For the past few years, Sony has had a marketing arrangement with Activision which has seen PlayStation prioritised by the publisher, resulting in perks for Call of Duty players on PS5 and PS4. This followed on from the deal that Microsoft introduced during the Xbox 360 era, which would see map packs release first on the Redmond firm’s machine. Now, with its proposed $69 billion buyout of the brand, it’s eager to eradicate the practice.
It should be noted that said “perks” have been getting increasingly meaningless as Call of Duty has gradually embraced crossplay and phased out playerbase separating practices, like map packs. For example, PS5 and PS4 owners got access to the Modern Warfare 2 beta six days before other platforms, and can now enjoy mindblowing benefits like 25% Weapon XP bonuses when playing together in parties, as well as an additional two loadout slots.
However, Xbox boss Phil Spencer says that if his company is allowed to get its hands on Call of Duty, this practice will end. “That’s not the game we’re trying to play here either,” he promised. “It’s not about a skin on a gun. It’s not about a certain kind of mode of the game. The same version of the game will be available on all platforms, which is really what we do today.” He went on to cite Minecraft as an example, which is identical across all consoles and platforms.
To be fair, Sony is also offering identical experiences with its multiformat releases: MLB The Show 23 doesn’t have any advantages on PS5 and PS4, despite being developed by first-party developer San Diego Studio – and Destiny 2: Lightfall launched on Xbox and PC this week, without any compromise either.
We’ve been commenting on how pointless the Call of Duty perks have been getting for some time, so we doubt this will be a huge loss to PlayStation fans should the deal clear. The bigger blow to Sony will be in its inability to associate PS5 and PS4 with the franchise in commercials, which has clearly been fruitful for the firm over the past several years.
[source youtube.com, via eurogamer.net]
Sounds like good news. True cross platform play should be equal and not have people gaining XP and having a leveling advantage for no reason other than where they are playing it.
Pretty sure there's not a native PS5 version of Minecraft, Minecraft dungeons, or psyconaughts 2. Also pretty sure Xbox started this cod dlc time exclusivity back on 360. More talk from 2 faced Phil.
Omg, what a SAVIOR HAHAHAHAHAHAHH
We are so lucky to have Phil Spencer. It's not like he manages games great.
I mean, Activision agreed to sell these perks in the first place yeah? That’s where people’s anger should be directed.
Funny how they didn't seem to care about that in the PS3 era.
This dude Phil Spencer is such a phony gremlin. Xbox were the KINGS of timed exclusive deals when he was second in command, gradually lost all of them because of their own failures and then started playing the unity/underdog card as they lost so much ground no one would even give them deals anymore!
They want to let these cronies buy up the industry, fine, but enough of acting like this dude is a hero!
Hypocrite Phil at it again
Man I dislike Phil Spencer so much he’s a liar and a hypocrite.
Yeah of course HypoPhil, let's wait and see what happens after 10 years.
Still waiting for that psychonauts 2 ps5 version.
Yep Halo is doing great under Microsoft's management! I'm sure Phil just wants CoD to be "For the gamers" too.
The Regina George of the gaming world.
MS just love to count chickens before their hatched. Must be nice to have the trillions of the brand behind the gaming division to be able to buy their way out of the last 20 years of first party content stagnation, and to do it by eventually fragmenting the industry with their subscription model that they hold above console generations and innovation is the icing on the cake.
Lies of P hil , Philnocio , Phil Spender ... Really just wish the guy would keep his mouth shut
If Xbox didn’t have Microsoft’s Trillions behind them, the brand would have died years ago. Just saying..
I mean. It would be amazing that PS4/PS5 and Xbox One/Series X and S get the same content on the exact same day. But just remember that during the 7th gen era (Xbox 360, PS3) Microsoft had an exclusive contract with Activision Blizzard. They get the DLCs first and us PlayStation players gotta wait like 1 month until we get it. And I bet that’s gonna happen again in the future if Microsoft get their hands on Activision. Probably not in the next few or even 10 years. But definitely in the next decades of gaming.
All hail our saviour and not at all hypocritical Microsoft 🙏
@Imani it would eventually go game pass only. Everyone who keeps saying that they can't afford to do it is a joke. Microsoft is spending 70 billion to buy them so they can definitely eat the development cost to make it gamepass only. They can wait 10 years, streaming hasn't really kicked off big yet but eventually once technology is there streaming with be the main source of gaming.
This whole exclusive perks business started with MS back in the 360 days. I’ve still never played the exclusive Tomb Raider Underworld dlc because it was never released on PS platforms thanks to MS. It’s hilarious to see them preach about fixing a ‘problem’ that they themselves created.
as it should be. period.
The more he speaks the more I detest him.
MS had the exact same deal with CoD on 360 before Sony signed a marketing deal on PS4. Sony not doing anything Microsoft wern't doing 10 years ago
Lucky for us Uncle Phil is here to save us all from the tyranny of these repugnant billion dollar multinational corporations. What a guy!
Honestly, i'm more upset about the possibility of Crash being M$ mascot. Crash Bolts and Nuts anyone?
It would be nice if they were eagerd to actually make good games.
@ItsBritneyB_tch Agreed there are Oblivion DLCs that never saw the light of day on PS3 because of them but oh we don't talk about that 🙄
This has back fired on Sony as the EU seem to be happy with the deal now. Unless Sony signs the deal they could end up with nothing lol
I haven't played COD for a while, so I don't care if Sony loses COD. I do have all consoles as I like most of each consoles exclusives.
@Total_Weirdo Same I don't care that much if Sony does end up losing COD. The modern ones don't really interest me in terms of multiplayer so I haven't bought any lately.
Fair enough Phil, but who will save PS4 and ps5 only owners from the exclusive Xbox perks such as never being able to play another new entry for:
"The same version of the game will be available on all platforms"
Haha, CoD for everyone built on the Switch!!
Let's not forget it was MS that opened Pandora's box on having to pay to play online multiplayer.
They will Just go Pay EA For Exclusive Battlefield Perks Instead.
GTA IV dlc says hi
@Total_Weirdo yes, but Sony clearly cares. COD drives a lot of money to PS. I'm sure Sony will work out a deal if this goes through. It's also in Microsofts best interest to have it on Playstation so they makes the most money it can
@Anthony_Daniels @Anthony_Daniels Simple. You'll save yourself by buying an Xbox or Gamepass or you won't and you won't play them ... Just like everyone who doesn't own a PS can't play certain games. Or did I miss your point?
Yep you did miss the point. The point is Microsoft throughout this whole process have been trying to paint themselves as the plucky good guy who doesn't do exclusives yet they are the worse by far.
Sony nor Nintendo have ever bought a publisher let alone 2 as far as I'm aware and put an exclusivity wall up behind a huge catalogues of multiplatform titles.
