Jim Ryan's comments were quite something yesterday, huh? The PlayStation CEO threw some shots at Xbox in a public statement about Call of Duty, stating that Microsoft's offer to keep the series on PlayStation for three years beyond Sony's current deal with Activision was "inadequate" and undermines a key principal at Sony.
As you can imagine, this story has been getting all the attention over the past few hours, and it notably attracted some thoughts from Game Awards and Gamescom Opening Night Live host Geoff Keighley on social media last night.
Geoff says he's contacted Microsoft to try and get a word about Jim Ryan's comments, but in the meantime he believes it's a "complicated situation", highlighting that "statements seem inconsistent" between the two parties:
Microsoft has said in the past that Call of Duty will remain on PlayStation in the future, which Keighley also went on to point out, while he also questioned whether Game Pass should be factored into the discussion about "exclusivity".
Here are some more of his tweets from yesterday:
Ultimately, Keighley is just speculating like the rest of us right now, and we're still waiting to see whether Phil Spencer or anyone else at Microsoft will have anything to say in response to Jim Ryan's scathing comments yesterday.
For now (and this is presumably locked-in), the official word is that Call of Duty will remain on PlayStation for at least another three years after Sony's existing deal with Activision is complete - but that's only assuming Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard goes through, and it's been facing a few stumbling blocks lately.
What do you make of Keighley's comments here? Let us know down below.
Comments 73
Keighley has generally been more Sony supporting in many of his statements over the years - despite Xbox having a whole showcase at his events usually, he makes a much bigger deal of the odd Sony announcement in his main stream - and never bats an eyelid at the constant stream of "PlayStation exclusive" content in it too.
I think Game Pass should feature zero in talks on exclusivity - if Xbox wish to have different sales models that's their business, particularly when they own the games!
In responses to this, Keighley didn't keep the same energy about how Final Fantasy hasn't been on Xbox since FF15 - 14, 16 and 7 Remake all haven't reached us yet and don't appear on the way anytime soon but apparently that's "not relevant to this", nor how Sony have Forspoken locked down for 2 years...
Honestly they both look two-faced on this point.
Phil Spencer saying one thing (there will be less exclusivity in future, COD will be multiplatform, we don't want to take games away from gamers, etc.) but doing the complete opposite.
Meanwhile Jim Ryan is acting like taking a game away from a fanbase is a new thing to him. Don't throw stones in glass houses Jim. You poked the bear.
Actions matter more than words gentlemen.
All this talk about CoD when Microsoft have essentially said they see the Activision Blizzard portfolio as a bonus to the main course King.
King & mobile gaming is apparently the focus of this investment as that is where all the money is.
Anything CoD or any of the main stream console or pc games bring in is just a nice bonus on top.
Instead of arguing about an outdated copy paste lame boring and very generic fps game. Go and make some new AAA games which are not copy/paste, Remaster or a Remake and ensure they actually release in our lifetime
@themightyant Well that statement about Phil is only true if after the 3 years CoD wont come to PS anymore. The fact that a contract was presented for 3 years doesn't automatically mean COD won't come to PS anymore. The current ABK/Sony deal ends after 3 games and with 2 year releases from now on its 4 years in to the future. WIth the 3 years added from Microsoft, will put it around 7 years into the future and imo thats already a long term for a contract, since you never know what the gaming landscape will look like after this and then the contract will be renewed (or if needed renegotiated for new conditions) for a new term.
@themightyant was that Phil Spencer quote regarding exclusives about consoles; because I thought it was in reference to more games going to PC and the opening up of Gamepass (cloud etc) on TVs and mobiles. I might be wrong but I was never clear on that.
Well, I'm glad Keighley weighed in. We all needed that in our lives.
On another note, just as flagged by users in Keighley's thread and in the articles on here and PS, Keighley and other media wouldn't even be questioning this if Sony were buying Activision (or if they eventually buy Square).
Any new games would be exclusive, and they wouldn't even think to ask Sony - it would be expected.
Instead of always taking the high ground, I do wish Xbox sometimes would head into the gutter with Sony and either buy up timed exclusivity / Game Pass rights on massive games or hold games (including CoD) back from them until PlayStation learns playing dirty with trillion dollar companies hurts.
I didn't buy a Series X so Phil can play God of War this holiday season while I have no new first party games to play - if I've spent all that money due to promises I expect to see Xbox fight to give me a good customer experience.
Game Pass is great value, but if I have to go and get a PS5 to play many of the biggest games / or play them in their best form (Hogwarts, FF14, FF16, Forspoken, FFVII R|R|R etc.) then I lose a lot of that value - so now Xbox have finally started to call Sony out on timed exclusivity / exclusive content and Jim has started whining, maybe they're waking up to the fact PlayStation aren't their friends and actually be more ruthless...
Has anyone thought that maybe the 3 year offer was one with ps dlc /exclusive weapons etc etc and not pulling it from ps altogether,Sony was wanting a longer deal like they have now with cod but ms said 3 years
This is hilarious. Once the deal closes, MS owns the Call of Duty IP and has the right to do with it whatever it wants. Not complicated at all unless you're a delusional fanboy who can't get over pieces of plastic and are obsessed with 'console wars.' The crying is pathetic at this point. MS has offered Sony a fair deal of 3 more entries in the series, if Jim Ryan thinks that is unsatisfactory, well, bring something to the bargaining table... 'You give keep Call of Duty on our consoles, we'll put the Insomniac Spider-Man games on Xbox.' Or, 'fine, we'll put Game Pass on PlayStation.' Those are some options, otherwise, take the 3 more games, more than MS is obligated to offer, and shut up.
@themightyant to be fair. A game has never been “taken away” from gamers with all these purchases. We have yet to see an existing game on an ecosystem drop support outside of Xbox consoles. But obviously people are talking about things like Hellblade 2. Starfield is an odd one in that it had never officially been unveiled for any systems and also is a new IP.
Plus, when you bring games to cloud streaming services and are making steps to make them easily accessible through a simple TV, are you really “taking things away” from gamers or just the ones who happened to be stuck on one particular box? After all, it is MS who has led the push for bringing games to PC, including Steam.
Obviously I know I’m playing to one side here, and there are legitimate counters. But it is true that if we get outside of the idea of being stuck to one console box (PS) these new games are reaching farther than ever in the places they are appearing.
I don't get what Sony was expected. Deal to have COD until end of time?
I mean. Of course Microsoft would timegate that deal. But that does not mean that after that they can't make new deal (see Minecraft - I doubt that deal is "for eternity). So every three year you make a new deal which covers next 3 COD games. Simple.
I think both should have a charity cod match between them both, have it as pay per view and all money to charity ,that would be a great seller id pay to watch
Is cod crossplay ?
For me the aqqusition was about game pass rather than exclusity and Jim Ryan has chosen his route for the ps plus subscription. He could increase subscription as Xbox have but wants to charge 69.99 for insomniac exclusives and naughty dog games as well as san monica games instead of the micropsoft route ps pays xbox streams
Hypocrite Jim Ryan can
https://c.tenor.com/Y6MUcdHwzCIAAAAC/playstation-ps5.gif
I'm just messin' (not a console warrior) but it's funny seeing hardcore playstation fanboys beat their chests about exclusive games and telling people to buy a PlayStation if they want to play **another never on xbox third party game** then **sounds like witch** and moan when Xbox gets a short timed exclusive.
This isn't a complicated situation at all...
Microsoft may soon own COD.
COD is a top seller for Playstation.
Sony is therefore afraid that Microsoft will do EXACTLY WHAT SONY WOULD DO if they owned COD.
Microsoft isn't really motivated to do that, but Sony doesn't want to take the chance.
Easy.
@xMightyMatt14x I'm with you for some of it. Microsoft are definitely making it easier to access games and not be just about the box. But honestly who want's to play COD, or any other fast paced game with streaming lag. Just because it's technically available doesn't make it viable for most... yet.
But the taking away games part happens on both sides. Whether it be Sony paying for AAA exclusives (a ***** practice) or Microsoft doing deals to bring games to game pass that don't appear on PS for months or more, (a less ***** practice but still *****) to MS buying up whole publishers.
The difference here is that MS have just bought up around 25+ studios, some with multiple teams, most of which are going to now be locked to Xbox (the brand not the system). That's a little different in scope and scale to paying for a few AAA exclusives, or buying studios who have almost exclusively worked with you imho.
Ultimately it doesn't affect me directly i'll continue to play on all, in fact more games on Game Pass is beneficial to me, but I don't like any of it frankly. Most gamers will only choose one system and they WILL lose out one way or another. That isn't the sort of inclusion I want in this hobby we share.
I simply fail to understand what Game Pass has to do with CoD being $70 on the PlayStation. It's not as if the game won't be sold on the Xbox for $70 too.
The only way that Game Pass could possibly ever factor in, when it comes to PlayStation, is if Sony were to allow Game Pass on to its platform. Something that it will never do.
The statement just seems to be incomprehensible to me, as one thing has nothing to do with the other. If Geoff is suggesting that CoD should be allowed to go on to Sony's Game Pass competitor, then MicroSoft may be open to that, but the cost to Sony would be eyewatering, and thus likely not something they would even consider.
Very odd comment indeed. Some context is required...
@Lavalera It's not JUST the CoD Statement. What about Phil saying there would be less exclusives in future while simultaneously buying up whole waves of studios and making their games exclusives. Actions speak louder than words.
It's tit for tat. Not picking sides, don't like any of it frankly. Gaming should be for everyone. We did this already in other mediums with Minidisc, Laserdisc and Betamax where only some films or music was available to a smaller select audience with the right device. It's forced segregation by another name defended vigorously with short-sighted tribalism.
@themightyant the less exclusives comment was in reference to things to not just being tied to a single console but to be on other devices like pc, phones, etc as well. Not that Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo shouldn’t have exclusives for their own ecosystem. You can tell that’s what he meant as in that same article/interview he mentions other companies (Sony) may not like it but it’s what’s best for gaming.
@themightyant both are, it's just usually a bit more obvious with Jim.
I've been gaming for far too long and things like this are nothing new. Nintendo used to do it with Sega, then Sony took over and did it to everyone and now its back and forth between Xbox and Playstation. I just wish they wouldn't say things like how they think it'll affect their fans as neither care when taking games away from the other. Jim is worried about losing put on the microtransactions flowing through their store and nothing else.
I'm sick of this back and forth already, almost to the point where I hope the Activision Blizzard acquisition isn't approved, so Sony can stop bitching.
What Jim fails to mention in his statement is that Activision Blizzard will have been signing three-year contracts with Sony (and Microsoft) for years, which then get renewed. What Microsoft is offering is a pre-emptive extension of that three-year contract; a contract that they will undoubtedly want to renew down the line, and here's why:
PlayStation is the console market leader. More people play the annual COD releases on PlayStation than any other platform. Yes, Microsoft can offer incentives for people to play it on Xbox by, say, including it in Game Pass, but if they keep it on PlayStation, as a third party publisher on that platform, they still get 70% of the revenue from sales and/or microtransactions on that platform. For years. Way more money than Sony has ever earned from having COD on their own platforms.
Anyone who thinks that Microsoft would pass up that kind of money is deluded.
@markatron84 I agree to an extent but just like with Bethesda games it’s gonna come down to how much Microsoft values that “lost” revenue vs potential new game pass customers. People said the same thing about starfield…”no way Microsoft would pass up that kind of money” and they clearly are. They’d rather have new customers in their ecosystem than put elderscolls etc on other platforms anymore. So financially never say never. Also and, not saying you specifically, what people fail to point out in all these lost revenue arguments is that in the case of both elderscrolls and COD, in the 360 era as far as player bases for those 2 specific games the roles were very much reversed. So this argument of Microsoft doesn’t want to lose out on 60-70% of a particular games player base doesn’t hold weight when it used to be that those same 60-70% played on an Xbox platform. Microsoft does not need Sony to make money or be profitable as I believe Phil has said before
@themightyant My assumption is that Phil meant that statement mostly for the coop/multiplayer games. He gives the example of 2 kids in one household where one has a xbox and the other a ps and they want to game together, but cant since a game is exclusive. The way the industry seems to shift is to keep those live service games of mp/coop games multiplat. Like with Minecraft of what Bungie is doing with their games. Single player games will most like be or stay exclusive, but games that come with the ABK deal like Diablo, Cod, WoW (if it ever comes to console) will all remain multi console.
I do agree that to much exclusivity isn't good for the consumer, especially the consumer who can't buy all consoles like we can and has to make a choice. On the other hand we are shifting more away from the 1 platform exclusives (well except for nintendo games). Microsoft brings their games to pc, cloud and xbox and even Sony is bringing more and more games to pc as well and it will only be a short time before Sony will go cloud as well. Fun thing in this is though, people always only tend to name xbox and playstation, while Nintendo has by far the most exclusive releases per year.
If the industry keeps shifting like this in 10 years consoles will play a way smaller part than they do now and well shift more to a software market than a hardware market, so with the way it is shifting we will eventually all see less exclusivity and it will be more, which publisher has they best games and brings in the most money.
@themightyant I hear you. One thing I have liked with the purchases so far, though, has been the comfort of time to enhance quality and try new things. Psychonauts 2 is a great example. I loved that game, but they were struggling to stay afloat and only were able to make it great with the additional time and resources. I also like Grounded and am looking forward to Pentiment which never would have existed in the high pressure independent market where you have to be sure you make games that draw attention and sell to stay afloat. For now, I actually see the purchases as beneficial to gamers, bringing us games made with the comfort of polish (at least when done by a competent studio) and some new ideas. I do get the long term potential for issues though. I’m hoping with the Act.-Blizzard deal that some studios will at least be freed up to make other, new types of games instead of just making COD. It’s like an initial plus with long term potential for issues. But I’m taking it like with a wait and see approach.
It’s was to much yesterday
Today let’s just love 😊
In Geoff Keighley's voice: Aaaaand in the blue corner, the reigning champion, Jim Rrrrrrrryaaaaan! Aaaaaand in the green corner, the challenger, Phiiiiiil Spenceeeeeer! Let's get ready to rrrrrrumble! 😜 Sorry, I'll see myself out now.
@Gr81 oh it'll be a game by game basis. But I think that the reasoning behind keeping things like COD, ESO, Fallout 76, Minecraft on PlayStation is that these games and existing player bases and communities and will provide constant revenue streams via subscriptions and microtransactions.
People can bitch about things like Starfield exclusivity, but the fact is that the game doesn't exist, it has no community and technically Microsoft hasn't taken anything away from anyone.
The Starfield thing is inconsistent.
Offering a three year parity deal and not a "COD will be xbox exclusive after three years" deal, is not inconsistent.
Deals need end dates.
Edit: "The thing I've always wondered: If COD is part of Game Pass on Xbox but $70 on PlayStation, how much should that be factored into the discussion around "exclusivity"?"
The same can be said for Sony blocking Game Pass. Preventing release on a platform/service is the definition of exclusivity.
@xMightyMatt14x This is a great point I agree with. It's not ALL bad, though I never said it was, only responding to this current business.
I agree studios like Arkane, Obsidian, Double Fine and more that historically seemed to struggle financially are now being allowed to make what they want without the Sword of Damocles constantly hovering over their heads. Worrying where the next paycheck is coming from, the next layoffs or what sort of work they are being farmed out to do to make ends meet. And their titles seem to be being given the time to polish. This aspect is a win for the industry as a whole. Hopefully the same will be true of Bethesda/Starfield too.
With huge deals like this it's never simple or one dimensional, there are gains and losses.
Remember when we couldn’t play GTA on Xbox because Sony paid for exclusivity? Or they kept COD DLC on PS for an entire year?
Sony started this mess and it’s been tit for tat every since.
@themightyant I saw the interview where Phil talked about less exclusivity in the future, and he basically was just talking about “a specific piece of plastic”, basically, his entire argument was about not being locked out of the potential of playing a game just because the game you want to play now is not available for the expensive device you bought.
That’s not a new stance, not even a new message, but news outlets ran out saying “Xbox wants less exclusives! Their games coming to PlayStation!” When nothing like that was even hinted.
Anyone that been paying attention should know that messaging is about their current strategy of having all their XBox games on PC and Game Pass streaming on day one.
@SplooshDmg
I read it. I thought about boxing, but wrestling could be even more fun 😁 Though I must admit my contact with WWE ended in the 90s, back when Brett "The Hitman" Hart was still a champ. Kinda felt the need to lighten the mood a bit. Still, fingers crossed that the ActiBlizz deals gets the green light from CMA so that Jim Ryan starts sweating bullets and stops acting like an entitled child. MS owes Sony nothing as far as I'm concerned.
A thing that I don’t think I seen mentioned in all of this:
Call of duty has been on a decline, with Warzone growing. Who knows how things look 5 years from now. I can see by then Activision (regardless acquisition) deciding to just focus on Warzone and stop making yearly/biyearly CoD games.
Under that line of thought, it would be absurd for anyone to sign a deal that just forced them to continue creating a dead game series over half a decade from now.
It would likely be a lot more fruitful for everyone if call of duty became simply big engine updates for Warzone every 3 years, and all the teams that have been cannibalized by the IP got freed up to work on more diverse games.
I’m looking forward to a big Phil’s response. I’d like to see something strong and to the point, no faffing about.
Knowing Phil though he’ll probably post a unicorn meme and offer big Jim a cuddle.
@SplooshDmg
Actually, not that you've said it, I feel triggered. How is this even acceptable? I mean men, wearing only underpants, and wrestling just for the spectators to ogle them. Diagusting and I will not stand for this! I will sit down and watch 🤣
I get you. I game on anything but the PC, but I have no affinity towards any particular brand. I do feel Sony needs some serious competition and a reminder that nothing is forever.
@Fenbops
Agreed. I like the nice guy Phil, but sometimes I wish he'd deliver an uppercut to the competition just to show he means business.
@Gr81 @Tharsman I'm not sure that's entirely true. The whole statement read:
Now as ever it's a carefully worded statement but he SPECIFICALLY mentioned PlayStation players not being able to play because they bought the wrong piece of plastic and wanting to stop that happening. As @Lavalera said I think he is talking about multiplayer games here in THIS statement. But he has also said "It’s not our intent to pull communities away from that (PlayStation) platform and we remained committed to that".
As I said it's all more than a bit two faced on BOTH sides. Neither looks very honest on this point. They are just saying what the regulators want to hear.
Tharsman wrote:
While true to an extent perspective is needed. COD was still the top 2 selling games for last year in the US and many other territories (Vanguard and BO:Cold war). Even in an apparently bad year they are leading the pile, don't think they will want to quit out any time soon.
@themightyant Phil only gets a bad rap because people twist his words to mean whatever they want to.
Yes, there will be less exclusivity in the future. Lots of Sony games are going to PC, for example. And yes, MSFT made a generous offer to keep COD on PS - they’re not running a charity. And yes, he doesn’t want to take games away from gamers, hence a huge investment in backwards compatibly with boosts plus a very low bar to entry - you can stream games on your phone, something everyone has.
He hasn’t been hypocritical. He’s doing exactly what he’s said. He’s running a business.
@k3lt0n I like Phil Spencer, he's been GREAT for Xbox, I don't think he should get a bad rap. But he's not omnipotent either and some of his recent statements have been two-faced. It's not twisting his words when he SPECIFICALLY mentions PlayStation or "It’s not our intent to pull communities away from that (PlayStation) platform and we remained committed to that" and then states exactly the opposite by saying Elder Scrolls and other games are going to be exclusive to Xbox (the platform not console).
I accept he's running a business - mostly very well apart from the dearth of first party releases - but he can't have it both ways and also be the good pro-consumer guy too when he IS taking games away from gamers on other platforms.
I don't see the complication.
CoD will be owned by Microsoft. Sony will have to negotiate with Microsoft. Those are the facts. No more complication.
The whole idea that Microsoft won't "play ball" is purely speculation on everyone's part. Microsoft didn't make Minecraft IP Microsoft-only. Microsoft is obviously going above and beyond to continue supporting PlayStation.
Wording is EXTREMELY important. Does Microsoft sound vague in timing? OF COURSE! But let's say Microsoft says that it will put into writing that it will support CoD on a yearly basis on PlayStation for life and then decides to cull back CoD to every few years or even ditches CoD annual releases completely and goes for a single CoD that is a GaaS model (basically only support Warzone). Guess what? It's in writing that Microsoft would put annual releases of CoD on PlayStation for life. That can be grounds for financial compensation to Sony for breach of contract.
The Legal Teams of these companies are sharks. It would be a legal nightmare to put that kind of solid commitment into writing and something then changes and is now seen as a breach of contract.
Also, even if COD is on Game Pass, it's not as if Microsoft won't sell the base game on the market. Now if Microsoft charged $60 on Xbox and $70 in PlayStation, I can see the concern there.
People still act as if Game Pass is a requirement. It's not! Microsoft still sells games. Does having CoD on Game Pass make it look more enticing? Yes and no, it really depends on the person and how you utilize Game Pass.
Look at it this way. If you pay for Game Pass Ultimate for 1 year, that's $180 for the year ($14.99 x 12 months = $180).
If you buy Call of Duty for $70 and then buy 3-month increments of Live Gold for 1 year, that comes to $170 ($25 x 4 = $100 for Gold and $70 for the base game).
Where things would get interesting is if Season Pass stuff is also included with Game Pass. That is where the possible value comes in.
If Season Pass stuff is still required for purchase (in the same way that DOOM Eternal Season Pass isn't included with Game Pass), then it's still cheaper to buy the game outright and pay for a Gold Subscription as stated above.
If Season Pass stuff is included, it's cheaper to go with the year of Game Pass Ultimate.
This assumes you are a person who ditches CoD games every year for the new one. Obviously, if you stick with it, it's best to simply buy the game.
Now if you only care about CoD single player, then one month of base Game Pass (not Ultimate) is the best value as you basically pay $10 for the game and then don't renew.
All this talk about CoD but nothing about Crash or Spyro...
Sony will argue that its their money that paid for the development costs of Spider-Man so had no obligation to let that global IP, a major brand that is much bigger than 'gaming' and any specific console brand, release only on Sony hardware day and date - their money, they paid for it etc. Yet Sony expect MS to invest their money and their developers to make their IP they now and release it on their competition 'indefinitely' and with total parity? Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it!!!
This is coming from Sony, a company that goes above just securing marketing rights of multi-platform IPs and undermines their competition by devaluing their versions of the game keeping content from the others - either temporary (earlier access, timed content) to permanently offering extra modes/missions etc - Marvels Avengers, CoD, Hogwarts Legacy etc all had 'less' content on other platforms yet MS have offered 3yrs 'Parity' beyond ANY existing/current agreements. As well as all their first Party studios make games for PS - where as Mojang makes multi-platform games - didn't have to release Dungeons or Legends on PS - and could of made Minecraft 'exclusive' too...
Like I said, Sony are willing to splash the cash to devalue their competitors with the 'same' multi-platform releases. Sony also actively stop multi-platform IP's coming to Xbox (Street Fighter, Final Fantasy etc), Sony have Destiny, Resistance, Killzone, MAG and SOCOM IP's as well as numerous dev teams skilled in making FPS games. In fact, there was 'concerns' about Guerilla opting to make a 3rd person RPG instead.
Still funny why they are picking CoD - a game that's losing players to countless competitors - inc Fortnite, Apex, PUBG, Valorant etc etc and not talking about Spyro or Crash Bandicoot, not mentioning Hellblade or Outer Worlds - both have sequels coming to Xbox 'exclusively' and without any real complaint because that's expected when you own the IP, the Devs, the Publishing rights etc and you don't have to invest all that money and time with your dev teams, your IPs etc and release on your competitors hardware that is constantly trying to undermine and devalue your brand....
I'm glad I don't have to care since I have both systems and couldn't care about CoD anyway. I do wish MS would just be consistent. One never knows if one of their acquisitions will be treated like Minecraft and stay on everything or become exclusive like Bethesda games. That's why we have all these stories when MS buys something.
@Serpentes420 Why does MS need to be 'consistent' and state outright what their plans will be - not only for the 'short' term, but long term and indefinitely in a rapidly changing market when things can change.
At the end of the day, IF its owned by MS, developed by MS owned studios, paid for by MS, published by MS etc that they have 'no obligation' to let people know whether or not they will be able to play on Playstation. Why not ask if Spider-Man will release on Xbox, Wolverine too - IP's that are much bigger than CoD, than Playstation, than Xbox as Marvel is much bigger brand - you didn't expect them on Xbox yet they are bigger IP's than CoD...
Even lose out on content on other platforms because Sony pays to keep content off those - extra modes, missions, cosmetics etc for Playstation gamers yet all others pay the same for less - yet expect MS to continue to release 'their' games, IPs etc on Playstation indefinitely, keep investing their time, money, efforts etc into developing games for their 'competitor' too??
3yrs beyond ANY current agreements is above and beyond by MS. Of course it maybe 'necessary' to help the deal go through, but its NOT expected or in general, necessary in ANY takeover. The Company taking over has 'no obligation' to keep supplying their competitor beyond any 'legal' agreements made prior to takeover. By which time, who knows where gaming will be. This gen will be nearing its end - if not replaced - because this is expected to go until 2026 as Sony has an existing agreement until 2023 - so 3 more years is basically 'end of gen' era and then MS can decide whether to 'keep' parity beyond on PS6 and/or whatever other Hardware is in competition - although I expect other Hardware to offer Game Pass...
@themightyant
Just went back to the interview, and yes, the entirety of the context of that conversation was about cross platform, but the next question right after the crossplay topic, he shut down the idea of CoD staying on PlayStation on perpetuity fast. Exactly:
Now you can try to extrapolate here, but I think its obvious from this statement: "no, CoD wont be on PS forever" that bit is clear. It also does not take a master in language to understand that him blurring the lines on the definition of "platform" means the whole mix-up of Xbox|PC|xCloud, thing. They have been saying as much for a long time, and how the combo settup lets everyone enjoy games in one way or another.
The biggest problem is this is a 24 minute interview, and news sites go through these interviews and make articles based on every single line, often out of context from the whole interview. Worse: some news sites make their articles based on other articles instead of on the original interview.
At the end of the day, anyone that watches that whole interview and thinks Phil is talking about keeping CoD on PlayStation forever (within the franchise lifetime) likely simply read one of these mini articles.
@BAMozzy "All this talk about CoD but nothing about Crash or Spyro..."
Thats an interesting topic, because this whole back and forth, Ryan's statement, make me think its clear the only game Phil is planning to keep on PlayStation [for the near future] is CoD, and likely anything that is about to launch (like Diablo 4) if the deal closes early.
Everything else, is almost certainly going to be Xbox|PC|xCloud going forward.
@Tharsman I don't think anyone expects COD to be on PS forever. Regardless of what he said in the following paragraph he has said several times that it is not their aim to take games away from PlayStation or other communities, yet that is exactly what they are doing. Can't escape that very simple fact. At best disingenuous and at worst two-faced.
I don't blame them btw, it's sensible business, but a shame for the average games that only has one console. My bigger concern is that they all seem to focus on COD and ignore all the other games.
I agree many news sites and worse youtubers and forums take second, third, fourth hand retellings which only exacerbates the issues. It's a problem with some media nowadays, they don't go to the source. Always annoys me when PX here doesn't link to the original and has links back to their own website's articles instead.
The 3 additional years to the current marketing deal Sony has will cover most of this generation. MS lawyers would never let them sign a deal saying forever or anything like that. Think about it, there might be a future where gamepass and Sony plus are the platform. Do they really want Sony to be like you signed a contract you have to put it on our service?
@themightyant I have never read "take games away" as having anything to do with future games. Not taking games away, for me anyways, has always meant that: if we buy The Legends of Bobby Nobody, and that game is already listed for sale on Magnavox Odyssey ZX, then that game will continue to be available on the Magnavox Odyssey ZX, and will continue to get patches.
Less made-up example: Elder Scrolls Online will continue to be supported, get patches and DLC, so that game is not being taken away.
You might not think this is one hell of a promise, and that it should be expected, but that was a question a ton of people started posing during the Bethesda acquisition, fear that games would be unlisted. You know, the way every Activision Spider-Man game was unlisted when Sony got the Spider-Man rights, for example.
Removed - unconstructive
@themightyant I don't think Phil is being two-faced, I think he's very carefully parsing his words and they don't always mean the things we tend to think they mean from inside the console war bubble.
He sugar coated his statement "several years" but it's not untrue. 3 additional years is, factually, several years. And the only reason he had to make a statement at all is because of both the legal and public scrutiny over the deal.
Jim's PR spinning of this is a whole other level though. First to come out with a [sic] "I wasn't going to say anything because I thought it was a private business discussion but Phil made it public so now I'm going to plead for support publicly, this is an outrage to take a popular game and......give a 3 year contract extension in writing on it to your main competitor......won't somebody please think of the pony children? (P.S. All your FF is belong to us.)" The innocent angel shtick from the company that spearheaded the legal march against the existence of MP3s is hilarious. The fact that he's using the fact that they've moneyhatted marketing and exclusive content for decades on this very series as a beacon of innocence that it should be guaranteed to them indefinitely is beyond the pale.
Yeah, Phil's being kind of slippery over the wording of all this to appease regulators, but Jim has taken the whole thing to another level and made it a meme. The company that pioneered buying favored dealer status behind closed doors is complaining that another company bought the supplier and is now demanding protection. You can't make this stuff up!
What's even more outrageous is that it's a contract extension, binding, in writing, for 3 years, from a primary competitor. That doesn't mean the series goes Xbox exclusive and gets pulled from sony after that, it just means that the contract guaranteeing it ends, and then may or may not continue with or without a new contract. It's just that the guarantee ends. That there even is a guarantee is highly irregular.
For a market leader to be trying to play a helpless innocent boutique role is like the worst high school drama club act I've ever seen. What's next, Embracer complaining that Sony has too many Marvel rights?
Sounds like Sony and their fans have become increasingly bitter about the Activision deal. Tough luck. If Sony wants to have their way so badly they should have bought it themselves.
@GunValkyrian Of course not, because Sony fans are by far the most toxic and entitled in the industry, and it's not even close. Double standards are routine among that crowd.
@Kaloudz i don’t think Sony would have a problem if Microsoft came out and said that. I think Sony are thinking MS are wording it as tho they’re saying COD will be on Playstation for 3 years, then that’s it. It’ll be Xbox exclusive.
Oh cool I was wondering what the Dorito Pope's thoughts were, I guess he put down Sony's water down long enough to tweet.
@SplooshDmg True that there's conflicting statements from different leaders, though, in this case, Phil has final say while he's in the chair. Only Nadela cam veto him, so it's his words that matter. Everyone else is noise other than the lawyers. He's being coy definitely. But he's also said only facts. I'm still not sure what it all means overall but what we still have is, Microsoft signed a binding contract for cod for 3 years beyond the initial agreement. Phil made public that that made a contract for "several years.". Then Jim "Beam" Ryan uses that as a springboard to launch a public campaign because "Phil made it public" to proclaim how much he doesn't like the terms of the contract his direct competitor submitted him and how poor, little, defenseless Sony Corp is being so harmed by this, while also paying for exclusivity for a number of major titles themselves? When has any executive in any industry made a public pity party over a contract?
The whole thing is embarrassing. Maybe cod is on ps on 5 years. Maybe it isn't. Sony doesn't own it. Microsoft does. And they signed a guarantee to keep it for a fixed minimum time. Public begging that he wants more than 5 years contract with a supplier after a competitor buys the supplier is.... Bizarre. Arguments about keeping games from players is hysterical from the company boosting about timed exclusives and ps exclusive Harry Potter content. Jim himself said that "exclusives will be more important this gen then ever before"... Well.... There we are.
Sure I don't expect Sony to be happy with a short term guarantee and unknown fate of a massive cash cow. But this public winging is just outrageous.
'Take games away' would mean that games that had already been made and released, or confirmed to be launching on Playstation will continue to release and/or be supported on that system.
That doesn't mean future games in these IPs that as yet have not been made or even started yet will be on Playstation. Call of Duty could be 'Exclusive' in 5yrs but CoD: Vanguard, Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops 3 etc would not be 'removed/blocked' from running on their respective Playstation.
If for example, they make 'CoD: 2027' with a new storyline and cast of characters unrelated to Black Ops, Modern Warfare etc, that is NEW game, not a sequel, not a continuation but a 'new' story and cast. A game that is made by MS owned Studios paid with MS earned money in an IP owned entirely by MS has 'NO' obligation to release on Sony owned Hardware. They can decide where the game is published and how 'everyone' can access that game. As it stands for the next few years at least - everyone can still access as long as they are on a decent enough PC, Latest gen Xbox/PS hardware - meaning Switch, Mobile, Tablet, low end PC's, even last gen console owners etc will not have access to CoD. However, in the Future, it may only get a 'release' on PC/Xbox/Cloud but instead of the '10m' PS, they are replaced by all the other platforms that can run CoD - and its not as if PS5 owners don't have 'something' they could play CoD on if that game is that important to them - just not on their 'preferred' platform but could uses their preferred controller!!
Point is, 'take games away' is referring to games already released and/or 'promised' to that Platform/customer base. Hellblade 2 and Outer Worlds 2 are not 'taken away' from Playstation because those games were never planned or promised to that platform. Those were developed and funded by MS after they acquired the Studios and the IP's.
Embracer owns Tomb Raider but that doesn't mean they own the Tomb Raider reboot trilogy. They 'own' every Tomb Raider game moving forward and can decide what Platforms they want to Publish on - even if that means they set up their own 'cloud' based service to rival Game Pass/EA Play/Ubisoftf+ etc and opt to keep it 'exclusive' to their service to get you to subscribe - like Disney+, Netflix etc That wouldn't be 'taking games away' as they never promised to release on whatever platform you 'chose' and refuse to sign up/buy whatever platform owns, develops and publishes their games for. If you want to play Sony owned IP's that they develop in house, you buy a Playstation so why shouldn't you have to buy into the MS ecosystem - either an Xbox, gaming PC/Laptop or whatever device you have that supports Cloud based Game Pass.
MS has the 'right' to decide what platforms to release their 'own' IPs, developed by their 'own' studio's with their own money - same as Sony and Nintendo too. Offering 3yrs of guaranteed parity to Sony in addition to honouring their current deal with A/B that screws over all other platforms is above and beyond requirement by law and completely unnecessary. That is 'generous'!!!
NEStalgia wrote:
Not really considering it's all to appease regulators, as was Phil's Gaming for everyone, everywhere blog post. Another slippery worded piece to try and appease both regulators, who regrettably aren't always the sharpest tools in the box - when they really should be - and who can be easily hoodwinked with a little pretend genulflexion.
Agree if regulators weren't involved it would be highly irregular, but they are so it's a moot point. That's the stage we're in right now with both trying to appeal to regulators and fans, and it's bringing out the worst in both.
Fully accept Jim Ryan is being two faced, said as much in my very first post. Though I also know your extreme stance on the man and can't have a serious conversation with you about him without it descending into him being branded the devil spawn incarnate
But it's entirely possible for them BOTH to be in the wrong here.
I've never thought a multi-platform game should have earlier access to content on one platform or another but it's a bit much if Sony think it's wrong for MS to look after its own users when they have been doing the same always.
@SplooshDmg Yeah, we've been seeing that over the long haul from MS with just about everything. The interview with that guy in legal and that other VP of business etc 2 years ago or whatever, maybe about Bethesda. There's definitely a situation at MS where nobody in different departments really knows anything and has their own version of what's going on. Right hand, left hand issues seem to plague them (which explains a lot about X1, Windows 8, etc.)
Whoever seems to speak about matters Xbox that isn't directly in the Xbox management circle seems to have a completely different idea of what the plan is than what it is. And I'm always reminded that while Phil's there the platform is great, and once Phil isn't there, we get another Jim "Zelnick" Matrick at the helm and everything goes to pot.
Brad Smith is the Chairman meaning he's appointed by the board, represents the board, and exists to please the board, and has literally zero functioning knowledge of anything day to day actually going on in the company. He says whatever the board expects from a limited knowledge of someone that has almost no functioning participation in the ongoing of the company. He knows numbers and money, not product and strategy. So, like Jim Ryan, basically. Smith probably still uses Office 95 for spreadsheets.
I mean, yeah, I don't disagree, when you have a top level suit saying strategy things that seem hawkish and against the grain of what we think we know from Phil and Satya, it sounds like disjointed leadership with different plans, but in reality Smith wouldn't really know anything about anything other than what he parses from info packets thrown at him and however he tidies it to make sense to hedge fund managers. In a company that size a chairman knows nothing but financials and how many billions to stuff into what senator's underwear, and when.
So he's ignorable, unless you're a hedge fund manager with billions on the line, or a senator with some very large underwear.
I don't disagree with the power struggle though, and that always worries me because like I said, when Phil's gone, we go back to Matrick and the party's over. There's definitely completely different directions going on from different management tiers. Heck, that's how it's always been and how X1 was what it was to begin with.
For a trillion dollar behemoth they seem to operate like a high school activities club. Though that reminds me of Bill Gates long ago saying something about he sees MS as a perpetual underdog. It sounds ridiculous but it seems kind of true, they seem to have this loose, shotgun, play as it goes sort of company culture that looks more like a startup than one of earth's biggest corporations, even decades after he said that.
All that having been said. Jim still comes across as an absolute nut here. He should be Sony's chairman, not gaming head. He has the same working knowledge. I never thought I'd see schoolyard drama from a corporate CEO publicly whining about disliking contract terms from a competitor like some sort of plea for help from Twitter to protect a multi hundred billion dollar global titan from a trillion dollar titan. And his justification is because Phil made the private deal public which also makes no sense because what Phil said publicly is exactly what was true...they extended several years. Jim's awkward outburst isn't to say that Phil lied and misrepresented the contract, which would be understandable if MS were misrepresenting deals to the public and Sony had to call foul. But no, he's not countering the claim is misrepresented. It's to complain that "YEAH AND THAT DEAL SUCKS DOOD AND NOW THE WORLD WILL KNOW WE WANT MORE THAN THAT! (hic)"
If could take Jim's self pity party more seriously if they were the champion of consumer value, sharing the wealth with all their customers over all the years and keeping the low low prices you know and love, while big evil MS trying to corporatize and decrease the value of gaming and move all the studios to China. I could see the plea to rouse the public to protect the small company giving them the value they enjoy. But it's not. He's the one that's been gouging, nickel and diming, and trying to move gaming into an expensive exotic luxury hobby while stripping every cent of value and funneling it to shareholders and MS is the one giving the store away because they can.
It's literally a public tantrum from a corporate CEO that he's not getting everything he wants and is used to getting everything. As a consumer (getting fleeced by his rising prices) how does one even react to that?
Remember when Ken Lay had to sell one of his mansions and boats after he was caught for fraud? My heart broke.
@SplooshDmg Exactly, he's spearheading the FTC talks. He handles "business" things, not product/strategy things. And to be totally fair, I doubt Satya knows much about whats going on at Xbox, and at Sony I doubt Ken Yoshida knows much about what's going on about Playstation. Those guys care about broad corporate goals and finances.....actual policy and strategy is someone else's job (Phil, Jim...err....the Janitor Jim talks to in the toilet.)
If I were to put a finer pin on it I'd say he knows the version of strategy that has been outlined by Microsoft Legal built around talking points, not the on-the-ground strategy the gaming division is actually planning. Which doesn't help the argument because that means saying one thing and doing another...but that's how these things work. FTC gets a version tailor made by legal to say the right things, not from operations.
All that having been said, I don't think Brad is wrong here, I do think they intend to continue CoD in some form on PS, I don't think they're really making CoD exclusive and I think Jim is yelling at the Cloud. More broadly I think their long term plans include dismantling the CoD factory and changing the nature of how CoD is distributed making most of this moot. But they can't just get up there and publicly say "we plan long term to implode the value of the CoD brand and repurpose the assets for another structure" because Activision is still its own company and they can't say something like that to damage their value, Sony has a marketing deal active on the product and they'd be damaging Sony's value too, and it's a strategy for years off so they can't damage their own value in the mean-time either. Brad's probably speaking truth (as provided by legal for the FTCs benefit), Phil's speaking the truth that they extended the in-writing binding contract by several years, and Jim.....IDK what Jim's doing. Pretty sure Jim doesn't know what Jim's doing. His incoherent rant is just bizarre, not least of which because he's complaining, basically, "we bought special treatment fair and square and taking that away from us is so unfair!"
I doubt Jim really thinks CoD will become XB exclusive. I think he's just throwing a tantrum that their special treatment contracts on CoD were a bottomless cash cow and now that will be taken away, to the loss of fortunes and he's flipping out because he knows the yearly numbers will be hard to recover from that on the spreadsheet.
By the time PS6 is out, will CoD even be a sales juggernaut? These things usually have a half-life (pun not intended) and I don't imagine CoD will be what it was for that time period by then. Something will replace it. (Something not made by Sony or MS.) But I just don't think MS would go the exclusive route. It doesn't make sense for them. I know some think that it would be a huge win for XB/PC to do that, but I just don't see that as the general trend of their business model. (Someone will say "Bethesda" but there's a lot of detail to that that's different.)
One thing clear from Jim's response. PS is never going to improve and step up the competition with him at the helm unless it gets WiiU level bad. He's complacent and stagnant and his solution to losing a golden cash cow is to publicly whine about not being able to buy a sales channel anymore hoping it helps him get his way. Instead of asking why they've been throwing heaps of cash at a product they don't control to buy favorite dealer status, he yells at the press that having that taken isn't fair and the government should step in to stop that so they can continue buying favorite dealer status. That's not a PS that's likely to improve any time soon. Which also bodes ill for those sneaky elements at MS going too far over time and repeating the cycle with the shoe on the other foot.
Oh totally agree on Windows and MS stuff. Those little things have been the things that have earned them their reputation since the 90's. (Lotus Notes!) The bundling of IE is what got them nailed for antitrust. Well, that plus trying to steal Java.
@SplooshDmg I can't think of any game that never fizzles out, really, other than Minecraft and Nintendo franchises. But I think it's not really comparable. Nintendo franchises are default kid friendly starter games plus nostalgia for adults. Minecraft is a pseudo edutainment title for creative types. I can't think of any other "core" game that doesn't just obsolete itself at some point. I'm not sure CoD is specifically THE game so much as it's the DEFAULT game that causal players know of and know people that play. It's hard to budge that kind of entrenchment, but, franchises just don't have that kind of staying power forever in games. Heck, genres don't. Eventually some game will have a "Game of Thrones" moment, and sweep pop culture, and then "everyone" will be playing that instead of CoD. I'm 90% sure Jim thinks it will be one of their studio's games. I'm also 90% sure he's wrong if he does. My bet is the "next big game" really comes from Tencent or Netease though. They "get" online more than even the best western online game studios. Lets not forget how Fortnite really dug into this market. There's always another Fortnite around the corner.
I agree, I'm not sure the future is totally decided yet, but in the case of the Activision deal, part of the confusion comes from the notion among many that "Microsoft wants to control CoD", when, in reality, I don't think that's the point of the sale. I still think the point of the sale was to get a massive infusion of experienced, ready-to-run studios to crank out GP content for the coming streaming war, and the badly mismanaged Activision had all those studios cranking out CoD content for years (most of which didn't even want to) which necessitates dismantling or branching out the CoD studio and scaling down its release schedule. Everyone assumes such a major sale must be for the IP, or the revenue stream, because usually that's what it's about. But in MS's case I still get the sense the purpose was to massively multiply their production capacity by multiples overnight without spending a decade getting new studios off the ground. It was turnkey capacity expansion in a market where that just doesn't exist, and was worth paying double for, because they're not buying CoD, they're buying 10-15 years studio incubation pre-made, move-in ready. But they can't SAY that until it's really all theirs, and their contracts to Jimmy are fulfilled, or traded for an open bar and a lifetime subscription for Excel.
