By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Microsoft: 10 Years is Long Enough for Sony to Develop an Alternative to Call of Duty

Microsoft: 10 Years is Long Enough for Sony to Develop an Alternative to Call of Duty - News

by William D'Angelo , posted on 21 March 2023 / 4,919 Views

Microsoft in its response to the questions by UK regulators, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), at the remedies hearings that keeping Call of Duty on PlayStation consoles for 10 years is more than enough time for Sony to develop its own alternative to the popular first-person shooter series.

"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]," wrote Microsoft. "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).

Microsoft: 10 Years is Long Enough for Sony to Develop an Alternative to Call of Duty

"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 incentivized 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.

"A 10-year term is longer than the previous licensing remedy put in place in Reckitt Benckiser/K-Y brand (2015), which was for a period of eight years and in line with the 10-year terms imposed in Korean Air / Asiana Airlines (2023) and Bauer Media Group.

"This period is also in line with access commitments accepted by the European Commission in Meta/Kustomer (2022), London Stock Exchange Group/Refinitiv Business (2021), Google/Fitbit (2020) and Telia Company/Bonnier Broadcasting (2019). CMA, there is no basis for extending the remedy beyond the period proposed by Microsoft [redacted]."

Microsoft added that its proposed remedy would apply to all PlayStation consoles for the 10 year period.

"Microsoft’s proposal is that the remedy will apply to all Sony consoles (including PlayStation 4, PlayStation 4 Pro and PlayStation 5) and any successor consoles."

Microsoft: 10 Years is Long Enough for Sony to Develop an Alternative to Call of Duty

Microsoft was asked if it would extend this remedy to any new entrants into the video game console market and Microsoft does not consider this necessary.

"Microsoft does not consider that this is necessary in order to remedy, mitigate or prevent the Console SLC identified in the Provisional Findings, which does not relate to a hypothetical withholding of CoD from potential new entrants.

"Rather, the Provisional Findings focus specifically on the potential impact of the Merger on Sony. In particular, the Provisional Findings conclude that CoD is an important input for Sony PlayStation. The CMA has not, however, found or presented evidence to suggest that CoD is an important input for console providers generally.

"Nor could the CMA reach such a conclusion, given that CoD is not available on Nintendo – the second largest provider of consoles – today. As the Provisional Findings acknowledge, console platforms offer different technical specifications and differentiated gaming propositions.

"Nintendo’s success demonstrates conclusively that a console platform’s ability to compete effectively is not dependent on the ability to offer CoD to its customers. Rather, this is possible with a 'differentiated offer.' In any event, Microsoft has already reached an agreement to bring CoD to the Nintendo platform for 10 years as part of its strategy to make CoD as widely available as possible."


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

118 Comments
EpicRandy (on 21 March 2023)

10 years is already pretty long and nobody can even predict what relevance the franchise will hold then. Whether or not you're for or against the deal 10 years is more than enough for Sony to mitigate any issue regarding losing CoD which is not a certainty anyway, just not included in resolutions proposals.

  • +10
Leynos (on 21 March 2023)

No shit. Besides they have a bunch of FPS IPs they can revive and they have Bungie they can create alternatives. SEGA Made Phantasy Star because Nintendo had Final Fantasy. Now I really wish this story would stop as it gets too much attention for such a non issue for a mid series, Sony is throwing a tantrum over.

  • +7
Vengeance1138 Leynos (on 21 March 2023)
  • -11
scrapking Leynos (on 21 March 2023)

I actually think one of the reasons that Microsoft is talking about moving CoD to a two-year cadence is so that they can release another multiplatform FPS game (Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake... maybe even bring back Prey) in CoD's off year. They might even release a Halo or a Gears in the off-year, if they decide it doesn't necessarily have to be multiplatform or first-person.

  • +2
EpicRandy scrapking (on 21 March 2023)

A two year cadence would also free up devs, ease support requirement and add e-sport opportunity by creating a more stable environment.

  • +1
scrapking EpicRandy (on 22 March 2023)

For sure. And a two year cadence would likely increase post-release support, as they'd need patches and new content for two full years, rather than for just one full year.

So each CoD studio would ship a game, support it for 2 years, and then have 4 years after that to get the next one ready for release.

  • -1
EspadaGrim scrapking (on 22 March 2023)

3 year dev cycles are a thing of the past now for AAA games, Even Activision were looking to expand in order keep they yearly cycle going by having Beenox open a new 300 staff studio just for CoD alone.

  • +1
scrapking EspadaGrim (on 22 March 2023)

Yeah, and Activision tasked almost all their other studios as being CoD support studios. Even Toys for Bob, which deserves WAY better than being a support studio for anyone, has been given some period CoD support studio duties. After Toys for Bob shipped Tony Hawk 1&2 (remaster), they proposed a Tony Hawk 3&4 but were instead put in the CoD mines for a while.

Switching to a two year cadence would mean a CoD studio would release the game, would have two years where they support that release with patches and new content, and then four years to create the next game. More than four years, actually, as during that two years they're supporting their release some portions of the team could start doing preliminary work on their next CoD.

And like I say, Microsoft can have one of their other teams release a Doom, or a Quake, or a Wolfenstein, or a Prey, or a Halo, or a Gears for the off year, so it's a win for everyone. Including consumers who get games that have had more development time, and who get more Activision studios working on something OTHER than CoD.

  • +2
Azzanation (on 21 March 2023)

Can people stop spinning this into "well MS cant make 3rd person games" or MS buy their way to the top. That has nothing to do with this.

What Phil is saying is 100% true. 10 years to create a COD counter is definitely capable. Doesnt have to outsell CoD, it just needs to bring a solid MP shooter to their platform to keep their audience happy.

The Issue is Sony doesnt want to try or invest, when they have CoD on lockdown. They have plenty of FPS IPs and enough cash and manpower to make it happen.

Its ridiculous. Sony does not own ABK, yet its crazy how the FTC act like they do. MS are the ones spending half their warchest on the publisher not Sony. If MS want it, they have to pay for it and they have every right to do what they want with it.

Its not a corporate take over, its two buisnesses agreeing to merge. MS are also trying to compete in the mobile market against Apple and Google and yet they are being hampered down because of console wars.

  • +6
2zosteven (on 22 March 2023)

i hope in 10 years thar are more popular games than COD

  • +4
Jumpin (on 23 March 2023)

Apparently 20 years wasn’t long enough for Microsoft to do the same.
Rather than making this about Sony, the discussion should be about how destructive it is for multi-trillion dollar tech conglomerates, like Microsoft, to literally swallow up the largest third parties of our industry. So many people in this comment section slurping down the corporate PR and cheering on predatory business tactics of a company that is frankly, not that good at the dedicated console industry.

  • +1
ConservagameR Jumpin (on 23 March 2023)

Rich people don't do the work, they just buy good, if not the best stuff, and then typically end up ruining it eventually.
At least their fans aren't whining about (original) exclusives anymore, even though they still, really aren't getting them.

  • +1
EpicRandy Jumpin (on 23 March 2023)

Apparently 20 years wasn’t long enough for Microsoft to do the same.
By the exact same token Sony had 20 years to prepare to this eventuality. It's not like they didn't knew who MS was and what was their capacity.

Rather than making this about Sony, the discussion should be about
It's a discussion between the CMA and MS to resolve issue raised by Sony as the sole objector how they're supposed not to make it about Sony?

So many people in this comment section slurping down the corporate PR.
Yes, many people here view a legal action taken by a corporation as bad because their company of choice PR stance is to play the victim.

cheering on predatory business tactics of a company
More like acknowledging a great legal move by MS rather than cheering. if you want your definition of predatory tactics to include legal move that increase one competitiveness that's your decision but it doesn't make it bad, malicious or illegal just because you use a words with a negative connotation.

not that good at the dedicated console industry.
Maybe maybe not but why use a so narrow view when MS release all their content on PC and when the actual market they try to influence the most is actually the game subscription service industry.

  • -2
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 24 March 2023)

Google. Stadia.
Not enough money? Not enough time? Not enough everything?
Maybe they shouldn't have tried to develop or make any (exclusive) games. Just spent their $120 billion and growing on the gaming software IP first, then sign 10 year or shorter deals, then make Stadia $1 for those 10 years on and off, then force everyone to play it on their cloud streaming platform after. Who cares if it plays better on dedicated hardware that gamers are willing to buy from other companies? Who cares if you still don't have access to high speed internet?
Good thing they didn't, and completely folded?

Why not wait and see if Sony can handle it themselves? No need to risk bad PR if you don't have to. If Sony can't, then no reason why anyone else can't speak up for another issue, or maybe if Sony can't stop it themselves, probably nobody can? Maybe a bunch of them wouldn't mind taking a piece out of Sony while they have the chance to by just sitting and watching?

Sony's choice is to always play the victim, while MS plays the villain and get's away with it, which is the best outcome. Not like that nonsense where Sony raises pricing due to inflation like everyone else, only to have nice guy multi trillionaire MS play victim acting like stuff should be free, implying Sony are the greedy one's, vowing to hold still, only to change their tune shortly after to also raising prices for similar reasons.

Why do some pro sports leagues now have spending caps? Because certain teams had too much money and could simply buy their way to victory, over and over and over. Now that caps are in place, that's no longer a problem. Now you have to actually build a team (from the ground up) who works together to win, not just buy enough of the absolute best talent who can do it all by themselves, and automatically have a perpetual championship team because of the excess cash you kept raking in.
Same goes for dev teams. You don't want to spend too much on one vs the others, especially if their output isn't the greatest.

Stadia wouldn't have been good for the dedicated hardware industry.
If Google bought up massive gaming companies and IP first, everyone should've been on board with Stadia because it would've been on PC, TV, etc, and would've been a service?

  • +1
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 24 March 2023)

What have Stadia status have to do with this transaction?

Why not wait and see if Sony can handle it themselves? No need to risk bad PR if you don't have to. If Sony can't, then no reason why anyone else can't speak up for another issue, or maybe if Sony can't stop it themselves, probably nobody can? Maybe a bunch of them wouldn't mind taking a piece out of Sony while they have the chance to by just sitting and watching?
So you think the Stadia venture somehow relate to the situation Sony will face in 10 years? Really??

Sony's choice is to always play the victim, while MS plays the villain and get's away with it, which is the best outcome. Not like that nonsense where Sony raises pricing due to inflation like everyone else, only to have nice guy multi trillionaire MS play victim acting like stuff should be free, implying Sony are the greedy one's, vowing to hold still, only to change their tune shortly after to also raising prices for similar reasons.
Can you provide a link were MS is supposed to play the victim here. All they said it that they would not raise their price themselves at the moment and I took more than a year before they actually did so. And then again if you view MS has some kind of villain entity you have a partisan take. And Sony does not always play the victim either they only are with this story as far as I'm concerned.

Why do some pro sports leagues now have spending caps? [...]. You don't want to spend too much on one vs the others, especially if their output isn't the greatest.
So you advocate for spending cap in a free market. let me guess you would want that to be equivalent to Sony capacity so that it can continue business as usual while bigger player would be tied. Sports leagues have a spending caps not to provide fairplay but because "fairplay" sell more ticket overall so by adding a spending cap they increase the revenue and limit the expense. It is simply unapplicable in the gaming industry as pretty much every other industries.

Stadia wouldn't have been good for the dedicated hardware industry.
If Google bought up massive gaming companies and IP first, everyone should've been on board with Stadia because it would've been on PC, TV, etc, and would've been a service

Does it make google some villain entity in your mind that have been rightly put to death? I was a stadia user for a short while but while they were convenient in some scenario those scenario rarely occurred. In the end they had a proposition that consumer where not looking for. The end, no evil intention no threat to the industry, no self victimization on google part (that I'm aware of).

  • 0
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 25 March 2023)

Same as Nintendo? Same as, what does Sony have anything to do with MS buying ABK?

If Google can't compete, with the time, money, and expertise they had, how will Sony if MS keeps buying, as they've said they plan to? It's not like Stadia ran out of time. They had plenty of time, to make games, partnerships, acquisitions, bring in more (gaming) expertise, and had the money to do it.
It looks as though Stadia tried to do things the way there usually done, which also tends to lead to the best long term results, which is build from the ground up, not just buy up everything and force your offering on others.
Sony may have the expertise, but they're losing time and money for them is already a concern and will likely become a problem soon.

Can you provide a link where Sony stated they're the victim?
You know they're the victim by reading between the lines, same as me. XB said they won't be raising their prices, coincidentally right after Sony raised prices, but also said they can't do that forever. Why not? Because they'd rather play the nice guy and take a bit of a loss for now to buy favor. MS was always going to raise prices, due to inflation just like Sony. MS top brass has even have said they're in it for the long haul when talking about Game Pass income, meaning they know they're losing money right now, but are willing to, to build a customer base as quickly as possible.

Free markets are not entirely free. Rights and freedoms aren't entirely free.
Yes. The old way of the same teams winning was leading to massive losses in overall income for the league, to the point where more and more teams were being sold and moved because they couldn't compete, and even some of those same teams kept suffering because they just couldn't win.
So to keep the league from bleeding out entirely eventually, they put a cap on teams to make it more even. It didn't force everything to be perfectly even, but even enough that you couldn't solely dominate the league, and most everyone stood a chance. If not this year, then next.
Same reason why MS or Sony don't pick 1 or 2 of their most successful dev teams, and get rid of the rest, or combine them all, then put all the funding behind those few dev teams. It would be stupid. Better to keep the diversity, spread things out, help each other out, and keep things even enough.
If any one company is allowed to buy up too much of the gaming market, it will lead to a monopoly and will eventually crash that market. MS looks to be headed in that direction right now.

Stadia would have been fine if they stayed in their lane. Whether they would have or not is hard to say decades into the future. Based on the moves they were making, it seemed like they may have kept to their own space.
I don't think it's great that they folded, I just said that it wouldn't have been good for the dedicated hardware market (in the long run). I left out the long run part, because even if Stadia didn't pull a MS like right now, then there will would have been much more growth over the years, and that would've taken some players away from the dedicated hardware market, and that market it much more fragile since it's much less profitable.

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 25 March 2023)

Comparing Stadia to Sony is ludicrous in any comparable way, their offering did not even compare as well as the medium to play those offering. Stadia failed because Google thought it could get the cloud gaming market from marginal to mainstream while it was simply not even possible and they only tried for 3 years. every body would fail with this. Microsoft could gobble up every 3rd party if they were to propose their offering solely through cloud they would still fail.

  • 0
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 26 March 2023)

If the only place to get all those games was xCloud, it wouldn't fail. It would take a long time to be profitable because many don't have good enough internet for full blown game streaming, but it would be viable. Just depends on if you have the money to do it, and how long you're willing to wait to break even.
Comparing MS to Sony without focusing only on XB and PS gaming isn't comparable either. When MS cash on hand is like half of Sony's entire worth because MS is so large, they can easily afford multiple tens of billions of dollar purchases back to back to back.

  • +1
Giggity_goo (on 21 March 2023)

yes they should already have a new Killzone & Resistance in the works maybe some new fps ips the only alternative is battlefield and thats not been doing to well

  • +1
tslog (on 21 March 2023)

Multiplayer shooter gamers are begging ( subconsciously ) for something better than CoD, which is stale, overdone, and mediocre quality.
It wouldn’t be hard to replace CoD either.
Any newcomer MP that is fun enough & rewarding will dethrone CoD. It’s just that Publishers & some developers are too pathetic & greedy to seriously try.

  • +1
Machiavellian tslog (on 21 March 2023)

Totally disagree with this. There is nothing about COD that is mediocre quality. It might not be to your liking but that is not the same. Instead, COD consistently is a high quality nice value for people money and ABK pours a lot of time and developer effort in keeping it that way. I do agree that any game especially a game that has been on the top as long as COD can become stale because sequels must make the current player base happy while also trying to entice people who have left and new gamers to purchase the game. Its a delicate balancing act which is a testitment to COD for doing it for so long. Many FPS who had their moments all have faded during that time while COD has consistently maintained the top position.

Second on your point is that there are plenty of new FPS games including very popular ones but they still have not dethroned COD. Its not about greed or even seriously trying that is the issue. Instead its being able to make a game that can consistently outperform COD. Having just one good drop isn't enough, it must be multiple. People who play MP games do not leave just because another game offer something different, they leave when their current game of choice is consistently not meeting their needs. Most MP gamers love games that are familiar which only tweek the current formula more than anything else.

  • +13
EpicRandy Machiavellian (on 21 March 2023)

I agree to most of your point except you don't need to beat CoD to be a great alternative to CoD. Just need a great ip with a big focus on competitive multiplayer and consistent release schedule.

  • -1
Machiavellian EpicRandy (on 22 March 2023)

I agree you do not need to beat COD to be successful. There are plenty of FPS MP games that are successful which was one of my points. What I was saying is that to dethrone COD as the number one game takes more than one good release. It will have to be consistent over multipl releases and COD has to also slip in a few.

  • 0
scrapking tslog (on 21 March 2023)

I am not a CoD player. The last CoD I played was Advanced Warfare. The last one I bought was Call of Duty 3. However, I respect CoD's ability to produce a quality product, and to consistently target 60 FPS when so many other games live with 30 FPS.

  • +3
VAMatt tslog (on 21 March 2023)

If it was easy to dethrone Call of duty, it absolutely would have been done by now. Call of Duty is raking in the cash, and it has been doing so for a long time. Every publisher wishes they could come up with something that's even half as successful.

  • +4
scrapking VAMatt (on 22 March 2023)

Yeah, in the early days of CoD there was genuine competition between it and Medal of Honor, and SOCOM.

I'd love to see those franchises come back. But I have no illusions that it would be easy to do. I think it would be possible, but it would take multiple successful iterations of a competitor, and their releases would have to be well-timed and well-marketed.

  • +1
Chazore (on 22 March 2023)

10yrs is a long, long time for a game to be made and established.

  • 0
KrspaceT (on 22 March 2023)

Sony, if Nintendo can create a shooter that sells 10+ million units in two years, you can make a COD counterpart in 10.

Apparently the first Splatoon was in development for two-threeish years before release from what I looked up a while back. And again, shall I reiterate. Nintendo made a popular shooter. Surely Sony can do the same thing.

  • 0
Slownenberg (on 21 March 2023)

Sony is so pathetic. They act like nobody has ever had exlusive games before or no console maker has ever bought a studio. They've got ten freakin years to come up with alternatives. If Sony is this crazy over a single game studio it shows they think their games business is very vunerable.

  • 0
DroidKnight (on 21 March 2023)

50 cents a day for 10 years would be enough to buy all 3 consoles.

  • 0
Signalstar (on 21 March 2023)

Why doesn't MS develop an alternative to COD then?

  • 0
Juanita Signalstar (on 21 March 2023)

because they can't.

  • 0
EpicRandy Signalstar (on 21 March 2023)

Maybe because Sony aren't the one buying activision and they already have one with Halo.

  • +2
scrapking EpicRandy (on 21 March 2023)

Halo, Doom, Quake, Prey... Microsoft doesn't need to develop any more shooter franchises, they have plenty, fully agreed.

  • +4
Leynos scrapking (on 21 March 2023)

Prey is dead but Wolfenstien isn't as far as we know.

  • +2
scrapking Leynos (on 21 March 2023)

I was listing FPS franchises in their stable, not ones with current games under development. Heck, last I knew it was only rumours that Quake had a new game in development, I didn't think it had been confirmed yet.

But you adding Wolfenstein to the list is good, thank you. :)

  • +3
Azzanation Signalstar (on 21 March 2023)

They have Halo, one of the biggest in house FPS IPs in the industry.

  • 0
Leynos Azzanation (on 21 March 2023)

Ehhhh. Halo is not the IP it was in the 360 era. It's come down a few notches in popularity since then.

  • +1
Azzanation Leynos (on 21 March 2023)

Whats bigger than Halo in FPS aside from CoD?

  • 0
Leynos Azzanation (on 22 March 2023)

Apex,Overwatch,Doom,Destiny 2

  • +1
EspadaGrim Leynos (on 22 March 2023)

Doom isn't bigger than Halo, there is a reason why Doom's multiplayer died fast.

  • 0
Azzanation Leynos (on 22 March 2023)

Dont think Doom, Apex or Overwatch is bigger than Halo. Maybe Destiny 2 but does it make more money than a Halo?

  • 0
Machiavellian Signalstar (on 22 March 2023)

Why don't Sony. Why make an alternative when you can purchase it. What was Sony reason for purchasing Bungie. Its because it was easier, safer and a better use for their money to purchase Bungie and gain access to their developers and tech then to try to create it themselves. So the real question is why business like Sony and MS purchase other dev studios instead of creating their own. Because its a better use of their money.

  • +1
ConservagameR Machiavellian (on 24 March 2023)

Part of the reason why Sony probably bought Bungie was because they had an idea MS were up to something. Something BIG.
If you're Sony and it looks like MS is going to try and buy up as much of the game industry software as they possibly can, as quickly as possible, and you've only got maybe $10 billion to spend on hand, while MS' already spent $10 B's on just 1 purchase, and got another $120 B's, plus soon to have 10's of B's added to that total by the MS money printer, what are you going to do?
I'd make a smart purchase like Bungie, who would be a great asset, who could help me make a bunch of games I'm going to have to make myself now. They also make quite a bit of money with just 1 game, so that obviously helps.
What are the odds that Bungie leaves MS, then leaves AB, and now MS and AB are joining forces? How far ahead of time do massive merger and acquisition talks typically start before they're officially announced?

What's Sony hard at work on? A ton of live service games. Consistent money printers. Potential billions in extra income. Why would AAA exclusive Sony want that all of the sudden?
Maybe Sony partnered with Bungie because they have little time and little to no choice if they want to survive what's coming. Destiny?

  • 0
V-r0cK (on 21 March 2023)

Just take the 10 year deal Sony. You have enough FPS in your library with many talents under you that can definitely create a FPS that could rival CoD one day. Besides, MS will likely tank CoD within 10 years anyways lol

  • 0
ConservagameR V-r0cK (on 22 March 2023)

This should be the PS response to MS saying Sony can go make their own versions of AB games in the future.

"Maybe we will have to, and hopefully MS doesn't run COD as well as some of their other newly acquired franchises into the ground before we get ours to market, for the players sake."

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 22 March 2023)

It would actually be a more adult response, a little salty but with a mocking tone it can be viewed as a fair dig at Xbox expense albeit unsubstantiated. Far better than the whining and self-victimizing Sony used this last year for being at the other end of a tactic they've themselves used extensively in the past.

  • -1
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 23 March 2023)

Sony would have to wait until after the acquisition was approved, otherwise it would look to whiny and salty and would leave them open to mocking in some ways in the future if the deal didn't end up closing.

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 23 March 2023)

Sorry but that ship already sailed

  • -3
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 24 March 2023)

The FTC, EC, etc, have all agreed to the buyout already? No cases pending?

  • +1
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 24 March 2023)

I was referring to the fact Sony already look whiny and salty on this issue notwithstanding the result of the merger.

  • 0
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 25 March 2023)

Ah. They have done that, but since that's not the norm for them, it would've been better if they were more quiet or witty about this, but should now go back to, here's how we share games at PS, Sony, not this crying we're so upset Sony.
There's no crying in baseball.

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 25 March 2023)

Well we agree on this. I have tons of respect for Sony and what they do but this story is just a cringe mess for them.

  • +1
Machiavellian ConservagameR (on 22 March 2023)

Why, are you saying is Sony had the money they would not purchase ABK. Just because you cannot afford to do something, getting salty that someone else can doesn't help in business. You either adapt or get left behind simple as that. MS doesn't owe Sony anything just like Sony doesn't owe MS anything. Sony makes ever dev purchase and their games exclusive. The only outsider is Bungie but they only allowed Sony to purchase them on the conditition they can remain multiplat. The biggest problem for Sony is that they made this about COD, not MS.

  • -3
ConservagameR Machiavellian (on 23 March 2023)

Care to explain how Sony was supposed to adapt to deal with this?
They should just make more money? Now that's original, and helpful..
They barely tried that btw, and MS cried that Sony games and hardware were too expensive, and enough gamers went along with the sentiment vocally. Enough that Sony was quite careful and generous with their new Plus tier pricing vs Game Pass.

No, Sony would not have bought AB unless they had the money to burn and knew that MS was seriously looking to acquire them first.
Sony also only ever bought smaller devs, most who were not super successful yet.

You make it sound like Sony is upset that Bungie is still multiplatform. Are you really trying to say that Sony wanted Bungie exclusivity, yet went ahead and paid $4 billion without getting that?

  • +1
Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

MS for +10 years failed to create a single "alternative" IP to rival Playstation top selling games.
The same MS comes and says "10 Years is Long Enough for Sony to Develop an Alternative to Call of Duty"!
Quite a hypocritical statement, they failed at their task and say Sony have "enough" to suceed in a much more difficult task. They know CoD is invencible, they know Sony chances are minimal, unless CoD team fucks UP realy bad.

  • -2
EpicRandy Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

So you argue Sony have no chance of creating an alternative to CoD in 10 years and your argument supporting this is that in the last 10 years Sony were able to create IPs that Xbox are not able to match? Seems Sony is more capable than you conclude based on your own argument.

  • +8
Manlytears EpicRandy (on 21 March 2023)

yeah, Sony is way more capable, but we are talking about CoD here! The best selling IP in the last 10 years, a annual game that sells +20m units, 3000~4000 in house devs work for this sole IP that puts to shame the closest competitors like, Battlefield!

It's not impossible, but it's like predicting that PS1 would beat Nintendo back in 1994 or X360 would almost be tied with PS3 in 2006. It would take a massive screw-up to happen, something that really hurts CoD, and not just creating a product "as good as CoD"! A herculean task, competing directly against CoD is just massive.

  • -5
EpicRandy Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

Sony don't need to match CoD either that a false assumption Sony just need a great multiplayer FPS or 2 in cycle. It does not need to be of CoD popularity to be an altenative.
Also the 1 year cycle is overrated as it's reduce e-sport opportunity. Even halo as bigger e-sport than CoD despite having way less overall user. That's why Activision did try to change to a 2 year cycles. Also the 3000 worker figure is inflated because up until very recently all CoD teams used different in house engine. Requiring both many devs to work on the engines and many separate support teams after release.

  • +2
Azzanation Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

What has that got to do with this Buyout?

  • +1
Machiavellian Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

Which IP would that be. Which IP would you say are the same between both companies where one or the other has not produce an alternative that competes sales wise or are you talking total volumn.

  • +1
Manlytears Machiavellian (on 21 March 2023)

That's my point friend, Xbox FAILED to make "Alternative to Playstation" in +10 years!
There's no alternative to God of War, Horizon, Last of US, Spider-man....

+10 years > " No Alternative to playstattion" > MS failure > MS says that 10 years is enough to create "alternative to Call of Duty" > Hypocritical statement.

  • -7
smroadkill15 Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

Did you really name off Spider-man? LOL

  • +4
Manlytears smroadkill15 (on 21 March 2023)

your point?

  • -5
EpicRandy Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

All of what you listed from sony are third person single player game to which MS cover using 3rd party support and have future title in dev like hellblade 2. If Sony were to acquire right to some of the 3rd party maybe Xbox will maybe feel the need to increase their cover of this genre with first party output.
But even if MS decide not to cover this specific type with in house dev that's no excuse for Sony not to cover competitive FPS when they have an incentive to do so and 10 years at the very least to act.

  • 0
Manlytears EpicRandy (on 21 March 2023)

ok champs...you say...

  • -5
EpicRandy Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

From false equivalence argument to passive aggressive stance looks like you have no real argument only a strong partisan take.

  • +1
Manlytears EpicRandy (on 21 March 2023)

Sure, whatever you say...

  • -5
Azzanation Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

Has MS tried? Are they whinging to the FTC about it? Again wrong thread.

  • 0
Machiavellian Manlytears (on 22 March 2023)

That reasson only works if MS actually was trying to make games which are the same between the 2. Lets take FPS games I believe Halo continue to outperform any FPS game that Sony has made. We can look at racing games and I would say Forza is right there with GT but that would be more personal opinion. On the 3rd Person front you have Gears of War and Uncharted. Both very successful series though they probably really do not match up content wise. What Sony has that MS doesn't isn't successful IPs its marketshare and install base. There is no reason for a purly PS gamer to go to Xbox when Sony provides just as much high quality content and thus its easier for Sony to maintain their marketshare then it is for MS to steal from it. I would say the biggest stumble from MS was the Xbox one to the PS4.

The thing about playing catch up is that one stumble hurts way more when you are behind then when you are in the lead. The 360 allowed MS to make really good gains on Sony but then the Xbox one pretty much gave it all away.

  • +1
smroadkill15 Manlytears (on 21 March 2023)

I would say Forza has done a damn good job as an alternative IP to GT with it even succeeding it in varies ways. I would like to know what games MS has made or tried to make that rivals PS top IP's? MS has mostly done their own thing with a focus on WRPGs, shooters, multiplayer, live service, strategy games, and racing being the only consistent overlap I see between the two. MS has mostly gone in their own direction, with sharing some genre's but that's bound to happen. I would say, Sony has tried way harder to make "alternative" IP's to rival both Nintendo and MS most successful IP's with their attempt to make a "Halo killer " and Uncharted was inspired by Gears of War. Then Sony tried their hand at a Kart racer and Playstation Allstars.

  • +5
scrapking smroadkill15 (on 21 March 2023)

Everything you say is correct, IMO. With a name like "Manlytears" this person may be self-identifying as a troll, so it's likely not worth more than a downvote, TBH.

  • +2
ConservagameR Manlytears (on 22 March 2023)

It is really hypocritical on their part.
So MS get's to buy (AB) COD and their other franchises, and Sony is supposed to make all new games to compete with them?
Isn't MS the company with all the money? By the time Sony finally has their COD competitor, after a decade of hard work, how many more gaming companies and franchises will MS have acquired?
But look on the bright side? At least Sony will have a COD like game, right?

Make somebody else do the time consuming hard work. Our dad is rich.

  • -4
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 22 March 2023)

So MS have the money but should not be able to use it because Sony is entitled to status quo. Got it. If Sony were afraid to lose any other franchise they would have made that clear to the regulator but they haven't.

  • -2
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 23 March 2023)

Sony mentions just 1 franchise and people immediately call them crybabies. What do you think would happen if Sony complained about 2 or even 3? No, no, not 7!
Why doesn't MS use some money to bring in better people to build better teams and better games? Why doesn't MS use some to buy up a whole bunch of smaller devs like Sony does? Why doesn't MS use some to money hat and get some exclusivity (to Game Pass)?

What MS is doing isn't the status quo. Up until Bungie Sony bought small companies and even Bungie is only half of what the Zenimax purchase was.

  • +2
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 23 March 2023)

Sony mentions just 1 franchise and people immediately call them crybabies. What do you think would happen if Sony complained about 2 or even 3? No, no, not 7!
Because crying over 1 loss is somehow more justified than crying over multiple losses?

Why doesn't MS use some money to bring in better people to build better teams and better games?
Maybe because they are already maximizing that route, all their studios have been consistently expanding for the last 5 year except for hiring freeze last year. Some even doubled in size.

Why doesn't MS use some to buy up a whole bunch of smaller devs like Sony does?
They do also

Why doesn't MS use some to money hat and get some exclusivity (to Game Pass)?
I wish but MS took a business decision to stop those at least for AAA franchise after Tomb Raider. But they also took a business decision to acquire studios.

What MS is doing isn't the status quo.
Why would MS want the status quo.

Up until Bungie Sony bought small companies and even Bungie is only half of what the Zenimax purchase was.
Sony is not some arbiter of ethic what they do or don't do doesn't make those right or wrong.

  • -2
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 24 March 2023)

Long story short, your point, is that anybody whose ever complained about PS is wrong because Sony is a business and can do whatever it wants and that's ok. Same goes for XB and MS by the looks of it.

There's a lot of people here who don't really seem to agree. Businesses or not, they seem to think there is right and wrong, or better and worse decisions being made.

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 24 March 2023)

As long as MS or Sony operate in legality all they do is fine and so far I have not seen anything illegal from both of them. But I would not say people have no right to complaint they absolutely have but don't they twist fact to try to paint one as an evil minded actor doing some shady (perfectly fine in all other market) tactics just because their company of choice is supposedly a victim in this.

  • 0
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 25 March 2023)

So you'd agree for example that MS was wrong to imply that Sony was the greedy bad guy when raising prices, both for games and hardware?
MS sure implied that $70 was too expensive for a game and that charging more for hardware was quite greedy.

You're free to believe that as long as it's legal it's fine, but you must know there are plenty of things the law doesn't cover well, and plenty more loopholes on top of that. Even then, the law itself doesn't always make sense in every case, some way more than others.

I personally think morals are worth far more than they're given credit for these days. Not that morals are everything, as morals too strong don't leave wiggle room for new useful ways of thinking.

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 25 March 2023)

Your the one trying to paint this this statement by MS as some pity attack on Sony, but to achieve this you conveniently ignore MS made this statement during an interview when they were specifically ask the question in regards to the recent Sony move. You also conveniently ignore that MS also stated they were continually revising their pricing strategy meaning this could change at any time. Also an interview is not the place to discuss future pricing strategy, it's not like Spencer gonna give the middle finger to the marketing department saying screw you and your announcement I'm gonna make the announcement on my own right now in an uncontrolled fashion even though it's still months away and probably not finalized. And "no comments" would not have been an option either as it is way to loose on interpretation.
Seems to me when you take the context into consideration the answer Spencer gave was fine and certainly not an attack on Sony.

AS for the laws if you see MS exploiting a loophole or badly written law or anything else then make your case but present evidence not just opinion.

A agree that morals are worth it but some action are not automatically one or the other. What you choose to view as moral and immoral is up to you in many scenario. MS acquiring ABK is neither and both at the same time it's all depends as what you focus on and the overall context. You want to focus on impact on Sony, I focus on the benefits to Xbox, competition in general, worker condition inside ABK, possibility of Ips revival amongst others. Yep Sony is on the loosing side but Sony isn't entitled to have a lenient competition either. Overall the benefits of this transaction far outweigh the negatives aspect, even more so when you consider that the negative aspect have mitigation proposal. Pretty much every regulator have also come to this conclusion and given the insane scrutiny that the CMA and EU have done it's fair to say they have probably taken everything into consideration probably way more so then you and I.

  • 0
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 26 March 2023)

When was the last time XB changed its prices? Not since the newest consoles launched, yet the top tier was still $500 again. The games were also still the same price as last gen. Not changing any pricing isn't continually revising. I'd say MS didn't fool anyone, but it seems they did.

How about MS arguing the point that PS is the market leader and XB is way behind? Why does that matter when it's MS making all these acquisitions and not XB? If you want to compare PS to XB it has to be across the board, and XB doesn't have the money to spend billions to begin with. You wouldn't agree this is basically a loophole?
Could Google or anyone else with the money, just buy up a ton of the gaming industry quickly and constantly say their market share is terrible so they should be allowed to buy more?

I care for regulators about as much as politicians. I remember when the FCC made, apparently, the right choice when it came to net neutrality not so long ago. Yet lots of people here and everywhere were furious. Was the FCC right just because they were in charge?

  • 0
Machiavellian ConservagameR (on 22 March 2023)

Sony gets to purchase whoever they want as they have also done and made all their games exclusive besides Bungie but who really knows what can happen there.

How easily people forget that when Sony came into the market they were the ones with all the money and started purchasing studios to bolster their games and make exclusive deals with 3rd party. Lets not start to shed a tear now because a bigger fish jumped in and start to do the exact same thing Sony did when they first started. This is business.

So I would say that its Sony who is hypocritical. They know the game because they used it. The know the game because they also use their marketshare and contacts to lockout games and content to other systems. This effort to make it appear as if Sony is some small town country boy against the big city boy doesn't work. Sony and MS are and have always been vicious competitors and neither of them or against using whatever advantage they have to maintain control.

  • -1
ConservagameR Machiavellian (on 23 March 2023)

You're right. Sony definitely wouldn't ever want to purchase AB, EA, TT, etc. Like who would want to own any of the IP from those companies? Especially if the cost was two pockets of change for you?

How easily people forget, that up until Bungie, which happened after Zenimax and was still only half the cost, Sony only ever bought small companies and built them up. MS did that with a few, not all the most successful, but then skipped right to buying up as much as possible, as large as possible, as expensive as possible.
Is MS looking to make a whole bunch of new games with the Zenimax and AB purchases, because Sony and Bungie are.
Why isn't MS using these billions to make exclusive deals with third parties like Sony if that's the status quo? Maybe they couldn't?

MS has enough money plus income, that if they put enough towards gaming, they can eventually end PS and pretty much everyone else in gaming if they really wanted to. That's equal companies having a fair fight with MS?

The only tears are of laughter from the sheer desperation this acquisition by MS and the hilarious arguments backing it. What ever happened to where's our exclusives?

  • +2
Vengeance1138 (on 21 March 2023)

So MS exposing their agenda that they are only interested in removing games from competing platforms. Guess another in the pile for Lying Phil Spencer.
Ignore the fact that CoD has taken 19yrs to get to the status it is today and ignore the fact that MS isnt even going to try to be creative and original on their own. I guess effort is difficult isnt it MS?

  • -3
EpicRandy Vengeance1138 (on 21 March 2023)

Way to twist everything to cater to your agenda.
MS did not say it would remove CoD from PlayStation even after the 10 years end. MS was only stating why being legally bound 10 years is more than enough to resolve CMA issue.
It also did not take 19 years for CoD to get such stature as it was pretty much well defined mid 7th gen.
"I guess effort is difficult isn't it MS" well tell that to Sony they're the one unwilling to even try to make an alternative to CoD here. They're the one that stopped all their FPS initiative like Killzone and relied solely on 3rd party to fill the gap.

  • +3
Vengeance1138 EpicRandy (on 21 March 2023)
  • -14
Mozart1511 Vengeance1138 (on 22 March 2023)

Your neighbor owns a highly profitable business and has a son who is good at school but not the best.

You dedicate yourself to studying hard, getting good grades and being among the top 5, and at the end of school life you and your neighbor's son graduate from a good university, but your neighbor's son always saw his father as an entrepreneur and knows how to properly manage the company. A few years go by, you have a steady job, financed a house, a nice car and established a family, already your neighbor bought another mansion, bought another luxury car (Ferrari) to increase his collection to 6 cars, expanded the company and opened branches.... The big question.... is life unfair or not? Although he didn't start from scratch like you, he has his merits or we can call it destiny, but he is competent, he generated more fortune, he managed to buy things that you would never dream of in this life or it would be very difficult, if you are good friends , however he may offer you a position at his company that pays more than your current job.

Sony competing directly with Microsoft is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, because they have money to buy talent. So what if you didn't develop your IP from scratch? If they can buy and keep talent and simplify the path to making a successful IP, then it's to their credit in other sectors, and the gaming sector will only grow and be more and more attractive to them, but it will hardly be the main generator. income for shareholders. That's the reality.... if you have money and you're not breaking any laws, then what's the problem with buying anything that will increase your company's revenue in the medium to long term?

  • -2
KratosLives (on 22 March 2023)

Better if sony says screw you back. Let the next cod be the last one on a sony systen and those who want to jump ship, let it be. Then focus on more exclusives.

  • -4
Libara KratosLives (on 22 March 2023)

Sony has already admitted that CoD helps fund those exclusives so that would be the last thing they do.

  • +1
ConservagameR Libara (on 22 March 2023)

Ya, while the short term feel good thing would be to tell MS to take COD and shove it, the smarter thing to do would be make as much bank on COD as possible, then use that money to lure as many COD devs as possible to join a (new) PS Studio to make a COD funded COD competitor.

Like a few people have mentioned, with MS at the helm, COD going downhill wouldn't be a surprise, and would make it far easier on Sony if they were working on something.

  • -1
Mozart1511 ConservagameR (on 22 March 2023)

Have you considered Microsoft doing the same thing? Using a portion of its net income of US$ 67.4 billion to attract more developers and solve some internal problems like 343. We are talking about a company with a net profit of US$ 67.4 billion against another one with a net profit of US$ 6.8 billion, apart from the fact that Microsoft's main revenue comes from cloud computing, while Sony's comes from games, that is, a negative result in the games sector can impact the entire company, which does not happen with Microsoft.

In my opinion Sony should work to re-establish the partnership with Microsoft and try to develop its own FPS.

  • -2
ConservagameR Mozart1511 (on 23 March 2023)

XB has had 20+ years to do that, and didn't, for the most part. Can't even keep their own few exclusives from suffering. How are they going to do that now?

The reason for the massive couple purchases lately is to hopefully solve that problem in one shot by force.

PS would be best to use MS where they can, to undermine XB as time goes on.

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 23 March 2023)

XB has had 20+ years to do that, and didn't, for the most part.
So?

Can't even keep their own few exclusives from suffering. How are they going to do that now?
Which current Ips are supposed to be suffering exactly and how?

The reason for the massive couple purchases lately is to hopefully solve that problem in one shot by force.
So?

PS would be best to use MS where they can, to undermine XB as time goes on.
That's the thing though, you thrive so much on consoles warring with a partisan take for Sony that you dismiss anything MS does as bad or malicious while you would approve of anything Sony does without a glance on its intentions.

  • -1
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 24 March 2023)

If I'm evil and wrong, why am I thriving? I'm dirt poor compared to good guy multi trillionaire MS. Probably because your claim is unsubstantiated?

  • -1
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 24 March 2023)

Were did I say you were evil? Just say you had a partisan take for Sony which you substantiated yourself with 'PS would be best to use MS where they can, to undermine XB as time goes on.'. But hey way to avoid all the other 3 questions I guess.

  • 0
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 25 March 2023)

Did I say Sony should do that to everyone? Sony should do that in response to MS going on a buying spree, since they're in direct competition. If they don't they'll lose PS eventually.
Then there's you thinking this acquisition is fine because it's legal. Who cares about how this impacts everything else, as long as it benefits MS since it's legal, right? Am I really partisan, or are you?

I didn't bother because these first two were a waste being clear already and the third is obvious.

So, they asked why MS wouldn't be bringing in talent with all their money.
Obviously not. They decided to bring it in forcefully through acquisitions, since hiring and managing wasn't working.

So, again, they asked why MS wouldn't be bringing in talent with all their money.
Obviously not. They decided to bring it in forcefully through acquisitions, since hiring and managing wasn't working.

Forza is the only one that looks to still be strong and still improving. Halo and Gears are hurting. They should be chart topping monsters and widely renowned by now, especially Halo, but have lost what they once had. The Bungie Halo games are so good. Some of my top favs. It sucks to see what's happened to the franchise.

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 25 March 2023)

"Then there's you thinking this acquisition is fine because it's legal. Who cares about how this impacts everything else, as long as it benefits MS since it's legal, right? Am I really partisan, or are you?"
This transaction is legal taking impact into consideration not despite them or at least the only court case to date said so and most regulator align or seems to align with this. And I have no partisan take against Sony and certainly no ill view of them, I like their game and what they bring to the market in general. You don't see me in trying to paint them as evil, you don't see me try to paint all their statement as an attack against MS.

I didn't bother because these first two were a waste being clear already and the third is obvious.
Well yeah the statement were clear but the picture your trying to portray with them ain't and the correlation to causation link you trying to suggest is dubious at best.

So, they asked why MS wouldn't be bringing in talent with all their money.
Obviously not. They decided to bring it in forcefully through acquisitions, since hiring and managing wasn't working.

The facts suggest they are doing both though, they build 2 new studio in the last 5 years, they Also increase talents in every of them studios some doubling and tripling in salaried. It's not that is isn't working it's just slow and there's not much throwing money can do once this route is already maximized. Large acquisition then become the obvious avenue to increase Xbox competitiveness rapidly.

Forza is the only one that looks to still be strong and still improving. Halo and Gears are hurting. They should be chart topping monsters and widely renowned by now, especially Halo, but have lost what they once had. The Bungie Halo games are so good. Some of my top favs. It sucks to see what's happened to the franchise.
Minecraft have consistently increase in popularity, Age of is more popular now then ever, Halo infinite had the best launch in the series so far and even though it was short lived it's gaining traction with every added content and have even a bigger e-sport scene then CoD. Gears is nothing to be shy of either, any new entry will attract million of players for sure.

Anyway all our conversation feel really redundant it would be best to make a dedicated thread in the forum to discuss this or agree to disagree as we have deviated far an away from the article subject.

  • +1
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 26 March 2023)

The regulators said MS won't make it exclusive because it won't make as much money. Then why does XB and PS have exclusives then, which would make more if multiplatform, you all knowing regulator gods?
It's hard to paint Sony doing bad evil things when they aren't. The deal is going to hurt the industry, just not immediately. Government people are the worst when it comes to thinking long term and remaining bipartisan, if they ever were.

Buying, and buying big at that, is not hiring and managing.

Their self made games are not doing well. Nowhere near where they should be. MS didn't make Minecraft.

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 22 March 2023)

Yes, of course game MS acquire goes downhill, it's common knowledge, we all know how downhill Minecraft went from a mighty 24M MAU(2013) to a pitiful 172M MAU in 2022.

  • 0
Libara EpicRandy (on 22 March 2023)

I still remember the "MS will never make back that 2.6bn" talk that went on around the time the deal was announced.

  • +3
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 23 March 2023)

How's MS' golden goose Bungie doing nowadays? Still stuck making Halo 7?

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 23 March 2023)

Damn my argument most have landed a bigger punch than anticipated your all confuse now using argument that does not even relate to my point. Bungie bought their independence long ago (2007) because they value such, that's why they essentially remain independent even when Sony threw them $3B.

  • -1
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 24 March 2023)

Bought their independence because they were so happy at MS? A company with tens of billions to spare to help them make games?
Who then joined Activision soon after oddly, another corporate giant who's $500 million deal turned out to be similar if not even worse.
Who then bought their independence again, because they value it so much?
Who then joined PS not that long after, oddly?

Now MS and Activision are to become one? It's almost like Bungie keeps running from something they couldn't seem to get away from. Has PS finally saved them since third times a charm, or is this just round 3 of 12?

  • -1
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 24 March 2023)

So you have no argument to suggest Ips under MS goes downhill only a strong will that it should because MS = bad I guess. So you resort to Changing subject and Sealioning with questions you have no interest in knowing the answer and would likely change the subject again if I answer them cause your only interested in suggesting evil in MS from your questioning.

  • 0
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 25 March 2023)

Has it not been established MS lost Bungie entirely? That Bungie left MS on purpose because they had enough? That it obviously has nothing to do with independance, because they went to both AB after and now Sony?
Does Bungie not count? Only Minecraft? How's Halo been doing since Bungie left? (Which actually hurts to say). How's Destiny doing under Bungie? Who could've been reaping those rewards?

Changing the subject? From what? MS poorly handling some of their studios and games?

Speaking of arguments landing hard punches..

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 25 March 2023)

You were the ones implying most or all MS Ips were badly manage not studios then when pointed out as wrong change the subject to studios. If you want to talk about halo it sure have a lot of popularity still and Infinite had the best launch of the series so far even though it did not retain its users long, but it slowly gaining back momentum whith each update and still has a better e-sport scenes than CoD.
For bungie they wanted independance cause they did not want to work on halo anymore while MS wanted to produce more. Hardly anything out of the norm especially for 2007. But how is a 16 years old case under Peter Moore suppose to apply under Spencer especially when Ms changed their behaviour afterward and now their studios are given more freedom.
Also shouldn't we also give MS credit only to have given the option to them to buy their independance? A lot of company in this situation would only have replace the board of director of the studio and called it resolved.

  • +1
ConservagameR EpicRandy (on 26 March 2023)

When did MS come up with the idea for Minecraft? How long did it take them to make it?
Huge Halo launch, then a quick large drop off. Why? Because it was just so good? Years later 343 finally is getting the game closer to where it should have been years ago? It's something I guess, but when people pay for things that are available now, they want them now, not parts of them while waiting for ages.

XB Studios have so much freedom under Phil, that MS had to bail him out with $80 billion in cash, just to get some first party games out. That's a change alright, but for the better?

Like MS was going to let Bungie leave on the absolute worst of terms. The PR would have been a nightmare for them. Imagine trying to recover from simply telling Bungie to get back to work on Halo or leave with nothing.

  • 0
EpicRandy ConservagameR (on 26 March 2023)

This conversation as gone for long enough, I will only say hard disagree on all you premise and fake correllation include all our other conversation here. Anyway this article is to old make a thread in the Xbox forum if you want to continue the conversation.

  • 0
ClassicGamingWizzz (on 21 March 2023)

Says the brand that its shooters are all created and bought by other companies, its easy you dont need to spend 72 billion dolars . What they want its take it from competition buy its obvious from the start.

  • -6

So you saying all Sony brands are in house, name which ones.

  • +1