Why can MS make a CoD game every year but it takes every other studio 5+ years to make game?

I'm surprised that OP didn't know there are multiple studios working on CODs to keep the cadence going. Also surprised it wasn't obvious that COD is or at least was basically on a 2 year cycle recently. The in between years could have been dlc, which I think was the original plan for the one that released in 2023.

Plus come on bro. Every year it's almost the same game with refreshed maps and a modified way to earn the same attachments / perks. Basically a sports game now.
 
"CoD is not a sports game, you can't just copy and paste it like FIFA."
Loop Trump GIF

/thread
 
Last edited:
It's very iterative. Makes a tonne of cash. The fanbase is retarded/casual enough to lap it up each year.

I believe EA plan to try to do this with BF again in the next few years.
 
DR3AM said:
Why can MS make a CoD game every year but it takes every other studio 5+ years to make game?
Click to expand...
Hawk The Slayer said:
Wish it was like that for Ratchet and Clank and Resident Evil. The latter is pretty fast but could be faster.

I wouldn't want stuff like Elder Scrolls, Half Life, GTA, and Fallout that fast cause those are meant to be enjoyable for years but Resident Evil and especially Ratchet and Clank are perfect for it.
Click to expand...

CoD games take the same time to be made than similar AAA games.

What Activision does is to have 4, 5 o 6 CoD different games under development at the same time, with more people working on each one than usual in AAA games.

They can afford that because they make a lot of money with CoD.

Insomniac always has at the same time 3-4 games, being only one of them a Ratchet (as of now the other ones are Wolverine, Spider-Man and are starting to work in a new IP). Ratchet sales aren't the same than CoD sales, so can't invest in Ratchet the same that Activision invests on CoD because would mean to go bankrupt.

Capcom has many teams working in many IPs, out of these teams, they normally have 2 working in RE games: one in the next mainline entry and one in the next remake. Plus they normally have a small 3rd one who could be making a VR adaptation, a normal port or some DLC.
 
Last edited:
ozz ex machina said:
It's very iterative. Makes a tonne of cash. The fanbase is retarded/casual enough to lap it up each year.

I believe EA plan to try to do this with BF again in the next few years.
Click to expand...
I don't get this. There's nothing retarded about enjoying what you (and I don't know 20-50 million other people?) enjoy. And COD appeals to casuals and people with thousands of games in their libraries. Frankly, it isn't so casual if you want to be good either.
 
NickFire said:
I don't get this. There's nothing retarded about enjoying what you (and I don't know 20-50 million other people?) enjoy. And COD appeals to casuals and people with thousands of games in their libraries. Frankly, it isn't so casual if you want to be good either.
Click to expand...

I play cod and used to compete. It's still the most casual comp shooter. Heavy aim assist etc.

But also if you take a look at culture. The most popular thing usually is the most retarded thing no?
 
They work on them two to the three years before they are shipped and the have multiple studios working on them as they cycle through the release calendars.

Back in the day it was a treyarch / infinityward thing. So if you worked with treyarch on their titles as a "support" studio you worked with them on the CoD games they worked. The last 5 months of a project the team would do the release process (bug fixes, submission process, etc) and once that shipped you started working (a month to two months later...after you burned a bunch of PT you got from working 5 months with no days off) you would start on the next game in the series you were on and they cycle continued. But it was all worth it to choke supervillain to death with the L&R triggers as you held him underwater.
 
Last edited:
DR3AM said:
MS is smart enough to dedicate its employees to prioritize CoD which makes them money.
Click to expand...
If Microsoft owned CoD from the get go the franchise would have died years ago. This is a publisher that was so bad at releasing games it had to go out and buy two other publishers.
 
Because:

1) They have multiple dev teams working on them
2) Their fanbase's expectations are relatively low
3) They can get away with shitting out glorified DLC
4) Up until this year they've had little competition (but now Tik Tok is a thing :messenger_grinning_smiling: )
 
DR3AM said:
Look at the last 20 years, there's been a COD game out every single year and they sell lot pancakes.
Most were good, some were ok but every single one of them featured a huge MP, some kind of SP (minus one) and/or Zombies.
CoD is not a sports game, you can't just copy and paste it like FIFA. MS is smart enough to dedicate its employees to prioritize CoD which makes them money.

I don't see why EA can't do the same with BF. ubi tried with AC.
Click to expand...
they have multiple Studios
 
I'm not quite sure how people don't believe this is a Microsoft game. It doesn't matter if they purchased the studio. They're still responsible for the ongoing success.

Just like how Sony is responsible for destroying Destiny 2
 
The_Mike said:
Since it's owned by Microsoft and is funded by Microsoft, then it kinda is legit.

It's also Sony who makes destiny and marathon now.
Bungie is just a sub company.
Click to expand...
If you conveniently ignore the fact that Microsoft has only owned them for about 2 - 3 years and the fact that cod has been a yearly franchise LONG before since ms bought them, since cod modern wafare in 2008 or so..................suuuuurrrrre.
 
And not a single one since Black Ops II in 2012 can match Bungie's Halo games. Well forget old school Bungie, they are getting their ass handed over to them by EA now.
 
3 seperate devs, shared engine/tech. each has a 3 year dev cycle...thats the COD machine for ya!



I dont know how they do it though. I would get bored working on one franchise all the time. same for people who make sports games every year. how do you keep making the same thing and not get bored? It would suck the passion out of me, personally.
 
DR3AM said:
Look at the last 20 years, there's been a COD game out every single year and they sell lot pancakes.
Most were good, some were ok but every single one of them featured a huge MP, some kind of SP (minus one) and/or Zombies.
CoD is not a sports game, you can't just copy and paste it like FIFA. MS is smart enough to dedicate its employees to prioritize CoD which makes them money.

I don't see why EA can't do the same with BF. ubi tried with AC.
Click to expand...

spiderman GIF
 
I'm a COD fan (even Black Ops 7) and this question seems silly. At least 50% of every COD game is just copy paste from previous games. Saying 50% is even being generous, it's probably closer to 75%. They just touch up the graphics a bit from a previous game, and update the animations. Create a campaign and done.
 
It's not the same studio that does one every year. There are three primary studios; Infinity Ward, Treyrch and Sledgehammer Games. Each one is working on a title and therefore the cycle for each game is three years.

And yes, this is correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Obsidian isn't interested in making New Vegas 2: After years of working on other people's games, the studio is finding 'joy' in doing its own thing
Opinion Game Dev  2 3
115
675
poppabk replied
Serious Question: Does it make a game better?
2 3 4
174
804
kat_on_the_roof replied
Over 5,000 games released on Steam this year didn't make enough money to recover the $100 fee to put a game on Valve's store
2 3
121
1K
RCX replied
  • Poll
Hot take: Every game should be released in weekly 5-hour episodes, just like TV shows.
Opinion  2 3
132
1K
Felessan replied
Is it just me, or is every new game being forgotten in a week or two after release nowadays?
2 3
130
659
YeulEmeralda replied
Top Bottom