New Call of Duty confirmed for Q4 2013

[Capricornus]

This is no surprise. I still have never fully played a C.O.D game. I played it once with my cousins at their house and it was pretty fun. Never owned a game though, so I won't be up here showcasing my hate for it.

 

If the C.O.D games are going to keep making 1 billion+ bucks every year, I see no issues with Activision churning the games out annually.

[Finn 7 five 11]

It only takes them a year to make the game. f*ck these guys

It actually only takes 6 months. First months of a year used for DLC, the remaining for "making" a "new" game.

Two different companies make Call Of Duty like Gionacsm said.

Treyarch and Infinity Ward, so two years to develop a title with almost exact same engine, that's actually a while in development for something that still doesn't turn out that great.

 

@Dick Valor and everyone else. GTA_Vanja was being sarcastic as f*ck with the "I'm surprised" comment.

[I<3GTAV]

I hope COD dies soon to be honest. It makes the really good games never get played.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

It only takes them a year to make the game. f*ck these guys

It actually only takes 6 months. First months of a year used for DLC, the remaining for "making" a "new" game.

You are both wrong. They are given a 2 year development cycle thanks to the alternating between Treyarch and IW every year.

[Remix]

The poor society today saying: "Carl of Dooty iz lurk the berst vider gurm evur!"

 

But no one ever f*cking says that. Ever. You know what I'm more sick of than a yearly release of COD? Every moron who thinks their extremely generic comment towards the franchise is remotely interesting.

 

 

[Wayne Daniels]

I think i used to play the first couple of games, the ones that were set in world war something? That was cool. That's where it stopped for me though.

[Guest]

It only takes them a year to make the game. f*ck these guys

It actually only takes 6 months. First months of a year used for DLC, the remaining for "making" a "new" game.

You are both wrong. They are given a 2 year development cycle thanks to the alternating between Treyarch and IW every year.

What a load of tosh. I'm not exactly sure Spacktivision (just came up with that... i thought it was good) or whoever is in control would pay the dev teams to work for two years on something that's only worth six. That would be alot of wasted money.

[Finn 7 five 11]

It only takes them a year to make the game. f*ck these guys

It actually only takes 6 months. First months of a year used for DLC, the remaining for "making" a "new" game.

You are both wrong. They are given a 2 year development cycle thanks to the alternating between Treyarch and IW every year.

What a load of tosh. I'm not exactly sure Spacktivision (just came up with that... i thought it was good) or whoever is in control would pay the dev teams to work for two years on something that's only worth six. That would be alot of wasted money.

Have you seen how many copies they sell? Not a waste. stop talking out of your ass please, they are separate companies, how hard is that to understand?

 

The development companies are obviously poorly managed (according to glassdoor) , but so are most, 2 years is a reasonable amount of time for a video game company to make a game of that kind of quality.

 

http://kotaku.com/5940672/pissed-off-emplo...eo-game-company

[Guest]

 

It only takes them a year to make the game. f*ck these guys

It actually only takes 6 months. First months of a year used for DLC, the remaining for "making" a "new" game.

You are both wrong. They are given a 2 year development cycle thanks to the alternating between Treyarch and IW every year.

What a load of tosh. I'm not exactly sure Spacktivision (just came up with that... i thought it was good) or whoever is in control would pay the dev teams to work for two years on something that's only worth six. That would be alot of wasted money.

Have you seen how many copies they sell? Not a waste. stop talking out of your ass please, they are separate companies, how hard is that to understand?

 

The development companies are obviously poorly managed (according to glassdoor) , but so are most, 2 years is a reasonable amount of time for a video game company to make a game of that kind of quality.

 

http://kotaku.com/5940672/pissed-off-emplo...eo-game-company

If you actually read what I said, you'd discover that I said paying the dev teams to work for two years would be a waste, as they only need six months.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2013 by Guest

[Banks.]

I used to be a massive CoD fan but lost interest after WaW. I thought MW2 sucked but gave BO a go and actually really enjoyed. That was the last CoD game I bought though and I'm not going to buy another.

 

Shame because it used to be quite a good series

[LewisMiller]

I managed to escape at MW3, haven't even played or even watched a video on BLOPS2.

[Finn 7 five 11]

It only takes them a year to make the game. f*ck these guys

It actually only takes 6 months. First months of a year used for DLC, the remaining for "making" a "new" game.

You are both wrong. They are given a 2 year development cycle thanks to the alternating between Treyarch and IW every year.

What a load of tosh. I'm not exactly sure Spacktivision (just came up with that... i thought it was good) or whoever is in control would pay the dev teams to work for two years on something that's only worth six. That would be alot of wasted money.

Have you seen how many copies they sell? Not a waste. stop talking out of your ass please, they are separate companies, how hard is that to understand?

 

The development companies are obviously poorly managed (according to glassdoor) , but so are most, 2 years is a reasonable amount of time for a video game company to make a game of that kind of quality.

 

http://kotaku.com/5940672/pissed-off-emplo...eo-game-company

If you actually read what I said, you'd discover that I said paying the dev teams to work for two years would be a waste, as they only need six years.

 

 

I did read what you said, I simply misinterpreted it as you taking sh*t again. I thought you meant six months though like you were blurting out before. Now that you point it out it makes more sense in The sentence you have there.

 

In terms of sentence structure it makes sense, but What do you mean it's only worth six years. that doesn't make sense.

[Mister Pink]

Can't wait to not buy it.

Hehe, yeah this.

 

Hoping for the COD buzz fade.

[Chris Fromage]

I think people will underestimate this new COD.

 

This time, it will be totally different:

 

1. Since the MW3 series is over (For the people who don't know it: MW was a triology) and IW won't do cold-war/futuristic war (for the same reason Treyarch don't place there games in present), it will probably be set in WW2.

WW2 is really loved by gamers, but somehow all fps games are now set in the present or futur. So that will be an advantage for the new COD.

 

2. IW has the possibility to change the whole gameplay, Treyarch don't (because of there contract with Activision). MW2 and MW3 were just games to test out the new gameplay. and Treyarch had to copy that for Black Ops and Black Ops 2. IW now knows that the older gameplays were better and will change the new ones.

 

3. Activision, Treyarch, IW and much more other companies have spent this last 3 years so much money for a new engine. (That's also a reason Black ops, MW3 and Black ops 2 weren't so different of MW2.) What kind of engine it is, is this not known.

 

And if you ask why I know so much:

Let's say being a software engineer (who works across the whole world) has his benefits

[baguvix_wanrltw]

 

Why do people think CoD takes a year to make? Do people not know the difference between Treyarch and InfiniteWard?

 

If you people want some real news, Android will be making a new, upgraded version of the OUYA every year.

First it's InifinitY Ward. Second that's not the real Infinity Ward, they're known as Respawn nowadays.

 

Third, thanks for pointing out that Julie Uhrman IS actually Android. Never knew that, I always thought Android was just a modified Linux Google created for smartphones.

 

Always something new to learn from COD fans

 

On topic: f*ck new COD games. But V sales will still suffer.

 

 

Chris Fromage: Wow, I must admit you really convinced me there.

 

A COD set in WW2? That's never been done before. I think it's so cool we finally get to visit that era in a game. Activision does set the bar for innovation very high indeed.

 

And you say that after what, 14 CODs they figured out how to improve gameplay in a way that actually makes it interesting? Wow, they must be super smart! Just make the exact same game 5 times in a row and suddenly you learn how to make it good? Dang, why don't other companies do that

 

And much companies have spent much money huh? That sounds convincing too. Every COD from now on will surely be the pinnacle of gaming in every category.

 

 

I see Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field is still alive and well in new hands.

Edited February 9, 2013 by baguvix_wanrltw

[Guest]

 

It only takes them a year to make the game. f*ck these guys

It actually only takes 6 months. First months of a year used for DLC, the remaining for "making" a "new" game.

You are both wrong. They are given a 2 year development cycle thanks to the alternating between Treyarch and IW every year.

What a load of tosh. I'm not exactly sure Spacktivision (just came up with that... i thought it was good) or whoever is in control would pay the dev teams to work for two years on something that's only worth six. That would be alot of wasted money.

Have you seen how many copies they sell? Not a waste. stop talking out of your ass please, they are separate companies, how hard is that to understand?

 

The development companies are obviously poorly managed (according to glassdoor) , but so are most, 2 years is a reasonable amount of time for a video game company to make a game of that kind of quality.

 

http://kotaku.com/5940672/pissed-off-emplo...eo-game-company

If you actually read what I said, you'd discover that I said paying the dev teams to work for two years would be a waste, as they only need six months.

 

 

I did read what you said, I simply misinterpreted it as you taking sh*t again. I thought you meant six months though like you were blurting out before. Now that you point it out it makes more sense in The sentence you have there.

 

In terms of sentence structure it makes sense, but What do you mean it's only worth six years. that doesn't make sense.

Holy f*ck, huge typo. I was so focused on making it look attention grabbing that I didn't focus on what I was typing. I meant months, I'm changing it now.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Guest

[universetwisters]

A new call of duty? Aw, bummer.

[Sgt. Foley]

Please stop with the quote trains.

 

I would love to see a COD in WW2. I'm tired of this modern-futuristic sh*t.

[Guest]

Please stop with the quote trains.

 

I would love to see a COD in WW2. I'm tired of this modern-futuristic sh*t.

There are like four Call of Duty games set in WW2.

 

Oh, sorry, the latest one was released in 2008. My bad. I mean, we'd be barbarians if we played such an ancient game, it's so degrading!

[Sgt. Foley]

Please stop with the quote trains.

 

I would love to see a COD in WW2. I'm tired of this modern-futuristic sh*t.

There are like four Call of Duty games set in WW2.

 

Oh, sorry, the latest one was released in 2008. My bad. I mean, we'd be barbarians if we played such an ancient game, it's so degrading!

I know there are COD's based on WW2. I would like to see another one. Fans of COD love WW2. I know I do, so to see the next COD in WW2.

 

WaW is barren. Not alot of people play it anymore due to hackers and cheaters.

[Durden]

 

Why do people think CoD takes a year to make? Do people not know the difference between Treyarch and InfiniteWard?

 

If you people want some real news, Android will be making a new, upgraded version of the OUYA every year.

First it's InifinitY Ward. Second that's not the real Infinity Ward, they're known as Respawn nowadays.

 

Third, thanks for pointing out that Julie Uhrman IS actually Android. Never knew that, I always thought Android was just a modified Linux Google created for smartphones.

 

Always something new to learn from COD fans

 

On topic: f*ck new COD games. But V sales will still suffer.

First of all, really? Really??? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say thanks. Secondly, I... don't understand.

 

Thirdly, does it really matter? Julie founded it and Android is powering it, so what I said should still be acceptable.

 

But I guess all CoD-haters are just cynical grammar nazis.

 

 

Additionally, GTAV's sales will be merely scratched by CoD. A month or so after GTAV releases, everyone will be telling their friends how amazing the game is, thus influencing a lot of the more casual ones. So by the time CoD releases, GTAV should have secured more than enough sales. So if anything, GTAV will kick IW's (or Respawn's) sales in the nuts, not vice versa.

[Secura]

Please stop with the quote trains.

 

I would love to see a COD in WW2. I'm tired of this modern-futuristic sh*t.

There are like four Call of Duty games set in WW2.

 

Oh, sorry, the latest one was released in 2008. My bad. I mean, we'd be barbarians if we played such an ancient game, it's so degrading!

I know there are COD's based on WW2. I would like to see another one. Fans of COD love WW2. I know I do, so to see the next COD in WW2.

 

WaW is barren. Not alot of people play it anymore due to hackers and cheaters.

No, just no.

 

The whole reason that the original Modern Warfare was and in some people's eyes still is the best Call of Duty is because it started something new, something that was never done in an FPS before and that was to have a modern day setting. The campaign I'll admit is nothing great, but it's a damn sight better than whatever bullsh*t we got both before and after its' release.

 

I don't want to be stuck with a really weird fluctuating game franchise, well when I say I what I mean is the games industry. You see whatever Call of Duty does every other first person shooter that's not made by either ID, Gearbox or Bohemia Interactive's going to (at least to some extent) try to copy it.

 

Call of Duty's doomed, doomed to be the cash cow that Activision won't quit milking 'till it dies and whatever it chooses to do the other FPS's will always copy it. So the only thing we can really hope for is that Call of Duty at least attempts to try out a few more innovative things with each consecutive release ( like the somewhat open and different missions in Black Ops II for example).

