Microsoft is in Brussels today, trying to convince the European Commission that it should be allowed to acquire Activision Blizzard for an eye-watering $69 billion sum. Both the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority and the United States’ Federal Trade Commission have sought to block the buyout in recent months, so this is considered a pivotal moment for the deal.
As a result, the Redmond firm has gone on a bit of a charm offensive, announcing that it’s signed a ten-year partnership with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty (and, seemingly, other Xbox titles) to the Switch and any subsequent systems the Mario maker may release [Update: To clarify, subsequent reporting has confirmed Microsoft only plans to bring Call of Duty to Nintendo platforms, should the acquisition clear]. It’s also signed a deal with NVidia, who previously opposed the deal, to bring all of Microsoft’s PC releases to GeForce Now. Unsurprisingly, the graphics chip giant is now very much on board with the acquisition.
That puts Sony in the precarious position of being one of two opposing parties remaining, with Google being the other. During a media briefing earlier this evening, Microsoft president Brad Smith held aloft a contract for the Japanese giant along with a pen, and said that it’s ready for its rival to sign. Presumably, the contents of that contract will ensure Call of Duty continues to release on PlayStation for the next ten years, as has previously been reported.
The Xbox maker also spent a little time comparing its position to Sony, pointing out that Microsoft commands just 20 per cent of the console market in Europe, compared to PlayStation’s 80 per cent. It also admitted that Xbox was massively outsold by PlayStation towards the tail-end of last year, with the Redmond firm capturing just 31 per cent of the market worldwide.
Microsoft concluded that, with its latest round of announcements, it’s committed to bringing Call of Duty to more platforms – and not less. A big sticking point for regulators has revolved around whether the juggernaut first-person franchise could potentially end up exclusive, like we’ve seen with some Bethesda titles like Starfield. It’ll be hoping it’s done enough here to move the needle on the deal.
[source eurogamer.net]
Comments 127
And so it begins ………..
Another classic Jim picture! Well done!
@TripleKing333 You're very welcome!
Sure. Of course they will bring COD on PS for 70€, while free on GP.
@get2sammyb do you think by any chance Sony will sign?
@Splatmaster I doubt it.
The first thing that happens is Microsoft bribing Nvidia by saying that CoD will be available on Gforce now....I think this should be enough for the European Union to oppose the deal. Microsoft is not prepared at all. But tries to attract companies in this way. Microsoft is a big circus right now. And Phill Spencer killing time by playing HIFI Rush on his series s in his hotel room. It shouldn't get crazier :😜
Hopefully, regulators are not fooled. There's no way letting Microsoft seize yet another publisher is a net positive for the industry. At minimum, it gives Microsoft outsized leverage over their competitors and harms those that have no interest in Xbox or Game Pass, which is the vast majority of gamers.
@Splatmaster
I don't think they will. What's the purpose of this 10-year deal if Microsoft means what they say about not taking games away?
This is what is known colloquially as "lipstick on a pig."
What If the commission feels Microsoft has done enough without Sony signing up, will that mean no more COD on PlayStation???
I honestly hope the deal goes through. I could careless for Activisions titles, and it would pretty much end this buying spree for MS with how hard it's been for them to get this one to go through.
@Ken_Kaniff
It would be better if the deal fell through and Microsoft found out that way they can't continue buying up publishers.
Saying you’re bringing a title to other platforms when everyone knows it will be FREE on Gamepass is such empty fluff.
Switch has its own niche but that drives PlayStation into the ground hard no matter what.
A monopoly 10 years from now instead of right away? hmm...still no!
Hopefully Sony buys SE, if this deal goes through.
I hope they see this is just stupid. Nintendo didn’t even get titles already, and frankly it sounds like it will hurt the games to be stuck on that kind of hardware. PC, yeah, cause that was in danger, nor just one PC hardware maker getting a good deal it stood to lose nothing without.
Not sure how they plan to have parity on Switch with 1/10th the processing power of the Xbox S. Doesn’t seem possible to me.
All in all, these negotiations are about reducing risk to the industry as a whole, which doesn’t happen with a 10 year deal. This is just kicking the 10 ton can of worms down the road a bit.
The weirdest part for me is how they cite the market share differences as a reason regulators should allow this.
Sony is doing well in Europe because their products are well localised and marketed. Couldn't Microsoft just, y'know, try doing better instead of buying a publisher for $70 billion?
@TheCollector316
The purpose is so that regulatory agencies can see they are not just making promises, but legally forcing themselves to keep those promises. Valve agrees with you, as they refused the deal on philosophical reasons (they don't want to hold anyone hostage) and the fact that they trust Xbox to keep their word without contracts.
They'll ruin Activision, like what they've done with all the other studios they've bought.
I don’t want to bloody buy an Xbox just to play COD and I don’t think my Switch could run it unless it’s a remaster of one of the old ones…… I know there are a lot of people on here that don’t care about COD or any Activision games but for me and most of all my mates we do care …….. this sucks ass big time.
@Splatmaster
Doubtful, Xbox would not win much if PS is the only platform out there without CoD. The worst I see happening is Xbox saying "well... you turned down the contract that had parity... so now Zombies mode is exclusive to those platforms that agreed to the deal."
@Splatmaster maybe this'll kick Sony in butt to make something to rival COD.
@Splatmaster
No, because CoD should not be kept off Playstation. the user base is much too large for that. If Microsoft were to divest CoD...I wonder if the deal will go through. If Microsoft is smart, they would agree if that were a requirement.
@TommyNL I have a feeling that should they be absolutely forced to divest from CoD, and nothing else, they would still want to go through as they get a lot out of the other Activision IPs, Blizzard and King. The question should be instead if Activision Blizzard's investors would accept the restructured deal, it would certainly not be for the full $70 billion dollars, and they would be stuck with at minimum 3 studios and the CoD IP.
@get2sammyb
Explained in 1 sentence why this whole purchase makes no sense.
Gotta love the pie chart that they have brought out on stage, "wah wah look how pathetic we are, you just gotta give us Activision". Not to mention the lame Union tweet and Nintendo deal, talk about dragging out the desperate measures to the 11th hour.
However I'm Quite surprised Value is behind the deal though because Shirley they would lose a big chunk of change if CoD and Diablo went into PC GP.
I want it to go through only if they let sony get a smaller publisher.
Xbox has 23 studios, more than Playstation's. It's 20 times bigger than sony. It's their own fault they can't compete.
I kind of want it to go through since I'm scared they'll go for another one (hopefully Ubisoft), like Capcom/god
@get2sammyb
Cant they do both?
And ABK was the one looking for a buyer, MS was the only one with deep enough pockets and interest to go for it.
Should ABK instead be forced to break up and sell every IP and studio individually?
@Tharsman
No, I agree that the deal is certainly no longer worth 70 billion. And then it remains to be seen what the shareholders will think of that. But it would be in line with what Microsoft keeps releasing. "we don't care about CoD"
The sooner MS are put in their place, the better off the gaming industry will be.
@TommyNL if it comes to that, it can become extremely complex and businesy. There are many odd things they can end up donig, like actually buying the entirety of ABK, but spinning off CoD into its own entity, something that would allow the full 70 billion deal to go through.
In such a move, they would still own a large stake on said company, very likely, but it's likely they would be limited by conditions on how large of a stake they would be allowed to retain.
Also, I dont think MS has ever said they dont care about CoD, they have stated CoD is not the main reason they are pursing the deal for.
@PJ5 how will Microsoft be a monopoly in 10 years. Tencent is the biggest game publisher in the world making 17% of all market sales in 2021 & there still buying up Devs. No outcry there.
After 10 years, then what? It’ll go exclusive or a new deal will happen? Sony should hold its ground.
@cragis0001
The difference is Tencent is not a platform holder, so their business model relies entirely on putting their software everywhere it makes sense to do so. Someone with a platform and their own service, like Microsoft, has incentives to use software to push their own platforms whether through exclusivity or other means like making Xbox the lead platform for all ABK games (and thus a higher likelihood their games run best on Xbox hardware) or putting Call of Duty on Game Pass for pennies on the dollar, which dramatically damages competitors because none of them could afford to throw away that much money in order to seize market share.
@Tharsman maybe I should put it differently indeed, it's not "we're don't care about CoD" but "we're not doing it just for CoD" so that would mean that if they're mainly down online business (King) they should be able to distance themselves doing Call of Duty. even then, Microsoft is the best seller. But I doubt that this lawsuit is pressing. I think it's more of a circus than a case. You should read that blog on Eurogamer. Quite entertaining actually!
Welp COD, Crash, Spyro and so many others on the fast track to the Microsoft graveyard to join Halo, Gears of War, Banjo and so, so many others. But hey, Game Pass is a $1 everyone! Who cares! Terrible!
@get2sammyb expecting Microsoft to do anything but buy their way to the top of the food chain is ridiculous. They have been like this forever. Constantly buying studios and shutting down their own because they can't manage them.
Microsoft has 2 problems, one of them is creativity, which is why we see the same 5 titles every few years. The other is management. They think both of these things can be solved by throwing money at the problem.
@Tharsman I mean, of course they could do both. I guess my point is more... Like, Sony's selling better in Europe because clearly customers think their product is better.
It's not like Sony got that advantage by buying a $70 billion publisher, right? They got that advantage through good marketing and consistent quality.
So I guess I don't really see how them bringing up their inferior market share is pertinent. It's not inferior because they don't currently own Activision Blizzard, is it?
@JSnow2 don’t remind me of poor Banjo & Kazooie. We will probably never get a good game of them again. Such a wasted IP
@get2sammyb
They pretend it’s pertinent due to the monopoly / competition angle, but obviously they understand that selling loss making hardware is actually irrelevant and they only care about the streaming and subscription business anyway. That is what they are trying to dominate, and hopefully these regulatory bodies see through this pathetic sleight of hand.
Amazingly it's not mentioned that Jim's stance in the beginning was he was trying to keep cod in the hands of ps players ....gets offered a 10 year parity deal to keep said game in the hands of ps players ...and says no
Tell the truth it's about the money Sony will lose once cod loses exclusive stuff
At this rate everyone will b playing cod apart from the ps platform which isn't good for ps cod players
@TheCollector316 nothing stopping Tencent becoming a platform owner though as they have plenty of exclusive content & have the cash for it. Why would Microsoft gimp Call of Duty on other platforms as that would only hurt sales which hits Microsofts pocket. Microsoft said they'd allow it on PS Plus extra day 1 also but it was Sony that grumbled at that so argue with them as it would be even & it's Microsoft who looses money. Plus Sony does the same through exclusives & buys up advertising rights to market all sorts of products most not even there's to be the leading platform. Look at Hogwarts Legacy. It's not even allowed to acknowledge other versions on other platforms but your fine with that until it hurts your brand of choice.
Anything to make the bulb work in dim ryan to focus on making quality diverse IPs and going back to the real playstation days is good news . stop riding off the coattails of the ps4 and third parties , because rational non-fanboys can see through this empty corporate $uit . Playstation was always known for the IPs while xbox was just the universal bro-machine , now there’s no where for a gamer that wants unique original diverse IPs but not childish and underpowered like nintendo . smh .
@get2sammyb I mean, Sony did start their gaming life by buying one of the largest European publishers at the time. Obviously they dimmed it necessary to buy an established publisher to break into the global game publishing market, and catch up with Nintendo and Sega's long-standing publishing arms.
A rather stupid quote from someone I heard recently is they dont take aspirin for headaches because they dont have a headache due to aspirin deficiency. Sure, they dont, but aspirine can fix the headache. Similarly, XBox's international performance is not poor because of lacking ABK, but owning ABK can likely help their issue.
On the topic of the market share point, bringing it up is one of the first things anyone does while discussing regulation and anti-competitive practices. If their market share is small enough, it's very hard for a single acquisition, even one this big, to put them in a position where they push anyone out of the market.
@uptownsoul because that's what they'll have to do, if Microsoft ends up being allowed to buy all of Activision and if Sony doesn't want to make a deal with Microsoft.
@uptownsoul cause ppl will say oh he's a.liar blah blah ...a contract is legally binding
No way out cod is with ps cod players hands for at least 10 years which in game terms is along time
Which Jim wanted right ????? No it's about the money
@uptownsoul he is 10 years contract
They've already lied to the EU commission about Bethesda. No way is this going through!
@uptownsoul yeh I know but in game terms 10 years is along time ,nobody even knows if cod will be around in 5/6 years time
And for those who say but in 10 year time blah blah blah ... Consoles could cost a friggin billion per console if we are going the what if route...and what if the world ends one day ...quick lets not buy anything more just in case lol
Main Point should be that if xbox and its money at hand is buying then sure, but xbox is a nonprofit division and the parent company heavily subsidizes it and all these purchases. They shouldnt be able or allowed to buy things up in uncompetitive format. Let alone they refuse to invest in their own products and teams as XBOX hasnt personally built anything themselves
Is COD really that a big deal to make Sony act this way, with a 10 year agreement for them to sign.
Surely even now and then after 10 years is up, Sony have enough exclusives and very good developers to be absolutely fine and ok?
@get2sammyb The inferior market share is relevant because the regulators are not trying to decide if Sony or Microsoft is more popular or why one company is outperforming the other. The regulators are there to decide one, and only one thing, if MS closing the purchase makes them an outsize monopoly in the market. Which is a hard argument to make about the player with 20% of the market in favor of the one with 80%. It makes the case that anything that makes the small player more competitive in that market helps competition rather than harms it.
It's not a case about who's better at winning customers in gaming or managing their studios as people seem to want to think, it's a case about "does this action create a monopoly that hinders competition for MS or does it not?" It's a yes or no question. The market dynamic kind of answers a lot of that question for them, at least in the EU, where platform holding is a single player, narrative driven game.
@uptownsoul it's true. Somehow a large part of the community has turned a blind eye to it.
If Sony were trying this Microsoft would be having the exact same issue that Sony has right now, but at least Sony isn't in the creativity drought that Xbox is in (hi-fi rush being the exception, that was a really refreshing new experience coming from the xbox team)
@Dezzy70 The problem is the majority of Sony's revenues come from the top 4 mtx-driven games including CoD. If they cancelled all their exclusives and closed all their studios and kept CoD, they'd be financially ahead. GoW is worthless paper next to CoD mtx. It's not about the platform. It's about the whale milk.
@NEStalgia the regulators aren't just looking at the market share in the console world, they are also looking at it in terms of cloud gaming which Microsoft already has the overwhelming majority market share. So the regulators do have a really tricky task ahead of them when trying to decide if allowing this to go through puts cloud gaming in monopoly status.
@Loftimus
The EU openly stated that MS never lied, and it was the FTC that lied.
If this deal goes through without Sony signing they could lose out on everything entirely. That would be hilarious!
@NEStalgia
One thing that shows through all this.
How confident Nintendo are with their business model and moving forward, happily smiling away.
And how unconfident Sony are in their own business model.
@uptownsoul Jim is a idiot he's cutting off his nose to spite his face , I'm hope to god that the ps cod players don't lose the game they love cause he's a stubborn blah blah , at least Phil for all his faults is actually opening cod and other games up to other players ,Nintendo and ge force players like he said opening up to others
@uptownsoul Question: Why is Sony expected to "Create-to-Compete"... while Microsoft isn't (MS can just "Buy-to-Compete")?
Nothing is stopping Sony from buying others apart from what they can afford ......I betcha u can afford a better car from me it don't mean I hate u for it lol I don't own a car btw so whatever u have if u do beats mine lol
@torne Indeed. But the problem with cloud is how to compare or define it. There's no numbers to really look at, it's too new. And then there's the question as to if that even is a "market" or if it's merely a business model for the existing games market. MS has a subscription library platform, Amazon is more or less competing directly, Sony competes indirectly (older but larger library for lower cost), nVidia has a wholly different product where you rent a PC and buy your games. Stadia tried and failed a stream rental where you buy games.
The only TRUE current in-the-market competitor is Amazon, really, and they haven't raised any objections.
It's true that it's a tricky task, in part because there's really little information to gauge it on. And it makes it trickier that Sony's really the only company with a complaint that's a competitor. nVidia was pleased with the agreement terms, Google has a nebulous non-specific conceptual complaint and doesn't have a currently competing service after theirs failed, and Amazon doesn't seem to have ever cared one way or the other. There's smaller cloud players like the one's Nintendo has worked with, and they also seem to have never raised any issues with it.
@Dezzy70 Absolutely true. Nintendo just railroads forward, catastrophic failure, raging success, they keep doing the same thing no matter what and on average always come out ahead. Sony used to do that, since mid-PS4 started leaning harder and harder into a very narrow model where the financials depended on exponential growth in 3rd party mtx domination. It boxed them into a corner. Their revenues are far greater than Nintendo's due to that, but it's an unstable business model and entirely externally dependent, unlike Nintendo's.
@Shstrick Easy. Have COD in form of streaming and wait for successor to have it there native...
How confident would you be opposing a deal on the basis of it causing a monopoly and when you look for any other company supporting your argument all you see is Google?
@Majk_SVK I'll take HFW on Plus over free COD any day.
The way that Microsoft backtracked on what they said before buying Bethesda has definitely made it harder for themselves to push this deal through. They messed it up on their own with this too..
All this offering contracts just sounds dodgy to me and a whiff of desperation too. Be all cuddly now with longer than usual contracts so they can please the courts and then slowly over time when everythings all been said and done every new IP and many already long time existing fully 3rd party ActiBlizz sequel games will all start to become exclusive to Xbox just like the Bethesda deal with the only exception being maybe CoD. If all goes through whose stopping Microsoft gobbling up another massive acquisition in less than 10 years or more like Ubisoft, EA or Warner and then throw around more longtime contracts for Fifa and Madden and then making everything else from EA Xbox only over time. Of course if you GamePass you'll be blind to everything that's not about this deal going through, ignoring the fact that there is way many more millions of gamers around the world that dont GamePass compared to those that do. Buy as many games as you can get away with in the courts so they can throw them all at GamePass in the hope of gobbling up many more GP subs, that's all they care about. No wonder Xbox hasn't announced anything from Wolfenstein and DOOM sequels being exclusive to only Xbox cause it looks bad in courts alongside the already turned Xbox exclusives Red Fall and Starfield. Wasn't there already rumours of Fallout5 being Xbox exclusive too. Its crazy to me if they carry on getting away with it in the long run. Having trillions or being behind the competition doesn't automatically give you the rights to buy everything up and then throw around contracts to make it look less of a monopoly
@uptownsoul it's big numbers yes but games it's not a one of the kind it's a shooter, there are plenty of games that are up there ....ask ea they don't care one bit who owns cod (EA said that in a report on the takeover ) if anyone would b worried it would be them
It's about the money if Sony had that sort of money they would be the ones buying acti now they just can't afford Microsoft can
And as for creating you prefer creating content ... Will Sony b staying no to the money that the destiny dlc brings in ? No and it's gd for them to make money off other consoles like Microsoft will be doing
@Suppressed fortunately, the bar is set so low anyway, what with ABK kind of being trash lately.
@uptownsoul Because others (Sony) wanted one.
And also, if Microsoft can't convince regulators that it makes no sense to pull COD from PlayStation (and it makes no sense to do that) you need contract that you can point to...
When Sony is using fear that they will loose Call of Duty to force regulators to block the deal, you need piece of paper that is legally binding you to publish COD on PlayStation.
So it is not about "Microsoft wanted to pull COD from PlayStation" but more about "you piece of paper to show to regulators"
@uptownsoul
A tough question to answer.
But bluntly I guess but not in a bad way.
It’s the way of the world, lots of big companies buy others out or join other companies to form bigger companies.
