Are Jim Ryan's Public Call of Duty Arguments...Adequate?

I mean there’s different interpretations and then there’s being told in black and white the opposite to those interpretations multiple times and still ignoring them through blind ignorance.

Return #sigh

I was using standard business terminology, considering I deal with contracts in my daily work life.

Contract negotiation would happen after whatever X years they both agree, you don’t agree a contract ‘forever’ or in perpetuity as you suggested. At no point did I say Microsoft would be in a weak position either, it would be Sony trying to negotiate the duration and any monetary values (if applicable) with whatever Microsoft present them. It could be that they can’t come to a future arrangement.

1 Like

Interesting. I dont recall anyone pointing out the offer was only for 3 years back in January. Ever since Jim Ryan ran his mouth 7 months later i’ve seen a lot of backpeddling.

Quite literally posters swearing blindly Call of Duty will release on Playstation indefinitely (their words) are now claiming “Of course its only 3 years”

There wont be a negotiation. Because you dont negotiate for games that arent releasing on a platform. Likewise Microsoft doesnt need a contract to continue releasing CoD on Playstation…they just would.

Thats the neat thing about a contract…you dont have to renegociate your position or the contracts means nothing.

Microsoft is offering 3 years because thats all they cared to offer.

Probably an offering recommended by the lawyers to push this deal through successfully.

They could have offered 10 or 25 years which is a lot closer to “indefinitely” then 3 years…but its a lot closer to “nothing really”.

1 Like

Only because Sony is the market leader now does not mean they will stay that in the future and this is why will never do a deal for eternity.

1 Like

Well yeah, I think that goes without saying at this point. Microsoft have plans looking ahead but they are always going to change to reflect changes in the industry. But for now - they have a plan and I think they’re going to stick to it. I mean, if their plan is to have CoD on Playstation to better profit off the franchise they’re not going to suddenly not want that extra billion dollars just to spite Jim Ryan. Same goes if it is exclusive.

1 Like

I could see Microsoft going either way with Call of Duty in the future. Pulling CoD for the final years of a console generation won’t make any sense so unless 2027 is the last current gen version, I’d expect at least one more extension. Generally if you’re going to make a decision to remove a major IP from a platform, its best to announce it early in a generation to reap the most reward and limit the short term financial impact.

After that, all bets are off. As of today, we don’t know:

  • What percentage of Call of Duty players will be on Playstation in 2028. This current gen we may see far more multi-ecosystem gamers since Microsoft is making it easy and affordable to jump into Xbox as an addition to PlayStation. CoD on Game Pass will almost assuredly pull multi-ecosystem gamers away from PlayStation.
  • How easy it will be to develop for the PS6
  • The rate of adoption for cloud gaming
  • Whether next gen consoles launch at the same time
  • Whether Sony follows a traditional console route
  • What percentage of the market consoles will make up

Ultimately I believe the most important exclusives will be streaming and subscriptions. CoD being on Game Pass Day One with marketing to support it will change the industry. That’s the main mission. Rest of this are just side quests.


Ah yes random ‘posters’ clearly have more insight on what Microsoft will do then Microsoft themselves… It’s so obvious now, thank you for that useful insight.

It doesn’t matter what terminology they use whether that be: years to come, in future, 3 years or continue to support. They have made it clear they won’t be making it exclusive in the short term.

Why would a company provide a contract requiring them to offer X in 25 years when:

  • They don’t know if the studio will still want to make X
  • They don’t know if X will still be financially viable in 25 years
  • They don’t know what the competition for X is in 25 years
  • If there is still demand for X in 25 years
  • What the market situation is with PS is in 25 years (maybe Apple own them and expand PlayStation).

They could basically be signing away bucket loads of cash for no reason, there’s no business logic there at all, therefore they couldn’t offer it for that long. It’s clear they offered it to appease regulators and yes eventually they may make it exclusive but it’s clearly no time soon when they have said it multiple times!

1 Like

Lol. Ok. Throwing Tavish under a bus there. Haha

And not at all clear after those three years expire which y’know wasnt public knowledge in January. Like I said theres been a lot of backpedding.

A. Lot.

Why would they offer one at all is a better question. No-one else does.

I suppose you could say “They are leaving money on the table

I don’t know who you are referencing and why, but I think it’s clear Microsoft themselves will have more insight about their intentions then any person outside of Microsoft. I’m sure he/she would agree with me. If you can’t grasp that then your too far gone.

With regards to the rest I can’t be bothered to debate with you any longer, I get better conversation from my young nieces and nephews.

What horseshit garbage promise was this? IS this the same as We’ll make existing bethesda games available for everyone PR speak? No such promise was ever made will ever be made nor should it. Lets be real. At best Sony get COD for another few years. Thats it. And that’s the way it should be.