 

Whatever happens there's only one thing that's going to remain certain, as long as Call of Duty gets good sales, and let's be honest it's not too likely that it won't get them this year, it's not going to stop doing what it's doing and that's something that the entire gaming industry could really do without.

 

[tooformay]

If it's like Black Ops 2 it will be great!

This, but without that f*cking annoying lag compensation.

 

If you have a good internet connection on Black Ops 2, you will have a sh*tty network connection on Black Ops 2. That sucks big time.

[Icarus]

I would love to see a COD in WW2.

I'd love to see one set during World War I. Hell, I'd like to see any major shooting game set during World War I, because I don't think that war has been covered extensively by the gaming industry, whereas World War II and Vietnam have been played out tremendously.

[CryptReaperDorian]

Please stop with the quote trains.

 

I would love to see a COD in WW2. I'm tired of this modern-futuristic sh*t.

I bet Infinity Ward would completely ruin a WWII game with all of this "tacticool" sh*t didn't even exist in that time period anyways. Treyarch did the same to BO1 that supposedly takes place during the Vietnam War (or shortly after).

 

Honestly, I was never a big fan of CoD. The only game I've played completely through was CoD 2, and even that wasn't anything to brag about. I've spent a few hours on BO1 and MW3, and I lost interest in those games very quickly. Game balance doesn't exist in CoD, and it's way too arcadish for my liking.

 

The only upcoming FPS that I currently anticipate is ArmA 3. If a game is going to focus mainly around shooting, then ballistics should play a part in this day and age.

[Gtaghost22]

The Call of Duty franchise continues to set the bar for innovation and we expect a new Call of Duty game in development for 2013 to raise that bar even higher

Not even in the alternate reality.

 

I'm surprised they're making another one. I really am, I swear to God.

Please tell me you're not actually surprised that a sequel is being developed for the most profitable game franchise in the industry.

I'm pretty that title belongs to Mario, right? CoD, while extremely popular this gen isn't even close as far as I know.

Anyway, I'm not really a fan of military first person shooters, so I will be skipping this, yeah.

[Andreas]

I'm not surprised at all that a new Call Of Duty is coming. I already have read rumours about it when Black Ops II was released last year. Call Of Duty is in a way like Christmas, it happens every year. Activision isn't going to put more effort into their CoD games or their games in general as long as the sales are great. Just because a game series has incredible sales, it does not mean its quality is superb. It only means that the hype around each game of the series is insane thus the sales are outstanding and that is what matters in the end for the developer and publisher. If the hype around the series dies down then Activision would put more effort into their games but it's not going to happen anytime soon. I liked the first four games of the series but everything that came after these games was just not worth the money in my opinion. The games after CoD 4 weren't even worth to pirate even though I don't pirate games at all.

[Secura]

The Call of Duty franchise continues to set the bar for innovation and we expect a new Call of Duty game in development for 2013 to raise that bar even higher

Not even in the alternate reality.

 

I'm surprised they're making another one. I really am, I swear to God.

Please tell me you're not actually surprised that a sequel is being developed for the most profitable game franchise in the industry.

I'm pretty that title belongs to Mario, right? CoD, while extremely popular this gen isn't even close as far as I know.

Anyway, I'm not really a fan of military first person shooters, so I will be skipping this, yeah.

Are you kidding me man ? Call of Duty's outsold Mario tenfold by now. They make at least one and half billion dollars or nearly one billion pounds per release, Mario couldn't even dream of selling that much.

[CryptReaperDorian]

The Mario franchise has well over 200,000,000 units sold. That's probably over 250,000,000 by now. In fact, I remember hearing that Super Mario World (probably one of the greatest games ever) sold over 25,000,000 copies. CoD definitely hasn't passed up Mario just yet.

 

EDIT: Apparently, it's over 700,000,000 units sold.

Edited February 9, 2013 by CryptReaperDorian

[Adler]

I would love to see a COD in WW2.

I'd love to see one set during World War I. Hell, I'd like to see any major shooting game set during World War I, because I don't think that war has been covered extensively by the gaming industry, whereas World War II and Vietnam have been played out tremendously.

Trench warfare. That is all.

 

No really, why on Earth would anyone want to play a game centered around WWI?