• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

Fun Club So uh...... Microsoft-Activision is breaking the law, both European and American. So what is going on?

I actually went back and looked the press release and yeah, "legally binding agreement for feature parity day 1 with XBox consoles" is right there in black and white.

It isn't as vague of a statement as I had thought, lol, definitely can't really fuck around there, but that also then basically means they have to make the games for the Switch 2 as a baseline platform for like at least the lifespan of its product cycle (I guess if Switch 3 comes out within 10 years they could transition to that being the new baseline).

They'll probably get some grace period here if Nintendo is specifically asking them not to announce the game now as they aren't allowing any major 3rd party to announce games, but yeah man it looks to me like MS really nailed themselves to the Switch 2 in order to get the Activision merger to pass and if they were to play funny business on that, they are going to be in serious trouble.

The agreement is not a "we'll give you Call of Duty when ever we feel like it" thing.
 
Nah. MS and Nintendo are in good terms. MS probably rang Nintendo and went " yo bro, you delayed your new console so I can't make it this year for CoD. We good?"

And Nintendo replied "Yeah, no issues there mate. I've already have a stellar third party lineup for fall this year. Including Fantasy Life, Ys X, Sword Art Online and... um... Just Dance? I don't know man. Well, I'll survive as always."
 
Guaranteed millions of dollars every years and all they have to do is sign a contract? Nintendo definitely care.
tbh, if they didn't care they probably would have just not signed the deal.

Like Steam got the same 10 year offer and said "nah, we don't need that in writing". They don't care
It was kind of tongue in cheek, just making a joke....do I think they really care? Sure...to a degree.

I mean, I totally get why they signed the deal but it's not like having CoD or not is that important to them.
 
Nah. MS and Nintendo are in good terms. MS probably rang Nintendo and went " yo bro, you delayed your new console so I can't make it this year for CoD. We good?"

And Nintendo replied "Yeah, no issues there mate. I've already have a stellar third party lineup for fall this year. Including Fantasy Life, Ys X, Sword Art Online and... um... Just Dance? I don't know man. Well, I'll survive as always."
Nintendo is probably just happy that they won't need to launch the Switch 2 with the only third party games showing up being Snipperclips and Super Bomberman like with Switch in 2017.
 
0
Why would they announce it for other systems on their Xbox Showcase? This is aimed towards the Xbox crowd.

Nintendo and PS will announce it in their own videos at their own time.
 
0
Interesting:


The agreement is actually about Nintendo getting every game Activision Blizzard makes for 10 years, so we will get more than Call of Duty games on Switch 2.
I think that website is extrapolating something more concrete than what's actually there

They're using this quote
“Nintendo has a contractual right to obtain Activision content post-merger, including Call of Duty,” the document reads (pages 74 and 120).
and taking that to mean ALL future Activision games. But "obtaining Activision content post-merger, including Call of Duty" is worlds away from being legally the same as "obtaining all Activision content post-merger, including Call of Duty". All it definitely means is that Nintendo has a legal right to some amount of Activision content and that CoD is definitely included in that right.

It could mean CoD and only CoD. It could mean CoD and a Diablo 4 port. It could mean CoD, Diablo 4, and scrimblo-ass games like Crash and Spyro. It could mean everything kit-and-kaboodle. But I don't think we can conclusively say what their agreement entails (besides CoD) at this moment based just on the quoted document
 
Last edited:
Switch 2 will receive Mickey Mouse ports of future CODs.

Mark my words, favorite this post.

This would be juicy ammo for government agencies in the future to hammer Microsoft with, if they make a mockery of this deal it will be thrown in their face in future lawsuits (and oh yes, there will be many in the future, governments have been wanting to nail Microsoft for ages and will take every opportunity to do so).

They're going to get hammered with allegations that they lied to/misled the US government, to the UK government, etc. in order to get a previous massive merger passed. That would haunt them even outside of gaming.

Not worth it to poke this bear if you're MS. Nadella has to know there are pissed off people in the regulatory government positions especially in the US and UK that are still pissed off that the Activision merger went through and will be watching like a hawk for any excuse to get them back into a court room in the future. With MS' massive investment in A.I., it's virtually a question of when that will happen again, not if.

Both Microsoft and Nvidia should be expecting anti-trust lawsuits in the next 4-5 years I would say due to A.I. alone. Now if MS tries to buy another huge company ever again, then that is going to be another huge shit show and they better hope they live up to everything they promised in this Activision buy out because if it turns out they have not .... ooooooh boy are they ever going to get dragged in court for that.
 
0
The deal between Nintendo and Microsoft is a private deal so if Microsoft has breached it by not relasing COD B6 on Switch ,which I doubt, only Nintendo can demand compensantion for breach of contract. You could only argue Microsoft is breaking the law if not relasing in Nintendo consoles did hurt the competiness of the console market in a relevant way which is just not true considering COD hasnt released on Nintendo consoles for over a decade

tldr: The Nintendo and Xbox deal was just a private deal even if they made it to show to the public Xbox compromise to keep COD multiplat
 
The deal between Nintendo and Microsoft is a private deal so if Microsoft has breached it by not relasing COD B6 on Switch ,which I doubt, only Nintendo can demand compensantion for breach of contract. You could only argue Microsoft is breaking the law if not relasing in Nintendo consoles did hurt the competiness of the console market in a relevant way which is just not true considering COD hasnt released on Nintendo consoles for over a decade

tldr: The Nintendo and Xbox deal was just a private deal even if they made it to show to the public Xbox compromise to keep COD multiplat

I don't think that's actually accurate. The deal is part of a legally binding contract that MS made in order to get the Activision deal signed off on and cleared by US and UK regulatory bodies. So it's not "private" in the sense that it was part of legal proceedings that MS was in that was ruled upon.

If it turns out after the fact that they were bullshitting or are planning to make a mockery of that deal, MS could very well be in hot water.

You can't just lie/mislead government regulatory bodies on multi-billion dollar mergers that are subject to anti-trust litigation. And if you are dumb enough to do that, it's probably not a great idea to have a big PR press release about it, lol.
 
0
It was kind of tongue in cheek, just making a joke....do I think they really care? Sure...to a degree.

I mean, I totally get why they signed the deal but it's not like having CoD or not is that important to them.

Yup, I agree that they won't be too badly affected if they don't have CoD. Doesn't need it to be probably the number 1 most sold console anyhow. But I would said it's extremely important to get CoD. There's the guaranteed money and no one turn down free money. There's also a new audience not already on the Switch. It's also around 1 large game release for the next 10 years that Nintendo would not have to fill in the calendar. Nintendo for the most part can support their console with less third party but that a necessity rather than a want. Not having to rely on releasing bangers after bangers is good for company resiliency.
 
a reminder that DOOM: The Dark Ages didn't show that it was also coming out for PS5 during the actual xbox showcase and we got that info away from the showcase. We will probably get the CoD or other activision games on switch 2 announcement whenever the switch 2 is announced because they don't want anything actually being announced for it yet.
 
Guaranteed millions of dollars every years and all they have to do is sign a contract? Nintendo definitely care.
yep and just because switch was amazing successs you cant guarantee that for switch 2. The more big games you get on your console the better
 
I don’t think the eshop could handle the 300gb+ downloads CoD requires, it would buckle under the strain bring down all of Nintendo’s online infrastructure.
 
I don’t think the eshop could handle the 300gb+ downloads CoD requires, it would buckle under the strain bring down all of Nintendo’s online infrastructure.
The eshop (and Switch) can handle it, but you do have a point: last I checked, non-fake microSD cards still only really reliably get sold for up to 256gb, with everything above kinda ending up in the "not really something for the regular customer/lots of fraud" category. Even taking game size reduction into account for targeting lower hardware (smaller textures), that's still a lot of install space

Anyway, I'd not fret about this too much; my guess is that the Nintendo deal also permits them leeway to put the game on the Switch's successor. Seems like a much better fit for COD regardless.
 
The eshop (and Switch) can handle it, but you do have a point: last I checked, non-fake microSD cards still only really reliably get sold for up to 256gb, with everything above kinda ending up in the "not really something for the regular customer/lots of fraud" category. Even taking game size reduction into account for targeting lower hardware (smaller textures), that's still a lot of install space

Anyway, I'd not fret about this too much; my guess is that the Nintendo deal also permits them leeway to put the game on the Switch's successor. Seems like a much better fit for COD regardless.
Consumer microsd cards are up to 1tb in the regular space, and 400gb/512gb/1tb models are all available at general retailers.

But cod's absurd sizes aren't friendly to hard drives either, so
 
Guaranteed millions of dollars every years and all they have to do is sign a contract? Nintendo definitely care.
That's why some people said Nintendo won by doing nothing in switch era. This also valid for Shiver acquirement, as embracer group just kill themselves.
 
0
The caveat of the COD6 deal for switch is that the switch and switch 2 versions will be pro-US imperialist propaganda that glorify gun violence. Wait.
 
0
If asked, MS will just blame regulators for draging things out and that "by the time we could do day-1 releases, Nintendo had a new console".

With that said, considering they aren't stopping with acquisitions and the 123M active users, it probably make sense for them to release at least 1 COD game, even if in 2025. The RoI would be good and they wouldn't give ammo to antitrust lawyers.
 
0
MS: he nintendo, is it ok if we push the game to Switch 2?
Nintendo:

FSPESg.gif



and that's probably the end of it
 
I’m gonna choose to believe there will be some kind of cod announcement at the next direct.
I feel it in my wishbone
 


Back
Top Bottom