Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
from the ironic-surprised-face dept
And here we go again. When Microsoft acquired Zenimax/Bethesda last year, the first question that leapt to most people's minds was whether or not Microsoft would wall off long-running franchises from Bethesda with exclusivity to Xbox and/or PC platforms. Those looking for answers were surely initially confused by conflicting statements from both sides of the deal, which was then "clarified" later by Microsoft execs saying that titles would be "first/better on Microsoft platforms" but not exclusive. That was then clarified further by Microsoft's actual actions, which was to announce that the next Elder Scrolls game would indeed be a PC/Xbox exclusive.
Well, as we were just discussing, Microsoft is finalizing its biggest ever acquisition into the game publishing market with a purchase of Activision Blizzard and King Digital Entertainment, and all the same questions immediately leapt to everyone's mind. And, because past is prologue, the players in this deal and those impacted by it are churning out vague, unclear statements on what this means for exclusivity for franchises from those studios.
We'll start with what Sony said in comments to The Wall Street journal.
“We expect that Microsoft will abide by contractual agreements and continue to ensure Activision games are multiplatform,” a Sony spokesman told The Wall Street Journal today. Read one way, it seems like confirmation that the owner of PlayStation thinks nothing will change. Read another, it means that existing Activision games will remain multiplatform, but doesn’t provide any clarity on what might happen to future projects that haven’t even been announced yet.
Indeed. And, frankly, Sony can expect anything it likes, but Microsoft probably didn't spend $69 billion on these studios without its own plans in place. Whether that includes exclusivity... who knows? But the company has its plans and Sony's expectations probably don't factor into them all that much.
Then came the public comments by Xbox's Phil Spencer. Spencer was one of the Microsoft folks commenting publicly about the Zenimax acquisition, vaguely saying that Microsoft could recoup its $7.5 billion investment even by excluding non-Microsoft platforms from future games, but that, hey, maybe it wouldn't go that route. Here he is commenting on his talks with Sony.
Had good calls this week with leaders at Sony. I confirmed our intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. Sony is an important part of our industry, and we value our relationship.
— Phil Spencer (@XboxP3) January 20, 2022
Now the Twitter reaction to that was all sunshine and rainbows as everyone took it to mean there would be no exclusivity deals for CoD games. But go read that tweet again, because that isn't what it says at all. There are a million ways to read that tweet, including: we'll honor existing agreements for existing games by keeping them on PlayStation. Read that way, the tweet says virtually nothing about new or upcoming games. Nor anything about other Activision or Blizzard franchises. Also, there are a bunch of non-committal words sprinkled in there. Intent? I intended on losing weight after the new year. I very much did not. See how that works?
It's all very unclear, which is annoying. Microsoft knows what it wants to do and the fact that they aren't making definitive statements tells you this is probably going to follow the Bethesda track. Not everything will be exclusive, but some franchises certainly will.
According to Bloomberg’s report, “Microsoft plans to keep making some of Activision’s games for PlayStation consoles but will also keep some content exclusive to Xbox.” That could mean that Call of Duty, consistently the best-selling game every year, will remain multiplatform. Or it could mean that nearly every new Activision Blizzard game except for its free-to-play battle royale, Warzone, won’t be coming to PS5.
While industry consolidation doesn't always have to be a bad thing, this is and always has been the major concern in the gaming industry. When the makers of the platform also make the games you play on them, you're at the mercy of corporate interests as to whether you'll have access to them or not.
And whatever you think of any of this, that simply isn't how you continue to grow an exploding industry.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: exclusivity, playstation, video games, xbox
Companies: activision blizzard, bethesda, microsoft, sony
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fool me once...
Step 1) Microsoft buys Bethesda.
Step 2) People in both companies make vague statements about how they maybe/probably don't intend to make Bethesda games exclusives and the goal is simply to have the 'best' versions on Xbox/PC.
Step 3) More details come out and it turns out that yes, the games very much will be Xbox/PC exclusive.
Fast forward several months
Step 1) Microsoft buys Activision/Blizzard.
Step 2) Vague statements are made about how they don't intend to make the company's titles exclusive and they will be honoring the current multi-platform contracts.
Step 3) ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fool me once...
Step 3) ... PROFIT! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fool me once...
"the games"
Some new games, not all and not any existing titles, and given the commitment they have with releasing through Game Pass and xCloud, most people interested in playing them will be able to access them without having to buy new hardware. They just won't be able to play them on PlayStation natively (although they could still be made available on PS if Sony wanted to allow a partnership to allow GP on there).
Meanwhile, Sony are still locking up franchises and studios that started on the XBox with no hope of accessing them without buying a PlayStation, according to their current business model, and even PC ports can take years to emerge if they happen (whereas XBox/PC titles typically arrive at the same time, and you can cover delays by using xCloud until the native port appears).
I'm still on Microsoft's side here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fool me once...
And if Microsoft wants to spend the money to port the games to Playstation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fool me once...
They don't need to, they only need to allow browser access to xCloud, which is in Sony's ballpark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool me once...
You're suggesting Playstation users open a web browser to play Microsoft games? I don't see that taking off. Have you ever used a browser on a game console? It sucks. It's also not clear how that experience would compare to native games. People aren't very demanding of mobile games (where xCloud is used via browser to my knowledge) compared to console.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool me once...
"You're suggesting Playstation users open a web browser to play Microsoft games? I don't see that taking off. Have you ever used a browser on a game console? It sucks"
You can play xCloud games on the XBox One via an app, and that's worked perfectly for me in order to avoid installing larger games and/or play games that only run on the Series S/X. There's no reason why a similar thing can't be made available on PlayStation. Unless Sony get in the way, there's absolutely no reason why an xCloud user on PS would have a different experience to an xCloud user on XBox or PC, the only difference would be them not having the option to install a copy locally or play offline.
"People aren't very demanding of mobile games"
There's a vast difference between mobile games and using a browser to stream a game, so I suggest you ditch that silly analogy. For most games and most gamers, the xCloud game will be fine. You're not going to please the fanboys who do whatever they can to get an extra frame per second out of their game, but that's not most gamers. The majority would be fine with xCloud as an optional extra to access a bunch of games without having to shell out for extra hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool me once...
I think you may have misunderstood, because it's not an analogy. When you're playing cloud games on a mobile device, you're comparing them to native mobile games, so that's where the bar is set. When you're playing them on a console, you'll compare them to native console games, so it has to perform better to be acceptable (to a lot of people anyway). I haven't played them so maybe xCloud is just great and gamers don't notice any difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fool me once...
"When you're playing them on a console, you'll compare them to native console game"
Yes, and they're very similar in performance when I do that. There's is some difference in experience under certain conditions (for example, you'll see some performance lag playing twitch-style FPS games, although that had improved a lot since I tried the first beta version and only really notice it on my Mac when playing over hotel wifi - playing via the cloud on my XBox is usually pretty decent).
But, then you also seem to be misunderstanding the use case I'm saying here. I'm not saying that a person would avoid buying native PlayStation games and just play via xCloud. I'm saying that if a PlayStation owner wants to play the new Bethesda game, or the new Forza or the new Halo or Gears or Ori or..... They don't have to buy an XBox or update to a certain spec of gaming PC in order to play them. They would have the option to subscribe to Game Pass for a month and get their fill on their existing hardware.
This is clearly a better option to what I currently have if I want to play the next Uncharted or Spiderman game (tough shit, I can't, buy a PS5).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fool me once...
Why do you support monopolization of the market? I haven't read why you think that ends well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fool me once...
You seem to misunderstand. Microsoft have already expressed interest in cross-compatibility and Sony have been the main holdouts there (witness Rocket League, etc). MS already allow Macs to access Game Pass, and it's well known they were trying to deal with Nintendo over xCloud. So, if Sony can be convinced to allow some access it's a win for all, especially if there's some reciprocal agreement.
Or, you know, you can just enforce Sony's "you have to buy a PlayStation if you want to play Naughty Dog and Spiderman games" policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isn't how you continue to grow an exploding industry.
No. It's how you explode a growing industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Facebook, Twitter, et al., can choose who or what to host on their platform, but Microsoft can't?
Double standard, thy name is Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swing and a miss
I imagine you thought that was a witty 'gotcha', but I'm pleased to inform you that it very much was not. 'You can speak but you can't use our property to do so' is not even remotely equivalent to 'Now that we bought this company we're going to waffle about whether the games it offers will be available on other platforms before deciding that they aren't' except perhaps to the extent that both involve a company deciding what they allow on their own private property and how it will be used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, pathetic attempts at whataboutism, thy name is AC.
Surely even someone as desperate as you to find a double standard must understand the vast differences between end user moderation on a single platform and exclusive business contracts that restrict people to a single platform? Even you must surely understand the difference between saying "this might be a bad idea for consumers" and "this should not be allowed"? Surely even you can read the words about how it's unclear how the deal will affect non-CoD games going forward and understand that this is the main criticism, not the concept of a platform being controlled by the owning party?
It's like you read a couple of words in an article, ignore context and attack a hastily erected strawman. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Double standard
I haven't any troll food for you at the moment. Try again later with a different troll and see what you get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I missed the part where Tim said Microsoft isn't allowed to do this, can you quote it for me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While industry consolidation doesn't always have to be a bad thing, this is and always has been the major concern in the gaming industry. When the makers of the platform also make the games you play on them, you're at the mercy of corporate interests as to whether you'll have access to them or not.
Exclusives because the console maker was the same as the publisher have been true since the dawn of home consoles. The Atari 2600's games initially were all published by Atari.
Further, platform exclusives from third party publishers are nothing new either; whether it's due to an exclusive deal with the console producer, a unique feature or capability of the targeted platform, or simply not wanting to port or develop the game for multiple platforms. Unless you're developing your own games on your own platform you're always going to be at the mercy of someone else's interest whether you are going to have, or in some cases retain, access to the games you want to play on the platform you want to play them on regardless of the amount of consolidation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly, I don't think there's much to be taken from this. Once the news came through, there's been all sorts of random scare stories from Sony fanboys about how this means that all CoD games were immediately going to be removed from PlayStation and a bunch of other claims that don't have any basis in anything but the imaginations of those reading the initial news. Spencer's statement is simply to say that specific fear is unfounded, but I doubt they have solid plans anywhere else.
There's plenty of other ways to read this news. One is that other statements from MS regarding an interest in resurrecting dormant IPs indicate some great things on the horizon for gamers overall. Another is that since MS has increasingly expressed interest in getting GP on to other platforms, this could be ammunition required to get Sony on board with that, which could include a reciprocal relationship with current PlayStation exclusive titles eventually being ported in return for Activision titles being on Sony's platform.
I think it's way too early to read anything in to any announcements so far, and we're unlikely to know anything concrete until the merger is actually approved, but I certainly don't think anything is gained by reading too much into a statement that is essentially intended to say "no, we're not going to instantly remove CoD players on PS".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd agree with you if not for one sticky point: M$ now has a history with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Article: "Hey, Microsoft did a thing where it was really cagey about future monopolization plans it knew would upset consumers a year ago. Its started being cagey about those plans again...."
PaulT: "I see no reason to be concerned. Xbox players might get a new Vikings game!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You'd be better off not making moronic strawmen and addressing my actual opinions...
Maybe start with the fact that I'm comparing them with Activision and Sony's existing anti-consumer actions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whether or not CoD has exclusivity on Playstation is a moot point. They are shit, buggy, broken, incomplete games anyway that doesn't deserve to be on my system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Word to the wise - if your only comment on a subject is "I don't care about this because I'm completely unaffected by the product I don't use either way", you'd be adding more value to the conversation by just moving on to the next article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
no no no, not the case at all. this specific series, i don't care about, but that doesn't mean it probably won't affect me, there are plenty of console exclusive fps/battle royale games. CoD is a big franchise that brings in a lot of money on the PS console and MS definately wants that money.
It's just that... CoD hasn't been... "good" lately. Like EA and Madden, it really hasn't innovated for a couple of decades at least, and is more into that monetization more than actual gameplay, unless you consider lootboxes and gambling, sorry, surpirse mechanics, innovative.
Of bigger interest to me is Activision/Blizzard's back catalogue and what Microsoft plans on doing with it, like say, all those Sierra titles not being used. There could also be a longer development cycle on yearly releases like CoD (Hopefully making them better) by adding MORE studios and devs to a specific game instead of developing them on a skeleton crew and cruching for 2 years straight on each title.
As for the article itself this is typical Corporate Speak, make it as vague as possible until the actual details come out. But... again... I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to give up all that money from Playstation players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"CoD is a big franchise that brings in a lot of money on the PS console and MS definately wants that money"
The way that Microsoft has been organising its gaming business in recent years suggests that they recognise that "force everyone to buy our dedicated hardware in order to play this specific title" is not the only way to make money from said title.
"It's just that... CoD hasn't been... "good" lately. Like EA and Madden, it really hasn't innovated for a couple of decades at least"
Hmmm.. I suppose it depends on how you view that. You're exaggerating slightly in that CoD:MW/2 were released in 2008/9 and they were definitely innovating at that time. Then, between the Black Ops series and the futuristic titles they were definitely trying something different on the odd occasion. The series does seem to have stagnated somewhat, and I generally lost interest myself when they moved away from single player campaigns, but there's definitely been more going on there than the typical "same game with different rosters and a few minor changes" model that EA has applied to its sports titles.
"Of bigger interest to me is Activision/Blizzard's back catalogue and what Microsoft plans on doing with it, like say, all those Sierra titles not being used"
Yes, the whole thing should stand to shake up the way the whole organisation uses its assets, and I have no doubt that simply removing Bobby Kotick from it will result in some very interesting ideas going forward, some of which a poor developer has been trying to push through for a decade. Anyone who thinks that all that will happen here is that money goes to MS and they just carry on working as they were is missing some very interesting implications.
"As for the article itself this is typical Corporate Speak, make it as vague as possible until the actual details come out"
Well, yeah. The purchase hasn't even been confirmed yet, and the statement was clearly just a piece of damage control aimed at the paranoid fanboys who assume that they'll just start pulling the PS servers the moment they get full control. We won't find out any actual details until the merger is fully approved, and even then they'll be taking some time to work out the final plans. I'll go out on a limb and say that we'll get a huge information dump at E3 2023/4 or whatever the MS equivalent by then is, but until that point we'll just be hearing innuendo and MS's attempts to quash the more damaging rumours.
"But... again... I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to give up all that money from Playstation players."
They're not. But, I think that any long-term planning is something we won't hear about for a while and will be affected greatly by seeing what Sony's response to Game Pass is, and if they end up being open to collaboration or licensing deals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might want to go back and watch what happened to Rare after the Microsoft buyout. There was not an explosion of innovation from the team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know, if only there was some way for them to have changed in the meantime and learn from their mistakes. I guess we'll just have to play Everwild and see what happens to the other studios they bought since to see what happens.
Sarcasm aside, Sea Of Thieves seems to have indicated a change from what I understand and there's reasons to be positive overall, although time will tell. I'm definitely more of a fan of what they're doing now than what Sony have done, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Microsoft has in recent times been a true champion of cross comparability.
Their discussions with Nintendo are but one.
They’re pushing more code to Linux than any other corporate group. They did and continue with o directly involve themselves with Parallels to establish windows usability on Mac.
Mac access to windows and Xbox software.
The owner of the ball has changed. Meaning the rules can be changed. But Microsoft has made it clear they want to play in the same court.
I think such concern is premature. I doubt Microsoft will wall off COD.
The company sells office cross platform. As far as submitting code to wine and forks to help stabilise use.
COD et al are cash cows. It’s unlikely they’d rather have a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, Xbox system sales than millions of title sales.
This is not the scorched earth Microsoft of olde. As long as PlayStation titles bring in dollars they’re likely to make PlayStation titles.
Then again… given Sony’s demands of censorship… I’m not going to loose sleep as they continue to bleed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cutting off their own nose to spite their face?
The reality is that Microsoft can direct their subsidiaries & employees to make games for whatever platforms Microsoft chooses. If they can be sufficiently profitable for their purposes in that space without porting games to all four major platforms (and Linux), they will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What other industry/product/company will make definitive statements without a contract in place? Why would MS be held to a higher standard?
For all we know, MS will use these new IPs to pressure Sony to open up their own exclusives. I don't know how likely that is, but it's at least as likely as MS cutting out half their potential audience out of spite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sony spends the whole last generation bragging about their exclusives and making sure to lock up games. Microsoft tries for cross play and publishing wide. And now Microsoft is the problem? I think this outcome is a reasonable outcome of Sony's actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedantic
"Deja Vu All Over Again:"
As opposed to Deja Vu not all over again?
Is it something like redundant, redundant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedantic
Nah, redundant redundancy is a common practice in tech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedantic
h/t Yogi Berra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedantic
Submitted your comment to the Department of Redundancy Department for comment on your submission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pedantic
Submitted your comment to the Department of Redundancy Department for comment on your submission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedantic
It's a very, very old joke. I guess you got to be one of the 10,000 yesterday (I can explain that one too if you don't know what it is)!
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/08/deja-vu-again/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would love to see Microsoft eventually purchase Sony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why, so there's less competition in gaming?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would definitely be interesting outside of the game sphere.
It would instantly give Microsoft one hell of an entertainment catalogue.
Massive tech insight too!
Think about Sony’s software library. Dead and active.
They could become a competitor to iHome. Smart tech. Power and distribution.
They could build out Microsoft/Windows Video.
Create a multi platform streaming system quite quickly.
Jump right into storage development with holographic technology.
So it would suck for Sony fans in the gaming realm but overall that would be a huge benefit to tech competition! They’d become a direct rival to google overnight.
Overall such a merger wouldn’t be all that bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]