520°

Activision refused to bring Call of Duty to Xbox unless Microsoft went beyond 70-30 rev share

FallenAngel1984|938d ago |Article|53|

Activision threatened to not launch its powerful $31 billion Call of Duty franchise on Xbox Gen9 unless Microsoft offered a favorable revenue split.

Activision Blizzard Inc. Call of Duty Game publisher Xbox One Xbox Series X tweaktown.com

Read Full Story >>

tweaktown.com

- Comments (53)

Expand all

crazyCoconuts938d ago

I wouldn't be surprised if they had the same stipulations on other stores on PC and PS. COD is an unusually dominant game like Fortnite was, and like Epic with Fortnite, they are trying to leverage that size to get better terms.
Exactly what MS will do if they own it.

Reply Agree 10 Disagree 10

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher938d ago

Playstation only takes 20% of CoD sales on their store. CMA uncovered this in their findings. This is essentially just confirming that Activision strong-armed everyone in this and shows how powerful the IP COD is to have and wield such bargaining power.

Reply Agree 37 Disagree 4

SPAM Inappropriate

sinspirit938d ago

Exactly. I was saying before that it's completely an obviously lie when MS tried to say CoD wasn't as big of a deal as it is.. while they also knew how damn important CoD was to all the services they signed a contract for where they agreed to host CoD on their service with no profit split for the service. If it isn't so damn important then how can you convince a bunch of services to host your game without taking a dime of the profit? Because it's obviously a system selling game, and that also means service seller.

Agree 8 Disagree 6

SPAM Inappropriate

InUrFoxHole937d ago

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

Agree 4 Disagree 11

SPAM Inappropriate

shinoff2183937d ago

Inurfoxhole

Is it not being reported Ryan's email was from when the deal was announced. He probably assumed it'd be more of the same, and is it not being reported that ms later gave word they would want 100 percent of the profits from cod.

If true of course ryan would change his tune. He'd be an idiot and fired if he didn't.

Again idk if it'd Tru but I've read it in a few different places.

Agree 2 Disagree 2

SPAM Inappropriate

OptimusDK937d ago

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

Agree 0 Disagree 1

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher937d ago

***That is a lie please show proof of that.***

https://mp1st.com/news/micr...

***MS showed they would give parity on price and features***

Pricing doesn't mean how much of that goes back to Microsoft and how much goes to Sony. Much like how we know from this that Activision forced everyone to cut their take just to have CoD on their platform.

Agree 2 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 937d ago

sparky77938d ago

This is why MS is buying ABK Sony's dominance is causing too many games to skip Xbox so the only way they can compete is by securing the content permanently.

Reply Agree 18 Disagree 66

SPAM Inappropriate

Neonridr938d ago

I'm sorry, aside from exclusive games from 1st party studios what games are skipping Xbox? Games that Sony paid money for to keep off of Xbox via timed exclusivity?

Reply Agree 13 Disagree 26

SPAM Inappropriate

sparky77938d ago

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

Agree 15 Disagree 44

SPAM Inappropriate

DarkZane938d ago

@sparky77 those are only timed exclusives. If they're not coming to Xbox, it's because the developers don't give a shit about Xbox, not because Sony threw money at them. You xbox fanboys might need to stop saying nonsense, you're embarassing yourself.

Agree 48 Disagree 13

SPAM Inappropriate

RpgSama938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

@Sparky77

Which Octopath? Because the first released on Game pass but it's still not available on PlayStation, now the second one released on PlayStation and not on Xbox (I'm pretty sure that if it would have made business sense after releasing the first one on Xbox, they would have done it again).

Kotor was originally an Xbox Exclusive,

Or it works in your favor but not against?

Agree 30 Disagree 6

SPAM Inappropriate

SICKINDIVIDUAL937d ago

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

Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

shinoff2183937d ago

Did Sony pay for octopath not to be on xbox. You really think that. That's weird. Maybe ms didn't offer a gamepass deal like the first and square knew damn well it wouldn't sell as a regular game on there. It's also on Nintendo.

Ms has 3rd party exclusive deals to sparky. Why do you guys ignore those on xbox. You act like ms doesn't have any.

Agree 0 Disagree 1

SPAM Inappropriate

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 937d ago

RpgSama938d ago

Actually, Sony had already agreed to a lower % for COD, I remember reading that months ago.

https://www.tweaktown.com/n...

Yep, they take discounted margins, so not because of Sony dominance that ABK wanted a bigger piece of the pie, it's because of COD dominance.

Reply Agree 13 Disagree 4

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher938d ago

Sony also was strong-armed by Activision. You are acting like Sony was in control of this but this was Activision wielding the power of COD, nothing else. Why would you put that level of power in one platform owner's hand when it obviously is powerful enough to get the #1 platform to bow to their demands?

Reply Agree 20 Disagree 3

SPAM Inappropriate

ironmonkey938d ago

Well, nothing sells well there deal with it.

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

937d ago

XBManiac937d ago

If you are not able to sell the "Best console" to more people, it is not Activision or Sony problem... Ask Sony and Nintendo how they can sell "lower quality" products and games in a bigger quantity. Maybe you can learn something about business and stop being the third. With Xbox 360 Microsoft had an opportunity... With Xbox One they lost everything others had done for more than 10 years. Some times, it is good to admit you have failed and retire, Phil.

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 1

SPAM Inappropriate

shinoff2183937d ago

That's not sonys dominance, sure Sony has 3rd party deals just like Microsoft and Nintendo. Some developers are skipping xbox because they may feel it's just not worth it. Didn't xbox fans have to bag a inspector gadget developer some weeks ago for a port cause they were skipping the xbox. Do you really think sony paid for that to. If you do your gullible. Developers know where their games sell and xbox isn't doing it for some developers. Not every developer gets a gamepass deal.

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 937d ago

Abracadabra938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

Ironically, it's due to Sony's monopolistic tactics that's provoking these big purchases by Microsoft.

Sony was basically trying to make Starfield and COD as Playstation exclusives.

Reply Agree 19 Disagree 75

SPAM Inappropriate

Rude-ro938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

You could not be further away from reality.
I get the spin you are selling, but name me 10 AAA Microsoft studio exclusives in the last 15 years. (Non sequels counting as another game)
And I will check them.
Without Microsoft’s exclusive moves with EA, activision, and Ubisoft Microsoft would not even be in gaming anymore.

Reply Agree 30 Disagree 15

SPAM Inappropriate

Abracadabra938d ago

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

Agree 13 Disagree 22

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

Absolutely rubbish comment.

1. Activision also strong-armed PS and they only take cut of their normal amount from COD sales on PSN

https://n4g.com/news/253716...

2. There's absolutely nothing other than Phil saying "PlayStation had two timed exclusive games with Bethesda and Xbox was worried they'd do the same with Starfield" to suggest anything about the exclusivity of Starfield. Nothing. No one has mentioned other than that moment by Phil where he is merely adding speculation as to the possibility, but absolutely no proof or grounds that a Bethesda Softworks Game from Todd would ever be exclusive to PlayStation.

Reply Agree 17 Disagree 10

SPAM Inappropriate

Abracadabra938d ago

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

Agree 5 Disagree 25

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher938d ago

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

Agree 26 Disagree 6

SPAM Inappropriate

Abracadabra938d ago

This is from the IGN page...
"Back in 2020 — when Microsoft announced its plans to buy Bethesda — journalist Imran Khan first reported on Starfield's potential PlayStation exclusivity, writing "Sony had been negotiating timed exclusivity on Starfield as recently as a few months ago. Going to guess either those talks are done or the price suddenly went way, way up." Shortly after in early 2021, the reports started to surface that Starfield would head exclusively to Xbox Series X|S."

Agree 8 Disagree 19

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

@Abracadabra Again, believed, not known. First, it's highly misleading as it was rumored as a timed exclusivity, not exclusivity. Second, rumored, not proven or known beyond that. Just rumored. So, yes, Microsoft didn't know, they just believed it based on a rumor.

"FUN NOTE: Sony had been negotiating timed exclusivity on Starfield as recently as a few months ago. Going to guess either those talks are done or the price suddenly went way, way up."

https://twitter.com/imranzo...

They made this purchase based on a rumor of a timed exclusive deal but there is no proof of it other than one journalist making the reference without any sources at all. Heck, I'd be just as right to put out the idea that Microsoft created that rumor in the first place as you would that Sony was trying to make a deal. We both have zero proof of either situation.

Agree 16 Disagree 5

SPAM Inappropriate

Pyrofire95937d ago

In reply to what you said to me I was basing my comment off Abracadabra said with his IGN quote. What are you even debating on. Sony had been making many deals with studios. Fact. Xbox had not been as much. Fact. Xbox did not even make many first party games over the Xbone gen. Fact. Xbox is now stepping up with a more aggressive buisness strategy.
I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to respond and it's so hard to gauge you. You're just bringing all these counter points to things I wasn't even talking about.
I don't even care. I don't play on Xbox and I think Todd Howard is a con artist.
You're flooding my with all this pointless information that irrelevant to my point.
To put my point clearly: Sony had been aggressive and now Xbox is stepping up.
I'm not talking about conspiracy or word of mouth, it's evident by what games are releasing where.

Agree 0 Disagree 1

SPAM Inappropriate

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 937d ago

StormSnooper938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

Ohhhh so its Sony's fault that MS is doing this to the industry? got it. S:

Jesus the lengths you guys go to to allow your favorite corporation to ruin gaming is astounding. You are not getting anything new because of this deal! All you are doing is denying Multiplatform games to others bro. Pressure MS to make games, not deprive others, it doesn't add anything to you.

Reply Agree 10 Disagree 7

SPAM Inappropriate

King Nezz938d ago

@StormSnooper
"Ohhhh so its Sony's fault that MS is doing this to the industry?"

😂 Get off the internet, kid. We've gotten GoW:Ragnarok, Totk, and Starfield in a few months to mention a few that have released and will release in less than one year. What the hell are you talking about? At least you can play Starfield on other platforms that are not Xbox. Can you say the same about the others?

Agree 5 Disagree 12

SPAM Inappropriate

Pickledpepper937d ago

Naughty dog say hello

Agree 1 Disagree 3

SPAM Inappropriate

OptimusDK937d ago

Doing this to the industry Ahahaha

Agree 0 Disagree 2

SPAM Inappropriate

StormSnooper935d ago

@King Nezz
clearly my comment went right over your head. Not sure what you mean by "we" have gotten GoW:Rangnarok? You mean gamers in general? I'm talking about MS's mergers and acquisitions game and their intent to deprive half of gamers from games they used to play as Multiplatform. MS is giving xbox gamers the same games they would have had anyway and telling them that it is exclusive instead of actually making new exclusives. They are making gaming for exclusive and smaller. Does this clear your confusion? Probably not.

@OptimusDK
Hope you enjoy it when the shoe is on the other foot.

@Pickledpepper
seems that some people reallly don't want to know the difference between a developer and a publisher. There IS a reason why one is called developer and the other is called a publisher.

Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 935d ago

1Victor937d ago (Edited 937d ago )

@abracadabra:”Sony was basically trying to make Starfield and COD as Playstation exclusives.”

Any source to that claim or it’s just 💩 you just pulled it out of your magic money hat

Anyways activision greed goes beyond what I thought 30 and 20% with no negotiation take it or we take it out it’s just crazy

Reply Agree 4 Disagree 3

SPAM Inappropriate

KyRo937d ago

Sony doesn't have a monopoly. They simply make great games, work with third parties, just like Nintendo to gain dominance.

All MS has to do is make consistently good games but they can't even do that correctly. Playing the victim card for their shortcoming like it's anyone else fault but their own is backwards

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 3

SPAM Inappropriate

shinoff2183937d ago

Sony was trying to get stsrfield as a TIMED EXCLUSIVE. Timed being the key word there. Huge huge huge difference.

Hell I take starfield on ps a year later or 6 months whatever. Timed isn't forever. The Xbox fanbase is completely leaving out this though to try and make their exclusive argument look better. It's bs. Atleast acknowledge it wasn't forever exclusive

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

Pyrofire95937d ago

I seriously don't get how people are so strongly disagreeing and kind of making things up to debate this. You provided a quote that undeniably said Sony was negotiating exclusivity and then others are say "BeLiEvE tHeY dID"
As a PS and PC player, yes Sony went PRETTY hard on getting exclusivity deals at a time when Xbox Studios was not putting out many games and Xbox had few deals and rocky studio relationships. This a clearly a response from Xbox to begin stepping up.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 1

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher937d ago (Edited 937d ago )

You're choosing to be ignorant.

"When we acquired ZeniMax one of the impetus for that is that Sony had done a deal for Deathloop and Ghostwire… to pay Bethesda to not ship those games on Xbox. So the discussion about Starfield when we heard that Starfield was potentially also going to end up skipping Xbox, we can’t be in a position as a third-place console where we fall further behind on our content ownership so we’ve had to secure content to remain viable in the business."

They 'heard' it was skipping. Where did they hear it from? From this one journalist with zero sources who said:

https://twitter.com/imranzo...

"FUN NOTE: Sony had been negotiating timed exclusivity on Starfield as recently as a few months ago. Going to guess either those talks are done or the price suddenly went way, way up."

So, first, they didn't 'know' anything, only 'heard' it. Do you 'know' something is going to happen from an online rumor? Do you spend $68b on a rumor?

Second, it wasn't even outright exclusivity. It was a rumor about a timed exclusivity. And not even about Bethesda's position on it or what happened. Only that Sony was interested in it. That's it.

Third, that's it. That was the full source and news. One person said something. That's it.

So, yes, they 'believed' the rumor. They didn't 'know' anything.

That's it. That's the whole story. Nothing more. Straight from Phil's own mouth.

Agree 1 Disagree 1

SPAM Inappropriate

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 935d ago

KingKionic 938d ago

Majin-vegeta938d ago

Same thing with Sony.Kotick played both sides
https://www.tweaktown.com/n...

Reply Agree 6 Disagree 3

SPAM Inappropriate

Abracadabra938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

Sony took a cut because they were promoting COD and had timed exclusive COD content.

Sony likely takes a cut on all their 3rd party exclusives, like Final Fantasy 16.

Reply Agree 7 Disagree 27

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher938d ago

And Microsoft doesn't take cuts for their 3rd party exclusives? But, more to the point, are you ignoring that both consoles took a cut for a game that wasn't exclusive to either at all? This isn't about Sony, it's about Activision. Activision forced this on everyone.

Agree 20 Disagree 6

SPAM Inappropriate

Abracadabra938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

@Christopher
What part of timed exclusive COD content for PS5 don't you understand?
Do you really expect Activision to make timed exclusive COD content (like DLC's) for nothing in return?

Agree 3 Disagree 19

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

Sure, wash Activision's hands clean in this scenario to only focus on Sony when everyone was affected. Did Microsoft take a similar cut when they had exclusivity deals with Activision as well? Was Microsoft, at that time, wielding its power to disenfranchise Sony or is it just Sony?

I'm honestly getting lost in all the circular logic going on here that people are making when what is clear is that CoD is too powerful for any platform owner to have when it wields this level of power as a third-party company already.

Agree 17 Disagree 3

SPAM Inappropriate

Abracadabra938d ago (Edited 938d ago )

@Christopher
Yes, Activision likely took a cut from Microsoft when they had timed exclusive deals.

Why would any 3rd party developer make exclusive content if not to be compensated in some form or another? No 3rd party developer makes exclusive content for free.

Agree 1 Disagree 16

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher938d ago

***Why would any 3rd party developer make exclusive content if not to be compensated in some form or another? No 3rd party developer makes exclusive content for free.***

They are marketing deals to get free promotion of the game. Sony literally paid for those commercials you saw. That's the payment. Why the expectation for more if Sony has that much power? Again, I'm confused on whether Sony has power or not here. It's getting confusing. Sony is the market leader, but it can't use that against Activision, but Activision can use its market power to affect others.

You're not seeing the point here. You're so focused on Sony you're not seeing that the problem is Activision. Let alone the fact that Activision is too powerful for either one to not make marketing deals with them. You just only want to see the money Sony paid, which is the same thing Microsoft paid. It's just Sony's fault, though. It's not... this is a COD issue.

This is why I hate this whole merger. People aren't seeing the issue. It's not Microsoft buying ABK. It's *anyone* but a third-party buying them.

Agree 12 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 938d ago

Show all comments (53)

60°

Rockstar launches official marketplace for mods

Christopher|16h ago|News|10|

Rockstar has launched an official marketplace for "every server and every player" to buy mods: Cfx Marketplace.

Game publisher Rockstar Games gamesindustry.biz

Read Full Story >>

gamesindustry.biz

Credit url:https://marketplace.cfx.re/

- Comments (10)

Expand all

Christopher2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I wonder how much of this isn't just taken work of others who have modded for free.

Edit: Also, great way for R* to take popular ideas and build them into GTAVI based on demand.

Reply Agree 3 Disagree 1

SPAM Inappropriate

fr0sty10h ago

What I see happening here is, R* is going to ban mods in GTA6 UNLESS you buy them from the marketplace and R* then gets a cut of that sale.

Reply Agree 5 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

ActualWhiteMan13h ago

Ah, perfect timing with them taking down the Bully online fan mod. Greedy a$$ company.

Reply Agree 5 Disagree 1

SPAM Inappropriate

Christopher10h ago

It's okay as long as they get a cut of the money.

Reply Agree 2 Disagree 1

SPAM Inappropriate

Shane Kim12h ago

Buying mods? No thanks.

Reply Agree 6 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

fr0sty10h ago

Expect R* to force it on you.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

Snookies124h ago

Yep, right there with you. I'll happily donate to a mod creator if it looks really cool, or if I enjoy it. But expecting payment up front? Nope, not touching it.

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

IanTH10h ago(Edited 9h ago)

I'm not entirely sure how to read this, as it doesn't seem exactly like an exact parallel to Bethesda's paid mods shenanigans.

Rather than single player stuff, this appears to be aimed solely on Cfx Servers. From what I've gleaned, apparently Rockstar bought the Cfx mod team several years ago, coming a few years after weird contentions led them to ban a few of their members. Ultimately, the question is if they plan to keep this contained to only online/servers.

I have to guess to a degree yes. It'd be pretty hard to "force" paid mods for single player when modding files locally on your own machine, but much easier for servers they'll control. So perhaps this is their soft launch ahead of GTA6 online and they'll clamp down more tightly on non-official servers going forward? Ever since they've become a 1 or 2 property studio, I haven't really cared much for Rockstar stuff, so I'm not entirely up on everything surrounding this. Sounds like it has the potential to be problematic further down the line, but right now fairly easy to ignore...I think lol.

Reply Agree 1 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

TheColbertinator1h ago

Paid mods are just wrong

Reply Agree 0 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

Show all comments (10)

50°

Kotick claims lawsuit objecting to MS-Activision deal was "tied to Embracer's desire to boost sales"

Christopher|1d 9h ago |News|5|

Former CEO describes lawsuit filed by Swedish pension fund as a "collateral attack" on Activision Blizzard.

Activision Bobby Kotick Embracer Group Game publisher Industry Person gamesindustry.biz

Read Full Story >>

gamesindustry.biz

Credit url:https://www.scribd.com/docu...

- Comments (5)

OpenGL1d 7h ago

Yeah, the Microsoft deal has DEFINITELY worked out for everyone.

Reply Agree 13 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

galgor1d 4h ago

Can this mother fucker just get lost already

Reply Agree 13 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

PRIMORDUS1d 2h ago

He belongs in here ⚰️, hopefully sooner than later.

Reply Agree 8 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

TheColbertinator23h ago

MrDead11h ago(Edited 11h ago)

Kotick Made $155 million from MS in the buyout, the little b*tch needs to stop whining. Thanks to this Microslop deal and massive industry consolidation thousands upon thousands of devs and other workers lost their livelihoods. This greedy piggie pervert needs shut up and f-off.

Reply Agree 3 Disagree 0

SPAM Inappropriate

40°

An Update to Our Shared Commitment to Safer Gaming

thorstein|1d 18h ago |News|0|

Discover how Sony Interactive Entertainment, Nintendo, and Microsoft continue to collaborate to improve player safety across our platforms.

Culture Developer Game product manufacturer Game publisher Industry Nintendo PlayStation Xbox sonyinteractive.com

Read Full Story >>

sonyinteractive.com

- Comments (0)