Sony Claps Back At Microsoft Over Limited Promise For ‘CoD’ Cross-Platform Plans
from the call-dropped dept
And here we are again, with more exclusivity drama coming out of the recent acquisitions Microsoft has undertaken in the video game space. After the announcements of the Zenimax/Bethesda and Activision Blizzard acquisitions, which are still going through review, Microsoft came out with a bunch of conflicting statements on what those buys would mean for exclusivity of games. Then the company said some games, mostly from the Bethesda acquisition, would be “first/best” on Xbox. Then one title from Bethesda was announced as an Xbox exclusive. And then, after all of that, came Xbox chief Phil Spencer talking about how exclusives weren’t the future, as everyone listening realized that they certainly seem to be Xbox’s present.
And through it all, a decent chunk of the gaming public kept asking the same question: yeah, but is Call of Duty going to still be on Sony’s PlayStation? And the answer is yes! Because Sony and Activision had already inked a deal for the next 3 games to be released on that system. But what about after that? Well, its time for another lesson in how to muddy the waters as much as possible, brought to you once again by Phil Spencer.
“In January, we provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements,” says Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer in a statement to The Verge.
Several more years. At least. Maybe. How many years? Months ago Microsoft made some noises about it being two years after the current deal. More recently, some have said three. Phil Spencer says it’s “at least several more years.” What’s the actual answer? Insert shrugging emoji here.
And here’s the better question: specifically for CoD games, if exclusivity for that title isn’t the present, which it isn’t, and Spencer says exclusives aren’t the future… then what’s with the “at least”? We seem to be running out of phases of time in which these exclusives would occur at all. Unless he’s lying, of course.
But even if he’s not, Sony is clapping back on this.
PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan says a Microsoft offer to keep the Call of Duty franchise on PlayStation for “three years after the current agreement” was “inadequate on many levels, and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers.”
In a statement provided to multiple outlets, including the Financial Times, Ryan said that “we want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience,” even if Microsoft’s proposed $68.7 billion bid to buy Activision Blizzard is approved. “Microsoft’s proposal undermines this principle,” Ryan said.
No doubt. Sony’s obviously not being altruistic here; it wants to sell CoD games because they’re crazy successful. On the other hand, Spencer is being shifty and vague, or non-commital at best. The motivation for that? Well, as I said, the Activsion acquisition is still being reviewed by governments over anti-trust concerns.
Sony’s and Microsoft’s dueling statements around Call of Duty access come during a crucial phase of Microsoft’s quest for international regulatory approval of its record-setting proposed acquisition. Last week, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority announced it was launching a “Phase 2” investigation into the proposed merger, saying the deal “could substantially lessen competition” in the market for console and streaming games.
And that is the context you have to keep in mind for all of this. Spencer is making these public statements at the very time that regulators are deciding whether the acquisition is going to have a negative competitive effect on the gaming market. I certainly can’t say that that is driving what he’s saying… but I can wonder. As can the regulators. As can the public.
And given the careful, measured, vague delivery of Xbox’s plans? Well, it’s certainly seems possible that the audience for these comments isn’t the public.
Filed Under: call of duty, cross platform, exclusives, playstation, video games, xbox
Companies: microsoft, sony
Comments on “Sony Claps Back At Microsoft Over Limited Promise For ‘CoD’ Cross-Platform Plans”
Just a few more exclusives, we promise
For a company that tried to claim that exclusives aren’t the future they sure do seem to be big fans of them when it comes to exclusives on their platforms…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Sony and Microsoft
Sony is right and Microsoft is not right.
https://www.dinarguru.onl/
To be fair to those regulators, in a very strict, absolute sense, Microsoft acquiring ABK is going to reduce competition in the gaming market by a fair amount. There’s no denying that.
However…
Small and medium studios are still making games, at least until a publisher looks to acquire them.
It’s a matter of how much in the end.
Pathetic
Honestly, all I get from Sony’s statement is whining. Their competitor is trying to buy a studio that makes a game series that is popular on Sony’s consoles. So what does Sony do? They certainly won’t try to acquire the studio themselves. That would cost money. But whining on the internet is free, so off to the tubes it is. And it works. Whining got them a three year guarantee already, but Sony’s not satisfied with that. They must get more freebies at zero cost, so more whining it is.
