Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

Except they did not make any commitment in the post. Like literally read the post really as the paragraph can literally means a lot of things there.

Just like I said before, we went through that last year but I guess the lesson has not been learnt lol

Indeed.

Unfortunately it's possible its in MS's best interest to keep the statements as vague as possible so the deal can go through. They did the same before Behesda's deal closed too. It probably doesn't make for the best forum discussion, but it is what it is.

Once it did close however, Starfield, TES VI, Redfall all suddenly had no need for a PS5 version.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Just a little FYI, the "RELEASE" part in the topic title is from Nibel's tweet.

Nowhere in the actual PR does it say "RELEASE" games, just "Continue to make available".

I think a simple change of word that Nibel editorialized changed the entire context of the article and unfortunately it looks like most of the thread has ran with it.

They've told regulators that the Call of Duty title will be available on PS now and in the future. If COD 2024 is not on PS then it isn't available.

Simple enough. The question they're addressing makes this even more clear

 

[SLB1904]

Lying to regulators has serious consequences. If they say something like that now, there is no going back.

yeah i don't know how people think that's even a possibility lol

 

[Thirty7ven]

Just a little FYI, the "RELEASE" part in the topic title is from Nibel's tweet.

Nowhere in the actual PR does it say "RELEASE" games, just "Continue to make available".

I think a simple change of word that Nibel editorialized changed the entire context of the article and unfortunately it looks like most of the thread has ran with it.

I genuinely hope you’re right, because I think AB is mostly trash and I want Sony forced to go big.

 

[kyoji]

You people still dont get it and the writing has been on the wall for so long too. Activision’s existing franchises were never going to be exclusive. This whole play is about putting there games on gamepass day and date because this would not have happen otherwise. The abysmal 3rd party support for gamepass is further proof thus far with only titles similar in caliber to outriders and rainbow six extraction (new or unproven) ips hitting the service. No sane 3rd party publisher was going to put there successful proven franchises on gamepass without ms having to cough up tons of money, and thats why we hadnt seen any up till this point. So what does MS decide to do? Buy the publishers or franchises themselves so they can ensure these games hit the subscription model. The play was never to make the games exclusive, its about the sub model.

Its going to be a very bleak future for gamers if this is what we have to look forward to. You have to look beyond the price, there are plenty of other implications that would negatively impact games if this type of thing were to truely take off.

 

[pasterpl]

What I found interesting is the rest of this statement re. Xbox consoles;

Nonetheless, we recognize that we will need to adapt our business model even for the store on the Xbox console. Beginning today, we will move forward to apply Principles 1 through 7 to the store on the Xbox console. We’re committed to closing the gap on the remaining principles over time. In doing so, we will incorporate the spirit of new laws even beyond their scope, while moving forward in a way that protects the needs of game developers, gamers, and competitive and healthy game-console ecosystems.

These are going to be implemented today;

Quality, Safety, Security & Privacy

1. We will enable all developers to access our app store as long as they meet reasonable and transparent standards for quality and safety.

1. We will continue to protect the consumers and gamers who use our app store, ensuring that developers meet our standards for security.

1. We will continue to respect the privacy of consumers in our app stores, giving them controls to manage their data and how it is used.

Accountability

1. We will hold our own apps to the same standards we hold competing apps.

1. We will not use any non-public information or data from our app store to compete with developers’ apps.

Fairness and Transparency

1. We will treat apps equally in our app store without unreasonable preferencing or ranking of our apps or our business partners’ apps over others.

1. We will be transparent about rules for promotion and marketing in our app store and apply these consistently and objectively.

these will be implemented later;

Developer Choice

1. We will not require developers in our app store to use our payment system to process in-app payments.

1. We will not require developers in our app store to provide more favorable terms in our app store than in other app stores.

1. We will not disadvantage developers if they choose to use a payment processing system other than ours or if they offer different terms and conditions in other app stores.

1. We will not prevent developers from communicating directly with their customers through their apps for legitimate business purposes, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings.

 

[elliot5]

"continue to make available" == "release". It's really that simple yo

 

[Topher]

Whatever happens to the price of gamepass will ve ultimately dictated by the market.

If they price it to high, people will simple not sub.

For me personally I dont think it should go any higher then 50% more then UK hourly minimum wage.

Exactly. Also, the money to made with Game Pass is in volume. A lot is riding on their streaming side of this.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Except they did not make any commitment in the post. Like literally read the post really as the paragraph can literally means a lot of things there.

