Support NeoGAF

[SlimySnake]

My dude, I'm real happy you don't run any noteworthy business lol.

You would rather MS risk not selling the game at all and get caught up in legalities versus selling it on more than one platform and revenue.

Microsoft is risking $70 billion of their own money for this. Im sure their lawyers knew about any Sony contracts. All Im saying is that a) a $70 billion purchase doesnt make sense if you cant put it on gamepass let alone make it exclusive and b) you buy a company to do with it as you please. otherwise, they wouldve just signed new contracts.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I think Microsoft thinks that they can get COD on GP, I don't think the content of the marketing deal would have been a surprise to them after the initial investigation personally.

I think it might do with the usage of the word third party in the marketing agreement.

I mean maybe they can but if so, why haven't any of the other COD games come to GamePass previously? It's been around since 2017, COD games have been a regular thing since forever.

So I'm kind of thinking the marketing agreements also cover the chance of games, even older releases within the scope of the contract's time span, coming to competing services. It'd explain why we've yet to see an older COD release like say MW in GamePass at this point, as it's roughly three years old. It's probably gonna be a while before we see any COD games in GamePass TBH.

So... some people will get the games with GP while others will pay up $60 buckaroos for the next few years.

Seems fair to me.

No, it more likely means until 2025 (or 2026), PlayStation and Xbox players will have to pay $60/$70 for new COD games and you won't be seeing any of th emodern CODs in non-PlayStation services (outside of digital storefronts) until 2025 or 2026.

 

[reksveks]

If, COD follows the same contract, I don't think the "third-party" would be iron clad in allowing MS to put the game on Game Pass regardless of it being considered internal or not. Not only does it specifically mention "any competitive" services it also calls out Game Pass and Project X Cloud as specific examples. I'm sure attorneys and $$ will have this issue resolved before it has any impact. I doubt either company would want this to go to court.

This is where I think the lawyers would be having fun.

I read it as

Any third party competing service including GamePass, xcloud, stadia...

Not

Any third party competing service and GamePass, xcloud, stadia.

If the 'third party' element is vital to the clause, then it could be argued that it ain't a third party service. It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Belthazar]

I still dont understand why you would spend $70 billion for CoD only to "honor" the agreement. Every contract has a fine if you break it. Just pay that fine even if for whatever reason its in the hundreds of millions. You paid billions for cod on gamepass on day one. If that cant happen until 2026, whats the point?

This is the time to sell consoles. Have people pick up an Xbox instead of a PS. By 2026, it would already be too late.

Usually those contracts have astronomically large fines for breaking them... Which is to give both parties security in the deal. Those contracts are not made to be broken, so the fines might be bigger than we imagine.

It also would not be good PR for Xbox.

 

[kyliethicc]

 

[adamsapple]

Microsoft is risking $70 billion of their own money for this. Im sure their lawyers knew about any Sony contracts. All Im saying is that a) a $70 billion purchase doesnt make sense if you cant put it on gamepass let alone make it exclusive and b) you buy a company to do with it as you please. otherwise, they wouldve just signed new contracts.

Like you said, their army of lawyers probably crunched numbers beyond our scope. They knew full well the contracts before signing.

BTW, I've said this before but it's a bit weird that people just shorthand the Activision buyout to CoD. There's hundreds of other IP that come with the deal, not to mention studios like King that generate in the vein of $5 bn in revenue each year alone. The disposable income generated there probably helps clean out Satya's tears.

MS are gonna be fine if they have to continue selling the next 3 CoD's on PS with marketing agreements.

 

[Belthazar]

The contract doesn't be specific to what kinda of hardware and does call out Google Stadia Pro.

Yeah, that's the thing that I am not 100% on. When the deal closes, would GP be an internal subscription service? Would ABK have to make one and then combine it with GP for Xbox users (fore free obviously)and maybe offer it to PS. I am sure there are lawyers thinking about this personally.

The contract is very clear when it mention services that are competitive with PS subscription services. It doesn't matter if it becomes an internal subscription service to Activision due to the acquisition, it still is a competitive service to PlayStation Plus.

 

[reksveks]

I mean maybe they can but if so, why haven't any of the other COD games come to GamePass previously? It's been around since 2017, COD games have been a regular thing since forever.

