Support NeoGAF

[MasterCornholio]

I don't see Bungie making a lot of legally binding statements guaranteeing their future releases on Xbox (I'm not talking about a paragraph on their website that they can delete at any time). Even that link that @ Topher posted points out the vague way they dance around future releases and how they are only declarative about Destiny 2, a title that already exists. That is like declaring that CoD MW2 will always remain on PS. Why wouldn't it, it's already out.

You mean this?

Q. Bungie has future games in development, will they now become PlayStation exclusives?
No. We want the worlds we are creating to extend to anywhere people play games. We will continue to be self-published, creatively independent, and we will continue to drive one, unified Bungie community.

That does confirm they will be available on other platforms if what Bungie says it's true. What those platforms are remain to be seen.

I guess we'll find out if it's a Bethesda kind of deal or a Minecraft kind of deal.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

There is no "we". Who you believe is up to you. I believe both Sony and Phil Spencer in either case. If they break their word there will be hell to be pay in PR pounds of flesh.

Thats the thing people laugh when I have said before that Spencer says COD will stay multiplat saying stuff like "You believe him?"

I mean he recently did say as long as their is a Playstation to ship to COD will be there

Xbox would get destroyed if all of a sudden they changed course

 

[SportsFan581]

Because bungie doesn't have the same impact as COD.

The issue with CoD is that, it's yearly release. Now add warzone, and you are pretty much stacked with these 2.

You also have to account the sales of COd. It's top 1-2 for both systems every year.

Why though? It's not like the rest of the titles in the top 10 or 20 each year wouldn't continue to be on PS, hell one or two of them might be exclusive to them (same with Nintendo). If Sony or Nintendo's entire business hinges on the availability and profitability of software made by an outside company they've done something wrong somewhere.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I agree and you have been for the most part one other most reasonable participants in this ongoing circle jerk. It just so happens you gave me the exact post I wanted to respond to directed at the people crying and continually calling Phil a liar, because Phil hasn't given Jimbo a written contract on something he doesn't even own yet.

Sorry if it seems like I was picking on you although as a furry hooker, you really do deserve it.

You know I don't hate you right?

 

[Topher]

I agree and you have been for the most part one other most reasonable participants in this ongoing circle jerk. It just so happens you gave me the exact post I wanted to respond to directed at the people crying and continually calling Phil a liar, because Phil hasn't given Jimbo a written contract on something he doesn't even own yet.

I appreciate that. I'm not calling anyone a liar until I feel they have lied. I think it should be realized by now that what we don't know, as far what happens behind the scenes, far outweighs what we do know. I'd rather wait on facts than speculate.

Sorry if it seems like I was picking on you although as a furry hooker, you really do deserve it.

There's no escaping that slutty furball period of my past. Thanks Ass of Can Whooping

 

[MasterCornholio]

Thats the thing people laugh when I have said before that Spencer says COD will stay multiplat saying stuff like "You believe him?"

I mean he recently did say as long as their is a Playstation to ship to COD will be there

Xbox would get destroyed if all of a sudden they changed course

At this point I don't think its consumers that he has to convince. Pretty sure whatever they give the regulators its going to be more than just words on a pod cast.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I appreciate that. I'm not calling anyone a liar until I feel they have lied. I think it should be realized by now that what we don't know, as far what happens behind the scenes, far outweighs what we do know. I'd rather wait on facts than speculate.



There's no escaping that slutty furball period of my past. Thanks Ass of Can Whooping

Got the portraits on my bedroom wall so that I every time I wake up I'm reminded I've done some good in this world

 

[SportsFan581]

You mean this?



That does confirm they will be available on other platforms if what Bungie says it's true. What those platforms are remain to be seen.

I guess we'll find out if it's a Bethesda kind of deal or a Minecraft kind of deal.

Right, that isn't binding in any way (just a line on a website) and it doesn't even mention Xbox or Nintendo specifically.

I'm not saying new titles won't be over there, they very well could be. But it's still just words.

MS is offering these same words regarding CoD.

When I refer to the worst case scenario of CoD getting pulled, I'm putting myself in the place of the regulators. That's not MS's position or something they are putting out there, that seems to get lost in this thread. Everything MS has said points to CoD staying put on all the platforms it exists on and maybe even getting added to a new one.

 

[CatLady]

You mean this?



That does confirm they will be available on other platforms if what Bungie says it's true. What those platforms are remain to be seen.

