Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah. not buying it. He needs to put it in writing and say that he wont tie CoD on Playstation to Gamepass or one to six month timed delays.
 
SlimySnake said:
Yeah. not buying it. He needs to put it in writing and say that he wont tie CoD on Playstation to Gamepass or one to six month timed delays.
Click to expand...

Better yet he should put it in writing that he will only release CoD on Playstation, that's probably the only way some of you will be happy :messenger_grinning_sweat:

Kvally said:
True, but they will still probably be 3 year contracts, as long as Sony signs those contracts.
Click to expand...


Yes. Minecraft doesn't just keep staying on PS out of goodwill or handshake deals, they very likely have proper contracts for it.
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
I didn't disagree with anything the dev had been press-trained to tweet - so that is a complete strawman.

I'm saying it makes zero difference to the point I made by showing Tom Warren's mindshare marketing of xbox with a differentiated feature for Series' MC with RT, and one that is also used to differentiate native PC MC to the original Minecraft that gave the game its success. Or are you saying that Richard and John of DF are liars for claiming to see a native version of MC running on a Series X when Xbox used it to market the launch of the Series console?

The CMA and public keep getting told by Microsoft that Minecraft is the poster boy for post-acquisition handling of ABK IPs, despite there being clear signs that the original java MC version is marginalised and that dev work with DirectX only DXR has been done - and did make it into the hands of alpha channel users, as per the IGN article and Tom Warren screen grabbed tweet and witnessing of DF of it running on Series hardware - that all give mindshare to Phil's claim of "First or best on Xbox".
Click to expand...
That is up to cma. They have to narrow down their points, if they want to win.
 
Punished Miku said:
The only difference is it added "PS6." I think he's literally said exactly this from the very start.
Click to expand...
His initial statement many months ago was pretty clear 'CoD stays on PS' - but since then there's been plenty of obfuscation from MS by adding caveats.

Take for example this interview from 2 days ago, WSJ and Phil Spencer;

"Our intent is that we would continue to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation as long as that makes sense. As long as...Tech is always at some point in a transition."
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Why add 'as long as it makes sense' - that implies they would/could look to pull it at some point in the future.
 
CoD is on the level of Minecraft, so it makes sense that they're going to treat it the same way they treat Minecraft. There's thousands of people working on CoD, do you really think MS is going to cut off half the player base?
 
Last edited:
Banjo64 said:
His initial statement many months ago was pretty clear 'CoD stays on PS' - but since then there's been plenty of obfuscation from MS by adding caveats.

Take for example this interview from 2 days ago, WSJ and Phil Spencer;



Emphasis mine. Why add 'as long as it makes sense' - that implies they would/could look to pull it at some point in the future.
Click to expand...

Yep.....still double talk. Expecting Jim Ryan in 1 to 2 weeks to be like........

lying GIF


lol
 
Last edited:
Punished Miku said:
I don't know what Rockstar's deals are. If it's a multiplat game then there's probably not a contract. Maybe some kind of marketing deal. If I had to guess, the overwhelming majority of games just publish without some contract guaranteeing it.

This is literally exactly what he said at the start. They're keeping it multiplatform and treating it like Minecraft.

If you guys get bored enough to look back when this was first announced, I've had the exact same prediction all along. Call of Duty will stay multiplatform. I haven't flipped at all.
Click to expand...
Well, it doesn't apply to you then, lol.

Those that it does apply to, they know what they said.
 
Last edited:
This is obvious to everybody who has functional brain cells.
Sony is not afraid they will loose Call of Duty. Sony is afraid that Microsoft will offer Call of Duty in Game Pass while they will be selling it for 80€.
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
The clip

Click to expand...

That word again, intent. Remember when he said at the very start of this deal? Then Jimbo came out and told everyone that behind the scenes the intent was to only keep it for 3 years?

I intent to sleep with a Victoria Secret model. I intent to fly a dragon. Intent means nothing. Go sign a deal with Jimbo for the next 15 years. It's really that simple and the deal will go through.
 
Godot25 said:
This is obvious to everybody who has functional brain cells.
Sony is not afraid they will loose Call of Duty. Sony is afraid that Microsoft will offer Call of Duty in Game Pass while they will be selling it for 80€.
Click to expand...
Is anyone going to buy an xbox console just to play call of duty for "free" though? I really doubt it.
 
