Activision Confirms 'Premium Release' Planned For Call Of Duty In 2023

Wondering if this is the 3rd title of the PS/CoD deal, and also if it could ever be on GP like Gears 5: Hivebusters if it isn't MW3R.

The sooner they make a full release the sooner they will be fine with Sonys deal and the sooner we start seeing CoD hit game pass day one. If this is true, CoD 2024 will be when we start seeing that happen, so yay.

No thanks. You can keep it.

@Kaloudz If you think about the timescales, that 'extra' 3yrs beyond Sony's current arrangement with A/B would effectively take Call of Duty to the end of the Current Hardware Generation.

A Console Generation is 'currently' about 7yrs and we are already 2yrs into this, another couple of years to see out Sony's deal with A/B would take us up to about 4yrs into this gen, with about 3 more years to go. So that is virtually saying that whilst the PS5 is their main platform, then Call of Duty will have Parity. They cannot 'promise' to release on hypothetical hardware or make promises they cannot keep. If Sony decide not to make a PS6 or they won't send a 'Dev Kit' to MS in fear of disclosing what 'secrets' they have, how can MS promise to keep 'shipping' to Playstation. If Sony ditch the Console and 'rely' on Streaming, MS aren't going to release their AAA games into Sonys subscription service to play on PC, TV, Mobiles etc - not when they have Game Pass bringing CoD to those platforms - so only if Sony make a Playstation and supply Dev Kits (and CoD doesn't go F2P) will MS 'ship' to Playstation.

That's why I believe MS offered 3yrs guaranteed - that would take them up to the 'end' of the current generation. Beyond that, they can't guarantee that Sony will have a new console, send them dev-kits etc to ensure the Devs can actually port their game to that hardware etc let alone whether or not CoD actually remains a 'yearly' game with so many Studio's tied up in just one IP once MS have ownership - they may restructure so only 1 Studio makes CoD or maybe they integrate MP into Warzone so all 'online' is F2P so 'not' selling CoD or making Annual releases. Just keeping Warzone and MP updated with content year after year...

Please be MW2 (2009) Multiplayer Remastered.

@Kaloudz They always maintained that they 'expected' it to close by the end of their Fiscal year - so whether it happens sooner or later, its nothing we weren't led to believe from the outset.

Rumours get people talking and clicking, as well as a bit of mud slinging, but I will only believe its happened when MS officially announce it, and until then, nothing really changes - and that includes what is currently going on with A/B's studios. It may take time to implement MS changes, honouring current development plans - but maybe they want just 1 Studio making CoD and freeing up those other Studio's to make whatever games they want.. Who knows...

Not full price honestly.

They would have to release or showoff this "extra content" because it sounds like BS, so they can charge us $70.

@Kaloudz I remember back in the day when it was just Infinity Ward and when they brought in Treyarch, it was because Infinity Ward needed more time for CoD4: Modern Warfare and that 360 era games would require more development time. By the XB1 era, games needed even longer so Sledgehammer started making games but as you know, the other studio's (Raven, Neversoft, Toys for Bob etc) ended up either supporting those studios or being swallowed up by those studios to ensure CoD releases annually regardless of how much 'longer' each new game is taking...

MS has stated many times that they want their Studios to have their own identity, making the games 'they' want and of course, bringing those to Game Pass. If you look at 'every' studio, each has its own identity and style. Whether its Bethesda, Arkane, Obsidian, 343, Coalition, DoubleFine or Tango for example - they all have their own identity.

To me, that seems like MS would 'prefer' a single studio making CoD - whether its IW, Treyarch etc or they 'create' a CoD studio from those staff and then those other studios are 'free' to make the games they wanted - whether new IP's or games in their growing portfolio of IP's, they will want each Studio to have its 'own' identity and games...

@Kaloudz It could even be Raven - after all they are basically running much of the Online portion so IW, Treyarch and Sledgehammer can focus on the Single Player. If they merged MP into Warzone for example and rotated through Eras every year for example - they have years worth of Maps they could 'update' for every era, as well as make a few 'new' Maps and have a massive suite.

For example, one year its 'historical', next year 'modern' and the year after 'near future' settings, EVERY CoD map through the entire History, regardless of whether it was designed for WW2 era or Future, could be updated/reskinned to suit each era, and rotated 'in or out' as and when people want a change - one month, it could be 'Black Ops maps', the following month Advanced Warfare maps the month after, the top 20 maps as voted for by the Community from the entire history of CoD maps.

If you have the 'infrastructure' in place to keep running Warzone and a MP suite, updating 'old' maps as well as creating some 'new' maps, you don't really need a 'Big' Studio. Its not as if you are making 'new' campaigns with Story writers, animators, actors etc. You have a 'massive' pool of maps and several different Eras to mix up the content and keep it feeling fresh with rotating through what they already have - a small team to take old maps and bring them up to date in 3 (or more) different eras. So you might not get a 'new' campaign every year, but the MP/Warzone could react more to the Community, fed up of WW2 era, then switch to Modern Era instead of having to wait until the 'new' CoD comes out. Maybe they could even have multiple Eras simultaneously - a WW2 era playlist alongside a modern era playlist to give players a choice...

Point is, we don't really know what may happen in the Future, don't know what plans MS has, what those studios/staff want, whether we will get 'hardware' for next gen - especially with inflation and the technological specs required to run those games. MS and no doubt Sony are 'prepared' to lose money right now to subsidise hardware sales, hoping the consumers will buy games, accessories and/or Subscriptions to offset that loss. MS don't 'need' to sell Consoles now as their games can be accessed through any device - so get you to Subscribe bringing in a 'guaranteed' income every month - whether they have games for sale or not and if you Subscribe on PC/Mobile, MS hasn't subsidised those gamers...

Point is, MS may not 'bother' with making Hardware for the 'next' gen - everything is 'playable' on XB1/Series hardware through the Cloud so will consumers spend another $600+ to play games 'locally' when you can play over the cloud on whatever devices you have - maybe even at 'higher' quality too because they couldn't make the next box powerful enough to run the game at 60fps and still make it 'affordable' - especially as they will probably have some 'cheap' plug in streaming device and if you really want to play 'locally', you could perhaps buya PC. MS is losing money on 'every' console sold, but lose nothing to PC/Cloud gamers so if they dropped out of the Console market, they'd lose 'no' money and yet everyone can still play Xbox games on whatever device they have. They don't know what Sony's plans are so can't guarantee that Sony will make a PS6 or even give them a dev kit, They would inherit a PS5 Dev Kit and besides, its 'old news' now and the devs would be well aware of the PS5 system to port games to it.

Therefore, it makes sense that MS basically guaranteed a 'minimum' of 3yrs total parity which would effectively see them through this generation. They still need to discuss their plans/ideas with A/B's studios, speak to them about their plans/ideas/ambitions etc, transition them into 'Xbox' and discuss where they see things going. None of the A/B studios or MS can really talk about what they 'hope' may happen and the Studio's have to keep doing what A/B expected.

It will take 'time' for MS to integrate and merge A/B into their ecosystem and discussing 'plans', what games they are going to make, going to fund etc and until the deal goes through, they cannot discuss what MS has planned and those Studio's have to continue doing what A/B has instructed them to do.

@Kaloudz The main point I was trying to make is that MS can only promise 'so much' and it will take time for them to transition A/B into Xbox. No doubt, they are all working on CoD - as that is what A/B wants - a CoD every year and as games take 'years', they need to plan several years ahead so if IW release 'this years', they will probably start (if they haven't already) on their 'next' CoD because that's what 'A/B expects them to do.

Guaranteeing them another '3yrs' on top of honouring any 'current' arrangements gives them time to integrate into MS and decide how they intend to move forward. Also enables those teams to finish whatever CoD games they started, expected to make before giving them opportunities to make other games and letting them 'plan' what they want to make 'next'.

If you are expected to make CoD, you don't really get to think about what games you really want to make, let alone plan etc so that 3yrs also gives them a chance to plan for life after CoD - if that's the direction MS goes.

I am sure MS would rather have 8 studio's making the games they really want, whether its a AAA blockbuster or more experimental or smaller games, to release on Game Pass instead of pushing out a new CoD campaign every year with a MP that really doesn't change that much.

So whether its a Pentiment or Grounded, a Starfield or Redfall, its about giving Devs their own 'identity' and creative freedom, with a eager audience looking forward to playing 'new' games on Game Pass. They want you to be eager to play the next Arkane, Bethesda, Treyarch, Toys for Bob, Double Fine, Coalition etc etc games with the Studio's own identity shining through. You know an Arkane game without needing to see their name because they have their own identity, Ninja Theory seem to be building games around 'Mental Health' with Hellblade and Project Mara, Bethesda, Tango, Id Software etc all have their own identity too so why would A/B be any different under MS? I don't expect everything to 'change' once MS are in control, but over time, I cannot see them letting 8 studios churn out CoD when each Studio could be making games for Game Pass...

So they can't promise to keep CoD on PS not knowing if there will be a 'Physical' Playstation, whether they'll get Dev Kits, whether the game 'runs' on Local hardware, whether they keep CoD as an 'annual' release or make it F2P like Fortnite on any Hardware. MS could make it so Sony never receive a penny from CoD with F2P and a website/app store selling MTX, Season Passes etc for 'less' money as Sony would add 30% for their 'in-store' profit on top of whatever MS take. They could sell it for 20% less and still make more from selling to Sony gamers through Sony's store. Log into the CoD website to buy things for less than through Sony Store on your F2P game - Sony gets nothing...