The good guy spin they put out is cringe.
Removed - trolling
@Anthony_Daniels which franchise is now exclusive to xbox that wasn’t before?
@Kevw2006 gta 3, gta vice city and gta san andreas say hi.
@Anthony_Daniels which of those franchises has turned out to be exclusive to xbox so far?
I always thought this console-exclusive junk was stupid. PC is the best way to play FPS games, except for the missing content. There's no "full" version of these games.
@Rob_230 and sony the ten years before that. Remember gta 3?
@ItsBritneyB_tch be happy it gets fixed?
"We’ve been commenting on how pointless the Call of Duty perks have been getting for some time"
So why is Phil Spencer crying about these 'pointless' perks? He never complained when Xbox used to get exclusive perks to games in the 360 v PS3 days, or was it different when its MS?!
I mean I dont play COD myself but it would be interesting to know why he says one thing but cries about it at the same time.
@Friendly Microsoft had the opportunity to have GTA 3 as an exclusive and rejected it due to adult content and poor sales of previous titles. They shot themselves in the foot there.
@Friendly I must have missed the Hellblade 2 PS5 announcement. Looking forward to that now.
@Friendly that was Microsoft's fault. They didnt think GTA could make the jump to 3D. The exact same happened with other games i believe, including (among others) Little Big Planet, Yakuza, and Spiderman. Pretty sure heavy Rain aswell.
Fact is Microsoft has suffered over the years for failing to take risks - yet Sony, who has historically invested in more niche titles seems to be getting punished for taking risks and supporting innovation.
Removed - flaming/arguing
@Imani yeah I feel the same but I can see where it's heading sadly
@Friendly Microsoft bought gta4 dlc time exclusivity
Translation: "We are excited to finally be able to promote COD as an Xbox game during commercials at major sporting events so we can sell more Xbox consoles." There I fixed it.😄
Removed - flaming/arguing
@Americansamurai1 yeah, I know, and the other 3 gta’s were exclusive for sony for years before that. Sony started that shut.
@Kevw2006 that game was not in that whole list @anthony_daniels had written down. And it’s a franchise consisting of a single game.
Also, that company is comparable in size to insomniac when bought. Shall we start talking about Spiderman exclusivity too? And compare the size of that franchise to Hellblade?
Take two offered it to Sony. Take it up with them instead. It would have been exclusive to Microsoft if they had taken a chance.
Removed - trolling
Removed - trolling
@Friendly i mean you are getting very worked up about this. When Xbox launched the same was true with the likes of Knights of the old republic, chronicles of riddick, splinter cell, ninja gaiden. Oddworld strangers wrath. It goes both ways. Both companies are as guilty as the other of this.
Removed - trolling
@Friendly well yes, it's absolutely their fault. They rejected the game so take two were forced to turn to Sony. It's highly likely that the money that Sony paid for that exclusivity helped to fund the game being made. Without it GTA 3 may never have happend.
Removed - flaming/arguing
@Kevw2006 same can be said about the gta iv dlc
Removed - flaming/arguing
Removed - flaming/arguing
@Friendly Insomniac's Spiderman games are their own IP and not related to any series that went before. Just because the character has been in games that have released on other platforms before has no relevance to the exclusivity of Insomniac's games as they aren't even related. Now you may have a point on him being excluded from Xbox in the Avengers game but there's a massive difference between a character and whole games or franchises being excluded.
Removed - flaming/arguing
@Kevw2006 you could say that to above commenters who brought dlc for gta iv into the discussion then too…
Also, the whole spiderman franchise is excluded from anything not Sony. So…. it has nothing to do with Insomniac, they just made the game Sony asked them to make, but Sony kept the whole Spiderman franchise from all other places. Incomparable to Hellblade.
Jim Ryan should be taking notes. This is how you run a gaming company. Not trying to keep games from gamers.
@Friendly I mean the original article is all about Microsoft wanting to do away with exclusive content in games so in the context of the article the GTA dlc is relevant as an example of Microsoft having paid for exclusive content in the past. Neither company are innocent when it comes to such practices but at least Sony do admit to it and say that they want PlayStation to be the best place for people to want to play games. It's Microsoft suddenly trying to act like they are holier than thou that isn't sitting well with people.
@Anthony_Daniels I get where you’re coming from with this with Xbox buying Zenimax, but why is it okay for Sony to lock games to their platform but not Xbox?
@Friendly funnily enough Spiderman was also offered to Xbox as an exclusive before they approached Sony too and they turned it down because they wanted to prioritise their existing IP's. Sony were then approached and they jumped at the chance. If Microsoft took up that offer do you think we would have seen Spiderman on PS? No chance.
Everyone getting the SAME content at the SAME time and for the SAME price to own - seems very fair to me...
MS made CoD the Juggernaut it became with heavy marketing (to sell Gold of course) and got 4wks early access to DLC packs - but at least they 'came' to every platform.
Sony can use the Money they will save by not paying A/B for exclusive perks and/or extra content, paying for all the marketing and TV adverts etc to invest in their OWN software/Studios, spend that money to bring Killzone, Resistance and/or SoCoM back and maybe even be a 'CoD' killer. Ghosts and Advanced Warfare - both tied to XB1 - didn't affect the runaway success of PS4 in the first few years or 'keep' that many CoD gamers on Xbox - they jumped to play at 1080/60, not 900/60 even if they 'could' get DLC earlier...
I doubt that Sony Fanboys will abandon PS5 or PS6, miss out on Sony's award winning games, award winning IP's, Virtual Reality, Haptic Feedback, their 'prefered' controller layout etc just because MS own CoD and they 'could' play for just $10 a month after spending another $500 on a Series X to get the 'SAME' Premium Quality experience up to 4k and/or 120fps. It won't affect my decision to 'buy' a Playstation 6 - it never affected ANY console purchase because I need 'both' Platforms to play all the Premium games I enjoy - Whether that's Gears of War or God of War, Forza or GT, State of Decay or Uncharted, Last of Us or Hellblade 2, R&C or Fable, Returnal or Perfect Dark.... I can't play all on one device - but CoD is on BOTH and will remain on Both as well as be available on many more devices too...
I know people (a god damn lot of them) who literally only have consoles to play FIFA and CoD. And you know what they also have to only play FIFA and CoD?...
Subscriptions to PS Plus
So when people like @BAMozzy say this won't affect Sony, it's just silly. Xbox is targeting the insanely large casual market with this acquisition, and when Phil says this is about it being for fairness, Jesus Christ, no. It's about money and a great way to hurt the competition long term.
I agree in principle with the words saviour Phil, golden god of gaming, said, but come on, I'm half drunk and it doesn't take all my wits to work out it's just some serious bullsh** it's not even cleverly veiled, it's the laziest point scoring attempt ever, trying to trick the authorities and make it seem like Sony is stuck in the past and Xbox are these super progressive people looking to move past old industry practices, whilst trying to splurge as much money as possible to definitely advertise Xbox as THE place to play CoD in the future by it being cheaper (which people will care about) but with no added perks (that no one gives a sh** about anyway) lol
@Ravix So if People bought a Playstation for CoD & Fifa, they can still buy CoD and Fifa like they ALWAYS have, get the game the same day as everyone else and pay the same price to own it.
CoD will now be available on MANY more devices and therefore available to MANY more gamers - all getting the SAME content, the SAME day so if they want to play on their 'mobile' instead of paying Sony money for their Console and buying the Game - they now can - it may hurt Sony - but the deal BENEFITS those gamers, those Casuals and will make it more accessible to even more Gamers.
Don't forget, CoD was 'nothing' until MS marketed the hell out of it during the 360 era and it didn't help them dominate Sony who not only had a 'disaster' Start with their 'overpriced' and late to the market PS3 giving the 360 a decent head start. When they announced and even released the PS4, CoD was still linked with Xbox yet people abandoned 360 to jump to PS4 to play CoD at 1080/60, not 900/60. PS4 dominated sales whilst Xbox still had CoD marketing and Titanfall exclusively too.
The fact that CoD will be on PS as well will not 'force' people to abandon their PS5 and jump to Xbox. People will still buy PS6 to keep their Trophies, their friends, their prefered controller etc knowing that CoD will still be available on their prefered platform. Some may jump to Xbox - but thats 'Competition' and Consumer/Gamer choice which is much better than being 'forced' to buy Hardware or miss-out on something as it is now.
Those 'casuals' may opt to play on 'cheap' hardware, streaming the game at 1080/60 because its 'cheap' - but its not the 'Premium' quality offered by PS5 - going to miss out on 4k visuals and/or 120fps, more latency/lag, but its 'cheap' and maybe 'good' enough for them. Again 'better' for the Consumer/Gamer to have more choice.
I don't care if Sony loses sales - that's Sony's problem to solve and that Money they keep investing in a '3rd party multi-platform' game, the marketing costs etc (those TV ads aren't cheap) can be invested in their OWN IP's and Studios, build up their OWN portfolio to entice gamers - especially knowing CoD and Fifa will STILL be available on their 'Premium' Platform.
Did you care that Sony bought Insomniac and keep Spider-Man off of Xbox (a much bigger IP than CoD) and will have Wolverine too? Did you care they bought Bungie and Own Destiny now as well and could 'keep' that from OTHER platforms. Did you care about all the other purchases Sony are making to KEEP games away from other gamers? or is that OK but somehow when the competition does it, its wrong...
Sony bought Naughty Dog - hence they don't own Crash Bandicoot because ND didn't own the IP when purchased. Sony bought Guerilla games too as well as Sucker Punch, Bungie etc all to 'grow' and compete with the Competition.
There are still thousands of Studios so MS doesn't own the majority, and lots of other Publishers too. Deals aren't made to protect Competition but shouldn't hurt the Consumer/gamer. Giving them more ways to play, more platforms to play on, complete parity regardless etc is BENEFICIAL - I couldn't care less if it hurts some big Corporation, its up to them to 'fight' back and 'compete'. Make their own Streaming service with games day and date, buy up more studio's - they have more IP's than MS do so more studio's to make more of their OWN games.
Sony should be putting all that money they spend on CoD, Hogwarts, Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Forspoken and all the 'marketing' costs on these on their own Studios - either buying more, or building the ones they have up to make 'more' than 1 game every 4-6yrs. They have their own 'FPS' IP's (including Destiny now) as well as experienced FPS developers - Killzone/Guerilla, Resistance/Insomniac and lets not forget SoCoM is their IP and they could bring that back to rival CoD and its ONLY on Playstation where as CoD is everywhere...
Point is, Sony isn't losing CoD. It offers a Premium Quality experience (only equalled on Series X) and those that bought PS5 to play CoD/Fifa won't care about this deal knowing that CoD/Fifa is still releasing on PS5 - the same day everyone else gets it, the same price to buy as on Xbox, the same content so 'not' missing out on anything if this deal goes through. if they are a CoD fan, they'll know they can play on PS5 so won't need to rush out and spend $500 on a Series X or 'miss out' on something...
Sony will still get Sales on their System because its still cheaper to pay $70 to own their favourite game than buy a Series X to get the SAME Premium Quality and pay $180 a year on Game Pass Ultimate as it includes the Necessary Gold to play online or pay $120 a year to play at 1080/60 streaming it. Sony will still get their '30%' of all Digital sales of the Game, MTX, Season Passes and all the other 'extras', still get their percentage of Physical sales sold on their Platform, using their Logo's, their case design, their 'branding' on the packaging and using their platform - like they do with ALL 3rd Party Publishers on their platform - so it may make a 'dent' in their CoD profits, but are also saving a LOT by not paying A/B and all the marketing costs...
The FTC/CMA/EU etc aren't there to protect the corporations and their 'Profits', they are there to protect the Consumer and this deal benefits the Consumer - even if it does 'dent' Sony's profits which they are NOT there to protect and I don't understand why there is so much Loyalty to a corporation.
I'm looking at it from the perspective of a Gamer, a Consumer and this deal is beneficial to them as CoD will be available to MANY more gamers/consumers giving them much more choice and more affordable ways to play to 'grow' the Community in a Fair way. Unlike now where Sony gets 'extra' content, Xbox/PC gamers can play but get a 'reduced' package at the SAME cost so screwed over, and the rest can't play at all.
After this deal, EVERY Gamer can play the SAME Content the SAME day from as little as just $10 a month 'renting' the game all the way up to buying a High End gaming Rig and paying $70 to 'own' the game...
I grew up when Blockbuster used to rent Video Games out - a cheap way to play games without buying and Game Pass is 'similar'.
If this does make MS more 'competitive', enough to overtake Sony in some regions (Europe is 80:20 in PS favour, Japan is 96:4 in PS favour) then so what? that's Competition and its up to Sony to 'compete' with MS - maybe they should offer their Subscribers Day 1 access too, maybe offer 'streaming' on ANY platform too to be more 'competitive' with Game Pass and reach those on a budget instead of forcing them to miss out or pay Premium prices. Maybe they should be buying Studios and investing in their own IP's to compete with Xbox Studio's and Xbox owned IP's instead of spending money to keep 3rd Party multi-platform games and/or content away from gamers on other platforms and services. Be more 'consumer' focussed...
I don't need saving from that which i'm not a prisoner of.
