Support NeoGAF

[gothmog]

At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient
and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10-
year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony,
as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.
28 The 10-
year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical
effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the
final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and
beyond, with backwards compatibility).

Well there you have it. They admit they will be cutting Sony off after 10.

 

[Topher]

UK != Europe?

Yes, already acknowledged my mistake

the same that will say that Microsoft can just pull out of the UK and CMA opinion doesn't matter

this is it Microsoft wants to make COD exclusive after 10y the deal will get blocked by the CMA

At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.28 The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).

But also says they have no "incentive" to make it exclusive

2.13
CoD is an entertainment franchise which is already nearly 20 years old. [], Microsoft will need to secure the broadest distribution of the franchise and will be heavily incentivized to keep it on the PlayStation platform []. Microsoft considers that having maintained CoD on PlayStation and grown its player base on Nintendo, GeForce Now and other cloud gaming platforms for a decade, it will have no incentive, or indeed ability, to take CoD exclusive.

 

[b6a6es]

They are doubling down on it still don't want to go above 10 years, although said willing to talk about it with the CMA.

I'm n addition

*At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.28 The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).*




Yup, they're planning for it's exclusivity after 10 years

 

[b6a6es]

But also says they have no "incentive" to make it exclusive
.

They meant Existing content mostly (say a new DLC/content for Warzone 2 or 3)

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

New CMA document from MS

https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponse_to_the_notice_of_possible_remedies.pdf

There are almost more scissors in that MS document as words

 

[Topher]

They meant Existing content mostly (say a new DLC/content for Warzone 2 or 3)

It doesn't say that

 

[Bernoulli]

Yes, already acknowledged my mistake



But also says they have no "incentive" to make it exclusive

2.13
CoD is an entertainment franchise which is already nearly 20 years old. [], Microsoft will need to secure the broadest distribution of the franchise and will be heavily incentivized to keep it on the PlayStation platform []. Microsoft considers that having maintained CoD on PlayStation and grown its player base on Nintendo, GeForce Now and other cloud gaming platforms for a decade, it will have no incentive, or indeed ability, to take CoD exclusive.

this is Frank X. Shaw currently lead communications for Microsoft
and bethesda? wat

 

[adamsapple]

They meant Existing content mostly (say a new DLC/content for Warzone 2 or 3)

This is what it says

2.13 CoD is an entertainment franchise which is already nearly 20 years old. [], Microsoft
will need to secure the broadest distribution of the franchise and will be heavily
incentivized to keep it on the PlayStation platform []. Microsoft considers that
having maintained CoD on PlayStation and grown its player base on Nintendo, GeForce
Now and other cloud gaming platforms for a decade, it will have no incentive, or indeed
ability, to take CoD exclusive.

 

[phil_t98]

It doesn't say that

as always people are reading into it what they want to see and not what it says

 

[Elios83]

I'm n addition

*At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.28 The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).*




Yup, they're planning for it's exclusivity after 10 years

This is either a stupid auto-goal from MS that CMA is gonna use against them or it's the CMA itself that is already framing the whole thing against them.
They're offering a remedy to ease concerns they're not making COD exclusive and they state that even in the case competion has enough time to build an alternative....suggesting that's the case.

 

[reksveks]

It doesn't say that

You read what you want to read.

 

[DryvBy]

I missed the press release or ad showing PlayStation versions of these games. @DopeyFish earlier broke down that MS has no incentive to remove Bethesda games from platforms they were already on and the way they've treated ESO and FO76 proves this. MS said case by case basis that in no way indicated they were putting all future Bethesda games on all platforms. They did put that Quake remaster on PlayStation so there is an obvious example of a case where they put a new title on PlayStation. None of this has any relevance to Activision and CoD because MS never offered anyone 10 year deals for Bethesda games.

Do you think Bethesda was going to make these games Xbox exclusive before they bought them? You're arguing in bad faith that Bethesda didn't want their game on the highest selling consoles in current year. It's illogical.

 

[Topher]

Microsoft spends a lot of time laying out how these behavioral remedies will be enforced by an "Objective Third Party Assessor". This assessor will monitor the "parity" of each new version of COD. Says this will need to be a third party with technical expertise. Somehow I think DF gets a part in all this,

 

[ToTTenTranz]

This judge is either an idiot or ignorant, considering Microsoft did just that with Starfield.

 

[b6a6es]

This is what it says

Still they havent been clear on what they meant by exclusive, new entry or simply *content* a la dlc, i could see MS's PR explaining it that way as another *we dont plan on taking Bethesda content away from Playstation* situation once they begin making CoD exclusive (or making it cloud only on their competitors)


Otherwise, why would they be contracting themselves in the Same Report

*At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.28 The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).*

 

[jm89]

This is either a stupid auto-goal from MS that CMA is gonna use against them or it's the CMA itself that is already framing the whole thing against them.
They're offering a remedy to ease concerns they're not making COD exclusive and they state that even in the case competion has enough time to build an alternative....suggesting that's the case.

Need to say something so if they do eventually decide to remove after 10 years, they can have that statement to fall back on. Im not sure how CMA can take those statements and just a "no incentive" pinky promise and be ok with it.

 

[phil_t98]

Microsoft spends a lot of time laying out how these behavioral remedies will be enforced by an "Objective Third Party Assessor". This assessor will monitor the "parity" of each new version of COD. Says this will need to be a third party with technical expertise. Somehow I think DF gets a part in all this,

I can't see it being somebody like them, they are decent at what they do but at times they get it wrong

 

[Heisenberg007]

They are doubling down on it still don't want to go above 10 years, although said willing to talk about it with the CMA.

Microsoft to CMA:

 

[Heisenberg007]

the same that will say that Microsoft can just pull out of the UK and CMA opinion doesn't matter

this is it Microsoft wants to make COD exclusive after 10y the deal will get blocked by the CMA

At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.28 The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).

Why would they say this and, at the same time, try to convince the CMA that they have no financial incentive to remove COD and that COD will always remain multiplatform? lol

 

[reksveks]

Interesting stuff for me

Sadly all redacted

At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD. 28 The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility)

A 10-year term is longer than the previous licensing remedy put in place in Reckitt Benckiser/K-Y brand (2015), which was for a period of eight years29 and in line with the 10-year terms imposed in Korean Air / Asiana Airlines (2023) and Bauer Media Group. 30 This period is also in line with access commitments accepted by the European Commission in Meta/Kustomer (2022), London Stock Exchange Group/Refinitiv Business (2021), Google/Fitbit (2020) and Telia Company/Bonnier Broadcasting (2019). While Microsoft is prepared to continue to discuss this constructively with the CMA, there is no basis for extending the remedy beyond the period proposed by Microsoft [].

Talk about the term length (10 years maybe enough for the EC but think the CMA would like to be able to extend it)

Accordingly, in the Parties' view any suggestion the licensing remedy should be extended to potential future entrants would be clearly disproportionate and unnecessary to remedy the SLC provisionally identified. There is no evidence that: (a) any firm is likely to seek to enter the console market in the foreseeable future; (b) CoD could be considered an important input for them if they did; (c) []; or (d) Microsoft would be incentivised to withhold CoD, particularly in circumstances where it has entered into agreements with Nintendo and NVIDIA, supplied Game Pass to new handheld console entrants and provided commitments to make CoD broadly available, including on cloud gaming platforms.

MS counting GP on SteamDeck via Xcloud and Razer Edge as handheld console entrants

The Parties note, in particular, that there is no basis in the Provisional Findings for what would essentially amount to a "beyond parity" obligation, requiring Microsoft to develop a PlayStation version of CoD which has more features than the Xbox version.

As Microsoft will be shipping CoD on PlayStation in compliance with its remedy commitments [], Microsoft will have every incentive to develop games with optimised support for PS5 features, such as haptics, and future consoles in order to maximise sales on the platform.

MS pushing back on the definition of parity and conversation around haptics

MS trying to really push the RCB but listing a lot of games coming to cloud services

Bit more info on the streaming licence for BYOG

The CMA further notes that "this would be more likely the case for cloud gaming rivals which have or will have in the future a BYOG or B2P business model (either standalone or in combination with an MGS model) rather than just an MGS-based model".119

Trying to justify the deal being for providers using BYOG models and not MGS models

What the assessor can do, block and delay game releases. will get reports during development

 

[Heisenberg007]

Interesting stuff for me

This is riveting! Goldmine of information right there!

 

[Elios83]

Need to say something so if they do eventually decide to remove after 10 years, they can have that statement to fall back on.

It absolutely was the wrong thing to say at this moment though, even suggesting the scenario that COD becomes exclusive but Sony will have enough time to develop an alternative.
That's precisely the scenario CMA wants to avoid...and seems so perfectly framed to be used against them that I wonder if CMA isn't trying to prepare the ground already...
But we'll see.

 

[Topher]

I can't see it being somebody like them, they are decent at what they do but at times they get it wrong

Yeah, but what they do isn't an exact science. They are highly recognizable and based in the UK. I can see them getting a part of that gig.

 

[jm89]

CMA redactor getting paid though.

 

[feynoob]

Can someone beat guy and make him confess those juicy news?
That guy is holding important information from us.

 

[feynoob]

This is riveting! Goldmine of information right there!

Imagine the meltdown if those information were available?
Mods would have been working overtime.

 

[IFireflyl]

But also says they have no "incentive" to make it exclusive

2.13
CoD is an entertainment franchise which is already nearly 20 years old. [], Microsoft will need to secure the broadest distribution of the franchise and will be heavily incentivized to keep it on the PlayStation platform []. Microsoft considers that having maintained CoD on PlayStation and grown its player base on Nintendo, GeForce Now and other cloud gaming platforms for a decade, it will have no incentive, or indeed ability, to take CoD exclusive.

To be fair, right after they said they have no "incentive" to make it exclusive, they then stated that they also have no "ability" to make it exclusive. That is a bold-faced lie as they would be the ones to determine who they make content for. And then there's the same statement that was made regarding Zenimax games. The phrase "no incentive" seems to be their get-out-of-jail-free card.

 

[feynoob]

To be fair, right after they said they have no "incentive" to make it exclusive, they then stated that they also have no "ability" to make it exclusive. That is a bold-faced lie as they would be the ones to determine who they make content for. And then there's the same statement that was made regarding Zenimax games. The phrase "no incentive" seems to be their get-out-of-jail-free card.

Zenimax is SP games, and has no monetization.
COD on other hand is golden monetization machine.
Making it exclusive would minimize those profits.

 

[Topher]

To be fair, right after they said they have no "incentive" to make it exclusive, they then stated that they also have no "ability" to make it exclusive. That is a bold-faced lie as they would be the ones to determine who they make content for. And then there's the same statement that was made regarding Zenimax games. The phrase "no incentive" seems to be their get-out-of-jail-free card.

Yeah, that is bullshit.

Zenimax is SP games, and has no monetization.
COD on other hand is golden monetization machine.
Making it exclusive would minimize those profits.

Which would be accurate arguments. Saying they don't have the ability is disingenuous.

 

[adamsapple]

Interesting stuff for me

Sadly all redacted



Talk about the term length (10 years maybe enough for the EC but think the CMA would like to be able to extend it)


MS counting GP on SteamDeck via Xcloud and Razer Edge as handheld console entrants



MS pushing back on the definition of parity and conversation around haptics

Yo how the fuck did they find the papers I submitted in college

 

[IFireflyl]

Zenimax is SP games, and has no monetization.
COD on other hand is golden monetization machine.
Making it exclusive would minimize those profits.

