Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

You'd have to qualify that to "future Call of Duty games after the 10 year deal"

Zero incentive to make COD exclusive before 2033 in breach of agreement with the EU/CMA.

Not necessarily. The CMA determined that even signed contracts wouldn't affect Microsoft's ability to make COD exclusive.

Microsoft can just pay the fine if they deem that making COD exclusive is financially worth the penalty.

 

[Draugoth]

Microsoft has said it believes 10 years is long enough for Sony to develop rival offerings to the Call of Duty franchise.

Regulators including the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) have expressed concerns that Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard could significantly reduce PlayStation's ability to compete given that it would see Microsoft gain ownership of the Call of Duty series, which Sony has called "irreplaceable".

In a bid to gain approval for the deal, Microsoft has told regulators it's willing to make each new Call of Duty game available on PlayStation the same day it comes to Xbox for a 10-year period, with full content and feature parity.

"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 [redacted]," Microsoft wrote.

"Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.

"The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation [redacted]. 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)."

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Topher]

No, I'm not equating any single example, just pointing out that Deep said "Nobody sees a problem with exclusivity, they see a problem with speaking out of both sides of his mouth (Spencer)"

When it is pretty obvious with the last round of the Zenimax acquisition revival that the crux of the argument was that of course all those Zenimax games would be on PS5. That shows that there is a problem with exclusivity.

You can probably say it's a very minor semantics based argument on my part, but just pointing it out.

The debate regarding the "Zenimax acquisition" was specifically about Microsoft's submissions to regulators. The "problem" was whether or not MS was misleading in those submissions, not the exclusivity itself.

 

[DrFigs]

Not necessarily. The CMA determined that even signed contracts wouldn't affect Microsoft's ability to make COD exclusive.

Microsoft can just pay the fine if they deem that making COD exclusive is financially worth the penalty.

this is the funniest possible thing microsoft can do. like making all these 10 year deals and then immediately just breaking the contracts because they can pay whatever the fines are.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

Whatever is it, it is funny that for Sony and regulators, COD is akin access to water supply. If only regulators fought as hard during mobile network merging but oh well.

Exactly, why is my electric bill $500 and at the same time last year it was $137. Why isn't the FTC/Regulators regulating the electric company's, oh yeah because they are out of funds to conduct the investigation because they squandered it on Video Games.

 

[reksveks]

Exactly, why is my electric bill $500 and at the same time last year it was $137. Why isn't the FTC/Regulators regulating the electric company's, oh yeah because they are out of funds to conduct the investigation because they squandered it on Video Games.

I suspect no one or not a lot of people is going to know what you are referring to. I do but it's a niche story.

 

[adamsapple]

Ok

The debate regarding the "Zenimax acquisition" was specifically about Microsoft's submissions to regulators. The "problem" was whether or not MS was misleading in those submissions, not the exclusivity itself.

I don't have any objections to anyone or even the regulators debating the messaging at all, that's their job and responsibility afterall.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Damn the emotions today. Did anything major happen?

 

[TheGodfather07]

Sony can just make a new cod. Says the company who has barely created a successful new ip in the last decade and killed their own fps ip. Atleast they're finally admitting they want exclusivity. I don't see how it helps them against the CMA though. They wanted divestiture or structural remedies for that very reason. Now they have evidence directly from Microsofts own words.

 

[adamsapple]

Sony can just make a new cod. Says the company who has barely created a successful new ip in the last decade and killed their own fps ip. Atleast they're finally admitting they want exclusivity. I don't see how it helps them against the CMA though.

That's not what their response said at all.

 

[DeepEnigma]

That's not what their response said at all.

Oh, so now you're able to parse context and nuance. How convenient.

 

[Heisenberg007]

That's not what their response said at all.

It did.

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).

 

[adamsapple]

Oh, so now you're able to parse context and nuance. How convenient.

Man, come on

 

[TheGodfather07]

That's not what their response said at all.

What are they saying then?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

That's not what their response said at all.

