By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - CoD: Modern Warfare Spec Ops Survival Mode Exclusive for 1 Year

smroadkill15 said:
KManX89 said:

I see where you're coming from, but it's not the same thing. You're talking about 30 day exclusivity on maps as opposed to year-long content being locked on one system, and not just map packs, but an entire game mode being locked on one system for a whole year, in which case, it might as well be full-on exclusive since the next CoD will already be out by the time it hits XB1 and PC.

But in any case, you can't blame Sony for this. It's Activision being greedy, everyone knows they don't need help making any of this timed-exclusive content, they're a fucking multi-$bil company. They could literally afford to make these games F2P with no microtransactions for years and still stay in business, but they do it, anyway because they try to get every last dime they can out of these games via milkage. If Sony doesn't accept these shady deals they offer them, then they'll go to MS and you know they'll accept it to try and get a leg up on the competition.

You can absolutely blame Sony for this deal as much as Activision. It's hard to say who is the one initiating the deals, but Activision isn't forcing Sony to do anything. Both are mutually agreeing to them. Activision and Sony had similar deals with Destiny, so they both know exactly what they are doing. 

No, it's Activision. If Sony doesn't accept these deals, then they'll go to MS and there's no way they'll turn them down.

And Activision are the ones brokering the deals. I mean, come on, it's pretty obvious it's Activision who are initiating the timed exclusivity deals. This allows them to milk even more money from the franchise, which is pretty much their M.O.



Around the Network
KManX89 said:
smroadkill15 said:

You can absolutely blame Sony for this deal as much as Activision. It's hard to say who is the one initiating the deals, but Activision isn't forcing Sony to do anything. Both are mutually agreeing to them. Activision and Sony had similar deals with Destiny, so they both know exactly what they are doing. 

No, it's Activision. If Sony doesn't accept these deals, then they'll go to MS and there's no way they'll turn them down.

And Activision are the ones brokering the deals. I mean, come on, it's pretty obvious it's Activision who are initiating the timed exclusivity deals. This allows them to milk even more money from the franchise, which is pretty much their M.O.

How do you know this for a fact? You're just guessing Activision is 100% in control, which isn't right at all. Sony definitely has a say in what they want their exclusive content to be. They could simply have a marketing deal, and I'm sure Activision would take it. MS took plenty of blame last generation when they did the timed map packs, and it was rightfully so. I feel like Sony said, "Fine you want crossplay? Cool, but we want something else in return since we aren't getting map packs early." Makes way more sense. 

Phil Spencer has been vocal about not liking 3rd party games with exclusive content locked on a platform. I don't think MS actually would take the deal, especially with their heavy support for crossplay. Do you see Minecraft with exclusive content on Xbox? I don't think so. 



Frank_kc said:
This is part of business and it happened many times in the past (started by Microsoft and inherited by Sony). It is simple, if you care about COD survival mode, buy a PS4. I can see this even happening more and more in the future. I can see exclusive modes content in addition to DLC exclusivity.

This is a sad but true statement.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

smroadkill15 said:
KManX89 said:

No, it's Activision. If Sony doesn't accept these deals, then they'll go to MS and there's no way they'll turn them down.

And Activision are the ones brokering the deals. I mean, come on, it's pretty obvious it's Activision who are initiating the timed exclusivity deals. This allows them to milk even more money from the franchise, which is pretty much their M.O.

How do you know this for a fact? You're just guessing Activision is 100% in control, which isn't right at all. Sony definitely has a say in what they want their exclusive content to be. They could simply have a marketing deal, and I'm sure Activision would take it. MS took plenty of blame last generation when they did the timed map packs, and it was rightfully so. I feel like Sony said, "Fine you want crossplay? Cool, but we want something else in return since we aren't getting map packs early." Makes way more sense. 

Phil Spencer has been vocal about not liking 3rd party games with exclusive content locked on a platform. I don't think MS actually would take the deal, especially with their heavy support for crossplay. Do you see Minecraft with exclusive content on Xbox? I don't think so. 

Do you need any more evidence that this is an Activision decision than it not happening with other companies with the same frequency or type of deal?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

If we’re holding current discussion responsible for things said years ago, why only now that this practice has sunk to a new low level with Sony and publishers on PS4 is it suddenly zero fault of the platform holder and all on the publisher? People sure weren’t cutting MS any slack when they had 30 day map pack deals with CoD. Or even this gen with the FIFA timed deals. It was all MS’s fault then. But now it’s all Activision, Sony has no choice but to bend over backwards and take these timed exclusive deals that Activision is offering.

It reminds me of charging for online play. You can’t blame Sony for that, Microsoft somehow forced them to partake. Sony would love to not charge for it but MS is making them earn all that revenue by charging. It’s almost as if there is some large double standard here and other places when Sony is involved 🤷🏻‍♂️

The most likely situation is Sony struck the same kind of deal for Calls of Doody that MS had, which is 30 day DLC access. But AFAIK CoD 2k19 is ditching paid map packs and season passes, which means Sony needed something else to market as PS4 exclusive. So instead of 30 day DLC, they got 365 day access to something included in the $60 game. Which, to consumers, is a worse deal.

Instead of bickering about which multi billion dollar company is more to blame for the deal, I’ll just blame both. I also said it was a shitty deal when MS had FIFA content exclusive. I didn’t try to blame EA for making MS take some deal.



Around the Network
smroadkill15 said:
KManX89 said:

No, it's Activision. If Sony doesn't accept these deals, then they'll go to MS and there's no way they'll turn them down.

And Activision are the ones brokering the deals. I mean, come on, it's pretty obvious it's Activision who are initiating the timed exclusivity deals. This allows them to milk even more money from the franchise, which is pretty much their M.O.

How do you know this for a fact? You're just guessing Activision is 100% in control, which isn't right at all. Sony definitely has a say in what they want their exclusive content to be. They could simply have a marketing deal, and I'm sure Activision would take it. MS took plenty of blame last generation when they did the timed map packs, and it was rightfully so. I feel like Sony said, "Fine you want crossplay? Cool, but we want something else in return since we aren't getting map packs early." Makes way more sense. 

Phil Spencer has been vocal about not liking 3rd party games with exclusive content locked on a platform. I don't think MS actually would take the deal, especially with their heavy support for crossplay. Do you see Minecraft with exclusive content on Xbox? I don't think so. 

Spencer only said that because MS wasn't ponying up the cash for big timed exclusive deals anymore. If the shoe was on the other foot, he'd be taking those deals left and right.



LudicrousSpeed said:
If we’re holding current discussion responsible for things said years ago, why only now that this practice has sunk to a new low level with Sony and publishers on PS4 is it suddenly zero fault of the platform holder and all on the publisher? People sure weren’t cutting MS any slack when they had 30 day map pack deals with CoD. Or even this gen with the FIFA timed deals. It was all MS’s fault then. But now it’s all Activision, Sony has no choice but to bend over backwards and take these timed exclusive deals that Activision is offering.

It reminds me of charging for online play. You can’t blame Sony for that, Microsoft somehow forced them to partake. Sony would love to not charge for it but MS is making them earn all that revenue by charging. It’s almost as if there is some large double standard here and other places when Sony is involved 🤷🏻‍♂️

The most likely situation is Sony struck the same kind of deal for Calls of Doody that MS had, which is 30 day DLC access. But AFAIK CoD 2k19 is ditching paid map packs and season passes, which means Sony needed something else to market as PS4 exclusive. So instead of 30 day DLC, they got 365 day access to something included in the $60 game. Which, to consumers, is a worse deal.

Instead of bickering about which multi billion dollar company is more to blame for the deal, I’ll just blame both. I also said it was a shitty deal when MS had FIFA content exclusive. I didn’t try to blame EA for making MS take some deal.

Seems like you fail to notice differences.

When MS created the practice on CoD for the month exclusivity, that was something new that they proposed. When right now people say that if Sony don't accept the proposition of Activision they would go to MS and MS would accept you know that is true. So that is what differentiate the criticism and you know it.

Also on the charging for online, MS again created it and sure customers were wrong to accept it. When MS done and got more money with neglible backlash why wouldn't Sony and after Nintendo do the same? So again it is very easy to see why people blame MS for creating much more than they blame who followed.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
If we’re holding current discussion responsible for things said years ago, why only now that this practice has sunk to a new low level with Sony and publishers on PS4 is it suddenly zero fault of the platform holder and all on the publisher? People sure weren’t cutting MS any slack when they had 30 day map pack deals with CoD. Or even this gen with the FIFA timed deals. It was all MS’s fault then. But now it’s all Activision, Sony has no choice but to bend over backwards and take these timed exclusive deals that Activision is offering.

It reminds me of charging for online play. You can’t blame Sony for that, Microsoft somehow forced them to partake. Sony would love to not charge for it but MS is making them earn all that revenue by charging. It’s almost as if there is some large double standard here and other places when Sony is involved 🤷🏻‍♂️

The most likely situation is Sony struck the same kind of deal for Calls of Doody that MS had, which is 30 day DLC access. But AFAIK CoD 2k19 is ditching paid map packs and season passes, which means Sony needed something else to market as PS4 exclusive. So instead of 30 day DLC, they got 365 day access to something included in the $60 game. Which, to consumers, is a worse deal.

Instead of bickering about which multi billion dollar company is more to blame for the deal, I’ll just blame both. I also said it was a shitty deal when MS had FIFA content exclusive. I didn’t try to blame EA for making MS take some deal.

Seems like you fail to notice differences.

When MS created the practice on CoD for the month exclusivity, that was something new that they proposed. When right now people say that if Sony don't accept the proposition of Activision they would go to MS and MS would accept you know that is true. So that is what differentiate the criticism and you know it.

Also on the charging for online, MS again created it and sure customers were wrong to accept it. When MS done and got more money with neglible backlash why wouldn't Sony and after Nintendo do the same? So again it is very easy to see why people blame MS for creating much more than they blame who followed.

You’re only proving my point when it comes to the double standard. When MS and Activision got together for exclusive deals, it was because “Microsoft created it”. When Sony and Activision make a deal that is worse for gamers, it’s Activision. MS could have been in the exact same situation you’re guessing that Sony was in, but in Sony’s case you’re willing to absolve them of blame, but MS “created” the issue. It’s just like when MS paid for Tomb Raider to be a timed exclusive. Tons and tons of bitching and criticizing MS, yet people ignored that Sony literally moneyhatted the same franchise earlier. Double standard. 

Same with online play. Nintendo and SEGA had paid online services on SNES/Genesis and the DC also eventually required money for online play. Sure, MS was the first to really make it successful, but if they’re going to receive criticism for online play requiring a fee, anyone who follows suit deserves the same criticism. But Sony not only saw zero criticism in some places but strangely it somehow became Microsoft’s fault that Sony was charging. Bizarre.

Anyways im not about to join in the bickering about which huge corporation is nickel pinching more 👍 Rumors have it the game has seen massive pre-order cancels and IW devs on twitter have already been apologizing like crazy so it seems they know they’re fucking over all gamers here. Nothing else needs to be said really.



DonFerrari said:
smroadkill15 said:

How do you know this for a fact? You're just guessing Activision is 100% in control, which isn't right at all. Sony definitely has a say in what they want their exclusive content to be. They could simply have a marketing deal, and I'm sure Activision would take it. MS took plenty of blame last generation when they did the timed map packs, and it was rightfully so. I feel like Sony said, "Fine you want crossplay? Cool, but we want something else in return since we aren't getting map packs early." Makes way more sense. 

Phil Spencer has been vocal about not liking 3rd party games with exclusive content locked on a platform. I don't think MS actually would take the deal, especially with their heavy support for crossplay. Do you see Minecraft with exclusive content on Xbox? I don't think so. 

Do you need any more evidence that this is an Activision decision than it not happening with other companies with the same frequency or type of deal?

Sorry but I don't. Stop absolving Sony of any blame in this. It's complete BS. 



thismeintiel said:
smroadkill15 said:

How do you know this for a fact? You're just guessing Activision is 100% in control, which isn't right at all. Sony definitely has a say in what they want their exclusive content to be. They could simply have a marketing deal, and I'm sure Activision would take it. MS took plenty of blame last generation when they did the timed map packs, and it was rightfully so. I feel like Sony said, "Fine you want crossplay? Cool, but we want something else in return since we aren't getting map packs early." Makes way more sense. 

Phil Spencer has been vocal about not liking 3rd party games with exclusive content locked on a platform. I don't think MS actually would take the deal, especially with their heavy support for crossplay. Do you see Minecraft with exclusive content on Xbox? I don't think so. 

Spencer only said that because MS wasn't ponying up the cash for big timed exclusive deals anymore. If the shoe was on the other foot, he'd be taking those deals left and right.

You can have your assumptions. All I can speak for is the evidence out there. MS has been marketing tons of 3rd party games this year and last. Since Spencer made the comment, I haven't see any deals including times exclusive content for same day release titles. If there has been, please point them out.