data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/13d46/13d4636304f5135b22b91b3304148b5835fa4fa7" alt="Sony Has 'Sufficient' Time To Develop Call Of Duty Alternatives, Says Microsoft"
The UK CMA has published another new document related to the ongoing Activision Blizzard saga this week, this time focusing on Microsoft's responses to the CMA's questions at a recent remedies hearing.
You can take a look at the full document for yourself if you want to, but the bit that stands out to us relates to Microsoft's answer about a potential 10-year Call of Duty deal for Sony and PlayStation, and whether this duration is sufficient.
Basically, Microsoft thinks that this period of time should be more than enough for Sony to "develop alternatives" to Call of Duty. Plus, the company has argued that the "practical effect" of the remedy will actually go beyond ten years.
Here's what the document says:
"At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a “cliff edge” for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is [REDACTED]. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD. The 10-year term will extend into the next console generation [REDACTED]."
"Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility)."
Interesting stuff, then, although keep in mind that Sony has still yet to agree to any kind of Call of Duty deal with Microsoft, and based on what we're hearing lately, it seems the company may never reach an agreement.
It's ultimately not up to Sony though - it's the CMA, European Commission and FTC that Microsoft needs to convince - and if those three end up agreeing to the acquisition, Sony will have little choice but to make the best of it.
What are your thoughts on this? Tell us down in the comments section below.
[source assets.publishing.service.gov.uk]
Comments 116
Yes but does Sony want to make games or send bank transfers to third parties for becoming the anticompetitive monopoly that specifically excludes Xbox?
@Kaloudz I think that after 10 years it's likely that they will stop supporting Sony because of all the manipulation and lies that Sony has been spreading during the process but I'd say more, that even if the deal doesn't go through, ABK would be more willing to cooperate with Microsoft instead of with Sony and that other third parties are seeing Sony as the backstabbing and unreliable company that it is.
What could those two "REDACTED" blurbs possibly be??
"...for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is [REDACTED]. [...] The 10-year term will extend into the next console generation [REDACTED]."
The 10 year deal is (accepted by Sony)??
The next console generation (starts tomorrow)??
@Kaloudz Exactly! Look at Forspoken. By the way, does Square Enix have a new head?
@Banjo- @Kaloudz they are not suggesting they will make it exclusive after 10years, they are saying that Sony could in theory if they wanted to, regarding the console SLC.
This question specifically was asking if the 10year agreement is long enough. They are all answers to questions/concerns from the CMA in this document, regarding the acess remedies offered by Microsoft. The next part of the document reads:
"CoD is an entertainment franchise which is already nearly 20 years old," [Redacted], Microsoft will need to secure the broadest distribution of the franchise and will be heavily incentivised to keep it on the PlayStation platform [Redacted]. Microsoft considers that having maintained CoD on PlayStation and grown its player base on Nintendo, GeForce Now and other cloud gaming platforms for a decade, it will have no incentive, or indeed ability, to take CoD exclusive."
It all gets pretty confusing I must admit
@Kaloudz Awesome! Then it's likely that they won't exclude Xbox anymore nor do stupid things like releasing Octopath Traveller for Xbox and not PS and Octopath Traveller II for PS and not Xbox.
@Sakai That's why I said "I think" but thanks for the input 🙌.
Wow, Microsoft actually said something truthful, without putting their tongues in Sony's A**.
@Kaloudz Yes, it will have to wait at the end of my backlog until it and other titles are finally released for Xbox. I played Octopath Traveller on Series X (100%) and the difference with the Switch version is very noticeable.
I can't wait for his first decisions.
If it is so easy how has that been going for Microsoft up till now? Plenty of COD killers in their library... right? Errr
Truth is many have tried, and all have failed to dethrone COD. A few like Apex have carved out their own little niche, but they are still tiny compared to COD.
It isn't anywhere near as simple as they make it seem. Some franchises like COD, FIFA, GTA are just immovable objects with too much mindshare. Even when FIFA is bad it sells like hot cakes, same with COD. Competing with that is a humungous task.
Not impossible, but improbable. Not least that to really compete with COD Sony would ironically need to make it multi-platform!
@Sebatrox But that could also mean Octopath Traveller II, Final Fantasy Pixel Remaster Collection, Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade/Rebirth/3rd title...
So basically they are admitting that after 10 years they will most likely make call of duty xbox console exclusive.
@Sakai Thanks again for your clarification because as you can see Sony's fervent fans will assume anything that makes Microsoft look bad, whatever it is 😉.
@Kaloudz Especially considering that he's a young executive that joined the company three years ago, he must be eager to change things.
@Banjo- The problem is if Microsoft doesn't announce a Square Enix partnership either at E3 or the Tokyo Game Show. It won't matter what a new CEO does as the damage will be done. If Square Enix doesn't release any of there top titles in 2023 it could take years for Square Enix to build a player base on Xbox.
@cragis0001 They don't need a huge player base on Xbox, they already have a Windows version of their games and Xbox runs Windows so it's a no-brainer. Besides, Square Enix games were popular on Game Pass. Releasing games on Xbox will only benefit Square Enix.
@UltimateOtaku91
Sony still has not signed the contract, it seems sony is not interested in a 10 year COD-deal, therefore it may happen well before the 10 year period.
I would not ne surprised, if its still not console exclusive on xbox after 10 years, because COD could be on nintendo and xbox, just not PS, since Sony refuse to make any deals.
@Kaloudz Thanks for the information. Let's see what it's announced after June, then.
@Banjo- @Kaloudz did you see the report recently that Forspoken may have cost near $100 million to make 🤣 it’s been a huge flop.
How many other FPS have come and gone throughout the lifetime of CoD and none has come even remotely close to competing with it. Seems like a bit of a change of tone from having no intentions of making CoD exclusive to the 10 year deal being a hard limit though.
@Fenbops I guess Square Enix is not very happy with their latest PS5 indefinite exclusive 😅. That game must have been decisive in choosing another CEO for the company.
@Kaloudz @Banjo- A new S-E head, yes. But his background isn't inspiring (previously from an advertising company) and he's already Square's "Chief strategy officer", he's only been there a few years, and it's the years Square got worse instead of better so..... I wouldn't read much into it.
I don’t get how this blew up on Twitter yesterday like it was a huge shock when MS have been saying this since last year.
Nor do I understand why so many people that are outraged over the insinuation that this means cod will be removed from PlayStation in 10 years don’t take into account that that scenario also means…
A) a huge cut in sales for cod
B) 10 years worth of sales of ps5s with cod available on the system - meaning in those 10 years it’s highly unlikely ps5 sales won’t be 10s of millions more than series consoles regardless of cod also being on gamepass.
There’s no reason why then, after 10years, Sony (who’s exclusive games often sell millions more than Xbox’s) can’t have an ip that is capable of competing against a call of duty that no longer has its biggest install base.
