Jim Ryan: Xbox's Call of Duty 'Proposal Was Inadequate on Many Levels' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 07 September 2022 / 6,154 Views
PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan in a statement to GamesIndustry said Microsoft promised to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for a further three years beyond the current agreement between Sony and Activision Blizzard.
The promise for a further three years according to Ryan is "inadequate on many levels."
"I hadn’t intended to comment on what I understood to be a private business discussion, but I feel the need to set the record straight because Phil Spencer brought this into the public forum," Ryan said.
"Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends. After almost 20 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation, their proposal was inadequate on many levels and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers. We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft’s proposal undermines this principle."
The statement from Ryan follows Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer stating Microsoft sent a "signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements."
It is believed Sony's marketing deal for Call of Duty might end in 2024 and with a three year promise from Microsoft would mean the potential final Call of Duty game to release on PlayStation consoles could be in 2027. This is Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard is approved by regulators.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Love the hypocrisy. Sony has no qualms about money-hatting games from other platforms and their gamers all the time, but this would be unfair for Sony's gamers. Lol. And, this isn't even the same as a money-hat. Microsoft owns COD now full stop.
They own shit right now!
It has to go through
That was my first thought. FF7R alone makes his complaints completely irrelevant. Either way, I highly doubt MS will actually remove CoD from PlayStation. Contractual agreements between the two parties every several years would probably be the smartest way to go about it. As long as there's no more money hatting CoD modes exclusively to PlayStation anymore lol. But of course, the deal has to finalize first.
I mean lol for real. This is really bad. The deal is happening so instead of doing something like that he should be working with Microsoft... And the problem is more about it being on GamePass in the first place anyway.
Sony is buying off whole franchises off Xbox and they never called it "inadequate" for the other platform gamers...
This concept that many gamers seem to believe, that buying the rights to an individual game is somehow a WORSE thing than buying entire franchises and studios and making them exclusive, is utterly ridiculous. That's the ultimate money hat.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't praise one form of exclusivity, and then vilify the other. Incremental steps of aggression (in this case, money-hatting of 3rd party games as exclusives) leads to escalation in an arms race. Microsoft chose to outright buy franchises. I've spent years on this site hearing Sony gamers wishcasting which third parties Sony should buy and bring exclusively under the PlayStation banner. People need to learn to be careful what they wish for.
Don't act like this is a path Microsoft took as some kind of righteous retaliation. That's straight-up dishonest. Microsoft ENTERED GAMING by purchasing studios and exclusives. Trying to make up justifications for ruthless corporations is silly.
Sony purchased most of the studios they own too. Buying is buying.
No kidding? Why are you repeating my point?
And Sony didn't buy a single studio while launching the PlayStation? Right... I don't need to "make up justifications" for anything. I saw blatant hypocrisy, and I called out. If that ruffles the feathers of the people who reveled when the door was swinging their way, then so be it. The fact cannot be disputed that Sony has engaged in keeping 3rd party games off of other platforms for years. The irony of them crying over it being done to them, regardless of the degree, is not lost on me.
And now I'm calling out your hypocrisy. If that ruffles your feathers, then so be it. People trying to pretend one company or the other has the moral high ground is pure fanboyism.
Microsoft is a corporation that does what they do in order to make money. Sony is the same way. Your "oh but Sony deserves it, their fans deserve it because some of them said some things online" routine is silly. You're pretending that Xbox fans didn't say the same things? Bullshit. You are simply revising history to fit your agenda.
I have a Microsoft agenda now? That's news to me. It got a laugh out of me though, so thanks for that I guess. You keep trying to get further and further away from the point on some holier than though crusade, but it doesn't change the facts. Microsoft owns COD now. It's their property to do with as they want at this point. Sony doesn't own Final Fantasy, but they have made deals to keep a high profile 3rd party property off other platforms for years. One of those things is slimier than the other. If Sony buys Square Enix, like Sony Ponies beg for all time, they will own Final Fantasy outright, and it will be theirs to release where they see fit. As someone who opted out of the PS ecosystem when they released the PS3 at a $500+ price point (the equivalent of launching a console at $734 today), I wouldn't like it, but you wouldn't see me crying about it either.
