Microsoft Says Sony Can Build A Call Of Duty Competitor

Microsoft Says Sony Can Build A Call Of Duty Competitor

As the investigations into the Microsoft purchase of Activision Blizzard continue, Microsoft is doubling down on its reasonings for acquiring the publisher. In its latest response to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), Microsoft says that if Sony is worried about competition, it can develop its own Call of Duty competitor.

Since the beginning of the investigation from regulators, Microsoft has said that it will continue to release Call of Duty titles on PlayStation platforms. It has even offered Sony a 10-year deal similar to those signed by Nvidia and Nintendo in recent months. The agreement would include full content and feature parity on all platforms.

However, Sony hasn’t signed and continues to fight with claims that after seeing what Microsoft did with Bethesda titles, it will do the same with Activision Blizzard games. And now, in the new document, Microsoft says that Sony can create an alternative.

What Microsoft Is Saying About Call Of Duty and Sony

“At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient
and whether there would be a “cliff edge” for Sony at the end of this period,” the document reads. “Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to [Call of Duty].

“The 10-year term will extend into the next console generation [redacted]. Moreover, the practical
effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).”

Microsoft wrapped up its argument on the time frame by saying they don’t feel a need to have an agreement longer than a decade at a time.

“While Microsoft is prepared to continue to discuss this constructively with the CMA, there is no basis for extending the remedy beyond the period proposed by Microsoft,” the company said.

The ruling from the CMA on the acquisition attempt is due by April 26.

What do you think of Microsoft saying Sony can just develop its own Call of Duty alternative?

UPDATE: Originally it was mentioned that CMA was set to rule by May 22. That was incorrect, and the correct date has been added.

Want more Insider Gaming? Check out the latest episode of The Indie Initiative featuring Tchai game director Phil Crifo.

  1. Just a heads up, the CMA deadline for the Activision blizzard acquisition ruling is April 26. The May 22 deadline is for the EU, not the CMA as the article suggests.

  2. Sonys hypocrisy is astounding. They demand parity when they didn’t afford parity to Xbox. And they aren’t the ones paying 70billion so why should their demands be met. These regulators are communistic institutions to require the guy paying 70 billion to help their competition who’s Sony paying a cent and btw is the leader in the industry by a long shot. Makes no logical sense..but then again what leftist ideology does

    1. It’s so companies like Microsoft don’t kill off their competition by just buying up all suppliers and force competition out that way instead of actually of creating a product of value and letting consumers decide where they’d rather spend their money.

      And it’s hilarious that MS is saying can just create a COD competitor, as if they themselves and any other dev/publisher hasn’t tried that. It’s been at a level that simply can’t be competed with for some time now, even with declining quality in recent titles. Their whole reasoning for this acquisition is BS too. Gaining a foothold in mobile gaming is a joke. Why spend $70 billion when they could spend a fraction of that and assign one of their many studios to develop mobile games then? Because their intention is to buy up as many studios and developers they’ll be allowed to and create ‘value’ in Xbox with Game Pass, which is not sustainable long term. All these studios have to be paid up front for their games to debut on Game Pass. It’s already in documents that after a certain level, Game Pass is cannibalizing profits. They will not stick to it as it is now if they knock Sony out of the picture, which is what they’re trying to do with all these acquisitions. 22 years in the gaming industry and they’ve failed to create a library and franchises outside of Halo, Gears, and Forza for gamers to really have a significant reason to want an Xbox.

      Let’s also not forget that Bungie used to be owned by them and they broke away because they wanted to do more than just Halo. MS wanted them exclusive and only on Halo. Sony said you can make what you want and put it on any platform. Bungie took Sony’s deal because it meant creative freedom and less burn out.

      Once these deals MS has to make in order to appease regulators to acquire ABK are done, all those titles will be exclusive to MS platforms. Guaranteed. They said they wouldn’t make Bethesda games exclusive as there was no incentive, yet as soon as the deal was approved, suddenly they go back on their word. But sure, keep putting your trust in a company that has proven time and time again to never keep their word, has already had to change business practices due to an antitrust lawsuit, and has used money to maintain their position in their industries over putting out a quality product that people depend on. Their whole MO is limiting options and making them the only consumer choice.

    2. Its not about whatever bs political ideology u think. its abt the people that have been playing COD for the entire lifetime of the franchise to suddenly not being able to play it anymore on their prefered console. microsoft is unfairly leveraging sony out of a market that was originally cross platform, to take that away would be considered monopolizing that that product. If microsoft wants to create a brand new exclusively xbox COD competitor thats fine, but u cant force half a titles audience to switch over EVER period bc it will always be considered a monopoly on that franchise.

    3. Umm you dumb? Sony makes money as the second highest earner for Activision they’d be morons for settling on a 70billion contract because xbox dosent even make 10% for Activision so they’d flop within months because the Sony market is and always will be substantially higher than xbox/Microsoft ever will be that said it’s not leftist retard it’s the people speakin out saying that Microsoft will destroy a solid company because Sony will only get buggy versions of cod forcing all players to boycott because there being dogs about it!!

    4. They don’t want Xbox to pay $70 billion either. It’s not hypocrisy. PlayStation doesn’t want to accept a deal Xbox payed $70 billion for. PlayStation doesn’t want Xbox to have Call of Duty at all. No hypocrisy

  3. Look what happened to Sony after Microsoft went crying to Major League Baseball (MLB). Microsoft was ecstatic about taking a major PlayStation exclusive developed by one of Sony’s own studios. Microsoft could’ve, and if Phil Spencer was really an upstanding guy, told Major League Baseball that’s dirty pool, that Xbox wouldn’t like it if that were done to them and they weren’t going to accept The Show MLB developed by PlayStation and on PlayStation’s budget. Microsoft isn’t paying for the development of the game.

    But here’s the measure of Microsoft’s resolve to “play fair”. Microsoft even took the game and rubbed it in PlayStation’s face by making it free on Game Pass. Microsoft doesn’t compensate PlayStation for ANY of that. They get a game:

    1) Developed by a top PlayStation Studios developer because Sony actually take care of build strong relationships EVEN with their own.

    2) They didn’t have to pay a cent for and is entirely on SONYs dime.

    3) They benefit from the money they get from Game Pass Subscriptions under the guise of helping to establish a brand!?! PlayStation doesn’t need publicity. They’re outdoing Xbox in every department in the exclusive arena. Xbox treats their developers bad by GIVING their games away. And Sony isn’t going to give the game away on Plus, they’re smart because they know in order to make quality games, you need the capital. Xbox gamers didn’t stick their nose up at it, they jumped on it. Xbox wanted the RBI route, so there still could’ve been a baseball game on Xbox without strongarming PlayStation and breaking the rules.

    That’s the measure of Microsoft’s resolve. Phil Spencer couldve been a good sport and told MLB: “Nah, man. That’s now how we do things.” But give a desperate kid that’s starving enough the opportunity, and Phil snapped it right back up.

    Could Xbox have offered PlayStation the original trilogy, maybe remastered by BluePoint for PlayStation, on a trilogy they’re making no money now on anyway as a gratuity (namely Gears of War 1-3) to be cleaned up by BluePoint? They sure could have, but they didn’t. Phil took his bag of money and ran.

    Xbox pulled cheap moves, Sony can play the same game, and now they are. Take our exclusives from us:

    “Xbox doesn’t need MLB The Show series, they can develop their own competitor.” But no, they took what their grubby little fingers could get as soon as they could. I have no empathy for Xbox. Play stupid games, earn stupid prizes. You’ve earned this Xbox, it’s an ancient Japanese belief called karma.

Comments are closed.