It's time to return to everyone's favourite ongoing story in games, namely, the war of words between Microsoft and Sony in regard to the former's intent to purchase publisher Activision Blizzard. In the latest turn, Sony has voiced concern that should the acquisition come to pass, future Call of Duty titles on PlayStation could be sabotaged by Microsoft, either by design or neglect. This, in turn, could cause players to lose "confidence in PlayStation as a go-to venue to play Call of Duty."
As reported by Eurogamer, Sony has outlined several ways in which it believes Microsoft could damage Call of Duty or "impair PlayStation's competitiveness" in a new document containing Sony's notes on the UK's Competition and Markets Authority suggestions.
Sony suggests, variously, that the strategies available to Microsoft could include: increasing the price of Call of Duty on PlayStation, degrading its quality and performance (including by ignoring DualSense-specific features), restricting or not prioritising investment in multiplayer on PS5 or PS4, or by simply making the game a Game Pass exclusive.
But it's Sony's accusations regarding technical performance parity which are the most savage, stating that, "for example, Microsoft might release a PlayStation version of Call of Duty where bugs and errors emerge only on the game's final level or after later updates. Even if such degradations could be swiftly detected, any remedy would likely come too late, by which time the gaming community would have lost confidence in PlayStation as a go-to venue to play Call of Duty."
Sony goes on to suggest that any form of "behavioural commitment" from Microsoft "would be difficult" and further claims Microsoft "have dragged their feet, engaged only when they sensed the regulatory outlook was darkening and favoured negotiating in the media over engaging with SIE."
Microsoft responded to Sony's accusations in a statement provided to Eurogamer: "since the CMA issued its Provisional Findings, we have offered solutions which address its concerns and increase the deal's benefits to UK players and game developers. These include a guarantee of parity between Xbox and PlayStation on access to Call of Duty and legally binding commitments to ensure that Call of Duty is available to at least 150 million more players on other consoles and cloud streaming platforms once the deal closes. The decision now lies with the CMA on whether it will block this deal and protect Sony, the dominant market leader, or consider solutions that make more games available to more players."
What do you think of Sony's concerns? Would you trust that a PlayStation version of Call of Duty would be equal, in all ways, to Xbox if Microsoft were the one bankrolling the endeavour? Let us know in the comments section below.
[source assets.publishing.service.gov.uk]
Comments 101
So all things that could happen during regular development, okay sony.
I think it's obvious MS would do that eventually. It's in their interest. You don't spend 69Billion to not benefit from it.
ridiculous Cyberpunk passed certification at launch just shows how much sony actually care about this
Every call of duty is a bug ridden mess for the first few months.
We are used to it at this point. Sony is really stretching with this complaint.
@trev666
This is not at all how certification works. They don't play the games when certifying!
They ask the developer to provide a snapshot of the worst violence, gore etc and trust that the developer is being truthful, and certify/rate the game accordingly.
There's no quality control process for third party games as far as I'm aware. That falls on the developer/publisher alone.
@Nem i cant see this happening at all. If microsoft own activision and call of duty outright they would still collect money from everybody who buys it on playstation. To wilfully sabotage your own product even inadvertantley would be stupid. At this point in time i see sonys constant moaning and conspiracy baiting comments as doing more harm to the playstation brand than microsoft could ever do..jesus get on with it.
@pumpkin_head i'm not sure you are 100% correct here but there are posters on here that were game devs or still are so lets see if they can shed some light on this. @titntin where are you?
Microsoft said themselves they want they’re games to play best on Xbox so Sony have the right to be concerned.
Sonys responses read like a fanboys brain fart from neogaf in 2012. This can't be an official resposnse from Sony, surely? They are getting destroyed by most outlets on these statements from what I have read. Crazy times but who knows, maybe it will work?
#InJimWeTrust ✊🏻
@Northern_munkey
I don't work in development but know people who have published third party games and gone through ESRB certification.
They don't play the games.
And you only need to spend 10 minutes on the PSN store to see there's no quality control....
@Jacko11 Jim trying to protect his customers and some people angry at him for that 😂 lol.
Did Black Ops Cold War not have Sony Exclusive game modes that were not available on other platforms for about a year. Really this debate by Sony is the biggest pile of horse sh I have seen for a while. I suspect the core problem here is Sony will no longer be able to exert its influence on the publisher.
@pumpkin_head so as sony dont test anything they have acknowledged they dont care about the state of games for sale as long as they make them money
so therefore their own actions are contrary to the statement they have provided
Embarrassing from Sony. Some of the arguments on both sides have been absolutely pathetic over this deal
Typically Microsoft to answer in their usual PR speak...their bots have been busy as have seen reports on other sites wherein they claim to be making PS Plus more "competitive"...what by removing AAA publishers like Zenimax Bethesda & now Activision Blizzard & their future games from PS platforms & tying them to ganepass?!🙄
Or where noted Xbox biased reporter Tom Warren having widely circulated twitter exchange with the Activision exec Lulu that's been running the anti Sony rhetoric stating Jim Ryan's answer to wanting to block the deal vs negotiating with Microsoft in allegedly "secret" exchanges to the regulatory authorities... not the first time the same Activision who were fine doing exclusive console marketing dlc deals until Bobby Kotick's mismanagement came to light & his execs went to Microsoft for a golden parachute bailout.
Gamepass only exists in its current format as Microsoft are bankrolling it...if they get the kind of dominance they have in other markets don't expect that to last.
@Northern_munkey I work in QA, and we have a Requirements team that does essentially what @pumpkin_head says. Sony, Microsoft, Valve, or Nintendo don't really have anything to do with that team aside from having guidelines.
Like...making sure the rich presence is functional on the dashboard, making sure the button prompts are correct, and making sure, when crossplay is happening, that any users not on your platform have generic icons rather than copyrighted icons.
There are SO many games that come out. They don't have the time, and won't spend the resources to make sure everything is up to their guidelines. They are there though, and the icon thing is very important. It's a whole legal issue.
Just end it already!
Sorry, but this is just pathetic at this point from Sony.
I get it. They want this deal dead. But arguing that Microsoft will purposefully break PS version of COD is new low. Even for them.
It’s inevitable, just by going from PlayStation likely being the lead platform to Xbox being the lead platform, not to mention the devs having closer links to the Xbox engineers, that it will perform better on Xbox eventually. And they can easily get around this by pointing to the on paper specs of he two machines and ignoring the past few years of real world evidence.
The question is, is it right a platform holder can do that. And yes, I think it’s perfectly reasonable.
This is all beside the point though. Sony have to say this to try to influence the case, but the question is still just about MS wanting to buy a publisher larger than Sony are themselves, and a game that does impact console purchase decisions for those who are as yet uncommitted, and thereby creating a market that is less competitive and so worse for consumers. That is the only point that needs to be made. If ABK were not so large and influential in the market there would be no case to answer, just as there wasn’t with Bethesda.
This is all an irrelevant non story. Although it was mildly interesting that MS deceptively avoided the point in their rebuttal, and promised only release parity.
I hate lawyer approved statements. Like when they said the idea CoD couldn’t be released on Switch was silly because an Xbox One or PC from before the Switch was released could play it. As if those things weren’t massively more powerful than the switch.
Doublespeak annoys me as it is designed to manipulate the moronic and ignorant into supporting an untenable position.
I can just imagine in a couple of years Phil asking how the game runs on PS5 and when the team says it runs perfectly he asks them to program a bug into the last level.
@thefourfoldroot1 I have a Switch (and PS5 and XBOX Series X, but that's beside my point). If I want to play CoD on it, I currently CAN NOT. When MS buys Activision/Blizzard, they said they will bring CoD back to Nintendo's platform.
