The Call of Duty Problem | A Closer Look at the Biggest FPS in the World

In the three years since we launched, we have talked about a lot of video games, including a few Call of Duty titles, but we’ve never really done something like this. An opinion piece. As someone who has been playing Call of Duty games for over a decade, I have a lot to say about the state of Call of Duty in 2023. So consider this to be both an evaluation of the popular first-person shooter franchise and an open letter to those oh-so-powerful executives. I will admit that it’s easy to start throwing a tantrum about Call of Duty, but that’s not the point of this piece. My goal is to create a well-rounded discussion, giving examples where I can, and explaining the factors that have led me to putting pen to paper. Or, more aptly, cursor to page.

My History with Call of Duty

My first Call of Duty game came bundled with my PlayStation 3. It was Call of Duty: Black Ops and it introduced me to a series that would have a grip over me until I graduated high school. To this day, my most played Call of Duty is Black Ops II. I have played every new Call of Duty game to release since that one, though I didn’t always buy them on release day as I once used to. I will admit that I sort of missed the boat on the 2019 Modern Warfare reboot, opting instead to replay the remaster of the first one (which you can read my review for here). And I did the same with Vanguard, choosing to play the remaster of Modern Warfare 2 instead of picking up the game on day one (which you can read my review for here.) In both cases, I ended up picking up the games at a later date to stock my shelves. However, I didn’t make the same mistake last year. With rumors flying that Call of Duty might be ditching the yearly release schedule, I figured Modern Warfare II would be supported for a long time to come. And, as I’ll get into in a bit, the numbers certainly echoed the sentiment of a one-stop-shop Call of Duty game. Then came Modern Warfare III.

The Problem with Modern Warfare III

I am not mad that there is a new Call of Duty game coming out this week. And I’m not too shocked either. But, taking into account the talk circulating prior to the announcement and the content being offered in this new release, it shines a light on a recent trend that is hard to ignore. Prior to the big announcement, the 2023 Call of Duty release was said to be a DLC that added new content to Modern Warfare II. It’s hard to know for sure why the decision was made to change it into a full-priced new entry, but sifting through the game hints that the rumors might not have been far off target.

For starters, Modern Warfare III‘s campaign is shockingly short. With a runtime of about 4 hours, Modern Warfare III has the second shortest story mode in Call of Duty history, right behind Black Ops 4, which didn’t have a campaign at all. Furthermore, a lot of the campaign has you revisiting areas in Warzone in the new open combat missions. While the concept is cool on paper, the reality is that the missions often lack the scripted blockbuster spectacle that Call of Duty is really known for delivering year after year. Then if you look at the multiplayer maps, they are all remastered versions of the ones that launched with the original Modern Warfare 2. There will be 12 all-new core 6v6 maps but those are said to be released at a later date.

On the note of Multiplayer, Modern Warfare 2 Remastered, which was released in 2020, did not ship with a multiplayer mode like Modern Warfare Remastered did in 2016. Granted, I know that the way these games were released is different, with MWR being a packaged deal with Infinite Warfare and MW2R being a budget solo release, but it’s hard not to question having to pay a premium price for what feels like cut content from prior games.

The old Modern Warfare games shipped with a third mode: Survival. Though never as popular as Zombies from Black Ops, Survival Mode was a key part of the package. This year, Modern Warfare III is shipping with a Zombies Mode, which has fittingly been developed by Treyarch. This new Zombies Mode is similar to DMZ’s extraction-like playstyle in place of the round-based gameplay of its predecessors. It’s also worth noting that when looking at the credits, Modern Warfare III is the most collaborative release in the series. There is always developer overlap in the games with one studio getting primary development credit but this is the first year that a Call of Duty game is being “co-developed” by Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and Sledgehammer Games.

I can’t speak for certain that Modern Warfare III began production as a DLC, but it’s hard not to look at a game with a short campaign that ends on a cliffhanger with multiplayer maps from a called MW2 and not see the connecting dots. Of course, Call of Duty isn’t alone in this. Far Cry Blood Dragon and Hollow Knight: Silksong personally come to mind as DLCs that grew to be standalone projects. In fact, just last month, Ubisoft released Assassin’s Creed Mirage, a game that started out as an expansion to Valhalla. One key difference is that Mirage is priced at just $50, notably lower than Modern Warfare III‘s $70 asking price.

The Fall and Rise of Call of Duty

While Call of Duty is certainly on top now, there was a point where it wasn’t so. Starting with Ghosts in 2013 until the release of Black Ops 4 in 2018, the series was on a low streak, garnering widespread criticism for their commitment to futurist combat. WWII did appease some fans wanting boots-on-the-ground gameplay, but it also opened the door for comparisons with long-time competitor Battlefield, which was on a comparative high streak at the time. Take 2016, for example. Call of Duty released Infinite Warfare, which set a record for the most disliked trailer in the franchise’s history. The game garnered a disappointing 49% on OpenCritic. Meanwhile, Battlefield 1 was released with a mighty 96% for giving players a smooth first-person shooter without jetpacks and double jumps.

Yet, the series made a comeback. Modern Warfare (2019) was released to rave reviews from die-hard fans celebrating the return of Infinity Ward. The reboot sold incredibly well, raking in $600 million in the first three days and going on to sell a reported 30 million units by September 2020. Then, last year, Modern Warfare II did even better. According to the official Activision investor page, MWII sold $1 Billion (with a B) in just 10 days, making it the fastest game to reach that revenue landmark in franchise history. And, in a weird twist of fate, Battlefield 2042, which was released the year prior in 2021, received poor reviews on launch and failed to meet sales expectations. Over the years, there have been many games that have been crowned the “COD Killer” moniker, but it’s clear that the series still sits at the top of the genre.

The Sustainability of Annual Releases

Another commonality that Call of Duty has with Assassin’s Creed is that they were both yearly releases. For a period of time in the early 2010s, players knew as sure as the change of the seasons that a new Call of Duty and a new Assassin’s Creed were on the way. To Ubisoft’s credit, they did move away from annual releases (though that gap year is often filled with some remaster or DLC to keep fans spending). Now, to Call of Duty‘s credit, a new game every year isn’t as crazy as it sounds when considering that there is a circulation of studios that alternate with the games. The most recent Call of Duty games have all had a three-year development cycle. Plus, with the budget they have to work with, few studios hit the benchmark in production quality as consistently as Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and Sledgehammer Games.

However, the sustainability I am referring to is about the players. Call of Duty has turned into a money printing press for Activision, bringing in a boatload of money consistently year after year. But the combination of an annual release for a $70 base game riddled with microtransactions is highly anti-consumer. It’s not new in the industry but that also doesn’t mean it should be a standard or an expectation either. And, when you think about MWIII specifically, it is pretty ridiculous to be asked to pay $70 for a game that offers such little original content.

The Microsoft Acquisition

It’s hard to discuss the recent Microsoft acquisition of Activision-Blizzard without talking first about Bobby Kotick and the leadership that’s behind some of the biggest franchises in gaming. I won’t delve into this too much for the sake of brevity, but a few years ago, reports of poor workplace behavior and frat-boy culture followed by lawsuits, walkouts, and a complete lack of action from higher-ups have made gamers and other video game companies reevaluate their relationship with the massive video game publisher. It was just a few months after this news that word of the acquisition broke.

After a ton of legal drama and lots of accidental leaks, the acquisition has only recently gone through. Over the coming months, we will see the integration of Activision Blizzard King into the Xbox ecosystem, with select titles coming soon to Xbox Game Pass. Another byproduct of the acquisition, however, is a restructuring of the companies. This, unfortunately, does mean that Bobby Kotick will walk away with a nearly $400 million payday. But, on the bright side, it also means that Activision will be under the “gamer first” mantra that Xbox has upheld so far this generation under the leadership of Phil Spencer. This is the most important reason why this conversation is worth having now.

The Future of the Franchise

I have spent a lot of time discussing issues, so I want to end by offering two solutions. This is by no means the only way I can see this franchise moving forward, but it’s one that I think would make the most sense. For starters, since the launch of Warzone, we’ve seen Call of Duty lean towards being games as a service with seasonal content drops and battle passes constantly alerting you of all the cool things you can unlock for just a little bit of money. I know the GAAS market is saturated but if anyone can survive that market, it’s Call of Duty. So what would that model look like?

I don’t ever see Call of Duty going free-to-play, at least not when people are consistently okay with spending full price on day one. While I hate to say it, it’s the truth. Warzone is just a slice of the content Call of Duty games offer and, if anything, it’s a gateway drug that will remain as it is. So much like the recently rebooted Forza Motorsport, players buy Call of Duty. That’s the name. You pay $60 or $70 to get the game, with all content offered on the base version. A single-player campaign, multiplayer mode with 10 maps, and a third mode of some sort. Then once or twice every twelve months, there’s a $15 DLC that continues the campaign. Or a slightly more expensive DLC that adds campaign and new side content, like maps for the third game mode. Regular multiplayer maps should continue to be free.

Apart from being more consumer-friendly, this also eases player expectations on Call of Duty. The biggest complaint making the rounds about the Modern Warfare III campaign is that it’s far too short. The narrative progression of the story that started in 2019 is still intriguing to a degree, but it’s hard to separate the low content offering from the high price tag. This sort of “home base” for Call of Duty might sound far-fetched but we already have something pretty close to it with the latest Modern Warfare games. Gone are the simple menus of the older Call of Duty games. Looking at Modern Warfare II, we have a convoluted hub from which we can branch off to play Campaign, Warzone, Multiplayer, DMZ, Timed Modes, and more. Plus that “home base” is ever-changing, often acting as a billboard for Activision to easily advertise in front of millions of players.

I’ve already compared Call of Duty to Assassin’s Creed twice so let’s go for the trifecta. Ubisoft has recently announced Assassin’s Creed Infinity. Although still in development, Infinity will be a base hub for future Assassin’s Creed experiences when it releases. There are already two on the horizon (Codename Red and Codename Hexe), and they will be integrated into Infinity. Of course, before we move on from this GAAS topic, we have to talk about Destiny 2. The idea of a centralized Call of Duty might sound good but it’s not all flawless. Sunsetting is a problem that has plagued the Destiny 2 community for years now with Bungie locking key pieces of content away under the guise of sustainability. Entire chunks of narrative DLC that players cannot play even if they already purchased it. While Destiny 2 might seem like the north star for GAAS in terms of popularity and success, there really is no perfect formula to follow yet. It will undoubtedly take millions of dollars in market research to find a balance that’s profitable for developers and sensible for consumers but if anyone can foot the bill, it’s the company that earned $7.5 Billion last year.

If Call of Duty continues on as a collaborative effort across all studios, then we have the second option; gap years. I don’t feel as strongly about this option but the premise is simple. Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and Sledgehammer Games work together to create a polished content-heavy full-priced package that releases every two or three years. The reason I don’t see it as entirely viable is that Call of Duty production costs are immense and the main reason why they’re able to spend so much money on them year after year is because there’s a steady stream of revenue flowing in every year. Taking that away could impact the size and scale of the games and the studios behind it in ways I don’t think are beneficial to the series.

What To Do About It

I know that some (or all) of what I said above might seem like a tall order, but if this sort of change is ever going to happen, the time is now. We already know a much-needed restructuring of leadership is on the horizon following the Microsoft acquisition. There are two key things you can do to make sure that the right people get the message here. The obvious thing to do is to vote with your wallet! The truth of the matter is that no amount of review bombing will really influence people in suits who make the decisions. I will not be purchasing Modern Warfare III and if you feel the same way about the game, I encourage you to think about your purchase as well. This doesn’t mean you have to stop playing Call of Duty altogether. Just save the money and play one of the several Call of Duty games you probably already own. But the unfortunate reality, and part of what makes this whole thing frustrating as a consumer, is that it won’t do much. Players will still pick up the latest Call of Duty because their friends got it and kids will still receive Call of Duty games for Christmas. That’s why it’s also important to spread the word! Talk about the state of Call of Duty without being toxic. There is a VERY big difference between constructive criticism and death threats. Do not degrade yourself to the latter. Make your dissatisfaction with the latest entry heard and if you can’t be bothered to type all of it out, just share this article.

As I suggested above, there is no real Call of Duty killer. The franchise is simply too big to fall entirely off the map. However, there are alternatives that you can choose to play instead. Recently, multiplayer shooter The Finals held an open beta that brought in 7.5 million players. The game is fast-paced and explosive, featuring a level of destructibility that is usually reserved for the Battlefield games. Speaking of, Battlefield 2042 has made a recent comeback, bolstering reworked game systems that have brought back players by the thousands. Then there is xDefiant, an upcoming free-to-play shooter that is themed after various Ubisoft IPs. I did actually play this game myself during the last playtest and I had a lot of fun with it. One thing to point out specifically about xDefiant is that, much like older Call of Duty games, it doesn’t have skill-based matchmaking.

This was a lot, I know, and I thank you for, at the very least, sifting through it all. At the end of the day, the reason why I wrote this piece is because players have gotten very complacent about being nickel-and-dimed. Snarky tweets and trending hashtags don’t do much when the bottom line keeps going up. The conversation for change in the industry is too often toxic and unhealthy for any real discussion to be had. I did my best to summarize my points here, but if you think I missed anything worth mentioning, please leave a comment letting me know down below. Engagement will help this post a lot.