Re:
SIE is bleeding. Each new report of censorship drops hundreds to thousands of users permanently.
The risk of one of the big franchises leaving is very dangerous ground for them.
A large population of users is angry with them. Angry:
Over poor remasters that modify games. Over cut content. Over botched buggy releases. Over not just artistic censorship but game breaking censorship. Over high cost DLC. Over random pulling from the store that breaks paid games, and bars redownload.
This is Sony crying. But with good reason. The whole ‘make your bed…’ adage.
This is dangerous . Loosing a pillar now could topple the PlayStation permanently.
And history would logically say it was just another nail. In the coffin Sony hand built.
Re:
Obviously Sony is only acting out of its own interests here but you’re ignoring that (a) Sony does not have anywhere near the resources of Microsoft and cannot just dump tens of billions into acquisitions whenever it wants and (b) more exclusives are bad for consumers, period.
Re: Re:
sony has no right to bitch they kept until dawn and the last of us part 1 and 2 for them selves sony has enough exclusives and cod was never sony exclussive it started out on pc aka microsoft any how so stfu sony u lil punk asses
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Fondsenwerving Ideeën Voor Startups
Bedankt voor het delen van dit informatieve artikel.
GamePass Flex
Sony pitching a fit over CoD gives MS a crap ton of leverage. Phil has said he wants GamePass on Everything(tm). I can see Phil dangling CoD in front of Sony, saying if they want CoD on Playstation, great, but it’s going to be through GamePass.
If you want to play CoD and CoD isn’t in your platform, dump the CensorStation and grab an xBox
or use your PC
or a Mac or Linux machine with CrossOver.
It’s that simple. You have no guarantee something will be on a platform forever more.
Re: Remember when ya boi calimed to be at ground zero but it was actually Hillary, Pepperidge Farms does.
Bro I can’t decide if “CensorStation” or your eternal hated of that email lady is more childish.
Re: Re:
Given the millions of complaints, I’m not alone.
Let me know how you feel when they come after a game property you like.
For now; try this https://youtube.com/c/censoredgaming
One of dozens covering the issue.
Keep in mind email lady started out as censor lady back in Arkansas.
Sony should buy cod
You people don’t understand what the problem with a monopoly is.
But you do know how to hold a grudge about dual booting ps3s….
Let it go, the only person you’re hurting is yourself.
Re:
Many people (actual numbers unknown) really did purchase the PS3 for multi-boot.
The price tag and Cell PPC processor made it an amazing value for mid-level cluster computing.
It was also a popular choice for Folders. And encryption hobbyists. Feed servers. And HMS.
Re:
Sabroni, a monopoly is something you will never hope to own. And for good reason. You’re a maniac who should never be trusted with that amount of unchecked power.
UK
Why does the UK have a say in the merger of two US companies?
Re:
I don’t know. It’s not like the UK market will be hurt by the lack of availability of a game on a console that’s never been sold there. /s
Re:
Funny, I could have sworn Sony is a Japanese company, not an American one.
Re: Re:
Sony is not involved in the mergers.
@nasch
I would imagine for the same reason the U.S.A. butts in on mergers in non U.S.A. companies.
Because said businesses operate in the Britain, United States, at al.
Imagine Microsoft firing back with: “Alright, since you’re complaining, how about we don’t go further than the three years in the original agreement?”
Let's be real
If the positions were reversed there’s no chance that Sony would keep CoD available on Xbox after the current contract and it would only appear on PC after a year or two when they milked the current version and are ready to release the next.
That sounds familiar
A bad actor complaining about a bigger bad actor aquireing a bad actor run by absolutely horrible people.
What Industry were we talking about again?
End exclusives…end the problem.
sony has no right to bitch they kept until dawn and the last of us part 1 and 2 for them selves sony has enough exclusives and cod was never sony exclussive it started out on pc aka microsoft any how so stfu sony u lil punk asses