Call of Duty will not be compromised on PS5 and PS4 platforms, despite Microsoft’s unprecedented $69 billion buyout of Activision Blizzard. Xbox chief Phil Spencer appeared on a podcast this week to confirm the series will continue to have “100 per cent parity” on PlayStation consoles. Sony has signed a contract with the Redmond firm to guarantee the shooter’s release on its systems for at least ten more years.
Spencer added that there’ll be no missing content on any console, and that it has “no goal of using Call of Duty to get you to buy an Xbox console”. He also confirmed that there’ll be no more exclusive betas moving forwards. In the past few years, Sony has secured exclusive early access to betas, including this year’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III. The executive explained that he doesn’t believe this tactic is good for the “Call of Duty nation”.
Following the confirmation of its acquisition late last week, Spencer implied that Activision Blizzard’s full portfolio of software may remain multiformat after all. “Whether you play on Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, PC, or mobile, you are welcome here – and will remain welcome, even if Xbox isn’t where you play your favourite franchise,” he said.
[source twitter.com]
Comments 75
He's right. Exclusive beta's make no sense to me. The purpose of a beta was always meant to be an online stress test ahead of launch to iron out issues, so exclusivity arrangements don't help the wider community
@Rob_230 These Call of Duty ones are basically demos to be fair. But I agree, I don't think it's a particularly effective marketing tactic anyway.
(Who buys a console for a week early beta?!)
@get2sammyb crazy people there out there
There you go parity across both platforms Xbox and PlayStation, beta, skins and everything.
You can’t say better than that after years of Sony paying and keeping things from Xbox.
So what company looks not so good now.
The one giving parity now they own the studio or the one that was paying to keep content away from the competition.
XBox started this back in the 360 days. I don't remember this being a thing until then.
@OldGamer999 The only reason Microsoft are keeping parity was because they had to do that to get the deal done in the courts, let's see what happens once the agreed 10 years is up.
Talking about parity though, I'm still waiting for that Psychonauts 2 PS5 version....
@OldGamer999 For an old gamer you seem to have a bad memory, cause I remember that Microsoft bought gta4 dlc exclusivity for 360. I personally don't like exclusivity wether it's by Sony or Xbox. With all the acquisitions we're heading to the walled garden BS that we see in streaming. It's rather silly to think one company looks better than the other when both do it.
Removed - inappropriate language
Put starfield on playstation then
Personally I couldn’t care less about COD. Not being able to play Starfield (after presumably a good deal of work on the PS5 version was done) and also Elder Scrolls 6 being something else unavailable is what annoys me.
Gonna get gated behind game pass. Watch this....
@Cutmastavictory nope. Gotta get the $$$ rolling in somehow. And PS5 is much larger base to do that on.
@gwyntendo Tbh I don’t think we’re missing much.
So there won't be 100% parity for CoD on ps4/ps5. Good to know.
Removed - trolling/baiting
@OldGamer999
The one that isn’t taking a load of games exclusive maybe? lol
@PSme I don't think you're understanding capitalism. Ms gotta recoup that 69 billion. And gamepass subscriber base has to increase...
Oh good. I'm glad Phil Spencer is a good guy still. He's just so kind and trustworthy, as anyone in his high up position would be 😌 please kiss my baby and hold my wallet, Phil.
Its great that he's giving us day 1 access on PS+ for 100% parity with Xbox players!
In other words: I'm scared of loads of PlayStation players just ditching Cod entirely.
"For ten years anyway. After that, you gotta buy an Xbox! For the gamers!! Muhahaha!!!"
Oh no! It's not a bluff and whole FTC spiel of "you will destroy PS version of COD" was just bunch of *****? Color me surprised...
@Cutmastavictory hence why i say it won’t be gated behind gamepass. MS offered COD to multiple platforms (pc, Nintendo et al). Gamepass subs have stalled, PS5 is largest install base for COD on consoles. This is the way their will ‘capitalism’ work.
@PSme ms was forced to...nvm. just watch. But when it happens please dig up this conversation...
@Cutmastavictory And if it doesn’t…………will you get your shovel out?
Aaahhh the old MS/Activision/COD topic that just wont die....
So it's not going to be Game Pass then? Because that's a pretty BIG 'somehow'.
Also most other ABK games... "PS fans get *****!"
