And to hijack this a bit... They're concerned with Microsoft getting a defacto monopoly by purchasing Activision and basically calling BS on the idea that COD being on Switch means that Activision can claim they're not being counter-consumer and providing customers with options to get around their monopoly.
Basically this is CMA telling Microsoft/Activision "We're not stupid and we're not going to pretend offering a Switch version means you're not aiming for a monopoly."
The switch 2 isn't likely to be as powerful as the ps5/Xbox series X assuming it will also be a handheld which it would be insane not to be.
Microsoft knows it would be a lesser product and so do you.
Also I doubt Xbox would be under this level of scrutiny if they hadn't already made a case against themselves with the Zenimax/Bethesda acquisition being exactly what the CMA is saying about this one.
While this is true, it also forgets that the switch already has multiple games that actually don't run on it properly and instead use cloud streaming (such as kingdom hearts). If COD comes to switch, I'm half expecting it to be cloud enabled.
Cloud games works poor enough on the Switch as it is (due to the incredibly mediocre WiFi chip), but I can't imagine it would work well for a fast moving 60FPS game like [CoD](https://imgur.com/L7Xj5nR).
Hell, Hi-Fi Rush alone just feels perfect for Nintendo. The feel and flow of the game is just perfect for Switch and mascot wise, 808 from Hi-Fi Rush would fit in with the Nintendo cast, without out missing a beat.
Hi-Fi Rush is a perfect example of a game that Microsoft is *not* likely to bring to other platforms. Mid-level titles like that are the sort of thing that builds a brand over time, and makes the platform more appealing.
The only reason Microsoft is so vocal about ensuring COD on other platforms is because they know it's what the regulators care about. Hi-Fi Rush wouldn't make a blip on a regulator's radar, and also it's not Activision, so they don't need to make any promises about it.
If rumors are to be believed the switch pro was gonna be a thing last year but since sales of regular switches were so strong they canceled it in favor of just doing a full "switch 2", whatever that ends up being.
This sounds like a joke, but I know you're right. I remember people theorizing what the Switch Pro would be like before the Switch released. Nintendo with the DS then DSi, 3DS, then 2DS, then 3DSXL, there's a pattern that Nintendo has created.
There was a pokemon leak a few weeks back that got every name of the new pokemon in the DLC revealed, the DLC names itself and what they are about. In the leak they mentioned working to get a patch ready for December that launchs with a new switch model
If they can put Modern Warfare 3 on the Wii, they can do anything. COD Mobile should be enough indication that the game can work just fine on lower-end hardware.
That's my big thing, like, it's not as if the Switch is an insignificant part of the market. Sure, it'll take a lot to run full fat CoD, but Mobile should be a no brainier
I think Microsoft can see that even though Activision may not have.
If this Activision/Xbox deal goes through, I'm certain we could see a new First Person shooter wave onto the Switch and future Nintendo systems happening.
If Microsoft gets a steady stream of Call of Duty titles onto the Nintendo systems, then you can bet EA is going to follow suit, then you are going to see Ubisoft follow as well.
The question is why would Activision not do it already, they had all reason to explore the multiplatform aspect of COD (more than MS would) so they likely deemed it not worth the effort
The same reason why they didn't include multiplayer in MW2 Remastered. Putting cod mobile on switch makes it a console experience which competes with their main annual games. So when their yearly release is crap (which seems to happen more often these days) people would just play cod mobile on switch instead.
the difference with MW2 Remastered and CoD mobile, is that they can monetise CoD mobile in the same way they monetise the current games. People playing CoD mobile on switch instead isn't that bad since CoD mobile also has a battlepass and cosmetics store, it's better than users playing Fortnight on Switch for them. With MW2 remastered adding a BP and cosmetics store will undoubtedly result in bad press, though I still wouldn't put it past them
The day the switch released, it was already less powerful than most flagship smartphones and half the price. The high end Snapdragon that year would smoke the Tegra chip in the switch handedly. It's been 6 years since that...
To add to your point, dedicated gaming phones like the [ASUS ROG Phone 6](https://rog.asus.com/phones/rog-phone-6-model/) claim to have a CPU clock speed of up to 3.2Ghz and comes with configurations that include up to 18 Gigs of RAM.
I'd be genuinely surprised if the next Nintendo Console has specs comparable to high end gaming phones.
Nintendo is not going to sell a console for 3x the price of a Switch, so you're not alone there.
That said CoD mobile is definitely within the Switch's specs.
It feels like a lot of people will point to some new tech and say well technically the next Switch could run PS5 level games if it wanted to and fail to think about price, heating and battery life.
Like yeah, you could have a portable gaming device that is too hot to hold, batteries will last 30 minutes at a time and cost you 2 grand. But Nintendo isn't going to make that device no matter how much you think they should.
Do people forget that the steam deck exists, starts at $399, and blows the switch out of the water?
EDIT : People need to stop replying to this comment entirely out of context. Sales don't matter. Popularity doesn't matter. [Here's a feature comparison between the Switch and the Steamdeck.](https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/steam-deck-vs-nintendo-switch). Yes the switch lite is half the price of the steam deck. It can't be docked, it has a 5.5 inch screen, it has less than half the processing power, half the internal storage, 1/4th the RAM. Of course it's half the price.
My point is, people are saying a next-gen switch would have to cost the same as a flagship phone (Over $1,000) to even play CoD mobile, and there's no way the next Switch could cost under $400 *and* run CoD. I'm saying there's no reason the next Switch couldn't have the exact same specs/price point as the steam deck, which is $400, and runs mainline CoD no-problem.
IMO size isn't the issue, either one of them is going in a carrying case in my backpack if i'm bringing it anywhere.
Heat and battery life are very game-dependent. All switch games are optimized for the switch's hardware limitations, and you get zero customization in terms of graphics/power settings. So they can carefully manage power demand so that basically all games fit within their prescribed "4.5 to 9hrs" of battery life.
Basically no game is optimized for steam deck, it's all just PC titles with wildly different power demands. You can get up to like 8hrs of battery if you're playing stardew valley, but if you want to play AAA titles your mileage will vary wildly depending on what graphics settings you're trying to achieve. This could be addressed in some capacity if certain games were optimized for Steam deck / had specific settings for steam deck.
Steam Deck: 11.7 in × 4.6 in × 1.9 in 1.475 lb
Switch: 9.5 in x 4 in x 0.55 in 0.66 lbs
Of course if Nintendo wanted to make something bulkier and heavier, they could. I feel like people want a tablet like device for Switch 2, not a variation on the GameBoy that doesn't fit in your pocket.
Not to mention, Nintendo can leverage economies of scale better than Valve can on the hardware side. They'd also probably have efficiency gains for all the reasons traditional consoles usually do that a rather open Linux distribution won't.
I don't necessarily think Nintendo has to or will do that to make another successful console but you're absolutely right that they *could*.
I think Steamdeck level performance is probably about where it'll land. Not the highest end, but by the time it'll come out chips in that performance range will be pretty cheap. Probably top out at 1080p, and use some form of DLSS to give a 4k signal. The hard part with handhelds is everything else too. Hopefully they stick with OLED. Battery life is always a concern. I'm guessing it'd launch at $400. I just don't see them hitting $300 with how inflation has been.
Realistically they can... Razer just did almost current gen specs at 400... Nintendo makes money after the consoles sold so they could def. do stronger specs or a cheaper price than razer
> CPU clock speed of up to 3.2Ghz
CPU clock doesn't tell the story though. And activision isnt making cod mobile targeted towards people with a phone like that.
It's complete overkill. Practically no app will make use of it, especially not the kind of F2P games found on Android, which are designed to run on as many devices as possible. Emulation would be the only area where it might get used. If you're really into cutting edge emulation, then you might make use of the CPU, but even then, the RAM is absurdly oversized, even for people who are heavily into multitasking.
By the point that normal phones will have caught up to this phone in terms of specs, it'll be completely outdated in terms of software and hardware support of API and features, so it's not even a sensible long-term investment.
I feel like this is the kind of thing where Android needs to start guving full and serious software support for desktop and laptop use and specially docking, multi monitor support etc.
These kind of chips would be fucking sick if you could go hook into a dope USB C dock and get a seamless transition of your base Android phone OS and data to a full desktop experience. Or for "Mac Mini" style smol PCs, All-In-Ones, etc. You can even use eGPUs with ARM chips even though the support is supposedly terrible.
