Activision Has Call Of Duty 7 Loaded For Holiday

Given the "disproportionate contribution" that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 provided to Activision Blizzard's well-padded bottom line, it won't come as a surprise that the next Call of Duty game is coming this holiday season. See? You're not surprised.

Activision Blizzard confirmed its plans to "continue annualising" the first-person shooter franchise with the still-unnamed seventh entry in the billion dollar Call of Duty series, offering little new info. But executives did talk briefly about the game's release window and their desire to see some subscription-style revenue from the series.

"If you think about the successes we have had in other categories on subscriptions, you can get a sense of the direction we want to take that franchise," Activision CEO Bobby Kotick said during today's quarterly earnings call.

Execs expected a less "friendly" release window in 2010 than the one that Modern Warfare 2 had in 2009.

While Activision Blizzard brass did not name the developer of the next major Call of Duty game, developer Treyarch has been linked to the next iteration.


Comments

    Please be Vietnam, please be Vietnam, please be Vietnam... the franchise would be dead to me if MW3 was this year and by Treyarch.

    And also, stop numbering them please... there was no such thing as CoD5... that's the same as saying GTA Vice City is GTA 4... if we were being consistent with the numbering system, there'd be a looot more than five CoD games.

      6?
      CoD, CoD2, CoD3, CoD4 (Modern Warfare, CoD5 (World at War), CoD6 (MW2) - see its not so hard. :)

        Youre missing Big Red One, and another one i forget.

      Call of Duty 7 is just a working title and, given the last couple games in the series, will end up with the format "Call of Duty: "

    As soon as this game becomes subscription based, I'm out. I'm finding that COD4 was the last best, it just seems now their in it for the money, not the players or game itself.

      No way? Game Developers are creating games to make money and not just to keep us happy? That's ridiculous.

    Sounds like they're ready to ramp up the annual rape to include a subscription for multiplayer which doesn't even have dedicated servers anymore. It's like paying to cook your own dinner.

    Jumping to conclusions I know, but I don't know what else to make of that.

      Do you mean like eating at home? I'm confused...

      Though I agree this has sinister overtones.

        Actually Jay, I think he may be referring to those restaurants in which you get to choose your piece of steak and then go cook it yourself.

        There aren't heaps of them but they are apparently becoming more popular.

      Rape implies unwillingness from one party, MW2's buyers were all voluntary.

      you know what they could do... they could reintroduce dedicated servers, but provide said servers them selves and charge people that way. sure thats no way near as much money as they would get from subscriptions from every player, but a subscription based FPS with no sense of community etc is just asking for failure.

    They just want to take advantage of the fact that it is immensley popular. On top of that i pay 79.95 for gold subscription and then supposedley subscription fees.....thats just ridiculous

    When Infinity Ward first developed Call of Duty it was different and it was well polished. Now Activision have three developers working on pumping them out at break-neck speed and the quality's just not there. I love Call of Duty, but I'm just not interested in a CoD game every single year. This is especially true considering, thus far, I've only been impressed by Infinity Ward's efforts.

    I would rather them spend their time developing an amazing title rather than pumping out a new one each year. How are any of their titles supposed to be memorable in the timeline of gaming if they just get replace in 12 months?

    The moment they introduce a sub fee is the moment this series will fail and die. yeah they'll still sell a few copies but nothing like they are now and the sub fee wouldnt make it up unless its >$200/yr. go ahead craptivision, try us. there are plenty of other fps's that are as good or better than cod. so we can dump you faster than you can say "oh crap, we renege!!"
    on the subject of an annual cod, i'm happy with that. i'm usually bored with a game after a month. cod's last a bit longer though. especially [email protected] with the zombie's feature. that kept me going all year and i still play it now and then.

    Haven't they raped this series enough. It's time for a new ip seriously... The series has been on a downward spiral since number 2, 4 was ok but there are much better games out.

    Its funny how Call of Duty WAS Medal Of Honors main rival and they are also going the same way as them. Nobody learns there lesson when it comes to milking a franchise. It will never change.

    You idiots. They're not going to make it subsctiption based. It says a "subscription-style revenue", meaning a large spike in sales around the same time every year (ie: November), which would work similar to a business model based around annual subscription fees.

    That said, I really hate Activision these days, and this kind of comment drives that feeling home.

    Yes Activision, we know you're a business and as a result, your aim is always money. But if I went into a car dealership and the salesman there said "I want you to buy this car cos I really want the commission," I'd flip the prick the bird and go to the next lot. Know what I'm sayin?

      Yes, I agree they are a business and they are in in for the money...

      However, you are wrong over the subscription suggesting.... they have said in the past they are looking at ways to take the series to a subscription based game and just look at direct quote...

      “If you think about the successes we have had in other categories on subscriptions, you can get a sense of the direction we want to take that franchise,”

      Every knows them as Activision... but remember the merge they had a while back, they are actually Activision Blizzard... and I believe Bobby is referring to a small subscription game Blizzard are best known for when he talks about "successes we have had in other categories on subscriptions".

      I can't see why they would want another franchise to follow the World Of Warcraft subscription model, it's not that profitable.

    I don't know about y'all, but I'm done with the Call of Duty series.

    Although I love the call of duty series, I can honestly say I don't mind waiting 2 to 3 years for each successive release if it means the game quality will improve. Sure the quality of CoD is high since 4, but it's basically remained the same for the last two revisions. It'd be good if they went at least 18 months to 24 months between releases and pushed that quality up instead of padded new content in.

    I haven't even played CoD MW2 yet, slow down Activision, stop shoveling games down our throats like baby food!

    Sheesh!

    /end rant

    subscription based? why? if so activision can go screw themselves, not pay more money to play

    I'd prefer to see updates and patches to MW1 & MW2 and they have the best multiplayer elements. Also needed is the return of dedicated servers as dealing with the slow internet of Australia and being placed in an American hosted game just ruins the experience.

    All in all I believe that patches to the previous titles would prove more successful than annual releases. It'll end up like the Need For Speed series, when no one bothers anymore because it's the same game.

    All hail EA/DICE for battlefield bad company 2

Join the discussion!