I'd almost definitely buy a Switch CoD over the One X version, none of my friends play them anymore anyway.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why Switch still didn't got a Call of Duty game?
- Thread starter Ryng™
- Start date
Doesn't matter what you want, that's probably how activision sees it. And you ignore the thrust of my point - the online architecture of the switch is a shitshow for a game that heavily relies on online play - unlike mobile devices. Also, you can use a controller with smartphones these days.
Activision already has like 5 studios working hardto get each game out every year. They'd have to add yet another studio or two to maintain a wholly different SDK on a platform where they probably don't perceive there will be enough money to make. If the switch had better online they might port COD mobile, but I highly doubt mainline COD is happening in the switch.
Those games are massive these days, which is why port begging conversations are unproductive because it's easy to say "just do it" and if you don't understand how game development works there's no convincing you why it's actually really tough to just do it.
Especially since one for this same game was locked like last week or so lol
Activision hasn't put one in Switch because they don't want to, and don't have to. As of this moment, that's all there really is to say, because no one here knows the reason exactly why. If they did, it's unlikely they would be allowed to discuss it without Activision getting upset because they would likely have to be an employee.
Funny thing, the derailing of the discussion here is by those who come specifically into this thread to complain it is port begging.
By the way, port begging is not allowed when it derails threads where the topic is different (example: any and all DQXIS threads which get derailed into a port begging fest by non Switch owners), a discussion about possible reasons for one of the most successful series in the world skipping the highly successful Switch is totally legit and not really port begging.
For those bothered by such a thread, just put it on ignore, that's what the function is for.
And should that happen and some insider opens their mouth, why should we care if Activision is upset by that? Is this forum owned by Activision?
Last edited:
People seem to have the same arguments, so maybe i should repeat a few points:
- Power/space: that's not too big of an issue, i mean yes that's a problem but like i said if The Witcher 3 runs on it there's no way COD can't.
- Online is not the best on the Switch, well that's true, but do we have to talk about Wii online?
- The fanbase for the game is definitively there, and is almost surely enought to make money for ActiVision. COD games on Wii sold very good, and so far we had multiple AAA games which had strong sales, and for strong sales i mean million seller: Skyrim and FIFA 18/19 both likely sold well over 1 million, COD would not have problems to beat those numbers.
Gee I dunno, maybe cause the person who works at the company and releases private information the company doesn't want released could be fired? I don't personally give a shit if A-B gets upset.
That's what forum anonymity is for, someone could post something without outing who they are as long as they get verified by a mod
You're putting power and space together, but that is wrong. Witcher 3 covers the power aspect, but space is a totally different thing. If your game is 100GB or more, and you can't/don't want to compress it significantly, then Switch is out.
Same reason why most AAA games arent on Switch - the publishers would rather use the resources to make sure that the console/PC versions are as good as they can be. Especially nowadays where they want to have optimized versions on base consoles, pro console, PC and even be future proof for potential next-generation hardware (4k, VR, Streaming etc.).
Getting these massive +100gb games on Switch, somewhere around the same time as the other versions would take up alot of resources.
Though you would think that Activision and CoD would be big enough to at least deliver one CoD game on Switch even its based on a past classic title in the series....well maybe its still gonna happen.
Getting these massive +100gb games on Switch, somewhere around the same time as the other versions would take up alot of resources.
Though you would think that Activision and CoD would be big enough to at least deliver one CoD game on Switch even its based on a past classic title in the series....well maybe its still gonna happen.
And seems like it's true considering EA has set the switch fifa schedule to legacy.
I agree 100%. I wanted to make a discussion like this for a while but felt I couldn't. I have been banned multiple times on this site for even mentioning this. It always felt like bs to me that we couldn't discuss this. I love FPS and love COD. Having it on the switch in some form even bringing a remaster to the console makes sense. Sadly all switch owners that want a game get is push back saying there is no business sense or market for it or it's too technical. I think we have seen enough from other games that those are not valid arguments.
i wouldn't be surprised if cod mobile gets a port it's perfect for the switch.
Flagship cod games have to big of a file size and the switch is way underpowerd. Cod barely runs on the regular Xbox ones these days it's not running well on the switch.
Flagship cod games have to big of a file size and the switch is way underpowerd. Cod barely runs on the regular Xbox ones these days it's not running well on the switch.
So is Splatoon, Smash, Mario Kart. Fortnite. Paladins, Overwatch, Rocket League, Warframe, Smite, etc. Pokemon can be pretty multiplayer focused with online battles and max raid battles now. That is not an acceptable excuse. Online isn't and can't be the issue. Success of the system isn't the issue either.
Good old ROI. They could make money with a Switch CoD, but they think they can make more money with other products, like more DLCs for the other versions or CoD mobile. Also, it seems to me that their CoD studios are suffering from extreme burnout. They probably can't take another version of the game and creating a new studio just for that is something Acti doesn't want to do right now.
It definitely is not some nonsensical act of spite, Activision is huge and has resources beyond the reach of most. They have likely run so many analytic and demographic studies that show the cost to produce it wouldn't be worth the sales they'd achieve, simple as that. Just purely a business decision based on a ton of focused data gathering that has +/-X rate of error.
Until all that shifts and there's a huge up swell of demand that Activision sees as credible, you're probably not going to see one on Switch anytime soon.
Until all that shifts and there's a huge up swell of demand that Activision sees as credible, you're probably not going to see one on Switch anytime soon.
Porting a game to a much weaker system and then having to support said system is a lot of work. They aren't not doing it out of laziness.
This is basically what it boils down to, but people who don't understand anything will jump in with hot takes like "activision is lazy" which is why threads like this just suck.
lol a cod switch version where they can also sell you a cod branded 256gb micro sd card, activision should jump on that
Unlike CoD, most AAA games that aren't on Switch were never planned for Switch. We have at least two very reliable insiders on this forum who claimed on more than one occasion that a CoD game was coming to Switch in 2018.
You really have to wonder how many people are not buying Call of Duty because it's not on Switch. And then are the opportunity costs worth it? Activision apparently thinks it's not worth it.
COD Mobile seems like the obvious candidate at this point, I think. Especially after they added controller support. I doubt it would have crossplay with the iOS and Android versions, but it seems like it would be an easier port job than trying to bring over the latest, far more graphically intensive mainline entry of the franchise.
this post is hilarious like Activision would leave money on the table because they are lazy. If they could profit off a switch port it would exist.
You are going to have to accept the switch is extremely underpowered and not suited for all games that's just how it is.
also calling devs lazy is super shitty just stop. If you had a clue you would know this is not a decision the devs make.
So some others could probably go into more depth then I can but a big thing these days is that when it some to graphical settings, games often don't change as much as they used to. I remember playing playing Crysis back in the day and and the difference between Low and High was night and day but then look at the new MW:
There is differences, yes, but not massively. And this is still true for the miracle games that have been ported to Switch like Wolfenstein, Doom, and Witcher 3.
But with Modern Warfare they've made a huge deal out of Crossplay/cross progression this year. So a huge thing is to keep players on equal footing. There was a big problem with PUBG a while back (not sure if they ever fixed it) where there was less foliage and more in the PC low settings which made it easier to spot players and kill them. So if you wanted to port MW to Switch you couldn't alter the graphics in anyway that might give one player an advantage or disadvantage.
Then there's the fact that the Switch simply not be able to handle bigger modes like Spec Ops and Ground War. Which if removed would splintered the Switch playerbase from the others.
This whole thing is very complicated and it's not: "DEV'S ARE LAZY"
There is differences, yes, but not massively. And this is still true for the miracle games that have been ported to Switch like Wolfenstein, Doom, and Witcher 3.
But with Modern Warfare they've made a huge deal out of Crossplay/cross progression this year. So a huge thing is to keep players on equal footing. There was a big problem with PUBG a while back (not sure if they ever fixed it) where there was less foliage and more in the PC low settings which made it easier to spot players and kill them. So if you wanted to port MW to Switch you couldn't alter the graphics in anyway that might give one player an advantage or disadvantage.
Then there's the fact that the Switch simply not be able to handle bigger modes like Spec Ops and Ground War. Which if removed would splintered the Switch playerbase from the others.
This whole thing is very complicated and it's not: "DEV'S ARE LAZY"
Both post are Hilarious. Just as much as saying devs are lazy is saying if there was money to be made Activision would be doing it. There is easily a market for cod on switch. A remaster just a well made cod with online multiplayer would do fine on switch.
my post is rooted in reality at least and as I said cod mobile would run on the switch modern warfare will not run on the switch it's not happening. Y'all need to stop port begging and let it go.
lmao you can't be serious the switch is less powerful than the Xbox one and again modern warfare plays like shit on the Xbox one. This is a 60fps game.
It's obviously not worth it for Activision or the port would exist.
You seem to not understand the concept of return on investment. A game can sell a million copies and not be profitable. Or, it can sell a million copies, be profitable, yet still not be worth it because the studio could have spent the same amount of time and resources to build something that would be even more profitable. Activision are already using like 5 studios to develop the yearly COD games with like 5 game modes each. They probably think it's more worthwhile to keep doing that than onboard an entire team to the switch development process, build a new online architecture that works on the switch online infrastructure, optimize their proprietary engine to run on the switch, etc. It would likely be a year long effort if not more, assuming they aren't building a new game from scratch and just porting black ops 3 or something. Because we know the latest game won't run. Then there's the fact that a lot of the entries from earlier this gen that would be good candidates to port are ones that weren't well received. So the best bet would be COD mobile probably. But again, the online infrastructure would be a challenge to deal with. And they might think that the segment that is on switch exclusively is too small for them to ever make a decent return on their investment. Most people have smartphones and many have full consoles or PCs so Activision probably think they can get their fix there.
Until they actually announce something it's safe to assume that they don't think it's worth it. So this thread is mostly baseless port begging.
That's a poor excuse though. Look at all of the other "big hit" games that re-released for switch and still sold well. Skyrim (who hasn't played that yet honestly?) still a bug seller on switch should alone tell you the poor logic of this reasoning. (This isn't aimed at you, you were just pointing it out and said right ir wrong, im just filling in for why it's wrong.)
It's impressive the huge amount of lame ass excuses to justify CoD's absence. What's even more boogilng is that isn't just coming from Nintendo detractors but Nintendo fans, as well. Really, this guys don't get enough already after being proved wrong so many times with stuff like Doom, Wolfenstein, Overwatch, Doom Eternal, Dragon Quest XI, Outer Worlds, Witcher 3, etc.?
Not one of those games run at 60fps.
I know dooM, wolfenstein And Overwatch are 30fps m switch (lmao). so it's a compromised version of the game. Those are really bad examples to make your case for cod lol.
cod is 60fps Or bust. Numerous people pointed out it doesn't seem worth it for Activision or they would make a port.
I can't image playing modern warfare at 720p 30fps sounds like a bad experience to me and I own a switch since launch.
It's only not worth it because 64 GB cards still don't exist and 32 GB cards are still expensive as fuck. The cost of the larger game cards is almost assuredly the issue.
Well EA clearly didn't think they made enough money with Fifa 19 on the switch to bother this year.
Why exactly does the Switch demand what would essentially be an exclusive COD?
It would be receiving a neutered version of Modern Warfare 2019. I wonder if they'll even get money from it from a long term perspective. Then that leaves us with either a port of an older game or the mobile one. Why would they support servers for one console for what is an older game?
So if it's Cod mobile does Activision see the point in porting it?
It would be receiving a neutered version of Modern Warfare 2019. I wonder if they'll even get money from it from a long term perspective. Then that leaves us with either a port of an older game or the mobile one. Why would they support servers for one console for what is an older game?
So if it's Cod mobile does Activision see the point in porting it?
There's an opportunity there for some remasters or maybe COD Mobile. I'm sure Tencent would be interested in making the latter happen given Switch is nearly a 1st party platform for them now.
Remasters or collections might be more viable too now that the 32GB cards have come down in price and 64GB will be available next year. Publishers like Capcom, Ubisoft, Square Enix, THQ Nordic and others are doing good business on Switch with these sorts of releases, I'm sure something like a BLOPS trilogy or MW Remastered on Switch would do relatively huge numbers for pretty low dev/promo cost.
Remasters or collections might be more viable too now that the 32GB cards have come down in price and 64GB will be available next year. Publishers like Capcom, Ubisoft, Square Enix, THQ Nordic and others are doing good business on Switch with these sorts of releases, I'm sure something like a BLOPS trilogy or MW Remastered on Switch would do relatively huge numbers for pretty low dev/promo cost.
Ground war happened last generation. So at least remasters of last gen ports or cod mobile is doable at 60fps
Ground War in MW is 64 players. Not 18 like it was back in the old games.
It is their work man, they don't earn money for nothing, they simply think they are too big to release a CoD game on a platform where they won't sell more than 1-2 million copies.
i know right? it's so sad that we're still so oppressed as switch gamers :(
OP, this is the same company who did not think about releasing Crash Bandicoot on the Switch untill one guy on the dev team started working on getting a level to run on the system.
Let me repeat that
Activision apparantly did not have any plans to release Crash Bandicoot, a colourful platformer which would be a no-brainer for the Nintendo audience, on Switch
There you go.
Let me repeat that
Activision apparantly did not have any plans to release Crash Bandicoot, a colourful platformer which would be a no-brainer for the Nintendo audience, on Switch
There you go.
Modern Warfare 2019, alone had 4 extra studios working on the game. High Moon Studios, Beenox, Raven Software, and Sledgehammer Games all provided additional development. That is just for the PS4/Pro, Xbox/X, and PC.
Adding another version of the game, the Switch, where they will have to do far more than just tone down some graphical settings is a lot of work. Not to mention whether or not the game would even be able to support modes like Ground War (64 players) or the Spec Ops mode or the datamined 200 player BR coming early next year.
All 3 versions of the game (PS, XBX, and PC) all have cross platform play and so (outside of Survival, which itself just reuses MP maps) have parity of content and maps. So does the Switch version have significantly less content and no cross platform play? The game is already at 150 GB with an expected end size of 175GB. They also can't change the graphics too much as it might either put Switch users at an disadvantage (or hell even an advantage if a lot of effects are missing that might make it easier to see targets).
Edit: See the PUBG controversy when the low settings gave players an advantage due to less foliage.
There is simply too many factors. Just saying: "It's their work man" is just bizzare.
I didn't say anything about releasing the latest game, I'm sure if they really wanted they could've choosen a suitable title from their catalog or even porting CoD Mobile. They don't care anyway.
The devs aren't lazy. But the devs won't decide if there will be a CoD for Switch or not.
