Activision Blizzard Files Q&A with SEC "won’t remove existing games from PlayStation"

Activions Blizzard has filed a Q&A with the Securities and Exchange Commission that shows some light on the things to come.

Activision Blizzard has confirmed that it won’t remove existing games from PlayStation and Bobby Kotick will remain CEO of Activision Blizzard

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Sonyslave3117d ago

No shet but future games bye bye playstation

Eonjay117d ago (Edited 117d ago )

And Bobby Kotick is the biggest winner of all. I assume he must have friends up high in Microsoft.
About existing games: Microsoft wouldn't remove them. They would have a truly massive class action lawsuit on their hands. Why would they do this lol

TripleAAARating117d ago (Edited 117d ago )

Well their quote was explicit wasn't it.. (exsiting commitments), by stating this it's obvious their intentions are to consider that future titles from the various game studios under AB may not see the light of day on other platforms.. They may well create new franchises that are exclusive if these exsiting commitments are already extended of several years.

Seems like you're celebrating lol.... But I can assure you that once that happens it may not effect Sony in the way many may be hoping it will... In fact it may have and opposite effect.

Think about it, the various studios under Sony's umbrella are already industry leading in terms of pure talent and are already producing games and experiences of such a high quality that many other studios can't touch... Sony already responded by releasing a trailer for soon to be released Horizon Forbidden West (although it doesn't seem to be a direct response as coincidently they may already had the trailer set for release just after the acquisition news).. Seems like the quality of this one game trumps anything that AB has produced for Years.

Once this deal goes through and future titles are Exclusive to Microsoft's platform, inevitable comparions would materialise...and if they are not able to stand toe to toe with industry leading and award winning franchises that SONY has, it'll not be a good look for MS as it would stem an imperssion that the quality gap of titles available for these platforms would widen.

If you thought you'd seen Sony focus on making their platform the Best place to get industry leading experiences(VR) and games, then buckle up, cause I anticipate their gonna double down on standing out from the competition...

sourOG117d ago (Edited 117d ago )

Hey I can’t read the article because of Adblock or someshit. They said he’s staying after the deal gets approved by regulators and stock holders later this year? Cause I know he’s staying until then but after that was in question.

They would lose those lawsuits. If they had a chance then this deal simply won’t be approved by regulators. But it will. There is no practical legal course to take here.

itsmebryan117d ago

@triple a
Are you serious or are you reading a script? Smh

EvertonFC117d ago

Unfortunately in life 95% of successful CEO are wan*ers and thats the role model younger business people follow cause life has shown that's the only way to make shit loads of cash.
My heart genuinely bleeds knowing cu*ts like kotick miss treat people and comes away with 100milliin plus at the end of it.
The sad thing about it though is the wife and kids will soon forgive dad with the lavish lifestyle they live.

TallDarknWavy117d ago

How on earth does Bobby Kotick think he can make the same money for Activision on one console? This makes no financial sense whatsoever.

TheGreatGazoo30116d ago

Lol, on what grounds would their be a class action lawsuit? LOL

itsmebryan116d ago

Activision will not make money on one console. It will be on console, PC, mobile, tablets, cloud, etc.. You are thinking too small only thinking about "Console wars" between Xbox and PS. It looks like MS has moved on to major players like Tencent and Google.

StormSnooper116d ago

Riiiight, because MS defeated the "small" guy Sony? Now they are on to bigger competition. Like who? Google's Stadia? (am I even saying the name correctly? I can't remember)

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 116d ago
Silly gameAr117d ago


Exactly. But, I heard that Phil doesn't believe in keeping games off of platforms, or whatever crap he was spewing out of his mouth at that time. His double talk is hard to keep up with at times.

Zeref117d ago

He said he doesnt want pull communities off of other platforms. e.g existing games with existing communities.

Its PR speech but its not that hard to grasp when you're using at least 2 brain cells.

itsmebryan117d ago

So what Phil has said meant that game on Gamepass are available everywhere, console, mobile, tablets, PC, and cloud. Just not PS. But, Sony could always offer Gamepass.

Remember Sony said EA play was bad for their customers. Then later allowed it. Why can't PS allow Game pass?

specialguest116d ago (Edited 116d ago )

I hope Sony doesn't turn this into an arms race to try to compete with MS on buying out large gaming companies. Sony doesn't have the same reserved money as MS. They should just stick with whatever plans they have

Sayai jin116d ago

@Silly Gamer, it's pretty simple. MS has said that their goal is to offer their great exclusives on platforms where game pass exists. Right now it is on Xbox, PC, mobile, and soon to be stram deck and LG pr Samsung TV app. The only ones missing are Nintendo and Sony. MS has stated that would allow game pass on those two platforms. The balls in their court.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 116d ago
fr0sty117d ago (Edited 117d ago )

You guys are desperately clinging to the idea that Microsoft isn't a third party publisher now even though they keep proving you wrong... Spencer said it himself, saying they have no plans on removing franchises from other consoles, now the company has said the same to the SEC... and you're still all "but in the future!!!"... the whole reason they told the SEC this is to ensure them that in the future these games will still be available to other platforms, to avoid them being hit with antitrust suits and risking being split up into smaller businesses. Microsoft is becoming a software monopoly in the gaming world much like they are in the PC world, and they are well aware that if the SEC thinks they are getting too big, they will attempt to break up the company. Google "Microsoft Anti-trust" and you'll see what I mean, they are very familiar with this song and dance. The SEC will not allow them to make those games exlcusive, even if they wanted to, which they don't because it will cost them billions.

Case in point:

This purchase was not to get more games exclusive to Xbox. This purchase was to make more money off of selling games (and eventually gamepass) to everyone. Xbox as a system isn't even necessary to them anymore, they stand to make a ton more money just making software and services, and in the end, that is all their shareholders care about, not getting first place in a console hardware war that they haven't been able to win in 4 generations.

TripleAAARating117d ago (Edited 117d ago )


Great insight man... it also puts into perspective a statement MS made a couple years ago, somewhere along the lines where they don't see Sony as competition... this should of indicated to most that their outlook as a company in this industry was very different to that of Sony's.

But..... their "hardcore" base will critique their lack of producing exclusive IPs. So they may very well in the future allow their various studios to make new franchises that are exclusive. (keeping thoes "exsiting commitments"). But as I said before if yhe quality of these exclusives can't stand at least match that of the competition, this may very well negatively effect their platform.

darthv72117d ago (Edited 117d ago )

What you just described is the old days of SNK. They made games for their own platform (NeoGeo) but also made games for other platforms. They put their best work into their own specific titles while helping with ports to other systems like SNES and Genesis. No doubt their platform was a premium but oh so worth it compared to how things would be scaled back on the others.

As for MS, they are both 3rd party publisher (ex minecraft) as well as publish for their own platforms. Nothing changes with this new addition. They will publish certain games as a 3rd party and others they wont. They will continue to have their own dedicated platform to cater to (as well as PC) but they will also release games for others. It's not that big a deal so I dont know why everyone is freaking out about the possibility of them keeping some games closer to their chest. That is to be expected. I'd honestly be surprised if they didn't.

I'm kind of hoping Sony does the same thing. There are plenty of games they can hold close and others they publish that could benefit from a broader reach to other consoles. Technically they already have with MLB, though Im sure that decision wasnt taken lightly. But regardless... it shows that they can make $$ off more than their own platform if they really wanted to. And them branching out into PC is another good example of them stepping out from behind their castle walls.

Maybe they need to evaluate the titles that under performed on their platform and give them another chance by broadening their horizons? Would it kill them to see if Returnal could sell a few more hundred thousand copies by running on a Series X|S?

Traecy117d ago

Sounds about right. We'll see what the future holds for these 3rd party games/publishers that MS owns.

Christopher117d ago

***now the company has said the same to the SEC***

Whole franchises and "existing games" are not the same thing. What that told the SEC only applies to existing games on the platforms, not future releases.

fr0sty117d ago (Edited 117d ago )

@darth, they were forced to lose MLB exclusivity by the MLB itself, they wouldn't extend Sony's license to use the MLB name and players unless they did that.

As for SNK, look what happened to them... they eventually quit bothering with hardware and focused on software alone, which is where I see this going with MS as well. It may not happen this gen, but I do think Series X (and maybe a "pro" model) will be the last Xbox generation. It just doesn't make financial sense for them to spend all that money on R&D and marketing for new hardware when they can just raking in billions hand over fist putting out software for other devices. Look at how much they spend on hardware vs. how much that hardware ends up making them... any profits the Xbox division has posted have come from Xbox Live and Gamepass, the consoles themselves lose billions. The only reason MS makes consoles at all is to sell their software and services, as the systems typically don't sell well enough to profit on their own... especially outside of the USA. We may see them put out some sort of stream box, though, to stream games from the cloud in the future.

117d ago
gamer7804117d ago

No one makes much money in the hardware alone. That’s been the case for a long time now. And while some stuff you said is true they absolutely did this to get more exclusives as well as bolster gamepass.

whitbyfox116d ago

You sound even more desperate like a scared Sony fanboy making up an imaginary tale to feel safer for now.

Sayai jin116d ago

@Frosty, Spencer made the same statement with the Bethesda acquisition. The writing is on the wall, but some people are either in denial, confused, etc. No need to look further on ehat is happening with Bethesda's new games and new iterations of their games. What ever is not contractual...i.e. future games.

fr0sty116d ago

Phil Spencer, regarding Bethesda, said that some of their games will be exclusive to platforms "on which gamepass exists". Key words there... with that said...


Their endgame is to be the netflix of games, and netflix isn't exclusive to Roku, for instance... it enjoys its success because you can watch it on literally every device under the sun that is connected to the internet. Xbox is after the same.

Ilikethemall850402116d ago

This is why Sony fans are so disliked by Microsoft fans, you people are arrogant to the point of looking stupid. You are saying they are 3rd party when they still produce their own hardware, you fanboys were also saying that Bethesda games would remain multiplat when Phil used basically the same terminology. How did that work out? And it is extremely funny that you people think you win if the games do stay multiplat, you do realize that you would be money money in Microsoft bank account meaning you are further helping them gobble up more devs? Take2 anyone? You are so loyal to a piece of plastic that can't see how ridiculous you look when you are celebrating paying $60.00 for a game when the people you are trying to make fun of gets it basically free, and then if we decide to buy we get it at a discount. I really don't understand how Sony fans can be so brainwashed that they refuse to see the value of game pass.

thornintheside116d ago

"likely to face scrutiny"

As it should and like so many other deals. But I can't imagine it would uncover anything. Reason simply being that you don't do a 70billion$ deal without examining every nook and crevasse. They must've had most of their legal department consulting lawyers, experts, government commissions and so on, in making sure this deal has no obstacles.

4Sh0w116d ago

Yes, Microsoft is both a 1st party and 3rd party publisher, so whats your point?...thats old news. In this case Microsoft has made a long-term bet on Activision, its not about pulling "existing" games from ps, thats petty stuff, no its about leveraging COD, all AB games & their assets starting 2-3 yrs from now and if course for the long-term of their gaming business:

"Activision Blizzard has confirmed that it won’t remove existing games from PlayStation as they “will honor all existing commitments post close.”

-Thats sounds exactly like the language used in the Bethesda we know that means the only thing thats a safe bet on ps is "existing" games that Activision are *already contractually obligated to make available on ps. Future COD games, and others will be case by case decision soley up to Microsoft. -I dont understand whats so hard to understand about this.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 116d ago
Sayai jin116d ago

Alright, are we doing this all over again. Just look at Spencer's comments, the SEC filing, etc and it will tell you what will be exclusove for the most part. MSS will not be pullung any existing games from other platforms, i.e. Call Of Duty Vanguard, Black Ops, Overwatch, any game that is alreay on thode other platform or slayed to before yhe deal is done, will remain on said platforms. After the deal is done, if you think MS will not be making their top tier franchise exclusive to their ecosystem, then you are setting yourself up for dissapointment. Furure iterations of games like Warzone will remain multi-platform. They will honor the pre-existing contracts.

S2Killinit116d ago

Damn… so they paid 70 BILLION to buy a publishing house. They could have created their own from the ground up but it looks like MS policy of purchasing exclusives which came back to bite them during the second half of Xbox360 and entirety of Xbox One generation, left MS’s in-house publishing lagging behind Playstation, leading to this 70 billion splurging. Basically, MS playing catch up here.

I dont even think MS has had 70 Billion in profits from their past 4 generations in gaming. They are basically in the red for all their efforts in the gaming industry.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 116d ago
ziggurcat117d ago

Of course not, but you bet future sequels, and new IPs won't even reach the competitors' consoles.

Shiken117d ago

The fact that word had to he used speaks higher volumes than some would like to believe.

Ristul117d ago

I doubt anyone thought they would remove existing games from Playstation, what people care about is the games coming in the future.

onisama117d ago

Well i guess you didn't follow on bathesda interviews.... This is his way to show that activison future games will be exclusives he play with words to show it because he can't just say it before everything is done right to not face legal issue in the process

Ristul117d ago (Edited 117d ago )

Indeed, its a play with words, but it will probably fool a lot of people sadly.

Sayai jin116d ago

You are right, people care about future releases. They already have their answer, but some will go through the normal stages. Not sure why we have to continue to hsve the same convo when MS makes an aqcuisition, because we don't question exclusivity when Sony makes aqcuisitions.

Ethereal116d ago

In their defense, Sony didn't buy two massive publishers with vast catalogs of multiplatform games. This is why we are having the conversation. This is why there is a news article and a Q&A submitted to SEC.

jznrpg117d ago

Activision and Blizzard suck imo so I don’t care personally what they offer I wasn’t buying them to begin with but there are some who want to know the next cookie cutter CoD is coming later or not