@BamBamBaklava89 first, it’s on top of any other fees you pay.
The fees also kick in after the game makes 200k, not you. Let’s say you publish your fame on PS, and they take 30%, you actually made 140k.
Let’s say you hired an additional developer (artist, whatever) and you managed to pay them only minimum wage, that’s still likely at least 30k less a year. It all quickly adds up and you might not even make a profit yourself ar the end of all other expenses.
Now, it’s not a “one time fee”, it’s not a per-sale fee, but a per “initialization” fee. They have stared so far this is about initializing the game it actually the install. So, if someone buys a game, installs if, uninstalls it, deletes all save data and re-installs, you need to pay again.
In consoles, every user that launches the game gets its own “initialization”, so a single sold copy might get multiple initializations.
Then there is piracy, they claim they can detect this, but can they? If they can actually detect piracy so reliably, then why the heck does the runtime simply not refuse to run when it knows it’s pirated?
If the game is FTP, in the hope of charging an upgrade fee or earn money via DLC, and you get unlucky, you might have millions of installs but barely any revenue. You can easily find yourself in a position where you barely earn 10 cents per install in average, but now you owe Unity 20c per install.
Honestly, at the end, it’s just best if they take the percentage royalty the way Unreal does on their free license tier, because the royalty will always be just a percentage of your revenue and not ever be higher than your revenue. Even then, Unreal still offers a tier where you can pay per-developer yearly license that results in no royalty payments.
Another horrible thing is Unity wants to apply this to every game made with unity already published. Even if it was published 10 years ago and no longer getting patches. This might make many developers decide to entirely delist games, if possible in ways that prevent even re-downloading, because all re-downloads will result in even more money owed to Unity.
@Cashews I almost got a 3k PC exclusively for the game... so the tag would be above 1.5k...
"lucky" me, due to part shortages my order got cancelled and due to other RL issues ended up just playing it on my laptop, that has a 3080 so still rather decent experience.
When I hype on a game, I tend to throw quite a bit of money at the thing. With Tears of the Kingdom, I got the OLED switch, Amiibos, and the special edition controller. Yes, I also got the Starfield xbox controller...
It's not often I hype that much. Last two games I hyped on were Assassins Creed Valhalla and Final Fantasy 7 Remake (I ended up buying that game 3 times... The collector's edition that didn't arrive day one, the digital edition so I could play it day one, and later on Intergrade on PS5.)
@GamingFan4Lyf I did buy the full game… twice. I paid $300 for the constellation edition for PC, meaning Steam (same reason I bought the Tears of the Kingdom OLED switch…. Because I’m an idiot) and and also bought the Windows Store $100 version so I could play it across Xbox, PC and xCloud with cloud saves.
As for buying DLC for games in Game Pass, i don’t think is any stranger than buying DLC for physical games you might later sell, trade in or give away.
@Cherip-the-Ripper they don’t care. They won’t care next week even if the full game release somehow hits the #1 spots. (Something I highly doubt since the best selling version will be on steam, GP will highly dilute the sales of the Xbox version.)
It’s all about trying to make others feel they are not actually missing out on a great game and they should stop thinking about the game absolutely everyone else is playing and talking about.
Edit: another thing to keep in mind: everyone that buys this upgrade is also a GamePass subscriber, and for some odd reason still buying a retail code for a game they could had easily paid on their consoles for. If they counted the sales made directly from Xbox consoles, Windows Marketplace or Steam (digitally) its certain it would rank higher. How much higher is anyone’s guess.
Don't have much time to play, and Starfield is around the corner. I wont have time to play anything for months. So not buying it unless I see it on a big sale.
Even if the game came out on the same day as the PS version, it’s unlikely it would do well on Xbox since it will be head to head against Starfield.
Even with the game still will be earlier on PlayStation, it’s been out a lot longer on PC and even Steamdeck certified. It’s not that big of a celebration, at least based on all the “you can also play that game on PC” opinions that we tend to hear.
Starting to sound as another Red Dead Redemption situation where the best way to play is the Xbox BC versions. Sadly, those versions got delisted, and only playable if anyone already owned them.
Always found it ironic that some players are terrified about a time when Game Pass will force players to subscribe to play some games when it’s been Nintendo and Sony that make some of the titles in the service unavailable for purchase.
Yea in the case of Sony it’s third parties, but they should honestly not allow that of them. If the game wants to be in the service, it should also be up for sale. Glad Namco is finally listing these for sale.
@Grumblevolcano Microsoft is in a “can’t lose” situation. If the deal is not cancelled, they get extra money (something the board demands with this purchase.) CoD makes ridiculous amounts of money, so 10% can be huge.
If they cancel the deal, they get to put the game on GP day one, boosting subscriptions.
Either way, they can’t cancel the deal until the acquisition goes through, and canceling the deal once the marketing machine starts moving is counter-intuitive.
@Grumblevolcano I think they will. This whole thing is about bureaucratic processing, not changing minds. The CMA practically told the judge that they were convinced what MS was proposing changed their minds.
@UmaBunda I said the combination.
Numbers we have (i assume estimates, if you have a more better source provide it) for FFXV are:
Total 10m,
PS4 5.07m (50.7%)
XBO 1.14m (10.14%)
PC 3.79m (37.9%, based on subtracting the consoles from the total)
Going exclusive on PS can potentially halve sales for a triple A title.
People here are trying to rationalize this too much just to defend a piece of plastic…
Releasing on Xbox would have meant additional sales. If we went by historical performance, likely an additional million units, but that’s not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is not launching on PC day one. It does not matter if PS was the best selling version, they are still cutting down their potential market significantly by not being on both PC and XBox too. The number could had easily been 5 to 6 million instead of 3 without exclusivity.
@nhSnork sadly, games with too much content, take too long to play through. That, in turn, aggravates reviewers and "influencers", so the narrative is spun that such games are "bad".
@Northern_munkey I really like that approach personally. Easy platinums bore me. Someone just wants to play the story, let them. Someone wants the platinum? Then do all the side content.
I actually rather do 300 hours of side content for a platinum than. Repeat levels to collect missable collectibles or replay the game in new game plus or do some shoe-horned online mode.
@zhoont I think this was PC, and it’s one of the many reasons I prefer playing on consoles. Much harder for a game to disguise purchases in a way that you don’t even realize they happened.
I thought PlayStation gamers liked to support devs and pay for their games… this is the same price it is listed for at Steam, and the game sold very well there despite being on GamePass.
Why would anyone expect $20 price tag when the game costs $60 on Steam and Xbox?
Never got around to give it a try, but really liked the concept. Not a multiplayer gamer but always was tempted to give it a shot. Really felt the formula fit Gundam perfectly.
Perhaps this would had lived much longer as a paid game…
And please don't counter with "Psygnosis in 1995" like it's even in the same universe as what's happening here.
I can partially see what you mean, but lets not underplay it either. The gaming industry as a whole was way smaller at back then, and Psygnosis, at the time, accounted for 40% of all video game sales in all of Europe. Really doubt ABK is that big these days, relatively speaking. ABK is bigger simply because the market is way bigger, also way way more diverse than it was back then.
The biggest issue with this is we are coming to a point we can’t believe anything Sony tells us, since they keep blatantly lying.
I still like most of their games, and will continue to play them (after they hit a deep discount) but can’t trust anything they try to tell us.
Edit: no, consoles are not special, the game would had worked on a PS4 had they tried, and no, lack of an NVME drive won’t change graphics or frame rate… why would anyone think that??? That’s not how things work…the drive would at best impact the loading times. Maybe the fake transition between dimensions will be a bit longer, but no, the game won’t perform any worse simply because of the HDD. Why so many feel the need to blindly defend lies?
@Gunnerzaurus If I was ignoring it I would had not typed it myself. I cant exactly copy and paste text from a screenshot. I also stated they were not initially offering 10 year. They offered 5 years for all existing IP. 2027 would had been 5 years from the time, this all started on Jan 2022 and would had likely ended in 2028 had it actually been signed now.
It’s very likely that would had been a renewable contract, renewals are always possibilities. Personally, as someone that does not care about CoD, I would have preferred 5 years of sequels to games like Crash, Spyro and Tony Hawk than 10 more years of CoD.
@Martsmall lets be fair, it was a very busy news week and the trial was not all editors here had to cover. We have the luxury to focus on our topics of interest, but the editors here have a whole industry to cover, and as noisy as this deal has been, there is a lot more they need to cover every single day.
Plus, info on the case was dense as hell.
There are tons of tidbits that didn't get cover by Push Square or Pure Xbox. You had to follow a ton of sources to get a full picture.
@get2sammyb I'm very curious too. The email exchange they had also pointed at Jim's desire to end CoD marketing deal early, that would revert the revenue share to the standard 30/70 from 20/80, but also would mean this year's CoD would no longer be held by PS market exclusivity deals, no exclusive DLC, early access, nor any blocks on MS adding it to Game Pass.
Honestly, if I was MS (not Xbox,) I would had insisted on keeping the deal as it would make certain more money flows towards their coffers, and delay Game Pass "sales cannibalization" by a year. We do also know from testimony this deal was only green-lit with the goals that it will instantly start flowing money in.
I don't think we will find out if the deal involves any other existing IP, because doing that would be as good as announcing the sequels potentially too early.
