Phil Spencer: Xbox Won't 'Play The Game' Of Adding Exclusive Content To Call Of Duty

Saw this interview earlier and have a tiny bitty small nitpick to bring up: Minecraft does have some DLC that are platform-locked. Most notoriously Mario DLC on Nintendo platforms. Not sure if the Halo pack is available outside of Xbox.

@Kaloudz where did you read thad? It really does not sound like a real thing.

The closest thing is the Nvidia streaming deal, where they said all of Xbox game studios games would be available on the service, including every ABK game should the acquisition go through. Important distinction there is that the player still needs to buy a copy of the game since all the service does is give you access to stuff you already own.

@Kaloudz Totally agree. I'm sure they'd take exclusivity if they could, but MS knows that getting every person alive onto gamepass is the real endgame. They don't need exclusivity for that to happen.

@Kaloudz the day the announcement about the Nvidia and Nintendo deals were announced, there was a lot of consisting about the tweet wording abounding it. It sounded like Xbox was suggesting all ABK games could come to Nintendo platforms. Later in the day that was corrected to clarify the Nintendo deal was exclusively about CoD.

I don't in theory have a problem with not having exclusive dlc but ...... It's not like the others will play the same game ,which can still move players to other platforms

If after all this they don't at least get some games exclusive to Xbox I won't b happy ...at least a crash or spyro game or even both in one game that will pull in the players

@Kaloudz yea, a lot of people got their hopes up (or down) until that clarification went through, and others are… well some also say MS will sell off Xbox so, don’t trust absolutely everything that sounds far fetched 😅.

With this interview, Phil was clear: there will be exclusives that don’t go to their rivals.

Let’s not forget and I’m guessing here.
All new IP games developed by ABK once the purchase has gone through.
Surely can be Xbox exclusives?

This exactly what Sony fears.

It has nothing to do with Microsoft’s control over the gaming market. Or lack of gamer choice. Or Sony’s inability to compete.

It’s that Sony would have no advantage when it comes to Call of Duty.

When the annual COD crowd looks for a console, they can choose anything they want rather than be heavily persuaded to look towards PlayStation.

The real question, will it even matter? People are pretty brand loyal. So all this corporate fighting could amount to a hill of beans. Microsoft would get the paycheck regardless.

I watched the video and he could not have been anymore clear on this, but I bet Sony will STILL cry it's concerned about MS becoming a monopoly etc etc etc, and then it'll announce endless exclusive deals with games.
Sony are only annoyed that Phil has destroyed the PlayStation business model and Sony doesn't want to compete or change tactics, Nintendo aren't bothered but of course they embarrass Sony in their sales and approach to gaming anyway.

@Tharsman He ONLY referred to brand new IP or current exclusive IP with that statement, because in that same breath he also stated, they would not be removing any IP that is currently on any other platform at the moment. And he wants to expand heavily their IP onto as many platforms as possible.

@Kaloudz How the hell does the CMA, who are a bunch of civil servants at the end of the day, know anything about what the Switch can and cannot run..?? Considering COD has been on Nintendo consoles before. What a ridiculous stance if that's true. Even the Vita had a special COD version on it. And let's not rule out most people are expecting a new Nintendo console this year or next to be launched.

@GamingFan4Lyf It would not matter this generation at all. When it will matter is 5-7 years from now, next generation cycle, when the new wave of kids are looking for their first console to play CoD on, and MS looks like the better buy. From Sony's gaffes to Jim's mess ups, to MS's wins, I've said since 2020 PS5 will be more than fine. It's PS6 and 7 that needs to worry. And I'm pretty sure that's what they really are worried about.

Oooh, nice sizzle from Phil. Sony is in no position to say anything.

@BrilliantBill Stuff came out recently about how much Sony relies on CoD to fund their first party exclusives, that's their main concern with losing CoD. That will also be true for MS once this goes through. You might see it as only profit for MS, but even if they are selling it more on PS, or Switch, it will stabilize their gaming revenue flow, and subsidize their other projects and game pass. I think in that way it can be good for the platform as a whole, just like it is for Sony.

Of course not. When does Xbox ever put Xbox players first?

