POKEYCLYDE

Member
Dec 10, 2022
130
So is MS unequivocally guaranteeing CoD on Playstation for 10-years, or is MS offering a 10-year contract to Sony to have CoD be released for 10-years on Playstation? The first happens regardless of what Sony says or does, but the second depends on Sony signing the offer. Right now Sony is rejecting everything.

What if, and it is a big if, this deal is approved by the three big necessary markets, but Sony did not come to an agreement with MS. Can MS then say, nope. That deal was rejected - here is our new offer. ?
We don't exactly know the terms of the contract Microsoft is giving out. But we learned Call of Duty would be available for PS+ if Sony were to sign.

If no regulator requires concessions, I could see them rescinding their offer to Sony and just publishing Call of Duty on Playstation no strings attached.

The contract probably comes with a lot of strings, like content parity. Without a contract I could see Microsoft making Xbox "the place to play Call of Duty" with timed content only on Xbox. Like, raids are new to Call of Duty. Play it first for a month on Xbox first! Get your hands on new zombie map first on Xbox. Etc. Etc.
 

GulfCoastZilla

Shinra Employee
Banned
Sep 13, 2022
6,889
The parity Claus is weird because Sony wants parity on Playstation but couldn't let Microsoft have parity with Cold War. It was a bullshit move.
 

BobLoblaw

This Guy Helps
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,360
The parity Claus is weird because Sony wants parity on Playstation but couldn't let Microsoft have parity with Cold War. It was a bullshit move.
That's because they know that Game Pass + marketing benefits means that a lot of their hardcore CoD fanbase will likely migrate over to Xbox. Cheap CoD plus good perks? Yeah. They know.
 

nekkid

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
21,823
We don't exactly know the terms of the contract Microsoft is giving out. But we learned Call of Duty would be available for PS+ if Sony were to sign.

If no regulator requires concessions, I could see them rescinding their offer to Sony and just publishing Call of Duty on Playstation no strings attached.

The contract probably comes with a lot of strings, like content parity. Without a contract I could see Microsoft making Xbox "the place to play Call of Duty" with timed content only on Xbox. Like, raids are new to Call of Duty. Play it first for a month on Xbox first! Get your hands on new zombie map first on Xbox. Etc. Etc.
It's a great offer from MS because there's no way Sony or anybody else would be willing to pay the price to have CoD on a third party service.
 

Michilin

Member
Nov 14, 2017
1,392
Sony bought their way in with the PS1 and the backing of a giant corporation spanning multiple industries, ripping multiple games from Nintendo hardware and fans.

You guys will manage
 

meenseen84

Banned
Feb 15, 2018
2,000
Minneapolis
So is MS unequivocally guaranteeing CoD on Playstation for 10-years, or is MS offering a 10-year contract to Sony to have CoD be released for 10-years on Playstation? The first happens regardless of what Sony says or does, but the second depends on Sony signing the offer. Right now Sony is rejecting everything.

What if, and it is a big if, this deal is approved by the three big necessary markets, but Sony did not come to an agreement with MS. Can MS then say, nope. That deal was rejected - here is our new offer. ?

Microsoft is going to continue putting COD on PlayStation as long as they make a console. They've publicly said this. They know gamers don't forget. The PR of not doing this would be a disaster. They also don't want to lose customers that ABK have already made. Not only that but future acquisitions could be jeopardized.

If this acquisition goes through, the end of COD on PlayStation means that everything has gone Cloud gaming and it looks like it does today with video streaming with subs to Netflix, Disney, Hulu, etc. It would also mean that games are all subscriptions and are no longer sold. I cannot envision a scenario where Sony and Microsoft stop selling games. It might just be an app on the TV but you can either sub to a collection of games or you can buy individual ones, much how consoles are today.
 
Nov 8, 2017
13,347
Microsoft is going to continue putting COD on PlayStation as long as they make a console. They've publicly said this. They know gamers don't forget. The PR of not doing this would be a disaster. They also don't want to lose customers that ABK have already made. Not only that but future acquisitions could be jeopardized.

It's fairly clear that the current intent of Microsoft Gaming's leadership is to continue to make CoD broadly available in an ongoing basis. It's not guaranteed that Phil Spencer and other high ranking figures will still be leading in 10+ years time, however. It's also not clear whether future economic considerations will be the same as current ones. Things can change, basically, and it's not simply a question of whether you trust one person or not regarding their word.

I don't really agree that if in 10.1 years time, some future leader of Microsoft Gaming decides that actually Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3-3 (the 3rd entry in the 3rd MW series) won't be on PS6, there would be such a tremendous backlash that nobody could ever concieve of doing it. At least not from people who matter. Because while some people could be mad, it's also entirely possible that CoD campaigns aren't that big of a deal in 2033 because most hardcore cod people are just playing CoD Mobile 4 and Warzone Mobile 3, it's possible that Xbox could be a significant market leader in consoles such that the downsides aren't that notable, it could be the case that much of the console CoD audience already migrated to Xbox because of soft factors like it's long term presense on gamepass, and so on. The PR impact of a move like this today versus 2033 need not be remotely similar.

Regarding future acquisitions, it's not clear why doing so in 10+ years would impact anything. They kept binding obligations, and can validly argue that while they commented that removing CoD wouldn't make fiscal sense in 2022 for the forseeable future, conditions radically changed over time such that the incentives shifted too in a way that was not at all certain when they made the statements 11 years earlier.

I am not making this post because I'm saying I think this is secretly a long term plan they have, just that future prognosticating on 10+ year horizons and making absolute statements is going to be a fraught business especially in a space as dynamic as videogames. Ten years ago, the original THQ was still in business, the battle royale genre didn't exist, the WiiU was a going concern recieving Call of Duty games alongside their peers, many industry analysts thought smartphone gaming was going to totally destroy consoles in the near future, Sony seemed to outside observers like it was kind of on the ropes, and Microsoft executives had convinced themselves the future of consoles was entirely about TV. It's a very, very long time.
 
Last edited:

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,584
It's fairly clear that the current intent of Microsoft Gaming's leadership is to continue to make CoD broadly available in an ongoing basis. It's not guaranteed that Phil Spencer and other high ranking figures will still be leading in 10+ years time, however. It's also not clear whether future economic considerations will be the same as current ones. Things can change, basically, and it's not simply a question of whether you trust one person or not regarding their word.

I don't really agree that if in 10.1 years time, some future leader of Microsoft Gaming decides that actually Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3-3 (the 3rd entry in the 3rd MW series) won't be on PS6, there would be such a tremendous backlash that nobody could ever concieve of doing it. At least not from people who matter. Because while some people could be mad, it's also entirely possible that CoD campaigns aren't that big of a deal in 2033 because most hardcore cod people are just playing CoD Mobile 4 and Warzone Mobile 3, it's possible that Xbox could be a significant market leader in consoles such that the downsides aren't that notable, it could be the case that much of the console CoD audience already migrated to Xbox because of soft factors like it's long term presense on gamepass, and so on. The PR impact of a move like this today versus 2033 need not be remotely similar.

I am not making this post because I'm saying I think this is secretly a long term plan they have, just that future prognosticating on 10+ year horizons and making absolute statements is going to be a fraught business especially in a space as dynamic as videogames. Ten years ago, the original THQ was still in business, the battle royale genre didn't exist, the WiiU was a going concern recieving Call of Duty games alongside their peers, many industry analysits thought smartphone gaming was going to totally destroy consoles in the near future, Sony seemed to outside observers like it was kind of on the ropes, and Microsoft exectutives had convinced themselves the future of consoles was entirely about TV.

this Is where the "it'll be on PS as long as it makes sense" comment spawned from…. And exactly why they wouldn't offer a perpetual contract.

If there's still a huge player base on Playstation 10 years from now, they'll have incentive to ship on PlayStation. If playstation users stop caring about COD for whatever reason (moved to xbox, moved on to some other game that steals CODs lunch, etc) then there's less value in building and shipping COD on PlayStation- and remaining playstation users might not even care that it's gone.
 

BobLoblaw

This Guy Helps
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,360
Hes right tho, shes putting ideology over laws, and it is not right.
Not saying she isn't qualified, but I was surprised to find out that she only had her law degree for four years before being confirmed. Clearly, she didn't have a lot of regulatory experience, but it seems like that wasn't required since Biden apparently just wanted someone to block deals regardless of whether or not there were legal grounds to do so.
 

Ascenion

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,315
Mecklenburg-Strelitz
Hes right tho, shes putting ideology over laws, and it is not right.
How he's phrasing it isn't right necessarily. She's not protecting Sony. Jez needs to chill with that. What she is doing however is clown shit. She's gonna open up the FTC to being neutered by this super conservative Supreme Court if she doesn't pick her battles better. She'd be smart to drop this shit before it gets to that point.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,674
Not saying she isn't qualified, but I was surprised to find out that she only had her law degree for four years before being confirmed. Clearly, she didn't have a lot of regulatory experience, but it seems like that wasn't required since Biden apparently just wanted someone to block deals regardless of whether or not there were legal grounds to do so.

Lightning in a bottle from her paper about Amazon. She's a bone that Biden threw to the progressive side. Not all progressives are blinded by ideology but she is.
 

Governergrimm

Member
Jun 25, 2019
6,709
Jez is going a bit off the rails but he's mostly right. She's ideologically driven, isn't interested in finding concessions and is stretching logic and reasoning past its limits to block deals.

I am not calling for her job or anything, that's pretty far but, her arguments have been questionable to say the least.
 
Last edited:

cyrribrae

Chicken Chaser
Member
Jan 21, 2019
12,723
Lina Khan should not resign now. Lina Khan is doing what she was meant to do and has said she was going to do. It's perhaps a surprise how low-effort the MS complaint was. But the overall tenor of the process isn't.

She SHOULD resign once the FTC loses before the SCOTUS and ends up leaving FTC with even less power than they began with because of her confrontational style of regulation, which leans heavily on administrative gamesmanship to contest even cases where they don't have a winning hand. People will say that the SCOTUS was hostile to begin with. Perhaps. But this is about abuse of a narrow administrative allowance - that really wasn't that big of a deal when used at other times and by other agencies, but is now because of the way it's been used. No matter your thoughts on the nobility of her actions, I feel that if SCOTUS rules against the FTC, this all will go down as one of the biggest strategic blunders for market regulators.

That said, she probably won't resign and it probably won't actually change that much. The ALC was a bit of a crutch, but it's not like the FTC can't still make life hell for companies if they want. They just can't do it for as long now. And they can still make frivolous lawsuits if they want, they'll just have more problems sooner. So. Meh.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,584
How he's phrasing it isn't right necessarily. She's not protecting Sony. Jez needs to chill with that. What she is doing however is clown shit. She's gonna open up the FTC to being neutered by this super conservative Supreme Court if she doesn't pick her battles better. She'd be smart to drop this shit before it gets to that point.

I mean, her primary goal is to stop MS, but by defining a market where Sony is MS' only competition, the FTC complaint never rose beyond defending Sony from MS' making advances in cloud & multi-game services. Even suggested that the acquisition might lead to some horrible things like convince some gamers to buy Xboxes instead of PlayStations.
 

Yoga Flame

Alt-Account
Banned
Sep 8, 2022
1,674
Jez isn't wrong about Lina Khan. Lawyers that specialise in anti-trust, in particular the lead that took MS to court in 90s and won said Lina Khan reason's to block the merger is 'nutty'.
 

Remark

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,649

Man is way to aggressive in those tweets but he's not wrong.

Her overall reasoning for blocking the deal holds no water and will get immediately shot down in federal court which is why they're delaying that point as much as possible. All this is gonna do is make it harder for the FTC going forward if/when they lose this battle especially with our current Supreme Court.
 

headspawn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,672
I definitely do not like Jez Corden and I definitely do not fucking think he is right lol.

"If it's illegal, take it to federal court."

Do you disagree with that?

Why no injunction? Why are they opting for stalling and drawing conclusions with no data to back it up? Her own colleagues seem to have issues with her tactics as well.
 

Gavalanche

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 21, 2021
18,468
He isn't necessarily wrong but there is also no need to be so aggressive about it, he is acting like a Twitter fanboy. No one not involved in the deal should be aggressive about it.

Get in the Christmas spirit Jez! It's fine, everything will be okay.
 

cyrribrae

Chicken Chaser
Member
Jan 21, 2019
12,723
He isn't necessarily wrong but there is also no need to be so aggressive about it, he is acting like a Twitter fanboy. No one not involved in the deal should be aggressive about it.

Get in the Christmas spirit Jez! It's fine, everything will be okay.
You have to give him a break, German state TV brought him on to talk about ABK, but the audio didn't work :( It'll take a few weeks to get over that, I think.
 

Nif

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,716
The Khan WSJ article just makes me think she is trying to fend off internal pressure from somewhere.
 
Dec 9, 2018
21,847
New Jersey
Well they said he is wrong, if it is illegal why is this not going to federal court?
Again, seems like a premature thing to ask when it still could be blocked or denied. It hasn't gone through yet, so I'm not sure why that's out of the question. Like you, and most people in this thread, I have a very surface level understanding of the regulatory process and the legal ramifications of it. I'm just waiting to see what happens. Debating over the legality of it is futile because it's literally an ongoing process.
 

cyrribrae

Chicken Chaser
Member
Jan 21, 2019
12,723
The Khan WSJ article just makes me think she is trying to fend off internal pressure from somewhere.
Internal? Possible, but I don't think it's the primary purpose. I bet it's more from politicians who are getting lobbied. I imagine a lot of companies heavily investing into ESG are likely also funding Democratic politicians too. There's a natural perception/direction overlap there. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some nudges to maybe put in a good word (or the occasional sharp elbow) with the FTC. And Khan is staking her position to ward that off.

I said earlier in this thread that I don't actually disagree with anything Khan says in that article. I do think it's ironic that she portrays herself and her approach as being like humble servants of the letter of the law, who have no choice but to apply it even if companies are doing good things elsewhere, when clearly she has no problem interpreting freely when it suits her in actual cases.
 

T0kenAussie

Member
Jan 15, 2020
5,188
Internal? I don't think so. I bet it's more from politicians who are getting lobbied. I imagine a lot of companies heavily investing into ESG are likely also funding Democratic politicians too. There's a natural perception/direction overlap there. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some nudges to maybe put in a good word or a gentle nudge or the occasional sharp elbow with the FTC. And Khan is staking her position to ward that off.

I said earlier in this thread that I don't actually disagree with anything Khan says in that article. I do think it's ironic that she portrays herself and her approach as being like humble servants of the letter of the law, who have no choice but to apply it even if companies are doing good things elsewhere, when clearly she has no problem interpreting freely when it suits her in actual cases.
I think there is internal pressures, her processes seem to buck the trends and conventions of every previous regulatory leader before her

Depends on how you want to see it I guess. there's arguments for hypotheticals in deals but then every deal shouldn't happen and that kind of stifles innovation as people who's sole process is to make a thing to sell it off won't be able to get to the sell it off part.

By normal conventions MS/ABK doesnt concentrate market power so much that Xbox would become the number 1 platform by a country mile and there isn't really a good argument against it other than "too big to grow" and that really hasn't ever been a thing before
 

cyrribrae

Chicken Chaser
Member
Jan 21, 2019
12,723
That's more what I mean. Pressure from people within the democratic party, not just the FTC.
Oh gotcha. Yea definitely.

I think there is internal pressures, her processes seem to buck the trends and conventions of every previous regulatory leader before her

Depends on how you want to see it I guess. there's arguments for hypotheticals in deals but then every deal shouldn't happen and that kind of stifles innovation as people who's sole process is to make a thing to sell it off won't be able to get to the sell it off part.

By normal conventions MS/ABK doesnt concentrate market power so much that Xbox would become the number 1 platform by a country mile and there isn't really a good argument against it other than "too big to grow" and that really hasn't ever been a thing before
Oh no, we know that there's internal disagreement with her approach. I just don't think there's much internal pushback on THIS topic specifically. I don't think too many people in FTC think that doing good stuff will make an illegal* acquisition ok. I DO think that some politicians probably think that way and think FTC should make special allowances for this really great company from their district etc etc.

And yea, that's my point. If you read the article, Khan frames it as like 'even if these companies do all these great things, it's just a matter of whether it's against the law or not'. Frames it as a really simple thing. But then in the MS/ABK case, we're seeing some heavy reaching and serious stretching of the written law and certainly their common legal interpretations. That's the irony I'm referencing.
 

TheHunter

Bold Bur3n Wrangler
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
25,774
Yeah Jez is being cringe right there but he's right.

She's being purely ideological and while I am against Mega Corps this ain't it chief.
 

Iron Eddie

Banned
Nov 25, 2019
9,812
Again, seems like a premature thing to ask when it still could be blocked or denied. It hasn't gone through yet, so I'm not sure why that's out of the question. Like you, and most people in this thread, I have a very surface level understanding of the regulatory process and the legal ramifications of it. I'm just waiting to see what happens. Debating over the legality of it is futile because it's literally an ongoing process.

Well that's the thing, it could very well be blocked and not go through but still not be an illegal merger.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,584
Again, seems like a premature thing to ask when it still could be blocked or denied. It hasn't gone through yet, so I'm not sure why that's out of the question. Like you, and most people in this thread, I have a very surface level understanding of the regulatory process and the legal ramifications of it. I'm just waiting to see what happens. Debating over the legality of it is futile because it's literally an ongoing process.

The deal can be blocked w/o the merger actually being illegal.
 
May 14, 2021
16,731
Jez is right but it's hard to ever side with him because he's a jerk. The FTC is a poorly run agency as evidenced by their track record in court and the impending neutering they're about to get by the SC. Whether you want this purchase approved or rejected, you should hope for competent leadership at the FTC.