Xbox's ActiBlizz Deal Set To Face Further Investigations, Sony Issues Critical Statement

I hope that someone will tell Sony to stop being so hypocritical and selfish.

Whilst I must admit sony are throwing a tantrum here, I must also say that if Microsoft mean what they say then why didn't they offer sony a longer deal than just 3 years? Did they add any clauses in their proposed contract that sony aren't happy about, have sony found any loop holes that would mean xbox can back track on their deal once the takeover is complete? Or are sony throwing this out of proportion?

If I was sony I'd sit down with Microsoft and negotiate a better deal, maybe a rolling contract that means they have the same parity if playstation hit certain sales figures etc

Sony is desperate, and with good reason.

I'm not a lawyer, but looking from the sidelines, each new Sony statement convinces me further that the completion of the deal is inevitable.

I do not know about everything else, but it seems like Sony is very upset and worried about this deal. Every week we see a new statement about it.

@themightyant I agree, imagine sony doing this but with GTA, Fifa or madden.

Nintendo must be laughing.

@UltimateOtaku91 because a 3 year contract means CoD will be an Xbox exclusive by 2025. Sony doesn't want to lose CoD at all, because it will make Xbox the default choice for a huge percentage of the market. It's not just about lost CoD sales, it's about losing a big chunk of money that comes from people choosing the PS ecosystem

Sony getting a little tiresome with this constant whining... genuinely looking forward to the day that the deal goes through,which of course it will.

Sony as much as I enjoy you big AAA single player games and adventures, go away and make your own games and plans and leave Xbox alone.

Not this again... 300 comments on Push Square incoming. Clickbait gold this topic 🙄

@gollumb82 Haha, you're right!

MS will never offer anything in perpetuity, and this was always going to go to a Phase 2 no matter what, as mentioned by Hoeg Law on Twitter. All this was pretty much expected and will just take time. They now have 24 weeks to look through everything hence why the deal will go through early next year. Just a waiting game. I do find Sony and Jim quite funny with their comments, though.

Awfully strange comment coming from a company that literally sells consoles by restricting games, DLC, pre order content from other consoles. I hope Microsoft win and make it exclusive. I mean I don’t but the way don’t are going they’re going to annoy even Sony players. Ultimately the deal will get done because Microsoft has far more influence over all countries involved than Sony.

@UltimateOtaku91 its not just 3 years. Its 3 years on top of their current deal. So its more like 5 to 6 years.

In Sony's recent state of play, they showed MULTIPLE third party Exclusives. No outrage over that. Always when it's Xbox.

@Giantkiller the fact that MS is the one buying the company and Sony is trying to dictate what someone else does with the stuff they own. Baffling.

@UltimateOtaku91

*If I was sony I'd sit down with Microsoft and negotiate a better deal, *

That would be the professional and adult thing to do.
However, Sony and Jim Rayn decided that by going public and stirring the console warriors fanbase is free PR and a good negotiating tactic...seemingly.

@Carck yes but Microsoft have just said they don't want to take call of duty off playstation, if that's the case they should make a better deal that pleases both playstation and the regulators and get this acquisition done and move on.

And if that's not the case and they do want to make call fo duty exclusive in 6/7 years time, then just admit it.

@Sol4ris would it be Jim and Phil though, I know both are high up but surely they can't be the one making these decisions, and if they are then that would never happen with grumpy Jim, if shu was in charge, maybe

@Giantkiller "Awfully strange comment coming from a company that literally sells consoles by restricting games, DLC, pre order content from other consoles."

Exactly, Sony restricts third-party games and invest their biggest budget on moneyhatting independent companies to hurt Xbox and Game Pass, so why would they do with first-party content? Would they block the Xbox browser from accessing PS streaming? Yes, they would and they do.

Sony are hypocritical and there is no better word to define them. They don't care about the players at all.

@UltimateOtaku91 that's just how business works bro. They can't magically tell what's the best strategy 2-3 years down the line, so the contracts need to be short.
Sony is trying to put pressure on MS extending those contracts by stirring up the public

Does anyone know what actually happens if the deal doesn't get approved by the UK, but is approved everywhere else?

@Carck yeah I suppose that's true otherswise sonys current call of duty deal would of lasted much longer. This deal is just bringing a lot of hassle and bad PR on both sides. I'd say just get gamepass on playstation and give sony a cut depending on how many players using gamepass via playstation, that will keep them happy.

@Giantkiller But that's OK by Sony because they're not buying those companies, everybody knows it's OK to reduce competition and harm consumer experience on a rival platform, so long as you don't buy said companies - because you can't afford said companies.

@Dezzy70 surely that comment could be made to Xbox - COD isn’t their game. Couldn’t they go away and make their own games? I agree Sony should. COD should stay 3rd party though.

@Chaudy the must have some power or say in it or they wouldn’t investigate it.

@Clankylad lol? Where are you from and why do you say that?

Another thread that descends into Sony bashing. Cmon folks you can do better.
This is a complex deal for all gamers and has pros and cons. It’s absolutely right it should be scrutinised.

Because PS5 is not PS4, Sony is going to release the majority of their games on PC and mobile devices in a few years, according to their reports. However, they spend millions on keeping third-party games away from Xbox while asking Microsoft to release their first-party games on PS. They are nuts.

Sony, you have how many FPS IP's that you can revive? Why not start there?

SYPHON FILTER
HAZE
KILLZONE
RESISTANCE
MAG
DUST
CODED ARMS
SOCOM

The posturing from the governmental groups is off-base to begin with but at least somewhat justifiable, but every time Sony speaks it sounds more absurd. Every time they complain they complain about MS doing exactly what they built their entire business model on. They're literally complaining that if a game is "too big to fail" it effectively should be legally required to be on all platforms. I assume they've ordered a lot of Switch and XB dev kits for Insomniac to make sure nobody misses out on Spiderman and Wolverine, beloved characters, the absence of which will hurt Nintendo and Xbox gamers and the industry. I wonder how Bluepoint's work on that Mario Kart Wii remake is going?

@UltimateOtaku91 My own opinion still revolves around the idea that the long-term plan for CoD is to end the annual retail priced release entirely and focus on the Warzone F2P product for longer term GaaS support, not unlike what Halo Infinite MP is (possibly with campaign exclusivity on XB/PC/GP....but CoD players don't buy CoD because of campaigns.) The idea would be to break out of having the entirety of ABK doing nothing but making CoD and utilize it's studios for more varied content. Acti spent far too much money on CoD to guarantee the one trick pony returns. MS doesn't necessarily need that structure (and that structure is why Acti was looking for a buyer to begin with.)

The problem, if so, is they can't actually announce a longer term plan to discontinue the annual retail release and shift the business model because they don't even own the product yet and such announcements can hurt Activision's value before, so they have to stay silent on that front. The 3-year contract is probably ballpark how long they expect to continue annual releases already in the pipeline before they transition it to a new structure, thus, they can't commit to a year 4 contract because they don't expect there to be a retail game to have a contract on in year for. But they can't say that.

Sony is acting like they have never made any big acquisitions before. Weren't they just bragging about how they acquired Bungie? Is that no longer considered a big deal?

At the end of the day, you can’t please everyone when it comes to business deals, especially ones like this, too many fingers in the pie so to speak.

No one other than those close to the deal know what was offered, all we have is Jim Ryan spitting his dummy out when in reality, the 3 years could have been standard practice before when they dealt with Acti, it’s just they’re now dealing with Microsoft they’re being dicks about it. Cos. You know, it’s Sony.

@NEStalgia Doesn't the COD beta come out early on ps like tomorrow or something? And then they just announced exclusive mission and store for Hogwarts recently only to announce a game slated for all platforms now exclusive merely a few short days ago? Yeah this is rich, and hilarious.

@Ashadelo LOL you said "Haze" with a straight face!

@SuperJoon This just proves why you should never be nice with Sony, they're like a spoiled brat that loves to bully other kids, trying to be nice and coddle someone like that isn't the answer, sometimes you just need to tell em off.

@JayJ Id be upset too if the console i designed looked like a router

@NEStalgia I think you've hit the nail on the head with that comment and I have to give it you, you always make solid points and probably make the most sense of every situation on all your comments 😜

I do wonder if warzone makes more money than the yearly full price releases, even though its free.

But I do believe they need to freshen the franchise up, the last two games didn't do as well and if you look at the best selling call of duty games they are all 2017 or before. They may be better of going the way of assassins creed and making it 2-3 year gap between releases and making the something special.

And by doing that they can leave the franchise down to one developer instead of three, say treyarch. Then use the other developers to make new games or work with xbox's other studios to polish their games, such as halo.....

@Ashadelo The first time I looked at it, it looked like a giant praying mantis with a hump. It seems that they overclocked the brains at the last minute because of Series X better specifications, hence the huge asymmetrical shape.

"we appreciate the CMA’s focus on protecting gamers." I cannot help but laugh. They act like OnlyFans simps.

PlayStation Headmaster ‏You are a monopolist you are too jealous from Microsoft and Nintendo
SO Just
Shut up ***** off SONY,

After Stellar Blade, Rise Of The Ronin, news of the PS exclusive quest for Hogwarts Legacy, and the supposed reveal of a provision by Capcom for a last gen version of RE 4 Remake only on PS4, this is more than a tad rich from Sony.

Is anyone else getting bored of this now?

I mean this week has been excellent for gaming, Sony, nintendo and xbox have all had great shows and have made 2023 one hell of a year to look forward to.

Yet its this same news that over shadows everything every god damn week, and all of a sudden this week becomes a negative.

Can't we just have one week of pure positivity for the gaming industry as a whole 😩

@UltimateOtaku91 problem is thrse articles generate clicks so they keep posting them. Even though everything that's happening is normal in other acquisitions but since it's the first time in gaming its so big they want to make everything larger than it really is

@UltimateOtaku91 "have sony found any loop holes that would mean xbox can back track on their deal once the takeover is complete?"

Dont need to look too far. Just look at the statement by microsoft above:

"It makes zero business sense for Microsoft to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation given its market leading console position."

If, by any chance, Xbox gainst the lead, and Playstation is no longer the market leading console, it would start making perfect sense to turn Call of Duty into an XBox exclusive, handicapping any chance PlayStation would have at a comeback.

I dont think XBox would weaponize CoD to get there (other than putting it on Game Pass day one) but I am sure they would be very willing to make it exclusive should they gain a large enough international lead over PlayStation. I dont see that happening at a global scale for a loooong time, and by the time frame that would be possible, Call of Duty might no longer be as relevant as it is today, if at all.

I dont entirely blame Sony for being afraid, but I do accuse them of extreme hypocrisy. "protecting gamers" my rear. If they cared about gamers, they would not be locking games like Final Fantasy for multiple years at a time.

@UltimateOtaku91 The day the headlines reads "Jim Ryan to Step Down from PlayStation, Will Become Brand Lead of Pampers" is the day PS and Xbox fans will hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

@JayJ The problem, or one of the problems, I think with Sony's corporate culture, or the optics of it, is that they're a company by and large run by lawyers. I mean all big companies are, but Sony's preeminence in finance, insurance underwriting, music and movies means most of their corporate energy is rooted in their legal contract, litigious, and licensing wheeling and dealing aptitude. Not that MS and Nintendo and such aren't known for their giant legal departments and lawsuits, too, but for most companies the product/service drives the general company goals, and for Sony, so much of what they do and how they do it has been based entirely on "cleverness" in legal maneuvering for so long in their biggest industries that relying on legal trickery and shrewd contract authoring is their default first line of defense on all things, and has been since at least the 80's. It's rarely a good look, but they're not really used to it being a public thing. Which makes it twice as awkward that Jim made it a public thing.

@J_Mo_Money Yeah, and even with all the other exclusivity antics, the one that really makes this so hypocritical is that CoD is a game they, themselves have had heavy paid favorable treatment on in Jim's on words, for decades. The exclusive marketing, the early access, the exclusive gear, the free credits. Sony's literally paid to make other platforms an inferior CoD experience for many years, and now that a competitor is paying more, they suddenly want to rattle government bodies to halt it. You can't make this stuff up. It's like when Jeff Bezos was against charging interstate taxes for online sales to the tune of endless court battles and lobbying until he built distribution centers in every state meaning Amazon had to charge taxes and other online retailer's didn't and suddenly their lobby was all about collecting taxes online.

The world according to Sony

Playstation exclusive = good

Xbox exclusive = bad

@UltimateOtaku91 / @Carck : Sorry if someone already clarified this and I missed it, but you've got it wrong. The deal extends COD releases on the PlayStation by three years on top of the existing deal — to the end of 2027. And that is more than fair, especially since it doesn't make sense for anyone, Microsoft included, to guarantee releases into the next console generation when we don't even know what that generation will look like.

I believe the acquisition will go through, but it will be worse if it won't. I can see an "exclusive war" happening, with MS using plenty of those 70 bi to get as much content to game pass as possible. Sony/Jim will only get those japanese companies that never release anything on Xbox. Maybe MS could even buy "smaller" companies, "Capcom-sized" ones, just like Embracer did with Eidos/Crystal/etc, that no regulation was needed.

For all those people saying the deal will go through, don't be so sure about that. It doesn't look good regarding this deal.

@Clankylad giving concessions would be an acceptance of guilt kinda. They don't think there's anything wrong with the deal or their offering and they would have been ready to go to court before they announced the intent to buy. I don't see this going to court so they will pass it after phase 2 likely with some sort of small concession. Likely throwing Sony under the buss as they explain to the CMA what's actually happening in the industry. Would be hilarious if there's an investigation into Sony afterwards, won't happen but would be great to see.

Also reminder that the exclusive paid for beta for CoD starts soon on playstation....

@Stocksy
Well sort of, but if you have bought the company and rights etc then it’s yours.
Just like Sony have purchased some studios, they have the rights etc. I would have liked a Sunset Overdrive 2, but won’t happen now.
People forget Sony did a lot of purchasing in the old days when the internet was a lot quieter and not many took notice.
Also rightly or wrongly I think it’s about time Phil showed some balls and took the fight to Sony and stopped being so nice.
You wanna be top dog then you got to go for it.

@Dezzy70 Yeah I do feel like he's always playing way too nice with Sony, who doesn't know how to be anything besides aggressive.

There seems to a be a lot of confusion in this thread between people thinking developing new IP is the same as buying existing IP.
Nobody is going to bat an eyelid at Microsoft making all its new IP exclusive, it has every right to and you wont waste time developing for your rivals machine if its market share you want.

If you are buying an existing product however, one that's traditionally multi format and has a large significant presence on rivals machines, then that's potentially manipulating the market in a restrictive way, which is why such moves need to be regulated and looked at. Its not about the 'exclusivity' so much as taking the product from people who are already invested in it. If it were a small product, that's not much effect on the market. But a franchise that's sold 400 million and is the most successful video game IP ever developed in the US, is a bigger slice and influence on the market.

I'm not saying the deal should not go through, but I am saying its not about simply wanting exclusives - all corps will continue to develop them, and its not wrong that its a t least looked at and evaluated. There has to be a limit right? If you bought all the games devs in existence and limited output to only your own machines, then most people could see this is not in consumer interests?
I think with the kind of assurances made already, this would be a safe buy out, but I'll admit I don't have the data and anyalsis on hand so its just a feeling
I don't blame Sony for playing their hand, you dont expect them to roll over and take it quietly. If they were buying EA and making fifa an exclusive I think we'd soon hear from Microsoft.

Sadly for us, it just delays things. I want this take over as I want more stuff that enthuses me on the Series X, delays don't serve my needs at all.

@Snake_V5 It will go through. The UK does not have the power to stop this deal, and so far they are the only ones with any issue.

As far as I know, the worst the UK can truly do is complicate the HR consolidation of any local staffing. If Activision has any offices or personnel in the UK (I would bet they do, at minimum some marketing branch) those might need to be spun off into independent subsidiaries.

As far as I know, the only country that has expressed any issues publicly was the US, not from the agencies involved, but from lawmakers (that dont actually control the process) and that concern was only about workers rights. It goes without saying that Microsoft HR is a better umbrella than Activision HR, but despite this, Phil has clarified that they will respect the new worker union within Activision, and that alone would likely appease US lawmakers.

@SplooshDmg yup you are right. of course they were planning on this. Pretty much all the regulators of countries have taken this deal to “phase 2”. It’s just the UK making a scene of it. I mean that’s their job.

However, COD being exclusive is such a low issue for MS and this deal. Which honestly is about money and making more of it with things like Candy Crush etc

MS doesn’t want COD as a console exclusive, and that’s takes most of fire out of this argument.

As for Arm, first wasn’t it Nvidia that backed out without making concessions? I know it got somewhat blocked by I thought they also gave up?

@Titntin

multi format and has a large significant presence on rivals machines, then that's potentially manipulating the market in a restrictive way, which is why such moves need to be regulated and looked at.

At least in the US, there is no such a thing.

With my limited armchair internet lawyer honorary degree, the only regulations the US has are about monopolies, and this usually translates to using a position of power to block competition and innovation.

Microsoft bundling internet explorer inside Windows, and blocking competitors from essential APIs, is an actual good example of such a behavior because it sabotages the availability of a competitor.

A fake example of such behavior would be if Microsoft somehow acquired or owned: Amazon, Target and Walmart in the US, and then used that ownership of a large retail presence to block the sales of PlayStation consoles.

Thats an extreme example, but Amazon has gotten close to spark that kind of probe in the past by blocking the sale of things that compete with their things. Most recently, I recall inquiries about refusing to sell smart home devices that did not work with Alexa. Even that didn't go anywhere because you can still buy Google and Apple competitors from plenty other outlets.

Anyways, the concept of ever creating a monopoly in entertainment is extremely hard. When Disney acquired Fox, there was only one clause: the acquisition could not include Fox news and sports divisions, because Disney already owned gigantic news and sports divisions of their own and that would actually bring them into monopoly holding positions. Notice that this was not about a specific genre or IP. That acquisition gave Disney near absolute control of super hero IPs in entertainment, and that was not seen as a legal bump of any kind.

I could go on longer but this is getting two long, TLDR: I dont see any legal path for this acquisition to be blocked in the US, the only country that can actually block it.

@mousieone they as far as I know, they were no longer buying ARM, but that was vague enough. It was very public that a bunch of regulatory agencies were entirely opposed to the deal, making it nearly impossible to go through with it.

@BartoxTharglod Thanks for the memories dude - I was part of psygnosis back then, working the Camden studio,
Happy days!

@Tharsman Thanks for the reply - your quite right, I'm a UK guy and have little knowledge of US law, so a little helpful guidance appreciated

@UltimateOtaku91 the whole 3 year train is misleading. They have a guarantee of the next 5 iterations of cod…cod is skipping next year. So PlayStation are looking at only the possibility of cod not being on their platform day 1 in the year 2027/8? Basically the rest of this generation. Now why oh why would MS sign a contract for cod for this and next generation? When they then have no room to negotiate a new contract next gen…that would be pretty foolish. And wanting that ability to negotiate a new contract isn’t the same as wanting cod exclusivity next gen.
The way PlayStation guys are spinning it it reads like only the next 2 cods are coming out for PlayStation and then it’s exclusive.
Sony knows they’ll still be getting the game. What they don’t like is that they lose the marketing rights and it being on gamepass day 1.

Hopefully this goes to court. And if it does hopefully it will bring a light to other deals going on…to Sonys 3rd party deals that ensure exclusive content would be nice as that’s just as, if not more damaging.

I was listening to a lawyer talk about this deal. He said regardless if Sony said anything, there would still be regulators looking into this as that is their job. He does believe the deal will go through, he really didn’t see much reason of why it wouldn’t. I’m personally just tired of hearing these two companies bicker and argue like children.

The gaming media absolutely loves this saga. Lol

@SplooshDmg I doubt there is going to be any conditionals slapped to the deal, but I could bet that even should every government demand that Call of Duty be spun off into its own company, Microsoft would still want to acquire the rest of Activision/Blizzard/King.

Mobile revenue alone is bigger than all of Call of Duty. I mean, just look at these numbers from Q22:

$332 PC
$376 combined console
$831 "mobile and ancillary" (mostly mobile)
$105 "Other" (distribution business, Overwatch and Call of Duty Leagues, not the games),

Mobile alone is more than half. And sure, there is CoD mobile, but there are also non-CoD games making revenue in pc and console.

@Tharsman Yeah but don't all countries have to agree for this to go through?

When this deal goes through and it will, surely this has to lessen the relationship between the 2 companies? Sony need to be careful how far they push back against this.

@Tharsman thanks

@Snake_V5 Nope. They don’t have to get all countries.

@SplooshDmg you do realize the CMA used Emojis in their official press release?

Umm that’s doesn’t scream making a scene? Don’t get me wrong everything else I agree with but as someone who actually had to do official press releases for my undergrad to graduate; that’s not professional. However, yeah you need to have those “concessions” official and MS knows this. Of course they had to try but yeah.

No it’s not about the IPs sorry I didn’t make that completely clear. But that’s what I meant about COD being exclusive doesn’t matter to them in the long run. It’s the entire package they want.

Thanks for the Nvidia info

@Snake_V5 Disclaimer that I'm not an expert, just old and read a lot of [bleep] that might be incorrect so... there is that.

I don't think every country needs to agree, no. It all goes smoother if they do, but if they don't, they will have to restructure any regional presence they have in those countries.

Activision/Blizzard very likely owns some business in the UK, at minimum, some regional marketing. Maybe some UK based studios, or QA teams, or what not. Bringing those under the new ownership will likely require approval from the country in question (UK in this case) and if they cant get the approval, maybe those have to be spun off into independent entities.

There might also be some lawyereze stuff about regional trademarks and copyrights and the like, but I'm sure thats a way smaller issue that is relatively easy for lawyers to maneuver through.

@Clankylad wait really?

Jez from windows central has a great article on this if anyone's interested.

https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/xbox/sony-knows-it-wont-lose-call-of-duty-to-xbox-exclusivity-heres-what-its-really-about

@SplooshDmg If Sony points that at a lot officials all they are doing is shooting themselves on the foot, because they would be screaming how they are the ones that look like "too big".

Another interesting acquisition story of "recent" years was AT&T attempt to buy T-Mobile. AT&T was at the time second largest wireless carrier, and the acquisition of TMobile would have made them control too much of the US market in every category (airwave frequencies, users, infrastructure, money) so the deal was stopped and they had to pay the penalty.

By the same token, much later, T-Mobile ended up acquiring/merging with Sprint. This oddly ended up turning T-Mobile into a larger carrier than AT&T. As of 2022, this is the subscriber count for the big 3:

143 million Verizon
110.2 million TMobile
101.6 million AT&T

Interestingly, before the T-Mobile Sprint merger, TMobile had 81.3 million customers and Sprint 54.5 million. The sum of those two numbers is way smaller than their current post-merger total. Proof that buying business does not mean you will keep that business. Where did they move to? I got lazy at this point going down the historical rabbit hole, sorry.

@SplooshDmg I tend to agree with your guys thoughts on this. I agree I think MS wants to use those studios to do other things and stop the annual cycle. But I also think they want Warzone everywhere forever.

But I also think MS wants the mobile revenue a lot to. Everyone wants to get into mobile and here is shiny King the experts in mobile/live service.

I mean ABK ticks a lot of boxes.

Sony didn’t want Bethesda going through either…. I mean I’m sure MS wasn’t fond of the Bungie buyout which is mind blowing the creators of Halo belong to Sony now…

@Bleachedsmiles this is just it , they are spinning pr to try and scare Thier own fans into thinking cod will stop on ps ,that's not the case they just won't get all the stuff like exclusive stuff like they do now ( and for the next few years ) and the biggest thing for ps is them going on gamepass ,they are bricking it cause they know how many ppl will sign up for that alone

@FraserG Microsoft said to Eurogamer:

"UPDATE 5pm UK: In a statement to Eurogamer, a Microsoft spokesperson has addressed Sony's statement: "It makes zero business sense for Microsoft to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation given its market leading console position.""

@SplooshDmg Interestingly, it is precisely stuff like using your size to compel others to not do business with your competitors that is seen as a monopolistic practice.

Sony might be walking a thin line, it all depends on how they negotiate their deals.

If they go to Square and say "Ima give you 10 million for an exclusive", then that's ok.

If they go and say "If its not exclusive, we wont let you on our store" that's extreme bad (doubt that's going on.)

If they go and say "we are 75% of your sales market, we will cut royalties from 30% down to 5% for the first year if you don't bother with XBox", that can start to walk down a thin line.

I can see concession being forced with this deal by the CMA. Crying Ryan should just shut up, the hypocrisy with Sony is endless, they just make me hate them more everyday due to that. I'd like further confirmation then 2 newspapers of Microsoft flat out did nothing, I dread to think of the BS Sony must be telling the CMA.

Chickens came home to roost Sony. You deserve losing all Activision games. A shame most will likely remain multi-platform...

