Support NeoGAF

[Ogbert]

Pretty sure that's exactly how it works. Phil Spencer is under oath. Not Microsoft. This is why contracts exist.

He is under oath, as an individual, to tell the truth.

The assertions he makes and statements he promises, bind Microsoft. Were he to leave MS and the company decide to renege on their promise, the regulators wouldn’t hold Phil responsible, they’d go after the current MS executives in place.

 

[DeepEnigma]

He said Sony paid for Deathloop and Ghostwire to skip Xbox and they thought they’d do the same for Starfield.

He never mentioned timed exclusivity.

He thought the same, because they too were also in talks for Bethesda games. According to Pete Hines.

However, Pete did say he was sad about Startfield exclusivity and it was "out of his hands," so perhaps that was never going to be the case at all, for either one if they remained third party.

 

[SlimySnake]

Would actually be hilarious if Call of Duty keeps coming out on PS5 forever but skips PS6, PS7 etc after Phil said that

Wish the FTC lawyer had pushed back on this.

Just ask why they cant put language to make it perpetually multiplatform like Notch made them do for Minecraft.

 

[BlueLyria]

I could've sworn the Medium is on ps5.

It is, it was a timed exclusive

 

[Heisenberg007]

Wish the FTC lawyer had pushed back on this.

Just ask why they cant put language to make it perpetually multiplatform like Notch made them do for Minecraft.

It was the Microsoft lawyer that asked him that question. Most likely, prepared carefully so he can give that PS5 answer. The FTC lawyer had asked the questions, and it wasn't his turn.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think once a month Phil borrows Todd's toupee and Todd gets to wear phils leather jacket.

Lil Todd wearing Phil's jacket,

 

[cebri.one]

"We will keep Call of Duty on PS5"

* Exclusive to xbox when Sony releases PS5 Pro

 

[Jigga117]

I was thinking the same thing. And they emphasize PlayStation 5, after saying they expect the next gen consoles in 2028.

They are not required to commit to something that doesn’t exist . Plus isn’t Sony the one making claims about also not even giving dev kits to Activision if this deal goes thru?

 

[Nydius]

However, Pete did say he was sad about Startfield exclusivity and it was "out of his hands," so perhaps that was never going to be the case at all, for either one if they remained third party.

Agreed. Timed exclusivity, maybe. There’s a world of difference between smaller, more niche audience, games like Deathloop and Ghostwire and the big budget blockbuster Bethesda RPG, especially when there hasn’t been one since Fallout 4.

Exclusivity for that, regardless of platform, is leaving a SHITLOAD of money on the table and I doubt they would have committed to making it permanently exclusive to anyone if they were still third party.

 

[Darsxx82]

I think the judge has emptied all the work of the FTC lawyer.

 

[tryDEATH]

What is there that the FTC can hang on him? There wasn't a single gatcha that will ruin MS chances of winning this case instead no its him with the rebuttals where he can talk him self out and gain plus points by downplaying Xbox and exaggerating PS.

 

[Jigsaah]

Jim Ryan Jr 15 years from now

Fake...No shot they let Jim Ryan procreate...

 

[Topher]

He is under oath, as an individual, to tell the truth.

The assertions he makes and statements he promises, bind Microsoft. Were he to leave MS and the company decide to renege on their promise, the regulators wouldn’t hold Phil responsible, they’d go after the current MS executives in place.

I don't think that is right. We would have to ask an actual lawyer to clarify though.

 

[X-Wing]

Phil got out of this unscathed and is now going on the offense. He was the most important person in this case as he is the primary decision maker for Xbox everyone else can reffer their answer to him as the decision maker.

He did. The FTC needs better lawyers. What a bunch of noobs.

 

[Nydius]

Plus isn’t Sony the one making claims about also not even giving dev kits to Activision if this deal goes thru?

If the deal goes through Activision is Microsoft. Full stop. Why should they give dev kits to their direct competitors? Do you think Apple sends Google their internal dev tools because Google puts apps on iOS? Or vice versa?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Watching the JayTech stream and the Sickhumor guy brings up a good point: MS don't want to enable Sony to make business moves beneficial to PS by giving them the 30% cut. That's why Phil Spencer was stressing that point in his testimony.

