680°

Upcoming Call of Duty 2014 Teaser Has Begun

It appears that Sledgehammer Game’s is gearing up to reveal their first ever Call of Duty title for the next gen consoles.

Read Full Story >>
playstationgang.com
colonel1793679d ago

You know a franchise is milked when they use years instead of numbers to refer to the newest one.

supersonicjerry3678d ago

well i mean its a squeal and we don't know the official name for it what else would they call it?

ScamperCamper3678d ago

There is a decent amount of evidence to suggest it's future or advanced: http://www.callofdutyforeve...

Activision isn't just going to pick something at random. If it's the most innovative release to date, then it has to be something completely new. In that sense, it's not going to be known as "COD 2014" or something weak like that. They have to really build a new branch for COD and picking the right name for it is important. They screw this up, the franchise is in big trouble. I think we all agree on that.

randomass1713678d ago

The CoD franchise is somewhat archaic and its modern incarnation is barely even a decade old with a bunch of games under its belt. Activision, as you said, cannot afford to mess one of them up so they constantly play it safe.

supersonicjerry3678d ago

@ScamperCamper exactly but nobody knows officially what the next cod is going to be called all of us are making assumptions that it will be modern warfare 4 and its a big chance that it will be that but no official word until they release the trailer.

mark3214uk3678d ago (Edited 3678d ago )

we all slag them off,saying that all the games are the same ect but we still buy them :/

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3678d ago
ZombieKiller3678d ago (Edited 3678d ago )

Lol @ your 5 disagrees. Those are the guys that already preordered the game without letting them finish the title.

I just don't understand the logic of the series. I hear so many people say the last game was trash so I'm waiting for the next one.....uh.....what?

Screw me once shame on you, screw me twice shame on me. Screw me every year and it's time to find a new game.

@ScamperCamper "Activision isn't just going to pick something at random."

Lol so Snoop Doggs voice saying "ya dig" over the sat com isn't a perfect example of that? These games are getting more careless as the hit the shelves. Each year they get worse with more shit for the kiddies to make mommy n daddy break out the wallets. Generic shooter for 2014 confirmed. I understand it's a different studio, but it's all under the same overhead, with the same rules, and the same engine.

k3rn3ll3678d ago

See that's the thong you answered ur question in tryout statement. If you've bought 5 games outta the series and only one of em you didnt like, that's a better ratio then most series have

CarlosX3603678d ago

Yeah, but that's how YOU feel, kid. Problem with a new "sub-series" is that they have to start all over again. Look at Ghosts; use your head.

Ghosts was a failure not just because of how absurd the game's code was; it failed because there wasn't enough marketing heat to the game - it's back to square one. So, Modern Warfare 4 makes MORE sense than a new sub-series...

I don't think franchise fatigue is the factor to the decline of "Call of Duty." It's still relevant, and will be until players stop giving two crap about it.

It's going to be MW4, live with it. If they go with a new sub-series, I call stupid. Back to square one again... which they can't afford to do with Destiny around the corner.

curtis923678d ago

get off it... it's hugely successful. And, believe it or not, a lot of fun -- unless you're a close minded "everything has to be 100% new and original all the time, always" kind of person.

Sometimes if something isn't broke it doesn't need to be fixed. Take that as milking all you want, but it works. Stop being so sour.

colonel1793678d ago

It has to be a balance though, and most of the time, having a yearly game comes more as milking than "hugely successful".

I even say that for sport games, should be only updates (as DLC) and release a NEW game every 2 to 3 years. How much can you do in a year to innovate a franchise?

At least Activision announced that the cycle between development for COD is three years, the same as Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed, so even if they are yearly, they can do something much better when developing them.

