Microsoft Enters '10-Year Commitment' To Bring Call Of Duty To Nintendo Platforms

Ironic how Sony brought all this business to one of their primary competitors that previously had no deal at all.

Well now Sony can't complain, trying to stop this deal now would be sabotaging business for Nintendo, which would completely destroy their argument for looking out for what's best for the industry.

Sony is looking worse and worse in this with every new development.

Sony looking to be backed into a corner here now.
Wonder what their next move will be now...

Sony will not be happy with this. Call of Duty on Game Pass, Call of Duty on Switch and PlayStation will lose all the exclusive content they have after their current deal ends. They will see this as yet more potential money taken from their pockets.

They are not against this acquisition for the sake of consumers but for the sake of their own profits. Hopefully Jim 'Crying' Ryan has another outburst and the regulators blinkers finally fall off so they can see how bloody transparent Sony actually is.

@Kaloudz Well honestly I could see it being a thing if it's done right on the Switch simply as a portable COD. I mean even on the Steam Deck you can't really enjoy COD fully as the multiplayer has never worked.

I see, smart move on Xbox behalf.

My boy Phil is playing chess while the world plays checke- I mean, Call of Duty

Clever. Sony don't have a leg to stand on, as people have stated. Bring it to a system that doesn't have it, that's a huge consumer act.

Well Microsoft played the 'Trump' card. This is good for everyone. It's most likely the merger is a done deal.

Very curious as to what path they will take.
Cloud versions?
Alternate art style?
Downgraded blurry lowers mess?

Seems Microsoft have been playing 4D chess the whole time. Great for Nintendo owners, really bad for the ftc etc. If they oppose the takeover now, they will be taking Call of Duty away from gamers.

I don't play CoD myself but this is great if it happens.

“Any day @Sony wants to sit down and talk, we'll be happy to hammer out a 10-year deal for PlayStation as well."

🤣🤣 ouch Brad, way to make them look the black sheep! This is funnier than Sammy taking shots at Xbox over at Push.

This is hilarious and an absolute checkmate against Sony. They now essentially have to accept or risk getting left without any deal; whilst Microsoft fulfils its promise to keep COD on multiple platforms (Nintendo/Steam and all the Xbox stores… and I assume the random mobile games that come out too). Word up son.

Hopefully Cryin' Ryan will settle down now he's managed to convince MS to give Nintendo of all people ten years worth of COD. 🤣

Sure Nintendo players will be happy with those cloud versions, no way the new cod is running on the switch hardware.

Unless this deal just means call of duty mobile on switch.

@Kaloudz we haven't seen the terms for this deal it just says we've done this deal to bring cod games to nintendo for 10 years but it doesn't say which cod games weather or not there'd be console parity , weather they want to add Xbox live integration unless they go into details about this deal & I'm sure they'd say they can't do that , it's all just speculation

“From where we sit, it’s clear they’re spending more time with the regulators than they are with us to try and get this deal done,”

You think Phil ? Lol
It obvious Sony don't want this deal to go through but I bet once this deal goes through they will b wanting that 10 year deal then ...id tell em no

@Tharsman Probably remasters of the 360 games. While Alan Wake Remastered is a big mess on the Switch (isn't it a mess on all platforms?), most of the 360 games brought to Switch run well.

@Fenbops Even before owning an Xbox (Xbox One was my first Xbox console), I used to visit Push Square because I have a PS4 since launch, and I realised quickly that Sam and Robert live in another dimension, like in those "Push Square towers" they mention, whatever that means. It might not be their office but a metaphoric place whence they fight their war. I've seen them picturing Microsoft as evil, willing to bring the Xbox division to bankrupt because of a failing Game Pass system that only exists to damage the PlayStation realm.

And that's that. No way the deal won't go through now. And if Sony change course and find something else to cry about, it shows them as the whiners they really are.

So this means Sony hasn't accepted the deal right? So that means COD won't be on PlayStation if they won't accept.

@Snake_V5 It will be for the next few years there marketing deals not over yet 😂

They should commit to releasing it on ALL Nintendo platforms. I want CoD on Virtual Boy!

@Snake_V5 I don't see why it would mean that. We don't have the details of course, but not accepting a 10 year commitment deal wouldn't mean it's not getting released on that platform. Just that Microsoft wouldn't be OBLIGATED to release it. They likely still would.

I so hope this acquisition goes through. I don't even like COD, I think its copy paste Garbage, but just to see Playstation leadership Cry over losing profits is just hilarious. Maybe it'll bring their level of arrogance down just a bit

Lots of comments talking about how they'll get COD running on the Switch, but with a 10 year timespan and the deal not going through until mid 2023 anyway the chances are they won't have to - it will be the Switch 2 or whatever by that point. And I'm sure the entries from Ghosts onwards would run perfectly fine on whatever new hardware Nintendo puts out, given that they've all had to run on the base Xbox One.

@UltimateOtaku91
They mentioned 'nintendo platform' which could be switch2.
There is also allready a CoD Mobile, therefore a Switch port should be possible

@Spaceman-Spiff I think almost any game can run on almost any platform, it depends on how much compromise you want to make. CoD games are generally linear campaigns in corridors and small environments. Some low graphical settings and a 480p native resolution and you technically have any CoD on switch.

Slap that up you Sony. Good to see Microsoft doing this and about time COD was back on Nintendo consoles.

@Snake_V5 they will still release on ps , this is it to say look now we are legally binded for the takeover case ,in answer to the Sonys they won't keep their word crap

This is 100% to make Sony look like fools. From all parties, really.

@Kaloudz I doubt it this has only been made public to put pressure on Sony & because of the scrutiny of the acquisition what's actually in this contract won't be as simple as it sounds from Phil Spencer's words

@Kaloudz Whether people 'choose' to play on Switch or not is not really the point here. Its the same as offering to put their games on Mobile via Cloud (for example) - maybe its not the 'best' way to play but its an 'option'. You could argue that games like Doom, Wolfenstein, Witcher 3 etc are not the 'best' on Switch, but they still found an Audience.

This 'deal' is more about opening up the 'choices' for gamers to access the games they want to play on devices they have rather than limit it to 'specific' hardware - like only those who own the latest hardware.

The point here is that CoD currently only releases on Playstation, Xbox and PC. Sony's 'argument' is that this deal will be detrimental to 'gamers' by being exclusive to MS and force gamers to leave Playstation in favour of Xbox to play CoD. The reality is that its not forcing people to buy Playstation anymore and can choose to play 'anywhere' - inc on Switch and will open CoD up to be available on many more devices on top of the 'few' that exist today. If Playstation 'loses' sales due to this, its more down to the fact that gamers have more 'choice' on where to play instead of being 'forced' to play on PS. Some will 'choose' to keep playing on PS because they prefer that eco-system, have their Friends, their games Library, their Trophies etc and don't want to leave those behind...

@IronMan30 they are fools , they say we are doing this for the gamers ...they are offered a legally binding contract to keep cod on the hands of their players for 10 years and refuse ? Just shows it's about the income they will lose when gp has exclusive cod stuff

So a ten year year deal to bring COD to Nintendo, Steam and Sony platforms (with Sony still refusing to accept it). Well, this is a very good platform to negotiate with regulatory bodies, but, I need to ask - what is the catch here?? 😁.

This also puts Sony in a awkward position, their blind insistence with COD was extremely short sighted. There is so much more to gain for Microsoft here...

@Would_you_kindly

I doubt it this has only been made public to put pressure on Sony & because of the scrutiny of the acquisition.

Of course it was made public due to the regulatory scrutiny, but Sony have only themselves for blame if they are under any pressure.

@LoquaciousB That was blindingly obvious since the start though? Of course Sony only cares about profits, most businesses do, the world is run by profits and share holders. Sony will do anything it can to protect that.
They thought they had an angle to block the deal with COD and it’s backfired on them, Microsoft has outplayed them. However it remains to be seen what the regulators will do.

It will be interesting to see how successful COD on Nintendo is, considering the success of COD Mobile. Which Microsoft will own I guess following the acquisition. Make no bones, Microsoft will suddenly find a few extra billion in income yearly if this acquisition goes though, mainly from mobile games.

@Sol4ris they have themselves to blame because Microsoft is spending 70 billion to buy Activision blizzard ... What

@Kaloudz to be fair it says “Nintendo platforms” which could be more about a Switch successor than the Switch itself.

@Would_you_kindly

First off :
1) this is not a hostile takeover, ABK were in the s**t from a PR standpoint and wiling to sell.
2) Sony were incredibly short sighted by just focusing on one game ,COD and now Microsoft are offering a ten year deal to cover it.

You are the one alleging that Microsoft is putting Sony under pressure and completely missing my point. Microsoft called Sony's bluff on COD and we are where we are.

@S1ayeR74 Yes, it has been obvious from the start but clearly a few of the regulators have been taken in by their BS. Sony has at times tried to play this like they're some kind of consumer champion and that's laughable.

This was indeed a good strategic move by Xbox designed to allay the concerns of the regulators and show them that Sony's whining about COD being taken away is unfounded.

@PhileasFragg Virtual Boy ... The whole game would take place through the perspective of thermal goggles.

One company standing in the corner holding their package, and now they looking spooky!

Which regulatory body said Nintendo isn't a competitor to Sony? Either UK or EU, can't remember. Regardless it's really interesting to think that this is also a play to counter that notion that Nintendo doesn't compete directly. If MS is putting ActiBlizz on Nintendo, then they suddenly become much more comparable to PS and Xbox.

By offering it to Nintendo and Steam, MS has blurred the lines quite a bit.

@Martsmall of course they are, but this is just to show regulators that.

How hilarious would it be if the merger goes through before Sony decides to accept the new deal? Then they end up being the only platform without Call of Duty and Microsoft would have every right to deny them at that point.
For Switch, they need to make completely separate CoD games like they did for the Wii era. I would love however, if they would port the 360 era CoDs (MW1-2, BLOPS 1-2, WaW etc...) to Switch. Maybe make a few more maps or something, but that'd be awesome just playing the classics again.

@Grumblevolcano I’m sure he is talking about day and date contemporary releases.

Nice to see MS fire back

Now this is the reigning example of malicious compliance to stand the test of time. It's a business master stroke that nobody saw coming, and amazingly, it's not even devious or double-edged, but straight up honest and beneficial.

@JayJ Seriously this! Nintendo would have never seen a single Call of Duty game, and thanks to Sony's relentless drama on this to try to get everything they want, they've now handed their #1 money maker to their #1 competitor in a fit of spite. Switch 1 may be a joke for CoD, but this deal covers all of Switch 2 and/or beyond. That's serious karma right there.

@Kaloudz @Tharsman @UltimateOtaku91 It's a 10 year deal that won't even start this year, so we're probably not talking Switch 1 at all, I'm sure Switch 2 will have sufficient specs to deliver a decent scaled down experience. If Sony can get MLB on Switch, and ABK can get Diablo III on it, I'm sure ABK can get CoD on Switch 2 running decently.

FWIW CoD has been on Nintendo platforms before on WiiU and some special custom versions on Wii fans insist are the best CoDs ever due to pointer/lightgun aiming, so it's not entirely unprecedented, but it seemed unlikely after the demise of WiiU to return for a good, long time.

@Banjo- Sammy praises GP a lot and a lot of the frothing PS fans have cast him off as a closet XB fan that should write for this site instead Rob's all in on PS, sure. But Sammy's actually super critical of Sony these days raising a lot of the same points we'd raise here in opeds. More than his readers would prefer

@Microbius Microsoft has treated Nintendo fans really well actually. Ori, Ori2, now CoD, Outer Worlds, Doom Eternal. XGS has actually been one of the bigger Switch supporters from the "majors" unexpectedly.

Sony campaigned and won last generation saying Xbox has no games. I don't think anyone has sympathy for them. Perhaps they shouldn't have spent all their money keeping games off Game Pass and Xbox as a whole and maybe they would be in a better position to do the same.

How does COD play on the Switch. 480p resolution, I'm guessing 720p max while docked? What's the point?

10 years from now are we going to even have a new Nintendo? I don't see a reason to have to support these companies, if they can't even keep up with hardware why do they expect developers to dumb down their games. Just take a look at Sonic Frontiers on the Switch. It's just bad, really bad.

@NEStalgia the switch 2 will need to be atleast as powerful as the steam deck if that's the case. As much as I love my switch I'm kinda hoping they go back to a fully home console which has decent specs and make games like Pokémon at a standard they should be.

If the leaked chipset turns out to be what's in the successor, there probably won't be that big of a difference in power between the next Switch and something like the Xbox Series S. It'll be a very potent hybrid platform capable of running the majority of third-party games reasonably well, so CoD ports would make a lot of sense. Especially consider how well third-party games have sold on Switch compared to previous Nintendo consoles.

@NEStalgia Goldeneye and Banjo-Kazooie on NSO as well. Microsoft and Nintendo have been on pretty friendly terms as of late.

Lol the Switch can hardly run a game with 2010 graphics. COD will be a blurry mess such will be the watering down it will need to run properly on the Switch. I would imagine COD on Switch will be exclusive to a new generation. I hope the Switch 2 or whatever its called will have the capability of stable 60fps when docked. I would like 4k resolution when docked but I can't see that happening.

@Snake_V5 sony wouldn't have a written guarantee that it would remain on playstation but everything Microsoft has said since the deal suggests that it will remain on PS anyway.

This 10 year deal is just an effort to convince the regulators that they are making a "concession." It's not much of a concession since they were already promising to do exactly this anyway but it positions them well with regulators based on what Sony declared as the biggest issue of the deal (COD).

@UltimateOtaku91 I don't think Switch 2 will have too big a problem hitting Steam Deck performance, mainly because Steam Deck has to be overkill due to the overhead of having to be a full-on PC, with all the inefficiency that implies, while Switch 2 will be bespoke and efficient and has nVidia engineers rather than just Nintendo engineers with a mutual cash-cow, so it's worth the investment. Switch 1 was a "throw it at the wall and hope it sticks" kind of bailout cobbled together during the failure of the WiiU. Switch 2 is a money maker by design.

Pokemon will never run well on anything though because GameFreak is GameFreak. If it's not 2D sprite based 300x300 they're out of their league.

There is no appeasing Sony because they will never win anything from this acquisition. Sony could keep CoD for 100 years but they'll lose out what is really important and that's the public perception that CoD is a "Sony game". Whenever you see advertisements for CoD it's always tied to Playstation. It was like that for 360 before the late stage PS3 and PS4 dominated again. Sony is just going to have to shut up and take it.

Nintendo has nothing to lose by making the deal for obvious reasons.

@DrJimmyRussler I think that says everything about the corporate politics at play here. Sony is pushing to block the deal under "this is bad for the industry and it's competitors" yet Nintendo, arguably the #1 name in video games these days, stands to benefit greatly from the deal. It's literally just Sony that is kicking and screaming by this point, and the entire premise of "this is bad for the industry" goes away when one of Sony's biggest competitors scores a deal to get COD games when they previously had no such deal. This now puts Sony in a position where it's increasingly obvious how they are simply trying to thwart competition and control property that isn't theirs. Not a good position to be in when you are trying to appeal to regulators under the guise of looking out for what's best for everyone.

@Somebody
I disagree. People were suspect (both PS gamers and regulators) that MS really were going to keep CoD on other platforms. Now, their actions are speaking with the words. It is clear that MS is serious, and Sony is blocking now. That was not clear before.

@NeoRatt I feel like xbox wouldn't have doubled or tripled down on that sentiment if they were flat out lying. With bethesda they worded it in a way that didn't really commit to anything but with Call of Duty Phil flat out said he promised each new Call of Duty game would be on Playstation as long as there is a playstation to put it on.

It would be pretty bold for that to be a lie especially when the comment is directed towards regulators.

In bethesdas case it was worded as we won't take games off sony which could be taken two ways. Elder scrolls and fallout will always come out on playstation or skyrim/fallout 4 will not be removed from the playstation store. Its still not entirely clear what will or wont be exclusive there. He was very deliberate with the COD messaging that didn't leave anything to doubt. He even clarified that it would be natively released when people assumed he would only put a cloud version or gamepass app.

Gabe Newell of steam even clarified that an agreement wasn't necessary because "Phil and team have always followed through with what they've told us."

@Somebody
That is how most should've interpreted the messaging, but I go to many gaming sites and the PS fans were very vocal that they felt Phil was lying. As for regulators, they are almost always suspect when a big company does anything.

All of this is now on hold. It was announced today that the FTC has filed a lawsuit to sue Microsoft and block the acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Guess we will have to see where this goes. But as I understand the president of the FTC literally hates big tech company's, indeed she has blocked big corporations acquisitions outside tech, and several have gone to court and the FTC lost all of them. Seems they have a personal remit they are following which is against their legal remit.

@NEStalgia Sammy's change is interesting but you can't deny the unplanned poetry in my comment 😁.

Switch 1 was a "throw it at the wall and hope it sticks".

When Switch was revealed, that's what I thought. It has some Wii features combined with portable autonomy, not to mention the recycled library 😂.

@DrJimmyRussler Right. That's more important than it seems. Once Microsoft owns Call of Duty, they can run all the marketing attached to Xbox and Game Pass, that's a winner. Game Pass is awesome but it's so ambitious that it could do with some massive IPs like this one.

@Banjo- LOL.

Got to hand it to Iwata though. Despite it's flaws, he threw Switch together and the nVidia contract to go with it while their main product was failing badly, pretty much in a year, while dying, and it hit #1. No one else could pull that off! He was magical.

@NEStalgia Why did 100m buy Wii? Well, take this new 3DS-Wii-U freak with Wii-mini-cons!

It may be a 3DS-Wii-U freak with Wii-mini-cons, but it's a 3DS-Wii-U freak with Wii-mini-cons that neither Sony nor Microsoft can touch in sales volume!