If it doesn't go through there will be scapegoats but Nadella put the face on it almost as much as Phil. They will both look bad but it will be hard to put the blame just on Phil. Having access to 70 billions is something that goes way higher than Spencer.
I meant he has the most to lose if the deal doesn't go through.
Think they would prefer not to have a contract like they don't for minecraft. But they would sign one if regulators and/or Sony wants.
Minecraft = kids.
TL;DL:Damn an hour long? I will let others listen and decipher the talk and highlight the good parts here
Again it would probably come down to the wording but it does sound like it.
IMO, surely a multilayered declaration/statement of intent to the regulatory bodies would suffice?
That is fucking stupid.
I mean. They offered a contract in January without external pressure, so every person with functional brain knows that they want to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation.
Sony has no business in determining the contract.
Not sure how many more times Phil / MS can publicly state that they are willing to do this...
Now this is a more productive comment instead of feigning that that there is a fundamental paradox between MS's behaviour with Minecraft and their 'offer' with COD.
Imo MS lawyers would see that as the same thing in practice and will be a redline for them.
Bad take.
It wasn't feigned, I'm just sick, off work and not thinking straight. Once you explained it was very clear
No, as in in 10 years time if MS want to pull the game from store fronts and the only way to access it would be through a Game Pass subscription. The regulators fears seem to be equally split and cloud/subscription seems to factor in - so I was just using it as an example which could ease their concern (even if that scenario is unlikely).
I agree, we'll see where it goes.
There is no denying that in January there were some delusional Xbox fans who thought that Microsoft will make COD exclusive. But everybody without fanboy brain knew that would not happen.
Because their lawyers anticipated regulatory pressure? Do you think people just live in the moment?
If they want to tank the value of the IP and let some other 3rd party come up with the next COD. People are to either play warzone, the last cod game on ps or find a new game. Very few are switching for 1 game. There is a reason every 3rd party is praying for this because they hope it be them to fill the COD void.
Doesn't matter.
They are hoping to take that space on PlayStation, but the regulator questions to industry members were centred around 'how will this affect your ability to sell games/compete on the Xbox platform'.
Mobile currently makes insane money and it's safe bet. Since production cost is minimal, unlike Consoles and pc.
It's still does not make any sense, it they were trying to "bluff" Sony. Because as Phase 1 in European Union and CMA shows, Microsoft is offering nothing unless they are forced to. They did not offer any concessions in those phases because there was no requirement to do it. So why offering Sony something if they are not forced? That is, if your argument about "bluffing Sony" is correct?
Isn't that what is happening now?
I'm not saying that they are 'bluffing' - I am saying they offered the 3 year extension to pre-emptively ease regulator concern.
Yes. I absolutely believe 100% that a company the size of Microsoft is fully informed when regulation changes are happening, in advance. Government bodies don't act in secrecy, and information sharing is key to ensuring good relationships.
And since they know how much CoD generates on PS, they probably knew that they need to keep COD on PlayStation to make this deal work, right? So that whole spiel about "they will make COD exclusive" is just bullshit at this point. And of course Sony know it.
