Call of Duty: Ghosts Sales Are "Troubling," Analyst Says

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

So the MMS genre or Spunkgargleweewee if you follow Yahtzee is experiencing a contraction?


Perhaps now the AAA industry can begin to move forward again.

by move forward do you mean find another game to milk game after game?

Yes.

Believe it or not I liked the first Modern Warfare. No doubt the next 'big thing' will undoubted be milked into oblivion but the beginning tends to be pretty good.

 

[proctorninja2]

as much as I actually like the COD franchise, I think their main problem was that they did a terrible job of making consumers want it, I usually am first in line *expression not literally* to get the yearly COD because I like the multiplayer and story but this year the campaigns were super short compared to last years and just felt like there wasnt anyone who actually wanted to make anything more then just a multiplayer game. Also I think they need to take into account how much the XBONEs troubled birth affected sales because at least in my observation COD tends to be mostly xbox then playstation

 

[Tradjus]

Simple metaphor.
You can only milk a cow for so long, before the cow runs out of milk.
Eventually you need too back off and acknowledge that the cow's udders are empty.
If you just keep pumping them, you get nothing but an irritated cow.

 

[JenSeven]

I find the decrease in sales quite uplifting.
If less Spunkgargleweewee is being sold that could mean a slight alteration in the direction the market is flowing.
Maybe we could see a rise in the interest in more intelligent games instead of mindless shooters.
Maybe the public has become tired of the "realistic" shooter genre.
Maybe people want a more focused and engaging single player experience instead of mindless multiplayer.
Maybe I will become a multimillionaire rockstar and live on the moon.

It's the whole financial situation people. There are more people out of work, more people trying to cut down on spending. Some things will see a decrease in sales....

 

[Tom_green_day]

Simple metaphor.
You can only milk a cow for so long, before the cow runs out of milk.

Obviously someone hasn't done too much milking of cows in their life or you'd know how much your analogy actually supports the opposing argument.
OT: I actually really like CoD but this game didn't have enough interesting or new features such as zombies or pick-10 or the new campaign layout that Treyarch games have. I'm definitely looking forward to the next one but I think I'll wait a bit for ghosts to become cheaper.

 

[Moontouched-Moogle]

Simple metaphor.
You can only milk a cow for so long, before the cow runs out of milk.

Obviously someone hasn't done too much milking of cows in their life or you'd know how much your analogy actually supports the opposing argument.
OT: I actually really like CoD but this game didn't have enough interesting or new features such as zombies or pick-10 or the new campaign layout that Treyarch games have. I'm definitely looking forward to the next one but I think I'll wait a bit for ghosts to become cheaper.

Well, if you milk the cow too much too quickly, it will run out of milk. It will produce more milk eventually, but you have to give it time. If, instead of pumping out yearly cookie-cutter installations, AAA developers released games on a slower cycle with more development time, we'd get the dual benefit of not only having (probably) better games, but also having fewer of them to bog us down and oversaturate the market.

AAA just needs to learn when to let go of the teat and let the cow rest for a while.

 

[likalaruku]

I've heard this story before, with the new Tomb Raider sales. That's what you get when you put twice as much money into a sequel, charge the same price as the previous game, & expect franchise fans to triple overnight.

I actually bought this game for myself after watching several videos about the series on Creepy Gaming,& I have no intention of using it as anything but a singleplayer game. It's not unusual for me to buy a game for no other reason than to hunt down easter eggs, take 3,000 landscape & architecture screencaps, & exploit amusing glitches.

 

[Something Amyss]

Perhaps now the AAA industry can begin to move forward again.

More than likely, it will latch on to something else. The AAA industry isn't known for its forward movement.

I'm clearly in the minority, but I am of the opinion that Infinity Ward should be barred from making future Call of Duty games, and all the development money that would have been given to them should be funneled to Treyarch instead, who should be allowed 2-3 year development cycles, because Treyarch actually fucking TRIES (or maybe Infinity Ward does try, and is just really incompetent) and their last contribution to the franchise took several dozen steps forward that CoD desperately needed.

I could live with Treyarch doing a game every couple of years. But could Activision?

Except the article makes note of this and states that the current install base of new consoles isn't enough to explain the deficit.

On the one hand, it seems likely they've covered this, but on the other, I wonder if market fragmentation is an issue here.

 

[Holythirteen]

Yep nothing to do with several million people waiting to get a PS4 before buying ghosts not at all.

I feel I have to agree.

If I was more interested in CoD, I would hold off on buying it until I was certain which next-gen console I wanted, rather than play the last-gen version of it.

But damn if there isn't a massive amount of negative reviews for this game on metacritic.

One thing I never understood was their excuse that the console generation transition was one of the thing hurting their sales. And if someone could explain that excuse to me, I'd appreciate it. The way I see it, it could only help to boost sales since there's now 4 possible consoles to buy the game on rather than just 2. As a launch title for the new generation, you'd think anyone interested in the game and interested in a new console would be picking that up along with their new console while those waiting to get a new console but were interested in the game would have simply picked it up for the old consoles when it first came out.

Well, come now, give it some thought, most gamers only play on one system, they may go back to play an older system for the old favourites, but once you drop 500 bucks on a new system, 90% of the games you buy new are gonna be for that system, you're not expanding a customer base just because you're on more consoles when 2 of those consoles are replacements for the other 2.

Unless you suspect that a good deal of people are buying consoles for the first time this gen, but I can't even guess who these people would be, (I've been gaming for 20 years, so I'm probably too out of touch there), I personally don't know any kids that would be buying(or receiving) their first system that don't already own an older-gen system(or have one in their household, which would still amount to about the same number of game purchases). I would imagine that consoles attract more new gamers in the middle of their generations rather than at the beginning of them.

Anyway, long tangent, but even with all these arguments, IW may finally have to admit to themselves that adding a dog wasn't the massive innovation that they thought it was.

 

[SirDeadly]

This was definitely my least favourite CoD game so far and I am a fan of the franchise. I really hope Treyarch changes things up and gives us a good setting, Vietnam could be interesting. Nice colourful environments would also make a nice change from the brown landscapes we are used to. Hell, just by adding the ANZAC's into a game would make me instantly want to buy it, give Australia and New Zealand some game time god dammit!

 

[Nyaliva]

People who think this is actually a good thing, don't. This is simply a greedy conglomerate analysing figures in order to make itself feel good, but doing so too early and not thinking things through.

I can guarantee, a good majority of the people who haven't bought Ghosts yet are simply waiting until they can get the new console but don't have rich enough parents to get it mere months before Christmas. Wait until after Christmas, there'll be a huge spike in sales as kids get the new console and then Ghosts to go with it and then there'll be another spike in January as kids who are so poor their parents can only afford to spend the $600 they need for the console, the pitiful wretches (obvious sarcasm), will have to wait for their Christmas cards full of cash to arrive from their grandparents and they can finally buy the game in the January sales.

Trust me people, these sales figures are simply taken too early. Ghosts will do well, although maybe still not as good as Black Ops II, simply because I've heard a lot that BlOps II is the better game of the two.

 

[dWhisper]

People who think this is actually a good thing, don't. This is simply a greedy conglomerate analysing figures in order to make itself feel good, but doing so too early and not thinking things through.

I can guarantee, a good majority of the people who haven't bought Ghosts yet are simply waiting until they can get the new console but don't have rich enough parents to get it mere months before Christmas. Wait until after Christmas, there'll be a huge spike in sales as kids get the new console and then Ghosts to go with it and then there'll be another spike in January as kids who are so poor their parents can only afford to spend the $600 they need for the console, the pitiful wretches (obvious sarcasm), will have to wait for their Christmas cards full of cash to arrive from their grandparents and they can finally buy the game in the January sales.

Trust me people, these sales figures are simply taken too early. Ghosts will do well, although maybe still not as good as Black Ops II, simply because I've heard a lot that BlOps II is the better game of the two.

Except when most people get the money they need for the console and supply has freed up, there will be different games to play. CoD is a game where sales have always been loaded at the initial release, and anything that comes later usually happens with sales, etc. A big problem with it after-the-fact is that Activision keeps the price high on the game far longer than a typical title. Black Ops 2 still typically goes for $40, despite having a replacement already being out.

Without a doubt though, Black Ops 2 is the better game of the two. The CoD line is the game of choice for my friends (though it really desperately needs that "for people over 30" mode), simply because it's a fun game that we all enjoy and understand. I get that it's not for everyone, but what it does it does very well. BO2 represented a legitimate upgrade for people that had gotten tired of some of the problems with CoD. It fixed no-scope snipers, had better variety in the weapon choices and unlocks, and just felt more fluid. Ghosts did bring some things to the table, but it also reintroduced the problems that Treyarch had finally addressed in their title.

My friends all bought Ghost... we still have it, but have since returned to Black Ops 2. In hindsight, most of us wish we would have skipped the purchase. Sadly, we already count into those sales figures, but we can try to talk others out of joining it. But that's a small piece in explaining the sales. The more likely explanation is that name recognition can only carry a series so far, and trying to stamp and market one every year is setting up for failure once the fields start to get overused. We saw it on Medal of Honor, Rock Band, and any number of other perpetual series. A shame that the big studios haven't learned the lesson yet.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Hmmmm, and wasn't Activision bragging about how Ghosts was going to blow GTA V out of the water? HA!

One thing I never understood was their excuse that the console generation transition was one of the thing hurting their sales. And if someone could explain that excuse to me, I'd appreciate it. The way I see it, it could only help to boost sales since there's now 4 possible consoles to buy the game on rather than just 2. As a launch title for the new generation, you'd think anyone interested in the game and interested in a new console would be picking that up along with their new console while those waiting to get a new console but were interested in the game would have simply picked it up for the old consoles when it first came out.

