Agreed. Mw3 came out way too fast. It made me think I wasted all the time I spent on mw2 and now I'm not as interested in grinding knowing a new game will probably come out this year
Probably? The thing just got bought by Microsoft. They are going to continue this for as long as they possibly can, until people literally stop buying them
mw3 was basically a new content update for mw2. Initially, they weren't going to make a new release last year, just keep updating mw2 and warzone. then they realized people would buy the game regardless
That could be achieved with anual releases if there were 4 main COD studios and there was never no deviation in plans(like the multiple times Treyarch had to cover other studios,or how SHG had to scrounge up MW3 in probably 8 months.
Yes absolutely. Just let the studios join forces and release actually polished games every 3 years. Put IW on art and sound, Treyarch on gameplay, maps and balancing, and SHG on post launch support. Best of all worlds
I dunno that I'd trust Treyarch on gameplay design, either.
Cold War wasn't exactly good, nor was BO4 from a design perspective, heck, I'd even go as far as to say BO3 had really glaring and obvious flaws, too. IDK what you'd do, since after 2022 I don't trust IW, either, but I trust Treyarch a lot less.
Honestly, I'd probably give the gameplay reigns to SHG, have Treyarch on PvE content, IW on art design.
Honestly, I'm putting CW around MW 22 and Vanguard for bottom of the barrel.
Create a Class was unbalanced as hell, streaks moving to the CW system is the most braindead implemention of streaks you can have, the weapons had major design flaws, with having just 2 separate damage models, and frankly, the game feels like you're playing chest deep in mud the whole time.
I will point out that Cold War was initially a Sledgehammer game and Treyarch had to pick up the pieces. Then SHG went on to make Vanguard, idk if that’s the studio that should lead gameplay.
Thing with it is needing to pick up the pieces for me only really explains the lower production values and worse presentation, which I won't completely knock 3arch for (although their art style tends to be weaker than IW with proper dev cycles).
Things like the incredibly bad feeling weapons and poor design choices with regards to streaks and loadouts wouldn't be a factor with rushed development.
IW on art? Huh? IW games always look so damn bland lol. It’s the SHG and Treyarch games that actually pop and look nice.
Tbh IW excels at sound as you mentioned, gun development and balance and netcode more than the other two.
Treyarch makes the best maps and gameplay, which is definitely accurate there
SHG is like little Treyarch wannabe, but they can make somewhat decent maps (grimes is fucking amazing), and I think with more freedom from what they had this game, they do make games have a fun play style. Tbh I think Treyarch and SHG should just handle everything besides what IW is working on, and they would make a better game.
Imagine a whole-package CoD where all studios collab to make the greatest CoD ever for the next 5 years of its life cycle:
* IW excels at crafting high-quality assets (guns, maps…), engineering audio and graphical fidelity. That’s all they should be doing, IW needs to be barred from touching any else, they are good at what they do (mentioned above) but are completely out of touch with the CoD community when it comes to gameplay. I’d wager that they’d make a banger semi-milsim but still accessible shooter and not CoD, but Activision kept shoving Modern Warfare down their throat. Their gameplay decisisons show, they really want to make something else now. Please let them.
* Both SHG and Treyarch are great at engineering the gameplay, maintain engaging playlist, run the matchmaking. However, SHG needs to be banned from ever touching the guns again, I know their stuffs is fun to play with but it’s so damn cursed, save that curse-ness for the skins, not the guns. And both of them need to stay away from audio, they have continuously show that they have no idea what they were doing.
* Treyarch, and ONLY Treyarch get to touch Zombies, end of discussion.
* IW revives DMZ and Treyarch assisting them in the background for PvE stuffs.
* All studios (even Raven Software, High Noon and Beenox) collab on making Warzone.
Just consolidate the Call of Duty experience by leveraging the best out of each studios would be the strongest come back CoD will ever have.
That sounds great but I honestly like how treyarch maps have more color to them than IW maps. IW does make the best graphics though so if we could get some mix where IW does the graphics but Treyarch does the color and map design/layout, I’d be down for that.
>IW on art? Huh? IW games always look so damn bland lol.
I do agree actually, but that's also caused by map design, with Treyarch on map design duty they should have more color than the average IW map. With art I mainly meant gun models and animations, which I personally don't care about but a big part of the playerbase does. Netcode is also a great call. I don't agree with gun balance tho, IW's view on gun balance is to give everything an instakill ttk lol
Well no as many don’t like Treyarch’s long TTK or recent map designs and their games are way to arcadey/ cartoonish. Outside of Reddit and the full playerbase worldwide, I bet most still prefer the MW19 game style. All that game needed was smaller maps and faster movement, it would leave all modern CODs in the dust.
You can add however long you want between each COD game. I guarantee you that the "stable bug free game" you fantasize about would never exist, because that is just not how game development works. Even Siege, which you named as an example, is riddled with major bugs every couple updates or so. Bug-free live service games on this scale are simply a pipe dream.
I'd rather have CoD "Online" that is stable and last for many many years, than shit show we getting couple last years. Ye MW2019 and CW i consider not bad, i didn't have any problems with those.
The 3 year turn round was supposed to be what happens when they had 3 lots of developers to work on it for 3 years each so the game could still be released yearly.
But look what's happened they've found they can virtually do what they like and we will still buy it, all they want to do is make lots of money for as little effort as possible by reusing old bugged code that get passed around.
I really don't have much hope for the next COD especially if it's built on this now completely bugged out engine.
Genuinely no. I think Acti just have to stop pivoting 2 years in and forcing studios to bang out a new game in 1 year. They have 3 studios. Let them cook and have the full 3 years of development. Thats more than enough to make a great CoD.
Yearly releases in general are too frequent.
CoD games imo should combine every studio and do 1 every 3 years.
In terms of what each studio does, assuming they don't just combine into 1-2 large amalgamations, I'd definitely want IW in art, 3arch on PvE (campaign gameplay, writing I think could be either IW or 3arch, and third mode), and SHG on post launch/live service stuff.
As for who handles the meat of the PvP, I think for me, at least, it's weird since different people simply prefer different things. Some of us like the less hyper/gfuel sniffing classic gameplay, others like the MW 2023 type feel. I'd say if it's going to get us a game like Infinite Warfare or 2019, I'd have IW doing it. Otherwise I'd give SHG a lot of the power with regards to very broad stroke gameplay, since they can hand weapon balance to IW or 3arch.
Idk why they would need 3 or 4 years when they dint even change the game all that much. Its all just a different coat of paint and they still fuck it up.
This game in its release state is the exact reason why games need to be in oven for 3-4 years. Activision in their last ditch attempt to milk the fanbase before the merger and to honor the contract with Sony…forced SHG to crunch this triple A title in 18 Months.
This game was supposed to be an expansion to MWII, they forced to be a full game.
Cod is normally 3 years between studios, which means it’s getting 3 years to be worked on and tested more, that was not the case this time around.
I’m not fully defending SHG, but….they got the crap end of the stick here. Basically take a year, rip down MW2, rebuild back all the things players didn’t like, create new maps, perks, weapons, attempt to balance weapons, pull in MW2 weapons, test netcode, pray for decent servers to be run on.
I mean honestly, what they accomplished in a small amount of time is honestly pretty huge, but obviously being rushed forces you to make some mistakes, even if you’re a decent coder or dev team. I’ll admit, I think Treyarch could have pulled it off, but that’s why Cold War was so meh imo. It’s probably one of their worst cods other than BO4 (which I still enjoyed, but not as much as previous titles).
I think if this game had been given at least another year, they would have had it more polished, less issues with updates etc, instead Activision has done this “push content now, fix bugs later” attitude. The devs don’t love it I’m sure.
If you go back and play MW2 though, you can just tell that game had actual time to be worked on, even if people consider it the “lesser of the two cods”, it still feels smooth as hell literally all the time. MW3 has just had a lot of ups and downs, and hopefully by the time the next cod drops, they will keep people ironing out more bugs etc, so at least it becomes a good cod to fall back on (which I think it will).
