Support NeoGAF

[IbizaPocholo]

 

[Max_Po]

He is back !!!

 

[Elder Legend]

Honestly, this would be good.

 

[Knightime_X]

Layoffs are probably inevitable but overall this is a good thing

 

[STARSBarry]

He is back !!!

I mean sure...

But honestly is he wrong? It's not exactly prophetic, I do think if they stood down CoD for a year and have one of the dev teams get an extra cycle (so 4 years) they could produce something game changing, like the series with Modern Warfare all those years ago.

Well at least give them the chance too.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[Nautilus]

I mean, obviously?

Warzone will be there to pick up the slack, and it makes far more sense to just make it biannual, where the game gets supported with DLC and a big expansion midway through the 2 year gap.

That feels more like a prediction that any of us could make than an scoop.

 

[Kacho]

Can Raven come out of the basement now?

 

[clarky]

This would be good but seriously this guy is a proper hampton. "Inside Activision blizzard this week"? LMFAO tales from inside his asshole more like.

 

[oldergamer]

This guy is a total tool. He blocks anyone on twitter that doesn't agree with him. He's actually pretty biased in his thinking which imo is horrible for someone in his postion.

 

[HTK]

This makes perfect sense to me. Right now all of the Call of Duty developers have shifted over to using the MW2019 engine, so their games are consistent in terms of technology and for better integration with Warzone. Because Cold War wasn't on the MW2019 engine and the integration took some time to polish.

So for those same reasons, MW2019/Vanguard and even Cold War (although not the same engine) but game design approach was pretty much the same. Now we're getting consistent same boring ass experience each year and no real differentiation between the games outside of visuals/time period between the developers. So it's become more stagnant.

In the past you can tell a Treyarch game vs. Infinity Ward vs. Sledgehammer. Today, not so much.

I think it makes sense for Microsoft not to have 8 studios working on Call of Duty (Inifinity Ward, Treyarch, Raven, Sledgehammer, High Moon Studios, Beenox, Demonware, and Toys for Bob).

Right approach here is to let some of these studios work on older IP's we haven't seen in a long time or start new IPs while keeping 2-3 studios work on Call of Duty and not have a crazy yearly releases.

I think this would help Call of Duty turn the franchise around, get more focused and get back to innovating the landscape. Because right now it feels like they are just churning same old same old and people are slowly getting tired.

 

[Kerotan]

I mean, obviously?

Warzone will be there to pick up the slack, and it makes far more sense to just make it biannual, where the game gets supported with DLC and a big expansion midway through the 2 year gap.

That feels more like a prediction that any of us could make than an scoop.

I wouldn't mind a year break here and there. So 2 years in a row then a break. So instead of vanguard give a break. But there's no doubt vanguard provides warzone with a boost. And it still makes hundreds of millions in profits. It's also not a bad game.

 

[Warnen]

Keep warzone up to date and let the main game be a big thing every 2-3 years.

 

[STARSBarry]

This guy is a total tool. He blocks anyone on twitter that doesn't agree with him. He's actually pretty biased in his thinking which imo is horrible for someone in his postion.

It's so easy to resolve this issue people have with him, don't use twitter BOOM! You are now a better person.

 

[MDSLKTR]

 

[kyussman]

Terrible idea,if they want to make their money back on this deal they need to increase COD production,not decrease it.We need a new game every six months.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Expect yearly releases for COD until the end of time it’s the yearly holiday release darling thanks in part to 2K, Madden and FIFA.

 

[TGO]

Make it IW only and get those other Devs making new games and reviving old IP's

 

[fart town usa]

I hope so, COD games are going to sell regardless. Let the developers have some breathing room so they can make something truly stunning.

Hopefully the COD support studios will be able to stretch their wings and create something new. Namely Raven, others have mentioned it but yea, let's get Singularity 2 greenlit!

 

[TheGodfather07]

it needs a rest as its been in decline for a few years now. microsoft need to shake it up when the deal goes through, otherwise it keeps declining even further. i say release one every 3 years and also make an actual good and memorable campaign. a game about war and killing could have a very deep narrative and story. you need time for that. yearly releases have no quality or soul.

 

[EDMIX]

Unlikely.

I don't see MS spending this much money and be like "we now want less money"

The value in that IP also has to do with the ridiculous number of units sold, something based on a yearly release. I don't see that yearly set up changing.

 

[NickFire]

This sounds like pure speculation from the guy in bathroom to me. But maybe I’m wrong and someone spent 70 billion with the intent of cutting production. Must happen all the time, right?

 

[GymWolf]

Can Raven come out of the basement now?

Yeah, the time for soldier of fortune 4 is long overdue.

 

[Arun1910]

I mean sure...

But honestly is he wrong? It's not exactly prophetic, I do think if they stood down CoD for a year and have one of the dev teams get an extra cycle (so 4 years) they could produce something game changing, like the series with Modern Warfare all those years ago.

Well at least give them the chance too.

A lot of CoD fans have also wanted this.

After many years away, MW brought me back to the series only for it to be abandoned after 1 year as usual and then fucked up by other studios integrating Warzone.

 

[chixdiggit]

Unlikely.

I don't see MS spending this much money and be like "we now want less money"

The value in that IP also has to do with the ridiculous number of units sold, something based on a yearly release. I don't see that yearly set up changing.

Except MS now has a large majority of the shooter market and are in large part competing with themselves. Like does it make sense for them to release a new COD along with Halo, Gears, Doom, Overwatch, etc? It would flood their own market.

 

[Raven117]

LOL, CoD will continue on a yearly release schedule....(or maybe something like Assassins' Creed with a year off between releases).

That said...Microsoft, so far, has shown they do give some space for developers to do their own thing.

 

[retsof624]

Modern Warfare should've been fully supported for at least 3 years. It was such a jump in quality for the series and it deserved years of support. We could've gotten a current gen version if that were the case.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Except MS now has a large majority of the shooter market and are in large part competing with themselves. Like does it make sense for them to release a new COD along with Halo, Gears, Doom, Overwatch, etc? It would flood their own market.

but those other ip aint yearly. cod is. microsoft will want something big every holiday and now they have that.

 

[Soltype]

Since sony is done with Uncharted, MS can do a new Pitfall.They are sitting on a ton of IPs and studios.

 

[HundredThousandTrillion]

This guy is a total tool. He blocks anyone on twitter that doesn't agree with him. He's actually pretty biased in his thinking which imo is horrible for someone in his postion.

I didn't go into the article to see who his sources were. But the bullet points in his Tweet can literally be about 95% of companies that get acquired.

1. comment on leader leaving - happy or sad (excited in this case, totalitarian dbag is gone)
2. excited for a new thing (being free in this case, see totalitarian)
3. nervous about this and that (fear of layoffs, which happens in every M&A for 'synergy')

 

[oldergamer]

Terrible idea,if they want to make their money back on this deal they need to increase COD production,not decrease it.We need a new game every six months.

This I totally agree. They don't want to lose the revenue is generates, that defeats the purpose of acquiring them.

 

[oldergamer]

I didn't go into the article to see who his sources were. But the bullet points in his Tweet can literally be about 95% of companies that get acquired.

1. comment on leader leaving - happy or sad (excited in this case, totalitarian dbag is gone)
2. excited for new things (being free in this case, see totalitarian)
3. nervous about X (fear of layoffs, which happens in every M&A for 'synergy')

Exactly. simple logic would dictate similar sentiment at any company

 

[mckmas8808]

Honestly, this would be good.

If MS made Call of Duty a game that comes out every 3 years, that would be great. It needed to stop being an annual released game about 5 years ago.

 

[mckmas8808]

Terrible idea,if they want to make their money back on this deal they need to increase COD production,not decrease it.We need a new game every six months.

What are you smoking? That'll be super stupid! More doesn't always equal better revenue. They need to make a COD release an event, not whore it out worse than Activision was doing.

 

[EDMIX]

Except MS now has a large majority of the shooter market and are in large part competing with themselves. Like does it make sense for them to release a new COD along with Halo, Gears, Doom, Overwatch, etc? It would flood their own market.

They can just spread out their releases....

I'm sorry but I don't buy that they now want less money and want less games coming out cause it will compete with other releases, what the fuck did you think would happen buying 2 fucking publishers? lol the fuck?

Zenimax and Activision and MS all competed with each other in many genres, now that MS owns those 2 publishers, I'm not entirely sure why anyone is shocked they have a list of competing IP within 1 publisher, but clearly all those games were able to exist and move record units together, I don't see how being under 1 publisher now suddenly means someone who owns XB won't buy Halo cause COD is owned by them or won't buy DOOM cause Halo is owned by them or something fucking weird like that.

No one is buying games based on this man, I get that a Battlefield 1 vs Titanfall 2 situation can occur and should be avoided, but Halo and Gears and Doom are not yearly IP, when those titles come up for release, they can just have COD in October, Gears November, Halo December etc.

Not that hard and not enough to really pretend as if they now don't want a yearly COD release as if now they just hate all that money lol They spent 70 billion because the value of that brand and IP is worth that to them and it only got to such a value based on that yearly income in the first place.

 

[chixdiggit]

They can just spread out their releases....

I'm sorry but I don't buy that they now want less money and want less games coming out cause it will compete with other releases, what the fuck did you think would happen buying 2 fucking publishers? lol the fuck?

Zenimax and Activision and MS all competed with each other in many genres, now that MS owns those 2 publishers, I'm not entirely sure why anyone is shocked they have a list of competing IP within 1 publisher, but clearly all those games were able to exist and move record units together, I don't see how being under 1 publisher now suddenly means someone who owns XB won't buy Halo cause COD is owned by them or won't buy DOOM cause Halo is owned by them or something fucking weird like that.

No one is buying games based on this man, I get that a Battlefield 1 vs Titanfall 2 situation can occur and should be avoided, but Halo and Gears and Doom are not yearly IP, when those titles come up for release, they can just have COD in October, Gears November, Halo December etc.

Not that hard and not enough to really pretend as if they now don't want a yearly COD release as if now they just hate all that money lol They spent 70 billion because the value of that brand and IP is worth that to them and it only got to such a value based on that yearly income in the first place.

but those other ip aint yearly. cod is. microsoft will want something big every holiday and now they have that.

Many people have COD fatigue and while still a huge franchise it isn't what it once was sales wise. Wouldn't skipping a year potentially fix that? Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
This would also potentially get people to purchase some of their other franchises that they might not have before.

 

[jaysius]

A broken clock is right twice a day.

Jesus this guy, he just throws random ideas out and hopes that they're founded in reality.

 

[kyussman]

What are you smoking? That'll be super stupid! More doesn't always equal better revenue. They need to make a COD release an event, not whore it out worse than Activision was doing.

I don't smoke...but I was taking the piss.....obviously?

 

[22:22:22]

Or go back at making great WW games like the original COD 1, 2 and 3

My younger brother still raves about that WW2: Nazi Dogs entry whenever CoD comes up. I distinctly remember him talking about how how he liked how the sniper sounded.

 

[Andodalf]

Infinity Ward and treyarch are 100% still going to be making COD

 

[Salty Popsicle]

but those other ip aint yearly. cod is. microsoft will want something big every holiday and now they have that.

Microsoft can have a rotation of Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty, Doom, Quake, and any new IP to check off their blockbuster shooter experience every Holiday. It doesn't have to be Call of Duty every year. The franchise has been getting stale for a long time and the best thing they can do is make it a 2-3 year development cycle with a lot more content and support in-between.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

This guy is a total tool. He blocks anyone on twitter that doesn't agree with him. He's actually pretty biased in his thinking which imo is horrible for someone in his postion.

Bias but usually accurate. He’s good at his job.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Skip 2022, release it exclusively in late 2023

 

[Fake]

Will be the only good part of this acquisition.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I mean sure...

But honestly is he wrong? It's not exactly prophetic, I do think if they stood down CoD for a year and have one of the dev teams get an extra cycle (so 4 years) they could produce something game changing, like the series with Modern Warfare all those years ago.

Well at least give them the chance too.

Agreed. Warzone with all the engagement and earnings from that makes the yearly releases less necessary, so long as they listen to gamers and do what is needed to keep players invested.

 

[Sidney Prescott]

They should have done this for a while. I actually thought Modern Warfare had a good base to carry over multiple years, and I think they should have had a break there. Polish up the game and keep improving it rather than bringing out Cold War after. Vanguard feels even more unnecessary. I think focusing on a game for 2/3 years would be a lot better than yearly releases.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't smoke...but I was taking the piss.....obviously?

 

[mckmas8808]

Agreed. Warzone with all the engagement and earnings from that makes the yearly releases less necessary, so long as they listen to gamers and do what is needed to keep players invested.

EXACTLY!!!!! Activision didn't understand that THEY WON when they made Warzone good. It's literally what the doctor ordered, but they were too greedy to understand that. They could make continued money with Warzone in the same way that Epic makes money with Fortnite. And then make the OG Call of Duty games every 3 years, but make them into larger than life type campaigns. Similar to Halo, God of War, and Zelda games.

 

[Mister Wolf]

Raven should be given an action game within the Starcraft or Warcraft universe.

 

[Droxcy]

I mean they should've done away with this model years ago. The proper 2+ year dev time always made CoD worth playing.