Modern Warfare 3 Sets Record for Biggest Entertainment Launch

[NC37]

Originally Posted by EastCoasthandle

What grabbed my attention was the lack of marketing needed to reach such estimated sales. Most of that will in fact be just profit and, won't we subtracted from the amount of money used to market the game.

Everytime someone says the word CoD...millions of teenager pants get mysteriously wet.

It doesn't need to be great looking or anything new, just say CoD, and prepare extra tissues ;D

[qubit]

Originally Posted by NC37

Everytime someone says the word CoD...millions of teenager pants get mysteriously wet.

It doesn't need to be great looking or anything new, just say CoD, and prepare extra tissues ;D

Nice.

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by fullhd99

COD MW3:The day-one sales for Call of Duty MW3 amounted to an estimated 6.5 million units sold in 24 hours and totaled $400 million in just two countries, the United States and the UK

BF3:EA only provided us with the one-week sales numbers for Battlefield 3. Those numbers amounted to 5 million copies sold in a week, and that’s worldwide.

So, there you have it. BF3’s one-week worldwide sales were record-breaking for EA, but they weren’t even enough to match MW3’s day-one totals in two countries.

Call of Duty once again holds the top entertainment launch spot, as it has in 2009 (CoD MW2 )and 2010 (CoD Black Ops)

Next time just highlight your whole post and hit bold, you don't need to bold every sentence separately, seems you aren't too adept with the PC I don't think anyone expect BF3 to outsell MW3, if they did they were insane. I didn't expect BF3 to be as close as it was, 5 million units is a shit load, I don't care if it was 1.5 mill less, it's still a ton, and closed a huge gap compared to BC2 sales. And I don't know about you, but I judge my games on gameplay, not on sales figures, though it is nice that BF3 brought gameplay and sales figures to the tables, sometimes it's hard to find servers with enough room for a few friends to join on me.

Originally Posted by EastCoasthandle

Lets be fair, BF3 needs to be fixed on many fronts.
-C2D issues
-game always crashing on 1st launch
-randomly kicked from the server
-activation issues
-memory issues
-stuttering issues
-orange/red/green flashing issues
-tedious use of Origin + FF/Chrome + plugins just to play BF3
-etc

While MW3 doesn't have such issues. Although not perfect their game day launch was pretty typical of what one would expect from a game. Perhaps that may have played a part of why it sold so well and it's still being played by many.

Having said as such, it's not the technical merits of BF3 why it doesn't compete with MW3. Neither was it do to the amount of marketing. It's the perception of how people see products from EA and how they see products from Activision. It appears that they trust Activision more. And so far, they are getting what they are expecting from them. Can the same be said about EA? Or will the response be "you need a 64 bit OS"?

It's not too hard to quash bugs when you been copy and pasting new maps on the same platform for almost half a decade. Most people I know play BF3 without any of those issues, they are out there, and yes links to as many threads as you want is fine, because people who are having issues will make threads, there is no point in making a thread if your game is running great.

I'd just rather have the dev's trying to push the boundaries and having some bugs slip through vs using a 5 year old engine and giving us nothing new.

[digibucc]

whole post, awesome. +1 billion internetz kurgan

[entropy13]

More on the point of the "best-selling game ever".

I read that the "classic hits" the current generation knows from the 50s and 60s were almost always NOT the #1 songs at that time.

First of all, you have the fact that the crap from previous eras gets forgotten, leaving only the great stuff behind. Those songs on classic rock stations are obviously cherry-picked as the best and most indicative of an entire era; it's not a random sampling of all the music available at the time. Modern rock or pop stations, on the other hand, have to play whatever's come out in the past six months or so. So there is a filter applied to the old stuff. Even most of the music in Mozart's day was bullshit. And because it was bullshit, nobody felt the need to keep copies. And what was preserved isn't played today. Because it's bullshit. So it's easy to look back at Mozart's era (or the 1960s, or whatever) and assume that because only the classics survive in our memory, everything made back then was a classic. The other problem is we assume that what gets remembered over time is whatever was the most popular. Not true.

For instance, what survives from the Vietnam era (thanks mostly to Vietnam movies) are songs like the badass protest song "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival and "Gimme Shelter" by the Rolling Stones. Both were released in 1969, after the war started going bad.

Now look at the Billboard year-end singles charts from 1946 to today. The top song in 1969? "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies.

This is what is happening with Call of Duty. After World at War (which has a Broken Base - what's a "Broken Base"? Check tvtropes.org) it all went downhill in a "games to remember" sense.

[Nick89]

ಠ_ಠ

Bobby kotick has successfully found a way to make gamers eat their own shit over and over AND enjoy it.

[Fx]

Originally Posted by Shihabyooo

Because it takes brains to play BF3, yet only reflexes (or patience for camping) can get you by in CoD. Most of those who buy CoD are kids (or adults for kids), who are mostly in it for the adrenaline rush (Or the sake to annoy us real adult gamers )

And please cut down a little bit on bold typing. It's giving me a headache.

Edit: I'm a CoD fan. Yet I too believe Activision should stop f*cking us all up, and make a decent game for once. Instead of recycling the same good ol' game.

really? it takes brains? so BF3 requires that I use my brain more so than CoD??

try again. BF3 isnt any harder to play than CoD. it is just a different game so it has a different style of gameplay. sure the gfx are recycled and shame on Activision for that, but that doesnt make it a bad game

also, just because lots of kiddies play it doesnt make it a bad game- it only means it is very popular. it has gained so much popularity due to its' solid gameplay and the simple fact that it runs well on consoles

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Fx

it has gained so much popularity due to its' solid gameplay

Yes, it has "solid gameplay" but that doesn't really set it apart from other FPS with "solid gameplay", like the Battlefield series.

Originally Posted by Fx

and the simple fact that it runs well on consoles

Yeah, this is actually the primary cause of it's popularity.

[Delta6326]

I feel for the graphics. That's the only thing that stops me from MW3.

[s{orpion]

yes, Call of Duty is a GREAT game!

i have played them all since first Call of Duty launch waaaaaay back!
(yes, i am THAT old lol)

However, it is sad to see them beating out Battlefield.

Battlefield offers larger maps, better graphics, distructable environments,
realistic physx, 4x the unlockables, vehicles (land, sea, and air),
better classes, better weapon variation, and FAR better squad/team play!

again, Call of Duty is good... but it is not even half the game of Battlefield.

[theoneandonlymrk]

too high a total end cost for my likeing, ive passed activision a lot of money and they jus want more so im done with em, their Dlc structure sucks balls too, 4maps inc 2 stale ones for 12 quid isnt fair x4 prob 5 this time round

[Frick]

Originally Posted by Nick89

ಠ_ಠ

Bobby kotick has successfully found a way to make gamers eat their own shit over and over AND enjoy it.

CoD is anything but shit. Some day it might turn to that, but not yet.

You might not like it (I know I'm not a big fan) but the games are pretty solid (especially in MP) and that is pretty danged hard to ignore.

[TheLaughingMan]

Originally Posted by EastCoasthandle

I believe that many of the elements from BF2 did in fact hurt the sales of BF3. Such as:
-no real squad leader that can give orders/way points
-no commander
-no in game voip
-no in game ping
-way to many assets to unlock
-huge chat box
-flashlight and sun too bright, too much blue tint and the contrast is to high
just to name a few. What I'm getting at is those elements that made BF, BF. Then people had to fight them just to get a broken command rose that doesn't have ammo/medic request. Then they had to fight them to get squads half way decent. You still can't name your own squad, kick/request people to join, etc.
-no mod tools
-no spectator mod
-chat box should be similar to Bf2/BC2 were teammates are one color, squad mates are one color and enemies are another color
-no battle recorder

Although a long list, they did fix the hit registration . But one thing I loved about conquest from BF2 was that you had to capture enemy flags. That is what true conquest was for me. And it was done in a way were you would inevitably come face to face with your opponent. When defending you had the pick of the litter of where you wanted to spawn. This is what the current maps don't offer when in conquest. Although metro comes close it's sectioned off.

Like I said, when you play MW3 you know what you are getting.

- There is a squad leader and he can give orders and everything. People online are stupid and just don't. Play with more TPU people.

- In game VOIP build into Battlelog site. Works just fine. As it is independent of servers, it doesn't affect their lag which makes it better than BF2.

- No sure what you need in game ping for, but ok. And there is no commander. got to give you those two.

- location of markers and the chat box do need to be adjusted and resized

- Blue tint? That is your monitor. Do you remember the sun? It is suppose to be bright. Its the SUN. Just like glare and dust should get in your eyes. While it is a game it is trying to be a realistic shooter.

- We didn't have to fight anyone. They did not work in a BETA. IT WAS A BETA. I can request ammo and stuff without the comma rose. I still find it to be too slow to use in active combat. And the squad system works fine. So what you can't name the squads. You can't do that in the real military either. And you can kick people out of your squad, though you can't send invites.

- We are getting mod tools later on. nothing stopping them from adding battle recorder later. Spectator mod will likely be added for the first tournaments.

- The chat messages are different colors based on everyone (white), Team (blue), and squad (green).

Did you play this game? It sounds like you are basing your "opinion" off of stuff you read online by bad reviewers.

[Fx]

Originally Posted by Delta6326

I feel for the graphics. That's the only thing that stops me from MW3.

not me. I remember back in the day when I first started playing FPS. I first started with Counterstrike and I would play that game every day. I played the hell out of that game for years and loved every minute of it. Valve eventually came out with CS:S and I moved on to that and played the hell out of it. I do this with every FPS I enjoy until I get bored of the game and start looking for a different feel. sometimes, that involves RTS, MMO, RPG or even another FPS

I agree that BF3 brings a lot to the table that CoD doesnt but it is fucking retarded for people to bash CoD just because it is so popular and/or they dont like it. again, shame on Activision for not spending more money to accomplish so much more possibilities in greatness. but, just because they are raking in on their cash cow doesnt take away from the fact that CoD has some really fun gameplay. when I say this I am referring to PC gameplay because I havent owned a console since 2003

[Nick89]

Originally Posted by Frick

CoD is anything but shit. Some day it might turn to that, but not yet.

You might not like it (I know I'm not a big fan) but the games are pretty solid (especially in MP) and that is pretty danged hard to ignore.

I'm not really saying its shit, but it is the exact game as before. they keep releasing the same game.

[EastCoasthandle]

Originally Posted by 1Kurgan1

It's not too hard to quash bugs when you been copy and pasting new maps on the same platform for almost half a decade. Most people I know play BF3 without any of those issues, they are out there, and yes links to as many threads as you want is fine, because people who are having issues will make threads, there is no point in making a thread if your game is running great.

I'd just rather have the dev's trying to push the boundaries and having some bugs slip through vs using a 5 year old engine and giving us nothing new.

You're not seeing the point being made in my post nor did you answer the question at the end of it. Perception is reality. That means how you are initially perceived will be how you are categorized. It's not necessarily judging you. It's what people do. So to say, "oh well it can be fixed" is really missing the point. MW3 launch was smoother then BF3's launch. Albeit not perfect it was playable. BF3 on the other had isn't playable and many have to revert to some odd tweaks to get it to work or just deal with it until it's patched. Saying that BF3 runs fine for some is simply a farce. There have been way to many thread/posts about the game stopping bugs to suggest that claim is simply not true.

As for pushing the boundaries for some bugs...I'm sure you wouldn't want that in a vehicle you may purchase or the medicine you need. Because in those examples safety, reliability and it's ability to actually work as intended are a priority. It's just that many view games the same way. I understand that you don't care as that's what your post implies. However, there are others who do and they obviously are voting with their wallet to let you know.

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMan

- There is a squad leader and he can give orders and everything. People online are stupid and just don't. Play with more TPU people.

- In game VOIP build into Battlelog site. Works just fine. As it is independent of servers, it doesn't affect their lag which makes it better than BF2.

- No sure what you need in game ping for, but ok. And there is no commander. got to give you those two.

- location of markers and the chat box do need to be adjusted and resized

- Blue tint? That is your monitor. Do you remember the sun? It is suppose to be bright. Its the SUN. Just like glare and dust should get in your eyes. While it is a game it is trying to be a realistic shooter.

- We didn't have to fight anyone. They did not work in a BETA. IT WAS A BETA. I can request ammo and stuff without the comma rose. I still find it to be too slow to use in active combat. And the squad system works fine. So what you can't name the squads. You can't do that in the real military either. And you can kick people out of your squad, though you can't send invites.

- We are getting mod tools later on. nothing stopping them from adding battle recorder later. Spectator mod will likely be added for the first tournaments.

- The chat messages are different colors based on everyone (white), Team (blue), and squad (green).

Did you play this game? It sounds like you are basing your "opinion" off of stuff you read online by bad reviewers.

Your post isn't reflective of what you are trying to imply. Squad leader functionality is broken. You can't effectively community with your squad via voip and you can't set way points to let people know what you want to do. You can't invite or kick people from your squad. Furthermore, the 1st one to create the squad should be squad leader. Heck, you can't even join an empty squad as you are auto joined. These are basic features.

As for voip itself this title needs it in game. Something that console gamer currently enjoy using. So that's also broken.

Ok, I get it you don't care for in game ping but it's essential to let you know how well you are doing in game. It's part of that information that will tell you if your lagging, if your hits will register as it should, etc.

The blue tint is from the game not the monitor LOL. It's obvious you don't know much and it shows in your reply. Here, have a look at their final color grading. That is what Dice calls it .

It's the SUN, LOL really? For a game it's not suppose to blind you while you are not directly looking at it. Compound that with the amount of contrast it makes it hard to see. You have a blinding sunlight and pitch black shadows and other dark places. It needs to be fixed and I believe they are adjusting it in the patch. And to further solidify the point Crysis did the same thing without blinding you vs BF3! Or will you say that they somehow did it wrong, LOL. Yeah, your point is moot.

Your beta point is whimsical at best. Why? Because those points were fought before the beta. You get it now, LOL.

There has been no announcement of a release date for mod tools/spectator mod, battle recorder, etc. Have you been paying attention to current events? Where have you been all this time?

The chat message box can only be fixed properly when the blue tint or final color grading is removed. Have you been playing the game? Have you research any of the wrong points you posted? I take it you haven't. Have a look at the difference between BC2's chat box vs BF3's chat box.

BC2


BF3

Do you see the blue tint now? LOL, and that's just a portion of the chat box. BC2 color coding for chat is better then BF3 and should use what BF2/BC2 used. Not only the color coding but the organization of the chat box for BF2/BC2 is better then BF3.

While you post misleading information MW3 doesn't share any of the concerns people have for BF3. Yes, it's a reused engine, yes, the graphics are similar and even the maps are similar but the game is playable and enjoyed by many. If Dice had refined, fixed, tweaked and used FB 1.5 for BF3, provided more elements of BF2, fine tune the game after the beta, had the beta much earlier, fixed the bugs, removed the blue tint, reduced the contrast, etc. Thus providing a much smoother bug free release without battlelog, origin, web browser plug ins, been available on Steam, etc I would assume it would have really competed against MW3. But that didn't happen.

I really think that one of the main reasons why people like MW is because after the game is released there is no major overhauling to nerf weapons. Sure they may have been some fine tuning here and there but what you initially bought will be the same game you play months after release. I call that reliability.

[3volvedcombat]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Yes, it has "solid gameplay" but that doesn't really set it apart from other FPS with "solid gameplay", like the Battlefield series.



Yeah, this is actually the primary cause of it's popularity.

It does not set it apart, from any other FPS series.

It sets it BESIDE other FPS genre's, like BF.

Criticism in fine words is still criticism.



Everybody needs to realize how the COD boundaries have changed, period. The game is marketed slightly one way, but now there philosophy and strategy is different.
COD is now in the realms, of NBA 2k, Fifa, and other sports games.
There going to pop them out like babies, there not going to change much, and there going to be decently developed games.
COD was fine tuned from mw1, and set for success as previous titles has made this ever more true.
Now its around the last 2 years or so, before a new console jumps out to slap them, so there going to try to take advantage of this series as much as possible, by releasing yearly titles like NBA 2k ect ect.. are known for.

