BAMozzy

@Korgon I'd imagine its the ability to play 'Premium' Quality games with relatively decent visual settings and frame rates that the 'hand-held' device isn't capable of running that well natively.

Take 2016's Doom as an example - on Switch, it has a 'low' visual quality and low resolution, limited to 30fps but with Streaming, you could get a much higher resolution with much higher graphical settings (inc RT for example) and 60fps too because the game is technically running on much better hardware.

Yes it may have slightly more Lag/Latency than playing at 60fps Natively, but it can still feel more responsive with lower latency/lag than Native 30fps because the game is updating twice as fast.

Imagine if ALL your games were playable on ANY device. So if you bought God of War, Horizon, Gran Turismo etc on PS5, you could 'stream' that game to where ever you are - not have to wait to get home, wait for the TV to be available to game on (as a lot are connected to 'family' TV's) etc.

For 'hardcore, dedicated' gamers who can't accept anything less than the 'best' version of a game possible and have the money to spend on gaming, Streaming isn't the 'best' option. But if you don't really care about the best Graphics, can't afford or justify buying the latest Hardware etc, Streaming can be a great 'entry' point for many.

There are 'supposedly' around 3bn Video Gamers - most on Mobile devices. Streaming reaches those people and lets them enjoy 'Premium' Games that would never release natively on their Hardware so they too can enjoy these experiences.

Not Surprised at all - EA has a number of 'big' Sports games as well as a few other games (Apex, Battlefield etc) and also released Dead Space too which likely added to their 'play hours' too.

A/B shows what you would expect, a sharp increase around OW2 and CoD releases which then drops off. Warzone (F2P) obviously still helps them keep a 'sizeable' playerbase too...

Anything that's no longer in production, no longer supported with 'new' releases is 'retro' to me and certainly 10yrs in gaming is long enough for something to be 'retro' in technological terms.

@Kidfried Of course you can't show early builds as first impressions count to the Consumer. A Publisher is looking for potential, whether it has marketable value so not necessarily bothered if its not 'polished'.

Also you have all these games that are 'early' in development being revealed that puts 'pressure' on Studio's to 'hurry up' and 'release', to keep us updated on progress etc when their only 'purpose' in revealing their 'project' was to help recruit staff to build that game or generate interest and/or investment etc...

Companies, especially during Covid lockdowns, realised they don't need the expense of hosting a booth at E3 and pushing teams to prepare 'something' in time to show, they can host their own showcase, whether its for a single game or a breakdown of the year ahead - at any time that suits them without the hassle and costs of attending an event in Person. Not only do they save money, this also is a 'direct to consumer' approach and can get 'their' message out first hand.

If companies are not 'attending' in person because its too expensive and/or 'easier' to make a video to be shown around the time of E3, then its obsolete. To get Companies to support the event, it needs to offer benefits and value and the 'biggest' value to them is Consumer engagement.

E3 was never really aimed at the Gamer - it was a Trade show specifically for Companies to tell the 'press' what they had in store for the year ahead so they'll tell the gamers in their magazines etc.

However, those companies now have a method to go directly to the 'Gamer' with a video/stream and reach far more people instantly everywhere in the world - all without the cost and hassle of attending a Show that really doesn't 'connect' with their target customers...

Pretty pointless today as the internet has replaced the 'need' for trade shows. Companies don't need a trade show to speak to the press and tell them what they have in store for the season ahead and into next year so they can spread the message to Gamers through their media, they can now do their own show when and where they want and speak directly to the gamers - bypass the Press and hassle of a Trade show...

It did become an institution and kick off the 'exciting' season of game releases and gaming events but it's no longer 'relevant' as proven by many now opting to do their OWN show as and when it suits...

@IAmAshCohen17 Arguably you could say that Xbox has no chance to sell well in Japan if all the big Japanese games are 'blocked' from releasing on that Platform.

If you are a Japanese gamer, looking to play Square Enix games - like FF, Forspoken Live a Live etc, you aren't going to buy an Xbox. Even if Sony didn't 'block' them, they'd have a 'difficult' job of competing against a Japanese brand but its almost impossible without those as well.

Sony have been accused of many things, including not caring about the Japanese market so much - but in reality, they don't need to try to win over Japanese gamers because they are the 'only' high-end option to play Japanese games. When you have that big a lead and prevent games releasing on your rival so present 'no' competition, then you don't really need to try. Japanese gamers have 'little' choice but to buy a PS5 to play Japanese games.

As I said, I doubt that MS would ever be as successful in Japan as Sony is in the UK or US for example - even if they were not 'blocked' from releasing Japanese games - but they could certainly be 'more' competitive.

I almost think that Sony will acquire SE. Partly because SE has downsized a lot, disappointed with Forspoken and basically said FF16 won't come to PC after the '6month' exclusivity expires. It 'seems' like Sony and SE will 'merge' but that wouldn't help Sony's arguments in the A/B deal.

Its not just the price of the Headset alone, but the whole set-up too. If you wanted to play GT7 in VR for example, you need to buy a PS5, a Headset and the game - well over £1000.

In an uncertain economic climate, that is a LOT to ask. A 'Premium' Console is a LOT too, but with Back Compatibility and a lot of games available for 'little' cost, as well as 'cheap' Sub services offering access to 'hundreds' of games, it maybe easier to 'justify' its cost - especially if you are spending 'more' time gaming as other Activities go up in costs...

I'm actually surprised its sold as well as that to be honest and always thought it was a 'Niche' product - even if it is one of the 'best' VR headsets.

Whilst no-one wants to hear about people losing jobs, we don't really know who is affected, why they are 'selected' and what this could mean for 'us' as consumers.

Its possible that most jobs lost aren't 'Developers' - certainly not those 'key' to EA's Studio's. Maybe some are things that catering or cleaning staff for example as more staff now 'work from home' so don't use the catering or need the cleaning staff they once had.

Maybe some of the staff are those that arrange and organise 'events' like E3 but as they don't intend to have a booth at any event, they don't need all those staff involved in that.

As I said, its not great to hear about loss of jobs for anyone regardless - but that doesn't mean that we as consumers of EA products will 'suffer' as a result. I just hope that they are all able to find a job soon.

Only thing that really 'disappoints' me is that these features are 'locked' on Sony Playstation to Sony TV's where as these features are built in to other TV's and 'work' on Xbox or PC for example.

It doesn't matter if you buy a Samsung or LG TV for example, those features are ALL available on an Xbox regardless but you have to buy a Sony TV to unlock them on a Sony PS5.

@Tharsman The ONLY way I think CoD will leave Playstation is if Sony themselves block it or make it very difficult for MS to support Playstation. They could recall all their PS5 'dev-kits' for example and that would make it difficult for MS to release CoD.

I can understand Sony not really wanting to deal with Microsoft and 'keep' CoD on their Platform - after all, it would mean that they'd have to supply the latest dev kits for PS5 Pro or PS6 before they are officially released to optimise games for - which may give MS valuable insight into Sony's next hardware and/or plan a strategy around that.

I can also understand Sony being a 'bit' upset about a Playstation Mascot now a Microsoft owned IP - but after more than 20yrs, get over it!! Sony own 'Bungie' - the Studio and Talent behind Halo - such is 'Business'. Who owns Ocean or Acclaim or Psygnosis and their IP's - who owns Codemasters today and Dizzy? Rare and their IP's have changed ownership over the years too and Sony didn't 'buy' Crash IP when they bought Naughty Dog so can't complain about where it ends up...

@get2sammyb I think there is a BIG difference between buying IP's, Publishing Rights and then owning the Studios so they are NOW first Party and those IP's now 'belong' to that company etc compared to going to some third Party Publisher with a 'third Party IP' and paying them not to release games/content on 'other' platforms.

I'd have a LOT less issue with Sony if they bought Square Enix so that they owned Final Fantasy, owned the Studio, the Publishing Rights etc and then decided its 'better' utilised as an 'Exclusive' to bring players into Playstation. If they OWN the IP, that's very different...

ALL publishers (regardless of whether they have their OWN platform or Not) have bought Studios/IP's etc to improve their OWN content line-up. SE Sold Tomb Raider so can no longer make or offer new Tomb Raider games - now you have to rely on Amazon to make Tomb Raider and 'hope' they consider your 'platform' to Publish too - maybe they'll keep Tomb Raider 'Exclusive' to get you into their gaming Ecosystem.

Point is, I do think there is big difference between OWNING something and paying someone else to 'block' them from releasing content on specific Platforms. How annoyed would you be if MS approached EA and paid them not to make Fifa or Battlefield for Playstation? If they 'owned' EA, then its their 'right' to release where they choose.

No-one here would expect Sony to keep SE 'multi-platform' IP's on Xbox if they acquired them. No-one expects MS to 'negotiate' a sequel to Sunset Overdrive exclusively on Xbox anymore so why expect MS to make their IP's multi-platform when its clear they need those IP's to compete with Sony's award winning IP's - Spider-Man, Wolverine, God of War, Horizon, Uncharted, Last of Us etc etc.

You wouldn't 'expect' Sony to keep funding a 'newly' acquired Studio, keep paying them to develop, port, optimise, manufacture & distribute (physical), update and continuously support Xbox hardware and give Xbox '30%' of all digital sales and 'lose' the impact an Exclusive has on Playstation hardware sales and bringing players into Playstation to spend more 'money' in - so why 'expect' MS to?
Unless Playstation has a big active online community of gamers that they can keep selling content too so that they can keep playing ONLINE together with their friends/family regardless of Platform, I don't expect MS to release games on Playstation as they are better served to pull players into their ecosystem. Games like ES6 are 'stand-alone' games and you even create a 'new' character at the start so I don't expect them to come either because it makes more sense to use these to 'compete' with Sony's Single Player IP's...

I actually think its 'better' to go out and BUY the Company, own the IP and Studio, than to pay money to a third party to ensure they won't release their own IPs on whatever platforms they 'choose'...

I don't care if they do or don't.

The way I see it right now is that a PS5 already costs $500 with the 'Specs' it has - any 'increase' in spec - more powerful GPU, CPU, faster RAM and/or more SSD Storage only adds to the cost.

Boosting GPU alone probably wouldn't impact frame rates or RT as CPU also needs to work 'harder/faster' per frame so I don't really know what they'd be looking to 'boost' with a 'Pro' console. With the PS4 era, an era when people were transitioning to 4k, they boosted the GPU to 'push' a higher native resolution better suited to 4k TV's. Maybe, it will do 4k/60/RT whereas base PS5 offers 4k/60 or 4k/30/RT but I wouldn't pay more than $500 for a Console to add 'RT' features in at 60fps instead of 30fps or feel that 60fps without RT suffers so much that I must buy a 'new' console just a few years later...

I can't say I wouldn't buy, its just that I can't see them adding 'enough' in and still keep the Price competitive to really make enough difference to justify upgrading. As I said, a PS5 is already 'expensive' with a 'Premium' console price tag - its not a $200 machine and therefore a Pro could possibly push $500 like last gen...

@Nem And according to Sony, Nintendo are not counted as they are not 'High End' and therefore don't compete in the SAME Market.

As Sony themselves brought this 'High-end' Console definition to their Argument in an attempt to 'BLOCK' the MS deal, MS are able to turn that against Sony who has a Massive lead over Xbox in Japan - a 'Monopoly' on the High End Console market. Do you honestly think that losing CoD in Japan for example on Playstation, that would suddenly see Xbox 'compete' with Sony, that Xbox would significantly catch up? NO - hence the JFTC passed the deal with NO concessions or even needing to go to 'Phase 2'.

Sony made the 'argument' that they shouldn't look at Nintendo and how they have Succeeded without CoD for years, how they have more hardware in gamers hands without CoD, because they are not relevant, they are not 'high-end'. Therefore, MS turned that around and said f you can't count Nintendo in the US, EU, UK etc, then if we look at Japan, Sony Monopolise the High End market and 'block' MS from trying to Compete...

Sony basically opened themselves up for this by arguing against this deal, which will 'increase' Competition, not harm it and give Consumers a LOT more choice - even if CoD went 'exclusive'. You may 'lose' 1 platform (Playstation) but gain all those that Cloud can reach anywhere in the world on whatever devices they have - hardware CoD would 'never' be on to compete with 'Sony's' IP's.

If Sony had accepted that MS would buy A/B and signed a 10yr Deal guaranteeing CoD on their platform, guaranteeing Parity and that their CoD fanbase on Playstation will definitely get CoD, that basically guarantees the vast majority would remain on PS, would continue to buy thus making Sony money at 'NO' cost to themselves. They would be 'looking' after their Customers and securing a 'BIG' IP for the 'long-term' to basically remove CoD as a competitor to their own 'exclusives'. Gamers will still see 'CoD' on PS so won't be a factor in deciding to buy PS or XB hardware - and not for their 'next' gen either...

@Th3solution Its a complex and rapidly changing Market. A few years ago, CoD was 'doomed' as PUBG, Fortnite etc were gaining massive traction - but Warzone helped them stay 'relevant'. Back when the 360 launched, the Multi-player FPS game was 'Halo' and everyone was trying to 'Compete' with that - inc Sony with Killzone, Resistance etc. However with MS marketing CoD heavily to promote Gold as well of course, CoD 'grew' into the 'Halo' Killer.

MS can release CoD on a Nintendo Switch - if they can bring games like Doom, Wolfenstein, Witcher 3 etc to Nintendo, then they can bring CoD to it - albeit at 'low' Res and/or 30fps - also through Ubitus too (which Streams' to Switch so could offer a 1080/60fps option.

As for the Hand-Held market, I cannot see MS wanting to enter with their OWN hardware and it really makes 'little' sense. They already Support Steam (and therefore Steam Deck) and have Cloud options for all 'mobile/portable' devices. Some third Party manufacturers could make a Streaming handheld with Game Pass Cloud and therefore MS doesn't 'need' the R&D costs, design and manufacturing costs, distribution costs etc - likely to take a 'loss' or at best 'break even' with to sell Hardware when they could also come to some agreement with Nintendo over putting Game Pass App on their Hardware and everyone has some 'mobile' device to play on so why buy a Portable Xbox?

Nintendo would argue that they are not just competing with Sony/MS and could argue they are also competing with the most popular Gaming device - the place where the majority og gamers play - their Mobiles...

We will see what happens in the long run - but Playstation can kiss goodbye to all new IP's and/or Single Player games - like Elder Scrolls 6, Fallout (both start 'fresh' every time, new character created etc), Starfield, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush etc.

It will be interesting to see what develops from this - whether Sony will 'change' to 'compete' with MS and their growing IP's, Growing list of Exclusives. It won't be just Halo, Gears and Forza anymore to compete against Sony's award winning IP's, they have Starfield, Redfall, Elder Scrolls, Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Hellblade etc etc as well...

@Th3solution I know that there are other options for MS to try and 'compete' in Japan - like Cloud/PC releases, but it was Sony themselves that were making certain assumptions - like Nintendo not being 'relevant' to discussion as they are not 'High-End' Consoles - so the lack of CoD as an example of not being 'essential' to succeed is not 'relevant' for governing bodies to consider - only LOOK at the High End market.

Anyway, it seems that the JFTC (Japanese equivalent to CMA, FTC etc) has now approved the deal too. I don't care about what 'history' a Dev/Publisher had as a 3rd Party Publisher/Studio, having to be 'Multi-platform' to maximise Sales potential to bring in revenue to keep making games. As soon as they are bought by a Platform owner, they 'cease' to be multi-platform 3rd Party Studios and become 1st Party Studios and ANY IP's they owned, are now 1st Party IP's - like Sunset Overdrive and Destiny are now Sony IP's - regardless of those Studio's History.

They paid nearly $80bn to 'OWN' those IP's, Studios and Publishing Rights. Its no different from Embracer buying Tomb Raider IP from Square Enix or selling it to Amazon, buying Crystal Dynamics from SE - Square Enix can no longer make Tomb Raider or use CD to make new games for their Portfolio - just because they don't own a Platform to Publish specifically to, doesn't change the fact that as a Company, no longer can make Tomb Raider available to Square Enix fans. They didn't spend $80bn to keep their Rival platform supplied with THEIR games. If Sony buy Square Enix, you wouldn't expect Final Fantasy to remain multi-platform...

@thefourfoldroot1 I don't have the 'exact' figures myself to argue about Exact percentage points but Playstation users vs Xbox users in Japan is a MASSIVE difference.

It may not be '98%' across all Playstation Consoles vs all Xbox Consoles, but based on Sales Data, Sony have a 'massive' lead over Xbox - its certainly more than 80% of the 'high-end' console sector as that is ONLY Playstation vs Xbox Consoles and Sony completely dominates Xbox sales in Japan.

That is the point - Sony are arguing about their 'own' chance to compete with MS and that CoD Exclusivity would KILL them - despite '98%' domination in Japan, 80% domination in EU, 60% domination in the US over Xbox specifically. Aggressively trying to block two US based companies from 'merging' to be 'more' competitive with Sony and how Sony 'prevent' US companies from competing in Japan yet expect their domination protected in the US...

@tallythwack Starfield or Redfall never existed on Playstation. They were NOT finished, playable games that have any saleable value at the time - just an idea, a project in the works that could be 'cancelled' or take so long that their 'plans' changed.

Scalebound wasn't 'pulled' from Xbox because Xbox gamers never had a complete game to be 'pulled', Star Wars 1313 wasn't 'pulled' from any Hardware, it was Cancelled, like Prey 2 or any other 'cancelled' product. Games are 'not' pulled from PS4/XB1 era hardware even if when they started development, those games were 'targeting' those platforms. If they decide to 'cancel' further development for those platforms, choosing not to waste money on development, porting, optimising, manufacturing, distribution and long term support (patches, updates, DLC etc), they are not 'pulled' from last gen Gamers because last gen gamers never had a 'complete and finished' game to be pulled.

A Complete PS5 version 'never' existed because the game was never finished before they cancelled any plans to keep funding their OWN studio and their OWN IP to focus purely on Xbox/PC, much like cancelling 'last' gen ports. Its not as if Redfall was even a Game at that point - it was an idea, a concept, a product in development and certainly NO obligation, contract etc to continue Funding their OWN studios to make their OWN IP available to their Closest Rival.

You still got Deathloop and Ghostwire (2 MS owned IP's made by MS owned Studio's) because they were announced for Playstation Publicly and had Contracts to 'honour' too - although could have pulled those games and bought out those Contracts. They don't have to keep bringing Content to ESO or F76, didn't have to make Minecraft Dungeons/Legends for Playstation.

If MS cancelled Redfall completely when they took over, it would still NOT exist because it was never 'finished'. Its a 'concept', a 'Project' and doesn't become a 'Game' until its 'released' to the Public to play in its entirety...

@thefourfoldroot1 The fact that Sony owns 98% of the Market in Japan is partly down to the fact that they block Japanese made games from Xbox and the ONLY platform to offer these in Western countries too preventing Xbox from offering Japanese made games ANYWHERE - not just in Japan but that helps Sony Monopolise the 'High-end' Console Market as Xbox 'can't' compete fairly in Japan as it can't provide Japanese gamers with Japanese games - Sony are not only 'blocking' MS from being able to Compete in Japan, they are preventing Xbox from bringing Japanese games to their Customers everywhere else too.

You are defending Anti-consumer Sony practices - using their 'dominant' position to bully Publishers into paying 'more' to Sony or 'miss out' on their 'big' customer base.

CoD is just 1 game that wouldn't suddenly make MS the dominant Platform, wouldn't give MS a 'monopoly' on Gaming - even if they were to make it exclusive. There are a LOT of other Publishers/Studios still making games and MS won't suddenly own over 50% of ALL IP's Studio's Publishers etc to 'monopolise' or be 'anti-competitive'. Its not like Sony doesn't have its OWN exclusives, OWN award winning IP's, OWN studios etc to 'compete' with MS's owned IP's, Studio's, Exclusives.

Instead of just Forza, Gears and Halo competing against Uncharted, Last of Us, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Horizon, God of War, Gran Turismo, R&C, Returnal etc etc, they also now have Avowed, Hellblade, Redfall, Starfield, Perfect Dark, Hi-Fi Rush etc...

@thefourfoldroot1 Its still a Japanese Company pressurizing to block a US company buying a US company and that this Japanese Company that has a complete monopoly of the 'High-End' Console market - a term Sony first brought up. In Japan, Sony has 98% of the 'High-end' Market PS5 vs Series X - and 'block' Japanese Devs/Pubs from releasing their games on Xbox so they 'can't' compete on an 'even' playing field in Japan - yet Sony 'expect' to compete 'fairly' in the US.

Let's just look at Square Enixs Final Fantasy, Forspoken etc, Capcoms Street Fighter 5 - numerous other Japanese games ONLY on Playstation in the 'High End' Console market. Games not OWNED or made by Sony. A LOT of Senators get money 'indirectly' from Sony too btw so its nothing. They can ask their Senator to look into things - especially with 'new' evidence coming out - even the Epic vs Apple uncovered some bad practices - like trying to charge Epic for every 'Cross-platform' player on Other platforms as 'compensation' for a LOST sale in Fortnite on theirs. If I 'choose' to play on Mobile because I'm out, Sony expects to be Compensated because I didn't play on Playstation.

MS are perfectly within their right to bring things to their Senator, their 'local' politician in Charge of their State, especially with 'evidence' to support their Claim that Sony is Anti-competitive and allowed to get away with it in Japan yet pushing the US to block a deal that is NOT anti-competitive on BS grounds - they brought it on themselves - first by establishing 'High End Consoles' as a Separate market and then claiming that MS are Anti-Competitive with this buy-out and didn't expect to be 'looked' at or scrutinised themselves...

Washington, Microsoft's home state. In addition, the company is Cantwell's largest political donor, having forked over more than half a million dollars over the past few decades.

Half a million over 30yrs from employees of Microsoft who likely work in Washington and part of their Tax dollars happens to go their Senator does not make that Senator a PAID MS SHILL - Watch Hoeg's Law on it...

You have a Japanese company trying to dictate what 2 US based Company's can/cannot do for 'fear' of losing their Dominant position, all the while have been 'Hurting' US Gaming companies (not just MS btw but certainly have the MONOPOLY in Japan on 'High-End Consoles' - a 'term' Sony themselves argued to 'dismiss' Nintendo as 'competition' in any argument re A/B.

It's been clear for years that MS has exceptionally 'few' Japanese Games but when you find out that Sony is doing Shady stuff in Japan to prevent those devs/studios from releasing, thus 'blocking' competition in Japan, that's a concern and with US-Japan 'trade' agreements and allowing 'fair' competition for Japanese companies in the US is expected to be reciprocated by Japan - Sony 'expects' to Compete in the US but won't let MS 'compete' in Japan.

All the while, Judges, Senators etc have all come out to Support the Deal, protect a US company from 'overseas' ownership (TenCent could buy A/B) and thus benefit the US economy, US employment etc. https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2023/03/22/gaming_the_ftc_japan_colludes_with_antitrust_regulators_against_msft_888621.html

@tallythwack Cancelling something in development that Customers had NEVER had, never announced and therefore never bought/played is different from 'Pulling something' from a platform because those games now belong to a new owner.

I bet most games were in development for XB1/PS4 but those versions get 'cancelled', plans change and instead they decide to only release on next gen, they haven't been 'pulled' away from gamers on PS4/XB1 era hardware just because they 'cancelled' their plans to Port, optimise, manufacture and release a 'version' for that hardware - a Complete, fully playable last gen version never existed to be 'pulled' away from those players.

You can't PULL something away from Gamers they never had. You can't 'pull' FF16 from Xbox - even if it was in development for Xbox - because it was NEVER announced for Xbox, never promised etc. A complete and full version for Xbox is 'unlikely' to exist - it doesn't even exist for PC yet but they are 'planning' to release on PC, have 'promised' it to their PC crowd so if Sony 'buy' SE and then cancel any PC version, they would be 'pulling' it away as those PC gamers were 'promised' it but NOT from Xbox because Xbox owners haven't been 'promised' it.

Of course Xbox gamers would likely be annoyed that Sony's Money has again stepped in and 'bought' exclusivity, paid to keep a 3rd Party developed game of a previously multi-platform IP away from Xbox. They'd probably feel 'less' annoyed if Sony OWNED SE, OWNED FF etc - they don't expect to get ANY games from Bungie, Bluepoint or any Studio Playstation owns ever again after Sony buys them.

Until a game is 'finished' and released, it doesn't technically 'exist'. Until then, it could be anything from an 'idea' to a 'nearly' complete - but it technically isn't a GAME. Star Wars 1313 wasn't pulled from ANY hardware - it never 'existed' as a fully playable game released on Hardware to be 'Pulled'

Games that are 'released', that people have access to, then suddenly can't because of new management, that is 'Pulled'. Games like PT were 'pulled' from PS4. Licenses run out and games get 'delisted', get 'pulled' from being 'playable' on a Platform that was once accessible.

You can't PULL something away when it wasn't available on that system to begin with. The ONLY games that can be 'Pulled' are those that either were released - games like Fallout, Skyrim, Doom, Wolfenstein, Deathloop, Ghostwire etc - ALL could have been 'Pulled' because ALL either were Complete Games released or 'promised' to Playstation - all of which still came, all agreements 'honoured' - MS could have cancelled 'Deathloop/Ghostwire' exclusivity too btw as 'NEW' management.

Gotham Knights had XB1/PS4 versions 'cancelled' - arguably 'pulled' because it had been announced and promised to those consumers - although they 'never' had it to 'lose' it, had it for it only to be 'pulled away'. Redfall may well of 'cancelled' plans to release on PS5, but wasn't 'pulled' because it never existed on PS5 and wasn't ever promised to be on PS5. It wasn't 'pulled away' because PS5 gamers never had it, never played it to be 'pulled' away, it got cancelled in development - like Star Wars 1313 did under 'new' management.

@KilloWertz I defend ANYTHING - inc Sony at times when they are 'unfairly' attacked by Xbox Fanboys on Xbox based websites as you don't see many (if any) actually 'correcting' and/or providing a more accurate/balanced opinion.

Redfall was NEVER announced for or had released on Playstation - just because Zenimax would 'expect' their Studio's to make games for EVERY platform, it was NEVER pulled from Playstation because it was NEVER on Playstation. To 'pull' it, it would need to have been on that platform to be 'removed'.

I bet a LOT of games were 'cancelled' for Last gen systems during 'development' for whatever reason - whether its hardware limitations, Cost outweighing potential Sales etc but unless they were 'specifically' announced for PS4/XB1, they can't be 'pulled' from those Systems - they just decide to 'release' where they want.

Is Burning Shores DLC 'pulled' from PS4 or just not worth the 'cost' to try and make it work? Hardware limitations? Would you be 'irate' if you find out Guerilla had 'planned' to release on PS4. You can't take away something they 'NEVER' had.

MS could Pull their IP's from Playstation - Pull Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Doom, Wolfenstein, Deathloop, Ghostwire etc - games that ARE on Playstation, have been purchased by Gamers on that Platform. These are ALL Xbox owned IP's, Xbox owns the Publishing Rights so can PULL those games from PS gamers - stop them 'working' online on PS yet haven't...

All 3rd Party Studios are probably planning to release on Xbox/PS hardware to 'maximise' their sales - until a 'Platform' owner comes along and dumps 'cash' on them to keep them on their Platform. The point is that Arkane was a '3rd party' Studio and were expected to port their game eventually to PS and 'optimise' it but then they 'STOPPED' being a 3rd Party Dev and became a First Party Dev - so that plan changed under 'new' management with different objectives. The Game STOPPED being Published by a 3rd Party 'multi-platform' Publisher and became a first Party Publisher, Therefore 'PLANS' change and part of that change was to focus purely on PC/Xbox development from now on - just like you get from Insomniac, Housemarque, Nixxes, Bluepoint etc - 3rd Party Studios that become 1st Party to work on First Party games.

There is a 'Strong' rumour that Sony will acquire what's left of SE - especially now it seems that A/B will go through and it won't 'hurt' Sony's argument against that now. Would you be just as critical when you find out that 'Forspoken' won't now come to Xbox after it's 'exclusive' period ends, that Final Fantasy won't be on Xbox or games that were 'planned' for Switch/Xbox now are ONLY on PS??? I can tell you I won't be 'angry' and would likely 'defend' Sony if Xbox Fanboys start using irrational and pathetic arguments like Sony fanboys are over the A/B and/or Bethesda deals...

If you were on Xbox for example and Sony's PS+ service allowed Streaming day/date, I bet many would 'stream' Spider-Man 2 rather than rush out and spend a LOT more on a PS5 and buy the game (which is probably why Sony won't do that) rather than 'miss out' - however, the ONLY choice is to buy Premium Hardware, buy a Game you may not like or play again after a few months etc.

If you are 'desperate' to play these games but don't own a Series S/X, don't have the 'money' or desire to buy an Xbox Console, you still have 'choices' - inc the ability to use your DS4/5 controller to play and from just $10, so are NOT missing out - OK so its NOT the 'Premium' experience on your 'favourite' Premium Console, but at least you can still play the game, still enjoy the story, the game-play etc. 4k doesn't change the Game drastically and 60fps is better than some hardware offers...

As I have said many times - Cloud is an 'ENTRY' point for Gamers - a 'Budget' option as it has a 'limited' library, not offering 'Premium' Features (like 4k or 120fps modes), slightly more latency/lag but not enough to be 'significant' and doesn't require anyone to rush out and buy 'Premium' hardware or miss-out but extremely low entry cost...

Series S is an 'Entry' model for Hardware - for those that want to 'own' games, want to play 'Natively' etc but as its 'entry', you don't get the 'Premium' 4k Visuals and/or may not get RT or 120fps modes either, but its a 'step-up' from Cloud but does have an upfront cost and/or additional 'costs' (Gold - half the 'monthly' cost of Streaming to play online)

Series X is a 'Premium' Console offering Premium features but has a Premium cost (like PS5). Its the 'equivalent' to a PS5 and therefore would require gamers wanting 'Premium' features would need to 'buy' at least a Series X to get a 'similar' experience to what they are accustomed with on their PS5 but that would incur a HIGH 'Premium' upfront Cost and ongoing monthly costs too. PC's offer the Highest Tier but have the highest upfront cost.

You may 'lose' 3 or 4 million 'Sales' on PS5, but get 10m on XB1S/X who haven't upgraded yet now playing, another 10-15m on Mobiles, Tablets, Laptops or ANY other device playing that couldn't before because they don't own 'Premium' gaming hardware. Yes they may not be 'hardcore' gamers that frequent Gaming websites and their main hobby.

Just because you (and me for that matter) are 'dedicated' gamers and buy 'Premium' Hardware (inc Pro/X to get the highest resolutions/frame rates on Consoles) and wouldn't be 'satisfied' with 1080/60 today, there are many, many more gamers 'happy' to play on Switch, on PS4, on XB1S, on Mobiles/Tablets etc etc and the 'Cloud' is on par with, if not better than those 'Hardware' SKU's. Doom on Cloud is Superior to Doom on Switch! Its still cheaper than spending money on a Series S/X, Gold subscription to play online and $70 to buy the game to play 'forever' - even though you may 'never' return to 'old' games because 'new' games keep releasing...

@KilloWertz Again, I point to the fact that whilst its not the same as playing a 'Premium' game on 'Premium' hardware to get the 'Premium' Quality you 'want' as a dedicated gamer, its still an 'entry' point for MANY more.

You state that people don't have the 'internet' capability to stream at 1080/60 yet requires what would be considered relatively average to low speeds - Best performance will be achieved at rates of 10 Mbps on mobile devices, 20 Mbps on consoles, PCs and tablets and 5GHz WiFi or mobile data connection. That's not a 'lot' of bandwidth at all - I get over 60Mbps (minimum 60 but averages about 75) and use Cloud on my Laptop & XB1X using wifi and Series X hardwired to my router and the difference in Latency/Lag between Cloud and Downloaded versions is 'negligible' at worst, imperceptible at best.

My point is that $10 to play on DEVICES you already own - whether you can play 'natively' on a PC/Laptop or rely on Cloud to play because the 'Hardware' you own can't run it natively, is a LOT cheaper and more accessible than having to go out and spend $500 on Hardware, $70 on the game and any other 'costs' you may need (Gold/PS+) to get full Access to ALL content (inc Online modes).

There are still gamers who are 'happy' to play on PS4/XB1S - its 'good' enough for them to 'play' the games they want - even if they are 'limited' to 30fps and now often below 1080p. If you own an XB1S for example, you can still play Redfall without needing to buy a Series S/X. Let's be honest here, the Cloud maybe better than 'Native' PS4/XB1S versions. 60fps has 'lower' lag than 30fps and a lot lower than any additional lag streaming adds. If it adds 5ms (not enough for you to 'notice') but saves 40ms - a net 35ms saving (about 1 30fps frame) due to the game being updated 'twice' as often. Not only that, Cloud offers a LOT better visual settings as its running on 'Series X' in the Cloud so its still better than Last gen which people are still 'happy' to play on.

@get2sammyb I completely agree - Sony has innovation and its OWN unique selling points - VR, Exclusive IP's etc and its those that has helped Sony 'DOMINATE' the Console Market. Even when CoD was associated with Xbox and the 360 had a year 'headstart', Despite Sony's 'poor' PS3 launch, it went on to be the 'bigger' selling Platform. CoD didn't help the launch of the XB1 either as Ghosts and the 'next' CoD a year later, were ALSO marketed and tied to Xbox.

MS has stated that they won't take CoD away and have a Contract to Guarantee Sony can continue selling CoD on their Platform for the next decade. If 'gamers' choose to leave Playstation to play CoD on Xbox, PC, Nintendo or any other Platform, its more down to Consumer 'choice', not being 'forced' to play on PS or miss out on 'something'. Point is, they can still sell CoD for the next DECADE at NO cost - no paying for Exclusive content/early access, no paying for marketing, even MS will fund the Ports, the optimising and all manufacturing/distribution costs and Sony can still get their percentage. If they 'lose' sales because Gamers CHOOSE to play elsewhere, that's consumers exercising their Freedom to CHOOSE where its 'best' for them. They could offset 'lost' sales by selling 'more' Final Fantasy games or more Hogwarts Legends, or more of their OWN games...

As I have said before, Gamers won't leave PS5 and their 'Premium' CoD experience (4k or 120fps) to play on cloud just because its cheaper at $10 a month - its still limited to 1080/60 and with more latency/lag - an 'entry' tier experience at low cost. They won't rush out and buy a Series X to get the 'same' premium quality, pay $180 a year for GPU when its just $70 and yours to 'keep' on PS5. Won't abandon access to VR, to Sony's first party games etc

All this means is that when it comes to PS6 vs Next Xbox - it won't just be Forza, Halo, Gears but also Starfield, Redfall, Hellblade, Avowed, Fable etc vs Last of Us, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Horizon, Gran Turismo etc and all the VR too.

So Sony has more than enough 'reasons' to be Successful regardless of whether or not Games are 'exclusive' to MS.

Its clear that MS is going to support Communities with ACTIVE ONLINE ecosystems - games like CoD, Overwatch, Minecraft etc and use ALL Single Player games (especially RPG's as you always start by creating a 'New' character) and NEW IP's never announced for Playstation specifically to Compete with Sony's impressive line-up of Award Winning Exclusives...

Its not suddenly going to make Sony Playstation 'obsolete' or redundant because Gamers will still want to play Sony's Games so will buy a Playstation - its not as if I need to buy an Xbox to play Xbox games...

@JackInGame Chances are, if MS hadn't bought Zenimax, Redfall would ONLY be SOLD on PS5, Series Consoles and PC. However, with MS cancelling PS5 but replacing that with 'Cloud', the 'few' million that may have purchased could theoretically be replaced by 100's of Millions of players that can now play on Mobiles, tablets, laptops, Samsung TV's, XB1's (not natively releasing here but still has a 'sizeable' install base that could play via streaming), PC's and any other Game Pass enabled device.

So you can't play on Playstation, but you could play on a Student laptop with your DS4/5 controller for just $10 a month - much cheaper than buying a Series S or X. OK so its not the 'best' way to play, but still 'better' than 'nothing', better than having to spend hundreds on Hardware and the Software to play, still accessible to MORE gamers as they all have a device to play on - even if its not their 'favourite' way to play.

Point is, you don't 'need' to buy an Xbox Console or Upgrade a PC to have the required Specs needed to play natively - you can play on a really basic PC through a browser...

@UltimateOtaku91 What about Minecraft Dungeons (Currently available on PS+ too btw) - A brand new game that was wholly developed by MS owned Studio in an MS owned IP which was released on PS hardware 'long' after MS acquired Mojang. They are also releasing Minecraft Legends too. There is two new Games for a start. Fallout 76 and ESO have continued getting major expansions, new Content day and date too so MS has continued to bring 'new' content to Playstation despite not having to contractually (like MLB or Destiny) so MS has a bigger 'footprint' - ALL the 'older' releases you can still play that MS own, MS get money for if you buy as they own those games. Fallout 4 is 'owned' by MS so if you buy it for PS, that money goes to MS as they own the Publishing rights and haven't 'pulled' it away - which they could. Every Bethesda game could be 'delisted' on PS if MS decided to - there is NO legal requirement to keep them on PS...

Elder Scrolls 6 is likely to be a Single Player game starting a NEW game from Scratch, creating a 'new' character that has nothing to do with or related to any 'previous' characters, no ACTIVE ONLINE COMMUNITY eager to play 'together' that now 'can't'...

Fallout too is another 'new' game every time you start. These are self contained 'individual' Stories, not Sequels, not part of a long story arc that you are now going to 'miss' the final chapter etc, these are 'individual' one off games that stand alone. It's like saying Spider-Man was released on Xbox before Insomniacs Spider-Man so that has to be on Xbox - NO because that is a completely new, stand-alone Single Player game...,

Whether its a 'Single' Studio or 'group' of Studio's, that's irrelevant. MS added '5' studio's at E3 2018 (Playground, Undead Labs, Compulsion, Ninja Theory and Initiative) another 3 several months later (Obsidian, inXile and Double Fine) - 8 Studios in one year, Bethesda - another 8 Studios - added in 2021, and another 'group' of Studios expected in 2023 with A/B.

Its still Studios that 'could' and probably were planning to make 'multi-platform' games because that was the ONLY option to them to 'fund' development of 'new' games. Zenimax income relied purely on Sales of their OWN games so had to release on as 'many' platforms as they could. MS's (like Sony) income is not limited to 'just' Sales of their OWN games, they get a percentage of EVERY Sale, get money coming in as Platform holder, for Hardware/Accessories, for Sub services etc etc so DON'T need to release on PS but NEED games to attract people in and Compete against Last of Us, Spider-Man, Horizon, God of War etc etc.

Sony bought exclusivity in IP's they never owned, from 'multi-platform' Studio/Publishers, pay to keep those games/content away from Xbox/Game Pass - MS owns the IP, the Studios, the Publishing Rights etc and you expect them to 'pay' to Port, optimise, manufacture and distribute their games to Playstation..

Maybe Jim Ryan is 'perfect' as Sony Fanboys are just as hypocritical, just as self-serving and as arrogant too. Only concerned about 'Playstation' and not the 'bigger' picture. I know Cloud isn't the 'same', but its still better than NOTHING, still much more accessible and affordable than having to Rush out and BUY a Series S/X etc. Its still allowing you to play these games on devices you probably own. Even XB1S gamers can play at '1080/60' - games that at best would be 720/30, at worst, not released or playable natively - so its still 'better' than having to buy 'Hardware' or miss-out.

And its NOT just 'Microsoft' services or Microsoft Platforms that will have access to 'Xbox' games because they also release on STEAM - so you could also play on a Steam Deck - its still available to 'MORE' people than just the 'Console' which is what MS state...

It was ALWAYS going through - its not taking away a Platform (like buying Nintendo would - thus 'reducing' the Console 'competition'), not significantly reducing the number of Publishers or Studio's and certainly wouldn't make MS the 'dominant' (as in well over 50% of the Market share in ANY sector - bar 'cloud' which is why that is being looked at) so it will go through and why they aren't concerned about the Console Market.

Sony's self serving issues, protecting their 'dominate' position and BS claims about CoD or incentives to pull CoD are completely unfounded so basically can dismiss Sony as an 'unreliable' and Bias Witness. What carries more weight is the 'rest' of the Industry which have all come out in Support...

Its not as if CoD is 'essential' when Nintendo competes very well without it. In fact some companies have been quite damning about Sony, their 'ecosystem' etc and a Judge in the US also was VERY critical of Sony with regards to its 'paid' advertising to promote certain games, burying those that don't pay so gamers are pushed to those that 'benefit' Sony...

The sooner Jim Ryan is sacked, the better for Sony as far as I am concerned. He is single handedly screwing over Sony and its 'long' reputation...

@lacerz Not damning at all and TOTALLY expected.

Zenimax were a 'multi-platform' publisher and had to release on multiple platforms to SELL as many games as possible to recuperate Costs and bring in Revenue to develop more games.

As soon as MS came in, they don't NEED to sell games, spend time, money etc on Porting, optimising, manufacturing and distribution costs to release a game NEVER 'promised' or announced for Playstation. They get income from ALL games sold, not just their own like Zenimax had to rely on, get income from all the Subs, the sales of Hardware/accessories etc so don't 'need' Money from Sony's gamers to 'keep' making games like Zenimax (or A/B or any other Studio).

MS need Single Player and NEW IP's to Compete with SONY. Sony has Horizon, God of War, Spider-man, Wolverine, Uncharted, Last of Us, R&C, Returnal, Ghost of Tsushima etc etc and MS needed more than just Forza, Gears and Halo so have now added Starfield, Redfall, Avowed, Hellblade etc to compete with SONY and their Dominant market position - something that is growing again this generation...

@Korgon The thing that annoys me however is Microsoft is continuing to present itself as a knight in shining armor with all the "We want to bring games to more people, not less"

That is a reference to their DAY and DATE releases on PC and the Reach of Cloud gaming - which can technically 'reach' EVERY gamer - inc ALL those who prefer to play on Playstation as they ALL have a Mobile or other 'Game Pass' enabled device so they can still play - just NOT on their 'prefered' platform.

If Sony buys 'exclusivity', that 'LIMITS' that game to just those who own a PS - just the 'console'. Therefore, MS's claim to bring Games to 'MORE' People is NOT 'nonsense'. Sony limits games day and date to just their Console but you don't 'need' an Xbox to play Xbox 'Exclusives' and EVERYONE has some Game Pass enabled device - if you 'choose' not to game on your Mobile via Game Pass (as that's the ONLY device you own that can give you access), that is your Choice - its not 'stopping' you from playing unless you rush out and buy a Microsoft built Series S/X Console so are 'bringing their games to 'more' people as more people can 'access' their games DAY and DATE!!!

What games have been 'pulled' from Playstation?

Starfield & Redfall were NEVER announced for Playstation and never released on Playstation so have not been 'pulled' from Playstation. Zenimax may have 'planned' to release on Playstation to 'SELL' the game to recuperate the Costs of Development and to fund development of NEW games, but MS doesn't 'need' to release on PS as it gets money from ALL sales of Games, Hardware, Accessories, Subscriptions etc etc.

MS NEEDS games to compete with Sony - ALL new IP's and 'Single Player' games will likely be EXCLUSIVE - there is NO ACTIVE ONLINE COMMUNITY that will be 'split' up or miss out on playing with friends on other Platforms - so games like Minecraft, CoD, Overwatch etc have a 'legacy' and ACTIVE ONLINE COMMUNITY of gamers playing together so will CONTINUE being Supported.

As for Bringing NEW games to Playstation, Minecraft Dungeons, Minecraft Legends, F76/ESO new DLC expansions are all on Playstation the SAME day/date as Xbox Consoles.

No game has been 'Pulled' as EVERY game that was released on Playstation is STILL on Playstation. I get it, Sony Fanboys are butthurt about MS buying some Studio's and now can Compete with their 'beloved' Playstation - maybe force Sony to up their Game too. BUT the reality is that its going to be a 'more' difficult choice to decide whether you would rather play Uncharted, Horizon, God of War, Last of Us, R&C, Returnal, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Ghost of Tsushima etc etc, prefer to play Starfield, Redfall, Forza, Halo, Gears, Fable, Avowed, Hellblade, Perfect Dark etc etc.

So you can't play Redfall on PS5 (not that you ever bought a PS5 to play Redfall as it was NEVER announced for Playstation) but that doesn't mean 'fewer' people can play now - because ALL those gamers 'could' play on devices they have via the Cloud (I know - not the same) but the Cloud can reach MORE gamers than the entire PS5 install base.

Its 'great' when Sony buy up Studio's, buy up 'exclusivity' (timed or otherwise) in IP's they don't own from Studio's/Publishers they don't own etc to keep games/content away from Xbox and/or PC gamers, but when MS buy up Studios to OWN those IP's etc, that's 'wrong' - Sony bought their Studios, Activision/Blizzard merged and acquired Studios, EA bought Studios, TenCent, Embracer and Ubisoft bought Studios etc etc... Psygnosis became Sony Computer Entertainment to 'compete' with Sega/Nintendo and their 'dominant' market position...

@KaijuKaiser How do you know? I actually turn off Haptics in Most games as I don't want Gyro, don't want the triggers to 'fight' me. don't like all the Haptic feedback or some of the other 'gimmicky' aspects like Speaker, Touchpad, mic.

I find most of that 'distracting' at best, annoying, tiring and/or obtrusive at worst so I don't see how that makes a 'Game' better. Its still the same Game-play loop, same story etc.

As I have BOTH a PS5 and Series X, I have a 'choice' where to play multi-platform games and 'Dual-Sense' doesn't factor in to the equation in my decision. Given that I can 'play' at NO extra Cost to me the day it releases into Game Pass, the same as Deathloop (another game whose concept never appealed) or have to spend 'money' to upgrade to PS+ Extra just to play a game I don't really care if I never play, and won't really 'benefit' from PS+ Extra because the 'games' I really want to Play, I already have. GP at least brings games I haven't ever bought/played as they are brand new games. I didn't get GP for Ghostwire, I have it for Starfield, Redfall, Forza, Fable, Perfect Dark etc to play DAY 1 with my Xbox Elite V2 controller which is preferable to a DS5.

Each to their own - That's what Consumer Choice enables - if you want or 'prefer' the DS5 then you'll factor that in to your decision. If you want to Stream CoD for $10 a month instead of buying a PS and paying $70 you'll have that choice but if you prefer a DS5, your friends are on PS5, you want to keep your game, not rent it, want trophies etc then you'll still buy CoD on PS5 regardless of whether its on Xbox/PC and on Game Pass to get the 'SAME' content for only $15 a month. Maybe you prefer to game on the Go and now CoD will be on Nintendo so you'll buy it there instead. Point is, Consumer choice and what's 'best' for you/your preference doesn't make it the 'best' option for all. Not having to spend ANY money and still being able to play the entire game outweighs any 'gimmicky' DS5 implementation to me..

This is releasing the day it comes to Game Pass so if I want to play this game, I can wait until April 12th rather than increase my PS+ tier to get this.

I must admit though that this game didn't really interest me in the run up to launch and hasn't really appealed since launch either but I may try it if I don't have something else to play that appeals more...

Maybe Sony should look at the indie/small studio devs creating games on PC that are only on Steam - make them a 'deal' to buy their and/or Studio and help them develop their idea for Playstation exclusively...

Imagine if Sony had spent the money they spent on CoD, on marketing CoD etc and spent it on PUBG, Fortnite or Valorant, maybe even Finals. There is plenty of FPS games they could make 'exclusive' to Playstation Consoles and build up their Portfolio.

I am sure that Sony do the same 'Kena' for example and even Spider-Man was funded by Sony's money and those were made by '3rd party' devs at the time.

And how much would it cost? A PS5 with a disc drive is already 'more' expensive today than at launch and I can't see things getting 'cheaper' anytime soon so I wonder how much it would cost and/or how much Sony would be 'willing' to lose on each PS5 Pro Sold.

Whatever 'changes' they make - bigger SSD, bigger APU, more/faster RAM etc will add to the resources needed, add to the cost etc. 2TB SSD aren't 'cheap' for example and putting them in 20m PS5 Pros would be very 'expensive', add on manufacturing and shipping costs and those costs go up...

To make 'enough' difference, they'd need to really offer a upgrade over the PS5 specs to really make a noticeable difference to the end user

Its OK for Sony to spend money on making sure that they have the 'Lead' platform and the 'best' version on their system - either inadvertently screwing over gamers on 'other' platforms (not just Xbox) or doing it deliberately to ensure there is NO parity and that they have an 'advantage'.

However, if MS do that, taking into consideration that they 'spent' $70bn on buying the Studios, the IP, publishing rights etc, will be 'funding' the continued development of CoD, will be funding all marketing costs, will be Publishing the game and will have paid those 'developers' to make their games and even paying them to Port the game to Sony's hardware for the CoD gamers on that platform.

If it isn't as 'performant' or has a few more bugs etc, maybe Sony should work with MS, work with those developers to ensure it releases in the 'best' state it can instead of 'fighting' with MS...

@twitchtvpat Actually all those IP's are Multi-Platform games as they release on PC day and date and you can play on many other platforms too - even if that device couldn't play it locally or would even get a 'native' release - its just NOT on Playstation - the 'handful' of gamers that were NEVER promised Redfall or Starfield so NOT taken away. The 'few' Elder |Scrolls entries, Fallout too you can play on PS are 'STILL' on Playstation. Those games aren't 'sequels' but wholly 'new' games, new story arc, new character etc Its not taken away if it was NEVER going to come - like Hellblade 2, Outer Worlds 2 as well...

CoD, like Minecraft has an Active ONLINE community and each game is built for that 'ONLINE' Community. MS has NO plans to split up ONLINE communities, give 'some' extra content the majority don't have etc because that is 'unfair' on that Community.

Those games are new IP's or completely new, stand alone games - not 'sequels'. You never got the first few Elder Scrolls or Fallout games on Playstation at all anyway and besides, you can always play Final Fantasy or Forspoken instead, maybe Horizon or Ghost of Tsushima - its not as if Sony didn't 'buy' those developers and/or their creations for Playstation...

Its absolutely pointless as there are far too many bitter, twisted and 'hardcore' Sony Fanboys who cannot see how the 'community' of gamers benefit from this - even if it means that those stuck up, blinkered fanboys 'lose' out on 'extras' because the 'entire' community is actually benefiting because they have much more 'choice' and can still play on their favourite platform and will NOT miss out on ANY future CoD content - regardless of whether they 'choose' to play on PS5, Xbox, PC, Nintendo, Steam, Cloud supported devices etc etc.

Its not as if Activision are making any other games, using their IP's as they have EVERY Studio engaged in making CoD every year. Blizzards two games, Diablo IV and OW2 are and will continue to be supported on PS5 so how are you 'missing' or losing out on this deal? Its not as if A/B are actively making Crash, Spyro, Prototype, Tony Hawkes, Pitfall etc games anymore so they are 'not' expected on PS5 or PS6. If MS now decide to bring one of those IP's back, that's up to them and NOT taking away from PS because those were NEVER coming to PS anyway because A/B had NO plans to make them again...

@twitchtvpat Its more about giving the Consumers the choice to play on ANY platform they own - including Switch - not limit the game to just Xbox/PC/PS as it is now with some of the Community getting 'extras' that the rest of the Community miss out on so not 'consumer/gamer' friendly practice. You expect the whole community to get the SAME content wherever they choose to play.

Instead of PS5 getting 'extras' and Xbox/PC gamers feeling annoyed, despite being in the same Community, EVERYONE gets the same content at the same time. Instead of limiting it to a few 'Premium' platforms, even those with lower spec or even no 'gaming' hardware can now jump into CoD, join the Community and get the exact same content...

People may 'choose' to play Online on Switch because its their only platform or that they want to play CoD 'on the go' instead of always being sat in front of a TV at home - its more about giving the gamer 'more' choices - not reducing the options and/or losing out because you didn't buy a Playstation...

For all these PS CoD gamers, on a PS gaming site so I can understand their 'concerns' and why they are being negative, how are you actually losing out if MS does get the deal through?

Did you buy Xbox 360 when CoD was associated to Xbox, did you jump to PS4 when they 'changed' to Sony after a few years or did you buy the 'console' you preferred knowing/expecting CoD to be playable - even if you had to wait or miss out on content?

Will you suddenly rush out and buy a Series X - even though you can still keep playing CoD on PS5, get ALL the content same day/date even though its now owned/Published by MS instead of A/B? How are you as a consumer actually going to be impacted by this? For a LONG time, CoD has been 'unfair' to one group of Players - during the 360 and start of XB1 era - PS5/PC had to wait a few extra weeks to get DLC but got complete parity on Content overall, Since Sony took over, Xbox/PC gamers miss out on content completely so it hasn't been 'fair' or particularly 'consumer' friendly but this deal will bring COMPLETE parity for ALL CoD gamers - regardless of where they choose to play - including the PS5 they bought for CoD or if they Choose to buy a PS6.

So please tell me HOW gamers are going to be 'worse' off? How Playstation gamers in particular are now going to 'miss-out'. A/B only make CoD (since all Activision Studio's now only work on CoD) and Blizzard will release Diablo IV on PS regardless too. Overwatch 2 will continue to be fully supported with Parity so HOW are Sony Playstation gamers losing...

The CoD community are better off as they ALL get the SAME game at the SAME time with the SAME content - no 'advantages' on one Platform so the rest 'miss' out. Not only that, they are looking to bring CoD to more Platforms, not reduce the choices, to grow that Community and support them on the Platforms they choose to play on - so how are Gamers losing?

Sony may lose sales as Consumers can have more choices on how and where they want to Play CoD - whether that is on Cloud, Steam, PC, Xbox, Nintendo, Playstation, GeForce etc but that's 'business' and why this isn't anti-consumer or detrimental to gamers as it actually gives them a LOT more choice.

You can argue A/B never wanted to put the work in to make CoD work on Nintendo, thinking the 'costs' wouldn't equate to more money from enough sales to justify the work and its not as if they have time to work on Ports as they are making the next game to release in a year, making DLC/MTX etc and still struggle to launch on 'PC/Xbox/PS5' on time - hence so many studios.

Now its not Sony or A/B's concern - its MS that has to 'deliver' these games on those Platforms with Parity on content... But gamers on PS5 will continue to get CoD so are not 'losing' anything when the deal goes through

@Kevw2006 Sony are the bad guys for doing significantly less damaging deals and trying to give their customers something a little bit extra.

Less damaging to 'who'? Not gamers as they are 'forced' to buy PS5 or miss out on Content in what should be the SAME GAME on EVERY platform it releases. Its detrimental to Xbox/PC gamers who also wanted to play Final Fantasy, Hogwarts, CoD, Deathloop, Ghostwire etc etc but were prevented from playing the COMPLETE package on the SAME day because Sony...

Paying for 'extra' content in a MP game yet still expecting gamers on other platforms not to feel 'cheated', not to feel like they are unfairly limited, that they don't have Parity in a game that costs the same and should be a complete 'Multi-platform' package on ALL platforms is completely anti-consumer.

What Xbox are doing is OFFERING complete Parity on CoD regardless of what Platform you play on for at least the next 10yrs - which is at least the entire PS5 and well into the next gen cycle too - a Platform that currently doesn't even exist yet and a very long time in gaming. They haven't said that as soon as that 10yr parity ends, things will suddenly 'stop' and have stated that they will always be open to discuss extensions etc once that 'future' beyond 2034 is clearer. If Sony decide to make a PS7 and CoD is 'still' relevant, still popular, no doubt it will release with Parity - that is in MS's statement of Intent.

MS has stated that they will continue to Support the entire CoD community with complete parity on the Platforms they wish to and are most comfortable on. CoD has built up a 'large' active Online Community - all of which get 'more' than Xbox/PC gamers that Paid exactly the same - so a fraction of the Community has something the rest don't. Therefore they want to ensure that EVERY CoD gamer, regardless of your 'Hardware' preference should get the SAME content, the SAME day, at the SAME price to own which is far more pro-consumer than Sony's business model of screwing over some of the Community for their OWN personal gain...

@Kevw2006 The Elder Scrolls/fallout games are not sequels, not continuations of a story line, not playing the SAME character or even same setting.

Each is a 'Separate' entity in their own right. Ok the lore and general theme maybe the same, but like Far Cry too, every 'entry' is a unique experience. Fallout and Elder Scrolls started on PC and Xbox worked with Bethesda to bring ES to Xbox 'exclusively'. Oblivion came to Xbox too 'exclusively' for a period of time so it only '1' game that had a 'simultaneous' release on Both PS3/360 - Skyrim - which is and will always remain playable on Playstation. Its not as if ES6 was announced for 'Playstation', not as if they have any obligation to release a Single Player game with 'no' history on PS as its a 'completely' new character, completely new setting etc - same with a new Fallout. Fallout 3, New Vegas and 4 are all completely separate games - only linked by the lore and game-play loop. Each new game is a 'new' start, not a 'continuation' of a story arc. Elder Scrolls is owned by MS and Bethesda is owned by MS. ES6 will be funded entirely by MS, Marketed by MS, Published by MS etc etc. Its like Sony funding Spider-Man, funding the developers (who weren't owned by Sony at the time) and then being surprised that they didn't release a MUCH bigger IP than ES, than CoD etc - one that transcends gaming and was around long before video games were a thing - on their Rival after spending all that money on the development and marketing. Indiana Jones 'could' be Exclusive to MS as they own the developer and are funding its development. Will you 'cry' if its not on PS too - do you expect Sony to buy Square Enix and then release Final Fantasy games on Xbox?

I know Bungie will 'remain' multi-platform developers - like Mojang and I expect CoD will too.

Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime etc all have 'exclusive' content that you cannot watch on other streaming services or even on other content providers - like Sky or BBC or ITV and their streaming services. However NO-ONE need miss out on watching ANY exclusives on devices they have - they don't need to rush out to buy a 'new' mobile because their mobile has Netflix but not Disney+ for example - you can watch both the Mandalorian and Stranger Things on ANY compatible device.

I am NOT suggesting that Playstation CoD gamers would be satisfied with having to play on their 'mobile' but then they don't have to. Its not as if CoD and ALL the Content won't be available for at least the next 10yrs - that's the rest of this generation so all those that bought PS5 specifically for CoD will still be able to play CoD. Even if they 'choose' to buy a PS6 to play CoD, its going to be available there too - no one is 'forced' to buy a PS5/6 or miss out on something, no-one is being 'forced' to buy a Series S/X and/or whatever Console MS bring out next or 'Miss-out' and who knows if there will be a PS7 and/or if CoD will still be 'relevant', 10 years ago, CoD was with MS and it didn't help them sell XB1's - people chose to jump to Playstation as CoD ran better - despite having to wait a bit longer for DLC and Switch has Sold well without CoD at all.

20yrs ago, CoD was 'nothing' a 'brand new' IP on Windows PC only!!! Medal of Honour and Battlefield were 'bigger' IPs and Medal of Honour was one of the 'best' selling games of 2003 on PS2 - at least in the US. CoD was 'nowhere' and didn't start becoming the Juggernaut it did when MS partnered with A/B and marketed the hell out of it. Even that didn't help the 360 beat PS3 despite starting a year earlier and the 'disaster' start the 'over-priced' PS3 launch created, the 'problems' with multi-platform games etc etc...