Why is PlayStation fighting tooth and nail to keep Call of Duty on its consoles? Well, in court documents brought to light by the FTC’s ongoing lawsuit against Microsoft, an email from bigwig Jim Ryan suggests the series netted Sony $800 million in revenue in the United States alone. That figure accounted for 2021, so the number’s likely to have fluctuated in recent years, but clearly we’re talking about a significant chunk of change here.
Sony’s routinely argued that it’s impossible to create a rival to the juggernaut first-person shooter series, given the scale of the brand and its overall popularity. With the kind of numbers being made public here, it’s hard to disagree with the Japanese giant’s opinion.
Of course, you could also argue that these numbers are so impressively large that Microsoft would never remove Call of Duty from sale on PlayStation consoles, which is the conclusion that the European Commission came to. Obviously, the Redmond firm has committed to continuing to release the series on Sony systems for at least ten years, although what would become of the rest of Activision Blizzard’s properties remains unclear.
In a testimony earlier in the week, Jim Ryan said “alarm bells” started ringing when he received an email from Xbox boss Phil Spencer, which stated it would continue to support Overwatch on PlayStation platforms but not its successor Overwatch 2. “It was not a meaningful list,” he claimed. “This list represented a particular selection of older titles that would remain on PlayStation.”
[source theverge.com]
Comments 15
This is why Sony trying so hard to get the deal blocked 😂.
@Grimwood I think Call of Duty is good, but yeah, these are really wild numbers.
@Suda52 nothing at all I agree with Sony trying to block it. a lot of people here call Jim weak for wanting the deal blocked.
Congratulations to the developers! I hope they get a nice bonus for working on such a successful franchise
Enough money to fund 5 or 6 new Spider-man games most likely. And that’s from 1 year of revenue. Crazy money.
Will be even more once the ABK deal goes through as Sony will then cancel their terms with Activision which includes a discounted cut on playstation store sales and microtransactions. Sony are most likely only taking 15-20% instead of the usual 30%, so without that deal that $800 million would actually be over a billion.
I'd like to thank COD for help funding our $200+ million blockbuster exclusives.
This should also answer anyone's questions as to why Jim Ryan has gone scorched earth on this deal, that's a lot of revenue & if it starts to dwindle away, people's jobs at the very top come in question.
Are Microsoft a bit short sighted though.
If or when Microsoft buy Activision and they shove it onto game pass.
Then I expect sales to go down and subs to go up.
But then way up the 10.99 a month sub and the amount some people will just buy 1 month sub to play it, then not bother. They will actually lose a hell of alot more money.
So instead of the 100m buys at 70 dollas, call of duty gets every year.
.they'll get this weird cross of some just paying 10.99 to give it a go, a few who do stay on but end up giving up the sub and then the few who buy it.
The longer this goes on the longer it shows that Microsoft are very anti consumer.
It's odd, I don't know anyone who plays call of duty anymore, I would've thought considering how big it is I'd know quite a few.
Games like minecraft,fortnite and gta5 you can put them down to being hugely popular with kids still, but as far as I know cod isn't.
Maybe it's a usa thing.
Edit : though PS3, that was very different, especially during the black ops stage. Omg cod was all anyone could talk about.
@Bez87 And therein lies the problem with Game Pass. Even for something like Starfield, you could get two months of GP for less than half the cost of just buying the game. In those two months, you could probably bleed the game of everything to do, then drop GP and just wait for the next big game. So, instead of buying Starfield for $70, you could play it for something like $32 (the two months), meaning that MS would be losing out on $38 for each copy.
And that's just for first party games, and the AAA ones at that. For third party games, Microsoft has to fork out money to the publisher/dev, then they also aren't getting their cut from the game sales for people who play on GP. Although, I imagine the money for the GP subscription would probably offset that some.
@MasterVGuides yeah they'll have to keep pumping out new content to keep people subscribed, or offer some sort of loyalty scheme.
That's the beauty of ps+ and games with gold (if it was any good), the longer you stay subscribed, the bigger your library gets.
Game pass doesn't even offer the usual big discount for a year. I guess the monthly fee.is as low as they are prepared to go.
@Bez87 The thing is that CoD probably don't actually make it money from people buying the game. They make their money through skins, battle passes, and stuff. So yes, they could potentially lose out on people buying the game for $70 every year but that doesn't matter if you have more people to sell battle passes to. Plus, Warzone is what matters, not the $70 games.
I just hate that nobody thinks there is a shot (pun...intended...maybe) at making anything to compete. It's a shame that's where we are. The next CoD doesn't have to have a half billion to make. It needs innovation and devs that are wizards with their craft. It will take a widely successful first entry with a decent budget and then every major pub chomping at the bit to put out your sophomore effort. It can be done. It would take probably 3 iterations or releases to gain/steal popularity from CoD but it can be done. Or am I just crazy?
So many conflicting reports and takes on everything lol
Honestly ONLY $1 Billion? I honestly expected it to be closer to 3-4 Billion, I mean considering how huge COD is on PS, I just expected more than just 1 Billion.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...