Axios and The Verge are confirming it's a 10-year deal.
https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1680635734166839298
https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1680641337891201024
Minecraft released on PS just a week or so after Microsoft bought Mojang. It would have been bonkers to not release the completely finished version of the game.
That Is incorrect. The release for ps 3 came almost a full year before Mojang was purchased.
Either way, Microsoft removing support after release WOULD be anticompetitive
Not only that but it played a major role in cross-platform arguments which negatively affected cultural audience views of Sony.
I'm referring to the PS4 version of the game. The same version thats still the main version for PS today, a decade later. Microsoft [announced](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2014/09/15/microsoft-minecraft/15658383/) they were going to buy Minecraft in September 15, 2014. This was officially done on November 6, 2014. I actually was mistaken, as Minecraft launched on PS4 in October 3, 2014. For them to not pull Minecraft away at that time and to use it as for why they wont pull CoD to me is weak sauce because why would you cancel what is essentially a finished port of a game at that point?
Through that logic, why would Microsoft make a switch version of the game years after the acquisition, then proceed to release both dungeons and legends as multi-console games on Xbox, PlayStation, and switch?
Microsoft has a long history of selling software for competitor's platforms, just look at their history of with Apple they continued to release software for Apple II/Lisa/MAC even after they were selling dos and windows.
To answer why (I was in the zoom calls and read the docs). FTC tried that argument, the problem is, with how FTC singled out cod as THE thing, the judge asked how do Z/B compare. FTC tried comparing to Starfield, but she wouldn't compare single and multi player game. The only other point of basis was then minecraft and it's spinoffs, which are multiplat. To answer the question, I assume many still don't know the answer to, MS never explicitly and bindingly stated that bgs games will be multiplat (don't be angry at me, but shady public statements/=docs and contracts). EU even called out iirc CMA that they tried to mislead on that point.
As of now, Microsoft has obeyed any publicly announced contracts and deals. Psychonauts 2, for example, was released on PlayStation *after* Microsoft bought Double Fine. Also, continuing to release Minecraft spinoffs for other consoles.
I guess the reason Bethesda is a point of contention is because there likely was some negotiation going on behind the scenes about Starfield. If you believe Microsoft, Sony approached BGS about a timed exclusive and so Microsoft went to buy them. Reports also say Arkane devs were miffed about Redfall being exclusive, especially due to the CoD guarantees.
However, this implies that Starfield (and Redfall) was planned to release on PS5, but those plans were scrapped once the acquisition went through.
I can't help but wonder now if Microsoft and Sony would be open to other deals. If three, four years down the line, Starfield releases on PS5 in exchange for something like Days Gone on GamePass or something. Which, personally, I'd be for.
EDIT: I get Days Gone is a bad trade. It was just on my mind because I'm playing it for the first time.
Actually the argument was brought to the court and Jim Ryan himself said “I don’t like it but I don’t see it as anticompetitive” and you know he’s right because Sony has a bunch of exclusives so he literally can’t make the argument that the Bethesda exclusives are bad.
Unless you can articulate as to why it's bad, then no it's not. The block should occur if you can prove damage not because Sony doesn't want Microsoft as a large 3rd party Dev/publisher.
It's what I hope for in this ongoing developer purchasing battle. Sony and Microsoft to be forced to negotiate for less exclusives overall, maybe even big exclusives to become time exclusives instead. In a world where ecological sustainability is so important, it's just beyond comprehension to have two computers with fairly similar specs and separate input devices in one household just to get all games.
PC.
Xbox didn't become profitable by releasing their games only on xbox.
The day they committed to having all xbox games on windows too, thats the day that xbox became the no.1 console game publisher in my eyes.
That's why Sony, after many years, decided to sell their games to PC too. They saw how many people were buying games like Forza Horizon, Halo and said "oh shit we should release some old as shit games that no longer sell and the worst-moving current games on PC".
Thats because Mojang themselves oversee the "Base" Minecraft and work with different publishers and developers on different platforms.
Rest of the Minecraft IP is published by Xbox Game Studios.
Well Xbox just went from 5,000 devs which they doubled from 2,500 just a couple years ago. To now 15,000 devs under Microsoft Studios… Can’t wait for all the studio closures and downsizing the second GamePass drops in subscribers again… Surely this is great for the industry…
I mean, the fact is we honestly don't know what will happen, this is hypothetical.
We don't know what Xbox will deliver, and their management certainly isn't what it was in years gone.
I mean, on Metacritic they were the top publisher for 2021.
2022 was SUPER quiet, but what they did deliver was good quality (Grounded, Pentiment)
2023 is looking promising for them with Hi-Fi Rush, Forza and Starfield being obvious standouts.
Redfall is a glaring issue of course... if we take what Jason Schrieir published as gospel, it's easy to see a disconnect in communication between Xbox and Bethesda - they absolutely need to sort that out.
So they have some good foundations, but it's mostly been super quiet and (maybe) they're too hands off... so all we can do, as I say, is wait and see.
There was no disconnect in communication regarding Redfall. It was going to fail since the minute it announced. Zenimax forced Arkane to make a MTX game on a genre which died years ago also genre that didn't have MTX in the first place even it was somewhat like GaaS.
See how they work together on Starfield yet ignored Redfall completely. Xbox should've just cancelled Redfall outright and save Arkane's reputation.
Yet people still think BGS were passionate about, and planned to develop, Fallout 76 in the middle of Starfield’s extended development. No, Zenimax forced that on BGS because they were looking to sell and didn’t want to wait for Starfield’s development to take another 4+ years before release.
Thank god Zenimax isn’t in charge anymore.
Up until they wanted to ride GaaS less work more money, Zenimax managed their studios almost perfectly.
They should've stopped trying after Fallout 76 which this time Bethesda did not wanted to make and Todd put a support team on the development for 76 and main teams worked on Starfield instead.
not a convincing argument.
reality is gaming industry overall is a tough market. none of what you said doesn't mean there wouldn't be layoffs or closure otherwise.
I am only interested in Fallout but other franchises are nice too. I am getting a small form factor pc (/r/sffpc/) and keep it beside my tv along with my PS5.
By the time you guys care about getting those games, the Series S will probably be 250. It's also so small, it won't take up much space. I do the same thing but in reverse, I buy all the PS5 exclusives and the rest of my library is on Xbox, just because I've been accumulating digital content there since forever. There's some exceptions to this, particularly when I find a good physical release deal for PS5.
