Pete Hines confused by Microsoft's multiplatform double standard of allowing CoD on PlayStation

[Cal Jeffrey]

Why it matters: Another day, another private email revealed in open court. The thing about getting sued is that nothing pertaining to the lawsuit remains hidden. Just ask Microsoft. Over the last few days, the FTC has paraded internal communications that paint a disingenuous picture of the company's Call of Duty concessions.

Microsoft has endured several international regulatory challenges in trying to close its record-breaking $70 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard. The latest challenger, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), is attempting to poke holes in Microsoft's attempts at making concessions to allow the deal to go through.

The primary objection in past regulatory hearings has been that if the deal was allowed to go through, Microsoft could make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, creating an unfair advantage primarily against Sony, the merger's most vocal opponent. Redmond agreed to keep CoD development status quo for at least 10 years to quell these concerns. This concession satisfied most officials outside of the US, but the FTC seems less satisfied.

Also read: Here are some of the biggest revelations from the Microsoft vs FTC hearing

Last week, Microsoft got to trot out internal Sony memos indicating that its rival didn't care about CoD exclusivity – that Sony's complaints were just noise to attempt to break the deal. This notion has been quite apparent to anyone paying attention to the proceedings. Microsoft has essentially conceded that it has lost the current-generation console wars, so making CoD exclusive will barely dent Sony's bottom line.

However, Microsoft's promise to continue developing CoD on other platforms seems contrary to what the company initially planned and what it has done with past acquisitions. The FTC pointed out that even the top management at Bethesda was confused about Redmond's "special treatment" of Activision.

Bethesda Senior Vice President of Marketing and Communications Pete Hines emailed other company heads, including Todd Howard, Todd Vaughn, and Jamie Leder, expressing his confusion about why Microsoft is allowing Activision to continue developing for PlayStation. Hines did not see any difference between the Zenimax and Activision deals.

Feb '22 email from Bethesda exec Pete Hines suggests frustration at Xbox/PC-centric strategy for team's games.

Reacting to public vow to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation: "I'm confused, is the below not the opposite of what we were just asked (told) to do with our own titles?" pic.twitter.com/N6S8IqBxbH

– Stephen Totilo (@stephentotilo) June 26, 2023

"I'm confused," Hines said, referencing a 2022 Microsoft blog post assuring fans that Activision would continue releasing CoD on PlayStation. "Is [this] not the opposite of what we were just asked (told) to do with our own titles? What's the difference? Why [is it] ok for COD or any Activision Blizzard games, but not TES6 or Starfield?"

Indeed. Bethesda fans in the PlayStation camp were just as disappointed that they wouldn't have access to TES6 or Starfield as they would be if they were to lose Call of Duty. Microsoft's defense of its actions is that CoD is somehow bigger or more important than Bethesda's "mid-sized" titles.

Confusion and frustration at Microsoft's complete removal of an entire demographic from Bethesda's sales opportunities also seem apparent. Starfield and The Elder Scrolls VI are arguably the most highly anticipated titles in the company's history. Being told it had to forego producing them for a sizable PlayStation crowd probably cut to the bone despite the issue undoubtedly being argued in Zenimax's negotiations to merge with the Windows giant.

The real question is: Is Microsoft's disingenuous motives behind its CoD concession and the conflict between how it handles this acquisition and those of the past enough to kill the deal? Probably not.

Even if Redmond made CoD exclusive, there are still a ton of developers out there that can fill a void left by the absence of the franchise on PlayStation. Whether or not these replacements could equally compete with the king of first-person war-time shooters is irrelevant. The fact that they can compete at all suggests that Microsoft is not exercising monopoly control.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/99221-pete-hines-confused-microsoft-multiplatform-double-standard-allowing.html

 

[yRaz]

Call of duty makes tons of money in the form of Microtransactions where as Bethesda games are basically 1 time purchases. Also, they want to have "exclusives" for their game pass.

The thing that makes this subject infinitely frustrating to me is that they are trying to damage Playstation as a platform rather than compete by offering a better product. Gamepass is a pretty good product but they don't have to make games exclusive to do that. Sony doesn't have a game pass type product for it's exclusives.

I also feel that Bethesda is a company that resonates with gamers. There are plenty of things to do aside from play CoD but Bethesda titles offer a unique experience and have the potential to swing console Gamers.

 

[brucek]

What's hard to understand? Microsoft was smaller prior to the acquisition of Bethesda and therefore had to make less concessions. Activision came after, Microsoft would now be even bigger, and lawmakers got interested in concessions.

But overall I still don't understand why my US lawmakers are so interested in limiting the US-based, last-place console maker's ability to compete against its two larger competitors who are chock full of literal first-party titles or effectively first party titles wrapped up in a third party relationship that is not entirely arm's length. Either start demanding that those exclusives be available on PC / XBox / Game Pass, or get out of Microsoft's way to achieve closer parity.

 

[nnguy2]

Why are Sony studios not allowed to make xbox games?

