For the first time in two decades, Activision will deviate from its golden rule and shake up its traditional release schedule of Call of Duty. The franchise has been growing at the rate of one game a year for 17 years, but that's about to change. Indeed, the latest information provided by the studio doesn't mention any new titles for 2023, a major release that upsets more than just a calendar.

Ad
Call of Duty
Image: Reproduction

The Call of Duty license

Started in 2003, the Call of Duty license quickly became a benchmark in the world of first-person shooters. Twenty years ago, it was a real revolution in terms of mechanics, but also in terms of storytelling. War is becoming fashionable and players are asking for more. Just two years after the first opus, Activision established its tradition and the releases became annual.

Since then, water has flown under the bridge, and the institution that has become Call of Duty is not only struggling to reinvent itself, but is also facing the difficulties that its notoriety gives it. If we don't know what this turnaround is due to, does it mean the inevitable death of the franchise in the same way as any fad, or the simple urgency to renew? 

Unattainable expectations

If the rhythm of annual releases has managed to continue for so long, it's mainly thanks to Activision's ingenious organization. The parent company has added several studios over the years and today there are more than fifteen. Among them are names as famous as their games: Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Raven Software or Sledgehammer Games. These alternate from year to year, which has given the franchise its eclectic catalog.

The frenetic pace of releases, therefore, is not so much for the studios, which usually have at least two years ahead of them to design their next entry. However, producing a Call of Duty in 2003 has nothing to do with producing a game in 2022. Given its reputation, developing a license work requires a lot of financial and human resources to best meet the expectations of players, which are always higher and more precise.

The current stakes are therefore substantial and definitely have an impact on development time. Technological means may be "fast", but they can't keep up with the pace set by Activision. Whether it's technical improvements, graphics, fluidity, shooting or even gaming comfort, modernity comes at a cost and it's not necessarily a monetary one.

Driven by an increasingly lively consumer society, gamers' demands are becoming less and less attainable. A situation that has also created the problem of the "crunch" - the period at the end of a game's creation during which developers' working conditions are significantly degraded in order to finish the title on time, whatever the cost. 

Since this harmful practice for workers in the sector was discovered by the general public, the studios have had no choice but to accept two solutions: postpone the release date of the game in question, or release it in the state even when it is not completed.

A disappearing rhythm

At Activision, the leaders have chosen not to deviate from their rule, sometimes to the detriment of the quality of their video games. A decision that proves to us that ease often rhymes with mediocrity, and which is reflected in the latest works. Throughout its long career, Call of Duty has had some weak moments, always debatable. But that's not worth the setbacks that have befallen the franchise in recent years.

2018 saw the release of Call of Duty Black Ops 4, which somewhat disappointed fans of the saga due to the lack of a single player mode, although the worst was yet to come. It was in 2020 that real disappointment set in with the release of Black Ops Cold War, which lived up to its promises for a few weeks before quickly losing steam. 

The observation is felt by gamers, but also by the press, as the title unearths a Metacritic score of 76, very average for the franchise. This decline continued the following year, with the arrival of Call of Duty Vanguard and its Metracritic score of 73.

Among the critics, many lament the lack of coherence and quality between the different games, which is to be expected given the way Activision works. The balance, therefore, suffers from one game to the next, and players get lost in the resources present or not in the game, in the multiple versions of weapons or even in the sensations of the shooting. It's even worse since the studio decided to link the seasons of its multiplayer games to those of its battle royale Warzone.

The latter is also one of the rare exceptions to the franchise's decline. Released in 2020, the game took advantage of international lockdowns to increase its popularity. A palpable success even today, it has been able to see the light of day thanks to a good dose of innovation. Accessible for free, Warzone brings players together on gigantic maps, for large-scale games on the principle of every man for himself, until the best man wins.

In addition to this specific phenomenon, Activision is forced to rely on the reboot technique to rally the public around a traditional multiplayer game. In 2019, Modern Warfare sees the light of day, 12 years after the release of the original game and only 3 years after its remastering. The game doesn't change hands, and Infinity Ward brings a breath of fresh air and modernity to a blockbuster.

The studio is therefore opting for a safe bet to revive players' interest in Call of Duty , which is gradually dying out. Unsurprisingly, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 released a few days ago follows the same path. However, isn't betting on reboots to restore your image and justify the pace of releases a sign of a bad strategy?

Starting stronger, but different

This situation shows that Activision must make a decision: is it better to make a good game every now and then or an average game every year? If the latter option currently allows the company to secure its player base and guarantee an almost automatic cash flow, doesn't it run the risk of tiring out players in the long run? This is a question that really applies to all players in the industry and is already proving relevant to many franchises: FIFA, Assassin's Creed, etc.

Technology will never advance as quickly as gamers expect, and every game released leads us into a self-contradictory consumer society. Today, gamers want to have a finished product in their hands after release, a game that doesn't compromise and doesn't have to wait for the next one to be forgotten if it fails. For this, a radical change must be made. But breaking its annual release rule would require Activision to overhaul the studio's business model.

The next games could thus resort to a service game model like Warzone, Overwatch or even Fortnite, which could be as much a trap as an escape. If today Activision combines several models, mixing the two tends to be chaotic and standardization will always be beneficial. A release every two years would, for example, allow studios to focus more on what the title would bring to the franchise, beyond new sets and a badly redesigned user interface. 

See also: Soul Hackers 2 game review; understand the gameplay

November 28, 2022