Microsoft admits making COD exclusive would not be profitable

https://www.eurogamer.net/call-of-duty-xbox-exclusivity-wouldnt-be-profitable-microsoft-says

Microsoft previously said it had no immediate plans to make Call of Duty an Xbox exclusive, and has now doubled down on this by adding that it did not make business sense.

"The reality is that the strategy of retaining Activision's games by not distributing them in rival console stores would simply not be profitable to Microsoft," the company wrote in documentation made public by Brazilian authorities.

That's not to say it could never be profitable, Microsoft continued - before adding that such a situation still seemed unlikely due to additional "costs" involved (details of which remain redacted).

Put together, these costs and "lost sales" from not releasing a game on other platforms - for example pulling Call of Duty from PlayStation - meant the whole thing would not be worth it, Microsoft said.

"Such costs, in addition to the lost sales estimated... above, mean that Microsoft would not be able to make up for the losses by earning more via the Xbox ecosystem as a result of implementing exclusivity," it continued.

"This is especially true considering (i) the 'gamer-centric' - rather than 'device-centric' - strategy that Microsoft has pioneered with Game Pass, and (ii) the fact that PlayStation has the most loyal users across its various generations, with every indication that brand loyalty accrued in previous rounds of the 'console wars' suggests that PlayStation will continue to have a strong market position."

The bottom line here is Microsoft again trying to shrug off any claim by Sony that its $68.7bn deal will affect PlayStation unfairly - and at the same time trying to dodge any whiff of the deal being scuppered by anti-competition laws.

Hmm.. if that is the case, then what about Bethesda games? Will Starfield be multplat after all? hmm 🤔

The bottom line here is Microsoft again trying to shrug off any claim by Sony that its $68.7bn deal will affect PlayStation unfairly - and at the same time trying to dodge any whiff of the deal being scuppered by anti-competition laws.

The article summarized it perfectly, don't know what's even there to discuss.

Allow GP on every system and fixed.

lol :P

They can charge the $70 premium on ps4/ps5. It sells millions there every year. I wouldn't turn down that money either. Day 1 on gp and other platforms have to pay. Makes sense to me.

So you're saying that making COD exclusive would be profitable for MS?

Of course MS is going to say that. They want this deal to go through without issues.

Easily. Just like Gears is profitable for MS. Just like The Last of Us is profitable for Sony. COD will be profitable for MS without PS sales. But I suspect they will always have Warzone on all the devices because it makes MTX bank.

Yep, COD on PC and Xbox would net a loss...😂🤣

Microsoft admitting they wanna be a third party publisher.

I didn't know pc_rocks was your alt 😎 COD has a much bigger budget than Gears. Sony is a market leader. Taking it off Sony systems would of course not make business sense from a profitability perspective. This is economics 101 😎

Wait wait wait you're saying taking a game that's available on all* systems and then essentially cutting that down by a significant percentage--especially when that game's profit is determined by microtransactions--is going to make it LESS profitable?

You're blowing my mind here.

*Almost all. Or is it all? Hard to tell.

@mrbojangles25: OP is saying it would not be profitable, not less profitable. 😎

"The reality is that the strategy of retaining Activision's games by not distributing them in rival console stores would simply not be profitable to Microsoft," the company wrote in documentation made public by Brazilian authorities.

Even Bethesda games should be multiplatform. That's my opinion since day one. Just include them on Game Pass, and add some exclusive Xbox content or whatever but otherwise business as usual.

@kathaariancode: But folks want exclusives. 😎

If only that was true 😎

Yea, not like Starfield is blowing anyone away, but maybe MS will be tempted by the money and put it on PS5 eventually.

@Pedro: I would rather have Game Pass subsidised by PlayStation users, which would give me a better service in the long term, than the illusory satisfaction of taking games away from other gamers. I honestly don't get it.

Well this could also just be something they are saying to ensure a smooth process for this acquisition. Time will tell I guess. 🤷‍♂️

Starfield isn't blowing anyone away? I assume you mean cows. But I agree, at some point MS might put Starfield on PS, and Sony might put God of War Ragnarok on Xbox. Crazier things have happened.

But to this date, MS still hasn't made a single game for PlayStation. I don't see it happening anytime soon. But we know that Sony is making MLB for Xbox, which is rather nice of them.

I would think missing out on +/- 50% of potential sales would hurt profitability.

@SolidGame_basic: They said this a while ago. Why would anyone care if CoD stays on PS?

But, it will be on game pass.

Put the games in Game Pass, but continue to sell them everywhere else. That maximizes earning potential, while also enticing folks to sub to Game Pass for the #Value. Everybody wins.

Only the gullible will believe this

That's every cow then 🤣

All speculation at this point. Wake me when the acquisition goes through.

Seems like a no brainer to leave COD on PS and continue milking the Cows pockets.

It wasn't that long ago when Lems were saying that MS wouldn't make an acquisition only to leave the game on PlayStation. My have things changed 😎

That Ghost quote in your sig is funny 😂

I seem to remember most people saying MS would leave Warzone at the very least on PS.

The valuation/purchase price of AB includes the NPV of expected profits from existing IPs across existing platforms for some considerable period of time.

COD is one of the largest game franchises in the entire industry and a substantial portion of that is on PS. Of course they are going to monetize that.

What they are saying is: if we cut PS off from COD we will have effectively overpaid for AB. This is not whether COD could be profitable without PS moving forward...it is whether they can recoup the costs from buying AB in the first place.

Their statements make perfect sense, especially given their positioning of bringing games to gamers across all devices/channels.

This also has limited effect on independent decisions based upon new IP, since that had much less to do with the AB purchase price in the first place. Whereas they clearly always intended on using COD across all platforms in the near future as a significant cash cow to pay for the AB acquisition in the first place.

As batman said... $70 on PS, included in gamepass sub. It's still gonna convince people to go to the xbox ecosystem. Anybody that's gonna spend $70 on the game isnt going to be switching consoles anyways. Win/win for MS.

You know GamePass isn’t free, right? lol. So you would buy an Xbox just so you don’t have pay full price for COD? Well that limits you to 4.5 months of playing the game on GamePass 😄

This whole gen is Lems gloating about the future and unknown. In other words, absolutely nothing. Never change.

Reminds me of the cows.

@SolidGame_basic: Just for COD? Nope. I sub on PC right now. That's 7 months of gamepass, or 1 game. I doubt I'd even play that for more than a few months anyways. The deal breaker for me on that game would be no m/kb support though. I didn't mind using a controller before but since using m/kb it's hard to go back.

LOL, Sony raised the prices of their games to $70 so that their gamers have to pay to block games from going to Game Pass. OMG!! Priceless.

I see you're slow as usual and bu*thurt about this acquisition so let me dumb it down for you. From the same article:

That's not to say it could never be profitable, Microsoft continued - before adding that such a situation still seemed unlikely due to additional "costs" involved (details of which remain redacted).

Anything MS has said here isn't legally binding. They can do whatever they want later because they have left the door open. Even if CoD won't be profitable what's preventing MS to eat losses if they think doing it make their platform more attractive? Did you forget console hardware is sold at a loss and MS/Sony both are selling their current systems for a loss. Isn't this the reason why you people cheer for exclusives?

The article summarized it perfectly, don't know what's even there to discuss.

Summarized what perfectly, you make no sense. The topic is about MS admitting that making COD exclusive wouldn’t be profitable for them. Would’ve, could’ve, should’ve doesn’t matter. We’re talking about reality 😄

OP is struggling with this acquisition. Poor lad. 😂

No, the topic is about consoling yourself and confirmation bias over the acquisition. Just bringing you to reality that MS didn't confirm nor deny anything about the future exclusivity.

The article summarized it perfectly, don't know what's even there to discuss.

Reality > you

Yeah, I know. Reality is what I described. Good that you can finally see it.

They also claimed COD isn't an essential IP. I think MS will do whatever is in their better interest.

Cows are really struggling with this deal,they don't know whether to boycott the game if the sale goes through, criticize MS for buying up developers, or rejoice in the fact it may stop muliplat.

There is NO win for Sony fanboys here, either you pay MS full price(killing your sales and profit narrative) while gamepass subscribers get it day one with their subscription.

And PlayStations best selling most popular game instantly becomes an Xbox studios game🤣

I've got buckets ready to catch the tears

Making COD multiplat doesn’t mean they have to include PlayStation. They could put the next one on Switch, mobile, PC etc. to keep it profitable.

In the 8th gen I was saying PlayStation shouldn’t be relying on multiplat deals like COD and continue to develop their own ips like Resistance and Killzone.

But they chose to copy the Xbox playbook of the 360 days. PS didn’t need to do that because they can make decent and sometime good games. Xbox One on the other hand showed that MS is incapable of fostering strong and diverse first party development and lineup. So basically MS needs to do this because their management of studios and projects suck.

PlayStation got lazy and dug their own hole and played up marketing deals while resting on their ass. Their lineup isn’t as un-diverse and MS but they should have already had a strong multiplayer game of their own that they could have been beefing up right now with Bungie.

Third person movie games and tired open world games are not enough.

I said that from the beginning. It makes no sense. It would just kill the franchise.

At best this deal means that MS could dump loads of CoD on Gamepass.

That's the smart move. Instead of withholding the game and cutting off a lot of income, allow other platforms to bring in that income, while making the the Xbox version more attractive by adding it to Gamepass. That would boast Gamepass and Xbox without having to resort to exclusivity.

Anyone who was hoping COD would go exclusive to Xbox simply didn’t think that thought through. It would be a massive gamble to expect people to run out and buy an Xbox just for COD. And if that didn’t pay off, now what? Tuck your tail between your legs and release it back on PS like a clown? It was never going exclusive, they had no intention to make it exclusive.

They don't need the game for PS, and they won't make it for the PS beyond the current contracted games and Warzone. Releasing the game on Xbox, Xbox Game Cloud, iOS, Samsung TVs, Android and Microsoft Windows PC on top of PS gamers buying Xboxes for the game will make them a ton of profit. Just like The Last of Us 1 and 2 makes a ton of profit for Sony and isn't released on Xbox nor Microsoft Windows PC. Not to mention, the production value of TLOU is far beyond the cookie cutter 30 year old COD engine is. Tiny 6 hour campaign, relying on maps online for multiplayer.

Clearly some PS fans aren't thinking this stuff through.

Of course not. The smarted move of them all is to make the game "free" on GP. When gamers dudebros have the choice of playing the new cod for "free" or pay $70usd, i think the choice is clear. Not only will it increase GP subs by a lot, but more and more of them will be buying an MS system over Sony's. And Microsoft needs to market this so all the normies are aware.

Lol - you really think gamers are going to switch to an entire new console just to rent COD? They've been buying the game for years..