Call of Duty's numbers are unholy. It sold over two million copies of Modern Warfare in month one, more than five and a half million Black Ops on day one. It's the billion dollar franchise - literally - with a stranglehold on the entire shooter genre.
It is, to quote Activision CEO Eric Hirshberg from a leaked memo, 'perhaps the stickiest game of all time' - an online phenomenon that made XP, Killstreaks and Perks part of our language. And it's dead. Dead on its feet and about to fall.
Activision know it, we know it, and if they don't act now to restart its heart... it's over. 'Isn't Call of Duty today just like Guitar Hero was a few years back?', asks Hirshberg in the same memo, in an attempt to recognise - and dispell - growing dissent. However, the User ratings on Metacritic have plummeted from 8.9 for Modern Warfare to a wretched 5.8 for both MW2 and Black Ops.
Activision's series has the 'network effect', so sales are driven by friends keeping up with friends. This means lag between people tiring of CoD and actually stopping buying it. A collapse could be years away, but it is coming, and CoD's enemies are not sitting around waiting.
After wresting the critical high ground from Konami's Pro Evolution Soccer with its FIFA games, EA knows how to fight a war of attrition - and how to win it. It's about matching your foe's every move, reducing its ability to innovate, turning its dominance into stalemate and - eventually - defeat. So this fight's about a lot more than just Battlefield 3 and MW3.
We're seeing the early skirmishes already, starting with the defection of CoD creators Vince Zampella and Jason West (plus many more from Infinity Ward) from Activision to the EA-funded Respawn.
So what weapons do EA wield besides Battlefield? There's Respawn's first game, which we know is a sci-fi shooter - perfectly placed to compete with Sledgehammer's rumoured Call of Duty: Future Warfare. With almost 40 key staff defecting from Infinity Ward, EA can happily market this as 'the new game from the creators of CoD'.
We also know that Battlefield-maker DICE has the best tech. Its sparkly new Frostbite 2.0 engine is built for the future, while Infinity Ward's tech - extended, shored up and repainted many times in the 12 years since its debut in Quake III Arena - is long overdue for demolition.
Battlefield, on the other hand - a sophisticated class-based shooter with stunning looks - stands ready to steal players graduating from CoD's hamster wheel of headshots and unlocks. What can Activision do? It's already given EA a taste of its own staff-stealing medicine - Sledgehammer is led by Glen Schofield and Michael Condrey, the men behind EA's surprise horror smash, Dead Space.
And there's Elite, of course, the subscriber service designed to 'enrich' CoD's multiplayer with premium features such as stat tracking and DLC access, something that should drive investments in time as well as cash. Analysts estimate revenues up to $200 per gamer for each future CoD - anyone switching to Battlefield or MoH would be throwing that money away. It's the loyalty card to end them all. But none of Activision's manoeuvres address the real issue. The Call of Duty template is stone dead on its feet, and a few extra CCs of set-piece adrenaline can only keep it twitching for so long. What it needs now is a massive shock to its heart: the shock of fundamental change.
Order PSM3 here and have it delivered straight to your door
Comments
26 comments so far...
MANYOO4EVA on 28 Jul '11 said:
Just DIE!!!!!!!!!!
bubblyofart on 28 Jul '11 said:
a good article, noticably unbiased - and one with which i completely agree with.
It's not so much that COD sucks, its simply that Activision are falling behind the times. The engine needs a major overhaul to compete with Frostbite 2, the gameplay doesn't quite need a revolution just more evolution, and for the developers to realise they are just churning out the same stuff year in year out - like EA once did!
As mentioned in the article, EA used to do the same with their FIFA series, each new game was simply the same old thing with a few new updates (if that). It wasn't until they realised that people were defecting to Pro Evo that EA decided to do something about it and though it took several years FIFA is now the premium football game (not including Football Manager) and Pro Evo is left stagnating.
So after MW3, Activision and Infinity Ward seriously need to consider an overhaul, cause sooner or later they're going to be left floundering and they'll be no way back.
damoxuk on 28 Jul '11 said:
OMG jsut read the article and realised yet again it's another copy and paste from the new psm3. Not read the mag yet but going of all these articles may as well not bother buying it.
anyway good article. I'll end up buying both playing cod for the single player and BF3 for MP (prefer team based objective to deathmatch Zzz a thon).
gmcb007 on 28 Jul '11 said:
A very good article from PSM3 I must say. It's nice to see an unbiased article about COD, although that won't stop the usual fannyboys complaining about it.
Joe90_Remy700 on 29 Jul '11 said:
good article, and so true. there seems to be so much backing for battlfield 3 not just from the communities but from the magazines too, which is refreshing. my only concern is there could be alot of the immature CoD fanbase moving over to battlefiled and harming an otherwise great community (you know the ones - 12 year old screaming american kids that come on after their school finishes, which is around the time the more mature europeans play in the evenings)
rogueybear on 29 Jul '11 said:
"call of duty evolves into... charizard"
OracleOfPokemon on 29 Jul '11 said:
I hate CoD. it's so boring. metroid is sooooooo much better.
Barca Azul on 29 Jul '11 said:
It is a good read, I think it has to try to recapture what made CoD 4 so good.
MW2 was really over hyped for me. The speedboat and jet ski levels were really poor.
impaler8889919 on 29 Jul '11 said:
I agree with the artical but the thing is people like to see things fail like they say COD is doing, i dont think is falling behind, just EA has stepped up a gear!! you cant tell me that Cod hasnt left you entertained for the past 6 years, When they released medal of honour i still bought it, but its just like cheating having a fling,untill the new COD comes out, and with battlefield coming first i will still buy it then buy MW3 then decide which one is better! I want to see the killstreak Nuke back in MW3 because it gives you the aim to play for it! new guns an killstreaks added into DLC, Fact still remains its going to be 2 great games and they should both get credit!!! So F**K you all who hates one or the other your just cheap skates
IbanezLewis on 29 Jul '11 said:
What a well-rounded comment. Keep up the good work.
Lurf on 29 Jul '11 said:
Die please.
KK-Headcharge78 on 29 Jul '11 said:
Fixed that for you mate
Very_Silver_Ownz on 29 Jul '11 said:
Funny thing is all those CoD haters will also be there on release getting MW3.
KK-Headcharge78 on 29 Jul '11 said:
It's called Party Chat. But I do agree BF has only scholars, scientisits, high court judges, men of the cloth and politicians playing it. (which is exactly why I'm so good at it)
Nimmo___007 on 29 Jul '11 said:
Excellent point couldn't of said it better myslef
Idgaf on 29 Jul '11 said:
Good article and very true. To that point, I think that is why Sledgehammer has been brought in to make a game (once they finish helping Infinity Ward on this one). Treyarch will release their next whatever version of CoD next year and Sledgehammer will release in 2013. This will buy IW the time to build a new engine for the next gen consoles and allow Activision to have its yearly release.
Whats really funny about the whole CoD success, it never would have happened without West and Zampella (spelling). There was an article just after MW was released with the pair and they talked about how they had to fight with Activision to bring it into modern times. Activision was against leaving WWII, IW won the battle and look at where the franchise is now. When you read stuff like that, you have to wonder if Activision will really allow it to change much at all. They are all about keeping things the same, and just updating the graphics and sound isn't going to breath new life into the franchise in the long run.
RetroJB on 29 Jul '11 said:
I doubt it.
I certainly won't be. Although if I get review code like with BLOPS I'll review it then give it to my nephew, who does enjoy the series.
Saves him a few quid at least.
Skywalker DSP on 29 Jul '11 said:
Isn't that the point though? CoD entertained us 6 years ago, but the problem is they're still trying to entertain in the exact same way.
MPH on 29 Jul '11 said:
I rarely say this but you're a f**king window licker if you want the Nuke back. Even if there aren't stackable killstreaks in MW3... it'll lead to people camping their asses off in objective gametypes trying to get 25 kills together to instantly end the match. Only s**tty non-objective focused players would want such an awful killstreak to return.
Back on track, this article should have been written long ago. CoD has been going downhill since they decided to milk the franchise and release yearly updates (which is pretty much from CoD3 onwards). They certainly need to create a whole new engine, not add bells and whistles to the existing one. Its frame is rusting and it'll only be so long before it caves in. They also need to think up (or steal and modify) new ideas to keep the game fresh. Personally I'd like to see the series go back to the drawing board; new engine, 3 year minimum production time, dedicated servers, etc. If Acti don't allow the devs to rethink the games the series will fail eventually. It's better to shore up the sea defences before the incoming storm surge - thereby reducing damage - than to wait until it's happened and to have a disaster on your hands.
MPH on 29 Jul '11 said:
I'll also add... some people might disagree with me on saying it's been going downhill since CoD3... but it was around that time that everything became a Michael Bay movie with regards to SP. Also, games before then survived with limited class setups, not much in the way of perks and no killstreaks in MP. Why can't we now?
Red Deer01 on 29 Jul '11 said:
Nice article. Simply because it's unbiased, its based on facts and it talks the sense alongside the truth.
Plus theres the fact CoD can only go downhill after its success, all success has a peak. For example the Wii/DS. Then you raise the expectations too high for the next iteration and it doesn't live up to it at first (the 3DS). Examples of successes going sour can be found anywhere. Unless something durastic changes (Like the 3DS price cut for example) the success will end in certain faliure at some point. This is something CoD needs to learn.
and after playing the Battlefield 3 Alpha. I seriously don't see how they can have the "Evolutionary" (or however they described this installments) multiplayer model they've previosly gloated about by using the same architecture of the last games.
Whiplash x360a on 29 Jul '11 said:
How long did it take for you to realize that CoD is being milked to death? I've known this would happen since WaW.
WHITEyy118 on 29 Jul '11 said:
Finally an article that questions COD.
All in all a very good article that speaks the truth. I mean I am 1 of those people that play it because friends do. Obviously I do enjoy playing it but in a way, depending what your friends around you are playing, game choice can get restrictive. There was an article a few days back that said how new games are struggling compared to these gaming series. All because (some) people don't like change and instead follow a gaming series. I mean it can't be because of amazing SP as like someone said above SP games are just trying to be a blockbuster movie and only last 10 hours max.
Id like to finish by saying my fav COD out of the lot was COD4. It was fresh and new but here we are 3 COD's later and it's gone stale. I'm not saying I hate COD because it can still be fun. Perks, Killstreaks etc are still a good thing to include but there needs to be a rethink like some have said. Apart from a few tweaks here and there, ever since COD4 nothing has changed. It pretty much feels like the same game just with different maps and guns, oh and the inclusion of vehicles (WaW which was a flop). At the end of the day as someone has stated it's more than likely because of Activision and their demands. Any massive change IW or Treyarch (or new developers) want to try may be shot down by Activision. At the end of the day they want sales and anything that may jeopardise that is a bad move.
cam123 on 29 Jul '11 said:
Don't blame Infinity ward/Treyarch.
Its not their fault if they only understand what copy/paste means.
cam123 on 29 Jul '11 said:
Think of Activision as a bad comedian. They always repeat the same joke - but with the COD series.
illage2 on 10 Nov '11 said:
This is an article I have to fully agree with. Call of Duty will eventually die, as people will eventually realize they are playing the same game every year with minor improvements, and will end up not bothering with it.