In January, Microsoft shocked the world by announcing their intent to acquire Activision Blizzard for the nominal fee of $68.7 billion, their biggest ever purchase. Since then, chaos has ensued. With press outlets and every farmer and their dog on Twitter having something to say about the subject, there were even cries of monopoly, with some begging the authorities to intervene.
Pretty early on Phil Spencer, CEO of Gaming at Microsoft, came out with a tweet speaking of a ‘desire’ to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. There was at this time, speculation that this was to appease regulators and was to help the deal go through (which looks to be proving at least slightly true)… Still, the wording was considered open to interpretation. With people believing that despite Phil Spencer’s tweet, and an Xbox Wire blog post, that this would only mean Warzone would remain on PlayStation.
Fast-forward roughly a month later and after another Microsoft blog post, it has emerged that not only will Warzone and Call of Duty remain on PlayStation, but other big Activision Blizzard games too! See quote:
We also recognize that regulators may well have other important questions as they review our acquisition of Activision Blizzard. We’re committed to addressing every potential question, and we want to address publicly at the outset two such questions here.
See Full Blog Post here
First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make popular content like Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users.
To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business.
Second, some may ask why today’s principles do not apply immediately and wholesale to the current Xbox console store. It’s important to recognize that emerging legislation is being written to address app stores on those platforms that matter most to creators and consumers: PCs, mobile phones and other general purpose computing devices. For millions of creators across a multitude of businesses, these platforms operate as gateways every day to hundreds of millions of people. These platforms have become essential to our daily work and personal lives; creators cannot succeed without access to them. Emerging legislation is not being written for specialized computing devices, like gaming consoles, for good reasons. Gaming consoles, specifically, are sold to gamers at a loss to establish a robust and viable ecosystem for game developers. The costs are recovered later through revenue earned in the dedicated console store.
For Microsoft the acquisition is about more than the games
This shocked many and has Xbox and PlayStation radicals at each-others throats on Twitter (not that that takes much). The title and wording of the press release makes it pretty clear that these decisions have been made to appease regulators and to help the transaction clear.
This change in messaging, however, was pretty surprising. Since 2018 Microsoft and Xbox have been acquiring studios and publishers to make exclusive games for ‘places where Game Pass exists’. Now there is a fair deal of confusion as to what their plans are moving forward, bearing in mind they are ‘not done yet’ with acquisitions. Yesterday, I was listening to Destin Legarie of IGN speak on his YouTube channel, and he highlighted a use of vague language as to how these games will remain available. It was an interesting conclusion he came to, not one I fully agree with (but it does make sense) but you should definitely check it out if you haven’t already.
Personally, I think that moving forward multiplayer focused games are far more likely to be multiplatform across Xbox and PlayStation! With single player focussed games to mostly stay exclusive. Xbox WILL need single player games, that is why the bought Bethesda, Obsidian etc. These will remain exclusive and are a great way to pull people in to the Game Pass. Nonetheless, the waters have definitely been muddied. Confusion is understandable, but it is not something to worry yourself about… This is an issue for Microsoft the clear up, and they will I’m sure, once the deal goes through.
Should you be upset Call of Duty and other big games are staying multiplatform?
So to answer the $68.7 billion question… The short answer of course is No. But to elaborate, this is win-win for everyone! Call of Duty, Overwatch and other big games from Activision Blizzard are famed for their online multiplayer. Multiplayer games thrive off of larger player counts and they will be BETTER experiences for YOU if everyone plays them. If you are an Xbox console warrior and need something to cheer about, you are getting all this content into Xbox Game Pass. Game Pass averages out as about a penny a month per game that is in there! If there is any exclusive content, it will be available to you, or you first. You are also getting Starfield, which I feel is enough of an arguement on it’s own anyway.
If you play on PlayStation or non-Xbox ecosystems, then this is great too. You will continue to be able to play these games.
If you are still worried or upset, why? Let’s have a friendly discussion in the comments or on Social Media.