SlimySnake said:
That word again, intent. Remember when he said at the very start of this deal? Then Jimbo came out and told everyone that behind the scenes the intent was to only keep it for 3 years?

I intent to sleep with a Victoria Secret model. I intent to fly a dragon. Intent means nothing. Go sign a deal with Jimbo for the next 15 years. It's really that simple and the deal will go through.
Click to expand...
Of course it's their intent.
If Sony refuse to have COD on their platform (for some ungodly reason), Microsoft can't just shove it down their throats.
But since Minecraft is and new Minecraft games are and will be on playStation (Legends and Dungeons) there is not really a reason to doubt his words right?
 
OmegaSupreme said:
Is anyone going to buy an xbox console just to play call of duty for "free" though? I really doubt it.
Click to expand...
I think you would be surprised.
Why do you think Sony is spending millions yearly to have exclusive perks, marketing deal and exclusive content for Call of Duty on their platform...
...maybe because it works?
 
Godot25 said:
I think you would be surprised.
Why do you think Sony is spending millions yearly to have exclusive perks, marketing deal and exclusive content for Call of Duty on their platform...
...maybe because it works?
Click to expand...
Because it sells on the platform and they want to keep it that way? This still doesn't explain why someone would spend 500 bucks on an xbox over spending 70 bucks on the console they already own.
 
OmegaSupreme said:
Because it sells on the platform and they want to keep it that way? This still doesn't explain why someone would spend 500 bucks on an xbox over spending 70 bucks on the console they already own.
Click to expand...
Last console generation had 170 million consoles sold (Nintendo excluded).
This gen has probably 40 million
We still did not have next-gen only Call of Duty game.

When we will have and COD fans without next-gen console will be choosing their next console, where they will be drawn? To 550€ system with 80€ yearly Call of Duty? Or 500€ system with Call of Duty inside Game Pass with clusterfuck of other games?

Sony is paying because it works. After every COD trailer there is PlayStation logo. That's why they were able to get through entire generation without major first-party FPS game. Because they tied COD to PlayStation platform by marketing and with all exclusive perks.

Either that or you are saying that Sony is paying for COD exclusive stuff without reason.
 
Infamy v1 said:
Jimbo and Sony are not fighting the idea of losing CoD, but are fighting the fact that they will lose marketing, brand recognition and also don't want the franchise going to Game Pass:

a6ca5973a9fb1f1413dcf15d0c723332058c3c11-2-1380x450.png


I mean, the proof is right there. Funny how it's often ignored by certain folk.

My biggest issue with THIS being the problem for Sony is that they have money hatted the COD (and many other franchises) for years. Either to maintain console exclusivity or to have the content advantage over Microsoft or even PC in some situations. Now that deeper pockets did the same shit at a larger scale, they mad.

I have zero reason to believe that COD will not stay multi-platform for a very long time. Minecraft is a good example of this but we've also seen numerous other games that are owned or published by MGS and they have released on other platforms. None of which had the established cesspool player base that Call of Duty has.
Click to expand...
 
Godot25 said:
Last console generation had 170 million consoles sold (Nintendo excluded).
This gen has probably 40 million
We still did not have next-gen only Call of Duty game.

When we will have and COD fans without next-gen console will be choosing their next console, where they will be drawn? To 550€ system with 80€ yearly Call of Duty? Or 500€ system with Call of Duty inside Game Pass with clusterfuck of other games?

Sony is paying because it works. After every COD trailer there is PlayStation logo. That's why they were able to get through entire generation without major first-party FPS game. Because they tied COD to PlayStation platform by marketing and with all exclusive perks.

Either that or you are saying that Sony is paying for COD exclusive stuff without reason.
Click to expand...
Are we pretending that Sony doesn't have a subscription service now? They also have a "clusterfuck" of other games. Including some of Sony's first-party titles. I literally said sony pays for it because it sells. I'm simply disputing the idea that somehow people who are sony fans already will now drop it for Xbox because of COD. Seems like wishful thinking to an extreme.
 
SlimySnake said:
That word again, intent. Remember when he said at the very start of this deal? Then Jimbo came out and told everyone that behind the scenes the intent was to only keep it for 3 years?

I intent to sleep with a Victoria Secret model. I intent to fly a dragon. Intent means nothing. Go sign a deal with Jimbo for the next 15 years. It's really that simple and the deal will go through.
Click to expand...
I dont remotely know how these deals work but I highly doubt they would sign a 15 year deal and honestly the 3 years past the current deal sounds like a decent offer to me
 
OmegaSupreme said:
Are we pretending that Sony doesn't have a subscription service now? They also have a "clusterfuck" of other games. Including some of Sony's first-party titles. I literally said sony pays for it because it sells. I'm simply disputing the idea that somehow people who are sony fans already will now drop it for Xbox because of COD. Seems like wishful thinking to an extreme.
Click to expand...

Think its different audiences (not all ps4 owners care about first party games); I don't want to go back to the term 'casual' but the people who haven't bought a console yet and will need to buy a console whenever madden/fifa/cod goes current gen exclusive may get converted to buying an Xbox over a PS5.
 
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I dont remotely know how these deals work but I highly doubt they would sign a 15 year deal and honestly the 3 years past the current deal sounds like a decent offer to me
Click to expand...
The 3 past the current deal was to bring it to around 2028... a Trojan Horse. That is around the time a new gen will start. ;)

Jimbo, while he doesn't whisper sweet somethings to gamer's ears, is no fool to that siphoning scenario for when it comes to choosing a new machine to play on in a new gen being addicted to their Codpiece.
 
DeepEnigma said:
The 3 past the current deal was to bring it to around 2028... a Trojan Horse. That is around the time a new gen will start. ;)

Jimbo, while he doesn't whisper sweet somethings to gamer's ears, is no fool to that siphoning scenario for when it comes to choosing a new machine to play on in a new gen being addicted to their Codpiece.
Click to expand...
Gives them 6 years then to bring back my beloved SOCOM and make it great again and make is a Playstation exclusive and kick CODs ass ;)
 
OmegaSupreme said:
Because it sells on the platform and they want to keep it that way? This still doesn't explain why someone would spend 500 bucks on an xbox over spending 70 bucks on the console they already own.
Click to expand...
As the CMA state, the impact will most likely be felt at the start of the next gen of consoles when people 'choose'.
 
jroc74 said:
Its kinda wild how the narrative flipped when it looked like the deal was in trouble of being blocked.
Click to expand...
Except there is no notion of the deal being in trouble of being blocked. Analysts even increased the prediction of acquisition approval to 80% recently. Funny how certain folk are desperately pretending that a harsh regulatory body didn't just approve the deal without concession just because another regulatory body is going to Phase 2 (which is what normally happens with the CMA an overwhelmingly vast majority of the time).

I wonder why you're not posting these same things on the other forum, huh? 😉

Banjo64 said:
Why does there need to be a contract at all?

In that case why limit it to 3 years? Why not 10?
Click to expand...

Markio128 said:
The fact that Sony were unhappy with the proposed deal from MS, kind of suggests that COD always being on PS was not part of the deal offered?
Click to expand...

Armchair analysts that lack impartiality proving they have no idea how the industry works? You don't say!

All credit to Synth over on the other forum:

Thing here is... I don't think Jim Ryan is lying about the offer extended being 3 years. I believe however that he is purposely misrepresenting that offer in order to sway public opinion and to bolster his argument towards regulator like CMA. All this talk of "if they're telling the truth, put that in writing" is so ridiculous I'm actually quite shocked that anyone on here with an ounce of common sense actually utters it. Even if there is genuinely no intent to ever make COD exclusive to Xbox, you would have to be completely stupid to contractually bind yourself in that manner to a competitor (that largely wants to destroy you).

There's actually an aspect to this conversation that has stood out to me for a while, yet nobody else seems to be commenting on it... so here we go. Minecraft itself does not have such an agreement in place to be released for PlayStation perpetually. Want to know how we can tell?... The Better Together update.

kCPMmep.jpg



Microsoft announces their acquisition of Minecraft on 15 September 2014, and upon this announcement PlayStation apparently called MS up looking for clarity that it wouldn't be pulled from their platform, which they received a positive answer to. Now, I don't actually know what was contractually signed behind the scenes, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if back then they received a similar 3 year guarantee in writing that Minecraft would remain on PlayStation with feature parity. Such an agreement would have taken them up to September of 2017. What launched for Minecraft in September 2017?...

YFlwEha.jpg



That's right! The Better Together update, focused on unifying the Minecraft experience across all platforms, and letting everyone play together!

Take a look at the dates here... The Better Together update was submitted to 9 out of 10 platforms that hosted Minecraft on 15th September 2017. 3 years to the day from the acquisition announcement. This may well be a complete coincidence, but that is one hell of a coincidence if so.

So, exactly 3 years after the acquisition of Minecraft, MS/Mojang had an update ready to go that changed the game in a manner that Sony wasn't too thrilled about supporting. Up until that point, no changes had been made that would potentially have caused the PlayStation version to lose feature parity, or a new version of the title... quite possibly because they had received contractual assurance that such wouldn't happen for the agreed duration.

Now, as we know, this did actually lead to PlayStation being stuck with a legacy version of the game along with the past generation consoles like 360, PS3 etc, until the public uproar over crossplatform integration (championed heavily also by Epic with Fortnite) caused Sony to eventually relent. And this is precisely why signing a perpetual license would be so stupid. Had they signed such a deal with Sony for Minecraft, it would have effectively allowed Sony to dictate what Microsoft and Mojang could implement with their own game. Being contractually obligated to provide a version on PlayStation with feature parity forever, would mean an initiative like the Better Together update would have had to be scrapped across every platform, if PlayStation decided to say "no" to any feature planned.

Having a contract for a fixed term, and then having it be renegotiated isn't a smoking gun that they're going to pull the game off PlayStation at first opportunity. It's a sensible safeguard to avoid allowing Sony to bend them over a barrel in the future, when they potentially decide on policies to protect their dominant position, at the expense of the IP owned by their primary competitor.
 
Godot25 said:
Of course it's their intent.
If Sony refuse to have COD on their platform (for some ungodly reason), Microsoft can't just shove it down their throats.
But since Minecraft is and new Minecraft games are and will be on playStation (Legends and Dungeons) there is not really a reason to doubt his words right?
Click to expand...
Yes there is a very simple reason. He said similar things before, and then it turned out the longest he would commit to was 3 extra years. Now he is just saying the same thing as before in substance (if not exactly the same thing). Repeating messages does not change them.
 
Last edited:
Banjo64 said:
Asked a straight forward question pal, thank you for copying someone else's explanation.
Click to expand...

Could've sworn I seen you mention the contract thing a few times, pal. And it's not even fully directed at you as there is a plethora of like-minded clueless posts here. Too many have no idea how the industry works and are falling for PR spin by Jimmyboy.

His explanation makes more sense than 99% of this thread. I've seen HoegLaw say something similar (never made the connection to MC though) only to be called a fanboy even though he is an established M&A lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Infamy v1 said:
Could've sworn I seen you mention the contract thing a few times, pal. And it's not even fully directed at you as there is a plethora of like-minded clueless posts here.
Click to expand...
In the context that I didn't understand why there needed to be a contract? Probably, because no one explained why until your post.

Bit daft to call someone clueless, we're talking about a publisher acquisition and industry specific contracts; we don't all deal with this in our day jobs (y)
 
Banjo64 said:
In the context that I didn't understand why there needed to be a contract? Probably, because no one explained why until your post.

Bit daft to call someone clueless, we're talking about a publisher acquisition and industry specific contracts; we don't all deal with this in our day jobs (y)
Click to expand...

Fair, and you don't particularly fall into the category of some very vocal people here that do treat it like its their day job even though they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

The fact that some think Phil is lying when doing so goes against him and Satya's ambition for more acquisitions (that they said publicly) as it will bite them in their ass, or that any company ever would sign a permanent contract for a rival (and one that has actively tried to stomp them out of existence) when that's not how businesses work, is simply baffling.

Meanwhile, Phil openly says Blizzard and King are more important to them than CoD because PC and mobile phones give them access to billions of customers to advertise Game Pass to compared to the limited consoles out there for console Game Pass (i.e., market saturation, hence Phil's words last week), and these very same vocal group of folk call Phil a liar and mock him for it.

You can't make this shit up. Yes, clueless succinctly fits here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
98K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom