Microsoft President Confirms 10-Year Offer For COD On PlayStation, Says FTC Lawsuit Would Be 'Huge Mistake'

So does this mean Sony have accepted the 10 year offer? How can Microsoft force them to accept it.

Well we all know what happened to blockbuster when Netflix came to town, the one with the deeper pockets is the only one left standing.

So I can see why playstation are concerned but this deal will eventually go through and call of duty will remain on playstation. Whether it will bring better competition is another story, in terms of gaming subscriptions services there will be no competition, in terms of hardware sales it will be more even, might force sony to get desperate and team up with Apple, Google or Tencent for funding big acquisitions

@Snake_V5 not sure what you mean by “forcing sony”.

Sony does not need to accept the deal, sony had its chance to express their concerns. Now the regulatory bodies get to negotiate with Microsoft solutions for concerns expressed by third parties.

What is stated is that Microsoft is willing to sign a deal with the regulatory bodies that forces them (Microsoft) to continue providing CoD on the PlayStation platform. If the regulatory bodies are content with that legally enforceable contract, there is nothing Sony or any other entity can do about it.

I mean, Sony could prevent future CoD games from coming to PlayStation, but that’s opposite to what they want.

@UltimateOtaku91 I don't personally think when this deal goes through that it will change anything at all. I can't imagine people jumping ship from PlayStation to Xbox because of it, even for COD. If you prefer PlayStation you prefer PlayStation and the same goes for Xbox.

I have a Series X that I bought a few months ago and I can't even bring myself to do gaming with it, it's just not there but then again I am a PlayStation guy through and through. I want to love Xbox but I love PlayStation.

@Tharsman I'm referring to this part, "Microsoft has not only offered Sony a 10-year deal to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation, but is willing to make it legally enforceable with various regulators".

I thought it meant that Microsoft will force Sony to accept it legally. I see what you mean, in other words Microsoft are willing to put it in writing sort of thing that it has to stay on PlayStation legally.

@Snake_V5 no it means they offered the contract to Sony. The “enforcement” bit is about the contract enforcing themselves (Microsoft) to continue providing CoD to PlayStation for as long as the contract lasts. It’s basically an assurance that even if Phil leaves Xbox tomorrow, the next CEO can’t walk it back.

@Snake_V5 I mainly game on playstation/nintendo as well but I've got an xbox this gen also. Its good for games I wouldn't normally buy but also on gamepass. Should be better for you next year though when starfield and redfall land. But I do have to ask, why buy the series X over the S? If you're just trying to get into xbox then you should of got the S instead just in case you didn't like the games xbox have to offer.

And yes the deal will change nothing in the normal gaming market, and by that I mean physical sales of software and hardware and digital sales, Sony will be on top in that area for the forseable future, but in terms of the subscription market xbox will have no competition and no one would be able to rival it with the games they would offer and the deep pockets they have to sustain it. Meaning if the future of gaming is going down the road of subscription only then playstation will be left behind, just like blockbuster was when video streaming services became the norm.

To rival gamepass they would need massive third party games like fifa and gta to be playstation plus exclusives.

Sony and the FTC overplayed their hand in all this. Sony is far from being some little guy that would be eliminated by this deal, and at a certain point the FTC has an obligation to look out for the best interests of American business.

@UltimateOtaku91 I guess because I wanted the most powerful of the Series Xbox range, also I didn't like the fact that Series S has no disc drive.

I know you say that when the deal goes through "Game Pass has in terms of the subscription market xbox will have no competition and no one would be able to rival it with the games they would offer".

I agree with that unless Sony did the day 1 releases of there exclusives and then Game Pass wouldn't be able to compete with PS Plus because Sony exclusives are better than Xbox exclusives. In terms of the game quality Game Pass wouldn't compete.

I've tried to get into Xbox and I know it's an amazing console but I've loved PS ever since I was a kid. This confliction can make me feel just miserable gaming to be honest.

If concessions were required it would be the regulators deciding if the terms are agreeable and not Sony. But if the only major objector to this deal accepts a deal before the regulators reach their conclusions then they likely wouldn't see the need for anything else.

Plus just making the offer looks ridiculously good for xbox's case. Even though they have already stated their desire to do exactly what the deal would "force" them do. Optically it looks incredible to offer in writing that call of Duty will still be on playstation in ps6 era.