To be clear: I am not saying that Microsoft is definitely going to make Call of Duty an exclusive. I'm saying that they are using the same terminology that they used during their last acquisition, and they ended up making Zenimax titles exclusive just a couple of days after that acquisition was approved. This means that you can't take the "no incentive" statement as a definitive statement that they won't do something, which renders their entire point moot.

 

[gothmog]

Zenimax is SP games, and has no monetization.
COD on other hand is golden monetization machine.
Making it exclusive would minimize those profits.

Or maximize the movement over to their platform. It also cuts off a major source of Playstation revenue.

I really don't understand why you're even arguing this at this point? Microsoft said to the CMA that they are cutting off Sony at some point. Obviously they know more about how important the monetization machine is to them than you do. And they don't care.

 

[Pelta88]

It seems abundantly clear that Microsoft plans to make COD exclusive. No matter the PR they put out, not wanting to expand the licensing deal beyond a specified term is telling.

Especially when you think back to the first offer of 3 years.

 

[Darsxx82]

I dont see news there.

It is simply MS exposing to the CMA the contractual proposal of the 10 years and how this would solve the concerns regarding the effects on the console market (on PlayStation more precisely).

MS is explaining to CMA that this is a sufficient period for Sony to not be able to claim any damage and appease his fears of losing COD in the short to medium term. I remember, an agreement that not only implies the launch of COD on Ps5, but also equality in time, content, characteristics and quality...
MS also reaffirms there that its intention and incentive to maintain multiplatform COD in 10 years will be the same.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Microsoft spends a lot of time laying out how these behavioral remedies will be enforced by an "Objective Third Party Assessor". This assessor will monitor the "parity" of each new version of COD. Says this will need to be a third party with technical expertise. Somehow I think DF gets a part in all this,

 

[Bojanglez]

Sony would love that. A chance to jack up the price and blame your rival all at once.

This is exactly what Sony are saying may happen and regulators are looking into, worried that MS will start charging so much for the right to have CoD on other services that it would not be feasible in reality for others to have it. I guess the regulators will either want to see

• Is CoD really that important to that market?
• If so, could a mechanism be put in place to stop this behaviour (e.g. divestiture, monitoring with arbitration etc.)

I don't think all regulators will just trust MS when they say "but it's not in our interests to take not make it available" because that is so vague and fluffy it doesn't really mean anything.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

I do find it hilarious that COD is comparable to mobile networks, medical equipment and nonrenewable resource access at this point with the amount of importance put on it

 

[Heisenberg007]

I dont see There.

This is simply MS exposing to the CMA the contractual proposal of the 10 years and how this would solve the concerns regarding the effects on the console market (on PlayStation more precisely).

MS is explaining to CMA that this is a sufficient period for Sony to not be able to claim any damage and appease his fears of losing COD in the short to medium term. I remember, an agreement that not only implies the launch of COD on Ps5, but also equality in time, content, characteristics and quality...
MS also reaffirms there that its intention and incentive to maintain multiplatform COD in 10 years will be the same.

So does this mean that Microsoft could also make a COD competitor in the last 10 years and do not require to acquire Activision?

Similarly, Microsoft can create a COD competitor in the next 10 years and, therefore, does not need to acquire Activision?

Their argument that 10 years will be sufficient for Sony does not make any sense when in the same breath they say that MS need to acquire multiplatform publishers to compete even after 20 years.

 

[Godot25]

So does this mean that Microsoft could also make a COD competitor in the last 10 years and do not require to acquire Activision?

Similarly, Microsoft can create a COD competitor in the next 10 years and, therefore, does not need to acquire Activision?

Their argument that 10 years will be sufficient for Sony does not make any sense when in the same breath they say that MS need to acquire multiplatform publishers to compete even after 20 years.

Duh?
Of course Microsoft does not "need" Activision. Their bottom line is saying that pretty clearly.

Activision Blizzard is shortcut (albeit pretty expensive) to get them where they want to be sooner. Could they hire 1500 devs to form a new studio to make an FPS clone of COD? They certainly have money for that. But why bother at all when you can have thing that you would "cloning?" And successful mobile games and Blizzard to boost your gaming outlook?

Like, if you want to argue, that Sony CAN'T develop modern-military style FPS game with their army of studios in 10 years, you are being disingenuous.

 

[Thirty7ven]

The whole third party monitoring is crazy. What are you going to do, create a company whose job is spending their time playing countless hours of COD every year, every update, every battle pass?

How do you enforce such a thing? There would have to be a lot of leeway for MS and for the company.

It's just stupid as fuck. Also who pays, MS? Oh so the company will have little incentive to take MS to task. And if they do and MS thinks they are unfair what happens? Hire another company? And then who monitors the company, the CMA?

Sounds like a very complex solution with a high chance of failure.

 

[Bernoulli]

So does this mean that Microsoft could also make a COD competitor in the last 10 years and do not require to acquire Activision?

Similarly, Microsoft can create a COD competitor in the next 10 years and, therefore, does not need to acquire Activision?

Their argument that 10 years will be sufficient for Sony does not make any sense when in the same breath they say that MS need to acquire multiplatform publishers to compete even after 20 years.

microsoft is the only one that because of the money

that's why the shouldn't be allowed to have COD

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

So does this mean that Microsoft could also make a COD competitor in the last 10 years and do not require to acquire Activision?

Similarly, Microsoft can create a COD competitor in the next 10 years and, therefore, does not need to acquire Activision?

Their argument that 10 years will be sufficient for Sony does not make any sense when in the same sentence they say that MS need to acquire multiplatform publishers to compete even after 20 years.

Let's say the deal fails, (I personally don't think it will) if MSFT was willing to pay this much for the exclusivity in 10 years. They could just as easily and without any legal recourse pay for exclusivity for the next 10 years and beyond for a fraction of the money. If they were truly motivated to go that route, there is nothing stopping them from buying the exclusive rights just like EA with Madden and the NFL rights.

Spend a billion a year to be the ONLY place to play Call of Duty. Sure the return on investment wouldn't be as high of a yield but do you see what I'm getting at? They can still get the market through attrition, become the only source of something that the masses love and your brand becomes THE brand. Sony would lose market share and MSFT could save 59 billion dollars and the headache of dealing with all of this.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Duh?
Of course Microsoft does not "need" Activision. Their bottom line is saying that pretty clearly.

Activision Blizzard is shortcut (albeit pretty expensive) to get them where they want to be sooner. Could they hire 1500 devs to form a new studio to make an FPS clone of COD? They certainly have money for that. But why bother at all when you can have thing that you would "cloning?" And successful mobile games and Blizzard to boost your gaming outlook?

Like, if you want to argue, that Sony CAN'T develop modern-military style FPS game with their army of studios in 10 years, you are being disingenuous.

Sony can make an FPS in 10 years. But Sony cannot make an FPS that rivals Call of Duty in mindshare and marketshare and revenue.

No one can, and it has been proven time and time again.

Battlefield has been the biggest competitor to COD with a long history. It did not even come close, even when Activision released the worst COD in recent years, Vanguard.

COD is just too big and too popular at this point.

 

[DrFigs]

Well there you have it. They admit they will be cutting Sony off after 10.

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

The whole third party monitoring is crazy. What are you going to do, create a company whose job is spending their time playing countless hours of COD every year, every update, every battle pass?

How do you enforce such a thing? There would have to be a lot of leeway for MS and for the company.

It's just stupid as fuck. Also who pays, MS? Oh so the company will have little incentive to take MS to task. And if they do and MS thinks they are unfair what happens? Hire another company? And then who monitors the company, the CMA?

Sounds like a very complex solution with a high chance of failure.

It's all posturing. "We tried to do our part and put terms in place to protect the market and consumers. We don't understand what happened."

All things like this do is give the perception that effort was made and provides them someone else to blame when it doesn't play out that way.

 

[Darsxx82]

So does this mean that Microsoft could also make a COD competitor in the last 10 years and do not require to acquire Activision?

Similarly, Microsoft can create a COD competitor in the next 10 years and, therefore, does not need to acquire Activision?

Their argument that 10 years will be sufficient for Sony does not make any sense when in the same breath they say that MS need to acquire multiplatform publishers to compete even after 20 years.

LOL I don't understand what you say has to do with what i said.

If your intention is to expose your reasons why you don't like or don't want MS to acquire ACTV.... OK, but that's not the situation anymore.

It's simple, MS wants ACTV and they have to convince the CMA that their intention is to keep COD multiplatform and that with this 10-year contract it solves the concerns that Sony Playstation could allege...
Then you can agree or not, that's another topic....

 

[Godot25]

The whole third party monitoring is crazy. What are you going to do, create a company whose job is spending their time playing countless hours of COD every year, every update, every battle pass?

How do you enforce such a thing? There would have to be a lot of leeway for MS and for the company.

It's just stupid as fuck. Also who pays, MS? Oh so the company will have little incentive to take MS to task. And if they do and MS thinks they are unfair what happens? Hire another company? And then who monitors the company, the CMA?

Sounds like a very complex solution with a high chance of failure.

And why do you care how it would work if you are not the one paying for it?
And yes, Microsoft would pay for it, but it's clear that this "third-party" will be monitored by CMA. And also, you can bet that in every hint of breaking behavioral commitment Sony would be crying from the roofs, like they are crying right now.

I really don't understand what did you expected. CMA said that overseeing behavioural commitments would be tough and they don't have resources to do it. Microsoft offered third party solution and fact that they would even pay for that third-party solution. And now you are hinting that this third-party solution will be biased? It was CMA who said that they can't monitor it...

 

[gothmog]

Duh?
Of course Microsoft does not "need" Activision. Their bottom line is saying that pretty clearly.

Activision Blizzard is shortcut (albeit pretty expensive) to get them where they want to be sooner. Could they hire 1500 devs to form a new studio to make an FPS clone of COD? They certainly have money for that. But why bother at all when you can have thing that you would "cloning?" And successful mobile games and Blizzard to boost your gaming outlook?

Like, if you want to argue, that Sony CAN'T develop modern-military style FPS game with their army of studios in 10 years, you are being disingenuous.

Except that's not what they would need to develop. CoD isn't important because it's a modern military style FPS. CoD was the right game at the right place at the right time. You get there by accident more than on purpose.

Microsoft couldn't do it so they're buying it. To turn around and say Sony can just do it in any timeframe is disingenuous. That's not how this works.

 

[Godot25]

Sony can make an FPS in 10 years. But Sony cannot make an FPS that rivals Call of Duty in mindshare and marketshare and revenue.

No one can, and it has been proven time and time again.

Battlefield has been the biggest competitor to COD with a long history. It did not even come close, even when Activision released the worst COD in recent years, Vanguard.

COD is just too big and too popular at this point.

Ehh nope. Battlefield was pretty close to COD's popularity in BF4/BF1 era. It's just EA who fumbled the bag so hard, COD returned to glory, and BF is in bin.

I wonder state of market if EA didn't shit the bed with launch of BFV and BF2042 and COD did not had their resurgence with MW2019.

Also. It's funny that we are even talking about "10 years" when Fortnite became bigger game than COD in half of that time.

 

[Fatmanp]

The whole third party monitoring is crazy. What are you going to do, create a company whose job is spending their time playing countless hours of COD every year, every update, every battle pass?

How do you enforce such a thing? There would have to be a lot of leeway for MS and for the company.

It's just stupid as fuck. Also who pays, MS? Oh so the company will have little incentive to take MS to task. And if they do and MS thinks they are unfair what happens? Hire another company? And then who monitors the company, the CMA?

Sounds like a very complex solution with a high chance of failure.

They could just do a mass rehiring of alltbe QA staff firedin the last decade since publishers realisedthat the end user would be QA.