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
crazyCoconuts343d 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.

Christopher343d 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.

sinspirit343d 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.

InUrFoxHole343d ago

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

shinoff2183343d 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.

OptimusDK342d ago

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

Christopher342d 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 342d ago
sparky77343d 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.

Neonridr343d 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?

sparky77343d ago

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

DarkZane343d 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.

RpgSama343d ago (Edited 343d 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?

SICKINDIVIDUAL343d ago

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

shinoff2183343d 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 343d ago
RpgSama343d 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.

Christopher343d 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?

ironmonkey343d ago

Well, nothing sells well there deal with it.

343d ago
XBManiac343d 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.

shinoff2183343d 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 343d ago
Abracadabra343d ago (Edited 343d 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-ro343d ago (Edited 343d 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.

Abracadabra343d ago

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

Christopher343d ago (Edited 343d 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.

Abracadabra343d ago

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

Christopher343d ago

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

Abracadabra343d 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."

Christopher343d ago (Edited 343d 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.

Pyrofire95342d 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 342d ago
StormSnooper343d ago (Edited 343d 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 Nezz343d 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?

OptimusDK342d ago

Doing this to the industry Ahahaha

StormSnooper340d 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 340d ago
1Victor343d ago (Edited 343d 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

KyRo343d 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

shinoff2183343d 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

Pyrofire95342d 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.

Christopher342d ago (Edited 342d 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 340d ago
Abracadabra343d ago (Edited 343d 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.

Christopher343d 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.

Abracadabra343d ago (Edited 343d 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?

Christopher343d ago (Edited 343d 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.

Abracadabra343d ago (Edited 343d 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.

Christopher343d 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 343d ago
Show all comments (53)
200°

Sony shares big new PS Plus stat, but not the one we want to see

PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
mandf1d ago

lol acting like it’s equivalent to ms numbers

Mr Logic23h ago

Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.

"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."

"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"

darthv7223h ago(Edited 23h ago)

That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.

bloop19h ago

That's not the "gotcha" you think it is Darth.

darthv7219h ago

^^it's not supposed to be bloop.... it's just an interesting observation.

Einhander197217h ago

darthv72

"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."

Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.

fr0sty11h ago

MS started lumping gold subscribers in with those GP numbers... keep in mind.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 11h ago
shinoff218322h ago(Edited 22h ago)

What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales

Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense

darthv7222h ago(Edited 22h ago)

What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.

Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.

victorMaje21h ago

I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.

jznrpg20h ago(Edited 20h ago)

I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.

RedDevils16h ago

For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol

meganick20h ago

I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.

P_Bomb16h ago(Edited 16h ago)

Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.

gamerz13h ago

Just let my subscription lapse for the first time since 2010. Will sub again every now and then for a month or so to access my old ps+ games but for me it's the end of an era.

DivineHand12512h ago

Let those numbers continue to drop because it is now too expensive. $80 per year just to play online. I noticed they didn't offer any discounts on the subscription or controllers during this year's days of play for the first time in many years and they will feel it when people choose not to renew.

My subscription will lapse next month and it will stay that way until further notice.

KevtheDuff9h ago

There were savings on subs and controllers here in the UK? I bought a controller yesterday in the sale..
It would be weird if those deals were not in other territories too?

160°

Silent Hill Transmission Livestream

Konami has announced that a Silent Hill Transmission will take place on Thursday, May 30, at 4pm PT/7pm ET that will reveal game updates, a "deeper look at the film," and new merch. Join us at IGN to find out what's next for this beloved franchise.

RaidenBlack1d 18h ago

Hope SH2 gets more polish before release.

P_Bomb1d 18h ago

I’m not paying $94 CAD for what they’ve shown me. Looks rough as sin.

Fishy Fingers1d 18h ago

Ive seen better lip syncing during a Punch and Judy show

Sonic18811d 18h ago (Edited 1d 18h ago )

This looks terrible. Capcom should have done the remake 😂 The animations and gameplay looks stiff.

-Foxtrot1d 18h ago (Edited 1d 17h ago )

Okay. I was saying before in another article how SH2 looked better than the last trailer, which is true but damn this looks rough as hell.

I wanted RE4 / Dead Space remake quality

Sonic18811d 17h ago (Edited 1d 17h ago )

I wouldn't buy it for $70 dollars. Maybe when it's on sale.

-Foxtrot1d 17h ago

Yeah full price, deluxe editions, Konami are f***** tripping here.

CrimsonWing691d 17h ago

The characters look terrible to me… like it’s distracting.

repsahj1d 12h ago

I will give this game a chance!!! let's go!

80°

Cheat Provider To Pay Call Of Duty Creator Activision Nearly $15M In Damages

Cheat software provider EngineOwning will pay Call of Duty creator Activision nearly $15 million in damages and legal fees.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
Jin_Sakai1d 21h ago

Cheat providers for competitive games should be illegal.

Rynxie1d 17h ago (Edited 1d 17h ago )

This is what developers and manufacturers should do. I know going after cheat devices/makers is a cat and mouse game, and cost money. However, they can get that money back by sueing these manufacturers of cheat devices. Take a page from Nintendo's playbook.