right now we have a vaguely and cleverly worded statement from a representative. Which I doubt is a legally binding contract.
Maybe there’s details which have been submitted to the FTC? Stuff like “Yep, we’re happy to keep making Call of Duty for PlayStation…as long as they put Game Pass on PlayStation” to which Sony of course…will not.
To which Microsoft then say…“Well, it was our INTENT to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. But you know…they didn’t want it”
This. I thought the transformation into “Microsoft Gaming” was a bit worrisome when it appeared as the deal was announced, and I think now that more than ever. This is getting too… corporate so to speak. I know it’s always like that, but part of the “deal” is that we as fans get to pretend it’s not all about the money all the time even if we know it is. That illusion is cracking fast, which sucks. It’s the same in sports, we like “our” team and players to “care” about the fans and the club even though it’s mostly about the money, it’s a nice illusion that makes people happy and creates great communities.
Take that away, and honestly who gives af about Microsoft? It’s about Xbox, its games and the community around that, that is what makes us fans engaged, creates and supports communities like this one etc. Is it super logical? No, but the sense of belonging somewhere and the attachment we form to things like this is very human.
Like…again, I’m not fussed either way. I’ve said many times I don’t really play Activision or Bethesda games. These acquisitions don’t mean much to me personally based on my gaming habits.
But in the end, I’m reading the words in front of me and none of them say “We’re gonna keep making new games from Acti and Blizzard on other platforms”, which you know…they could very easily say if they wanted to and if that was their intention.
“making them available”. Making what available? Existing games? New games? Old games? Some games? Only Call of Duty games? Which Call of Duty games? Only Infinity Ward ones?
Again, why not just say “All new Activision Blizzard games in development both now and in the future will continue to remain multiplatform as they have been to this point”. That seems WAY more clear cut to me. But maybe that’s just me.
The wording they’re using is leaving them soooooo much wriggle room and there’s no way it’s not intentional.
Xbox CFO Tim Stuart’s comments on Bethesda prior to close
“We don’t have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo or otherwise,” said Stuart said during the Jefferies Interactive Entertainment Conference. “But what we want is, we want that content, in the long run, to be either first or better or best or pick your differentiated experience, on our platforms. We will want Bethesda content to show up the best as — on our platforms.
“Yes. That’s not a point about being exclusive. That’s not a point about we’re being — adjusting timing or content or road map. But if you think about something like Game Pass, if it shows up best in Game Pass, that’s what we want to see, and we want to drive our Game Pass subscriber base through that Bethesda pipeline. So again, I’m not announcing pulling content from platforms one way or the other. But I suspect you’ll continue to see us shift towards a first or better or best approach on our platforms.”
Brian Smith’s comments today were similar in a lot of ways. The direct Minecraft deal reference is the one major outlier.
Theres no way MS dont keep them multiplatform after putting that out. The hate they would get for not sticking by it is something new MS just would not do.
Even if the FTC flat out stated, “You cannot acquire Activision Blizzard unless Call of Duty stays multiplatform” Microsoft would abide to get the deal done…then they would just change the definition of what Call of Duty was.
