When the discussion about the continuity or not of Call of Duty on PlayStation, before the purchase of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft, it seemed like a closed story, Sony came out to stir up the hornet’s nest. It is that Jim Ryan, president and CEO of Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE), assured that the promise of those from Redmond to keep the popular franchise on their console has been “inadequate on many levels”.
In statements to GamesIndustry.bizRyan crossed the recent statements of phil spencer, the head of Xbox. Let us remember that, a few days ago, the CEO of Microsoft Gaming assured that the company offered a signed agreement to the Japanese to guarantee the presence of Call of Duty on playstation “for several years beyond the current contract” between Sony and Activision Blizzard. A commitment that, according to the executive, exceeds the typical agreements of the video game industry.
However, Spencer’s statements did not go down well within SIE, and Jim Ryan did not hesitate to let him know:
“I did not intend to comment on what I understood to be a private business discussion, but I feel the need to set the record straight because Phil Spencer brought this to the public forum. Microsoft has only offered that Call of Duty remain on PlayStation for three years after the current deal between Activision and Sony ends.
After almost 20 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation, their proposal was inadequate on many levels and did not take into account the impact on our players. We want to ensure that PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft’s proposal undermines this principle.”
Jim Ryan, President and CEO of PlayStation.
In this way, Sony once again raises its concern about the possible effects that the purchase of Activision Blizzard would have on its platform. At the beginning of August, the company expressed its concern in this regard before a consultation from Brazilian regulators. At that time, he stated that Call of Duty it was an irreplaceable franchise for PlayStation.
Microsoft’s promises around Call of Duty are not enough for Sony
Since Microsoft announced its $68.7 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard in January, the industry’s biggest concern has been the future of Call of Duty. Clearly, those from Redmond were not unaware that the announcement would raise questions on the subject. Not for nothing, Phil Spencer has been very active trying to publicly guarantee the continuity of the franchise on PlayStation. Something that also relates to regulatory scrutiny, of course.
“I had some good calls this week with Sony leaders. I confirmed our intention to honor all existing agreements following the acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. Sony is an important part of our industry and we value our relationship,” he tweeted a few days after the acquisition offer was announced. He added: “I will only say to players who enjoy Activision Blizzard games on the Sony platform: it is not our intention move communities away from that platform and we remain committed to that.”
It is still officially unknown how long the current agreement between Sony and Activision Blizzard lasts for Call of Duty. According to Jason Schreier of BloombergMicrosoft intended to honor the studio’s commitment to release the next three games in the franchise on PlayStation. These encompassed Modern Warfare 2the free-to-play war zone 2 and a new title under development from Treyarch, which could be delayed to 2024.
If the three more years offered by Microsoft are confirmed, from 2027 we would see a significant change in the landscape of Call of Duty on PlayStation. This shouldn’t necessarily translate to the franchise becoming Xbox exclusive from there. After all, those from Redmond have made it clear that their plan is primarily aimed at bringing the titles to Game Pass. And even Phil Spencer himself has said that exclusive games have no future. However, it could mean that Sony must negotiate the continuity of CoD on playstation under less favorable parametersperhaps sacrificing key elements such as content parity or release dates.