 

[Burty117]

Why are Sony studios not allowed to make xbox games?

Most of Sony's Studios were either bought outright in the early 2000's or were home grown.
Newer Sony Studios (just Bungie really) seem to be allowed to make Xbox games just fine.
They've even started the trend of having their first party titles released on PC.

Microsoft on the other hand, have been unable to build decent home grown developers, and have struggled to get third party developers to sign up to exclusivity deals since Gears of War.

Make no mistake, Microsoft were just failing to attract talent and to build decent games, They're now fed up with this and have decided to use the vast amount of money they have to buy up the industry.

The thing is, they broke the trust of pretty much everyone, industry and customers alike with the Xbox One Launch. Then they have random double standards like in this article, no wonder no one wants to work for them or sign exclusivity deals...

 

[NintPlayBox]

Call of duty makes tons of money in the form of Microtransactions where as Bethesda games are basically 1 time purchases. Also, they want to have "exclusives" for their game pass.

The thing that makes this subject infinitely frustrating to me is that they are trying to damage Playstation as a platform rather than compete by offering a better product. Gamepass is a pretty good product but they don't have to make games exclusive to do that. Sony doesn't have a game pass type product for it's exclusives.

I also feel that Bethesda is a company that resonates with gamers. There are plenty of things to do aside from play CoD but Bethesda titles offer a unique experience and have the potential to swing console Gamers.

Microsoft is not the one offering developers money not to put their games on PSPlus....Sony on the other hand have been caught doing that.

Sony who's damaging who again???

 

[NintPlayBox]

Why would Microsoft want to make a cash cow exclusive like Call of Duty when most of its money comes from Sony gamers.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Why would Microsoft want to make a cash cow exclusive like Call of Duty when most of its money comes from Sony gamers.

The goal of exclusives is to get you to switch so all your gaming purchases are from that company and hopefully your friends too. Consoles, controllers, games, DLC, microtransactions, merch, blah blah blah.

Microsoft wants those Activision titles exclusive to Xbox. Why else would they do it with Bethesda when they can't hold a candle to Activision in revenue? At the latest, MS would make it official by the time the next gen I'd consoles come around if the deal goes through.

That's what I think anyway.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Why are Sony studios not allowed to make xbox games?

Competition.

 

[RudyBob]

Money

 

[ID10T]

None of this makes sense while Sony has literally tons of exclusive games.
I don’t under stand the “exclusives are bad” for YOU but not us arguments.

 

[Kn0xx]

Even if MS made the deal, and make CoD exclusive, probably will be the slow end of CoD. Because is not CoD that is making people buy Sony hardware, is the all eco-system that PS have, not just one game. Xbox hardware is not appealling overall. People play CoD on Playstation's because it wide-spreaded eco-system with solid games besides CoD. But yet CoD brings a lot of money to Sony, money they need to keep Playstation platform relevant. MS just want to get the biggest slice of the pie, but without hardware/eco-system relevant, its useless.
Again, people play CoD on PS because there are more interesting games on PS, not just because of CoD.
MS doesnt have enough IP's to make it's Xbox catalog superior than PS, the only thing is their GamePass, which makes Xbox redudant if you have a PC.

 

[Gezzer]

None of this makes sense while Sony has literally tons of exclusive games.
I don’t under stand the “exclusives are bad” for YOU but not us arguments.

It's not so much the idea of exclusives, as it is being a monopoly where CoD is concerned. Sony's trying to argue that MS making CoD exclusive to the Xbox platform is monopolistic in nature due to how many people play the game. It's definitely a bit of a stretch, but that's how the legal system works. Find a plausible angle to argue in court and take your chances. Will it work in the end? Maybe, but I doubt it.

OTOH it will give some regulatory bodies a way to limit MS having too much influence in the marketplace. Do they really need the power? Again, maybe. Problem is when they actually realize they need it, it's often too late. Making putting the genie back in the bottle really hard. And I'm sure many of them remember how MS used Internet Exploder to dominate the browser market. In the end I don't play CoD, so I don't really care.

 

[ID10T]

It's not so much the idea of exclusives, as it is being a monopoly where CoD is concerned. Sony's trying to argue that MS making CoD exclusive to the Xbox platform is monopolistic in nature due to how many people play the game. It's definitely a bit of a stretch, but that's how the legal system works. Find a plausible angle to argue in court and take your chances. Will it work in the end? Maybe, but I doubt it.

OTOH it will give some regulatory bodies a way to limit MS having too much influence in the marketplace. Do they really need the power? Again, maybe. Problem is when they actually realize they need it, it's often too late. Making putting the genie back in the bottle really hard. And I'm sure many of them remember how MS used Internet Exploder to dominate the browser market. In the end I don't play CoD, so I don't really care.

I understand what Sony is trying to argue I just find it absurd because they have built their whole gaming market on exclusives and now someone wants to play that same game and they are offended and proclaim it will ruin all the things.