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
Just imagine Microsoft releasing a demo of a call of duty for the Switch in response
That Sony response is just golden. Kids don't like COD (clearly false), the switch can't run it (false and even if true, hardware improvements come, so for a 10 year deal, so it's an irrelevant statement), and COD is less important to Nintendo right now, so of course they can agree to a 10 year commitment. (Irrelevant as the issue at hand is about bringing the game to players and platforms. Arguing that a game may be less impactful to a particular platform at this present time, when the discussion is for a 10 year outlook, is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.)
At this point they'll say anything.
At this point they'll say anything.
It's not close though, is it? Did Sony not just sell nearly 3 times as many PlayStation's than MS sold Xbox's? And they're already significantly ahead this new gen despite being severely supply constrained and Xbox's being readily available in most places.
The Wii U being a uniquely undesirable console is pretty damn important context for why even COD languished on it.
Sony's response is absolutely nuts
1. Yes, COD hasn't sold well on Nintendo platforms in the past. However the Switch is marketed to more than just kids, families, and non-gamers. In particular, Doom Eternal sold extremely well on Switch, and other M rated titles have as well.
2. You're right, they probably wouldn't be able to natively run. These will likely be cloud versions. I don't think any Nintendo fan is expecting more than that.
1. Yes, COD hasn't sold well on Nintendo platforms in the past. However the Switch is marketed to more than just kids, families, and non-gamers. In particular, Doom Eternal sold extremely well on Switch, and other M rated titles have as well.
2. You're right, they probably wouldn't be able to natively run. These will likely be cloud versions. I don't think any Nintendo fan is expecting more than that.
I expect GP to grow with ABK games in there.
No. XCloud is working on the devices you own, thus I count them. Whereas console gaming requires you to purchase a new device. The cost is not comparable between the two.
I think people need to accept the company responses are largely pointless. They're not being released for consumers, they're being released for regulators.
This reminds me of the episode of South Park when the boys learn to ski, and Stan gets caught up in the plot of an 80s ski movie where he becomes the hero by doing absolutely nothing.
Nintendo is Stan in this situation.
I don't think Sony "willingly" released this on Switch and Xbox, but rather that the MLB license essentially demands a release on every major platform,
This took years
counterpoint: CoD is not criticl
evidence: three of the most popular gaming platforms thrived before/without CoD: Mobile, Switch, Steam
oh I know, I just find it weird that Sony would tout difficulties in porting when they themselves had to do porting to Switch. in their favor, MLB is nowhere near CoD. but there's plenty of other examples, like CoD on the Wii, and the id games on Switch. if regulators wanted, they can just ask the popular porting studios if it's possible, and they'll all say "yes"
Exactly. Sony managed to convince the regulators that Nintendo was a different market because they released Wii Fit like 10 years ago, so they are not talking to people who read video game news for fun. Lawyers say all sorts of stupid stuff if they think the decision maker (regulator or judge) will buy it. They are not particularly concerned with how their statements look to outsiders.
Exactly this, Sony know it's nonsense, they're not trying to convince us. They're trying to convince the legal entities.
One game can't save an entire console. Wow. Especially the wiiU of all consoles.
Going to be serious concerns with Regulators if they fall for Sony's stories about Nintendo.
The players in the mobile market are not the same as those that would play COD, Nintendo's internal franchises are enough to make the Switch a success, and there were other ways to play COD on PC, Steam was just able to provide a ton of other excellent games to make up the difference.
So I'd argue that when the PS5 is the only platform that is 100% undoubtedly in the same market as Xbox, and COD is the biggest-selling game each and every year, it is pretty vital.
This took years
I'm buying that for "historical" reasons now. Never thought and probably never will see a PS logo on a Nintendo gaming title, unless asked/forced too. The two are like oil and water.
Pretty weird that this is being reported here and nowhere else. I hadn't even heard of MLex previously.
Of course they did lol. My little cousins still talk about CoD Zombies like it's a current release. Sony's generalization of Nintendo's player base is so off.
The fact that The Witcher 3 somehow just works on Switch shows the power of a good porting job.
Also, what's to say Nintendo isn't planning some cloud gaming functionality in the future, where Microsoft is a market leader?
If they convince regulators and lawyers that Switch is for kids and porting will take so long that a 10 year commitment won't matter, then I'll loose all faith in FTC and co. Because these arguments are disproven within seconds.
They already have, there's a ton of Switch games (Control, the newer Resident Evils, Dying Light, Plague Tale, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kingdom Hearts) that are only playable on Cloud. This isn't Nintendo's own service (IIRC it runs through Nvidia's service) but it's still an option.
Unless you mean some sort of Cloud gaming service to play Switch games on other devices like Xcloud. I can't see that happening when the Switch is already a portable device.
Sony just throwing things out there to attempt to cast doubts with the acquisition, don't bother with the logic lol
Yeah people are attaching their emotional feelings towards Sony in this thread and assume Sony is answering to forum posters. More than likely, these regulators don't know the ins and outs of the gaming industry where they can call out if someone is being "disingenuous" or "desperate." The regulators probably dont even play videogames I bet. So a statement from Sony might be something they will take at face value. If it ends up working, then Sony did what they were supposed to do.
What they are saying now and what they will be doing in 10 years could be radically different, how many times have companies shifted gears because it benefited them and they had the power to do so? The issue remains after the contract though is what I am saying, and its should a platform holder centered around their own gaming service (that will never be on other consoles) have ownership of such a massive franchise?
If all they needed was MS to say ¨CoD will remain multiplatform, scout´s honor!¨ then there wouldn´t be such a thorough investigation and it would have already passed.
They probably just aren't used to be sourced that often, different uses from like a Bloomberg and its platform used for things that affect the investment market. They are a media platform that covers different parts of the regulatory sector (mergers, buyouts, antitrust, etc.).
Nah, I meant playing Game Pass titles on Switch.
I don't own a Switch and the games I work on don't release there, so lack of visibility on my part.
In either case, any statements from Sony/Microsoft should always be viewed through the lense of "how does this statement benefit the entity that made it", since ultimately both sides are trying to find the resolution that makes them the most money.
Losing money on a deal because you end up shuttering the company you bought in an acquisition is not the same thing as having to recoup the purchase price of the company in order to replenish your cash reserves. The goal of a corporation is to earn profits every year, not to keep as much money in the bank as possible. Yes debates could be made about whether spending their cash on a different acquisition would earn more profits but the fallacy I'm talking about is the notion that they spent 70 billion on ABK so now ABK has to earn them 70 billion in order to refill their bank accounts. That's just not how it works.
Some Nintendo CEO waking up in the middle of the night reading this statement...
That's still a silly way to count the devices on which Starfield would be available, not to mention borderline goalpost moving.
The argument was PS5 userbase vs. xCloud, not which ecosystem has the lower barrier of entry.
Yes there would…because call of duty didn't cost 70 billion…abk cost that much. Sony is making a fuss about COD…the deal is being scrutinized because overall it is massive.
They saying that now because they're aware that there's an audience for consoles, phones, pcs, and tvs. And they're not going anywhere in one generation.
And I'm still not seeing how growing an audience on multiple platforms, even one that has been dormant, points to future exclusivity. Every piece of actual evidence from Microsoft looks like they want certain franchises to be on as many devices as possible.
They'll have enough content to make other titles exclusive.
The original argument was that Starfield is playable by more people, because xCloud is usable on Android and so on. You then essentially said you won't count these devices and only acknowledge GP current subs as a audience instead. Which then lead us to comparing PS5 vs GP numbers. Agree to disagree.
This with Doom Eternal, The Witcher 3, Skyrim, Wolfenstein II, Alien Isolation, Hellblade, Metro Redux, Dying Light, No Man's Sky, Apex Legends, Overwatch, Fortnite all already ported to Switch...
...and Switch 2 expected to be announced/released next year too.
They're just pathetic at this point.
Hugely pathetic and transparent response. I mostly just observed this deal from afar to this point. But damn, the dishonesty in this salty ass response is crazy.
For real. Just absurd really. The sooner everyone stops entertaining Sony with this dishonest nonsense the better. Gamers even get a win out of it with VOD support on Nintendo consoles for 10 years.
The tech nerd in me is actually really excited to see how exactly how well they get CoD running on Switch's successor. Will they hire a porting studio? Will they spin something up in-house with Microsoft's backing? Because now they are on the hook to bring it over and Phil said the intent is for it to be native. So, I'm looking forward to the journey to get from here to CoD on Drake.
No worries. Though I will say that I'd love if games like Dirt and Grid came to Switch! We kinda need some more Sim-focused racing games, Mario Kart doesn't cut it sometimes :)
Yeah it'll be interesting to see how CoD on Switch 2 runs. Especially when CoD stops being developed for PS4 and Xbox One. I wonder how close to Series S the switch 2 can realistically get. Probably not that close, but maybe enough to make ports relatively easy.
Same, I'm very curious what their solution would be. The best bet is probably to use a dedicated support studio, right?
- Status