Microsoft Invites Sony to Sign Its Own 10-Year Call of Duty Deal

Surely no choice for Sony, they have to keep CoD on PlayStation. Surely.

It’s all in the wording. Does this also promise to keep it on PS Extra at a fair price for those 10 years? Or will it be exclusive to Microsoft’s subscription service? That is far, far more important. MS don’t care if it’s locked at £70 on PS5 if they can give it at no extra cost on Gamepass.

And saying Nintendo have agreed to it is a pointless and transparent attempt at manipulation. Of course Nintendo would agree when COD isn’t even currently on their system.

Also, In the scheme of things, 10 years is a blink of an eye.

It feels like some kind of family dinner hosted by Microsoft where the uncle Sony won't come because there's no alcohol because of the kids so he just doesn't eat anything that night.

Except we're not talking about food, we're talking about billions of dollars

Don't do it Sony! Let's get COD off of PlayStation.

I cannot see Sony signing any deal that sees Microsoft owing the likes of Call of Duty. Sony is not interested in compromise, they are fighting tooth and nail to stop the acquisition as the deal threatens their market dominance. Added to which, Sony likely know that the same offer will still be there should the acquisition go through. Truthfully, if Sony don't sign up early, if I were Microsoft, I'd be tempted to offer less favourable terms to Sony once the acquisition has gone through.

I don't think Microsoft will offer to put CoD on the PlayStation Game Pass, @thefourfoldroot1, because the deal is very much about having it on the Xbox subscription, and to have it on just the one paints a very clear divide. That said, I think Microsoft would put it on their own Game Pass if Sony were to allow the Xbox Game Pass on the PlayStation (which won't happen!)...

In all honesty, just let Microsoft have COD. You have 10 years to create some decent competition. Everyone needs to remember that call of duty was not always king of the FPS genre, games before it were the go to shooter.. ala Medal of Honour e.c.t, so games have fallen off the perch before. They just need to invest and get the right people in to create something that can contest. Honestly, with how Microsoft are, they'll probably ruin it anyway, unfortunately this has happened many times before. I could give a list.

It wold be funny if Sony signs up to the service with Microsoft. Only for Microsoft to tease a new Call of Duty each year and to only deliver Call of Duty occasionally when it feels like it. Letting Sony feel what it's like to be a PS+ Premium subscriber.

@Fiendish-Beaver tencent is making more money than Sony in gaming so while they don't have their own console they're technically the 'dominant' company

Sony don’t want COD on Game Pass. That’s the bottom line. I own PS5 an XSX. I bought the last 3 COD’s on Playstation. If it were on Game Pass i’d never buy it on Playstation again. I don’t know why Sony don’t allow MS to put Game Pass on PS? It’d surely be a goid business move. A lot of Xbox only gamers would switch to Playstation. They could play their Xbox games but also get Playstation exclusives which are the best games. Sony could ask for a percentage of takings for all Playstation Game Pass subs. MS would prob eventually stop making Xbox an become kinda like Steam.

I still don't get how these types of deals can be discussed. If you don't own the company, how can you offer contracts like this? I'm not saying Microsoft is doing anything illegal, it's obviously something that's allowed but I find it bizarre that it can. It seems like an easy way to get the deal through and using Nintendo, a company that doesn't really get many Activision games in the first place to sign the 10-year offer as an example to regulators that "this company approves so pass the deal".

That's the end of it. The deal will go through. Sony can't argue it's bad for consumers when MS have essentially opened up another 70+million gamers with the expansion to Nintendo. Sony complained about COD, they have a 10 year offer on the table.
If the don't take it, it's their fault now.
Sony can't dictate what does and doesn't come to Game Pass.

F$#% Microsoft.. only if they sign a 10 year deal to keep Bethesda games on PS for 10 years.. who tf do they think they are??

The interesting takeaway is the implication of Nintendo releasing a console that will run Call of Duty. I reckon similar spec to a Steam Deck.

Haha, Microsoft are savage.

@sjbsixpack 'I don’t know why Sony don’t allow MS to put Game Pass on PS? It’d surely be a goid business move.' because Sony , Nintendo & Microsoft etc all get a 30% cut from sales made on the their storefronts if gamepass was on the playstation then they'd see a big drop off of sales on the games that are included with gamepass & lose out on that 30%

@WolfyTn eh? You’re saying they should only allow Sony COD for 10 years if they… also allow Sony Bethesda for 10 years? Getting greedy now!

Also random question: if Game Pass was on Playstation… would you unlock Trophies or Achievements… or both 🤤

I don't think this means "checkmate" for Sony backing down as much as people think. COD hasn't been on a Nintendo platform in ages so of course they would take the deal. Nintendo probably sees it like "Well if it's successful, great. If not, we still got Pokémon to fall back on as our annual cash cow so we are still great."

Sony on the other hand needs COD much more than Nintendo ever did as their annual cash cow. I think folks are underestimating just how big of a juggernaut COD is to think a Socom or a Killzone could even remotely stand in for it. Brand recognition is a very powerful thing.

Sony doesn't want their main competitor to have control over one their most important 3rd party games. It's really as simple as that and assuming the deal goes through, Sony probably figures they can hash out a deal then but that's only a last resort.

@pip_muzz 'Sony can't dictate what does and doesn't come to Game Pass' .. Microsoft can dictate which zenimax & Activision Blizzard games go to ps plus though lol

@Korgon it’s checkmate in the sense that Sony has cried about COD needing to remain multiplatform. And a deal between Xbox, Nintendo and Steam ensures that Microsoft has accomplished just that. The regulators would be satisfied to an extent, and it potentially allows the deal to go through while Sony gets left in the dust. If the regulators allow it without Sony signing up, Microsoft have no obligation to offer the deal or ANY deal to Sony once that happens. So Sony is backed into a corner and needs to make a decision.

@NinjaNicky I wish Sony will do that but some Sony Shareholders only want money from Call of Duty I think that’s why Sony is stopping MS acquisition of Activison Blizzard King.

Small correction - MW3 also released on the Wii, and BO2 and Ghosts released on the Wii U. Ghosts I believe was the last COD on Nintendo.

All depends on the terms of this offer. SIE's filings with the CMA show (although the numbers are redacted) they need parity with MS when it comes to CoD. That means parity across multi-game subscription services also.

@MisterXpoSay But Sony would get the same money from CoD then as they do now. They get their split of third party sales, the rest goes to the publisher. It's in this case the publisher would be Microsoft, not Activision. Sony would get the same 30%.

They're just arguing against something Microsoft has repeatedly said they won't do, and would be stupid to do: once they own CoD, they go from 30% of the revenue on Xbox, to 100% of the revenue on Xbox, plus 70% on Playstation, Steam and Nintendo.

In what world Sony really thinks ANY business would be that stupid is beyond me and this legally binding contract now proves it.

What this really is is Sony crying about losing the marketing rights that propelled PS+. They get the same revenue from the games and IAPs.

I think that seals the deal with a big 4D chess move. This is bad news for any regulator trying to block the deal. Blocking it would now remove acess to CoD for millions of gamers and they would look ridiculous

Please sony sign the deal and move on,your beginning to look desperate and not the leader of gaming everyone assumes!I just hope they can look past COD and come up with there own killer game for the masses as that's what they've always done,not pandered to Microsoft!Personally hate COD with a passion since MW4 so it all means nowt to me

The article literally ends with "The latest report suggests the FTC could file an antitrust lawsuit against the acquisition"

This is why Xbox are sending these awkward passive aggressive tweets about how lovely they are 😅

@Would_you_kindly but they’d fill that void with money made from Game Pass and money made from increased PS exclusive sales that former Xbox gamers would spend. Swings an roundabouts. Only a few day 1 3rd party games come to Game Pass. It’s not like 90% of new release games come to Game Pass day 1.

Deal goes through and boom, Microsoft changes the name of Call of Duty ^^

@LightningLeader this is the problem he can't say the deal is bad for gamers when him not signing could potentially take cod away from ps gamers ...u know the problem he saw with it and a reason to try and stop the deal ,just proves it was never about the games just Thier lost income

Have you played a switch game recently? No way this is some 100 gb, full fat native port to nintendo systems. COD mobile maybe. I'm not a regulator but if you let Disney buy FOX and glaxco buy pfizer, your not going to block this deal because COD is on a subscription on one storefront but available to buy on multiple others

Basically they are asking Sony to stop fighting the merge in exchange for this "deal". Can't compete day one release ons Game Pass anyway. Other than COD there are so many good games Activision makes though.

@R1spam to be clear; it makes no mention of Switch; just Nintendo. So these could be lined up for the successor system launch for example.

@Fiendish-Beaver If the deal is good enough to the FTC/EU/CMA Sony Will not have a choice.

@K1LLEGAL Easy to forget the Switch is 6 years old in a few months, and with 2023 skipping a new CoD game, it'll be 7 going on 8 years in fall 2024. Obviously by this point there'd be a successor either on the market already, or very imminently.

@K1LLEGAL
Customer access to the game is just one piece of the puzzle though. Sony is afraid after this so called 10 year plan ends they could lose access and so lose a big source of income. I know Jim has said it's about player access in the past but there's more to it than that.

To be clear though personally I couldn't care less about the deal myself. I'm just saying I think folks should pump the brakes on thinking because Nintendo said yes that means the end is right around the corner. This is still going to drag on a while longer I'm afraid.

Phil Spencer Says ‘Call Of Duty’ Will Be On PlayStation As Long As There Is A PlayStation.

That headline done the rounds months ago and they've already cut it down to 10 years.

Ironic and clear sign of manipulation from MS. Laughable.

@Would_you_kindly
It's the same reason MS don't want PS+ on their machines.

@Korgon Right. Phil could be honest about his intent to keep CoD multiplatform, but a concern for is whoever succeeds him. They may see no reason to renew the deal, who knows what the industry will look like in 2033?

Give COD the boot on PlayStation! Create your own war-themed FPS franchise and wipe the floor with Microsoft!

@R1spam Most of the 7th gen ports/remasters to Switch run well (sure there's exceptions like Alan Wake Remastered but the majority run well). So something like Modern Warfare Remastered could easily run well on the Switch.

@K1LLEGAL Nintendo stopped caring about the bigger games a long time ago, they're all about their own approach now a days.
Signing up to CoD means nothing to them.

@thefourfoldroot1 "And saying Nintendo have agreed to it is a pointless and transparent attempt at manipulation. Of course Nintendo would agree when COD isn’t even currently on their system."

The point is that currently CoD is not on a Nintendo platform (even when that platform has 100M+ Numbers) but that if the aquisition is approved the games will be expanded instead of monopolized like Sony has been saying as an argument

@daveofduncan no , this is to dispell fears that they are going to take cod away from ps , Sony taking the deal is LEGALLY binding for Microsoft and it shows the regulators that Sony saying they are going to take it away is wrong

@SolaceCreed when did I say this means anything to Nintendo? Still makes the game multiplatform.

I love how Microsofts whole gameplay for everything is always saying giving more players a chance to play by putting it everywhere. Reality is all they have ever done is bought there way to the top or tried to.

I mean we are still to see if they actually keep elder scrolls to themselves, they have kept starfield for themselves, they've bought hellblade and kept it, whats to say they basically do the same.
Its not even about a company acquiring another studio, it's about the impact this will have on the whole market and nothing will be off limits.

Unfortunately Call Of Duty on playstation makes Sony billions, and that's just on after sales like skins and dlc packs, with the percentage they receive, and billions on the game itself.

If or When Microsoft take it and put it on Gamepass and then within 10 years Gamepass and tech become alot more reliable, then who will buy it on a playstation or another system, when you could just pay a subscription and get it for a fraction of the price.
This actually effects every console call of duty is on, even xbox, really.

I guess great for consumers but if companies don't make money then we don't get great games.

If that actually makes sense. It makes sense in my head.

Game pass will eventually be just on a TV, then what is the need for a playstation for a call of duty player.

@sjbsixpack Let’s say GamePass was on PS5, for $5 more a month, would you still switch? I’m thinking they could be a win-win. But GP on PC or XB wouldn’t see any PS games, that’s still for sure.

@Balta666
There is currently zero COD market on Switch. They have nothing to lose from MS putting it on Gamepass. Completely different situation from Sony who will lose billions and, more importantly for this case, lose significant market share leading to a much greater threat of MS dominance. Which should be desired by nobody.

@Martsmall
Are they going to put it on PS Extra, for a fair price, day one? If not then anything else is a meaningless distraction. Subscriptions are, unfortunately, the platforms of the future. Saying Sony can sell it for £70 on their box is irrelevant.

Sony, deal with it.
Get over it.
Move on.
Even me being a PlayStation fan, is saying give it a rest and move on Sony.
You don’t own the franchise, you don’t own the company that produce the game, stop whinging and get over it.
You seeming desperate now.

I thought our Sony was bigger and better than this. Team move on and be bigger and better.

Sony should just take the deal and then spend the next 10 years working on an IP that acts as competiton to COD. That’s plenty of time to make an amazing game that is better than what Activision does!

Imagine if MS turns around and announce they are shutting down Call Of Duty, then the next day they have a new game called Fall of Duty exclusive to MS gamepass.

@thefourfoldroot1 is Sony going to put god of war /ff 14 on game pass ?.

At least they get to sell it and keep their fans happy with cod on Thier box

@thefourfoldroot1 I am not arguing with that. However do you think nobody would buy the games on switch (or most likely the next hardware)? Games like Doom, Wolfenstein, Witcher, etc sold very well on it so CoD would as well (even more if released day one)

@Martsmall
Whataboutisms are not helpful. Especially when comparing a game that has never been Multiplatform with one that has always been multiplatform and can swing hardware and subscription purchasing decisions. I don’t think you know what the whole case is about…

Didnt Brad Smith also claim this deal to Sony was the same as the rise of Netflix was to Blockbuster - not sure thats going to incentivise Sony to get on board.

Seriously though Sony, just use the 10 years to develop something better and i say this as someone that enjoys CoD.

@thefourfoldroot1 so no one ever purchased a ps console to play final fantasy ?
It doesn't matter they didn't own then first they soon will do , I know exactly what it's about it's Sony knowing how much they will lose once game pass has exclusive cod stuff , they can say all they want that's they are doing it for the gamers but if they truly were they would sign the 10 yr legally binding deal keeping cod in the hands of Thier players , it's money plain and simple ,
They never kicked off like this about Minecraft and no 10 yr contract was needed then and there are some ps players that would have been gutted if they made it Xbox exclusive ....yeh it's about the gamers Sony

@thefourfoldroot1 The deal is to continue releasing the game on Playstation Hardware at the same day with the same content for Gamers to BUY - just like it releases on Xbox and PC.

On Xbox/PC, you can 'choose' to Subscribe to Game Pass and part of that service is offering brand new games day and date. However, if you are not a Subscriber, you still have to buy the game - just like you do on Playstation. I doubt MS will give CoD away to PS+ day and date, Sony don't do it with their own games so how can you expect MS to after spending their time and money on development? Sony would need to pay MS for that, just like MS has to pay 3rd Party Publishers to put their games into Game Pass...

Essentially, MS would become a 3rd Party Publisher (like A/B, EA, Ubisoft etc) on Sony/Nintendo platforms and should expect the 'same' treatment as those. Minecraft is a Microsoft game, will be releasing their new 'spinoff' (Avatar Legends) day and date on PS (as Xbox, PC etc) and will also be available in Game Pass but not PS+ (unless Sony negotiates with MS to pay them to put it on).

Instead of looking at MS as 'purely' a platform and competitor, look at them as a '3rd Party' publisher for Minecraft and 'soon' CoD. The only difference between MS and A/B is that Sony can't 'negotiate' timed and/or 'exclusive' extras to artificially weaken its competitors or market the game as if its an exclusive anymore with MS as the Publisher.

@Martsmall nonsense. What happens after the 10 years are up? They up the price for Sony? It's manipulation in its purest form. You can't say aslong as there's a ps, cod will be on it, then turn around and say 'just 10 years' without coming across as complete hypocrites.

@daveofduncan no company in the world is going to sign a forever deal and and if you think that then u truly are deluded on how companies work ,would Sony do that ???? Sure as hell no and I don't blame em ,no one will , games are taken off stores due to music licensing deal running out cause even they don't do forever deals

They offered the deal to show the ones who think they will take it off ps once the deal is through they they won't ...one of Sonys reasons on the complaint,this is actually a gd thing for Sony to keep the games in the hands of the cod players( edit legally binding ) but they said no

@Grumblevolcano I'm sure it would but you see this and the phrasing and you think new CODs, not remasters

@sjbsixpack that's assuming Microsoft would give Sony a cut of gamepass subscriptions that are on playstation & weather or not that would make up for the loss in sales which I don't believe it would , there's also the fact that playstation has its own competing subscription service so people would be less likely to subscribe to that if the games they wanted to play were included with both subscriptions & they could get gamepass cheaper ,only Microsoft would benefit from gamepass being on playstation

@Worlock_ed nah, the release will be the streamable type, at least for the remaining Switch years.

@daveofduncan At the end of the day, 10yrs is a very long time in gaming and MS really doesn't have any obligation to keep CoD, Spyro, Crash or any other of their own IP's on ANY hardware. Who knows if CoD or Consoles will even exist in 10yrs time - you could be playing via a Subscription service - like signing up to Netflix, Disney+ etc - you sign-up to Game Pass and/or PS+ to play games on any device - the TV's of the future may well offer Game Pass/Playstation+ apps without needing to spend $600+ to play so the 'console' may not exist in the way we know it today.

CoD may well be 'exclusive' to Game Pass for example but as a gamer, you'd still be able to access it on the 'same' devices you can play Sony's games via their Playstation Subscription service. If Sony have a console in 10yrs, then Xbox can 'sell' you the product but if not, they are NOT going to spend millions developing games to give them away 'free' to their competitors subscription service.

I can see a time when Game Pass is available on PS and PS+ on Xbox. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but if you can only stream games on the competition, but get perks (local, offline play for example) on your own platform, there is still an incentive to buy Hardware. You could play Starfield via streaming on PS, but games like Spider-Man play locally or stream Spider-Man on Xbox but Starfield plays locally for example but then each Company has the same Reach, Gamers everywhere can still play every game etc...

Will COD even still be a thing in 10 years? I don't play them myself. I do have the ones through PS+ but never booted them up, always something more interesting to play.

Getting tired of hearing about these companies fighting over the game.

I know people are saying Sony is desperate, but this looks more desperate, I think Microsoft is really panicking right now. For all the people who say Microsoft can't afford to not release cod on PlayStation is foolish, if they can afford buying Activision they can eat the price on cod every year. Hopefully Sony is working on a competitor, I think socom would be great.

Take it Sony just take it and move on, in that time you could grow Destiny as the PS shooter or bring Killzone back.

@ReadySlayerOne exactly. People could buy a PS5, play all Xbox games and Playstation exclusives too. Or stick with Xbox an just play Xbox games.

@Martsmall
They aren’t doing this for the gamers. They have clearly said they are doing it to stop one company having huge dominance. Yes, that huge dominance would obviously be bad for gamers if it came about, but their immediate concern is obviously their own business and not losing billions in micros transaction fees and lost hardware sales. Nobody is saying otherwise.

Once this deal goes through, remember who it was who killed PlayStation...

@Would_you_kindly plus the extra sales of Playstation exclusive games. The % cut could be the condition Sony put to MS. I think most would subscribe to both, i do. PS+ has millions more subscribers than Game Pass.

@BAMozzy
“ Instead of looking at MS as 'purely' a platform and competitor, look at them as a '3rd Party' publisher for Minecraft and 'soon' CoD. The only difference between MS and A/B is that Sony can't 'negotiate' timed and/or 'exclusive' extras ”

If Sony would continue to get their billions from the 30% microtransaction fee I’m sure they would have less of a problem. The difference is, if everybody purchases COD via Gamepass, MS will be taking all those fees through their system as no casual gamer would buy a PlayStation. It’s not that difficult a concept to understand really. The only option Sony would have is to hope MS let them have Gamepass on PlayStation, and even then would likely have to pay a huge percentage of those fees back to MS.

That type of power in the hands of one provider is just bad all round.

Why settle on 10 years if they can have it forever by blocking the deal? Of course alongside all the other IP no one talks about.

@Would_you_kindly MS owns Zenimax, Sony don't own ActiBlizzard. It's the equivalent of MS complaining that Spiderman is coming to PC. It's nothing to do with Sony.

@thefourfoldroot1 Sorry. But Sony has no "right" to have Call of Duty on PS Plus Extra. They can fork a cash to secure it...that's for sure.

@pip_muzz why would Microsoft complain about Spiderman coming to pc when they own windows 😂

@daveofduncan Ehh nope.
No company is dumb enough to give other contract for unlimited amount of time. Minecraft does not have contract "for eternity" on PlayStation and do you think Minecraft Dungeos and Minecraft Legends are not/will not be on PlayStation?

But giving contract for 10 years does not mean that COD will be out from PlayStation after contract expires. Sony and Microsoft will just make another one...duh?

I think this proves Sony’s court case. MS wants to be able to take it off in the long run. This doesn’t solve the issue at all.

Thats a lot of years haha.word up son

@Jaz007 It does proof exact opposite of Sony is saying.
Sony claimed before CMA that Microsoft wants to make COD exclusive. But how that can be if Microsoft is not only offering 10-year deal so COD will stay on PlayStation, but they even offered Nintendo same contract.

Their argument literally fell apart. It was dishonest argument in a first place, because Sony knew that COD will stay multiplatform. Microsoft is not dumb enough to cut Call of Duty series from half of it's revenue. It was clear from day one that they will "Minecraft" it.

Thorn for Sony is Game Pass. They are afraid, what will happen if they will need to compete with subscription service that will have COD games day one, while they are selling same game for 80€.

@Korgon
You are 100% right.

@Godot25 You mean like with Elder Scrolls? It doesn’t prove anything other than MS is willing to play the long game. They already are chairing series from half their revenue. Not to mention every other Activision game could be made exclusive.

I don't think this deal will impact PS5 as I think a lot of PS owners only play COD and probably some FTP titles and sports and the odd other title so Game Pass doesn't really make sense to them but it's the PS6 that Sony is worried about if they lose the title. Although I hope that in 10 years we will have the next big thing.

@Jaz007 Nope. Microsoft never said that Elder Scrolls will not be exclusive. But they said that Call of Duty will remain multiplatform. That's kinda different don't you think?

Also, you are comparing SP RPG with "one time" purchase with live service game which is living or dying by number of people that is playing it. Don't tell me you can't recognize the difference because even Sony can. That's why they plan to release all live service PlayStation Studios games on PC at same time as on PS5 while they are keeping their "story driven games" on PS5 only

They don't specify what call of duty will be on nintnedo, this could just be about call of duty mobile which won't effect any of the points sony are trying to make.

Are they threatening more CoD?

@UltimateOtaku91 if it's the same as released on ps/Xbox/pc it won't be

“You can imagine if [the deal] closed on that date, starting to do development work to make that happen would likely take a little bit of time... Once we get into the rhythm of this, our plan would be that when [a Call of Duty game] launches on PlayStation, Xbox, and PC, that it would also be available on Nintendo at the same time.”

If the deal does go through will it affect any cod on PS Plus or do they forever keep it on there even if they have say a 10 year deal in place?

@Godot25
Of course. Maybe you missed the part where I said “for a fair price”.

@KidBoruto
Maybe not, but it has paid for many of Sony’s games that you likely do enjoy. It brings Sony billions.

This entire subject went from interesting to stupid real fast.

Coming from Spencer this is clearly a lie.
C'mon, that's the guy who said "we should rethink our relationship with ABK after these sexual misconduct scandals" and then one later announced the acquisiton. The same guy who said "we won't do a price increase in the short term" and then three months later raised the prices anyways.

He's a pathological liar and MS has the money to deal with any contract breach.

@Martsmall where you getting that from? And if that's true then I can't see any way the latest call of duty games would run on nintendo hardware. Maybe a stripped down version of warzone at best.

Whilst I get what you are saying, @thefourfoldroot1. You see Microsoft as a 'threat to market dominance'. However, as it stands, Sony has that market dominance. Why is it okay for Sony to be dominate, but not Microsoft? It was, after all, Sony's dominance that saw them raise the price of games to £70/$70, and increase the price of their consoles. Why did they do that? Because they could. Because they are the dominate force in gaming, with the largest user base and no matter what they do, it doesn't really affect their bottom line.

As it stands, even after this acquisition goes through, Xbox will move up just one position from fourth to third, with Sony still firmly at the top. Yes, losing the likes of CoD marketing (not CoD itself) will hurt Sony's bottom line, but it still won't topple them from the top spot...

@UltimateOtaku91
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/12/06/call-duty-nintendo-microsoft-sony-xbox/

@UltimateOtaku91 for all you know it could be on switch 2 that could b coming in the next few years and have no problem with games like that , it wont b anytime soon when this starts

@Martsmall thanks for the link which provides more clarity to what Microsofts plan is for this Nintendo deal, don't know why this site and others left it out originally. And yeah switch 2 needs to atleast be on par with the steam deck.

@thefourfoldroot1 10 years is a lot longer than it should be, but it’s long to get the deal done and pass regulators. We COULD see two Nintendo hardware releases in that time.

I don’t see an issue of having older games on the PS+ service w their campaigns and only supporting online multiplayer on the current release and the year prior to free up server space. If that is an issue with online support, then why are they putting out yearly releases? Maybe have 3-5 years worth of online support on GamePass as an exclusive but no more of that times release BS with DLC or different modes. That needs to end. That hurts the community as a whole but it has padded Sony’s pockets…which is likely what they want to maintain going forward.

Nintendo has some technical hurdles to overcome but looking at the Steam Deck, they can absolutely put out a Switch successor that could support and pool into CoD cross-play.

@NinjaNicky normally i would agree there hasn’t been a good COD for years, but this years Modern Warfare 2 is actually the best in the series in a long long time. I am playing it which i normally don’t play COD, and am having a lot of fun. Plus as they update it and make it even better it stands the chance to be my favorite one in the series. Not sure if they can repeat this success, but just wanted to share that in most cases i would agree with you.

@Green-Bandit campaign or online? I’m not in to shooters online, that’s why I’m asking, but I do like a great campaign. I’ll grab them from time to time if they are less than 10 bucks for a digital sale. Splatoon is my exception, I do enjoy playing that online.

@UltimateOtaku91 yw , pure Xbox has it on their site
https://www.purexbox.com/news/2022/12/xboxs-phil-spencer-explains-how-call-of-duty-will-work-on-nintendo

@Fiendish-Beaver what You are forgetting is that although Sony has a very strong position, they do not own half of the publishers. xbox already had strong studies before they started there buying spree, but with the acquisition of bethesda and soon activision blizzard king, they remove quite a big chunk from the free market. Athough they claim that they increase competition by bolstering their position, they reduce the number of competing partners. So competition is reduced not increased. Moreover as You can see that they managed to get already deals signed with Valve and nintendo, they already have quite some leverage on the market, which will increase even more once the acquisition goes through. It is hard to believe that that is very beneficial if the market is dominated by so few players.

In my opinion, for the market it would be much better if xbox would take their billions, take a risk and develop something new, rather than removing companies from the free market. Or event if they would just snatch up smaller companies and grow them. But that is not what they are doing, they just take power over a chunk of the existing marked by using their pretty much unmatched financial power.

This is a actually nice chess move by Phil! He's basically saying that he would put resources for Nintendo to receive COD ports which it hasn't been getting.

He also got the full support of Gabe and Steam (Jim really thought putting their games on Steam would make them bff!), wouldn't surprise me if more figure heads in the gaming space start throwing their support for Microsoft.

@Ear_wiG easier said than done is the problem and Sony would have to let it come to PS+ day and date and PC, something they aren’t in favor of at the moment. Would like to see what Sony would make tho, i am sure it would be good, not sure a COD killer tho.

@thefourfoldroot1 I wouldn't call 10 years the blink of an eye. 10 years represents 67% of the online multiplayer lifetime of COD which started in 2007. 10 years will easily enter the next generation of playstation (which we have no idea what that will look like.)

Recently there has been speculation that the mainline series could possibly die off in favor of the free to play model. We have no idea if COD will even be relevant in 10 years or what it will look like.

@BAMozzy Bingo, you nailed it and that is exactly the point. MS is fixing itself for the future if consoles aren’t as big of a thing, maybe PC and Cloud for causals are the next big thing in 10-15 years and MS will be there will a slew of AAA IP’s to distribute on whatever devices players are gravitating towards. Well said, you understand the industry’s now and future better than others.

@Martsmall not when they first reported this news

The real question is will we have to cross play with Nintendo's jank online?

At least it would cut down on lobby chatter.

@Stnkygrngo i am really enjoying both honestly. However if you aren’t an online player type, i don’t see there being much there that would change your play style to actually wanting to play online. The campaign is good but at $70 if you aren’t going to play the online i don’t see that as good value. I am a online shooter junkie, Halo, Overwatch, and COD are all my thing, i am begging ID to reboot Quake like they did with Doom, so you can see i have a interest in a good online shooter and much to my surprise this years COD is actually great. Something i haven’t said in 7-8 years 😊

@Fiendish-Beaver
I think you are confusing dominance for no.1 spot. Currently neither Sony nor MS are dominant. One is slightly ahead in sales sure, but that’s not the same thing.
I would like the status quo to remain, with both companies pushed by the other. MS slightly behind in profit because they can make it up elsewhere in the company in a way Sony can’t. This is the best position for consumers.

Sony increased prices to £70 due to outside market forces, the same as MS. The difference is MS said they left their increase until after Christmas, effectively, “for the players” (although it was clearly because they could afford to and thought it would bring them more Christmas sales).

@R1spam I got the impression that it could be either given sometimes Switch ports release around the same time as next gen upgrades. So for example a Modern Warfare Remastered Switch port could release around the same time as a PS5/Series X|S upgrade.

Thinking about it more this looks like a checkmate or at minimum a check. If Sony continues to try and block the deal they will be denying over 100 million players from getting cod to their platform.

Regulators will probably be satisfied now (FTC was said to be mostly satisfied before this) so if Sony doesn't sign that 10 year deal before the purchase goes through they won't even get those 10 years.

It's a master stroke by Phil Spencer. If Sony signs the deal, it gives them the guarantee they need and the regulators can let the acquisition go forward. If Sony refuses to sign and continues to argue against the buy-out, Sony will then have to explain to the regulators how having guaranteed access for 10 YEARS somehow threatens their market position if the acquisition goes forward. COD is not the real prize here for Microsoft - it's the studios and the backlog of unused IP that Activision has locked in the basement. All Sony cares about is one frickin' title - and that demonstrates weakness, lack of strategy and flat-out ruthless business tactics.

@thefourfoldroot1 Sony will continue to get its '30%' for sales of CoD on 'their' platform to all those gamers who bought a Playstation to also play games like Uncharted, GoW, Spider-Man and all the other 'games' on Playstation.

The fact is that the game is still available and the 'same' price with the same content on Playstation as it is on Xbox and whilst you maybe able to play it on Xbox as part of Game Pass, that would mean paying 'more' than $70 over the course of a year for a Subscription to Game Pass - on top of buying an Xbox of course.

I didn't see people flocking to Xbox to play MLB21, MLB22, Back4Blood, Plague Tale Requiem or any of those other 'multi-platform' games that also released 'day and date' into Game Pass. For those on PS hardware, they had to buy these - just like on Xbox for 'non-subscribers'. But they bought PS to play Uncharted, GoW, Spider-Man, Horizon, R&C etc

Its not like ALL Xbox customers will now get CoD free but everyone else has to pay. Its exactly the same as Playstation - you want to play, you Buy. You also have the 'option' to Subscribe, but if CoD is the 'only' Xbox game you want to play, it doesn't make sense to Subscribe as it will cost you more in the long run...

Just like you don't need to buy an Xbox or Playstation to play Fifa, you don't need to buy either to play CoD. you'll be able to play it on more devices, more 'choice' for gamers/consumers. Sony may lose 'sales' because people opt to play on Switch, on Mobile, on Laptops, on their TV's (no hardware required) instead of buying an Xbox or Gaming PC.

If you expect people to abandon their 'preferred' platform with their preferred friends, their library of games, their trophies etc just to 'play' CoD via a Subscription service on another platform when they can keep all of that, still play CoD in the same way they have before, without missing out on Content (timed or otherwise - due to total parity), they will carry on 'buying' like they always have.

On Xbox, it is a 'choice' an option to access the game via a Sub Service, with a 'fixed' monthly cost, but you can also 'buy' games. If you want to 'own' your License to access CoD, it will cost the SAME as on PS with the SAME content all available at the SAME time. That $70 price will include Sony's 'retailers 30%' on 'their' platform, just like they get their 30% for Activision, EA, Ubisoft etc Published games. The 'only' difference is that its now MS who is the Publisher, not A/B.

Sony 'could' Publish their games on Xbox as a '3rd Party' Publisher too but they 'prefer' to keep them on their own Platform as an incentive to buy their Hardware. They'd lose that '30%' retailer profit to MS, but get the 'same' revenue as games published by EA, Ubisoft etc on Xbox. Its no different from 'Minecraft' and Mojang - both owned by MS, games releasing day and date into Game Pass, as well as being Sold on all platforms. Minecraft is the Biggest Selling Game of all time and yet you don't have to buy an Xbox or have to subscribe to Game Pass to play - you can play on your 'preferred' device, with your 'preferred' controller and preferred friends. The fact its owned, developed and published by Microsoft has no impact on consumer choice. The fact that you can play Minecraft, Minecraft Dungeons and Minecraft: Avatar Legends day on Game Pass hasn't made all those 'Minecraft' fans abandon Playstation because they had to 'buy' these...

@daveofduncan That’s because there’s no such a thing as a “perpetual contract” between companies, that’s just not how things work at ANY business, at the end of the 10 years both companies will sit together and discuss how to renew the contract.

I really don’t get why some of you guys are so salty about this, Sony has been buying exclusives (albeit not full publishers) for years now and every single time we’ve cherished it, now comes the time when MS is making their own moves and it’ll greatly benefit their users while not affecting PS users as CoD will remain for many years or even forever, this reminds me to all the people absolutely betting on Minecraft being exclusive to Microsoft platforms and it just didn’t happen, they’ve been true to their word even launching it on new platforms without an actual contract forcing them to do so.

Just let competition play out, at least with heavy competition Sony can’t get away with raising prices in everything as they’ve been doing lately.

come on Sony forget about COD.......i know Zipper Interactive is gone now but please sony bring back MAG lol I loved that game

@thefourfoldroot1 Are you seriously demanding MS to not only launch their game in the competition’s platform but also in their service when not even Sony launch their own games in PS+!?
Then Sony should release God of War in Game Pass am I right?

I’m sorry that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read…

@Juanalf sony wouldn't get the 10 year guarantee that the signed deal would promise but that doesnt mean it would not be available on PS. I tend to agree with their sentiment that call Of Duty will remain multiplat. They have been reiterating that since day one. Microsoft is really just trying to make this look like a concession for regulators. They aren't really doing anything that they didn't want to do anyway.

@Mr_Gamecube Exactly this. There is NO guarantee that if this deal falls through, Sony would be able to out negotiate MS with A/B to even keep CoD on their system - MS could basically screw Playstation with annual timed Exclusivity - MS gets the 'new' game just as PS get last years - not that it benefits the CoD community at all. There is no guarantee that A/B could 'continue' if the deal falls through - maybe forced to sell off Studio's, IP's (inc CoD) to 'survive' or go bankrupt.

In my opinion, Sony should be investing in their own Games, their own studio's, their own services etc instead of investing in screwing over the competition with 3rd Party owned IP's - paying to keep content off those platforms. They 'could' buy more Studio's, build up their Studio's and/or make their 'own' First Person shooters - they own Destiny now as well as Killzone, Resistance, MAG, SoCoM etc and talented developers to make their own competitor. Put the money they were spending on CoD into making their own FPS. They could have over a 'decade' to make and establish their own FPS for their customers - built exclusively for PS hardware and force people to buy Playstation to play their FPS as well as CoD, Fortnite, Battlefield, Apex, PUBG and all the other FPS games on the market...

@IOI
Except I didn’t say that. You seem to be rather emotional. Maybe you should care less about your box?
I said that MS saying they will release on Sonys box for 10 years is meaningless because they know it is not like for like.

Saying people can have it effectively free on Xbox, but need to pay £70 on PlayStation, is in no way a good deal. It’s a comparison in bad faith. I was saying that IF MS would offer those terms then Sony could accept. But clearly they won’t so Sony can’t.

Make sense to you now?

@Bez87 And Sony hasn't bought their way to the top? This whole fallacy that Sony built all their development studios from the ground up and Xbox should just do the same. If my maths is correct, of the current Sony studios, around 62% of them have been acquired by Sony, not built from the ground up. If I were to factor in the studios they acquired but have since shut down that percentage would be higher, possibly as much as 75% although I haven't done the sums to confirm that figure as those studios have closed. Sony are quite used to using their bank balance to get leverage over competitors, and still do with the amount of 3rd party exclusives they pay for, it just so happens that Xbox has access to a fatter wallet.

@BAMozzy
Sorry, at work and no time to read that. But a quick skim shows you believe that I think people will sell up their PS5 to buy an Xbox for Gamepass. I’m not saying that. But for new buyers (and there are many considering supply restraints). We still have 80 million people still awaiting a next gen machine at least. And for next gen, COD would be a massive factor.

Sony will have to sign it. Microsoft have them over a barrel. And Sony will hate signing it too.

@thefourfoldroot1 Again, WHY would they do that? Is any recent Call of Duty available right now in PS+ Extra? No.
In fact Activision has said it themselves, they currently don’t like putting their games on any sub, and the only way that their games get on a service on day one is that the MS acquisition is closed.

And no, it’s absolutely not “meaningless” because the truth of it is that people won’t change platforms for just a single title that they can still be able to buy as they’ve been doing in the last decade, the thought that every PS5 user will sell their console to buy a Series X because they got CoD on Game Pass is nothing more than a falacy.

Sure, it might sway some consumers the same way Sony has been swaying them with marketing and exclusive content, answer me this, why is it fair when Sony has some advantages but it’s absolutely unacceptable if MS has some kind of advantage having it on Game Pass?

@thefourfoldroot1 Game Pass is a 'separate' thing and not tied to a 'specific' Platform. You can play CoD on Game Pass on PC or Mobile too but 'never' own it.

Sony doesn't offer CoD day and date on PS+, doesn't offer their own games on PS+ day and date. If you want to 'own' CoD, its the 'same' price, for the 'same' content, day and date on Xbox or Playstation.

If you ONLY play CoD, it's cheaper to 'buy' the game outright and play it for 'years' to come. If you own a Playstation, its cheaper to pay the asking price than to 'buy' an Xbox and then pay a monthly fee (which currently is £11 a month for Game Pass Ultimate to include Gold which is required for online gaming). If you want to play Starfield, Redfall, Perfect Dark and whatever else MS releases over a year into Game Pass, then maybe Subscribing makes financial sense - but if you want to play Sony's exclusives AND CoD, then its NO different to how it is 'now'. You'll still be able to 'buy' it to play and get the same content at the same price. Its not $70 on PS and 'free' on Xbox Series Consoles - its still $70 on Xbox too but you can play via Game Pass on Xbox, PC, Mobile, TV, Laptop etc as well but don't 'own' the game...

It's no different from MLB21, MLB22, Back4Blood, Plague Tale Requiem or any other multi-platform release that PS and Xbox owners could 'buy', but also available to play in Game Pass. If you want to play on console, the game will be available to BUY day/date, with the exact same content so NO one gets screwed over. Its not the 'only' way anymore because you can also Subscribe to Game Pass on your Mobile, your Samsung TV, your Student Laptop or an xbox console to play.

People didn't buy a Playstation specifically for CoD. CoD was associated with Xbox throughout the 360 generation and even the first few 'years' of Xbox One. CoD Ghosts, the 'first' PS4/XB1 CoD game didn't help Xbox much nor its follow-up before Sony, with its much larger install base, snapped up the CoD. Its only been the last 'few' years that CoD has become associated more with PS.

You buy a PS because it has the 'best' selection of games you cannot play elsewhere - games like Spider-Man, GoW:R etc - Game of the Year winners, Most Anticipated games. If you get some 'bonus' cosmetics etc in a 'multi-platform' game, its a 'bonus' if its in your favour or you feel your being screwed over if it benefits the other - but its the games you can't play elsewhere that persuades you to buy Xbox or Playstation. People won't move to Xbox 'just' because CoD is now on Game Pass on Xbox, they'll rather 'buy' it on PS because that's their preferred platform with the 'best' games they can only play on PS.

Even when it comes to 'next' gen, CoD won't be a Factor because you can play it regardless. Even if its on Game Pass, which means you may not even need a 'next gen' console to play CoD, its going to come down to whether the 'list' of Exclusives appeal more to you on PS or Xbox. You don't 'need' an Xbox at all for Xbox games so maybe Xbox won't make another Console as they can play on their TV, Mobile etc without needing to spend $500+.

People buy a Playstation because its their 'preferred' platform, they prefer the controller, the 'exclusives', the ecosystem, their friends are on it etc etc, and that won't change. People bought Nintendo hardware for Nintendo games and everyone said they can't compete without CoD, without the big 3rd Party releases yet Switch has sold incredibly well...

@UltimateOtaku91

I think the intention is to support the Switch successor since it’s likely to be far more powerful than the current Switch.

It really depends on which mobile chipset nVidia has that Nintendo decides to go with.

There’s one in particular that I think would be a perfect match for a Switch 2. It’s a low powered version of the RTX3000 series on the GPU side. Features stuff like DLSS.

@BAMozzy Couldn’t have said it better, I really don’t know why some people are getting so salty about this, like dude, you’ll still be able to get your COD the same way you’ve been getting it the last decade, the fact that some people will eventually be able to play it on Game Pass shouldn’t even matter to the ones that will keep playing it on PlayStation, but here we are…

@BAMozzy
Again, at work and can’t respond to all of that, but you are confusing us for the people who make Sony and MS the most money - the fools/kids who are only interested in COD, FIFA, and GTA, who spend all their pocket money on Microtransactions and will go where their friends are.

If it is seen as cheaper for people to get an Xbox and Gamepass instead of a PlayStation and full games, then we will get slow drift.

You are also confusing the current place people play (console and PC) with the future locus of play, which is a streamed subscription where you don’t even need a dedicated box.

@IOI
They wouldn’t! I don’t know what you aren’t understanding. The entire point is that they wouldn’t do that. They would never put it day one on PS+. This is why them saying “it will be on PlayStation” is meaningless. PlayStation/Xbox, will be meaningless in 10 years, it will be all subscription streaming for online games like this.

@thefourfoldroot1 Again, it’s not meaningless in the slightest as @BAMozzy has explained at length, but if you want to repeat the same thing over and over again you’re free to do so.

10 years ago we heard the same things, that the consoles were dying, that the PS4 would be the last generation, and here we are with consoles being more popular than ever and Sony, Nintendo and Xbox doing better than a decade ago.

Oh yes,that lovely PR machine chestnut again of "Let there be competition!!"...saysthe 2 trillion dollar Microsoft whom rather than spending 70billion on creating their own IP's,instead buys out one of the biggest AAA 3rd party publishers so it can restrict the potential future releases to maybe just one IP (at its discretion),as well as which subscription service.🙄

The same 2 trillion dollar "indie" who also killed off PS5 versions of Starfield & Elder Scrolls 6 the moment the ink dried on the Zenimax deal whilst initially spouting the same "gaming for all" mantra & Gamer Phil's infamous timed exclusives are anti gamer rantings?

Yes,all console makers engage in 3rd party deals, like it or hate it...but to pretend Xbox is just a tiny little indie developer when their parent company is actively spending billions buying up the biggest AAA Publishers & 3rd parties around to do the exact opposite of what defines competition & get away with it truly astounds.

@ReadySlayerOne but the money goes to Microsoft not Sony in that case. Why would you let your competitors undercut you in your own hardware?
Microsoft shouldn't expect it, they'd not allow PS+ on the Xbox.

@IOI to be fair, I think coronovisrus helped the sales of Consoles a bit. Since everyone was locked inside.

@thefourfoldroot1
Either that or Nintendo will somehow regain their dominance or Apple will join the console system race just to annoy Microsoft for venturing onto their mobile gaming turf.

@IOI
Sorry mate but, if you don’t think streaming subs are the future, you simply haven’t been paying attention. I hope you are right of course. But you aren’t.

If they sign now, they are basically accepting the terms of the acquisition and saying Microsoft now own Activision, so this will not go ahead and Sony will continue to fight.

@thefourfoldroot1 @IOI In a decade, there may not be Consoles to sell games on as people have gravitated to accessing their games via a Subscription Service and that's where the Strength of Sony's own Content will matter as to whether or not people choose to subscribe to PS, to Game Pass, to whoever else wants to deliver a hardware free Streaming solution and sell games through their stores to access through your subscriber account/profile.

But then 'Sony Playstation' hardware ceases too at that point, so MS is not 'obligated' to release CoD to non-existing hardware. If you are playing through your TV via Game Pass, that's not on Xbox, PC or Playstation hardware so you can't say its 'not' available to those on Playstation hardware.

If Playstation hardware no longer exists, then its a different landscape altogether and maybe it will give MS an edge but if you want ALL Star Wars content and watch all those 'game' related shows on Netflix, you'll subscribe to BOTH services. It's up to Sony to ensure they have games people want to Play and investing in that 'future' by investing in their studio's - whether that's increasing their 'number' or expanding the ones they have to make multiple games at a time so people want to subscribe to 'their' service.

So much can change in a Decade and if there is enough people that want to play on Playstation Consoles whilst Sony are still making consoles, MS will Sell CoD to those gamers. If you want to Access CoD via any other device, MS will also provide an option - even if your hardware can't natively play it, you'll be able to play. If Playstation as 'hardware' no longer exists, its NOT suddenly unavailable to gamers on their 'preferred' platform is it??? If everyone is playing via their TV, CoD will still be available to play on your preferred platform with your preferred controller etc...

@BAMozzy
“ In a decade, there may not be Consoles to sell games on as people have gravitated to accessing their games via a Subscription Service and that's where the Strength of Sony's own Content will matter”

Precisely. It is all about content. So if one company buys up a lot of the most successful and popular franchises then nobody else can seriously compete. That is why huge acquisitions of previously multiplatform publishers have to be seriously investigated and, all players should hope, prevented. This is the only way to ensure competition. Which is essential.

I think this is all you are missing. You aren’t seeing the danger of a single dominant subscription service that can be played even without dedicated hardware.

@thefourfoldroot1 And Sony has Destiny too when that happens as well as an impressive back catalogue themselves to offer and will want to publish their games too to compete with all the other Publishers to play their games.

You're still hypothesising based on the way things are 'now'. In a decade, Sony could have Final Fantasy for example on top of all their other IPs and/or developed other Award winning IP's that people want to play. People buy a Switch to play Zelda and Mario so they'll subscribe to Playstation to play their beloved Playstation games even if that means subbing to 'other' services to play CoD or maybe Battlefield or GTA or Assassin's Creed... No guarantee GTA will be available through a 'Playstation' or 'Xbox' Subscription service - but you can still 'play' it on the Hardware you prefer through some Sub service instead of 'buying' a platform and 'buying' games, you use that money to sub to several services to play the games you want...

@BAMozzy
So you are combating “definitely buying billions of dollars worth of IP” with “could potentially make a banger”?
That’s not how it works when judging monopolistic moves. Sure, anyone could create disruptive technology, but you don’t bet the market on it. Sounds a bit like you are the one with the hypotheticals to be honest.

And, OK, “several services (subs)” would indeed be better than one. But only happens if one is stopped from buying an effective monopoly.

I don't quite understand your comment, @thefourfoldroot1. You say that it is best for the consumer if PlayStation is ahead of Xbox. So why is that? Why not the other way round? What is wrong with Xbox being the market leader? Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for that, however I like to think that I am relatively unbiased in my thought processes, but to say that you don't want to see the deal go through because you want to see PlayStation retain its lead, is, in my opinion, entirely biased. I just don't see how Sony being ahead is 'best for consumers'. I get that that would perhaps be best for those that game solely on the PlayStation, but consumers in general is debateable at best.

I'm not sure that you understand the meaning of monopoly, @thefourfoldroot1. A monopoly would basically being the sole distributor of games, or at least being by far the largest. Even if this deal goes through, Xbox will still be lagging behind Sony and Tencent. Even with the ABK acquisition, Xbox will be far from a monopoly.

@Fiendish-Beaver
I know what a monopoly is. Clue is in the prefix. But MS are the only company in the market currently with the funds to simply buy their way to a subscription monopoly (forget consoles, they will soon be irrelevant). It amazes me that people are fine with or oblivious to that. What would it honestly take for you to start to see? What if they buy EA and Take2?

And to your other reply. That’s quite simple. MS can take huge financial loses in the gaming sector and still be viable competition, Sony can’t. So the further away Sony are from that scenario the better.

@thefourfoldroot1 So your whole argument is that Microsoft is bad because they have more money and can buy everything they want?
Dude, I'm sorry but you're just a really small-minded fanboy.

Yes, Microsoft has a ridiculous amount of money, but do you really think they can buy absolutely everything? Of course not.
Look at the scrutiny that this deal already has, if it's approved indeed I bet that MS will not be able to buy any other big publisher.

You act as if Sony were just a startup instead of a global corporation who even after the acquisition closes will still be the market leader and have more revenue in the gaming industry, they have all the means to truly compete even if consoles disappear in the next decade, but again, as another user pointed out, you don't want to see competition nor even open to the idea of there being a market leader other than Sony, you want Sony to be the market leader no matter what even if they're already abusing their position raising prices for hardware and software.

I get that we really like Sony's games, no matter what I'll always get a PlayStation to play their banger exclusives, but you're just being toxic with all of this, at least try to understand that MORE COMPETITION IS ALWAYS BEST.

@IOI
Not at all. I think Sony are a bunch of small minded quasi racists who have destroyed the Japanese games industry with their puritanical crap. I don’t like their tedious one dimensional games and am only with them because they are the only platform holder releasing VR, which is pretty much all that excites me in gaming these days.

Yet I understand that MS are worth close to 2 trillion and Sony only 100 billion so, yes, for the sake of competition benefiting all gamers I’d like them to remain successful enough to remain. That’s all.

And they aren’t “abusing their position” any more than MS are. You understand MS just announced they are raising their first party game prices to £70 too right.

@green-bandit @savage_joe There is absolutely zero reason for Guerrilla Games NOT to be working on a new Killzone. It has to be happening. WTF Sony!

@Ravix The FTC president is a crazy democrat, who seems to literally hate large successful corporations no matter who they are. She has blocked several large deals, and I believe several were challenged in court and the FTC lost, they are going out of their remit and policies due to the presidents actions. Latest reports are due to this history they are split on the deal, and in all probability to save themselves further embarrassment they'll let it through.

@SolaceCreed The industry as a whole has made record profits recently, I think both due to the pandemic but also due to a new generation launch. Even with scalpers and both consoles being rarer then a 2 ton diamond!

@thefourfoldroot1 Yeah sure, you now despise Sony after stating in multiple comments that the world is better off with Sony being the gaming industry leader, sure…

And yes, I’m both aware and mad that MS has followed the trend of raising game prices, but who started the trend that every major publisher has now followed?
Of course if Sony wouldn’t have raised prices others wouldn’t have followed and if they weren’t the unchallenged market leader they wouldn’t have done it in the first place, you see now why competition is always important?

@IOI
Have you not been here long? Suppose I can’t blame you for not remembering my comments but check out pretty much any discussion on censorship here and you’ll see I’m consistent. My displeasure began in 2018, obviously.
And yes, despite what I think of any of the platform holders, the much much smaller guy being successful is clearly important.
And they both raised prices due to market conditions, external factors. Same as pretty much every other industry.

@Ear_wiG as a xbox and PC shooter fan, i have to admit the feel and gameplay of Killzone 2 was one of my favorites of the time. I really enjoyed just about everything in that game, had one of the best Shotguns. I really would love to see what Killzone could look like on PS5. I would try it for sure 😊

@electrolite77
It was a rhetorical question really. Of course it won’t be on Plus. That is why the deal MS are offering is entirely misleading and pointless.

@WolfyTn They are not even close to have legal problems with the Bethesda acquision why would they make a 10 years deal for that? That are not even doing it for Act-Bliz only to CoD.

@electrolite77
Sure, but this is all about avoiding a monopoly. That’s what the scrutiny is about. It’s not about whether it’s is available everywhere per se. Will Gamepass just dominate the market if MS can buy huge franchises and release them only on that service day 1? It’s that market domination/control, with the associated lack of consumer choice, that is being investigated.

Sony should stop giving playstation exclusives to microsoft then like God of War, spiderman, Uncharted etc, but that wont happen as long as moneys involved.