OLED_Gamer
Member
Glad to hear they will cease selling DLC level of content as full fledged games.
Nadella will hate this.
Nadella will hate this.
A message from the Call of Duty team. ("We will no longer do back-to-back releases of Modern Warfare or Black Ops games")
- Thread starter Tiago Rodrigues
- Start date
clarky
Gold Member
They do already?
mayham2199
Member
Nah I disagree here. The revenue drop from not releasing COD every single year will be even worse.
Last edited:
clarky
Gold Member
Thats exactly what it is, just like MWIII. But they charge full price for it. I'm sure the bean counters figured out it is more profitable this way
Mephisto40
Member
Activision's Idea of "starting something new" will probably be to just put out another WW2 game...
Get ready for the classic "Boot's on the ground" jargon again
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
At this moment in time I am taking a year's break from COD and all about Battlefield 6. But I would still love it if COD took a true leap forward while maintaining the smooth gameplay. Probably would benefit greatly from extra time to develop a new foundation to build on each year. But I don't think its really feasible right now unless MS is willing to lose a lot of money in the year they take off.
That said, maybe they've been doing that behind the scenes and that's why they did two straight years of MW and then BLOPS?
BiggStankDogg
Member
I will say that while a poor selling CoD still sells more than just about every title, the downward trend should be concerning - especially for a company hellbent on mindshare and engagement. I am (or was) a diehard Duty fan and I haven't played one minute of BO7 since BF6 has been so much fun. And that seems to be the anecdotal consensus that's dominating the conversations.
Not only that, but plenty of successful things have been discontinued not because of failure, but because of not being successful enough. I'm not sure in this case if an outright flop would signal trouble - the fact that franchise fatigue is apparently setting in, others performing better than anticipated in the space and diminished returns for the franchise might make MS a little nervous about their purchase.
Not only that, but plenty of successful things have been discontinued not because of failure, but because of not being successful enough. I'm not sure in this case if an outright flop would signal trouble - the fact that franchise fatigue is apparently setting in, others performing better than anticipated in the space and diminished returns for the franchise might make MS a little nervous about their purchase.
They will never do that, biannual would need every release to do twice the amount of money to compensate, Activision branch of ABK is entirely built on that, the only way to cover up would have multiple successful releases from other IPs in non-COD years.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
This is happening regardless. Releasing a COD every other year to make each one better ensures the longevity of the franchise.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
BigLee74
Gold Member
Folk thinking that MW2-MW3 and BO6-BO7 were nothing but 'DLC'. 
That's some amount of content for 'DLC'! Whole new campaigns, 30+ new MP maps, whole new Zombie modes (if that's your bag).
Say what you like about COD, but it has NEVER shirked on content and quality of content for each release.
That's some amount of content for 'DLC'! Whole new campaigns, 30+ new MP maps, whole new Zombie modes (if that's your bag).
Say what you like about COD, but it has NEVER shirked on content and quality of content for each release.
ReyBrujo
Member
Well, if going with sales one would say it's not a matter of quantity but quality, they just don't like that it's going the gaas way. Soon you will have to play the single player campaign mode in online multiplayer... oh, wait...
Reizo Ryuu
Member
MWIII had more content than MWII and dunked on it quality wise as well, but yeah "dlc".
BO7 is packed with content and the seasonal stuff is looking to be absolutely insane biggest support every kinda shit, but yeah "dlc"
nemiroff
Member
It does have a single player campaign.
He'just trying making a point about it being "online" (and easy to co-op). In his mind it's obviously a bad thing, but I for one appreciate it being more aligned with the rest of the game, counting progress and XP just like multiplayer, zombies and warzone.
Also the campaign is kinda supernatural, and some didn't find it COD enough for that reason. And again; I for one didn't mind that.
Also, it has a new mode called "Endgame" which came as a positive surprise to many.
Anyway, for what it's worth, Black Ops 7 is a better game as a package than 6 in every way.
Last edited:
clarky
Gold Member
That exactly what it is but repackaged as a full priced game, hence the apathy and low sales.
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
They should kill the Call of Duty HQ. Let each game to be its own application.
phant0m
Member
Yup. The move should have been "Free DLC for BO6" along with a 40% price cut on BO6. Drive sales & engagement within the title vs splitting player base
BF6 doing a good job so far with the Seasons/events and content drops bringing players back and driving engagement
Rocco Schiavone
Member
The Last one that I bought was Modern Warfare II(2022). Fuck this Crap. Satisfied with Battlefield 6.
jzbadblood
Member
With low sales I'm afraid we'll never get a shotgun like the Akita ever again. I've been waiting for a new S12 since BO2.
They really poured a ton of maps and cool guns into this game. The playlists and modes are already stacking up. It's a really great multiplayer game. The campaign was garbage and I haven't played the zombies yet.
They really poured a ton of maps and cool guns into this game. The playlists and modes are already stacking up. It's a really great multiplayer game. The campaign was garbage and I haven't played the zombies yet.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Eh, for BLOPS4 they ditched the entire campaign and just shipped MP and Zombies because they couldn't get shit together.Folk thinking that MW2-MW3 and BO6-BO7 were nothing but 'DLC'.
That's some amount of content for 'DLC'! Whole new campaigns, 30+ new MP maps, whole new Zombie modes (if that's your bag).
Say what you like about COD, but it has NEVER shirked on content and quality of content for each release.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Has BLOPS7 performed poorly?
ChoosableOne
ChoosableAll
Apologies and promises. Phil, is that you? It's like a corporate tradition at this point.
Interfectum
Member
Unrivaledx88
Member
Bro its not even COD anymore
Its all Movement in this Bullshit, now with Grappling hook.
Its a Spiderman game with movement. Game sucks
Its all Movement in this Bullshit, now with Grappling hook.
Its a Spiderman game with movement. Game sucks
BigLee74
Gold Member
The exception (and from 7 years ago)
But they did provide Blackout if Battle Royale was your bag (and that's obviously where the dev time went), so there was still a lot of content there.
Last edited:
mayham2199
Member
Yes but the amount that the revenue will drop this year will be even worse if they never even released a game. This game is still a top seller even if it's not #1. If you made a yearly game and it was #1 for 10 years straight but then dropped to #4 are you really just going to stop making the game every year because your not #1? Most companies would sell their soul to have a top 5 selling game every single year. That also sells a ton of microtransactions on top of it.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Honestly, Microsoft bought this company a couple of years back. How long can they keep this going? There's a reason Bobby Kotick sold the company too. And while yall are talking about revenues missed, making a $600 Million game every year cost alot of money!
What happens if by 2030 COD stops selling over 10 million units a year?
mayham2199
Member
600 million? In 2020 it was 700 million. It's probably up to 800 by now. I don't know how long they can keep this going because this is the first bad year they've had but they also had a ton of competition between BF6 and Ark. Next year they'll have GTA 6. I'm holding any judgement on this series future until 2027.
If the sales drop that low though then I imagine we will see a lot of changes coming to the series. Maybe they will finally stop doing the yearly releases but at the end of the day the end result will be their revenue dropping massively.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
How the heck does that reused asset game cost so much to make? Something ain't jiving.
sainraja
Member
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Didn't Microsoft state that they had a drop of $300 Million in revenue on the COD game from 2024?
Last edited:
Sales mean nothing? It may be available to the majority of Xbox players but somehow it's the fourth best selling console in a three horse race
mayham2199
Member
I never understood it myself I was shocked to see that 700 million quote. I wouldn't have guessed it was even 300 million honestly.
Yea but there's some question about how that was calculated. Like are they counting every single Xbox\PC user who tried COD through GP as part of that 300 million? Who knows. They without a doubt had a drop in revenue there's no way you couldn't including it on gamepass.
Last edited:
Calverz
Member
Ok. But we don't have to imagine. Because it does?Imagine if it didn't have PS to sell on.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Is that a question, or?
Varteras
Member
Infinite Warfare 2
Here I thought I was the only one who liked that entry. At least the campaign anyway.
Last edited:
clarky
Gold Member
More profitable than doing year 2 dlc. This news doesn't indicate they are moving in that direction unless i missed something.
sainraja
Member
I'm saying, unless I misunderstood you, they tried charging full price for year 2 DLC and it doesn't seem to have worked out, given this update from them, that they won't be doing it.
clarky
Gold Member
I think I may not have been clear. I meant that they must have figured out charging full price and selling less was more profitable than selling more as dlc for a dlc price. MWIII was supposed to be dlc at one point until they changed their minds.
But yeah didn't work out either way. Shame as like I said earlier iterating on the previous year does result the the "year 2 editions" being the better game.
Last edited:
Otakuninja2006
Member
Imagine being so poisonous that you ruin a franchise that has literally never underperformed in its life until you stepped in.
clarky
Gold Member
It literally has.
Activision says Call of Duty: Vanguard "didn't meet expectations" because people don't like World War 2
The company also blames "our own execution" and a lack of innovation
Besides they've only been in charge a couple of years, this strategy was in place before the take over. They likely made things worse with the braindead GP move but still....
Last edited:
Arsic
Loves his juicy stink trail scent
This thread is filled to the brim with illiterate retards who seem to think this means they won't be selling yearly CoD games. Then you got guys thinking this will improve the quality of said games.
The only difference between a black ops game at this point and a modern warfare is which characters they use. They are totally interchangeable. This one has price, this one has Mason.
They can't afford to take 4 years to develop an overhaul because too much money is at stake… BUT they can sell base versions and call them expansions for $40, and give the studios an extra year instead before a totally new title.
Or hire people to be a new studio and take the certified best of the best to work on that new CoD entry and give them 5 years to do a huge overhaul. In the meantime do what they're doing as best as they can until the overhaul CoD drops.
There's plenty of ways to go about this and reinject the excitement but Microsoft won't pony up that investment and will be selling Activision blizzard IPs within 5 years lol.
The only difference between a black ops game at this point and a modern warfare is which characters they use. They are totally interchangeable. This one has price, this one has Mason.
They can't afford to take 4 years to develop an overhaul because too much money is at stake… BUT they can sell base versions and call them expansions for $40, and give the studios an extra year instead before a totally new title.
Or hire people to be a new studio and take the certified best of the best to work on that new CoD entry and give them 5 years to do a huge overhaul. In the meantime do what they're doing as best as they can until the overhaul CoD drops.
There's plenty of ways to go about this and reinject the excitement but Microsoft won't pony up that investment and will be selling Activision blizzard IPs within 5 years lol.
Dr. Samuel Hayden
Member
Phil worked his magic on this one
dgrdsv
Member
No, it doesn't. It is even called "Coop campaign" in the menu and it is very obviously made in all its aspects to be played coop in online. This is as far from a "single player campaign" as it can be.
That one was a travesty. Still don't understand how Sledgehammer went from a good if not great WW2 to this shit.
Then again this seems like a trajectory of all COD studios over the recent years. The last really good COD was BO Cold War.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Featured