Activision Originally Didn't Want Modern Warfare

[John Funk]

Activision Originally Didn't Want Modern Warfare

Infinity Ward had to fight to be able to make Call of Duty 4 a modern FPS, say members of the studio's top brass: publisher Activision wanted another World War II game.

Let's file this under "dodging a bullet," for the moment: Infinity Ward has revealed that its publisher, Activision, tried desperately to dissuade them from making a "modern warfare" game. In the latest issue of Official PlayStation Magazine, studio boss Vince Zampella said that the team had wanted to make a modern combat game since the second Call of Duty:

"With Call of Duty 2, we were dead set against it being World War 2," said Zampella, "but Activision really wanted it, the compromise sort of being that we'd get some dev kits for consoles in exchange for doing a World War 2 game ... [we] always wanted to be on consoles and Activision saw us as more of a PC developer."

The reason for this, of course, was that Activision wasn't convinced that a modern combat FPS would sell well at all. "They thought working on a modern game was risky and [thought], 'oh my god you can't do that, it's crazy!' They were doing market research to show us we were wrong the whole time," Zampella explained.

Of course, we know how that story ended up. CoD4 went on to be one of the most popular games of all time, selling 14 million copies and topping review charts across the board, with a hugely anticipated sequel a little over a month away. The gamble paid off for both Activision and Infinity ward - but it almost never happened at all.

Guess everybody should be a little bit thankful for that bit of luck.

(Via CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=224900?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-General-RSS])

Permalink

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

I'm glad it came out as it did.
Hell, It's still selling near full price at the Local ASDA store... and GAME.
just proves how damn good it is.
I got mine fixed today It's been broken for months, but now it's back

 

[Optimus Hagrid]

If wonder, if CoD4 was in WW2, what setting Treyarch would have put the 5th installment in.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Haha, wow. Nice one Activision. Just imagine if you'd gotten your way...

 

[Olikunmissile]

I love the fact they thought an original idea was crazy.

Stupid dicks... Oops, did that come out? Seems I may still be a little angry they sparked the UK price hike.

 

[John Funk]

Not really a risk based story. It doesn't surprise me however considering Kotick's philosophy to only exploit games that can be million dollar franchises.

Risk is needed when creating a video game because video games are a lot like writing books. They can be about anything and there will be a group that will want to play the game. The only problem we have is that the industry is so much more business focused(middle management) that risk is thrown out and only ideas that target specific demographics make the cut. This is the American way of doing business.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Yes, there's a group that will want to play every game. But if it's a top-tier title with an AAA budget of millions and millions of dollars, then you have to make sure that a *lot* of people want to play the game, or you've wasted your money.

 

[uppitycracker]

I can totally understand Activisions hesitation in this. I mean, for the most part, the modern setting in FPS games has been a stale experience, with a very few exceptions. That has a lot to do with developers not getting the feel and the weapons right, at least not in a fun way. They usually either emphasize too much on accuracy or the feeling is just completely off. World War 2 seems to be an easier market to nail, despite how bored gamers are getting with it. Glad that IF was able to take that chance, though! Because the results were way too good.

 

[Doktor Merkwurdigliebe]

Well, point for Infinity Ward, if it weren't for them, we would be having Call of Duty 8: Now Even More Stalingrad coming in November/December.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

Yet further proof that Activision are evil!

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Yet another point taken away from Activision...but in their defense, it's a bit of a sudden shift, changing the whole series' focus from WWII to the current day. And there's the fact that a modern warfare series might not be able to be constantly exploited every year with clear sequel potential they might've just thought deviating from the so-far successful pattern might be a bad thing. Don't rock the boat and all that. I'm just glad things turned out the way they did.

 

[AboveUp]

They were doing market research how exactly?
Even before Modern Warfare people were saying they were tired of WW2. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out a well-made modern war game would outdo a WW2 one simply based on the fact it's not WW2 again.

In fact, it was the only reason I ended up playing it. If it was WW2, I would've passed.

 

[Sethzard]

Wow, this is rather comic, I can't believe that they nearly lost out on the most prophitable COD game yet, until the new MW2

 

[Slycne]

Hindsight is 20/20, who is to say that COD4 40's Era Warfare wouldn't have been the greatest World War 2 game to date in that it would single-handedly close that genre for all time. While it's amusing to think that Activision didn't want a game that went on to be a great success, that's doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been as much of a success as a World War II game either.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Not really a risk based story. It doesn't surprise me however considering Kotick's philosophy to only exploit games that can be million dollar franchises.

Risk is needed when creating a video game because video games are a lot like writing books. They can be about anything and there will be a group that will want to play the game. The only problem we have is that the industry is so much more business focused(middle management) that risk is thrown out and only ideas that target specific demographics make the cut. This is the American way of doing business.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Yes, there's a group that will want to play every game. But if it's a top-tier title with an AAA budget of millions and millions of dollars, then you have to make sure that a *lot* of people want to play the game, or you've wasted your money.

What is true though is that extremity in either direction is self destructive. Kotick's business is the business of fear, he even admitted it in one of your stories. They make ONLY what works and do not move to advance the industry. To stagnate is to die, your product will remain commercially viable for a time but eventually someone will advance past you and you'll be playing catchup. To say nothing of consumer backlash.

Meanwhile, experimental games have high risk of not returning on their investment, or alienating the consumer.

Incrimental, meaningful change is necessary. Activision is just shy of this in most of it's series, holding products in reserve in order to capitalize on them financially.

 

[Irridium]

They were doing market research how exactly?
Even before Modern Warfare people were saying they were tired of WW2. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out a well-made modern war game would outdo a WW2 one simply based on the fact it's not WW2 again.

In fact, it was the only reason I ended up playing it. If it was WW2, I would've passed.

Same.

Hell, I never rally wanted it, the only reason I got it was because all my friends had it and wouldn't play anything else.

 

[Halfbreed13]

"we always wanted to be on consoles."
AH HAH!
So that is why they have been screwing over the PC demographic!
But why? Why hold one over the other? Unless of course, you are in M$ POcket *ahem*
The PC version of MW was lacking some features, and I hope that MW2 does not follow the same trend. THe worst part would be if they hicked the price, delayed it, then said, oh, by the way, you get half the content.

 

[Mysterious Stranger]

Seeing that Activision is now a Guitar Hero license mill, not surprising that they would stifle change.

 

[scotth266]

Yet another point taken away from Activision...but in their defense, it's a bit of a sudden shift, changing the whole series' focus from WWII to the current day. And there's the fact that a modern warfare series might not be able to be constantly exploited every year with clear sequel potential they might've just thought deviating from the so-far successful pattern might be a bad thing. Don't rock the boat and all that. I'm just glad things turned out the way they did.

I don't see how this is a point taken away from Activision: to be honest, MW could easily have been a major flop, especially with the "THIS IS NOT AFGANISTAN" American missions. Remember the backlash that that Fallujah game received, to the point where it was dropped? That's what Activision feared. They were likely terrified of people drawing the parallel, because stuff involving/loosely based on current military conflicts had all the sellability of a dead badger.

Infinity Ward managed to dodge the bullet by making some random Russian terrorists the REAL culprits behind everything, but Modern Warfare was certainly a title with risks involved.

 

[fanrock51]

Market research to show how to fail one of the best series? They should just let Infinity ward fo what they want to do.