call of Duty games, are being built on a three year development cycle

Very cool I hope sledge hammer innovates a little more in call of duty. I know they had part in ghost but this next one being fully them I hope they put out a little more than the norm.  Any ideas on names/time period?  I have heard every thing from MW4 to a WW2 time period.

This sounds about right. Really, a 2 year cycle should be sufficient time, but having that deadline of the pre-Christmas makes moving it back 3 or 4 months impossible. With the 3-year cycle we should see some better quality, but in all honesty, how many more "cycles" can we go?

~mrmiller

Might also help to avoid COD burnout.  Seems like with getting a new one every year that you're always playing COD to keep up and there isn't as much time for other games.

At first, I read this as a new Call of Duty game being released every three years and I thought I might actually try Call of Duty if that was the case, and then I realized that wasn't the case.  They're still doing their yearly releases. Lame.

Xpert2010 wrote:At first, I read this as a new Call of Duty game being released every three years and I thought I might actually try Call of Duty if that was the case, and then I realized that wasn't the case.  They're still doing their yearly releases. Lame.

Exactly.  This really doesn't change anything as far as yearly releases go, they just have 3 different studios working on their respective games at the same time.

I don't see why yearly releases are lame. I'm sure people would go crazy if they put Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead on a 3 year cycle. They sure did when the Sopranos went to 18 months.

Just like all good things, everyone will eventually burn out. Not everything can be the Simpsons.

~mrmiller