Sony's PlayStation Chief Privately Said Microsoft's Activision Deal Wasn't About Xbox Exclusives

An anonymous reader shares a report: Sony's PlayStation chief, Jim Ryan, believed that Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard wasn't about locking games as Xbox exclusives, according to a newly unsealed email. Microsoft counsel revealed the exchange between Ryan and Chris Deering, former CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, discussing the announcement of the deal last year. "It is not an exclusivity play at all," said Ryan. "They're thinking bigger than that and they have the cash to make moves like this. I've spent a fair amount of time with both Phil [Spencer] Bobby [Kotick] over the past day and I'm pretty sure we will continue to see Call of Duty on PlayStation for many years to come."

The surprise revelation runs counter to Sony's arguments against Microsoft's Activision Blizzard deal and its filings with regulators. Sony has maintained it fears Microsoft could make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox or even sabotage the PlayStation versions of the game. Ryan went on to say, "We have some good stuff cooking," referring to Sony's Bungie acquisition which Sony announced just days after the email exchange. "I'm not complacent, and I'd rather this hadn't happened, but we'll be OK, we'll be more than OK." Microsoft initially offered Call of Duty on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends. Ryan called that offer "inadequate on many levels." Microsoft eventually offered Sony a 10-year deal for Call of Duty on PlayStation, but the company has refused to sign this so far.

The man is an idiot

[rsilvergun]

and just because on high level idiot at a company says something doesn't make it correct.

He think Microsoft will keep putting Call of Duty on Playstation because it's profitable. Microsoft has shown it could care less what's profitable. They have always prioritized destroying their competition.

It's the single core aspect of their company culture. With the firm and unwavering belief that bigger profits will follow once that competition is dead. And time and again Microsoft has been proven correct.

I would like his numbskull to explain what the "bigger play" is here. Microsoft is spending close to $70 billion to buy out one of gaming's giants. Activision/Blizzard makes around $3b/yr profit. It would take 20 years for Microsoft's buyout to pay off and that assumes that profit stays consistent.

I'm dying to hear what this genius CEO thinks Microsoft wants that isn't just "hurting a competitor for long term gain".

I said this elsewhere but...

[HBI]

"Microsoft's internal team is in disarray. The reason they are keen on acquisitions, mostly. They realize the MSFT console business is untenable if they don't change its course. But there's another issue also. Some people within MSFT realize that the Windows monopoly they have on the desktop is somewhat contingent on having control of non-console gaming, which is propelled by the Xbox stuff. Porting to Windows is basically not required. If they lose badly in the console space, there's no guarantee games com

I thought Hololense was for businesses?

[rsilvergun]

did they really think it would be a consumer device at that price? I could see the tech showing up at Arcades and amusement parks, but not in anybody's home.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

The old Microsoft - the one under Gates and Ballmer, you could argue about destroying competition.

The new Microsoft however, is more profit oriented. Ballmer was basically ousted because Microsoft's domination strategy stopped working - with the rise of Linux, Cloud Services, and other things chipping away at the whole Windows-Office monopoly, Microsoft's grip on the market fell.

Microsoft since then hired Satya Nadella as their CEO, someone who isn't one of the "old crowd" - this isn't the 80s where Microso

Re:

[reanjr]

The bigger play could be in their belief that the IP is worth more than Activision is able to get out of it. The general consensus I've heard from Blizzard fans, for example, is that Activision have been resting on their IP laurels, but have generally trashed their own brands through poor management. Microsoft might see that as an opportunity to deliver higher profits than Activision was able to.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Microsoft has shown it could care less what's profitable.

This is probably the first time that stupid incorrect saying is actually correct. We all know you meant the opposite, but yes you're right. Microsoft has shown to put profit above all other things.

They have always prioritized destroying their competition.

There is no competition in consoles. Microsoft do not make money selling Xboxes, they make money selling games. It's why there's no xbox exclusive titles anymore.

I believe it.

[Petersko]

There are really good reasons to believe that they are sincere - and they're related to good old fashioned self interest.

- CoD on the Playstation is profitable. Don't discount that.
- Microsoft probably knows that exclusivity of that title won't really move enough console units to matter.
- They would have a concrete example of "not being evil" to point to the next few times they embark on acquisitions.

In short, if they get to own the company, and they continue to deliver CoD in a high quality experience on the PS5, it's a major win for creating future good will. That's valuable - especially for a company like Microsoft.

Re:I believe it.

[The MAZZTer]

Don't forget Microsoft has been making Halo and Minecraft :LESS exclusive than they could have. That's not proof they'll keep up the pattern with CoD, but it is points in their favor.

Re:

[rsilvergun]

I don't think Windows counts. Yeah, you can buy it on Steam, but it's still just Windows, not PS5 (let alone Switch). And the only reason Halo's on Steam is that the Microsoft Store bombed.

Don't forget, Microsoft tried to wall off the garden with Windows 8. They failed because the entire industry saw it coming. It's more likely they're going to try again, this time by buying everyone's gardens.

Re:

[jonwil]

Halo is on the Steam Deck because of all the work that has gone into Proton rather than because of anything Microsoft has done.

Re:

[thegarbz]

That's not proof they'll keep up the pattern with CoD, but it is points in their favor.

No it's not proof they'll keep the pattern with CoD, but this isn't just Minecraft. Microsoft under Nadella has made a very big strategic shift to not wiping out the competition, but monetising them.

Why wipe out Chrome when they can do the programming work for Microsoft?
Why wipe out Linux when you can charge people to fire up Azure instances?
Why try and lock people into an OS, when you can own the development platform ala VisualStudio for Linux?

The idea of buying Activision only to wipe out a large chunk of

$69b is a lot of money

[rsilvergun]

for "good will". And besides, they said the same thing when they bought Bethesda. Starfield isn't coming out on PS5.

I think Microsoft will prioritize hurting a competitor over short term monetary gains. Even if they didn't, forcing every PS5 user to buy an XBox One if they want to play COD or Diablo 5 or Overwatch 3 would be valuable. They'd get all the money from the DLC and microtransactions too. Remember that they have to share a lot of that revenue with Sony.

And it's going to be damn hard to mak

Re:

[Petersko]

I'd agree if all they were getting was "good will". But they are trying to buy a great deal more than that.

Re:

[jsepeta]

COD is not merely profitable on the Sony Playstation, it is likely MORE profitable on the Playstation than on the XBox because Sony sells double the number of Playstations compared to Xbox sales. Also, Sony has in the past had exclusive early access to COD, which is a sign that under Sony's control, they might make ?COD exclusive, as they have with several other A-List titles.

Microsoft is trying to attack Steam

[ac0000]

The problem is that Steam market is very competitive and it has everything you need. If Microsoft tries to transition all the content they buy into MS App Store, at the time when they finish that transition, the Steam community will compensate all missing games with new independent game titles. More interesting and more entertaining. Microsoft development process guarantees software delivery, but it is not capable to make anything new. Innovation requires taking risks, taking risks means being agile and cap

Re:

[JThundley]

I think you're spot on. This back and fourth started with the Microsoft store. Valve got scared that it would catch on and that all Windows software would be sold through this store, granting Microsoft absolute control over their platform like Apple has over iOS through the app store. Valve responded with a big push toward Linux: Steam Machines and then Proton and the Steam Deck. Valve has hedged their bets and threatened to bring mainstream gaming to a platform that Microsoft doesn't control. So far, Windo

The game console is obsolete business concept

[ac0000]

When Microsoft releases new XBOX it sells it with significant discount, expecting to return money from selling games and subscriptions. The gaming console is supposed to be competitive with PC games, so it should have powerful video card. Powerful means price over $1000. Nobody would ever buy gaming console for $1200. but my point is different, if Microsoft XBOX has powerful video card it is going to be used for crypto mining or AI training operations. In other words gaming consoles are gonna be porches for

Re:

[Dutch Gun]

People have been predicting the end of consoles for decades. Yet a new generation always shows up.

Reasonably performing videocards can be acquired much cheaper for console, by using slightly older tech and cutting deal with manufacturer, building stuff at massive scales. Consoles have *always* been significantly less powerful than equivalent PCs. They try to compensate with more specialized hardware that remove some bottlenecks, but consoles have always been about the price point and form factor, not abo