I'm sorry, this sounds childish as hell. He needs to stop. He isn't worried about the gamers, he's worried about money. If you were worried about the gamers, you wouldn't have raised the price of the PS5 on everyone except for America. Get outta here with that Jim.
yah like the price increase... the dude is clearly worried so much about the gamers :)
Console Wars: the rumors of my untimely death have been greatly exaggerated.
Dear Sony,
You had to make deals with Activision on a regular basis for Call of Duty (and other games I am sure). If the acquisition goes through, you will have to make deals with Microsoft on a regular basis for Call of Duty (and other games I am sure).
Same business practice, different company. The only real difference is that you will probably lose out on some privileges.
Sincerely,
Reality
This seems like a PR fail by Sony. It comes off as very whiny. Sony is entitled to COD, but no reason for that is given. That's of course because there is no realistic reason for that to be the case. Sony is not entitled to anything. Microsoft is not entitled to anything. These are companies doing business. When these executives start talking like 14-year-old fanboys, it really makes the whole industry look ridiculous.
It seems like Microsoft chose that timeframe because that would stretch things out to about the end of the PS5 generation. It's likely Microsoft would continue to release Call of Duty on PS5 potentially even beyond that, so long as it remained profitable to do so. But PS6 might be a different story. It seems like Jim Ryan wants a deal that would stretch beyond that into the early days of a potential PS6 generation. And it's understandable that Microsoft might not want to make such a commitment this far in advance.
What other third-party franchise is promised to come out for a company that far into advance, potentially into a new generation? That'd be like signing a deal less than two years into the Super NES era, without being aware of how successful the Super NES was going to be, and knowing nothing at all about the N64 yet.
There's a contract with Bungie games in place to guarantee they come out on a non-Sony platform for 5+ years? That's the equivalent of what we're talking about here, if Microsoft extended the existing contract for several more years. If such a contract exists between Bungie and Microsoft then I'm not aware of it.
They made a public declaration, detracting on that would have several issues including likely evasion of devs from their team. And if the subsidiary is independent as PD they have a lot of voice over their own destiny.
Sure, and I agree that it's likely that Bungie will continue to be multiplatform. But that's nonetheless not the same as a contract that guarantees it. Jim Ryan is asking for something almost without precedent in the games industry. Who signs a contract early in one gen that would last into a theoretical and absolutely unknown next-gen? I can't think of Square doing that with Sony (or Nintendo before that). I can't think of Rare doing that when they were a Nintendo second-party developer. I can't think of any contract in the games industry where you agree to 6+ years of releases in advance. Hell, taking a 2-3 year contract, and adding 3+ years onto that, was already unprecedented. And Jim Ryan wants MORE?! That's ridiculous.
He didn't ask for anything. He wasn't even going to say anything. He is only talking at all because MS wanted to go the self praising route.
MS made the offer to make the purchase of ABK easier to pass and Sony didn't find the offer enticing enough to make the road easier to MS, just that.
I think your assessment is correct. But the WHY of it is what's interesting. Why was the offer not enticing enough? 5+ years of guaranteed CoD on the platform is pretty good. Was there something in the terms and conditions that they objected to? Sony didn't suggest there was, so what else could it be?
My suspicion is that you're right, Microsoft offered the deal in the hopes that it would help the ABK deal go through.
My further suspicion is that Sony choose not to accept it in the hopes that regulators would instead enforce CoD on PS in perpetuity. I note with interest that the UK regulator practically copied and pasted one of Sony's statements into one of the regulator's public statements.
well would be 2 or 3 years more than they already had under contract so we shouldn't add both together =p
But yes it was likely MS and Sony trying to toss the regulators over their field and well as much as it may harm Sony interest it isn't as if it would be impossible for Sony to counter or even as if MS would get too big in this market.
It appears to be a contract extension offer, so I think we absolutely should add them together. :)
Sounds like we otherwise agree.
Different situation I think. If I recall, Bungie specifically stated in the terms of the acquisition that Sony would not be able to restrict what platforms Bungie released their games on. Activision/Blizzard did no such thing with Microsoft.
To be fair, Microsoft was happy to keep releasing the titles on competitors platforms even after the current contracts expire... By extending the current contract.
The issue Sony is having is that there is no guarantee after the contracts expire.
And it's a fair concern. CoD isn't a small title, it -will- influence the purchasing decision of millions of gamers.
Yeah, but Sony's also talking out of both sides of their mouth. They claim they're doing this for Sony gamers, but they only seem concerned about Call of Duty. What about Diablo, Spyro, Crash, Overwatch, etc.? This isn't about Sony gamers, this is about the supposed power of Call of Duty specifically and what it means to Sony's bottom line. They've been honest about that in regulatory filings with governments, but dishonest about it in public statements, it seems to me.
Nothing says the contract expiring means Microsoft will indeed remove Call of Duty from PS. If it's making money hand over fist there, I expect it will continue to be released there. If a Sony fan wants to give Microsoft $70, plus DLC, plus battle passes, plus microtransactions, etc., I think Microsoft will take their money. Microsoft has been pretty clear that they see having it on Game Pass is enough of an advantage to them, as they see game sales declining and game subscriptions increasing, in the future. I think the only time we'd not see Call of Duty on PS is if sales drop so low that Microsoft isn't leaving money on the table. I think that's why Microsoft was willing to extend their current 2-3 year contract to 5+ years, because they think they'll continue releasing CoD on PS even beyond the contract.
I think the Bethesda purchase is different as Microsoft was hunting for exclusives, because everyone was complaining Microsoft didn't have enough. Two-dozen (or so) studios making exclusives is more than enough, once they get their act together. So I don't think they feel they want or need exclusives from Acti-Blizz too.
My guess is we'll probably also see future Tony Hawk on PS, future Spyro and Crash on Switch, etc. But not in PS+, and not on Nintendo Switch Online.
In their most recent statements, Microsoft was clear that Activision titles wouldn't be in any other subscription service, you'd have to purchase it on other platforms. That's the key to understanding their intent here, IMO.
They also said Sony would get an equal version, on launch day. Nothing says Microsoft can't give Xbox and Windows owners who pre-order the ability to play 4 or 5 days before launch (as Microsoft did with Forza Horizon 5, Halo Wars 2, and many others). Nothing says CoD DLC can't be a timed exclusive for Microsoft's platforms, as they were for PS4 last gen. There are lots of ways that Microsoft can give themselves an advantage, while still getting millions selling it on PS4/5.
Not that I like it (I actually dislike it quite a bit even though I don't care for COD), but if COD belongs to Microsoft, they should do whatever they want with it. How is anything inadequate for Ryan, if the game belongs to the competitor? It isn't his say, is it?
Hey Sony, you have Killzone, MAG, and Resistance IPs you're sitting on. Revive them.
Don’t forget SOCOM
I wish they would revive SOCOM. I really like this game.
I would like to see a sequel of SOCOM and also MAG
Unfair for Sony players while they have had the CoD contract for the last 20 years.. i guess locking FF7R, SF5 and even Spiderman content isnt unfair ffs the hypocrisy of this brand.
Wasn't CoD on X360 era under contract with MS so how it is for the last 20 years with Sony? Was CoD already a big thing in PS2?
Not for 20 years
Guess you can re-read your own post and provide how could CoD be under contract with Sony for the last 20 years if it was in contract with MS during X360 era which ended less than 20 years ago.
Cod existed on PS2 but it wasn't a big deal until CoD4. CoD was created to be a Medal of Honor killer.
Man I'm so glad I switched back to PC gaming. MS and Sony are both committing to PC and I can avoid all this other BS.
Hey Sony, any chance I can play RE7 VR on PC? Oh right yeah they paid to keep it PS exclusive. What about Final Fantasy 7 or 14 or 16 on Xbox? Or how about the Hogwarts Legacy exclusive content to PS that's already been locked in long before the game even releases? Shenmue 3? A game that wasn't even associated with PS kept off Xbox. You can go on and on.
This guy...
