Xbox Boss Phil Spencer Would Love To See Call Of Duty On Nintendo Switch

just bring over call of duty four remastered or black ops 1... include wireless system link and ill buy 4 copies

Ramírez, make Call of Duty available on Nintendo Switch!

I expect cloud versions similar to Capcom resident evil games, but would love if they went the extra mile and delivered low-fi versions of the games that were identical functionality wise, but had more simplified graphics. Like, if anyone remembers, the Ghostbusters game that was released for 360/PS3/Wii were the Wii version had graphics themed after the cartoon but the others took after the movies, still same game at the end.

When it comes to Xbox games on switch my most wanted still comes down to 2 words "rare" and "replay"

Dont get too excited, it will most likely be cloud versions, unless the switch successor is powerful enough to run them natively. But history tells us that won't happen.

I'd personally rather see Fallout on Switch.

I would laugh if Phil Spencer supported the switch and other Nintendo systems with the call of duty franchise, but as soon as that pesky contract ends, specifically drops Sony systems

How about remastering the modern warfare ones?

@Maulbert I concur there. Never been a CoD fan, but I’m hoping Xbox / Phil are going to continue to do right by the gaming industry and fans and bring as many “Xbox” titles to multiple platforms. I’d be pretty stoked for Fallout 3, NV or FO4 to grace the Switch.

His, and Microsoft's, intent is to destroy all competition.

Hopefully this acquisition falls through.

I still remember what you did to Rare, Microsoft.

Cant wait Y'all need to stop hating on COD if you have Splatoon a pass lol

@Tharsman they'll probably port the older COD games or maybe that rumored port of COD Modern Warfare Remastered.

I would love the original World at War game.

Smart decision. Porting any game that's capable of running on Switch is free money considering the 100+ million install base.

Cod doesnt take much to run at 60fps, even on an xbox 1s it manages to be playable, and on a lower powered gaming laptop i can easily get over 90-100 fps with everything still set to high will dlss, a decent version on switch shouldn't be any problem even with all the poor optimization and slow loading from all the damn skins... If they can build a warzone for mobile from the ground up they can make a version that works well on switch no problem

@KindofaBigDeal you mixing them up with Sony. They the ones that truly want to see all competition die.

If they could get Modern Warfare Remastered at 60fps on the Switch with gyro-aiming then I’d actually consider it. It would be interesting to see what they do… unless it’s just a Warzone port. I don’t like Warzone and it would likely run awful on the Switch lol.

That sounds good!

Its perfectly playable on my phone. No reason why it wouldnt work on switch

If I'm being honest, I don't play all those big AAA games lilke CoD, Fifa. heck, even GTA. So this type of manoevering doesn't really affect me. But I will say this. I don't see why Microsoft can'y become a massive publisher accross all platforms and still offer Gamepass seperately. At the moment, it's value is just insane to the point of it being too good to be true. I dare say the long term goal is to hike the price up with 'Netflix originals' and rely less on new AAA and instead have 'proven hits' (y'know like Nintendo are doing.) In the short term though, they are just slowing down recouping their their money back. In the long term, there is a chance we will be remembering when it was 10 quid a month (happy times like when Youtube didn't have adverts.) But people don't tend to think that far infront. Dunno.

Can't be any worse than FIFA can it?

Haven’t touched CoD or Battlefield game since console gen 7, so I’m not bothered if Switch or future Nintendo games don’t get any games from those series.

I would actually be happy if they brought Gears of Wars, anyone from the first trilogy. That game was a blast to play.

I hope they bring Cod to switch

Oblivion, Morrowind, FO3, NV and/or 4 would be much preferred.

I wouldn't mind a CoD on Switch just to try it with the gyro controls.

Last one I bought was Black Ops 2 on Xbox 360. Haven't really seen any reason to continue with the sameness of them yet, and now they've reverted to just redoing games. Although MW2 is the pinnacle of the franchise.

I'm sure it could be done since Overwatch 2 runs a stable 30fps and it has a whole bunch more going on at any given time than any CoD match. Although CoD maps are much more detailed.

Either way it would be a super low priority game for me since it's been downhill to me for 15 years.

@KindofaBigDeal Child, if a company like MS wanted to destroy all competition, they would had done so already instead of continue to sell some of their biggest IPs on competing platforms.

Pay more attention at the ones reselling remasters and upgrades while paying third parties to keep games off Xbox and Switch as they use their position to increase overall price for consumers.

Only thing missing for me on switch it’s sad.

What kind of weird world are we living in where devs are more likely to bring their games to Switch after being acquired my Microsoft?

Absolute insanity that there's nothing on Switch.

The humble DS had no less than FIVE CoD games, all of which were made completely from scratch due to the technical limitations of the hardware. They also supported online and wireless multiplayer.

From among them, I've only played World At War, and while this typically isn't my sort of game (I didn't end up finishing it), the production values were excellent.

time for a new modern switch...

@KindofaBigDeal LMAO. MS brought all of their XB1 era games to PC, and is still supporting Minecraft to multiple platforms, even though they have the right to make it Xbox/PC exclusive. And they're the one promoting cross platform play, while Sony's the one trying to wall off their network.

If this means more World War 2-themed games then by all means.

One of the potential issues that stem from CoD ports is that today's CoD games, despite being designed to be widely optimizable thanks to PC versions, are very hardware intensive and storage-consuming. We would have to wait for a CoD game to be developed with the Switch in mind - most CoD games now are currently developed with the PS5 specs taken into priority.

If it will be a good port with 60 fps and a local multi-player, then bring any modern warfare game or better a new exclusive title only for Switch but this will not happen.

@KindofaBigDeal So...What did the "evil" Microsoft did to Rare? -_-

I'd like to see the original PC Call of Duty 1 & 2, plus Modern Warfare 1 & 2. The rest can go jump...

Damn, while scrolling past this "XBox Boss Phil Spencer Would Love... On Switch" and the skull-like image, my brain went in a completely different (and oft-mentioned) direction for a moment. Be still, my heart.😆

I’m sure there was talk of modern warfare remastered coming to switch what happened to that

Microsoft is known to buy out the competition if they can’t match with them!
That’s how Microsoft became Micro$oft.
Just saying.

Yeah sure. On Switch with bad visuals and 10fps. He is just saying that trying to convince everyone that the Activision deal is good for gaming.

Switch is definitely light on FPS, although it has improved over the past couple of years. I don't play either anymore but fact is the next Switch will enjoy considerably more success if it can have the full fat COD and EA Football experience.

No thank you, loved the original game shooting Nazis, but after that it just started to get stupid and the online was just a load of campers with sniper rifles

@fenlix

Nothing. That's the point.

@PKDuckman "MS brought all of their XB1 era games to PC"
Not exactly. They brought them to Windows, which they also own.
And yeah, they're still supporting that one single game of their vast catalog (Minecraft) in multiple platforms... until the moment they eventually decide they don't need to do it anymore.
If the Activision buyout goes through, having the power of decision for such a huge segment of the market reside in a single company will be terrible news for consumers in the long run, no matter how pro-competition they buying company is supposed to be. And let's not fool ourselves: Microsoft has a history of anti-competition practices at least as long as those of Sony and Nintendo.

@KindofaBigDeal Sony's strategy of doing that is likely what lead to MSoft buying Activision. Sony were quite cynically exploiting their position as market leader in order to grab timed exclusive deals or exclusive content in order to starve other systems of games
or make the same big release on other platforms less desirable.

I recall something Iwata said was he didn't intend to have Nintendo directly compete because it'd just devolve into spending wars between the companies. Sony instigated this but Microsoft has the biggest wallet so it's obvious who's going to come out on top.

@electrolite77

Forget about Sony, this is bad for the gaming industry.

Microsoft have had 20 years to build up a first/second party line up to rival thier competitors with the numerous studios they already own. That they haven't is their failure and theirs alone.

Being able to drop 70 billion and potentially lock out a slew of games series that have always been multiplatform from their competitors is anti competitive. And it won't stop there.

Let's see how great people think it is when Microsoft continues to buy up the pulishers Nintendo or Sony can't possible afford and see one by one third party titles stop being made for their platforms.

Meanwhile Sony is having a fit.

@KindofaBigDeal,

Funny how this is bad for the games industry, but all the money hatting Sony did ensuring a games initial exclusivity was not, plus Sony are and have been buying studios too, admittedly on a much smaller scale.

Also strange how many on gaming sites seem to suggest the COD franchise is not worth playing and is generic, than moaning that it will probably become exclusive to Xbox and P.C.

Pretty sure if Sony had Microsoft's resources they would be doing the exact same thing, and with all the money at Microsoft's disposal this was always a case on when not if.

This is why Nintendo were wise to gat out if the power race years ago, Microsoft simply have too much cash.

"We'd love to provide everyone with games, so long as most of that money is funneled right back into our pockets and we're allowed to control the online ecosystem by forcing you to sign into Microsoft accounts. We're not even asking all that much!"

@electrolite77,

Totally correct, both Microsoft and Sony are relying on buying gaming studios to make their games, they are not in Nintendo's position where they simply could pretty much rely on their own internal developers, so both have bought studios to make exclusive games to attract users to their systems.

And of course many on various gaming sites suggesting this takeover is anti consumer and bad for the wider gaming industry, when in fact this is just pure camouflage, disguising the fact they know or feel it's not good for their choice of console manufacturer.

@johnvboy

They all money hat games, even Nintendo. For every time Sony has done it, examples can be given of Microsoft and Nintendo doing it and so on and so on so what is the point in repeating that ad infinitum?

I haven't mentioned COD before now as that is just one game series that would be involved so no further comment on that.

"Microsoft simply have too much cash" Exactly! That is why they should not be allowed to spend it with abandon as Nintendo and Sony cannot compete. Therefore it is anti-competitive and if it was Nintendo or Sony doing it instead, I would be saying the same thing.

And just to clarify, I own a Switch OLED, a Series X and a PS4 Pro to be upgraded to a PS5 in future. This isn't a console bias thing for me. This will be bad for the industry.

@KindofaBigDeal,

Why?, it's up to them what they do and how they spend their own money.

And your console collection makes no difference to your argument, unless of course you are suggesting you have no bias to any particular manufacturer... but again I would say this point is moot.

And again do you feel or know this will be bad for the industry.

@johnvboy Any platform holder buying such a big portion of the market is bad news for consumers. It means less diversity and less competition.

@johnvboy

"disguising the fact they know or feel it's not good for their choice of console manufacturer."

Your comment above is why I addressed that. I don't have a bias.

"Why?, it's up to them what they do and how they spend their own money." If that were the case all these regulatory bodies wouldn't exist.

I refer to my other comments above regarding how I think is bad for the industry, not going to keep repeating myself.

What will be will be.

@Kochambra.

Not true.

I am all for choice, and in the case of Nintendo and the Switch compared to Sony and Microsoft's, consoles there is a vast difference in the type of entertainment and games offered.

With Sony and Microsoft's consoles they are pretty much the same, very powerful consoles you connect to your T.V, they both have a heavy reliance on western game development studios too.

So looking that outside of the core hobby gamers, most consumers will only buy
one console, so how is that not anti consumer they have to miss out on certain games, and in effect compromise based on the console they finally choose. You also have optimization issues for the multi platform games, where if there was just one machine then every title would run at it's best, not just the exclusive games, again this would be better for all consumers.

As for the developers, they would be simply making games for just one machine, and again better for the overall development costs, and timescales etc, and also not sure why this will stifle creativity, as both consoles as they are now are producing pretty much copy and paste AAA titles with better graphics.

@KindofaBigDeal,

True, no point fighting it, Microsoft will keep on going because their ultimate goal is a wider mass market eco system, far larger than the core minorities complaining about it.

Do you really think these regulatory bodies will do anything, it's the pure illusion or regulation and somebody protecting the industry, Microsoft will simply make all the right noises till the deal gets approved, then at that point you will know their intentions as regards the main franchises.

@johnvboy

No I think it will go through but I will consider that a sad day when it does.

Hope I'm wrong.

@KindofaBigDeal,

I think we will be o.k.

@johnvboy
They also have enough cash to flood the internet with millions of viral marketers/bad faith actors to change discussions and drive narratives (hint hint for anyone reading this comment section). Call of Duty for example was widely regarded as becoming a trash franchise, a factory made yearly product devoid of passion but now this year it’s treated as still being a prestige cornerstone of the medium, a similar shift happened with Blizzard but it’s not been completely successful.

@johnvboy "most consumers will not buy pretty much one console" English is not my native language so it may be a misunderstanding on my part, but maybe there's a typo in that sentence?

Regarding the rest of your points:
I don't recall reading or hearing significant complaints about the optimization of the big multiplatform titles from Activision/EA/Ubisoft. I'm sure there are individual cases where performance has been a real problem, but generally speaking, performance of multiplatform titles seems to be good enough for most consumers. Whatever slight performance gain there could be in sticking to a single platform seems irrelevant compared to the loss in the amount of games you can play in the platform of your choice, because they've become exclusive.
As for developers, they'll have less employment options (work for Microsoft or work for Activision becomes work for Microsoft or work for Microsoft). And where there used to be two decision making structures making different decisions about game development, now there's only one, which means less diversity.

For the switch i would like to see the classic one.

Can’t wait for those lovely 15 fps, 480p. No, thank you, Phil.

@Kochambra,

Sorry, it's just this insane notion all these exclusive developers, not to mention all those talented indie studios, would somehow be less creative and talented making games for one platform.

And you stated to platforms with more diversity, when in reality the difference between the two is like hair and fur, admittedly if Sony was still mainly Japanese development studio orientated then I would slightly agree with you, but it seems that ship sailed a long time ago.

Fixed the typo..

@SalvorHardin,

Perhaps COD will become better under Microsoft's direction who knows, but it's a very lucrative franchise.

As for narratives, with most of the media organizations pushing them, they will be here no matter how Microsoft spend their money.

@johnvboy I'm not saying that they'll be less creative working for one platform. What I'm saying is that they will all be working for the same employer and they'll have to abide by this single employer's rules and decisions on what projects get made and in what terms they get made, which ultimately means less diversity.

@Mgalens

I couldn’t agree more! Rare may belong to MS, but those games belong on Nintendo hardware!

I really don’t see this happening. Switch is inching up on its sixth year, and I’m sure that we’ll start seeing information of its successor next year. I think next year will be when sales start dropping significantly.

@Kochambra,

My point is there is very little difference between Sony and Microsoft's gaming divisions, if you stated Nintendo was being compared to Microsoft, then I would tend to agree with you.

But Sony's gaming division is very much western in it's outlook to games etc.

I'm sure it would be hard to run the newer games on switch but the remasters and Ports of classic entries would be cool. I'd pay for some sort of campaign compilation release on switch.

Couldn't care either way, but how would it run though?

How many "Person X would love to see game Y on Switch" articles have you written during your time at NL, Liam? 😂

Edit: So my comment doesn't get misunderstood, this is not a jab at Liam/NL. I just think it's funny how often we see these kind of quotes.

what about all the other titles in Acti-Blizzards portfolio that came to other platforms. Diablo 3 did great as a multiplatform game, it's one of the best ports I have seen on Switch. Will Microsoft lock that game franshise on their platforms from now on?

My bet is that the suits at Microsoft are all friendly right now, but when the deal gets approved their tune will change.

@johnvboy I'm not comparing Microsoft and Sony, but Microsoft and Activision. Before the acquisition, there were two different companies making their own decisions on what games to produce and how to produce them. After the acquisition, there will be only one company with one single set of rules and criteria for the production of those games. That applies to any acquisition of any game producer by a different one, but it's particularly troubling when such an acquisition affects such a big portion of the game industry.
That the company behind the acquisition happens to be a platform holder makes it even more troubling.
Going back to your argument: Sure, nowadays the the console hardware that we're getting from Microsoft and Sony is very similar, but it wasn't that similar in the past and their paths may diverge again in the future. If we had one single platform holder, there would be no possibility of divergence; there would only be one single path.

Just put the original modern warfare trilogy on switch with online multiplayer and I'm a happy guy

@electrolite77 "the counterpoint to that is many AB employees may benefit from a change of employer"
That's a possibility that may come to happen or not for current employees of Activision. What's certain is that anyone working in the gaming industry and looking for a change of employer will have one pretty significant option less than before the buyout.

"As for one decision making structure vs two, that’s not really true."
Oh, but it is. Activision had its way of doing things and Microsoft had its way of doing things. After the buyout, there will be only one way.
Will that mean the end of successful Activision franchises? Of course not! But it will mean that whatever is being done with those franchises sticks to the same general criteria and decision-making that guides Microsoft's franchises. And every future IP or franchise will have to stick to that very same criteria.
I'm far from the world's biggest expert in either Microsoft's or Activision's catalogues, but would Spyro had ever happened or would it had become what it is under a Microsoft rule? Did Microsoft ever produce something equivalent? Or a Call of Duty? Or a Skylanders? Those franchises became what they are under the Activision rule. You may like their decisions or not (I personally loathe what COD became with the first Modern Warfare), but it was their own distinct criteria what we saw in those games. Now it won't be anymore.
Let's say that before the buyout, 15% of all big budget games were being produced according to Activision's criteria and 15% according to Microsoft's criteria (those percentages are made out, of course). Then, after the buyout, 30% of big budget games will be produced according to Microsoft's criteria and 0% according to Activision's criteria. A significant loss in diversity.

It's such a crazy misconception that this is somehow a "judgement call" or up for "debate". I really don't understand it … we all know that companies only do things for money right? There is no console war to anyone but fanboys. MS doesn’t care how many Switches and PlayStations sell or their "relative" position in the market, or even selling Xboxes as anything more than a means to an end. They only care about making money.

This also shouldn't be a hard concept but somehow it is. Pepsi isn't failing as a company because Coke sells more units. They are a success as a company because they are profitable. If they found a way to make money every time someone buys a Coke they wouldn't say NO, PEOPLE MUST BUY PESPI!. They would take the money and run.

With that in mind, anyone who has ever worked in publishing knows the math on paying for an exclusive; average lifetime spend for a console owner (eshop sales, subscriptions, things that make MS money directly) + average direct revenue per unit (from licensing, advertising, ect, numbers where your install base effects your profit directly) X the number of consoles marketing tells you the exclusive is going to sell. If that number is bigger then the cost of making the game exclusive, then you do so. If it's smaller, you don't. Period. You always pick the option that makes you the most money.

COD games sell 10-15 million units on PlayStation. If MS owns activation, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of half a billion in revenue. There are obviously things to consider like how many of them would buy it on the different platform is they had to, but at the end of the day… the number of Xbox units making it exclusive would have to ensure would be sold before that's profitable is insane. It is not the decisions that makes them the most money, so they wont make it exclusive. This is exactly what happened in Minecraft.

The base games themselves are like 250 GB, add in Warzone and the other stuff ansd you're looking at 500GB for one game, that is never fitting on a nintendo console, and honestly it shouldn't be that big to begin with. Back when MW Remake launched it was the only game I was able to fit on the console on a base PS4

If a call of duty has no local wireless multiplayer i wont buy it. if it has - i will buy it of course. nya.

Just port the wiiu games as a double pack like ubisoft has done with the assassins creed games, while you’re at it put cod mobile on switch too

Shows how dumb the old Activision was that we haven't gotten Call of Duty on Switch. I feel a lot better about the acquisition now. I want my call of duty on my handheld. If Vita could get a try, why not Switch?

I don't play CoD or care about it, but it should definitely be on switch. more players the better

@Kochambra

What I'm saying is that they will all be working for the same employer and they'll have to abide by this single employer's rules and decisions on what projects get made and in what terms they get made, which ultimately means less diversity

I know people that work in AB. They are not that many, so they are obviously not a representative of the whole employee base, but given headlines I would not be shocked if they are not far off: all of them cant wait for this acquisition to be through and be under a real HR department instead of being under Kotick.

I doubt anyone looks forward to work on AB, as much as they simply look forward to work on CoD or WoW or Diablo or what not. Activision is not a desirable employer in this industry.

@Tharsman Are the working conditions in Microsoft any better? And if they are, for how long? If they ever devolve into a toxic working environment, what will be the solution? Pray for another, even bigger buyout?
If our only solution for the problems created by unchecked corporate power is to create an even bigger, more monolithic corporation, we're really screwed.

I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't put out fallout 3/NV collection or an Oblivion/morrowind collection considering how money will become tight and new consoles will become less of a priority as the west heads into a recession.

@Kochambra yea, working for Microsoft is better. Their HR actually cares about their employees (and most importantly, their public image). They won’t allow a toxic game dev bro manager to ruin their corporate reputation.

Lol it’s hilarious people are buying the PR nonsense.

@Tharsman "They won’t allow a toxic game dev bro manager to ruin their corporate reputation"
Until they have to do it.
How have we reached this point with Activision, when it's publicly known how bad working conditions are there, and there are have been barely any change and no bad consequences for Kotick whatsoever? By creating a power structure so big that's it's impervious to such trifles as having a bad reputation among workers. Kotick and his investors don't ***** care as long as the money keeps flowing in.
You're telling me that's not the case with Microsoft right now? Well, that nice for your friends in the short term, but in the long run, they'll have to contend with an ever bigger behemoth and with whomever happens to be put on top. And if that person happens to have priorities similar to Kotick's, believe me, no HR under this person's orders is going to save them.
And then what? We'll pray for another merger to deliver them from evil?

@Kochambra Microsoft is already the huge company you fear they will grow into, and they still care about their workforce. This is not guess work, I am an IT professional and have dealt with them for decades. I will take the confidence of their employees over the fears of someone about a potential future full of conditional “it’s” and fears. Truth is, Activision Blizard employees right now have a very bleepy time, and this change will be an improvement.

@Tharsman Oh, I'm well aware of how huge Microsoft already is, thank you very much. And they still care about their workforce... until they stop caring. And when that happens, there's nothing we will be able to do to change it if our only solution for unchecked corporate power is merging them into an even bigger corporation.
We're just making these giants bigger. Maybe this particular giant is being benevolent (in some aspects) for the time being, but whenever it decides to stop being nice, we're screwed because it's too big and powerful and our only solution to that problem seems to be to make another giant even more big and powerful.

If it has no local wireless multiplayer i wont buy ! If it has i MUST HAVE IT !!

I would have expected COD Mobile to be ported to the Switch. Stopped holding my breath, the Modern Warfare 2 beta played great on my Steam Deck so the need isn't there for me personally but would be great for others. I'd also like to echo what others have said about local multiplayer, not too many FPS games with split screen on the Switch and its a shame.

When the deal goes through "and it will most assuredly go through." It would be amazing to get Warzone at the very least.

I feel like the timing is a bit odd; This seems to be around the time developers would start talking about generally bringing things to "Nintendo," not necessarily meaning their current console. I'm guessing that answers like this point more toward plans directed at the next Switch.

I don't think it's too much of a strain to bring some of the classics to the handheld device. WaW and Blops 1 for instance would be very nice in a pack, especially since their stories are connected. Just saying.

enhanced ports of the cod games ending at bo2 with all the dlc + online on switch is all I want, realistically a dream