Xbox's Phil Spencer Adamant Call Of Duty Will Remain On PlayStation 'Longer Term'

"This idea that we would write a contract that says the word forever in it I think is a little bit silly"

I have been saying this forever. No company would ever do a "forever" contract.

Why?

Just look at the Spider-Man film IP and Sony. Marvel pretty much gave Sony a forever contract and now Disney has to "bend the knee" to Sony just to keep Spider-Man in the MCU on a character it technically owns all because of "forever" contracts.

NOTE: That's not a knock on Sony, it's just a really great example why forever contracts are a terrible idea.

Phil: "We think COD will remain on PlayStation"? Why can't he just say, "it will remain on PlayStation"? We think is not guaranteed.

I wish he was as adamant that Xbox will release those first party games soon. Instead, all we get is silence. The world doesn't end with Call of Duty FFS.

Yet again the few that scream and throw tantrums get what they want ... before I was like ok cod is gonna b on ps like normal it's not a big deal but after all thier tantrum throwing now I wish Microsoft would just say f you u Will get a rubbish version of cod working at 720p like it or lump it

@Snake_V5 they can't say that cause Sony might say later down the line oh u have extra stuff on game pass we have decided to take a extra 10% of sales to make up the loss later down the line ,or oh u want cross play we have decided to charge u a lot more

They should just release a match 3 puzzle call of duty every year imo on playstation🤣🤣🤣 that would be amazing…… all brought on by sony constant crying on about it….. “we said you’d get call of duty every year - here u are”🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

For those that wander why people need this stuff in writing, he consistently and obviously changes his take on this every time it crops up.

If he is prepared to make a long term commitment that the regulators will be happy with, then he should do so. Regulators don't GAF about reported statements in the press, they mean nothing and he knows it.
What Sony wants doesn't matter at all, they have no control here, its about regulators and if he had made his commitments at the beginning, then he wouldn't be facing the level of scrutiny he is now. Its absolutely all about Microsoft's mixed messaging and complete lack of commitment.
If he's finally prepared to commit, then he should get on with it and ensure the deal goes through and we finally see some Xbox games. Cant happen soon enough.

Still can't go a week without the mandatory article on phil saying call of duty will remain on playstation.

I think both sides should now just shut up and let the regulators get on with their investigation in peace.

I don't think Sony will be happy unless Microsoft agree to not put COD on Game Pass. This whole issue from Jim Ryan about Xbox maybe taking COD away from PlayStation is a red herring, in my opinion, as he knows Xbox are not going to do that. He simply doesn't want it on Game Pass where subscribers don't have to pay 70 quid for it and could also get perks for the low subscription fee. That's the real threat to COD sales on PlayStation in his eyes.

@Snake_V5
Because Sony charges royalties and has requirements for games on its platform. If MS says forever, Sony is free to charge unfair royalties and put unfair requirements for CoD to be on its platform.

No company in its right mind would give another company that kind of power over it.

How about the renegotiate the current contract.

Sony loses exclusively timed content.
Xbox gets games on GamePass.
Contract is extended to 10 years.

Done and done.

"A longer term commitment that Sony would be comfortable with." Is this a joke? Is this even happening? I just checked my calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st. This is getting pathetic. Phil Spencer managed to lose all my respect with one sentence. He needs a direct punch in the face.

@themightyant ...and it's a fishing game lol

I guess people will have to move the goal posts again so they can continue to insist there is some sort of trick behind xboxs desire to sell the most popular game franchise ever to the largest console userbase.

At this point, I don't believe that this is about Call of Duty anymore. Sony hasn't had to compete in years, truly. Nintendo does its own thing, and Microsoft hasn't been in a position to push Sony since the 360. Now Microsoft threatens not only to own a lot of IPs but more importantly, they now have a high number of talented studios. It's not the IPs they'll own; it's the new ones that will spring up. By this generation's end, Microsoft will be able to produce the same number of AAA exclusives. Theoretically, they won't be able to dominate the market because no one else is making the kinds of games they do. That's what they're fighting, competition.

Maybe Phil should go work for Sony.

PART 2:

It gets even MORE interesting if you think about it. If you're Microsoft, why SHOULDN'T you keep games like COD, Diablo, Spyro, and many if not most of the IPs they own, multiplatform? They'll make a ton of money, while Sony is stuck playing the "console exclusives" game, and yes they'll sell more consoles and "win" the generation, while Microsoft will have to be satisfied with the enormous piles of money they'll make selling their games to anyone who wants to buy them. THAT will ultimately turn into pressure on Sony to do the same.

Because, and bear with me here, Corporations care more about making money than they do about winning an imaginary contest with another company.

@armondo36 It feels like Microsoft bought Activision to make sure Sony gets what they want. because it feels like were the ones losing from this deal.

@armondo36 It's not like people are against it. The problem is Sony is the biggest pusher for exclusivity and could care less while doing whatever they can to piss on Microsoft and Microsoft just says, please and let me help you.

Love how he rolls his eyes at basically all the trolls going “aha but he is still leaving room for interpretation by not saying exactly these words!”

@Snake_V5 In the embedded clip he does say that as long as people want to play CoD on PlayStation, there will be CoD on PlayStation and he clearly states native, since it came up. It’s a short clip, and more to the point than any collection of quoted text. Just watch the video people!

@Titntin he’s told them 2700 times they aren’t taking call of duty of their PlayStations. Not really sure how many times or ways he could say it. EU is in love with PS and are doing their best at making sure the deal is held up. Other countries didn’t even make this big a deal of it. But since the EU wants to make sure PS get’s their way, we are stuck listening to different ways Phil Spencer can come up with a way that say’s they want the revenue from PS consoles with call of duty and aren’t going to nerf the version to push gamers to Xbox. The real story some folks talk about and other don’t is, Sony is scared of Gamepass long term. When lots of these big games are on the service that will be what shifts players. The same way Netflix shifted users away from DVD sales.

@armondo36 Big Facts and MS will deliver on their vision of reaching more gamers (making money) and having the best service with the most AAA games on it. Add that into the fact this deal gives them a bigger piece of the Mobile and PC space and this is all this deal is about.

@LoquaciousB Bingo, i just posted that actually. Thats all this is about is GP. GP is gaining more and more future AAA games that Sony will never have control over again. It makes sure going forward MS has the better service, throw in the fact years down the line when the average gamer is playing on cloud and consoles are less and less of a mainstream way to play and MS is sitting pretty with it service for cloud and Sony wouldn’t have COD, Diablo and Elder Scrolls, this is all about power generations from now.

@Green-Bandit he didn’t say it originally. At first he said COD will be on Playstation for A FEW more years. Then he said a few years afte PS current contract with Activision. Now he’s saying as long as PS gamers want COD they’ll get COD. Imo the initial plan was to make COD exclusive in 3 or 4 years. He now realises he has a choice, keep COD a multi platform game an secure the Activision deal or lose the Activision deal an Playstation still gets COD. There’s no two ways about it, wat ever happens COD must remain a Playstation game.

Not purchased a COD game in many years and don’t care much for Microsoft and Xbox currently.
But I will say, if Xbox own it they should be able to do what they want with it.
Share the game or not, it’s up to Xbox.

@jordan1992 microsoft president and vice chair Brad Smith said they planned on keeping it on sony way back in February. This was when he announced that they wanted to make it for Nintendo as well. I don't think there was ever a time when they planned on making it exclusive to xbox.

They have to keep reiterating the same message because people keep thinking there is a hidden trick somewhere like it must be gamepass app on sony or a cloud version. I think you can tell how annoyed Phil is getting when he gets asked the same question every week.

@jordan1992 they won’t lose the deal based on the UK. The UK is a small % of the gaming market, not to mention these are American companies and the deal will pass in the US cause they don’t have a Sony bias here. He answered the questions with Cod staying on PS more than once and it will get renewed in multi year contracts as it would have with ABK. New IP’s however will likely be PC and Xbox only.

@imdonewithMS What you are missing is that Microsoft 'Xbox' console isn't the 'entire' MS gaming ecosystem - its just an 'optional' device that loses MS money on 'every' unit sold to enable 'some' gamers to play their (and others) games.

You don't need an Xbox to play Forza, Halo, Starfield etc because they are all on PC, on Cloud streaming etc so you can access these anywhere. If you have a Game Pass Ultimate Subscription, you could play on 'any' supported device you want for a 'small' monthly fee.

If they do get the A/B deal done and as they state, keep releasing CoD on Playstation, like they have with Minecraft, as a 'consumer', you have a choice - buy the game on Xbox/PC/PS5 or Subscribe to Game Pass and play on PC/Xbox and ANY cloud supported devices (Mobile, TV, Laptop, Tablets etc).

Maybe, with the way costs are escalating (Raw material cost, Manufacturing costs, distribution costs etc etc), they may decide not to make another 'Xbox' console opting to instead let Consumers decide where to 'play' on Cloud/PC - Series S/X console owners can still play the 'next' era of games via Cloud streaming like XB1 owners with GPU can stream MSFS for example so they don't 'need' to upgrade. In other words, let 3rd Party hardware provide the options to Gamers instead of MS and then MS don't take a $100-$200 loss on 'every' unit of hardware sold.

You may even own a TV with a Game Pass App built in for TV gaming, use you Mobile or buy a handheld with Game Pass app for on the go gaming. So would you spend say $600 on a Console, $70+ on a Game, $10+ for 'online' access a month (PS+/Gold) etc just to play games you can play for just $15-$20 a month on ANY compatible device - inc your Series S/X? Especially with no 'storage' concerns (CoD is a 'big' game, instant access (no updating, no downloading/installing etc).

As long as there is a Physical Playstation and an active online community, CoD will 'release' on that hardware - much like Minecraft - BUT instead of just competing with 'Xbox' and 'PC' in terms of consumer choice of where they can play the Latest CoD, Consumers can also choose to play via Cloud on ANY compatible device. As an Xbox gamer, you can 'choose' to buy (like PC or PS5 gamers) but also can 'choose' to Sub to Game Pass and play 'anywhere'. PS5 owners have no choice but to buy if they want to play on that system.

