Call of Duty series switching to three year development cycle

[Infinitron]

There will now be three different CoD developers. Ghosts didn't sell that well, so I guess they figured it was time to invest some of those billions in MOAR production quality: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/02/06/sledgehammer-games-developing-2014s-call-of-duty-release

Sledgehammer Games Developing 2014's Call of Duty Release
Series changing to three-year development cycle.

This year's Call of Duty is in development at Sledgehammer Games, Activision revealed during its investor earnings call today.

"For the first time, this years Call of Duty game, and future Call of Duty games, are being built on a three year development cycle," the publisher also revealed. 'There are several advantages to doing this, the first is, of course, quality. This will give our designers more time to envision and to innovate."

This would put developer Treyarch's presumed next Call of Duty in a 2015 release window, with Infinity Ward following suit in 2016.

Earlier this year, Sledgehammer posted a job listing for a "next-gen Call of Duty game." Sledgehammer previously assisted on development of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.

 

[Wilian]

The cost of game doubles but it's still linear 4 hour popamole is my prediction. Then they can complain about increased developement costs and the pressure to increase the price.

 

[CrazyDiamond]

This will give our designers more time to envision and to innovate.

That's... somewhat good, I guess?
And maybe with more development time they can add some actual content to those games. Just maybe.

Either way, one CoD per year is still way too much. They need to slow it down and focus on creativity instead of bigger budgets. If it goes that way, they'll just run the series more and more into the ground, just like Guitar Hero.

Can't wait.

 

[Drew]

If they could decrease the development team, and work on a different IP instead of pumping it all back into CoD, it might be beneficial.

 

[Menckenstein]

This will give our designers more time to envision and to innovate.

That's... somewhat good, I guess?
And maybe with more development time they can add some actual content to those games. Just maybe.

Either way, one CoD per year is still way too much. They need to slow it down and focus on creativity instead of bigger budgets. If it goes that way, they'll just run the series more and more into the ground, just like Guitar Hero.

Can't wait.

Actual content? I'm not sure what you mean but all they're going to add is more HOLLYWOOD AS FUAAAAK scenes that were in all the other MW games but now they have to spend more time and money to develop for the new wave of obsolete neutered consoles.

It's like Madden, there are people who literally only buy the Madden games and play no other titles, same with CoD. Buy the same rehashed shit year after year with slight tweaks.

 

[WhiteGuts]

I find it amazing that they can seemlessly change development teams each year. Like mass produced goods. This can only end well, I guess.

 

[DalekFlay]

 

[Diablo169]

Call of Duty died when the original Infinity Ward did, everything post Modern Warefare 2 has just been EA hiring different studios to fuck the corpse. There have been fleeting moments of awkward and disgusting pleasure, but they vanish like tears in rain.

Even some of my more diehard COD friends have switched to Battlefield in favor of ghosts, and I'm talking about people who queued at midnight back in the day. The change in development cycle could be positive thing, but honestly I think console gamers are going to need a new "must buy" franchise sooner rather then later. The series has gotten beyond stale now.

 

[TedNugent]

Maybe if I buy one of the 3 Call of Duties released every 3 years, one of them will actually be good?


They were already doing annual releases, so the only thing that changed here is they added another garbage developer to extend the development cycle per release while maintaining the annual release, which is their real prerogative. It doesn't address the issue of consumer fatigue, but maybe it will actually pay dividends in terms of quality.

I'm surprised they aren't committed to destroying the Call of Duty IP. Activision must be running out of exploitable multi-million dollar properties to run into the ground like they did to Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero.

 

[Outlander]

So now they'll be releasing 8 hour long turds every 3 years instead of 4 hour long turds every year... 'k.

 

[racofer]

It's going to be shit even if it took them 10 years.

 

[AngryKobold]

"For the first time, this years Call of Duty game, and future Call of Duty games, are being built on a three year development cycle," the publisher also revealed. 'There are several advantages to doing this, the first is, of course, quality. This will give our designers more time to envision and to innovate."

Yeah, makes sense. Creativity, vision and innovation are SO VALUED in THAT business!

Only two options come to my head:

1) FPSs are not FIFA games. Whoa, finally someone noticed... that's way better to release less titles but more DLC modules.

2) The intelligence flood out of the payroll, so hammerheads at Sledgehammer need time to get their shit together.

 

[Infinitron]

So now they'll be releasing 8 hour long turds every 3 years instead of 4 hour long turds every year... 'k.

I think you misunderstood; until now, Call of Duty games took two years to develop. There were two developers so they had alternating annual releases. It's still going to be annual now.

 

[dnf]

Hater's gonna hate

WhiteGuts

I find it amazing that they can seemlessly change development teams each year. Like mass produced goods. This can only end well, I guess.

It does end well at least up till Black ops 2, unless you don't like billions of dollars.

Diablo169

Call of Duty died when the original Infinity Ward did, everything post Modern Warefare 2 has just been EA hiring different studios to fuck the corpse. There have been fleeting moments of awkward and disgusting pleasure, but they vanish like tears in rain.

Hater's gonna derp. Are you some kind of boycott Modern Warfare 2 fag?

The cost of game doubles but it's still linear 4 hour popamole is my prediction. Then they can complain about increased developement costs and the pressure to increase the price.

Don't forget multiplayer and spec ops

 

[dnf]

Also, funny how the series sell less the moment they put womyn in the game. Probably not the cause, but a recurring bad omen whenever decline is involved(in this case, decline in sales).

 

[Machocruz]

The road to awesome product and craftsmanship: have an inflexible release schedule laid out years in advance.

 

[CrazyDiamond]

This will give our designers more time to envision and to innovate.

That's... somewhat good, I guess?
And maybe with more development time they can add some actual content to those games. Just maybe.

Either way, one CoD per year is still way too much. They need to slow it down and focus on creativity instead of bigger budgets. If it goes that way, they'll just run the series more and more into the ground, just like Guitar Hero.

Can't wait.

Actual content? I'm not sure what you mean but all they're going to add is more HOLLYWOOD AS FUAAAAK scenes that were in all the other MW games but now they have to spend more time and money to develop for the new wave of obsolete neutered consoles.

It's like Madden, there are people who literally only buy the Madden games and play no other titles, same with CoD. Buy the same rehashed shit year after year with slight tweaks.

I mean other stuff like innovative gameplay and a decent campaign instead of shitty action sequences. The action scenes can be good, depending on how they treat them. For instance, games like Bayonetta. I know that's not gonna happen since Activision just wants to port Michael Bay movies to consoles, but yeah.

 

[Menckenstein]

This will give our designers more time to envision and to innovate.

That's... somewhat good, I guess?
And maybe with more development time they can add some actual content to those games. Just maybe.

Either way, one CoD per year is still way too much. They need to slow it down and focus on creativity instead of bigger budgets. If it goes that way, they'll just run the series more and more into the ground, just like Guitar Hero.

Can't wait.

Actual content? I'm not sure what you mean but all they're going to add is more HOLLYWOOD AS FUAAAAK scenes that were in all the other MW games but now they have to spend more time and money to develop for the new wave of obsolete neutered consoles.

It's like Madden, there are people who literally only buy the Madden games and play no other titles, same with CoD. Buy the same rehashed shit year after year with slight tweaks.

I mean other stuff like innovative gameplay and a decent campaign instead of shitty action sequences. The action scenes can be good, depending on how they treat them. For instance, games like Bayonetta. I know that's not gonna happen since Activision just wants to port Michael Bay movies to consoles, but yeah.

When it comes to sequel mill games like these change = death.

 

[CrazyDiamond]

Ah yes. I remember some time ago a bunch of 13 years old rioting the internet because they nerfed some gun.

 

[deuxhero]

Note this does not mean they are dropping yearly releases. Previously they were on a 2 year cycle with 2 teams alternating releases. At best you get 1.5 years.

 

[taxalot]

They said "innovate"?

 

[Kane]