What If Call of Duty Was Never Developed?

The Actual History

The Call of Duty franchise began its remarkable journey in 2003 when the first title was released by Activision, developed by Infinity Ward—a studio formed by former employees of 2015 Inc. who had previously worked on Medal of Honor: Allied Assault for EA Games. The original Call of Duty focused on World War II combat, differentiating itself from other first-person shooters of the era by emphasizing squad-based gameplay rather than the lone-hero approach common in the genre.

After the success of the initial game, which received critical acclaim for its immersive combat and multiplayer capabilities, Activision established a development cycle that would become industry-defining. They rotated development between studios—primarily Infinity Ward and Treyarch (later adding Sledgehammer Games)—allowing for annual releases while giving each team multiple years to develop their titles.

The franchise experienced a pivotal transformation in 2007 with the release of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which shifted the setting from historical World War II to contemporary conflicts. Modern Warfare's multiplayer system—featuring experience points, unlockable weapons, and the now-ubiquitous "prestige" system—revolutionized online multiplayer gaming and established a template that countless games would follow.

By the early 2010s, Call of Duty had become a cultural phenomenon. The 2011 release of Modern Warfare 3 broke entertainment records by generating $775 million in sales within its first five days. The annual release of a new Call of Duty title became a major event in the gaming calendar, with midnight launches attracting thousands of fans worldwide.

The franchise continued evolving, experimenting with futuristic warfare (Advanced Warfare, Infinite Warfare), returning to historical settings (WWII, Black Ops Cold War), and launching the free-to-play battle royale Warzone in 2020, which attracted over 100 million players in its first year.

Financially, Call of Duty transformed Activision's business model. By 2021, the franchise had sold over 400 million premium games and generated more than $30 billion in revenue. This success made Activision an attractive acquisition target, contributing significantly to Microsoft's decision to purchase Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion in 2022—at the time, the largest acquisition in video game history.

Beyond commerce, Call of Duty reshaped gaming culture. It helped bring first-person shooters from their PC roots firmly into the console mainstream. The franchise significantly influenced esports, with competitive Call of Duty leagues offering millions in prize money. Its realistic military aesthetics and gameplay mechanics influenced countless other games, while its multiplayer progression systems became industry standard.

Call of Duty also found itself at the center of cultural debates about video game violence, military glorification, and historical representation—becoming a reference point in discussions about gaming's societal impact. By 2025, with over 20 main entries and numerous spin-offs, Call of Duty stands as one of the most financially successful and culturally influential entertainment franchises in history.

The Point of Divergence

What if Call of Duty was never developed? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the conditions that led to the creation of this industry-defining franchise never aligned, fundamentally altering the trajectory of gaming history.

The most plausible point of divergence occurs in 2002, when a group of developers from 2015 Inc. left after completing Medal of Honor: Allied Assault for EA Games. In our timeline, these developers—led by Vince Zampella and Jason West—formed Infinity Ward with financial backing from Activision and began developing the first Call of Duty game.

In this alternate timeline, several plausible divergences could have prevented this crucial development:

Scenario 1: EA Retention
EA Games, recognizing the exceptional talent behind Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, could have offered the key developers better compensation, creative control, and a dedicated studio within EA to continue developing the Medal of Honor franchise. Satisfied with these terms, Zampella, West, and their team never leave to form Infinity Ward.

Scenario 2: Activision's Different Strategy
Activision, under different strategic guidance, decides not to enter the military first-person shooter market already dominated by Medal of Honor and Battlefield. Instead, they allocate resources toward other genres or existing IP, believing the WWII shooter trend has reached market saturation.

Scenario 3: Failed Pitch Meeting
The departing 2015 Inc. developers pitch their concept to Activision, but differences regarding creative direction, monetization strategies, or market projections lead to a rejection. Without Activision's backing, the team disperses to different studios or attempts a smaller-scale project without the resources to compete in the AAA market.

Scenario 4: Different Game Concept
The newly formed Infinity Ward, while still backed by Activision, pitches a substantially different game concept—perhaps a science fiction shooter or a different genre entirely. Activision approves this direction, and the military shooter that would have become Call of Duty never materializes.

For this alternate timeline, we'll focus on Scenario 2, where Activision makes a strategic decision in 2002 not to pursue the military FPS genre. This choice means that when the talented team from 2015 Inc. approaches them with their concept for a WWII shooter, Activision declines to fund the project, setting the gaming industry on a radically different path from the one we know.

Immediate Aftermath

Scattered Talent Pool

The most immediate consequence of Activision's decision not to pursue the Call of Duty concept would be the dispersal of the talented development team from 2015 Inc. Without the formation of Infinity Ward under Activision's umbrella:

Studio Fragmentation: Vince Zampella, Jason West, and their core team likely splinter into existing studios rather than forming a cohesive new development house. Some developers might return to EA, strengthening the Medal of Honor franchise, while others join studios like id Software, Valve, or Epic Games.
Delayed Innovation: The squad-based combat mechanics and cinematic set pieces that Call of Duty pioneered would emerge more gradually across different titles rather than coming together in one influential package in 2003.

Medal of Honor's Continued Dominance

In the absence of its most significant competitor, EA's Medal of Honor franchise maintains its position as the premier military first-person shooter through the mid-2000s:

Extended Market Leadership: Medal of Honor: Allied Assault's successors continue to dominate the WWII shooter genre without Call of Duty challenging its formula or market share.
Delayed Genre Evolution: The transition from WWII settings to modern combat happens later, perhaps around 2008-2009 rather than 2007, as EA feels less pressure to innovate within its successful formula.
Different Multiplayer Development: Without Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's revolutionary multiplayer progression system, online military shooters evolve along different lines—potentially focusing more on Battlefield-style team objectives rather than individual progression and killstreaks.

Activision's Alternative Focus

With the resources not allocated to developing and marketing Call of Duty, Activision pursues different strategies between 2003 and 2007:

Strengthened Existing IPs: Franchises like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, Guitar Hero, and Spider-Man receive additional development resources, potentially extending their commercial viability before their eventual declines.
Earlier Diversification: Without Call of Duty's reliable annual revenue, Activision might pursue studio acquisitions earlier, perhaps focusing on mobile gaming or MMOs sooner than they did in our timeline.
Different Blizzard Relationship: The dynamics of the 2008 Activision-Blizzard merger might significantly differ, with Activision approaching from a position of less financial strength without its military shooter cash cow.

Xbox 360/PS3 Console Generation Dynamics

The absence of Call of Duty significantly alters the competitive landscape of the console generation that began in 2005-2006:

Platform Exclusivity Battles: Without Call of Duty as a third-party cross-platform titan, first-party exclusives gain greater importance in console competition. Microsoft might invest even more heavily in Halo, while Sony could prioritize developing a competing military shooter exclusive.
Different Online Network Development: Xbox Live's growth was substantially driven by Call of Duty's popularity. Without this catalyst, Microsoft's investment in online infrastructure might proceed more gradually, while Sony's PlayStation Network development timeline could shift.
Altered Hardware Priorities: The optimization of consoles for Call of Duty's specific technical needs influenced hardware decisions. In its absence, different games would drive technical requirements, potentially resulting in different hardware priorities for the Xbox 360 and PS3.

Battlefield's Earlier Rise

With Call of Duty absent from the market, EA's other military shooter franchise would find a different competitive landscape:

Accelerated Console Transition: DICE's Battlefield series might make its serious console push earlier than 2008's Battlefield: Bad Company, seeing an opportunity in the less crowded console FPS market.
Broader Gameplay Evolution: Without Call of Duty's narrow focus on fast-paced, high-kill-count gameplay, Battlefield's emphasis on vehicles, destruction, and larger maps might become the predominant design philosophy for military shooters.
Different Technical Development: The competition between Call of Duty and Battlefield drove significant technological innovation in graphics, networking, and animation. Without this rivalry, technical advancement in the genre might follow a different pace and direction.

By 2007-2008, the video game landscape would already look substantially different from our timeline. The absence of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's revolutionary impact means the military shooter genre evolves more gradually, with different gameplay conventions becoming standard. Activision's business model develops along different lines without its guaranteed annual blockbuster, and the competitive dynamics between major publishers take distinctly different forms.

Long-term Impact

Transformed FPS Genre Evolution

Without Call of Duty's dominant influence, the first-person shooter genre would develop along notably different lines through the 2010s and into the 2020s:

Military Shooter Diversification

Broader Tactical Range: Without Call of Duty's arcade-style gameplay becoming the dominant template, military shooters would likely span a wider tactical spectrum—from more simulation-oriented experiences to arcade action—rather than converging on the Call of Duty formula.
Historical Setting Persistence: The WWII setting might remain viable longer without the market fatigue accelerated by Call of Duty's early titles. Historical shooters exploring different conflicts (Korean War, Vietnam, Cold War operations) might emerge as major franchises rather than just occasional titles.
Different Narrative Approaches: The controversial "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2 and similar provocative narrative moments influenced how games approached sensitive political material. Without these precedents, military shooter storytelling might develop more conservative approaches to depicting contemporary conflicts.

Alternative Multiplayer Paradigms

Team-Based Priority: The multiplayer FPS landscape would likely emphasize team objectives and class-based gameplay (as seen in Team Fortress 2 and Battlefield) rather than the individual progression and killstreak rewards popularized by Call of Duty.
Different Progression Systems: The prestige system, weapon unlocks, and cosmetic customization that became industry standard would evolve differently or more slowly. Games might focus more on skill-based matchmaking and competitive ranking than persistent progression.
Slower Pace, Larger Scale: Without Call of Duty's emphasis on fast-paced, close-quarters combat, the genre standard might favor larger maps, slower movement, and more deliberate gameplay—potentially making the battle royale transition more natural when it eventually emerged.

Activision's Alternate Business Trajectory

Without its flagship franchise, Activision's business model and market position would develop along dramatically different lines:

Financial and Strategic Divergence

Reduced Market Capitalization: Without the $30+ billion in revenue generated by Call of Duty, Activision would be a substantially smaller company by the 2020s. Their market capitalization might be 30-50% lower, making them a different kind of acquisition target.
Portfolio Diversification: Necessity would drive earlier and broader diversification into different genres and business models. Activision might have become a leader in mobile gaming or free-to-play models earlier without Call of Duty's reliable premium sales.
Different Acquisition History: Without Call of Duty's massive revenue, Activision might not have been able to acquire Blizzard in 2008, radically altering both companies' futures. Instead, Blizzard might have been acquired by a different industry player like Microsoft, EA, or a tech company like Amazon.

Microsoft Acquisition Alternatives

Different Acquisition Target: Microsoft's landmark $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard in 2022 would almost certainly not have occurred in this form. Without Call of Duty as the crown jewel, Microsoft might have targeted different companies like Take-Two, EA, or focused on acquiring multiple smaller studios instead.
Gaming Industry Consolidation Path: The absence of this mega-acquisition would alter the entire industry's consolidation timeline and pattern, potentially resulting in more mid-sized publishers remaining independent longer or different merger patterns emerging.

Esports Development on an Alternate Path

The competitive gaming landscape would develop along significantly different trajectories without Call of Duty's influence:

Changed Competitive Ecosystem

Different Console Esports Evolution: Call of Duty was instrumental in establishing console-based esports as commercially viable. Without it, PC games would likely maintain an even stronger dominance in esports, with console competitive gaming developing later or in more limited forms.
Alternative League Structures: The Call of Duty League's city-based franchise model influenced esports organization. Different structures might prevail in this timeline—perhaps more open circuits like the early days of Counter-Strike or DOTA 2.
Varied Viewer Experience: The spectator-friendly nature of Call of Duty (clear objectives, familiar weapons, understandable goals) helped mainstream esports viewership. Without this accessible entry point, competitive gaming might remain more niche until the late 2010s.

Gaming Culture and Community Differences

The absence of Call of Duty would significantly alter gaming demographics and cultural touchpoints:

Demographic Shifts

Different Console Adoption Patterns: Call of Duty drove significant console purchases, particularly among casual and mainstream gamers who bought systems specifically to play the series. Without this driver, console adoption might skew more toward other genres or remain more limited to traditional gaming demographics.
Altered Age Demographics: Call of Duty's appeal to teenage and young adult players helped establish gaming as a lifelong hobby for millions. Its absence might have slowed the aging of the gaming demographic, with different franchises eventually filling this role.

Cultural References and Perception

Changed Public Perception: As one of gaming's most visible franchises, Call of Duty often featured in mainstream media discussions about video game violence. Without it, different games would become the focal points for these conversations, potentially changing the tenor of the debate.
Alternative Gaming Vernacular: Terms like "camping," "quickscoping," and "killstreaks" entered gaming vernacular largely through Call of Duty. The community would develop different terminology reflecting the dominant games of this alternate timeline.

Hardware and Platform Evolution

The absence of Call of Duty would influence hardware development and platform priorities:

Technical Development Priorities

Different Performance Benchmarks: Call of Duty's 60fps standard on consoles influenced hardware expectations. Without this technical priority, console generations might have emphasized different performance metrics, perhaps prioritizing resolution or world size over frame rate.
Altered Online Infrastructure: Xbox Live and PlayStation Network development was significantly driven by Call of Duty's needs. Their feature sets and reliability standards might have evolved more slowly or with different priorities without millions of Call of Duty players demanding consistent service.

Platform Competition Dynamics

Exclusive IP Focus: Without the massive third-party Call of Duty franchise available on multiple platforms, console manufacturers would likely invest even more heavily in exclusive content, potentially resulting in more platform-exclusive franchises developing into major properties.
Different Service Models: Game Pass, PlayStation Plus, and similar subscription services might develop along different lines without Call of Duty as a major attraction. The push toward subscription models might happen later or take different forms.

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, the gaming landscape would be fundamentally different. While military shooters would still exist, they would represent a more diverse genre rather than following the Call of Duty template. Activision would be a different kind of company—likely smaller but potentially more innovative without its reliable annual franchise. The esports ecosystem, gaming culture, and even hardware development would have followed distinctly different evolutionary paths, creating a gaming world recognizable but significantly altered from the one we know.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Natalie Chen, Professor of Digital Media Studies at MIT and author of "Interactive Entertainment as Cultural Force," offers this perspective: "In the timeline where Call of Duty never emerged, we'd likely see a more fragmented first-person shooter market rather than the binary Battlefield versus Call of Duty dynamic that dominated for over a decade. The interesting consequence isn't just about missing a single franchise—it's about the absence of the design philosophy Call of Duty popularized. Its emphasis on tight feedback loops, accessible multiplayer with clear progression rewards, and cinematic single-player became industry standard. Without this template, we might have seen more experimental design in mainstream shooters rather than the convergence around these principles. Games like Titanfall, Destiny, or even Overwatch might have taken radically different forms without the Call of Duty blueprint to either follow or deliberately subvert."

Professor Marcus Williams, Gaming Industry Economist at the London School of Economics, provides an economic analysis: "Activision's market trajectory without Call of Duty represents one of the most fascinating counterfactuals in entertainment business history. By our estimates, Activision's revenue would be approximately 40-45% lower by the 2020s without the franchise. This isn't just about missing direct game sales—it's about the ecosystem of microtransactions, merchandise, and adjacent products the franchise enabled. The truly transformative impact would be on investment patterns throughout the industry. Without Call of Duty demonstrating the viability of the annual release model paired with ongoing monetization, publishers might have approached live service games differently, perhaps favoring fewer releases with longer support cycles. Microsoft's gaming strategy would necessarily follow a different path without the prospect of acquiring the Call of Duty player base, potentially focusing on building platform-exclusive franchises rather than bringing established multiplatform titles under their umbrella."

Jennifer Ortiz, Competitive Gaming Historian and Former Esports League Commissioner, examines the competitive gaming landscape: "Call of Duty's absence from gaming history would have delayed console esports development by several years at minimum. The franchise did something crucial that we take for granted—it created a pipeline from casual console players to competitive viewers and participants. This pathway doesn't exist without Call of Duty's massive console audience who gradually became invested in watching professional play. The FPS esports scene would likely remain dominated by Counter-Strike's tactical approach and faster arena shooters like Quake. The city-based franchise model that Call of Duty League pioneered would still eventually emerge, but probably first through a different genre entirely—perhaps fighting games or sports titles which naturally lend themselves to geographical representation. The 'content creator to pro player' pipeline might also develop differently, as Call of Duty's accessibility made this transition more viable than in technically demanding games like Counter-Strike or StarCraft."