Me as a consumer will go from no choice, to a promised choice. In the end this deal is going to be better for me.
The only party that has to lose something here, is Sony. So they try to stop the deal. And they do so with Gaslighting.
Also Sony often releases PC ports of their games that are either broken or run poorly. Honestly I'm on MS' side here.
@sanderev
Sorry to break it to you, but you will just get a streamed game, same as others will get on their phone or TV. That’s MS.
@thefourfoldroot1 Yeah, that's not going to happen.
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/03/microsoft-wants-to-bring-the-best-version-of-call-of-duty-to-nintendo-platforms
Sony is really handling this bad... i mean sabotage cod on other platforms is exactly what Sony has done in the past, a notable example being survival mode in mw 2019 being exclusive to playstation consoles for the entire life cycle of the game...
@sanderev
That completely validated what I said. Thank you for the link.
@4kgk2 Trying to protect his shareholders. There's a big difference.
Said it before and I'll say it again.
These corporations are not your friend. MS, Sony and Nintendo are out to maximise profits for themselves and their shareholders.
Cheering them on is like cheering on Tesco or Walmart.
@thefourfoldroot1 The Switch (or it's successor) isn't going to get a streamed version of the game. It would be a lesser experience, something they (microsoft) say won't happen. So no, it does not validate what you say.
@Constable_What @pumpkin_head like i said i was not sure so thanks for clearing things up 👍
@sanderev
No, if MS consider a streamed game allows for the best version of the game possible on Switch (and they would consider that in terms of frames per second and resolution most likely) then that is how they would do it. Coincidentally it would be by far the cheapest and easiest way too.
That’s what the article says to me. Just as other devs have decided to do when releasing games on Switch (Control etc). The article even thinks it’s relevant to mention cloud streaming.
The fact unreliable infrastructure would be an inconvenience to you and me is not relevant to the quality of the game released, that would just be blamed on external issues unrelated to the game.
Let's just say that if the deal goes through then PS5 will no longer be the lead development platform.
@jonnybuck84
“ how on earth has this one repetitive franchise dominated the whole conversation? ”
Because it is one of the games that dominate the market.
“ If Sony care that much, buy Activision yourself. ”
Impossible, they haven’t monopolised PC operating systems as MS have. MS couldn’t afford it themselves if they relied on games console profits only.
New just in! Tin foil is selling out across the country as Sony stocks up and starts making hats!
@thefourfoldroot1 Sure, you could see it like that. But that would add a lot of latency into a multiplayer FPS. Which would give the player a big disadvantage.
So I doubt that.
They might do something like cloud based rendering and then downscaling for the Switch. (for example; DLSS)
@jonnybuck84
Sony wouldn’t even be allowed to buy them. It’s true they don’t have MSs disgusting history with monopoly activity, but they do currently have a large section of the console gaming market. They would become far too outsized and powerful for a competitive gaming market.
The question isn’t about Sony though, it’s about whether MS would become too outsized and powerful for a competing gaming market if they bought an IP that would be a massive system seller and which could massively hit the profits of their only competitor in the space. And by system I do not mean console systems, I mean subscription and streaming.
@sanderev
Sure it would. And, what a shame, the player would then have to get it on Xbox, which means Ninty wouldn’t get their 30% cut!
But MS could still legally say they have upheld their contract by putting it on a Nintendo system, and even that they have put the best game possible on there*
*customers’ internet infrastructure allowing.
@Sakai "They are getting destroyed by most outlets on these statements from what I have read"
Which basically means nothing considering their massively different treatment of MS and Sony over the years. They managed to bury thr psvita before it was even released in the West.
@jonnybuck84 I've lost count of the times that people said that x y and definitely z would hurt Sony's reputation, yet here we are. Performing incredibly well.
@Deityjester that's not "sabotage"... Not even close.
@Futureshark
Series S i believe.
