Discutia a plecat de la faptul ca MS a mintit in cazul Bethesda si acum minte in cazul Activision si or sa faca COD exclusiv chiar daca au oferit angajamente pe 10 ani atat Sony cat si Nintendo si Steam.

Mie nu mi se pare ca MS a mintit, nu scrie nicaieri ca viitoarele jocuri nu vor fi exclusive ci se va tine cont de mai mult factori printe care consumer demand and preference and the willingness of third parties to work with Microsoft to launch games for their devices.

Also Sony

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.