He is back !!!
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.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.
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.
Yeah, the time for soldier of fortune 4 is long overdue.Can Raven come out of the basement now?
A lot of CoD fans have also wanted this.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.
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.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.
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.
This I totally agree. They don't want to lose the revenue is generates, that defeats the purpose of acquiring them.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.
Exactly. simple logic would dictate similar sentiment at any companyI 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.
- comment on leader leaving - happy or sad (excited in this case, totalitarian dbag is gone)
- excited for new things (being free in this case, see totalitarian)
- nervous about X (fear of layoffs, which happens in every M&A for 'synergy')
Honestly, this would be good.
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.
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.
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.but those other ip aint yearly. cod is. microsoft will want something big every holiday and now they have that.
I don't smoke...but I was taking the piss.....obviously?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.
Or go back at making great WW games like the original COD 1, 2 and 3
Infinity Ward and treyarch are 100% still going to be making COD
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.but those other ip aint yearly. cod is. microsoft will want something big every holiday and now they have that.
Bias but usually accurate. He’s good at his job.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 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.