Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

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.

Oh....there were quite a bit of "delusional" Xbox fans out there saying CoD would remain exclusive and even suggesting Microsoft really only meant Warzone. Either way, they were saying Microsoft was not being on the level. That includes Tom Warren who hinted that Microsoft could be using "clever" language. So no, we are not talking about a few "delusional" Xbox fans here.

But it's funny. Sony fans claimed that Microsoft need to keep Starfield, TES VI etc. as multiplat to "recoup that 7,5 billion," but now somehow they believe that Microsoft don't need to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation while recouping 68,7 billion dollars. Kinda change of stance, don't you think?

Maybe? I never made either argument and I'm not going to argue that point on someone else's behalf.

As soon as Microsoft started to claim that they are "Minecrafting" Call of Duty, everybody should know what to expect. But I guess we need to bring bullshit claims to keep conversation going until march, right?

Sure.....lots of bullshit claims on both sides is keeping this thread lively.

 

[onesvenus]

Sony's remarks triggered the regulators. Make no mistake about that

No, it was the price. It's one of the biggest acquisitions that have ever happened. Of course regulators wanted to look at it.

 

[Banjo64]

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.

Microsoft don't need anything to make this deal work - their profits are out of this world. They aren't making these acquisitions with Xbox profit.


However, if you've read the CMA's full report; Sony's projection is that it would only take a certain amount of CoD users to switch over to Xbox in order to make exclusivity a tangible prospect. I can't remember if it was redacted or around 10m. The rational being that those 10m players don't just buy CoD, but Xbox Gold and all of their other games/DLC on the platform. Whilst the CMA scrutinised this projection, they found the rational sound compared to Microsoft's own projection, which didn't use standard methods.

 

[xHunter]

One way around it is that the call of duty brand gets put to rest in a couple of years and they reboot it under a new name. Although on a sale of 1-10 in terms of probability I'd rank that as 1 since intentionally losing the power the COD brand carries would be an incredibly stupid blunder.

Kinda already happening. I can imagine that they will drop the CoD and name it Warzone.

Warzone: Modern Warfare
Warzone: Black Ops

Sounds good to me.

 

[CeeJay]

IMO, surely a multilayered declaration/statement of intent to the regulatory bodies would suffice?

E.g. a commitment to keep CoD on PS for a further 3 years with the current terms including marketing, and after that time the games will continue to be published on PS at the same time and RRP as Xbox. The games won't be Game Pass exclusive and if it ever is, Sony will be allowed the opportunity to have it on Plus at the market value of an AAA game. Xbox will have exclusive marketing rights after the initial extension period and those terms are all valid for 15 years.

Surely that would ease regulator fears more than a 3 year guarantee?

Regarding the bolded, how are you defining Gamepass exclusive?

A game that ONLY releases on Gamepass and isn't available to buy any other way? Or a game that is available to buy at retail but the only subscription service it's available on is Gamepass?

If it's the latter then I think it's worth re-affirming what this investigation is all about! The various commissions are supposed to be determining whether something is detrimental to consumers first and foremost and not whether something is detrimental to a competitor. COD is currently available to buy on either console so as long as that continues then there is no detriment to consumers anywhere. If MS want to put it on Gamepass day one as well then it's a positive for Gamepass consumers and still is no more detrimental to customers on Playstation. I don't see any reasonable argument that would prevent MS from putting COD on Gamepass day one.

Also, Sony choose not to put their own first party games on their own subscription services day one so why should a third party be forced to do it? It's not as if the latest COD is put on PS+ as it is. Fair enough if you are suggesting that Sony could have the option to buy COD for PS+ at the going rate. However, this would be a ridiculously expensive price that I am pretty sure Sony would never be prepared to pay EVERY YEAR.

 

[CuNi]

Whoever thought it would disappear from PlayStation was really out of their mind.
But I wonder how the exclusivity will be handled. Everyone knows Sony paid big bucks annually to keep things exclusive for PlayStation players and away from Xbox players.
Begs the question of how that will be handled. I could see the tides turn on that front, where either no exclusivity deals are being made or if Microsoft can convince regulators that keeping CoD on PS is enough of a concession and is "allowed" to market exclusive unlocks/items for Xbox players.

The funniest thing is how CoD is everything that is being talked about in this acquisition by media and even the regulatory bodies all over the world completely ignoring all the other IPs which, by the way it sounds, and I haven't dug through every possible document there is so I might be wrong, could be turned into Xbox exclusives or get special treatment on Xbox.

 

[ManaByte]

 

[intheinbetween]

Whoever thought it would disappear from PlayStation was really out of their mind.
But I wonder how the exclusivity will be handled. Everyone knows Sony paid big bucks annually to keep things exclusive for PlayStation players and away from Xbox players.
Begs the question of how that will be handled. I could see the tides turn on that front, where either no exclusivity deals are being made or if Microsoft can convince regulators that keeping CoD on PS is enough of a concession and is "allowed" to market exclusive unlocks/items for Xbox players.

The funniest thing is how CoD is everything that is being talked about in this acquisition by media and even the regulatory bodies all over the world completely ignoring all the other IPs which, by the way it sounds, and I haven't dug through every possible document there is so I might be wrong, could be turned into Xbox exclusives or get special treatment on Xbox.

So, MS acquires ABK, and you expect them to negotiate exclusive content for the competitor? What's next, MS agreeing on blocking CoD on Game Pass to satisfy Sony?

 

[R3claimer117]

Whoever thought it would disappear from PlayStation was really out of their mind.
But I wonder how the exclusivity will be handled. Everyone knows Sony paid big bucks annually to keep things exclusive for PlayStation players and away from Xbox players.
Begs the question of how that will be handled. I could see the tides turn on that front, where either no exclusivity deals are being made or if Microsoft can convince regulators that keeping CoD on PS is enough of a concession and is "allowed" to market exclusive unlocks/items for Xbox players.

The funniest thing is how CoD is everything that is being talked about in this acquisition by media and even the regulatory bodies all over the world completely ignoring all the other IPs which, by the way it sounds, and I haven't dug through every possible document there is so I might be wrong, could be turned into Xbox exclusives or get special treatment on Xbox.

This never mattered to Microsoft in the end after they're the owners and it's available for free in gamepass. They're the ones that get to market it and it dominantly becomes an Xbox tiltle it will still move people over no ones going to want to keep paying 70 dollars or play it in gamepass for free. Sony understands this hence why they're fighting so hard it's not about exclusivity. Over time if majority of the player migrated to Xbox even if the game is available on PlayStation does it get to that point now that Phil's saying as long as there as audience for it on PlayStation? So what happens when majority of the audience is now on Xbox ?

 

[Three]

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.

I think that even Sony knows that they will have Call of Duty until the end of time even without contract. But problem for them is they will loose marketing contract and they would need to fight against "Call of Duty included in Game Pass subscription on competing platform while we have it for 80€" That's why Jimbo is throwing a tantrum about this whole deal.

Exactly, as somebody said those were inadequate. They need to provide a 'commitment' or 'remedy' that the games won't be limited or inferior to their subscription offering. It's about equal access as much as it is about just releasing on it. Otherwise you can drive customers away from a platform by not giving equal access, imagine a future where only your subscription has it, with better graphics and more content but the game is available for $90 only on a competing platform. Then you turn around and say there are no call of duty players on PS so we can stop making it now. They need to assure equal access. That's the sticking point. The effects would not be immediate but take a few years.

Another round for Sony fans to try to find "where is Spencer lying"

The comedy of you making that post after what you were saying when that commitment to continue to release Activision titles on PS was made in january and adamsapple liking it is not lost on me. both of you were making comments like this back then trying to argue that CoD is going exclusive despite what was said by MS:

Watch this
Warzone will still be available on PlayStation
Overwatch 2 will release on PS5 because game is interconnected with Overwatch 1

But mainline Call of Duty games, Diablo IV etc. will be PC and Xbox only.

My dude why do you keep talking about "commitments" ? Where have MS made commitments to FTC, can you share please ?

This is not a commitment to FTC. It's just a blog post telling normal every day folks like us about how they'll change/adapt their messaging. And even on this blog page the wording is left intentionally vague undoubtedly.

I'm just not seeing the "commitments" you've talked about 50 or so times in this thread.

At best that is them trying to sweeten the pot, if you will, and start a "we're inclusive" marketing push to make the regulatory process appear more friendly and favorable.

But none of that is, or should be taken, as a firm commitment to FTC or a roadmap to their plans going forward.

Again, it's way too early to comment on anything and the state of things and prior messaging may change drastically if and once the deal is approved/closed.

Way too early to taking anything as set in stone right now, outside of contractual obligations.

