Call of Duty switches to three-studio rotation to aim for quality

By on February 7, 2014, 9:30 AM
activision, call of duty, treyarch, infinity ward, sledgehammer games

Activision wants any upcoming Call of Duty games to be of the highest quality, which is why they've announced a new three studio rotation cycle that gives each developer three years to develop and fine tune their game. The new addition to the regular Call of Duty release cycle is Sledgehammer Games, which co-developed Modern Warfare 3, fitting alongside Treyarch (Black Ops 2) and Infinity Ward (Ghosts).

As has been the case for many years, Call of Duty games will still be released annually, but the new move will hopefully mean each title is more innovative and more polished than the last. Activision Publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg said the move will also "give our content creators more focus on DLC and micro-DLC which, as you know, have become large and high-margin opportunities and significant engagement drivers."

Sledgehammer games will be the developer for this year's Call of Duty game, which Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick described as the "perhaps the best Call of Duty game ever created." Rumors point to the upcoming title being a new installment in the Modern Warfare story arc, although no details about the game were revealed.

Many video game fans believe the Call of Duty series is already quite derivative, despite each title raking in huge amounts of sales and millions in profit for Activision. Hopefully the new three-studio, three-year rotation will bring back the spark that made some of the earlier Call of Duty games so well loved.




User Comments: 32

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | MrBungle said:

"Sledgehammer games will be the developer for this year's Call of Duty game, which Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick described as the 'perhaps the best Call of Duty game ever created.'"

Of course the CEO is going to say its wonderful, what else are they going to say?

1 person liked this | GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

I have a better idea: Don't release a game every year and focus on keeping the CURRENT games better with bug fixes, balances, and MAP PACKS since that's all each CoD is anyway.

3 people like this | treeski treeski said:

Activision is probably the most money grubbing of all the game developers/publishers. I pass on any title they release these days.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

Yeah. The COD franchise used to be great but I lost all interest in it after I wasted money on MW2. I'd like them to go back to a much longer single player campaign and shooting Nazi's again, it was a lot more fun than subsequent titles as far as I'm concerned. I'm about as excited in future COD titles as I am getting the clap.

SirGCal SirGCal said:

This is why I gave up on the CoD lineup long ago. Publishers just wants more $ and they force the developers to spit out a new game every 6 months I think it is now. Regardless of state, situation, etc. They've become just the same thing over and over to boot. The developers are barking hard about not being able to develop, so the publisher throws another company into the mix to give them more time. I still won't buy anything EA or Activision for these reasons. Learned my lesson years ago. It's just not worth it. There are other options out there.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

This is why I gave up on the CoD lineup long ago. EA just wants more $ and they force the developers to spit out a new game every 6 months I think it is now. Regardless of state, situation, etc. They've become just the same thing over and over to boot. The developers are barking hard about not being able to develop, so EA throws another company into the mix to give them more time. I still won't buy anything EA. Learned my lesson years ago. It's just not worth it. There are other options out there.

...........................................................

Activision owns CoD, not EA....

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

This is why I gave up on the CoD lineup long ago. EA just wants more $ and they force the developers to spit out a new game every 6 months I think it is now. Regardless of state, situation, etc. They've become just the same thing over and over to boot. The developers are barking hard about not being able to develop, so EA throws another company into the mix to give them more time. I still won't buy anything EA. Learned my lesson years ago. It's just not worth it. There are other options out there.

I thought the COD franchise was Activision, Not EA.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

...........................................................

Activision owns CoD, not EA....

Looks like we posted simultaneously.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Looks like we posted simultaneously.

lol, guess so since we were only like seconds apart :P

SirGCal SirGCal said:

...........................................................

Activision owns CoD, not EA....

I've been up for 73 hours so far... sue me. Still, another crappy publisher, rest of the argument is exactly the same. For whatever reason, I had EA on my mind. Another massive publisher I stay away from.

3 people like this | Guest said:

Let's milk the cow.

TS-56336 TS-56336 said:

Soo... now there's 3 developers making Call of Duty?

As if having 2 developers wasn't enough of a mess already.

j05hh j05hh said:

Bring back WW2 shooter!

5 people like this | ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

Techspot's product finder says it all at the bottom of the story:

Modern Warfare 3 - 83

Black Ops 2 - 81

Ghosts - 73

You can give a turd an extra year of polish but you're still going to be left with a pile of crap.

1 person liked this | GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Techspot's product finder says it all at the bottom of the story:

Modern Warfare 3 - 83

Black Ops 2 - 81

Ghosts - 73

You can give a turd an extra year of polish but you're still going to be left with a pile of crap.

Yea, the comment of them "Aiming for Quality" is about as false as it comes. Even adding and extra year to "Polish" or whatever is not going to give the game anything better (Maybe some slight fixes before hand). The thing is Activision knows that users are finally getting smart and the reason that a game released on only 2 systems (GTA 5) broke all the records CoD held when CoD could not beat it releasing on a total of 5 Systems is because people realized its the same junk over an over again. Doing this is trying to make a claim its going to "Improve" but in reality its just trying to convince the people to buy it again.

I won't ever buy a new copy of the game ever again, they have already broken my trust completely with their "Copy and Paste" mechanics.

howzz1854 said:

There's a video somewhere, if anyone can find it, of the director of game development being interviewed by the press. and he stumbled when being ask the question on the game engine being use in the game was based on the old Id Tech 3 engine originally developed from quake 3. it's no news to people, but it was just funny watching him fumble. you can put a lipstick on a pig, it'll still be a pig. they've piled on so many updates and features on top of the originally engine and trying to convince people it's not a pig anymore... face it... it's a pig and we can tell. of course fans were eager to jump on and defend the guy that all games were written based on the same engine. BS. unreal was not based on id tech 3, cry was not based on unreal, frostech is not based on cry. I applaud anyone who can dig up that video. it's fun to watch.

wastedkill said:

Yay they are putting the 3 most worst studios to work on call of duty, if they dont atleast put a good studio to work on the damn game its not gonna be any good.

CoD is just another game where if you played the first one you've played them all they are what 10-20yrs late in tech and design? They lie every time and then ask you for a stupid amount of money for 1-2 camo's...

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Everybody is so cynical, but an entire year is a big difference. I hope that they succeed in giving us better quality COD games with this new route.

wastedkill said:

Everybody is so cynical, but an entire year is a big difference. I hope that they succeed in giving us better quality COD games with this new route.

Well obviously not I mean have you played any CoD game on the PC? Its like what 3-4month development then the rest vacation.

1 person liked this | Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Well obviously not I mean have you played any CoD game on the PC? Its like what 3-4month development then the rest vacation.

lol yeah I don't know what they actually do during development time, but I understand why people aren't exactly thrilled with anything Activision says. But I guess I just "hope" it does result in better quality games.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Everybody is so cynical, but an entire year is a big difference. I hope that they succeed in giving us better quality COD games with this new route.

I really do not believe the extra year will make a difference in the games because of the way CoD has been operating for Years. The companies essentially "Share" the info and "improvements" between each other so what you get in reality is them re-skinning a few things and adding a few changes here and there. In reality once the game is "finished" they send the new stuff to the next company and that company changes up and tries to "improve" it for their game. That in actuality leads to still just a year at most dev cycle where they just work on slight improvements with certain mechanics, new gimmicks, and a chance to advertise better. There's a reason the graphics have not changed in 6 years or more and that's because nothing has changed.

I would hope for an improvement as well, but what I would rather have than paying (If you include all the map packs and stuff) $120 a year to play the same game because they immediately drop support for the old game the moment the new one comes out is 2 years per game. That would make the franchise significantly better (I hope) and would give everyone plenty of time to make huge improvements.

Sniped_Ash said:

I don't know how anyone can get excited at paying $60 to play the same modern day shootmans game every single year.

JC713 JC713 said:

The CoD franchise doesnt need a new studio... it needs a new engine along with new original storylines and themes. Too bad the crowd is so large they just buy the games each year regardless.

wastedkill said:

Ghosts gave soo many promises and I personally believed it would deliver but it failed in more ways than the previous games :/ goes to show changes to anything CoD makes it worse.

1 person liked this | Guest said:

I would prefer they release a game every two years instead of this. The logical conclusion of this decision is a 'tri-vergent' mess, where every year CoD feels different and gets weirder over time.

This decision is not based on quality, but on greed. You move from a model years ago, when a passionate team of visionaries create a game that captivates everyone, to sweat shop developers churning out their interpretation of this year's flavour.

Guest said:

CoD: Vietnam.. with vehicles + a new engine = take my money.

NTAPRO NTAPRO said:

CoD: Vietnam.. with vehicles + a new engine = take my money.

always good to dream

Guest said:

2 studio --> 1 title each year (total 2 title in 2 years)

3 studio --> maybe 3 title in 2 years?

someone will create more money here..

:D

Guest said:

MW and blackops are definitely different styles of gameplay despite the gametypes having the same names. In balckops (at least blops 1 anyways), an individual who knows what they are doing can get kill streaks pretty easily whereas MW is a more strategic team oriented multiplayer. Most people don't even realize this when they buy cod games.

Fortyyy Fortyyy said:

Garbage...Ghosts is 100% garbage, BO2 was pretty awful but not AS bad as ghosts, MW3 was a damn nightmare...all these people care about is the sales...cod4 has been out for 7 years now(almost 7) and it's still being picked up in the EU for Lan events and online tournaments as well as a few here in the US...focus on the people you want supporting the game not a bunch of 12 year olds that think they are good at a game that's completely irrelevant. I played competitively in COD2, cod4, bo1, mw3, bo2 and ghosts, all of them except cod2, cod4 and bo1 were awful as hell.

3 people like this | Alpha Gamer Alpha Gamer said:

Techspot's product finder says it all at the bottom of the story:

Modern Warfare 3 - 83

Black Ops 2 - 81

Ghosts - 73

You can give a turd an extra year of polish but you're still going to be left with a pile of crap.

"Fool me once, shame on you. "Fool me every November since 2003, shame on me."

Guest said:

This is beyond laughable and here is why.

The fact that call of duty launches every year.....and its main focus is FPS. You can only go so far before you need a new formula and to be honest their formula quit working after MW 2. COD is so boring and linear I just ...ehhhh. BF4 revolutionized the FPS by changing how the environments work and adding in a plethora of new material. You still get a FPS, but at least it creates different avenues of multiplayer.

...........make a different kind of game for jesus sake.

Guest said:

Take a break for four years or so try something new. How about COD Doodle Bear Tennis or something ?

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.