In a court filing reviewed by Game File that has not been previously reported, Patrick Kelly, Activision’s current head of creative on the Call of Duty franchise, said that three Call of Duty games, released between 2015 and 2020, cost $450-700 million to make.

Black Ops III (2015): “Treyarch developed the game over three years with a creative team of hundreds of people, and invested over $450 million in development costs over the game’s lifecycle.” (Kelly also discloses that it has sold 43 million copies.)

Modern Warfare (2019): “Infinity Ward developed the game over several years and has spent over $640 million in development costs throughout the game’s lifecycle.” (41 million copies sold)

Black Ops Cold War (2020): “Treyarch and Raven Software took years to create the game with a team of hundreds of creatives. They ultimately spent over $700 million in development costs over the game’s lifecycle.” (30 million copies sold)

top 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Those look like military industrial complex budget numbers.

I try not to let my kids play games that normalize war, ever since my nephew enlisted out of a sense of duty - after playing a lot of CoD.

Enlisting basically ruined his life. His choice to enlist interrupted his successful small business venture and left him with PTSD.

[–] Maggoty 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If your kids ever want to join the military you could probably just find some 2000-2010 era combat vets to talk to them. Apparently after adjusting for the systems screw up, we're the next big recruiting problem. We told our kids not to follow us into the service.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

That's a good idea. I'll keep it in mind. Thank you.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So like what games do you ban? Just modern shooters? Just for an alternate take, my parents were crazy Christians and would only buy me shit like this game. I'll tell you what, playing that game did not make me more interested in religion and way more interested in call of duty 4. Not saying that's what you're doing, but just that some kind of understanding between you guys is key.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So like what games do you ban?

My kids are only allowed to play the Steam re-release of Noah's Ark for NES..

Nah. I'm just fucking with you.

My kids are specificially not allowed to play the Call of Duty series, and anything with game art that I could mistake for it. (Some modern warfare style games accept funding from the US military, and I can't be arsed to keep track of which ones.)

For some idea where I draw the line, I do play Halo with my older kids.

[–] criss_cross 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The good news is those games aren't as popular as they used to be. It's not 2010s anymore.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I dunno, since if recently got a Steam re-release, it seems like someone must still be buying Noah's Adventure, even today.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Not sure which game you're thinking about, there are lots of shitty Christian shovelware from that era, but Konami's Noah's Ark has nothing to do with it. And very little to do with the biblical story really.

I had that game on the NES (and I'm not in a Christian or religious family at all).

It's a real game, the arcade-y kind that tries to kill you all the time. It's quite hard.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, that's the one I meant.

I did assume it was Bible skinned shovelware.

But being made by classic era Konami and getting a Steam re-release had me confused.

That's good to hear. I guess I'll keep an eye out for it on my next retro game deep shopping trip.

[–] Agent_Karyo 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Did that Bible game include gameplay around setting up a "church" that was actually a political donation front to promote political parties that would limit free access to healthcare for the population (under the auspices of lower taxes and "market driven solutions to healthcare")?

Or was the gameplay lazy and uninspired?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's probably almost been like 20 years from when I last played it, but I don't think the game was that bad honestly. From what I remember it was more like a who wants to be a millionaire crossover with mario party. Answer who did Cain violently kill in the first pages of the bible and then play like a minigame with go karts or something. But since I had fusion frenzy, believe it or not the bible game did not see much game time in my xbox lol

[–] Agent_Karyo 2 points 2 weeks ago

I was hoping for a more simulator/tycoon game. 😀

[–] electric 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel like that's more on the parents for not informing their child about the MIC and how they basically sign themselves away to be government property.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Could be, but my nephew played thousands of hours of CoD.

This is my admission that I don't think I'm a good enough parent to counteract thousands of hours spent with a MIC funded game.

I actually trust my kids would probably do better anyway, but they know I would be disappointed if they bought their own copies of CoD, and they seem to respect that.

I don't want my kids participating in the daily network effect of CoD, either. I don't want them encouraging their friends to try CoD by having and regularly playing a copy.

That said, if I ever catch my kids playing CoD at a random LAN party - without me - they probably realize they'll get a lecture - that they had better invite me next time. (I'm pretty sure I can out-parent the MIC for hour or two a month.)

[–] electric 3 points 2 weeks ago

Give them Titanfall 2 if you want them to play a good shooter. Sure, they might come out of the campaign with depression, but certainly not with heads filled with propaganda!

[–] Olap 28 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

$700m to market the same game year in year out

[–] spankmonkey 4 points 2 weeks ago

It apparently works well enough.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

100% believable and 100% pointless. So much of that money is basically being wasted on their digital art team making technically distinct assets for each game. They all have to be exceptionally high quality, because Call of Duty is a AAA franchise, but do any players actually care if their sniper rifle looks slightly different if the numbers and mechanics are identical?

Feel like all of CoD's successful competitors have figured out that FPS players don't really give a shit and will happily play the same client on the same maps with minimal updates year after year, but Acti-Blizz is addicted to reinventing the wheel each time even though they're reusing the good maps.

[–] Tangent5280 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Like that blocky first person shooter that sweeped audiences away earlier last year? The one with like 128 players in one map?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

It was the implementation of proximity voice chat that made Battlebit enjoyable for me.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

These numbers sound insane. I wonder how it compares to the developpment costs of other big games.

I also wonder how it conpares to the cost of similar games like Killzone 3 or Gears Of War from 15 years ago.

[–] Agent_Karyo 11 points 2 weeks ago

Current AAA titles almost certainly have comparable development costs.

If you have 1,000 FTEs with a blended per-FTE annual cost of $100 K (I would argue this could be higher in North America and Western Europe) that works out to $100 M per year of development.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Killzone 3 spent too much R&D on PS Move for costs to be recouped

[–] spankmonkey 10 points 2 weeks ago

All that money and updates still require restarts.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

People saying that these budgets are too damn high, but even with Cold War (which had a huge downtick in sales number and higher budget than the others) it's still making up to 3x the budget back on sales. Why wouldn't they keep doing it?

[–] redhorsejacket 1 points 2 weeks ago

Cause it doesn't matter if they are still profitable. If you aren't MORE profitable than your last outing, then you aren't growing, and if your business isn't growing, it's dying.

However, I wonder if the premise is flawed here. In 1999, you could probably get a somewhat accurate idea of a game's profitablity by comparing dev cost vs units sold. However, with live service being the AAA fascination du jour, and Call of Duty in particular having a whole game mode siloed off into the free to play space, I question if "units sold" is indicative of financial success anymore.

[–] SlightlyNormal 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder if they're doing some Hollywood accounting because that seems way too expensive even with hundreds of staff. Maybe I'm out of touch with dev costs though.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hollywood accounting to go with their massive install size.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, factoring in advertising costs and shit, especially with a huge advertising push, could make that total number rise dramatically. And when you actually have the government pumping you full of money, you find ways to spend it. When other games end up asking themselves if they can afford to ____ because the timeline is _____, this kind of production gets to say, “do it. Hire more people.” And it doesn’t have to involve crunch.

[–] SlightlyNormal 2 points 2 weeks ago

I thought about marketing costs, but the article specifically calls it out as developmental costs (at least before the paywall). Maybe that term bundles marketing too.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

All they have to do is sell a million copies for $700 each and they break even!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Cold War had an absolutely banging Campaign... especially with multiple endings

[–] caut_R 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Sounds sustainable af

[–] ExcursionInversion 7 points 2 weeks ago

For call of duty it most definitely is. Take a look at their revenue sometime

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah it really makes me think something has to change.

Especially since an Fps should cost less than open world with lots of characters and locations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Wonder where the money goes, considering the fact that a lot of the core gameplay code could be reused.

Also how has Black Ops 6, which presumably cost at least a billion to make, STILL not managed to make their free-for-all mode actually work??