• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

How the Microsoft-Activision merger could change the Xbox business (Protocol)

This, it's nonsense. Microsoft may well decide to keep it on PS but it will be their decision.
If you listen to H's Law he has said it can be put into a decent decree that MS will be held to. If they break it then there can be big consequences.
I am talking about "if" it gets put into a decree how that would look bad.
It's not me saying it will be put into a decree. I'm saying it would be a poor decision for it to be.
 

Edgelord79

Gold Member
I find it hard to believe the FTC will take that much of a look at game exclusivity especially w/ MS being able to argue nothing they make is really exclusive.

That entire idea is just such a can of worms for the industry.
Agreed. I can’t see the FTC going so far as to bring a lawsuit here.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Nah they'll just fine them and Nadella will reach into his pocket and toss them a few billion.

 

Swift_Star

Member
This part seems to be interesting. Wonder, what would happen, if MS changes their promises? Would the ftc actually unwind the purchase?
MS won’t change their promise. They won’t jeopardize this at all as they’re hurting for content on gamepass.
Chances are CoD will remain multiplat for all eternity and it’ll probably not the only game that will remain multiplat.

Side note: the article says market leader is Tencent followed by Sony. No PC in sight. Guess that’s settled.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
Side note: the article says market leader is Tencent followed by Sony. No PC in sight. Guess that’s settled.
Because tencent operates on PC, mobile and consoles, hence the market leader.
PC is big part in gaming, and Sony so far have only been a console only company.
 

Swift_Star

Member
It's not about Wether MS keeps its word with honouring existing contracts with Sony, or if in the future they keep COD on PS, it's the picture of the government compelling a lesser market player to provide their biggest IP for their main competitor, who is also bigger than them, whole making no similar demands on the bigger player.
It's an anticompetitive demand no matter what way you look at.

Now what do I personally think is going to happen?
COD Warzone will remain on PS as it needs as many people playing as possible.
COD campaigns will remain on PS with MS banking on it coming to GP as a good enough lure to get people into the Xbox ecosystem.
Any other online multiplayer game will also be on PS.
Any other IP will be exclusive to Xbox.
You don’t know what the demands will be at all… so… you actually have no point. And taking one of the biggest money maker from the competition is not fair competition so it’s entirely in the realm of possibilities for the FTC to force MS to keep CoD on PlayStation.
 

kingfey

Banned
You don’t know what the demands will be at all… so… you actually have no point. And taking one of the biggest money maker from the competition is not fair competition so it’s entirely in the realm of possibilities for the FTC to force MS to keep CoD on PlayStation.
Like others said here, forcing it would open a whole alot of can worms. Like the apple vs epic case.

The outcome would determine call of duty future and other games. So far, call of duty isnt the biggest game, considering gtav and Minecraft surpasses it.
 

Swift_Star

Member
Like others said here, forcing it would open a whole alot of can worms. Like the apple vs epic case.

The outcome would determine call of duty future and other games. So far, call of duty isnt the biggest game, considering gtav and Minecraft surpasses it.
Nah. That’s not how this works. There’s no can of worms here since Sony is not taking a big money maker from the Xbox, but Xbox is taking away a big money maker from Sony, that is unfair competition, that’s how this works.
I’m sure CoD will remain multiplat. It’s that or MS risking a problem in the future.
 

kingfey

Banned
Nah. That’s not how this works. There’s no can of worms here since Sony is not taking a big money maker from the Xbox, but Xbox is taking away a big money maker from Sony, that is unfair competition, that’s how this works.
I’m sure CoD will remain multiplat. It’s that or MS risking a problem in the future.
The problem would be the ftc to decide what goes multiplatform or not. That type of stuff usually opens a whole alot of unwanted attention. Its why there is ambiguous clause in the law.
 

Corndog

Member
The platform exclusivity stuff is going to be a wild run for the long run. Current assumption, for example, is that non-Warzone CODs will be exclusive to Xbox/PC starting in 2024. And I think most people on both sides have come to terms with that. But if the FTC can really be to that what the MLB League is to The Show, we really could be looking at COD staying multiconsole for a much longer time.

In that case I can see MS's plans for it changing (if they were at one point considering indeed locking it down to Xbox and PC) and bringing it to the Switch as well because by that point, why not? It's basically forced to be multiconsole anyway, might as well bring it to even more platforms like the Switch.

I think the FTC would only be considering that for the big revenue-generating IP, though, probably to ensure industry revenue isn't being adversely affected or something like that? Stuff like Crash, Spyro, Tony Hawk, even Guitar Hero (considering how dormant that's been) etc.? I don't think the FTC would care if MS made those exclusive or not.
Why would the ftc deal be similar to the MLB one? FTC is the government. MLB is a private entity.
 
True. Because essentially it would lead to a situation that no game can be made exclusive for example. Or there will be fine for the past and current exclusivity deals, breaking the contracts etc. So I don't think FTC will bother. The whole argument is about mainline COD - as Warzone 2 stays on Playstation, I don't believe courts (and FTC for that matter) will entertain the idea to hold a hearing over COD exclusivity semantics (which COD is the real COD and so on)
Yep, that's the problem with the FTC trying to meddle with that. People often forget that the FTC can't "demand" anything. They have to go to court and argue their case for the courts to decide. Seeing as Sony has had various exclusivity deals with CoD such as early beta access for years now including the upcoming release. Any court finding it unfair for MS to make anything exclusive from something they just purchased is next to zero.

Even in some bizarre parallel universe where they did find that unfair. MS lawyers would have an incredibly easy job demanding compensation for all the past years where Sony had exclusive deals in place. If exclusivity is deemed unfair by the court, then the court would have to deem them all unfair past and present.

These "experts" are experts in nothing more than losing respect. They prove themselves to be the complete opposite of experts, within two sentencesof being described as such.
 

pasterpl

Member
Longer I think about it I don’t see a good reason for ms to keep any cod game exclusive. They just should publish it on all platforms and potentially make billions in profit that will allow them then to produce new exclusive IPs on regular basis (and offset some of the gamepass cost). They still will offer it free on gamepass, and will have exclusive modes, and perks for Xbox only, but should continue publishing on all platforms. This is re. Cod only (incl. war zone)
 
Why would the ftc deal be similar to the MLB one? FTC is the government. MLB is a private entity.

That's probably why the FTC could do it in particular. If they think it's something to be done to ensure a monopolistic situation doesn't take shape, then they'll enforce it.

I just personally highly doubt that they would.

Mlb is the one that asked Sony for that. I dont know why people are using that example. 😕

Because it was an outside organization making stipulations to a publisher to provide a specific game onto other platforms else they lose the license. If the FTC stipulated that MS keep COD multiplatform in perpetuity or else it could cause them to reverse the acquisition process, MS would be in a similar pickle.

But like I already said, I highly doubt the FTC would make that stipulation. It sounds a bit far fetched.
 

Forsythia

Member
Longer I think about it I don’t see a good reason for ms to keep any cod game exclusive. They just should publish it on all platforms and potentially make billions in profit that will allow them then to produce new exclusive IPs on regular basis (and offset some of the gamepass cost). They still will offer it free on gamepass, and will have exclusive modes, and perks for Xbox only, but should continue publishing on all platforms. This is re. Cod only (incl. war zone)
Being included in Game Pass is the biggest advantage, no need for exclusive modes and perks. I hate that shit, everyone should get the full experience, no matter which platform you play on.
 
Yep, that's the problem with the FTC trying to meddle with that. People often forget that the FTC can't "demand" anything. They have to go to court and argue their case for the courts to decide.
It makes it even more funny considering that first time FTC even failed to proceed their case against Facebook as courts did not agree with FTC reasoning :messenger_tears_of_joy: And that is Facebook, against which you would think it was easy to build the case.

Now with the rise of TikTok (who generates more traffic that Google), it will be even more difficult for FTC to build a case against Facebook's monopoly.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom