For a few years now, one game has commanded the first-person-shooter crowd. For a while, the argument was plain and simple: “Halo” or “Call of Duty”?
People had their various reasons for either. “Halo” was more skill-based, “Call of Duty” was more realistic, and so the list goes on.
Forgetting content and looking at sales, “Call of Duty” reigns king. “Black Ops” outsold “Halo: Reach” at $360 million while the latter only sold $200 million on either’s first day.
It’s safe to say “Call of Duty,” published by Activision, is the most successful FPS to date, especially with the anticipated “Modern Warfare 3” being released on Nov. 8. At least until “Battlefield 3” emerged from the shadows!
Ok, emerging from the shadows was a bit of an exaggeration. The “Battlefield” franchise, published by EA, has been around since 2002 and has had its own successes, such as “Battlefield: Bad Company 2,” which had well-rounded positive reviews from most credible game critics, and “Battlefield 3,” which released on Oct. 25.
So what is it that might have made “Battlefield” the new rival of “Call of Duty” (allowing good ol’ “Halo” to seep away, at least until “Halo 4” does its thing in 2012)?
I think it boils down to a goal both franchises share. Realistic gaming is a big deal. Gamers love to feel like they’re in the midst of the battle while in the safety of their living room.
Both the “Call of Duty” and “Battlefield” franchises are well-known for offering a realistic combat experience with their competitive game-play.
Since “Battlefield 3” was announced, the realistic FPS fan crowd was split between two giants.
Soon the flak began flying as the warfare genre titles wanted theirs to be seen as the best. According to Game Infomer magazine, Eric Hirshberg, publishing CEO at Activision, requested a verbal cease fire between the two titles.
What was EA’s response? Jeff Brown, EA’s corporate communications vice president had the following to say:
“Welcome to the big leagues Eric. I know you’re new in the job, but someone should have told you this is a competitive industry. You’ve got every reason to be nervous… you’ll be out of the category in 2-3 years. If you don’t believe me, go to the store and try to buy a copy of Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk.”
When I read that quote in Game Informer, my first thoughts were “Oh snaps!” But then it hit me. Brown wasn’t kidding around. The “Tony Hawk” and “Guitar Hero” franchises have both been taken off the shelves. Unless you find a used copy at Game Stop, you won’t find a new title from either genre. Both of these games competed with EA’s “Skate” and “Rock Band” titles, and both no longer publish entries.
Does this mean EA relentlessly targets Activision, creates superior competition and stomps them out of business? Will “Call of Duty” fans go the route of the “Guitar Hero” and “Tony Hawk” fans, and switch to the EA version of the shooter genre? Or will they stay loyal to the “Call of Duty” franchise?