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?

aTokenYeti on 27 January 2022
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

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?

Not the guy you were asking, but Microsoft is legally not able to make any demands of Activison’s board until they take full control of the company. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to respond to the shareholders until the deal is complete, which is why both parties are remaining extremely vague about the post merger plans. 



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 27 January 2022
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

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?

Really does not matter what was claimed.  Who claimed it, was it the board which governs the CEO or was it a bunch of people.  Did MS make any claims concerning top C level execs. PR statements are just that, PR.  They are used to say we are doing something but the specifics well that can be anything or nothing.

As to your question, not sure why you asking it, I already stated MS could demand whatever they want, its Activision who has the right to agree to the terms or not. So yes, MS can demand whatever they want for this deal as to what is made public or not that is also up to their discretion. 

As to the solution to your first problem, why do you believe they would make it public.  They would only make it public if it benefited them and even if it did, trying to smear C level execs rarely if ever happens.  Instead as I continue to tell you, they just retire.  So if you believe MS is going to make some big public statements about getting rid of Activision management I ask you when has that ever happen.  



DonFerrari on 27 January 2022
aTokenYeti said:
DonFerrari said:

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?

Not the guy you were asking, but Microsoft is legally not able to make any demands of Activison’s board until they take full control of the company. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to respond to the shareholders until the deal is complete, which is why both parties are remaining extremely vague about the post merger plans. 

That is my understanding as well. If MS demanded that Bobby or however is fired before the deal is approved (having a commitment to fire him when the deal is closed is fine though) or to release certain games or hold releases isn't acceptable.



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."

EricHiggin on 27 January 2022
eva01beserk said:
EricHiggin said:
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. 

Even if MS does intend to make COD exclusive, and plans to scream that from the heavens, there's little doubt SNY would have a good idea that would be coming, which means SNY will react in some way, and likely directly. 

Whether SNY buys something COD like, or develops their own, they can get around the problem for the most part, at least in a reasonable amount of time. It doesn't even need to bring in as much money initially depending on what needs to be spent to make it happen.

Wouldn't it be bittersweet for MS to watch SNY bring out their own COD, as MS cuts it off, so SNY can watch a big chunk of that $70 billion go down the drain?



chakkra on 27 January 2022
The_Liquid_Laser said:

A statement like that from Phil Spencer, it could mean something or it could really mean nothing. However, if he is playing nice with the execs at Sony, it is because he wants Gamepass on Playstation. One possible deal they could make is to keep Gamepass off of Nintendo systems in exchange for putting it on Playstation. That would at least give Sony something, but you have to realize Microsoft has the upper hand in negotiating right now.

Microsoft is just using GP as an excuse to get away with the situation with the least amount of backlash possible, but they know damn well that Sony will never agree to put GP on their console.



Around the Network
eva01beserk on 28 January 2022
zero129 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. 

Didnt know they stopped allowing you to sell or trade in consoles.

You missed the news? I guess is going over tur heads of people also in forums.



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

eva01beserk on 28 January 2022
zero129 said:
eva01beserk said:

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. 

In the day of Youtube and social media you really think the target audience has not already been blasted with news of how MS is buying CoD??.

I hope they are at least saying how it wont impact anything for another 3 years. 



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

eva01beserk on 28 January 2022
EricHiggin said:
eva01beserk said:

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. 

Even if MS does intend to make COD exclusive, and plans to scream that from the heavens, there's little doubt SNY would have a good idea that would be coming, which means SNY will react in some way, and likely directly. 

Whether SNY buys something COD like, or develops their own, they can get around the problem for the most part, at least in a reasonable amount of time. It doesn't even need to bring in as much money initially depending on what needs to be spent to make it happen.

Wouldn't it be bittersweet for MS to watch SNY bring out their own COD, as MS cuts it off, so SNY can watch a big chunk of that $70 billion go down the drain?

I think thats a garanty by now. Just hope what ever takes over wont be as soulless as COD. Otherwise we all loose. 



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

eva01beserk on 28 January 2022
zero129 said:
eva01beserk said:

You missed the news? I guess is going over tur heads of people also in forums.

Yep i defo missed the part where you can no longer trade in or sell your consoles.

eva01beserk said:

I hope they are at least saying how it wont impact anything for another 3 years. 

Thats the thing with casuals, they see the news "MS owns CoD" they dont see 3 years down the line.

eva01beserk said:

I think thats a garanty by now. Just hope what ever takes over wont be as soulless as COD. Otherwise we all loose. 

The has been CoD killers for how many years now?, but yet Sony is going to be the one to do it when they couldnt even make a Halo Killer with Killzone remember that?.

You should calm down as my responses where half kidding because I sensed ill intent in your comments. Your responses prety much confirmed what I was thinking. Your going to see what your gona see in everything. And I cant say im much diferent. I could say halo killed itself so theres no need for a halo killer, but where would that take us? Ive been moderated enough. 



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

eva01beserk on 28 January 2022
zero129 said:
eva01beserk said:

You should calm down as my responses where half kidding because I sensed ill intent in your comments. Your responses prety much confirmed what I was thinking. Your going to see what your gona see in everything. And I cant say im much diferent. I could say halo killed itself so theres no need for a halo killer, but where would that take us? Ive been moderated enough. 

I sensed ill intent in your comments before i even replied to you judging from your other comments in this thread.

Halo is also back on top of its game, over 20 million players, Sony couldnt take it off the top at any point and was never able to make a FPS shooter that even came close to it but now they are going to make a CoD killer.

The mental gymnastics you guys play with yourselves is always fun to watch.

You said how MS is pretty much going to have no games for the rest of the year and thats why they announced their intend to buy activision blizzard and i didnt see you getting moderation for that so why would you be worried about one now?.

You could look at it that way. But my reply was to someone I know wont throw a fit if im negative to xbox. Your response to me was looking to bait me I thought wich is why I just replyed in jest because I dont want to get into it and derail the thread. And I never hide my dislike for what the Xbox has devoled into I just trying to avoid arguments. 

But I will say. I dont belive anybody ever said "COD killer". I'm pretty sure everyone has said a replacement now that there would be a vaccume. Dosent nessesaraly have to be a killer. 



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