@solidox there is a massive difference between an exclusive level and a bug preventing users from progressing.
Apples to oranges all over again.
It's Microsoft so I wouldn't put it past them.
When it comes to the PS6 gen Microsoft will end up making call of duty for PS5 only whilst xbox get the next gen version, just like with Psychonauts 2 and Minecraft Dungeons.
Sony ain't stupid.
Of all the arguments I think this one is probably the weakest for Sony. Microsoft has offered a contract that literally states it will provide parity with the rest of the versions. If they released a noticeably inferior version on Playstation then Sony could bring them into court for breaching a contract I would think and companies want to stay out of the courtroom as much as possible unless they know they have the upper hand going in.
At least that's how I'd imagine it would go down. I'm no lawyer.
According to Lulu Cheng Meservey, Jim Ryan has said on February 21st: "I don’t want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger.". She better be sure he said exactly that. https://twitter.com/lulumeservey/status/1633573899400093699?cxt=HHwWhoC9wc6zz6stAAAA
Anyone who’s OK with MS just going around buying up studios because they can’t compete on quality doesn’t have any sense. This is the type of thing the government makes special departments to make sure they don’t happen.
Folks wanting Sony to respond in kind by buying their own big studio don’t realize this scenario is the worst thing for the gaming industry. Use Comcast’s control on cable TV in the US as your cautionary tale.
I think Jimbob is getting truly paranoid - M$ would actively wreck the cash cow that is COD (other fish are available)?
IF M$ manage to secure Acti-Blizzard then they will need the ever swelling number of PS owners to get some of their investment back.
The DualSense comment could actually be a legitimate concern as Microsoft have gone on record in stating that they want to ensure feature parity so any 'enhancements' that the DualSense may provide over the Xbox controller may be blocked in future releases. It would hardly be grounds to stop anything but they could argue that their customers are suddenly getting an 'inferior' experience.
Every time I manage to put this story out of my head and forget about it the internet puts it back in my face 😂
It seems like Sony have been digging in more and more ever since MS starting negotiating via twitter.
Based on Ryan's reactions when it has happened in the past they really don't appreciate that.
My speculation is that Sony know this deal is going through.
They just want a legal commitment to the best possible outcome for them.
Paying companies to hold back next gen upgrades (Yakuza etc..) probably doesn't help Microsoft's case.
So yeah Sony should be concerned.
@Toypop in order to be hypocritical, the situation needs to be the same or similar enough. The problem with Tomb Raider was that it's a franchise that thrived on Playstation for decades. It would be as if Sony took a game that performed exceptionally on another console and paid for exclusivity. Has there been such a case?
If not, the whole "they're hypocrites" accusations doesn't hold any water.
@naruball Eh you mean the progress bugs that were in Dying Light 2 or Cyberpunk. Dis not see anyone complain when COD Zombies was pulled from the COD mobile editions.
Why haven't Microsft given Sony bugged versions of Minecraft? Oh wait, because Microsoft will lose money.
Xbox fanboys are constantly accusing Sony of doing this with just about every game they have the marketing rights to & are now outraged that Sony would accuse Microsoft of doing it 🤣
Lots of FUD from Sony, that does not hold water given how they have treated Minecraft on the platform. They even gave Minecraft PSVR support, something they Xbox version lacks.
Microsoft is not going to sabotage their game on any platform for the lols.
The points Sony made regarding “behavioral commitments” totally make sense to me. Strictly enforcing any of these commitments would require teams of people to monitor and could still let errors through. Sony also cited multiple cases where MS made concessions to get a deal through and then didn’t honor the concessions. The point they’re making - which is outlined pretty specifically in their response - is that MS is okay with breaking deals and paying a massive fine just to get what they want. MS can easily break any promises made, they have infinite money (they’re the 2nd most profitable company in existence at the moment), so even a $10b fine doesn’t really matter to them.
