EA Can't Beat Call of Duty - News
by Jake Weston , posted on 03 June 2011 / 10,917 Views
Before we get into this argument, I should clarify one thing: This is not about which game will be better. This is about the numbers, and that there is simply no chance that Battlefield 3's sales will come even close to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3's, and here's why.
EA Games has made it VERY clear that they are gunning for Call of Duty's throne with Battlefield 3 , but what's surprising to me is that everyone is acting like this is a new development. EA said the exact same thing with regards to their Medal of Honor reboot, which was targeting the same market. While Medal of Honor was very successful, selling 4.4 million wordwide, it was nowhere near as critically or commercially successful as Call of Duty: Black Ops, released the same year. As it stands, Black Ops has sold over 24.6 million copies worldwide.
History shows that you don't beat out the competition by just copying them. The industry doesn't work that way. It may guarantee success in the short-run but not the long run. Remember the Tony Hawk games? How many arcade style extreme sports titles did we see during the series' prime? A lot. None of them achieved the sales Tony Hawk achieved in its heyday. Eventually, the market became oversaturated and the whole genre fell flat on itself, and no one was making money. This is prevalent outside of games as well. Look at all of the young adult fantasy novels that followed in Harry Potter's wake, failing to gain the same success. Only by separating themselves from the pack is how creators can succeed.
Hell, this is how Call of Duty gained its unprecedented success in the first place. Originally, Call of Duty was a World War II-based shooter franchise, distinguishable from its peers only by its quality, and nothing else. Ironically, the first few Call of Duty games drew heavily from both the Medal of Honor and Battlefield franchises, but Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare made itself stand out by being one of the first modern-era set shooters in a time when everyone was sick of WWII games. Not only that, but Call of Duty 4's single player was incredibly new and influential when it first came out. People like to disregard Call of Duty for just being more of the same each year, but they forget just how innovative the first Modern Warfare was. Fans came for the single-player, but stayed for the multiplayer.
Obviously, multiplayer is where Call of Duty's dominance lies, and that's why it's going to be so hard for Battlefield 3 to beat them. The fact of the matter is, the shooter genre is extremely crowded right now. While a typical new FPS will achieve some success, none of them are approaching Call of Duty's numbers. Although Battlefield 3 has the advantage of being based on an already successful franchise, Battlefield's user install base is much smaller than Call of Duty's, who have been playing the multiplayer for almost four years now. Once a franchise's multiplayer is that successful, its extremely difficult to draw the players to something that's more new and less familiar. Look at how many MMO's have launched and then failed, attempting to beat World of Warcraft at its own game (a mistake EA also seems to be making with Star Wars: The Old Republic). A game can't beat its competitor by targeting the competitor's audience.
Don't believe me? Let's look at some more numbers. EA likes to tout that Battlefield 3 has 700% more preorders than Battlefield: Bad Company 2 had at this time last year, but how many pre-orders has Modern Warfare 3 had since it's been officially announced? The 360 versions of both Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 have about 80,000 pre-orders, with Modern Warfare only slightly higher. However, Modern Warfare 3 has been availabe for pre-order only two weeks (as opposed to Battlefield's four months), with 66,000 of its pre-orders coming in in the last week alone. At this rate, Modern Warfare 3 is going to blow Battlefield 3 out of the water. Both games will certainly receive a big boost in pre-orders near release date, but I don't see Battlefield gaining its initial momentum back.
As I've said above, however, this article has nothing to do about the quality of the games. Both games are being made by extremely talented developers, and I'm looking forward to playing both. I just can't stand how EA is going about marketing its title. Saying things like "[Battlefield 3 ] is designed to take that game down" or "our game is better in every way" comes across as unproffesional and downright immature. It's one thing to provoke healthy competition, it's another to outright diss your peers. Instead of focusing on how good the game is by its own merits, EA's marketing strategy is basically giving Call of Duty more press. Good plan, EA.
Disclaimer: This article is the work of one writer and does not necessarily represent the views of gamrFeed or VGChartz.
More Articles
EA’s doing the right thing. Consumers like direct comparisons of brand A versus brand B. It’s persuasive. And competitive. And if you are not the leading brand, it is quite attention-getting and compelling to compare yourself to the popular brand and tell – even prove – that you are better. These are empirical facts in marketing. EA’s the largest independent SW publisher on the planet. And they’re being smart.
The only game that can beat CoD sales is Mario Kart :P
Having worked in online marketing for years, EA is doing just what it should be. Having a line like "Battlefield 3 is better than Call of Duty in every way" all over the internet doesn't give sales to COD. What it does is brings BF3 up in search results when people look for COD (which one do you think people are searching for more?). Then people who haven't heard of or tried the BF series read that it might be better and take a look at it. That's the point.
BTW, I started with MW2 and then switched to BFBC2 because the gameplay is just better. The BF games are harder and more realistic, which is why they won't catch on like COD. This is fine by me, I'd rather have the challenge while keeping my lame elitist status as BF gamer on PC, probably the smallest gaming group around, lol.
call of duty just got lucky by being the first. it will take some big mishap or else just a long time to dethrone them.
its not that call of duty will be the best games in their genre, its just that they are the most well known. an average person will see call of duty # and see hundreds of other shooters. They will have heard of call of duty, and thus buy whatever number is highest for it. End of story. EA can make a million shooters and all be better, but it will take time for call of duty's name to not be common place with the shooter game to buy
Not necessary true, EA beat PES with FIFA in it's own game, so they can do it again.
And EA was the first one to make modern warfare with battlefield, ACTIVISION did COD4 after that, as you can see, the article is incorrect. Powers and preferences in the industry are always shifting.
input this URL:
( http://www.clothes6.org/ )
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan s-h-o-e-s)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y)
( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)
(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(UG G b-o-o-t)
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
( http://www.clothes6.org/ )
I am not saying EA shouldn't compete or market BF3. But doing so while giving so much publicity to your competitor is extremely stupid.
Its just as Activision's CEO said, EA mentions COD more than Acti do themselves in marketing campaigns. As no media is bad media, EA are in fact helping COD get more sales. At this rate, COD will annihilate BF in sales without them even having to put any marketing effort into it, because EA is doing it for them.
I love both franchises and played all of the games...but i agree with everything that Jake said...clever words about real and tangible informations.
Just for the sake of defending EA and Battlefield, Battlefield 2 was released in 2005. A couple years before Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and was a modern military shooter. So in essence, Activision did take that model and make it more successful. They were not the first with the modern shooters for consoles, but they have brought it to a new level.
@cyberslayer WTF are you talking about??? Killzone 3 is still in the top forty, and MOH has made EA money, dont know about Crysis2
While I believe that Battlefield 3 will sell well and while it's good to see EA acting confident about how well they belive the game will sell I believe there is a thin line between confidence and arrogance and I personally view what EA is saying as pure arrogance.
I mean don't get me wrong the game looks good, VERY good and if you have you have a product that looks as good as Battlefield 3 is currently then you obviously must have confidence in how well it could seel.
But it seems as though the visuals and realism of the game has instantly brainwashed people into believe the game is going to walk all over COD MW3. I mean having good graphics is great and all but lets face facts, and I have been personally saying this for YEARS, greats graphics DOES NOT always produce an all round great game.
Dont believe me look look at Crysis 2, Killzone 3 and Medal Of Honor. Both those games had AMAZING graphics and visuals, were designed with new gmes engines and were both sequels to games that critics and gamers had already viewed as the best looking FPS ever made. So you only imagine how mindblowing the games looked if they were able to have better visuals to already stunningly beautiful looking games that preceeded them. Not only that but they were dubbed as potential game killers. With Crysis 2 being dubbed as the "Halo Killer" and Killzone 3 and Medal Of Honor being dubbed as the "COD Killer".
But after all they hype about how unbelievebly great the gmes looked, guess what happened, they absolutely TANKED in sales. To this point, combining all the sales they have made on EVERY platform they are avaliable on and they haven't sold ANYWHERE near to what Black Ops has sold at this point on the XBOX 360 version ALONE. And everyone wasriding on that game calling it the WORST Call Of Duty game to be released.
Battlefield 3 is going to suffer the same fate as Crysis 2, Killzone 3 and Medal Of Honor has suffered when competing with the dominant force of the FPS genre, Call Of Duty. It's far too powerful and popular of a franchise to go down the toilet at this stage so abruptly. If anything, the franchise should of died and lost relivance and popularity when Black Ops was released after the horrible issues with COD MW2. But guess what happened, it became the best and fastest selling game of all time and that was shortly after COD MW2 had been established as the best and fastest selling game of all time.
