Call of Duty annual formula won't work for all games franchises - producer

The annual Call of Duty release is a formula that's worked well for publisher Activision, but it's a direction other publishers are trying and failing with, according to Call of Duty: Ghosts executive producer Mark Rubin.

Speaking with Metro, Rubin said the Call of Duty annual formula worked well for Activision in the same way another direction worked for Rockstar Games and its titles.

“There are companies out there who have been copying that formula – won’t name ‘em because you already know exactly who they are -- but it doesn't necessarily work for them," he said. Let's assumed he's talking about Assassin's Creed and the Arkham series.

"And Rockstar, and also games like Skyrim, they have a different formula that does work for them. Neither formula is better than another but studios, actually publishers really, need to figure out that the Call Of Duty formula doesn't work for everyone,” Ruben said.

But will the "COD formula" work forever?

Comments

To participate, please Log in with Facebook
zurczner
zurczner K:8870 11/11/2013
Is it really working though? Sales says it is but I guess making the fans miss the game a bit more can also help :)

iamtom
iamtom K:47152 11/11/2013
Honestly it's starting to slip for CoD as well.
1wiierdguy
1wiierdguy K:8780 11/11/2013
I think COD will fade this current gen. It will do well enough for them to continue annual releases but I feel each year sales will be lower than the one before.
SilentOne
SilentOne K:11254 11/11/2013
CoD failed this year and last year.
Poor cod ):
maxiboy
maxiboy K:35327 11/11/2013
COD needs to take a break for a year or two then come back with some innovation.

While it keeps making money though its going stick to its tried and true money printing formula.
Cade606
Cade606 K:348 11/11/2013
dont think they will be able to keep this up for too much longer its starting to slip down a slope that will start to get harder to climb without any new thoughts
Armige
Armige K:6819 11/11/2013
It works for them as they sell a lot of games, and that's all that really matters but the games are the same and don't have the greatness or nostalgia of the older titles.
rancid13
rancid13 K:970 11/11/2013
if i'd known bf3 + premium was going to last 2 years i would've avoided cod for sure.
and yeh no wonder ghosts isn't going so well.. they straight copy ending scenes and also mp maps
-PAYZEE-
-PAYZEE- K:18584 11/11/2013

rancid13 said: if i'd known bf3 + premium was going to last 2 years i would've avoided cod for sure.
and yeh no wonder ghosts isn't going so well.. they straight copy ending scenes and also mp maps


...I play BF3, waaaaay better than cod... In My Opinion- Cod have a successful regular release as they are basically THE arcade war shooter that LITERALLY a 10yr old can play (as we've all come across online, n00bfaggs), its fast paced, easy to advance rank and "CLOCK" the game (online) and can get boring quite easily, in my case anyway, so it's easier for the developers to pump out another version of the game with new maps and a little bit extra in the gameplay and you have an instant winner in the shops.

Battlefield for example, takes a little more skill, slower paced, less arcadey and you can play the game over and over (Single player beats the shit outta Cod) and online feels a lot more "tactical" and also you even get a chance to stop and take in the scenery, therefore it doesn't have to have a "regular" release...
Luke1993
Luke1993 K:1538 11/11/2013

-PAYZEE- said:

rancid13 said: if i'd known bf3 + premium was going to last 2 years i would've avoided cod for sure.
and yeh no wonder ghosts isn't going so well.. they straight copy ending scenes and also mp maps


...I play BF3, waaaaay better than cod... In My Opinion- Cod have a successful regular release as they are basically THE arcade war shooter that LITERALLY a 10yr old can play (as we've all come across online, n00bfaggs), its fast paced, easy to advance rank and "CLOCK" the game (online) and can get boring quite easily, in my case anyway, so it's easier for the developers to pump out another version of the game with new maps and a little bit extra in the gameplay and you have an instant winner in the shops.
Battlefield for example, takes a little more skill, slower paced, less arcadey and you can play the game over and over (Single player beats the shit outta Cod) and online feels a lot more "tactical" and also you even get a chance to stop and take in the scenery, therefore it doesn't have to have a "regular" release...


I've seen plenty of kids on battlefield aswell regardless of skill.
Harry
Harry K:77807 12/11/2013

“There are companies out there who have been copying that formula – won’t name ‘em because you already know exactly who they are -- but it doesn't necessarily work for them," he said.



This really irks me.. He shits on as if releasing a new game once a year is some sort of unique stroke of genius that only Activi$ion could think of. No, it's called greed, and only you guys were sly enough to fool people and make them think they were ever getting a new product.
Tano
Tano K:342403 12/11/2013

Harry said:

“There are companies out there who have been copying that formula – won’t name ‘em because you already know exactly who they are -- but it doesn't necessarily work for them," he said.


This really irks me.. He shits on as if releasing a new game once a year is some sort of unique stroke of genius that only Activi$ion could think of. No, it's called greed, and only you guys were sly enough to fool people and make them think they were ever getting a new product.



Greed is defined by a desire to attain without a care of those around you benefitting :P

I think it's in the companies best interest to milk it to be honest. The likes of COD kept the generation going longer which probably benefitted the industry in the long run.
rancid13
rancid13 K:970 12/11/2013
from the makers of Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero games..

Comment

To participate, please Log in with Facebook