COD Going Xbox Exclusive 'Would Not Significantly Harm Competition', Says EU

I just hope the CMA don't decide to be "well we said no so that's Final 🤨

This is what happens when you actually do your job and objectively investigate it. The FTC is clearly on an agenda against big tech and well the CMA is essentially just sesame street isn't it. 😂

Absolutely bang on reasoning from the EU there.

1) CoD being exclusive doesn't suddenly turn MS into the new market leader
2) Cod being exclusive cuts off a huge amount of sales from the 90+% EEA console owners.

It's the same reasoning that will have MS beat the FTC in the states.
Who knows what the CMA will do?! 😅 Reasoning doesn't really seem to be their thing.

Hahahaha Wow I seriously would pay to see Jim Ryans face when he saw or heard these exact words being stated by the EU today!!

Shoot If I was Xbox, Yeah I am sure they would make more money selling CoD games on PlayStation... But after how much extra money they just costs Xbox by making such a huge fuss over this deal... Then refusing to sign the above and beyond 10 year offer that included the right to let them pay to put the CoD games on their games service too (PS+). F them. I would continue to put the future CoD games on Nintendo consoles, but PlayStation can choke on a fat log of sh*t.

I would not even wait the ten years, It would be off PlayStation as soon as their marketing rights ran out in 2025. LoL

But that is just me being petty, Xbox just loves being "the nice guys" even if that means PlayStation is going to wipe their asses with Xbox's face, Xbox always will just take it with a smile as long as they come off as the nice guys. I am really getting sick of that p*ssy attitude.

@Moonglow There is an intern at Sony paid just to sit with his finger over a giant 'Buy Square Enix' button in case this deal goes through. His arm is getting tired.

To put this another way: the price of Call of Duty becoming 1st party is Final Fantasy (or any of their other JRPGs) never coming to Xbox ever again. The flip side is I could see them continuing to release games on Nintendo platforms because that's where they sell the most.

@RadioHedgeFund

Uhhh Final Fantasy has already been taken from Xbox. FF7 Remake Part 1 was supposed to only be a 1 year exclusive... Yeah it has been quite a bit longer than a year, Then FF7 Part two just straight up was announced as a Sony exclusive same with FF16.
So this deal getting made or not, PS already hashed out a deal to pretty much make FF a First Party game for PlayStation. FF14 was supposed to come to Xbox even, and the piss poor excuses for why it isn't yet... Square is probably under a non disclosure or at least publicly.
But honestly Xbox gamers dont even seem to care for Japanese games too much. 1,000% they would much rather have CoD exclusive than Final Fantasy. Xbox is the "Shooter Box".

@RadioHedgeFund I don't think sony is interested in buying square Enix. They already enjoy the exclusivity benefits on final fantasy and non FF square Enix games don't do well.

Square has already basically ditched xbox. If they don't get the big gamepass deal they rarely even make an Xbox version.

Buying any other 3rd party dev/publisher would be much more damaging to xbox.

@RadioHedgeFund

Also you pretty much called out the real reason why Square is not part of PS already.... Nintendo. Both platforms pretty much equally split all of Squares games. Square probably makes more money off the games it makes for Nintendo too actually, because they pretty much make games that must have a quarter of the budget as the big blockbuster games they make for PS

So with that i would do a little of both. I would bring out exclusive gun’s, skins and maps first to the Xbox, and still sell the game on PS5. It’s a win win. Here in America that would have lots of players switching back to Xbox as COD in the states is a huge draw. Maybe the biggest. Plus thats where MS has most of its player base, so why not cater to that player base and even up sales with the PS in that region. Sounds like here it wouldn’t be breaking any rules. But MS said they wouldn’t do that, so i am guessing they wouldn’t want to go back on their word.

It has to pass before anything. Sony is still being a baby about things. So when they grown up perhaps they can afford to buy nice stuff too. Until then all they can do is obstruct. And I will never spend a dime on a Sony product every again. I know I'm not the only one.

