I don't think that Activision or any other third party making cross gen games really cares how long it takes them to move over. They're charging $60 no matter the platform, so they're getting their money either way.
I agree with that principal in general. But remember, it isn't any third party's business to sell systems. All they need to do is sell games. If some weird reality happens where the player base keeps buying PS360 games and for the most part never move to the new systems, Activision et al wouldn't be that damaged.
Moving from a massive user base in the PS3 and 360 to a tiny amount with the PS4 and Xbox One makes going next gen only a less profitable endeavor for Activision. I don't think they go next gen only until we have 30 million+ users between the Xbox One and PS4.
Horrid idea, return to the better cod4 maps. Spawns opposite each other, two lanes and mid. Crash, Strike, Crossfire and Backlot were the best maps in that game. CoD4 was played competitively on PC for so long for a reason.
I like the bombastic campaigns of all CoDs. Good fun, albeit extremely dumb. So can't wait for another go round with one of those, but I'll purchase only if I get multiplayer bots. Black Ops 2 and Ghosts didn't disappoint me. Ball's in your camp Sledgehammer.
Cross Gen happens every generation. It may seem a little more obvious at the moment since most major game series are happening on all consoles, but it's not exactly new to this generation. EA always released sports games on previous gen consoles, a lot of companies usually had stripped down versions of popular games on older systems.
I hope it will look as awesomly next gen as TITANFALL.
Seriously though, i dont believe this for one sec. They will have one more embarrasing tech demo at E3 that has tons of glaring technical flaws and brag about 6 year old features thats standard in fpses since 2010 and call it 'new'. If the voice talking about the features is deep enough, and the devs in the interviews look excited enough 90% of the target audience will buy it.
There is some truth to that. For example, Skylanders and Guitar Hero DS were the results of those studios working on it, along whatever else they were working on; and then pitching it to the higher-ups. Both ideas were considered and risky yet they went for it, Kotick liked them and he gave more budget and resources so that they made the best they could.
For Guitar Hero DS they needed Nintendo's help too; so they pitched it to them too...which resulted in Nintendo sending engineers to help development and later a Nintendo DS with the GH logo.
Not sure I believe the hype, as they said I will believe it when I see it. They now have 3 Development studios making COD? if so, thats ridiculous, 2 has been completely over saturating the market, allowing the series to get boring and stale.
I thought 1 of the studios was making a futuristic shooter.
I don't care how next gen it is, just give me a decent campaign for once. When your multiplayer mode is essentially going to be the same thing every game, I'll need something else to keep me coming back. MW2 and WaW had the most exciting campaigns of the franchise and helped to separate it from others like Battlefield.
Also, why hasn't there been a CoD that takes place during the Korean War?