No I'm not expecting them to do a full 180, but lawyer speak in the blog will allow them a lot of wiggle room with minimal repercussion if it comes down to it.

At the very least, live service CoDs like both the Warzones will still continue to get support for the foreseeable future if nothing else.

But NOW it was a clear commitment right from the getgo that others didn't believe. Cool at least the regulator response in September got us somewhere.

 

[adamsapple]

Wait so you're telling me people can know and say different things after new info is provided in a span of 10 months ..

mind blown




* I acknowledge the time it must have taken to look up almost an year old posts for the gacha, Three.

• MS has not sat down, and Regulators have not engaged / asked / proposed for MS to make concessions for COD on other "competitor's" console(s) - yet...
  • Any details around concessions, etc., noted within the press are purely rumors / hearsay at this time...

feynoob there you go, they're open to concession but haven't formally started yet, as that is the point you keep bringing up.

 

[phil_t98]

All due respect but did I say that?

You need to look elsewhere in this thread for someone who thinks Phil, the head of a XBOX, makes decisions for Microsoft, the global conglomerate.

you said if the deal doesn't go through he won't survive. what reason will he not survive, it isn't on his head this deal as I said

 

[NickFire]

But it's funny. Sony fans claimed that Microsoft need to keep Starfield, TES VI etc. as multiplat to "recoup that 7,5 billion," but now somehow they believe that Microsoft don't need to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation while recouping 68,7 billion dollars. Kinda change of stance, don't you think?

I think you're conflating prior disbelief with adamant claims. Can only speak for myself I suppose, but I found it unlikely they would make Starfield exclusive for two reasons. 1) Minecraft. 2) they sheer amount of money they will be leaving on the table In lost sales. At the time, I simply didn't believe they would spend that much to throttle the purchased company's revenues.

But things changed the perspective. First, MS committed to making it exclusive showing they are willing to sacrifice vast sums of money to chase subscribers. And MS also tried doubling the price of basic Gold, which made it clear to me that they fully intend to follow the models in the Movie / tv streaming realm (draw in as much as possible before rates start going way higher).

In light of the above, and with benefit of Phil's recent interview talking about inevitable price increases next year, I still think right now that MS wants the ability to make COD exclusive if they can. Doesn't mean they will, but let's be real. What other game could possibly get mass amounts of people to switch eco-systems anytime soon? In my opinion, there isn't one.

 

[Pelta88]

If the deal doesn't go through I don't think Phil Spencer survives. Obviously, his departure wouldn't be immediate. But the proverbial wheels would be in motion.

Do you think one man decides on the deal? It will of been made above him

The repercussion of everything from failed business deals through to a spate of bad PR is what we're discussing in a business sense.

 

[phil_t98]

The repercussion of everything from failed business deals through to a spate of bad PR is what we're discussing in a business sense.

He won't go if this doesn't go through, Xbox is slowly turning it around and one deal will not be nough to get rid of him. What evidence do you have to think they will?

 

[kanjobazooie]

 

[Pelta88]

He won't go if this doesn't go through, Xbox is slowly turning it around and one deal will not be nough to get rid of him. What evidence do you have to think they will?

This is the problem people keep running into in this thread. I'm talking about the repercussions and ramifications in business. While you're busy defending Phil Spencer.

In business, negative factors such as (but not limited to) bad PR, a series of missed earnings, HR, and failed acquisitions is enough to remove a ceo or change leadership. It's rarely instant. But it is well documented. I'm talking about the merits of a business deal.

The defence of any CEO is wild to me and speaks to a lack of maturity. For the record, if the acquisition was initiated by Playstation and failed, Jim Ryan's position would be in jeopardy. That's just business.

 

[Darsxx82]

The funniest thing is how CoD is everything that is being talked about in this acquisition by media and even the regulatory bodies all over the world completely ignoring all the other IPs which, by the way it sounds, and I haven't dug through every possible document there is so I might be wrong, could be turned into Xbox exclusives or get special treatment on Xbox.

It's interesting but it's logical.

Actv-Blz has great Ips but none comparable to COD in incidence in the console market and is annually. You also have that the only competitor that is complaining (Sony) only focuses its concern on COD and therefore the regulators will only tend to focus on said IP when negotiating concessions.

From MS's statements, it can be assumed that absolute control over the rest of the IPs is their red line. Anything else would make the agreement inappropriate or uninteresting to MS. The issue has always been in "COD specifically" (textual words) It is understood that the rest can be exclusive or "best on Xbox" or "first on Xbox".

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This is the problem people keep running into in this thread. I'm talking about the repercussions and ramifications in business. While you're busy defending Phil Spencer.

In business, negative factors such as (but not limited to) bad PR, a series of missed earnings, HR, and failed acquisitions is enough to remove a ceo or change leadership. It's rarely instant. But it is well documented. I'm talking about the merits of a business deal.

The defence of any CEO is wild to me and speaks to a lack of maturity. For the record, if the acquisition was initiated by Playstation and failed, Jim Ryan's position would be in jeopardy. That's just business.

The issue is that no one wants Phill's Job.

 

[Helghan]

Just read the complete breakdown of the Decoder interview on The Verge. Phil really does come off as a great guy that just wants to run a successful gaming company with a consumer-first focus.

What I was wondering. Why don't they just buy King, and leave the rest?

 

[Topher]

Wait so you're telling me people can know and say different things after new info is provided in a span of 10 months ..

mind blown

To be fair, T Three wasn't the one selectively pointing fingers at one group of people. That was G Godot25 .

 

[DeepEnigma]

Newsflash. If you are working for publicly traded company or government body, during induction you will learn that your opinions stated publicly will impact say company/government body. This is basics. Stating that these are your private views does shit. If you speak in public space and you are affiliated to an organisation your statements can/will be taken as this organisation stance. In this particular case this is very unfortunate as someone in senior position publicly showed their bias, which will harm EU proceedings giving ms ammunition. No mental gymnastics, just common sense and years of experience working in publicly traded companies.

Okay, cool.

But to complain about human beings being impartial or not by the most hardcore corpo ball lickers in here just to keep spinning more clown wars on the twitterverse and beyond which is ultimately irrelevant nor will have an impact... keep the circus alive, folks!

 

[adamsapple]

Poor guy

 

[phil_t98]

This is the problem people keep running into in this thread. I'm talking about the repercussions and ramifications in business. While you're busy defending Phil Spencer.

In business, negative factors such as (but not limited to) bad PR, a series of missed earnings, HR, and failed acquisitions is enough to remove a ceo or change leadership. It's rarely instant. But it is well documented. I'm talking about the merits of a business deal.

The defence of any CEO is wild to me and speaks to a lack of maturity. For the record, if the acquisition was initiated by Playstation and failed, Jim Ryan's position would be in jeopardy. That's just business.

they are confident it will go through, I also think Jim Ryan's position is different to Phil's. a deal like this for Sony a Japanese owned company not going through is a different matter than an American owned company. again its speculation if why where and what as nobody knows

 

[Ezekiel_]

Is that adamsapple POV?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Is that adamsapple POV?

 

[feynoob]

Is that adamsapple POV?

I hate you. Now I can't get this image out of my head.

 

[feynoob]

they are confident it will go through, I also think Jim Ryan's position is different to Phil's. a deal like this for Sony a Japanese owned company not going through is a different matter than an American owned company. again its speculation if why where and what as nobody knows

Stop entertaining his idea.
He has some weird hate boner for Phil.

 

[Gudji]

Time to update adamsapple tag with two balls.

 

[adamsapple]

Is that adamsapple POV?

 

[Pelta88]

The issue is that no one wants Phill's Job.

A chance to invest in great games that build Mindshare. I'll bite lol

they are confident it will go through, I also think Jim Ryan's position is different to Phil's. a deal like this for Sony a Japanese owned company not going through is a different matter than an American owned company. again its speculation if why where and what as nobody knows

All due respect but you have absolutely no idea about the topic at hand. The only difference between these two companies is internal ethos. They both are listed on every stock exchange and are subject to the exact same business rules and regulations. But you're here talking about an "American Company VS a Japanese company." trying to imply that the business framework they operate under varies because of where their headquarters are located.

I genuinely don't like being dismissive. On everything, as a person it's not something I seek to do. But these kindergarten arguments and theories you're trying to introduce to a conversation about actual business/market are uninformed.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I genuinely don't like being dismissive. On everything, as a person it's not something I seek to do. But these kindergarten arguments and theories you're trying to introduce to a conversation about actual business/market are uninformed.

 

[Gudji]

The issue is that no one wants Phill's Job.

I do, who do I have to suck?

