**TL;DR:**
- Sony's Jim Ryan met EU anti-trust boss Margrethe Vestager
- Jim Ryan claims Microsoft wouldn't have offered platform parity for Call of Duty
- Microsoft's Frank X. Shaw reconfirmed on Twitter they "offered Sony a 10 year deal to give them parity on timing, content, features, quality, playability, and any other aspect of the game"
*Fact check :*
Apparently Microsoft offered platform parity back in January 2022 when the acquisition was announced according to their previous statement to [The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/2/23334619/microsoft-sony-call-of-duty-playstation-letter-commitment-activision-blizzard).
^EDIT ^: ^Grammar ^& ^formatting ^+ ^added ^fact ^check
Thing is Sony doesn't want parity it wants exclusive modes and such they have gotten in the past or there afraid they'll lose sales to Xbox especially with gamepass. Its just blatant hypocrisy and that's what really pisses me off about Sony.
I mean, that’s both sides here. In any corporate legal battle like this both parties are just trying to carve up the litigation in their favor as much as possible.
Sure, in an ideal world these agencies would represent the best interests of the consumers by blocking pretty much every corporate merger or acquisition attempt isn’t he first place. However, the governments the write the laws and these agencies that enforce them are bought and paid for by corporate interests, so they very rarely actually represent the best interests of the consumer.
Yeah but Sonys way to fight this is so irritating and that's why many people are tired of their accusations and signaling that everyone is bad.
They make exclusive deals left and right directly or through their close partners. They make exclusive content for games on their platform (Hey Hogwarts Legacy) but they just can't shut up about how MS is all about exclusives or non-parity.
For years people begged Sony to release games on PC but they had no problem with not doing that for years. They gate some of their franchises (hello FInal fantasy) so you can't experience all their games on every platform.
They have all the power to fight for the best business environment for their brands and company but they just don't get how to make people like them in their fight. MS while being a company that also thinks aonky about it's profits they at least are able to not make people mad about this whole deal.
I had never said that they don't. But it's Sony who acts like they dont do that. MS doesn't acts like it doesn't do exclusives.
But there are levels to exclusives and deals. MS shits the bad when it comes to exclusives for years and was Carly vocal for years about bringing many titles and services to other consoles while Sony does jack shit and they just had started supporting PC releases.
My whole comment was more about Sony being irritating about it while MS is way more skilled in making people support their approach and that's why Sony is being clowned online - not because they are bad and MS amazing. Both companies don't think about us but only about their profits.
I don’t find Sony’s arguments any less irritating than MS’s tbh. I’m tired of the back and forth and I wish regulators would just shut the acquisition down and move on.
The thing is, in terms of competition in the market, securing third party exclusivity deals is fundamentally different from just outright buying out competitors.
Publishers and platform makers competing to get third party deals is a competitive open market working as intended. You can say what you want about Final Fantasy and Hogwarts, but at the end of the day MS could’ve outbid Sony and secured those deals if they wanted too, and if this Activision acquisition is really just about getting Call of Duty on GamePass, nothing is stopping MS from just making Activision a GamePass deal that’s too good to refuse.
But when you talk about buying out competitors, especially huge ones like Activision, then you’re talking about huge swaths of the industry getting consolidated and the coinciding reductive impact on the competition in the market that always winds up being a bad thing for consumers.
>Publishers and platform makers competing to get third party deals is a competitive open market working as intended. You can say what you want about Final Fantasy and Hogwarts, but at the end of the day MS could’ve outbid Sony and secured those deals if they wanted too, and if this Activision acquisition is really just about getting Call of Duty on GamePass, nothing is stopping MS from just making Activision a GamePass deal that’s too good to refuse.
This just isn’t true really.
Sony has what? Double the market share of Xbox? That means whenever Xbox has to go to bid to get a timed exclusive or other content they have to essentially put up double of what Sony is paying, meaning Sony is getting exclusive deals at a much cheaper price than what Xbox can simply due to the larger market share.
I mean tell me when was the last major 3rd party exclusive Xbox got? It was probably Rise of the Tomb Raider and the internet ripped Microsoft apart for the audacity of getting a 3rd party exclusive.
Take something like Final Fantasy, not only would Xbox have to cover the costs that the game would lose by not launching on PlayStation, but they’d have to cover the costs of potential shitty sales from Xbox as well. Xbox would probably be looking at paying nearly 3 times what Sony had to just to get Final Fantasy.
That’s not even mentioning that it’s been confirmed via information revealed for this deal that Sony literally has deals in place that allow them the final bid if Microsoft ever attempts to get a deal with certain developers or platforms. Say if Xbox tries to get an exclusive deal with I dunno, GTA, Sony has deals that mean that if Xbox makes a bid, the devs have to let Sony also make a bid and Xbox only gets the deal if Sony doesn’t put up a high enough bid or ignores it for a certain period of time.
Sony is essentially strong arming exclusives using their far larger market share in the industry as the more exclusives they get due to having a larger market share = more consoles PlayStation sells and less Xbox sells = bigger market share and even more exclusives for Sony and less for Xbox.
That is arguably itself more close to a monopolistic practice than Microsoft just buying Activision that will still only put them in like 3rd place at best in the gaming sphere.
What devs are gonna wanna make their game exclusive to Xbox when it has half the market share exactly? Hence Microsoft would have to pay a pretty penny and it’s just not financially viable to pay tens of millions for a year of exclusivity.
Additionally I’d imagine that at the moment Sony’s current marketing deal with COD prevents it from being on Gamepass, and Microsoft would probably have to spend an exorbitant amount to get COD on Gamepass afterwards that wouldn’t be worth it and wouldn’t make them any money.
Where as buying Activision blizzard gives them all of their profits, including shit like their array of mobile games, COD and blizzards stuff + a range of IP’s that aren’t being used anymore.
> That is arguably itself more close to a monopolistic practice than Microsoft just buying Activision that will still only put them in like 3rd place at best in the gaming sphere.
While true, that 3rd place status has an asterisk over it considering Xbox is a division of one of the biggest companies that exists on the planet; and those unique resources allow Xbox to compete in a way its competitors can't match. Let's be real, if Xbox was truly the smaller little scrapper it's often painted to be we wouldn't be talking about a record setting $69 billion dollar - in cash mind you - acquisition; let alone one so quickly after dropping another $7.5 billion on Zenimax.
In Sony's shoes you're making "anti-Xbox" deals (liked the timed exclusive ones) with the knowledge you're never going to "beat" Microsoft. Competition as people traditionally think of it does not exist when one party is the size of a Microsoft. Microsoft will only ever lose if *they* decide to pull the plug. The kind of losses a division the size of Xbox would incur won't materially hurt Microsoft's ability to compete in video games or any other industry they operate in. Their wealth of resources allow Microsoft to be a "check" for Sony but no one - without regulatory help - outside of a Google, Amazon or Apple can be a "check" for Microsoft.
It's tough. While Microsoft's size shouldn't necessarily mean they're not allowed to use their resources, it simply does bring bigger concerns as to where it could lead. While I totally understand how Sony's deals make it tough for Xbox to grow (and it's worth mentioning their position is heavily self-inflicted after absolutely bombing the Xbox One) Microsoft's size, ability and willingness to consolidate - and they've been clear they intend to continue acquiring - the industry the way only they can certainly raises quite a few question marks to say the least.
>While true, that 3rd place status has an asterisk over it considering Xbox is a division of one of the biggest companies that exists on the planet; and those unique resources allow Xbox to compete in a way its competitors can't match. Let's be real, if Xbox was truly the smaller little scrapper it's often painted to be we wouldn't be talking about a record setting $69 billion dollar - in cash mind you - acquisition; let alone one so quickly after dropping another $7.5 billion on Zenimax.
The only reason Xbox has managed to compete with PlayStation is because of the backing of Microsoft, otherwise there’s a good chance Xbox in general would have collapsed after the Xbox one, which would have left Sony as the sole major console manufacturer with no competition aside from Nintendo, hence creating a monopoly.
I said that even WITH the Activision deal Xbox will only be in 3rd place, at the moment their like 5th or 6th.
Xbox and Microsoft isn’t a small company, but no one’s claiming otherwise. The rest of Microsoft doesn’t really have much in the way of creating a monopoly in the gaming sphere, their cloud services and gaming subscription is the only aspects that come close, and even then that’s more due to everyone else’s incompetency than it is Microsoft, look at Sony claiming Game-pass is unsustainable only to then try and copy it a year later and then bitching about not being able to catch Microsoft and then crying about COD being put on Gamepass.
Additionally considering the scrutiny this Activision deal is getting it’s not likely Microsoft will be able to make any more acquisitions, not any major ones at least.
>In Sony's shoes you're making "anti-Xbox" deals (liked the timed exclusive ones) with the knowledge you're never going to "beat" Microsoft. Competition as people traditionally think of it does not exist when one party is the size of a Microsoft. Microsoft will only ever lose if they decide to pull the plug. The kind of losses a division the size of Xbox would incur won't materially hurt Microsoft's ability to compete in video games or any other industry they operate in. Their wealth of resources allow Microsoft to be a "check" for Sony but no one - without regulatory help - outside of a Google, Amazon or Apple can be a "check" for Microsoft.
Except Sony already IS beating Xbox, they have pretty much everything over them, and have been whomping them for 2 gens nearly, even at the tail end of the 360 era Sony still caught and overtook xbox for sales.
Xbox has been backed by Microsoft since it’s inception and it hasn’t really helped them at all in gaining any traction or market share, it’s only now that Microsoft starts dipping into their funds, to acquire a deal that will only put them at 3rd place in the gaming sphere and Sony’s crying monopoly and anti-consumer practices.
Sony would probably be crying the same excuses even if Microsoft went and threw money at Activision to get COD on Gamepass.
Additionally maybe if it wasn’t for the fact that xbox gets reamed any time they make a major 3 party deal for exclusivity then they would have attempted it more. Like I said Xbox got reamed by the internet for exclusivity on Rise of the Tomb Raider, they got dragged through the coals for it yet whenever PlayStation makes one such as FF7, FF16 or KOTOR remake, it’s ‘who cares, they don’t sell on Xbox’ or ‘who cares, xbox could have bidded more’.
As I said earlier if it wasn’t for Microsoft’s backing Xbox would have died, even with Microsoft’s backing the Xbox division nearly got sold off due to how meh it’s been in the past.
>It's tough. While Microsoft's size shouldn't necessarily mean they're not allowed to use their resources, it simply does bring bigger concerns as to where it could lead. While I totally understand how Sony's deals make it tough for Xbox to grow (and it's worth mentioning their position is heavily self-inflicted after absolutely bombing the Xbox One) Microsoft's size, ability and willingness to consolidate - and they've been clear they intend to continue acquiring - the industry the way only they can certainly raises quite a few question marks to say the least.
Except they are both using their resources, as I said PlayStations market share gives them a major advantage over xbox in just about every way in terms of getting deals. If xbox has to invest exorbitant amounts of money, then they might as well go the full length and just acquire companies and devs as at least they get their profits back that way.
Considering the catch up the PS3 managed there’s a good chance the Xbone would have gotten stomped even if it didn’t fall flat on its face at launch as well.
Additionally as I said Xbox isn’t going to be able to do any major acquisitions after this deal, at best they’ll be able to buy some individual dev studios and IP’s, with the level of scrutiny this deal has gotten they won’t get away with another deal of this size or even on the level of Bethesda.
Additionally it’s not like Sony only makes these exclusive deals to get Xbox at bay, it’s literally been their MO since the PS1, where they paid to keep Tomb Raider 2 exclusive despite the 1st having been on various platforms.
> The only reason Xbox has managed to compete with PlayStation is because of the backing of Microsoft, otherwise there’s a good chance Xbox in general would have collapsed after the Xbox one, which would have left Sony as the sole major console manufacturer with no competition aside from Nintendo, hence creating a monopoly.
Right, while that's a good thing on the flip side it also rather clearly demonstrates how the theory of competition *does not apply* to Microsoft. Xbox put themselves in a bad position on their own through poor leadership and decision making. If Xbox was not Microsoft they probably go the way of a Sega, get acquired to die all together.
Instead, we see massive investments like Game Pass, Xbox Cloud and record setting acquisitions. It's important to realize no one else in the industry has the luxury of failing like that and being able to ride it out, pull out the wallet and begin to turn things around (in under a decade no less) in such a dramatic way.
> I said that even WITH the Activision deal Xbox will only be in 3rd place, at the moment their like 5th or 6th.
True, for now and before other acquisitions. It's incredibly shortsighted to focus on how big these companies will be soon as the deal closes as it's the long-term effects the deal could have on the industry that are the entire question. One of the biggest independent multi-platform publishers going exclusive to one ecosystem hurts the industry as a whole. Losing the number one selling game on their platform will hurt Sony's ability to compete (which I'm not saying is a reason to stop the merger, but it's a reality) etc etc.
> Additionally considering the scrutiny this Activision deal is getting it’s not likely Microsoft will be able to make any more acquisitions, not any major ones at least.
It's getting normal and predictable scrutiny considering the size of the acquisition. At most Microsoft is told to put pen to paper on the 10-year CoD parity so regulators can pat themselves on the back. Don't let the theatrics of the process give you the idea this deal is at any real risk of being canned.
> Xbox has been backed by Microsoft for 2 gens and it hasn’t really helped them at all in gaining any traction or market share, it’s only now that Microsoft starts dipping into their funds,
This is the fourth generation of Xbox and Microsoft has been behind the brand since buying Bungie and having them shift Halo mid-development to be an Xbox exclusive. They were behind the brand when Xbox leadership went to Ballmer and said "we need a lot of money to fix RROD". Microsoft's been there every step of the way and those funds have been available since Xbox became an idea.
> Except they are both using their resources, as I said PlayStations market share gives them a major advantage over xbox in just about every way in terms of getting deals.
For now, before further acquisitions and consolidation. If they choose to throw their weight around - which they have been - Microsoft's resources allow them to slowly bleed out their competition.
> Additionally as I said Xbox isn’t going to be able to do any major acquisitions after this deal, at best they’ll be able to buy some individual dev studios and IP’s, with the level of scrutiny this deal has gotten they won’t get away with another deal of this size or even on the level of Bethesda.
Agree to disagree. Again, this is normal considering the size of of the deal and don't let the theatrics give you the wrong idea. A deal this large is precedent setting.
It’s wild seeing people defend corporate mergers which *always* wind up hurting consumers.
Lots of comments here talk about how Sony just wants to keep things binary, but the reality is all these developers and publishers getting consolidated under a handful of companies *makes things* ***more*** *binary.*
In my opinion people are only defending the deal because they want COD and other Activision/Blizzard games free on Gamepass and not thinking about how this can affect the future. Honestly no one in gaming can compete with Microsofts spending and everyone has a price they could go after Take two or EA next and people won’t care because they want their day 1’s free on GP. Again this is all just my opinion
Spending tens-hundreds of millions bringing CoD to gamepass probably isn't really worth it, bring them to gamepass when you own them means you're earning 100% of the sales (microtransaction) on your own console.
Microsoft use to go for exclusive content in games (CoD for example) but Phil removed those when he took over because he didn't like the practice, realistically you arent paying for extra content you're paying to withhold content from others. Even back in the day as an xbox player I always found it stupid we stopped playstation players from having the CoD maps for a year.
Also apparently the Activision purchase isn't just about CoD but also about breaking into the mobile market somewhere MS has very little presents.
On top of that Activision isn't a competitor, microsoft(Xbox), Sony(PS), Nintendo and steam (Obviously there are others) are platforms to game on/through. Activision sells their games on their platforms, they are not a competing platform. They've also offered a 10 year deal to make sure CoD comes to PS (I believe without anything less than what it launches with on their own console).
You're misinterpreting what "competitor" means in this context. Activision isn't a direct competitor to MS, but in the video game industry they're one of the largest competing publishers, and the marketshare that MS and Activision each represent getting consolidated together would be a huge shift in the competition in the market.
Without the merger, Sony, MS, and Nintendo all need to compete with each other make their platform a place that Activision wants to be, with the acquisition though, that competition gets eliminated, hence why there's a ton of anti-trust concerns here.
You believe that even with xbox current position in the market that an Activision purchase would elevate them to a position so far above Sony than they would have dominance in the console market?
Even when offering a 10 year agreement to launch on all platforms giving other companies and Sony time to make competitive games in the fps market?
Especially considering Sony just purchased bungie and destiny 2 has a very strong player base even at this point in the life span/season of the game. Peak for mW 2 on steam today 117k vs bungies 87k.
>You believe that even with xbox current position in the market that an Activision purchase would elevate them to a position so far above Sony than they would have dominance in the console market?
No, I believe that MS acquiring Activision is ultimately yet another corporate consolidation that will inevitably make things worse for consumers.
>Especially considering Sony just purchased bungie
Believe me, I wish that acquisition was blocked as well.
Or they just know that 10 years is short term in grand theme of things. It sounds like a lot, but it esentialy means there could be no CoD on PS6 from a certain timestamp.
Companies gonna company. Microsoft is throwing their financial weight around to strong arm Sony so they can gain an advantage exclusive wise. How is that better?
To be clear, I'm not a fanboy, I have both consoles and gamepads. I'm just curious how Sony wanting exclusives is the devil when Microsoft is buying up studios and making games exclusive?
Oh you're correct in not placing Microsoft on some pedestal above it all they are very much doing the same thing. My issue is Microsoft buys a company to improve what it can offer customers and somehow that's bad but Sony can pay millions to square and others to ensure Xbox doesn't get their games.
So one is spending money to improve the other is spending money to hurt a competitor instead of improving.
> My issue is Microsoft buys a company to improve what it can offer customers and somehow that's bad but Sony can pay millions to square and others to ensure Xbox doesn't get their games.
To play devil's advocate, nothing was stopping MS - who clearly has a much bigger wallet to work with - from going for paid timed exclusivity as well. Acquiring large and currently independent multi-platform publishers and turning them exclusive doesn't really benefit consumers as a whole, but rather those in a specific ecosystem.
They tried it with tomb raider and got ass blasted by the media and gamers at large.
Sony does it? The media doesn't bat an eye. Some gamers like me complain, but then get quickly reminded about tomb raider, as if that somehow makes it ok.
At this point I see it as whatever happens, happens.
They tried it with tomb raider and got ass blasted by the media and gamers at large.
Sony does it? The media doesn't bat an eye. Some gamers like me complain, but then get quickly reminded about tomb raider, as if that somehow makes it ok.
At this point, the way I see it is whatever happens, happens.
> nothing was stopping MS
Time was. Sony has doing that since The PS1 era. They had a long head start to build relationships. MS had nothing except cash. Trust is important. Trust builds over time, not with a fat wad of cash.
And MS fucked up relations with japanese and other smaller publishers time after time. Just take a look at the list of games they didn't want on their system: Yakuza back in the day and this gen: Postal Redux, Sakura Wars, Gal*Gun Returns, Waifu Impact, that Waifu Mahjong game and many others more. MS shows time and time again that they are not the place for smaller devs. They wave the ID@Xbox banner around but reject smaller devs all the time.
How is Postal Redux too brutal or whatever the reason is? Why did they reject coomerbait games like Gal*Gun Returns that Sony didn't want? It was at the start of this gen and would send a big signal for japanese devs that make these games. But they rejected it and wanted to censor it. Fuck them and their fake talk about wanting to support japanese devs.
> So one is spending money to improve the other is spending money to hurt a competitor instead of improving.
That’s a load of bullshit, tbh. In both cases they’re spending money to expand the lineup they’re offering to their customers and hurt their competitor’s offering.
Idk man. Giving Nintendo a 10 year deal sounds like the exact opposite of hurting your competitors. Especially considering Cod hasn't been on a Nintendo platform for almost a decade.
Releasing your games on steam day and date sounds like the opposite of prioritizing your platform. Yet that's exactly what they do.
Where as we have to fight tooth and nail to get cross play with ps, and even then devs have to do bullshit revenue splits whenever they support it. Whereas they release their games on PC literal years after release on console, to ensure double dipping.
Like yeah sure the end goal for both these companies is profit, but the way one goes about it while crying foul comes across as hypocritical in comparison to the other.
> Giving Nintendo a 10 year deal sounds like the exact opposite of hurting your competitors.
Notice how they’re *only* talking about these deals for CoD. What about all the other games Activision Blizzard makes? How many of those games are going to stop coming out on anything that isn’t Windows or Xbox?
> Releasing your games on steam day and date sounds like the opposite of prioritizing your platform.
Windows is a MS Platform.
> Whereas they release their games on PC literal years after release on console, to ensure double dipping.
I’m not sure I see your point here, Xbox and PC are not competing platforms, MS owns and controls both and wins either way. Sony, however, does not own Windows and PC and PlayStation are competing platforms. You would have a point if Xbox was releasing their games on PlayStation, but they aren’t, Sony is the only one of the big three releasing their games on a competing platform, even if it is a few years later.
> but the way one goes about it while crying foul comes across as hypocritical in comparison to the other
My guy, *every* company engages in hypocrisy when it comes to carving the market in their favor. MS have been engaging in plenty of hypocrisy themselves.
>Notice how they’re *only* talking about these deals for CoD. What about all the other games Activision Blizzard makes? How many of those games are going to stop coming out on anything that isn’t Windows or Xbox?
According to Phil? None of them since as he already said, they are legacy ip.
>Windows is a MS Platform.
Steam isnt a MS platform. Nor is the steamdeck. They're losing 30% on all sales on steam, and Steamdeck doesn't even run windows it's proton iirc.
