Support NeoGAF

[IntentionalPun]

Jesus folks stop responding to kingfey.

He's wrong, we can all agree and move on... lol

#NotAModButRespectMyAuthority

 

[Swipeyowifelike]

Do you think MS would sit down, and not put call of duty day 1 on gamepass?

Do you know what a contract is? Jesus, their hands are tied until the contract are expired. You have said nothing that approached reality. Please stop.

 

[kingfey]

I could think of a scenario where Microsoft says "Game Pass Light (without the trademark games) on PlayStation" or no more COD for you.

That what MS would want from that deal.
If Sony can't guarantee it, then there would be issues.
MS bought Activision for call of duty day1 on gamepass. They want those numbers.

 

[kingfey]

Do you know what a contract is? Jesus, their hands are tied until the contract are expired. You have said nothing that approached reality. Please stop.

Do you think companies sign contract, without exist gate?
No one in their mind would sign a contract, that doesn't allow them renegotiation.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Just take the L, bro.

 

[3liteDragon]

Marketing =/= the game staying on the console.

If the marketing deal is keeping the game away from gamepass day1, then MS want to change that contract.

What you are saying is the the game staying on PS consoles. That is another matter.

I was talking about the marketing deal, not their games staying on PS. Doesn’t really matter, ANY type of contract/agreement signed before their acquisition has to be honoured & Phil already confirmed they will be.

 

[kingfey]

Just take the L, bro.

What L?
Are we ignoring the main reason MS bought Activision in the 1st place?

They want call of duty locked down on gamepass. If Sony has any funny contract, they prohibits gamepass day1, then they will do whatever they can to put call of duty day1 on gamepass.

 

[Swipeyowifelike]

That what MS would want from that deal.
If Sony can't guarantee it, then there would be issues.
MS bought Activision for call of duty day1 on gamepass. They want those numbers.

They bought AB knowing full well what obligations they would have to honor.

 

[Topher]

What L?
Are we ignoring the main reason MS bought Activision in the 1st place?

They want call of duty locked down on gamepass. If Sony has any funny contract, they prohibits gamepass day1, then they will do whatever they can to put call of duty day1 on gamepass.

 

[DeepEnigma]

What L?
Are we ignoring the main reason MS bought Activision in the 1st place?

They want call of duty locked down on gamepass. If Sony has any funny contract, they prohibits gamepass day1, then they will do whatever they can to put call of duty day1 on gamepass.

They can attempt to buy out of it, but Sony will say...

 

[kingfey]

They can attempt to buy out of it, but Sony will say...

They bought AB knowing full well what obligations they would have to honor.

I was talking about the marketing deal, not their games staying on PS. Doesn’t really matter, ANY type of contract/agreement signed before their acquisition has to be honoured & Phil already confirmed they will be.

We will see it, when call of duty has that day1 gamepass on it, or not after the purchase gets approved.
Whether you guys are right, or that I am wrong.

 

[Swipeyowifelike]

We will see it, when call of duty has that day1 gamepass on it, or not after the purchase gets approved.
Whether you guys are right, or that I am wrong.

Just look up the definition of stipulation.

 

[Topher]

We will see it, when call of duty has that day1 gamepass on it, or not after the purchase gets approved.
Whether you guys are right, or that I am wrong.

Not necessarily. We don't know when the contract expires or the terms. Only way anyone here will be proven right or wrong is if someone gets hold of the actual contract. And anything short of another blockbuster Epic vs Apple lawsuit...

 

[kingfey]

Not necessarily. We don't know when the contract expires or the terms. Only way anyone here will be proven right or wrong is if someone gets hold of the actual contract. And anything short of another blockbuster Epic vs Apple lawsuit...

Wasn't the contract set to expire in 2024?

 

[NeonGhost]

Could this be done before the holiday season 2022 ?

 

[kingfey]

Just look up the definition of stipulation.

That is why there are contract cancelation print.
Usually the party who breaks the contract, will pay certain fees. They usually agree to this, when both parties sign the contract.

Its why MS can break it, if they decide to pay the contract remedy. As we know, MS can afford that.

 

[Topher]

Wasn't the contract set to expire in 2024?

Exactly the point. We don't know. We know nothing about this contract or when it ends.

That is why there are contract cancelation print.
Usually the party who breaks the contract, will pay certain fees. They usually agree to this, when both parties sign the contract.

Its why MS can break it, if they decide to pay the contract remedy. As we know, MS can afford that.

That is all speculation on your part.

 

[kingfey]

Could this be done before the holiday season 2022 ?

If MS prepares everything for the ftc, then yes.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That is why there are contract cancelation print.
Usually the party who breaks the contract, will pay certain fees. They usually agree to this, when both parties sign the contract.

Its why MS can break it, if they decide to pay the contract remedy. As we know, MS can afford that.

And as you've already been told repeatedly they are honouring them.

 

[Guy_who_thinks_hes_cool]

either way.. we either get the COD/DIABLO series for free.. or we have to pay them

 

[kingfey]

And as you've already been told repeatedly they are honouring them.

That is already explained.
I am arguing about the gamepass day1.

The only way can know it, is when MS owns Activision fully. So far, it's just argument between us.

 

[Javthusiast]

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That is already explained.
I am arguing about the gamepass day1.

The only way can know it, is when MS owns Activision fully. So far, it's just argument between us.

Which would be part of the deal

Which is being honoured

1 + 1 = 2

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Could this be done before the holiday season 2022 ?

No chance.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

MS would keep the game on PS. That their honored deal. The let PS keep bethesda timed exclusives.

Unless it's timed exclusives, MS can modify it.

They can't modify it without Sony's consent, since Sony is one of the involved parties in the original deal along with ABK. So it would only change if Sony agrees to allow the change.

It will only be issue, if MS doesn't allow it on the console.

Keep in mind, that MS wants gamepass day1. They won't sit down for 3 more years of marketing, considering the marketing deal expired in 2024.

MS could've paid Sony out of the timed exclusivity for Deathloop and Ghostwire. They did not.

They could pay Sony out for marketing rights to COD Modern Warfare 2. Chances are they will not, because it could create unfavorable optics for them in the middle of this deal. ABK would have to prove beyond any doubt that they gave MS co-marketing rights for MW2 strictly on normal terms and not at all influenced by the impending acquisition.

What could (temporally) block MW2 being on GP is a potential marketing deal with Sony if it exists and if it's the same RE Village had. That block would be effective independently if the acquisition is closed in time or not.

If the Sony deal doesn't exist for this game or exist but doesn't has that game subs related part, I assume it could be included in GP independently if acquired on time or not.

It would be crazy if Sony took GamePass into consideration for RE Village but not something significantly bigger like COD, but I guess crazier things have happened.

They can attempt to buy out of it, but Sony will say...

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if Sony accepted that type of offer if the money was right. And if MS are desperate enough for something to "make up for" Starfield & RedFall delays, they would likely be willing to pay a few hundred millions.

But how's that probability looking like? Kinda low.

If MS prepares everything for the ftc, then yes.

I wouldn't rule out the deal closing at or before December but again it's about probability. And the probability of that happening is like 10% at best.

And even if they can, if Sony still has marketing rights for MW2 and beyond for another year or two, MS either has to honor what those are (likely including no Day 1 into GamePass), or pay Sony out of the contract.

In this case though, I think they actually would pay Sony out of the contract, for various reasons. Too big a franchise to not do so, unlike Deathloop or Ghostwire Tokyo.

 

[Kacho]

Jesus folks stop responding to kingfey.

He's wrong, we can all agree and move on... lol

#NotAModButRespectMyAuthority

I'm starting to understand how the dude has 7,600 posts in less than a year.

 

[Goalus]

It's great that Microsoft is just a small player that is completely dominated by Sony on a regular basis, which many GAF members would certainly agree on based on their post history.

That means that this purchase won't move any needle and therefore should go through smoothly.

 

[Ozriel]

Which would be part of the deal

Which is being honoured

1 + 1 = 2

This impression that Sony has just one deal template that all their partners are forced to accept…where’s that coming from?

As it stands, there’s zero indication that there’s anything in the contract prohibiting releases on other subscription services.

We’ll only know for sure when the deal completes.

It would be crazy if Sony took GamePass into consideration for RE Village but not something significantly bigger like COD, but I guess crazier things have happened.

Not really about what Sony wants but what Activision was willing to include in the marketing deal

Deals are treated on a case by case basis. The COD deal for example comes with timed exclusivity on DLC. That’s not present in Resident Evil, for example. The FIFA deal doesn’t come with any timed exclusivity and doesn’t stop their games from landing on subscription services on rival consoles.

 

[MasterCornholio]

That is already explained.
I am arguing about the gamepass day1.

The only way can know it, is when MS owns Activision fully. So far, it's just argument between us.

Microsoft will respect all existing agreements even after they fully own Activision. Once those contracts expire they can choose not to make any further deals with Sony. And thus in theory have all marketing deals and games exclusive to Xbox. But it all depends if they want to do that or not based on the numbers that they have.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

This impression that Sony has just one deal template that all their partners are forced to accept…where’s that coming from?

