Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Gearbox Turned Down An Offer To Develop A Call Of Duty
firefly2003
Member UncommonPosts: 2,527
According to an interview German gaming outlet KGN had with Gearbox’s CEO Randy Pitchford, the team was approached to develop a Call of Duty game and declined. According to Pitchford, making the game wouldn’t have been a “significant challenge.”
The translation below doesn't come from Google's spotty translator, but rather from Neogaf user shinobi602's forum post.
"I don’t think there’s anything to accomplish there,” says Pitchford. “I think if I was only in it for the money I would’ve done that.[...] I think to do Call of Duty right you need to do what needs to be done and there are a lot of people who can do that. For us it wouldn’t add to our credibility, it wouldn’t move us forward. There would be no significant challenge that would be gratifying to overcome."
Do you think Pitchford’s stance on the Call of Duty franchise is fair? What do you think a Gearbox-developed Call of Duty game would be like?
Comments
Well, he's right if thats what you are asking. CoD sales on name and marketing alone now days and Activision sees this as a sign that players like what they are doing. This isn't going to afford developers a great deal of leeway when creating the game.
"Sit down and do what you're told" is something every developer should be against.
I think GBX wants to make games where they can have full control over what they can and cannot put into the game.
Consiering they'd have Activision looking over thier shoulders constantly most likely turned them off from making a CoD game.
Like he said, its not "hard" for thier studio, they just don't want to have to use a precut template that they can't escape from, ever.
Totally agree, different guns, different setting, different multiplayer maps, same game. Tack on a slipshod 5 hour single player experience and CoD franchise installments are more like expansion packs with updated graphics than stand alone games.
Activision was after having a recognized FPS developer so they can slap their name on the box for more reputation with consumers, especially those that chase Gearboxs' works. If they did sign aboard, I'm pretty sure Activision would have railed them into making their COD title the way it's been done for a handful of years going.
It still amazes me how people buy the same but reskinned game for $70 USD. No matter how much I despise Activision, I have to admit, that is an amazing bit of trickery they've pulled.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
me too lols i have the MW1 and 2 never bought 3
i liked them better when they FIRSt came out on the PC WAAAAY back. I remember my PC could barly run CoD and the graphics and gameplay were so realistic....now its just a POS
makes me wanna install COD1 for the pc with the orgignal CD's again
It's like radiohead going on the xfactor or something.