Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft XBox (Games)

Microsoft Tells UK It Will License 'Call of Duty' To Sony For 10 Years (reuters.com) 52

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
Microsoft said it would license Activision Blizzard's "Call of Duty" (CoD) to Sony for 10 years to address concerns raised by Britain over its $69 billion takeover of the games maker, according to a document published by the regulator. From a report: "Microsoft is proposing a package of licensing remedies which (i) guarantee parity between the PlayStation and Xbox platforms in respect of CoD and (ii) ensure wide availability of CoD and other Activision titles on cloud gaming services," Microsoft said in the document published on Wednesday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Tells UK It Will License 'Call of Duty' To Sony For 10 Years More

Microsoft Tells UK It Will License 'Call of Duty' To Sony For 10 Years

Comments Filter:

  • Is that really a concern? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday March 08, 2023 @11:26AM (#63353079)

    Don't get me wrong, but ... a game and whether it's gonna be available on some platform should decide whether or not a merger can take place?

    • Re:Is that really a concern? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Adambomb ( 118938 ) on Wednesday March 08, 2023 @11:37AM (#63353095) Journal

      It's just a smoke and mirrors tactic by Microsoft so they can say "Look! Look! No Anti-Trust Concerns Here!" by claiming they aren't attempting to leverage their distribution platforms to enforce exclusivity on Activision/Blizzard titles.

      • It's just a smoke and mirrors tactic by Microsoft so they can say "Look! Look! No Anti-Trust Concerns Here!" by claiming they aren't attempting to leverage their distribution platforms to enforce exclusivity on Activision/Blizzard titles.

        No its not. It a bone to Sony who are claiming if they don't have access to call of duty then they essentially have no offering even though their primary strategy is acquiring and exploiting exclusive releases.

        I get that anti trust is usually a pretty big deal but in this instance it's not a thing. MS/xbox have basically zero fingers in the publishing pie because halo flopped and gears burned out a long time ago and now they are trying to buy in.

        If MS/xbox aren't allowed to leverage exclusivity on IP t

        • I don't think it is Sony that they are throwing the bone to with this, in my opinion it's to try to placate regulators who may decide to deny the merger.

          • Yeah they are throwing the bone the regulators but it's sony who is doing all the barking.

            • Well that's definitely true, fair enough!

            • it's sony who is doing all the barking.

              Citation needed

              • How about this? [vgchartz.com]

                Or this? [fosspatents.com]

                Sony barked so much to so many regulators that the regulators went "hey, we want the information you based this on" which sony is fighting tooth and nail to not hand over.

                Considering their own acquisitions and exclusivity practices it seems strange they are so desperate to block others. Tempting fate to have them look into their own practices.

                • How about this? [vgchartz.com]

                  So the poster could have totally known of private conversations that was posted just yesterday?

                  Or this? [fosspatents.com]

                  And this link is how Sony is fighting a subpoena in the merger case. This says Sony "is doing all the barking". How? Sony has not said anything yet. Try again.

                  Sony barked so much to so many regulators that the regulators went "hey, we want the information you based this on" which sony is fighting tooth and nail to not hand over.

                  Do you have an actual link? So far you've presented rumors at best and misstated the actual facts of what happened.

                  Considering their own acquisitions and exclusivity practices it seems strange they are so desperate to block others. Tempting fate to have them look into their own practices.

                  Sony bought developers. Microsoft is buying a major publisher. You don't see the difference between the two? If I decide to go into the fast fo

                  • And this link is how Sony is fighting a subpoena in the merger case. This says Sony "is doing all the barking". How? Sony has not said anything yet. Try again.

                    That subpoena was raised because of what sony themselves said to the regulators. Some arguments of which were directly used by the regulators word for word. This was covered on slashdot itself earlier. Have you not been following?

                    Sony bought developers. Microsoft is buying a major publisher. You don't see the difference between the two? If I decide to go into the fast food business, there is a huge difference between me buying a franchise license for a single Wendy's and me buying Wendy's corporation.

                    From an end users perspective, people just want to play games. At least so far, sony has been the one using the strategy of using acquisitions to stop games hitting other platforms to push their own. Microsoft has the potential to do so, but as yet have not (example, minecraft).

                    Do

                  • Actually screw it, not for you, as it will achieve nothing. But for others interested that may see it one of the submissions to a regulator. [service.gov.uk]

                    I'm sure flying sony staff to other countries and filing submissions to regulators wouldn't be considered "barking" to you, but after reading your prior posts I don't think any amount of evidence would ever sway you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      Probably not, but they want to do this merger and become another disney like issue, so they will sweet talk all the way to there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Burdell ( 228580 )

      Well, that's a major product of one of the companies, and it's the industry the companies are in, so yeah, it's pretty relevant.

    • One of the main concerns is that MS buying a major publishers is that they will use it against Sony. MS has shown they are willing to anticompetitive things in the past. The promise of keep CoD on PlayStation is a start but I would be wary of MS regardless. They may still do some anticompetitive things like release buggy, poorly optimized CoD titles on PlayStation. Or not release the same title: Xbox users get CoD 2026 but PS users get CoD (ported from a pay to win mobile 2024 version). Or minor things like

      • One of the main concerns is that MS buying a major publishers is that they will use it against Sony.

        Sony who buy up developers and properties all the time? Sony who bought Bungie and Destiny right after this announcement and no one gave a shit? That sony? Sony root kit fiasco sony? Sony who care less about antitrust than MS ever did? Is that the sony you are concerned about?

        Why is sony so scared of not having call of duty? Do they really have so little faith in the rest of what they have to offer that without it no one will ever even consider a PlayStation? Their mountains of exclusives aren't worth a t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          Two wrongs do not make a right.

        • Sony who buy up developers and properties all the time? Sony who bought Bungie and Destiny right after this announcement and no one gave a shit?

          You do know the difference between Sony buying developers and MS buying a major publisher right? So lets look at your exact examples: Bungie: $3.6B, 826 employees. Activision: $68.7B, 9200 employees. So you don't see a difference?

          Sony root kit fiasco sony? Sony who care less about antitrust than MS ever did? Is that the sony you are concerned about?

          1) Why is that relevant to legitimate antitrust concerns about Microsoft 2) And when did I ever say Sony has done no wrong.?

          Why is sony so scared of not having call of duty? Do they really have so little faith in the rest of what they have to offer that without it no one will ever even consider a PlayStation? Their mountains of exclusives aren't worth a thing without cod on top it seems. Or is it just without the timed exclusive DLC sony always had they still don't think they can compete?

          Why are you speculating on what Sony is "scared of"? These concerns have been raised by organizations outside Sony like the UK's Competition and Markets Aut

          • If you truly believe Sony aren't the main driving voice behind all this then let me talk to you about this bridge I have for sale. Yeah regulators do the regulating but I'm yet to hear any specific examples about how this deal might harm gamers or the gaming generally except for the possibility of cod going Xbox exclusive. I'll agree with the concept that exclusives themselves causes some of that and if you want to get rid of that practise im all for it but that's not the idea of concept that's being floate

            • If you truly believe Sony aren't the main driving voice behind all this then let me talk to you about this bridge I have for sale. Yeah regulators do the regulating but I'm yet to hear any specific examples about how this deal might harm gamers or the gaming generally except for the possibility of cod going Xbox exclusive.

              Microsoft will own a major publishers that controls hundreds of titles some of which are cross platform. . . can you not connect the dots? Do I need to draw a map for you?

              I'll agree with the concept that exclusives themselves causes some of that and if you want to get rid of that practise im all for it but that's not the idea of concept that's being floated.

              And I need to point out if it was Sony buying Activision, the concerns would be exactly the same. Hardware manufacturer buys major software publisher: There will be antitrust issues to be addressed. Or does your fanboism not allow you to see the potential issue of the scenario?

              • The concerns are there sure, it's being looked at and everyone is finding it's not that big of a deal. The worst case scenario you've laid out is Xbox basically gets a bunch of exclusives en masse? In an industry where exclusives are one of the main selling points of a system.

                Let's not forget we're talking about video games and consoles here, not CDs or DVDs that will work in any player. It's work taking a game from one system to make it play on another and there are many reasons for a studio to only focu

                • The concerns are there sure, it's being looked at and everyone is finding it's not that big of a deal. The worst case scenario you've laid out is Xbox basically gets a bunch of exclusives en masse? In an industry where exclusives are one of the main selling points of a system.

                  No. You clearly missed the point. Xbox getting game exclusives was never the point. MS leveraging control of a major games publisher against their competition is the point. Currently Activision has many titles which are cross platform like Call of Duty.

                  Let's not forget we're talking about video games and consoles here, not CDs or DVDs that will work in any player. It's work taking a game from one system to make it play on another and there are many reasons for a studio to only focus on one from being owned by it to just not wanting to.,

                  And the fact Activision currently makes cross platform titles currently seems lost on you.

                  Either way though Microsoft starts playing the exclusives game to the level of Sony and Nintendo...so what?

                  WTF are you talking about? "Starts"? MS has exclusive games since the beginning of the Xbox. And MS has tried to emulate Sony in buying developers; however, most of thei

                  • I love the way you are pretending all the opposition to the deal is about anything other than cod on PlayStation and that sony aren't the only party strongly against it (and for obvious reasons but what they want doesn't really matter).

                    WTF are you talking about? "Starts"? MS has exclusive games since the beginning of the Xbox. And MS has tried to emulate Sony in buying developers; however, most of their efforts have not resulted in many good games. This latest move is your basic: "Fuck it. We tried to make our own games. Let's buy out our competition."

                    Yes. Business 101. They tried to do it themselves and they failed now they are trying something else.

                    • I love the way you are pretending all the opposition to the deal is about anything other than cod on PlayStation and that sony aren't the only party strongly against it (and for obvious reasons but what they want doesn't really matter).

                      I love how you are ignoring basic facts in your fanboism. As I said before, if Sony bought Activision, all my points would be EXACTLY the same. If Sony tried to buy EA, all my points would be EXACTLY the same. You are the one pretending.

                      Yes. Business 101. They tried to do it themselves and they failed now they are trying something else.

                      So the fact that you are misstating the history of MS means nothing then?

                    • Your points would be exactly the same. The only difference is Sony would happily take the entire catalogue as exclusive and not even pretend that wasn't the plan. The massive disparity between playstation exclusives and Xbox exclusives would just get massiver. Not to mention that there are already way more playstations out there than xboxs. The points might hold more weight then. What's the history of ms got to do with anything? They try things, they fail and then they buy a replacement. Seems pretty releva

          • Sony filed a big fat (as in thick) complaint about the damage not having CoD would do to their business. Nobody is speculating about what Sony is scared of. They told us.

            • Sony filed a big fat (as in thick) complaint about the damage not having CoD would do to their business. Nobody is speculating about what Sony is scared of. They told us.

              And you have the citation to back up your assertion?

              • learn to internet pls [google.com]

                P.S. I put in the -site term to avoid Google from finding my comment, which was among my top 10 search results. Google still loves Slashdot

                • You made the claim and then get huffy when asked to back up your claim. Basically I have to look up all your claims then on the Internet and use some sort of extra sensory metaphysical perception to determine which items in the list generated supports your claim.

                  • You made the claim and then get huffy when asked to back up your claim.

                    What I became was irritated because you're acting like you care, but if you cared a) you would likely have read prior comments about this here on slashdot, some of which I've written, which had links in them, and b) you could have found it with google in less time than posting to Slashdot. I'm not your mechanical turk.

                    • So again you are refusing to back up your claim. Instead, your solution is for me to look on the internet and guess which link is in your mind instead of you posting a link. So you are asking me to read your mind then?

                    • So again you are refusing to back up your claim

                      You will probably find the answer multiple times on the first page at the link I provided. Follow it or don't, but don't cry me any rivers.

