Xbox offered PlayStation a 10-year deal for Call of Duty, Sony declined to comment

Status
Not open for further replies.

GHG

Member
Not really, this deal is being looked at from a perspective of protecting consumers choices not protecting Sony's business. Although Sony can have a say the commission are not a mediator between Sony and Microsoft like you are saying. It's the regulators job to make an independent decision using all the facts. Because Sony and Microsoft are the two main players in this (Not sure why Nintendo's stance in this is being side-lined so much but that's another debate entirely) they can make their own case but this isn't/shouldn't be a case of pleasing Sony. From a consumer point of view I would love to see a more even playing field where Sony's current business model is seriously challenged and their position weakened so they have to be more consumer focussed and are not able to command the industry like they do now. If Sony's current business model doesn't work when competing with another party on an equal footing to them then it's upto Sony to change the way they operate. As consumers we will benefit from it.

I really don't understand why this has gone from being about putting the consumers first to being about protecting Sony's huge market share.

At this point in time yes they are the mediator. At this stage Microsoft cannot negotiate deals or make promises for property they do not yet own - the only way anything can be enforced for the future is via the regulators making certain things legally binding.

But like I said previously in this thread, the primary reason for them to be making these offers is in order to satisfy the regulators, not Sony. They can make Sony out to be the bad guy in the media as much as they want but what they think about what is being offered only carries so much weight. From Sony's perspective they most likely won't be entirely satisfied unless the deal is completely blocked.

Regarding "protecting Sony's market share" - I've already discussed this at length in the main thread for this deal but from a regulator's perspective they have a duty to protect the customers of a company who would be negatively effected by an agressive acquisition such as this one.
 
Last edited:

Robb

Gold Member
Doubt they just offered 10 years without anything in return. Seems pretty obvious Sony will say anything to get the deal stopped and MS will say anything to get it through.

I’ll regard everything that comes out about this from either side as bogus until the deal is done.
 
Last edited:
Decline the deal, see how many copies it sells without Sony platforms.
Also make something better than cod. Last one I bought was MW2019 in a sale and I dropped it after a couple of weeks.

I want to see good MP shooters ffs. :'(
 

Bragr

Member
I’m starting to think Sony’s issue isn’t Xbox exclusive Call of Duty, it’s Game Pass Call of Duty period.
Of course, that's what this is about, imagine every single Call of Duty on Game Pass across console and PC. There will be a huge migration over to Game Pass, no matter if it's still available on Playstation.
 
I honestly don’t think COD will go full exclusive to XBOX until quite some time. Why? COD really needs the PlayStation demographic to truly thrive and survive. I still think putting it on a subscription service is crazy especially when the latest installment already made over 1 billion dollars in sales and gamers are willing to pay good money for it. I know they want to grow Gamepass, but they will lose a plethora of money on each COD installment I feel throwing it on Gamepass day one. COD is very expensive to create as well. Being on Gamepass, the XBOX and PC won’t come anywhere close to that insane amount it made if it leaves PlayStation.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
What makes you believe this shit when they bought Bungie and did no such thing?
Call me when they actually release some games. No one pulls previous games from owners. Until we actually see new games its just PR.
 

geary

Member
Sony don't have to comment. These discussions are private and are still ongoing, the regulators are the mediators.

Not sure what people expect. They don't have a duty to respond to Microsoft's constant attempts to make all of this public via the media.
But when they said the 3y offer was not ok, that was ok to comment. You guys should make your minds.
 

CeeJay

Member
At this point in time yes they are the mediator. At this stage Microsoft cannot negotiate deals or make promises for property they do not yet own - the only way anything can be enforced for the future is via the regulators making certain things legally binding.
A mediator is a go between. Microsoft are directly offering Sony concessions and making the commissions aware. The commissions are not sat between the two parties.

But like I said previously in this thread, the primary reason for them to be making these offers is in order to satisfy the regulators, not Sony. They can make Sony out to be the bad guy in the media as much as they want but what they think about what is being offered only carries so much weight. From Sony's perspective they most likely won't be entirely satisfied unless the deal is completely blocked.
Agreed

Regarding "protecting Sony's market share" - I've already discussed this at length in the main thread for this deal but from a regulator's perspective they have a duty to protect the customers of a company who would be negatively effected by an agressive acquisition such as this one.
Agreed but what constitutes being negatively or adversely affected is probably where we would disagree. If COD carries on being available on PS then Sony consumers are getting no worse or no better than they are now. If COD is available on Gamepass day one then Xbox consumers are getting a better experience so, (marketing deals with exclusive content aside) there is a net positive effect for consumers in general. you can discuss what the hell you want at length, it doesn't make your opinion correct. I would say that there are plenty of other things in this deal that could adversely affect consumers on Playstation but, it seems like COD is the hill that this whole deal is being fought on and in that regard I don't think PS customers are negatively affected but feel free to rebut that.

If we do also bring the marketing deals and the exclusive content into this whereby Sony would lose exclusive (timed or otherwise) content then it becomes much less clear. We then get into the realms of discussions of a market leader using their position and power to gain favourable things for their own consumers only whilst all other consumers on other platforms are negatively affected. When Xbox had the marketing rights for COD they weren't nearly as aggressive with the exclusivity of content that we see with Sony's marketing deals. Please tell me why customers as a whole regardless of platform would be negatively affected by this deal?
 

Three

Member
Call me when they actually release some games. No one pulls previous games from owners. Until we actually see new games its just PR.
I will but when they do, what then? you would still be stanning for MS

"Bungie has future games in development, will they now become PlayStation exclusives?
No. We want the worlds we are creating to extend to anywhere people play games. We will continue to be self-published, creatively independent, and we will continue to drive one, unified Bungie community. "

https://www.bungie.net/en/Explore/Detail/News/50989
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
the Switch exists, so my point stands, there's no evidence that suggests a console can't survive without CoD.
not only survive but also be the by far most successful system

Nintendo is an anomaly. Sony is nowhere close to being a Nintendo.
 

GHG

Member
But when they said the 3y offer was not ok, that was ok to comment. You guys should make your minds.

Or you can learn to read:

"I hadn’t intended to comment on what I understood to be a private business discussion..."



----

A mediator is a go between. Microsoft are directly offering Sony concessions and making the commissions aware. The commissions are not sat between the two parties.


Agreed


Agreed but what constitutes being negatively or adversely affected is probably where we would disagree. If COD carries on being available on PS then Sony consumers are getting no worse or no better than they are now. If COD is available on Gamepass day one then Xbox consumers are getting a better experience so, (marketing deals with exclusive content aside) there is a net positive effect for consumers in general. you can discuss what the hell you want at length, it doesn't make your opinion correct. I would say that there are plenty of other things in this deal that could adversely affect consumers on Playstation but, it seems like COD is the hill that this whole deal is being fought on and in that regard I don't think PS customers are negatively affected but feel free to rebut that.

If we do also bring the marketing deals and the exclusive content into this whereby Sony would lose exclusive (timed or otherwise) content then it becomes much less clear. We then get into the realms of discussions of a market leader using their position and power to gain favourable things for their own consumers only whilst all other consumers on other platforms are negatively affected. When Xbox had the marketing rights for COD they weren't nearly as aggressive with the exclusivity of content that we see with Sony's marketing deals. Please tell me why customers as a whole regardless of platform would be negatively affected by this deal?

Microsoft cannot directly negotiate with or draw up contracts for property they do not yet own. Anything they offer Sony with regards to this will need to go via the regulators in order to be enforced.

Regarding the rest I've had this exact same discussion in the acquisition thread and I'd rather not repeat myself:


My views on how regulators tend to see things regarding acquisitions of this size and type are there. You're free to disagree of course but everything we've seen thus far from the regulators in the major jurisdictions for this deal suggests that's exactly how they are going about investigating this.
 
Last edited:

quest

Not Banned from OT
I will but when they do, what then? you would still be stanning for MS

"Bungie has future games in development, will they now become PlayStation exclusives?
No. We want the worlds we are creating to extend to anywhere people play games. We will continue to be self-published, creatively independent, and we will continue to drive one, unified Bungie community. "

https://www.bungie.net/en/Explore/Detail/News/50989
Puts it equal to the Minecraft deal. They are still releasing new Minecraft games for playstation.