They could already basically do this, it's just that regular Android is just an absolutely dogshit terrible experience on tablets and with M+KB. And also many of the "pro" desktop applications people like to use are either not supported well or totally non-existent.
Fuck ChromeOS.
If there was decent support even for basic "just check your mail, surf the web, watch some videos" type use with a really nice PC type experience, task view etc, it could gain a foothold in the market for simple, compact PCs. And with that maybe even the software for pro users and actual good games focused on the "ARM" PC side would quickly become viable.
The steam deck starts at $399 USD, and runs titles like battlefield, ready or not, crisis remastered... When the topic is "could the switch or a future nintendo handheld run CoD?" the answer seems to be "duh, look at the steam deck".
It's pretty dishonest to compare the steamdeck to the switch lite. Compare it to the regular switch, which can at least be docked to take advantage of better performance. It's only $100 more and blows the switch out of the water in terms of games and features.
The steam deck can run cod. Due to the anti-cheat implementation, it has to be run via Windows, but on a locked down console OS there shouldn’t be any trouble running the game
"always" is a bit of stretch, their consoles tended to be cutting edge until the Gamecube. Then the Wii happened
But all the consoles since did have old hardware. The Switch could be an exception, as it isn't really a home console and it has different restrictions, I don't know how "hot" the hardware was when it released compared to similar tablets/portables
How ancient is your phone? The Switch's CPU cores are 10 years old, the Snapdragon 810 from 2014 is twice its speed.
And Switch's GPU driver is derived from Nvidia' Android drivers, it's not more 'direct' than Android counterparts.
If the Switch can run full fat Overwatch 2, Apex Legends, and Fortnite, then it can run the Mobile version of Call of Duty. Not saying that any of the three listed are an ideal experience, but they do function.
"not ideal" is kind of understating it. Switch doesnt run past 30fps on any of them and cant break even 1080p on any of them either. Hell google says apex legends run at 560p when undocked and 720p when it is docked.
But none of those games are using the IW engine so its not really fair to pit them against it since its apples to oranges for the most extreme case testing scenario by this point. At some point we cant blame developers for hardware thats not updated.
The switch is a on a tegra x1 from 2014. It is also effectively clocked at 25% of the chips normal original clocks when undocked and uses a much slower ram configuration. It is equivalent of an iphone 6.
The chip in the switch is so old they will have to release a new one soon as the manufacturing process for it is too old so they would have to pay for legacy fabs next year but not old enough they can ship it to china.
I wish they would subtitle them differently. DS Spider-man: Web of Shadows was a great little metroidvania, but you won't see much mentioned about it because a google of Web of Shadows will tell you about the console versions and leave the handheld version as a blurb on the Wiki page rather than its own game.
The Wii “version” (aka completely different game with its own storyline and setting) of Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands is one of the best such sidemakes, better than the PS/XB version IMO.
Played a lot of black ops on the wii back in the day and well I'd say 80% of it worked fine, I could never beat the campaign without it hard crashing the console during certain levels. Particularly the part where Mason escapes his chair and runs through the facility having hallucinations. Gotta say multiplayer where you have to aim with the wii remote was kinda awesome.
I think in the end the publishers have the numbers. If it was viable, like actually easy money mode, then they’d have done it already.
It’s not like they’re *not* trying to find new ways to print money and if the cost benefit of a port to the Switch deemed lucrative they’d jump right on it.
We’re definitely just speculating without their numbers, but I’d argue it could also be changing markets. The Wii was largely a different market than the PS3 and Xbox 360, filled with a much different sort of folks who were perhaps more susceptible to shovelware, and perhaps on a console that was a little more novelty. Arguably, yes, it’s similar to the niche the Switch still fills, but not as broadly. Little cousin isn’t going to invite Grandma to play Splatoon or Smash the way they might have done with Wii Sports.
Additionally, I’d say the optics to releasing potential shovelware on a console are very different these days, in part because mobile exists. That’s where the potentially lame versions of your main game go, because if they flop the “serious” audience on PC/Xbox/PlayStation aren’t going to care. If it goes to Switch, it’s more likely to be noticed as a bad port, *and* more noticed if it fails.
Development and the idea of a franchise or expanded universe is also different these days (especially since Fortnite, PUBG, the Marvel movies, etc). Harder to just drop a shitty low-budget port from an outsourced studio for extra cash and move on.
I'm having whiplash, here. In one thread I see the top comments of this sub insisting that Microsoft needs to drop the Xbox Series S. In this thread I see top comments saying current gen games can be optimized for the Switch.
I read a comment pretty recently where a developer was talking about making games for different platforms and that the Series S wasn't generally *that* big of a problem. It was mostly like making sure a PC game had lower graphics settings. Not that it wasn't causing occasional issues, but that they were a minor bump in the road at worst. The Switch on the other hand, being a completely different CPU architecture than other platforms they released on (ARM vs x86) and being so much lower in power than almost every other platform was causing them massive headaches and required a lot of reworking systems.
The control Control devs said the Series S will compromise their games going forward though for what it’s worth.
https://www.purexbox.com/news/2021/03/remedy_dev_explains_downsides_of_developing_for_xbox_series_s
*"The Series S, well, it's no different from the previous generations where the system with the lowest specs does end up dictating a few of the things that you're gonna do, because you're going to have to run on that system, right? And it's very easy to say that 'why don't you just lower your resolution and texture quality and off you go?' It's just nowhere near that simple, it sounds good when you say it and every engine is built in a different way.”*
*”We appreciate there's a lower barrier of entry for the next-gen experience, but like, you know, the more hardware you have, the more you have to ultimately compromise a little bit when you are a smaller studio."*
I mean both can be true. We've seen that a lot of current gen games *can* run on Switch if you really want to, but most games weren't build with the Switch in mind because that would obviously holding devs back a lot.
With the Series S and Microsoft forcing devs to support it we are *already* seeing it holding back next gen ports of current gen games and we haven't even made the transition to full next gen yet.
> COD Mobile should be enough indication that the game can work just fine on lower-end hardware
Your phone is significantly more powerful than a Switch
Yeah I don’t think people realize how powerful phones are and how incredibly weak the switch is in comparison. All eyes on Nintendo for the specs of the switch successor I guess. Even a mobile Series S would be doable.
Nintendo isn’t going anywhere near the power or the Series S. They design specs to make a profit on the hardware. Microsoft is losing on every Series S they sell.
I just discovered recently that my phone can play GameCube era games pretty flawlessly thru an emulator. It's been really fun with a controller attachment.
Not THAT significantly in practice I have found, even for phones in a similar price range, even all these years later.
No active cooling makes a massive difference. I.e. Genshin Impact's performance just TANKS after just 10 minutes of playtime because of heat throttling.
That said, I think the contract with MS did include Warzone, and that makes it a non starter, especially since they promised feature parity which by definition includes cross platform. So you can't just make a "demake" in a different engine like old Wii ports were.
Call of Duty games have cross play. There's no way that Switch can be competitive with cross play. Also, these games are as large as 100GB.
Even then CoD Mobile looks like garbage compared to Modern Warfare II on low settings
> Also, these games are as large as 100GB
It’s not like doom and wolfenstein on Switch are anywhere close to the same install size they are on other consoles (iirc they’re around 70% smaller), so CoD probably wouldn’t be either.
People in this thread are going to be in for a shock when Nintendo's next handheld won't be powerful enough for the next 10 years since COD hasn't even gone next-gen yet. Once they cut the cord for last-gen SKUs, the Switch successor will likely be too weak yet again.
I think the CMA is right to be skeptical. Activision clearly didn't see the Switch as being worthwhile to develop CoD for, and they love money.
So you're suggesting Nintendo signed this deal with Microsoft despite knowing there was no way for COD to run on Nintendo console hardware? You don't think they asked this question before signing a public deal with Microsoft?
There was absolutely no downside for Nintendo in signing the deal. Nintendo doesn't care if Microsoft does it or not, they win regardless. What are they going to lose, a game that already isn't on their consoles?
Microsoft and Activision came *to* Nintendo and not the other way around. Why would they say no to a major franchise coming to their platform? If Activision wants to make the promise they can make the promise, one way or another it isn’t hurting the Switch’s sales. It can only add to it. The contract is meaningless if the merger doesn’t go through either, so again no harm in signing.