If Playstation is worried about it then make your own franchise FPS that has a nice online multiplayer. Not like they can't afford it. I'd prefer it. COD can't be the only one that can make a competitive online shooter?

Just reading through EU's reasoning here, it's very much obvious that they read, researched, and understood the market and the specific details of the products and services in question, unlike both CMA and FTC. They talk about the specifics and the market actualities and not vague conceptual arguments based on hypotheticals adjacent or contrary to the actual market and the role of the products and services involved in the transaction.

@NEStalgia The key words in their ruling is "in the EEA". Bear in mind that each regulator is looking at their own markets when making their assessments, while also possibly taking the global market into account also. But their primary concern is their own market and in here they state that Call of Duty is less popular in the EEU than it is in the other markets. In the UK and the US Call of Duty is far more popular so this is why they may have come to a different conclusion. It's nothing. To do with them not reading or understanding anytjing, it's purely that they are all looking at different markets so have different considerations to make. If you read through the CMA's decision you can clearly see that they have thought things through and do have an understanding of the decision they have made. Just because you don't agree with their ruling it doesn't mean that they haven't read or understood anything.

MS: "on your feet Sony your not done yet. You had your reasons for coming. Think about your fans,of your exclusives, of your studios. Avenge them. Keep moving forward. After all this whole ugly story started with you."

@Kevw2006 Yes, and if the CMA made their decision based on the console market and the effect of hindering PS as the dominant COD platform, there might be a point there. But it isn't. They cleared that. They said their problem is on cloud, where CoD currently does not exist!! Their argument is that allowing MS to control CoD on cloud, even with concessions that they wouldn't control CoD on cloud, is damaging, while keeping CoD off cloud entirely is not, while also projecting cloud as the future of the business, while the product that's too important to allow anyone to control is not in the business at all, without also speculating who would control that product or bring it into the cloud.

Again, everyone that seems to be trying to support CMA's decision seems to be trying to find some reasoning to make it make sense, when it simply doesn't.

Again, they're arguing based on a theoretical future business, based on a product that's not even a product within that market, based on a theoretical position of a particular company in that theoretical future market, and based on that product, currently not a part of that market, becoming such a key part of that market that the market can't function without it, uniquely in the UK and nowhere else......

Again, this is a decision based on misunderstanding the actual industry, and reads like finding some justification to "keep big company from getting bigger" rather than any specific quantifiable problem raised in a meaningful industry based on solid information.

@NEStalgia The CMA decision does make perfect sense though. It doesn't matter that CoD doesn't exist on cloud at the moment, MS have made their intentions clear that they will make it available over the cloud so that does bring the cloud argument into play. The very fact that MS have been making deals with other cloud providers highlights two things. 1. They have every intention of placing CoD on the cloud, and 2. They will have control over where it is available on the cloud. The concessions they have made don't prove that they won't have control of CoD, they prove that they very much will want control of CoD as they basically say if you want CoD on your platform you need to do a deal with MS. The regulators need to look long term so they will be looking past these initial 10 year deals. They also had access to a lot more data than we do so can make a more informed decision around this.
To dismiss one regulator's ruling as nonsensical or irrational simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion is disrespectful, I don't agree with the EU's ruling but I do respect it.
Quite simply if cloud is not an issue like you say then why are MS making all these deals as 'concessions' and the EU accepting these concessions, while also setting up a body to make sure the concessions are being adhered to? This wasn't a clear pass from the EU, there are stipulations attached to the deal being approved so there are clearly some concerns that they have too.

@Stoned_Patrol Final Fantasy being Playstation exclusive is nothing to do with Sony. Square Enix said the work releasing the games to Xbox doesn’t justify the sales. They’re happy with Playstation sales as Playstation has a far bigger player base.

@Kevw2006 cloud gaming is a pretty speculative market at this point. Microsoft is seen as dominating the market when it is currently just a pack in perk for a larger/more appealing package, gamepass.

I imagine the gamepass ultimate subscribers that do not own an Xbox or gaming PC and only cloud stream is very very small. Generally speaking, people do not pay for gamepass ultimate to cloud stream. They cloud stream because they were already paying for gamepass ultimate.

