Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
But they've said numerous times they don't intend to do that.
Anything beyond is just some users not believing him out of sheer stubbornness.
-
Please make sure to add these in your next email to the CMA as well.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
And it's been made clear numerous times assurances based on good faith aren't good enough
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
"Good faith" isn't them sending official communique to Sony directly, as well as mentioning it explicitly in multiple news pieces on their official websites.
They can't very well exactly announce the next call of duty themselves right now with platform lists.
Robb
Gold Member
I still find it strange that they would be forced to put their game on other platforms. Would be pretty funny if CoD as a franchise just crashes and start to sell 500 thousand copies tops, yet MS would be forced to develop versions for other systems every time they want to make a new game.
Although I guess MS can just stop making CoD, take the engine/concept and make a new, very similar shooter to CoD that’s exclusive if they want to.
Although I guess MS can just stop making CoD, take the engine/concept and make a new, very similar shooter to CoD that’s exclusive if they want to.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
DarkMage619
$MSFT
If you were correcting me could you explain why Minecraft Dungeons hit PlayStation and Legends will hit PlayStation as well? Legends in particular seeing how it's a Microsoft owned franchise as you said and it isn't even out yet. You are claiming it should be Xbox/PC exclusive yet it is not. I do appreciate you setting me straight on the matter.I'm really not trying to argue with you though. I was correctingDarkMage619 's post where he stated Microsoft's, and Phil Spencer's, intent. Less than a year ago Phil Spencer stated that his intention is that all Microsoft-owned franchises be Xbox/PC exclusive. Now they're stating their intention is that Call of Duty remain on PlayStation. Intent is worthless because, as you said, it can change over time.
If MS has something in writing stating they will put CoD on PlayStation it will happen. If they violate a contract they will open themselves up to litigation. Pretty sure MS offered a written agreement. Yup.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Lol, yes, it is
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I know right. Literally the 'bitch eating crackers' meme when numerous channels of official communique isn't enough assurance for some
Glad to see you get it, Deep. Always knew you were a cut above.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Nintendo doesn't need Mario, Pokemon or Zelda. Sony proves it
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Tell me you don't understand what purchase agreements and contracts are, without telling me you don't understand.I know right. Literally the 'bitch eating crackers' meme when numerous channels of official communique isn't enough assurance for some
Glad to see you get it, Deep. Always knew you were a cut above.
It has to be written in legalese, not hollow virtue.
Banjo64
cumsessed
I thought the CMA also highlighted that unlike Ubisoft for example, MS don’t allow their games on other subscription services/cloud based services - therefore it’s not just Sony that they are thinking about, but future entrants to the console/subscription/cloud space that also won’t have access to ABK.
For all the wailing from Xbox fans that the CMA is obsessed with Sony, it only seems to be the Xbox fans with the laser sights on Sony.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Whose to say it hasn't already been. None of these companies like sharing official contracts barring leaked exceptions like Village.
Mario/Pokemon/Zelda
vs
Call of Duty
One of these brackets is not like the other, let's see if we can spot the difference.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
That's the entire point of the CMA. We have come full circle. What are you even arguing at this point?
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Better yet let's see if we can spot the similarities
Get that second testicle inside for an adrenaline boost.
SportsFan581
Member
When did Minecraft Dungeons release?
Clearly they will do what's best for their business financially when needed. Every console exclusive will miss out on some sales on rival platforms, even Sony's (they'd likely have no trouble shuffling a few million copies of Spiderman on Xbox). It all comes down to whether or not it is worth taking the hit, which is always going to come down to the production costs of the game we are talking about. CoD is on a different scale compared to anything MS, Nintendo, or Sony would generally release as first party, mainly because of the bodies it takes to hit that yearly release schedule. It's easy to see where they might treat this one different, though they are always careful to not make guarantees beyond the short-term.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Argue ? Nothing. The commentary is clear that CoD will remain on PS platform for the foreseeable future ala Minecraft.
The only ones arguing are the folks trying to find loophole in the clear and concise commentary.
Ah yes, similarities like them all already being first party gam.... waaait a minute.
Ass, I think you need to share the load, even without a testicle in the throat you're not making any sense
2020, long after the acquisition, and Minecraft Legends is releasing on all these platforms next year:
Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Microsoft Windows, Xbox Series X and Series S, PlayStation 5
Fucking phil going back on his word and shit ..
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Ah yes, similarities like them all already being first party gam.... waaait a minute.
Ass, I think you need to share the load, even without a testicle in the throat you're not making any sense
And them being first party matters why?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Look in the same nook which warrants your comparison between their 1P and CoD's 3P status, you'll find the answer.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Why do you think Nintendo is brought into this? Hint. It has nothing to do with 3rd party or 1st party
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Weird to compare 1st party IP to IP a platform doesn't own but every platform holder can find unique ways to be successful in this marketplace. A single game does not a platform make, especially if that IP doesn't belong to you. Sony can be very successful with the numerous IP they have moneyhatted in addition to their very successful stable of first party IP. Just as Nintendo is successful with theirs.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
It's not wierd because the attributes of being first party or third party are irrelevant when the premise of your argument is since X doesn't have Y therefore Z also doesn't need Y
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't get into these weird 4D chess back and forth. The comparison between a studios home grown first party games versus a third party is weird and saying that Sony proves that Nintendo doesn't need Mario is a bizarre ass statement to make regardless of context. That'd be like saying Sony doesn't need Uncharted because Genesis Mini proves it.
CADE's assessment also came to the conclusion that Sony should not have any difficulty being competitive without CoD.
If rational minds persist, almost any authoring body should come to the same conclusion.
But it won't be an issue as CoD isn't leaving PS platforms anyway.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
I don't get into these weird 4D chess back and forth. The comparison between a studios home grown first party games versus a third party is weird and saying that Sony proves that Nintendo doesn't need Mario is a bizarre ass statement to make regardless of context. That'd be like saying Sony doesn't need Uncharted because Genesis Mini proves it.
This really isn't difficult to grasp
"The PlayStation brand is very strong and doesn't need CoD to be successful. Nintendo proves it."
Does this statement somehow change if CoD was a first party PS IP? Yes or No.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
I'm not claiming it should be anything. What I said is that intent doesn't matter. You said that Phil Spencer's intent is for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation. I showed you where Phil Spencer stated that his intent is for all Microsoft-owned franchises to be Xbox/PC exclusive. That's literally my entire point: intent doesn't matter because situations and circumstances change. You're saying, "Trust Phil Spencer," but either Phil Spencer's tune changed from less than a year ago when he stated that his intention was for all Microsoft-owned franchises to be Xbox/PC exclusive, or that's still his intent and his claim that he intends for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation is only temporary.
I don't know which it is, and I don't care. My point is that you can't put faith in intent.
Microsoft doesn't have a contract stating that they will keep Call of Duty on PlayStation beyond the contract Sony already had with Activision Blizzard (which I believe is a three-year contract). That's the point.
This isn't relevant. In that same interview he confirmed they weren't done with acquisitions, and they had to have known that they were approaching Activision Blizzard within the next 8 days.
Which is a deviation from what he stated back in November of 2021. Hence my point that you can't trust intentions because they can change.
Until something else happens in 3, 4, 5 years from now on, this is the only concrete bit of information we have to go on.
Worrying about hypothetical events that may or may not happen in 2028 and beyond is a fools errand right now.
If we're so hell bent on trusting Phil's word about Bethesda games being exclusive, we should also do the same when he says Call of Duty games will continue coming out on PS platforms.
I'm not worried about hypothetical situations. You told me that I shouldn't trust Sony and Bungie regarding Bungie remaining independent and platform agnostic. Now you're telling people that they should trust Phil Spencer's words. But Phil Spencer's words now are different than they were less than a year ago.
So why should people trust Phil Spencer's words but not Sony's/Bungie's? And why should people trust Phil Spencer's words when the words that he's saying changed from one year to the next?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
"The Xbox brand is very strong and doesn't need Activision to compete. Nintendo proves it."
We can do this all day.
Banjo64
cumsessed
So hypothetically if the EU has the same concerns that the UK has, you’d just say that they are irrational?
The US could very well also have the same concerns, but as it’s the Land of the Corporations, it’s nothing that a little lobbying couldn’t solve.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
More DoD contracts are on the way, FTC /wink /wink
Banjo64
cumsessed
(By the way, Reuters sources are saying it’s likely it’ll be referred to a phase 2 in the EU due to recent scrutiny on big tech acquisitions. The EU phase 2 lasts 4 months, so get ready for lots of ‘the EU don’t understand anything and are anti-consumer/in Sony’s pocket, if only they’d read the CADE report they’d understand’).
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Should be fine. Microsoft can just make the EU a third world union
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Oh boy, this is opening a very old can of worms. Have Bungie outright said they will continue to make games for Xbox ? Outside of that one question in their blog about continuing to support Destiny on Xbox I don't think they name dropped Xbox specifically for their future new games under Sony publishing (Not counting their next game which is being published by Netease).
Playstation has been name dropped numerous times by Phil, Satya and official PR on MS's websites when talking about where CoD will continue to appear.
It is not the same.
This is a moot point, no big organization is ever done with acquisitions. It's as generic of a statement as it can be.
Yes. The entire tone shifts if you're talking about first party.
"The play station brand is very strong and doesn't need Uncharted/Last of Us/Spider Man to be successful. Nintendo proves it"
But CoD is not first party.
Good luck convincing many folks here of that.
That would depend on how EU messages it. Whether they message it in a way that appears that they're actually focusing on the consumer side or whether they only seem like they're looking out for the best interest of one corporation.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I mean shit, the way some of you talk like they need Activision and every other publisher of third party games to make first party in order to compete, even y'all don't seem convinced.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Okay, so if COD was a first party PlayStation IP, and not third party, THEN the brand would need it to be successful?
Little Chicken
Gold Member
I hope the deal goes through and Microsoft just refuses to develop another Call of Duty because I'm sick of fucking hearing about it.
Now, another Singularity? Yes please.
Now, another Singularity? Yes please.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
Ah, so you’ll just interpret it in the way that you want to, like you have with the CMA. Got it
I’m sure MS will be there again with the CTRL F to tell you how many times the word Sony appears.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
ProTip:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The argument is that no platform holder needs a random 3rd party title to be successful. That is true for Nintendo that is true for Microsoft and it is certainly true for Sony. Just like Microsoft soldiered on after Final Fantasy and Street Fighter 5 went exclusive. Regardless its all moot because CoD will remain on PlayStation so potential crisis averted.
Little Chicken
Gold Member
Complaining feels so much betterProTip:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
So Nintendo doesn't need Mario/Pokemon/Zelda then?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Complaining feels so much better
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Ah, so you’ll just interpret it in the way that you want to, like you have with the CMA. Got it
Don't we all ?
If you're implying I'm alone in thinking the CMA's messaging felt like they were parroting Sony's talking points, I would ask you to do a quick google search on how many websites, commenters and legal adjacent folks also said the same thing.
CoD isn't PS first party so why bother going down rabbit holes of speculative discussion that leads nowhere. It's just dragging a needless point along.
Exactly, if the point of Ass's comment is that "oh no CoD is going to become MS first party therefore the Nintendo comparison is justified", it's still staying on the PS platforms.
Y'all aren't losing out on the franchise. "Sony can compete without CoD" was Cade's judgment to a point Sony raised.
You're right to an extent. They would need deals like this to counter the current market leaders implicit strong-arming for securing prominent AAA IP as exclusive for years.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Because we're trying to get to the gist of why you think being first party or third party is relevant. So answer the question.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
This is exactly what Bungie said:
They had already stated that Destiny 2 would not become a PlayStation exclusive, and they reiterated that their future games will not become PlayStation exclusives. You keep trying to act like they said only Destiny 2 wasn't going to become an exclusive, but they went beyond that with the above post.
You completely ignored the last part of the sentence that you quoted. I'll restate what I said:
In that same interview he confirmed they weren't done with acquisitions, and they had to have known that they were approaching Activision Blizzard within the next 8 days.
You're arguing that when Phil Spencer said he intends for all Microsoft-owned franchises to be Xbox/PC exclusive that he stated this prior to the Activision Blizzard acquisition "being a thing". I responded and informed you that there is no way that he didn't know that they would be reaching out to Activision Blizzard with a proposal to acquire them, especially since they reached an agreement within a week of their communication.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No, you're just going to reply with another cryptic one liner to try and make some kind of a point
Why don't you just say exactly what you want to so we can move on.
That statement can just as easily apply to PS/PC/Mobile releases on day 1.
Like I said, it's not the same thing at all if you try to compare this with MS's messaging about Call of Duty where playstation is stated by name, no vague "we'll stay multiplatform" without any defined platforms is used.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
No, you're just going to reply with another cryptic one liner to try and make some kind of a point
Why don't you just say exactly what you want to so we can move on.
I've already said what I wanted to say. First party and third party attributes are irrelevant in the context of the Nintendo comparison.
You seem to think they are. But your refusal to answer the question tells me you know that's not the case.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I've already answered the question that it's a moot thing to try and compare first party content with a third party, which at least one regulatory body has already deemed is not necessary to stay competitive.
Anything beyond that is subjective speculation and clearly we don't see eye to eye on all things.
For the topic at hand, we've had yet another confirmation from Phil that they intend to keep CoD on PS platforms and treat it ala Minecraft. That is good news for PS players who were worried that Sony will lose out on the franchise.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
I don’t interpret the CMA’s report based on my console preference, which is actually Xbox, no.
And no, you’re not alone, but all of the commentary I have seen that thinks the CMA have no valid points have been;
A. Xbox fanboys.
B. Xbox influencers like Tom Warren, and their associated websites.
C. American legal commentators, who have been indoctrinated to believe that corporations are gods.
You don’t help your case when you make absurd statements insinuating that the CMA are only looking out for Sony, you reduce yourself to looking like a fool.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Faith has nothing to do with it. Phil Spencer did NOT just say intent. He said “In January, we provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements.” No business is going to make an agreement that goes on forever when it comes to providing content. New Minecraft games still get made for PlayStation and they are created without a contractual agreement with Sony.
You clearly didn't read the link I provided. Here it is again. I have no idea what your point is. MS is not going to break a signed agreement. They have honored every other video game contract historically.
Are Mario,. Pokemon and Zelda third party games like CoD? Again Nintendo doesn't need a 3rd party title to be successful. They can rely on their 1st party and any other deals they make. So can MS and so can Sony.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked