New Report Reveals that Modern Warfare 3 Development Time Was Half That of a Normal Call of Duty

IGN wirtes: "According to Bloomberg, Sledgehammer Games had to make Modern Warfare 3 in a year-and-a-half rather than the typical three-year development cycle. The development of Modern Warfare 3 was reportedly rushed because of another Call of Duty that was delayed out of the 2023 release window."

[GoodGuy09]

Well as if that wasn't already obvious lol. With the acquisition, world events, and inssues going on at abk, this game had to be very half baked. They really should've just skipped this year...but money. Morons will buy this overpriced dlc for $70.

[Zhipp]

From my understanding COD usually swaps studios every year cycling between Treyarch, Infinity Ward, and I-Forget the last one. For whatever reason Activision decided Modern Warfare needed a new sequel right away which is what resulted in this mess.

I would guess that it has something to do with Vanguard under performing, but who knows with ABK.

[--Onilink--]

Interestingly Vanguard also apparently had a shorter dev cycle too, seems Sledgehammer has been getting shortchanged recently

[Btf_1991]

Sledgehammer is the other one

[Cacabunga]

What staggers me is the fact the other COD are called “normal”…

[-Foxtrot]

Just when you think they couldn't get lazier...they do

They know people will buy it so why put the effort into it

[--Onilink--]

No game gets done in a year and a half by being lazy, especially at the production level of a COD game.

To release it in such a short amount of time must have been practically non stop crunch, which is the OPPOSITE of being lazy

In fact the only lazy thing here is such a tired and repeated used of the word, which puts all the blame on the developers, for describing completely different issues

[-Foxtrot]

Course it is, the campaign is non existent, it's over before its even began and the online is just copy and paste

The fact it only took them 14 months makes sense, the game is lacking...heavily.

[--Onilink--]

I’m in no way defending the game, but calling the developers lazy when I can assure you that no game of this level gets done in a year and a half without crazy levels of crunch…

Even remasters that barely change anything take a significant amount of time.

Calling the devs lazy for this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how game development (or any kind of software development for that matter) works.

[Rude-ro]

The dlc that became a mini campaign was in production for a longer amount of time.
The rest of the game was already done.
80% is just ported/reused.
Now, yes it takes work… but it is not like they were making a new game with all new development.

[Profchaos]

At the level of call of duty this game clearly didn't meet that level and it shows like making the campaign open mission on the warzone map was a we have no time let's make this work vs the high quality cinematic game we get yearly with a the year development cycle

Were not saying lazy individual devs more lazy approach that stinks of greed

[Gamingsince1981]

Probably what COD will be like from now on since they will put it on gamepass, and we all know the gamepass motto "good enough for gamepass"

[TallDarknWavy]

Lazy? Spoken like a man child who has never built anything in his pathetic life and has no clue what pressure developers are under when it comes to deadlines -_-

[Destiny1080]

they wanted phil to cancel it

[SyntheticForm]

Soon they'll be charging $75 a week.

[paddy95]

Not a good way to treat the developers. They want to make something amazing as they have a passion for games. The shitty decisions will only demotivate the talent and f... the publishers in the long term.

[Gamingsince1981]

How come they keep making bad cods then ? Like all the recent ones not just this one.

[paddy95]

Modern Warefare 1 & 2 are the best yet. Have you played the old ones recently? None of them hold up. What competitors does COD have? The finals was janky. Terible controls on top of the time to kill being far too long and nothing unique that hasn't been done before. There is a big opening for developers to create something on par with COD but they always f..... up the controls and add nothing innovative.

[BrockEmSockEm]

If some other not-so-greedy company can match the smooth gunplay of COD I would buy it in a heartbeat. I still refuse to buy this, but we need competition.

[Garethvk]

when it is a Campaign intended as DLC and remastered maps that does tend to cut production time down.

[Knightofelemia]

Bet they love that copy and paste $75 for DLC and they know people are dumb enough to buyit.

[Snookies12]

Half the time of a normal Call of Duty, alongside half a campaign.

[CantThinkOfAUsername]

Sledgehammer Games always gets the short end of the stick.

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

DELETE

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

The business terms at play here are:
1. Leveraging existing assets
2. Leveraging brand equity

The two often go hand and hand, and are not new at all to video games. The only new factor is the DEGREE that we ALLOW these business practices to be executed.

If you think CoD MIGHT not be worth $70, then tell your friends to wait with you for reviews, too.

Don’t let the promise of “zombies with friends” on an **old map** lead us **all** to justify a promotion for the slimey executive that first suggested rushing MW3 for maximum profit.

[kaos89]

Half the time, half the effort but not half the price...

[anast]

It's an AI game.

[Games1st]

Clearly dlc.

[Chocoburger]

They just couldn't go a single holiday season without releasing another one of these shitty games. As if the market isn't already flooded with these games at this point. Bobby Kotick has famously refused to delay games, and yet for some reason Activision has continued to thrive. Says a lot about how stupid gamers are, constantly and recklessly throwing their money away at trash-tier publishers releasing trash-tier games.

What a shame.

[Relientk77]

I heard the campaign and multiplayer both suck. Can't believe they're charging $70 for this