Call of Duty will start coming to Nintendo platforms [Update: Native Ports Confirmed]

[Ishaan]

A few select quotes from Microsoft's press conference in Brussels, to discuss the future of its Activision deal. (Eurogamer)

"We will make sure our games work the way people expect, with high technical standards," Smith says, of how Activision Blizzard games like Call of Duty might play on Nintendo platforms or Nvidia.

Today's Nintendo deal relates to current and future Xbox titles for now, and then Activision Blizzard games if the buyout is included, Smith says.

Remedies to keep Call of Duty accessible to all could include putting the game on cloud elsewhere, and via PC using ChromeOS, Smith says.

That first quote does not indicate cloud/streaming to me.

 

[fiendcode]

I'm not sure where to even begin with this post. It's straight downplay and convenient ignoring of things that did come. The focus on what didnt come is weird might i also add, because Microsift does intend on bringing CoD to Nintendo platforms. Doom and Doom Eternal went to Switch along with multiple Wolfenstein games. No reason at all to assume no priority lol, Panic button worked the port. Bethesda was of course then purchased by MS. You name EA and the Battlefield franchise which I don't recall going to Wii or WiiU despite those platforms getting CoD but oddly you ignore the fps from EA that did come in Apex Legends(EAs main focus). ABK for example did bring Overwatch 2 but you'll rather name drop Pubg and GTA lol. Fortnite i remember something different for those figures, i think you downplayed Switchs contribution. Maybe stop focusing on the 3rd parties that don't support Switch and focus on the ones that do. I know there's a market for first person shooters on Switch due to Fortnite, Apex Legends, Overwatch 2, Rogue Company, Realm Royale, and Warface all getting continued support on Switch. No that's not my question at all because it assumes everyone interested in CoD will just buy a PS or Xbox and I'm sure Microsoft does want less CoD sales on PS lmao. Are you forgetting what Microsoft goal is to begin with? Or are you still pushing Sony's agenda of Switch has no audience of shooters and my proof is things I pulled out of thin air like Doom Eternal had no priority and cheery picking Pubg not being on Switch means no audience?

Agreed, that post is full of circular logic and specious reasoning, while outright ignoring any data points that could potentially run counter. Like Doom and Wolfenstein getting custom build ported Switch follow ups somehow indicates... Zenimax de-prioritizing the platform? EA skipping Battlefield (nevermind EA's Switch record in general versus every other AAA pub) is concrete evidence of the platform viability, meanwhile let's ignore Apex? GTA definitely means something, TW3 doesn't?

Like, what?

A few select quotes from Microsoft's press conference in Brussels, to discuss the future of its Activision deal. (Eurogamer)





That first quote does not indicate cloud/streaming to me.

That second quote doesn't indicate COD only either, tbh. I wish the press could've gotten more direct clarification from Smith, there's some real mixed messaging on what he said versus what the agreement appears to be regarding Nintendo platforms?

 

[Tiddums]

Agreed, that post is full of circular logic and specious reasoning, while outright ignoring any data points that could potentially run counter. Like Doom and Wolfenstein getting custom build ported Switch follow ups somehow indicates... Zenimax de-prioritizing the platform? EA skipping Battlefield (nevermind EA's Switch record in general versus every other AAA pub) is concrete evidence of the platform viability, meanwhile let's ignore Apex? GTA definitely means something, TW3 doesn't?

Like, what?

I tried to draw in as many data points as I could think of off the top of my head that were tangentially related, not just ones that suited my own needs exactly. But as it stands, those ones did not produce strong sales to our knowledge. Doom Eternal got initially promised for launch then kicked down the line because they decided to focus development resources from Panic Button on the core platforms instead. It doesn't scream 'yes this is a platform we get a lot of sales from' if they're willing to delay one but not others, and by a very substantial margin.

I didn't "forget" TW3 but it's further afield, a fantasy 3p melee rpg. GTA is at least mechanically a shooter and definitely tapping similar demographics as CoD (in addition to both being the two biggest games around). I guess TW3 still a big game and vaguely in that 'hardcore gamer space' so if you do want to talk about it, here is the data I could find. The big switch debut resulted in capturing 11% of total sales, slightly ahead of Xbox One, all platforms dwarfed by PC. The percentage versus 9 million total sales seems to indicate slightly under 1 million sales on Switch. Does this mean anything in particular? It's hard to say. The Switch version was getting a marketing push and had newness going for it, the other versions had lower prices going for them. Also acting against the other platforms was that they were generally saturated after 4 years on the market. So in conclusion... I don't know. I don't think the Witcher is a very good analogue but it's not nothing.

I did not remember Apex, so thanks for bringing that up. Do we have any Apex Legends data from EA on how well it did on Switch?

You could talk about another F2P shooter like Paladins, but there's nothing searchable about how well it's done on Switch that I can find.

Ultimately, if you can find examples of a big shooter or even just a big 3p AAA game that you feel have meaningful similarities to cod doing really, unambiguously well on the platform that you think would indicate a big untapped market of people (i.e. people who don't also have other platforms that they could substitute Switch for) I'm certainly open to discussing that. From where I'm sitting it seems like we have examples of some 3P developers supporting the platform, but no known examples of it resulting in a big breakout hit in these genres - and if they have, they've been quiet about it.

I don't however have interest in continuing talking to other people randomly saying I'm "Pushing Sony's Agenda" and who are being generally aggressive and rude.

 

[Ishaan]

Ultimately, if you can find examples of a big shooter or even just a big 3p AAA game that you feel have meaningful similarities to cod doing really, unambiguously well on the platform that you think would indicate a big untapped market of people (i.e. people who don't also have other platforms that they could substitute Switch for) I'm certainly open to discussing that. From where I'm sitting it seems like we have examples of some 3P developers supporting the platform, but no known examples of it resulting in a big breakout hit in these genres - and if they have, they've been quiet about it.

"Unambiguously well" is a bit of a tall order, since we're all aware of how little data is publicly available, but something that could at least make this conversation a bit more interesting is how some of these games have charted on the Nintendo eShop in the USA.

Here's a look at that:

I would say that the way some of these games have repeatedly charted—particularly Diablo, Mortal Kombat, and Rocket League—indicates that there's a large enough audience willing to invest in them on the Switch. In fact, I would even say that the chart demonstrates how the games that are more multiplayer-focused have done far better than the ones that aren't (ie; Witcher and Doom).

The best and clearest example not depicted in the chart above is, of course, Monster Hunter Rise. That game has sold multiple millions of units on the Switch alone and makes a very good case for other AAA multiplayer efforts on the platform.

Regarding Fortnite and Apex, data on how those games have done on Switch is hard to come by, but given how severe the performance issues are on Switch nowadays, I don't think they make for particularly good discussion candidates.

Ultimately, the data presented above doesn't give us hard numbers, but it does tell us that there's a healthy enough online multiplayer community on Switch that is worth servicing, and that the circumstances exist for the right product with the right feature set to do well. If Microsoft really is committed to putting a polished port of Call of Duty on the Switch or a future Nintendo platform, I'd imagine it would find a healthy audience for itself on there.

 

[meatbag]

Ultimately, if you can find examples of a big shooter or even just a big 3p AAA game that you feel have meaningful similarities to cod doing really, unambiguously well on the platform that you think would indicate a big untapped market of people (i.e. people who don't also have other platforms that they could substitute Switch for) I'm certainly open to discussing that

Do we have to limit it to third party? Because Splatoon proves Switch is a healthy audience for multiplayer shooters. Or you could look at CoD mobile and presume that there’s a market for lower-spec, portable CoD.

 

[ILikeFeet]

Drake would build a base faster I agree but Microsoft likely wiil not rely on Drake and its smaller userbase day one. Remember Fifa despite being a legacy edition has sold more with each release because the userbase is simply enormous. A smaller userbase can't compete no matter how much better the game runs.

This only really works if there is still a buying and playing audience on Switch that doesn't move immediately. By the time CoD hits Switch (if it does), what does the audience look like?

Also the comparison with Fifa hinges on the idea that Activision has an old and easily updatable version of the game that can be ported. They won't start until the deal closes and any Switch port would take resources that could probably be spent on a faster version to port (and thus cheaper). Is the opportunity costs for a Switch version even worth it?

 

[Xenogod]

Is CoD being on everything now really a win for gamers when everything else that ABK owns is probs never gonna see the light of day on Playstation or Nintendo again?

 

[Aostia82]

Is CoD being on everything now really a win for gamers when everything else that ABK owns is probs never gonna see the light of day on Playstation or Nintendo again?

going by market feedback (so: commercial results and sales) it does indeed seem so

 

[Phenom08]

I tried to draw in as many data points as I could think of off the top of my head that were tangentially related, not just ones that suited my own needs exactly. But as it stands, those ones did not produce strong sales to our knowledge. Doom Eternal got initially promised for launch then kicked down the line because they decided to focus development resources from Panic Button on the core platforms instead. It doesn't scream 'yes this is a platform we get a lot of sales from' if they're willing to delay one but not others, and by a very substantial margin.

I didn't "forget" TW3 but it's further afield, a fantasy 3p melee rpg. GTA is at least mechanically a shooter and definitely tapping similar demographics as CoD (in addition to both being the two biggest games around). I guess TW3 still a big game and vaguely in that 'hardcore gamer space' so if you do want to talk about it, here is the data I could find. The big switch debut resulted in capturing 11% of total sales, slightly ahead of Xbox One, all platforms dwarfed by PC. The percentage versus 9 million total sales seems to indicate slightly under 1 million sales on Switch. Does this mean anything in particular? It's hard to say. The Switch version was getting a marketing push and had newness going for it, the other versions had lower prices going for them. Also acting against the other platforms was that they were generally saturated after 4 years on the market. So in conclusion... I don't know. I don't think the Witcher is a very good analogue but it's not nothing.

I did not remember Apex, so thanks for bringing that up. Do we have any Apex Legends data from EA on how well it did on Switch?

You could talk about another F2P shooter like Paladins, but there's nothing searchable about how well it's done on Switch that I can find.

Ultimately, if you can find examples of a big shooter or even just a big 3p AAA game that you feel have meaningful similarities to cod doing really, unambiguously well on the platform that you think would indicate a big untapped market of people (i.e. people who don't also have other platforms that they could substitute Switch for) I'm certainly open to discussing that. From where I'm sitting it seems like we have examples of some 3P developers supporting the platform, but no known examples of it resulting in a big breakout hit in these genres - and if they have, they've been quiet about it.

I don't however have interest in continuing talking to other people randomly saying I'm "Pushing Sony's Agenda" and who are being generally aggressive and rude.

You have moved from no audience at all to its a small audience so it doesn't matter. You are even using the lack of information as confirmation of these games haven't done well. Panic Button only developed the Switch version, it was a late port due to the hardware limitations. That doesn't mean it was not priotized, Bethesda was then purchased by MS. Developers don't give platform specific data because they only care about the game being available on as many platforms as possible. GTA isn't relevant to this conversation at all, its not on Switch and there has been no mention of it coming. The GTA trilogy is on Switch oddly. TW3 was a called a success by its developers but of course you'll rather tell us it did poorly because it sold the least. Doing unambiguously well according to you means absolutely nothing because your interpretation of success means nothing to these developers. They continue to support then it means they are safisfied. None of this matters anyways because Microsoft only cares about harming PS, using Switch among other platforms to do this is their agenda.

"Unambiguously well" is a bit of a tall order, since we're all aware of how little data is publicly available, but something that could at least make this conversation a bit more interesting is how some of these games have charted on the Nintendo eShop in the USA.

Here's a look at that:

I would say that the way some of these games have repeatedly charted—particularly Diablo, Mortal Kombat, and Rocket League—indicates that there's a large enough audience willing to invest in them on the Switch. In fact, I would even say that the chart demonstrates how the games that are more multiplayer-focused have done far better than the ones that aren't (ie; Witcher and Doom).

The best and clearest example not depicted in the chart above is, of course, Monster Hunter Rise. That game has sold multiple millions of units on the Switch alone and makes a very good case for other AAA multiplayer efforts on the platform.

Regarding Fortnite and Apex, data on how those games have done on Switch is hard to come by, but given how severe the performance issues are on Switch nowadays, I don't think they make for particularly good discussion candidates.

Ultimately, the data presented above doesn't give us hard numbers, but it does tell us that there's a healthy enough online multiplayer community on Switch that is worth servicing, and that the circumstances exist for the right product with the right feature set to do well. If Microsoft really is committed to putting a polished port of Call of Duty on the Switch or a future Nintendo platform, I'd imagine it would find a healthy audience for itself on there.

Fortnite, Overwatch 2, and Apex Legends all do signficantly better on NA eshop than any of those games, I doubt people are downloading them just to look. The performance issues are purely subjective and im sure you said the same thing about a recent first party Switch game that moved over 20 million in its first quarter. These companies don't call out how these games perform on Switch because it's just another platform that there game is available on. Switch continues to get support from them is all that matters, not how much of the pie does the Switch provide.

This only really works if there is still a buying and playing audience on Switch that doesn't move immediately. By the time CoD hits Switch (if it does), what does the audience look like?

Also the comparison with Fifa hinges on the idea that Activision has an old and easily updatable version of the game that can be ported. They won't start until the deal closes and any Switch port would take resources that could probably be spent on a faster version to port (and thus cheaper). Is the opportunity costs for a Switch version even worth it?

140 million people ain't moving immediately, like what? Microsoft ain't skipping Switch because it has the audience and who knows when Nintendo plans on releasing the successor. Also, how exactly would you know the audience moved on immediately if you don't release the game on both? Yes it's worth it, because Microsoft only cares about providing options so promote people to buy CoD on everything but PS. Why do you all keep ignoring that?

PS (this isn't for you Feet): Something else I find interesting is when there is a lack of data for Nintendo it means the audience doesn't exist because apparently Paladins, Apex, and Overwatch not telling us how much the Switch contributes to there success is proof of no audience but we don't have data for Playstation and Xbox either but that doesn't matter because reasons. Lack of data for PS on the other hand means we can't jump to conclusions of course, see Playstation in Japan.

 

[BassForever]

Is CoD being on everything now really a win for gamers when everything else that ABK owns is probs never gonna see the light of day on Playstation or Nintendo again?

Considering CoD is an "ESSENTIAL" game to compete in the video game industry, and nothing else from ABK is even getting discussed by any regulator or Sony...

Yes, getting CoD on everything is a "win". Sensible people may look back and say what you're saying much in the same way Disney buying Fox but being forced to divest Fox Sports was a "win". Not a perfect example as Microsoft seemingly cares far more about CoD then Disney did about Fox Sports, but it's the same level of hyper fixation which will be baffling in hindsight. Especially if CoD naturally falls off as some other series becomes the cultural zeitgeist (assuming that CoD falls off regardless of if the acquisition happens or not).

 

[Ishaan]

@Phenom08 I think you need to calm down and stop lashing out at everyone that's trying to bring different perspectives to this discussion. That sort of tone turns discussions sour very quickly and makes people feel like they're being attacked just for having a different opinion.

I excluded Fortnite and Apex because the measure of success for those games is in-game spend, and we have very little data on that front.

 

[Phenom08]

@Phenom08 I think you need to calm down and stop lashing out at everyone that's trying to bring different perspectives to this discussion. That sort of tone turns discussions sour very quickly and makes people feel like they're being attacked just for having a different opinion.

I excluded Fortnite and Apex because the measure of success for those games is in-game spend, and we have very little data on that front.

I haven't lashed out at all. I have done nothing but respond to some very weird takes. Nothing was wrong at all with what you said, I just added that Fortnite and Apex do far better on eshop and I doubt people download those games and not play them. Switch's contribution to the success of those games is irrevelant to you and me because it's Epic and EA games. Epic and EA continue to support the Switch version so there is no reason to believe those games have done poor enough on Switch to show there is no audience. Don't you find it weird that Playstation and Xbox also have no data for those games individually but that isn't used to prove no audience exist on those platforms. I then showed you can easily go to a thread based on Japan's market and lack of data for the digital side of things is used to excuse Playstation's performance on the charts. In this thread a lack of data has been used as evidence for a lack of audience for Nintendo. Maybe you think I am lashing out at you or others because I pointed out this double standard? I'm truly not sure what is wrong with my replies.

PS: The weird takes I speak of are the ones that suggest we are the barometers of success. This poster wants to know how much these games have sold or how much money these games have individually performed on Switch. Why? If it hasn't done well enough on Switch for you or me but has performed well enough to satisfy EA and Epic then why would it matter to us that it continues to get support from them? It begins to look more like goalpost moving if anything. Not much to discuss if all of a sudden everything is up to you on what is or isn't successful enough.

Edit: @Pooroomoo I have followed these games on eshop as well and can confirm those games are consistently in the top 5. Apex is usually atleast top 15 and currently #17 but the top of the charts includes apps like Youtube (which is always near the top), Zelda currently has two spots in the top 10 because of the editions that include dlc and the edition that doesn't include dlc. Metroid is number #1, we all know that won't last long. That's what I was trying to point out to Ishaan who brought in that chart showing those games, which was great but those games don't compare to Fortnite, Apex, and Overwatch. These games have much more in common with CoD. I find it weird that we want more than just the downloads though, some of us want to know how much the Switch individually contributes to the overall pie. Why that matters is weird because as long as it contributes enough to keep the support flowing why would it matter to me? Fortnite runs incredibly well on Switch due to Epic putting in the resources to do such thing, they have shown nothing but full support to Fortnite on Switch. Overwatch 2 has full parity and was released day and date on Switch. Apex Legends released later on Switch of course and was ported by Panic Button. It has kept full parity and likely only exist because of Apex's popularity in Japan. EA just literally cancelled Apex Mobile after only being on the market for a year. Apex Legends on Switch was released in March 2021, if they weren't happy they would have certainly shut it down by now.

 

[Pooroomoo]

Regarding Fortnite and Apex, data on how those games have done on Switch is hard to come by, but given how severe the performance issues are on Switch nowadays, I don't think they make for particularly good discussion candidates.

It depends what kind of data you are looking for. From looking at the "all downloads" view of the US eShop for well over a year (not every week, granted, but quite a lot), I believe I can safely say Fortnite is constantly a top 3 game (more often than not no. 1), Overwatch 2 is usually a top 5 game (more often than not top 3), and Apex Legends is a top 20 game (more often than not top 10). This of course in itself does not say how many people play these games regularly or spend money on them, but still, it is an excellent indication at the very least of interest in these kind of games.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Is CoD being on everything now really a win for gamers when everything else that ABK owns is probs never gonna see the light of day on Playstation or Nintendo again?

Nope. It's ultimately not a win for gamers because ABK releases a lot of products on other platforms that do quite well amd the fact that CoD is taking all this attention ignores that there are big IPs that down the line may never be accessible to gamers unless they buy am Xbox or move to PC. It sucks but it it's business and assuming the deal goes through, we don't really have a say.

going by market feedback (so: commercial results and sales) it does indeed seem so

CoD is ABK's biggest cash generator but stuff like the N'Sane trilogy still sold 10 million units. Diablo 4 will be on PS but will Diablo 5? Will Diablo 4 get a Drake port now that MS will own ABK? Commerically CoD is a titan but there is a reason they produce other titles.

I didn't "forget" TW3 but it's further afield, a fantasy 3p melee rpg. GTA is at least mechanically a shooter and definitely tapping similar demographics as CoD (in addition to both being the two biggest games around). I guess TW3 still a big game and vaguely in that 'hardcore gamer space' so if you do want to talk about it, here is the data I could find. The big switch debut resulted in capturing 11% of total sales, slightly ahead of Xbox One, all platforms dwarfed by PC. The percentage versus 9 million total sales seems to indicate slightly under 1 million sales on Switch. Does this mean anything in particular? It's hard to say. The Switch version was getting a marketing push and had newness going for it, the other versions had lower prices going for them. Also acting against the other platforms was that they were generally saturated after 4 years on the market. So in conclusion... I don't know. I don't think the Witcher is a very good analogue but it's not nothing.

Based on CD Projekt Red's own data the Switch version of The Witcher 3 is over 1.8 million as of end of year 2021. So it is certainly over 2 million ltd.

I did not remember Apex, so thanks for bringing that up. Do we have any Apex Legends data from EA on how well it did on Switch?

We do not. I'd just note though going back to Fortnite that we Switch is the 4th highest grossing platform from that March 2018- July 2020 period (note that Fornite didn't launch on Switch until June 2018 so it already is 3 months of revenue disadvantaged compared to PS4/Xbox One/PC). If you scan the court documents and depositions they state that ios is less than PS4, Xbox One, PC and Switch and normally last unless Android is included where it is second last. So 18.7% is split between 3 platforms but actually PC and Switch have to be above 7% and Android has to be below 7% for these numbers to work out. It's hard to split it up but basically Android has to be contributing little. Probably looking at something like 8% PC, 7.5% Switch, and 3ish% Android.

In general I would just say that there is certainly not going to be more Switch revenue generation than PS/Xbox/PC for shooters. However when you are talking about games that sell 20m units every year, an additional 1.5-2m units plus microtransactions is notable. The goal is to keep expanding reach and new players and the Switch userbase has proven to be responsive to these types of games. CoD is one of the biggest. It stands to reason that if Doom and Wolfenstein can make the jump, CoD would be the biggest of them all.

 

[Ishaan]

I haven't lashed out at all. I have done nothing but respond to some very weird takes. Nothing was wrong at all with what you said, I just added that Fortnite and Apex do far better on eshop and I doubt people download those games and not play them. Switch's contribution to the success of those games is irrevelant to you and me because it's Epic and EA games. Epic and EA continue to support the Switch version so there is no reason to believe those games have done poor enough on Switch to show there is no audience. Don't you find it weird that Playstation and Xbox also have no data for those games individually but that isn't used to prove no audience exist on those platforms. I then showed you can easily go to a thread based on Japan's market and lack of data for the digital side of things is used to excuse Playstation's performance on the charts. In this thread a lack of data has been used as evidence for a lack of audience for Nintendo. Maybe you think I am lashing out at you or others because I pointed out this double standard? I'm truly not sure what is wrong with my replies.

No, I don't think there's any such double-standard on InstallBase.

If anything, the forum is very Nintendo-centric—especially the Media Create threads where the vast majority of posters routinely point out how competition is virtually non-existent in Japan. On IB in particular, this notion that anyone trying to take a broader view of the industry is somehow "anti-Nintendo" or is exhibiting double standards feels misplaced and makes discussions very difficult to have.

As for Fortnite/Apex on Switch, nobody's saying that the games "don't count" or anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out that we have very little current data for how much revenue those games are earning on Switch (whereas we know that PlayStation is the primary revenue-driver for both, as far as consoles are concerned). It makes it harder to gauge how those games have done on Switch compared to other games that follow a more traditional model, where eShop stickiness helps demonstrate that folks were willing to put their money down.

 

[Phenom08]

No, I don't think there's any such double-standard on InstallBase.

If anything, the forum is very Nintendo-centric—especially the Media Create threads where the vast majority of posters routinely point out how competition is virtually non-existent in Japan. On IB in particular, this notion that anyone trying to take a broader view of the industry is somehow "anti-Nintendo" or is exhibiting double standards feels misplaced and makes discussions very difficult to have.

As for Fortnite/Apex on Switch, nobody's saying that the games "don't count" or anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out that we have very little current data for how much revenue those games are earning on Switch (whereas we know that PlayStation is the primary revenue-driver for both, as far as consoles are concerned). It makes it harder to gauge how those games have done on Switch compared to other games that follow a more traditional model, where eShop stickiness helps demonstrate that folks were willing to put their money down.

Nintendo centric no by no stretch of the imagination but we can certainly agree to disagree on this. Medic Create thread point out what is happening in the market because PS is getting beatdown in Japan. The lack of digital data is then used as a crutch to paint a better picture for PS in Japan. The software sells are horrendous we actually have data for this. The hardware sales have been recently better but far from anything that we would label as competition for Switch or do you beleive getting outsold 3 to 1 lifetime is a good thing? This isn't that thread and it seems I struct a cord with PS's performance in Japan so we will leave it out of this discussion. I only brought it up to point out lack of data on something for PS doesn't prove a lack of audience but instead not enough data to comment.

This broader view you speak of isn't broader at all. It's full blown cherry picking while conveniently leaving things out, how is that broader? What does bringing up GTA not being present on Switch have to do with CoD's potential audience? How does Battlefield not releasing on Switch prove no audience but then conveniently leaving out Apex? Games not releasing on Switch have a multitude of reasons, certainly not just a lack of audience. Can't build an audience if you never release on the platform to begin with.

Fortnite/Apex have little data on every platform individually but its interesting that you have already decided that those games lead on Playstation. This is the console warrior stuff I am alluding to though, PS leading and how Switch has done individually should not matter if the game has done well enough to get and keep the support. This information you seek is irrelevant to EA and Epic because they completely understand the more platforms the game is available on the higher the potential of money being made. Don't say nobody is saying the game doesn't count because the other poster certainly looks like thats where the conversation is headed. You are not saying that I completely agree and you want individual platform breakdowns because you are interested in the data but dont speak for everyone here. Ishaan I truly don't think you have any ill intent but I want you to see how Nintendo platforms are always treated as if the console doesn't contribute an undisclosed amount to the overall success of the game then the game shouldn't exist on the platform at all. That's exactly where alot of this seems to be going, if Switch doesn't contribute atleast say 20% of the revenue then there is no need to keep Apex on Switch at all. No other platform is treated like that. Whatever they contribute is a plus.

 

[Aostia82]

No, I don't think there's any such double-standard on InstallBase.

If anything, the forum is very Nintendo-centric—especially the Media Create threads where the vast majority of posters routinely point out how competition is virtually non-existent in Japan. On IB in particular, this notion that anyone trying to take a broader view of the industry is somehow "anti-Nintendo" or is exhibiting double standards feels misplaced and makes discussions very difficult to have.

As for Fortnite/Apex on Switch, nobody's saying that the games "don't count" or anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out that we have very little current data for how much revenue those games are earning on Switch (whereas we know that PlayStation is the primary revenue-driver for both, as far as consoles are concerned). It makes it harder to gauge how those games have done on Switch compared to other games that follow a more traditional model, where eShop stickiness helps demonstrate that folks were willing to put their money down.

I don0't think there is any double standard on IB.
MC thread are like that because they simply reflect the reality of that market and those thread are among the most followed on IB because Japanese market is the only one for which we get regular complete weekly numbers
and Nintendo is often discussed on IB because they are probably the publisher that provide the most accurate and constant data to be discussed
if in the MC thread the topic derails too much talking about Western sales as to dismiss the JP domestic numbers, yes: moderation remind everybody to stay on topic

that's it imho

about Apex and Forntnite, I think we have some data that clearly point to Switch revenues being way behind PS ones or even Xbox ones
I personally think it's a smaller market, but due to the huge install base, still worth it (at least Epic seems pretty keen to continue supporting the console without any kind of issue)

 

[Ishaan]

Fortnite/Apex have little data on every platform individually but its interesting that you have already decided that those games lead on Playstation. This is the console warrior stuff I am alluding to though, PS leading and how Switch has done individually should not matter if the game has done well enough to get and keep the support.

It's common knowledge that PlayStation leads console revenue for GaaS games. There's no "console warrior stuff" happening here.

This is exactly what I'm talking about—your tone is incredibly accusatory and prickly, even when you're addressing people that are more or less in agreement with your stance, simply because they may not agree with everything you said. As long as you folks keep taking this tone with anyone that doesn't share your exact view of the industry, productive conversation will never happen.

 

[ILikeFeet]

140 million people ain't moving immediately, like what? Microsoft ain't skipping Switch because it has the audience and who knows when Nintendo plans on releasing the successor. Also, how exactly would you know the audience moved on immediately if you don't release the game on both? Yes it's worth it, because Microsoft only cares about providing options so promote people to buy CoD on everything but PS. Why do you all keep ignoring that?

I'm not ignoring anything. you're running on hypotheicals as much as I am. 140M people won't move immediately, but 140M people aren't playing CoD. the ones that do would probably move immediately because the playability would improve greatly. Apex plays like trash on Switch, so an improved version would improve the userbase there too. same with Fortnite (though not as bad as apex at least). hell, fortnite literally plays worse on Switch unless you have some old or low range phone

 

[Phenom08]

It's common knowledge that PlayStation leads console revenue for GaaS games. There's no "console warrior stuff" happening here.

This is exactly what I'm talking about—your tone is incredibly accusatory and prickly, even when you're addressing people that are more or less in agreement with your stance, simply because they may not agree with everything you said. As long as you folks keep taking this tone with anyone that doesn't share your exact view of the industry, productive conversation will never happen.

It's console warrior stuff because it has no reason to be mentioned in a discussion about why CoD may have an audience on Switch. It's only brought up to justify why a game shouldn't appear on Switch. Now tell me please what does Playstation has to do with this discussion?

@ILikeFeet Mine is a hypotheical because this deal could very well be for Switch's successor which would make sense for Nintendo to want since they would certainly want to brag about getting CoD back while rolling out a new platform. Microsoft on the other hand wants CoD on as many platforms as possible, I just think they would want the 140 million people because it provides more potentail for a game to sell higher due to the higher install base. The higher CoD sells on Switch, the more it could potenatially take from another userbase Microsoft would want the lose to come solely from PS. You are just assuming people that would want to play CoD on Switch would want to upgrade immediately which is likely correct but not likely all of them will be able to upgrade immediately. Do you think the Switch successor will not be sold out? Look you may very well be right and CoD only comes to Drake but I honestly think in Microsoft's best interest to get it on Switch no matter what. Hurting PS is possibly more important to them but I imagine Nintendo would want it saved for Drake. Also Apex running like crap on Switch is subjective, espically when I can just do Switch only lobbies. Apex on the toilet is better than no Apex at all, which is what my Xbox offers me when im using the restroom or im not in the only room my Xbox is hooked up in. Just played Apex while on a trip to my aunt's house (lives an hour away), guess which platforms can't do that?

 

[Ishaan]

Now tell me please what does Playstation has to do with this discussion?

Absolutely nothing. You were the one that brought it up in the first place when you accused people of taking sides.

 

[Phenom08]

Absolutely nothing. You were the one that brought it up in the first place when you accused people of taking sides.

I certainly did not, the other poster started talking about how the Switch version of games does far worse than Playstation or Xbox versions which has nothing to do with whether there is a market for CoD on Switch. You entered the conversation with graphs showing 3rd party games have some market on Switch. We agree but you seem to be ticked off at me suggesting a double standard for Playstation lack of data vs Nintendo having a lack of data. That wasn't towards you, it was just an observation. I'll say this, I shouldn't have thrown that console warrior take at you. So I sincerely apologize, I see that you were not pushing that agenda at all.

Edit: I'll message you directly Ishaan, I don't think I ever realized we could message each other directly. Probably an update I missed.

 

[Aostia82]

Private messages and report to moderation are useful tools, anyway.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

No, I don't think there's any such double-standard on InstallBase.

I disagree actually. Outside of Fortnite all we know is that PS is likely where spend leads for FTP shooter games but we don't know by how much and the extent of profitability on any platform. We just use the fact that games release on PS/Xbox/PC as proof enough of that being where the audience is for that type of content. We never actually get that information up front. So the idea that Switch has to prove itself on this front for the same types of games that have already released makes little sense. If it is there and still supported what else is there to discuss? Nintendo platforms aren't exactly known to be loss leaders in the third party AAA space. I don't see why Switch would be fully supported if it made no money.

We can argue less tangible things certainly like the ROIC or IRR being too low to justify Switch porting efforts over other projects. But just saying "well there is little info" rings hollow when we can't find info for any platform. No one can realistically expect Switch to overtake PC/PS/Xbox on spend in these types of games when its basically rolling dice as to what series come to Nintendo platforms every generation. So while certainly we can talk about other platforms we're not getting much value if we're asking for and comparing numbers. In my opinion anyway.

If anything, the forum is very Nintendo-centric—especially the Media Create threads where the vast majority of posters routinely point out how competition is virtually non-existent in Japan. On IB in particular, this notion that anyone trying to take a broader view of the industry is somehow "anti-Nintendo" or is exhibiting double standards feels misplaced and makes discussions very difficult to have.

The broadview of the industry in Media Create threads especially the last month has been "Japan doesn't matter, focus globally" and that perspective being pushed in a thread created specifically to discuss the Japanese market is incredibly annoying. Even I have lost patience for it because posters are just there to disingenuously post about how Japan doesn't matter. There are correct ways to have discussions about the global market, it isn't hard. Bar America, basically no singular country can solely support a AAA title these days. Hearing it day in day out almost exclusively in Media Create thread is tiresome.

