The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
You can't really compare it.
You don't expect your Nintendo system to play call of duty.
You expect your PlayStation or Xbox does.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony says no AAA third party devs can make a game that rivals COD.
- Thread starter bxrz
- Start date
- Status
You don't expect your Nintendo system to play call of duty.
You expect your PlayStation or Xbox does.
DaGwaphics
Member
And even without that expectation you can sell 10s of millions of systems. There was a time when you expected to play FF on Nintendo. X1 users were expecting to play last-gen SF, it happens.
CaptainSlayAHo
Banned
You sound upset
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
And x1 users bought a PlayStation or had a PC if they wanted to play it.
Same with cod and PlayStation. Cod is however a much bigger franchise and ff has ever been. Not everyone knows about FF, as there's people knowing cod.
For christ sake, you can't even buy a bag of chips or energy drink without some sort of cod xp booster code on it.
People who prefer multi plats like cod, fifa etc aren't buying a Nintendo console for that, we both know it.
The last cod on Nintendo was ghost I think on the wii u, and it wasn't well received.
People buy a Nintendo console because of the exclusives.
While sonys exclusive games are selling well, the sales list shows that people prefer gta, cod and other third party titles dominates the sales list.
Not having one of the most current third party titles is pretty crucial for Sony, no matter how hard any of you are downplaying it.
FF has never been a system seller. The average Joe plays third party games as said before, not mainly because of the exclusives.
I don't say Sony won't continue to sell systems, because they will still do that.
But they'd lose a huge sale on copies plus dlc of the game. If Sony didn't see cod as a big thing, they wouldn't have paid for exclusive deals with Activision for almost 7 years by now.
I can't find any information about which games sells the most on psn, but I would be surprised if cod isn't on top 5.
Edit: typos
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
@
The_Mike
of course they would lose some software sales without CoD, it's a good seller. But, in the grand scheme of things it is hardly make or break. As much as I could be a console warrior and agree with Sony's logic here, the reality is that CoD isn't some irreplaceable, untouchable thing. If the title did leave PS, other third parties (the happless ones that can't develop shit in Sony's view 
) would be jumping to fill the new hole in the PS lineup. CoD as an exclusive would be HUGE for MS, there's no denying that, but, like you said, it would hardly be an "inflection point" that would doom Sony.
And, on top of that, the only public statements MS has made regarding CoD have been that it was staying multiplatform.
The_Mike
of course they would lose some software sales without CoD, it's a good seller. But, in the grand scheme of things it is hardly make or break. As much as I could be a console warrior and agree with Sony's logic here, the reality is that CoD isn't some irreplaceable, untouchable thing. If the title did leave PS, other third parties (the happless ones that can't develop shit in Sony's view ) would be jumping to fill the new hole in the PS lineup. CoD as an exclusive would be HUGE for MS, there's no denying that, but, like you said, it would hardly be an "inflection point" that would doom Sony.And, on top of that, the only public statements MS has made regarding CoD have been that it was staying multiplatform.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
What I believe or don't believe does not matter and is irrelevant. It's very clear why both companies are making those statements. Downplaying COD is just as silly as saying COD can't have a competitor (since you are defending MS's statement here, where is that competitor for COD? And don't reply saying companies haven't tried haha, if you do, then you are just being disingenuous). If you want to keep fighting the good fight for MS, you do that. You are more than welcome to believe whatever it is you want.
The only company that has had similar success is Epic with Fortnite and Fortnite is a TPS.
Lol, I don't agree with you that often, but here, I agree 100%.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
I understand why Sony made the statements, that doesn't make them any less ridiculous. I'm not seeing so far where MS is downplaying COD by saying that console makers and distributors aren't going bankrupt without CoD (seems like a basic statement seeing that Steam and Nintendo are the most profitable companies in their sectors and don't have COD). The post you quoted wasn't serious, but a joke (though that should be obvious). As for what competitors there are for CoD, the rival developers answered that for themselves.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
I mean, believe what you want....I guess? I simply disagree with your assessment (if it's not clear to you by now). I've made my point. No point in going in circles lol.
Last edited:
12Dannu123
Member
It's funny seeing Sony being terrified about COD being on Game Pass and realising how much damage having popular mainstream casual games on a subscription service on day 1. Sony's finally admitting that they're behind and that Microsoft was way ahead of the curve.
Imagine if Microsoft acquires EA, Take 2, Ubisoft etc. and has their games released on day one on Game Pass. It could be the death of the third-party ecosystem on PS despite the games being multiplatform games.
Imagine if Microsoft acquires EA, Take 2, Ubisoft etc. and has their games released on day one on Game Pass. It could be the death of the third-party ecosystem on PS despite the games being multiplatform games.
Last edited:
plip.plop
Member
I don't believe Sony when they state not having any studio unable to create a quality FPS to compete against COD. I think what they are worried about is not being able to create an FPS that will generate as much mindshare that COD has garnered over the years. The concern is even if they do, will it have the staying power for several gens? Most casual gamers drop money on these COD day one, and can't wait to get online.
Moses85
Member
It's time, boys.
First, a Halo killer, now a COD killer:
The Pleasure
Member
In for ten!
lh032
I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
well you better hope it doesnt happen, Microsoft wont be playing nice for long, just like other company if PS no longer around.
Last edited:
SoloKingRobert
Banned
After Microsoft acquires Activision Blizzard, Call of Duty on Xbox will be Play Anywhere, buy once on Xbox, own the PC version as well.
Sony probably thinks this may affect their revenue stream by having the entire Call of Duty series on Game Pass Day One..
Sony probably thinks this may affect their revenue stream by having the entire Call of Duty series on Game Pass Day One..
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
If the title did leave PS, other third parties (the happless ones that can't develop shit in Sony's view
CoD is a very old franchise, yet there's not any competitor on the market.
A person that has cod as a favored franchise will simply jump yo the platform that has it.
If fifa was exclusive, then everyone who plays fifa would switch platform instead of playing ultimate soccer or whatever.
0neAnd0nly
Member
It’s all business, so I get the move and what they are doing.
But from a simple gamer perspective - a pretty stupid thing to say if you are Sony.
Sony voluntarily eliminated several strong internal or sp MP shooters; Killzone, MAG, SOCOM, Warhawk / Starhawk, etc.
Would any of those ever be as big as CoD? No. We’re they solid and added diversity to your exclusive offerings? Yep.
Typical Sony move in the Layden+ era. Sigh.
But from a simple gamer perspective - a pretty stupid thing to say if you are Sony.
Sony voluntarily eliminated several strong internal or sp MP shooters; Killzone, MAG, SOCOM, Warhawk / Starhawk, etc.
Would any of those ever be as big as CoD? No. We’re they solid and added diversity to your exclusive offerings? Yep.
Typical Sony move in the Layden+ era. Sigh.
Last edited:
intheinbetween
Member
Who owns Bungie? Is it a partnership or an ownership? If Sony decides to change that they will do it without any second thought.
Do not think about gaming companies as if they were friendly NGOs, they're in the game because of the business, meaning money, and if they don't make it well...
OldBoyGamer
Banned
Interesting that people are defending the rights of one of the biggest corporations on the planet.
Also interesting that they don’t think a monopoly by virtue of spending the most money is a bad thing. There’s a reason the monopolies commission exists (despite it being toothless on most occasions). One of the reasons is to protect consumer interests.
If I buy up all my competitors, that means I can now charge as much as I want for the product I am selling which is anti consumer.
If you want to see an example of a monopoly being bad in the games industry look at football manager.
And this is Through NO fault of their own - FM blew the competition apart by just being so far ahead of everyone else that all other football management games fell away. Now FM is a shadow of its former self. No competition has had a negative impact on the game and the genre. (Despite it still being a strong game in general).
In that case there’s nothing anyone could have done. But imagine if that had happened because FM bought up all their competitors and shut their games down leaving only FM.
Fifa is another example in that case, it was a combination of EA being so far ahead as a result of their AAAA development, marketing and licensing budgets and Konami being….. well, Konami.
For clarity. I’m not sure where I stand on the MS/ Acti deal. On the one hand, I own an Xbox x and have GP so what do I care. On the other hand, I can see a future where MS use their infinite cash to dominate the games industry meaning they can control both the direction of video games in the future as well as prices.
Don’t think that’s a bad thing? See the release of Xbox 1. Forced online connection, forced Kinect. Forced ownership (no second hand games) etc.
I can see a MS future where games are streamed only through MS tv’s requiring a subscription. Sony can’t compete and Nintendodont make games for everyone. (They do for me so again, I’ll be fine)
And for further clarity. *I* will be fine. I’ll either subscribe or won’t. I have so many games to play that I can’t play them all before I join the space dust. But you young ‘uns… might be fucked.
Also interesting that they don’t think a monopoly by virtue of spending the most money is a bad thing. There’s a reason the monopolies commission exists (despite it being toothless on most occasions). One of the reasons is to protect consumer interests.
If I buy up all my competitors, that means I can now charge as much as I want for the product I am selling which is anti consumer.
If you want to see an example of a monopoly being bad in the games industry look at football manager.
And this is Through NO fault of their own - FM blew the competition apart by just being so far ahead of everyone else that all other football management games fell away. Now FM is a shadow of its former self. No competition has had a negative impact on the game and the genre. (Despite it still being a strong game in general).
In that case there’s nothing anyone could have done. But imagine if that had happened because FM bought up all their competitors and shut their games down leaving only FM.
Fifa is another example in that case, it was a combination of EA being so far ahead as a result of their AAAA development, marketing and licensing budgets and Konami being….. well, Konami.
For clarity. I’m not sure where I stand on the MS/ Acti deal. On the one hand, I own an Xbox x and have GP so what do I care. On the other hand, I can see a future where MS use their infinite cash to dominate the games industry meaning they can control both the direction of video games in the future as well as prices.
Don’t think that’s a bad thing? See the release of Xbox 1. Forced online connection, forced Kinect. Forced ownership (no second hand games) etc.
I can see a MS future where games are streamed only through MS tv’s requiring a subscription. Sony can’t compete and Nintendodont make games for everyone. (They do for me so again, I’ll be fine)
And for further clarity. *I* will be fine. I’ll either subscribe or won’t. I have so many games to play that I can’t play them all before I join the space dust. But you young ‘uns… might be fucked.
Kokoloko85
Member
When was the last time Playstation bought a publisher or IP as big as Minecraft, ElderScrolls or Call of Duty?
Wipeout? Back in the mid 90’s lol
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
You don't have to buy all your competitors to charge as much as you want for a product, Sony showed that by upping game price to 70 euro and the majority in here saw it as perfectly fine.
Not saying you are wrong, because if Sony (or anyone else) had more market control, then prices would be worse.
Bungie according to some people in here
Kokoloko85
Member
I don’t think owning Bungie, which gets to control their IP’s compares to buying Minecraft, Bethesda or Activision lol.
But people will be delusional
Last edited:
crackajack
Member
I guess to protect it from going away from your plattform you have to say it, but it sounds just dumb.
Do the AB studios use any tool that is not available to everyone? C++, C#, Unreal, Unity, Quake MP code, some proprietery shit all AAA are undeniably capable of? From the tools it is a level battlefield but finding the core fun, through decades, is hard I guess, and just no one succesfully and properly tried.
MoH, BF, Killzone, Resistance, MAG, Brothers in Arms, Crysis Wars, Quake Enemy Territory, Ghost Recon, GRAW all could be on the level of CoD if the responsible studio and its publisher actually tried and don't rush it, never, or feel defeated after a couple of partially mediocre iterations. CoD needed a couple of releases plus addons to really take off? And quality never really suffered substantially after. Playing catch up is probably harder, you have to topple the king, but all those Battle Royal games also were able to rise. Don't Apex Legends, Fortnite, PUBG rival CoD to some degree? So why wouldn't some other military shooter, that maybe doesn't want to be a next CoD, become maybe even more succesful? Maybe a next CS, which is imho even more insane in its ever lasting appeal without needing yearly releases.
Do the AB studios use any tool that is not available to everyone? C++, C#, Unreal, Unity, Quake MP code, some proprietery shit all AAA are undeniably capable of? From the tools it is a level battlefield but finding the core fun, through decades, is hard I guess, and just no one succesfully and properly tried.
MoH, BF, Killzone, Resistance, MAG, Brothers in Arms, Crysis Wars, Quake Enemy Territory, Ghost Recon, GRAW all could be on the level of CoD if the responsible studio and its publisher actually tried and don't rush it, never, or feel defeated after a couple of partially mediocre iterations. CoD needed a couple of releases plus addons to really take off? And quality never really suffered substantially after. Playing catch up is probably harder, you have to topple the king, but all those Battle Royal games also were able to rise. Don't Apex Legends, Fortnite, PUBG rival CoD to some degree? So why wouldn't some other military shooter, that maybe doesn't want to be a next CoD, become maybe even more succesful? Maybe a next CS, which is imho even more insane in its ever lasting appeal without needing yearly releases.
Last edited:
Benniewise de Clown
Banned
Unless Sony screws up, Xbox will sell half the amount total at best.
Xbox isn't relevant outside the US and UK and once PS5 supply will be sufficient, those two markets will struggle as well.
That's the entire reason MS is moving towards GamePass.
Obviously, GamePass isn't sustainable yet, so they can't exactly say they'll move away from consoles.
The Xbox division has been struggling since day 1 and Xbox only had one proper shot with X360, but lost it's momentum with XBO. To bleed even more while GP isn't sustainable yet, would be suicide for MS.
MS knows it and the writing has been on the wall since 2013.
Last edited:
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
Yeah you dont trust Sony and Bungie, i dont trust
For the record, not only Sony ask now $70 for the first party games, many third party developers are doing the same.....
12Dannu123
Member
All you're saying is assumptions that it's not sustainable. The definitions for sustainable are different for Microsoft vs Sony. But regardless, Sony's position will get progressively weaker if MS continues to gobble up publishers and release those games on day 1 on Game Pass. That's what Sony is scared and they don't have any legal grounds to stop it.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
I didn't say other devs doesn't
What I'm saying is Sony made the ten bucks extra the new normal price, without having monopoly.
Sony made way for getting away with the higher price
If other devs sense you can get away with anti consumerism, then more will follow.
It's business.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
You don't have to be a monopoly to charge a higher price. Price is a product of supply and demand. If Sony loses revenue based on their $70 price tag then they will adjust it. That isn't "anti consumerism". That's econ 101.
Edit:
Went back and saw what you were saying as far as buying up competitors.
So yeah, you get that charging higher prices isn't necessarily about being a monopoly.
Last edited:
OldBoyGamer
Banned
You’re right of course. But I can tell you I haven’t paid £70 for any PS5 game and I don’t intend to. Just paid £35 for a digital copy of Horizon West thanks to someone not needing their copy they got with a new PS5.
I may not be the norm though cos I am a tight cnut.
Last edited:
OldBoyGamer
Banned
Sony aside I still cannot understand this deal.
I just can’t see how they will make a return on that $67B.
It feels like a Dick move by a company pushing their financial weight around. A company that doesn’t actually expect to make a return on that sale. But they simply want to become the market leader and have used their incredible wealth to try and do that.
Edit. And before someone says it. I am genuinely NOT anti Xbox. I love that little black cube and am getting a lot of joy out of it thank you very much.
I am anti global corporate companies though
I just can’t see how they will make a return on that $67B.
It feels like a Dick move by a company pushing their financial weight around. A company that doesn’t actually expect to make a return on that sale. But they simply want to become the market leader and have used their incredible wealth to try and do that.
Edit. And before someone says it. I am genuinely NOT anti Xbox. I love that little black cube and am getting a lot of joy out of it thank you very much.
I am anti global corporate companies though
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Topher
Gold Member
Sony isn't speaking about this in a technical sense. All the games you mentioned would love to have been the next CoD. They aren't though. That's the point.
Right....I amended my post to say that.
Last edited:
67B in cash isn't doing anything. Buying ATVI will result in additional revenue and profit. Microsoft believes the returns generated will be better than alternative uses of the cash.
DaGwaphics
Member
There are a lot of competitors to CoD at this very moment, there are FPS games to play if CoD disappeared. LOL
You can compete in the same space without being even in sales. The other developers explain this for themselves. Just like MS are competing with PS in the console space but had less than half the sales last gen.
Last edited:
OldBoyGamer
Banned
I just can’t see that tbh.
They could have bought Bungie for $4B and given them $6B to make a COD competitor and still had $57B to spend on new AAA and AAAA titles.
Edit. Just thinking what you could have bought with that money.
Metal gear
Castlevania
Sega
If they’d have bought PES and paid for the FIFA license they could have their own FIFA competitor
Think of all the great licences they could have exclusive on their platform on that GP.
I keep looking at it and it feels like money squandered tbh.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
And? These boards should be looking at whether or not these changes would destroy the competition by making them unable to compete in the market, not so much fretting about Sony potentially losing some customers. As far as I know, Sony's market position isn't guaranteed by a government mandate.
You're thinking of it as a gamer. You need to think about it like a business. ATVI is a profitable company that was going through a rough patch. The company was trading at over 100$ per share a year ago before its legal and management issues. The market values the company at around 63 billion dollars today even with the uncertainty surrounding Microsoft's acquisition. ATVI generates billions in earnings per year. It is a good company for anybody to own.
Microsoft will profit immediately from the acquisition without doing anything. It probably intends to sort out the current mess and improve the company which will lead to more profits. Microsoft doesn't care as long as the profit being generated is more than other places where its money could be invested. It also has the flexibility to sell off under-performing or unwanted parts of the business to further streamline operations. Microsoft could just divest and sell the improved ATVI off in the worst case.
I understand your logic. Trying to compete with COD has been an exercise in futility for every company that has tried. There is no guarantee that spending 60B on new games would end up creating properties worth what already exists within ATVI. Buying ATVI and using it as a springboard for future games is a safer, if very expensive, play.
ComboBongo
Neo Member
Microsoft are moving to subscription models because that’s better for them. Businesses love regular, predicable income and that’s why they are rolling out subscriptions across the board. It’s also why Sony are doubling down on subscriptions. Xbox will only gain in global popularity moving forward as the barrier to entry is decreased both by Game Pass and cloud streaming. It’s not rocket science.
crackajack
Member
And none really tried. That's my point.
If EA had decided between MoH and BF/ BF BC early on and brought Crytek on board just to do that too (so no Crysis2 & 3).
Ubisoft could have combined their efforts on Far Cry, Brothers in Arms, Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six. But they split their manpower.
You can't compete in various disciplines and than cry foul when the dominant already leading with a margin sprinter just competes in sprint. CoD is Fifa. And every big publisher can do the same. PES could have been Fifa too even without the top level license, but they fumbled.
They all just don't and now Sony expects a third party to stay third party, at least make it harder in a transition period. Of course it is a huge IP, MS downplaying it is hilarious in the opposite, and MS can turn gaming in a monopoly if they really want to, but for now they are still not even no.2?
I am not sure for what goal Sony is fighting. MS will put everything on gamepass day 1 and in the long term everyone who really decides about their console purchase solely or partially on CoD will be compelled. A subscription for a ton of games, incl. CoD, or 1 1/2 games for the same (or a subscription with a delay for first party) on the competitor. Any reasonable person will choose the former if CoD and early access has any value to them.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
I still needs to see some alternatives to cod though.
None of you have listed any yet that could interest the same crowd.
I am saying that as an ex dedicated cod player.
DaGwaphics
Member
Destiny, BF, Rainbow, etc. They may not match the sales, but they are competing for the same audience and would be there to fill the void if CoD wasn't available.
Benniewise de Clown
Banned
That's pretty much what I was saying.
You're living in a fantasy land lol.
sainraja
Member
I don't think setting the price to $70 is a Sony thing. If you are simply going by who was first, then that credit goes to whoever the publisher for that NBA2k game is (I suppose you can argue influence wise, Sony should be credited or maybe they were the first to announce pricing). As for people saying it was perfectly fine, I think you are mis-characterizing that. I took issue when prices first went up to $59.99 from $49.99. Now I just see it as normal, after a generation or two. Pointing out the that the price hike was an industry move isn't being okay with it or thinking it is perfectly fine. I wish games were still $49.99. That was the perfect price point IMO.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
None of them brings the same gameplay as call of duty.
It's like saying the last of us and God of war is exactly the samr because its third person.
R6 siege is a slow paced team based sim where you have one life per spawn.
No true attachment unlock etc.
CoD is around run and gun, r6 siege is the opposite.
Destiny 2 is a mmo lite game with clunky gameplay compared to cod. Aim is unresponsive compared to cod (to be fair no fps can compete with cod regarding controller aim), and doesn't bring the same twitch combat, weapons and attachments and so on.
Battlefield is a lite Simulator, and combat and action per minute is much slower.
I still need a list that brings the same gameplay as cod.
You just list other online fps games and call it a day.
As someone interested in mainly online gaming, you can't compare these games.
R6 siege is a sim game about sneaking, use tactics and so on.
CoD is about braindead run and gun.
Battlefield is about big maps, 62 player servers, destroy buildings run vehicles.
CoD is about small twitch maps with much fewer players.
Destiny 2s main focus is about pve and pvp secondary. Destiny 2 is not even near cod now, removing cod from ps5 won't change that.
Theres no other online fps that brings fast run and gun gameplay, with the amount of weapons, perks, attachments and so on.
I know the vast majority of you guys can't see the difference between BF and CoD, but there's a huge difference.
And its unmatched.
I find it utterly insane people in here spout people buy a PlayStation because of the perfect exclusives that are unmatched, but cod which is a cash cow is just straight trash no one cares about.
It's an insane amount of delusional in here.
It doesn't affect me anyway. I ain't buying cod anymore,but I would without a doubt play it if it was on gamepass.
DaGwaphics
Member
^ Sounds really subjective tbh. I'm not an online FPS player, thus I don't have strong feelings about that aspect one way or the other. I've mainly played CoD for the single player campaign. Regardless, few games have clones on the market that match every single gameplay mechanic of their existence, that's not required for general competition.
metareferential
Member
Then stop buying from said companies, right?
And I like the tune of some comments here: "without COD Playstation is dead". Wasn't Playstation great because of its own IP? All this talk about Sony "protecting" competition is nonsense.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked