Battlefield Boss Vince Zampella Claims EA's Past Fumbles Created Call of Duty

A Fiery Retort: Battlefield Boss Blames EA's Past Blunders for Call of Duty's Rise

In a candid, perhaps even mischievous, statement, Vince Zampella, the guiding force behind the Battlefield franchise, declared that the sole reason for Call of Duty's enduring existence lies in Electronic Arts' (EA) past missteps. It's a remarkably ironic twist of fate, considering EA is now the very entity that signs his paychecks. This spicy declaration harks back to a tangled history, a story that unfurls beginning in 2002.

The Medal of Honor Genesis and EA's Divergence

In January of that year, the studio 2015, Inc. unleashed Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, a World War II shooter that swiftly redefined the genre's benchmark for cinematic immersion. Praised universally, especially for its unforgettable Omaha Beach landing sequence, the game was heralded by critics as an indispensable experience for enthusiasts. One might have expected EA to greenlight a sequel, fostering the budding talent within 2015, Inc. Instead, the publisher opted to seize the reins of the franchise entirely. Consequently, 2015, Inc. found itself unceremoniously sidelined, stripped of its ownership of Medal of Honor and left adrift within EA's vast structure. EA, meanwhile, continued to churn out Medal of Honor titles year after year, a spree that eventually culminated in a hiatus following a speculative VR endeavor in 2020.

From Medal of Honor's Ashes to Call of Duty's Ascent

However, a segment of the disillusioned development team refused to be deterred. They pivoted, seeking new opportunities and ultimately landing at a rival: Activision. Vince Zampella was among those who made the pivotal shift, joining the nascent Infinity Ward. It wasn't long before the first Call of Duty title emerged, a game that, much like Medal of Honor before it, drew profound inspiration from the crucible of World War II. This historical context lends Zampella's provocative statement a layer of self-aware irony, suggesting it's less an accusation and more a wry observation of how circumstances shaped the industry.

A Full Circle Journey: Back to the EA Fold

But how did Zampella, the architect of a rival franchise's genesis, find himself back within the EA orbit? The 2010s saw a significant legal dispute between Zampella and Activision, a conflict that precipitated his departure from Infinity Ward. Subsequently, he co-founded Respawn Entertainment with fellow developers, a studio that would go on to create the acclaimed Titanfall (now defunct) and the massively popular Apex Legends. Ultimately, Respawn became integrated into EA's ecosystem. This transition gradually saw Zampella take on broader responsibilities, including overseeing other EA projects, most notably the Battlefield series.

Echoes of the Past, A Glimpse of the Future

Zampella himself has mused about the potential for further development on Medal of Honor, expressing a desire to continue the series had EA's strategy differed. Yet, the narrative arc has been undeniably dramatic. Call of Duty has blossomed into one of the globe's most lucrative entertainment franchises. Despite facing criticism for its increasingly outlandish cosmetic items and aggressive monetization tactics, the game remains a household name among gamers worldwide. In a conversation with GQ Magazine, Zampella also alluded to his collaborations with cinematic titans like Steven Spielberg on Medal of Honor and even mentioned Ridley Scott's past interest in a Call of Duty film adaptation. However, such cinematic ventures were then hampered by the stigma of poorly received video game movies. Today, the landscape has shifted dramatically, with Paramount actively developing a Call of Duty film. Meanwhile, EA has made a resurgence with Battlefield 2042 (formerly referred to as Battlefield 6), a title that boasted an impressive launch day online player count of nearly 750,000. Even with his return to the familiar EA environment, Zampella retains his characteristic wit, particularly when the conversation turns to the publisher's past.