Support NeoGAF

[Three]

Game Pass cannot foreclose services available on platforms that do not offer Game Pass

So they argue that they want gamepass on those devices so they have access to the IPs then argue that they can't cause harm because it's not on those devices? What?
Isn't that just making it worse for the platform?

 

[R3claimer117]

Microsoft should just add their games to PlayStation Plus then. Why does it have to be gamepass?

They already have first party games on PlayStation plus. Also they’re not spending 70 billion to not have any competitive advantage that would be stupid. Offering call of duty retail with content parity is more then enough. Then they’ll have it in game pass now it’s up to the players pay 70 and play it on PlayStation or subscribe to game pass and play it there for free.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft should just add their games to PlayStation Plus then. Why does it have to be gamepass?

Because 1st party games drop on gamepass. And would need native drop on PS, if the game isn't there.

But the main difference with ps+, is that you keep the game forever. With how many ps+ users are on the service, MS would lose tons of money from potential sales.

 

[feynoob]

So they argue that they want gamepass on those devices so they have access to the IPs then argue that they can't cause harm because it's not on those devices? What?
Isn't that just making it worse for the platform?

They are talking about ps+ on PS. Because gamepass isn't there, it doesn't cause the service any harm. Just like how ps+ doesn't cause harm to gamepass, because it's not on xbox.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Because 1st party games drop on gamepass. And would need native drop on PS, if the game isn't there.

But the main difference with ps+, is that you keep the game forever. With how many ps+ users are on the service, MS would lose tons of money from potential sales.

Not with PS+ extra I believe. Plus games can rotate out of PS + extra. It certainly isn't the same as the monthly games that PS + essential gives you.

 

[feynoob]

Not with PS+ extra I believe. Plus games can rotate out of PS + extra. It certainly isn't the same as the monthly games that PS + essential gives you.

Skyrim and deathloop are currently there. So MS have some of their 1st party games on that service.

 

[Three]

They are talking about ps+ on PS. Because gamepass isn't there, it doesn't cause the service any harm. Just like how ps+ doesn't cause harm to gamepass, because it's not on xbox.

They are arguing that Gamepass cannot harm PS+ because gamepass isn’t available on PS while simultaneously suggesting that they can allow gamepass to have access to those IPS.

"Other console providers would have the option to do the same and allow gamers using their consoles to access Game Pass through the console browser. In that scenario, gamers would be able to access content which is exclusive to Game Pass without the need to purchase a new Xbox console."

" Any hypothetical foreclosure concerns could relate only to Xbox, as Game Pass is not available on PlayStation or Nintendo. It is therefore simply wrong to postulate that Game Pass could foreclose other subscription services when these are available on platforms that are more than double the size of Xbox's user base."


They are saying allow gamepass to have access to the exclusives but don't allow gamepass to not run the risk of foreclosure due to gamepass.

 

[onesvenus]

They are arguing that Gamepass cannot harm PS+ because gamepass isn’t available on PS while simultaneously suggesting that they can allow gamepass to have access to those IPS.

"Other console providers would have the option to do the same and allow gamers using their consoles to access Game Pass through the console browser. In that scenario, gamers would be able to access content which is exclusive to Game Pass without the need to purchase a new Xbox console."

" Any hypothetical foreclosure concerns could relate only to Xbox, as Game Pass is not available on PlayStation or Nintendo. It is therefore simply wrong to postulate that Game Pass could foreclose other subscription services when these are available on platforms that are more than double the size of Xbox's user base."


They are saying allow gamepass to have access to the exclusives but don't allow gamepass to not run the risk of foreclosure due to gamepass.

Let's see if this makes sense to you
A is "PS could provide access to Gamepass"
B is "Gamepass can't harm competing services if they don't compete"

If A does not happen, B cannot happen but more importantly, A does not depend on Microsoft. Why should the risk of B happening be contemplated when A is obviously not happening?

All publishers could also decide to release on Gamepass and not on PS+, why do you think that's not an hypothesis worth considering? Because there's no indication that will happen

 

[MasterCornholio]

Skyrim and deathloop are currently there. So MS have some of their 1st party games on that service.

I don't believe Microsoft owned Bethesda when those games were made. When they bought Bethesda they said they would honor all previous agreements.

 

[feynoob]

They are arguing that Gamepass cannot harm PS+ because gamepass isn’t available on PS while simultaneously suggesting that they can allow gamepass to have access to those IPS.