The car industry is a good example a good few different makes of car are owned by the same group. I know different but it’s all about business and buyouts.
Goes to show for all the truly amazing work Sony developers have done over the decades with their stunning first party AAA games.
They know where the cash cow is in COD.
Someone on here said, so not sure if true.
But COD makes Sony more money in a year than three of their AAA exclusives releasing that same year and continues to further into the next year as well and so on as the cycle of releases continue.
@Loftimus no they didn't. The FTC said that Microsoft lied to the EU about Bethesda not going exclusive. For which the EU made a statement saying that they didn't offer any guarantees 😂😂 so no they didn't lie.
@Tharsman so, the FTC lied on MS's behalf and told the EU that all Bethesda games would be multiplatform? Why would they do that?
Microsoft have been very clever trying to portray Sony as the bad guy and the agressor here, even though clearly they are the ones trying to stranglehold the market. I think this will squeak through thanks to the BS Microsoft have managed to pull off with Nintendo (who really dont care about Activision titles, lets be honest - but they do have long-standing beef with Sony and would love to force the Playstation side out of business) and by getting Nvidia on side. This is going to cause fundamental and irreversable repercussions on the videogame market as we know it.
Playstation doesnt collapse because of this deal, but they will be extremely damaged. I expect we will really see them play some cards immediately (starting Thursday) if this does go through - and that Square acquisition will be a matter of time
Im ready for this all to be over though. Im sick of Microsoft not being called out. The reason PS sells better than xbox is because Sony is developing high quality, first party titles that many consider unmissable. If Microsoft do the same, then people will come but year after year they just deliver broken promises and disapointment.
@cragis0001 why would ftc put themselves in that position? Sounds bogus...
@Majk_SVK Do you expect them to give it free on PS or something?
@Loftimus finally someone mentions this!
They bought Bethesda and said that they'll stay multi console etc.
Next minute ALL of Bethesda becomes XBOX only. I.e very definition of monopoly problem
@Loftimus
EU stated that Microsoft never promised such a thing, and they never demanded it either. FTC's statement that such a promise was made was a lie, or giving benefit of the doubt, misinformed.
The FTC has been making a ton of bogus decisions as of late.
@Loftimus "why would ftc put themselves in that position? Sounds bogus..."
It is bogus. It highlights that the FTC was working without actually really even researching what they were saying (there's been a lot of discussion about the current FTC chair and their political agenda here.) They tried to throw the EC under the bus by using them as their reasoning, and the EC retorted that it was incorrect in under 24 hours, which itself is kind of surreal.
EC's retort was that no exclusivity guarantees were made, and it wouldn't have affected their decision anyway because they didn't deem any of those titles to be important enough to have a specific market importance.
@Shepherd_Tallon Apple and Amazon aren't objecting, mostly only Sony is, which is why the regulators are mostly only questioning them about Sony and why all they're talking about is Sony. Google's "kind of" objecting but without any specific claims, and no actual gaming product they're competing with to talk about. If Amazon were complaining instead of Sony all we'd be hearing about was Luna. This is Sony's fight, so naturally, Sony's the topic of the fight.
@NEStalgia thanks for clearing that up.
@Tharsman i see. Thankyou
@NEStalgia
They had one claim, that supposedly Xbox is slowing down the performance of xcloud on Chrome browsers. For me that does not make much sense given how the two main platforms XBox is targeting for Game Cloud Streaming are iOS and Android.
It does make sense that Google would be against it, given they fear the ability of King establishing a third party app store in their mobile ecosystem, but that's not exactly the concern that will win them sympathy with any regulatory agency.
It's still hysterical to me that you have these two companies engaging in this drawn-out, high-stakes battle over the future of Activision-Blizzard, and then you have Nintendo over on the sidelines, eating popcorn and sort of casually grabbing the bones Microsoft is tossing their way.
@Beerheadgamer82 not just stifling competition but technology etc and then ruining brands/IPs. I also wonder if Bethesda will suffer more now? Such as bad management, more problems with their game engines etc.
I like how the truth comes out in the comments it's all about PC and Xbox players getting call of duty on game pass or at least exclusive stuff while PS players will have to pay full price, everyone was so hyped for that PS plus tier system thinking it would be like game pass and now that's disappointed people it's back to "game pass bad" and "why should i have to pay full price for call of doody because i play on PS"
Let's face it, everyone with a lick of business sense knows Microsoft would never make call of duty exclusive to Xbox and PC they'd lose money, the whole opposition against the deal is hypocrisy at it's peak and it's made PS look real juvenile especially the whole part about the deal enabling Microsoft to raise console prices meanwhile at that time the PS5 price had been raised.
So nintendo has sold their soul,10 years is not a very long time,with regards to game development
@uptownsoul I can seriously see Bethesda suffering from a LOT more problems now. Shame as I love that company and their games.
@daveofduncan MS get put in there place every generation.. third
I hope the deal doesn't go through and Microsoft decide to chuck a load of money at them to just get COD on Game Pass for a couple of years and off PlayStation completely so they can waste their money and find out that people will not be swapping their PS for an Xbox for one game.
@uptownsoul That would be cool in theory.
Until you realize that they are buying ActiBlizz (and Bethesda before) as limited integration companies.
Therefore Bethesda and Acti Blizz have their own managment structure. So if Bethesda ***** up, it is because Bethesda managment ***** up, Not because of Microsoft.
But whatever
(Also I did not know that XGS consist from only 343 and Rare)
I don't care about COD. I care about Crash Bandicoot and all the other IPs that would be exclusive to Microsoft now...
@Anima616 no that’s not what they said. Phil repeatedly said that Bethesda’s titles going forward will remain on platforms where Game-pass exists. I can’t believe people seem to think Microsoft preached that games going forwards wouldn’t be affected. They said all existing obligations would be honoured (Live service games with content parity, exclusive deals like ghostwire and Deathloop remaining exclusive for a year ect). They made no such claim that ES6 or Starfield would come to Playstation
I’m losing it with the comments lmao, Sony will be fine when the deal goes through, your PS5 will not explode the day this deal is done.
Stop taking this soooooo damn personal.
"Hey, authorities, we're really f***ing s*** at this gaming thing, please let us buy a well established mega brand to try to pry people towards our service and off of competitors in the future, as we can't do it the normal way by making games that people want to play and creating a brand with years of good marketing and top tier releases to create real competition and drive growth and creativity on all sides" - Microsoft
"Please let us have all the casual gamers, Jim, you've had them for long enough 😭" - Also Microsoft
@Deityjester no, I expect MS to put it just on GP, what would be a major reason to buy Xbox for many.
@sentiententity well, that is fine but take plan numbers into consideration…
Who invited Google blud, seeing as how Stadia's dead. Are they still part of the discussion because of the play store?
@Splatmaster that’s the reason MS is spending 69 bills. To push people to GP - because it’s growth is peaking. They didn’t do enough, and it seems the PS5s are well on the way to repeat the PS4 dynastic … imo
Pretty obvious sony know what's going to happen after 10 years. Microsoft will make the main call of duty series xbox exclusive whilst sony can still have warzone.
Also what happens to Activisions other games like crash, spyro and diablo? They never get brought up so to me that's a sign they will also be exclusive in the future.
There's a lot for Sony to lose so it's easy to see why Sony dont want this deal to go through and will fight it til the end.
Whereas the other companies mentioned like Nintendo and Nvidia are actually gaining from this deal so of course they are on board.
@uptownsoul
That’s does make sense about the exclusives and muliplat games actually.
I guess it’s all business and a business I’m not in so I don’t truly understand it.
Well let’s just hope it all works out ok in the end for the gamers, as that is what counts.
I’m more of a Nintendo gamer at the moment so I’m sort offside out of the main debate really being fair.
i mean if MS are saying they are being massively outsold, GP growth slowing, price rises working way in. spending 69bil......
Can they afford to not have CoD on PS and getting that revenue cut? numbers have to be made somewhere
The hypocrisy of some people here, you'd be celebrating if it was Sony.
@uptownsoul Cause nobody does that, Sony keeps loyal fans with that but they also pay a lot of third-party to get most of the gamers with PS4/5. Microsoft no longer wants tô sair to get games and be profitable. Games need 5 years to be made, Studios bought in 2018 would bê ready to release games now If they did not had anything in development, but they had. Creating a New Studios takes time, and Microsoft dont have It, even with ALL the acquisions Sony still pushing then out of the market, what do u want to happen? Sony become the only console in the marke? ( by CMA/FTA/EU definition) If Sony is as anti-consumer as they are having a competitor imagine what they Will do with out one.
what happens in year 10 after the contracts expire? thought so... this is a NO-GO 100% for anyone who appreciates strong competition and a fair fight.
@Rob_230 Yikes. You are so brainwashed. Do you really believe what you said?
@Porco It depends, who knows what will happen in 10 years? Minecraft has no deal and still a multiplat, 9 years after the acquision.
@cburg what did i say that makes me brainwashed lol
@get2sammyb wouldn’t called it charm per say, outside of maybe the timing, this was the plan from the start. More games in more places, i see all the time that COD on GP will be hard for sony, but MS wrote in the contract Sony can bring it day one to PS+. Look i try my best as a slight bigger Xbox fan than PS, and by that i mean 55-45, i love both to pieces, to not take sides, and i know it’s this sites has a goal to speak to the hardcore PS heads, but Sony don’t look good in this case, the info that sony gave to these people was used over 300 times verbatim and so MS said well we need documents of proof of these claims and then sony went quite and said they were being harassed. Thats not how this works when you get involved and are leading the way of why it should be blocked. This is a hard case to report on and i understand that, but as someone that is more neutral to it, i think and wish it was seen more for what has happened vs MS being slandered or thought to be doing things just to get the deal over the finish line. They have said upfront COD on as many places to play as possible, not less places and reached out to Nintendo and steam. Sure i get the timing of the deals looking like charm bait, but these were set in place long ago and staying to their word. 😀
@Toypop given the cod focus on the whole thing, it seems pretty certain a buyout is going to come with a 'cod must remain available on all systems' clause regardless of whether Sony sign Microsoft's pantomime contract.
@Porco in 10 years no one knows what the gaming landscape will look like and they will work out a new deal. Most people on this site thinks Xbox is going under so they would just be a 3rd party publisher in 10 years if we all believed the anti xbox person online. But that won’t happen and neither will COD leaving PS, and 10 years is so long in this business to really think to hard into at the present moment. The bigger question is if sony is the lead in charge of making this deal fall through and ABK is stuck with no sale, what will be present day relationship be with Sony and how will they treat them going forward that i think is the more interesting way to look at things.
@KaijuKaiser Crash and Banjo will join Sly and Jak and Dexter, it’s not like anyone is pushing these game types out the door these days.
@Green-Bandit most people think Xbox is going under? What?
Most people are aware they have bundles of money, they are not going under regardless of their seeming inability to turn it into decent original games.
@get2sammyb Sony is outselling in Europe and around the world cause they have great games, which were handed to them in the N64 years. All the 3rd party party talent left Nintendo and went to the PS1, from PS1-PS4 Sony has hand picked which worked best and made great games, and bought them out to be part of PS. It was the PS3 and PS4 years that you started to see Sony picked and choose right and it was money well spent. MS had 5 studios with like 3 IP’s and they found out quickly that isn’t enough, so now they are looking to people that work closely with MS and have great relationships and would want to become part of MS, think the Todd Howards of the world, Bethesda at it’s heart is a PC, Xbox kind of studio and that relationship don’t need much explaining as to why they along with wanting to be bought was up for the near 8 Billion in cash. Fast forward to a ABK type of studio up for sale is maybe a once in a lifetime thing, those deals don’t come up often if ever and of course MS swing for the fences. But a better product than Xbox i am not sure about. Better games is a slam dunk and that is serving sony well and it was smart business for them and i enjoy supporting them cause of it, as do millions of gamers around the world. Now it’s MS time to build up a reason to own and want a Xbox, this competition will be great for all of us gamers. 😊
@Balosi i see lots of folks saying Xbox will quit and Sony is King, so i just used that as a sarcastic example, but MS is building up studios and talent to compete, not to push PS out of the industry. This will be great for us gamers to have great competition between them. I have both consoles and always have and it’s deals like this that will strength the industry, not weaken it. GP is an area MS see’s a way to be different and use their money and infrastructure to be a different offering to PS. The more games they can get and keep as day 1 and forever in the service is their way of building up a player base.
@uptownsoul How many AAA games does Microsoft pays to be exclusive? And for How long? AA and índices are fair game but even them How many does Sony pays vs Microsoft pays? That the point.
And If Sony keeps pushing then out of the console market, yes they can, Microsoft still losing market to Sony, there is a point that IS no longer sustainable to be a console makers, Sony did manage tô finish Sega after some mistakes from them, and they still trying tô do the same with Microsoft.
Simples, size, If they keep the Studios, them cant buy more Studios, If they close the Studios they could do It, but at some point u have to ask, would de reasonable to say they would buy Activision and shut it down in 5 years?
@Suppressed It's Activision...there is nothing left to ruin.
@uptownsoul Simples some AA/indies need money to get developed, with the timed exclusivity they would not bê releases. Unlike AAA...
As for Microsoft competing If they can get most games as exclusives they could and should, and as i Said the problem for Microsoft is time, not about the amount of Studios, they could compete with the Studios they have If Sony was not pushing Xbox out of the console market as fast as they can.
How long does Xbox have before losing enough market share to be unfeasible to be a platform holder? They have some games to release but How many? Most of the Studios acquired still had deals to finish before start working on anything for Xbox
Obsidian with The Outer Worlds +DLC, Compulsion with We Happy Few + DLC, Inxile with Wasteland+ DLC, DoubleFine with Psychonauts 2, id Software with Doom Eternal + DLC, Arkane with Deathloop, Tango with Ghostwire Tokyo, Zenimax Online only works on ESO, Roundhouse was created in 2019 by Bethesda, MachineGames still working on India Janes, AlphaDog only does mobile games... Games Take time.
And i have already Said Take Two Will not be a possible acquision after this, they are would bê to big for It, small Studios for Sure, but the only way they could buy Take Two is closing Bethesda/Activision and then the problem would be the shareholders, why pay 68,7 B and close the Studios?
@uptownsoul Because Microsoft ***** up.
And I'm not talking about Xbox One gen. I'm talking about 360 gen. They ignored advantages of owning their first party studios and instead relied on exclusives made by third-parties - BioShock, Mass Effect, Gears of War etc. Problem was that these developers got then secured by other companies (EA in case of BioWare) and they continued as multiplatform developers.
It's their fault and they are now paying the price for it. Literal price. Instead of having homegrown first-party like Sony, they had to invest almost 80 billion dollars because of their oversights.
But on the other hand, people can't dismiss big acquisitions just because Sony can't afford them. That's not how anything in this world works.
Makes me laugh that people on here think this is about saving Sony from Microsoft having a "monopoly" and being done "for gamers". It's being done to play politics because it's trendy to attack Big Tech right now. You've got an FTC chair that's overreaching daily and is most likely going to lose in court with these deals Microsoft signed with their competitors. You've got people at the FTC resigning left and right because she's overreaching. She's surrounding herself with cronies that won't tell her no and that she's not working inside the law.
Sony can get onboard and actually show they want to keep CoD on Playstation for their "gamers" or lose it completely. Remember whose at fault when that happens.
@uptownsoul Limitations are clear tbh. You can see it now because of hell regulators are raising for COD.
Take-Two is off the limits because of GTA. EA is off the limits because of their sports franchises. Everything else is okay. Capcom, Square, SEGA etc. etc.
The next cod is rumoured to be another cross gen game aswell code named 'cerberus' makes sense not moving on to 'next gen' if once the acquisition goes through they'll be legally required to do native versions of cod on Nintendos hardware with the same release date as other platforms
@uptownsoul Nope. It's just common sense. If regulators are raising hell with thought that COD might be exclusive, do you really think that they would allow buyout of Take-Two which has GTA/Red Dead Redemption? Games that are maybe even bigger hooks than Call of Duty? (GTA V sold 150 million copies).
Same with EA and their sports franchises. It's easy to argue that because EA owns exclusive licenses to some leagues (NFL for example), they can't be sold to be exclusive games.
Sony argued that Call of Duty franchise is necessary for survival of console brand. Do you think that GTA/FIFA/NFL are not?
That is clearly showing that red line is merger of these types of companies. I doubt any regulatory body would have a problem with buyout of companies like Ubisoft, SEGA, Capcom, Square etc. Because they are just not big enough.
Let's say the deal fells off, PlayStation own deal for marketing of CoD ends in one or two years and then what? Money talks but it appears to me the relationship with Abk will be broken and then it may well be CoD Will be on GP regardless. Sony is not in a good position either side of the deal imo
@uptownsoul But it is not common sense in terms of "I have a feeling"
It is common sense in terms of what are regulators doing today. Do you really think that if they have such a huge problem approving ABK deal because of Call of Duty, they would allow buyout of Take-Two (GTA) and EA (FIFA)? Of course not. It's not that hard to know that if CMA is trying to block ABK deal because of Call of Duty, they would have same stance in case of EA and Take-Two isn't it?
It's clearly drawn red line.
All that "it will be Take-Two next time" is just concern trolling.
Also. If CMA will allow ABK merger, Xbox would be almost as big as PlayStation in terms of revenue, so another big buy would be even under more scrutiny, since Microsoft won't be able to use their "we are 3rd in revenue" argument.
@Loftimus don't know why but they did. Same as the argument that the industry is in tiers so they can exclude Nintendo as it proves that a platform can survive but also flourish without Call of Duty.
@Green-Bandit good question. sony's relationship with ABK would be soured without a doubt. that said, investors and their will for profit above all else would likely win out at the end of the day and any ill feelings towards sony would ultimately be thrown out the window. that is just business. i don't think we would see a situation where ABK makes cod exclusive to microsoft or anything crazy like that since it would likely require a backdoor deal of enormous amounts of money (billions of dollars) and be considered illegal. now that many sets of eyes are on microsoft, it would be quite a scandal to orchestrate a cod exclusive deal without actually acquiring ABK in the process.
but i digress. back to my comment about "what happens in 10 years time". i think a platform holder like sony indeed has to think 10 years into the future to be successful. so jim's ill feeling toward this merger is not how it impacts sony today, but how it would potentially impact sony in 10 years, once the cod contract expires. it would certainly dminish ps6 sales once the mainstream public is aware that cod will not be released on the platform. it is this future that has made sony bullish and take a hard stance on the merger.
@Porco i mean i definitely see the points you are making, but my take on it, and again we are guessing when it really comes down to it. Hard to say what will happen, but my guess would be if the deal didn’t go through, ABK will look to MS and maybe give them a small perk, and quit the PS deal they have in place now, something so small as a Beta first and early maps is HUGE when it comes to COD. That alone would flip a few million players believe it or not. Secondly i just don’t see MS in 10 years taking COD away, and here’s why, for the few million players that will flip to Xbox, the industry backlash would be major negative news surrounding Xbox and doing business with MS. The amount of negative PR that would bring would not be worth the few million console sales and MS is a big enough company that has way smarter people than me that would or should be pushing that. Now in 10 years could the deal change to where more perks and advantages come to Xbox and PC over PS? I would still bet not, but it has a higher likelihood than completely taking it off PS consoles, again in my opinion. One thing is for sure, we need all 3 console platforms doing well for better competition. I own all 3 and love to see them all have their own identities. GP will for sure be the big driver for years to come for MS and it looks like WRPG’s will be huge for Xbox & PC, Sony has their internal studios putting out great games and nintendo has the hybrid thing with their iconic characters. Hope that is enough to give gamers choice and variety of what and where to play and even how to pay to play with services being around. 😀
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...