Support NeoGAF

[The_Mike]

Honestly the shit show when Sony doesnt get the next Call of Duty or Tony Hawk is gonna be hilarious

After 2023:
"when was Call of Duty franchise relevant?"

FPS shooter genre is oversaturated

Yet people only talk about cod and battlefield, the last one less positive.

 

[iHaunter]

Why would Microsoft treat Activision's games any differently than Bethesda's?

Deathloop was still exclusive to PS5.

 

[Lognor]

Deathloop was still exclusive to PS5.

Because there was a contract with Sony. If there are any outstanding contracts Activision will abide by them. But once those contracts end, no more PS content.

 

[ManaByte]

Deathloop was still exclusive to PS5.

Until September.

 

[blastprocessor]

How long is the contract one wonders?

 

[crunchyBiscuits]

Port begging from one of the big three

I don't think it's port begging. They're saying before MS showed up, they had deals with Acti-Blizz. Which is fair, I think.

Once those obligations are met/negotiated? All bets are off

 

[ChiefDada]

A gazillion games have been developed and released straight to Gamepass day one, from Indies to AAA. Gaming is even better than before.

Would have ignored you for such a stupid take but there's your response.

What's with the hostility?

I'm not being facetious when I say there's nothing wrong with liking such games, and I appreciate you clarifying because now I 100% understand where you're coming from and yes this model Microsoft is pursuing is a great value for you. I do think it would have been much easier if you had just clarified before instead of you and R Riki doing drive-by's on comments and dropping LOL emojis absent any other substantive contribution.

However, you may be surprised to know that not every Xbox/Game pass fan anticipates a transition to a more MTX-focused gaming future.

Peace and Love.

 

[RoadHazard]

They've already said they will, with EXISTING obligations. That was never in doubt. But any future games they can obviously do whatever they want with.

 

[Leyasu]

After that, then what? Does Sony stop selling consoles in the interim? Does upcoming Spiderman and similar marquee titles fail to move units? When does the major catalyst for PS base shift to Xbox occur?





Where does COD revenue come from after hypothetical game pass exclusivity? Does development budget for an exclusive COD get determined before or after it is known how many PS players are able to be converted?

I don’t recall saying anything about Sony being dead.

After that means that they will be exclusive. Calm down and breathe, Sony will be fine.

 

[Aion002]

They said the same about Bethesda...is it really necessary such PR claim Sony? Good Lord we are back again to when gamers are considered idiots?

Just play most new games.

They have 1 hour tutorials that seems to be made for 4 years old kids. They don't think that gamers might be idiots... They're like:

 

[Lucifers Beard]

It doesn't make sense to make COD exclusive. It makes its money multiplatform. What I expect they will do is make some of the other titles they own exclusive, or appear on Xbox first. COD will continue to be day one on PlayStation, however they might want to slow the cadence or reduce the scope of the game. If not, then it's business as usual.

I hope people aren't forgetting MS are the ONLY console maker making games for all consoles already. This doesn't seem like a different situation.

I think that even if Call of Duty was exclusive to PC and Xbox, the game would make MS a crap ton of money. It’s the kind of game that shifts consoles and would pull people from Sonys platform, no doubt about it.

 

[wolffy71]

So MS buys two large catalogs of games.

The first catalog they make exclusive to their platform, minus the ESO type subs. It drives millions in new subs.

The second catalog is no different than the 1st in any real way outside of scale. I think anyone being logical sees the outcome.

7 billion was spent to grew reoccurring revenue by adding millions of new subs.

70 billion was spent because they liked how the first 7 billion worked out.

Expect the exact same scenario as the 1st.

 

[ChiefDada]

I don’t recall saying anything about Sony being dead.

After that means that they will be exclusive. Calm down and breathe, Sony will be fine.

I didn't say you did.

You chose to end your post with a suggestive cliffhanger and I followed up. It's clear from my prior posts that I'm not concerned about Sony.

You good though?

 

[Leyasu]

I didn't say you did.

