I'm telling you right now, if Sony puts COD Day 1 on PS+...that's going to begin the end of PlayStation. You don't put the biggest 3P release of the year on your service Day 1, and then expect your customer base to NOT expect more big AAA Day 1 releases into that same service?
If I'm a PS+ subscriber, and I'm getting the new COD Day 1 in the service, and I see Sony releasing Ghosts 2 for $70...I'm genuinely going to ask myself "Hey Sony? Why isn't Ghosts 2 in PS+ Day 1? COD is!". And a LOT of other people are going to start asking that question.
It's going to lead to less Day 1 sales, meaning prices are going to drop quickly, meaning sales revenue is going to take a steep decline, meaning Sony at that point has to HOPE they can pull in enough revenue from PS+ subs to make up for missed direct sales revenue, but there's a very high probably they will not. Especially if that same scenario plays out with other games, forcing them to bite the bullet and then put all 1P games into PS+ Day 1.
I know some of you are under this impression that if Sony in fact did Day 1 for all games in PS+, they'd get a giant spike in subscribers. And they don't have the problem of loopholes the way Microsoft does, that is true. But let's use GOW Ragnarok as an example. Let's say it reaches 15 million by the end of this FY. 80% PS5 version. No sales or discounts. That's $1.02 billion in revenue.
Me and @Heisenberg007 ran some numbers for services revenue a few weeks ago, cribbing from a few sources. From that, PS+ has made ~ $2.4 billion in revenue for the FY 2022 so far, off of 46.625 million subscribers. For PS+ to work for a GOW Ragnarok, you'd have to factor in at least 75% of the total revenue as additional services revenue; you can't count on how many non-collectors are out there willing to still buy a physical Jontar Edition, for example, so you'd want to cover your bases. That means PS+ would need $3.165 billion in revenue to make the approach of simply GOW Ragnarok Day 1 work. In other words, it'd need 61.482 million subscribers (ARPU averaged out to $51.49) to make it work.
Do you honestly think PS+ would see a 15 million jump in subscribers in a year? Is it theoretically possible? Yes. Realistic? Absolutely not. And then keep in mind, for every additional 1P Day 1 game added, you would need the service to make an additional amount in revenue equivalent to let's say ~ 70% - 75% of that game's peak direct sales revenue rate (the majority of copies sold at full or near-full price), but for some games it would need to account for more (because those may not be the sort of games that have a big enough audience willing to buy physical anyway for Collector's Editions or something like that).
All of that additional required services revenue starts to add up for a company like Sony, where games revenue is actually one of their main pillars for revenue. That is simply NOT the case for Microsoft and gaming profits mean even less to them. That's precisely why they can have a service like Game Pass pull in as little revenue as it does and keep it going no problem, why they can afford to drop all their games Day 1 into the service no problem. Why they are even entertaining the thought of Day 1 COD into the service if they end up acquiring ABK. This stuff means nothing for Microsoft because gaming revenue and profits are never enough to where they leave anything significant on the table, because their actual main pillars (Windows, Office, Azure) generate at least 90% of their actual revenue and more than 90% of their total net profits.
I remember @KiryuRealty saying that the CMA's COD divestiture is a poison pill for the ABK deal. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. But I'll say, Microsoft's offer to Sony for COD in PS+ is its own poison pill to kick off destabilization of PlayStation revenue and profits. Because I'm sure Microsoft are aware of the expectations COD Day 1 in PS+ will paint among Sony's customers; expectations to want more big AAA games Day 1 and, the possibility of other 3P publishers being able to provide that for Sony being less likely, meaning Sony would have to "lead by example" with their own 1P AAA games.
Which can easily trigger revenue and profit bleed for the PlayStation subsidiary. Reducing Sony's ability to negotiate offers with 3P publishers, due to reduced revenue and sales of 1P releases (which could normally act as credentials of accomplishments for others to reference, marks of proven success beyond just the company's own internal data). Why would those 3P publishers, who still rely on direct sales revenue, feel as comfortable with a platform holder pushing all of their 1P content in their own subscription service to compete with yet another platform holder doing the exact same, driven into that competition state because they were forced to not let their competitor use the biggest 3P game against them?
All of that creates a series of feedback loops that would eventually cause Sony to severely damage the sovereignty of the PlayStation brand and its ability to be self-sufficient in pulling its own weight, when it comes to revenue and profit. Therefore either forcing significant structural changes, or a shuttering of the subsidiary. I think both Microsoft and Sony know this is a probable scenario that can be triggered through offering something as big as COD in PS+ Day 1. I mean sure, Sony could throw COD in PS+ Day 1, and not bring any of their own 1P AAA games into the service, or make deals for other big 3P AAA games into the service Day 1, but then they run the risk of losing COD revenue, not seeing an increase in PS+ subs or service revenue, and some portion of COD players who might've bought the game and other games switch from that to playing COD in PS+ and being content with PS+ offerings over buying other games. That is a best-case scenario, BTW, and would still see some perceptible reduction in spend.
Also even in that best-case scenario for Sony, they still lose something beyond simply negotiating marketing rights for COD, so ultimately it weakens them and that is to Microsoft's benefit. That's why they made the PS+ offer; it betrays their intent in leveraging COD against Sony and no matter Sony's choice, they lose. They can refuse not to put the game in PS+ and risk a chunk of players preferring Xbox and Game Pass for their COD fix going forward, OR they can put it in PS+ and risk training further such expectations for big PS+ AAA releases from their customer base, leading to Sony maybe needing to offer their own AAA games Day 1 and hoping they can make enough additional revenue through the service to make up for loss of direct sales revenue. That path also has the effect of validating Microsoft's strategy at least in terms of optics/perception, because the reality is that Sony would likely be losing a lot of revenue with that option, similar to how Game Pass revenue is nowhere near enough to make up for the losses of direct sales revenue MS 1P AAA games have due to being Day 1 there.
But like I said earlier, for MS games revenue and profit are non-important. For Sony, they are a core pillar of their financial health. MS know this and the COD for PS+ offer is to partially force Sony into undermining their own financial stability in gaming. That's why it can be argued as its own poison pill.