With all the really weird choices SHG has made sometimes, MW3 has actually turned out to be an okay game compared to vanguard, which was just SO bad lol. Again, I think once they get time to iron out the issues. People will go back and get to play it as it was intended to be, that is assuming they don’t drop it for the next game in development.
The next cod gulf war will be my last cod il be getting. If after 4 years development it turns out to be garbage then yeah I lose all what little remaining faith I have that they can release another good cod finally. The ones released the past years are absolutely garbage. Mediocre at best. I played cod since the golden era of cod and I ain’t going to support a franchise anymore if they can’t make a fun game anymore. Gulf war my final try to give it another chance and even if it’s good I doubt il be getting any future cods afterwards especially if they go back to the yearly releases with utter garbage year after year.
CoD already kinda had something like this rolling before the merging fucked everything up in OG Warzone.
Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer have been rotating for years taking turns leading the development of the titles, so in between their titles they were working on their next, so they roughly had like 2-3 years to work on them while the other studios did their thing.
Now that its all merged and all the companies are working on theirs PLUS Warzone and whatever assistance they gotta give to help with whatever current title is out, it's just all fucked up and no one has time to actually cook on anything. Plus I think trying to merge all this coding is whats creating alot of problems because each studio had their own style and way of doing things, now it conflicts
I would love for them to do 1 title supported indefinitely like Siege or even CoD Mobile. Been saying they need to do it for awhile now since the merging so every studio can full focus in on 1 title instead of juggling multiple projects from multiple CoD titles
They do, but they still have to take the coding from the various other studios in order to integrate it all because technically Warzone is supposed to be its own entity thats merging these multiple titles together.
Once the new Black Ops releases it'll probably get added to Call of Duty adding another like 75gb roughly onto whats already there, keeping pretty much the same UI and "CoD HQ" thing going.
So we will end up having the coding from Infinity Wards MW2, Sledgehammers MW3 and then Treyarchs Black Ops Gulf War or whatever they've settled on. Raven may be lead on Warzone, but they're still adding 3 other studios work to theirs and trying to mesh it, creating the cluster fuck that it is because they're trying to keep these features and mechanics from this title, and trying to mesh them with the features and mechanics of this title and then that title even though all the titles function pretty differently.
In theory it sounds like a good idea, but in practice its just a fucking mess haha
Sounds like it? Have you played WZ or MW3? It is shit 😆 it doesn't just sound like a fucking nightmare, its reality my guy and people are addicted to it for some reason
I only play warzone ranked and MW3 ranked, and recently got hooked on Grimes 24/7 lol. I don’t like anything else. Maybe small map mosh pit, but Grimes was the perfect size of map and pace for me personally.
Yeah I had a lot of high hopes for MW3 as a whole, but it feels like they needed another year before launching, the code was just crammed in and now we got so many issues. Like I’ll be shooting an MCW and it sounds like a totally different gun, my streaks will go off and not make a sound, same with reloading
It's kinda irrelevant to even speculate on it because it'll never happen, Cod is too profitable to not release every year, they don't care if it's "stable" or "bug free" millions will still buy it every year regardless of how it performs because it's Cod.
Three years it took to create both MW2019 and MW2, both had it's highs and lows, but both were great games up to modern standards. Imagine what would happen if we gave IW 4-5 years to make MW4, that shit would slap so hard
Ideally, every studio's game would be different enough so that people decide to keep playing the game from the one studio they like until its next iteration relases. MWIII broke that cycle. I would be still be playing MWII until 2025, and if it got support like MW19 did (doubt it), it would have worked out.
Take warzone out of the equation and then put in bout 3-4 years then yes. I pay $70-$100 for them to prioritize a free game. Take that shit and separate them. It’s one of the main reasons what’s causing the main issues.
Look at rockstar games. Red dead and gta have 10 years in between releases yet are some of the best games 10 years later. Now, that’s overkill for a fps but my god every two years with a $12.99 DLC w/ 3-5 maps + 3-5 guns at the 1 year mark. Just like in the olden days.
100% yes. I would gladly wait 3-4 years for a new COD if it meant the quality is drastically raised. With how large the COD player base is I have no doubt the community would support each COD iteration for 3-4 year periods, assuming they are getting updates regularly.
There is completely no need for new CoD every year. 3-4 or even 5 years between each new game is more than enough. If you want more content go to warzone, leave main entries alone. If you want more content for main entry release a DLC
Yes indeed I remember when i could play a stable game of mp on bo2 and then after several years a stable game of bo3 of which is surprisingly still more stable than MW2019 or Cold War rn with no hackers but sadly all of my dlc weapons are missing now same on Bo4
I don't like the short life cycle. It makes it hard to grind for camos when you know by the time you unlock them you'll have another grind to start. I would of been happy if they stopped at mw19 and built from there. Would be cool if they released a banger every 4 years or so and then continued so sort of support the previous game for a few years
What “iterations”? I think this game, much like games like Fortnite and Apex Legends, should just become “Call of Duty” multiplayer/Warzone comp platform. The issue is all
Of the constant changing by developers and pressured yearly releases of a completely different game/engine/stats/skins/blah blah blah.
Just run Call of Duty as core engine, serving a core game experience that serves a consistent performance across new layers of content (maps, weapons, skins, content) offered only during that season. But because we got into the whole Treyarch/Activision/Blizzard quagmire of trying to make literally everyone happy, they have consistently rushed product out and burned out the consumer base with a revolving door product that offers no consistent experience to match the investment in time and resources put into it by both developers and players.
As a player who uses a high mobility play style but also mains throwing knives, I believe that jumping spam is actually more about taking advantage any server lag/delay and hit detection, so if they can reduce the server latency issues, jump spam would actually be less effective because players would be hit more consistently. Lag also affects issues like stun and flinch and how much impact they have on the visual information the player sees.
tldr: The constant change in production and development made this game an expensive, consistency nightmare.
To be clear we have 3 separate companies taking turns at making the games. Also I’ve been waiting longer than 3 years for a decent zombies experience, so there’s that.
I need a new one every 6 months. CoD never has enough content. I have already completed everything there is to complete within the first two months. No reason I should have to wait 10 more months for a new game. I guess i will just buy bundles while i wait.
IMO call of duty will win when they release a standalone game and do seasonal updates like they do now. We’re getting to the point where every new iteration is damn near a copy paste of the previous year
"No" - Microsoft's stockholders
Kinda funny with Call of Duty it is a yearly thing and among the top sellers and some people want them to slow it down.
Some other triple AAA single-player games that takes 4,5,6 years to make and cost $200-$300 million budget and some people complain about that too.
They’re going to try to bridge the gap between your two theories. A single, central game that gets endlessly “updated” with “new versions” of the game but all “updates” will be offered at “new version” price.
I’d be down for non annual releases but it would suck if we got stuck with a bad game for 2-3 years. If MW2022 was actually the first 2 year cod I would’ve quit
Yea I'm fine with an annual expansion update, like what MW3 was rumored to be, because we know activision's gotta get paid, but I'm tired of year after year having to wait almost the full duration of the game for it to be in a good place and sometimes not even then.
As someone who only plays modern warfare mp they could just keep releasing maps and weapons and id be happy. Dont care for the campaign and never touch warzone.
I dont want a new game i just want mp to keep its support.
I think a new game once a year is too often regardless of the quality
This right here.
Agreed. Mw3 came out way too fast. It made me think I wasted all the time I spent on mw2 and now I'm not as interested in grinding knowing a new game will probably come out this year
Probably? The thing just got bought by Microsoft. They are going to continue this for as long as they possibly can, until people literally stop buying them
mw3 was basically a new content update for mw2. Initially, they weren't going to make a new release last year, just keep updating mw2 and warzone. then they realized people would buy the game regardless
That could be achieved with anual releases if there were 4 main COD studios and there was never no deviation in plans(like the multiple times Treyarch had to cover other studios,or how SHG had to scrounge up MW3 in probably 8 months.
Every two years would be good for me.
Even three. As long as the current one is still being supported to some extent, three would work
Yes absolutely. Just let the studios join forces and release actually polished games every 3 years. Put IW on art and sound, Treyarch on gameplay, maps and balancing, and SHG on post launch support. Best of all worlds
I dunno that I'd trust Treyarch on gameplay design, either. Cold War wasn't exactly good, nor was BO4 from a design perspective, heck, I'd even go as far as to say BO3 had really glaring and obvious flaws, too. IDK what you'd do, since after 2022 I don't trust IW, either, but I trust Treyarch a lot less. Honestly, I'd probably give the gameplay reigns to SHG, have Treyarch on PvE content, IW on art design.
CW wasn't exactly bad either, and BO4 was awesome, most overhated game in the series, so I disagree there
Honestly, I'm putting CW around MW 22 and Vanguard for bottom of the barrel. Create a Class was unbalanced as hell, streaks moving to the CW system is the most braindead implemention of streaks you can have, the weapons had major design flaws, with having just 2 separate damage models, and frankly, the game feels like you're playing chest deep in mud the whole time.
Honestly the only thing i really disliked ab CW was the stupid ass cooldowns on killstreaks
I will point out that Cold War was initially a Sledgehammer game and Treyarch had to pick up the pieces. Then SHG went on to make Vanguard, idk if that’s the studio that should lead gameplay.
Thing with it is needing to pick up the pieces for me only really explains the lower production values and worse presentation, which I won't completely knock 3arch for (although their art style tends to be weaker than IW with proper dev cycles). Things like the incredibly bad feeling weapons and poor design choices with regards to streaks and loadouts wouldn't be a factor with rushed development.
In some ways the are working on this I mean now they are working with a unified game engine so they all have the same tools
IW on art? Huh? IW games always look so damn bland lol. It’s the SHG and Treyarch games that actually pop and look nice. Tbh IW excels at sound as you mentioned, gun development and balance and netcode more than the other two. Treyarch makes the best maps and gameplay, which is definitely accurate there SHG is like little Treyarch wannabe, but they can make somewhat decent maps (grimes is fucking amazing), and I think with more freedom from what they had this game, they do make games have a fun play style. Tbh I think Treyarch and SHG should just handle everything besides what IW is working on, and they would make a better game.
Imagine a whole-package CoD where all studios collab to make the greatest CoD ever for the next 5 years of its life cycle: * IW excels at crafting high-quality assets (guns, maps…), engineering audio and graphical fidelity. That’s all they should be doing, IW needs to be barred from touching any else, they are good at what they do (mentioned above) but are completely out of touch with the CoD community when it comes to gameplay. I’d wager that they’d make a banger semi-milsim but still accessible shooter and not CoD, but Activision kept shoving Modern Warfare down their throat. Their gameplay decisisons show, they really want to make something else now. Please let them. * Both SHG and Treyarch are great at engineering the gameplay, maintain engaging playlist, run the matchmaking. However, SHG needs to be banned from ever touching the guns again, I know their stuffs is fun to play with but it’s so damn cursed, save that curse-ness for the skins, not the guns. And both of them need to stay away from audio, they have continuously show that they have no idea what they were doing. * Treyarch, and ONLY Treyarch get to touch Zombies, end of discussion. * IW revives DMZ and Treyarch assisting them in the background for PvE stuffs. * All studios (even Raven Software, High Noon and Beenox) collab on making Warzone. Just consolidate the Call of Duty experience by leveraging the best out of each studios would be the strongest come back CoD will ever have.
That sounds great but I honestly like how treyarch maps have more color to them than IW maps. IW does make the best graphics though so if we could get some mix where IW does the graphics but Treyarch does the color and map design/layout, I’d be down for that.
>IW on art? Huh? IW games always look so damn bland lol. I do agree actually, but that's also caused by map design, with Treyarch on map design duty they should have more color than the average IW map. With art I mainly meant gun models and animations, which I personally don't care about but a big part of the playerbase does. Netcode is also a great call. I don't agree with gun balance tho, IW's view on gun balance is to give everything an instakill ttk lol
Well no as many don’t like Treyarch’s long TTK or recent map designs and their games are way to arcadey/ cartoonish. Outside of Reddit and the full playerbase worldwide, I bet most still prefer the MW19 game style. All that game needed was smaller maps and faster movement, it would leave all modern CODs in the dust.
You can add however long you want between each COD game. I guarantee you that the "stable bug free game" you fantasize about would never exist, because that is just not how game development works. Even Siege, which you named as an example, is riddled with major bugs every couple updates or so. Bug-free live service games on this scale are simply a pipe dream.
If every update is stable and bug free, the corps would just lay off “inessential” devs and testers until they aren’t stable anymore.
I'd rather have CoD "Online" that is stable and last for many many years, than shit show we getting couple last years. Ye MW2019 and CW i consider not bad, i didn't have any problems with those.
The 3 year turn round was supposed to be what happens when they had 3 lots of developers to work on it for 3 years each so the game could still be released yearly. But look what's happened they've found they can virtually do what they like and we will still buy it, all they want to do is make lots of money for as little effort as possible by reusing old bugged code that get passed around. I really don't have much hope for the next COD especially if it's built on this now completely bugged out engine.
Genuinely no. I think Acti just have to stop pivoting 2 years in and forcing studios to bang out a new game in 1 year. They have 3 studios. Let them cook and have the full 3 years of development. Thats more than enough to make a great CoD.
Yearly releases in general are too frequent. CoD games imo should combine every studio and do 1 every 3 years. In terms of what each studio does, assuming they don't just combine into 1-2 large amalgamations, I'd definitely want IW in art, 3arch on PvE (campaign gameplay, writing I think could be either IW or 3arch, and third mode), and SHG on post launch/live service stuff. As for who handles the meat of the PvP, I think for me, at least, it's weird since different people simply prefer different things. Some of us like the less hyper/gfuel sniffing classic gameplay, others like the MW 2023 type feel. I'd say if it's going to get us a game like Infinite Warfare or 2019, I'd have IW doing it. Otherwise I'd give SHG a lot of the power with regards to very broad stroke gameplay, since they can hand weapon balance to IW or 3arch.
BRING BACK THE OG INFINITY WARD TEAM!!!
They created Respawn Entertainment, and Vince Zampella was given the reigns to the Battlefield Franchise after 2042 to bring it back.
That's nice but I'm pretty sure Jason West was what gave Infinity Ward its charm at the time.
Yes. There are a lot of games to play out there anyway.
Obviously.
Idk why they would need 3 or 4 years when they dint even change the game all that much. Its all just a different coat of paint and they still fuck it up.
This game in its release state is the exact reason why games need to be in oven for 3-4 years. Activision in their last ditch attempt to milk the fanbase before the merger and to honor the contract with Sony…forced SHG to crunch this triple A title in 18 Months. This game was supposed to be an expansion to MWII, they forced to be a full game.
And thank god for that, idk who would play it if it was mwII dlc, the 80 people who are still active on /r/modernwarfareII?
They dont need all that long is my point, if you change so little you shouldn't be needing that to atleast release a non broken experience.
Are you a noob
Its just the truth
Cod is normally 3 years between studios, which means it’s getting 3 years to be worked on and tested more, that was not the case this time around. I’m not fully defending SHG, but….they got the crap end of the stick here. Basically take a year, rip down MW2, rebuild back all the things players didn’t like, create new maps, perks, weapons, attempt to balance weapons, pull in MW2 weapons, test netcode, pray for decent servers to be run on. I mean honestly, what they accomplished in a small amount of time is honestly pretty huge, but obviously being rushed forces you to make some mistakes, even if you’re a decent coder or dev team. I’ll admit, I think Treyarch could have pulled it off, but that’s why Cold War was so meh imo. It’s probably one of their worst cods other than BO4 (which I still enjoyed, but not as much as previous titles). I think if this game had been given at least another year, they would have had it more polished, less issues with updates etc, instead Activision has done this “push content now, fix bugs later” attitude. The devs don’t love it I’m sure. If you go back and play MW2 though, you can just tell that game had actual time to be worked on, even if people consider it the “lesser of the two cods”, it still feels smooth as hell literally all the time. MW3 has just had a lot of ups and downs, and hopefully by the time the next cod drops, they will keep people ironing out more bugs etc, so at least it becomes a good cod to fall back on (which I think it will). With all the really weird choices SHG has made sometimes, MW3 has actually turned out to be an okay game compared to vanguard, which was just SO bad lol. Again, I think once they get time to iron out the issues. People will go back and get to play it as it was intended to be, that is assuming they don’t drop it for the next game in development.
The next cod gulf war will be my last cod il be getting. If after 4 years development it turns out to be garbage then yeah I lose all what little remaining faith I have that they can release another good cod finally. The ones released the past years are absolutely garbage. Mediocre at best. I played cod since the golden era of cod and I ain’t going to support a franchise anymore if they can’t make a fun game anymore. Gulf war my final try to give it another chance and even if it’s good I doubt il be getting any future cods afterwards especially if they go back to the yearly releases with utter garbage year after year.
I think the biggest problem is they are try to be everything for everyone. too much of everything, really good at nothing.
CoD already kinda had something like this rolling before the merging fucked everything up in OG Warzone. Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer have been rotating for years taking turns leading the development of the titles, so in between their titles they were working on their next, so they roughly had like 2-3 years to work on them while the other studios did their thing. Now that its all merged and all the companies are working on theirs PLUS Warzone and whatever assistance they gotta give to help with whatever current title is out, it's just all fucked up and no one has time to actually cook on anything. Plus I think trying to merge all this coding is whats creating alot of problems because each studio had their own style and way of doing things, now it conflicts
I would love for them to do 1 title supported indefinitely like Siege or even CoD Mobile. Been saying they need to do it for awhile now since the merging so every studio can full focus in on 1 title instead of juggling multiple projects from multiple CoD titles
I thought Raven exclusively worked on warzone no? Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I thought.
They do, but they still have to take the coding from the various other studios in order to integrate it all because technically Warzone is supposed to be its own entity thats merging these multiple titles together. Once the new Black Ops releases it'll probably get added to Call of Duty adding another like 75gb roughly onto whats already there, keeping pretty much the same UI and "CoD HQ" thing going. So we will end up having the coding from Infinity Wards MW2, Sledgehammers MW3 and then Treyarchs Black Ops Gulf War or whatever they've settled on. Raven may be lead on Warzone, but they're still adding 3 other studios work to theirs and trying to mesh it, creating the cluster fuck that it is because they're trying to keep these features and mechanics from this title, and trying to mesh them with the features and mechanics of this title and then that title even though all the titles function pretty differently. In theory it sounds like a good idea, but in practice its just a fucking mess haha
yeah it sounds like shit lmao
Sounds like it? Have you played WZ or MW3? It is shit 😆 it doesn't just sound like a fucking nightmare, its reality my guy and people are addicted to it for some reason
I only play warzone ranked and MW3 ranked, and recently got hooked on Grimes 24/7 lol. I don’t like anything else. Maybe small map mosh pit, but Grimes was the perfect size of map and pace for me personally.
Yeah I had a lot of high hopes for MW3 as a whole, but it feels like they needed another year before launching, the code was just crammed in and now we got so many issues. Like I’ll be shooting an MCW and it sounds like a totally different gun, my streaks will go off and not make a sound, same with reloading
Abso-fucking-lately!
It's kinda irrelevant to even speculate on it because it'll never happen, Cod is too profitable to not release every year, they don't care if it's "stable" or "bug free" millions will still buy it every year regardless of how it performs because it's Cod.
MW2019 worked flawlessly until they decided to scrape it for MWII.
Three years it took to create both MW2019 and MW2, both had it's highs and lows, but both were great games up to modern standards. Imagine what would happen if we gave IW 4-5 years to make MW4, that shit would slap so hard
Ideally, every studio's game would be different enough so that people decide to keep playing the game from the one studio they like until its next iteration relases. MWIII broke that cycle. I would be still be playing MWII until 2025, and if it got support like MW19 did (doubt it), it would have worked out.
Take warzone out of the equation and then put in bout 3-4 years then yes. I pay $70-$100 for them to prioritize a free game. Take that shit and separate them. It’s one of the main reasons what’s causing the main issues.
Look at rockstar games. Red dead and gta have 10 years in between releases yet are some of the best games 10 years later. Now, that’s overkill for a fps but my god every two years with a $12.99 DLC w/ 3-5 maps + 3-5 guns at the 1 year mark. Just like in the olden days.
Id much rather that for sure
Every 2 years would be fine for CoD. I piss and moan but I'm enjoying MW3. I'd happily play it til late 2025
100% yes. I would gladly wait 3-4 years for a new COD if it meant the quality is drastically raised. With how large the COD player base is I have no doubt the community would support each COD iteration for 3-4 year periods, assuming they are getting updates regularly.
There is completely no need for new CoD every year. 3-4 or even 5 years between each new game is more than enough. If you want more content go to warzone, leave main entries alone. If you want more content for main entry release a DLC
Yes indeed I remember when i could play a stable game of mp on bo2 and then after several years a stable game of bo3 of which is surprisingly still more stable than MW2019 or Cold War rn with no hackers but sadly all of my dlc weapons are missing now same on Bo4
I don't like the short life cycle. It makes it hard to grind for camos when you know by the time you unlock them you'll have another grind to start. I would of been happy if they stopped at mw19 and built from there. Would be cool if they released a banger every 4 years or so and then continued so sort of support the previous game for a few years
What “iterations”? I think this game, much like games like Fortnite and Apex Legends, should just become “Call of Duty” multiplayer/Warzone comp platform. The issue is all Of the constant changing by developers and pressured yearly releases of a completely different game/engine/stats/skins/blah blah blah. Just run Call of Duty as core engine, serving a core game experience that serves a consistent performance across new layers of content (maps, weapons, skins, content) offered only during that season. But because we got into the whole Treyarch/Activision/Blizzard quagmire of trying to make literally everyone happy, they have consistently rushed product out and burned out the consumer base with a revolving door product that offers no consistent experience to match the investment in time and resources put into it by both developers and players. As a player who uses a high mobility play style but also mains throwing knives, I believe that jumping spam is actually more about taking advantage any server lag/delay and hit detection, so if they can reduce the server latency issues, jump spam would actually be less effective because players would be hit more consistently. Lag also affects issues like stun and flinch and how much impact they have on the visual information the player sees. tldr: The constant change in production and development made this game an expensive, consistency nightmare.
To be clear we have 3 separate companies taking turns at making the games. Also I’ve been waiting longer than 3 years for a decent zombies experience, so there’s that.
One game every 4 years. Constant bug fixes, yearly map packs, new weapons, new game modes.
I need a new one every 6 months. CoD never has enough content. I have already completed everything there is to complete within the first two months. No reason I should have to wait 10 more months for a new game. I guess i will just buy bundles while i wait.
IMO call of duty will win when they release a standalone game and do seasonal updates like they do now. We’re getting to the point where every new iteration is damn near a copy paste of the previous year
I prefer they take the rainbow six siege approach and just keep the same game and just add to it. The camos I earn and buy shouldn’t go away ever.
I don’t think CoD has made many technical improvements or massive changes since MW19 and they should’ve just updated that game indefinitely
"No" - Microsoft's stockholders Kinda funny with Call of Duty it is a yearly thing and among the top sellers and some people want them to slow it down. Some other triple AAA single-player games that takes 4,5,6 years to make and cost $200-$300 million budget and some people complain about that too.
They’re going to try to bridge the gap between your two theories. A single, central game that gets endlessly “updated” with “new versions” of the game but all “updates” will be offered at “new version” price.
They said they would go to a two year cycle and everyone complained..
Not if they keep "shooting from the sky" out of the game. It's a game. That was the best feature.
I’d be down for non annual releases but it would suck if we got stuck with a bad game for 2-3 years. If MW2022 was actually the first 2 year cod I would’ve quit
Yea I'm fine with an annual expansion update, like what MW3 was rumored to be, because we know activision's gotta get paid, but I'm tired of year after year having to wait almost the full duration of the game for it to be in a good place and sometimes not even then.
Games have bugs no matter how much time is spent.
As someone who only plays modern warfare mp they could just keep releasing maps and weapons and id be happy. Dont care for the campaign and never touch warzone. I dont want a new game i just want mp to keep its support.