Call of Duty: Ghosts sales lower than Activision's reduced expectations, says analyst
Activision warned investors that it expected lower year-over-year sales of Call of Duty this year, but an analyst says the sales may be flagging even more than projected.
Call of Duty: Ghosts took the top software sales in November, but it was mostly competing with games that had already launched in prior months. Activision's expected sales boast was more tempered this year as well, having to compete against the likes of Grand Theft Auto 5. While the publisher had warned of lower numbers this year, sales may be even lower than expected.
VentureBeat reports that Ghost sales marked a 19% year-over-year decrease from Black Ops 2. Activision told investors that they expected some drop while players hold off to transition to new consoles, but Cowen analyst Doug Creutz says the picture is more serious than the warnings suggested. He says that the difference worth noting is the release dates, as Ghosts had more days on the market but still suffered its slump.
"Upon further reflection, we think the [Call of Duty] numbers are a bit more troubling than they first appeared," Creutz wrote in a note to investors. "While the year-over-year gap is only 19 percent thus far, that includes two extra weeks of sales for the 360 and PS3 versions [of Black Ops II]. Against 2011's [Modern Warfare 3], where the difference is only one week, the title is down 32 percent life-to-date. We don't think it is out of the question that the title could wind up comparing down 20 percent to 25 percent year-over-year [to Black Ops II], which is appreciably worse than the down 10 to 15 percent that we think is baked in to guidance."
-
Steve Watts posted a new article, Call of Duty: Ghosts sales lower than Activision's reduced expectations, says analyst.
Activision warned investors that it expected lower year-over-year sales of Call of Duty this year, but an analyst says the sales may be flagging even more than projected.-
-
-
They Treyarch games are crap. Look at the proportion of people who completed the campaign:
Modern Warfare 2: 58.0%
Modern Warfare 3: 57.2%
Black Ops: 47.8%
Black Ops 2: 36.7%
There are no Steam achievements for Modern Warfare or World at War, but given how utterly dismal World at War was I suspect they'd show a similar pattern.
The Treyarch games have all sorts of problems:
-Total lack of variety in the levels.
-Regular use of infinitely spawning enemies.
-Poor level design where you die five times before you work out what you're supposed to do.
-Grenade spam (mostly in Word at War).
I wonder how many people who completed the Treyarch games actually enjoyed them. I finished all of the campaigns, but I didn't find any of them to be enjoyable. From the percentages above it seems a lot more people give up before even reaching the end.
The Treyarch games simply aren't very good, and after three band games in a row I won't be bothering with next year's game at all.-
BLOPS2 is going to be better received and remembered than ghosts. WaW is seen as one of the better cod multiplayers and so was blops1. Mw3 is viewed as the poorest entry in the series and I think the same lukewarm or low opinion will be said of ghosts so treyarch's rep has been on the rise and infinity ward's on the fall. Interestingly, mw3 and ghosts were produced by the new infinity ward after Vince and zampella were dismissed soon after mw2's release and many of infinity ward's top people followed them. I do not think that is a coincidence. The talent remaining at infinity ward is a shell of the team that made mw1 and mw2. Treyarch is the lead cod developer now.
-
-
I think the last IW game I really liked the multiplayer in was CoD4 (which was my favorite in the series...never played CoD1 and CoD2 came out when I couldn't care less about WW2 FPS games, so I didn't really care much about it). MW2 never worked quite right for me with the whole listen-server setup. Ghosts is a step in the right direction on that front as you actually have dedicated servers behind the scenes and even MW3 seemed to be a more competent implementation of the listen-server so that it wasn't as laggy I found. But they still weren't that interesting to me...they had capped FOVs and they took out things like diving to prone that the Treyarch games had that made them a little more fun and crazy.
-
-
-
Yup. They should go to every other year and put one of the teams on something new (I'm sure they'd be happy to get a break from CoD).
Honestly, if they are running things correctly they still shouldn't be disappointed with the sales because they are probably still making a killing compared to almost every game out there. Let Treyarch do their Call of Duty game and then take a break. Adjust the budget and projections accordingly knowing they might not get as much sales as the previous Treyarch CoD (but still make tons of money) and then put Treyarch on a new WWII CoD game and give them as much time as they need. Give them 3 years if they need! People will be ready for it when it comes. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Battlefield pre-dates it. Even the early Call of Duty games had tanks. If you are designing FPS games, maps, and modes with vehicles in mind, they're fine. The worst thing to ever happen to shooters? Hardly.
Besides, UT2K's were mainly restricted to Onslaught mode that would be terrible without them. It was built specifically for vehicles, and for some people that was their favorite part of the game. And there were still plenty of non-vehicle standard DM and CTF type maps and modes. Something for everyone.
I'm not saying Ghosts should have vehicles, or any game should for that matter, but I am saying you're an idiot for a statement like it's the worst thing to happen to shooters. But hey, that's just your preference. I would have missed out on some amazing games if that were my stance.-
I think Tribes, as in Starsiege Tribes had vehicles and came out in 1998. Battlefield 1942 was in 2002. Admittedly though, the vehicles in Tribes were a scout, a light transport and a heavy transport (though the light transport might have been from a mod) and all were aircraft, so 1942 might really be the first game that had a variety of vehicles in it that was also a shooter.
I'm trying to think if there were any other games that added vehicles to the multiplayer mix prior to that though, or in the same timeframe.
-
-
-
It was UT2004. I like Onslaught with vehicles, but it needs a correctly balanced map and good team coordination to be fun.
UT2003 had a drivable vehicle, but it was just a test vehicle (bulldog) on a test map, which you had to load using console commands, and it wasn't balanced for gameplay.
My favorite Call of Duty vehicle moments were the tanks in the CoD1 Eastern Front campaign (because you had independent axis and tread control; CoD2 onward ruined that by forcing the tank to rotate Halo-style toward the direction the turret was facing), as well as the passenger seat sequence in CoD1's Ste Mère Eglise campaign, and the AC-140 sequence in CoD4 (which were essentially rail-shooter turret sequences, and got old after 10 times... but the first 10 times were pretty damn fun.)
-
-
-
-
-
There it is; Peak CallaDuty.
I do want to see another Call of Duty game, but I remember back when it was an homage to actual World War II campaigns, not the Hollywood fantasy of Jesse Stern or Stephen Gaghan. But if Activision's chasing volume, and their double-down bet failed this time, are they going to throw a tantrum like they did with Guitar Hero? Or start the retailmium (sorry, gotta use that horrible term) multiplayer-only title with no campaign, and kill off the 360 / PS3 SKUs because they're not conducive to ongoing freemium updates? -
haven't played it yet, but only a few on my steam list have ever played. it seems quite lackluster in terms of PC gamer response.
I hope they really refocus on SP and co-op. their MP/DM stuff seems like it's tapped out.
It was so hard to pass up on this, knowing I can't tolerate any running/jumping/akimbo bullshit any longer. -
-
-
-
Jeff Gerstmann was talking about the "Madden '06 Factor" when he talked about his review on the Bombcast, how on playing the new 360 Madden, it seemed as though EA Sports put far more effort in getting the fundamentals working on the new console, than in building any truly new innovative features. And to him, it seemed a lot like that in CoD:Ghosts.
-
-
I think the key is, in terms of production on the next game, what does Infinity Ward do now? Reviewers ridiculed Stephen Gaghan's writing work probably a little worse than Jesse Stern's in the past three IW games. The dog mechanic was panned as a reveal marketing gimmick. I kept seeing MP reviewers said they'd rather be playing BLOPS2.
If the sales really are down 20%, then doubling down on the same formula would be a recipe for continued decline. They're probably going to make some moves, some of which won't make the returning fans happy.-
-
I think that's okay, but what I'm afraid of is that Infinity Ward already set up a "Ghosts 2" with this same cast of characters, same writer, same "War in the United States is SUPER-FUCKING-SUBVERSIVE!!!" attitude (which conveniently ignores that MW2, and other FPS games following MW2 and aping MW2, already did this), and they'll throw in more mini-game gimmicks to ultimately act as corridors and roller-coaster turret sequences.
-
-
-
-
-
-
MP is awesome and very high quality, SP is fine but could be better. My beef with SP is the arbitrary limits the game places on your movement during scripted sequences at the beginning of each level. i.e. why is it that sometimes you can't run, or squat, or why are your movement different at different moments?
They just need to clean that up a bit and make it consistent. It sort of bugs the OCD/perfectionist part of me.
I think another hit in sales came from mass negative reviews from long-time BO2 players. Two issues with that:
1) They were comparing a fully patched/mature game to a newly released game.
2) Play styles are completely different and requires getting used to. BO2 is more closed in and short range, Ghosts is more wide open and long range. I don't think the negative reviewers took that into account. -
Heh; back when it launched, Doug Creutz said that CoD:Ghosts sales would be impacted by reviews: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/creutz-mediocre-cod-ghosts-scores-won-t-enormously-impact-sales/0123825
"By and large, most titles' commercial fates are decided well before the first review comes out,” he said, as reported by CVG. “Otherwise, we would not be able to use pre-launch data from Amazon and predict actual sales with a fair degree of accuracy.
"We think COD has become such an embedded franchise that it is somewhat review-proof. We think of COD as being like EA's Madden NFL, which continues to sell similar unit numbers year in and year out, regardless of reviews; Madden's Metacritic has ranged as low as 78 in recent years.
"Ultimately, we don't think that sales of this year's [COD] title will be impacted enormously by these reviews.”
That was back on November 6th.-
..er, said that sales WOULDN'T be impacted by reviews. Of course, that's back before any of the NPD numbers or other sales figures that market research firms access when they write these investment forecasts.
Creutz is usually far more grounded (and accurate) than someone like Michael Pachter; I get eager when I see Creutz's analyses, because they're usually very down-to-earth, and not buried in silly bombastic projections. -
Can anyone say for sure it was directly impacted by reviews? And not franchise fatigue or anything else, like the new consoles being out and superior and many not having them yet?
Do the die-hard Call of Duty fans care at all that their mainstay gets 1 or 2 less points on some review sites? Or are they finally getting tired of the same game after same game and realize they could be content with what they have for longer than 6 months since the last DLC they just bought for the previous one?
It's funny he invokes sports games. No one I know personally who used to buy the one sports game they were most passionate about every single year, be it PES, FIFA, Madden, Tiger Woods, etc does so anymore. I have to imagine anyone playing the same thing slightly tweaked again and again is going to tire it as some of us have, but I know that's not true. I just know I can't take Call of Duty every year, I wouldn't be able to handle Battlefield every year either. Or a new Quake. Halo. Forza. Peggle. Anything, really. It's insane to me how many people can and do.
-
-