So stating a fact isn't insightful? It's not Phil divulging private conversations he's had with Jim. That's Jim trying to score points by making it seem like Phil's a liar or not being honest. Or can you not understand that? And Jim talking about Microsoft as if it was still the Microsoft of the 1990s was another attempt at scoring points and trying to make it look like the Microsoft of today is the same company that it was 30 years. Anyone with half a brain can tell you it isn't.
I'm not exactly sure that is a good thing. While I don't believe that MS is playing 4D chess here, I do believe that Sony being so hyperfocused on Call of Duty is ultimately going to be seen as a net positive to Microsoft in the end. While Microsoft continues to dangle the keys of Call of Duty upfront, behind them is King, Blizzard, and the entire ABK catalog (both current and upcoming) boarding the bus through the back door.
The 10 year agreement wouldnt be 10 years of yearly releases. It would be new call of duty content. Its always been feature/content parity for the term
IF they make a deal, I don't see how Sony even has the leverage to mandate 10 years and keep pumping out CoD each year.
The deal would be written in a way to avoid circumvention in this way. Likely that any meaningful gaming content that comes to Xbox must also come to Playstation with parity for the duration of the 10 years.
Right but what constitues "Call of Duty" and how granula can you push this. If in theory Microsoft just said "Warzone" is now too big so it's going to be a stand alone F2P and drop the Call of Duty branding so it's just officially called "Warzone" and it shipped as Warzone+DMZ and Call of Duty was a back to basics PvP and Campaign experience then what happens now. Because you have Warzone which is massive and now detatched from the brand of Call of Duty and it's driving players to a platform that isn't playstation then what?
Then that would be an obvious breach of the contract. Its just not going to happen where they decouple the brand from the games for reasons to circumvent the contract and make it exclusive. Thats a double whammy at destroying your goodwill and player base
And to be clear I do think MS fully believe that keeping CoD on sony platforms is the best choice financially because it's one of the biggest selling games in the world. I'm more so just curious. If it truly is Feature parity then that seems like an incredibly tricky hill to navigate. Can you do Game Pass perks? Early DLC access ? By how long? what if it's a map pack that will come to playstation but in 8 months when the game is winding down into the next title and the player count is dropping. A gun skin, an in game event for Xbox anniversary? Cross over content with Halo or Gears.
Depends on how its agreed to. I wouldnt consider early access or perks (provided theyre accessible elsewhere like the shop or progression) as extra features. Those are like marketing tools. Exclusive skins and loadouts and operators like PS may be a no no. Or features may be defined as stuff like maps, modes, and gameplay content not cosmetics. Who knows.
It isn't a sacrificial lamb though. The IP's biggest value to MS is as a multiplat that comes to GamePass day one and maybe gets Xbox exclusive/timed content.
Phil never said who he talked to or how long the timeframe was for. If Sony had a problem with it, then I'm they mentioned it to Microsoft at the time and then also had the opportunity to bring it up to regulators.
Shouldnt be a surprise. Though interesting they say microsoft HASNT talked concessions yet with the FTC
I mean that's what makes discussing this deal fun. Regardless of the result it will have zero impact on anyone's lives so there's no real stakes, it's just some funny posturing between two gigantic companies to make themselves look like the real underdogs.
This is ridiculous.
It seems that the next 45 days are going to determine whether or not this deal goes through.
Well, nowadays you can just sub to Now TV to watch those shows as you would Netflix or any other service to watch theirs. But yes when Sky Atlantic first launched you had to invest in a complete Sky service just to get the channel and its shows.
Yeah but you can't get them on Virgin for example. Which was the main issue in the first place. Anyway the main point is regulators did fuck all about it and have allowed them to do whatever they want since. It did them no harm whatsoever.
Yeah I get it.
There's absolutely nothing ridiculous about Phil saying he's talked to Sony. We already knew he reached out the day they announced the acquisition. What's ridiculous is Jim Ryan revealing the details of those conversations and acting like he was forced to testify.
I see any concession being any CoD has to be on PS for X years. No content unavailable and launches at same time for same price. Spin offs won't be included imo. It's already stupid without making it moreso.
Phil brought up the conversations that he had with Sony. Sony did not agree with his characterization of the discussions and released a statement summarizing their perspective of the discussion.
It's not like Microsoft would charge 60 on Xbox and 70 on playstation...it would be consistent on both.
I'm kinda feeling confident this deal will go through. Surprised the FTC hasn't even decided if they wanna sue also that mid Dec CMA meeting will be interesting. MS was smart to come up with a 10 year proposal.
It's basically all down to the CMA. If CMA blocks it's dead. If CMA approves it probably goes through. I still think CMA is going to block, seeing as they have a low approval rate for things that get to phase 2.
Right. And rather than just saying they disagreed with his assessment of the call to regulators or the public, Jim Ryan decided to mention Phil Spencer by name and then disclosed the details of that private call. That's the problem. There's an implied sense of confidentiality when you're talking to someone. Jim Ryan apparently disagrees.
Well there is rumor that IW is working on a new open-world RPG, so your "From the makers of Call of Duty..." dream isn't too far off :).
He mentioned him by name…because he was addressing a statement made by Phil Spencer? This is not remotely similar to your example.
It's going to be interesting to read this stuff in a few months when it all ends. But also, I don't think it's embarrassing or anything for the most part. It's one of the biggest things to ever happen in our industry, and it's super interesting to talk about and theorize. Ultimately, neither Sony nor Microsoft are our friends or doing what's best for us. Neither are Phil Spencer (even if he's very well media trained) and Jim Ryan. As long as we keep that in mind, I find it very fun to discuss and see what others are saying.