Just madness…old news, that in all odds won’t come to anything anyway as ms will likely end up renewing its cod contract with Sony at an increased price .
@UltimateOtaku91 I don't think they're admitting anything with this but more or less playing to the devil's advocate route in the questioning presented to them. They've had statements ranging from "they'll support PS as long as PS exists" to Brad Smiths " we don't know what form the console will take in 10 years it could be a phone" (paraphrased but something like that), to this.
The wording sounds like "after 10 years they pull it from Sony" but the reality (and without the full context) I think what they're really doing is playing along with the questioning about "what happens if they pull it in 10 years as they contractually could" and they're trying to satisfy the question by pointing out, basically "if we did that, and Sony hasn't worked out a solution in a decade and another generation.....that's on them?"
But what's obvious is [redacted] and because Xbox will [redacted] and the most important thing that Sony [redacted] which I think is what has the biggest impact on consumer [redacted] will Jim [redacted] cats.
@Fenbops @Kaloudz Did they sell half of the company to fund Forspoken? Just joking.
@NEStalgia @Kaloudz Hopefully, he is more willing to support Xbox as a maketing strategy, Western market appeal, etc., than Matsuda. Here's hope. We'll see after June.
@Sam_TSM I don't play CoD but I assumed the gameplay was good enough and it was popular. It was the agreed game that a lot of FPS players would go to. Add on top of that the next generation of gamers probably saw their older siblings play and so they got into it when they could.
Add on top of that it's multiplatform (read: not necessarily crossplay) so you could talk to someone else about your experiences and they'd get it. You could also play it on whatever console or device you end up on. You can't say the same for Halo or Killzone.
There might be other factors that go into the mix but I'm not really that knowledgeable on the series.
@Kaloudz @Fenbops Something tells me Forspoken is not coming to Xbox after the 2 year exclusivity.........
@Banjo- IDK, before he arrived Matsuda was starting to bring games to Xb and open up to multiplat. After he arrived they sold half the company and every game is fully or contractually tied to Sony with no hope of an Xbox arrival.... I'm not sure things will get better with him. I suspect his strategy is more or less all about mobile as the future, and signing deals with Sony to fund anything bigger.
NEStalgia wrote:
Those decisions were not made by him but Matsuda. Takashi Kiryu didn't have that power and won't until he is CEO.
10 years is a long time, CoD might not even be this popular by then. Just because its successful today doesn't mean it'll be successful in 10 years time.
The franchise might just lose a chunk of popularity.
@Kaloudz thanks, I had just skimmed down the comments and missed that additional detail.
@Banjo- But as chief strategy his job is to design such strategies and present them to Matsuda....
@NEStalgia I wouldn’t even play it on Gamepass.
@Kaloudz Luck has nothing to do with it. When a once great Japanese developer westernises to try and cater to a different audience Forspoken is what you may end up with. On the other end of the spectrum I’m currently playing Octopath 2 and it’s great, so SE aren’t a completely lost cause yet.
@Banjo- The article missed an important bit of information, which makes it easy to read the statements incorrectly. Just thought it was worth mentioning we will have to wait and see what the cma think of it all
@Banjo- be careful what you wish for the new Square-Enix chief is an NFT bro!
Sadly it seems his appointment is doubling down on NFTs with someone who actually understands Blockchain technology. Sad times
@Kaloudz not sure. Wonder what the setting would be? Modern Warfare? Ww2? Cold War?
@Banjo- an interview with SE on Push Square explained that Octapath Traveler 2 skipped Xbox & went to PlayStation due to sales of similar games. Plus looking at achievements unlocked of SE titles that hit Games Pass also doesn't paint a good picture either. But to be fair I don't understand how Xbox will get a bigger fan base if SE drops scraps or ignores the platform altogether.
How do you tell someone they have enough time to make a competitor when you yourself couldn't make a competitor ? Hell they had to buy Bethesda just to have a decent library this generation and apparently that wasn't doable for the last 10 years. My goodness the balls on this company.
@Scummbuddy I think it’s actual dates for the ending of the 10 year deal and the expected launch of the PS6 and Xbox next (whatever it’s called.)
@Fenbops I doubt MS would grant it a Game Pass spotlight even if Square weren't hostile. And unknown is one thing, a proven failure is another lol.
I don't think Forespoken is even entirely a problem with Westernizing. The Luminous team has always been dubious. FFXV was actually a decent game, wrapped in a lot of problems and a development nightmare. And as we found out later, the famous celebrity writers they hired from the West to write Forspoken basically had their work scrapped and replaced by some interns they hired later.
FFXVI looks to be a mess of westernization. Forspoken is just Square doing Square I think.
EDIT: Well, they'd take the Forspoken for Game Pass bait if FF7R were bundled in the offer maybe
@Sebatrox I personally plan to buy Forspoken, when I see it for $20. It looks like a fun budget game, just don’t look like a game worth launch price, much less at $70.
@NEStalgia I know what you mean but I wouldn't go that far. After June we'll see what he does with the company as CEO. I admit that it sounds risky to have a young newcomer in charge but perhaps that's exactly what Square Enix needs? Consider also that if the current strategy isn't working he's in charge of doing big changes.
@themightyant That thing that even I knew that would be a bursting bubble, I'm sure that the rest of the world knows already, included the people that started and supported it. By the way, I'm not wishing for, I just realised that he is going to be the new CEO and all I said about him is that let's wait until after June to see what decisions he makes.
@themightyant
Well, Halo was CoD before CoD came along and dethroned it with CoD3:MW.
Also many argue Sony studios are a lot more skilled or high profile than Microsoft’s (up to recently) 2 or 3 studios.
But it can be argued the name is what really sells, we shall see if that’s true with EA dropping the FIFA name. They are practically creating a whole new IP by doing that, even if the game is the same.
Anyways unless I remember the quote wrong (phone posting hard to scroll to double check), MS didn’t suggest they could offer something to dethrone, simply a first party alternative.
@Sakai Thank you, whenever I find something important that is not included I also add it 🙌.
@UltimateOtaku91 read @sakai comment, there is more context on the document, this article is just focusing on Sony having more than enough time to create their own alternative.
Honestly I think the most anyone can expect after the 10 year deal is over is an end to parity, with potential new modes and DLC, or skins, becoming platform exclusive, although I doubt they would do that. Xbox could have as easily released Deathloop and Ghostwire as definitive editions not offered on PlayStation, but chose to just patch thr PS5 versions of both games keeping parity.
@cragis0001 I know what you mean but remember that Square Enix said that the new Final Fantasy games are skipping Xbox because they are built for PS5 but the truth is that they are coming to PC (to Windows). It's all marketing rubbish.
