Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

Because that's the industry standard. Nobody offers a 10 year deal. Sony would have still had COD well after those 3 years.

The deal started at 3 and went to 10. You can spin it however you want, but that's what happened.

Valve said Phil and the games team at Microsoft has always kept their promises, and he trusts they will keep call of duty on the platforms where customers want to play. Those are the very merits by which this is even being challenged, the suggestion Microsoft will not stay true to its words.

If Phil always keeps his promises then there isn't a need for a deal at all.

"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, similar to what we've done on Minecraft since we've owned that. "
-Phil Spencer

 

[bentanchorbolt]

If Phil always keeps his promises then there isn't a need for a deal at all.

"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, similar to what we've done on Minecraft since we've owned that. "
-Phil Spencer

*if Sony plays ball

 

[feynoob]

Pretty much. It was a smart PR move, no doubt, but Valve kind of rendered it meaningless with their response. Either way, I still say it doesn't matter. FTC will approve.

That is the entire point for the PR this week.

December 8 is the meeting with Lina Khan.

So far, MS has done,

These big PR hits would make that meeting smooth.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So, yes … but no.

Yes, they could offer actual incentives. No, they're not doing that

This isn't hard

 

[Topher]

*if Sony plays ball

That's not what he said.

 

[feynoob]

Yes, they could offer actual incentives. No, they're not doing that

This isn't hard

If either MS and Sony wont behave like adults, regulators would have to step in.

 

[Topher]

That the entire point for the PR this week.

December 8 is the meeting with Lina Khan.

So far, MS has done,

These big PR hits would make that meeting smooth.

Microsoft excels at PR, no doubt.

 

[adamsapple]

If Phil always keeps his promises then there isn't a need for a deal at all.

"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, similar to what we've done on Minecraft since we've owned that. "
-Phil Spencer

The "deal" is to appease Sonys concerns about guaranteed availability for CoD on their platforms. They're the ones who didn't take Phil on his word, unlike the rest of us.

 

[bender]

The "deal" is to appease Sonys concerns about guaranteed availability for CoD on their platforms. They're the ones who didn't take Phil on his word, unlike the rest of us.

Us?

 

[feynoob]

TOKYO (Reuters) - Microsoft's Xbox chief Phil Spencer said on Twitter on Thursday that he would enter into a 10-year deal with Nintendo for the popular game "Call of Duty." A Nintendo spokesperson confirmed that the deal was "announced" and declined to provide further details.

ãã¤ã¯ãã½ããã任天å ã¨10å¹´å¥ç´ã¸ãã²ã¼ã ãã³ã¼ã«ãªããã¥ã¼ãã£ãã§

ç±³ãã¤ã¯ãã½ããã®ï¼¸ï½ï½ï½é¨éãããã®ãã£ã«ã»ã¹ãã³ãµã¼æ°ã¯ï¼æ¥ã人æ°ã²ã¼ã ã½ããã®ãã³ã¼ã«ãªããã¥ã¼ãã£ãã«ã¤ãã¦ã任天å ã¨ï¼ï¼å¹´éã®å¥ç´ãçµã¶ã¨ãã¤ãã¿ã¼ã«æ稿ããã任天å ã®åºå ±æå½èã¯å¥ç´ããçºè¡¨ããããã¨ã¯äºå®ãã¨ãããã以ä¸ã®è©³ç´°ã«ã¤ãã¦ã¯åçãå·®ãæ§ããã

jp.reuters.com

 

[Thirty7ven]

Microsoft excels at PR, no doubt.

Only thing they excel at are spreadsheets.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

That's not what he said.

I don't think that matters. If Phil offered Sony a deal and they balked at it and end up with no CoD, this says more about Jim Ryan than it does about Phil Spencer. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

 

[feynoob]

https://seekingalpha.com/news/39149...-that-sony-unlikely-to-accept-microsoft-offer

Activision ticked down 0.5% amid a report that Microsoft's offer of a 10-year guarantee for same-day Call of Duty release on the PlayStation console is unlikely to accepted by Sony as the software giant works to secure regulatory approve for the videogame mega deal.

The Microsoft offer likely doesn't address all of Sony's concerns, according to a Dealreporter item, which cited a source familiar. Sony is said to be "nowhere near" concluding any agreement with Microsoft.

If anyone need more info

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Yes, they could offer actual incentives. No, they're not doing that

This isn't hard

Again, are you involved in the negotiations? Have you seen what MS plan to offer Sony when they can drag Jim out of the CMA's office for 5 minutes?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Again, are you involved in the negotiations? Have you seen what MS plan to offer Sony when they can drag Jim out of the CMA's office for 5 minutes?

Again, the deal is a 10-year commitment. Not interested in your hypotheticals.

 

[feynoob]

Stop with these contract shit.
We have no info.
Thnx

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Again, the deal is a 10-year commitment. Not interested in your hypotheticals.

So you've seen it then?

 

[adamsapple]

Us?

ãã¤ã¯ãã½ããã任天å ã¨10å¹´å¥ç´ã¸ãã²ã¼ã ãã³ã¼ã«ãªããã¥ã¼ãã£ãã§

ç±³ãã¤ã¯ãã½ããã®ï¼¸ï½ï½ï½é¨éãããã®ãã£ã«ã»ã¹ãã³ãµã¼æ°ã¯ï¼æ¥ã人æ°ã²ã¼ã ã½ããã®ãã³ã¼ã«ãªããã¥ã¼ãã£ãã«ã¤ãã¦ã任天å ã¨ï¼ï¼å¹´éã®å¥ç´ãçµã¶ã¨ãã¤ãã¿ã¼ã«æ稿ããã任天å ã®åºå ±æå½èã¯å¥ç´ããçºè¡¨ããããã¨ã¯äºå®ãã¨ãããã以ä¸ã®è©³ç´°ã«ã¤ãã¦ã¯åçãå·®ãæ§ããã

jp.reuters.com

This takes me back to the Wii60 days.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

The deal started at 3 and went to 10. You can spin it however you want, but that's what happened.



If Phil always keeps his promises then there isn't a need for a deal at all.

"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, similar to what we've done on Minecraft since we've owned that. "
-Phil Spencer

Minecraft is approaching 8 or 9 years since the MS buyout. It's a pretty good indicator MS aren't really pushing exclusivity on big franchises.

 

[akimbo009]

Again, the deal is a 10-year commitment. Not interested in your hypotheticals.

Which, apparently, Sony is .. " to be "nowhere near" concluding any agreement with Microsoft." Seems they do need an agreement, and in this case as the last taker MS has all the leverage to get a agreement further in their favor.

 

[bender]

 

[gothmog]

If either MS and Sony wont behave like adults, regulators would have to step in.

That's not how any of this works.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft/Activision with Xbox CEO Phil Spencer - The Capitol Forum

Listen to Xbox CEO Phil Spencer discuss competition in the video game market on the Second Request podcast.

thecapitolforum.com

Dont know, if you guys want to listen to this,

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So you've seen it then?

The contract is same-day releases for Call of Duty. That's what we're discussing. That's the public info. Not whatever deal you've conjured up in your head.

 

[bender]

People need to calm down and not take all the public posturing to heart.

 

[feynoob]

That's not how any of this works.

They will, if they have to approve this deal.
Its getting ugly with these 2. Like 2 teengers fighting each other.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Which, apparently, Sony is .. " to be "nowhere near" concluding any agreement with Microsoft." Seems they do need an agreement, and in this case as the last taker MS has all the leverage to get a agreement further in their favor.

No, an agreement between Sony and Microsoft does not need to be made. Sony isn't interested in coming to an agreement with them.

 

[Topher]

The "deal" is to appease Sonys concerns about guaranteed availability for CoD on their platforms. They're the ones who didn't take Phil on his word, unlike the rest of us.

The deal is to get Sony to back off opposing the acquisition. Sony wants the deal to fail. This isn't about Sony taking anyone at their word or not.

The rest of us? You have friends over?

I don't think that matters. If Phil offered Sony a deal and they balked at it and end up with no CoD, this says more about Jim Ryan than it does about Phil Spencer. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

It does matter. Phil Spencer publicly committed Call of Duty to PlayStation indefinitely. If he doesn't honor it then it says more about him than any of this does about Jim Ryan.

Minecraft is approaching 8 or 9 years since the MS buyout. It's a pretty good indicator MS aren't really pushing exclusivity on big franchises.

Not the case for Bethesda's games though.

 

[feynoob]

Transcript for the podcast.

There's really only been one major opposer to the deal and it's Sony and Sony's trying to protect their dominance on console. And the way they grow is by making Xbox smaller. They have a very different view of the industry than we do. They don't ship their games day and date on PC. They don't put their games into the subscription when they launch their games. They're starting to think about mobile as I see from the outside, just kind of reading some of the moves that they're doing. But because Sony's leading all of the dialogue around why this deal shouldn't go through to protect their dominant position and console, the thing that they grab onto is Call of Duty. And we've said over and over we will make a multi-year, 10 year commitment to PlayStation. It was the first call Satya and I made: to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation.

Satya and I, Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft. We made a call to the CEO of Sony the day that the deal was announced to say that it's our intent to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. And they actually publicly affirmed that at the time. Now we're kind of getting in the slow role on the negotiation because it has become good fodder for the regulators to discuss this. If you just look at the deal model itself, I mean, it's not hard to think about how much of the valuation of this company is Call of Duty revenue that happens on PlayStation and to pay what we're paying for the overall Activision Blizzard King and then instantly impair the asset by saying we're gonna pull the largest console version of Call of Duty out of the business model of this company. Literally would take billions and billions that we have to write off almost instantly because we would impair what Activision is.

We've made the statements to Sony that we will continue to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation. We've tried to make a 10 year commitment, same version, same features, we've said the same thing to regulators. I haven't really heard a customer opposition of how a consumer who's gonna get more choice through this acquisition, of what the harm is. But the hard harm to the largest console maker seems to be where the regulators are spending a lot of time. And I mean they're really twice as big as we are in the console market. So, I find it challenging cause the largest console maker in the world is raising an objection about one franchise that we've said we will continue to ship on the platform. And it's a deal that benefits customers through choice and access and Call of Duty is an important part of it. Like you said, Call of Duty mobile is part of the Call of Duty franchise itself. How to decouple that from what happens on other platforms seems really, really challenging. When PlayStation players are getting the same great Call of Duty experience they had this year, they would get the same thing next year and the year forward, if the deal closes.

 

[akimbo009]

The contract is same-day releases for Call of Duty. That's what we're discussing. That's the public info. Not whatever deal you've conjured up in your head.

You keep saying this is "what we're discussing".... the conversation has moved on from where you want to keep it. Stop trying to tell folks what other folks are discussing. It's super weird. We've moved on.

No, an agreement between Sony and Microsoft does not need to be made. Sony isn't interested in coming to an agreement with them.

True, they don't. That may also result in COD not getting on PS at that point.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

The contract is same-day releases for Call of Duty. That's what we're discussing. That's the public info. Not whatever deal you've conjured up in your head.

So you haven't seen it, you don't know. That's all you had to say.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You keep saying this is "what we're discussing".... the conversation has moved on from where you want to keep it. Stop trying to tell folks what other folks are discussing. It's super weird. We've moved on.

You're free to press ignore if it upsets you when you're outclassed

True, they don't. That may also result in COD not getting on PS at that point.

It won't result in that, because once again COD coming to PS doesn't hinge on it.

 

[feynoob]

Lina Khan

- For a variety of reasons, digital markets are particularly prone to anticompetitive domination because the incumbents become quite difficult to dislodge.

- For that reason, anticompetitive behavior by online companies is much more challenging to solve on the back end than it is on the front end.

- Therefore, the need for regulators to change their approach is especially pronounced given the increased use and development of certain "next-generation technologies" such as virtual reality, voice assistance and cloud tools.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Not the case for Bethesda's games though.

I suppose it's just a case-by-case basis, we've been hearing basically that from Phil for years. Your Bethesda point reinforces it.

I'm alright with that mixed bag approach, it's basically how the market works anyhow. Sony could be said to doing the same with PC releases, just not parity for day one like Xbox/GP. It would be nice to have Nintendo titles on PC, I don't ever see Nintendo coming to that party. I just don't have it in me past the Switch for the high prices and poor performance hardware from Nintendo anymore. *who am I kidding family gaming says always have a Nintendo in the house.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So you haven't seen it, you don't know. That's all you had to say.

I'm working in the same realm of knowledge as the ones who are saying Sony should accept the deal. Anything else you're adding to that is irrelevent

 

[Warablo]

*null already covered

So, let's say COD 2026 is out. It's not both PS and Steam. Valve has a contract. Sony does not

What's the difference

Who knows if forced parity is in the 10 year contract.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

I'm working in the same realm of knowledge as the ones who are saying Sony should accept the deal. Anything else you're adding to that is irrelevent

It's a discussion forum. My comments are entirely relevant, it just seems you don't like where the conversation is going, so would prefer to mod rather than discuss.

 

[Topher]

I suppose it's just a case-by-case basis, we've been hearing basically that from Phil for years. Your Bethesda point reinforces it.

I'm alright with that mixed bag approach, it's basically how the market works anyhow. Sony could be said to doing the same with PC releases, just not parity for day one like Xbox/GP. It would be nice to have Nintendo titles on PC, I don't ever see Nintendo coming to that party.

Completely understandable for Microsoft to want to keep some games exclusive so I agree with you. This stuff is fun to debate but at the end of the day I'm not worried about it as I plan to own Xbox in any case. Nintendo will continue to do their own thing. No doubt about that.

 

[CatLady]

Like what terms? It's not like this is a marketing agreement. When you go to publish a game on PS the terms are the same across the board.

Day and date for 1 and I know parity was offered at one time and who knows what else might no longer be included in or NOT included.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

It's a discussion forum. My comments are entirely relevant, it just seems you don't like where the conversation is going, so would prefer to mod rather than discuss.

You're interjecting with pointless hypotheticals. You're free to keep using them. I'm free to tell you they're irrelevent

 

[akimbo009]

Day and date for 1 and I know parity was offered at one time and who knows what else might no longer be included in or NOT included.

Seems to continue to be parity...

We've made the statements to Sony that we will continue to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation. We've tried to make a 10 year commitment, same version, same features, we've said the same thing to regulators. (from the above quote)

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Day and date for 1 and I know parity was offered at one time and who knows what else might no longer be included in or NOT included.

Not releasing day and date would go against the assurances they've been giving to get this deal through

 

[akimbo009]

Not releasing day and date would go against the assurances they've been giving to get this deal through

But if Sony continues to reject the agreements then it won't matter, cause they'll get it released on no day and no date.

 

[Elios83]

The 10 years thing is just meaningless PR to send goodwill signals to regulators.
They wanted to get away with 3 years just for COD and just for Sony, now that regulators in all the biggest markets are questioning the deal it has become 10 years and to both Sony and Nintendo.

This is just the minimum Microsoft thinks they can get away with in the current situation they didn't expect.
But the reality is that it's not enough, it doesn't address in any way the main concern about Microsoft building/buying a dominant position in gaming subscriptions with Gamepass and regulators totally know it. They need to give competitors the possibility to get COD on other subscription services outside Gamepass.

I think we'll see way more concessions offered as long as regulators continue to remain cold on these "promises" and months pass.
Jim has already obtained a really good result for his company but at this point he can get more.
I doubt they want the deal to be totally blocked though regardless of what they claim, they want Microsoft to spend the 70 billions but to have a neutralized deal, if it is approved further attempts to buy more big publishers will be taken off the table since they'll know they won't get approval, at the same time regulators will make sure that the Activision deal doesn't hurt them.

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

That isn't happening within this decade at least.

I agree. We will be well into next generation possible even the subsequent.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

But if Sony continues to reject the agreements then it won't matter, cause they'll get it released on no day and no date.

Once again, COD releasing on PS does not hinge on whether Sony or Microsoft can come to an agreement.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Completely understandable for Microsoft to want to keep some games exclusive so I agree with you. This stuff is fun to debate but at the end of the day I'm not worried about it as I plan to own Xbox in any case. Nintendo will continue to do their own thing. No doubt about that.

It's tough not to get caught up in the passion for your game/brand, I get it sometimes, we all get a little hyped or overzealous at times. It's another golden age of gaming right now, the hardware, the games, delivery systems, cross play, sharing, titles being greenlit etc.

It's an interesting concept to think Steam or Epic could be a store or integrated with Xbox/GP, Gabe is pretty well known for liking MS products and partnerships. It would just smash barriers very similar to Apple vs Google, when you think of Sony being Apple and Google being MS/Xbox the openness of Android shows how to compete against the dominant walled garden over time. Industries have evolved and condensed where the primary entity both competes and supports their distribution and retail chains e.g. Google make the Pixel handsets but enable Android for any handset. Xbox is heading down this route. It's just more avenues highlighting how stupid this regulatory process is. I agree due diligence is necessary, kudos to the FTC for giving a shit, but for this buyout with these market conditions it should be a no brainer and well over and done with by now.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

You're interjecting with pointless hypotheticals. You're free to keep using them. I'm free to tell you they're irrelevent

No, I'm putting forward thoughts about how the deal could progress / be approved. Again, if you don't wish to discuss them with me, feel free to ignore my comments.

 

[akimbo009]

Once again, COD releasing on PS does not hinge on whether Sony or Microsoft can come to an agreement.

What world would that be? If they can't agree - what happens? COD releases on Playstation regardless? I don't know how that works.

 

[CatLady]

Not releasing day and date would go against the assurances they've been giving to get this deal through

And Sony has rejected those and refused to any concessions outside of killing the deal. No reason to stick to any previous offers that Sony turned up their nose at.