Support NeoGAF

[Bojanglez]

Even if it costs Microsoft $100 billion, they will get Diablo 4 and COD on Game Pass because they love their players that much!

So much they thought about abandoning them to chase mobile $

If it is all about mobile, they maybe could just buy King and sign exclusive CoD mobile rights from Acti, but it's not, so they won't.

 

[Black_Stride]

Maybe if someone else bought ABK or even better they just sold their studios separately... you cant hope at this moment for MS to do shit until a better management with a different mind set takes over .. unfortunately

If ABK was willing to sell off studios (and their IPs) that would be the perfect situation in my eyes.
But, we are here so i am here.

Call of Duty will still need those support studios regardless of who is in charge

I dont really care about COD and their plethora of support studios.....mainly VV and Radical.

You might as well forget about both. Vicarious was folded into Blizzard. That group is now integrated into those teams. Radical has pretty much been dead for a decade. The last thing they were known to have worked on was support for Destiny after getting hit with massive layoffs.

Vicarious still has most of their staff and their whole studio(physical) is completely separate from Blizzard.
Radical would need some work but they are sufficiently stand alone if commissioned to make a game they could.

 

[T-Cake]

I feel like publishers have the right to put their own games on their own launcher if they wish, see Riot, ABK, Epic.

By all means - put games on their own launcher but in ADDITION to Steam. Don't make them exclusive. They will lose - eventually.

 

[Sanepar]

I just stated there would be a void if Call of Duty was no longer released on PlayStation. That void would be attempted to be filled by Sony and/or other 3rd party Studios/Publishers. In what ways it would happen, would remain to be seen.

There will be no void. People who plays cod almost play only cod. They will migrate to where cod is.

 

[Fabieter]

So much they thought about abandoning them to chase mobile $

If it is all about mobile, they maybe could just buy King and sign exclusive CoD mobile rights from Acti, but it's not, so they won't.

Stop it it was just a thought experiment.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

.
l

Strange that in this thread it’s all about MS owning the FTC, but outside this thread all the new threads on this topic are about FTC owning MS.

Marvel really messed up the multiverse.

its not only in this thread that "MS is owning the FTC"
Its al over ResetEraaa ( but if you dare to say something negative about MS you get banned) but also the "influencers" and "ambassadors" working overtime to push that its a done deal, Cause MS owned the FTC big time, the merger is done and willl go trough easy peasy

 

[Bojanglez]

Stop it it was just a thought experiment.

I just imagine they were in the boardroom "experimentally thinking" about doing this and the vast amounts of money that it may yield.... and then the thought of letting down Timdog, Jez, Tom etc. made them abandon such naughty thoughts and fight on for world console domination

 

[adamsapple]

Jim Ryan
- somehow thinks that Xbox Series X is supply constrained and is selling good (unlike people around here)
- Murica players likes shooty shooty stuff and that's why COD is more popular there
- he doesn't remember if he met with regulatory bodies after october 2022 (wtf?)
- Nintendo is somehow part of console market but they are not Sony's competitor (???)
- Nintendo is played by bunch of kids despite fact that Nintendo infographic proves otherwise
- Don't think that Starfield exclusivity is anti-competitive (unlike PS fans around here)
- Thinks that COD devs would sabotage PS version of COD despite fact that there is no proof that Microsoft ever did it with PS versions of their games
- He flipped because Microsoft promised him Overwatch 1 and not Overwatch 2 despite game being SAME SKU (wtf?)
- thinks that Microsoft would engage in partial foreclosure of COD because of Game Pass despite Microsoft offering him ability to put COD into PS Plus day one
- He "doesn't listen to calls" where he said to the investors that he doesn't think that Activision

This fucking guy lol

The "not remembering if he met regulatory bodies" line is such a crock of bullshit, his trips to Brussels were widely reported and circulated in January.

 

[Topher]

This fucking guy lol

The "not remembering if he met regulatory bodies" line is such a crock of bullshit, his trips to Brussels were widely reported and circulated in January.

Sounds like his memory even worse than Phil Spencer's.

