i dont really follow cod esports but i think i read that after mw 2019 its played on pc
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The official opinions from Sony, Ubisoft, WB, BN, Apple, Riot, Google and more about the Activision Blizzard acquisition
- Thread starter Idas
- Start date
- Activision/Blizzard
Personally I am convinced that any new ABK game greenlit after the acquisition won't release on Playstation ever again, just like Bethesda. And even if I'm wrong, the fact that Microsoft holds the cards and can choose to deal massive damage to the Playstation business unopposed is the reason why they are arguing the way they do.
This argument about "Xbox is not going to be market leader even after this" has always been weak. the $70 billion price has been paid by Microsoft money, not Xbox money. It's not Playstation against Xbox but Sony against Microsoft, which is not the same scale. Framing Xbox as the underdog fighting for survival does not match with the reality of the situation.
This is ridiculous…we really want regulators to start dictating business practices just because "poor (insert company)"…
🤦🏻♂️
Microsoft doesn't do this with any of their multiplat games.
They were talking with a regulating body, not PRing at a consumer electronics show.
There is literally nothing to gain by bluster here, regardless of if they believe it or not.
User Warned: Console wars, please keep ‘M$‘ and similar out of Era
M$ will keep Call of Duty exclusive right up until the acquisition is approved. All bets are off after that, which competitors understand.
Sony would never publish it multiplat if the roles were reversed.
Sony would never publish it multiplat if the roles were reversed.
They can't and they won't dictate where Microsoft must release their I.Ps. To do that would mean that everyone would have to release their I.Ps everywhere too. Because what is good for one is good for all.
Plus, it would mean that other industries like the to series/movies streaming platform holders like Disney/HBO/Netflix etc would have to do the same. How could I.Ps in the gaming space be forced to be made available on every platform when tv series and movies are ok to stay exclusive to their owners platform?
The precedent set by forcing an I.P to go multi platform would send shockwaves through other industries where platform holders are acquiring content for their services.
they have said quite explicitly that CoD will remain multiplatform even after contractual obligations are met.
from their blog post about this deal:
Adapting ahead of regulation: a principled approach to app stores - Microsoft On the Issues
Today we’re announcing a new set of Open App Store Principles that will apply to the Microsoft Store on Windows and to the next-generation marketplaces we will build for games, in part to address Microsoft’s growing role and responsibility as we seek regulatory approval for our acquisition of...blogs.microsoft.com
View: https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1491598131276005383
COD won't be going exclusive anytime soon.
Killzone lacks the modern look that everyone craves and MAG lacks the brand recognition. They could always make a new franchise, but marketing hype could latch on to marketing revival.
Thank you for putting this together. Very interesting.
Sony seems biased due to the revenue they make from CoD. Very hypocritical of them to claim nobody can make a game to fill that space, after they just acquired the creator of Halo and Destiny.
Sony seems biased due to the revenue they make from CoD. Very hypocritical of them to claim nobody can make a game to fill that space, after they just acquired the creator of Halo and Destiny.
Nah, you're both leaving out too much:
CoD isn't going exclusive the minute existing agreements ends. It'll be multiplatform for the forseeable future, probably even expanding to Nintendo's platform as well.
Interesting read! I am on a fundamental level not a fan of these acquisitions and the consolidation of bigger and bigger companies. I personally do think that MS will keep the COD franchise multiplat simply because they would lose a lot of money keeping that on Xbox and PC only.
I don't see how that previous sentence really means anything when their "let's be clear" statement doesn't remotely imply anything other than covering contractually obligated/current titles.
I'm not saying MS will absolutely make COD exclusive.. I'm not saying anything either way.
I just think anyone reading MS statements needs to really focus on the specifics of what they are saying.. and in general their statements would be 100% truthful if all they did was leave the contractually obligated games on Playstation. That's the key to these statements, what minimum action would MS need to take to "make them true."
THAT is what MS is promising, anything else is just speculation.
If MS intended for that statement to mean more than that, they wouldn't have mentioned "contractually obligated" titles AT ALL.
Even use of the word "title" instead of "franchise" was likely a specific choice MS made in that sentence you added.
Those comments from Sony re: Call of Duty are fascinating. I wonder just how much CoD brings in for Sony in comparison to Fortnite, Apex or Battlefield etc to make those kind of comments.
I think they absolutely do believe they can compete with COD and actively do compete with COD. But they absolutely won't say that in this court filing because they don't want this deal to go through. It harms them to say anything else, really.
Sony is of course working on tons of projects and trying to capture a bigger piece of that GaaS pie, and of COURSE they are hopeful that one becomes a megahit like COD or Fortnite or Minecraft. It's what all game execs strive for and dream of at night. But, they aren't going to say "oh yes we believe we can make a megahit like COD and we are actively trying to do that with our own acquisitions (Bungie) and investing in 10 new GaaS IP." That would pretty much seal the deal when every single company that was asked said it's not big deal.
