In an amusing twist in the ongoing effort by Microsoft to acquire Activision, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority has determined that the contract that Microsoft signed last month to bring Call of Duty to Nintendo platforms would not be able to be upheld as-is. They denote that publishers and developers have had harder times porting games to the Switch versus PlayStation and Xbox, and that games ported to Switch usually had rather poor performance or visuals. Additionally, they also denote that while the Switch "has not impacted Nintendo's ability to compete on the downstream console market" as it features a wider variety of games than PlayStation or Xbox, they believe that the Switch "does not currently offer the same graphically intensive games that PlayStation or Xbox compete on" and that it "does not offer a similar user experience" to the competition in regards to storage space, visuals and performance.
Ideally, Microsoft is signing this contract for the purpose of bringing it to a future Nintendo console, but they would not be able to actually abide by the contract until then.

Sources: My Nintendo News, Exputer, Forbes

 

[MikaDubbz]

Why do people keep talking about the Call of Duty/Nintendo deal like it means that all 10 years of releases (or any for that matter) have to come to the original Switch? Isn't it possible (nay, likely) that when the deal becomes effective, that the Switch 2 will be out, and that's what these games will start to release for?

Beyond that, I know nobody likes it, but Nintendo has embraced cloud-streaming of games that would natively be too much for the Switch, worst comes to worst, that could be how (at least some of) these games come to the original Switch.

 

[KiiWii]

@Centrix : exactly what I thought when I read this article.

 

[slaphappygamer]

“Pfft, it’s a console. How hard can it be?” - Stockholders 2023

 

[Reploid]

I remember call of duty running on nintendo ds

 

[twin snakes]

so uhh...have they not seen doom eternal?

Doom Eternal was coded in Assembly, whileas CoD will be written by, uhm, Unity.
So please set your expectation accordingly.

 

[ZeroFX]

LMAO, these regulators sure like to think they understand.

 

[zoogie]

COD ran fine on the Wii when PS360 was its native platforms. Couldn't they downscale again?

And if they can't downscale COD again, doesn't the fact Nintendo is about to replace the Switch with a more powerful platform factor in any?

 

[LightBeam]

Businesses that spend money developing software that they can't make back in sales, go bankrupt.

And businesses that would totally make back in sales but still decide to develop unoptimized shit are lazy



Honestly this whole debacle about Microsoft possibly having a monopoly is just mind boggling. If they get the whole ABK for themselves, they would get bigger than Sony but not by a huge margin. But hey, I guess they want to let Tencent reign free on the global market ?
I've seen people talking about how Microsoft getting the deal would result in a disaster for consumers and I still can't understand why. Is Microsoft really going to go full Shinra because they bought ABK ?
It took a WHILE for Sony to have crossplay on some games because they were too busy asking themselves « everyone else is having crossplay, but how can we make money from that ? », because I guess convenience for players isn't important.
It didn't took a monopoly for Sony to increase the prices each generation (same for the console, nobody ever did that before but hey, they did and got away with it)
And now Jim Ryan is flying all over the world to tell regulators that « Call of Duty being exclusive might influence the choice of the consumers !!! », and people are mad over that ?

It's not even like everyone would be « CoD is on Xbox ? Well then no question, ciao Playstation I'm on Xbox now », they still have exclusives and IPs that people like, the choice would be more interesting and would incentivize actual competition. Maybe Sony could get it's own CoD alternative and it might grow even better, who knows ?
But nah, Microsoft will be a monopoly !!!!!!! Be scared consoomers !!! For the p(l)ayers !!!!

I swear they just don't understand shit. CoD sure is a big deal. But not THAT big.

I also remember cloud being a big deal for regulators. Because they obviously care about the 7 people who only play through cloud. They don't have any console or PC, they just play through cloud and beware if xCloud becomes the best service !!! (which is already kinda is). But hey, Microsoft made a deal with GeForce Now which is also pretty good.

It's obvious they don't know shit about the market, or the consumers, or whatever. But I'm also wondering if Sony's lobbying is also at work, it wouldn't surprise me a single bit

 

[jesus96]

we have doom eternal,nier automata and witcher 3,these impossible ports,if the team wants they can do a COD,heck remember all the entries on the ds and wii

Man this is getting annoying just do the deal already I'm tired of dumb excuses and now they use nintendo for no reason

 

[smilodon]

CoD on Wii was pretty fun, it is the proof you don't need a powerful hardware to make fun games!

 

[Wolfy]

Businesses that spend money developing software that they can't make back in sales, go bankrupt.

Businesses that continue to think people will buy their crap when release a buggy mess should. Haven't bought a new cod since 2019, and before that ir was BO3

 

[smf]

Businesses that continue to think people will buy their crap when release a buggy mess should. Haven't bought a new cod since 2019, and before that ir was BO3

You might not buy it, other people do.

So the question is whether the development required to make you buy it is worth it.

How many more copies do you think they would sell?

 

[Centrix]

Why do people keep talking about the Call of Duty/Nintendo deal like it means that all 10 years of releases (or any for that matter) have to come to the original Switch? Isn't it possible (nay, likely) that when the deal becomes effective, that the Switch 2 will be out, and that's what these games will start to release for?

Beyond that, I know nobody likes it, but Nintendo has embraced cloud-streaming of games that would natively be too much for the Switch, worst comes to worst, that could be how (at least some of) these games come to the original Switch.

Truthfully, I am half expecting that will hear or see Nintendo's new console this year around there Summer direct. I'd be surprised if they didn't start hyping it up soon. Switch is running out of steam, what I think will probably happen as the norm, Nintendo will announce the new console around summer or just before. Then they will keep supporting the Switch with games until the new system is out around the holidays. Than slowly let the Switch go the way of there past consoles. Just what I have noticed these past console launches. But, who knows, it could be different going forward!? I think the only real big Triple A hitter coming out is Tears of the Kingdom and that's like a few months before there Summer Direct.

 

[OrGoN3]

I assumed this would be a cloud game.

 

[MikaDubbz]

I assumed this would be a cloud game.

If it's going to Switch 1, yeah I imagine it would have to be a cloud game. But honestly I think we'll see this start when the Switch 2 is out, which will have to be at least as powerful as a PS4, which also continues to see CoD games get released to it. It's not hard at all to see how this deal can work, though yeah, it probably wont be with the games running natively on an original Switch, unless insane optimization is done by another team or something. But I'd say cloud streaming and/or releasing for the next system (which really can't be all that far away) is the far more likely thing to happen here.

 

[Blakejansen]

The CMA regulator do know the obvious on the tech side, but what about the comercial side?

I mean, how on earth Microsoft can form a monopoly there? People just buy their shit when they don't find what they're looking for.

You want to regulate a monopoly, look to windows, not to the disaster that Xbox became.

Not the first time I hear that people buy MS consoles as a back up option. Would you happen to have any sources as to why that is?

 

[codezer0]

so uhh...have they not seen doom eternal?

if my main pc encountered more bugs in it than a goddamned roach motel, I don't even want to think of how bad it must run on the Switch.

 

[Xzi]

I thought the wording of the contract gives MS quite a bit of wiggle room here. They'll keep releasing CoD on previous gen (PS4/XB1) consoles as long as they possibly can, which means 30 FPS. So Switch running the games at 20-30 FPS and lower resolution/graphics settings would still technically be "similar" to that.

 

[Jayro]

That's hilarious. The fucking WII would like to disagree with you there.

 

[Wolfy]

You might not buy it, other people do.

So the question is whether the development required to make you buy it is worth it.

How many more copies do you think they would sell?

For the number of their games that I've bought, I just always hope for a return to glory. But premium currency, stores, bought cosmetics and the like are what normally kill it for me when games have it at launch while there's features that aren't even fleshed out that are core mechanics. Haven't played it myself, but pretty sure my friend who was super excited for Company of Heroes 3 got it on launch and was PO'd when he saw old unit artwork reused in the new one and not even for the right unit. But apparently the premium store worked great.