FF 14 didn't release on Xbox because MS at the time didn't allow crossplay (around end X360 days early X1 days) or so is the reports in the internet.
RE7VR likely the development was paid by Sony while Shenmue 3 from reveal was said that they traded exclusivity for the marketing on the reveal that granted them the funds to make the game.
FF7 and FF16 all we know is that Sony paid for 1 year exclusivity, we don't know if there is any clause preventing it from going Xbox.
But sure buying Bethesda and ABK is the same thing =p
Nintendo sitting back and eating popcorn while this is all going down.
Funny thing is Nintendo doesn't have COD and they're more profitable than Playstation.
(Yes PS makes more revenue, but Nintendo makes more profit. As in money actually made for the company.)
So you’d say Nintendo overprices their stuff even more and is even greedier than Sony and MS…
If they have less games available, sell less, have less revenue but more profit...
Sony spend way more on game development. They also spend a lot on marketing rights and timed exclusive games/content. Those are the main reasons their profit isn't that high.
I know it. I was just explaining the logic Hynad was using. I do think Nintendo games are to expensive considering the cost to develop, how much it sell and "never" being discounted, but as a company I can't fault them (they as any company looks for maximum profit) and if the fanbase keeps purchasing there is no reason to change.
Someone in here was saying the other day that Microsoft probably intended to pull COD off PlayStation with the launch of the 10th console generation, and I think that was a good call by them. They are going to keep COD on PlayStation for 3 more years after the current deal expires, so in total around 5-6 more years. That will be almost exactly when the next generation kicks off
Seems about right. Why would MS want to commit to anything longer than a 3 year contract? I know Sony wants it to be longer, but this puts MS in a situation that takes away negotiating powers in the future. Let's say, Sony acquires some big 3rd party publisher. This way MS can agree to release CoD on PS if Sony does the same for Xbox. My guess is they reevaluate the deal after 3 years and then keep doing 3 year deals. Or they stop releasing on Playstation, but I doubt that will happen.
SONY needs to move one. The bought Halo guys, just have them build a new FPS series for PS owners. Go for a straight rip if needed
Any game Bungie do will be multiplat and plus Sony don't dictate what their studios develop. What they are doing is partnering with external studios and buying newly breed ones to do FPS.
I really don’t think Phil should have said anything about the private deal. My guess is he’s worried about this purchase going through without some major concessions.
Guess Microsoft is legitimately afraid the deal won't go through without it. Otherwise it's pointless to make this commitment. They should pull Diablo 4 from PlayStation if they still can.
I think Microsoft should release everything on PlayStation, even Bethesda games... but release them all as PS4 games. That way they get access to the gigantic PS4 market, but they'll also run (in improved form) on the PS5. They'd have to be scaled down to lower resolutions, frame rates, and levels of detail, but games are written to do that these days (many modern games can run on some pretty low-spec PCs, for example).
If I were Microsoft I'd even release Starfield this way. If not at launch, then after a fashion. It would even be an asset for them with regulators. That way you can play the game on every current and last-gen PlayStation, but the best experience is on Microsoft's platforms. Win-win, PS fans gets the game, and Microsoft gets to favour their platforms without denying the game to PS fans. And included on Game Pass, but costs $60 on PS4/PS4 Pro/PS5.
I'd even consider releasing Forza Horizon this way, it looks good even on an Xbox One or a low-spec PC, I'm sure it could be made to look good on a PS4.
I don’t think people understand what a hypocrite is. Laughing at Sony for crying about moneyhats doesn’t make a Chartz user a hypocrite. Now, if they laugh at Sony here but agree with another company in another article on the same issue, that’s hypocrisy.
Also, people miss the forest for the trees when they try to excuse Sonys actions or minimize them in comparison to MS because MS is buying publishers and bigger studios then whatever Sony is buying.
Sony buys so much and walls off so much, it doesn’t really matter if the studios they buy are similar in size. It’s more of a “death by a thousand cuts” experience on the Sony side. There are loads of games I never played or waited months for sales to play out of principle because Sony locked down content.
I’m glad Sony is getting mocked around the Internets in gaming circles. They deserve it for this nonsense.
