Dear PlayStation, what did you expect Xbox to do with Call of Duty?

An obvious column of opinion: Microsoft can take the edge with Activision.

I can’t tell you the news better than my partner Adrian Mira, but I can give you a brief summary: Sony, if the acquisition of Activision Blizzard goes into effect (which, by the way, has not yet been made), is not worth an agreement already signed by Microsoft that guarantees the next three deliveries. Call of Duty will come to PlayStation consoles with the same conditions as those developed for Xbox consoles. CEO of the Japanese brand Jim Ryan, CEO of Microsoft Gaming, Phil Spencerdid not respect the confidentiality expected from such agreements.

Ryan’s position is frighteningly naive, what did he think Microsoft would do with the license?Neither one nor the other surprises me at all: Phil Spencer tweeting that he knows a lot about talking and looking good isn’t surprising, but Ryan’s statements do nothing more than highlight and show what looks good. A problem for the future of Call of Duty on PlayStation. The fact that Sony considers the legacy of the twenty-year war saga important on its platform seems like a dead letter to me, as if it meant more than just money for this Redmond case; the fact is that the pact three games guaranteed looks for the toughest Xbox competition more than being kind to the interests of both parties. Does Sony have reason to complain? I do not think so.

According to current calculations of the brand and franchise, these lines guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation until at least 2027. Will Microsoft be willing to end Call of Duty’s cross-platform relationship with PlayStation after that date? It will depend on many factors: the status of the franchise will be one, the market position of the Xbox another, and the timeliness of the game another. sell millions of units in competition Expanding its vault and expanding new boundaries would be the other. But let’s not forget one very simple thing: Whatever Microsoft’s decision in this deal, it will always be perfectly legal. All numbers show Activision and Blizzard owned by Xbox Soon or later.

I don’t think Phil Spencer’s decision to go to The Verge a few days ago to collect smiles was the right one; I don’t think so is Jim Ryan’s decision to beg GamesIndustry. It’s a little common… we think of the video game industry as a serious industry with ties, elegant and serious people, but the reality is a little disappointing: wars of 50 year olds. Ryan’s position is frighteningly naive, what did he think Microsoft would do with such a large license? If they make the purchase, they have the power to force Call of Duty console users to switch to another platform, which in turn $69,000 million acquisition Such decision-making power is worth it.

Actually, nor is it the first time Microsoft has done something similar: Remember the Rise of the Tomb Raider case? Multiply the deal made with Crystal Dynamics and Square Enix that day by 100 and add Starfield and The Elder Scrolls 6 and Bethesda to the equation. I’m not going to evaluate whether these transactions are harmful or beneficial to the industry. , but I think they’re perfectly legal and consistent in an ecosystem that allows things to get done. how are they now. While Spencer has lost forms making it public, I think Sony may be happy with the deal Microsoft has presented. And in 2027, we’ll see what the future of the war series awaits PlayStation players. So long that we may not even be playing on consoles anymore.