 

[Varteras]

Vicarious still has most of their staff and their whole studio(physical) is completely separate from Blizzard.
Radical would need some work but they are sufficiently stand alone if commissioned to make a game they could.

Physically, sure. But they are nonetheless integrated with Blizzard at every other level. Another owner isn't likely to see a good enough reason to go through the trouble of peeling them away to make them a separate subsidiary again. Especially not when they were deemed important enough to Blizzard to have done that in the first place. That's not even considering the fact that you've had stories coming out of Blizz for having trouble retaining people after they ended remote work for a lot of people.

Forget about Radical, buddy. They're dead. Most of their studio was wiped out. They've done nothing of note since Destiny. Even if they went through the trouble of hiring people, which Microsoft can't even get to replace the exodus that happened at The Initiative, it wouldn't be the Radical you remember. It would be in name only. Let it go.

 

[Black_Stride]

Physically, sure. But they are nonetheless integrated with Blizzard at every other level. Another owner isn't likely to see a good enough reason to go through the trouble of peeling them away to make them a separate subsidiary again. Especially not when they were deemed important enough to Blizzard to have done that in the first place. That's not even considering the fact that you've had stories coming out of Blizz for having trouble retaining people after they ended remote work for a lot of people.

They are a sufficiently versatile team they could go from support on Destiny 2, making Tony Hawk then support on Black Ops and Warzone to support on Diablo.
Its not out of realm of possibility and feasibility MS could ask them to pitch a project.
Whether they stay Blizzard Albany or go back to being Vicarious, idc.....let them make a game.

 

[RickMasters]

Call of Duty will still need those support studios regardless of who is in charge

I agree with this. This is why I don’t think those studios will actually get to work on other activision IP. Let’s say a pitfall or tony hawks reboot for example….. they are not gonna hamper CODs development pipeline by letting those teams work on other projects. I think reshuffling Activision to make non COD games while still doing yearly COD releases is Not gonna happen.



They will let other devs make those games. Hexen/ heretic would be another example…..or quake wars rebooted as a battlefield style huge player count PVP game. But maybe there would be too much overlap with warzone… would be great if raven could make sequels to those but they are a full time COD: warzone studio now.


I can see blizzard getting a bit more freedom to make exclusive games set in the WoW and StarCraft universes though.



I think they will run the activision side of ABK as is. A full time COD-house. But I think they will reboot some of the old activision IPs with new studios or let another Xbox owned studio reboot it. Or maybe they will hire more devs for activision studios to work on those games, who knows. But I don’t think they will have the current teams working on new IP or rebooting old ones. That job will fall to either other Xbox teams or they staff up Devs like raven and and high moon to handle the extra projects.

 

[HoofHearted]

Sounds like his memory even worse than Phil Spencer's.

 

[Varteras]

They are a sufficiently versatile team they could go from support on Destiny 2, making Tony Hawk then support on Black Ops and Warzone to support on Diablo.
Its not out of realm of possibility and feasibility MS could ask them to pitch a project.
Whether they stay Blizzard Albany or go back to being Vicarious, idc.....let them make a game.

I recommend you give Santa a big sloppy one at the local mall this Christmas if you want that to happen. Want my advice? Bring barbecue sauce. Everything tastes better with that stuff.

 

[Godot25]

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[RickMasters]

There will be no void. People who plays cod almost play only cod. They will migrate to where cod is.

This.

 

[skit_data]

Omg he looks old in that gif, in my mind I still picture Boromir as the default Sean Bean

 

[SneakersSO]

I have more hope in MS letting Vicarious and Radical make their own games than ABK as it is.

ABK seems intent on folding good studios into becoming support studios.

Sue me like the FTC for having hope.

Vicarious Visions IS Blizzard at this point. Diablo 4 shipped because of them and they are largely leading their most successful dev efforts (Blizzard's).

Regardless of the outcome of this deal, you will never see a VV doing their own thing. Same for Radical. And MS would do everything in their power to keep ATVI's development pipelines as efficient as they can so as to not disrupt the revenue flow.

 

[Three]

This fucking guy lol

The "not remembering if he met regulatory bodies" line is such a crock of bullshit, his trips to Brussels were widely reported and circulated in January.

Have you even fact checked what you're up in arms about?

The lawyer asked if he had met regulators before August, which was when MS sent their revised agreement letter. No idea where your buddy G Godot25 has got "after october" from. The actual reports of Jim flying to Brussels was in October reporting that he had met them in September. Not sure where you're getting January (I assume 2023) from.

 

[RedC]

I think where COD gets away with it is that every year it’s a different setting and cast. The only returning character being captain price and co of the modern warfare games. I’m between them COD goes WW2, Vietnam era, the future etc.



I can’t think of another game that has a rotating cast and setting and time period like COD does. Love or hate it it’s a well oiled machine that I don’t think can can easily be reproduced.

Agreed

There will be no void. People who plays cod almost play only cod. They will migrate to where cod is.

Some will, Most won't.

The CMA's survey reflected it and part of the reason why they dropped their console SLC (Substantial Lessening of Competition) against the acquisition

 

[Black_Stride]

I recommend you give Santa a big sloppy one at the local mall this Christmas if you want that to happen. Want my advice? Bring barbecue sauce. Everything tastes better with that stuff.

I dont follow yt people shit but you saying i do a dirty job and stuff works out?

 

[Sanepar]

Agreed


Some will, Most won't.

The CMA's survey reflected it and part of the reason why they dropped their console SLC (Substantial Lessening of Competition) against the acquisition

If u buy a console only for cod, cod is not there anymore, what you will do?

 

[RedC]

If u buy a console only for cod, cod is not there anymore, what you will do?

If it was made exclusive to Xbox/PC then you likely buy an Xbox.

That's represented in "Some will".

 

[Topher]

If u buy a console only for cod, cod is not there anymore, what you will do?

What's the point of this line of discussion when Phil Spencer swore under oath that COD would remain on PS?

 

[Vognerful]

Same boat. Haven't bought or played COD in years. Not interested in Overwatch, Diablo, or World of Warcraft either. Never played those games.

So the games and their potential exclusivity is not an issue for me. But this deal is horrible, and should just die.

If Xbox can't compete even after 2 decades without spending daddy's money, then perhaps they don't deserve to be a relevant player in the industry. Someone else will

I mean CoD is not going exclusive either way, but won't be a missed chance by Sony to develop a similar Game in 20 years?

 

[Vognerful]

What's the point of this line of discussion when Phil Spencer swore under oath that COD would remain on PS?

People here still don't believe that because they claim internal emails (that also say CoD is going multiplatform)

 

[Heisenberg007]

I mean CoD is not going exclusive either way, but won't be a missed chance by Sony to develop a similar Game in 20 years?

COD may go exclusive. I have 0% trust in Microsoft.

And Sony is developing 12 multiplayer live-service titles. While some of those may be successful, there is an extremely low chance that even a single one of them will become as popular as Call of Duty -- which is a franchise refined over multiple decades now.

 

[Vognerful]

COD may go exclusive. I have 0% trust in Microsoft.

And Sony is developing 12 multiplayer live-service titles. While some of those may be successful, there is an extremely low chance that even a single one of them will become as popular as Call of Duty -- which is a franchise refined over multiple decades now.

Those are 10 now if I am not mistaken

COD may go exclusive. I have 0% trust in Microsoft.

And Sony is developing 12 multiplayer live-service titles. While some of those may be successful, there is an extremely low chance that even a single one of them will become as popular as Call of Duty -- which is a franchise refined over multiple decades now.

Can't we say the same argument we are using against Microsoft then? That since being in the industry for almost 30 years and not being successful in developing a big shooter game is a position they put themselves in?

COD may go exclusive. I have 0% trust in Microsoft.

And Sony is developing 12 multiplayer live-service titles. While some of those may be successful, there is an extremely low chance that even a single one of them will become as popular as Call of Duty -- which is a franchise refined over multiple decades now.

I have my belief that Xbox would fold if the deal doesn't go through than CoD going exclusive if it is about personal belief.

 

[SneakersSO]

Those are 10 now if I am not mistaken

At the height, there were a little over 10. Its now far closer to half that number, which is what they expected would happen. Sony cancels a lot of projects.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I have my belief that Xbox would fold if the deal doesn't go through than CoD going exclusive if it is about personal belief.

Considering that their lawyers were arguing just yesterday that Call of Duty is not critical content, I expect they'll be fine even without the deal (especially when they wouldn't even be losing Call of Duty). Things would just stay the same.

Then they have Forza and Starfield incoming, which will make Q3 and Q4 2023 successful for Xbox. Then it is up to their next game -- Avowed, Hellblade 2, Flight Simulator, and Fable etc -- to carry them through 2024 and 2025. Just like it is with any other publisher.

 

[Bojanglez]

What's the point of this line of discussion when Phil Spencer swore under oath that COD would remain on PS?

Because it is impossible to guarantee it even then.

 

[Gorgon]

Omg he looks old in that gif, in my mind I still picture Boromir as the default Sean Bean

Being 45 at the moment, I'm probably gonna look like that by the time Elder Scrolls VI comes out.

 

[Thirty7ven]

COD may go exclusive. I have 0% trust in Microsoft.

And Sony is developing 12 multiplayer live-service titles. While some of those may be successful, there is an extremely low chance that even a single one of them will become as popular as Call of Duty -- which is a franchise refined over multiple decades now.

If COD remains multiplatform this deal will do little to change the status quo. Sure MS gets a revenue boost, they buy their mobile presence, but it will have almost no impact on PlayStation. YouTube fanboys will shout from the rooftops that their daddy owns ABK, that’s big I guess.

It also does two things, creates a huge obstacle for MS if they want to buy anybody else, and gives Sony the green light to buy somebody big because MS just successful argued in court that buying IP and publishers is somehow less anti competitive than paying for exclusives. Apparently Sony can also argue they need those big IP to be accelerate their own cloud play anywhere plans, along with their PC presence.

It all sounds like some sort of reverse truth but apparently that’s what MS is successfully arguing.

I say let’s get the show on the road and see what happens.

 

[graywolf323]

Purely from a selfish point of view as a PC gamer, I'd like to see it complete. Diablo IV + more games on Steam, the end of another launcher in battle.net.

I mean I’d really like to see Blizzard come back to Steam as well but…

I will repeat me too "do you trust ms well enough to stay on steam forever?"

that’s the thing, I don’t trust MS, if they get large enough & think they can get away with it they’ll just copy Ubi/Blizzard and I wouldn’t be surprised if they start not putting new releases on Steam

 

[Topher]

Because it is impossible to guarantee it even then.

Phil Spencer committed Microsoft to that when he swore under oath. How is that not a guarantee?

 

[tmlDan]

Phil Spencer committed Microsoft to that when he swore under oath. How is that not a guarantee?

because he does not own the company, if Phil retires or gets fired his words under oath mean nothing.

The only thing that matters are contractual obligations and clearly there is a concern there from the FTC and likely Sony given their negative reaction when they received the offer in August of last year. From their perspective MS can weasel their way out of them.

Will they? probably not but they sacrificed Bethesda sales already, they likely signed 10 year deals because they need it on other platforms for 10 years to recoup the costs of the buy but evidence shows they will make it exclusive after that.

 

[splattered]

because he does not own the company, if Phil retires or gets fired his words under oath mean nothing.

The only thing that matters are contractual obligations and clearly there is a concern there from the FTC and likely Sony given their negative reaction when they received the offer in August of last year. From their perspective MS can weasel their way out of them.

Will they? probably not but they sacrificed Bethesda sales already, they likely signed 10 year deals because they need it on other platforms for 10 years to recoup the costs of the buy but evidence shows they will make it exclusive after that.

I know it's one of people's favorite words right now but I do feel like Bethesda exclusivity is a bit of an "experiment" to analyze and determine future big title exclusivity decisions... That and/or a short term stop gap to fill in a bit of the gaps from their own studio 1st party releases until the machine really gets churning and releases become more frequent.