Considering the major game release today to go with this news, and our views on it, this evergreen gif is the best way to summarize this thread:
@SplooshDmg It's true, many generic military shooters have come and gone, many a lot better than CoD, and none have dethroned it yet. But, then, kids rejected rock and roll and moved to hip hop because their parents liked rock. Eventually CoD will be uncool because kid's parents play CoD, and the tide will turn. It will be MySpace with guns. Well...more guns. Ok, basically just MySpace. Right now CoD is still cool because CoD is what edgelords with no taste play instead of unicorn colored fortnite. But then those edgelord's kids will hate it.
But yeah, I think everyone, including regulators, have a hard time grasping the actual function of the aquisition because it's really weird. Usually mergers are about consolidation and redundancy elimination, or are about acquiring IP, brands, patents, market segments, or tech desired either to keep it off the market it, or to enter/gain/strengthen a market or to vertically integrate. Or revenue streams. Acquisitions are almost never actually for the purpose of simply acquiring the production line to expand capacity. This one, I think is....and it's so unusual for a company to buy a company for no other reason than "we need more output and we need it fast, and we don't have time to build it out!" that nobody's really looking at it that way. And it's a pre-emptive strike for a competitive market that hasn't really started yet. Even though they openly say they're playing 10 moves ahead for that marketplace battle with Amazon and Google, it's hard for anyone, including regulators, to grasp that it's a purchase for production expansion to compete in a market that hasn't really started up yet, though having them look at Tencent should make it a lot more easy to understand. Maybe they can make CoD: Taiwan the next game to make the point clear.
But yeah, Activision just wasn't sustainable as a company that devours other studios and then puts them on the CoD factory floor against their will.....that's why thew were up for sale to begin with. No matter what future it has, removing half those studios from the CoD factory really is step 1 no matter what. They abandoned half their own content from Skylanders to Guitar Hero to their dozens of other IPs. They haven't been a publisher of other studios for over a decade. They were pretty much a dead single-game studio plus the devastated Blizzard. And their financials showed it. Their profits even with CoD were meager compared to expenses, and when you figure probably half of that is King, no wonder they took Jim's cash for a decade.
Yeah, you're literally not permitted to be named "sploosh" and not play Splatoon. It's just not proper. If you like Quake 1 then you're going to love Splatoon I think. It's literally the only multiplayer game I've bothered with let alone become addicted to since Q1. Halo is slow and lumbering. Splatoon plays f'n fast. It's pure digital crack.
I WANT to continue XC3 because I left it off last night with an, I kid you not, 30+ minute long anime cutscene that's pure unadulterated emotional trauma that makes AI Som look like Mario Kart. And that's where I LEFT it before putting it aside for Splatoon tonight.......sigh. But I can't miss Splatoon launch!
Yeah, I still hate achievements/trophies and will never understand the appeal at all. People are REALLY hooked on them. People have explained it...I still will never understand it.
@SplooshDmg I see 2K having the same problem, too. They literally announced they're suspending all products except one. IDK where these guys learned how to business, but I'm pretty sure it's no longer around. I'm sure GTA6 will be a cash cow, but that's a heck of a high risk plan. And I doubt Sony would ever buy them if they were failing, kind of like how Nintendo dumped Rare as soon as it wavered.
XC2 is very controversial because of how animey it is compared to the much more serious first game. I barely noticed really but there's a big contingent that hates it for that. I'm too used to it to have noticed anything but Poppy and Pyra/Mythra's wardrobe being particularly anime...but.... it has antifans. XC3 goes much more back to serious and grounded, maybe too much so. It's still XC in every way, but coming off the anime cheer of 2, 3 is very bleak. Not in a TLOU zombie survival bleak, but even more grim, everything in the game is pretty much about death and the futility of brief life. That's it. That's the game. If Frederich Nietzsche penned a video game, it would be XC3.
Splatoon = adrenaline + 90's street + Nickelodeon + pure unadulterated rage. Your hands will hurt, you'll hate the internet, Nintendo, and everything else, but you'll grin in between fits of rage.
My brain is wired such that I can't even understand how a brain can be wired to care at all about those digital pings. The only time I've had fun with achievements was AI Som. Because nobody actually finished the game, or even played it after starting it on GP, every single achievement was a rare achievement of under 8% completion so I just kept getting that diamond sound just for playing a VN and it was hilarious.
@SplooshDmg It's the Internet and countercultural prudishness is all the rage with the kiddos. I hear Amish fashion is the next big thing for high school.
@SplooshDmg if you ever get Splatoon just turn off the community messages. It's plugged into Instagram..... So.... Yeah.... It has some gems and the rest is a cesspool. Originally it was meant for miiverse and was almost tame. Today the plaza consists if 50% gender politics for no reason, 20% dank memes, 20% inappropriate awkward statements, and 10% game related or fun quips.
At least it's not like cod with squeaky pre teens shouting.
@SplooshDmg I......I really have no counter to that....
@SplooshDmg tms fe is totes amaze.... You're going to love it. Don't let Mousie tell you otherwise.
Catherine, I couldn't get into. I liked qbert back in the day but Catherine just didn't click. I also didn't like either Catherine very much so it was hard to engage with the story. Rin is likeable in full body, but, rins story just goes way weird, and you have to follow a guide to answer the questions just right to get to it.
@SplooshDmg The dungeons are decent. The idol nonsense is a delight. Mousie is jaded that tsubasa can do anything with a pep talk. Ralizah just hates it. I think it's one of my favorite games of all time I imported the soundtrack.... And actually listen to it..... nothing like it will ever exist again and that makes me sad.
Lol that's nothing like the cabaret club. That's actuall skill unlocks, side quests and story. Rapunzel obsession is like mini console addiction . Idk, I just couldn't get into the gameplay and disliking all the Catherine's removed any story motive to play.
@SplooshDmg I would not have guessed you to be a physical collector.
...although I have the collectors edition of WiiU TMS#FE. WATA eat your heart out.
I'm as bad as you and Catherine and Q2 with Splatoon. I have a dozen JRPGs to play, and what am I doing? "Just a few more rounds of Splatoon" and 20 rounds later I'm still playing the same maps with the same weapons I was 8 years ago. Just WHY? It hooks you darnit! I hate online games, I don't "get" SoT, but doggone it Splatoon just hits your OCD in all the right ways.
@SplooshDmg meh-meh-meh friend complain for much nothingness. Digital switchie plentiful of adequacies.
Lol, I know you. You will get consumed by Splatoon. Splatoon is love. Splatoon is life. Callie is best sqaifu, all other opinions are wrong. Become the madness! Embrace your inner woomy. #SplooshRevoloosh.
Tap here to load 73 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...