You chose to end your post with a suggestive cliffhanger and I followed up. It's clear from my prior posts that I'm not concerned about Sony.

You good though?

All good man. The cliffhanger was regarding activisions games, not Sony. Even Stevie Wonder could have seen that

 

[Riky]

Great we both agree that Fortnite is a highly successful franchise.

Hallelujah we have finally found common ground. Time to pop the champagne!

Ok now the next question is this: As a game pass subscriber, are you ok with all of your games being developed under the free to play MTX model? This is not an inherently good or bad thing, just personal preference. Also, are your fellow comrades such as Riky clarky @MOTM (although I'm pretty they're all the same person) fans of an MTX-only future under Game pass? Go ahead and cast votes amongst yourselves then get back to me.

Spurious claim about alt accounts, then baseless claim about how games are developed. There will need to be a variety of content on Gamepass to attract as many subscribers as possible, one model does not fit all.

 

[reinking]

 

[rickybooby87]

Eh, let the chips fall where they may, but they are still falling. So, nothing is for certain. What is for certain, Microsoft needs to rein in those ridiculous file sizes for COD games.

 

[Schmick]

What's with the hostility?

I'm not being facetious when I say there's nothing wrong with liking such games, and I appreciate you clarifying because now I 100% understand where you're coming from and yes this model Microsoft is pursuing is a great value for you. I do think it would have been much easier if you had just clarified before instead of you and R Riki doing drive-by's on comments and dropping LOL emojis absent any other substantive contribution.

However, you may be surprised to know that not every Xbox/Game pass fan anticipates a transition to a more MTX-focused gaming future.

Peace and Love.

From my point of view as a Gamepass user; if SoT, FH5 and FS are anything to go by then I'm perfectly fine with MS's approach to MTX/GaaS. But let's be perfectly clear on this. Gamepass is not and will not be riddled with Gaas/MTX focused game. The current library is very diverse. This notion that a large portion of Gamepass needs to have MTX/GaaS content so far is not reflected by the content we currently have access to.

 

[leo-j]

I can see Microsoft making call of duty gamepass exclusive when it comes to sub, and releasing it on PS for $69.99. It would push gamers to get the sun service, and if that doesn’t work just make COD Xbox/Pc exclusive.

 

[Gamezone]

Deathloop was still exclusive to PS5.

Because the deal was made before Microsoft bought them. This is exactly what this article is about. The title is clickbait. You won't be seeing Deathloop 2 on PlayStation.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

The point it’s agreements are in place to keep COD on PS4 and PS5 most likely. Or MS can just agree to pay Sony to get out of these contracts.

Lots of people are going to be in denial once this clears and shits still on all platforms for the rest of the gen.

Microsoft’s Activision makes billions on Playstation.

They only have like one game there, COD.

 

[mckmas8808]

if lucky Sony could extend the COD multiplatform for few more years.

At BEST.....COD will be mulitiplatform through 2024. AT BEST! And you can forget any Activision dev making PSVR2 games.

 

[Papacheeks]

Sony has IPs like SOCOM and Killzone they could've been developing into massive MP IPs. But since the PS4 launch until now they relied on a third-party publisher (Activision) to provide the big MP shooter for their console every year, while MS was building up Gears and Halo in addition to having COD, Battlefield, R6, etc. Now Activision is gone and their #1 selling game every year is going with it, and they don't have a SOCOM or Killzone waiting to fill that void. Maybe if they start right now they can have a MP only SOCOM ready for 2024 when COD is exclusive.

So you think Sony through the amount of money they make through COD/Fortnite/GTA/Rocket league don't know that if those games go away they are going to be huge deficits in their quarterly? Why do you think they have been putting games on PC? Going hard for dedicated games and partnerships with Epic/Valve? You think its just them talking to each other at a bar and throwing them some money? Or is it a long term plan from the top down that they throughout an entire gen relied heavily on third party while they built up their studios. Now their studios are pumping games, and selling 8,10-15+ Million. On top of PC releases.

So then where do the replacements go for COD/GTA ect? All the projects that have been talked about for past couple years are a plan thats been put in place. It's like you think Sony didn't see where the industry was heading? Before Microsoft was making moves China/Korea companies were making moves in acquiring talent and IP. You think Sony's financial teams dont know this let alone dont plan for this?

Microsoft has strat, Sony has a strat. Difference is Microsoft because of the bad press from previous gen has been open on what the strat and plan is. While Sony only shows you part of the plan when they think its time to. Maybe this bites them in the ass?

Maybe COD being locked out after their contractual agreements are fullfilled will really fuck them? But to think Sony doesnt make strategic moves behind the scenes to account for things like this is really a stupid take. Consolidation is not new, it was happening last gen.

 

[R3claimer117]

How is this funny? If you knew anything about contracts and what Sony has been making multiplayer wise you would not be laughing. Sony will be fine. They were fine in PS2 era, and even in PS3 era where XBOX was beating the shit out of them online wise they still did fine?

So go ahead with your knee jerk.

This can’t be a serious post right? Are you delusional the best selling game on their platform that’s driving their sales are all those 360 players they converted to PlayStation players with COD playing best on ps4 and exclusive content it’s been their home since last gen. The idea that will change is ok? Their stock dropped 20 billion dollars yeah maybe prematurely but to say they’ll be fine is ridiculous do you know how much money they’ll be losing from the micro transactions alone on COD?

 

[mckmas8808]

Activision has a Call of Duty exclusivity deal that makes the Xbox and PC versions of COD incomplete every year. The PS4/5 version of COD gives players there additional load out slots, and there are game modes, like the 2 player Co-Op mode in Modern Warfare, that are exclusive to PlayStation.

The deal is done in four-year cycles. Sony had it from 2014-2018, and it was renewed in 2019; meaning it's set to expire in 2023.

That's the exact timing that MS needs though. This Activision to MS deal won't officially go through until summer of 2023 right?

 

[mckmas8808]

This can’t be a serious post right? Are you delusional the best selling game on their platform that’s driving their sales are all those 360 players they converted to PlayStation players with COD playing best on ps4 and exclusive content it’s been their home since last gen. The idea that will change is ok? Their stock dropped 20 billion dollars yeah maybe prematurely but to say they’ll be fine is ridiculous do you know how much money they’ll be losing from the micro transactions alone on COD?

So are you claiming Sony will "NOT" be okay after they lose COD forever? Like what are you proposing here?

 

[ManaByte]

That's the exact timing that MS needs though. This Activision to MS deal won't officially go through until summer of 2023 right?

The thing people are missing is that they say it'll close BY June 2023, which is the end of Microsoft's fiscal year. As in that's the deadline. It'll likely close a lot earlier than that like Bethesda did.

 

[lastmessiah]

So are you claiming Sony will "NOT" be okay after they lose COD forever? Like what are you proposing here?

Of course they won't be OK. This is seriously devastating to Sony.

 

[iHaunter]

Until September.

Point still stands, existing contracts will be honored, we don't know how long they are.

Regardless, Sony won't be losing much. COD is big sure, bout it.

Because the deal was made before Microsoft bought them. This is exactly what this article is about. The title is clickbait. You won't be seeing Deathloop 2 on PlayStation.

I don't even want to see Deathloop one in Playstation. Game is terrible, I bought it half off and still feel like I got ripped off.

 

[ManaByte]

Sony won't be losing much.

In 2021 Call of Duty was the #1 and #3 selling titles on the PlayStation according to NPD. So they'll just be losing their #1 and #3 best selling games.

 

[iHaunter]

In 2021 Call of Duty was the #1 and #3 selling titles on the PlayStation according to NPD. So they'll just be losing their #1 and #3 best selling games.

A worthy sacrifice in the name of having less shit on their system.

 

[M16]

The thing people are missing is that they say it'll close BY June 2023, which is the end of Microsoft's fiscal year. As in that's the deadline. It'll likely close a lot earlier than that like Bethesda did.

yep, they specifically said the deal will close within their fiscal year 2023, which actually starts in july 2022. the deal can close even this year.

 

[Hollowpoint5557]

Suck a duck. I expected to play Square-Enix games on my Xbox. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Vognerful]

Microsoft paid almost 20 billions over Activision Blizzard market price (50 billion). This tells me Microsoft does not care about recouping their money soon.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Sony has some grapefruits for balls to try to tell $2.3 trillion dollar company Microsoft what to do with their own $70 billion purchase. I think I know exactly what Microsoft references. Sony likely gets paid to enable crossplay, but Microsoft should kill that shit quick, fast and in a hurry. It's shady as fuck. Honor other agreements, such as marketing rights, existing commitments to bring certain games, but no more than that.

Shit, that statement most likely hardened Microsoft's resolve. I sure wouldn't take kindly to that type of statement.

 

[rickybooby87]

Sony Braces for Microsoft’s ‘Pay-to-Win’ Strategy

Sony shares dropped nearly 13% after Microsoft’s announced megadeal for Activision. Its investors are right to be concerned.

www.wsj.com

"Citi estimated that the potential profit hit from losing that royalty income could amount to 10 billion yen to 30 billion yen, the equivalent of $87 million to $260 million. But that is relatively minor: Sony’s operating profit for the 12 months ending in September was around 1 trillion yen."

I guess it doesn't sound too bad right? lol.

 

[mckmas8808]

Of course they won't be OK. This is seriously devastating to Sony.

But what does "they won't be OK" mean? How will it be devastating? Like what does a devastating Playstation look like? We've never seen it before, so I'd like some of you that believe this to paint the picture. Does it mean........

- PS5 per year sells fall behind Xbox Series consoles?
- Playstation gamers drop PS+ and don't join "Spartacus"? Leaving Playstation with less than 30 million PS+ subs by the year 2025? They have close to 48 million today (if memory serves).
- Gamers stop caring about PS first party games and those stop selling like they use to?
- Gamers lose confidence in PS overall and don't even buy PSVR2 headsets or its games this year and next year?
- Gamers leave their PS4s and PS5s off and buy an Xbox Series console and get Gamepass, leading to way lower 3rd party games selling on PS consoles?
- The place to play all 3rd party games worldwide, go to Xbox now?


Like what are we really talking about here?

 

[mckmas8808]

Sony has some grapefruits for balls to try to tell $2.3 trillion dollar company Microsoft what to do with their own $70 billion purchase. I think I know exactly what Microsoft references. Sony likely gets paid to enable crossplay, but Microsoft should kill that shit quick, fast and in a hurry. It's shady as fuck. Honor other agreements, such as marketing rights, existing commitments to bring certain games, but no more than that.

Shit, that statement most likely hardened Microsoft's resolve. I sure wouldn't take kindly to that type of statement.

Jim probably has talked to Phil already about this. So chill out.

 

[lastmessiah]

But what does "they won't be OK" mean? How will it be devastating? Like what does a devastating Playstation look like? We've never seen it before, so I'd like some of you that believe this to paint the picture. Does it mean........

- PS5 per year sells fall behind Xbox Series consoles?
- Playstation gamers drop PS+ and don't join "Spartacus"? Leaving Playstation with less than 30 million PS+ subs by the year 2025? They have close to 48 million today (if memory serves).
- Gamers stop caring about PS first party games and those stop selling like they use to?
- Gamers lose confidence in PS overall and don't even buy PSVR2 headsets or its games this year and next year?
- Gamers leave their PS4s and PS5s off and buy an Xbox Series console and get Gamepass, leading to way lower 3rd party games selling on PS consoles?
- The place to play all 3rd party games worldwide, go to Xbox now?


Like what are we really talking about here?

Well just look at the quality of the PS5 hardware compared to XSS/XSX. They already can't match MS there, even if they sold more consoles in the past. I expect Sony to ditch console production and become a boutique publisher on PC and wherever else will have them. And that is the best case scenario.