@Snake_V5 day 1 Sony games would make it appealing but I don't think that would be enough to overtake game pass ultimate where you can play on any device. Plus the 3rd party catalog dwarfs PS plus.

I think the sentiment of Sony games vs Xbox will be much closer when Elder Scrolls, doom, hellblade, outer worlds 2, etc start hitting exclusively.

@Snake_V5 no Sony don’t have to accept any game or deal on their platform. But i couldn’t see why they wouldn’t, seeing as Call of Duty is the main game they discuss in this deal. What Sony won’t get and this is the 2 part complaint of Sony’s is. 1 they are very vocal about saying COD on GP is bad, which translates to bad for them, good for anyone choosing GP, and 2 which they aren’t as vocal about is, they (Sony) will lose marketing rights and exclusive perks for COD, making a lot of gamers switch to Xbox to play COD. 10 year deal will just put in writing what the charges will mainly be and then after that 10 years it might be more or less pending on the success of the franchise in that time and date.

a merger this size always has concessions.

CoD will be it.

MS doesnt care about this compromise.

its all about KING which dwarfs CoD.

@Kaloudz side topic but an interesting thing is that it was not Netflix that killed Blockbuster. It was Redbox.

Netflix was initially mail-in dvds only, and eventually blockbuster jumped into that model as well, they were behind and could had caught up with more time, but it was all destroyed by Redbox. Redbox was too cheap, and could afford to because they didn’t have staff or big local leases to pay for. Cheaper rentals, 24/7 availability, and transparent late fees (you simply get charged another day rental on your card, no one ever goes to a Redbox and has the machine tell them the owe $100 dollars in late fees.)

Blockbuster even tried its hand at the streaming business, but they had too much dead weight with their huge brick and mortar locations to survive long enough to catch on. It is possible that had Redbox not entered the picture, they would have had managed to do a full modern transition.

I mean, Redbox is still a thing.

@Somebody the lack of a strong enough streaming offering would possibly put them on a disadvantage, but not as much as not having a PC offering. I am sure they are working on it, though. Sooner or later Sony will offer it’s own Steam competitor store/launcher, where they could provide PSN+ benefits.

Right now, though, Sony is using Extra as a sort of replacement for PlayStation Greatest Hits program, a means to monetize older back catalog titles.

@Snake_V5 eh... this is an xbox site. Was Push square full or something lol?

What if xbox end up using Activision to make halo games? And some unknown team makes COD? And then the next halo becomes the new cod, but with the Halo name. And they keep it exclusive to xbox?

I'm not a fan of either halo or cod. I'm just saying what I'm thinking.

Sony acting like a little new developer who afraid about competition, this whole thing become a big joke.

I have all the consoles and a pc and tbh I don't care about this deal, If there is a game I like I'm gonna buy it even if its on GamePass but I'm afraid about new deals in the future, now they trying to block this deal and who knows what they going to say about next time Micro want to buy?

Sony need to stop put all the money into VR and live services and maybe bring us a new shooters, just to remind they have a big fans for 2
Resistance, killzone & socom but they prefer to make only Third Person games and get % from other companies.

@jonnybuck84 Well, because I still have an Xbox even though I feel how I do.

@Green-Bandit A time period doesn't give an indication of quantity. For example if you look at Halo in 10 year time periods you have the following.

• Decade 1 (November 15th 2001 - November 14th 2011): Halo CE (2001), Halo 2 (2004), Halo 3 (2007), Halo Wars (2009), Halo 3 ODST (2009), Halo Reach (2010)
• Decade 2 (November 15th 2011 - November 14th 2021): Halo CE Anniversary (2011), Halo 4 (2012), Halo Spartan Assault (2013), Master Chief Collection (2014), Halo Spartan Strike (2015), Halo 5 (2015), Halo Wars Definitive Edition (2016/2017), Halo Wars 2 (2017)
• Decade 3 (November 15th 2021 - November 14th 2031): Halo Infinite (2021)

So Sony could deduce that CoD under Microsoft is Warzone 2 being supported for a decade meanwhile the only new CoD ends up being the remaining one covered by the existing marketing exclusivity deal. Microsoft would still be keeping their word but Sony would be a lot worse off.

@UltimateOtaku91 By deeper pockets you mean like when Sony killed Sega on purpose? For Blockbuster, they do not have a single right to complain, it was their own fault. They could have bought Netflix before when it was offered to them and instead they refused and laughed at them.