We also know MS sided with Epic in the Epic vs Apple case which was primarily about Epic wanting to get out of paying Apple a cut off Fortnite MTX sales. It's also the main reason MS want the Google & Apple platforms opened up for alternative storefronts, i.e Microsoft's own planned storefront, so that they can get away with selling content on Google & Apple devices but without paying them a 30% cut.

Microsoft basically want to usurp the revenue sharing model that's been a part of the gaming industry for decades, and MS don't care if they can't get a cut off 3P software sales anymore in that case, because 1: they have a ton of money & valuation as-is (almost $3 trillion market valuation), and 2: it wouldn't matter if MS can buy up those 3P publishers due to their market capital advantages that companies like Sony simply can't match (and that companies like Google can't match in terms of manageably integrating and keeping the acquired assets in decent valuation after purchase).

That could set a pretty dangerous precedent, and I think a lot of this might depend on how this ruling goes :/

 

[Gone]

The devil is in the details. MS's lawyer and Phil both mentioned only PlayStation 5. No mention of future PlayStations like PS6.

PS5 will get like 3-4 CODs at best. 2-3 outside of the Sony's marketing contract. What happens next?

Yeah let's ignore the 10 years deal that Sony was offered and refused to sign and that would've guaranteed CoD on playstation to at least 2033.

 

[X-Wing]

I think the judge has emptied all the work of the FTC lawyer.

Probably.

 

[SlimySnake]

I think the judge has emptied all the work of the FTC lawyer.

yeah. idiotic move. this isnt about PS5. its about PS6,7,8, 9.

The judge probably doesnt understand that but will use that in his ruling. FTC shouldve jumped in there and forced him to clarify his answer. Big fuck up there.

 

[Gambit2483]

"We will keep Call of Duty on PS5"

* Exclusive to xbox when Sony releases PS5 Pro

If MS/Xbox were SMART...they would have made EVERY game Multi-platform until AFTER the deal went through...

 

[Banjo64]

I think the judge has emptied all the work of the FTC lawyer.

The 10 year deal covers the PS5 numnuts.

 

[jm89]

yeah. idiotic move. this isnt about PS5. its about PS6,7,8, 9.

The judge probably doesnt understand that but will use that in his ruling. FTC shouldve jumped in there and forced him to clarify his answer. Big fuck up there.

If that plays a big role in her ruling, they can appeal it and make that point. Assuming they don't do that already before the ruling.

 

[NickFire]

Don't think that's how it works in the USA at all friend. And she was very specific with PS5.

There’s also the question of “if Sony allows it” which means terms must be negotiated, and Sony not accepting certain terms could be seen as them not allowing the game.

You are correct. Statements of future intent are difficult to make cases out of because we recognize people / entities change plans.

However, the judge would not be barred from finding the claim credible and incorporating the finding into her decision. But I still think its very unlikely she would deny an injunction request from FTC, solely on whether she believes it would or would not happen after that one promise. With so much smoke and contradictions, I would expect her to say that determination needs to be made in the regulatory proceedings first. And then balance the harms or lack thereof in deciding if FTC is entitled to status quo for a couple to few more months.

Balance of harms is where I would worry about someone seeing gaming as kid stuff if I were FTC. MS needs to worry that the trial the judge can point to is only a 1-2 months out. I know they told the judge the deal will die if injunction approved, but any judge can disregard that with ease because it was MS choice to sign a contract with an unrealistic closing date if regulatory approvals ever mattered.

He did. The FTC needs better lawyers. What a bunch of noobs.

Wasn't that exchange when he was being cross examined by MS own lawyer?

 

[zapper]

does the oath of an employee of a company have value? I think it's ridiculous stuff to even consider, he can swear but guarantees nothing. the judge... lol

 

[DForce]

"Phil said under oath!"

The wording in which he used has loopholes.

- Phil doesn't have to make the decision.
- Phil said only if PlayStation allows us, which could be interpreted in many ways. Does it have to be through Game Pass? What if the deal is unreasonable? They could easily say, "We offered Call of Duty through Game Pass, but Sony said no.

 

[RedC]

Why? So the lesser market players are cool to buy the market (3rd party devs and publishers) out from under the feet of the dominant market players? That seem fair to you

No, and I would disagree with Microsoft trying to acquire Activision Blizzard being representative of them buying the market. In the unlikely event, this acquisition was to pass; Microsoft would highly likely be unable to acquire any future major publishers.

 

[jm89]

does the oath of an employee of a company have value? I think it's ridiculous stuff to even consider. the judge... lol

 

[Jigsaah]

yeah. idiotic move. this isnt about PS5. its about PS6,7,8, 9.

The judge probably doesnt understand that but will use that in his ruling. FTC shouldve jumped in there and forced him to clarify his answer. Big fuck up there.

Yea dude. I'm so psyched about Call Of Duty 45: Senile Warfare

 

[Ogbert]

I don't think that is right. We would have to ask an actual lawyer to clarify though.

I am a lawyer (UK, though).

When you act as a witness and give evidence under oath, you are obviously required to tell the truth. If it can be demonstrated that you knowingly lied about points of material fact, you can face criminal charges.

But he’s making statements about MS future strategy that can only reasonably be levied against the company itself.

The logical conclusion of a single executive being responsible is that the moment they leave the company, that company is no longer required to honour those statements. It would make an absolute mockery of the whole judicial process.

I’m not saying that a company might not be stupid enough to try that. They could go exclusive and then claim Phil was a simpleton who didn’t know what he was talking about but, and I can’t stress this point enough, they would get torn to absolute fucking pieces.

CoD is not going exclusive.

 

[Slikk360]

"Phil said under oath!"

The wording in which he used has loopholes.

- Phil doesn't have to make the decision.
- Phil said only if PlayStation allows us, which could be interpreted in many ways. Does it have to be through Game Pass? What if the deal is unreasonable? They could easily say, "We offered Call of Duty through Game Pass, but Sony said no.

I'm sure for the deal to be approved and contracts to be signed wording and specifics would be ironed out. No loopholes or bs would be allowed.

 

[NickFire]

Wish the FTC lawyer had pushed back on this.

Just ask why they cant put language to make it perpetually multiplatform like Notch made them do for Minecraft.

I'm following along via tweet, not audio.

My understanding is the question came from judge during MS lawyer cross exam. If that is correct, the FTC couldn't push back yet. It goes direct exam, cross exam, and typically redirect. Judges can stop and ask questions any time they want. But the lawyers have to wait until their turn.

 

[cebri.one]

I am a lawyer (UK, though).

When you act as a witness and give evidence under oath, you are obviously required to tell the truth. If it can be demonstrated that you knowingly lied about points of material fact, you can face criminal charges.

But he’s making statements about MS future strategy that can only reasonably be levied against the company itself.

The logical conclusion of a single executive being responsible is that the moment they leave the company, that company is no longer required to honour those statements. It would make an absolute mockery of the whole judicial process.

I’m not saying that a company might not be stupid enough to try that. They could go exclusive and then claim Phil was a simpleton who didn’t know what he was talking about but, and I can’t stress this point enough, they would get torn to absolute fucking pieces.

CoD is not going exclusive.

COD will go exclusive, eventually. They will offer it to Sony as part of GP and ask them to add GP to the PS Store the same way Ubisoft+ or EA Play exist. They will reject. No more COD and will have an alibi.

Also people seem to forget that Activision Blizzard is sitting on a huge number of very well know IPs who tend to sell pretty well as well.

 

[DForce]

I'm sure for the deal to be approved and contracts to be signed wording and specifics would be ironed out. No loopholes or bs would be allowed.

They won't have contracts that run forever unless they were forced to have remedies.

 

[SlimySnake]

I'm following along via tweet, not audio.

My understanding is the question came from judge during MS lawyer cross exam. If that is correct, the FTC couldn't push back yet. It goes direct exam, cross exam, and typically redirect. Judges can stop and ask questions any time they want. But the lawyers have to wait until their turn.

well, lets hope the FTC lawyers bring this up because i dont have a good feeling about this since it came directly from the judge.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[Slikk360]

They won't have contracts that run forever unless they were forced to have remedies.

We'll see... It's about the different platforms. Not just one particular console right now.

 

[dotnotbot]

Activision Tells Employees FTC Claims Are 'Factually Weak and Legally a Stretch' - IGN

Activision Blizzard communications officer Lulu Meservey called the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s argument “factually weak and legally a stretch” in comments made to employees on Wednesday.

www.ign.com

 

[Jigsaah]

That collar is a timed exclusive to his neck.

 

[Three]

Where are you guys streaming this? I'm trying to find a link

 

[GHG]

No t-shirt?

Finally we get to see Phil in his natural habitat.

 

[NickFire]

I am a lawyer (UK, though).

When you act as a witness and give evidence under oath, you are obviously required to tell the truth. If it can be demonstrated that you knowingly lied about points of material fact, you can face criminal charges.

But he’s making statements about MS future strategy that can only reasonably be levied against the company itself.

The logical conclusion of a single executive being responsible is that the moment they leave the company, that company is no longer required to honour those statements. It would make an absolute mockery of the whole judicial process.

I’m not saying that a company might not be stupid enough to try that. They could go exclusive and then claim Phil was a simpleton who didn’t know what he was talking about but, and I can’t stress this point enough, they would get torn to absolute fucking pieces.

CoD is not going exclusive.

100% on the bolded.

But yes, they could fire him and replace him with someone who changes course. He can also change his mind if "conditions" require it. Unless someone could prove he outright lied when making the statement, or there was a permanent injunction to keep releasing COD on PS5, then they can change their plans regardless of what they planned when testifying and probably skate by with just a PR hit.

 

[adamsapple]

Activision Tells Employees FTC Claims Are 'Factually Weak and Legally a Stretch' - IGN

Activision Blizzard communications officer Lulu Meservey called the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s argument “factually weak and legally a stretch” in comments made to employees on Wednesday.

www.ign.com

“Like we’ve always said, the facts are on our side, and the FTC’s claims are factually weak and legally a stretch,” Meservey wrote in a Slack message to employees, viewed by IGN. She said she welcomed the FTC’s efforts to block Microsoft’s merger with Activision by filing suit in court. She called the San Francisco judge “efficient” and the hearing “speedy.”

Spicy.

 

[DeepEnigma]

From "cool kids" gamer shirts to literally your aging dad.

 

[Mr Moose]

That coffee is tiny.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I am a lawyer (UK, though).

When you act as a witness and give evidence under oath, you are obviously required to tell the truth. If it can be demonstrated that you knowingly lied about points of material fact, you can face criminal charges.

But he’s making statements about MS future strategy that can only reasonably be levied against the company itself.

The logical conclusion of a single executive being responsible is that the moment they leave the company, that company is no longer required to honour those statements. It would make an absolute mockery of the whole judicial process.

I’m not saying that a company might not be stupid enough to try that. They could go exclusive and then claim Phil was a simpleton who didn’t know what he was talking about but, and I can’t stress this point enough, they would get torn to absolute fucking pieces.

CoD is not going exclusive.

Regardless of your final point regarding PS5 COD, you cannot legally force a company to stick to what an executive said at a preliminary injunction hearing, specially if he leaves the company. Either way it contemplates PS5 alone and nothing else regarding parity or whatever.

You have to find precedence for that by the way, and if you find precedence, my money is on a measly fine having been paid.

Now can the judge use that for her decision regarding denying FTC’s prelim an injunction while forgoing every other point of concern? Absolutely.

 

[j0hnnix]

I think the judge has emptied all the work of the FTC lawyer.

Phil.. after answering.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Is Jim Ryan going to be on the stand?

 

[Jigsaah]

Is Jim Ryan going to be on the stand?

He's not even showing up. He has is testimony in a video or something.

 

[DeepEnigma]

That coffee is tiny.

It's a TALL!

You tall brain, fool!

 

[Banjo64]

Is Jim Ryan going to be on the stand?

Nah he just gunna one bell the judge - doesn’t have time for M$ muppets