Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

Hmm...can't imagine that they're throwing darts at a wall. Maybe they are, just can't think of a reason.

As if to say the numbers we know to be accurate (117 vs ~50?) aren't good enough to stress the disparity.

I can think of 70 billion reasons why.

 

[Hendrick's]

I didn't think they explicitly agreed with Sony's model, but did say this about MSFT/ABK's financial modelling.

"182. The CMA believes, however, that the methodology underlying the Parties' incentives analysis, and the data inputs on which it is based, may be flawed or incomplete, and that the approach to estimating the critical diversion ratio is not likely to be accurate. In addition, the CMA considers that the number of gamers that would switch to Xbox if Microsoft made ABK's content exclusive could be significantly higher than the Parties predict, given the importance of ABK's content to gamers, which again would make the model inaccurate.

183. First, the Parties' model is likely to understate the benefits to the Merged Entity of withholding CoD from PlayStation:

......

185. Third, the CMA considers that the methodology chosen by the Parties to conduct their analysis does not represent a standard approach to estimating a critical diversion ratio. The complex methodology used by the Parties appears to depend heavily on the assumptions listed above rather than to reflect the relative profits which would be gained in the downstream market and lost in the upstream market from foreclosure"

The important part in the CMA phase 1 document being that the model is non-standard, which certainly needs lots and lots of justification, if to be accepted.

Almost as if Jim Ryan penciled it himself.

 

[zedinen]

UK: Market Share

Windows 95%

XGP [50-60]%

Xbox HW [30-40]% (sales value)

Microsoft x ABK [30-40]% (minutes played on console)




The CMA has established a Theory of Harm (TOH):

1. Microsoft Gaming is a well-financed business willing to make losses in order to acquire PlayStation's sources of revenues, impair Sony's ability to compete and raise barriers to entry for new firms

Microsoft lost $5 to $7 billion on the original Xbox

(Source)

RROD: $1.1 billion write-off

2.Microsoft must convince the authorities that there's no predatory scheme

Red flags:

- Microsoft plans to invest more money in two years than the combined profits earned by Nintendo and PlayStation in forty years

- Microsoft could use its control over Zenimax and ABK content to foreclose rivals

- Microsoft has a dominant position in operating systems, cloud infraestructure, multi-game subscription services and cloud gaming

- Microsoft tends to crush competitors by "cutting off the air supply"



3. Microsoft's predatory campaign to crush Netscape: "cut off the air supply"

Justice.gov

Judge Orders Microsoft Split Into Two Companies (June 7, 2000)




Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it

Enterprise Value

Embracer $7.31B

Koei Tecmo $4.98B

Capcom $4.70B

Square Enix $4.36B

Ubisoft $3.56B

Sega Sammy $2.30B

CD Projekt $2.24B

Kadokawa $2.10B

 

[PaintTinJr]

Almost as if Jim Ryan penciled it himself.

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with stats methods that would be considered "standard" in the world's academic circles, no?

When they say it is not a standard method, they are stating that it doesn't follow accepted methods. Whether Jim pencilled it or someone from Imperial College London or MIT wouldn't matter, if the method chosen can't be defended as being suitable for the problem, then it can't be defended. The more interesting question is: why haven't they used a "standard" methodology - that would pass peer-review if this was a published article in a journal?

 

[feynoob]

29, 24 and 34 seems to be so bulshit, and in order to protect Sony interest.

Wtf are you doing CMA?

How have you ever considered what would happen, should CoD become exclusive? If MS loses PS revenue for COD, that would heavily impact the game, even if MS is a rich company.

Not to mention, CMA is clearly ignoring the importance of PS users for the game. XBOX and PC alone can't sustain that game, as Halo infinite is evidence for that.

As for Activision library, MS would still have less library compared to its competitors.
For example, Sony is getting 10 live service games, which would increase their library. They have had 7 1st party games, compared to their competitors.

As for last one, psnow games are much higher than xcloud. In no way, does this purchase gives more advantage for MS.

No wonder MS had that lawyer fly to UK. CMA are pathetic for these argument, and would be dismantled by that lawyer.

 

[MasterCornholio]

How have you ever considered what would happen, should CoD become exclusive? If MS loses PS revenue for COD, that would heavily impact the game, even if MS is a rich company.

Well I think the point is to increase gamepass subscriptions at the cost of taking in losses. It's the main reason why Microsoft would make CoD exclusive.

 

[Chukhopops]

29, 24 and 34 seems to be so bulshit, and in order to protect Sony interest.

Wtf are you doing CMA?

How have you ever considered what would happen, should CoD become exclusive? If MS loses PS revenue for COD, that would heavily impact the game, even if MS is a rich company.

Not to mention, CMA is clearly ignoring the importance of PS users for the game. XBOX and PC alone can't sustain that game, as Halo infinite is evidence for that.

As for Activision library, MS would still have less library compared to its competitors.
For example, Sony is getting 10 live service games, which would increase their library. They have had 7 1st party games, compared to their competitors.

As for last one, psnow games are much higher than xcloud. In no way, does this purchase gives more advantage for MS.

No wonder MS had that lawyer fly to UK. CMA are pathetic for these argument, and would be dismantled by that lawyer.

I don't think those are arguments they would use in court (especially the Netscape and OG Xbox arguments which are frankly ridiculous), more something used as part of preliminary conclusions to try and get some concessions.

No way in hell you could seriously use Netscape as an argument in 2023. Why not use Corel Draw too lmao.

 

[Three]

How have you ever considered what would happen, should CoD become exclusive? If MS loses PS revenue for COD, that would heavily impact the game, even if MS is a rich company.

The fact that they are arguing with the CMA regarding COD not causing harm if removed would suggest they might want to have that right.

 

[feynoob]

The fact that they are arguing with the CMA regarding COD not causing harm if removed would suggest they might want to have that right.

Because it will also cause harm to them and the game too.
This isn't just exclusive to PS.
There is a cause and affect for that move.

COD isn't a single player game. It needs huge amount of community to thrive, and sustain its yearly or 2 yearly release cycle.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Because it will also cause harm to them and the game too.
This isn't just exclusive to PS.
There is a cause and affect for that move.

COD isn't a single player game. It needs huge amount of community to thrive, and sustain its yearly or 2 yearly release cycle.

CoD did fine even before cross play was implemented. CoD players won't have issues finding other Xbox or PC users to play with.

 

[feynoob]

I don't think those are arguments they would use in court (especially the Netscape and OG Xbox arguments which are frankly ridiculous), more something used as part of preliminary conclusions to try and get some concessions.

No way in hell you could seriously use Netscape as an argument in 2023. Why not use Corel Draw too lmao.

Which is why CMA needs solid argument.
Every arguments they made so far, have been a wet argument, which can't be held in the court at all.

 

[Three]

Because it will also cause harm to them and the game too.
This isn't just exclusive to PS.
There is a cause and affect for that move.

COD isn't a single player game. It needs huge amount of community to thrive, and sustain its yearly or 2 yearly release cycle.

MS are arguing that removal from PS is no biggy. If they didn't want to exercise that right most of MS arguments wouldn't centre around their models for removal of CoD and other franchises from competitors. It would be a commitment and argument that removal is not happening at all. It may cause harm to COD but would it cause harm to xbox?

 

[feynoob]

CoD did fine even before cross play was implemented. CoD players won't have issues finding other Xbox or PC users to play with.

The problem is replacing those userbase in term of revenue.
If PS is blocked, MS would have to spend alot of their own money to fund the game, and that would generally hurt the game in the long run.

Minecraft and gtav proved that having users in all platforms can actually sustain their games for a longer period of time.

 

[Schmick]

MS are arguing that removal from PS is no biggy. If they didn't want to exercise that right most of MS arguments wouldn't centre around their models for removal of CoD and other franchises from competitors. It would be a commitment and argument that removal is not happening at all. It may cause harm to COD but would it cause harm to xbox?

MS do not intend to remove COD from PS.

 

[poppabk]

MS are arguing that removal from PS is no biggy. If they didn't want to exercise that right most of MS arguments wouldn't centre around their models for removal of CoD and other franchises from competitors. It would be a commitment and argument that removal is not happening at all.

Wait aren't they arguing the opposite? The inflated figures people are talking about are to show that the PlayStation share of the market is so big that removing CoD from them would be catastrophic to MS.

 

[feynoob]

MS are arguing that removal from PS is no biggy. If they didn't want to exercise that right most of MS arguments wouldn't centre around their models for removal of CoD and other franchises from competitors. It would be a commitment and argument that removal is not happening at all. It may cause harm to COD but would it cause harm to xbox?

Yes it would.
MS have alot of shooter games. Having another exclusive shooter game would cannibalize the sales of those other games, and take players from them.

While MS argument about taking the game away is dumb. It would seriously have longer repurcusion on the xbox platform as shooter and COD as a game.

 

[DarkMage619]

All I'm saying is I'm having a hard time with Microsoft picturing CMA headquarters reading 150 vs 60 million and saying "wow, let's push this through" against 120 vs 60 and "well...that seems like close competition, we better intervene here".

I'm sure it's really not the thing that's difficult for them to fact check.

This argument around the amount of dominance via console sales PlayStation brand has over Xbox is moot as long as the CMA believes that Nintendo isn't even a competitor in the gaming industry. This company alone shows that CoD is far from being the only way a platform can compete. Nintendo achieved success through outstanding games, games that PlayStation currently has tons of. There is no scenario where the PlayStation brand cannot compete over CoD.

The CMA trying to argue that Game Pass is a separate market is also complete nonsense. Game Pass is an alternative method of gaining access to games and it is a complement to the traditional retail, a model that both Sony and MS use. If we want to talk about the popularity of Game pass we'd better look towards Sony because just like with installed base they have a significantly larger subscriber count with their older and more established game sub service. There are few metrics where Sony isn't leading in video games.

This whole hypothical foreclosure argument is nonsense because it is predicated on MS doing the opposite of what they have publicly stated they are going to do what regard to CoD in the first place. The history is there of them putting IP they own on platforms they don't and of them honoring existing contracts. Even more ridiculous is that the CMA hardly appears concerned about customers. Where is the detailed analysis showing how rank and file British citizens are harmed by this merger?

I don't think those are arguments they would use in court (especially the Netscape and OG Xbox arguments which are frankly ridiculous), more something used as part of preliminary conclusions to try and get some concessions.

No way in hell you could seriously use Netscape as an argument in 2023. Why not use Corel Draw too lmao.

When you have to point to Netscape as proof that MS should not be allowed to purchase Activision it's clear you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. It's just as ridiculous as saying Nintendo isn't in competition for customers' gaming dollars.

 

[MasterCornholio]

The problem is replacing those userbase in term of revenue.
If PS is blocked, MS would have to spend alot of their own money to fund the game, and that would generally hurt the game in the long run.

Minecraft and gtav proved that having users in all platforms can actually sustain their games for a longer period of time.

I think that's the point if they want to maximize gamepass subscriptions over anything else. Taking it away from PlayStation would definitely do that for them.

 

[The_Mike]

How the CMA see this i wouldn't be surprised to see them decline this offer only to see Sony acquire them six month later with no issue

 

[feynoob]

I think that's the point if they want to maximize gamepass subscriptions over anything else. Taking it away from PlayStation would definitely do that for them.

They can do it day1 gamepass, while leaving it on PS.

The entire point of COD is MTX. Which generally works on larger userbase. Hence why Ps users are important.

 

[MasterCornholio]

They can do it day1 gamepass, while leaving it on PS.

The entire point of COD is MTX. Which generally works on larger userbase. Hence why Ps users are important.

Taking it away from PS will make people choose Xbox or PC if they want to play it. And gamepass is available on both. They didn't guarantee that CoD would remain on PS indefinitely.

 

[MasterCornholio]

How the CMA see this i wouldn't be surprised to see them decline this offer only to see Sony acquire them six month later with no issue

Same would apply to Sony if they try and aquire Take 2, EA or Activision. Sony doesn't own the CMA nor are they exempt from competition laws.

 

[The_Mike]

Not to mention, CMA is clearly ignoring the importance of PS users for the game. XBOX and PC alone can't sustain that game, as Halo infinite is evidence for that.

Bad comparison.

GP alone has 25 million active subscribers. Add to that, there's still alot not being subbed on both platforms.

25 million players is more than enough alone to make CoD active on pc/Xbox.

Hell even 100k or less is enough.

It's Infinites own fault the playerbase is gone, not because its not on playstation.

 

[The_Mike]

Same would apply to Sony if they try and aquire Take 2, EA or Activision. Sony doesn't own the CMA nor are they exempt from competition laws.

Bungie.

Destiny 2 is multi platform, but that could change later when they develop other games.

No matter what, Sony dominates the market, Microsoft doesn't even come close by having Acti Blizzard.

 

[feynoob]

Taking it away from PS will make people choose Xbox or PC if they want to play it. And gamepass is available on both. They didn't guarantee that CoD would remain on PS indefinitely.

First of all, no contract is forever. Every contract needs to be renewed after certain period of time.

What you are suggesting won't work. They have to give their own shooter games revenues in order to make it exclusive to these 2 platforms. Even then, that would still be a huge loss of money for MS, and it would give Sony time to make a new shooter game, while diminishing COd players.

Minecraft is what happens when you don't block certain users. MS knows that. COD would thrive more that way.

Making it exclusive to 2 system is counter productive. COD isn't a single player game.

 

[feynoob]

Bad comparison.

GP alone has 25 million active subscribers. Add to that, there's still alot not being subbed on both platforms.

25 million players is more than enough alone to make CoD active on pc/Xbox.

Hell even 100k or less is enough.

It's Infinites own fault the playerbase is gone, not because its not on playstation.

Dude, Sony 1st party games are 20% of their platform.

20% of 25m gamepass is 5m. Not enough to make it exclusively.

I wish people would see that 20m-30m userbase is hard on 2 systems. And that is with a game that does it closely every year.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Bungie.

Destiny 2 is multi platform, but that could change later when they develop other games.

No matter what, Sony dominates the market, Microsoft doesn't even come close by having Acti Blizzard.

Bungie isn't on the same scale in any capacity

 

[The_Mike]

Dude, Sony 1st party games are 20% of their platform.

20% of 25m gamepass is 5m. Not enough to make it exclusively.

I wish people would see that 20m-30m userbase is hard on 2 systems. And that is with a game that does it closely every year.

Can you show me stats showing active online users in cod across all platforms?

How many users does pc xbox and PlayStation have each?

 

[Three]

Wait aren't they arguing the opposite? The inflated figures people are talking about are to show that the PlayStation share of the market is so big that removing CoD from them would be catastrophic to MS.

They are doing both but they are over exaggerating that it would be catastrophic to them if they removed it. Foreclosure can still be a strategy.

It wouldn't be catastrophic over time if they divert users. What time period that is I've not seen the models but I do know that they made a limited contractual offer only

With access to Call of Duty guaranteed through to at least [] under the existing
contract with Activision Blizzard (and through at least the end of 2027 if it were to
accept Microsoft's current contractual offer), Sony has more than sufficient time to
ensure that its console platform and content portfolio is competitively positioned to
withstand any impact from a hypothetical foreclosure strategy. The fact that the CMA
declines to even consider Sony's competitive response is especially concerning given
that it is prepared to speculate regarding Activision Blizzard's likely approach to
subscription services absent the Transaction (see section 4 below) and is at odds with
the CMA's acknowledgment that the gaming industry is dynamic in nature.

They are arguing that removal would not cause harm and that Sony can respond. They are arguing its removal will not mean anything for PS all over the document even if they are only committing for a certain period.

It also doesn't take into consideration that they can still pursue a foreclosure strategy even without removal. They can continue to increase the retail price of COD (they just made last gen versions $70) and profit from offering CoD for sale on other platforms who don't switch while equally enticing and chasing the foreclosure strategy by only offering COD on their subscription service with complete loss of equal terms for competitors. It's a lot more than just offering it for sale.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Bungie.

Destiny 2 is multi platform, but that could change later when they develop other games.

No matter what, Sony dominates the market, Microsoft doesn't even come close by having Acti Blizzard.

Bungie is tiny compared to Activision. Also we already had them tell us what their plans are and it go's beyond Destiny 2.

 

[feynoob]

Can you show me stats showing active online users in cod across all platforms?

How many users does pc xbox and PlayStation have each?

this is just for warzone. The normal game should resemble this data.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Bungie isn't on the same scale in any capacity

No idea why some think it's the same as a 70 billon dollar acquisition. Sony hasn't tried to buy anything as large as Acitvision to this point.

 

[Three]

Yes it would.
MS have alot of shooter games. Having another exclusive shooter game would cannibalize the sales of those other games, and take players from them.

While MS argument about taking the game away is dumb. It would seriously have longer repurcusion on the xbox platform as shooter and COD as a game.

Would that not be the case anyway? It's not like COD wouldn't be cannibalizing their shooters on xbox just because it's not Playstation too. That doesn't make sense.

 

[zzill3]

Same would apply to Sony if they try and aquire Take 2, EA or Activision. Sony doesn't own the CMA nor are they exempt from competition laws.

Hah no it wouldn't.

CMA's whole argument is that MS buying Activision would help xbox market share, and anything that helps xbox market share is forbidden. Sony could buy any company they could afford to and CMA would let it go

 

[feynoob]

Bungie.

Destiny 2 is multi platform, but that could change later when they develop other games.

No matter what, Sony dominates the market, Microsoft doesn't even come close by having Acti Blizzard.

Bungie is bad example.

There is nothing close to this deal.

On other hand, this deal isnt a 70b. This an overpaid price, which is above their value.

This is the company breakdown.

Activision: Call of duty, crash, tony hawk.
Blizzard: Diablo, wow, overwatch 2, starcraft.
King: Candy crush, and any activision/blizzard mobile games. The most profitable division for the company.

So far, only COD have any kind affect on PS. the rest arent. Since Blizzard most games are PC, and King is mobile.

 

[feynoob]

Would that not be the case anyway? It's not like COD wouldn't be cannibalizing their shooters on xbox just because it's not Playstation too. That doesn't make sense.

The blockage on PS would cause some of those users to migrate to Xbox. Some of those COD users could go to other Xbox shooters. and some of those users on those games could go to COD.
Both games would eat each other customers. Its not good idea, when you have small userbase, compared to your competitors.

Not to mention, COD disappearance would cause Sony to develop their own Shooter games, which can be a hit. COD have been preventing Sony from doing that. Taking that away, means Sony would be finally able to do that.

In simple term. COD is a big part of food chain. If you disturb it, it would cause unfortold damages to both Xbox and PS.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Hah no it wouldn't.

CMA's whole argument is that MS buying Activision would help xbox market share, and anything that helps xbox market share is forbidden. Sony could buy any company they could afford to and CMA would let it go

Not really as the CMA doesn't work for Sony. They are pretty much independent from whatever Sony does. Now if Sony owned the CMA that would be a different story.

In this case Sony isn't buying a huge multiplatforn publisher. When they attempt that I'm sure that the CMA and other similar organizations will be studying it. Just like the Bungie acquisition was looked at by them.

 

[Topher]

CMA's whole argument is that MS buying Activision would help xbox market share, and anything that helps xbox market share is forbidden.

That's not the CMA's argument at all.

 

[Three]

The blockage on PS would cause some of those users to migrate to Xbox. Some of those COD users could go to other Xbox shooters. and some of those users on those games could go to COD.
Both games would eat each other customers. Its not good idea, when you have small userbase, compared to your competitors.

Still not getting the rationale here because the Cod users who might possibly migrate are in fact more likely to buy other xbox shooters once they migrate vs not being in the xbox ecosystem at all. The xbox games would not eat eachothers customers any more than CoD existing on xbox already.

 

[feynoob]

CMA's whole argument is that MS buying Activision would help xbox market share, and anything that helps xbox market share is forbidden. Sony could buy any company they could afford to and CMA would let it go

Nope. While I hate CMA arguments in this case, they would not let it slide for Sony.
Sony is also a billion dollar corporate, which CMA despises. They wont let them purchase any big publisher with invisitigating like this.

This case is just MS a trillion dollar company, using their vast resource of money to buy a big publisher, which Xbox brand cant do it.

Hate them as much as you want to. But they are fair.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Nope. While I hate CMA arguments in this case, they would not let it slide for Sony.
Sony is also a billion dollar corporate, which CMA despises. They wont let them purchase any big publisher with invisitigating like this.

This case is just MS a trillion dollar company, using their vast resource of money to buy a big publisher, which Xbox brand cant do it.

Hate them as much as you want to. But they are fair.

Just like how they didn't let the Sony deal slide when they bought probably the best FPS maker in the world and the dev that actually made Halo and Xbox a thing?

right .. hush it.

to add insult to it. Sony is going the MS route with going multiplatform games on PC as well as their console. It's just CMA is ok When Sony is doing it. but not MS. it's very clear these guys have a thing against MS when they are going all the way back to the Netscape browser which was 30 years ago.

I am not taking sides here. I want the deal to go through so Sony can cry a river with their shitty attitude. but I also do not want to see it happening because MS is horrible at managing their teams. They have a billion devs under their team and a not single AAA game for this fall? what a shit show

 

[MasterCornholio]

That's not the CMA's argument at all.

If anything the CMA is perfectly fine with companies increasing their market share. It's how they do it that's the issue.

 

[Topher]

Just like how they didn't let the Sony deal slide when they bought probably the best FPS maker in the world and the dev that actually made Halo and Xbox a thing?

right .. hush it.

They let the Zenimax deal "slide" and that was a bigger purchase than Bungie. Neither of which is comparable to either MS or Sony (hypothetically) buying Activision.

 

[SportsFan581]

MS are arguing that removal from PS is no biggy. If they didn't want to exercise that right most of MS arguments wouldn't centre around their models for removal of CoD and other franchises from competitors. It would be a commitment and argument that removal is not happening at all. It may cause harm to COD but would it cause harm to xbox?

I think they have to be prepared to argue against the worst case scenario (as perceived by the CMA) in general. Regardless of whatever future plans they may have.

 

[//DEVIL//]

They the Zenimax deal "slide" and that was a bigger purchase than Bungie. Neither of which is comparable to either MS or Sony (hypothetically) buying Activision.

I believe They overpaid for Zenimax. and none of their games are as big as Halo was when it was with Bungie / or Destiny in terms of profit revenue ( IF I am not mistaken, due to the GaaS )

or maybe that's what I believe because I do not like any Zenimax games lol.

 

[hinch7]

Hah no it wouldn't.

CMA's whole argument is that MS buying Activision would help xbox market share, and anything that helps xbox market share is forbidden. Sony could buy any company they could afford to and CMA would let it go

Facious quip aside. Its CMA's job to investigate and overlook large aquisition of companies. The size of both Activision, its IP's.. which frankly are huge. And MS purchasing them would have huge implications which will have a dramatictic affect on companies who's business are tied to them as an outside party, to those who owns them. Adding to this Microsoft's history of anticompetitive behaviour its not hard to see that this purchase is not exactly the way Microsoft PR wants you to beleive.

If we're talking about other companies.. Take Sony.. and they were to buy Take Two, for example - there would also be a lot of regulators looking into it, and for very good reason.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I believe They overpaid for Zenimax. and none of their games mind you are as big as Halo was when it was with Bungie / or Destiny in terms of profit revenue ( IF I am not mistaken, due to the GaaS )

Elder Scrolls and Fallout are absolutely bigger than peak Halo

 

[feynoob]

Still not getting the rationale here because the Cod users who might possibly migrate are in fact more likely to buy other xbox shooters once they migrate vs not being in the xbox ecosystem at all. The xbox games would not eat eachothers customers any more than CoD existing on xbox already.

Time is factor. So when you have tons of shooter games, users would go to the game, which they can spend most of their time with.
COD being a MTX game, means less players would mean less money. Especially with the way battle basses works too.

 

[feynoob]

Just like how they didn't let the Sony deal slide when they bought probably the best FPS maker in the world and the dev that actually made Halo and Xbox a thing?

right .. hush it.

to add insult to it. Sony is going the MS route with going multiplatform games on PC as well as their console. It's just CMA is ok When Sony is doing it. but not MS. it's very clear these guys have a thing against MS when they are going all the way back to the Netscape browser which was 30 years ago.

I am not taking sides here. I want the deal to go through so Sony can cry a river with their shitty attitude. but I also do not want to see it happening because MS is horrible at managing their teams. They have a billion devs under their team and a not single AAA game for this fall? what a shit show

Dude 70b is a big deal.

To put that money in to prespective, that is half of Sony entire division worth of money, when the deal was announced. Now Sony is worth 10 more billion.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/sony/marketcap/

As of October 2022 Sony has a market cap of $80.78 Billion. This makes Sony the world's 147th most valuable company by market cap according to our data. The market capitalization, commonly called market cap, is the total market value of a publicly traded company's outstanding shares and is commonly used to measure how much a company is worth.

That is mega money.

 

[Three]

Time is factor. So when you have tons of shooter games, users would go to the game, which they can spend most of their time with.
COD being a MTX game, means less players would mean less money. Especially with the way battle basses works too.

Yeah I get that removing it from PS would lower COD revenue, I just don't understand why you think removing COD from Playstation would cannibalize other Xbox shooters. If anything it would increase sales.