CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Why in the world should he be required to put any of that in writing unless the regulators require it? Phil, Xbox and Microsoft owe Sony NOTHING.
-
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.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Thats precisely my point. If he wants us or the regulators to believe him, he needs to put it in writing.
I wish you were serious.I know I was being a smartass
This is cute that I have a stalker.Except there is no notion of the deal being in trouble of being blocked. Analysts even increased the prediction of acquisition approval to 80% recently. Funny how certain folk are desperately pretending that a harsh regulatory body didn't just approve the deal without concession just because another regulatory body is going to Phase 2 (which is what normally happens with the CMA an overwhelmingly vast majority of the time).
I wonder why you're not posting these same things on the other forum, huh?
Armchair analysts that lack impartiality proving they have no idea how the industry works? You don't say!
All credit to Synth over on the other forum:
Thing here is... I don't think Jim Ryan is lying about the offer extended being 3 years. I believe however that he is purposely misrepresenting that offer in order to sway public opinion and to bolster his argument towards regulator like CMA. All this talk of "if they're telling the truth, put that in writing" is so ridiculous I'm actually quite shocked that anyone on here with an ounce of common sense actually utters it. Even if there is genuinely no intent to ever make COD exclusive to Xbox, you would have to be completely stupid to contractually bind yourself in that manner to a competitor (that largely wants to destroy you).
There's actually an aspect to this conversation that has stood out to me for a while, yet nobody else seems to be commenting on it... so here we go. Minecraft itself does not have such an agreement in place to be released for PlayStation perpetually. Want to know how we can tell?... The Better Together update.
Microsoft announces their acquisition of Minecraft on 15 September 2014, and upon this announcement PlayStation apparently called MS up looking for clarity that it wouldn't be pulled from their platform, which they received a positive answer to. Now, I don't actually know what was contractually signed behind the scenes, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if back then they received a similar 3 year guarantee in writing that Minecraft would remain on PlayStation with feature parity. Such an agreement would have taken them up to September of 2017. What launched for Minecraft in September 2017?...
That's right! The Better Together update, focused on unifying the Minecraft experience across all platforms, and letting everyone play together!
Take a look at the dates here... The Better Together update was submitted to 9 out of 10 platforms that hosted Minecraft on 15th September 2017. 3 years to the day from the acquisition announcement. This may well be a complete coincidence, but that is one hell of a coincidence if so.
So, exactly 3 years after the acquisition of Minecraft, MS/Mojang had an update ready to go that changed the game in a manner that Sony wasn't too thrilled about supporting. Up until that point, no changes had been made that would potentially have caused the PlayStation version to lose feature parity, or a new version of the title... quite possibly because they had received contractual assurance that such wouldn't happen for the agreed duration.
Now, as we know, this did actually lead to PlayStation being stuck with a legacy version of the game along with the past generation consoles like 360, PS3 etc, until the public uproar over crossplatform integration (championed heavily also by Epic with Fortnite) caused Sony to eventually relent. And this is precisely why signing a perpetual license would be so stupid. Had they signed such a deal with Sony for Minecraft, it would have effectively allowed Sony to dictate what Microsoft and Mojang could implement with their own game. Being contractually obligated to provide a version on PlayStation with feature parity forever, would mean an initiative like the Better Together update would have had to be scrapped across every platform, if PlayStation decided to say "no" to any feature planned.
Having a contract for a fixed term, and then having it be renegotiated isn't a smoking gun that they're going to pull the game off PlayStation at first opportunity. It's a sensible safeguard to avoid allowing Sony to bend them over a barrel in the future, when they potentially decide on policies to protect their dominant position, at the expense of the IP owned by their primary competitor.
Btw, notice how I said was in trouble of being blocked, not is...
The reason why my name is the same is for exactly this reason. You can go and see where my thoughts are on this, nothings changed but the forum.
I didn't know I had to post 1:1 across forums, thanks for letting me know
Unless you just started posting in the last few weeks early on debates were dominated by CoD being Xbox exclusive after the deal was announced. You can even read the amazing OT at the other forum where you can see the attitudes shifting after the CMA started their part.
Many of us said it wouldn't make business sense to make COD exclusive. Pretty sure all this is in black n white with the responses at both forums.
So yeah, the narrative is shifting. Or ppl that were saying that all of a sudden stopped posting.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
No, he really doesn't. He made the commitment publicly and if he reneges on it then he will be publicly tarred and feather for being a liar. If regulators want to hold Spencer accountable then his public statements as the CEO and official representative of Microsoft are enough.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
If any regulators make that a required concession, I imagine Xbox would do that within reason. If it's not required to get the deal through, then it doesn't make sense for Xbox to sign away their rights to do as they wish with their $68B acquisition.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The court of public opinion holds a lot more sway than you realize.
So why is Sony fighting so hard to keep Call of Duty off Game Pass and to keep marketing deal for it?
Seems pointless to me since Call of Duty on Game Pass is literally nothing because Sony also has subscription....
Or maybe they pretty much know how big of a sway they can expect when COD launches on Game Pass with Xbox marketing around it?...
And you think that Minecraft on PlayStation is contract until end of time?
Of course it is renewed, same way COD contract will be renewed after period of time.
It's literally same thing. But of course people are ignoring that to suit their narrative.
oldergamer
Member
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Maybe. Rember though. COD isn't going anywhere. The question is will people switch over to xbox just because cod will be cheaper? I don't think so. Not in huge numbers anyway. I wouldn't buy a new console just for one game. And most of the other games in the "clusterfuck" of games can also be had on PlayStation.
Look. There is a reason why Sony did not say a peep around Bethesda acquisition but is fighting hard to block Activision Blizzard acquisition. That reason is Call of Duty. And if they expect that series will stay on PlayStation (which of course they expect), then it is all about Game Pass and marketing deal.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yep, if/when CoD becomes an MS first party franchise .. it puts an immediate stop to all the PS branded advertisements you see on prime time TV, replaced with Xbox branded ones. All the billboards on time square have the game pass and xbox branding on them.
The marketing perception will change completely even while the game will remain on either platform.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
And this will somehow sway gamers into thinking cod doesn't exist anymore on PlayStation? So they'll buy into the xbox ecosystem? I'm not buying it. The people buying these games aren't children.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It will probably not sway the hardcore enthusiasts (or console diehards) like the ones on this forum, but for the general player when they see the game is "free" with a cheap subscription they can get with their console, along with hundreds of other games, it makes a difference.
No one is expecting that if the deal goes through all the Gaffers will throw their PS5's in the trash and switch to Xbox.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
This is all it takes and people keep banging on COD going exclusive which simply wont happen
You put that Xbox logo on every COD commercial, ad, hell every poster and it moves the needle
Instead of those 5 extra tier skips for preordering on PS you give that to Xbox customers, it moves the needle
Put some cool operator skin for xbox only, again moving the needle
These are the things that keeps Jimbo up at night
And I don't see why MS wouldn't make sure that the Xbox has an advantage in the performance/graphics department....even if it is miniscule.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
People buy the platform that gives the best deal.
A dude who plays mainly cod and fifa walks into a store, sees a xbox for 229,and a ps for 299,would more likely buy an Xbox to play those games.
Especially when you can add GP for month cheaply to play games you wouldn't have bought anyway,but wanted to play or at least try out.
There was a mass exodus from x360 to ps4 last gen, and it wasnt because of sonys exclusives, but because of Microsoft's poor marketing and drm and TV
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
People buy platforms for a myriad of reasons.
feynoob
Member
CoD day1 on gamepass means 3rd parties would join day1 gamepass.
That is what Sony is afraid of. They don't want day1 ubisoft and other big games on gamepass.
Last edited:
Not sure about that, think they are just afraid of losing marketshare and the cost of exclusives going up.
splattered
Member
So with Sony's COD deal are all forms of COD banned from Gamepass or just the newest title? Could Microsoft acquire Activision and still put all previous COD titles on GP?
Banjo64
cumsessed
I think 5m players could realistically switch which is a 10m difference overall (-5m from PS, +5m for Xbox). A lot of people just buy CoD and FIFA every year. £70 plus £50 for Plus, or £10.99 a month?
feynoob
Member
While marketing is a big reason, gamepass is also a big thorn for them.
It's what keeps Xbox in the game.
CoD day1 on gamepass would be big for the console. Considering Xbox still has the game on the service for $70.
Any 3rd parties who has a doubt about gamepass, would not have it anymore, after that move.
likely only relates to the recently titles under their current deal. Or maybe the latest title(s) up until a year after launch. idk
DaGwaphics
Member
I honestly don't see where MS putting first-party content on GP does anything to move the needle on third-party AAA games. From either MS or the third parties side, the situation would remain the same as it is today regarding negotiations there.
Yeah, but at some point, you still want to keep your transaction store revenue and overall margin up. You might get a couple more AAA games but suspect they might see the impact on MAU and GP subscriptions first.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
It will also put an end to all the additional content and perks that have been blocked from Xbox and any other platforms for the last decade.
Since Ryan refused Phil's offer as inadequate which included a guarantee of parity for 3 years after Sony's contract expires, Xbox then should be free to put exclusive content and perks on Xbox and PC should they choose to.
Of course they go onto GP. It's their games. Game Pass didn't exist. Sony couldn't have done a contract for something they knew nothing about.
feynoob
Member
That is what COD would do. Encourage remaining xbox players to join the service.
Right now the service is at 25m userbase. If it can hit 40m userbase, then it should change their mind.
@SamuelStolton: The European Commission is set to deepen its investigation into Microsoft’s record $69 billion splash on games developer Activision-Blizzard after the U.S. tech giant opted not to file remedies to the EU’s antitrust enforcers: https://t.co/qUX4eYFSvl
Same as the CMA, waiting to see what the EU wants.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
They are hearing Phil's true message.
"Sony can eat a fat one, once the ink is dry CoD is going exclusive. Also, what are you two ladies up to tonight?"
Yeah but additional 3rd party AAA on top of COD will have less impact on getting more MAU and subscribers.
I have not ignored anything, and conjecture does not create facts.
The question was do we have reason to doubt they will not make COD exclusive. My answer is as long as they leave wiggle room (such as talking about intent), then we have reason to doubt they will not make COD exclusive. And only offering a deal for a limited number of years means they are leaving wiggle room.
If they leave themselves the option, then there is reason to suspect they will one day utilize the option. Whether they should or should not is irrelevant. What they have done with Minecraft is irrelevant.
HoofHearted
Member
This whole topic right now...
Of course they want to have wiggle room. That's why they wont offer contract for eternity. Because they know situation can change.
But phrase "we will "Minecraft" Call of Duty" is telling you everything you need to know. How they are treating Minecraft they will treat Call of Duty
Btw, notice how I said was in trouble of being blocked, not is...
Exactly, and you're wrong. Just wishful thinking. Might the deal end up getting blocked (more like drawn out over court which is in MS favor but highly against their wishes as its a massive detriment to their timeline)? Sure, nothing is guaranteed. But currently we have nothing indicating they're changing their tune because the deal is in trouble of being blocked. Very much wishful thinking.
Nice strawman. You post differently because you know better. That's why I responded to you the way I did over there.
Revisionist history told by someone with rose-tinted shades. "Many of you" said that CoD HAD to be multiplatform or else the deal wouldn't make sense (false), that Microsoft NEEDED the money from PlayStation (false), that Phil would never remove CoD from PlayStation (contractual agreements prove that wrong, it's up for Sony to negiotiate; Sony can say, after 3 years, they still demand a crossplay tax and the marketing deal to which Microsoft can say "lol no" like they did with Minecraft prior to Apple v Epic).
Sure there were some people saying Microsoft will make it exclusive, but most of that was quelled because Phil Spencer, Brand Smith and Satya Nadella practically kept repeating that CoD will still be shipped for PlayStation consoles. They must've said this a combined two dozen times at least by now, maybe three dozen. It only came up again when Jim Ryan came out and said the 3 year contract thing to which many believed it would be Xbox exclusive after 3 years (and as Synth pointed out that's more than likely incorrect and just Jim fishing for public appeal while giving facts to back this up).
I love how you claim this is black and white when I can pull out the receipts just like you can that you're skewing things from your biased perceptive but refuse to believe others can easily do the same right back at you. The very fact that Phil and Co have been repeating this from the beginning really goes against you. If they didn't claim CoD will stay multiplat from month one like 50 times then you might've had a point.
The extra hilarious thing about this is that narratives change all the time while a biased person might only view certain changes while ignoring others. Bigger narratives went on for years have flipped in seconds such as: paid online is bad = nothing wrong with it, GaaS is bad = GaaS is good because it makes my favorite company lots of money, PC ports are bad = PC ports are good because it makes my favorite company additional revenue, buying exclusivity is smart business = buying exclusives is bad etc. The list can go on and in and on and there are receipts going back decades.
Last edited:
DJ12
Member
Whoopsie, I shat.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
You brought up first party titles as some sort of differentiator. I'll keep it really simple. Sony doesn't need CoD to be competitive. They are the market leader and they will remain so regardless of this acquisition. Nintendo proves a game company can be successful without CoD. It is basically CADE's take. I agree with CADE. If you disagree with them you could have provided them with an email voicing your disapproval.
CADE and I say Sony doesn't need CoD to be competitive. Nintendo proves that to be true. I even tossed in that Xbox has CoD and Nintendo beats them in console sales. CoD does not determine what platform is successful or not. It's not terribly complicated.
Neither of you guys need to worry. Phil has repeatedly said CoD would remain on PlayStation so it's moot.
Do you think he was lying about potential Xbox price increases?
feynoob
Member
still available for share?
feynoob
Member
But the ability to bring those games is stil there, regardless of whether it is going to boost it or not.
Currently gamepass doesn't really have a mega hit day1 game (I don't know if halo is one or not).
feynoob
Member
Guess MS doesn't want any concessions.
Gone
Banned
Jimbo doesn't deserve shit.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
and who would the contract be with
And/or don't want to give anything away early
phil_t98
#SonyToo
according to this thread people on buy platforms for COD
feynoob
Member
Owner of Activision and Sony.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
why would Sony be involved in any contract? they aint the owner of activision or the CMA. no contract to Sony as they have nothing to do with the deal other not be happy about it
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
You negotiate with any product that is sold on your platform.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked