fallingdove
Member
Why does it have to be an either/or thing? I am against any of these massive companies using their resources for wholesale consolidation.
-
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.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
can sony block a publisher to publish a game on their store?
can sony disincentive a publisher to publish on their platform?
in your scenario, sony still refusing the deal is code for "take your Call of Duty and shove it up your ass"
laynelane
Member
At this point, there's been so many narratives created for this deal - none of which stand up to any real scrutiny - but 'it's Sony making it all about CoD' is a new level of head-scratcher.
HoofHearted
Member
Last edited:
HoofHearted
Member
....
Last edited:
HoofHearted
Member
apparently neogaf servers burped..
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
You mean the shareholders that didn't get a payout from Microsoft wholly acquiring the company and paying above market value for their shares? I imagine many of them will be looking to create a better business relationship with the company that nearly acquired them rather than Sony, who acted against their best interests. And what makes you think they'd somehow make less money? If this deal doesn't go through, there's nothing to stop Microsoft from spending a small percentage of the remaining USD$67b to lock up Call of Duty with very favourable terms for everyone involved. Full blown exclusive? Probably not. Marketing, modes, maps, early release, and maybe even Game Pass? Easily.
Last edited:
Poltz
Member
So just like the Xbox 360/early Xbox One gen marketing deal that MS relinquished?
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
That's right, just like the deal Sony has right now. Xbox becomes "the best place to play".
Last edited:
Poltz
Member
That was always a path open to Microsoft when the marketing deal with Sony expired anyway.
ZehDon
Member
If I recall, Activision preferred not to renew with Microsoft, preferring Sony as they had a larger install base. I suspect that preference might be inverted when Sony's deal expires next year if Sony successfully kills this acquisition.
Last edited:
Poltz
Member
Microsoft submitted that they chose not to continue the marketing deal with Activision in documentation for this acquisition.
RickMasters
Member
Kind of a redundant question. Massive comnpanies always aquire smaller ones. if one company doesnt buy another does. None of them are saying to themselves "well actually...we might be encouraging consolidation...so lets not buy it even if its gonna make us more money" ... they just dont think like that.
PixelatedBeast
Member
The problem with your scenario is that it still take having a pulse on the gaming industry to know what is worth big marketing and promoting. COD is the low hanging fruit. Microsoft chooses games like Cyberpunk, Halo Infinite, Wo Long Dynasty...Sony choose Elden Ring, GOW and Hogwarts Legacy. Hard to be the best place to play, if the best games to play are most associated with your competitor.
ZehDon
Member
Cool. Doesn’t change my prior statement about preferences.
That deal would be open to both when this one expires. The company won't cut off its nose to spite its face. If Xbox offer something more beneficial to ABK and its shareholders they would go with them, if Playstation does, they would go with Playstation.
Last edited:
RickMasters
Member
Throw in the whole "call of duty comes home" marketing .... recalling the days when COD2 launched alongside the X30 and COD 4, where the series became what it is today started on xbox.
That was a crazy year come to think of it....in a good way. Forza 2 was amazing , mass effect was amazing , crackdown was a tonne of fun (which came with the halo 3 beta) halo 3 was massive and the they had the COD4 beta exclusively. I remember playing the halo 3 and COD 4 betas back to back. then getting both in november. And I was still playing FM2, and on my third ME playthrough at that point... what a year for xbox, that was. and the years after the xbox 360 was the 'COD box' aswell as the halo/gear/forza box.
Id like to see them get that thunder back. And maybe having COD inhouse means they will stop trying to chase it with halo and halo can go back to been a great halo game. but this time round with all them other studios we no longer need to suffer a rotation of just the same three IP. This year has been pretty good so far I reckon.
In Cold Blood
Member
Sure, Sony can block any game or publisher from putting a game on PS.
Not sure the point?
ZehDon
Member
Yes, and they'll have USD$67b and the good will of the decision makers to figure out what that might look like. "Call of Duty - Best on PlayStation" isn't something I expect to see again for a long time no matter how this deal shakes out.
In Cold Blood
Member
I'm not so sure.
If a part of the offer to Sony is that they will give them COD on PS+ day and date for market rate of 200 million, but Sony doesn't sign the contract, does MS still have to put COD on PS+ if Sony is unwilling to pay? Or will Sony have to pay them 200 mill ,Wether they want to or not, because that's what MS put towards the CMA as a remedy and the CMA accepted it?
It's not that simple.
So it's money and nothing to do with 'preference'. The benefit to ABK would always be the preference, not feelings.
Last edited:
Aaron Olive
Member
Well I mean all those games span that console Gen, not being exclusive to one and ten years passes quicker than you think.
Sorry to confuse.
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
I think you meant "money" there. And no, not at all - goodwill and preference counts for a lot in any business discussion. Short term "quarterly profit" thinking wouldn't have gotten Sony, Microsoft, or ABK to where they are. If Microsoft can convince ABK to give Xbox a chance for a greater return later, they'll play ball. And that kind of convincing is easier to do when you're friends with everyone in the room. As I said, it's up to Microsoft and ABK to figure out what that'll look like - but I imagine that discussion will be a two-way street with both parties looking to make it work. Sony's told the entire world that without Call of Duty, PlayStation is literally dead. I don't imagine Sony's discussions will be a two-way street - ABK holds all the cards, and that room won't be filled with Sony's friends.
mansoor1980
Member
Not really. I meant preference. The benefit to ABK would be the only preference. Whether that's money, what's best for the brand, or whatever else. Nobody said that would be short term. If they feel Sony or MS benefits ABK short term or long term they would go with that, they wouldn't be thinking "I hate Sony because they objected the deal". Feelings are not what the board and shareholders are about. They would do what's in the best interest of ABK.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
in your scenario IF Sony still refuses the deal it means sony is encouraging /challenging MS to take CoD away from PlayStation.
why? Because PlayStation is only making ±30% of all the money, MS will lose 70%.
Heisenberg007
Member
Warablo
Member
I mean, you are talking about money. If this deal falls through because of Sony. Those shareholders lost a lot of money.
Heisenberg007
Member
And they will lose even more if they don't partner with Sony.
IndianaJack
Member
SIE showed their true colors rejecting the 10-year COD deal, they want to block the acquisition, period.
Smoke6
Member
How is it non sense Sony couldn’t compete without COD yet MS is trying to buy the whole franchise…JUST TO COMPETE?
Sure but making less after would be cutting off your nose to spite it.
Last edited:
Iced Arcade
Member
Smoke6
Member
That’s because you’re thinking as a GAMER not a BUSINESS MAN!
MasterCornholio
Member
Why?
The US has bigger things to worry about than COD and Microsoft. They wouldn't do anything to Britain over this especially since Britain is host to several American bases.
Didn't want to drag politics into this so I apologise for that. Just thought it might be a good counter point to your argument.
P.S But you probably weren't serious BTW. Hard to tell after we have some crazy people post here.
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
Sounds like Sony has a stranglehold then, and is in need of a bigger competitor.
MasterCornholio
Member
Not bigger. More competent. Which Microsoft has been making changes to achieve. We have to wait and see if they can be better in the future.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Like the rest of my post says, they're not buying Activision just to compete.
Also, even if they were trying to buy Call Of Duty JUST TO COMPETE, it wouldn't mean that Sony couldn't.
Also nonsense is one word.
Heisenberg007
Member
Sony for the last 12 months: "We want this deal to be blocked by regulators."
Lulu: "Sony wants to block the deal."
Everyone:
knocksky
Member
Even the most hardcore of Sony fanboys know that they are just projecting in their arguments to the regulators. Nothing more.
You know that full well. But whilst you are correct when you say that we shouldn't be speaking about things that have not and certainly will not happen. Everyone knows that it is an easy deflection. Even the fanboys all giving you a thumbs up know it too. Even if your motives for bringing that up obvious, I will not disagree with you on that.
knocksky
Member
Wow you got me there Sherlock.
Or,
They didn't want to appear hypocritical when they were planning to fight tooth and nail to block the Microsoft/ABK merger?
Or
It could be true that bungie only agreed if they could stay multi?
Personally, I am still skeptical about just how multi bungie will stay. There are plenty of bullshitters in the industry, and nothing is set in stone. We will see. But using the bungie announcement as proof is premature imo
Last edited:
Neofire
Member
If you expect people to trust that rabbit individual you have bigger issues lol.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Member
The latest reports had PS5 at 30 million units and XSX|S at 18 million units. By the end of the next fiscal year, PS5 could feasibly be as high as 60 million units and XSX|S could feasibly be as low as 25 million units, maybe even less.
They can enter any marketing deal they want with Microsoft at this point, but paying full-price royalties on future CoD is something that is going to heavily impact Activision's profit margins.
If 60% of Modern Warfare 2's billion-dollar early revenue came from Sony, that's 600 million dollars. If Sony normally collects 30% of that 180 million dollars, but even a reduction of 5 percent off the 30 percent amounts to 30 million dollars. And that's just from the early days...
This idea that Sony suffers more from a spurned Activision doesn't add up. When the deal falls through, it will be in Activision's best interest to mend fences with Sony as quickly as possible.
Mibu no ookami
Member
You bring up really interesting points here.
There is an unclear motive for what Sony did and we won't have a full understanding for quite some time.
Did they buy Bungie and structure the deal to poison the well against the ABK deal? Did they do it to help them with future larger-scale purchases? Or did they do it because Bungie wouldn't sell otherwise? We'll see if Bungie truly acts independently with their content and we'll see how this impacts Sony's future M&A.
freefornow
Member
Add a "h" after the T, and I'm there!
Last edited:
Didn't Bungie literally say this? That one of their deal breakers would be exclusivity?
Pelta88
Member
I'm guessing "Chose not to" and "Collapsed instal base made renewal price of marketing deal unfeasible." Are one and the same here.
We're literally in a thread where Microsoft offered double the asking price for Activision, to buy COD outright. Surely you don't believe that XBOX, after lauding COD's marketing deal for close to a decade, simply turned around and said
"Nah."
When it came time to renew it that marketing deal, right?
ZehDon
Member
Not likely. Sony increasing their install base by 100% in a single year doesn't really track with the estimation you're using to low ball Xbox. PS5's 45m to Xbox's 27 million would be a realistic estimate.
I'm not really sure what you're responding to here, but it's not me. Sony losing Call of Duty's marketing and early access deal doesn't really diminish that Call of Duty will be sold on PlayStation and will continue to do so no matter what happens with this deal. ABK signing a deal with Xbox instead helps Xbox, without massively impacting their revenue - depending on the deal with Microsoft, of course. People will buy Call of Duty on whatever platform they want. What Xbox's deal would do is diminish PlayStation's ability to use COD to prop up PSN through advertising and marketing. The long-tail impact of that is measured in the billions, which is why Ryan's not happy with any deal Microsoft might offer.
It's the other way around, according to Sony. PlayStation goes out of business without Call of Duty. Sony would have no choice but to give ABK whatever it demands, or there simply won't be a PlayStation to disagree.
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
My impression with these deals is that whoever pays up most gets the contract signed. Obviously there's benefit for the platform holders to have their console ident at the end of the TV ads, etc. But for Activision, I don't see what's in it for them to go with a particular party over another, Xbox players didn't think the game wasn't coming out for their console when the ads have the PlayStation sting at the end of the ads just as PlayStation gamers didn't think that COD was exclusive to Xbox in the past.
I suspect that Sony outbid Microsoft or that Microsoft, following the disastrous Xbox One launch were dealing with more limited budgets for promotion and marketing and when their existing contract with Activision ended were unable to justify the expense.
I think at any point had Sony wanted the partnership more than Microsoft did, then they could have had it.