What it seems to me is that the CMA want absolute legally binding guarantees that COD and exclusivity deals for it can remain with Sony most likely for infinity. All because of Sonys crying no doubt.
Sonys REAL aim is to keep COD of Game Pass as they full well know that'll kill the game on their platform, that is their ultimate goal and they will do anything and everything they can to achieve that.

@Tharsman @mousieone IIRC the ARM issue wasn't about the company but about the patents, that it would give one player in the industry control of the patents of a hardware architecture the entire industry depends on. It would be like selling the x86 architecture to HP, so suddenly all PCs and consoles can't be made anymore unless you pay HP or HP manufactures them.

@Agnostic When Microsoft bleeped me off (during XBO gen) I simply didnt play XBox exclusives. Same thing when Sony bleeped me off during the PS3.

In neither case did I bleed or suffered in any way for not playing in the platforms, and when the companies both changed their tunes (at different times respectively) I ended up playing a huge binge of fun games for bargain prices. There is always more fun stuff to play. If my favorite game series [Assassins Creed] became a Stadia exclusive? I would likely just play something else going forward.

If it happens again, it happens again. But right now, it is Sony that is getting close to go back on time-out, not only are they pulling plenty of gross pricing moves, but they also are trying to maintain the status quo on Activision. There is no question this acquisition will be a step up for everyone working under Kotic.

@NEStalgia "IIRC the ARM issue wasn't about the company but about the patents"

You are not wrong, but that's all that ARM basically is. ARM basically is a patent holding company. They don't make chips, they design and patent them, then license that patent out.

@mousieone I think Bungie belonging to Sony is about the same status as Rare belonging to MS. Both studios fell from grace before the sale and weren't really terribly important anymore by the time they were sold. (Not that the Goldeneye ROM dump and and Everwild "we don't actually know whata it is" isn't as noteworthy as Destiny/2 being the only game made since Halo....)

@Tharsman AT&T was not helped by their weak argument that the point of the merger was because they could not compete without acquiring TMO's spectrum. Which was absurd as the larger player with far more low-frequency spectrum and all TMO had was a ridiculous amount of UHF. It would be like Microsoft claiming that without Skylanders they just can't compete in the kids video game market (while owning Minecraft.)

@Snake_V5 Only the US needs to approve, it's a domestic transaction. Other countries could make life difficult or expensive for them so as to make it prohibitive to complete if enough of them do so. If the whole of EU/EC blocked it it could prove challenging or expensive. IF it's just UK, it's an ignorable wrist slap, a cheap fine, and probably some closed ABK offices in the UK making the regulators look bad from a populist POV.

@Bleachedsmiles Indeed. Imagine Ford paying Firestone to ensure their tires have less traction when used on a Honda..... that's the Sony business model. It's the kind of stuff Rockefeller got ripped a new one for doing, but we've forgotten about that somehow.

@SplooshDmg COD as is is not sustainable. They were crashing and everything had to feed the pig.

@NEStalgia your not playing Splatoon… you can’t be NES. You are an illusion.

@Agnostic What I want is for this to be over with so it’s stops flooding the news channels. What I don’t think is that this makes MS a monopoly by any means. What Id like is for you to stop generalizing. Thanks.

@SplooshDmg I'm always reminded by the US politician years back that tried to argue some regulation or another with "the internet is a series of tubes." These guys don't even know what a call of dooty is. They do know if Jim or Phil is wiring more to their swiss bank accounts though, or a labor lobby has more sway from a campaign donation industry in their camp.

ARM opened the possibility that all phones could be controlled by a single company that also competes in the phone market rather than the chip market. ABK opens the possibility that a particular eSport shooter among dozens is owned by a single company that may or may not remove it from a single platform among 5. Totally the same if you're a politician that has a nephew that talked about Minecraft that one time at dinner.

@Agnostic You forgot PS5 in that list of "once they control enough they will **** you" history That's part of the problem here. Sony's in that position and this is a move that will help bust that position which is why there's some celebration of it. You're right, it'll eventually swing the other way, MS will overreach and PS can save the day "For the Players(TM)" again. I kind of like the current status quo of MS being the reliably friendly one as the underdog so I'm not super-enthused about the penjulum swinging, but the current lopsidedness surely isn't good for the industry. Without MS's deep pockets consoles would probably be a 1-way fight already after last gen.

@mousieone "A communication error has occurred."

How I'm seeing the CMA situation...

Microsoft: "We've got the entire industry in Brazil and other areas singing our praises."
CMA: "Sony came to us and claimed that your reasons for buying Activision Blizzard were to deny Sony Call Of Duty..."
Microsoft: "But..."
CMA: "Sony want it in writing that they will have Call Of Duty until 2100 at least, with no Game Pass exclusive content..."
Sony: (whispers)
CMA: "Oh yes, and a six month exclusive on Call Of Duty Zombies mode."
Microsoft: "We refuse!"
CMA: "Alright, we're taking it to the EU courts for your clearly unprofessional behaviour."

@NEStalgia "The one that really makes this so hypocritical is that CoD is a game Sony, themselves have had heavy paid favorable treatment on in Jim's on words, for decades. The exclusive marketing, the early access, the exclusive gear, the free credits. Sony has literally paid to make other platforms an inferior CoD experience for many years, and now that a competitor is paying more, they suddenly want to rattle government bodies to halt it."

And they say that they care about the players. They would buy Activision right now if they could and make everything exclusive. Such hypocrites. Sony, be honest and admit that you're butthurt because you won't have the early access and exclusive modes and you might get a smaller commission from the PS store. Don't say that you're worried about the gamers as if you were some kind of gaming charity.

@Banjo- That's the part that's just comical. If it were a game that was a totally neutral ground since forever, being pulled to be favored on one platform, they would have a razor thin argument. But we're talking about a game that THEY have paid for favored treatment on simply changing which foot the shoe is on, and suddenly they're crying foul. Leveraging advantages in a business argument is one thing, but this is a line of thinking you expect from a 5 year old, not a corporate legal team.

@Royalblues I don't think "quality" referred to Game Pass, I think it referred to the PS market, the largest market getting a superior experience because Sony pays Acti for a superior experience to the detriment of competitors. Which.... arguing to regulators that this deal means losing your unfair competitive advantage you paid fair and square for is a pretty weak place to argue from.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s not about losing COD. It’s about losing the advantages with COD, including all exclusive content and features.

I don’t even care about COD directly. I’m excited to play them in gamepass. But I haven’t played in fifteen years. I’m looking forward to more Tony Hawk, Crash, Spyro, and really anything that comes from freeing up these studios from COD. And that will ABSOLUTELY be good for the gamers.

Sonys argument is weak merely by the fact that they do so many exclusive power plays themselves. Like others have said. The more they say, the worse their argument looks when compared to practice.

At this point, I hope the deal goes through and Microsoft rips COD away from Sony as soon as it possibly can.

@Banjo- Exactly, Sony restricts third-party games and invest their biggest budget on moneyhatting independent companies to hurt Xbox and Game Pass.

All of that is just a myth. It's not Sony paying developers or 3rd party to keep games from Xbox, it's the developers themselves that don't want the games on Xbox because there not keen on Xbox. Look at FF7 Remake for example, it's not Sony as to why it's not on Xbox, it's because Square Enix aren't keen on Xbox because there games just don't sell on Xbox. Plus there relationship with Sony is far greater than Microsoft.

@FraserG you're doing an awesome job by the way
I have a request - seen as you legends are also Push Square - how about a bit of a report on 'how each community feels about this stuff' - I do not frequent that page as often, but would be of interest to see where the PS and XBOX community themselves stand on this subject. Are gaming communities on the same page or do we have a tendency to support our chosen corporate overlords interests over our own etc?

@Snake_V5 Ha ha ha... NOPE. I'd have believed you... 12 hours ago, then we saw one of the most jaw-dropping displays of open support for Microsoft from Japan and Asia in recent history, and that argument became meaningless. So, I wish to ask you one thing...

When will Microsoft see a port of Street Fighter 5, considering that we're getting the CBT for Street Fighter 6 next month, meaning it's definitely NOT confidence in the XBOX brand that's kept SF5 off the console...

@Snake_V5 if there was a grain of truth to that, we would not see Core Crisis/Reunion being launched day and date on Xbox, Switch, PC and PlayStation.

Why would they release even more niche games like Romancing Saga remakes on xbox if they are so not keen of the platform?

Square isn’t “not kin” on Xbox. Sony has simply paid for certain titles to be exclusive.

@ValentineMeikin it’s not secret that Sony paid big bucks for full lifetime exclusivity of SF5. It also was not successful enough for Capcom to bother porting it, much less so close to the release of SF6. We might see it one day, long in the future, in some retro collection whenever the game is considered “retro”.

@Tharsman That's the point. FF7 Remake, Deathloop, several other games, Sony paid for 'limited exclusivity'. Street Fighter 5, they bought the entire game... and it was one of Capcom's biggest disasters going, due to being neither a casual fighter or something they could use for tournaments freely...

And as a result, Street Fighter 6 completely reinvents the wheel entirely.

"By giving Microsoft control of Activision games like Call of Duty, this deal would have major negative implications for [Sony] and the future of [PlayStation]. We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality gaming experience, and we appreciate the CMA’s focus on protecting [Sony]."

This is what Sony really means by that statement.

@GamingFan4Lyf You look at the Brazil filings, and everyone else is going 'Uhh, no, we don't see a problem here...' while Sony are going 'Call Of Duty is the biggest FPS in history, and has a long history of multi-platform releases'...

If Microsoft's deal with ActiBlizz went through tomorrow, Johnny PC would still get COD and Jimmy XBOX of course would get COD. But Joey Playstation... He might not, so he's sad. And Jenny Switch just looks puzzled and goes back to playing Doom.

@UltimateOtaku91 “why didn't they offer sony a longer deal than just 3 years?”

Easy, they would rather people be uncertain about CoDs future on PlayStation when contemplating their next console purchase. That’s just good business sense.

@ValentineMeikin I mean, I do understand Sony's side of things. I can imagine that a vast majority of the PS4 sales were because of 1) Microsoft's terrible handling of X1 and 2) Sony's deal with Call of Duty.

The reality is, the majority of gamers aren't the people who comment on these websites. It's the annual CoD/FIFA/Madden/NBA2K crowd. Sony had the best marketing for Call of Duty so people migrated.

However, Microsoft has said it will keep CoD on PlayStation. It WON'T say "for life" because that could lead to serious contractual nightmares down the road should Microsoft simply grow tired of the franchise. Microsoft will always put itself in a position for renegotiation and if Sony doesn't "play ball," that's on Sony.

I don't think Microsoft will purposefully be under-handed with the negotiations just because Xbox v PlayStation. People forget that Microsoft and Sony actually have a partnership in the Azure space. So I am sure whatever is negotiated will be fair, but still swing in Microsoft's favor.

It's not the gamers as a whole that will hurt. It's not fair competition that will hurt. It's Sony that could hurt as it will no longer have the same privileges to CoD as it has had for years and that could hurt future PS5 sales.

@GamingFan4Lyf Exactly. If Sony were harping about Overwatch AND Call Of Duty AND Crash Bandicoot AND... etc, I'd accept their 'think of the gamers' line. But every single time I see their argument, I take a swig of water every time they mention Call of Duty and it's Playstation legacy... and be thankful it's not alcohol.

It would be like if Microsoft made an acquisition attempt on DC Universe Online's developer, and Sony complained that they MADE the game in the first place.

Many people keep saying Microsoft removing CoD from playstation would not be a smart business move.... But is that really the case? When Gamepass targets Xbox, PC and Mobile which is probably 80% or more of the gaming world. Outside of America, Europe and Japan most of the world does not console game. I lived in China for 6 years and only had a few friends that were in HS who owned a console. Now I live in Malaysia and dont know anyone. Everyone mobile games or pc games.

"By giving Microsoft control of Activision games like Call of Duty, this deal would have major negative implications for gamers"

jim you missed out a word there PlayStation gamers oh you missed that out on purpose because theat would reveal your own self interest at maintaining market dominance

I cannot wait for Sony to try and explain the the regulators how Nintendo’s Switch, has become the most successful console of this and last gen without a single COD game, when they state it’s bad for ‘all’ gamers repeatedly. Such a hypocritical nasty company SONY is, a pathetic joke that should just fade away, they are using heavy manipulative tactics to try and discredit Xbox whilst announcing new third party exclusives themselves all the time, this week included.
Microsoft could easily point this out to the regulators, but I’m not sure if it would be in scope of what they object to.

I’ve stated multiple times now, Sony are absolutely terrified of Game Pass. They damn well know if COD is out on there they WILL lose customers to Xbox, and deservedly so as that should 100% happen when you abuse your dominant market position like they have, with price rises on all products.

@ValentineMeikin Some Sony fans actually do fully believe COD first appeared on PlayStation, I kid you not… such is the delusion by some of them, social media personalities for PlayStation are telling them this too and they believe it.

@S1ayeR74 tbf it did appear on playstation before Xbox (ps1)
*Edit no I'm wrong could've sworn allied assault or Pacific assault was on the ps1 lol

@Carck Actually Microsoft pledged to make COD multiplatform for 3 years after current contractual obligations expire... which means it will definitely be mutli platorm till 2008

@BartoxTharglod Thank you. I dont remember that particular title from psygnosis, but we published a lot I moved from the camden studio to a new one in Hanger Lane, working on an action dinosaur title called 'red meat', the other team there were working on a 'blood bowl' game. That was unfortunately closed as a studio, around 1997. As I was walking out of the building with everyone else who lost there job within an hour of showing for work, but Iwas poached by staff recruiting for Bullfrog as we left, and went to work on Dungeon Keeper 2 in Guildford.
Psygnosis were great though, lots of free games and launch parties and they bought me a top Silicon Graphix computer to work with, class. When I got animation training, we got an artist from ILM teaching us... no expense spared!
The industry is obviously very different now, but that period when it was growing from cottage industry to global buisness was an exciting time when most of us in the biz knew the others that were around. I still love that psygnosis owl logo and reminisce a little about those heady early days....

@Would_you_kindly COD was first developed for and only on PC. It then made the move to consoles. And the majority agree it's biggest success which catapulted it into the game it is was on the Xbox 360 with its multiplayer shining on Xbox Live, which as we all know trounced Sonys online offering.

I'd find Sony's argument a lot more compelling if they hadn't just dropped a trailer for all the exclusive modes and content coming to MW2 and Warzone 2.0.

@FraserG @trukme
As someone who reads both here and push, its mainly fans of one corp arguing their corps position. Only a few seem genuinely not invested in one side or the other. Unfortunately, the internet does not engender thoughtful acceptance, and tends to tribalize people. I'm not sure that joint postings from both sets of fans would be healthy.
Its amazing the vitriol that such spats can produce, after all both companies are merely trying to protect their own business positions, which they absolutely should be doing.
The decision to look into this in the first place, and now to extend it, is the decision of the regulators, who won't dance to anyone's beat imo.
But the righteous do like to protect the imagined honor of their corp of choice, no matter how ridiculous that is on reflection, and that definitely includes both sides of this particular debate!

@Titntin The problem here is the fact Brazil released enough, into the public eye, to show that the easiest way to solve all this would be for Sony to front an acceptable amount and effectively buy Call Of Duty.

Yes, they might run it into the ground and turn it into a white elephant, but it would stop Jim Ryan and his lawyers from claiming everywhere that Call Of Duty going to Microsoft would cause the end of the world!

@ValentineMeikin You're absolutely right, thanks for replying!

More games Sony paid for keeping away from Xbox: Forspoken (two years).

@Tharsman Thanks to you as well.

@Titntin @FraserG thankyou both for replying, Titntin, you're on the money. I wonder how gaming journalism could possible change tact slightly to report on how the deal is of benefit (or otherwise) to gamers as a whole - actually break it down rather than a quick fire he said she said, where the comments sections fill up with predominatly uninformed and tribalised opinion. With regards to 'what's the feeling in the Push Square comments section' - I knew the answer already, Titntin responded better than I could have composed myself. Keeping these pages separate works for me because I play on XB/PC but that's no reason to keep gamers separate through the journalism on the biggest deal ever proposed that has potential to affect half of us with the largest benefit to a corporation. Journalism for gamers as a whole, curated in to respective sites for the audience required. Not audience(corpo) driven journalism that serves the corpos first, gamers second.

@Dezzy70 well technically Xbox didn’t create COD so your comment doesn’t really make sense. You could say, why can’t Xbox not just create their own games instead of buying everything in sight?

@Boucho11
Can’t disagree with your comment.
But Sony probably need to let it go, that’s was my main point.
Anyway it’s Microsoft’s massive plan to create a future metaverse. They have PC and all that locked down, they are busy buying gaming studios for that side of the creation.

In retrospect, all of this makes the heavy criticism and complaining about Rise of the tomb Raider look ridiculous. Timed exclusive games had been happening for a while, but they were usually funded by MS or Sony to a large degree and were new, experimental IPs (ex. Bioshock, Mass Effect) and so I get why people were shocked at the time with Rise of the Tomb Raider. However look what’s happened since…

Everyone acted like Microsoft was SO evil for that simple timed exclusive. So MS backs down a bit from those. Sony goes straight into buying up a large variety of exclusive content and timed exclusive games (several being sequels to existing multi platform series). And this “death by a thousand cuts” method leads to an even larger gap with Sony on top and a challenging advantage because of things like COD exclusive content, among many others. So… MS does the only thing it can. It can’t get its own timed exclusives at the same level because of the market advantage and power plays from Sony, so it decides to start buying studios. Then when the opportunity comes, they get publishers. Now heavy complaints from both sides.

Just imagine how different everything would be had everybody taken a chill pill about the Rise of the Tomb Raider deal. MS and Sony would have just went back and forth with timed deals, and eventually we would all have things we wanted. Probably not better. But it would be different.

@Dezzy70 I agree. I game on both so I’m not really bothered by it. I don’t like the thought of either corp having so much control but at the same time, great things have come from Sony when their back was up against the wall.

@Boucho11
Even with the price increase from Sony and £70 game cost, they not reacting like they got their backs against the wall just yet.
I think they are having the approach at the moment we are selling all PS5 consoles we can make so their is little point.

@Royalblues

"I think the best possible outcome is if Sony wants COD to remain on their platform, their practices should be scrutinized as well, as what they do is actually anti-competitive and hurts the industry, as they actively take away content from other gamers as punishment for gaming elsewhere.

I'm glad the Sony fantasy and bubble that fans have been in for half a decade or more is finally starting to burst."

Right. Sony play dirty, they don't acquire every company because they can't but they do worse things like paying for games to skip Xbox for as long as they can pay, not to mention to remove features and modes from multiplatform games to hurt players than don't choose to game on PS. Is there something worse than that? Investing your money not in making games or acquiring studios but in paying other companies for hurting Xbox players specifically?

@GamingFan4Lyf

"I can imagine that a vast majority of the PS4 sales were because of 1) Microsoft's terrible handling of Xbox One and 2) Sony's deal with Call of Duty.

The reality is, the majority of gamers aren't the people who comment on these websites. It's the annual CoD/FIFA/Madden/NBA2K crowd. Sony had the best marketing for Call of Duty so people migrated.

It's not the gamers as a whole that will hurt. It's not fair competition that will hurt. It's Sony that could hurt as it will no longer have the same privileges to CoD as it has had for years and that could hurt future PS5 sales."

Right. The launch of Xbox One was a mess and let's not forget that Xbox One was also more expensive than PS4. Most people got a PS4 for playing one or more of the most popular games: FIFA/MADDEN, Call of Duty, GTAV...

Sony was the last company to agree about cross-platform play in third-party games and now they say that they care about the players? 😂 Remember how the Fortnite accounts logins on PS erased your content purchased outside PS. Shoddy practices. They have never worried about the players. Their strategy is to hurt the other players as much as possible to make PS look like a better place to play on.

The irony is that they know that PS5 is not PS4, so they revealed that in a few years, most Sony games will be available on PC and mobile devices, but their obsession with Xbox players is still sky-high and they are complaining about something that is their modus operandi.

@trukme We have a few examples of double agents here being moderately critical of Microsoft at most and brutally anti-Microsoft on Push Square.

@Agnostic if that’s how you took it; thats your problem. Try to have to have a good day.

If I am Microsoft, do I want to make CoD an exclusive? I will sell a few more consoles, sure…. But I will also lose a lot of sales too. My guess is the number of people who buy a console for this specific game is small- like maybe a million or two. But then there will be overlap- some people who will own both consoles. If I were a huge Ps5 fan and wanted to play CoD, I would either play it on PC or get a Series S.

Funny history lesson: This isn't the first time Activision Blizzard was up for sale. Back in 2013, as the XBox One was getting to splat on its face during its launch, Vivendi was trying to get rid of their gaming division, but could not find anyone willing to pay the huge price tag.

Eventually, Activsion Blzzard bought itself out of Vivendi and became an independent entity. The price tag? 8.2 billion.

My brain keeps thinking: "what if Microsoft had not been so dumb back then and just bought A/B?"

In this hypothetical, sadly, would have to keep in mind Don Matrix was still in charge, and AB didn't own King yet (that was acquired in 2015 for 5.9 billion,) but they still had the Spider Man license (their last game came out in 2014.) Kotic decided to bet the whole company on CoD by just getting rid of all those licensed games and put all those teams to work on CoD.

Its unlikely things would had been seen as a positive by many, I know I would had not seen it as a positive.

Oh another amusing thing to think about: the last Killzone, as poorly rated as it was, sold 2 million copies. Can we accuse Sony of taking further Killzone entries away from millions of PlayStation gamers? 🙃

For such a giant, it's beyond embarrassing how Sony is acting ...
Sony has the studios, the quality, ... COMPETE with what you have & learn some lessons from MS about being consumer friendly while making profit! Sony is my fave SP platform but most friends are on Xbox (MP). MS still has some work to do on that front (SP) + buying AB isn't the holy grail.

It is not likely but if the future owner of COD would like to end the franchise they can not do it because of their attitude?

Stop depending on COD, that profit is gone, make some quality FPS

Compare Microsoft's last few E3 to Sony's.

Microsoft have many more games, and don't even try to trumpet about exclusivity, outside of 'Day 1 Game Pass'.

Sony's trumpet about the handful of games they have some exclusive bait content to get people to buy.

Microsoft are in a situation where they win by attending conventions. They already dominate the market... because Sony just sits there pretending they're still relevant.

This whole CMA situation is Sony making themselves relevant, by pretending they're still a Big Thing within gaming. That they didn't burn their Japanese market share with censorship and their US market by just laying out tent poles...

Microsoft brings a circus to town whenever they arrive. Sony just brings the performers, brings the spectacle... but they're standing around in an empty field with huge poles where the tent should be.

The arrogance and hubris of Sony is just laughable at this point. There are so many examples of Sony stifling the competition with their anti-competitive behavior. It all comes down to one thing for crying Jimbo, $$$$. The sad thing is they have so many that buy into their BS. And I say this as the lucky owner of all three consoles.

@themightyant Microsoft just bought Bethesda, which is a pretty major publisher in its own right.

This is gonna go through, yes? The deal? I’m terrible at business type stuff

@themightyant show me 1 instance of ms doing this to sony....ill wait!!!!! you wont find any for two reasons one MS doesnt seem to care and the 2nd(which is why MS doesnt care) is SONY COULD NEVER BUY ACTIVISION they dont have the money.....Sony cant buy any HUGE studio. they dont have that kind of money, sony is buying activision for about half of what all of sony is worth...sony is worth roughly 150bn and activision being bought for roughly 70bn point is SONY could never spend half of what they are worth on gaming company...and then theres MS worth 1 trillion that a Trillion with a T....

Overall what should be the main thing to discuss and poll is... Will this acquisition be good or bad for gamers? If the acquisition goes through and Xbox make it exclusive to thier eco, is that good for players on both consoles? If micro buy and sign a contract that guarantees cod on PS for the next 10yrs, is that good for players? Is it good for players if the deal doesn't go through at all? All I care about is the players and so should everyone else, Multiplayer gaming can be and usually is a community building thing, something that can bring us all together to enjoy online gaming. Can this deal result in gaming communities being ripped apart? Remember this game was created and launched Multiplatform and thus created a HUGE franchise, taking it away from multi millions of people isn't a good look for anyone no matter what company was or is going to do it. Do the players gain or lose in this? That should be the ultimate question. IMO.

@themightyant "Microsoft complaining about Sony to regulators… Well just a few weeks ago Microsoft publicly complained to Brazilian regulators that Sony was blocking games from Game Pass."

If you really want to be honest, you should admit that they were just legally defending themselves from Sony's attacks. Sony's hypocritical attacks intent to ruin the acquisition, so the least that Microsoft can do is defend themselves with the truth.

To be hoped it does all go though because of not Activision will be in huge trouble and Microsfoft will; suffer pretty big financial paid. MS can probably stand that but if it fails to go ahead it leaves MS in a precarious position, not least reputation wise.