-
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.
WSJ: Sony Expects Microsoft to Keep Activision Games Multiplatform abiding “by existing contractual agreements"
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
- News
Is the implication here supposed to be that there's a contract ensuring it remains multiplatform? Or are these two separate thoughts?
If the latter, it seems strange of Sony to come out and say "we expect them to ensure Activision games remain multiplatform". The contractual agreements part is just a given, as it was with Zenimax.
If the latter, it seems strange of Sony to come out and say "we expect them to ensure Activision games remain multiplatform". The contractual agreements part is just a given, as it was with Zenimax.
I don't think there is any implication. I think they are giving as general and obvious a statement as possible in reaction to the buyout news, and I think in grand ResetEra fashion people are going to read way too much into it, create their own narratives and devolve any discussion about it into brain dead drive by shit posts.
You say no one knows what contract are in place and then say Microsoft will have to honour those contracts… but if you don't know the nature of those agreements then by extension you don't know what would give either party the right to terminate them.
"We expect that Microsoft will abide by contractual agreements" is not written in quite the way that you're interpreting it.
I mean, yeah. Drive-by console warrior bullshit is basically the free space on the ResetEra bingo card at this point lol.
Right? People willfully ignore that it's common journalistic practice to reach out for comment on these things...
CoD is probably not going to vanish from PS platforms anytime soon.
Sony probably has at least 2-4 years left on their marketing contract, and probably an option to extend the contract for a couple more years. And that's exactly what they'll probably do in the coming months. Extend it as long as possible.
I also don't expect Microsoft to want to loose 12+ million sales + MTX revenue every year after paying so much for Activision. I mean, we are not talking about a singleplayer RPG like Starfield that you release once in 5 years and tops out at 10 million copie sales on playstation over that whole timeframe.
Sony probably has at least 2-4 years left on their marketing contract, and probably an option to extend the contract for a couple more years. And that's exactly what they'll probably do in the coming months. Extend it as long as possible.
I also don't expect Microsoft to want to loose 12+ million sales + MTX revenue every year after paying so much for Activision. I mean, we are not talking about a singleplayer RPG like Starfield that you release once in 5 years and tops out at 10 million copie sales on playstation over that whole timeframe.
Shiiiiii-
This thread sure is something, somewhat embarrassing. I think neoak summarized it best.
y'all know which team you fall into
This thread sure is something, somewhat embarrassing. I think neoak summarized it best.
y'all know which team you fall into
the fact that sony even needs to make this statement is because of fears of a gulf. We saw the value drop overnight. If it was simple and automatic why are people jumping ship already
Nobody has to push MS into doing anything. This weird belief that poor old underdog Microsoft is only doing this because of Sony 'pushing them around' is nonsense.
You think that was being done out of some sense of being cool? Or for some altruistic reason? No, it's because they *had* to honor prior contracts.
It's a purposeful conflation to sate investors and ease uncertainty. Sony and Activision have (or at least had) a contract regarding the prioritisation of Call of Duty on Playstation; the precise content of what this contract consisted of is not publicly released.
This contract, as with almost all corporate contracts, likely runs for a set period of time/set number of releases. Typically, these type of contracts tend to run for 3 to 5 years and then be reviewed (to allow for renewal, cancellation, or changes; this benefits both companies).
This deal (and any other deals between Activision and Sony) will be upheld until they expire. This will happen in a way which is quite natural; acquisition talks have been on-going for the last year, it will take about 18 months for the acquisition to go through, and in-this time most 3 will have expire or be close to ending. At that point, the contracts/deals will be over/not renewed.
This. Microsoft wants people in their ecosystem buying games, DLC, and everything else. People trying to rationalize Microsoft still making games for PS after the deal closes just need to look towards streaming. You won't see Squid Games on Prime, The Witcher on Peacock, or Star Trek: Discovery on Hulu. The reason why is because those services want you on their platform watching their content. They don't give a shit about sharing what they own.
