The title seems to be poking at fans, but the repeated name was always bound to lead to confusion. Activision is out of ideas.
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
173 points (93.9% liked)
Technology
59377 readers
5843 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not just Activision. It's all of AAA gaming. If you want something new go to AA or indie games.
Hollywood too. Everything is a sequel or reboot.
Sad, but true,
Ehhh well, I've kinda regained a bit oh hope after starting Alan Wake II, but yeah the big three (EA, Activison, Ubisoft) are hilariously bad.
Alan Wake is pretty much the definition of a modern AA game, though, so that just plays into what he's saying.
While Alan Wake 2 is super well executed, its development costs is dwarfed by modern triple A games that cost at least 10 times more to develop.
(Alan Wake 2 reported budget 50-70 million euro, compared to games like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Red Dead Redemption 2 or Cyberpunk 2077 which were all reported at ~500 million euro, while games like MW3 (2023) and GTA VI both have billion dollar+ budgets).
Wow, had no idea the first one was made with such budget constraints... Though I am curious where you got the budget estimate for 2 as I haven't found anyhting.
Oh yeah no that was a typo, that budget is for Alan Wake 2 - its on the Alan Wake 2 wikipedia page, sourcing a Finnish newspaper at the time of writing this comment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Wake_2
Oh, I see :) Thank you for clarifying.
It's really impressive what they've been able to achieve then.
I don’t think it’s so much that they’re out of ideas but that they’re too scared to risk new ideas. These games are so expensive to make now so they squeeze out as much as they can with MTX and season passes to stuff their pockets as much as possible. The longer they can keep you playing, the more money they can make off of you with minimal additional effort. Wrapping up that plan with a nice widely-recognized Call of Duty logo makes them a lot of guaranteed upfront cash.
Doing the same thing for a new unknown property won’t have that guaranteed audience, will require a lot more marketing effort, and possibly years of underperforming results before it starts becoming worthwhile. And even then it’ll be impossible to catch up to the behemoth of the biggest shooter franchise in gaming history. So it just makes financial sense to keep remaking and rebooting the tried and true. Their CEOs and shareholders demand it and their audience (for now) is happy enough to keep it that way with their wallet votes.
tl;dr With development costs growing exponentially, publishers looking for the easiest path to the most profit, and gamers already primed to keep buying the next installment no matter what, sticking to old ideas is what makes the most sense. Goes for movies too.
They are confused because they keep naming the game the same stupid ass shit. Just call it COD and the fucking year like sports games.
Is this really not that obvious? Giving already used names like that is just bound to create confusion.
They're out of ideas, sad.
You don't need ideas to count up.
I'd like you to meet Windows. And Office. And XBox. Microsoft doesn't understand counting.
And yet, it will be the most successful Call of Duty once again until people stop buying this shit every year.
To be fair, the original Call of Duty 3 wasn't that great. Serious step down from Call of Duty 2, cause Treyarch was garbage back then.
I still chuckle when I recall that the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare credits saying, "This is the third installment, Infinity Ward shit!"
Right, but they're review bombing Modern Warfare 3, not CoD3.
Oh, well then fuck those idiots. Storming through the stock exchange was awesome.
Treyarch wasn’t garbage, they had very little time to make it, also having to contend with three new consoles
No, no, it's not possible that my college fanboy brain was limited in its understanding of the world. Unfathomable.
It's OK, the original MW3 is in need of a review bombing, that was just a blatant mw2 with new maps...
I stop caring about modern warfare about 5 years ago when it became apparent that they had even less artistic integrity than the FIFA games, so I haven't really been keeping track.
So what's this new game actually called is it literally just called Modern Warfare 3, again? Because if that's the case it's 100%, their fault.
That tells me all I need to know about the cod fanbase
I played COD in their latest deployment, I had fun and I was shocked at how the game pushed so much BS on others. One guy I played with said he dropped 1k on skins and weapons. In his defense, they are making it pay to win with some bundles. I never bought shit, just earned some skins and didn't care.
Please explain how the bundles of skins and stickers are lay to win?
I havent spent one penny other than the base (which i bought the week itblaunches) game for MWII and have never ran across anyone who has a play advantage over me.
https://gamerant.com/call-of-duty-pets-pay-to-win-black-cell-bundle/
Also, free UAV in WZ and other perks you get if you purchase it.
Ah, ok. In Warzone.
I only play the regular multiplayer, and there's no advantage there just cosmetics.