Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

That's not what the article says. It says Microsoft offered the 10 year deal on November 11.

What happened to "as long as there is PlayStation?" That's massively different than "3 years after current marketing deal..." "10 years..." etc..

All bullshit peddling in the public sphere.

Permanently releasing COD on Playstation does not mean signing a permanent deal. The next Playstation may as well be a smartphone running on M2 Apple chip and they still have to release COD. No one signs a permanent deal.

Man, y'all literally follow a script. Keep repeating this shit, it won't make it reality.

 

[reinking]

I THINK the 3 year deal was what Jim Ryan brought up saying that was MS offer

Wasn't it much earlier in the process too?

 

[feynoob]

Must be sarcastic

You cant help delusional people.

 

[Kvally]

oh I'm sorry, based on that triggered reaction I guess it was actually your twitter account Kvally ? here I'm sure no one would want you not to get the credit you deserve

Can you please post back and make sense for us next time? Would love for you to elaborate as well, and why are you including me in your comments? I didn't post that garbage twitter account. All ears.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Wasn't it much earlier in the process too?

I think like early September, the whole deal was inadequate statement

 

[Kvally]

Phil never said he would do a permanent contract. Nobody will ever do a permanent contract. Including Sony.

 

[feynoob]

Moving that meter slightly more towards the "getting blocked" side.

Because they were up for sale.

 

[reksveks]

Wasn't it much earlier in the process too?

Yeah, think the 10 year deal must be newer.

I do wonder what happens if the major regulatory bodies split opinions about meaningful concessions.

 

[feynoob]

What happened to "as long as there is PlayStation?" That's massively different than "3 years after current marketing deal..." "10 years..." etc..

All bullshit.

You renew contracts.
Everything isn't guaranteed. Plus 10 years is 1 gen and 2 years. That is alot. With renewable on the table.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You renew contracts.
Everything isn't guaranteed. Plus 10 years is 1 gen and 2 years. That is alot. With renewable on the table.

I know how shit works.

I am talking his PR mouth in the public sphere. "CoD will be on PlayStation as long as there is a PlayStation."

The public perception doesn't read asterisks.

 

[CatLady]

So much for crying that Microsoft wants to pull COD from Playstation.

I wonder what excuse will Jimbo pull out of his hat now.

As I said. Sony always knew that COD will be on Playstation. But their worry is not about Playstation-less COD. It is about Playstation without COD marketing deal and with COD on Game Pass on competing platform. Jimbo is terrified of that...

Jim Ryan and Sony can fuck right off. What these entitled babies really want is to still put the Sony name on CoD, still have exclusive perks only on PlayStation™ and block Xbox from putting CoD on Game Pass after MS pays $67B for A/B/K.

 

[adamsapple]

What happened to "as long as there is PlayStation?" That's massively different than "3 years after current marketing deal..." "10 years..." etc..

All bullshit peddling in the public sphere.

Come on DE, we've all seen the quotes where he explicitly said there's no such thing as a permanent deal, they don't have one of those for minecraft either. It's all negotiated periodically, here they're at least guaranteeing 10 years of CoD and obviously there's going to be options for continuing it later.

No need to fearmonger.

 

[feynoob]

I know how shit works.

I am talking his PR mouth in the public sphere. "CoD will be on PlayStation as long as there is a PlayStation."

The public perception doesn't read asterisks.

CoD isn't going to be removed. It would stay there.
This is a contract extension. Duration would be 10 years, then renew 10 years again if possible.

Phil words is still correct.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Come on DE, we've all seen the quotes where he explicitly said there's no such thing as a permanent deal, they don't have one of those for minecraft either. It's all negotiated periodically, here they're at least guaranteeing 10 years of CoD and obviously there's going to be options for continuing it later.

No need to fearmonger.

Read my follow up post. Dude just needs to shut up already and let this play out.

 

[Bernkastel]

Exactly this


Their public PR spiel was CoD will remain on PlayStation, we value players on others consoles blablabla.


Behind closed doors, there's a time limit.

What happened to "as long as there is PlayStation?" That's massively different than "3 years after current marketing deal..." "10 years..." etc..

Yeah, what happened to it? Still no where they are saying it won't stay multi-plat.

Man, y'all literally follow a script. Keep repeating this shit, it won't make it reality.

MS Office is on mac without any bullshit contract. If Apple eventually shipped Macs with iOS, the desktop version of Office will be PC exclusive. They are not tied by a contract to release it on anything that gets called mac for the next century. Same as COD, why would they cripple themselves with an infinite deal?

 

[feynoob]

Yeah, think the 10 year deal must be newer.

I do wonder what happens if the major regulatory bodies split opinions about meaningful concessions.

Isn't a 10 year deal good deal?
As long as renewal option exist, then it's good for Sony.

Don't see how regulators would say no to this.

 

[adamsapple]

So there's no more confusion, this is the full context of Phil's 'will stay forever' quote before even more people try to make it something it isn't:

Speaking to The Verge, Spencer said "there's no contract that could be written that says forever," but he expects Call of Duty to remain available on PlayStation for some time.

There is no such thing as a permanent contract but he expects it to stay on PS and this is just a 10 yr guarantee contract which would be negotiable for future releases like minecraft.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Jim Ryan and Sony can fuck right off. What these entitled babies really want is to still put the Sony name on CoD, still have exclusive perks only on PlayStation™ and block Xbox from putting CoD on Game Pass after MS pays $67B for A/B/K.

How dare they. How dare they want a valuable franchise to have exclusive perks on their console. Poor trillion dollar MS is getting so bullied by them.

 

[Bernkastel]

Dude just needs to shut up already and let this play out.

He is being asked by everyone to clarify the status of COD being multiplat. And you are asking him to shut up?

 

[reksveks]

Isn't a 10 year deal good deal?
As long as renewal option exist, then it's good for Sony.

Don't see how regulators would say no to this.

I think a ten year is pretty good but who knows what regulators think. I still think that the issue is other markets or at least should be.

 

[DeepEnigma]

He is being asked by everyone to clarify the status of COD being multiplat. And you are asking him to shut up?

That's why one should be clear the first time. And not ambiguous to have to clarify.

 

[feynoob]

That's why one should be clear the first time. And not ambiguous to have to clarify.

Don't get why you are angry.
The game isn't going to leave PS.

The issue is the contract. COD would stay on PS as long as Sony accepts the contract.

The length of the contract is the problem right now.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Don't get why you are angry.
The game isn't going to leave PS.

The issue is the contract. COD would stay on PS as long as Sony accepts the contract.

The length of the contract is the problem right now.

Why do you assume that I am angry?

 

[Kvally]

I think a ten year is pretty good but who knows what regulators think. I still think that the issue is other markets or at least should be.

Will COD even be around in 10 years?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Why is Phill so scared?

 

[Kvally]

More importantly, why are people mad that Phil wants to keep COD on PlayStation?

 

[OmegaSupreme]

More importantly, why are people mad that Phil wants to keep COD on PlayStation?

Its biggest on playstation and it's not even close. Xbox fans want this to be the death of cod on the platform. It wont be regardless of the outcome of this and it really upsets them.

 

[Topher]

So there's no more confusion, this is the full context of Phil's 'will stay forever' quote before even more people try to make it something it isn't:



There is no such thing as a permanent contract but he expects it to stay on PS and this is just a 10 yr guarantee contract which would be negotiable for future releases like minecraft.

He has said more than that though.....

"When asked about the future of the franchise, Spencer confirmed very clearly that "we're not taking Call of Duty from PlayStation." The Xbox boss went even further and said that "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to, our intent is that we continue to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation."

Call of Duty will remain on PlayStation for as long as it exists, says Xbox boss Phil Spencer

Xbox boss Phil Spencer has promised that the Call of Duty franchise will remain on PlayStation as long as PlayStation exists.

bgr.com

More importantly, why are people mad that Phil wants to keep COD on PlayStation?

Who is mad? I think folks are just trying to make sense of what is being said directly by Phil Spencer and what is being reported behind the scenes.

 

[mansoor1980]

good guy phil spencer back at it again

 

[feynoob]

Why is Phill so scared?

??

 

[TheGodfather07]

Without full control of call of duty, this is the biggest waste of 70b ever. Microsoft should pull out of the deal if regulators want them to bow down to sony and guarantee cod on the platform.

 

[feynoob]

Why do you assume that I am angry?

Maybe that fact that you want to chew him?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Maybe that fact that you want to chew him?

More assumptions.

Be clear the first time.

 

[feynoob]

People who are angry at Phil need to understand that everything needs a contract.
You cant keep something on other systems without a proper contract.

 

[DeepEnigma]

People who are angry at Phil need to understand that everything needs a contract.
You cant keep something on other systems without a proper contract.

 

[feynoob]

More assumptions.

Be clear the first time.

I recommend you a kitkat.

 

[Elios83]

Isn't a 10 year deal good deal?
As long as renewal option exist, then it's good for Sony.

Don't see how regulators would say no to this.

This is fluff.
Regulators asked them to formally offer remedies during the first stage investigations.
They refused. That's all you need to know.

Having interviews with Tom Warren and stating "we're willing to do this and that" has literally no value. It's a goodwill smoke signal.
Not to mention that what happened to the "we can't say anything about what we're going to do until the deal is actually closed?". How can they propose to Sony a deal with legal value for something they do not own?

If Microsoft was serious they would formally offer remedies directly to regulators. But in that way they would be legally bounded. They don't want that.
That tells me that internally they're considering that if they can't get the deal approved without restrictions they might prefer to get out of it. So it's better to try the everything or nothing approach until the end.

 

[GHG]

10 years?

Jesus christ what a waste of $70 billion. Even Jim Ryan wouldn't be so stupid and that's saying something.

 

[feynoob]

This is fluff.
Regulators asked them to formally offer remedies during the first stage investigations.
They refused. That's all you need to know.

Having interviews with Tom Warren and stating "we're willing to do this and that" has literally no value. It's a goodwill smoke signal.
Not to mention that what happened to the "we can't say anything about what we're going to do until the deal is actually closed?". How can they propose to Sony a deal with legal value for something they do not own?

If Microsoft was serious they would formally offer remedies directly to regulators. But in that way they would be legally bounded. They don't want that.
That tells me that internally they're considering that if they can't get the deal approved without restrictions they might prefer to get out of it. So it's better to try the everything or nothing approach until the end.

COMPANIES DONT ACCEPT REMEDIES ON PHASE1.

 

[Three]

Permanently releasing COD on Playstation does not mean signing a permanent deal. The next Playstation may as well be a smartphone running on M2 Apple chip and they still have to release COD. No one signs a permanent deal.

What would stop them from releasing a smartphone Playstation within the next 10 years?

 

[adamsapple]

Regulators asked them to formally offer remedies during the first stage investigations.

No they didn't. Don't make stuff up.

 

[reinking]

I'm going to put this out there and let the LOL emojis flow. I do not think regulators care too much about the COD deal with Sony. Sure, it can show good faith for Microsoft but this deal is so much bigger than just COD. Even many MS fans have stated that King is the bigger prize for MS. If regulators are really basing this deal on COD then I feel they have missed the mark regardless of the outcome.

 

[adamsapple]

Without full control of call of duty, this is the biggest waste of 70b ever. Microsoft should pull out of the deal if regulators want them to bow down to sony and guarantee cod on the platform.

10 years?

Jesus christ what a waste of $70 billion. Even Jim Ryan wouldn't be so stupid and that's saying something.

CoD isn't the reason for the acquisition deal. If it was, MS wouldn't be happy to continue letting it come on rival platforms this easily.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I'm going to put this out there and let the LOL emojis flow. I do not think regulators care too much about the COD deal with Sony. Sure, it can show good faith for Microsoft but this deal is so much bigger than just COD. Even many MS fans have stated that King is the bigger prize for MS. If regulators are really basing this deal on COD then I feel they have missed the mark regardless of the outcome.

That is the funny part about all of this that King is indeed the crown jewel so to speak

 

[feynoob]

10 years?

Jesus christ what a waste of $70 billion. Even Jim Ryan wouldn't be so stupid and that's saying something.

Gamepass is what matters here.

 

[Topher]

No they didn't. Don't make stuff up.

Microsoft was given the opportunity to make concessions to the EU Commission and decided not to.

 

[Elios83]

No they didn't. Don't make stuff up.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...microsofts-69-bln-activision-deal-2022-09-15/

The regulator had given the companies until Sept. 8 to submit proposals to address the CMA's concerns.

On Thursday, the CMA added that Microsoft informed the regulator that it would not be offering any undertakings.

 

[CatLady]

How dare they. How dare they want a valuable franchise to have exclusive perks on their console. Poor trillion dollar MS is getting so bullied by them.

This has to be one of the most outrageous statements in a massive thread full of outrageous statements. In what world would any sane person think Sony should be entitled to put their name on someone else's property? Why would Sony be able to block the owner from exclusive perks for Sony gamers only on someone else's property? In what world should Sony be allowed to block the owner from putting their own property on their own subscription service.

Simplified: Why should Sony be entitled to control something that belongs to Xbox? Please explain.

 

[GHG]

CoD isn't the reason for the acquisition deal. If it was, MS wouldn't be happy to continue letting it come on rival platforms this easily.

Well I'm happy for you xbox gamers who are fond of mobile phone games.

Gamepass is what matters here.

If that's all that mattered they could have got a deal/partnership done with ATVI once the Sony marketing deal expires for a fraction of the cost of the buyout.

This has to be one of the most outrageous statements in a massive thread full of outrageous statements. In what world would any sane person think Sony should be entitled to put their name on someone else's property? Why would Sony be able to block the owner from exclusive perks for Sony gamers only on someone else's property? In what world should Sony be allowed to block the owner from putting their own property on their own subscription service.

Simplified: Why should Sony be entitled to control something that belongs to Xbox? Please explain.

In this case? Because Activision literally agreed to let them.

 

[Bernkastel]

What would stop them from releasing a smartphone Playstation within the next 10 years?

And why would they be bound to release COD on that smartphone because of some contract, instead of just COD mobile? This is why no one signs a permanent deal.