Whats the deciding factor of COD franchise loosing this barrier, when the new consoles come out. Someone is going to have to engage in real development period. So we will either see an amazing increase and development in the COD series.
Or they release a title, that will not compete with anything else and crash and burn.

Right now they have the right to do yearly release, even if the prices are a little outrages. Its not really considering realism from the realms of any other FPS. Its more arcade and up to date. Consider it a NBA 2k series. Probably what there thinking right now.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by 3volvedcombat

It does not set it apart, from any other FPS series.

It sets it BESIDE other FPS genre's, like BF.

Criticism in fine words is still criticism.

"FPS" is a genre. How can a genre have a separate genre?

[trickson]

Meh not into this game at all .

[CyberDruid]

Satan is pleased

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Fx

I agree that BF3 brings a lot to the table that CoD doesnt but it is fucking retarded for people to bash CoD just because it is so popular and/or they dont like it. again, shame on Activision for not spending more money to accomplish so much more possibilities in greatness. but, just because they are raking in on their cash cow doesnt take away from the fact that CoD has some really fun gameplay. when I say this I am referring to PC gameplay because I havent owned a console since 2003

I never really thought of CoD as a "fun" game. Maybe "easy to learn" or "short learning curve" but definitely not "fun." Counter-Strike is still that "fun" game. I still remember playing for 2 hours in a LAN shop against various people, it was CS 1.3 I think. It was usually 36v36 but sometimes it reaches 42v42 (meaning all the PCs were playing in that map). I vividly remember my score then, 146 kills and 39 deaths.

[morphy]

I got nothing against MW3 as a game. But imo I don't think I should pay full price for what is essentially a DLC. It's a mappack with skins and new perks. If the game was $30 I'd probably buy it.

[Fx]

Originally Posted by entropy13

I never really thought of CoD as a "fun" game. Maybe "easy to learn" or "short learning curve" but definitely not "fun." Counter-Strike is still that "fun" game. I still remember playing for 2 hours in a LAN shop against various people, it was CS 1.3 I think. It was usually 36v36 but sometimes it reaches 42v42 (meaning all the PCs were playing in that map). I vividly remember my score then, 146 kills and 39 deaths.

I enjoy the MW series for nothing other than the smooth reflex-based gameplay. CS maps were based around the same thing and used simple objectives to make the matches more dynamic. MW has improved upon that. I have gone back to CS 1.3 about a year ago and just couldnt get into it after experiencing a much more refined experience but CS has a special place in my fond early-gaming days...

Originally Posted by morphy

I got nothing against MW3 as a game. But imo I don't think I should pay full price for what is essentially a DLC. It's a mappack with skins and new perks. If the game was $30 I'd probably buy it.

I definitely see your point of you. my approach with every one of the MW games has been to buy the vanilla release and play it till I get bored. I never buy any of the DLCs because I can get into plenty of action without them

[araditus]

Dead serious, Counter-Strike is still the best, most balanced, pure FPS in history. Save money get gun, no air strikes, its your eyeballs, your reaction time, your tactical decisions, vs someone elses.

Admitingly its not an arcade game like the Call of Duty franchise,and Battlefield would be such a better game without EA micromanaging its customers (origin) passed on it for that sole reason.

[TheLaughingMan]

Originally Posted by EastCoasthandle

Your post isn't reflective of what you are trying to imply. Squad leader functionality is broken. You can't effectively community with your squad via voip and you can't set way points to let people know what you want to do. You can't invite or kick people from your squad. Furthermore, the 1st one to create the squad should be squad leader. Heck, you can't even join an empty squad as you are auto joined. These are basic features.

As for voip itself this title needs it in game. Something that console gamer currently enjoy using. So that's also broken.

Ok, I get it you don't care for in game ping but it's essential to let you know how well you are doing in game. It's part of that information that will tell you if your lagging, if your hits will register as it should, etc.

The blue tint is from the game not the monitor LOL. It's obvious you don't know much and it shows in your reply. Here, have a look at their final color grading. That is what Dice calls it .

It's the SUN, LOL really? For a game it's not suppose to blind you while you are not directly looking at it. Compound that with the amount of contrast it makes it hard to see. You have a blinding sunlight and pitch black shadows and other dark places. It needs to be fixed and I believe they are adjusting it in the patch. And to further solidify the point Crysis did the same thing without blinding you vs BF3! Or will you say that they somehow did it wrong, LOL. Yeah, your point is moot.

Your beta point is whimsical at best. Why? Because those points were fought before the beta. You get it now, LOL.

There has been no announcement of a release date for mod tools/spectator mod, battle recorder, etc. Have you been paying attention to current events? Where have you been all this time?

The chat message box can only be fixed properly when the blue tint or final color grading is removed. Have you been playing the game? Have you research any of the wrong points you posted? I take it you haven't. Have a look at the difference between BC2's chat box vs BF3's chat box.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...FBCchatbox.jpg
BC2

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...oxbluetint.jpg
BF3

Do you see the blue tint now? LOL, and that's just a portion of the chat box. BC2 color coding for chat is better then BF3 and should use what BF2/BC2 used. Not only the color coding but the organization of the chat box for BF2/BC2 is better then BF3.

While you post misleading information MW3 doesn't share any of the concerns people have for BF3. Yes, it's a reused engine, yes, the graphics are similar and even the maps are similar but the game is playable and enjoyed by many. If Dice had refined, fixed, tweaked and used FB 1.5 for BF3, provided more elements of BF2, fine tune the game after the beta, had the beta much earlier, fixed the bugs, removed the blue tint, reduced the contrast, etc. Thus providing a much smoother bug free release without battlelog, origin, web browser plug ins, been available on Steam, etc I would assume it would have really competed against MW3. But that didn't happen.

I really think that one of the main reasons why people like MW is because after the game is released there is no major overhauling to nerf weapons. Sure they may have been some fine tuning here and there but what you initially bought will be the same game you play months after release. I call that reliability.

Seriously, I have nothing against MW3. If that is what people want to play, fine. Its not my flavor of game. You are projecting really really hard as i didn't even mention MW3 in my post, so i am not sure why you feel the need to attack me about it. You let your fanboy show there. I was going to PM this so we could privately discuss this, but F^*& that noise.

And You can't have played BF3. Once again, you can give orders. The first person in a squad is squad leader. You can move to an empty squad now. You can kick people from a squad. I know all this because I have done it. You are talking about stuff you don't know about. In game VOIP I have not tried to use so i don't know and way points are gone (I never really used them). So everything you just said there for the second time is based on the BETA and NOT the final release.

I didn't say I didn't care for in game ping. I said I don't need it. I saw my ping before i joined the server. I don't need to be kept up to date about it, but thats me. BF3 is a server based system and your ping will not change much during play. They have even tweaked this further to remove the auto ping adjustment BS from BC2. You do need in game ping for a direct connect system like Modern Warfare as the person you connected will have a far less stable connection than a dedicated server. Ping in game good for MW3, not important for BF3 what so ever.

And while you want to claim I don't know much, you don't know how to calibrate your monitor. That blue tint you are talking about does not exist in my game cause I corrected any odd colors. Whoever took those pictures is techincally savvy, but a bit of a tosser.

And as for misleading. MW1 and MW2 did get several rebalances for weapons and bug fixes. The difference is, you had to pay for the required update in MW2 and it still never fixed several major bugs and exploits. I don't hold this against either title because stuff happens. Every single game needs maintenance. It is the longest part of the software cycle for a reason.

As for the sun not blinding you because its a game??? Really, that is your defense? Once again, for the second time, BF3 was going for a realistic environment. The Sun can blind soldiers in real life, they have the tech now to do it in game, so they did it. Its not a plus or a minus, its just a fact. I personal think including those kinds of touches is what makes BF3 the game it is right now. The one you know nothing about apparently.

I recommend you stick to what you know in this matter, put the fanboy away, and have a simple forum discussion about MW3 breaking this record.