Representative image only. Does not belong to any announced Call of Duty game
Call of Duty franchise has been under heavy criticism since the last few years, especially since its decision to go the futuristic warfare way, which many fans and series loyalist felt was a unneeded diversion from what made the franchise successful: boots on the ground experience and solid multiplayer component.
Things have been getting worse and it seems to have hit breaking point when Activision announced Infinite Warfare this year. It went on to become the most disliked videogame trailer of all time on Youtube and scores of angry fans protested against the game being set in the future, demanding a more ‘hands-on’ war game.
Since the last three years, Activision has been releasing Call of Duty titles set in the future, namely Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3 and of course this year’s Call of Duty release, Infinite Warfare.
Although the series is still raking in money, with the publisher showing incredible year-over-year increase in revenue and profits but the ground reality is different with gamers getting tired of being ignored.
This forces the question to be asked. Why isn’t Activision releasing what the fans want? Which is a game set in world war era. The answer isn’t that simple and the reasons might not be what you expect.
Activision has made it clear their Call of Duty games follow a 3 year development cycle. This means the games that were releasing under the Call of Duty umbrella of late were in development long before the fans sentiment were made clear to the company.
Even if it decided to satisfy their demands and offer them with a game that would be more ‘in line’ with what they want from franchise, it simply couldn’t do it due to the long-development cycle for each Call of Duty game. The 3 year development cycle turned to be both a blessing and curse for the series in a way.
However, Activision knew what the sentiment was and hence it bought in Raven Software to create a Modern Warfare remastered to be released along with Infinite Warfare, a move which was largely made to mitigate the adverse reactions towards futuristic warfare.
But 2017 can be in a way a chance to redeem the series and finally offer fans what they want. These sentiments were only exposed 2-3 years ago and hence Activision might have assigned Sledgehammer Games (the developer whose CoD title is due next year) to develop a game the audience wants.
The early indication is that the game will be set in Vietnam but considering Battlefield 1 chose to pick a World War 1 setting this year (Activision might have been aware of this long before internally), it might not be hard to assume that Activision might be going back to the same era although further down the line: World War 2.
A World War 2 game can be a risky move but considering how well received Battlefield 1 turned out to be, the publisher might finally have the confidence to go that route. One thing is for sure, unless something goes very wrong, we will definitely not be seeing another Call of Duty game set in the future next year.