Random: Xbox's Phil Spencer Finds The Humour In Ridiculous Call Of Duty Meme

You've heard of ray tracing... but have you tried function tracing?

Something something Calculus of Duty.

Props to him having a sense of humour

It's only a matter of time now before Sony sues Casio.

Confirmed! CoD on TI calculators!

Can't wait for the Gameboy version!

Now if only MS would put it on Zune!

Sony has no intention of signing any deal with Microsoft as they know that even if they fail to stop the acquisition that Microsoft will still provide CoD on their platform. I'd be tempted to offer them a slightly inferior version (a missing mode, or skins) just so that Sony understand that should they oppose any future acquisition, that it would be in their interest to accept any deal being offered...

@Fiendish-Beaver Or give PS the identical or better version then immediately announce they're buying some other megapublisher making it impossible to argue that MS would make everything worse and exclusive.

I don't ACTUALLY want more consolidation but the petty part of me that wants to see Jim slapped across the face, publicly, wants this.

@Savage_Joe No, I meant if Sony doesn't sign, MS should give Sony the same or better version of CoD and then immediately buy another big publisher or two, so Sony can't go to regulators and say MS will give them worse versions.

I don't really want more buyouts, I'm just petty and want Jim tarred and feathered.

Most of Sony's argument was that MS had all the incentive to 'keep' CoD exclusive and yet refuse a Contract guaranteeing it on their Platform with Parity for at least the next 10yrs in a 'fast changing' market so that CoD does not factor into where people CHOOSE to Play because CoD is 'there' and will be there...

I'm sure in years to come, it will be on a calculator as it too has a Browser built in to stream Games to it... LOL

@NEStalgia Its the way the industry evolves - where are all the big AAA Publishers/Studio's of the 80's now? bought up, sold off to others who then got bought up and or merged into others til you get Activision/Blizzard or Sony or EA or TenCent or Embracer or TakeTwo etc today.

In a 'Streaming' Future, I don't really want to have to subscribe to hundreds of Publishers who want you to 'stream' their Studio games because no-one 'buys' games anymore so they can't 'sell' and have to adapt - I want maybe 2 or 3 competing...

But then 'Platform' is 'irrelevant' because its technically on EVERY platform you can 'stream' to therefore 'everyone' with an internet/wi-fi connection (required for online anyway) can Play so the fewer 'Subs' I have to pay for is better but I still want 'competition' and opportunities for '3rd' party Studio's to have opportunities to get their games to market too - Sell their games to each Service and/or have bidding wars for their games so the Studio's benefit...

In the meantime we have Sony the ONLY company now to 'oppose', the one Company with its own personal vested profits at 'risk', not its consumers (gamers' already on their system and any 'future' gamers to their system) who would still retain access to all CoD titles - past, present & future! As pointed out by several of those companies in favour of and can provide evidence of MS being honourable, fair and even promoting growth of Community games (like Minecraft) on Nintendo specifically (Mario Mash-Up) and have demonstrated that they want to bring CoD to 'every' device like Minecraft - as they stated LONG before signing any 'legally binding' long term contracts guaranteeing Access to A/B games inc CoD for at least the next 10 yrs - that same deal everyone else has accepted - is refusing to sign. It's absolutely ridiculous and 'petty' and I hope it really backfires now for Jim Ryan in particular - lose the confidence and faith of Sony for being so 'Petty', let alone the gamers opinion of Sony as a Brand for gaming with 'Jim Ryan' as its head....

Sony you drop something, ah nevermind it's just you're dignity.

@BAMozzy you just countered your own point there, at the moment people may be willing to buy all three consoles at the moment and then just buy whatever games they want to play for on a particular platform. That's a one off fee to buy the consoles then you can pick and choose what you want to buy for what console. In a streaming future you don't want to sign up to multiple publishers services on an ongoing basis so are likely to sign up for the one that suits the best so others are going to lose out. You have effectively said that you want a monopoly where there are two or three big hitters dominating the market. That's not a future I want to see.

the catch is that it will take over 10 years for micro to make a new call of duty. j/k lmao!

@BAMozzy to be fair to all that there's the risk of ending up like steaming tv. YouTube tv went up from $35 in 2018 to 50, to 65, to 73 now as of today. Over double the price to more than one aaa game per month just to watch television. Why? Content costs keep demanding more from streaming companies. Why? Because most content is owned by one of a few companies who also have their own streaming service which is also $70. And a la carte doesn't exist do if you want WB network you have to buy Oprah and food network and Hallmark channel and 20 other things you'll never watch because the content owner says you buy all or nothing once a few companies own all the content

Not that I'm not still in favor because right now Sony controls market completely which isn't healthy.

But watching gaming become a new cable tv where of you want to play one game you have to pay $150 a month because you have to buy all games.... It's a legit worry. Of the future.

Still it's the necessary step for now. And for now a la carte remains the dominant option on gaming while it was only a momentary blip in tv.

@NEStalgia There will always be alternatives and if you don't want to pay the prices someone asks for whatever 'content' - be it just 1 or access to 'hundreds' of games - you'll not play that game.

Every game has a 'Price' - whether it requires you to Spend $500 for Hardware, another $70 to buy the game and a 'recurring' monthly cost to play online or a 'Subscription fee' and play on whatever devices you want. What's stopping Sony sell a Console for $2000 and sell their games for $200 knowing that they are the ONLY Console to offer Spider-Man, Wolverine, Last of Us or any of their other IP's - they own more than MS do and would after this deal.

When you look at Gaming, Premium Games (like CoD) are only available to those with a 'Premium budget' to spend on Gaming meaning everyone else misses out. Streaming is an 'entry' way in as its a 'cheap' option on devices you own and can't play native but 1080/60 and limited Library. If you want the 'Premium' Quality (up to 4k, upto 120fps, lowest input lag/latency, you'll buy 'Premium' hardware and MS will 'sell' CoD for it if people want to play CoD there.

I can't see Streaming being the 'ONLY' option, just like Streaming Music/TV/Film isn't the ONLY option - people still prefer Freeview services, buy CD's/Vinyl records, buy Blurays, use Cable/Satellite subscriptions etc - all still exist.

MS don't need to make a 'Pro' console really because they have the PC catering to that 'high end' market, they don't need a hand held as they see 'mobiles' as that option covered and have two tiers of Console hardware to cater to different budgets.

Point is, when the vast majority are 'streaming' their games, there will still be 'Premium' options available for those that want the 'best' PQ/Frame Rates etc that only 'Premium' hardware can offer. It just enables more people to play on ANY device. If the games aren't good, aren't worth the 'cost' (whether that's the price of Subscriptions or Sale price), you'll either not buy into it or wait until the price drops down enough to bring the people in.

Come on Phil don't acknowledge the Sony trolls.

I hate seeing higher ups talk about xbox. Especially when they always negative about it. I don’t never see them down talk Nintendo. They would rather say Series S holding back this Gen and won’t bat a eye at the Nintendo

@Guardi7n The shade thrown at Nintendo is usually more subtle but arguably more damaging, often mentioning it as a "fantastic console for families" and "younger gamers", etc. Back handed compliments that sound like platitudes but are intended to frame public perception of Nintendo as a "lesser" product for "kids."

The negative discussion around Xbox sounds worse in tech circles but is actually less damaging as it's ultimately is hollow noise, where as the "Nintendo-kids" framing has shaped how the public, and developers, perceive Nintendo since Sega started that stigma in the 90's.