Support NeoGAF

[In Cold Blood]

With the aquisition of ABK looking more likely by the day, and Sony now signing the COD contract with Microsoft, just how worthwhile was it all?
This isn't about "if" Sony should have opposed it, but rather did it come back to bite them, or did it get them what they were looking for?

For me, I think it well and truly hurt them.
They wanted the aquisition to be blocked, which most likely didn't happen.
The blowback for them was the attention that was brought to their practices of using their leadership position to take away content from Xbox. (Yes, we all know they are doing what they should be doing, and MS do similar things) regulators and politicians love to react to that type of behaviour, and Sony and the Japanese government have already been pushed over it. It is no coincidence that in the Sony showcase they did not tout any game as being PS exclusive. They hid that shit all the way.

They have to release to MS all their exclusivity contracts for them to read.
They pushed the COD thing so hard that in the end, COD is the only thing MS are saying they will keep on PS.
No guarantees of Blizzard or other Activision games.
I think Jim's demands of all ABK and Bethesda games was a bridge too far, and if he had of just demanded all of ABK, he would most likely of got it.
As it stands, I think outside of COD, the only ABK and Bethesda games that are going on PS are the GAAS ones.

The relationship, while always adversarial, has got even more so. Microsoft loved to play that Kumbaya shit, while Sony hated them. Moving forward I think Microsoft is going to be more ruthless towards them.

What did Sony get out of it that they wouldn't have got anyway? Nothing. Sure, they might have made Microsoft's life a little more difficult than it had to be, but they were always going to get COD. They got nothing extra.

What say ye, with that hindsight and all?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Should be a third option. They wanted to block the deal, but they have no control over that.

Their position only managed to strengthen until very recently, and they obtained multiple concessions.

Absent the deal going away, this is as close to the best outcome for them they could hope for

 

[twilo99]

Are they still getting this?




If the deal now is worse than that then def some self harm.

The positive is that they will maybe try to reduce their revenue stream dependency on Activision and make their own game instead.

 

[DavidGzz]

It made sense even if it didn't work out for them. Neither MS nor Sony are in it for the gamer, they are simply selfish corporations that couldn't care less about any of us. People forget that and love to wave their pompoms for one side or the other. I'm glad about the fact that this will cause Sony to continue to fight for our money. Competition is good for me.

 

[GigaBowser]

Nintedos gotsa 10 year deals AND all of Activisions other games

 

[Perrott]

Are they still getting this?




If the deal now is worse than that then def some self harm.

The positive is that they will maybe try to reduce their revenue stream dependency on Activision and make their own game instead.

The deal is better, now PlayStation is guaranteed to receive COD for the next 10 years, not the next 4 as originally proposed by Microsoft:

 

[yurinka]

MS offered them 3 years of CoD under insulting conditions, so they opposed.

They got 10 years + a renegotiation once they expired in conditions that apparently are good enough to make both Sony and the CMA accept them.

The deal is better, now PlayStation is guaranteed to receive COD for the next 10 years, not the next 4 as originally proposed by Microsoft:

Windows Central said that MS told them that it's a 10 years deal but that once expires they'll renegotiate to expand it.

So pretty likely won't be only 10 years. In 10 years in the future, probably a year before the PS7 release, which may be the first PS without Xbox console competing since the PS1. The first offer that MS made to Sony, the 3 year extension was until just before the PS6 release.

 

[ArtHands]

Are they still getting this?




If the deal now is worse than that then def some self harm.

The positive is that they will maybe try to reduce their revenue stream dependency on Activision and make their own game instead.

Deal’s only for COD for 10 years now. Previously MS was proposing COD and other current Activision franchises for the next 4 years.

So its subjective to everyone.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

both.

 

[twilo99]

in that case all of the fuss was worth it.

It might all look silly in retrospect when CoD is dead in a year or two anyway.

 

[Helghan]

It harmed them. They overplayed their hand and gotten a worse deal

 

[skit_data]

I mean they supposedly got 7 more years than initially, so I'd say thats sort of a win. They could probably have waved the white flag a little earlier to save some face but that's about it.

