We've been in this industry for 20+ years, have yet to make an impact in number or quality, so we're going to take a $70 Billion Dollar bite out of it subsidized by the Trillion dollar parent company. Don't ask questions.
We've been in this industry for 20+ years, have yet to make an impact in number or quality, so we're going to take a $70 Billion Dollar bite out of it subsidized by the Trillion dollar parent company. Don't ask questions.
Atleast we can finally hear from Microsofts own mouth how they really see things. They know that the PS brand is too big and successful for them to even be able to compete. They are basically admitting that they can't do it without buying already established ip.
We've been in this industry for 20+ years, have yet to make an impact in number or quality, so we're going to take a $70 Billion Dollar bite out of it subsidized by the Trillion dollar parent company. Don't ask questions.
Well with the exception of the music services I'm subscribed to (because I use them every single day without fail) I've shifted the way I view these subscription services in recent years and do exactly that. I only subscribe if there is something that sticks out and I must have access to at the time that I don't have an alternative for which I already own elsewhere. I don't use them as a primary means of media consumption because then I will just spend time aimlessly looking for stuff to play/watch on the service which means I'm using it just because I have access to it not because I want to.
So the rule is simple for me with movies and games. If I wouldn't pay for it (or don't want it enough to pay for it at its price at the time) then I'm not going to sit there and watch or play it.
There's a ton of stuff that these services do in order to psychologically manipulate their users and keep them mindlessly hooked. You can research it and find a ton of stuff on this now, especially on Netflix.
The idea is that the more they keep you playing/watching the less you think about your experience and the more you will continue to watch/play. And of course, if they keep you watching/playing then you will stay subscribed.
I think that's the point behind 3rd parties. Some third parties have franchises that are unique to them and really can't be replicated.
It's like if Sony buys Capcom and you demand that Microsoft makes Resident Evil games. They can try but there's no guarantee that they can replace the franchise.
Can't even talk about gamepass outside of the warrior bubble.
Anyway 29 million and likely over 30 million by end of this month. ~5 million growth from Jan-Feb when it was announced they were 25 million. Very solid growth based on the year.
I think that's the point behind 3rd parties. Some third parties have franchises that are unique to them and really can't be replicated.
It's like if Sony buys Capcom and you demand that Microsoft makes Resident Evil games. They can try but there's no guarantee that they can replace the franchise.
Thanks for proving the hypocrisy of Sony's argument. Sony complains about the damage that excluding certain 3rd party franchises from other platforms does while doing that with big franchises.....
PS. It's funny that you name Resident Evil because Sony already paid to make it exclusive and hurt Sega and Nintendo some time ago....
Thanks for proving the hypocrisy of Sony's argument. Sony complains about the damage that excluding certain 3rd party franchises from other platforms does while doing that with big franchises.....
PS. It's funny that you name Resident Evil because Sony already paid to make it exclusive and hurt Sega and Nintendo some time ago....
Resident Evil was on Saturn and Dreamcast as well. Sega hurt themselves, Nintendo has never been in bed (in the same way) with 3rd parties since Sony helped liberate these publishers from their NES/SNES draconian grip.
Thanks for proving the hypocrisy of Sony's argument. Sony complains about the damage that excluding certain 3rd party franchises from other platforms does while doing that with big franchises.....
PS. It's funny that you name Resident Evil because Sony already paid to make it exclusive and hurt Sega and Nintendo some time ago....
You talking about marketing deals? Most of those are temporary. Each side has obtained exclusives with 3rd parties over the years. It's common practice. Buying a huge multiplatforn publisher is new though and isn't the same thing.
It's why your see them as being the same when it isn't.
We are only talking about COD, there are an infinite number of fps shots. If COD is so necessary for Sony to be competitive... ask Sony why it doesn't invest more money in more games of the same type and not just to pay for Activision marketing and exclusive COD content.
PS. the wink means contradiction..... Don't feel so special
Come on man, games like bleeding edge and crackdown 3 are far better than "one and done" Sony games. They just have to be, look at the amount of time you can spend with your friends in those games.
Resident Evil was on Saturn and Dreamcast as well. Sega hurt themselves, Nintendo has never been in bed (in the same way) with 3rd parties since Sony helped liberate these publishers from their NES/SNES draconian grip.
DDarsxx82
could you explain why games like RE Village skipped the Switch? Your making it sound like Sony paid them to skip Nintendos platform but I don't think that's what you mean.
Nintendo literally is different than MS and Sony. Different global strategies, different market focus, different employees to house, different support, lesser hardware specs due to that, etc, etc..
That is only your argument accommodating it to Sony's.
Nintendo is one more agent in the market, it competes in it, and is subject to the same changes and specialties... Both MS and Sony can perfectly accommodate their strategies just as Nintendo does. The difference in strategy does not make it different. And in fact, that argument was the one defended by CADE.
Square Enix sold off Crystal Dynamics for pocket change. If what MS really want is King, and if ABK really want to sell, why not just buy King? Why go after the whole ABK? Or if Sony only really worry about CoD, which is what they’re constantly talking about, then let the CoD studios stay and MS can buy the rest.
DDarsxx82
could you explain why games like RE Village skipped the Switch? Your making it sound like Sony paid them to skip Nintendos platform but I don't think that's what you mean.
Because their hardware simply isn't capable enough to run it natively...... but still Capcom is releasing those games via Cloud. Of course Capcom is not differentiating between Nintendo vs PS5/Xbox
On November 19, 2021, in the course of a conversation on a different topic between Mr. Spencer and Mr. Kotick, Mr. Spencer raised that Microsoft was interested in discussing strategic opportunities between Activision Blizzard and Microsoft and asked whether it would be possible to have a call with Mr. Nadella the following day. Mr. Kotick agreed to participate in such discussion. Following this call, Mr. Kotick promptly reported the conversation to Robert Morgado, the lead independent director on the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors, and Brian Kelly, the chairman of the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors. Messrs. Kotick and Kelly subsequently spoke with Allen & Company LLC, which we refer to as “Allen & Company,” which had provided strategic financial advice to Activision Blizzard on other occasions, regarding the call with Mr. Spencer.
In a call on November 20, 2021, between Messrs. Kotick and Nadella, Mr. Nadella indicated that Microsoft was interested in exploring a strategic combination with Activision Blizzard. Following this call, Mr. Kotick promptly discussed the call with Messrs. Morgado and Kelly and, thereafter, with a representative of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, outside legal counsel to Activision Blizzard, which we refer to as “Skadden.”
On November 22, 2021, a call was held with Messrs. Spencer, Kotick and Kelly, during which call Mr. Spencer noted that, while Microsoft already had a significant amount of information about Activision Blizzard and its business as a result of the commercial relationship between the companies, Microsoft would need additional information regarding Activision Blizzard’s long-range financial plan and prospects in order to advance its analysis. Subsequently, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly indicated to Mr. Spencer that Activision Blizzard was not willing to provide such information without an indication of the proposal that Microsoft would be prepared to make that could then be shared with the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors to gauge the Board’s level of interest in engaging in additional discussions. Following this call, Robert Corti, chair of the Audit Committee of the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors, was also informed of Microsoft’s expressed interest in potentially pursuing a transaction.
On November 26, 2021, Mr. Spencer again spoke with Messrs. Kotick and Kelly, indicating that, based on the information available to Microsoft, Microsoft was preliminarily considering making an all-cash acquisition proposal for Activision Blizzard at $80.00 per share. Thereafter, Messrs. Kotick, Kelly, Corti and Morgado discussed potential ranges at which the full Activision Blizzard Board of Directors may be willing to consider an acquisition proposal taking into consideration, among other factors, Activision Blizzard’s historical trading prices, selected research analysts’ estimates for Activision Blizzard and relative trading multiples of Activision Blizzard and its peers.
Well with the exception of the music services I'm subscribed to (because I use them every single day without fail) I've shifted the way I view these subscription services in recent years and do exactly that. I only subscribe if there is something that sticks out and I must have access to at the time that I don't have an alternative for which I already own elsewhere. I don't use them as a primary means of media consumption because then I will just spend time aimlessly looking for stuff to play/watch on the service which means I'm using it just because I have access to it not because I want to.
So the rule is simple for me with movies and games. If I wouldn't pay for it (or don't want it enough to pay for it at its price at the time) then I'm not going to sit there and watch or play it.
There's a ton of stuff that these services do in order to psychologically manipulate their users and keep them mindlessly hooked. You can research it and find a ton of stuff on this now, especially on Netflix.
The idea is that the more they keep you playing/watching the less you think about your experience and the more you will continue to watch/play. And of course, if they keep you watching/playing then you will stay subscribed.
Thats pretty cool and all, but why would I really care what you do?
You do you, and thats cool, and I do me.
Why does it matter to you, if I subscribe to something or not?
You asked me what has changed since I dont buy them anymore, and I said its because I got fatigued by annually purchasing a new game even though I do enjoy them.
And as I am already subbing to Game Pass, it would increase my enjoyment by having the service.
Then you start telling theres plenty of games you like but dont like enough to buy, it is what it is etc.
What relevance does it have to I would like to have Call of Duty on a service I pay for?
I cant really see your opinion having any relevance to mine.
I respect your opinion, but it's like you dont respect mine and indirectly says I'm indirectly wrong, and I am an entitled spoiled brat.
All of this out from a comment saying "I would like Call of Duty on Game Pass as it adds value for me to a service I subscribe to."
I get it, you hate Game Pass, its popular here.
But I'd rather spend ten dollars a week and play games I enjoy (theres always at least one game I can find to enjoy, I've so far completed 40 games this year, and 22 of them were from Game Pass. Some newer titles, some older, but lets say I paid an average of 30 dollars for these games, I would have paid 660 euro for these games, where I only have paid 135 euro since I've had game pass for 9 months. Besides that, theres 10 other games I've tried and didnt like, that would have been 300 euro in wasted money since I would have shelved the games.
Then theres several online games or rogue lite games off the list I play I dont categorise as games I can complete, so theres several saved money.
