BAMozzy

@TrickyDicky99 and if only 1m of the 25m subs only play their game, they still get their money too - still got $250m that month regardless.

However, with a LOT of games these days, DLC and 'extras' are often sold too and if 20% buy DLC, having 20m players is much better than just 560k - how much 'money' would that DLC generate? Not only that, a LOT of games get rotated out of Game Pass - which would lead to a 'sale' to finish/keep playing that game.

Number of Players isn't 'irrelevant' as that can lead to more Purchases on that platform. If you are playing mostly on Xbox thanks to Game Pass, chances are you are more likely to buy 'multi-platform' games on that platform too - games not on Game Pass to play on the platform you spend most time on. Number of Players can make a difference between a game developer getting the chance to make a sequel or not, number of players helps with 'word of mouth' promotion of said game, more 'votes' for GotY etc etc

So yes it does make a 'difference'...

I doubt Sea of Thieves would still be going, still getting updated and expanded etc if they didn't have an 'active' and high number player count as it wouldn't make sense to keep spending time and money on continuing to make new content. That has over 25m players now, I doubt it would have sold more than a few million if that was the 'only' option...

@Ravix yes - because it still means EVERY gamer has a device they can play on. It may not be on Playstation for example, but those 'gamers' can still access CoD on a wide variety of platforms.

Its not just on Xbox Hardware - its on iOS/Android mobiles/tablets etc, its on Tizen Samsung TV's, its on browsers, its on laptops/PC's that can't run the game due to the lack of specs required to run it, its on PC's/Laptops too that can run it. It will even be playable on last gen XB1 hardware.

Its like Disney+ having Marvel/Star Wars etc - it doesn't matter that they are 'exclusive' to Disney+ because EVERYONE can still watch - its not as if you need to go out and buy a new device to watch the Mandalorian because if you want to watch, you have choices - your Mobile, your Smart TV app, your Laptop/PC, your console etc etc - no-one is 'forced' to buy Specific Hardware to watch/play or 'miss-out'.

I get that its not the 'same' as playing locally on a PS5 (or PS6) but then the game is still coming to those 'Premium' platforms and maybe in 10yrs time, the Console market could be 'Over' with the majority opting to 'Stream' and the rest play on PC's for a Premium experience. Maybe the attraction of playing anywhere on any device will kill the console - too expensive and locked to that one device whereas you could play on your Mobile/tablet whilst out and then carry on where you left off on your TV/Laptop/PC when at home...

I have NO doubt that if Sony release a PS7 hardware in 12years time, MS will still want to release CoD on that hardware to keep the Community together - much like Minecraft will also be on PS whilst they have 'Hardware' on the market. If its a 'streaming' only future, Xbox will be like Netflix and Sony like Disney+ - you still need to subscribe to 'BOTH' to play ALL the games and maybe EA will have their own service with Fifa, Battlefield, Apex etc, maybe Tencent and Embracer will also have their 'own' services too so you'll need more and more Subs to play all the games you want - unless some consolidation and strategic partnerships occur...

Again though, you are being a typical Fanboy - what about Sony and Playstation? The fact is that they will still get the game on their preferred hardware guaranteed parity for at least the next 10yrs isn't taking anything away from them and actually making CoD available on a LOT more devices. If that means CoD gamers opt to jump to Xbox, PC or Cloud - that's Competition and its up to Sony to make those gamers want to stay on Playstation for ALL their OWN exclusives. If they are only on PS5 because they would 'miss-out' on content on Xbox, again that's Competition and why Sony spent money to make them do that - now they have more choice - better for Consumer, not so good for Sony...

Even if ALL CoD gamers jumped to Xbox, PC, Cloud enabled devices, Nintendo, GeForce enabled hardware etc because of this, that's exercising their Consumer Choice instead of being 'forced' to buy a PS5 or miss out on something. Of course they don't 'need' to jump because CoD is still coming to PS5 and the 'next' gen at least...

@Kevw2006 They did invest their money into Growing their OWN portfolio of Studio's and IPs by purchasing a group of Studios and IP's - much like Sony has - Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Sucker Punch, Bungie, Insomniac etc etc and are still buying up other gaming companies too instead of making Studio's from scratch too because its easier and cheaper to buy up an 'established' Studio, their IP's and a work force to instantly start work on Exclusive projects.

Bungie was a SMALL publisher having the 'rights' to Publish their own games independently from the 'bigger' publishers - like A/B, EA, Sony, MS, Capcom, Take 2 etc - hence it cost Sony more than 10x the amount of Insomniac with 'more' owned IP's - inc Sunset Overdrive of course. So now they have Destiny - one of the biggest multi-platform games in the past 10yrs and a CoD competitor. CoD isn't even the 'biggest' FPS in terms of daily players - because ALL you focus on is Console wars - Xbox vs Sony.

Nintendo has outsold both Xbox and Playstation without CoD - although Nintendo will now get CoD too, as will all those Mobile, tablet and whatever other device they 'choose' to play on and won't miss out on ANY content...

I am NOT bitter that Spider-Man or Wolverine are ONLY on Playstation day and date, but that does mean that the 'vast' majority won't be able to play because Playstation is a 'tiny' percentage of the overall gaming market.

@Ravix In 10yrs another game could be the 'best' game ever, made by some new studio that becomes the 'new' GTA, CoD, Fifa, Minecraft or whatever other IP that has gone on to become an 'icon'.

Regardless of whatever you think, there is always going to be Competition. MS doesn't own and won't own the 'Market' share. In terms of hardware units, they are certainly way behind Nintendo and Sony, let alone all the gamers on Mobile/Tablet, PC, Steam and whatever other hardware gamers can play on.

As for the Purchase itself, this is much more like Netflix purchasing Sony Pictures to compete with Disney+ and promising to still release all the movies they make into Cinemas too whilst also putting those movies day and date into their Sub Service so EVERYONE can watch on whatever device they WANT, not be forced to go to the Cinema and the 'added' cost that is for a 'single' movie, travel costs etc vs the Sub fee which also lets you watch other movies/shows for that 'small' fee.

What you and it seems that most Fanboys here are failing to recognise here is that this means that its going to remain 'multi-platform' forever because MS and Game Pass in particular is 'Multi-platform'. Even if it was 'Exclusive' to Xbox/Game Pass, that still would make it accessible and playable by EVERYONE.

Just like Netflix is available on mobiles, tablets, Smart TV's, Consoles, SkyQ, PC's etc etc means that wherever you are, whatever platform you choose to watch on, Netflix is there. No-one has to miss the Witcher, Stranger Things or whatever other Content they have as they have platforms to watch it on.

Watching Netflix/Playing Games on a mobile may not be 'best' - tiny screen can't really compete to a large screen surround sound experience, but it might be 'perfect' for the train commute. If the future is streaming, as some seem to think it will, then like Netflix, you'll still be able to play CoD on ANY compatible device. The ONLY gaming platforms its not on is Switch/Playstation - but they all own Mobiles at least, so could still have access to CoD.

The FTC/CMA/EU etc aren't there to protect the corporations and their 'Profits', they are there to protect the Consumer and this deal benefits the Consumer - even if it does 'dent' Sony's profits which they are NOT there to protect and I don't understand why there is so much Loyalty to a corporation.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of a Gamer, a Consumer and this deal is beneficial to them as CoD will be available to MANY more gamers/consumers giving them much more choice and more affordable ways to play to 'grow' the Community in a Fair way. Unlike now where Sony gets 'extra' content, Xbox/PC gamers can play but get a 'reduced' package at the SAME cost so screwed over, and the rest can't play at all.

After this deal, EVERY Gamer can play the SAME Content the SAME day from as little as just $10 a month 'renting' the game all the way up to buying a High End gaming Rig and paying $70 to 'own' the game...

I grew up when Blockbuster used to rent Video Games out - a cheap way to play games without buying and Game Pass is 'similar'.