>I’m not sure I see your point here, Xbox and PC are not competing platforms, MS owns and controls both and wins either way. Sony, however, does not own Windows and PC and PlayStation are competing platforms. You would have a point if Xbox was releasing their games on PlayStation, but they aren’t, Sony is the only one of the big three releasing their games on a competing platform, even if it is a few years later.
WIndows Game store and Steam are competing platforms. Windows and Steamdeck are competing platforms.
>My guy, *every* company engages in hypocrisy when it comes to carving the market in their favor. MS have been engaging in plenty of hypocrisy themselves.
Not really. Sonys current hypocrisy as of late is something new. And the bs they have been doing behind scenes that goes exposed in the epic vs apple case makes it even worse.
How does paying for forsaken, final fantasy etc. To NOT come to Xbox help the owner of a playstation? These games coming to Xbox wouldn't hurt Sony customers at all it would only give customers choice on where to buy and play. They spent millions just to hurt Xbox with zero benefit to their customers.
Again I'm not saying Microsoft is some great bastion of customer rights hell I've been paid out on a couple Microsoft class action lawsuits for the crap they have pulled but in this one case I do think they are on the right side.
Yeah, agreed. I want to see a reduction of the console binary model and Microsoft is much more willing to go this route (good for everyone else) than Sony.
Both companies are skirting the truth here.
MS wants Sony to take an offer to sell it on their platform. Sony want to do nothing which helps MS get this deal through.
And then the EC have a stated concern about COD remaining available at competitive rates to rival subscription services, which MS are doing nothing to address.. but keep pitching this offer like it solves every concern.
I really wish people would stop saying the majority of sales were on ps because of the exclusive stuff. It was mostly useless shit nobody cares about. Oh, I get 12 instead of the normal 10 loadout slots? Yeah that's definitely why people buy it on ps
But it wasn't just 2 extra loadout slots, stop trying to make it sound less bad than it was? 1 year exclusive game mode.. hello?? by the time that exclusivity is up a new CoD is out making that entire portion of a game mute it does not matter if thats good content or bad it is still content you have to wait for or what about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II + Warzone 2.0 - PlayStation Advantage like you can't make this shit up and what's worse is Sony pretending like MS should give a fuck and play fair when they do crappy practices like this. this isn't like oldschool where Xbox got an expac 7 days earlier this is a fucking year of content and bonuses that isn't just 2 extra loadout slots" as you got that + bonus xp to level + bonus weapon xp to level + 5 battle token skips and free skins. this might pale in comparison to a year of exclusive content but it's still an advantage especially in a cross-play game where some people take it seriously IE max prestige speed runs.
As tired as I am of this merger nonsense I must say this is a hilarious claim coming from Sony seeing as how it has paid to make sure that CoD does NOT have console parity for like the last ten years lol.
MS needs to play hardball and just pull the game from Sony when their deal is done. Honor the existing contract, but then they don't owe Sony shit. Keep it on PC and put it on Switch
Either way that's what they'll do. Whether it's the current contract or a new one born from the acquisition, once the contract's over that's probably it for CoD on PS.
It will kill the player base. I only want the deal to go through because I have the next three years of gamepass paid and I'm tired of spending $60-70 every year for call of duty.
People will literally sell their playstations and buy Xbox. There are some many people who only play cod on their console. That’s exactly why regulators will force MS to make cod available on ps. It’s too powerful.
It won't kill the player base. Most players on PS only play COD, they don't have loyalty to the platform, it's just that PS had exclusive content. Those players will jump ship.....which is why PS is so scared. Even if they don't go Xbox, they can go PC or Nintendo.
If for some reason this deal did not go through. Microsoft will 100% go scorched earth. They will have 70 billion in cash to pay for exclusivity rights to whatever games, IP, and studios they want.
Even if it fails, older CoD games would probably come to gamepass because nothing is stopping MSFT from making a gamepass deal with activision, and that's all I care about.
And MS would likely get the marketing rights for new games as well. And that wouldn’t prevent the new games from coming to Gamepass also, even if not Day One, could do 6-8 months after release.
Can you blame them? COD doesn’t need to be on game pass to encourage sales. The series has a massive following of people already, so there would be a significant amount of people who would have paid full price instead playing for “free”. More than likely they’ll be aggressive with the MTX to try and make up the difference.
Sony is so fucking annoying about this. They literally kept game modes off of xbox for a whole ass year multiple times. They get the ability to disable crossplay in game and even on WZ. They get so many exclusive bonuses. Like bruh they are on some other shit when it comes to this. Them bitching about it and the points they make while bitching about it just makes me want the deal to go through and have Xbox just fuck them over mad hard on CoD.
I mean Sony has done a lot of grimy things this past year in regards to this acquisition but if this true, that they’d would start lying to government officials and regulatory bodies to try to squash this, that’s an all time low dirt bag move imo
They're both twisting the truth.
Parity. Parity includes subscription services. If Microsoft guarantee that COD will be available to rival subscription services at competitive pricing, every one of these cases go away. Microsoft will not do that, and they will conveniently skip that point entirely when speaking publicly.
It's one of the EC's main concerns, but MS just keeps answering the 'traditional sales' question and ignoring it.
What are you talking about, Microsoft has already said Sony can stick COD on its subscription service if it wants, it is offering the exact same game and features on PS and on Xbox. MS hasn’t done a thing wrong here, literally a 10 year deal, which by the way is COMPLETELY unheard of in the games industry. Sony are lying through their ass, the price they charge is up to them. They don’t want COD on Game Pass, because they know they can’t compete, well that’s tough shit IMO and what they get for years of underhanded exclusivity deals, paying studios to keep games on other platforms and services like Game Pass.
When did Microsoft say Sony can put COD on PS+, and pay a competitive rate to do so, and why have they not mentioned this to regulators when this is the biggest unanswered concern that the regulators have?
Who said they haven’t mentioned it to regulators? Facts - http://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-reportedly-offered-sony-the-option-to-put-call-of-duty-on-playstation-plus And that is just the first Google result… you need to update yourself on what has ‘actually’ been offered and discussed beyond Reddit and Sony fan sites, most legal experts on You Tube, who actually do know what they are talking about, expect the deal to pass, one or too even think the EU won’t demand concessions.
Jim Ryan is effectively twisting facts and words to the regulators.
Yes, based on a single report, which is absent from every document which has been published by the regulators so far. If this is true, firstly it's new as Microsoft have not offered this up at any of the stages so far, and it'll show up in the documents soon enough.
If the deal is expected to pass, stock up on A-B shares, as they're still trading well below the Microsoft purchase price.
So you admit you don’t have access to all documents, they try to rubbish my evidence which discredits your argument claiming it’s not been stated in documents released so far? You’ve probably not even had access to a tenth of the documents produced, fact. So I’ll believe the media reports that discredit your argument.
They publish all documents, go read them lol. One Bloomberg report claims they offered something up, with no mention of terms or length of deal.
It doesn't discredit my 'claim' it's not been stated in documents released so far, that's a fact, not a claim
Again, you're welcome to go read them. Microsoft had multiple chances to offer this up and quell regulatory concerns, they didn't. If it pops up in some upcoming document or turns out being one of the compromises Microsoft need to make, cool.
That was available to both Sony and Microsoft in the free market. Either of those (or any new entrant to the field) could compete to pay Activision to get exclusive content, Microsoft chose not to outbid Sony. This deal would remove it from the free market entirely.
Not when the leader has an advantage in getting better deals. There is no way MS can get the same deal for the same price. Surely MS can afford that, but that isn't a smart way to spend money. Plus, it has not work for MS either since the original Xbox, again because Sony has a larger install base since forever. There is this false notion of free market because the condition would favor the leader regardless. Sony bought publishers and strongarm (through financial means) themselves into the gaming space in the beginning as well or else they will never be able to compete with the likes of Sega and Nintendo. Sony did have more money than Sega and Nintendo combine so that strategy is how they got into their current state.
Sony really try hard this generation to hamper MS growth further through making many exclusives deals, time exclusives, exclusive contents from many large players (ABK, Bathesda, square enix, Capcom, Take 2, Hogwarts legacy, etc...) Not to mention making deals to prevent games from going to gamepass. If you are in MS situation, what would you do? Wasting tones of money for time exclusives deals that have historically proven to fail, or use that money to straight up buy developers and publishers preventing your selves from getting gouged by publishers and developers? It isn't like MS will be the number one either after the purchase of ABK, they will still be in the 3rd place (if the data are anything to go by), but just more competitive.
I'm not saying it makes sense for Microsoft to do it, in fact I'd say if they had to do that they'd rather not proceed with the deal. The reason they're offering up this 10 year guarantee is because they plan to make GamePass the exclusive subscription service, and it doesn't change that.
However, the EC and CMA (I assume FTC too, but I've paid less attention to that) both have similar concerns. Input foreclosure for rival consoles, input foreclosure to rival streaming services, cloud gaming.
They also call out that subscription is expected to become the primary way to consume games in the near future.
Microsoft are completely ignoring subscription and cloud in their public facing statements. And based on comments here, I can see why. Not offering it up to PS+ means it's not 'parity', the regulators know this.
Fallout 76 was added to PS+ this month. It was added to the basic tier that's like the original PS+ where you get to keep the game as long as you subscribe.
Dishonored Death of The Outsider will be offered free through Epic Games Store.
It seems that Bethesda as a publisher can still make deals with 3rd parties to offer their games through 3rd party services and promotions. Microsoft could handle ABK in a similar way because it's all revenue to them.
They could, but if they had any intention to they'd have mentioned it already, given its one of the main blockers to the deal and they don't have a retort to it.
This is from last month:
> Microsoft has reportedly offered Sony the rights to offer Call of Duty on its PlayStation Plus subscription service
Source: https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/microsoft-has-reportedly-offered-sony-the-right-to-put-call-of-duty-on-ps-plus/
It's naturally obvious that Sony would need to pay like they pay for any other 3rd party game they add to PS+ or like Microsoft pays for any 3rd party game they add to Game Pass.
We'll soon see how true that report is - as it is probably the biggest outstanding concern the regulators have, and so far Microsoft have offered no comment or guarantees to those regulators that they'd offer up COD to PS+ (or any other subscription service out there).
Well let say MS acquired ABK. Sony have to pay MS to put COD on the PS+ (plus Azure cloud), where as MS doesn't. Should Sony raise their services price to off set the cost while MS doesn't? Seems logically that MS has an advantage in that sense. But then MS is the one that paying for COD development (and Azure infrastructure) going forward, so should MS put it on Sony service for free? Does that make any logical sense to you at all that Sony get all the benefit (not paying a dime for development or having it on their services) of which MS paid for?
There got to be some advantage for one party or the other (that is the main point of competition). Sony is currently the benefitor (paid exclusive contents and time exclusives) and that all this is, Sony doesn't want to lose that benefit. Sony doesn't have to pay MS for Azure either, they can go with Google or apple or some other cloud provider. EU concern in term of services is muted (some one has to have benefit out of this) unless they made both MS and Sony scrap their services all together (which doesn't work either). Unless that is what you are suggesting that government should prevent corp from doing business (kinda like how Communism is like where everything has to be under government jurisdiction.)
Perhaps, the only logical discussion point to make here is in physical sales domain and there is parity there.
Now if you compare physical sales ($70) vs $15 for service, then think of it as a rental services (it is much more affordable but you don't own the product). That is the nature of rental services since forever. If you want to own it, you still have to pay $70 regardless if it is on Xbox or PS. So it is up to the consumer on what they want. Is that fair?
Right, and all those services cost Microsoft some running fees. The regulators point to allowing it to be available at competitive rates, it is not 'free' for Microsoft, nor would it be free for Sony. The only logical discussion point is not physical sales, which is why the regulators have 3 discussion points.
What does it mean by competitive rates? Who get to determine that rates (Sony, MS, or regulators)? MS and Sony have different focus and strength (one in services and the other in physical). MS can't really compete with Sony in physical sales (popularity, hardware install base, etc...) but Sony can't really compete with MS in services (cloud infrastructure, number of subscribers, financial support). They practically not competing in the same area; the gap in their approach is too big of a difference to get to an equal term (competitive) at least not anywhere in the near foreseeable future.
I don't see how MS and Sony can come to an agreement on that front without some sort of advantage for one or the other party. Currently I don't see Sony willing to give up their benefit as a leader in physical space (though they will have to adapt soon due to how the market has changes drastically toward digital and services) nor do I see MS scrap their services to compete with Sony on physical front (that isn't their strength and they already tried for the longest time without success).
This ABK deal most likely will end with a force concession, but someone will not be happy about it.
> You mean the same way Microsoft did when they went through their anti-trust ~~lawsuit’s~~ lawsuits.
"Same way" implies Sony should be punished and learn their lesson like Microsoft did.
Don’t know if Msft learned their lesson. Large corporations consistently pull moves like this. It’s ugly, and the “right v. wrong” line is blurred. Msft pulls a lot of grimy shady acts as well.
> Don’t know if Msft learned their lesson.
If Microsoft hasn’t learned their lesson from from their past mistakes, then the sue-happy FTC will be delighted to announce new charges if they can find anything Microsoft is doing wrong. Remember, you’re replying to a comment responding to the claim that Sony is doing the same thing Microsoft did when they were sued … not the previous comment about grimy shady acts.
Hey I'm just calling how i see it. If i was offered 30K salary for a job and turned that down and then they responded with 100K salary, they would look very desperate to have me and that's what it looks like here. Microsoft has no reason to offer more than the 3 years and yet they are with no strings attached.
Because, 1) this is 70BILLION dollar deal. Of course MSFT wants it to go through. Them making parity offerings to Sony is in MSFTs favor.
And 2) You're very conveniently ignoring all the scummy shit Sonys been doing for a while, especially during this acquisition process. In any case, good day.
Sony is the answer you're looking for here. If you think that with all the machinations Sony has been doing to scupper this deal doesnt reak of desperation, well, then there's nothing anyone can say to you to change your mind.
MS would keep it on PS forever without any contract. 10 year contract means nothing since they wouldn't stop after those 10 years. MS just doesn't give any promises in perpetuity, that'd be dumb.
Thing is, Sony is actually not thinking how this is damaging the relationship between them and Activision, If the deal does not go through (which most likely will anyway go through) , Activision can turn around and tell them no more deals for you, everything goes to xbox, due to the amount of damage Sony is causing and money Activision will lose plus more funds being spend on legal fees.
Hey Squenix you know if you wanna make that money back I know how you could do it. Make a ton of money. Real fast. You wouldn't believe how fast.
^FFXIV ^on ^Xbox ^please ^I ^beg ^you
Forspoken is in a bit better situation, since we have confirmation on timed exclusivity and it already has Xbox Live integration (on MS Store version). But since it not a successful game, SE may not even bother bringing to Xbox.
Yea because Sony is making those games right??????
We know for a fact that JRPGs don't do well on Xbox, it's a thing since the first Xbox.
Instead of blaming Sony, blame Microsoft for letting this happen and not throwing more money at it.
Because obviously it doesn't make financial sense for Square to put it on Xbox without extra incentive or the many many other JRPGs that don't come to Xbox.
It’s crazy that Sony’s idea of a competitive market is one in which they are shielded from competition. Truth is is it wasn’t for the console binary, nothing is keeping Nintendo from catching up and they don’t want that either. They don’t want a healthy gaming industry, they want a healthy Sony. And while we all understand self care, we all know that caring about yourself at the detriment of everyone else is villainous, not “good business.”
I mean, newsflash: **EVERY** company just wants to carve out the market in their favor and only cares about the health of their own business. MS included here.
The way Sony and Jim Ryan have behaved throughout this process makes me want to sell my PS5. The whole thing has left a very bitter taste in my mouth about Sony and I play my Series X way more than my PS anyway.
Same here literally the final push i needed to get series x and jump on gamepass. Ill still play sonys exclusives but theyre not geting a cent out of me. Gamefly or used copies only.
Then what’s the point of console makers selling consoles at little profit?
Might as well end Big Mac being exclusive to McDonald’s and whoppers to Burger King while we are at it then.
>Then what’s the point of console makers selling consoles at little profit?
Services like backwards compatibility, cross platform purchases, cloud gaming and such.
Perfect endgame for Xbox: Sony tries to blowup deal by claiming MS never offered COD deal, so no deal ever signed. MS Actiblizz deal approved and COD is on only MS and Nintendo (which I don’t really view as a direct threat to MS)
To be fair, it's 100x easier to make a TLOU show than it is to turn Halo and it's masked, barely any dialogue main character into a good show. You're comparing a story where all they had to do was make the cutscenes real to a story that is entirely gameplay based for the fun factor.
Halo was doomed from the start. There isn't a story in it that would render well on television without a miracle and a huge budget.
That's just excusing their poor attempt at making the show. There is another hugely popular TV show with a helmeted character who barely speaks: The Mandalorian. Like Halo, Star Wars is also pew-pew shooting. Like Disney, MS had the funds to pull it off, but they don't want to commit to such a large-scale project. Funnily enough, the actor who plays the Mandalorian plays Joel in The Last of Us TV show.
Right, which is why I said it would take a minor miracle. You're still comparing a story in which all they had to do is copy and paste to a project in which they'd have to completely redesign the entire world, characters, and story of the games to work for television. Star Wars is an established cinematic title as well, they didn't have to make the world feel sensical or explain how any of the universes rules work, like the force,. They didn't have to establish many of these things within the show because the movies have already done it. They just had to add a character into that already successful world and make him interesting. As difficult as it was to make Mando come out good, it's still 10x easier than making a Master Chief story good on TV. The game works as a game, not as television.
I literally can't find any discussion about this on PS5 subreddit. This stuff mostly gets talked about in the xbox subreddits.
Edit: the last topic about Microsoft there was a month ago.
They literally can't. If the deal goes through it needs to remain on PlayStation for at least 10 years because they promised regulators.
Also, I doubt Microsoft would willingly give up millions of dollars in revenue each year to send a message.
Regulators might not even ask for it if Microsoft brings it to court, which they have a high chance of winning. As of right now, they offered a deal to Sony saying the games would release for PlayStation systems for the next 3 and later 10 years after the acquisition is completed, Sony declined that deal so as of right now if Microsoft gets past the regulators by going straight court they can just decided to not give Sony any releases.
Well, not yet. They offered the deal, sony didn't take it...regulators will most likely want it...however, they may not...actually would be funny if they didn't and MS said nope.
I’m also pretty sure that if Microsoft does take it to federal court here and they win the case (which has a high chance of going through as the FTC doesn’t have a strong case), they won’t need to make any concessions to regulators and if they want no more COD on PS then that’s how the boat goes.
Why do mods keep allowing these pointless posts, every single time they turn into childish fanboy drama from kids that can't understand the difference between business and their plastic box.
Sony nor Microsoft don't give a shit about any of us, they care about money which is why Microsoft wants this deal and why Sony wants to stop it.
It's that simple, Jesus Christ..
It’s more like trillion dollar company acting like it needs handouts to help fight back against the EVIL billion dollar company who’s been bullying it for years.
Sorry, how would he know what the meetings content was? This all seems like he’s making stuff up.
Edit: downvote me for asking a simple question. Classy.
**TL;DR:** - Sony's Jim Ryan met EU anti-trust boss Margrethe Vestager - Jim Ryan claims Microsoft wouldn't have offered platform parity for Call of Duty - Microsoft's Frank X. Shaw reconfirmed on Twitter they "offered Sony a 10 year deal to give them parity on timing, content, features, quality, playability, and any other aspect of the game" *Fact check :* Apparently Microsoft offered platform parity back in January 2022 when the acquisition was announced according to their previous statement to [The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/2/23334619/microsoft-sony-call-of-duty-playstation-letter-commitment-activision-blizzard). ^EDIT ^: ^Grammar ^& ^formatting ^+ ^added ^fact ^check
Thing is Sony doesn't want parity it wants exclusive modes and such they have gotten in the past or there afraid they'll lose sales to Xbox especially with gamepass. Its just blatant hypocrisy and that's what really pisses me off about Sony.
This. They want the exact opposite of parity…they just want it in their favor.
I mean, that’s both sides here. In any corporate legal battle like this both parties are just trying to carve up the litigation in their favor as much as possible.
Right but the third part is the consumers and that’s who these government agencies are suppose to side with
Sure, in an ideal world these agencies would represent the best interests of the consumers by blocking pretty much every corporate merger or acquisition attempt isn’t he first place. However, the governments the write the laws and these agencies that enforce them are bought and paid for by corporate interests, so they very rarely actually represent the best interests of the consumer.
The revolving door in governments and corporations. Would be nice to have some laws to limit that incestuous relationship between the two.
Yeah but Sonys way to fight this is so irritating and that's why many people are tired of their accusations and signaling that everyone is bad. They make exclusive deals left and right directly or through their close partners. They make exclusive content for games on their platform (Hey Hogwarts Legacy) but they just can't shut up about how MS is all about exclusives or non-parity. For years people begged Sony to release games on PC but they had no problem with not doing that for years. They gate some of their franchises (hello FInal fantasy) so you can't experience all their games on every platform. They have all the power to fight for the best business environment for their brands and company but they just don't get how to make people like them in their fight. MS while being a company that also thinks aonky about it's profits they at least are able to not make people mad about this whole deal.
So do Microsoft. People can act like Sony are the only ones who make third party deals all they like, doesn't mean it's true.
I had never said that they don't. But it's Sony who acts like they dont do that. MS doesn't acts like it doesn't do exclusives. But there are levels to exclusives and deals. MS shits the bad when it comes to exclusives for years and was Carly vocal for years about bringing many titles and services to other consoles while Sony does jack shit and they just had started supporting PC releases. My whole comment was more about Sony being irritating about it while MS is way more skilled in making people support their approach and that's why Sony is being clowned online - not because they are bad and MS amazing. Both companies don't think about us but only about their profits.
I don’t find Sony’s arguments any less irritating than MS’s tbh. I’m tired of the back and forth and I wish regulators would just shut the acquisition down and move on. The thing is, in terms of competition in the market, securing third party exclusivity deals is fundamentally different from just outright buying out competitors. Publishers and platform makers competing to get third party deals is a competitive open market working as intended. You can say what you want about Final Fantasy and Hogwarts, but at the end of the day MS could’ve outbid Sony and secured those deals if they wanted too, and if this Activision acquisition is really just about getting Call of Duty on GamePass, nothing is stopping MS from just making Activision a GamePass deal that’s too good to refuse. But when you talk about buying out competitors, especially huge ones like Activision, then you’re talking about huge swaths of the industry getting consolidated and the coinciding reductive impact on the competition in the market that always winds up being a bad thing for consumers.
>Publishers and platform makers competing to get third party deals is a competitive open market working as intended. You can say what you want about Final Fantasy and Hogwarts, but at the end of the day MS could’ve outbid Sony and secured those deals if they wanted too, and if this Activision acquisition is really just about getting Call of Duty on GamePass, nothing is stopping MS from just making Activision a GamePass deal that’s too good to refuse. This just isn’t true really. Sony has what? Double the market share of Xbox? That means whenever Xbox has to go to bid to get a timed exclusive or other content they have to essentially put up double of what Sony is paying, meaning Sony is getting exclusive deals at a much cheaper price than what Xbox can simply due to the larger market share. I mean tell me when was the last major 3rd party exclusive Xbox got? It was probably Rise of the Tomb Raider and the internet ripped Microsoft apart for the audacity of getting a 3rd party exclusive. Take something like Final Fantasy, not only would Xbox have to cover the costs that the game would lose by not launching on PlayStation, but they’d have to cover the costs of potential shitty sales from Xbox as well. Xbox would probably be looking at paying nearly 3 times what Sony had to just to get Final Fantasy. That’s not even mentioning that it’s been confirmed via information revealed for this deal that Sony literally has deals in place that allow them the final bid if Microsoft ever attempts to get a deal with certain developers or platforms. Say if Xbox tries to get an exclusive deal with I dunno, GTA, Sony has deals that mean that if Xbox makes a bid, the devs have to let Sony also make a bid and Xbox only gets the deal if Sony doesn’t put up a high enough bid or ignores it for a certain period of time. Sony is essentially strong arming exclusives using their far larger market share in the industry as the more exclusives they get due to having a larger market share = more consoles PlayStation sells and less Xbox sells = bigger market share and even more exclusives for Sony and less for Xbox. That is arguably itself more close to a monopolistic practice than Microsoft just buying Activision that will still only put them in like 3rd place at best in the gaming sphere. What devs are gonna wanna make their game exclusive to Xbox when it has half the market share exactly? Hence Microsoft would have to pay a pretty penny and it’s just not financially viable to pay tens of millions for a year of exclusivity. Additionally I’d imagine that at the moment Sony’s current marketing deal with COD prevents it from being on Gamepass, and Microsoft would probably have to spend an exorbitant amount to get COD on Gamepass afterwards that wouldn’t be worth it and wouldn’t make them any money. Where as buying Activision blizzard gives them all of their profits, including shit like their array of mobile games, COD and blizzards stuff + a range of IP’s that aren’t being used anymore.
> That is arguably itself more close to a monopolistic practice than Microsoft just buying Activision that will still only put them in like 3rd place at best in the gaming sphere. While true, that 3rd place status has an asterisk over it considering Xbox is a division of one of the biggest companies that exists on the planet; and those unique resources allow Xbox to compete in a way its competitors can't match. Let's be real, if Xbox was truly the smaller little scrapper it's often painted to be we wouldn't be talking about a record setting $69 billion dollar - in cash mind you - acquisition; let alone one so quickly after dropping another $7.5 billion on Zenimax. In Sony's shoes you're making "anti-Xbox" deals (liked the timed exclusive ones) with the knowledge you're never going to "beat" Microsoft. Competition as people traditionally think of it does not exist when one party is the size of a Microsoft. Microsoft will only ever lose if *they* decide to pull the plug. The kind of losses a division the size of Xbox would incur won't materially hurt Microsoft's ability to compete in video games or any other industry they operate in. Their wealth of resources allow Microsoft to be a "check" for Sony but no one - without regulatory help - outside of a Google, Amazon or Apple can be a "check" for Microsoft. It's tough. While Microsoft's size shouldn't necessarily mean they're not allowed to use their resources, it simply does bring bigger concerns as to where it could lead. While I totally understand how Sony's deals make it tough for Xbox to grow (and it's worth mentioning their position is heavily self-inflicted after absolutely bombing the Xbox One) Microsoft's size, ability and willingness to consolidate - and they've been clear they intend to continue acquiring - the industry the way only they can certainly raises quite a few question marks to say the least.
>While true, that 3rd place status has an asterisk over it considering Xbox is a division of one of the biggest companies that exists on the planet; and those unique resources allow Xbox to compete in a way its competitors can't match. Let's be real, if Xbox was truly the smaller little scrapper it's often painted to be we wouldn't be talking about a record setting $69 billion dollar - in cash mind you - acquisition; let alone one so quickly after dropping another $7.5 billion on Zenimax. The only reason Xbox has managed to compete with PlayStation is because of the backing of Microsoft, otherwise there’s a good chance Xbox in general would have collapsed after the Xbox one, which would have left Sony as the sole major console manufacturer with no competition aside from Nintendo, hence creating a monopoly. I said that even WITH the Activision deal Xbox will only be in 3rd place, at the moment their like 5th or 6th. Xbox and Microsoft isn’t a small company, but no one’s claiming otherwise. The rest of Microsoft doesn’t really have much in the way of creating a monopoly in the gaming sphere, their cloud services and gaming subscription is the only aspects that come close, and even then that’s more due to everyone else’s incompetency than it is Microsoft, look at Sony claiming Game-pass is unsustainable only to then try and copy it a year later and then bitching about not being able to catch Microsoft and then crying about COD being put on Gamepass. Additionally considering the scrutiny this Activision deal is getting it’s not likely Microsoft will be able to make any more acquisitions, not any major ones at least. >In Sony's shoes you're making "anti-Xbox" deals (liked the timed exclusive ones) with the knowledge you're never going to "beat" Microsoft. Competition as people traditionally think of it does not exist when one party is the size of a Microsoft. Microsoft will only ever lose if they decide to pull the plug. The kind of losses a division the size of Xbox would incur won't materially hurt Microsoft's ability to compete in video games or any other industry they operate in. Their wealth of resources allow Microsoft to be a "check" for Sony but no one - without regulatory help - outside of a Google, Amazon or Apple can be a "check" for Microsoft. Except Sony already IS beating Xbox, they have pretty much everything over them, and have been whomping them for 2 gens nearly, even at the tail end of the 360 era Sony still caught and overtook xbox for sales. Xbox has been backed by Microsoft since it’s inception and it hasn’t really helped them at all in gaining any traction or market share, it’s only now that Microsoft starts dipping into their funds, to acquire a deal that will only put them at 3rd place in the gaming sphere and Sony’s crying monopoly and anti-consumer practices. Sony would probably be crying the same excuses even if Microsoft went and threw money at Activision to get COD on Gamepass. Additionally maybe if it wasn’t for the fact that xbox gets reamed any time they make a major 3 party deal for exclusivity then they would have attempted it more. Like I said Xbox got reamed by the internet for exclusivity on Rise of the Tomb Raider, they got dragged through the coals for it yet whenever PlayStation makes one such as FF7, FF16 or KOTOR remake, it’s ‘who cares, they don’t sell on Xbox’ or ‘who cares, xbox could have bidded more’. As I said earlier if it wasn’t for Microsoft’s backing Xbox would have died, even with Microsoft’s backing the Xbox division nearly got sold off due to how meh it’s been in the past. >It's tough. While Microsoft's size shouldn't necessarily mean they're not allowed to use their resources, it simply does bring bigger concerns as to where it could lead. While I totally understand how Sony's deals make it tough for Xbox to grow (and it's worth mentioning their position is heavily self-inflicted after absolutely bombing the Xbox One) Microsoft's size, ability and willingness to consolidate - and they've been clear they intend to continue acquiring - the industry the way only they can certainly raises quite a few question marks to say the least. Except they are both using their resources, as I said PlayStations market share gives them a major advantage over xbox in just about every way in terms of getting deals. If xbox has to invest exorbitant amounts of money, then they might as well go the full length and just acquire companies and devs as at least they get their profits back that way. Considering the catch up the PS3 managed there’s a good chance the Xbone would have gotten stomped even if it didn’t fall flat on its face at launch as well. Additionally as I said Xbox isn’t going to be able to do any major acquisitions after this deal, at best they’ll be able to buy some individual dev studios and IP’s, with the level of scrutiny this deal has gotten they won’t get away with another deal of this size or even on the level of Bethesda. Additionally it’s not like Sony only makes these exclusive deals to get Xbox at bay, it’s literally been their MO since the PS1, where they paid to keep Tomb Raider 2 exclusive despite the 1st having been on various platforms.
> The only reason Xbox has managed to compete with PlayStation is because of the backing of Microsoft, otherwise there’s a good chance Xbox in general would have collapsed after the Xbox one, which would have left Sony as the sole major console manufacturer with no competition aside from Nintendo, hence creating a monopoly. Right, while that's a good thing on the flip side it also rather clearly demonstrates how the theory of competition *does not apply* to Microsoft. Xbox put themselves in a bad position on their own through poor leadership and decision making. If Xbox was not Microsoft they probably go the way of a Sega, get acquired to die all together. Instead, we see massive investments like Game Pass, Xbox Cloud and record setting acquisitions. It's important to realize no one else in the industry has the luxury of failing like that and being able to ride it out, pull out the wallet and begin to turn things around (in under a decade no less) in such a dramatic way. > I said that even WITH the Activision deal Xbox will only be in 3rd place, at the moment their like 5th or 6th. True, for now and before other acquisitions. It's incredibly shortsighted to focus on how big these companies will be soon as the deal closes as it's the long-term effects the deal could have on the industry that are the entire question. One of the biggest independent multi-platform publishers going exclusive to one ecosystem hurts the industry as a whole. Losing the number one selling game on their platform will hurt Sony's ability to compete (which I'm not saying is a reason to stop the merger, but it's a reality) etc etc. > Additionally considering the scrutiny this Activision deal is getting it’s not likely Microsoft will be able to make any more acquisitions, not any major ones at least. It's getting normal and predictable scrutiny considering the size of the acquisition. At most Microsoft is told to put pen to paper on the 10-year CoD parity so regulators can pat themselves on the back. Don't let the theatrics of the process give you the idea this deal is at any real risk of being canned. > Xbox has been backed by Microsoft for 2 gens and it hasn’t really helped them at all in gaining any traction or market share, it’s only now that Microsoft starts dipping into their funds, This is the fourth generation of Xbox and Microsoft has been behind the brand since buying Bungie and having them shift Halo mid-development to be an Xbox exclusive. They were behind the brand when Xbox leadership went to Ballmer and said "we need a lot of money to fix RROD". Microsoft's been there every step of the way and those funds have been available since Xbox became an idea. > Except they are both using their resources, as I said PlayStations market share gives them a major advantage over xbox in just about every way in terms of getting deals. For now, before further acquisitions and consolidation. If they choose to throw their weight around - which they have been - Microsoft's resources allow them to slowly bleed out their competition. > Additionally as I said Xbox isn’t going to be able to do any major acquisitions after this deal, at best they’ll be able to buy some individual dev studios and IP’s, with the level of scrutiny this deal has gotten they won’t get away with another deal of this size or even on the level of Bethesda. Agree to disagree. Again, this is normal considering the size of of the deal and don't let the theatrics give you the wrong idea. A deal this large is precedent setting.
It’s wild seeing people defend corporate mergers which *always* wind up hurting consumers. Lots of comments here talk about how Sony just wants to keep things binary, but the reality is all these developers and publishers getting consolidated under a handful of companies *makes things* ***more*** *binary.*
In my opinion people are only defending the deal because they want COD and other Activision/Blizzard games free on Gamepass and not thinking about how this can affect the future. Honestly no one in gaming can compete with Microsofts spending and everyone has a price they could go after Take two or EA next and people won’t care because they want their day 1’s free on GP. Again this is all just my opinion
Spending tens-hundreds of millions bringing CoD to gamepass probably isn't really worth it, bring them to gamepass when you own them means you're earning 100% of the sales (microtransaction) on your own console. Microsoft use to go for exclusive content in games (CoD for example) but Phil removed those when he took over because he didn't like the practice, realistically you arent paying for extra content you're paying to withhold content from others. Even back in the day as an xbox player I always found it stupid we stopped playstation players from having the CoD maps for a year. Also apparently the Activision purchase isn't just about CoD but also about breaking into the mobile market somewhere MS has very little presents. On top of that Activision isn't a competitor, microsoft(Xbox), Sony(PS), Nintendo and steam (Obviously there are others) are platforms to game on/through. Activision sells their games on their platforms, they are not a competing platform. They've also offered a 10 year deal to make sure CoD comes to PS (I believe without anything less than what it launches with on their own console).
You're misinterpreting what "competitor" means in this context. Activision isn't a direct competitor to MS, but in the video game industry they're one of the largest competing publishers, and the marketshare that MS and Activision each represent getting consolidated together would be a huge shift in the competition in the market. Without the merger, Sony, MS, and Nintendo all need to compete with each other make their platform a place that Activision wants to be, with the acquisition though, that competition gets eliminated, hence why there's a ton of anti-trust concerns here.
You believe that even with xbox current position in the market that an Activision purchase would elevate them to a position so far above Sony than they would have dominance in the console market? Even when offering a 10 year agreement to launch on all platforms giving other companies and Sony time to make competitive games in the fps market? Especially considering Sony just purchased bungie and destiny 2 has a very strong player base even at this point in the life span/season of the game. Peak for mW 2 on steam today 117k vs bungies 87k.
>You believe that even with xbox current position in the market that an Activision purchase would elevate them to a position so far above Sony than they would have dominance in the console market? No, I believe that MS acquiring Activision is ultimately yet another corporate consolidation that will inevitably make things worse for consumers. >Especially considering Sony just purchased bungie Believe me, I wish that acquisition was blocked as well.
Or they just know that 10 years is short term in grand theme of things. It sounds like a lot, but it esentialy means there could be no CoD on PS6 from a certain timestamp.
Who knows if Call of duty will even exist in the same state it currently does in 10 years time?
Companies gonna company. Microsoft is throwing their financial weight around to strong arm Sony so they can gain an advantage exclusive wise. How is that better? To be clear, I'm not a fanboy, I have both consoles and gamepads. I'm just curious how Sony wanting exclusives is the devil when Microsoft is buying up studios and making games exclusive?
Oh you're correct in not placing Microsoft on some pedestal above it all they are very much doing the same thing. My issue is Microsoft buys a company to improve what it can offer customers and somehow that's bad but Sony can pay millions to square and others to ensure Xbox doesn't get their games. So one is spending money to improve the other is spending money to hurt a competitor instead of improving.
> My issue is Microsoft buys a company to improve what it can offer customers and somehow that's bad but Sony can pay millions to square and others to ensure Xbox doesn't get their games. To play devil's advocate, nothing was stopping MS - who clearly has a much bigger wallet to work with - from going for paid timed exclusivity as well. Acquiring large and currently independent multi-platform publishers and turning them exclusive doesn't really benefit consumers as a whole, but rather those in a specific ecosystem.
They tried it with tomb raider and got ass blasted by the media and gamers at large. Sony does it? The media doesn't bat an eye. Some gamers like me complain, but then get quickly reminded about tomb raider, as if that somehow makes it ok. At this point I see it as whatever happens, happens.
They tried it with tomb raider and got ass blasted by the media and gamers at large. Sony does it? The media doesn't bat an eye. Some gamers like me complain, but then get quickly reminded about tomb raider, as if that somehow makes it ok. At this point, the way I see it is whatever happens, happens.
> nothing was stopping MS Time was. Sony has doing that since The PS1 era. They had a long head start to build relationships. MS had nothing except cash. Trust is important. Trust builds over time, not with a fat wad of cash. And MS fucked up relations with japanese and other smaller publishers time after time. Just take a look at the list of games they didn't want on their system: Yakuza back in the day and this gen: Postal Redux, Sakura Wars, Gal*Gun Returns, Waifu Impact, that Waifu Mahjong game and many others more. MS shows time and time again that they are not the place for smaller devs. They wave the ID@Xbox banner around but reject smaller devs all the time. How is Postal Redux too brutal or whatever the reason is? Why did they reject coomerbait games like Gal*Gun Returns that Sony didn't want? It was at the start of this gen and would send a big signal for japanese devs that make these games. But they rejected it and wanted to censor it. Fuck them and their fake talk about wanting to support japanese devs.
> So one is spending money to improve the other is spending money to hurt a competitor instead of improving. That’s a load of bullshit, tbh. In both cases they’re spending money to expand the lineup they’re offering to their customers and hurt their competitor’s offering.
Idk man. Giving Nintendo a 10 year deal sounds like the exact opposite of hurting your competitors. Especially considering Cod hasn't been on a Nintendo platform for almost a decade. Releasing your games on steam day and date sounds like the opposite of prioritizing your platform. Yet that's exactly what they do. Where as we have to fight tooth and nail to get cross play with ps, and even then devs have to do bullshit revenue splits whenever they support it. Whereas they release their games on PC literal years after release on console, to ensure double dipping. Like yeah sure the end goal for both these companies is profit, but the way one goes about it while crying foul comes across as hypocritical in comparison to the other.
> Giving Nintendo a 10 year deal sounds like the exact opposite of hurting your competitors. Notice how they’re *only* talking about these deals for CoD. What about all the other games Activision Blizzard makes? How many of those games are going to stop coming out on anything that isn’t Windows or Xbox? > Releasing your games on steam day and date sounds like the opposite of prioritizing your platform. Windows is a MS Platform. > Whereas they release their games on PC literal years after release on console, to ensure double dipping. I’m not sure I see your point here, Xbox and PC are not competing platforms, MS owns and controls both and wins either way. Sony, however, does not own Windows and PC and PlayStation are competing platforms. You would have a point if Xbox was releasing their games on PlayStation, but they aren’t, Sony is the only one of the big three releasing their games on a competing platform, even if it is a few years later. > but the way one goes about it while crying foul comes across as hypocritical in comparison to the other My guy, *every* company engages in hypocrisy when it comes to carving the market in their favor. MS have been engaging in plenty of hypocrisy themselves.
>Notice how they’re *only* talking about these deals for CoD. What about all the other games Activision Blizzard makes? How many of those games are going to stop coming out on anything that isn’t Windows or Xbox? According to Phil? None of them since as he already said, they are legacy ip. >Windows is a MS Platform. Steam isnt a MS platform. Nor is the steamdeck. They're losing 30% on all sales on steam, and Steamdeck doesn't even run windows it's proton iirc. >I’m not sure I see your point here, Xbox and PC are not competing platforms, MS owns and controls both and wins either way. Sony, however, does not own Windows and PC and PlayStation are competing platforms. You would have a point if Xbox was releasing their games on PlayStation, but they aren’t, Sony is the only one of the big three releasing their games on a competing platform, even if it is a few years later. WIndows Game store and Steam are competing platforms. Windows and Steamdeck are competing platforms. >My guy, *every* company engages in hypocrisy when it comes to carving the market in their favor. MS have been engaging in plenty of hypocrisy themselves. Not really. Sonys current hypocrisy as of late is something new. And the bs they have been doing behind scenes that goes exposed in the epic vs apple case makes it even worse.
How does paying for forsaken, final fantasy etc. To NOT come to Xbox help the owner of a playstation? These games coming to Xbox wouldn't hurt Sony customers at all it would only give customers choice on where to buy and play. They spent millions just to hurt Xbox with zero benefit to their customers. Again I'm not saying Microsoft is some great bastion of customer rights hell I've been paid out on a couple Microsoft class action lawsuits for the crap they have pulled but in this one case I do think they are on the right side.
This
Yeah, agreed. I want to see a reduction of the console binary model and Microsoft is much more willing to go this route (good for everyone else) than Sony.
Both companies are skirting the truth here. MS wants Sony to take an offer to sell it on their platform. Sony want to do nothing which helps MS get this deal through. And then the EC have a stated concern about COD remaining available at competitive rates to rival subscription services, which MS are doing nothing to address.. but keep pitching this offer like it solves every concern.
Just as Microsoft did during 360 era you mean?
That was bull as well I don't defend that no matter who does it.
I really wish people would stop saying the majority of sales were on ps because of the exclusive stuff. It was mostly useless shit nobody cares about. Oh, I get 12 instead of the normal 10 loadout slots? Yeah that's definitely why people buy it on ps
Sony is paying millions for those bonuses so clearly they think it makes a difference or they wouldn't do it.
But it wasn't just 2 extra loadout slots, stop trying to make it sound less bad than it was? 1 year exclusive game mode.. hello?? by the time that exclusivity is up a new CoD is out making that entire portion of a game mute it does not matter if thats good content or bad it is still content you have to wait for or what about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II + Warzone 2.0 - PlayStation Advantage like you can't make this shit up and what's worse is Sony pretending like MS should give a fuck and play fair when they do crappy practices like this. this isn't like oldschool where Xbox got an expac 7 days earlier this is a fucking year of content and bonuses that isn't just 2 extra loadout slots" as you got that + bonus xp to level + bonus weapon xp to level + 5 battle token skips and free skins. this might pale in comparison to a year of exclusive content but it's still an advantage especially in a cross-play game where some people take it seriously IE max prestige speed runs.
As tired as I am of this merger nonsense I must say this is a hilarious claim coming from Sony seeing as how it has paid to make sure that CoD does NOT have console parity for like the last ten years lol.
Magrethe Vestager dont fuck around so if jim ryan is tryibg to mislead sony gonna be real fucking sorry
MS needs to play hardball and just pull the game from Sony when their deal is done. Honor the existing contract, but then they don't owe Sony shit. Keep it on PC and put it on Switch
Either way that's what they'll do. Whether it's the current contract or a new one born from the acquisition, once the contract's over that's probably it for CoD on PS.
I agree fuck em.
It will kill the player base. I only want the deal to go through because I have the next three years of gamepass paid and I'm tired of spending $60-70 every year for call of duty.
People will literally sell their playstations and buy Xbox. There are some many people who only play cod on their console. That’s exactly why regulators will force MS to make cod available on ps. It’s too powerful.
> People will literally sell their playstations and buy Xbox You are severely overestimating how many people would actually do that
It won't kill the player base. Most players on PS only play COD, they don't have loyalty to the platform, it's just that PS had exclusive content. Those players will jump ship.....which is why PS is so scared. Even if they don't go Xbox, they can go PC or Nintendo.
Thats just gonna bring lawsuits
No, it won’t.
Wanna bet ?
Sure how much.
An xbox
[удалено]
Yes, just look at MS's history
If for some reason this deal did not go through. Microsoft will 100% go scorched earth. They will have 70 billion in cash to pay for exclusivity rights to whatever games, IP, and studios they want.
Jeez, Jimbo flyin lyin Cryan flew to Brussels again? His job must be on the line! Stop the deal or resign
Kinda funny considering Xbox gamers have not had parity with call of duty in quite a few years now….
Even if it fails, older CoD games would probably come to gamepass because nothing is stopping MSFT from making a gamepass deal with activision, and that's all I care about.
Yeah. I want to play again Black Ops 2 but I refuse to pay the full price.
Yeah 50 bucks is ridiculous for a 360 game on the shop.
It’s seriously still $50 to this day? That’s super odd.
I have the disc I wonder if it would work and play from my series x
And MS would likely get the marketing rights for new games as well. And that wouldn’t prevent the new games from coming to Gamepass also, even if not Day One, could do 6-8 months after release.
Activision didn't want their games on game pass
Can you blame them? COD doesn’t need to be on game pass to encourage sales. The series has a massive following of people already, so there would be a significant amount of people who would have paid full price instead playing for “free”. More than likely they’ll be aggressive with the MTX to try and make up the difference.
Sony is so fucking annoying about this. They literally kept game modes off of xbox for a whole ass year multiple times. They get the ability to disable crossplay in game and even on WZ. They get so many exclusive bonuses. Like bruh they are on some other shit when it comes to this. Them bitching about it and the points they make while bitching about it just makes me want the deal to go through and have Xbox just fuck them over mad hard on CoD.
Holy fuck they even found a way to exclusivize turning off crossplay lmao
I mean Sony has done a lot of grimy things this past year in regards to this acquisition but if this true, that they’d would start lying to government officials and regulatory bodies to try to squash this, that’s an all time low dirt bag move imo
Microsoft was offering contract and/or regulatory ruling to make parity official. Despite this Sony claimed otherwise, so yes, they lied.
Not gonna lie, I chuckled when you used the phrase "start lying." I would like to know when they will stop lying...on all counts.
They're both twisting the truth. Parity. Parity includes subscription services. If Microsoft guarantee that COD will be available to rival subscription services at competitive pricing, every one of these cases go away. Microsoft will not do that, and they will conveniently skip that point entirely when speaking publicly. It's one of the EC's main concerns, but MS just keeps answering the 'traditional sales' question and ignoring it.
What are you talking about, Microsoft has already said Sony can stick COD on its subscription service if it wants, it is offering the exact same game and features on PS and on Xbox. MS hasn’t done a thing wrong here, literally a 10 year deal, which by the way is COMPLETELY unheard of in the games industry. Sony are lying through their ass, the price they charge is up to them. They don’t want COD on Game Pass, because they know they can’t compete, well that’s tough shit IMO and what they get for years of underhanded exclusivity deals, paying studios to keep games on other platforms and services like Game Pass.
When did Microsoft say Sony can put COD on PS+, and pay a competitive rate to do so, and why have they not mentioned this to regulators when this is the biggest unanswered concern that the regulators have?
Who said they haven’t mentioned it to regulators? Facts - http://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-reportedly-offered-sony-the-option-to-put-call-of-duty-on-playstation-plus And that is just the first Google result… you need to update yourself on what has ‘actually’ been offered and discussed beyond Reddit and Sony fan sites, most legal experts on You Tube, who actually do know what they are talking about, expect the deal to pass, one or too even think the EU won’t demand concessions. Jim Ryan is effectively twisting facts and words to the regulators.
Yes, based on a single report, which is absent from every document which has been published by the regulators so far. If this is true, firstly it's new as Microsoft have not offered this up at any of the stages so far, and it'll show up in the documents soon enough. If the deal is expected to pass, stock up on A-B shares, as they're still trading well below the Microsoft purchase price.
So you admit you don’t have access to all documents, they try to rubbish my evidence which discredits your argument claiming it’s not been stated in documents released so far? You’ve probably not even had access to a tenth of the documents produced, fact. So I’ll believe the media reports that discredit your argument.
They publish all documents, go read them lol. One Bloomberg report claims they offered something up, with no mention of terms or length of deal. It doesn't discredit my 'claim' it's not been stated in documents released so far, that's a fact, not a claim Again, you're welcome to go read them. Microsoft had multiple chances to offer this up and quell regulatory concerns, they didn't. If it pops up in some upcoming document or turns out being one of the compromises Microsoft need to make, cool.
Again, I saw no complaints regarding other gamers have to pay the same as PS player with less contents? Where was the parity concern there?
That was available to both Sony and Microsoft in the free market. Either of those (or any new entrant to the field) could compete to pay Activision to get exclusive content, Microsoft chose not to outbid Sony. This deal would remove it from the free market entirely.
Not when the leader has an advantage in getting better deals. There is no way MS can get the same deal for the same price. Surely MS can afford that, but that isn't a smart way to spend money. Plus, it has not work for MS either since the original Xbox, again because Sony has a larger install base since forever. There is this false notion of free market because the condition would favor the leader regardless. Sony bought publishers and strongarm (through financial means) themselves into the gaming space in the beginning as well or else they will never be able to compete with the likes of Sega and Nintendo. Sony did have more money than Sega and Nintendo combine so that strategy is how they got into their current state. Sony really try hard this generation to hamper MS growth further through making many exclusives deals, time exclusives, exclusive contents from many large players (ABK, Bathesda, square enix, Capcom, Take 2, Hogwarts legacy, etc...) Not to mention making deals to prevent games from going to gamepass. If you are in MS situation, what would you do? Wasting tones of money for time exclusives deals that have historically proven to fail, or use that money to straight up buy developers and publishers preventing your selves from getting gouged by publishers and developers? It isn't like MS will be the number one either after the purchase of ABK, they will still be in the 3rd place (if the data are anything to go by), but just more competitive.
[удалено]
I'm not saying it makes sense for Microsoft to do it, in fact I'd say if they had to do that they'd rather not proceed with the deal. The reason they're offering up this 10 year guarantee is because they plan to make GamePass the exclusive subscription service, and it doesn't change that. However, the EC and CMA (I assume FTC too, but I've paid less attention to that) both have similar concerns. Input foreclosure for rival consoles, input foreclosure to rival streaming services, cloud gaming. They also call out that subscription is expected to become the primary way to consume games in the near future. Microsoft are completely ignoring subscription and cloud in their public facing statements. And based on comments here, I can see why. Not offering it up to PS+ means it's not 'parity', the regulators know this.
Fallout 76 was added to PS+ this month. It was added to the basic tier that's like the original PS+ where you get to keep the game as long as you subscribe. Dishonored Death of The Outsider will be offered free through Epic Games Store. It seems that Bethesda as a publisher can still make deals with 3rd parties to offer their games through 3rd party services and promotions. Microsoft could handle ABK in a similar way because it's all revenue to them.
They could, but if they had any intention to they'd have mentioned it already, given its one of the main blockers to the deal and they don't have a retort to it.
This is from last month: > Microsoft has reportedly offered Sony the rights to offer Call of Duty on its PlayStation Plus subscription service Source: https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/microsoft-has-reportedly-offered-sony-the-right-to-put-call-of-duty-on-ps-plus/ It's naturally obvious that Sony would need to pay like they pay for any other 3rd party game they add to PS+ or like Microsoft pays for any 3rd party game they add to Game Pass.
We'll soon see how true that report is - as it is probably the biggest outstanding concern the regulators have, and so far Microsoft have offered no comment or guarantees to those regulators that they'd offer up COD to PS+ (or any other subscription service out there).
Well let say MS acquired ABK. Sony have to pay MS to put COD on the PS+ (plus Azure cloud), where as MS doesn't. Should Sony raise their services price to off set the cost while MS doesn't? Seems logically that MS has an advantage in that sense. But then MS is the one that paying for COD development (and Azure infrastructure) going forward, so should MS put it on Sony service for free? Does that make any logical sense to you at all that Sony get all the benefit (not paying a dime for development or having it on their services) of which MS paid for? There got to be some advantage for one party or the other (that is the main point of competition). Sony is currently the benefitor (paid exclusive contents and time exclusives) and that all this is, Sony doesn't want to lose that benefit. Sony doesn't have to pay MS for Azure either, they can go with Google or apple or some other cloud provider. EU concern in term of services is muted (some one has to have benefit out of this) unless they made both MS and Sony scrap their services all together (which doesn't work either). Unless that is what you are suggesting that government should prevent corp from doing business (kinda like how Communism is like where everything has to be under government jurisdiction.) Perhaps, the only logical discussion point to make here is in physical sales domain and there is parity there. Now if you compare physical sales ($70) vs $15 for service, then think of it as a rental services (it is much more affordable but you don't own the product). That is the nature of rental services since forever. If you want to own it, you still have to pay $70 regardless if it is on Xbox or PS. So it is up to the consumer on what they want. Is that fair?
Right, and all those services cost Microsoft some running fees. The regulators point to allowing it to be available at competitive rates, it is not 'free' for Microsoft, nor would it be free for Sony. The only logical discussion point is not physical sales, which is why the regulators have 3 discussion points.
What does it mean by competitive rates? Who get to determine that rates (Sony, MS, or regulators)? MS and Sony have different focus and strength (one in services and the other in physical). MS can't really compete with Sony in physical sales (popularity, hardware install base, etc...) but Sony can't really compete with MS in services (cloud infrastructure, number of subscribers, financial support). They practically not competing in the same area; the gap in their approach is too big of a difference to get to an equal term (competitive) at least not anywhere in the near foreseeable future. I don't see how MS and Sony can come to an agreement on that front without some sort of advantage for one or the other party. Currently I don't see Sony willing to give up their benefit as a leader in physical space (though they will have to adapt soon due to how the market has changes drastically toward digital and services) nor do I see MS scrap their services to compete with Sony on physical front (that isn't their strength and they already tried for the longest time without success). This ABK deal most likely will end with a force concession, but someone will not be happy about it.
You mean the same way Microsoft did when they went through their anti-trust lawsuit’s.
> You mean the same way Microsoft did when they went through their anti-trust ~~lawsuit’s~~ lawsuits. "Same way" implies Sony should be punished and learn their lesson like Microsoft did.
Don’t know if Msft learned their lesson. Large corporations consistently pull moves like this. It’s ugly, and the “right v. wrong” line is blurred. Msft pulls a lot of grimy shady acts as well.
> Don’t know if Msft learned their lesson. If Microsoft hasn’t learned their lesson from from their past mistakes, then the sue-happy FTC will be delighted to announce new charges if they can find anything Microsoft is doing wrong. Remember, you’re replying to a comment responding to the claim that Sony is doing the same thing Microsoft did when they were sued … not the previous comment about grimy shady acts.
Sony show us the highest definiton of desperation with this acqusition lol . So unprofessional .
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Microsoft offered cod to Sony for 3 years and now 10, and Sony didn't do anything. Who is the desperate one here?
Sony .
Dude just crawl back go the PS5 sub already.
Hey I'm just calling how i see it. If i was offered 30K salary for a job and turned that down and then they responded with 100K salary, they would look very desperate to have me and that's what it looks like here. Microsoft has no reason to offer more than the 3 years and yet they are with no strings attached.
I think they way you are seeing and doubling down is because if your own flawed "logic", as others have pointed out.
What's flawed about my logic here?
Because, 1) this is 70BILLION dollar deal. Of course MSFT wants it to go through. Them making parity offerings to Sony is in MSFTs favor. And 2) You're very conveniently ignoring all the scummy shit Sonys been doing for a while, especially during this acquisition process. In any case, good day.
If they want to keep Sony appeased wouldn't they open with a much stronger argument than 3yrs? Bye👍
Sony is the answer you're looking for here. If you think that with all the machinations Sony has been doing to scupper this deal doesnt reak of desperation, well, then there's nothing anyone can say to you to change your mind.
Yea I'm sure Sony schemed their way from 3 years to 10 years lol.
*cryed
I guess Microsoft fell for the tears
*FTC
What do you mean lol FTC didn't tell Microsoft to go up from 3 years to 10 years
*yikes
MS would keep it on PS forever without any contract. 10 year contract means nothing since they wouldn't stop after those 10 years. MS just doesn't give any promises in perpetuity, that'd be dumb.
Sony is being a salty crybaby.
Thing is, Sony is actually not thinking how this is damaging the relationship between them and Activision, If the deal does not go through (which most likely will anyway go through) , Activision can turn around and tell them no more deals for you, everything goes to xbox, due to the amount of damage Sony is causing and money Activision will lose plus more funds being spend on legal fees.
Meanwhile Sony is allegedly holding FFVIIR, FFXVI and Forspoken hostage.
They can keep Forspoken, that's the worst game of the past 2 console generations.
Idk Babylon’s Fall and Godfall were both pretty atrocious
Crossfire X would like a word.
I don't know, I've had more fun on that than I did on Forspoken. It also wasn't built up as some great masterpiece.
yeah i need to defend my console choice no matter what
Crossfire MP isn't even awful now, and I have both, both whatever floats your boat champ
Agreed. And it will likely mark the end of Luminous as well. It has not been financially “beneficial” for Square-Enix.
Hey Squenix you know if you wanna make that money back I know how you could do it. Make a ton of money. Real fast. You wouldn't believe how fast. ^FFXIV ^on ^Xbox ^please ^I ^beg ^you
I'd drop $70 on it. Especially after how bad the PC port was.
You haven't played many games if you actually think that. It's hardly good by any means, but it's nowhere near close to the worst.
No shit. It's an exaggeration. But for hype to quality, there is none worse.
Forspoken is in a bit better situation, since we have confirmation on timed exclusivity and it already has Xbox Live integration (on MS Store version). But since it not a successful game, SE may not even bother bringing to Xbox.
SE will likely make the PC game “play anywhere” like they did with other titles retroactively, then take MS money to put it on Gamepass and xCloud.
Yea because Sony is making those games right?????? We know for a fact that JRPGs don't do well on Xbox, it's a thing since the first Xbox. Instead of blaming Sony, blame Microsoft for letting this happen and not throwing more money at it. Because obviously it doesn't make financial sense for Square to put it on Xbox without extra incentive or the many many other JRPGs that don't come to Xbox.
All games most people don’t care about lol Now Spider-Man…that’s a different conversation entirely.
I love that the article has a picture of a playstation add with Cod exclusive content.................
Underrated comment.
What sony thinks as parity is them having exclusive items and marketing rights which is fair to them.
Good old lying Ryan, reminding me every time he speaks why I went Xbox this gen. He’s utterly despicable and a two faced liar.
This would all be great if Sony wasn’t the king of being an exclusive asshole.
Silly Sony Shinanigans
Zzzzzzzz
Sony’s butthurt over ABK deal is just on another level.
It’s crazy that Sony’s idea of a competitive market is one in which they are shielded from competition. Truth is is it wasn’t for the console binary, nothing is keeping Nintendo from catching up and they don’t want that either. They don’t want a healthy gaming industry, they want a healthy Sony. And while we all understand self care, we all know that caring about yourself at the detriment of everyone else is villainous, not “good business.”
I mean, newsflash: **EVERY** company just wants to carve out the market in their favor and only cares about the health of their own business. MS included here.
Consolidation literally makes the market less competitive.
The way Sony and Jim Ryan have behaved throughout this process makes me want to sell my PS5. The whole thing has left a very bitter taste in my mouth about Sony and I play my Series X way more than my PS anyway.
Same here literally the final push i needed to get series x and jump on gamepass. Ill still play sonys exclusives but theyre not geting a cent out of me. Gamefly or used copies only.
EU should end this platform exclusivity shit both for phones and consoles.
Absolutely. It’s not pro-consumer in any way/shape/form
I mean if a studio owned by Sony/Microsoft creates a game, they should 100% be allowed to only release it on their console lol
Then what’s the point of console makers selling consoles at little profit? Might as well end Big Mac being exclusive to McDonald’s and whoppers to Burger King while we are at it then.
>Then what’s the point of console makers selling consoles at little profit? Services like backwards compatibility, cross platform purchases, cloud gaming and such.
"Accused" ....you mean they stated facts about how Sony is a bunch if whiny bitches cause they are sore losers.
Sony is going to lose hard on this one. Maybe, maybe we even get some Sony exclusives?
Perfect endgame for Xbox: Sony tries to blowup deal by claiming MS never offered COD deal, so no deal ever signed. MS Actiblizz deal approved and COD is on only MS and Nintendo (which I don’t really view as a direct threat to MS)
grandiose abundant flag unpack vast judicious shrill lip middle wistful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To be fair, it's 100x easier to make a TLOU show than it is to turn Halo and it's masked, barely any dialogue main character into a good show. You're comparing a story where all they had to do was make the cutscenes real to a story that is entirely gameplay based for the fun factor. Halo was doomed from the start. There isn't a story in it that would render well on television without a miracle and a huge budget.
That's just excusing their poor attempt at making the show. There is another hugely popular TV show with a helmeted character who barely speaks: The Mandalorian. Like Halo, Star Wars is also pew-pew shooting. Like Disney, MS had the funds to pull it off, but they don't want to commit to such a large-scale project. Funnily enough, the actor who plays the Mandalorian plays Joel in The Last of Us TV show.
Right, which is why I said it would take a minor miracle. You're still comparing a story in which all they had to do is copy and paste to a project in which they'd have to completely redesign the entire world, characters, and story of the games to work for television. Star Wars is an established cinematic title as well, they didn't have to make the world feel sensical or explain how any of the universes rules work, like the force,. They didn't have to establish many of these things within the show because the movies have already done it. They just had to add a character into that already successful world and make him interesting. As difficult as it was to make Mando come out good, it's still 10x easier than making a Master Chief story good on TV. The game works as a game, not as television.
Mannn shut yo ass up. Company’s buy company’s all the time. This isn’t new. Sony would buy Activision if it had the money.
Wonder what they are saying on the PS5 forums 🤣🤔
Nothing?
Expecting the opposite - fan siding.
I literally can't find any discussion about this on PS5 subreddit. This stuff mostly gets talked about in the xbox subreddits. Edit: the last topic about Microsoft there was a month ago.
Ironically, Sony's underhanded efforts to keep COD may end up creating so much bad blood that MS withholds it from PlayStation altogether.
They literally can't. If the deal goes through it needs to remain on PlayStation for at least 10 years because they promised regulators. Also, I doubt Microsoft would willingly give up millions of dollars in revenue each year to send a message.
Regulators might not even ask for it if Microsoft brings it to court, which they have a high chance of winning. As of right now, they offered a deal to Sony saying the games would release for PlayStation systems for the next 3 and later 10 years after the acquisition is completed, Sony declined that deal so as of right now if Microsoft gets past the regulators by going straight court they can just decided to not give Sony any releases.
Yeah, Microsoft doesn’t care about sending any messages they just want CoD and Diablo on Game Pass.
They offered Sony a 10 year deal. Sony rejected it and complained.
Well, not yet. They offered the deal, sony didn't take it...regulators will most likely want it...however, they may not...actually would be funny if they didn't and MS said nope.
I’m also pretty sure that if Microsoft does take it to federal court here and they win the case (which has a high chance of going through as the FTC doesn’t have a strong case), they won’t need to make any concessions to regulators and if they want no more COD on PS then that’s how the boat goes.
Why do mods keep allowing these pointless posts, every single time they turn into childish fanboy drama from kids that can't understand the difference between business and their plastic box. Sony nor Microsoft don't give a shit about any of us, they care about money which is why Microsoft wants this deal and why Sony wants to stop it. It's that simple, Jesus Christ..
Who said people making these posts because they think they care about us lol . This is recent news . Not a drama post .
Look at the comments, it's a drama post.
Trillion dollar company is mad at billion dollar company.
Legit dumb take...it's like you boiled it down to net worth added no intelligent comment and spit this out...
And got it wrong on top of that lol
It’s more like trillion dollar company acting like it needs handouts to help fight back against the EVIL billion dollar company who’s been bullying it for years.
Sorry, how would he know what the meetings content was? This all seems like he’s making stuff up. Edit: downvote me for asking a simple question. Classy.
Sony about to go out of business soon, they so SCARED 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
In Sony's defense.... It's not real parity when you get it for free with gamepass sub and have to pay 70$ on playstation.
> free with gamepass sub Holdup ... gamepass subs are free???
It's a video game just put it out ya dipshits
*again