Support NeoGAF

[Lognor]

I wold just read it as everything at Activision stays as it is, except we might get some bonus content on GP and MS gets more content for their metaverse. We'll know for sure when games get released after this closes.

That's what the PS fanboys are praying for. Clearly. They didn't care about COD when the acquisition was announced, but now that there's a chance it might stay on PS they certainly care. LOL

Again, I'm looking at this the same as Bethesda. We know Starfield isn't coming to PS. Starfield is a 20m+ seller. Microsoft made the decision to make it exclusive. COD is a big seller too and because of Starfield I think Microsoft does the same. Makes it Xbox exclusive. I haven't changed from that. And this language is ambiguous enough that it could go either way. Refer back to the language they used about Bethesda before the acquisition was finalized. Same type of cryptic words.

Wow....ok. Lie to yourself then.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Policies change. We can agree on that part.
But that past incident would be used against FTC, regardless of policy change, as that was a failure from their side. And If one thing I am sure about big techs, They wont let that incident slide.

It wasn't the FTC who dealt with the Disney mergers fyi

 

[GHG]

No, My argument is what the FTC set the precedent for. By allowing this deal, they opened whole can of worm.

This is how I know you didn't actually watch through the video I linked. She talks about what they will be doing differently in the future and why previous deals that went through aren't going to set any precedence going forwards.

Hopeless. At some point you'll stop typing, listen and learn instead of banging your head against a road that leads to nowhere.

 

[ChiefDada]

Call of Duty = Warzone
Other popular AB games = not sure...Diablo?

I knew keeping CoD multiplatform was a no brainer, but I'm extremely surprised about the "other popular AB games" part. Some IP should become exclusive to attract customers to your platform.

I don't see it as much different from Starfield though. That's a 20m+ seller right there. It's Xbox exclusive. If Microsoft comes out in the next 12 months and announces it for PS5 everything changes. Until then, I'm taking this as PR talk.

Starfield is going to be interesting, especially since they are releasing this year. It sounds like an expensive IP based on how vast in scope it is. Also, since it's a next gen only project, how many PC users currently have the required specs to run it? For PC users who need to upgrade, will the title be compelling enough for them to spend $$$? I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

These are the points, in which the FTC would look for it.

Point 1: Disney broke that rule. Considering the vast content they have over their competitors.

Point 2: MS would make Activision life much better, compared to them working with activision.

Point 3: Disney have much power now on the theatre, which they can use their authority, due to their recent fox deal.

3 easy points, which MS lawyer can argue about it.

Often times political rulings aren't fair or equitable. Just ask Lehman Brothers.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That's what the PS fanboys are praying for. Clearly. They didn't care about COD when the acquisition was announced, but now that there's a chance it might stay on PS they certainly care. LOL

Again, I'm looking at this the same as Bethesda. We know Starfield isn't coming to PS. Starfield is a 20m+ seller. Microsoft made the decision to make it exclusive. COD is a big seller too and because of Starfield I think Microsoft does the same. Makes it Xbox exclusive. I haven't changed from that. And this language is ambiguous enough that it could go either way. Refer back to the language they used about Bethesda before the acquisition was finalized. Same type of cryptic words.

Link to the MS blog post that was directly addressed to the FTC to get the Bethesda acquisition approved

 

[Yoboman]

The difference is that Microsoft has no obligations to release the games on other platform. That's the point. They committed to make them available after the contracts expire, but availability means not removing something from the platform. But you cannot remove something that you haven't released.

Not to mention what Microsoft is trying to achieve with their support of Open App Store is entirely different topic too.


Except in that case the size of the company does not matter and Microsoft's market share is not that big in the first place in a huge gaming market. That's what Satya mentioned. Deal is big and will be scrutinized (but I don't believe that it will be scrutinized for long though) but that's it.

They are not under any obligation, except that the FTC is scrutinising them heavily here - to the point they have changed course and committed to not changing the status quo and keeping COD multiplatform so that this deal will go through

They can't then go and say "it'll be multiplatform but ONLY if you allow Gamepass on your system" - that is the very definition of product tying and will open a whole new issue for them with regulators

The only situation where Gamepass makes it on to Playstation is if Sony and MS reach some business outcome beneficial to both. Its not going to be through coercive action

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Y'all are never going to agree with each other, so it's ok to stop yelling after 14 pages.

 

[SportsFan581]

That's what the PS fanboys are praying for. Clearly. They didn't care about COD when the acquisition was announced, but now that there's a chance it might stay on PS they certainly care. LOL

Again, I'm looking at this the same as Bethesda. We know Starfield isn't coming to PS. Starfield is a 20m+ seller. Microsoft made the decision to make it exclusive. COD is a big seller too and because of Starfield I think Microsoft does the same. Makes it Xbox exclusive. I haven't changed from that. And this language is ambiguous enough that it could go either way. Refer back to the language they used about Bethesda before the acquisition was finalized. Same type of cryptic words.

I've given up trying to predict these things. I guess we'll see when the smoke clears.

I will say that Bethesda seemed much more in the traditional mold of first-party studios, with smaller teams that worked for longer periods of time to release titles while maintaining modest operating costs. Activision is the basic antithesis of that approach with huge teams turning content out very quickly (in the scheme of things). I can see where they may opt to move in different directions with both, but who knows.

 

[adamsapple]

Not understanding my point

You're trying to claim they're being vague by using "make available" instead of "releasing"

Why are they not using the latter to talk about upcoming COD games?

I'm not claiming anything lol. If it was such a clear cut statement of intent, this topic wouldn't be such a hot place for discussion in the first place.

I don't know what you want me to seek with the final line, I don't have a repository of statements MS have made about the upcoming CoD, not that a CoD has been announced for this year in the first place. The thing about the 3 upcoming CoD's we know from other sources like Bloomberg. There's no official MS PR regarding it as far as I've seen.

If you have that handy, please do share so I can see it too.

 

[Lognor]

Yes, I am the dumb one.

Agreed!

You're another one who looked like an absolute clown from the other thread and doubling down in denial

Nah that would be you. I can go ahead and quote you back before the Bethesda acquisition was finalized saying that Starfield would come to PS and games will be on a case by case basis. LOL. Such a fool. I can pull up those quotes for you if you can't remember. IT's sad.

 

[lastmessiah]

to the guys who are confident that future titles beyond agreements will release on PS, do you want to make a real money bet on it? I'll put up real money that says they won't.

 

[GigaBowser]

COD on Switch?

 

[Lognor]

Starfield is going to be interesting, especially since they are releasing this year. It sounds like an expensive IP based on how vast in scope it is. Also, since it's a next gen only project, how many PC users currently have the required specs to run it? For PC users who need to upgrade, will the title be compelling enough for them to spend $$$? I look forward to seeing how this plays out.



Often times political rulings aren't fair or equitable. Just ask Lehman Brothers.

Are you speculating that Starfield will come to PS5 at a later date?

COD on Switch?

All it took for COD to come to Switch was for Microsoft to buy Activision. Nah, not going to happen

 

[SportsFan581]

Starfield is going to be interesting, especially since they are releasing this year. It sounds like an expensive IP based on how vast in scope it is. Also, since it's a next gen only project, how many PC users currently have the required specs to run it? For PC users who need to upgrade, will the title be compelling enough for them to spend $$$? I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

Starfield will have a mode that works on XSS, PC players should be good with those settings (speaking of 480/580 and 1060 type players).

All it took for COD to come to Switch was for Microsoft to buy Activision. Nah, not going to happen

If it happens I figure it will be one of those deals where you pay $60 for access to a streamed version, like Hitman and Control. They would really have to tank the offering to ensure that new entries could run native on the Switch.

 

[kingfey]

This is how I know you didn't actually watch through the video I linked. She talks about what they will be doing differently in the future and why previous deals that went through aren't going to set any precedence going forwards.

Hopeless. At some point you'll learn to listen and learn instead of banging your head against a road that leads to nowhere.

You mean, how she is talking about that Facebook merger of Instagram and WhatsApp, which let them slip in to the mobile market?

Because that is what Disney deal was. yet, she didnt bring Disney at all, but Facebook, because big tech blah blah blah.

IF FTC was so serious about their previous deals, Disney is the biggest example, considering the amount of Success they are having in the entertainment industry.

This is just big tech talk, and nothing more than that.

 

[GigaBowser]

All it took for COD to come to Switch was for Microsoft to buy Activision. Nah, not going to happen

I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Phil loves the Switch and Nintendo. A lot more than Activision did.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Possibly but I don't know if I would weigh Destiny vs Call of Duty on the same scale TBH.

They are not but it seems to me if I'm reading correctly between the lines that both Sony and MS want console ecosystems to get away Scott free from the impending changes in app story policies due to new market regulations.

Both Sony, MS and even Nintendo might be very interest in selling games on iOS on their own terms for example, without having to do the same for others on their consoles. Market consolidation is happening right before the gaming distribution channels are blown wide open. MS is leading the charge with Epic, and they are keeping Sony and Nintendo close by.

Maybe there's more than meets the eye when Jim Ryan said PlayStation was going multiplatform. He has also talked about mobile, and that seems to be the end goal going on.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

I honestly think Microsoft is done competing directly against Sony software-wise. Microsoft spent near $70 billion just to leave their Activision/Blizzard games on PlayStation and to even develop for Nintendo? I know they supposedly don't care where you play their games and they get more money, but that still seemed like way too much money to spend to be a glorified third party. Then again, if they want to reach as many players as possible, I guess they don't have much choice because PC and XBOX only will not get them anywhere near that goal.

I'm thinking the FTC might of influenced this decision a bit as well. Well, if this is factual, besides Gamepass which is on the One X for now and PC as well, I don't see much reason to buy a Series X or S in the future if you have a PS5. Watch more Bethesda games go multiplatform as well especially if they don't make the money Microsoft hopes for. We are keeping Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6 exclusive, but you guys can have COD, Overwatch and World of Warcraft? Ok.

 

[Yoboman]

You mean, how she talking about that Facebook merger of Instagram and WhatsApp, which let them slip in to the mobile market?

Because that is what Disney deal was. yet, she didnt bring Disney at all, but Facebook, because big tech blah blah blah.

IF FTC was so serious about their previous deals, Disney is the biggest example, considering the amount of Success they are having in the entertainment industry.

This is just big tech talk, and nothing more than that.

Regulators will be arguing based on their frameworks and guidelines given to businesses. Not based on arbitrary precedents

 

[ChiefDada]

Are you speculating that Starfield will come to PS5 at a later date?

Lol, no. I meant exactly what I said. This a full next gen game that is "free" day one to all Xbox/PC players on Gamepass. This will be a great case study for the economics of the subscription model for future reference. It should give us at least some insight as to whether the model is financially viable or not.

 

[GHG]

You mean, how she talking about that Facebook merger of Instagram and WhatsApp, which let them slip in to the mobile market?

Because that is what Disney deal was. yet, she didnt bring Disney at all, but Facebook, because big tech blah blah blah.

IF FTC was so serious about their previous deals, Disney is the biggest example, considering the amount of Success they are having in the entertainment industry.

This is just big tech talk, and nothing more than that.

"Blah blah blah"?

Please do me a favour, curb your ADHD for one hour, grab a beverage of choice and watch through the whole video.

If you can't even do that in order to have an honest discussion then stop wasting my time.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Agreed!

Nah that would be you. I can go ahead and quote you back before the Bethesda acquisition was finalized saying that Starfield would come to PS and games will be on a case by case basis. LOL. Such a fool. I can pull up those quotes for you if you can't remember. IT's sad.

Lol you're pathetic. You look like a fool so this is the road you take

1. My stance on Starfield from the start was it was a 50/50 it would come to PS. I never 100% claimed it would.

2. I said "case by case basis" back then, because that was literally the PR bullshit Phil came out with

Nice try though

 

[Menzies]

Show me a single instance where a company has used a previous unrelated merger as a defence during an FTC M&A investigation and then we can talk.

This isn't some petty disagreement on a forum or a kid whining to it's parents about another sibling getting preferential treatment.

Same goes for you kingfey

So any kind of defense using a precedent is a kid whining? OK let's not talk

 

[Topher]

That's what the PS fanboys are praying for. Clearly. They didn't care about COD when the acquisition was announced, but now that there's a chance it might stay on PS they certainly care. LOL

Again, I'm looking at this the same as Bethesda. We know Starfield isn't coming to PS. Starfield is a 20m+ seller. Microsoft made the decision to make it exclusive. COD is a big seller too and because of Starfield I think Microsoft does the same. Makes it Xbox exclusive. I haven't changed from that. And this language is ambiguous enough that it could go either way. Refer back to the language they used about Bethesda before the acquisition was finalized. Same type of cryptic words.

COD will be exclusive to devices that allow Game Pass. Is Sony going to allow Game Pass on PS? If not, no more COD. As simple as that.

No, it's the same. Stuart says they have no plans to pull content. Spencer says they desire to keep (aka not pull content) COD on PS. It's the same. No, they will not pull MW1, MW2, MW3, BO1, BO2, BO3, etc from PS. They likely will not pull Warzone. But they will also not release COD 2024, COD 2025, COD 2026, etc on Playstation UNLESS Playstation allows Game Pass. We've been here before...

 

[GHG]

So any kind of defense using a precedent is a kid whining? OK let's not talk

Yes that's exactly what I said. Please let's not.

 

[Mr Moose]

Nah that would be you. I can go ahead and quote you back before the Bethesda acquisition was finalized saying that Starfield would come to PS and games will be on a case by case basis. LOL. Such a fool. I can pull up those quotes for you if you can't remember. IT's sad.

Interesting, your account isn't that old.

 

[ChiefDada]

Starfield will have a mode that works on XSS, PC players should be good with those settings (speaking of 480/580 and 1060 type players).

Wait, what do you mean separate mode? I'm not really referring to graphics, more so about the CPU and SSD I/O requirements.

Can you cite source for what you're saying so I can read up on it?

 

[GHG]

Interesting, your account isn't that old.

It's literally the same dozen people that keep on resurrecting themselves.

 

[Shmunter]

Lol, again….this time by the open Bungie deal…

 

[ChiefDada]

Yikes!

Damn Lognor , I know you're not going to let them do you like that!!!???

 

[Hendrick's]

This is only as good as the Phil and Jimbo handshake. We don't know what Sony agreed to, but you bet your ass they won't be moneyhatting 3rd parties if they want to keep COD.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

This is only as good as the Phil and Jimbo handshake. We don't know what Sony agreed to, but you bet your ass they won't be moneyhatting 3rd parties if they want to keep COD.

Doesn't really matter what Sony and MS have agreed to at this point. They've made these promises directly to the FTC.

MS money-hat games too so it's not like they can use that fact against Sony as leverage

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Then why did you buy it?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

It would probably look worse if Spencer and co. expected Sony to sing Kumbaya with them because of anything related to Activision. If MS releases all of their first-party content on PS while Sony continues to have exclusives, I think that is what would make them look like a simp. I don't really think MS looks bad by securing a lot of content for GP while maintaining the status quo.

My question though is how strong is the value proposition for GamePass to draw in enough new customers and long-term customers/subscribers, if a lot of the biggest content is still available in other ecosystems? There aren't a lot of film/television streaming equivalents to compare to, but it'd probably be like if Disney agreed to put The Simpsons on Netflix after acquiring Fox, or future Alien films for that matter onto other services, especially with release parity.

Could the case be argued that Disney+'s sub numbers would be weaker taking that path? Well there's no way we can say for sure, it'll only remain a hypothetical. But it's going to be pretty interesting to see how this all shakes out. IMO it's still too early for Microsoft to really rely on GamePass's value proposition as the main selling factor to lure in most customers to the service, but if their plans have shifted somewhat from pushing GamePass at all costs and towards generating maximum revenue and profits sooner, then business-wise keeping the status quo makes sense.

It's just a bit unfortunate this is going to inevitably reinforce a lot of perceptions that Xbox isn't "allowed" to have exclusive games (or to better say, exclusives people outside the ecosystem would genuinely care about) unless they're in-house from the ground-up, even when it takes literal years to get new studios up and running. Like they're being punished for having too much money or something, despite earning that money in a capitalist market that was designed to foster competition in the first place. Meanwhile I'm almost hoping Sony actually do acquire a massive publisher just to see if the same energy is kept in that case as well, because that's ultimately what I care about: people being consistent about their stances no matter the company.

When I see people jumping through hoops to slam one company for doing a thing, but jump through even more hoops to justify another company doing essentially the same type of stuff, it's beyond grating and phony.

 

[Topher]

This is only as good as the Phil and Jimbo handshake. We don't know what Sony agreed to, but you bet your ass they won't be moneyhatting 3rd parties if they want to keep COD.

As a gamer, I want moneyhatting to end across the board. So should you. Microsoft is not innocent in this.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Please educate yourself and watch:




Lina Khan outlines everything pretty clearly throughout that interview.

Thanks for linking this. This is great, there's a lot here. A bit of gas lighting on some of these questions, the media never ceases to amaze me in how they are constantly representing some special interest group.

As I go through it the more and more I believe that MS is trying to consolidate big time ahead of distribution platforms like iOS being blown wide open.

I wonder… FTC might actually make something good with this woman at the helm.

 

[Mr Moose]

This is only as good as the Phil and Jimbo handshake. We don't know what Sony agreed to, but you bet your ass they won't be moneyhatting 3rd parties if they want to keep COD.

Separately, Microsoft said it has committed to Sony that popular franchises it acquires from Activision Blizzard will remain available on PlayStation under Activision's existing deal with Sony, and that it has offered to extend the deal on a "multiyear basis." The existing deal with Sony runs until 2024, Smith said.

Sony will keep moneyhatting CoD.

Timed DLC crap isn't a thing anymore anyway, just marketing and 5 extra lvls on the battlepass and a mode no one plays.

 

[ChiefDada]

This is only as good as the Phil and Jimbo handshake. We don't know what Sony agreed to, but you bet your ass they won't be moneyhatting 3rd parties if they want to keep COD.

Of course they will. CoD isn't the bargaining chip you think it is.

 

[Zok310]

Lol, again….this time by the open Bungie deal…

This is how your friends can play the games you love.

Thanks

 

[sainraja]

Anyone saying the statement made by Microsoft in that blog post isn't clear is only fooling themselves. If Microsoft goes on to do the opposite, then they simply lied in that blog post. The statement is clear and isn't vague as statements made before.

 

[Hendrick's]

Sony will keep moneyhatting CoD.

I wasn't talking about COD but in general. And no, they won't be moneyhatting COD after the contract is up.

Microsoft said it has committed to Sony that popular franchises it acquires from Activision Blizzard will remain available on PlayStation under Activision's existing deal with Sony, and that it has offered to extend the deal on a "multiyear basis."

Key word if offered. That is a new deal with new stipulations.

 

[Mr Moose]

I wasn't talking about COD but in general. And no, they won't be moneyhatting COD after the contract is up.


Key word if offered. That is a new deal with new stipulations.

The other key words are "to extend the deal".

 

[Hendrick's]

The other key words are "to extend the deal".

That would require a new contract. No way they are not going to renegotiate.

 

[GulfCoastZilla]

Jokes and all….but Phil Spencer fears his favorite game (Destiny 2) being removed from Xbox and his playing nice.

 

[PlaystationFan5349]

ALL CoD or just Warzone?

What about Bethesda?

This clearly says they will continue to make them available. I don't see where it says they will make new games for those consoles.

 

[Warablo]

I still standby CoD will go where Game Pass goes, once their obligations end.

 

[PlaystationFan5349]

Not just Destiny. All Bungie's output for the near to mid term.

So Destiny then? You do realize that Bungie has only made Halo and Destiny? And that Halo is a Microsoft franchise and that there's no previous record of Bungie doing anything else and that Sony paid 3.6 billion for one game and that because of it they can't make Bungie focus on anything else because they would loose money?

 

[PlaystationFan5349]

I said all the laughing reactions would look pretty silly once this plays out.
Activision is on a whole different level than Bethesda, MS knows this and there's no way they'd limit CoD to just Xbox, it would actually be worse for them financially. This is 100% a Minecraft situation and I said that since day 1.

You will eat your words. Getting call of duty will make Microsoft the winner of any console generation.

 

[Mr Moose]

This clearly says they will continue to make them available. I don't see where it says they will make new games for those consoles.

Separately, Microsoft said it has committed to Sony that popular franchises it acquires from Activision Blizzard will remain available on PlayStation under Activision's existing deal with Sony, and that it has offered to extend the deal on a "multiyear basis." The existing deal with Sony runs until 2024, Smith said.

They want Sony to extend the CoD deal on a mutliyear basis on old CoD games, not new ones.

 

[bender]

This is only as good as the Phil and Jimbo handshake. We don't know what Sony agreed to, but you bet your ass they won't be moneyhatting 3rd parties if they want to keep COD.

Phil doesn't have hands. He has claws. Little teeny tiny green claws.