By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ryuu96 said:

Developer_Direct, Presented by Xbox & Bethesda - YouTube

Seems to be doing well in views, it is currently sitting at 1.9m views.

Just as a comparison to something similar, I checked some recent State of Plays.

I'd say that's great for a show which was repeatedly said as only featuring 4 titles, it wasn't overhyped, it was just gameplay for announced titles.

On top of the extremely positive reception to the shows format it has undoubtedly been a huge success marketing wise.

Xbox has finally nailed their marketing approach for their shows, Lol. Not including E3, their E3 format has been fine.

Now at 2.1m views, Lol.



Around the Network
WoodenPints said:

What do they mean by Quality and playability parity, Does it mean they will have to lower the graphics on the Series X version to be on par with weaker hardware?

That is exactly what it means. Sony wants and Frank Shaw is saying that Xbox has agreed to:

  • Timing parity- No early release on Xbox (even though Sony currently pays for timed exclusive CoD beta tests)
  • Content parity- No exclusive modes or DLC on Xbox (even though Sony currently pays for exclusive CoD modes)
  • Features parity- No exclusive features on Xbox, for instance if Xbox was to make some new peripheral that Sony doesn't have, CoD wouldn't be able to make use of that peripheral on Xbox. Meanwhile the opposite isn't true, CoD on PS5 has exclusive PS5 controller features with the adaptive triggers.
  • Quality parity- Series X version can't have a higher resolution or higher graphics settings pulled from the PC version compared to PS5, even though Series X is the more powerful console, capable of playing CoD with higher resolution or graphics settings
  • Playability parity- No framerate advantage on Series X, meaning that if Series X is playing CoD at a higher framerate at the same resolution or graphics settings as PS5, Activision will be forced to lower the resolution or graphics settings on both consoles until PS5 can hit a locked 60 fps.

Additionally Sony seems to want Service parity, which seems to be the sticking point between them right now:

  • Service parity- CoD either can't be day one Gamepass, or if it is day one Gamepass, Xbox also has to release it day one on PS Plus mid tier, but apparently without Sony paying Xbox for the $100m+ lost PS5 CoD sales as a result of being on PS Plus mid tier day one. Regardless of rather it is day one Gamepass or months after launch or a year after launch, whenever it does come to Gamepass, it also has to hit PS+ mid tier at the same time, but apparently without Sony paying for a CoD PS+ deal like they normally would have to do to get any 3rd party onto PS+ mid tier. 

Sony may also want marketing parity, we're not sure about that one yet:

  • Marketing parity- No marketing trailers or tv spots that start or end with the Xbox logo sting, no trailers or tv spots that only show the game as releasing on Xbox at the end of the trailer, and when a line-up of game boxarts/cases are shown in a trailer or tv spot, the Series version can't be in front of the PS5 version (even though Sony pays for marketing like this currently on CoD)
Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 28 January 2023

shikamaru317 said:
WoodenPints said:

What do they mean by Quality and playability parity, Does it mean they will have to lower the graphics on the Series X version to be on par with weaker hardware?

That is exactly what it means. Sony wants and Frank Shaw is saying that Xbox has agreed to:

  • Timing parity- No early release on Xbox (even though Sony currently pays for timed exclusive CoD beta tests)
  • Content parity- No exclusive modes or DLC on Xbox (even though Sony currently pays for exclusive CoD modes)
  • Features parity- No exclusive features on Xbox, for instance if Xbox was to make some new peripheral that Sony doesn't have, CoD wouldn't be able to make use of that peripheral
  • Quality parity- Series X version can't have a higher resolution or higher graphics settings pulled from the PC version compared to PS5, even though Series X is the more powerful console, capable of playing CoD with higher resolution or graphics settings
  • Playability parity- No framerate advantage on Series X, meaning that if Series X is playing CoD at a higher framerate at the same resolution or graphics settings as PS5, Activision will be forced to lower the resolution or graphics settings on both consoles until PS5 can hit a locked 60 fps.
  • Marketing parity- No marketing trailers that start or end with the Xbox logo sting, no trailers that only show the game as releasing on Xbox at the end of the trailer, and when a line-up of game boxarts/cases are shown in a trailer, the Series version can't be in front of the PS5 version (even though Sony pays for marketing like this currently on CoD)

Additionally Sony wants Service parity, which seems to be the sticking point between them right now:

  • Service parity- CoD either can't be day one Gamepass, or if it is day one Gamepass, Xbox also has to release it day one on PS Plus mid tier, but without Sony paying Xbox for the $100m+ lost PS5 CoD sales as a result of being on PS Plus mid tier day one.

Frank didn't mention marketing, that was my speculation based on it being the only thing that he didn't mention, I haven't seen anywhere an agreement for marketing parity, I'm not sure how that would work because Game Pass in itself is a massive marketing boost, would Microsoft not be allowed to say that CoD is on Game Pass?

For now, there's no marketing parity agreement.

So it's either marketing parity, service parity or both that Sony is demanding.



Ryuu96 said:
shikamaru317 said:

That is exactly what it means. Sony wants and Frank Shaw is saying that Xbox has agreed to:

  • Timing parity- No early release on Xbox (even though Sony currently pays for timed exclusive CoD beta tests)
  • Content parity- No exclusive modes or DLC on Xbox (even though Sony currently pays for exclusive CoD modes)
  • Features parity- No exclusive features on Xbox, for instance if Xbox was to make some new peripheral that Sony doesn't have, CoD wouldn't be able to make use of that peripheral
  • Quality parity- Series X version can't have a higher resolution or higher graphics settings pulled from the PC version compared to PS5, even though Series X is the more powerful console, capable of playing CoD with higher resolution or graphics settings
  • Playability parity- No framerate advantage on Series X, meaning that if Series X is playing CoD at a higher framerate at the same resolution or graphics settings as PS5, Activision will be forced to lower the resolution or graphics settings on both consoles until PS5 can hit a locked 60 fps.
  • Marketing parity- No marketing trailers that start or end with the Xbox logo sting, no trailers that only show the game as releasing on Xbox at the end of the trailer, and when a line-up of game boxarts/cases are shown in a trailer, the Series version can't be in front of the PS5 version (even though Sony pays for marketing like this currently on CoD)

Additionally Sony wants Service parity, which seems to be the sticking point between them right now:

  • Service parity- CoD either can't be day one Gamepass, or if it is day one Gamepass, Xbox also has to release it day one on PS Plus mid tier, but without Sony paying Xbox for the $100m+ lost PS5 CoD sales as a result of being on PS Plus mid tier day one.

Frank didn't mention marketing, that was my speculation based on it being the only thing that he didn't mention, I haven't seen anywhere an agreement for marketing parity, I'm not sure how that would work because Game Pass in itself is a massive marketing boost, would Microsoft not be allowed to say that CoD is on Game Pass?

For now, there's no marketing parity agreement.

So it's either marketing parity, service parity or both that Sony is demanding.

You're right, I will edit that.



Easily going to be my GOTY or best game played in 2023 for me. 

I think I might prefer 5 over 4. Especially coming after 5 and the changes it has made. Both are 10s for me though, so might have to think more on which i prefer. 

Definitely the best villain so far for me in the series. 



https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png%5B/IMG%5D">https://www.trueachievements.com/gamer/SliferCynDelta"><img src="https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png

Around the Network

At this point they should just say to hell with Sony and let the chips fall as they may. It's already too many concessions and they should only be concerned with benefiting their own brand. They've shown that they are willing to work close with Steam and Nintendo and have no interest in creating a monopoly. Sony is the only company looking unreasonable and making a total ass out of themselves.

They should rescind all offers they have made to Sony.

Whether or not Xbox wants a CoD game being released on a Playstation console should be up to Xbox.



...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.

The only way it’s passing is if MS agree to never put the COD on GP and let Sony have marketing/exclusive content forever. The UK will never pass it anyway, gotta keep protecting number 1.



Ride The Chariot || Games Complete ‘24 Edition

DroidKnight said:

At this point they should just say to hell with Sony and let the chips fall as they may. It's already too many concessions and they should only be concerned with benefiting their own brand. They've shown that they are willing to work close with Steam and Nintendo and have no interest in creating a monopoly. Sony is the only company looking unreasonable and making a total ass out of themselves.

They should rescind all offers they have made to Sony.

Whether or not Xbox wants a CoD game being released on a Playstation console should be up to Xbox.

Interesting that Idas believes the CMA may approve it without remedies, I believe that is because CMA doesn't tend to bother with behavioural remedies and a structural remedy would be too extreme for an acquisition like this. FTC is irrelevant and Microsoft will easily beat them in court. So it does feel a little like whatever objections that the EC have will paint the picture of what sort of remedies we should expect out of this deal worldwide.

Microsoft should have EC's Statement of Objection now...Hasn't leaked yet, I don't know if that is good or bad news, Lol.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 28 January 2023

Ryuu96 said:
DroidKnight said:

At this point they should just say to hell with Sony and let the chips fall as they may. It's already too many concessions and they should only be concerned with benefiting their own brand. They've shown that they are willing to work close with Steam and Nintendo and have no interest in creating a monopoly. Sony is the only company looking unreasonable and making a total ass out of themselves.

They should rescind all offers they have made to Sony.

Whether or not Xbox wants a CoD game being released on a Playstation console should be up to Xbox.

Interesting that Idas believes the CMA may approve it without remedies, I believe that is because CMA doesn't tend to bother with behavioural remedies and a structural remedy would be too extreme for an acquisition like this. FTC is irrelevant and Microsoft will easily beat them in court. So it does feel a little like whatever objections that the EC have will paint the picture of what sort of remedies we should expect out of this deal worldwide.

Microsoft should have EC's Statement of Objection now...Hasn't leaked yet, I don't know if that is good or bad news, Lol.

I'd say good. If it weren't, Jimmy boy wouldn't have flown out for a last minute hail mary. Also, the quickest way for it to leak, would be for MS to do it themselves, so as to say "look at all this BS they want from us."



Spade said:

Easily going to be my GOTY or best game played in 2023 for me. 

I think I might prefer 5 over 4. Especially coming after 5 and the changes it has made. Both are 10s for me though, so might have to think more on which i prefer. 

Definitely the best villain so far for me in the series. 

Seriously? I'm definitely past the half-way point and probably closing in towards the end and I would rate it at most a 7.5.

The leap from 4 to 5 is gigantic. 4's dungeons are just awful. Whoever thought it was a great idea to use the same exact layout for the whole game hopefully got fired. Also the dungeons are linear as fuck. Just because there are some corridors that fool you into a dead end doesn't mean it's not linear, it's just a waste of time. It wouldn't be as bad if every corner of every floor didn't look identical. I much prefer the linearity of games like FFXIII. At least there's always something new to look at despite there being only one way to go.

Story is the only thing that keeps me going and honestly it's not nearly as exciting as the story of Persona 5. It's good at the beginning but there's absolutely nothing going on for many many months (I'm in October now). Same old same old. Also, what you're doing has no impact on the world at all.

Talking about the world, there's simply not much to do, especially if you haven't unlocked the two locations that require the scooter. High School only has confidants. The Flood Plain only has one fishing spot, the rest is a waste of space. Junes is the biggest joke of all with only one tiny room and otherwise just used for team meetings. The street in front of the Dojima residence is also pretty pointless. That only leaves the Dojima residence itself (actually just your room), the shopping district and the High School as places of interest. It also pisses me off that I can go to Okina City but can't visit the bookstore there to buy me some new books. Game logic. "Buy books! but not there, duh!". Furthermore the activities are poorly timed. I've maxed out my stats during Summer and now there's basically nothing to do during Evening. There are only a couple of confidants available (and only on specific days) and money is not an issue of mine so I might as well go straight to bed.

Lastly, I already had issues with the menu design of Persona 5 but I had no idea that it could get even worse. Well Persona 4 proved me wrong. Not only does it look incredibly boring, it's also missing important information that luckily got added in Persona 5.