As Long As There's PlayStation, Call of Duty Will Release on It

He's saying that because the deal hasn't gone through yet. I expect this to change once the deal is done, in the end COD will be exclusive to Xbox. You don't pay 70 billion dollars to keep COD on PlayStation.

so Microsoft is gonna buy Sony

@Snake_V5 Why not? Offer your own fanbase the better value proposition and make a ton extra by selling it full price everywhere else.

Either way, I hope this deal goes through soon.

If they are prepared to sign documents committing to that, then surely the big hurdle is passed and the deal can be approved?

@Snake_V5 they'll want all those PS5 sales, regardless of GamePass.
Vanguard was the biggest selling game on PlayStation last year, Modern Warfare II will likely sell more. Microsoft won't want to lose those numbers

@Snake_V5 No - you pay 70 billion to get your hands on 15000 dev's and the IP that gets them properly into the Mobile market.

I firmly believe that COD, huge slice of business though it is, is almost a secondary consideration for MS now, and that they wont mind shifting stance on this title a bit to get the deal approved. Big sales on PS, big win for free GP version, they can live with the commitment im sure

Jims gotta find something else to cry about now. I like how comment 1 is already trying to spin it into a lie.

all posturing. by both sides. and moths more to come.

no sony CAN NOT make a cod equivalent yearly.

probably will stay on sony,at 70. whereas it will be on GP... with exclusive content.

Is that a threat, Phil?

Lol

Microsoft is looking at launch sale numbers and realized 70B makes no sense without PlayStation install base.

Said the same thing I was thinking. This will be the AAA Minecraft.

Fair enough I guess. They get their money through PS Store sales and Sony get their cut. Seems like the fairest solution to a dreadful situation born out of unfettered capitalism

@dschons why would you wamt this deal to happen ? What benefits do you see in COD being exclusive to xbox

Unless it’s written in a contract, his word is meaningless. Not that I care either way. I’d rather this was about Bethesda’s future games.

@Ometa Well, firstly I don't believe that will happen and secondly, I'd rather have them pick up a publisher whose games I usually don't play anyway. Finally, the constant back and forth is annoying because Sony is clearly trying to buy time here and I suspect this is also why we haven't heard from their first party in such a long time.

He did it guys, he said COD will continue to release on PS. Too bad he didn't say every COD will release on PS. 😈

Written contract that keeps it on Playstation and deal. And hopefully this stops Microsoft from buying any other publishers. I just want it done so Sony will unveil all the stuff they have been hiding

@dschons yea I think most agree, we just want this to be over with now. It’s bound to go through so just go through already. Hopefully this is the thing that tips it over the line.

Also to add as a benefit to this deal; COD ends up on at least one subscription service (Gamepass) where now it isn’t due to Sony paying to stop just that.

Still some ambiguity there. Will it release day one or a year down the line? Not that I care either personally as I don't play the games..

@Hundred_Hand_Slap funny enough I might actually welcome this. Would make the console wars irrelevant again and I could actually afford to have all the consoles. Probably not great for competition though, so maybe not. 🥲

I think Microsoft will be cool with that.
They will get all the console bundle deals, all the advertising and the dlc first etc.
Also day one game pass.
It massively helped the PS4 sales having all the above of course not Game pass and it will help the Xbox COD casual market.

If Call of Duty is day one on gamepass, but not on ps+, that will have almost the same impact as COD being Xbox-exclusive, imo

Amazing how it went from Satya's "Let there be competion!!", to good cop "Gamer" Phil insisting so long as there's Playstations out there,we'll keep releasing COD!",when there's scrutiny being applied!
Just watch out for the asterix of "As soon as we get the chance, we'll lock it in on Gamepass & undercut the PS market!", not to mention "Forget Diablo,Crash,Spyro etc.,all the other IP's are exclusives!!"

It'll be a one year exclusivity on Xbox, so always a year behind.

More smoke and mirrors, the way it's worded means Phil Spencer wouldn't be lying here if he decided that after the 3 year deal Playstation only got remasters and Warzone successors.

It's the same as the whole "legacy" comment regarding Bethesda.

I think Sonys main concerns is not just the game realising on Xbox, as it does now.
It’s all devices and game pass and cloud gaming
Advertise that correctly and market it well, like clever, almost pretending it’s exclusive to Xbox and game pass, then what do you need a PlayStation for COD for and even does PlayStation have the COD game anymore.

It’s been done before, clever advertising makes a third party game look exclusive when it’s not.

It was never about exclusivity for Microsoft, its all about day 1 on gamepass

@K1LLEGAL
"Jims gotta find something else to cry about now."

Well yes, but that's because that 'crying' as you put it has won him the concession he was looking for? Microsoft have never stated this before, and the fact they have now is because they want to move this forward?
Is that not a fair reading of the situation? Its Microsoft who are changing what they are saying here, and surely they would not have done if were not for the issues they face getting approval...
Those concerned about duplicity should not be concerned. Phil knows he would need to sign an understanding for the CMA to take his statement at face value, you cant bypass the statutory checks by leaving a few loose comments around like a used car salesman! If he commits to what he's saying, the problem is resolved.

Can't trust a single word that man says.

They are both just playing games with media and fan base by posting PS store sales Milestones and now this. It's obvious what they are doing. Of course Phil would respond after Sony posting that, as they are just looking to bolster their position with this lame acquisition.

I feel Like I'm in the minority that just wants this franchise to disappear and believes this isn't even an aspect of gaming, nor is Madden or Fifa.

& 'As long as Phil Spencer opens his month lies will always come out' (just like all of Microsoft to)

*if they let us put Gamepass on there
**will never be released on Plus
They don’t care about consoles anyway, that’s the past for them.

"our intent to.."
"we intent to..."
"we want to do the same..."

Intentions and wants change over time just FYI

Microsoft wasn't always a multi trillion dollar company. They now have the money to do whatever they want.

Lmfao at all the ppl thinking this is a new thing , this is what he's being saying from day one , if u want to find the liar ask Jim why when he was interviewed he said that microsoft offered him 3 year s cod on ps and it wasn't long enough .....not the truth that he was offered 3 years parity before they put exclusive stuff on GP ...he neglected to say that part cause he knew how ppl would respond if they thought Microsoft was going to take away cod

@Titntin Signing that kind of contract would be ridiculous. Not because of some shady dealings, but think of this:

What if Microsoft grows tired of Call of Duty? What if Microsoft decides to scale back or kill it all together?

Legally, Microsoft would have to develop Call of Duty for PlayStation for as long as PlayStation exists with that kind of contract in place.

It sounds dumb and petty; but if lawyers smell blood in the water, they will go after it. Given the heat that is already surrounding this, I would full well see Sony go after Microsoft for some kind of breach of contract.

Now whether Microsoft would actually kill CoD is a whole different scenario; but it's always possible. It's something the company couldn't do if it signs a lifetime contract with Sony.

you cant have a contract like that i has to have a time span

@GamingFan4Lyf
I think your over thinking it. They only need to commit to keeping it multi plat as long as as they release it. it would be easy to make it so that if it releases it will appear on all formats. I'm sure they will give themselves some exclusive perks and also make sure its on GP, but as long as the main game is mutiplat, this could work.

@Titntin Microsoft have never stated this before, and the fact they have now is because they want to move this forward?

Read EVERY cma /Brazil report they have said it time and time again they have never said there were going to take cod from ps in ANY of them , the even were gonna make a deal that kept parity for 3 extra years but Jim said no

Even this site left out the parity part

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/09/playstation-bites-back-at-inadequate-call-of-duty-offer-from-microsoft

And for that article that quote

Then in a follow-up statement published less than a week ago, Spencer reiterated: “We've heard that this deal might take franchises like Call of Duty away from the places where people currently play them. That's why, as we've said before, we are committed to making the same version of Call of Duty available on PlayStation on the same day the game launches elsewhere. We will continue to enable people to play with each other across platforms and across devices. We know players benefit from this approach because we've done it with Minecraft, which continues to be available on multiple platforms and has expanded to even more since Mojang joined Microsoft in 2014.”

@Martsmall I'm not saying your wrong, but if you have a link to Phil saying he would keep COD on PS as long as there is a PS before today, then please share it.
I've read pretty much all the releases till this point, and this is a first as far as I'm concerned, but I might have missed something before, please share your source.

Put it in writing, coward! 😉

@Titntin I've edited the post to add, please read the edit

Like Minecraft that i still on ps

It's promising words I guess, but like mentioned, without a contract promises are certainly not binding.
The British in particular might be distrustful of promises because of the broken promises of the Cadbury buyout several years ago.

@Martsmall Thank you! The parity bit was slightly different as that's respecting already existing agreements, as per:

"Had good calls this week with leaders at Sony. I confirmed our intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. "

If its being kept on PS as per minecraft and Sony's Bungie purchase, then I really don't see what the drama and infighting has been about?

In what form though, just warzone or every yearly release?

@Titntin I might be, but contracts are like 99.9% over-thinking possible scenarios to ensure nothing is left to interpretation for legal to rip apart.

@GamingFan4Lyf Yup - your not wrong! Especially these two

@GamingFan4Lyf No, it would be quite easy to just have the IP be on PS only if it was made. This would not force CODs to made at all.... I'm not sure why you think that might be the case. It would not be difficult to do the wording right.

@UltimateOtaku91 like the statement says and said months ago

we are committed to making the same version of Call of Duty available on PlayStation on the same day the game launches elsewhere.

@Titntin same here all this about is money .... Sony know how much they will lose if gp has exclusive cod stuff like they do now and Microsoft know how much they will make

The prob is there is so much bs like the push square article that doesn't mention the parity yet another site did ?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/09/sony-calls-microsofts-3-year-call-of-duty-sharing-offer-inadequate/amp/

That gets the fans all riled up thinking they taking away cod and it worked big time

@K1LLEGAL well, we know how many times they've twisted the truth or outright lied, so I wouldn't take their word for it either.

@get2sammyb
Sony bigwig Jim Ryan recently went public about an “inadequate” offer his company had received from Microsoft, which pledged to keep the first-person shooter on PlayStation for “three years after the current agreement” his firm has with Activision Blizzard.

That was a parity deal he was offered why aren't you putting that truth in ? Do you get more clicks if ppl think they will lose cod ?

These got it right

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/09/sony-calls-microsofts-3-year-call-of-duty-sharing-offer-inadequate/

If i got a dollar every time this guy makes a contradiction

Like I said in another thread, free on GP and 70 on PS. That is not fair business and it forces a horrible war of trying to buy everyone out and f*** each other over.

Put your money behind non globally established behemoth ips, and create new, exciting stuff to drive creativity instead of trying to hurt the opposition.

Todays reported statement:
"Our intent is not to [remove Call of Duty] and as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to, our intent is that we'll continue to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation"

That's not the same as the earlier parity statement which seemed to suggest, from the arstechnica article:
"Sony and Activision's current agreement is believed to cover the next three Call of Duty releases, including this year's Modern Warfare 2, according to GamesIndustry.biz. That means a proposed three-year extension of that agreement could take Call of Duty's annual PlayStation releases through 2027"

I think the statement has shifted somewhat, from "3 years after the current arrangement" to "as long as there's a PlayStation out there".
It could be argued that was always the intent, but that's not what they originally committed to, so I think there's been little give recently which can only help things.

It would be nice if Jim now sat down and said "we'd be cool with that, and appreciate the shift in stance." Not really Jim's style though is it?"

However 2 days ago, to the wall street Journal " Spencer also gives a curious statement that Microsoft will continue shipping Call of Duty on PlayStation on a post-merger basis "if it makes sense" to do so. What does this mean exactly? Not a lot of info was given on this particular sentiment"

Pinning down what he means to say is the difficulty!

@Carl-G Let me edit this for you:

& 'As long as Jim Ryan opens his mouth lies will always come out' (just like all of Sony does)

@Ravix Not fair? Why? You pay $70 for games anyway from both Sony and 3rd party developers. Oh wait, it is because it is Microsoft. How dare they charge us $70 for a game because they are anti-competitive and slimy. But, I am all for Sony paying to keep games off Game Pass, locking down exclusive content for Playstation only while blocking it from every other platform out there including the PC market, locking down timed exclusive after timed exclusive as well as 3rd party exclusives and of course buying other companies.

@Titntin that's just it though the 3 years was a parity deal not to keep cod on ps like ppl now think , if sites actually put the truth instead of putting bs for the clicks there would be none of this

As I expected. Whilst there is Hardware to release their game onto with an Active online Community, then MS has an incentive to sell this game on that Platform.

What this is alluding to though is a time when Playstation as 'hardware' may not exist, much like Xbox hardware may not exist and people are accessing gaming through the cloud and/or Sub service. MS will 'never' give their games away on anothers Subscription service so CoD will be 'exclusive' to Game Pass - just like Destiny, SpiderMan etc will be 'exclusive' to PS+.

You don't expect Netflix to pay for the development and release of Stranger Things, the Witcher etc and then to release these on Amazon Prime, Disney+ etc at the same time it comes to Netflix do you? They want the 'Subscribers' to subscribe to Netflix to pay for those shows to be made, not lose subs to their rivals because they have all the same Netflix content, and their own shows too.

So what MS are saying is that as long as Playstation continues to release hardware so they can 'sell' you the game in a 'traditional' manner, they will release the game - but if Sony decides to stop making hardware and become a Cloud based game provider, then MS will NOT be releasing their games on Sony's Sub service.

Like I said, you don't expect Sony to spend 'millions' developing Destiny and then put it day and date into Game Pass, so why expect MS to do that? I can understand Sony wanting to 'sell' Destiny at £70+ on Xbox to keep that 'revenue' stream inc all the MTX, DLC's, Season Passes, etc which they'd still get money for as Publisher - like A/B do with CoD or MS does with Minecraft.

Its what happens when Sony/MS can no longer make hardware powerful enough, with adequate high speed storage and a method of distributing the game (Blurays are proving somewhat limited now - how limited would they be with Megascans etc used to make UE5 games). Not only the cost of R&D, Cost of Dev Kits, Cost of manufacturing (inc Raw materials), cost of energy/fuel to distribute around the world etc and to make something for around 'console' price.

If Sony continue to make hardware, MS will 'sell' some of their games there. It seems to me that MS are thinking more long term, not necessarily this or next gen, but long term and don't see a future with 'local' console hardware believing that games will be too big, too complex etc to scale down to 'cheap' hardware...

@Martsmall 3years after the current Sony arrangement with A/B expires - which could be 3 or 4yrs into this current generation of hardware by the time that this '3yr' extension would become applicable.

That would take the PS5 up to 7yrs old and potentially, near the end of this generations life-cycle. At which time, Sony would likely have their next gen hardware planned out, which at time of writing, has no indication of being released, so MS can't 'promise' to release on non-existant hardware. They have guaranteed that this gen will certainly not miss out, and leaves it in Sony's court. If they decide to go the 'cloud' route, then MS haven't made a Promise to give CoD away because they 'promised' it would be on 'Playstation' 10yrs after Sonys deal expired. They have made a 'realistic' guarantee to continue to support CoD and the CoD community on the current generation Playstation ecosystem and will support as long as Sony has the hardware to run it. If Sony want the Latest CoD on PS6, the same day as Xbox, then they'll also need to send them a dev-kit - which they maybe 'reluctant' to do in the year before their hardware releases. If they don't send an accurate dev kit, then they would be 'hurting' their Customers as the Devs cannot port or optimise the game fully to the hardware. So will Sony release a Dev Kit to MS owned Studios to have a look at, to go over with their own tech guys, know what specs, what 'secrets' Sony have built in and could 'readjust' their own 'nextbox' plans accordingly...

@cburg sorry, but what are you on about? I said unfair from a business and therefore regulatory stand point. It's naff all to do with me as a consumer, I don't care as a consumer as I don't play CoD. I didn't go in to great detail here, but that is what the idea from MS is surely going to be. And if they own the property they can do whatever they like with it in future regardless of what they say in the media.

If you buy out something insanely established that sells incredibly well, you are hurting the ability to compete fairly in that market. This is why company buy outs are subject to stingy regulation.

Look at things like sports TV deals, multibillion+ dollar contracts, where one station can not purchase all of the rights, as it would hurt the competition unfairly as the biggest deal would just shut down all rivals ability to be a sports broadcast provider. This is not quite on that level, but it smells a little like it with such a huge gaming property.

Sony has consistently backed developers for years on end to create unique content exclusively, which Microsoft COULD HAVE ALSO DONE (which is the point of fair) Microsoft at any point could have backed studios to make exclusive games for them, but they didn't bother, they stuck with the big 3 they had.

And no, Sony are not a lovely huggable company, but they have never made such a big move on such a well established property and if they did it would be subject to the same scrutiny

They point out Minecraft as a shining example but Minecraft has slowly but surely been aborbed into Microsoft now.

Like, the only way to update the Minecraft Launcher on PC is to use Microsoft Store, which sucks and has caused my kids (and, therefore, of course, me) nothing but hassle since they changed it.

If Microsoft Store is the answer the question must've been "what will make this worse?".

@Titntin I am certain that Jim is not going to be happy with this statement, Sony actually had argued in Brazil how destructive it would be for them if CoD was in game pass. This whole thing is about preventing CoD from being on GamePass in a couple of years.

Fans need to get a grip. We're still going to get the games we've always enjoyed. We may potentially even get them for less if we're willing to look outside our platform of choice once in a while.

@Tharsman Well if that is the case then he wants too much. Ensuring his player base still has access is understandable, even laudable.
But putting it on gamepass is up to Microsoft and not something he can moan about.
I want to see it on gp, but Id like to see it still available on PS too.

Even if Microsoft continues to release CoD on PlayStation Sony is keenly aware that if CoD is free on Game Pass there will be a steady exodus. It won't be overnight, but many players will migrate over time.

Spencer's comments are a bit disenguous though. Yes they've continue to support Minecraft everywhere, but that is the exception as far as their acquisitions have gone, not the rule. The understanding is none of Bethesda's content will be on PlayStation going forward and Elder Scrolls is arguably a top tier franchise due to Skyrim's immense success.

@nessisonett as much as I loath greedy capitalism, this wasn’t born out of it.

Activision-Blizzard we’re going to sell up, the question was to who? Microsoft is a far better option for acquisition than Tencent.

Everyone thinks this is just Microsoft going around and buying. I mean, it is that, but they can’t buy companies that don’t want to sell.

@RudeAnimat0r I know F76, ESO are still being supported. They still released a few things too, like the quake remaster. But I get the concern and annoyance many are feeling.

@Kienda this is something that perpetually baffles me, the fact that many here seem to think this is Microsoft forcing Activision to take the money. There are few out there that could afford a purchase of this size, and I honestly would hate to see Apple, Amazon or Tencent being the ones buying Activision.

Apple would dismantle them the way they dismantle everything they buy, just salvage what they want to make their Apple Arcade “better”, Amazon would push for the games to likely he PC/Luna exclusives going forward and don’t get me started on Tencent and China censorship.

Who gives a ***** at this point I wanna know about playstation games in development

Just sign something to that fact and move on.

Companies and Regulators make this much noise means they are not getting the OK without assurances.

I only care about the (not made or usually short) single payer campaign. So if they buy it and put it on PC GamePass it is a win for me.

They will just change the name of call of duty 😂

@K1LLEGAL If you believe anything a CEO tells you I've got some snake oil to sell you

@racinggamefanatic first: Sony is not an option. They don’t have the funds to make this acquisition.

That aside: MS changed a lot after Bill Gates steeped down as CEO. Ballmer had an extremely different approach, Nadella even more so and has now been CEO for almost 10 years.

His end goal is to eliminate playstation lol

@Snake_V5 keeping COD on PS has never been in jeopardy and Sony knows it. No, the problem is this:
Once the deal is through, we could see a requirement in future COD for an automatically provisioned xbox account (like you get a ubisoft one when playing AC these days). Sony wants to avoid this at all cost.

cant sonys first party carry the brand ? who needs COD ??

He saw all the cash and changed his mind 🤣🤣🤣

As long as there is a Physical Playstation hardware to Ship to, MS will continue to sell CoD on that Physical platform - but ALL cloud based gaming options will be 'exclusive'.

What this means is that CoD will be available 'everywhere' on Game Pass but on Playstation, you'll have to spend money to buy your copy and it won't be available on PS+ or any Sony 'streaming' options. When you can play ANY game direct through your TV (or any device) without needing to buy Hardware, CoD will be 'exclusive' to Xbox - its not being given away 'free' on PS+ but then you don't expect Destiny to be given away on Game Pass either so Destiny will be 'exclusive' to PS+

Phil like Jim is not to be believed.

@racinggamefanatic this exactly,

Embrace a competing product
Extend it with content exclusively available on your platform
Extinguish it once they're reliant on you, so your own product can flourish

The tune has never changed, but different leaders have emphasised the first and second stages differently.