I don't understand, is this deal not the result of negotiation? Wasn't the 2024 expiration from a previous agreement?
Why would Sony agree to this if they'd just lose out on COD in a year? That doesn't sound right to me. Surely the conditions of the deal aren't the same.
Okay, I had a misunderstanding about the length of the current contract. 2025 therein would have been the earliest MS could have tried some big moves in foreclosing COD (or parts of COD) on PlayStation platforms.
Still though, I think people thinking Sony got a sweetheart deal here are in denial. I'm not saying this because I even want to, but rather because of what the reality of the situation most likely is.
I can see Microsoft sweetening the pot for those that sub to Gamepass or primarily play on Xbox platforms, but I don't see them going as far to undermine the selling potential of COD on PlayStation.
Gampass release at launch is a lot more plausible than COD being exclusive to Xbox platforms.
Game Pass Day 1 for COD undermines B2P sales revenue on PlayStation anyway :/
And on the other side of those arguments we had some folks saying the moment the deal was done then Microsoft would be free to yank COD away from PS and regulators could do nothing about it. So all kind of theories have come out of this drama. I find myself repeatedly asking people why they think Phil Spencer is a blatant liar because many are still convinced COD will be exclusive.
The redacted court documents have proven Phil Spencer to be a hypocrite at the very least, if not an outright liar. All the pro-consumer stuff he shops online is just a facade. If it were up to him, Minecraft would've been console-exclusive to Xbox, but Notch stopped that from happening (at least for a "Minecraft"; no telling what may happen with Minecraft 2 for example, if that does happen).
Also I don't think regulators have any problem with MS removing COD off PlayStation; the CMA have said that partial or even full foreclosure of COD on PlayStation would not result in a significant shift of console market share to be deemed anticompetitive, and the EC agreed with them. The FTC played the "but Sony!" angle in the PI hearing and arguably lost the hearing because of it, when they should've concentrated more on how Sony's
customers would have been adversely affected (it's not like the judge didn't drop hints to them throughout).
The intentions Phil Spencer and the rest of Xbox upper management have regarding want to push PlayStation out of the market, and cut Sony off from having independent access to 3P publishers who are among their strongest partners, hasn't suddenly gone away or changed overnight. This deal with Sony for COD is out of pleasantry; they technically did not even have to make this deal and it would have changed nothing. Which is a reason why I don't feel a good number of the terms Sony have agreed to here are favorable for them, versus what they could've gotten say back in the middle of last year or last fall.
Will COD be console-exclusive to Xbox in the next five years? No. But it doesn't need to be in order to "spend Sony out of business", as it were. At some point MS being able to load all of these big games into a "cheap" subscription service like Game Pass Day 1, versus paying out $70 per game at release on a platform like PlayStation, is going to hurt the latter to where the former will just "feel" like an exclusive. Leveraging content like COD, Diablo, Overwatch, Fallout, DOOM, Crash etc. with notable MTX & DLC perks in Game Pass that may not be on PlayStation or other platforms, will collectively have the effect of just making COD a console exclusive.
This idea that Sony has no negotiating power is ludacris. Sony has the ability to point to how much revenue having Call of Duty brings in for Actvision. That’s not nothing. MS can afford and may choose to remove that revenue stream, but many people operate under this assumption that MS can just spend their way out of problems and take losses. MS has spent close to $75 billion in acquiring publishers. The shareholders are not going to just allow MS to invest into gaming if the game division doesn’t start showing record profits.
You guys think Microsoft cares about how much revenue PlayStation contributes to COD revenue? Who really has more to lose here? Microsoft, a company that doesn't even need gaming revenue nor profits whatsoever in order to continuously grow their market valuation? Or Sony, a company where gaming is roughly 1/4th of their total corporate revenue, arguably the strongest segment they have in terms of brand recognition, and where losing access to COD and maybe other ABK or Zenimax games would lead to a possible swath of Western casual & mainstream gamers picking up an Xbox over a PlayStation?
Remember, the oath Phil Spencer took in court does not bind Microsoft as a corporation. He can say one thing; Microsoft can "conveniently" arrive at the conclusion to do something else. I don't care what anyone tells me: Microsoft's true intentions WRT Sony were revealed in those redacted documents and as the years go on, they will find means to implement every single thing mentioned in there piece by piece, one at a time, in an attempt to break PlayStation down and push them out of the market. The means they've gone about to drum up public acceptance (and pressure) for this ABK acquisition was nastier than some of the recent Presidential campaigns, and that is saying a lot. Frighteningly more effective, too.
And like other leaked information has shown, Microsoft have models (and faith in such models) where they do not need PlayStation to grow revenue and profits in gaming, which FWIW, is not simply Xbox for Microsoft. One of the few truthful things they've said, is that this is a play for mobile. Mobile revenue and profits, especially if Apple & Google are forced to open up their walled gardens, would easily outstrip console revenue & profits for Microsoft with IP such as COD Warzone and Candy Crush, or a mobile port of Diablo IV or Overwatch 2 as yet another example. Yeah PlayStation revenue on top of that would be nice, but by that point, not a requirement.
And
that's when the foreclosures on PlayStation would kick in :/
Case by case; They own the publishing.
This might light some fire under Sony's ass to revive killzone or Resistance. Literally anything but another Last of us remake
Why do people keep bringing up dead shooter IP like Resistance and Killzone? Those games won't do jack shit in comparison to losing priority access of COD, or especially COD altogether if MS foreclose it on PlayStation platforms down the line.
