Support NeoGAF

[ProtoByte]

I'm a fanboy because if Sony was the one acquiring Activision I'd take issue with it being anticompetitive and feel like a perpetual contract at a minimum should be required?

While I understand your position, perpetual contracts are just not a thing - unless you're a teensy individual bartering with a global corporation, of course.

Point is that everyone involved here understands that Microsoft can at some point make COD and exclusive, including the idiot judge. Instead of worrying about Microsoft's incentives to not do that, PlayStation should be worrying about how to make Microsoft's decisions irrelevant to their business.

 

[Ginzeen]

The CEO of Xbox stated, under oath, to a judge, that CoD will release on PlayStation for a long time to come. He spoke in capacity as a representative of Microsoft. That is legally binding. To go back on that is to invite a criminal case even if Spencer isn't there anymore.



One who was willing to change their stance based on new information and a review of their conclusion. Just because you don't like how it went doesn't change that they are respected and professional.

Yes thats true but, it could just be warzone is the multi platform and the games are xbox/pc only. Sony needs to sign the 10 year contract to ensure they get those games for 10 years.

 

[The Pleasure]

We don't need deodorants because we take showers.

We Americans use deodorant and take showers. You may have us confused for people like Leffen who play Smash.

 

[Heisenberg007]

His reiterating of the word "shipped" could easily be argued by Microsoft that it means physical only.

But the realistic chances of that happening is like negligible. I'm pretty sure Sony would have it in their platform agreement that any game releasing on PlayStation will have a PSN presence.

So I don't believe that's a concern.

I do, however, think that they can separate SP and MP COD games and can ship COD MP on PlayStation while withholding SP COD from PS because that's a "separate game/SKU" now.

Lots of ways it can still play out. But I expect content parity and releases at least for the next few years.

 

[Varteras]

So it is settled then. Microsoft will release COD on PlayStation (even outside PS5 gen as Spencer confirmed) and this whole "Sony will be foreclosed" is just desperation attempt to have this deal blocked...

It is highly unlikely and honestly not in Microsoft's best interest. Might they look for a way around it? Sure. They tried with Minecraft but ultimately decided against it. Likely too much trouble. CoD is a situation where they are even less likely to succeed now that they directly swore that to a judge.

 

[The Pleasure]

If the judge was a true gamer, she would tell Phil Spender that the only way to successfully buy Activision would be to pistol start ALL of Plutonia Experiment on Ultra Violence.

 

[Ginzeen]

Time for Sony to sign that contract they been ducking for months. put your name on that dotted line!

 

[Varteras]

Yes thats true but, it could just be warzone is the multi platform and the games are xbox/pc only. Sony needs to sign the 10 year contract to ensure they get those games for 10 years.

In situations like that, context is taken into consideration. Microsoft would not be able to get cute and try to play word games over what they said to a judge. Not to be condescending, but that shit flies in Hollywood all the time. Not in reality much. They would immediately be crucified for bullshitting about words used in a situation that was clearly referring to the franchise, period.

 

[Ginzeen]

In situations like that, context is taken into consideration. Microsoft would not be able to get cute and try to play word games over what they said to a judge. Not to be condescending, but that shit flies in Hollywood all the time. Not in reality much. They would immediately be crucified for bullshitting about words used in a situation that was clearly referring to the franchise, period.

i dont think so, because Cod is still technicality on playstation. Sony needs to sign that contract so their ensured for all of the CODS, for at least 10 years.

 

[Varteras]

i dont think so, because Cod is still technicality on playstation. Sony needs to sign that contract so their ensured for all of the CODS, for at least 10 years.

They really don't. Microsoft would be inviting a criminal case. They didn't even make Minecraft exclusive, despite wanting to, because of the difficulty in getting around it. And that was a contract with a studio. We're talking an oath to a judge.

 

[intheinbetween]

Madden is still big so is the bf name, Nhl could be kept the same and turned into a fun arcade game more game pass content etc. nba street revival

Agreements with NBA, NHL, NFL, FIFA, etc.. require the publisher to release the games on every platform, and meeting other requests, so other than profit from sales on multiple platforms there's no way in getting exclusivity other than marketing rights if anything, so it leaves the interest to the rest of EA ips, and they're not that valuable nowadays

Yes thats true but, it could just be warzone is the multi platform and the games are xbox/pc only. Sony needs to sign the 10 year contract to ensure they get those games for 10 years.

What if Sony is not interested in signing any kind of deal that binds them to release MS games on their platforms? iirc the deal offered to other parties included other MS titles.

 

[Ginzeen]

They really don't. Microsoft would be inviting a criminal case. They didn't even make Minecraft exclusive, despite wanting to, because of the difficulty in getting around it. And that was a contract with a studio. We're talking an oath to a judge.

lol no they wouldn't be, because cod is still on playstation. Sony needs to wake up and sign the deal.

 

[Ginzeen]

Agreements with NBA, NHL, NFL, FIFA, etc.. require the publisher to release the games on every platform, and meeting other requests, so other than profit from sales on multiple platforms there's no way in getting exclusivity other than marketing rights if anything, so it leaves the interest to the rest of EA ips, and they're not that valuable nowadays

What if Sony is not interested in signing any kind of deal that binds them to release MS games on their platforms? iirc the deal offered to other parties included other MS titles.

i don't know anything about that, but i know MS offered COD to playstation for at least 10 years. they need to sign that.

 

[Blendernaut]

It won't. It will mean more exclusives, game prices and monthly subscriptions going up an awful lot, and it also means future gaming companies doing exactly what Microsoft just did. It probably means Sony and Nintendo will make more of their games exclusive. Nobody believes Phil when he says those games won't be exclusive.

Then why are there so many people wanting this to happen? There are soooo many people praying for it. As if it was something good. Dont understand it

 

[The Pleasure]

lol no they wouldn't be, because cod is still on playstation. Sony needs to wake up and sign the deal.

You gonna get it worse than the prince of all foreheads if you keep trying to pop all that good shit.

 

[Ginzeen]

You gonna get it worse than the prince of all foreheads if you keep trying to pop all that good shit.

Sony needs to sign the deal. Thats all im saying.

 

[Varteras]

lol no they wouldn't be, because cod is still on playstation. Sony needs to wake up and sign the deal.

Yes. They would. A CEO, acting as representative of a company, swearing under oath to a judge, has big legal ramifications for going back on that. Again, Microsoft didn't end up making Minecraft exclusive recently because it would be too much of a hassle. CoD would be even worse. Unless you think swearing under oath is pointless.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Yes. They would. A CEO, acting as representative of a company, swearing under oath to a judge, has big legal ramifications for going back on that. Again, Microsoft didn't end up making Minecraft exclusive recently because it would be too much of a hassle. CoD would be even worse. Unless you think swearing under oath is pointless.

They don't need to make COD exclusive. They will own marketing rights and can make their version on their platform so, so much better and content rich than what will be offered on PlayStation.

Casuals will switch.

 

[Ginzeen]

They really don't. Microsoft would be inviting a criminal case. They didn't even make Minecraft exclusive, despite wanting to, because of the difficulty in getting around it. And that was a contract with a studio. We're talking an oath to a judge.

Another thing they can do is delay the new cod from hitting PlayStation for like a month or a couple of months if they don't sign the deal. Of course they wouldn't do this immediately, but after a couple of years of the deal closing, they could pull something like that. Its in Sony best interest to sign the dotted line to get cod for 10 years without interruption imo

 

[Ginzeen]

Yes. They would. A CEO, acting as representative of a company, swearing under oath to a judge, has big legal ramifications for going back on that. Again, Microsoft didn't end up making Minecraft exclusive recently because it would be too much of a hassle. CoD would be even worse. Unless you think swearing under oath is pointless.

wasn't their a contract in place for that one?

 

[feynoob]

The FTC appeal won't matter at this point, due to these recent news.

UK regulator open to looking at Microsoft-Activision deal again

Britain's antitrust regulator said it was open to Microsoft changing its acquisition of Activision Blizzard to address its concerns that blocked the deal in April, after a U.S. court ruled on Tuesday that the $69 billion deal could go ahead.

www.reuters.com

Report: Microsoft and CMA Reach Agreement on Small Divestiture

Microsoft won its case earlier today against the FTC in the US as Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the preliminary [...]

www.vgchartz.com

The only way this fails is if both CMA and MS don't reach conclusions by the end of this weekend or next week.

Extension deadline is on the table if the FTC wins their deadline.

Hopefully, you guys won't make me comment again. Peace out.

 

[Varteras]

Another thing they can do is delay the new cod from hitting PlayStation for like a month or a couple of months if they don't sign the deal. Of course they wouldn't do this immediately, but after a couple of years of the deal closing, they could pull something like that. Its in Sony best interest to sign the dotted line to get cod for 10 years without interruption imo

Yeah, that's not how that works. That would be Microsoft acting in bad faith to their word. They would be trying to get cute about the situation. They'd be taken through the ringer for it.

wasn't their a contract in place for that one?

