Are Annual Installments of Call of Duty Overkill?
Modern Warfare 2 has been unleashed and has resulted in mass hysteria at retailers around the globe. Being Call of Duty, it’s only natural that such hype should be sustained by a brand name alone. But how long can Activision annually release the same series before their work reaches the predictability of other industry juggernauts such as Madden and Guitar Hero?
The sales numbers have most certainly shown that the games are still in high demand. But as the years go by, is rebounding between Infinity Ward and Treyarch to deliver experiences of jarring similarity the smartest decision? Repetition has already become quite prominent between both Modern Warfare and Treyarch’s World at War. So how long will we stand by and be swindled by these dirty profiteering tactics?
When Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released, the gaming world was set ablaze. The next generation of consoles was finally graced by a title that nearly everyone could enjoy. Offering an unprecedented progression system rivaled by only Rainbow Six Vegas, it gave gamers a huge incentive to play it excessively. The fantastic visuals and tight gameplay didn’t hurt either. A huge new game was on the block, sporting both a universally acclaimed meta score and fantastic sales, Call of Duty 4 was the game that everyone was talking about.
These were the glory days for next-gen console owners who had little to play. But since then, the Call of Duty name has had trouble evolving that hype into any any substantial reason to actually take the plunge into the next experience. Little has changed about the formula, and the series has tended to play it safe. While other prestigious developers like Dice are taking their sequels to the next level, it seems as though Infinity Ward and Treyarch are just fumbling their way through the development cycle to meet Activision’s release window. Not that the games aren’t polished, but so much more can be done with them. Annual release is a big factor in preventing the two developers from thinking outside of the box they’ve been in for years.
A good example of this stagnation is Treyarch’s spin on Infinity Ward’s success – Call of Duty: World at War. To this day, nobody can tell me what redeeming quality World at War possessed, outside of the dreaded accident that was Nazi zombies. Of course, Treyach did a fine job with historical accuracy as far as introducing players to an entirely different side of World War II, but overall, many couldn’t help but feel that this was just a pacific Call of Duty 3 with Infinity Ward’s engine.
Also, when publishers expect their developers to get started on their new game right after they finish the last, that doesn’t exactly give devs an incentive to keep supporting the current game with DLC. Without proper time to let previous iterations do the talking, players will see less of a reason to fork over the extra cash in order to get a couple maps that a publisher as big as Activision could easily make free in the first place. What point is there in buying additional content for a game you know will soon be outdated? By annually releasing the series, you’re splitting up a dedicated community across multiple games which is never a good thing. Most successful multiplayer games have always had a tight-knit community that lives by said game’s name. Socom, Halo, Team Fortress, Counter Strike, and many many more games all have this appreciated element going for them. The same cannot be said for Call of Duty, with five games being released in five years.
How long will it be before that same logic is applied to Modern Warfare? Countless games have unfortunately fallen under the same stigma such as Ratchet & Clank, Madden, Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and just recently EA’s Skate IP. Consumers will eventually have a hard time differentiating a sequel apart from the predecessor, ultimately tarnishing the the value of the Call of Duty name. Being Activision’s biggest property , let alone one of the biggest in the industry, they cannot allow this to happen. They deliver on the experience that they’re striving for, but soon it will be considered just another milked franchise with minimal changes, no matter how drastic the evolution. Because to the everyday consumer, Madden 10 is just another Madden. And if this way of thinking is attached to Call of Duty, it will spell bad news for Activision, Infinity Ward, and Treyarch.
In fact, it almost seems like Infinity Ward and Treyarch are on a constant relapsing development process where Infinity Ward builds the foundation and Treyarch stretches it with needless additions. It’s a crying shame that Treyarch cannot contribute a creative idea without coming up short in comparison to their bigger brother. But unfortunately, this is most likely the path that Activision will continue to follow, ultimately diluting everything that Infinity Ward stands for. The gaming community should continue to expect a Call of Duty game every year as long as there is demand for them. And that’s just not the way to properly treat the IP that helped get you to where you are today, Activision. If you expect your games to keep making a huge impact on the industry, then we suggest that you treat it with respect, and stop milking it for all it’s worth.
18 Responses to “Are Annual Installments of Call of Duty Overkill?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Madden isn’t fair to include, sports games need to keep up with the real life sport this gen. Too much changes season to season for them to wait any longer. Nobody calls 2K on the yearly cycle they do on every sports game competing with EA, because it fits the real life sport, people just complain about EA.
