Activision Blizzard boss Kotick has been discussing the upcoming FPS showdown between Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3.
The rival FPS games will go head-to-head later this year when EA's Battlefield launches on October 25 and Activision's Call of Duty title two weeks later on November 8.
"Well so far I've only seen Battlefield 3 shown on a PC, so I haven't seen it on a console which is where the bulk of our business is. If it's just a PC title as it looks like today, that's a very small audience to participate, but we always are interested to see what our competitors are doing.
"We've had a lot of success with Call of Duty as a franchise," he added. "The product that we're about to release, Modern Warfare 3, is the result of an enormous amount of audience research, and it is what our tens of million of players are saying they'd like to see in their next action experience, so we're very confident about its launch."
Kotick also said Activision's seeing an unprecedented level of demand for Modern Warfare 3.
"So far every one of our sequels has preformed better than our prequels by meaningful amounts. The demand that we're seeing on this game is unlike we've seen ever, and not by a little. If you look at the pre-orders, if you look at the number of people that have signed up for the beta test, if you look at things like Google searches of Modern Warfare, these are numbers that we've never seen before."
Check out 13 minutes of uninterrupted Modern Warfare 3 gameplay footage posted on the site earlier today.
Watch the video below for Kotick's thoughts on the upcoming Call of Duty Elite subscription service, Nintendo's newly announced Wii U, and the wider games industry in general.
Comments
27 comments so far...
RustySpoon80 on 8 Jun '11 said:
So he's keeping an eye on competition but doesn't know this is out on consoles also.
mogel94 on 8 Jun '11 said:
As much of a douche he is, he does have a point. I doubt Battlefield will beat COD in sales but if it doesn't beat it in reviews I will be suprised.
casperthedog on 8 Jun '11 said:
He knows it will be on 360/PS3 also, he means its only been shown on PC to the press and what we have seen so far (at least in the coverage i have seen) so i think what he means is he wants to see how it will look and play on the consoles, because that will be what the game will sell the most on for sure, so while it looks great on high-end PCs, most will not get to see it to that standard, so they need to show what what it will look like on the two consoles. (unless anybody has any links/info into how it plays on 360/PS3)
s.a.m on 8 Jun '11 said:
I've seen a very small amount of BF3 on PS3, and it looked utterly beautiful. for people who haven't seen it, watch the Frostbite trailer for BF3 and some of the footage (admittedly a small amount) is PS3, and it looks highly polished and lovely
MW3 does look better than MW2 graphically, but still very similar, i agree it is MW2.5
I'm gonna get both though, cuz I'm excited about both of them, cuz they are trying for different things, BF is the thinking man's shooter, and MW3 will be the run & gun quick game, type game.
If i had to choose which game was gonna be better from what I have seen, it would be Battlefield.
FlimFlam on 8 Jun '11 said:
It would appear that actually most people are looking forward to Battlefield more, judging by various forums etc...
He is a fool to think that being on a console will detract that much from the overall experience Battlefield will offer. Naturally the PC is looking exceptional, but regardless of the cuts made, visually or map size wise, I don't think Dice will fail to deliver the visceral, gritty combat that is making Battlefield 3 look as good as it does.
MW3 in contrast, despite looking nice enough, appears to play exactly the same as all CoD's before it... the levels demoed so far show little innovation or change of direction, just more fodder for the easily pleased masses. It feels complacent.
Perhaps Mr Kotick should speak to Konami's Seabass about the pitfalls of resting on one's laurels...
feeg86 on 8 Jun '11 said:
To be fair, I want to see what it runs like on the console I'll be playing it on not just on some monster PC. As nice as it looks and as good as it looks, I'll hold out any judgement until I see it running on a console.
aawells07 on 8 Jun '11 said:
I dont think he is the demon that people think he is hes just a business man and thats no crime.
dragonjim on 8 Jun '11 said:
Battlefield 3 is getting way overhyped like COD used to be. I bet in about six or seven years everyone will be saying how battlefield 6 is just battlefield 5.5. And how much battlefield sucks compared to another military shooter. And how the battlefield franchise is the biggest threat to the hardcore gamer. Will this shooter craze ever end?
svd_grasshopper on 8 Jun '11 said:
i think every single battlefield game has used a different engine.
COD is on it's fifth game now with the same engine. that's why it's stale. and that's why people complain.
they are stuck in a rut, but this is more by management orders.
no time to disrupt yearly outputs when the current 'formula'
is doing so well... and from a business standpoint, they are spot on. from a gamer's standpoint... not so good.
DICE are more gamer orientated, it's more than just a job to them. that's why they are loved more.
KK-Headcharge78 on 8 Jun '11 said:
Kotick is many things but a fool is not one of them, his comments are basically saying yeah we've heard about Battlefield but we are confident our product will do well, what you expect him to say 'yeah BF3 is awesome'????