 

[bender]

Without the details it isn't worth speculating over. Everything outside of COD was always the more interesting subject in my eyes.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

How could it possibly have been self-own?

They had nothing to lose trying to fight the deal.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Both, plus damaging to the brand but more Jim Ryan.

You saw that he had no intention to pprotect playstation gamers, he just wanted to block the deal. He/Sony demanded far too much and acted incorrectly for the position they were in. That email to Phil, when read by the wider Microsoft business will probably have ultimately caused more games to be held from playstation, and rightfully so imo. Wrong attitude in that email. He could have written it so much better.

I think the damage has been done, Microsoft got what they wanted and managed to secure a considerable amount of emails that held info on how Sony secures their exclusive content.

MS weren't Scott free though, there was the one clear email from Matt show your Booty that looked embarrassing from a personal standpoint but was luckily nothing burger in the grand scheme of MS plans.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Sony gave themselves the best possible chance to block the deal but still ended up with a 3x better offer that Microsoft initially offered them.

It is a win for them.

Phil first offered them a 3-year deal. Sony opposed and ended up getting a 10-year deal. That's a direct benefit. Indirect benefits include:

• Made Microsoft and Microsoft acquisitions a topic of public discussion
• Pretty much ensured COD's multiplatform existence (even without a deal) because of how public this entire thing became and the numerous promises Microsoft had to make regarding COD being multiplatform.
• Made future Microsoft acquisitions the prime target for further scrutiny.

 

[Godot25]

Well...Sony could have contract until 2027 that covers every ABK game while keeping current marketing contract for COD intact.
Now they have contract that covers only Call of Duty until 2033 while fate of current marketing COD contract is unknown.

So I will let other people decide.

I honestly think that Sony ended up with worse contract. Especially because I still believe that Microsoft would have kept COD on PlayStation even without contract.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Yeah, the news that it's just for COD. Sony done fucked up and basically cucked their own userbase.

Nothing but COD coming to playstation now. Well probably big service games but nothing else.

Completely unsurprising tbh. Sony gave MS a massive headache through all this, so they will be doing whatever they can to hurt them back now.

 

[GigaBowser]

Sony gave themselves the best possible chance to block the deal but still ended up with a 3x better offer that Microsoft initially offered them.

It is a win for them.

Phil first offered them a 3-year deal. Sony opposed and ended up getting a 10-year deal. That's a direct benefit. Indirect benefits include:

• Made Microsoft and Microsoft acquisitions a topic of public discussion
• Pretty much ensured COD's multiplatform existence (even without a deal) because of how public this entire thing became and the numerous promises Microsoft had to make regarding COD being multiplatform.
• Made future Microsoft acquisitions the prime target for further scrutiny.

Its a worsts deals than Nintendos got in April

MS is trying to hurts Sony

Microsoft’s 10-Year Agreement with Nintendo Covers All Future Activision Blizzard Releases

gamingbolt.com

 

[Heisenberg007]

Well...Sony could have contract until 2027 that covers every ABK game while keeping current marketing contract for COD intact.
Now they have contract that covers only Call of Duty until 2033 while fate of current marketing COD contract is unknown.

So I will let other people decide.

I honestly think that Sony ended up with worse contract. Especially because I still believe that Microsoft would have kept COD on PlayStation even without contract.

Every current Activision game, not every Activision-Blizzard game.

This new one is clearly a better deal. The previous deal did not include Blizzard anyway. And Activision pretty much makes only COD. Any new IP they made would have been exclusive anyway.

The blocker was always about COD, so they got 6+ years of it now.

cc: Hey GigaBowser - this is why I think this new one is a better deal (in response to your comment you just posted).

 

[adamsapple]

Both.

Help:
- Got 10 years of CoD
- Opened a venue for a big publisher acquisition in light of this one

Harm:
- Did not get any agreement for other Activision IP
- Refused CoD marketing extension in lieu of Jim wanting the merger to fail instead
- Will help generate huge amounts of revenue for their primary rival now.

Jim also tried to play his hand by demanding Phil make all Zenimax stuff come to PS5 as well (email from hearing) but that didn't come to pass.