It's not a coincidence that all of the non-platform holder companies echoed that there is plenty of competition and Sony is the only one trying to say otherwise. Sony makes money off of COD and none of the other companies do.
That all being said, so this is no longer directed at the quote above, Xbox isn't going to make COD exclusive because they make a lot of money off of it on Playstation. A different filing in NZ showed that 82% of Actiblizz revenue last year was three games - COD, WoW, and Candy Crush. Why would you cut off that revenue on COD? But, the thing about that is that it means all the rest of the IPs Actiblizz has going right now only accounted for 18% of revenue and you slice that down even further with mobile games, Xbox revenue, and PC. So, then you are probably looking at single digit revenue each year being attributed to all other Actiblizz IP on Playstation. And at that point you really gotta wonder if ANYTHING else going forward will be on Playstation. Because at that level of revenue it might be more beneficial to Xbox to make all of their non-COD games PC and Xbox exclusive. Hell, they could even port WoW over just to Xbox because that would only add revenue to the bottom line.
Seems like a failing of Sony's if they've allowed a 3rd Party to be a Keystone of their business strategy in gaming.
I was saying years ago that Sony needs to have an active multiplayer shooter of their own and that letting Killzone, SOCOM, and other IPs started on the PS3 wither on the vine to focus 100% on "Prestige" sad-dad games was a mistake, and everyone insisted I was wrong and they don't need those "because CoD is doing it for them".
I was saying years ago that Sony needs to have an active multiplayer shooter of their own and that letting Killzone, SOCOM, and other IPs started on the PS3 wither on the vine to focus 100% on "Prestige" sad-dad games was a mistake, and everyone insisted I was wrong and they don't need those "because CoD is doing it for them".
I mentioned this earlier in the thread and knew I'd eventually see it. :) I honestly don't know why it continues to get regurgitated. 2019 Modern Warfare shares the 20th all-time sales spot with Bethesda's Skyrim at the 30 million sales mark. If MS "needs" the money, then why are they keeping Starfield (and most likely every Zeni future release) exclusive to Xbox/PC AND Gamepass?
They tried competing with Halo and couldn't do that, and CoD dwarfs Halo. Trying to compete might result in some good games, but they're not wrong that it would be throwing money down a hole.
The previous sentence addresses the concern that CoD could be going exclusive. It then follows that up by saying they'll continue to make CoD available beyond existing agreements, (meaning there's nothing to be concerned about regarding CoD exclusivity), they'll likely even expand to Nintendo's platform as well and that's what they feel is right for gamers and their business.
They aren't trying to pull the rug from under people's feet here, even if it's technically possible to be even more specific. CoD will remain multiplatform for the forseeable future. Way way down the line, anything can obviously happen..
That sounds like a Sony problem rather than an anti-competitive / anti-trust problem. It's impossible to argue that COD is an essential ingredient for a platform holder to be successful.
Also COD is going to go to more platforms after the acquisition, so if anything MS have a stronger argument that they're enabling more competition by doing so.
Eh, I think Sony fears the permanent loss of marketing rights after the current contract rather than fearing it going exclusive. Marketing being on Xbox and Gamepass means Sony is still gonna feel a little pain after even if it is multi platform.
Going exclusive would have to exceed the cost of losses. If MS went back to Steam, I don't see a reason why they would want to backtrack on PS either.
But COD will no longer be associated with PS. MS will make sure it is "On Xbox and PC" front and center. Play it on the premier systems with us where we integrate new content to GPU.
I don't see Warzone going exclusive, but I could 100% see the standard releases doing so. If PS share declines over time, MS would be a fool not to make the play. Even if 1/3 people convert over, having them in your ecosystem tops that one sale on PS.
That'd be hilarious
if it was the 90's and early 00's I wouldnt doubt it would be printed on a magazine lol
I feel like the revenue risk to Sony losing marketing on CoD is one they should be managing themselves?
As part of a businesses risk management function, surely if you look at the balance sheet and see a significant amount of revenue comes from a single source the top question has to be 'what do I do if that source goes away?' or 'how can I diversify (and this protect) my revenue such that I'm not solely reliant on this one source?'.
It appears Sony is responding to that risk now with the push into GaaS but it just seems potentially a little bit late. Sony had a lot of time to figure this out.
Same as with the '60%-70% of services revenue controlled by Game Pass'. Sony had a long time to re-orient it's strategy (from it's position as market leader with a greater than 2-1 advantage on installed devices) and chose to essentially wait it out. Only this year have we seen the PS+ pivot.
The arguments aren't unexpected it just comes off a bit 'woe is me, what can I do?'
As part of a businesses risk management function, surely if you look at the balance sheet and see a significant amount of revenue comes from a single source the top question has to be 'what do I do if that source goes away?' or 'how can I diversify (and this protect) my revenue such that I'm not solely reliant on this one source?'.
It appears Sony is responding to that risk now with the push into GaaS but it just seems potentially a little bit late. Sony had a lot of time to figure this out.
Same as with the '60%-70% of services revenue controlled by Game Pass'. Sony had a long time to re-orient it's strategy (from it's position as market leader with a greater than 2-1 advantage on installed devices) and chose to essentially wait it out. Only this year have we seen the PS+ pivot.
The arguments aren't unexpected it just comes off a bit 'woe is me, what can I do?'
COD won't be exclusive, but Microsoft will definitely treat it like an exclusive, which is likely what Sony is concerned about with regards to their market share. It's a natural fear for a company of their stature. They've had the privilege of being the platform most associate with Call of Duty and now that privilege is gone. It's a big change for them and it'll be interesting to see how they adapt with that change.
I mean Sony is right to be most concerned and really hits a key point - a multiplatform loss of Call of Duty would be devastating. It's not remedied simply by "making a competitor." You're fighting for headspace against nearly 20 years of brand ubiquity. That's not a thing most companies have the bandwidth to accomplish.
Microsoft won't pull that trigger immediately, but the threat of it hangs over Sony's head now.
Microsoft won't pull that trigger immediately, but the threat of it hangs over Sony's head now.
I mean, when said business decision would significantly and negatively impact the competition, yeah, I would hope the antitrust organizations would put some kind of control like that in place. It's less "poor Sony" and more "goddamn it Microsoft" and generally hoping that the antitrust orgs do their job to prevent MS from fucking over the competition.
I don't care about "poor Sony" and hell, I even prefer Xbox, but I also just generally like lots of people being able to play games, and it would suck if MS made COD exclusive and kneecapped Sony like that
Great OP. Very interesting read particularly the Sony section.
There are so many routes MS can take in regards to COD being multiplat. My guess is once this closes and that marketing contract on PS ends then we will be seeing COD+Xbox+Gamepass advertising everywhere. Plus the holiday bundles they could do with Xbox Series. Plus all that exclusive stuff that would typically be on PS first, show up only on Xbox and Gamepass or at least first for awhile
Makes sense for Sony to be worried. They are bout to lose a huge chunk of revenue and potentially a lot of market share in COD heavy territories.
There are so many routes MS can take in regards to COD being multiplat. My guess is once this closes and that marketing contract on PS ends then we will be seeing COD+Xbox+Gamepass advertising everywhere. Plus the holiday bundles they could do with Xbox Series. Plus all that exclusive stuff that would typically be on PS first, show up only on Xbox and Gamepass or at least first for awhile
Makes sense for Sony to be worried. They are bout to lose a huge chunk of revenue and potentially a lot of market share in COD heavy territories.
" They say that over the past five years, Game Pass has grown to capture approximately 60-70% of the global subscription services market (that marketshare is even greater in Brazil, where Game Pass represents approximately 70-80% of the PC subscription services market). "
I wonder if they're only comparing EA Play, PS Now ( / Plus Extra) and uPlay+ here. Because if they included Xbox Live Gold and PS Now Basic, which are also subscriptions but slightly different kinds, then I have to imagine the stats would be very different. The recent reorg of Sony subs is also blurring the lines a lot here.
I wonder if they're only comparing EA Play, PS Now ( / Plus Extra) and uPlay+ here. Because if they included Xbox Live Gold and PS Now Basic, which are also subscriptions but slightly different kinds, then I have to imagine the stats would be very different. The recent reorg of Sony subs is also blurring the lines a lot here.
I don't disagree with your point for the most part. But Genshin isn't really a multiplayer game. Still live service though.
Sony never really 'had the privilege'. They paid over years for the marketing association.
Which is additional context for why Sony is concerned. They've invested in a relationship with Call of Duty (and thus invested less in other game / publisher relationships) and this has the potential to invalidate that.
I feel like this is one reason Sony paid so much for Bungie. They desperately need to create their own Warzone that they control.
I think this is precisely what they're doing, basically comparing Game Pass to other game catalogues rather than to the (maybe too recent) PS+ rebrand. Because if the numbers including the PS+ rebrand Sony would probably be the market leader then.
Yes, it seems that Sony did not imagine/believe that Microsoft would be able to make these acquisitions and harm them in their long-term goals. I don't think it took them by surprise but they also didn't have much time to anticipate an earlier reaction in their strategies.
Which makes me think that their latest vision changes (being more open to releasing their games on PC) are to cushion a more important investment and use it to increase their internal studios and GAAS projects.
Of course they aren't including numbers that help Xbox's case. Which is why the notion Sony is somehow irredeemably damaged by not having COD isn't a sentiment shared by any major competitor besides Sony in that questionnaire.
Sony isn't being honest here. They are very carefully trying to undermine the acquisition. It's as simple as that imo.
For sure. They are saying to the regulators they can't possibly compete while acquiring a 3 billion dollar company to do exactly that.
Nothing lasts forever. COD is COD but it can and will be replaced. If you mak enough bad games in a row. People wont happily lap it up forever. Someone will find the lightning in the bottle again.