ValentineMeikin

Sony are cherry-picking particular issues they have. How this reads to me as is...

"Microsoft managed to make a hugely successful multi-platform game-sharing service with nearly a thousand games available year-round, with the actual game running on actual hardware, while we're using enforced streaming for 80% of a much smaller service. Woe is us."

No, Sony, the CMA and such aren't going to get Microsoft to downsize XBOX Game Pass so you're back being the biggest service around.

If they did, I bet you that Sony would swoop in and 'save' ABK from bankruptcy due to the fact the company would tank in value, and the first thing they'd do would be to restrict Call Of Duty on Microsoft in some way.

@themightyant Wrong. It's ALL about Call Of Duty. You look at Sony's statements when they come out, every few words is about Call Of Duty, and how it's market dominance is 'unparalleled'.

This is the same Sony who penned a deal to get the next Final Fantasy on a six month exclusivity deal and still holds FF7 Remake to ransom. But that's never brought up.

They can clearly do something like that, but Microsoft are breaking the law to buy out Call Of... Ahem, I mean ActiBlizz.

Yet Again, the same 'criticisms' of Microsoft's purchase of ABK. That they'll restrict and block people from playing video games on their choice of system... when it's clearly Sony exaggerating the impact of it to make it sound like 80% of the games sold every year are Call Of Duty on PS4/PS5, and the other 20% are everyone else.

FFS, We know from other articles that Sony demanded Microsoft don't give themselves early access swag or XGP access and perks for an indefinite period, having made a clause in their contract Microsoft must follow...

But Sony continue to drag Microsoft's name through the dirt to get them to sit down with them and offer them 'kindly' absolute control of Call Of Duty until the heat death of the universe in exchange for telling the regulators the deal is good.

It's like a certain situation in Russia. Capitulate and give them far more than they deserve or they'll continue to beat the war drums.

Sony's whole reason for delaying and delaying the deal going through is since they adore the fact they can just waltz into ABK's offices and get a bunch of free stuff for their players on Call Of Duty.

They've even negotiated for CoD to remain off Game Pass during the 'golden year' of first release, since it's the best they CAN do outside of forcing Microsoft to back out.

Microsoft have the best deal, and it's one Sony can't equal, so Sony are making it out to be a terrible deal so they can buy CoD for chump change a decade from now.

@UltimateOtaku91 What I think they mean is that we should have like in Balan Wonderworld, where each system got their own exclusive version of a costume.

Like the Hogwarts Legacy pack could have a different set of spells and cosmetics in the exclusive store for each system, but they all get the exclusive store, it's not just an empty storefront on anything other than Playstation.

That's the galling thing. '...on anything other than Playstation'.

And why the CMA investigation is BS.

The best improvement, I feel, would be to add a second Home screen customization option.

For example, for some people, they might want a ticker that shows the next three or four Game Pass games and another that shows the games they play either most or least.

While another person might want a ticker that shows the top four players who are in his friend list on achievement hunting and another that shows them ten or so 'recommended' achievements.

Forcing us to interleave our pinned games with things that are 'curated' as things 'everyone' wants removes some level of free agency. Let us pick what we want to see, so that, between our pinned games, we have the information we want, clear as day.

The way they put this, and this is reading into it...

Jim Ryan is trying to say that Microsoft will put Call Of Duty exclusively on Game Pass in 2025/2026, and that they are just itching to deny Sony any exclusive maps or other content.

Phil Spencer instead has just laid it out plain to see... Sony has put a golden parachute into the ABK Call Of Duty deal, to ensure that Microsoft can't possibly do exactly what he's afraid of.

Literally, Jim Ryan's posturing means nothing when Microsoft can point out in the uber-small print that the newest Call Of Duty CANNOT be on Game Pass until after Sony have taken two-thirds of the cake and walked off with it.

With games like Call Of Duty, people only rarely play the older games, only loyalty to a particular map or mode making them do so. Sony just guaranteed that Microsoft only gets to put on Game Pass the emancipated corpse after they've picked the customer base clean.

As quite a few people have said... 'Native' ports to X|S means a completely different thing to a PS5 port. Playstation consoles have, notoriously, needed you to completely rewrite the game for each generation, while XBOX consoles...
I have perfectly working games that originally released on the OG XBOX on my Series X|S console.

There's probably quite a bit more than just support for Quick Resume in an XBOX Series X|S port, with the XBOX One version of Witcher infamously having you in the preload 'void' for a second due to loading screens breaking on X|S.
But it doesn't require a developer to be coding in two different languages that mean the same thing just to make an ancient game run in 4K/120FPS.

Atlus understood one thing...

Release the most wanted (on other platforms) game first, wait until Christmas ends, then release the rest, knowing it'll take all year for people to finish.

@Would_you_kindly The major difference was that SF5 was trumpeted as the go-to game for the Capcom Pro Tour and other Capcom-sponsored tournaments. Sony wanted to get into the pro tournament circuit and effectively forced everyone to be using one system.

Notably, Street Fighter 6 doesn't have the same restriction. Wonder why?

@themightyant

You're saying that [Microsoft] buying Bethesda, buying ABK, buying... whatever studio is next... is somehow ten times worse than one of the most anticipated remakes in RPG history hasn't even had a whiff of release scheduling on XBOX.

Street Fighter 5 was not a timed exclusive or a limited exclusive, it was an absolute exclusive. Sony don't own Capcom, they're not even planning to buy Capcom, but they still, for no reason other than that they could, bought Street Fighter 5 permanently.

Microsoft and Nintendo have first party developers, where it's understandable why they're exclusive. Square Enix and Capcom don't belong to any of the big three... but Sony is still buying indefinite exclusivity from developers who aren't under their umbrella, which is anti-competition, plain and simple.

In comparison, did Microsoft get Deathloop at release because they bought the company? No, they honoured existing agreements.

Tell me where in Microsoft's statement they say they're going to force Sony to sacrifice one of their first party titles just to get a Playstation Plus perk or two or into the beta for the next Crash or Spyro title.

Because I don't see it. Skyrim Special Edition dropped on Switch in the last few weeks, and last I knew, they weren't Microsoft. I see the same with ABK. Exclusivity isn't on the table.

@themightyant Yeah, Sony haven't done anything wrong... Bull.

Sony recently had scrutiny put on the fact it's bought rolling exclusivity on the Final Fantasy games, and Street Fighter 5 was completely exclusive. There's a list of games Microsoft are waiting for the publisher to tell them 'OK, You can have them now'.

Deathloop was published by Bethesda while the deal was going on, and Microsoft honoured the exclusivity until the year was up, then, well, we got it in the last couple of months. That shows to me that Microsoft will keep to deals in play, and won't make games exclusive to Microsoft.

If they were going to, the deal would have already collapsed. Sony likely are preparing to get their lawyers to slice a nice big CoD shaped chunk out of the ABK deal, for as little of their own money as possible, and if they manage it...

I bet you 100 of anyone's currency that the exclusive content will get worse and worse on the CoD games after they forced a settlement in their favour.

Microsoft: "Here's our vision, plain and simple, and in language a five-year-old could understand."

Nintendo: "We've been good with Microsoft, even made some good deals back when Rare was bought out, and more recently over Cuphead and Minecraft. We know things will be good when this happens."

Sony: "Have they yet sold us the Call Of Duty license? No? OK, Next regulator!"

Seriously, all this is doing is highlighting that there's a problem and the solution isn't coming. Both the Killer Instinct guy and FH4 guy wouldn't last five minutes in an active game with support, but that's the whole point.

It's almost like they're going 'I own this game now, not the developers. You do what I say you are going to do, and that's it.'

And that's the crying shame.

Guy 1: "Let's give them a perk that silences them..."
Guy 2: "I added a ping sound so they can still hear themselves..."
Guy 1: "You did remember to keep it to just their client's audio?"
Guy 2: "No, why?"
[Dope slap]

I think cross-play in general is a good way to inject new life into an old property, plus PSO2 especially had a lot of PS4 players from the JP version waiting for the EN version to get to them.

I can agree there. The nature of XBOX Live Gold in the past was a pain and a half. Add to it the fact that, in the last couple of generations, Sony hasn't liked to share with Microsoft, but Microsoft has been ready to bury the hatchet.

Look at the fall of Phantasy Star Universe for why Microsoft, way back in the past, barely got online games.

This is not anything to do with the current... situation.

Final Fantasy XIV was planned for PC and PS3 from the start, but the original PS3 client was binned since the PC release was a disaster.

Admittedly, Phantasy Star Online 2 shows the difference between when Microsoft buy a game and when Sony do, and why I see Sony's rhetoric is what's dragging the ABK deal down.

Compare Microsoft's last few E3 to Sony's.

Microsoft have many more games, and don't even try to trumpet about exclusivity, outside of 'Day 1 Game Pass'.

Sony's trumpet about the handful of games they have some exclusive bait content to get people to buy.

Microsoft are in a situation where they win by attending conventions. They already dominate the market... because Sony just sits there pretending they're still relevant.

This whole CMA situation is Sony making themselves relevant, by pretending they're still a Big Thing within gaming. That they didn't burn their Japanese market share with censorship and their US market by just laying out tent poles...

Microsoft brings a circus to town whenever they arrive. Sony just brings the performers, brings the spectacle... but they're standing around in an empty field with huge poles where the tent should be.

@Titntin The problem here is the fact Brazil released enough, into the public eye, to show that the easiest way to solve all this would be for Sony to front an acceptable amount and effectively buy Call Of Duty.

Yes, they might run it into the ground and turn it into a white elephant, but it would stop Jim Ryan and his lawyers from claiming everywhere that Call Of Duty going to Microsoft would cause the end of the world!

@GamingFan4Lyf Exactly. If Sony were harping about Overwatch AND Call Of Duty AND Crash Bandicoot AND... etc, I'd accept their 'think of the gamers' line. But every single time I see their argument, I take a swig of water every time they mention Call of Duty and it's Playstation legacy... and be thankful it's not alcohol.

It would be like if Microsoft made an acquisition attempt on DC Universe Online's developer, and Sony complained that they MADE the game in the first place.

@GamingFan4Lyf You look at the Brazil filings, and everyone else is going 'Uhh, no, we don't see a problem here...' while Sony are going 'Call Of Duty is the biggest FPS in history, and has a long history of multi-platform releases'...

If Microsoft's deal with ActiBlizz went through tomorrow, Johnny PC would still get COD and Jimmy XBOX of course would get COD. But Joey Playstation... He might not, so he's sad. And Jenny Switch just looks puzzled and goes back to playing Doom.

@Tharsman That's the point. FF7 Remake, Deathloop, several other games, Sony paid for 'limited exclusivity'. Street Fighter 5, they bought the entire game... and it was one of Capcom's biggest disasters going, due to being neither a casual fighter or something they could use for tournaments freely...

And as a result, Street Fighter 6 completely reinvents the wheel entirely.

@Snake_V5 Ha ha ha... NOPE. I'd have believed you... 12 hours ago, then we saw one of the most jaw-dropping displays of open support for Microsoft from Japan and Asia in recent history, and that argument became meaningless. So, I wish to ask you one thing...

When will Microsoft see a port of Street Fighter 5, considering that we're getting the CBT for Street Fighter 6 next month, meaning it's definitely NOT confidence in the XBOX brand that's kept SF5 off the console...

How I'm seeing the CMA situation...

Microsoft: "We've got the entire industry in Brazil and other areas singing our praises."
CMA: "Sony came to us and claimed that your reasons for buying Activision Blizzard were to deny Sony Call Of Duty..."
Microsoft: "But..."
CMA: "Sony want it in writing that they will have Call Of Duty until 2100 at least, with no Game Pass exclusive content..."
Sony: (whispers)
CMA: "Oh yes, and a six month exclusive on Call Of Duty Zombies mode."
Microsoft: "We refuse!"
CMA: "Alright, we're taking it to the EU courts for your clearly unprofessional behaviour."

@Banjo- They have a really good thing going with the way they implemented the interface for Windows 8 onwards, with the panels being a pull-out panel on the side of the start menu.

The XBOX has always been suffering from a touch screen interface on a console. What I'd love is if that icon in the corner of the screen unfolded to 'Games', 'Apps', 'Settings', with Games calling up something similar to what we had with Game Pass and other subscription services, a set of all the panels for every game we could play, and 'Apps' doing the same.

Otherwise, we have the same as we currently have in the middle of the start screen, using small or medium panel sizes, scrolling across the top or bottom of the screen, the Game Card, with optional transparency, unfolding as we select them.

That allows there to be a massive area for the showing off of wallpapers, and a much tidier interface.

Good changes -

• Possibly put the Start Menu and toolbar from Windows on XBOX, either placing it at the top or as a pull-out side element.
• Use pull out menus in general, giving us the entire 'desktop' for whatever we're looking at.
• If we're forced to always have that 'recommendation' bar, a better use might be to lock the Quick Resume 'group' to that area and/or the top three games that are run on the console.

Microsoft: "We have offered a generous deal to keep Call Of Duty published on Playstation, despite [Sony] publishing their second party titles exclusive on their system."

Sony: "We want to extend that deal to perpetuity, exclusive maps, exclusive modes and a guarantee that it won't be on XBOX Live for at least six months after launch... and Playstation Plus can have it at launch."

Microsoft: "It will belong to us within a year..."

Sony: "Not if you don't give us that deal it won't..."

I will point out that 343 have given us the most important part of the game experience NOW, with the only commitment being to buying the Battle Pass by it's free expiry date to be able to assign progress to it indefinitely.

I'm wondering how Forge will work with this model, since that is intrinsically linked to multiplayer.

Sure, Let's go out on a limb and do like Medium seems to be doing, and forbid XBOX One entirely from getting these oh-so-demanding games.
When Phantasy Star Online 2 releases the NGS Upgrade, Anyone on the XBOX One family remains on the current client, while anyone on PC or a Series console gets the updated version, and New Genesis itself is incompatible with XBOX One.
The next Forza, Perfect Dark, all those hugely anticipated games, let's encourage people to get at least a Series S, it's not that expensive...
Looking through The Game Awards, EVERYTHING Microsoft announced is way too detailed for the weak XBOX One!...

OK, Now I'll be serious. Yes, Cyberpunk 2077 released in an incredibly sorry state, and a couple of other games have had signs of optimization missteps.
But to declare 'Oh no! The XBOX One is no longer powerful enough! Cancel [Insert huge AAA title here] on the XBOX One!' reminds me of the debacle that happened at the launch of Arkham Knight on PC, where there was practically no optimization.
People were furious that their way overclocked gaming PCs weren't getting butter-smooth 60 FPS on that one game.
Now, apparently, gamers are kneejerk reacting to a massive optimization fail, that affects both PS5 and XBOX One, and asking for THE biggest XBOX title of 2021 to skip anyone who hasn't upgraded yet.
I could seriously see whiners asking for things like I wrote above, and Sony fanboys asking for a similarly huge title to skip the PS5 for a similar reason. And they'd likely be wrong.
Halo Infinite COULD, more than likely, have launched tomorrow if they focused on feedback from the non-interactive demo, and only did enough optimization to hit targets on an XBOX Series X. But they instead are trying to hit targets on as much as possible, to get the game to as many of the fans as possible.
Yes, Cortana might not look as translucent, and the Chief's visor might not be as shiny, but I just want to go out and kill things. I don't need 8K at 60FPS to do that. I just need to know the game's coming in a few months.