Reading comprehension and the lack thereof.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Man, come on

Where are we going?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Also the actual cost and the opportunity cost of having to create a new CoD in a 10 year timeframe and have it established to a point where it is competitive at the end of that 10 year deadline is hard to calculate and impossible to guarantee. If it is so easy, why has nobody else ever done it?

Yeah, and why should Sony even take that risk in the first place.

If Activision remains independent and continues to publish COD on PS and Sony can use their first-party studios to create other types of games that they specialize in and want to create, that'd be much preferrable by Sony.

 

[adamsapple]

It did.

Not really, the line that people are taking as "exclusivity" just says 10 years is sufficient for Sony to make a competitor. At no point does it say they will revoke or foreclose new entries after the 10 year.

In-fact, the very next point says this:


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.

Where are we going?

On this never-ending ride on the carnival of stupid that we call acquisitions and mergers !

 

[Heisenberg007]

Not really, the line that people are taking as "exclusivity" just says 10 years is sufficient for Sony to make a competitor. At no point does it say they will revoke or foreclose new entries after the 10 year.

In-fact, the very next point says this:


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.

By that logic, in 2.13, Microsoft also never says that they will not revoke COD after 10 years.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It did.

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).

Reading comprehension and the lack thereof.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

I suspect no one or not a lot of people is going to know what you are referring to. I do but it's a niche story.

That's the problem, why is it a niche story?

 

[X-Wing]

Exactly, why is my electric bill $500 and at the same time last year it was $137. Why isn't the FTC/Regulators regulating the electric company's, oh yeah because they are out of funds to conduct the investigation because they squandered it on Video Games.

Are you dumb?

 

[Bojanglez]

Sony can just make a new cod. Says the company who has barely created a successful new ip in the last decade and killed their own fps ip. Atleast they're finally admitting they want exclusivity. I don't see how it helps them against the CMA though. They wanted divestiture or structural remedies for that very reason. Now they have evidence directly from Microsofts own words.

When did they ever create a successful new IP themselves? Forza maybe

 

[reksveks]

That's the problem, why is it a niche story?

Kinda cause only mlex and a couple of people picked up on it. I don't know why any of the business press didn't pick up on it cause its a potentially interesting story that could get clicks/engagement.

P.S. Mainly for others, do agree that regulators/government bodies like the ftc need more funding.

 

[adamsapple]

By that logic, in 2.13, Microsoft also never says that they will not revoke COD after 10 years.

Sure, but proving a negative is pretty much impossible ... 2.13 also never says that they will not not make CoD exclusive after 10 years. It's gonna be a never ending argument.

It's worth reading what a district judge said on the matter when dismissing the recent gamer lawsuit. This might be the kind of response we get if the FTC case goes to court as well.

"While plaintiffs allege Microsoft might obtain the ability to make Activision's games exclusive, and they assert Microsoft would have an incentive to do so, they do not make any factual allegations that support the conclusory incentive assertion. Why would Microsoft make Call of Duty exclusive to its platforms thus resulting in fewer games sold?" Corley said. "What is it about the console market or PC games market and Microsoft's position in those markets that makes it plausible there is a reasonable probability Microsoft would take such steps."

 

[TheGodfather07]

Not really, the line that people are taking as "exclusivity" just says 10 years is sufficient for Sony to make a competitor. At no point does it say they will revoke or foreclose new entries after the 10 year.

In-fact, the very next point says this:


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.






On this never-ending ride on the carnival of stupid that we call acquisitions and mergers !

Its still only microsofts word and a 10 year contract only. Like the CMA said, they will hear microsofts behavioual remedies but don't see a way to actually make it work. Microsoft simply saying stuff means nothing. Unless there's more, I Dont see the CMA approving. They will stick to their provisional conclusions.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Sure, but proving a negative is pretty much impossible ... 2.13 also never says that they will not not make CoD exclusive after 10 years. It's gonna be a never ending argument.

It's worth reading what a district judge said on the matter when dismissing the recent gamer lawsuit. This might be the kind of response we get if the FTC case goes to court as well.

This is from the UK, so it's actually worth reading what the CMA has to say about these contractual agreements.

 

[GHG]

If you can show me where the contracts are a one time non-renewable offering that would be great.

You have your answer now.

 

[sainraja]

Microsoft has said it believes 10 years is long enough for Sony to develop rival offerings to the Call of Duty franchise.

Regulators including the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) have expressed concerns that Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard could significantly reduce PlayStation's ability to compete given that it would see Microsoft gain ownership of the Call of Duty series, which Sony has called "irreplaceable".

In a bid to gain approval for the deal, Microsoft has told regulators it's willing to make each new Call of Duty game available on PlayStation the same day it comes to Xbox for a 10-year period, with full content and feature parity.

^^ This basically shows that Microsoft plans on making Call of Duty an exclusive. People are saying Sony is treating COD like water, but it is water for both companies, and one of them is willing to spend $70b for it.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

Kinda cause only mlex and a couple of people picked up on it. I don't know why any of the business press didn't pick up on it cause its a potentially interesting story that could get clicks/engagement.

P.S. Mainly for others, do agree that regulators/government bodies like the ftc need more funding.

They absolutely need more funding if they are blowing their load to regulate one the thousands of things they need to regulate for the year.

Whenever this whole ABK thing is done with. I suspect the FTC is going to come under heavy scrutiny from government officials and the civilians that are getting price gouged because the FTC doesn't have anymore funds to conduct their yearly investigations to regulate prices for fuel, electricity and so on.

 

[adamsapple]

This is from the UK, so it's actually worth reading what the CMA has to say about these contractual agreements.

Isn't this from their response which was later questioned about how they came to the conclusion that foreclosure will be profitable when a big(ger) chunk of the revenue will be lost by taking it off of the PS platforms ? I'm not sure how accurate that would be. But, again, it's up to MS to convince them otherwise.

As far as the matter of foreclosing IP goes, MS's response has been pretty clear on the matter. And, at least in the US, they seem to be 'winning' that argument.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

^^ This basically shows that Microsoft does plan on making Call of Duty an exclusive. People are saying Sony is treating COD like water, but it is water for both companies, and one of them is willing to spend $70b for it.

No it doesn't. It's MS offering remedies for the acquisition and pointing out that this gives Sony a decade to make a CoD replacement. It doesn't say or imply that they will take CoD off PlayStation after that decade.

If Sonys concern is they won't have CoD, they have ten years to make something to replace it. That is MS's reasoning. Sony isn't entitled to all of the revenue CoD brings.

Again, based on the arguments we saw earlier in this thread, this line from MS should make people happy. It's all about adapting and competing. But surprise surprise, it's just being taken purely negatively and all we get is "SEE?? SEE??? Ten year deal!!"

 

[GHG]

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

Of course, which is why they are willing to agree to it.

 

[Topher]

Section 2.10 is interesting.....

"Microsoft notes that the CMA did not ask any questions at the Remedies Hearing in relation to the scope of the remedy, which would apply to all past, current and future CoD console titles."

Also think it is interesting that Microsoft snipped out the sentence after the question of whether this remedy will be a "cliff edge" for Sony.

"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 []."

All in all, this response is just all over the place.

 

[Ozriel]

Not necessarily. The CMA determined that even signed contracts wouldn't affect Microsoft's ability to make COD exclusive.

Microsoft can just pay the fine if they deem that making COD exclusive is financially worth the penalty.

You imagine Microsoft shareholders will support taking a steep fine (up to 10% of turnover), an inevitable stock price tumble and potentially fatal damage to future non-gaming acquisition deals…all to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox?

As long as they're bound by legally binding contracts made to the EU, they absolutely cannot risk any breach of contract.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

 

[TheGodfather07]

10 years alone means nothing because what if call of duty is even bigger in 10 years than it already is? Microsoft will have the power to pull it off other platforms, resulting in less competition and less choices for everyone in a very anti competitive way.

I don't see any possibility of the CMA accepting these concessions. Especially after reading what they've actually said. CMA even said that they don't trust Microsoft with already existing contractual agreements. They know from their findings that exclusivity is microsofts goal here. Bethesda is the perfect ammo for them and microsofts have no response to that because they did make new Bethesda games exclusive.

