We caught up with former Community Manager “JD2020” (Josh Olin) again and this time discussed the yearly release cycle of Call of Duty.

Although Josh is no longer associated with the Call of Duty franchise, during the release of World At War and Black Ops, he was the Treyarch Community Manager and primarily communicated with Call of Duty fans about new additions and changes coming to each game.

In our first interview we discussed the Call of Duty franchise, but on this occasion we decided to ask a question that we’ve seen mentioned in the community. Could Call of Duty move to a new game release every 2+ years?

Watch here:

SHARE
  • Alienade

    No. They need more money.

    • MemeMaster

      That’s where supply drops come in handy for Activision…

  • Kian

    -1 year = -1 year of new cod sales = less money
    When pigs fly..

  • missing_trigger

    why? they just will milk old and new games at same time

    • Maybe releasing content post new release with BO3 is Activision way of testing the financial viability of non-annual cycles. If Supply Drops do well enough for BO3 post IW then Activision might move to 2-year cycles

      • darren

        “Supporting” BO3, is the same thing as them adding mdlc to MWR. The cause is Infinite Warfare’s terrible sales, and I imagine a drop in mdlc sales as well. MWR and BO3 are where CoD’s player base is, so inundate the games actually being played with mdlc, to make up for poor performance across the board.

        They just signed SHG on to be the third dev, plus Raven at the ready, i see NO SLOWING DOWN whatsoever.

        But longer breaks between games would sure help. They could focus on making a better game, rather than focusing on making better mdlc.

  • Tummus The Goat

    I see a bunch of idiots bitch about COD every year so why not make one every two years? They might even get some fanbase back from the fake cod players.

  • Stupid idea. By the time they release the damn game it will be out dated by the likes of battlefield

    • darren

      CoD’s battle is with CoD. They can’t stop stepping on their own dicks to worry about EA. Just like EA doesn’t give a shit about CoD. Just because they are FPS’s, does not make them the same, or even comparable. Just because they launch around the same time, is the only reason people talk about them in the same sentence. And the sooner both sides of this “battle” realize this, the better.

      Hey, if Activision and EA can coexist, so can all the fanboys on both sides.

      • christopher woodhead

        EA *does* give a shit about COD, though. That’s why TitanFall was released at such a stupid time. They wanted to try and steal some of CODs sales. But all they did was potentially destroy TitanFall.

      • I didn’t compare them. I never compare them. I never said EA compete with Call of Duty.
        All I said was that Call of Duty will feel old compared to Battlefield (or other FPS games, for that matter) if they did this.
        Innovation in the FPS genre would come from Battlefield because of them having worked on the game more recently, which could make Call of Duty seem like an older game even though they come out around the same time.

        I assumed this much was obvious in my statement, but apparently you have to write a blog about every point on this website.

  • Wizgalifu

    At this point should I even care about the future of COD and will it ever get better again?

    And should I even want them to remaster another classic after the shit they did with Modern Warfare Reimaged, turning it into a COD Onlines cousin?

    Supply drops are here to stay and have become a part of Call of Duty.

    You either accept the change or move on to another shooter!!

    • ccrows

      “And should I even want them to remaster another classic after the shit
      they did with Modern Warfare Reimaged, turning it into a COD Onlines
      cousin?”

      I’m probably in the minority here, but if they keep everything earnable through doing in game challenges, I’m actually more than OK with that…

      • Audreyjhaven

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !st74c:
        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
        !st74c:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash364MarketNetworkGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!st74c:….,…..

      • Faithcbuckley

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !st9c:
        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
        !st9c:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash389HomeClearGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!st99c:….,…..

      • Wizgalifu

        Through challenges or not this crap still should not be in this game. If it wasn’t there before, why now? To keep the game fresh? Or just find an excuse to make money. I didn’t ask for more customization nor melee weapons. I wanted this game to be a remaster not a reimage! I was fine with it until this Monday!

      • Wizgalifu

        Raven wound a silly excuse to bring COD Online to the rest of the world by turning a remaster of a beloved COD game into it!!

      • Sentinel

        All recent CODs challenges rewarded the player with gun camos, emblems, and tittles. Not weapons.

    • Also, if we get a boots on the ground historic shooter next year. I suppose Modern Warfare Remastered would be an accurate representation of what those games would be like

  • ccrows

    Doubt it, but this (IMO) is probably what’s gonna happen instead.

    New game will stay in November, and remasters coming in Spring/Summer…

  • Marik

    They can just remaster more older games. That takes little to no effort for the devs and also cuts most of the expenses for Activision since there is no need to hire more devs, voice actors etc. Then they can put supply drops inside to further milk the fans for the older CoDs, just like they did with CoD4. Just imagine MW2 with the OMA perk in supply drops. I bet everyone will spend money to get the upper hand in the game, Intervention and Spas will unlock only if you got them in IW and some other cool stuff such as female characters will be added as well! I like this idea of interactivity among different games and supply drops!

  • ccrows

    Quick Question – “MWR service is not available at this time”

    ^ Anybody else getting this message?

    I was getting that all day yesterday on XB1 (I know XBL was having issues yesterday), but I just got kicked out of a lobby RN with that message again…

    • DEMOLITION12

      it died

  • PDX Guitar Freak

    If Activision slowed it down to a new COD every 2 years, they would have to find ways to keep it interesting with new maps every few months (through the whole 2 year cycle), in addition to other updates (new guns, etc). The question is whether Activision can keep profits as high without a new release. They would be highly dependent upon micro-transactions/DLC, which are obviously doing incredibly well (and bringing in more revenue than the actual game), so it’s possible. But they also risk losing people part way through the 2 years who just get bored and want something completely new. There’s a bit of a Catch 22 there.

  • darren

    My opinion is it will be a “free to play” title, or we buy yearly “seasons.” They just hired SHG as another dev in the cycle, so I doubt there will be any slowing down.

    As for whether it would be a good idea, yeah, every year and a half/two years. Give them time to see how well the previous installments are “trending” and have the ability to roll things back, make a complete package again, and quality test it before release.

    That’s why Activision is stuffing mdlc into MWR, and supposedly “supporting” Black Ops 3. They need every possible revenue stream possible to make up for IW’s abysmal performance. So no one is buying IW, and I “think” mdlc sales are down as well. Why else trod on the memory of the remaster? Why else keep “supporting” BO3? Cause those are the games being played. So, saturate every market possible, in hopes that last years success with mdlc will be repeated this year. But I think this year is the turning of the tide, mdlc-wise. I hope.

    Two cents, deal with ’em.

  • It should be every 2 years plus the 3 years they have that way they’ll have time to finish the game and that way every game won’t be the same since you’ve waited 2 years

  • #BlackLIVESdontMatter

    Make it 3 years. The game sucks every year. You assholes at treyarch need all the time in the world to make the game better again. The franchise is pure garbage now. Treyarch is a bunch of lazy ass nerds who need to get fired. Sorry to saying but it’s a dying franchise and it’s getting worse every year. Lmfao bye bye call of dookie

  • You_aBum

    I love how people are acting like Raven/ Activision just slaughtered their parents in front of them. It is crazy how much you people complain.

  • Aldo

    The only way Activision are gonna stop milking the fans is when the fans stop supporting microtransactions. So if you’re one of those fans please STOP! You’re partly responsible for killing the franchise we all love.

  • GR3Y_B1RD

    Im sorry to ask this but what is wrong with MWR? Stopped following the news about cod since last year

    • christopher woodhead

      In my experience, it runs like complete shit online. It basically inherits all the problems that recent CODs have had. Meaning crap servers and crap netcode.

  • For me it’s the product releasing unfinished when the whole idea of moving to 3 yearly cycle was to put out a better, complete game. It’s gone backwards.

    And slowly over the past three years (the futuristic CODs) it’s clear that DLC and Supply Drops makes pretty much 70% of the game now.

    To spend £50 for just a small portion of the potential of the game isn’t worth it – not to mention the thousands of pounds required to use variants of weapons.

    If people leave for another shooter, then Activision only have themselves to blame.

  • Fegasaruasㅤ

    What? These studios have 3 years to develop a game…. Give them 4 now? Okay..

  • forrest1985

    Release COD online in Europe and US…its already a pretty decent game from what i have seen and could benefit from regular updates etc…doing so one smallish team can keep an eye on it whilst the studios sort their shit out! I liked the campaign in IW but the rest is AWFUL and i am not surprised they are adding micro transactions to BLOPS3 and MWR!