It's that time of the year again where rumours swirl about when the next Call of Duty will be revealed. After artwork and other material leaked for Call of Duty: WWII, it seems that Activision could be officially announcing it this weekend.
Jason Stettner of Gamerheadquarters writes; "The recent DICE games of Battlefield and Battlefront have both continued to see growth in their sales whereas the Call of Duty franchise has seen a steady decline in recent years, this could very well be a point of which the former beats the latter."
Sales wise, doubt it. Quality rise...well it doesn't make much to beat Call of Duty in quality so yes. The first one beat that year's Call of Duty, way better shooter than COD could ever dream to be...and that was before all the additional content. This year's COD will be interesting since they are going back to WW2 but unless they do something new it will still be the bland reskinned MW4 game than all COD games have been every year.
Completely agree. Going back to WW2 presents a lot of opportunities. I would like to see a few missions where you can't fight back and have to hide like in Outlast. Maybe a story line about being behind enemy lines and having to hide from patrols looking for you. COD just needs a new perspective to make it fresh again.
People going nuts over SWBF 2's new story and yet sadly the new COD's single player campaign will probably still be over double the length of it.
After a lot of rumors and speculation Call Of Duty 2017 seems to be all but a certainty.Dev's say the game's development is going smooth
Man a lot of console gamers just eat this crappy game series up. Don't see why its a let see, its obvious who their target market is at this point for the past 5+ years.
Haven't they done only two anyway? And I think the last one they did was garbage just like all of them have been for the past 5 years now?
Soo does biggest project to date actually even carry any real value here? LMAO
Thinking the same... isn't everyone new one the "biggest" I'm a console gamer. And I'm puzzled as to how this franchise is still relevant.
they say this every year.. i think advanced warfare would had been really good if it was just boots on the ground.
New year, same old description. At least if you are not creative with games, get creative with taglines.
They say the same shit every year. We always end up with the bare minimum of effort, pay to win microtransactions, decades old engine, no servers, and overpriced DLC. Last year they reached a new low by not only locking MWR behind IW but also charging $15 for a map pack that was originally $10. This franchise is every wrong with the gaming industry.
Battlefield 1 has forced their hand. I know so many casuals who now prefer BF1 over COD
Battlefield was always a better game. It started with bad company 2 having a more realistic and better campaign, then cod got trampled with bf 3 it was only a matter of time before cod got penetration they kept on making tne same game instead of being innovative,all on all its still a great franchise
This is the first on 5 years I've gone to BF over COD. Steep learning curve but worth it if you can get it down!
CarlosX360 Writes: "On February 9, 2017 - Activision announced record-breaking revenues across all of their franchises, Activision announced that Infinite Warfare's sales were down from Black Ops 3, Activision announced that a new Call of Duty title is coming, and Activision also announced layoffs to 5% of their workforce. Where is Call of Duty going? What are Activision's challenges? How to solve these challenges?"
I don't think the author gets the fact that people want boots on ground only, and we're not going to pay $60 for the legacy edition, just to get that with COD4. A lot of us are waiting until COD4 is released separately. I'd rather pay ~$30 just for COD4 than $60 with Infinite Warfare that I'll never play
Pretty much this, my money is ready and waiting for COD4 at a reasonable price but not paying £40+ for the legacy edition which includes a game I have zero interest in.
Except that the Infinite Warfare campaign is actually exceptionally well made, has a ton of missions with varied gameplay, a decent story and high production values.
infinite warfare multiplayer is just garbage the campaign i thought was ok well at least on veteran mode i bought everything including the season pass i won't even bother jumping on to try the new maps i am just fed up with the double jumping and jet packs i completely go straight to cod4 remastered i really doubt they are gonna sell that separately as you NEED infinite warfare disc for cod4 to work but even going on cod4 the respawning is bad as the usual problems still happen with spawn killing that's something infinity ward and treyarc need to tackle some how.
The story may well be good, but many hated the multiplayer of IW from the beta; paying an extra $30 for the Legacy edition just isn't worth it for the 4-5 hour campaign. I and many others would much rather just get COD4 on its own.
I feel like Titanfall 2 did Infinite Warfare's multi-player better, but both games had decent campaigns, so...
@sherif
The average length of IW is 8 hours, via howlongtobeat, which in my experience has been pretty damned accurate.
See this is the thing about "fans" and why devs tend to ignore them. Its statements like "COD is dead becouse no boots on the ground". Yeah clearly Infinite Warfare has damaged the COD IP forever by being the best selling game of 2016. Oh and im sure all those CEOs are crying themselfs to sleep after pulling in over a billion every year for almost 12 years in a row off COD alone.
If anything they are probably wondering why people are such idiots. They complained COD was getting stale so Activision hired more people and put COD on a 3 year dev cycle. As a result later games started introducing boosting, running on walls etc. All of this was added to spice up the gameplay. It changed the game mechanically but nobody cares. Nobody cares becouse fans supposedly want boots on the ground......oh and a new setting rofl.
COD is stale and beginning to show signs it wont be able to sustain previous year numbers. CEO and stock holders dont care how a game preforms over its life time of a series they care how well the current issue is doing not a series. The fact infinite warfare sold less than BO3 shows is a bad sign to them as they only want to see sales increase year on year and Infinite warfare wasnt the best selling game of 2016 not by a long shot.
The fans of CoD saying its stale is in refence to the sole real focus being on MP. The majority of the fan base isnt 12yrs old anymore, its growing up and wanting more from a beloved franchise. CoD 3yr cycle is a joke just as yearly versions of the same game is a joke. 3 and 1 yr cycles leave you running out of ideas. The new Cod will most likely sell even less than infinite warfare.
Look at battlefield 1 thats an example of a new approach that people are loving. CoD so go back to the WWII era for a bit or maybe the civil war something.
I'm pretty that's because it released on everything and people wanted cod4. Almost everyone i know, even YouTubers bought it for that alone. I wouldn't, I'll wait but it's what they choose. If you speak by platform I think uncharted 4 might be the best seller on a single platform for the year
Sure it's not franchise fatigue, I mean, we get a new one every year, hard to keep the same game fresh every year. Personally I like the sci-fi direction we're going in but Infinite Warfare feels clunky to me.
@kokyu
BF1 is a huge disappointment. Too few weapons and what weapons there are are mostly clones of each other.
No choppers and that piece of shit rocket launcher that can only be fired prone, or on one of the many too-small/too-high to mount window or door shaped cutouts. Shooting stuff down with rockets or piloting a chopper were my favorite things to do in bf and now they're both gone or nerfed.
The setting isn't really that great either, the maps are forgettable except for maybe singhai desert and the newer free map. Ww1 is just not a good setting for large scale multiplayer.
It's better then infinite warfare, but that isn't saying much, and it has to do more with dev talent than the setting.
Scifi setting fps games have been done well, two or 3 times now, with blops 3(best cod in a long time), titanfall 1, and especially titanfall 2, which is the best damned mp fps in a long ass time, I'd put it up there with cod 4. Shame it didn't get a chance to shine like cod 4 did.
Honestly I thought the same thing, until I actually said screw it and tried out Infinite Warfare. Lets just say as much fun as COD 4 was....IW was better. This comes from playing the Remastered COD4 first. So whoever hasnt actually played Infinite Warfare is definitely missing out.
I actually like Infinite Warfare, it's a good game.
I downloaded COD4 remaster and had a great nostalgia trip for about half an hour before realising that it was showing its age badly. Turned it off so as not to ruin my memory of it and have never went back.
Seriously it just feels old and plays old.
I loved CODIW and the REMASTER. It for me was money well spent. The SciFi story was great and really changed it up for me.
Hopefully they realize this with their success with destiny. Destiny can be their futuristic title with hopping around everywhere...
Cod can go back to being their milatary shooter
Yeah trust me, IW is pretty bad. The big thing that I hate is that they added so much to it, that it doesn't feel like a COD anymore. Its not tactical, its random. I made the mistake of buying it for MWR and ugh....
I remember when COD Modern Warfare came out, everything felt new and fresh. I don't ever get that feeling from a COD game anymore, but if they return to boots on ground and change settings to vietnam for example, I would not be able to resist buying it.
what about the ridiculously old engine that they're still using and the lack of dedicated servers for consoles?
Inifnite Warfare is exactly what people are theoretically asking for.
It was a fantastic game and as a person with the Legacy Edition, it was a lot easier for me to play IW than CoD 4 RM
It was faster, smoother and the story was better.
I thought so too, but the multi-player doesn't feel good, Titanfall 2's multi-player fills the same spot better, but it doesn't have COD's popularity to help it.
Oh, i never played the MP lol
It was crap XD
CoD games are single player only to me.
@SenorFartCushion, I was the same way until I got a decent internet connection.
No, people are asking for boots on the ground because most FPS games nowadays are all super fast future type game.
Yeah they are.
My point is that slow and methodical will just take some getting used to. I played IW over MWR due to this. Even some reviews stated that .
People don't know what they want in regards to CoD anymore, they're just guessing out of their ass.
You'll get a "boots on the ground" cod next year and every single one of you complainers will bitch just as much as you did with the scifi cods, claiming you want something new and fresh. You don't actually want cod, you just think you do.
What you actually want, is a new god damned franchise all together, because cod can't be cod unless it's the same fucking thing over and over again. You create a new engine, overhaul the gameplay to be tactical and/or slower paced and it ceases to be cod.
At this point, cod criticizers are just like spoiled children who demand their parents to make them something and then spit it out as soon as they get it and then demand something else, and then spit that out too, over and over again.
CoD critics don't want cod, they just want to see how much power they have to control Activision to make CoD into their image. Of course most don't know this.
I certainly didn't realize this for a long time myself and used to bitch about cod just as much as everyone else. Then it finally hit me, cod is cod, cod will ALWAYS be cod, and cod will NEVER the amazing franchise it was when West and Zampella were at the helm.
People still delude themselves into thinking the setting is what made past cods great, they think "well cod games didn't start turning to shit until all the scifi stuff was added, that's the reason cod isn't good anymore". It wasn't the reason. It was those two devs at the helm that made cod great, West and Zampella. Cod flat out sucked after they left (except for treyarchs games, they varied from mediocre, to just barely hitting "good" status).
If you want cod to stop disappointing you, then you must accept it for what it is NOW, not for what it USED to be, because no matter the setting, it'll never be as good as it once was.
If you find yourself complaining about cod games pretty frequently, then you really need to think honestly about why. You need to ask yourself , "do I actually still like this franchise? Or did I just like the ones made by west and zampela?".
Of course treyarch did well with blops 1 and waw, but I don't think if treyarch went back to those settings, they wouldn't add something that everyone hated, because Activision would probably make them whether they wanted to or not.
Not even, Specter... There's a reason why I used an image of earth as a story image. It's the ending credits of Infinite Warfare.
If it's like WaW I'll be on board. Please no gimmicks.
Waw cod please
Really looking forward to seeing how this turns out!
i hope this is being done o a brand new game engine to kind of give this series a mini reboot of sort
activision really needs to go all out
if people could actually give IW a chance it had a awesome single player story and good MP but because BF1 was set in WW1 it was just natural and cool thing to hate on IW