                    • So the first link then. According to your link: NO part of that says that Sony filed a complaint. NO PART. The one document in your first link says is that Sony's 13 page response dated February 22, 2023 AGREES with the UK's CMA on their proposed remedies to the Microsoft/Activision merger . This is AFTER the UK's CMA posted their initial findings on February 8, 2023. In my world, time flows linearly so Sony's response AFTER the findings of the in no way could be construed as a complaint before their findi
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Don't get me wrong, but ... a game and whether it's gonna be available on some platform should decide whether or not a merger can take place?

      Based on my skim-reading, I think that Call of Duty was the bulk of UK's "Competition and Markets Authority" analysis of the impacts of the merger, and was the bulk of Sony's objection to it, and Microsoft's mitigations were the crux of why Europe seems happy to let the merger go by. http://www.fosspatents.com/202... [fosspatents.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Don't get me wrong, but ... a game and whether it's gonna be available on some platform should decide whether or not a merger can take place?

      That was the concern of the EU and UK regulators - that Call of Duty will somehow be Xbox exclusive. Despite Xbox sales of CoD being #3 after PlayStation and PC.

      Like somehow one game makes a platform - that PlayStation or PC will cease to exist without Call of Duty. And ignoring the fact that Microsoft would make more millions of dollars from PC and PS sales of Call of

  • And insist that Microsoft must port all of its current XBox exclusives to the Playstation and Switch. Why add the Switch? Dilution of Microsoft's XBox brand. Forcing Microsoft to backport all of their XBox 360 titles to the Switch and support the Switch 2 at the level of the XBox One would create a market Microsoft cannot close with its current properties. It would essentially turn them into a software company that happens to sell hardware.

    I think European and Asian regulators would also love it.

    • I'm not sure that I completely understand your post, but Microsoft has been pretty public about wanting the XBox brand to be a software brand that happens to sell hardware. They release all of their first party games on PC, have been very open about their desire to port Game Pass to iOS (which Apple prevents), and have talked about wanting to bring Game Pass to PS5 and Switch.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Duds ( 100634 )

      Microsoft offered their game pass app to Playstation, Sony turned them down.

    • Considering Microsoft's own studio exclusives in recent memory have been mixed, I am not optimistic. For example, Halo is a mess. Sea of Thieves is playable only after years of updates. Gears 5 was terrible. Doom Eternal was good. Forza 5: Good gameplay, loaded with macrotransactions (ie not small purchases but large ones). They bought Bethesda but that developer was not doing well after the Fallout 76 disaster.

  • concerns raised by Britain

    Britain is the name of the great big island but not the government, Britain did not raise any concerns, the UK did. Surely Reuters has a style guide for this kind of thing? It's like saying that Maryland raised concerns whenever the NIH says anything. Technically correct but ultimately wrong.

    • Technically the island is "Great Britain". Maybe the OP was foreseeing a future where Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland leaves the UK because of Brexit. :P

  • Just say no. (Score:3)

    by wakeboarder ( 2695839 ) on Wednesday March 08, 2023 @12:27PM (#63353221)
    To microsoft activision merger.

  • ... I presume Horizon, Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, God of War and Spiderman will be getting xbox release dates too?

  • The Mouse now owns Blizzard ... MY gaming company? Godz: I hope my WoW characters aren't going to all become politically correct or something :-( Orcs or night elves at Disney World? Sigh ...

  • What does that translate to in real-world "sitting there and staring at it" time?

  • This sounds familiar, remember what China promised UK when it took over Hong Kong ?
  • I expect that if the deal goes through that M$ will ensure that CoD and other Activision games will play no better ( or perhaps even worse ) on a PS than on an Xbox. No support for adaptive triggers or super fast loading or reduced game size etc. Then M$ can get continue get away with producing lesser / cheaper hardware.
  • If the regulators really cared about competition, they'd pass something similar to the Open Marketplace Act for console -- no more outrageously high platform fees and let people sideload. That'd allow for much more competition instead of micromanaging.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close