No you!Of course you are.
Of course you are.
But if Microsoft renege on what they have said to the CMA and in the media, the CMA could just as easily force them to divest A of ABK in three or five or 15years - if Sony don't sign any deal. If Sony sign a deal then it might make the CMA actions harder to achieve as they would have agreed to the terms.The only thing they've loosened up on is a partial foreclosure strategy (timed exclusive with perks). If Sony had a 10 year deal on the table that included a parity clause, they should take it while it's there because it likely would not be something offered to them post close of the deal.
No you!
Good Lord, look like I've upset the Sony fannies.
Good Lord, look like I've upset the Sony fannies.
Good Lord, look like I've upset the Sony fannies.
Eventually this ends with game pass on Sony consoles and I think that's been the play all along.
Everyone on Sony platforms would get it too.
Well played MS I for one welcome our new Game Pass overlords.
But if Microsoft renege on what they have said to the CMA and in the media, the CMA could just as easily force them to divest A of ABK in three or five or 15years - if Sony don't sign any deal. If Sony sign a deal then it might make the CMA actions harder to achieve as they would have agreed to the terms.
If the percentage of people who switched from Playstation to Xbox in case of an exclusivity strategy was higher, the math could make sense.If this were the case any foreclosure strategy either partial or total would be financially illogical. If there is some legal reason for competition law that you're trying to bring up then that's fine please point to the law but you're trying to refute that it's mathematically possible to recoup the cost of a foreclosure strategy by a price increase with some incorrect math.
The price would increase for everyone, but the cost/benefit analysis would only take into account new customer gains.Why? Why would what you're saying make any sense? Why would the price rise for only people who switch from PlayStation COD? Would there be a question before you subscribe to gamepass asking "did you play COD on Playstation before?" and offer you a different price to any other subscriber?
Why wouldn't a feasible strategy be to increase the price for everyone?
But they surely would care given that the overlap would be the Cloud CoD foreclosure strategy they would be running by then. Microsoft probably won't beable to help themselves from pushing Cloud at every possible chance, and doing so with CoD too would be the problem IMO.The CMA said specifically that they don't care if MS runs a partial foreclosure strategy with CoD, so long as the game ultimately appears on PS. The rules MS will follow will be what is established by these regulatory bodies not MS's own PR spin. If they offered a parity deal that Sony didn't bother to take when the option was there, that's entirely on Sony.
Hey I'm not the one who is butthurt here over a reply. I made a comment and Topher got into his feelings and started this back and forth and the cheerleaders (you and the other guy) decided to chime in. If he didn't like what I said then he should have just moved on. So all three of you need to crawl back into your hole of idiocy.I'm a PC gamer, and I hate a bunch of Sony practices (such as exclusivity deals). Do you want to try again, or just go back into your hole of idiocy?
But they surely would care given that the overlap would be the Cloud CoD foreclosure strategy they would be running by then. Microsoft probably won't beable to help themselves from pushing Cloud at every possible chance, and doing so with CoD too would be the problem IMO.
yeah great aint it#SonyToo
If the CMA aren't prepared to block the deal, Sony should float the idea that Microsoft are forced to buy them out of the marketing deal for $10b, and then Sony state they are blocking CoD post acquisition on their platform to make way for a new 3rd party shooter to take that spot.There won't be a cloud foreclosure strategy because if forced MS will open license cloud access to the full price purchase (meaning any cloud platform available present or future would be allowed to offer the game at the standard advertised rate either via existing stores or as part of a new store). Or simply withhold CoD from their own cloud platform. I doubt MS would go with a timed exclusivity period, but special features and modes available on Nintendo and Xbox being omitted from a PS release (as they are currently omitted from Xbox releases) would certainly be on the table if Sony doesn't take the parity deal they were offered.
I thought they'll be concessions? Looks like Microsoft can make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox/Nintendo/Windows.
If the CMA aren't prepared to block the deal, Sony should float the idea that Microsoft are forced to buy them out of the marketing deal for $10b, and then Sony state they are blocking CoD post acquisition on their platform to make way for a new 3rd party shooter to take that spot.
It would be interesting to see if the need for PlayStation CoD sales would be echoed by MSFT shareholders wanting to cancel the deal or if calling the bluff on a full foreclosure would be taken up by MSFT for a mere $10B more
Would they be reneging though? The deal isn't what was offered to PlayStation given that every sale of CoD - under MSFT ownership - weakens PlayStation as a business relative to Xbox. The deal in effect has already been breached by ATVI and PlayStation should maybe just sue them for that - if at all possible.Obviously any additional perks would get added after the existing agreements have run their course. I'm sure MS would love to have the agreements dissolved early, they wouldn't be buying anything out in a situation where Sony is reneging on the agreements they made however.
So much talk over COD meanwhile all other games becoming exclusive like Blizzard games, Crash, Spyro etc would be also a serious hit for Sony and no one even sees that as an issue.
I feel like law is completely helpless when it comes to markets like gaming market, MS could buy out all major publishers and technically you still can't say they're monopoly but in practice they would completely extinguish Sony.
Would they be reneging though? The deal isn't what was offered to PlayStation given that every sale of CoD - under MSFT ownership - weakens PlayStation as a business relative to Xbox. The deal in effect has already been breached by ATVI and PlayStation should maybe just sue them for that - if at all possible.