 

Moses85

Member
I am happy I dont give a fxxxx about CoD

So

Animated GIF


Fox Tv Popcorn GIF by The Four
 

CeeJay

Member
Regarding the rest I've had this exact same discussion in the acquisition thread and I'd rather not repeat myself:

[/URL][/URL]

My views on how regulators tend to see things regarding acquisitions of this size and type are there. You're free to disagree of course but everything we've seen thus far from the regulators in the major jurisdictions for this deal suggests that's exactly how they are going about investigating this.
That is currently a 161 page thread, I am not going to read through the whole thing again just to see your position on this particular point. If i was addressing your comments in that thread then fair enough but i'm not, I am addressing your points raised within this thread. If you are happy to repeat your position on a particular point in this thread then you should be happy to substantiate that repeated position without a lazy (i've said all this before) response, at least point me to the exact posts where you discuss this.

Are you saying that COD being available day one on Gamepass negatively affects consumers who can still buy the game same as before?

Or is it that Sony losing the marketing rights to the game is negatively affecting customers as a whole?

Remember that the commissions are there to look out for all consumers as a whole whichever platform they are on and not just a subset.
 

Stare-Bear

Member
Do we know what the split in sales is between Xbox and PlayStation for CoD? Microsoft isn’t a charity despite what most gaffers seem to think. They need a return on their investment somehow.
 

Three

Member
Puts it equal to the Minecraft deal. They are still releasing new Minecraft games for playstation.


[/URL][/URL][/URL]

"sony would have made it full exclusive with no second thoughts. Let's not kid ourselves"

Me: No they wouldn't, they didn't with Bungie.

"Call me when they actually release some games. No one pulls previous games from owners."

Me: future Bungie games will not be exclusive either

"Puts it equal to the Minecraft deal. They are still releasing new Minecraft games for playstation"

How did I know we'll end up going in circles with MS stanning? They clearly haven't bought a publisher and made IPs exclusive without a second thought. They've done the exact opposite, bought them and not made them exclusive.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
when one party out of three is doing something different I don't think that constitutes an anomaly. I think for it to be an anomaly the sample size would need to be much larger than three.

I think it’s not so much what they’re doing different, but rather having a rabid fanbase unlike anyone else.

And this is throughout the history of the hobby, not just the current contenders. Atari, Sega, SNK, NEC…you name it.
 
Last edited:

Midn1ght

Member
It appears from a glance that Phil Spencer is obviously not fully committed to telling the truth if he initially said he wouldn’t take it away from PlayStation, but then offers them a 10 year deal. Those two things don’t really connect so that’s quite interesting.

On the other side of the coin, 10 years is pretty decent. Sony should start to think about how they can capitalise on the MP market, especially with Bungie now with them who can make a decent online shooter.

Sony have a shit load of great IPs just sitting there that they can use, get to it Sony.
I mean, is it common to sign a deal that is 30/40 years long? I don't know much about these things.
10 years means Call of Duty will be on PS6 as well and if Sony keeps being as successful, they'll probably sign another deal.

I think it's the "free" on Game Pass that bother Sony most and I can understand that to an extend, if Microsoft keeps buying large studios and offers every game Day 1 on Game Pass, it reduce the appeal of buying a PlayStation for anything else than first party games.

I know Game Pass is a hot topic and that PlayStation is doing things differently but if the whole industry is moving toward a subscription base model, I feel like Sony has no choice but completely revamp their Plus strategy. A PS Plus Platinum Tier with third party monthly games, PS 1/2/3/4/5 games and at least 2 or 3 new first party Sony games each year could definitely compete with Game Pass. But yeah, with how much Sony invests in every first party game, it's gonna be hard for them to let them go day 1 on Plus.

I know you guys probably talked a lot about all this already so don't be too harsh if this comment sound stupid, I'm just throwing my 5 cent.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Then to “so long as there is a PS, COD will ship on it.”

Offer keeps changing. Phil- need some consistency bruh.

That's what I'm having a hard time with. I have repeatedly said that I believe Phil Spencer as I think it would be idiotic for him to commit to PlayStation publicly so comprehensively and then renege on those commitments. The gaming public would eat him alive for being a blatant liar.

So what is with the 3 year and now 10 year deals? Deals for what? Something doesn't add up.
 

reinking

Member
That's what I'm having a hard time with. I have repeatedly said that I believe Phil Spencer as I think it would be idiotic for him to commit to PlayStation publicly so comprehensively and then renege on those commitments. The gaming public would eat him alive for being a blatant liar.

So what is with the 3 year and now 10 year deals? Deals for what? Something doesn't add up.
I think Phil overstates things in public before he gets the blessing from his legal team and/or bosses. That, or he is a dick and is just flat out lying. :)
 

Topher

Gold Member
I think Phil overstates things in public before he gets the blessing from his legal team and/or bosses. That, or he is a dick and is just flat out lying. :)

This sounds pretty genuine:

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is doing great on PlayStation and on Xbox — so will the next game, and the next, and the next. Native on the platform, not having to subscribe to Game Pass. Sony does not have to take Game Pass on their platform to make that happen. There’s nothing hidden. We want to continue to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation without any kind of weird, 'Aha! I figured out the gotcha.'"

So what's the 10 year contract say?
 
Last edited:

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
That's what I'm having a hard time with. I have repeatedly said that I believe Phil Spencer as I think it would be idiotic for him to commit to PlayStation publicly so comprehensively and then renege on those commitments. The gaming public would eat him alive for being a blatant liar.

So what is with the 3 year and now 10 year deals? Deals for what? Something doesn't add up.

who knows if phil is still there in 5 years

all the next guy has to say is 'plans change'
 

onesvenus

Member
They are trying to get a deal pass, they need Sony to agree and notify all relevant authorities they do not object to the deal.
They don't need Sony to agree to anything. If regulators don't find enough evidence that this deal harms competition, it will be approved. It doesn't matter what Sony, or any other company, think about the deal.
 

Topher

Gold Member
They don't need Sony to agree to anything. If regulators don't find enough evidence that this deal harms competition, it will be approved. It doesn't matter what Sony, or any other company, think about the deal.

Of course it matters. Regulators actively ask for opinions from other companies on deals like these just as they did when Microsoft and other companies opposed Nvidia's acquisition of Arm.
 

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
That's what I'm having a hard time with. I have repeatedly said that I believe Phil Spencer as I think it would be idiotic for him to commit to PlayStation publicly so comprehensively and then renege on those commitments. The gaming public would eat him alive for being a blatant liar.

So what is with the 3 year and now 10 year deals? Deals for what? Something doesn't add up.

Of course it adds up, MS in typical big America style is using the media to negotiate in public via culture wars.

First it was up in the air how much they would support PlayStation’s userbase after the contract was up, only saying they wouldn’t take games away, then it was three years beyond it, then as long as it makes sense, now it’s ten years. It was gamepass, it was Xcloud, it was the metaverse, it was China, it was choice, it was mobile, it was competition. Who in their right mind would believe this company? They lobbied Trump, Trump!!!! To get Amazon to lose cloud infrastructure services contract with American government even though they were the favorites and already were providing the services. Some of you should read about MS lobbying practices for the last two decades or more.

Bethesda was a bait and switch.
 
This sounds pretty genuine:

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is doing great on PlayStation and on Xbox — so will the next game, and the next, and the next. Native on the platform, not having to subscribe to Game Pass. Sony does not have to take Game Pass on their platform to make that happen. There’s nothing hidden. We want to continue to ship Call of Duty on PlayStation without any kind of weird, 'Aha! I figured out the gotcha.'"

So what's the 10 year contract say?
fox laughing GIF by Family Guy
 

Topher

Gold Member
It does matter (or will be taken into account) but ultimately its the regulators decision whether that concession is enough. It doesn't require Sony's explicit agreement like Cyberpunkd Cyberpunkd posted.

I didn't read his comment to be as explicit as that, but yeah, I agree that's not is not a requirement for the deal to be approved. I don't think the idea that Microsoft is trying to buy Sony's favor and retract their very vocal opposition to the deal is far-fetched though.
 

reksveks

Member
I didn't read his comment to be as explicit as that, but yeah, I agree that's not is not a requirement for the deal to be approved. I don't think the idea that Microsoft is trying to buy Sony's favor and retract their very vocal opposition to the deal is far-fetched though.
Definitely not, if Microsoft can get Sony to drop the opposition then that's a big barrier it seems dropped.
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
It appears from a glance that Phil Spencer is obviously not fully committed to telling the truth if he initially said he wouldn’t take it away from PlayStation, but then offers them a 10 year deal. Those two things don’t really connect so that’s quite interesting.

On the other side of the coin, 10 years is pretty decent. Sony should start to think about how they can capitalise on the MP market, especially with Bungie now with them who can make a decent online shooter.

Sony have a shit load of great IPs just sitting there that they can use, get to it Sony.
You clearly have no idea how business and contracts work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom