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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What would you want Sony to trade for CoD on PlayStation?

eva01beserk said:
Machiavellian said:

There really is no substitute for COD but there are already plenty of alternative FPS.  The player base for COD that want to play COD will go the platform that has COD.  Case in point would be Final Fantasy.  There are plenty of Japanese RPGs but there is no substitute for FF.  In the short term this probably does not have that big of an impact on Sony but long term well we will have to see.  If anything, this is MS sending a huge message to the industry that they are very serious about their commitment to the gaming industry and thus all the players are on noticed.

The majority of gamers are unaware of this. The majority are not online forums or watch youtube commentary. They see a game their friends have and buy it. So they will ignore this and keep buying playstations untill then. Then what? Asked them to switch consoles? That's gona be a big ask for a lot of them. Specially 5he younger players. 

Not sure we are talking about the same people. If you are a gamer, and COD is the game you put in many hours and you purchase every COD game that comes out, if the game is not on your current console, you would get the system that it is on.  That does not mean Xbox because MS actually do not care if you get an Xbox or play it on a PC, their gameplan is that you get GamePass.  SO MS really do not care if you still want to get a PS as long as you get a GP sub, they are all cool with that.

Also the younger generation have no problems getting what they want.  I have seen my Son save over 150 bucks for some Sandals because they are popular in school, he saved all his money for it.  When someone wants something, they will find a way to get it.  



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

MS can demand whatever they want, its up to Act/Blizzard whether or not they agree to the terms.  In other words, MS coming in saying I will purchase your company at this price, here are our terms.  Its on Acti/Bliz to say yes or no.  They will have over the months multiple meetings hashing out the terms of the sale.  Actually, they might have already hashed out those agreements and now its just getting approval of the sell.  

Ok. So MS didn't care enough about cleaning Activision as fast as possible when they made their purchase offer?

The company is not sold yet so who knows what they have bargained for.  None of that stuff gets published you know that right.  Not is really set until MS get approval for the purchase.



Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

Ok. So MS didn't care enough about cleaning Activision as fast as possible when they made their purchase offer?

The company is not sold yet so who knows what they have bargained for.  None of that stuff gets published you know that right.  Not is really set until MS get approval for the purchase.

You were talking about conditions to do the deal as if MS could right now demand that CoD 2022 isn't released in PS. And that was what I was saying wouldn't be possible, they making demands that would apply before the approval. Seems like you were interpreting something else.



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."

Machiavellian said:
eva01beserk said:

The majority of gamers are unaware of this. The majority are not online forums or watch youtube commentary. They see a game their friends have and buy it. So they will ignore this and keep buying playstations untill then. Then what? Asked them to switch consoles? That's gona be a big ask for a lot of them. Specially 5he younger players. 

Not sure we are talking about the same people. If you are a gamer, and COD is the game you put in many hours and you purchase every COD game that comes out, if the game is not on your current console, you would get the system that it is on.  That does not mean Xbox because MS actually do not care if you get an Xbox or play it on a PC, their gameplan is that you get GamePass.  SO MS really do not care if you still want to get a PS as long as you get a GP sub, they are all cool with that.

Also the younger generation have no problems getting what they want.  I have seen my Son save over 150 bucks for some Sandals because they are popular in school, he saved all his money for it.  When someone wants something, they will find a way to get it.  

You missed my point. You said MS anoinced they mean buisness. I point is that video game news is only watched by a minority of players. Specially the casuals that play COD amd FIFA. They have no idea who makes it or what parent company. They only see the game and buy it. So they are not even aware that in 3 years its not going to be or be on their console of choice. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

Look, early to mid last gen, SNY went and made partial/timed exclusive deals, like with COD, and kept their user base to themselves through lack of cross play, so it should be expected that MS takes COD and other franchises away entirely, unless a ransom is paid.

SNY and it's fans are hypocrites anyway since they've always been all about exclusivity, so they deserve it...

Look, early to mid last gen, XB went and made it clear exclusives were so bad they were evil. Lack of cross play was also evil. They also made sure to point out SNY was the root of that hellscape and they should be shunned and constantly berated into submission.

XB and it's fans are only doing what is right and just. It's not like SNY went out and bought smaller studios with smaller franchises and built them up, if not built them from the ground up, so why can't MS also just buy up all the huge mega studios and franchises?..

Nobody wants a world where nobodies, though talented, grow and make big things happen and dreams come true. They want giant mega corps buying their way to become to big to fail, so they can power your dreams in the metaverse...

Well I guess we can agree after reading the full satire =p

And I really have a hard time with the metaverse stuff. Neymar seems to have bought an avatar that cost half a million dollar. It is just a fucking monkey drawing. Where did value scale gone to?

Matrix (5) : Microtransactions

More flashbacks to how humanity bought its way into the Matrix.

eva01beserk said:
Machiavellian said:

Not sure we are talking about the same people. If you are a gamer, and COD is the game you put in many hours and you purchase every COD game that comes out, if the game is not on your current console, you would get the system that it is on.  That does not mean Xbox because MS actually do not care if you get an Xbox or play it on a PC, their gameplan is that you get GamePass.  SO MS really do not care if you still want to get a PS as long as you get a GP sub, they are all cool with that.

Also the younger generation have no problems getting what they want.  I have seen my Son save over 150 bucks for some Sandals because they are popular in school, he saved all his money for it.  When someone wants something, they will find a way to get it.  

You missed my point. You said MS anoinced they mean buisness. I point is that video game news is only watched by a minority of players. Specially the casuals that play COD amd FIFA. They have no idea who makes it or what parent company. They only see the game and buy it. So they are not even aware that in 3 years its not going to be or be on their console of choice. 

As long as SNY has COD locked up for another game or two, then MS could only make an exclusive push mid gen with a console upgrade. That would still be risky, because there will be a considerable amount of COD players by then who own a PS5 and won't want to switch or flat out won't be able to.

Now when next gen starts, MS can easily make COD exclusive if SNY doesn't have a reasonably viable answer to COD by then.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

Well I guess we can agree after reading the full satire =p

And I really have a hard time with the metaverse stuff. Neymar seems to have bought an avatar that cost half a million dollar. It is just a fucking monkey drawing. Where did value scale gone to?

Matrix (5) : Microtransactions

More flashbacks to how humanity bought its way into the Matrix.

eva01beserk said:

You missed my point. You said MS anoinced they mean buisness. I point is that video game news is only watched by a minority of players. Specially the casuals that play COD amd FIFA. They have no idea who makes it or what parent company. They only see the game and buy it. So they are not even aware that in 3 years its not going to be or be on their console of choice. 

As long as SNY has COD locked up for another game or two, then MS could only make an exclusive push mid gen with a console upgrade. That would still be risky, because there will be a considerable amount of COD players by then who own a PS5 and won't want to switch or flat out won't be able to.

Now when next gen starts, MS can easily make COD exclusive if SNY doesn't have a reasonably viable answer to COD by then.

Its a merketing push that will go pass the target audience. I see no reason for MS to anounce this deal that will impact in zero way the xbox for another 3 years. My guess is that they will have another barren year in 2022 so they are hyping this up. Specially how the ps5 seems to have one of the best years in gaming history if all the games planed do release in this year. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk said:
Machiavellian said:

Not sure we are talking about the same people. If you are a gamer, and COD is the game you put in many hours and you purchase every COD game that comes out, if the game is not on your current console, you would get the system that it is on.  That does not mean Xbox because MS actually do not care if you get an Xbox or play it on a PC, their gameplan is that you get GamePass.  SO MS really do not care if you still want to get a PS as long as you get a GP sub, they are all cool with that.

Also the younger generation have no problems getting what they want.  I have seen my Son save over 150 bucks for some Sandals because they are popular in school, he saved all his money for it.  When someone wants something, they will find a way to get it.  

You missed my point. You said MS anoinced they mean buisness. I point is that video game news is only watched by a minority of players. Specially the casuals that play COD amd FIFA. They have no idea who makes it or what parent company. They only see the game and buy it. So they are not even aware that in 3 years its not going to be or be on their console of choice. 

I was not talking about consumers, I was talking about the market which is their competitors and also other companies that are looking to sell.  MS is sending a signal to them that they are serious about the gaming space and thus has put them all on noticed.



DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

The company is not sold yet so who knows what they have bargained for.  None of that stuff gets published you know that right.  Not is really set until MS get approval for the purchase.

You were talking about conditions to do the deal as if MS could right now demand that CoD 2022 isn't released in PS. And that was what I was saying wouldn't be possible, they making demands that would apply before the approval. Seems like you were interpreting something else.

You know there are 2 parts to the sell right.  First there is the sell and the price for the sale that goes to regulation to for approval, then there is the contracts on the sale that goes to the board for approval.  One is public, the other is not.  Once approval is given, then they start hashing out all the terms of the sell.  Some parts can be done before approval, others will not happen until after approval.  Its not a straight up simple process, there are multiple layers.

Also you seem to equate internet outrage to business deals as if the 2 are equal.  Just because you may believe Bobby is an ass does not mean the board does or higher ups in MS.  Believing that MS is going to have Bobby retire because of some HR blunders does not always pan out that way.  I am sure someone will take the fall but who knows if its going to be Bobby.  Speculating what will happen until this deal is done is probably a waste of time, none of it is going to be known until it actually happens since it will be C level and board type discussions which rarely leaks.

Last edited by Machiavellian - on 27 January 2022

I don’t think MS pays $70,000,000,000 to keep putting the games on another platform. They want people on GamePass, they don’t entice people to use GamePass by having the games on another console. And there’s no way Sony would ever let GamePass come to PlayStation. How would GPU work on PlayStation? Do you get PS+ included like you get XBL Gold included? Suddenly Sony is taking a large revenue hit. Is that worth it for Calls of Doody? Unlikely.

It’ll be the same situation as Bethesda. Existing deals honored, existing games supported, future games exclusive. Everyone is saying there are existing deals for multiple CoD titles, which makes sense. MS will honor those and I’d imagine future mainline CoD titles will release day one on GamePass and skip PlayStation. The Warzone game(s) will still release and be supported on PS, which gives Sony and MS a lot of MTX revenue.

I can’t imagine Sony would “trade” anything for CoD. People are mentioning The Show, Xbox will already be getting that through the MLB publisher. I don’t think Sony has anything that would entice MS to forego the boost to GamePass that day one exclusive CoD would bring.



Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

You were talking about conditions to do the deal as if MS could right now demand that CoD 2022 isn't released in PS. And that was what I was saying wouldn't be possible, they making demands that would apply before the approval. Seems like you were interpreting something else.

You know there are 2 parts to the sell right.  First there is the sell and the price for the sale that goes to regulation to for approval, then there is the contracts on the sale that goes to the board for approval.  One is public, the other is not.  Once approval is given, then they start hashing out all the terms of the sell.  Some parts can be done before approval, others will not happen until after approval.  Its not a straight up simple process, there are multiple layers.

Also you seem to equate internet outrage to business deals as if the 2 are equal.  Just because you may believe Bobby is an ass does not mean the board does or higher ups in MS.  Believing that MS is going to have Bobby retire because of some HR blunders does not always pan out that way.  I am sure someone will take the fall but who knows if its going to be Bobby.  Speculating what will happen until this deal is done is probably a waste of time, none of it is going to be known until it actually happens since it will be C level and board type discussions which rarely leaks.

You do know that it was claimed and accepted that Bobby and other high level execs were the core of the problem, and also aware that MS said they would approach Acti in a different manner right?

And sure I do know that there are documents that aren't released. It isn't even uncommon for a deal of this size to have had a NDA signed several months or even year in advance with a MOU and action plan.

Also not questioning the internet outrage. My question is, do you believe that if MS wanted Bobby and other high level execs fired right away the moment the deal was made public (or even before) could they demand it? And do you you believe that they could have demanded that games released before the deal was approved be released only on Xbox and PC?

If you believe they could, then why didn't MS demand the solution of the first problem?



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."