 

[Banjo64]

I do, who do I have to suck?

Greenberg / Eastwood spit roast.

 

[Gudji]

Greenberg / Eastwood spit roast.

 

[SSfox]

He has big lists of lies on him, can't blame people to not believe this guy.

 

[The_Mike]

If the deal doesn't go through I don't think Phil Spencer survives. Obviously, his departure wouldn't be immediate. But the proverbial wheels would be in motion.

What world are you living in?

This is the real world, it's not star wars where darth vader strangles his captains if they don't capture the rebels.

Some people are really too much into this console war.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Is that adamsapple POV?

Its missing something.

 

[phil_t98]

A chance to invest in great games that build Mindshare. I'll bite lol



All due respect but you have absolutely no idea about the topic at hand. The only difference between these two companies is internal ethos. They both are listed on every stock exchange and are subject to the exact same business rules and regulations. But you're here talking about an "American Company VS a Japanese company." trying to imply that the business framework they operate under varies because of where their headquarters are located.

I genuinely don't like being dismissive. On everything, as a person it's not something I seek to do. But these kindergarten arguments and theories you're trying to introduce to a conversation about actual business/market are uninformed.

your the one saying Phil will be sacked if the deal doesn't go through, zero evidence of anything being said of this nature.

 

[feynoob]

The issue is that no one wants Phill's Job.

Whoever holds that position, would always be under scrutiny from fans, and the company. It's not an easy position to fill.

 

[feynoob]

Can someone highlight the article? I have exhuasted the free article limit.

Activision Blizzard upgraded as MKM says stock 'severely discounting' fundamentals

Activision Blizzard (ATVI) received an upgrade from MKM Partners on Tuesday, as the investment firm said the video game publishers stock is ...

seekingalpha.com

From idas.

MKM Partners (an equity research, sales and trading firm with more than 20 years of experience), updated ABK from neutral to buy: they see "strong growth potential" next year thanks to games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II, Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0, Overwatch 2, and World of Warcraft: Dragonflight.

They also believe that the deal will get approved.

If the deal doesn't get approved, they think that shares should be worth $85, trading at 18 times 2023 earnings, plus $13 per share in cash.

 

[feynoob]

 

[Pelta88]

Unfortunately, Sony, the stock market, and regulators as yet don't believe them.

 

[DarkMage619]

Unfortunately, Sony, the stock market, and regulators as yet don't believe them.

Well if they think it is about exclusive CoD they clearly haven't been listening to the numerous statements and signed commitments from MS to keep the game on PlayStation. It's already clear there are at least some biases with these European regulators so I'd question their objectivity at this point.

 

[ManaByte]

Suddenly people are going to be very concerned about MS taking Candy Crush off iOS and Android and making it exclusive to Windows Phone.

 

[The_Mike]

Suddenly people are going to be very concerned about MS taking Candy Crush off iOS and Android and making it exclusive to Windows Phone.

"After claiming the importance of Call of Duty on Playstation, Mr. Ryan also insisted the CMA to demand Microsoft to port Candy Crush to PlayStation, should Microsoft decide to release it on Xbox.

Furthermore, according to Ryan, Sony should always have the rights to get some kind of exclusivity content in Candy Crush, so that the competition would be fair. "

 

[CatLady]

Suddenly people are going to be very concerned about MS taking Candy Crush off iOS and Android and making it exclusive to Windows Phone.

Oh damn, the deals screwed for sure now if apple and Google join Jimbo and Sony in whining about it's not fair for Xbox to compete.

On the positive side maybe if the deal goes through and MS gets Candy Crush, they'll bring back Windows phone and I can throw this iTard phone in the trash where it belongs.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Suddenly people are going to be very concerned about MS taking Candy Crush off iOS and Android and making it exclusive to Windows Phone.

Suddenly hardcore enthusiast gamers are going to be all about that mobile F2P gatcha!

 

[Banjo64]

Suddenly people are going to be very concerned about MS taking Candy Crush off iOS and Android and making it exclusive to Windows Phone.

I've still got my yellow Lumia 1020 in a drawer.

Terrible OS, but still a world class camera even today. 41 megapixel camera 9 years ago, amazing.

It's not the worst OS I used though, I had to return my Blackberry z10 because it was utter wank.

 

[The_Mike]

Windows phone was for sure high end hardware for much cheaper than the competitors.

So sad that they abandoned it.