FTC Reportedly Wants Info From Nintendo On Call Of Duty Deal (North America)

I've known what a subpoena is for about a year now, but I went the longest time not understanding when people were talking about Trump getting subpoenaed and stuff. So, I really appreciate the editor for putting it in layman's terms in parentheses for dummies like me. I majored on English and graduated Valedictorian, but there's still lots of words I don't know. I like expanding my vocabulary with new words whenever I get the chance.

7 hours? Why! What are Nintendo going to say? They are not going to confirm a new system so won’t mention COD in regard to that and it’s unlikely we will see any COD on the current Switch.
For all we know, we could get COD mobile and that’s it but if means COD is on Nintendo within the ten year period.
Whole deal needs signing off so gaming can move on.

@BaldBelper78 They will go through the deal, how it is laid out in terms of payment, revenue, and all kinds of business stuff, so that they can know if it is all optics from Microsoft's side, or if it in fact is a proper deal and that it won't be bad for consumers if Microsoft get to buy Activision. Whether or not Nintendo makes a new platform or not is likely going to be irrelevant as of that testimony.

@BaldBelper78 Having since been in a lawsuit myself, I don't think an individual or corporate entity can just deny a subpoena. Maybe there is a process to refute it, but this is basically the government saying to Nintendo, "We don't care that this is sensitive information--you have no choice but to give it over to us because it's relevant to the judicial proceeding or face serious consequences." The Nintendo ninjas are powerful, but even they can't overpower the United States legal system. They'll be forced to disclose information about their next system if it happens to appear in the contractual agreement if the court deems it necessary to access those files.

I'm so tired of hearing about this deal, can we just skip to the part where Sony and Microsoft make out?

@Not_Soos I think the point here is they’re denying the subpoena because it’s being delivered nearly a month after the deadline for any such subpoena needing to be submitted.
Example: If the rules say that you have 30 days to complain about a widget, and you complain 5 months later, then I have the right to ignore you, because you waited too long to complain.

@LN3000 Ah, I didn't actually read the article, to be honest. I didn't even realize Nintendo was appealing it, so that makes my other reply look pretty ignorant. I'm bad for doing that sort of thing, but thankfully I haven't had any smart alecks be like, "YOU COULDN'T JUST TAKE 2 MINUTES TO READ THE ARTICLE YOU BETA LOSER!?" lol. I used to see a lot of other people on this site get roasted over stuff like that in the past. I guess they've either mellowed out or they blocked me by now, lol.

Nintendo has to delay the trial again, Please Understand.

@LN3000 "Ignore" is a little strong. Never ignore a subpoena. You can go to the court and argue "Hey, this subpoena is improper, I want it quashed" (voided).

7 hours? Sounds like there will be a lot of padding to fill that out. The latest John Wick was a bit long at almost 3 and this won't even have any headsets.

I'm sure Nintendo will tell them to f*** right off 🤣

7 hours of commercial free testimonies!!!

If it's relevant to the case. Which of course it is.

@Smug43 “We’re going to have to ask you to wait a little longer” (bows)

Nintendo could be hiding something. If they had any integrity as a company at all, they would just be forward with the courts and show up for the testimony.

@Not_Soos But the FTC as in a government body are not judges. It's like when the US Senate subpoena a person. If it's a government employee they need to show up, but a non government employee does not.

If a judge subpoena's then yes, but the text says it's the FTC. That's two different things. Also there is jurisdiction. If it would have been a Japanese citizen then obviously it would not make sense anyway.

This is madness... Nintendo haven't even had a COD title release on their systems in years yet they have to go through all this...
Talk about making up work to make yourself sound important...

Did they ask the other companies MS talked to as well? Boosteroid or Valve (who passed on the deal). Otherwise I agree, Nintendo does not have time to prepare to testify about somebody else’s purchase. Especially since they haven’t even seen a COD game in years. The deal is useless unless the merger goes through. They have their own business ventures to focus on. And preparing to deliver testimony is not some quick thing.

this is dumb seriously ever since sony got butthurt over microsoft whos in the process of buying out activision and now this mess continues.

Juicy Switch 2 leaks in-bound. On a more serious note…This entire investigation is a joke. No one batted an eyelash when Disney bought Fox giving them effective control over 2 major local networks in the US.

@Not_Soos @Tober @BaldBelper78 FROM WHAT o got that is correct that the FTC is not a judge so Nintendo can ignore them. For them to send the information they did is good.
What I see though is the FTC is trying to stop this merger and just like congress is trying to get as much little bits of information they can to help them do so. Nintendo has a right to appeal and they did and any information they don’t want subpoenaed if it does go in front of a judge most likely won’t be subpoenaed because it is irrelevant to the case. All the FTC needs to see is that the contract is legit and binding so that Microsoft is forced to go through with it and yesI agree also that Nintendo should not have to release any information until all the other companies have to show their disclosures as well.
To me this looks like we have a bunch of Sony fan boys on the FTC board. Almost every other region is looking at approving this deal as it is now. the FTC is just being babies about it or are being paid off.

@Not_Soos yeah you don't know much about the process we see

@Wilforce They didn't buy FOX broadcasting/news, which would have been illegal. They bought the movie studios and IP, as well as some TV networks unrelated to news like FX.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/3/20/18273477/disney-fox-merger-deal-details-marvel-x-men

The FTC is kicking air at this moment, all to try to squeeze more money from Microsoft for the Democrats. That Khan lady can't even reply to the questions asked to her by congress, and she wants Steve Singer to sit for 7 hours to answer BS questions?

what does nintendo have to hide that they want to fight the subpoena?

Well, looks like we are tuning into to lawsuits for announcements these days...

@Res462 The analogy is still the same. They bought a series of ton of studios and subsidiary brands within the entertainment industry. It’s the same Microsoft is trying to do with Activision-Blizzard. Technically we don’t know if it would’ve been illegal for Disney to acquire Fox News/Business… they just chose to pick the path of least resistance and not buy that part. It would have been illegal to acquire the prime time network known as Fox, so that is still very much in the hands of News Corp/Rupert Murdoch since the FCC actually has regulations against any of the big 4 OTA networks merging. Disney still produces a vast majority of the content on the network, it’s just not their network.

If we use Fox/Disney as precedent, then spin Infinity Ward back into its own entity with sole rights to Call of Duty since that is the entire point of contention.

Cant wait to play as Captain Price in Super Smash Bros Impeccable on Switch 2 xD

Jimbo could have used this time and money to revive the multitude of Sony FPS games instead of whining about CoD

@SonOfDracula No lawyer on earth would ever suggest that. FTC stepped in it and now they get to smell it

How come the FTC didn't subpoena Sony for violating and trying to block the merger? I think Sony is pulling strings here with the lobbyists again to stop the merger.

@johnedwin Exactly, maybe Nintendo made a deal with Microsoft to keep call of duty on Nintendo after the 10 year deal but not on Playstation, or a deal for exclusive content to give Nintendo an upper hand over Sony as they aren't keen on them.

Whenever anyone rejects subpoena's there's a reason why, and that goes for all of them.

@Arawn93
And a trillion dollar company could have invested in their own developers and starting new ones to create FPS franchises rather than attempting to buy up everything they can get your hands on and pushing the industry further and further into consolidation hell.
@SwitchplayerJohn
Because this deal is bait and a sacrificial lamb so they can as they do as they please with the rest of Activison just like they do with Bethesda and whatever they gobble up next. Everything going on here fits the bill of their old motto “Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish” but somehow people now see them as everyone’s friendly uncle so it’s ignored, very convenient.

@SalvorHardin
You DO realize Sony buys groups too right? Sony just bought another one like last week. Sony has a LONG history of making exclusive deals too. USA is a Capitalist country just in case you forgot [Look up the Disney buying sprees in this country just in case you been living under a rock which wouldn’t surprise me] and nothing is stopping Sony from doing these same deals besides the obvious “Sony doesn’t have as much money as MS”.

Sorry buddy, but regardless of your Sony defense force postings it’s still stupid Jimbo is wasting time and money to fight life and limb for CoD when they have a plethora of first persona shooter IPs they can dig up again, but you know Jimbo is infamous for cutting corners and rather have third parties carry his system instead of building up an active first party library.

You might need to calm your Sony fanboyism buddy. Jimbo isn’t gonna save you a spot in his board.

Oh yes court system here is our full plans and new system and its capabilities and our deal of when and how will cod come to Nintendo....yea right...even after this deal is done they barely have a scratch on whats gonna release or when .. all just hypotheticals now...but i bet sweet juicy secret information about switch ultra or switch future or whatever it is would need to be mentioned and they obviously don't want that haha

@Wilforce I think the article left a lot of detail. The FTC is acting like this knowledge about the deal was new. Wrong. They had the info as far back as December 2022. During that December when it was actually announced publicly about the deal at which time the FTC did nothing for over 4 months (until late March) to get documents or interviews. But by that the time (a time set by FTCs own internal court) the ability to request documents and submit them to the court had exceeded.

If you remember few months back Sony was trying to get extension on MS subpoenas (this was tool to wait out the clock) At a certain point the court (judge) had set an end point for document requests/discovery and if Sony could wait out the clock, they would have had to show less documents. The judge finally cut them off and required them to turn over documents.

In this case with respect to Nintendo, the FTC thinks the dates/rules set forth by their own court (not a federal court by a court inside the FTC itself) don't apply to them only to MS and others. Well, FTC I think this judge is probably going to slap you down.

@Res462 Disney buying Fox News would not have been illegal. If that were the case Comcast would not be able to own both NBC and MSNBC.

What is illegal is owning more than one 5 national TV network (over the airwaves). For example, one company could not own both NBC and ABC. But that was not an issue with the Disney/Fox deal because the Fox TV network was not part of the deal.

What Disney could not own that was initially part of the deal was Fox Sports because that would have given Disney a monopoly with ESPN. And that was sold off separately. That issue mainly had to do with local sports. In some regions the only competition for local sports TV viewing was Fox or ESPN. And that would have given Disney 100% of those sports markets.

@Wilforce IT would not have been illegal to own Fox News. No more than it is for both Comcast having ownership of NBC and all the various MSNBC news cable channels. But Fox News and its related channels (i.e Fox Business) were never for sale.

BTW. I mentioned this in another comment (and you hit on it a little too) but the only illegal aspect of the merger would would have been if Fox Network itself was part of the deal not Fox News. It wasn't. A company/person can only own one national network (OTA). Disney already owned ABC at the time. The national networks are ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, & CW

@SonOfDracula You right we should apply that to Sony as well. All that fighting Sony did to limit what they had to provide. Sony should not only have to show the last couple of years (what the court limited MS request from 10 years to 3 years). But being the "honest" company, they are, Sony should show all the requested 10 years of back door deals they have made, right? The fact is Sony (the biggest hypocrite here) obviously have things to hide or they wouldn't have fought so hard to keep all those documents and personal out of the court, FTCs and Microsoft's eyes/questioning. If Sony had any integrity, they would open all their documents for everyone to see. Or is it only Nintendo's integrity you are worried about here? /s

I think it's difficult to see Sony or the FTC blocking what Microsoft is wanting to do, when huge games like Final Fantasy are permitted to be console exclusives to Playstation despite SquareEnix being a third party. I can see FF16 skipping Switch due to processing power, but there's no reason for it not to be on XBox, other than exclusivity deals made between Sony and Square.

COD on a Nintendo console. Doesn’t even read right.

@Arawn93 What multitude of dormant FPS games do sony have? All I can think of is Killzone and that flopped hard, Killzone shadow fall on a system that sold over 120 million only managed a meager 2.1 million copies sold.

All sony have is destiny and that is staying multiplatform due to bunjies demands.

@Not_Soos Nintendo has a very good case with their request to quash the subpoena since it was made to late.

@UltimateOtaku91 «What multitude of dormant FPS games do sony have?»
Resistance, Unit 13, that PS3 online only military shooter...?

@Vyacheslav333 Unit 13 was a failure, the team behind it zipper interactive have been closed down by sony, it was only on the vita to which hardly anyone bought it, Resistance 3 failed to sell a million units lol that franchise is dead and is never in a million years going to rival call of duty, and the Ps3 game you're referencing was called MAG which was also made by zipper interactive. Sony have tried to enter the FPS scene but have failed astronomically at all attempts, even with Killzone. Those saying sony can make their own call of duty with their one IP's are way off the mark.

@PsykoRobot I didn’t write Fox News, I wrote news, the local stations.

If I can play Doom Eternal, Perfectly fine, on My Nintendo Switch OLED, then I can play Call of Duty on Nintendo Switch!

@KnightofNi_ why not? Do you work for sony lol
Call of Duty was on the Wii, less powerful than both the PS3 and the 360. Yet, it played fine.

@UltimateOtaku91 Okay.
«and the Ps3 game you're referencing was called MAG which was also made by zipper interactive»
Thanks. ...I tried to find it by myself, and it seems like that I meant one of the SOCOM games, not MAG...

Maybe because it’s never been on a big N console in history? The final mountain to climb to shed that “young audience” reputation? And no bud, I don’t work for Sony..

@UltimateOtaku91ee

Nice moving those goal posts.

“What IP?!”

IPs listed

“Those don’t count!”

“They don’t make CoD money!”

How is that relevant? Of course when you release half baked FPS games that you don’t care for because you know third parties on your platform like CoD is gonna carry the burden then it’s not gonna look good for your first parties regardless.

Sounds like more of a Sony problem if anything. Again how many years ago was a Killzone or Resistance game….?

If Nintendo of all companies can make a successful shooter game in house then I’m sure Jimbo can manage.

People are bringing this up because people are not pretending Sony is some indie company that can’t make a profitable shooter in-house if they really put in the time and resources that Sony definitely has. They just don’t want to because of their over reliance on third parties like CoD doing the work for them.

Still don’t think many will be jumping up and down to play this on a Nintendo console.

Well, it looks like the deal has reached a possible conclusion: https://www.eurogamer.net/uk-blocks-microsoft-activision-blizzard-deal

Microsoft intend to appeal but we will see. Call of Duty was too lucrative after all. Wonder whether Activision will still move forward with plans to bring the series to Nintendo consoles again.

@MidnightDragonDX I sure wouldn't, and I can't see the majority of Call of Duty fans doing so either.

However, there was a tight-knit community of Nintendo Call of Duty players on Wii and Wii U. They might want to relive that experience again. Especially if they bring back motion aiming. (For the record, the PS5 version of the game does support gyro controls).

@UltimateOtaku91 Unit 13 was a passion project to Socom fans (who formed a cult following and love) for the game. Plans to close the studio had nothing to do with that title. It was happening either way. Socom was gone. Killzone was well received. Call of Duty Declassified literally still has full mp games on its servers. Despite it being lackluster. Can’t help but wonder have you ever played any of them? Played a Vita, period? The most negative opinions always come from folks who seem to have never owned what they’re bashing? I don’t get it.

@KnightofNi_ The argument was about sony having dormant IP's that would rival call of duty, I gave my points to why they were wrong. Killzone and Resistance sold very poorly hence why Sony got rid of them, and the only reason I mentioned Unit 13 was because of a comment about zipper interactive which listed the games they made (unit 13 and MAG) which are also not COD killers. I'm not saying sony can't make a shooter to rival call of duty as they have the talent to do so, but just not with their old IP's.

I don't get where I was bashing the vita?