On Switch, you mean?
Because more than anything I would say that having "the first real COD in a decade" at the reveal of the new shiny hardware would generate a lot of positive buzz around all parties involved
Call of Duty will start coming to Nintendo platforms [Update: ABK Acquisition Approved]
- Thread starter Ishaan
- Replies 349
- Views 30,816
- Start date
- Industry News
On Switch, you mean?
Because more than anything I would say that having "the first real COD in a decade" at the reveal of the new shiny hardware would generate a lot of positive buzz around all parties involved
I guess, but I really mean Drake. Warzone will be an ongoing supported platform that even takes away some appeal of the main games. It's definitely the more important game in the long term.
Given how Warzone runs on base Xbox, its gonna be quite the hurdle on Switch. If anything is in the cards for Switch, maybe a port of a recent single player mode
EDIT: shit, I keep forgetting about Warzone mobile. Then maybe? But phones are so much better than Switch that the min spec could exceed the switch
Given how Warzone runs on base Xbox, its gonna be quite the hurdle on Switch. If anything is in the cards for Switch, maybe a port of a recent single player mode
EDIT: shit, I keep forgetting about Warzone mobile. Then maybe? But phones are so much better than Switch that the min spec could exceed the switch
Activision doesn't feel allocating resources to CoD on Switch is worth the financial returns
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- #253
Not really surprising info, but I'm adding it to the thread anyway, for the sake of having as complete a set of facts available to us as possible:
At present, Activision does not believe attempting to port CoD to Switch would be worth the returns (no surprises there).
So again, the desire to do this is entirely on Microsoft's part.
At present, Activision does not believe attempting to port CoD to Switch would be worth the returns (no surprises there).
So again, the desire to do this is entirely on Microsoft's part.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
We know MS and Sony get a better deal. It probably didn't get to this stage but did we hear if they would get the same from Nintendo or could that be a sticking point?
OP
OP
- Thread starter
- #255
We haven't had confirmation of anything along those lines, no. They asked Microsoft for an 80/20 royalty split on Xbox before they even agreed to begin developing for Series S/X in 2020, so I would imagine they would ask the same of Nintendo, considering the resources would be going toward a platform that traditionally hasn't been competitive in that space. (And also because optimising for Switch would require a lot more work)
Last edited:
There goes the notion that a Switch 2 would have gotten CoD due to being stronger. Also pokes holes in the theory that they didn’t bring it due to power concerns. If they thought they were gonna make money, which is frankly a weird statement to make but whatever, then they would have found a way.
Also don’t forget to copy the quoted Tweet’s text in your post. That way if the Tweet becomes unavailable we know what it said.
sounds less "they won't make their money back" and more "we won't make enough money". ABK probably looked at spending on extras on Nintendo and saw that it was too low for them to care. EA must think the same
if anything it probably does more to highlight the lack of GaaS on the the platform. classic chicken and egg problem
if anything it probably does more to highlight the lack of GaaS on the the platform. classic chicken and egg problem
To be fair to EA, they did actually bring Apex to Switch. I think if anything that proves EA thinks somewhat different. Activision likely doesn't believe it's worth the extra expenditures when the resources could be better spent making more lucrative ventures. Clearly Microsoft disagrees with Activision and does believe the expenses to port to Switch would be better than focusing further on platforms already saturated. I also think this is more a Switch issue than a Drake issue because Drake will have a much easier time getting a port with less effort. Microsoft believes taking CoD to as many platforms as possible to reach an larger audience than what is currently addressed is better for the franchise than doubling down on the same audience. I honestly think Microsoft is more interested in bringing CoD to Switch than even Nintendo. Nintendo likely wants CoD for Drake, not Switch. Microsoft only cares about the enormous Switch userbase, something Drake will need time to reach.
The leverage that AB had to even get Sony/Microsoft to agree to 80/20 says a lot about their position in the industry.
What's to stop other powerful brands (GTA, FIFA, etc.) from now asking for such special privileges?
There's no way Nintendo agrees to that split, which certainly doesn't point towards any changes when it comes to American third party relations (aside from Warner Bros., Bethesda, and Blizzard).
Microsoft purchasing Bethesda is worse for Nintendo, but it's purchase of AB would be better for Nintendo. At least in the short term.
And again, it's always funny to mention that CoD has appeared on the PSV and Wii U but not the third most successful console in the history of video games.
What's to stop other powerful brands (GTA, FIFA, etc.) from now asking for such special privileges?
There's no way Nintendo agrees to that split, which certainly doesn't point towards any changes when it comes to American third party relations (aside from Warner Bros., Bethesda, and Blizzard).
Microsoft purchasing Bethesda is worse for Nintendo, but it's purchase of AB would be better for Nintendo. At least in the short term.
And again, it's always funny to mention that CoD has appeared on the PSV and Wii U but not the third most successful console in the history of video games.
considering these deals are private, I can see lawsuits going around if that got out
- MS and Sony sues ABK for cutting a better deal for Nintendo
- ABK sues MS and Sony for corporate espionage
- Nintendo sues ABK for breach of contract though having someone leak details
It just astound me how Kottick was able to chastise MS to pay more for the XS consoles lol. A platform where historically shooters have been king.
Post automatically merged:
Also, if they do bring CoD to Switch/Drake whatever without any incentives, Acti loses any leverage with the other 2 if they find out lol
Nintendo would certainly agree to that deal. Why in the world would they be that arrogant? It's a deal both Sony and MS agreed too. CoD has that type of importance in the industry, no reason for Nintendo to be that disrespectful.
Switch is an HD console lol, but yes I agree turn up the assets and run at 60 fps at 4K with DLSS which would be great for launch. Then of course optimize later.
While Nintendo would love to have it, I don't think they value CoD as much as MS and Sony.
the lack of CoD shows they aren't going to make those kinds of deals
I don't expect any cod (save for a port of an older game) to hit even 720p in docked mode on Switch
We also dunno how Actit referred to the Switch. They asking for more money to Xbox to develop for XBS, after XB1, (a console that sold as 4 times as much as the Wii U) makes me wonder how that convo went with Nintendo.
That's a very bad move for Nintendo as it's unfair to their other more important partners.
COD is great but Monster Hunter is the most important 3rd party on the Switch. Imagine the ill will that Capcom would feel towards Nintendo if Activision was allowed a 80/20 split for COD (a series that hasn't ever really been that important or put that much care on Nintendo systems) compared to Monster Hunter which has put AAA support behind the Wii, 3ds, Wii U and Switch. It would definitely significantly damage relations and that's something Nintendo would never allow.
COD has importance but series like MH and DQ are more important for Nintendo.
They certainly value Cod as much as MS and Sony because it is easily a larger ip than anything Nintendo has besides maybe Fortnite and Minecraft. The same Nintendo instantly agreed to Microsoft's offer lol, yet Steam said don't worry about it we trust you. That's how bad Nintendo wants CoD on its platform. You guys are seriously sounding incredibly arrogant, Nintendo is not this arrogant. CoD is a massive high selling franchise on a annual basis. If CoD was on Drake day one from the start of the platform, which other 3rd party ip would make more money? CoD is an annual franchise, just selling a million each year on Drake would make more money than Dragon Quest and challenge Monster Hunter. Nintendo certainly wants a piece of that. We don't even know the full terms of the 80/20 split, CoD makes money up front with each sale and in game by selling guns and skins. Then of course there is Warzone a gaas title. They have more respect for CoD than alot of you are willing to accept. Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest aren't in its league. CoD on Switch has more potential than both. You all have forgotten CoD is an annual behemoth not every blue moon like Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter.
Lack of CoD isn't because of Nintendo. Nintendo instantly signed a deal with Microsoft to bring CoD to Nintendo platforms. The documents above shows it is Activision that isn't interested. Why would Nintendo be against making money from the CoD franchise on thier platform? Also I believe Apex runs at 720p 30 fps so its possible I would say to get CoD running at the same resolution when docked.
This same logic applies to Sony, why would 3rd parties be upset with Nintendo but not Sony for offering these better deals to CoD? Are you suggesting Sony doesn't view Capcom as an important partner? I mean isn't it Sony that is about to get the next major Monster Hunter title? We don't know the full terms of these contracts but I would guess this has something to do with CoD making funds upfront and in game via selling guns and skins along with Warzone being huge as well. CoD is an annual behemoth, it has more potential to make money than either of those two franchises you just named. It's easy to say they are more important to Nintendo now because CoD isn't available on Nintendo platforms, but once CoD is selling maybe 1, 2, and 3 million a year then it begins to add up. Then Nintendo will see for themselves how much more lucrative an annual behemoth can be compared to a once in a blue moon franchise like Monster Hunter or Dragon Quest.