Look at cars, there are new models every year, even though people have working versions of the first cars ever made still. new features are added, and the design is changed a bit, though is mostly the same car those changes could be important. And since this is entertainment, people are bound to grow bored of playing the same game for 365 days, they deserve a change if they want. It’s good to have the option if you ask me.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Now that I think about it, I am getting pretty tired of Call of Duty.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Just read an article, Activision is wanting to charge a monthly fee for CoD Multiplayer access, i’m sure it will happen.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:25 PM
I just skip a year. COD4 was a blast and now I’m addicted to MW2.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Great article, activision loves driving great franchises into the ground ala tony hawk. Treyarch has been the jr. Developer for activision even since those glory days (they developed the dreamcast version of tony hawk if you didn’t know). This article hits the nail on the head though, great innovative software keeps it self fresh till the same formula is played a million times over. I myself was very impressed with mw2 but I thought the single player was going to be even more epic than the first. After cod4 with the container ship level I thought infinity ward would one up them selves with mw2’s opening, I was disappointed. The snow level and single player campaign are great but after plaing cod4 mw I was disappointed with the biggest game release of all time. How can IW continue to amaze audiences in single when they have done it all (minus a cover mechanic), still in my opinion that container ship level in cod 4 is one of the greatest levels in single player history. As demonstrated by tony hawk if you can reinvent your franchise (like resident evil 4 and mgs4 did) how can your ip remain fresh in every more scrutinizing gamers eyes. Sorrty about the rant
November 14th, 2009 at 10:59 PM
One thing I’d like to add before anybody hastily labels me a CoD hater is that I have 17 days of playtime on the original MW and am looking to exceed that tour considerably on MW2 which I picked up at the midnight release. It just angers the hell out of me that Treyarch has been working on another game before MW2’s release and now IW are making MW3 RIGHT NOW!! It just isn’t fare, especially when you take into consideration that Activision is looking to charge user for playing online now.
It’s just getting pathetic now. If IW had more time to work on it, I’ sure MW2’s campaign, while epic in its own right, could’ve been considerably longer and even more action packed.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Infinity Ward does a good job. The story of MW2 is epic, and an overall major upgrade from the last game they made. They don’t release a COD every year. The REAL COD is released every other year! I think there’s a good reason Modern Warfare 2 is breaking record sales.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:03 AM
I don’t think it is overkill at all. I love COD. I now have four of them. I would rank them like this: MW2 > W@W > COD4 > COD Classic. I am so addicted to MW2 its not funny. I haven’t even touched online yet because I am having so much fun on single player and Special Ops.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Same Jonathan. No way I’m buying a game that….. ugggkkk…. treyarch made..
November 15th, 2009 at 12:34 AM
i think the annual installments are nice…
no matter what you do, youll get tired of it…
a new one, adds new trophies, modes, guns, perks, etc… so overall it works well for people whom follow one or so game type
November 15th, 2009 at 12:37 AM
infinity ward makes awesome games, it’s treyarch that can’t seem to make up anything new.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:12 AM
I don’t understand the appeal of this game at all. The single player is 4-5 hours long, the story is dumb and boring, and the huge amount of enemies that respawn in areas you’ve already cleared is frustrating. I really haven’t heard anyone say anything good about it. Why would I want this when there are so many other truly great games out there now? Just to jump on the same bandwagon as everyone else I guess. Not my thing.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:46 AM
that’s the reason I’m not interested in buying it, too much of the same thing over & over.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:07 PM
@JackC8
You haven’t heard anyone say anything good about it? Christ you must have selective memory, there’s people saying good things all over. Why is everyone jumping on a bandwagon just because they bought the game? You don’t call anyone that bought U2 jumping on the bandwagon do you? Double standards make me laugh.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:27 PM
It’s weird, i hear a lot from both sides: yes to annual releases, no to annual releases. I guess it doesn’t come down to what people want, since there will always be a demand, it comes to whether or not the IW truly, TRULY believes they are delivering an updated, remarkably different game that people won’t settle for and that gives people something they can’t get anywhere else.
I just feel like they are adding the bare minimum, intentionally and release date motivated, because they know it will sell. I wouldn’t be proud to stick my name and label on a game that I half assed. Hypothetically, if it were me, and I had some great idea for a game I had been working on, and I told my project manager and they said “oh that’s great, but save it for next month when we start working on the sequel!” I’d feel pretty dirty for using my fans like that.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Its a disappointment to hear they might start changing for online play.. i highly doubt it will be something simple like 3$ a month. Im not a big FPS guy, i just like to randomly join a few games with friends. If they choose to go with pay to play there no reason for me to buy it… I haven’t bought MW2 till the 23 and hearing they might switch to pay as you go now makes me think twice on buy it.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Just take a look at EA’s NFS series. From the Underground game to Undercover, NFS underwent a slow fall into mediocrity. Not did one team dominate the other as far as ideas go, but the general technical quality of the games degraded from release to release.
The fact is that current generation of consoles can take updated information and combine it with older games. Essentially creating Diablo II : Lord Of Destruction for games like Call of Duty and Need for Speed. This effect allows for development teams to have more time towards creating the next release in three or four years, instead of two, and a more intelligent and sustainable cost model that keeps big companies turning a profit. Unlike the current model that breeds mundaneness and high cost to benefit ratios.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:57 AM
I’ve been thinking the very things that this article is saying for a while now. I was very hesitant to buy the new COD game, because it does seem like a big rehash of whats already been done, ALA tony hawk. WaW was a huge disspointment, and a waste of money. Having played through MW2 I am very dissapointed at the 5 hour campaign. This should have been so much longer. HOWEVER, the co op Special Ops missions are of a decent length, and are very cool, as they take good coordination between the partners. The multiplayer has a big revamp on it, with the upgradeable skills, an insane number of equipment loadouts, and new attachments for all the weapons. It makes it a big dissapointment to know that they are working on another sequel already, instead of bringing us more maps, or more spec ops missions.