Yes. You know, those legally binding things that give you trouble if you break them. Just like swearing under oath to a judge. Which is even worse.

 

[Ginzeen]

Yeah, that's not how that works. That would be Microsoft acting in bad faith to their word. They would be trying to get cute about the situation. They'd be taken through the ringer for it.



Yes. You know, those legally binding things that give you trouble if you break them. Just like swearing under oath to a judge. Which is even worse.

no they wouldn't because the games are still coming to playstation. Like i said, Sony needs to sign that contract to prevent all of that. 10 years without interruption

Also that oath is just for phil. Once he goes away, that means nothing. As long as Cod is still coming to playstation the oath isnt broken

 

[TrebleShot]

Is there any word of Game Pass coming to Steam? I really really don't want to use their app, its utter garbage.

 

[Negotiator101]

Is there any word of Game Pass coming to Steam? I really really don't want to use their app, its utter garbage.

I don't think so but it would be a great move for Xbox if it did, but how would that work financially for Steam? It's a complex deal.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

I don't think so but it would be a great move for Xbox if it did, but how would that work financially for Steam? It's a complex deal.

EA Play is available on Steam, I'm sure it's not that complex.

 

[Godot25]

The FTC appeal won't matter at this point, due to these recent news.

UK regulator open to looking at Microsoft-Activision deal again

Britain's antitrust regulator said it was open to Microsoft changing its acquisition of Activision Blizzard to address its concerns that blocked the deal in April, after a U.S. court ruled on Tuesday that the $69 billion deal could go ahead.

www.reuters.com

Report: Microsoft and CMA Reach Agreement on Small Divestiture

Microsoft won its case earlier today against the FTC in the US as Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the preliminary [...]

www.vgchartz.com

The only way this fails is if both CMA and MS don't reach conclusions by the end of this weekend or next week.

Extension deadline is on the table if the FTC wins their deadline.

Hopefully, you guys won't make me comment again. Peace out.

I need more explaining.

If FTC wants to appeal, how can Microsoft close the deal on Monday (for example)?

Is it because of time constraints ie. judge who is deciding about the appeal does not have time to decide and since TRO is out on Friday, Microsoft can close (if they hit the agreement with CMA of course)?

 

[Varteras]

no they wouldn't because the games are still coming to playstation. Like i said, Sony needs to sign that contract to prevent all of that. 10 years without interruption

Also that oath is just for phil. Once he goes away, that means nothing. As long as Cod is still coming to playstation the oath isnt broken

That is not how it works. Phil is a CEO who spoke as a representative of the company. His oath legally binds the company. Just as they are legally bound to honor the contract they signed with Mojang. A contract that has seen Minecraft remain on PlayStation for 9 years, "without interruption". You're not getting it. It can't happen without big legal backlash. You're concocting some scenario that has no basis in reality if Microsoft wants to avoid legal trouble.

 

[Negotiator101]

no they wouldn't because the games are still coming to playstation. Like i said, Sony needs to sign that contract to prevent all of that. 10 years without interruption

Also that oath is just for phil. Once he goes away, that means nothing. As long as Cod is still coming to playstation the oath isnt broken

PS will sign if the deal goes through which it hasn't yet. Plus Satya has said COD will remain multiplatform and he's the top guy so Phil will just follow orders.

 

[Bernardougf]

The level of stupidity and selective blindness the human being can reach wanting "free" shit will never cease to amaze me. It all come to a cost, nothing is free, people should have learned this by now, but they never do until is to late and the trojan horse is already in their backyard.

 

[Negotiator101]

EA Play is available on Steam, I'm sure it's not that complex.

I see, they get percentage then?

 

[MidGenRefresh]

I see, they get percentage then?

I don't know, I doubt this kind of info is public. But if EA can do it with their Play subscription then I'm sure Microsoft can do it with Game Pass. Maybe just offer Game Pass light with all IPs that their own as I'm sure including third party stuff would be a nightmare.

 

[Varteras]

PS will sign if the deal goes through which it hasn't yet. Plus Satya has said COD will remain multiplatform and he's the top guy so Phil will just follow orders.

Microsoft CEO: Call of Duty will 100% stay on PlayStation

Satya Nadella said he would “100%” commit to keeping the Call of Duty shooter game on Sony’s gaming platforms.

fortune.com

Yep. It's not just Phil. HIS boss said the same thing.

 

[Ozriel]

Sega, no

Square, no

Activision? Hell yes

EA? Likely

Take2? Maybe

But if the regulators approve MS and Activision then the precedent is set and all of those would be fair game under similar logic that they allowed MS to acquire Activision

Sony's dominant market position will be considered when they come up before regulators, and not a 'fair game' argument.

They really don't. Microsoft would be inviting a criminal case. They didn't even make Minecraft exclusive, despite wanting to, because of the difficulty in getting around it. And that was a contract with a studio. We're talking an oath to a judge.

Source on this?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Sony needs to sign the deal. Thats all im saying.

No, Sony should not sign any deal.

Microsoft said they would not remove COD from PlayStation. Sony should just go by it. If Microsoft acts cute, Sony should then go nuclear on them in court. Otherwise, just work in good faith that Microsoft will honor its words.

 

[Varteras]

Sony's dominant market position will be considered when they come up before regulators, and not a 'fair game' argument.



Source on this?

It was all during the hearing. It was a talking point for a while there. I don't care to look it up. It's almost 5am here.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Time for Sony to sign that contract they been ducking for months. put your name on that dotted line!

I think the time for that contract has run out. Jim might be facing a contract that apart from what is considered to be necessary to abide by regulatory agreements, will not include any extra incentives to get the deal past regulators.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Source on this?

Came up in the FTC hearing during Phil's testimony.

 

[Godot25]

Microsoft said they would not remove COD from PlayStation. Sony should just go by it. If Microsoft acts cute, Sony should then go nuclear on them in court. Otherwise, just work in good faith that Microsoft will honor its words.

I mean. That is why Sony is in no rush to sign the deal. Because they know COD is staying on PlayStation regardless of any deal.
Deal was just for regulators, not for Sony.
Even Jimbo knew that...

All that "we thought in january that everything will be okay and then we started to be worried" from Jim was just posturing for regulators in attempts to block deal.

 

[Ginzeen]

Microsoft CEO: Call of Duty will 100% stay on PlayStation

Satya Nadella said he would “100%” commit to keeping the Call of Duty shooter game on Sony’s gaming platforms.

fortune.com

Yep. It's not just Phil. HIS boss said the same thing.

still in their best interest to sign the deal. MS can/will get tricky with COD if they want. The oath was for Phil. Nadella said he would keep cod on playstation but he did not say that under oath. Things change overtime. Sony needs to sign

 

[Heisenberg007]

I mean. That is why Sony is in no rush to sign the deal. Because they know COD is staying on PlayStation regardless of any deal.
Deal was just for regulators, not for Sony.
Even Jimbo knew that...

Deal was for regulators, 100% agree.

I still have my doubts, though. I still think Microsoft will eventually remove COD or at least intended to. Because Phil only offered 3 years to Jim, and only extended it to 10 years because of regulatory concerns.

But I think Microsoft may not remove it now because of how high-profile this case has become - with several public statements, regulatory hurdles, and court testimonies.

Let's see. At this point, it's tough for me to say whether they will 100% remove it or 100% keep it on PlayStation. I feel it can go either way.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

No, Sony should not sign any deal.

Microsoft said they would not remove COD from PlayStation. Sony should just go by it. If Microsoft acts cute, Sony should then go nuclear on them in court. Otherwise, just work in good faith that Microsoft will honor its words.

100% COD will remain on PlayStation. 100% Microsoft will use marketing tricks and time / content exclusivity to convince casuals that XBOX is the one and only place to play COD.

 

[Heisenberg007]

100% COD will remain on PlayStation. 100% Microsoft will use marketing tricks and time / content exclusivity to convince casuals that XBOX is the one and only place to play COD.

But that'd go against Microsoft's claims as well as testimonies. They have said in courts that they will keep COD on PS but also ensure 100% content parity and same release dates on both platforms.

 

[C2brixx]

The term "substantial" isn't the contention, it's the "may be". "Reasonable probability that it might" (FTC) vs. Reasonable probability that it will" (Judge)

See an whitepaper written by Georgetown Law professor which discusses the inherent conundrum surrounding Section 7 of the Clayton Act. It's 20+ pages but surprisingly decent read from layman's perspective (kudos to the author). Copied key portion below but link to full paper is available to those who wish to understand FTC likely position on potential appeal.