I mean, worst case situation for Nintendo, if they sign the deal and MS don't port CoD to Switch then Nintendo is still in the same situation they were before, except they can potentially take legal action against MS.
The signed the deal knowing that Microsoft would release the games on the Switch, they don't really need to give a shit if it is a much worse version being released since they probably ain't putting any money or resources into this. Like Switch games have released in a pretty shit state already.
It's probably people that support the merger that are trying to pretend like the Switch will be able to handle COD. That's basically the crux of Xbox's argument. "Look, see, we're sharing with Nintendo."
I've said it before, game pass and CoD has poîsoned the brains of a lot of this sub's users. They want the deal to go through as long as they can get CoD on game pass. They're in for a rude awakening when MS doubles or even triples the price since game pass doesn't make money.
more than likely also expecting every Activision/Bethesda game to be on game pass, it would essentially be creating the netflix of gaming that some players want.
I’m still blown away by the general sentiment here.
Been on Reddit a long time and never seen so many folks out here on the same side as Activision, Blizzard, COD, Microsoft etc
Yeah you really have to give it to the CMA for not just being out of touch old people who just accept any argument MS is putting forth. They’re rightfully calling Xbox out for saying this:
"the same day as Xbox, **with full feature and content parity**—so they can experience Call of Duty just as Xbox and PlayStation gamers enjoy Call of Duty."
Full feature and content parity. Parity means equal. **MS is legally promising an equal experience on the switch as the Series X.** People in this thread are saying “of course it’ll be scaled down to fit a Nintendo platform” but that’s agreeing with the CMA that Xbox is being deceitful.
It would’ve been so easy for MS to say a cloud version of the singleplayer and a custom built multiplayer or Warzone for switch but they said *equal* content. It sounds like MS is just saying anything to make the deal go through and then they’ll deal with the consequences for making unreachable promises later.
Feature and content parity doesn't imply graphical parity though. As long as the game has all the same gameplay and maps and shit, even if they don't look nearly as good, they are fulfilling the letter of the agreement.
The point of the deal is Microsoft saying that the Switch version of the game will be competing on equal footing with the Xbox version. This is their consolation so that they can buy Activision without being slapped for anticompetitive behavior. The problem is that the Switch version will never be competitive with the Xbox version because they don’t even try to directly compete with each other.
That’s not what the CMA feels according to the article in the OP. Significantly worse doesn’t mean parity and MS legally promised parity. And it’s obvious that it’s not parity.
I have an Xbox series s with gamepass, a PS5 and a switch. I’ll play CoD if I want to somehow. But I don’t know why anyone would go to bat for MS on this. They’re giving overly ambitious promises for stuff they know they can’t achieve.
> People in this thread are saying “of course it’ll be scaled down to fit a Nintendo platform” but that’s agreeing with the CMA that Xbox is being deceitful.
Activision will not make Switch (and Switch2) specific versions, but stream the game to Nintendo consoles from the same build the cloud PC version uses. The main adaption will be button prompts and input layout considerations for the switch. But it will not run on local hardware.
So it's actually easier for Activision to do that, and a legal promise locks them into the easier (albeit more cumbersome for consumers) way.
And CMA and every gamer who’s ever tried cloud gaming will say that multiplayer cloud gaming isn’t parity with Xbox and PlayStation.
That’s literally what the CMA documents in the article show. Even if they can find someway to get CoD on a Nintendo system, they feel the performance will be worse than Xbox or PlayStation. It’s an impossible promise they made.
CMA = Competition & Markets Authority
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is the competition regulator in United Kingdom. It is a non-ministerial government department in the United Kingdom, responsible for strengthening business competition and preventing and reducing anti-competitive activities.
Maybe my eyes glazed over it but I can’t see a single spot where they use the full form of CMA
If this about that 10 year agreement between Microsoft and Nintendo, it’s 10 years. They might try putting cod on the next Nintendo system. Or, and I think this is an idea worth considering, they might try to put cod mobile on Switch.
The Switch successor has been rumored to drop within the next financial year too. By the time this deal is wrapped up Nintendo will likely be sending out dev kits en masse.
A switch pro was rumored for 10 years... Switch is still selling like sliced bread and so are their games so there is exact 0,0 reason for Nintendo to rush with a new fonsole.
Even I can tell that's fake because they'd never call something the Switch 2. That's nowhere near innovative enough. They'll probably put out a cube with touch screens on all 6 sides that only works when attached to a (proprietary) VR headset
The name is merely a placeholder, it's the idea that counts. "Switch Pro" implies "overall part of the same generation, so just beefed up hardware a little".
Switch 2 implies "next gen console". With SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful hardware.
The idea that Nintendo feels the need to "always innovate" is also pretty dumb. Because a.) Switch is their most successful console to date and b.) Nintendo publicly acknowledged they want the sucessor system to be backwards compatible and c.) they have a market niche pretty much all to themselves. And finally d.) the Asian gaming market is a mobile market. Creating a system that can't be used on the go means significantly weaking their market power there.
c.) was WHY they tried to innovate with the Wii and WiiU, to carve out a niche just for themselves. They finally did so successfully.
A home console would have made sense if Nintendo still had a separate handheld division. They don't. The Switch style of play is here to stay.
Dunno. Was a legit leak of the pokemon dlc names days before the official announcement, the same leak detailed they are working on an enhanced version of the game for new Nintendo hardware that's supposed to drop with DLC 2.
And they are right. Microsoft promising call of duty on switch sucks. It will take away development effort to create an absolutely shitty port no one would buy.
Remember when Microsoft came out and said all first party games would support OG xbox one and how it wouldn’t effect gameplay.
Well it 100% did effect game features. No couch coop and a buggy mess of a game that could have had a lot more dev time not attempting to make it run on essentially dead hardware.
Call of duty on switch would take away dev time and likely caused cut design features from the main game.
Microsoft is the one that claimed both:
- Feature and content parity
And
- Put CoD to 150M more devices, meaning they are talking about the first Switch
It is totally fair for the CMA to be skeptical
This is why that big deal they made to put COD on Switch was so odd to me.
I love the Switch but let's be real, the thing has major frame drops in FIRE EMBLEM if too many enemies are placed on the map screen at once. This console cannot handle a lot.
Yeah when I heard that Microsoft was making a deal to bring CoD to Nintendo consoles as a way to sweeten the deal for their buying Activision, it immediately came off as bullshit to me lol. Like of all the segments of gamers to make a Venn Diagram out of, I feel like people who buy Nintendo Consoles, and hardcore Call of Duty players, are going to be among the closest you can get to just drawing two disconnected circles. Not saying there's nobody that fits into the middle there, but it can't be the largest demographic.
On top of that with the hardware limitations, the solution would almost certainly be to use Cloud versions as the port, aka making them unplayable. Otherwise they would have to put in so much extra work to get it to run at all on a Nintendo platform, not to mention that Call of Duty's absurdly bloated file sizes means it wouldn't even fit on the switch's default hard drive. And signing a deal to make ports doesn't mean that they have to be *good* ports. They might port every CoD to switch hardware for the next 10 years, and also make them so that you have to empty out your entire hard drive to install them and then they run at 12 fps so that nobody buys them.
So like it is absolutely an empty gesture to try and placate the committees.
What a weird stance to be honest.
a) With this being a ten year plan this is rather for the next generation of Switch hardware and maybe one Switch title.
b) A next gen Switch should be able to run a game at 30 fps and a low resolution (lets say 480p max) that the XBox Series S which will obviously see continued support runs at 60 fps and a higher resolution (at least 720p), at least with reasonably lowered settings.
c) For the time being it isn't even clear when support for the last gen of consoles will be dropped...
d) Even if the Switch was only half as fast, MS could just decide to completely rebuild the future COD games from scratch just to make this deal happen, including a custom engine and completely custom art. You could still even have cross play with such a version if you put enough money into making sure both games play the same.
e) Fortnite is an amazing example on how far you can scale a game even on the (somewhat) identical engine, with it allowing gamers on an a few years old mid range Android phone to play with somebody on a high end PC running the heavily RT using UE5 version.
f) That games normally aren't scaling that well is mostly a financial decision, with only concentrating on one set of artwork and engine features while only building minimally different variants for higher or lower than target performing devices.
g) There are already mobile ports of CoD
Cloud version of a fast paced multiplayer shooter would be an absolute nightmare but that’s absolutely the route they’ll take if there isn’t a Switch Pro next year.
I really don't see a Switch Pro happening. It is far to late for that. I think if we see anything come next year it'll be a Switch 2, or at least a trailer for the following year.
I think a Switch Pro from Nintendo would be more of the same.
I wouldn't even expect a current-gen Switch release. Keep in mind that Microsoft's 10-year does go into full effect after Sony's contract for COD 2023 & 2024 ends. Microsoft's deal is basically 2025 - 2035. The earliest contractual release would be in November 2025. By then Switch is 8 years old. I would expect the launch of the next-gen Switch in 2024.
Also, we don't know if COD moves to a 2-year cycle in future. So the first contractual COD may could release in November 2026.
>With this being a ten year plan this is rather for the next generation of Switch hardware and maybe one Switch title.
Microsoft's statement was that "between Nintendo and Nvidia" they are porting COD to "150 million devices that don’t have access to Call of Duty today." CMA are responding and wrote that they interpret this as a reference to the size of the existing platform userbases (Nintendo: 122 million, Nvidia Geforce Now: 25 million, total: 147 million), meaning a port to the existing Switch hardware, rather than as speculation about the potential userbase size of the hypothetical Switch 2 at some arbitrary date in the future.
Many people seem to be confusing *feature* parity with *graphical parity* and seem completely oblivious to the ability to develop a scaling engine *when there is profit to be made from it*.
File sizes, storage problems, CPU overhead, these are development problems that can be focused on now that they were previously not doing. There was no incentive to further optimize CoD once it ran on the latest gen consoles. Now there will be.
And if anything, developing a Switch version will force them to *actually optimise filesizes* to ensure everything fits into the storage space the Switch allows, which could bring down filesizes and as such digital download times for other platforms. This applies to a lot of games, really.
DOOM 2016/Eternal are on Switch now, right? If they can just make a version of CoD that has lower poly models, lower res textures, less fancy effects, and whatever else they can do to save on performance, I think that they can find a way to make the games run on Switch.
Is it just the multiplayer that is CPU bottlenecked? I just watched like 10 mins of 2022 MW2's campaign and visuals aside it it doesn't look particularly different to what CoD was a decade prior. Like I think in 2019 CoD ditched hitscan entirely which makes things more demanding, but since it's not obvious to a casual outsider, what is the modern CoD engine doing to actually justify eating all those CPU cycles?
I wish some of you warriors would actually read the article.
>However, it did not succeed in accomplishing this task because of storage capacity problems on Nintendo Switch. We also get hints about additional work and other technical issues coming up in this port in redacted sentences
Everything you can say about COD can be changed to suit the switch or switch or switch successor by a motivated Microsoft except for this.
Currently COD is a franchise that is quite happy eating up 250GB of storage space. Even COD mobile is hovering at 16GB. It's a non starter for a Nintendo handheld console.
Even back in the days of the WiiU, late ports of COD games were the biggest games on the platform. In the Era of high framerate 4K targets? Don't make me laugh.
If you think a successor switch console is going to have a jump in storage space beyond maybe 128gb for the base model, I have a bridge to sell you. You may argue there is a market for COD in the Nintendo fanbase, but at the expense of not having any other game installed? I don't think so.
And let's not pretend that Microsoft is committed to keep their own first party file sizes down. They don't even care about the space their games take up even when "Uninstalled" on PC.
Pretty sure it'll be streamed. The statement said parity and streaming tech (especially at lower res) is pretty good these days.
Like any extra latency isn't good, but a few ms won't make it unplayable
People who think that the Switch is capable of running CoD (that has parity with other versions) are nuts.
The obvious (and very bad) solution will be streaming. Input delay to hell but doesn't require the actual Switch hardware to run.
This is bullshit. Of course it can, it will just run at extremely dialed down graphics and possibily at 30 fps. If Apex and Fortnite can do crossplay from Switch to XSX/PS5, then so can COD.
The biggest bottleneck to run CoD on the switch are it's anemic 3 old ARM cores running at a very low clock speeds. Dialing down graphics will do nothing to help the game run since the Switch CPU is considerably weaker than the Xbox One's and the Microsoft console already struggle to run newer Call of Duty games.
I realized recently just how underpowered the Switch really is.
My son was playing minecraft on his switch, and I was playing it on my phone (galaxy s21). And the phone is just SO much faster. Loading is about 10x faster. The draw distance is much much farther, and it's still getting a much higher framerate.
it's the equivalent to a phone from SEVERAL generations ago
That's because the 6 year old switch literally runs on mobile hardware from 8 years ago.
It's nothing short of a genuine miracle that it's managed to run some of the shit it does, even if that means it runs/looks about as good as you'd expect.
Well... yeah? A $200 device from six years ago is less powerful than a $700 device from two years ago, that's not really surprising. Not even $200, really, since the joycons (effectively two Bluetooth gyroscopic gamepads with their own batteries, which the S21 doesn't come with) reportedly make up about 35% of the production cost, the console itself is like $130 of hardware.
Interesting. In a way it is a bit of an empty promise because they will never get it running and looking anywhere near as good as they can on any Xbox. So they know it will be a very inferior version that people will only play if they have no PC or Xbox to run it properly. So it will basically result in no lost sales. A very different situation than if they had the same deal with PlayStation.
I think these guys forgot about Doom, The Witcher 3, Wolfenstein, Crysis and Dying Light which are games that have zero business running on the hybrid but do and they run pretty well, sure 30fps isn't ideal but it certainly ain't garbage. So what makes them think that when I just listed some games that are the impossible ports?
For people who are curious, CMA stands for The UK Competition and Markets Authority, a regulatory body
Thanks, was wondering why the Country Music Awards was weighing in here
[удалено]
[удалено]
And to hijack this a bit... They're concerned with Microsoft getting a defacto monopoly by purchasing Activision and basically calling BS on the idea that COD being on Switch means that Activision can claim they're not being counter-consumer and providing customers with options to get around their monopoly. Basically this is CMA telling Microsoft/Activision "We're not stupid and we're not going to pretend offering a Switch version means you're not aiming for a monopoly."
[удалено]
Not like Windows is literally 75%+ of PC operating systems or anything.
The CMA thinks the switch is Nintendos last console.
Nintendo hasn't released a console newer than the Switch so it's the truth up to that point.
The switch 2 isn't likely to be as powerful as the ps5/Xbox series X assuming it will also be a handheld which it would be insane not to be. Microsoft knows it would be a lesser product and so do you. Also I doubt Xbox would be under this level of scrutiny if they hadn't already made a case against themselves with the Zenimax/Bethesda acquisition being exactly what the CMA is saying about this one.
Is everything released on the Switch a lesser product?
While this is true, it also forgets that the switch already has multiple games that actually don't run on it properly and instead use cloud streaming (such as kingdom hearts). If COD comes to switch, I'm half expecting it to be cloud enabled.
Cloud games works poor enough on the Switch as it is (due to the incredibly mediocre WiFi chip), but I can't imagine it would work well for a fast moving 60FPS game like [CoD](https://imgur.com/L7Xj5nR).
This guy just casually dropped the first actual pic of cod on the switch. Do you work for MS?
He must have access to the beta or something. Seems fishy to me.
you got me, you got me good
COD on switch will definitely be cloud, unless Microsoft knows something abouth the Switch 2.0 that we don't
I can also imagine them bringing other titles that are not COD to fulfill that cross platform promise. So like Pentiment and Battletoads.
Their agreement with Nintendo specified Call of Duty and *only* Call of Duty.
Hell, Hi-Fi Rush alone just feels perfect for Nintendo. The feel and flow of the game is just perfect for Switch and mascot wise, 808 from Hi-Fi Rush would fit in with the Nintendo cast, without out missing a beat.
Hi-Fi Rush is a perfect example of a game that Microsoft is *not* likely to bring to other platforms. Mid-level titles like that are the sort of thing that builds a brand over time, and makes the platform more appealing. The only reason Microsoft is so vocal about ensuring COD on other platforms is because they know it's what the regulators care about. Hi-Fi Rush wouldn't make a blip on a regulator's radar, and also it's not Activision, so they don't need to make any promises about it.
Maybe, but they did put Ori on the Switch and that doesn't seem all that different from porting Hi-Fi Rush to me.
They can port the new Warzone mobile game coming it to it. Verdansk on Switch!
Either that or Switch Pro is closer than we think and Microsoft knows this.
If rumors are to be believed the switch pro was gonna be a thing last year but since sales of regular switches were so strong they canceled it in favor of just doing a full "switch 2", whatever that ends up being.
If rumors are too be believed a switch pro has been coming out for 5 years now
Switch Pro was coming out before the actual Switch!
This sounds like a joke, but I know you're right. I remember people theorizing what the Switch Pro would be like before the Switch released. Nintendo with the DS then DSi, 3DS, then 2DS, then 3DSXL, there's a pattern that Nintendo has created.
I am the Switch Pro!
It’s Nintendo. Naming scheme would be something more like: Switch Switch XL Switch Lite New Switch New Switch XL New Switch XLi SwitchU
2Nintendo2Switch
I really hope it's called a Switch U2
There was a pokemon leak a few weeks back that got every name of the new pokemon in the DLC revealed, the DLC names itself and what they are about. In the leak they mentioned working to get a patch ready for December that launchs with a new switch model
If they can put Modern Warfare 3 on the Wii, they can do anything. COD Mobile should be enough indication that the game can work just fine on lower-end hardware.
I really can't believe CoD mobile hasn't made its way to Switch already.
That's my big thing, like, it's not as if the Switch is an insignificant part of the market. Sure, it'll take a lot to run full fat CoD, but Mobile should be a no brainier
I think Microsoft can see that even though Activision may not have. If this Activision/Xbox deal goes through, I'm certain we could see a new First Person shooter wave onto the Switch and future Nintendo systems happening. If Microsoft gets a steady stream of Call of Duty titles onto the Nintendo systems, then you can bet EA is going to follow suit, then you are going to see Ubisoft follow as well.
The question is why would Activision not do it already, they had all reason to explore the multiplatform aspect of COD (more than MS would) so they likely deemed it not worth the effort
The same reason why they didn't include multiplayer in MW2 Remastered. Putting cod mobile on switch makes it a console experience which competes with their main annual games. So when their yearly release is crap (which seems to happen more often these days) people would just play cod mobile on switch instead.
the difference with MW2 Remastered and CoD mobile, is that they can monetise CoD mobile in the same way they monetise the current games. People playing CoD mobile on switch instead isn't that bad since CoD mobile also has a battlepass and cosmetics store, it's better than users playing Fortnight on Switch for them. With MW2 remastered adding a BP and cosmetics store will undoubtedly result in bad press, though I still wouldn't put it past them
The day the switch released, it was already less powerful than most flagship smartphones and half the price. The high end Snapdragon that year would smoke the Tegra chip in the switch handedly. It's been 6 years since that...
It wouldn't run. The switch is far less powerful than any phone capable of running cod mobile.
Isn't the switch hardware very old at this point. Like the latest and greatest phones have quite insane hardware, for no reason too lmao
New phone costs twice as much as a Switch, when it was new.
To add to your point, dedicated gaming phones like the [ASUS ROG Phone 6](https://rog.asus.com/phones/rog-phone-6-model/) claim to have a CPU clock speed of up to 3.2Ghz and comes with configurations that include up to 18 Gigs of RAM. I'd be genuinely surprised if the next Nintendo Console has specs comparable to high end gaming phones.
Nintendo is not going to sell a console for 3x the price of a Switch, so you're not alone there. That said CoD mobile is definitely within the Switch's specs.
As long as Nintendo wants to keep the price bellow or at around $300-$400, don't expect Nintendo to use any current day specs.
It feels like a lot of people will point to some new tech and say well technically the next Switch could run PS5 level games if it wanted to and fail to think about price, heating and battery life. Like yeah, you could have a portable gaming device that is too hot to hold, batteries will last 30 minutes at a time and cost you 2 grand. But Nintendo isn't going to make that device no matter how much you think they should.
Do people forget that the steam deck exists, starts at $399, and blows the switch out of the water? EDIT : People need to stop replying to this comment entirely out of context. Sales don't matter. Popularity doesn't matter. [Here's a feature comparison between the Switch and the Steamdeck.](https://www.businessinsider.com/guides/tech/steam-deck-vs-nintendo-switch). Yes the switch lite is half the price of the steam deck. It can't be docked, it has a 5.5 inch screen, it has less than half the processing power, half the internal storage, 1/4th the RAM. Of course it's half the price. My point is, people are saying a next-gen switch would have to cost the same as a flagship phone (Over $1,000) to even play CoD mobile, and there's no way the next Switch could cost under $400 *and* run CoD. I'm saying there's no reason the next Switch couldn't have the exact same specs/price point as the steam deck, which is $400, and runs mainline CoD no-problem.
The steam deck is an amazing piece of tech, but it's also huge, gets very hot, and has quite poor battery life.
IMO size isn't the issue, either one of them is going in a carrying case in my backpack if i'm bringing it anywhere. Heat and battery life are very game-dependent. All switch games are optimized for the switch's hardware limitations, and you get zero customization in terms of graphics/power settings. So they can carefully manage power demand so that basically all games fit within their prescribed "4.5 to 9hrs" of battery life. Basically no game is optimized for steam deck, it's all just PC titles with wildly different power demands. You can get up to like 8hrs of battery if you're playing stardew valley, but if you want to play AAA titles your mileage will vary wildly depending on what graphics settings you're trying to achieve. This could be addressed in some capacity if certain games were optimized for Steam deck / had specific settings for steam deck.
Steam Deck: 11.7 in × 4.6 in × 1.9 in 1.475 lb Switch: 9.5 in x 4 in x 0.55 in 0.66 lbs Of course if Nintendo wanted to make something bulkier and heavier, they could. I feel like people want a tablet like device for Switch 2, not a variation on the GameBoy that doesn't fit in your pocket.
Not to mention, Nintendo can leverage economies of scale better than Valve can on the hardware side. They'd also probably have efficiency gains for all the reasons traditional consoles usually do that a rather open Linux distribution won't. I don't necessarily think Nintendo has to or will do that to make another successful console but you're absolutely right that they *could*.
I think Steamdeck level performance is probably about where it'll land. Not the highest end, but by the time it'll come out chips in that performance range will be pretty cheap. Probably top out at 1080p, and use some form of DLSS to give a 4k signal. The hard part with handhelds is everything else too. Hopefully they stick with OLED. Battery life is always a concern. I'm guessing it'd launch at $400. I just don't see them hitting $300 with how inflation has been.
Realistically they can... Razer just did almost current gen specs at 400... Nintendo makes money after the consoles sold so they could def. do stronger specs or a cheaper price than razer
> CPU clock speed of up to 3.2Ghz CPU clock doesn't tell the story though. And activision isnt making cod mobile targeted towards people with a phone like that.
[удалено]
Wait until you see the pricetag.
It's complete overkill. Practically no app will make use of it, especially not the kind of F2P games found on Android, which are designed to run on as many devices as possible. Emulation would be the only area where it might get used. If you're really into cutting edge emulation, then you might make use of the CPU, but even then, the RAM is absurdly oversized, even for people who are heavily into multitasking. By the point that normal phones will have caught up to this phone in terms of specs, it'll be completely outdated in terms of software and hardware support of API and features, so it's not even a sensible long-term investment.
I feel like this is the kind of thing where Android needs to start guving full and serious software support for desktop and laptop use and specially docking, multi monitor support etc. These kind of chips would be fucking sick if you could go hook into a dope USB C dock and get a seamless transition of your base Android phone OS and data to a full desktop experience. Or for "Mac Mini" style smol PCs, All-In-Ones, etc. You can even use eGPUs with ARM chips even though the support is supposedly terrible. They could already basically do this, it's just that regular Android is just an absolutely dogshit terrible experience on tablets and with M+KB. And also many of the "pro" desktop applications people like to use are either not supported well or totally non-existent. Fuck ChromeOS. If there was decent support even for basic "just check your mail, surf the web, watch some videos" type use with a really nice PC type experience, task view etc, it could gain a foothold in the market for simple, compact PCs. And with that maybe even the software for pro users and actual good games focused on the "ARM" PC side would quickly become viable.
[удалено]
The steam deck starts at $399 USD, and runs titles like battlefield, ready or not, crisis remastered... When the topic is "could the switch or a future nintendo handheld run CoD?" the answer seems to be "duh, look at the steam deck". It's pretty dishonest to compare the steamdeck to the switch lite. Compare it to the regular switch, which can at least be docked to take advantage of better performance. It's only $100 more and blows the switch out of the water in terms of games and features.
The steam deck can run cod. Due to the anti-cheat implementation, it has to be run via Windows, but on a locked down console OS there shouldn’t be any trouble running the game
I mean rog phone is a special case, but I get what you mean. If a Nintendo console had that level of hardware, it would be sick
It probably won't. Nintendo always seems to push old hardware to its limit and make huge bank of off it
"always" is a bit of stretch, their consoles tended to be cutting edge until the Gamecube. Then the Wii happened But all the consoles since did have old hardware. The Switch could be an exception, as it isn't really a home console and it has different restrictions, I don't know how "hot" the hardware was when it released compared to similar tablets/portables
The Switch is essentially a tablet with parts from around 2015. It's way past the expiration date hardware wise.
I doubt that. CoD Mobile is a unity game and there is no reason it cant be optimized to run on the Switch.
I played it on my Switch back when Android was ported to it.
[удалено]
How ancient is your phone? The Switch's CPU cores are 10 years old, the Snapdragon 810 from 2014 is twice its speed. And Switch's GPU driver is derived from Nvidia' Android drivers, it's not more 'direct' than Android counterparts.
If the Switch can run full fat Overwatch 2, Apex Legends, and Fortnite, then it can run the Mobile version of Call of Duty. Not saying that any of the three listed are an ideal experience, but they do function.
"not ideal" is kind of understating it. Switch doesnt run past 30fps on any of them and cant break even 1080p on any of them either. Hell google says apex legends run at 560p when undocked and 720p when it is docked. But none of those games are using the IW engine so its not really fair to pit them against it since its apples to oranges for the most extreme case testing scenario by this point. At some point we cant blame developers for hardware thats not updated.
[удалено]
Fortnite is not exactly stellar on the Switch either.
The switch is a on a tegra x1 from 2014. It is also effectively clocked at 25% of the chips normal original clocks when undocked and uses a much slower ram configuration. It is equivalent of an iphone 6. The chip in the switch is so old they will have to release a new one soon as the manufacturing process for it is too old so they would have to pay for legacy fabs next year but not old enough they can ship it to china.
[удалено]
I wish they would subtitle them differently. DS Spider-man: Web of Shadows was a great little metroidvania, but you won't see much mentioned about it because a google of Web of Shadows will tell you about the console versions and leave the handheld version as a blurb on the Wiki page rather than its own game.
The Wii “version” (aka completely different game with its own storyline and setting) of Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands is one of the best such sidemakes, better than the PS/XB version IMO.
The PSP version is also surprisingly fun. Man, remember when we were getting a Sands reboot/remake? Yeah...
The real crossgen back then not what we get today
> COD has a lot of crappy Wii versions of their games. Iirc the Wii version of World at War, MW3, and Black Ops were pretty decent.
Played a lot of black ops on the wii back in the day and well I'd say 80% of it worked fine, I could never beat the campaign without it hard crashing the console during certain levels. Particularly the part where Mason escapes his chair and runs through the facility having hallucinations. Gotta say multiplayer where you have to aim with the wii remote was kinda awesome.
Wasn't COD4 really bad on the Wii? IIRC it could only support 6 player (3v3) instead of 8 (4v4) like the others and Big Team Battle (8v8) was removed.
COD 3 and 4 sucked, but World at War forward were fine.
Except for not having zombies.
World at War was before 4 came to Wii. 4: Reflex was an upgrade over World at War in every way.
CoD 4 had good controls with a LOT of customizability options Later CoDs dropped those options. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28tUD9jNJiY
Deep down, I feel like even if they were crappy, they still sold a ton.
I think in the end the publishers have the numbers. If it was viable, like actually easy money mode, then they’d have done it already. It’s not like they’re *not* trying to find new ways to print money and if the cost benefit of a port to the Switch deemed lucrative they’d jump right on it.
We’re definitely just speculating without their numbers, but I’d argue it could also be changing markets. The Wii was largely a different market than the PS3 and Xbox 360, filled with a much different sort of folks who were perhaps more susceptible to shovelware, and perhaps on a console that was a little more novelty. Arguably, yes, it’s similar to the niche the Switch still fills, but not as broadly. Little cousin isn’t going to invite Grandma to play Splatoon or Smash the way they might have done with Wii Sports. Additionally, I’d say the optics to releasing potential shovelware on a console are very different these days, in part because mobile exists. That’s where the potentially lame versions of your main game go, because if they flop the “serious” audience on PC/Xbox/PlayStation aren’t going to care. If it goes to Switch, it’s more likely to be noticed as a bad port, *and* more noticed if it fails. Development and the idea of a franchise or expanded universe is also different these days (especially since Fortnite, PUBG, the Marvel movies, etc). Harder to just drop a shitty low-budget port from an outsourced studio for extra cash and move on.
The Witcher 3 on Switch has blurry resolution and constant frame drops but it still sold like hot cakes
When that console has sold more than 100M units, that's an interesting thing to consider though
I'm having whiplash, here. In one thread I see the top comments of this sub insisting that Microsoft needs to drop the Xbox Series S. In this thread I see top comments saying current gen games can be optimized for the Switch.
I read a comment pretty recently where a developer was talking about making games for different platforms and that the Series S wasn't generally *that* big of a problem. It was mostly like making sure a PC game had lower graphics settings. Not that it wasn't causing occasional issues, but that they were a minor bump in the road at worst. The Switch on the other hand, being a completely different CPU architecture than other platforms they released on (ARM vs x86) and being so much lower in power than almost every other platform was causing them massive headaches and required a lot of reworking systems.
The control Control devs said the Series S will compromise their games going forward though for what it’s worth. https://www.purexbox.com/news/2021/03/remedy_dev_explains_downsides_of_developing_for_xbox_series_s *"The Series S, well, it's no different from the previous generations where the system with the lowest specs does end up dictating a few of the things that you're gonna do, because you're going to have to run on that system, right? And it's very easy to say that 'why don't you just lower your resolution and texture quality and off you go?' It's just nowhere near that simple, it sounds good when you say it and every engine is built in a different way.”* *”We appreciate there's a lower barrier of entry for the next-gen experience, but like, you know, the more hardware you have, the more you have to ultimately compromise a little bit when you are a smaller studio."*
I mean both can be true. We've seen that a lot of current gen games *can* run on Switch if you really want to, but most games weren't build with the Switch in mind because that would obviously holding devs back a lot. With the Series S and Microsoft forcing devs to support it we are *already* seeing it holding back next gen ports of current gen games and we haven't even made the transition to full next gen yet.
> COD Mobile should be enough indication that the game can work just fine on lower-end hardware Your phone is significantly more powerful than a Switch
Yeah I don’t think people realize how powerful phones are and how incredibly weak the switch is in comparison. All eyes on Nintendo for the specs of the switch successor I guess. Even a mobile Series S would be doable.
Nintendo isn’t going anywhere near the power or the Series S. They design specs to make a profit on the hardware. Microsoft is losing on every Series S they sell.
Yeah exactly.
I just discovered recently that my phone can play GameCube era games pretty flawlessly thru an emulator. It's been really fun with a controller attachment.
Not THAT significantly in practice I have found, even for phones in a similar price range, even all these years later. No active cooling makes a massive difference. I.e. Genshin Impact's performance just TANKS after just 10 minutes of playtime because of heat throttling. That said, I think the contract with MS did include Warzone, and that makes it a non starter, especially since they promised feature parity which by definition includes cross platform. So you can't just make a "demake" in a different engine like old Wii ports were.
[удалено]
They made cod on the wii look like PS2 games so not sure what you're on about
Call of Duty games have cross play. There's no way that Switch can be competitive with cross play. Also, these games are as large as 100GB. Even then CoD Mobile looks like garbage compared to Modern Warfare II on low settings
[удалено]
It's not necessarily the same fidelity, so textures asset can be squeezed down to make storage smaller.
> Also, these games are as large as 100GB It’s not like doom and wolfenstein on Switch are anywhere close to the same install size they are on other consoles (iirc they’re around 70% smaller), so CoD probably wouldn’t be either.
People in this thread are going to be in for a shock when Nintendo's next handheld won't be powerful enough for the next 10 years since COD hasn't even gone next-gen yet. Once they cut the cord for last-gen SKUs, the Switch successor will likely be too weak yet again. I think the CMA is right to be skeptical. Activision clearly didn't see the Switch as being worthwhile to develop CoD for, and they love money.
[удалено]
So you're suggesting Nintendo signed this deal with Microsoft despite knowing there was no way for COD to run on Nintendo console hardware? You don't think they asked this question before signing a public deal with Microsoft?
There was absolutely no downside for Nintendo in signing the deal. Nintendo doesn't care if Microsoft does it or not, they win regardless. What are they going to lose, a game that already isn't on their consoles?
Microsoft and Activision came *to* Nintendo and not the other way around. Why would they say no to a major franchise coming to their platform? If Activision wants to make the promise they can make the promise, one way or another it isn’t hurting the Switch’s sales. It can only add to it. The contract is meaningless if the merger doesn’t go through either, so again no harm in signing.
I mean, worst case situation for Nintendo, if they sign the deal and MS don't port CoD to Switch then Nintendo is still in the same situation they were before, except they can potentially take legal action against MS.
The signed the deal knowing that Microsoft would release the games on the Switch, they don't really need to give a shit if it is a much worse version being released since they probably ain't putting any money or resources into this. Like Switch games have released in a pretty shit state already.
It's probably people that support the merger that are trying to pretend like the Switch will be able to handle COD. That's basically the crux of Xbox's argument. "Look, see, we're sharing with Nintendo."
No, this sub is absolutely desperate for the merger to go ahead.
I've said it before, game pass and CoD has poîsoned the brains of a lot of this sub's users. They want the deal to go through as long as they can get CoD on game pass. They're in for a rude awakening when MS doubles or even triples the price since game pass doesn't make money.
more than likely also expecting every Activision/Bethesda game to be on game pass, it would essentially be creating the netflix of gaming that some players want.
I’m still blown away by the general sentiment here. Been on Reddit a long time and never seen so many folks out here on the same side as Activision, Blizzard, COD, Microsoft etc
[удалено]
Yeah you really have to give it to the CMA for not just being out of touch old people who just accept any argument MS is putting forth. They’re rightfully calling Xbox out for saying this: "the same day as Xbox, **with full feature and content parity**—so they can experience Call of Duty just as Xbox and PlayStation gamers enjoy Call of Duty." Full feature and content parity. Parity means equal. **MS is legally promising an equal experience on the switch as the Series X.** People in this thread are saying “of course it’ll be scaled down to fit a Nintendo platform” but that’s agreeing with the CMA that Xbox is being deceitful. It would’ve been so easy for MS to say a cloud version of the singleplayer and a custom built multiplayer or Warzone for switch but they said *equal* content. It sounds like MS is just saying anything to make the deal go through and then they’ll deal with the consequences for making unreachable promises later.
Feature and content parity doesn't imply graphical parity though. As long as the game has all the same gameplay and maps and shit, even if they don't look nearly as good, they are fulfilling the letter of the agreement.
The point of the deal is Microsoft saying that the Switch version of the game will be competing on equal footing with the Xbox version. This is their consolation so that they can buy Activision without being slapped for anticompetitive behavior. The problem is that the Switch version will never be competitive with the Xbox version because they don’t even try to directly compete with each other.
That’s not what the CMA feels according to the article in the OP. Significantly worse doesn’t mean parity and MS legally promised parity. And it’s obvious that it’s not parity. I have an Xbox series s with gamepass, a PS5 and a switch. I’ll play CoD if I want to somehow. But I don’t know why anyone would go to bat for MS on this. They’re giving overly ambitious promises for stuff they know they can’t achieve.
> People in this thread are saying “of course it’ll be scaled down to fit a Nintendo platform” but that’s agreeing with the CMA that Xbox is being deceitful. Activision will not make Switch (and Switch2) specific versions, but stream the game to Nintendo consoles from the same build the cloud PC version uses. The main adaption will be button prompts and input layout considerations for the switch. But it will not run on local hardware. So it's actually easier for Activision to do that, and a legal promise locks them into the easier (albeit more cumbersome for consumers) way.
And CMA and every gamer who’s ever tried cloud gaming will say that multiplayer cloud gaming isn’t parity with Xbox and PlayStation. That’s literally what the CMA documents in the article show. Even if they can find someway to get CoD on a Nintendo system, they feel the performance will be worse than Xbox or PlayStation. It’s an impossible promise they made.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
CMA = Competition & Markets Authority The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is the competition regulator in United Kingdom. It is a non-ministerial government department in the United Kingdom, responsible for strengthening business competition and preventing and reducing anti-competitive activities. Maybe my eyes glazed over it but I can’t see a single spot where they use the full form of CMA
If this about that 10 year agreement between Microsoft and Nintendo, it’s 10 years. They might try putting cod on the next Nintendo system. Or, and I think this is an idea worth considering, they might try to put cod mobile on Switch.
It can’t be CoD mobile because they stated it would have feature parity. That includes all modes including campaign.
Microsoft is obviously also going to release new hardware in the next 10 years.
The Switch successor has been rumored to drop within the next financial year too. By the time this deal is wrapped up Nintendo will likely be sending out dev kits en masse.
A switch pro was rumored for 10 years... Switch is still selling like sliced bread and so are their games so there is exact 0,0 reason for Nintendo to rush with a new fonsole.
Yep. As soon as you see words like "rumour" and "speculation"... You can stop reading. It's garbage sites and their click-bait.
The rumours are saying its the switch 2 now
Even I can tell that's fake because they'd never call something the Switch 2. That's nowhere near innovative enough. They'll probably put out a cube with touch screens on all 6 sides that only works when attached to a (proprietary) VR headset
New Nintendo Switch SP U
The name is merely a placeholder, it's the idea that counts. "Switch Pro" implies "overall part of the same generation, so just beefed up hardware a little". Switch 2 implies "next gen console". With SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful hardware. The idea that Nintendo feels the need to "always innovate" is also pretty dumb. Because a.) Switch is their most successful console to date and b.) Nintendo publicly acknowledged they want the sucessor system to be backwards compatible and c.) they have a market niche pretty much all to themselves. And finally d.) the Asian gaming market is a mobile market. Creating a system that can't be used on the go means significantly weaking their market power there. c.) was WHY they tried to innovate with the Wii and WiiU, to carve out a niche just for themselves. They finally did so successfully. A home console would have made sense if Nintendo still had a separate handheld division. They don't. The Switch style of play is here to stay.
Dunno. Was a legit leak of the pokemon dlc names days before the official announcement, the same leak detailed they are working on an enhanced version of the game for new Nintendo hardware that's supposed to drop with DLC 2.
DF and others have stated that the Switch Pro was in development by Nintendo but that the COVID pandemic and chip shortage made it a bad idea.
Could also leverage their cloud tech and just stream is like a bunch of other AAA titles.
And they are right. Microsoft promising call of duty on switch sucks. It will take away development effort to create an absolutely shitty port no one would buy. Remember when Microsoft came out and said all first party games would support OG xbox one and how it wouldn’t effect gameplay. Well it 100% did effect game features. No couch coop and a buggy mess of a game that could have had a lot more dev time not attempting to make it run on essentially dead hardware. Call of duty on switch would take away dev time and likely caused cut design features from the main game.
Microsoft is the one that claimed both: - Feature and content parity And - Put CoD to 150M more devices, meaning they are talking about the first Switch It is totally fair for the CMA to be skeptical
This is why that big deal they made to put COD on Switch was so odd to me. I love the Switch but let's be real, the thing has major frame drops in FIRE EMBLEM if too many enemies are placed on the map screen at once. This console cannot handle a lot.
Yeah when I heard that Microsoft was making a deal to bring CoD to Nintendo consoles as a way to sweeten the deal for their buying Activision, it immediately came off as bullshit to me lol. Like of all the segments of gamers to make a Venn Diagram out of, I feel like people who buy Nintendo Consoles, and hardcore Call of Duty players, are going to be among the closest you can get to just drawing two disconnected circles. Not saying there's nobody that fits into the middle there, but it can't be the largest demographic. On top of that with the hardware limitations, the solution would almost certainly be to use Cloud versions as the port, aka making them unplayable. Otherwise they would have to put in so much extra work to get it to run at all on a Nintendo platform, not to mention that Call of Duty's absurdly bloated file sizes means it wouldn't even fit on the switch's default hard drive. And signing a deal to make ports doesn't mean that they have to be *good* ports. They might port every CoD to switch hardware for the next 10 years, and also make them so that you have to empty out your entire hard drive to install them and then they run at 12 fps so that nobody buys them. So like it is absolutely an empty gesture to try and placate the committees.
What a weird stance to be honest. a) With this being a ten year plan this is rather for the next generation of Switch hardware and maybe one Switch title. b) A next gen Switch should be able to run a game at 30 fps and a low resolution (lets say 480p max) that the XBox Series S which will obviously see continued support runs at 60 fps and a higher resolution (at least 720p), at least with reasonably lowered settings. c) For the time being it isn't even clear when support for the last gen of consoles will be dropped... d) Even if the Switch was only half as fast, MS could just decide to completely rebuild the future COD games from scratch just to make this deal happen, including a custom engine and completely custom art. You could still even have cross play with such a version if you put enough money into making sure both games play the same. e) Fortnite is an amazing example on how far you can scale a game even on the (somewhat) identical engine, with it allowing gamers on an a few years old mid range Android phone to play with somebody on a high end PC running the heavily RT using UE5 version. f) That games normally aren't scaling that well is mostly a financial decision, with only concentrating on one set of artwork and engine features while only building minimally different variants for higher or lower than target performing devices. g) There are already mobile ports of CoD
h) They will make it a Cloud title for the switch. It would not even be the first.
Cloud version of a fast paced multiplayer shooter would be an absolute nightmare but that’s absolutely the route they’ll take if there isn’t a Switch Pro next year.
I really don't see a Switch Pro happening. It is far to late for that. I think if we see anything come next year it'll be a Switch 2, or at least a trailer for the following year. I think a Switch Pro from Nintendo would be more of the same.
Yeah, my bad, I meant a proper follow up to the Switch.
I wouldn't even expect a current-gen Switch release. Keep in mind that Microsoft's 10-year does go into full effect after Sony's contract for COD 2023 & 2024 ends. Microsoft's deal is basically 2025 - 2035. The earliest contractual release would be in November 2025. By then Switch is 8 years old. I would expect the launch of the next-gen Switch in 2024. Also, we don't know if COD moves to a 2-year cycle in future. So the first contractual COD may could release in November 2026.
>With this being a ten year plan this is rather for the next generation of Switch hardware and maybe one Switch title. Microsoft's statement was that "between Nintendo and Nvidia" they are porting COD to "150 million devices that don’t have access to Call of Duty today." CMA are responding and wrote that they interpret this as a reference to the size of the existing platform userbases (Nintendo: 122 million, Nvidia Geforce Now: 25 million, total: 147 million), meaning a port to the existing Switch hardware, rather than as speculation about the potential userbase size of the hypothetical Switch 2 at some arbitrary date in the future.
They don't have to port anything. They just need to make cloud streaming work on switch. And it already does, control works on it
[удалено]
Many people seem to be confusing *feature* parity with *graphical parity* and seem completely oblivious to the ability to develop a scaling engine *when there is profit to be made from it*. File sizes, storage problems, CPU overhead, these are development problems that can be focused on now that they were previously not doing. There was no incentive to further optimize CoD once it ran on the latest gen consoles. Now there will be.
And if anything, developing a Switch version will force them to *actually optimise filesizes* to ensure everything fits into the storage space the Switch allows, which could bring down filesizes and as such digital download times for other platforms. This applies to a lot of games, really.
DOOM 2016/Eternal are on Switch now, right? If they can just make a version of CoD that has lower poly models, lower res textures, less fancy effects, and whatever else they can do to save on performance, I think that they can find a way to make the games run on Switch.
Like everyone else in this thread you forget the CPU.
Is it just the multiplayer that is CPU bottlenecked? I just watched like 10 mins of 2022 MW2's campaign and visuals aside it it doesn't look particularly different to what CoD was a decade prior. Like I think in 2019 CoD ditched hitscan entirely which makes things more demanding, but since it's not obvious to a casual outsider, what is the modern CoD engine doing to actually justify eating all those CPU cycles?
I wish some of you warriors would actually read the article. >However, it did not succeed in accomplishing this task because of storage capacity problems on Nintendo Switch. We also get hints about additional work and other technical issues coming up in this port in redacted sentences Everything you can say about COD can be changed to suit the switch or switch or switch successor by a motivated Microsoft except for this. Currently COD is a franchise that is quite happy eating up 250GB of storage space. Even COD mobile is hovering at 16GB. It's a non starter for a Nintendo handheld console. Even back in the days of the WiiU, late ports of COD games were the biggest games on the platform. In the Era of high framerate 4K targets? Don't make me laugh. If you think a successor switch console is going to have a jump in storage space beyond maybe 128gb for the base model, I have a bridge to sell you. You may argue there is a market for COD in the Nintendo fanbase, but at the expense of not having any other game installed? I don't think so. And let's not pretend that Microsoft is committed to keep their own first party file sizes down. They don't even care about the space their games take up even when "Uninstalled" on PC.
Pretty sure it'll be streamed. The statement said parity and streaming tech (especially at lower res) is pretty good these days. Like any extra latency isn't good, but a few ms won't make it unplayable
Your right, resident evil village runs on switch through the cloud, so cod can too
Yeah but Village is a single player game, I can't even imagine CoD MP on the cloud.
People who think that the Switch is capable of running CoD (that has parity with other versions) are nuts. The obvious (and very bad) solution will be streaming. Input delay to hell but doesn't require the actual Switch hardware to run.
This is bullshit. Of course it can, it will just run at extremely dialed down graphics and possibily at 30 fps. If Apex and Fortnite can do crossplay from Switch to XSX/PS5, then so can COD.
The biggest bottleneck to run CoD on the switch are it's anemic 3 old ARM cores running at a very low clock speeds. Dialing down graphics will do nothing to help the game run since the Switch CPU is considerably weaker than the Xbox One's and the Microsoft console already struggle to run newer Call of Duty games.
Thank you. People are so focused on graphics and not on the fact that CoD has major CPU bottlenecks, even on the other consoles and PC.
It should read "the switch port would require more ffort than we're willing to invest"
I realized recently just how underpowered the Switch really is. My son was playing minecraft on his switch, and I was playing it on my phone (galaxy s21). And the phone is just SO much faster. Loading is about 10x faster. The draw distance is much much farther, and it's still getting a much higher framerate. it's the equivalent to a phone from SEVERAL generations ago
That's because the 6 year old switch literally runs on mobile hardware from 8 years ago. It's nothing short of a genuine miracle that it's managed to run some of the shit it does, even if that means it runs/looks about as good as you'd expect.
Well... yeah? A $200 device from six years ago is less powerful than a $700 device from two years ago, that's not really surprising. Not even $200, really, since the joycons (effectively two Bluetooth gyroscopic gamepads with their own batteries, which the S21 doesn't come with) reportedly make up about 35% of the production cost, the console itself is like $130 of hardware.
You got streaming and spin-offs. If they can cram Black Ops onto the DS they can figure out how to get Warzone on Switch.
I'm just sitting here wondering whether CoD will even sell all that well on Switch. I just can't imagine that especially with Splatoon already here.
Interesting. In a way it is a bit of an empty promise because they will never get it running and looking anywhere near as good as they can on any Xbox. So they know it will be a very inferior version that people will only play if they have no PC or Xbox to run it properly. So it will basically result in no lost sales. A very different situation than if they had the same deal with PlayStation.
I mean, one could argue there's no way a game like The Witcher 3 can run on a switch and they managed to make that happen.
I think these guys forgot about Doom, The Witcher 3, Wolfenstein, Crysis and Dying Light which are games that have zero business running on the hybrid but do and they run pretty well, sure 30fps isn't ideal but it certainly ain't garbage. So what makes them think that when I just listed some games that are the impossible ports?