Modern Warfare 2 & Warzone 2.0 PlayStation Exclusive Content Revealed

Activision revealed that Modern Warfare 2 and Warzone 2.0 is getting PlayStation-exclusive content in the form of Spec Ops and an Operator bundle.

[purple101]

I hear the exclusive content runs for the next few years till 2025.

Even though rumours suggest no cod next Christmas the one after that Sony will have the marketing rights and exclusive content once again.

Then the following 3 years after that, Miscoroft have agreed to console and feature parity. (Equal visually and content wise)

Although I'm sure in those years ps games will be paying £60/⁷⁰/⁹⁰ for special editions while xbox-ers will get it included in gamepass ultimate etc)

[ocelot07]

I'm happy to pay £60-£70. Providing the game is good. Been the way since the PS2 days for me (since I been able to pay for my own things).

[SullysCigar]

Payment in exchange for good, hard work seems fair enough. Best to enjoy this franchise while it lasts and before it's reduced to yet more gamepass filler.

If Halo has taught us anything it's that the Microsoft of today have zero respect for cherished, popular franchises or their fans. COD will presumably be no different, as much as we will all hope otherwise.

[Tacoboto]

Are you two really trying to say Activision has had any respect for ANY of their developers across all of their teams?

The lawsuits? The unionization efforts? The QA teams? Toys for Bob going from master of platformer remasters to another COD support studio? The abandoned IPs. The consolidation around COD. The GaaSing of Blizzard. Diablo Immortal. Crash Bandicoot On the Run. The canceled THPS3+4 Every-single-thing about Kotick. Firing employees after record profits.

Well after all that, yeah take my money for COD again for the 18th year in a row while I complain about Microsoft.

[CaptainHenry916]

By then COD will probably be dead. The franchise is already stale. Maybe another new third party shooter will take over.

[Profchaos]

People have been saying that since the original black ops and try to relate it to guitar hero a decade later it's the biggest game every year

[CaptainHenry916]

More recently, however, Activision revealed that Call of Duty's monthly active users dipped to 94 million, which is a 28-percent decrease from the 127 million in June 2021 and even more of a decrease from the high of 150 million in March 2021. This is the first time that number has dropped below 100 million. The franchise is losing its quality and starting to get Stale.

https://www.gamesradar.com/...

[ZycoFox]

The late 90's and early 2000's had some amazing shooters, especially on PC. These days it's mostly just rehashed stuff with better graphics.

[StarkR3ality]

Yeah but that dip is due to 2 very unpopular entries for CoD, moderwarfare 2 will be the best selling CoD ever again, just like MW2019 was a few years ago.

[CaptainHenry916]

COD is repeat repeat nothing new

[gangsta_red]

Good to see Sony is keeping content off other platforms

[Battlestar23]

MS is just as guilty s Sony when it comes to exclusive content. Heck i wish MS would release all their exclusive games on PS and Sony should do the same along with Nintendo too. Exclusive are anti-customer imo.

[Crows90]

Lol. You want what has made PlayStation and Nintendo successful to disappear. Ever watch the movie time machine.

You want to remove the one thing that gave them the success and ability to do what you want them to put in other platforms which would have not given them the success they have today.

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

True. Stalker 2, Crossfire X (lol), The Medium, Sable, Yakuza: Like a Dragon (timed exclusive next-gen version) are some recent examples off the top of my head. Both MS and Sony do this, and MS relied on this tactic WAY more heavily than Sony and Nintendo in past gens because they didn't have many first party studios.

This narrative that MS doesn't pay for exclusive content from third parties is just fanboys setting up a false equivalence to justify MS buying up huge publishers.

It will also be bad when Sony buy Square Enix as well, and when they buy a publisher that Xbox gamers more broadly care about. Anyone with any common sense knows this trend is bad for the industry.

[MadLad]

Not really.
Microsoft actually buys and supports these studios.

Sony just legitimately pays money to keep games out of people's hands.

[Bathyj]

Gay Tony and Lara Croft would like a word with you.

[darthv72]

Lara Croft, hmm... [looks at Tomb Raider and Resident Evil on Saturn and then TR 2 & 3 and RE 2 & 3 on PS] yup. MS is evil for paying for exclusivity.

/s

@fox, Sony paid to keep the TR2 development from progressing. And Capcom was also working on RE2 but then got some $$ to put more effort into the PS version. And yes, the N64 DID get a RE port later on.

[-Foxtrot]

@darth

Lmao

The Sega Saturn was dying, Sony didn’t need to do shit.

Resident Evil on PS1 was Capcoms choice

What were they going to do release it on the N64? A survival horror game with Nintendos family friendly image…yeah sure

[gangsta_red]

@Foxtrot
Wow, look at all those excuses fly for Sony!

The Saturn wasn't dead when that deal was made by Sony.

"What were they going to do release it on the N64?"

They released Resident Evil 2 on N64 and don't forget about Conker Bad Fur Day. Do you even game bro?

[Profchaos]

@darth seriously reaching there the n64 did not have enough storage capacity for those games it's well documented so it wasn't corporate politics it was tech limitations were talking about a generation of games that had significant alterations between games on multi platforms often with bespoke editions on the n64 and ps1 compared to pc see quake 2 as a example.

The re 2 port was considered a impossible port developed by Angel studios that went onto rockstar studios and how they made it was fascinating.

[-Foxtrot]

You mean the trend Microsoft started in the 360 days and pretty much continues with buying publishers…

[gangsta_red]

You mean the trend that Sony started when keeping Tomb Raider 2 off of Sega Saturn and N64?

You mean the publishers that were up for sale that's been going on for decades now?

[Jin_Sakai]

Sony paid to keep Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo off Xbox for a year, Hogwarts Legacy content off Xbox for a year, exclusive content for CoD, and pays to keep games off Game Pass.

The irony. And Jim has the nerve to complain when Microsoft buys Activision and even gives them 3 additional years on CoD on top of their current deals.

[shinoff2183]

Some bs content as opposed to be buying 2 publishers to keep actual multi platform games of playstation. Also how old are you ms started this stuff back during the 360 era. Blame them. Sony just went next.

During 360 ms marketed cod like it was an exclusive

[darthv72]

And Sony did it during the PS1 era. If you are wanting to play the blame game... why stop there? Let's go back to the 80's with Nintendo and their 3rd party clause, or the 70's and Atari vs Magnavox.

It doesnt matter who did it first, it matters is who is doing it RIGHT NOW.

[Profchaos]

I do remember in the 360 era ms was paying for exclusive content on the 360 again for cod and gta some of the biggest franchises ever.
From memory cod exclusive content was for 1 month. But gta was about 1 to 2 years

[Jin_Sakai]

“Some bs content“

Did you miss the part where Sony paid to keep two entire games off Xbox for a year? Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo.

[generic-user-name]

Ah yes, some minor digital exclusives, this justifies taking the best selling franchise in the entirety of North America away from your biggest rival in a few short years.

Also, let's not forget, timed digital exclusive content is one the memorable 'innovations' Xbox have brought to the industry.

[gangsta_red]

'..in a few short years"

2029 is a few short years? That's a console's life cycle for god's sake. MS is is going to keep CoD on PS and have parity across all platforms and the deal to extend the partnership is still on the table for Sony. Some of you are carrying on like CoD is leaving all PS platforms tomorrow morning.

MS also kept Minecraft on all systems a game that is just as popular and as influential as CoD. But everyone is dead set on assuming that MS is going to just up and take away CoD for PS.

Activision was for sale, is no one supposed to buy them? If Sony would have bought them you all would be celebrating and making excuses of, "bubububut MS buys publishers, so Sony had to!!!"

"...timed digital exclusive content is one the memorable 'innovations' Xbox have brought to the industry."

All I'm reading are excuses for Sony doing something that was supposedly a hated practice done by MS years ago (Even when Sony did before MS).
If you hated it then, you should hate now, not point the finger and yell, 'MS did too!"

[Vengeance1138]

So using the Microsoft strategy then?

[generic-user-name]

"2029 is a few short years?"

It doesn't matter if it's 2039, if COD remains the best selling franchise in NA that it has been for the past 15 years, it will still be a huge hit to Sony's revenue stream.

"MS also kept Minecraft on all systems a game that is just as popular and as influential as CoD."

Minecraft was already out on PS4. You act like they didn't take Bethesda RPGs away from PlayStation after acquiring Bethesda, another huge publisher, the previous year. Phil was careful with his wording, if COD was staying on PS for good, why wouldn't he just say that?

"Activision was for sale, is no one supposed to buy them? If Sony would have bought them you all would be celebrating and making excuses of, "bubububut MS buys publishers, so Sony had to!!!" "

Anyone other than a platform holder. And yes, these big sweeping buyouts from MS may well end up in a publisher purchasing spree from rival platforms. Those insisting Activision should go to MS would be fine with Sony buying R*? Because they're opening a pandora's box with moves like this.

"All I'm reading are excuses for Sony doing something that was supposedly a hated practice done by MS years ago (Even when Sony did before MS).
If you hated it then, you should hate now, not point the finger and yell, 'MS did too!""

You realise you must equate timed exclusivity of a skin or a mode to acquiring the biggest 3rd party publisher in the world and all their IP and all their studios for that to make sense. Sony have never done this before, nobody has.

[gangsta_red]

"You act like they didn't take Bethesda RPGs away from PlayStation after acquiring Bethesda,"

I didn't act like anything. All Bethesda games are still available for PS. Lets not also forget how Sony was trying to make Starfield exclusive for it's system, more instances of Sony keeping games off Xbox. What people seem to not be aware of or consider is Sony had every chance to buy every developer and publisher MS has. It's not MS's fault Sony doesn't have the cash they do.

MS also has a reason to buy publishers other than such a simple reason of "keeping games off PS", MS has a popular sub service that they need content for. And what better way to get content and keep Xbox/PC gamers happy than buying a huge publisher like Activision.

"Anyone other than a platform holder"

Where in the rulebook does it say this? Exactly who is this okay for then? Tencent buys up everything and no one bats an eye here, MS buys something and everyone goes nuts.

"Those insisting Activision should go to MS would be fine with Sony buying R*?"

If Sony did, more power to them, this is how free market works. And let's not kid ourselves, people here wish Sony would buy a huge publisher on par with Activision.

"Sony have never done this before, nobody has"

So Sony or someone else has to do it first in order for this to be accepted? Activision was for sale, anyone with the cash could have stepped in and bought them, MS did, end of story. A lot of you are only complaining because it wasn't your favorite publisher and developer.

[generic-user-name]

"All Bethesda games are still available for PS."

I'm obviously talking about their future titles, this whole debate is about how this will impact the industry in the future.

"Lets not also forget how Sony was trying to make Starfield exclusive for it's system, more instances of Sony keeping games off Xbox."

Yes, a timed exclusive for a year, a deal MS could have also tried to make (competition). Not comparable to buying the entire publisher and keeping the game away from the rival console permanently.

"What people seem to not be aware of or consider is Sony had every chance to buy every developer and publisher MS has. It's not MS's fault Sony doesn't have the cash they do."

You would think that, but we both know Sony couldn't drop $70bn on Activision, few can, hence raising the question of fair practices and competition. There's a reason 3rd party regulatory bodies are investigating this deal and why Phil has to play nice by talking about COD on PS for 'several' more years.

"MS also has a reason to buy publishers other than such a simple reason of "keeping games off PS", MS has a popular sub service that they need content for."

True but irrelevant. They can have 100 good reasons to acquire Activision other than to dent Sony but as long as they are denting Sony by doing so, it needs to be investigated.

"Where in the rulebook does it say this?"

I don't know the name of the law, and I'm sure they vary country to country, but if you ask the people investigating this deal, they'll tell you which rule/law this could be violating.

"And let's not kid ourselves, people here wish Sony would buy a huge publisher on par with Activision."

The opinions of console fans, here or elsewhere, doesn't matter. Jim Ryan has raised valid concerns, nothing on this scale has happened before in this field.

"Activision was for sale, anyone with the cash could have stepped in and bought them, MS did, end of story. A lot of you are only complaining because it wasn't your favorite publisher and developer."

Sony, MS or Nintendo buying Activision would be a red flag, worthy of scrutiny. I mean, you're here saying this to me, but there are government bodies out there investigating real issues that MS's purchase has raised. "MS bought them, end of story" it's clearly not though.

[gangsta_red]

"...this whole debate is about how this will impact the industry in the future."

No it won't. It'll just impact sony. The industry will be fine because MS will support PC, Steam, cloud streaming on multiple devices and any platform that supports Game Pass.

"..a deal MS could have also tried to make (competition)."

Why, why waste time and money when the whole company is up for sale? MS has the money to buy the company like any other business in the world would do, this is what's called competition.

".. but we both know Sony couldn't drop $70bn on Activision, few can,"

Who's fault is that? Sony can sure pay for timed exclusives, timed DLC, and keeping games off of GP. But they can't buy activision or any other dev they worked close with that MS recently picked up? Doesn't sound like Sony wants to compete then.

"There's a reason 3rd party regulatory bodies are investigating this deal..."

Every time a company makes a huge purchase we always get reports of some this or that government body investigating whatever, but it's definitely not for the reasons you think. You really believe a multi billion dollar world wide company like MS wouldn't have the best on hand guiding them through these processes at the level they're playing at?

"Jim Ryan has raised valid concerns, ..."

Jim Ryan?! I'm sure he has. And the opinions of fans don't matter and yet here you are debating with me about what's fair and what's not, what MS can do and what they shouldn't, this also doesn't matter because this isn't how the real business world works. The reason you can't think of any law is because there isn't any, not one that applies to this anyways.

MS will keep CoD on PS way past what they should (in my opinion), on top of that they're going to make sure game parity will be across all platforms, which is more than what Jim Ryan would have done and is probably the reason he's so upset. Not only that but the offer to keep CoD on PS is probably still on the table for Sony. Doesn't sound like anyone is going to be impacted for a long time.

[z2g]

So again… Sony is bitching about what ms offered them on COD and also kept deathloop (an ms owned ip) exclusive for a year and then they turn around and buy out exclusive content for COD. This is absolutely the kind of shit that makes Sony feel disingenuous, one-sided and greedy

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

Deathloop isn’t the biggest game franchise in history, CoD is.

[porkChop]

I do agree that Deathloop and COD aren't on the same level. But COD actually isn't the biggest franchise. It's way behind Super Mario, and way, way behind Pokemon. It's certainly one of the biggest though.

[SPEAKxTHExTRUTH]

Don’t waste your time trying to point out Sony’s hypocrisy it will fall on deaf ears…

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

Xbox payed for 18 months of GTA4 dlc exclusivity, and PlayStation made sure they got CoD dlc early. I hated it both then, I usually hate it now too. I would defend Deathloop’s exclusivity deal because that game was basically a well reviewed demo for the Dualsense controller. The money made the game better. I don’t feel the same way about most other deals, they usually feel like money that could’ve actually produced more games instead.

[ocelot07]

Far as I I'm aware. Microsoft had the exclusive/advertisement deal with Activision for years. Then Sony got the contract on a multiyear deal.

Never agreed with content being kept off platforms. Like FIFA did with the legends cards on Xbox for a few years.

I read what Sony's demands where for cod to remain on playstation. No gamepass release, no ms exclusive content, no timed exclusive maps. This is silly by Sony. They should just be happy that COD remains on playstation consoles forever. Not demand Microsoft not be able to timed exclusive content to their own game. If Microsoft want to loose out on millions paying £60 for the game and release it on gamepass for people to rent then let them. Sony will still make there money selling cod on their own systems.

[generic-user-name]

"They should just be happy that COD remains on playstation consoles forever."

3 years after the current deal between Sony and Activision runs out is not forever.

[generic-user-name]

Deathloop and Ghostwire's deals were both made by Bethesda before MS hovered them up too. Both new IPs, it's not like they are sequels to beloved titles like ROTR or anything.

[porkChop]

The co-op is completely exclusive for an entire year. This is why the COD fanbase is mostly on PS. When MS had 30-day exclusive map packs the fanbase flocked to Xbox. As soon as PS got the deal the fanbase switched over. Jim Ryan complains about Xbox leveraging the COD fanbase to pull players away from PS but that's exactly what PS has been doing.

Obviously PS will oppose the deal. It's understandable and it wouldn't make any sense not to. It's smart business. But the hypocrisy of their comments is just hilarious. You can't complain about taking advantage of a fanbase when you're literally doing that.

[Sonyslave3]

Ms lawyers better us this shit in court

[generic-user-name]

It's one thing for either company to approach Activision and successfully bid for marketing rights and exclusive content for COD; it's another thing for one of them to swoop in with a ludicrous $70b bid to buy out the entire publisher of that franchise (the best selling franchise in all of NA for the past 15 years).

You describe both sides shafting the other with timed digital content, but you don't describe one side taking away access to the game entirely, which is what will happen 3 years after the current contract runs out.

[porkChop]

I'm not taking about taking games away entirely because I've already said multiple times that COD should stay multiplatform. I'm not arguing against that at all.

My point is that Jim Ryan wants regulators to force MS to release COD games with full parity because exclusive content is anticompetitive and unfairly leverages a large user base. If he thinks it's so unfair then why do we keep seeing Sony pay for exclusive content in multiplatform games? Why is it not anticompetitive when Sony does it?

[JayRyu]

Street fighter 5 for a whole generation- paid to keep it off competitor. Final Fantasy 14 and 7 Remake as well. Project Eve was multplatform but now Sony exclusive, Forespoken 2 year console exclusive deal.

So Sony wanted to keep dropping the money hat, now MS is willing to drop a bank.

Going to have to buy 2 systems to play games from either side unless you own a really good PC.