I wouldn't pay much attention to the achievements because, example given, if more people try games because they are on Game Pass it makes the percentage go lower but it doesn't mean that there aren't actually more people completing the games. They just seem a smaller number because of the additional people that are just launching random games because of a subscription. Mathematics.
Square Enix needs to be consistent to expand their user base, especially in the West, because it looks that in Japan everybody plays on mobile and Switch. Japan isn't Square Enix's most important market.
Exactly!
@themightyant @NEStalgia Judging by Jim Ryan's recent actions, I have a bad feeling Playstation will follow Square Enix down that route. People already were worried about PS Stars and GT7's adjusting car prices in line with real world car prices becoming that kind of thing.
@Kaloudz It's a closed ending and there is an ending for each character 😉. I did them all.
@Kaloudz nah they’re totally separate stories. I played 1 but didn’t finish it. 2 improves on the first enough for me that I feel I’ll finish this one.
@NEStalgia Don’t get me started on FF7R 😜 I know most liked it but I hated it. They took a classic and added everything bad about a Kingdom Hearts game into Final Fantasy 🤣 I’ll never forgive them. The only good part of FF7R was some of the music.
@Doublecell This is why the games industry is so different from other industries when it comes to anti-competitive practices.
Any one that develops a game can make a competitor. There is nothing stopping them from developing a game to compete.
It's not like say...the cable business where there are only a small number of cable companies out there. Or manufacturing where there are only [X] manufacturers out there making [Y] products.
Gobbling up companies in these instances can be concerning for consumers because it's easy for one company to control all aspects of these goods.
There are tons of game development companies out there. I
am sure there is a new one created every week.
They can easily develop a competitor with enough time and resources. It doesn't matter if those games don't "take away" from Call of Duty, they just need to gain a following in some way to generate revenue for a company.
This is about Sony keeping the "upper hand" with Call of Duty exclusivity deals - which I think is totally gone after this no matter what happens with the acquisition.
I don't blame Sony for fighting it, I just wish it would come out and say what it's truly about rather than looking like they care about "player choice" and the gaming industry as a whole. Sony wants PlayStation being the preferred console for Call of Duty rather than equal footing across the platforms (which is what Microsoft intends to do). Nothing more, nothing less.
What would be more concerning is if Microsoft bought Nintendo or Sony as there are only three console makers. Combining any two of those companies into a single business would destroy the other in a heartbeat. There would absolutely be no way to compete with a Sony or Nintendo with a Microsoft budget or against Sony and Nintendo exclusives on a single powerful console.
@Fenbops Is it a good time to recommend the old Final Fantasy games on the current digital sale, then? 😉
@Banjo- To be fair he COULD have perhaps left Dentsu because he knew blockchain wasn't worth it and wanted to get out, but then why was he promoted up to CEO of SE so quickly? As you said we will have to wait and see but the tea leaves are ominous.
All Sony would have to do is revive one of their FPS series like Resistance or Killzone.
@Tharsman I don't think anyone believes FIFA is going to take a big hit when it transitions to EA Sports FC. They got well ahead of that announcement and have been telegraphing that brand change already, most players will know exactly which game it is, and the community is big enough to tell everyone else. At worst it will take a dip for a year before bouncing back. But I suspect, as last years entry was so tame, they are saving some big features for the relaunch and do absolutely fine. .
While technically it could be argued it's a new IP, it really isn't, all the experiences, good and bad, will just be transferred to the new name.
@themightyant honestly the one thing that is playing on EA's favor right now is there won't actually be a FIFA game out there to compete.
I do have a hunch that EA Sports FC, among non-core gamers, will end up being FIFA 23.
@themightyant once again, your the only in in these comment sections who has any grounding in reality.
Its not about making an FPS, its about making an IP so beloved that it sells regardless of critical reception in numbers that make almost every other game seem meaningless. The ability of people to not see this is quite astonishing and I can only imagine it's because they don't want to.
Thats not to comment on deal or no deal, just the obvious importance of the global money spinner that COD has become and the improbability of anyone ever manging to create a shooter IP with a similar reach and draw...
@Tharsman I REALLY want someone... ANYONE to do a deal with FIFA next year. lol
@Kaloudz If you actually read the FULL document - even with all the redacted information, they state that its much more likely to engage in continuing to 'support' gamers on those Platforms 'beyond' that 10yr Contract - if CoD is still 'relevant', still has a 'market' on those Platforms to cater for etc.
They do state that it would not be in their interest to pull CoD from all those Platforms they have gone out of their way to support, built up an Active Online CoD community, only to pull their support from them. Not only would it be a PR disaster for MS, it would likely destroy 'CoD' as an IP.
What they state is more about the way a Judge would see it and provided numerous other examples of Concessions to show that 10yrs is above and beyond ANY previous deals in LAW and that NO other Company has been 'expected' to keep paying out to support their Competitors for longer than 10yrs - and to support that, they clearly state that 10yrs is more than 'enough' time for Sony (or ANY other Platform - especially a Dominant one) to 'acquire' or 'develop' their OWN competition to CoD - its not as if they don't own IP's like Destiny, Killzone, Resistance, MAG etc - even SoCoM too could be a CoD competitor.
Of course if you are 'limited' to just Playstation and that Community of ONLINE gamers, it won't compete with CoD on 'Sales' or 'Player' base because its not available to as many - but that's Sony's choice. No doubt they'll have their own Live Service (Last of Us Factions) to 'compete' - but the point is, MS aren't intending to take CoD away in the 'near' future and that a 10yr guarantee is MORE than enough time for ANY company to 'prepare' for the possibility that CoD may not be on their Platform and not be so reliant on a single third party title - in other words, we are not taking the opportunity for Sony to Sell CoD (as they always have) and won't leave Sony with a 'big' deficit (from loss of CoD Sales Revenue) - thus giving Sony more than enough time to 'prepare' and 'compete' should CoD cease to be 'multi-platform'.
Its an Answer to the CMA's unrealistic expectation that MS should 'Promise' to make CoD available on EVERY Platform - inc any that could try and join the hardware market, that CoD is 'essential' despite Nintendo not having it and succeeding and that they shouldn't be 'Protecting' Sony's dominance and accept that what MS are 'offering' is more than enough time for Sony (or any 'deal') to prepare and be ready to compete IF MS decided to make CoD exclusive...
If Call of duty remains relevant, it will be on playstation well beyond 10 years.
@Banjo- "Young" is relative....he looks like he's 22, but he's 44 or 45 I think..... Though that still makes him the second youngest gaming exec in Japan behind Sega's CEO, so there's that.
IDK how Japan found the fountain of Youth, but they did. Even Matsuda looks young for 59 and a guy who's been in the red for billions. Either that or Squeenix takes their executive portraits from their high school yearbooks.
@Titntin And Sony has them in Quantity - Games like Uncharted, God of War, Horizon, Spider-Man, Ghosts of Tsushima etc Games people would buy a Playstation to Play regardless of whether they can also play CoD or Fifa on it.