Oh and why is no outlet reporting on the “offer” to let Sony put COD on PS+ on day one? They made public statements about the offer, but didn’t mention to the public that the offer included Sony paying a licensing fee that would be larger than the entire profit margin of PS+ Extra. “Sure, you can put COD on PS+, but it’s going to cost you $30 a year per user, even if they never download a COD game.”
@trev666 then withdrew it from ps store so no one else could buy it. So I guess they do care lol
@naruball
… are you honestly asking that in a year where one of the biggest PS5 exclusives is going to be Final Fantasy 16?
@Tharsman final fantasy hasn’t performed exceptionally on Xbox though has it? So yeah there is that
@Artois2
If selling millions of copies does not cut it for you...
Edit:
Keep in mind the point of reference here is Tomb Rider, a game where the first entry actually disappointed Square, everywhere. MS paid about 100 million to even make the sequel happen, it is way above what any timed exclusivity deal would usually go for, and without it Square likely would had never made that sequel.
So if you are going to say that FF never did "exceptionally" on xbox despite selling millions of copies, well, Tomb Rider did worse on PS3.
Sells better on PlayStation though
@Artois2
what does that have to do with the discussion?
This is hilariously bad timing to make this argument. Destiny 2 just released its first expansion since Sony acquired them and it’s a technical mess, crashing multiple times on ps5, network issues etc.
Not to mention the “PlayStation is the best place to play” is the same thing as “plays best on xbox”. It just shows they don’t want competition at all and are happy to provide false information to regulators in order to retain their market position.
This just looks desperate and served to remind me how much of a circus this company is. PlayStation is my platform of choice and has been for years, but holy moly is their corporate drama ridiculous.
LMAO those are some hilariously desperate arguments from Sony.
Just let it through and make the last publisher ms buys.
I don't think selling a broken game will be good for either platforms lol.
@Kevw2006 Agreed. Microsoft also phrased that whole statement cautiously. Sure a game could come to PlayStation at the same time, duration etc but will Sony pay them the fees to have it? No idea.
Worth paying special attention to their use of the term ‘eligible’ though. This is the same stunt they pulled for Bethesda games. “Exclusive on a case by case basis”, is what they said. Meaning virtually nothing new is looking to be multiplatform.
The reality is that while Sony has reason to be worried, their market position is not in danger.
@Tharsman don’t actually know
It's all about GamePass. The only current console that can afford to be pouring many a millions at many 3rd party games to be day one on their subscription service, huge many billions on acquisitions that have potentially hundreds of games to all be thrown on GP. Never cared for CoD, care more about all the other hundreds of 3rd party games potentially missing out on. It's like you only ever buy Xbox consoles and never buy PS and absolutely adore the Assassins Creed series but wake up one morning reading the news finding out Ubisoft has been purchased by Sony and all AC games are exclusive to PS including all the other Ubisoft games never coming to Xbox. Then 6 months later still adoring your Xbox very much only to wake up one morning to find out Sony have just purchased GTA meaning GTA6 will be PS exclusive but Microsoft take Sony to court arguing over Sony and GTA. That's what it's like for many PS gamers over the last couple years with Bethesda and ActiBlizz. The argument about if Sony was way more richer they'd be doing the same might just be a relevant argument to make but that's just fiction and is not what's currently happening in reality
@Shstrick
There was a lot redacted on that document (funny enough, I have the pdf open to the left of this window right now since yesterday) and I am assuming the $30 you mention is an assumption, unless you found a leak of an unredacted document somewhere.
Based on the document I am looking at, there is too much redacted to jump to firm conclusions, but I am rather certain that the "per user" fee is only based on users that download and actually play the game for X amount of hours, not every active user.
There is also a reason why MS does not offer yearly bundles, upgrade tricks aside (can only be done once per account) the yearly cost of Game Pass is minimum $120, if you want to play online [on xbox] you need the Ultimate tier, thats $180 a year.
Sony underpriced their multi-game subscription plans, and that makes it harder for them to find the margins to include games day one. They could always just add it to the Premium tier, they already been rather arbitrary at adding some games to that tier only, or they could revamp the Premium tier entirely, bump its price further and actually add look at adding more day one titles at that point.
Anyways, I rambled a lot already, my original point remains: I am certain the licensing is only applicable based on subscribers that actually download and play the game.
@dschons I hope it's true! 🤣
@Suppressed I'm picturing it in my head and I must say: The thought is definitely amusing, lol.
Its OK for Sony to spend money on making sure that they have the 'Lead' platform and the 'best' version on their system - either inadvertently screwing over gamers on 'other' platforms (not just Xbox) or doing it deliberately to ensure there is NO parity and that they have an 'advantage'.
However, if MS do that, taking into consideration that they 'spent' $70bn on buying the Studios, the IP, publishing rights etc, will be 'funding' the continued development of CoD, will be funding all marketing costs, will be Publishing the game and will have paid those 'developers' to make their games and even paying them to Port the game to Sony's hardware for the CoD gamers on that platform.
If it isn't as 'performant' or has a few more bugs etc, maybe Sony should work with MS, work with those developers to ensure it releases in the 'best' state it can instead of 'fighting' with MS...
We can't compare Fallout 76 to Call of Duty, but FO76 has had zero optimization for PS5 and still runs 30fps, while Xbox has improved QOL functions and 60fps. Here is an example where Sony gets the worse game version, and Microsoft willfully neglects it while only optimizing on their hardware.
Got to say this one reads pretty bad. Maybe behind it all there is some logic, but I don't think they released the best of statements about this.
Xbox's response is pretty strange too though, going on again about bringing the game to more people like they are the all encompassing saviour of games. Activision is a publisher, it can publish it's games to wherever it chooses to, it doesn't need Xbox's permission... yet 👀
@Northern_munkey
Hello mate. Whilst I was never part of the QA process, simple logic dictates a format holder such as Sony have no chance at all of fully testing every game set to release on their own machines. Can you imagine the logistics of trying to do that - impossable. Proper QA is absolutely the responsibility of the developer or the publisher. I understand that basic checks and procedure are carried out to test the basics and make sure it loads and button prompts etc are correct, but they can do little more than that. Hence why CDPR got away with trying to launch Cyberpunk and why Sony had to stop it being sold once it became apparent what a mess it was.
I completely disagree that MS would not sabotage its own games for a competitive advantage - of course they would.
Every single Xbox sells at a loss and I can guarantee you gamepass is not raking in the cash either. They are quite happy to buy market share and they are quite literally made of money, so why on earth would anyone suggest they wouldn't want to lose some custom on one game, when they are quite happy to spend literally billions capturing large parts of the market? Legally binding contracts can easily be broken. Once this deal is across the line those commitments will be paper thin. It would be difficult to prove in a court over a long time that they deliberately did anything, and even if they lost such a court battle - so what? Paying a few more millions wouldn't bother them at all and would be worth it for the advantage they would buy. Anyone thinking they would not be capable of this surely have no knowledge of their past behaviour - they have demonstrated on many occasions they are prepared to lose money to drive competitors out of business. I'm not saying its definitely gonna happen, but its not an unlikely scenario at all given their past behaviour, so such concerns are clearly not hypothetical. Proving you've gimped a game with inconsistent frame rate on PS which is locked at 60fps on series X would be an almost impossible task which MS would no doubt explain away by "12 terraflops mate". Have you not noticed how parity on Fallout 76 has become 60fps on Xbox and 30fps on PS? That's no accident.
Those that continue to champion ever more consolidation in this industry despite the example of history, literally sicken me.
Its not good for gamers, and I care about gamers wherever they play. Short term gains are not worth the cost....
However, like much that doesn't make sense on this planet, I expect it to happen anyway..
It doesn't matter what system you're a fan of, it doesn't matter how "I bleed blue" PS fan one is, Sony's arguments at this point are starting the embarrass the entire brand. It's one thing to argue, it's another thing to make up these ever more ridiculous and unbased "what if" arguments as actual legal devices.
"What if they have excluisive content (like we do")
"What if they don't honor the contract?"
"What if they intentionally make the game buggy to make us look bad?" (Has MLB asked this of Sony for The Show ports?)
@Titntin thanks for the reply. Actually thanks to everyone who replied and its good to have a different take on this when its explained properly.
I don't get all the people complaining about Microsoft making Bethesda games exclusive when Sony had paid money to keep the last 2 Bethesda games off Xbox. Sony has been buying exclusives as a main part of it's growth strategy since PS3. It seems now their main worry is they will no longer be able to get COD exclusive features and are mad more people will get to play all of COD in more places.
Personally, I hope this goes through. I don't care about COD but it will be great to get other AVB games on Gamepass, and it will be good for gaming as a whole when there are less games Sony can pay to gate keep off other services and consoles. I think there will be a lot more winners than losers from this deal.
@Northern_munkey
Your welcome mate. This would be an interesting discussion if it were not for brain washed flag wavers - you know, the kind who like to post stupid memes...
I have to say while it is absolutely silly on paper, after years of bs I can actually see Microsoft and specifically the Xbox team doing everything described, so 🤷🏼
And ALL these acquisitions should be shut down. On any side. Invest in making interesting games!
Jim Ryan to Phil Spencer: "I can't stand it, I know you planned it!"
Glad to see the "they might take it away" narrative has finally changed. This new take seems just as dull though.
"They might screw up our annual copy paste game that scores mid 70s on a good year."
This may come across as stupid/naive but couldn't Microsoft just rebrand COD to avoid any contractual obligations?
Assuming they keep their word with the 10 year deal and don't screw PS over, then Sony has 10 years to develop a COD rival which seems like more than enough time, plus who's to say COD will still be the same juggernaut in 10 years as it is now.
At the end of the day I couldn't care less as personally I find COD dull and frustrating
Also if this acquisition goes through doesn't it set a precedent thus making the acquisition of EA and taketwo easier for Microsoft if they choose to go that route?
@Llamageddon I think that would be a difficult court case if they just "rebrand" CoD, to hide from obligations but otherwise still make the game. Of course they could END CoD, and just not make it, or just make the F2P Warzones (that seems to be where it's headed anyway), as long as XB doesn't have more CoD (by any name) than PS they've met their obligations.
But if they don't plan to dismantle CoD, it's in their own best interest to maintain the brand, since it generates money, which can be used, as critics like to say to "subsidize people's games on GP" (Which likely isn't the situation.)
I think it sets a precedent that makes big acquisitions and consolidation in gaming easier (which worries me), but I think it would make it harder for MS to do any other such large buyouts, since they'd already have a massive administrative headache with what they've purchased, and courts would be much more skeptical with a series of high profile buyouts.
They'd definitely still buy more smaller studios, but I don't think they have any plans (or that the courts would let them) buy another one of "the majors."
@Llamageddon the regulators would have the ability to enforce any behavior remedies likely through a 3rd party. Microsoft is already floating the idea of the CMA using the same company that provided oversight for the LinkedIn remedies.
If MS was able to prove that COD is still being made they could probably have one of the 3 arms of COD studios make an exclusive military shooter but I doubt they would even entertain that. They are extremely hands off with their other acquisitions almost to a fault. It would most likely be business as usual for Activision blizzard development wise.
People often forget, but during the 7th gen some games on PS3 were shafted not only because the architecture was complex but also because MS paid quite a sum of money for "optimizations" on 360 ports.
If you need to pay attention to one single thing in order to understand the world of today, it's perverse incentives. That is exactly Sony's point here and they're spot on.
"Oh, c'mon! Microsoft would never do this!" Listen to yourselves... Do a little effort and look one inch below the surface, people.
TYPICAL Microsoft DOGS trying to sabotage PlayStation! These greedy scumbags will stop at nothing until every other console is dead and they're the only ones remaining! Bill Gates is counting the days until he can say "goodbye Nintendo, goodbye Sony, Xbox is your new videogame monopoly overlord!"
@Northern_munkey Doesn't matter even if they were to not do it. The point of the aquisition is clear. To get CoD off of Playstation.
They want to funnel all games into gamepass to build their monopoly. After which they will raise prices and farm the gain. That is their end grand scheme. They don't want to lure players with their awesome products. They want to remove our choice.
I am also quite tired of this. My hope is that Microsoft is so bad at managing their studios that CoD implodes. Cause nothing good awaits us if it doesn't.
@Titntin i cant comment on that one as i changed my avatar to a jk rowling one after i got fed up with usual suspects diatribe..childish yes but felt good 👍
I hope Sony's behavior hurts them more than the cod deal does. They really show their greedy face.
Meanwhile I'm on the sidelines still waiting for when all of this finally blows over and people move on...
Jim Ryan is the worst thing to happen to Playstation, and he could wind up costing Sony big.
@Nem They have been offering everyone 10 year contacts and have been pledging support for all other platforms, how do you get "they want it for nobody but themselves" out of that? It also seems like a highly hypocritical take for Sony to be suddenly complaining about the concept of exclusive games as well, a concept that they have made their brand image revolve around.
If this deal is unlikely blocked, the sabotage can be done by Activision itself.
@JayJ Microsoft is playing the long term game. They know they have lost in the present hardware market. So, they are positioning themselves in what they see as the future of gaming, which is a world without consoles and with gaming services like streaming services exist now where you don't actually own your games. That is why they are buying big publishers now. Their plan is to corner the market in 10 years in terms of content and take over the market by snuffing the competition before the game started. They don't care about the now. They want to have the big popular 3rd party exclusives in 10 years when that battle happens.
I see what they are doing and i want to strongly resist. They have done nothing but make gaming worse with greedy practices. I don't want them to corner the market. It will be awful.
@Blackmagehobbit Well Sony has undoubtedly completely ruined their relationship with Activision no matter how this deal turns out. In fact if it gets blocked, that means Activision loses an absolute fortune and will probably hit hard times as a result. Wouldn't surprise me if they would have spite for Sony as a result and intentionally sabotage anything they have going with them, maybe even eliminate Sony entirely from their supported platforms.
Ironically, Microsoft buying Activision is probably Sony's best chance of having any sort of decent relationship with them.
@JayJ That's exactly my point. There a number of bad scenarios for Sony, for instance:
1) If the deal is blocked Microsoft can just pay millions to put Call of Duty (and other Activision games) day one in the game pass, also with exclusive content.
2) These 69 billion can be use to purchase a number of other studios, including important ones and even talented people or smaller companies. This may also reduce the number of games coming for Playstation.
3) Activision can sign exclusivity deals with Microsoft even being a independent publisher. The worst relatioshipt that will come from this mess certainly will influence in these deals.
I don't care for Call of Duty, tried to play once but it is not my type of game. However, there are other fun IPs from Activision that unfortunately will become absent in Playstation systems. Deal being done or not.
@Blackmagehobbit Yeah, that sounds like a good breakdown to me. Personally, I don't care about COD either, and I would like to see Microsoft buy Activision so they could finally make use of their other IP's like producing a new Spyro and THPS game.
@JayJ I only play in Playstation systems because I have no time or money to invest in several consoles; however, I wish all companies to go well so the industry is not damaged. Sometimes I just watch these bad moves and find myself thinking about the consequences. I just can not figure out what Sony will gain with this mess.
@Blackmagehobbit Yeah I can respect that.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...