PlayStation: Xbox's Call of Duty offer was "inadequate on many levels"

Godot25

Member
So Spencer did not lie right? He said "several years beyond current contract."
I would ask Jimbo when will Final Fantasy VII Remake come to Xbox.
Seriously. Fuck this guy. I pity PlayStation gamers somewhat, but fuck Jimbo. Since he is master of this "exclusive shit" and now he is playing victim. Reap what you sow.
 

Gudji

Member
Oh no but I thought phil was the chosen one he is supposed to save gaming.

surprise sunbathing GIF
 
It's not the same. How many times does this need to be said?
I think it's worse honestly. When you own an IP like Microsoft will with COD once the deal is done, it's expected and completely rational for the owner to set terms for who will have access to it. However, being a third party and paying a publisher to keep their IP away from a competitors platforms is to me at least a lot more anti-competitive and mafia like.
 

tmlDan

Member
Going forward all COD will be fully funded by MS, so I guess that's even better than partly funded.
I am not complaining about exclusivity at all, but comparing exclusive rights and funding games is not the same as full ownership forever where the executive straight out lied to consumers to get their deal finalized....twice.

If MS was trans[parent and was like yes, we are buying it, we are making it exclusive and this still won't make us a monopoly i think people would be more than fine with honesty.
 
Good on them. Phil Spencer gets away with telling people what they want to hear, while not being able to back it up.

It might work year after year with promising NEXT year to be the year for Xbox to have great new games, but it isn't going to work on intelligent business men and corporations.
 

reksveks

Member
Better link
https://www.ft.com/content/780c0432-554e-48fe-96df-6ffa4db9b5de

Jim Ryan wants to "Set the record straight" on this issue.
Just checked it and its basically the same

Microsoft is already facing the threat of an in-depth investigation from the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority, the agency announced last week, as regulators in other regions scrutinise the games industry’s biggest ever deal. Activision’s Call of Duty series has become a multibillion-dollar franchise over the past 20 years, with its annual console releases typically ranking among the biggest-selling games of the year. Investor fears about PlayStation losing access to the title sent Sony’s stock down by 13 per cent the day after Microsoft’s bid was announced in January. Ryan, who leads Sony’s PlayStation gaming business, said on Wednesday that he wanted to “set the record straight” after Microsoft’s gaming chief Phil Spencer said earlier this month that the Xbox maker was “committed to making the same version of Call of Duty available on PlayStation on the same day the game launches elsewhere”. Sony has told regulators in Brazil that Call of Duty is so popular that any limitation on its availability could influence which console consumers choose to buy, potentially disadvantaging its PlayStation 5, the current global console market leader. “I hadn’t intended to comment on what I understood to be a private business discussion, but I feel the need to set the record straight because Phil Spencer brought this into the public forum,” Ryan said on Wednesday. “Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends.” The PlayStation chief said that Microsoft’s proposal was “inadequate on many levels and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers”. “We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft’s proposal undermines this principle,” he added. In the first global antitrust move against the deal, the CMA last week said that it feared Microsoft would use its “control” over games including Call of Duty and World of Warcraft “post-merger to harm rivals, including recent and future rivals in multi-game subscription services and cloud gaming”. Microsoft was given five days to respond to the concerns or face an in-depth “phase 2” investigation by the CMA.
 

Kagey K

Banned
I am not complaining about exclusivity at all, but comparing exclusive rights and funding games is not the same as full ownership forever where the executive straight out lied to consumers to get their deal finalized....twice.

If MS was trans[parent and was like yes, we are buying it, we are making it exclusive and this still won't make us a monopoly i think people would be more than fine with honesty.
With Bethesda they said it would be a case by case basis and that has been true.

They said they promised Sony Cod for several years beyond the current deal, and that is also true.
 
Bungie set the terms of that deal.. Not Sony.
But they own them now? I dunno maybe I'm not up on it. If what you say is true then they're fucked and this gen will be very interesting.

Casuals only care about sports games, COD and Rockstar games. If Sony can't get some deal on that last one then it's bad news.
 
I guess anyone who thought COD was going to be available on PS consoles forever should start eating crow now. You'll have until the end of the decade at best, but the clocks ticking and it waits for no one. Will Sony be able to produce a COD killer before then?

Doubt Reaction GIF
 
3 years after the deal? I thought MS would be like, we'll honor the current deal and that's it. Starting to bend some kinda undermines their argument.
 
I guess anyone who thought COD was going to be available on PS consoles forever should start eating crow now. You'll have until the end of the decade at best, but the clocks ticking and it waits for no one. Will Sony be able to produce a COD killer before then?

Doubt Reaction GIF
I still think it will be multiplatform. This is about committing to a specific deal. He's committing to 3 years. 3 years from now they'd do a new deal.

I still don't think they're lying about it.

In comparison, Bungie has zero deal for multiplatform. Just their word basically.
 
Last edited:

R6Rider

Gold Member
not in their initial statements and the several years statement came out afterwards.

They lied until they were exposed, why are you defending a mega corp its weird.
It's what Kagey and Salty do, especially today. They'll post several attempts to rile people up with some stupid takes and when no-one responds, they'll post something else. You can already see it happening.
 

Represent.

