Although it looks like we have finally reached the end game of the Microsoft / Activision merger saga, the publisher won’t be out of the news for long with this year’s Call of Duty – seemingly Modern Warfare 3 – on the horizon. Originally reported to be an expansion for 2022’s Modern Warfare 2, priorities have shifted and Sledgehammer Games is now set to launch a “fully-featured” premium Call of Duty release this year. But is it really necessary? It’s a difficult question to answer.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 (2022) is the most financially successful Call of Duty in the history of the franchise. It broke the previous franchise record set by 2011’s Modern Warfare 3 in just three days to the tune of over $800 million. The game – alongside the second iteration of battle royale ‘Warzone’ – was set up to be the launch of ‘Call of Duty 2.0’, a bold new start for one of the most successful entertainment franchises of all time.
However, the fan reception wasn’t quite as good as the numbers. Infinity Ward has a clear vision for the series that isn’t quite in sync with the hardcore Call of Duty audience. The studio seemed to double down on controversial gameplay decisions it made in 2019’s Modern Warfare by continuing to tinker with mechanics and systems that had been part of the Call of Duty formula for years. The most egregious of these changes was the new timed perk system that was buffed multiple times to no avail, as players were still not on board with the change to a system that is fundamental to Call of Duty.
While change and experimentation is important for a series to continue to evolve, Infinity Ward’s changes have led to a Call of Duty experience that pivots towards a different type of player than the one the series built its foundations on during the initial boom of Modern Warfare in 2007. The Multiplayer component of Call of Duty, formerly the main reason to buy the game, has become nothing more than an XP farm for Warzone since it launched during Modern Warfare 2019.
Warzone 2 also removed many features that had been built up over the life of the original Warzone, and included a lot of new features that didn’t land well with players including AI soldiers and a new loadout system. Although the original Warzone had its issues – particularly in the year of Call of Duty Vanguard – Warzone 2’s launch felt like going from a feature complete game, to an early access release. Although the state of the game is much better than it was at launch, each season brings new issues for players, with serious performance issues plaguing the recent Season 4 Reloaded update.
With a reported budget of an eye watering $250 million, players expected more than a rote campaign, a half hearted multiplayer mode with changes, and a new version of Warzone that confused and alienated fans. A lot of the attention seemed to have gone on the new ‘DMZ’ mode, an attempt to capitalise on the success of the extraction shooter genre. Making use of the Warzone map, players in squads of three complete contracts and objectives throughout Al Mazrah (and other maps added post-launch) in order to extract with money, weapons, and other items to help with future runs. Similarly to Warzone 2, this mode felt like a work in progress as many updates followed launch – including seasonal resets to the frustration of many players. DMZ was certainly an improvement on Infinity Ward’s recent attempts at Spec Ops, but there are still some frustrating issues with team camping, and a solo lobby option would open the mode up to more players.
Modern Warfare III
As the reveal date of Modern Warfare 3 is still not confirmed at time of writing, official information is hard to come by. As expected with Call of Duty, however, leaks and rumours are rife. The information finding its way out suggests that – to the joy of many – Sledgehammer will revert many of the controversial multiplayer changes that Infinity Ward made in MW2. Throw some classic Modern Warfare series maps into the mix and most 6v6 CoD fans will give the game a chance at the very least.
The title Modern Warfare 3 would suggest that any story content would follow on from MW2’s campaign and seasonal stories. While these were both pretty by the numbers, the Modern Warfare universe has a bunch of fan favourite characters that players will be happy to catch up with again.
The only official news revealed so far is that cosmetics earned and purchased in MW2 will crossover to MW3. While this was expected in Warzone, it’s nice to know that multiplayer – and potentially Zombies – will also benefit from this decision.
Speaking of Zombies, rumours are strongly pointing towards the undead returning in a new version of Outbreak, the open world mode that debuted in Black Ops Cold War. The mode was a hit with casual players and Zombies fans that had been looking for the mode to innovate, but it also faced a lot of criticism from more traditional fans that blamed the mode for a lack of round-based Zombies content.
Outbreak launched in a rather slim state, but by the end of Cold War’s final season it was a mode that had benefited massively from feedback and updates. Additional modes, regions, objectives, weapons, equipment, vehicles, enemies, secrets, hidden intel, and two ‘Easter Egg’ quests all fleshed out the mode to be an entertaining Zombies offering with a lot of potential for the future.
With Treyarch returning to the main developer role in 2024, this is the perfect time to reintroduce Outbreak. By the time Call of Duty 2024 releases Outbreak will have received a full year of support, and established a solid playerbase. Treyarch can then capitalise on this with the grand return of round-based zombies experiences in its premium release.
These two forms of Zombies can definitely co-exist, and if given the patience and time to grow, Outbreak could be the perfect way to keep Zombies players invested in Call of Duty between round based maps which take longer to develop. Cold War attempted this but the cadence wasn’t quite right (apart from the monthly intel updates which kept the story of Dark Aether entertaining all year round). There were several gaps without much happening for Zombies which made the community get a little antsy. It’s hard to determine exactly why these lulls happened, but it’s likely due to planned content being moved around after it was decided that Treyarch developed Zombies would be appearing in Cold War’s successor Vanguard.
Death, Taxes, and Call of Duty
It has been nearly 20 years since the last time Activision skipped an annual mainline Call of Duty release – the gap between Call of Duty and Call of Duty 2 in 2004 – so it ultimately comes as no surprise that the publisher has decided to repurpose Sledgehammer’s work on additional Modern Warfare content as a full release.
Year upon year, Call of Duty is at the top of best selling lists. Even an off year for the franchise results in it sitting pretty on end of year sales lists (see: Vanguard and Infinite Warfare). At this point for many players, new entries are the equivalent to paying an annual subscription fee.
The gaming landscape has shifted largely. Call of Duty is now a live service game. Long gone are the days of map packs and season passes which split up the player base. All post launch maps, modes and weapons are available for free for all players, with cosmetics and weapon blueprints available through microtransactions. Many clamour for a return to the season pass format, but there is no evidence that returning to that type of post launch support would improve content or reduce the amount of microtransactions. It would likely result in players paying more for the same amount of content. While the newer seasonal support of Call of Duty is far from perfect, it’s an improvement on previous entries such as Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 3 which relied heavily on loot boxes alongside a premium season pass.
The decision to push forward with Modern Warfare 3 ultimately comes down to money. Activision knows that a yearly Call of Duty sells, so if it packages up enough content to justify a premium release, it will do so. It makes no business sense for the company to take a risk and launch an expansion when it could result in money being left on the table. Why sell a product for $30 when most consumers will buy it for $70 with a grumble at most?
To give Activision a small chunk of credit, it has made some attempts at breaking the notorious “COD cycle”. There has been a clear push to improve the Call of Duty ecosystem since the success of Warzone. Recent games have been unified in levelling and progression, with cosmetics earned or purchased in any of the modern CoD games available to players to use in Warzone. A lot of this good work was all for nothing though, as the original Warzone will close its doors in September 2023, meaning those cosmetics will be locked to the games they originated from. Currently it’s hard to disagree with the notion that CoD 2.0 was all bluster, but the benefits for players may start to increase in the next couple of years as more games and features are added to the CoD HQ platform. For now players will just have to take Activision’s word for it…
Looking at the decision from a consumer perspective, it’ll certainly be disappointing to see a $70 game on sale. Many players are upset with the state of CoD following MW2’s launch and believe that the promise of “Call of Duty 2.0” was nothing more than a marketing gimmick. A smaller annual release at a reduced price would go a long way in repairing some damage between Activision and the Call of Duty community. Some players that felt burned by MW2 may be more likely to give the game a second chance if an expansion was released at a lower price than what would be expected for a new Call of Duty. However, other players have washed their hands clean of MW2, and a new game is more likely to appeal to them, regardless of how much of the game was actually planned as new content. There’s also the question of if an expansion would put off potential newcomers to the series, as they may need to buy MW2 to access the expansion content.
All the arguments about the way Activision is approaching Call of Duty 2023 come down to one small statement: Call of Duty is too big to fail. There are simply too many players ready to pay for a new Call of Duty at full price every year. Unless Activision majorly changes its strategy, the CoD cycle will likely continue. It’s not all doom and gloom though – there are small signs that Modern Warfare 3 will push Call of Duty back towards a positive trajectory. Sledgehammer is willing to put the fundamentals of Call of Duty multiplayer game design first, and the developer has a point to prove following the reception of Vanguard. The second iteration of Warzone will continue to improve and should eventually reach a point where it stands strongly as a free to play Call of Duty experience (alongside DMZ) like its predecessor did before it. Finally, the 1-2 punch of Outbreak in 2023 followed by a Treyarch COD in 2024 means there may be light at the end of the tunnel for fans of Zombies, the game mode that appropriately refuses to die.
It understandably feels like a slap in the face for players that expected a new era of Call of Duty, where games recieve more than one year of full support, but a reset and readjustment is much needed for “Call of Duty 2.0”, and Modern Warfare 3 may be just what the doctor ordered – if you can stomach the price tag.