 

[In Cold Blood]

MS offered them 3 years of CoD under insulting conditions, so they opposed.

They got 10 years + a renegotiation once they expired in conditions that apparently are good enough to make both Sony and the CMA accept them.


Windows Central said that MS told them that it's a 10 years deal but that once expires they'll renegotiate to expand it.

So pretty likely won't be only 10 years. In 10 years in the future, probably a year before the PS7 release, which may be the first PS without Xbox console competing since the PS1. The first offer that MS made to Sony, the 3 year extension was until just before the PS6 release.

I think MS were always going to keep COD on PS well past the initial three year period. That three years was also taking effect after the existing Sony contract with ABK for COD.
They did the three year thing as that was the typical contract length for this type of thing.
You have to ask yourself, if MS were never going to take COD away, what did Jim get extra?

 

[In Cold Blood]

Are they still getting this?




If the deal now is worse than that then def some self harm.

The positive is that they will maybe try to reduce their revenue stream dependency on Activision and make their own game instead.

Microsoft no longer included any of the other ABK games in their offer.
I think once the tide shifted to where MS now had the upper hand, they played more handball than they initially did.
The opposition Sony put up did effect the way the CMA and the FTC reacted to the aquisition. Sony did make MSs life harder than it needed to be, so there may be some payback.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Windows Central said that MS told them that it's a 10 years deal but that once expires they'll renegotiate to expand it.

Link?

N/m found it.

 

[havoc00]

Jimbo tried to act tough and Bobby and Phil showed him what tough is.

 

[Elios83]

With the opposition they got a lot of things, COD on Playstation for another 10 years, Microsoft having to provide contents to other cloud services (and probably some kind of divestement in the UK), they put the attention of all regulators on Microsoft.
It's almost the best they could do, they don't have the power to block the deal and if the deal was blocked it's not like it would be all positives, it would have forced Microsoft to go for other targets immediately.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

They have 10 years to prop up competitors. Valve, EA, hell even Tencent.

 

[Robb]

Kind of hard to tell. Had they done nothing there probably wouldn’t have been as many concessions etc. etc. which is definitely a gain for Sony. Even Nintendo managed to gain something out of this whole spectacle.

But it also made them look extremely weak, afraid and whiny. Almost like their entire position in the market relies on this one 3rd party franchise.

In any case it’s a humongous loss for Sony. They get CoD for a short while (I guess barely one more generation) but they also only put the focus on CoD throughout this process. As long as CoD stays on PS it feels like MS can just make every other ActiBlizz franchise exclusive at this point.

 

[Hudo]

Sony bought themselves 10 years to get their own house in order and make a first-party FPS they can rely on.

 

[ArtHands]

Its a worsts deals than Nintendos got in April

MS is trying to hurts Sony

Microsoft’s 10-Year Agreement with Nintendo Covers All Future Activision Blizzard Releases

gamingbolt.com

Seems Sony could have gotten a better deal than previous and current one if they asked to have the same deal as Nintendo. Gotta say their deal is worse then

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Sony needed no deal. COD was gonna be multi-platform anyways.

They should 've focused on other Acti-Blizz ips.

They also had to reveal some embarrassing stuff about their practices which is a loss as well.

 

[SmurfMustard]

This is all I can think of reading some of the "interpretations" of what's happening

 

[Ozzie666]

Much as I hate COD as a franchise, it's one of those games that sway the console wars every generation. Xbox 360 was the home of COD, then Sony PS4/PS5 got marketing and exclusive content. It will be really interesting to see what happens next generation if COD still pulls customers to one console or not. I still can't imagine COD entirely free on Gamepass - without some heavy microtransaction / battle pass supplements. That is a lot of money to leave on the table. Does the deal cover exclusive maps and things. Is getting COD worth missing out on the rest of the ABK catalogue? Not so sure.

Crash and Spyro as the new Microsoft mascots, we live in strange times.

 

[mrmustard]

Sony needed no deal. COD was gonna be multi-platform anyways.

Exactly. I think the all games until 2027 was the way better deal.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sony was acting in their own self interest. They didn't want the acquisition, so they didn't sign any deals as long as there was a chance it wouldn't happen. However once it looked like the acquisition was definitely going to happen, they signed the deal. It's not that complicated.

 

[crackajack]

The thing I got out of it that I consider the CMA to be the only regulatory entity that actually got anything and did their job, while EU guys are pussies and American courts of course did not understand their own anti trust policies and hold back their own companies.
Capitalism, fuck yeah.
I hoped that MS succeeded with Bethesda, since that and the other smaller deals should have sufficed to bring them closer, close enough, but now I hope they fuck it up somehow. No one should want a company like MS to be on top of anything.

 

[Banjo64]

There are no friends, no enemies, only interests.

 

[Disco Dave]

Only Nintendo came out of this shit show smelling of roses.

I'd give the edge to Sony. Although they lost, they likely were able to force Microsoft to offer better contractual access to COD than otherwise might have been the case.

 

[phil_t98]

Are they still getting this?




If the deal now is worse than that then def some self harm.

The positive is that they will maybe try to reduce their revenue stream dependency on Activision and make their own game instead.

Apparantly the deal only involves COD

 

[FoxMcChief]

The deal seems worse for PS only gamers that don’t care about CoD. But, as long as Sony at least gets more money, that’s all that matters, I suppose.

 

[SJRB]

Sony did what they had to do to prevent competition from getting a large share of the videogame space.

They had no choice but to fight it, with COD clearly being the most important IP to salvage.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Well it's much better than nothing and certainly better than the three year deal. Sure its only for CoD but that was the franchise Sony was most worried about. Now they have that for 10 years plus its possible to extend it.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Well it went from no concessions to 4 years offered to 10 years. Seems pretty obvious.

COD is quite literally the only ABK game that matters.

 

[SantaC]

What about all Final Fantasy titles for Xbox that Sony pays to block?

Microsoft is too generous with sony imo.

 

[MasterCornholio]

What about all Final Fantasy titles for Xbox that Sony pays to block?

Microsoft is too generous with sony imo.

Did Square talked to Microsoft about that?

 

[Allandor]

Well it went from no concessions to 4 years offered to 10 years. Seems pretty obvious.

COD is quite literally the only ABK game that matters.

The 10 year deal for CoD was already offered to Sony in early stages. The 2027 deal was an extra offering.
MS doesn't want to withdraw CoD from Sony consoles. They make to much profit with just this game to even think to withdraw it from any Plattform.

 

[Disco Dave]

Apparently, Phil sent the same email to Nintendo offering 4 years access to COD.

And apparently Nintendo emailed back asking what was COD.

 

[SantaC]

Did Square talked to Microsoft about that?

I dont know, but my point still stands. Sony is doing their best to keep Final Fantasy away from xbox. (and PC)

 

[Joramun]

Sony gave themselves the best possible chance to block the deal but still ended up with a 3x better offer that Microsoft initially offered them.

It is a win for them.

Phil first offered them a 3-year deal. Sony opposed and ended up getting a 10-year deal. That's a direct benefit. Indirect benefits include:

• Made Microsoft and Microsoft acquisitions a topic of public discussion
• Pretty much ensured COD's multiplatform existence (even without a deal) because of how public this entire thing became and the numerous promises Microsoft had to make regarding COD being multiplatform.
• Made future Microsoft acquisitions the prime target for further scrutiny.

This isn't anything remarkable. Businesses pay this game am the time. Negotiate, renegotiate until they come to an agreement. No side gives in straight away. It's how it's always been done.

Internal negotiations are pretty similar between departments /directorates.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I dont know, but my point still stands. Sony is doing their best to keep Final Fantasy away from xbox. (and PC)

I think they did but Microsoft lost the bid if I'm not wrong. Then Square mentioned technical support from Sony as being a huge plus to it.

Edit 2: To include true original source.

Why Final Fantasy 16 Is A PlayStation 5 Exclusive

We spoke with producer Naoki Yoshida about why FFXVI is a PS5 exclusive game.

www.gameinformer.com