Five simple points:
[LIST=1][*]Why would they have an incentive to make a new engine? CoD gameplay seems to be pretty widely recommended even though it isn't game changing - and why change a solid formula? Evolution, not revolution. Even if a game engine is slightly outdated, why build a new engine from scratch?
they dont even have dx11 or 10 in their games. The limits of their current engine means they will never have maps the size of battlefield, when they could if they got a new engine.
Competition is what moves the industry forward. Just look at the car industry, the movie industry, any industry. None of them stand still. they all evolve trying to make a better product than the competition. That has entirely stopped in the COD series, they have released the same basic game 3 times in a row now, with merely a new script written, new textures, and minimally increased textures.
The performance of the engine though has taken huge hits. How the hell does black ops not run at 300 fps with current computers. I can understand bc2 as it is doing audio processing on the cpu, and the huge maps with destructable terrain and objects, and such.
I am happy to see activision fall though, and with it the cod series. They deserve it for the crap that shovel at the sheeple. Battlefield 3 will be the end of their reign. They sat back on their heels for far to long, letting everyone else catch up or take the lead.
Hell, they make it seem like they have no new engine on the horizon at all, and if they dont, then frostbite 2 and all the other engines out there are going to eat them alive.
worst of all, you posted screenshots like we are supposed to be impressed. We arent. I could point out a dozen terrible spots in that image, where you can tell that they have met the engines limits and have to do work arounds and optical illusions to give the appearance of things.