Its the exact same with Nintendo - IPs like Mario, Zelda, Pokemon etc are much bigger than the 'Console Hardware' - they transcend 'gaming' and why Nintendo continues to be a 'big' player in Gaming despite CoD only being on PC/Xbox/PS hardware. They can still 'sell' millions of consoles without CoD.
What this is saying is that Sony could 'continue' to sell CoD for the next 10yrs at NO cost to themselves, MS is paying for development, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, porting and optimising (inc continued support for 'PS' exclusive features like Haptics which they 'wouldn't' need to do under a complete parity clause to ensure every gamer gets the 'same' features) so have more than enough time for them to develop whatever business strategy, whatever IP's, whatever Studios they want/need etc etc to be 'competitive' without solely relying on a 3rd Party Game (like CoD) they have NO control over.
Any longer than 10yrs is unlawful and impractical in a rapidly changing environment so any 'concerns' beyond this 'eventual' 10yr Contract are 'irrelevant' to the discussion and that guaranteeing at LEAST 10yrs is more than fair, more than ANY other Legal case has required and that 10yrs is more than enough time for Sony to prepare and/or change their business model to not be so reliant on 'just' CoD for their business to compete...
Its more about saying you have NO legal right to insist on any 'longer' concessions or what may/may not happen at the 'end' of those contracts because that is MORE than enough time for ANY company to prepare for. Either with its own direct 'competitor', other Software, other services, or even rearranging how their business is run to not be so reliant on CoD as claimed...
@cragis0001 "due to sales" is the first honest thing Square Enix has said in the past 20 years that I can remember. I wish they'd at least be up front all the time.
Achievements is a lame excuse though. I just recently platinumed HZD on PS. A game that's been on Plus. Less than a quarter of players made it out of the prologue. Less than a third made it to the actual main game after the early setup area. Only half made it to the mission after the Zero Dawn site with most of the "big" reveals. Only a third hit level 40, and barely a quarter made it to the final mission. A lot of the side missions were down in the 10-20% range, and a whole 1% actually beat the hunting grounds trials with blazing suns.
Achievements/trophy tracking is a miserable bane to gaming data, and especially worse when it's on a subscription and many players drop in to try games. If anything data like that from a top tier mega-series with years behind it is that the majority of people that try games don't actually play most of them, especially on subs. That's a gloomy picture for gaming's future.
@Grumblevolcano Yeah, that worries me about Square, Sony, and monetization. The GT7 car thing was revised from backlash, but they test every crack they find.
Encouraging Sony to develop a Call of Duty competitor is surprisingly anti-consumer. I never liked how gamers are spread out across multiple platforms and believe there should be more uniformity on content. Having games like Call of Duty and Diablo be crossplay is important to me. Redfall being an Xbox console exclusive is frustrating. That and Sea of Thieves should be multi-platform with crossplay.
While I want this deal to go through, I am concerned about future control over the franchises that Microsoft will exert.
@Fenbops FF7R may be pure cheese, but it's still the "good" FF series compared to dark and gloomy Western Witcher Age: Dante of War: An FF Story XVI
@BAMozzy whilst im not arguing with all the extra paragraphs you've written which are nothing to do with my post, I still take issue with your first paragraph.
Comparing sales of a series thats well over 400 million sales, where even the worst in the series sells 20 million, with something like Ghosts of Tsushima, which hasn't even hit 10 million sales, is quite frankly delusional, and a prime example of the reality disconnect I was mentioning.
Thanks for demonstrating the point though, appreciated
Problem with that is many companies have tried to make.CoD alternatives and they just never hit like CoD. I mean one can argue Fortnite has come the closest but that's a B.R. style. For those people like me who want a CoD experience there isn't anything like CoD.
Since CoD died in 2019, I have been trying to find something to fill that void and have yet to find one.
@NEStalgia There's also the patent from last week:
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2023/03/uh-oh-sony-patents-nft-trading-framework-for-gaming-platforms
@Titntin CoD doesn't sell 400m every time and has built those sales up over 'LOTS' of games. Ghost of Tsushima is still a game that 'competes' for gamers time and a 'reason' cited to buy Playstation - along with Uncharted, God of War, Last of Us, R&C etc etc. A LOT of those CoD sales were on Xbox/PC too
The point I was making is that Sony has a LOT of their OWN IP's that will bring players into Playstation. Even if 'one' isn't as 'big' as CoD is (also consider accessibility also helps to reach 'more' people), those 'unique' IP's are very Strong. Spider-Man and Wolverine are 'much' bigger IP's than 'just Sony Playstation' gamers and much bigger than CoD. Spider-Man Movies, Comics, Games, Merchandise etc are worth a LOT more than CoD so Sony has 'IP's' 'bigger than CoD' already...
@Titntin for the record I agree with what @themightyant said in his first post. It’s hard, near impossible to break into the COD/Fortnite etc markets.
I just came here to plop on Forspoken again 😄
@Grumblevolcano Yeah, though to be fair, lots of patents never go anywhere. Nintendo's had a patent for an optical analogue stick that would end stick drift, but they sit on it so nobody else can do it. Sony COULD be holding that patent "just in case" the industry goes that way. But it still indicates they'll push on every single crack.
@themightyant it would still take time to actually develop the game, unless someone with an existing soccer game picked up the license. And I have a feeling Konami won’t want to pay the requested fee either.
@Fenbops Lol. Taking a plop on forespoken is a well regarded past time! Fun too!
I probably shouldn't admit I want to play it once its cheap.... but there it is, I've let it slip out
@Kaloudz No probs -you have to remember that these statements are more about what is 'legally' fair and/or realistic. That's not them saying they will definitely pull CoD in 10yrs, just that its 'no concern' to the CMA what MS decide to do with CoD who seem to think that Sony is the ONLY other platform and 'protecting' their Dominance. The question about making CoD available to 'new' platforms if someone wanted to make one too was 'dismissed' as they don't seem to recognise 'Nintendo' as a Platform who has a massive install base without CoD so why concern yourself with new players - especially as those 'new' players maybe wouldn't get CoD anyway under A/B - in fact its more likely they will be Supported under MS as A/B maybe wouldn't consider that 'Platform' is worth the financial cost of 'porting and optimising' for so few sales...
Its not about making an 'exact' copy of CoD for Playstation, maybe Destiny, Battlefield, Fortnite, Apex or any other 'FPS' doesn't replace CoD directly, but still offer 'online' competitive FPS game-play for 'friends' to compete and/or play together. Sony had 'Halo' Killers, yet CoD effectively killed Halo, just like Halo effectively killed the arena shooters that came before it. ANY IP can compete with CoD - they all 'compete' for your time and money - so if you want to play Spider-Man, Uncharted, LoU, GoT, GoW, Gran Turismo, R&C etc you have to buy a Playstation - IP's that 'sell' Hardware and help Sony Compete with Xbox, Nintendo, Steam, PC or any other Gaming Platform. Zelda is a 'Competitor' to CoD, just like Stranger Things is a Competitor to the Mandalorian - different IP's but still competing for your time and money.
If Sony can't offer CoD MP, Sony gamers would play other games - just like they couldn't play Halo when that was the 'big' FPS MP game everyone wanted to beat, Battlefield 'competes' (blame EA for its 'quality' but now with 'new' leadership - ex CoD creator), maybe that will be the 'next' big FPS franchise. CoD isn't the 'biggest' FPS played on a daily basis - in fact, its only 'popular' on a 'few' Platforms - not 'Popular' on Nintendo yet Nintendo 'competes' with Mario, Zelda, Pokemon etc - nothing like 'CoD' but still big enough to bring players into Nintendo...
Its about giving Sony AMPLE time to 'offer' a competitive array of 'exclusive' games to compete with MS's array of Exclusives. Sony already has a LOT more IP's and Exclusives - one reason its so 'dominant' because gamers want to play Sony's Exclusives over MS's - inc Back Compatible exclusives. People won't leave Playstation just because CoD isn't available anymore (not that it would happen unless Sony 'block' it), abandon all those Sony IP's they wanted to play - they'll still buy a PS5/6 for VR, for Horizon, GoW, Uncharted, Spider-Man 2, Wolverine, R&C, Final Fantasy and all the OTHER exclusives...
In the document it says an alternative to COD. From a technical and legal standpoint, an alternative to COD does not have to be as popular or as big in scope. Nowhere does it say an equal. By an alternative to COD, they mean a (probably) military style FPS game that PS gamers could play, if they wanted to play one. It would be up to the developer and publisher to determine the investment or scope of the game, and what platforms it releases on. Pepsi is an alternative to coca cola, it doesn't have to be as popular or a carbon copy to be an alternative, that is not what is meant in this instance.
@BAMozzy Thanks for taking the time to reply again.
I cant disagree that Sony have some attractive IPs of their own, most of them self-developed. Its why they continue to sell loads even though Game pass is killing it.
But games with the kind of audience awareness of Cod, and maybe Fifa (whatever it wants to call itself now), are a special breed of game that have a huge impact. You cannot just churn one of them out and back it enough to get it there - it simply doesn't work like that, and I suspect you know it.
I'm NOT arguing that Sony couldn't live without COD, or even that MS buying such a game should be blocked (though my concerns have always been expressed on the merger).
What I am saying is that you cannot create a game as successful as COD simply by will and finances, and anyone suggesting you can has obviously no knowledge of this business and its history at all.
I'm not commenting on the buyout, just the assertion that a company can create a franchise like COD. We all know that's simply not true. In MS's case, even when they start out with an IP that deserves to be right up there with it (Halo), even with their money they cant even maintain its relevance never mind surpass COD. Its disingenuous for them to suggest someone else can create such an IP when they have singularly failed to do so, or even maintain the relevance of the decent IP's they had.
@Titntin Call of Duty wasn't an 'Overnight' success either and had to Compete with Halo, Battlefield, Medal of Honor and all the 'other' FPS games made. Halo essentially replaced Quake and Goldeneye, CoD eventually became the 'Juggernaut' it did thanks to MS promoting the hell out of it during the 360 era - but Battlefield and Battlefront were 'bigger' games.
Its NOT about creating an 'exact' clone for Playstation with the SAME sales success immediately out of the gate. Its about creating 'games' that people want to play on that system to compete for gamers 'time and money'. Sony could have '10yrs' to build up their Platform to prepare for 'losing' the Sales revenue from CoD, although those gamers could spend that money on Sony's first party games instead. Maybe buy LoU Factions and play that Online with their PS friends instead of buying CoD, maybe buy Spider-man or God of War, Maybe by Destiny or Battlefield... point is, its still 10yrs to use that 'revenue' from Sales of CoD (and EVERY OTHER GAME), all while not spending money to SCREW over Xbox/PC CoD gamers, not spending a fortune on CoD marketing to make their 'Platform' an attractive option for Consumers. Whether they have their own 'CoD' clone or something 'unique' to Playstation that makes people want to BUY a Playstation is 'competing' with ANY games MS has Exclusivity on.
In 10yrs time, CoD, Forza, Halo, Starfield, Fable etc as 'Xbox Exclusives' could be competing with Spider-Man, Wolverine, Horizon, Gran Turismo, GoW, Factions, Final Fantasy etc as 'Sony Exclusives'.
Sony could bring back SoCoM, could buy up 'Finals' or any FPS game currently in development - there are a LOT of Military based Shooters they could 'buy' and develop to be a 'CoD' alternative - alternative doesn't mean exactly the same and as popular too. They have 10yrs to 'organise' themselves to not be so reliant on a 3rd Party game as they 'claim' they are and 10yrs is plenty of time to develop a strategy to compete without CoD should that situation occur.
Netflix coped when they lost Marvel due to Disney+ as they had their own IPs and made other TV shows to 'compete' for Customers time/money. Sony can 'compete' with MS, Nintendo, Steam, PC, Streaming/Sub services etc on the Strength of its 'OWN' portfolio - most of which they Purchased to 'compete' in the Gaming Market themselves with Nintendo/Sega.
@BAMozzy Once again we go round in circles. Telling me Sony can make an FPS title is simply weird and unimformative. Im clearly stating that it would take a lot of luck to create one with the brand awareness and financial impact of cod, and thats tge only reason we are having a conversation at all.
Telling me they can do a load of other things is pointless. Cods status means its a huge chunk of their profits being bought by their rivals, which is unlikely to be replaced by a similar title.
Thats the whole point of this article, and you simply typing irrelevant points without addressing the clearly stated point, doesnt help.
If you simply admited the obvious truth and stated 'theres no way Sony will ever make an fps which can achieve the metrics of cod',
then we could both agree and boh play the world's smallest violin in sympathy with Sonys loss I'm not bothered by anything except the silly statements in here that suggest they could create another cod, as its simply not the case!
@Sam_TSM
To me CoD is the bandwagon shooter that is played by a massive number of people. But, there are many competitors that are flourishing as well.
As for Killzone, it was a beautiful and technically awesome masterpiece, but just fell short when it came to environment, intensity, sound, pacing, etc.
I would be more apt to build off the Destiny engine then off of Killzone. They own Bungie now so that would be a great starting place to create a new IP.
@Titntin Again you are talking about this as a SONY fanboy and ONLY concerned with Sony's Profit margin. I never specified they had to make a FPS game as Successful or even the same basic game-play. ANY game 'competes' with CoD, competes for your Money, your time. Sony isn't LOSING the opportunity to SELL CoD in the near future - no Gamer has bought a PS6 expecting to PLAY CoD, yet with that 'deal', CoD wouldn't be a 'competing' Exclusive to 'pull' gamers away from Sony as it will still be AVAILABLE on PS6.
As I said, Zelda is a Competitor to CoD, to Horizon or Gears of War - its a 'GAME' that is competing for GAMERS time and Money. CoD, Fifa, Battlefield, Destiny, Apex, Fortnite, Gran Turismo, God of War etc all 'compete' for Gamers Time and Money.
Sony already has 'IP's' that are 'bigger' than CoD is, bigger than Halo or Elder Scrollls, bigger than Minecraft - the biggest Selling GAME ever (owned by MS) so Spider-Man 'competes' with CoD and is a 'big reason' to buy Playstation.
When MS take over, Sony won't suddenly lose the 10-15m people that buy CoD on their Platform. Maybe some will leave as they 'prefer' to access on another Platform (not necessarily Xbox Consoles - they may prefer to play on Switch but were 'forced' to buy a Playstation or 'miss out' on CoD - now they can play ANYWHERE inc Playstation, that is 'better' for Gamers to have 'more' choice where they play. Its not stopping you from playing on PS5 (if you bought PS5 for CoD, even a PS6 if you 'choose' to buy a PS6 - it just might not be the 'best' option for you because you have a PC or Xbox and Game Pass.
Its not stopping YOU as a gamer from playing where you 'want'. Its up to Sony to 'compete' for your money, for 'sales' on their Platform and to make their Platform a place that Gamers want to spend their time and money on. It doesn't matter if you lose a Sale on CoD but replace it with a Sale of Battlefield or Hogwarts or whatever other 'games' are sold on PS. YOU can't claim you bought a PS6 to PLAY CoD for example and now 'suddenly' its being pulled away because MS OWNS the IP, the Studios, the Publishing rights etc etc. You don't know if you'll even be a CoD or PS fan in 2034. The 'decision' from a Gamer would be the SAME it is TODAY based on their 'preferred' Exclusives and if CoD is 'exclusive' to MS, along with ALL their other Exclusives - like Redfall, Fable, Perfect Dark, Forza, Halo, Starfield, Hellblade etc etc will be competing with Sony's Exclusives like Spider-man, Wolverine, Last of Us, Uncharted, God of War, Gran Turismo, R&C, Returnal etc etc and 'if' you want to play 'both' MS & Sony First Party Games, you'll need 'Both' - although a PC and PS7 would also 'work'...
@NEStalgia I haven't seen him, I said young because EG said young 🤣.
@BAMozzy You seem to be responding to a post Ive never made?
I littraly just posted I wouldnt be concerned in the slightest about sony losing money. Holding a viewpoint that no one could reliably make a cod replacement of a similar scale, does not make me a pony, and resorting to such infantile goading does not help sell your other assertions.
Theres a lot of sense in almost everything you've stated and at no point have I argued anything different.
Your arguing that its irrelevant if sony can make a game with the metrics of cod, and I agree.
Im only arguing that no one could reliably make a cod, thats a different statement. Arguing that Sony need cod would be stupid, they got plenty.
@Sakai You're totally right. Of course they could create a Call of Duty alternative like Microsoft says. Alternative doesn't mean substitute. Many have done it with much smaller budgets than Sony's. The problem is that Sony is too focused on marketing deals and on damaging the Xbox market. They'd rather spend millions on excluding Xbox from third-party games or DLC than on developing their own games and improving their gaming and customer services.
@Banjo- LOL, yeah, mid 40's is "young" in Japanese business culture, they don't do the puffed chest polo shirt tech exec thing Cali does.... And the guy seriously looks like he's just out of school, I'm going to need to see a birth certificate to believe he's middle aged, he looks like the intern.
@Kaloudz Not about making a 'CoD' Clone at all or even a FPS game - SoCoM could offer 3rd Person competitive military Shooter that takes off on Playstation as the 'best' Military Online Shooter and pulls players from 1st person shooters like CoD or go the hyper realistic route with realistic Physics and destruction for a more realistic 'online' competitive FPS game and that be the 'next big thing to beat'...
Warzone was created to compete with PUBG, Fortnite and all the other Battle Royale games that were around and/or keep trying to stick around - helped by the 'CoD' name and install base, it has 'survived' longer than others but point is CoD had to evolve to keep 'relevant' and stay near the 'top' - having 'Rocky' times (particularly Sledgehammer Games - Advanced Warfare, WW2 era games) and only returning to IW's 'Modern Warfare' and Treyarchs 'Black Ops' names has 'helped' in recent years.
All I am saying is that this gives Sony ample time to create their OWN portfolio of GAMES, of IP's that will compete with the Portfolio of GAMES, of IP's that their Competitors, particularly 'Xbox' as a more direct competitor to Playstation and competing 'Hardware' sales - It won't be 'CoD' vs 'Destiny' (or Killzone, Resistance, MAG or 'NEW' IP they had to create specifically to offer the EXACT same Game-play structure on Playstation to 'replace' CoD), it will be Forza, Halo, Gears, CoD, Starfield, Fable, Hellblade, Redfall, Perfect Dark, Sea of Thieves etc etc vs Spider-Man, Wolverine, Uncharted, Ghost of Tsushima, God of War, Gran Turismo, Ratchet & Clank, Returnal, Last of Us, LoU Factions, Destiny etc etc etc
In other words Sony has more than enough time to ensure that 'their' portfolio of exclusives, their 'ecosystem' and whatever services they have to offer Consumers will be 'competitive' to Survive without CoD on their Platform should that situation arise - although MS can't see any 'incentive' to suddenly pull CoD away from where those gamers have freely chosen to play knowing they get 'exactly the SAME content DAY & DATE'. They 'prefered Sony's Ecosystem and/or Controller' for decades despite MS offering options or choosing to play on Nintendo/PC/Steam Deck etc, they still played on PS so won't suddenly pull CoD - its all 'Legal' speak to prove a point that even if CoD is 'that' important to Sony their entire 'Business' depends on it, 10yrs is more than enough time to ensure you can 'still' compete should CoD suddenly disappear thereafter due to this deal being passed.
In the next Paragraph they go on to say they don't see any 'incentive' to pull CoD away from ANYWHERE as they are still getting 'revenue' and its still in their best interest to keep it multi-platform so 'unlikely' that scenario would happen
@Titntin I am sorry it came across that way, as I keep saying, its all 'legal' jargon to respond to the CMA on their Concerns about this deal.
