Support NeoGAF

[WitchHunter]

Strong words...

Excitement for more creative freedom under Xbox

I'm all tears. They advertised the XBOX Platform framework or what the heck was that, so DEV PEOPLE COULD CONCENTRATE MOOORE ON CREATIVE SIDE OF THINGS. Now, 10 years later we'll see whether they succeed.

 

[Danteyke223]

I want Infinity Ward to do a Infinite Warfare 2, and a multiplayer mode similar to BF2142. The first game was such a missed opportunity to create a new and interesting massive battle type of thing for online. Such a shame the game got shat on when it was actually one of the longest, and most expansive campaigns.

Now it's boots on the ground for years now killing Russians or Middle Easterns.

On the topic of no more yearly releases. Yeah you can't have both, you either just support Warzone, and maybe 3-4 years a new COD game. You can't just have 12 studios work on one IP for everything else to rot, and MS is actually focusing on diversity of ideas and IPs (even if they are sequels at times like Psychonauts 2)

The same thing needs to happen for BF franchise, let it rest for 2-3 years, or even 5 and create something new.

 

[MrFunSocks]

What a nothing tweet/article. Blind Freddy can make any of these guesses.

Warzone will be the constant game that is always there being updated. It will remain on PS5 and will be updated til the PS6.

I’d say they’ll start staggering FPS games so they have games like Doom one year, COD the next, Quake/Wolfenstein/Overwatch the next. Big new Halo every 4-5 years. All exclusive to Xbox. They basically own the FPS market now. Maybe could do 2 per year to keep it so it’s only say 2 years between iterations of COD. Maybe a May and November release of flagship FPS games, that would be enough to lock down FPS fans on their platform.

 

[Leyasu]

I did think that it was possible that Microsoft breaks the COD cycle.

Warzone can be their BR cashcow, it will free up a shit load of studios and talent who can work on different I.Ps to feed the Gamepass machine, and they use that as an excuse to stop putting new CODs on Playstation after 2023.

Bring back Vince Zampella to run the COD franchise and let the other studios fly solo and great things can come from this.

 

[mortal]

More time in the oven could potentially make COD an interesting series again.
Regardless of how much money is thrown at it, there's only so much they can do on an annual/biennial release schedule. Which is probably why the series was so formulaic for so long.

 

[jigglet]

343i can teach them a little about how to take their time. COD once a decade?

 

[Sosokrates]

Going on a 2yr cycle would probably do the franchise some good, gives the devs more time and gives the formula a break, keeps it fresher.

 

[Andodalf]

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

Raven too

 

[chromhound]

Time to turn the franchise into a horror suspense shooter

 

[Filth]

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

moder warfare was a generation ahead of cold war and black ops, vanguard. I would still be playing that game today if they continued to make content.

 

[Vognerful]

What does this mean for future CoD titles on PS5?

 

[EDMIX]

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.

The fact that this IP was the best selling last year, I doubt that greatly. COD's dip in sales all the time from each title to title, as in MW reboot sold 30 million units...that doesn't sound like a fucking series that "isn't what it once was", shit you could argue that it isn't what it once was in terms of last gen sales...sure, because COD has sold MORE FUCKING UNITS during the PS4/XONE gen then PS3/360 gen, so I don't see any evidence to support what you are saying and in fact the opposite is happening, the IP gained more popularly.

Stop using 1 game to pretend suddenly something has changed, the games dip in sales based on era or what team is making a COD etc, but I see no fucking evidence that skipping a COD is magically going to do anything, if someone hates WWII, they won't buy that COD, doesn't matter if its this year or next year, if anything it means they'd lose even MORE money cause they just skipped an entry.

So even with Vanguard sales not being 100% MW2019's, none of that matters, it ranked #1 world wide and moved a fuck ton of units for Activision, this while bullshit of telling us that it sold less then the last is irreelvant to MS, trust me when I'm telling you this, the game moving 20 million instead of 30 million doesn't have anyone worried and its silly to really believe the number 1 game last year really has the publisher upset or something, if anything you'll just see them try to replace that 1 team thats making those low selling COD's for another team, but the yearly release I don't really see it in jeopardy.

Also dear god stop with this insulting shit like "get people to purchase some of their other franchises" why the fuck did they buy Acitivsion if they didn't want COD sales? Ohhhhh so stop making a IP, to sell another IP, ummmm why did you buy this publisher if you didn't want to sell its IP? A market exist for Doom, Halo, Call Of duty etc, they can buy what the want and you can't fucking force them to buy "other franchises" , it makes it sound like people just buy games by default and you can just cattle them in to buying Peppa Pig FPS or some shit just cause some IP isn't coming out that year, that doesn't mean that install base will buy ANYTHING, i see no evidence of that.

Spread out the releases and put them all out, if a market existed to buy them all before, they still exist to buy them all now.

I don't see how it being 1 publisher now suddenly changes that.

 

[YukiOnna]

Raven too

Raven's the main developer behind Warzone, right?

 

[tusharngf]

fear if a layoff is nothing new in the IT space or gaming industry. Anyday can be your last day. Happened to me twice lol.

 

[BusierDonkey]

I'm just as good at predictions as Schreier

Prediction: I might have diarrhea if I eat McDonald's.

Don't forget to like and subscribe, now I'm off to chase an ambulance.

 

[Andodalf]

Raven's the main developer behind Warzone, right?

Yep. No way they get out of that, and honestly I doubt they’d want to, that’s fantastic job security

 

[YukiOnna]

Yep. No way they get out of that, and honestly I doubt they’d want to, that’s fantastic job security

Having just the original 2 + Raven is good for CoD. Warzone would give them breathing room and other studios can work on what they want if MS desires.

 

[Spukc]

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.

You should read his book i heard it’s great!

 

[BadBurger]

We get a "story" like this every other year. Seriously.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Jason has been "crunching" lately.

 

[kadab]

 

[Roufianos]

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

You won't be getting a WW2 COD for a very long time after the reception of Vanguard.

 

[Godot25]

Layoffs are probably inevitable but overall this is a good thing

Ehh. Why?

Call of Duty was on yearly schedule not because of size of main teams (infinity ward, sledgehammer and treyarch) but because Activision sacrificed every other support studio to COD cause.

So, if Microsoft decide to ditch yearly schedule, you can spun off one of the main Call of Duty studio (Sledgehammer for example) so they can make whatever they want, keep only Treyarch and Infinity Ward and by making a franchise bi-annual every team would have 4 years instead of 3 years to develop main game and through live service you can make people play longer.

And by that you can have more diverse portfolio because studios like Sledgehammer, Toys for Bob, High Moon Studios etc. can make their own games.

 

[hemo memo]

Good or maybe alternate between single player and multiplayer.

 

[Hendrick's]

Call of Duty on an every other year cadence with two dev teams alternating, would give it a 4 year dev cycle.

 

[Andodalf]

Call of Duty on an every other year cadence with two dev teams alternating, would give it a 4 year dev cycle.

1. Infinity ward cod
2. Warzone update
3. Trey/sledge cod
4. COD zombies game/ live service update

 

[Dr. Claus]

Its as likely as Jason Schreier getting journalistic integrity. Its possible, but very very low probability.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

What they don't tell you is they're ditching annual releases for one every six months.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

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.

Kottick is not leaving.

Creative freedom sure - but if you think this is a code word for fucking slacking and delaying the game for a few years you’re out.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Its as likely as Jason Schreier getting journalistic integrity. Its possible, but very very low probability.

nah it’s more probably than you think. MS will own COD, Doom, Quake, Halo, Overwatch, Wolfenstein, and probably a few other big FPS names I’ve missed. They don’t need a new COD every year, especially with Warzone which has fast become the top (or top 2) console game on both Xbox and PlayStation, and their biggest revenue driver.

 

[Kokoloko85]

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

I dont understand why people dont want it yearly.

Campaign is quite short and enjoyable, so I dont mind a yearly Cod. Even though I normally buy them a year or 2 after release when there on sale but its still cool. I love zombies mode and I rare play the multiplayer so I guess Im not the usual player

And its not like they are rushing it, they have 3 teams, taking 3 years each.

Maybe it will be better for the multiplayer? But it would still be 1 team taking 3-4 years, so I dont see how it will improve anything?
Are people bored of yearly instalments? I guess it could makes the 1 team work harder, so more innovation?

 

[intheinbetween]

Shocking news, no one expected that!

/sarcasm

Right now MS Studios is a FPS powerhouse:

Halo
Perfect Dark
Dishonored
Doom
Wolfstein
Heretic
Quake
Call of Duty
Hexen
Overwatch
Soldier of Fortune
Gun
Singularity
Timeshift

With so many FPS ips I don’t think MS has the need to continue milking CoD on a yearly basis. I can see them focusing on a major release designed as a GaaS during a 2-3 year period, pretty much like Halo.

Then, Microsoft is one of the best places to work for, actually after all that’s been said about the toxicity environment working for AB, this surely boosts the morale of the current AB employees.

And as other gaffers said, layoffs will come specially to those positions with redundacy as usual with most of M&As, hopefully those affected land on their feet.

 

[Killer8]

Ditching the yearly release cycle is not happening. Activision's insane revenue is what attracted Microsoft to buy them, and is heavily driven by having a yearly Call of Duty release. Microsoft would not buy a company and then change the release frequency of its golden goose which contributes a large chunk of said revenue. It makes no sense. At best you might see more investment into manpower to make each release smoother.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Shocking news, no one expected that!

/sarcasm

Right now MS Studios is a FPS powerhouse:

Halo
Perfect Dark
Dishonored
Doom
Wolfstein
Heretic
Quake
Call of Duty
Hexen
Overwatch
Soldier of Fortune
Gun
Singularity
Timeshift

With so many FPS ips I don’t think MS has the need to continue milking CoD on a yearly basis. I can see them focusing on a major release designed as a GaaS during a 2-3 year period, pretty much like Halo.

Then, Microsoft is one of the best places to work for, actually after all that’s been said about the toxicity environment working for AB, this surely boosts the morale of the current AB employees.

And as other gaffers said, layoffs will come specially to those positions with redundacy as usual with most of M&As, hopefully those affected land on their feet.

Sure, they have a lot of IPs, but lets see them actually USE said IPs.

Halo has been a shitshow ever since 343i has taken over.

Perfect Dark is finally getting. A new game, of which we know nothing about so far, after a 17 year long hiatus.

Dishonored has no current plans for a sequel.

We know nothing about DOOM/Quake and I don’t think id will risk lending IPs out again after the travesty of Wolfenstein II, Youngbloods, and the piss poor VR title.

Hexen/Heretic, Singularity, Timeshift, GUN, Soldier of Fortune. Many of these franchises/titles haven’t had a sequel in nearly 20+ years or only ever had one release. Hell, many of them were incredibly subpar, even for their time! Even if Phil wants to see Heretic/Hexen come back, that would be at least 3-5 years off. Longer if its a AAA title.

And hell, MS has had hundreds of arguably larger franchises laying dormant for years with no forseeable return. Still waiting on a Banjo Kazooie threequel, a proper one. Or Voodoo Vince. Grabbed by the Ghoulies. Phantom Dust.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Ditching the yearly release cycle is not happening. Activision's insane revenue is what attracted Microsoft to buy them, and is heavily driven by having a yearly Call of Duty release. Microsoft would not buy a company and then change the release frequency of its golden goose which contributes a large chunk of said revenue. It makes no sense. At best you might see more investment into manpower to make each release smoother.

Warzone is now the golden goose.

Yearly COD games will be Xbox exclusive and less frequent if the buyout happens imo. I’d say every 2 years.

 

[The_Mike]

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.

I agree.

I never bought the game after MW 19 because it couldn't beat the perfect formula.

Should've ditched Warzone and just dlc mw19 multiplayer and make it f2p.

 

[JoeyWestSide]

If a yearly release is super important then they should get a 4th studio to add to the cycle. Quality goes up, crunch (in theory and right up until release) should go down.

 

[CrashNBurn_281]

Kottick is not leaving.

Creative freedom sure - but if you think this is a code word for fucking slacking and delaying the game for a few years you’re out.

Kottick is sure as shit leaving. He is getting a retirement check the likes we shall never see.

He also pretty much stated if they need me I'll be here statement. They wont need him. He is too much controversy.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If they ditch annual releases, that's a lot of redundant employees, or shift them to make other games.

 

[MrFunSocks]

If they ditch annual releases, that's a lot of redundant employees, or shift them to make other games.

They’re entire studios so of course they’ll just have them make other games.

 

[JoeyWestSide]

Warzone is now the golden goose.

Yearly COD games will be Xbox exclusive and less frequent if the buyout happens imo. I’d say every 2 years.

Xbox would be missing out on ~700 million every year by not releasing on PS (just game sales, not counting dlc/skins, which, is higher margin). The equivalent is ~3.9 million gpu subs. Xbox will get these 3.9 mil subs organically despite releasing on PS. They could get sales, subs, AND goodwill / positive publicity.

With some help from Epic, Infinity Ward and Activision broke the walls for cross plat play. CoD needs to be on all platforms.

My thoughts, CoD will be on all plats as usual. Overwatch has 50 million sales (me thinking out loud after a quick search), this could be exclusive, but that has a massive player base too similar to CoD, so I could see this being left alone as well.
Really, it's the Diablo's, Crash's, Guitar Hero's, Tony Hawk's, Sekiro's, etc of the world that will be exclusive. I don't think it actually helps gamepass to not release its biggest franchises on PS. It allows people to go, oh, I didn't have to spend this much money this month. All Xbox has to do is keep things as is. Keep your promises to your users (day and date 1P games to GP) and don't try to coerce others to join. Just keep saying, best value in gaming, and they'll join organically. This is how you provide value to multiple people and businesses especially with monopoly / consolidation concerns of the public while still making money.

 

[DavidGzz]

Just long enough to keep the next one off of PS5 like trolls. Then have a bigger and better one for 2023.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Xbox would be missing out on ~700 million every year by not releasing on PS (just game sales, not counting dlc/skins, which, is higher margin). The equivalent is ~3.9 million gpu subs. Xbox will get these 3.9 mil subs organically despite releasing on PS. They could get sales, subs, AND goodwill / positive publicity.

With some help from Epic, Infinity Ward and Activision broke the walls for cross plat play. CoD needs to be on all platforms.

My thoughts, CoD will be on all plats as usual. Overwatch has 50 million sales (me thinking out loud after a quick search), this could be exclusive, but that has a massive player base too similar to CoD, so I could see this being left alone as well.
Really, it's the Diablo's, Crash's, Guitar Hero's, Tony Hawk's, Sekiro's, etc of the world that will be exclusive. I don't think it actually helps gamepass to not release its biggest franchises on PS. It allows people to go, oh, I didn't have to spend this much money this month. All Xbox has to do is keep things as is. Keep your promises to your users (day and date 1P games to GP) and don't try to coerce others to join. Just keep saying, best value in gaming, and they'll join organically. This is how you provide value to multiple people and businesses especially with monopoly / consolidation concerns of the public while still making money.

$700 million revenue is chump change to a company that just spent $70bil in straight up cash. They’d also make a significant portion of that extra for Xbox when cod js exclusive because they will get lots and lots and lots of people jump ship from PlayStation to Xbox just like they did last gen.

Microsoft don’t care about “goodwill” from people buying their games on their competitors console, giving them 30% of all revenue for doing nothing, still buying all their other games on PlayStation. They want to push Sony out of the market essentially, and you don’t do that by making games for them.

Again - Microsoft didn’t release halo infinite on PlayStation. Why not? Why is Starfield now Xbox exclusive? Surely the “goodwill” and revenue from selling all their games on PlayStation would be worth it?

It’s just amazing that people are still living with these delusions that Microsoft are going to keep releasing games on PlayStation. It makes zero sense. When sony bought insomniac did they release Spider Man, a third party IP, on Xbox?

When Disney bought Fox did they keep releasing all fox shows and movies on Netflix etc?

 

[DryvBy]

I wish people would quit listening to him. He's basically a daily horoscope who can get it right sometimes but he's usually just guessing.

 

[Shubh_C63]

I would actually give COD a try if they were not annual.

Just the feeling that the product is crafted with care and not made in a factory that churns out product makes me interested.

 

[MrFunSocks]

I would actually give COD a try if they were not annual.

Just the feeling that the product is crafted with care and not made in a factory that churns out product makes me interested.

Each COD actually has 3 years development time. Why does it matter that a new one comes out every year when they're all different and with full development lengths?

 

[Shmunter]

Each COD actually has 3 years development time. Why does it matter that a new one comes out every year when they're all different and with full development lengths?

Dilutes the player base, some move, some don’t. It’s like dlc, but in a full game package.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Dilutes the player base, some move, some don’t. It’s like dlc, but in a full game package.

Each game sells like 20 million copies every year, there’s no player base problem.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Xbox would be missing out on ~700 million every year by not releasing on PS (just game sales, not counting dlc/skins, which, is higher margin). The equivalent is ~3.9 million gpu subs. Xbox will get these 3.9 mil subs organically despite releasing on PS. They could get sales, subs, AND goodwill / positive publicity.

No. If you spend 70b, you certainly do not do that for 700m yearly revenue MS does not expect to return this money from the purchase by selling games on Playstation. Not releasing the game on Playstation will allow to bring people to Game Pass, while keeping on Playstation will allow people stay on Playstation.

The fact that this IP was the best selling last year, I doubt that greatly.

I believe the dip was due to WW2 setting. I think people are tired of World War games in general.

 

[Shmunter]

Each game sells like 20 million copies every year, there’s no player base problem.

I must be the only one that’s playing MW still then