[generic-user-name]

@JayRyu

Always with these false equivalencies. You bring up SF5, let's forget that Capcom were struggling at the time and needed Sony's aid, is SF6 coming to Xbox? It is? I guess this is different then. FF14? Square literally came out and said it wasn't coming to Xbox because MS wouldn't allow crossplay (yes! that's right, MS were the ones who started that trend too!). FF7 Remake? A remake of a beloved PS1 game? Not coming to Xbox (yet)? Shocker. I'll wait any second now for Goldeneye to be announced for PS4. Eve another one getting funding that MS could have provided and Forspoken, another timed exclusive which Xbox missed out on, just like Sony missed out on High on Life and the other timed exclusives coming to Xbox.

Now, of all the games you listed here, if you combine them together, do you think they sell/will sell better than COD does/will? There's no comparison. Best selling IP in NA for the last 15 YEARS, established and performs best on the PS ecosystem since PS4 came along, please don't act like this is anything alike. COD leaving PS has a tangible negative impact on them.

[darthv72]

Generic, capcom wasnt struggling for shit. They owed sony an exclusive (remember deep down?). They both made up that bs story of how capcom couldnt afford to make SFV without sony $$. That was a lie and they perpetuated that lie with every release of the game. Arcade, super, ultra... all of which had to be the exact same disc as the initial release so they wouldnt break their deal with Sony.

I think i remember Capcom stating it was the worst decision they agreed to, and would never alienate a platform from their biggest fighting series. MS could have funded the game AND it would have remained multiplat.

[generic-user-name]

"I've already said multiple times that COD should stay multiplatform."

I haven't gone though your comment history, I'm going by the comment I'm replying to.

"But the hypocrisy of their comments is just hilarious."

It can't be hypocrisy if Sony, nor anyone else, has ever done anything like this before, buying out the most successful franchise in NA for the better part of the past 2 decades.

"If he thinks it's so unfair then why do we keep seeing Sony pay for exclusive content in multiplatform games? Why is it not anticompetitive when Sony does it?"

360 days: MS make a deal with Acti to get all the marketing, timed exclusives DLC etc etc
PS4 days: Sony make a deal with Acti to get all the marketing, timed exclusives DLC etc etc

Notice how two different platform holders were able to 'compete' for that deal. When MS own COD, that is gone. That is what makes it anticompetitive.

[ocelot07]

"The co-op is completely exclusive for an entire year. This is why the COD fanbase is mostly on PS"

I had to have a little laugh at that. No it's not lol. The spec op co op on MW1 was very basic and boring and I'm fairly certain millions of cod fans chose PS4 over Xbox for that.

Even during the PS3 and 360 generation. Cod at least to my knowledge sold more on PS3 then 360. This was when Microsoft had the market rights and timed exclusive dlc for cod games.

It's simply down to the playstation being a more popular platform of choice imo. Another example is FIFA. During the late 360 years and early xb1 years. Microsoft had a exclusive deal for legends cards for ultimate team. All the YouTubers where playing on Xbox one I show off the legends card that was exclusive to Xbox. Yet each year FIFA sold more on playstation than Xbox.

[Wafflehead1]

No keyboard and mouse = non purchase. Not that I would buy a console shooter these days anyway.

[MrBeatdown]

Can't wait until MS owns this franchise. Then they can promise co-op for everybody, then cut it.

[porkChop]

*laughs in 343*

[JayRyu]

@generic user

So Sony "funds" a 3rd party IP that has been multi platform for all of its games before and say we'll help you make your game but don't release it in any other platform...deal? Still doesn't sound any better.

Most of Square Enix games have been released on other platforms but "the beloved" FF7, a 3rd party IP (also the upcoming FF16) is not coming to any other platforms?

Money hating has been around before xbox was created anyone remember dreamcast and PS2?

But let's not lose sight of the topic at hand..
"Playstation MW2 exclusive content revealed."

Sony kept on paying the farm for first dibs and now MS said okay then we will buy the farm.

[JayRyu]

Nor the best analogy on the last part of what I said, but you get what I mean...lol

[z2g]

Sony: MS bUyInG ActiivIsiOn will huRt GAmErS acCeSs to COD EVeN tHO iT wIlL sTilL reLeAse on pLaYstAtIon.

Also Sony: *pays Activision to block COD content from other platforms*

[Rhythmattic]

Oh a skin, on a skin, within a skin, skinning you all. Lol

[Destiny1080]

do we really need to listen to another 3 years of crying

poor xbox gamers, this has got to be their last hope, exclusive call of duty content a month early

[MadLad]

Another example of Sony keeping content from other consoles as they cry about potentially having content kept from theirs.

Rinse. Repeat.
It's getting kind of pathetic at this point.