Read from VGC:
Last month Sony told Brazil’s regulatory body CADE – which like many regions, is currently studying the proposed deal for approval – that the deal could influence players to switch from PlayStation to Xbox.
At the time, it argued: “Call of Duty is so popular that it influences users’ choice of console, and its community of loyal users is entrenched enough that even if a competitor had the budget to develop a similar product, it would not be able to rival it.”
“Only one third party, Sony, presented materially different opinions than the Applicants and the other third parties consulted by the SG,” Microsoft claims. “Sony is isolated in this understanding and, curiously, even contradicts itself in its response to the letter, as will be detailed below.”
Microsoft goes on to state that Sony doesn’t want to see Call of Duty games on Game Pass on day one, because it “is resentful of having to compete with Microsoft’s subscription service”.
“Sony’s public statements on subscription games and its response to the SG’s letter are clear,” the response reads. “Sony does not want attractive subscription services to threaten its dominance in the digital distribution market for console games.
“In other words, Sony rails against the introduction of new monetization models capable of challenging its business model.”
Microsoft also denies Sony’s claim that Call of Duty is a “category of games in itself”, despite the fact that it has a loyal following.
“Stating that Call of Duty has a loyal following is a premise from which does not follow from the conclusion that the game is a ‘gaming category per se’,” Microsoft claims.
“Sony’s own PlayStation, incidentally, has an established base of loyal brand players. Such a finding, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the PlayStation – or any branded product with loyal consumers – is a separate market from all other consoles.
“Extrapolating from such a finding to the extreme conclusion that Call of Duty is a ‘category of games per se’ is simply unjustifiable under any quantitative or qualitative analysis.”
Last month Sony told Brazil’s regulatory body CADE – which like many regions, is currently studying the proposed deal for approval – that the deal could influence players to switch from PlayStation to Xbox.
At the time, it argued: “Call of Duty is so popular that it influences users’ choice of console, and its community of loyal users is entrenched enough that even if a competitor had the budget to develop a similar product, it would not be able to rival it.”
“Only one third party, Sony, presented materially different opinions than the Applicants and the other third parties consulted by the SG,” Microsoft claims. “Sony is isolated in this understanding and, curiously, even contradicts itself in its response to the letter, as will be detailed below.”
Microsoft goes on to state that Sony doesn’t want to see Call of Duty games on Game Pass on day one, because it “is resentful of having to compete with Microsoft’s subscription service”.
“Sony’s public statements on subscription games and its response to the SG’s letter are clear,” the response reads. “Sony does not want attractive subscription services to threaten its dominance in the digital distribution market for console games.
“In other words, Sony rails against the introduction of new monetization models capable of challenging its business model.”
Microsoft also denies Sony’s claim that Call of Duty is a “category of games in itself”, despite the fact that it has a loyal following.
“Stating that Call of Duty has a loyal following is a premise from which does not follow from the conclusion that the game is a ‘gaming category per se’,” Microsoft claims.
“Sony’s own PlayStation, incidentally, has an established base of loyal brand players. Such a finding, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the PlayStation – or any branded product with loyal consumers – is a separate market from all other consoles.
“Extrapolating from such a finding to the extreme conclusion that Call of Duty is a ‘category of games per se’ is simply unjustifiable under any quantitative or qualitative analysis.”
Last edited:
