Pachter: Battlefield 3 Won't Beat Call of Duty

[Bob_Marley42]

The real question of course is "do I care" and the awnser is no. I had a great time with BF:BC2 and have nearly double the hours logged with BF2 and its mods than any other game. Equally, I've enjoyed the CoD series - Black Ops was pretty fun, more so than MW2.

BF3 will almost certainly sell very well and provide hours of entertainment - it doesn't need to be a "CoD killer". No game does. It isn't needed to wipe out the competition with any genre.

 

[crystalsnow]

Won't beat in terms of sales?

Maybe.

Won't beat in terms of quality?

Gtfo.

 

[Irridium]

HA! Great joke. I severely hope you're kidding. Not about the Crysis part but the Battlefield part. You have OBVIOUSLY never played a battlefield game for more than 30 seconds if you somehow think they play anywhere near the same, or will get yearly releases. Battlefield games will not be produced yearly because you would had to add a second studio, and no one would be able to capture that distinct Battlefield "feel" as well as DICE.

With Bad Company 2, then Medal of Honor's multiplayer, DICE's games have been slowly but surely getting more and more like Call of Duty.

Granted Medal of Honor may have been a special case, but I'm still not holding my breath. I just hope they pull more from Battlefield 2/2142 than they do from Modern Warfare 2/Black Ops.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Another thing is, even though Battlefield is an amazing franchise(I'd take it over CoD any day, but we'll get to why), they do have slightly different demographics. There is surely some overlap, perhaps most with Battlefield fans also playing CoD, than there is CoD fans playing Battlefield. That's because Battlefield is a larger scale warfare kind of game, where there are a sense of tactic and teamwork involved. CoD is the arena shooter of the "realistic" shooter era. The Halo of contemporary warfare, if you will. CoD caters to primarily lone wolves, even if they play in teams, I'd dare say that most are only after their personal gain through personal victory. It stats and run and gun, and that demographic is easier to expand, because of the lower treshold for mastery at a certain level. In my opinion, those that favor Battlefield over CoD, myself included, are looking for a richer shooting experience, and an experience that require a different mindset, that if not harder per se, requires a certain amount of patience, if you will.

That sums it up rather succinctly, it is very much two different play styles for two different kinds of player.

Not a lot of people play both CoD and BF, simply because of the differences in how you have to play the game. Battlefield and Call of Duty are competing in economics, but for the most part, a Battlefield player will stick with Battlefield, and a Call of Duty player will stick with Call of duty. Although recently, you can begin to see a 'melding' of the two games, feature wise. World of War including vehicles, BF:BC2 including 'customizable' weapons and gear load-outs. But neither one is going to muscle in on the other's base without a fundamental change in what their games are all about.

 

[Wicky_42]

Just please don't think that "competing" means "copying", DICE - I have faith that you're better than that! Don't do a Homefront/Crysis and think that introducing a couple of gimmicks and refinements into a COD clone is going to 'slay the beast' :/

 

[Vrach]

Who ever thought Battlefield would overtake the CoD franchise? It's a niche FPS, not everyone's into huge open spaces, 64 player battles, vehicles and combat designed around something other than "man shoot man at small distances". CoD follows the tried and tested CS formula, which is more popular with the shooter market as it's something they're very much used to and comfortable with - two qualities that are very much important when you're dealing with a market of players who primarily care about their competitive representation.

I'll still be playing Battlefield though. All those things that make it different are what makes the game infinitely more fun for me. But each to their own, I think everyone's pretty well aware of the fact CoD will not be phased by Battlefield.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

I AM getting Battlefield 3 and not MW3 so yeah...

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

I get the feeling that CoD is starting to lose some of its steam.
While Battlefield 3 probably won't outsell the next Call of Duty, I think that unless they change up the series a lot, it will start selling less then their previous titles.

 

[harvz]

lets look at how many i have bought
EA: battlefield 2, 2142, bad company, bad company 2
Activision: COD4
-tried COD 5,6&7 but didnt buy, just went to friends place and vomited a little

all ive ever seen in COD is constant pandering to the 12 year olds which Activision believes is their fanbase.

 

[Super Toast]

I'm still buying it instead of CoD. Seriously, that series needs a break.

 

[Larsirius]

Another thing is, even though Battlefield is an amazing franchise(I'd take it over CoD any day, but we'll get to why), they do have slightly different demographics. There is surely some overlap, perhaps most with Battlefield fans also playing CoD, than there is CoD fans playing Battlefield. That's because Battlefield is a larger scale warfare kind of game, where there are a sense of tactic and teamwork involved. CoD is the arena shooter of the "realistic" shooter era. The Halo of contemporary warfare, if you will. CoD caters to primarily lone wolves, even if they play in teams, I'd dare say that most are only after their personal gain through personal victory. It stats and run and gun, and that demographic is easier to expand, because of the lower treshold for mastery at a certain level. In my opinion, those that favor Battlefield over CoD, myself included, are looking for a richer shooting experience, and an experience that require a different mindset, that if not harder per se, requires a certain amount of patience, if you will.

That sums it up rather succinctly, it is very much two different play styles for two different kinds of player.

Not a lot of people play both CoD and BF, simply because of the differences in how you have to play the game. Battlefield and Call of Duty are competing in economics, but for the most part, a Battlefield player will stick with Battlefield, and a Call of Duty player will stick with Call of duty. Although recently, you can begin to see a 'melding' of the two games, feature wise. World of War including vehicles, BF:BC2 including 'customizable' weapons and gear load-outs. But neither one is going to muscle in on the other's base without a fundamental change in what their games are all about.

To sum it up easierly, we could say that Activision and EA's respective franchises are competing for their share of the same social demographic; males between the ages of 15 and 40 primarily, while the games of the franchises themselves caters to different preferential demographics within the FPS demographic of that social demographic.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Pachter has a knack for stating either the obvious or the obviously stupid.

This, I think, is a combination of both.

 

[icame]

I get the feeling that CoD is starting to lose some of its steam.
While Battlefield 3 probably won't outsell the next Call of Duty, I think that unless they change up the series a lot, it will start selling less then their previous titles.

It outsells the predecessor every time and continues to be in the top 10 of amazon/most other retailers. If the next cod doesn't outsell Blops I will shave my head.

 

[siahsargus]

I personally prefer battlefield to call of duty for several reason I won't go into here, but I will be getting it on multiple platforms. I am a huge shooter fan, but I don't like the CoD games. Hopefully the new Battlefield 3 gets more exporsure outside of Gaming circles and sells well as a "CoD killer". I can only dream.

 

[Baresark]

Battlefield games are universally better in my opinion. I don't think it matters that they won't beat out CoD. It's literally, not that kind of a competition. They only need to be successful, not sell more copies. A company would be ludicrously stupid to not want to, but I don't think it matters if they do.

Did I ever mention that I hate analysts. They, for one thing, have their heads completely up their asses. He apparently thinks the next game will out sell Blops, but I know for certain that they have lost a large number of PC players. Also, EA is starting to re-shift their focus to PC because that is their biggest expanding market. And they'll win there almost everytime. EA is considered a dumb, money hungry company, but no where near as much as Activision.

 

[MrGalactus]

Who gives a SHIT how much it sells? Figures should not be what this industry is about. Just try and make it better, that's all that matters.

 

[Jaker the Baker]

Pachter: The analyst that is always right by saying things everyone already knows.

You sir, have won this thread.

 

[tehroc]

Crysis 2 is pretty awesome, it definitely succeeds in single player with a lengthy campaign (by today's standards).