Call of Duty games moving to three year development cycle

Activision has announced that future games in the COD series will move to a three-year development cycle. The series has traditionally maintained a two-year cycle until now, with developers Infinity Ward and Treyarch alternating annual releases.

9

Going forward, Call of Duty games will get a bit more love. Activision has announced that future games in the series will move to a three-year development cycle. The series has traditionally maintained a two-year cycle until now, with developers Infinity Ward and Treyarch alternating annual releases.

"For the first time, this year's Call of Duty game, and future Call of Duty games, are being built on a three year development cycle," the publisher revealed in a conference call (via IGN). "There are several advantages to doing this, the first is of course quality. This will give our designers more time to envision and to innovate."

This year's game is being developed by Sledgehammer Games, who have been independently working on their own game. Previously, the team played a support role for COD games. Presumably, Treyarch's next COD game will be out in 2015 and Infinity Ward's next game will be out in 2016.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    February 6, 2014 2:45 PM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Call of Duty games moving to three year development cycle.

    Activision has announced that future games in the COD series will move to a three-year development cycle. The series has traditionally maintained a two-year cycle until now, with developers Infinity Ward and Treyarch alternating annual releases.

    • reply
      February 6, 2014 3:09 PM

      so still a yearly release plan....I know its still really popular but havent the last couple of entries been loosing ground slowly? If so shouldnt that be a sign of oversaturation?

    • reply
      February 6, 2014 3:20 PM

      They probably feel that it will last as long coming out every year as every other plus the last few were noticeably lower quality and that that was the reason for the lower sales not the yearly release schedule.

    • reply
      February 6, 2014 3:29 PM

      They just realized from Ghosts that they can't make a next gen CoD in 2 years so they gave them one more. I find it funny though that instead of skipping one year they just threw another studio at it.

      • reply
        February 6, 2014 4:05 PM

        They already had Sledgehammer since 2010. That studio was formed from Glen Schofield and Michael Condrey leaving Visceral and going over to Activision. They were supposedly starting work on a project (which might have been that "Ghost" game that Craig Fairbrass outed via a TV interview), but they had to put that down to help on MW3's development, as well as Call of Duty Elite.

        I've been out of the Call of Duty market demographic for years, but these games really need more than 22 months of development in order to pursue actual creative design decisions beyond a roller-coaster shooting gallery with turret sequences and quick-time events.

      • reply
        February 7, 2014 3:14 AM

        Many companies simply can't stay in business without that annual revenue from AAA titles like that.

    • reply
      February 6, 2014 3:59 PM

      So, if you've got 2 studios working on 2 games in 3 year cycles. Does that mean a game will come out every 1.5 years?

      • reply
        February 6, 2014 5:11 PM

        Read again, Sledgehammer is the third studio. 3 studios all on 3 year cycles.

    • reply
      February 6, 2014 4:45 PM

      You know what would be really fuckin cool... if they took these 3 studios and had 2 of them make somthing other than a fps in the cod universe... you know somthing like a 3rd person shooter, strategy game, stealth game. Spice it up a little instead of shitting out the same game with new maps every year.

    • reply
      February 6, 2014 5:10 PM

      So basically Ghosts, MW, and BLOPS on a rotating schedule, then.

    • reply
      February 6, 2014 5:18 PM

      Wish they would go back to what CoD used to be old WW2 im so sick of every year it gets more futuristic. The last good CoD in my opinion was World at Word all water down garbage from there Ghost maybe my last CoD game I buy sad to say.

      • reply
        February 6, 2014 8:41 PM

        CoD WW1!!! Or, maybe something different like Spanish civil war?

        • reply
          February 7, 2014 2:43 AM

          I love the idea of a WW1 game, but I'm not sure how it would work as a FPS. I think a WW1 game would be much better as a tactical strategy game. But I would certainly take a WW1 shooter if one came around.

          • reply
            February 7, 2014 4:10 AM

            I think a change in scenery like that would lead to some needed gameplay changes. I think just the type of weapons available in the era would change gameplay too. Damn, now I want a WW1 CoD!

    • reply
      February 6, 2014 5:34 PM

      seems like it would be pretty difficult to effectively coordinate 3 teams on different cadences sharing resources. Going to be a lot of tech reimplemented by each team because they can't effectively share resources when one team is coming up on public demos and the next team is a year into dev work while the 3rd is just starting planning.

    • reply
      February 6, 2014 10:24 PM

      It'd be nice to see the devs get their creative juices flowing and do something refreshing with the franchise, even if one of the teams makes the macho multiplayer shooter, and the other does cool shit.

    • reply
      February 7, 2014 12:25 AM

      Kill it in hellfire, and fast.

      CoD deserves to die.

      If Activision should do something, then that would be to release CoD 1 and CoD 2 in GOG.

    • reply
      February 7, 2014 2:42 AM

      What gets lost in all of the "CoD Hating" din is that the first two games in this series were fucking amazing. I really enjoyed the single player campaigns in the Modern Warfare series as well, but CoD 1 and 2 were the best of the entire series. That said, I think that this series, and modern-based military shooters in general, are on the wane.

      • reply
        February 7, 2014 5:40 AM

        1 and 2 were damn DAMN fun games in SP. Ditto MW1 actually, they've been shitty rehashes ever since though.

    • reply
      February 7, 2014 3:21 AM

      I guess Ghosts really did sell less than they were hoping for.

      Anyway, great news. I've gotten my moneys worth out of all the MW/BO games, and Ghosts was alright as well, so this sounds great to me. If anything, they could use more length and more new ideas, and more development time will surely help with those.

Hello, Meet Lola