Not really sure there is any implication, They likely just released a statement to address the situation. No one knows (outside of the people with the deals/contracts)
This statement form them makes no sense. Of course MS and A/B will honour contracts. Maybe this is sort of a statement for the market as a whole, so that it doesn't have investors freaking out about the short term. Sony was already spending big big money to lock down exclusives, and those deals were getting longer and longer (Forspoken 2 year exclusivity). I'm sure there are more out there. If there were marketing deals agreed upon for 2 years or more, perhaps that is what they are saying here.
no it's business first and foremost, but using Ori as an example of MS leaning towards non-exclusivity as a business practice. Contracts will be honored, but what about moving forward when new ones are written up?
Fanboys through and through.
The level of discourse in this thread with "damage control" etc, etc, is so dumb. This forum is getting worse every day. Sony was asked about the developments and this what they said. Generally, contractual agreements are honoured and there are clearly things at play that all of us have no clue about. Obviously in the future once contracts are up, things will be different. But Sony never said anything about the out of contract future, because that is an unknown. All they know is that they expect, based on usual business practices, that Microsoft / Activision will honour existing contracts. And if they don't, Sony is probably going to get a nice payout from Microsoft breaking those contracts.
Man it's really simple existing deals honored and after that it's whatever the fuck Xbox wants period it's theirs! This statement is for the shareholders and stock price. Same as the Zenimax deal real simple.
The amount of ascribing interpersonal drama to to a boring boilerplate statement designed to calm investors is tiring.
Here's alternative view; considering the weight Microsoft is putting behind the idea of a post console future I don't think it's inconceivable that they'll eventually begin to treat PlayStation as just another platform like Steam where they can sell their games as a third party publisher to complement their Gamepass business. It depends on just how interested they are in selling hardware.
Acquisitions really do bring out the dumbest of takes from either side. It's a standard boiler-plate statement that only Sony-MS-ABK know the extent of contractually. It's pretty clear from MS' own SEC filings on this acquisition that it pertains to ongoing, live-service titles i.e., Warzone, and likely OW2 (if they roll 2.0 as an update to OW1).
SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0000718877/000110465922005526/tm223212d10_defa14a.htm
Statement of reference: "We will honor all existing commitments post close. As with Microsoft's acquisition of Minecraft, we have no intent to remove any content from platforms where it exists today."
Just like it has been with Minecraft, ESO etc. Outside of that, standalone new titles will assuredly be exclusive, unless there is another Deathloop/Ghostwire situation, which I can't imagine exists for those games in particular. Other than that, none of us pontificating have a damn clue.
SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0000718877/000110465922005526/tm223212d10_defa14a.htm
Statement of reference: "We will honor all existing commitments post close. As with Microsoft's acquisition of Minecraft, we have no intent to remove any content from platforms where it exists today."
Just like it has been with Minecraft, ESO etc. Outside of that, standalone new titles will assuredly be exclusive, unless there is another Deathloop/Ghostwire situation, which I can't imagine exists for those games in particular. Other than that, none of us pontificating have a damn clue.
This is a brilliant move by Sony (if a little bit underhanded, I know :shockedface:)
MS/Activision legal can't say shit until the deal closes, and has to continue acting as if they are completely separate, but Sony has no such requirement. What Sony is effectively doing here is muddying the waters so anyone looking to buy a new console in the next ~year and a half won't make that call based on Activision games no longer being released on the PS platform.
MS/Activision legal can't say shit until the deal closes, and has to continue acting as if they are completely separate, but Sony has no such requirement. What Sony is effectively doing here is muddying the waters so anyone looking to buy a new console in the next ~year and a half won't make that call based on Activision games no longer being released on the PS platform.
Prior contracts will be honored, but after that, everything that's not a service title will be made exclusive.
I think it's safe to assume that MS will do everything they can to make sure that all existing contractual agreements are met. After that...LOL
My prediction is that COD single player will stay multi-platform until any existing marketing deals expire. I suppose it's possible that Activision could have signed up with Sony to market COD through PS5 for the entire generation. Regardless, I believe that Warzone stays multi-platform. Same for Overwatch, WOW, Hearthstone, Candy Crush (assuming console ports) and any other platform game. Also, I think MS will decide to copy the Halo Infinite model and make COD multiplayer free to play and that might stay on PlayStation.
I doubt that there are any such marketing deals for any of the Blizzard stuff or other Activision properties so those will no doubt be exclusive. Sony can kiss single player stuff like Diablo, Crash, and Spyro etc., goodbye.
Some of this is probably PR spin from Sony to try and keep their stock price up and keep consumers from jumping ship. Console gamers are notoriously fickle as is evidenced by the long history of flip-flopping generation leaders.
I doubt that there are any such marketing deals for any of the Blizzard stuff or other Activision properties so those will no doubt be exclusive. Sony can kiss single player stuff like Diablo, Crash, and Spyro etc., goodbye.
Some of this is probably PR spin from Sony to try and keep their stock price up and keep consumers from jumping ship. Console gamers are notoriously fickle as is evidenced by the long history of flip-flopping generation leaders.
Last edited:
3 things going on here:
1) MS will clearly abide by all contracts, including keeping CoD on PS as long as they need to.
2) MS will have to have been privy to those contracts before buying Activision/Blizzard, so odds are they paid that much because they know that eventually (sooner rather than later)
3) The comment is intentionally ambiguous because Sony needs to save as much face as possible. They can't have their consumers (and potential future consumers) to think that CoD won't be on their system.
1) MS will clearly abide by all contracts, including keeping CoD on PS as long as they need to.
2) MS will have to have been privy to those contracts before buying Activision/Blizzard, so odds are they paid that much because they know that eventually (sooner rather than later)
3) The comment is intentionally ambiguous because Sony needs to save as much face as possible. They can't have their consumers (and potential future consumers) to think that CoD won't be on their system.
Obviously you haven't had time to watch this. Right here is the MS vision of the future.
GeForce Now RTX 3080 Cloud Review vs xCloud/Stadia - The Best Streaming Solution?
Game streaming services have come on leaps and bounds since the early days of OnLive, Gaikai and even PlayStation Now. In this video, we take a look at the n...
www.youtube.com
Sure but if ms wants, they can break the contracts and pay the fines if they feel the payoff is better than the fee's amount.
Plus if there are recurring contracts that guarantee distribution, at some point they will lapse. And MS can just not re up.
Do people expect 70B purchase to stay on your competitors platform ? They could of got cod on gamepass day 1 much cheaper.. they'll keep existing agreements but for new games it'll def be exclusive. I'll take a avatar bet if I'm wrong
Obviously you haven't had time to watch this. Right here is the MS vision of the future.
GeForce Now RTX 3080 Cloud Review vs xCloud/Stadia - The Best Streaming Solution?
Game streaming services have come on leaps and bounds since the early days of OnLive, Gaikai and even PlayStation Now. In this video, we take a look at the n...
I have. And the video clearly shows Xcloud lacking. It will take years for MS to catch up, clearly not during this Generation.
I mean, yeah. Of course the games that are signed to a contract to release on PlayStation will do so and anything beyond that is up in the air with Microsoft likely keeping them on Xbox/Windows.
This is for the crowd that thinks the next Call of Duty game will not release on PS despite the deal likely not going through before the end of the year.
This is for the crowd that thinks the next Call of Duty game will not release on PS despite the deal likely not going through before the end of the year.
Last edited:
It is already way better than when launched last year, MS controls all of the infrastructure. They can improve rather quickly
If I was buying exclusively for CoD, not sure I'd be willing to risk 500-700$ on some statement about honoring contracts. Unless you just wanted to stay in the PS ecosystem and you are taking a lot more meaning from that statement.
We'll frankly I don't even have a strong perspective on this, as that would be the delusional thing to do with the info we have. It's very much ok to have a preference and tell people about it like you clearly do, but all I'm saying is that you hardly know what you're talking about because we just can't know this stuff.
"What we've seen" or know is pretty much nothing. The absolute sliver of info you have about Bethesda deal can't be compared to this in a straight manner. When you talk like you somehow know exactly how this will go with no other option isn't based on anything and brings nothing to the discussion.
It's a fact that this deals means A) more MS exclusives B) more content and day 1 releases for Game Pass. Not bad right? When A will happen for existing franchises is something you will not get an answer from this forum or anywhere else rn. For something like CoD it can happen for the next entry, but it might as well not turn exclusive for the duration of this gen because of marketing deals or other contractual obligations between Sony and A/B. CoD is a very different beast compared to Deathloop.
I don't think people are looking at the big picture here, it will take a long time for MS to "replace" all of the potential customers they'd lose by cutting off PS platforms completely from the big cash cow franchises. I don't mean a few years, I mean likely toward the end of the generation. It's not as easy as just switching marketing to Xbox and advertising those games there. Xbox players are already playing CoD, for example, but they'd need to sell into NEW players and new hardware enough to equal however many they're getting from the PS side.
Think about it this way, their board and shareholders are excited about this because they see the money A/B makes and they want that money coming into MS now. Anything Phil or whoever does that could reduce those numbers or slow them down is going to make them unhappy. "Hey guys how about we spend $70 bil on this company that rakes in cash? Cool? Yeah I'm excited too, so let's cut off the platform where we're making a huge chunk of all that revenue, and play catch up for the next handful of years trying to convince people to buy Xbox's and get into our ecosystem."
If the choice is between "making even more fucking money" and "let's make a lot less money for a while and later on potentially maybe make as much money as we could be making right now" what value does the latter option really have beyond just spiting the other platform?
Think about it this way, their board and shareholders are excited about this because they see the money A/B makes and they want that money coming into MS now. Anything Phil or whoever does that could reduce those numbers or slow them down is going to make them unhappy. "Hey guys how about we spend $70 bil on this company that rakes in cash? Cool? Yeah I'm excited too, so let's cut off the platform where we're making a huge chunk of all that revenue, and play catch up for the next handful of years trying to convince people to buy Xbox's and get into our ecosystem."
If the choice is between "making even more fucking money" and "let's make a lot less money for a while and later on potentially maybe make as much money as we could be making right now" what value does the latter option really have beyond just spiting the other platform?
Wow I had no idea about this Geforce cloud. It even has a free tier (with one hour session). That's perfect for just trying out a game. I might try it out for Rainbow Six Extraction.Obviously you haven't had time to watch this. Right here is the MS vision of the future.
GeForce Now RTX 3080 Cloud Review vs xCloud/Stadia - The Best Streaming Solution?
Game streaming services have come on leaps and bounds since the early days of OnLive, Gaikai and even PlayStation Now. In this video, we take a look at the n...
It really doesn't get clearer than that. They are not pulling out anything that isn't there already. Any existing agreements will be honored just as MS said however long those agreements lsst.
After that it'll be the Zenimax template.
all the money including the insane amounts from transactions skins and all that other shit goes directly to them and in a matter of time they have more people using microsoft or PC buying more and more and more stuff whether its game pass subs, other games, or in game purchases.
theyre pushing Sony down......not out because Sony runs their own brand. But Sony is playing a tough game here. Theyre getting squished.
People don't see how it makes sense just yet to not release games down the road on other formats. But they will.
theyre pushing Sony down......not out because Sony runs their own brand. But Sony is playing a tough game here. Theyre getting squished.
People don't see how it makes sense just yet to not release games down the road on other formats. But they will.
What's interesting to me is there is a very good chance that this chip shortage could stretch into 2023, so maybe MS and Sony won't be able to fully meet demand until 2024. Depending on the length on Sony's COD marketing deal with Activision, they may not have COD at all by the time the general public really starts buying consoles en masse. Also, the supply chain issues will keep the costs of these consoles high likely into 2024 or later unless someone decides to bite the bullet and take a loss. That makes the S even more attractive to casuals it it's the only place they can play the latest COD.
I remember reading something about the console makers lock in the prices of their chips with chip manufacturers years in advance of production. The issue is if Samsung or Apple want to put out a new phone, they will pay more for the silicon as they can charge more as they can just charge for their phones. Also, the telecoms will underwrite the additional cost by locking consumers into new contracts. This makes the chip manufacturers less willing to increase production for consoles because they are selling their wares for less than market value. Console manufacturers are stuck because there is a consumer expectation that prices will not exceed $500. Really crazy when you think about it.
I remember reading something about the console makers lock in the prices of their chips with chip manufacturers years in advance of production. The issue is if Samsung or Apple want to put out a new phone, they will pay more for the silicon as they can charge more as they can just charge for their phones. Also, the telecoms will underwrite the additional cost by locking consumers into new contracts. This makes the chip manufacturers less willing to increase production for consoles because they are selling their wares for less than market value. Console manufacturers are stuck because there is a consumer expectation that prices will not exceed $500. Really crazy when you think about it.