Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

9,284 profile views
  1. I'm not saying they fought hard for it, or see it as even slightly essential to them in the way that Sony want authorities to believe - I'm just saying now they don't have CoD, but if MS win they do. If Nintendo have a preference either way in this, surely it's going to be the way that a) brings them more popular content to their platform(s) and b) puts one over on their old rival. They did not sign and agree to the public annoucement of that CoD deal for no reason. They effectively nailed their colours to the mast with that. Or, alternatively - what good would the deal being blocked do for Nintendo? Going through they get content. Being blocked they get nothing. They won't lose sleep over it either way, but if asked the question I'd say they'd vote allow (because saying anything other now would make the deal they just signed look a little odd - "you don't want it, but you just signed an agreement with one of the parties involved in it regarding the content produced by the other")
  2. Oh come on, the Switch userbase is massive - it would easily sell millions (even the Wii and Wii U releases did reasonable numbers all things considered and the demographics were certainly not in favour there). Not PS/Xbox levels, but more than enough to make it commercially worthwhile in the same way the mobile releases are. I'd bet a bollock the fact it's not there now is nothing to do with financial reasons and more likely everything to do with something like either Kotick being a dick, keeping Sony happy or maybe even a contractual obligation they have to them (in the same way they block GP), or a combination of both. Conspiracy theory maybe - but you can't look at the size of the Switch userbase and not think CoD would sell a few. MS obviously think it will, as they just put pen to paper on a deal to do exactly that....
  3. I don't see a downside for Nintendo - they've already sat at the table with MS and agreed a deal on CoD that falls through if it does not go ahead. So yeah, they have skin in the game and appear to be much cosier with MS than they are with Sony.
  4. If this does not go through, I'm sure they could take that $3bn from the $69bn they just saved. And Switch would just cloud stream GP content. Nintendo still sells their own stuff exclusive on that platform. I bet both sides would at least knock the idea around the room.
  5. You'd think, but then you read their statement and it's full of errors and...
  6. Is it though? MS are currently offering Sony a 10 year deal. They'll be at the table at least. If this does not go through, Acti could well decide to cosy up to MS anyway, release on GP day 1, send exclusive content to MS etc etc with nothing at all in writing to say they have to stay on PS for any length of time at all. I mean they likely would, but it's a risk pissing them off like this. And I doubt EA are all that happy about what they said regarding Battlefield either. And Nintendo would lose possible access to CoD after doing a nice deal with MS for that as well - so those two would have decent relations and a common target. I could see MS pushing to put GP streaming on Switch and Nintendo at least considering it.....
  7. But the FTC comments on the Bethesda deal are incorrect - MS promised that content already on other platforms would stay and not get taken away, and it has. Deathloop only recently came over (because, funnily enough, it was tied up on a pre-existing Sony exclusivity contract) and Deathwire still hasn't come over yet. They made no promises over stuff like Redfall - that's never been on a Sony platform so could hardly be pointed at as hurting them by not appearing either. Unless the FTC are wanting an end to all exclusive content - in which case I'd say MS are looking forward to welcoming Kratos and Spiderman to GP... If the FTC have been perfectly fine with Sony running around making exclusive deals for things like FF, Deathloop, CoD then I honestly don't see what the problem here is - at worst CoD is essentially going to move from 2 console platforms (PS and Xbox) to 2 platforms (Xbox and Nintendo) for at least the next ten years. At best they've offered the same deal to Sony so it'll be on all three. Acti are making loud noises about this on Twitter today as well - I just can't see how this public woe is me strategy pans out well for Sony in any way. If it goes through they've pissed MS off, if it doesn't they've pissed Acti (and Nintendo) off.
  8. Yeah, this is totally confusing as Sony is doing exactly that and releasing console exclusive titles themselves - the only difference here really is that Sony have complained that they can't be without CoD or they'll die. It's totally hypocritical, and makes no real sense when you consider that the status quo is Sony having all sorts of CoD stuff tied up exclusively, but this going through means CoD showing up on rival platforms like Nintendo again. The deal will open up access to CoD, not close it down. Surely MS could argue - if this doesn't go through CoD will again contain content that is exclusive to Sony, including agreements for it not to be allowed onto GP, and again not be available on the current #1 selling console system (Nintendo Switch). How is that, in any way, 'working to promote competition'? If I was MS and this didn't go through, I'd give Acti $1bn a year for the next 69 years to basically make the same deal that Sony has with them. Make CoD a day 1 GP release with exclusive Xbox platform content (plus a block on any Sony subscription service appearances) in the way that Sony are currently doing to everyone else without issue. I'd also specifically state in the "marketing agreement" that none of those restrictions applied to Nintendo either.
  9. When I originally signed up I used the trick to convert from gold to GP, so I don't think it's that - my account says I had a gold subscription that has been converted to GP - perhaps it's that flag that's stopping it? Ah well, really can't moan either way - the points were all free so even if it uses an extra 40k it's not actualyl costing me anything.
  10. I think that's for existing titles (and maybe whatever was also currently in dev) - so no existing games will show up on GP. I'd expect the new ones going forward to pop up though (unless Acti signed a deal that said 'future, currently unspecified CoD titles will not be on GP either' which feels like it would be madness.
  11. CoD will be on GP, they'll work that out. Back catalogue might take a while, but future releases will be there - unless you think Acti have deals in place for games that are not even out yet with Sony?
  12. MS don't care if CoD is on other platforms - it's money for them. What they do care about is - it's on GP day 1 for subscribers. You can play it on PS5 for £70, or you can get it on Xbox for 'free' - and then people are in the ecosystem and boom. That's the plan here, you can get CoD everywhere but that everywhere now includes GP.
  13. Doubt it - the agreement is with Nintendo, not Switch - I'd say we'll see the first CoD out of the agreement on whatever hardware platform Nintendo has up next.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.