What's the appeal of annual Call of Duty games?

[Anti-Anime]

The average cod player had to repeat the 2nd grade. They love the yearly shyt

 

[Ya Sinning Mane]

Titanfall2 if you ain’t tried it

DO IT
shyt cheap and it’s the most fun you gon have with the movement plus shooting

 

[winb83]

it's mostly a multiplayer game. people play with their friends, and their friends are getting the new game. play the game everyday for a year, and you'll be ready for some new maps and shyt

It must be a console thing because there are shooters on the PC that are older than a year and people still play and regard highly. Even stuff like Overwatch a Fortnite are still popular and monetize content without annual new game release. Call of Duty still has a release model tied to old world gaming where games weren't more like online platforms with content released for the platform.

People complain about say Madden all the time. It still sells. Madden used to come out on the SNES for example and back then it was difficult for them to just put out a roster update everyone could get. Tech has evolved and Madden doesn't need to come out annually to update the game anymore. They can make core changes to Madden without releasing a new title every year. They just do it to milk their base. I would argue that such a release is detriment to the quality of everything because the focus becomes put out a new boxed product annually even if not needed rather than focus on advancing the gameplay and put out a new product when needed.

I totally get why people like and play online shooters. What I don't get is why people are paying $70+ for a game then getting the map packs they put out for the game for an additional cost for 12 months. Then they put out a new game that still has to have the same core gameplay loop but they change window dressings on it and charge $70 again for it and on top of that map packs. It seems like they juggle 4 core settings futuristic, WW2, modern, and 60s-80s. Those are skinned themes for a map pack at best. They don't require a new $70 purchase. At times in this series they have even dropped the campaign and still charged the same.

I get why Activision does it because there's a cow to be milked and they're doing it. I don't get when they fanbase just lets them. If the gamers demanded it Activision would change for the better in this regard just like Ubisoft did for Assassin's Creed. There's really no reason for a online game to have annual $70 releases.

 

[parallax]

Because even though cod games are annual, they play differently and dont appeal to everyone. Modern warfare 2019 is what got me back into cod after a few games. Cold war on the other hand i skipped because i didnt like the way it played. I havent tried vanguard yet, but it has to be better than cold war

 

[HiiiPower]

I used to love Cod back in the COD4 - MW2 - WAW - Black Ops days, tapered off during the MW3 - Ghost - Advanced Warfare era and stopped fukking with them entirely, Warzone got me back for a couple weeks, but once I tried the New Modern Warfares normal MP mode I realised how fukking boring it was..shyt doesn’t even hit my radar now

 

[PS5 Pro]

It must be a console thing because there are shooters on the PC that are older than a year and people still play and regard highly. Even stuff like Overwatch a Fortnite are still popular and monetize content without annual new game release. Call of Duty still has a release model tied to old world gaming where games weren't more like online platforms with content released for the platform.

People complain about say Madden all the time. It still sells. Madden used to come out on the SNES for example and back then it was difficult for them to just put out a roster update everyone could get. Tech has evolved and Madden doesn't need to come out annually to update the game anymore. They can make core changes to Madden without releasing a new title every year. They just do it to milk their base. I would argue that such a release is detriment to the quality of everything because the focus becomes put out a new boxed product annually even if not needed rather than focus on advancing the gameplay and put out a new product when needed.

I totally get why people like and play online shooters. What I don't get is why people are paying $70+ for a game then getting the map packs they put out for the game for an additional cost for 12 months. Then they put out a new game that still has to have the same core gameplay loop but they change window dressings on it and charge $70 again for it and on top of that map packs. It seems like they juggle 4 core settings futuristic, WW2, modern, and 60s-80s. Those are skinned themes for a map pack at best. They don't require a new $70 purchase. At times in this series they have even dropped the campaign and still charged the same.

I get why Activision does it because there's a cow to be milked and they're doing it. I don't get when they fanbase just lets them. If the gamers demanded it Activision would change for the better in this regard just like Ubisoft did for Assassin's Creed. There's really no reason for a online game to have annual $70 releases.

Fortnite does seasons which comes with updates so a Fortnite 2 isn't necessary. Why make a Fortnite 2 if it's going to be FREE TO PLAY

Fortnite has gone thru mad changes and exposes what I been saying all along about how any game be updated without the need of a sequel, especially sports games. EA did it with NBA live during the PS3 era. Then again in 14 and in 19 they made major changes during the year. And really 2k isn't even finished until they change the gameplay around for a few months.

As for why call of duty, it's a social game that a lot of people have formed social bonds in. So once the new version comes out there will always be a group of gamers who just wanna shoot shyt and it be different. That's what call if duty provides, a place for people to bullshyt and hangout. I've played with various groups from ppl here to my friends to my brothers friends to a small group of friends I don't really fukk with but in game they alright

 

[Tflasha]

Call of "Madden" Duty

 

[winb83]

Fortnite does seasons which comes with updates so a Fortnite 2 isn't necessary. Why make a Fortnite 2 if it's going to be FREE TO PLAY

Fortnite has gone thru mad changes and exposes what I been saying all along about how any game be updated without the need of a sequel, especially sports games. EA did it with NBA live during the PS3 era. Then again in 14 and in 19 they made major changes during the year. And really 2k isn't even finished until they change the gameplay around for a few months.

As for why call of duty, it's a social game that a lot of people have formed social bonds in. So once the new version comes out there will always be a group of gamers who just wanna shoot shyt and it be different. That's what call if duty provides, a place for people to bullshyt and hangout. I've played with various groups from ppl here to my friends to my brothers friends to a small group of friends I don't really fukk with but in game they alright

Grand Theft Auto online showed the way. It just seems like COD is an old world business model. Hell Activision has other shooters that don't follow that annual $70 model that are a success.

 

[Tim Lord]

It must be a console thing because there are shooters on the PC that are older than a year and people still play and regard highly. Even stuff like Overwatch a Fortnite are still popular and monetize content without annual new game release. Call of Duty still has a release model tied to old world gaming where games weren't more like online platforms with content released for the platform.

People complain about say Madden all the time. It still sells. Madden used to come out on the SNES for example and back then it was difficult for them to just put out a roster update everyone could get. Tech has evolved and Madden doesn't need to come out annually to update the game anymore. They can make core changes to Madden without releasing a new title every year. They just do it to milk their base. I would argue that such a release is detriment to the quality of everything because the focus becomes put out a new boxed product annually even if not needed rather than focus on advancing the gameplay and put out a new product when needed.

I totally get why people like and play online shooters. What I don't get is why people are paying $70+ for a game then getting the map packs they put out for the game for an additional cost for 12 months. Then they put out a new game that still has to have the same core gameplay loop but they change window dressings on it and charge $70 again for it and on top of that map packs. It seems like they juggle 4 core settings futuristic, WW2, modern, and 60s-80s. Those are skinned themes for a map pack at best. They don't require a new $70 purchase. At times in this series they have even dropped the campaign and still charged the same.

I get why Activision does it because there's a cow to be milked and they're doing it. I don't get when they fanbase just lets them. If the gamers demanded it Activision would change for the better in this regard just like Ubisoft did for Assassin's Creed. There's really no reason for a online game to have annual $70 releases.

You just described a lot of games here, even games that don’t come out annually.

Anyways, people in this thread have been giving you great answers, but you choose to ignore them:

-They vary in quality
-They vary in setting
-Its just a fun series for the squad
-etc

I think a better question is how they are able to ship new Call of Duty games every year without delay. Im no Call of Duty fan but they are under appreciated in terms of technical quality. They look, run and sound better than almost every non first party AAA games in their year of release.

You mention Fortnite and Overwatch as examples of games that do things differently. But you best believe that if they were able to ship games and make $1billon every fall for those franchises every year, they would.

It’s not a PC or a console thing, these are mostly the same people with similar spending habits. Its a ‘gamer’/‘people with disposable income’ thing.

 

[Fatboi1]

New maps, new guns, different engine, new campaign, new aesthetic etc. They're actually very different each year.

 

[Don Mack]

I stopped playing years ago. All people did was camp behind doors and windows and shoot you in the back.

 

[beenz]

they were never for me. but that's simply cuz I don't like first person shooters.

 

[Kingshango]

Titanfall2 if you ain’t tried it

DO IT
shyt cheap and it’s the most fun you gon have with the movement plus shooting

And it had a better single player campaign than any CoD game to date.

 

[Rell Lauren]

It's the new Madden and 2K.

 

[SNYC]

Grand Theft Auto online showed the way. It just seems like COD is an old world business model. Hell Activision has other shooters that don't follow that annual $70 model that are a success.

What do you think Warzone is? That's their launch point now. Every game they make will be connected to that.

It's all about micro transactions. And if they can continue to get sells off the yearly paid version, why not? ....R* does with the re-releases

Did you not see how much Activision makes per day?