Selling software makes money. Selling consoles loses money. Why would MS buy something then immediately kill off half the revenue stream? That's not how successful businesses are run.

@Titntin he has been very consistent in saying it will remain on PS for the foreseeable future but sony wants in writing it seems a forever contract which shouldnt and will never happen,

@Blessed_Koz hes consistantly changed position.. You only need to read the evolving stories on this site to see how what he says has evolved over time.
Not that anything said on the web or in a news report have any traction with regulators, comitt it to paper and maybe we could all move on.
Your assumption that Sony want a 'forever contract' is just that, an assumption. Care to point to any statement from Sony that supports that statement? Thought not.
If Phil is genuine, just do the deal with regulators and move on. Its what all want (apart from Jim, but he can gtfo!)

Oh man, this will never end until it goes through will it? Getting so old now.

@Somebody yeah, Phil Spencer said the same. For a few years, Sony said this wasn’t good enough. Then they said a few years after Sony’s Activision contract expires. They’ve definitely back peddled a bit. An fol saying they’d def keep it on PS for the revenue, not true. MS would make tons more money if Bethesda games remained multi platform too. Yet they’re now exclusive to Xbox. Starfield was originally multi platform, not anymore.

@Dad they did with Bethesda so…..

@BAMozzy I didn't miss that. I still think Microsoft is literally screwing over their own consumer in favor of Sony. It's not like Spider-Man or God of War are coming to the Xbox. I don't even play COD, but I find it pathetic that Microsoft can't have their own exclusive game without upsetting Sony fans so they won't do it.

@jordan1992 they also could have made minecraft exclusive, or Ori, or quake. They could have prevented the recently released skyrim anniversary from being added to PS Plus this week.

Some games just make sense to keep multiplatform especially competitive shooters. Bethesda games take like 6 years to make and sell worse than a yearly COD release does. Call of duty only benefits from a larger audience, grand single player experiences like God of War or Starfield make more sense as exclusives dont they?

Offering a written contract is an unprecedented thing to do after an acquisition. Jim Ryan laughably claimed that 3 years was not sufficient but added to the 2.5 years left on their current COD contract, it would take that deal right up to the end of PS5. Seems like a reasonable spot to end an agreement (that can be renegotiated at any time) since no one knows what the next gen will look like. For all we know PS6 could be an online app available on all devices.

Phil has been saying the same exact thing for a year but has to keep reiterating it because people have this conspiracy mentality that there is something between the lines. People actually believe he is openly lying to every government regulatory body on earth with plans to pull the rug out after it is approved.

COD stays on PS but if MS wants to tank COD after the acquisition, they can. There is no commitment needed or even less, trying to demand some.
Sony will never get what they really want!

COD Xbox = GP + exclusive perks & that's a big loss. It's the same thing what Sony has managed to do for decades, but now it's the other way around. Shouldn't be too difficult to accept?

@Somebody i dunno. I own both machines, i love COD team death match an sometime play with a few mates, some are Xbox gamers, some Playstation so will be good for it to stay multi so i don’t have to only play with Xbox mates. If they put it on Game Pass i’m cool with that.

Sony and their fans have truly become the toxic over-entitled crybabies of the industry.

@imdonewithMS I'm struggling to see how MS are 'screwing' over their own consumers in favour of Sony. As it stands right now, Xbox consumers are being screwed over when it comes to CoD - not only do we get less content, they get earlier access to some content too. In purchasing, that will cease so Xbox consumers get the 'same' content at the 'same' time.

Xbox owners no doubt will benefit from all those A/B games on Game Pass, all the 'new' games on Game Pass and if you want to play on Playstation, it will cost you $70 for the game + $10 a month to keep playing 'online' as you'll need a 'basic' PS+ subscription but with Game Pass Online, you can play 'anywhere' on any 'supported' devices (Xbox consoles, PC and Cloud supported devices) without needing to buy different versions or progress not carrying over.

Its NOT just CoD, but all the other IP's too - Diablo, Warcraft, Spyro, Crash, Prototype etc. It ALL benefits Xbox owners because they are all coming to the Xbox ecosystem and Xbox consumers. So what if CoD does continue to release on PS? Minecraft/Mojang hasn't been 'detrimental' to Xbox or its Consumers since MS purchased them.

It certainly isn't a 'negative' for Xbox as they are guaranteeing Parity across ALL platforms which directly benefits Xbox and PC gamers as currently, we are 'screwed' by Sony's arrangement. So if the deal goes through, Sony won't get their 'extras' so its more beneficial to Xbox who also have Game Pass. Game Pass also enables MS to 'reach' far more players through platforms the game would 'never' release on bringing in 'new' players to CoD through 'Xbox' so benefits MS and their consumers!!

@BAMozzy Yet if you want to play COD, the place to play it is on the Playstation. Because Microsoft says, Sony said so. Phil is a coward. All this does is it will raise the cost of the Game Pass while giving the benefits to Sony players. It's a head scratcher to me.