Rumor: Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare to be Revealed Next Week

Rumor: Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare to be Revealed Next Week

If rumors prove to be correct, we could learn about this year's Call of Duty next week.

A pair of Call of Duty-related rumors are making the rounds today. The first seems to show that the newest game in the long-running series will be revealed next week. Jim Sterling tweeted a photo earlier today that appears to be a retailer's advertising sheet that shows off the phrase "Call of Duty Reaveal[sic]" with a set date of May 3.

call-of-duty-rumor-650

Add to that a Reddit post from user Goontmyfries that features a screenshot he says he captured from the PlayStation Store showing what appears to be the title of the game as Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

That would be a fitting title if the game turns out to the sci-fi shooter that was rumored a few weeks back. Activision has previously said that the game would be shown off at E3 this year.

There could be some truth to this rumor, as Activision has a scheduled investor call on May 5 to release its first quarter financials. Announcing the newest game in its billion-dollar franchise would certainly help their stock price going into that call.

Still, the misspelling in the above image does leave one skeptical. We'll reach out to Activision and see if they have any comment.

Permalink

Can't they just go back in time like Far Cry or Assassins Creed. How many more "future" stories do they need? Or are they trying to appeal to the hardcore fan base who want more advance guns and sent death threats to develops for make a gun a bit more realistic.

Oh, whatever. People will still play it. Keep it simple.

Infinite Wars? As in a new release every year? I thought they already... Oh. Well then.

OT: The stupid title aside hopefully they take full advantage of the setting and atmosphere (literally and metaphorically) since this can give way to a lot of great game modes.

Parasondox:
Can't they just go back in time like Far Cry or Assassins Creed. How many more "future" stories do they need?

Because people apparently don't like the Civil War from a gameplay perspective. Which is sad.

Though, I'd kill for a time traveling Call of Duty game where we visit wars from the past 200+ years and future conflicts. But of course, that wouldn't make money.

LegendaryGamer0:

Parasondox:
Can't they just go back in time like Far Cry or Assassins Creed. How many more "future" stories do they need?

Because people apparently don't like the Civil War from a gameplay perspective. Which is sad.

Though, I'd kill for a time traveling Call of Duty game where we visit wars from the past 200+ years and future conflicts. But of course, that wouldn't make money.

That would be a good idea though. Earth has been through enough battles and war to have Call of Duty take influence from them. Wasn't World At War seen as the best Call of Duty game? And that was WWI or WWII. I forgot which. Sorry.

LegendaryGamer0:

Parasondox:
Can't they just go back in time like Far Cry or Assassins Creed. How many more "future" stories do they need?

Because people apparently don't like the Civil War from a gameplay perspective. Which is sad.

Though, I'd kill for a time traveling Call of Duty game where we visit wars from the past 200+ years and future conflicts. But of course, that wouldn't make money.

If only darkest days had been good, it might have become a really interesting series.

OT: that is probably the dumbest name yet, how far can they go with warfare before it has to go to space and we get Call of Duty: Galactic Warfare.

Parasondox:

That would be a good idea though.

Good ideas are the bane of video game company executives.

Earth has been through enough battles and war to have Call of Duty take influence from them.

Pretty much any war involving firearms could be a good candidate, or going further and introducing proper melee combat to the series and going back even further.

Wasn't World At War seen as the best Call of Duty game?

World at War is boner fuel for the fans of the WWII games, yes.

And that was WWI or WWII. I forgot which. Sorry.

Second World War, but we're long overdue for a trip to the first.

I seriously don't get why none of these ideas have been entertained. It's a series about war, so give us all the war you got.

Coach Morrison:

If only darkest days had been good, it might have become a really interesting series.

Oh I've wanted to buy Darkest of Days for a long time, but for some reason I was never able to get it when I could.

LegendaryGamer0:

Parasondox:

That would be a good idea though.

Good ideas are the bane of video game company executives.

Earth has been through enough battles and war to have Call of Duty take influence from them.

Pretty much any war involving firearms could be a good candidate, or going further and introducing proper melee combat to the series and going back even further.

Wasn't World At War seen as the best Call of Duty game?

World at War is boner fuel for the fans of the WWII games, yes.

And that was WWI or WWII. I forgot which. Sorry.

Second World War, but we're long overdue for a trip to the first.

I seriously don't get why none of these ideas have been entertained. It's a series about war, so give us all the war you got.

Coach Morrison:

If only darkest days had been good, it might have become a really interesting series.

Oh I've wanted to buy Darkest of Days for a long time, but for some reason I was never able to get it when I could.

I think it's because the Call of Duty series is now more multi-player driven rather than story driven. Online multiplayer makes more money with map packs, expansions, micro transactions... etc. Ahh fuck. The writers may have suggested it but Activision wanted a simpler approach. Hey, they keep making these games and people keep buying them. Why fix what isn't broken, right? Money will still come piling in big and heavy.

Parasondox:

I think it's because the Call of Duty series is now more multi-player driven rather than story driven. Online multiplayer makes more money with map packs, expansions, micro transactions... etc. Ahh fuck. The writers may have suggested it but Activision wanted a simpler approach. Hey, they keep making these games and people keep buying them. Why fix what isn't broken, right? Money will still come piling in big and heavy.

True but they are really underestimating the amount of people that would like maps from all across human history and future, with weapons to match.

Nothing would give me a bigger boner than using my relics of the past to blow the brains out of an asshole who is using a little lightbulb that blinks.

LegendaryGamer0:

Parasondox:

I think it's because the Call of Duty series is now more multi-player driven rather than story driven. Online multiplayer makes more money with map packs, expansions, micro transactions... etc. Ahh fuck. The writers may have suggested it but Activision wanted a simpler approach. Hey, they keep making these games and people keep buying them. Why fix what isn't broken, right? Money will still come piling in big and heavy.

True but they are really underestimating the amount of people that would like maps from all across human history and future, with weapons to match.

Nothing would give me a bigger boner than using my relics of the past to blow the brains out of an asshole who is using a little lightbulb that blinks.

Welcome to one of the problems with gaming.

Yeah, I also saw a listing for it when I was on the PSN store earlier. Someone definitely goofed.

Again, I'm forced to ask, so are they abandoning the Ghosts storyline? Not that I'm complaining because I hated that campaign and nearly everyone in it, but it ended on a huge cliffhanger. I would at least like to know what happens.

Anyway, if this is true, I'll say what I've said before:
If you guys are going future setting, then you better go FULL FUTURE setting! Laser guns, dropships, the whole deal. I'm talking Star Wars style battles here, not that wimpy floating around in space we got in Ghosts.

LegendaryGamer0:

Parasondox:
Can't they just go back in time like Far Cry or Assassins Creed. How many more "future" stories do they need?

Because people apparently don't like the Civil War from a gameplay perspective. Which is sad.

Though, I'd kill for a time traveling Call of Duty game where we visit wars from the past 200+ years and future conflicts. But of course, that wouldn't make money.

I think the problem is that in pre World War II time periods there is a severe lack of man portable automatic weaponry, and that doesn't do well for the demographic that likes to spray and pray, maybe the suits think the lack of submachine guns and assault rifles would hurt sales. World War I might be doable for that, but you're looking at mostly bolt action rifles, with a few light machine guns like the Chauchat, Lewis, and BAR as your automatic weapon selection, along with the MP-18 serving as the game's sole submachine gun unless they're going to throw in some post war weapons or experimental stuff that never really got into the field. World War I and earlier settings would make the shooters a lot slower paced than the modern military and Sci-Fi stuff that has dominated the market for so long that I don't think the publishers are willing to take the risk on going backwards in time.

Sniper Team 4:
Again, I'm forced to ask, so are they abandoning the Ghosts storyline? Not that I'm complaining because I hated that campaign and nearly everyone in it, but it ended on a huge cliffhanger. I would at least like to know what happens.

I think they probably have.

Which is a shame as I too, as dumb as it was, would like some closure.

Anyway, if this is true, I'll say what I've said before:
If you guys are going future setting, then you better go FULL FUTURE setting! Laser guns, dropships, the whole deal. I'm talking Star Wars style battles here, not that wimpy floating around in space we got in Ghosts.

They technically already went that route in Advanced Warfare. They had pulse guns, laser cannons, AI drones, drop-pods, anti-grav vehicles, and mechs. So, if the rumors are to be believed, I'm really curious just how much farther they're going to take it...

Coach Morrison:

OT: that is probably the dumbest name yet, how far can they go with warfare before it has to go to space and we get Call of Duty: Galactic Warfare.

He asks, not realizing the new COD takes place in space...

LegendaryGamer0:
Because people apparently don't like the Civil War from a gameplay perspective. Which is sad.

To be fair, while a Civil War era Call of Duty could prove to be quite entertaining in terms of story, mechanically it would be pretty dull. Most of the gameplay would revolve around taking a single shot, almost assuredly missing, and standing around while you reloaded for an interminable amount of time.

Though, I'd kill for a time traveling Call of Duty game where we visit wars from the past 200+ years and future conflicts. But of course, that wouldn't make money.

This was something I posited to a friend when the topic of the new COD came up. When I'd heard about how the next entry was to take place in the FAR future, I thought, "Wouldn't it be great if, being so far in the future, someone had invented a time machine? And, having the machine, the story could revolve around the player character going through time to different eras to resolve discrepancies that had occurred during certain conflicts. Not unlike Timesplitters, or A Sound of Thunder. The main villain could even be some 'terrorist' who hijacked the machine to change the past."

Narrative-wise, it would be a complete cliche. But gameplay-wise, it could be fantastic.

ffronw:

Still, the misspelling in the above image does leave one skeptical.

Egh, not really. Misspelling, grammatical errors, and typos happen ALL the time in print materials. Even wide-spread printings, like movie posters and popular novels.

Proper editing seems to be a dying art.

Supernova1138:

I think the problem is that in pre World War II time periods there is a severe lack of man portable automatic weaponry, and that doesn't do well for the demographic that likes to spray and pray, maybe the suits think the lack of submachine guns and assault rifles would hurt sales. World War I might be doable for that, but you're looking at mostly bolt action rifles, with a few light machine guns like the Chauchat, Lewis, and BAR as your automatic weapon selection, along with the MP-18 serving as the game's sole submachine gun unless they're going to throw in some post war weapons or experimental stuff that never really got into the field. World War I and earlier settings would make the shooters a lot slower paced than the modern military and Sci-Fi stuff that has dominated the market for so long that I don't think the publishers are willing to take the risk on going backwards in time.

Solution: Keep every SP level unlocked like BO3 and people can pick where they go. Or, bring back future weapons.

Vigormortis:

To be fair, while a Civil War era Call of Duty could prove to be quite entertaining in terms of story, mechanically it would be pretty dull. Most of the gameplay would revolve around taking a single shot, almost assuredly missing, and standing around while you reloaded for an interminable amount of time.

Only if the devs did zero research. Hell, I can imagine having a few revolvers with you to fire and reload when the moment is calm. Would make all of the kids happy, I imagine.

This was something I posited to a friend when the topic of the new COD came up. When I'd heard about how the next entry was to take place in the FAR future, I thought, "Wouldn't it be great if, being so far in the future, someone had invented a time machine? And, having the machine, the story could revolve around the player character going through time to different eras to resolve discrepancies that had occurred during certain conflicts. Not unlike Timesplitters, or A Sound of Thunder. The main villain could even be some 'terrorist' who hijacked the machine to change the past."

Narrative-wise, it would be a complete cliche. But gameplay-wise, it could be fantastic.

I seriously ask, is there a time when Call of Duty hasn'tbeen a storm of cliches?

Sniper Team 4:

Anyway, if this is true, I'll say what I've said before:
If you guys are going future setting, then you better go FULL FUTURE setting! Laser guns, dropships, the whole deal. I'm talking Star Wars style battles here, not that wimpy floating around in space we got in Ghosts.

Fuck Star Wars, I want them to go even balls deepier and go fucking Dust 514. Basically what you described but more space bullshit. And them maybe making it a solid game. Make massive clashes of shit in orbit and orbital bombardments.

LegendaryGamer0:
Only if the devs did zero research. Hell, I can imagine having a few revolvers with you to fire and reload when the moment is calm. Would make all of the kids happy, I imagine.

Mmm, I suppose it depends on how accurate they want to be with the more common weapons of the time.

I seriously ask, is there a time when Call of Duty hasn'tbeen a storm of cliches?

Realistically, the better question is: Which games and game series aren't just collectives of cliches?

It'd be a short list.

Vigormortis:

Mmm, I suppose it depends on how accurate they want to be with the more common weapons of the time.

Somehow I don't think that would be a major concern for them.

Realistically, the better question is: Which games and game series aren't just collectives of cliches?

It'd be a short list.

I think I can say Undertale, for one off the top of my head.

Man, it is depressing to see a giant fall.

I really do think CoD is dying, what with AW's general "meh" reaction and BLOPS 3's incredibly bullshit microtransactions that have the entire community up in arms. Oh, and Ghosts.

If this is true, and they're really going more "advanced movement mechanics" again, they will have lost my interest for 4 years in a row.

And that name... "Infinite Warfare"? Are you fucking kidding me?

Suddenly all that fanart of a "grity" Buzz Lightyear makes a depressing kind of sense. :(

As I've commented before, the Call of Duty games seem to be in competition to push further and further into the future. Ghosts went post-apocalypse (sort of), Advanced Warfare went...well, advanced warfare, Black Ops 3 dabbled with transhumanism. I suppose space is the final frontier for CoD as well. Though how well Starfleet would do with "pwning newbs" remains to be seen. 0_0

Parasondox:
Wasn't World At War seen as the best Call of Duty game?

Hardly. Even at the time of its release, most would have said CoD4 was the better game. And in terms of WWII, CoD2 probably takes the top spot when accounting for people who played more than just World at War. World at War just had the benefit of being the only post-CoD4 WWII CoD game. It was also gritty, had zombies, and showed Treyarch wasn't completely incompetent, but that didn't help Treyarch come out of IW's shadow.

So basically, if anyone said it was the best at the time of its release, they were in the minority. Anyone now is just saying it because they want another WWII game and World at War is the only one they've played.

LegendaryGamer0:

Parasondox:
Can't they just go back in time like Far Cry or Assassins Creed. How many more "future" stories do they need?

Because people apparently don't like the Civil War from a gameplay perspective. Which is sad.

Though, I'd kill for a time traveling Call of Duty game where we visit wars from the past 200+ years and future conflicts. But of course, that wouldn't make money.

to be fair, it's hard to make a thrilling, fast paced FPS set in a time that guns take 30 seconds to reload between shots. the only way i could see this working is if your character for one reason or another adopts anachronistic guerrilla tactics, and doesn't generally reload, but in battle moves from corpse to corpse, utilizing their weapons.

and that's the other problem. warfare back then was largely boring. rows of men line up against each other and shoot.

better would be the revolutionary war, where american militia members DID resort to guerrilla tactics in the american wilderness, something the red coats were entirely unprepared for. to them, war was a gentleman's game, you line up proper in your teams colors and have a jolly good time. with tea.

now, having said all this, i grew up around gettysburg and seeing the reenactments, so i realize it does get chaotic and hectic at times. specifically, look up a rock formation knows as the Devil's Den. that would have been a crazy battle.

but the fact is that, with the combination of high development costs, expectations of the fanbase, and the inertia of having already been a twitchy adderrall shooter, going this far back would be highly dangerous.

of course, it would be far more interesting than Infinite Warfare. ugh. such a terrible name.

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.