The same arguments for and against Zenimax games staying or not staying multiplatform would apply though. The only difference is scale. But that difference creates more incentive to make COD console exclusive down the road, because the goal remains the same.
Why does she openly lie?
Your tweets aren't even that old. Man, this is literally like watching modern day politics with these lying twats.
So cringe.Article in question.
![]()
The Microsoft Activision circus needs to be over and done with
Microsoft and Sony’s squabbling over Call of Duty is an embarrassmentwww.polygon.com
Notice the characterization in the article that she apparently has no problem with:
"Meservey is hardly a reliable witness. As a senior Activision executive, she presumably has a large, personal financial interest in the deal going through. She is also very much a post-Trump communicator, unafraid to look like a bad guy and wield tweets like deadly weapons in the name of “honesty.” As such, she is a useful attack dog for Microsoft, which can maintain the air of gentlemanly largesse it has attempted to project throughout its wrangles with Sony and regulators, and leave it to her to go places it would never dare itself."
So cringe.
MS and Sony had an all out talk under a gentleman's agreement and they are still discussing it at a separate meeting at the same day and place where there is no gentleman's agreement.Why does she openly lie?
Your tweets aren't even that old. Man, this is literally like watching modern day politics with these lying twats.
dude submitted to her pressure , she is def a DOMINATRIX
![]()
The lie is her saying she would never reveal anything from a closed door meeting. She literally did the other day. This is a page out of current American politics.MS and Sony had an all out talk under a gentleman's agreement and they are still discussing it at a separate meeting at the same day and place where there is no gentleman's agreement.
That's a fucking lie. There is no reason for two corporations to have the chat outside a closed doors meeting the same day.
Brad Smith is a fucking out of his depth. He is everything Xbox fans believe Jim Ryan is.brad smith is also lying
FTC: "MS has recently sought to enter into agreements regarding making Act content available on certain third parties services. Despite clearly intending to use these agreements in its defense, MS has refused to produce underlying internal documents related to these agreements"
why would they not provide the documents?
She is claiming they are two separate meetings.The lie is her saying she would never reveal anything from a closed door meeting. She literally did the other day. This is a page out of current American politics.
Oh, so "we won't reveal anything about us from this closed door meeting, I would never, but when we want to pour fuel on a console war fire from that other closed door meeting..."She is claiming they are two separate meetings.
Didn't Sony have a similar complaint? It was framed as some kind of big threat to Sony. Wonder if we'll see equal treatment of this now that Microsoft is being compelled to comply?"“simply not enough time” for them to produce the requested documents"
Meanwhile, at Microsoft....
![]()
The fact two corporations would have 2 separate meetings and only one under a gentleman's agreement sounds fictional. She fucked up and rather than continue to shut the fuck up she is reopening her fuck up.Oh, so "we won't reveal anything about us from this closed door meeting, I would never, but when we want to pour fuel on a console war fire from that other closed door meeting..."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Sony, wants to stop this idea for the same reason MS wants to even make the deal happen.Like this article actually. Says it like it is.
"But — and here is the not-shocking part — the words Meservey put in Ryan’s mouth are nothing if not an accurate description of Sony’s stance. A deal to protect Call of Duty’s place on PlayStation is on the table from Microsoft, and it’s apparently good enough for Nintendo and Nvidia. At no point has Sony shown any interest in negotiating to extract further concessions; it just wants to use its leverage with regulators to stop a deal that will greatly strengthen its competitor, exclusives or no exclusives. It will fight tooth and nail to take its rival’s legs out and cost them money, as any business in its position might. It would be naive to think that Microsoft wouldn’t do the same."
![]()
In order to play a game on GeForce now. You have to purchase the game from steam or Ms store. There is no goodwill at play here.Let's be real, other than Nvidia, I don't think they see any of these other companies as a threat to their own platform.
Didn't Sony have a similar complaint? It was framed as some kind of big threat to Sony. Wonder if we'll see equal treatment of this now that Microsoft is being compelled to comply?
People who behave that way will just ignore it when everything comes out in the wash. Either deny or say it (her own tweet) was taken out of context and add another lie. She is an attack dog for Bobby Kotick and she is happy to make a show of herself.Incredible, just incredible. Pretty sure she’s lying about the whole thing. I expect her story to evolve into “I was paraphrasing”
If the deal goes through and they realise fuck we are gonna have to honour these deals.
Same shit in essence....you go through one's garbage to make a point (good or bad), but keep telling yourself that twitter wont try to point fingers and harm the cloud company...You forget the part where no one is getting cancelled here.
