In what has proven to be a lively first day of testimony at Xbox’s Activision Blizzard trial, Xbox vice president Sarah Bond dropped yet another bombshell, claiming that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick demanded a greater revenue share to put Call of Duty on Microsoft’s platforms.
According to Bond, Kotick made it clear “if we did not move beyond standard revenue share that he intended to not place Call of Duty on Xbox.”
Ultimately, Bond said, Xbox decided to meet Activision Blizzard’s demands.
“Time was limited. We had players whose expectations we wanted to meet, so we ultimately made a decision that it was the best thing for the business.”
Bond’s comments were in response to questions from Microsoft counsel, in which she claimed that Call of Duty wasn’t a must-have game. However, her comments were contradicted in part by Xbox’s decision to pay Activision Blizzard more money to keep Call of Duty on their platforms, as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) pointed out later in its cross-examination. Bond characterized the negotiations as “lively.”
“
‘Very clear limits’
In addition to revenue sharing, Bond also talked about Call of Duty’s marketing agreements, which resulted in “very clear limits” on what Xbox could say about the series.
“A year ago we wanted to show that Call of Duty Vanguard was launching on Xbox, we were told we could not say it on YouTube or any other place where customers who were not our own customers could see it, and we had to hold for a period of time,” Bond said.
According to Bond, the Xbox website was fine, as were Xbox’s own Twitter accounts.
“But when we film a showcase, that is people can watch it live on YouTube and other places… and at the end we wanted to put up a slate that say, ‘Here are all the games coming in the next year,’ we were told we could not say Call of Duty was coming in the next year,” Bond said.
Asked whether there were other games with similar types of marketing exclusivity, Bond pointed to Harry Potter: Hogwarts Legacy, which released earlier this year.