Activision: 3 New COD Titles in 2 Years

[[IPC] NuckFuggets]

Dan Armrich "reveals" some info through a Facebook post without really revealing anything (found via vg247)

Activision blogger Dan Amrich has revealed that the company plans to release three new Call of Duty titles in the next two years.

Speaking in a Facebook thread – in an Activision/Bobby Kotick hate group of all places – he said:

“As for COD, they’ve confirmed three games in the next two years. Seeing as how there is a pattern of one new COD game every year, this is one new COD game from one new developer, and in a different genre from the core games we’ve seen.”

Treyarch are handling this year’s release in the series, with details to come in this month’s issue of Official PlayStation Magazine, while Infinity Ward are expected to be developing Modern Warfare 3, despite rumors it was being “held hostage” and a lawsuit from former bosses of the studio Vince Zampella and Jason West against Activision for $36 million and the Modern Warfare IP.

The company also announced back in March that upstart Sledgehammer Games was developing an “action/adventure” title in the series, which was first thought to be a 2011 title Acti was referring to. An internal memo soon after the announcement killed that off.

Is Bobby Kotick and Activision destroying the COD Franchise by bringing out too many games too fast? Is 3 COD titles in the next 2 years too much? Will it be just like Guitar Hero?

[Slaughter]

Depends on how well they make the games, time is not a problem with me. If they make more games like mw2 that has a awful multiplayer, I might lose my blind love with the franchise.

[[IPC] SpiralingOut]

Originally Posted by Slaughter

Depends on how well they make the games, time is not a problem with me. If they make more games like mw2 that has a awful multiplayer, I might lose my blind love with the franchise.

I concur.

[R 3 X The Ninja]

Originally Posted by Slaughter

Depends on how well they make the games, time is not a problem with me. If they make more games like mw2 that has a awful multiplayer, I might lose my blind love with the franchise.

How is it an awful multiplayer?

[[IPC] Hackslayd0g]

^^
Spawns in that game are complete shit.
Painkiller is WAAAAAY to powerful.
OMA is extremely abused. <-- (One Man Army)
Some maps are just completely based on spawn trapping. (HIGHRISE)
Maps reward campers. As do killstreaks.

That's all I can think of.

[[IPC] Hackslayd0g]

As for the rate they're putting out CoD games, it's kind of a little much.
But, like Slaughter said, it depends on the quality.
If they're good games, then it's not a bad thing at all. But if they just keep shoveling out the same game with a few tweaks and a different name like another game we know of *cough cough* GUITAR HERO *cough cough* Then it'll be the death of CoD.

[[IPC] NuckFuggets]

The difference with GH and COD is that it's different developers on COD so its not like they are producing 1 every yr on each developer. Each developer has like 2 to 3 years to develop so I don't think that will affect anything.

[[IPC] Hackslayd0g]

Which is why they should be fine.
If they have different developers, it's not always the same game.

[[GAUG] supacrispy]

Three games in two years is a bit much. Instead of making new games, just make new content for the games that are already on the market and being played. Like WaW or MW1 and 2. Personally I would go back to CoD 4 if they added more maps. I prefer it to MW2, in terms of multi-player. I think they should have given it the WaW treatment and gave us an option to have multi-player co-op through the campaign. Or at least more than two players in Spec Ops. and with the new maps for MW2 there should have been new Spec Ops missions. All in all, most of MW2 is a big let-down.

[tha doctordeath]

i dont think it is to much. need for speed came out with undercover, shift and nitro all in 2 years "i think." undercover and shift both good games, nitro i have not played yet (only on the wii and DS).