Opencritic really ought not to be posting the score.
Several outlets review Zombies and MP separate. And the MP has a whole new suite of maps and some new mechanics as well.
I don’t think it makes full sense to judge this solely on campaign myself. Now, that’s not to say a score for campaign as of right now shouldn’t be out there either, perhaps via on note on the site or a separate landing page, but it doesn’t really make full sense to me to score a game based on just one component.
Now conversely, this could weirdly be a blessing for MW3 ironically too. Treyarch has on and off years for Zombies and the off years are usually the years they develop for Sledgehammer. The MP, while very fun, Xeroxes old maps for the entire basis of its content, a controversial move. We’ll see overall.
I think they probably have ‘windows’ for releases. With avowed and hellblade 2 they probably feel fairly confident they will hit in the 2024 window whereas some of the other games might hit on the latter part of 2024 but don’t want to put a date if they aren’t confident. There was also a rumor on reddit that I would take with a mountain of salt that project suerte, the monster hunter like game is targeting the second half of 2024.
They’ve always been that though. Even going back to the “good” ones like MW 2007 and Black Ops 1, the latter of which is only marginally more cerebral because of the numbers twist.
Since the poor reception of the campaign in MW3, I’ve seen a lot of discussion again about the series going to every two years which makes no sense. There’s no chance they double the time the studios take to make the game, from three years to six years.
I do wonder what Microsoft do to help insure the studios have time to make games better. The only two things that make sense to me are either spin up another studio and move the studios to four year cycles or do three years of games and then a year off so again a four year cycle
It makes a lot of sense. Move to releasing every two years, which will ease the burden on the studios, give each game the time it needs and reduce burnout amongst fans. It also means they can support each individual game for two years, which generates more live service revenue.
I also think they should take Sledgehammer off CoD entirely and have them make a gigantic new IP, while Treyarch and IW focus on mainline CoDs and Raven works on Warzone. That would allow for four years per CoD release, with each game releasing every two years and alternating between MW and Black Ops.
They only barely managed to salvage MW3 (and Cold War) at the last minute and it’s still getting a poor reception. If they keep up the schedule, one day they won’t be able to salvage it and it will be catastrophic for the franchise. It’s better to plan ahead for that and ensure longterm success.
When the acquisition was first announced I was on the “maybe they’ll go every 2 years instead of annually”, didn’t take long for me to realise that just isn’t going to happen
CoD makes too much money and having it annually brings advantages that cannot be overlooked even outside of the revenue
Taking a short-term loss to plan for the next 20 years of success for the franchise would be vastly preferable to continuing as they are indefinitely and the crushing schedule leading to a game completely flopping or straight up not coming out because it’s unreleasable.
It’s going to collapse eventually. It is inevitable. Every two years would make each release higher quality and more of an event, which would lead to even greater per-title sales. Whereas if they keep releasing shitty products year after year, they will eventually see diminishing returns.
Activision needed CoD every year. NEEDED. Xbox might WANT CoD every year, but they actually don’t NEED it. Releasing better products at a more sustainable schedule will lead to greater long-term success.
I don’t think it’ll happen soon. Maybe not even this generation. But it will happen.
In theory yeah. But I’m not convinced that just chopping the schedule in half necessarily fixes the game. The expectations of the community is a game every year and the impact of changing that is a huge unknown.
I do think that longer term you may be right but certainly not immediately.
I get that. It would be a huge risk. But I think NOT doing anything and just hoping for the best would be an even bigger risk.
I really do think the fanbase would welcome a change, especially if it led to higher quality products. And the gap would lead to a greater hunger for the next game. Todd Howard says that it’s important to miss things and he’s right. There wasn’t a huge backlash when Schreier reported that Activision were considering changing the schedule.
It’s not really about backlash, it’s about casuals and keeping CoD relevant every year, if they miss years here and there it gives a competitor a much bigger opportunity to gain relevance
There are advantages to leaving the yearly cycle but there are also huge disadvantages, MS will do everything they can to keep the yearly cycle even if it means hiring more than they already have
I feel that’s the best case scenario imo. I think they just need to release an expansion on off year, but they can’t go too crazy and have map packs though. I don’t think they want the issue of having split player base again, but they’ll probably find a way to monetize it I assume. I feel that way COD is still relevant, and the studios now have time to churn better quality games.
COD Vanguard sold 25M copies and it was considered a “failed to meet sales expectations” by ABK.
BO4 also failed to meet their sales expectations and that sold even more than Vanguard.
I’m sure there’s a number internally where if it fails to meet it in consecutive years, they’ll seriously contemplate going on a 2 year cycle. As of right now ? I don’t see them doing that.
Yeah this is the thing. Giving up 1 or 2M sales for a better product that can recoup that over time is possible.
Giving up 10M sales for that? I doubt many sign that off.
Let alone the volumes COD shifts. Because there is no upside. You won’t drastically increase numbers. And risk is they go down if it becomes less relevant even if quality improves.
I think the next CoD is basically ready. Hell, it was supposed to be the next big release before Bobby decided MW3 to be this one. In other words, I wouldn’t mind the next one to be out next year. After that, well, we’ll see.