Member
Phil is a phony and blatantly lies about almost everything he says.

All he cares about are "services" and "value".

Yet all of Microsofts studios are in development hell under his watch, and games announced 3-4 years ago have zero gameplay footage to show for.
 

yurinka

Member
yurinka yurinka that's what I was referring to. That "several years" thing was bullshit and only gonna end bad. Good to see Sony rejecting that offer.
Jimbo didn't say what the previous deal with Activision already was, and didn't mention if he accepted or rejected the MS proposal, and didn't mention if they negotiated it and finally agreed to to something else.

He also didn't mention if Phil asked Sony for certain conditions to keep CoD there 3 years more, like pretty likely asking Sony to pay MS a gazillion dollars to keep CoD there or to sign that they will really keep releasing the Bungie games on Xbox and PC forever.

Jimbo knows that for PS it would be better to keep CoD on PS, but that if CoD leaves PS the most damaged would be MS, not Sony. Because MS will lose 70% of that revenue and Sony 30%, revenue and game sales that are a tiny percent of the ones made in PS.

Jimbo also knows that regulators should really know the real deal of CoD and PS, and that MS can't (and shouldn't) lie to regulators and investors. Pretty likely regulators and investors won't like to see that MS's plan is to keep CoD for the next 3 years that Activision already had signed plus -maybe- this extra 3 more who knows under what (maybe even abusive) conditions.

This is not going to change anything and just confirms how scared he is
Jimbo's consoles have around twice the active userbase, their game sub have around twice the subscribers than Phil's console and game subs. CoD represents a tiny portion of SIE's gaming division revenue (around 25B) and game sales on PS (CoD maybe sells maybe around 10M copies/year while there are around 300M games sold on PS/year).

If someone is scared here isn't Jimbo, maybe it's the one who paid $70B for ABK including CoD and other IPs to see if that helps them to get closer to Jimbo's console and game sub.
That's the only "offer" they'll get, it's not like they are negotiating with Microsoft on this 😅
Jimbo mentioned 'their proposal was inadequate on many levels', so I'd bet they aren't negotiating anything and that if there was any negotiation it's already over. And pretty likely they didn't agree and signed anything because there would be NDAs forbidding to talk about it.

Maybe Phil simply sent him a mail or a letter saying "Hey Jimbo, if you want CoD for 3 more years in addition to the ones you already signed with Activision pay me X gazilion dollars" and Jimbo replied "lol fuck you". Or pretty likely was something more polite and even had some negotiations.

But who knows.

As of now, seems that MS, Activision, Phil and Microsoft's president were lying to their regulators, investors and players and their plan was only to keep CoD for the already signed years plus maybe to expand it 3 more under what conditions that apparently made Jimbo angry and seems that he didn't accept.

This could damage the acquisition more than if MS would have been honest and would have said "hey, after the years we already have signed CoD will be exclusive but may keep it there 3 more years if Sony accepts certain conditions".

But Jimbo said that -logically- what he wanted was to continue having CoD on PS so maybe they negotiated it and ended agreeing to keep CoD forever on PS or maybe the opposite, maybe the contidions to keep these 3 extra years were abusive, they didn't even agreed them and right after the current ABK+Sony deal ends CoD goes full console exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Jimbo:


This is funny because some Xbox people actually believe Jirimbo is out there traing to sabotage Act-Blizz acquisition.
 

Zathalus

Member
Phil said several years AFTER their current deal expires.



Lying to our fucking face. It was reported that Sony has 2 more years left in their contract so several years AFTER the current deal would imply 5 years. Not 3.
That's exactly what the OP says. Three years after the current agreement ends. So if the current agreement is valid for another 2 years, then another 3 years on top of that for a total of 5 years.
 
What is Jim giving Phil in exchange for keeping COD on their competing system for three extra years beyond the prior agreement? What has Jim given in return for keeping Minecraft on the platform? What has Jim given back for Phil honoring the exclusivity agreements in place with studios they acquired? Corporations break contracts all the time but Phil has fulfilled every one and intends to not just fulfill this current contract but allow Jim to continue having COD for three years beyond that.

Seems like charity from Microsoft and Jimbo seems to think he's entitled to it.
 

ChiefDada

Member
I guess anyone who thought COD was going to be available on PS consoles forever should start eating crow now. You'll have until the end of the decade at best, but the clocks ticking and it waits for no one. Will Sony be able to produce a COD killer before then?

Doubt Reaction GIF

Will Xbox be able to produce the same quality CoD without the PS gamer market and 100% reliance on GamePass?

Doubt Reaction GIF
 

Rykan

Gold Member
Phil said several years AFTER their current deal expires.



Lying to our fucking face. It was reported that Sony has 2 more years left in their contract so several years AFTER the current deal would imply 5 years. Not 3.
Huh? Phil said several years after the current contract had ended. We've now learned that this is 3 years. Where do you get the 5 years implication from?
 

SlimySnake

The Contrarian
That's exactly what the OP says. Three years after the current agreement ends. So if the current agreement is valid for another 2 years, then another 3 years on top of that for a total of 5 years.

Huh? Phil said several years after the current contract had ended. We've now learned that this is 3 years. Where do you get the 5 years implication from?

Ah I see. Im an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom