Ryuu96 said:
A new internal report from MLex says this:
Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues
Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.
Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.
Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.
Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.
It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes. Source: Idas |
XD my prediction just became even more accurate:
"[...] either force them to accept Microsoft deal or double down on the hypocrisies."
The things is even if all Sony said would be true, it still a contractual agreement that undoubtedly shows Microsoft willingness to not remove CoD from other platforms. Even if MS did this only to sway the regulators the reality of this deal still destroy like 95+% of Sony diatribe against the buyout and regulators, even though they might feel the same, cannot overlook this and have no choice to accept they lost their most potent anti-competition claims.
Essay Pro