NPD December 2011

[kagemaru]

Because they have a product that generates lot's of money to MS through game royalties and Live subscriptions and they know this. Activision has plenty of leverage due to this.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/12/bobby-kotick-on-the-business-of-call-of-duty-dlc-treyarch-inf/



"modest" to them probably amounts to quite a bit of money.

Something about that doesn't add up to me. So because MS has a subscription model, they have to pay 3rd parties while Sony and Ninty don't? Also how is it decided which publisher receives how much money, by their ranking on the most played list? So how much your company earns is based on the current popular fad?

Activision already earns the money from the game and DLC, so unless Kotick blackballed MS by threatening to pull future CoD games off the 360 (doubtful) I'm having a hard time seeing what right Activision would have to that money.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Seems pretty standard profit sharing to me... Whenever someone makes a buck you can be sure that there are others sticking their hand in and in this case Activision actually has pretty strong case to demand a cut. Their presence in Live is just so huge.

I have no idea on the details and percentages and who gets how much, but I'm sure Activision is getting some.

 

[RobertR1]

Something about that doesn't add up to me. So because MS has a subscription model, they have to pay 3rd parties while Sony and Ninty don't? Also how is it decided which publisher receives how much money, by their ranking on the most played list? So how much your company earns is based on the current popular fad?

Activision already earns the money from the game and DLC, so unless Kotick blackballed MS by threatening to pull future CoD games off the 360 (doubtful) I'm having a hard time seeing what right Activision would have to that money.

Early DLC deals.

 

[kagemaru]

Seems pretty standard profit sharing to me... Whenever someone makes a buck you can be sure that there are others sticking their hand in and in this case Activision actually has pretty strong case to demand a cut. Their presence in Live is just so huge.

I have no idea on the details and percentages and who gets how much, but I'm sure Activision is getting some.

Maybe I have a hard time wrapping my head around it since there is no rhyme or reason behind this.

Early DLC deals.

Now this makes a lot more sense to me and while I'm not sure this should fall under royalties.

 

[dobwal]

Seems pretty standard profit sharing to me... Whenever someone makes a buck you can be sure that there are others sticking their hand in and in this case Activision actually has pretty strong case to demand a cut. Their presence in Live is just so huge.

I have no idea on the details and percentages and who gets how much, but I'm sure Activision is getting some.

I doubt it. What is Activision going to say? "We'll give up 8-10 million in annual unit sales if you don't provide us a cut of Live."

 

[DuckThor Evil]

So when Bobby Kotick himself says that

"Activision does enjoy a very modest amount of the subscription fees"

You think he's lying?...

 

[TheChefO]

I doubt it. What is Activision going to say? "We'll give up 8-10 million in annual unit sales if you don't provide us a cut of Live."

Apparently that's exactly what the douche said.

I can only imagine how he's pressing Sony to force a subscription model onto psn for the sole purpose of Activision getting their "cut" on ps3 too... as if DLC, "ELITE", and record game sales weren't enough...

Ridiculous.

I just hope they didn't cave into a longterm agreement with Activision.

 

[NavNucST3]

Early DLC deals.

Why would I cut a continued payment DLC deal versus a one time charge in a quarter?

 

[Brad Grenz]

Apparently that's exactly what the douche said.

I can only imagine how he's pressing Sony to force a subscription model onto psn for the sole purpose of Activision getting their "cut" on ps3 too... as if DLC, "ELITE", and record game sales weren't enough...

Ridiculous.

I just hope they didn't cave into a longterm agreement with Activision.

Activision doesn't care if psn is paid. What they didn't like was watching MS rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year for a service that they feel like their game is creating most of the value for. Any deal they have to share profits now is a special arrangement, aimed at shutting up Bobby when he was making a fuss a while back, and likely contingent on the early dlc. Other publishers and developers do not get the same consideration.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Activision doesn't care if psn is paid. What they didn't like was watching MS rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year for a service that they feel like their game is creating most of the value for. Any deal they have to share profits now is a special arrangement, aimed at shutting up Bobby when he was making a fuss a while back, and likely contingent on the early dlc. Other publishers and developers do not get the same consideration.

More fool MS then. They should have told Activision they're free to quit the platform. Would they really have dropped COD for XB360 just to spite MS over royalties?

 

[kagemaru]

Activision doesn't care if psn is paid. What they didn't like was watching MS rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year for a service that they feel like their game is creating most of the value for. Any deal they have to share profits now is a special arrangement, aimed at shutting up Bobby when he was making a fuss a while back, and likely contingent on the early dlc. Other publishers and developers do not get the same consideration.

Yeah this does make sense, I wasn't aware of Bobby making a fuss. Is there a link or article detailing this?

Seeing as how the exclusive arrangement ends after this year, I wonder if MS will be sharing the profits in 2013 and beyond. Maybe they won't be and that's why Activision started the Elite program.

More fool MS then. They should have told Activision they're free to quit the platform. Would they really have dropped COD for XB360 just to spite MS over royalties?

Exactly, if this is indeed the arrangement, it was foolish for MS to cave. They are the ones who are investing into Live, so they should be entitled to the profits.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Does MW run peer-to-peer or on Activision servers? If the latter I can understand the comment and maybe how Activision could wrangle a little subscription fee to help their running costs, although even that'd be a reach considering they get nothing from the other platforms.

 

[RobertR1]

Why would I cut a continued payment DLC deal versus a one time charge in a quarter?

It'd depend on how the negotiations went down. I'm sure multiple options were presented. Hard to say who was in the driving power and got their way unless you have an inside track.

 

[kagemaru]

Does MW run peer-to-peer or on Activision servers? If the latter I can understand the comment and maybe how Activision could wrangle a little subscription fee to help their running costs, although even that'd be a reach considering they get nothing from the other platforms.

I always assumed the vast majority of games, including CoD, ran on MS' p2p servers.

 

[Richard]

More fool MS then. They should have told Activision they're free to quit the platform. Would they really have dropped COD for XB360 just to spite MS over royalties?

OTOH, if COD11 is PS4 exclusive what do you think will happen to the XBOX720?

Spoiler

Apologies for the acronym overload

 

[Shifty Geezer]

OTOH, if COD11 is PS4 exclusive what do you think will happen to the XBOX720?

Except that's extortion. I mean, yes, Activision could demand a cut or they'll destroy Ms's next platform, but then they could also say to Sony that they have to start paying Activitions an annual appreciation fund or they'll destroy PS4. On the flip side, this gen, Activision would ask MS for an ongoing cut to which MS should have said, "bugger off. If you don't want those 10 million XB360 owning buyers of MW, it's your bank balance that'll hurt."

I can't see any sane negotiation in which MS agree that Activision deserve special treatment. Or do they pay Ubisoft and EA an ongoing fee too, and it's just a little sweetener for being on XBox?

 

[NavNucST3]

OTOH, if COD11 is PS4 exclusive what do you think will happen to the XBOX720?

Spoiler

Apologies for the acronym overload

Microsoft forges ahead with Halo, keeps Gears exclusive, and tries to turn Battlefield into a play it here first option.

 

[NavNucST3]

Netflix earnings...basically streaming and international lost them money whereas DVD was the cash cow.

 

[Richard]

Microsoft forges ahead with Halo, keeps Gears exclusive, and tries to turn Battlefield into a play it here first option.

No game, regardless of platform, even dreams of reaching CoD right now. Sony has its own pet exclusive series now that level the playing field. CoD is the great equaliser and as such, the wildcard. Negotiating those timed-exclusive DLC drops for the last couple of CoD games says very strongly that MS feels CoD is very important to them, especially because of the anecdotal FPS bias XBOX users have.

Except that's extortion. I mean, yes, Activision could demand a cut or they'll destroy Ms's next platform, but then they could also say to Sony that they have to start paying Activitions an annual appreciation fund or they'll destroy PS4.

Oh I'm positive that's Acti's MO, playing both sides of the fence; right now it seems MS is willing to spend more thus get DLCs timed-exclusives, etc. I'm willing to bet Sony provides their "tithe" in other ways, like showing the game on their PS adverts or something.

On the flip side, this gen, Activision would ask MS for an ongoing cut to which MS should have said, "bugger off. If you don't want those 10 million XB360 owning buyers of MW, it's your bank balance that'll hurt."

Many of those own a PS3 or PC also, the hit would never be that big but yes I agree they wouldn't make such a move this gen, but Bobby seems the type of guy to hold grudges for eons. I don't doubt a denial now could mean no XBOX 720 COD 11 in a couple of years.

I can't see any sane negotiation in which MS agree that Activision deserve special treatment. Or do they pay Ubisoft and EA an ongoing fee too, and it's just a little sweetener for being on XBox?

CoD is so much bigger than any one IP (or heck, even combined IPs) that fairness doesn't come into play; certainly not in Bobby's eyes. Besides, MS probably recognises CoD has been very good to the XBOX so it's probably not such a hard pill to swallow. We don't know specific values, correct? It could be "only" 20 cents per year per gold account.

 

[AlphaWolf]

You guys are only assuming that Sony isn't giving them anything either. I'd be very surprised if activision wasn't getting a kickback on the royalties.