Since the release of Black Ops 2 in 2012, the Call of Duty franchise has been sending us into future settings, whether it be ground-based robot warfare or space gunship battles.

Many fans within the Call of Duty franchise want to see a return to modern day or pre-modern day warfare much like the Modern Warfare series, Black Ops 1 and other games. With 2016 being the fourth year in the row of future-based Call of Duty titles, many feel Activision just aren’t listening. It’s however much more complicated, and in reality, Activision are listening – they simply cannot react as quickly as we’d like.

In this video, we discuss the inner workings behind Call of Duty development, and why it’s a much slower process to respond to fans requests. Watch below:

watchvideocod2017

SHARE
  • Element115Will

    FURST!!

    Geez I actually thought that SHG/Activision gave a hint for their next game that they would be doing their Original Development of their Vietnam Game. Not even gonna bother looking at your vid CI.

    • Hey dude! Just out of pure interest – do you ever watch Call of Duty news channels on YouTube? Just trying to get an understanding behind the logic of these kinds of comments.

      I came across an interesting fact the other day. A huge percentage of people who follow @CharlieINTEL also follow the big Call of Duty YouTube channels on Twitter, but for some reason – they just don’t like nor accept the idea of Charlie INTEL doing the odd YouTube video. Imagine that?

      • Element115Will

        Watch or read? What I do mostly, is I read what CI posted. Their video? No. As they said, they will DISCUSS the workings of CoD Development and such. Not news. Do you have a problem with my comment? If so, explain yourself considering I read the post.

        • That’s totally cool in that case. Was just trying to understand where we might be going wrong with comments like the one above.

          • Element115Will

            Understandable. I honestly got excited for the moment until I kept further reading and crashed down. Lol

          • Element115Will

            Now that I see CI put (Opinion) on their title, that makes it better for others (hopefully it was just dimwitted me) that wont fall for it lol.

      • Petey, ily.

  • Corey

    Someone else brought this up before, but Sledge put a bunch of WW2 weapons in supply drops in the dying months of Advanced Warfare, so maybe that’s what we’ll see next.

    • BradyAlucard

      I noticed that too. At least they’re good at hype.

    • modernpoika

      This makes all sense now. They made all those WW2 gun models already so they could use them in their future game.

  • AcePhoenix007
    • Bethimckim3

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !st47f:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !st47f:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash337NetworkSetGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!st47f:….,….

    • ccrows

      Until SH confirms that they aren’t using the same SBMM system as AW, IDC what they make.

      IMO Matachmaking priority needs to be based on distance and connection, not KD…

      • BradyAlucard

        This. That killed AW, as well as BO3’s scrub-based matchmaking. SBMM just has to go entirely. I’m sure there are more factors that would make matchmaking better as well.

        • Mario Rivera

          I can pinpoint lots of things wrong with BO3 but the matchmaking isnt one of them. They find people people based on connection first, then they split them into teams based on skill while keeping parties together. Its almost never going to be perfect since there is obviously no guarantee that its going find equally skilled players based on connection. If a lobby has one 2 kd player, a few 1 kd ish players and a whole bunch of 0.5kd scrubs they obviously cant let the 2kd guy have all the 1 kd ppl as teammates while filling the opposite team with scrubs. All they can do is give the 2kd player one decent player with scrubs while the opposite team gets 3 decent players and 3 not so bad scrubs (0.8kd etc). Obviously the system isnt perfect but its fuking lightyears better than AW and early BO2 matchmaking. We need to be more realistic about our bitching as a community or we just gonna end up crying for them to change it back. History refresher here… We complained about tiny symmetrical maps and ppl eating clips so they gave us ghosts… yea… Then we complained about cod being too slow/repetitive so we got exo suits. Yea… If we bitch about this matchmaking enough guess what comes back? Yea thats right, SBMM… Everything has pluses and minues to it but sometimes we just gotta be happy with the lesser of the two evils or we just get stuck with something even worse. If a cod dev reads your post and brings back sbmm because of it im personally leading the pack of angry pitchfork wielding charlie intel fans to your house 🙂

        • Manamorphose

          “When” it works…. BO3 is the closest we will get to connection only matchmaking. It’s exactly what every FPS should have for MM.

      • jordanxbrookes

        This was the main factor that killed AW imo.

        • Drank Bleach

          And the lovely introduction of the cash cow aka supply drops.

          • Lindajallums3

            Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !sk515f:
            On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
            !sk515f:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash805DirectPublicGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!sk515f:….,……

      • RdJokr

        LOL, fat chance. For one thing, the matchmaking issue in AW was a bug, one that they somehow never figured out how to fix until after BO3 I believe. BO3 had that bug for a while too, but Treyarch managed to revert the change, so thank God. Another is that Schofield and Condrey have stated countless times that the matchmaking system is same as every other COD, which is true (minus the bug that makes it seem like skill is favored over connection). No way would they ever go back on that statement, unless it’s to say “yes, we’re totally adding skill based matchmaking in our next game”.

        • w (formerly known as guest w)

          Can you link me where it states that SBMM in AW is a bug? I don’t believe it. You can’t be naive and believe everything Schofield, Condrey, or anyone else in a business says. It’s a business, and it’s not rare for them to lie and be shady.

          • RdJokr

            Because it was a bug in BO3 for a short time during Christmas. Granted, it’s Treyarch and not SHG, but it does give you perspective on what might have really happened during AW cycle.

            First off, and I say this as someone who has a better than average idea of how game development works: no developer in the right mind would want to cripple their game on purpose. You’d have to be stupid to think SHG, or any developer, would want everybody to suffer like hell with crappy matchmaking. It’s their game, their baby. Their pride as software developers would never allow them to be satisfied with that kind of result.

            Second, the so-called “skill based matchmaking” that everybody claims it to be is NOT skill based matchmaking. Matchmaking in COD has always favored connection over skill, 100%. There is a form of skill factor considered in matchmaking, but in theory, it will only dictate how long it would take to find matches, not block you completely from other players.

            And I find it hilarious that people use the “it’s a business, don’t believe them” excuse when someone is accused of something. Like, you don’t have a fucking clue how the game works, other than barebone information some people fed to you. Information that, without sufficient knowledge, could be easily misunderstood. Which is why this community now has a hard-on for SBMM whenever it’s mentioned, even though they have no fucking clue how SBMM actually works, or what it really is. Devs, on the other hand, are the ones with hands-on experience here. So I’d rather listen to them than some random guy claiming bullshit without context.

          • ccrows

            ^ (continuing on from my post above)

            Besides my findings, Drift0r’s findings, and SH banning reverse boosters in AW, I also have a Netduma router.

            With my Netduma, you clearly see AW scanning the globe for people with similar KD. Yet with BO3, that doesn’t happen.

            ^ Sure you get the occasional person on the other side of the globe, but that’s because “that persos” is playing on late hourse and the game is just trying to find a lobby for them.

            I have also tested with multiple XBL accounts to see if BO3 had the same SBMM system, and clearly id doesn’t. You will get the same lobbies with noobs or sweaties, no matter what your KD is.

            Finally I don’t even use a Netduma (laying around unplugged), because my current router gives me better performance, but the proof is there (especially on Youtube and with reverse boosters) that SBMM heavily relied on KD in AW, and not in BO3…

          • w (formerly known as guest w)

            Ok, here, it wasn’t SHG’s doing of adding SBMM, but it was Activision’s fault. There was a high skill gap in AW, so instead of alienating the bad players (who will most likely be spending the most money in supply drops), they added SBMM so they could be happy with the game. Many happy bad players = more money. Good players who suffered the most from SBMM are a minority.

            Also, BO3 is Treyarch’s baby, and even though they opposed to adding the weapons in supply drops, Activision forced them. It’s not the exact scenario, but it shows that Activision really only cares about money, and are willing to make a situation worse just so they can make the most money possible.

            I like how you said that they wouldn’t want to heir game to suffer from crappy matchmaking and then you say, yeah, theres SBMM, but then you brush it under the rug like it wasn’t so bad. You have no fucking clue how the game works either, other than information that SHG fed you or code that you think you’ve deciphered. You got some code that you wish you show me and be able to explain it to me? Because the code that I’ve seen showed that there were many factors in the matchmaking which were based on skill. I’m not claiming that I know how that code works, but it was looking like it WAS SBMM, as much as you brush it under the rug. The points I raised are something that aren’t so outrageous and unlikely. You should listen rather listen to someone’s good points instead of naively defending a company. Don’t brush people off like that just because you think they are some “random guy.”

        • ccrows

          I hate to break it to you man, but most of what you wrote is incorrect.

          1 – Yes there is SBMM in every COD, but no COD had it as bad as AW. (I’ll get to this in a sec)

          2 – I have personally tested this out on my own with multiple XBL accounts, each with different KD ranges, and you can clearly see the difference when you view other people’s KD by clicking on their profile in AW.

          3 – Drift0r did a test of this on his own with (IIRC correctly close to 2000 Reddit/volunteer accounts) and had the same results. (BTW Condrey confirmed that Drift0r’s finding were correct)

          4 – If you STILL don’t believe 2&3 then explain why AW is the ONLY COD in the entire series to have reverse boosters, and SH was banning people for “cheating the system”. So why would SH ban people if AW didn’t heavily rely on KD for MM?…

          • RdJokr

            Ugh… This is a prime example of “I don’t know what SBMM is, but I see K/D being involved as a matchmaking factor, so I’ll call it SBMM anyway, even though it’s not what it is”.

            Look, I won’t deny that something was fucked up with AW’s matchmaking. But calling it SBMM shows just how ill-educated people are, because that’s not what it is. It’s like trying to label a new disease, and you see it showing similar symptoms to cancer, but it’s something else entirely, but you call it “cancer” anyway. That’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works.

            Does correct naming matter? Yes, yes it does. It matters so that the next time skill based matchmaking, the REAL skill based matchmaking comes up in discussion, people who know what it is won’t be throwing hissy fits because they have a misunderstood concept of what it is.

            Also, reverse boosting is bad all around, because those guys are actively ruining the game for everyone else, especially OBJ modes. SBMM or not, that type of behavior is unacceptable.

          • w (formerly known as guest w)

            so why did reverse boosting work? Why was SHG banning them? Because reverse boosting combated the SBMM. He made a good point and you brushed it off as “yeah, well, those reverse boosters are bad boys!!!!”

          • w (formerly known as guest w)

            and no, naming it SBMM doesn’t matter. If it tastes, smells, and feels like SBMM, why does it matter whether we call it SBMM? When the “real” SBMM comes, we’ll call that SBMM. Nobody cares at the end of the day. In the medical field it is important. When discussing a videogame, the reality is that it doesn’t matter as much as you want it to matter.

          • RdJokr

            They ARE bad. Boosting of any kind is ruining the game for others. If you’re not gonna play the game nicely, then you deserve a ban, that’s it. It just so happens that reverse boosters were the hot topic of the day.

            And I still call BS on this whole case. Throughout AW, I maintain a 0.97 KD, and I see the same Master Prestige guys who go on 10-15 streaks daily, as well as sucky noobs who can’t go higher than 0.2 KD.

          • jordanxbrookes

            It’s true. I did some reverse boosting for like a month in AW and I was getting 100+ games with Vicious medals, dozens of System Hacks, Paladins and Bombing Runs. All because I was paired with scrubs. Even if I was “cheating the system” that was the only time I had fun in AW, apart from launch week. SBMM was bullshit in that game and the fact that when the game released, Ranked Play didn’t have high SBMM, but Public Lobbies did still pisses me off to this day.

      • Cabe Kase

        You do know their fixed that a long time ago right? Like 3 months in. Mean while bo3’s SBMM has never chanced.

    • BradyAlucard

      Let’s hope that they listened, they’re still a great Campaign developer. Multiplayer? Not so much, their formula needs drastic changes.

    • DJSaviD

      I kinda would like to see them finish that Vietnam game they were making before AW

      • VAQnotVAG

        Yeah! I was really bummed out when I saw what they had originally planned :'(

  • Oh god i fucking hope so. If SHGames makes a WW2 or a Vietnam game or just something in the past I’ll fucking throw my god damn money at screen and jerk off

    • BradyAlucard

      Vietnam is in the perfect middle between older (WW2) and modern, and I’m pretty sure that it still uses some WW2 weapons or at least more advanced ones. But I’d love WW2 too.

  • Duke of hazard

    The reason why people loved BO2 despite the setting was because it’s grounded. Boost dashing in the air was annoying from AW and don’t get me started on how people can wall run under the bloody map in BO3.

    • Roscoe

      Nah, I loved Black Ops 2 because you couldn’t shoot down the Orbital VSAT.

  • Mick

    Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me what the setting is. Just as long as it’s a boots on the ground CoD game. AW and BO3 were something different and were both unique in there own way. BO2 was futuristic, and that they had futuristic shit in their game like the robot tanks and stuff, but the game was a boots on the ground experience. If I had to make a choice though, I would go with a more modern setting than a future setting. I don’t care if shit gets made up, just make it modern and I’m happy lol.

  • TheHorror

    Even if Sledgehammer is balls deep into a new futuristic game (which i’d like to think they aren’t,but who the fuck knows), i would be shocked if Treyarch didn’t put out a WW2/Vietnam/modern game in 2018. Ideally, one studio should work on a futuristic game, another on a modern one, and the other on a past one to satisfy everyone, but what do i know.

    • djml9

      Yeah. 3Arch is definitely going WW2 on their next game. Im guessing Sledge will do Vietnam, and then when 3Arch announces their game, people will bitch and moan about being sick of past cod and that theyre always the same thing, and all the usual cod hate bullshit.

  • oliver coade

    Well tbf the modern warfare series were all set in the future.

    • BradyAlucard

      I think it still counts as modern. They set it a couple years into the future so that they could make the games more unique versus modern times.

  • djml9

    the only reason its in the future is because it was started when everyone was commending futuristic CoD. Sledge actually had the opportunity to scrap any future stuff they may have had in the works without compromising the quality of the final product.

  • It better be

  • pretty sure ghost wasn’t a futuristic cod and this is the 3rd year in a row

    • Ciaran

      Obviously not as futuristic as our recent cods but futuristic nonetheless…..

    • Kevin Deng

      It was in the future, but wasn’t futuristic. Like how in COD4 the game took place in 2011 while COD4 came out in 2007 and MW2&3 took place in 2016 and came out 5-7 years before.

    • djml9

      It was technically in the future so people lump it with AW and BO3 and 2 so they can say its been futuristic CoD for 5 years in a row, even though BO2 was barely futuristic gameplay wise and Ghosts was not even the slightest bit futuristic. They know bitching about being sick and tired of future cod every year on the second year would sound ridiculous so they broadened their definition of “futuristic”.

      • Even though Black Ops 2 was literally branded as a futuristic game and nevermind the fact that the CEO Big Boi himself even came out and said Black Ops 2 was a Call of Duty game with a futuristic theme. No one is grasping at straws with that point, because literally BO2 was futuristic. Just because it wasn’t as futuristic as the newer games, doesn’t mean it’s not futuristic to begin with. It was a big deal back then when it was first announced. Face it, the setting has been done since 2012.

        • djml9

          But in the context people complain about futuristic CoD (advanced movement, energy weaponry, exo/thrusters, etc), bo2 isnt in that category, nor is Ghosts. Hell, BO3 is the only CoD woth wall running and people are going arund pretending weve had wall running in cod for the last 4 years.

          • Literally no one is pretending like that has even happen

          • djml9

            Not here, no, but ive seen quite alot of it elsewhere.

          • No one at all.

          • BradyAlucard

            You can’t say that for sure, we can’t speak for anyone.

          • Literally no one

          • djml9

            Its ironic that you’re b*tching and moaning at me for generalizing with no evidence on my other comment, yet here you are generalizing with no evidence.

          • Why are you censoring yourself? Nah, I wasn’t really serious with that comment but the thing is, you’re trying to say other people’s reason as to why they have no interest in futuristic shooters. I obviously dont know everyone’s reasons and nor do I care. But you literally try to lump me into a generalization and trying to tell me why I hate AW when I don’t hate AW because of its setting. I hated AW because it was a shit game genius.

          • djml9

            I usually comment on IGN and they have a really random curse filter. Some people can say fuck 30 times and nothing happens, but my comment will be pending for saying bitch so i just censor everything so i dont have to worry about whether my comment made it through or not. Its become second nature.

            This is your original comment that i replied to

            “That’s the problem. Doing the same setting every year. If the futuristic setting wasnt done every year we wouldn’t be sick of it and complaining.”

            Now tell me how this doesnt at least imply that you disliked AW for the setting. And i never said you disliked AW for the setting. I said people were complaining about being sick and tired of futuristic Call of Duty a few mi tha after AW came out.

          • Okay now you’re just a grade A retard. That doesn’t imply I think AW is bad because of its setting nor does it imply I think IW is going to be bad because of it’s setting, you see if you actually had a brain in your skull, you would understand that you can be sick of certain setting but doesn’t mean you hate the game because of its setting. I enjoy Black Ops 2 & 3 and they are futuristic settings. Do I hate futuristic settings? No, I don’t. I actually like them but if you do it every single god damn year it’s gets stale and boring and you grow tired of it. That’s why they should change the setting every year to keep things fresh and maybe people wouldn’t be so sick of it

            And also you didn’t have to say it, you literally lumped me into a ignorant generalization by saying “you guys” and replying me.

      • BradyAlucard

        A post-apocalyptic future counts. :/

        • djml9

          Not in the context of being sick of double jumps and wall running, it doesnt.

          And in terms of being “futuristic” as well. Post-apocalyptic future =/= futuristic.

    • jordanxbrookes

      Ghosts was set in the year 2027, so it was set in the future.

      • CoDforever

        Ghosts was not futuristic at all, just because it had a few fictional elements does not make it future other than the year it was set in which is still in the modern era timeframe

        • jordanxbrookes

          So by your statement, Black Ops 2 was set in the “modern era timeframe” then? The game was a post-apocalyptic future, whether you accept that or not, that’s what the game was.

          • CoDforever

            And Modern Warfare was also set in the future when it came out..

            Fiction ≠ Future.

            Thats like saying Game of Thrones is futuristic just because it has a few fictional elements.

  • ReturnOfTheSwift

    Ghost was probably the worse game for me and it was boots on the ground. At least people moved in AW. I just want it to be fun with good maps and good scorestreaks.

  • Stefan Lang

    It’ll be 5 years with the same setting then people gonna complain again and want a different setting 😂

    • That’s the problem. Doing the same setting every year. If the futuristic setting wasnt done every year we wouldn’t be sick of it and complaining.

      • imBATMAN

        70% of why the future setting is hated is because of jetpacks and exo shit

        • That’s part of it for me as well but it’s mostly the fact that the setting is just being overdone now. I wouldn’t have such a problem with the movement either if the map design changed with it

      • djml9

        You guys were bitching and moaning about being sick of futuristic CoD like a month into AW

        • So did you read my comments back then about AW or are you just retarded and trying to make a vague point that makes zero sense?

          • djml9

            I cleary said “you guys”, as in people complaining about futuristic CoD.

          • So you made a generalizing statement which obviously has no facts backed up to it? Do you know everybody’s opinions and their reasoning in why they hate AW? Are you the man of the people?

          • djml9

            Of course its a generalization. I didnt go around counting and recording names of everyone who bitched about what and when. There were alot of people claiming to be sick of futurusitc cod a few month after AS launched. People hopped ship from “this is finally fresh and new” to “its been futuristic for years”.

          • So your statement is retarded, gotcha which isn’t backed up at all by facts. Nice

      • RdJokr

        See, the problem with changing up settings every year, is that it makes it hard for both casual and competitive players. We all have to relearn the mechanics, because obviously modern gunfights and futuristic gunfights differ greatly from one another. You gotta keep it constant for a while, then change it up.

        Thing is, AW’s changes were too drastic to take in. Had BO3 been the first title with advanced movement, people would’ve taken it with less negativity.

        • Then adapt.

          • RdJokr

            Right, because this community “adapts” so well to changes…

          • Well, even then. Your point is still meaningless consirdering Call of Duty is not a hard game at all. Like seriously. What is there to adapt to? I could jump on Ghosts right and still do good just like AW and BO3. Hell, Black Ops 1 is backwards compatible i played that the other day still did good

            I don’t know what other excuse you’re gonna pull but please dont because it’s not going to work.

          • RdJokr

            IDK, tbh. I consider myself a somewhat “inbetween” COD player (more dedicated than casual, but not crazy dedicated), but back when I was playing AW, I would find myself taking a bit of time to readjust to BO2, given the lack of infinite sprint and boost jumping, and a few other stuff. There’s a learning curve to all of this stuff, you know. It’s not just as simple as “pick up and play”.

          • I found AW and BO3 easier than any Call of Duty game before. I’m not going to deny any adjustments when you first play because that happens but it’s literally not hard and you get use to it quick. So I imagine doing a different setting wouldn’t be impossible if anything it would keep things fresh instead of going stale.

    • jordanxbrookes

      That’s the thing, we don’t want the same setting over and over again like we’ve had with futuristic Call of Duty games. Call of Duty 4 – Modern, World at War – WW2, Modern Warfare 2 – Modern, Black Ops – Cold War, Modern Warfare 3 – Modern, Black Ops 2 – Near Future. Notice a pattern? The setting isn’t the same every single year. Ever since Black Ops 2, CoD has continued to go into the future for 5 games straight (Yes Ghosts was too near future) which has made everyone tired and bored of the Future setting. Just like back in the early 2000s when everyone was making WW2 games, people got bored of the same setting over and over again.

      • RdJokr

        That’s a very dumb way of generalizing futuristic games…

        First off, Cold War was borderline stepping into modern territory. Most of the equipment in BO1 can still be found in modern times. Even the “near future” part of BO2 is pretty close to modern stuff, nothing too outrageous.

        Second, even with the three “advanced movement” COD, each one had a different vision of the future. AW was focused on exoskeleton suits, BO3 focused on cybernetic enhancements, while IW is gonna be about space travel. Three very different concepts of future.

        Third, aren’t we hating on future games because of movement system? Something that remained unchanged for, oh I don’t know, like TEN GAMES in a row?

  • imBATMAN

    I don’t mind much about a future setting if we don’t fly around like fucking birds

    • Former

      Bo2 was perfect. It had futuristic aspects but it felt exactly like a classic CoD.

      • Capten ermirica

        I have to agree with you there soppy bollocks. I absolutely adored black ops 2.

      • Exactly. Bo2 is the last cod I bought

      • BradyAlucard

        BO2 had its own fair share of problems though, quickscoping and Target Finder LMG’s being just the tip of the iceberg.

        • Former

          Every CoD has it’s minor issues. Bo2 is still one of the greatest CoDs when you weigh in how fun multiplayer and zombies was on that game.

        • jjmoney

          Black ops 2 was a “perfect” cod. Simply because the whole community liked it and you really didn’t hear any complaints. The content was amazing and it was overall pretty balanced for the most part.

          • yo

            The campaign was pretty good too

        • Dorothyclivingston3

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !sk170f:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !sk170f:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash460WebSwiftGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!sk170f:….,….

      • BigMacMan

        BO2 wasn’t even futurisitc (except for a few things in SP). I’d call it a modern shooter

        • Former

          But it did have futuristic aspects…like I said.

  • Kevin Deng

    Sledgehammer and Raven are the best COD developers. Raven has kept the remaster of COD 4 faithful to the original and has responded to feedback quickly. Sledgehammer tried to bring innovation to COD since people said it was the same every year and now they are bringing us out of the future.

    • ccrows

      Sledgehammer? Really?

      You mean that dev team that completely ignored the COD community which constantly begged them to get rid of SBMM, and they just left the Matchmaking system broken, where people were fored to play in lobbies with others all over the globe just for that sake of KD which caused unnecessary lag. That SH?

      Yeah no, IDC what SH makes next year, if SBMM returns in 2017, they can go pound. I’m not going through that BS again…

      • jordanxbrookes

        SBMM gave me a mental breakdown lol.

        • BradyAlucard

          Same lol. Keep competitive crap out of CoD.

  • ccrows

    Alright, nobody brought this up yet, so I’m gonna bring it up.

    If SH goes back into the past, does this mean that COD4R is the last remaster that we see in a while? Cuz it doesn’t make any sense to have 2 boots on ground COD games in a single year. (Even in another time period)

    Don’t get me wrong, I do want them to make a WWII game next, but I also think that it would also mean going back to one game a year as well… *shrugs*

    • Former

      Games don’t really need to be remastered, so it doesn’t matter to me either way. However, every CoD needs to eventually become backwards compatible.

      • ccrows

        “However, every CoD needs to eventually become backwards compatible.However, every CoD needs to eventually become backwards compatible.”

        BO2 is one of my all time favs, (just behind COD4) but BC didn’t go that well with OG BO, and people were pounding Activision for that.

        Personally I think BO2 needs a remaster, but sadly it would be a lonnnnng time before that would happen… 🙁

        • Former

          What went wrong with Bo1?

          • ccrows

            Noticeable population drop off after apx 1 month in… 🙁

          • Former

            Well it’s a really old game. I’m sure Bo2 will be well populated if it gets backwards comp.

          • ccrows

            For a community that’s crying for “Boots on ground” and ” Go back to the past” (IMO) that shouldn’t be happening.

            I hope that remastering COD4 gives it a much longer lifespan, because it’s still my fav in the series. (BO2 is a close 2nd)

            As for BO2, I just don’t see it getting a BC any time soon.

            Activision doesn’t want to burn the community out with boots on the ground, and I just don’t see them doing that if the next game is a WWII FPS…

          • ccrows

            ^ (cont)

            I will say this in defense of OG BO dying out fast.

            The killstreak system in OG BO IMO is the most boring in the entire series.

            Personally (going forward) I hope that COD uses a scorestreak system from here on out, because it’s really hard to go back to “killstreaks” especially when killstreaks that don’t count towards other killstreaks.

            I don’t need it to be as over the top as MW2, which is why I think the SS system is the best compromise…

          • Former

            MWR will have a good lifespan, I think. Especially if they offer competitive support in custom matches.

            Yeah, I don’t see Bo2 coming back very soon…I really hope they’re focusing on it though, considering it’s the most wanted game for backwards comp.

    • Rorke File

      They only worked on MW3. So that’s the only option they have to remaster.

      • ccrows

        I completely get your point, but if they remaster MW3 before MW2, the community would lose it. I couldn’t even imagine all the hate flying at Activision. lol

        But who knows if we’ll see another remaster if they return to the past…

        • Jon

          MW3 has been their biggest seller…so who knows

  • Sentinel

    I think SHGames will make an AW2…They were already on their second ina half year into making their next installment after the feedback on Infinite Warfare. Now Treyarch would be the ones to make a modern or pre-modern setting since Black Ops 3 is pretty much over…Unless they take their brand and make a different story with no ties to the previous Black Ops and use a modern theme.

    • Could always make a Black Ops 1.5 which takes place between Black Ops 1 (Cold War) and Black Ops 2 (Future)

      • Dr. Edward Richtofen

        That’s bo2

    • MurkN101

      If they make AW2, it’ll be like sticking your finger up your butt when you have an open hemorrhoid then taking it out and sucking your finger. A complete mess and a shit smell.

      • Drank Bleach

        Well, there goes my breakfast….

      • Dr. Edward Richtofen

        What in the fuck is this

      • Jon

        unless you have a dog to clean it up for you…..

    • PuddleOfStix

      They’ve confirmed they’re done with the Black Ops series.

    • BradyAlucard

      AW was pretty climatic though. No way I’ll buy an AW2.

    • Aidan

      I think SHG are definitely going to make a modern/past setting CoD. They started getting hate for their game before AW even came out. They’d be stupid to make another AW.

  • PuddleOfStix

    Fourth year? Fifth year! BO2, Goats, AW, Body Odour 3, IW. See? 5.

  • lunator100hd .

    Im i the only one who loves futuristic cods?

    • Drank Bleach

      Yes

      • lunator100hd .

        Fuck.

    • DeadZombieGaming 12

      Nah

    • GinsuVictim

      I like ’em, but I’m ready to go back to modern or older.

    • I love every COD. COD is COD, it can decorate any setting for it feel very fun and CODish so people become a fanboy of the theme, but still stick to COD, cuz no other game, no matter what theme it is, can be like COD. COD has its own aspects..

      • lunator100hd .

        I feel the same way, i play cod because its cod, not because of its setting.

        • yep

        • COD is a game, that makes you don’t give a shit about the setting. Fans forget that it’s not COD’s original setting cuz COD decorates the setting, which makes the setting feel more fun, and feel a basic COD gameplay. That’s why COD sometimes can spoil video game tastes for certain people. People can see IW, like it, play it and become a fanboy of futuristic setting. “Wow, you can do dogfighting and stuff, grapple…but…I like future games now right? How come I can’t feel like playing any other futuristic games now? I feel the absence of the features and aspects that COD brought with it to the future setting…”

  • jordanxbrookes

    I honestly hope it is, because I’m done with futuristic CoDs.

    • I want a COD set in the year 4000, where out exo suits have exo suits.

      • FacialGaming

        I want to be in an alternate reality where FazalGaming does not exist. 😀

        • ScOott

          In alternate reality he might actually be funny.. Dont wipe him from existence just yet, there’s still hope for him, maybe..

          • i am funni u funking fgt

          • ScOott

            Lmao * pats on head * I know…

          • Jon

            duck duck….Goose!

          • God damn, ScOott bringing the heat hard.

  • Suroz

    I already knew this

  • ToonToons22

    God, I hope so. You would think that with the current revival of World War and Vietnam War games that Call of Duty would follow suit, right? If SHG really wanted to listen to their fans (because they say that they are all about that), then they should continue with that third-person Vietnam game they were working on, and include a first-person option for us as well. That game had 15 minutes playable on it, why abandon it?

  • Commander Wolfe

    I fucking hope they are.

  • Joshua “JiffyNoodles” Fearn

    Rumour has it, SledgeHammer is working on a Vietnam Game.
    Fingers Crossed.

    • DeadZombieGaming 12

      But it was cancelled and it was a thirdperson shooter.
      They probably are either working on AW2 or a WW2 shooter or smth

      • Joshua “JiffyNoodles” Fearn

        That’s True. If the Last few Supply Drop weapon from AW are anything to go off, then a WW2 shooter is the most likely choice. and I’d be keen as hell for it. and, in 2018, Treyarch will most likely remaster [email protected], or even make a World at War 2, which would be heavenly.

  • Alex

    If they do stick with 3D movement. Then they really disconnected wit the community.

    PEW PEW PEW BTW

    Director of Raven David Pellas has had an interesting statement to present to us regarding the release of the remastered Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (MW) that is being promoted as only being available as a pre-order bonus with Infinite Warfare.

    Turns out, as we expected, that it will in fact be able to be purchased separately. As you can see from the comment below, you can either own a copy of the remastered MW or own a copy through getting it as a pre-order bonus with Infinite Warfare to be eligible to receive the additional 6 maps that will be released after launch.

    “What we announced before today was that we were going to offer 10 maps on launch, and that’s still true. The announcement today is that the six remaining maps we are actually going to be delivering to anyone who purchases Modern Warfare Remastered, anyone who owns it or a version of Infinite Warfare that comes with it, they’re going to get all 16 of the maps for no additional cost.”

    We have seen this kind of behaviour from Call of Duty many times in the past, where you will pay extra when you pre-order to secure your bonus, only to see it released to the masses 2 – 4 months later. So it’s no surprise that Infinity Ward are going down the same path with the MW remaster.

    We don’t expect this to be available to purchased right away, there will most likely be 1 – 3 months wait after the release of Infinite Warfare to enable those who paid the premium with their pre-order to be able to feel like they got ‘exclusive’ access to the remaster, however rest assured that if you have no interest in Infinite Warfare but really want to play the remastered MW, you will be able to without having to purchase both.

    • DEMOLITION12

      but would it be cheaper to buy them together now

  • Dorothyclivingston3

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !sk170f:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !sk170f:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash460WebSwiftGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!sk170f:….,…..

  • I don’t care about the movement. Both or futuristic.

  • Lindajallums3

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !sk515f:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !sk515f:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash805DirectPublicGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!sk515f:….,…….

  • dust&cheese

    even if they reskinned the current COD with an older look, and older guns; and stripped the exo movements; the game would sell like crazy. like you literally dont need to do much for an past tense COD for it to be successful. Boots on the ground, gritty look, gritty sound, stay simple. millions

  • Cabe Kase

    You know, this still drives me crazy every time something like this comes up. We want chance we don’t want chance. Bo2’s maps are to small ghosts maps are to big. I also want to point out I saw real people comment AW wasn’t a bad game and their miss exo’s. I hate to say this but Activision did give cod fans everything their wanted. The reason we have exo’s supply drops and cod 4 remastered is because people bitched about not having them. Oh cod fans your the best, i don’t even hear stuff like this from other fan bases. Their all love the games their have.

  • Cabe Kase

    Also wanted to point out Raven will be supporting cod4 remastered, so now even that game may have nerfs buffs and supply drops. Pretty much ruining the very idea of a remastered.

    • Aidan

      I think people are overreacting. There is no way in hell they will add supply drops to MWR. Raven has been listening closely to the community and they know damn well that adding supply drops to their game is going to end them.
      I believe that they may bring Winter Crash to consoles, and maybe add some personalization packs, which is something I’d love for them to bring back.

      • Cabe Kase

        that would be dope, As far as Raven listening closely to the community is bs becuase their worked on cod online and every cod since bo1. Raven is owned by Activision and Activision owns Call Of Duty. The reason this topic popped up is because their don’t have a cod on a yearly cycle.

        Really all the studios take fan feed back, problem is Activision is the boss and signs their paychecks. So really its the studios keep their jobs or find new ones.

  • Felix Lamirande

    I don’t want to shit on Activision or any developers but IMO the best COD that has been set in the future is Black Ops 2. Why ?

    Because it hadn’t those shitty movements

  • Rob Melchor

    What if in 2017 they come up with “Call Of Duty”, meaning relaunching the series like Battlefield did.

  • jt3z

    I dont ind the futuristic setting as long as there are no exo suits or boost jumps. Hell the future setting is actually quite cool to me.

  • Thatlazykid

    I’m kind of hoping they do a present based cod or maybe a cod with the setting a few years back from now since I really want Treyarch to do a WW2 or 1 cod

  • Honestly I love Black Ops 3, the movement mechanics need a bit of polishing but overall they did a good job with it. My biggest gripe though has to be matchmaking.

    Now before people jump all over me for that one let me explain. I have a number of friends I enjoy to play with, unfortunately though because of how restricted MM is we can’t find a game. This is what I mean, my ISP sucks, let’s be honest, Centurylink needs to burn in hell. That said, my ping is not that bad to the servers. Usually about a flat 80.

    But I can never find a game, even 8k+ players, the game cannot find a lobby at all. To me, this seems like MM is barring users with lower connection quality from even finding matches. But then theres also the fact that when a user poor connection quality joins a party with 1-5 other people it gets worse. Where as those people were finding games no problem, as soon as this bad connection user joins, the party as a whole is no longer able to find games until this user leaves.

    My point is that low quality connections should not be barred from finding games and parties should rely on only the party leaders connection quality and not the party as a whole.