@Somebody because let's be realistic here MS are full of it and first chance they get they'll remove COD or release a version on PlayStation that is missing features and content. Remember when MS PAID to ensure that Xbox was the only version of COD to have features like splitscreen online.... Sony have paid for exclusive content before but I don't think they've ever paid for such gameplay features to be exclusive. It's exactly the kind of thing MS would do.
@sanderson72 "stutter it's way to 30fps" um no it clearly states in the teview and I can confirm having spent several hours with it that it's a solid 30fps and I've seen bo frame rate drops.
@Tharsman nah the ps5 version of most cross gen first party exclusives have arguably outsold the ps4 versions. Look at miles morales and horizon. They hit number one in a number of countries whenever ps5 votes back in stock months after their release.
@Richnj a) they had 6 live service games in development and one was gt7. B) I said market dominance not the market leader there is a difference. Sony are the market leader - they clearly have lots of competition however and would still have without MS needing to consolidate and purchase waisting publishers and large studios like Bethesda.
C) a fair portion of gamers will be playing older games, playing nothing or playing ps plus games. Or they will be split into the 20 plus million who buy cod most years and some buy nothing else. Some will get other games too and some won't get cod at all. The audience that won't get cod is irrelevant to this conversation because their mates switching console/ecosystem could impact their choices.
Technically Sony didn't raise their prices it's the same in USD which they likely operate in given SCEI head office is in USA. They adjusted the prices to reflect significant inflation and devaluation of other currencies compared to the dollar thud meaning they are worth less so the prime must increase to be worth the effort.
@sanderson72 they'll do one of those for 3 years then start of next gen go exclusive to force gamers to pick. If people don't switch console it goes multiplat again. If it does goal well. That is that. Call of Duty unlike Minecraft has the selling power to force such a large change in buying habits.
@Richnj you realise deals like this only exist because MS started the trend. Sony spent the al ost the whole ps3 era refusing todo deals like this abs vein punished as a result. So they gave in and went where the money was. The first examples of this were titles like gta4 dlc, fallout 3, nee Vegas and skyrim dlc, battlefield games etc.
Also it is anti-competitive. Its classic Microsoft andbits what they eventually do or try todo in every industry and it does little but harm them. They've done this for decades. Here is the gamenplan: buy ip's like COD. Appear all nice and friendly and make them multiplatform for a year or two. Then as next gen consoles sales take off (ps6 etc) make thr big juggernauts exclusive. Bam a whole load of gamers just switched eco system. You keep at this for a short while you now have market dominance in the streaming and console space arguably in many ways on pc aswell. Call of duty is unassailable as market leader that much is clear at this point. You can tell this is the game plan because they are basically giving away games etc they spend billions acquiring and creating. They are a company so you only do that for a reason and the only reason is to force out competitors and/or shrink them to the point they are a shell of their former selves and can't compete. The astronomical infrastructure costs and other associated costs with entering the market means it will be prohibitive for any serious competitors to emerge to challenge themselves. Now games pass isn't profitable not in the way many seem to think and its obvious that's the case with a simple breakdown of what best case scenario costs are. But once you have market dominance and can't realistically be challenged. Guess what? Upngo thr prices. No incentive to bother delivering titles people want but to instead just make loads of long term mp based games with microtransactions and designed to release content over time to ensure people keep their
@Shepherd_Tallon I get ehat you are referring to but Nintendo are very much in their own niche not competing with Microsoft and Sony. Certainly in the west Call of Duty is the best selling game each and every year. It makes more money for the platform holders than all 1st party titles combined every year. It is practically a genre in its own right and its positionnas market leader is basically unassailable at this point due to brand recognition. If one platform holder has it as exclusive or even significant feature improvements- in 4/5 years time when the next gen console cycle is at the point or fully switching over like this one is as the UK Competition market authority correctly says in their report; all evidence suggests it would basically hand the owner of that advantage market dominance in terms of both hardware and subscriptions. Thus it woukd lead to a defacto monopoly. The fact that they intend to effectively give away the game and by their own admission it wouldn't be profitable doing so (like most ifnthe game pass model) says it all. They take market control and monopolise it. Due to the high cost og entry that then allows them control of the market and they hike up games pass prices and basically no one has a choice at that point. Microsoft 101. They have over 30 years of predetatory business practices its all rather well documented. (Just look what they have in recent years done to antirvirus market. They exploit the ubiquity of Windows OS which has a borderlime monopoly because it is genuinely one of the best solutions most of thr time. The money this side of rhe business makes sustains everything else. That is what is so wrong about the purchase really. Could Microsoft gaming division have created games pass, eaten all the losses that took and I suspect still technically takes. Bought out major publishers and thus stakeholders but not quite competitors.
Comments 7
Re: Sony Throws EA's Battlefield Under the Bus to Make a Point on Call of Duty
@Somebody because let's be realistic here MS are full of it and first chance they get they'll remove COD or release a version on PlayStation that is missing features and content. Remember when MS PAID to ensure that Xbox was the only version of COD to have features like splitscreen online.... Sony have paid for exclusive content before but I don't think they've ever paid for such gameplay features to be exclusive. It's exactly the kind of thing MS would do.
