Call of Duty
Image: Activision Blizzard

Yesterday, Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard was officially blocked in the UK by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). This was accompanied by a 418-page final report that elaborates on how the authority reached its decision.

The report outlines several reasons for the block, including how it would directly impact the "fast-growing cloud gaming market", though one further reason that has been brought to our attention today (thanks, WCCFTech) is directly related to the Nintendo Switch.

One proposal that came about as a part of the acquisition was Microsoft's 10-year commitment to bring Call of Duty games to the Switch, which the CMA believes is not "technically capable" of running the game in a manner resembling the experience on more powerful platforms:

Nintendo does not currently offer CoD, and we have seen no evidence to suggest that its consoles would be technically capable of running a version of CoD that is similar to those in Xbox and PlayStation in terms of quality of gameplay and content.

This comment in the CMA's report comes despite Microsoft's previously-shown confidence in the viability of a port. Back in February, Microsoft president Brad Smith stated that the series would run "as you would expect" on the Switch, and this was later emphasised by Microsoft Gaming CEO and Xbox boss Phil Spencer who stated that the company was aiming to bring "the best version" of CoD to all platforms, Switch included.

Bringing Call of Duty games to the Switch was reliant on the acquisition's approval, as Microsoft obviously wouldn't otherwise have any say on where Activision Blizzard published its games. As you would expect, Activision Blizzard has criticised the CMA's decision and Microsoft has formally announced that it will be appealing it in a statement that Smith posted on Twitter, so the proposed acquisition is still a possibility for the time being.

Do you think that the Switch would be capable of running a Call of Duty game to an acceptable level? Let us know in the comments.

[source, via]