So I'm kind of thinking the marketing agreements also cover the chance of games, even older releases within the scope of the contract's time span, coming to competing services. It'd explain why we've yet to see an older COD release like say MW in GamePass at this point, as it's roughly three years old. It's probably gonna be a while before we see any COD games in GamePass TBH.

It is a good question. It could be that ABK just doesn't believe that financially it doesn't make sense to offer COD on GP. I am personally not sure if they want to have more than 2 COD's alive at one.

 

[nominedomine]

Microsoft is risking $70 billion of their own money for this. Im sure their lawyers knew about any Sony contracts. All Im saying is that a) a $70 billion purchase doesnt make sense if you cant put it on gamepass let alone make it exclusive and b) you buy a company to do with it as you please. otherwise, they wouldve just signed new contracts.

No $70B purchase makes sense to propel a gaming subscription service. That's pretty close to the market cap value of Netflix these days, a service that is bigger than any gaming service will ever be.

 

[reksveks]

The contract is very clear when it mention services that are competitive with PS subscription services. It doesn't matter if it becomes an internal subscription service to Activision due to the acquisition, it still is a competitive service to PlayStation Plus.

The competitive platform is after the 'third party' clause was my point and why I raised EA Play Pro. A good benchmark might be Ubisoft+, does Avatar come to that service on consoles?

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I see 2024 CoD being the first game that comes to Game Pass Day 1. Once MS actually owns ABK they will use leverage to make it come to GP Day 1. What can Sony do if MS threatens to make future CoD games a 6 month xbox console exclusive instead of Day and date on PS5? They can't really do anything at that point. They will allow CoD 2024 to come to GP.

So MS buys a company for 70 billion...and the first thing they do is to remove the access of that company's biggest IP from its main platform and money maker PlayStation? The first thing you do after buying a huge publisher is...to cut a huge chunk of all the revenue you could get?

The biggest one losing here is MS, not Sony.

 

[nominedomine]

So MS buys a company for 70 billion...and the first thing they do is to remove the access of that company's biggest IP from its main platform and money maker PlayStation? The first thing you do after buying a huge publisher is...to cut a huge chunk of all the revenue you could get?

The biggest one losing here is MS, not Sony.

Yea. Even if they could get out of the contracts by 2024, If CoD goes day 1 on Gamepass Sony doesn't really need to do anything and if they remove CoD from PlayStation Sony has all the incentive in the world to occupy that space themselves.

Not to mention that all of this will be happening when the gen is well on it's way already.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

If true then Sony truly gave Microsoft no option but to buy out major studios so that didn't happen.

Eh, more like Microsoft gave themselves no other option. Sony was opportunistic to capitalize on Microsoft's weaknesses last gen, but Microsoft were ultimately the ones who self-inflicted their own wounds. You can't blame a predator going after it's prey if the prey injures itself repeatedly beforehand.

 

[itsjustJEFF]

I still dont understand why you would spend $70 billion for CoD only to "honor" the agreement. Every contract has a fine if you break it. Just pay that fine even if for whatever reason its in the hundreds of millions. You paid billions for cod on gamepass on day one. If that cant happen until 2026, whats the point?

This is the time to sell consoles. Have people pick up an Xbox instead of a PS. By 2026, it would already be too late.

As someone said, breaching of a contract could cost them more than just the initial payment they made to secure said position. They could sue to "potential" loss.

But, the most important thing... trust. If you renege on one "agreement" what guarantee does anyone have moving forward that you won't renege on future agreements? The perception becomes "you don't 'honor' deals" like everyone else does. There's a really good reason why Microsoft has honored all contracts/agreements, they don't want to look untrustworthy. It's basically cheating in a relationship, no one like the one who cheated. The cheater can never be 100% trusted moving forward.

 

[prinz_valium]

The contract is very clear when it mention services that are competitive with PS subscription services. It doesn't matter if it becomes an internal subscription service to Activision due to the acquisition, it still is a competitive service to PlayStation Plus.

It clearly states third party.
Of course Activsion can put the game on their own subscription service whenever they want.
Not publisher in the world would ever sing a contract, that takes that right away.

Now the parties involved and lawyers have to argue if Game Pass and Microsoft is a third party after the buyout or not.

 

[nominedomine]

Eh, more like Microsoft gave themselves no other option. Sony was opportunistic to capitalize on Microsoft's weaknesses last gen, but Microsoft were ultimately the ones who self-inflicted their own wounds. You can't blame a predator going after it's prey if the prey injures itself repeatedly beforehand.

MS was forced to go all in after they overcommitted to Gamepass with Day 1 games promises, etc. Their internal studios couldn't deliver the amount of games needed to grow the service and third party publishers won't easily be persuaded to put their games day one on any service (unless they are sure the game is a a guaranteed flop).

I get what Phil Spencer did, he had absolutely nothing and had to sell Nadella on this Gamepass pipedream so he wouldn't be replaced for his mismanagement of the Xbox division. This is who Phil Spencer is, a salesman, someone who is constantly overpromising and underdelivering. The fall of Netflix is exposing that being first in this sort of market ain't that much of an advantage.

Not to mention that F2P is a proven and much more successful business model for GaaS games.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Like you said, their army of lawyers probably crunched numbers beyond our scope. They knew full well the contracts before signing.

BTW, I've said this before but it's a bit weird that people just shorthand the Activision buyout to CoD. There's hundreds of other IP that come with the deal, not to mention studios like King that generate in the vein of $5 bn in revenue each year alone. The disposable income generated there probably helps clean out Satya's tears.

MS are gonna be fine if they have to continue selling the next 3 CoD's on PS with marketing agreements.

Core gamers missing the bigger picture. Imo Microsoft mainly went after ABK because of the K.

AB doesn't help with Gamepass that much, they don't release enough games for that. Of course CoD on Gamepass is gonna be massive, but still.

 

[ParaSeoul]

Activision, Blizzard and King are all money makers. Even Blizzard made 700m in profits last year. Just for comparison, that's roughly the same as the entirety of EA and Ubisoft combined made last year.

Don't care how much money the company makes,good games are all that matters. Unless of course you're an employee.

 

[Camreezie]

Microsoft will still be getting massive income from ABK even if COD got tied up with still being marketed with Sony. That's just one arm of the company after all. Even if its the biggest hitter, they're still gonna put all those other studios to work, it's an easy waiting game for MS

 

[reksveks]

Core gamers missing the bigger picture. Imo Microsoft mainly went after ABK because of the K.

AB doesn't help with Gamepass that much, they don't release enough games for that. Of course CoD on Gamepass is gonna be massive, but still.

especially if the open app market act goes through

 

[Kenshin775]

So MS buys a company for 70 billion...and the first thing they do is to remove the access of that company's biggest IP from its main platform and money maker PlayStation? The first thing you do after buying a huge publisher is...to cut a huge chunk of all the revenue you could get?

The biggest one losing here is MS, not Sony.

What do you mean? Exclusive content is what brings in users to any ecosystem whether its consoles or sub services.

2nd this would hurt Sony more losing that CoD revenue and profit. MS probably wants to be the good guy and make everything day and date but they can absolutely use this leverage once/if the deal is done. Even if regulators will require games to come to all platforms I doubt they would force MS to make the games come out at the same time or force them to have the same amount of content of launch day. MS will probably have exclusive maps for future CoD games.

 

[SSfox]

COD can stop being release on PS i couldn't care less, never cared about this franchise and won't care.

 

[fermcr]

No Call of Duty for 2023. A new Call of Duty launch every 2 years from now on?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

What do you mean? Exclusive content is what brings in users to any ecosystem whether its consoles or sub services.

2nd this would hurt Sony more losing that CoD revenue and profit. MS probably wants to be the good guy and make everything day and date but they can absolutely use this leverage once/if the deal is done. Even if regulators will require games to come to all platforms I doubt they would force MS to make the games come out at the same time or force them to have the same amount of content of launch day. MS will probably have exclusive maps for future CoD games.

They've said they're not going to make the games exclusive. Not doing this would make them exclusive lol

 

[Vognerful]

This also proves the unpleasant truth that CoD is too big for Sony to let go. They are not willing to let go of that privilege to associate the franchise with Sony.

Microsoft is risking $70 billion of their own money for this. Im sure their lawyers knew about any Sony contracts. All Im saying is that a) a $70 billion purchase doesnt make sense if you cant put it on gamepass let alone make it exclusive and b) you buy a company to do with it as you please. otherwise, they wouldve just signed new contracts.

ABK returns as much net profit as Sony (or playstation, forgot which). That is amazing jewel no matter what you think. Hey, maybe the price is hard to swallow and I understand why. But every dollar you are spending on this game on Sony platform, 70 cent is going to Microsoft.

 

[Grumpy Toe Nail]

so Sony has 4-5 years to create their own COD.

Haha imagine if Sony was capable of making FPS's. RFOM/Killzone 1 are the only decent shooters they've ever made, both of which had terrible sequels.
Sony doesn't fuck with first person.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Haha imagine if Sony was capable of making FPS's. RFOM/Killzone 1 are the only shooters decent they've ever made, both of which had terrible sequels.

You mean Killzone 2, which was fantastic.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

So who is gonna make this COD killer for Sony?

OR

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Multi-national corporations with more money than God don't break contracts worth millions of dollars to appease people on the internet bickering over who's plastic toy is better.

 

[SlimySnake]

This also proves the unpleasant truth that CoD is too big for Sony to let go. They are not willing to let go of that privilege to associate the franchise with Sony.


ABK returns as much net profit as Sony (or playstation, forgot which). That is amazing jewel no matter what you think. Hey, maybe the price is hard to swallow and I understand why. But every dollar you are spending on this game on Sony platform, 70 cent is going to Microsoft.

I understand they made a lot of profit. I think it was $3-4 billion last year which is over what Sony posted in 2020 which was $3 billion. So i get what you are saying, but this is such a massive purchase that it will take them 23 years to break even at $3 billion a year.

To me, the purchase wasn't about making more profit. It was about either putting Sony under pressure to allow gamepass on Playstation or become the defacto CoD platform where everyone must buy an Xbox in order to play CoD every year making Xbox the biggest console in the world once more. If they cant even get COD on gamepass until 2026, i dont see the point in acquiring it today. They couldve waited till 2026 and bought them then. Who knows, the price might have been cheaper then.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

So much wrong in this.

Nothing wrong with it if you want the FTC to undo the acquisition

This is where I think the lawyers would be having fun.

I read it as

Any third party competing service including GamePass, xcloud, stadia...

Not

Any third party competing service and GamePass, xcloud, stadia.

If the 'third party' element is vital to the clause, then it could be argued that it ain't a third party service. It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

I think "third-party" in this context means anything that isn't Sony-owned in terms of services, because to them it would be third-party regardless if the third-party is just a regular publisher (like ABK) or a platform holder (like Microsoft).

It is a good question. It could be that ABK just doesn't believe that financially it doesn't make sense to offer COD on GP. I am personally not sure if they want to have more than 2 COD's alive at one.

Maybe they did. But if MS were willing to pay them a few dozen millions, that's 100% extra money for ABK for a bunch of older COD games. If MS came to them with $100 million for MW, Black Ops 4 and a few other recent (not current) CODs over the past 5 or so years into GamePass, why would ABK turn down free money?

Also, it's no extra work for ABK, they don't have to reactivate dead servers or add more content to those games, just sell them as-is for GamePass licensing rights to Microsoft.

MS was forced to go all in after they overcommitted to Gamepass with Day 1 games promises, etc. Their internal studios couldn't deliver the amount of games needed to grow the service and third party publishers won't easily be persuaded to put their games day one on any service (unless they are sure the game is a a guaranteed flop).

Unfortunately in some ways that seems to be at least partially true. I do think they should've tested the waters with Day 1 for select games; in a way they have already violated that promise by providing FH5 as Early Access. Technically it came to GamePass "Day 1" if you're talking in terms of arriving on a subscription service, but the way Day 1 has been messaged is in the game being available on the service at the exact same time as it's available through other means.

Though in a way it's actually a nice escape card MS can play while still being legally in the right; they never specified the context of what "Day 1 in GamePass" entailed, people just (naturally, and rightly) assumed it meant in relation to the game's release for purchase physically and digitally. But they could do more of what they did for FH5, providing 1P games for "Early Access" like a month ahead or such like and then bringing them to GamePass, and getting cheeky with more specific wording on what "Day 1" actually means while staying in the right legally.

Would some subscribers be pissed off? Absolutely, as they probably should. But it's an interesting loophole for MS that's there if they want to actually do limited windows for Early Access purchase of 1P games before they come to GamePass.

I get what Phil Spencer did, he had absolutely nothing and had to sell Nadella on this Gamepass pipedream so he wouldn't be replaced for his mismanagement of the Xbox division. This is who Phil Spencer is, a sales man, someone who is constantly overpromising and underdelivering. The fall of Netflix is exposing that being first in this sort of market ain't that much of an advantage.

Harsh words on Phil, dude. Lucky this isn't Twitter x3. Personally I think he's done some good with the brand, but he's definitely made some mistakes as well IMO. Some of those are probably outside of his control though; if the rest of the company is pivoting a certain way, you can't be the odd division out that isn't at least somewhat in lockstep. So any decisions or plans he had for Xbox needed to conform with what the rest of Microsoft is pursuing. The question long-term is, are those things (which are working great for the business/enterprise sides of Microsoft) a good fit for Xbox, which is an entertainment division? We'll have to see.

If anything I think Netflix's situation is showing where the peak for these type of sub services are when it comes to non-gaming. Spotify has 422 million, Netflix has 220 million (about half of Spotify's); I think a gaming service would have about half of Netflix's if it does everything right, so 110 - 115 million. That's nowhere near 2 billion.

 

[BeardGawd]

I think Microsoft thinks that they can get COD on GP, I don't think the content of the marketing deal would have been a surprise to them after the initial investigation personally.

I think it might do with the usage of the word third party in the marketing agreement.

Oh wow. That would be an interesting loop hole.

 

[reksveks]

Oh wow. That would be an interesting loop hole.

I could definitely be over-reading it into it but it would be funny. Not as funny as Apple and Epic defining a game but getting there.

 

[Darsxx82]

That due to the agreement between SONY-ACtivision the CODs of 2022 and 2024 can not be launched in Gamepass day one does not mean that they can arrive 1 year later which is what SONY imposes in its exclusivity clauses. That is, at the end of 2023 MWII can be launched in Gamepass and in 2025 surely you can already have in the catalog both MWII, COD 2024 and COD 2025 that this one should no longer have a problem to launch day one.

It seems that someone is wanting to believe that MS will not be able to take advantage of the acquisition of Activision until 2025.

Acti-Blz is not just COD, it is much more. Nothing would prevent that when the acquisition is closed, all the past catalog of ACT-Blz (which is a huge) will be launched at once to Gamepass and that its next releases, beyond COd, can arrive day one also to the service of MS (Diablo IV?, the new IP?)

 

[kingfey]

The showcase is in 2 weeks, and the full purchase completion is near.

I would trust those more.

If they don't put it on gamepass, then there is no problem. 3 more years is nothing for xbox users.

 

[prinz_valium]

Oh wow. That would be an interesting loop hole.

Activsion could launch their own subscription services and include that in Game Pass Ultimate and Game Pass for PC, just like EA play is included.
Nothing in the agreement would prevent that.

of course Sony could litigate that. But I doubt they would have success

 

[ShaikhCroft]

so Sony has 4-5 years to create their own COD.

And now they got Bungie!

 

[Knightime_X]

Hopefully the marketing deal doesn't prevent adding the games to game pass.

Guess it's just a wait and see situation.

edit. HA! nvm I read it wrong.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Activsion could launch their own subscription services and include that in Game Pass Ultimate and Game Pass for PC, just like EA play is included.
Nothing in the agreement would prevent that.

of course Sony could litigate that. But I doubt they would have success

Talk about being subtle as a brick. No way would that fly

 

[BeardGawd]

The contract doesn't be specific to what kinda of hardware and does call out Google Stadia Pro.

Yeah, that's the thing that I am not 100% on. When the deal closes, would GP be an internal subscription service? Would ABK have to make one and then combine it with GP for Xbox users (fore free obviously)and maybe offer it to PS. I am sure there are lawyers thinking about this personally.

Obviously there is the other thing of COD/ABK being possibly big enough to have a custom deal.

What's also interesting is the rights of 1st refusal for 1 year after release. So they obviously are aware it can still wind up on a competing subscriptiom service but they just want rights of first refusal incase they want to match whatever the other offer is to keep it on PS Now, Plus, etc... Perhaps MS could make the terms unpalatable for Sony and they refuse.

 

[DeepEnigma]

So who is gonna make this COD killer for Sony?

OR

You're missing Bungie. I heard it through the grapevine that they make pretty competent shooters with great gunplay.

 

[Belthazar]

The competitive platform is after the 'third party' clause was my point and why I raised EA Play Pro. A good benchmark might be Ubisoft+, does Avatar come to that service on consoles?

Sony has good lawyers and it's very easy to prove that third party included Mucroosdr owned subscription services. Trying to make an Activision subscription that's part of gamepass just to bypass that rule might not go well in court, as that can be seen as a maneuver devised just to break a previously signed contract. It all depends on the judge interpretation, but I can see Microsoft either play nice with the contract or just pay the fine anyway.

 

[TheGodfather07]

so microsoft dont benefit from buying Activision until atleast 2025? and some people thought cod would instantly go exclusive to xbox when the aquisition was first announced.

 

[mckmas8808]

I still dont understand why you would spend $70 billion for CoD only to "honor" the agreement. Every contract has a fine if you break it. Just pay that fine even if for whatever reason its in the hundreds of millions. You paid billions for cod on gamepass on day one. If that cant happen until 2026, whats the point?

This is the time to sell consoles. Have people pick up an Xbox instead of a PS. By 2026, it would already be too late.

How much of a PR nightmare would it be to break that fine. And would it be worth it?

 

[Vognerful]

You're missing Bungie. I heard it through the grapevine that they make pretty competent shooters with great gunplay.

You guess are putting them on a very high pedestal and setting very high expectations.

To be a "CoD" (what the fuck does that mean?), It has also to go against Fortnite and Apex legend.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You guess are putting them on a very high pedestal and setting very high expectations.

To be a "CoD" (what the fuck does that mean?), It has also to go against Fortnite and Apex legend.

I mean, didn't Xbox gamers pedestal the shit out of them when they made Halo?

 

[Vognerful]

I mean, didn't Xbox gamers pedestal the shit out of them when they made Halo?

Is your only escape is to throw shades at Xbox?

"Oh shit I have no answer! Better mike the same joke for 9863047 time."

 

[DeepEnigma]

Is your only escape is to throw shades at Xbox?

"Oh shit I have no answer! Better mike the same joke for 9863047 time."

Just taking a page out of your PS shade book. I'm sorry you fell for the Bungie bait, hook, line and sinker.

Pick yourself up and brush yourself off *pats you on the ass* you got this next time, kid.

 

[SlimySnake]

Talk about being subtle as a brick. No way would that fly

Is this speculation even warranted now that MS has confirmed that they will honor Sony's contracts?

Regardless, I speculated last year why MS didnt go out and get the biggest games of the year during the empty first 10 months before Forza and Halo showed up on the service. The biggest games they had were Outriders and MLB. Thats it. No RE8, no Far Cry 6, No Guardians, not even It Takes Two. It cant be because they couldnt afford it. They have 25 million monthly subscribers pumping in hundreds of millions per month. I think its entirely possible the Sony has signed deals with publishers preventing games from showing up on Gamepass. We know this to be true for RE8 thanks to the leaks.

 

[NickFire]

But here is the thing. MS is going to OWN Activision after paying $70 billion. When you own something, you can do it with as you please. You can let it die like Mitt Romney's Bain Capital would for companies they would acquire in guise of 'turning them around' or you can spin them off into their own subsidiary like AT&T just did with WB. They are YOUR property and no one can tell you what you can or can not do with them.

Thats why Microsoft had to offer that they will 'honor' sonys contracts. They dont HAVE to. Otherwise they wouldnt have had to make that statement. It's their perogative. Of course, Sony could sue and thats their right, but MS can do with their new company as they please.

Sure. But a corporate entity is considered a distinct person and remains bound by its deals no matter who owns the shares. You don't get to shield yourself from liability by incorporating without having to honor its separate status at the same time.