@LiamCroft sorry for the reply spam but was able to read more into the second email in the linked tweet and edited my post accordingly. It seems Phil's refusal to consider this that really discouraged Jim from considering a deal.
@STOBO there was a deal, and it included all ABK IP that had already shown on PS. It was not a 10 year deal, but it was always meant to be renewed. 10 years is way above what anyone in their same mind would sign under normal situations.
So maybe Jim’s lobbying resulted in them not having to worry about renewing for 10 years, but now PS players are 100% at MS mercy if they ever hope to see another Crash, Spyro or Tony Hawk game on PS.
I can play all games i buy offline even if they are in Game Pass, and I don’t even need my Xbox online to play games I download from game pass. I think my primary Xbox only needs to be online for the download and once a month for installed game pass games to be playable.
Always online means the game won’t work at all if your internet goes down for the day or if the servers are overloaded.
If Jim had not been so greedy, they would had managed to secure absolutely all existing IP remained on PS, not just CoD.
We now know that Phill actually offered that for all IP that had shipped on PS4, meaning also all future entries of games like Crash and Spyro. But no, Jimmy wanted everything, even Bethesda games, to sign a deal. Now, they only end up getting CoD.
I continue to stand behind the written agreement I sent you on January 31, 2022 with my signature memorializing our commitment to Sony. The agreement would keep all existing Activation console titles on Sony, including future versions in the Call of Duty franchise or any other current Activision franchise on Sony, through December 31, 2027. That includes content and feature parity, as well as making it clear that we would not feature any timed-exclusive releases of such content on Xbox consoles.
Regarding Bethesda, I was making a more general point during our discussion that the equal treatment of Bethesda games would be logical subject for the parties to discuss because it involves some of the same concerns as the availability and/or unequal treatment of Activision games. We would welcome discussing this subject as part of an agreement that advances the two fundamental principles discussed above.
@PsBoxSwitchOwner these are UK numbers so not shocking. I wish we had reliable access to global sales numbers. UK has never been a good measuring stick for global trends.
@TheCollector316 She came to the right conclusion based on all presented evidence. Like it or not, the FTC went in there with zero case. The entirety of their case fell apart the second Phil Spencer, under oath, swore he would keep CoD on PlayStation, and if that was not enough, it was further destroyed by MS upper management making it clear the deal was green-lit with the condition that it had to be 100% profitable day one, something that prevents the Xbox team from making CoD Xbox console exclusive.
The only reason, in the US, a temporary injunction would be granted is if there is imminent and irreparable damages, and that was all the Judge was here to judge upon.
The only potential damages the FTC was able to bring up were all focused on CoD exclusivity, but as the Judge stated: Sony still has a legally binding agreement with these games through 2024.
There are two whole years before there could be any damages, enough time for the FTC to actually go through proper channels, prove MS does intend to weaponize CoD (again, assuming Phil Spencer and Natia both lied under oath) and force a divestiture of all ABK assets.
And that is even assuming that CoD becoming Xbox exclusive could even indeed do irreparable damage to consumers and/or competition. Jim Ryan himself is on the record as stating they would be more than OK even if CoD became Xbox console exclusive.
TLDR: there is no evidence of any imminent, nor irreparable, damages. No judge would grant that injunction, at least not based on the continued CoD grounds.
Good. The FTC may have not won their case, but they were right.
They lost their case. The only way the appeal will be accepted, and block extended, is if somehow they manage to prove some level of impropriety in Corley's decision. Chances of that are next to zero. They cant even raise the claim of the Judge's son working at MS given the Judge disclosed it and offered to recuse before the trial started, and at this point they would have to bring impeachment-level evidence to make that a valid point.
Although the deal will end up going through, I have to give credit to the FTC for actually doing their job unlike many other regulators around the globe, plus even if it's just stalling the deal and making Microsoft wait longer and longer, it's great to see.
If the FTC had done their job, their case would had at least had a chance at winning against MS. I see zero issue with this deal going through, and yet I could had still put a stronger case against the deal than the FTC did.
The FTC is not doing their job, they are just in a temper-tantrum and wasting taxpayer money.
@StrawberryTurtle The concession being rumored right now points simply at the UK losing access to Game Pass Cloud Streaming, not something that will benefit absolutely anyone.
I don't think there will be an extension. The deal will almost certainly close starting Monday. Anything the CMA negotiates will either be revealed by then or post-closing. The CMA has in the past continued their procedures even post-acquisitions, and at times forced entities to sell their acquired assets.
I mean, to be fair, Sony is in the position it's in because it has continuously created compelling products
That’s a factor but Sony is where it is, in my humble opinion, more thanks to third party exclusivity and marketing deals than due to the games they create.
Edit:
I think the only one that can claim to be in the position they are primarily based on the games they create is Nintendo.
I’m not sure if I ever heard whether this 10 yr COD agreement had any stipulation of how PlayStation maintains access to COD. Is it contingent upon running it through a GamePass app?
Native Call of Duty on PlayStation, not linked to them having to carry Game Pass, not streaming. If they want a streaming version of Call of Duty we could do that as well, just like we do on our own consoles.
There’s nothing behind my back. It is the Call of Duty Modern Warfare II doing great on PlayStation, doing great on Xbox. The next game, the next, next, next, next, next [game]. Native on the platform, not having to subscribe to Game Pass. Sony does not have to take Game Pass on their platform to make that happen.
There’s nothing hidden. We want to continue to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation without any kind of weird ‘aha I figured out the gotcha’ as Phil said ‘our intent.’ I understand some people’s concerns on this, and I’m just trying to be as clear as I can be.
The main way this will impact Sony is that all that game revenue will now go to Microsoft's gaming budget. This will allow Xbox Games Studios to grow much faster, but not at Sony's expense.
@TheCollector316 I'm not looking to brag, so hopefully this does not come across that way, but I think we had an exchange a bit ago and I did tell you this was going to happen.
@dimi because those numbers are hard or impossible to come by.
Platforms don’t like to report digital game sales, Sony does not let third party sell digital codes, so digital sales data would be limited to few retailers that be willing to report their share of digital code sales for Xbox and switch games. Would still not count games purchased on the consoles themselves.
Only games we end up getting reliable sales data for are successful ones were the publisher decided to brag by releasing numbers.
@UltimateOtaku91 I actually expect them to do another big move next year, maybe near the end of the year.
If an opportunity like Sega actually opens up, I doubt they will let it slip. Also do think they might try to acquire some minor studios in between now and then, though, since its basically impossible to do those while doing a major deal, and a major deal is way more likely to just take too long to risk delaying more minor acquisitions.
So, maybe start of 2025 we hear about their next big publisher target, and we get a few studios throughout 2024.
Edit: this whole ordeal would had gone through a lot faster if it was not due to CoD. Its not about it being a pulbisher but the impact of such a large IP being under MS control that worried various regulators in different ways. Most markets focused nearly exclusively on its impact to cloud, the FTC about the overall market influence the IP might have.
Cant think of any other company with a large enough IP to cause such a regulatory outcry. Players? Yea players will complain regardless what gets acquired.
Comments 1,678
Re: Developers Rally Together as Unity Attempts to Clarify Controversial Install Fee Policy
@BamBamBaklava89 first, it’s on top of any other fees you pay.
The fees also kick in after the game makes 200k, not you. Let’s say you publish your fame on PS, and they take 30%, you actually made 140k.
Let’s say you hired an additional developer (artist, whatever) and you managed to pay them only minimum wage, that’s still likely at least 30k less a year. It all quickly adds up and you might not even make a profit yourself ar the end of all other expenses.
Now, it’s not a “one time fee”, it’s not a per-sale fee, but a per “initialization” fee. They have stared so far this is about initializing the game it actually the install. So, if someone buys a game, installs if, uninstalls it, deletes all save data and re-installs, you need to pay again.
In consoles, every user that launches the game gets its own “initialization”, so a single sold copy might get multiple initializations.
Then there is piracy, they claim they can detect this, but can they? If they can actually detect piracy so reliably, then why the heck does the runtime simply not refuse to run when it knows it’s pirated?
If the game is FTP, in the hope of charging an upgrade fee or earn money via DLC, and you get unlucky, you might have millions of installs but barely any revenue. You can easily find yourself in a position where you barely earn 10 cents per install in average, but now you owe Unity 20c per install.
Honestly, at the end, it’s just best if they take the percentage royalty the way Unreal does on their free license tier, because the royalty will always be just a percentage of your revenue and not ever be higher than your revenue. Even then, Unreal still offers a tier where you can pay per-developer yearly license that results in no royalty payments.
Another horrible thing is Unity wants to apply this to every game made with unity already published. Even if it was published 10 years ago and no longer getting patches. This might make many developers decide to entirely delist games, if possible in ways that prevent even re-downloading, because all re-downloads will result in even more money owed to Unity.
Re: UK Sales Charts: Starfield Soars While Mortal Kombat Hype Brings Back 11
@GamingFan4Lyf lol, as I said, RL got in the way of me just placing another order. Cars are expensive
Re: UK Sales Charts: Starfield Soars While Mortal Kombat Hype Brings Back 11
@Cashews I almost got a 3k PC exclusively for the game... so the tag would be above 1.5k...
"lucky" me, due to part shortages my order got cancelled and due to other RL issues ended up just playing it on my laptop, that has a 3080 so still rather decent experience.