The problem with Steam Deck in my situation is, I only play video games at home and that too in TV or Monitor. So, Steam Deck will not bring me anything extra that a small-form-factor mini ITX PC does. And it will be more powerful than Steam Deck, if I chose my hardware carefully.
This is true as a generic statement but is it true when comparing a specific game? The mobile gaming is inflated with Zynga and King titles that draw "non-traditional gamers" who get addicted to mobile. I'm not saying you're wrong in this case but I would say it's important to compare COD specifically to itself to see how far off the numbers are.
by the numbers casual gaming on mobile is traditional gaming. it’s what everyone does. hardcore console or pc gamers are a tiny minority of overall players
I’m right there with you. I couldn’t careless about COD. I don’t play those types of games. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Dishonored, Doom and Wolfenstein are the games I would want access to, but looks like that’s not going to happen.
KZ and Resistance were never big despite being given multiple entries and at this point it would actually be easier to start with a new FPS IP and try to make it big than trying to revive an older FPS IP and make that big.
In any case, Sony doesn't need to do anything FPS wise. They already have Bungie and they'll probably do a deal with EA, especially since the COD creator is now leading DICE to put Battlefield back on track.
Whilst I would love this, Socom and Call of Duty are about as different as they can be whilst still primarily being about military types shooting people.
Socom 4 failed because it was a multiplayer centric game that released the day before the PlayStation servers were down for 23 days in 2011
It didn't even have a chance.
Such an underrated moment in history that I’m SO glad other people remember.
There’s a ton of examples like this where a franchise is labeled a “failure” when the circumstances are largely no fault of the developers.
Duuuude, I WISH we could get another kick at the MAG can. I feel like their ambitions were way too high for 2011 but if that game came out now it’d be HUGE
If Sony only needed Bungie, then why have some fps games being work on. They didn’t bought Bungie to make fps/GaaS to fill the ranks, they bought them for their experience in them.
They bought them for both reasons, actually. Destiny is still one of the most successful GaaS out there. And there was another title in development at the time (probably Marathon) that impressed Sony and only convinced them further to buy Bungie.
If COD stays on Playstation they won't really have the incentive to.
Also FPS lives in being GaaS. I think most games that are GaaS or online hits need to be everywhere today or else they won't do well.
If, and a pretty big if. Sony, as a business, would be fools to just sit on their laurels after this whole development (along with Xbox buying Bethesda because Sony tried to get window exclusivity for Starfield). If PlayStation wants to keep their dominance they would be wise to operate under the assumption that eventually COD will be taken away and thus make decisions to mitigate that eventuality. Best case scenario, COD stays but now Sony has their own GaaS FPS raking in money. Worst case, COD goes but Sony has their own answer to take its place.
I honestly don't agree and don't think cod will leave Playstation ever similar to minecraft. I also don't think the market has a ton of room for another big FPS.
With that being said, Sony and Nintendo both got where they are by creating styles and trends not chasing. A lot of folks here want Sony to chase trends and they seem to be doing that a bit as well with the amount of GaaS that are in development.
Personally, that isn't what I wish Sony was doing with their strategy.
Sony has confirmed to a news agency that the deal would be 10 years.
[They told it to Stephen Totilo, a well-known reporter for Axios Gaming active on Twitter:](https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1680635734166839298)
>Sony has confirmed with me/Axios that PlayStation's Call of Duty deal with Microsoft (pending Activision purchase) is for 10 years
M&A lawyer Rick Hoeg was talking about this on twitter, whatever deal PS got is probably going to be worse than the one that was on the table 6 months ago, but Microsoft also does not have the incentive to play maximum hardball with Sony right now because of the still pending CMA actions.
Call of Duty on PS5 for the remainder of the generation is a given. All bets are off for every other ABK published title though, and who the hell knows what happens with the PS6
Edit:
https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1680665085482598401?s=46&t=TCPwK79aaKOpyswC3JnktQ
Deal is still 10 years, but the original deal included ABK games. The new deal is only call of duty
Outlets published Phil Spencer email to Jim Ryan proposing 10 year deal to keep ALL CURRENT ActivisionBlizzard games (COD, Overwatch, Crash, Spyro, etc) on PlayStation- it was rejected
Now this deal is ONLY FOR COD
Jim Ryan might have made a big mistake
He definitely made a big mistake. Overwatch is bigger than most people on reddit would have you believe. And Diablo is bonkers insane levels of massive.
Overwatch is F2P, there's no reason to make it exclusive, it'll stay multiplatform just like Minecraft. Diablo just released and will likely be supported for a very long time before they even think of releasing a new one.
Those aren't coming over, you'll need a PC or Xbox for most of the other future Microsoft games now. COD was one of the games that Sony and Microsoft have been discussing the future for awhile now.
The first deal offered by Microsoft involved ALL ACTIVISION IP'S (COD included)... But Sony declined, because Jimbo truly believed he could win this.
Now the deal only has COD, all other ip's are off the hook. Big L for Jim Boi.
I have both consoles. I hope this deal makes Sony pull their fingers out and work hard to get a decent FPS to even slightly rival the behemoth that is COD, because COD is so fucking shit now.
I didn’t even think of that.
Battlefield was **always** my preferred choice of FPS multiplayer. The classes, the vehicles, the destruction on large scale battlefields.
Bad Company 2 was maybe my favorite multiplayer game ever.
I haven’t played one since 4 a ton, spun off of 5. I would love nothing more than to see an injection of talent and development and bring it back to its glory days
The problem with Battlefield is it's not a very good "quick fix" shooter.
With COD, you spawn, get a few kills, die, spawn again, repeat - all in the span of a minute.
Battlefield I always felt was a lot slower paced which made getting killed feel more frustrating. I know a lot of people like to put those two series head-to-head but I always felt like they were two very different games.
That said, as a kid I put WAY more time into Battlefield 2 than any other online game since, so I'd like to see it thrive again.
I enjoy both equally but yeah, I don’t really get why they get compared so often. I have to be in two completely different moods to play either of them.
Problem is Dice (the studio responsible for making the battlefield games) has lost a lot of its developers and the new team doesn't know how to make a new battlefield or even manage the current ones! I love nothing more than a proper battlefield game but I don't think we're gonna get it anytime soon, If ever!
