Support NeoGAF

[Yoboman]

Wow, it's took Microsoft's lawyers two attempts to get the subpoena right? That's how you know they're Microsoft's lawyers.

They must have gotten their lawyers from the same college as their developers

 

[Robb]

This is the best part about this entire thing, can't wait to see what kind of info gets released/leaked to the public as a result of this case from all parties involved.

 

[freefornow]

This deal just doesn't stop producing clown moments.

Or threads/posts.

 

[lefty1117]

I think some people are misunderstanding what "pipeline" means in this case. It isn't the production process, it's what is queued up to be delivered. If they get this they'll be able to point out upcoming releases from Sony's studios & acquisitions, plus exclusive marketing and time-limited deals. Couple that with MS willing to promise COD on both platforms for 10 years and the Sony argument seems less sturdy. "learning how Sony makes gamez" has nothing to do with it, but pointing out the hypocrisy of Sony's argument is what this is all about. It's a pretty solid move, or at least a pretty solid attempt, by MS.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I think some people are misunderstanding what "pipeline" means in this case. It isn't the production process, it's what is queued up to be delivered. If they get this they'll be able to point out upcoming releases from Sony's studios & acquisitions, plus exclusive marketing and time-limited deals. Couple that with MS willing to promise COD on both platforms for 10 years and the Sony argument seems less sturdy. "learning how Sony makes gamez" has nothing to do with it, but pointing out the hypocrisy of Sony's argument is what this is all about. It's a pretty solid move, or at least a pretty solid attempt, by MS.

is a joke

 

[Ansphn]

Why is this needed? to show Sony has a lot of stuff in the works?
Wouldn't that kinda work against them too if they are asked to share the same details? I mean, they have 23 studios, they must be doing something too. Hell, even Aaron said last year they had a lot in the works that hasn't been announced so I dunno, it just seems weird.

Yeah I hope this completely shine the light on Xbox leadership incompetence and show that games just do not sell on the Xbox consoles. It will show the COD fans that, if Xbox buy Activision, it will be the death of COD, War of Warcraft, etc ...They are beyond incompetent. They passed on Spiderman, passed on Genshin Impact, etc..

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I think some people are misunderstanding what "pipeline" means in this case. It isn't the production process, it's what is queued up to be delivered. If they get this they'll be able to point out upcoming releases from Sony's studios & acquisitions, plus exclusive marketing and time-limited deals. Couple that with MS willing to promise COD on both platforms for 10 years and the Sony argument seems less sturdy. "learning how Sony makes gamez" has nothing to do with it, but pointing out the hypocrisy of Sony's argument is what this is all about. It's a pretty solid move, or at least a pretty solid attempt, by MS.

And if that's what they're doing, then it's also a security risk to the PlayStation brand. Like I said earlier, MS are a very leaky company, particularly with their gaming stuff. We have multiple insiders of theirs who have revealed multiple games years out from them in what were probably controlled leaks. Some of them have even gotten Sony stuff in the past and used it to spin narratives online, usually to Xbox's benefit (at least for a little while). There is documented proof of this having happened a few times in the past.

MS getting access to Sony's planned release schedules months/years out and especially in terms of 3P content is just asking for "coincidental" leaks and narrative spin for months or years out by multiple content creators and insiders who have known close ties to MS & Xbox corporate, to try influencing negative optics on a direct Xbox competitor simply to boost the brand online. Someone else mentioned that Sony could have their lawyers press litigation against MS if such were to happen since it'd be obvious where the leaks came from, but at that point it could become a process of attrition.

MS would have no issue with being sued in such cases, because they could pay any costs, and they know it would take months if not years for the cases to go through. By which point, whatever they would want from the leaks in terms of benefiting their brand messaging in comparison to a rival would have been accomplished. So this has to be considered very carefully, though I do feel if the subpoena were in relation to this particular type of information, Sony would be a lot more resistant in cooperating.

 

[reksveks]

1) weird conspiracy theories here, the more likely source of the leaks is the courts given the epic vs apple case
2) we actually don't have the deals of subpoena so don't know where Tom Ivan has come up with the conclusion about 'production pipeline'. The word production is referring to the information that MS is requesting, that in the future might and probably does include 'production pipeline'.

That's not what production refers to. First, lawyers from both sides agree on what the scope of discovery will be. The materials, date range, keywords, relevant persons and departments, etc. Once that's agreed to there's a initial production of responsive documents that goes to served party's lawyers to review, ask for redactions, and once that's finalized the discovery side of things will start making the final production. And since it can be massive depending on the scope, it's not always a single production that's received one time, but rather comes in on a rolling basis. So you also need an agreement on a production schedule.

VGC seems to have confused this with a reference to SIE's software production schedule. Not that they're not asking for that; they're most likely asking for even much more.

Source: me, a former discovery & production lead for a litigation support firm.

From IBF

3) MS's lawyers fucking up the subpoena is funny.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Hmm, now explain to me like I'm 3.

 

[Heisenberg007]

FF7 is not first party.

The genius lawyers at Microsoft wrote Final Fantasy as a first-party IP in the documents they submitted to FTC

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Hmm, now explain to me like I'm 3.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

The genius lawyers at Microsoft wrote Final Fantasy as a first-party IP in the documents they submitted to FTC

no surprised.

 

[remember_spinal]

Wow, it took Microsoft's lawyers two attempts to get the subpoena right? That's how you know they're Microsoft's lawyers.

Let me guess they addressed it to Tim Ryan?

 

[Little Chicken]

The fuck does it have to do with them? Is it because they can't manage their own shit properly?

Sony whined that CoD belonging to Microsoft would be damaging to them because they can't develop a FPS game to compete with it so now Microsoft want them to prove it.

 

[supernova8]

 

[Warablo]

Well when you tell regulators that Call of Duty is irreplaceable and you literally can't compete if they become exclusive, I suspect they would need some proof of truth of that claim.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Sony whined that CoD belonging to Microsoft would be damaging to them because they can't develop a FPS game to compete with it so now Microsoft want them to prove it.

Well there's Killzone, Resistance, Disruptor...which dead FPS IP's corpse should Sony pull up to prove that argument?

 

[supernova8]

You must not know how the game is played. You think this is desperation? It's actually common sense and tactical brilliance when Sony goes out and makes the kinds of bizarre claims it did about how important Call of Duty is to the very survival and competitiveness of Playstation, when in fact Microsoft has clearly stated it will not remove the game from Playstation consoles. It may not happen in this immediate case, but if and when this reaches Federal Court, Sony can't legally be making the types of claims and challenges to the deal they are in public and then at the same time escape a discovery process where they have to produce requested documentation necessary for Microsoft and Activision to challenge Sony's claims.

Opposition on the level Sony was engaging is a double-edged sword. Microsoft would have been foolish to NOT go to this length. Sony rolled the dice and now Microsoft has said, "Game On."

Sure but once the deal has gone through, Microsoft could just take Call of Duty exclusive anyway and cite some equally bizarre reason for why "we will not remove the game from Playstation" didn't actually mean what everyone thought it meant. Plus how often do regulators break up mergers after the fact? It wouldn't happen. Maybe Microsoft would get slapped with a fine or something but it wouldn't get reversed and then Microsoft wins.

Sony knows the only way to stop CoD from being taken exclusive is to stop Microsoft acquiring the rights to CoD in the first place.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Won't they have to show their own tactics of their third party exclusives as well if they try this shit?

Yup! Been saying this from the start... Can't wait for all the dirty laundry to put for both of them.

 

[NeoLed]

What about Final Fantasy 7 remake and Forspoken?

Sony didn't acquire Square

 

[demigod]

You don't think Sony didn't account for being asked these kind of documents when they first publicly spoke out against the deal? I'm pretty sure they did. This isn't their first time in a court room (take that however you want ).

One of Sony's sticking points is that revenue from games like COD and the benefits their ability to bid for marketing rights to it for PS therein boosting revenue on the system as well as sales (which also increases revenue), allows them to create big games like HFW, TLOU2, GOWR etc. Providing the requested info could in fact just prove that even more, just depends on what they provide and as long as they provide what's specifically requested, obviously.

Yeah this could all end up with egg on Sony's face but it could also severely backfire for Microsoft in issuing the subpoena. Considering SIE actually not only alerted MS lawyers they did the subpoena wrong but were even willing to show them how to correctly issue it, if Sony wanted to run away from this, they could have started singing a different tune publicly and protested/stalled on the subpoena themselves.

So I guess we'll see what comes of this.

Yup, only a fool would think otherwise. He should look up the epic vs apple case.

 

[MasterCornholio]

So the PlayStation Showcase will take place in a courtroom?

 

[Heisenberg007]

You don't think Sony didn't account for being asked these kind of documents when they first publicly spoke out against the deal? I'm pretty sure they did. This isn't their first time in a court room (take that however you want ).

One of Sony's sticking points is that revenue from games like COD and the benefits their ability to bid for marketing rights to it for PS therein boosting revenue on the system as well as sales (which also increases revenue), allows them to create big games like HFW, TLOU2, GOWR etc. Providing the requested info could in fact just prove that even more, just depends on what they provide and as long as they provide what's specifically requested, obviously.

Yeah this could all end up with egg on Sony's face but it could also severely backfire for Microsoft in issuing the subpoena. Considering SIE actually not only alerted MS lawyers they did the subpoena wrong but were even willing to show them how to correctly issue it, if Sony wanted to run away from this, they could have started singing a different tune publicly and protested/stalled on the subpoena themselves.

So I guess we'll see what comes of this.

Exactly.

More importantly, regulators will be able to see stuff like how many copies COD sells on PlayStation vs. Xbox. How much revenue does it generate for PS vs. Xbox. And which platform has the largest COD community.

We all know the answer is PlayStation. Microsoft will have to justify taking away the biggest COD community. Arguments could even bleed into Zenimax games and the large userbase on PlayStation.

As far as exclusives go, Microsoft will bring up Silent Hill, KOTOR, Final Fantasy, etc. Sony will bring High On Life, STALKER 2, Ark 2, etc. Things will even out themselves. Regulators will see that both companies do timed exclusives, but only one buys multiplatform publishers and take multiplatform games and IP off the competitor platform.

I think Sony wants this conversation. Hence, their willingness to comply so easily with 0 stalling or public comments/protests.

 

[LavitzSlambert]

Let me guess they addressed it to Tim Ryan?

Jim Sony

 

[Heisenberg007]

By the way, how is Microsoft exactly hoping to win this argument of Sony creating more exclusives?

Not long ago, people on Reddit and GAF were creating lists of all the exclusive Microsoft's first-party and xDev teams were working on. The list would come out to be ~58 exclusive first-party Xbox projects (w/ Activision). Example.



Even if 50 of them are true and in development (assuming there are literally no unknown games), that's like 2x the exclusive games that PlayStation has in development. Hermen said that PlayStation Studios are working on 25+ projects.

25+ PS projects vs. 50+ Xbox projects.

Do Microsoft hope to only rely on Sony's timed-exclusive agreements? I don't see that making a dent considering Microsoft also timed exclusive agreements, including permanent exclusives like The Gunk.

 

[remember_spinal]

By the way, how is Microsoft exactly hoping to win this argument of Sony creating more exclusives?

Not long ago, people on Reddit and GAF were creating lists of all the exclusive Microsoft's first-party and xDev teams were working on. The list would come out to be ~58 exclusive first-party Xbox projects (w/ Activision). Example.



Even if 50 of them are true and in development (assuming there are literally no unknown games), that's like 2x the exclusive games that PlayStation has in development. Hermen said that PlayStation Studios are working on 25+ projects.

25+ PS projects vs. 50+ Xbox projects.

Do Microsoft hope to only rely on Sony's timed-exclusive agreements? I don't see that making a dent considering Microsoft also timed exclusive agreements, including permanent exclusives like The Gunk.

For some reason people act as if Microsoft isn't cutting a shit load of exclusivity deals themselves

 

[Snowdonhoffen]

By the way, how is Microsoft exactly hoping to win this argument of Sony creating more exclusives?

Not long ago, people on Reddit and GAF were creating lists of all the exclusive Microsoft's first-party and xDev teams were working on. The list would come out to be ~58 exclusive first-party Xbox projects (w/ Activision). Example.



Even if 50 of them are true and in development (assuming there are literally no unknown games), that's like 2x the exclusive games that PlayStation has in development. Hermen said that PlayStation Studios are working on 25+ projects.

25+ PS projects vs. 50+ Xbox projects.

Do Microsoft hope to only rely on Sony's timed-exclusive agreements? I don't see that making a dent considering Microsoft also timed exclusive agreements, including permanent exclusives like The Gunk.

Yeah, that's why it seemed weird to me.
If, for example, their argument is that Sony is just trying to look weak, and has a lot of big unannounced projects and deals, and that's why they need to acquire Activision to be able to compete... then what about Microsoft's own unannounced projects and deals? do they not count?
And if the argument is that Sony is able to create those blockbuster thanks to the money they earn from COD, then why not invest those 69 billions in creating their own blockbusters?
I don't even know what to expect anymore, lol.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Yeah, that's why it seemed weird to me.
If, for example, their argument is that Sony is just trying to look weak, and has a lot of big unannounced projects and deals, and that's why they need to acquire Activision to be able to compete... then what about Microsoft's own unannounced projects and deals? do they not count?
And if the argument is that Sony is able to create those blockbuster thanks to the money they earn from COD, then why not invest those 69 billions in creating their own blockbusters?
I don't even know what to expect anymore, lol.

Yep, both good points.

For 3rd party exclusivity, Sony can easily say that they don't have the kind of money that Microsoft has, so they can't acquire all these studios to create first-party games. And because Xbox now has more studios than PlayStation, they have to rely on these third-party exclusivity deals to keep up and stay competitive with XGS's in-pipeline output.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

Who knew the real console wars are between the corps.

 

[AncientOrigin]

They know Sony's hiding their games, Sony not having a first party showcase last year is unprecedented.

Yes exactly Sony is so quiet because of this case.If they show dozens of first party games and everything they think they will lose the case because they are doing amazing and Microsoft could have Activision.That's why they don't show anything

 

[YukiOnna]

This is the best part about this entire thing, can't wait to see what kind of info gets released/leaked to the public as a result of this case from all parties involved.

Yeah, this. I don't care how this goes on court level for either, but surely we'll get some interesting inside information in the resulting case.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

MS: Sony how do you release games? I need to KNOW.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Had a bit of a chuckle.

Basically, 'Please explain how to make games'

 

[Banjo64]

Subpoena Miyamoto you cowards

 

[Dick Jones]

Xbox Division needing to subpoena Sony on details of game production. Over twenty years in the business and like their lawyer who wrote it, fucking clueless. Just wait for the show to come in either February/March/April/May/June/July according to the verified leakers.

I can't wait for Sony to tell them the positives of releasing a console with a first party launch title. That will be mind blowing.

 

[Ronin_7]

PlayStation Showcase coming sooner than expected?

 

[Ozriel]

Exactly.

More importantly, regulators will be able to see stuff like how many copies COD sells on PlayStation vs. Xbox. How much revenue does it generate for PS vs. Xbox. And which platform has the largest COD community.

We all know the answer is PlayStation. Microsoft will have to justify taking away the biggest COD community.

Makes no sense to be going with the "Microsoft wants to take away COD from PlayStation" line now. Not when MS has been consistently offering for months a concession for long term provision of COD on rival consoles.

Xbox Division needing to subpoena Sony on details of game production. Over twenty years in the business and like their lawyer who wrote it, fucking clueless. Just wait for the show to come in either February/March/April/May/June/July according to the verified leakers.

I can't wait for Sony to tell them the positives of releasing a console with a first party launch title. That will be mind blowing.

It helps to read the thread before jumping in with a post.

 

[DenchDeckard]

This is fucking incredible. We about to get the juiciest inside info on the games industry we've ever had.

I wanna see Phil and Jim getting ripped apart by lawyers.

NDAs don't mean shit in court right? This is gonna get spicy!

 

[Dick Jones]

It helps to read the thread before jumping in with a post.

It also helps to realise the first paragraph is mocking their lawyers, poor management and verified leakers.

The second part is a joke post about an idiotic lack of a plan at launch.

Basic competency is fun once you get the hang of it.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Microsoft will straight up be using this to try and force Sony to share the inside details on their third party exclusives.

Potential for serious eggs on faces on all sides here.

 

[fermcr]

Sony didn't acquire Square

With all the exclusive deals between Sony and Square, Sony probably already acquired them. They just haven't made it official.

As for the subpoenaed, I'm curious to see what comes out of it.

 

[Mephisto40]

Microsoft and Sony, just kiss already

 

[Goalus]

MS: Sony how do you release games? I need to KNOW.

More like: how do you pay all these 3rd-party publishers to block their games from appearing on Xbox.

 

[Mokus]

What about Final Fantasy 7 remake and Forspoken?

Sony was the world wide publisher, and probably localized the original FF7 for North America and Europe. So Square Enix had to make a deal with Sony for the remake. Now Square Enix can publish the PS1 Final Fantasy games on other platforms too.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

More like: how do you pay all these 3rd-party publishers to block their games from appearing on Xbox.

Duh. A Sugar Daddy.

 

[The_Mike]

EA is a worse purchase than Activision

"oh yeah battlefield actually always looked quite cool time to check it out again"

Would probably be said by many if that was the case just like when Sony bought Bungie

 

[SCB3]

But if it's actually in reference to what amounts Sony pays for 3P deals, or exclusive 3P content, and stuff like that, then I suppose that is fair game when the costs for that can be compared against their revenue cuts off the software & content sales, and such like. I guess though it would also include them wanting to know the budget costs for big marquee AAA games from Sony 1P teams, and Sony have said in the past that 3P revenue helps sustain the production of those types of games so this subpoena could work against Microsoft's case with all things considered. It is a gamble for them to request this info in all honesty.

This.

So basically MS want to prove that Sony's exlcusivity actually hurts Xbox more, for example they can argue that "keeping CoD on Xbox only would hurt Playstation? Well what about Spiderman?" Things like that

 

[Dick Jones]

This.

So basically MS want to prove that Sony's exlcusivity actually hurts Xbox more, for example they can argue that "keeping CoD on Xbox only would hurt Playstation? Well what about Spiderman?" Things like that

Well if MS bring up Spider-Man as an example of Sony gatekeeping third party IP, their lawyers are thicker than I thought.

MS Lawyer:
So Sony, how much did you pay to keep Spider-Man off Xbox consoles?

Sony:
We were offered to develop the IP after Microsoft rejected an offer to make Spider-Man.

Bobby Kotick looking to miss out on a payday:

 

[xHunter]

Jez Corden about to become the number 1 sony leaker

 

[Ar¢tos]

More like: how do you pay all these 3rd-party publishers to block their games from appearing on Xbox.

This.

So basically MS want to prove that Sony's exlcusivity actually hurts Xbox more, for example they can argue that "keeping CoD on Xbox only would hurt Playstation? Well what about Spiderman?" Things like that

Aren't those bad things for MS to use?
If MS has 67billion to spend on Activision then they are just showing that they have always had plenty of money to make even better exclusivity (timed or not) deals than Sony. They didn't make them because they didn't want to or waited for it to be too late to make them. That's not Sony's fault and it is very easy for Sony to prove that MS has done the same kinds of deals in the past.