@themightyant That's not what he is saying.
He is saying that Call of Duty will not be gimped on PlayStation to force PlayStation players to buy Xbox consoles. Simple as that. You have PlayStation, you will have same exact content/release date/price.
Of course Call of Duty will be on Game Pass from 2024 onwards. But Sony has ability to put Call of Duty into PlayStation Plus day one per contract with Microsoft. They just have to pay Microsoft for that "privilege"
Hilarious that they're trying to present this as "see how nice we are?" It's literally the least they can do after promising this in court to get the deal done.
@Godot25 I get what he is saying just fine, but it is CRAZY to think they don't want to get gamers to buy an Xbox by putting Call of Duty on Game Pass. Of course that is part of their strategy, it would be crazy not to be.
EDIT: as for paying for it to be on PS+ we know this isn't really feasible even if the offer is there, it was a, very clever, offer to nothing. i.e.
We KNOW, from their leak, that Microsoft estimated a lesser (in terms of sales) game like Jedi Survivor would cost them around $300 million Day 1 on GP. Bear in mind that's considering Xbox & Game Pass which have a much smaller install base. For PlayStation and COD it would be MUCH more. I think $1 billion, but likely much more, wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine. Microsoft KNEW Sony would, or could, not pay that. It makes no business sense for them. Hence it was a very clever bargaining strategy in court, make a concession that will never happen in reality. Smart.
@Rjak Also apparently not old enough to remember it was Microsoft who started this practice with COD in the 360 glory days @OldGamer999 let me jog your memory https://www.eurogamer.net/after-five-years-of-xbox-exclusivity-call-of-duty-switches-to-playstation
Do people actually play this recycled crap
@PSme absolutely.
@OldGamer999 You're memory seems to be getting hazy in your old age. Exclusive games were always a thing, not least when console/computer architectures were so different that making them for more than one system basically, and often literally, meant a complete rebuild.
But Microsoft popularised making content exclusive, usually timed, in some of the BIGGEST games during the Xbox 360 gen. GTA4 , Skyrim, COD and more, some of the most celebrated and highly anticipated titles at the time, all had DLC or modes which were timed exclusives on Xbox. This was a new more aggressive approach from Microsoft, not seen on this scale before.
I don't like ANY of the exclusive crap, anywhere. But you reap what you sow, hence it's a little rich to here them clap back on the very practise they created.
@Cutmastavictory Good to know. I like a person who is able back up their convictions 👍🏻
@themightyant Of course they want gamers to switch to Xbox. But they want to do that with value proposition (ie. Call of Duty in Game Pass) and not by gimping PlayStation/Nintendo version of COD. Which is basically what he is saying.
Because if you purposefully gimp Call of Duty on other platforms you are risking destroying whole brand, which is not what Microsoft wants. They want Call of Duty to stay on top of the video-game world revenue-wise and then reinvest that revenue into future Xbox growth.
@Godot25 I agree with ALL that. But Phil knows that his words are important, can have multiple meanings and have to be picked VERY carefully. I'm frankly amazed he said that as it's demonstrably false when looked at another way. That's what I was getting at.
The trouble for me is he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be seen to reach out and hug everyone saying we're all gamers united, while simultaneously stabbing everyone in the back by taking away games that were destined for other players. You can't have it both ways.
@themightyant But you can.
Same way as Sony wants to have their cake and eat it too. Sony is realeasing live service game on PC day one, because it will bring them more money. Live service games needs huge playerbase for sustain of microtransactions and support. But ***** same PC players if they want to play story-driven PlayStation games day one. They need to wait at least 2 years. And maaaaaybe then they will play them. Or in some cases (Ghost of Tshushima for example) not.
Same for Microsoft. They will do what makes most sense. They made Starfield exclusive, because with that game they want to push consoles and subs. But they will keep Call of Duty multiplatform, because that game lives and dies by huge popularion and microtransactions. Which will not be the case for next Crash game for example and that's why I expect next Crash game to be Xbox exclusive.
As was exposed during the FTC lawsuit,take anything "Gamer Phil" says publicly with a pinch of salt & then run it through a fine tooth comb of legal double Dutch snake oil to look at what he doesn't say/omits to interpret Microsoft's true intents.
He mentions PS4/PS5....note no mention of future systems like PS6...would be rather convenient to release COD on next gen XB but not PS....
Likewise,you can be certain future iterations of Diablo,Crash,Spyro,or potential revived IP's will be exclusives. Just look at the Zenimax email directives that anything unannounced & not contracted will get cancelled.
Obviously,the case is done,Microsoft's lawyers, $$ & influence saw to that...but buying up AAA publishers & established IP's to permanently exclude them off the competition isn't good for gamers no matter how much the acolytes try to spin their hypocrisy.
@OldGamer999 I'd say the one that was offering out exclusive features to the highest bidder. People are too quick to blame the company that buys the rights but they are only buying it because it was in offer. Don't forget that it was Xbox that had exclusive content for Call of Duty before PlayStation did, and that was back when it was actually meaningful content in getting maps early. The exclusive content PlayStation gets is useless trash aside from the early beta access.
It's amazing how he followed the word "xbox" with the word "console" (twice) and managed to sound so natural while doing so 🙄
It's so great that they won't ever use CoD to leverage sales of the Xbox... Console
@Godot25 You are missing my point. The "you can't have it both ways" ISN'T about business decisions. I completely agree they will ALL do what is best for them on a case-by-case basis. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, whoever.
It IS about giving off the perception that you care about these other platforms gamers, when you don't, only what is best for your business. You can't one day play happily families and say "we are all included" then the next day cut everyone off. That is two-faced.
With Sony we know exactly where we stand, they aren't trying to be our friend, they aren't making statements like "when we all play, we all win" while simultaneously buying up publishers, that's the distinction.
@themightyant But that's called PR.
Reason why people liked Spencer more then Ryan (for example) is because he plays games, he interacts with community and he has that "gamer" energy around him. How much of that is pretended is questionable, but the point is that if he says something there is higher probability that people will take it at face value, because he built an image around him. Which is in one part PR.
Ryan on the other hand only interacts with economics magazines and if he says something in public it come across as "business man talking about games."
"When we all play, we all win" is PR phrase. Same as Sony had "For the Players." They didn't said "For the PlayStation players"
Run dmc you talk to much.lies of p sure talks a lot.redman featuring method man whathever man is what i would say to ron desantis lookalike.word up son
@gwyntendo trust me, not missing much on Starfield, game was pretty bad
Too bad you can't trust Double Speakin' Phil. He's eventually going to use Call of Duty for Game Pass leverage. Regulators failed at their jobs, but the fear of regulators is the only reason Microsoft didn't just buy up ABK and everything else to make them exclusive.
@ShadowofSparta you’re not. It’s the same Bethesda RPG but in space. It’s a great looking game, but I lost interest and deleted it within 10 hours of playtime. It’s a massive time sink with an IV drip of reward in my opinion.
The planets are cool but there’s so much you can do it’s overwhelming and I lost interest very quickly.
I thought this would be quite obvious considering Sony has made a 10 year deal with Microsoft. Also Microsoft are no longer thinking of themselves as a "console" brand they are a subscription service, to be on as many devices as possible that's the end goal.
I think you are conflating two things, @themightyant. Spencer is saying that you will not need to buy an Xbox in order to play the superior version of the game because both the PlayStation and the Xbox will have exactly the same version.
However, he is not saying that the game will not release day and date on the Game Pass. If people choose to buy an Xbox for that reason, that is different because regardless, they will be playing exactly the same version of the game.
In the past, people may have made the decision to buy a PlayStation based on that console having received the superior version of the game. In the future, there will not be a 'superior' version of the game, so choosing to buy a console for that reason alone will be null and void...
Yeah, right, after all the Bethesda games went exclusive (aside from those which were already PS timed exclusives), forgive me for not believing a word that Phil says when it isn't backed up by a legally enforceable contract.
@Fiendish-Beaver that’s exactly the point. I was just going to say what you did. It’s nice to see that and hopefully exclusive beta’s start to become a thing of the past for all games. The Diablo 4 stress test was awesome as it allowed all platforms to flood the servers. Well said Beaver. 😊
Thank you, @HonestHick. I'll be here all week... 😂
I just want Crash Bandicoot parity...
@Fiendish-Beaver HAHA won’t we all. Good times ahead.
@TheCollector316 I mean, there were over 40 that approved the deal so there is that.
