Will COD 2017 be low quality?

What I've heard is that COD games now a day takes 3 years to make by 3 different companies right? this year is Sledgehammer's turn...up until December of 2016, Sledgehammer is supposed to have put 2 years in making COD 2017 already, however, they made the decision that they're "going back to their roots" recently. Based on COD's settings projection, I assumed COD 2017 was going to be futuristic. If they scrapped it to go back to their root, does this mean they scrapped 2 years worth of work on their futuristic plan and will spend LITERALLY ONE YEAR making COD 2017 in a WWII setting? they'd spend what? 6-8 months making the art and graphics? omg...

Will it be low quality?

@lairenyx: You bring up Good points.

However, video games these days are so massive they actually use several other smaller video game companies to help out with the load. Rest assured if Activision is serious about what they said to their fans. They will have quite the work force behind it. Look on the back of the game case if you get it and look at the bottom and see all those damn companies.

If they want to see their sales improve. They will need to show us something worth spending $60 on.

Well if it is a WW2 setting then it can easily be of lower quality just because of the limits that WW2 place on it.

It may be the next game or they planned a WW2 for a while.

Exactly. With a company as massive as Activision, you can guarantee they have a whole team in charge of just this. Planning and brainstorming fall back options.

Maybe, or maybe the "going back to the roots" thing was there from the start and they only just announced it.

Maybe i mean i really don't hate the future settings but i would be really hyped if they would have gone to the mw timeline but alas all they are doing is following ea footsteps

yeah i'd imagine this is the most likely scenario.

cod's been getting significant negativity for the future warfare stuff since probably when blops 2 trailer released, building up to the real nasty reaction infinite warfare trailer provoked which, coincidentally, was around the same time dice announced battlefield was going back to world war 1.

activision bundled iw with modern warfare to (temporarily) satisfy those who wanted a more boots-on-the-ground style game (and rather fortuitously, to help sales). so i'd imagine the back-to-its-roots thing isn't on a whim and is an eventuality they've been planning for some time

In my case, I really don't like futuristic warfare ( and worst if it involves too much fantasy ). I prefer a WW2 or modern warfare setting. I hope COD gets back to its roots

I am on the other side. I say shooter are better being Futuristic. I would love if they just do a fantasy base CoD.

Modern is not bad but it is limited to what they can do.

As for WW2, only if they use the supernatural.

As for the whole back to their root, I can see it being used as an a statement against innovation.

It's also worth pointing out that separate gaming companies often draw from the same market research well, which is why they often seem to have the same ideas at the same time.

The only good Cod is the one you put on your plate.

So yes the other cod will be of low quality.

Quite honestly, I don't rag on games that can make people part with their money, regardless of the perceived quality or lack of.