Analyst: No Prayer that Battlefield 3 will top the next Call of Duty
By Rothtana Ouch
EA’s Battlefield 3, looks to be a different animal than DICE’s previous efforts in the Battlefield: Bad Company series. With new technology running underneath Battlefield 3‘s veins, it would be difficult not seeing the latest sequel as being DICE’s attempt to dethrone Activision’s Call of Duty.
But, Wedbush analyst Michael Patcher told IndustryGamers to not get gamers hopes up just yet.
“There is no prayer that Battlefield 3 will top the next Call of Duty, silly question,” said Patcher. “EA is trying to gain share incrementally, and I’m sure that if it is a great game, Battlefield 3 will sell 25 – 35% more copies than the last version. It would have to sell around 300% more than the last version to topple Call of Duty.”
That is a sobering figure which should remind readers that Call of Duty is the highest selling US game of all time. It’s an incredible feat to reach that status and one title, no matter how well produced could hope to surmount a series that spreads across PS3, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS and Wii.
“The question you didn’t ask is whether Battlefield 3 will take share; based upon the growing installed base of CoD multiplayer players, it’s possible that BOTH games will see higher sales in 2011, so I wonder whether EA will actually “take” share,” he continued.
One last bit of advice Patcher imparted during the interview concerned THQ’s Homefront.
“Nobody would argue that spending $50 million on the next Call of Duty or GTA was worth it,” said Patcher. “It is far more risky for THQ to spend that kind of money on an unproven concept like Homefront, and given the barely average review scores, it doesn’t appear that they made a good decision.”
There you have it. Battlefield 3 might take market share away from Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 poses a better financial investment for EA than Homefront for THQ. But, if Call of Duty is the biggest series ever then clearly that is what gamers want. What people want is what sells.
Screens
Are you looking forward to another Call Of Duty sequel or Battlefield 3?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:48PM
This guy is obviously a nuttjob. Regardless of sales, CoD sucks. BIG TIME.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:08PM
i loved call of duty 4 and mw 2 but black ops was a terrible game imo…the multiplayer maps were awful and the spawn system was just plain wrong…the gameplay is stale now aswell and i've decided to move onto battlefield because it just looks a better gamer…i think there will be alot of people in my position and battlefield will take some market share…shame that most people are clueless and will just buy the next thing with call of duty on the box :L
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:55PM
It doesn't matter to me which one sells more copies. Battlefield III won't sell more copies than COD, but it will be a much better and funner game than any COD game released thus far.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 4:41PM
It doesn't matter if Battlefield 3 will topple Call of Duty, it's not intended to. Call of Duty will most likely sell more copies, but Battlefield will continue to be the all-around better game.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:15PM
I would agree that it will be difficult for Battlefield 3 to topple Call of Duty with this installment. I think what will end up happening is that fans of the CoD franchise will pick up BF3 due to the good things they hear about it (assuming its good). They will compare it to the new CoD when it comes out and find out that BF3 is, overall, a better game due to the longer development time, better engine technology, and higher production values. The issue comes when EA/DICE doesn't release Battlefield 4 in the same time frame that Activision launches the Call of Duty 9: Modern Warfare 4 (or whatever it may be).
The main reason Call of Duty has become so insanely popular is because reliably good quality installments are released like clockwork every November. It's easy to pick up new players when the games are released frequently and have very similar mechanics. Split-screen is also a huge factor when it comes to getting friends hooked on a game.
Basically, I can go to a friends house and play a lot of CoD4, then purchase Black Ops, a newer game by 3 full installments, and have essentially the same experience just with upgraded graphics and a few gameplay tweaks. Try doing that with almost any two Battlefield installments and you'll be in for a substantial learning curve. The Battlefield series has always involved a bit more learning curve plus its lack of split-screen support.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:23PM
im not looking for battlefield 3 to outsell call of duty. Frankly, i would like call of duty to remain the top sellling game for as long as possible. Too many people on cod mp are obnoxious 12 year olds who sing into their mics all the time, call of duty is like a lighting rod, attracting the majority of the douchebages, while leaving considerably less douchebags to battlefield. Also, so long as EA remains 2nd in terms of sales, they will keep striving and innovating, and hopefully never get stale like call of duty.
To me, COD is dead. I dont give a f*uck if IGN gives MW3 a 10.5/10, saying its the "best game ever made," (because it is unheard of for IGN to ever give a cod game a bad rating), or if 100 million idiots buy it on the first day and do nothing but rave about it for the next year. I will know better. And i will keep blasting huge holes in buildings while suicide bombing with jets covered in c4.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:04PM
very true call of duty is a great game but battlefield has different tactics i find myself actually pissed when i lose in battlefield i fight more for the win then for the kills. you work more as a team as well. whereas call of duty was fast paced bad sound affects glitch filled and just plain repetitive. even though i was on the team i felt like i was by myself. it depends what you want … tactical team based or point based fast pace
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:53PM
battlefield is just a more realistic and action packed game than call o duty … Come on ! Cod4 was the only game to hold the name of call of duty. If it wasn t for the 12 years old and under, for sure battlefield will win the battle of best FPS
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 8:50PM
I agree with Matt, Black Ops is a poor excuse for a Call of Duty, about as good Treyarch's last game "World of War" which was a steaming pile of you know what. Modern Warfare 2 was the best so far but now everyone has moved to black ops there is is not much happening anymore.
Me and all my friends will be moving to Battlefield 3 once its released and only be buying the next call of duty if it is produced by Infinity Ward or the new company the head designer and engineer form as they both have left Infinity Ward, probably sick of Activision, no suprised
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:58PM
Nice to see another pathetic hipster imparting us with his important opinion. Seriously, go outside and take off that silly ass hat.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:21PM
@Matt Palmer. Actually I quite enjoyed Black Ops, it's actually my main Call of Duty title. But I am definitely looking at Battlefield 3 to deliver bigger levels and a different take on multiplayer. There's certainly a market for other FPS besides Call of Duty. Bullestorm turned out great.
Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:59AM
totally agree with matt. cod is boring now i cant wait for bf3 looks amazing its a shame all the sheep keep going to back to the same game year after year,but looking at bf3 its looks set to change alot of minds for the future.im hoping more people will get there friends to try this one and ditch the cod franchise.
Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:41AM
Whether you are a fan of the Battlefield series or a loyal Call of Duty player, everyone should still join together on all around FPS fun. We have become almost politically separated – almost fighting – about a BF fan vs. a COD fan. It's not about fans becoming characterized into a pool of BF vs COD. All First Person Shooter fans should unite in rewarding developers who create an amazing game. However, I must concede; COD fans have been rewarding historical hype, rather than rewarding artistic innovation and engineering. BF3 doesn't need to take the crown in terms of more sales. No fan cares about that. But if you are truly an FPS fan (regardless of your liking to COD or BF) then you must admit that DICE is definitely the true FPS artist.
Friday, March 25, 2011 7:53PM
COD black ops was a great game for the first 3 weeks. Then it started to get old. Once i had memorized every map and had mastered every gun, it became monotonous. It annoys me to hell that the game was ported to PC. I can't believe we just had the maps available and are expected to pay $13 for them. How hard is it to create a new map? This is just treyarch milking money and they won't get any of mine. When battlefield 3 comes out with 64 players on a small map and COD players see the true carnage and fun that is possible with that amount of players, they will know how inferior consoles are. There won't be a new console until 2014 minimum, and by then they will already be 8 years old. You can't expect leading edge games to be running on such inferior hardware. The future is and always has been in PC games; especially for games like battlefield where numerous different controls for vehicles, on foot, on air, is better suited to mouse and board. The fact that consoles on battlefield 3 can only support a measly 24 players with cut out maps shows how weak consoles truly are. and that will be with subliminal AA, AS and medium graphics.
Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:56PM
From what I have read about the Battlefield gaming series and my experience with MOH-Tier 1, the multiplayer mode is what is (likely) going to make or break this game. I don't have a doubt, based on the videos and my experience with MOH-Tier 1 that the single player mode will be as authentic and awesome as it looks, however I'm not sure how they're going to make a better online multiplayer gaming experience than COD. I say, you can't beat 'em don't try, join 'em, just make some modifications.
In the multiplayer mode for MOH-Tier 1, you didn't have adjustable perks for the classes like COD, but rather you could make adjustments to your guns. When you really think about it, it's more like reality than not, and COD's multiplayer experience is actually pretty silly. To have UNREALISTIC perks that give you a tactical advantage over your opponent as if these things actually occur in reality is just plain silly. In some cases it is plausible, for example I could very well learn to reload my weapon faster or could have practiced aiming down my sites quicker than my opponent (enemy), but in other cases it is an outright stretch of the imagination; for example to fall from high buildings and take no damage, or to run and jump around without making any noise. In other cases it is simply stupid (so I can only pick up supplies and ammo from dead enemies as long as I have the scavenger perk, or I can only use more than one weapon attachment if I have the warlord perk). And then there is the outright fake (never run out of breath when running, or the classic last stand ability to subsequently pull out a gun on the ground after being shot in the head point blank, then being revived by a magic needle-no bullet hole, no blood, everything as good as new).
Notwithstanding, these adjustments and the run-and-gun style of game play are far more exciting to most people in the gaming world. I for one played MOH-Tier 1's online mode for maybe 3 total hours since the day it released, it just does not hold a candle to COD's multiplayer mode. The Battlefield (or DICE) series of games seems to favor reality and working as a team over superhuman qualities and running around racking up a bunch of kills. There is actually a tactical advantage to working together as a team, even in the COD multiplayer gaming. Despite DICE's best efforts, many COD fans may not like Battlefield 3's online experience. If I could make a suggestions I'd stick to what works, but rid the game of all the out of reality perks, which truly only give you a slight competitive advantage anyhow, and replace them with in game effects/consequences (i.e. similar to COD if I carry more weapons or heavier weapons, then I am slower; I will switch to a side arm faster than a secondary rifle, however I can carry both a secondary rifle and a side arm if I chose, with as many attachments that can realistically be on a single weapon; I would be able to pick up ammo and claymores from dead bodies, but it requires me to focus my vision on the ground and leaves me vulnerable for a few seconds, otherwise similar to MOH's single player game, I'd have to request it from my teammates. Finally, if I take fire, I may be able to fight on, but my vision is blurred, and depending on the body part hit there are other in game effects like my balance being off because I'm shot in the shoulder and I'm leaning which further effects my ability to aim, or I can no longer run because I'm shot in the leg; and there is absolutely no last stand, specifically for any explosives, vital organ, or head shots. Then you force people to make their purchasing decisions based on the campaign mode of the games.
That's my three cents, and yes I'm on the official marketing committee for this game. I guess I really hope this game succeeds because I favor reality over run-and-gun. This is probably in part due to my experience with tactical shooter games (ex. Rainbow Six, SWAT, and SOCOM) prior to first person shooters (Golden Eye,Half-Life, Halo, or COD). But most people are right when they say the funner games always win. I suppose the key is to make a game that best combines the elements of both.
Just to think there are plans to make a MOH-Tier 1 part II.