Just like I said before, we went through that last year but I guess the lesson has not been learnt lol

Call of Duty title will be available on PS now and in the future. This is to address concerns that they will make said title exclusive to Xbox. As they themselves have said

This. Is. Not. Hard

 

[NickFire]

Except they did not make any commitment in the post. Like literally read the post really as the paragraph can literally means a lot of things there.

Just like I said before, we went through that last year but I guess the lesson has not been learnt lol

Indeed.

Unfortunately it's possible its in MS's best interest to keep the statements as vague as possible so the deal can go through. They did the same before Behesda's deal closed too.

Once it did close however, Starfield, TES VI, Redfall all suddenly had no need for a PS5 version.

Since you both see it as the same thing as last year, pray tell, where is the 2021 version of MS's open letter to address concerns of the FTC, US Congress, and other governments that are considering legislation that MS is trying to get ahead of this time. Seriously, did either of you read the source material? Is it that hard to differentiate written words to a reporter from a letter intended to make multiple governments around the world happy?

 

[Mr Moose]

Indeed.

Unfortunately it's possible its in MS's best interest to keep the statements as vague as possible so the deal can go through. They did the same before Behesda's deal closed too. It probably doesn't make for the best forum discussion, but it is what it is.

Once it did close however, Starfield, TES VI, Redfall all suddenly had no need for a PS5 version.

They never said this with Bethesda:

And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business.

 

[DJ12]

I definitely support this, one step towards my dream of not being forced to buy hardware I don’t want, and the end of ‘exclusives’ tied to consoles.

But Sony will have to play ball for it to continue. They must feel they can convince Sony to be more open with their content, and end the ‘console launch exclusive’ bs. Or perhaps have been told that they will be. To be fair, recent noises coming out of Sony have suggested as much.

We might not be far from seeing things like Spider-Man on Xbox? Both crazy and the sanest thing ever, at the same time.

This has nothing to do with Sony. Sony make money through gaming.

Although I do hope at some point in the future xbox owners do finally get to play Gran Turismo on xbox so they don't feel the need to try and convince anyone that Forza is actually better.

Xbox is/was the department of MS they sent money to for it to be burned to a cinder.

Microsoft Gaming seems to be about making money. To make money they need PlayStation and if they can get the N on board also, then they will be laughing.

Xbox is Microsoft's side chick now, the wife is the scheme to make them actually turn a profit.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I still don't buy it. Content is used to leverage your platform. Not to bolster another. I think them and bungie will both have some exclusive content. It's just how business works.

Microsoft has the content. They had to concede nothing for Bethesda and all that brings. They have to concede nothing relating to Halo and the rest of Xbox Game Studios. Microsoft has nothing to concede on new IP from Activision that doesn't fall under the current definition of COD and other popular activision blizzard titles. They committed to multi-platform on every big franchise right now, but nothing locks them in on new IPs that come out of Activision and Blizzard. This definition applies to things like Crash that are already available on Playstation.

Microsoft has control over Activision Blizzard IP in a way Sony never will. They will never appear in Sony's streaming platform, for example, unless there's a deal of some sort in place.

 

[KingGhidorah]

gotta smooth out those FTC kinks first.

this right here

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Unfortunately it's possible its in MS's best interest to keep the statements as vague as possible so the deal can go through. They did the same before Behesda's deal closed too. It probably doesn't make for the best forum discussion, but it is what it is.

Once it did close however, Starfield, TES VI, Redfall all suddenly had no need for a PS5 version.

Exactly. I mean, the current head of DOJ (or somebody else there, I don't remember the guy) is literally the former MS lawyer. So Microsoft certainly profficient in a ways how to handle FTC and other regulator bodies. Incredible thing is that how fast people threw away the argument that "MS cannot commit to anything until the deal is closed". Suddenly people believe that MS can do that

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I genuinely hope you’re right, because I think AB is mostly trash and I want Sony forced to go big.

Yeah honestly the positive I saw from this is that it would pressure Sony to become less reliant on third party. They don't really need to worry about that now.

 

[TGO]

So it didn't go the way some thought it would..

 

[Zok310]

You know what, this aint getting pass regulators, this won't get approved. Biden seems bent on having a victory on this topic(he is not a fan of companies buying out competition) and this is a lay up for him when they look at ACTI financials and see that acti revenue from PS is double that of xbox.

Also, MS overall is due for a lashing from regulators.
Won't get approved, calling it now.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Since you both see it as the same thing as last year, pray tell, where is the 2021 version of MS's open letter to address concerns of the FTC, US Congress, and other governments that are considering legislation that MS is trying to get ahead of this time. Seriously, did either of you read the source material? Is it that hard to differentiate written words to a reporter from a letter intended to make multiple governments around the world happy?

This open letter is actually mainly about Open Store policy (or whatever this thing is called) and kinda directed at Apple too (due to lawsuits regarding App Store control and payment processors). You can see it even in a way they addressed Windows in the interview with Satya where he deliberately mentioned that Windows is the open platform.

 

[Nikana]

Microsoft has went from directly trying to compete to seeing blood in the water of an entire industry. They are now implementing practices that will result in less publishers and are hiding it by offering "choice." This is bad for the industry and ya hate to see it.

 

[SSfox]

Whatever happens to the price of gamepass will ve ultimately dictated by the market.

If they price it to high, people will simple not sub.

For me personally I dont think it should go any higher then 50% more then UK hourly minimum wage.

It's no breaner that a more premium/expansive gamepass will come and that will include all DLCs of the games, then another more expansive that will include free microtransaction bonus ect ect.

 

[NickFire]

Exactly. I mean, the current head of DOJ (or somebody else there, I don't remember the guy) is literally the former MS lawyer. So Microsoft certainly profficient in a ways how to handle FTC and other regulator bodies. Incredible thing is that how fast people threw away the argument that "MS cannot commit to anything until the deal is closed". Suddenly people believe that MS can do that

That argument was a red herring then and would still be a red herring now. MS wasn't prohibited from speaking then. They chose not to, almost certainly because they planned to be exclusive, didn't want that becoming an issue for approval, and were left with the choice of saying nothing or lying (as a publicly traded company). It's possible Bethesda didn't want them talking either to preserve good will. But there was no law that prohibited them from talking which magically went away this year. They just chose not to talk.

 

[adamsapple]

They never said this with Bethesda:

Phil said they'll look at it on a case by case basis and some games will be exclusive to Xbox/PC.

So far all of Bethesda's lineup they've announced (or even cases like Starfield and TES VI that was already 'announced' beforehand) has been taken off of PS5s.

 

[ChiefDada]

They don't need to make any money "back" because they don't lose any money if the deal is approved. They only lose cash, but in exchange they receive an asset that is worth the amount of cash they spent. On their balance sheet this amounts to +-0.

Lol wut?

But in all seriousness, you are correct about the balance sheet impact immediately after the deal closes. However, the asset (Act/Blizz in this case) will still need to financially perform up to levels consistent with the $70b valuation. Otherwise, the asset will be subject to an impairment/write-down, meaning losses will be formally recognized and incurred. I do this sort of work for a living, but you don't have to take my word for it; simply google "Microsoft Nokia" to get a better understanding of the concept.

 

[NickFire]

This open letter is actually mainly about Open Store policy (or whatever this thing is called) and kinda directed at Apple too (due to lawsuits regarding App Store control). You can see it even in a way they addressed Windows in the interview with Satya where he deliberately mentioned that Windows is the open platform.

It does not matter what you are primarily talking about when you send the feds a message. If you choose to say anything, it better be legit or you are facing big problems.

 

[Swift_Star]

Hey look I found a video from the future after the acquisition passes and all future Actiblizz games are released exclusively on Gamepass supporting platforms only.

I love it when laywers dictate what words people use, especially when people read it the way they intended.

"we will also make them available on Playstation beyond the existing agreement"

So the games that they have released under contract will be released, but they'll also continue to support those titles after the contract is done. I don't see where it says they will make new games available on the Playstation after the initial contractually obligated releases.

Here's another fun take:

What exactly does "make them available" mean here? I mean, Xcloud is available to work on Playstation as is Gamepass aren't they? Microsoft reps have publicly stated they'd love to see Gamepass on the Playstation. Sony doesn't have either on the platform but It's certainly available for Sony to put on the console though which means the Activision and Blizzard games are also available for Sony to put on the platform.

It's really amusing how the same people that were ADAMANT on Bungie's messaging of keeping multiplat are now denying MS's own words.
You can't have one without the other.
Either both of them goes multiplat or both go exclusives.
C'mon, warriors, pick your narrative.

 

[Sosokrates]

It's no breaner that a more premium/expansive gamepass will come and that will include all DLCs of the games, then another more expansive that will include free microtransaction bonus ect ect.

Yeah, no doubt.

But it will always have to be good value in relation to the retail cost of games + DLC.

 

[The_Mike]

Any IP on the level of Minecraft, in terms of having it's own culture and high player engagement over years and years, will be treated like this potentially. Call of Duty fits this mold.

The reason for Minecraft being multi platform is they bought the developer and not the publisher.

Theres a difference

 

[Ultra Donny]

I hope nothing from the Activision blizzard deal becomes exclusive to the Xbox platform. I really like the Xbox brand and has been invested since the original Xbox and own every iteration of the console day one.
I hope playstation players that likes call of duty and diablo still will be able to play those games on their preferred platform.

 

[SportsFan581]

This blog shows Microsoft isn't willing to take any chances with the activision deal being blocked. It's that important. And why wouldn't it be? It's a game changer for their entire videogame forturnes, and one of the biggest acquisitions in their history, if not the biggest?? Microsoft doesn't want part of it, some of it, they don't want to risk any divestitures or carve outs. They want the entire thing, and if making existing popular games from Activision Blizzard available everywhere where they already exist means getting this deal approved, that's what you do.

These are the most important parts of the blog basically. Notice what it does not commit? To release all Activision Blizzard games on Playstation. It specifically says "continue to make" and uses language such as "And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them"

Translation: Microsoft has a definition of *them* and it's Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard. Crash, COD, Diablo, Overwatch, Tony Hawk, they all stay on PS going forward. But You can't "continue to make" games available that were never available on Playstation in the first place. Meaning exclusives are happening, they just won't be from the games everybody already loves from Activision today. I'm totally okay with that.

You can absolutely pick around the edges or leverage the talent in a new direction. The console warrior in me would have loved CoD exclusivity , but realistically it just makes more sense to leave that as is. You can still benefit by reversing the trend with CoD and delivering DLC first on Xbox and so on, basically you get all the benefits of the marketing deals. GP should get a lot of content out of it. Hoping Toys for Bob is given some more creative projects to work on.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

No matter how many times, how many words MS uses to say COD will be released on PlayStation people will still twist those words. Holy shit this topic, lmao

Compare this with their wording regarding Bethesda. That was clear as day that it's a game pass booster alone and PlayStation won't see anything else from them.

About this acquisition we got Phil tweeting about how they won't stop releasing on PlayStation, articles done on this, a blog post that's even clearer and mentions that not only they will keep all previous deals but after that is over they will still release them on PlayStation ..and people keep trying to twist everything? For god's sake they even mention Switch in here.

The trick is this: they will sell on other platforms but if you want all of this for "free" you gotta join Xbox gamepass.

 

[Aguero9320]

This has nothing to do with Sony. Sony make money through gaming.

Although I do hope at some point in the future xbox owners do finally get to play Gran Turismo on xbox so they don't feel the need to try and convince anyone that Forza is actually better.

Xbox is/was the department of MS they sent money to for it to be burned to a cinder.

Microsoft Gaming seems to be about making money. To make money they need PlayStation and if they can get the N on board also, then they will be laughing.

Xbox is Microsoft's side chick now, the wife is the scheme to make them actually turn a profit.

I mean, no, but for me this is a discussion that should stay above this level of childish console warring, so I’ll brush past your comment.

Not a reply to the part quoted above because I have no interest in conversing in those terms, but the whole release is very well/interestingly written, and doesn’t actually say anything of substance on the issue at hand…

“Our vision is to enable gamers to play any game on any device anywhere, including by streaming from the cloud” is perhaps the most pertinent point they make - Microsoft have already stated (or been outed really, as it was revealed in discovery for the Epic lawsuit) that they ‘haven’t give up’ on bringing Gamepass to the other consoles.

Could easily fall within the definition of ‘make available’ on Sony and Nintendo platforms, while keeping a straight face.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The reason for Minecraft being multi platform is they bought the developer and not the publisher.

Theres a difference

? The developer is the publisher

 

[Topher]

The reason for Minecraft being multi platform is they bought the developer and not the publisher.

Theres a difference

Mojang was the publisher and the developer. There was nothing keeping them from making Minecraft exclusive to Xbox.

 

[Little Chicken]

Warzone or the main franchise?

There's also nothing preventing MS from creating their own exclusive CoD franchise.

 

[Banjo64]

It's no breaner that a more premium/expansive gamepass will come and that will include all DLCs of the games, then another more expansive that will include free microtransaction bonus ect ect.

I hope not - it’s already pretty saturated with Gold, Game Pass, Game Pass PC and Game Pass Ultimate.

Also normal Game Pass doesn’t include online play or EA Access, whereas PC Game Pass does. This despite them costing the same.

They really should roll online play in to standard Game Pass in my opinion and get rid of Gold.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Yeah honestly the positive I saw from this is that it would pressure Sony to become less reliant on third party. They don't really need to worry about that now.

It's a shame, I'm actually bummed out about this.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

It does not matter what you are primarily talking about when you send the feds a message. If you choose to say anything, it better be legit or you are facing big problems.

It is legit (I mean you cannot argue that the future released Warzone 2 will be pulled off from Playstation)

 

[The_Mike]

Umm, there are now all about that GamePass growth, Minecraft is not even on it, it was different time I guess.

But again make sense, I am not disputing it.

Minecraft and Minecraft dungeons are both on game pass what on earth are you talking about.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

There's also nothing preventing MS from creating their own exclusive CoD franchise.

What do you even mean here?

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Call of Duty title will be available on PS now and in the future. This is to address concerns that they will make said title exclusive to Xbox. As they themselves have said

This. Is. Not. Hard

Of course we know that MW2, Warzone 2 and the next title (3rd one) will be able on Playstation. That's why I said that until 2024 nothing will change much.

 

[M1chl]

Minecraft and Minecraft dungeons are both on game pass what on earth are you talking about.

I am retarded I thought there is just the Minecraft Dungeons, never mind then...

 

[adamsapple]

Mojang was the publisher and the developer. There was nothing keeping them from making Minecraft exclusive to Xbox.

I don't have a source handy but I recall reading that part of the deal for selling was that Mojang wanted to keep the game on all platforms.

I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Mr Moose]

Minecraft and Minecraft dungeons are both on game pass what on earth are you talking about.

Minecraft on Xbox Game Pass

Coming November 02, 2021!

Surprised it wasn't sooner.

 

[DJ12]

Call of Duty title will be available on PS now and in the future. This is to address concerns that they will make said title exclusive to Xbox. As they themselves have said

This. Is. Not. Hard

First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make popular content like Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users.

Call of Duty is referred to as a title, so hence forth when Call of Duty is referred to it means the IP not specific games. They also explicitly mention removing it from PlayStation being the concern, OBVIOUSLY they aren't referring to the games Activision are contractually obliged to make for PlayStation, MS will really love the marketing costs of these games considering Sony are going to pay for it though.

To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love.

Self explanatory I would've thought.

Call of Duty the IP as previously established will continue on PlayStation after Sony's agreement with Activision is finished. Is the cope that when the agreement is over, that this is saying they will not remove the games people have already paid for? Get a grip.

Seriously.

To summarise for the hard of coping:

CoD NOT exclusive
CoD NOT being pulled from PlayStation beyond any agreements.
CoD POTENTIALLY going to more platforms
MS doing it for all gamers (MONEY) not just the small percentage available from their own ecosystem.

Next up, Starfield or whatever it's called.

XBox first, PS GotY edition the year after. Mark my words.

 

[Swift_Star]

Of course we know that MW2, Warzone 2 and the next title (3rd one) will be able on Playstation. That's why I said that until 2024 nothing will change much.

Will future Bungie titles release on Xbox?

 

[Banjo64]

What do you even mean here?

Dall of Cuty

 

[Lunarorbit]

Why didn't they just say that from the beginning? That Bungie deal must have scared Phil.

 

[NickFire]

It is legit (I mean you cannot argue that the future released Warzone 2 will be pulled off from Playstation)

All right fine, I give up. Everyone who thinks we should all buy Xbox's because MS is a big fat liar using mumbo jumbo language to trick the FTC into approving the deal, and trick people into feeling comfortable with a PS5 purchase today, just so that they can own PS5 owners and make the warriors happy in 2024, is right. That is clearly a much smarter strategy than doubling or tripling their revenue. It's science, or math, or something. Definitely something,

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Of course we know that MW2, Warzone 2 and the next title (3rd one) will be able on Playstation. That's why I said that until 2024 nothing will change much.

Yes, which are the existing agreements. And COD outside of those agreements will also continue to be available on PS

If COD 2024 and beyond are not on PS, then they're not available.