I am not to blame if you lack basic reading comprehension. This isn’t ‘interpretation’, it is what the words actually mean in the context the authors decided to place them in. They explicitly said they will make games in the future beyond the existing agreement that will release on PSX. I can give folks the benefit of the doubt when most aren’t actually reading the blog post and instead are just repeating what others are saying in a game of telephone, but when you are given the direct quotes and still ignore what they say, that is on you. /shrugs
I’ve read the direct quotes and watched the interview, they don’t say that. You’re making that up yourself and insulting anyone who disagrees.
2 Likes
“we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future”
The statement ‘we will do X’ is about future tense. The phrase ‘we will make available’ means something that is presently not available will be made available in the future.
If they only meant games already on these platforms they would not make two separate statements that they directly distinguish from one another, nor would they mention Switch, which has none of those games in question.
Where does that talk about future titles? You said it was explicit. Where do they say “future titles” explicitly.
1 Like
The part where it says they ‘will make available’. It doesn’t only say they will ‘keep them available’, it also says separately they ‘will make available’.
‘We will keep these games available’ refers to games currently available. ‘We will make available in the future’ refers to games that are not presently available i.e. new games.
Let’s talk about popularity, shall we? What the fuck are “other popular Activision games”? No fucking clue. But we have a hint based on Zenimax.
With Zenimax, the EU ruled that given only Skyrim made a significant dent on the EU market, Xbox was allowed to make their games exclusive. I expect a similar ruling here. The difficulty comes in the massive sellers. So… how well have ABK IPs sold? Let’s look and see what ranks above Elder Scrolls in sales.
Saga: Duh (Candy Crush, Pet Rescue, etc.)
Call of Duty: Regularly the best selling game of the year, BO Cold War was the 20th best selling game ever after a month on the market. 400+ million sales to date.
Overwatch: 50 million units sold
Diablo 3: Probably around 40 million units sold (last reported number was 30 million 7 years ago). IV is confirmed for PS4 and likely to be supported for a decade.
World of Warcraft: Unknown. Significantly above Skyrim in lifetime revenue. PC and Mac only. Could easily be made exclusive here as its additive.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - – - - - - - - - - – - - - - - – - - - - - - - - – - - - - - - – - - - - - – - - - - - - - - – - - – - - - - - – - -
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - 30 million units sold
All other franchises fall below this line. While MS beancounters could easily find that, say, Guitar Hero is worth keeping multiplat or whatever, based on what is likely to cause regulatory issues, look to the above.
Also, as for New IP, developer means jack shit there. BGS and Mojang have both made new IP for Xbox exclusively. I suspect the same will be the case for Blizzard, Raven, etc.
4 Likes
But not specifically future content. Outlining plans for old content post AB buyout is a thing…and they said that before with Zenimax.
What we’ll do in the long run is we don’t have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo or otherwise.
See that there is a future (at the time) statement about content that currently existed. We know that it did because you said so your self earlier
So which is it?
That’s untrue. It can be relative to something they intend to do at a later date…because they don’t own AB yet.
Yeah, see this is where you fucked up. All of Microsofts intentions are in reference to the future intentions where they’ve already bought AB.
That statement about Switch was seperate from the continued availability one (it came a while later), that was specifically about a non-specific Call of Duty title.
1 Like
I can’t believe that I have to walk ppl thru this step by step, but whatever…
“We also recognize that regulators may well have other important questions as they review our acquisition of Activision Blizzard. We’re committed to addressing every potential question, and we want to address publicly at the outset two such questions here.”
^^This paragraph lays out that the FTC really does care about the answers to the question of title availability on competing platforms (just as the Congressman said). It also is presenting what follows as clarification, so what follows is intended by the author to be taken as clearing things up.
“First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make popular content like Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users. ”
^^Here he establishes that the question he aims to clear up is whether MS will ever make CoD games exclusive in the future.
“To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business."
^^Here he again explicitly says his intention is to be clear, and then states two separate things.
First, he says that MS will continue to make these games available on PSX. This is future tense and refers specifically to titles they already have contracts with Sony on. Things like Warzone 2, the CoD games for 2022 and 2023, and other games announced for PSX systems like Overwatch 2 and Diablo.
He then notes the second clarifying point he aims to make, which is that MS will also make ABK games available on PSX beyond the existing agreement and into the future. The phrase ‘we will make available’ means he is referring to games not presently available, which should be obvious but somehow ppl are struggling with it. He reiterates that this is the proper meaning in the very next sentence where he references making future games also for Switch. He cannot be referring to existing CoD games on Switch since there are none. And he directly links the plans for Switch and PSX together himself by saying the two sets of steps are similar. In his CNBC interview, he even cites Minecraft, an IP that got a new game with Dungeons that released everywhere, as indicative of the plans they have in mind.
Where it was stated?
It’s in the EU documents. Long read. Gist of it is MS says Zenimax games don’t light the sales charts on fire but they’d be willing to make it multiplat if asked even though there is no need and it is so simple to switch. EU said “I’m sure you wouldn’t make them exclusive anyways but if you want, go ahead.” MS got their answer and ran with it.
3 Likes
We are going in circles here. I don’t think there is anything that’s going to convince some people.
There is never going to be a statement like “we are always going to release call of duty games on PlayStation!”
So this goes on until COD 2024 is announced for all platforms.
3 Likes
Link?
Wait, what?
1 Like
Never heard about that. Got more info I can read?
7 Likes
Even then, some here would declare he only means PS4 and not PS5. Or that it only refers to Warzone. Or that it secretly only refers to the scenario where GP is on PS5… lol
1 Like
Will be interesting to compare it afte ATVI deal.
One interesting notion as it will be interesting to compare the market shares in the document, considering that it provides the detailed information for european region. With PS4, PS5, Switch it will be interesting to see.
Also they will disclose the market share of ATVI too.
2 Likes
Not so.
They’re asking if Call of Duty is going to be exclusive and Microsoft responsed they would be “continue to be available”…as in still sold on the PSStore.
No its about future availability…as in the future when MS acquires AB. Right now, MS doesn’t own AB. This is called THE PRESENT. They are clarifying in THE FUTURE when MS does own AB they will not be removing CoD from PS Stores.
It’s not obvious because you are conflating future availability with future games…like they are somehow only that definition. Instead of existing games with continued availability.
You’re right, thus confirming their previous assurances was only in reference to titles already released and potentially Nintendo in the future, who has none
Yeah, these terms
" And what we’ve done with that acquisition I think is a clear indicator of what we hope to do if we acquire Activision Blizzard. Namely: invest even more in innovation, bring it to more people, bring it to more platforms, make it even useful and hopefully delightful for those that use it
Sounds like Warzone, not CoD.
Now as I went through the document that @DeoGame posted, the amount of times the word available was used, will make @TavishHill happy.
Especially this one
They also mentioned brand loyalty so many times there that it is hilarious 
You know…at 50:50 he basically says something that was almost very much what I was alluding to about Microsoft will try and get Sony looked at for not letting Game Pass on PS5 right?
3 Likes