Differentiating xbox cloud gaming from Xbox console gaming is not really a practical way of looking at the gaming landscape. It is like the FTC and their "high end console market" that magically eliminates Nintendo, PC and mobile from the picture.

Xbox cloud streaming is mostly geared towards Xbox owners just like Nvidia GeForce now is geared towards people who already game on pc and own the supported games from other marketplaces.

@Somebody Just because it is speculative at the moment that doesn't mean it should be dismissed. It's MS that have been pushing the cloud side of things and the fact they went out and offered deals to other cloud providers shows that they were aware that it would be somewhat of a problem for the acquisition to go through. If you read the CMA ruling it wasn't just MS's own offerings for cloud through game pass that they were concerned about, it was their market share for cloud infrastructure too and having them be in control of so many areas in regards to cloud streaming was a concern.

@Kevw2006 the most likely future for the "cloud market" is that it looks very similar to the current landscape. The major players being xbox, Sony, steam, epic, etc. (probably not nintendo lol) offering games purchased through their already established marketplaces to be streamed.

Cloud gaming isn't really even its own market yet and might never be one. I don't think xbox really cares about it to be honest they are saying so with these deals. Cloud gaming was the last thing on their minds when agreeing to the merge.

@Somebody According to Microsoft's own figures around 10 million people have used cloud streaming through game pass. At the last estimates that's around 40% of subscribers. Granted, these people might not be using it on a regular basis but the figures do show that there is a market for it and it is growing as the previous stated figure was 4 million the previous year.

@Kevw2006 as I was saying the service is part of a much larger service. People aren't subbing for the sole reason of cloud streaming. They are most likely already in the Xbox ecosystem just like Nvidia streamers are probably already in the PC gaming ecosystem, steam library, epic, GOG, etc. Cloud gaming is so far a complimentary component to ways people are already gaming, not its own thing.

Like me I use xbox cloud streaming very rarely, probably not even 5% of my time. I am included in those figures but I would not consider myself a cloud gamer.

@DoctorJohnDisco Was able to participate in the XDefiant beta and that game is going to be a great CoD alternative to be sure.

@Kevw2006 If SONY at ANY point in the Future, decides to jump into Cloud gaming to 'Compete' with Microsoft, they have their OWN IP's to compete against the likes of CoD, Forza, Halo, Starfield etc - games like Uncharted, God of War, Horizon, Spider-man etc. Games that will 'never' be on MS's Cloud service.

MS can't control Cloud gaming and prevent others from Competing with their OWN games. IF EA decides its future is 'Cloud' to distribute their OWN games, Fifa, Madden, Mass Effect, Dragonage etc are EA IP's to Compete.

The SAME reason that MS can't 'monopolise' the Hardware sector with the 'IP's' they own - even if they OWN CoD/ABK games, they still can't stop Sony/Nintendo Competing with their OWN software - Zelda, Mario, Spider-Man, Last of Us etc...

MS can ONLY guarantee their OWN games Day/Date in Cloud - everything else they have had to negotiate and pay 3rd Parties to put their games into Game Pass. If those 3rd Parties start their 'own' or decide that Cloud is NOT in their interests right now, then its not on 'Cloud'.

The CMAs argument is like saying Netflix had such an Advantage being 'first' to Cloud for TV/Movie content that NO other could Compete - yet it didn't stop Disney from Competing and keeping its 'IP's' on their Service to draw consumers in.

If Sony started a Cloud Streaming Service, it would Compete with MS Game Pass - perhaps even become the #1 cloud service with games from 5 generations of Playstation history, MANY Game of the Year Award winning IP's and no doubt a LARGE Fanbase that would Subscribe - they can also Add Sony Pictures for example to the Streaming service as well to have another USP to 'compete'.

The point is EVERY Publisher has their OWN IP's and in a 'future' of Cloud services for Gaming, they aren't going to spend Millions on Game Development to put their games in another's service for 'free' if no-one buys games anymore. They will need Subscribers to fund their Games too. EA and Ubisoft have Sub services already - streaming is just the next step - but they don't need to yet because they are SALES based primarily.

So in this 'Hypothetical' Cloud ONLY future the CMA are concerned with, the ONLY games M|S can 'control' or use to bring gamers into their Cloud service are their OWN. They can never offer Zelda, Mario, Uncharted, God of War etc etc and if EA decides to 'Compete' for Subs, Fifa, Madden, Battlefield, Mass Efffect etc are massive IP's too. GTA, Final Fantasy, Street Fighter etc - massive IP's in Gaming that won't be on Game Pass Cloud - unless MS 'buys' them - but they ALL could compete.

That's why the CMA are completely wrong - they are NOT hurting the Competition or preventing them from ever competing - they all have their OWN IP's they can use to 'Compete' and the ONLY IP's MS has any 'control' or can use to bring people into their Cloud service are the IP's they OWN - hence ALL come Day/Date regardless...

@Stoned_Patrol Unfortunately this is why they're playing second fiddle to Sony. Don't get me wrong: I love the platform and the 360 is probably my favourite ever home console but as a father looking for a new console his whole family will play the Xbox doesn't sell itself very well.

The XIV situation is annoying. I recall its something to do with Sony letting them process sub fees outside the PlayStation Store. It also doesn't require a PS+ sub. Microsoft won't let them class it as F2P and Square don't want it to require XBL.

@BAMozzy Two simple questions:
1. If could isn't a concern when why have Microsoft been very publicly making 10 year deals with other cloud services? Because it isn't out of the kindness of their hearts.
2. Why have the EU only approved the merger with concessions that they are going to regulate if cloud isn't/shouldn't be an issue?
You're missing a very key point in only focusing on a single aspect of the CMA's decision as there is a combination of points that they blocked the merger on and it is the combination of factors, and not any one of the single factors that they have blocked it for. If there was only one concern then it is possible that they would have allowed it.
The point you seem to be neglecting is Microsoft's current market share of cloud infrastructure was flagged as a concern, this along with the other concerns they have is why it was blocked.
To further elaborate on your example it would be like Disney being reliant on Netflix to host their streaming service.
That, plus having control of the single biggest money maker IN GAMING (before you try and even attempt to say Spider-Man is a bigger IP) is why the CMA has blocked the deal. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean their concerns aren't valid.

@Vepra I hope so. I never got to try.

@Kevw2006 That is down to a 'misunderstanding' of the Cloud. Its assuming that Microsoft controls the infrastructure of the Cloud - which is ridiculous.

If Sony wanted to build its own Servers to host its OWN games, use PS5 APU's like MS uses Series X APU's, it won't be 'windows' based, won't require Windows hardware etc - just like Game Pass Cloud. The fact that you can play games on Linux, iOS, Android etc devices means that it negates any 'OS' as a 'block' to consumers to play games (they don't 'need' to buy a Windows/Xbox device) and as the 'game' is running in the Cloud, it doesn't 'need' to run on Windows either. As I said, Sony could start their OWN service, completely separate from Windows and based on their OWN OS - as games run on their 'servers', they are 'streaming' the images and receiving your inputs over the 'internet' and doesn't require 'specific' hardware.

The fact that you can play 'Windows' based games on Android or Apple iOS devices just shows how the OS is irrelevant and there is still nothing stopping Sony build their own Servers using their own OS without 'relying' on Microsoft. You never need to own a Microsoft/Windows based hardware to play 'their' games on Cloud.

The CMA seems to think that MS cloud services would prevent others from Competing, have 'no' options to create or innovate with their 'own' Cloud service and therefore give MS a monopoly on Cloud gaming with its 'tiny' Library of Games.

The EU regulation states that MS can't refuse a 'Licence' to other Cloud services - in other words, continue to sell the game to competing 'cloud' services, just like they are 'willing' to keep selling CoD on Playstation and 'bring' it to Nintendo too - they wanted the 'same' commitment.

Again, you talk about 'current market share' in an 'emerging' technology that most other Companies are NOT interested in offering EVER because it goes against their Sales business model. They 'prefer' to sell to get a bigger chunk of money per gamer. Its like saying No-one could compete with Netflix and its 200m+ Subscribers because they have such a dominant Market share and therefore no-one else has a 'chance' - yet didn't stop Disney+ from 'competing' in an OPEN market. Cloud is NOT a closed System and nothing is stopping others from creating their OWN gaming servers, their OWN 'cloud' service that's NOT Windows/Windows based and using the internet to stream data between Consumer and server on whatever 'Platform/OS' you have...

The 'internet' is just the way to connect you to a server somewhere and doesn't 'need' to be Windows based at all. Its like saying to use Sony's 'remote' play, you have to connect the PS5 to an 'Xbox' to work. Its 'running' on your PS5 and sending Data through the 'cloud' to enable you to play. Azure maybe a 'big' name in streaming/cloud tech, but that's not stopping others from using Amazon or Google servers, not stopping competition from Companies investing in their Own servers etc.

MS cannot control the Cloud market with the purchase of ABK. It only allows them to put a 'few' more games into Cloud Services that currently had no intention of being on Cloud or had any plans to bring games to Cloud. Sony too are in that position - at least not with 'newer' games because they are committed to a Sales based business model, don't want to 'dilute' their sales with Subscribers. But that doesn't mean MS/Xbox can 'monopolise' Cloud or prevent Sony from Competing in Cloud in the Future with its OWN IP's contesting for Subscribers...

@BAMozzy I noticed you conveniently sidestepped the questions I asked at the start of my post...

@Kevw2006 I did - you just chose to ignore or didn't read the whole post.

Your first question was regarding those 10yr 'Cloud' deals - to which I answered with The EU regulation states that MS can't refuse a 'Licence' to other Cloud services - in other words, continue to sell the game to competing 'cloud' services, just like they are 'willing' to keep selling CoD on Playstation and 'bring' it to Nintendo too - they wanted the 'same' commitment.

They saw that MS was 'committed' to ensuring that other 'Physical' platforms continue to have 'access' - even though they appreciate it won't 'hurt' competitors in the hardware space. That 'choice' of where to play on Physical formats is 'catered' to, but only having 'Xbox Game Pass' for CoD is not providing 'choice' of service provider. If you buy on 'PC' for example (on Steam for example), they don't want you having to 'buy' again to 'stream' the game because you didn't buy it on Xbox or 'buying' the game on Playstation but never allowed to Stream it because 'streaming' CoD is 'exclusive' to MS services only.

The fact is that if you can buy CoD on Xbox/PC and then Stream it via Xbox Cloud, that is an 'added' feature that 'others' should be able to offer to. They are concerned that you could buy CoD on Steam, Nintendo or Playstation for example and be 'locked' out of cloud because you didn't buy on Xbox or have to subscribe to Xbox to 'stream'.

Again, I still think that is the wrong decision because 'exclusivity' in Cloud is still the SAME as 'exclusivity' in Hardware as its those 'unique' games that bring players into that ecosystem specifically. CoD on Xbox Cloud would Compete with Battlefield on EA Access or Destiny on PS+ for example.

But it does 'hurt' smaller, independent companies from offering Competing 'cloud' services - companies like those who signed 10yr deals as they don't own their 'own' IP's to compete so would harm these smaller companies - now its actually 'helping' them and Consumers 'more' by being 'firm'. Even though the reality is that Game Pass or Microsoft Cloud can't actually monopolise Cloud Gaming as MS don't own or control the vast majority of Games or infrastructure required. They wanted to see that 'others', especially those 'smaller' companies can build up their own user base of Subscribers and not be 'put-off' because they don't own enough/any IP's to 'compete'...

The fact is, the CMA so far is the ONLY region to Block this - it wasn't blocked in Japan or issued with any concessions there for example in Cloud, neither was it blocked in other regions too with any Concessions. Its only the UK that is adamant that MS can control/monopolise gaming - something that EVERYONE else in gaming, law etc are completely bamboozled by...