Exactly. He’s a straight up liar. He plays the good guy to the media for soundbytes but his approach is very very insidious.It’s funny that Phil can only commit to a few more years
Wasn’t he running his mouth about exclusives not being a thing anymore and how he doesn’t want to close off gamers or some shit?
If he believed his own bullshit he’d come out and say CoD is on PS forever like Sony did with Bungie
Microsoft "eXcLuSiVEs DonT MaTtEr tO uS"That’s 3 years to long
MS should have brought some of that AB money.3 years more than Xbox fans have had to play Final Fantasy 7 Remake (and god knows what else)
Minecraft says hi.Microsoft "eXcLuSiVEs DonT MaTtEr tO uS"
No different than Gears, Halo, Forza, etcDoesn't Sony withhold their own games from Xbox platform? Spiderman, Returnal, Bloodborne etc? What is the actual problem here? Microsoft is playing Sony's game and they won a big round.
Without a doubt, and that would be fine it's thier property, they could do what they want.I don't doubt that if Sony had acquired Activision that Sony would make Call of Duty exclusive immediately.
No different than Gears, Halo, Forza, etc
Like they've done with Destiny?I don't doubt that if Sony had acquired Activision that Sony would make Call of Duty exclusive immediately.
To be fair, I don't think MS owes it to Sony to keep CoD on Sony's system.
There is no evidence of this. Gamepass is a huge money sink right now.Sony should just put Gamepass on PlayStation both companies would benefit and I rather these companies stay making games and consoles long term then some alternatives. Mircosoft or someone else will buy up these companies and franchises anyway eventually.
There is no evidence of this. And Phil Spencer has claimed the exact opposite.Gamepass is a huge money sink right now.
The difference is NONE of those games were multiplatform and then taken away. Spiderman (the one Sony makes) isn't a continuation of the Activision series it's new, Bloodborne, Returnal etc were all PlayStation exclusive from the start. Trying to pretend this is the same thing is silly. I don't even care personally about COD going off of PlayStation I'm just sick of Spencer's dishonesty and people pretending he's some great guy.Doesn't Sony withhold their own games from Xbox platform? Spiderman, Returnal, Bloodborne etc? What is the actual problem here? Microsoft is playing Sony's game and they won a big round.
How would Sony benefit from that?Sony should just put Gamepass on PlayStation both companies would benefit and I rather these companies stay making games and consoles long term then some alternatives. Mircosoft or someone else will buy up these companies and franchises anyway eventually.
They did not just yank anything they had to let the existing deals run their course and then they brought them back, that's why there are still movies not on Disney+ that should be. The situation between Sony/Activision is much the same. Phil keeps saying "we are honoring the existing agreement" as if they had a choice, trying to sound like the good guy. Legally when you buy a company you have to honor their existing contracts, the only way out of it would be to dissolve Activision as a company and just fold it into Microsoft and they aren't doing that. As far as the 3 bonus years that's a lot different than the "we don't intend to pull COD off of PlayStation" talk that's come from Spencer and other MS execs.Yeah, we know exactly what Sony would do if they were buying Activision or Bethesda etc. They wouldn't even get 3 years on xbox.
When disney bought all the rights to marvel that shit was yanked quick sticks off netflix etc and put in didney plus.
This is just the way it is I guess. Sure it sucks for this gen but anyone buying a playstation next gen will know there's no COD.
If it goes through that is.
The problem is that both statements are true.And so the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth!
Microsoft also stated this:
"The reality is somewhere in the middle. Microsoft has also argued in these documents to CADE that not distributing games like Call of Duty at rival console stores “would simply not be profitable” for the company."
And then this:
"Microsoft says a strategy of not distributing Activision Blizzard games on rival consoles would only be profitable if the games could attract a high number of players over to the Xbox ecosystem, resulting in revenue to compensate for losses from not selling these titles on rival consoles."
It shouldn't be this hard to give a clear statement. However, given this was said in January, I wonder if their recent statements are a better indicator of a change in their plans or is there something else in play.
Well if GP was actually on PS then no one would ever need an Xbox again. But yeah, it'll never happen.How would Sony benefit from that?
Most recent award, from org looking at review averages. Sort of make more sense than many goty awards.Based on some unofficial award for one year over the past two decades? I find it comical how often that is brought up around here
I enjoyed their lineup last year just fine, one of the few good ones they’ve had in a while, but it’s not exactly amazing either.
Your comment also doesn’t even address the fear I have which is focus on quantity over quality as it relates to sub services
No they wouldn't because it would be a STUPID business move. This isn't the PS2 era, costs are much higher and companies need to make money, they are spending far less on Bungie and still not making any of their games exclusive, they aren't doing that to in hopes that Spencer will keep COD on PlayStation they are doing it because it makes sense. Buying an $80 billion dollar company than purposely cutting out over half of their current customer base in the hopes of luring a few of them over to your console/PC sub service isn't worth it. The smart move is to keep it multiplatform and let Sony customers subsidize game pass.I don't doubt that if Sony had acquired Activision that Sony would make Call of Duty exclusive immediately.
To be fair, I don't think MS owes it to Sony to keep CoD on Sony's system.
He's not a liar, several can be 3.Exactly. He’s a straight up liar. He plays the good guy to the media for soundbytes but his approach is very very insidious.
They are doing that because Bungie refused to be bought unless it was under thier own terms.No they wouldn't because it would be a STUPID business move. This isn't the PS2 era, costs are much higher and companies need to make money, they are spending far less on Bungie and still not making any of their games exclusive, they aren't doing that to in hopes that Spencer will keep COD on PlayStation they are doing it because it makes sense. Buying an $80 billion dollar company than purposely cutting out over half of their current customer base in the hopes of luring a few of them over to your console/PC sub service isn't worth it. The smart move is to keep it multiplatform and let Sony customers subsidize game pass.
A couple is twoHe's not a liar, several can be 3.
5+ years from now I could honestly see MS forcing a Gamepass launcher on other platforms that want to have COD on it (PC and PS).Microsoft: In order to put Call of Duty o n PS, Sony has to allow Microsoft to put Game Pass on Playstation, if they decline then no Call of Duty. Too bad, so sad.
5+ years from now I could honestly see MS forcing a Gamepass launcher on other platforms that want to have COD on it (PC and PS).
Might want to read a dictionary somedayA couple is two
A few is three/four
Several is more than that.
Well aren’t you a pleasant person? I’ll accept that definition but in common English, what I said holds true.Might want to read a dictionary someday
sev·er·al
/ˈsev(ə)rəl/
determiner · pronoun
determiner: several; pronoun: several
- more than two but not many.
A couple is two
A few is three/four
Several is more than that.
Wrong, again.Too late bud.
That correction had already been made. So yes, too late.Wrong, again.
Well I thought it necessary to remind u again, just in case.That correction had already been made. So yes, too late.
Ahh. Caught out so in you come with a pithy reply. Surely you have better things to do?Well I thought it necessary to remind u again, just in case.
Says the guy butthurt because he was wrong.Ahh. Caught out so in you come with a pithy reply. Surely you have better things to do?
If you read my reply, I accepted the definition. Hardly butthurt. If everyone acted in such a way then we would have fewer people like you on the internet.Says the guy butthurt because he was wrong.
Dude. Move on. You cried because you didn't like being told u were wrong for a 2nd time. So u just came up with the lame "to late" reply, like it matters. It doesn't matter if someone else already gave a definition anyway.If you read my reply, I accepted the definition. Hardly butthurt. If everyone acted in such a way then we would have fewer people like you on the internet.
but in common English, what I said holds true.
It’s funny that Phil can only commit to a few more years...
If he believed his own bullshit he’d come out and say CoD is on PS forever like Sony did with Bungie
That's a good point. Xbox 360 used to be the place to play COD, but then Sony started throwing all this money at Activision and with that came exclusive betas, exclusive maps, etc and that audience that was on the 360 migrated to PS4. So if MS does that same shit they will easily win back that audience. And then they can keep raking in the cash from PS5 game sales.I'd be really suprised if MS ever went xbox/pc only for COD when they can make alot of bank on playstation and it wouldnt really affect their console sales.
I honestly see a Minecraft situation where they keep it multiplat especially as COD would surely make alot for MS, certainly alot more than Minecraft as a multi plat title.
All they have to do is put early access for the future CODs on xbox only and some other pre release shit to draw the most hard-core COD players to xbox only.
Honestly the worst thing they could do Is take it off the biggest COD platform. Better to stay multi and also add a Nintendo only title.
I couldnt give a fuck eiva way I have a PC and playstion 5 so win win.
Bruh! Sony had the SAME DEAL that MS had in the 360 gen. That's why it was the "place to be."That's a good point. Xbox 360 used to be the place to play COD, but then Sony started throwing all this money at Activision
Yea exactly. Xbox will be the main place to play COD again, I doubt it will be enough to take over the playsation, but it will definitely take a few million away from playsation you would imagine.That's a good point. Xbox 360 used to be the place to play COD, but then Sony started throwing all this money at Activision and with that came exclusive betas, exclusive maps, etc and that audience that was on the 360 migrated to PS4. So if MS does that same shit they will easily win back that audience. And then they can keep raking in the cash from PS5 game sales.
COD being on Game Pass with exclusive content will bring over millions of people to Xbox from PS. It is probably already having an affect on those looking at a new console. Some might go with Xbox because COD may go exclusive at some time.
I had a PS3 that gen, but I don't recall maps and modes being held back on the PS3. Could have been and I wouldn't have noticed since I had all that stuff day one.Bruh! Sony had the SAME DEAL that MS had in the 360 gen. That's why it was the "place to be."
Nah. Once the Xbox gets exclusive betas, first release of content, etc. it will be the place to play COD. The base will move to Xbox, same as what happened in the 360 days. PS will still play a big part, but majority will be on Xbox.Yea exactly. Xbox will be the main place to play COD again, I doubt it will be enough to take over the playsation, but it will definitely take a few million away from playsation you would imagine.