Joey_Leone3678d ago

@ScamperCamper The franchise is already in trouble.

maddskull3678d ago

i dont know but i feel cod will get better now because the devs have 3 years to make the game although i dont like sledgehammer games i am waiting for treyarch they are the best devs that made cod and with the extended time i think they might innovate and add new features

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3678d ago
PSFanboy0073679d ago ShowReplies(7)
crusf3679d ago

If this CoD somehow manages to surprise everyone with awesome graphics a new engine and a fantastic story. You people will still hate on it. Why? Because its popular and we humans HATE whatever is popular Amazing how a few MP deaths can lead one to regret a 60 dollar purchase and disregard all effort put on development of the game. Worth noting IW had to develop for 6 different platforms at the span of 1 year. You tell me that's not an impressive feat.

colonel1793679d ago

Not necessarily! Remember that COD became successful after the reveal of COD 4. Even after they showed Killzone 4 which was much more impressive in all fronts. However, COD 4 had a very innovative multiplayer (at the time).

If the new one manages to impress like COD 4 did, people will be excited for sure.

HacSawJimThugin3678d ago

COD needs a drastic change like a third person perspective to get me interested. I doubt that that will ever happen but they need something along those lines. TitanFall is my go to shooter for MP First person outside of Halo of course. With that being said I like them to prove me wrong and actually make something compelling to play.

BattleAxe3678d ago (Edited 3678d ago )

I don't think people actually 'hate' the CoD series, so much as they're just bored to death of it. I used to play CoD:4, CoD:WaW, and MW2 like crazy, and I loved these games.

The problem is that it's the same thing over and over again with little tweaks here and there with the newer CoD games, especially ever since Black Ops came out. Not to mention, that Call of Duty is more run and gun than it ever has been in the past. It's not really a military shooter these days, so much as it is a Quake or Unreal Tournament game with military skins.

voice_of_ reason3679d ago (Edited 3679d ago )

@crusf
"Worth noting IW had to develop for 6 different platforms at the span of 1 year. You tell me that's not an impressive feat."

It's not impressive at all, actually.

And if the game is truly amazing then gamers will recognize it.

Before Modern Warfare hit the scene COD was the same ol' WWII shooter. Everyone was tired of it... no one was hating on it because it was 'popular', it was just the same thing as the years before. Then IW made an awesome graphics engine, changed the multiplayer, and changed the setting to 'modern'. Ironically they have fallen back into the same pattern as before when COD was the same ol' WWII shooter... but this time, they aren't even trying anymore. It's quite sad.

crusf3679d ago (Edited 3679d ago )

Not Impressive? Have you ever worked on a game before? You know how hard it is to make textures,code, sound design and voice over work? Some developers are allowed years to craft there finished product.Why? Because they know it's not as easy as it seems to make a game.

Master-H3678d ago

Wut ? before Modern Warfare only COD3 sucked, and it was 3arc's game, COd1 and Cod2 made by the original IW team were pure gold, especially CoD2, CoD essentially became the new Medal of Honor in terms of quality at that time. CoD really went downhill once VInce and zembella left around the time MW2 released

NarooN3678d ago

@Master-H

Dude, CoD3 was great. It was pretty much a better version of CoD2, which itself was underwhelming. And you somehow forgot that CoD1: United Offensive was developed by Treyarch, and was considered by many to be much superior to both the original CoD1 AND CoD2.

WaW was the last decent CoD game, it's just been pure downhill ever since MW2.

Skizelli3678d ago

@NarooN

I'd say Black Ops was the last good COD game (single and multi), but that's just me. My top 3 would have to be COD4 > BO > WaW. It's a shame that all of these sequels put a blemish on the perfection that was COD4. It seems most people that are still into the franchise only care about the multiplayer. That's probably because none of their campaigns have come close to COD4's. It was a great game all around.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3678d ago
bondsmx3678d ago

One year isn't correct.. They were on 2 year cycles. And now, 3 year cycles with SHG making this years game.

NarooN3678d ago

You're giving them way too much credit. Ghosts was just an abysmal game all-around, there wasn't anything remotely impressive about it, besides the fish A.I.

Six different platforms, you're acting like they actually only developed the game in a year? Six different platforms isn't as crazy as you're making it out to be. Create all the game's assets once, then scale them down as necessary to fit on the target platforms, whether that's removing certain post-processing effects or lowering texture resolutions and native internal rendering resolutions, etc. The only thing that was different besides that was the native code, so that's x86 for PC, X1, and PS4, and PowerPC for 360, PS3, and Wii U.

Not incredibly difficult, especially considering the engine is the same as it's been for ages now, and they've had experience in all these different architectures for years now. Not to mention it was more than just IW -- they had help from Neversoft and Sledgehammer IIRC.

If the games were truly great, gamers would recognize them. The CoD hate isn't unwarranted or based solely in hipsterism bandwagon-jumping as so many like to claim. People are sick of the blatant laziness that goes into the games year after year, and the effect it's had on the industry as a whole (people trying and failing miserably to copy CoD's success, other devs adopting Activision's sleazy DLC methodologies, etc.) It's definitely justified.

As for the story, just lol. The vast majority of people don't give a rat's ass about CoD's campaign modes, and the statistics prove it. Only around 40% of people even start up the first level, about 10% of people finish it, and only about 1~2% of people even beat the game. Source = Activision themselves, google it. It's all about the multiplayer, and yes, that is the point where they refuse to really innovate nor fix the numerous netcode issues and gameplay balance problems that have been rampant in the series for YEARS now.

So yeah, tons of people have very good reasons to not just mindlessly accept CoD as a "good series" nowadays.

crusf3678d ago (Edited 3678d ago )

"Create all the game's assets once, then scale them down as necessary to fit on the target platforms" You realize how long it takes to make those assets? You think all IW does is click a bottom and POOF a new Call of Duty. It's much more complicated than that."considering the engine is the same as it's been for ages now" Wrong again before assuming what un educated trolls imply read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... and go to the list at the bottom. You tell me the team is not significantly improving there engine and its the same every year.

NarooN3678d ago

Nice job putting words into my mouth. I never said making the assets was incredibly easy, but you yourself lied when you claimed they do the games in "a year". Not to mention it's been demonstrated by end-users over the internet how they re-use assets anyway. Stop trying to martyr these guys so hard, lol.

The engine itself is the same. Yes, it has been incrementally updated over time, but that doesn't make it an entirely new engine. They get more than enough time to make these games, there's no excuse for the subpar quality of them.

And no, they are no "significantly" improving anything in the engine. It took them 'til 2012 to have HDR in their engine, and you're sitting here trying to defend them? Half-Life 2: Lost Coast showed that off way back in 2005! Get real, you and all the fanboys who are throwing out the disagrees are blind to the truth. I bet you guys are just angry because you keep buying these shitty games, so you're trying to justify your terrible purchases by justifying the lazy development of these games.

Skizelli3678d ago

@crusf

Why spend all that time making new assets when you can just regurgitate old ones? http://youtu.be/5E82ZkHTiVU

You're giving them too much credit.

k3rn3ll3678d ago

I agree with everything you said but IW had two years same as treyarch. Now each has three

Vladplaya3678d ago

Trust me, it will not amaze anyone other than Call of Duty fans... and it doesn't take much to amaze that type of people.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3678d ago
BattleReach3679d ago (Edited 3679d ago )

What? That 'coming soon' page is already up for 3 months! No need to make an article about it.

Show all comments (98)
60°

Call Of Duty On Game Pass Is A Big Risk Big Reward Gamble

Discover the impact of Microsoft's decision to include Call Of Duty in Game Pass. Explore the pros and cons and speculate about future changes.

Read Full Story >>
gamersocialclub.ca
Elda2d ago

Most folks that have a Gamepass subscription will not spend the $70, they will use Gamepass instead to play COD. MS will most likely make their money from some solely PC players & some solely PS5 owners. Even some PC players may opt to use Gamepass instead of spending $70. I would think MS would want to make every dime they could from retail sales. As long as they put new releases of COD day one on Gamepass, MS will lose out on some sales of COD.

porkChop2d ago

COD makes truck loads of money on microtransactions. That's likely the play. Get more people in the door through Game Pass and sell more microtransactions. Have a steady stream of events to keep people interested so they keep their sub, and then just the sub alone would double the revenue from that player each year.

Elda2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Buying the game at $70 a pop including the deluxe versions is much better than people subs for a dollar to $15 a month. Die hard fans that usually buy the game also buy into the transactions. Again putting any new COD day one on Gamepass is definitely a sure loss of making some retail money for every copy of COD. With the last iteration of COD being bad most likely people are going to sub to Gamepass to play COD basically saving themselves $70, that is a loss of retail sales.

Kakashi Hatake2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Most that don't have Gamepass will just buy the game and he done with it. People that do will just result in a retail sale being lost. Some will buy the subscription for the month then be done. This is lose lose. Casuals aren't going to pay almost 300 dollars a year for COD.

ApocalypseShadow2d ago

The reality is that Microsoft already knows the answer as stated by them in their documents. PlayStation gamers have built up an ecosystem of games and they aren't migrating over and dropping what they have to buy an Xbox to play one game in a service you have to pay monthly for. Cheaper to just buy the game. And, I'd bet many casual COD players don't know or care about the acquisition.

Which is why Jim Ryan pushed to make sure that that one game continues to be sold as usual on Sony's platform to keep the status quo. Every other IP owned by Activision are worthless. And Activision has shown they don't care about other IP like Tony Hawk by cancelling them.

Sales WILL be lost on Xbox. That's for certain. Microsoft can only hope that Xbox gamers continue to buy up those micro transactions to make up for those lost sales. Only positive for Microsoft is that they get to dip into PlayStation game sales that we all know from history and NPD, that Sony's console sells more games. But increase subs from Sony fans for game pass? Not happening in any way that matters.

Sony, on the other hand, can have their cake and eat it too. They get COD and they can continue dropping more content for their fastest selling GaaS game which is Hell Divers 2. As the game passes 12 million sales and doesn't beat you over the head with micro transactions, Sony has a win win situation and can support the game getting more content to keep players engaged.

As a side note, COD is probably going to turn into some version of Sea of Fortnite Duty. Games as a service sitting in game pass being milked dry with micro transactions and constant updates making you feel you're playing an unfinished game that keeps going and going with no soul.

Tedakin2d ago

I'm not sure why everyone is acting like COD is a surprise. That was always the plan. They said in court during the FTC case they were doing this. They have said repeatedly and recently all first party games are going to Gamepass.

badboyz091d 17h ago

gamepass like PS Plus are rental services. Games like COD you buy not rent. So in my case unless I plan on keeping gamepass for 2yrs minimum than the benefit of adding cod is pointless.

80°

5 Reasons Why Call Of Duty On Xbox Game Pass Is A Big Deal

We've put together 5 reasons why we believe the arrival of the Call of Duty franchise on Xbox Game Pass will be a big deal for Microsoft.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
peppeaccardo2d ago

Throwing bananas at the monkeys' cage.

920°

Microsoft To Add New Tiers & Pricing To Xbox Game Pass Subscription With Addition Of Call Of Duty

Microsoft will reportedly add new tiers and pricing to its Xbox Game Pass subscription with the addition of Call of Duty to its game catalog.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
Jin_Sakai4d ago

And so it begins. Game Pass days are over.

ThinkThink4d ago

How come? Because there's a rumor of adding an additional tier?

Jin_Sakai4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

CoD is just a way of raising the prices and pushing people into paying more for Game Pass. It’s losing its value and the day 1 first party games aren’t really worth it anymore.

purple1014d ago

yes, because people were sold on the promise of one price, activision games included, now they want another whole tier to include cod,

not what people initially brought into, (well gamepass had many subs even before Activision, but you get my point)

So, One more lie, to add to the stack of lies, perpetrated by these scumbags,

jin_sakai probably think this ones the nail in the coffin, id tend to agree

Cacabunga3d ago

Sony better take notes and rethink their future plans.

this really couldn’t get worse..

peppeaccardo3d ago

If you pay attention to the target audience of this so called gaming service it all starts making sense and MS is doing exactly what they r supposed to do to get their money back ... if you really understand the reasoning of the lower side of the spectrum of the cod players MS has found its gold vein ... we r in business territory as entertainment is long deceased on the MS vocabulary.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3d ago
Hofstaderman3d ago

Best deal in gaming??? We think not.

3d ago
GamerRN3d ago

So you probably don't like all three tiers of PSN either.

notachance3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

If they’re as stupid as to make it more than $5/month increase from the highest tier I’d laugh my ass off.

crazyCoconuts3d ago

That would be a way of getting to say they kept the promise of all games on GamePass without cannibalizing their sales

3d ago
GamerRN3d ago

Isn't there an 8 dollar difference between bottom and top tier PSN?

Bathyj3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Making gamepass worse value by making it more expensive, as well as CoD losing Xbox sales and PlayStation gamers will want it less if Xbox gamers are getting it for "free".

Takes real talent to damage 2 things with one move.

Chocoburger3d ago

Call of Duty needs to be taken down a notch, its too popular for its own damn good. So yeah, it seems like MS is going to help make that happen. So good job, I guess?

crazyCoconuts3d ago

If they price it so high that people won't want it, they won't sign up so MS won't lose out on sales. Not all of those bad things will happen, just some of them

PhillyDonJawn3d ago

Really? You think CoD on PS would sell less cause Xbox gamers get access thru gamepass? I doubt that. COD fanbase is huge they're gonna play where they want to play and not care how the next person got it

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3d ago
Notellin3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

I ended my subscription right around when they announced the purchase of Activision/Blizzard.

No offense but I'm not paying a subscription fee to get the worst 3rd party publishers games for free. It's like paying a monthly fee to only eat at Chili's or Applebee's while everyone else is having all the amazing food.

My hope was Gamepass would bring more games like Grounded or Hi-Fi Rush. We have all seen how that's going.

I'll never spend another dollar on an Xbox service ever again after the recent studio closures. I've defended them on here and elsewhere but they don't deserve any trust from any consumer at this point.

PhillyDonJawn3d ago

I understand your feelings but your analogy made no sense lol

VariantAEC2d ago

Never eaten at Chilis or Applebees... are they really that bad?

Notellin1d 10h ago

@PhillyDonJawn

It makes perfect sense and I can't figure out how you are unable to comprehend the words.

S2Killinit3d ago

And soon you will have the option to opt for the Sports package, but if you want sports you also need to pay for the weather package.

As Ive said since this thing was introduced. Prepare to get nickel and dimed.

PhillyDonJawn3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

They do that that'll be the end of them. They're not that crazy. Only way that would work is if you could build a game pass package $5 sports, $5 shooter, $5 rpg, etc. But even then it's bad business for MS cause ppl that only play sports and shooters would get it cheaper compared to an all game bundle and they'd lose money.

InUrFoxHole3d ago

@Jin Sakai
But you're totally fine with paying for psn with no day 1, 1st party...

crazyCoconuts3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

The PSN essential value you get with base online access is unparalleled, puts Xbox core to shame. The PSN extra package however seems to be diminishing in value as it probably should. With any luck we'll have people buying their frickin games again as these sub services lose popularity

PhillyDonJawn3d ago

@Coconut not gonna lie I wanna start buying games again lol. (I do but not day 1 releases) I still feel bad for not buying Ori 2. Had it not release day 1 on GP I would've bought. So if they move day 1 titles to a new tier (which I'm not subbing to) I'd buy the games I really want day 1. While the ones I want to play but not badly I'd wait til it's available on the lower tier to play.

lodossrage3d ago

@InUrFoxHole

oh come on, There was a time Xbox fans were ok with just paying for the right to play online without getting anything for it.

ironmonkey3d ago

He's fine with paying for better games. Xbox ain't got it. Redfall day one enjoy....

InUrFoxHole2d ago

@lodossrage
And here both xbox and and sony fans pay still pay for online

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
1Victor3d ago

@Jin by Microsoft standards another $10 should do the trick🤦🏿

PhillyDonJawn3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Nah I disagree, the value of GP has been crazy they were screwing themselves for quick subscriber gain. I always felt the day 1 releases would eventually stop and they only did it to get ppl to sub faster. That's why it quickly surpassed PS sub. Now that they hit a ceiling and picked up Activision they can only A. Take away the day 1 releases and hope the sub count remain or B. Increase the cost and hope they keep the sub count. Seem they went with
C. Add a new tier which is likely a mix of A and B.
If the new tier is only Activision games and they leave ultimate alone I'll be happy. I don't play COD so

3d ago
SPEAKxTHExTRUTH3d ago

Did you say that when Sony raised the price of PS+ and didn’t offer anything to justify the increase? I doubt it…

Chevalier3d ago

Yeah and Xbox tried to DOUBLE the price of Gold remember?

badkolo3d ago

if they add more top tier games , more value and charge more for this tier, cool thats just normal business and an option for its users. how does that affect you or us in any way. there is still a cheap option and so on. and yea over time we did expect it to eventually go up a few bucks. every other company has but now its a problem when ms does it?

jeromeface3d ago

anyone who thought microsoft was a good idea for leading the industry into a period of better games doesn't know Microsoft...

