Microsoft Inks 2 More CoD Multiplatform Deals With Game Streaming Services
from the obvious-strategy-is-obvious dept
Microsoft continues to make moves to get its purchase of Activision Blizzard past the various regulatory bodies that have voiced their concerns. While there are plenty of signs that the EU regulators are getting ready to approve the deal, there is still the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the States to get past. Microsoft’s strategy for getting over those hurdles has been very clear: ink as many decade-long deals to put the Call of Duty franchise on as many platforms as possible to show regulators that they aren’t planning on bringing games to exclusivity. Microsoft already has a deal in place for this with Nintendo and a proposed deal for it with Sony, which has been the main private objector to this purchase to begin with.
And now Microsoft is piling them on, inking two additional CoD deals with two game-streaming platforms.
Microsoft announced Tuesday that it has signed a 10-year deal to bring its Xbox PC games to little-known Ukraine-based streaming platform Boosteroid. The move is being positioned in part to “mak[e] even more clear to regulators that our acquisition of Activision Blizzard will make Call of Duty available on far more devices than before,” as Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith said in a statement.
The new deal comes a month after Microsoft signed a similar 10-year commitment with Nvidia to bring Xbox PC games to that company’s GeForce Now streaming service.
As I said, the reason for these deals is plainly obvious. Microsoft isn’t even bothering to pretend otherwise, having told the Wall Street Journal directly that these new deals are going to make it hard for Sony to make arguments in court or in front of regulators that center on exclusivity of the CoD franchise.
Just as notable, if not more so, is what is going on at the FTC. Over there, the FTC, having heard Sony’s arguments that Microsoft’s exclusivity pursuits on Bethesda titles should result in assuming it will do likewise with Activision Blizzard titles, is apparently considering opening the door to Microsoft getting Sony’s exclusivity deals, in detail, as part of the discovery process.
Microsoft argues that the Complaint in this case makes a number of allegations regarding high-performance video game console developers’ exclusivity arrangements with video game publishers. Microsoft states that it is aware that SIE requires many third-party publishers to agree to exclusivity provisions, including preventing the publishers from putting their games on Xbox’s multi-game subscription service, and that understanding the full extent of SIE’s exclusivity arrangements and their effect on industry competitiveness will assist in its defense.
Judge Chappell says this is because “the nature and extent of [Sony’s] content-licensing agreements are relevant to the Complaint’s allegations of exclusivity arrangements between video game console developers and video game developers and publishers.”
What does this mean? Well, it means that from 2019 on, Microsoft is going to get a look at the costs, terms, and conditions for all kinds of Sony exclusivity deals for the past several years. And you can bet Sony doesn’t want that released, especially if it has engaged in the exact kind of anti-competitive nonsense that it is warning Microsoft might engage in.
As to whether that information will make its way into the public, one can only hope.
Filed Under: antitrust, call of duty, competition, eu, ftc, uk
Companies: activision, activision blizzard, microsoft


Comments on “Microsoft Inks 2 More CoD Multiplatform Deals With Game Streaming Services”
My response to these deals
My response is this: what about the rest of ABK IP? These limited deals are about COD but Activision, Blizzard and King have a massive back catalog of past and present IP, then there is the matter of all future IP. Also, what happens when the 10 years are up? I suspect that they will ship the minimum viable product to all these platforms and then after 10 years that will be it.
These deals with a blatantly obvious goal are, quite frankly, pathetic.
Re:
Compared to the current Sony tactic of “we will pay extra money if you don’t release an XBox version” or Nintendo’s tactic of “we can’t let our main titles go anywhere else”, it’s still fairly progressive.
There are concerns, but given that MS’s strategy for a year or two has been “we will let you play wherever so long as you subscribe to Game Pass”, it’s not a major one for the most part in my mind. I’m biased as I prefer XBox, but since the offer is that a Switch player can access some games one way while I’m not allowed to access anything if I don’t buy a new Sony console the other way, I’m not complaining about one side right now.
I think the second paragraph is a bit of a disingenuous comparison though. Sony’s exclusivity deals with developers isn’t quite the same as Microsoft buying a huge publishing and development house and potentially making all of that past and future IP exclusive to Xbox or GamePass.
Additionally, Xbox has/had exclusives that you can’t get on Sony or Nintendo’s platforms, so Microsoft has done the same thing it is trying to cry foul with Sony.
Re:
“Sony’s exclusivity deals with developers isn’t quite the same as Microsoft buying a huge publishing and development house and potentially making all of that past and future IP exclusive to Xbox or GamePass.”
No, but they are known to be signing exclusive contracts with publishers they don’t own to ensure that certain titles are not released on XBox. Then, of course, there’s the ones they did buy…
“Additionally, Xbox has/had exclusives that you can’t get on Sony or Nintendo’s platforms”
Not true recently. They’re signing Game Pass with Nintendo, and they already allow XBox-only games on non-MS hardware (e.g. Macs and iPhones via browsers, the blocker for a native app being Apple not MS). Sony have also been a major blocker to most cross-play schemes that everyone else signed up for. Hell, they’re even trialling TVs.
I understand suspicion about MS in general, but I see little reason for it with XBox specifically.
Thanks for sharing. It is very helpful for me and also informative for all those users who will come to read.