Update: In a statement provided to Kotaku (opens in new tab), Valve's Gabe Newell said that "an offer was made by Microsoft and a draft agreement was sent to [Valve]" to continue offering COD on Steam in the long term, but that Valve has Valve decided that it did not need to do so.

Newell believes that Valve "would never require any partner to sign a contract that would bind them to shipping games on Steam into the distant future," and that Microsoft and Phil Spencer "have always stood by what they said they would do." Microsoft "has all the motivation necessary to be present on the platforms and devices that Call of Duty customers want," he said. In other words, Microsoft has a 10-year contract with Nintendo, but its commitment to Steam is like a gentlemen's agreement.

Original article Ladies and gentlemen, they finally did it. After a long battle of do-or-die, filled with all sorts of subtle hints and connotations, Microsoft has finally tied the knot: If the $69 billion Activision Blizzard acquisition (opens in new tab) goes through, the company will be able to sell "Call of Duty" to Steam and ...... Nintendo?

Apparently so! In a tweet posted last night (opens in new tab), Xbox boss Phil Spencer confirmed that Microsoft has "entered into a 10-year commitment to provide 'Call of Duty' to Nintendo following the merger of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard King." He added that the company has also agreed to "continue to offer Call of Duty on Steam at the same time as Xbox after the merger is complete."

This is good news for those looking to focus their libraries on Steam. Especially since the series just returned to Steam (after several years) with the October release of Modern Warfare 2 (opens in new tab). Nevertheless, the commitment to Nintendo is a bit odd at first, since the company's first game was released in the United States in October, and it was not until the release of "Modern Warfare 2" (opens in new tab) that the company began to make a commitment to Steam.

Because this is not about Nintendo or Steam, but about Sony, the PlayStation maker has been a consistent thorn in Microsoft's side since the acquisition process began, and its complaints have focused primarily on access to COD. Sony has complained to regulators in any country that will listen that giving Microsoft control of the Call of Duty series could destroy the market, and some regulators have taken notice. Regulators in the US, UK, and EU have all tweeted complaints about the deal, with most of their concerns focused on the COD.

Thus, the deal between Nintendo and Steam. Of course, Microsoft has not stated this explicitly, but it is clear that such a deal is intended to show regulators in various countries that they can be trusted to do well with the series they own, and to dispel Sony's complaints. Microsoft has been vocal in recent weeks about a similar 10-year offer it made to Sony (open in new tab), even writing in the Wall Street Journal (open in new tab) that the agreement "could be made legally enforceable by regulators in the United States, United Kingdom and European Union The article goes as far as to say that the agreement "could be legally enforced by regulators in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union. Sony, however, has yet to accept it.

Perhaps Microsoft hopes to pressure Sony into accepting the agreement and dropping its main complaint about the Activision acquisition by getting other industry giants on the agreement bandwagon. However, given how vehemently Sony has opposed the deal, it is unlikely that the company will accept defeat so easily.

As for those of us outside the rarefied air of C-suites in the gaming industry, if the acquisition goes through, we will be able to continue playing COD on Steam for some time to come. And those of us who own a Switch will be looking forward to playing "Call of Duty" on whatever Nintendo's next console is, or (somehow) if the Switch lasts long enough. All's well that ends well.