Microsoft and Sony Co-Sign Agreement to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for a Decade

[T0@st]

Microsoft and Xbox leaders have declared that the Call of Duty series will remain on PlayStation systems for the next ten years, following a possible successful acquisition of the (current owners of the IP) Activision Blizzard video game holding company. Phil Spencer, the outspoken head of Xbox stated via Twitter: "We are pleased to announce that Microsoft and PlayStation have signed a binding agreement to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation following the acquisition of Activision Blizzard. We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games."

His superior, Brad Smith (vice chair and president of Microsoft) added: "From Day One of this acquisition, we've been committed to addressing the concerns of regulators, platform and game developers, and consumers. Even after we cross the finish line for this deal's approval, we will remain focused on ensuring that Call of Duty remains available on more platforms and for more consumers than ever before." The silence on Sony/PlayStation's part is very telling, they are perhaps resigned to the merger becoming concrete this summer. Fans of the series (who favor Sony systems) will be relieved to know that PlayStation 5 and its possible successor are covered for another decade—it will be interesting to see how Sony's planned cloud gaming service will operate with the CoD franchise in mind. Microsoft has been presenting ten-year deals to a variety of rivals over the past year, with Sony and Nintendo courted alongside a number of different organizations. NVIDIA and Nintendo agreed on 10-year partnerships with Xbox earlier this year.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Exclusives needs to die. Just release everything on all platforms and be done with it. Enable cross play for everyone. Done.

 

[Easo]

All exclusivity should not exist, no if's or but's.

 

[Solaris17]

I wish exclusivity wasnt real, but unfortunately it sells consoles. Maybe by the time these decade long agreements end things will change, but given these agreements are in place to keep in this case a franchise in a larger ecosystem as opposed to a more closed one, I doubt it because it speaks to the initial intent imo.

As for crossplay. I hope that dies. I have never seen a reason why console players should be allowed to play against one another or against PC players. Most games that support this that arent simple puzzle jumpers have faced backlash because the community doesnt know what it wants and the games are impossible to balance on things like in this case MW2 or really just shooters (racers?????) in general, where consoles that run it better, or PCs can simple out class you in reaction time, which is generally important for these types of games.

 

[Cheeseball]

I wish exclusivity wasnt real, but unfortunately it sells consoles. Maybe by the time these decade long agreements end things will change, but given these agreements are in place to keep in this case a franchise in a larger ecosystem as opposed to a more closed one, I doubt it because it speaks to the initial intent imo.

As for crossplay. I hope that dies. I have never seen a reason why console players should be allowed to play against one another or against PC players. Most games that support this that arent simple puzzle jumpers have faced backlash because the community doesnt know what it wants and the games are impossible to balance on things like in this case MW2 or really just shooters (racers?????) in general, where consoles that run it better, or PCs can simple out class you in reaction time, which is generally important for these types of games.

Example: Apex Legends

I get lots of complaints of using movement tech that sHoULdN'T bE iN tHe gAmE when killing controller players.

For the record, I don't care about the aim assist (40% for PC controller players, 60% for console players) as that just adds to the challenge.

 

[Deleted member 229121]

The whole pledge thing is just a dog and pony show for worried legislators.
You don't knee-cap sales of a cash cow like COD, you get it on as many platforms possible.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Dont really get the comments, do you want everything to be the same for everyone? like why even have different consoles if apperently software can not be part of what defines it?
should we all live in the same houses, drive the same cars and watch the same stuff as well?

 

[TheDeeGee]

Man, another 10 years of the same dullness.

 

[Easo]

Dont really get the comments, do you want everything to be the same for everyone? like why even have different consoles if apperently software can not be part of what defines it?
should we all live in the same houses, drive the same cars and watch the same stuff as well?

We simply want access to the same games. Sorry, but I really fail to see a reason to buy PS just to play GoW.

 

[BlaezaLite]

We simply want access to the same games. Sorry, but I really fail to see a reason to buy PS just to play GoW.

And Gran Turismo

 

[eidairaman1]

Id rather have another Medal of Honor or a Soccom FPS, heck another Splintercell.

 

[sepheronx]

We simply want access to the same games. Sorry, but I really fail to see a reason to buy PS just to play GoW.

Here is another take:

Lack of competition leads to rather dull games. So if all games come out for all systems, there is no need for other systems besides just PC. And then all there is, is the same kind of games over and over again with no imagination - just the typical bean counters doing the thinking for game developers and story writers.

Consoles and exclusivity is to create competition which leads to innovation. While current gen is rather pathetic, this isn't going to last forever. If Sony lost the rights to call of duty, then they may have to revive a series like Resistance or maybe Killzone or something else and may lead to be better than the generic rather bullshit that is COD.

 

[SAINT ENZO]

Why negotiate when you're buying the asset from another company?

 

[QUANTUMPHYSICS]

More BORING COD games...

 

[ixi]

Sony crawling to MS. What a time to be alive.

 

[LabRat 891]

The whole pledge thing is just a dog and pony show for worried legislators.
You don't knee-cap sales of a cash cow like COD, you get it on as many platforms possible.

This.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if this action was entirely for easing regulators' concerns, to aid the ActiBlizzard-Msft acquisition process.

Overall, I care very little about PS or XB as platforms; however, the influence on PC gaming and the progression of hardware is inter-related. Especially, with basically XB, PS, and PC, all using the same microarchitectures.

 

[HairyLobsters]

All exclusivity should not exist, no if's or but's.

What's the incentive of having companies make consoles if they don't have exclusives?

 

[Space Lynx]

Id rather have another Medal of Honor or a Soccom FPS, heck another Splintercell.

Socom U.S. Navy Seals was an awesome game series, Sony should bring that back. Splinter Cell was neat too, Microsoft should bring that back. I honestly like the way it all works, first party titles and a plethora of third party titles. It's never bothered me, and I think it is a pretty unique system, it keeps up innovation, sort of like a unique mind game of a competition that benefits the consumer, where as third party titles a lot of them just are cash grabs and not art. First party titles historically, many of them are art. There is some weird subconscious competition going on there because of the first party mentality and first party level of quality expectations.

When I think back to all my favorite games, most of them are first party titles regardless of what system it was.

 

[KrazyT]

Splinter Cell was neat too, Microsoft should bring that back

Wasn't a Ubisoft one ?

 

[Space Lynx]

Wasn't a Ubisoft one ?

yeah but M$ exclusive is what I was referring too (it was an exclusive at first back in the OG days of SC), big backer, quality expectations because of that first party namesake, I think there is something to that pressure and money influx that really can make a game shine.

I may be wrong.

 

[KrazyT]

I've checked, SC was not an exclusive :

Xbox, Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 2, GameCube, Game Boy Advance, Téléphone mobile, N-Gage, OS X, Nintendo DS, PSP, Xbox 360, Wii, PlayStation 3, iOS, Nintendo 3DS, Android, Windows Phone, Wii U

We are a little off topic here

 

[Easo]

Here is another take:

Lack of competition leads to rather dull games. So if all games come out for all systems, there is no need for other systems besides just PC. And then all there is, is the same kind of games over and over again with no imagination - just the typical bean counters doing the thinking for game developers and story writers.

Consoles and exclusivity is to create competition which leads to innovation. While current gen is rather pathetic, this isn't going to last forever. If Sony lost the rights to call of duty, then they may have to revive a series like Resistance or maybe Killzone or something else and may lead to be better than the generic rather bullshit that is COD.

Why wouldn't there be a console? Not everyone wants or buys PC, they just want "the box for games" - which consoles provide. Different offers, just like with different cars.
Also things like Switch - you can't really carry a PC with you, SteamDeck is not exactly Switch before you say it.

 

[sepheronx]

Why wouldn't there be a console? Not everyone wants or buys PC, they just want "the box for games" - which consoles provide. Different offers, just like with different cars.
Also things like Switch - you can't really carry a PC with you, SteamDeck is not exactly Switch before you say it.

Because then who will want to make a console? If the games are multiplatform, and nothing exclusive then no incentive will be there to sell hardware especially at a loss because the earnings from software won't be there and people buying will simply go for PC since it's far more universal. Maybe 1 console will exist and it will be MS because they then become a monopoly, then they dictate everything.

And the steam deck is a Switch. It's a mobile console that uses PC architecture and is open. Switch provides a benefit because it's ecosystem is alive entirely due to their exclusives. If those didn't exist, neither would Switch or Nintendo.

 

[Easo]

Because then who will want to make a console? If the games are multiplatform, and nothing exclusive then no incentive will be there to sell hardware especially at a loss because the earnings from software won't be there and people buying will simply go for PC since it's far more universal. Maybe 1 console will exist and it will be MS because they then become a monopoly, then they dictate everything.

And the steam deck is a Switch. It's a mobile console that uses PC architecture and is open. Switch provides a benefit because it's ecosystem is alive entirely due to their exclusives. If those didn't exist, neither would Switch or Nintendo.

PC is universal, sure, but in the consumer sense - console you just plug in and play (plus all the Passes options), PC you either buy prebuilt with all that it entails or do it yourself, which is above the average person.
Consoles provide a simple choice, hassle free.