EA, not Treyarch, heir to Infinity Ward?

By Fred Dutton Published 17 December, 2010

Riccitiello takes a pop at Black Ops team.

John Riccitiello believes that EA, not Black Ops studio Treyarch, could be the developer to pick up where Infinity Ward left off and deliver "the next great FPS".

Speaking in an interview with IndustryGamers, Riccitiello claimed that Treyarch's Call of Duty: Black Ops was a long way from matching Infinity Ward's work on the Modern Warfare series.

"I don't know that having two guys that probably don't play the games, in the form of the CEO of Vivendi and the CEO of Activision, come out and say 'Treyarch is our lead developer,' like you could anoint that," he said.

"They didn't make a 90-rated game; I think it's 86 now. I don't think review scores are the be-all and end-all, but we all know a mid-90 when we see it, but this was mid-80s. I don't think you could anoint them by an executive saying: 'It's so.'"

"The question, I think, really is: 'What developer is going to put forward the next great FPS that sort of follows [what Infinity Ward did]?' It's wishful thinking, and let's hope for Activision's sake they're right.

"I think it's far from proven that the gaming consumer views a product from Treyarch in the same category as a product from what was Infinity Ward."

Elsewhere in the interview, Riccitiello insisted that, though it wouldn't happen over night, EA was well on its way to its stated goal of taking back the shooter category from Activision.

"Activision will do 25 million on the tail of last year's Modern Warfare 2 and the start of this year's Black Ops, and then probably something similar next year. But it took them, what, five or six editions to get into double digit millions?" he asked.

"This management team started with this goal really two and a half years ago and our first entry really was Battlefield: Bad Company, and you'll see a lot about Battlefield 3 next year, which I think is, at least from our perspective, designed to be the one that is the big leap forward; the one that is going to help a lot."

Even though Riccitiello believes that this year's Medal of Honor reboot sold well, as did the formidable Battlefield: Bad Company 2, he expects greater success in 2011.

"Next year we'll make a lot more progress. We've got a couple of third-party games in the form of Crysis 2 and Bulletstorm, and then our big focus is Battlefield 3 in the second half of the year. I'd be shocked if we didn't take a notch out of [Activision]."

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (69) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • hiddenranbir #1 1 year ago

    Dude, Ricci...seriously...just shut up. Let the games do the talking for you. You're ruining my excitement over Vietnam.
    Edited by hiddenranbir at 17/12/10 @ 23:00

  • metalangel #2 1 year ago

    So far the strategy (with MoH) seemed to be to make Call of Duty again, only not as good.

    I'm sure the next Battlefield will be all skanked up too, with even smaller maps, more snipers and maybe some slow-motion 'takedown' cutscenes a la NFS:HP every time you kill another player.

  • riz23 #3 1 year ago

    @metalangel I wouldn't worry too much. Dice won't let JR bully them around too much and he won't fix what ain't broke.

  • Markitron #4 1 year ago

    I know hes an executive and all but that made an awful lot of sense

  • Master_Ted #5 1 year ago

    man, BO is soo much better than MW2.

    also, fuck, BF3 is going to be in the second half of the year?

  • Golgo #6 1 year ago

    Anoint?

  • Kamata #7 1 year ago

    Respawn Entertainment

  • darkmorgado #8 1 year ago

    He's right for once.

    COD is top of the pile atm, and when you're at the top the only way is down, especially when you don't innovate and just offering up the same thing over and over again.

    New franchises, especially early ones, will innovate and innovate and become better games over time (though they will eventually become the new COD and suffer the same problem).

    COD got to where it is when Modern Warfare hit. It was the first accessible stab at... erm... modern warfare, not scifi or historical. Now that more and more game franchises are jumping on the accessible-modern military-FPS bandwagon, COD has more competition and no longer has a monopoly on its niche.

  • Ninja_Tino #9 1 year ago

    Bit rude, really.

  • funkateer #10 1 year ago

    today's word is... 'anoint'
    /kermit

  • McShifty #11 1 year ago

    I'm in agreement as regards to the difference between the Treyarch and Infinity Ward CODs. I've been playing Black Ops on Xbox Live and I have been enjoying it most of the time. But the other night I thought I'd stick MW2 on (which I got too late to really get into properly) and I just couldn't believe how much better the maps were - each one seemed to be ten times more intricate than any maps on Black Ops and they allow for so many playstyles and possibilities.

    The Activision guys can often be heard talking down West and Zampella's influence on the COD franchise, and of course they didn't scribe every line of code themselves but they know what works and it was under their stewardship that COD was both conceived and evolved to (arguably) it's zenith - MW2.

  • local_celebrity #12 1 year ago

    Until they commit to 60fps, tight net code and minimal controller latency, they can forget it. Those are the key ingredients of the COD franchise.

  • nazzyq #13 1 year ago

    I have to agree with him. Despite what people say about MW2, it is a highly polished and well produced shooter. I do enjoy Black Ops, I think Treyarch managed to balance the online well, but when you compare the visuals, the layout of the maps and overall production values to MW2, you can clearly see that Infinity Ward is leagues ahead of Treyarch. What let MW2 was not the quality of the game itself, but Infinity Ward's indifference to online cheaters and glitchers and the overpowered killatreaks.

  • Derblington #14 1 year ago

    Except CoD hit double digit millions with MW, which was CoD4, so not really 5 or 6 editions. Battlefield3 will the 8th proper BF title.

    I really wish EA would stop going after ACTI/CoD as hard as they are, it's ridiculously childish and makes me feel embarrassed to be a part of it. IW/Treyarch don't deserve any of this shit - they're working hard and putting out good (the Metascore of BlOps is actually 88 on 360, which is higher than all but one BF title), successful (biggest launches in video game history, and CoD in now a cultural phenomenon) games, and they're good guys to boot.

    Just give it a rest, it's pathetic.

  • inutaihanyou #15 1 year ago

    DID SOMEBODY SAY "RESPAWN"?

    Yes, i think they did.

    The problem people see that Activision apparently does not, is that you can't force out a sequel with minimal updates every single year and expect it to always hold. This trend of success only started when IW came out with MW, and everything after that is just riding its coattails now.

    Even MW2 was crippled by Activision's desperation to get out a Christmas seller and the meltdown that came afterward...if whatever is left of IW can't come up with the next generation of FPS (like Wolfenstein, goldeneye, halo and then MW did before it), then it really is only up to Respawn
    Edited by inutaihanyou at 18/12/10 @ 00:36

  • Bravestinsane #16 1 year ago

    boring...

    boring...

    boring...

    loosing interest....

    "Battle" interest rising....

    "Field" interesting rising.....

    "3" INTEREST RISING.....

    "Medal of Honer" interest falling...interest falling....

    "Battlefield 3" rising.....

    "second half of the year...."..... head....explod....e...s...

  • NHDave #17 1 year ago

    BFBC2 = Amazing
    Crap OPS = Shite
    Edited by NHDave at 18/12/10 @ 01:11

  • el_pollo_diablo #18 1 year ago

    "They didn't make a 90-rated game; I think it's 86 now.....

    Really? You 'think' it's 86? Or are you checking it every 20 minutes to see if it's moved up or down a point? Because it sounds like it.

    .....I don't think review scores are the be-all and end-all, but.....

    But what? But you care about the difference between an 86 and a 90? Or you don't think they're the be all and end all but you're still willing to base performance bonuses based on arbitrary divisions of opinion?

    What a massive arsehole.

  • TheLittlestHobo #19 1 year ago

    While Treyarch did a decent job with Blops the game is based on old tech and really is showing its age. The talent that's going to set the bar for the next gen military shooters are all at EA imo i.e DICE and Respawn. DICE have already shown what they can do with the fantastic BC2, in 2011 it'll be all about DICE's baby BF:3 and Frostbite v2. I don't see "Infinity Ward" putting together a new engine for MW3 for 2011 (assuming that's the next COD), especially with the developer exodus, so I'm guessing it'll be same old same old, with just a few added features. No contest really. Though all the morons will still buy it.

    As for 2012 then it'll be Respawn's turn - assuming they can put together the tech and a game in 2 years (I'm sure they'll be making their own engine). Then it'll be back to Treyarch and Blops 2. Again I can't see Treyarch competing with the big boys, unless they use a new engine, especially with Respawn wanting to show the world what they can do. Though this may cause their game to not appear until 2013. So it might be MoH for 2012.

    Whatever happens, it's going to be a fun time to be a FPS fan :)

  • bad09 #20 1 year ago

    "They didn't make a 90-rated game; I think it's 86 now. I don't think review scores are the be-all and end-all, but we all know a mid-90 when we see it, but this was mid-80s."

    Is this guy top man at one of the top publishers or just sad little metacritic fanboy? Besides Black Ops is a better COD than MW2 so he should keep quiet :)
    Edited by bad09 at 18/12/10 @ 06:19

  • des #21 1 year ago

    EA is getting desperate.

