•

Microsoft and Sony sign deal to keep Activision’s Call of Duty on PlayStation

Microsoft and Sony sign deal to keep Activision's Call of Duty on PlayStation

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/16/microsoft-and-sony-sign-deal-to-keep-activisions-call-of-duty-on-playstation.html

Microsoft and Sony have signed an agreement to keep Activision's best-selling Call of Duty series available on PlayStation, after the conclusion of the deal.

Microsoft and Sony sign deal to keep Activision’s Call of Duty on PlayStation::Microsoft and Sony have signed an agreement to keep Activision's best-selling Call of Duty series available on PlayStation, after the conclusion of the deal.

28 comments

sdjmchattie

•

“That’s right Sony, any new releases of a game called Call of Duty will be on your console”

Microsoft releases Summoned for War

deweydecibel

•

That's literally all it is. FTC couldn't get the job done, Sony is signing the deal they know is worthless because ultimately they have no other option.

This is for show. It's kind of gross, honestly.

a_spooky_specter

•

Honestly have no empathy for Sony. They have tons of console exclusives. Kinda the only reason to entertain owning a PlayStation is because of them. There is no monopoly formed. That would indicate zero competition in the space.

FoxBJK

•

I don’t see why people thought the US was going to stop this from happening. We’re very pro business, and won’t get in the way of a merger like this unless it creates a monopoly. And there’s so many companies that make games now that this simply wouldn’t happen. Microsoft buying CoD, WoW and Candy Crush makes them bigger, but not an unstoppable juggernaut.

gjghkk

•

FTC

what does that mean?

kmkz_ninja

•

Federal Trade Commission.

chrisphero

•

Not too surprised tbh.

But what will happen to the console market in 10 years? Does it shift to a subscription model and you choose games via your TV and everything is streamed?

But I’m glad CoD will still be around - at least some constant I can rely on haha

echo64

•

Likely the same thing that has happened to every other industry.

Someone comes out with a disruptive low cost subscription model, consumers like it because it's so low cost and anything that isn't on it they can still buy.
People buy less, content producers have to move to the same subscription model to survive.
The low cost of the subscription model can't pay for all the content that is normally made by that industry, creatives can't find backing to create content anymore, creative struggle to get paid between there being less money and corporate greed snatching what is left
Quality drops, output drops, no one is happy.

illi

•

Sounds like Game Pass to me

Doherz

•

It does and that's the real issue.

MS has the power, reach and financial means to completely steamroll the market by underpricing games pass to kill any competition. Then once they've done that they can set prices, control labour and production to reduce costs too and monopolise the market to their shareholders cold dead money grubbing hearts content.

To put the scale of the issue in perspective.

Microsoft has a market cap of 2.5 Trillion dollars. Or 2500 billion.

Sony, Nintendo, Tencent, Valve, EA, Take Two and Ubisoft combined don't even reach 700 billion. We take Tencent out of the equation and it's only 300 billion.

So we're talking 4x that of all their combined global competition. If we only look at "western" companies its basically 8.5x.

But getting rid of Bobby Kotick will make gaming better /s

illi

•

Indeed. At first, I cheered for them because I wanted a better Blizzard and saw it as an opportunity to get rid of Kotick exactly as you say. But the more it drags on and the more I read/hear about context... the more I wish it fell through.

deweydecibel

•

And yet the notion of taking a step back and dusting off the old system is actively rebelled against by consumers because they'd rather have convenient shit than quality if it means having to pay for it.

JoeKrogan

•

Then we just play all of our roms via emulation.

Qualanqui

•

The low cost of the subscription model can't pay for all the content that is normally made by that industry

This is where economies of scale comes in though, especially in tech where you're offering an ephemeral product. Even at say US$10 if you get a million subscribers (not too hard to do, netflix had many times that number at their peak) that's US$10 million dollars. Which you would think should be more than enough to punch out a bunch of relatively low budget productions, pay your neccessaries and still leave you a good chunk of change I feel.

echo64

•

You can feel that way but you'd be wrong. Game development costs are enormous these days, 40million has become the norm, quality games that make sales and gain subscribers cost north of 100 million by themselves, not factoring in marketing costs.

HerzogVonWiesel

•

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II generates over $1 billion in 10 days"

https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/11/07/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-ii-1-billion-revenue-franchise-record

Sounds like a bit more than the 10 Million you proposed, and thats only 1 game. It wouldnt be possible to keep up with quality when returns would diminish a ton

substill

•

So telling that Sony waited until the weekend after the Ninth Circuit denied the temporary injunction appeal. This is the same deal Microsoft proposed months ago as a means to offset anticompetitive concerns. Sony waited to give the FTC ammo for the case, but otherwise was ready and willing to ink the contract.

I’m not a fan of massive consolidation of media companies (though I think that goes without saying for most fediverse users). But using Call of Duty as a rallying cry was a false alarm from the get go. Microsoft recognized from the outset that would have been a dealbreaker. Microsoft offered great terms to Nintendo and Sony to guarantee continued access on all current platforms.

For me personally as a consumer, Zenimax and Activision are about the only viable options I can see to give Microsoft decent single player games. Microsoft has been so far behind Sony and Nintendo for so long. Microsoft has tried to build a stable by adding smaller developers, but they just can’t match Sony and Nintendo AAA products.

deweydecibel

•

There was nothing fair about the offer, because they should never have been in a position to make it in the first place. It's a failure of legal system that this is allowed to happen at all.

substill

•

Meh. From my antitrust course in law school (which was admittedly a long time ago), nothing about this screams antitrust. I don’t see that this deal gives Microsoft monopoly power over any defined market, and Microsoft definitely hasn’t flexed any existing monopoly power over the gaming space.

Certainly Microsoft has a history of anticompetitive action and flouting monopoly power whenever it has the chance in a sector. But I don’t see this deal as giving Microsoft a vertical or horizontal monopoly. It’s just typical consolidation within the industry. It’s not for consumers, but it isn’t the result of illegal price fixing type arrangements between competitors or using an existing dominant market share to overpower the market. That isn’t illegal. That’s just a shitty industry with shitty practices.

The best argument against allowing the deal to close, under US law, is likely targeted towards the cloud and subscription models. Microsoft really does seem to have a huge edge there. But I’m not sure anyone in the industry (except Epic Games) wants to challenge the subscription practices on another player’s hardware.

TheRealKuni

•

It’s a failure of legal system that this is allowed to happen at all.

How so? This is just a company buying another company. They aren’t the only player in the space, they aren’t the only company making games or consoles. This isn’t monopolistic.

It may or may not be good for consumers in the long run, but whether it’s “fair” that Microsoft can buy a game studio isn’t really what the law is worried about. They care about lack of competition in the space, and there are still plenty of large competitors. Valve, Sony, and Nintendo can still easily compete with Microsoft even after this acquisition.

Microsoft saying, “We promise to continue releasing this title we now own on our competitor’s console” is more than fair. They don’t need to do that, but it’s a win-win for them and for Sony so they might as well. It works out well for them because PlayStation users will pay them money for the game, while it being free on GamePass will still incentivize coming to PC or Xbox to play it.

Say what you will about the acquisition of Activision Blizzard, but a deal to continue publishing on a competitor’s console is perfectly “fair.”

Hazdaz

•

I'm sitting here wondering why the fuck anyone plays CoD to begin with.

smolyeet

•

It’s a relatively consistent and fun arcade shooter. We don’t need to bring the gatekeeping that you see on other platforms. Let people like what they like.

Shrek

•

Ever release is broken and they care less and less the more money that they get. That's my problem. Not that I don't have nostalgia or don't genuinely still enjoy the games

smolyeet

•

For a casual player , it doesn’t matter. It’s usually just cosmetics that are paid although apparently there’s a pay to win skin in DMZ? Either way , the gameplay loop is fast , fun , and it scratches an itch. I had a lot of fun with mw remake , my only problem is my friends have moved on from fps so it’s not as fun to play alone. I do agree they treat their customers pretty badly and it’s a money grab , but the base game is still fun. You don’t need to spend money on cosmetics if you don’t want to , least in the regular multiplayer.

TheyKeepOnRising

•

I think you are confused with the Battlefield games, which have been horribly broken at launch every single time since 1942. The CoD games are creatively bankrupt and plagued with micro transactions, but they are usually functional.

8275232

•

It's basically the vanilla option for people that don't play sports games. If you have any interest in shooters, it's got a great ROI

p5f20w18k

•

From most peoples perspective (not mine though), nobody can make an FPS shooter as good as a call of duty game. There are “people who play games” and there’s “gamers”.

People who play games are satisfied with the yearly release of a somewhat consistent quality FPS game, but gamers are aware of the (potential) better alternatives.

Call of Duty is still decent, if you don’t look too closely at it. Warzone and DMZ are enjoyable in small quantities. 6v6 is fine if you play 2-3 matches then turn it off.