Thirty7ven
Banned
So true
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Ronin_7
Member
I don't think you understand how this works, AWS is the manpower... SONY has to develop their back end to fully utilize AWS Like Netflix does.The point here is the.
Sony doesn't have the manpower like MS, Google, or Amazon.
Google can afford to make a 2nd stadia. Sony can't afford that, if their cloud fails.
Sony clearly isn't interested yet because Cloud Gaming adoption has been terrible to the point Google closed Stadia.
Heck Google probably already approached Sony to use Stadia tech who knows.
feynoob
Banned
Nothing. Their goal is gamepass. And that is they are doing now.
They will do whatever they can to increase that.
Competition is competition. No need to blame the other party.
It's MS fault for not focusing on their 1st party studios before Xbox one.
Without Phil, I doubt they would have had these many studios.
What you aren't understanding is the cost of maintenance of this tech for a long term. Especially with larger userbase. 3m is easy, but 30m isn't.
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
For the first time in history Pachter is right about something.
GulfCoastZilla
Member
Now Sony is saying only children play Switch and wouldn't be interested in COD. They are panicking now with a defense like this
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Really pathetic.
twilo99
Member
Behaving like a two year old is a bit much, more like emotionally unstable teenager…
Last edited:
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
A new internal report from MLex says this:
Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues
Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.
Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.
Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.
Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.
It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes.
Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues
Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.
Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.
Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.
Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.
It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes.
HerpDerpstreit
Member
Stadia closed for a number of reasons, only one of which was low adoption rate. Historically, Google is notorious for announcing, launching, and abandoning new tech or programs. How many times have they reworked/relaunched google chat ffs. They are in the information business, we are their primary product. All of their other experiments or products are just to throw something at the wall to see what sticks.
twilo99
Member
Yes, and it's going to work, this deal is not going through.
NickFire
Member
They are spot on regarding why COD is not on Switch. Everyone of us who actually plays modern COD knows this. And the only people who believe bringing COD to switch is not smoke and mirrors are assuming Phil plans to port it to Switch 2, which may never even be a thing, and based on history will probably be weaker than all current new gen consoles.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yes because there will never be new Nintendo hardware in the next 18 to 24 months
Their responses are ripped straight from the comments in this topic lol
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Total horseshit. Wii had Call of Duty and doesn't even have two joysticks. They can make a Switch specific entry like Monster Hunter. They can downgrade for a port. They can do anything, as companies have done for literally 40 years.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Desperate? No. Determined to undermine the deal at every opportunity, absolutely.
And they should, because this is business!
Makoto-Yuki
Banned
they really are desperate.
if CoD warzone can run on mobile it can run on Switch. Switch could easily run a CoD game but yeah the performance/visuals might not be great. I'm sure Nintendo are already working on their next console. MS could work with Nintendo to get a new CoD game ready for the next console which is probably going to be out in the next couple years. Assuming the deal goes through in 2023 they have until 2033 to get games out for Nintendo.
Sony are just clutching at straws now.
So is MS buying Activision.
If Sony don't like it they should go buy more companies/studios/games.
Last edited by a moderator:
feynoob
Banned
Dude switch 2.
Do you think Nintendo would run switch for 10 more years?
feynoob
Banned
There is undermine, then there is this clown take.
Sony is basically saying, switch would be around for a long time.
Nintendo could release switch 2 next year.
They aren't doing themselves favors, If they keep talking like that.
This is just pissing off Nintendo.
jufonuk
not tag worthy
It's ironic seeing as Sony only got into the console side of industry because of Nintendo.now they gonna do Nintendo like this?!?
All joking aside. If COD comes to switch that will help boost sales. I expect it to do ok and mean the switch will be get more sales as the secondary console for most people. Or in my case primary. I liked CoD4 MW but after a while it all became the same. I do like me some boomer shooters though
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Ninty doesn't care. Doesn't even matter how they feel anyway
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
HerpDerpstreit
Member
That's the biggest hail mary yet.
They can do EXACTLY what EA has done with FIFA to scale CoD to work on Switch. Release CoD mobile, done.
Scaling back of assets to make the newer games work on Switch, while time consuming would not take a solid team more than a year and that's with minimal crunch time.
The API that Nvidia and Nintendo developed for ease of use to have developers port games to Switch has been historically very easy to work with.
CD Project Red launched Witcher 3 on there in a playable state and has since added more options to the game to help the user make it perform more to their preferences.
This is a pathetic attempt to change the perception of something to one of irrelevance.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Look if you're arguing that CoD matters to the Nintendo as much as to Xbox/Playstation/PC you are blatantly talking nonsense.
Nintendo are going to sit on the sidelines eating popcorn and counting their massive stacks of money generated from their blue-chip franchises (which absolutely are going NOWHERE outside of their own ecosystem). Its a classic "let 'em fight" moment.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
COD was on Nintendo already and it was a massive flop. Are we supposed to pretend Activision stopped supporting the console even if it was selling like crazy and making millions?
A new narrative is born everyday.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Why Activision didn't do it then? You think Bobby doesn't like money now
Last edited:
Last COD game on Nintendo was Ghost which was flop on all platforms. And it was on WiiU which was flop too.
And also, cross-play is currently in mainstream so you can play COD with your friends no matter where they are playing, which was biggest barrier for COD on Nintendo in past.
feynoob
Banned
Are you saying Nintendo users shouldn't get COD?
What kind of nonsense is that?
Having COD on next console is a massive win for them.
They will get tons of 3rd publishers.
No way they will pass this opportunity.
gothmog
Gold Member
Good points but seems like more of a private rebuttal than anything.
xHunter
Member
This is like people asking for the revival of old IPs just to ignore them when they do get revived. I mean there is a reason why Activision never bothered to port CoD to the Switch.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
They might side with ms, if Sony keep insulting them like that.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
And do what? Corner Jim in the streets?
jufonuk
not tag worthy
Wii I think it did ok but Wii-U no
feynoob
Banned
Yes. Mommy Sony wouldn't be happy about that.
Ronin_7
Member
Yeah the cost must be insane, even Twitch had to adjust payments because of that and YouTube also said something about the insane costs of those Services.
Gaming demands even more so costs are probably pretty bonkers.
HerpDerpstreit
Member
Let's not forget that Sony was the biggest obstacle to cross play becoming a standard feature. Also, as we found out in the Apple v Epic case, Sony charges mother fuckers to allow cross play with Sony consoles.
I bought and platinumed GoW: Ragnarök, just picked up GT7 on black Friday, and have played through most of Horizon: Forbidden West. I am a big fan of most of the Sony 1st party games now, but they are being such bitches about this that I have zero interest in purchasing a PS5 or anything else from them moving forward. The level of hypocrisy and general butt hurt they are displaying in this is insane to me.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
What, that Sony continued to use their dominant position in the industry to strike multiple deals with publishers to lock content away from other platforms for a much cheaper price than the competition would need to pay to drum up the same types of deals?
Are you also forgetting how popular the 360 was? Microsoft had a dip back with the xbox one due to its launch issues but the 360 was a massively succesful console, on par with sony at the time and the series consoles seem to be delivering better results than the 360 plus they have a massive winning strategy in the sPC space and gamepass.
Their current position is pretty damn good and like any business they are looking how they can secure further growth with the investments they have at their disposal.
GAF officially going crazy if they agree with the bullshit Sony is trying to paint here. The switch is going to be more popular than the ps2 and is owned by a lot or lets say, millions upon millions of adults. If MS could deliver a cross platform, cross progression call of duty on switch 2 it would sell millions or have million upon millions of MAUs by people who would play the game in bed or on their travels and also those that just choose to buy it on Switch.
Sony are on crack.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
I'm not saying they can't downgrade and make some Switch specific garbage tier entry. Sure they can. It won't be modern COD though, and everyone knows it, including the company making the game that ignores the massive Switch install base year over year.
COD has evolved to the point where 60 FPS is only for people without 120 FPS capable screens.
Are you trying to argue that Nintendo does not have a new system coming?
R3claimer117
Member
Lmao
even for Sony this is pathetic at this point. Like wtf did i just read their other arguments are pathetic as well but this takes the cake. I hope this deal passed and Microsoft really just goes with Nintendo and PC for COD at this point.CuteFaceJay
Member
This is legitimately funny to watch.
feynoob
Banned
That is the new believe right now.
NickFire
Member
Maybe stop being disingenuous and quote the whole phrase?
The current Switch is running Overwatch 2 with full feature parity and cross-platform progression. Sony is absolutely full of shit with that argument.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
No, its that the timing of the announcement is blatantly a gambit on MS' part to try and ease through anti-competition regulation.
No they won't. Nintendo hasn't needed to court third-parties in years.
Objectively, look at their sales figures; do they need the help? And with an install-base such as that they enjoy with Switch, why do you think most western third-parties tend to avoid the platform?
gothmog
Gold Member
The regulators might come and make Jim sign a 10 year deal!
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
The fuck does overwatch 2 have to do with running COD on switch?
NickFire
Member
The way some people who want this deal to pass talk about COD via cloud, Switch, etc., makes something very clear. They do not actually play COD, and just want to see MS control it for reasons.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Activision needs to hire Manabyte, DenchDeckard and his alter ego Punished Miku to make COD run on Switch. They have it all figured out
- Status