520°

Activision refused to bring Call of Duty to Xbox unless Microsoft went beyond 70-30 rev share

Activision threatened to not launch its powerful $31 billion Call of Duty franchise on Xbox Gen9 unless Microsoft offered a favorable revenue split.

Read Full Story >>
tweaktown.com
crazyCoconuts311d ago

I wouldn't be surprised if they had the same stipulations on other stores on PC and PS. COD is an unusually dominant game like Fortnite was, and like Epic with Fortnite, they are trying to leverage that size to get better terms.
Exactly what MS will do if they own it.

Christopher311d ago

Playstation only takes 20% of CoD sales on their store. CMA uncovered this in their findings. This is essentially just confirming that Activision strong-armed everyone in this and shows how powerful the IP COD is to have and wield such bargaining power.

sinspirit311d ago

Exactly. I was saying before that it's completely an obviously lie when MS tried to say CoD wasn't as big of a deal as it is.. while they also knew how damn important CoD was to all the services they signed a contract for where they agreed to host CoD on their service with no profit split for the service. If it isn't so damn important then how can you convince a bunch of services to host your game without taking a dime of the profit? Because it's obviously a system selling game, and that also means service seller.

InUrFoxHole311d ago

Sony apparently doesn't think COD is so important anymore.

shinoff2183310d ago

Inurfoxhole

Is it not being reported Ryan's email was from when the deal was announced. He probably assumed it'd be more of the same, and is it not being reported that ms later gave word they would want 100 percent of the profits from cod.

If true of course ryan would change his tune. He'd be an idiot and fired if he didn't.

Again idk if it'd Tru but I've read it in a few different places.

OptimusDK310d ago

@/shinoff2183
That is a lie please show proof of that.
MS showed they would give parity on price and features

Christopher310d ago

***That is a lie please show proof of that.***

https://mp1st.com/news/micr...

***MS showed they would give parity on price and features***

Pricing doesn't mean how much of that goes back to Microsoft and how much goes to Sony. Much like how we know from this that Activision forced everyone to cut their take just to have CoD on their platform.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 310d ago
sparky77311d ago

This is why MS is buying ABK Sony's dominance is causing too many games to skip Xbox so the only way they can compete is by securing the content permanently.

Neonridr311d ago

I'm sorry, aside from exclusive games from 1st party studios what games are skipping Xbox? Games that Sony paid money for to keep off of Xbox via timed exclusivity?

sparky77311d ago

Exactly that. Final Fantasy, Silent Hill, Megaman, Octopath, KOTOR etc.

DarkZane311d ago

@sparky77 those are only timed exclusives. If they're not coming to Xbox, it's because the developers don't give a shit about Xbox, not because Sony threw money at them. You xbox fanboys might need to stop saying nonsense, you're embarassing yourself.

RpgSama311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

@Sparky77

Which Octopath? Because the first released on Game pass but it's still not available on PlayStation, now the second one released on PlayStation and not on Xbox (I'm pretty sure that if it would have made business sense after releasing the first one on Xbox, they would have done it again).

Kotor was originally an Xbox Exclusive,

Or it works in your favor but not against?

SICKINDIVIDUAL310d ago

I agree timed exclusivity doesn't hurt anyone long term.

shinoff2183310d ago

Did Sony pay for octopath not to be on xbox. You really think that. That's weird. Maybe ms didn't offer a gamepass deal like the first and square knew damn well it wouldn't sell as a regular game on there. It's also on Nintendo.

Ms has 3rd party exclusive deals to sparky. Why do you guys ignore those on xbox. You act like ms doesn't have any.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 310d ago
RpgSama311d ago

Actually, Sony had already agreed to a lower % for COD, I remember reading that months ago.

https://www.tweaktown.com/n...

Yep, they take discounted margins, so not because of Sony dominance that ABK wanted a bigger piece of the pie, it's because of COD dominance.

Christopher311d ago

Sony also was strong-armed by Activision. You are acting like Sony was in control of this but this was Activision wielding the power of COD, nothing else. Why would you put that level of power in one platform owner's hand when it obviously is powerful enough to get the #1 platform to bow to their demands?

ironmonkey311d ago

Well, nothing sells well there deal with it.

311d ago
XBManiac310d ago

If you are not able to sell the "Best console" to more people, it is not Activision or Sony problem... Ask Sony and Nintendo how they can sell "lower quality" products and games in a bigger quantity. Maybe you can learn something about business and stop being the third. With Xbox 360 Microsoft had an opportunity... With Xbox One they lost everything others had done for more than 10 years. Some times, it is good to admit you have failed and retire, Phil.

shinoff2183310d ago

That's not sonys dominance, sure Sony has 3rd party deals just like Microsoft and Nintendo. Some developers are skipping xbox because they may feel it's just not worth it. Didn't xbox fans have to bag a inspector gadget developer some weeks ago for a port cause they were skipping the xbox. Do you really think sony paid for that to. If you do your gullible. Developers know where their games sell and xbox isn't doing it for some developers. Not every developer gets a gamepass deal.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 310d ago
Abracadabra311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

Ironically, it's due to Sony's monopolistic tactics that's provoking these big purchases by Microsoft.

Sony was basically trying to make Starfield and COD as Playstation exclusives.

Rude-ro311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

You could not be further away from reality.
I get the spin you are selling, but name me 10 AAA Microsoft studio exclusives in the last 15 years. (Non sequels counting as another game)
And I will check them.
Without Microsoft’s exclusive moves with EA, activision, and Ubisoft Microsoft would not even be in gaming anymore.

Abracadabra311d ago

What the hell are you talking about? Do you simply change the subject as you please?

Christopher311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

Absolutely rubbish comment.

1. Activision also strong-armed PS and they only take cut of their normal amount from COD sales on PSN

https://n4g.com/news/253716...

2. There's absolutely nothing other than Phil saying "PlayStation had two timed exclusive games with Bethesda and Xbox was worried they'd do the same with Starfield" to suggest anything about the exclusivity of Starfield. Nothing. No one has mentioned other than that moment by Phil where he is merely adding speculation as to the possibility, but absolutely no proof or grounds that a Bethesda Softworks Game from Todd would ever be exclusive to PlayStation.

Abracadabra311d ago

Phil was under oath when talking about Starfield. Do you believe he was lying?

Christopher311d ago

He was under oath and said "we believed" and not "we knew". Do you understand the difference?

Abracadabra311d ago

This is from the IGN page...
"Back in 2020 — when Microsoft announced its plans to buy Bethesda — journalist Imran Khan first reported on Starfield's potential PlayStation exclusivity, writing "Sony had been negotiating timed exclusivity on Starfield as recently as a few months ago. Going to guess either those talks are done or the price suddenly went way, way up." Shortly after in early 2021, the reports started to surface that Starfield would head exclusively to Xbox Series X|S."

Christopher311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

@Abracadabra Again, believed, not known. First, it's highly misleading as it was rumored as a timed exclusivity, not exclusivity. Second, rumored, not proven or known beyond that. Just rumored. So, yes, Microsoft didn't know, they just believed it based on a rumor.

"FUN NOTE: Sony had been negotiating timed exclusivity on Starfield as recently as a few months ago. Going to guess either those talks are done or the price suddenly went way, way up."

https://twitter.com/imranzo...

They made this purchase based on a rumor of a timed exclusive deal but there is no proof of it other than one journalist making the reference without any sources at all. Heck, I'd be just as right to put out the idea that Microsoft created that rumor in the first place as you would that Sony was trying to make a deal. We both have zero proof of either situation.

Pyrofire95310d ago

In reply to what you said to me I was basing my comment off Abracadabra said with his IGN quote. What are you even debating on. Sony had been making many deals with studios. Fact. Xbox had not been as much. Fact. Xbox did not even make many first party games over the Xbone gen. Fact. Xbox is now stepping up with a more aggressive buisness strategy.
I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to respond and it's so hard to gauge you. You're just bringing all these counter points to things I wasn't even talking about.
I don't even care. I don't play on Xbox and I think Todd Howard is a con artist.
You're flooding my with all this pointless information that irrelevant to my point.
To put my point clearly: Sony had been aggressive and now Xbox is stepping up.
I'm not talking about conspiracy or word of mouth, it's evident by what games are releasing where.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 310d ago
StormSnooper311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

Ohhhh so its Sony's fault that MS is doing this to the industry? got it. S:

Jesus the lengths you guys go to to allow your favorite corporation to ruin gaming is astounding. You are not getting anything new because of this deal! All you are doing is denying Multiplatform games to others bro. Pressure MS to make games, not deprive others, it doesn't add anything to you.

King Nezz311d ago

@StormSnooper
"Ohhhh so its Sony's fault that MS is doing this to the industry?"

😂 Get off the internet, kid. We've gotten GoW:Ragnarok, Totk, and Starfield in a few months to mention a few that have released and will release in less than one year. What the hell are you talking about? At least you can play Starfield on other platforms that are not Xbox. Can you say the same about the others?

OptimusDK310d ago

Doing this to the industry Ahahaha

StormSnooper308d ago

@King Nezz
clearly my comment went right over your head. Not sure what you mean by "we" have gotten GoW:Rangnarok? You mean gamers in general? I'm talking about MS's mergers and acquisitions game and their intent to deprive half of gamers from games they used to play as Multiplatform. MS is giving xbox gamers the same games they would have had anyway and telling them that it is exclusive instead of actually making new exclusives. They are making gaming for exclusive and smaller. Does this clear your confusion? Probably not.

@OptimusDK
Hope you enjoy it when the shoe is on the other foot.

@Pickledpepper
seems that some people reallly don't want to know the difference between a developer and a publisher. There IS a reason why one is called developer and the other is called a publisher.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 308d ago
1Victor310d ago (Edited 310d ago )

@abracadabra:”Sony was basically trying to make Starfield and COD as Playstation exclusives.”

Any source to that claim or it’s just 💩 you just pulled it out of your magic money hat

Anyways activision greed goes beyond what I thought 30 and 20% with no negotiation take it or we take it out it’s just crazy

KyRo310d ago

Sony doesn't have a monopoly. They simply make great games, work with third parties, just like Nintendo to gain dominance.

All MS has to do is make consistently good games but they can't even do that correctly. Playing the victim card for their shortcoming like it's anyone else fault but their own is backwards

shinoff2183310d ago

Sony was trying to get stsrfield as a TIMED EXCLUSIVE. Timed being the key word there. Huge huge huge difference.

Hell I take starfield on ps a year later or 6 months whatever. Timed isn't forever. The Xbox fanbase is completely leaving out this though to try and make their exclusive argument look better. It's bs. Atleast acknowledge it wasn't forever exclusive

Pyrofire95310d ago

I seriously don't get how people are so strongly disagreeing and kind of making things up to debate this. You provided a quote that undeniably said Sony was negotiating exclusivity and then others are say "BeLiEvE tHeY dID"
As a PS and PC player, yes Sony went PRETTY hard on getting exclusivity deals at a time when Xbox Studios was not putting out many games and Xbox had few deals and rocky studio relationships. This a clearly a response from Xbox to begin stepping up.

Christopher310d ago (Edited 310d ago )

You're choosing to be ignorant.

"When we acquired ZeniMax one of the impetus for that is that Sony had done a deal for Deathloop and Ghostwire… to pay Bethesda to not ship those games on Xbox. So the discussion about Starfield when we heard that Starfield was potentially also going to end up skipping Xbox, we can’t be in a position as a third-place console where we fall further behind on our content ownership so we’ve had to secure content to remain viable in the business."

They 'heard' it was skipping. Where did they hear it from? From this one journalist with zero sources who said:

https://twitter.com/imranzo...

"FUN NOTE: Sony had been negotiating timed exclusivity on Starfield as recently as a few months ago. Going to guess either those talks are done or the price suddenly went way, way up."

So, first, they didn't 'know' anything, only 'heard' it. Do you 'know' something is going to happen from an online rumor? Do you spend $68b on a rumor?

Second, it wasn't even outright exclusivity. It was a rumor about a timed exclusivity. And not even about Bethesda's position on it or what happened. Only that Sony was interested in it. That's it.

Third, that's it. That was the full source and news. One person said something. That's it.

So, yes, they 'believed' the rumor. They didn't 'know' anything.

That's it. That's the whole story. Nothing more. Straight from Phil's own mouth.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 308d ago
Abracadabra311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

Sony took a cut because they were promoting COD and had timed exclusive COD content.

Sony likely takes a cut on all their 3rd party exclusives, like Final Fantasy 16.

Christopher311d ago

And Microsoft doesn't take cuts for their 3rd party exclusives? But, more to the point, are you ignoring that both consoles took a cut for a game that wasn't exclusive to either at all? This isn't about Sony, it's about Activision. Activision forced this on everyone.

Abracadabra311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

@Christopher
What part of timed exclusive COD content for PS5 don't you understand?
Do you really expect Activision to make timed exclusive COD content (like DLC's) for nothing in return?

Christopher311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

Sure, wash Activision's hands clean in this scenario to only focus on Sony when everyone was affected. Did Microsoft take a similar cut when they had exclusivity deals with Activision as well? Was Microsoft, at that time, wielding its power to disenfranchise Sony or is it just Sony?

I'm honestly getting lost in all the circular logic going on here that people are making when what is clear is that CoD is too powerful for any platform owner to have when it wields this level of power as a third-party company already.

Abracadabra311d ago (Edited 311d ago )

@Christopher
Yes, Activision likely took a cut from Microsoft when they had timed exclusive deals.

Why would any 3rd party developer make exclusive content if not to be compensated in some form or another? No 3rd party developer makes exclusive content for free.

Christopher311d ago

***Why would any 3rd party developer make exclusive content if not to be compensated in some form or another? No 3rd party developer makes exclusive content for free.***

They are marketing deals to get free promotion of the game. Sony literally paid for those commercials you saw. That's the payment. Why the expectation for more if Sony has that much power? Again, I'm confused on whether Sony has power or not here. It's getting confusing. Sony is the market leader, but it can't use that against Activision, but Activision can use its market power to affect others.

You're not seeing the point here. You're so focused on Sony you're not seeing that the problem is Activision. Let alone the fact that Activision is too powerful for either one to not make marketing deals with them. You just only want to see the money Sony paid, which is the same thing Microsoft paid. It's just Sony's fault, though. It's not... this is a COD issue.

This is why I hate this whole merger. People aren't seeing the issue. It's not Microsoft buying ABK. It's *anyone* but a third-party buying them.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 311d ago
Show all comments (53)
120°

Square & Bandai Namco Being Honest About Quality Is A Step In The Right Direction

Saad from eXputer: "After suffering from massive financial hits, Square Enix & Bandai Namco appear to be turning over a new leaf but I'm still unconvinced."

Nerdmaster8h ago(Edited 8h ago)

I was talking about games with some Japanese guys here in Japan, and it seems like around here Bandai Namco has a fame of making low-quality games, with the occasional gem.

About Square Enix, I believe they lack the capacity to improve. They should learn with Capcom (although even Capcom still makes some bad mistakes), but I don't think they ever will. They keep chasing whatever is new at the time (blockchain, AI...) to say "we innovate", without considering the public perception and if these things actually improve the games or not. Them releasing too many small games with no advertising also shows a lack of trust in its own products. Even with their biggest games, like turning FF into an action game with XVI and the very divisive plot changes regarding whispers and timelines in VII Remake, shows them trying to attract a new generation of gamers without understanding what made the series so big in the first place.

shinoff21838h ago

I want a true ff7 remake. With thatcsaid I'm way happier with 7 remake then I was with ff16. I'd still prefer turn based but square keep chasing these Lil kids

Snookies124h ago

Man, it is perfectly fine to prefer turn based. Turn based is amazing. But there's zero reason to call anyone who likes action games "lil kids". Liking one gameplay system over another does not make you more mature in any way.

VersusDMC7h ago

People love the new FF's overall...the problem is the abundance of 7's they release that lose money or make very little like diofield, star ocean divine force, Valkyrie asylum, harvestella, foam stars, etc. Advertising wouldn't have saved those games. Apparently Forespoken had a big Advertising budget but we saw how that went.

shinoff21837h ago(Edited 7h ago)

Star ocean divine force actually sold well from what I've read not ff type numbers but well enough. Was a dope game to.

FinalFantasyFanatic6h ago

Bandai Namco is going to Bandai Namco, I do believe that Square Enix can't change without changing the entire management, they've had these issues for more than a decade and haven't learnt, I have very little faith they can course correct. I'll still buy their better remasters/remakes like Star Ocean 2 though (not FF7R).

Asterphoenix4h ago

Namco is just milking the same Sword Art Online with lack of budget as well as anime IPs that don't go to decent developers like Jujutsu Kaisen and My Hero Academia. Namco deserves their losses and no future Dot Hack or Xenosaga remaster :(.

Square allocated lot of their budget on Forspoken was a mistake. Square always had management issues. Star Ocean 2 was a great remake and I found their recent entries of FF(16 and Rebirth) better than 13 and 15.
I think they were better than 360/PS3 generation where Square went really downhill.

CrimsonWing697h ago

I don’t know why NOW they decide on this, but I guess later is better than never.

100°

Please, can Call of Duty leave awful Netflix-style menus behind

Call of Duty games used to be streamlined experiences, but COD 2024’s UI could be another nightmarish clutter of streaming tabs.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
LucasRuinedChildhood1d 10h ago

Let's just leave Call Of Duty behind.

BlackCountryBob15h ago

If we’re beating that drum, can we also stop forcing anyone who wants to play only the single player to download Warzone and all updates BEFORE they are then able to do another download from the menu of the single player campaign. I don’t see why I need 150gb of downloads in several ways to play the single player mode only from a bloomin disk which should have that campaign on it already.

DefenderOfDoom212h ago(Edited 12h ago)

The UI is confusing to me because I have not purchased a Call of Duty iin like 8 years .Only bought CoD MW3 because 3 of my friends I have known since to 70s are playing zombies . But I am used it now .

smolinsk11h ago

The UI is the least of the franchise many problems these days. But yes the UI is also terrible.

290°

Steam’s Refund Policy Change Won’t Affect You Unless You’re A Lowlife

Steam is changing its refund policy, but you probably won’t be affected

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
thorstein2d ago

Should have happened a long time ago. People wanting refunds after 50 hours in game.

fsfsxii2d ago

Pc gamers will take this as an excuse to pirate things

KyRo2d ago

I'm not sure why you're getting disgrees. Whilst not all PC gamers are petty, an awful lot of them are lol

Crows902d ago

Entirely untrue. Not any more petty than console gamers. The only large difference is console gamers don't have much of a choice.

Michiel19892d ago

Not sure why you're getting agrees. an awful lot of console gamers are overemotional twinks ready to go to war over a plastic box, I'll take being a pc gamer then.

Speaking about overgeneralizing much.

Nooderus1d 21h ago

"X" type of gamer conversations are cringe

qalpha2d ago

Daily reminder that 'TheGamer' is a corporate-generated, anti-gamer, anti-consumer, clickbait web site. They are mostly A.I. generated articles that villainize gamers. They provide nothing positive and actively try to provoke and divide the community through extreme view points and politics. Do not give them any clicks.

Inverno2d ago

Only scumbags? As if people don't play their games on console put in the most amount of hours and return it to GameStop and trade it in for another game. But also how many people are actually do this? And what games have been allowed to be refunded?

DustMan2d ago

You can refund any game you've purchased as long as it hasn't been longer than two weeks, and you've played less than 2 hours. I wish they would change it to 3 hours because some RPG's have so much exposition that you may only get an hour total of complete gameplay. That's my only knock on it. I've refunded plenty of stuff I was just curious to try. I typically stay away from Early Access titles which are the only ones affected by this policy change.

Inverno2d ago

Apparently early access doesn't count, only complete games with a play early preorder bonus.

Gaming4Life19812d ago

I definitely know if I want a refund in 2 hours.

SegaSaturn6692d ago

I never liked refunding anything. Even if a film is bad, i dont want my money back. Sometimes things just aren't for me, and it's not the creator's fault necessarily.

Gaming4Life19812d ago

I feel you and i have never walked out on a bad movie cause I payed my money. I also don't refund games cause I'm a gamer and I know what to buy lol. I think having a digital refund is great.

Show all comments (15)