GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Microsoft Commits To Bringing Call Of Duty To Nintendo Platforms--If Activision Blizzard Deal Goes Through

Xbox CEO Phil Spencer has announced a 10-year commitment that will see Call Of Duty games on Nintendo platforms, if its acquisition of Activision Blizzard is approved.

29 Comments

Ahead of its pending acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Microsoft has announced a 10-year commitment that will see Call of Duty games published on Nintendo platforms again. The deal was announced in a tweet by Phil Spencer, who added that Call of Duty games will also continue to be offered for PC players on Steam simultaneously with Xbox.

Spencer's tweet is light on details, though the Xbox head elaborated on some details in an interview with The Washington Post, saying that the entire Call of Duty portfolio will be evaluated for a potential Switch release. He suggested that it could be some time before we will see the first Call of Duty title on Switch, with development only able to start after the merger deal is closed, which is scheduled for June 2023 if approved by regulators.

"Once we get into the rhythm of this, our plan would be that when [a Call of Duty game] launches on PlayStation, Xbox, and PC, that it would also be available on Nintendo at the same time," Spencer added.

When asked if it would be difficult to port the Call of Duty titles for the Switch, Spencer pointed to Microsoft's experience with shipping Minecraft on the handheld console. "Minecraft and Call of Duty are different games," he added, "But from how you get games onto Nintendo, how you run a development team that is targeting multiple platforms, that's experience we have."

While the current deal with Nintendo covers a 10 year span, Spencer says it's likely Microsoft will continue to work with the company beyond this period. "It's just about picking an expiration date, not with the goal of ever expiring, but just like, the legalese of a document has to say this goes through some date," he clarified.

Microsoft still has some regulatory hurdles to pass before its merger with Activision Blizzard is approved by the FTC, though it has already been cleared in other regions. Competitor Sony has raised the potential of Call of Duty becoming exclusive as a reason why the merger shouldn't be approved, however the company reportedly has not accepted a deal that would keep the franchise on PlayStation for 10 years. "We just have not been able to make progress with Sony," Spencer told The Washington Post when asked about this deal.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 29 comments about this story
29 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for nintendians
nintendians

6051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 139

User Lists: 0

i don't think nintendo mind call of duty series coming to nintendo, nintendo could still survive with or without call of duty series anyway.

3 • 
Avatar image for Furwings
Furwings

548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Man I feel like I've been arguing with kindergarteners over this issue. PlayStation fans aren't concerned about NEW IP from any of these acquired studios/publishers. Those games SHOULD be Xbox exclusives. I mean that's WHY you buy studios so they can develop hits for your platform.

The problem we have is taking traditionally, already-established multiplatform franchises (Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Doom, and yes some day Call of Duty) and locking them to only ONE console. When people use God of War, Uncharted and The Last of Us as examples it drives me NUTS because it's NOT THE SAME THING! Sony didn't buy these studios AFTER they had already developed these franchises for multiple consoles, they were either (a) ALWAYS PlayStation exclusives or (b) built from the ground up as PlayStation exclusives!

Now, to be fair I ALSO don't agree with Sony taking Street Fighter V, FFVII Remake, Silent Hill 2 Remake etc. and locking them to just PlayStation.

See the difference now?

2 • 
Avatar image for MigGui
MigGui

2044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@Furwings: “now, to be fair, I don’t agree with…” and yet Microsoft is the only one to be impeded of doing that. That’s the hypocrisy, Sony did it and will continue doing it while fighting MS on court to be the only one allowed to do it

Upvote • 
Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

17002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Furwings: Sony bought all those studios, they got spiderman, and wolverine on lock, theres probably an xmen game in the pipeline for them.

Ff7 remastered was locked down by Sony who abused their market position and paid SE nearly $100 mill for exclusivity. There's still no ff7 remaster on Xbox. Until last month and when Sega bought atlus, persona was locked to ps for the last decade. Sony has made marketing deals for exclusive cod content. They bought out returnal and a bunch more studios.

2 • 
Avatar image for Furwings
Furwings

548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@blaznwiipspman1: Microsoft actually started the console-exclusive content with CoD back in the 360/PS3 generation. a BIG part of the reason JRPG's have largely been PS exclusive is that not enough of their target audience buys Xbox consoles. They didn't "buy out Returnal" they purchased Housemarque who had previously made PS exclusives like Resogun and GAVE THEM BIGTIME $$ to develop Returnal! Sony has a deal with Marvel for Spider-Man's movie rights, so naturally they also leveraged that relationship for an exclusive series of games based off of the IP. Again, I don't really agree with that one, but it's more complex due to the movie-aspect.

2 • 
Avatar image for binarygod
BINARYGOD

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Furwings: wrong, Sony started it during the ps2 generation with mgs, sh and gta, etc. All those games either got ports until they didn't or got delayed ports. There was all nonsense with Monty earlier, but Ninty invented this crap with their Seal of Quality or whatever it was called. Now you are correct MS did dlc deals first, but that was only once such things were first possible and Sony was happy to play along. Regardless, third party deals are older than MS and MS doin in the 360 Gen was turn about. Stop spreading lies.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for JIMDOG4442002
JIMDOG4442002

731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

@Furwings: Right! And we didn't have to start paying to play online till after Microsoft did it. Remember that?

3 • 
Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

17002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By blaznwiipspman1

@Furwings: it doesn't matter who started it, but whos still doing it and thats sony, end of story. JRPG target audience goes to where the games are and sony locking down exclusive, its chicken and egg, but its pretty much sonys fault. Now that gamepass has taken off and MS locked in a bunch of jrpg games, they're starting to sell more consoles in japan. They purchased housemarque end of story. Spiderman used to be on xbox and 360, you can see if you go back to 2014. Sony did some scumbag things to make it exclusive, this is a fact. They did end up making an excellent game, so that takes off a bit of the blame.

MS is the victim in this story my friend. If not for sony and their scumbag ways, MS wouldn't need to aquire these studios and would just focus on building up their gamepass service. But this is business, one day your friend, the next day your enemy.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Furwings
Furwings

548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@blaznwiipspman1: Game Pass was born out of failure, not innovation. The Xbox One launch was disastrous to the brand. PS4 absolutely CRUSHED XB1 by almost triple the worldwide sales and their exclusives won more awards than any publisher's titles in the history of gaming. Sony also had PS VR and it was the market-leading VR headset for quite a long time as well. M$ were scrambling, so naturally they pivoted into becoming a glorified game rental service. After all they weren't selling a lot of copies of their 1st party titles outside of Halo, Gears and Forza, and the ratio of sales on multiplatform titles was roughly 70% PS to 30% Xbox. Game Pass has been a loss leader for them ever since, it hasn't actually turned a profit, subs have stagnated, thus they ALSO have to increase the price of their titles. Look for hardware cost increases and Xbox Live Gold & Game Pass increases shortly as well. And Microsoft, a TRILLION dollar company, have NEVER been the "victim" of anything lol!

2 • 
Avatar image for binarygod
BINARYGOD

31

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Furwings: what a baffling statement. Innovation is innovation and its usually failure that leads to it. Ni ty failed in the so called red Ocean and went blue. Ms chose to reengage with pc and expand services into gami ng. Saying it was failure not innovation makes no sense.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

17002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Furwings: everything in this world is born of failure. All our greatest achievements, let that sink in my friend. Gamepass is the next evolution of gaming. Ps4 sold 120 million, Xbox sold 55 million, so around 2:1, but yes it was a bad generation for MS. Nobody cares about awards, many of those awards are by shills who work for or are sponsored by sphony. VR is a gimmick, but MS has made a deal with meta to bring gamepass to the quest. You know blockbuster said the same thing to Netflix, but who's extinct now?? MS deserves more money for putting out such an excellent service, and it doesn't matter how much money you have, you can still be a victim.

2 • 
Avatar image for xwillkillsx
xWillKillsx

64

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Yup and once the 10yrs pass boom, Xbox only. One Gen cycle isn't good enough.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for feral411
Feral411

317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@xwillkillsx: that’s if COD is even a juggernaut still in 10 years. No one makes a deal for an indefinite period of time, that would just be bad business. Get over it

Upvote • 
Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

17002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By blaznwiipspman1

@xwillkillsx: nobody cares about what Sony thinks. They've been scamming with their exclusive games and contracts for decades. Now MS does it, and they cry foul. They are just whiny b, got no sack.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

19933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

I'm sure it will run just fine and be a great experience.

What was the last Call of Duty to come out on a Nintendo platform?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

4985

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

It is more money for MS to make if any game it owns come to other platforms. Sony is just sour as MS is making waves. It is the software that is important as it Transends hardware.

Upvote •