The Appropriate Decision Standard for Section 7 Cases

The burden of proof to determine the “reasonable probability” that a merger violates Section 7 is not clear. Using the insightful puzzlement expressed by the c

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

In her conclusion she clearly used the words "may substantially lessen competition" from the Clayton Act when explaining that FTC had not show likelihood it would prevail on its claims. The FTC will be grasping if the try to appeal because she said probably instead of may at another point in her ruling.

 

[Varteras]

still in their best interest to sign the deal. MS can/will get tricky with COD if they want. The oath was for Phil. Nadella said he would keep cod on playstation but he did not say that under oath. Things change overtime. Sony needs to sign

Nadella gave a testimony in court. You don't just say that in court and walk it back after. You are expected to speak truthfully at all times. Lying or deceiving in court is frowned upon. Just a little. It was brought up because it was important to the outcome. This isn't Hollywood. There is no next scene where Nadella and Spencer laugh maniacally as they tricked the foolish judge and now their plans can proceed. Nadella would get the company in trouble and lose his job. That doesn't even include his own consequences with the law.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

But that'd go against Microsoft's claims as well as testimonies. They have said in courts that they will keep COD on PS but also ensure 100% content parity and same release dates on both platforms.

Did they ensure 100% content parity? Even if, nothing is stopping them from using nasty marketing tricks to convince casuals that if they want to play COD, they need Xbox. People are super fucking stupid.

 

[Godot25]

Deal was for regulators, 100% agree.

I still have my doubts, though. I still think Microsoft will eventually remove COD or at least intended to. Because Phil only offered 3 years to Jim, and only extended it to 10 years because of regulatory concerns.

But I think Microsoft may not remove it now because of how high-profile this case has become - with several public statements, regulatory hurdles, and court testimonies.

Let's see. At this point, it's tough for me to say whether they will 100% remove it or 100% keep it on PlayStation. I feel it can go either way.

Microsoft offered 3 years outside of current Sony/ABK marketing deal. So technically it was 5 years deal from 2022 (until 2027).

Microsoft will not remove COD not because of how high-profile this case have become, but because it makes no business sense. CMA stated that, EU stated that. And FTC had to bring up bogus 20% number to "prove" that it makes business sense for Microsoft to do it. COD is just cash cow for Microsoft gaming business and Microsoft is risking killing it's popularity if it become exclusive. It's same reason why GTA VI would not be exclusive even if Microsoft/Sony bought Take 2.

Why on earth would you risk killing your golden goose when you can get your primary competitor to fund your presence in gaming business like with Minecraft?
Fact is that with Minecraft and COD Microsoft can pump money from Nintendo/Sony platforms into Xbox ecosystem to grow it. With Game Pass or other means. They would be dumb as hell to forfeit that money.

From day one since deal was announced I said
Bethesda was bought to draw people into Xbox ecosystem
ABK was bought as a cashcow

That still stands.

 

[Ginzeen]

Nadella gave a testimony in court. You don't just say that in court and walk it back after. You are expected to speak truthfully at all times. Lying or deceiving in court is frowned upon. Just a little. It was brought up because it was important to the outcome. This isn't Hollywood. There is no next scene where Nadella and Spencer laugh maniacally as they tricked the foolish judge and now their plans can proceed. Nadella would get the company in trouble and lose his job. That doesn't even include his own consequences with the law.

lets agree to disagree. We're going in circles.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Sony's dominant market position will be considered when they come up before regulators, and not a 'fair game' argument.

Quite literally the only thing that matters is potential harm. EC and CMA along with US court has decided the best selling IP every year for 13 years would have little impact, and around 5% would maybe switch console. The later has has even argued that Switch and PC are the same market.

Yeah it means it's fair game, have you actually followed this case or what? You see if ABK would have little impact then Take Two or anybody else would have much less impact. Much less. That's how MS wins this whole thing, it's not because they are in third place, it's because they have successfully argued that foreclosing the biggest IP every year for 13 years on the largest userbase it has would have little impact on the market. It's the one true positive take away for Sony, the only positive.

There's not a single Publisher or dev that would be a problem. Maybe Nintendo.

 

[Varteras]

lets agree to disagree. We're going in circles.

I mean there is nothing to disagree about if you know how this works. You don't get two high level executives, including the head of the whole company, swearing in front of the judge, to the judge, and the whole world, that your company will do something, as a representative of that company. Then a few years later go, "LOL! J/K! We don't want to do that anymore"! It would be a shitstorm. But if you want to continue to insist on a scenario fit for the big screen, then yes. Let's stop there.