Microsoft argues against Sony’s claims that its Activision acquisition is anti-competitive

[Eternal_Wings]

Microsoft has spoken out against Sony‘s claims that its ongoing attempt to acquire Activision Blizzard would be anti-competitive, especially with regards to Call of Duty.











It also lists five reasons arguing against Sony’s claim that the addition of Activision Blizzard games to Game Pass would lead to an unattainable lead in subscription services for Microsoft. According to Microsoft, this claim is wrong because:

• it’s not part of Microsoft’s strategy to remove content from players, and COD will still be on PlayStation as a paid title
• data shows that players see subscription services as only one way to pay for games
• Sony’s claim ignores the “dynamic nature” of subscription services, and the fact that Sony has its own too
• (redacted information)
• there are numerous other game distribution channels and subscription services, many of which include content that isn’t available on Xbox

Microsoft also claims that arranging exclusivity deals has been at the heart of Sony’s strategy to strengthen its position in the games industry, and that as well as having its own first-party exclusives it also has exclusivity deals with third-party publishers.

VGC

Source of the shared documents

 

[Yurinka]

I agree with what MS says there. With the acquisition Sony will continue being the market leader in console hardware, software and subscriptions, the impact of CoD going exclusive (which won't, MS explained very well there why) would be almost nothing for Sony's gaming business.

And well, PS is the main CoD revenue source and once they start putting it day one on GP their platform revenue share from Xbox and PC will decrease even more. So to make it console exclusive wouldn't help MS in the consoles war and only would mean to hurt even more MS gaming profitability.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I wish we could get translations of these docs and not just someone's impression of them.

For instance MS keeps using language like they aren't "pulling content from Playstation" but that doesn't really mean "we won't be making anything COD related exclusive."

So what was the actual wording of those parts of the document here? @ethomaz my brother maybe you can help.

 

[DarkMage619]

I agree with what MS says there. With the acquisition Sony will continue being the market leader in console hardware, software and subscriptions, the impact of CoD going exclusive (which won't, MS explained very well there why) would be almost nothing for Sony's gaming business.

And well, PS is the main CoD revenue source and once they start putting it day one on GP their platform revenue share from Xbox and PC will decrease even more. So to make it console exclusive wouldn't help MS in the consoles war and only would mean to hurt even more MS gaming profitability.

Of course. So see there's nothing to worry about! This also will ensure Sony won't be able to pay to block features on CoD from Xbox gamers so it's a win for everyone. I support the acquisition.

 

[Remember_Spinal]

Hope this at least shuts up fanboys that think Microsoft is gonna pull a fast one and pull it from playstation as soon as their contract is up lol

 

[Eternal_Wings]

I wish we could get translations of these docs and not just someone's impression of them.

For instance MS keeps using language like they aren't "pulling content from Playstation" but that doesn't really mean "we won't be making anything COD related exclusive."

So what was the actual wording of those parts of the document here? @ethomaz my brother maybe you can help.

I have linked the source of the document. But it’s from another forum, not sure if I am allowed to.

 

[EDMIX]

Hope this at least shuts up fanboys that think Microsoft is gonna pull a fast one and pull it from playstation as soon as their contract is up lol

True. I don't think they'll just stop putting out COD on PS just for lolz.


I think their goal is to make a return and use that massive playerbase to make money......thats it. The days of MS making any exclusive is pretty much been done fore a long time now, the term has literally lost all meaning to MS as they don't even put out content only on XB nowdays to suggest they would ignore the PS install base with COD. I think its something they plan to make money on with MTX, DLC etc with that massive base no different then what Sony is now trying to do with Bungie.

With such heavy MP titles, it makes sense.

 

[ethomaz]

I wish we could get translations of these docs and not just someone's impression of them.

For instance MS keeps using language like they aren't "pulling content from Playstation" but that doesn't really mean "we won't be making anything COD related exclusive."

So what was the actual wording of those parts of the document here? @ethomaz my brother maybe you can help.

It is 26 pages... it will take a while to read all.

 

[IntentionalPun]

It is 26 pages... it will take a while to read all.

Honestly just trying to figure out what section they say stuff like that in, then I'd copy it into a translator or something.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Almost literal, MS says that: "In short, Sony is not resigned to having to compete with Microsoft's subscription service. Sony's public outcry on subscription games and the company's response are clear: Sony doesn't want attractive subscription services to threaten its dominance in the market for digital distribution of console games. In other words, Sony rails against the introduction of new monetization models capable of challenging its business model".

 

[ethomaz]

Honestly just trying to figure out what section they say stuff like that in, then I'd copy it into a translator or something.

The ERA take is not actually sequential with document because in the doc MS changes between General and Sony all the time... but what they says is indeed there... for exemple the segmentation by genre talk due Call of Duty starts at item 20 and goes until 37.

 

[IntentionalPun]

The ERA take is not actually sequential with document because in the doc MS changes between General and Sony all the time... but what they says is indeed there... for exemple the segmentation by genre talk due Call of Duty starts at item 20 and goes until 37.

Just curious of the specific wording because the era thread is running with the idea that MS has promised the COD "franchise" won't go exclusive at all, when all of their previous statements talked about pulling "content".. you can't pull content off of something when that content doesn't exist yet..

And that's what the bullet point in this thread says too so just curious what it actually says.

 

[ethomaz]

That makes no sense at all.
Because Sony introduced a subscription model too.

BTW that part was a direct quote from the doc.

"19. Em suma, a Sony apresenta irresignação por ter de concorrer com o serviço por assinatura da Microsoft. As manifestações públicas da Sony sobre assinatura de jogos27 e a resposta da empresa ao ofício da SG são claras: a Sony não quer que serviços por assinatura atraentes ameacem sua dominância no mercado de distribuição digital de jogos de console. Em outras palavras, a Sony se insurge contra a introdução de novos modelos de monetização capazes de desafiar seu modelo de negócios."

 

[BadBurger]

This also will ensure Sony won't be able to pay to block features on CoD from Xbox gamers so it's a win for everyone.

Sony is the problem? Why not the publishers who accept or offer this marketing deal that subsidises very expensive development costs.

 

[IntentionalPun]

That makes no sense at all.
Because Sony introduced a subscription model too.

Yeah I'd assume they are talking about day one releases, as Sony highlighted that in their complaints. That's the business model Sony said they can't afford.

 

[ethomaz]

Some market share % data.

First table is % range of digital gaming distribution revenue.
Second table is % range of multiplayer service subscription revenue.

There are data from sales from all CoD but it is restricted

 

[ethomaz]

Yeah I'd assume they are talking about day one releases, as Sony highlighted that in their complaints. That's the business model Sony said they can't afford.

That is another part...

"De fato, em entrevista com website Games Industry Biz, Jim Ryan, CEO da Sony, revelou a estratégia da companhia de não incluir novos títulos no PlayStation Plus no dia do lançamento dos jogos, o que claramente expõe a resistência a um modelo de negócios que ameaça a estratégia device-centric até então adotada pela Sony:"

They use that Sony claim as an argument that Sony is in resistance to a new model of business (subscription services) that can threaten their actual business model based in device-centric.

But hey Sony is doing the subscription model too... that feels contradictory to me.,,, how Sony is in resistance to a new mode if they are investing in that new model? If Sony thinks subscription models can threaten their console model why are they doing it?

Just curious of the specific wording because the era thread is running with the idea that MS has promised the COD "franchise" won't go exclusive at all, when all of their previous statements talked about pulling "content".. you can't pull content off of something when that content doesn't exist yet..

And that's what the bullet point in this thread says too so just curious what it actually says.

That is talked in 39 to 56.
Sony claims the possibility of MS removing games like CoD or others Activision/Blizzard from PlayStation.
MS says it is baseless assumption due 5 reasons if you want to translate (not the fully explanation but the key paragraph):

Primeiramente: não é parte da estratégia da Microsoft retirar conteúdo dos jogadores. Pelo contrário, a Microsoft declarou publicamente “o seu desejo de manter o Call of Duty no PlayStation [da Sony]”, bem como a intenção de “continuar disponibilizando o Call of Duty e outros títulos populares da Activision Blizzard no PlayStation [da Sony]” com o compromisso de fazê-lo “para além dos acordos contratuais existentes”.

Segundo, como informado no Formulário de Notificação e confirmado pelo teste de mercado, os jogadores veem serviços por assinatura como uma das várias maneiras pelas quais se pode pagar por jogos. Isso foi confirmado pela própria Sony: “[a] SIE acredita que os serviços de assinatura competem com os jogos adquiridos por uma taxa única (“buy-toplay”). [...] Os jogos são substancialmente os mesmos, não importando se o consumidor realizou um pagamento único ou se acessou os títulos por meio de um serviço de assinatura..”

Terceiro, a insinuação da Sony de que o Game Pass poderia conquistar liderança inalcançável no espaço de serviços por assinatura não só é inconsistente com a definição de mercado que a própria Sony defendeu (como mencionado no parágrafo 42 acima), como também ignora (i) a característica dinâmica desses serviços e (ii) a presença relevante da própria Sony nesse espaço.

Em quarto lugar, [ACESSO RESTRITO].

Em quinto lugar, considerando a existência de forte concorrência a montante, os canais rivais de distribuição de jogos, incluindo lojas de consoles e serviços por assinatura, têm acesso a uma ampla gama de títulos além dos jogos da Activision Blizzard, incluindo conteúdo exclusivo NÃO disponível a consumidores da Microsoft.

So yeap MS repeat the compromisse to support CoD and others Activision Blizzard games on PlayStation "even after existing contractual arrangements".

 

[IntentionalPun]

So yeap MS repeat the compromisse to support CoD and others Activision Blizzard games on PlayStation "even after existing contractual arrangements".

Those agreements bar them from de-listing existing games. In a literal sense all they are saying is they won't break that contract. And they also are promising to not de-list games AFTER that contract blocks them.

Gotta look at these things through a specific lens.. the wording is super important as from a legal perspective that' what matters.. not what people think they said, but what they said.

 

[IntentionalPun]

For the record I do think it's possible that MS won't make anything COD fully exclusive.. just wouldn't trust their "promises" beyond a literal reading of the words.. and you should apply those words to a minimum possible act that makes them compliant with the promise.

They can make literally every COD exclusive and not de-list ones that exist or are on contract to exist and they have fulfilled any "promise" made really.

 

[ethomaz]

Those agreements bar them from de-listing existing games. In a literal sense all they are saying is they won't break that contract. And they also are promising to not de-list games AFTER that contract blocks them.

Gotta look at these things through a specific lens.. the wording is super important as from a legal perspective that' what matters.. not what people think they said, but what they said.

Yeap there are holes to the claim.
This claim btw won't matter in anything legal... at max will make some fans remember as a broken promise if they go against it.