And for the record, I have THOROUGHLY played and even OWN both Battlefield Bad Company 2 AND Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 & 2, World At War and Black Ops. So i certainly know that Battlefield is superior in terms of graphics and games physics than Call Of Duty so I know what I'm talking about. I personally am going to buy BOTH Battlefield 3 and Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3 but don't hold your breath when it comes to Battlefield 3 outselling Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3 even if they were released on the SAME DAY the sales will still pale in comparison to Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3 its just become that popular.
At the same time Activision can't get complancent either. The hardcore fanbase and more important the casual gamer, which makes up for 80% of the amout of people who buy Call Of Duty and pretty much any game that is sold, can only swallow the same crap so many time before they get tired of it and lose absolute interest. And while people will compare what happend to the Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk series to what could happen to the Call of Duty franchise, people need to understand that The FPS genre how around WAY long then the genres of the Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk series have been aroud so people are more used to it.
Bottom line, Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3 will sell better than Battlefield 3 simply becase of the the power of the brand, it's sad but that how the gaming world works these days. It doesn't matter how good a games is, if it isn't well known by the majority of the casual gamers, like the Call Of Duty franchise is, it WON'T SELL GOOD.
I don't think he's necessarily wrong in the objective aspects, but I think he misses EA's point. The "we're going to beat them" is simply natural marketing hyperbole. What did he expect them to say, the truth? You don't admit you're probably going to lose when you're trying to rally the troops, you put on a defiant face. Seems a dumb point to me.
EA doesn't expect to beat them, simply to have a fighter in the ring that can actually stand toe to toe with Call of Duty.
He plays down the significance of Battlefield 3 already having such an improved performance out of the gate with pre-orders compared to Bad Company 2, but does so foolishly if he's trying to get a complete picture. Bad Company 2 sold 6 million units. 6 million, and Battlefield 3 is expected to sell MORE.
Granted I don't expect the increase in pre-orders to carry over exactly to final sales by any means (42 million units would really be something, to make the understatement of the day), but think about this. Call of Duty has been so all-consumingly dominant that unless you were Halo, which itself was an already-extremely-well-established shooter that with a noticeably different design, you were going to get crushed. Even the shooters that ventured noticeably from Call of Duty's style of gameplay like Valve's games did only 2-3 million units. Except for Medal of Honor -- which only did as well as it did due to the brand name -- everyone who tries to beat Call of Duty at its own game has been beaten horribly.
But Battlefield is already coming into this fight with 6 million units sold on its last title. It's already enjoying Halo levels of success, all while using a very similar style to Call of Duty and without nearly as much established brand name recognition. And Battlefield 3 is getting much more publicity and hype for it. If EA can simply repeat BC2's numbers, against the commercial monster that is Call of Duty, that alone would be a success in my book. And if the increase in hype and pre-orders and whatnot can get BF3 to anywhere close to 10 million, let alone above -- a very realistic prospect in my mind -- then they'll have done what no one else has been able to do.
When you're fighting the all-powerful, dominant entity in your area, you don't need to outright beat him to be victorious. Sometimes just surviving, doing fairly well on your own, and being the only one to not get your ass kicked, works just as well.
Also, since he brings it up in a similarly dismissive, critical tone, the same can be said for EA's efforts to compete with WoW with Star Wars: The Old Republic. Simply going toe-to-toe with the game that has so single-handedly dominated its genre since Call of Duty was just another "yeah that was pretty cool, wonder if they'll do a sequel?" game, and surviving while enjoying decent success of its own, is more than enough.
Obvious, but I think it can do some serious damage to the CoD sales. It's easy said that BF3 is the better game, and more more people begin to realize Activision let them pay for the same old shit as 4-5 years ago... Every year.
i really dont care if is COD is better than BF or if BF is better than COD. what better than these game is "CS" - Counter-Strike!!! CS has big map to small once, the game has excellent weapon and easy to connect through lan or internet !!!! and still millions of players play CS.
@chocoloco,
It is not a matter of which "game" is better than the other. I own 2 CoD Xbox 360 titles (Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops) to 1 Battlefield game (Bad Company 2).
Back in the early 2000s, I never owned Battlefield 1942 and it's amazing mod, Desert Combat. I only played it at Internet cafes who made a living off of LAN FPS play.
Both CoD and Battlefield exceeed at what they intend to do.
With a CoD game, you are guaranteed to get the most competitive close quarters, urban warfare than any other game bar none.
With a Battlefield game, you get the most competitive, big battlefield with a mix of urban warfare and vehicular combat than any other game.
Neither series is definitively better than the other. What Call of Duty lacks in an epic, big map battle with tanks, jets, and copter, Battlefield more than accounts for. What Battlefield lacks in skill vs. skill close quarters, door-to-door urban warfare, Call of Duty more than accounts for.
Both, I will agree, cater to different tastes. To keep it short and not write a college thesis on, both are the best at what they do.
@slimebeast ill quote you, in the meantime pass that dutch!!!
@Ill have to take your word for it seeing as i have only played Bad Company 2
They are two very different games...I don't see why they are being compared to begin with. CoD is more of a pure and plain FPS while BF involves more of a large scale war scenario with various vehicles, important roles and important objectives. If you've played both you know what I'm saying.
Annoying battlefield crybabies just make me want to play Call of Duty more. Tell me your thing is better, well I will just be happier to spite your annoying better than thou attitude and buy COD.
Wonderful.
Share a website with you ,
( http://www.fashionclothe.com )
Believe you will love it.
Accept paypal or credit card and free shipping.
@ Nybbas,
Yes Battlefield 1942 had a massively popular mod called Desert Combat, which I played many hours in college with friends while drinking Bawls. Great times.
@ RaptorGTA,
You are right, right now the release date for Battlefield 3 is November 2, 2011. I thought I read somewhere that EA pushed it back to January 2012, but my google search is indicating November 2011.
Personally, I think EA should duck the head-to-head release date with Modern Warfare 3. I can easily see a Alan Wake vs. Red Dead Redemption scenario here between Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3.
@oniyide
The last one was a spinoff, not a true battlefield game. No one really got excited about Bad Company 2 because it only had Battlefield in the name, it was a different series. The main series has a much stronger following.
@Ronster316 can't beat playing a prettier version of quake 3, eh? xD
Battlefield 3 was never meant to beat COD. I think sales will drop this year though due to the amount of quality games coming out at the same time. Skyrim, Uncharted 3, R&C All 4 One, Resistance 3, Witcher 2 (360), AC Revelations, and of course Battlefield 3 are going to take some sales away from MW3. Not enough to take the throne, but I don't think the game will sell as well as Black Ops did, even with the Infinity Ward name.
@oniyide
You heard it here first. 10 million BF3 is a lock on consoles alone.
You remember how Call of Duty went from being a 5 million franchise to a 15 million franchise between COD3 and MW? It can happen again!
Bottom line for me is.......... Call of Duty >>>> Battlefield in every aspect, campaign, online, the works.
@slimebeast BF3 10mil on consoles??? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I want what shrooms, LSD or whatever you are putting in your system. The last one did a little more than 5mil PS360 combined, you think they will double that?? NOPE, ill give you 7 maybe 8 mil
@Aagahim i did try BF multi wasnt for me
In terms of sales, Modern warfare 3 can win, but... its battlefield you know? its some leagues beyond call of duty, my oppinion of people that play Black ops multiplayer (for example) it's beacause they didnt tryed the Battlefield multiplayer.
@mhsillen
Then the article should stop harping about the fact that BF3 can't beat MW3 salewise, this is ironically diluting the message the it is trying to convey. The 'gunning for COD' mentality is a corporate objective of EA that has bled into PR, draw the article onto this fact and discuss the ramification without discussing sale, which is nothing more than a red herring for a debate of this nature.
★★_★★_★★★★____★★
__★★★★★★
★★
★★
_★0_0__★
_★___@_★
_★____★
★v★
____★★
Google in the input: = tntn.us ==you can find many brand names, even more surprising is that he will sell you the unexpected o(∩∩)o
the point of the article mibuokami is the way ea is approaching bf.
they should try to differentiate themselves from COD and not mention they are gunning for them.
------- http://www.fashionclothe.com --------
if you like to order anything you like.
More details,
please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;
Service is our Lift.
enjoy yourself.
thank you!!
------- http://www.fashionclothe.com -----
@Monges79
If everyone knew about COD, it wouldn't sell more than the previous title every time.
Why is this article even needed?
- EA doesn't think BF3 will outsell MW3
- The market analyst doesn't think BF3 will outsell MW3
- The media doesn't think BF3 will outsell MW3
- Gamers doesn't think BF3 will outsell MW3
-
Even the forum troll and BF-fanboy doesn't think BF3 will outsell MW3
Who is this article trying to convince?
I mostly agree with the writer. I think that most people who know both franchises thoroughly, know that Battlefield will be the better game. I think that most people know that CODMW3 will outsell B3 by huge numbers. I am also getting tired of EA running their mouths. We can obviously see that the game looks beautiful, and I will be buying it. But, they need to let the game speak for itself. The one thing that i disagree with the author of this article is that they are giving Activision free press for their game. They don't need it. Who doesn't know about the Call of Duty franchise by now? I own all of the COD games since COD4. I'm getting bored of them. I think a lot of people are. I'm sure DICE have made a great game. I just wish they would stop trying to tell us how much greater it will be than the next COD game.
i stopped reading when you said COD4 was different for being one of the first modern day shooters, despite mentioning the BF franchise were BF2 had released an few years before, Modern day shooter then you have Counter Strike who was at the point the king of FPS online, modern day.
but you are right BF3 wont sell more than call of duty, but MOH was an weak shameful game by an pretty medicore studio while DICE an highly experience top notch studio is releasing an game thats been in the works for an long time and been waiting for the technology to catch up. An since BF2 has jets and destruction it will make MW3 sell less than MW2 by about 5-8 million copies whom all be buying either BF3 or none of them because of FPS Modern Shooter fatigue that i am currently going though and haven't played an modern shooter since febuary.
very true post. We'll see what happens.
And no wonder BF3 still has 80.000 pre orders we haven't seen much of the game yet.
My bought depends on how big the difference is between the console and the PC version.
the day will come... it shalll!!!!
"The first Modern Warfare was innovative"? Right.
Anyways, Battlefield 3 will come very close to MW3 in sales. BF3 will sell over 10 million on consoles alone. Easily.
@Killiana
you said pretty much what I wanted to. They only thing that is going to beat call of duty, is call of duty. They will EVENTUALLY run it into the ground, but make stupid amounts of cash in the process. Is battlefield the better game? no doubt, but the majority of people are stupid effing morons. I guarantee the VAST majority have no idea what happened to Inifinity Ward, or even would care if they were told. It sucks for us, that the majority of brainless idiots get what they want.... but hey at least DICE is willing to give us something decent, who cares about sales as long as we have the better game to play without the hordes of under 18 retards screaming on voice comms (because they are all playing rambo on COD)
In regards to this article... wasn't it battlefield who had the modern era warfare stuff first? I coulda sworn you were flying jets, and driving tanks in modern era tech long before modern warfare was released. The REAL infinity ward were very smart, and took what the modding community had been doing with their games (leveling up, perks, kill streak awards etc) and implemented it all into modern warfare 1 which helped them to release something really new and cool that really stuck, all of that on top of the consoles not having a really big blockbuster modern era shooter.
THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO to topple call of duty, it needs to run its disgusting course, then fade into obscurity before the next game can claim the throne.
battlefield 3 needs to blow us away to beat MW3.
i definitely think it will sell alot better than medal of honor though =)
@killian1a I was under the impression that BF3 was being released this year and not next year.
As for the story written above. Agree that BF3 cant beat COD in sales right now. But with so many of my friends and myself just tired of COD and wanting BF...maybe this will start the shift in power..
As much as I loath the Call of Duty brand and the Coca Cola/Pop empty stomach it leaves me with, many millions more disagree with me.
Here is the deal: Battlefield was created for PC gamers and it's sales numbers still reflect it. Call of Duty was create for Halo gamers who want Halo right now with today's military weaponry and scenarios.
Furthermore, the release dates tell it all. Modern Warfare 3 will sell at least 7 million due to the November release date. Think about it, it releases in early November, which easily coincides with Black Friday (a US phenomenon) where a bunch of brain dead parents wake up at 3 am and run with the bulls at 8am.
Those who go out on Black Friday are like lemmings going over a cliff. Yes I said it. Read it again. You are not smart for shopping on Black Friday. You are just another sheep at the "capitalist gangbang" to use a Bill Hicks term.
Bottom line, an early 2012 release vs. a holiday 2011 release is a no brainer. Modern Warfare 3 will outsell Battlefield 3.
Battlefield friends take comfort, you have been around longer and will last longer. If Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero are any indicator, Call of Duty: "Modern Warfare X" or "Black x" are golden cows that are going to be released every November. The series will end because of this.
Call of Duty will end as a video game series before Battlefield because: 1. It is a console phenomenon only and 2. Annual releases (no series has survived).
If I am wrong in saying that there are video game series who have survived annual releases then please point me to a non sports genre game, otherwise go eff yourself and have a nice day being wrong. I am right :)
i'll buy both B3 and MW3, but i'm more excited for Battlefield
I puke everytime I hear Call of Duty.
Yeah not many games can beat COD in terms of sales.
@Bl00dSaint you said it your self everyone in COD thinks they are Rambo, that is why the game sells the way it sells. I cant think of another game in the genre to make people think like that. THat is why COD will continue to slay everyone for some time to come. Accesibility is the name of the game and Battlefield is not that accesible, the irony is if they try to make it like that it will cease to be Battlefield. Another example is Tekken vs. VF. most will swear that VF is the better game but Tekken slaughters it in sales
@s_d0minat0r
sigh Another immature CoD fanboy... Are you crazy?!? CoD has more innovative features than Battlefield, idiots like you need to realise that Craptivision copies and pastes over 50% of the crap from their previous game to the next game. Unlike Battlefield, which has a revolutionary new engine, beter physics, more realistic maps, more realistic gameplay (unlike CoD where every1 thinks their Rambo) greater variety of maps and DEDICATED servers... WOW a few killstreaks and perks are considered 'so innovative' compared to a completely new game with new hardout graphics destructable environment engine from Battlefield. And lookie here CoD is trying to copy Battlefield's fully destructable environment, vehicular warfare, etc. Also CoD is not the one that invented 'perks' for your info perks/unlocks were availabe in Battlefield 2, CoD is only the game that copied BF2 's perks but made it better and an industry standard, but they didn't invent it. So get your facts right before you talk crap about a game you have never played.
@s_d0minat0r
sigh Another immature CoD fanboy... Are you crazy?!? CoD has more innovative features than Battlefield, idiots like you need to realise that Craptivision copies and pastes over 50% of the crap from their previous game to the next game. Unlike Battlefield, which has a revolutionary new engine, beter physics, more realistic maps, more realistic gameplay (unlike CoD where every1 thinks their Rambo) greater variety of maps and DEDICATED servers... WOW a few killstreaks and perks are considered 'so innovative' compared to a completely new game with new hardout graphics destructable environment engine from Battlefield. And lookie here CoD is trying to copy Battlefield's fully destructable environment, vehicular warfare, etc. Also CoD is not the one that invented 'perks' for your info perks/unlocks were availabe in Battlefield 2, CoD is only the game that copied BF2 's perks but made it better and an industry standard, but they didn't invent it. So get your facts right before you talk crap about a game you have never played.
excellent article. if Battlefield 3 is extraordinaire game then battlefield will surly sell about 10 million copy. And if it does sell 10 million copy, Battlefield 4 / Battlefield bad compnay 3 can complete with the new COD series. But right know Battlefield 3 can only prove that their product is better than COD to Gamers. The only thing we gamers want is better and quality game it does matter is it COD or BF.
Take Note Dice you need some real features other than single player and multiplayer. maybe add some co op or a horde type mode. All i know is that you need to have more features in the game.
@fsp_d0minat0r: During all the time i played PES and Fifa, fifa had the better graphic and more fluid gameplay (for me), even tough it were losing place since PES 96 or close...
They turn the table around but the last iteration I saw Fifa still had the better graphic... but as you can see, in sales Multi-Million franchises take a long time before being passed...
@ aavidbacon
yes because fifa has better features than PES.
the same way COD has better features than battlefield.
in both cases the games with better graphics are not as doing well as the other games with respectable graphics but much better gameplay.
@ sweatface7
and whats so revolutionary about battlefield?
atleast COD has innovative killstreaks, perks, weapons and other stuff every time they release a new version.
I think an example to overcome it's competition is the FIFA versus PES debacle, where after years of dominance, PES started losing relevance until Fifa reach market dominance as it is today, being considered, by most players, the best football simulation nowadays. I think an article about this would be great.
No body except Battlefield 3 to beat CoD on sale numbers on consoles do they? I do however believe Battielfield 3 will beat CoD on sales on PC. The Battlefield games got a better hold on PC gamers then CoD do. Look at Battlefield BC 2 on PC, it's reason Dice seem to have the PC version as a favorite.
battlefield doesn't get enough credit, call of duty is way overrated same game every year
I don't believe EA plans on doing bed than CoD this year, but gradually as time goes on. At least that's how i've looked at it. If they can grow their user base every year, they could eventually or I should say possibly be on par with the CoD series or even exceed assuming Battlefield delivers in terms of content.
welcome to:
===== http://www.clothes6.org/ ====
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30
Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15
New era cap $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20
====== http://www.clothes6.org/ ====
====== http://www.clothes6.org/ ====
====== http://www.clothes6.org/ ====