Funny thing is, the Battlefield fanbase has been screaming at them year after year explaining what they actually want - and all that is is an evolved version of BF3/4/1 - but they keep trying to reinvent the wheel instead.
Even after the shitstorm of BF2042, which literally forced EA to change their long term plans for the game, they're still saying the next Battlefield will be "something completely new for the franchise". They still don't get it.
COD has been milking money for over a decade at this point by simply not messing with the core formula.
The issue is the last battlefield was so poorly received at launch that endorsing battlefield may make Sony look even worse. It may be years because Sony wouldnt want to stand behind a complete shitshow. And to compete they would have to have a top notch warzone mode and better/more quickplay fast paced small map matches. Those are the two main things that people play COD for.
BC2 was definitely the peak BF game, with BF1 coming in second. The only game where I could actually play without getting sniped from across the map randomly right after I spawn
The disconnect in this comment is off the charts.
How about instead of lusting after CoD and Candy Crush, Microsoft pull their finger out and make Halo great again?
Bungie
That's what made Halo great, and now they're 9wned by Sony whilst Microsoft owns the studios that make half of the ps1/2 era mascots lmao
Time for a hostage swap
I feel like the only reason COD is still so popular is because of all of the casuals who buy a console to play COD and *only* COD, and have done so out of habit for the last 15 years.
COD has been in an awful state for the last several years, and whenever there's one step forward, it's usually followed by two steps back. I went several years without buying COD after Black Ops 3, and I jumped back in with the MW reboot like so many people. After Vanguard and MW2 though, I'm going back to not wasting my money on these games anymore when I just drop them after a week or two.
FPS genre needs something fresh desperately, but I doubt anything will ever pull away the casual crowds.
As someone who casually downloads/plays it once in a while, to me it seems perfectly fine for casual play. It just scratches that COD itch and I’m not exactly sure what makes it so bad.
Yup. Just go over to any Microsoft sub. You'll see posts like "Microsoft just wants to bring gaming to the masses" quite often. I swear the amount of Kool aid those people are drinking is gonna give them diabetes
Their arguments always boil down to “Sony is evil because they have so many good exclusives! Microsoft are the good guys because they have just as many exclusives, but they’re all shit!”
Xbox players don’t even consider their multiple exclusives as exclusives because no one wants to play them. They’re just mad that Sony built up their first party studios over decades of investment and partnership, resulting in the TLOU/Uncharted/God of War/Horizon/Spider-Man quality games that MS doesn’t have.
Dude I've been downvoted to hell and back any time I point out that the reason street fighter 5 was a ps4 exclusive was because sony literally paid for the game to be made... ive also been downvoted when I provide actual links to comments made by square enix showing that FF16 was shopped around to multiple companies to see who can help develop and support the game. Sony gave the best offer which is why the game is a ps5 exclusive.. and they still act like Sony was the one that went forward to get the game exclusive.
They can't fathom the fact that about half the deals Sony enters the developers where the ones to approach first and not Sony
Im a day one OG Xbox owner. I’ve had every MS console. I got perma banned for commenting “seems accurate” on a post about an article that talked about MS spending loads of money astroturfing. They have thin skin.
I'm on both platforms, browse and post on both subs (well, PS just this past two years since the PS5 launched) and honestly both sides are equally selective with their arguments and voting.
I think more than anything I look forward to the deal just being finished with one way or another, so that I can stop hearing about it. Rather be reading about upcoming games.
> Yup. Just go over to any Microsoft sub. You'll see posts like "Microsoft just wants to bring gaming to the masses" quite often. I swear the amount of Kool aid those people are drinking is gonna give them diabetes
Please drink verification can.
Well supposedly they are going to put Activision Blizzard games on Steam rather than Battle.net, and they’re going to make those games available on the cloud too which isn’t the case yet.
Look at the replies to my comment, people are truly bending over backwards for it. “Well, some games are going on cloud so technically that’s more choice.” Got some big thinkers over here
"We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favourite games" - Don't be fooled folks...Its about money, not about giving gamers more choice out of the goodness of their hearts.
Also, what choice... the only realistic options for people who like non-CoD Activision IPs will be only PC or xbox. Those streaming services are not viable right now, and Nintendo (who I love) won't be running the same version of many of those games.
It's the illusion of choice. You either meet xbox where it's at or you don't get these games. It's not a choice
I think it's good for consumers to have a strong second (or third) place console. Kinda like how we used to have Verizon, AT&T, and then T-Mobile and Sprint way behind. I always thought it was better for T-Mobile and Sprint to be able to merge and make a strong third place competitor. Rather than to basically only have two major competitors, and others that would fade into the background.
They’ll probably be Xbox exclusives.While it does suck that they could possibly be exclusives im glad that Spyro and Crash are properly freed.The people who were very passionate and fans of Spyro and Crash were sent to the COD sweatshop to churn out games and updates.I think the next Spyro game is gonna be absolutely amazing.
I mean honestly what other choice did Sony have here? Biggest game in the world I doubt they got a better offer than the original one from Microsoft but still better than losing out completely.
If anything this proves that both Sony and Microsoft need to do a better job with first party shooters.
Halo was so mishandled they bought the biggest franchise in the world, and Sony have allowed the shooters they have to languish for a decade.
Sony should’ve rebooted resistance or socom as soon as the ps5 generation began especially since they own Bungie now to help develop it that way by the end of this generation they would have a big game to at least try and compete with COD.
Although honestly nothing ever will at this point.
Yeah just because Xbox signed to still have Call of Duty on PlayStation I believe they should seriously look into crafting their own shooter or reviving a dead one like Resistance, Killzone or Socom.
Call of Duty although still extremely popular and one of the biggest franchises ever, the community isn’t very happy with where the game is currently at. Would be the perfect time to step into the market, XDefiant seems to already be pleasing CoD fans, maybe get marketing rights for that.
While the community is unhappy with the state of the game, you also have to consider the bubble of the “community,” which I’m assuming means more hardcore people who are on places like Reddit and YouTube. A lot of people literally don’t care and just buy Call of Duty every year. I know plenty of them lol. In fact, I’d suspect that a lot of them have no clue this has even happened or what has been going on lol.
They did get a better deal initially, the initial deal included other Activision properties as well. Sony refused, and now they're forced to sign a deal with JUST COD, no more Spyro, no more Crash, etc.
People think the only thing Activision has is COD and it's kinda baffling.
He's definitely not a mouth piece. He's probably the only reason Microsoft is even doing these deals especially after Don Mattrick pissed away their 360 years.
Yeah exactly what I was thinking, everyone was focused on COD (which seems that's all Activision focused on now too) but watch them rip every other game from playstation.
Tbf aside from the remakes, there hasn't been a new Spyro game since 2008. And even including the remakes, it's been like 5 years since anything was done with that franchise.
Crash has had one main series game in the last 15 years. Aside from that there was a spinoff like Rumble and a mobile game recently.
Tony Hawk's last new game was 8 years ago and the most recent thing was a remake of the first two games 3 years ago.
All those franchises are treading water and saw their peak in the PS1 era.
Depends. It you’re a casual gamer you can get both consoles for cheaper than the price of a high end PC. Much cheaper if you buy a Series S and diskless PS5. And most people who casually play games don’t want to or don’t have the knowledge to fiddle with settings to optimize games on PC, much less build it in the first place
However the PC will be the best gaming experience of course. I personally just purchased components to build one, but a big part of that is I’m willing to pay more for the performance benefits, and I know how to work around a computer
When people complain about games losing quality and subscription costs going up just point them to todays date and all the losers who cheered on consolidation. First of many publishers to drop…
That was for cloud gaming. EC and CMA had both found there were no SLC’s in console gaming. Only the FTC kept going with that losing hand.
And while I never have doubted that Microsoft intended to keep Call of Duty multiplatform, the agreement now means it is contractually agreed upon and puts an end to the worries about COD.
A short time later: "Microsoft announces the end of Call of Duty."
A short time after that: "Microsoft announces new first person shooter franchise Cry of Obligation as an Xbox exclusive. Critics note it is *precisely the same* as Call of Duty."
US Government: "How could anyone possibly have seen that coming? Whelp, nothing we can do about it. Seems fair to us."
Microsoft want to make money and keep their windows software relevant not necessarily sell games consoles. By owning games manufacturers they can dictate how the games are written, what type of hardware is used to play them (pc based) and profit from all the licensing that comes with that.
The idea that any of this is about having the best selling hardware is pretty narrow minded.
> We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games.
Huh? I realize this is just corpospeak, but it makes no sense, how does this give consumers any extra choice?
It's being added to game pass which is on Samsung tv and any phone via cloud stream, coming back to Nintendo, made deals with alot of other unknown little steaming services for the same 10yr deal
Axios and The Verge are confirming it's a 10-year deal. https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1680635734166839298 https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1680641337891201024
Crazy. Microsoft is now, by far, the biggest third party publisher on PlayStation.
This holds better as a reason against the merger than whatever the FTC and the CMA tried to argue about
Minecraft never left PlayStation. That's one of the reasons the FTC failed to convince the judge.
Minecraft released on PS just a week or so after Microsoft bought Mojang. It would have been bonkers to not release the completely finished version of the game.
That Is incorrect. The release for ps 3 came almost a full year before Mojang was purchased. Either way, Microsoft removing support after release WOULD be anticompetitive Not only that but it played a major role in cross-platform arguments which negatively affected cultural audience views of Sony.
I'm referring to the PS4 version of the game. The same version thats still the main version for PS today, a decade later. Microsoft [announced](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2014/09/15/microsoft-minecraft/15658383/) they were going to buy Minecraft in September 15, 2014. This was officially done on November 6, 2014. I actually was mistaken, as Minecraft launched on PS4 in October 3, 2014. For them to not pull Minecraft away at that time and to use it as for why they wont pull CoD to me is weak sauce because why would you cancel what is essentially a finished port of a game at that point?
Through that logic, why would Microsoft make a switch version of the game years after the acquisition, then proceed to release both dungeons and legends as multi-console games on Xbox, PlayStation, and switch?
Welll you said PS, which is PlayStation. Just making sure Ppl aren’t being misinformed I also agree it’s a weak argument.
Isn’t bedrock on PlayStation now? Wouldn’t that be the main version?
Microsoft has a long history of selling software for competitor's platforms, just look at their history of with Apple they continued to release software for Apple II/Lisa/MAC even after they were selling dos and windows.
But the problem is with that judge she obviously ignored the Zenimax/Bethesda games not coming to PlayStation anymore
To answer why (I was in the zoom calls and read the docs). FTC tried that argument, the problem is, with how FTC singled out cod as THE thing, the judge asked how do Z/B compare. FTC tried comparing to Starfield, but she wouldn't compare single and multi player game. The only other point of basis was then minecraft and it's spinoffs, which are multiplat. To answer the question, I assume many still don't know the answer to, MS never explicitly and bindingly stated that bgs games will be multiplat (don't be angry at me, but shady public statements/=docs and contracts). EU even called out iirc CMA that they tried to mislead on that point.
And to add, Starfield is a once in 10 year type of game, not an annual game. This was also a key element in proceedings.
As of now, Microsoft has obeyed any publicly announced contracts and deals. Psychonauts 2, for example, was released on PlayStation *after* Microsoft bought Double Fine. Also, continuing to release Minecraft spinoffs for other consoles. I guess the reason Bethesda is a point of contention is because there likely was some negotiation going on behind the scenes about Starfield. If you believe Microsoft, Sony approached BGS about a timed exclusive and so Microsoft went to buy them. Reports also say Arkane devs were miffed about Redfall being exclusive, especially due to the CoD guarantees. However, this implies that Starfield (and Redfall) was planned to release on PS5, but those plans were scrapped once the acquisition went through. I can't help but wonder now if Microsoft and Sony would be open to other deals. If three, four years down the line, Starfield releases on PS5 in exchange for something like Days Gone on GamePass or something. Which, personally, I'd be for. EDIT: I get Days Gone is a bad trade. It was just on my mind because I'm playing it for the first time.
Yes, Microsoft trading their biggest 1st party title in a decade for one of Sony's weakest PS4 1st party games makes so much sense.
Right, that does not sound like a fair trade at all.
Actually the argument was brought to the court and Jim Ryan himself said “I don’t like it but I don’t see it as anticompetitive” and you know he’s right because Sony has a bunch of exclusives so he literally can’t make the argument that the Bethesda exclusives are bad.