I don't play CoD. 😁
@BAMozzy i understand you've said the SAME thing quite a lot in those comments 😁 I understand you think that Xbox will be offering it at the same price on their platforms forever, and being all friendly with Sony forever, and you think that them owning another giant publisher will be good for all gamers, forever.
I get the impression that you think that big Phil will be the one to ensure that a game that is currently available on lots of platforms, and could forever be available on any platform imaginable without Microsoft involved, is somehow going to make it available to more people if he gets his hands on it?
I look at this from the standpoint of what is best for gamers, too by the way, I just haven't partaken in the drinking of the coolaid. Your comment is reading like a marketing message, or one of those political supporter statements, where they just quote other people's catchphrases over and over that don't really mean anything under the surface.
What is good for gaming and gamers? Supporting new studios, taking risks, and working to create innovative new content to advance gamers experiences, and the reward of that effort just happened to be exclusive titles. It's high risk, and high reward and incredibly fair as a business practice (because anyone and everyone can do that)
Microsoft at any point in time could have joined the party by doing this driving everyone to make better games, tell better stories, and they would have got their own exclusive hits as a reward (and therefore console sales to compete and offer more choice to people) but they just shipped out the same old stuff and stagnated their own exclusive IPs over and over and over, so now they want to buy massive publishers instead who have incredibly successful established IPS that are/were available on PlayStation, but they are already moving to TAKE THOSE AWAY (Hi, Bethesda) and you think Microsoft is somehow bringing games to the masses?
The real strategy is clear, and driven by their failure to establish their own successful IPs, and very typical for Microsoft. Here is something you are used to having, it's cool that you currently have it and want it, but if you want it in the future, you better get yourself some Microsoft operating systems. Integrate or eliminate!
In my personal opinion, and my desire as a gamer I just really, really want to see Xbox pull their finger out and do something creative for a change, because pay to win sucks, and that is clearly what they are trying to do with their business strategy. Which is why this sticks out to me as unfair, unrelated to being a gamer or not.
Imagine if Burger King decided they were going to buy all of the largest cattle farms and slaughterhouses in the world that other chains use, sure McDonald's you can still have the beef for your burgers, but you might want to start focusing on those chicken nuggets from now on instead
Maybe if BurgerSoft focused on creating some tasty new recipes instead of just grabbing all of the popular ingredients that everyone currently shares they could be in the position that McDonald's is with the consumer without having to buy their way to the table 😆😆
@Tasuki you do realize Microsoft pays out for timed exclusive and blocks games from releasing on PlayStation to right?
Hilarious this is the article written when it was reported today that Microsoft seems to be on track to get approval from the EU for the acquisition. Eventually we'll get around to acknowledging the FTC chair is overreaching while playing politics and going to lose in court and the deal will close in the US. Someone might wanna look at the Sony brass that knows this and refuses to reach an agreement while jeopardizing their gamers.
@Bionic-Spencer Super yes!
@Rob_230 As I mentioned the other day,not only does "Gamer" Phil get a free pass from his acolytes & certain gaming media when they parrot his "Sony is anti gamer" & the only ones who engage in 3rd party timed exclusives narrative.
Not only do they ignore history of 360 era MS/Xbox,but even under Phil's watch games like Tomb Raider,& Gamepass timed exclusives where PS versions didn't appear until months later eg: Carrion,Death's Door & we never saw Octopath Traveller!
Likewise his laughable hypocrisy when he claims his "game by game",promises prior to the Zenimax Bethesda buyout never meant Starfield, Elder Scrolls, or other future releases would ever be coming to PS5 when anything not inked in a Sony contract was cancelled.
"Gamer" Phil Spencer who decries timed 3rd party deals yet literally has been forking out billions to paywall 3rd party AAA publishers & IP's exclusively behind Gamepass/Xbox because its easier to remove competition rather than invest same billions into creating their own!🙄
I mean. Bonuses in MW2 wasn't that hot.
But we want to suddenly pretend that PlayStation players did not have ENTIRE GAME MODES as one year exclusives for their platform?
Microsoft trying to buy themselves some relevancy. If they hadnt purchased Bethesda they'd have absolutely nothing to offer it's gamers at all this year. Phil is a joke and a lier.
@Tasuki hahaha. Good one!
@Americansamurai tbh Minecraft also dont have a Xbox Series version
@Somebody Make a contract that the game will stay on all platforms indefinitely with special perks. If he doesn't doe that its all nonsense.
@Godot25 From several months waiting for packs to almost no wait because Sony put his foot between the door.
@Rob_230 I agree with you. And I see you and others here now have an argument with the same guy I just had to block a few days back after myself also being moderated on here due to only putting this dude straight on this same topic.
@BAMozzy Microsoft makes big 3rd party brands first brand and completely takes them away. They put in a 10 year contract that ends with the new platform cycle and its done.
How the hell Microsoft can't compete with Sony is a enigma to me. Unending funds with already massive brands bought up and still they need to buy the rest get out of here with this nonsense good for the consumer.
Didn't they already take several games away from the consumers by buying Bethesda alone this has nothing to do with being consumer friendly in the slightest it's taking over a industry by force.
Funning thing is Xbox started with paid DLC (I'm not talking big expansion packs but actual microtransactions). And they started with exclusive DLC. They also started with paid online gaming (still free and doing great on PC).
Sega started with paid online gaming even before Microsoft. Microsoft only popularized paid online gaming
@BAMozzy and Microsoft could have used that 70 billion to invest in their own studios, build their own and invest in new IPs but instead they took the shortcut and are buying up large publishers with a whole host of already well established and popular IPs. See it works both ways. And did you seriously suggest that Spiderman is a bigger IP than CoD? Perhaps in movies etc but certainly not in the gaming landscape.
@Flaming_Kaiser What? In 360 era Xbox had 1 month exclusivity on DLC content.
In Modern Warfare (2019) Sony had entire year of exclusive Survival mode. Only in last years it moved from exclusive mode to fluff like "bonus XP and faster Battle Pass advance"
@Ravix In 10yrs another game could be the 'best' game ever, made by some new studio that becomes the 'new' GTA, CoD, Fifa, Minecraft or whatever other IP that has gone on to become an 'icon'.
Regardless of whatever you think, there is always going to be Competition. MS doesn't own and won't own the 'Market' share. In terms of hardware units, they are certainly way behind Nintendo and Sony, let alone all the gamers on Mobile/Tablet, PC, Steam and whatever other hardware gamers can play on.
As for the Purchase itself, this is much more like Netflix purchasing Sony Pictures to compete with Disney+ and promising to still release all the movies they make into Cinemas too whilst also putting those movies day and date into their Sub Service so EVERYONE can watch on whatever device they WANT, not be forced to go to the Cinema and the 'added' cost that is for a 'single' movie, travel costs etc vs the Sub fee which also lets you watch other movies/shows for that 'small' fee.
What you and it seems that most Fanboys here are failing to recognise here is that this means that its going to remain 'multi-platform' forever because MS and Game Pass in particular is 'Multi-platform'. Even if it was 'Exclusive' to Xbox/Game Pass, that still would make it accessible and playable by EVERYONE.
Just like Netflix is available on mobiles, tablets, Smart TV's, Consoles, SkyQ, PC's etc etc means that wherever you are, whatever platform you choose to watch on, Netflix is there. No-one has to miss the Witcher, Stranger Things or whatever other Content they have as they have platforms to watch it on.
Watching Netflix/Playing Games on a mobile may not be 'best' - tiny screen can't really compete to a large screen surround sound experience, but it might be 'perfect' for the train commute. If the future is streaming, as some seem to think it will, then like Netflix, you'll still be able to play CoD on ANY compatible device. The ONLY gaming platforms its not on is Switch/Playstation - but they all own Mobiles at least, so could still have access to CoD.
@Friendly Sony do have a big fat thumb in that spiderman pie though, they own the movie rights ,and it was marvel that approached insomniac and asked which character would they like to develop a game for ,they've done the same with wolverine.
@BAMozzy did you really just say that if Xbox did make it exclusive to Xbox gamepass then it would be available to everyone? And that is a good thing? 😂😂😂😂😂 Discarding the millions who play it on PlayStation currently saying they can play it on a phone 😆
And you're calling people here fanboys 😁😁😁
Your comment actually sums up Microsoft really well, it's almost as if you can see that their end game is to to be up inside all things that can possibly play games, kinda like how Microsoft windows forced its way inside PCs 👀
@Kevw2006 They did invest their money into Growing their OWN portfolio of Studio's and IPs by purchasing a group of Studios and IP's - much like Sony has - Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Sucker Punch, Bungie, Insomniac etc etc and are still buying up other gaming companies too instead of making Studio's from scratch too because its easier and cheaper to buy up an 'established' Studio, their IP's and a work force to instantly start work on Exclusive projects.
Bungie was a SMALL publisher having the 'rights' to Publish their own games independently from the 'bigger' publishers - like A/B, EA, Sony, MS, Capcom, Take 2 etc - hence it cost Sony more than 10x the amount of Insomniac with 'more' owned IP's - inc Sunset Overdrive of course. So now they have Destiny - one of the biggest multi-platform games in the past 10yrs and a CoD competitor. CoD isn't even the 'biggest' FPS in terms of daily players - because ALL you focus on is Console wars - Xbox vs Sony.
Nintendo has outsold both Xbox and Playstation without CoD - although Nintendo will now get CoD too, as will all those Mobile, tablet and whatever other device they 'choose' to play on and won't miss out on ANY content...
I am NOT bitter that Spider-Man or Wolverine are ONLY on Playstation day and date, but that does mean that the 'vast' majority won't be able to play because Playstation is a 'tiny' percentage of the overall gaming market.
@Ravix yes - because it still means EVERY gamer has a device they can play on. It may not be on Playstation for example, but those 'gamers' can still access CoD on a wide variety of platforms.
Its not just on Xbox Hardware - its on iOS/Android mobiles/tablets etc, its on Tizen Samsung TV's, its on browsers, its on laptops/PC's that can't run the game due to the lack of specs required to run it, its on PC's/Laptops too that can run it. It will even be playable on last gen XB1 hardware.
Its like Disney+ having Marvel/Star Wars etc - it doesn't matter that they are 'exclusive' to Disney+ because EVERYONE can still watch - its not as if you need to go out and buy a new device to watch the Mandalorian because if you want to watch, you have choices - your Mobile, your Smart TV app, your Laptop/PC, your console etc etc - no-one is 'forced' to buy Specific Hardware to watch/play or 'miss-out'.
I get that its not the 'same' as playing locally on a PS5 (or PS6) but then the game is still coming to those 'Premium' platforms and maybe in 10yrs time, the Console market could be 'Over' with the majority opting to 'Stream' and the rest play on PC's for a Premium experience. Maybe the attraction of playing anywhere on any device will kill the console - too expensive and locked to that one device whereas you could play on your Mobile/tablet whilst out and then carry on where you left off on your TV/Laptop/PC when at home...
I have NO doubt that if Sony release a PS7 hardware in 12years time, MS will still want to release CoD on that hardware to keep the Community together - much like Minecraft will also be on PS whilst they have 'Hardware' on the market. If its a 'streaming' only future, Xbox will be like Netflix and Sony like Disney+ - you still need to subscribe to 'BOTH' to play ALL the games and maybe EA will have their own service with Fifa, Battlefield, Apex etc, maybe Tencent and Embracer will also have their 'own' services too so you'll need more and more Subs to play all the games you want - unless some consolidation and strategic partnerships occur...
Again though, you are being a typical Fanboy - what about Sony and Playstation? The fact is that they will still get the game on their preferred hardware guaranteed parity for at least the next 10yrs isn't taking anything away from them and actually making CoD available on a LOT more devices. If that means CoD gamers opt to jump to Xbox, PC or Cloud - that's Competition and its up to Sony to make those gamers want to stay on Playstation for ALL their OWN exclusives. If they are only on PS5 because they would 'miss-out' on content on Xbox, again that's Competition and why Sony spent money to make them do that - now they have more choice - better for Consumer, not so good for Sony...
Even if ALL CoD gamers jumped to Xbox, PC, Cloud enabled devices, Nintendo, GeForce enabled hardware etc because of this, that's exercising their Consumer Choice instead of being 'forced' to buy a PS5 or miss out on something. Of course they don't 'need' to jump because CoD is still coming to PS5 and the 'next' gen at least...
@BAMozzy with the exception of Bungie, who immediately after the acquisition was announced stated that they will continue to work in an independent manner and will release on whatever platform they want, name one single developer that Sony have bought that was synonymous with multiplatform games that released on other platforms that are no longer available on those platforms? Granted you can say the same about Microsoft at the moment as to my knowledge that hasn't happened so far but statements from Phil Spencer and co have certainly suggested games such as Elder Scrolls or Fallout will be exclusive in some capacity. I don't have any problems with them making games exclusive as such, but they really need to be honest about what they are doing and saying that they are trying to be the good guys and not taking things away from people. Yes they are making games available on more platforms but you still need to purchase it from Microsoft is some capacity, either outright or as part of a subscription and does anyone really want to play through the whole of Elder Scrolls 6 from start to finish cloud streamed on a mobile phone? No, so you then either need to buy an Xbox, PC (which also benefits Microsoft) or some other streaming device that Microsoft will release. They are just giving the illusion of choice but let's face it, if you want to play any of those games that have previously been freely available you will need to be locked in to Microsoft's service and that is what their end game is.
@Friendly - Rockstar actually approached Microsoft first to strike a deal for GTA3 Timed Exclusivity on Xbox. However THEY (Xbox) pretty much turned them down because and I quote “I don’t think that game (GTA) is going to be able to make the transition from 2D to 3D” and so Rockstar went to PlayStation, and they signed a 2-year exclusivity deal. As for GTA Vice City & GTA San Andreas, only reason those games were made exclusive to the PS2 was largely thanks to the success of GTA3 on PS2.
@Kevw2006 The Elder Scrolls/fallout games are not sequels, not continuations of a story line, not playing the SAME character or even same setting.
Each is a 'Separate' entity in their own right. Ok the lore and general theme maybe the same, but like Far Cry too, every 'entry' is a unique experience. Fallout and Elder Scrolls started on PC and Xbox worked with Bethesda to bring ES to Xbox 'exclusively'. Oblivion came to Xbox too 'exclusively' for a period of time so it only '1' game that had a 'simultaneous' release on Both PS3/360 - Skyrim - which is and will always remain playable on Playstation. Its not as if ES6 was announced for 'Playstation', not as if they have any obligation to release a Single Player game with 'no' history on PS as its a 'completely' new character, completely new setting etc - same with a new Fallout. Fallout 3, New Vegas and 4 are all completely separate games - only linked by the lore and game-play loop. Each new game is a 'new' start, not a 'continuation' of a story arc. Elder Scrolls is owned by MS and Bethesda is owned by MS. ES6 will be funded entirely by MS, Marketed by MS, Published by MS etc etc. Its like Sony funding Spider-Man, funding the developers (who weren't owned by Sony at the time) and then being surprised that they didn't release a MUCH bigger IP than ES, than CoD etc - one that transcends gaming and was around long before video games were a thing - on their Rival after spending all that money on the development and marketing. Indiana Jones 'could' be Exclusive to MS as they own the developer and are funding its development. Will you 'cry' if its not on PS too - do you expect Sony to buy Square Enix and then release Final Fantasy games on Xbox?
I know Bungie will 'remain' multi-platform developers - like Mojang and I expect CoD will too.
Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime etc all have 'exclusive' content that you cannot watch on other streaming services or even on other content providers - like Sky or BBC or ITV and their streaming services. However NO-ONE need miss out on watching ANY exclusives on devices they have - they don't need to rush out to buy a 'new' mobile because their mobile has Netflix but not Disney+ for example - you can watch both the Mandalorian and Stranger Things on ANY compatible device.
I am NOT suggesting that Playstation CoD gamers would be satisfied with having to play on their 'mobile' but then they don't have to. Its not as if CoD and ALL the Content won't be available for at least the next 10yrs - that's the rest of this generation so all those that bought PS5 specifically for CoD will still be able to play CoD. Even if they 'choose' to buy a PS6 to play CoD, its going to be available there too - no one is 'forced' to buy a PS5/6 or miss out on something, no-one is being 'forced' to buy a Series S/X and/or whatever Console MS bring out next or 'Miss-out' and who knows if there will be a PS7 and/or if CoD will still be 'relevant', 10 years ago, CoD was with MS and it didn't help them sell XB1's - people chose to jump to Playstation as CoD ran better - despite having to wait a bit longer for DLC and Switch has Sold well without CoD at all.
20yrs ago, CoD was 'nothing' a 'brand new' IP on Windows PC only!!! Medal of Honour and Battlefield were 'bigger' IPs and Medal of Honour was one of the 'best' selling games of 2003 on PS2 - at least in the US. CoD was 'nowhere' and didn't start becoming the Juggernaut it did when MS partnered with A/B and marketed the hell out of it. Even that didn't help the 360 beat PS3 despite starting a year earlier and the 'disaster' start the 'over-priced' PS3 launch created, the 'problems' with multi-platform games etc etc...
The attempts at looking like the good guy are getting pretty old. Your not some white knight Mr. Spencer. Stop pretending to be one please.
@BAMozzy I have no problem with what Microsoft are doing and they are entitled to make exclusive whatever games they like. I'm very aware that if it was Sony in that scenario they would make whatever they can exclusive too. I also fully expect Indiana Jones to be an exclusive too and won't lose any sleep if it is. What I don't like is that Microsoft are somehow now being portrayed as some sort of consumer champion and the good guys for engaging in such practices but then Sony are the bad guys for doing significantly less damaging deals and trying to give their customers something a little bit extra. Something that Microsoft have also done in the past but seems to be overlooked. I noticed you diverted attention back to CoD when talking about playing on mobile, I specifically avoided using that as an example because of the proposed ten year deal. So much focus has been on CoD for this deal where for me it's the many other IPs that seem to be slipping under the radar that I'm more concerned about.
@BAMozzy - If Microsoft had any intention of keeping COD on PlayStation, they wouldn't be offering them a 10 year deal, they would have written that 'COD will remain on PlayStation' into the contract as a condition of being acquired. Bungie's current and future projects remaining multiplat was a condition that Bungie requested, thus it was written into the contract, so at least Sony was being transparent with their intentions, Xbox/MS on the other hand are all over the place with their mixed messaging and refusal to elaborate on their intentions, they pulled this exact same stunt with Bethesda.
Not to mention; there was nothing ever stopping Activision from putting COD on the Switch or other platforms, they simply chose not to, MS didn't have to acquire ABK to make that happen. Additionally; Nintendo, Steam & Nvidia were offered the same 10 year deal as PlayStation, so what's the plan? Put COD on Switch, build an audience and then what? "Oh yeah we know we've built an audience for COD on the Nintendo platform, but those 10 years are up sooooooooo yeah we've decided to remove COD from this platform due to (Insert BS excuse here), it's unfortunate that it must come to this, but we're thankful we able to reach more gamers... ciao!".
@Kevw2006 Sony are the bad guys for doing significantly less damaging deals and trying to give their customers something a little bit extra.
Less damaging to 'who'? Not gamers as they are 'forced' to buy PS5 or miss out on Content in what should be the SAME GAME on EVERY platform it releases. Its detrimental to Xbox/PC gamers who also wanted to play Final Fantasy, Hogwarts, CoD, Deathloop, Ghostwire etc etc but were prevented from playing the COMPLETE package on the SAME day because Sony...
Paying for 'extra' content in a MP game yet still expecting gamers on other platforms not to feel 'cheated', not to feel like they are unfairly limited, that they don't have Parity in a game that costs the same and should be a complete 'Multi-platform' package on ALL platforms is completely anti-consumer.
What Xbox are doing is OFFERING complete Parity on CoD regardless of what Platform you play on for at least the next 10yrs - which is at least the entire PS5 and well into the next gen cycle too - a Platform that currently doesn't even exist yet and a very long time in gaming. They haven't said that as soon as that 10yr parity ends, things will suddenly 'stop' and have stated that they will always be open to discuss extensions etc once that 'future' beyond 2034 is clearer. If Sony decide to make a PS7 and CoD is 'still' relevant, still popular, no doubt it will release with Parity - that is in MS's statement of Intent.
MS has stated that they will continue to Support the entire CoD community with complete parity on the Platforms they wish to and are most comfortable on. CoD has built up a 'large' active Online Community - all of which get 'more' than Xbox/PC gamers that Paid exactly the same - so a fraction of the Community has something the rest don't. Therefore they want to ensure that EVERY CoD gamer, regardless of your 'Hardware' preference should get the SAME content, the SAME day, at the SAME price to own which is far more pro-consumer than Sony's business model of screwing over some of the Community for their OWN personal gain...
at the end of the day i don't see why ms would take cod off of playstation , i could see some single player games of course , but cod? cod is a mp heavy game and needs a big user base to thrive. to make it exclusive to just xbox and pc limits how many players are playing , and will make the game die off much faster. and yes i know they plan on making it for the switch , but how many people would be playing cod online on a switch ?
For all these PS CoD gamers, on a PS gaming site so I can understand their 'concerns' and why they are being negative, how are you actually losing out if MS does get the deal through?
Did you buy Xbox 360 when CoD was associated to Xbox, did you jump to PS4 when they 'changed' to Sony after a few years or did you buy the 'console' you preferred knowing/expecting CoD to be playable - even if you had to wait or miss out on content?
Will you suddenly rush out and buy a Series X - even though you can still keep playing CoD on PS5, get ALL the content same day/date even though its now owned/Published by MS instead of A/B? How are you as a consumer actually going to be impacted by this? For a LONG time, CoD has been 'unfair' to one group of Players - during the 360 and start of XB1 era - PS5/PC had to wait a few extra weeks to get DLC but got complete parity on Content overall, Since Sony took over, Xbox/PC gamers miss out on content completely so it hasn't been 'fair' or particularly 'consumer' friendly but this deal will bring COMPLETE parity for ALL CoD gamers - regardless of where they choose to play - including the PS5 they bought for CoD or if they Choose to buy a PS6.
So please tell me HOW gamers are going to be 'worse' off? How Playstation gamers in particular are now going to 'miss-out'. A/B only make CoD (since all Activision Studio's now only work on CoD) and Blizzard will release Diablo IV on PS regardless too. Overwatch 2 will continue to be fully supported with Parity so HOW are Sony Playstation gamers losing...
The CoD community are better off as they ALL get the SAME game at the SAME time with the SAME content - no 'advantages' on one Platform so the rest 'miss' out. Not only that, they are looking to bring CoD to more Platforms, not reduce the choices, to grow that Community and support them on the Platforms they choose to play on - so how are Gamers losing?
Sony may lose sales as Consumers can have more choices on how and where they want to Play CoD - whether that is on Cloud, Steam, PC, Xbox, Nintendo, Playstation, GeForce etc but that's 'business' and why this isn't anti-consumer or detrimental to gamers as it actually gives them a LOT more choice.
You can argue A/B never wanted to put the work in to make CoD work on Nintendo, thinking the 'costs' wouldn't equate to more money from enough sales to justify the work and its not as if they have time to work on Ports as they are making the next game to release in a year, making DLC/MTX etc and still struggle to launch on 'PC/Xbox/PS5' on time - hence so many studios.
Now its not Sony or A/B's concern - its MS that has to 'deliver' these games on those Platforms with Parity on content... But gamers on PS5 will continue to get CoD so are not 'losing' anything when the deal goes through
@twitchtvpat Its more about giving the Consumers the choice to play on ANY platform they own - including Switch - not limit the game to just Xbox/PC/PS as it is now with some of the Community getting 'extras' that the rest of the Community miss out on so not 'consumer/gamer' friendly practice. You expect the whole community to get the SAME content wherever they choose to play.
Instead of PS5 getting 'extras' and Xbox/PC gamers feeling annoyed, despite being in the same Community, EVERYONE gets the same content at the same time. Instead of limiting it to a few 'Premium' platforms, even those with lower spec or even no 'gaming' hardware can now jump into CoD, join the Community and get the exact same content...
People may 'choose' to play Online on Switch because its their only platform or that they want to play CoD 'on the go' instead of always being sat in front of a TV at home - its more about giving the gamer 'more' choices - not reducing the options and/or losing out because you didn't buy a Playstation...
@BAMozzy since I was specifically referring to exclusive content within games and not full games I'm going to ignore Final Fantasy and Deathloop etc. Yes it is significantly less damaging having exclusive content within a game that releases on all platforms in comparison to whole franchises suddenly being made exclusive. And if the pretty negligible additional exclusive content that does come to a specific platform does matter that much to you that you feel you need to buy that platform then it's doing its job. Also with timed exclusive deals exeryone still gets to experience the game eventually, albeit not at the same time so that still isn't as bad as buying them up and making them exclusive. Also Microsoft still do this too but, yep, it's only Sony that are the bad guys for doing it. I can honestly say that I've never once played any of the exclusive game modes that have been on PS for CoD and I doubt many Xbox players have either once they finally become available. You're still not acknowledging the fact that despite what they say now Microsoft have also been guilty of doing this in the past too, and back when they had exclusive rights it was for something that actually mattered like additional maps. Plus you still seem to be solely focusing on CoD, yes there is a deal being offered for that but what about the many other IP's that they are away to acquire. CoD is being used as a carrot to push the deal through and then they have no obligations on anything else. The sole game that Microsoft have said they would be crazy to make exclusive is their only concession. As for Final Fantasy, I still fully expect XVI and VII remake to come to Xbox at some point unless Sony went ahead and bought Square Enix obviously.
@BAMozzy sorry, but I'm not going to read all of that beyond skimming the same point you've made over and over, by the way, but I am going to CAPITALISE some random words every so often in a response for the SAKE of it.
This isn't about Sony having some exclusives (their reward for backing projects from nothing, or should I say NOTHING) that Xbox also has plenty of, by the way (just far weaker attempts at them, and again at any point they could still actually BACK a project to make some hits themselves, even if sometimes you get flops, which playstation has plenty of too!)
I don't even know why you keep taking about the AVAILABILITY of a FRANCHISE that is ALREADY AVAILABLE on multiple platforms and can continue to be that way without Microsoft money either. I'm genuinely baffled.
The debate is and always should be about FAIR business practices. And this random Phil quote about removing perks is just a very badly veiled attempt to gain favour from consumers and the authorities who haven't got a clue about what this actually means. It's just supposed to sound good to the untrained ear. Phil wants to look like the good guy gamer, and that's always been his schtick.
BUT no one corporation should be allowed to PURCHASE such an abundance of commodities because that gives an unfair advantage. So behemoths like Activision should probably remain independent from owners on any specific side of the platforms they actually release their games for, as those owners will put their own interests first, not the consumers.
If Xbox put as much effort in to backing it's developers (which it has swathes of) to make new, exciting games, or in taking risks by helping out small studios until they make a hit game and then buying them out to make more hit games for them, then the gaming world would be in much better state. As this is a perfectly FAIR way to do business, and leads to great quality, as Sony have proven. Back the actual creators, not f***ing ginormous publishers that are run by absolute psycho suits like Activision
Its absolutely pointless as there are far too many bitter, twisted and 'hardcore' Sony Fanboys who cannot see how the 'community' of gamers benefit from this - even if it means that those stuck up, blinkered fanboys 'lose' out on 'extras' because the 'entire' community is actually benefiting because they have much more 'choice' and can still play on their favourite platform and will NOT miss out on ANY future CoD content - regardless of whether they 'choose' to play on PS5, Xbox, PC, Nintendo, Steam, Cloud supported devices etc etc.
Its not as if Activision are making any other games, using their IP's as they have EVERY Studio engaged in making CoD every year. Blizzards two games, Diablo IV and OW2 are and will continue to be supported on PS5 so how are you 'missing' or losing out on this deal? Its not as if A/B are actively making Crash, Spyro, Prototype, Tony Hawkes, Pitfall etc games anymore so they are 'not' expected on PS5 or PS6. If MS now decide to bring one of those IP's back, that's up to them and NOT taking away from PS because those were NEVER coming to PS anyway because A/B had NO plans to make them again...
@BAMozzy Your the last one who should be calling anyone a fanboy.
Unlike you Phil Spencer isn't my hero and this isn't benefiting playstation gamers.
@Americansamurai1 Maybe so. But there is a big difference between Xbox 360 COD days when Xbox perks most of the time lasted a couple of weeks or a month at most and were with map packs or doodads. Sony morphed it to a point where content perks lasted a year and included a lot more than a few maps and unique looking headgear. For a game which has a new iteration every year Sony's COD content locking essentially made those perks permeant for the game as most people will have moved move on to the next COD release by the time those perks would be available to other platforms.
In fact, I find it ironic that one of Sony's own complaints against this merger is MS might do exactly what Sony itself is doing right now. And that scares Sony. Why? Because they probably know how effective that has been for them.
@ImGumbyDammit their biggest fear is people choosing game pass instead of buying the game. Get people use to a subscription and they stop buying games as much. Look at the dvd market now since Netflix streaming has taken over.
@Americansamurai1 Netflix makes alot of trash series/movies, other steamers make better stuff.
Do you really want games to be more Mediocre like Netflix?
@XenonKnight no that's why I'm against how Microsoft is pushing game pass. You might want to reread my comment because that's what I'm warning against
@Americansamurai1 Game pass does bring more mediocre games As Dusk Falls, High On Life, Bleeding Edge and Pentiment. Xbox is the Oscar the Grouch of game consoles.
First save us from eomm, $20 skins, and a stunted MP experience in favour of the f2p Battle Royale. Save us from Activision.
@Molsenalan You know each year there only going add more of that crap to cod. Give it a few years and that skin will be $40.
@4kgk2 what lies?
I don't have problems with what Phil is saying tbh, although I've never perceived any issues with the idea of exclusive content/games.
What I never understood is the contrast between that and Bethesda's new titles. With all the rhetoric about bringing games to more gamers, I just haven't managed to square that circle in my head.
Not sure which perplexes me more - squaring that circle, or the fact that somebody in Phil's position doesn't seem to notice the contradiction.
I'm fine with it being the same across both it makes sense it's just a lot of exclusive day and content that is kind of meaningless really. I don't play COD and especially didn't multiplayer but I never saw the point in it with the content, the advertising sure it doesn't need to either. I never cared for exclusives bonuses. Definitive Editions exist, you had your hardware differences resulting in differences with controllers like splitscreen multiplayer on Wii U for example or Touchscreen support in some Wii U versions of games.
The Minecraft part is very vague in this article. I mean console it's the same but PC/Mobile get Behaviourpacks to be imported that's not the same support between both. Console it may be but otherwise the platforms that had Addons/Behaviourpacks aka modding as Pocket Edition modding I think changed then as while I don't know enough about Pocket Edition modding it was well BlockLauncher and other such but whatever the case now and PC has unofficial modding still because Behaviourpacks are super limited for Windows 10 Bedrock.
Besides that you get your Skyrim modding being different on PS to Xbox because of whatever Sony sees for the PS4 version of the game when Bethesda made the Special Editions but that was a different time I guess.
Besides that parity varies they didn't remove combat update changes from PC and console never got it due to the backlash with 1.9 so things are different somewhat there. I could list the map waypoint changes to many others with the Minecraft Wiki link covering the differences on Bedrock and Java but they are what they are.
Otherwise there is no cross map of 360 to Xbox One or PS3/Vita and otherwise anymore those shut down in certain updates so those are over.
@BAMozzy i wasn't going to respond , but you can same the same thing about redfall , starfield , elder scrolls , ect ect. games that were 3rd party turned 1st party because ms bought them.
@twitchtvpat Actually all those IP's are Multi-Platform games as they release on PC day and date and you can play on many other platforms too - even if that device couldn't play it locally or would even get a 'native' release - its just NOT on Playstation - the 'handful' of gamers that were NEVER promised Redfall or Starfield so NOT taken away. The 'few' Elder |Scrolls entries, Fallout too you can play on PS are 'STILL' on Playstation. Those games aren't 'sequels' but wholly 'new' games, new story arc, new character etc Its not taken away if it was NEVER going to come - like Hellblade 2, Outer Worlds 2 as well...
CoD, like Minecraft has an Active ONLINE community and each game is built for that 'ONLINE' Community. MS has NO plans to split up ONLINE communities, give 'some' extra content the majority don't have etc because that is 'unfair' on that Community.
Those games are new IP's or completely new, stand alone games - not 'sequels'. You never got the first few Elder Scrolls or Fallout games on Playstation at all anyway and besides, you can always play Final Fantasy or Forspoken instead, maybe Horizon or Ghost of Tsushima - its not as if Sony didn't 'buy' those developers and/or their creations for Playstation...
Oh, they're eager alright. Xbox is GREEDY and will stop at nothing until every other console is dead. All they care about is creating a videogame monopoly and they're getting closer to it every day with this Call of Duty thing!
Tap here to load 126 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...