  • ybfelix #22 1 year ago

    Wow, is he drunk during the interview? Riccitiello usually seems calm and collected, but in this article he comes very aggressive and personal.

  • dagas #23 1 year ago

    Black Ops sold even more than Modern Warfare 2. Review scores don't seem to matter that much.

  • t8yman #24 1 year ago

    @bad09 - its isn't, it really isn't.

    features wise maybe, actual gameplay it isnt even in the same league.

  • OllyJ #25 1 year ago

    Anoint my phallus with the blood of my enemies!

  • king26 #26 1 year ago

    Again I'll state BFBC 2 is the best shooter this gen . How could anyone play a COD game after playing BFBC2 for an hour?!! BUT not many people these days seem to give other/better shooters a chance
    McShifty- MW2 good maps? Bullshit! little boxed environments , a heaven 4 campers, where an RPG couldnt penetrate a wall. MW2 for me was Black Ops.
    Edited by king26 at 18/12/10 @ 09:05

  • Pehmu #27 1 year ago

    I know what would be cool, fresh and surprising.

    If Activision didn't release a new CoD game next year. How's that for a slice of fried gold?

  • bad09 #28 1 year ago

    @t8yman

    well we disagree there. Personally the gameplay is superior, you don't get raped on killstreak kills and the maps are better and it actually has an interesting sp campaign and of course those vastly superior features (of which there are loads!). Much better game, now BLOPS is fixed I've deleted MW2.

  • RevanNL #29 1 year ago

    How about keeping your mouth shut until you publish a game that isn't as crap as MOH

  • Ziggy_badMonkey #30 1 year ago

    Well Johnny, your MOH is running at 74 metacritic and Blops is at 88/89
    He who lives by the sword dies by the sword

  • TitusCrow #31 1 year ago

    Lets be objective here, COD4 was a near perfect game; it innovated with the exp/mini reward structure ( now the standard ) it had pretty great maps as well as dev tools & it had the MMO level up thing to keep people there too. It was 60fps on the xb360 and ps3 and it was an engine that ran like shit of a shovel on any decent PC. It had a beta and people were raving about it long before it came out - it was total innovation, lightning from a clear blue sky if you like.

    WaW was a lot of fun had some great maps and a lot going for it, it wasn't innovative but it was a mid 80s game in anyone's book, the formula was fresh still and the Nazi zombies was a nice extra that really locked into the thirst at the time for shooting the stumbling dead ( does this ever get old?) A solid coat tails riding follow up that had more going for it that many will admit. It didn't have the balance of cod4 and maybe a glitch or two more than should have got through, but you get the picture.

    Now came the one they had been waiting for, MW2 follow up to a game, that nearly changed the rules of the online shooter. However by this time the formula of levelling, unlocking etc was old and IW needed to ramp up everything. In my personal opinion this was a mistake, cod4 had a great balance to it - or as much of one as a game with so many perks weapons could have. MW2 was shipped broken the maps were not a patch on cod4, PC wise it was a horribly locked down game with no moding or map tools - or even servers. Most of us still bought it played it and disregarded it. It was Monty Haul, it was over the top, a sugar rush. Fun for a while but with no staying power.

    COD BO is I would say about the same as WaW but with a few clever innovations, and more balance that IW had in MW2 ( though not near cod4 ) by this time the franchise had permiated the popular culture to the extent that many people played one itteration of cod till the next came out. Many or I would say most of the buying masses were not aware of the whole IW team leaving thing or the difference between Treyarch or IW, as far as they new it was November and time for the new COD game.
    This kind of thing holds strong for a few years, maybe slightly eroding if the games put out are sub par. BO is still a very good game and PC performance and sniper woes aside will keep the franchise strong. To take back the fans EA has to put out a game so good that it catches the popular culture Zeitgeist, it in effect starts advertising its self, through the word of mouth and viral world of mouth that is today's net. How they do this I don't know; it wont happen by re-doing old ideas or slow evolution. They need something so good its like a revolution again - another COD4, a perfect storm of great game ideas at just the right time in the right place. It's nearly impossible to predict this or to engineer it.

    They have the talent at EA, people who have done it before they have the resources and I think they have a CEO who want's it bad enough to back the dev's over the shareholders if more time is needed. But you can put the perfect conditions together and still not get a world beating game; which to be frank is what John is talking about. As gamers we want them to succeed and others companies to succeed to, we are the winners when they do. But its the hardest thing in the world to do even when conditions are right. There is some extra secret sauce that needs to come from somewhere and can never been predicted only admired in hindsight. Time will tell.

  • DiamondIce #32 1 year ago

    MW was a great game. MW2 was awful. I don't know if some decisions had been taken out of IW's hands but the sequel was awful. The Burger Town level summed up the creative side of things: Tired and tedious.

  • Lee_Morris #33 1 year ago

    After playing Black Opps' single player last week I honestly say that I liked MoH's single player a lot more. I prefered the overall slower nature of the game and it did feel quite intimate and personal rather than the time hopping missions in Black Opps.

  • bloodflowers #34 1 year ago

    Until his company is making games that run as smoothy (60fps) as Black Ops, he can shut up.

  • Ryboy #35 1 year ago

    ''double digit millions''...

    Fuck off you money grabbing turbo cunt.

  • AHiFi #36 1 year ago

    I think many people were too rash in calling MW2 awful. Play Black Ops and then go back and play MW2...you'll start to appreciate it more. I have.

  • knightmt #37 1 year ago

    Cannot wait for BulletStorm and Crysis 2. pew pew.

  • waynenot #38 1 year ago

    "They didn't make a 90-rated game; I think it's 86 now. I don't think review scores are the be-all and end-all, but we all know a mid-90 when we see it, but this was mid-80s."

    (Looks up word contradiction in dictionary)

  • king26 #39 1 year ago

    AHIFI- People dont't appreciate how average Black Ops and MW2 are until they have played BFBC2. Not just playing it for 10mins then giving up because it's not a COD clone, but really giving it's near perfect online play a chance.

  • des #40 1 year ago

    EA is just jealous.They don't care about games,just $$$.Activision is destroying them in profits and their answer is to spam as many Battlefield games as possible.

  • uknortherner2000 #41 1 year ago

    EA and Activision are money-grabbing cunts at the end of the day. It is Activision though who charged over the odds for a generic "realistic" shooter, and £11 for rehashed map-packs that you "hardcore" mugs lapped up in their thousands.
    Edited by uknortherner2000 at 18/12/10 @ 15:05

  • daver #42 1 year ago

    Who gives a shit if cod is 60fps? It's still a kiddies paintball game.

  • Xboxfanuk #43 1 year ago

    I am an EA fanboi I think.

  • Climhazzard #44 1 year ago

    CoD4 is the pinnacle, i doubt any cod game will ever come close to that again.....ever. You cant compare BF and CoD they're two different types of shooters stop being bloody stupid making piss poor comments people.

  • Soton4084 #45 1 year ago

    Personally I think EA already make the best online shooter: Battlefield Bad Company 2. It's by no means perfect, but at least it improved upon it's predecessor, unlike MW2 and Black Ops.

  • JamieR #46 1 year ago

    I loved modern warfare 2 but I felt the first one was a bit overrated but then I play them for the single player.

  • Salaminizer #47 1 year ago

    I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I never felt like BF DIRECTLY competed with COD or CS-like shooters. in fact, I believe if you enjoy your FPS's you will try to own both. sometimes I want to sit at my PC and get into the action right off the bat, and sometimes I want to move my comrades around the map, assist the whole team as a commander, etc.
    with that said, I also don't see right now how a BF-style FPS can replace COD as the "big thing", Activision will have to completely ruin a COD game to "lose" the market near its peak so quickly (with GH everyone saw it coming because sales were already going down, it's not the case with COD at the moment)

    and he's probably talking about the number of iterations because he knows EA rehashed MOH until it couldn't get any more decent sales out of it.

  • DRUNK3N-_-DRAGON #48 1 year ago

    to true ricci

  • Freki #49 1 year ago

    He is hardly going to say "You know, I think our competitors are going to stay on top no matter what we do." now is he?

  • funkateer #50 1 year ago

    Developer number 1 taking a pop at developer number 2 just makes developer number 1 look bad in my book.

  • loop7 #51 1 year ago

    Finding the single player campaign on Black Ops tedious. However I much prefer the Black Ops multiplayer to MW2 simply due to better balanced weapons and killstreaks (MW2's downfall). COD4 is still the best overall.

  • loop7 #52 1 year ago

    Why was there no mention of Sledgehammer games in the article?

  • metalangel #53 1 year ago

    I can't say CoD4 was that great, because of Martyrdom. Everyone exploded when you killed them, really, really, really annoying.

  • willberry88 #54 1 year ago

    The word c*nt sprang to mind while reading this...

  • itsfuzzy #55 1 year ago

    So they are kicking Treyarch over a game they made, and bigging themselves up over a game they havent even made yet. Just plain wrong , and how they cant see their hypocrisy ill never know

  • TheGuvernor #56 1 year ago


    EA are going to own 2011 with their line up of shooters.
    2010 was a bit crap, really, for us longtime PC fps freaks.
    And I've definitely got COD fatigue...

    Anyway, this shit throwing shit show can only be good for us... keep it up!!!

  • DirectAim #57 1 year ago

    I can't really see why COD is rated highly! I played COD3 loads which was an awesome game, it even had vehicles! Then COD:MW came out and IMO it took a few steps forward but also a few steps back! Even now I can't see why everyone raves about it, the only good thing is zombies!!

  • Spekingur #58 1 year ago

    To be fair, it is kind of his job to follow the review scores of his company's competitors.
    (Although it's probably more of the nature of having someone follow the scores and what people think of the games - and reporting it back to him.)

  • Softie2k #59 1 year ago

    I think they've got the brains to know whether they've made a stinker without the games journalists.

  • Reaver_v1 #60 1 year ago

    The big problem Activision now have is that their 'lead designer' has never actually been the innovator. Infinity ward developed COD4 which was the pinnacle of the series. World at War and Treyarch followed with the same game mechanics but a different skin. Modern Warfare 2 went a step further and innovated a new killstreak system with more weapon mods, something the public had been asking IW for. Black ops then came along and it was very much copy and paste for Treyarch as usual. IMO, Treyarch should have been dumped after COD3 but instead they've risen to 'Lead Designer' after Activisions disgusting treatment or the team that put them where they are today. With that big hole in the innovation department, Activision will miss IW dearly and I genuinely believe COD has seen its peak.

  • butler` #61 1 year ago

    get out your metacritic bubble ricci :/

    "MAN WE ALL TOTALLY KNOW A 90 GAME"

    yea, and you don't make them.

  • TheJuriel #62 1 year ago

    I'll just say, that I cannot anymore play FPSes that don't have environmental destruction.

    If I cannot put a hole in that wall, I'm gonna walk away.

  • Zander #63 1 year ago

    The whole thing (along with the fanboi'ism that goes with it) is just stoopid. Seems everyone is trying to make the golden goose that MW is. Nothing wrong with taking influences from a popular product, but don't flog the idea to death! Gamers lose out when there is no origanilty left.

    So i am hoping half-life 3 comes out with valve's well known spit and polish and comes up with an aliternative way of "taking on" the big boy of the yard. Either that or someone else blows our minds with the 'next big thing' soon. We can all dream right. :p
    Edited by Zander at 20/12/10 @ 03:28

  • borkedconsole #64 1 year ago

    I didnt understand completely what he said, did he say that he didnt like Black Ops? He doesnt mention if he is refering to the online or the offline either.

  • borkedconsole #65 1 year ago

    @DiamondIce, do you refer to the online play of both games, or the SP portion? When people keep saying MW2 was awful, i want to know if they're refering to the string of SP levels or the online gamemodes.

  • flaming.carrot #66 1 year ago

    I have to grudgingly admit that I do prefer Black Ops over Modern Warfare 2 (which I could not stand). I wasn't even going to bother with Black Ops and was ready to hate it but it was so cheap at Sainsburys I picked it up anyway - and was pleasantly surprised.

  • CatWeazle #67 1 year ago

    Hey pinstripe suits, guess what? Both your shitty brain-dead shooters suck.

    I can't wait for Valve to come along and knock these shootin gallery FPSs into a cocked hat.

  • Ryuken #68 1 year ago

    Lets be objective here, COD4 was a near perfect game; it innovated with the exp/mini reward structure ( now the standard ) it had pretty great maps as well as dev tools & it had the MMO level up thing to keep people there too.

    CoD4 might have been good but it didn't innovate in that regard, BF2 already did this in 2005.

    A bit scared now that BF3 is prompted as a CoD-killer; linearity and small maps simply aren't Battlefield. The singleplayer of Bad Company 2 never felt right. For BF3 they should just skip the singleplayer alltogether and enlarge the scale. BC2 felt cramped.

  • Cronan #69 1 year ago

    Where did all the BattleFieldFags come from? This comments thread is lousy with them.
    Edited by Cronan at 20/12/10 @ 13:01