I never ONCE said or meant to imply that Sony should make their own FPS CoD competitor to 'compete directly' with CoD or to 'replace' that specific Game-play loop for Playstation at all. They Could with the quality of their studio's and IP they already have, but its more about the 'Exclusives' not a 'Single' game but the range of games each offers in 10yrs time, that Sony has more than enough time with 'total' access to CoD at NO COST to themselves - just get the usual 30% of all SALES, the same way they get money from CoD today, to be in a position to 'compete' with Microsoft should CoD be made 'exclusive'. Not to be 'reliant' on that game 'solely' to remain in business, find 'alternatives', rearrange your portfolio, change your plans - whatever it takes to 'Compete' with MS owning 'CoD' and the 'FREEDOM' to choose to make it 'exclusive' if they 'wish'...
Its legal jargon to say that is more than enough time for Sony to prepare and/or create their own portfolio of Games to compete with Microsoft, more than any other Company has ever offered or even been 'coerced into offering' with other cases to prove that 10yrs is more than long enough a period to assess and or guarantee an IP will be 'multi-platform' for so don't ask what 'hypothetically' happens beyond that point - its long enough a period for the 'industry' to prepare for and build up enough of their own 'fanbase' to warrant keeping CoD on it, not be 'forced' to continue supporting something for 'legally binding reasons' but not enough players there to financially keep doing so....
@Titntin
You are not alone, I also plan to buy it as soon as I see it for $20, hell I might bite at $25 (physical only not buying digital.)
@Banjo- to be fair it was Xbox that started that back in the 360 days.
@jordan1992 Yes and it was bad, regardless.
@Banjo- i agree they shouldn’t do it, it’s a bit underhand. A bit like unsportsman like conduct. I own both machines so i get to play either way but not everyone does.
@Banjo- @jordan1992 I would have to look around to see if there was indeed any marketing specific deal before, but there sure were paid-for platform exclusives even before Xbox existed, or has everyone here forgotten about the whole Only For GameCube logo?
@Tharsman I would like to focus on Sony's current aggressiveness against Xbox, specifically excluding and damaging the Xbox platform, leaving it as the only platform not getting certain third-party games or getting them late and/or without content, which I'm sure triggered Microsoft's recent acquisitions that Sony is hypocritically crying about.
@jordan1992 Nice that we agree.
@Banjo- it be interesting to know what kind of data they get from Microsoft. Consisting player counts, obviously sales from Games Pass users etc. Square Enix definitely need to be more consistent I agree.
@cragis0001 I can't wait for the information that will be leaked regarding Sony's third-party deals because most of the information that Microsoft requested has been granted by the judge.
Sony paid for excluding Xbox and not PC because that would be another price. That way Sony can pay for more games to exclude Xbox. That anticompetitive strategy probably triggered the acquisition of Zenimax and Activision and while Sony complains, the judge will see what they have been doing in the shadows.
This has backfired twice for Sony in a short period of time. Firstly, Microsoft acquiring Deadloop and Ghostwire Tokyo publisher and potentially acquiring Call of Duty publisher. Secondly, Sony's dark secrets exposed.
After June, we'll be able to see what the new CEO of Square Enix does. I just read that it was Matsuda, the current CEO and not the next one that advocated for NFT, when it was suggested the contrary on this thread.
The new CEO will change things, it's why they chose a new one. What changes? I can't be sure but it's fair to think that he won't do stupid things like Octopath Traveller on Xbox and Octopath Traveller II on PS anymore. They will likely try to appeal to a wider audience in the West and be more reliable as a publisher, as Capcom is. PC is Windows and Windows is Xbox so it's a no-brainer to include Xbox.
@Banjo- I just want to clarify because no, "Xbox" didn't start the whole exclusive stuff, something that gets thrown around here as of late a lot.
Anyways, as far as Xbox motivation to buy studios, I honestly don't think it has anything (or very little) to do with Sony paying for timed exclusives. Xbox can do the same thing, in fact they did last gen, but Phil feels that just backfires. You finance a game development only for a definitive edition to go to your competitors a year later (see Tomb Raider.)
The real thing is that Mattick, under his misled vision, basically destroyed XBox's first party development and it was impossible to rebuild within a reasonable time frame without acquisitions.
Honestly, at the end, the acquisitions are not because they need them, as much as because they can, and because Game Pass has proven upper Microsoft management that gaming is indeed worth that much investment.
It's not like Sony has two dozen exclusive IPs they do nothing with and just let rot. Why make a new Twisted Metal, Jack & Daxter, Sly Cooper, Resistance, infamous, etc. when you can pay not for entire exclusivity, but to keep games off one specific competitor.
@Banjo- I think it was more Microsoft learned from when they lost an allie in Bioware when EA bought them & feared the same was happening with Bethesda due to financial troubles leading to exclusive deals with Sony. So swooped in before someone else like Tencent or Embracer did.
As for Square Enix hopefully we see something at E3 or Tokyo Game Show as if not the new CEO will have to convince Xbox users why they should invest in there games after abandoning them.
@cragis0001 @Tharsman Yes, there are several reasons, of course, like what I usually say that it's Microsoft's current strategy since they planned to create Game Pass to nurture it with games. I have said so many times.
Sony just made this even more important for Microsoft in order to prevent things like Starfield juggernaut skipping Xbox for one year or so. Sony used the anticompetitive weapons to keep games off Xbox and they backfired. Microsoft started with small fry like Compulsion Games and Undead Labs and now we're talking Zenimax and ABK.
@Kaloudz The point is more that 10yrs is 'long' enough to FORCE a Company to continue making games with complete Parity on their Competitors platform. 10yrs is ample time to prepare a strategy that doesn't rely Solely on MS's 'newly' acquired IP to remain 'competitive' in the industry should, for ANY reason, MS decide not to continue supporting Playstation with CoD or insisting on COMPLETE Parity.
After 10yrs, Sony 'should' be in a position to cope with the loss of CoD, should cope with 'extras' being offered to Xbox customers etc. After 10yrs, Sony could offer alternatives to CoD - maybe one of their 'many' Live Service games, maybe its a Single Player game - point is, its still a 'game' that draws people into the Playstation ecosystem.
As I said, it won't be 'CoD' vs 'Destiny, Killzone, Resistance or some 'new' FPS multi-player game offering similar game-play - it will be Forza, Halo, Gears, CoD, Starfield and ALL the MS 'Exclusives' vs Uncharted, GoW, Horizon, Gran Turismo, Spider-Man and ALL the Sony Exclusives to decide whether you want to play on Playstation, Xbox or BOTH!
The point is more to say that 10yrs is more than enough time to insist on Complete Parity and to insist that MS continues to support Gamers on another platform. At most, they maybe should be made to support PS5 as some gamers would have bought a PS5 expecting to play CoD but no-one has bought a PS6 to play CoD so 'offering' to continue to support a 'non-existent' platform where NO consumers are is more than long enough for the CMA to 'consider' when deciding the outcome. Its not saying they MUST make a CoD clone in the next 10yrs to compete, just that Sony have 10yrs to 'prepare' for that 'possibility' which is more than long enough and longer than ANY previous Concessions have ever warranted. MS could have offered 3yrs, 5yrs or even just this 'gen' for example but offering 10yrs is above and beyond what ANY company have been forced to offer to get deals done - as demonstrated by MS's examples of other cases where 3-5yrs is generally regarded as sufficient.
