Microsoft Says It Has No Intention to Take Call of Duty Away From PlayStation - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 16 October 2022 / 6,410 Views
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in the UK released a new report last week on Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard. The report says Sony Interactive Entertainment believes if the deal were to go through it would cause Call of Duty players to switch from PlayStation to Xbox even if the series were to remain multiplatform.
Microsoft in a statement has said it has no plans to take Call of Duty away from gamers and the majority of them are on PlayStation. Keeping the franchise on PlayStation is important for the Xbox business and the economics of the acquisition.
"Microsoft has no intention to take Call of Duty away from gamers and, indeed, it has publicly committed not to do so," reads the response from Microsoft. "The value of Call of Duty depends on its community of gamers, the majority of whom are on PlayStation. Keeping Call of Duty on PlayStation is, therefore, a commercial imperative for the Xbox business and the economics of the Transaction.
"As such, Microsoft has offered Sony a contractual commitment to continue supplying it with Call of Duty, including new releases with feature and content parity. The Referral Decision fails to explain why in the CMA’s view Microsoft would make such commitments publicly and privately, which are also reflected in its internal documents, if it had no intention of honouring them.
"Foreclosure strategies of the type outlined in the Referral Decision would alienate the Call of Duty gamer base and tarnish both the Call of Duty and Xbox brands, undermining the rationale for the Transaction. Microsoft would place at risk significant annual revenue from sales of Call of Duty on PlayStation, as well as substantial revenues from other Xbox games distributed via PlayStation. Microsoft has been clear that it is counting on revenues from the distribution of Activision Blizzard games on Sony PlayStation."
Microsoft added its plan is to add Activision Blizzard games on Xbox Game Pass.
"Xbox plans to bring Activision Blizzard content to its multi-game subscription, Game Pass," added Microsoft. "This will benefit gamers, boosting the value of the subscription and expanding access to Activision Blizzard content. Activision Blizzard has not allowed its content to be included in third-party subscriptions in any meaningful way in the past.
"Again, this increased competition has not been welcomed by the market leader Sony, which has elected to protect its revenues from sales of newly released games, rather than offer gamers the choice of accessing them via its subscription, PlayStation Plus."
The next entry in the series, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, will launch for the PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC via Steam and Battle.net on October 28.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
plenty of money to be made!
Let’s be honest Microsoft isn’t going to take call of duty of PlayStation they want the consumers to choose either pay £70 for it on PlayStation or get it with gamepass n have all the extras that come with game pass n that is what parents will look at when buying consoles for little Johnny.
I doubt the majority of cod players who buy the console of choice, are parents. I don't see gamepass and parents going hand in hand when it comes to call of duty.
To be fair I would agree with you but with cost of living over here in the uk going crazy most parents are gonna be taking about cost cutting n once one parent speaks about gamepass it’s gonna spread like wildfire n let’s be honest parents buy kids games they know they shouldn’t but you would be surprised how many parents I have seen buy their kids GTA n stuff thinking it’s not a problem
People will leave PlayStation in favor of free shit day 1 new game from gamepass
Sony want the exclusive deals, they dont want parity.
Means absolutely nothing. Microsoft, like most companies, will say whatever is most convenient for them at the time. I remember them stating that they would keep supporting Games For Windows Live when everyone and their cat knew they were letting it die.
As for those saying that they'd be giving up too much money by taking CoD off PlayStation, Microsoft often looks beyond the short-term. I'm not saying that is what they'd do here but the revenue CoD generates on other platforms is a drop in the bucket compared to their ambitions. This isn't a company that gives a rat's ass about "competition" or they wouldn't have so many rulings against them relative to antitrust violations. They aren't interested in sharing the marketplace, they want to dominate it so that they can control the direction and leave consumers with no choice but to follow. The ONLY reason the original Xbox One was repackaged was because they did not have enough leverage at that time to force it through. Same as when they tried to charge PC gamers a fee to play online.
Do you really want Microsoft to have more power in the gaming industry?
I'm under the impression that most people who play call of duty, only play a few titles at most, and if cod was to go console exclusive, the majority who game on ps5 will jump ship to microsoft. Unless out of outrage they voice their displeasure online and hate on microsoft and stick with their sony console. This is the bet microsoft might take going forward.
Would be foolish not to try to release widely. They paid a lot for Activision-Blizzard.
Just as on Bethesda they were not going to take away from other platforms =p.
Will MS write a contract saying their "no intention" is legally binding? Or will we be on that letter of intention of keeping it for couple years after current agreement between ABK and Sony?
The differences between the Bethesda and Activision acquisitions are:
-
They was they weren't leaving nearly as much money on the table on PS with Bethesda, as Bethesda skewed more towards Xbox (and especially PC) than Activision does.
-
And getting some exclusives from Bethesda takes away the need to have exclusives from Activision too.
-
And they have a contract for Call of Duty with Sony for the next couple of instalments already.
- And their statements were far more vague with Bethesda, but more specific with Activision.
I would bet that Bethesda titles profited more on PS4 than X1. And yes Sony have a contract with ABK, but nothing would be warranted after that, just as they also had contracts with Bethesda that just worked for those titles under contract.
I didn't say Bethesda titles didn't do better on PS4 than X1. I was trying to say that I believe that Activision did proportionately better on PS than Bethesda. Early Bethesda titles came out on Xbox but not on PS, and Western RPGs are proportionately more popular on Xbox than on PS. CoD was incentivized on PS4 over Xbox. Bethesda titles are likely stronger on PC than Activision games are. So for all those reasons and more, PS revenue probably makes up a significantly larger chunk of Activision revenue than it does Bethesda revenue.
And you replied to only one of my four points! :) The other three are also strong reasons, I think. :)
They are just going in circles..
They already said this same thing at the start then changed it to "CoD will remain on PS for 3 years further the deal" then changed it again to "We do not intend to take CoD away from PS"
Yep exactly. Notice the word choice; they’re not committing to saying “CoD will permanently remain on PS.” It’s really quite simple to say that if they really wanted to put out the fires. But they’re choosing their words very carefully, saying things like, “we have no intentions of…” and “taking CoD off of PS doesn’t make financial sense,” etc.
With these non-definitive words, it gives them freedom to take CoD away at some point in the future.
"forces of market", "change of strategy", or whatever world they throw after deal is done to say they will skip PS wouldn't hurt these non-committal words they are saying because they aren't warranting anything. They done the same with Bethesda and that is what CMA is pointing to.
Like bethesda games lmao
They dont foll anyone and they dont fool cma.
true, but Elder scroll had always more tie to Xbox than PlayStation. when release on 7 gen it boasted much more sale on Xbox despite both Xbox 360 and Ps3 having the same install base. And yeah MS still stated it was going to be case by case. Game like fallout and Wolfenstein are much more likely to still be multiplat in their newer entry IMO.
More tie to XBox? The game released on PS4 twice. Special Edition and VR, which was exclusive to PSVR and bundled with it for quite a while. The Special Edition sold more on PS4 than on XBO. So, no. That "tie" you bring up might somewhat apply to the 7th gen but is immediately rendered irrelevant once you look at the decade+ that followed, and because of that , it is a non argument that holds no weight.
Yeah I realized my argument was poorly written for what I was trying to say. Elder scroll isn't something you automatically associate to PlayStation, it wasn't there at the beginning , the community, while not small, isn't stellar either(only little more then 1M copy sold for the VR game even when being bundled for quite some time). It isn't surprising for newer entry to be made exclusive to Xbox nor will it affects large swats of PlayStations users. Fallout is what I think of when thinking of a Bethesda title that may remain Multiplat, but will see eventually.
Skyrim VR sold pretty well considering the PSVR user base. And you completely ignored the SE version of the game that sold better on PS4 than on the console you say has supposedly always been associated with the series. Nobody associates TES with XBox anymore than they do with PS.
Sales speak for themselves and they prove you wrong. So what gives? You’re the one here associating the series with XBox and the arguments you try to push for it are sketchy and weak as hell.
I ignored sales comparison of the 8 gen bacause the install base make it de facto bias, that's why I used the 7 gen cause the install base where virtualy the same. And I already agreed my first argument was poor made and no at no point in my second post did i say that the Ps community wasn't stronger than that on xbox. My point was that even then the community is not that strong that you would consider a multiplat ports at least it is nothing to compare with the CoD community. I also admit that when I quoted ms in response to a bethesda specific post I though it was made during Bethesda buyout and it wasn't, it was for the current activision blizzard one, so in the end it may not apply to a single bethesda title, but my point remain that Microsoft already proven that under the right condition Ips they own will remain multiplat and in regards to CoD the only fair comparison that could be drawn would be with Minecraft.
First CoD isn't also associated with PS, and it sold more in X360 than on PS3, it is about the same case between ES and CoD.
And MS wording was that their purchase wasn't about removing content from other platforms, but that was in fact what they done. With full approval from xbox fans saying they never lied or mislead, it was all Sony fault for not allowing GP on PS.
So did Minecraft and it's way more fit to be compared to CoD in term of popularity than ES.
"And MS wording was that their purchase wasn't about removing content from other platforms, but that was in fact what they done".
That was one of the end result but not the goal. Microsoft gained 7 studios, a publishing entity, more than 2000+ workers, some very popular Ips. That was enough for MS to justify the purchase, removing Ips from competition is just a side effect. To say that it was the prime goal is illogical. So yeah in the end the statement from MS was accurate.
"With full approval from Xbox fans saying they never lied or mislead," Did not lie or mislead this time != Never lied or mislead and as such I never saw that claim being made from an Xbox fan though I've seen it from Sony fans/Xbox Haters describing Xbox fans when they're called out on misinterpretation, exaggeration, twisting or lie.
"it was all Sony fault for not allowing GP on PS."
That's one new for me, I'm sure some rando think that and they can make a case for it, I'm not seeing how it make sense in any way.
With bringing Minecraft to the discussion you are meaning whatever MS says is irrelevant right? Because don't remember they ever making any statement about Minecraft and it stayed MP, while they did say about Bethesda and removed.
Sure their main intent on buying Bethesda wasn't just to remove content from PS, but will you spin for them as if they weren't pointing to they wouldn't remove content? If you want to spin like that than you are doing exactly what you say MS and Xbox fans don't do. MS had no need to remove the content, and on additional revenue they would have it by keeping. It was their decision to remove, one that they worded around it before approval but were explicit as soon as approved. So let's not pretend that isn't the reason CMA is pointing it out.
We have seem Azz, ludicrous and a few other saying that if Sony didn't deny GP on PS (because Phil want to put it there) they wouldn't miss the content.
I do think that MS will may even try this again, whenever the deal is closed they will put that for whatever reason CoD needs something in GP to work and since GP isn't available in PS then CoD won't be available and although they didn't had intention of removing content it was just a side effect (as you put).
"With bringing Minecraft to the discussion you are meaning whatever MS says is irrelevant right?"
No what I'm saying is that the statement by MS is backed by a really strong and relatable precedent.
" Because don't remember they ever making any statement about Minecraft and it stayed MP, while they did say about Bethesda and removed"
No they did not make that claim either. All I remember is they did hinted at it for game with strong tie or historic tie to PlayStation but can't find the exact quote. CoD is actually the 1st game they specifically told they would keep on PlayStation. Don't get me wrong here if they don't fall through on this I'll dump on MS as much as you are.
"but will you spin for them as if they weren't pointing to they wouldn't remove content?"
No need to spin they didn't make that claim.
"MS had no need to remove the content, and on additional revenue they would have it by keeping." Same logic apply for all exclusive of any entity in the business. If the Ips were bought or not is kind of irrelevant on the decision to make a game multiplat or not.
"So let's not pretend that isn't the reason CMA is pointing it out." I agree, I did not debate the reason CMA put forward, but that doesn't make them truth or fact either. CMA does not have to prove things yet only have a hunch. IMO they overlooked the objective reality of Minecraft which by all intents and purposes is the most relatable franchise to CoD in regards to how MS handle games of that popularity.
"We have seem Azz, ludicrous and a few other saying that if Sony didn't deny GP on PS (because Phil want to put it there) they wouldn't miss the content." don't claim your wrong don't claim your right, you would have to quote them and anyway this is not my opinion either.
"I do think that MS will may even try this again, whenever the deal is closed they will put that for whatever reason CoD needs something in GP to work and since GP isn't available in PS then CoD won't be available and although they didn't had intention of removing content it was just a side effect (as you put)." I fully believe CoD won't leaves PlayStation ecosystem in anyway and will follow pretty closely the same strategy as Minecraft as it does make more sense this way, as for exclusive content I don't know PlayStation does boast some as of now. The best would be for MS to scrap this practice but I don't know. MS may try to diversify CoD with side games and keep those exclusives but even then Minecraft tells me otherwise. I'd be willing to take a bet on this.
So the precedence of Minecraft (where they didn't make a single claim) is valid, but the precedence of Bethesda isn´t?
I gave you the quote, they said they weren't buying Bethesda to remove content, them when asked further they said they couldn't comment on anything before the deal closed, and as soon as it closed we got the obvious that it would be exclusive but would honor signed deals (and in CoD case MS only said something after being challenged on the CMA and the like, while Sony only said anything public after MS said they sent the letter and brought them to discussion, before that all they said was within the boards of the regulators). At least I don't remember MS saying anything before that in regards to CoD, and even now they aren't giving any legally binding commitment. They are just saying they don't intend to remove, which don't prevent them from doing it at any point in time.
You say that the revenue portion is kinda irrelevant, so why were you using it in the first place to say MS wouldn't remove because they would lose to much revenue (and say so in this report).
Ok, yes CMA may be wrong and only basing themselves on hunch and MS truly will keep the title on PS for a long time (but won't promise anything just to avoid obligations, although if they truly have no intention to remove they could very well sign a contract stating so, otherwise it is truly words in the wind).
If you don't think that is the case on regarding allowing GP, certainly I won't hold you on that.
If CoD follow Minecraft model then even side-offs would likely be multiplat, I believe there is some exclusive perks to MS userbase but since I don't play Minecraft I can't complain. And if all MS does with CoD is give some extras to MS players there isn't much to complain (yes Sony will lose some advantage and players may not like that their version is "inferior") as that is pretty much common (we even have obnoxious versions with special content to buy from one vendor or another for 1st party from Sony itself).
Microsoft did make comments regarding keeping Minecraft multi platform, as did the guy who made it, forgot his name. Noche or whatever.
They said Bethesda games would be a case by case basis and that’s exactly how it has been since they were bought.
Minecraft is relevant to the way Microsoft handle franchise as popular as CoD. Absolutly none of Bethesda titles come close to that level of popularity.
"I gave you the quote [...] to remove content" And I replied that the statement was accurate. by all logic removing titles from competing platform isn't the goal, if it was it would use the same tactics as Sony and goes the timed exclusive route. The goals was to bolsters there first party lineup, studios, workforce and publishing capabilities.
"them when asked further they [...] the deal closed. "
They did say that it would be handled on a case by case basis. And so far only one release have been made by Bethesda since approval and it is the fallout 76 the Pitt expansion which actually is on PlayStation. They confirmed to date that Starfield would be exclusive as well as mainline entry in ES other than that Microsoft still have yet to commit either way.
"At least I don't remember MS saying anything before that in regards to CoD" MS pretty much made their intention clear to keep CoD on PlayStation few days after the buyout announcement, the CMA was far from involved at that point https://www.vgchartz.com/article/452313/head-of-xbox-phil-spencer-has-a-desire-to-keep-call-of-duty-on-playstation/ . In response to the CMA they tried to further on that contractually with Sony.
"You say that the revenue portion is kinda irrelevant, so why were you using it in the first place to say MS wouldn't remove because they would lose to much revenue (and say so in this report)." Don't know how you got that from my response, I did not mention revenue once. I said that it does not matter if you bought an IP or not in regards to the decision to make it multiplot or not. By all mean MS should manage ES assets like they do every one of theirs if they think that keeping it exclusive is enough to maintain the value of that franchise I can't argue even if I would like not to be the case, For CoD though maintaining the value of the assets would be impossible by keeping it exclusive as they probably though the same in regards to Minecraft.
Xbox original had a morrowingport like ages ago , that is the only game ps consoles didnt had. Its PR statements they make and some people eat it up and post it every time they can like you are doing here to justify microsoft being bullied by ps and cma.
Yeah right.. as if this statement from MS is just PR and wasn't supported by, I don't know, the most popular franchise they own and bought years ago. it's comment like this some people make, that ignore objective reality that at some point and under certain condition MS do make it's game multiplat, to justify painting MS as some kind evil minded actor like no other in the industry.
They killed ps5 version of starfield bruh
Was Starfield ever announced for those systems? Also Starfield as no history on PS systems unlike other Bethesda titles which I fully believe we will still see some on PlayStation for future entry. Minecraft (story-mode, dungeons, legends) are great examples which are to easily disregarded when asserting MS position on this.
And Sony was trying to make Starfield a timed exclusive like they did with Deathloop and Tokyo Ghostwire. No game versions were ever announced prior to the deal. Xbox did the smart thing for them and made it a console exclusive. Get over it.
I dont give three shits about starfield.
Someone who doesn't care wouldn't make a comment about it.
Was responding to a deleted comment now lol why he deleted it ?
Just showing microsoft lied then and is lying now and even cma knows this because they mentioned it in their documents.
Get over it.
There are so many holes in the CMA document that it won't be hard for MS to discredit it and get this approved.
Microsoft never ever stated that they wouldnt make bethesda games exclusive, not once.
Day before acquisition
AB revenue on xbox - billions
AB revenue on ps - more billions
Day after acquisition
AB revenue on xbox (incl with gamepads) - low millions
AB revenues on ps - more billions
So for the acquisition to make sense, the revenue of AB needs to be at least the same, so easiest way means keeping PS revenues stable whilst at the same increasing GP Revenue by the proportion of GP that it brings in. So if AB licensing and costs are 50% of the total cost of the subscription model then they need to double GP revenue. Basically won't happen.
MSFT doesn't carte about revenue from its game division, its pathetically small compared to the rest of the company.
Why have a games division and gobble up half the industry then if it were so pathetic?
You have no idea what their revenue will be. In other words, you are completely full of it.
Lying Phil at it again. Watch the 180 turn in attitude if this gets approved.
Its his right to do so and he could push that button anytime he likes.
If you are going to accuse others of being a pathological liar, you better be able to prove it.
Prove it? There are tons of articles online with Spencer saying one thing and doing another. He has lied all the time. He doesn't have to prove a thing, everyone knows this and a quick google search will show that. You act as if he has a personal relationship with Spencer, he's a suit and if any user doesn't like him that's their choice. That's one fire you're not putting out.
And this famous Illusory truth effect of "just look around there's plenty of evidences" but never actually providing one. If I'd fall for those I'd fully believe 2020 election was stolen even if in the end there's 0 evidence for it, just people thinking it and writing about it like their opinions are some kind of evidence or that it is so obvious that it should be common knowledge.
Things like the “Phil Spencer speaks out of both sides of his mouth” comment don’t gain a ton of traction for no reason.
Phil Spencer has stated numerous times how he feels the more people can play games, the better. It’s one of the things I’ve heard him stress the most. Then, MSFT does things like buy Bethesda and scrap the long-in-development PS5 version of Starfield just to make it XB exclusive. I don’t blame Xbox for doing it, but Phil should just stop acting so pure and humanitarian, bc he looks foolish and extremely disingenuous.
Even PS fans don’t like Jim Ryan, but at least Jim Ryan doesn’t constantly try to act like a good person who only wants the best for all of gamers and humanity, only to prove with his later actions that he’s just virtue signaling for PR.
I'm not trying to say that phil does not do PR of course he does. But people way to often mistake Phil pr statement as acting " pure and humanitarian" when he actualy isn't and then use there wrong interpretation to justify saying how liar or 2 face he is.
"Phil Spencer has stated numerous times how he feels the more people can play games, the better"
Phil spencer made this comments in regards to Xcloud and Gamepass though. Trying to paint that as saying he will bring more games to PS is twisting things.
EX: https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2021/06/10/whats-next-for-gaming-highlights/
Title: Bringing the Joy and Community of Gaming to Everyone
Image : No ps console
Is Ms being liar or 2 face here : no
Phil definitely does PR talk, as everyone in his position, but the number of quotes I see taken out of context is way more than not. It's really something else.
It’s not about a single quote for me. It’s more about how he’s talked for years. He’s talked in a way that’s made him look like this good guy that only wants the best for all gamers, and he’s even spoken out against some of the exclusive deals Sony has made, but the moment big MSFT started seeing the money potential for games and started dropping the acquisition hammer, Phil’s supposed values have completely changed. Disingenuousness annoys the hell out of me no matter who it is. I wish Jim Ryan was more like Phil Spencer in most ways, but I’m very glad he doesn’t resemble him in this regard.
For the most part, he does mean those things and his actions speak louder than words.
Brought back BC for Xbox.
PC releases with console.
Play Anywhere initiative.
Stopped doing timed exclusive deals with publishers and timed in game content. This is the one you're referring too.
Xbox games can be played on a wide range of devices via Xcloud.
Xbox was the one to push cross-play while Sony was against it for awhile.
If you're an Xbox/PC players, he's delivered with most of his promises. The last big one is bolstering Xbox's 1st party studios, which he is clearly doing. I know you are a mostly a PS person which is fine, but he literally owes PS nothing, yet honors deals like with Psychonauts 2 and has kept Minecraft platform agnostic, allowed certain games on the Switch, and kept his promise on legacy titles. Out the big 3, Xbox games are easily the most accessible and he has kept his promise on that.
This is why when MS has said they will keep CoD multiplat, I don't see them lying or going 180 on it.
Everytime we bring a temporary or permanent exclusive from third parties that MS have signed this gen we just ignore them right? I think yesterday someone showed over 10 games that had exclusivity with MS even though you claim they don't do it.
I never said Xbox doesn't sign timed exclusives with 3rd. They stopped signing timed exclusives with publishers. Nobody showed me anything lol. Games like; The Medium, Death Door, Tunic, Scorn, Darktide, Stalker 2, etc. all are independently published. Xbox is supporting the studios, not publishers. Either way though, Sony can sign whatever games they want. I was simply making a point based on the response.
Isn't powerwash simulator published by Square-Enix and exclusive to Xbox?
I really can't tell if your serious or just use Powerwash as a joke to lighten the argumentation here?.
In any way, Powerwash was more likely not a subject of time exclusive deal. Looks more a classic case of indies dev who don't have the manpower to do simultaneous release at once especially on side projects like this (which first release on steam early access before anything else). The game also use Unity engine and the Unity team does boast strong relation with Microsoft so maybe it is easier to port unity projects to Xbox than PS system. IMO the publishing deal with Square Enix is probably the reason why they didn't hold it until they could do a simultaneous release.
But who knows maybe I'm wrong, if you have source please share I'm genuine curious to know more.
I was just pointing that Powerwash is a game that is being published by SE and subject to a exclusivity deal. Because he was spinning the MS doesn't do deals for exclusivity to don't do deals with publishers.
The next one will be MS only do exclusivity deals for games that are bad?
Powerwash is coming soon to PS system. And as I said in my previous post really don't think there's any deal between MS and Square Enix. More than likely the publishing deal between Future Lab and Square Enix does not provide funds to hold the game until a simultaneous release, so the ports are release as they are ready. But if you have knowledge of such a deal (between MS and Square Enix) please feel free to share sources.
Considering for Indies Switch is the biggest platform, and for SW sales PS is doing much better plus porting from PC to console not being that complicated anymore and they stating the release as Xbox and PC only seems to me as a deal have been signed. And the game being on GP is a strong indicator of a deal for me. Also SE said it will release soon without giving a date, so I would guess the deal was something like 6 month period.
Considering Steam early access was the actual first release and it is a way bigger platform for indie than the switch it does not surprise me at all. Also for indie games Gamepass also have become a extremely valuable platform to release to and provide quick recognition and quick payout so again not at all surprised and absolutely no reason for an exclusive deal. "PC to console not being that complicated anymore", we are talking about Unity here, not a typical UE game. we are also talking about a smaller scope title from a manpower limited studio which is not surprising at all they focus on release 1 by 1. For me all this are strong indication that Square Enix saw no value in waiting for a simultaneous release and just went the route that provided the least amount of risk for their investment, especially as they choose to release first an unfinished product on early access. But like I said if you have source that proves otherwise please do share it.
Do any game enter Gamepass without a deal signed with MS?
A deal != an exclusive deal. You were arguing the existence of an exclusive one not just a simple deal
Sure a deal =/= exclusive deal, but when the indicators align to seem like a timed deal... because again it isn't like MS doesn't do exclusivity deals even if some will go through hoops to say it is different than the ones Sony does (but other people them will say that buying full publisher is less worrisome than signing some timed exclusivity deals that likely involved funding the whole game).
But the indicators does not align here. If Ms were still doing time exclusive it would be obvious, as agressive as there aquisition initiave. They would also go after much bigger deal not just some indie titles. You don't see that at all. But sure MS still make 3rd party deals but for years it have been about fully funding games where MS actually keeps the Ips most of the time a la Ori, they're all about full exclusivity.
Edit: before you may try to paint me otherwise, it's not of my opinion that doing time exclusive deal is bad or something. It has it's value and video streaming / conventional cable diffusion does that kind of deals all the time. They're also the main reason why Xbox 360 was so competitive in it's early life. MS just stopped doing those years ago as a business decision (to some aspect much to my disappointment, but it has it's benefits (mainly for PR, B2B relation and more focus on growing own assets than short term gain)), and I've seen no proof they started doing those again.
haven't seem you saying they are bad or unnecessary. MS may not make as much timed or exclusivity deals as in the past, and wouldn't say they are all Indie (unless we go the route that any company that isn't a big publisher is Indie), but sure can agree that without having each of the contracts it seems Sony have gone after bigger games (almost all already had the lionshare of userbase on PS) than MS.
Sure, technically lol. The game itself is made by an indie studio and was published by SE. It's not owned by SE. I think we can all agree that powerwash simulator is not even close to the same ballpark as FF, Deahloop, Tokyo Ghostwire, Forespoken, etc.? Xbox's deal was also with the studio not the publisher.
That is not how the burden of proof works.
The claimant needs to provide the evidence.
Essay Pro