Microsoft Inks 10 Year Deal To Bring Xbox Games To Nintendo Consoles

What amazing timing! Merely a few weeks back we were discussing the major regulatory hurdles the United States, the EU, and the UK were putting in front of Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard for $68 billion. Agencies from all three governing bodies, while differing on some specifics, generally had the same concerns: lessening the competitive marketplace through industry consolidation, that the deal will incentivize Microsoft to start making AAA game franchises exclusives to Microsoft systems, and the idea that the only bulwark thus far offered against those concerns has been Microsoft's promises.

Microsoft has said repeatedly that it would not change the status of Call of Duty on PlayStation after the sale, going so far as to suggest signing a 10-year agreement to that effect. That agreement would reportedly also include the option for Sony to put Call of Duty on its own subscription service, PS Plus. But the CMA isn't very enthusiastic about these possibilities, which would require monitoring and enforcement." Instead, it proposes structural remedies" that deal with potentially anti-competitive mergers at the source.

In an amazing instance of great timing, it seems, Microsoft in the past few days announced a deal with Nintendo that would coincidentally serve as something of a response to the CMA's concerns in the UK that none of these promises were formal enough.

Microsoft and Nintendo have now negotiated and signed a binding 10-year legal agreement to bring Call of Duty to Nintendo players-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," the statement reads. We are committed to providing long-term equal access to Call of Duty to other gaming platforms, bringing more choice to more players and more competition to the gaming market."

Now, a couple of things should be noted here. First, the reporting suggests that this deal was in the works long before the regulators started making their regulatory noises about the merger. And that makes total sense, but so what? Microsoft had to anticipate that the regulatory issues being raised were always a possibility and may have kicked the tires on this deal proactively in case it found itself in the position it does today.

Second, and perhaps more strangely, this deal is a departure for how Activision has worked with Nintendo in the past, at least on Call of Duty games.

You know, it's been a minute since Call of Duty was even on a Nintendo console. If you can believe it, it's actually been almost 10 years since 2013's Call of Duty: Ghosts was the last one to hit the Wii U. Every other entry since has skipped over the family-friendly systems.

Whereas Xbox's chief rival, Sony's PlayStation, has only the less-formal promise of also getting CoD for 10 years on its console. I'm not entirely sure what getting a deal inked with Nintendo first means... but it's at least kinda weird.

Still, while the video game industry is fast paced, ten years isn't that long of a time period. Microsoft could certainly be playing the long game here, willing to stave off any plans for bringing a bunch of franchises to exclusivity in order to get this deal done first.

But I'll reiterate again: exclusives are almost always dumb and serve mostly to reduce the total income these publishers could generate. If Microsoft thinks it can bully the public into buying Xbox consoles in enough numbers to justify it, then I think it's making a mistake.