"Other console providers would have the option to do the same and allow gamers using their consoles to access Game Pass through the console browser. In that scenario, gamers would be able to access content which is exclusive to Game Pass without the need to purchase a new Xbox console."

" Any hypothetical foreclosure concerns could relate only to Xbox, as Game Pass is not available on PlayStation or Nintendo. It is therefore simply wrong to postulate that Game Pass could foreclose other subscription services when these are available on platforms that are more than double the size of Xbox's user base."


They are saying allow gamepass to have access to the exclusives but don't allow gamepass to not run the risk of foreclosure due to gamepass.

Gamepass with these new IPs would harm PS+, if it exist on PS. And since it doesn't exist on PS, there is no harm. So gamepass having exclusive doesn't affect that service. PS users won't sub to gamepass, because of that.

It's very confusing thing. But that is the general thing about this.

 

[feynoob]

I don't believe Microsoft owned Bethesda when those games were made. When they bought Bethesda they said they would honor all previous agreements.

Both of those games come to the service, when MS owned Activision. Regardless of whether MS made those games or not.
Sony would have to negotiate with Bethesda and MS to get those games.

The honor part was the 2 timed exclusive games, and not removing existing games from PS. It doesn't talk about putting games on PS+ extra.

Remember, ps+ extra was after the acquisition, and those games were dropped these past month.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Both of those games come to the service, when MS owned Activision. Regardless of whether MS made those games or not.
Sony would have to negotiate with Bethesda and MS to get those games.

The honor part was the 2 timed exclusive games, and not removing existing games from PS. It doesn't talk about putting games on PS+ extra.

Remember, ps+ extra was after the acquisition, and those games were dropped these past month.

Not unless their previous agreements contain clauses that allow that to happen. I can definitely see that being the case with Death Loop.

 

[Three]

Let's see if this makes sense to you
A is "PS could provide access to Gamepass"
B is "Gamepass can't harm competing services if they don't compete"

If A does not happen, B cannot happen but more importantly, A does not depend on Microsoft. Why should the risk of B happening be contemplated when A is obviously not happening?

All publishers could also decide to release on Gamepass and not on PS+, why do you think that's not an hypothesis worth considering? Because there's no indication that will happen

Why do you think A is being suggested in the first place? Their argument with A was a hollow idea that they could allow A to gain access to the games. They then suggest B as a protection mechanism against foreclosure. Thereby showing why A would be a ridiculous idea that they shouldn't implement by their own admission.

 

[jumpship]

I'm sorry, my post were pretty poor and was actually ashamed of the comment so I decided I wanted to add context to it.

It’s okay, no worries. Just trying to understand why it’s such a common opinion among Xbox fans in the thread.

But simply, because Sony owns them now.
Given how angry Sony are money hatting everything, and become furious over the acquisition, I just don't see why Sony would keep destiny 3 or whatever Bungie releases being released on Xbox.

I completely understand this opinion. Sony are predictably strongly opposed to the acquisition putting forward their own arguments against it.

But it’s a completely separate business issue (a very public one) and for the company lawyers to handle.

You’re anticipating direct repercussions from Sony to affect the business agreements already made with Bungie.

Even forgetting the stated reasons for purchase being mainly for Gaas expertise and experience.

On an executive level I can’t see Jim Ryan calling the head of Bungie saying ‘I’ve had it with MS, remember I said you’ll stay independent, well about that, we’re taking control now. See those Xbox dev kits over there, chuck them in the bin. It’s no longer supported.’

I just don’t see Sony cutting off their nose to spite their face and lose millions in revenue over this.

 

[feynoob]

Not unless their previous agreements contain clauses that allow that to happen. I can definitely see that being the case with Death Loop.

Nope, that won't be the case.
Sony would need to negotiate for that again.
Bethesda purchase was completed in 2021, and deathloop contractual agreement was fulfilled during that period (gamepass never saw the game during that period).

 

[Three]

Gamepass with these new IPs would harm PS+, if it exist on PS. And since it doesn't exist on PS, there is no harm. So gamepass having exclusive doesn't affect that service. PS users won't sub to gamepass, because of that.

It's very confusing thing. But that is the general thing about this.

Yes I understand their second point but it contradicts their first point. what do you think is the purpose of this point by MS:

"Sony and Nintendo could allow access to Gamepass via browser but they don't want to (page 68)

Gamers can access content via the web browser on their console – if their console provider allows them to: Microsoft allows other content services to be accessed on Xbox consoles via the web browser on the console (e.g., Luna, GeForce Now and Stadia can be accessed via Xbox consoles). Other console providers would have the option to do the same and allow gamers using their consoles to access Game Pass through the console browser. In that scenario, gamers would be able to access content which is exclusive to Game Pass without the need to purchase a new Xbox console. From a technical perspective, a gamer on any platform can access Game Pass, as long as the platform supports a modern implementation of a chromium-based browser and does not block the site. Game Pass is available via the browsers on increasing range of other devices, including Valve's Steam Deck, Razer and Logitech handheld gaming devices, the Meta Quest platform, new Samsung smart TVs, and Google Chromebooks. Sony and Nintendo do not currently allow gamers on their platforms to access Game Pass or other gaming services via the browsers on their consoles – but could easily do so."


Their idea is that other console devices can compete by allowing gamepass to gain access to that so called irreplaceable content. Then in the second point say why this isn't a good idea for their competitors multigame subscription services. They are admitting that either your console must suffer by not allowing gamepass or your multigame subscription by allowing it.

 

[onesvenus]

Why do you think A is being suggested in the first place? Their argument with A was a hollow idea that they could allow A to gain access to the games. They then suggest B as a protection mechanism against foreclosure. Thereby showing why A would be a ridiculous idea that they shouldn't implement by their own admission.

Isn't it true that with A happening, Sony would have access to the games?
Isn't it true that with A not hapenning there's no way of B?
You are using two arguments that are both true on it's own and twisting them to match your point of view.
What matters is that since A is not happening, B can't happen. You cannot judge an argument based on what might happen when you know that's not a real possibility

 

[feynoob]

Yes I understand their second point but it contradicts their first point. what do you think is the purpose of this point by MS:

"Sony and Nintendo could allow access to Gamepass via browser but they don't want to (page 68)

Gamers can access content via the web browser on their console – if their console provider allows them to: Microsoft allows other content services to be accessed on Xbox consoles via the web browser on the console (e.g., Luna, GeForce Now and Stadia can be accessed via Xbox consoles). Other console providers would have the option to do the same and allow gamers using their consoles to access Game Pass through the console browser. In that scenario, gamers would be able to access content which is exclusive to Game Pass without the need to purchase a new Xbox console. From a technical perspective, a gamer on any platform can access Game Pass, as long as the platform supports a modern implementation of a chromium-based browser and does not block the site. Game Pass is available via the browsers on increasing range of other devices, including Valve's Steam Deck, Razer and Logitech handheld gaming devices, the Meta Quest platform, new Samsung smart TVs, and Google Chromebooks. Sony and Nintendo do not currently allow gamers on their platforms to access Game Pass or other gaming services via the browsers on their consoles – but could easily do so."


Their idea is that other console devices can compete by allowing gamepass to gain access to that so called irreplaceable content. Then in the second point say why this isn't a good idea for their competitors multigame subscription services. They are admitting that either your console must suffer by not allowing gamepass or your multigame subscription by allowing it.

MS isnt putting gamepass there. Xcloud/gamepass is already working through browser.
If those platforms want gamepass, all they need to do is allow chrome on their service. MS has no issues them doing that. Like how they allow Luna and geforce on their service.

The decision here is left for Sony and Nintendo.

In simple term. Xcloud won't need a native version on their consoles, as it can be played anywhere through browser. It also won't disrupt their business, because consumers are playing through browser, and not a native app, which exist on PS and Nintendo. Like how Apple is allowing xcloud on iPhones and IPads.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

What's weird is you and others acting as if your blatantly hypocritical view of the two companies buying game development studios has anything at all to do with logic and reasoning rather than just pure console wars.

Some people just enjoy it when their favorite company does the buying. But this thread isn't going anywhere so I'll be back May/June next year.

Buying no-name studios with no IPs is the same as buying mega publishers with big IPs and guaranteed millions sellers with no risk or work at all?

Please ask for a ban so we don't have to read your deranged filth anymore.

 

[adamsapple]

Buying no-name studios with no IPs is the same as buying mega publishers with big IPs and guaranteed millions sellers with no risk or work at all?

Please ask for a ban so we don't have to read your deranged filth anymore.

Bungie, Bluepoint, Nixxess, Housemarque are no named studios confirmed.

 

[M16]

What you're trying to suggest here doesn't have any significance to the acquisition.

ATVI has zero loyalty and the working relationship meant nothing to ATVI when sales of COD started to go south on the XBOX platform. I'm sure you remember the rumours of ATVI looking to get out of their marketing arrangements with XBOX a couple of years before they were able to. The moment they could sign with PS, they did.

They came out with PR calling PS "The New Home" of Call Of Duty. Loyalty to XBOX and their long standing relationship went out of the proverbial window when the player base/ regions became lopsided in favour of PS. ATVI is only loyal to their share price. Which is why Microsoft paying $95 per share ($25 above asking) means they're willing to switch again. Despite breaking franchise records on PS and calling that platform "home."

microsoft ended the marketing agreement, not activision.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Buying no-name studios with no IPs is the same as buying mega publishers with big IPs and guaranteed millions sellers with no risk or work at all?

Please ask for a ban so we don't have to read your deranged filth anymore.

Live from Halo Reach.

You know you can always ban him yourself with the ignore function.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Bungie, Bluepoint, Nixxess, Housemarque are no named studios confirmed.

Your acting like they are huge multiplatform publishers. Anyways there's a reason why the acquisitions went through without any issues.

 

[adamsapple]

Your acting like they are huge multiplatform publishers. Anyways there's a reason why the acquisitions went through without any issues.

Don't blame me, it's one of the biggest Sony fans on this forum who called those talented studios "no named".

 

[MasterCornholio]

Don't blame me, it's one of the biggest Sony fans on this forum who called those talented studios "no named".

Well I mean they do have names. Not sure what your point is.

 

[adamsapple]

Well I mean they do have names. Not sure what your point is.

Maybe read the post I quoted first. That should give you the context you need.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Maybe read the post I quoted first. That should give you the context you need.

Yes I did.

Bungie, Bluepoint, Nixxess, Housemarque are no named studios confirmed.

None of those studios produce huge selling IPs like COD nor do all of them combined equal the size of Activision. As for being no named if your talking about how famous they are Bungie would be the only ones that people would really know about.

Nixxes is a PC port studio and Bluepoint is just known for their remakes. As for Housemarque well we all know how Returnal performed.

What I will agree with yoy on is that Ghost shouldn't be demanding perms. If he doesn't like what another poster says he can just use the ignore function. Which is what I did with the Sage guy.

 

[The_Mike]

Your acting like they are huge multiplatform publishers. Anyways there's a reason why the acquisitions went through without any issues.

People in here are laughing at Microsoft and Sony, but fanboys are exactly like this mess in here.

Before Sony acquisition,no one cared about destiny 2 in here.

After acquisition, then destiny 2 became bigger than call of duty and Sony had no reason to fear call of duty

Now that Microsoft are trying to buy Acti Blizzard, then Bungie is suddenly a small indie company making multi platform games.

Buying no-name studios with no IPs is the same as buying mega publishers with big IPs and guaranteed millions sellers with no risk or work at all?

Please ask for a ban so we don't have to read your deranged filth anymore.

Bungie no name studio lol.

Pretty bold to make someone else ask for a ban when you're among the biggest fanboys probably being on lots of people's ignore list.

Gotta admit I only saw yours cus I had to see what my man adamsapple were up against.

 

[kungfuian]

https://gagadget.com/en/games/19077...-kotick-and-phil-spencer-of-collusion-and-ha/

Government owed Swedish Company (partial Activision Owner) suing over the deal claims collusion between Kotick/the Activision board and Microsoft

Where there's smoke...

Quote from article
"Microsoft deliberately used the harassment scandal and its commercial advantage over Activision to offer Kotick a way to save his own skin. The corporation colluded with Kotick and the board to help them avoid the personal and professional consequences of this scandal"

 

[MasterCornholio]

People in here are laughing at Microsoft and Sony, but fanboys are exactly like this mess in here.

Before Sony acquisition,no one cared about destiny 2 in here.

After acquisition, then destiny 2 became bigger than call of duty and Sony had no reason to fear call of duty

Now that Microsoft are trying to buy Acti Blizzard, then Bungie is suddenly a small indie company making multi platform games.


Bungie no name studio lol.

Pretty bold to make someone else ask for a ban when you're among the biggest fanboys probably being on lots of people's ignore list.

Gotta admit I only saw yours cus I had to see what my man adamsapple were up against.

Destiny 2 is still smaller than COD. Also Sony made it pretty clear they would make multiplatforn games with Bungie.

Bungie is really small when compared to Activision and it's even smaller than Zenimax. While it's the biggest acquisition that Sony made it really doesn't compare to Activision. Hopefully you can see the gap between the two.

 

[The_Mike]

Destiny 2 is still smaller than COD. Also Sony made it pretty clear they would make multiplatforn games with Bungie.

Bungie is really small when compared to Activision and it's even smaller than Zenimax. While it's the biggest acquisition that Sony made it really doesn't compare to Activision. Hopefully you can see the gap between the two.

I ain't talking about the sizes of the acquisition, but solely people's opinions in here and how they change as this acquisition does.

 

[feynoob]

https://gagadget.com/en/games/19077...-kotick-and-phil-spencer-of-collusion-and-ha/

Government owed Swedish Company (partial Activision Owner) suing over the deal claims collusion between Kotick/the Activision board and Microsoft

Where there's smoke...

It's part of ongoing lawsuit in the US.
Majority of shareholders already approved this deal. So this won't make a dent.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I ain't talking about the sizes of the acquisition, but solely people's opinions in here and how they change as this acquisition does.

Well it's a 70 billion dollar acquisition. Why do you believe it isnt worth talking about? It pretty much dwarfs everything else that came before it.

Plus they own COD which is a huge franchise.

 

[feynoob]

kungfuian

More Activision Blizzard stockholders sue over Microsoft sale

Shareholders bring suit against Activision Blizzard and its board of directors

www.google.com

 

[The_Mike]

Well it's a 70 billion dollar acquisition. Why do you believe it isnt worth talking about? It pretty much dwarfs everything else that came before it.

Plus they own COD which is a huge franchise.

I think you misunderstood my post.

Try reading it again

 

[MasterCornholio]

I think you misunderstood my post.

Try reading it again

I still see why people wouldn't react to this. You keep mentioning how Activision is a much larger acquisition and then complaining about people's reactions to Bungie. This is both situations are pretty different especially with what Sony did to Bungie.

 

[The_Mike]

I still see why people wouldn't react to this. You keep mentioning how Activision is a much larger acquisition and then complaining about people's reactions to Bungie. This is both situations are pretty different especially with what Sony did to Bungie.

What I find laughable, are people who call Bungie a small indie multiplatforn company.

I ain't saying they are near as big as Activision, because they aren't. But they aren't a small multiplatform publisher either.

I find it funny how some people in here said they didn't understand why Sony made a big fuzz over this because now they have destiny 2 which is bigger and better than call of duty.

And now people like the other dude calls Bungie for a indie dev because they aren't nearly as big as Activision.

Are there any as big as Activision, besides maybe Microsoft Sony and EA? That's the only I can imagine being as big, so comparing to this makes 98 percent of all companies look like indie companies.

 

[MasterCornholio]

What I find laughable, are people who call Bungie a small indie multiplatforn company.

I ain't saying they are near as big as Activision, because they aren't. But they aren't a small multiplatform publisher either.

I find it funny how some people in here said they didn't understand why Sony made a big fuzz over this because now they have destiny 2 which is bigger and better than call of duty.

And now people like the other dude calls Bungie for a indie dev because they aren't nearly as big as Activision.

Are there any as big as Activision, besides maybe Microsoft Sony and EA? That's the only I can imagine being as big, so comparing to this makes 98 percent of all companies look like indie companies.

Well they are a lot smaller plus Sony had go make concessions with them. If they had to do that with Bungie I'm not surprised that a 70 billion dollar company is a much bigger deal.

As for Destiny 2 being bigger than CoD I'm not sure if that's true. As for being better there are many that argue that subjective.

But you really can't compare CoD to Destiny since they are very different. To say that Destiny 2 is a substitute for CoD isn't correct.

 

[3liteDragon]

What a mess this shit is, it's becoming tiring to follow lol. Still kinda entertaining ngl.

 

[Three]

Isn't it true that with A happening, Sony would have access to the games?
Isn't it true that with A not hapenning there's no way of B?
You are using two arguments that are both true on it's own and twisting them to match your point of view.
What matters is that since A is not happening, B can't happen. You cannot judge an argument based on what might happen when you know that's not a real possibility

What is the reason for suggesting A is a possibility open to somebody (if it becomes exclusive) then suggesting that possibility would not be beneficial at all because it's not happening and prevents something else not beneficial happening?

You don't seem to understand that paradox.

You can figure it out by questioning why A was suggested. The suggestion is: to not lose access to these games on their devices they can allow gamepass but if they allow gamepass harm would be caused which is being prevented by not allowing gamepass.

 

[KingT731]

What I find laughable, are people who call Bungie a small indie multiplatforn company.

I ain't saying they are near as big as Activision, because they aren't. But they aren't a small multiplatform publisher either.

I find it funny how some people in here said they didn't understand why Sony made a big fuzz over this because now they have destiny 2 which is bigger and better than call of duty.

And now people like the other dude calls Bungie for a indie dev because they aren't nearly as big as Activision.

Are there any as big as Activision, besides maybe Microsoft Sony and EA? That's the only I can imagine being as big, so comparing to this makes 98 percent of all companies look like indie companies.

Independent just means they aren't owned by a another company. It's a very simple thing.

 

[adamsapple]

What a mess this shit is, it's becoming tiring to follow lol. Still kinda entertaining ngl.

It's what the kids call a hot mess.

 

[skit_data]

I find it funny that some people are still bringing up arguments from some sort of laissez-faire economy perspective ITT on page 191

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Bungie, Bluepoint, Nixxess, Housemarque are no named studios confirmed.

Besides Bungie with 1 F2P IP, the others had nothing. Bungie is also new in 2022, the only exception.

Housemarque is niche as fuck with like 15 people.

You know exactly what I meant anyway but you always play dumb.

 

[onesvenus]

What is the reason for suggesting A is a possibility open to somebody (if it becomes exclusive) then suggesting that possibility would not be beneficial at all because it's not happening and prevents something else not beneficial happening?

You don't seem to understand that paradox.

You can figure it out by questioning why A was suggested. The suggestion is: to not lose access to these games on their devices they can allow gamepass but if they allow gamepass harm would be caused which is being prevented by not allowing gamepass.

You are talking about this like if everything depended on the same actor.
It's not a paradox to suggest A could happen if Sony allowed and later, when it's clear it's not, saying that since A is not hapenning saying B.

You are twisting things as if they were dependent of the same actor and as if those were done at the same time and not one as a conclusion of the other.

Another thing you are missrepresenting is that Microsoft is not saying that "harm would happen" if Gamepass could compete with PS+ on Playstation, it's saying that since that's not hapenning "harm can't happen". One is not the opposite of the other.

 

[Pelta88]

microsoft ended the marketing agreement, not activision.

You got a link to back up that claim?

 

[Three]

You are talking about this like if everything depended on the same actor.
It's not a paradox to suggest A could happen if Sony allowed and later, when it's clear it's not, saying that since A is not hapenning saying B.

You are twisting things as if they were dependent of the same actor and as if those were done at the same time and not one as a conclusion of the other.

Another thing you are missrepresenting is that Microsoft is not saying that "harm would happen" if Gamepass could compete with PS+ on Playstation, it's saying that since that's not hapenning "harm can't happen". One is not the opposite of the other.

What do you mean by dependent on the same actor? Ok change would to could in my previous post. Doesn't make a difference. I'm not sure how else to explain that the suggestions are the opposite.

Harm A) important content not coming to your platform.
Suggested possibility by MS to prevent that harm: allowing gamepass on your device.
Harm B) important content not coming to your multigame subscription.
Suggested possibility by MS that prevents that harm: not allowing gamepass on your device.

I'm not sure how else to explain it so I'm going to leave it there.

 

[Kagey K]

You got a link to back up that claim?

It was in the 100+ pages Microsoft filed. feynoob posted it a few pages back.

 

[feynoob]

It was in the 100+ pages Microsoft filed. feynoob posted it a few pages back.

Correct.

When Xbox decided not to continue with the Call of Duty co-marketing agreement in 2015, it simply found other ways to market and promote its platform. Sony, as the market leading console with an extensive first-party and third-party exclusive game catalogue, is even better placed to do the same.

• (c) Microsoft [X] Call of Duty exclusivity: Microsoft's exclusive arrangements for Call of Duty content expired at the end of 2015. (Page 31)
  
  (d) Microsoft did not expect [X]. Microsoft did not [X], but does not believe this agreement [X]. Microsoft was not foreclosed as a result of the agreement. (Page 31)

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

You got a link to back up that claim?

And besides we don't know what Activision said to them.