@Grumblevolcano call of duty isn’t leaving PS, Sony will be just fine, they just don’t get to buy and market it as the console to have for it, and might want to start making a FPS of their own and market it. Sure it won’t be as big as COD, but their first party titles sorely lack any shooter. MS is of course making moves that will make Sony a little less advantageous to players, but thats more about being competitive without putting the competition out of business. Sony and MS have said before they have a good relationship and either brand is trying to hurt one another, both consoles will thrive in the coming years, but for xbox they are making sure they don’t have another PS4 vs Xbox One Gen.

The point here is that MS are willing to ensure that CoD remains 'multi-platform' for at least a decade which instantly negates all of Sony's arguments as well as the FTC's 'concerns'.

MS are even prepared to back that up with a legally binding contract which adds more 'weight' to their argument. Sony at most have no evidence, no proof that MS would take CoD away or even give their own customers 'bonus' content and/or timed access so that whole argument is now eradicated with 'legally binding' documents guaranteeing 'parity' for at least a decade.

Couple that with the 'evidence' of how MS has handled Mojang and Minecraft as an example, the more weight their lawyers have to ensure this deal goes through.

I have owned every PS console and I have NEVER bought a Playstation for CoD - even when they took over from MS with the Marketing deal a few years back after the entire 360 generation, CoD was associated with MS. I have never seen CoD mentioned as a reason either.

Its always been about the first party exclusives as a reason to buy Playstation. Sony have 'dominated' the Game of the Year award nominations with many going on to win. If you speak to a LOT of gamers, CoD rarely features in their best game of the year, most anticipated new release etc so I doubt it will 'impact' on sales of Playstation as the vast majority of Playstation gamers will buy a Playstation to play God of War, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Ghost of Tsushima, Uncharted, Last of Us, Ratchet & Clank, Returnal etc etc as well as some 3rd Party Exclusives and multi-plat games - particularly if they have some advantages (like good use of the DS5). For Playstation to 'compete', it has to keep making games people want to play and have to buy a Playstation to play. Its more likely that their PC releases end up hurting console sales as people may decide to wait now until they do release on PC.

@Green-Bandit I wasn't suggesting that CoD would leave PS as such, rather that no platform gets new CoD games outside of the ones already in development for awhile because Microsoft decides to make Warzone 2 the CoD platform like how there's no more Halo games until 2031 because Infinite is lasting for 10 years.

@UltimateOtaku91 This is kind of a straw man argument if you know the full story of Netflix and Blockbuster. Blockbuster had the opportunity in 2000 to buy Netflix for fifty million dollars but declined due to the CEO's arrogance in thinking the service would never take off. Blockbuster shot itself in the foot, it had nothing to do with who had the most money.

@fox99 Sega killed Sega. Sony just threw the corpse off the cliff. Not defending Sony, specifically, going cheaper is smart business (Something modern Sony forgets...) But if Sega hadn't flipped off partners, retailers, and consumers alike, they'd have been hard for Sony to dispose of. Heck, by the end Sega had MS behind it, and was pushing a lot of what OG XBox was all about, but it was much too late then. Even runaway success couldn't save them, they were dead before DC launched, they sent it out pretty much knowing it was too late. Although it's premature to talk about the death of Sega. Their hardware, blast processing aside, was never special until DC, which was half a MS box, and the software which was the real reason to buy a Sega is going stronger than ever. Even ol' Sonic is back in fashion. Unlike Nintendo they never had a history of amazing gimmicks that made the hardware have a special place in time until DC, and most of that became XB.

@Tharsman Like Sega, Blockbuster killed Blockbuster. Redbox actually started as part of McDonalds. You'd think competing against McDonald's, alone, would have killed Blockbuster. But McD's wanted to get rid of it, and tried selling half the company to Blockbuster and Netflix. Both refused! They sold it to Coinstar of all things who went to town with it and crushed Blockbuster.

I'll always remember Blockbuster as the place you could rent a Virtual Boy. A fitting epitaph.

(Edit: @HunterRose beat me to it while I was typing! )

@Grumblevolcano There's no more Halo games until 2031 because it'll take 343 10 years to make one.

@BAMOzzy That's because you're above the target age group for CoD. To the target age group CoD is PlayStation and has always been PlayStation. Their dad had a 360. And PlayStation was never Japanese.

"Gamers" praise Sony for their first party. "Gamers" are like 10% of the market if we're being optimistic. To the CONSUMERS, in the right target age PS=CoD, and PS is the console you buy if you want to play CoD or the latest annual sports games, and on PS's own sales charts, CoD, GTA, FIFA, and Fortnite are the reasons people buy PlayStations. Gamers? Not so much. Consumers, which is all that matters? Yep. To the masses, they'll buy GoW because it's a big game on a a console they already bought to play CoD with their friends on, but CoD with their friends is the priority.

The hysteria isn't necessarily wrong, as far as how the market is laid out. Sony DID buy the identity as the official CoD console, and CoD is officially one of the biggest things people buy on the console and represents an outsize portion of their raw sales figures. Shifting that title to be identified with XB (yes, it was identified with MS in the 360 days too, to the point of being a meme as far as the "Call of Doggy" X1 reveal, but that was a long time, a different generation of gamers, and a different business model ago for Sony), is absolutely a massive, massive blow.

One I welcome as a PS fan, as it means they have to compete by being a better PS again rather than coasting on Activision power points....but still, they're not TOTALLY wrong to be freaking out, even if their own hubris caused their dilemma. It's a much bigger deal for them in the real market than you realize from within the gaming enthusiast bubble. For them, the 10 year deal, even a 50 year deal is salt in the wound. What really hurts them is losing the marking rights and exclusivity of features to be "THE" console for the game. What hurts them more is the possibility of MS gaining the same. They'd rather not lose the game, but to a point, they almost don't care if they do, if they can't have the favored status with the game, it's not even that meaningful to them, they can't use it to prop up their platform as a selling point.

@Snake_V5 You're depriving yourself the joy of using things you own due to a nostalgia for a bygone era of a corporation. I get that PS hits nostalgic notes for you, it does for me, too, and Nintendo and Sega even moreso, but that's not a reason to not also enjoy XB for what it is. You own it, it's a great machine, there's a lot to enjoy about it, and "not being PS" isn't a reason not to appreciate what's good about it. I get that it's a personal thing, but there shouldn't be conflict, really. It's not like you have to chose one or the other, you have both. Only you are preventing you from enjoying the best of what you have in both.

Yes, one will get more use than the other by being the multiplat box. And I admit, when I shifted my multiplat box from PS to XB (the digital ecosystem is just superior, full stop) I agree there was a bit of a "but I've always bought it on PS..." kind of inertia and tradition to get over. But....I just enjoy using my XB. And I still enjoy PS games on PS. In some ways it makes the PS more rarified. It doesn't get used super often so when it does it's kind of a special experience different from the norm where the XB is the swiss army knife gaming PC.

You have an XSX, use it, enjoy it, guilt free! It's a fantastic platform. Using it doesn't deprive you of the tradition of PS unless you sold your PS5 to buy it. You can be a fan of both. The only negative is it gets expensive because then 20 years from now you don't want to be without either.

Edit: To be fair, though, XB's kind of unofficial continuation of Sega and early partnership does make it easier to have an attachment to it than coming in totally cold. I was a Sega fan before I was a PS fan, and especially early XB really continued that "Sega does what Nintendon't" Sonic attitude. With the big GP support, that partnership still kind of continues.

@NEStalgia Thank you for talking to me, thanks for what you said, I feel a bit better. I don't have anyone I can talk to.

@Kaloudz phasing out the retail side of their business overnight was just not an option, not while their new business ventures were still on their infancy, but at the same time those retail stores could not compete with Redbox. Blockbuster did try the Redbox model for a short period, I think most their machines were located in front of actual blockbuster stores, but it was a bit too late.

Think about this: retail was not competing but still was the source of (making numbers up) about 75% of their revenue. If they cut that off, they lost that revenue and would not be able to use it to grow their streaming service. It was just not an option. Had their Redbox alternative taken off, it would have had a chance, maybe, but by that point Redbox was absolutely everywhere. It was hard back then to go about your regular day and not bump into a Redbox machine. McDonald’s, Walmart, most grocery stores, you didn’t have to drive to a blockbuster, the red boxes were conveniently wherever you already went to.

Anyways bit tangential, but still relevant. Netflix alone would had not killed Blockbuster, and GamePass alone would not kill PlayStation’s business model.

@NEStalgia if I recall correctly, at the time when Netflix could had been acquired by Blockbuster, it was still a mail-in service that could had easily been replicated in-house (and Blockbuster eventually did make their own offering.) And let’s face it: Blockbuster would had never kickstarted the streaming revolution had they owned Netflix.

Similar with Redbox, difference being there that it was simply impossible for blockbuster to ever proliferate their machines presence enough to compete with an already ubiquitous Redbox presence. So, passing on Redbox was indeed a big mistake, passing on Netflix, not so much. Even so, I think “you failed because you didn’t buy your competitors” is not an argument to for “they killed themselves.”

Edit: on the Sega front, Xbox being a continuation of Sega is one reason I keep hoping MS buys Sega. Would be amazing if they did so and sold a special edition Xbox with Sega branding/theme.

@Snake_V5 Happy to be of help!

@Tharsman Blockbuster, like with Sega, or more like PS's current leadership, inflicted a lot of self-wounds leading up to that point. They were hostile to their customers for a long time, (your $100 late fees example), draconian rental terms and policies, etc. They brute forced smaller competitors out of business and created a monopoly stronghold of the retail rental business. They kind of created a business environment where nobody really went to Blockbuster because they wanted to, they went because they were the only player in the game, and that other, better, cheaper, closer store closed last year. So when a competitor popped up that was easier, friendlier and cheaper, few WOULD pick Blockbuster at that point. They relied upon being a monopoly as the incentive to do business with them. When the monopoly faced competition, it buckled as they offered no competition, their business model was based on "we're the only choice." That's how Blockbuster killed Blockbuster. Sure not buying Redbox hurt, but part of why it hurt so badly is because they're the ones that made Redbox and it's ultra-limited selection look so darned attractive to begin with.

@Grumblevolcano yeah i mean that’s a good point, hard to tell what will happen with COD. But whatever Xbox Get’s PS gets and thats all Sony should be concerned with at the moment. Even tho it’s been said 3000 times that COD isn’t leaving PS. Sony just don’t want COD on GP, its the one game that PS+ will be forever chasing.

@NEStalgia Most the things you describe were actually norm in the rental industry, Redbox disrupted all of it. I used to work on a video club back in the early 2000s, late fees were a gold mine.

The interesting thing is, even with disruption, getting rid of the practices was also inflicting self harm. Sure, could change the business model to be more like Redbox, we auto-renew the rental until the cost of the product is matched then just say you own it, but that killed a big chunk of revenue.

Back then, Blockbuster backing away from that would had been as self-harmful as Netflix today auto-canceling your recurring payments if you didn't stream anything that whole month.

Honestly, Blockbuster had no way to run once the market was disrupted. Their biggest mistake was not doing business the way they did business, their biggest mistake is they only had one business: old fashioned rentals. This is why its never ideal for a large public traded company to only do one thing. Reason Microsoft does not only makes Windows, why sony does not only make Music Players, and why Twitter is doomed.

Without diversifying your business, you are one disruption away from total collapse.

All the more interesting now with Microsoft seemingly entering an agreement with Nintendo:

https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/1600342335845724160?s=20&t=en82BK1knAQPr3N7VmC9kw

@Snake_V5 MS can't make Sony accept it. The point is to undermine Sony's and the CMA's major objection. They claim MS "might" take CoD away. MS says we won't. Sony and CMA say, "We don't believe you." Microsoft presents an agreement for 10 years of CoD on PS, another for Nintendo, and one for Steam.

Sony still refuses to sign, agree, or be placated. Nintendo signs, and Valve says it is unnecessary. The teeth have been taken out of Sony's argument, along with the CMA and FTC. CoD remains the major focus and a false cause.

@theduckofdeath https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/12/us-governments-ftc-will-attempt-to-block-microsofts-activision-buyout

@Snake_V5 Yeah, I am watching Hoeg Law.

Here comes the Microsoft-Sony War, I guess.

@theduckofdeath Who's Hoeg Law?

@Snake_V5 He's a lawyer on YouTube who worked in the software industry. His last name is Hoeg and he does a show called "Virtual Legality" (I think). He's been going over the events, press releases and documents leaked for the ABK acquisition. He gives his opinion on what is possible legally and what next steps could be. People ask questions towards the end and he explores different scenarios.