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1d 10h ago
gold_drake4d ago

gotta make back that money somehow. but its definitely a scummy move before cod comes to gamepass haha.

Tacoboto3d ago

Similar kind of thing happened back when Starfield came out.

The dollar new accounts for a month, trials, various promotions kinda dried up as they finally had a big game coming, following a price hike in July. But reception was eh.

And they haven't delivered on letting us cloud stream our owned library yet either.

crazyCoconuts3d ago

I think you're hitting on the core issue with Starfield. All of this breaks down of they can't make good games. Whether you're leasing or selling to one platform or multiple, the games gotta be good. That's the thing that's absolutely bonkers about this whole thing: making good games has been Microsoft's Achilles heel for many years now

mrcatastropheAF3d ago

Where did they promise allowing you to cloud stream your owned library? Lol anything downloaded to your console you can play remotely anywhere. Don't recall them making that promise.

New tier for gamepass solely due yo call of duty is a garbage move though. They keep shooting themselves in the foot

Tacoboto3d ago

@catastrophe

They said it June 2022

https://news.xbox.com/en-us...

"We’re excited to share that later this year, it’s our intent to roll out the ability for Xbox Game Pass Ultimate members to play, from the cloud, select games they already own or have purchased outside the Xbox Game Pass library."

LG_Fox_Brazil4d ago

It doesn't surprise me, it's very clear that MS is trying as hard as possible to recover all the money spent on Activision and Bethesda, they will do whatever they can, doesn't matter if people will like ir or not, as long as the higher ups see money arriving, it's all fair game

Profchaos3d ago

Pretty much Xbox wrote a cheque that Microsoft can't cash.
Inflated metrics egos and a belief that they could get the casual gamer playing hardcore titles via cloud on mobiles really lead them to belive they were in a better position than the reality.

I don't believe gamepass was ever that strong with many gamers likely signing up multiple fake emails for the dollar trials over and over boosting that count along with Xbox live gold hacks and other methods of getting gamepass for next to no money a month have been well known and exploited for years.

Microsoft have a belief that everyone's grandma wants to play halo on a mobile if they could just reach them because they played Wii bowling once so they must want to play halo

XiNatsuDragnel4d ago

Oof this is Microsofts grand plan?

Fishy Fingers4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

While a rumour cant say Id be surprised if true.

Certain other subscription services I sub to have increased in price while adding nothing and we expect theyre potentially offering up the biggest game of every year and its back catalog for "free"?

But I'd happily skip it if there are options (or upgrade for a month for the campaign)

Outside_ofthe_Box4d ago

People expect the price of games to stay the same forever so why wouldn't they expect the same for subscription services?

Crows903d ago

Price increases are fine. As long as they make sense. Games at 60 was a good price point. Things don't have to go up in price just because.

I used to buy some games at 60...how many do I buy at 70? None. It's a loss for the industry. The higher the price the likelihood sales won't be as high. For $10 more they lost $60.

Same thing with subscriptions. As long as it's affordable people will set it and forget it. If it stops being affordable people will be more picky...so a price increase of $5 could net them a loss of millions.

Outside_ofthe_Box3d ago

Let's be honest, nobody wants prices to increase. I personally have always thought that $40 was the perfect price and never liked it when they increased it to $50 for the PS2 generation and then $60 for the PS3. The $60 price did hold on for a good while though.

Same with sub services. The whole appeal is 'the best deal in gaming' mantra people love to chant, but we all know that they will increase the price eventually especially if they are putting CoD that will actually sell a ton even at that $70 price point.

Show all comments (125)