When I hype on a game, I tend to throw quite a bit of money at the thing. With Tears of the Kingdom, I got the OLED switch, Amiibos, and the special edition controller. Yes, I also got the Starfield xbox controller...
It's not often I hype that much. Last two games I hyped on were Assassins Creed Valhalla and Final Fantasy 7 Remake (I ended up buying that game 3 times... The collector's edition that didn't arrive day one, the digital edition so I could play it day one, and later on Intergrade on PS5.)
Re: UK Sales Charts: Starfield Soars While Mortal Kombat Hype Brings Back 11
@GamingFan4Lyf I did buy the full game… twice. I paid $300 for the constellation edition for PC, meaning Steam (same reason I bought the Tears of the Kingdom OLED switch…. Because I’m an idiot) and and also bought the Windows Store $100 version so I could play it across Xbox, PC and xCloud with cloud saves.
As for buying DLC for games in Game Pass, i don’t think is any stranger than buying DLC for physical games you might later sell, trade in or give away.
Re: UK Sales Charts: Starfield Soars While Mortal Kombat Hype Brings Back 11
I’m actually surprised at the #1 ranking for Starfield given it’s on Game Pass, and given how drastically Xbox users tilt towards digital.
At the same time, zero surprise at peope trying to rationalize it and make up excuses why it’s doing so well. Few things are as expected as that.
Re: UK Sales Charts: Hogwarts Legacy on Top as Armored Core 6 Drops
@Cherip-the-Ripper my FFXIV character.
Re: UK Sales Charts: Hogwarts Legacy on Top as Armored Core 6 Drops
@Cherip-the-Ripper they don’t care. They won’t care next week even if the full game release somehow hits the #1 spots. (Something I highly doubt since the best selling version will be on steam, GP will highly dilute the sales of the Xbox version.)
It’s all about trying to make others feel they are not actually missing out on a great game and they should stop thinking about the game absolutely everyone else is playing and talking about.
Edit: another thing to keep in mind: everyone that buys this upgrade is also a GamePass subscriber, and for some odd reason still buying a retail code for a game they could had easily paid on their consoles for. If they counted the sales made directly from Xbox consoles, Windows Marketplace or Steam (digitally) its certain it would rank higher. How much higher is anyone’s guess.
Re: Preview: Persona 3 Reload Shows So Much Promise Despite Missing Features
This game will be an exception to my “no day one” game list, alongside Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth.
Re: Poll: Did You Buy Armored Core 6?
Don't have much time to play, and Starfield is around the corner. I wont have time to play anything for months. So not buying it unless I see it on a big sale.
Re: Baldur's Gate 3's Accidental PS5 Console Exclusivity Truncated as Xbox Backtracks
Even if the game came out on the same day as the PS version, it’s unlikely it would do well on Xbox since it will be head to head against Starfield.
Even with the game still will be earlier on PlayStation, it’s been out a lot longer on PC and even Steamdeck certified. It’s not that big of a celebration, at least based on all the “you can also play that game on PC” opinions that we tend to hear.
Re: Assassin's Creed's Smartphone Spin-Off Has a Very Familiar Final Name
Looking forward to play this on my Logitech G-Cloud.
Re: PS2 Games Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 Will Be Just 720p on PS5, PS4
Starting to sound as another Red Dead Redemption situation where the best way to play is the Xbox BC versions. Sadly, those versions got delisted, and only playable if anyone already owned them.
Re: You Can Now Buy PS Plus Premium Classics Tekken 2, Ridge Racer Type 4, More
Always found it ironic that some players are terrified about a time when Game Pass will force players to subscribe to play some games when it’s been Nintendo and Sony that make some of the titles in the service unavailable for purchase.
Yea in the case of Sony it’s third parties, but they should honestly not allow that of them. If the game wants to be in the service, it should also be up for sale. Glad Namco is finally listing these for sale.
Re: Amid Ongoing ActiBlizz Acquisition Saga, Modern Warfare 3 Will Be Playable First on PS5, PS4
@Grumblevolcano Microsoft is in a “can’t lose” situation. If the deal is not cancelled, they get extra money (something the board demands with this purchase.) CoD makes ridiculous amounts of money, so 10% can be huge.
If they cancel the deal, they get to put the game on GP day one, boosting subscriptions.
Either way, they can’t cancel the deal until the acquisition goes through, and canceling the deal once the marketing machine starts moving is counter-intuitive.
Re: Amid Ongoing ActiBlizz Acquisition Saga, Modern Warfare 3 Will Be Playable First on PS5, PS4
@Grumblevolcano I think they will. This whole thing is about bureaucratic processing, not changing minds. The CMA practically told the judge that they were convinced what MS was proposing changed their minds.
Re: Amid Ongoing ActiBlizz Acquisition Saga, Modern Warfare 3 Will Be Playable First on PS5, PS4
This means that Sony wasn’t able to stop their marketing deal earlier as they wanted, and at least for another year they will be on a 20%/80% split.
CoD MW3, and maybe MW2, will also likely be blocked from entering GP even if ABK deal closes tomorrow.
End of the day, this means one more year of status quo for Sony, and a LOT more money into MS coffers.
I would not call this a “marketing win” because we have emails by Jim himself stating they wanted to get rid of the marketing deal.
Re: Square Enix Bafflingly Backtracks on Final Fantasy 16 Sales, Blames 'Slow' PS5 Adoption
@UmaBunda I said the combination.
Numbers we have (i assume estimates, if you have a more better source provide it) for FFXV are:
Total 10m,
PS4 5.07m (50.7%)
XBO 1.14m (10.14%)
PC 3.79m (37.9%, based on subtracting the consoles from the total)
Going exclusive on PS can potentially halve sales for a triple A title.
Re: Square Enix Bafflingly Backtracks on Final Fantasy 16 Sales, Blames 'Slow' PS5 Adoption
People here are trying to rationalize this too much just to defend a piece of plastic…
Releasing on Xbox would have meant additional sales. If we went by historical performance, likely an additional million units, but that’s not the biggest issue. The biggest issue is not launching on PC day one. It does not matter if PS was the best selling version, they are still cutting down their potential market significantly by not being on both PC and XBox too. The number could had easily been 5 to 6 million instead of 3 without exclusivity.
Re: Square Enix Bafflingly Backtracks on Final Fantasy 16 Sales, Blames 'Slow' PS5 Adoption
Wonder if this means they are finally going to stop crippling their sales with exclusivity deals.
Re: Don't Worry, Ubisoft Promises Star Wars Outlaws Won't Be a '300 Hour Epic Unfinishable RPG'
@nhSnork sadly, games with too much content, take too long to play through. That, in turn, aggravates reviewers and "influencers", so the narrative is spun that such games are "bad".
Re: Don't Worry, Ubisoft Promises Star Wars Outlaws Won't Be a '300 Hour Epic Unfinishable RPG'
@Northern_munkey I really like that approach personally. Easy platinums bore me. Someone just wants to play the story, let them. Someone wants the platinum? Then do all the side content.
I actually rather do 300 hours of side content for a platinum than. Repeat levels to collect missable collectibles or replay the game in new game plus or do some shoe-horned online mode.
Re: Don't Worry, Ubisoft Promises Star Wars Outlaws Won't Be a '300 Hour Epic Unfinishable RPG'
Call me crazy but I do hope there is enough optional side content to let me sink 300 hours the way I done with Valhalla. Just don’t make it mandatory.
Re: Blizzard Accused of Malicious Design as Diablo 4 Players Accidentally Activate Premium Battle Pass
@zhoont I think this was PC, and it’s one of the many reasons I prefer playing on consoles. Much harder for a game to disguise purchases in a way that you don’t even realize they happened.
Re: All of a Sudden, High on Life Is Out Now on PS5, PS4
I thought PlayStation gamers liked to support devs and pay for their games… this is the same price it is listed for at Steam, and the game sold very well there despite being on GamePass.
Why would anyone expect $20 price tag when the game costs $60 on Steam and Xbox?
Re: Square Enix Happy with Final Fantasy 16 Sales, Considers Them 'Extremely Strong'
This can’t be right…. Did their regular PR person get sick or something?
Re: Yet Another Live Service Game Is Shutting Down After Just One Year
Never got around to give it a try, but really liked the concept. Not a multiplayer gamer but always was tempted to give it a shot. Really felt the formula fit Gundam perfectly.
Perhaps this would had lived much longer as a paid game…
Re: Microsoft Extends Deadline of $69 Billion Activision Blizzard Acquisition
@get2sammyb
I can partially see what you mean, but lets not underplay it either. The gaming industry as a whole was way smaller at back then, and Psygnosis, at the time, accounted for 40% of all video game sales in all of Europe. Really doubt ABK is that big these days, relatively speaking. ABK is bigger simply because the market is way bigger, also way way more diverse than it was back then.
Re: Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart PC Doesn't Actually Need an SSD
The biggest issue with this is we are coming to a point we can’t believe anything Sony tells us, since they keep blatantly lying.
I still like most of their games, and will continue to play them (after they hit a deep discount) but can’t trust anything they try to tell us.
Edit: no, consoles are not special, the game would had worked on a PS4 had they tried, and no, lack of an NVME drive won’t change graphics or frame rate… why would anyone think that??? That’s not how things work…the drive would at best impact the loading times. Maybe the fake transition between dimensions will be a bit longer, but no, the game won’t perform any worse simply because of the HDD. Why so many feel the need to blindly defend lies?
Re: Sony and Microsoft Sign a 'Binding Agreement' to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation
@Gunnerzaurus If I was ignoring it I would had not typed it myself. I cant exactly copy and paste text from a screenshot. I also stated they were not initially offering 10 year. They offered 5 years for all existing IP. 2027 would had been 5 years from the time, this all started on Jan 2022 and would had likely ended in 2028 had it actually been signed now.
It’s very likely that would had been a renewable contract, renewals are always possibilities. Personally, as someone that does not care about CoD, I would have preferred 5 years of sequels to games like Crash, Spyro and Tony Hawk than 10 more years of CoD.
Re: Sony and Microsoft Sign a 'Binding Agreement' to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation
@Martsmall lets be fair, it was a very busy news week and the trial was not all editors here had to cover. We have the luxury to focus on our topics of interest, but the editors here have a whole industry to cover, and as noisy as this deal has been, there is a lot more they need to cover every single day.
Plus, info on the case was dense as hell.
There are tons of tidbits that didn't get cover by Push Square or Pure Xbox. You had to follow a ton of sources to get a full picture.
Re: Sony and Microsoft Sign a 'Binding Agreement' to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation
@get2sammyb I'm very curious too. The email exchange they had also pointed at Jim's desire to end CoD marketing deal early, that would revert the revenue share to the standard 30/70 from 20/80, but also would mean this year's CoD would no longer be held by PS market exclusivity deals, no exclusive DLC, early access, nor any blocks on MS adding it to Game Pass.
Honestly, if I was MS (not Xbox,) I would had insisted on keeping the deal as it would make certain more money flows towards their coffers, and delay Game Pass "sales cannibalization" by a year. We do also know from testimony this deal was only green-lit with the goals that it will instantly start flowing money in.
I don't think we will find out if the deal involves any other existing IP, because doing that would be as good as announcing the sequels potentially too early.
Re: Sony and Microsoft Sign a 'Binding Agreement' to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation
@LiamCroft sorry for the reply spam but was able to read more into the second email in the linked tweet and edited my post accordingly. It seems Phil's refusal to consider this that really discouraged Jim from considering a deal.
Re: Sony and Microsoft Sign a 'Binding Agreement' to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation
@thefourfoldroot1 see my post above.
Re: Sony and Microsoft Sign a 'Binding Agreement' to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation
@LiamCroft found it:
Link
edit: removing redundancy, moved my quotes to my original post.
Re: Sony and Microsoft Sign a 'Binding Agreement' to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation
@STOBO there was a deal, and it included all ABK IP that had already shown on PS. It was not a 10 year deal, but it was always meant to be renewed. 10 years is way above what anyone in their same mind would sign under normal situations.
So maybe Jim’s lobbying resulted in them not having to worry about renewing for 10 years, but now PS players are 100% at MS mercy if they ever hope to see another Crash, Spyro or Tony Hawk game on PS.
Re: PS5 Heist Shooter PAYDAY 3 Will Seemingly Require an Internet Connection At All Times
@riceNpea you might have to explain how?
I can play all games i buy offline even if they are in Game Pass, and I don’t even need my Xbox online to play games I download from game pass. I think my primary Xbox only needs to be online for the download and once a month for installed game pass games to be playable.
Always online means the game won’t work at all if your internet goes down for the day or if the servers are overloaded.
Re: Sony and Microsoft Sign a 'Binding Agreement' to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation
If Jim had not been so greedy, they would had managed to secure absolutely all existing IP remained on PS, not just CoD.
We now know that Phill actually offered that for all IP that had shipped on PS4, meaning also all future entries of games like Crash and Spyro. But no, Jimmy wanted everything, even Bethesda games, to sign a deal. Now, they only end up getting CoD.
Editing the post with source:
Link
Phil wrote:
Jim wrote:
Re: PS5 Heist Shooter PAYDAY 3 Will Seemingly Require an Internet Connection At All Times
Interesting, a big part of why I never have these games a chance is I always thought they were online-only games…
Re: PS5 Was the UK's Best Selling Console in June, Biggest Games Perform Best Digitally
@PsBoxSwitchOwner these are UK numbers so not shocking. I wish we had reliable access to global sales numbers. UK has never been a good measuring stick for global trends.
Re: The FTC Officially Files an Appeal Against Microsoft-Activision Court Victory
@TheCollector316 She came to the right conclusion based on all presented evidence. Like it or not, the FTC went in there with zero case. The entirety of their case fell apart the second Phil Spencer, under oath, swore he would keep CoD on PlayStation, and if that was not enough, it was further destroyed by MS upper management making it clear the deal was green-lit with the condition that it had to be 100% profitable day one, something that prevents the Xbox team from making CoD Xbox console exclusive.