I guess we'll find out if it's a Bethesda kind of deal or a Minecraft kind of deal.

Microsoft Plans To Treat Call Of Duty "Like Minecraft

 

[CatLady]

There's no escaping that slutty furball period of my past. Thanks Ass of Can Whooping

No there really isn't, sorry.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

At this point I don't think its consumers that he has to convince. Pretty sure whatever they give the regulators its going to be more than just words on a pod cast.

I would think if Phil is that adamant publicly I find it hard to believe they wouldn't agree to it with the regulators.

Some believe there is a different sticking point behind closed doors

 

[feynoob]

Why though? It's not like the rest of the titles in the top 10 or 20 each year wouldn't continue to be on PS, hell one or two of them might be exclusive to them (same with Nintendo). If Sony or Nintendo's entire business hinges on the availability and profitability of software made by an outside company they've done something wrong somewhere.

Hitting top 1 for 8 years is the issue here.
A game like that has huge impact on the market.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

No there really isn't, sorry.

Never forget

 

[MasterCornholio]

Microsoft Plans To Treat Call Of Duty "Like Minecraft

I was actually talking about Bungie in this case.

Saying that I'm not sure they will be treated like Minecraft or Bethesda. Like how Minecraft is still on PlayStation but not Starfield. Bungie applied to Xbox in this case.

 

[Topher]

Thats the thing people laugh when I have said before that Spencer says COD will stay multiplat saying stuff like "You believe him?"

I mean he recently did say as long as their is a Playstation to ship to COD will be there

Xbox would get destroyed if all of a sudden they changed course

Remember when he tried to double the price on Xbox Live Gold? That would look like a day at the petting zoo in comparison to the shitstorm that would rise up if Phil Spencer does a 180 on his stated commitment to PlayStation. So when I say I believe Phil Spencer, I'm not only saying I think he is being truthful, but I'm saying I think he isn't a fucking moron as well.

But what is weird is that sometimes I'm not sure if it is PlayStation fans that I'm trying to convince or Xbox fans. Seems a lot on both sides see this deal being the end of Call of Duty on PlayStation despite everything. Just bizarre.

No there really isn't, sorry.

Never forget

Suddenly I feel clean.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Suddenly I feel clean.

You're going to make another avatar bet

And when you do

I'll be there

 

[SportsFan581]

Hitting top 1 for 8 years is the issue here.
A game like that has huge impact on the market.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The game is an impactful release, but it's a stretch to say that it would foreclose the market if its availability were restricted, IMO.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I would think if Phil is that adamant publicly I find it hard to believe they wouldn't agree to it with the regulators.

Some believe there is a different sticking point behind closed doors

I mean they would have to if they wanted the deal to go through at this point. Microsoft are planning on buying more so it's probably best not to change their minds on something like this. Regulators will always dig up the past to prove something.

 

[DarkMage619]

There's no need to inflate them when they are objectively Sony's biggest competitor, not Nintendo. Harping on about being in third place isn't going to change that.

Let's play spot the difference

Biggest competitor in terms of size of the company? Sure MS is a bigger company than Nintendo. Biggest in terms of profit generated in console gaming? I'm pretty sure Nintendo makes more profit than MS in gaming. This is about gaming.

As noted multiple times earlier Nintendo made adjustments to rely on first party games to make more money similar to how MS moved away from exclusive traditional retail sales of games to make more money. They both adjusted to market conditions to become more successful. This does not mean either is no longer a video game console competitor.

Xbox puts first and third party titles day one in their subscription service neither Nintendo nor Sony do that so that mean they are no longer competing? Sony does VR. Nintendo and MS don't. That mean they aren't competing now? Xbox has lots of streaming options and you can play their games without buying an Xbox at all. They are in a market alone right? You can pick whatever arbitrary metric you want they are competing with each other. CADE made this clear no matter how much you ignore them.

Like it or not Nintendo is selling games and consoles in the gaming market like Sony and MS. They are competing for the same consumer dollars as other console manufacturers. They are tracked using the same hardware/software sales charts. They did not go the way of Sega or Atari. They WAY they compete doesn't change that they ARE. To deny that is to deny reality.

You mentioned CoD earlier.

Right, well while you're keeping your head in the sand let me know once the biggest third party games coming next year like Hogwarts, Suicide Squad, Star Wars, COD, Madden, Avatar, Diablo etc are playable on the Switch.

Well if this acquisition goes through we can add that to your list of games missing from Switch. So at least MS sees them as a competitor. I also saw you didn't have Sonic listed either and that game just came out on Switch recently so it's not like Switch has no 3rd party support.

Fun fact: each platform has games that are unique to that platform and an absence doesn't mean the platform isn't competitive in the gaming marketplace. Xbox didn't get Street Fighter 5 last generation and is missing Final Fantasy 7 remake right now. Still competing with Switch and PlayStation regardless and Xbox is in third place.

 

[Topher]

You're going to make another avatar bet

And when you do

I'll be there

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Well if this acquisition goes through we can add that to your list of games missing from Switch. So at least MS sees them as a competitor. I also saw you didn't have Sonic listed either and that game just came out on Switch recently so it's not like Switch has no 3rd party support.

Fun fact: each platform has games that are unique to that platform and an absence doesn't mean the platform isn't competitive in the gaming marketplace. Xbox didn't get Street Fighter 5 last generation and is missing Final Fantasy 7 remake right now. Still competing with Switch and PlayStation regardless and Xbox is in third place.

No one cares about sonic the retarded hedgehog

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Remember when he tried to double the price on Xbox Live Gold? That would look like a day at petting zoo in comparison to the shitstorm that would rise up if Phil Spencer does a 180 on his stated commitment to PlayStation. So when I say I believe Phil Spencer, I'm not only saying I think he is being truthful, but I'm saying I think he isn't a fucking moron as well.

But what is weird is that sometimes I'm not sure if it is PlayStation fans that I'm trying to convince or Xbox fans. Seems a lot on both sides see this deal being the end of Call of Duty on PlayStation despite everything. Just bizarre.






Suddenly I feel clean.

The whole thing is a shitshow on social medias.

I hate the xbox crowd that keeps yelling shit like "wait until Phil takes COD away from playstation" just because of wars

 

[MasterCornholio]

Right, that isn't binding in any way (just a line on a website) and it doesn't even mention Xbox or Nintendo specifically.

I'm not saying new titles won't be over there, they very well could be. But it's still just words.

MS is offering these same words regarding CoD.

When I refer to the worst case scenario of CoD getting pulled, I'm putting myself in the place of the regulators. That's not MS's position or something they are putting out there, that seems to get lost in this thread. Everything MS has said points to CoD staying put on all the platforms it exists on and maybe even getting added to a new one.

If Microsoft needs to keep COD multiplatform to buy Activision they would have to do more than just words on a pod cast. Pretty sure they will have a way to convince regulators that they will keep their promise if they have to make one to make the deal happen.

 

[DarkMage619]

No one cares about sonic the retarded hedgehog

Some gamers do. And it's an option on all competing gaming platforms.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Some gamers do. And it's an option on all competing gaming platforms.

I'm happy for all those weird ass furries then

 

[IndianaJack]

I thought NeoGAF opinion is Xbox is trash, so why the bother?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I thought NeoGAF opinion is Xbox is trash

Depends on my mood swings

 

[reinking]

Why do you think you should be able to dictate how much Microsoft should be allowed to spend and how they should be allowed to spend it?

Fanboyism aside, why do you think you shouldn't? Microsoft has a history of taking advantage of their market position. Allowing a company to buy out an industry is not good for the overall health of that industry or consumers. I do expect this deal to go through but I do believe future large deals for MS might be in jeopardy.

 

[MasterCornholio]

No one cares about sonic the retarded hedgehog

So kind of like when Sonic had sex with mother brain from Super Metroid?

 

[SportsFan581]

I would think if Phil is that adamant publicly I find it hard to believe they wouldn't agree to it with the regulators.

Some believe there is a different sticking point behind closed doors

I can see them fighting against it as best they can, just because they don't want strings attached to an investment if it isn't absolutely necessary. The process of looking deeper at the deal has just started in the UK and EU, there wouldn't be much point in MS offering concessions at this stage. Once the review process of these probes is completed it would make more sense at that time. I'm sure MS will be trying to convince all parties that no concessions are needed throughout the process.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I can see them fighting against it as best they can, just because they don't want strings attached to an investment if it isn't absolutely necessary. The process of looking deeper at the deal has just started in the UK and EU, there wouldn't be much point in MS offering concessions at this stage. Once the review process of these probes is completed it would make more sense at that time. I'm sure MS will be trying to convince all parties that no concessions are needed throughout the process.