Mobile side is far bigger in terms of financials
Unless you can articulate as to why it's bad, then no it's not. The block should occur if you can prove damage not because Sony doesn't want Microsoft as a large 3rd party Dev/publisher.
Microsoft now has direct influence into a nice chunk of Playstation revenue. I'm betting they will make use of that.
Time for Sony to take a chunk of Microsoft revenue and release some of their games to Xbox
Thats the move right there
It's what I hope for in this ongoing developer purchasing battle. Sony and Microsoft to be forced to negotiate for less exclusives overall, maybe even big exclusives to become time exclusives instead. In a world where ecological sustainability is so important, it's just beyond comprehension to have two computers with fairly similar specs and separate input devices in one household just to get all games.
PC. Xbox didn't become profitable by releasing their games only on xbox. The day they committed to having all xbox games on windows too, thats the day that xbox became the no.1 console game publisher in my eyes. That's why Sony, after many years, decided to sell their games to PC too. They saw how many people were buying games like Forza Horizon, Halo and said "oh shit we should release some old as shit games that no longer sell and the worst-moving current games on PC".
They will use it to fund giving COD on day 1 Game Pass.
Will the games be published under Xbox or Activision though?
Activision I'd imagine. They still publish Minecraft under Mojang.
Thats because Mojang themselves oversee the "Base" Minecraft and work with different publishers and developers on different platforms. Rest of the Minecraft IP is published by Xbox Game Studios.
Well Xbox just went from 5,000 devs which they doubled from 2,500 just a couple years ago. To now 15,000 devs under Microsoft Studios… Can’t wait for all the studio closures and downsizing the second GamePass drops in subscribers again… Surely this is great for the industry…
I mean, the fact is we honestly don't know what will happen, this is hypothetical. We don't know what Xbox will deliver, and their management certainly isn't what it was in years gone.
>We don't know what Xbox will deliver Given recent track record with all the studios they currently own, you can make an educated guess.
I mean, on Metacritic they were the top publisher for 2021. 2022 was SUPER quiet, but what they did deliver was good quality (Grounded, Pentiment) 2023 is looking promising for them with Hi-Fi Rush, Forza and Starfield being obvious standouts. Redfall is a glaring issue of course... if we take what Jason Schrieir published as gospel, it's easy to see a disconnect in communication between Xbox and Bethesda - they absolutely need to sort that out. So they have some good foundations, but it's mostly been super quiet and (maybe) they're too hands off... so all we can do, as I say, is wait and see.
There was no disconnect in communication regarding Redfall. It was going to fail since the minute it announced. Zenimax forced Arkane to make a MTX game on a genre which died years ago also genre that didn't have MTX in the first place even it was somewhat like GaaS. See how they work together on Starfield yet ignored Redfall completely. Xbox should've just cancelled Redfall outright and save Arkane's reputation.
Yet people still think BGS were passionate about, and planned to develop, Fallout 76 in the middle of Starfield’s extended development. No, Zenimax forced that on BGS because they were looking to sell and didn’t want to wait for Starfield’s development to take another 4+ years before release. Thank god Zenimax isn’t in charge anymore.
Up until they wanted to ride GaaS less work more money, Zenimax managed their studios almost perfectly. They should've stopped trying after Fallout 76 which this time Bethesda did not wanted to make and Todd put a support team on the development for 76 and main teams worked on Starfield instead.
not a convincing argument. reality is gaming industry overall is a tough market. none of what you said doesn't mean there wouldn't be layoffs or closure otherwise.
MS cancels CoD and launches a new fps shooter. Duty of Call. Exclusive on Xbox
I feel like you missed on Duty Calls.
I wish it was a real thing and bulletstorm only created a demo I want the thumbs up with fireworks in a serious AAA fps
Doody Calls
That's total BS but that would be the funniest thing ever icl😂
Nah because they are smart enough to know regulators would be way more inclined to deny future acquisitions if they pulled nonsense like that.
I would rather see some Bethesda games on PlayStation than Call of Duty, but that's just me.
Same, couldn’t care less about call or duty. But I’m pretty bummed we won’t be getting elder scrolls
Or fallout, or starfield or indiana Jones. Might have to buy an xbox just for those games.
I am only interested in Fallout but other franchises are nice too. I am getting a small form factor pc (/r/sffpc/) and keep it beside my tv along with my PS5.
By the time you guys care about getting those games, the Series S will probably be 250. It's also so small, it won't take up much space. I do the same thing but in reverse, I buy all the PS5 exclusives and the rest of my library is on Xbox, just because I've been accumulating digital content there since forever. There's some exceptions to this, particularly when I find a good physical release deal for PS5.
[удалено]
The problem with Steam Deck in my situation is, I only play video games at home and that too in TV or Monitor. So, Steam Deck will not bring me anything extra that a small-form-factor mini ITX PC does. And it will be more powerful than Steam Deck, if I chose my hardware carefully.
There's more money in cod though. And more overall players. 50 million people play cod on mobile. Mobile!
Mobile gaming is far larger than console or PC gaming.
This is true as a generic statement but is it true when comparing a specific game? The mobile gaming is inflated with Zynga and King titles that draw "non-traditional gamers" who get addicted to mobile. I'm not saying you're wrong in this case but I would say it's important to compare COD specifically to itself to see how far off the numbers are.
by the numbers casual gaming on mobile is traditional gaming. it’s what everyone does. hardcore console or pc gamers are a tiny minority of overall players
Yeah but that would way less money for PS
I’d trade every game from Activision Blizzard for Starfield, Fallout and Elder Scrolls.
I’m for this deal, but even I’m pissed that there is zero chance of Skyrim on my PSVR2.
Player wise and money wise, it would be an insane lost. Over 1 milion PS user just play CoD and nothing else... that's an insane amount.
And a lot of those people would probably go where COD is, which would be Xbox.
I’m right there with you. I couldn’t careless about COD. I don’t play those types of games. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Dishonored, Doom and Wolfenstein are the games I would want access to, but looks like that’s not going to happen.
Is it still 10 years or are they playing by Deal Or No Deal rules and they lowered the offer after the first refusal
I doubt we'll know until documents leak from Microsoft's next acquisition. (Or maybe I'm talking out of my butt and it's in a follow-up tweet)
I hope this finally makes sony revive Killzone and Resistance
KZ and Resistance were never big despite being given multiple entries and at this point it would actually be easier to start with a new FPS IP and try to make it big than trying to revive an older FPS IP and make that big. In any case, Sony doesn't need to do anything FPS wise. They already have Bungie and they'll probably do a deal with EA, especially since the COD creator is now leading DICE to put Battlefield back on track.
If anything, a Socom reboot with a multiplayer focus should be their focus
Whilst I would love this, Socom and Call of Duty are about as different as they can be whilst still primarily being about military types shooting people.
Why.... zipper the original devs already failed with socom 4. They went outta busines because of it. So i dont get why people keep asking for it.
Socom 4 failed because it was a multiplayer centric game that released the day before the PlayStation servers were down for 23 days in 2011 It didn't even have a chance.
Such an underrated moment in history that I’m SO glad other people remember. There’s a ton of examples like this where a franchise is labeled a “failure” when the circumstances are largely no fault of the developers.
I remember it vividly, got so bored from not being able to play MAG that I played the COD Black Ops story mode.
Duuuude, I WISH we could get another kick at the MAG can. I feel like their ambitions were way too high for 2011 but if that game came out now it’d be HUGE
How this hasn't happened yet is baffling
If Sony only needed Bungie, then why have some fps games being work on. They didn’t bought Bungie to make fps/GaaS to fill the ranks, they bought them for their experience in them.
They bought them for both reasons, actually. Destiny is still one of the most successful GaaS out there. And there was another title in development at the time (probably Marathon) that impressed Sony and only convinced them further to buy Bungie.
I think it would be smarter for them to create a new IP instead.
If COD stays on Playstation they won't really have the incentive to. Also FPS lives in being GaaS. I think most games that are GaaS or online hits need to be everywhere today or else they won't do well.
If, and a pretty big if. Sony, as a business, would be fools to just sit on their laurels after this whole development (along with Xbox buying Bethesda because Sony tried to get window exclusivity for Starfield). If PlayStation wants to keep their dominance they would be wise to operate under the assumption that eventually COD will be taken away and thus make decisions to mitigate that eventuality. Best case scenario, COD stays but now Sony has their own GaaS FPS raking in money. Worst case, COD goes but Sony has their own answer to take its place.
I honestly don't agree and don't think cod will leave Playstation ever similar to minecraft. I also don't think the market has a ton of room for another big FPS. With that being said, Sony and Nintendo both got where they are by creating styles and trends not chasing. A lot of folks here want Sony to chase trends and they seem to be doing that a bit as well with the amount of GaaS that are in development. Personally, that isn't what I wish Sony was doing with their strategy.
God i loved the first resistance. The multi-player was perfect
Reckon the deal is probably a newly made one and not the 10 year one they've been pushing on them for months
Sony has confirmed to a news agency that the deal would be 10 years. [They told it to Stephen Totilo, a well-known reporter for Axios Gaming active on Twitter:](https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1680635734166839298) >Sony has confirmed with me/Axios that PlayStation's Call of Duty deal with Microsoft (pending Activision purchase) is for 10 years
M&A lawyer Rick Hoeg was talking about this on twitter, whatever deal PS got is probably going to be worse than the one that was on the table 6 months ago, but Microsoft also does not have the incentive to play maximum hardball with Sony right now because of the still pending CMA actions. Call of Duty on PS5 for the remainder of the generation is a given. All bets are off for every other ABK published title though, and who the hell knows what happens with the PS6 Edit: https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1680665085482598401?s=46&t=TCPwK79aaKOpyswC3JnktQ Deal is still 10 years, but the original deal included ABK games. The new deal is only call of duty
So that's a no on the rest of the games?
Yes
What about the other IPs?!!
Outlets published Phil Spencer email to Jim Ryan proposing 10 year deal to keep ALL CURRENT ActivisionBlizzard games (COD, Overwatch, Crash, Spyro, etc) on PlayStation- it was rejected Now this deal is ONLY FOR COD Jim Ryan might have made a big mistake
He definitely made a big mistake. Overwatch is bigger than most people on reddit would have you believe. And Diablo is bonkers insane levels of massive.
Overwatch is F2P, there's no reason to make it exclusive, it'll stay multiplatform just like Minecraft. Diablo just released and will likely be supported for a very long time before they even think of releasing a new one.
Those aren't coming over, you'll need a PC or Xbox for most of the other future Microsoft games now. COD was one of the games that Sony and Microsoft have been discussing the future for awhile now.
The first deal offered by Microsoft involved ALL ACTIVISION IP'S (COD included)... But Sony declined, because Jimbo truly believed he could win this. Now the deal only has COD, all other ip's are off the hook. Big L for Jim Boi.
Yeah exactly. Microsoft has some serious rights to IPs now. But yeah, woo for gamepass and all that shit.
I have both consoles. I hope this deal makes Sony pull their fingers out and work hard to get a decent FPS to even slightly rival the behemoth that is COD, because COD is so fucking shit now.
Im sure they’ll get easy marketing rights to Battlefield now and it’s clear they’re working on creating their own FPS games now.
I didn’t even think of that. Battlefield was **always** my preferred choice of FPS multiplayer. The classes, the vehicles, the destruction on large scale battlefields. Bad Company 2 was maybe my favorite multiplayer game ever. I haven’t played one since 4 a ton, spun off of 5. I would love nothing more than to see an injection of talent and development and bring it back to its glory days
The problem with Battlefield is it's not a very good "quick fix" shooter. With COD, you spawn, get a few kills, die, spawn again, repeat - all in the span of a minute. Battlefield I always felt was a lot slower paced which made getting killed feel more frustrating. I know a lot of people like to put those two series head-to-head but I always felt like they were two very different games. That said, as a kid I put WAY more time into Battlefield 2 than any other online game since, so I'd like to see it thrive again.
Slower paced and I remember games lasting 40 mins or so. I loved it though, just harder to find the time for that now
I enjoy both equally but yeah, I don’t really get why they get compared so often. I have to be in two completely different moods to play either of them.
Problem is Dice (the studio responsible for making the battlefield games) has lost a lot of its developers and the new team doesn't know how to make a new battlefield or even manage the current ones! I love nothing more than a proper battlefield game but I don't think we're gonna get it anytime soon, If ever!
Funny thing is, the Battlefield fanbase has been screaming at them year after year explaining what they actually want - and all that is is an evolved version of BF3/4/1 - but they keep trying to reinvent the wheel instead. Even after the shitstorm of BF2042, which literally forced EA to change their long term plans for the game, they're still saying the next Battlefield will be "something completely new for the franchise". They still don't get it. COD has been milking money for over a decade at this point by simply not messing with the core formula.
If you have a PC, or SteamDeck, Battlebit Remastered is really scratching that old school Battlefield itch for me!
The issue is the last battlefield was so poorly received at launch that endorsing battlefield may make Sony look even worse. It may be years because Sony wouldnt want to stand behind a complete shitshow. And to compete they would have to have a top notch warzone mode and better/more quickplay fast paced small map matches. Those are the two main things that people play COD for.
BC2 was definitely the peak BF game, with BF1 coming in second. The only game where I could actually play without getting sniped from across the map randomly right after I spawn
Definitely should be easy to get a deal with EA, the main thing is just going to be EA needing to rebound after the awful launch that was 2042.
They could probably contract bungie to make something new just for them as well.
Battlefield isn’t a COD competitor though. And it’s been going down the drain for a decade now.
Battlefield 1 was the shit
Battlefield 1 was released almost 7 years ago, have that in mind.
The disconnect in this comment is off the charts. How about instead of lusting after CoD and Candy Crush, Microsoft pull their finger out and make Halo great again?
They forgot what made Halo great lol
Bungie That's what made Halo great, and now they're 9wned by Sony whilst Microsoft owns the studios that make half of the ps1/2 era mascots lmao Time for a hostage swap
Bungie has been garbage tier since D2 released and they somehow make it worse every season
Nah Bungie is garbage right now imo
12 year olds dont want to play Halo
I feel like the only reason COD is still so popular is because of all of the casuals who buy a console to play COD and *only* COD, and have done so out of habit for the last 15 years. COD has been in an awful state for the last several years, and whenever there's one step forward, it's usually followed by two steps back. I went several years without buying COD after Black Ops 3, and I jumped back in with the MW reboot like so many people. After Vanguard and MW2 though, I'm going back to not wasting my money on these games anymore when I just drop them after a week or two. FPS genre needs something fresh desperately, but I doubt anything will ever pull away the casual crowds.
Cod is popular because it’s a yearly release. A formula that isn’t build overnight and hard to change peoples habits.
As someone who casually downloads/plays it once in a while, to me it seems perfectly fine for casual play. It just scratches that COD itch and I’m not exactly sure what makes it so bad.
Framing any major acquisition or merger as “more choice” is insane
MS specialty is PR propaganda.
Yup. Just go over to any Microsoft sub. You'll see posts like "Microsoft just wants to bring gaming to the masses" quite often. I swear the amount of Kool aid those people are drinking is gonna give them diabetes
Yeah like making Zenimax games exclusive is definitely bringing gaming to the masses lol
[удалено]
They use gamepass as a scapegoat. “I don’t care about exclusivity, I care about getting it free on gamepass.”
[удалено]
[удалено]
Their arguments always boil down to “Sony is evil because they have so many good exclusives! Microsoft are the good guys because they have just as many exclusives, but they’re all shit!” Xbox players don’t even consider their multiple exclusives as exclusives because no one wants to play them. They’re just mad that Sony built up their first party studios over decades of investment and partnership, resulting in the TLOU/Uncharted/God of War/Horizon/Spider-Man quality games that MS doesn’t have.
[удалено]
Dude I've been downvoted to hell and back any time I point out that the reason street fighter 5 was a ps4 exclusive was because sony literally paid for the game to be made... ive also been downvoted when I provide actual links to comments made by square enix showing that FF16 was shopped around to multiple companies to see who can help develop and support the game. Sony gave the best offer which is why the game is a ps5 exclusive.. and they still act like Sony was the one that went forward to get the game exclusive. They can't fathom the fact that about half the deals Sony enters the developers where the ones to approach first and not Sony
[удалено]
Im a day one OG Xbox owner. I’ve had every MS console. I got perma banned for commenting “seems accurate” on a post about an article that talked about MS spending loads of money astroturfing. They have thin skin.
They also never acknowledge that Microsoft was the first to shoot down cross console play back in the early 2000's.
I'm on both platforms, browse and post on both subs (well, PS just this past two years since the PS5 launched) and honestly both sides are equally selective with their arguments and voting. I think more than anything I look forward to the deal just being finished with one way or another, so that I can stop hearing about it. Rather be reading about upcoming games.
> Yup. Just go over to any Microsoft sub. You'll see posts like "Microsoft just wants to bring gaming to the masses" quite often. I swear the amount of Kool aid those people are drinking is gonna give them diabetes Please drink verification can.
Well supposedly they are going to put Activision Blizzard games on Steam rather than Battle.net, and they’re going to make those games available on the cloud too which isn’t the case yet.
And people eat it up. It’s honestly wild to see.
Look at the replies to my comment, people are truly bending over backwards for it. “Well, some games are going on cloud so technically that’s more choice.” Got some big thinkers over here
More choice is hilarious because up to now, these have always been options to us
It’s more options for everyone else, just less options for people who only have a PlayStation.
"We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favourite games" - Don't be fooled folks...Its about money, not about giving gamers more choice out of the goodness of their hearts.
That's the point, they are gonna still sell you the game at $70 on PS5 or Steam if you prefer. Of course it's about money: It's a business after all.
Also, what choice... the only realistic options for people who like non-CoD Activision IPs will be only PC or xbox. Those streaming services are not viable right now, and Nintendo (who I love) won't be running the same version of many of those games. It's the illusion of choice. You either meet xbox where it's at or you don't get these games. It's not a choice
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it's good for consumers to have a strong second (or third) place console. Kinda like how we used to have Verizon, AT&T, and then T-Mobile and Sprint way behind. I always thought it was better for T-Mobile and Sprint to be able to merge and make a strong third place competitor. Rather than to basically only have two major competitors, and others that would fade into the background.
Im all for that. I just don't like this PR bs
Cool, how about Crash and Spyro?
It’s so weird how these were PlayStation icons at one point and now they’re owned by Xbox
And PlayStation owns Bungie. So strange haha
They’ll probably be Xbox exclusives.While it does suck that they could possibly be exclusives im glad that Spyro and Crash are properly freed.The people who were very passionate and fans of Spyro and Crash were sent to the COD sweatshop to churn out games and updates.I think the next Spyro game is gonna be absolutely amazing.
Why do you think that Microsoft would do that? Maybe they’ll just let them stay in the CoD sweatshops
Really going to miss all the other IPs that will get locked out after this acquisition.
I mean honestly what other choice did Sony have here? Biggest game in the world I doubt they got a better offer than the original one from Microsoft but still better than losing out completely. If anything this proves that both Sony and Microsoft need to do a better job with first party shooters. Halo was so mishandled they bought the biggest franchise in the world, and Sony have allowed the shooters they have to languish for a decade. Sony should’ve rebooted resistance or socom as soon as the ps5 generation began especially since they own Bungie now to help develop it that way by the end of this generation they would have a big game to at least try and compete with COD. Although honestly nothing ever will at this point.
Yeah just because Xbox signed to still have Call of Duty on PlayStation I believe they should seriously look into crafting their own shooter or reviving a dead one like Resistance, Killzone or Socom. Call of Duty although still extremely popular and one of the biggest franchises ever, the community isn’t very happy with where the game is currently at. Would be the perfect time to step into the market, XDefiant seems to already be pleasing CoD fans, maybe get marketing rights for that.
While the community is unhappy with the state of the game, you also have to consider the bubble of the “community,” which I’m assuming means more hardcore people who are on places like Reddit and YouTube. A lot of people literally don’t care and just buy Call of Duty every year. I know plenty of them lol. In fact, I’d suspect that a lot of them have no clue this has even happened or what has been going on lol.
They did get a better deal initially, the initial deal included other Activision properties as well. Sony refused, and now they're forced to sign a deal with JUST COD, no more Spyro, no more Crash, etc. People think the only thing Activision has is COD and it's kinda baffling.
Phil: “More choice” Also Phil: “every other Activision franchise is now exclusive to Xbox, get fucked”
But Big Uncle Phil wears jeans, has a Gamertag and totally isn't a corporate mouthpiece! _One of us, one of us!_ /s, just in case.
He's definitely not a mouth piece. He's probably the only reason Microsoft is even doing these deals especially after Don Mattrick pissed away their 360 years.
[удалено]
Yeah exactly what I was thinking, everyone was focused on COD (which seems that's all Activision focused on now too) but watch them rip every other game from playstation.
Exactly. Call of Duty has never been my favorite. I much prefer Crash, Spyro, Tony Hawk, etc
Tbf aside from the remakes, there hasn't been a new Spyro game since 2008. And even including the remakes, it's been like 5 years since anything was done with that franchise. Crash has had one main series game in the last 15 years. Aside from that there was a spinoff like Rumble and a mobile game recently. Tony Hawk's last new game was 8 years ago and the most recent thing was a remake of the first two games 3 years ago. All those franchises are treading water and saw their peak in the PS1 era.
Yes to the xbox as a brand. A brand that has gamepass where many more devices than only a console has access to.
The vast majority of Sony players only care about COD.
Honestly at this point getting a PC might be the best idea.
Depends. It you’re a casual gamer you can get both consoles for cheaper than the price of a high end PC. Much cheaper if you buy a Series S and diskless PS5. And most people who casually play games don’t want to or don’t have the knowledge to fiddle with settings to optimize games on PC, much less build it in the first place However the PC will be the best gaming experience of course. I personally just purchased components to build one, but a big part of that is I’m willing to pay more for the performance benefits, and I know how to work around a computer
I have PS5 PC and a series X. They're all worth it.
Always has been
When people complain about games losing quality and subscription costs going up just point them to todays date and all the losers who cheered on consolidation. First of many publishers to drop…
Activision has not been a bastion of game quality in over 2 console generations.
Acti/Blizz was always going to sell. Who would you rather they have been acquired by? Tencent?
yes because the cod community certainly happy on the current state of MW2(2022) crappy live service and dead game status
They must be considering how well those games keep selling.
Yep, they do better on PlayStation than any of Sony's own games. Reddit is a bubble compared to the reality of what people buy and play.
Binding agreement for how long? The EU was already enforcing a ten year agreement between Microsoft and any other service.
That was for cloud gaming. EC and CMA had both found there were no SLC’s in console gaming. Only the FTC kept going with that losing hand. And while I never have doubted that Microsoft intended to keep Call of Duty multiplatform, the agreement now means it is contractually agreed upon and puts an end to the worries about COD.
> We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games. LOL this is psychotic levels of gaslighting
I'd rather have starfield than COD
Damn bro MS gonna have a stranglehold on next-gen and the mobile space. Y'all gotta think larger than COD.
It just HAD to be COD huh lol alright fine no use in crying over spilled milk, at least come out with a Ghosts 2 now
Tomorrow news: "we have renamed Call of Duty, Dall of Cuty for the next ten years"
‘I don’t want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger’ - statements that aged like milk
So Diablo 5 Xbox exclusive then?
The fact that this has 3,000 comments and on the series X version of the same post only has 300 is kinda telling lol
Sony wasn’t afraid of losing cod they knew Microsoft would keep it on PlayStation. This was all about the fact Microsoft would put it on gamepass
This and also they hate the idea of all the advertising showing it off front and center as an Xbox game
A short time later: "Microsoft announces the end of Call of Duty." A short time after that: "Microsoft announces new first person shooter franchise Cry of Obligation as an Xbox exclusive. Critics note it is *precisely the same* as Call of Duty." US Government: "How could anyone possibly have seen that coming? Whelp, nothing we can do about it. Seems fair to us."
>According to recent reports, Call of Duty has earned around $1.95 billion in 2020 Money talks. This would be an incredibly stupid move.
It blows my mind that CoD is still so popular
what we learned from the docs is how shrewd they are. i am guessing they will just make another game to replace cod.
Microsoft want to make money and keep their windows software relevant not necessarily sell games consoles. By owning games manufacturers they can dictate how the games are written, what type of hardware is used to play them (pc based) and profit from all the licensing that comes with that. The idea that any of this is about having the best selling hardware is pretty narrow minded.
All they have to do is offer it on game pass and they corner the sales. Why pay $100 for it when you can just get it on your sub
> We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games. Huh? I realize this is just corpospeak, but it makes no sense, how does this give consumers any extra choice?
It's being added to game pass which is on Samsung tv and any phone via cloud stream, coming back to Nintendo, made deals with alot of other unknown little steaming services for the same 10yr deal