There's no reason for MS to commit to anything longer, I don't expect COD to leave Playstation but MS have to keep their options open. In particular this isn't just about whether its multiplatform but also "parity". Since Playstation has actually had timed COD exclusive content in the last gen, there's no foot to stand on there.
Ultimately I think Jim Ryan is just trying to course correct the narrative and reapply pressure Phil Spencer tried to dispell by detailing the deal in the first place.
All this talk about purchases and exclusivity has made me glad I've moved to PC gaming. Forget consoles.
I don't follow his logic.
Sony has Bungie and has dormant i.p like resistance / killzone / socom...
Make magic happen!
Those IPs are nothing close to CoD
If Sony gamers want cod then get gamepass on pc or xbox lol
Its all about scale and the amount of buying power MS has. Nobody complained about Hell Blade 2, Redfall and whatnot going Xbox console exclusive. However, buying a whole publisher with some of world's biggest multiplat IPs does lean towards creating a monoploy that will potentially disrupt the market. Especially if Microsoft isn't done buying stuff and will go after EA and/or Take Two after the activision deal is done.
Wow, tribalism rife on this site. Exclusives in all forms is crap, people defending these purchases are what is wrong with this industry and the species in general.
Yes, only if its Xbox doing it.
Nah. YOU’re among those commenting this way only when it’s Sony.
Article says otherwise.
MSFT are using it as leverage to get GP on PS consoles. I can't see it happening unless they strip out all non MSFT games from GP.
If Sony wants to keep letting their players have some CoD time... they need to make a browser that supports xcloud. I can play xcloud on my steamdeck... why not a PS5 or 6 or 7? No having to buy the game or install big ass game files. Just open the browser and play. People can have varying views about streaming but it works (for me) so it could be a viable solution to this situation.
Not sure why everyone is calling Sony hypocrites. When the contract is up Microsoft are taking COD and everything Activision has permanently. Not for a year. Not for 6 months. Not a temporary DLC. Everything gone forever. Massive difference.
If you watch Reviewtechusas video yesterday most of Xboxs big future exclusives are in development hell.
When you look at Xboxs past theyve messed up their deals with Bungie, Epic, shuttered Lionhead, ruined Rareware. Lost scalebound etc etc.
Phil Spencer is not your friend. Microsoft like Sony just want your money. Microsoft keep throwing money away to buy themselves out of their self created holes.
At least sony are continually putting out thier own stellar IP.
Something Microsoft are still clueless about.
Just about every company Sony have bought have mainly ever worked with Sony and doesn't affect Microsoft in the slightest.
Microsofts buys are greedy and ignorant.
And are protected by an army of fans that love to temporary rent their games. Their execs will ruin Bethesda and Activision yet and move on to something else. They have the money not to care....
Oh no not sCaLeBoUnD ?
Also, most of your “development hell” theories from that video are just speculation or are very old speculation.
Sony pays money for plenty of games that affect other people. I’m still waiting for SFV on my Xbox ?
Street fighter 5 is shit.
Go watch the video at reviewtechusa and then come back!
I did watch the video. Like I said, it's all speculation and some of it is over a year old.
Hope it fails, hate all this exclusive crap.
At least cod will reach far bigger audience via gamepass then being stuck solely on one console that doesn't have gamepass
There definitely is a unique relationship between Sony and Square Enix (particularly the “Square” part of the company) and people can only guess about the actual specifics of that relationship.
That being said, Sony has helped fund many of Square’s projects in the past. If not helping with development money, they did with marketing. The original Final Fantasy VII was one such title for which Sony handled the majority, if not all of the game’s marketing outside of Japan.
It’s possible there are more to that deal that remains to this day. After all, Sony helped keep Squaresoft from bankruptcy after Sakaguchi’s Spirit Within blunder. Could be Square’s side of the company is still being thankful to Sony for helping push one of their most beloved titles and keeping them afloat. That kind of thing from a Japanese dev wouldn’t be a unique occurrence.
It's worse as single game exclusivity is tied to one console. Zenimax and Activision blizzard is available on everything that can access gamepass. which is huge. If down the track cod doesn't come to playstation, Sony gamers can still access ganepass visa pc, mobile and TV.