Phils comment already sounds like a concession. Something that he didn't say when they started this.

 

[CatLady]

Remember when he tried to double the price on Xbox Live Gold? That would look like a day at petting zoo in comparison to the shitstorm that would rise up if Phil Spencer does a 180 on his stated commitment to PlayStation. So when I say I believe Phil Spencer, I'm not only saying I think he is being truthful, but I'm saying I think he isn't a fucking moron as well.

He'd have to go into witness protection if he goes back on keeping CoD on all platforms.

But what is weird is that sometimes I'm not sure if it is PlayStation fans that I'm trying to convince or Xbox fans. Seems a lot on both sides see this deal being the end of Call of Duty on PlayStation despite everything. Just bizarre

I'm the biggest Xbox fangirl and believe CoD will be on as many platforms as Phil can put it on including Sony's as long as they don't make ridiculous demands. It's all about the $$$

Suddenly I feel clean.

Well, you're not and you AND Ass of Can Whooping both suck

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

He'd have to go into witness protection if he goes back on keeping CoD on all platforms.


I'm the biggest Xbox fangirl and believe CoD will be on as many platforms as Phil can put it on including Sony's as long as they don't make ridiculous demands. It's all about the $$$



Well, you're not and you AND Ass of Can Whooping both suck

Love you too honey

 

[SportsFan581]

If Microsoft needs to keep COD multiplatform to buy Activision they would have to do more than just words on a pod cast. Pretty sure they will have a way to convince regulators that they will keep their promise if they have to make one to make the deal happen.

I'm not sure of what you are saying there. MS will do what they need to do sure. Most of the discussion in the thread and certainly MS's formal responses to the regulators have centered on whether or not they should have to do anything. That's the discussion point, not whether or not MS will abide by the concessions if they are forced to offer them.

 

[SportsFan581]

Phils comment already sounds like a concession. Something that he didn't say when they started this.

He's been making the same statements since the day they announced the deal. CoD remaining on the platforms it already exists on was part of the message from the very beginning.

 

[feynoob]

"European Commission spokesperson Adriana Podesta gave us the following response via email:

"As you've correctly pointed out, Mr Cardoso works in the Director General for the Internal Market and not in the Directorate General for Competition.

"Mr Cardoso is not involved in the assessment of this transaction. Furthermore, as indicated clearly in his Twitter profile, he tweets in a personal capacity.""

 

[MasterCornholio]

He's been making the same statements since the day they announced the deal. CoD remaining on the platforms it already exists on was part of the initial announcement.

That's still not the same as what he recently said. Like you said with the Destiny deal there are different ways to interpret his initial comment. His second one is different.

 

[SportsFan581]

That's still not the same as what he recently said. Like you said with the Destiny deal there are different ways to interpret his initial comment. His second one is different.

Not really. He's always said that their intention is to keep CoD on PS. Expanding on that by adding "as long as a PS exists" doesn't change the message. That sounds more like something thrown out to calm the twitter warriors in both camps, tbh.

 

[gothmog]

I'm not sure of what you are saying there. MS will do what they need to do sure. Most of the discussion in the thread and certainly MS's formal responses to the regulators have centered on whether or not they should have to do anything. That's the discussion point, not whether or not MS will abide by the concessions if they are forced to offer them.

The perceived lack of enforcement options will probably be what passes or fails this acquisition, though. Microsoft has a history with these countries and the track record is not great.

I know if I was a regulator I would be thinking this: If we allow the acquisition and Microsoft ends up defying their agreements what can anyone do about it other than sue? History says Microsoft will do what they want to do and will thumb their noses at any ruling not in their favor. Which means years of lost revenue and protracted court battles. I would be incredibly reluctant to grant MS any kind of benefit of the doubt in that case.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Not really. He's always said that their intention is to keep CoD on PS. Expanding on that by adding "as long as a PS exists" doesn't change the message. That sounds more like something thrown out to calm the twitter warriors in both camps, tbh.

Maybe I'm just confused by this comment.

"Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends. After almost 20 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation, their proposal was inadequate on many levels and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers. We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft's proposal undermines this principle."

Sounded like it wasn't guaranteed to remain on PlayStation but now it is with Phils new comment.

That seems like a change to me but I could be wrong.

 

[SportsFan581]

The perceived lack of enforcement options will probably be what passes or fails this acquisition, though. Microsoft has a history with these countries and the track record is not great.

I know if I was a regulator I would be thinking this: If we allow the acquisition and Microsoft ends up defying their agreements what can anyone do about it other than sue? History says Microsoft will do what they want to do and will thumb their noses at any ruling not in their favor. Which means years of lost revenue and protracted court battles. I would be incredibly reluctant to grant MS any kind of benefit of the doubt in that case.

They should not be looking at it from a perspective where they need to give MS "the benefit of the doubt" anyway. MS's words or intentions should not be something that sways the decision. Even if the deal is approved without concessions like it was in Brazil, that would be a case of them looking at the worst case scenario of the deal (everything is exclusive to MS's platform) and ultimately deciding that there isn't a strong enough probability of market foreclosure as a result of the deal. These regulators would never base a decision on MS saying they will do "X, Y, or Z", if they determine that "X, Y, or Z" are required stipulations they would enforce those with concessions that MS would either accept or walk away from.

It's MS's job to convince them that there are no valid/probable market foreclosure concerns. That's what this process is for.

@ MasterCornholio that's Sony's statement not MS's. The fact that Sony doesn't have an existing perpetual agreement with ABK regarding CoD is proof that such a guarantee isn't the norm or required to release the game on PS. That was just a case of MS going above and beyond as a show of good faith.

 

[feynoob]

Remedy info from idas
How are remedies negotiated and implemented?

Planning for remedies starts very early in a transaction, normally while negotiating the deal.

Remedy planning involves: 1) identifying possible competition concerns; 2) identifying what remedies can address those issues according to legal standards; 3) the rationale for the transaction; 4) the efficiencies of the merger; 5) deciding what remedies to offer and when, specially in multi-jurisdictional cases.

In horizontal mergers only structural remedies will be acceptable. In the ABK deal there are horizontal issues but they are not relevant beyond the digital distribution of games. But even in that case it shouldn't be problematic.

Regulators are more sceptical of behavioural remedies, but they are accepted, particularly in vertical mergers. The majority of the issues discussed in the ABK deal are from the vertical side.

When designing and negotiating the scope of the remedies package, internal business documents can be problematic if they hint to or just say what assets the companies would be willing to divest. For example, the CMA gives a lot of importance to internal documents these days (there were lots of references to them during the Phase 1 decision).

When negotiating with regulators there are a few things to take into account: 1) timing; 2) scope of the remedies package; 3) the goals of the client; 4) preserving credibility with the regulator; and 5) gathering sufficient information about the regulators' concerns.

It's been said that there are two main approaches to remedy negotiations: the "funnel approach" and the "front-loaded approach":

A) The funnel approach involves starting the debate with the regulator by discussing the easiest issues first and working through each issue to convince the authority that the transaction raises no concerns regarding that issue. If the parties run out of time or there is no way to convince the regulator, it's time to think about remedies.

The main advantage of the funnel approach is that it sends a strong message from the parties that they are not willing to accept remedies beyond the minimum required. Therefore, the regulator will focus more on evaluating the arguments presented and not so much about what remedies should be adopted for now.

Problems with the funnel approach? 1) You need a lot of time; 2) if you didn't plan properly and at the end of the day remedies have to be negotiated, maybe you have to rush the process; 3) if after all the discussions the obvious solution was implementing remedies, the parties may loss credibility with the regulator.

B) The front-loaded approach involves presenting a proposal to the regulator almost from the beginning with what the parties are willing to divest to solve the potential issues very quickly. This approach is useful to close a deal as soon as possible, for example because the remedy package is clear and won't be questioned. The problem is that the parties will probably offer way more than what is really needed.

Both approaches can be used at the same time. For example, you can start with the funnel approach but when you see that the regulator is not going to be convinced, you switch to the other one.

Seeing that MS set a time limit of 18 months to close the deal and that they are not offering remedies by the end of any Phase 1, it looks like they are not willing to offer any huge remedies package and are using the funnel approach right now.

 

[feynoob]

Cont..

If the parties have to sell assets or businesses, a three way negotiation and sale process between the parties, the regulator and the purchaser begins. It can be a long and complicated process. I don't think that a divesture process is likely in this case, but let's just say that the purchaser has to be suitable. That means that the purchaser should have:

- The corresponding financial resources for the purchase
- A business plan for running the acquired business
- The appropriate back-office and other corporate infrastructure support from the seller
- The corresponding transition service agreements and supply agreements with the seller
- An appropriate level of knowledge and experience relevant to running the acquired business

Finding that purchaser and going ahead with the divesture has to be done in a specific period of time and always before the date set by the parties to close the deal.

During multi-jurisdictional cases, like this one, this whole process is a bit more complicated because the design of the remedies package has to take into account multiple competition authorities (in the ABK deal, at least 17). So, you have to present the transaction in a coherent manner but also the potential remedies.

In these cases the timing of notifications is important, because what one jurisdiction says can be used as a point of reference by the other ones. But sometimes it's better if you played them in parallel. It depends on the case. The geography of the relevant markets is important too. For example, if they are very local it's going to be harder to present a unified remedies package. But if the markets are global, then the issues are probably going to be very similar in every country and you could offer very similar remedies.

In the ABK deal the issues seem to be very similar in every jurisdiction and the majority of relevant markets have a global side. So, a global approach to remedies is more possible. The timing of notifications seems to indicate that almost all the big jurisdictions are running in parallel right now (UK, EU and US), with probably the US being the first to decide, then UK and finally the EU. But MS was upset with the CMA because they expected to get approval in Phase 1.

So, no idea if this was the original strategy or it changed due to the circumstances.

 

[MasterCornholio]

They should not be looking at it from a perspective where they need to give MS "the benefit of the doubt" anyway. MS's words or intentions should not be something that sways the decision. Even if the deal is approved without concessions like it was in Brazil, that would be a case of them looking at the worst case scenario of the deal (everything is exclusive to MS's platform) and ultimately deciding that there isn't a strong enough probability of market foreclosure as a result of the deal. These regulators would never base a decision on MS saying they will do "X, Y, or Z", if they determine that "X, Y, or Z" are required stipulations they would enforce those with concessions that MS would either accept or walk away from.

It's MS's job to convince them that there are no valid/probable market foreclosure concerns. That's what this process is for.

@ MasterCornholio that's Sony's statement not MS's. The fact that Sony doesn't have an existing perpetual agreement with ABK regarding CoD is proof that such a guarantee isn't the norm or required to release the game on PS. That was just a case of MS going above and beyond as a show of good faith.

So why would Sony be lying about this? It really doesn't read like an extension of the marketing agreement or anything similar. Seems like they were concerned with COD being removed from the platform and nobody corrected their statement when they said it.

 

[reinking]

I'm the biggest Xbox fangirl and believe CoD will be on as many platforms as Phil can put it on including Sony's as long as they don't make ridiculous demands. It's all about the $$$

I could swear you was part of the laugh emoji brigade when people were saying COD would stay on PlayStation. I could be remembering it wrong.

 

[SportsFan581]

So why would Sony be lying about this? It really doesn't read like an extension of the marketing agreement or anything similar. Seems like they were concerned with COD being removed from the platform and nobody corrected their statement when they said it.

Sony obviously would prefer a perpetual guarantee forced by a concession. That's natural, doesn't mean they are entitled to it.

 

[feynoob]

So why would Sony be lying about this? It really doesn't read like an extension of the marketing agreement or anything similar. Seems like they were concerned with COD being removed from the platform and nobody corrected their statement when they said it.

They want more than that.
They enjoyed COD success with their system, so they know how much impact cod has.

Their angle seems to be no gamepass, and on par content with their system, aka no extra content like they did in the past.

 

[feynoob]

I could swear you was part of the laugh emoji brigade when people were saying COD would stay on PlayStation. I could be remembering it wrong.

Dont remind me of that.
I was one of those stupid smart ass, who had to look like a smart business man.

Sometimes, reality check is all you need.

 

[Coloress_Kafka]

One thing that I hope the EU is able to solidify is Microsoft not forcing additional sign up requirements on CoD on other platforms. I could totally see Microsoft trying to force people to create a Microsoft/Xbox account to play CoD and disguise it as anti-cheat measures when they really just want more identity information to sell.

 

[CatLady]

I could swear you was part of the laugh emoji brigade when people were saying COD would stay on PlayStation. I could be remembering it wrong.

That was Bethesda. I didn't think Bethesda games would be on Sony. They have already put more stuff on PS than I expected. And there are still a few idiots that think Starfield is coming to PlayStation too.

If I was laughing at people saying CoD would stay on PS it was probably because they were stupid posts. There has been NO shortage of stupid posts on either side.