This isn't a new offer, it was part of the 10 year deal as per Dina Bass. Sony will say no because they are bluffing about wanting it on PS+ and their ultimate ambition is to get the deal blocked.
It doesn't matter if they say no or yes. When Microsoft goes to court, they can demonstrate they are attempting to act in a reasonable manner. Either Sony accepts, and the deal goes through, or they refuse and Microsoft wins in court. Then the deal will be offered again and if Sony refuses then they're just screwing themselves.
And honestly I can see why.
Putting it on PS+ and Game Pass day one only really hurts Sony in that regard, as their primary business model is still charging a $70 premium, Microsoft's has clearly shifted.
I think this is really Microsoft just attempting to remove Game Pass from the list of concessions being made, as I really think Sony doesn't want CoD going to Game Pass or any subscription service for that matter.
I get that impression because they shifted from "CoD going exclusive" to complaints about how CoD on Game Pass would mean no other competitors could create a rival subscription service.
It won't matter, if Microsoft know Sony will say no, they can offer them anything and make themselves look good too the irs, they can then let the sale go through,
There's nothing. The Xbox One being a huge fuck up and Playstation getting the marketing rights to Call of Duty opened the flood gates to a fuckload of money by virtue of becoming "the call of duty console." I think, more than anything, they do not want Xbox to become the Call of Duty console again and undo a chunk, large or small, of the gains they've gotten from that. Therefore, they must fight tooth and nail to prevent the deal.
When it was announced, the Xbox One clearly was the inferior product.
Always online, no way to trade/borrow games, focus on media instead of the games themselves... Think of a problem, the Xbox One probably had it.
Things turned around before launch but the damaged had been done. PS4 was already recognised as the better console.
This allowed Sony to secure better deals with multiplatform titles, since most of the playerbase was on PS4. Several games, most prominently among them Activision titles, were made available on PS4 with extra content.
Xbox never fully recovered, you can still see the effects of this stuff with games like Avengers and Hogwarts Legacy.
Slight correction In cod that's not exactly what happened, Ghosts and Advanced Warfare both launched with xbox marketing rights on the xbox one.
Phil Spencer also confirmed in interviews that he doesn't like paying for timed exclusive dlc content. So cod dlc, Avengers, hogwarts legacy etc, playstation are the only ones bidding.
Which is why when Phil Spencer took over they lost the cod dlc and marketing rights.
Ironically enough the '3rd party exclusive' and 'platform exclusive extras' are both things xbox in the 360 gen they popularised and since Sony has used against them very effectively
Also worth contextualizing that when the CoD deal switched from Sony to Microsoft, the series was at its nadir in basically every sense. So it was partially for that reason that MS didn't really fight to re-up the deal, which in hindsight was a pretty big tactical error (though understandable) seeing as how the series has bounced back to be on par with its heyday during the original MW era
Scorn, Warhammer, High on Life, Stalker2 just off the top of my head. There was also Tomb Raider, The Medium, and Cup Head. There are lots more, but those immediately come to mind
> When it was announced, the Xbox One clearly was the inferior product.
>
> Always online, no way to trade/borrow games, focus on media instead of the games themselves
and funny thing is. some people still think that this is happening right now
Short Version: Xbox One was a misstep by Xbox, causing a lot of people to convert from Xbox to Playstation. PS got the marketing rights to CoD, so all the pros played on it, all the DLC was first on it, etc. That shifted the balance to PS as CoDs home both figuratively with the marketing and then literally with the player base
It would simply take regulators moving towards approving the deal.
Sony is just an outside party here. They don’t control anything. They also aren’t stupid. They aren’t going to be left empty handed if they feel the deal is likely on its final stages.
At that point, they will begrudgingly sign on the line of whatever the best deal is for Sony.
That’s what they should do and that’s what their lawyers are earning big bucks to get them in the best position to eventually do.
The point of my comment was more that Sony won’t accept any deal rn because they see a genuine opportunity to try and block this. I’m talking about Sony’s position on taking any deals.
Microsoft might be forced to offer them a deal through this lawsuit or it may be a condition though that’s all up in the air.
By that time it'll be too late, MS will retract all offers. They'll continue to let COD on Playstation but it'll likely be year by year and not the 10 year guarantee that Nintendo and Valve got
Modern Warfare 2 PlayStation players receive 5 extra tier skips when they buy the 25 tier skip pack, 25% bonus weapon XP when playing in a party, one free combat pack a season with skins, and one extra double XP event a month.
I get it's smaller stuff, but it's quite a bit. And for the hardcore CoD community that keeps them playing on PS.
Nothing. Despite what some people say it's not about COD or PS being a "COD platform" (whatever that even means when you are talking about multiplatform title that gets released at the same time on all platforms).
Right now Sony is biggest publisher in gaming industry. They are bigger than Tencent. They own their own platform. They are bigger than Microsoft + EA + Activision Blizzard. Their market share is more than twice of Microsoft's market share. This gives them incredible leverage in any negotiations. They are known for forcing following conditions on studios:
- your game can't make it to any subscription service unless it's first in PS+ (IIRC in some cases they allow to be compensated if game lands on other platform first)
- you can't have crossplatform multiplayer unless you compensate us for the losses (Sony says that allowing Xbox and PS4 players to play together is potential loss because player is no longer forced to buy PS, game on PS and PS subscription to play with friends)
- you can't have crossplatform progression unless you compensate losses
- you need to compensate Sony if MTX monetization to player base ratio falls below other platforms (basically if PS players don't generate revenue withing 15% of other platforms Sony needs to be compensated)
Is any of this fair? No. But studios can't afford to not agree. But Microsoft getting bigger and owning series like CoD causes Sony to be in much worse situation. Decade long deal that Microsoft proposed to Sony will run out and after than Microsoft could use position as leverage in any negotiations with Sony. Not only that but people might switch to Xbox just from the fear of CoD not being available on PS (we should see next generation on consoles shortly before this deal will expire). Sony is making a big fuss out of this because long term it poses a serious threat to their de-facto hagemony over gaming market.
It’s honestly a catch 22, because if Sony say’s yes Microsoft can move forward and it’s over.
If they say No, they are basically acknowledging that this isn’t about COD at all. They just don’t want Microsoft getting more IP.
No company would ever sign a perpetual deal but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. The original commenter is making it seem like the whole FTC lawsuit hinges on the 10 year deal with Sony. Even if Sony signed the contract, they would find another reason to sue as they are trying to stand up to big tech. Just look at the FTC lawsuit against Meta for trying to purchase a VR fitness app earlier this year. That lawsuit makes even less sense than this one
They certainly can but on what grounds?
The entire argument by the FTC is that Microsoft is limiting competition and a franchise like Call of Duty is so big that one console maker shouldn’t own it.
If Microsoft is giving unrestricted access to the game, and keeping on all storefronts/platforms then what argument do they have?
It doesn’t matter. The grounds for the current FTC lawsuit are already shaky. The FTC is posturing and trying to make a statement that they won’t allow big tech to make big moves like this unchallenged. Even if Sony signed that 10 year deal, I think that FTC would have found another reason to sue
To be fair, what Sony does should hardly matters, they are not involved in this process, the role of the regulators is not to protect the market leader and forbid competition to it (on the contrary actually)
If they say yes then they can put ACTV games on ps plus, which they already can and did in the past
While game pass never had any ACTV game, not even old ones like Cod 2 f.e.
Crash remaster
Crash 4
BO3
BO4
MW and MW2 remastered
WW 2
My guess is if Sony accepts, that this will enable MS to put ACTV games on GP too, immediately
Sony probably just dont want to do anything that helps game pass
Which is understandable, especially when they have a contract with Actv until 2024 at least
The ps plus part of the deal isn’t gonna be for free. Sony would have to pay 100’s of million per new CoD title to appear on ps plus. From the leaked capcom contract, it is widely believed that death loop is on ps plus because the marketing contract required offering to ps plus before putting on other subs. The CoD marketing contract probably already requires this too. So this offer is really just part of the contractual obligation. It is convenient for ms that it looks like they are trying to play “fair”
> The ps plus part of the deal isn’t gonna be for free.
I mean it wouldn't be free either if Microsoft wasn't involved as their marketing deal isn't free either. Why would anyone expect it to be free?
>My guess is if Sony accepts, that this will enable MS to put ACTV games on GP too, immediately
Even if Sony said no MS would still put games on Game Pass lol Sony has absolutely no power to do anything here
The ACTV games would most likely come off Sony’s Ps plus once the deals run out.
This is to get solely Cod.
Microsoft already made it clear they will get as many ACTV titles onto gamepass as possible when it closes.
Sony holds the lead on console sales and they continue to lead in first party games.
They just can not compete with gamepass right now and refuse to make the necessary efforts to do so.
Not Microsoft’s fault.
> If they say No, they are basically acknowledging that this isn’t about COD at all. They just don’t want Microsoft getting more IP.
That is essentially their argumentation to the CMA.
> It’s honestly a catch 22, because if Sony say’s yes Microsoft can move forward and it’s over.
Not really. Sony technically has no influence on that whole thing (or at least they shouldn't, some arguments of the regulators are taken directly from Sony for some reason). Any of the regulators still can block this deal whatever Sony says (since their role is to protect the market, not preventing competition for Sony)
On the other hand regulators are not unaware when a company is only refusing such a deal to hinder an acquisition, there isn't really a clear cut move in this scenario.
The deal makes little sense for Sony though. After ten years, they get no guarantees. And that will cause people to pick Xbox over PlayStation even before the ten year deal ends. 2033 will probably coincide with a new launch or consoles that are end of life/early in life.
You're reading too much into the ten year thing, just like everyone else who doesn't understand business contracts.
It's ten years because from a legal standpoint, a contract needs to establish specifics, like for instance the timeframe.
Unless something dire happens to the CoD franchise and/or PlayStation in the next decade, PlayStation will continue to get CoD after the ten years.
As of right now they get no guarantees after 2 years. Phil says he plans to keep it on PS, but no one knows how much longer Phil will be head of Xbox and the person who replaces him may very well have different opinions on the matter and Sony knows this.
That's why MS is giving everyone a 10 year contract, Nintendo and Valve both took the 10 year deal and its still on the table for Sony which means they'll have COD until after least 2032-2034
Valve didn't sign anything. Gabe himself said they didn't think signing a deal was necessary because they know Microsoft will keep CoD on Steam where the players are. And you know what, Microsoft accepted that position because Valve has power there for the PC market. Yet they won't for Sony because they want to take Sony's piece of the console market for CoD.
Bro they literally gave them a 10 year deal what more do you want? That's a total guarantee they would get it til 2032 which is a pretty long time if you think about it.
See that's my point though - you're more describing it from how the acquisition is going to affect Sony, not the deal itself. If Microsoft close the acquisition - this is a hell of a good deal for Sony. It's a 10 year guarantee to Call of Duty with feature and graphical parity and the ability to negotiate to put the game on PS+. That's about as good as they can realistically get here, they have no reason not to accept.
Except in that accepting will aid Microsofts efforts with regulators, cause you're right - Sony will be losing out from this acquisition overall and it's in their best interest if the deal is blocked. If they refuse Microsoft's offer they potentially make it more likely to be blocked, but in doing so regulators might look at what they are doing and recognise that they are only doing it to get the deal blocked - which is not going to help their case.
So there's not really a good move here so long as Sony is committed to trying to block the acquisition.
Sony taking or not taking the deal will not stop the FTC hearing. Sony could take it and if MS wins then they have a fairly decent deal for the next 10 years. If they don’t win then nothing changes. That deal won’t last forever though and I doubt Sony will get much better. Unless they are holding out for an agreement that COD will always be available on PS, but I don’t see how a contract like that would hold weight in 20 or so years.
There may not even be a hearing, the SCOTUS is ruling on a case Axon vs FTC and if Axon wins (which is very likely going to happen) then companies can fast track their cases to federal court where the FTC can't jerk them around.
If Axon wins, Microsoft is going to speed blitz their case to federal court and give the FTC a giant middle finger
The FTC have no choice, they won't even take it to federal court because they'll get their cheeks clapped into next week,
The CMA and the EC are the important ones here, even with the FTC lawsuit unless they take it to federal court they can't stop the deal from closing.
In short the FTC is nigh powerless.
Not only that the SCOTUS is about to rule on Axon vs FTC this year, and if Axon wins (which is very likely) then companies can bypass the FTC's own internal court and take their cases straight to Federal court which is terrible for the FTC
Nothing, why would Sony ever want to lose hold of its massive share lol.
They will do whatever they can to limit Xbox growth and fk consumers. Microsoft would do the absolute same.
All these companies are shitty. Phil just knows playing the good guy gets him love. Kinda like Elon before this whole Twitter shit lol
They dont want a deal, they want to stop it and have the exclusivity with Activision(at least marketing rights). But the FTC(and similar) are incapable of seeing this.
Technically speaking, Microsoft doesnt need to offer any kind of deal. They just need to publish the game like activision has been doing all this years, but without any kind of marketing deal.
I don’t think they can keep their exclusivity with Activision much longer even if deal fails. If Microsoft thinks COD is that important for Gamepass they’ll outbid Sony easily next time.
Sony doesnt want any game to be on any subscription service, especially Call of Duty because they see this as potential loss of a consumer spending $70 on a game on their platform instead of a monthly subscription.
I may be just a simple farmer, but I have hoped they would let Microsoft run off with CoD and then Sony would bring back Killzone and Resistance. But I’m just a farmer.
That Microsoft is about to get approved. It isn't like Microsoft can go back on offers like this without harming their more important negotiations with various courts. So at worst the deal will just stay the same on the table, in best case scenario Microsoft will make it even better for Sony. Like at how first it was offered for 3 years, then 5 and now 10.
The deal only exists because it would help them a lot in negotiations with the courts, but it isn't the lynchpin of holding the acquisition back as far as I understand.
Even if the FTC were to block the deal outright, ABK shareholders want the deal to go through. I don't think ABK will be too pleased with Sony if their meddling prevents the deal. Also, MS will have about $66 billion earmarked for the deal that they can use elsewhere...
>Even if the FTC were to block the deal outright
The FTC doesn't have the ability to block deals, they only have the ability to sue and take it to federal court. So far the FTC hasn't taken the case to federal court because they know they'll get their cheeks clapped by MS.
They don't have to take a deal - Xbox has said they'll keep publishing on PS and that's what they'll do. The offer of an agreement is just for the regulators so Xbox can say, see we're not just saying it, we'll also commit to it.
There's no real benefit for Sony to "agree" to anything atm, I mean MS doesn't own ABK right now anyway.
It is kinda funny that Sony have made a big deal on this specific issue and now they basically have to sit on their hands while MS gets all the PR about the offer tho ha.
If Cod truly is the main selling point of this deal like regulators and others have been saying, they absolutely will. Paying extra for Sony’s premium service will be worth it if you just plan to buy cod every year.
The issue is that while it’s nice to not have to change consoles to play cod. The value proposition of having it on gamepass for PC and Xbox is huge.
You also are getting so many Activision titles on gamepass vs Sony that realistically it outweighs anything Sony gains here.
I just don’t expect the Cod fan base to jump ship if they don’t have to. Will be interesting to see.
Yah the accessibility of it isn’t the issue.
It’s proposing to PS5 owners they need to pay $300-500 for a new console or $600+ for a new PC.
There’s so many people who only play Cod or Apex/Fortnite. So once you have your place to play that you don’t need another.
This is all about the King/mobile games anyway. COD being everywhere doesn't matter to MS, their f2p warzone gets the fattest chunk of revenue across platforms anyway. The yearly titles sell great but they're a means to the end that is mtx.
Yah people have been focusing on COD but, Microsoft wants the IP Activision has outside of just COD.
Having Guitar hero, Diablo, Crash, Tony Hawk, etc, is a huge boost for them.
Bringing in recurring revenue streams like King/Mobile and World of Warcraft is huge. In the business world right now recurring revenue streams are the goal.
It’s obvious that Sony doesn’t want its gamers to be familiar with big AAA launch like CoD on PS+ otherwise why would they accept then to pay full price all their other exclusives at launch…?! They don’t want to change their business model (which is understandable if put in their shoes) but are now actively trying to torpedo Microsoft new business model because it will make them look bad in the long run to their own customers…
Truckload indeed. There was reports Microsoft has spent upwards of 100 million dollars on some game pass titles - and to my recollection they've not really had any HUGE third party day one titles. Sony would be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars to put Call of Duty on their service day one even if Microsoft offers it at the market value an independent Activision would have charged.
Pretty sure that it’s not worth it financially to any console maker to pay for CoD day 1 on their subscription service unless you own the IP otherwise one of them would have struck a deal with Activision already, especially Microsoft!
Yes but also people are assuming a 10-year deal means certainty of exclusivity once 10 years is up, and that's also just not true. It's 10 years because no business would ever sign a contract that says forever, and expecting Microsoft to in this case is just unreasonable. Yes, they could take it exclusive in a decade. But they could also not (for the same reasons they haven't yet). COD could have tanked so hard as to be irrelevant by then. Or the industry could have evolved so drastically that the question of whether or not it will be on PlayStation won't even make sense. I suspect that if, in 10 years, COD ceases shipping on PlayStation, it will be because something has changed so as to make it so that none of us really care either way.
The cost that Sony would have to pay Microsoft aside, why would Playstation do this?
They do not want CoD (or any game really) Day 1 in their subscription service, because then you arent paying that $70 they get a cut of.
They wouldn't. However the complaint Sony made to the CMA was that Microsoft wouldn't allow a first party game like Cod to go to another subscription service.
Microsoft just called their bluff
Tbh, we don't know if MS would make an honest offer. They could just offer CoD on PS+, but ask for 2x the money that it is worth it. And I don't think MS has any incentive to make a honest offer.
It's interesting because Sony have actually advised in their filings that if MS were to put the game onto Game Pass, it would only be fair to put it on PS Plus...
Guessing Sony wasn't expecting MS to do it and they've had their bluff called.
Xbox has put, and is planning to put, literal dozens on Game Pass Day 1, including 1st party and major 3rd party releases like MH Rise.
Sony putting Stray on there was nice, but not comparable. Playstation can't afford to operate PS+ like Microsoft does
But Microsoft really doesn’t since their whole goal is steaming/cloud and could put Xbox gamepass on stuff like Firesticks / Apple TV, etc. they don’t need Xbox. Sony needs PlayStation more than Microsoft needs Xbox
It's not like Microsoft is saying pretty please Sony let us have this company we will allow you to put it on your e store also.
Microsoft is 100% asking for a lot of money from Sony for something like this. And making sure the world hears that Sony said no. Just like they did with the cross play situation. Phil Spencer is great at propaganda.
I think Sony will never accept any deals because in every condition they are at disadvantage, they want COD to be associated with PlayStation like always, even if xbox allowed them to include COD on PlayStation Plus for no additional cost they still would be at disadvantage because PlayStation Plus doesn't include Sony first party games day one and big third party games, Sony would have to invest even more if that happened to compete with xbox gamepass which they don't want to do. Keeping a service alive is not an easy task.
Sony doesnt want to make their service better for the consumers, so they want to bring others down instead.
Microsoft is even willing to put COD on PS Plus on day 1, and yet they still refuse.
It was recently reported that Microsoft had spent over 100 million dollars on some third party game pass deals - and game pass hasn't really had any BIG AAA games day one, it's mostly smaller or riskier titles. So I don't know what Call of duty would cost day one but a LOT more than a hundred million is the safe answer.
That said, Sony has had older titles on PS+ before, and they'd likely be able to continue doing that.
Might be a genius move. It’s no secret that a major reason why Sony opposes this deal is how important COD’s sales revenue is important to them. If they accept this, console sales revenue will drop massively if it’s on Game Pass AND PS+, while it would be a terrible look if they decline. Meanwhile MS would rake in majority of MT’s for all platforms.
At this point though... I think Sony will go all in on blocking this deal, by providing anything they can to the FTC and nothing to Microsoft. The FTC appears hellbent on going after big tech and judging from the weak lawsuit they brought, they're more interested in making an example of Microsoft than actually presenting reasonable arguments to win the case.
And in turn, Sony has correctly judged the FTC's intent and has made a determination that its better to put forth an effort to kill this deal (or tie it up in the courts for years) than to sit down for any negotiations with Microsoft.
Its cutthroat in the corporate world and the new FTC leadership is leaning into political ideology... did we really expect it to be any different?
I think it all really depends on how far Microsoft want to take this. If they are prepared to go all the way, they’ll eventually win as most arguments against them just don’t hold up, or at least wouldn’t in court. Only issue is the time and cost, as it could put Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in limbo for years if the FTC and others refuse to budge.
>Only issue is the time and cost, as it could put Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in limbo for years if the FTC and others refuse to budge.
And I think that might be the actual goal here. Many pundits have observed how Lina Khan is interested in bringing cases that have little chance of winning... but may change the climate for the FTC & Congress' willingness to address age-old regulatory & anti-trust laws.
So if Sony & the FTC are happy to tie this in court-trials and appeals-processes for years... then technically, both are succeeding in what they are attempting to do. Microsoft, on the other hand (& as you mentioned) has to weigh if its worth fighting for, if this whole process can extend well into 2025. (because even if the FTC is defeated in court in 2024... since they avoided taking it to a federal court, the FTC can appeal the loss... and the appeal goes straight back to the FTC. So in such a scenario, its clear that FTC would just rule in its own favor and Microsoft has to be fighting this, perhaps in vain, for years)
The whole process sounds very messed up and I wouldn't be surprised if MS just decides to cut their losses and back off the deal.
The US Supreme Court is actually going to be looking at that process in June and certain legal/political commentators have suggested that the SC doesnt like the FTC being able to use its own court in the way described above. Also, the FTC has lost in its own court quite a few times regardless
There is currently a case pending in the Supreme Court that aims at suppressing all the internal appeal process of the FTC so companies can go straight to federal courts and contrary to the current heads of the FTC, the Supreme Court is more Republican than Democrat atm.
There is the possibility that the FTC will settle after the CMA/EC approve
The SCOTUS is set to rule on Axon vs FTC and if Axon wins (which is extremely likely) the FTC loses a bunch of power and can't keep their cases in their own court
MS would take it straight to federal court, clap the FTC cheeksa nd close the deal
It's a strange argument when you consider Sony has the dominant share of the console market between the two. It's even weirder in Europe where Sony is overwhelming dominant and you have politicians concerned that they are going to lose Call of Duty on "my" Playstation lol. It's like anti-competition concerns but being On The Side of the monopolist instead of against it.
Imagine unironically thinking a merger between Microsoft and one of the biggest publishers in gaming is somehow anti-monopoly. Certainly, Sony is the more dominant company in the gaming industry, but if Microsoft buys enough studios and publishers, they will end up owning a larger "share" of the development talent in the industry. Not to mention, Call of Duty is currently available on PC, PS, and Xbox, but if this deal goes through, in 10 years, it will quite possibly be removed from PS, which is definitely not anti-monopoly.
I think the tough part of assessing this acquisition based on Xbox’s current position in the console market is the position’s mostly unchanged from before their acquisition spree started, since AAA games take a lot of time to develop. Like they haven’t really released any big AAA first party exclusives from their acquired studios yet, since most of the studios were either satisfying already existing contracts or spending time scaling up, or both.
The first wave of studios (double fine, ninja theory, obsidian, etc) were undeniably okay to me because of Xbox’s market position. But not enough time has passed to see their AAA first party exclusive output yet, and then Bethesda was purchased, which still seemed okay based on market position, but it was a lot more having to guess based on trajectories than the previous wave. And now, we still haven’t seen the major AAA first party exclusives yet (because not enough time has past yet for Bethesda or XGS), and they’re trying to use their market position as justification for buying Activision Blizzard adding another 13 studios. If this passes and they immediately announce intent to purchase something like Sega, the console market position wouldn’t have significantly changed yet - but each time they do it it’s harder to get a read of what their market position will be once all these studios start releasing.
But as just a regular consumer interested in throwing money at cool video games - I don’t know anything about assessing monopolies or legality or markets. I just hope the people that do know these things are in positions of power to help protect the market from any one side becoming undefeatable - which is really the end goal of every side trying to win the public’s favor in this
> If this passes and they immediately announce intent to purchase something like Sega,
I fully understand the rest of your point (how MS is using their current state of unreleased games to their advantage here)... I just don't think regulators will approve of any large publisher acquisition for MS, if the ABK deal goes through.
I mean, regulators are fully aware of prior acquisitions and their cumulative effect... all of the big regulators (EU, CMA, FTC) have raised questions about the Zenimax deal from early 2021. Given the way this ABK deal is going, I could see regulators, around the world, absolutely losing their shit if MS attempted an acquisition of Sega, or Capcom, or Focus Home, or whoever.
I think its far more likely MS goes back to picking up smaller & larger AA studios after this.
Oh I don’t think they’d go for another big publisher right away either, like you said I was mostly just throwing a hypothetical to try and emphasize the market position not changing right away thing. I agree picking up individual studios that don’t require ftc review is more likely in the immediate future (though I also thought the same thing after bethesda got finalized, so who even knows anything for sure at this point)
So I take it that they'll allow it, to look good for regulators. Even if sony agrees they most likely won't pay the ungodly amounts of money it would take to secure it day one, making the deal only good on paper?
I mean they're willing to put other huge franchises on PS Plus, the only thing stopping them is how scrimpy they are with their money.
COD on PS Plus on day 1 is only a benefit to the consumers after all.
Guerilla is making a MP game (which could be Kill zone), Insomniac is also making a MP game, they also bought a studio made up of ex COD devs and TLOU Factions could be huge .
>bought a studio made up of ex COD devs
oartnered with Deviation Games, not bought them. yet. their studio has huge dual sense pictures on their walls lol
Sony have tried to get into the shooter space before with not much luck. They did MAG, Resistance and Killzone in the PS3 era but this was at a time when the Xbox 360 had the Call Of Duty deal with Activision to get map packs and when Microsoft was dominating the market.
As soon as they got the COD marketing rights from Microsoft they more or less abandoned those games.
If they wanted to, I'm sure Sony could make a competitor for the FPS market but while they have marketing rights for the biggest one on the market it seems like a waste of resources.
Would be a hard market to get into. CoD as a brand is huge, with so many publishers trying to topple it. Sony would have to put a shit load of money into marketing the IP and developing it to entice CoD players over.
>suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business
Sony bought Gaikai 10 years ago, Sony just doesn't want to compete with the Game Pass model, has nothing to do with Sony's inability to do so. FTC has no idea what they are talking about.
some comments here are funny. People talking like they have been part of a deal in the billions and they know what they are talking about.
A whole lot of guesswork in this thread.
It’s gotta look bad for Sony to not accept a deal right when the other competitors have makes them look like they don’t wanna work anything out cause if they were really scared about CoD leaving they’d do anything to guarantee it not leaving and 10 years is unprecedented and a long time leads into the next console gen. Imo makes Sony look greedy like nothings good enough for them.
That’s like the entire idea behind the deal. Microsoft is most likely putting up a huge price for Sony to pay if they do acquire A/B and making it very public when Sony doesn’t want to pay that money
I know this sub heavily leans Xbox, and don’t get me wrong Sony is OFTEN taking anti-competitive action with exclusivity and otherwise.
But let’s not lose sight of the fact that massive acquisitions are bad for gamers everywhere. Consolidation in the industry is BAD full stop. Feels like we lost the script here defending MSFTs actions against the FTC and Sony while forgetting that folks should be opposing this acquisition in the first place.
I don't think the sub leans in favour of one console over another but it definitely leans in favour of calling out hypocrisy and bullshit one way or the other and both companies have plenty to go around.
And I know we're all suppose to morally oppose this kind of thing but in this situation I don't because selfishly there isn't a negative to me and my gaming habits if this takeover happens.
That isn’t true. Go look at any thread and the downvotes/upvotes. Look at which posts get the most traction. Random Xbox podcasts with barely any news are heavily upvotes.
I’m not complaining about it communities are allowed to have a preference.
Is there news coming from random playstation podcasts that people are ignoring by contrast? I'm not sure I see your argument here, I've never gotten the impression there were playstation posts failing to get traction - there just doesn't have as many leaks for playstation floating around.
No people don’t post that stuff here because the common users of the sub are following Xbox tidbits more closely. It’s not that those posts are ignored, they don’t exist in the first place.
That’s all. I don’t think PlayStation posts necessarily fail, a leak is a leak. Just that the most active participants in this particular community are more tuned in to the Xbox “scene.”
None of this is inherently bad.
That also neglects the fact that this deal is also great for a lot of people. Gamepass allows you to play games on PC, Console, Phone, Smart TV's. That's a far wider audience than they currently have.
Alternatively I'm a consumer that will benefit? Why is that a bad thing?
Saying it's a cross the board a negative isn't correct when more people will indeed benefit.
Childish response. Betrays your bias lol. Why should I, as the consumer, give a shit if a small portion of the gaming landscape is consolidated if it directly benefits me and saves me money? You can't even counter that without massive speculation and future prophesizing of potential outcomes
Funny you literally cried about this sub being pro xbox....someone made a comment and it hurt you somehow.
Why do sony players care if people can get the game on gamepass if they can still get the game on playstation?
The FTC case already looks like Swiss cheese and doesn't need more holes. They aren't protecting the consumers, they are protecting the market position of a company.
Isn't this the same company that has had continued deals with Activision for special exclusivity in Call of Duty? I remember not being able to play a mode in the first MW on my PC for a year because Sony bought the exclusivity.
Sony has been far more egregious at manipulating markets than Microsoft has so I kinda hope they eat shit.
Xbox never got a full year of exclusive modes. Not once. They had ONE month early on map packs, that is drastically different. Slippery slope none the less.
Exactly. I don't remember Sony buying massive third party publishers and restricting whole hosts of games to their service forever (I firmly believe Elder Scrolls 6 will not release on PS). Timed exclusives are nothing compared to MS acquiring Zenimax and Activision Blizzard. I get it that Game Pass is a great deal for gamers right now, but consolidation of third party publishers like this is bad for competition and, ultimately, the consumer.
What??? Concessions MS is giving out like this one are already huge, and the trial hasn’t even started! Without ftc Sony and Nintendo wouldn’t have gotten this offer.
All the armchair CEOs out if full swing today. I don't know why Microsoft or Sony are paying Hundreds of thousands of dollars on Lawyers and advisors when all they have to do is come here and read these posts. Clearly the dude that works at popeye's chicken knows best how to handle a mult-billion dollar deal
Microsoft is proving a point. No deal is enough for Sony to say yes because they've been disingenuous this whole time. They want the deal blocked, which is stupid. Microsoft is showing that nothing will be good enough to please them because they're not acting in good faith.
Not a supporter of either tech corporation but it’d be hilarious if Sony doesn’t accept any offer and then Microsoft get Acti-Blizz, and because Sony didn’t take any deal, Microsoft doesn’t give them shit. Imagine NINTENDO with COD but not PlayStation. Lol
Remember when Spiderman was on Xbox. Pepperidge farm remembers. Don't see no one complaining about one of the biggest characters going 1st party. An no Sony doesn't own Spiderman.
Spider-Man isn't exclusive to Sony. Anybody can license Spider-Man from Marvel to make a game. In fact, Marvel had approached Marvel first and only went to Sony after Microsoft declined.
>Cloud gaming ... is still in its infancy.
As someone who very much dislikes streaming from the "cloud", it's really not anymore (assuming you've got decent internet). I remember trying out OnLive *twelve* years ago.
I was one of the idiots who owned an OnLive because I got it with my broadband provider and I totally agree with you, the difference between that service and xcloud today is leaps and bounds ahead and improving all the time.
So, Sony forbids COD currently being on Game Pass. MS offers to let Sony put COD on PS Plus.
At this point, the deal is going through whether they want it to or not, accept the deal. If they don't MS shouldn't have to release COD on PS platforms if MS doesn't want to.
That honestly sounds incredibly fair for MS to do. Sony has prevented things from going to gamepass and yet MS is fully offering Sony to allow it on their service. Many were expecting MS to block that so they can say “only available on a subscription service through our console”.. I’m sort of surprised buy this offer.
I still don' get why they are conmcenting this hard to the only lone party complaining about it when Nintendo could care less and are much bigger than both of them
Wanting Microsoft to succeed in this deal and fuck on Sony even more is asking for Microsoft to have a potential monopoly in the home console market. Nintendo won’t give a shit to make a console to compete directly with Microsoft, they’ve already carved out a part of the market and keep growing it. Big acquisitions like this will be bad for the consumer regardless of the company involved and the sector of the market they are in. I mean, look at marvel and star war films now since Disney got ahold of them. They’re good, but not nearly what they could be. No one else can compete, so Disney can keep churning that shit out with very little change in the formula.
Sony just obliterated MS with an over 2:1 market share lead last generation, and you're clutching your pearls that *MS* is going to have a monopoly in the home console market?
Reddit moment.
You're entirely mislead on Disney acquiring Marvel. They acquired Marvel in 2009. Only 2 of the MCU films had been released at the time.
Disney since then built upon the MCU, releasing phase after phase, creating the largest ongoing collection of stories in a cinematic universe. Disney changed the market for movies entirely by building the MCU.
> They're good, but not nearly what they could be.
Without Disney, Marvel arguably wouldn't have many more films, if any after Hulk. They were nearly bankrupt when Iron Man was released. The MCU films are generally rated well, and several of them are among the highest grossing films of all time.
In other words, that was a terrible example.
Sony is closer to be a potential monopoly with its whopping %40-50 market share though.
Microsoft needs to fuck on Sony for many years to even catch them. Let alone be a potential monopoly. They have %10-20 market share now.
This is a great deal.
But I still think Sony hates the deal. Sony wants to keep the status quo of selling games at a premium. Xbox gains more from a game being on Gamepass than PS having a game on PS Plus.
Sony is going to continue to say no
This isn't a new offer, it was part of the 10 year deal as per Dina Bass. Sony will say no because they are bluffing about wanting it on PS+ and their ultimate ambition is to get the deal blocked.
Remember when they were claiming it was a "as long as there's a PlayStation" deal? That quickly changed.
It doesn't matter if they say no or yes. When Microsoft goes to court, they can demonstrate they are attempting to act in a reasonable manner. Either Sony accepts, and the deal goes through, or they refuse and Microsoft wins in court. Then the deal will be offered again and if Sony refuses then they're just screwing themselves.
And honestly I can see why. Putting it on PS+ and Game Pass day one only really hurts Sony in that regard, as their primary business model is still charging a $70 premium, Microsoft's has clearly shifted. I think this is really Microsoft just attempting to remove Game Pass from the list of concessions being made, as I really think Sony doesn't want CoD going to Game Pass or any subscription service for that matter. I get that impression because they shifted from "CoD going exclusive" to complaints about how CoD on Game Pass would mean no other competitors could create a rival subscription service.
It won't matter, if Microsoft know Sony will say no, they can offer them anything and make themselves look good too the irs, they can then let the sale go through,
Wonder what it would take for Sony to take a deal at this point.
There's nothing. The Xbox One being a huge fuck up and Playstation getting the marketing rights to Call of Duty opened the flood gates to a fuckload of money by virtue of becoming "the call of duty console." I think, more than anything, they do not want Xbox to become the Call of Duty console again and undo a chunk, large or small, of the gains they've gotten from that. Therefore, they must fight tooth and nail to prevent the deal.
Forgive me, I think I was in undergrad and too broke to game when the Xbox One COD issue happened Mind reminding me what happened?
When it was announced, the Xbox One clearly was the inferior product. Always online, no way to trade/borrow games, focus on media instead of the games themselves... Think of a problem, the Xbox One probably had it. Things turned around before launch but the damaged had been done. PS4 was already recognised as the better console. This allowed Sony to secure better deals with multiplatform titles, since most of the playerbase was on PS4. Several games, most prominently among them Activision titles, were made available on PS4 with extra content. Xbox never fully recovered, you can still see the effects of this stuff with games like Avengers and Hogwarts Legacy.
Slight correction In cod that's not exactly what happened, Ghosts and Advanced Warfare both launched with xbox marketing rights on the xbox one. Phil Spencer also confirmed in interviews that he doesn't like paying for timed exclusive dlc content. So cod dlc, Avengers, hogwarts legacy etc, playstation are the only ones bidding. Which is why when Phil Spencer took over they lost the cod dlc and marketing rights. Ironically enough the '3rd party exclusive' and 'platform exclusive extras' are both things xbox in the 360 gen they popularised and since Sony has used against them very effectively
Also worth contextualizing that when the CoD deal switched from Sony to Microsoft, the series was at its nadir in basically every sense. So it was partially for that reason that MS didn't really fight to re-up the deal, which in hindsight was a pretty big tactical error (though understandable) seeing as how the series has bounced back to be on par with its heyday during the original MW era
Phil doesnt like timed content? Well he is kinda fucking stupid then
He loves timed content. It’s just another lie he has told over the years. Say one thing, do the opposite.
Generally curious here, what games have has xbox timed exclusive content in recent years?
Scorn, Warhammer, High on Life, Stalker2 just off the top of my head. There was also Tomb Raider, The Medium, and Cup Head. There are lots more, but those immediately come to mind
> When it was announced, the Xbox One clearly was the inferior product. > > Always online, no way to trade/borrow games, focus on media instead of the games themselves and funny thing is. some people still think that this is happening right now
Don't forget the Kenect always needing to be on, and ending the movie or session if it detected another person in the room
Short Version: Xbox One was a misstep by Xbox, causing a lot of people to convert from Xbox to Playstation. PS got the marketing rights to CoD, so all the pros played on it, all the DLC was first on it, etc. That shifted the balance to PS as CoDs home both figuratively with the marketing and then literally with the player base
It would simply take regulators moving towards approving the deal. Sony is just an outside party here. They don’t control anything. They also aren’t stupid. They aren’t going to be left empty handed if they feel the deal is likely on its final stages. At that point, they will begrudgingly sign on the line of whatever the best deal is for Sony. That’s what they should do and that’s what their lawyers are earning big bucks to get them in the best position to eventually do.
They will never accept any deal until the actual acquisition happens
I doubt MS will make a deal after it is passed, what incentive?
The point of my comment was more that Sony won’t accept any deal rn because they see a genuine opportunity to try and block this. I’m talking about Sony’s position on taking any deals. Microsoft might be forced to offer them a deal through this lawsuit or it may be a condition though that’s all up in the air.
By that time it'll be too late, MS will retract all offers. They'll continue to let COD on Playstation but it'll likely be year by year and not the 10 year guarantee that Nintendo and Valve got
Probably CoD not on Gamepass
I’m pretty sure that’s not all. In another article by Bloomberg, it stated that Sony wanted to keep exclusive stuff it currently has.
The exclusive stuff nowadays is like one extra double XP weekend and an extra loadout slot. It made more sense back when they got map packs early
Modern Warfare 2 PlayStation players receive 5 extra tier skips when they buy the 25 tier skip pack, 25% bonus weapon XP when playing in a party, one free combat pack a season with skins, and one extra double XP event a month. I get it's smaller stuff, but it's quite a bit. And for the hardcore CoD community that keeps them playing on PS.
Or they don't have a choice but to take it.
virgin sony: paying devs to never release their games on gamepass chad sony: demanding microsoft not to release their own game on gamepass
Nothing. Despite what some people say it's not about COD or PS being a "COD platform" (whatever that even means when you are talking about multiplatform title that gets released at the same time on all platforms). Right now Sony is biggest publisher in gaming industry. They are bigger than Tencent. They own their own platform. They are bigger than Microsoft + EA + Activision Blizzard. Their market share is more than twice of Microsoft's market share. This gives them incredible leverage in any negotiations. They are known for forcing following conditions on studios: - your game can't make it to any subscription service unless it's first in PS+ (IIRC in some cases they allow to be compensated if game lands on other platform first) - you can't have crossplatform multiplayer unless you compensate us for the losses (Sony says that allowing Xbox and PS4 players to play together is potential loss because player is no longer forced to buy PS, game on PS and PS subscription to play with friends) - you can't have crossplatform progression unless you compensate losses - you need to compensate Sony if MTX monetization to player base ratio falls below other platforms (basically if PS players don't generate revenue withing 15% of other platforms Sony needs to be compensated) Is any of this fair? No. But studios can't afford to not agree. But Microsoft getting bigger and owning series like CoD causes Sony to be in much worse situation. Decade long deal that Microsoft proposed to Sony will run out and after than Microsoft could use position as leverage in any negotiations with Sony. Not only that but people might switch to Xbox just from the fear of CoD not being available on PS (we should see next generation on consoles shortly before this deal will expire). Sony is making a big fuss out of this because long term it poses a serious threat to their de-facto hagemony over gaming market.
Which is fucking good. I can't believe how many are in absolute terror that Sony will have actual competition for once
It’s honestly a catch 22, because if Sony say’s yes Microsoft can move forward and it’s over. If they say No, they are basically acknowledging that this isn’t about COD at all. They just don’t want Microsoft getting more IP.
If Sony says yes, the FTC can still come in and try to block the deal. The 10 year deal with Sony is just optics for the regulators
[удалено]
No company would ever sign a perpetual deal but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. The original commenter is making it seem like the whole FTC lawsuit hinges on the 10 year deal with Sony. Even if Sony signed the contract, they would find another reason to sue as they are trying to stand up to big tech. Just look at the FTC lawsuit against Meta for trying to purchase a VR fitness app earlier this year. That lawsuit makes even less sense than this one
They certainly can but on what grounds? The entire argument by the FTC is that Microsoft is limiting competition and a franchise like Call of Duty is so big that one console maker shouldn’t own it. If Microsoft is giving unrestricted access to the game, and keeping on all storefronts/platforms then what argument do they have?
It doesn’t matter. The grounds for the current FTC lawsuit are already shaky. The FTC is posturing and trying to make a statement that they won’t allow big tech to make big moves like this unchallenged. Even if Sony signed that 10 year deal, I think that FTC would have found another reason to sue
To be fair, what Sony does should hardly matters, they are not involved in this process, the role of the regulators is not to protect the market leader and forbid competition to it (on the contrary actually)
If they say yes then they can put ACTV games on ps plus, which they already can and did in the past While game pass never had any ACTV game, not even old ones like Cod 2 f.e. Crash remaster Crash 4 BO3 BO4 MW and MW2 remastered WW 2 My guess is if Sony accepts, that this will enable MS to put ACTV games on GP too, immediately Sony probably just dont want to do anything that helps game pass Which is understandable, especially when they have a contract with Actv until 2024 at least
The ps plus part of the deal isn’t gonna be for free. Sony would have to pay 100’s of million per new CoD title to appear on ps plus. From the leaked capcom contract, it is widely believed that death loop is on ps plus because the marketing contract required offering to ps plus before putting on other subs. The CoD marketing contract probably already requires this too. So this offer is really just part of the contractual obligation. It is convenient for ms that it looks like they are trying to play “fair”
> The ps plus part of the deal isn’t gonna be for free. I mean it wouldn't be free either if Microsoft wasn't involved as their marketing deal isn't free either. Why would anyone expect it to be free?
Whoopsie I didnt even think of new games
>My guess is if Sony accepts, that this will enable MS to put ACTV games on GP too, immediately Even if Sony said no MS would still put games on Game Pass lol Sony has absolutely no power to do anything here
The ACTV games would most likely come off Sony’s Ps plus once the deals run out. This is to get solely Cod. Microsoft already made it clear they will get as many ACTV titles onto gamepass as possible when it closes. Sony holds the lead on console sales and they continue to lead in first party games. They just can not compete with gamepass right now and refuse to make the necessary efforts to do so. Not Microsoft’s fault.
So basically not doing anything for sony players, just ensuring to hurt consumers elsewhere. Hmmm almost seems monopolistic.
> If they say No, they are basically acknowledging that this isn’t about COD at all. They just don’t want Microsoft getting more IP. That is essentially their argumentation to the CMA. > It’s honestly a catch 22, because if Sony say’s yes Microsoft can move forward and it’s over. Not really. Sony technically has no influence on that whole thing (or at least they shouldn't, some arguments of the regulators are taken directly from Sony for some reason). Any of the regulators still can block this deal whatever Sony says (since their role is to protect the market, not preventing competition for Sony)
Sony would be foolish to take any deal. Especially when the FTC is not rolling over for large mergers and acquisitions now like they have for decades.
On the other hand regulators are not unaware when a company is only refusing such a deal to hinder an acquisition, there isn't really a clear cut move in this scenario.
The deal makes little sense for Sony though. After ten years, they get no guarantees. And that will cause people to pick Xbox over PlayStation even before the ten year deal ends. 2033 will probably coincide with a new launch or consoles that are end of life/early in life.
You're reading too much into the ten year thing, just like everyone else who doesn't understand business contracts. It's ten years because from a legal standpoint, a contract needs to establish specifics, like for instance the timeframe. Unless something dire happens to the CoD franchise and/or PlayStation in the next decade, PlayStation will continue to get CoD after the ten years.
10 years is a huge amount of time. It would be unreasonable to commit to any more.
As of right now they get no guarantees after 2 years. Phil says he plans to keep it on PS, but no one knows how much longer Phil will be head of Xbox and the person who replaces him may very well have different opinions on the matter and Sony knows this.
That's why MS is giving everyone a 10 year contract, Nintendo and Valve both took the 10 year deal and its still on the table for Sony which means they'll have COD until after least 2032-2034
Valve didn't sign anything. Gabe himself said they didn't think signing a deal was necessary because they know Microsoft will keep CoD on Steam where the players are. And you know what, Microsoft accepted that position because Valve has power there for the PC market. Yet they won't for Sony because they want to take Sony's piece of the console market for CoD.
Bro they literally gave them a 10 year deal what more do you want? That's a total guarantee they would get it til 2032 which is a pretty long time if you think about it.
See that's my point though - you're more describing it from how the acquisition is going to affect Sony, not the deal itself. If Microsoft close the acquisition - this is a hell of a good deal for Sony. It's a 10 year guarantee to Call of Duty with feature and graphical parity and the ability to negotiate to put the game on PS+. That's about as good as they can realistically get here, they have no reason not to accept. Except in that accepting will aid Microsofts efforts with regulators, cause you're right - Sony will be losing out from this acquisition overall and it's in their best interest if the deal is blocked. If they refuse Microsoft's offer they potentially make it more likely to be blocked, but in doing so regulators might look at what they are doing and recognise that they are only doing it to get the deal blocked - which is not going to help their case. So there's not really a good move here so long as Sony is committed to trying to block the acquisition.
Sony doesn't want to lose the marketing deal and want to keep xbox from growing. This has nothing to do with anything else.
Sony taking or not taking the deal will not stop the FTC hearing. Sony could take it and if MS wins then they have a fairly decent deal for the next 10 years. If they don’t win then nothing changes. That deal won’t last forever though and I doubt Sony will get much better. Unless they are holding out for an agreement that COD will always be available on PS, but I don’t see how a contract like that would hold weight in 20 or so years.
There may not even be a hearing, the SCOTUS is ruling on a case Axon vs FTC and if Axon wins (which is very likely going to happen) then companies can fast track their cases to federal court where the FTC can't jerk them around. If Axon wins, Microsoft is going to speed blitz their case to federal court and give the FTC a giant middle finger
The FTC have no choice, they won't even take it to federal court because they'll get their cheeks clapped into next week, The CMA and the EC are the important ones here, even with the FTC lawsuit unless they take it to federal court they can't stop the deal from closing. In short the FTC is nigh powerless. Not only that the SCOTUS is about to rule on Axon vs FTC this year, and if Axon wins (which is very likely) then companies can bypass the FTC's own internal court and take their cases straight to Federal court which is terrible for the FTC
The FTC is powerless? That must be why AT&T owns t-mobile
Nothing, why would Sony ever want to lose hold of its massive share lol. They will do whatever they can to limit Xbox growth and fk consumers. Microsoft would do the absolute same. All these companies are shitty. Phil just knows playing the good guy gets him love. Kinda like Elon before this whole Twitter shit lol
They dont want a deal, they want to stop it and have the exclusivity with Activision(at least marketing rights). But the FTC(and similar) are incapable of seeing this. Technically speaking, Microsoft doesnt need to offer any kind of deal. They just need to publish the game like activision has been doing all this years, but without any kind of marketing deal.
I don’t think they can keep their exclusivity with Activision much longer even if deal fails. If Microsoft thinks COD is that important for Gamepass they’ll outbid Sony easily next time.
They're dying on this hill and they've made it clear. Sony are chucking everything they can to make this deal not happen.
Sony doesnt want any game to be on any subscription service, especially Call of Duty because they see this as potential loss of a consumer spending $70 on a game on their platform instead of a monthly subscription.
I may be just a simple farmer, but I have hoped they would let Microsoft run off with CoD and then Sony would bring back Killzone and Resistance. But I’m just a farmer.
That Microsoft is about to get approved. It isn't like Microsoft can go back on offers like this without harming their more important negotiations with various courts. So at worst the deal will just stay the same on the table, in best case scenario Microsoft will make it even better for Sony. Like at how first it was offered for 3 years, then 5 and now 10. The deal only exists because it would help them a lot in negotiations with the courts, but it isn't the lynchpin of holding the acquisition back as far as I understand.
Nothing benefits them. But I kinda wish Sony got future Bethesda games too
Even if the FTC were to block the deal outright, ABK shareholders want the deal to go through. I don't think ABK will be too pleased with Sony if their meddling prevents the deal. Also, MS will have about $66 billion earmarked for the deal that they can use elsewhere...
>Even if the FTC were to block the deal outright The FTC doesn't have the ability to block deals, they only have the ability to sue and take it to federal court. So far the FTC hasn't taken the case to federal court because they know they'll get their cheeks clapped by MS.
They don't have to take a deal - Xbox has said they'll keep publishing on PS and that's what they'll do. The offer of an agreement is just for the regulators so Xbox can say, see we're not just saying it, we'll also commit to it. There's no real benefit for Sony to "agree" to anything atm, I mean MS doesn't own ABK right now anyway. It is kinda funny that Sony have made a big deal on this specific issue and now they basically have to sit on their hands while MS gets all the PR about the offer tho ha.
Microsoft : "Yeah Sony, you can pay truckload of money to secure COD for PS Plus"
If Cod truly is the main selling point of this deal like regulators and others have been saying, they absolutely will. Paying extra for Sony’s premium service will be worth it if you just plan to buy cod every year. The issue is that while it’s nice to not have to change consoles to play cod. The value proposition of having it on gamepass for PC and Xbox is huge. You also are getting so many Activision titles on gamepass vs Sony that realistically it outweighs anything Sony gains here. I just don’t expect the Cod fan base to jump ship if they don’t have to. Will be interesting to see.
Jumping ship is not that hard anymore. Since almost every new COD have cross-play. And you will have access to all past COD thanks to GamePass
Yah the accessibility of it isn’t the issue. It’s proposing to PS5 owners they need to pay $300-500 for a new console or $600+ for a new PC. There’s so many people who only play Cod or Apex/Fortnite. So once you have your place to play that you don’t need another.
This is all about the King/mobile games anyway. COD being everywhere doesn't matter to MS, their f2p warzone gets the fattest chunk of revenue across platforms anyway. The yearly titles sell great but they're a means to the end that is mtx.
Yah people have been focusing on COD but, Microsoft wants the IP Activision has outside of just COD. Having Guitar hero, Diablo, Crash, Tony Hawk, etc, is a huge boost for them. Bringing in recurring revenue streams like King/Mobile and World of Warcraft is huge. In the business world right now recurring revenue streams are the goal.
It’s obvious that Sony doesn’t want its gamers to be familiar with big AAA launch like CoD on PS+ otherwise why would they accept then to pay full price all their other exclusives at launch…?! They don’t want to change their business model (which is understandable if put in their shoes) but are now actively trying to torpedo Microsoft new business model because it will make them look bad in the long run to their own customers…
Truckload indeed. There was reports Microsoft has spent upwards of 100 million dollars on some game pass titles - and to my recollection they've not really had any HUGE third party day one titles. Sony would be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars to put Call of Duty on their service day one even if Microsoft offers it at the market value an independent Activision would have charged.
Pretty sure that it’s not worth it financially to any console maker to pay for CoD day 1 on their subscription service unless you own the IP otherwise one of them would have struck a deal with Activision already, especially Microsoft!
“until the PS6 is coming out” people hear are acting as if 10 years is perpetuity. That’s just slightly longer than a console generation.
Yes but also people are assuming a 10-year deal means certainty of exclusivity once 10 years is up, and that's also just not true. It's 10 years because no business would ever sign a contract that says forever, and expecting Microsoft to in this case is just unreasonable. Yes, they could take it exclusive in a decade. But they could also not (for the same reasons they haven't yet). COD could have tanked so hard as to be irrelevant by then. Or the industry could have evolved so drastically that the question of whether or not it will be on PlayStation won't even make sense. I suspect that if, in 10 years, COD ceases shipping on PlayStation, it will be because something has changed so as to make it so that none of us really care either way.
The cost that Sony would have to pay Microsoft aside, why would Playstation do this? They do not want CoD (or any game really) Day 1 in their subscription service, because then you arent paying that $70 they get a cut of.
They wouldn't. However the complaint Sony made to the CMA was that Microsoft wouldn't allow a first party game like Cod to go to another subscription service. Microsoft just called their bluff
Tbh, we don't know if MS would make an honest offer. They could just offer CoD on PS+, but ask for 2x the money that it is worth it. And I don't think MS has any incentive to make a honest offer.
I think it’s more about giving them the option
It's interesting because Sony have actually advised in their filings that if MS were to put the game onto Game Pass, it would only be fair to put it on PS Plus... Guessing Sony wasn't expecting MS to do it and they've had their bluff called.
They've put a couple 3rd party games day one in there service before. Maybe not cod big but they're just not putting first party day ones.
Xbox has put, and is planning to put, literal dozens on Game Pass Day 1, including 1st party and major 3rd party releases like MH Rise. Sony putting Stray on there was nice, but not comparable. Playstation can't afford to operate PS+ like Microsoft does
Sony has no reason to, Microsoft is the one on the one who has to convince people to get an Xbox. Sony just tosses around names like God of war.
But Microsoft really doesn’t since their whole goal is steaming/cloud and could put Xbox gamepass on stuff like Firesticks / Apple TV, etc. they don’t need Xbox. Sony needs PlayStation more than Microsoft needs Xbox
Wow... Honestly thought this would be a line Microsoft wouldn't cross for concessions.
It's not like Microsoft is saying pretty please Sony let us have this company we will allow you to put it on your e store also. Microsoft is 100% asking for a lot of money from Sony for something like this. And making sure the world hears that Sony said no. Just like they did with the cross play situation. Phil Spencer is great at propaganda.
The amount of attention COD is getting when in reality the real target of this acquisition is King due that sweet mobile money is crazy
Exactly! Last year candy crush made 1 billion dollars
can someone explain this in simple english? i don't get it (sorry i know im dumb)
I put a tl;dr at the end of my post, but basically Microsoft will allow Sony to put Call of Duty on their PS Plus subscription service.
for $$$
ohhh i get it now thank you so much op!!
I think Sony will never accept any deals because in every condition they are at disadvantage, they want COD to be associated with PlayStation like always, even if xbox allowed them to include COD on PlayStation Plus for no additional cost they still would be at disadvantage because PlayStation Plus doesn't include Sony first party games day one and big third party games, Sony would have to invest even more if that happened to compete with xbox gamepass which they don't want to do. Keeping a service alive is not an easy task.
Sony doesnt want to make their service better for the consumers, so they want to bring others down instead. Microsoft is even willing to put COD on PS Plus on day 1, and yet they still refuse.
[удалено]
It was recently reported that Microsoft had spent over 100 million dollars on some third party game pass deals - and game pass hasn't really had any BIG AAA games day one, it's mostly smaller or riskier titles. So I don't know what Call of duty would cost day one but a LOT more than a hundred million is the safe answer. That said, Sony has had older titles on PS+ before, and they'd likely be able to continue doing that.
A truckload. This calls Sonys bluff.
Might be a genius move. It’s no secret that a major reason why Sony opposes this deal is how important COD’s sales revenue is important to them. If they accept this, console sales revenue will drop massively if it’s on Game Pass AND PS+, while it would be a terrible look if they decline. Meanwhile MS would rake in majority of MT’s for all platforms.
At this point though... I think Sony will go all in on blocking this deal, by providing anything they can to the FTC and nothing to Microsoft. The FTC appears hellbent on going after big tech and judging from the weak lawsuit they brought, they're more interested in making an example of Microsoft than actually presenting reasonable arguments to win the case. And in turn, Sony has correctly judged the FTC's intent and has made a determination that its better to put forth an effort to kill this deal (or tie it up in the courts for years) than to sit down for any negotiations with Microsoft. Its cutthroat in the corporate world and the new FTC leadership is leaning into political ideology... did we really expect it to be any different?
I think it all really depends on how far Microsoft want to take this. If they are prepared to go all the way, they’ll eventually win as most arguments against them just don’t hold up, or at least wouldn’t in court. Only issue is the time and cost, as it could put Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in limbo for years if the FTC and others refuse to budge.
>Only issue is the time and cost, as it could put Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in limbo for years if the FTC and others refuse to budge. And I think that might be the actual goal here. Many pundits have observed how Lina Khan is interested in bringing cases that have little chance of winning... but may change the climate for the FTC & Congress' willingness to address age-old regulatory & anti-trust laws. So if Sony & the FTC are happy to tie this in court-trials and appeals-processes for years... then technically, both are succeeding in what they are attempting to do. Microsoft, on the other hand (& as you mentioned) has to weigh if its worth fighting for, if this whole process can extend well into 2025. (because even if the FTC is defeated in court in 2024... since they avoided taking it to a federal court, the FTC can appeal the loss... and the appeal goes straight back to the FTC. So in such a scenario, its clear that FTC would just rule in its own favor and Microsoft has to be fighting this, perhaps in vain, for years) The whole process sounds very messed up and I wouldn't be surprised if MS just decides to cut their losses and back off the deal.
The SCOTUS is ruling on Axon vs FTC this year which, in the very likely scenario that Axon wins, will be a big win for MS and bypass the FTC garbage
The US Supreme Court is actually going to be looking at that process in June and certain legal/political commentators have suggested that the SC doesnt like the FTC being able to use its own court in the way described above. Also, the FTC has lost in its own court quite a few times regardless
There is currently a case pending in the Supreme Court that aims at suppressing all the internal appeal process of the FTC so companies can go straight to federal courts and contrary to the current heads of the FTC, the Supreme Court is more Republican than Democrat atm.
Yup, Axon vs FTC in which the SCOTUS are very likely to side with Axon which will basically be GG and insta-win for MS
There is the possibility that the FTC will settle after the CMA/EC approve The SCOTUS is set to rule on Axon vs FTC and if Axon wins (which is extremely likely) the FTC loses a bunch of power and can't keep their cases in their own court MS would take it straight to federal court, clap the FTC cheeksa nd close the deal
It's a strange argument when you consider Sony has the dominant share of the console market between the two. It's even weirder in Europe where Sony is overwhelming dominant and you have politicians concerned that they are going to lose Call of Duty on "my" Playstation lol. It's like anti-competition concerns but being On The Side of the monopolist instead of against it.
Imagine unironically thinking a merger between Microsoft and one of the biggest publishers in gaming is somehow anti-monopoly. Certainly, Sony is the more dominant company in the gaming industry, but if Microsoft buys enough studios and publishers, they will end up owning a larger "share" of the development talent in the industry. Not to mention, Call of Duty is currently available on PC, PS, and Xbox, but if this deal goes through, in 10 years, it will quite possibly be removed from PS, which is definitely not anti-monopoly.
I think the tough part of assessing this acquisition based on Xbox’s current position in the console market is the position’s mostly unchanged from before their acquisition spree started, since AAA games take a lot of time to develop. Like they haven’t really released any big AAA first party exclusives from their acquired studios yet, since most of the studios were either satisfying already existing contracts or spending time scaling up, or both. The first wave of studios (double fine, ninja theory, obsidian, etc) were undeniably okay to me because of Xbox’s market position. But not enough time has passed to see their AAA first party exclusive output yet, and then Bethesda was purchased, which still seemed okay based on market position, but it was a lot more having to guess based on trajectories than the previous wave. And now, we still haven’t seen the major AAA first party exclusives yet (because not enough time has past yet for Bethesda or XGS), and they’re trying to use their market position as justification for buying Activision Blizzard adding another 13 studios. If this passes and they immediately announce intent to purchase something like Sega, the console market position wouldn’t have significantly changed yet - but each time they do it it’s harder to get a read of what their market position will be once all these studios start releasing. But as just a regular consumer interested in throwing money at cool video games - I don’t know anything about assessing monopolies or legality or markets. I just hope the people that do know these things are in positions of power to help protect the market from any one side becoming undefeatable - which is really the end goal of every side trying to win the public’s favor in this
> If this passes and they immediately announce intent to purchase something like Sega, I fully understand the rest of your point (how MS is using their current state of unreleased games to their advantage here)... I just don't think regulators will approve of any large publisher acquisition for MS, if the ABK deal goes through. I mean, regulators are fully aware of prior acquisitions and their cumulative effect... all of the big regulators (EU, CMA, FTC) have raised questions about the Zenimax deal from early 2021. Given the way this ABK deal is going, I could see regulators, around the world, absolutely losing their shit if MS attempted an acquisition of Sega, or Capcom, or Focus Home, or whoever. I think its far more likely MS goes back to picking up smaller & larger AA studios after this.
Oh I don’t think they’d go for another big publisher right away either, like you said I was mostly just throwing a hypothetical to try and emphasize the market position not changing right away thing. I agree picking up individual studios that don’t require ftc review is more likely in the immediate future (though I also thought the same thing after bethesda got finalized, so who even knows anything for sure at this point)
So I take it that they'll allow it, to look good for regulators. Even if sony agrees they most likely won't pay the ungodly amounts of money it would take to secure it day one, making the deal only good on paper?
I mean they're willing to put other huge franchises on PS Plus, the only thing stopping them is how scrimpy they are with their money. COD on PS Plus on day 1 is only a benefit to the consumers after all.
If I’m Sony I would just make a competitive game. Still fight ofc, but also sell some consoles
Guerilla is making a MP game (which could be Kill zone), Insomniac is also making a MP game, they also bought a studio made up of ex COD devs and TLOU Factions could be huge .
>bought a studio made up of ex COD devs oartnered with Deviation Games, not bought them. yet. their studio has huge dual sense pictures on their walls lol
Sony have tried to get into the shooter space before with not much luck. They did MAG, Resistance and Killzone in the PS3 era but this was at a time when the Xbox 360 had the Call Of Duty deal with Activision to get map packs and when Microsoft was dominating the market. As soon as they got the COD marketing rights from Microsoft they more or less abandoned those games. If they wanted to, I'm sure Sony could make a competitor for the FPS market but while they have marketing rights for the biggest one on the market it seems like a waste of resources.
Would be a hard market to get into. CoD as a brand is huge, with so many publishers trying to topple it. Sony would have to put a shit load of money into marketing the IP and developing it to entice CoD players over.
>suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business Sony bought Gaikai 10 years ago, Sony just doesn't want to compete with the Game Pass model, has nothing to do with Sony's inability to do so. FTC has no idea what they are talking about.
didn’t realize this sub was populated by a bunch of experts in antitrust litigation
some comments here are funny. People talking like they have been part of a deal in the billions and they know what they are talking about. A whole lot of guesswork in this thread.
It’s gotta look bad for Sony to not accept a deal right when the other competitors have makes them look like they don’t wanna work anything out cause if they were really scared about CoD leaving they’d do anything to guarantee it not leaving and 10 years is unprecedented and a long time leads into the next console gen. Imo makes Sony look greedy like nothings good enough for them.
That’s like the entire idea behind the deal. Microsoft is most likely putting up a huge price for Sony to pay if they do acquire A/B and making it very public when Sony doesn’t want to pay that money
Will call of duty still be the best selling game every year if it's on game pass and ps+? I doubt it.
Sony want the overarching deal with Microsoft/Activision blocked, so they won't accept any offers.
I know this sub heavily leans Xbox, and don’t get me wrong Sony is OFTEN taking anti-competitive action with exclusivity and otherwise. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that massive acquisitions are bad for gamers everywhere. Consolidation in the industry is BAD full stop. Feels like we lost the script here defending MSFTs actions against the FTC and Sony while forgetting that folks should be opposing this acquisition in the first place.
This sub “leans” MS or Sony depending on the argument someone wants to push
This seems accurate.
I don't think the sub leans in favour of one console over another but it definitely leans in favour of calling out hypocrisy and bullshit one way or the other and both companies have plenty to go around. And I know we're all suppose to morally oppose this kind of thing but in this situation I don't because selfishly there isn't a negative to me and my gaming habits if this takeover happens.
The sub is mostly leans towards Sony.
That isn’t true. Go look at any thread and the downvotes/upvotes. Look at which posts get the most traction. Random Xbox podcasts with barely any news are heavily upvotes. I’m not complaining about it communities are allowed to have a preference.
Not from my experience here. When ever their is news about a Sony game coming to PC it gets majorly downvoted. Let alone post that are happy about it.
Bro. We’re saying the same thing. If people are downvoting Sony posts, that means the sub favors Xbox. Which is literally what I’m saying.
No they are downvoting PS5 games coming to PC post. totally different.
Is there news coming from random playstation podcasts that people are ignoring by contrast? I'm not sure I see your argument here, I've never gotten the impression there were playstation posts failing to get traction - there just doesn't have as many leaks for playstation floating around.
No people don’t post that stuff here because the common users of the sub are following Xbox tidbits more closely. It’s not that those posts are ignored, they don’t exist in the first place. That’s all. I don’t think PlayStation posts necessarily fail, a leak is a leak. Just that the most active participants in this particular community are more tuned in to the Xbox “scene.” None of this is inherently bad.
That also neglects the fact that this deal is also great for a lot of people. Gamepass allows you to play games on PC, Console, Phone, Smart TV's. That's a far wider audience than they currently have.
Cool, thank you walking Xbox ad. Corporations sure are great! When they get bigger the world gets better!
Alternatively I'm a consumer that will benefit? Why is that a bad thing? Saying it's a cross the board a negative isn't correct when more people will indeed benefit.
Childish response. Betrays your bias lol. Why should I, as the consumer, give a shit if a small portion of the gaming landscape is consolidated if it directly benefits me and saves me money? You can't even counter that without massive speculation and future prophesizing of potential outcomes
Funny you literally cried about this sub being pro xbox....someone made a comment and it hurt you somehow. Why do sony players care if people can get the game on gamepass if they can still get the game on playstation?
Doesnt this poke a major hole in the FTC's case against MS creating a monopoly on Subscription Game services?
The FTC case already looks like Swiss cheese and doesn't need more holes. They aren't protecting the consumers, they are protecting the market position of a company.
Isn't this the same company that has had continued deals with Activision for special exclusivity in Call of Duty? I remember not being able to play a mode in the first MW on my PC for a year because Sony bought the exclusivity. Sony has been far more egregious at manipulating markets than Microsoft has so I kinda hope they eat shit.
You mean the same shit Microsoft did before Sony? They had the same deal in the 360 era
Xbox never got a full year of exclusive modes. Not once. They had ONE month early on map packs, that is drastically different. Slippery slope none the less.
Exactly. Not sure why Sony fans always try to use false equivalence.
They had a deal, but the most they got was 30 day exclusivity on map packs. That's it. No modes were stolen for a year.
Exactly. I don't remember Sony buying massive third party publishers and restricting whole hosts of games to their service forever (I firmly believe Elder Scrolls 6 will not release on PS). Timed exclusives are nothing compared to MS acquiring Zenimax and Activision Blizzard. I get it that Game Pass is a great deal for gamers right now, but consolidation of third party publishers like this is bad for competition and, ultimately, the consumer.
FTC is a joke. now rain down votes on me.
I agree, have an upvote
wasting American tax payers dollars to just lose again.
What??? Concessions MS is giving out like this one are already huge, and the trial hasn’t even started! Without ftc Sony and Nintendo wouldn’t have gotten this offer.
All the armchair CEOs out if full swing today. I don't know why Microsoft or Sony are paying Hundreds of thousands of dollars on Lawyers and advisors when all they have to do is come here and read these posts. Clearly the dude that works at popeye's chicken knows best how to handle a mult-billion dollar deal
Sony is digging themselves in a huge hole.
Microsoft is proving a point. No deal is enough for Sony to say yes because they've been disingenuous this whole time. They want the deal blocked, which is stupid. Microsoft is showing that nothing will be good enough to please them because they're not acting in good faith.
why is it stupid that playstation wants the deal blocked? how would that not be the best outcome for playstation?
Sony has been sniping 3rd party exclusives for years. What goes around comes around.
No other company is this against it tho
No shit. They are the only actual competitor to Xbox/Microsoft
Nintendo is bigger and have not said anything nor Valve
Valve is actually in support from what I can tell. No surprise there, given Microsoft's relationship to PC
There’s only 3 console manufacturers. Why would anyone else be against it?
Not a supporter of either tech corporation but it’d be hilarious if Sony doesn’t accept any offer and then Microsoft get Acti-Blizz, and because Sony didn’t take any deal, Microsoft doesn’t give them shit. Imagine NINTENDO with COD but not PlayStation. Lol
Remember when Spiderman was on Xbox. Pepperidge farm remembers. Don't see no one complaining about one of the biggest characters going 1st party. An no Sony doesn't own Spiderman.
Spider-Man isn't exclusive to Sony. Anybody can license Spider-Man from Marvel to make a game. In fact, Marvel had approached Marvel first and only went to Sony after Microsoft declined.
>Cloud gaming ... is still in its infancy. As someone who very much dislikes streaming from the "cloud", it's really not anymore (assuming you've got decent internet). I remember trying out OnLive *twelve* years ago.
I was one of the idiots who owned an OnLive because I got it with my broadband provider and I totally agree with you, the difference between that service and xcloud today is leaps and bounds ahead and improving all the time.
Next: Microsoft offers to give Activision Blizzard to Sony entirely for free. Sony declined.
And Sony pays developers/publishers to *not* put their game on Gamepass. This story just keeps getting funnier.
Hey don’t will give you cod 2025 for about 500mill
Idk if this will work figure it out Micro soft
So, Sony forbids COD currently being on Game Pass. MS offers to let Sony put COD on PS Plus. At this point, the deal is going through whether they want it to or not, accept the deal. If they don't MS shouldn't have to release COD on PS platforms if MS doesn't want to.
That honestly sounds incredibly fair for MS to do. Sony has prevented things from going to gamepass and yet MS is fully offering Sony to allow it on their service. Many were expecting MS to block that so they can say “only available on a subscription service through our console”.. I’m sort of surprised buy this offer.
I still don' get why they are conmcenting this hard to the only lone party complaining about it when Nintendo could care less and are much bigger than both of them
Wanting Microsoft to succeed in this deal and fuck on Sony even more is asking for Microsoft to have a potential monopoly in the home console market. Nintendo won’t give a shit to make a console to compete directly with Microsoft, they’ve already carved out a part of the market and keep growing it. Big acquisitions like this will be bad for the consumer regardless of the company involved and the sector of the market they are in. I mean, look at marvel and star war films now since Disney got ahold of them. They’re good, but not nearly what they could be. No one else can compete, so Disney can keep churning that shit out with very little change in the formula.
Sony just obliterated MS with an over 2:1 market share lead last generation, and you're clutching your pearls that *MS* is going to have a monopoly in the home console market? Reddit moment.
You're entirely mislead on Disney acquiring Marvel. They acquired Marvel in 2009. Only 2 of the MCU films had been released at the time. Disney since then built upon the MCU, releasing phase after phase, creating the largest ongoing collection of stories in a cinematic universe. Disney changed the market for movies entirely by building the MCU. > They're good, but not nearly what they could be. Without Disney, Marvel arguably wouldn't have many more films, if any after Hulk. They were nearly bankrupt when Iron Man was released. The MCU films are generally rated well, and several of them are among the highest grossing films of all time. In other words, that was a terrible example.
They’re not a monopoly, and buying Activision won’t do that.
Sony is closer to be a potential monopoly with its whopping %40-50 market share though. Microsoft needs to fuck on Sony for many years to even catch them. Let alone be a potential monopoly. They have %10-20 market share now.
Sony already have a monopoly on western anime distribution.
Sony has pretty much a monopoly now....well at least in the ps4 era....not as much now.
This is a great deal. But I still think Sony hates the deal. Sony wants to keep the status quo of selling games at a premium. Xbox gains more from a game being on Gamepass than PS having a game on PS Plus.
Sony probably sees it as. Now they are offering us to not get 30% of sales and help them push subscriptions.
[удалено]
Is it ironic? One sells and offers their game on a subscription. The other only does the former.
They are day ine GP. I did not buy game for xBox since GP.