 

[tmlDan]

I know it's one of people's favorite words right now but I do feel like Bethesda exclusivity is a bit of an "experiment" to analyze and determine future big title exclusivity decisions... That and/or a short term stop gap to fill in a bit of the gaps from their own studio 1st party releases until the machine really gets churning and releases become more frequent.

i actually agree with you, that's likely the case

 

[graywolf323]

because he does not own the company, if Phil retires or gets fired his words under oath mean nothing.

The only thing that matters are contractual obligations and clearly there is a concern there from the FTC and likely Sony given their negative reaction when they received the offer in August of last year. From their perspective MS can weasel their way out of them.

Will they? probably not but they sacrificed Bethesda sales already, they likely signed 10 year deals because they need it on other platforms for 10 years to recoup the costs of the buy but evidence shows they will make it exclusive after that.

plus Phil said that the only reason games from the Minecraft IP haven’t been made exclusive is because they can’t figure a way around the contract with Notch when he sold to them

so why would anyone trust them now unless Microsoft is willing to put it in writing in a binding legal agreement? (which given what we’ve learned about the 10 year deals they made, I doubt they are)

their intent is obviously to take COD exclusive at some point while pretending they’d never do something like that while the deal is still pending (just like they did when they were acquiring Bethesda)

 

[DeepEnigma]

because he does not own the company, if Phil retires or gets fired his words under oath mean nothing.

The only thing that matters are contractual obligations and clearly there is a concern there from the FTC and likely Sony given their negative reaction when they received the offer in August of last year. From their perspective MS can weasel their way out of them.

Will they? probably not but they sacrificed Bethesda sales already, they likely signed 10 year deals because they need it on other platforms for 10 years to recoup the costs of the buy but evidence shows they will make it exclusive after that.

I think you guys are not understanding what Topher is saying. He is holding Phil to his word under oath.

But then again, they no longer said "as long as PS exists" under oath, just PS5, which they were already contracted with Activision with. 2027/28 is a "new gen" after all.

 

[wolffy66]

If u buy a console only for cod, cod is not there anymore, what you will do?

Re-evaluate my terrible gaming life

 

[Fabieter]

I mean I’d really like to see Blizzard come back to Steam as well but…

that’s the thing, I don’t trust MS, if they get large enough & think they can get away with it they’ll just copy Ubi/Blizzard and I wouldn’t be surprised if they start not putting new releases on Steam

If they have enough big names they will do it. I mean it makes business sense to try it if you get big enough.

 

[graywolf323]

I think you guys are not understanding what Topher is saying. He is holding Phil to his word under oath.

But then again, they no longer said "as long as PS exists" under oath, just PS5, which they were already contracted with Activision with. 2027/28 is a "new gen" after all.

I mean that’s why they obviously only tried for a 3 year deal past the current marketing agreement with Activision, Microsoft clearly went into it intending to make COD exclusive at the start of the next gen thinking that would lead to a lot of gamers getting the next Xbox instead of the PS6

 

[DeepEnigma]

I mean that’s why they obviously only tried for a 3 year deal past the current marketing agreement with Activision, Microsoft clearly went into it intending to make COD exclusive at the start of the next gen thinking that would lead to a lot of gamers getting the next Xbox instead of the PS6

Yep.

 

[Topher]

because he does not own the company, if Phil retires or gets fired his words under oath mean nothing.

The only thing that matters are contractual obligations and clearly there is a concern there from the FTC and likely Sony given their negative reaction when they received the offer in August of last year. From their perspective MS can weasel their way out of them.

Will they? probably not but they sacrificed Bethesda sales already, they likely signed 10 year deals because they need it on other platforms for 10 years to recoup the costs of the buy but evidence shows they will make it exclusive after that.

My understanding is that Phil Spencer, as an officially designated representative, has legally obligated Microsoft with that testimony. Ogbert (a lawyer) and I were discussing this right as it happened and I thought the same as you, but he said that was incorrect. I googled a bit to prove him wrong and what I found indicated that he was actually right.

I posted the result of my research on it. I'll try to find it again.

Edit: Here is the post:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/page-1196#post-268107522

 

[Bernardougf]

My understanding is that Phil Spencer, as an officially designated representative, has legally obligated Microsoft with that testimony. Ogbert (a lawyer) and I were discussing this right as it happened and I thought the same as you, but he said that was incorrect. I googled a bit to prove him wrong and what I found indicated that he was actually right.

I posted the result of my research on it. I'll try to find it again.

Edit: Here is the post:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/page-1196#post-268107522

Didnt the lawyer asked a follow-up question that spencer spoked for MS and spencer remained silent or just said no ? Im pretty sure

 

[Bojanglez]

Phil Spencer committed Microsoft to that when he swore under oath. How is that not a guarantee?

Because there are many factors. Even the FTC questioned how he could guarentee something that Sony itself had a say in.

here are just a few scenarios:

• Phil Spencer leaves XBox (voluntarily or is pushed) and their new leader decides a change in direction
  • could MS be held responsible for Spencer's 'commitment' under oath?
  • could Spencer be held accountable for 'lying' if things changed after he left?
• What terms was this guarantee made on?
  • Length
    • Just 10 years? 100 years? Things change.
  • Business terms
    • 30/70 split or will MS try and leverage a better deal? If so what happens if PS deny it?
    • Contractual clauses that Sony introduce as standard for all publishers that MS may not agree with
    • Contractual clauses MS introduce as standard for all platforms using CoD that Sony may not agree with (or are incompatible with their own)
  • Hardware
    • For all Playstation consoles in perpetuity?
    • Just the PS5
    • What happens if PS6 is a change in direction that causes development headaches?
      • Different architecture
      • Different control mechanism
• What version of CoD?
  • All mainstream single player games
  • Warzone (or similar)
  • Mobile
  • A new concept with CoD branding that we are not aware of yet?

The list could probably go on. I'm just not sure his grandstanding in court is meaningful. Maybe a legal expert can clarify though.

 

[Heisenberg007]

My understanding is that Phil Spencer, as an officially designated representative, has legally obligated Microsoft with that testimony. Ogbert (a lawyer) and I were discussing this right as it happened and I thought the same as you, but he said that was incorrect. I googled a bit to prove him wrong and what I found indicated that he was actually right.

I posted the result of my research on it. I'll try to find it again.

I remember reading a conversation (from the court room) that the judge hinted that Phil isn't binding the entire Microsoft company with his testimony. Something along those lines.

Besides, even if that's not the case, I really wouldn't trust Phil Spencer.

Remember he has a binding agreement to release Minecraft IP games on PlayStation. Common sense and integrity dictate that they would continue publishing those games on PlayStation without even thinking about it twice. Even then, Phil, on record, was asking his team to find ways out of it and make Minecraft Dungeon an Xbox console exclusive. And he was frustrated that they couldn't find a way out of it.

So as long as there is a loophole in the contract (which I expect now after the Minecraft frustration and seeing Nvidia's 10-year deal agreement), I fully expect phil to exploit it and use it.

 

[NickFire]

My understanding is that Phil Spencer, as an officially designated representative, has legally obligated Microsoft with that testimony. Ogbert (a lawyer) and I were discussing this right as it happened and I thought the same as you, but he said that was incorrect. I googled a bit to prove him wrong and what I found indicated that he was actually right.

I posted the result of my research on it. I'll try to find it again.

Edit: Here is the post:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/page-1196#post-268107522

30(b)(6) is a procedural rule for identifying who will testify on behalf of a legal entity such as a corporation. In now way, shape or form does it convert statements of future intent into legally binding obligations for the legal entity. If the person giving testimony outright lies about future intent the person and legal entity has liability for perjury, fraud (subject to litigation privilege), etc. But liability for a lie does not create a contract.

Phil's testimony does not lock MS into legally binding deals to keep COD multiplatform. Full stop.