The only reason, in the US, a temporary injunction would be granted is if there is imminent and irreparable damages, and that was all the Judge was here to judge upon.
The only potential damages the FTC was able to bring up were all focused on CoD exclusivity, but as the Judge stated: Sony still has a legally binding agreement with these games through 2024.
There are two whole years before there could be any damages, enough time for the FTC to actually go through proper channels, prove MS does intend to weaponize CoD (again, assuming Phil Spencer and Natia both lied under oath) and force a divestiture of all ABK assets.
And that is even assuming that CoD becoming Xbox exclusive could even indeed do irreparable damage to consumers and/or competition. Jim Ryan himself is on the record as stating they would be more than OK even if CoD became Xbox console exclusive.
TLDR: there is no evidence of any imminent, nor irreparable, damages. No judge would grant that injunction, at least not based on the continued CoD grounds.
Re: The FTC Officially Files an Appeal Against Microsoft-Activision Court Victory
@TheCollector316
They lost their case. The only way the appeal will be accepted, and block extended, is if somehow they manage to prove some level of impropriety in Corley's decision. Chances of that are next to zero. They cant even raise the claim of the Judge's son working at MS given the Judge disclosed it and offered to recuse before the trial started, and at this point they would have to bring impeachment-level evidence to make that a valid point.
Re: The FTC Officially Files an Appeal Against Microsoft-Activision Court Victory
@UltimateOtaku91
If the FTC had done their job, their case would had at least had a chance at winning against MS. I see zero issue with this deal going through, and yet I could had still put a stronger case against the deal than the FTC did.
The FTC is not doing their job, they are just in a temper-tantrum and wasting taxpayer money.
Re: UK Regulator 'Still Stands' by Decision to Block Xbox's $69 Billion Activision Blizzard Buyout
@StrawberryTurtle The concession being rumored right now points simply at the UK losing access to Game Pass Cloud Streaming, not something that will benefit absolutely anyone.
Re: UK Regulator 'Still Stands' by Decision to Block Xbox's $69 Billion Activision Blizzard Buyout
I don't think there will be an extension. The deal will almost certainly close starting Monday. Anything the CMA negotiates will either be revealed by then or post-closing. The CMA has in the past continued their procedures even post-acquisitions, and at times forced entities to sell their acquired assets.
Re: Reaction: What Happens to PlayStation if Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard?
@get2sammyb
That’s a factor but Sony is where it is, in my humble opinion, more thanks to third party exclusivity and marketing deals than due to the games they create.
Edit:
I think the only one that can claim to be in the position they are primarily based on the games they create is Nintendo.
Re: Reaction: What Happens to PlayStation if Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard?
@Th3solution
According to an interview with The Verge:
Re: Reaction: What Happens to PlayStation if Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard?
The main way this will impact Sony is that all that game revenue will now go to Microsoft's gaming budget. This will allow Xbox Games Studios to grow much faster, but not at Sony's expense.
Re: Microsoft Beats US Regulator FTC in Activision Blizzard Buyout Battle
@TheCollector316 I'm not looking to brag, so hopefully this does not come across that way, but I think we had an exchange a bit ago and I did tell you this was going to happen.
Re: UK Sales Charts: Final Fantasy 16 Booted from the Top While God of War Ragnarok Climbs
@dimi because those numbers are hard or impossible to come by.
Platforms don’t like to report digital game sales, Sony does not let third party sell digital codes, so digital sales data would be limited to few retailers that be willing to report their share of digital code sales for Xbox and switch games. Would still not count games purchased on the consoles themselves.
Only games we end up getting reliable sales data for are successful ones were the publisher decided to brag by releasing numbers.
Re: Canada Joins UK, US in Questioning Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Buyout
@UltimateOtaku91 I actually expect them to do another big move next year, maybe near the end of the year.
If an opportunity like Sega actually opens up, I doubt they will let it slip. Also do think they might try to acquire some minor studios in between now and then, though, since its basically impossible to do those while doing a major deal, and a major deal is way more likely to just take too long to risk delaying more minor acquisitions.
So, maybe start of 2025 we hear about their next big publisher target, and we get a few studios throughout 2024.
Edit: this whole ordeal would had gone through a lot faster if it was not due to CoD. Its not about it being a pulbisher but the impact of such a large IP being under MS control that worried various regulators in different ways. Most markets focused nearly exclusively on its impact to cloud, the FTC about the overall market influence the IP might have.
Cant think of any other company with a large enough IP to cause such a regulatory outcry. Players? Yea players will complain regardless what gets acquired.