Destroying CoD as it is today would still be a massive win for Microsoft in the short term, but betting against PlayStation crowning a new 3rd party champion quickly would be risky IMO.
I am pretty the guys you tagged aren't Sony fannies.Good Lord, look like I've upset the Sony fannies.
Yeah, I agree that the deal is that way, but ATVI selling to MSFT removes the "good will" IMO - that is typically listed in contracts - because PlayStation selling CoD for MSFT is actually working against its own interests, which is clearly not in the spirit of the contract PlayStation signed with ATVI - and certainly isn't PlayStation's fault that this has happened.They signed a marketing deal with obligations on both sides, obligations that MS will uphold on their side. Including continuing to include the Sony exclusive perks and whatnot until that agreement is complete. If Sony doesn't hold up their side of the obligations and break the contract MS would be suing Sony over that and not the other way around. Even with the 10yr deal Sony is still getting all the bonuses they expect until that marketing deal expires.
It's Phil's magic.What kind of abomination is this?
AI has gone too far, the only thing left is self-destruction.
Why are we talking about the CMA and Sony again? The CMA moved past Sony & PS, they said themselves they don't see an issue and that Sony wouldn't be negatively impacted. They also said MS is free to make any games that they own exclusive to the Xbox ecosystem. In theory MS could yank COD off of PS if no contract is signed although they wouldn't according to the CMA, too much money to be made..
Someone is begging for the hammer.
![]()
jim ryan aint scared of microsoft/US senate , he will party all night long and playstation will continue to dominate
![]()
Really dont think is going to take all that ... Ill give it 2 to 3 years ... when the existing deal with ABK will end... if of course sony dosent sign up an 10 year airtight deal directly with MS witch I believe they wont.
In 2025 MS will say fuck it ... make COD exclusive and absorb the pocket change fine or simply change the franchise name to something else (while maintaining cod warzone) and use some loophole
Bookmark and ill eat all the crow in the world if im wrong
Also, regarding the Call of Duty series, which is the globally popular game software of the Activision Group, there are many games that are more popular in Japan.
Surprisingly, Black Ops 4 did VERY good numbers in the 2018 calendar year in Japan. In the top 11, just behind juggernaut franchises in there like Pokémon, Mario, Monster Hunter, and Super Smash Bros.COD did make the top100 in Japan last year. It was just behind Tsuri Spirits: Nintendo Switch Version
011./000. [PS4] Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII <ACT> (Sony Interactive Entertainment) {2018.10.12} (¥7.900) - 505.455 / NEW (228.775 <82,99%>)
Microsoft also said PlayStation has 10 years to create a Call of Duty rival before the contract ends.Phil said they wouldn't
Who's going to risk a multi-billion dollar fine yearly for COD exclusivity?
Microsoft also said PlayStation has 10 years to create a Call of Duty rival before the contract ends.
Yeah Ill wait... you can put your hand on the fire for your beloved company .. It may be shocking to you but some fanboy in a game forum battling for his favorite plasticbox giving opinios out of his ass dosent inspire confiance on big corporate billionaire decisions ... so Im good for nowYou can start eating crow already.
If there's an access deal signed, best believe MS would follow it to the letter. EU fines defaulters up to 10% of annual turnover. MS only got away with a $700million+ fine for the browser ballot default by convincing the EU that the default was caused by a bug.
Who's going to risk a multi-billion dollar fine yearly for COD exclusivity?
These guys don't think this way. If they did they wouldn't sell Destiny's or minecraft respectivelyYeah, I agree that the deal is that way, but ATVI selling to MSFT removes the "good will" IMO - that is typically listed in contracts - because PlayStation selling CoD for MSFT is actually working against its own interests, which is clearly not in the spirit of the contract PlayStation signed with ATVI - and certainly isn't PlayStation's fault that this has happened.
USSR?
![]()
What company is simply going to abandon something that practically prints money? It would be beyond stupid.That was theoretical. What Phil Spencer said was concrete. Call of Duty will be on PlayStation as long as there is a PlayStation. I don't think he was lying. Do you?
yeah, but the CMA said they are not looking at the high end console gaming as part of their concerns anymore. They are only looking at cloud which is why MS is handing out cloud contracts to every cloud provider. Deal is done. I put my bets on the end of May '23 if not sooner.Everything CMA stated is under the magic word "provisional" and they're still looking for feedback on these findings until the end of this month.
Also they didn't state that Sony wouldn't be negatively impacted it's the opposite, they confirmed that COD exclusivity would be an anticompetitive practice but they they don't believe that is likely to happen because of financial reasons.
They stated that a partial foreclosure (marketing rights with exclusive contents) could damage Sony but that and only that can be considered normal competition.
Microsoft simply cannot make COD exclusive for the foreseeable future otherwise they would officially become a company that has fooled regulators and they could be investigated, fined and see all their future deals blocked.
But they could take the benefits that Sony currently has for themselves unless Sony decides to make a deal before the final ruling is done, if Microsoft refuses right now they would create immediate bad faith evidence before the final ruling.
So it's really all about what Sony wants to do and how likely they believe they can get a better result by not reaching an agreement with Microsoft at this stage.