While the first Call Of Duty originally came out in 2003, the one that truly started the COD craze was 2007’s Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It was a landmark title, revolutionizing the entire multiplayer FPS genre. Activision made an unbelievable amount of money from that game and it’s not hard to understand why they’d want to make sequel after sequel after its incredible success.
But if there’s any series of video games that prove you can have too much of a good thing, it’s Call Of Duty. Since 2007 there have been 13 new COD games released. That’s a new game every year! If you count Call Of Duty: Mobile or any of the ports or remasters, that’s even more than a game every year! That’s an absolutely insane amount of sequels. As much as Activision loves to make its money, it’s about time to cool it with these yearly Call Of Duty games.
Too Many Calls, Too Much Duty
Let's face it, the vast majority of these COD sequels are just glorified map packs. The guns handle the same, the multiplayer progression is the same, and it all feels like Activision is trying to squeeze as much milk out of their cash cow as they possibly can. The Call Of Duty formula has gone mostly unaltered for years. Yet Activision still charges full price for each new entry and even sells DLC on top of that.
As they’ve shown with Guitar Hero, Activision is the master of pushing a property to its absolute limit. And while it took a very long time, COD may have finally reached its oversaturation point. Despite the success of last year’s Modern Warfare reboot, recent projections for the upcoming Black Ops 5 are not looking particularly hopeful. This isn't all that surprising. Even with improved graphics and gameplay, COD still feels too familiar and it simply isn’t the massive draw it once was. That could be a significant problem for Activision as they don’t exactly have a ton of popular, new IPs to fill a potential Call Of Duty void.
The sad truth is that Activision probably won’t learn their lesson until something financially disastrous happens. They know that devoted COD fans will continue to empty out their wallets every year. But making consumers pay for a yearly sequel is wrong, as they barely get the full value of the game they’re playing before they have to spend another $60 on the next edition. As far as they're concerned the game industry is all about making sequels. Even now, Activision has Blizzard hard at work on Overwatch 2 despite the fact that a sequel could split that fan base and the original is still making money.
There's A Better Way To Do This
While sports games somehow still get away with it, other series have learned that yearly sequels simply aren’t the way forward. Ubisoft used to pump out a new Assassin’s Creed every year without fail. From 2009 to 2015, they cranked out 7 games over those 6 years. It wasn’t until Assassin’s Creed: Unity came out with its bugged out faces that things started to take a turn for the worse. Sure, games like Black Flag or Syndicate were good, but year after year of Creed games running on the same engine eventually led to diminishing financial and critical returns.
So what did Ubisoft do instead of churning out another identical sequel? They took a year off and spent more time crafting the excellent Assassin’s Creed: Origins, a game that revitalized the series. That decision may have saved the entire franchise. Not to mention the fact that absence makes the heart grow fonder, so after nearly two years without an AC game, fans were ready for a new one and Origins hooked gamers back in.
As if that isn’t reason enough, EA has proven that you can make good money off a game without having to release a new version annually. Apex Legends has been making them tons of money for an entire year and that game is free to play. Without charging an initial entry fee they’ve managed to draw in players and make a profit off the seasonal battle passes. There’s just no need to release a yearly sequel when there’s better ways to monetize your products.
Maybe We Can Afford To Miss One Call
Abolishing the yearly COD rule would allow their teams to spend more time refining a single game. The budget and manpower being spent on yearly sequels could then be put towards improving the game they’ve already made and adding more content for players to enjoy. They’d probably make just as much money without having to burn out their workers or their audience. With some time in between sequels, developers and fans can get a fresh outlook on the series.
Low sales projections for what could be considered one of the biggest gaming series ever is a clear sign that Activision needs to change their way of thinking. Putting out a COD every year for the last 13 years has been complete and utter overkill. If Activision wants Call Of Duty to remain their flagship franchise, it’s time to cut back on the sequels.