How the [COD] timeline should have went.

I remember the late MW19 days, when Cold War leaks were all over this place.

I remember news about CW being rushed, that the team only had 12 months to make a game, and Cold War's launch was HORRENDOUS (It redeemed itself and now for me its a Top 5 CoD but yeah)

CoD should have really stopped the yearly release there, with MW19/Warzone 1

The best ATVI could have done was this:

2019 - MW19 releases

2020 - Warzone releases and they should have made it the ONLY CoD release that year, delay Cold War to 2021, also serves as MW19 year 2 managed by Sledgehammer

2021 - Vanguard never exists at all, Cold War releases in 2021 with better launch content and maybe a different Warzone integration, maybe with the cancelled Ural Mountains map

2022 - Cold War year 2 managed by Sledgehammer, Treyarch moves to BO6 development

2023 - MWII releases, Warzone 2.0 still releases but WE DO NOT close Warzone 1 servers

2024 - MWII Year 2, Sledgehammer releases a paid DLC, full-fledged second campaign, MWZ and overhauled MP, literally what we now today as MWIII but inside MWII

2025 - Black Ops 6 releases with 1 extra year of development, the post-launch content drought that killed the game never happens

2026 - Sledgehammer takes over BO6 and releases the paid DLC, what we now today as BO7, BO6 becomes something similar to what BO2 was combining 90s and 2030s timelines, a better BO7 campaign could serve as BO6 consequences instead of the sloppy campaign we got instead

2027 - MWIII releases made by Infinity Ward, the game we know today as MW4 but with another number

What do you think about this? CoD would never be dead if we moved to a 2 year release

This timeline would never happen because Sledgehammer refuses to be the secondary studio. And having two Warzone games co-existing just cannibalizes one or the other.

Warzone 1 doesn't really canibalizes anything as we already live with the past release becoming instantly obsolete

Just stop updating Warzone 1 and bring the new content to only Warzone 2.0, still don't understand why Activision closed its servers when they never did that to any other game

It would be better quality I agree but for Activision this probably makes them more money.

Irl the yearly release and converting DLCs into full games may have brought better income for Activision, but at the cost of destroying the franchises' reputation and long-term sales, just look at MW4 rn

Having two years of MWII packed with content and overhauling its gameplay could have been ENORMOUS for CoD, the BO7 debacle never happens and we would be going crazy with MWIII (MW4 today) hype rn, while we enjoy BO6 year 2

Something to add: We wouldn't have the conversation about GTA VI destroying CoD, we would be chilling and playing BO6 year 2 on this day, not having to buy another CoD when GTA is on the corner, also the CoD vs Battlefield debate last year would have been INSANE if BO6 was a stronger game on launch, the marketing and hype it had irl was insane but if BO6 releases in 2025 it wouldn't be a "Battlefield destroys CoD" argument, CoD vs BF would have taken over the world

MWII Year 2.....

Yea ideally we get second year support, it’d only improve that year's game to player feedback and craft an experience that’ll hold a healthier playerbase for longer. But this is activision.

bo6 should have just been 7, but with more content because of the dual game development. so we’d just get bo7 with more content.

this makes no sense, despite rushed times CW and MWIII are the best games of the modern era, there is no reason to force SHG into just supporting games and rewarding IW for doing nothing

If CW is that good (it is) imagine if it was BETTER

Same with MWIII, imagine paying just a fraction of the full price and even integrating it into an already complete game (like it or not) with the same overhauled gameplay and even a deeper merge of content than what Carry-forward ever did