Sony: Xbox's Call of Duty Offer Was 'Inadequate on Many Levels' (gamesindustry.biz) 31
Microsoft has promised to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for three years beyond the current agreement between Activision and Sony, says PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan. In a statement provided to GamesIndustry.biz, Ryan says the offer was "inadequate on many levels." From a report: The disagreement between the two companies follows Microsoft's offer to buy Call of Duty publisher Activision Blizzard in a deal worth nearly $69 billion. [...] Last week, Xbox revealed that it had "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 Sony's existing contract with Activision. Xbox chief said this offer "goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements."
The current deal between Sony and Activision Blizzard around Call of Duty is believed to cover the next three releases, including this year's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. However, Sony says the offer fails to consider the impact on PlayStation gamers. "I hadn't intended to comment on what I understood to be a private business discussion, but I feel the need to set the record straight because Phil Spencer brought this into the public forum," Ryan stated. "Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends. After almost 20 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation, their proposal was inadequate on many levels and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers. We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft's proposal undermines this principle."
The current deal between Sony and Activision Blizzard around Call of Duty is believed to cover the next three releases, including this year's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. However, Sony says the offer fails to consider the impact on PlayStation gamers. "I hadn't intended to comment on what I understood to be a private business discussion, but I feel the need to set the record straight because Phil Spencer brought this into the public forum," Ryan stated. "Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends. After almost 20 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation, their proposal was inadequate on many levels and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers. We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft's proposal undermines this principle."
Best of a bad situation (Score:2)
Sony is in a bit of bind, I imagine the strategy here is hoping that this deal gets shot down via the FTC or EU regulators, otherwise theres no upside if the deal goes through. Either Sony gets 3 years on the contrat which is 3 more years of sales and microtransactions or they get zero more than they are owed.
Yes there is the angle of public opinion, a bunch of Sony Call of Duty players will rightfully be upset that their franchise will not be available on the console they shelled $500 on and has alway bee
Re: (Score:2)
They release a PlayStation console every 6-7 years. The next one should arrive in 2026 or 2027. Assuming the deal is closed in 2023 and exclusivity is extended for "several more years," then I can't really imagine a PS5 owner not getting any CoD games on that console.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, if I were Sony and the MS deal basically covered CoD until the end of the PS5 lifetime I would take that deal and run and use the window to build or buy your own military shooter IP.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it is MS that is in the bind they need regulatory approval for the Activision buyout, the UK regulators have requested further information and assertions related to this type of behaviour, the whole deal can be put in jeopardy by one of Regulators.
You're serious? Let me laugh harder (Score:3)
So, Microsoft is playing softball here, and giving Sony N+3 years to come up with their own competitor for Call of Duty, but Sony is asking for a perpetual commitment?
Really?
There is no guarantee any of us will be alive in N+3 years, and they want forever Call of Duty? After taking it away in the 360 generation? (CoD used to be Xbox first, but Sony later paid for exclusive content, delays on Xbox, and e-sports). Again, really?
This is not only an insult to gamers, but to your other studios, including Bungie, which has a very good online shooter (Destiny).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is an unreasonable thing to want. They want to sell their consoles, and for that to happen they need the popular games to be available for those consoles, and Call of Duty qualifies. They have every incentive to want perpetual availability of this.
Of course, these nice-sounding words making it sound like they care about the happiness of the end-users is all just posturing. They care about end-user happiness exactly as much as said happiness results in money flowing their way, and no more
Seems reasonable to me (Score:2)
Here's a nickel kid, go buy yourself a Dreamcast. Now get off my lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, Sony's in a weak position of their own making, or at least from their own inaction.
They could have thrown piles of cash to guarantee lots of things over the years. Since 2002 they had plenty of opportunities to buy the franchise, to fund the franchise, to buy Infinity Ward from Activision, and to build up competitive products. None of it would have been cheap, but even companies like Activision will listen when someone is willing to bring dumptrucks full of money.
Sony was (and still is) worth a fortu
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Sony looked at Microsoft's attempt to clone Gran Turismo, and realized that it's not that easy to copy a AAA game. Forza looks nice but doesn't play well, especially multiplayer online which is where most of the action is these days. Microsoft also doesn't have the tie-ins with the FIA like an official championship.
Counter offer (Score:2)
Microsoft should ask Sony to end all of their exclusive deals and MS will do the same. It's best for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Sony's not the one under scrutiny for an acquisition. Sony's entitled to do what they want with their property, so is Microsoft.
The question is whether or not CoD (and it's creators) can become Microsoft property.
Frankly, I don't think Sony's input should be given a whole lot of attention. I think you're right, and Microsoft is being pretty fair about the whole thing.
Re: Counter offer (Score:2)
I don't see why not. There is no shortage of first person shooter games out there. Even if there were, CoD is hardly an essential good that MS would be cornering the market on. CoD has been milked for 20 years. My god, find something else to play or buy a damned XBOX in 5 years or whatever if you can't find it within yourself to move on.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony doesn't really have exclusives (Score:2)
Not that Sony management culture is of the level of Microsoft let alone EA when it comes to killing companies, hell they let Ken Kutaragi make the PlayStation. But they're smart enough not to screw up a good thing. So they mostly invest heavily in a studio to
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Unless I completely misunderstood you, Sony pays plenty of studio that they don't have an ownership stake in to make PS exclusives. Both MS and Sony do it, which is why I find it pretty rich that Sony is using this as a wrench to attempt to scuttle the MS/Activision merger.
The irony. (Score:2)
, their proposal was inadequate on many levels and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers. We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoftâ(TM)s proposal undermines this principle.
Oh the irony of that statement. Sony didn't give a shit about Xbox gamers when they signed a deal to ensure that for several years Xbox gamers wouldn't get access to new content such as map packs and new game modes until 12 months after Playstation did. Karma is a bitch Jim.
Pfft...you said Doooteee! (Score:2)
What am I, five years old?
Hyperbole (Score:2)
This PlayStation guy sounds more like a politician than a business executive. Everyone agrees that the PS5 has the better exclusive lineup, but this guy acts like the mere possibility that Call of Duty games in the 2030s aren't available on Sony consoles is totally unacceptable. It's even worse, considering that Sony has previously had timed exclusivity deals on Call of Duty games on its platform.
Re: (Score:2)
This PlayStation guy sounds more like a politician than a business executive. Everyone agrees that the PS5 has the better exclusive lineup, but this guy acts like the mere possibility that Call of Duty games in the 2030s aren't available on Sony consoles is totally unacceptable. It's even worse, considering that Sony has previously had timed exclusivity deals on Call of Duty games on its platform.
Except I think that goes to the very heart of the problem with the Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision/Blizzard, which has not passed scrutiny from various regulators making sure it does not create unfair competition problems and monopolies. Sony very rightly is pointing out that in the free market, before Microsoft's involvement with Activision Blizzard, Call of Duty has been available on their platform since essentially the inception of the franchise and not only that, but has been seen as the
Re: Hyperbole (Score:2)
Exclusives are a common part of the gaming industry. The idea that you have to cross-release on competitor platforms is ridiculous and in itself anti-competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's a hard argument to make.
It's okay when Nintendo buys one of the best video game studios of the time (Rare), and makes them console exclusive. It's okay when Sony buys one of the best video game studios of the time (Naughty Dog) and makes them console exclusive. But Microsoft better not buy Infinity Ward or their publisher Activision, and makes their games exclusive....eventually.
Why does Microsoft need to offer anything at all? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a bit of all the above.
It probably helps just a little to grease the wheels on merger approval if they show a willingless to cooperate with the competition.
It's a good will gesture to fans of the series that MS isn't going to leave them high and dry (yet) and get to play magnaminous in victory.
Playstation as far as I am aware still sells more consolves than Microsoft so theres money to be made selling games to their audience. I don't know how much of Acti's internal sales numbers they have access
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft wants something to point at when the inevitable anti competition laws come a-knockin'
inadequate on many levels? (Score:2)
I would love to know how so. I understand that Sony thought that the offer was for too short a time, but what other inadequacies where there?