SONY TRIED TO STOP MICROSOFT FROM OWNING CALL OF DUTY
Microsoft wanted to spend $69 billion on Activision Blizzard. Sony was worried about one game.
Not because Call of Duty was just another popular video game.
Because Call of Duty was one of the most important games on PlayStation.
And Microsoft was about to become its owner.
MICROSOFT WANTED ACTIVISION BLIZZARD
In January 2022, Microsoft announced a deal to acquire Activision Blizzard for approximately $69 billion.
The purchase would give Microsoft control of franchises including:
Call of Duty
World of Warcraft
Diablo
Candy Crush
For Microsoft, this wasn't simply about buying a game studio.
It was about buying some of the biggest entertainment properties in gaming.
THEN SONY GOT WORRIED
Call of Duty had been available on PlayStation for years.
Millions of PlayStation players bought the game.
Activision made money from those players.
Sony also benefited because Call of Duty helped drive activity on its platform.
But after the acquisition, the owner of Call of Duty would be:
Microsoft.
And Microsoft also owned Xbox.
That created an obvious question:
What happens if Microsoft decides Call of Duty should become an Xbox exclusive?
Sony raised exactly this kind of concern during the regulatory review.
SONY HAD A REASON TO BE SKEPTICAL
Microsoft repeatedly said it intended to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation.
But Sony pointed to Microsoft's previous acquisition of ZeniMax, the parent company of Bethesda.
After Microsoft acquired ZeniMax, games such as Starfield became unavailable on PlayStation.
Sony therefore questioned whether Microsoft's promises about Call of Duty would remain reliable after the Activision acquisition.
From Sony's perspective, a promise made before an acquisition could look very different from Microsoft's incentives after it owned the franchise.
CALL OF DUTY WASN'T JUST ANOTHER GAME
This is what made the situation so important.
Imagine buying a PlayStation.
Then buying Call of Duty.
Then buying downloadable content.
Then buying the next Call of Duty.
Then playing online with friends.
The franchise can keep players inside an ecosystem for years.
So controlling Call of Duty could potentially influence:
Console sales
↓
Game sales
↓
Online subscriptions
↓
In-game purchases
↓
Player engagement
That made the acquisition strategically important far beyond the price of a single game.
MICROSOFT HAD A STRANGE PROBLEM
Microsoft actually had a financial reason not to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation.
Sony's PlayStation had a huge installed customer base.
If Microsoft suddenly removed Call of Duty from PlayStation, it could lose revenue from millions of players.
Microsoft argued in its response to the FTC that paying $68.7 billion for Activision made little financial sense if it simply destroyed the PlayStation revenue stream.
So Microsoft had two competing possibilities:
Make Call of Duty exclusive
→ Potentially strengthen Xbox.
Keep Call of Duty on PlayStation
→ Keep access to millions of customers.
The second option could still be extremely valuable.
MICROSOFT OFFERED A DEAL
Microsoft began offering agreements guaranteeing Call of Duty would remain available on competing platforms.
Microsoft said in 2022 that it had offered Sony a deal covering Call of Duty on PlayStation for at least several more years, with feature and content parity.
Sony didn't immediately accept.
The dispute continued while regulators examined the acquisition.
THEN REGULATORS GOT INVOLVED
The Microsoft-Activision deal became one of the biggest technology and gaming merger cases in recent years.
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority initially found competition concerns.
In April 2023, the CMA blocked Microsoft's original proposed acquisition, although its concerns ultimately centered particularly on cloud gaming rather than simply the availability of Call of Duty on PlayStation.
The FTC also challenged the acquisition in the United States.
So Microsoft's $69 billion purchase became much more complicated than signing a deal with Activision.
THEN SONY SIGNED
In July 2023, Microsoft and Sony announced a binding agreement designed to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation.
The agreement was for 10 years.
After more than a year of negotiations, Sony had secured a contractual commitment covering the franchise.
The strange part?
Sony had spent months warning about Microsoft's ownership of Call of Duty.
Then Sony ultimately signed an agreement with Microsoft to guarantee its continued availability.
MICROSOFT EVENTUALLY GOT ACTIVISION
Microsoft completed its acquisition of Activision Blizzard in October 2023.
But the deal had been restructured after regulatory intervention.
The UK's CMA required Microsoft to address its concerns over cloud gaming, with Ubisoft receiving rights relating to Activision's cloud-streaming games outside the European Economic Area.
So Microsoft eventually became the owner of Call of Duty.
But it didn't simply get to do whatever it wanted with the franchise.
The acquisition came with significant regulatory scrutiny and contractual commitments.
THE STRANGE BUSINESS DYNAMIC
There was an unusual relationship underneath the entire fight.
Microsoft wanted to buy Call of Duty.
Sony wanted Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation.
But Microsoft also wanted access to Sony's enormous player base.
And Sony wanted access to one of the biggest games in the world.
So even two fierce competitors had a reason to keep doing business with each other.
Microsoft owned the game.
Sony owned the platform.
Players were the customers both companies needed.
THIS IS WHY CONTENT CAN BE MORE POWERFUL THAN HARDWARE
A console is physical.
Call of Duty is software.
But software can influence where people choose to spend hundreds of dollars on hardware.
If your friends play Call of Duty on PlayStation, that game can become part of the reason you buy a PlayStation.
The same logic works in reverse.
Exclusive games can become weapons in the competition between platforms.
That is why buying a game publisher can affect an entire hardware market.
THE BUSINESS LESSON
Microsoft wasn't just buying developers.
It was buying customer relationships.
Call of Duty had already spent years building a massive audience.
Microsoft didn't have to create that audience from zero.
It simply had to acquire the company that owned the franchise.
And Sony understood exactly how valuable that audience was.
That's why one video game became one of the central issues surrounding a $69 billion acquisition.
MAACAT PERSPECTIVE
The interesting part of the story isn't simply that Sony and Microsoft fought over Call of Duty.
It's that a digital product can become strategically important enough to influence the economics of an entire platform.
Microsoft bought the company behind the game.
Sony controlled a major platform where millions of players wanted to play it.
Neither side could completely ignore the other.
And eventually, the game stayed on PlayStation under a long-term agreement.
Sometimes the most valuable asset in a business isn't the platform.
It's the audience that refuses to leave it.