Certainly Install Base is Nintendo centric, it spun off of drama in a Media Create thread. That siad you're not fairly representing the situation.

It's common knowledge that PlayStation leads console revenue for GaaS games. There's no "console warrior stuff" happening here.

This is exactly what I'm talking about—your tone is incredibly accusatory and prickly, even when you're addressing people that are more or less in agreement with your stance, simply because they may not agree with everything you said. As long as you folks keep taking this tone with anyone that doesn't share your exact view of the industry, productive conversation will never happen.

I dunno man, imo you just set your boundaries on what you're willing to engage with and move on. Trying to tone police people is not productive. Report and move on. Screaming "you folks" into the void doesn't help the situation. It just projects that you think your approach to dialogue is superior to the people you're talking to.

It's console warrior stuff because it has no reason to be mentioned in a discussion about why CoD may have an audience on Switch. It's only brought up to justify why a game shouldn't appear on Switch. Now tell me please what does Playstation has to do with this discussion?

Discussing why a game shouldn't appear on certain hardware or why it may not have an audience is not console warrior stuff. There is a whole thread of investigations into the ABK where everyone from Sony to MS to the CMA are basically saying there is a pretty large audience divide between Sony/MS and Nintendo which makes their competition much less direct. That's business. That reality plays directly into how publishers view bringing titles to Nintendo platforms and has for decades. Lets not go crazy here.

 

[Tiddums]

Do we have to limit it to third party? Because Splatoon proves Switch is a healthy audience for multiplayer shooters. Or you could look at CoD mobile and presume that there’s a market for lower-spec, portable CoD.

That data isn't unimportant, so feel free. It's not quite directly what we want, however. Demonstrating an audience for shooters is good, but if the game is switch exclusive then we aren't sure if players would preferentially play it elsewhere in a situation where it was call of duty or battlefield instead. This one would be most clearly answered if there was a direct analogue but it seems like we have to make do with imperfect ones unfortunately.

Similarly, there is the harder-to-answer question of whether switch-preferencing shooter gamers do or do not have access to other platforms to substitute on games they like, if there isn't a switch version. I don't know how we could really measure this without a/b testing alternate universes. I suppose just the stats on how many gamers second home gives part of an insight but it's not a full picture.

Hopefully if the acquisition is approved and they do start porting, we see meaningful sales data about it.

 

[Phenom08]

Discussing why a game shouldn't appear on certain hardware or why it may not have an audience is not console warrior stuff. There is a whole thread of investigations into the ABK where everyone from Sony to MS to the CMA are basically saying there is a pretty large audience divide between Sony/MS and Nintendo which makes their competition much less direct. That's business. That reality plays directly into how publishers view bringing titles to Nintendo platforms and has for decades. Lets not go crazy here.

No we will certainly agree to disagree on this. A game appearing or not appearing on a platform shouldn't be left up to how it performs on another platform. Even if Switch and PS had no crossover at all in audiences that does not mean a game that is popular on PS couldn't also be popular on Switch. There are many more factors as to why a game doesn't come and I would bet money on the most popular reason is hardware. Using PS and Xbox to justify why a game shouldn't cone to Switch is borderline gatekeeping/console warrior stuff.

PS: Dragon Quest 11 sold less individually on 3DS than Dragon Quest 9 on DS by a significant margin. Are you suggesting that had nothing to do with it appearing on PS4? Do you believe Dragon Quest 11 sells more on 3DS and much closer to Dragon Quest 9 on DS version if the PS4 version of Dragon Quest 11 doesn't exist? I'm asking because this different audience mess between Nintendo and PS seems to get abused when it's convenient. If these audiences are so different then why would these games affect each other? All I'm suggesting is maybe we are all part of one big audience (gamers) and we make our choices based off of what the library for that console offers. Maybe Switch would be more direct competition if the 3rd party games come and maybe these games would affect each other more if they were offered on more platforms. That's the whole point of Microsoft bringing CoD to Switch, it's to give more choices allowing more people to reconsider the automatic choice of PS. Clearly Microsoft agrees Switch would be more competitive if the games showed up.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

No we will certainly agree to disagree on this. A game appearing or not appearing on a platform shouldn't be left up to how it performs on another platform.

Eh, this is flawed for two reasons.

The first is that how a game performs on its initial release may or may not justify whether it should command more resources for a port compared to utilizing those resources elsewhere. These titles should be looked at as individual projects and none of them operate in isolation.

The second is depending on the product, there may be notable market overlap or you may not be reaching the correct target depending on the platform. There is almost no reason to believe that if a title like say Story of Season theoretically did 500k lifetime on Switch alone, that there is suddenly 250k additional sales to be had on Xbox and Playstation. There is no market data supporting the idea that those platforms would expand the true reach of the franchise. Where as alternatively if the game sold 10 million on the Switch, it probably does have some additional market on other platforms due to the scale of user appeal necessary to cross that barrier.

Most of the big third party publishers will have some market research that advises them about the crossover appeal of releasing titles on additional platforms (Not to say they dont fuck it up but it wouldn't be based on nothing). You're 100% going to (or at least you should unless you like flying blind) use your core market metrics to evaluate potential new markets.

Even if Switch and PS had no crossover at all in audiences that does not mean a game that is popular on PS couldn't also be popular on Switch.

No one ever argued otherwise so not sure what the point of this statement is.

There are many more factors as to why a game doesn't come and I would bet money on the most popular reason is hardware. Using PS and Xbox to justify why a game shouldn't cone to Switch is borderline gatekeeping/console warrior stuff.

Well PS/Xbox share extremely similar hardware architecture and power while also being the core market for these types of games so literally we would be using PS/Xbox to justify why games shouldn't come to Switch. And even your framing is loaded. It isn't about keeping games off the Switch, it's about justifying if there is enough of an exploitable market on the Switch given those platforms make up the bulk of potential users. Those are quite different concepts. Calling it console warrior stuff is dumb. Again, we have a whole thread filled from top to bottom of industry participants more or less saying that there is a differentiation in userbases.

PS: Dragon Quest 11 sold less individually on 3DS than Dragon Quest 9 on DS by a significant margin. Are you suggesting that had nothing to do with it appearing on PS4?

You're the only person bringing this up. I'm not even going to answer it cause it is out of scope.

Do you believe Dragon Quest 11 sells more on 3DS and much closer to Dragon Quest 9 on DS version if the PS4 version of Dragon Quest 11 doesn't exist?

What does much closer mean? DQ11's release was a mess. I'm not going to draw conclusions off of random outlier style releases. It obviously sells more on 3DS without a PS4 version, it is a multiplatform game. How much more? No one knows or could even guess.

I'm asking because this different audience mess between Nintendo and PS seems to get abused when it's convenient. If these audiences are so different then why would these games affect each other?

There is obviously an audience difference in aggregate between PS and Nintendo. This is just reality. Markets can't be defined by pointing to one or two anecdotes. But we know that the audience that makes up the bulk of PS spending is male and purchases AAA games. That demographic is not nearly as prevalent on Nintendo systems. I'm not going to STP the whole gaming market for something that is obvious.

All I'm suggesting is maybe we are all part of one big audience (gamers) and we make our choices based off of what the library for that console offers. Maybe Switch would be more direct competition if the 3rd party games come and maybe these games would affect each other more if they were offered on more platforms. That's the whole point of Microsoft bringing CoD to Switch, it's to give more choices allowing more people to reconsider the automatic choice of PS. Clearly Microsoft agrees Switch would be more competitive if the games showed up.

MS is bringing CoD to Switch in a bid to appease regulators so they can get their $70b merger. Lets not be coy. To note, regardless of MS, I've always thought CoD had a resonable market on Switch and have been surprised that not a single title (the MW remaster being the standout) was ported. Still. Quite different than what you're arguing.

The Switch probably offers a good market for a bunch of 3rd party games to make money (my opinion) but platform considerations and reach are part of effect project uptake and management. There is a reason ABK aint out here wasting time porting Candy Crush to PS5 even though it undoubtebly would "theoretically" reach more players with high avg game spend. Yeah where you current operate should affect what you offer else where. This is part of business. It is unhelpful to blob 300 million consoles as "gamers" without conducting any segmentation. Segmentation is like, the first part of marketing.

 

[Phenom08]

Eh, this is flawed for two reasons.

The first is that how a game performs on its initial release may or may not justify whether it should command more resources for a port compared to utilizing those resources elsewhere. These titles should be looked at as individual projects and none of them operate in isolation.

I'm not sure what you mean by initial release? Are you referring to for example if CoD MWII initially release on PS/Xbox but flops would stop CoD MWII from ever being released on Switch? Or are you referring to if CoD MWII releases on Switch, how it performs on Switch should command more resources or not. If the later then yes I agree, CoD has to first release on Switch to see if it commands more resources. If the former then also of course if CoD MWII initial release flops on PS/Xbox then of course they probably shouldn't worry about ever porting to Switch. That isn't the case in this example though, CoD is an success on PS/Xbox so they should atleast attempt to release on Switch in hopes of growing the franchise further. More platforms opens the door to more oppportunities to grow. If the issue is lack of resources then thats where Microsoft comes in and provides the resources to make it happen. Activision did this in the past on Wii and WiiU, they assigned a different team to these ports to make them happen. They were rewarded with additional sales that they wouldn't have had if they didn't.

The second is depending on the product, there may be notable market overlap or you may not be reaching the correct target depending on the platform. There is almost no reason to believe that if a title like say Story of Season theoretically did 500k lifetime on Switch alone, that there is suddenly 250k additional sales to be had on Xbox and Playstation. There is no market data supporting the idea that those platforms would expand the true reach of the franchise. Where as alternatively if the game sold 10 million on the Switch, it probably does have some additional market on other platforms due to the scale of user appeal necessary to cross that barrier.

No, that is certainly how it should not work. Release the game on those platforms if you have the resources, but to just assume PS and Xbox can't add additional sales is ridiculous. The same logic should apply to smartphone games that are ported to Switch. iOS and Android platforms are huge yet these developers have no issue porting those games to Switch because they fully understand they can't exactly go wrong just by delivering the game to as many platforms as possible. Giving the consumers as many choices as possible should be the goal, not "market research" told me that game wouldn't sell on that product.

Most of the big third party publishers will have some market research that advises them about the crossover appeal of releasing titles on additional platforms (Not to say they dont fuck it up but it wouldn't be based on nothing). You're 100% going to (or at least you should unless you like flying blind) use your core market metrics to evaluate potential new markets.

3rd parties do this "market research" because 3rd parties don't have unlimited resources (time and money). The lack of unlimited resources means they have to chose carefully, I fully understand that. The crossover of audiences exist but you can't assume it's 100% covered, therefore releasing games on as many platforms is the goal. PS/Xbox/PC is what they target because it covers as many platforms as possible without stretching their resources too far. I have no doubt if Nintendo provided a platform with similar hardware power most 3rd parties would support. We see Warner Bros bringing Hogwarts to as many platforms as possible for a reason. Are you telling me they give a darn about crossover? Most 3rd parties don't care about crossover, providing games to as many platforms as possible is the goal because it opens the door to potentially more consumers. They don't care about crossover, its about what platforms provide the biggest net to cast without stretching the resources too thin. None of this matters in this conversation though, because Microsoft has unlimited resources. That's why they confidently said here is your 10 year deal Nintendo.

No one ever argued otherwise so not sure what the point of this statement is.

I said that because you said "Discussing why a game shouldn't appear on certain hardware or why it may not have an audience is not console warrior stuff. There is a whole thread of investigations into the ABK where everyone from Sony to MS to the CMA are basically saying there is a pretty large audience divide between Sony/MS and Nintendo which makes their competition much less direct. That's business. That reality plays directly into how publishers view bringing titles to Nintendo platforms and has for decades." This reads to me has if Nintendo and PS/Xbox having different audiences justifies why certain games shouldn't release on Switch. That's why I stated this "Even if Switch and PS had no crossover at all in audiences that does not mean a game that is popular on PS couldn't also be popular on Switch." Basically I'm saying Switch having a different audience doesn't mean the audience wouldn't be interested in the same games as Ps/Xbox. Was my interpretation of your post wrong?

Well PS/Xbox share extremely similar hardware architecture and power while also being the core market for these types of games so literally we would be using PS/Xbox to justify why games shouldn't come to Switch. And even your framing is loaded. It isn't about keeping games off the Switch, it's about justifying if there is enough of an exploitable market on the Switch given those platforms make up the bulk of potential users. Those are quite different concepts. Calling it console warrior stuff is dumb. Again, we have a whole thread filled from top to bottom of industry participants more or less saying that there is a differentiation in userbases.

Except PS/Xbox aren't a market. They are part of a market that offers CoD, GTA, Fifa etc. Consumers are the market, consumers see what PS/Xbox offer and buy the platforms to play them. If Apple made a gaming console that also offered those games they would join the market because consumers would now have another choice. PS/Xbox can't justify why games shouldn't come to Switch because they have nothing to do with whether the people that purchased Switch would purchase CoD on Switch. They make up the bulk because they are only offered to them, how is that so hard to understand? Does Pokemon's success on Switch prove there is no audience for Pokemon on PS? Of course it has 0% of Pokemon's audience, it isn't on PS at all! There is no way to know how much exploitable market exist if the game never releases. It's looks like console warring because it's used to gatekeep. This is quite the same as what happened with Monster Hunter before World, Monster Hunter had a small audience in the West until it released for many more platforms in the West instead of relying on a single handheld platform that didn't exactly light the charts on fire in the West.

You're the only person bringing this up. I'm not even going to answer it cause it is out of scope.

It's not out of scope at all, this market research and different audience talk doesn't address at all how a game on two different platforms (PS4 and 3DS) with completely different audiences are affecting the sales of each other. Are you suggesting Dragon Quest 11 wouldn't have sold more on either platform if it was exclusive? I think they did affect each other, so that tells me despite having two completely different audiences as said by MS, Sony, CMA, and 3rd parties these games are affecting each other. If they are affecting each other, how are they not competing? Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? Switch not directly competing with them because it has a different audience? If the audience is different then why are games that release on both platforms affecting each other? That's the very definition of competing directly is it not?

There is obviously an audience difference in aggregate between PS and Nintendo. This is just reality. Markets can't be defined by pointing to one or two anecdotes. But we know that the audience that makes up the bulk of PS spending is male and purchases AAA games. That demographic is not nearly as prevalent on Nintendo systems. I'm not going to STP the whole gaming market for something that is obvious.

The bulk of PS spends on AAA games because AAA games are usually the most popular on the market. Do you think Switch would be any different if it got those AAA games and Nintendo games were no longer exclusive? Nintendo games are huge in popularity just as large as those AAA games, because they are exclusive they will have an advantage on Nintendo platforms espicially when those AAA games aren't even available on Switch. If Nintendo games went multiplatformal and AAA games came to Switch, I imagine PS and Nintendo's charts would all of a sudden start looking alot more similar. Have you noticed that two of the most popular games on the market today are popular on both PS and Switch? Minecraft is literally the highest selling game in history and Fortnite is well you know insanely popular. Minecraft and Fortnite are massively popular on both platforms. I bring this up because it's ridiculous that we continue to assume insanely popular games on PS wouldn't also be insanely popular on Switch? If AAA games don't ever come, why would you ever expect them to be insanely popular on Switch?

MS is bringing CoD to Switch in a bid to appease regulators so they can get their $70b merger. Lets not be coy. To note, regardless of MS, I've always thought CoD had a resonable market on Switch and have been surprised that not a single title (the MW remaster being the standout) was ported. Still. Quite different than what you're arguing.

The Switch probably offers a good market for a bunch of 3rd party games to make money (my opinion) but platform considerations and reach are part of effect project uptake and management. There is a reason ABK aint out here wasting time porting Candy Crush to PS5 even though it undoubtebly would "theoretically" reach more players with high avg game spend. Yeah where you current operate should affect what you offer else where. This is part of business. It is unhelpful to blob 300 million consoles as "gamers" without conducting any segmentation. Segmentation is like, the first part of marketing.

MS bringing CoD is certainly a bid to appease them but you are out of you mind if you think that's their end game. MS bringing CoD to more platforms is them trying to undo the ties of CoD to Playstation. The marketing deal is done if they get the purchases and MS wants as many platforms for Cod as possible because Playstation has the most of CoD's audience to lose. They can't make it exclusive to Xbox because that would never fly, so the next best option is bringing CoD to as many platforms as possible. Also your Candy Crush to PS5 isn't a very good example because Candy Crush is a touch screen based game, guess what the PS5 lacks? Switch on the other hand has plenty of Candy Crush rip offs because it has a touch screen. I'm not sure if Candy Crush is on Switch though, never checked.

 

[Baki]

It depends what kind of data you are looking for. From looking at the "all downloads" view of the US eShop for well over a year (not every week, granted, but quite a lot), I believe I can safely say Fortnite is constantly a top 3 game (more often than not no. 1), Overwatch 2 is usually a top 5 game (more often than not top 3), and Apex Legends is a top 20 game (more often than not top 10). This of course in itself does not say how many people play these games regularly or spend money on them, but still, it is an excellent indication at the very least of interest in these kind of games.

Fortnite data is out there. Switch revenue is low relative to the size of the userbase. Revenue from Xbox is 5-8x higher than Switch.

 

[Ishaan]

I dunno man, imo you just set your boundaries on what you're willing to engage with and move on. Trying to tone police people is not productive. Report and move on. Screaming "you folks" into the void doesn't help the situation. It just projects that you think your approach to dialogue is superior to the people you're talking to.

This is getting wildly off-topic, but I do want to address this. It's not tone-policing when a lot of our posters are so insecure that the slightest pushback or difference in opinion is viewed as an attack or a double standard. That just isn't a healthy environment for debate.

Look at this very thread as an example. We're all essentially in agreement that CoD would do very well on Switch; however, just because there's disagreement over a couple of the finer points of the discussion, and because not every poster in the thread subscribes to the "Switch is perfect in every way and every game ever should be on there without question" line of thinking, it's immediately perceived as a double standard or bias or what-have-you. It's ridiculous, and no grown adult should be behaving that way. And it's all too common, unfortunately.

If someone that routinely contributes to Nintendo threads and Nintendo discussions in a positive manner and out of genuine love for the company feels attacked, imagine how other folks must feel. I've said this before, but the promise of InstallBase was a fresh start. If folks are going to keep dragging their baggage around with them, we're never going to get that.

 

[MegaXZero]

Fortnite data is out there. Switch revenue is low relative to the size of the userbase. Revenue from Xbox is 5-8x higher than Switch.

I assume this is the Epic vs Apple court documents. It's important to remember that the big percentages cited often were a grand total of revenue from March 2018 to July 2020. Fortnite released June 2018 for switch. 2020 it was the only one up YoY (quite a bit) compared to the other platforms. It was less then xbox, but not 5-8x and it was catching up as the install base developed.

 

[awng782]

Fortnite launched when the Switch had sold <20M units - of course the versions on the more well established PS4 and XBO would dwarf it in revenue.

Speaking of Fortnite, the Switch version received 2M downloads in its launch day. By Sep 2018, nearly half of all Switch owners had downloaded it, which would amount to ~11M downloads. Remember that this was back when Fortnite was still relatively new, even as it was rapidly increasing in popularity.

There is no doubt in my mind that a content/feature-parity version of Warzone 2.0 on Switch 2 would see comparable download numbers, especially since Call of Duty has been a big established brand for decades.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Fortnite data is out there. Switch revenue is low relative to the size of the userbase. Revenue from Xbox is 5-8x higher than Switch.

If you're talking about the Epic vs Apple suit data it goes from March 2018 to June 2020. By June 2020 Switch was at 61 million units shipped. When Fortnite launched on Switch (3 months after when this data references) there would only be ~ 18 million units out there. With that in mind Switch is above 7% of total revenue and roughly on par with PC for that given time. Xbox revenue is not 8 times higher, it is closer to 4 and ignores that when Fortnite hit its crazy revenue year (which has only just been beat as of last year), the game wasn't on the Switch.

The Switch was not drastically ahead of the Xbox One in install base during this period. Lets be a little more honest here. We haven't seen splits in 2.5 years.

This is getting wildly off-topic

Yes, I'll PM you a response to this.

 

[Phenom08]

This is getting wildly off-topic, but I do want to address this. It's not tone-policing when a lot of our posters are so insecure that the slightest pushback or difference in opinion is viewed as an attack or a double standard. That just isn't a healthy environment for debate.

Look at this very thread as an example. We're all essentially in agreement that CoD would do very well on Switch; however, just because there's disagreement over a couple of the finer points of the discussion, and because not every poster in the thread subscribes to the "Switch is perfect in every way and every game ever should be on there without question" line of thinking, it's immediately perceived as a double standard or bias or what-have-you. It's ridiculous, and no grown adult should be behaving that way. And it's all too common, unfortunately.

If someone that routinely contributes to Nintendo threads and Nintendo discussions in a positive manner and out of genuine love for the company feels attacked, imagine how other folks must feel. I've said this before, but the promise of InstallBase was a fresh start. If folks are going to keep dragging their baggage around with them, we're never going to get that.

You speak of others being insecure yet you are the one getting aggresive and whining all thread about someone's tone. No one feels attacked accept you. The double standart I pointed out was how a lack of information means no audience for Nintendo while a lack of information for Playstation means we can't comment. The lack of information for Nintendo devices was used in this thread to illustrate the Switch lacked an audience for CoD while Media Create threads taught me that a lack of information for Playstation meant not enough information to make conclusive comments on the situation. That wasn't directed at you which I have already stated. You claim you want discussion, yet I messaged you directly about our miscommunication and you conveniently ignored it. That doesn't sound like you want discussion, looks more like you have an axe to grind with comments like this "If anything, the forum is very Nintendo-centric" and this "Switch is perfect in every way". If people with different opinions expressing their opinions makes you feel attacked just because someone disagrees with you then maybe you shouldn't contribute to the discussion. I don't feel attacked at all by Got and I hoped to express to you that I wasn't attacking you. I would rather continue this discussion in our direct messages, would you respond?

Edit: Thank you for this post @Baki "Fortnite data is out there. Switch revenue is low relative to the size of the userbase. Revenue from Xbox is 5-8x higher than Switch."
@Ishaan This is exactly what I am talking about, now how would you interpret this post? In the context of this thread why do you think this is relevant? I personally read this as Fortnite is more successful on PS and Xbox, this means no audience for CoD on Switch. How else could I read this? Am I missing something here?
@Gotdatmoney What do you think of Baki's post, this is similar to what a poster was already doing in this thread. How can I read this post and not think border line gatekeeping? Can you please help me here understand how PS/Xbox having a larger audience of shooter means no audience for shooters on Switch? I personally can only view this as what we were talking about earlier, but if you have a better explanation I am all ears.

 

[Ishaan]

@Phenom08 Mate, not one single person here has outright said that Call of Duty shouldn't be on Switch. People are providing different opinions on how successful they feel it might be, depending on how they interpret the limited data we have access to. But nobody is "gatekeeping" as you call it.

All that's happpening is discussion of the various factors that publishers of games like CoD are likely take into consideration. And yes, that includes whatever pre-conceived notions they may hold about the industry. Whether or not we agree with those pre-conceived notions doesn't matter. The point is that they do matter to the decision-makers and we need to take that into account.

Digging into a topic of discussion and pulling it apart from different angles is the entire point of these threads, and not something we should be discouraging by lashing out at folks we disagree with. How else is someone to interpret your behaviour, if not combative and insecure?

Also, the reason I didn't reply to your DM is because you started throwing the whole "console warrior" thing around in there as well. I'm really not interested in any discussion that starts off on that note.

 

[Phenom08]

@Phenom08 Mate, not one single person here has outright said that Call of Duty shouldn't be on Switch. People are providing different opinions on how successful they feel it might be, depending on how they interpret the limited data we have access to. But nobody is "gatekeeping" as you call it.

All that's happpening is discussion of the various factors that publishers of games like CoD are likely take into consideration. And yes, that includes whatever pre-conceived notions they may hold about the industry. Whether or not we agree with those pre-conceived notions doesn't matter. The point is that they do matter to the decision-makers and we need to take that into account.

Digging into a topic of discussion and pulling it apart from different angles is the entire point of these threads, and not something we should be discouraging by lashing out at folks we disagree with. How else is someone to interpret your behaviour, if not combative and insecure?

Also, the reason I didn't reply to your DM is because you started throwing the whole "console warrior" thing around in there as well. I'm really not interested in any discussion that starts off on that note.

I don't know about that, there has surely been some post saying it should skip Switch and go Switch 2. I would say that is outright saying it shouldn't be on Switch but I'll leave it at that. Like I said, I have certainly ticked you off because clearly you are trying to accuse me of hurting discussion here when all i am doing is contributing to the discussion? Am I not allowed to state my opinions? Would you rather me not respond or engage in a discussion with any post here? How is that a conversation? My behavior is nothing more than engaging in discussion and my Dm to you was certainly not that at all. Why can't you and I get back to the topic at hand instead of accusing each other of being aggressive? CoD may be coming to Nintendo platforms, do you think it will only add to CoD's total sales or could it take sales from other platforms or have no affect? Do you think it should go ti Switch or wait for Drake?

 

[Pooroomoo]

There is a thread for this discussion between @Ishaan and @Phenom08 , and it is not the one you're in, it is this one - https://www.installbaseforum.com/forums/threads/community-discussion-and-moderation-feedback.33/

I myself had a comment or two to both of you but it is really not on topic here

 

[MarcoP90]

Mod Post

The mere discussion on the sales potential of specific games in specific ecosystems, including the reasons that may be behind those games not hitting specific platforms, cannot be considered console war per se. If you happen to disagree with someone else because of their own view on specific topics, it's no justification to have an overly hostile behaviour towards them: understanding first what the other posters are saying, their main points, and then answering to them reasonably, especially with the usage of well-researched data (charts, sales numbers and such), is the way to go to be part of a healthy conversation environment that thrives in users both sharing their own opinions and also confronting with each other in case there are disagreements.

Of course, it's also true that bad-faith posts aren't an impossibility and in such cases engaging with them isn't always the right thing to do; in such scenarios, it is highly recommended to use the report function to inform the moderation team about what's going on.

Finally, let's avoid bringing up the state of your conversations via PMs here, it's (also) off-topic; moreover, as just reminded by Pooroomoo, there is a thread specifically dedicated towards issuing your own feedback on the state of the community and the moderation, which I'm going to re-link to for clarity purposes - https://www.installbaseforum.com/forums/threads/community-discussion-and-moderation-feedback.33/

This is a general warning, so no action will be taken right now; but be aware that in case there are further similar episodes in the next future, the moderation team will take action towards the users responsible accordingly to the situations at hand.

 

[tentacle-tropes]

In theory: can the full Call of Duty experience transition to a Nintendo console?

Is COD viable on Switch? It depends which one...

www.eurogamer.net

There are two potential answers to this question and the timing of Nintendo ports is crucial. Even if the deal were approved today, the fact is that the time required to refactor Activision's existing technology would effectively rule out this year's Call of Duty offering, whatever form it takes. 2024? That's more of a possibility and at that point, there's a very strong possibility that Nintendo's primary platform will have 'switched' to a next generation offering which capabilities far beyond the existing machine.

The specs of the Switch successor have not been publicly announced but all the evidence via respected leaks suggests that Nintendo will use a custom version of the Orin NX processor used by Nvidia for its Jetson hobbyist board and its automotive product line. The mooted Tegra T239 pairs ARM Cortex A78C CPU cores with an Nvidia GPU based on the RTX 3000 Ampere architecture with a likely 1536 CUDA cores.

Can this specification bring a fully featured Call of Duty to life? We can only make a baseline guess, obviously. However, Steam Deck running Windows 11 can run Warzone 2.0 as this video demonstrates, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a future handheld with a more streamlined operating system, a dedicated graphics API, and a highly focused team of engineers adapting the game specifically for that one fixed hardware platform could deliver exactly what Microsoft suggests.

Credit to @ILikeFeet for the original post including this gem. More at the links.


I think even now Activision has plenty of options to put CoD on Nintendo both now & in the future. Storage I don’t think is a real concern considering what we are seeing from the disc versions now.

 

[ILikeFeet]

with Microsoft money, finding a porting partner wouldn't be too difficult and would have a much easier time than those wii ports

 

[tentacle-tropes]

with Microsoft money, finding a porting partner wouldn't be too difficult and would have a much easier time than those wii ports

I’d imagine if Sledgehammer was still free then Switch probably may have seen one.

 

[Phenom08]

Maybe Microsoft to reach out to Panic Button like everyone else to get CoD ported to Switch until the successor is out. If 2024 CoD comes to Switch then I can see Switch getting the 2026 one as it's last. I think CoD may be moving biannual because I believe this year's is more of and DLC major update. MWII 2022 I thought would have way more MWII 2009 maps. Maybe that's what this year's is?

 

[ILikeFeet]

Maybe Microsoft to reach out to Panic Button like everyone else to get CoD ported to Switch until the successor is out. If 2024 CoD comes to Switch then I can see Switch getting the 2026 one as it's last. I think CoD may be moving biannual because I believe this year's is more of and DLC major update. MWII 2022 I thought would have way more MWII 2009 maps. Maybe that's what this year's is?

teh DLC plan for this year was scuttled and was upgraded to premium release

 

[Phenom08]

teh DLC plan for this year was scuttled and was upgraded to premium release

Is Treyarch up next? Maybe give Black Ops the Modern Warfare 2019 treatment?

 

[awng782]

Is Treyarch up next? Maybe give Black Ops the Modern Warfare 2019 treatment?

The 2023 game is another Modern Warfare game developed by Sledgehammer. The 2024 game is from Treyarch.

It is a bit concerning that several recent COD titles (Black Ops 4, Cold War, Vanguard, the upcoming 2023 game) have only had 2-year development cycles rather than 3. Having shorter overall dev cycles definitely won't help when it comes to making decent Nintendo ports of the games.

 

[Ishaan]

Microsoft has explicitly confirmed that CoD on Nintendo platforms will be native ports. It also mentions Modern Warfare 2 as an example of a game that could be optimized to run on the current Nintendo Switch.

From Microsoft's response to the remedies suggested by the CMA:

Confirming native ports:

CoD titles will be available on Nintendo platforms for at least 10 years. The agreement provides that Microsoft will develop and publish future native console versions of CoD titles for Nintendo platforms for at least 10 years. Microsoft will publish future CoD versions for Nintendo platforms on the same date as the release of those versions on Xbox console platforms; and will maintain feature and content parity to the console versions published on Xbox console platforms, subject to Nintendo policy requirements.

Using Warzone as an example of scaleable engine technology:

CoD includes both the free-to-play title Warzone and buy-to-play releases. The game engine that powers Warzone is mature and has been optimized to run on a wide range of hardware devices (ranging from the Xbox One console released in 2015 up to the Xbox Series X). Warzone supports PC hardware with GPU cards that were released as far back as 2015 (i.e., prior to the release of Nintendo Switch in 2017).

Using Modern Warfare 2 as an example of a game that could be optimized to run on Switch:

The Activision development team have a long history of optimizing game performance for available hardware capabilities. The Parties are confident that in addition to Warzone, CoD buy-to-play titles (e.g., CoD: Modern Warfare 2) can be optimised to run on the Nintendo Switch in a timely manner using standard techniques which have been used to bring games such as Apex Legends, DOOM Eternal, Fortnite and Crysis 3 to the Switch. Activision estimates that this could be done with a period of around [redacted] months.

 

[tentacle-tropes]

Microsoft has explicitly confirmed that CoD on Nintendo platforms will be native ports. It also mentions Modern Warfare 2 as an example of a game that could be optimized to run on the current Nintendo Switch.

From Microsoft's response to the remedies suggested by the CMA:

Confirming native ports:


Using Warzone as an example of scaleable engine technology:


Using Modern Warfare 2 as an example of a game that could be optimized to run on Switch:

I still can’t believe that one of the reasons given for why the 10yr deal was deemed invalid equated to “MS would have to make games for weaker hardware.”

 

[Shezard]

It's funny that Microsoft may already be one of the companies with priority access to Drake SKU. Makes sense in terms of protecting their innovations? Will Nintendo inform Microsoft Studios about new gimmicks or just about brute hardware specs?

Nintendo needs Minecraft as it is one of their evergreens in big markets (Japan, US, UK). And Mojang is actually the biggest third party onboard with Switch, they need a day 1 port.

And introducing a day and date version of CoD in a Drake reel will do wonders in certain audiencies. Quality? Sure, why not, but just look at FIFA selling millions with a 5 years old refurbished crap.