Let's not forget the landscape here, BF has to deliver BIG TIME, they have to conjure the hype, the praise and the eyes of the consumer (they don't want to be the 'undergound' one which will no doubt disappoint those who see BF as somehow more mature) COD on the other hand is already there, has already achieved where BF wants to get to and has the job of continuing that momentum. The signs of BF are very positive and rightly so from what I've seen but people should stop making out that COD is lazy, lame and there for the taking, you may not like it but it's another Mario, another FIFA, another Halo, it is out in front and it's up to EA to change that (sorry THQ you had your chance)
As I said on another thread, Frostbite developed another engine because the last one used for 1 and 2 has not done what they hoped and make a larger dent in COD sales. People make out it's because they are just nice and want to spend extra money just so we all feel warm and fuzzy, it's bull. Exactly the same reason as why COD continue to tweak and polish a proven engine and while milllions still pay it that ain't gonna change, give me one major, highly successful, game brand that regularly rips up it's own rulebook for the sake of 'change' and lives to tell the tale.
gmcb007 on 8 Jun '11 said:
When two tribes go to war, money is all that you can score.
Lets go to war!
Lets go to war!
svd_grasshopper on 8 Jun '11 said:
they don't need to rip up the rulebook... but they could make a little changes. there has been almost zero changes gameplay wise over five games.
they have their engine waiting faithful as ever and the devs just drop in some new buildings. no change in artwork direction, same fonts, same drill.
KK-Headcharge78 on 8 Jun '11 said:
Are you talking about the SP or MP? Either way I don't agree they have not changed at all, the 'little changes' you wish for are arguably there across the last 4 games, and besides since when was a new engine a little change?
Mogs on 8 Jun '11 said:
Battlefield won't beat CoD - the gameplay is too deep to have the same mass appeal. It will weaken it though, and over time as the competition gets more aggressive and Activision keeps churning sequels out at full burn, CoD will rapidly die - like the martians in War of the Worlds. 'MORE MICHAEL BAY!' is only going to take CoD so far - they're reaching the limit already.
For now though, it remains depressingly popular. http://imageshack.us/f/30/nohope.jpg
wasted-again on 8 Jun '11 said:
As in, the graphics shown so far have been high end PC graphics, what it'll look like on console is unknown as yet, so if it only apeals to PC users there'll be very few sales, compared to MW3.
aawells07 on 8 Jun '11 said:
Very well said finally someone who thinks/comments realistically.
DanW on 8 Jun '11 said:
Facts are facts...Modern Warfare far outsells and is far more anticipated than Battlefield. I was unimpressed with Battlefield 1, I never bothered with 2 and don't expect to buy 3. Personally, I can't want for MW3. I watched the E3 presentation on another site and it looks amazing!
scorpa23 on 9 Jun '11 said:
What the hell is battlefield 1?
1942, Vietnam, 2142? Did you play them? And you didn't play battlefield 2? wow.
This is not a sequel to bad company.
almanac2015 on 9 Jun '11 said:
The guys at EA aren't stupid - they know they can't knock CoD off the top spot instantly. They said as much when they released the last Medal of Honour game. But they can try to take the fanbase little by little, year by year. If it gains momentum it could happen over a small amount of time, but it still won't happen with Battlefield 3.
First step though, create a good game. From what I've seen so far I'm impressed. I'll no doubt be getting it.
conceptwhite_fox on 9 Jun '11 said:
SpandexArmstrong on 9 Jun '11 said:
I think all this Battlefield hype is funny. You are all judging it by its visuals, which look amazing....but after watching gameplay videos its clear that its the same old army man fps crap we've been playing for years.
To me, the only differences between BF3 & MW3 are the pretty graphics & destructable environments.
Im a gamer, I like to play. Graphics arent everything.
let the hate commence;)
agrand on 9 Jun '11 said:
Why would you change what isn't broken? If you keep building on something successful, you can achieve more and more success!
kellyted27 on 9 Jun '11 said:
Call me crazy, but I don't think these two are in direct competition. Just becase you buy one doesn't mean you won't by the other. And with these games already having established fan bases, MW isn't going to steal from COD just because it's coming out earlier.
asparky59 on 10 Jun '11 said:
I, for one, will play the crap out of both. I, for one, believe that they will both be out of this world and will take years off of my life. Thank you, gaming big wigs, for trying to best one another.
wasted-again on 10 Jun '11 said:
BF3 is looking more and more like a COD game all the time. And what's funny is, the COD haters can't see it.
NickBella99 on 13 Jun '11 said:
I'll probably buy both, but I'll get MW3 first because I'm much more excited for that. It's been the better game all along, so I'm sticking with that until Battlefield proves me wrong.
OscarG49 on 14 Jun '11 said:
All I know is, I can't wait to blow the crap out of New York. That E3 footage looked amazing!