![]()
Literally gaming's AOC. To the damned T. They are using that playbook and even writing power girl fluff pieces with charged language and select thesaurus words of grandeur to boot (like that cringe PR book written about her). No matter how much they will lie to your faces, openly, gaslight, etc., "go girl girl, slay queen."People who behave that way will just ignore it when everything comes out in the wash. Either deny or say it (her own tweet) was taken out of context and add another lie. She is an attack dog for Bobby Kotick and she is happy to make a show of herself.
Someone, please check the location history of this new deals studio !
Wishful thinking. If they were not going to remove it then why not just sign no contracts? Why offer 3 and then eventually 10 years of they have no incentive to remove it ever?omg MS is so desperate!
I don’t see how anyone can look at what MS has done with Minecraft or ESO and think they are going to remove CoD from PlayStation. It is going to generate so much money for them.
And someone said it in that other cloud thread that was just locked, this deal is so good for GamePass members, and also opens up so many IPs that ABK is ignoring just so they can churn out a CoD every year.
It’s not a bad deal for the industry.
Same shit in essence....you go through one's garbage to make a point (good or bad), but keep telling yourself that twitter wont try to point fingers and harm the cloud company...
You do God's work here...
This is the same argument that some people use when saying identifying as different genre or as a animal is different....same delusion
Kind of splitting hairs in my opinion. In both cases they will honor contracts. They're just willing to honor a longer one, if they can write it, in the second case. How is that meaningfully different?There's a lot more different than just the scale, for starters with Zenimax no public commitments were made to other platform holders or regulatory authorities for the continued guarantee of games being multi-platform for 10 years or any tenure for that matter.
I wish people would stop conflating these two. They're as far apart as any two studio acquisitions could be.
In that case, these deals would be futile -- except for garnering some public sympathy among ignored social media users.Yeah, but this is even more absurd than Sony's excuses. These are deals they have made and continue to make and yet they are claiming there isn't enough time to produce copies? And why does Microsoft not want regulators to know what is in these deals?
No no no I'm sorry....we can't scrutinize anything regarding this or it is considered the equivalent of "cancel culture".....amiritegeary ? We just have to believe.
![]()
microsoft refused to give documents about Zenimax and Activision exclusivity deals
![]()
![]()
![]()
Wishful thinking. If they were not going to remove it then why not just sign no contracts? Why offer 3 and then eventually 10 years of they have no incentive to remove it ever?
The reality is Microsoft will remove COD as soon as they can.
if i'm not wrong shouldn't the deals be made with regulators and not with the others directly?In that case, these deals would be futile -- except for garnering some public sympathy among ignored social media users.
If they don't submit the required details of these deals to regulators, the regulators will not assess these deals as part of the behavioral remedies. In other words, they won't count these deals.
It's hard to know what was produced and what was refused from just that. But if MS is refusing to produce docs related to planned exclusivity (or lack thereof) of Activision games, that probably means exactly what everyone against this deal expects their position to be.microsoft refused to give documents about Zenimax and Activision exclusivity deals
![]()
![]()
![]()
Kind of splitting hairs in my opinion. In both cases they will honor contracts. They're just willing to honor a longer one, if they can write it, in the second case. How is that meaningfully different?
Wishful thinking. If they were not going to remove it then why not just sign no contracts? Why offer 3 and then eventually 10 years of they have no incentive to remove it ever?
The reality is Microsoft will remove COD as soon as they can.
You're right. They need to convince the CMA to approve the deal with just behavioral remedies, which the CMA is not convinced about. So they are hoping to make these deals privately with businesses to (1) gain public favor and (2) convince the CMA that MS is doing well with behavioral remedies on their own.if i'm not wrong shouldn't the deals be made with regulators and not with the others directly?
and why is everything limited to 10 years why not give 15 or 20
I’m sure if it were up to MS, they wouldn’t have to sign these deals, they’d just put the games on the platforms. Doesn’t refute anything.
Embrace, Expand, Extinguish
Yep. In a year or two, MS will absorb all these embraced little guys. Extinguished.Embrace, Expand, Extinguish
I don't think that's the right context to use that, based on the tweet you're quoting.
Oh but it is. Putting these games on other cloud services will help expand and push the cloud gaming business forward. When it has matured and grown in 10 years they pull the games from all concurrent platforms, forcing people to move to theirs.I don't think that's the right context to use that, based on the tweet you're quoting.
Nah, they'll just buy these little guys out. Same same in the end.Oh but it is. Putting these games on other cloud services will help expand and push the cloud gaming business forward. When it has matured and grown in 10 years they pull the games from all concurrent platforms, forcing people to move to theirs.
They would not. First they would use COD as a negotiating hammer to get what they want how they want. There would be no talk about COD on GeForce Now. As soon as possible there would be no single player COD on PlayStation.
Only reason any of this is happening is because regulators are opposing the deal in one way or another. People trying to convince otherwise might as well call the rest of us retards.