Print
While giant corporations are prone to making some impressively boneheaded mistakes, they're not as dumb as you think they are. For instance, many “in-the-know” gamers see Activision as a sinking ship that simply hasn't quite found its iceberg, but – at the very least – the Godzilla-combined-with-King-Kong of videogame publishing has taken notice. And so, with Guitar Hero having played its swan song earlier this year, Activision's now forced to face the elephant in the room: Is Call of Duty next?
"Isn't Call of Duty today just like Guitar Hero was a few years back?" asked a leaked internal memo uncovered by Giant Bomb. Instead of pressing a giant red button, cackling maniacally, and jetpacking off into the sky, however, Activision publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg gave a composed, well-reasoned answer.
"This is a great question and one we have thought about a lot," he wrote. "But there are several key differences between the two franchises worth considering. Guitar Hero quickly reached incredible heights, but then began a steady decline. Call of Duty, on the other hand, has steadily grown every single year of its seven-year existence."
"Guitar Hero was a new genre which had incredible appeal, but which had not stood the test of time. Call of Duty exists in a genre – first person shooters – that has shown remarkable staying power and wide appeal over a period of decades. Plus, Call of Duty has inspired a massive, persistent, online community of players, making it perhaps the 'stickiest' game of all time."
Gamers are a notoriously fickle bunch, however, and they'll eventually slip off their combat boots and migrate elsewhere. Hirshberg, however, thinks consistent quality will stop them in their tracks. “In order to achieve this potential, we need to focus: on making games that constantly raise the quality bar; on staying ahead of the innovation curve; on surrounding the brand with a suite of services and an online community that makes our fans never want to leave,” he explained.
Granted, delivered entirely in saliva-spattered rants or not, gamers' groans about innovation (or lack thereof) are still at the heart of their argument. If Call of Duty, er, calls and no one picks up, it'll be for a simple reason: because players got bored. Even so, Hirshberg was adamant that Activision doesn't get enough credit for its innovations – both within Call of Duty and other franchises.
The take-away? Activision's asking the right questions, but – like anything that can be favorably likened to a hundred-story tall movie monster Frankenstein – it's having a bit of trouble with that whole “moving” thing. For now, the company seems content to stay the course, but with even more Call of Duty in its lineup. An online service, a free-to-play installment designed for China, and at least one triple-A spin-off are all in the works, in addition to a new Infinity Ward-developed entry. Can too much alleged “quality” wear out its welcome? Looks like we're about to find out.
Comments are closed on this article
bolod
December 27, 2011 at 4:46am
I have to admit this is a great article, I have been looking around for some thing like this for a quite a while, I will be back for more, thanks.
IFLATLINEI
April 21, 2011 at 4:20pm
If you really think Corporations arent as dumb as we think they are then you sir are exactly as dumb as I think you are.
Panick
April 21, 2011 at 10:37am
This reminds me of EA's old "challenge everything" slogan. It was slapped on a whole host of copycat, me-too games that challenged nothing but the veracity of the slogan. Activision is just like any other big lumbering company. As long as something is making money they won't change too much because doing so would have the potential to damage an income source (and we can't have that can we). The sad part is that this "don't try and fix anything that works" mentality seems to be rubbing off on Blizzard which used to be one of the best innovating-without-breaking teams in game development (now, given the statements I've seen some of their executives make, they're just as full of themselves as any big publisher in the business).
B1Gx5MurF
April 21, 2011 at 9:53am
"...Hirshberg was adamant that Activision doesn't get enough credit for its innovations – both within Call of Duty and other franchises. "
Seriously? This statement made me angry. I haven't found a CoD game innovative since MW1/CoD4. How old is their game engine? The engine is so primitive by standards from 2 years ago, its pathetic. Their greatest innovation involves convincing everyone $60 was a reasonable price to pay for a recycled game.
I purchased BO after passing on MW2, thinking it was too much a step down from MW1 to be worth purchasing. The vietnam theme appealed for some reason, i gues I thought it had potential (I also thought about getting back into CoD despite knowing how crap the series has become, thinking, $1billion+ in sales, they can't all be wrong can they?). I feel like an idiot paying full price for it, because I bought the BFBC2 vietnam around the same time for 25% of the price, and ended up with a better gaming experience.
The worse part is, they've somehow managed to develope a cult following that will never fault them (just as bad as the apple cult crowd). Hurray for annually lowering the bar at xmas time!
Oh yea, and replay value... it is the worse enemey of any company that follows an annual release schedule. Companies that give a damn about replay value release products on "valve time".
pierogi210
April 21, 2011 at 6:39am
I totally agree with Screff. I noticed a big difference between MW series and BO. At least MW kept me interested for a long time. I started playing BO and i was sick of it in a week. No more COD for me. Battlefield 3 is where its at.
screff
April 21, 2011 at 1:51am
As a PC gamer, I have to laugh at this guy for arguing that the franchise quality has kept people playing. Lack of quality (constant stuttering, bugs, spawn location issues, etc) in Black Ops has stopped me and a bunch of my friends from playing. I can tell you that I won't be buying any more Call of Duty games primarily because of this.
Ghok
April 20, 2011 at 11:48pm
I really liked Guitar Hero, not too much replay value, though. The songs didn't exactly match my music taste. I never played Rock Band, but generally heard that it was much better than Guitar Hero. It's kind of a shame PC gamers (for the most part) missed out on the whole thing. There are some programs out there to play guitar style games on the PC, but I've found them to be pretty buggy.
I Jedi
April 20, 2011 at 9:47pm
To begin, I don't think that the CoD franchise is in any sort of "trouble" right now; however, I think that as time goes on, they may be looking at some. We all remember how CoD was done to death in the World War 2 scene, and many gamers were jolted to excitement at the sight of Infityward's baby: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4. With the modern warfare scene being played out, much the same way that the World War 2 scene was, I think we will begin to see a downward spiral of this era, as gamers begin to take notice of the same scenery they see all of the time. Granted, new innovation and graphical design in how gameplay is done always makes for a great seller, (Try telling Homefront that!) but I believe that in order for the CoD franchise to continue, it must "move on" to a new chapter in its ongoing series.
I think that the best idea for the series is to move forward into the future, or if failing at that, go back to the days of ancient Rome. I know some will "despise" such an idea, and again, this is just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth. I know others will point out that the series begins with "Call of Duty"; however, I don't think that this title necessarily has to represent just the United States of America, but can encompass other societies' armies as well, such as the Roman Legion.
Finally, I believe, in my own opinion, that we have begun to see a negative attitude towards modern warfare series, as Infinityward has practically broken up, a not-so-high reception of Black Ops, at least from people I have talked to, and a bleak future for Modern Warfare 3. The future of the series needs to move on before it yet again beats modern warfare into the ground, as it did with World War 2.
Danthrax66
April 21, 2011 at 7:54am
I would actually like more WW2 games on an engine siilar to BF3's. Watching Band of Brothers is one thing being able to play a game that looks exactly like it is another. I also don't think modern era games are played out either it's just that instead of making a new game they repackage the old game. BF3 is looking good so far as a game that won't follow that same path, it isn't reused textures its a brand new engine. The reason that agmes get old is that there are no engine improvements between releases. Look at CS or CSS still a huge following because the engines were so good. If companies want to make games that people like they will focus o producing something that feels different. The problem now is that these games all feel the same.
Marthian
April 20, 2011 at 9:19pm
This series in my honest opinion needs to have a major rehaul, or a lot of people are going to not even bother... actually probably will because, well its Call of Duty. makes me worry some of the greater FPS's coming out this year might not even be looked at even though they will be much more refreshing than COD.
iNNeR_KaoS
April 21, 2011 at 8:48am
If it needs a major overhalu, then why are other games trying to copy the formula?
Edit: Wow, I can't type today.
