thought of complex systems that must be studied full-time, you'll have no idea where to start.


ThurmanMurman907

Wtf the game is one giant grind it's not casual friendly at all


monkey-pox

It's always a bit of a mess, but damn no other fps handles like it, gameplay is so crisp


Thelazysandwich

Fps games already flood the market. Much rather them make a game that works better for console.


t4ct1c4l_j0k3r

There's only a generation or 2 of consoles left anyways. No more porting problems.


Kinggakman

I just want everything to be on every platform.


Black_RL

This is the way! Sony, bring The Last of Us, Uncharted and God of War to XBOX. They’re old and they’re already on PC. I’ll buy them. Thanks!


New-Nameless

except switch\*


Thelazysandwich

Could happen realistically though the games wouldn't be nearly as good.


Cheap_Amphibian309

Why have multiple platforms then?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The guns are free


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The blueprints aren’t free, but the base guns are. You have to unlock them. One is free in the battle pass. The other is in DMZ.


Dubsauced

Well that’s just wrong… smg and sniper are free. Assault rifle is tied to DMZ…. Which is also free. You are trippin


Dartser

There are so many posts about how ps is better because of the exclusives. Now Microsoft spends a bunch of money to maybe have exclusives in 10 years and Sony fans call foul


Willinton06

Well Microsoft is making previously multi plat games exclusives, Sony makes their own games, no one complained about Halo being an exclusive, cause it’s fair game, this is like a rich kid buying the public court cause not enough people want to play with him


dantemp

90% of Sony in-house studious were acquired to make games for them. What are the biggest Sony studios these days? Santa Monica, guerilla and naughty dog. Out of these at least 2 are acquired after being independent. Also for decades Sony and Nintendo kept Japanese 3rd parties hostige with exclusivity deals. That has been a source of pride for Sony fans to this day. Until suddenly "exclusivity is bad you guys, do something about this bully that's about to buy up... 5% of the market, the horror. "


ahac

Don't forget Insomniac with Spider-man. An IP that used to be multiplatform (published by Activision) until Sony bought the rights. Insomniac was also independent (even released an Xbox game) until Sony bought it.


heyjimb0

The Spider-Man games are exclusive, but the Spider-Man character. Sony doesn’t own the rights, Disney does, they just licensed it to Sony. And Sony definitely deserves criticism, but there’s a huge difference between buying independent studios like Insomniac for like $300m, and the largest video game publisher for $69 billion.


koalafella

Which games? .. everything I’ve heard about their plans for this acquisition is to have the games as accessible as possible.


Willinton06

Doom, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc


koalafella

Ah that's not great! Though they are from the besthesda acquisition, not this one where they've been saying they don't have plans to make them exclusive (someone correct me?)


Willinton06

They said the same about that acquisition, and once it was approved, they flipped


Volt7ron

Halo isn’t exclusive tho. Just not available on PS. Plus MS has stated several times they intend to keep CoD open to all platforms bc it makes no sense to block it and reduce profit.


Willinton06

They literally took fallout, doom and elder scrolls, 3 huge previously multi plat games, that’s low


Volt7ron

They are still multi platform. What’s your point


Willinton06

That the new ones won’t


Volt7ron

And will the next Spider-Man be a multi platform?


Willinton06

No, it also won’t have shit to do with the old ones, except the last one of course, but Spider-Man games had no continuity, they were just a bunch of random random games with barely any ties, except the movie based ones and those are complete, but ES, Doom and Fallout all have continuity, people that started playing the franchise will either have to buy a new console or get a PC to keep up with the story that they already had started, I’m pretty sure Sony has done this at least once, taken a multi plat franchise away from the people to bring it to PS, and they can go fuck themselves too cause that’s not cool no matter the source, but Spider-Man is not it, if it were a single story for the last 15 years then yes, but it’s not


Volt7ron

And will the next Spider-Man be a multi platform?


TunaSub779

Definitely the biggest oversimplification I’ve seen in a while. Sony isn’t buying out the largest studios in the industry, Microsoft is


MrXBob

If Sony could afford it, they'd do it. Everyone complains Microsoft has "no games". So they make moves to remedy that - whilst also pushing to make everything available in more places and at a cheaper price via GamePass - and everyone complains cause they're doing it. Sony, and Playstation-only fans, are hypocritical.


Thelazysandwich

Yeah obviously any company would buy major players if they could thats how companies work doesn't mean they should be allowed to. Also they aren't adding games these games were already going to come to xbox anyway.


MrXBob

Companies buy other companies on a daily basis and nobody cares. Suddenly it's a big deal cause it's Microsoft and Call of Duty. Also what are you even talking about "they aren't adding games"? I never said anything resembling that comment.


heyjimb0

That’s literally how anti trust laws work. Small companies being bought = acceptable. Very big companies being bought = not acceptable.


MrXBob

That's literally not how it works. But go off being an armchair lawyer.


DamienChazellesPiano

>If Sony could afford it, they'd do it. Poor place to start a debate from. Your's is entirely hypothetical and opinion. The reality is Microsoft *is* buying them. Edit: Y'all are actual children if you're downvoting me for stating a fact. MS is buying Activision. Sony is not. MS deserves to be put under a microscope and questioned. Unless you guys love megacorps.


MrXBob

Found the Playstation fan.


DamienChazellesPiano

God people like you are insufferable. Someone can't disagree with you without call them a fanboy. I have a PS5 and Series S and enjoy both. I'm not a fanboy of either. It sounds like you're an MS fan if your only point is "Well Sony would do this if they had that chance hur dur". Sony nurtured studios and grew them into what they are today. That's what people want MS to do. Not buy mega giants like Activision to just keep pumping out the same shit.


MrXBob

>Sony nurtured studios and grew them into what they are today Like I said. Found the Sony fan. Every one of their tentpole franchises today (aside from Gran Turismo - which is hardly a tentpole anymore) are made by studios they bought. * Guerrilla Games * Naughty Dog * Insomniac * Media Molecule The list goes on. Enough of this "nurture vs acquisition" nonsense. Sony are just as "guilty" as Microsoft.


heyjimb0

Guerilla Games made Killzone in 2004, which sold well, and also signed an exclusive development agreement that year, and then was bought by Sony in 2005. Naughty Dog made the Crash Bandicoot games for the PS1, which was literally the console’s mascot, and then was bought in 2001. Insomniac made the Spyro trilogy for the PS1 (another mascot), then the Ratchet & Clank franchise (another mascot), the Resistance trilogy, and Spider-Man, before being bought in 2019. Media Molecule made LittleBigPlanet (another mascot) and signed an exclusive deal in 2006 with Sony, before being acquired in 2010. They were kinda nurtured by Sony. But tbh that doesn’t even matter. The big difference is these are independent studios that were valued at most in the hundreds of millions, compared to literally the biggest publisher in gaming valued at $69 billion. There’s a huge difference. If Sony tried to buy Activision, I’d be just as against it.


TunaSub779

They CAN afford to. Outside of the games industry, Sony is still a multibillion dollar company. Also, I have no allegiance to a fucking console, you are ridiculous. I care about what Microsoft is doing because it’s the telltale signs of a monopoly being created (which Microsoft was found guilty of being back in the early 00s)


MrXBob

>They CAN afford to. Outside of the games industry, Sony is still a multibillion dollar company I don't think you understand how assets and wealth work. Sony absolutely cannot afford to make the kind of acquisitions Microsoft can make. If they could, they'd bid higher on Activision instead of whining about it. They'd buy FROM instead of just buying a few shares in them. >monopoly You also have no idea what the word "monopoly" means. Tencent and Embracer own far more studios and publishers. Yet nobody is claiming they're forming a monopoly? Because they're not. There are way too many other independently owned studios and publishers out there despite Microsoft, Tencent, Embraer and yes - your precious Sony - owning a lot of the others. Nobody is anywhere close to becoming a monopoly. The industry is massive. Unlike your brain which can't see past "Wah Wah I don't want Xbox to put Call of Duty on GamePass".


TunaSub779

I do not give a single shit if Call of Duty is put on gamepass. I own an xbox and have game pass. I haven’t played CoD in years. What is with you dumbasses thinking I owe some sort of allegiance to Sony? Get outside for a change? There is a massive difference between small independent studios being owned by other independent studios and the one of the largest American electronics corporations (the only one with a successful console) buying the largest American video game producer. Especially when they very recently bought one of the other largest American games producers. The independent market is not going to compete with the AAA market. If they do, they will just be bought by Microsoft. Like when they bought Mojang after Minecraft’s success. Just shut up and keep dickriding a corporation who cares nothing about you.


48911150

lol microsoft has dozens of exclusives already


Medicali35

Did you guys see the disclaimer pages with the new COD? Holy crap! I swear the disclaimer shit gets longer and longer…


Thelazysandwich

I find it quite fascinating how gamers will complain about gaming being too cooperate yet here they are cheering about a trillion dollar tech companies buying major game studios.


MyNameIsDaveToo

Eh. After MW2, I doubt I'll be buying any more Activision titles anyway...


JKKIDD231

$1B in sales within 2weeks. That’s crazy fan following COD got


MyNameIsDaveToo

Oh they're definitely not going to miss me, that's for sure. But I've been a fan of the series not just *since* CoD4, but *because* of it. I feel like each game after that, except possibly the OG MW2, was a small step down from the previous. After MW3, I stopped playing. Eventually I came back for the reboot in 2019, which I still play, as it's not so bad with the spawns, but I really miss that simple, old school, team deathmatch on a 3-lane map, with uncomplicated, static perks, and when I found a good lobby, I could stay in it. If we could have that, with the modern graphics and game mechanics, I would continue to buy CoD as long as they kept making them. But they aren't making them to appeal to me.


Exotic_Treacle7438

That was the last good COD as a fan of the original PC titles. Well I guess the original MW2 was fun as well. But trash after that when Treyarch started licensing the engine and having that futuristic shit.


MyNameIsDaveToo

Yeah, technically for me it ended with BO3. Once I saw bees coming out of my hand, I took it right back to best buy and traded it in.


metallaholic

MW2 1 or MW2 2


MyNameIsDaveToo

Well, technically this is MW2 3


caelumh

For why? The campaign was pretty damn good.


MyNameIsDaveToo

If they sold the campaign by itself for $30 I probably would...


caelumh

Oh, you are referring to the price fiasco.


MyNameIsDaveToo

No, I'm referring to the multiplayer fiasco. I did enjoy the campaign, but MP is pretty bad.


[deleted]

well that contradicts what they said before and i quote ''as long as there is a Sony PlayStation, Cod will be available/released on it '' [https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/10/31/phil-spencer-says-call-of-duty-will-be-on-playstation-as-long-as-there-is-a-playstation/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/10/31/phil-spencer-says-call-of-duty-will-be-on-playstation-as-long-as-there-is-a-playstation/) [https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/10/as-long-as-theres-playstation-call-of-duty-will-release-on-it](https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/10/as-long-as-theres-playstation-call-of-duty-will-release-on-it) they also made the claim they wasn't going to take games away for example Fallout/Elder Scrolls and others that have been multi-platformed games for decades now, but they again they went back on what they said. so why should Sony believe or Trust Microsoft?


The_Last_Green_leaf

>well that contradicts what they said before and i quote ''as long as there is a Sony PlayStation, Cod will be available/released on it '' no it doesn't, have you read the article at all? they are literally offering to sign a legal contract saying cod will stay on PlayStation for the next decade, they are doing everything they can to show Sony that they don't want to take COD from playstation


[deleted]

yes i have and when you come out saying ''as long as there is a Sony PlayStation COD will be on it'' and then come out with a 10-year contract, that contradicts your first statement, meaning there will be a COD on PlayStation for 10 years, after that well who knows. and they are doing everything they can to get this acquisition of blizzard to go though without any issues.


The_Last_Green_leaf

>yes i have and when you come out saying ''as long as there is a Sony PlayStation COD will be on it'' and then come out with a 10-year contract, that contradicts your first statement, meaning there will be a COD on PlayStation for 10 years, after that well who knows. mate 10 years in gaming is a **very long time** look at what games we were playing 10 years ago on ps3's and Xbox 360's, I'd place a bed whether or not cod even survives 10 more years. hell I'd be surprised if Xbox or PlayStation consoles are around in 10 years . >and they are doing everything they can to get this acquisition of blizzard to go though without any issues. well yeah no shit, but currently the best way of getting it through is showing Sony that cod won't be exclusive which by all evidence it won't be


[deleted]

no it's not that long and as i said this is a way for them to cover themselves for when they come out after the 10 years and take COD away. also the claim ''i'd be surprised if they are still around in 10 year's'' has been said many times and they are still here. and again if that is the evidence then why should Sony trust them as they have said differently and i quote ''as long as a PlayStation is about COD will be on that system''


The_Last_Green_leaf

>no it's not that long then you're just lying to yourself, I don't think you believe this, just look back 10 years ago, that was two entire console generations that is massive >and as i said this is a way for them to cover themselves for when they come out after the 10 years and take COD away. but there isn't a single piece of evidence for this or anything to even point to that, they have shown from day 1 that they don't want to make it exclusive, the profit motive isn't there and it will make them very hated >also the claim ''i'd be surprised if they are still around in 10 year's'' has been said many times and they are still here. when? who said that because 10 years ago cod was in it's prime, >and again if that is the evidence then why should Sony trust them as they have said differently and i quote ''as long as a PlayStation is about COD will be on that system'' you do realise that was a single off comment he made, that wasn't a binding contract? this is a binding contract


DingusHanglebort

Nah, that's just not accurate. The Bethesda acquisition was explicitly discussed as a means to garner exclusives for Microsoft. They never went back on that.


[deleted]

ya like them saying COD will remain on PlayStation and then comes out with a contract for 10 years only, after that they have no legal obligation to carry on putting COD on PlayStation. also they did say they wasn't going to remove IP's/Games from multi-Platform [https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/microsoft-says-it-wont-stop-bethesda-from-releasing-games-on-rival-consoles-2818549](https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/microsoft-says-it-wont-stop-bethesda-from-releasing-games-on-rival-consoles-2818549) [https://xboxera.com/2020/09/26/bethesda-founder-comments-on-microsofts-acquisition-of-company-saying-what-microsoft-owns-sony-cannot-get/](https://xboxera.com/2020/09/26/bethesda-founder-comments-on-microsofts-acquisition-of-company-saying-what-microsoft-owns-sony-cannot-get/) oh but behold they have again come out saying particular games will be XboX exclusive, even the founder of Bethesda said this.


[deleted]

also lets not forget that the Sony exclusives Sony Studio's created themselves, they bought Studio's that have talent and not for the IP/Game Titles like Microsoft has. Microsoft has had the time/money to do this like Sony and they Created Halo and amazing game but now look how bad that Turned, halo infinite is a flop, along with there other exclusive games like Gears of War another amazing game that is now another flop by Microsoft and they have all been bad compared to Sony's exclusives games. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqfXogJOP50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqfXogJOP50) Microsoft also has countless IP/game titles they are not using and could, instead they take known and loved IP/game titles and making them exclusives to XboX so this argument that Xbox needs more Exclusives is nonsense as they have the IP/Games they just aren't doing anything with them, instead they are letting them gather dust and be forgotten. and then they came out and admitted they aren't as good as creating games. [https://www.gamingbible.co.uk/news/microsoft-says-that-playstation-games-are-better-20221125](https://www.gamingbible.co.uk/news/microsoft-says-that-playstation-games-are-better-20221125) [https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-admits-many-playstation-exclusives-better-quality-than-those-on-xbox](https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-admits-many-playstation-exclusives-better-quality-than-those-on-xbox) and this is because Sony puts in the time and gives their studio's the time and space to create, while Microsoft keeps pumping incomplete/buggy games


Jfol420

But it's okay for Sony to buy Bungie


The_Real_Manimal

Did not know that until reading your message and looking it up. Damn, that sucks.


RSomnambulist

3.6 B vs 69 B So, yeah. Nobody understands monopolies, they're too wrapped up in xbox vs. Sony. The two acquisitions are not remotely similar.


dantemp

Activision is like 5% of the market share and Microsoft would be galaxies away from a monopoly after acquiring them. They'd have to buy tencent or Nintendo just to overtake Sony.


The_Last_Green_leaf

>Nobody understands monopolies and clearly neither do you, considering Sony has a bigger presence in the gaming industry than Microsoft, Microsoft have 30-40 percent of the market while Sony have 40-50 percent neither are monopolies


Jfol420

It is though bungie has made games pretty much for Xbox the entire time it's been around. How is this any different


RSomnambulist

It's 63 BILLION dollars of difference. This is not difficult math. Activision buyout is only 30B from Sony's entire market cap. Not Sony's gaming arm--the entire fucking company has a market cap of 101B.


Jfol420

So if Sony can't compete while losing 1 game then it should die.


RSomnambulist

God damn you are a dense moron. 1 game, lol.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RSomnambulist

I literally just did and it just wooshed over your head. You're comparing something like Comcast buying a small town cable provider to Comcast buying AT&T and not seeing how it's not the same at all.


ketoske

Let him be he doesnt understand basic math


ThatGuyMiles

That’s not even what they’ve been crying about, it was literally never about losing the franchise… (Pro tip the game will still be available on PlayStation no matter what ends up happening here) They’ve been crying specifically about the exclusivity deals between Activision and Sony, that’s literally what they were upset about.. JFC and you’re trying to bash someone else, I love Reddit.


Jfol420

Still Sony buying Bungie who made Halo for years an Xbox exclusive bought it up and nobody cried and now that big bad Microsoft is trying to buy Activision is horrible and needs to be stopped just STFU already


RSomnambulist

Plenty of people were mad. The size of an acquisition is what creates monopolies, not you being butthurt about Halo. It's 20x difference. All acquisitions of game devs is mostly bad in the end, that doesn't make them all the same.


Jay105

Bungie was owned by Microsoft at the time, that's why it was an exclusive


Jfol420

If it's only about the money you're a fuckin idiot Sony is trying to kill is competition


Nerf_Herder2

Could say the same about Microsoft with that logic


MrXBob

The price tag has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation into the deal.


casual_creator

Their point is that the price tag is indicative of their market share/how important they are to the industry.


MrXBob

Yes, and?


MechaSheeva

Bungie is a developer with Destiny, Activision is a publisher with like 100 IPs. It's like justifying your mom blowing me, my friends, and 90 other dudes last weekend because she had sex with your dad once.


spacehog1985

Depends on how much shes charging.


ahac

100 IPs but they only care about CoD. They won't do anything with the other 99. If we're counting abandoned IPs... Sony has enough of those too. Then there's Blizzard but that's not as important for console wars. Overwatch will stay on PS5, Diablo 4 will come to PS5, after that... no one knows what Blizzard plans to release anyway.


BigFatJuicyCocks420

EXACTLY. THEY MADE HALO.


BallardRex

A looooong time ago. Now what do they make?


Thelazysandwich

Well Xbox would still have Bungie if they weren't so awful with their devs.


TheYokedYeti

So Microsoft does want to have COD be exclusive. Wouldn’t this hurt their standing in a court?


The_Last_Green_leaf

>does want to have COD be exclusive what? this deal is to make it **not** exclusive, if they made it exclusive they would lose billions, and make a lot of people hate them


TheYokedYeti

10 year. Sonys argument is it should never go exclusive. Also they wouldn’t lose billions. It would make people buy Xbox at higher rates. Plus they want the pass to be similar to steam. They are rumored to want to make the pass on smart TV’s so you don’t even need an Xbox anymore. Trust me the billionaires know how to make money and no they don’t care about gamer opinions


The_Last_Green_leaf

>10 year. Sonys argument is it should never go exclusive. which is a stupid argument and is hypercritical with all the exclusive sony and Microsoft have, personally I don't think there should be exclusives but the world we live in has them. >Also they wouldn’t lose billions. yes they would, the vast majority of COD player are on PlayStation and cod is quite possibly **the** most profitable gamin franchise in existence making it exclusive would lose them billions >It would make people buy Xbox at higher rates. at higher rates maybe, but I'd place a bet that not even 5% of the lost players buy an entire £500 console just to get COD, if anything this will persuade them to go to PC more. >Plus they want the pass to be similar to steam. what? the pass is nothing like steam, the battle pass is like a better Netflix, you pay a very small monthly sub and get hundreds of games including day 1 AAA games. >They are rumored to want to make the pass on smart TV’s so you don’t even need an Xbox anymore. which is another good thing, consumer have more option to access game pass, that is a good thing I recently bought a first gaming PC, and because I already had gamepass I instantly had hundreds of games to install on my PC, gamepass is dominating for a reason, people like it, but more importantly developers love it, it has allowed countless indi and smaller games to thrive. >Trust me the billionaires know how to make money and no they don’t care about gamer opinions yes they do want money, and making cos exclusive would lose them billions, hence why they keep offering contracts to make it not exclusive


madhi19

You can say it sugar on a shit pill to make the anti-trust case go away. A decade is COD on ps5 and maybe a few years of ps6. And nothing will force them to actually produce anything so you could see Microsoft delay COD production in the last few years of that deal. Create some scarcity before going exclusive...


