Sony and Microsoft Sign 10-Year Deal to Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 03 August 2023 / 7,257 Views
Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer announced Sony has signed a 10-year legally binding agreement with Microsoft to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation once Microsoft closes its acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
"We are pleased to announce that Microsoft and PlayStation have signed a binding agreement to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation following the acquisition of Activision Blizzard," said Spencer. "We look forward to a future where players globally have more choice to play their favorite games."
Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith added, "From Day One of this acquisition, we’ve been committed to addressing the concerns of regulators, platform and game developers, and consumers. Even after we cross the finish line for this deal’s approval, we will remain focused on ensuring that Call of Duty remains available on more platforms and for more consumers than ever before."
Kari Perez, head of global communications at Xbox, confirmed to The Verge the deal is a 10-year commitment for Call of Duty only. This is contrast to the original deal Microsoft offered Sony in January 2023, which was to keep "all existing Activision console titles on Sony, including future versions in the Call of Duty franchise or any other current Activision franchise on Sony through December 31st, 2027."
Nintendo signed a similar deal in February that would bring Call of Duty games to Nintendo platforms for 10 years once Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition closes. The last Call of Duty game released on a Nintendo platform was 2013's Call of Duty: Ghosts on the Wii U.
Microsoft has also signed 10 year deals with cloud streaming services Boosteroid, Ubitus, EE, and Nware. The deals are to release Xbox games on PC to the platforms.
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
Congratulations Microsoft on becoming Sony's biggest 3rd party.
Yeah, between Call of Duty (#1) and Minecraft (#3), that could well be true!
Changes from year to year, but for 2022 it was GTA V. This is based on paid downloads from the PS Store too, which isn't the only metric (since there are physical sales, and free to play games, and other things to consider). But since those games are also available physical, it's probably a pretty good indication.
I mean this is very likely the case actually...
Square Enix would be the closest one and while we can check the number, COD/Minecraft is probably enough to make them actually the biggest third party lol, you are right :D
Sony saw the writing was on the wall, this acquisition is closing in spite of their best efforts to block it.
Yeah, it reads like they were refusing the contract previously in order to provide ammo to the trade bodies. Now the deal’s closure seems imminent they’ve signed rather than risk losing CoD.
Closure of this deal is imminent. At this point, I'm going to stick with my prediction of it going down by Tuesday. But, even if I'm wrong about that, it's not going to take more than 2 weeks from this point.
It is now clear that Sony understands the deal will close. The Nasdaq stock market understands it will close. The FTC understands it will close. And the CMA is not going to want to be made to look weak by having Microsoft give them the finger and close anyway. So, they're going to settle really quick to make sure that doesn't happen.
And this came when MS was under no obligation whatsoever to do so regarding regulatory challenges.
This really put to rest:
The exclusivity concern
Arguments that MS made all those agreements only to salvage the deals from the regulatory challenges
Arguments that MS would suddenly renegotiate those contracts after approval.
Arguments that MS is trying to establish a monopoly
and prove that MS absolutely never had the intention of making CoD exclusive.
It will, no doubt. And this can be a stepping stone towards a future where consoles represent only their manufacturer's visions of the place to game on the couch. Meaning no exclusives period or very few.
I'm not delusional into thinking there's a high probability for that, but I think it would be a great prosumer way for the market to regain great momentum in expansion and that literally everyone would win. It would also create more space for players who also want to bring consoles without having to finance theirs own 1st party studios/Ips and directly having to compete with an actor that is already far far ahead. Cause, you know, if there's is an actual thing that causes an SLC in the market, it is the practice of exclusivity, because of it, the market is pretty much reduced to 3 actors with an extremely high bar to overcome for any wanna-be 4th actor.
Something akin to the context change that happen in the movie industry from before to after United States v. Paramount. but without an actual court case just actors agreeing to share Ips and release them on each other devices.
EDIT: precised my thoughts
Good for them, what about the rest of Activision and Blizzards games?
Only time will tell, but Jim Ryan only ever cared about CoD, so that was the deal he signed. If it turns out just to be CoD, then that’s on Jim.
He initially tried to secure all ABK IPs and Bethesda IPs all on PS+ day one for free, which was just idiotic, then he prioritized CoD with the whole “CoD helps fund all our first party games”
Totaly.
In emails, Jim Ryan asked that MS commit to all ABK Ips current and future and that they also commit the same with Bethesda titles.
Of course, this was bad faith negotiation only engineered to receive a refusal from MS.
I'll say out of all the other IPs, Diablo, Overwatch, and Guitar Hero will stay multiplate 99% sure, contracts or not, Crash & Spyro are also very likely (like 85% sure of it), all the others should be made exclusive/handled in a case by case basis like current Bethesda Ips.
Why would Sony want all ABK and Bethesda games on PS+ day one? You know how much money they'd lose from that? Sony don't want that, they want the games that brings them income to remain on their economic system and not have one of their main rival controlling everything, including the revenue.
I don’t think you understand. Jim wanted ABK and Bethesda titles on ps+ day one for free, which would allow substantial increase in subs further increasing Sony revenue, and which also means these titles would be available for traditional purchase. Which would be a 30% cut from every sale. That’s a shit ton of revenue all for the price of what that Sony would contribute?
Sony would’ve had to pay billions to get CoD or even ESVI on ps+ day one and getting it for free would’ve just been a ripoff. Sony would’ve benefited a record breaking amount for an infinite amount of time.
Free for who? Sony or us?
Because if it's Sony then that's unfeasible due to the fact no day one 3rd party game on any service is free. It costs the provider money because it costs the publisher revenue. Sony wouldn't be stupid enough to ask that because that's never going to happen.
There was a story saying that saying MS offered Sony to put CoD on PS+ and Sony said "no" because "has alleged the offer could be reliant on unsustainable licensing costs" and so they'd have to raise costs. Well of course, if Sony had to pay MS to have the game on the service day 1 it would miss out on all the money from the 30% you mentioned. Presumably that was part of the contract Sony didn't want, not signing means they lose CoD so only option was to try and stop the acquisition entirely.
Infinite amount of time aka 10 years.
Exactly. Jim Ryan was demanding all ABK and Bethesda IPs be put on ps+ day one at no expense from Sony.
Btw, it was just confirmed that the deal only covers 10 year and only for CoD. The original contract offered that Ryan declined was for all ABK games. Soooooo yeah, Jim Ryan royally screwed up.
That is an interesting wrinkle, if true!
Though I wasn't clear whether the previous contract was for all existing ABK IP, or just all ABK IP that had previously appeared on PS. Either way, not signing that and instead signing a deal for just Call of Duty is a huge step down, and if I were a Sony shareholder I'd be pissed.
In an email exchange between Jim Ryan and Phil Spencer, Jim Ryan did indeed appear to want to get their titles for free for PS+. Sony would pay nothing, but they'd get the subs. Yes they'd lose their 20-30% commission, but they'd get 100% of the additional PS+ sub revenue it would drive.
Where is this email exchange published? As first I've heard of it.
This said, Ryan can't win really. MS buy Activision no deal signed, no CoD (although unlikely due to lost revenue from MS and the board won't stand for that), they didn't sign the original offers deal as it seemingly had a fee for that day 1 thing, which again isn't in Sony's interest so they reject and try and get the buy out stopped to carry on status quo (a very natural thing to do).
Only way it seems like they were happy to add the games to PS+ day 1 is if they didn't have to pay the fee (which makes sense as lost revenue from hard sales vs paying MS off, neither is a good deal).
Now, it's going through so do a deal to make sure they get sales revenue for the next decade at least, which to them as close to status quo as they can get.
If I were Microsoft, I'd make the others multi-plat, but not necessarily on every system. For example, a Tony Hawk game would for sure appear on PS, and a Spyro game would for sure appear on Switch, but maybe not on the other. I'd do everything on a case-by-case basis, as they do with Bethesda (Psychonauts stayed on PS, but Starfield did not, that kind of thing).
Though if I were Microsoft, I'd just make Bethesda games timed exclusives. Bring them to PS 18 months later, like Sony does with bringing their titles to PC 18 months later. That way every Microsoft game is multi-platform, but if you want it Day 1 you do it on Xbox or PC.
By that logic, Microsoft shouldn't put their PC games on Steam, they keep them exclusive to PC Game Pass and the Microsoft Store.
However, they don't do that. I think it's because Steam is a huge PC game marketplace, and there's money to be made. Similarly, there are a lot of PS and Nintendo sales to be had for some of those franchises.
And it builds goodwill, and helps develop fandom for those franchises. And sometimes that ends up with more merchandising sales too (Minecraft especially comes to mind).
A different but not unrelated scenario, I would argue. They could just put it on Game Pass and the Microsoft Store, as others who have their own launchers have done. They often end up caving and selling on Steam anyway, because there's so much money to be made there.
Similarly, there's a lot of money to be made on Sony and Nintendo. That's where the similarity is relevant, IMO. An example doesn't have to be (and usually can't be) exactly identical.
But cod is really the Only game from Activision that make so much bank on Sony platform that removing it would be a bad decision. The rest of the ips like crash and Spyro don't sell as much as cod so not having it on their platform won't be a bad financial situation and can be compensated via gamepass.. again exclusives sells and ms needs some to kept on their console.. difference with ms doing it , is that you don't need to buy and Xbox to play the. Not the same if it's exclusivd on Sony platform. So I don't see all the whinging is about.
question to you is why should ms have to share their first parties that they buy but Sony doesn't?
As mentioned before , no one cares about ms windows for gaming lol. Majority of players either have steam or epic or steam and got and epic and gog. It would be be had to not have on steam.
I don't think Microsoft "should" have to share the IPs they purchase.
However, I think Microsoft may choose to do so more of the time than Sony does. Microsoft loses a lot more money not putting a game on PS, than Sony does not putting a game on Xbox.
People may care relatively little about purchasing a game on the Microsoft Store, that's true. But Steam also competes with PC Game Pass, and that's a much bigger deal. That's the basis of my point that it's notable to share an otherwise exclusive game with Steam. Especially when someone can use a Steam purchase to avoid buying an Xbox or subscribing to Game Pass for a must-have exclusive.
Xbox has no obligation to release anything besides CoD on Playstation. Phil said they would make some of their games exclusive so it's safe to say titles like; Crash, Tony Hawk, Spyro and any new IP's will be exclusive. They might keep Overwatch and Diablo multiplatform but who knows.
Though everything gets released Day 1 on Steam, which is a competitor to PC Game Pass and PC games on the Microsoft Store, so truly Microsoft has zero platform exclusives. Which is fine by me.
Can only presume that MS will do what they did with Bethesda - games already announced will not be pulled from platforms they were announced for and updates for older games will come to all platforms they were released on.
However, CoD aside, new releases will likely be Xbox console exlcusives.
These deals with Nintendo and Sony are only about COD (and these regulators were only concerned about COD). Cloud services will get Xbox and Activision games (Bethesda also I assume). So, other franchises owned by Activision are up in the air on multiplatform releases. Legacy games being rereleased will be multiplatform (as they've stated before), but new games are most likely a case by case basis. So a new Spyro/Crash game could actually end up skipping Nintendo and Playstation.
Why would they sign this for all Activision/Blizzard games lol.
You understand they are spending 70B for those right? It will be like Bethesda, case by case basis.
An no, case by case basis does not mean to please Play Station gamers, but to see if it makes sense financially and if going exclusives is good or not (to counter Sony money hating everything).
I mean just by having it on Xbox makes it available on more device even if they remove it from the Sony console so.
So what if they spend 70B for all this?
It’s not like they won’t make more money if they put it on more systems.
Making them all exclusive when you are trailing at the distant third place greatly limits the return on that investment.
haha, I mean you really think that they are investing for the status quo? No, they are not. Anyone with a minimum of business understanding would understand that. There are going to make some game exclusives, maybe new ones, maybe some new versions of old franchises, but it is happening. Any single-player games are actually a viable candidate.
Then let's say Microsoft pushes Blizzard to have Starcraft 3 playable on console, very likely to be exclusive to Xbox etc (that's just an example, I'm not pretending that SC3 will be playable on console, it is just to illustrate).
There is no point in arguing about it as we will never know until they do, but thinking that they bought Activision Blizzard just to get the asset and not use them to try to get a bigger market share is delusional at best :)
And I’m telling you not to think and reason like a console warrior.
Are you serious? You... are telling anyone else not to do reason like console war? Also you are the one bringing console war into this, I'm bringing math and business logic.
I makes virtually no sense for Microsoft to do not use Activision/Blizzard for some exclusives. None at all. And while all the multiplayer games will stay on Sony Play Station, the new big AAA single players games are very likely to become exclusives. And if anything, Bethesda is the proof. You are arguing with smoke. I'm using past examples and ALSO the whole industry as a good reference.
Phil Spencer himself said XBox lost the so-called “console war”, and Satya said he hates exclusives. Regardless of how authentic those claims were, the fact they’ve always struggled to gain console market share next to PlayStation, and considering Phil said no matter what they do, how much they invest to create exclusive titles, it won’t tip the scale in their favour, it isn’t a stretch to think their business model going forward won’t be modelled after what worked for Sony, which they tried to mimick but failed to succeed in doing, comparatively, it most likely will go as Phil expressed not so long ago, which is to try to do their own thing, which won’t be patterned the same as what Sony does and has been successful for them for 3 decades.
GamePass being will be one of the pillars and what comes along with it is anyone’s guess. But I’m among those who think they can disrupt the market, but they won’t achieve it by continually trying to mimick what just isn’t what works for them.
So, while you say you use maths despite not providing any numbers, and try to mirror the console warrior thing on me despite me never shitting on MS (while being transparent about my preference), you have provided absolutely no numbers to support you claim about bringing“maths” into your equation. Making the nature of this exchange all the more hilarious.
What are you talking about lol...
The deal has been confirmed to be for 10 years.
Seems like a sign that the acquisition of Activision Blizzard is about to close.
For sure, that completely undermines most of the FTC's argument. So what would they even cite if they continue with their attempt to challenge it in court in August?
When the Xboss sends you a deal, you bend the knee.
While this is good news regardless, I doubt anyone is happier than Jim Ryan.
Last thing they needed to not even have to care about the FTC anymore...
Appeal is going to be denied (even without this) and now the this is going to just completely shut down their case in August as their main point is COD (for some weird reason lol).
They probably didnt need to do it, but bad guy Microsoft at it again.
It only made financial sense to do so for MS anyway according to Phil. Besides down the line this might help them get another publisher, like Sega, Kadokawa or Square.
Wouldn't deny the document showed in court saying they decided to make all exclusive new or old ip going forward, which of course deny the narrative of case by case that some have carried on VGC for so long.
Case by Case was not written on the document. That was something Phil said verbally. MS are allowed to have exclusives since Sony like pushing the exclusive narrative. As for CoD, seems thats all Sony is going to get with this merger. They should have not poked the bear.
Microsoft is allowed to change their policy as the competitive situation changes (except where contractually obligated not to). And they could point to a newer precedent that super-ceded any previous statements.
Exclusives from the Bethesda purchase make sense, now that we know they did it as a defensive measure since Sony had got exclusivity on Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo already, and was circling around Starfield. And with no other big Bethesda releases anytime soon, that would risk Bethesda essentially becoming a PS second-party. So the Bethesda purchase looks like it simply switched all future Bethesda games being PS exclusives to being Xbox/PC/Xcloud exclusives. And that's better for consumers, as Xbox/PC/Xcloud is collectively a bigger market than PS.
But despite it making sense, I think they should nonetheless release a future big Bethesda release fully multiplatform (adding in Sony and Nintendo in other words). Microsoft releases nothing fully exclusive to their platforms, as everything also gets released on Steam which is a competitor to PC Game Pass and the Microsoft Store, so every Microsoft release is at least somewhat multiplatform. And this future fully multiplatform release should be a new entrant in an existing IP. Maybe the new Elder Scrolls, or maybe the (likely in the works) new Quake?
Let's see what kind of monstrosity they cook up with ABK,
Just like Redfall with the Zenimax family haha
Why didn’t Jim Lying Ryan make this announcement about CoD ? Oh that’s right, because he just got humiliated & exposed as a lying turd of the worst order.
The way he disgraced himself, Sony doesn’t deserved CoD at all, but MS care more about $ then who currently sits at the head of Sony.
I'd be lying if I told this whole saga did not make me see Sony in a bad light. But at the end of the day, it is not what defined them in the gaming space.
I still love their content, just wish they'd show more openness to PC as I don't want to invest in a 4th medium to play games this gen.
Honestly, how would you expect them to react? Sit there and let it happen? Let MS, the 3rd biggest company in the world, just buy out one publisher after another, knowing they could never outbid them, with the potential of removing future (and even current) games from their platform stifling their revenue?
I'm glad they did something even if in the end the mega corporation won, I have the regulators to blame for that.
On the PC front, it's fine, you need to appeal to people into your economic system, Nintendo does it, Playstation does it and Xbox does it (heck, Epic and Steam do it), MS just are more happy to let things on PC because they own the OS market. :P
By engaging in good faith, I mean we know Ryan knew this was not an exclusivity play By MS. And at first they actually engaged in conversation with MS, they only shifted once they saw their argument was gaining traction with a regulatory body looking for a fight with Big-tech.
If they instead continued to talk I'm pretty sure they could have had a deal for more than just CoD, they could have Secured the next entry of Diablo and Overwatch, and secured commitment for Spyro and Crash which have been historically associated with their platform. This is also evidenced by the fact that in their bad-faith email, they asked for more than that to ensure a refusal from MS and use it as an argument with regulators.
Other than that and at the very least, I would have wanted them not to pump all those lies. They never feared MS was gonna remove CoD from PlayStation, never feared MS was gonna degrade the experience, never thought the MS proposals were in bad faith, never believe CoD was that detrimental to PS to begin with, completely lied to the regulator when stating they had solved cloud gaming latency issue and that their cloud offering provided less latency than their console itself, and that's only those a remember on-the-spot.
As for PC support, we disagree, Sony would get far more people playing their game and it'll be more lucrative this way. It'll bring also more people to their console IMO. The only reason I have an Xbox instead of just a gaming laptop is because of Gamepass Ultimate (play anywhere previously) for couch play with my wife and friends. If Sony had the same synergy with PC I'd be more interested in their console offering.
Lmao i dont even , this is likr a cult holy shit.
This is more symbolic than anything else at this point, but this is the most significant defeat the PlayStation brand has suffered since the launch of the PS3 and puts the brand in a precarious spot over the medium to long term.
The types of cinematic games Sony has staked its entire reputation on are simply not possible without the money COD gives them, and it is now controlled by their most direct competitor.
Yeah, but they still get just as much money from Call of Duty sales on their platform. In the near term, this should mean nothing to Sony.
To the degree that people start subscribing to Game Pass to get their COD fix, it is a threat to Sony's business model. And it should be, in the same way piracy and Spotify hurt record sales, and the same way Netflix hurt Blockbuster. Once someone invents a better mousetrap. we should embrace that rather than put regulatory roadblocks in front of it. Subscription services are better than buying games onesy-twosy, for most gamers, IMO.
Exactly my thought. It'll probably be a gradual amount each year, though. I wouldn't expect a flood of people doing it. But if you already have a gaming PC or an Xbox, then being able to get it as part of Game Pass could be very appealing if you're also into other games. The people that only play CoD, or only play CoD and one other game (perhaps Madden or FIFA), they may still be better off buying it.
What I think is interesting is all the people who do subscribe to Game Pass, but don't play Call of Duty. I'm one of them, but I'm likely to now check out the new CoD each year. I'm mostly a campaign guy, so I might just stream it actually.
For all the hate CoD gets, it's actually a surprisingly good product.
They have managed to release a new one every year for many years, usually with reasonably good launch day stability. And it's usually 60 frames per second, too. That's something most companies can't say. And unlike Madden, FIFA, and NBA 2K, it's pretty much a whole new game every year. And I hear that some of their campaigns are pretty good. I guess I'll find out once the older CoDs finally get added to Game Pass. :)
How so these cinematic games cost less than half a billion to make and market and tend to sell over 10 million units. They are plenty profitable. Especially when GOW and Spiderman will sell over 20 Million units.
