I think the meat and potatoes of this whole thing are whether you agree with him on this or not. Do you think his talks about Starfield being the first in their big plans to grow their platform (GamePass) which is console-specific and requires hardware for the mass majority of people that utilize it, or is it solely a long-term plan for subscription models and streaming, which then CMA would be absolutely right about in how they saw it.
***
FTC: If Microsoft is going to grow, particularly in a business like console, it can grow by taking share from its competitors
Spencer: There’s no console growth in our [Activision] deal model.
FTC: Do you have any intention of this deal helping you climb out of the number three spot?
Spencer: In console, we do not.
FTC: So that’s just a write off?
Spencer: I don’t understand how that’s a write off?
***
—-
FTC: Can you swear under oath that without looking at any future terms that need to be hashed out, you’ll ship all the versions of Call of Duty that may exist on all the versions of PlayStation that make exist in the next 10 years?
Spencer: That’s my goal, yes.
…
Spencer: That’s my goal, yes. If what you’re trying to propose is that Sony might change the terms of how we ship games on our platform then that would prohibit us from shipping on their platforms.
—
The skeptic in me sees this as ‘If PlayStation doesn’t align with our GamePass plans, then it would prohibit us from shipping on their platforms.’ I can’t see any other way that PlayStation would change the terms of how they ship games otherwise. It’s a pretty-established concept and hasn’t seen any change.