 

[Bladed Thesis]

Not my post however this actually makes sense and comes from someone who actually knows what they are saying, disregardinf fanboyism

"
Thats a pretty specifically worded statement that if it came from Sony directly (which the WSJ claims) was likely vetted by legal and PR teams before being made. They didn't reference a contractual agreement to blow smoke, as doing so is investor fraud and one of the few white collar crimes actually enforced (because executives can lie to you and me but they sure as fuck can't lie to the investor class).

My guess is that the co-marketing deal is through the end of the generation or some similar term and Sony knows that between the 12-18 month review and approval process and the existing co-marketing deal that CoD being exclusive to Xbox isn't a PS5 problem, its a PS6 problem, i.e. half a decade down the road.

Potentially the same for Overwatch. Blizzard was selling franchise licenses to speculative owners and there is a high likelihood those speculators had contractual language ensuring a broad base for the IP. The market value of an e-sports franchise that isn't playable by the current market leader's audience isn't going to be of the same net value as it was when universally multi-platform.


Anti-trust isn't just about top line market share. A lot of older industries are regulated by regions, market segments, etc.. My company was denied purchase of a competing facility owned by the national market leader that runs entirely thanks to a cooperative deal we have in place, with 90% of its "product" being from our front line and into our end facilities because we were far and away the market leader in the county (not state, though we're that too, just not by as much) for those services.

If MS catches a savvy and progressive assessment team they could pretty easily make a worthwhile case that Microsoft adding Call of Duty and Overwatch to Halo, DOOM, and Gears would provide a significant market advantage in online/competitive shooter space specifically and in the FPS genre at large, both significant segments of the market.

Thats what anti-trust really amounts to. Does the team catching this at the FTC have the perspicacity to split these hairs, the desire to do so, and if so does the argument hold merit enough for a judge to agree.

If the FTC team on this decide to go after it they'd be able to make some real lop sided looking pie charts within specific segments of the VG industry. They probably won't as the FTC are largely a bunch of old heads who don't get IP power at all, but who knows, Biden's admin claims they're turning things around.


Depends on the terms. For something like Activision and CoD, where CoD is basically all they currently make under the main Activision banner and they have an extensive co-marketing deal Sony could pretty easily:
1. let MS violate the terms.
2. see a CoD release as an Xbox exclusive despite existing contract requirements being violated.
3. argue that damages caused irreparable harm to the Sony brand.
4. require that future CoD releases would only increase the harm and therefore a stay on all future CoD releases is required.
5. Literally make up a mythological number for damages that MS would then be obligated to pay.
6. MS can then either pay Sony billions and go back to honoring the contract or appeal/challenge repeatedly, likely ultimately still lose, and not get to make any money off CoD until its resolved.

We've had multi-billion dollar copyright infringement cases in recent history for the smartphone sector (Samsung caught quite a few specifically) over things with less demonstrable damage than pulling the #1 selling game off a platform despite a contract requiring the exact opposite.

But MS' executives would never intentionally violate a contract like that because while they wouldn't "go to jail" they would massively fuck up the operations of the trillion dollar company and a multi-billion dollar division within it that they've been entrusted with running.

And because they aren't absolute fucking morons."

There are so many wrong assumptions in this post, I know you didn't create it but I have to assume it was written by a layman who doesn't understand how M&A and/or anti-trust law works.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Jim probably has talked to Phil already about this. So chill out.

I highly doubt Phil would speak to Jim about anything pertaining to this deal before its closing. Any and all talks should be held once it closes.

 

[Toni]

People suffer from Recency Bias on these forums.

PSN is an empire. The revenue and net profit margins keeps increasing year over year at an alarming rate. It's Microsoft who needs a massive userbase like PSN to have their newly aquired Multiplatform games thrive with active players and keep gaining maximum, yearly growth.

It makes no sense to take out Call of Duty from PlayStation and start again with half the profits and half the userbase by putting it strictly on Xbox / PC. Especially when there are reports yearly growth from anual Call of Duty installments aren't what they used to be.

It's the reason why it makes the most sense to leave big franchises keep collecting without fragmentation.

You can keep games exclusive for a walled garden like Gamepads / PC and increase membership and attracting new users over time, but the process is much slower with half the userbase.

It's quicker to use a bigger ecosystem like PSN not only to keep maximizing yearly growth but to also keep it intact. Having to tell investors every quarter that Call Of Duty franchise growth and revenue has halted or receded because it was removed entirely from PSN, is the worst business move. It makes no business sense to cut off revenues in half. Ever.

 

[clarky]

Spurious claim about alt accounts, then baseless claim about how games are developed. There will need to be a variety of content on Gamepass to attract as many subscribers as possible, one model does not fit all.

Just woke up and im 3 different people already.

Im expecting day 3 to deliver.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

People suffer from Recency Bias on these forums.

PSN is an empire. The revenue and net profit margins keeps increasing year over year at an alarming rate. It's Microsoft who needs a massive userbase like PSN to have their newly aquired Multiplatform games thrive with active players and keep gaining maximum, yearly growth.

It makes no sense to take out Call of Duty from PlayStation and start again with half the profits and half the userbase by putting it strictly on Xbox / PC. Especially when there are reports yearly growth from anual Call of Duty installments aren't what they used to be.

It's the reason why it makes the most sense to leave big franchises keep collecting without fragmentation.

You can keep games exclusive for a walled garden like Gamepads / PC and increase membership and attracting new users over time, but the process is much slower with half the userbase.

It's quicker to use a bigger ecosystem like PSN not only to keep maximizing yearly growth but to also keep it intact. Having to tell investors every quarter that Call Of Duty franchise growth and revenue has halted or receded because it was removed entirely from PSN, is the worst business move. It makes no business sense to cut off revenues in half. Ever.

Wow, so Starfield and even Elder Scrolls 6 have not better informed against such thinking. Those are two games with every bit the multi-platform sales potential as any Call of Duty game. Even Halo Infinite Campaign successfully outsold COD Vanguard in the month of December on both Xbox and PC.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

MIcrosoft: we expect God of War to come to gamepass.

I dont know how Im going to feel when Xbox get Gravity Rush to Game pass

 

[GymWolf]

Just make your own Call of Doody, shouldn't be so hard. I bet you can download a free template for it.

Maybe they can create something on dreams.

 

[Bladed Thesis]

Thats a pretty specifically worded statement that if it came from Sony directly (which the WSJ claims) was likely vetted by legal and PR teams before being made. They didn't reference a contractual agreement to blow smoke, as doing so is investor fraud and one of the few white collar crimes actually enforced (because executives can lie to you and me but they sure as fuck can't lie to the investor class).

MS is well aware of any contracts prior to agreeing to acquisition. MS is the second biggest company in the world. MS knows not to violate contract law. Nobody assumes Sony mentoning contracts is blowing smoke. We know contracts exist, we know MS knows contracts exist and will abide by them. They have said as much.

My guess is that the co-marketing deal is through the end of the generation or some similar term and Sony knows that between the 12-18 month review and approval process and the existing co-marketing deal that CoD being exclusive to Xbox isn't a PS5 problem, its a PS6 problem, i.e. half a decade down the road.

Nope, the current contract is 2 years, maybe 3 years, max. This revolving contract goes hand-in-hand with reports we've seen in the last ten years.

Potentially the same for Overwatch. Blizzard was selling franchise licenses to speculative owners and there is a high likelihood those speculators had contractual language ensuring a broad base for the IP. The market value of an e-sports franchise that isn't playable by the current market leader's audience isn't going to be of the same net value as it was when universally multi-platform.

Nope, not how this works. Franchise licenses with esports would not include anything regarding platforms. And those are similar to TOS contracts, they literally give Blizzard the license to end those contracts with organizations at any point for any reason. We've seen it used in League of Legends when Riot dropped professional organizations and voided their contract. The esports license is PERMISSION from Blizzard to play in their game professionally and financially benefit from that license.

Anti-trust isn't just about top line market share. A lot of older industries are regulated by regions, market segments, etc.. My company was denied purchase of a competing facility owned by the national market leader that runs entirely thanks to a cooperative deal we have in place, with 90% of its "product" being from our front line and into our end facilities because we were far and away the market leader in the county (not state, though we're that too, just not by as much) for those services.

Honestly, this was the first tell that this "person who knows" doesn't know. The regions/segments comment is a nonsequitor. This person's company and their facility purchase have ZERO bearing on this. It is akin to "my friendship circle doesn't play Fortnite, obviously Fortnite isn't popular." Let's look at antitrust law.

Relevent antitrust statutes being the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, we would see the key Sections being:

Section 1, Sherman: prohibits price fixing, operation of cartels, prohibits collusive practices that restrain trade. <-- doesn't apply. MS would not be price fixing, operating a cartel, or colluding to restrain trade.
Section 2, Sherman: prohibits monopolization. ,<-- doesn't apply. MS by definition would not be a monopoly.
Section 7, Clayton: restricts M&A that weaken small market competition or create a monopoly. <-- doesn't apply. Does not weaken small market competition or create a monopoly.

The FTC will be looking primarily at the FREEDOM TO CONDUCT BUSINESS. Think of that. Sony has the FREEDOM to create a Call of Duty competitor. Sony has the FREEDOM to create a World of Warcraft or Diablo competitor. This does not RESTRICT competition. That is the key here. A section that the FTC regularly reviews is protecting smaller businesses/consumers. This does not apply to this purchase.

MS owning Activision does not impede Sony from conducting business. Sony is not a small business being impeded by this purchase.

If MS catches a savvy and progressive assessment team they could pretty easily make a worthwhile case that Microsoft adding Call of Duty and Overwatch to Halo, DOOM, and Gears would provide a significant market advantage in online/competitive shooter space specifically and in the FPS genre at large, both significant segments of the market.

It doesn't work like this. The FTC does not work like this. Like this is so clearly an outsider making assumptions. There is no "savvy and progressive assessment team." It quite literally does not work this way. This is a couch lawyer trying to sound smart. It does not work this way. Again, read the previous point. Restricting freedom of competition. In the example listed here, that does not occur. Again, this is a layman trying to explain things in internet lawyer speak. Adding Call of Duty/Overwatch to Halo/Doom/Gears does NOT restrict Sony from releasing an FPS. You cannot monopolize a genre of entertainment form where ANYBODY can create in that genre. That is the point. MS is not buying the rights to make an FPS. Anybody can create an FPS. Anybody can develop an FPS. Again, restricting freedom to conduct business. To provide a counter example, MS buying EVERY fps engine would probably be considered an anti-trust violation because the time and effort into creating such an engine would probably be considered prohibitive and restrictive to the FTC. That would get shutdown. Hence why I believe, for example, if anybody tried to purchase Epic and turn Unreal proprietrary, they would get shutdown. This is not that. End of story.

Thats what anti-trust really amounts to. Does the team catching this at the FTC have the perspicacity to split these hairs, the desire to do so, and if so does the argument hold merit enough for a judge to agree.

If the FTC team on this decide to go after it they'd be able to make some real lop sided looking pie charts within specific segments of the VG industry. They probably won't as the FTC are largely a bunch of old heads who don't get IP power at all, but who knows, Biden's admin claims they're turning things around.

Again, total tell that this is a layman talking. The FTC is not splitting hairs. They receive all data from both companies, all internal communcations regarding the acquisition. There are no pie charts created hahaha. That's not how this works. They're not creating a presentation to present to MS telling them they reject or approval the M&A. This is all pie-in-the-sky talk that does not happen. This is not a hollywood movie.

And they wouldn't create lop-sided piecharts of the industry because at the end of the day the pie chart of revenue would be enough in this dreamworld where a federal commission rejects/accepts a M&A with a piechart presentation. Like what? This is insanity.

Depends on the terms. For something like Activision and CoD, where CoD is basically all they currently make under the main Activision banner and they have an extensive co-marketing deal Sony could pretty easily:
1. let MS violate the terms.
2. see a CoD release as an Xbox exclusive despite existing contract requirements being violated.
3. argue that damages caused irreparable harm to the Sony brand.
4. require that future CoD releases would only increase the harm and therefore a stay on all future CoD releases is required.
5. Literally make up a mythological number for damages that MS would then be obligated to pay.
6. MS can then either pay Sony billions and go back to honoring the contract or appeal/challenge repeatedly, likely ultimately still lose, and not get to make any money off CoD until its resolved.

Again, this is a layman speaking. Thinking that Sony will SECRETLY ALLOW MS to violate terms of a contract? What? The first two points make zero sense. We've already seen this play out with Deathloop and soon Ghostwire Tokyo. They honored previous contracts. If anything, that is a MASSIVE feather in MS's cap for this acquisition. Their paperwork filed with the FTC will included statements regarding their abiding by previous contracts (get this) even AT THE DAMAGE TO THEIR OWN BUSINESS. That alone speaks volumes to this M&A. They hurt their own business (Xbox) to allow a GOTY contender to remain exclusive on a competitor because they abided by a contract.

This is clearly a dream scenario of a layman/fanboy thinking MS is somehow going to fucking up a seventy billion dollar acquisition by ignoring a contract and Sony catching them with their pants down and suing them. This is the second largest company in the world. They're not ignoring a contract after a M&A.

We've had multi-billion dollar copyright infringement cases in recent history for the smartphone sector (Samsung caught quite a few specifically) over things with less demonstrable damage than pulling the #1 selling game off a platform despite a contract requiring the exact opposite.

Copyright infringement has nothing to do with a contractual IP exclusivity agreement. Samsung and their tech advances have zero being on this and there is simply no correlation beyond both are big companies. Again, clearly a layman throwing out ideas here because anybody with any knowledge of any industry can see this would have no bearing. I don't even understand bringing up copyright law. It's entirely different from IP exclusivity agreements. And copyright law is nothing like "pulling" the #1 selling game off a platform despite a contract. Again, MS is not some joke organization that just ignores contracts. After spending 70b dollars. What is this stuff?

But MS' executives would never intentionally violate a contract like that because while they wouldn't "go to jail" they would massively fuck up the operations of the trillion dollar company and a multi-billion dollar division within it that they've been entrusted with running.

And because they aren't absolute fucking morons."

Exactly. Glad we agree on this. Again, obvious layman. Nobody is going to jail even in the insane scenario where they break a contractual agreement. So we just read an entire raving post about breaking contracts, getting sued, only to end with "but this won't happen because MS isn't dumb." Like yeah, agreed.

 

[Papacheeks]

This can’t be a serious post right? Are you delusional the best selling game on their platform that’s driving their sales are all those 360 players they converted to PlayStation players with COD playing best on ps4 and exclusive content it’s been their home since last gen. The idea that will change is ok? Their stock dropped 20 billion dollars yeah maybe prematurely but to say they’ll be fine is ridiculous do you know how much money they’ll be losing from the micro transactions alone on COD?

Their stock went back up today didn’t it? The same thing happened when Microsoft bought Bethesda. It then bounced back?

That happens when large Buyouts happen.

So your saying Sony can't survive without Call of duty? Like they did with PS2 and in PS3 era where the premier platform for Call of Duty was Xbox?

Like what?

 

[Kagey K]

In 2021 Call of Duty was the #1 and #3 selling titles on the PlayStation according to NPD. So they'll just be losing their #1 and #3 best selling games.

And the PS+ subs that go with it if CoD players switch over to Xbox, which is surely more valuable in terms of profit.

 

[THEAP99]

It's the next two, 2022 and 2023.

So we still get modern warfare 2? Sweet