Xbox One How much longer do you think Call of Duty can keep doing annual releases?

As long as Call Of Duty brings new content after each release, I have total faith that they can do annual releases. As long as the story line is different and unique, then I mean, why not?

But if it is the same and it repeats every time, then I am sorry but I am not gonna buy it anymore.
 
I'm hoping that Ghosts is the last addition, so that the Dev teams of both Treyarch and Infinity Ward can move onto something bigger and better. I stopped playing after Modern Warfare 3. It's a good franchise and is fun for a short amount of time, but I quickly grew agitated the more I played, and what's the point of being angry when I play games to relax?
 
3 years at least. They started milking it as much as they can, but it can't go far.
Actually, who knows...
New people are introduced in gaming every day. But however, I give it 3-5 years, and then it's gone.
 
I wonder what's after Ghosts.... Ghosts 2? Black Ops III? Modern Warfare 4? Yeah, I'm beginning to think they'll have to move on to something else 'cuz hey, it's already milking it to the max. Next thing you know, they got cats as allies. Hahaha.
 
thedoodseven said:
I wonder what's after Ghosts.... Ghosts 2? Black Ops III? Modern Warfare 4? Yeah, I'm beginning to think they'll have to move on to something else 'cuz hey, it's already milking it to the max. Next thing you know, they got cats as allies. Hahaha.
Click to expand...

It will come to a point where they can't do this anymore. How long can they do this annual releasing, trying to make something new in a genre that's already saturated to the brim? Dogs was a nice change but then, everything else is just the same. Either they give it a two-year cycle or they move on to something.
 
Call of Duty has always been at least to me the series of the casual gamer. Even if core gamers start to abandon the franchise for Battlefield or other FPS games that still make an effort, casual gamers will still buy it simply because it's Call of Duty and it's one of the biggest game franchises out there. It's like Madden, because they always make money because of their name there is just no reason for them to make any effort. Look at Ghosts.
 
I think that these types of games have incredible staying power and people will always buy the new releases. Now can Call of Duty completely dominate this niche from here on forward like Madden does with the NFL niche? That remains to be seen.
 
CoD will be doing annual releases for a long time. The wheels won't fall off for some time. Online multiplayer is the meat of the games, but the thing that warrants putting out a new game annually is the story of the single player campaign--even though people humor the single player campaign at most--it's the reason to put another CoD on the shelf every year (and get money in addition to DLC).

With out it the single player campaign, maps and players allowed would be larger. Treyarch could say "Nevermind the single player, it's out! Full blown multiplayer! 80-100's of players in a particular game at a time! Big ass maps! The Double Down is returning to KFC! DAAAAH!"

CoD would be M.A.G'd...of course that would mean there would be no reason to put a game in the franchise out every year (or MW and BlOps every two years to be specific). You'd be looking at CoD being released at a soft-two years or hard-three years rate. It just wouldn't warrant an online multiplayer title being released every year with a largely similar experience when they could add stuff and make updates online.

While people would pay for DLC, that wouldn't make them much money since there's no subscriptions like MMORPGs. So that single player mode is the glue to get the games out and not much attention has to be given to story. Once the game hits shelves, the story would've done it's job.

When I asked my brother and his friends they pretty much said it hasn't been about the story/single player in some time and the story only serves to give the game it's subtitle and sequel number and it clicked.

So it's go for a very long time and to StormTrooper, it pretty much has dominated the FPS genre. It's the Madden of the genre, can come out every year with something you could call updates, and very few question anything.

To put a number on the original question...3-5 years.
 
Esperahol said:
...I'm not trying to derail this discussion or anything, but is there any particular reason why people dislike Call of Duty so much? For some reason it's become the Meg (Family Guy reference) of game franchises. I don't get it. I mean I'm not even someone who likes FPS, but I can't really find fault with the series.
Click to expand...

I think it's more with people taking an issue with FPS as a whole than just CoD. To use a reference that I'm sure MetalSwift and other longer term wrestling fans could get: when ECW and WCW closed, WWE became the face of that particular industry and people who aren't fans point to WWE as representative of wrestling as a whole (when there's still more out there which offers something everyone if you look.

The same can be said for CoD, it's putting a face on a genre that a lot of gamers enjoy greatly and a lot of gamers are sick of hearing about. It's like people calling MMA UFC, comics Superman, all RPGs are Final Fantasy, all Nintendo games are Mario, all robots (mech or otherwise) are Transformers, and zombie films and stuff The Walking Dead (I've actually had someone call a Romero movie I was watching The Walking Dead...it prompted a high pitched "Get that **** outta here.")

In short, it's taking the most familiar thing and applying it to a whole thing...only in the case of gamers, they know for a fact that there is more than CoD when it comes to FPS, they just don't care.

MetalSwift said:
Online multiplayer is the meat of the games, but the thing that warrants putting out a new game annually is the story of the single player campaign--even though people humor the single player campaign at most--it's the reason to put another CoD on the shelf every year (and get money in addition to DLC).
Click to expand...

Jackpot. People will say "Well the story in CoD is really goo--" ehhh...no, don't do that to yourself. We know that multiplayer is the most interesting part of the game and the single player campaign is there in case your internet or whatever goes out. Single player is the bun around the burger that is CoD and if you're a burger joint, you don't just wrap up a patty and sell that as is. You can, but you normally don't do it.
 
I don't see why it needs to do away with annual releases when there's two reoccurring lines in the franchise and they typically go every two years. That could become every three years or alternating two a year if Ghosts becomes a regular thing.
 
CoD isn't stopping their annual releases. People will buy the game regardless of if it's largely the same game or if the mechanics is still the same. If it looks better the fanbase will swarm it like gravy over mystery meat.
 
I really believe Ghosts is in there to try and mix things up to get out of that rut of expecting the same two games at their designated times each time. It's still Call of Duty, but you wouldn't go MW, BlOps, MW, BlOps, MW, BlOps like clockwork.
 
Unfortunately as long as they are making cash it doesn't matter how much we complain about the annual releases and the declining (in my opinion) quality. They are making bank on the name Call of Duty alone so the annual releases will keep going until the love affair that the casual fan has with the franchise is over.
 
That could be for a bit if they can keep the annual schedule going long enough for new fans to pop up. Sure diehard fans of the series will keep popping up to pick it up, but if the overall sales start to taper off, they'll pull back. I don't see that happening for awhile unless they release a duo or trifecta of just assy titles in the series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top