I'd rather pay 15 euro a month and play a diverse library I enjoy, rather than paying 70 euro for one CoD game every year.
I dont expect every big banger to get on the service, and I dont expect to like every single game that gets on the service.
I do look forward to Insurgency Sandstorm coming soon, and I look very much forward to War40k Darktide, which I can play day one on Game Pass. That game alone costs 40 euro.
Square Enix sold off Crystal Dynamics for pocket change. If what MS really want is King, and if ABK really want to sell, why not just buy King? Why go after the whole ABK? Or if Sony only really worry about CoD, which is what they’re constantly talking about, then let the CoD studios stay and MS can buy the rest.
A year ago, the entire board would erupt in laughter in response to these absurd Nintendo arguments. Just shows you how easily some brainwaves will adjust to be in sync with their corporation of choice.
Because their hardware simply isn't capable enough to run it natively...... but still Capcom is releasing those games via Cloud. Of course Capcom is not differentiating between Nintendo vs PS5/Xbox
Thats pretty cool and all, but why would I really care what you do?
You do you, and thats cool, and I do me.
Why does it matter to you, if I subscribe to something or not?
You asked me what has changed since I dont buy them anymore, and I said its because I got fatigued by annually purchasing a new game even though I do enjoy them.
And as I am already subbing to Game Pass, it would increase my enjoyment by having the service.
Then you start telling theres plenty of games you like but dont like enough to buy, it is what it is etc.
What relevance does it have to I would like to have Call of Duty on a service I pay for?
I cant really see your opinion having any relevance to mine.
I respect your opinion, but it's like you dont respect mine and indirectly says I'm indirectly wrong, and I am an entitled spoiled brat.
All of this out from a comment saying "I would like Call of Duty on Game Pass as it adds value for me to a service I subscribe to."
I get it, you hate Game Pass, its popular here.
But I'd rather spend ten dollars a week and play games I enjoy (theres always at least one game I can find to enjoy, I've so far completed 40 games this year, and 22 of them were from Game Pass. Some newer titles, some older, but lets say I paid an average of 30 dollars for these games, I would have paid 660 euro for these games, where I only have paid 135 euro since I've had game pass for 9 months. Besides that, theres 10 other games I've tried and didnt like, that would have been 300 euro in wasted money since I would have shelved the games.
Then theres several online games or rogue lite games off the list I play I dont categorise as games I can complete, so theres several saved money.
I'd rather pay 15 euro a month and play a diverse library I enjoy, rather than paying 70 euro for one CoD game every year.
I dont expect every big banger to get on the service, and I dont expect to like every single game that gets on the service.
I do look forward to Insurgency Sandstorm coming soon, and I look very much forward to War40k Darktide, which I can play day one on Game Pass. That game alone costs 40 euro.
Mate you don't need to justify yourself, it's all good. You literally asked me about my stance so I explained it. I also said I understand that people who only use subscription services will see things differently.
My fundamental stance for this surrounding COD is that it not being on gamepass doesn't change anything for people who are interested in the game since it was never on the service to begin with. If you want to play it you have to pay for it (unless you just want to play Warzone of course) and it will continue to be that way for a while regardless of whether this deal goes through or not. Whether you want to play it enough to pay for it is up to every individual but as we all know they clearly don't struggle in making people pay for it.
It’s nice to want things. I’d say it’s quite clear that they won’t get all of it considering that the claws are out now, so they should rethink and buy what they want the most. They don’t need another FPS dev so they should drop Activision’s CoD studios right away. Blizzard and Diablo makes more sense being PC focused and all. And King if mobile is where they want to be next.
If it were to be made available on Game Pass - then sure, I'd play it for the campaign - and to see how bad I've gotten at it at multiplayer - then move on. Sorta like Dirt 5...
However - Is it a big enough deal for me to subscribe to Game Pass or, alternatively, if I were a "Sony Only Pony" to jump ship? Meh - NO - as that's not the underlying reason for which I'd originally bought my PS5 nor would it be the primary reason I'd subscribe to GP.
The entire premise of all of these discussions is that CoD is the most valuable asset of this deal - when every other available data/metric indicates otherwise.
I am paying for game pass without it. But with it I am willing to keep paying even longer. The more big games they have on game pass the more content I am.
"Sony is roughly equivalent in size to Activision and nearly double the size of Microsoft's game publishing business"
Are they talking about Sony game revenue vs Xbox Game Studios? They must be trying to exclude other types of revenue like gamepass and concentrate on their publishing business only.
PSx generation and how Sony paid for the exclusivity (later temporary) of the RE franchise against the competition.
That which. The purpose was to reflect the hypocrisy of Sony's argument with "irreplaceable content" when its today strategy is to exclude the same type of irreplaceable content from other platforms.
They could get it from the likes of EA (who would likely know the number as they are bundled with Ultimate). Destiny 2 was also recently on Gamepass so they could have gotten the number from Bungie.
PSx generation and how Sony paid for the exclusivity (later temporary) of the RE franchise against the competition.
That which. The purpose was to reflect the hypocrisy of Sony's argument with "irreplaceable content" when its today strategy is to exclude the same type of irreplaceable content from other platforms.
