Microsoft Signs Binding Contract To Bring Call Of Duty To Nintendo

Conveniently announced ahead of the regulatory hearings coming soon... 😅
That said, it's going to be pretty hard for Sony's lawyers to argue the deal is "bad for gamers" when MS have now committed to putting COD into the hands of 100+ million new gamers.

Gamepass for switch confirmed 😉

That... that's going to be a lot of work. I think I can already hear panic button screaming

@pip_muzz I'm sure Sony will say something like "Nintendo is like Meta, a ancillary part of the market, and such a deal with wouldn't lessen the impact to sony loosing exclusive COD content"

One things for sure, Microsoft are still extremely confident this deal will go through.

Notice it says "Nintendo Players", and not Switch so they are now LEGALLY OBLIGATED to bring Call of Duty to Virtual Boy, for free, or Bill Gates will go to jail.

So they singed a "binding 10 year legal agreement" for the rights to a game they don't have yet? So if the deal is blocked will Microsoft have to pay Activision for the rights to publish CoD on Switch??

Mobile COD to hit Switch

Rare Reply pleeease! I need me some portable Blast Corps!

@Kaloudz my take is that Microsoft know they’ll win against the FTC. If you look into things on that side you’ll find the head of the FTC is an ideological nut job who wants to make a name for herself, it’s purely political, she’ll know the FTC have no chance but is taking them to court anyway. It’s not the first time she’s done this.

In Europe and the UK they’ll make a few concessions to please the regulators there, which is why we see this timely announcement.

Like I said in my previous post they must still be extremely confident of this going through if they’re putting out statements like this.

Call of duty in what form? Warzone? Mobile? Or the main series games?

@PhileasFragg dont be as stupid as the agendas your supporting, for sue the contract has covered the case were ABK isn't approved

I still think this is a way to bypass putting these games on Playstation. Which is a hilarious backfire on Sony’s part.

Roll on this being done with one way or the other.

@GunValkyrian I wish!

It All just gets better 😊

@Fenbops I think they have no choice at this point, ABK would sue them if they don't close the deal

Add Rare Replay to Switch you monsters.

@Kaloudz @Clyde_Radcliffe I doubt you will see Rare Play on Switch but we might see the relevant games being added to NSO. We already see Banjo there (or in the list of future games.) Sadly Nintendo is slow as hell on getting those games into the service.

@BBB @Ashadelo @UltimateOtaku91 @Sebatrox the PC version of MWII has some ridiculous minimum requirements, being able to run on a GTX 960 with 2 GB of video ram. And 8 GB of main ram.

Obviously that would be in very different visual settings than the ones you see on ads, that are running on the highest possible settings, but these games ARE designed so they can be run on as many systems as possible. It’s not unrealistic to see CoD games ported to switch natively.

@Kaloudz I would say the reasons are many, no singular one, but there would be way less work involved for all parties if the games are simply thrown into existing NSO emulators than attempting to develop new emulators and ports to be able to sell the games as a singular package.

It’s also likely only the classic games that have ever been on a Nintendo platform would show up (NES and beyond, nothing before that.)

@Tharsman Companys can do much more if they rly want this, but it's all about business.

@PhileasFragg I’m sure the contract is written in such a way that it’s void if the deal falls through it even if they end up forced to divest CoD in a way they don’t end up controlling the IP.

Modern warfare remastered and black ops 1/2 pack at 1080p.

I just hope this doesn't mean streaming.

Any COD fans worried that this will hold back development of future COD games to meet switch/switch pro specs?

Given CODs ubiquity, I don’t think so. But y’all know better than I do.

It’s good to see Microsoft and Nintendo work together against Sony.

Bring Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon to PC and other Platforms and itll be one less platform i need.

@BrilliantBill my real question is, is there a fear that they decide against certain features or design around the lowest common denominator (Nintendo systems). Lots of Series X/S or PS4/5 discussions about games being held back.

Do you think this could hold it back? I think COD is already on so many platforms it won’t.

Man MS sure is desperate to get this ABK acquisition past the regulators. CoD on Switch will be a money loser. But with the way Xbox runs its first party studios the next 10 years will only be 2 CoD games lol.
Jokes aside, I have all the consoles and the only Activision/Blizzard game I play is Overwatch so I don't really care much what happens with this takeover so long as that franchise remains multiplatform.

This is why Sony doing what they're doing is good as its forcing deals like this to happen.

Compete twaddle. It may brainwash the faithful on a site like this, but offering a game that neither nintendo or their fans are asking for on a system that clearly cant run it, smacks of a desperate publicity stunt that wont impress the regulators.

Microsoft have plenty of powerful arguments that DO mean something. Undermining their case with cheap theatrics is plain stupid.

@Titntin i mean switch 2 should be powerful enough to get a half way decent version of COD. I was playing Metroid Prime remastered a little this weekend as i had to be out of the house for 6 hours each day. The wife and i are selling our home and upgrading, so we had a realtor here showing it off for 2 -3 and while i really want some new Nintendo hardware, Prime is a good end to the system for me. It runs and looks great. I think COD should work decently on Switch 2. But i doubt i will play it on there.

@Titntin This would be a thing if we have natural statements of all partys, but all seems to be have no problems to play along Sony like MS want to buy half of theyr company.

@Green-Bandit I don't play mobiles games, but they sure got population without me)))

@Kaloudz MS doesn't have to 'agree' with those that decide the deal should be 'blocked'. If they decide the 'deal' is going ahead, they will still go ahead and 'fight' or 'counter' any 'concerns' in a court of Law.

What that may mean is that maybe 'A/B' games, specifically CoD, won't be released on Game Pass or published in Certain territories by Microsoft until some resolution is found.

The FTC etc can 'only' recommend that a deal does not go through as it was originally conceived. They can 'recommend' actions, or even raise enough ''concerns' that those involved may have a 'tough' time proving that the deal would be 'beneficial' for consumers. Take nVidia buying ARM for example - nVidia with a 'dominant' market position buying up '3rd' place and would control the vast majority of GPU's on the market, making AMD far less competitive in 2nd place.

Its not like there are only '3' platforms, and 1 is buying another to become significantly 'bigger' MS are '3rd' in the console space and wouldn't overtake Sony with this. They are definitely NOT the ONLY Publisher or Collection of Studio's making games - so it won't majorly affect the market - its not as if any of those other Publishers can't compete with MS or their Studio's can't make great games to compete either.

As for 'Cloud' taking over and MS has a 'big' advantage here, that's an 'entry' level experience to bring 'more' gamers in who can't afford the 'Premium' experience offered by 'Premium' hardware. A 'competitive' CoD player isn't going to 'settle' for 1080/60 streamed to their 'mobile' just because its 'cheaper' than buying a PS5 and spending $70 to play at 4k or 120fps, with lower input lag and latency...

So whilst 'Hardware' is a Premium experience, people will 'buy' Hardware to get the 'best' PQ/Performance if they can afford it. Streaming may offer 'CoD', but not the 'best' way to play it and also limited to just the small selection of games available to stream - Hardware will have a much larger Library and not limited to online access.

MS know that the Gamers/Consumers will benefit because their games are available on a Wide range of Platforms - not limited to a 'Premium' Console only, available via Subs to be more affordable way of gaming - sacrificing 'ownership' for Value and instead of 'just' PS5 getting the complete package, with PC/Xbox getting 'less', and everyone else missing out, every GAMER gets the same content at the same time, no-one misses out.

So if it does go to 'court' as FTC etc would have to take MS and A/B to 'block' it if they decide to proceed, they have to 'prove' the deal would be harmful and therefore should be blocked. It's basically up to them to try and 'force' concessions or prove it will be detrimental with 'facts' not hypothetical situations. Its not 'up to them' to decide whether MS can buy 'A/B' and can't 'block' a deal. Only a Judge can block the deal but the 'evidence' they have is incredibly 'weak' and MS know that so its more an attempt to force 'concessions' - such as guaranteeing CoD won't suddenly become Exclusive and 10yrs is more than enough time for ANY competitor to prepare for, to strengthen themselves etc.

As I said, they can't actually 'block' the deal, but if there case is strong enough, they could force MS and A/B to back out to avoid 'losing' in court and paying all the fees. If their case is 'weak', they can try and 'get concessions', before they agree to let the deal through, or if MS decide not to agree to ANY concessions at all and FTC etc decide to 'block', then it would have to go to 'court' to be resolved - hence they had a preliminary 'court' hearing as the FTC want to 'force' MS to make concessions - either to the CMA, EU or themselves they are 'OK' with and that's what's coming up. If this is 'resolved' so the CMA, FTC and EU are 'satisfied' - or know they can't win in court, they Court case would be dropped (out of court settlement).

However, we all know that MS have offered 'Concessions' which hasn't been 'recognised' yet by those authorities - maybe to try and 'delay' longer, maybe to try and get 'more' from MS, but this 'legal/binding' agreement with Nintendo and Steam, as well as the fact its 'offered' to Sony too for at least a 'decade' puts all those concerns to bed. Its not about Protecting Sony's income stream, its protecting Sony's gamers from accessing CoD on their 'prefered' platform for at least this, and well into 'next' gen hardware which MS are 'willing' to continue doing - with NO 'exclusive' content on Game Pass or Xbox Platforms. Yes you may get some 'free' cosmetics from Game Pass, but they will be available to 'buy' on PS5, on Switch, with 30% of the cost going to Sony/Nintendo. It's no different to 'now' - if you want to play on PS5, it costs money to buy the game, costs money to buy the 'extras' with 30% going to Sony - the ONLY difference is that the rest goes to MS instead of a different Publisher...

MS may have 'Xbox', but they are a Publisher of Games like Ubisoft, EA, Sony, Nintendo etc and as such, could be a 3rd Party Publisher on Sony Playstation - no different from EA releasing Battlefield on PS5, getting the same 'deal' as EA, having to give 'Sony' 30% of sales money to them as Platform Holder and Retailer, giving them a percentage of Physical sales too to use their Platform, their trademarks etc...

How about finally Wolfenstein: The New Order on the Switch?

@Deadeye13 same, i don’t play them either, but they don’t seem to be missing our money Haha.

This has to mean Game Pass cloud gaming becoming available on Switch.

I honestly can't see MS building scaled down versions of all CoD content to run locally on Nintendo hardware.

Imagine if in return one day we could get Nintendo cloud gaming becoming available on Xbox...

@themightyant
Ya, everyone keeps talking about CoD but to me Activision-Blizzard appeals to core gamers more through games like Diablo, Overwatch, World of Warcraft (not on console yet), and Crash not CoD.

@Kaloudz The deal could 'close' regardless of what the CMA, FTC etc decide, although that doesn't mean that MS could take over and do what they 'want' immediately on Closing. They may still have a court case to fight and whilst that is hanging over them, in those regions for example, they may not put A/B games on Game Pass for example - in particular CoD.

As I said, if the FTC, CMA, EU are 'satisfied' with the concessions to keep CoD a 'multi-platform' game on Playstation, bring it to Nintendo too etc, then they could 'agree' to let the 'deal' go through sooner. The FTC are basically saying we want to see what the CMA/EU can 'get' in writing, legally binding for the European market, and ensure the US market gets the 'same'.

Don't forget, in some regions, MS had 'no' concessions and passed - so they 'could' make CoD 'exclusive' there if they wanted. They most likely wouldn't because of PR and splitting the CoD Community which isn't great if you want to 'build' on it and bring it to 'more' people - more people engaged, more people 'happy', more money coming in.

What that 'August' date is for is if they decide the legally binding concessions are 'not enough' for them to allow the deal to go through so would 'need' to be resolved in Court. However, if they are 'satisfied', they could agree to the deal, thus a 'settlement out of court' was reached - both parties are 'happy' with the deal as it 'now' stands with those 'concessions' so it doesn't need to go to court in August.

At the moment, FTC are 'intent' on taking MS to court to try and get the deal blocked, but also waiting to see what the CMA/EU can 'get' from their 'concerns' which are similar, so if they are 'appeased', chances are FTC will 'accept' the same and the deal could go through as they'd got the 'Concessions' to 'settle out of court'.

It would be brilliant if MS delivered this via streaming, basically bringing GamePass streaming to a Nintendo device. I'm many years away from buying another console, but I spent a lot of time going back and forth between buying a Switch and a XSS. I went with XSS because I wanted to play modern Madden and NHL games, but having done that, I've decided it wasn't worth giving up Mario and Zelda! So, I'd happily buy whatever Nintendo offers up next and then steam Xbox games to. In fact, given how much MS loses on each Xbox it sells, it would probably prefer me to do this 😂

Its funny how it seems access to Call of Duty and video games in general seems have become something of a human right. Intresting development.

@abe_hikura it's clearly not for the switch and could just be streaming if the next one is just trash tech again. I imagine that they will step up the power a lot now that steam deck is out in the streets.

@PhileasFragg I'm pretty sure it's binding only once the deal gets approved. Same with Steam and with the one Sony was offered.

Xbox are like that teen beauty queen that decided to fly to Japan and spend the summer there, because they kinda liked Hello Kitty.
They've finally gone, but now every fella in Tokyo has an shifty grin and a knowing glint in their eyes.

they will just cloud stream them to switch like alot of the more demanding games on switch have been doing

@PhileasFragg Bill Gates has nothing to do with this.

@WallyWest it really isn't, Spencer said on the day they announced the takeover that Nintendo would b getting cod and that was before all the ***** from Sony so for all them kicking up a fuss has done nothing

Interesting wording "bring Xbox games" and "games like Call of Duty". This definitely sounds like it's more than CoD, which is remarkably interesting.

What I'd love to see is some sort of synergy between MS and Nintendo that could make Nintendo Xbox's, at least xCloud's handheld. A lot of Xbox customers want an Xbox handheld but they'll never make one. A lot of Nintendo customers could benefit from a "power console"'s games. I'd love to see a partnership with cloud gaming, officially, in a way that works for Nitnendo to bridge those markets. My Switch would never leave my hands. And I'd add a Lite. Nintendo's been very open to cloud tech, but only on individually purchased titles, Stadia style, up to now.

@Titntin This deal is 10 years, that means Switch 2. We don't know what it can do yet. Plus Nintendo is very open on cloud tech. They've used the Stadia method so far, but they've had Control, AC Valhalla, RE7, and some others as full-priced cloud-only games successfully. And CoD DOES have a successful history on Nintendo consoles, just not Switch. (There's an era of CoD fans that still believe Wii CoD is the only CoD that matters due to the light-aiming.) Doom already has a very successful run on Switch, as does Wolfenstein and Skyrim. There's arlready Xbox games selling well on Switch despite running poorly. It's far from meaningless.

@PhileasFragg "OBLIGATED to bring Call of Duty to Virtual Boy, for free, or Bill Gates will go to jail."

What a coincidence, as a Virtual Boy owner, one of the like 50 of them worldwide, that's actually the only thing that could convince me to buy Call of Duty!

@Kaloudz A lot of it has been talked about by Lawyers and I follow one on Youtube in particular who has talked about it, read various articles etc so I could try and understand what was happening.

Those authorities are supposed to be on the 'consumer' side to protect us from potential 'monopolies' or a company controlling the 'majority' of the market. If you have 3 companies, 1 with say 45% market share, another with 35%, and another with 20%, If either 1st or 2nd tried to buy the 3rd, that would likely harm consumers - reducing your 'choice' down to two companies and one would certainly have the majority of the Market and 'use' that to price the other out of the competition. These authorities would recommend the sale not to go through and would likely win in court if those companies tried to push ahead anyway.

The 'FTC' may have their 'own' idea of what they want in terms of concessions and 'expect' concessions otherwise they will take MS to court to block the deal. However, they are not really in a 'strong' position with 'verbal' agreements to keep CoD multi-platform as its not 'legally' binding as 'plans' can change. However, they also know that the CMA/EU have 'similar' concerns so are basically 'waiting' to see what they can get from MS to 'pass' the deal before deciding whether to 'accept' the same deals or potentially take MS to court to 'block'.

Personally, I think they would be absolutely 'foolish' to take MS to court if the rest of the world are 'OK' with the deal going ahead and would have to prove that the deal would be harmful - but its still a 'costly' process to defend in court so its a way to try and 'force' concessions - maybe get 'more' from MS to settle out of court than a Judge would. For example, they could lose any 'legally' binding agreements to keep CoD on PS5 so MS 'could' decide not to release on PS6 for example and say that they are supporting PS5 and that 'community' as promised, They can say that PS6 has 'no' existing Community of CoD gamers so are not splitting them up - those that bought PS5 to play CoD can still 'play' - not that I think they would, its just the 'difference' between being Legally Obligated to release and 'choosing' to release (or not).

Its more about the 'threat' of court action. All these authorities are threatening 'action' if MS doesn't offer 'concessions' to appease their 'concerns'. However, if the CMA/EU are 'satisfied' with MS's concessions, they can use those as a 'settlement' to appease the FTC too, so the FTC drops the case. If they aren't satisfied, then it will come to a judge to decide whether the deal is going ahead and what, if any, legally binding concessions would be needed - based on the 'evidence' provided by the Prosecution and Defence. MS has the backing of a LOT of powerful groups, Unions etc so its more about being a 'Pain' to MS to try and get as much as they can, but as we know, MS are not intending to make CoD exclusive - hence 10yr agreement with Nintendo which 'damages' FTC/CMA/EU's case against MS and their claim of 'Harm' to gamers/consumers...

@NEStalgia So a completely undefined contract, offering something that MS doesn't have, for a system thats not been designed yet, is somehow relevant?
Im afraid we will have to disagree on that.

"Full features and content parity with Xbox and PlayStation" So this wouldn't be old COD games but the latest release releasing on Switch/2 on the same date 🤔

@Titntin I'm not saying the contract is undefined, I'm saying we don't know what's in it, and those are very logical/likely possibilities.

Bottom line is this statement doesn't say CoD, it says Xbox games such as CoD, and Switch already has a solid foundation of Bethesda/Xbox games on it, and CoD being a definite inclusion definitely means Nintendo's next system as the game hasn't even been developed yet, the contract hasn't been approved yet, and Nintendo's next system will be out by then with near certainty. And may or may not mean cloud gaming which Nintendo's current hardware already has experimented with and MS specializes in.

We don't know what Nintendo's next system is. Microsoft probably does considering they publish multiple games on the platform and any BC would involve them.

COD with day one parity and feature to Xbox on the switch…… that’s simply not possible.

That’s what’s being reported elsewhere.

How can they say they will do that for next ten years?!?

@BANJO that’s impossible no? So the contract is worthless. No way a full cod works on switch. It says not a cloud version too.

@Stocksy brad Smith's tweet says full content and feature parity

https://twitter.com/BradSmi/status/1627926790172811264?t=wxFO8iq8UW_0gv_3WDJpbQ&s=19

@Titntin

okay this is where we disagree @NEStalgia he’s tweet says “Xbox Games” but the official statement is COD exclusively not “Xbox games”. That’s his words, but the official words are COD.

I don’t know what he means but I feel like he’s talking about titles like Minecraft or Skyrim that are already on the Switch or other ABK titles or he could be talking about streaming like how Sega games exist in the NSO service so that’s partially where we meet again.

And I do agree he’s talking about the next Switch, which would be able to handle COD. I just don’t think they are talking about porting titles directly to the Switch unless it’s a live device or pre existing game, or streaming.

It's amazing to me that anyone supports the Switch. The Xbox 360 drifts donuts around the Switch. If my games are watered down for BS handheld systems I guess gaming just isn't for me.

@iplaygamesnstuff the Switch is cheaper and goes to the bathroom with you. You can also pause the game in mid action even with games with no pause button and leave it that way.

While lots of people do like 4k gaming a much larger amount prefer the above. Most of that crowd doesn’t frequent forums or browse the internet, so their vices seem silent but it truly is the silent majority.

@mousieone The Switch barely does 720 while docked. I can play Xbox cloud games on my phone in the bathroom if I so chose but, I don't spend enough time in a bathroom to play games. It's not about 4k, heck it can't even do 1080p. Just look at the Sonic game. I mean you have your own opinion but Nintendo released the Switch in March 3rd of 2017 and couldn't outperform the 360 that released November 22nd 2005. Now I get that it is portable, but it's 2023. The Switch still costs the same as it did in 2017. If you don't see the problem, that's fine. Just don't pretend this problem doesn't exist.

@iplaygamesnstuff Switch outperforms 360. It outperforms WiiU which outperformed 360. I agree it's weak, and I too have taken to buying a lot of crossplats on XB and have a Series S specifically for streaming to my phone for quick resume for that exact reason, I think it's a more powerful solution, especially when you have a series x and can just have one games library for all that. But Switch is more capable than you give it credit for even if we'd both rather buy games on XB and stream.

@mousieone I agree that it's kind of vague, and his words vs the CoD specific wording etc adds more gray area. Thing is I don't think even without the agreement and CoD thing, that MS was going to fully abandon Nintendo. And MS has wanted into Nintendo's market since before they made Xbox in general and has been kind of tapping that. It think the ball is really in Nintendo's court on all of that, and any kind of partnership that could plug Nintendo into the larger market, while also extending MS's market share against Sony in key markets could be mutually beneficial overall. Nintendo's new management seems to recognize the possibilities of a hardware-less cloud future etc (Furukawa commenting on that years ago) and I think would be willing to keep their bridges from catching fire (unlike a certain blue company) for future unquantified strategies. Particularly Nintendo has interest in cloud services, and clearly has no capability of building out their own. They've dabbled with bit players, but establishing a footing and relationship with MS overall is something they could keep in their corner in the future.

Doesn't mean any of that WILL happen, but I see a lot of mutually beneficial networking opportunities there while Sony is "the enemy" of the year.

Technically Series S is cheaper than Switch, but but you can't put a price on potty chat.

There's a lot of ppl bathroom gaming in this thread , am I missing out here ? Lol

@NEStalgia The Switch is garbage as a console in 2023, okay as a handheld. I'm not saying there isn't a place for the Switch, I'm just saying that committing to something that has no commitment to move past 2017 sounds like a big mistake. Everyone talks about how the Xbox One holds back Series X|S games. The Switch just can't keep up with newer titles. 3rd party support is miserable. How much do you think it costs to build a Switch? Nintendo hates their consumers and they just accept it. While I do like Nintendo, they give some people zero incentive to play on their platform. On the other hand maybe this is what's needed to give the Nintendo Switch more games than just their first party lineup.

@Martsmall I thought they were playing with their Switch... /s

@NEStalgia I mean don’t get me wrong, I’m all for GP being everywhere. Just not individual upports of 360 games that’s aren’t even native on Xbox. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

@iplaygamesnstuff look I do t disagree with you in one sense but again we aren’t the market. The silent majority literally wants native hardware for potty breaks. Do I want that? No I’d rather be able to Fire Emblem on my Xbox in HDR bit that isn’t happening.

Unless it’s a game meant to be graphic heavy like Final Fantasy teens, it sells better on the Switch. That’s just a fact.

They have enough trouble bringing Xbox games to Xbox, let alone another system.

@iplaygamesnstuff This really isn't a commitment for 2017 Switch, it's a commitment for 2024/5 Switch 2. Figure the contract doesn't even go into force until the merger completes. If the merge is approved July it'll probably have a 6 month transition period to final closure (they have to offload the old ABK board and NYSE listing and everything, close out accounting, seal out the finance statements...lots of work in between, it was about 6 months for Bethesda and that wasn't even as huge a closing), so we're looking at end of 2023 early 2024 until the contract goes into force, and if it's native, not cloud gaming a year or two minimum to port a game. There's almost a 0% chance this involves 2017 Switch in any way beyond maybe cloud gaming.

@NEStalgia I sure hope so. My biggest gripe in this is Nintendo's lack of a contemporary console and reluctance to do anything about it. I've actually given up on hoping for a new Nintendo several years ago. The Switch Pro had a chance to do something but really was a let down sporting the same hardware from 2017 with an OLED screen. I know it sells well but I find this upsetting as Nintendo uses this to price gouge their consumers while not producing anything. A Switch probably costs less than 50 to make in 2023 and they are still charging 300+ for them.

@iplaygamesnstuff

The Switch can run very nice looking games like Mario Kart 8 and Mario Odyssey at 1080p60 and 900p60 respectively. Also a big open world game like BOTW at 900p30.

The trick is to target the hardware accordingly. Obviously if you throw a modern game at it with modern shaders and lighting setup, it's going to run like absolute ***** at about 480p tops.

The key thing is games are going to need to be developed from the ground up targeting the hardware, not just lazily ported with a few settings turned down. Even the recent Metroid Prime remaster is proof you can excellent results at 60fps no less, in the right hands. It just requires more work.

So I'm not sure it's going to hold things back exactly, as it's not as simple as making games with the Switch as there's no way it would be able to use the same current gen render pipeline and assets as an AAA Series X game.

It's more like the Switch version would need to be treated as an almost entirely different project, possibly even from a different dev team in tandem.

A bit like Forza Horizon 2 on the 360 and Xbox One.

Good news for Nintendo fans, sounds like Microsoft buying Activision is the best thing to happen to them.

This pretty much eliminates Sony's argument as well about the deal being bad for gamers in general. If anything, if Sony had their way, that would result in things being worse for gamers.

@NEStalgia I’m just replying to you because why not but apparently it’s a mistaken in how it was reference https://twitter.com/chris_dring/status/1628121644370694151?s=46&t=s9Uz9Rn29n-eLijGWJ4YWA

@Stocksy Exactly, that's why I'm a but dubious but that's what it says so 🤔

Microsoft could just point to their purchase of Mojang and how they have handled Minecraft and be done with this. I'm sure Microsoft wants to get COD on every platform they can and take in the royalties. This whole thing is stunt by Sony.

@iplaygamesnstuff they have done so, several times. Sony opposition is as much against having CoD in game pass as it’s about them losing their marketing deal that makes sure there isn’t content parity (PS should always have content exclusives.)

@iplaygamesnstuff I think if not for quarantine animal crossing and subsequent hardware shortages they'd have had a new console by now as sales would have been much lower at this point. The world handed Nintendo a license to print money for years. And Nintendo's good about milking such gifts. They'll have new hardware. Idk if 2024 or 2025 bult they surely will before they get a cod ready.

@mousieone aha, that's somewhat disappointing then. Brad Smith knows as much about his own company as ftc does...

@FraserG Makes sense, everything has been COD focused when it comes to this deal. Funny because I would personally consider that one of the weaker Activision IP's by now, but then again that's just my personal take as the sales definitely don't reflect that lol.

@iplaygamesnstuff Yeah that's sorta the funny thing about all this, is how Microsoft is by far the most generous when it comes to their IP's and game distribution.

@NEStalgia I have a friend whose whole family plays Animal Crossing. Nintendo has always made some amazing games.

@JayJ Microsofts distribution makes sense. the more they can get other gamers to see ' pay X on your system, or get it as part of a sub' the better. Microsoft basically showed today the Series consoles are struggling to sell, few in Japan, 20% in EU. They will need revenue from somewhere to make the 70 billion outlay get an instant return.

games pass subscribers id advise to stack as its looking more likely to raise prices sooner than later upon completion.

I took the tweet to mean COD, just because of the picture. He misspoke when he didn't specify but I got the gist.

So crash bandicoot , spyro , Tony hawk's etc could very well still be on the chopping block for Nintendo & playstation but hey Nintendo will get gimped versions / cloud versions of call of duty so they can gouge Nintendo players with their MTX ... What a great deal

@PsBoxSwitchOwner Microsoft isn't really a hardware company, they have always been a software and services company first and foremost. As for Sony, they have traditionally been known for being a hardware manufacturer first and foremost, where their hardware sales are a big deal to them.

@Would_you_kindly Talk about moving the goalpost, you guys got all riled up over COD only to shift focus onto everything else now that these COD deals are being signed by everyone besides Sony.

@JayJ I've never been riled up over cod I've consistently said its spyro & crash bandicoot games that I care about & the only game being mentioned is cod

@NEStalgia I still think they want streaming on Switch. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s like an NSO bundle.

@NEStalgia if 'switch 2' or whatever nintendos next console is is powerful enough to run new cod games without putting too much money into developing a separate switch version then cod would be releasing on Nintendo anyway they wouldn't need a 10 year contract lol

So...half assed, broken, and mediocre COD games?

Round of applause for Nintendo fans

@Moonglow & if it is as powerful as a series S like I said they wouldn't need a 10 year contract Activision would be developing them for the Nintendo anyway since there'd be absolutely no reason not to

@Moonglow move what goalposts there never was a 'goalpost' to begin with my god you guys are like a cult

@iplaygamesnstuff I'm bitter about that animal crossing. I'm a big series fan and that entry is such a let down. It's angering that it's so popular

@mousieone Yeah I'm not sure what to make of switchs future. I honestly believe Nintendo and Microsoft are on the same page with cloud future gaming. While Sony is the one dating itself. Which is both awesome and terrifying.

@Would_you_kindly you don't get the point do u ? The 10 year contract is to silence those ppl who say Microsoft will give then take away blah blah blah ,and they say one thing and do another ,it's not about whatever Nintendo's consoles can run cod or not ,it's about we plan to keep cod on other systems here's the proof a 10 year deal

@Martsmall we know they won't remove cod from playstation though it makes far too much money through its £70 price tag & then all MTX on top of it

The next cod is rumoured to be another cross gen game aswell code named 'cerberus' makes sense not moving on to 'next gen' if once the acquisition goes through they'll be legally required to do native versions of cod on Nintendos hardware with the same release date as other platforms

All M$ gotta do is, yep we got your 10 years of CoD with everything day one, you just gotta install gamepass to run it.