Jim Ryan…this guy is something else.
2 Likes
it really isn’t, my dude. it’s actually quite well balanced and asks the questions that i’d be asking, even if i knew the answers already. you’re projecting a lot on to i.
2 Likes
Yeah I don’t think it was an unreasonable interview at all. Kind of gives Phil the ability to actually respond to what Sony has been putting out. Major props to Phils calm demeanor around this whole thing, just feels like such a contrast to Sony who seems flustered by this deal (the last part could be me projecting though)
1 Like
Really? Interviewer surely has an angle when asking questions in such a leading way. “when you put call of duty on game pass for free and Sony users still have to pay” is just not accurate. Game pass isn’t free. Users pay for the service. And what is the expected answer from this that would satisfy the question?
Either we give CoD to PS users for free or we keep it out of game pass to the detriment of our customers both of which are nonsensical.
I shall wait (forever) for the CNBC interview with Jim where they ask him to provide all Sony CoD exclusive content to users of other platforms for free for ever day 1.
I can’t imagine the reaction online if the deal does go through without any form of consent decree or if it’s something along the lines of Microsoft must keep COD on playstation for the rest of this generation but with no parity clause so they could just mirror what PlayStation have done with COD. Would be hilarious entertainment
It is free if you subscribed to play other games. It is something psychological - “I subscribed to play Forza Horizon, but also COD for free”
And with GP F&F it will be a steal. 60$ per year (if you get 5 people) for GP? A steal.
No I understand, but from my perspective it is essentially giving MS (Phil) the opportunity to talk about these ‘fears’ while taking the high road so to speak (aka not Jim Ryan) in an interview.
First off, yeah of course a news reader has an angle, that’s their job, and their ultimate goal is to make news - either get an answer that makes a headline, or an answer that doesn’t, in a way. This is the nature of news, and Phil will be absolutely prepared to bat away such softball questions. Secondly, leading questions are how good answers are formed from such interviews. It’s not a court room, y’know?
Yes, Game Pass isn’t free, but they’re not saying “well, your users will have to pay per month to access CoD, but Sony have to pay up front” the framing is that CoD is being added to Game Pass, which is like saying something on Netflix is being added - it’s being added for free. It’s not being added to Xbox for free, it’s being added to Game Pass. Substitute “free” with “no additional cost” and it makes more sense, and maybe that’s where they are going with the question.
Phil pointed this, subtly, in one of his answers, but no one has yet to ask him on this - he said “exclusivity is part of the industry”, stating that what they’re doing is actually trying to free exclusivity. No one is interogating this, which does play into the Sony narrative.
The questions that I’d expect someone to ask Phil are this:
“Would you consider putting Game Pass on a Sony console?” to which Phil’s answer is likely to be “yes, def, you should ask Sony why they would say ‘No’ to such a proposal” AND “would you consider putting Call of Duty into Sony’s subscription service?” to which Phil would say “yeah, absolutely, if Sony were interested in putting their products into ours”.
1 Like
I feel like that when people are asking to put GP on Playstation, they are trying to find a way not to buy Xbox but Playstation.
2 Likes
How much of Jimmy Ryan bonus payment is tied to Playstation profits or reaching his >50% market share prediction? I gotta know this 
I guess you guys have a much different expectation of journalists than I do. I expect unbiased questions that lead to a worthy conclusion. You expect click bait questions to draw headlines. Broadsheet v tabloid.
It’s a crap question designed to overly exaggerate the anti-competitive aspect in an unrepresentative way.
Free v $70 when the fact is that it’s $14.99/month v $70 one off.
To which the answer is it’s not anti-consumer to offer a more attractive business model to customers who want that.
As things stand with MS existing offer to Sony PS gamers lose nothing, today they pay $70 for CoD after the merger they pay $70 for CoD. The fact a game pass subscriber can get it for $14.99 a month post merger is irrelevant.
Nobody is gonna debate semantics, noboody is interested in it. The common notion that in Game Pass you get games for free. It is a psychological thing essentially.
For most of GP folks, Game Pass games are free simply because they are subscribed anyway.
Phil :“Exclusivity is thr backbone of our industry”
All i need to hear King
This is a semantic argument. If you’re already paying for the sub - either separately or as part of All Access - it’s “for no additional cost” versus “an additional cost”.
That’s how it works, and why the framing is “free”. There’s no point in arguing it, really.
This could be framed as idealistic versus realistic 
.
11 Likes
This is from yesterday. Apparently MS has done nothing yet to assure them there’s no need to worry. I don’t know how much clearer MS can be with their message though.
According to the Financial Times, citing two individuals with knowledge of the situation, Microsoft decided not to offer any remedies to the CMA because there were no obvious commitments the UK regulator would likely accept. Only in rare circumstances will the CMA accept behavioral remedies such as promises to maintain access to a product or service at the end of a phase 1 probe.
The second phase of the CMA investigation is expected to begin this week. Microsoft could make a formal commitment to guarantee its rivals’ access to games during this more in-depth investigation stage.
So do they want MS to basically just promise Sony keeps access to CoD forever or something? It’s a shame something similar isn’t asked of Sony.
Man I really hope this deals succeeds, because if not, think of the extra smaller studios they could have gone after. It’s a humongous deal though, so I get that it’s taking time. But these setbacks, if that’s how you can call them suck. What could possibly be early next year for closing the deal could take longer.
It’s not though is it.
The CMA is not going to look at this through the lense of free v money. It’s going to look at it as subscription based access v one off cost.
You can ague semantics and psychology all you like. this was an interview in reference to Sony’s response to CMA and should be viewed as such.
It’s also disingenuous to only consider existing game pass subs when in this context it’s more likely that the PS owner would either have to choose to start subscribing v one off cost.
Or can you explain to me why going from paying $70 for a game to either paying $70 for a game or having the option to subscribe is anti-gamer? Do you really believe if next gen PS doesn’t have CoD Sony will cease to compete?
It literally is - you’re arguing one thing means another when it doesn’t. That’s what semantics mean.
I’m not, you are.
I don’t know who you’re arguing for or against here - I’ve made no such claim.
No of course I don’t. When did I say that they did?
I actually don’t understand your point at all now.
Look I am certainly not a total legal expert, but I definitely have followed various things over the years related to mergers and acquisitions. Xbox clearly seems ready to fight this one to the end, so I don’t think Sony really understands fully yet the bear that they are poking with their garbage tactics and comments. I just can’t see Xbox not winning out ultimately in court if it came to that point, but frankly even places like the CMA or the FTC will likely understand the situation well enough down the line to not embarrass themselves in court.
1 Like
That much is clear.