Take-Two 公开 Xbox 新协议：GTA VI 支持串流游玩及存档保留要求

On Tuesday, Xbox CEO Asha Sharma announced that Microsoft’s gaming team had taken its “first step in our new 10-year strategic partnership with Take-Two.”

That step was the novel announcement that people who buy an Xbox copy of next week’s Grand Theft Auto VI will be able to play it via a streaming connection—without downloading the game—on an Xbox Series console and even on a last-gen Xbox One.

Take Two is the publisher of GTA, NBA 2K, Borderlands, Civilization and much more. In September, they said they’d signed a new publisher agreement with Xbox. That lead to some debate online about whether such a signing was especially newsworthy or just a “bog standard” renewal.

On Monday, as promised, Take Two filed a redacted version of its new Xbox agreement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange commission. That means there’s now a 29-page, heavily redacted version of the Xbox Publisher License Agreement that the public can see.

It became effective on September 17. You can read it right here.

Good news: I read through it for you. And I compared it to Take Two’s prior agreement with Xbox from 2020.

To set expectations, unless I missed it, there is nothing shocking about this new document, certainly not in the un-redacted parts. There are some intriguing bits but certainly no visible, detailed plan for the next-gen Xbox to tangle with the PlayStation 6.

This is still a pretty rare thing to see in 2026. Publicly traded gaming companies such as Take Two disclose these agreements, but the likes of Activision and EA have exited the public markets, so there are fewer companies in a position to show them. (Please don’t get bought or go private, Take Two!)

Take Two’s been disclosing their Xbox deals at least back to their 2005 Xbox 360 agreement. Their freshest PlayStation developer and publisher agreement is from March 2017, with a PS5-related amendment added in 2020.

The new Xbox agreement highlights some of the standards of modern platform-publisher relationships. You can get a sense of what matters to Xbox and what simply needs to be agreed upon to get games to ship on a console.

The new agreement covers a lot: the rules for developing and publishing games for Xbox, the standards Microsoft expects a publisher to keep in terms of a game’s digital availability, requirements for fixing bugs and complying with ratings agencies. It outlines processes for game releases and breaks down the royalty structure that impacts how much of a cut Take Two gets from the sale of its games on Xbox.

As an example of this kind of thing, there’s a section in the new 2026 agreement about “Updates.” It stipulates that:

“Except as otherwise stated in this Agreement, all Digital Content patches and modifications provided to Users for free and that must be accepted for gameplay (collectively, “Updates”) are subject to Microsoft’s approval”

And

Microsoft may require Publisher to develop and provide an Update if Digital Content [***] adversely affects XBOX [***]. Microsoft may remove or reverse an Update if it adversely impacts the Digital Content [***] (e.g., the Game crashes for all Users). [***]. Microsoft may charge Publisher a reasonable fee to offset costs associated with Certification or distribution of Updates [***].

In other words, Microsoft gets to okay all free patches, can require a publisher to patch their game if it is breaking the Xbox experience and can remove a patch if it’s causing problems.

Reasonable? Seems like standard stuff.

Here’s another. This is a section about the “minimum commitment” that a publisher must make for its digital content in Microsoft’s stores …

Publisher will provide necessary User support for such Digital Content during its availability in the Microsoft Store and [***], and must retain in archive (in object code, source code, and symbol format) all versions of Digital Content made available to Users during, and at least 2 years after, the period it was available in the Microsoft Store.

Again, not terribly shocking. That two-year bit is a nice to know

The juiciest stuff in the agreement is redacted, of course. They’re not showing Joe Public the Xbox royalty tier list. Feel free to guess.

An alphabetical list of important and occasionally secret terms

Redactions in agreements like these can nevertheless be interesting. For example, the 2026 Xbox Take Two agreement is topped with an alphabetical list of “definitions” used in the agreement. For example:

• “Base Game” means the portion of an applicable Game that does not constitute PDLC, demo, trial, or additional downloadable content.

• “Business Day” means any day other than Saturday, Sunday, or national holidays in the U.S.A.

• “Concept” means a detailed description of Publisher’s proposed Game, including any additional information Microsoft [***] request.

Some terms in this alphabetical list are named, but their definitions are redacted:

• “Cloud Gaming” [***].

• “Cloud Gaming Devices” [***].

• “Competitive Platforms” means [***].

All well and good. Don’t get too excited about that last redaction. The definition of “Competitive Platforms” was also redacted from the 2020 agreement.

There are proper nouns in this alphabetical list of terms, too. Remember that whole “This is an Xbox” thing? Well, here we have a legalese definition of Xbox and a bunch of types of Xboxes. Handy!

• “XBOX” means Microsoft’s gaming platform and ecosystem, including the Microsoft Store and the proprietary online gaming networking or multiplayer service offered by Microsoft, in each case regardless of how Microsoft brands, names, or offers it.

• XBOX Console” means Microsoft’s XBOX Series and prior-generation gaming consoles, including the original XBOX, XBOX 360, and XBOX One, [***]

• “XBOX 360” means the XBOX 360 gaming console and its variants, including the XBOX 360, XBOX 360 S, and XBOX 360 E.

• “XBOX One” means the XBOX One gaming console and its variants, including the XBOX One, XBOX One S, and XBOX One X.

• “XBOX Series” means the XBOX Series gaming console and its variants, including the XBOX Series S and XBOX Series X, and any future variants.

Curiously, the Xbox agreement’s alphabetical list of defined terms includes one more term after “Xbox Series.” It is is fully redacted. No name, no definition.

Following the rules of alphabetical order, could it be the name of some new Xbox platform? Xbox Titan? Xbox Trump? Xbox Zenith?

The missing term could just as easily be a word starting in Y or Z that Microsoft or Take Two didn’t want the public to see. For comparison, the 2020 agreement did include the term “Xbox Services,” which would fit in that spot and isn’t visible in the 2026 agreement.

It’s certainly a fun mystery. What kind of Xbox contract term could be so important that it couldn’t even be named publicly, let alone defined?

There are two terms like that in this definition list. The other one sits between “GDK License” and “IPR”.

Maybe it’s “Grand Theft Auto”? Maybe it’s “Helix.” Maybe it’s “Happy Meals,” because the next-gen Xbox will come with a toy, a small drink and fries?

If you’re getting a kick out of trying to fill in the blanks, here’s one more.

1.36.“XBOX Devices” means any device that supports access to Games, including: (1) XBOX Consoles; (2) [***]; (3) [***] of the Games; (4) [***]; and (5) Microsoft or third-party Cloud Gaming Devices.

Avatars are out, code-in-a-box is in

Comparisons can be interesting. They show what’s in vogue and what’s not.

That 2020 Xbox Take Two agreement had definitions for “Avatar” and “Avatar Items,” which will trigger nostalgia for anyone who had a little version of themselves hanging out on the dashboard of an Xbox 360.

Those terms appear to be gone from the 2026 deal, as Avatars are pretty much dead.

What’s in the 2026 agreement that wasn’t in 2020’s?

In another sign of the times, down on page 18, in the weeds of a section about digital content royalties, there’s a chunk about games that are sold in boxes, without discs:

1. Code-in-a-Box Program.

5.1 For each piece of Digital Content, Publisher may seek Microsoft’s approval to sell and distribute the Content via Microsoft’s Code-in-a-Box retail program (“Code-in-a-Box Program”). [***]. Microsoft may change the Code-in-a-Box Program requirements by updating the Publisher Guide, [***].

5.2 For each copy of Digital Content purchased by Publisher under the Code-in-a-Box Program, Publisher will pay Microsoft a fee equal to [***] in the [***].

There’s also an even longer section about physical discs, too. There’s nothing too exciting there in the unredacted bits of that one. It covers the basic terms of how discs are made, verified, sold, how a recall would work, when to get approval to bundle a game with another product, how to qualify for Microsoft’s Greatest Hits program, etc.

The 2026 agreement has a longer unredacted section about Data Protection Law Compliance, compared to the 2020 version, though both versions keep a lot of that section out of public view.

The 2020 agreement stated publicly that it would renew every year automatically. Renewal terms for the 2026 version are redacted.

Game File is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Redactions galore, including in the parity part

There are a lot more redactions in the 2026 agreement, which could indicate that it contains more sensitive info than the 2020 one, possibly more allusions to Microsoft’s unannounced future plans for Xbox Series, the next-gen Helix and so on.

Or the people in charge of redactions this time around were just more cautious.

I can’t say.

In the 2026 version, I noticed a partially-redacted paragraph that seemed to involve conditions around Take Two doing their best to ensure the features of their games on Xbox are similar to those on competing platforms.

Here’s that eye-catching section in the 2026 agreement:

5.3 [***] Subject to hardware limitations and announcement or availability of development tools, at any time after Commercial Release, with respect to any hardware feature updates made to a Game (e.g., HDR, spatial audio) that are available for Competitive Platform versions [***], Publisher will: (1) [***]; and (2) [***]. The parties will work together in good faith to address any [***] that may impact feature parity for the XBOX version of the hardware feature updates.

Notice the section isn’t even labeled. What could it be called?

The much longer 2020 version of that paragraph offers a clue, and uses a lot of the same verbiage.

9.3 Software Title feature updates post-Commercial Release. Subject to hardware limitations and announce/availability of development tools, at any time after Commercial Release, with respect to any hardware feature updates made to a Software Title (e.g., HDR, spatial audio) that are available for Competitive Platform versions, Publisher will (1) in its implementation of such features, optimize the performance and technical capability of Xbox Console versions in parity with the Competitive Platform version; and (2) make the same hardware feature updates commercially available for the Xbox Console versions either before or simultaneously with the Competitive Platform version(s). As used in this Section 9.3, “simultaneously” means within [***] of the availability of such hardware feature on a Competitive Platform. If Publisher is unable to release the hardware features updates simultaneously due solely to availability of the Xbox Console development tools, the parties will work together in good faith to determine a mutually agreeable release date. The parties will work together in good faith to address any platform limitations that may impact feature parity for the Xbox Console version of the hardware feature updates.

Why is the newer version more heavily redacted? Did the details change for this section? Or did Microsoft just get more conservative in its redactions?

Aside from that, I think it’s interesting to simply see how Microsoft tries to ensure that the Xbox versions of a third-party game don’t fall behind, say, the PlayStation versions.

That parity paragraph in the 2020 agreement appeared after heavily redacted sections labeled

• 9.1 Features and content parity.

• 9.2 Simship with Competitive Platforms.

Understandably, for Xbox, parity with competing platforms was a big deal in 2020!

Those sub-sections about parity were followed by one labeled

• 9.4 Cross Generation Licenses.

Still looking at the 2020 version, that 9.4 subsection was explained as follows:

• Cross generation licenses must (1) grant End Users rights to both an Xbox One version and an Xbox Series version of the Software Title, and (2) include features and/or performance that differentiates the Xbox Series version of the Software Title from the Xbox One version, as described in the Publisher Guide. For clarity, cross generation licenses will not be included as a requirement for certification in the Publisher Guide.

All of those bits from 2020 about feature parity with competing platforms and shipping at the same time make sense. So does that last chunk about having games run across old-gen Xbox Ones and new-gen Xbox Series.

They reflect the priorities and strategies you’d have expected from a Microsoft six years ago that was heading into a new console race.

That brings me back to the 2026 agreement and what I am pretty sure is the same section. It is, alas, heavily redacted. You won’t see a sub-section labeled “simship.” It might be in there, but, if so, it’s redacted. The sub-section about “Cross generation licenses” is now fully redacted.

This is what that section looks like in the 2026 agreement. Why would so much more be hidden this time? You tell me.

For what it’s worth, a section lower in the agreement labeled “Multiple Generation XBOX Support.” It is fully redacted, too.

Hmmm! Tell the public more about multiple generations of Xbox whenever you can, Microsoft.

Item 2: Xbox CEO’s updates

Xbox CEO Asha Sharma celebrated 25 years of Xbox on her Twitter/X feed today, showing off new footage of next year’s Fable role-playing game, teasing that id Software (Doom) is “already working on its next game” and announcing 25 original Xbox games coming to PC.

Sharma also published an essay looking back on Microsoft’s history with games. In it, she expressed her vision for the future. She lamented the rising “cost, resources, and risk” associated with game development and wrote that “too many ideas never become games, and too many games fall short of what their creators imagined.”

The problems she described and the solutions she alluded to did not involve any explicit mention of using generative AI in game development. But her framing was similar to the argument that gen-AI-in-game-dev proponents like Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, have made.

Here’s Sweeney in October:

The games we’ve long wanted, which didn’t exist because they’d cost several times more to make than they’d earn back, will soon become possible. As will the games developers wanted to build, but couldn’t with the resources available. It’ll be a new golden age of gaming.

Here’s Sharma today:

Throughout human history, the scale of what we could create was determined by the people, capital, and resources we could command. That relationship is beginning to break. A single person will soon be able to wield capabilities that once required entire nations. A small team will be able to build worlds that today demand hundreds of developers and hundreds of millions of dollars. And our largest studios will be able to pursue ambitions as far beyond today’s games as Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 is from its first entry in 1982.

I believe the future of gaming will look more like its beginning, when a small team with a big idea could change how the world plays. Our responsibility is to deliver great games, unmistakable hardware, and give more people the chance to make something the world has never seen.

Hmmm, indeed.