Phil Spencer Under Oath Promises to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation as Long as Sony Allows It - News

I believe she was getting bored to tears with the FTC questions and decided to go ahead and get this over quick. Hey Phil under oath, are you going to ship a PS version of COD. Phil, hell yeah!!! Ok everyone I believe we are good to go, see you later.

COD print money on all platforms and it print money because there is a huge amount to consumers on all platforms that play COD. In the absences of COD, do you believe PS players will flock to the Xbox. I actually disagree. I believe it would be less than 5 % that would go and they would find another game that meets their FPS needs. The reason why the PS system is the biggest COD platform is because the PS platform has the biggest consumer base. That consumer base was not built by COD, it was built by Sony first party studios bringing out games people want to play and MS slip up with the Xbox one.

Being under oath means being accountable for his/her actions before the court by being legally bound to tell the truth or face various charges ranging from contempt/ to perverting the cause of justice , but here's the rub even if your found to have lied under oath it will be argued that it was inadvertent and not deliberate.

take this case lets hypothetically say that Phil in ten years time sees the Xbox ecosystem and the cloud infrastructure being ready for a transition to the cloud and he puts all there IPs including COD onto it, now that goes against his oath , for the majority you get the all the contracts where for ten years and in Sony's case he might argue that Sony were hostile and not receptive to the way MS envisioned COD going forward to the point that it felt like they only wanted it on their terms and not wanting it on MS terms equalled not longer wanting it .

Another scenario maybe that Spencer no longer works for MS or not in that position so MS feel they his directives no longer hold sway and they no longer feel obligated to follow them.

Dude, you're paying $14/mn, that adds up

Not sure why that would be hard to understand. A direct statement from Sony saying no or Sony not providing dev units to ABK devs so they can develop the game for the PS system. The thing is, at this point in time and probably never, PS make up a huge chunk of COD money, I highly doubt MS believe that they could get 5% of the PS customer base to come to the Xbox by keeping COD only on Xbox. Instead MS want COD to be an even bigger money maker because those sells drive development for the entire gaming division for MS.

Likely something in line with:
You need to allow Gamepass on Playstation.
GP is the only way to play CoD, you need GP to play CoD n Xbox, you need GP to play on Playstation.

Are you serious?
Sony asking for more revenues share? Sony asking them not to have COD on GamePass if they want to publish it?
Stuff like that… Sony not giving them access to the dev kit? basically anything Sony would block or add to the terms to allow them to publish COD on their platform.

I guess you did not listen or read the transcript but he specifically said that if Sony keeps the current terms then COD will be on PlayStation. Right now there is no such thing for any Xbox game published on Sony’s console so if Sony changes that, he cannot promise anything as this out of Microsoft control, this is pretty obvious and excepted.

Starfield will make more money on PC than any console, just like most if not all Bethesda games.

1) Bethesda's biggest audience is on PC. Always has, always will and that's where Starfield will thrive for literal decades.
2) Starfield will push insane console sales. That's the point of major AAA exclusives (check Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom and God of War: Ragnarök if you want a refresher)
3) The Xbox team and Windows team are not the same division. This is like asking Sony Music to make a better Venom movie than Sony Pictures.

Also, "it is a text book case for the FTC. A company with a market cap of 2.51 TRILLION is trying to push out its competitor which has a market cap of 122 Billion." this......is why no one should take your comment seriously. PlayStation is a substantially larger brand than Xbox by a mile. That's all that matters here. Sony was buying up third-party exclusivity to push Xbox out of the business. Xbox retaliated. Do I like the way they retaliated? Absolutely not.

Unfortunately, business practices in the gaming industry are not decided by you or me.

Well it was not MS that made a big deal out of COD it was the FTC. Actually it was also Sony that concentrated on COD instead of any of ABK other properties so if Diablo doesn't come to PS, well Sony had amble opportunity to net that 10 year deal but decided to go the block route.

So let me ask this question, how many studios do Sony own that they built themselves compared to the studios they bought.

Why would MS put Starfield on PS when Sony was actively trying to secure Starfield exclusive to their own platform. Its like people just ignore Sony actions and believe its all good while MS response was to take that player totally out of the equation. Did you forget that Sony secured 2 games from Bethesda to keep off of Xbox and was trying to get the next big IP from them as well. Every action has a reaction, in this case, Sony actions with securing 3rd party exclusives slapped MS in the face letting them know they needed to get more serious or Sony will force them to leave the market.

Sony does not secure 3rd party exclusive just for the fun of it, they are actively trying to force MS in a corner even though MS is a Trillion dollar company. So what happens when you slap the bear, you get the claws.

Also your last statement has some issues, did you say the same when Sony bought Bungie, Insomniac, Bluepoint or any other developer. It just seems like people who support Sony turn a blind eye that Sony has continued to purchase studios to secure that talent and IP. There is no such thing as building from the ground up in todays market. It take way to long to create a brand new studio, ramp that studio up with talent then get them to release a game that does not take over 5 to 6 years and hope it is a success. What you want and how business works is 2 very different situations.

The fact this has so many downvotes proves how mindless people are. MS is spending $70bil (the profits of Sony for the last decade) on a single company of which the games it got anyway. MS could spend $250mil on 50 new studios each making games to supplement their GP catalogue, which comes out at nearly 50 billion less but won't because they don't want that.

They don't care about the games, they care about revenue control and people are praising it because "I get cheap games on GP."

2/3 of its sales… LOL. PC still exists.