Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[eastmen]

The benefit for Sony would be native PlayStation versions of COD after their current agreement with Activision ends. Of course, this is assuming that MS actually intend to withhold COD from the PlayStation console, which I highly doubt. However, Sony can't know whether MS are bluffing or not WRT potentially withholding COD from PlayStation consoles. At that point it's a question of whether 30% of revenue generated by COD on PlayStation is worth more or less than potential loss of revenue from someone buying DLC through Game Pass for streaming.

I'd argue the revenue potential from COD for Sony would be greater than potential loss of revenue from DLC purchases through Game Pass for streaming.

Anyone that's into COD isn't going to be playing it seriously on Game Pass no matter what marketing people believe. So, it's not like people will use Game Pass to play COD and buy the DLC there if there exists a native PlayStation version of the game.

Regards,
SB

To be honest I don't see why MS would bother creating native versions of COD for non MS platforms when they can just run the game in xcloud. I would imagine the amount of employees it would take optimize the yearly releases of games for a competitors platform would be large enough that they could simply work on another new title. MS can just offer both Nintendo and Sony the xcloud version and then the dev teams could focus on xbox series and pc releases.

I agree that I don't think serious cod gamers will want to play it on xcloud. I think if someone is serious enough about COD in a post purchase world that they would either go on pc or to the xbox platform if they want cod on console. But I think for a segment of the fan base that likes to play cod and would buy it on the playstation but not that into it that they would buy another console would be fine with xcloud versions.

Of course this can all be moot in the future. Adding Activision/Blizzard to game pass might be enough with the turn of a new console generation to get cod players to buy xbox first and then a large enough % of the cod gamers on playstation are now on xbox and MS wouldn't care if they leave the left overs on the table.

To be honest I think family plans for Game pass ultimate are going to be a big tide turner in western countries for MS. It seems to me like MS is going to be able to release yearly rpgs , racers , tactical games , adventure games and likely multiple shooters each year that will all fall into Game pass. Add in all the riot stuff and ea access and who knows what else in the future. It's going to be a no brainer for a lot of people out there.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Well I mean MS ended up going through the web browser to get on IOS. For sony I don't know, they may allow a set up like that because it wouldn't just have to be COD now would it. Sony could get access to the whole first party line up of MS for the loss of 30%.

There is no web browser on PS5. Technically there is, but it's part of the dev framework for devs to use, in case they want to include a way to present HTML/web content inside other apps. Either way, Microsoft need Sony to approve an app for GamePass to be available and that will be subject to the 30% cut rule. The same rule Microsoft's disclosed documents in the Epic/Apple case showed Microsoft would not drop on Xbox consoles. Sony are not doing to do something Microsoft themselves wouldn't do.

The only benefit would be to have the games. So if COD is as important as Sony claims then the choice is no cod and gamers go to other platforms with cod or xcloud cod with no 30% cut ?

It's not just Call of Duty being on the platform, it's Sony being able to monetise games all of the games. That is the point of consoles with their licensing models and paid-for subscriptions. If you cannot monetise something, you don't have a business. This argument is not going to sway regulators.

 

[see colon]

Anyone that's into COD isn't going to be playing it seriously on Game Pass no matter what marketing people believe. So, it's not like people will use Game Pass to play COD and buy the DLC there if there exists a native PlayStation version of the game.

You don't have to not have a native Playstation version to have the DLC be available on another storefront. That's how Minecraft does it. Sure, you can but DLC in the Playstation store, but anything you already paid for is tied to your Microsoft account, and that ports to other versions of the game. COD sells 30+ million units a year, you only have to shift a few % of users to make a financial difference.

There is no web browser on PS5. Technically there is, but it's part of the dev framework for devs to use, in case they want to include a way to present HTML/web content inside other apps. Either way, Microsoft need Sony to approve an app for GamePass to be available and that will be subject to the 30% cut rule. The same rule Microsoft's disclosed documents in the Epic/Apple case showed Microsoft would not drop on Xbox consoles. Sony are not doing to do something Microsoft themselves wouldn't do.

What about an COD app that just streams the Xbox version of the game.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

What about an COD app that just streams the Xbox version of the game.

Sony would need to approve it. This is about eastmen's suggestion that Microsoft approach streaming games to PlayStation users like iOS, but iOS has a web browser that anybody with a web-based business can serve. PlayStaton 5 does not. And I think the PS4 web browser was fairly bare bones and probably doesn't include some of the HTML standards that GamePass is likely built on.

If Microsoft want to get GamePass to PlayStation owners, they want to be porting a GamePass app to as many smart TVs as possible or providing a stick that plugs in.