As it stands, there’s zero indication that there’s anything in the contract prohibiting releases on other subscription services.

We’ll only know for sure when the deal completes.

They have a template and you can be sure that clause is standardised, given how generic it is

 

[NickFire]

PSA - achievement scores and ambassador programs do not substitute for law school, no matter what someone might think.

 

[Ozriel]

They have a template and you can be sure that clause is standardised, given how generic it is

And that clause - if it existed - would be excised if Activision didn’t like it. And Sony would have zero problems signing the deal
Without it, given how COD games have been major drivers for sales of PlayStation consoles in the past.

 

[ReBurn]

Do you think companies sign contract, without exist gate?
No one in their mind would sign a contract, that doesn't allow them renegotiation.

In most contracts the only 'exit gates' tend to be where either or both parties don't live up to the obligation outlined the contract, allowing one of the parties to sue for termination. They don't really do "I just don't like this agreement any more" clauses. If AB signed a contract that says they'll do something their acquisition by Microsoft doesn't necessarily alter the terms of the contract unless the contract stipulates that an acquisition voids part or all of it.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

And that clause - if it existed - would be excised if Activision didn’t like it. And Sony would have zero problems signing the deal
Without it, given how COD games have been major drivers for sales of PlayStation consoles in the past.

Yeah I'm sure Activision would have issues with that clause given all the COD games they put on sub-services /s

 

[kingfey]

PSA - achievement scores and ambassador programs do not substitute for law school, no matter what someone might think.

That burn is nice.

Though, I am interested in law, despite not going to law school.

I got almost screwed by it, when I used to live with my sister.

And now, I keep learning more about it, to make my self safe. Too many things can put me in trouble these days.

 

[BennyBlanco]

MS has an army of lawyers just for things like this. I never doubted they would get it done.

 

[Ozriel]

Yeah I'm sure Activision would have issues with that clause given all the COD games they put on sub-services /s

That’s not how savvy business works. You don’t concede points when you don’t need to. The likes of Activision and Take Two hold most of the cards in these discussions - they’ve got the hottest properties in gaming and they know platform holders will be eager to sign. Just because you’re not on a sub service today doesn’t mean you wouldn’t be on one down the line.

There’s no ‘one size fits all’ in these things. To use football analogies, The contract PSG offers to Andre Herrera would differ from the one offered to Lionel Messi. Some players demand and get to keep image rights.

The basic point is that nobody outside Sony and Activision know the full details of the deal. And we’ll really only know some of these constraints when the deal goes through.

 

[IntentionalPun]

1) MS isn't going to loudly proclaim they won't break contracts and then break them, those statements were made publicly because of regulators
2) We don't know if those contracts have a "no sub service day one" clause, we just don't
3) Having said that, I don't see why Activision would have fought such a clause if asked, considering there was pretty much zero chance they'd ever want their games day one on Gamepass, nor would MS want to pay for that
4) It's actually even possible regulators will look at Gamepass specifically even as it could be viewed, or at least investigated as an example of "Predatory Pricing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_States

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Deals are treated on a case by case basis. The COD deal for example comes with timed exclusivity on DLC. That’s not present in Resident Evil, for example. The FIFA deal doesn’t come with any timed exclusivity and doesn’t stop their games from landing on subscription services on rival consoles.

I get these terms are publisher-specific but I also think common sense would just say Sony would be aware enough of GamePass to not let one of the largest franchises they have marketing rights on, undermine that by going into a competitor's sub service Day 1. Otherwise, would we not have already seen this happen by now?

They have a template and you can be sure that clause is standardised, given how generic it is

Yep. I can't see them letting this lapse for one of the biggest 3P games in the market they have marketing rights on, but make Capcom enforce it for a much smaller IP (revenue-wise) in RE for Village.

And that clause - if it existed - would be excised if Activision didn’t like it. And Sony would have zero problems signing the deal
Without it, given how COD games have been major drivers for sales of PlayStation consoles in the past.

But like Ass of Can Whooping alluded to before, if ABK didn't like those particular terms, they would have already put COD on a subscription service (any) by this point. Yet they have not done so once.

So why is that?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That’s not how savvy business works. You don’t concede points when you don’t need to. The likes of Activision and Take Two hold most of the cards in these discussions - they’ve got the hottest properties in gaming and they know platform holders will be eager to sign. Just because you’re not on a sub service today doesn’t mean you wouldn’t be on one down the line.

There’s no ‘one size fits all’ in these things. To use football analogies, The contract PSG offers to Andre Herrera would differ from the one offered to Lionel Messi. Some players demand and get to keep image rights.

The basic point is that nobody outside Sony and Activision know the full details of the deal. And we’ll really only know some of these constraints when the deal goes through.

So, COD gets the majority of sales on PS but Activision holds most of the cards?

Mmmm kay lmao

Yes, I'm pretty sure Activision would be completely fine with conceding to the subscription clause. Given the fact that they would never voluntarily put it on a sub-service unless a company offers them an obscene amount of money or COD ends up selling like dogshit. Seems like a no brainer

 

[Swift_Star]

Okay, cool. If it moves fast enough they can bolster the Gamepass library with new games, saving 2022 and silencing some of the naysayers.

How so? Are people that eager to play old AB games?

 

[Swift_Star]

Do you think MS would sit down, and not put call of duty day 1 on gamepass?

They didn't put Deathloop day 1 on gamepass. What's the difference?

 

[Represent.]

Still hoping this falls through. Fuck consolidation

 

[Topher]

1) MS isn't going to loudly proclaim they won't break contracts and then break them, those statements were made publicly because of regulators
2) We don't know if those contracts have a "no sub service day one" clause, we just don't
3) Having said that, I don't see why Activision would have fought such a clause if asked, considering there was pretty much zero chance they'd ever want their games day one on Gamepass, nor would MS want to pay for that
4) It's actually even possible regulators will look at Gamepass specifically even as it could be viewed, or at least investigated as an example of "Predatory Pricing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing#United_States

Bottom line:

 

[CatLady]

Microsoft will respect all existing agreements even after they fully own Activision. Once those contracts expire they can choose not to make any further deals with Sony. And thus in theory have all marketing deals and games exclusive to Xbox. But it all depends if they want to do that or not based on the numbers that they have.

They could have all the games exclusive to Xbox/PC once Sony's contract with Activision expires since they are under no legal obligation to keep their 1st party games on any competing platform. The optics would be bad since they said they would keep CoD multiplat plus they'd lose a shit ton of money since CoD sells so well on every platform.

They could use it as leverage though if in fact the marketing deal includes a clause disallowing CoD on other platform's sub services. There is also the possiblity that the marketing contract does not include such a clause since the marketing deal was first signed at the beginning of last gen; long before Game Pass ever existed.

 

[MasterCornholio]

They could have all the games exclusive to Xbox/PC once Sony's contract with Activision expires since they are under no legal obligation to keep their 1st party games on any competing platform. The optics would be bad since they said they would keep CoD multiplat plus they'd lose a shit ton of money since CoD sells so well on every platform.

They could use it as leverage though if in fact the marketing deal includes a clause disallowing CoD on other platform's sub services. There is also the possiblity that the marketing contract does not include such a clause since the marketing deal was first signed at the beginning of last gen; long before Game Pass ever existed.

That is true. Whatever promises they make so they can adquiere the company they will have to keep. If they tell the FTC (for example) that COD will still release on PlayStation they will have to continue to do that.

I guess what people have to keep in mind is that Microsoft can't buy companies to destroy the competition. That's what the FTC will be looking at.

Edit: CatLady sorry about the edit. I had some additional thoughts to add.

 

[Shmunter]

At least something is moving fast related to Microsoft. Am right?

 

[Topher]

At least something is moving fast related to Microsoft. Am right?

Moving right along when it comes to Microsoft doing what they need to do. But when it comes to the FTC.....

 

[Leyasu]

Microsoft will respect all existing agreements even after they fully own Activision. Once those contracts expire they can choose not to make any further deals with Sony. And thus in theory have all marketing deals and games exclusive to Xbox. But it all depends if they want to do that or not based on the numbers that they have.

I can’t see Microsoft selling the marketing rights to their 1st party titles. Even the few that might stay multi. The other part would be, would Sony or anyone else want to market Microsoft’s games?

I don’t think so

 

[GhostOfTsu]

impression that Sony has just one deal template that all their partners are forced to accept…where’s that coming from?

As it stands, there’s zero indication that there’s anything in the contract prohibiting releases on other subscription services.

We’ll only know for sure when the deal completes.

Where are all the CODs and Activision games on Game Pass? We got them all on PS plus years ago while you're still waiting for 1 Acti game to show up. That says it all really. If it's not a contract then are you saying Activision don't want to support GP?

Black Ops 3, Zombies Chronicles, MW1 and 2 Remastered, BO4, WWII, Crash Trilogy etc were all free. Activision been feeding us good, no buyouts needed