Support NeoGAF

[analog_future]

means Switch family of system like the Switch lite or Oled.

and isn't even confirmed if the next Nintendo console will be part of the "Switch family"

Switch family means anything called the Switch.

So what family of systems does the current switch belong to then

The terminology "Switch family of consoles" was used because they can't outright say "yeah we mean the Switch 2", because the Switch 2 doesn't officially exist yet.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

Okay? Again, Brad Smith said nothing about COD running natively on the current Switch. "Switch family of systems" doesn't mean current Switch.

So what family of systems does the current switch belong to then

 

[BlitzerRadic]

The terminology "Switch family of consoles" was used because they can't outright say "yeah we mean the Switch 2", because the Switch 2 doesn't officially exist yet.

That is not what I asked you. I asked you what family of systems does the current switch belong to.

 

[FeralEcho]

Ok... This is a win for Microsoft honestly,this just shows these mofos are too fucking stupid to understand this industry apparently,an industry they are supposed to regulate.

LIKE NO SHIT SHERLOCK the Switch wont be able to run COD in its curent state on the hardware itself,but
1 - It doesn't have to as it could be cloud based like other curent gen games on Switch currently that can't work on the hardware.
2 - Its a future agreement which could mean a Switch 2 release for future COD,a console we don't know the specs for to determine whether or not it can run COD.
3 - It's a different lower spec version with lower resolution and assets that can run on the hardware but with the same framerate to allow Switch players to be on the same playing field as next gen console players.

I came up with these 3 points while on the toilet taking a shit and they have more weight than these clowns who are supposed to be experts and have researched the industry to regulate it.Embarassing!

 

[baphomet]

The terminology "Switch family of consoles" was used because they can't outright say "yeah we mean the Switch 2", because the Switch 2 doesn't officially exist yet.

Even when the Switch 2 releases, the original Switch is included in that Switch family of consoles.

Thats even assuming the next Switch is called the Switch 2.

 

[geary]

How people would expect a game to play pn switch? 4k, 120 FPS, right? Cause thats how the game would play on 4090. I game the same expectation they would have on a PS4 and XBO…no?

 

[analog_future]

That is not what I asked you. I asked you what family of systems does the current switch belong to.

Even when the Switch 2 releases, the original Switch is included in that Switch family of consoles.

Thats even assuming the next Switch is called the Switch 2.

I understand what you're getting at, and yeah, obviously the Switch would belong to the Switch family of consoles.

But it's no different than when a new game series "joins the Xbox family", that doesn't mean it's coming to OG Xbox, 360, Xbox One, and Series consoles. It means it's coming to the new systems.

I guess we'll see. I interpret it as Microsoft is fully aware (and likely has access to dev kits) of Switch 2 hardware and when the time comes, the statement that COD is coming to the "Switch family of systems" will ring true when it comes to Switch 2.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

The terminology "Switch family of consoles" was used because they can't outright say "yeah we mean the Switch 2", because the Switch 2 doesn't officially exist yet.

saying "PS5 family of consoles" as a way of saying PS6 is kind of dumb.

switch is the current iteration of Nintendo consoles.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

How people would expect a game to play pn switch? 4k, 120 FPS, right? Cause thats how the game would play on 4090. I game the same expectation they would have on a PS4 and XBO…no?

that is the art of the PR Plausible deniability

 

[ByWatterson]

Man, Phil was right about how ignorant regulators are when it comes to the gaming industry.

I think they sort of get it, honestly.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Do you honestly think the regulators are in the wrong here and that these big business are in the right?

He's not going to give a free Xbox and a sneek peak at Starfield.

This isn't about technical feasibility. Of course it's possible: Fortnite, Overwatch, APEX, Rogue Company etc. are already on the Switch and COD has even been on the DS.

No, it's about how likely they think a serious effort is going to be made have COD games in the Switch that are in the same area as the yearly releases. And given the bloat of COD these days, streaming being no good for a twitch shooter, and there having been no COD for Switch even mentioned until now... they areblikely right in their analysis that this is not an honest attempt.

I read the article and the explanations gave by the CMA in the documents in the article. I’ll go by that, you can feel free to think there’s alternative meaning or motives.

They don’t think the Switch can offer a CoD as good as Xbox or PlayStation. I mean, no fucking shit. The trade off you get for a console that can be portable is you don’t get X/PS5 graphics. Oh noes, the Switch frame rate might not be as good! Again, no shit.

It’s ignorance. It’s also funnier when you consider we’re going to be seeing a Switch successor any day now, closing the power gap.

They can make a cloud version of the game on Switch.

 

[Topher]

Bottom line: CMA isn't impressed by the Nintendo deal

 

[dotnotbot]

That’s a pretty daft take given we’ve had CoD on the Nintendo DS.

They don’t think the Switch can offer a CoD as good as Xbox or PlayStation. I mean, no fucking shit. The trade off you get for a console that can be portable is you don’t get X/PS5 graphics. Oh noes, the Switch frame rate might not be as good! Again, no shit.

It’s ignorance. It’s also funnier when you consider we’re going to be seeing a Switch successor any day now, closing the power gap.

They can make a cloud version of the game on Switch.

"with full feature and content parity - so they can experience COD just as Xbox and Playstation gamers enjoy COD"

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Bottom line: CMA isn't impressed by the Nintendo deal

Correct. MS thinks the regulators are dummies or something, at least their arrogance suggests it. Unfortunately for them, the regulators are much smarter than they expected and now they are scrambling to figure something out the regulators will accept while still being able to fulfill their ambition of making CoD an Xbox exclusive franchise.

 

[geary]

"with full feature and content parity - so they can experience COD just as Xbox and Playstation gamers enjoy COD"

Unless i can play on switch as on 4090, thats a fake statment /s

 

[Lasha]

Man, Phil was right about how ignorant regulators are when it comes to the gaming industry.

It reads as if the CMA wants to use Activision to push its new agenda since its a populist case and is just making shit up to suit its conclusion. The lack of understanding of the video game industry and the emergent cloud gaming industry is bizarre. Its night and day compared to when the CMA allowed Mastercard to consolidate payment processing in the UK. I suspect a political bent rather than any real regulatory concerns. Wool to put over voters eyes while more egregious consolidations take place. The FTC in the US approved a few nasty mergers in the farm equipment industry that will further strangle farmers while it considered the Activision case after all.

 

[Robb]

"with full feature and content parity - so they can experience COD just as Xbox and Playstation gamers enjoy COD"

Just downgrade the visuals and make it 30fps and there you have it.

Or make a cloud version.

 

[dotnotbot]

Just downgrade the visuals and make it 30fps and there you have it.

Or make a cloud version.

Well, that's not enjoying COD just as Xbox and PS gamers in my view.

 

[Darko]

Just make it start with the new console

 

[UnNamed]

ActiBlizzard can port a CoD on Switch, if the multiplayer is limited among Switch users.

But if they plan to make CoD Switch crossplatform, I see problem there.
CoD is not that light, the mobile version is not the same experience with the PC/Console, let alone CoD Warzone were you'll have the same issues as Apex Legend on Switch.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

EA did a decent job porting Apex to Switch. I think you’d just have to expect that there would be a step down in graphics / frame rate. Much like you get with just about every Switch game.

The CMA have made up their minds anyway, there are no real possibilities for resolution they’ve made their intentions to block the deal clear where in their findings they said any change to the current level of market share in MS favour will cause them to stop being pro-consumer and will be detrimental to competition. Strange take I thought.

Any admission that COD could be played on Switch basically negates their Xbox vs PS market definition for this deal so they don’t want to hear it.

 

[Robb]

Well, that's not enjoying COD just as Xbox and PS gamers in my view.

I guess it depends on how you read it. I just interpret it as letting Nintendo players enjoy CoD, like Xbox and PS players are currently.

If it runs the same or not is a different question entirely. Switch players get to enjoy Fortnite (and loads of other games) just like Xbox and PS players as well, but it doesn’t run the same.

 

[Banjo64]

This always seemed to me like a way for MS to try and get the deal approved without really having the technical authority to truly claim they can make CoD on Switch in a compelling way.

I mean, I'm sure at some level it is possible. But at what cost? Significant dev time spent downporting and ultimately not making Switch owners all that happy with what they're getting for the end product anyways.

This is what has happened in the past and I don't really see any reason for that to be different today. So when Activision developers hear Microsoft making these sorts of claims - I wonder if they're just rolling their eyes at what they're going to be forced into.

Just look at Apex man, pure shite on Switch with blurry muddy resolution and no textures, a 2m draw distance and a crap framerate.

Activision should have just made a port of CoD mobile for Switch and called it a day. Would have been great.

 

[coffinbirth]

Well, that's not enjoying COD just as Xbox and PS gamers in my view.

Remember, that also means Xbox One and PS4, where Warzone 2 is running at around 30fps.
Also, you're getting into the realm of semantics. These games look and run like shit on Xbox and Playstation.... so "just as" shitty also applies.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

CMA knows gaming stuff.

 

[baphomet]

Even a cloud version couldn't have feature parity on the Switch.

Unless they just straight up drop 120hz support next time around.

 

[Knightime_X]

It's likely cloud for current switch, and if it's for next gen, maybe we'll finally get some half decent hardware out of nintendo.
I mean Nintendo wouldn't accept a deal their shit can't even run, right?

 

[Ozriel]

Do you honestly think the regulators are in the wrong here and that these big business are in the right?

He's not going to give a free Xbox and a sneek peak at Starfield.

This isn't about technical feasibility. Of course it's possible: Fortnite, Overwatch, APEX, Rogue Company etc. are already on the Switch and COD has even been on the DS.

No, it's about how likely they think a serious effort is going to be made have COD games in the Switch that are in the same area as the yearly releases. And given the bloat of COD these days, streaming being no good for a twitch shooter, and there having been no COD for Switch even mentioned until now... they areblikely right in their analysis that this is not an honest attempt.

Yeah, you’re just as bad as the CMA.

The deal being proposed is a 10 year deal with Nintendo. You’re here seriously arguing that Nintendo isn’t going to make a next gen console that’s expected to be significantly more powerful than the current Switch?

If this deal is ratified, there’s no way it’ll cover a 2023 port. By 2024, we’ll have a new Nintendo console.

 

[Fully engaged]

Maybe I am alone in thinking this, but what business is it of the CMA if the game has to be made to work on the Next Nintendo console? As far as I know, MS and Nintendo never said "SWITCH"

 

[Ozriel]

Brad Smith' words. not mine

Brad Smith is an attorney. Has zero knowledge about technical details. Clinging to a fumbled response really makes no sense.

Nintendo signed the deal with Microsoft, and they’re well aware of their future plans…as well as the limitations of their current system.

Even a cloud version couldn't have feature parity on the Switch.

Unless they just straight up drop 120hz support next time around.

Feature parity doesn’t mean things like framerate or visual settings.
There are games coming out today that don’t have higher framerates on Series S compared to X and PS5. Some games on Series S don’t have RT. Doesn’t mean you can’t claim ‘feature parity’ since they’ll play the same.

Basically, no platform will be arbitrarily gimped.

Feature disparity would refer to something like how EA handles FIFA games on the Switch.

 

[baphomet]

Feature parity doesn’t mean things like framerate or visual settings.
There are games coming out today that don’t have higher framerates on Series S compared to X and PS5. Some games on Series S don’t have RT. Doesn’t mean you can’t claim ‘feature parity’ since they’ll play the same.

Basically, no platform will be arbitrarily gimped.

Feature disparity would refer to something like how EA handles FIFA games on the Switch.

A 120hz option would be the exact definition of feature parity if it's offered on the other consoles. Graphics would not be, but 120hz absolutely is a feature.

You're correct though, the Series S doesn't even have feature parity with the other current gen consoles.

 

[DenchDeckard]

THIS is a silly statement from the CMA. The switch could absolutely run cod with the right developers optimising it.

 

[Bragr]

There is no way the regulators are this stupid, jesus christ, this is embarrassing.

 

[Ozriel]

A 120hz option would be the exact definition of feature parity if it's offered on the other consoles. Graphics would not be, but 120hz absolutely is a feature.

You're correct though, the Series S doesn't even have feature parity with the other current gen consoles.

I disagree.

Take the Steam description for COD MW2, for example.

ABOUT THIS GAME​

Existing Modern Warfare® II Digital Standard Edition owners can upgrade to the Vault Edition as part of a limited time offer.

Welcome to the new era of Call of Duty®.

Call of Duty®: Modern Warfare® II drops players into an unprecedented global conflict that features the return of the iconic Operators of Task Force 141. From small-scale, high-stakes infiltration tactical ops to highly classified missions, players will deploy alongside friends in a truly immersive experience.

Infinity Ward brings fans state-of-the-art gameplay, with all-new gun handling, advanced AI system, a new Gunsmith and a suite of other gameplay and graphical innovations that elevate the franchise to new heights.

Modern Warfare® II launches with a globe-trotting single-player campaign, immersive Multiplayer combat and a narrative-driven, co-op Special Ops experience.

You also get access to Call of Duty®: Warzone™ 2.0, the all-new Battle Royale experience.

From this, you can clearly see that the features being cited are the campaign, MP, advanced AI system, all new gun handling, new Gunsmith etc.

Nowhere do they add anything about high frame rate gaming or stuff like that. Those depend on PC specs and will scale according to power.

Someone playing on minimum specs is getting a game at feature parity with someone playing on a latest 4090 PC.

Would you argue that Last of Us Part 1 on PC would not be at feature parity with the PS5 release just because the PC version allows unlocked framerates up to 240fps?

 

[Ozriel]

THIS is a silly statement from the CMA. The switch could absolutely run cod with the right developers optimising it.

The deal probably doesn’t even say ‘Switch’, and native ports will most certainly be targeted at the next gen Nintendo console.

There’s not going to be a 2023 release, that’s for sure.

 

[Banjo64]

Yeah, you’re just as bad as the CMA.

The deal being proposed is a 10 year deal with Nintendo. You’re here seriously arguing that Nintendo isn’t going to make a next gen console that’s expected to be significantly more powerful than the current Switch?

If this deal is ratified, there’s no way it’ll cover a 2023 port. By 2024, we’ll have a new Nintendo console.

Right… and the new console still won’t be as powerful as a base PS4.

And in 5 years time when the 30-40tf PS6 and neXtbox release? Then what happens to the Switch 2 and CoD?

 

[Goalus]

Cloud tech will allow CoD to run on Nintendo Switch, believes any informed individual.

 

[TLZ]

Unless MS was indirectly talking about Nintendo"s next system, which might match the series S at least.

Maybe?

 

[Spukc]

Ngl release cold war zombies on the new switch.

And that’s enough to make me get the console

 

[TheGodfather07]

There's a reason why call of duty and so many 3rd party games don't release on Nintendo platforms at all. When they do, its a heavily watered down version that barely sells. Microsoft couldn't give a shit about a Nintendo port. They just want to use this to help their case but it was never enough to get the deal approved either way.

 

[Tams]

Ok... This is a win for Microsoft honestly,this just shows these mofos are too fucking stupid to understand this industry apparently,an industry they are supposed to regulate.

LIKE NO SHIT SHERLOCK the Switch wont be able to run COD in its curent state on the hardware itself,but
1 - It doesn't have to as it could be cloud based like other curent gen games on Switch currently that can't work on the hardware.
2 - Its a future agreement which could mean a Switch 2 release for future COD,a console we don't know the specs for to determine whether or not it can run COD.
3 - It's a different lower spec version with lower resolution and assets that can run on the hardware but with the same framerate to allow Switch players to be on the same playing field as next gen console players.

I came up with these 3 points while on the toilet taking a shit and they have more weight than these clowns who are supposed to be experts and have researched the industry to regulate it.Embarassing!

Hmmm, who should I trust.

A body of business experts or someone random person on the Internet who uses caps to express how EMOTIONAL they are about this...

 

[Flutta]

Bottom line: CMA isn't impressed by the Nintendo deal

Basically this.

One thing is for sure is that the CMA def knows that the timing of this deal is kinda sus. We all know why this deal came about and people really think that the CMA won’t see through MS sneaky attempt here.

There is a reason why a money hungry AKB has not made COD available on Nintendo systems for a long time and people seems to be pissed that the CMA saw through it.

 

[GeekyDad]

Oh, NeoGAF...

 

[Ozriel]

Right… and the new console still won’t be as powerful as a base PS4.

And in 5 years time when the 30-40tf PS6 and neXtbox release? Then what happens to the Switch 2 and CoD?

Can’t be too sure about that. Apple’s M1 GPU is faster than the PS4 GPU, and it’s a reasonable assumption to expect that an Ampere based NVIDiA GPU with DLSS and RT support will similarly race past the PS4. Not to mention a much faster CPU.

expect DLSS to do heavy lifting for the console.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

The thing is, Phil didn’t say what Call of Duty games Xbox would bring to Switch. I’ll say it again. I’d be more than happy with them bringing older 360/PS3 titles to the Switch because it could run them. World at War or MW2? Yes please.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Ngl release cold war zombies on the new switch.

And that’s enough to make me get the console

I’m sure many would agree with you, it would be a big system seller for them.

Which makes it all the more bizarre that a regulatory body that is ostensibly so keen on promoting competition and having consumers be able to access the IP seem to be so ardently preventing both on this occasion.

 

[Anchovie123]

Tying yourself to the lowest common denominator for 10 years probably isnt a good idea.

 

[Ozriel]

Bottom line: CMA isn't impressed by the Nintendo deal

I hope you folks realize this is from the same CMA findings from nearly month ago…before Nintendo and MS signed the deal. And it contains their thoughts about COD running on the 2017 hardware.

This signed deal specifically uses the term ‘Nintendo players’ and doesn’t cite ‘Switch’. Microsoft has had an opportunity to engage the CMA and will no doubt outline - along with Nintendo - what the deal covers.

Using the present tense here is rather misleading.

 

[baphomet]

I disagree.

Take the Steam description for COD MW2, for example.



From this, you can clearly see that the features being cited are the campaign, MP, advanced AI system, all new gun handling, new Gunsmith etc.

Nowhere do they add anything about high frame rate gaming or stuff like that. Those depend on PC specs and will scale according to power.

Someone playing on minimum specs is getting a game at feature parity with someone playing on a latest 4090 PC.

Would you argue that Last of Us Part 1 on PC would not be at feature parity with the PS5 release just because the PC version allows unlocked framerates up to 240fps?

A. You literally listed the content of the game

B. CONSOLE PARITY. Why are you even looking at Steam?

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II launches October 28 – here’s all the Intel PlayStation players need to know

Plus learn how your action-packed mission with Task Force 141 immerses you with PS5’s haptics, adaptive triggers, and 3D Audio.

blog.playstation.com

There's some features and content for the CONSOLE version of MW2.

The Last of Us on PS5 doesn't have feature parity compared to PC. Like literally all console games, including every game that Sony and Xbox have released on PC thus far.

 

[Flutta]

Yeah, you’re just as bad as the CMA.

The deal being proposed is a 10 year deal with Nintendo. You’re here seriously arguing that Nintendo isn’t going to make a next gen console that’s expected to be significantly more powerful than the current Switch?

If this deal is ratified, there’s no way it’ll cover a 2023 port. By 2024, we’ll have a new Nintendo console.

You keep ”forgetting” that Nintendo is not in the business of making a HW catered to the AAA market. I mean the Switch is having a hard time keeping up with Nintendo games…

Games are getting bigger and more demanding so a gimped, watered down COD for the next Nintendo console is not something people are screaming for.

Yes the next Nintendo console will not be as powefull as you think it will even for todays COD/warzone.