 

[Malo]

The benefit for Sony would be native PlayStation versions of COD after their current agreement with Activision ends. Of course, this is assuming that MS actually intend to withhold COD from the PlayStation console, which I highly doubt. However, Sony can't know whether MS are bluffing or not WRT potentially withholding COD from PlayStation consoles. At that point it's a question of whether 30% of revenue generated by COD on PlayStation is worth more or less than potential loss of revenue from someone buying DLC through Game Pass for streaming.

So you guys are saying that MS should hold COD as ransom to get XCloud onto the PlayStation? That's nuts.

 

[Metal_Spirit]

So you guys are saying that MS should hold COD as ransom to get XCloud onto the PlayStation? That's nuts.

Thats exactly one of the points the UK regulator touches and want to avoid. They want to make shure all subscription services have equal acess to COD. And that Microsoft has no advantage with it´s current infrastructure!

 

[eastmen]

There is no web browser on PS5. Technically there is, but it's part of the dev framework for devs to use, in case they want to include a way to present HTML/web content inside other apps. Either way, Microsoft need Sony to approve an app for GamePass to be available and that will be subject to the 30% cut rule. The same rule Microsoft's disclosed documents in the Epic/Apple case showed Microsoft would not drop on Xbox consoles. Sony are not doing to do something Microsoft themselves wouldn't do.



It's not just Call of Duty being on the platform, it's Sony being able to monetise games all of the games. That is the point of consoles with their licensing models and paid-for subscriptions. If you cannot monetise something, you don't have a business. This argument is not going to sway regulators.

How do they monetize Netflix ? Hbo Max ? Disney plus ? Amazon prime video ? Twitch ? Youtube ?

Like I said before in the thread. COD can still be xcloud and you go on PSN and buy COD and you load cod on ps5 and it just streams an xcloud version. it would be pretty easy for MS to just create an xcloud launcher for a single game. I would figure that MS would continue offering native COD until the end of the generation. If we figure 2 more games in the contract and a 3 year add on that was offered that takes us right to the end of the generation. So the deal after the 3 year extension would be for native versions. But who knows

Sony would need to approve it. This is about eastmen's suggestion that Microsoft approach streaming games to PlayStation users like iOS, but iOS has a web browser that anybody with a web-based business can serve. PlayStaton 5 does not. And I think the PS4 web browser was fairly bare bones and probably doesn't include some of the HTML standards that GamePass is likely built on.

If Microsoft want to get GamePass to PlayStation owners, they want to be porting a GamePass app to as many smart TVs as possible or providing a stick that plugs in.

Yea sony would have to approve it. They would likely sign a contract and it be part of a renewal deal. I would imagine the at the start of a new generation MS says hey we are just making a native dx 12 ultimate version of COD and xbox will get a tweaked version and windows will get a version with the option to change settings. But everyone else will get a streamed version of xcloud . We can offer these versions of the xcloud one. I am sure one will be a full xcloud client , one would be a dedicated launcher and then maybe there will be a cod launcher version that gives you access to the cod universe if contnet starts to get shared through multiple cods(for purchases)

MS is already putting Gamepass on as much as possible and there will be a stick that plugs in. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we see xbox controllers as a freebie with tvs that support xcloud.

 

[Nesh]

i ll make it simple for you. Non gaming services like Amazon Prime, HBO etc on PS do not compete Playstation's gaming services which is the meat of Playstation's revenue generation. MS's gaming services are a direct competition to that and it is cannibalisation if any of these are offered on Playstation

 

[Malo]

How do they monetize Netflix ? Hbo Max ? Disney plus ? Amazon prime video ? Twitch ? Youtube ?

None of that competes with their console business. Surely you understood that before posting.

 

[eastmen]

So you guys are saying that MS should hold COD as ransom to get XCloud onto the PlayStation? That's nuts.

Its not ransom unless you consider every contract negotiation a ransom. It's like with a tv show. Think about friends right. When the actors were cast for the pilot the show had a small chance of going to air and the majority of the cast were unknowns so all of the cast got paid low salaries. But in following years when the contracts they signed were up the show was a mega hit and the actors were house hold names. Were the actors wanting more money holding them coming back to the show as ransom? I am sure every time Acitivision goes to sony for a contract they push the boundaries for better terms while sony pushes back for better terms and it all depends on who has the upper hand at that point in the negotiations

 

[eastmen]

None of that competes with their console business. Surely you understood that before posting.

A xcloud cod doesn't have to compete with their console business either. Multiple people have given examples of how an xcloud version could exist on the playstation without MS having to give up a 30% cut or subscriptions or Sony having to give away the keys to the kingdom.

 

[Malo]

A xcloud cod doesn't have to compete with their console business either. Multiple people have given examples of how an xcloud version could exist on the playstation without MS having to give up a 30% cut or subscriptions or Sony having to give away the keys to the kingdom.

As someone who works for Microsoft and has significant financial gain from their success, I really don't see you being able to think objectively here. I'm sure there's more insight I can gain if perhaps I go through tons of prior discussion but I have little interest. I'll bow out of the discussion as I don't think I can offer anything more.

 

[eastmen]

As someone who works for Microsoft and has significant financial gain from their success, I really don't see you being able to think objectively here. I'm sure there's more insight I can gain if perhaps I go through tons of prior discussion but I have little interest. I'll bow out of the discussion as I don't think I can offer anything more.

I don't actually work for them anymore. I took a job with a Competitor. Been with another company for a month already. Although I guess the company I am with is in competition against sony still

 

[BRiT]

Microsoft has responded to Sony's comment, and says removing Call of Duty from PlayStation makes "zero business sense"

Microsoft Activision acquisition expected to face deeper investigations in UK, EU

Microsoft's $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard is expected to be investigated extensively by both UK and …

www.gamesindustry.biz

https://twitter.com/x/status/1570437619263176704

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Microsoft has responded to Sony's comment, and says removing Call of Duty from PlayStation makes "zero business sense"

But does not in any way commit to keeping Call of Duty on PlayStation for more than a few years. It's almost like they don't want too, even though it would make perfect business sense.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

But does not in any way commit to keeping Call of Duty on PlayStation for more than a few years. It's almost like they don't want too, even though it would make perfect business sense.

I mean does any publisher state that it doesn't make any business sense to not release a title on X platform and then at the same time commit to releasing X title or IP on Y platform, forever?

I mean, MS hasn't even committed to even releasing anymore COD games on Xbox or any platform after this generation of consoles. They could just as well say it doesn't make any business sense to not release COD on Xbox. Does that mean they don't really want to release COD on Xbox or PC?

I mean what if they commit to releasing COD on PlayStation until 2040 but then decide to can the series in 2028? That doesn't make much sense either. They didn't commit to releasing Minecraft for an indefinite period of time after the acquisition but it's still on PlayStation because it still makes "business sense". And Minecraft is arguably a much more influential game title WRT locking people into your console ecosystem as it gets kids hooked when they are still young. Not only does Minecraft have the potential to get kids to associate good gaming with a given platform but also basically forcing families to buy that platform for their kid.

Regards,
SB

 

[Jay]

Only had chance to scan posts. But....

I've said in past that xbox could use xcloud to support PS.
But its not about demonetisation of Sony or Nintendo.

It would be done in the same way that some games are currently run on the switch.
The sale of the game, mx etc would still go through Sony and Nintendo's store api's.
Everything would seem like a native game apart from it actually running from xcloud.

I don't expect MS to do this on PS though. Maybe next gen when net is solid enough in most regions?

 

[Jay]

I mean does any publisher state that it doesn't make any business sense to not release a title on X platform and then at the same time commit to releasing X title or IP on Y platform, forever?

I mean, MS hasn't even committed to even releasing anymore COD games on Xbox or any platform after this generation of consoles. They could just as well say it doesn't make any business sense to not release COD on Xbox. Does that mean they don't really want to release COD on Xbox or PC?

I mean what if they commit to releasing COD on PlayStation until 2040 but then decide to can the series in 2028? That doesn't make much sense either. They didn't commit to releasing Minecraft for an indefinite period of time after the acquisition but it's still on PlayStation because it still makes "business sense". And Minecraft is arguably a much more influential game title as it gets kids hooked when they are still young.

Regards,
SB

And every franchise gets a renegotiation period. Be crazy not to.
What if Sony implements some other xplay costs. Then MS wouldn't even be able to renegotiate.
I don't understand what people actually expect them to say as a stronger commitment.
"Doesn't matter if we go xcloud exclusive in 2 generations time, we will still make it for PS7 even if we don't have a local console."

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I mean does any publisher state that it doesn't make any business sense to not release a title on X platform and then at the same time commit to releasing X title or IP on Y platform, forever?

Independent publishers don't need to make such statements, Microsoft are being pressed for comment by media due the action of multiple market regulators. Independent publishers are generally looking for the greatest engagement and return, however Microsoft's motivations are different.

Why would it make "zero business sense" to keep Call of Duty off PlayStation, but it seemingly does make business sense to keep Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI off PlayStation? What is the "business sense" exactly? If Microsoft are chasing sales revenue then not releasing titles on a big platform makes no business sense.

Let's not be naive, Microsoft are spending tens of billions of dollars (almost $100bn at this point) on acquisitions so anybody who thinks they aren't willing to lose a few hundred hundred million dollars in lost revenue needs to replace their calculator.

 

[Jay]

Why would it make "zero business sense" to keep Call of Duty off PlayStation, but it seemingly does make business sense to keep Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI off PlayStation? What is the "business sense" exactly? If Microsoft are chasing sales revenue then not releasing titles on a big platform makes no business sense.

Most obvious difference is COD has a big established multi player base to the game.

Not that I personally have an issue them pulling COD, but I can appreciate why they wouldn't.