never so much blamed nintendo here. if Activision is getting higher sales cut from the other manufactures, then it makes sense they make teh same demands to nintendo, who balked. Nintendo isn't going to pay to play, nor are they gonna foot anything they don't get a return on. for a lot of the games they distribute, they get a cut out of them, that's why they do it. playing a pay to play game is dumb shit, especially for someone in Nintendo's position
I'm confused. Are you suggesting Nintendo was presented with the same deal and "balked" or turned down the offer? Where are you getting that information? Looks more like they were never offered at all, until Microsoft made their offer and Nintendo gladly accepted. Nintendo is in no better position than Sony, Sony and MS accepted because it's a massive money making ip. Nintendo will do the same, I doubt Microsoft changed the deal that Activision just offered them (Microsoft) and Sony. So it's very possible Nintendo already accepted the terms that were offered by Microsoft.
Think about it, if you are getting a cut from 2 out of the 3 console players, Don't you think Activision asked the same from Nintendo? Maybe even a bit more since Nintendo was coming from the Wii U.
CoD was already on WiiU and it stopped. We literally have documents showing Activision was not interested. Why would they offer a deal to Nintendo with them releasing platforms like WiiU lol. Activision very likely never even bothered, are we suggesting this isnt something that 3rd parties pull with Nintendo alot? Like I'm a Nintendo Warrior, you all should be able to tell from my post history even in this very thread but this level of delusional Nintendo warrior mentality is ridiculous. Like you guys are being outrageously disrespectful to Sony and MS. Sony and MS didnt sign off on these terms because they are desperate for CoD, they likely make plenty of money from these terms. Nintendo was not offered this deal and turned it down. If they knew Sony and MS had these same terms then they accept this deal. Nintendo was simply never offered the deal by Activision. As soon as MS offered CoD to Nintendo, they gladly and quickly jumped at the opportunity. Nintendo is not some white knight out here telling CoD to piss off, they have more respect for the ip than that.
First, who's being disrespectful to Sony and MS lol.
Second, Yesterday we found out that Activision was ready to pull the CoD series from Xbox because 1 was a flop.
Third, we still dunno if Activision offered Nintendo or not. They haven't testified in court. They will next week. They only accepted or signed MS offer because they'll get CoD for 10 years without paying more (we will find the details next week)
for me, it's easier to believe that ABK wanted something from Nintendo. they already get a lot through marketing deals, and now we know of an 80/20 deal. they're gonna try to squeeze something from nintendo, because they already know the tactic works. MS offering CoD to Nintendo for seemingly nothing is an easy signature from Nintendo. they literally lose nothing.
quite frankly, the lack of CoD probably has more to do with, in addition to the lack of nintendo paying for deals, low user spending on MTX from the nintendo base
quite frankly, the lack of CoD probably has more to do with, in addition to the lack of nintendo paying for deals, low user spending on MTX from the nintendo base
First, some of the posts here come off a little disrepectful to me such as suggesting Sony/MS need/value CoD more than Nintendo and suggesting Sony/MS just gave into Activision's CoD demands of giving better revenue splits. It's not a big deal though to me it just comes off disrepectful because I know where some of these post are headed trying to make Sony/MS sound reliant on the ip. Some of these post sound like Sony/MS pay for the development by signing off on some of these more favorable revenue splits when its much more likely that Activsion realized how much revenue the CoD ip generates on Sony/MS and Sony/MS simply make too much considering they don't pay for any of the development and maintainence of this colossal ip. You guys realize these are revenue splits, in other words this is money made by Activision and Sony/MS receive a 30 % cut. If im Activision and my behemoth makes a signicant amount of more revenue than the many of ip also on those platforms, then you are damn right I want more of my(Activision) money. Sony/MS gladly signed off because it's CoD, a behemoth ip making a crazy amount of money annually. How many other ip can say that?
Second, maybe im missing something but that's not what it sounds like to me. Are you suggesting Activision was going to make the ip exclusive to Sony? Why are we acting like Acitvision pulling CoD from MS would only hurt MS and not the CoD ip as well? It looks more like Activsion simply threathened to stop making CoD on MS platforms unless MS signed the same terms as Sony did. Does that not sound reasonable lol, like why should MS get a more favorable deal than Sony? MS simply had to comply or else.
