Sony's Jim Ryan: Kotick asked to negotiate Call of Duty to 'cover himself' if merger fails

Sony PlayStation boss Jim Ryan tells federal courts that he believes Bobby Kotick wanted to make a backup deal for Activision in case merger failed.

[Christopher]

More 'believing' and not necessarily facts, but Kotick wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't have backup plans. Too bad he can't be as good at handling internal studio issues as he is ensuring he gets a backup marketing deal.

[EvertonFC]

Agreed, shouldn't be in any kind of position if you ONLY have a Plan A

[RauLeCreuset]

What makes it juicy is that Activision exec Lulu Meservey was the one who made the exchange public, as part of her campaign of Twitter attacks, and phrased it in a way that implied Ryan was responding to a deal with MS, not talks for a side deal with ABK in case the merger doesn't happen.

https://twitter.com/lulumes...

Reading the tweet again in light of this new testimony, it does seem to be written in a way that allows Lulu the out of claiming that she did not explicitly say Ryan refused to negotiate terms for CoD if it was acquired by MS.

Let's break it down:

"Microsoft offered Sony (the dominant console leader for well over a decade, with 80% market share) a 10 year agreement on far better terms than Sony would ever get from us."

That part is what primes people to think what follows is about talks for a post acquisition deal with MS for CoD.

"We've also offered Sony guaranteed long-term access to Call of Duty."

This is the line that introduces the ambiguity. Notice the "we've also offered," meaning she is now talking about a separate offer than the one MS made, this one from ABK. The significance of this is twofold:

1) Throughout the tweet, she never identifies who made the offer that Jim Ryan reacted to in Brussels. We now know from Jim Ryan's testimony that it was ABK, specifically Bobby Kotick, not MS.

2) That statement does not say whether ABK's offer pertained to post acquisition or a contingency plan in case the acquisition doesn't happen, nor would readers have reason to look for such a distinction when it was tweeted.

"But they keep refusing."

Keep refusing what exactly? We are being primed to believe their refusal also pertains to a request for talks in Brussels to negotiate a post acquisition deal, not a contingency deal. She hasn't revealed anything about a contingency deal.

"Why?"

More priming. She's about to give us the "why."

"The CEO of SIE answered that question in Brussels.

"In his words:

"I don’t want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger.”

The tweet steers the audience toward the idea that Ryan reacted that way to requests to talks for a post acquisition deal. It does not identify that Kotick was the one who proposed talks, which may have led to questions about what authority Kotick had to do that (instead of MS) and may have led to more questions about the specifics.

[UltraNova]

The best breakdown and fact checking on the MS-ABK merger I've read:

https://twitter.com/Zuby_Te...

[ApocalypseShadow]

He has no shame. Mind on the money and the money on his mind.

But I will say that I thank him for all the delicious information about Microsoft. The two faced lies, the wanting to buy up the industry list, deals to keep games off of PlayStation, the demoralizing statements that they lost the console war, game pass cannibalizing sales, the shady and false equivalency whataboutism... Just delicious.

Somehow, it makes my enjoyment of supporting Sony's efforts to make and release great games and consoles consistently, that much sweeter. It shouldn't. But it does. Makes my firm belief in that the deal should be blocked even more firm.

[UltraNova]

Kotick knows the moment this deal is approved he is out, hence all these comments. That said, he will surely receive a very generous exit package so why would he want this deal to fail? Does he really want to stay at a company that hates his guts? What's the angle here? All this goes to show that we should never take a CEO's words seriously.

I feel FTC will lose the case, and the deal will go through (MS is playing on their home turf and they are master lobbyists). What happens next? No one knows for sure (assumptions can be made solely on MS's history, of course). The question is, if Sony tries to respond in kind, say they make a bid to acquire a huge publisher, how will they fair under US regulatory review?

[dudeOplenty]

Probably while rolling down the street smoking indo and sipping on gin & juice.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Lol. His juice is probably cognac. In a Roll's Royce.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Kotick screwed anyways imo.

[Christopher]

Kotick makes millions no matter how this goes. Hell make a shit ton of money if it goes through, a few years with of money if it doesn't. Either way ABK execs get paid because if the agreement to get paid billions if the deal isn't closed by next month or so.

[Christopher]

Apologies. That was some sloppy phone typing there.

[closed_account]

Spencer is the parasitic, bloodsucking tick trying to drain the industry. Bobby is his Co-tick.

*edit - oh man, I apologize. My dad jokes are getting worse and worse. XD

[moomoo319]

Ba dum tissss

[Aloymetal]

100%
Cancer spreads faster than a wild fire🦀🦀🦀 ;

[Futureshark]

You just won the internet today!!

[S2Killinit]

Kotick and MS sleeping in one bed makes sense for them. They deserve each other.

[CaptainFaisal]

You guys do realize that Jim Ryan reports to a Board right? He can't make these decisions without their say or approval.

Guys literally just doing his job.

Board wants the merger to happen and back up plans in case it fails. Normal business

[jjb1981]

Phil says one thing and literally does the other. GaME pAsS iS dA bEsT dEaL eVa!