It fractures the community to a degree. When you do a multiplatform release across the PS/PC/Xbox, then you are targeting communities that are already distant from each other that sales in one community are unlikely to affect sales in another community. Now you have some people getting a new PS4 while their friends stick with the PS3, and some people getting Xbox Ones while their friends stick with Xbox 360s, and since Call of Duty is a franchise meant to be played with friends, then people will have less incentive to buy it. You also have to consider the people holding out for the Xbox One or PS4, which will slow down sales. And to top it all off, if this last generation was anything to go by, new console sales don't pick up until a year or two, so they can't really rely on a vast number of people buying their first console, especially when many of these early buyers are likely just upgrading. All of this may not make a huge difference, especially when you consider that we are talking about the most dominant franchise in the industry, but it sure to make a difference.

OT: Anyone hoping for the total downfall of CoD should probably remember that this simply shows that CoD sales are slowing, not that they are in any danger of dying completely. The franchise is still far ahead of most others in terms of sales, and it will have to take quite a hit before worrying about falling too far behind. If anything, this should be treated as a potential wake-up call to Activision, not that we should be rejoicing in CoD's downfall yet. Still, even if it falls, developers are just going to find a new franchise to rip off of, likely whichever franchise takes CoD's place.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Well, if you milk the cow too much too quickly, it will run out of milk. It will produce more milk eventually, but you have to give it time. If, instead of pumping out yearly cookie-cutter installations, AAA developers released games on a slower cycle with more development time, we'd get the dual benefit of not only having (probably) better games, but also having fewer of them to bog us down and oversaturate the market.

AAA just needs to learn when to let go of the teat and let the cow rest for a while.

But if you milk the cow once a year, you will never run out of milk because the cow can produce it quicker than that... And you're a pretty lazy farmer but hey who am I to judge, city dweller and all.
I'm not sure if you're aware but Call of Duty games actually operate on a 2-year cycle, not one year. There are two developers who take it in turns to create games, so each game receives two years. Of course DLC is made too but this receives very little time as the developers have learnt to be efficient- take Black Ops 2, for example. Treyarch have three teams- multiplayer, zombies and campaign. Once the game was released multiplayer team spent their time releasing patches and creating the new maps (which doesn't take much time at all). Zombies team and campaign team alternated creating the zombie maps, so each map got double the time and no-one was sitting around doing nothing. Arguable the campaign team maps were better, some would say. If you've got this far congratulations you deserve a reward.
Should the singular of zombies be zomby? Or is that just me?

 

[faefrost]

I think this is more a very clear example of why publishers try their hardest not to release major AAA games at console generation launches, and why launch libraries are always shit.

It goes far beyond a weakening of the MMS market, beyond noting that the MMS market is now weak enough that a core AAA title is not in an of itself a "killer app" for a new console. Which puts it into a very grey area.

The problem is fans of that sort of game will always prefer to be playing it on the newer faster better hardware. But the game itself is not an over the top driver of the purchase of that new hardware. And the overall install base of the new consoles is not deep enough to allow for sales of the magnitude of the previous games. People who have PS3's or 360's and have not upgraded to XBones or PS4's yet will hold off purchasing the game for their current console. Figuring why rebuy it later when they decide to upgrade. They are willing to buy the game. They simply do not have to buy it today. And they will opt not to buy the perceived inferior last gen version (at least not at full price). So if you are a AAA title, unless you are something that can aggressively drive new console sales, you are boned at console launch. And even if you can aggressively drive such sales you will still get reduced returns compared to what you would have gotten at the deepest hardware penetration point of the previous generation.

This, more than anything is the reason why the smart folks making Titanfall and Destiny opted to "delay" their games release to "make it better" etc etc. They are playing dumb and waiting for more people to own newer hardware.

 

[blackrave]

That's what you get for calling non-stealth action game Ghosts
Hopefully Activision will put CoD to rest for a decade
And who knows maybe Activision will finally start work on Battlezone3

And this is why analysts are like soothsayers.

Analyst: The world is ending.

Everyone else: Shut up, no it isn't. We are just fine.

Well, that's only half of the time
Other half goes like this

Analyst: The world is ending.

Everyone else: No shit, It happened yesterday.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Not surprising. Activision have exhausted and saturated CoD, like they previously did with Guitar Hero. On top of that heavy competition from Battlefield, which IMO are better games with superior multiplayer.

Solution. Develop a new engine, leave CoD alone and conceive a totally new game for us to get behind. Until then, we'll all be enjoying Titanfall, Destiny, BF4 and Payday 2.

 

[Something Amyss]

And this is why analysts are like soothsayers.

Analyst: The world is ending.

Everyone else: Shut up, no it isn't. We are just fine.

Of course, people predicting the end of the world are usually wrong. Perhaps that should tell you something.

But this is also a problem on the flip side. Tons of people are happy to say everything's fine, but tons of people are also happy to declare the end of the world. Similarly, whether or not this is the end of MMS or COD depends on if or how you bring your own biases in.

Further, we've had predictions of the death of the console for like three gens now. This is like the end of the world: eventually, the world may well end on one of the days predicted, but that doesn't make it prophecy that someone called it. People who oppose the COD franchise have been predicting its downfall for years now, and now they have "proof."

 

[jklinders]

CoD is running out of steam at last?

I guess folks are finally coming to grips with the fact that they have been pretty much 60.00 map packs with the privilege of being allowed to buy more map packs at 15.00 a pop since the first Modern Warfare.

That's cool.