Third, the post from Ishan certainly suggest that MS is the only party interested in bringing CoD to Nintendo platforms. It doesnt read like Activision had any interest in Nintendo platforms. I'm not sure how that is surprising considering this is a Nintendo platform, 3rd parties not showing interest is hardly new. We will have to wait though and I can't wait to see what Activision has to say about this.
Here you go, if Kottick charged more to keep CoD on Xbox. Just imagine what went behind close doors with a conversation with Nintendo.
Of course we have no proof that happened, but of they are changing Sony and Xbox more. We can infer that they either try and failed to charge Nintendo more or want Nintendo to pay more in the future.
To go 3 out of 3.
Wait so is the split on MS platforms different than Sony's? That tweet even has further comments saying Sony was offered the same terms. So are MS's terms and Sony's terms the same or not?
Probably not, Sony gets the marketing and the brand association.Sot it would make sense for SIE to pay more than Xbox.Xbox gets squat. Just pay more for the same product they were already getting.
Oh I get it now, same terms for both companies except Sony also gets the marketing rights. Actually yeah, if I was MS I wouldn't like that either lol. Would love to know more about this because i'm not fully convinced this is all to it. I think Activision used Sony to get that 80/20 split with MS as well. I think the marketing also likely came with a check from Sony on top of the new revenue split, but that's just speculation on my part of course can't wait to hear more about this. I think Sony provides checks because with just a better revenue split, Activision still has to wait for games to sell to make the money. If Activision ask for checks from Sony in exchange for the marketing rights, Activision gets money upfront and Sony's marketing machine behind it. Basically i'm saying Sony likely sends Activision a bag of money on top of the 80/20 revenue split and Activision used Sony's new deal as leverage to alter the revenue split with Microsoft as well. Can't wait to see if im right or not.
They thretened MS over not making XBS versions, so it happened around new gen launch. Any negotiations with Nintendo would have happened before that, so Sony and MS likely had the standard 70/30 split outside of marketing deals at that point.
Also, there's no guarantee the conditions would be identical either. If it happened before the "Wii U successor" launch, I would be surprised if they were not worse.
All evidence, as well as common sense, points to the opposite being true. It's obviously not nearly as important for their platform as MS or Sony. Your long post doesn't make this self evident fact not true.
"Hey Nintendo, sign on the dotted line and we'll give you this huge game for the next 10 years". Well, duh, why wouldn't they agree? Regardless the idea that they value the ip as much as MS and Sony is self evidently absurd, it's obviously more important to their platforms than Nintendo's.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is important to Nintendo, saying otherwise is nonsense. CoD is important to all of them, Nintendo just doesnt have it. Which is up to Activision, not Nintendo. CoD could disappear from the universe and both PS and MS would be fine, they dont need CoD but would rather have it (which they do have it). Just like Nintendo doesnt need COD but would rather have it(which they dont have it). Your next post is more absurd. Nintendo didn't have to sign the deal which is completely contingent on Microsoft completing the transaction. Which Nintendo is going to court likely to help make happen (help Micrisoft complete the purchase of ABK). Why cant Nintendo just mind their business and stay out of this? Why would Nintendo sign a contract from a company that cant even make this contract valid? Everything points to Nintendo would love to have the ip. What exactly points to Nintendo doesn't care lol? Activision may have never even bothered making an offer, which is hardly absurd considering AAA 3rd parties do this to Nintendo all the time. Stop acting like Nintendo turned down the ip when it's much more likely Activision ran away after WiiU's failure.
Last edited:
No, it's not nearly as important because they don't need it for massive success. As proven by the Switch, MS bending the knee on revenue sharing (not to mention their purchase of the publisher who owns it), and Sony's frankly petulant whining to get that purchase cancelled.
Right...and? They lose nothing if the ABK deal doesn't go through and gain a mega franchise if it does.
I never said that. I said they don't value it in the same way that MS and Sony do, again, this should be self evident.
Agreed?
Again, agreed, I never said otherwise. I was mearly questioning your assertion that they value the ip as much as Sony and MS, they clearly don't.
Switch has done wonderful without CoD no doubt, but companies are always looking for more. An annual behemoth like CoD will certainly help with that. Again both Sony and MS would be fine without CoD, you have no reason to believe those platforms would be less successful without it. Sony should certainly whine about MS potentially making the largest 3rd party exclusive.
Yes dude which is how I know they care or else why go to court for this to validate a contract you clearly don't need with all your success?
I simply don't agree with that, I think for now CoD provides more value to those other platforms because they have it but don't think for a second Nintendo wouldn't love to change that if they could. Only way to get the value from CoD is to get the franchise on the platform which only Microsoft seems committed to. Nintendo is doing what they need to do to get Microsoft to make this purchase because otherwise CoD continues to be another mega franchise not making a dime for Nintendo. Nintendo likes to make dimes, your assertion to me sounds like Nintendo doesn't like to make dimes. Im sure you agree if Nintendo had a choice which would they choose? To have it or not? That's the same thing as asking would Nintendo rather make money or not?
low risk, high reward
they don't need CoD, but this is pocket change to spend if it helps them get it
Agreed.
You certainly wouldn't know that from their actions. One is attempting to buy the publisher and owner of the ip and the other is screeching about how the ip, not the publisher, is essential to their survival. Sony even went so far as to accuse MS of trying to make them "Nintendo", that is, mostly dependent on first party mega hits to survive/thrive. That doesn't sound like a company that thinks it would fine without it.
See above. Both companies actions give me reason to believe that, or at least they're acting like it would.
You said it above:
It's a "free" mega franchise if MS "wins" and no skin off Nintendo's back if they lose, what's the downside?
No, it provides more value because they're 3party driven platforms and is less meaningful to Nintendo because they're 1party driven... I don't think this is a controversial statement.
Of course, I never said otherwise.
...How?
Of course they would...Duh?
What? I never said anything of the sort. I responded to you because of your claim about how each company "values" the ip, Nintendo clearly doesn't value COD as much as their competition, because they don't have to.
It's pretty clear that both Xbox and Playstation desperately need Call of Duty on their platforms based on 1) their filings during the acquisition and 2) bending the knee regarding the revenue split. I'm curious who could get that revenue split from Nintendo. Monster Hunter? Dragon Quest?
DQ relies heavily on Japan to live. they have no bargaining power
Monster Hunter outgrew Nintendo, but knows they can still do massive numbers thanks to the addition of Japan. it's a matter of them wanting to give up additive sales or not
in short, there's nothing out there than can force Nintendo's hand
@storres @HFbob @ILikeFeet Do you all think Nintendo would accept the same terms for CoD as Sony/MS? I honestly think Nintendo already has when the contract from MS was presented. I hope we get some valuable information on CoD's and Nintendo's relationship when Nintendo's rep goes to court. When does Nintendo join MS/FTC in court?
Sony and MS probably make a lot of money from CoD to the point taking the revenue split is still in their favour "but" if Sony told Activision to kick rocks, Activision would accept it. No one publisher has that level of control over a console maker. CoD only stands to be smaller missing PS or Xbox. Significantly so.
Personally I think they would, like I said I think it's free money/a mega ip for Nintendo with little downside to signing a contract. That said, we know Acti didn't think going to Nintendo platforms was worth their time, maybe MS offered them a "normal" split, even with day and date releases how much is really going to come from Switch2, giving the the history of the franchise? Regardless, I think such a deal came chiefly from MS as it makes them look good in bringing the ip to more users in their fight to see that the deal goes through.
No. I don't think Nintendo will pay premium for it
Where did I say they would or they wouldn't?
None of us could possibly know so I personally have no interest in everyone arguing that point. Like scream with as much passion as you want, we're not getting an answer to that. They could pay a premium for it or they could refuse. There are lots of business implications to either. How could we possibly know with the info at hand?
All I am saying is Activision couldn't bully Sony with CoD because they would lose way more money for no strategic gain if Sony told them to fuck off. If Sony signed it, it is because they feel the pros outweigh the cons. Not because Activision could seriously hurt them. The one who has more to lose is Activision if they skip Sony systems.
No, I don't think they wouldn't pay premium for it.
Sorry, quoted the wrong person.
the 80/20 split? no, I don't think they would. Nintendo doesn't look to give anyone any more leverage than another company. if MS was the one who offered the deal that NIntendo already rejected (should they had been offered it), there's no reason to change their answer (outside of antagonism against ABK).
Do you remember how Activision announced they started getting a cut of Xbox Live subscription money around the same time MS raised the price from 50 to 60 USD? I 'member.