 

[Heisenberg007]

You imagine Microsoft shareholders will support taking a steep fine (up to 10% of turnover), an inevitable stock price tumble and potentially fatal damage to future non-gaming acquisition deals…all to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox?

As long as they're bound by legally binding contracts made to the EU, they absolutely cannot risk any breach of contract.

If their potential financial gain in making COD exclusive > any fines they'd pay, yes.

Shareholders will earn more money.

Do you think Microsoft will not work for its shareholders' best interests?

 

[DeepEnigma]

They absolutely need more funding if they are blowing their load to regulate one the thousands of things they need to regulate for the year.

Whenever this whole ABK thing is done with. I suspect the FTC is going to come under heavy scrutiny from government officials and the civilians that are getting price gouged because the FTC doesn't have anymore funds to conduct their yearly investigations to regulate prices for fuel, electricity and so on.

You do realize that they started this regulation process for ABK/MS before your utility bills went up, right?

Once this is done, they can potentially move onto that, and if they don't, raise hell

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

You imagine Microsoft shareholders will support taking a steep fine (up to 10% of turnover), an inevitable stock price tumble and potentially fatal damage to future non-gaming acquisition deals…all to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox?

As long as they're bound by legally binding contracts made to the EU, they absolutely cannot risk any breach of contract.

He must think CoD will just make MS soooooo much money. All the more reason to not remove it from the biggest console audience.

They continue to argue themselves in circles.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Isn't this from their response which was later questioned about how they came to the conclusion that foreclosure will be profitable when a big(ger) chunk of the revenue will be lost by taking it off of the PS platforms ? I'm not sure how accurate that would be. But, again, it's up to MS to convince them otherwise.

As far as the matter of foreclosing IP goes, MS's response has been pretty clear on the matter. And, at least in the US, they seem to be 'winning' that argument.

Nope. Different section.

 

[adamsapple]

Nope. Different section.

Right, the conclusion is a different segment, but the previous points above this statement are the ones where they say things like that in their assessment foreclosing would be profitable to MS, which was the odd thing out.

 

[Ozriel]

This is from the UK, so it's actually worth reading what the CMA has to say about these contractual agreements.

This is from their provisional conclusions they released earlier, and do not take into considerations the current scope of access remedies being proposed, especially the strategy of making it a binding agreements as part of the acquisition , to be overseen by a third party and Sony.

Much of this is outdated at this point.

 

[splattered]

You have your answer now.

Not really no.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Heisenberg007]

This is from their provisional conclusions they released earlier, and do not take into considerations the current scope of access remedies being proposed, especially the strategy of making it a binding agreements as part of the acquisition , to be overseen by a third party and Sony.

Much of this is outdated at this point.

No. It mentions "Microsoft's separate offer to keep COD on PlayStation post-merger" right in the 2nd line. It takes that into account.

The official access behavioral remedies by Microsoft hasn't added anything materially different.

 

[NickFire]

He must think CoD will just make MS soooooo much money. All the more reason to not remove it from the biggest console audience.

They continue to argue themselves in circles.

Stop pretending to be clever and witty. Snark doesn't change basic corporate practices. If the cost is less than the benefit you do it. By all means argue the cost would be to high. But claiming someone is arguing in circles when they espouse basic business practices is plain old dumb.

Second, since when did losses matter to a sub business model in its beginning years. Did I miss something. Have they all given up on growth growth growth and profit later already?

 

[GHG]

Not really no.

They've quite literally spelt out why they are not willing to offer more than 10 years.

I'm not understanding what your incentive is to match Microsoft's disingenuity throughout this case but you do you.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Stop pretending to be clever and witty. Snark doesn't change basic corporate practices. If the cost is less than the benefit you do it. By all means argue the cost would be to high. But claiming someone is arguing in circles when they espouse basic business practices is plain old dumb.

Second, since when did losses matter to a sub business model in its beginning years. Did I miss something. Have they all given up on growth growth growth and profit later already?

A little while ago: