• Akira Toriyama passed away

    Let's all commemorate together his legendary work and his impact here

Call of Duty will start coming to Nintendo platforms [Update: ABK Acquisition Approved]

From @Idas Response from Sony

A new internal report from MLex says this:

Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues

Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.

Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.

Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.

Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.

It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes.
 
It is a smart move from MS in their PR war against Sony. It shows that a vast majority of the market is willing to accept MS terms.

Remember that the regulators role us to protect the whole market and not each of its competitors.
 
That's a pretty weak counter argument from Sony. Basically just claiming MS is lying about porting games to Nintendo platforms. If I were Nintendo I'd feel pretty slighted by their attempts to paint me as some irrelevant third party actor in the market.
 
It feels pretty bizarre for Sony to make this argument. It feels like a fanboy response rather than a measured professional response. It would have been better if Sony argued more that Nintendo doesn't count, rather than try to imply that Microsoft is lying. Pretty much the only somewhat valid part is the final point since Nintendo basically has all to gain by getting even late ports of CoD.
 
Essentially Sony are now pivoting to "but we can't compete with their subscription service" which for a company actively not engaging with competing is a tough thing to back.
 
That's a pretty weak counter argument from Sony. Basically just claiming MS is lying about porting games to Nintendo platforms. If I were Nintendo I'd feel pretty slighted by their attempts to paint me as some irrelevant third party actor in the market.


The best way for Nintendo to counter this argument of being underpowered is to reveal their new console....tonight...at the game awards....
 
According to SIE, Nintendo isn't part of the market/competition. Nintendo clearly wants to expand its reach by having CoD on their platform. In other words, Sonys attempt to block the deal, basically means blocking one competitor from entering a market, in which Sony supposedly is the market leader. Basically gatekeeping. This whole ridiculous show doesn't surprise me, but good to have Sony showing its true colors to more people.
 
According to SIE, Nintendo isn't part of the market/competition. Nintendo clearly wants to expand its reach by having CoD on their platform. In other words, Sonys attempt to block the deal, basically means blocking one competitor from entering a market, in which Sony supposedly is the market leader. Basically gatekeeping. This whole ridiculous show doesn't surprise me, but good to have Sony showing its true colors to more people.
Other parts of this statement & others have just reinforced that idea. Like they still are trying to use the same pr playbook from a decade plus ago.
 
Microsoft reacting to the FTC suing:
yWosHOs.gif
 
Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes
Everyone has rightfully pointed out the silly forum console war talking point in Sony’s response, so I wanted to focus on this bit. Isn’t part of the push back against MS acquiring CoD that they might end up gaining monopoly over the nascent subscription and streaming markets? So it shouldn’t matter that Nintendo is currently not aggressively competing on those kinds of services— they very well could in the future.
 
...what? What CoD games can be played on the NS?
None, which is why some people wonder if Sony’s marketing deal had something to do with no longer making any CoD games for Nintendo hardware, since the series sold fairly well on past Nintendo hardware, and there are lots of switches.
 
None, which is why some people wonder if Sony’s marketing deal had something to do with no longer making any CoD games for Nintendo hardware, since the series sold fairly well on past Nintendo hardware, and there are lots of switches.
Yes, it's probably the Sony boogeyman stopped Activision from releasing CoD on the NS for...reasons...and has absolutely nothing to do with the technical limitations of the Nintendo Switch.
 
I do sometimes wonder how any video games ever got made prior to 2013. Truly must have been near impossible to make something for anything weaker than a PS4.
 
According to SIE, Nintendo isn't part of the market/competition. Nintendo clearly wants to expand its reach by having CoD on their platform. In other words, Sonys attempt to block the deal, basically means blocking one competitor from entering a market, in which Sony supposedly is the market leader. Basically gatekeeping. This whole ridiculous show doesn't surprise me, but good to have Sony showing its true colors to more people.
And not market leader anymore, only arrogant brat losing market space and fighting with anyone who disagrees with their premise.
 
The only CoD game the NS could play is COD: Mobile.
Right, and in the 2000s you probably ate up Infinity Ward's claims that COD on Wii was impossible. And yet every time it was Treyarch's turn to make COD, it suddenly turned out it was possible... (but even after that, whenever Infinity Ward's turn came up again, they still didn't make a COD for Wii, which goes to show it was just an excuse)
 
Right, and in the 2000s you probably ate up Infinity Ward's claims that COD on Wii was impossible. And yet every time it was Treyarch's turn to make COD, it suddenly turned out it was possible... (but even after that, whenever Infinity Ward's turn came up again, they still didn't make a COD for Wii, which goes to show it was just an excuse)
Who made Modern Warfare 3? Because that was on wii day one
 
This is all moot at this point anyway. Now that the acquisition talks are going to court, it's going to take a while longer for it to go through.

(That said, I do stilil believe it will go through. The FTC has a history of losing cases like these regularly.)
 
FTC knows they have a losing case which is why they're keeping it internal and not actually blocking the merger (aka: filing an injunction in fed court). They're basically stalling and kicking the can in the hopes CMA does their work for them.
 
FTC knows they have a losing case which is why they're keeping it internal and not actually blocking the merger (aka: filing an injunction in fed court). They're basically stalling and kicking the can in the hopes CMA does their work for them.


It will be interesting if MS will be allowed for real to take the case to court without waiting the FYC internal process
 
It will be interesting if MS will be allowed for real to take the case to court without waiting the FYC internal process
SCOTUS is taking up a case on this exact thing next session and it's not looking good for FTC. These unorthodox tactics that abuse the process are already having consequences.

 
SCOTUS is taking up a case on this exact thing next session and it's not looking good for FTC. These unorthodox tactics that abuse the process are already having consequences.

And this is what I was getting at in the other thread. The boy who cried wolf can only work so long before something or someone catches on. And, their willful ignorance on the market may set precedent on some awful takes of theirs.
 
From @idas on resetera MLex emailed the European Commission about the FTC accusation and they provided a very interesting answer:

Microsoft didn't mislead EU over ZeniMax deal, watchdog says in response to US concerns

Microsoft didn't make any "commitments" to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media, the European Commission has said.

US enforcers yesterday suggested that the US tech giant had misled the regulator in 2021 and cited that as a reason to challenge its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

"The commission cleared the Microsoft/ZeniMax transaction unconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns," the EU watchdog said in an emailed statement.

The absence of competition concerns "did not rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax's games," said the commission, which itself has opened an in-depth probe into the Activision Blizzard deal and appears keen to clarify what happened in the previous acquisition.

The EU agency found that even if Microsoft were to restrict access to ZeniMax titles, it wouldn't have a significant impact on competition because rivals wouldn't be denied access to an "essential input," and other consoles would still have a "large array" of attractive content.
 
The EU agency found that even if Microsoft were to restrict access to ZeniMax titles, it wouldn't have a significant impact on competition because rivals wouldn't be denied access to an "essential input," and other consoles would still have a "large array" of attractive content.
they're not wrong. just look at the sales of the then exclusives Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo
 
The only CoD game the NS could play is COD: Mobile.
That doesn’t detract from what I said.

They envision folding switch into their development pipeline for future CoD titles (plural) that already release on the PC/PS/XB


Well, more like “Nintendo” because that’s the wording I remember.

If it gets mobile port, that is a singular title.
 
As said in another thread, even if we already knew about this, there is probably the "content parity/day 1" addition, compared to last time
 
This is a significant move. Do we agree that Brad Smith's wording seems to imply that CoD might not be the only Xbox franchise involved ?

I take it to mean that discussions have happened about other Xbox games potentially being ported to Nintendo platforms in the future, but for now CoD is the only thing they've signed a formal agreement for.
 
This is a significant move. Do we agree that Brad Smith's wording seems to imply that CoD might not be the only Xbox franchise involved ?

Yeah, the wording makes it seem like other Xbox games, in addition to Call of Duty, will come to Switch in the future. I think this needs further clarification.
 
I find the "feature parity" bit interesting. Either Nintendo Online is on the cusp of a major overhaul or they are going to take an axe to the PS/XB/PC versions.

You can say "within the limitations of the platform" to set up expectations or that tweet is a class action waiting to happen.
 
Phil Spencer mentioned in an interview last year rightt after the initial announcement that he wanted Call of Duty on Nintendo to have feature and content parity. I guess this has now finally been put to writing.

I find the "feature parity" bit interesting. Either Nintendo Online is on the cusp of a major overhaul or they are going to take an axe to the PS/XB/PC versions.

You can say "within the limitations of the platform" to set up expectations or that tweet is a class action waiting to happen.
I'm uncertain as to what feature in a Call of Duty game will be impeded or inhibited by "Nintendo Online".
 
Phil Spencer mentioned in an interview last year rightt after the initial announcement that he wanted Call of Duty on Nintendo to have feature and content parity. I guess this has now finally been put to writing.


I'm uncertain as to what feature in a Call of Duty game will be impeded or inhibited by "Nintendo Online".
Still can't message people on my Switch and do you still need an app to voice chat?
 
Still can't message people on my Switch and do you still need an app to voice chat?
Viuce chat and in-game messaging are hardly vital for Call of Duty (and that's assuming they don't just create their own custom solution - this is how Fortnite on Switch handles voice chat)
 
Viuce chat and in-game messaging are hardly vital for Call of Duty (and that's assuming they don't just create their own custom solution - this is how Fortnite on Switch handles voice chat)

Gets a lot of use from my cousins on FIFA, Rocket League and COD actually. Not essential but it's a feature.

I didn't know Fortnite Switch had voice chat via custom tech though. That's cool.
 
Gets a lot of use from my cousins on FIFA, Rocket League and COD actually. Not essential but it's a feature.

I didn't know Fortnite Switch had voice chat via custom tech though. That's cool.
Note the agreement is not even about the Switch but about "Nintendo players" - all that is needed for this agreement to be fairly easily implemented is to do COD only for Switch 2, since by the time MS is responsible for COD (if the deal goes through of course) Switch 2 will either come out or be sufficiently close to coming out.
 
Sony can't really argue that the ABK deal reduces the availabilty of COD across multiple platforms anymore.

Shrewd move. Big win for Nintendo though, who really have won by doing absolutely nothing.
 
This is a significant move. Do we agree that Brad Smith's wording seems to imply that CoD might not be the only Xbox franchise involved ?

It could be but it also may not be.

Sentence one is about what they have signed, and is vague about what it means. It could for example simply mean xbox games as in multiple future cods, which will be first party games technically. It also could mean cod and Minecraft (already happening but not with any kind of binding deal). The picture / pr statement would mention if it was more than cod, imo. So I would suggest reading it narrowly until proven otherwise.

Sentence two says this is part of a broader intention to bring games to more people. That's not particularly exciting since they've been on record about this in the past, xcloud reaching new gamers, pc and gamepass outreach, a desire to reach mobile gamers and so on and so forth.
 
This is a significant move. Do we agree that Brad Smith's wording seems to imply that CoD might not be the only Xbox franchise involved ?
I suspect it's more about Actiblizz games that Microsoft Games Studios.

In any case, this is all nice and dandy bit with the deal hanging on the edge as it is, I'm not to certain of its value right now
 
The fact that they are still going with this 10 year thing even though the FTC, CMA, and EU already had this information changes nothing. that's not a sufficient remedy for any of the regulatory bodies.
 
Note the agreement is not even about the Switch but about "Nintendo players" - all that is needed for this agreement to be fairly easily implemented is to do COD only for Switch 2, since by the time MS is responsible for COD (if the deal goes through of course) Switch 2 will either come out or be sufficiently close to coming out.

I could actually mean streaming too. I don't think it will be xCloud branded but it could run on the same tech perhaps?
 
Back
Top Bottom