Basically its saying we have guaranteed 10yrs of Complete Parity - longer than ANY company in History has been 'forced' to offer and 10yrs is more than enough time for ANY company to create alternatives to compete with MS's Exclusives (Should CoD be removed after that time). Not that they EXPECT Sony to now make a CoD Clone or ANY exclusives, just that 10yrs is AMPLE time to insist on Complete Parity and certainly long enough for the CMA to be concerned with...
As they said almost straight after that they don't see any 'incentive' in pulling games away after that 10yr period, they have an ACTIVE ONLINE COMMUNITY on Playstation eager to give MS money to play CoD so its more 'Lucrative' than pulling CoD away and potentially losing that portion of the Community but in anycase, they won't be forced to support a Platform if that Community disappears either after 10yrs....
I think arguing about CoD needing to be multiplat may be a smart legal or financial strategy, but … it sounds dumb to me. I am fine with CoD being Xbox only. I am fine with console exclusives and having CoD off PS would make my Playstation experience better.
@Banjo- I agree 100%
@Kaloudz Its just MS's way of saying that 10yrs is more than adequate a time-frame to 'insist' MS continues to fund ports to their 'rivals'. Long enough a time frame for Sony to have some strategy or business plan, their own 'exclusives', services etc to 'compete' should MS decide to make their games 'Exclusive' - its a LONG time to 'prepare' and have 'protected' access to CoD.
In other words, its telling the CMA that 10yrs is more than Adequate a time frame to insist on Complete Parity and Continued Support for their Competitors. Sony shouldn't be in a 'Position' where 'Losing' CoD would see them having to pull out of gaming in 10yrs time because that is more than long enough to 'prepare' for so 'don't' ask for or expect more because that is already above and beyond ANY previous Concessions that have been required in LAW before...
@cragis0001 Thanks buddy, I agree with you as well.
It's not going to happen, but the scenario in my head: Microsoft issues one COD game, just under 10 years after the acquisition on all platforms, and it is a retro game similar to Prodeus. In the meanwhile, the whole team is used to develop Halo after Halo 😇
@Fenbops that’s very fanboyish wanting other platform games to flop. I wouldn’t speak too soon, could bite ya on the arse when Starfield releases. Imagine the absolute barrage of laughter and grief if that’s a mess. 37 years worth of delays, stupendous hype an it’s just not very good! PS fanboys will never let Xbox fanboys live it down.
@jordan1992 that’s fine with me. I’ll probably be laughing too.
@Tharsman Atari 2600 was the first console to do timed exclusive games. Atari, being the dominant company in gaming at the time, was able to outbid any competitor for the hottest arcade games. Plus, many of the biggest games were actually produced by the arcade division of Atari.
There weren't many timed exclusives during the NES era because of Nintendo's strict (and eventually ruled illegal) licensing practices. Nintendo barred it's licensees from producing ANY games for competing consoles. The NES had a lockout chip, and a code must be programmed into each cartridge for the games to play. When developers found ways around the code and produced unlicensed games, Nintendo sued them, as well as threatened retailers who carried the unlicensed games. With Nintendo controlling 90% of the market, retailers couldn't afford to be cut off by Nintendo, so most declined to carry the unlicensed games.
The 16 bit era also saw few timed exclusives, but it did have one of the biggest - Street Fighter II. SFII was the biggest game of the early 90's, and Nintendo struck a deal with Capcom for an exclusive SNES home version in 1992. Although the Sega Genesis was doing very well at the time, the timed SFII exclusive caused a big surge in SNES sales, and is generally considered to be a turning point for Nintendo. Capcom would eventually release a Genesis version in 1993, but the SNES benefited the most, by far, from the most popular game of the time.
The next generation is where timed exclusives really became a major component of a company's strategy. The Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn, and Nintendo 64 were the first consoles designed to produce primarily 3D polygon graphics. Sony wanted games to show off the power of the Playstation, and they found several. Ridge Racer, Wipeout, Battle Arena Toshinden, and Destruction Derby were technically impressive (for the time), pick up and play games that really proved that the next generation had arrived, so Sony locked up timed exclusivity deals for those four games.
The PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation saw one of the biggest timed exclusive deals of all time. Sony purchased the rights for the Grand Theft Auto series games, starting with GTA III. GTA III and GTA: Vice City are among the best selling PS2 games of all time, and Sony's timed exclusive deals put a stranglehold on the competition. GTA: San Andreas would later be a simultaneous multi-platform release, but by that time, the console race was over.
Virtua Fighter 5 was a timed PS3 exclusive, appearing on Xbox 360 a year later. Mass Effect 2 & Bioshock were major timed Xbox 360 exclusives. MS also followed Sony's example and licensed two episodes of Grand Theft Auto to be released first on Xbox 360. Our current generation has also seen the evolution of timed exclusive downloadable content, notably map packs for some of the biggest shooters.
Sorry for the long post but pretty much every console in every gen, including Xbox, have done this. Playstation became the number one selling console, PS2 being the biggest selling ever so this gives them more power in acquiring timed exclusive deals. If Xbox where the biggest selling console on the market they would 💯 do the exact same.
@Fenbops why??? You want rubbish games??? I own both machines, i wouldn’t ssay i’m a fanboy but i do prefer Playstation simply because, imo, their exclusives are my absolute fav type of games. Huge story driven games which amazing stories, characters and acting worthy of an Oscar. If Xbox started releasing these type of games i’d love that!!
No of course I don’t, just cause there may be a couple of crap games I can laugh at doesnt mean I want crap games. I hope Starfields not crap, very much looking forward to it. If it is why not have a laugh and then go play something else. Not the end of the world.
Counter Strike 2
nuff said
All Sony has to do is make a proper Killzone 4 and it will smash Cod out of the window. Even Brothers in Arms was better than what Cod has become.
@Kaloudz Sometime around then - still on target for what they originally stated they expected it to 'conclude' by and I still believe it will Conclude by that date, its more of a 'bonus' for 'Xbox' gamers if it happened to Conclude before but MS know what they are doing and certainly answered all concerns (maybe some extra discussions and time to look over those 'new' contracts as 'new' evidence in MS's favour should certainly be enough) so its still on target to 'conclude' on time as far as I am concerned...
If i was Sony i would buy near dead Medal of honor franchise from EA and make Bungie develop a COD killer. Cant be as bad as 343
@Kaloudz Killzone was a pretty good franchise but it just doesn't do very well for some reason.
@dimi Medal of Honor Allied Assault was my favorite one.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...