Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 pushed the boundaries of what fans deemed acceptable when it came to crossover content, with recent additions becoming more and more incongruent with the shooter franchise.
Particularly after the arrival of American Dad and Beavis & Butt-Head, among others, players pushed back against these licensed collaborations and celebrity cameos, and it seems developer Treyarch is taking the feedback seriously.
For the upcoming Call of Duty: Black Ops 7, the team has already committed to add-on content that better fits the game. Now, Yale Miller, senior director of production at Treyarch, has commented further on the matter with CharlieIntel.
Subscribe to Push Square on YouTube166k
In its pursuit of less out-there skins and cosmetics, the studio has had to turn away collaborations with some major players, Miller says.
"There are opportunities that we have had lined up that, after some of our conversations, we straight up turned down," he says. "Big, big brands, big things, and we’re like, ‘No, we’re not gonna do that because it just doesn’t fit'."
So, it seems the team really is sticking to its word. That's not to say there won't be some "fun" cosmetics in the mix — but they have to "make sense for Black Ops 7", says Miller.
We expect there will still be some less serious additions, then, but it should all be less egregious and more cohesive in Black Ops 7.
This commitment to fewer crazy collabs comes after the massively successful open beta of Battlefield 6, with the developers saying the game will stick to more grounded cosmetics compared to Activision's series.
Are you pleased to hear Black Ops 7 won't be going too crazy with its skins? Let us know in the comments section below.
[source dexerto.com]
Comments 15
I give it two months before the collabs come back
Says one of the biggest bait and switch companies lol
Oh goodie. Now everyone complaining will definitely buy and support the game, right? ...Right?
@Enuo Yep. It is the exact same ploy they pulled with micro transactions. You leave it a month, build up the good reviews, and then put in whatever they want.
Shareholders sending out angry emails as we speak.
Crazy operators have been in the games for a long time (I'm thinking the Grim Reaper in WW2, for example), so if they do some wacky-ish stuff, it's not totally out of pocket, but these ones from the last few games have really jumped the shark. All I want if for them to keep operators within the same artistic style as the game.
If they were left without any backlash, we would have seen a cell-shaded Kool-Aid Man busting through walls.
I still think they will have Collaborations lined up and still have skins that are not befitting of the setting or that any Military combat soldier would ever want in a real war - but I think that the 'Cartoon' Collabs - like American Dad & Beavis & Butthead are definitely out. They'll still have their pothead Skins and glowing etheral weird Blackcell variants - it won't all be 'military' and in keeping with the setting, but it will retain the same Artstyle - not 2D Cartoon style
@Splat that's the thing though, a publicly traded company has the duty to make as much money as they can. So if with all the complaining customers saying Beavis & Butthead, American Dad don't fit, but the skins sell, make a lot of money, or the license holder pays Activision for exposure, they almost have to to do it.
Big asterisk on limiting collabs to what they think "makes sense" especially in a game that's playing with surrealism & dream logic, as we saw in the campaign trailer. By spring they could be adding Freddy Krueger and argue it makes sense given the story.
I love that instead of doing a pro-consuner move by simply developing a switch to let players turn off the unsightly content but still openly selling it (or simply making better skins lol), they managed to do a completely anti-consumer move by effectively negating player purchases from the last few years.
Say what you will about other games with these sort of skins, but at least Fortnite doesn't really just wipe away the ability to use content you paid for (outside of a few very rare circumstances I've heard of).
Activision has the ability to make CoD soooo much better than it is, especially with this sort of content and as a general platform, but it's like they're allergic to good ideas. Why would anyone hand then money for a skin that may end up being literally worthless in a year? It's so so dumb.
@MFTWrecks I'm completely with you regarding the skin filter and everything else, but it's also fair to say that anyone who buys cosmetics for COD does know that they won't have access to them in the next game, just like those who buy Ultimate Team packs in EAFC.
I'm not saying it's a good practice, I think it's the opposite actually and that It doesn't make any sense to do it from a player's perspective, but at least that's openly known to be the case.
And for this they have my support and business…
Well my opinion is that they are going to continue to turn Call of Duty into Fornite, but it's just going to be slower.
Damage is already done, Battlefield here we come.
@clvr But it's not even consistent anymore. Activision sometimes lets stuff carry over, sometimes doesn't. They don't have a design philosophy or stance anymore, they cater to the whims of the loudest detractors (for better or worse) and it creates a worse situation for their consumers. How they even have any anymore is beyond me.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...