Sales of Call of Duty are disappointing.

4.6
Sales of Black Ops 2 are currently looking to be down 15 percent on last years launch of Modern Warfare 3. Which itself was down 5 percent on the previous years Black Ops launch. This is despite it's incredible $500 Million first day sales.

Analysts are calling this trend “a cause for concern” for Activision-Blizzard as the Call of Duty franchise is responsible of 45% of Activision's earnings.

Players and reviewers have become increasingly complacent regarding the latest Call of Duty releases, going so far as to call Treyarch and Infinity Ward, lazy. Shorter single player campaigns and the same old game engine being the most common complaints.


David Vondehaar recently had to defend the use of an ancient (in gaming years) gaming engine. “Anybody who comes at the engine needs to remember it's the 60 frames they love in the first place," he asserted. "And we can make it beautiful - that's through years and years of working with the engine, improving upon it and improving the pipeline and improving our approach, our lighting rendering.”

"People like to talk about the engine, but the truth of the matter is that this isn't like something that was invented six years ago. At this point that engine doesn't resemble anything like any engine - we've ripped out the UI system, the rendering and the lighting are all new, the core gameplay systems are all new.”

Posted:
Related Forum: PlayStation Forum

Related Articles

Comments

"Sales of Call of Duty are disappointing." :: Login/Create an Account :: 149 comments

If you would like to post a comment please signin to your account or register for an account.

yo2434Posted:

Mimz
yo2434
DrRageface
tport
DGR21 The problem is they release a new game every single year. If it was 2-3 years between each game it wouldn't feel like their stuffing it down our throats and they might actually have time to improve it instead of a few minor tweaks. I mean com'on, since '09 it literally has been the exact same game with a different skin. If they are smart they would wait tell next gen consoles to release another, but sadley that ain't going to happen.



I agree it is becoming old but the fact of the matter is every studio is given two years, because they go IW then 3arc but in a way it is the same game all together. I feel though there is two studios with a big name backed up behind them that use the same engine in different ways and still look new and different from each other every time ie. the Frostbite engine, the studios being Danger Close and Dice. Now if each call of duty was different like these two games it might be able to catch on to the community but thats the hard part how do you change a call of duty to not be like a call of duty I mean treyarch adds zombies while IW focuses more attention on the mulitplayer.


What would be perfect imo is if both studio's worked on one game. Let IW do the multiplayer, TreyA do Zombies, and both work on campaign. But probably never going to happen.


or go a step further and let each studio focus even more attention to detail and have sledgehammer/raven down make the campaign and have treyarch do zombies and maybe another side mode they could think of, and have iw do multiplayer.if they could focus all their time into one part and had 3 amazing parts verses usually only 1 good/okay part.


I love this idea! The problem is, IW are starting to make worse and worse games. I never liked 3arc's games, but this game is a lot more balanced then the previous ones.
So if we have IW focus on multiplayer, I'm afraid for the game series itself.

Maybe if they had a studio focus on Campaign solely and 3arc made Zombies while IW made something else, IW, 3arc and the other studios can all work on multiplayer!
This would add the feel of every studios greatness with new innovations.

Release every game 2/3 years apart, at least we could get more of a sense of the game being amazing because they had so much time.
PLEASE make an OPEN BETA so everyone could at least find glitches and break the system before it's released, and they can patch it.


im in the same boat about not caring for treyarchs games(i dont like any campagins,idc for zombies,all i care for is multiplayer and they just dont do it for me) and i agree iw is going down.i'd attribute that to them losing zampella and west and the other employees,and iw losing them i believe was the reason sledgehammer came to help with mw3.if you are similar to me and like iw then i would suggest keeping your eye on respawn entertainment,which is where a lot of ex-iw employees went to.

byLeonPosted:

Well activision when you make you games seem effort less i mean what do you expect? a good job. the only good COD games were mw2 cod4 and thats it. besides that every game since then it seems like you guys do not listen to the community as a whole.

StarifyPosted:

People are starting to run away from the series.

BashfulPosted:

yo2434
DrRageface
tport
DGR21 The problem is they release a new game every single year. If it was 2-3 years between each game it wouldn't feel like their stuffing it down our throats and they might actually have time to improve it instead of a few minor tweaks. I mean com'on, since '09 it literally has been the exact same game with a different skin. If they are smart they would wait tell next gen consoles to release another, but sadley that ain't going to happen.



I agree it is becoming old but the fact of the matter is every studio is given two years, because they go IW then 3arc but in a way it is the same game all together. I feel though there is two studios with a big name backed up behind them that use the same engine in different ways and still look new and different from each other every time ie. the Frostbite engine, the studios being Danger Close and Dice. Now if each call of duty was different like these two games it might be able to catch on to the community but thats the hard part how do you change a call of duty to not be like a call of duty I mean treyarch adds zombies while IW focuses more attention on the mulitplayer.


What would be perfect imo is if both studio's worked on one game. Let IW do the multiplayer, TreyA do Zombies, and both work on campaign. But probably never going to happen.


or go a step further and let each studio focus even more attention to detail and have sledgehammer/raven down make the campaign and have treyarch do zombies and maybe another side mode they could think of, and have iw do multiplayer.if they could focus all their time into one part and had 3 amazing parts verses usually only 1 good/okay part.


I love this idea! The problem is, IW are starting to make worse and worse games. I never liked 3arc's games, but this game is a lot more balanced then the previous ones.
So if we have IW focus on multiplayer, I'm afraid for the game series itself.

Maybe if they had a studio focus on Campaign solely and 3arc made Zombies while IW made something else, IW, 3arc and the other studios can all work on multiplayer!
This would add the feel of every studios greatness with new innovations.

Release every game 2/3 years apart, at least we could get more of a sense of the game being amazing because they had so much time.
PLEASE make an OPEN BETA so everyone could at least find glitches and break the system before it's released, and they can patch it.

-Tacodevil-Posted:

Lazy my butt, Treyarch wanted to give players a choice by adding different endings in BO 2. The players shouldn't be disappointed with the game or call the developers lazy they work everyday, if the players have something against it then they should develop their own game that gives them their own satisfaction lol. It's not fair that players talk trash to the developers after all the hard work developing the next big game. They have a hard time as it is trying to sync everything up perfectly with the whole story-line and a good even environment for both players to shoot it out.

yo2434Posted:

DrRageface
tport
DGR21 The problem is they release a new game every single year. If it was 2-3 years between each game it wouldn't feel like their stuffing it down our throats and they might actually have time to improve it instead of a few minor tweaks. I mean com'on, since '09 it literally has been the exact same game with a different skin. If they are smart they would wait tell next gen consoles to release another, but sadley that ain't going to happen.



I agree it is becoming old but the fact of the matter is every studio is given two years, because they go IW then 3arc but in a way it is the same game all together. I feel though there is two studios with a big name backed up behind them that use the same engine in different ways and still look new and different from each other every time ie. the Frostbite engine, the studios being Danger Close and Dice. Now if each call of duty was different like these two games it might be able to catch on to the community but thats the hard part how do you change a call of duty to not be like a call of duty I mean treyarch adds zombies while IW focuses more attention on the mulitplayer.


What would be perfect imo is if both studio's worked on one game. Let IW do the multiplayer, TreyA do Zombies, and both work on campaign. But probably never going to happen.


or go a step further and let each studio focus even more attention to detail and have sledgehammer/raven down make the campaign and have treyarch do zombies and maybe another side mode they could think of, and have iw do multiplayer.if they could focus all their time into one part and had 3 amazing parts verses usually only 1 good/okay part.

DrRagefacePosted:

tport
DGR21 The problem is they release a new game every single year. If it was 2-3 years between each game it wouldn't feel like their stuffing it down our throats and they might actually have time to improve it instead of a few minor tweaks. I mean com'on, since '09 it literally has been the exact same game with a different skin. If they are smart they would wait tell next gen consoles to release another, but sadley that ain't going to happen.



I agree it is becoming old but the fact of the matter is every studio is given two years, because they go IW then 3arc but in a way it is the same game all together. I feel though there is two studios with a big name backed up behind them that use the same engine in different ways and still look new and different from each other every time ie. the Frostbite engine, the studios being Danger Close and Dice. Now if each call of duty was different like these two games it might be able to catch on to the community but thats the hard part how do you change a call of duty to not be like a call of duty I mean treyarch adds zombies while IW focuses more attention on the mulitplayer.


What would be perfect imo is if both studio's worked on one game. Let IW do the multiplayer, TreyA do Zombies, and both work on campaign. But probably never going to happen.

HumanPosted:

I agree with the other guy on the annual release. When you release it annually it makes it run out of steam a lot quicker.

yo2434Posted:

TalentFX
Subsko It feels as if they are releasing these games, just for the money and the producers are not putting 110% effort into the game, and the gamer's feedback. I'm sure people do enjoy the new Black Ops 2, and Modern Warfare 3, but I feel that games such as 'Battlefield' produce and release their games with alot more thought and consideration towards the gaming community. I feel as if Call Of Duty has lacked certain points and have increased the upon weaker and less popular characteristics. Let's hope the next one has alot more of what the gaming community prefer.


i agree and disagree with this. mw3 seemed to be exactly what you were talking about. it seemed almost as if the developers put no effort into making it different than any of the other previous CoDs. BO2 on the other hand seems to me that it had a lot more effort put into it. there are so many things new to that haven't been seen in any CoD including Campaign, Multiplayer, and Zombies. Treyarch seemed to really try to include the communitys opinions while making their game. Infinity Ward sadly just doesnt seem to show as much effort in creating their new games every year as they all seem to be photo copies of one another with minor changes.


you're probably right, iw probably didn't work too hard.but remember most of their top employees left b4 mw3.if you were a company and lost all your talented employees then you would struggle to make anything truly great or exciting.ps. personally idc if there was lots of effort if i don't like the game,i just don't care for bo2,although i feel it is better than bo1.ill probably stick to iw at least till respawn entertainment(the company started from the ex-head iw employees mostly) start to release games.

SnagPosted:

Subsko It feels as if they are releasing these games, just for the money and the producers are not putting 110% effort into the game, and the gamer's feedback. I'm sure people do enjoy the new Black Ops 2, and Modern Warfare 3, but I feel that games such as 'Battlefield' produce and release their games with alot more thought and consideration towards the gaming community. I feel as if Call Of Duty has lacked certain points and have increased the upon weaker and less popular characteristics. Let's hope the next one has alot more of what the gaming community prefer.


i agree and disagree with this. mw3 seemed to be exactly what you were talking about. it seemed almost as if the developers put no effort into making it different than any of the other previous CoDs. BO2 on the other hand seems to me that it had a lot more effort put into it. there are so many things new to that haven't been seen in any CoD including Campaign, Multiplayer, and Zombies. Treyarch seemed to really try to include the communitys opinions while making their game. Infinity Ward sadly just doesnt seem to show as much effort in creating their new games every year as they all seem to be photo copies of one another with minor changes.


Latest Downloads

Latest Tutorials