Update: Call of Duty - Infinite Warfare Pre-Orders Are Incredibly Low

[Steven Bogos]

Update: Call of Duty - Infinite Warfare Pre-Orders Are Incredibly Low



Update: We've received the following comment from an Activision spokersperson,

"These estimates are highly inaccurate and are not at all representative of actual retail data. We've announced that pre-orders started strong, and continue to be very positive. And we look forward to sharing new gameplay next week at E3."

As with any estimates, VGChartz may not always be accurate. The company is, however, relatively open with its methodology [http://www.vgchartz.com/methodology.php], so readers can learn about potential sources of error.



Original story:

Infinite Warfare has ten times less pre-orders than Black Ops 3 had the same time prior to launch.

The reaction to VG Chartz [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/167317-Call-of-Duty-Infinite-Warfare-Announced-with-New-Trailer] reports Infinite Warfare has ten times less pre-orders than last year's Black Ops 3.

First, check out the pre-order numbers for Infinite Warfare, as of May 14th, 2016:



Now, look at Black Ops 3's pre-order numbers as of May 16th, 2015:



As Black Ops 3 launched on November 6, 2015 and Infinite Warfare launches on November 4, 2016 these numbers are taken from the exact same point before each game's launch.

As you can see, even combined Xbox One and PS4 pre-orders for Infinite Warfare don't even come close to matching just the PS4 pre-orders of Black Ops 3. We can also see that this time around, the PS4 version is more popular than the Xbox One edition - possibly due to Sony securing a timed DLC deal.

People are very clearly voting with their wallets here. Thankfully, I'm so glad that this has happened. "Yearly Call of Duty" was something that simply had to stop, and it might as well be this year.

Source: VG Chartz [http://www.vgchartz.com/preorders/42505/USA/]

Permalink

 

[Evonisia]

I don't know whether this is backlash to Activision's desperate marketing, or the fact it's in the future[footnote]Which I have nothing against but people really dislike it[/footnote], or whether people have finally realised that Infinity Ward have been a shell of a company for years now, but this is a good thing.

 

[Dalisclock]

I have no opinion on if the game is good or not, but I'm glad to finally see some pushback against the pre-order BS these companies have been pulling for years.

 

[MatthewTheDark]

Its about time we saw Activision pay for its bullshit.

 

[List]

Isn't this because of the Modern-warfare remaster bullshit? Because if people are getting tired of yearly cod, the decline shouldn't be this drastic. Or the fact that the setting is too far forward in the future that they lost their main demographic?

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Good. Maybe then CoD can actually go somewhere. Even Ubisoft, Ubisoft, gave Assassin's Creed a rest.

 

[Worgen]

Kind of a shame, this is actually the first cod game I've seen previews for that has actually made me interested. It would be nice if this finally got activision to cut out the dlc bullshit.

 

[Starke]

combined[/I]

Is it bold, or italics, the world may never know.

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

YES, less pre-orders is a good thing! Irregardless of what game it is... Of course this is speaking as somebody who Kickstartered Planetary Annihilation and Star Citizen(back when it was a Kickstarter) so I may be a hypocrite or just slow to learn.

 

[Hawki]

So, um, I won't have trouble getting a copy?

Mentioned this before, but this might be the first CoD I play since the WWII era. Because SPAAACE!

 

[EndlessSporadic]

+1 faith in gamers restored.

 

[Metalrocks]

thats hilarious. i bet activision didnt see this one coming. thinking that every COD title sold like hotcakes, they think they can get away with anything. looks like not this time or parents had enough of the same game every year to spend on their 8 year olds.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Ouch. The wave had to end eventually, Activision had to eventually push too far, and it looks like this may very well be the year. Throw in the fact that Battlefield 1 is coming out, and I'm pretty sure some executives are sweating bullets right now.

I'll still pick this one up on launch day because it looks like they've recaptured what makes the campaign fun for me, but this is the last time if I don't come away from this one going, "Whoo...okay, let's do that again." Ghosts damn near murdered the series for me, and Advance Warfare barely managed to keep the series alive. Black Ops III started out strong, but then it kind of fell apart (and once I learned what was really going on, I was annoyed to the point that I haven't touched the game since). So this is the last chance, and only because we're going into space and it looks like I'm part of an army again, not a one (or two-or-three man squad) killing machine. So tired of that. That's not why I play these games, guys.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Maybe... Just maybe...


Though in all fairness I actually dig the sci-fi motif that they're going for. What can I say, I like spaceships and shit.

Why? Why does it HAVE to stop?

Because it's an industry practice that's ultimately bad for the consumer and bad for the medium. If one of the market leaders is showing that the yearly release cycle fails we might actually see it stop being used and we hopefully won't see another case of what happened with Assassin's Creed.

As far as I'm concerned, the kiddies can have Battlefield 1[1]. It looks like yet another bland BF game with a thin veneer of WWI paint on top. Nothing I've seen or heard makes it sound like anything but an aesthetic gimmick.

Nah, the era itself has way too many technological differences with the modern day to have it only be an aesthetic gimmick. That's actually why I'm looking forward to it. No assault rifle spam, no fancy sights and scopes, no jets and helicopters randomly bombing you, etc etc. That's why I'm looking forward to it.

And there'll probably be horses to ride! Doing a first-person cavalry charge sounds fucking awesome.

If there's any game guilty of just having an aesthetic veneer it's CoD. Even in Future Warfare, despite the swanky movement system, we mostly had the same kind of gameplay. The same kind of assault rifles, SMG's, objectives, etc.

Not that I trust DICE that much after the whole BF4 debacle. We'll see, but I'm giddy for the implications of a WW1 setting.

 

[chadachada123]

Ten times less, or ten times fewer? Or am I just being a pedantic dickhole?

Still, a shame, because unacceptable DLC practices aside, this looks to be the first Call of Duty in quite some time to have an interesting single player campaign. I'm afraid that this might send the wrong message to Activision, since this is essentially punishing innovation (assuming the game is as polished as previous entries).

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

I'll be damned. Maybe gamers can learn after all.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

gee it's almost like releasing the same game every fucking year will eventually burn out the franchise.

Like... we had advanced warfare, that still had plenty of life in it. Did we need Black Ops III? Did we need any of this? You could of just built one thing, expand on it

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Didn't they try to resurrect the Rockband franchise at some point? Given how they favour reacting over acting, I wonder what franchise they will next try to unintentionally run in to the ground.

 

[Vigormortis]

Because it's an industry practice that's ultimately bad for the consumer and bad for the medium. If one of the market leaders is showing that the yearly release cycle fails we might actually see it stop being used and we hopefully won't see another case of what happened with Assassin's Creed.

This presumes that only games like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed are viable and successful.

Given the immense variety of the industry, and the myriad of success stories outside cases like Call of Duty, I don't understand how you can make any of those claims. Notably the "it's bad for the medium".

It's...really not. If anything, it helps keep the industry afloat.

Nah, the era itself has way too many technological differences with the modern day to have it only be an aesthetic gimmick. That's actually why I'm looking forward to it. No assault rifle spam, no fancy sights and scopes, no jets and helicopters randomly bombing you, etc etc. That's why I'm looking forward to it.

Big assumption. Mechanically there's little to indicate that the game will play like anything different than any other Battlefield game. Instead of "rifle spam" you'll have "flamethrower spam". Instead of jets and helicopters you'll have woefully overpowered tanks and zeppelins.

Really, beyond the aesthetics, I haven't seen nor heard anything that shows BF1 to be in any way meaningfully different than any other core BF game.

And there'll probably be horses to ride! Doing a first-person cavalry charge sounds fucking awesome.

Yeah, I don't know that DICE will do that justice. I really don't. But more power to ya if it turns out well.

Still, I'm calling it now. The horses will control worse than any BF vehicle thus far. Hope I'm wrong, though. We need more quality war-horse gameplay in our games.

If there's any game guilty of just having an aesthetic veneer it's CoD. Even in Future Warfare, despite the swanky movement system, we mostly had the same kind of gameplay. The same kind of assault rifles, SMG's, objectives, etc.

Not really. Advanced Warfare played remarkably different than most other COD games. The inclusion of things like mechs and laser cannons made it feel like some unholy cross between Mechwarrior and Quake. But even if what you say were true, how does that negate what I said about Battlefield 1 and the BF series as a whole? The only real exception was Bad Company, but mechanically that was identical to all the others.

Not that I trust DICE that much after the whole BF4 debacle. We'll see, but I'm giddy for the implications of a WW1 setting.

Yes, a WWI setting sounds neat, but I still think everyone is letting that cloud their view of all of the other bullshit. It's still a modern-day DICE/EA game. It's still a Battlefield game. It's still going to lack 3rd party server support. It's going to lack mod support. It'll still use that abysmally stupid Battlelog menu system. It'll be rife with DLC and microtransactions. It'll still (likely) be mechanically similar or identical to the other BFs.

Now, if none of those things bother you, that's fine. The setting being the selling point makes sense then. But if any of those do bother you, and you're still excited for it because of the setting, then you're letting the aesthetic blind you. That's all I'm saying.

For me, I know what to expect, generally, from a COD game. I rarely play the multiplayer outside of LAN and bot games, so I usually wait for a GOTY edition where I can get the game and all the DLC for less. The DLC and other nonsense rarely has an effect on me. As such, the primary selling point of Infinite Warfare, that being an open-ended, possibly non-linear campaign with ground, sky, and space-based battles, is enough to convince me to jump back into the series. If the promise of WWI is enough for you to ignore all the other aspects of modern Battlefield games, then we're in the same boat.

Besides, by the time I get around to buying these games I could probably buy both for less than either will cost at launch.