Black Ops 1 & 2 Are Making Millions Again… So Why Aren’t the Developers Getting Paid

Name: Black Ops 1 & 2 Are Making Millions Again… So Why Aren’t the Developers Getting Paid
Uploaded: 2026-10-21T03:18:07+00:00
Duration: 11 min 20 s
Channel: jamesschierer

00:00What happens when you spend years of your life creating a video game,

00:03work countless brutal hours to get it finished,

00:06and then watch that same game become a massive hit more than a decade later?

00:10Well, if you're one of the developers behind the original Call of Duty Black Ops games,

00:14the answers might be a whole lot of pride mixed with a whole lot of frustration.

00:18The original Black Ops and Black Ops 2 have returned to PlayStation,

00:22attracting plenty of players and potentially generating a serious amount of money for Activision and Microsoft.

00:27But one developer who helped create these games says there's a major problem with the success.

00:33The people who actually made these games aren't getting a share of the financial rewards.

00:38And honestly, this raises some important questions

00:40about how the gaming industry treats the people responsible for its biggest hits.

00:45Let's talk about it.

00:47Earlier in 2026, Activision brought the original Call of Duty Black Ops and Black Ops 2

00:53to PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 5 through digital releases.

00:56And these weren't extensive remakes or flashy remasters with completely rebuilt graphics,

01:02redesigned gameplay, or a whole collection of new features.

01:06Instead, players were paying $40 for each game with the paid downloadable content not included.

01:12On paper, that's a pretty tough sell.

01:14You're paying a relatively premium price for games that originally launched in 2010 and 2012,

01:20and you're not even getting all the DLC that helped make these titles so memorable.

01:24But here's the interesting part. Players showed up anyway.

01:28According to the reporting, both games quickly climbed into Sakana's US Top 10 for weekly active users.

01:34That kind of performance demonstrates just how much demand remains for these older Call of Duty experiences.

01:39And you can understand why.

01:42Black Ops delivered a memorable Cold War conspiracy thriller,

01:45while Black Ops 2 gave players a campaign with branching choices

01:49and a futuristic setting alongside a multiplayer experience that became a fan favorite.

01:54For plenty of players, these games represent a period when Call of Duty was at its absolute best.

02:01There's a massive audience that wants to revisit these games,

02:05whether it's to relive old memories or experience them for the first time.

02:09And from a business perspective, Activision has found an audience willing to pay to return to these classics.

02:14But the success of these releases brings us to the real story.

02:18Who deserves to benefit when an old game becomes a new financial success?

02:24Gavin Goslin spent 15 years working at Treyarch, the studio behind the original Black Ops games.

02:30He also says he put in countless hours of crunch alongside his colleagues to help get these games finished.

02:36For anyone unfamiliar with the term, crunch refers to periods when developers work excessive hours,

02:42often under intense pressure, to meet deadlines and get a game ready for release.

02:46And Goslin's reaction to the success of these PlayStation releases is complicated.

02:50He describes the situation as bittersweet.

02:54On one hand, he can see that the games he helped create are still attracting enormous audiences

02:58more than a decade after their original releases.

03:01That's an incredible achievement.

03:03Think about how many games launch every year, receive a little attention,

03:07and then practically disappear from the conversation.

03:10Meanwhile, Black Ops and Black Ops 2 are still drawing players in 2026.

03:15That says something about the lasting appeal of their design, their maps, their campaigns,

03:20and the work of the teams who made them.

03:22But Goslin also argues that these releases demonstrate how much money publishers can continue

03:27making from development work completed years ago.

03:30And that's where his frustration comes in.

03:32In his view, executives can benefit financially from the continued success of these games,

03:37while the developers who created them don't receive any additional compensation.

03:42It's a difficult situation because the success is something the original developers can be proud of.

03:47But pride doesn't pay the bills.

03:50And after putting so much time and effort into a project,

03:53it's understandable why seeing that project generate more revenue years later

03:57might leave some developers wondering why they aren't sharing in the rewards.

04:01One of the biggest issues Goslin raises is the lack of a widespread residual payment system

04:06in the video game industry.

04:08In parts of the entertainment industry, including film and television,

04:11qualifying performers and other covered workers can receive residuals when their work is reused

04:17or distributed through certain channels.

04:20The specific rules depend on their contracts and applicable agreements.

04:24But the basic idea is that compensation doesn't necessarily end when the original production is finished.

04:30Video game development generally doesn't work that way.

04:34Developers are usually paid through their salaries, contracts,

04:36and whatever bonuses or other compensation their agreements provide.

04:40But these arrangements aren't universal.

04:42For many developers, completing a game means their direct compensation for that project

04:47largely ends even if the game continues selling for years.

04:51Now imagine spending several years creating a game that becomes a major commercial success.

04:57You move on to another project.

04:59Maybe you leave the studio.

05:00Maybe you get laid off.

05:02Maybe you change careers entirely.

05:05Years later, your old game returns to the market and attracts another huge audience.

05:10The publisher benefits from those sales,

05:13but your original work doesn't automatically generate another paycheck for you.

05:16That's the problem Goslin wants people to consider.

05:19He argues that the wealth generated by legacy games

05:22should be shared retroactively with the developer who endured crunch to create them.

05:27And I think this is where the conversation gets particularly interesting,

05:30because we're not just talking about a game being successful at launch.

05:34We're talking about games that have already made money,

05:37established a reputation,

05:39and built a loyal fan base

05:40only to generate renewed commercial interest many years later.

05:44Should the people who helped create that lasting value receive something more?

05:48It's a fair question.

05:49I don't think the industry should dismiss it.

05:53Personally, I think it sucks for the developers who actually created these games.

05:56They put in the hours,

05:58helped build the levels,

05:59designed the experiences,

06:00and contributed to the games that players still love today.

06:03And when those games become successful again,

06:06I can absolutely understand why the original creators would want to share in that success.

06:11My initial thought is that if a publisher re-releases an old game,

06:15or remasters it years later,

06:16the original developers should receive a cut of the revenue,

06:19especially if they're no longer working on the project.

06:22They help build the foundation that makes the new release possible.

06:25Without the original game,

06:27there wouldn't be a legacy product to sell in the first place.

06:30However, I can also see the arguments on the other side.

06:33A publisher isn't simply selling a game and doing nothing else.

06:37Depending on the release,

06:38it may have to handle platform compatibility,

06:41certification,

06:42quality assurance,

06:43marketing,

06:44distribution,

06:45customer support,

06:46and other expenses.

06:47Even a relatively straightforward port

06:49requires somebody to take responsibility

06:51for getting it onto a modern platform

06:54and making sure it works.

06:55And if we're talking about a full remaster,

06:58the work can be considerably more extensive.

07:01There are also questions about who should qualify for additional compensation.

07:05Should every developer who worked on the original game receive a payment?

07:09Should it depend on how long someone worked on the project?

07:12Should the amount depend on their role,

07:14their original contract,

07:15or how much revenue the new release generates?

07:18What about people who worked on the game for only a few months?

07:21What about contractors?

07:22What about developers who contributed to the original game

07:25but weren't involved in the re-release at all?

07:28These are complicated questions,

07:29and a fair system would need to address them.

07:31There's also a difference between saying every former developer

07:35deserves a share of every future sale

07:37and saying publishers should establish a reasonable compensation system

07:41for the people whose work continues to generate substantial revenue.

07:44Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

07:47But here's where I land on it.

07:49I think there's a strong argument for creating some form of additional compensation

07:54when a legacy game generates significant new revenue,

07:57particularly when the publisher is benefiting from the original development work

08:01without having to recreate that game from scratch.

08:04That doesn't mean every developer needs to receive an identical amount forever.

08:08It means the industry should seriously consider

08:11whether the people responsible for creating these long-lasting successes

08:14deserve a more meaningful share of the money their work continues to generate.

08:18Because if a game is still making money more than a decade later,

08:22that longevity is part of what the developers helped create.

08:26So what would a better system actually look like?

08:29I think one possibility would be a legacy revenue pool.

08:32When an older game is re-released, remastered,

08:35or otherwise generates substantial new revenue,

08:37the publisher could set aside an agreed-upon percentage of qualifying revenue

08:41for eligible members of the original development team.

08:44The system would need clear rules.

08:46First, developers would need to know which projects and releases qualify.

08:50Second, there should be a transparent formula for determining

08:53how much money is available for distribution,

08:56taking into account the agreed-upon cost and revenue model.

09:00And third, there should be a clear way to determine

09:02who qualifies and how payments are allocated.

09:05Publishers could establish these arrangements through contracts,

09:08collective bargaining, or other compensation agreements.

09:12There would still be disagreements about the details, of course,

09:15but having a defined system would be better than leaving developers to wonder

09:19whether their work will ever generate additional compensation after the original release.

09:23And this wouldn't have to mean punishing publishers for keeping old games alive.

09:27Quite the opposite.

09:29Publishers could continue bringing classic games to new audiences

09:32while recognizing the people who helped make those games worth revisiting.

09:36That sounds like a better arrangement for everyone involved.

09:40After all, the game's industry depends on people creating experiences

09:44that players want to return to.

09:46If a game remains popular for more than a decade,

09:49that's not just a business opportunity.

09:51It's evidence that the original creative work has stood the test of time.

09:55I think that deserves recognition beyond a line in the credits.

10:00Now, I want to hear what you think.

10:02Should developers who worked on classic games receive a share of the revenue

10:06when those games are re-released or remastered years later?

10:10Or do you think their original salaries and contracts should be the end of the arrangement

10:14with publishers retaining the money generated by future releases?

10:18Personally, I could see both sides,

10:20but I think the people who created these games deserve a serious conversation

10:24about how they're compensated when their work continues making money years later.

10:28Let me know where you stand in the comments below.

10:31And if you enjoyed this video, please give it a thumbs up,

10:34subscribe to the channel,

10:35and ring that notification bell so you don't miss any future videos.

10:39Also, if you'd like to support the channel and get access to exclusive content,

10:43check out my Patreon.

10:45It's just $1 a month,

10:47and the latest exclusive video is called

10:48When a Famous Name Isn't Enough,

10:50The Pressure of Living Up to a Gaming Legend.

10:52Your support helps the channel keep producing more gaming videos,

10:56discussions, and stories worth talking about.

10:59Thank you so much for watching,

11:01and I'll see you in the next video.

11:03Game on!

Black Ops 1 & 2 Are Making Millions Again… So Why Aren’t the Developers Getting Paid

Category

Transcript

Recommended