@cburg
I'm sure those regulators will also express surprise and concern once Microsoft starts using their outsized power to bully smaller companies (more than they already do).
@UltimateOtaku91 they also have an incentive to, at least for the first while, not do anything rash. Spencer isn't stupid, he's well aware that this is not the kind of purchase that would be allowed to proceed in other industries. This is a big ticket for the xbox brand and he's not going to screw it up by pulling stuff. Keep in mind they only signed an agreement when it comes to call of duty. Other franchises are free game.
MS could have easily paid more then Sony and locked down exclusive deals etc, but that's not their business model, their model is to pretty much only let you rent games for a while paying a monthly sub, whilst also being blasted with endless ads to pay for it all. They don't want you to own anything.
Shame they are trying to destroy Sonys business model which is the opposite, and gives you a reason to own a PlayStation. Even if the games were on PC they are sold to you, not rented for a few weeks or months so long as you pay the monthly fee.
"We have no goal of somehow trying to use Call of Duty to get you to buy an Xbox console" and we actually prefer that you don't, because we're losing money on consoles and GP is available without one.
It's funny, but i don't care about this buyout. I wasn't buying any Activision games anyways.
Bethesda was more upsetting, but predictably they are going downhill under MS.
@gwyntendo What does this have to do with CoD, including his speech on the Xbox stepfather was that REGARDING COD THERE WILL BE NO EXCLUSIVE GAMES OR EXCLUSIVE CONTENT, nothing was said about other IP's. Who will say anything related to Bethesda, not even the same publisher.
@Rmg0731 Starfield sales disagree, seventh best-selling game of the year + XGP users
@TheCollector316 CoD Will be on XGP, and there meu bem free perks on Xbox Game Pass, but nothing os exclusive to Xbox, and Sony (as long as they pay for It) can put CoD on PS+ on day 1.
@rpawlos15133 That IS not even a thing right Now, Sony has exclusive content, and Microsoft never made a promise about maintaining other multiplatform IP's, whatever comes is profit, Sony could take this chance and bring Jak (my favorite PS IP) back.
@Godot25 @Fiendish-Beaver I understood what he means. I just see this differently to you two. Yes it's PR, but even with PR you have to be careful how much spin you put on something to start seeming disingenuous. I felt this statement crossed the line as it only applies in one way as he intended, not in others. Agree to disagree on this one gents.
What about all the other Activision games? I guarantee they'll all be exclusives. This buyout is terrible for the industry.
Removed - discussing moderation
Fair enough, @themightyant. Agree to respectfully disagree, although I think we agree more than disagree, don't you agree...? 😂
I’ll believe it when I see it.
We'll see in 10 years when the agreement Microsoft had with Sony around releasing Call of Duty on PlayStation expires. That's when I suspect the true face of Microsoft, with no obligation to deliver content or even new Call of Duty installments on PS, will be revealed.
@KillerBoy I do, yes. I play COD regularly between big launches like spider man or Alan wake. I know it's basically the same stuff every year but I'm having fun with it (and that's the point, is it not?). It's like billiard. The map (table) is always the same, the game modes always the same but it's still fun after the 4000th times because I find it fun.
Don't call a game trash just because it's not your thing. Personally I don't like Fortnite at all but I don't say it's trash because it's clearly a polished, well made game (just like COD) and millions having fun playing it.
We are not the same.
I reckon the next Doom game is going to be a first party exclusive like Starfield. The excuses Phil will be giving out for a game that has always been available to any platform that wants it is going to be quite the show.
@matekomlosi it is trash
@KillerBoy ok
@S1ayeR74 They are trying and failing to destroy Sony's business model. Even in the month that Starfield released, the PS5 still outsold the Xbox Series handily. Spider-Man 2 will still outsell Starfield.
Don't believe a word Old Man Spencer says. He specifically calls out Playstation gamers in this quote. The same ones he screwed over by removing Zenimax games. So he doesn't care about parity. Or that the Playstation versions will now be getting less features because the Xbox can't do them (haptic feedback, VR, etc.). If the rumors pan out and Sony is able to make a deal for Take-Two. I wonder what Spencer's tune will be if, all of a sudden, there is a real risk of MS losing access to GTA, RDR, and NBA 2K?
Tap here to load 75 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...