@S1ayeR74 I wouldn't class cod on the vita as any sort of achievement as that game was trash. Interestingly though, the link to the CMA findings also states that Activision did previously attempt to bring cod to the Switch and couldn't manage it so I wonder what has changed to make Microsoft now agree to it.

@NEStalgia exactly, and that has been my thing as well, this gen is about getting marketshare setup to offset the lose of the Xbox One. Get as much attention and games into GP as possible and then have a solid choice for gamers at the start of the next gen. Ready for something I’ve been thinking about and maybe i am wrong and it won’t play out that way, i am merely guessing. What if the next Xbox launched with Elder Scrolls 6 as a launch game and into GP day 1? That would be a system driver and not have to worry about content being dry in the early years of the platform. That is a game people play for years and years and it would be there day 1. Player engagement is the key and having GP with all this content built up from the Series consoles gen heading into the battle with PS6 and drop ES6 launch day.

Why shouldn't they add exclusives content when sony have been paying for it for years..and now they are crying it won't be fair....

But tbh even though it pisses me off because playstation have been paying to keep complete modes off Xbox...and I kind of want some karma .. I only think the exclusives content should be some skins if Xbox do any

@Green-Bandit It all sounds like the perfect plan until you realize your ham will have sprouted wings and started flying before there's any chance Todd would have that game ready in time 😂

@NEStalgia fair point as always HAHA 😀

I smell 🐂💩 don't make promises you won't keep

I think exclusive content is stupid. Why would anyone purposely limit their customer base or their profit earning potential? Actually the first one causes the second one. I just don't get it, what is the point? I do understand that whatever company pays the content creator to make something exclusive, but why would someone take a deal like that when it hurts their reputation?

@Tharsman you can give them a pass on that I think. If its a first party brand I can see why they would want to lock it to their home system.

@Kaloudz I just did a video on this. Pretty sure it was Brad Smiths confusing tweet after the EU court meeting that sparked these rumours. He later clarified it was just cod in the contract for Nintendo.

I really wouldn’t be surprised though if they go back on this and announce it’s all games. Saying that, up till this recent Phil Spencer interview, I wasn’t convinced he truly understood the importance of exclusives to grow a brand (xbox)and grow competition…so who knows how this eventually plays out…short of signing away the rights to put these games on gamepass I honestly don’t know what Sony is waiting for at this stage…but they’ve played things well so far

@Kaloudz i think they arre being quiet now cause they dont wanna sign the contract but know that offer kinda killed their argument....but if they sign the contract they are essentially giving up.... im dead serious if this goes through without sony signing a contract id flip sony the bird and PUT NO GAMES ON PLAYSTATION....

Only because he wants to get the deal through. Would be exclusive everything if it wasn't for that. See what happens after 10 years when the proposed deal is up..

The CMA are very likely right when they say that the Switch cannot run CoD, @Kaloudz. Its successor probably won't be capable of doing so either. Thing is, this is where I think the lack of proper insight on the part of the CMA shines through. Microsoft undoubtedly know whether or not the Switch (or its successor) can play CoD natively, but they were probably not meaning natively. They were very likely meaning that CoD can be played via the Cloud on the Switch, which is a whole different ballgame, and likely as not future CoD games would be developed with Cloud in mind, not to run natively. The comment from the CMA raises many questions as to their competence, but also, the cynical part of me asks whether this is them scratching around for reasons to oppose the acquisition

Not great tbh, 70B for what then for Xbox gamers? MS could have secured gamepass rights for a tiny fraction of that. And if Phil is to be believed, that's all we're getting. Hopefully just a show for regulators.

@themightyant

They aren't as big claims as they theatrically tried to make it seem when they pulled the worlds gaming press to Brussels for a big press conference. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on to try and appeal to the commissions right now.

I dont know what you consider "big", but both things are quite big in my eyes. Sure, we already knew about the CoD on Nintendo promises, but allowing XBox owned games on GeForce Now is simply huge. Phil has been teasing the ability to stream games you buy on Steam through GPU at some point in the future, and here we are, them offering the keys to that to a competitor before they can realize that vision.

Even if this deal ends up falling through, now they have a 10 year deal that allows all of those games to be in GeForce Now. Yes, MS still profits as the games need to be bought, and MTX are going exclusively to Microsoft, but GeForce is also charging a monthly fee and profiting of it. Within the [imaginary in my mind] world of Streaming Wars, the move is very big and significant.

@Kaloudz

3 regulators say no.

The FTC is a bit irrelevant. What they say is not important, because the way they work the only way to block is taking Microsoft to court, a process that can go all the way to the supreme court, and they wont win in the supreme court (hell, i doubt they will win in their internal court.)

If the EU and CMA are convinced of the remedies proposed, this deal is as good as done.

@Fiendish-Beaver

Microsoft undoubtedly know whether or not the Switch (or its successor)

Nah, MS definitively means natively. The games might look like crap, but the same is already true for anyone running with minimum settings on a PC (and the minimum requirements for CoD games, even MW2, are ridiculously low.)

Here is a video of the game running on a GTX 960, I would say there is still some room to lower settings further and make it run on a Switch, but a successor (that likely arrives in 2024) is very likely going to outperform a GTX 960.

@themightyant The Nintendo announcement was a bit overplayed, I think we can agree on that bit. But I still think the Nvidia deal was huge and worth the huge announcement. It has huge ramifications even if the ABK deal is blocked.

We might agree to disagree on Nvidia. It was it done for image, IMO, and only to placate the CMA and EU concerns of a streaming game monopoly, but it still was a huge deal. Also, the deal went into effect that same day, I'm sure it was on Nvidia's interest that as much of the world found out about the deal as possible, and quickly. Had MS not done the big announcement, Nvidia would have. That news would certainly not have been delegated to just a blog post.

@Kaloudz the FTC have a role, and they can be effective. They are just a bit like cops, or more like prosecutors. They investigate and then decide to take you to court or determine they have no case.

Current management, though, is prosecuting anyone just because they are “big tech”, regardless the merits of the case.

Tangent: the CMA and EU (or at least the EU) work the other way around. If they block, it would be MS that has to take them to court to get through the blockage.

@themightyant this is opinion, but I don’t think they called all those journalist for the purpose of revealing the deals, but instead to be able to put a spotlight on Sonys behavior and refusal to act on any good faith (at least based to Microsoft’s point of view.)

@Kaloudz I have a feeling MS is in for as far as they can take things, and they will likely appeal any blocking decision form the CMA or EU to court, but they are doing everything they can to offer remediations that will satisfy any concerns.

If they are forced to go to court and appeal, having been this cooperative with remedies will likely help their case.

@Kaloudz They should not. The regulators are overreaching. It could be just to gain leverage, part of negotiation. However, how do you pay $75 billion for a company and not have all the autonomy to make decisions about the business. MS should hold fast and the regulators need to step back.

Call of Duty has exclusive content right at this moment, in favor of Sony. Parity is not good enough for them. Jim Ryan must expect his dates to pay for dinner and is appalled at the idea of going Dutch. 😄

I see why MS would pledge CoD parity if the deal is closed. If they own ABK, all the profit goes to them, anyway. To pledge all ABK games are released on all platforms is a bad move.

@GunValkyrian Don't you remember how angry fans were when Nintendo financed Bayonetta 2 and made it a Wii U exclusive? The hate was very real, death threats do developers and publishers, it was nasty. It's not just Xbox, take away anything Sony fans consider should be on their platform, and vitriol will arise.

BTW, I'm sure there were xbox fans on that vitriol too.

I am randomly thinking.... Phil... will I be able to play Call of Duty on my Apple TV? 🙃

@Kaloudz I think 70% is practically an industry standard, Epic Games Store went for 88% to lure developers (same reason they give away games on a weekly (sometimes daily) basis.

@Tharsman Yikes. Yeah, that exclusive incident was also poorly received. I was bothered by it, though not nearly to any extremes. The rumor was that Nintendo would fund development, no other publisher would, and that the sequel would not exist otherwise. Take that with a few grains of salt.

The Bayonetta series, sadly, exist only Nintendo Switch...and PC emulators...and my Steam Deck. 😄

@theduckofdeath It was the truth. The Bayoneta games since then have not only been published by Nintendo, they tend to contain some Nintendo branded content, like Samus, Princes Peach and Link outfits.

Sega still owns the IP, but the game entries are, for all purposes, owned by Nintendo and Sega would never be able to publish them anywhere else without Nintendo's consent.

@themightyant Personally I don't think the 30% cut is unfair. Just try to get a product into shelves and see how much money you end up with after distribution, physical boxes (even if your game only has a code in the box,) marketing, and store cuts.

At the end, at least on PC, anyone can try and sell their games on their own websites. They wont sell many units, but that's where the storefronts show that they are offering a lot of value to developers.

As far as Steam being a near-monopoly, it's just oud of good will. They have rarely done things that encourage their users to go somewhere else. I personally do know some that refuse to use Steam, though. Reasons I been given are all over the place, from being forced to have an always running updater (the steam app) to ad spam when they launch the thing just so they can run the game they bought. Such players tend to prefer getting their games from GOG, or directly from the developer website (some people still offer this, especially MMOs.)

Side topic here... I prefer Apple's approach at lowering the cut than Steam's. If anyone can afford their high fees, are people earning dozens of millions of dollars. An indie dev that barely manages to move a thousand units at $5 a pop is way more likely to be unable to pay the rent.

@Kevw2006 Probably the fact the Switch 2 will be out this year or next. Officially MS has not stated specifically that COD will be on 'Switch'.
However the Switch can run games people don't expect it to. And Splatoon runs incredibly well on it. I think with the resources they could get COD running on it in some form, then again it may stream off the cloud.

@S1ayeR74 I agree that they have worked wonders with some Switch ports, I just picked up on the fact that the report stated that a Switch port of CoD has been tried and they couldn't make it work. Although I did also note that the agreement said bringing CoD to Nintendo and not to the Switch so I'm almost positive it will be to the successor to the Switch.

It's all about GamePass.

They don't want to throw away the sales ABK are currently making on PlayStation platforms, but by offering COD included on GP they're going to make it less appealing for gamers to choose PlayStation. It's the perfect plan for Microsoft.

From a consumer perspective it could be a good thing if it levels the playing-field with Sony. On the other hand it might end-up like what happened when Setanta/ESPN/BT Sport won the rights to a sub-set of Premier League games - which meant needing to subscribe to MORE services, costing consumers more.

@themightyant Yes, though I think the only reason regulators are taking a stand is "Microsoft+$70 billion". Their eyes light up. If ABK was half as profitable or less, I don't think there would be the same hubbub. That is with the IP and releases being exactly the same.

Also, these are videogames and the regulators arguments are trying to pigeon-hole the subject to be fit a commodity or utility consolidation model. The concern that MS might sabotage the PS version is somewhat absurd and insulting. Then there is the concern for lack of content parity under MS when Sony spent a decade paying to bring just that lack of content parity.

Content parity is one thing but to demand CoD be excluded from Game Pass is overreach. I want to see it and I would also like to see data on the results. A big title where players have to choose not just between consoles, but multiple storefronts on PC and Game Pass.

@ptpete Yes, it will be curious to witness. Most people would stay on their current console (unless they own both), I would imagine. More new customers might opt for Xbox. How many will buy a copy rather than subscribe to Game Pass?

I myself ignored Game Pass for years, joining in June of 2020. The only time I subscribed before that was to play SoD2 a couple times. Mostly because I didn't want to buy the game right away. I was reluctant to join another subscription service and opted to buy 1st party games despite their inclusion. Admittedly, the selection has improved greatly over the years.

Since I think this is the closest to an article discussing the acquisition right now, I'm posting this here until the inevitable article by @FraserG sometime tomorrow:

Looks like Sony's attempt to stop Microsoft's subpoena was mostly denied

Sony now has to provide:

-All licensing agreements with 3rd parties since 2019
-Info on Jim Ryan's ABK declaration from Dec 22
-Their lawyer's external comms
-Docs from execs of Finance and Global Strategy

source

Only thing Sony was able to squash was request for Sony's exec performance reviews, and cut the request of third party deals from 10 years to 4.

Once this info gets released, there is going to be some fantastic news worthy info to go through.

Additional sources:
Fosspatents
FTC order