Ah, Call of Duty. One arrives each and every year like clockwork, delivering a quick adrenaline shot of shooter action for millions of us worldwide. Usually, that shot is pretty polished, as publisher Activision Blizzard pours resources into its creation. However, development struggles, and a pandemic, meant Vanguard didn't quite hit as normal — and now it's been suggested that CoD might be ditching the yearly release cycle. So, is CoD's development sustainable? If not, did Microsoft swoop in at exactly the right time for the series? Let's ponder.
Once Call of Duty exploded in popularity with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Activision saw the opportunity to annualise the series. What followed, for years, were one-two punches from developers Infinity Ward and Treyarch, namely in the form of Modern Warfare and Black Ops. It was hard to argue with the results, this was the absolute height of Call of Duty as far as we're concerned.
As the eighth generation of consoles rolled around though, things got muddy. Game development became a more complex process, in part due to new possibilities from new hardware. Call of Duty couldn't escape this reality, so Activision formed Sledgehammer Games to slot in and give each developer three years on Call of Duty. The publisher also began to draft in other teams to support development, especially as DLC became a major part of the cycle.
At this stage, things were still relatively smooth. Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 3 ushered in a new, futuristic era for Call of Duty. Whether that was the right move or not isn't that relevant. The games launched on time, in fairly good shape and retained strong playerbases. Not all of Activision was working on Call of Duty yet either.
Guitar Hero Live, Skylanders SuperChargers and the Prototype remasters all released the same year as Black Ops 3. However, they weren't blockbuster launches, and that began to trouble Activision. So much so that in recent years, almost all of the company's developers, outside of Blizzard, are now working on Call of Duty in one form or another.
The need for new $60 games annually, seasonal updates, Warzone content, microtransaction packs and near-constant online patches has led Activision to pour almost everything it has into Call of Duty. When another new console generation came around in the middle of a pandemic, quality started to slip. It had done a few years prior, namely when Black Ops 4 didn't even have a campaign, but Vanguard is the roughest Call of Duty in a long time and it still isn't properly fixed.
These issues have even led "high-level employees at Activision" to talk about "moving away from the annual release schedule" according to a Bloomberg report. Some of these developers feel that taking a little more time over each release would lead to better quality games and happier communities. We're inclined to agree.
So, the question stands. Will Microsoft finally let the series breathe? Will Xbox pull Activision teams away from Call of Duty to work on other games? After Vanguard's reception, and more importantly for Microsoft, its sales, it might be in the company's best interest to do so.
Remember, Xbox Game Pass is becoming the core of the Xbox strategy. That alleviates some of the need for a $60 game every single year. Sure, having a CoD on Game Pass every year would be ideal for Xbox, but it's not like they don't own enough other franchises. Looking at first person shooters alone, Microsoft now owns the rights to Halo, DOOM, Wolfenstein, Quake and then Call of Duty and Overwatch, if the deal goes through.
When you factor in the ever-present Warzone, surely that means Xbox doesn't need a new Call of Duty every single year. There's the financial incentive to do so, yeah, but when the quality of the game begins to slip, problems arise. Especially when you're competing against PlayStation, which strives to put out really high quality games from its first party studios. Xbox is trying to change its own first party narrative, and releasing rushed Call of Duty games each year probably won't best its cause.
If the Activision Blizzard deal is successful, Microsoft will own so many franchises that cramming them all into Game Pass will become a hard enough task as it is. In that case, we hope that the brakes are applied to Call of Duty, even faintly. It could do wonders for the narrative around Xbox, and it'll free up some of the many Activision studios that are currently working on Call of Duty.
What Activision Blizzard series would you like to see revived by a Call of Duty studio? Let us know below.
Comments 45
There will be an 'online' CoD experience on PS - whether they decide to 'keep' the last Activision CoD MP going or release a new CoD MP for the long term.
That MP won't get a 'yearly' replacement, splitting the users between new and old, same as they won't release a 'CoD MP' only on Xbox splitting the 'old' users from the 'New'. They will keep that 'online' MP experience going 'indefinitely' for the entire online 'CoD' community to 'enjoy' on whatever platform they play on!!
Therefore, it makes sense for CoD to release a MP only package or make the MP Free to Play on ANY platform - no barrier to entry, no splitting the users, all maps, modes, etc available to 'everyone' regardless of system. That MP will be CoD on PS alongside Warzone.
IF we do get a new 'CoD' SP campaign made and published by Xbox, that will likely be 'exclusive' to Game Pass. Its not an 'Activision' game as the owner of the IP is Xbox, the studios are Xbox studios and Xbox Published - its an Xbox game. Unless a CoD game is beneficial for Xbox to launch on PS, then forget it.
However, MS need never make a 'CoD' again - just continue to support Warzone and Multi-player forever - season after season after season. That doesn't mean you won't see any 'CoD' branded games at all, but maybe some CoD spin offs - much like Halo Wars, Forza Horizon or Gears Tactics.
They could, for example opt to make an arcade military flying combat game and have the 'CoD brand', maybe do a more 'sim' like experience in MSFS and use the 'CoD' name. They could do a third person co-op military shooter campaign or maybe War based strategy game (CoD:Wars) - just depends on what games their studio's want to make and whether or not it would 'benefit' by having the IP brand attached to it.
If Treyarch, for example, wanted to carry on making CoD:Zombie style games, but 'free' from having to tie it back to 'CoD' and 'WW2 Nazi's' as they have had to do, they could make a brand new 'Zombies' IP that will be 'exclusive' to Game Pass - in fact MS would 'encourage' them to do so as CoD:Zombies is one of the greatest 'co-op' modes ever and 'perfect' for the Game Pass model. Those CoD:Zombie fans on PS would have to Subscribe to Game Pass to play the 'new' Zombies game by Treyarch, creators of CoD:Zombies...
Lots of FPS games with Microsoft. Maybe do a release a different one each year something like:
2023: CoD
2024: Id Software Doom or Quake etc
2025: Big Halo DLC
2026: Perfect Dark / Wolfenstein 3 etc
2027: CoD
The best thing Phil Spencer said was when he referenced Hexen. What I'd give for a new Hexen game!!?
@BAMozzy That's sort of what I expect will happen. Warzone will remain on PS and future releases will be split, much like Halo is now. CoD MP will go F2P on Xbox/PS/PC with a campaign mode and perhaps zombies go exclusive on Xbox/PC and rolled into GP.
However it goes down, the traditional CoD experience will definitely not be on Sony's platform for much longer.
I wonder if it will take the Halo route of MP as a standalone f2p
MS's core statement has been give the developers creative freedom to make the games they want, focussed on player enjoyment and not worry about 'commercial sales' targets. Its not about how many games they 'sell' but Subscriber growth and retention.
They want studio's to have their 'own' identity and each making their own 'projects' for Game Pass. As long as 'big' new games - whether NEW IP's or within their growing portfolio of IP's, are constantly coming to Game Pass, they are happy. By focusing on 'player' enjoyment and subscription 'growth', not 'Financial' sales success, they make the games people want to play, give 'freedom' to experiment where other publishers may not thinking its 'commercially risky', make another sequel instead...
Look at MS, since Game Pass and Cloud Gaming became the Focus. Playground wanted to expand to make an open world RPG, and having 'Fable' attached helps bring Eyes and players in. More will be interested in Fable over yet another RPG from a 'racing' game developer - but playground wanted to expand and make an RPG -MS helped them do it.
Hellblade was 'funded' by Ninja Theory pimping out their staff to help other studio's finish games, just so they could 'fund' a small team making Hellblade. MS acquires them, lets them make the Games 'they' want - inc Hellblade 2 with the budget and full team. Obsidian struggled to fund Outer Worlds - MS comes in and we have Avowed and Outer Worlds 2 coming - games they 'want' to make.
They want 'every' studio making the games they want to make to put on Game Pass. Not have 8+ studio's crunching on annual releases of a single franchise. They want 'Treyarch' to make the games that Treyarch 'want'. They 'want' studio's to have their identity. Studio's like ND, Insomniac etc that bring players 'in' just because its a 'new' game from them. Ninja Theory have 'their' identity which is in their 'games' - themes of Mental Health. Double Fine have 'their' identity and free to make 'Double Fine' games. Undead Lab, Compulsion etc make their 'games', Arcane, Bethesda, ID, Machine Games, Tango etc will all make 'their' own games that are typical for their studio, games they 'want' to make because its 'not' about making games to 'sell', its making games to bring players into Game Pass.
They want at least 1 big game a month for Game Pass - whether 1st Party (Halo, Forza, Starfield) or Xbox Published (Contraband) ideally but if not, then a big 3rd party multi-platform release (MLB, Outriders). Therefore having '30+' studio's all working on their 'own' games is vital to this.
I bet those studio's are now thinking about whether or not they even want to make a CoD game again after this and being forced to for so long to hit annual releases, the pressure and toxicity. I could see Raven being given 'CoD' to manage the MP/Warzone package on ALL platforms. The other studio's being 'free' to make whatever they want.
This is my biggest hope with the MS acquisition. I want to be excited for the next COD because the last entry I bought was MW2. For the following few years, I'd say to myself "I'll just get next year's entry," until I stopped caring. Stretching out the releases would absolutely encourage me to get back into the series because it won't just feel like the game I buy will be worthless in a year.
That information confirms that this is the best that could have happened to Activision Blizzard and I mean that the workers are optimistic about Microsoft stepping in and excited for more creative freedom under the Xbox umbrella. Beenox, Vicarious Visions and Toys for Bob deserve better things than being Call of Duty support developers and it will be better for the Call of Duty IP to have more polished releases than Vanguard. Game Pass will also benefit from more "friendly" games such as Crash, Spyro and Tony Hawk's and this also looks like the perfect occasion for bringing Banjo, Conker and Viva Piñata back. Leave Call of Duty to Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer.
It doesn't need to be a 2 yearly release as they spend about 3 years making each game. But that's me.
Yeah Microsoft pretty much let studios do what they want to do. So, if, say, infinity ward want to do something else than CoD then I don't believe that MS forces them to make CoD.
When Microsoft was asked why they don't do new Banjo game, Spencer said that there is no studio that want to make Banjo game.
In looking at the Bloomberg article, one of the worries seem to be layoffs. I totally get that because I saw somewhere there’s like 10.000 employees. But aren’t there several Xbox studios that are still hiring? Assuming there would be any need to lessen the staff numbers at all at AB (there may not be) could Xbox offer these workers job at some of their other studios? Just a thought.
Maybe release a COD game every year and then skip a year?
Waiting 2 years to play the latest Call of Duty title seems a bit long for me as i love the single player campaigns and FPS is my favourite genre.
@Microbius I’m with you. I played Call of Duty WW2s campaign as a history buff, but the last COD game I actually played before that was Call of Duty 2 (Not modern warfare 2… the actual 2…. The ww2 one on 360).
That being said. If one of these studios made a single player focused COD story that was longer, more developed, and took you on a legit journey, I would totally play it!
Watch them conveniently wait out the Sony contract and then release a new game.
Future Call Of Duty will be so much better under Xbox..
I think CoD should mirror Halo Infinite and release a platform for the next ten years. Just keep adding content without splitting the player base.
Or, with three studios working on CoD, give them six years each to work on the next installment, and release one game every two years.
@Rural-Bandit Yep.
Not only do I want to see the end of yearly releases of popular franchises, I want to see the studios that have been franchise sweat shops for years spread their wings and do some passion projects!
Personally, I would much rather see CoD mainline releases die off for a while.
Keep CoD Warzone to fill that ongoing CoD multiplayer void and let us start seeing what these studios can do beyond CoD. So much gaming potential is wasted on the CoD Factories that Activision has created.
Note: I am not a CoD fan. I haven't owned a CoD game since MW2 on Xbox 360 because I got bored with the formula.
The free to play model - apart from the fact most Online MP games are going or are F2P so difficult to 'charge' for a new game - means that 'everyone' can play on any device with NO barrier to 'entry' - also NO exclusive maps, modes etc to ANYONE..
Making a 'new' game - whether 'Exclusive' or NOT would 'split' the CoD Community. Its either going to split them between platforms (new Game Pass vs old on PS) or between 'generations' (CoD 2022 vs CoD 2024). Therefore, it makes much more sense to create a F2P MP CoD game with Seasons and maybe a 'refresh' every few years - Start with a 'Modern' era for a few years, maybe then refresh Warzone and MP to a more historical setting etc - point is, everyone is getting the 'SAME' Content at the SAME time and keeping the CoD: Online Community 'Happy'.
Raven could basically become like 343 to Halo, Coalition to Gears, Raven to CoD Online to maintain and update both MP and Warzone. Have access to 'every map' ever made to 'remaster', remake etc. Maybe make a CoD Online Hub where one mode could be a 'retro' playlist that this month is CoD4 so you have CoD4 maps and Loadouts, next month maybe BO3 MP. They could have a 'Community' section for creating 'new' modes or perhaps let you play Advanced Warfare maps but with say CoD:MW2 weapons, movement and killstreaks (no exo-skeletons) which could be interesting in BO3 as the Water and wall running opened up new routes but can't with CoD:MW2 movement as you'd drown - making those maps 'feel' and play different. Point is, they have a LONG history they can use to 'keep' the future of CoD fresh without needing 'new' games every year splitting the Community between the 'new' and 'older' games
CoD: Zombies will 'exist' on Playstation because those games with 'CoD: Zombies' will continue to 'exist'. Want to play Mob of the Dead or whatever maps are on PS will 'remain' on Playstation. Treyarch however could make a 'brand new' Zombies game that is basically the same 'Game-play' and structure as CoD: Zombies, with a whole new cast (maybe get Horror actors as lead characters to play), completely 'new' origin story (not WW2 Nazi's to 'fit' the CoD name) - a 'spiritual' successor if you like, that will be 'exclusive' where Game Pass exists. PS CoD: Zombie fans may well be left out and 'annoyed' that no more CoD:Zombies games will come and have to 'make do' with replaying all the existing games or sign up to Game Pass.
Infinity Ward could make a 'new' first Person shooter campaign to bring all those PS fans of Infinity Ward 'Campaigns' to Game Pass, or maybe want to try a 3rd Person Action adventure after decades of CoD only. Sledgehammer may have their own IP's they want to make, High Moon could revisit their 'Darkwatch' IP (PLEASE), and Beenox could make a Kart Racer/Smash Bros type game with characters from Spyro, Crash, Banjo, Conker, Psychonauts, Halo, Perfect Dark, Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Hexen, CoD, Fable, Hellblade, Skyrim, Redfall, Gears of War, Fallout etc EXCLUSIVELY to Game Pass.
No matter how much better the COD games would be in an every other year release, it certainly would not lead to twice as much revenue. It would not lead to twice as many sales and it would cost more to produce. From a business standpoint the yearly releases would be the most profitable.
It comes down to can Phil convince Microsoft exec's that less profit would be good for their gaming platform.
If you take the support studios off the COD production it would just take the remaining teams longer to produce the same product. So a year off in between releases could essentially get us the exact same product we have now.
It would get different projects in the pipeline but COD wouldnt see much of an improvement and its releases would be halved.
Wow people actively wanting a ten year gap between games.
As I said before these takeovers result in less games. Some may claim in the case of COD that’s a good thing. I think over the two large companies and Xbox’s own IPs it’s a stretch to spin in positively.
On the article topic, yes my guess is the series will start coming out every 2 years, or who knows, maybe every 3 years. It would also hurt Sony since it seems their marketing deal is not based on specific titles but instead on years (like, maybe the next 3 years worth of CoD need to have marketing campaigns exclusively mentioning PlayStation and with some exclusive content, that will hurt if there is only one game in the next 3 years.)
Regardless of that, I expect once the deal is entirely through, and contractual obligations met, that future standalone entries will be 100% XBox/PC/GamePass exclusive. This includes multiplayer modes, whole package, will start skipping PlayStation.
@Tharsman 100% agree with you
@Somebody "It comes down to can Phil convince Microsoft exec's that less profit would be good for their gaming platform."
There is a reason his title is now CEO of Microsoft Gaming. He is in charge. He is the one that anyone has to convince. The only blessing he needs from high above is to open the wallet for another multi-billion dollar acquisition.
Also remember their priority is expanding GamePass. CoD will bring new players aboard, but not as many as variety of titles will. Getting new entries in classic IPs is much more likely to bring new GamePass subscribers.
I literaly said to my partner the day the buyout news broke, that I expected them to drop the yearly releases (looking back at my comments here, I even suggested it as the way forward on wednesday). MS tried yearly releases with Halo and the model just doesn't work long term for most titles.
And, with 3 devs familiar with the series, they can still rotate but allow experimentation when a dev is off series.
@Tharsman there aren't many details of what CEO of Microsoft Gaming is and how it is different from Head of Xbox. He can definitely still be fired if he doesnt perform to the standard that microsoft has set for him.
Dont you think a major part of his pitch to microsoft was look how profitable this yearly franchise is? If they keep the franchise exactly as it is they will have the bestselling game every single year. They didn't buy minecraft to make minecraft dungeons. The deal does have perks of more IP and xbox has enough studios to do stuff but I think a lot of this Activision stuff will be business as usual with an emphasis on game pass (and less sexual harassment).
It would raise eyebrows from execs and shareholders if he broke up such a profitable formula.
@Somebody Given Microsoft/XBox focus, I am sure the pitch was "Activision / Blizard are huge, think about the impact having all those IPs and back catalog in Game Pass will do for Game Pass growth."
Microsoft has made their goals clear for a few years now. They want profitability, but so long things are self-sufficient, the priority is Game Pass growth.
Even if you ignore gaming, Microsoft CEO's primary focus since his start has been primary cloud services, that's precisely how Phil convinced him to give XBox one more chance at life: Game Pass.
If it were one studio pumping out an annual franchise, I'd say yes, give these games more time to incubate. But is three years on a recycled engine not enough?? Just looks what Playground has done in 3 years time with Forza Horizon. Maybe its a question of chops. Also, will more time mean no predatory MTXs in the game? Doubt it. But... but... will someone think of the devs!
@Tharsman he can accomplish all those things without disrupting the call of duty formula. Just being able to say the best selling game on PS is available day 1 in gamepass every year is a huge deal. They would grow gamepass and keep the cash cow of Call of Duty still pumping cash from Sonys massive audience. Xbox would reap the profits while looking like the nice guys.
Honestly annual releases seem appealing to publishers in the short-term, but in the long term it's harmful to devs, publishers, and consumers.
Nothing devalues a brand quicker than getting the same thing year over year. Hopefully moving away from this model will allow for some innovation and refinement in this franchise.
I don’t see why they wouldn’t continue annual releases unless they take sledgehammer out of the rotation. Unless they made COD multiplayer free to play and separated it from the main game.
@Somebody you can say the same about every game they already said is not going to PlayStation.
@PanFriedSoup how long has call of duty been at it? It sells really well to casuals and thats really all Activision, ubisoft, EA, etc care about.
@Somebody True true. Honestly a solid majority of COD players are those who literally drop 500 bucks on next gen hardware only to play COD, same goes for Madden. I'm a bit of a genre-agnostic gamer (besides sports games), so I enjoy COD, but it hasn't been a day one purchase for me since Black Ops 1.
@Somebody "Just being able to say the best selling game on PS is available day 1 in gamepass every year is a huge deal"
But isn't it easier and more effective to just have Call of Duty on Xbox exclusively, then people wouldn't care about purchasing their PS5 copy. I mean, many Call of Duty and FIFA players just play any of those games so if there is no exclusivity they wouldn't care if it's also on Xbox.
@Banjo- Most call of duty players are on Sony, making it exclusive would not lead to 100% of call of duty players leaving Sony. I dont even know if 20% would leave Sony for call of duty. Is it worth it to lose that many players that are dropping $70 every year on this one game? Like you said these are one game players so Game Pass probably isnt for them.
I think a lot players would just migrate to apex or warzone. It would devalue the franchise significantly if it went exclusive.
@Somebody Yep but most of them play on PS4 and they don't mind buying a PS5 or a Series S/X, this is the perfect occasion for Microsoft. Most of them are and will be loyal to Call of Duty, no matter if it's PS5 or Series S/X.
@JayJ this will happen for sure
It would be interesting to see if these studios actually desire to make anything but Call of Duty. Anybody hired recently would surely know that they were signing on to only work on call of duty. I would guess the developers are either really passionate about call of duty or building their resume before leaving for another studio.
Well we already know mw2 is coming this year I won't be buying it though because as I've said on other articles the treatment of modern warfare & the implementation of warzone has made me not want to buy any of there games again
Phil's tweet did nothing to dissuade people from buying a ps5 between now and the next 18 months or whatever until the deal is finalized. Obviously he can't flat out say what his plans are before the deal is done but if his desire was to make call of duty exclusive wouldnt he word that differently so people aren't buying ps5s and locking themselves into another eco system? He could have just said nothing and let people assume they were exclusive like we were. Call of Duty will remain multiplatform.
@Somebody We'll have to see. From a business POV, it would be interesting if players could get the latest COD on GamePass vs having to shell out $70 on PS5, and then having some kind of exclusivity window (like a month?) would lock-in all the content creators to Xbox while still leaving the door open for the masses to play on their platform of choice.
I personally like the yearly release schedule because the quality and amount of content is usually justified by the pricetag, and the older games still have a huge enough player base that it's not essential to migrate.
The thing I do NOT like, however, is the forced Warzone integration. I think it limits the creativity each developer has by locking them into a template. No dolphin diving or crazy gadgets in BLOPS CW because those features wouldn't meld with MW's gameplay systems in Warzone. Will we ever see another futuristic game with wall-running or advanced movement? Or just any notable change in gameplay? Doubtful if it has to play nicely with Warzone.
What's the problem with the current 3 year development, annual release system?
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...