Re: Gotham Knights (PS5) - It's Actually Pretty Good
@sanderson72 "stutter it's way to 30fps" um no it clearly states in the teview and I can confirm having spent several hours with it that it's a solid 30fps and I've seen bo frame rate drops.
Re: Sony Will Continue to Make PS4 Games Moving Forwards
@Tharsman nah the ps5 version of most cross gen first party exclusives have arguably outsold the ps4 versions. Look at miles morales and horizon. They hit number one in a number of countries whenever ps5 votes back in stock months after their release.
Re: Call of Duty's PS5, PS4 Exclusive Operator Amusingly Announced Amid War of Words
@Richnj a) they had 6 live service games in development and one was gt7. B) I said market dominance not the market leader there is a difference. Sony are the market leader - they clearly have lots of competition however and would still have without MS needing to consolidate and purchase waisting publishers and large studios like Bethesda.
C) a fair portion of gamers will be playing older games, playing nothing or playing ps plus games. Or they will be split into the 20 plus million who buy cod most years and some buy nothing else. Some will get other games too and some won't get cod at all. The audience that won't get cod is irrelevant to this conversation because their mates switching console/ecosystem could impact their choices.
Technically Sony didn't raise their prices it's the same in USD which they likely operate in given SCEI head office is in USA. They adjusted the prices to reflect significant inflation and devaluation of other currencies compared to the dollar thud meaning they are worth less so the prime must increase to be worth the effort.
Re: Call of Duty's PS5, PS4 Exclusive Operator Amusingly Announced Amid War of Words
@sanderson72 they'll do one of those for 3 years then start of next gen go exclusive to force gamers to pick. If people don't switch console it goes multiplat again. If it does goal well. That is that. Call of Duty unlike Minecraft has the selling power to force such a large change in buying habits.
Re: Call of Duty's PS5, PS4 Exclusive Operator Amusingly Announced Amid War of Words
@Richnj you realise deals like this only exist because MS started the trend. Sony spent the al ost the whole ps3 era refusing todo deals like this abs vein punished as a result. So they gave in and went where the money was. The first examples of this were titles like gta4 dlc, fallout 3, nee Vegas and skyrim dlc, battlefield games etc.
Also it is anti-competitive. Its classic Microsoft andbits what they eventually do or try todo in every industry and it does little but harm them. They've done this for decades. Here is the gamenplan: buy ip's like COD. Appear all nice and friendly and make them multiplatform for a year or two. Then as next gen consoles sales take off (ps6 etc) make thr big juggernauts exclusive. Bam a whole load of gamers just switched eco system. You keep at this for a short while you now have market dominance in the streaming and console space arguably in many ways on pc aswell. Call of duty is unassailable as market leader that much is clear at this point. You can tell this is the game plan because they are basically giving away games etc they spend billions acquiring and creating. They are a company so you only do that for a reason and the only reason is to force out competitors and/or shrink them to the point they are a shell of their former selves and can't compete. The astronomical infrastructure costs and other associated costs with entering the market means it will be prohibitive for any serious competitors to emerge to challenge themselves. Now games pass isn't profitable not in the way many seem to think and its obvious that's the case with a simple breakdown of what best case scenario costs are. But once you have market dominance and can't realistically be challenged. Guess what? Upngo thr prices. No incentive to bother delivering titles people want but to instead just make loads of long term mp based games with microtransactions and designed to release content over time to ensure people keep their
Re: PS5, PS4 Had 1.5% of Console Market Share in Japan Last Week
@Shepherd_Tallon I get ehat you are referring to but Nintendo are very much in their own niche not competing with Microsoft and Sony. Certainly in the west Call of Duty is the best selling game each and every year. It makes more money for the platform holders than all 1st party titles combined every year. It is practically a genre in its own right and its positionnas market leader is basically unassailable at this point due to brand recognition. If one platform holder has it as exclusive or even significant feature improvements- in 4/5 years time when the next gen console cycle is at the point or fully switching over like this one is as the UK Competition market authority correctly says in their report; all evidence suggests it would basically hand the owner of that advantage market dominance in terms of both hardware and subscriptions. Thus it woukd lead to a defacto monopoly. The fact that they intend to effectively give away the game and by their own admission it wouldn't be profitable doing so (like most ifnthe game pass model) says it all. They take market control and monopolise it. Due to the high cost og entry that then allows them control of the market and they hike up games pass prices and basically no one has a choice at that point. Microsoft 101. They have over 30 years of predetatory business practices its all rather well documented. (Just look what they have in recent years done to antirvirus market. They exploit the ubiquity of Windows OS which has a borderlime monopoly because it is genuinely one of the best solutions most of thr time. The money this side of rhe business makes sustains everything else. That is what is so wrong about the purchase really. Could Microsoft gaming division have created games pass, eaten all the losses that took and I suspect still technically takes. Bought out major publishers and thus stakeholders but not quite competitors.