Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

Microsoft will keep Call of Duty on Sony platforms "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to"

Xbox boss Phil Spencer has made Microsoft's plainest promise yet around the future of Call of Duty on PlayStation platf…

www.eurogamer.net

Xbox boss Phil Spencer has made Microsoft's plainest promise yet around the future of Call of Duty on PlayStation platforms.

Speaking to the Same Brain Youtube channel, Spencer pledged to keep releasing Call of Duty games on Sony's consoles "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to".

The future of Call of Duty on PlayStation has become a contentious topic for regulators such as the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which is currently scrutinising Microsoft's planned $68n takeover of COD publisher Activision Blizzard.

Microsoft has repeatedly said it will keep releasing Call of Duty games for the forseeable future - and previously promised Call of Duty would remain on PlayStation "at least several more years" beyond Sony's existing deal with Activision Blizzard. Still, regulators have questioned how long this will actually last, if and when Activision Blizzard is owned by Microsoft.

Here's Spencer's latest quote on the subject in full:

"We're not taking Call of Duty from PlayStation... That's not our intent," Spencer said. "Our intent is not to do that and as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to, our intent is that we'll continue to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation - similar to what we've done with Minecraft since we owned that.

"We've expanded the places where people can play Minecraft, we haven't reduced the places. And it's been good, it's been good for the Minecraft community - in my opinion - and we want to do the same when we think where Call of Duty can go over the years."

Another issue for regulators has been the competitive advantage Microsoft might gain from including Call of Duty in its Game Pass subscription service.

If it did so, Microsoft could still keep releasing Call of Duty on PlayStation via its typical £70 upfront price, while alternatively offering it at no further cost to Xbox owners who have Game Pass already.

"For Xbox itself, players who have invested in our console, the biggest addition you're going to see is some great games coming to Game Pass," Spencer continued, without mentioning Call of Duty specifically by name. "This isn't going to be about pulling those communities off of those other platforms. But I want it to be a great place to see those games."

In September, PlayStation and Xbox traded blows over the future of Call of Duty following the announcement by the UK's CMA that it would further investigate Microsoft's $68bn Activision Blizzard takeover attempt.

"Giving Microsoft control of Activision games like Call of Duty" had "major negative implications", Sony said at the time.

In response, Microsoft fired back: "It makes zero business sense for Microsoft to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation given its market leading console position."

This latest promise from Spencer comes as the deal faces intense scrutiny, ahead of a final ruling from the UK's CMA in spring 2023.

 

[The_Mike]

Again, where have they said most people buy PlayStation for their FP games

“Exclusive content was, most likely, one of the main factors responsible for positioning the PlayStation as a leader in the world console market for more than two decades, a leadership that continues to this day.”

Their FP games are the reason they dominate, so it's kinda what they say.

Maybe they've also read their research on Gaf, which would set Sony in bad light since everyone buys playstation for their FP and none buys xbox because the lack of theirs.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Shit....Phil has the inside scoop. He knows sony is exiting the gaming race....PS5 is their last console confirmed.

 

[lh032]

 

[Gudji]

 

[FalsettoVibe]

 

[jroc74]

Appreciate Eurogamer basically pointing out Phil's earlier statements pointed to something different.

 

[Banjo64]

That’s a very clear statement, much better than a 3 year contract. That being said, if that’s their intention why do they need a 3 year contract on the first place? Just keep publishing the game there.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Playstation accounted for over a Billion dollars of the Activision money made, damn right they keep shipping those games to Playstation

 

[DJ12]

I intend not to take a shit. Let's see how that works out.

 

[Pagusas]

So does that mean Microsoft will be getting dev PS6's sent over early in development? Sounds like a great way to make sure Xbox is always one step ahead hardware wise.

 

[reksveks]

That’s a very clear statement, much better than a 3 year contract. That being said, if that’s their intention why do they need a 3 year contract on the first place? Just keep publishing the game there.

Because you can't or shouldn't really have an 'indefinite' deal unless you are like early 00's marvel and fuck up.

I do think they may need to reword the contract but don't know how.

If the issue is about COD and Sony hardware platform, I do think this deal is going ahead. If its about other factors, there is bigger and more interesting concessions that will come in play.

 

[Punished Miku]

That’s a very clear statement, much better than a 3 year contract. That being said, if that’s their intention why do they need a 3 year contract on the first place? Just keep publishing the game there.

The 3 year contract is just going above and beyond to make Jim Ryan feel safe at night. They shouldn't have to sign it, but they offered anyway.

 

[reksveks]

So does that mean Microsoft will be getting dev PS6's sent over early in development? Sounds like a great way to make sure Xbox is always one step ahead hardware wise.

Think Mojang ain't getting consoles?

 

[Infamy v1]

Appreciate Eurogamer basically pointing out Phil's earlier statements pointed to something different.

Phil Spencer has been saying this forever at this point, but of course that's what you extrapolate from the entire article of all things.

Why would Microsoft take away a massive revenue stream, where Sony is practically paying them billions per year? Conversely, what company would ever put down in writing that they'd release their product for a rival forever?

In a decade or so from now, who knows, but as of now there's a plethora of incentive to keep it multiplatform (billions in revenue paid to them from their rival while they get the rights to marketing and things like $70 vs Game Pass, keeps regulators distracted from the real prize which is King, makes it easier for future acquisitions which we know are coming, etc.etc.).

Jimmyboy crying about the 3 year promise after contractual obligations is hilarious because no company would ever sign an agreement to perpetually, forever release one of their flagship products for a rival. If something like this is even occurring its usually in X amount of years that needs to be renewed, y'know, how the entire Capitalism world works, let alone the video game industry. This would be laughed right out of any court if proposed by lawyers.

Jimbo and Sony are not fighting the idea of losing CoD, but are fighting the fact that they will lose marketing, brand recognition and also don't want the franchise going to Game Pass:

I mean, the proof is right there. Funny how it's often ignored by certain folk.

 

[Represent.]

No shit. Selling to all platforms will bring in more money than keeping it exclusive

 

[NickFire]

Still leaves the door open. Our intent is not a promise. Our intent is not an agreement. Our intent just means there are no current plans to change course.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

So does that mean Microsoft will be getting dev PS6's sent over early in development? Sounds like a great way to make sure Xbox is always one step ahead hardware wise.

Same for Sony and MLB the Show........
Also, if you think these companies don't know what each other are doing when it comes to hardware, I got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Fabieter]

So does that mean Microsoft will be getting dev PS6's sent over early in development? Sounds like a great way to make sure Xbox is always one step ahead hardware wise.

Iam sure sony will get the same treatment to get the mlb games on xbox.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

„pledged“ lol. Like Amber Heart pledged to donate 5million dollars to charity.

This means nothing and is just a tool to change the narrative so that the merger can happen.

 

[Banjo64]

Because you can't or shouldn't really have an 'indefinite' deal unless you are like early 00's marvel and fuck up.

Why does there need to be a contract at all?

The 3 year contract is just going above and beyond to make Jim Ryan feel safe at night. They shouldn't have to sign it, but they offered anyway.

In that case why limit it to 3 years? Why not 10?

 

[Jennings]

$70 on Playstation, $? on Gamepass.

 

[Topher]

“Exclusive content was, most likely, one of the main factors responsible for positioning the PlayStation as a leader in the world console market for more than two decades, a leadership that continues to this day.”

Their FP games are the reason they dominate, so it's kinda what they say.

Maybe they've also read their research on Gaf, which would set Sony in bad light since everyone buys playstation for their FP and none buys xbox because the lack of theirs.

And yet first parity was extremely strong during the PS3 years and Sony dominated nothing. We all know the circumstances that led to PS4 dominating Xbox One last gen: Kinect, price, DRM, etc. It wasn't until we were three years into last gen that Sony's first party really started showing up in force. First party is obviously important to a console's library, but to suggest this is the single most relevant reason PlayStation has become dominant since the PS3 years is simply a matter of revisionist history.

 

[Pagusas]

Iam sure sony will get the same treatment to get the mlb games on xbox.

I had completely forgot about MLB!

 

[Punished Miku]

Why does there need to be a contract at all?


In that case why limit it to 3 years? Why not 10?

The 3 years is probably keeping pretty close to existing Call of Duty contracts and their time frame. They probably have 3 year deals with PS now for marketing. They're trying to not let Playstation just walk all over them and demand excessively long contracts for no reason. No gaming company signs 10 year contracts.

 

[jroc74]

Phil Spencer has been saying this forever at this point, but of course that's what you extrapolate from the entire article of all things.

Why would Microsoft take away a massive revenue stream, where Sony is practically paying them billions per year? Conversely, what company would ever put down in writing that they'd release their product for a rival forever?

In a decade or so from now, who knows, but as of now there's a plethora of incentive to keep it multiplatform (billions in revenue paid to them from their rival while they get the rights to marketing and things like $70 vs Game Pass, keeps regulators distracted from the real prize which is King, makes it easier for future acquisitions which we know are coming, etc.etc.).

Jimmyboy crying about the 3 year promise after contractual obligations is hilarious because no company would ever sign an agreement to perpetually, forever release one of their flagship products for a rival. If something like this is even occurring its usually in X amount of years that needs to be renewed, y'know, how the entire Capitalism world works, let alone the video game industry. This would be laughed right out of any court if proposed by lawyers.

Jimbo and Sony are not fighting the idea of losing CoD, but are fighting the fact that they will lose marketing, brand recognition and also don't want the franchise going to Game Pass:

I mean, the proof is right there. Funny how it's often ignored by certain folk.

Article literally points out actual statements by Phil that said otherwise...

The problem is he should have never said something different than that other MS, Xbox exec said. That other exec was the first one to compare it to Minecraft.

Phil decided to bring up time frames.

 

[Ezekiel_]

What happened to everyone saying "You don't make a 70 billion dollar acquisition to maintain the status quo"?

So now we are back at "it's too much revenue to leave on the table". But surely RedFall, Starfield, Elders scrolls 6, Pentiment, etc. would all sell more on PlayStation. What about that revenue?

So they want to make their platform more attractive, but not too attractive, because they want to also sell copies on PlayStation for some games... Righhhttt...

 

[Banjo64]

The 3 years is probably keeping pretty close to existing Call of Duty contracts and their time frame. They probably have 3 year deals with PS now for marketing. They're trying to not let Playstation just walk all over them and demand excessively long contracts for no reason. No gaming company signs 10 year contracts.

So do Rockstar, for example, have a contract with Sony stating they’ll publish games on PS for X amount of years, or do they just publish the games on PS?

 

[Skifi28]

Did Jim's epic tantrum pay off?

 

[PaintTinJr]

In other word, your words should be the truth, and not the devs who make the game.
Got it.

..

I didn't disagree with anything the dev had been press-trained to tweet - so that is a complete strawman.

I'm saying it makes zero difference to the point I made by showing Tom Warren's mindshare marketing of xbox with a differentiated feature for Series' MC with RT, and one that is also used to differentiate native PC MC to the original Minecraft that gave the game its success. Or are you saying that Richard and John of DF are liars for claiming to see a native version of MC running on a Series X when Xbox used it to market the launch of the Series console?

The CMA and public keep getting told by Microsoft that Minecraft is the poster boy for post-acquisition handling of ABK IPs, despite there being clear signs that the original java MC version is marginalised and that dev work with DirectX only DXR has been done - and did make it into the hands of alpha channel users, as per the IGN article and Tom Warren screen grabbed tweet and witnessing of DF of it running on Series hardware - that all give mindshare to Phil's claim of "First or best on Xbox".

 

[K2D]

Intent =/= reality =/= not his choice to make forever

 

[jroc74]

What happened to everyone saying "You don't make a 70 billion dollar acquisition to maintain the status quo"?

So now we are back at "it's too much revenue to leave on the table". But surely RedFall, Starfield, Elders scrolls 6, Pentiment, etc. would all sell more on PlayStation. What about that revenue?

So they want to make their platform more attractive, but not too attractive, because they want to also sell copies on PlayStation for some games... Righhhttt...

This.

Its kinda wild how the narrative flipped when it looked like the deal was in trouble of being blocked.

 

[Topher]

That’s a very clear statement, much better than a 3 year contract. That being said, if that’s their intention why do they need a 3 year contract on the first place? Just keep publishing the game there.

Spencer's clarity on this seems to increase along with CMA's scrutiny, doesn't it?

 

[Markio128]

 

[adamsapple]

As long as it's on game pass day 1, they can release it on Tiger.com for all I care.

 

[DaGwaphics]

What happened to everyone saying "You don't make a 70 billion dollar acquisition to maintain the status quo"?

So now we are back at "it's too much revenue to leave on the table". But surely RedFall, Starfield, Elders scrolls 6, Pentiment, etc. would all sell more on PlayStation. What about that revenue?

So they want to make their platform more attractive, but not too attractive, because they want to also sell copies on PlayStation for some games... Righhhttt...

Only a fool would lump all games together. There are big differences in the cost of making those games you mentioned vs. CoD and the machine behind that.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

What happened to everyone saying "You don't make a 70 billion dollar acquisition to maintain the status quo"?

So now we are back at "it's too much revenue to leave on the table". But surely RedFall, Starfield, Elders scrolls 6, Pentiment, etc. would all sell more on PlayStation. What about that revenue?

So they want to make their platform more attractive, but not too attractive, because they want to also sell copies on PlayStation for some games... Righhhttt...

They want core gamers with Bethesda games. Ones who buy games on monthly basis.

Casuals can stay on PS with yearly supply of COD.

 

[Punished Miku]

So do Rockstar, for example, have a contract with Sony stating they’ll publish games on PS for X amount of years, or do they just publish the games on PS?

I don't know what Rockstar's deals are. If it's a multiplat game then there's probably not a contract. Maybe some kind of marketing deal. If I had to guess, the overwhelming majority of games just publish without some contract guaranteeing it.

Spencer's clarity on this seems to increase along with CMA's scrutiny, doesn't it?

This is literally exactly what he said at the start. They're keeping it multiplatform and treating it like Minecraft.

This.

Its kinda wild how the narrative flipped when it looked like the deal was in trouble of being blocked.

If you guys get bored enough to look back when this was first announced, I've had the exact same prediction all along. Call of Duty will stay multiplatform. I haven't flipped at all.

 

[reksveks]

What happened to everyone saying "You don't make a 70 billion dollar acquisition to maintain the status quo"?

Everyone?

Also adding COD on GP and basically making sure that you have the marketing deals could be a big enough deal. No-one including MS knows what impact that would have.

 

[feynoob]

There can't be a Playstation to ship to if you kill Playstation.

Well said

 

[reksveks]

Why does there need to be a contract at all?

Unfortunately not having a contract makes things just as unclear so its a lose/lose in that sense

 

[Kvally]

I have lost track how many times Phil has had to say that COD remains on PlayStation. Stay tuned for tomorrow, when he is suspended upside down and says the same thing.

 

[Bippicaster]

This doesn’t preclude Xbox from doing what Sony already does with studios they don’t own. Make CoD a timed exclusive on Xbox by having it available exclusively there and on PC for, say 6 months.
Feels like Xbox can have their cake and eat it too really easily here in terms of bolstering the Xbox platform and keeping the PlayStation revenue. Sony has already proven that this strategy is profitable, and acceptable to the public.

 

[Punished Miku]

I have lost track how many times Phil has had to say that COD remains on PlayStation. Stay tuned for tomorrow, when he is suspended upside down and says the same thing.

"Upside down eh? Isn't it curious how the narrative flipped?"

 

[Helghan]

So now we are back at "it's too much revenue to leave on the table". But surely RedFall, Starfield, Elders scrolls 6, Pentiment, etc. would all sell more on PlayStation. What about that revenue?

Not the same as CoD revenue. COD is like FIFA, Fortnite, Minecraft or other huge games. When a game is played by too many people, on too many different devices the revenue it generates on other platforms is more important than persuading people to buy an Xbox to play it.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Philly Spencer working overtime to make this deal happen. Only if he worked this hard to make First Party games.

 

[Topher]

This is literally exactly what he said at the start. They're keeping it multiplatform and treating it like Minecraft.

This statement was far more definitive than anything they have previously said.

 

[DaGwaphics]

LOL at all this talk about MC RT. We've seen RT on these consoles, it's unlikely that a RT mode ever gets released with the level of RT shown in the early demo. It was basically a tech demo that appeared to be running in an unplayable state (hence why the camera was moved so carefully trying to avoid making the low fps obvious). Show me the sku that was released to the market for Xbox that didn't get a PS release.

 

[BennyBlanco]

if I were Sony I’m preparing for COD leaving PS permanently in 2027. Saying things in an interview means nothing. Who knows if Phil will even be around in 4 years. All his successor has to say is “plans change”.

 

[Punished Miku]

This statement was far more definitive than anything they have previously said.

The only difference is it added "PS6." I think he's literally said exactly this from the very start.