If this does make MS more 'competitive', enough to overtake Sony in some regions (Europe is 80:20 in PS favour, Japan is 96:4 in PS favour) then so what? that's Competition and its up to Sony to 'compete' with MS - maybe they should offer their Subscribers Day 1 access too, maybe offer 'streaming' on ANY platform too to be more 'competitive' with Game Pass and reach those on a budget instead of forcing them to miss out or pay Premium prices. Maybe they should be buying Studios and investing in their own IP's to compete with Xbox Studio's and Xbox owned IP's instead of spending money to keep 3rd Party multi-platform games and/or content away from gamers on other platforms and services. Be more 'consumer' focussed...

@Ravix

Sony should be putting all that money they spend on CoD, Hogwarts, Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Forspoken and all the 'marketing' costs on these on their own Studios - either buying more, or building the ones they have up to make 'more' than 1 game every 4-6yrs. They have their own 'FPS' IP's (including Destiny now) as well as experienced FPS developers - Killzone/Guerilla, Resistance/Insomniac and lets not forget SoCoM is their IP and they could bring that back to rival CoD and its ONLY on Playstation where as CoD is everywhere...

Point is, Sony isn't losing CoD. It offers a Premium Quality experience (only equalled on Series X) and those that bought PS5 to play CoD/Fifa won't care about this deal knowing that CoD/Fifa is still releasing on PS5 - the same day everyone else gets it, the same price to buy as on Xbox, the same content so 'not' missing out on anything if this deal goes through. if they are a CoD fan, they'll know they can play on PS5 so won't need to rush out and spend $500 on a Series X or 'miss out' on something...

Sony will still get Sales on their System because its still cheaper to pay $70 to own their favourite game than buy a Series X to get the SAME Premium Quality and pay $180 a year on Game Pass Ultimate as it includes the Necessary Gold to play online or pay $120 a year to play at 1080/60 streaming it. Sony will still get their '30%' of all Digital sales of the Game, MTX, Season Passes and all the other 'extras', still get their percentage of Physical sales sold on their Platform, using their Logo's, their case design, their 'branding' on the packaging and using their platform - like they do with ALL 3rd Party Publishers on their platform - so it may make a 'dent' in their CoD profits, but are also saving a LOT by not paying A/B and all the marketing costs...

@Ravix So if People bought a Playstation for CoD & Fifa, they can still buy CoD and Fifa like they ALWAYS have, get the game the same day as everyone else and pay the same price to own it.

CoD will now be available on MANY more devices and therefore available to MANY more gamers - all getting the SAME content, the SAME day so if they want to play on their 'mobile' instead of paying Sony money for their Console and buying the Game - they now can - it may hurt Sony - but the deal BENEFITS those gamers, those Casuals and will make it more accessible to even more Gamers.

Don't forget, CoD was 'nothing' until MS marketed the hell out of it during the 360 era and it didn't help them dominate Sony who not only had a 'disaster' Start with their 'overpriced' and late to the market PS3 giving the 360 a decent head start. When they announced and even released the PS4, CoD was still linked with Xbox yet people abandoned 360 to jump to PS4 to play CoD at 1080/60, not 900/60. PS4 dominated sales whilst Xbox still had CoD marketing and Titanfall exclusively too.

The fact that CoD will be on PS as well will not 'force' people to abandon their PS5 and jump to Xbox. People will still buy PS6 to keep their Trophies, their friends, their prefered controller etc knowing that CoD will still be available on their prefered platform. Some may jump to Xbox - but thats 'Competition' and Consumer/Gamer choice which is much better than being 'forced' to buy Hardware or miss-out on something as it is now.

Those 'casuals' may opt to play on 'cheap' hardware, streaming the game at 1080/60 because its 'cheap' - but its not the 'Premium' quality offered by PS5 - going to miss out on 4k visuals and/or 120fps, more latency/lag, but its 'cheap' and maybe 'good' enough for them. Again 'better' for the Consumer/Gamer to have more choice.

I don't care if Sony loses sales - that's Sony's problem to solve and that Money they keep investing in a '3rd party multi-platform' game, the marketing costs etc (those TV ads aren't cheap) can be invested in their OWN IP's and Studios, build up their OWN portfolio to entice gamers - especially knowing CoD and Fifa will STILL be available on their 'Premium' Platform.

Did you care that Sony bought Insomniac and keep Spider-Man off of Xbox (a much bigger IP than CoD) and will have Wolverine too? Did you care they bought Bungie and Own Destiny now as well and could 'keep' that from OTHER platforms. Did you care about all the other purchases Sony are making to KEEP games away from other gamers? or is that OK but somehow when the competition does it, its wrong...

Sony bought Naughty Dog - hence they don't own Crash Bandicoot because ND didn't own the IP when purchased. Sony bought Guerilla games too as well as Sucker Punch, Bungie etc all to 'grow' and compete with the Competition.

There are still thousands of Studios so MS doesn't own the majority, and lots of other Publishers too. Deals aren't made to protect Competition but shouldn't hurt the Consumer/gamer. Giving them more ways to play, more platforms to play on, complete parity regardless etc is BENEFICIAL - I couldn't care less if it hurts some big Corporation, its up to them to 'fight' back and 'compete'. Make their own Streaming service with games day and date, buy up more studio's - they have more IP's than MS do so more studio's to make more of their OWN games.

Linear is so much easier as you can control everything to ensure it runs and looks perfect. If an area is too heavy, they can tweak it to run smoothly where as an open world game is much more complicated as the 'view' is likely to be 'geometry' you can actually visit as opposed to some billboard artwork...

@TrickyDicky99 3bn is a LOT and it's pretty much guaranteed income. That's before you take into consideration all the 'other' income they generate through Sales of games, MTX, DLC, hardware, peripherals etc etc too. How much do MS make every year....

It doesn't matter how many 'boot up' a game - whether its only 1m of the 25m or all 25m, they are still getting 3bn a year whether they play for 1 minute, 1 hour or 100+ hours, they are still paying $10 a month every month.

However, you are talking about what many considered to be the 'Best' game of 2021 and I bet most of that 20m played more than just the opening introduction sequence. Sea of Thieves has over 25m players, Halo Infinite over 20m and more people played Hi-Fi rush in the First week than played Returnal over 3month and R&C over 1.5months combined.

Who's to say that those people that 'bought' Returnal played more than 1hr or even installed it? Its still no more relevant than unique players - except that these all had much bigger 'Launches' thanks to not having a 'huge' paywall to access. Both Forza and Returnal were critically well received except Forza has been 'played' by a LOT more people and had a much bigger launch...

@NoCode23 Yet all those games would still be available on Steam/PC and any other Platform they can reach and as for 'Price', people won't pay a LOT more considering they never own the games - its a 'rental' service and people will want to 'play' when those games 'leave' Game Pass - hence they offer a nice extra discount to purchase!!

$70 is the 'current' market price for Games - Sony raised the Price on PS5 long before MS did - other Publishers pushed their prices up too so what's stopping Sony raising the price to $100 to play Spider-Man, Wolverine, Last of Us, Uncharted, God of War, Destiny, R&C, Ghost of Tsushima etc etc - its called 'Competition' with MANY players and MANY alternatives to those games on Steam for example so buy a Steam Deck and play 'cheaper' games - if MS lose Subs because people don't feel its offering 'value' - especially not 'long' term.

Game Pass cloud is ENTRY level gaming - not Premium Gaming - its bringing Premium Quality games to people that can't afford or justify buying Premium Hardware to play them. If you would rather play at 1080/60 streamed to whatever device you have with compression artefacts and increased lag/latency - never buy any game but still play the 'limited' selection that happen to be available on cloud, you can...

But to get the 'best' or 'Premium' experience, you need Premium Hardware and download to it. Most of the Game Pass games require Hardware and are ALL available to buy on Hardware too for those who 'prefer' to own and play regardless of whether its on Game Pass or not, regardless of whether they are still subbed or not.

If MS overprice themselves, people will play other games on Switch, on PS5 on Steam Deck, on their Laptop/Tablet, on their PC, on their mobile phones or whatever 'devices' suit their budget...

Point is, even if they did buyt Take 2 as well, it still wouldn't 'monopolise' gamin and/or force the others out of business and if they did raise the price to an unreasonable amount, people would abandon it for cheaper alternatives...

Everyone getting the SAME content at the SAME time and for the SAME price to own - seems very fair to me...

MS made CoD the Juggernaut it became with heavy marketing (to sell Gold of course) and got 4wks early access to DLC packs - but at least they 'came' to every platform.

Sony can use the Money they will save by not paying A/B for exclusive perks and/or extra content, paying for all the marketing and TV adverts etc to invest in their OWN software/Studios, spend that money to bring Killzone, Resistance and/or SoCoM back and maybe even be a 'CoD' killer. Ghosts and Advanced Warfare - both tied to XB1 - didn't affect the runaway success of PS4 in the first few years or 'keep' that many CoD gamers on Xbox - they jumped to play at 1080/60, not 900/60 even if they 'could' get DLC earlier...

I doubt that Sony Fanboys will abandon PS5 or PS6, miss out on Sony's award winning games, award winning IP's, Virtual Reality, Haptic Feedback, their 'prefered' controller layout etc just because MS own CoD and they 'could' play for just $10 a month after spending another $500 on a Series X to get the 'SAME' Premium Quality experience up to 4k and/or 120fps. It won't affect my decision to 'buy' a Playstation 6 - it never affected ANY console purchase because I need 'both' Platforms to play all the Premium games I enjoy - Whether that's Gears of War or God of War, Forza or GT, State of Decay or Uncharted, Last of Us or Hellblade 2, R&C or Fable, Returnal or Perfect Dark.... I can't play all on one device - but CoD is on BOTH and will remain on Both as well as be available on many more devices too...

@Jaz007 Also, I am not bias towards ANY company - I own a PS5, PS4 Pro, PS4, PS3 Slim, PS3 Phat and owned PS2/PS1 hardware too and would likely buy a PS6 to play 'ONLY' on PS6 games - but may not buy the 'next' Xbox as I could play everything on PC and/or Cloud enabled devices...

Point is, I am not 'concerned' about access to CoD as a Playstation gamer too. I know the game will have the exact same content day and date and if I choose to buy it on PS for the Haptic Feedback the DS5 provides I will but I could also play 'on the go' on my mobile, at 'Premium' quality on my Series X or Laptop too.

How can making Premium games available to a MUCH larger consumer/gamer base be 'detrimental' - I could understand if it was 'limited' to Xbox Premium Hardware/Expensive PC only, but even mobile gamers can now play - albeit not at the 'same' premium quality but can still play - not 'Miss out'

I hate Fanboys - whether its Sony or Xbox fanboys and look at things from a 'Gamers/Consumers' perspective. I am not going to be 'forced' to buy CoD on PS5 or 'miss out', I can Choose to play on PS5, Series X, PC or any 'Cloud' device and 'won't' miss out so its beneficial to GAMERS.

@Jaz007 And Sony bought Studio's too - Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Bungie, Guerilla, Sucker Punch etc to build up their 'Portfolio' of Studio's and IP's so I don't see any difference here.

CoD may well be a BIG IP in Gaming - but not bigger than Spider-Man or Wolverine for example and its not as if CoD won't release on Playstation with complete Parity for the first time in decades - after Xbox built CoD up to be the Juggernaut it became (thanks to heavy marketing and of course their own 'timed' exclusivity on DLC). Nintendo though is still a 'bigger' platform in terms of numbers sold - all without 'CoD'. And there are LOTS of CoD alternatives to 'compete' all made by 'different' Studios...

As I said, Sony Fanboys aren't 'losing' on this as CoD, like Minecraft, will continue to release on Playstation, continue to be 'sold' exactly as before and exactly the SAME price as it would be on Xbox to buy too - so tell me HOW this is somehow bad? Instead of Xbox/PC with PS5 getting 'more' content, its going to be available on EVERY device - inc many that could never run that Premium software - not ONLY on Xbox Hardware.

Its not as if Sony doesn't have experienced talented Studios and their OWN FPS Ip's they could 'invest' in, maybe even be 'better' than CoD. On top of that, Sony are 'saving' money by not having to pay A/B to keep content 'exclusive' and off of Game Pass, not having to pay for and organise Marketing for CoD etc and EVERY Playstation owner won't 'miss out' on playing CoD with their friends on their 'preferred' platform.

The fact that this will also open CoD up to MANY more gamers, not just those affluent enough to buy Premium hardware or screw over those who 'prefer' to play on PC/Xbox. PS5 owners aren't being 'screwed' by this.

If Sony lose sales because Gamers/Consumers now have a LOT more choice on where they WANT to play, not forced to play on Playstation or feel screwed over on Xbox/PC, that's just 'tough' on Sony - their users can still 'choose' to play on their hardware if its their 'preferred' platform but aren't 'forced' to buy on PS or 'miss out' on something - anti-consumer!!! This gives Consumers/gamers much more choice on where they want to Play 'A/B' games - now and in the future. It doesn't matter if MS owns the IP - its NOT going to be 'limited' to Premium Hardware so MANY more gamers can 'choose' where to play and will get 'Parity' on content - same day, same content, same price no doubt..

Therefore, I can only assume that its 'small minded' that can't see beyond their 'beloved' playstation hardware (which will still get CoD) that are opposed. Nintendo gamers for example would be keen for this to go through, as will those that can play on devices they have instead of 'miss' out because they didn't buy a PS5...

For every Studio that gets bought, new Studio's are being opened all the time. We see people leaving 'big' studios to set up their own 'new' studio. So please tell me how MS's 30 odd studios is monopolising gaming - when there are 1000's of Studios all capable of making a MASSIVE game - Fortnite is probably bigger than CoD now thanks to its 'reach'

If you don't want to buy a Microsoft made Xbox, you never have to and probably never will to play CoD - it will be available where ever you 'choose' to play....

Steps down as Sony buy Square Enix in retaliation for MS acquiring A/B...

@TrickyDicky99 How would you know? 20m paying $10-15 a month (Game Pass or GP Ultimate) is bringing in over $200m a month. They have over 25m GP subscribers now, which brings in 3bn a year regardless of whether they 'play' Forza or open it up...

If you only rely on Sales, then that is the 'only' income that game brings in.

$3bn a year from Game Pass Subs alone is a LOT. H:ZD cost about $48m to make over 5yrs, average of '10m' a year so our many Studios could you 'fund' making games at say 15m a year with 3bn coming in from Game Pass alone.

Point is, by the time its 'released', its already been paid for by subscribers so every 'sale' or new Subscriber it brings in is 'profit' - not recuperating that initial cost so it could still be a LOT more profitable with 'fewer' sales...

As I said, that 1m that played 'before' release had to Purchase the game for Earlier Access so that's 1m Sales. the other '19m' are still paying MS $10 a month to 'keep' playing - even if they aren't playing FH5 anymore...

@TrickyDicky99 Probably not 'SELL' to 5% but still have MANY more players that Play their games as Purchasing is not the ONLY option to play.

Why would I buy FH5, H:I, Starfield, Redfall, Forza etc etc when I can play them for 'free' on a Sub Service. I don't know how many bought FH5 on Xbox specifically as it also released on PC too but still sold over 1m before the game had 'released' - early access for those that pre-ordered indicated that over 1m purchased before 'release'.

Any 'Xbox' game now isn't just playable on Xbox and only those that 'buy' can play - as is the case with Playstation Games. You can argue that 560k sales in 3months is 'good' if you want, but that's not a lot of people that played that game. Starfield may not sell as many as Horizon or God of War, but could be played by a LOT more people.

If you have spent all that time making a Game and hoping LOTS of people get to play and experience everything you have spent years on making, seeing it only reach a 'small' group of players can't be 'good'. I'm sure they'd rather have 20m+ play their game than 'just' a few hundred thousand....

Also, having 20m+ in your ecosystem/game will help when it comes to Game of the Year votes as people vote on things they played as well as having a massive user base to sell extra content to - such as DLC/MTX etc as well as ensure that 'online' games have a big user base - necessary for the 'best' experience - quicker Match Making, lower Ping etc

@TrickyDicky99 560k from 10m is not that great - that's just 5.6% of the potential market that purchased and Ratchet & Clank had sold double the amount in half the time - 1.1m in a month and a half. FH5 for example had over 1m pre-orders despite being on Game Pass day (although did release on more platforms), had 4.5m in the first week and has been played now by over 20m people - they achieved that within 7 months of release...

Compare that to the 560k players that played an Award Winning game. It doesn't exactly look good when R&C can sell 1.1m in a month and a half.

If any other Publisher had released Returnal and only got 560k sales from their 'Premium' Game, Chances are that would be considered a Flop. Do you think other Publishers would be OK if their game only sold that many? Devs happy they only reached that few people?

Sony may be OK with that because its another Award Winning game, can try and boost sales on PC and get people to Subscribe to PS+ higher tiers as part of a 'collection' of Award winning games on their Platform - but Sales seem rather 'disappointing' compared to their 'other' Exclusives...

Even on PC, it doesn't seem very popular at all - which this article is showing with these player numbers. It maybe just a 'niche' title - loved by a 'niche' group, but the majority (the other 94.4% of PS5 owners for example) didn't buy into what Returnal was offering...

The point is that is more about Consumer/Gamer choice - not being 'forced' to buy a 'specific' Premium Hardware to play 'Premium' Quality games or miss out. Not everyone can afford to own a Premium Console or buy multiple platforms to play 'ALL' the games they want. Just like you can't watch everything you want on one Streaming service for example.

If you can't afford a Premium console or play enough to justify owning one, then MS has an 'option' for you so you can still play CoD. Fortnite can be played 'everywhere' and you get 'Premium' features/frame rates on Premium hardware, but if you want to play 'on the go' or can't afford Premium hardware, you can still play - that is where MS want to take CoD. Playstation is a 'Premium' Hardware so gamers that want 'Premium' 4k/120fps, RT etc etc will 'prefer' to buy CoD on PS5 than pay MS $10 to stream on a device they have.

I can't see Streaming becoming a 'Premium' gaming platform - it just doesn't have the 'infrastructure' in place to 'better' a 'current' gen Console and I doubt it will in 10yrs time either despite the improvements to that 'infrastructure'. You'll never 'eliminate' the latency/lag even if its 'imperceptibly' small, video compression artefacts will likely also bring PQ down a bit so people will 'PAY' for 'Premium' hardware to improve the 'Quality' of the Experience, but those that can't afford or 'justtify' the Premium costs of Hardware and Software don't have to 'miss' out...

That's the 'big' difference between where MS have been trying to take gaming since about 2016, leaving behind the 'Sales' and therefore 'anti-consumer' practices that are still being utilised by Sony today - ie keeping their Games (and other 3rd Party content) from 'other' platforms - forcing people to buy their Premium Hardware or 'miss out' - prey on FOMO. Also forced to pay their Premium' software prices up front too.

As you said, Streaming allows you to assess games before deciding if they are 'worth' downloading, let alone worth purchasing. It can bring games to many more people who can't afford Premium prices and that scares Sony a LOT!!

@Titntin
Take Forza Motorsport with RT in game at 60fps on Series S/X. If you want to play, you don't have to fork out to buy the Hardware and if you own an XB1s, a game never likely to run at 1080/60 on that WEAK hardware, you get an 'upgraded' experience on Cloud to what you are 'used' to.

I can't see PS5 CoD gamers 'opting' to play CoD on Cloud for $10 a month on devices they have, can't see them rushing out to buy a Series X for $500 and paying $15 for GP Ultimate as Gold is required too just to play CoD at upto 4k and/or 120fps (premium Quality they are 'used' to) when they can still buy CoD for $70 and play it for 'Life' on their PS5...

As for 'development' lets not forget that Playstation is the 'outlier' here - operating on its own OS and its own Bespoke Custom built SoC that doesn't support DX12 Ultimate, Doesn't Support Hardware based VRS or Mesh Shaders etc all of which the Series S/X and PC do. Therefore, devs are using Software based solutions or avoiding Mesh Shaders because they want to release on PS5 too. Xbox has the full RDNA 2 feature set and can use these in their 'own' software to give their games an advantage over 'multi-platform' games. It could 'affect' CoD long term, and 'people' will 'cry' that its deliberately hobbling PS5 because they can't run the game at '4k' or hold as stable a 120hz compared to Series X which is utilising 'advanced' rendering options not available on PS. But you'll still get ALL the same Content day and date...

@Titntin I know they 'work' but that doesn't mean to say that I think Companies - whether its Sony, Microsoft or whatever Platform with the Studios, the IP's and the Publishing rights should 'Pay' to exclude content away from others permanently. I can 'just about' tolerate it knowing that the 'content' will come - even if it wouldn't have been made without the 'additional' funding in the first place - let it 'work' for a 'set-time' (up to a max of 1yr) because after that point, its 'served' its purpose of 'promoting/selling' the Platform - especially if the Platform holder hasn't got its 'own' software to release.

What annoys me most though is that people complained MS didn't have their 'OWN' games, their OWN studios and were buying 'Exclusives' like Tomb Raider, having deals with CoD keeping DLC off of Playstation for 4weeks etc instead of investing their 'riches' in building up a Portfolio of Studio's to 'compete' with Sony's First Party - now they are 'investing' money in buying Studio's, IP's etc, that's 'wrong'

I have said from the very start, I think Sony should be investing their Money in their 'ecosystem' on their Portfolio of Studios, IP's etc instead of paying to 'keep content off of other Platforms - either long term (over a few months) or permanently.

Just think how much Money Sony must pay A/B or Square Enix to keep content 'exclusive' to their platform instead of using that money to invest in building up their 'own' portfolio. They are 'guaranteed' Parity with CoD for at least the next 10yrs, that's 10yrs of not paying A/B for 'exclusive' content or marketing for that game - that's a LOT of money that could be invested in buying new Studio's and/or building up their own studios, money that could be utilised to make their 'own' CoD - they have Bungie (Destiny), Insomniac (Resistance), Guerilla (Killzone) etc so not 'lacking' in talent or experienced FPS developers.

I know you (or I) won't be satisfied with 'Cloud' gaming, but that is not the point of it. Cloud brings 'Premium' Quality games to 'non-premium' hardware - its an 'entry' level way into the Premium gaming space - for $10 a month, you can play on ANY device (limited to 1080/60 - no 'Premium' PQ or HFR option). Series S offers a 'cheaper' alternative to Series X/PS5 - not quite the 'same' Premium Quality' visuals and less likely to have 120fps support - an 'entry' level Hardware option with a 'bigger' Library. Series X and PS5 are 'Premium' Consoles offering Premium Games at Premium Quality and a Premium Console Price Tag, PC of course is the 'top' tier at a Cost.

If you can't afford a 'Premium' console or even Justify spending $500+ on Hardware/Software and/or Sub fees (Gold & PS+ are 'essential' for a LOT of Premium games you can't play without) for a couple of Games you may want to play, Cloud offers a 'Cheap' way to play 'Premium' games on Hardware it couldn't run on.

@Titntin As explained, that co-funded the development of Tomb Raider and ensured it got made - something that was very much in doubt at the time. All they requested in return was 'timed' exclusivity and then when it did come to PS4, you not only got the Complete Game, inc all DLC, you got 'complete' parity with Xbox despite Microsoft paying for that game to be developed.

That's very different to keeping Content locked off another platform forever - I don't agree with any multi-platform game having any content on only 1 platform so the others 'miss out' entirely. Surely after a period of time, that content should be available to ALL - even if Sony 'funded' that 'extra' content, although its more like its kept from others - Exclusive Strikes in Destiny for example - set in areas that 'exist' on other Platforms, exclusive MP maps etc etc

Maybe Sony did help 'fund' Deathloop and Ghostwire, it didn't convince me to 'buy' on Playstation knowing I could wait to play on Game Pass, or wait to play on my 'prefered' platform. Same when Xbox had CoD DLC 4wks early, still didn't stop people buying it and playing it on PS too.

Anything that happened prior to 2016 is also at a time when MS ran Xbox as a 'separate' side project and were 'Sales' focussed - copying the 'traditional' practices of Sony and Nintendo - however, when they 'merged' Xbox into MS, they have significantly reduced their third party deals - inc CoD. There 'exclusives' are no longer 'exclusive' to a Single Platform so you never 'need' to buy an Xbox and now you don't even need to buy their Games either but can play on devices you 'own' for a small monthly fee.

They are a 3rd Party Publisher too - like EA, Ubisoft, Square Enix so will have 3rd Party studios making games they have greenlit and 'funded' to release on Xbox exclusively - games that other Publishers may not have - maybe too 'risky' when its a 'new' IP and doesn't have a legion of loyal fans blindlessly buying sequel after sequel...

Sony wants to make their Platform the 'best' for 3rd Party Multiplatform games by paying them to keep content from all other Platforms. Hogwarts for example has 'exclusive' ONLY on Playstation content as well as paying to 'keep' games off of Xbox (Final Fantasy) as well as timed 'exclusivity'.

If all they did was make their OWN platform and features the 'best', then I'd agree that Haptic Feedback or a VR mode for example would be OK but paying to keep 'content' for Sony and screwing over all the other gamers on their 'preferred' platform is one reason why my PS5 hasn't really been used for 'months'. I also refuse to pay $70+ on ANY game so I won't buy their Exclusives at launch either and where possible, will buy 'Physical' and/or 'used' so Sony get next to 'nothing' back from me - its a 'vote' with my Wallet at the total anti-consumer and BS Sony come out with...

Even with a 10yr deal to 'KEEP' selling CoD on their platform with 'complete' parity, they 'claim' it will hurt their Platform. All the money they could 'save' by not paying other Publishers to 'keep' content off of other platforms, paying for timed exclusivity etc that 'could' be invested in their OWN Studios, their OWN IP's etc. Its not as if they don't have some of the biggest IP's that transcend games - Spider-Man, Wolverine, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Last of Us etc etc.

Not only that, they also have their 'own' FPS IP's too - Destiny of course, as well as Killzone, Resistance, SoCoM etc and the Award Winning Studios to make their 'own' CoD., Instead of spending money on keeping Multi-platform games/content from other Platforms, invest that money into First Party Studios/IP's - its not as if Sony doesn't have Award Winning Studios to bring Award Winning games to their OWN platform instead of focussing on screwing over 'others'...

Its also one reason I haven't 'bought' Hogwarts because I 'miss out' on Content on my 'preferred' platforms and refuse to support Sony's business model of paying to keep content from others. All this does is make me wait until the Game is 'very' cheap on my preferred Platform or available on Gold/Game Pass or even PS+ Essential tier. It may 'hurt' the Pubs/Devs too, but they shouldn't make 'deals' that screw over the 'majority' of the gamers as Playstation is not 'bigger' than the combined PC/Xbox/Steam and/or any other 'platform' gamers could play on who 'miss out'...

@Intr1n5ic Most of that was from GAMES not on Premium Consoles - things like Candy Crush and other MOBILE games. But as the Company has been run into the ground now, its basically 'dead' on Consoles and until MS announced they were buying them, no-one really cared.

Even now, all the Conversation about this is all about CoD and Playstation users - not all their other IP's or were the 'majority' of money comes from - King and the Mobile sector - not CoD, not the 'Premium' games that you think you'll 'miss-out' on. CoD was 'dead' to many a few years ago too, nothing but a MTX cash grab full of loot boxes and cosmetics, the 'same game' every year - just a different Skin - but now MS is buying A/B, its the most important Game in History and essential that EVERYONE retains access...

Hypocrites and cry baby fanboys whining about CoD despite HUNDREDS of other games to play, MANY competitors in the FPS genre, Thousands of Studio's who could make a Competitor for 'Playstation' exclusively and many more 'Publishers' to compete with Microsoft.

Its your 'blinkered' view that Playstation is not capable of competing without CoD despite Award winning Studio's, Award winning IP's and a 'loyal' fanbase who will still buy a Playstation to play Sony's games as well as 'multi-platform' games Sony have paid to keep off Xbox/Game Pass. At least MS buy the Studio, the IP etc.

You are the one talking 'monopolies' and this being 'detrimental' to consumers when no-one is losing 'access' to CoD on the Platform they 'prefer' and in future, it will have content parity for ALL, not screw over PC/Xbox because 'Sony'!! It opens it up for a LOT more gamers on a LOT more platforms. Its currently only on PS/Xbox/PC but will be on Mobiles, Tablets, TV apps, Nintendo etc - anywhere and everywhere, all with equal 'content' so how is that 'bad' for consumers? How is making it available to 'MORE' people on more platforms and parity of content - anti-consumer or worse for Gamers - many of whom miss out because of their hardware - either on content or the entire game - only a 'small' fraction get the full package today!

Anyway, don't bother replying, I don't want to hear yet another pathetic response from another crybaby fanboy who really doesn't understand the gaming landscape or where A/B get most of their income from and its not 'consoles' or Playstation... IGNORED!

If Sony had 150m users on their Platform, that is a 'tiny' percentage of the total gamers who play on PS, Xbox, Switch, PC, Steam Deck, Mobiles/tablets etc. With an estimated 3bn gamers in the world 150m is 'tiny', Xbox even less of course - so there is Strong Competition and a LOT of other players in the Gaming market.

Its not like you have just Sony or Xbox and now Xbox will have 75% of ALL Studio's/Publishers and therefore 'monopolise' gaming - you'll still get 'hundreds' of games on Playstation too.

@Intr1n5ic A/B is a 'small' Publisher now having fallen far from its lofty perch - taking Devs away from making their 'own' games to pump out CoD every year without 'fail' regardless of quality and fill it full of MTX because that makes Kotick 'richer' than making other games that don't sell as well.

They aren't the 'juggernaut' they once were with all those studio's bringing out new games - Spider-Man, James Bond for example. So its literally just 'CoD' now and Diablo/WoW from Blizzard.

Sony may well of been trying to ensure Starfield releases on their Platform - maybe even 'exclusively' (like Deathloop and Ghostwire) but they'll never be able to do that again. Keeping 'content' they have not developed themselves with their 'own' studio's could be part of the Problem - not the Solution. Also that doesn't 'mean' it was definitely coming to Playstation at all and maybe were trying to get them to port it from PC to PS too - until MS bought Bethesda anyway and are now 'funding' the development of Starfield and its 'porting' to Series S/X hardware and Cloud to bring it to 'more' gamers than originally planned. When they started, it may of developed beyond the Hardware of that time (PS4/XB1) and so was more likely to be a PC only game - until the 'next' gen machines came out and MS owned Bethesda...

MS don't own or have access to as many 'IP's' as Sony although would own more Studios. However, compared to EA, TenCent, Embracer, Sony, Nintendo, Ubisoft, Square Enix, Capcom, Sega, and all the other Publishers and their Studios, as well as the thousands of 'independent' studios making games, MS would still not be the 'biggest' Publisher or have the most Studios so how they can 'monopolise' gaming, I'll never know. To have a 'Monopoly' MS would need to own at least more than half of the Studio's, Publishers etc to have any chance of 'monopolising' the market - but you have plenty of others in play...

Premium Consoles account for a 'tiny' percent of the Gaming Market and the 'biggest' market is on Mobiles - totally eclipses the Gamers on Playstation, Nintendo and Xbox combined so making 'Premium' games available on ANY hardware, not just 'Premium' consoles is 'beneficial' to the majority.

If CoD went 'Exclusive' to MS, 10-15m PS gamers would 'miss' out, but could still play on their Mobile, Laptop, TV, PC or any other device they have that Game Pass is on. It opens it up for FAR more people to Play than would 'miss out' on devices they already have - Don't need to rush out and buy a MICROSOFT XBOX console...

Also, if the deal goes through, not only will EVERY gamer be able to access on devices they have, they also won't 'miss out' on Content - unlike today where PC/Xbox gamers miss out on Content in a 'multi-platform' game - so how is that 'beneficial' to gamers- forced to buy a PS or miss out, either on some content or not be able to play it all on their platform of choice!!

I don't care how 'butthurt' you are that MS is investing their money in their Ecosystem to 'compete' with Sony, Nintendo, EA, TenCent, Embracer, Ubisoft etc. There are still 'thousands' of other Studio's with lots of Publishers and many other platforms (Steam for example) so I can't see losing 'A/B' who has basically killed themselves by putting all their eggs in a CoD basket and nobody cared about A/B before MS stepped in...

I have been gaming for over 40years long before Sony or MS decided to jump in to the market. I have owned every generation of PS and Xbox, numerous Nintendo, Sega and Atari platforms as well as various Home Computers and PC's so I have a very good understanding of the History and the Gaming market. Even if ALL A/B, Bethesda and Xbox Studio games are 'exclusive' Sony has their own 'big' IPs to compete, there are plenty of other Publishers, Studio's etc making 'great' games, new Studio's being opened all the time etc etc so I really don't see how this is 'bad' for consumers.

You can access 'Marvel' TV shows/Films on Disney+ on ANY platform but you 'need' Disney+ and if you also want to watch 'Stranger Things' then you need Netflix. HBO or Amazon Prime or whatever other 'streaming' services there are all have their own 'exclusives' but as a Consumer, you have the freedom to 'choose' how you want to 'watch' - whether that's on a Phone, through your Playstation or TV apps, on PC etc etc.

There is a LOT of other Publishers and Studio's so I do think this deal 'benefits' consumers who right now are 'screwed' playing CoD on anything other than PS and the 'majority' of gamers can't play at all due to 'hardware'. Therefore, the fact that CoD will be available everywhere, with complete parity on content and a range of options so that it is accessible to far more people than just those who can afford a 'Premium' console and/or buy the game. For $10 a month you can play on a Student Laptop with your DS5 if you want - cheaper than buying a Series X or spending $70 on PS5 - although you won't get the 'Premium' features (4k and/or 120fps modes) but 'good enough to enjoy - like playing Fortnite on your mobile/Switch is 'good enough' when you are out...

@Intr1n5ic I'm deluded?? Somehow I think you are the one that is 'deluded'. If MS were to make CoD 'exclusive' to their ecosystem, have the 'ONLY' service to offer CoD via streaming/sub services, that still gives Consumers a LOT more choice on Platform, on 'costs' etc. NO-ONE will need to buy a Specific piece of Hardware - especially NOT one made by Microsoft to Play - it will be on PC's as well as ANY platform with Game Pass.

Netflix, Disney+ etc are available 'everywhere' yet they also offer their OWN exclusive Content and Sony still has its own Award Winning Exclusives that 'People' will want to play. Yes MS may well have CoD, Doom, Wolfenstein, Halo etc - but Sony has Killzone, Destiny, Resistance etc EA has Battlefield, MoH, Battlefront etc and you'll still have Ubisoft, TenCent, Embracer etc etc etc making games.

The '30 or so' Studio's and IP's MS would own wouldn't 'kill' the rest - Nintendo has Zelda, Mario etc and outsold PS without CoD so why would Sony 'die' when they have Spider-Man, Wolverine, Destiny, God of War, Last of Us, Uncharted, Gran Turismo etc - massive IP's that transcend gaming....

Then you also have yet another 'Unique Selling Point' with Sony - VR and VR experiences - the ONLY console to offer these so Consumers will buy Playstation like they bought Switch for its 'Portability' - able to play Witcher 3, Doom etc 'on the go' - Premium 'games' albeit not as 'good' as better Hardware offers - but still 'good enough' to play a Premium game on the Go - something Cloud offers too btw - not a 'Premium' gaming experience offered by 'Premium' Hardware running Locally, but still better than 'nothing' and 1080/60 isn't terrible...

Starfield was NEVER revealed as a 'Multi-platform' game - it was 'announced' to be in development with no mention of hardware releases - it was 'assumed' to be a multi-plat game because Bethesda had made multi-platform games in the Past - well PC games that ended up ported to Xbox and sometimes/eventually PS too. Originally Elder Scrolls was a PC only game (like Doom, Wolfenstein etc) then started porting to Xbox, before eventually bringing Elder Scrolls to Playstation. CoD too only became the 'juggernaut' it did thanks to MS and the Xbox 360...

@Intr1n5ic During the PS4 era, it was the 'games' and the 'message' that Xbox launched their XB1 with. That's why about 2-3years later, Xbox changed their Business Model to give Consumers 'choice' - first by Launching ALL their games day and date on PC too and then launched Game Pass - then built up their 'Studios' to 'compete' with other Publishers - from the 'handful' they had (Mojang (Multi-platform games), 343i, the Coalition, Turn 10 and Rare) - all of which didn't start until 2018, five years into the XB1 generation. Those PC gamers from 2016 onwards would NOT need an XB1 to play the 'few' games Xbox had.

Choice still affects 'sales' and during the 'Last' generation, you had a 'weak' console focussed on 'TV' vs a better Console with award winning games - like Uncharted, Last of Us etc so Consumers would be more 'inclined' to buy a PS4. As the generation went on, there was 'less' reason to buy an XB1 as they had 'fewer' games and the ones they had would be on PC too where as if you wanted to play Horizon, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima etc - ONLY on Playstation as well as Sony 'paying' to keep content from Xbox/PC gamers...

You have to ask yourself is Returnal 'better' for only selling 560k in the first 3months or is it better to have 20m playing in the first week like Halo Infinite did? GT7 probably won't 'reach' as many players as Forza Horizon or Motorsport probably will in their first week - much bigger launches, played by MANY more gamers - even if 'SALES' of Hardware/Software are 'lower' because 'Purchasing' is optional where it isn't with Sony/Nintendo - not play Day 1 or within the first few months at least...

Sales are 'impacted' by Choice and even if MS were to 'catch-up' on Award Winning Studios making Award Winning games to really 'challenge' Sonys 'SALES' domination, the fact that you don't 'need' to buy a Microsoft built plastic box or the 'Software' before you play is going to impact those sales.

No PC gamer would 'need' to buy an Xbox now, but they still need a Playstation to play 'some' games. Therefore, that's a 'sale' lost by MS and/or a sale gained by Sony. In the 360/PS3 era, a PC gamer may well of bought a 360 because of certain games only available on Console...

@Intr1n5ic The point is that people have a 'choice' - Game Pass is a 'Choice' too on those platforms. NOT everyone with a Console or a PC will be on Game Pass - choosing to 'buy' their games instead.

Lets say 75% of 'Console' owners Subscribe to Game Pass - and only 50% on PC for example, that means that 25% of Console owners and 50% of the PC market chooses to 'buy' games instead of Sub to Game Pass but they are 'still' part of the Ecosystem.

I other words, the 'total' GP ubs alone are NOT indicative of the 'entire' Ecosystem, just like Consoles alone don't tell the 'whole' story.

With Sony, the 'number' of PS5's on the market is 'indicative' of their user base - although that isn't 'entirely' accurate either - but is more indicative. You want to play Spider-Man 2 when it 'releases', you need to 'own' a PS5, when Starfield releases, you won't 'need' to own a Series S/X.

Can you imagine how many PC gamers that now won't buy an Xbox, but will buy a PS5 to play games they can't day 1. Cloud may not be the 'best' way to play, more 'entry' level options (not the Series S which has 'better' PQ and lower latency) as you can 'play' Premium games (limited to 1080/60) on whatever Hardware you already have for $10 a month - entry level 'Premium' Gaming at LOW cost for those that can't afford or 'justify' spending Premium money on Hardware - especially if they don't have 4k 120hz TV's to take advantage of 'Premium' visuals/frame rates...

You also have to remember that not EVERY country has the same 'disposable' income to drop $500 on Hardware or $70 on a single game. Not everyone has 4k displays or has the 'time' to justify spending a LOT on gaming. Anyone with a 'decent' gaming rig won't feel they 'need' an Xbox and more likely to buy a PS5 because it offers games they can't play on their PC.

All I said is that PS should sell more in the long term because no-one actually 'needs' to upgrade from Last Gen Xbox hardware, buy an Xbox if they have a 'decent' PC or even 'consider' an Xbox 'just' for exclusives they can't get on PS. Even if 'CoD' went exclusive after they close the A/B deal, it won't 'force' PS gamers to buy an 'Xbox' or miss out - yes they may have to 'settle' for 1080/60 streamed to a Mobile or their Student Laptop for example, but its still cheaper than spending another $500 on a Series X and $70 on the game when they 'could' play for just $10 a month..

When you give consumers a Choice,whether its 'buy an Xbox or Play on devices you may already own (PC, Mobile, Samsung TV etc) a choice to 'buy' games or 'rent' them, SALES will be impacted on both Hardware and Software. When you have 25m+ Subs waiting to play Starfield 'free', how many do you think will 'pre-order' or 'Purchase' in the first few months? So I doubt Starfield will be the 'best' selling game of the year - even if it has the 'biggest' player numbers...

Plague Tale could sell 10x more on PS, but still have 10x less players. Thanks to Game Pass, only 100k may have purchased on Xbox, 1m on PS5, but have 10m players on Xbox vs Sony's 1m. Sales don't tell the 'full' story when you offer 'Choice' to the Consumer!!

Considering I don't 'need' to buy a Series S/X console to Play ANY Xbox game, yet I 'need' a PS to play Sony's games day and date, then of course the PS should sell 'better'

If you have a 'decent' PC/Laptop and/or decent internet connection, you can play games like Forza, Starfield, Redfall etc on practically ANY platform (except PS/Switch). Even if they don't release on Last Gen Xbox consoles, you can still play via Game Pass Cloud on your XB1S/X - no 'need' to upgrade or 'miss out'.

For Sony, every Console is a new person in their ecosystem, a new person to buy and play software. With Microsoft, their ecosystem is 'not' dependant on Console growth as they have 'Cloud' and 'PC' gamers in their ecosystem too. If I had a decent gaming PC, I certainly wouldn't buy an 'Xbox' as I could play everything anyway - but I'd still have to 'buy' a PS5 to play Sony's Exclusives...

@IOI I'm not - they stated they would continue to support ALL games released and/or releasing on Playstation regardless of whether they 'own' those Studio's, those IP's etc.

The Outer Worlds released on PS and was 'continually' supported with DLC 'after' MS purchased Obsidian so it makes sense to continue 'supporting' that game and/or those gamers that bought on PS. OW2 may not come to PS, but this did so its going to be 'supported'.

It seems like a Publisher decision - Make a game we can sell at FULL AAA Price, Sell LOTS of cosmetics, additional characters etc to 'grind' out and doesn't need to be 'complete' at launch because they can bring the rest over time...

I was feeling quite pessimistic about this game. It looked like it could be Warner Bros equivalent to SE's Marvels Avengers and so it wasn't on my list of games I expect to play at (or near) to launch. All this showcase did was confirm what I feared and convince me its not worth considering for purchase, maybe not worth considering even if it does come to a sub service (PS+ or GPU) because I don't really want this from a DC game.

Not playing, don't care about WildHearts and unlikely to Play even when it comes to EA Access...

I don't care how well it sells (or doesn't) - it won't affect me in anyway. I won't 'buy' the game regardless as I don't think I'll be interested in playing, especially not 'more' than the Games I already have that I want to play/finish, let alone any new games that are coming out.

It doesn't matter if they give it away 'free' to me, I'd still rather play games in my backlog than start playing this.

All I 'hope' is that it finds its 'audience' and they are happy with it. As long as people are not losing jobs because it didn't find its audience for whatever reason, I don't really care...

Never 'seemed' popular on PS5 as Official Sales seemed to indicate that only 560k were sold in the first 3 months. Whether that was the price point,, the style of game-play or combination of factors, but for an 'Award Winning' game, it never seemed 'popular' on PS5 and now a few years later, despite winning awards, it doesn't seem overly popular on PC.

Not saying its 'right/wrong', but in a Sales driven business model, it could be classified a 'Flop' as it didn't get the 'Sales' and therefore the revenue or player base to be 'successful' financially. Hi-Fi Rush for example could sell the same, but could have a massive player base and generate much more revenue from servers. Player Count could be a much more 'important' metric than Sales and could also make the difference between a Sequel (or other big budget projects) being green-lit.

For whatever reasons, I can see this being 'forgotten' when people talk about the Sony made games at the end of the generation, completely overshadowed and overlooked by their other Games....

They may 'lose' out on actual sales of their games, supplementing that with a much larger player base to potentially 'sell' more DLC, MTX etc and still get money from those Gamers who 'rent' the game. Its a 'different' way of bringing income in.

Take Forza Horizon for example - that 'may' of sold 5m copies in the first 6-12months. But instead of maybe 1m buying and playing the game in the first week or so, they had 20m people playing and I bet they got something from 'everyone' of those.

Halo Infinite had 22m in the first week yet how many played Returnal, R&C etc in their first week?

Sales are going to be 'down' on Game Pass games, but then Games like Hogwarts for example may get more sales on Xbox because those people aren't spending that money on Games like Plague Tale, Atomic Heart, Hi-Fi Rush etc.

As much as Sony is fixated on Sales as a measure of Success, MS are more interested in the player engagement and unique users. None of Sony's First Party games have had as big a Launch in terms of actual players playing their games as MS does with some of their games. Sea of Thieves would never of Sold more than 3m yet has over 25m players.

Sales are NOT the only income source to recuperate the costs of development etc anymore and so whilst 'sales' of certain games due to Sub services maybe 'lower' on Xbox now, they may offset that by having many more gamers playing on Xbox which overall increases their revenue and reach. More people in your 'store', more you can sell to.

Sony are Sales focussed so it 'hurts' their business model to 'lose' sales - especially at Launch when Games cost the most, have the HIGHEST profit margins etc. Hence they only release theirs on PC/PS+ once the Sales of both Hardware and the Game are no longer going to be 'impacted'. MS are much more Service driven and Sales are more a secondary focus, hence their Games release day and date into services, on PC. Sales of Hardware and Software are 'optional' for the consumer, its more important to 'get' people in the door than maximise your 'sales' potential - Sales will happen because People will prefer to play on Hardware not stream, prefer to own their game, not 'rent'.

Different business models lead to different Consumer choices.

Sony is strictly a 'Sales' business first and foremost. Every 'product' they make, whether Hardware or Software, is made to be 'Sold' - so anything that negatively 'impacts' Sales is 'bad' for them. Hence 'Exclusives' on PS ONLY to make you 'buy' a PS, hence no 'day 1' Sub to impact 'pre-orders' and launch day 'Sales' etc - everything designed around SALES with 'services' very much a secondary income stream...

MS is very much more a Service driven Company NOW. 'Sales' are purely 'optional'. You NEVER have to BUY their Consoles, all their games are on other 'platforms' - PC and Cloud, don't need to buy their Software, its all on Sub services - sales are Secondary to their 'MAIN' business model.

To get into the Playstation Ecosystem, it costs an upfront fee of $400+ to buy a PS5 - let alone any games you may want to Play, to get into the Xbox ecosystem, you just need $10 a month and can play on Hardware you already own.

Cloud is the 'entry Level - 1080/60, limited Library, lowest cost
Series S - improved Visuals/performance (1440/120) and Library, small upfront cost
Series X - improved Visuals/Performance (4k/120) and Disc Drive, larger upfront cost
PC - Best Visual/Performance potential, largest Library of Games but also has the highest upfront costs.

That's the BIG difference between Sony and MS this gen - that is why Sony don't do anything to jeopardise sales - either of Hardware (by making Software available on 'other' platforms) or of Games (by making them available on Sub services) Day 1 as that would 'negatively' impact 'SALES' which are the most important 'metric' to Sony as a SALES driven business...

I never expected MLB23 on PS+ because it impacts on Sony's business model too much. Why put it in PS+ when it would affect PS sales figures. They want to brag that MLB23 sold BEST on their platform, beating Xbox maybe 5:1 on Sales, being #1 in 'SALES' charts etc etc...

I can't argue that its 'probably' the best controller for Playstation 5 and brings 'pro' gaming features to their controller but I do think they are somewhat over-priced for what extras it offers and the battery life is not good enough.

From my perspective, My Xbox Elite is my #1 controller on Xbox/PC and I cannot 'justify' paying that much to get something 'similar' just to use on PS5. I shouldn't have to pay £20 to 'fix' thumbstick issues, but I guess it does open up the potential to sell 'upgraded' thumbsticks in the future. I also think ALL controllers should be 'customisable' to allow individuals to choose what every input does, reassign them to suit their preference. If you want 'X' where 'Square' normally is or vice versa, you should be able to reassign regardless - not have to buy a 'Pro' controller...

I wouldn't be surprised. Sony haven't really got a full blown RPG and with several big RPG developers joining MS, they could do with their own IP...

@carlos82 The difference is that in boxes etc, the console is not on and not getting 'hot' that liquid metal could be more fluid/runny. Not saying that is the reason the vertical position may be more likely to 'fail' over time, but you have a 'fluid' metal which would become more runny with more temperature and gravity has more effect too.

I am not saying this is something to worry about in 'general' but it maybe more 'likely'. With 30m consoles on the market and probably most operating in a vertical position, the failure rate maybe slightly 'higher' but likely still less than 0.1% failure rate - which would be about 30k units. It's obviously not that widespread, at least not yet after several years.

I never had RROD on my XB360 despite all those others that did, I got YLOD on my PS3 though. Point is, just because you and/or many others haven't had an issue with their PS5 in vertical position, doesn't mean they 'won't' in the future or that it isn't 'more' likely than those who use their PS5 in Horizontal position. It may only be 300 cases worldwide which would be around 0.0001% of ALL consoles sold and of those 270 were in a vertical position - which would indicate that you are 9x more likely to get a problem, but you still have a 0.0001% chance of it happening to you - which is 'tiny'.

It's obviously happening, I have seen numerous video's of PS5's with their 'Liquid Metal' seeping into areas it wasn't meant to be, but then there are millions and millions of people playing with no issues at all...

It maybe not worth worrying about because the 'failure' rate is so small but doesn't mean that it can't or isn't happening to some. I bet if it happened to you, you'd be angry and annoyed at others saying it 'can't' happen so you must of done something wrong!

Square Enix might as well sell out to Sony as Sony keeps paying them to keep games off other Consoles permanently anyway. By getting rid of some Studio's, IP's etc, they have made themselves 'more affordable' and you'd think it would be easier for Sony to acquire a Japanese company over any company outside of Japan.

Of course, SE probably also don't 'need' to sell as they get Sony's money anyway and by owning the IP's, they get licensing fees for all the merchandising etc too. They have reduced their 'expenditure' by reducing their size, their IP's (which brought in income) and so have reduced their costs and with games releasing, will generate revenue.

I don't think anyone would be Surprised if Sony were to acquire SE - or maybe some part of SE at the very least. It almost seems inevitable that SE will eventually be acquired but maybe a 'strategic' partnership (which they seem to have) suits 'both' better - Sony don't 'need' to buy as they get Exclusivity anyway and SE don't 'need' to sell because they are 'Comfortable' with the situation...

@get2sammyb I tend to agree with @themightyant in that most of the 'features' are not that great or worth copying. Haptic feedback is just an evolution of the rumble. The XB1 added rumble triggers for more haptic feedback and then the Switch took it to the next level and now Sony have incorporated a high level Haptic feedback solution to the DS5. It wouldn't be 'copying' though as Sony are essentially copying others.

Adaptive Triggers get very tedious very quickly for me so I am not bothered if NO-ONE copies this. The Xbox Elite has had the option to adjust the Trigger pull and fully customise the controller, including the tension on Thumbsticks etc so again Sony have 'copied'.

Microphone and Speaker are not great either - the speaker is terrible quality, really tinny and dislike having a 'mic' on my controller. Never liked Gyro controls and considering Sony have included it since the DS3, it really hasn't taken off or worth copying. The touchpad is most often used as a 'button'. It really isn't 'easy' to use as a trackpad in games either.

I hated aspects of games like Infamous 2nd Son that made you try and use the clunky gyroscopic controls to 'mimic' spray painting, hated aspects of Astro (PS5) - blowing into mics, having to use the gyro etc - stopped me ever bothering to finish. If I can turn off Gyro, Mic, Speaker, Adaptive Triggers and even tone down some of the 'Haptics', I do because these are often more irritating and/or distracting to me. I also don't need a massive button across the top of the controller either...

That being said, I also believe its better to have and not need/use than to need/want but not have. I don't think any of those 'features' actually improve the controller or make a big difference in games. I don't want to be 'fighting' the tension on a trigger for 'hours' of playing - especially if most of that time is spent in battles I want/need something that will do the job as easily and as comfortably as possible to enjoy the game.

I can see the Haptics being improved on Xbox - whether you'd call that 'copying' Sony (or Nintendo who first demonstrated haptic feedback beyond 'just' rumble) or just evolving their own more basic Haptics to 'catch up' to others, maybe even the Adaptive triggers, but Gyro, Mic/speaker and touchpad, I don't know but we will see.

time will tell of course and what Sony considers 'big' or 'important' for them in 2023 may not necessarily be 'big' for all their customers.

PSVR2 is expected in 2023 - with its own Software - and will be one area that Sony has complete dominance over in the Console space - the ONLY console to offer VR gaming. Whether that's 'very important' or not, will depend on whether it appeals, whether or not it sells well etc.

Spider-Man 2 is expected towards the end of 2023 but apart from Wolverine, I can't think of any other typical Sony first party Single Player projects announced. Maybe they have some 'big' announcements to share but other than 3rd Party developed games (inc some Exclusives like Forspoken), I would be surprised if they had something to 'release' we don't know about.

The exception to that is 'Live Service' games. Last of Us 'Factions', Horizon Multi-player and whatever else they were supposedly have in the works. Sony have said they had many 'Live Service' games in the works and could release 1 or more in 2023.

What maybe 'very important' to Sony though may not be as important to their customers. If the 'above' is their 2023, it would be 'disappointing' from my perspective as I have no interest in VR gaming and little/no interest in Live Service either so if the 'Only' first party exclusive game I'm interested in is Spider-Man 2, its not a 'great' year for PS5 for me...

As I said, Time will Tell and by this time 'next' year, we will know if its been a great year for PS5 owners...

Rumours are always likely to occur when there is clearly a different priority between platforms (for whatever reasons). In this case, its clear that the PS5 version was optimised and more ready to release than other versions - or, to put it another way, the other versions need more 'work' to bring them up to an equivalent and an acceptable level.

Why that is, who knows? But when you hear that Sony 'helped' out and have 'extra' ONLY on PS content, then people will make assumptions on that, inc coming to the Conclusion that 'Sony' either helped get the game out to a higher standard on their console or even scuppered the other versions for their own gain.

Until people have the 'full' story with all the information, its unsurprising why 'little' pieces of info lead people to fill in the gaps themselves to try and ascertain why a game they had been looking forward to, a game they spent a lot of money on, is 'terrible' on their platform with no 'logical' reason it should be - especially compared to the PS version.

To me, it always looked like they were 'rushing' to try and get it out before Christmas and if you have to ensure ANY version shows off the Potential of the game, make it the one that is being marketed and promoted the most and then get the others up to standard after release. Even on PS5, I don't think its the game they 'really' wanted to release, its just the 'game' they had the time to build before the release date on such a wide range of Hardware SKU's as its also a 'Last Gen' game!

@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...

@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...

@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...

@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...

@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...

@Grimwood It basically means that Every Xbox published game will be available to play on day 1 via Game Pass at NO extra cost. If Starfield, Redfall and Forza all released today, I could play ALL 3 without needing to pay anything so its 'effectively' Free.

Its no different from PS+/Gold offering 'free' games every month. Yes there is a 'fee' involved, but its not for a Specific game, its for the 'service' of which 'free' games is a 'perk' of that service.