There's no need to
buy xbox to play gamepass. Whereas to play single player exclusivity games, I will have to buy a ps5. Big difference
Good on Jimbo for calling out Spencer and showing some balls. Everyone knows what MS is trying to do as they have already done it with Bethesda. We have seen time and time again where Spencer says one thing and does the opposite. Just like his response to the CMA.
“We’ve heard that this deal might take franchises like Call of Duty away from the places where people currently play them. That’s why, as we’ve said before, we are committed to making the same version of Call of Duty available on PlayStation on the same day the game launches elsewhere. We will continue to enable people to play with each other across platforms and across devices. We know players benefit from this approach because we’ve done it with Minecraft, which continues to be available on multiple platforms and has expanded to even more since Mojang joined Microsoft in 2014.”
He basically suggested this would be like a Minecraft situation when they already decided before this deal closes they would make COD exclusive after 3 years past the agreement. He’s just a used car salesman saying what he needs to say to close the deal for PR purposes. I am glad Jimbo said something publicly about it. “The lies of P” is really a double entendre in the video game industry.
You are falsely asserting that you know for certain what will happen once the contract with Sony expires. But no one knows that. I'm not even sure Spencer knows that. Won't it depend on Sony's market performance this generation, and next, and the one after that? I think Microsoft will keep releasing CoD on PlayStation as long as PS is still a major platform.
Microsoft doesn't need to deny CoD to Sony fans. They just need to have it in Game Pass, but not on PS+. They need to have early release opportunities (such as pre-order the deluxe edition and get the game 4 days early), but only on Xbox and Windows. They can have timed DLC exclusivity on Xbox and PC, and it would be hypocritical for Sony to complain about that as they paid for timed DLC exclusivity and other benefits to Call of Duty players on PlayStation (on the PS4 at a minimum... I recall Microsoft doing the same thing on 360).
Microsoft can reap tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars from CoD on Sony, while still giving Microsoft platforms an advantage, all the while avoiding the PR hit of denying it to Sony gamers. And that's my best guess as to exactly what will happen. But I won't make the mistake of assuming that I'm right!
Why would MS want to committ to anything longer than 3 year contracts? This takes away from having negotiating powers down the line. Just reup every 3 years. This, MS bad and Sony good take is funny. Both are businesses looking out for themselves.
So basically you took PR stuff to mean one thing and you were wrong. It’s ok, it’ll happen again and again.
Kind of like how what Jim Ryan is doing is nothing more than PR fluff. Maybe MS should just reply about how “unfair” it is by asking where their version of Spider-Man, SFV, or FF7part1 are ?
He wouldn't ask for Spiderman that's for sure because he already passed on it first. Don't bother trying to make a list war on timed hats or bought exclusives after they cancelled the PS Starfield sku, made deals for RoTR and plenty of other deals that we could list all day. So "move along".
Thanks for agreeing with me, both sides moneyhat and buy things, so to see Ryan whine about “unfair” is hilarious.
Glad we agree.
Spider-Man isn’t a moneyhat. It’s a deal between Marvel and Sony to make a first party game with Marvel’s property. Same way Kingdom Hearts is with Square Enix and Disney. Only this time, the game is made by one of Sony’s first party. If MS wants to create games based on third party licenses, they can, and considering the way you disingenuously bring this up like that, they probably should.
Whos decision is it to keep Spiderman locked on PS? Marvel?
Go and ask them.
Whose decision was it to turn down Marvel, prior to them going to Sony?
No one cares what kind of monetary deal Spider-Man is. It’s a popular game kept off other platforms by Sony. Apparently, according to Jim Ryan, companies are supposed to share these. Especially ones that used to be multiplat, like the Spider-Man IP.
Just another example of his hypocrisy here. But it’s just PR fluff for public positioning.
Sony doesn’t own the Spider-Man gaming IP.
Spider-Man, the character, can appear on any console, but not the games made by Sony. Marvel went to MS and no interest was given to them.
But that aside, the big difference lies in how MS is taking away franchises that have thrived as multi-platform entities to take them for themselves, while the studios from Sony have been making titles that started and continue as first party IPs.
That you don’t grasp the distinction is peculiar, to say the least.
Never said or implied Sony owns the IP. I’ll make it simple for you to follow.
Sony make game. Sony keep game off other consoles.
Microsoft make game. Microsoft say to Sony we give you game on you PlayStation five years or more.
Sony say waaaaaaaaaaaaah
Also, spare me your “bububuu that was different!” nonsense. Sony moneyhats so much stuff, it’s impossible to not be affected as someone who primarily uses Xbox. So no, it’s not IPs that are first party. Last I checked Street Fighter and RE aren’t Sony first party.
Hope that helped.
RE isn’t exclusive to PS. Neither is SF.
SFV was financed by Sony because otherwise, it wouldn’t have released when it did. MS moneyhats just the same. Lost Odyssey, Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break, andTunic come to mind, timed or not.
And guess what, MS make games and keep them to themselves as well. There are few exceptions to that. One is Minecraft, which was ALREADY released for multiple systems before MS got their hands on Mojang, which continued to support the game on all systems it is available for. But then you have TES, which MS implied will now be exclusive to XBox, despite Skyrim, a game not developed by MS (just like CoD) having been at home on PS consoles long before MS bought Zenimax.
MS has a long antitrust history that even someone like you who willingly blinds himself to everything sketchy his fetish console maker does should very well know about and understand the implications.
Now, about your prepubescent display and stance about the deal MS offered, you have no idea what transpired. Same as any of us. Yet there’s no way you’d consider waiting until you have all the facts before calling foul. As much as I don’t like Jim Ryan’s tenure as CEO of PlayStation, he did mention the deal was “inadequate on many levels” (key word: MANY) yet here you are jumping to a unidirectional conclusion and being the same as you always are when the PS brand is concerned.
Never said or implied RE is exclusive or that SFV is only on Playstation. Just said they aren't first party Sony games. Do try to keep up.
The rest of that is just you pointing out both companies pay for stuff, which is my point. Yet only Jim Ryan seems to be upset about it.
Hope that helped.
Are you for real?
« Sony moneyhats so much stuff, it’s impossible to not be affected as someone who primarily uses Xbox. So no, it’s not IPs that are first party. Last I checked Street Fighter and RE aren’t Sony first party. »
You specifically point out RE, yet those games are available just the same on your precious XBox consoles. So why bring this up
Lastly though, you’ve now made it clear that you lack nuances. Considering you don’t understand the difference between what MS does and what Sony does.
Moneyhat deals don't always mean full exclusives. It can range from full exclusives to console exclusives to timed exclusive to exclusive content to deals preventing games from launching on other services and many other things.
The more you know.
Right, the more I know. This is hilarious. You said all this after whining about how Sony is preventing you from playing those games, mentioning Street Fighter in the same breath, after bringing up earlier how you wanted to play SFV on XBox.
Sony did prevent me from playing SFV on Xbox.
Sony also prevented Capcom from putting RE8 on GamePass with a moneyhat deal.
You made an incorrect assertion that the IP's and games affected by Sony money are first party games. I was just pointing out two easy ones affected by moneyhat deals that aren't first party.
Hope that helped.
I didn’t make an incorrect assertion. I focused my comment on first party developed games because both are doing moneyhats and that’s not relevant to the actual point I made.
You, try to keep up.
Seems you're confused on your own points you try and fail to make.
You: well the big difference is these things Sony buys are first party and dont really affect other IP
Me: well here are two quick easy examples that shows that logic is full of shit.
You: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Will there be anything else?
Now that’s precious. You basically admit to having nothing. You keep arguing with Phil’s deep in your mouth and can’t see anything rationally.
So you’re saying those two games actually are first party? ??
Sorry that you gave yourself the L
And you have the nerve to say I’m the one who doesn’t keep up. ????
You can’t even comprehend the difference between buying major publishers and securing third party marketing exclusivity.
Kudos to Jim. You have probably the biggest company in the world buying the biggest publishing/ gaming deal in history, which also houses the biggest money making title which has been multiplat for over a decade. Millions of people dictate their console choice on that one game. That's just one established multiplat. Something that big already established should remain so. What about fairness in competition?
It's dangerous what microsoft is doing, they're locking people out of choice on games they've accustomed to playing on their system of choice. You have to think what their agenda is, it isn't just to compete, they want to put sony out of business and or will force them to end up trying to adapt to their business model and fail while trying.
They likely didn't took this route to have the deal approved easier, for Bethesda they didn't grant any grace period.
People seem to also conveniently forget that MS have, in the not too distant past, bought another publisher and made their entire output exclusive.... covering dozens of former third party franchises!!
You have to keep going to past for this, the last timed exclusive of a franchise they don’t own was Tomb Raider, meanwhile Sony have heavily ramped up their efforts since then. It was also leaked that they money hatted Silent Hill 2 remake and potentially Silent Hill 5.
What even are you talking about? They have timed exclusive deals every year. Phantasy Online 2 was timed for over 2 years for them and just released a week ago. The Medium, Warhammer, Ark 2, The Ascent, Tunic etc. That's just from this past year alone and I am sure I am missing some. Anything they ever announce in a showcase that says Console launch exclusive is a timed one for them and most of them they don't own . And if you're going to bring up SH5 at least be honest about it, the leak said "exclusive announcement" meaning Sony can market it first, not exclusive to them. Until anything is confirmed SH2 is not exclusive either, just more rumors. Just like the empire thread bitched for almost 2 years thinking SF6 was exclusive to PS5 and guess what? It's not.
Do you think Xbox fans remembers these inconvenient facts?
They prefer to go the route that buying a full publisher is less damaging than paying for 1 year time exclusivity, or that DLC exclusivity is worse than full exclusivity, etc.
Exactly, MS started the whole moneyhat DLC with CoD when they had the marketing agreement back in the X360 era. Then they paid 50 million dollars to money hat GTA4 DLC for a year on top of that. Those are way bigger than an extra playable character and a potion. Pathetic!
If you want to go that route, exclusives by contract were in place even before and Nintendo were even more strict with devs that wanted to launch on NES only allowed to launch on it and with a limited number of titles per year.
To be fair, Jim Ryan is damaging the brand’s reputation more than any other CEO before him.
And in the end it doesn't even mean if his actions are good or bad, will bring more money or not, but that the impression fanbase have is very negative of him I would say that it is even worse than even crazy ken talking about getting a second job.
Nintendo was doing that kind of deals long before Sony entered the console market.
People was displeased because of how he distorted reality and well that it was to costly to do timed deals when they had a lot less marketshare.
U forgot for spoken 2 year deal and more
Biggest bull shitter out there.
Phil Spencer said "We provided a signed agreement"... (as in "signed by us (Microsoft)"). They NEVER said Sony signed it. Stop using "lies" and other words that are really not at all right or accurate just because you want to understand something the way you want...
That's why you are getting downvoted... Cause you are plain wrong in your statement and for not understanding properly what Microsoft said in the first place and saying they lied...
So you saw the agreement paper then? You know for a fact that it wasn't signed by both Sony and MS? Sounds to me like you have no proof that Sony didn't sign it either and you could be just plain wrong as well.
What are you talking about lol Do you even understand what we are talking about here? Not the agreement itself lol, nobody knows about it.
We are talking about Microsoft saying (Phil Spencer) that THEY sent a SIGNED agreement (that's in their tweet lol) to Sony... and now Jim Ryan is saying that the agreement was not adequate...
But this guy (Classicthing) is calling Phil Spencer and lies about that? How is that a lie, and what does the content of the agreement has to do with that?
He is saying that Microsoft is lying because he CLEARLY missread it and understood that Phil Spencer said they have a "signed agreement "with" Sony" (which Jim Ryan just confirmed they did not sign)... Microsoft SIMPLY said that they sent a "signed (by them)" agreement to Sony.. Nothing else. And nobody even said that it was signed or not by Sony. (other than Jim Ryan right now).
I get that YOU understood that right by the way. But the classicthingdude, did not, clearly and his comment is all about that.
