Jim Ryan blatantly lied about the agreement with Microsoft for Call of Duty: it was not three years, but five | we are xbox
The allegations Microsoft has filed with the FTC They have not left a puppet with a head in the SIE house. And, unsurprisingly, Call of Duty has been the epicenter of the debate. Right now, the three processes that are taking place before the competition bodies (FTC, CMA and European Commission), are in the phases of allegations, so it is expected that the interested parties present them. Just a while ago the main content of the allegations that Microsoft has presented to the FTC has been known and they do not leave Sony too well off. And it is that they show that Jim Ryan lied about the agreement that Microsoft offered his company for the Call of Duty license.
As we have already told you, Microsoft has been offering Sony an agreement for Call of Duty all these months. The same agreement that Nintendo has already accepted, but not Steam, although it was also offered to Gabe Newell’s platform. However, thanks to analyst Florian Muller, it has been revealed that Jim Ryan lied about the deal Microsoft offered him; At first, he pointed out that the agreement for “three years” did not seem appropriate and almost disrespectful. But that term never existed: it was not three years, but five, which was later extended to ten.
Jim Ryan blatantly lied about the deal with Microsoft for Call of Duty: it wasn’t for three years, but for five:
While it may seem like this five-year deal covers Sony’s two years remaining on the Call of Duty contract and the new three years, it doesn’t. As Muller notes on Twitter:
“The 2+3 formula may be true, but the (Microsoft) brief says: Microsoft has repeatedly offered Sony ‘to close a Call of Duty license agreement: first for five years, then for ten, an unprecedented duration. in the industry”.
FTC Member Resigns Over Lina Khan’s Abuses Of Power Affecting Activision Blizzard Purchase
we are xbox.com
Therefore, if the current agreement had been taken into account, the total duration of the two agreements would be seven years, not five. Added to this is Sony’s continued refusal to offer documents; something that could cost you a lawsuit before the Court of Justice of the European Union, if the European Commission accepted this lack of transparency to decide. And it is that, according to the insider @PostUp_bbbdespite leading the blocking of the agreement, Sony says that it should not be asked for documents on the issues that it itself has brought up for debate.