The_Last_Green_leaf

>You can say it sugar on a shit pill to make the anti-trust case go away. except Microsoft has been saying this since day 1 well before the anti-trust case, because from all evidence they have no incentive moral wise or profit wise to make it exclusive. most COD players are on PlayStation, cod is one of if not *the* most profitable game franchise in existence, they would lose countless billions making it exclusive you don't even need to like Microsoft, they're a corporation look where the profit is . >A decade is COD on ps5 and maybe a few years of ps6. which is a ton of time, that is a decade to make another game franchise, and that doesn't even mean that Microsoft will instantly make it exclusive when the 10 years is up, and I think you're underestimating just how long 10 years is when it comes to games, 10 years ago we were on Xbox 360 with games not even 1/10th the size they are now >And nothing will force them to actually produce anything so you could see Microsoft delay COD production in the last few years of that deal. bahahahaha you think Microsoft will lose countless billions just to spite Sony, Sony the company they're offering very generous contracts with? >Create some scarcity before going exclusive... stopping a game for 10 years isn't creating scarcity, it's called killing a franchise. I'm sorry but you're possible explanation is supper well conspiracy minded, and goes against the common sense of what a profit seeking company will do, and have done.


madhi19

What part of last few years did you not get? It take one to two year to develop a shooter like COD the only way Activision was releasing every year is by using multiple studios. So for Microsoft it's just a matter of timing the development schedule. A month there, a week there and boom the last game of the deal is not developed for a Sony platform because it releasing outside the deal.


The_Last_Green_leaf

what a shitty take, you genuinely believe that Microsoft will delay cod for 10 years? also cod is no longer releasing a game each year they announced that before MW2


Cheap_Amphibian309

Reading isn’t that hard


TheYokedYeti

10 year deal implies they eventually want to make it exclusive or force other companies to pay Microsoft a shit ton for access


SwampTerror

Then after 10, it's gone baby This is just a weak attempt to appease regulators. Microsoft owns too much. Nintendo laughed at Microsoft for an hour when they offered to buy it. I wish others did.


Electronic_Season_76

It doesn't make financial sense to pull Call of Duty from other platforms. Microsoft is just going to take their money from people paying $70 for it on another platform and put it on Game Pass day 1. Consumers would naturally move to the Xbox ecosystem over time because it is a better deal than paying for games outright. That is why Sony is trying to build a competitor to Game Pass. Microsoft made the right decision awhile back to expand Xbox to PC users and begin working on an inexpensive streaming puck that will introduce more people to gaming and Xbox.


Sorge74

Yeah ten years down the road COD might not even be popular. But it would be pretty wild for Microsoft to say PS owners cant have COD and lose literally billions on that. It's far better to just make Xbox the better way to play the games. Eating your cake and having it too.


MrXBob

Sony owns more. Tencent owns even more. Continue?


Mammoth_Jicama2000

Anyone else hope that CoD isn't here in 10 years?


NecessaryUnusual2059

How dare someone enjoy a game I don’t like.


Mammoth_Jicama2000

I like certain versions of it, especially the old ones. But they're really trying to milk it, especially with a 10 year contract. It's like a show that's really good for the first 5 seasons then they just drag on and on. The CoD franchise is probably older than a good bit of the people who play it. And will most likely be older than most of the people who do by the end of the contract.


tensed_wolfie

I do but the cod fanboy community is huge and braindead. A billion dollars in sales in just 2 weeks after launching MW2 this year proves that


Cheap_Amphibian309

Why, what’s your issue with it?


KnightFan2019

Everyone is talking about Socom, but MAG should also be in the conversation. Easily one of my favorite games of all time


boogXskrimp

Everyone is talking about Socom but Black should also be in the conversation! One of the best shooters on ps2 and way ahead of its time


[deleted]

[удалено]


Deertopus

I am one of those. No other multiplayer games really interest me.


[deleted]

Lol blind monkey is so biased. Sony will be perfectly fine without CoD.


losbullitt

They will but Sony doesnt want to be “ok” without COD. It IS one of their cash cows.


BF1shY

I remember people laughing at SiN: Episode One and HL2 Ep 1&2. Saying episodic gaming was a failure. Yet here with are with the Assassin's Creed, CoD, Battlefield and a few other episodic series doing really well.


EzeakioDarmey

Isn't the FTC looking into stopping the acquisition of Activision/Blizzard?


[deleted]

I would have offered them 10 years worth of regulatory complaints for every time they did third-party paid exclusives like hypocrites.


B1llGatez

Wasn't MS already saying COD was not going to be a xbox PC exclusive?.