Nintendo and Valve don't really want to be part of the media circus lol.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Microsoft is making a 10-year commitment to bring Call of Duty to Nintendo & Steam [UP: Sony responds. See threadmarks]
- Thread starter Dest
- Start date
- Status
Nintendo is really on some boss ass, "in a cave with a bunch of scraps," energy with how they've managed to sell 100 million systems while missing out on a good number of big budget AAA 3rd party games.
Like MS coming to them and asking them if they are open to a 10 year deal (a big fuck you to Sony on MS part) is wild. Nintendo does not need CoD but both parties will be making bank of the IP being on yet another 100 million console.
This will be great for the Drake which at the very least should be able to run 720p CoD at 60 in handheld and 1080/60 docked. Sony is probably going to give in if it goes through. There is no way they deny their player base CoD.
Like MS coming to them and asking them if they are open to a 10 year deal (a big fuck you to Sony on MS part) is wild. Nintendo does not need CoD but both parties will be making bank of the IP being on yet another 100 million console.
This will be great for the Drake which at the very least should be able to run 720p CoD at 60 in handheld and 1080/60 docked. Sony is probably going to give in if it goes through. There is no way they deny their player base CoD.
Lol I work for nonprofit organizations, but I know these corporations aren't playing nice. I'm just talking about the perception of their PR and brand. I see mostly nonchalant attitudes about this major acquisition or support for it from media, and I think that tune will quickly change with price increases.
But again, MS is rich enough to play the long game, if they can make it feel seamless like no one is missing out on popular franchises while simultaneously owning them, from a consumer prospective nothing changes. If feels awfully similar to what big tech regulators are saying there's too much of. These corps are just too damn rich lol, mini countries basically
" I see mostly nonchalant attitudes about this major acquisition or support for it from media, and I think that tune will quickly change with price increases."
It's nonchalant because those people are aware that prices change over time? And what one considers value is widely different from another? Gamepass could double tomorrow and, me personally, would still be getting better value than if i didn't subscribe at all. And we still haven't seen their first party support the service like it will in the coming years.
Well we agree there…I don't play games in a way that I value having a catalogue of titles. I rarely play the games I get for "free" on Ps+
I think games are there on sub now in themselves.
With no money exchanging hands and no clause that makes COP exclusive to Steam, on an open platform? There would be nothing there for regulators to look into.
I haven't been paying super close attention to this whole episode of Microsoft drama but this announcement is so confusing no matter which way I try to read into it, I mean stating they're making a "10 year commitment" to putting their game on Nintendo's platform is the type of consolation you would offer if they were currently already releasing the games on Nintendo's platform and fans were worried about LOSING the ports to exclusivity, but no they're implying this of all times is when they're going to START putting the games on Nintendo consoles? And then stop again later?? Who makes an announcements like that. it's pretty much a net zero good news/bad news statement.
Nevermind the fact that no one can actually say for certain what turn of events throughout the whole industry will take place over the next freaking decade. It would be no more shocking for this to one random day change in terms or reverse entirely for all anyone knows.
Nevermind the fact that no one can actually say for certain what turn of events throughout the whole industry will take place over the next freaking decade. It would be no more shocking for this to one random day change in terms or reverse entirely for all anyone knows.
It's simple really. MS is offering that "deal" to Steam/Nintendo etc (who have accepted) purely to show that they will make the same deal with Sony (who rejected). It's more being done to show support for the deal from the other side, which puts pressure on Sony.
Nobody knows what will happen in 10 years. The fact they had to formulate this type of deal really shows how much Sony is worried that their overall position might start to erode over time if this deal happens.
I don't think you're reading it accurately. This is basically saying to Nintendo fans "if this goes through, we will give you something you currently don't have for at least 10 years". That's a long time, most people are satisfied with 10 years. If a product offers me a 10 year warranty, well, I'm pretty okay with that because 10 years is a decently long time.
It's all theatrics, but for Nintendo fans I don't think you could find a better deal for this franchise outside of Nintendo themselves buying it. For Steam it means less because they already have the franchise and there are no signs of the market situation changing, but Gabes response is pretty biting for critics so it looks like Microsoft played this one well.
If you want to really bring it back down to earth it's just meant to make Sony look foolish to the public and those making the decisions on the deal.
Even if they didn't sign the commitment with them, they know Xbox was never actually planning to pull the game from PS.
But they could do other stuff, like releasing later, make the cost more etc.
Well that's probably why this isn't a forever deal and instead just 10 years, which as Spencer said is expected to continue after.
Someone who wants to proof CMA concerns are unwarranted in their opinion. Also to proof that Sony argument about protecting gamers is hollow, because if the deal gets granted more people than ever will be able to play CoD.
That they will accept the idea of a contract.
Their theatrics spell otherwise lol.
MS has been pretty good with Minecraft so I guess it's more so the possibility that it COULD happen? Idk.
Sony Reacts
From Idas Response from Sony
A new internal report from MLex says this:
Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues
Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.
Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.
Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.
Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.
It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes.
A new internal report from MLex says this:
Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues
Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.
Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.
Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.
Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.
It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes.
Last edited:
Sony complains about MS being misleading and states that? You can't make this up 🤣
Have Sony heard of the concept of releasing new consoles with more power or do they really believe CoD in the next 10 years release all on switch? The argument isn't made in good faith, especially since rumors have it that some developers already got devkits. One of the studios could very well be San Diego, who develops MLB and those games release on switch.
MLB® The Show™ 22
Bei jedem Wurf. Mit jedem Hit. Bei jedem Sieg. Setze ein Zeichen und beherrsche die Show in MLB® The Show™ 22.
www.nintendo.de
Last edited:
Sony better hope MS forgets that happens.Sony complains about MS being misleading and states that? You can't make this up 🤣
Have Sony heard of the concept of releasing new consoles with more power or do they really believe CoD in the next 10 years release all on switch? The argument isn't made in good faith, especially since rumors have it that some developers already got devkits. One of the studios could very well be San Diego, who develops MLB and those games release on switch.
MLB® The Show™ 22
Bei jedem Wurf. Mit jedem Hit. Bei jedem Sieg. Setze ein Zeichen und beherrsche die Show in MLB® The Show™ 22.
hell, Sony better hope MS forgets this exists
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjbidxrvmk
They're still salty about the Wii versions being some of the top sellers in the franchise.
Ten years is very much short term, compared with the perpetuity in which they can keep their games exclusive following that. Ten years go by before you know it. We'd be coming up next month on the ten year anniversary of 2013 which feels pretty recent to me.
I'm not saying the contract should be longer, I'm saying the contract shouldn't make the acquisition more palatable.
I miss these videos lmao
I hope Sterling revisits them one day if they are interested
Sony does remember that Nintendo Switch as literal Overwatch and Doom on it, right?
Also the argument that it couldn't "run CoD easily" seems like Xbox/ActiBlizz' to worry about? Like they just signed a deal to bring it to the console. Presumably they have a plan to do this?
Why would they? Seems like people just want to throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks. Is Minecraft double the price on PS5 and runs poorly? The only incentive Microsoft will likely do is put the game on Game Pass, which we all know Sony doesn't want to compete with.
I love this, Sony even throwing shade at the switchs specs like the best kind of troll. Completely leaving out their install base or the other shooters and even Activision blizzard games like Diablo, overwatch, crash on the system.
Sony is worried about microsoft going bankrupt if CoD flops on Nintendo switch
Sony really scared about CoD being present on all mayor gaming platforms.
Wow what a childish response from Sony. What kind of statement is that??? It's like they're trying hard to lose CoD so that they can make even more of a tantrum afterwards.
Isn't most of the Switch audience over 20?
Why are they trying to pretend sales on the Wii U would be equal to sales on the Switch lmao
The Switch 2 is not going to take much longer to release so even if the Switch can only have the mobile versions that'd be fine.
Also, it wouldn't take years to make a port, maybe 1 at most.
That Sony response is the definition of smoke and mirrors and not very well made ones.
COD on Switch means less people buying it on a PS platform.
They are panicking now and doing the old fashion throw spaghetti at the wall technique.
They are panicking now and doing the old fashion throw spaghetti at the wall technique.
Ok that's a bit much. Comparing corporate squabbling with a fascist demagogue is really weird.
Secondly, what are they supposed to do just roll over and let it happen?
Regardless of the acquisition - u know ABKs CoD plans for the next 10 years ?
Also why would ABK have been interested in exploring another extra platform with console marketing being locked in with Sony and their having a yearly schedule ? Mobile, Warzone and the off year between mainline games are all fairly recent trends. There is no doubt that the Switch succesor would have gotten some kind of CoD.
Sony using the last 10 years where the shaped the market with the PS4 dominance to predict what things are gonna look like in the future is funny.
Last edited:
Could offer it through game streaming similar to control and RE? Would be honouring their commitment then
Isn't there hundreds of hentai games on there, is Sony trying to say Nintendo are selling hentai to minors and families?
LOL. This is pure salt. Also the "previous version" was on the Wii U which was a commercial flop of a console
I doubt it. It could be commercially viable yet not enough to offset the costs/resources of figuring out how to port it down. Not to mention handling multiplayer
- Status