EA vs Activsion

[Zechs Merquise]

Recently it has been reported that EA’s Jeff Brown has been making some rather derogatory comments about the Call of Duty franchise and its lifespan. The main N-E site wrote a news article on this stating:

 

Jeff Brown of EA believes that Activision's Call of Duty series will be dead in 'two to three years time' because of a variety of factors, one being the increased popularity of EA's own shooter, Battlefield.

 

To back up his thoughts, Jeff Brown points to the Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk series, both of which were once massively popular but lost interest in a rather short space of time.

 

“[Activision have] got every reason to be nervous. Last year Activision had a 90 share in the shooter category. This year, Battlefield 3 is going to take you down to 60 or 70. At that rate, 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.â€

 

http://www.n-europe.com/news.php?nid=16125

 

Whilst I do believe that criticism and discussion is a good thing, it’s sometimes odd to see who the criticism is coming from. For EA to attack any developer over their approach to handling franchises – and in particular yearly updates – is totally bewildering.

 

We all know COD has become a yearly juggernaut. Every second Tuesday in November is a massive day for the gaming industry. Every year on that day a new COD game emerges and literally millions of copies of the game are sold within 24 hours of the release date. Midnight launches are held – and not just at dedicated game stores, the queue at my local Tesco snaked around the whole electronics section. A Call of Duty release has arguably become the biggest gaming event of the year – every year.

 

I can understand why some people don’t like this. I can understand why some people do not enjoy COD. I can understand why some people think a yearly update is too much and puts too much strain on the franchise. What I fail to understand is what gives EA the right to attack anyone on the subject of yearly updates.

 

For a start, I believe a new COD game is far more than merely a yearly update. Every new COD game brings a lot more than just updates. A new COD game brings with it a whole new single player experience, with a new story, new settings, new characters and new challenges. Then there’s the multiplayer, with all new maps, weapons, perks, kill streaks and balancing. Finally there is a new co-operative mode too, either Zombies or Spec Ops.

 

But Call of Duty isn’t just limited to those updates. Each year exciting new modes are added bringing an entirely new side to the game. In 2008 Treyarch added Zombies – a whole new and engaging mode. In 2009 Infinity Ward added Spec Ops, a two player co-operative mode. In 2009 Treyarch added Combat Training and Wager Matches. This year Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer are adding a survival mode and possibly much more.

 

But how do they squeeze so much into a yearly update? The fact is, each COD game is not a yearly release. Each COD game is developed over a two year period. The reason there is a COD game released each year is because Activision has two developers working on the franchise, one releases a game on the even numbered years, one on the odd numbered years.

 

One more thing to say for the COD franchise is that every game is polished. I’ve never played a COD game that I didn’t enjoy. Of course, I have enjoyed some more than others. There are also some games I enjoy playing a lot more than COD games. But one of the hallmarks of COD is that the games look and play extremely well and the attention to detail, especially in the multiplayer, makes them far more engaging experiences than other FPS titles that try to compete with them.

 

However, saying that, I do understand why some people may not like Call of Duty. Maybe some people don’t like realistic combat based FPS games. Maybe some people don’t like the speed and pacing of the multiplayer. No single game is going to please everyone.

 

But here’s the issue at hand, it’s EA who’s attacking Activision over the Call of Duty franchise. EA is a company that is most well known for its endless yearly updates - Madden, NHL and of course FIFA. What’s more, these yearly updates don’t bring anywhere near as much new content to the table as a new COD titles.

 

Don’t get me wrong – I’m positive that FIFA, Madden and NHL are all polished titles with a good amount of content. However, their yearly updates offer only incremental changes and tweaks to the experience compared to the much larger changes, improvements and additions that Call of Duty offers. Also, I get the feeling many yearly adopters of Madden, FIFA and NHL are merely buying the new games for the updated team sheets and kits – something that does nothing to change the experience and could easily be offered as cheap DLC to older entries in the franchise.

 

Jeff Brown makes a point of attacking Activision’s fallen franchises – Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk. I’m not going to start saying Activision didn’t milk those franchises, of course they did. But it’s not like EA doesn’t milk its franchises either. Just look at The Sims with its near endless streams of expansions and overpriced DLC. Take a look at Need for Speed, a yearly updated racing title which has tasted several highs and lows over the past few releases.

 

But most obviously there is EAs Medal of Honour franchise – which they literally turned from a AAA blockbuster into a lacklustre Call of Duty clone with none of the finesse. Medal of Honour went off the rails earlier this generation with the Vanguard and Airborne titles and the reboot failed to reach the levels of critical or commercial success the series had previously enjoyed.

 

We all know what Jeff Brown is trying to do – pit Battlefield 3 against Modern Warfare 3. But when it comes to milking a series, Battlefield is certainly no better than COD. When you view the entries in the Battlefield series (see below) you can observe that Battlefield and COD both have had plenty of titles released under their respective banners.

 

Jeff also seems to be making the assumption that you have to like either Battlefield or Call of Duty and customers need to decide between BF3 and MW3. I’m not so sure this is the case. Both games are very different – BF3 will continue to offer a much larger warzone, vehicular combat and a more realistic approach. MW3 will instead focus on fast paced infantry based game play which is more accessible and easy to get to grips with.

 

I’m pretty sure both games will be great and both will have a large user base. I’m getting both and I’m quite sure I won’t be alone in making that decision. Whilst I may well end up enjoying one more than the other, I’m positive that I’ll get a lot of enjoyment out of each.

 

This article is not here to defend Activision, nor is it written to attack EA. Open discussion and criticism is always welcome within the industry. The purpose of this article is to point out the hypocrisy from EA. There’s an old saying that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Well Jeff Brown is stood outside the largest green house in town throwing pretty big rocks, unfortunately for Jeff the sign above the green house reads ‘Electronic Arts’.

 

NOTES:

The history of the Battlefield Franchise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_(series)

 

The history of the Call of Duty Franchise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty

[S.C.G]

Activision’s fallen franchises – Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk.

 

But most obviously there is EAs Medal of Honour franchise... the reboot failed to reach the levels of critical or commercial success the series had previously enjoyed.

 

Battlefield 3 VS Modern Warfare 3.

 

Personally I believe that EA are the lesser of two evils for me while Activision have become too big for their own good largely owing to the success of COD...

 

As for fallen franchises, Guitar Hero deserved to be dropped because Activision haven't had a truly decent entry in the series since Harmonix left and formed Rock Band - a vastly superior offering - but as for Tony Hawk... I was somewhat sad to see that game series die purely because they always seemed to be going down the wrong route with it...

 

The whole reason Tony Hawks Pro Skater 2 was so enjoyable was because at its core it was simple and enjoyable but had enough there to make you want to become 'skilled' at it. But with each offering this gen, things seem to have been overcomplicated without reason - classic case being Tony Hawks Ride - when all they needed to do was bring the series back to its roots and add a few current gen features, heck even if they re-release THPS2 on XBLA with HD graphics and leaderboards I know I would buy it!

 

On the other hand EA have one franchise which I would love to see them bring back properly... Road Rash, which is why I'm glad to see that they at least mentioning the possibility of resurrecting it properly. A brand new Road Rash game would most definitely sell just as long as they keep the core gameplay similar to the originals and add in online multiplayer, simple... it would be a guaranteed hit I assure you.

 

I must have been one of the few people who actually enjoyed the Medal of Honour reboot because for me personally I enjoyed the single player campaign a lot more than Black Ops... the multiplayer, that's a different story as it would never reach the numbers of COD but Battlefield on the other hand has a very good chance of 'stealing' away some of the regular COD players purely because of what it's offering and more importantly for free.

 

But it is as you say... different strokes etc as both games will offer different experiences online so I have no doubt that many people will actually buy and enjoy both so there is room for the two but I don't necessarilly agree with Activision charing a monthly fee for COD just because they can. I realise that people will at least be getting something extra for buying in to it but I don't believe that it's the way forward, especially when you consider many of us are already paying to play online in the first place.

 

It's going to be an interesting last few months of this year but I'll be more intruiged to see where both companies go from here in 2012 because I believe that next year will be a time for change and it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

[Murr]

Way back when I was always against EA, and thought they were the guys that milked the games industry big time. And they did, and I guess still do as mentioned above with yearly NFS, FIFA's etc etc,

 

But at one point they changed and released a few new IP's such as Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Mass Effect.

 

When they released Rock Band and Skate I did think it was a piss take and a direct blag of Activisions games, but didn't really mind as I was glad to see other people do it.

 

 

it's strange how my feelings have shifted from thinking EA were dicks, to actually thinking they offer more fresh games to the market than Activision.

 

 

 

still Ubisoft > EA & Activision :p

[Magnus]

This article is not here to defend Activision

That's funny, because that's exactly what your post read like. All twenty paragraphs of it. It was almost tl;dr, but it was so desperate that I couldn't stop reading it.

 

And when your defense boils down to...

 

a) "It's okay that they're milking Call of Duty because every game comes with a new five-hours single-player campaign with a nonsensical story and a bunch of new multiplayer levels!" and,

b) "It's okay that they're milking Call of Duty because Electronic Arts have been doing/are currently doing the same thing, guys! Everyone else is doing it too! Don't you see, guys?!"

 

... It's really hard to take any of it seriously.

 

 

still Ubisoft > EA & Activision :p

[Ellmeister]

Also, Activision's titles I think will struggle in the future because more strong competition will face them. Such as Battlefield and its fanbase which has grown substantially.

 

You mention it is odd that EA are attacking Activision considering FIFA and Madden etc are yearly release, but I think EA know these will last longer because what changes every year may be subtle to you, but for real fans of the sport the players stats/designs will be different and this matters the most. also the competition for such games is less than COD would face I think therefore prolonging their game life for many sequels to come.

 

Lastly, I agree with Magnus, you clearly were defending Activision.

[Zechs Merquise]

I am certainly not defending Activision here, I'm saying that EA have a cheek attacking them. If anything I've defended the Call of Duty series.

 

I still say that there's far more new content in each Call of Duty game than there is in FIFA, Madden or NHL. I also stand by the fact that the COD series is very well done and the games are of a high quality.

 

Activision has milked some franchises, namely their 'Hero' series of music games. Guitar Hero, DJ Hero and Band Hero together all flooded the market and with main installments, track packs and stand alone games based around one particular artist the market was saturated very rapidly. More than one game a year like this was milking.

 

I still don't think Activision are milking Call of Duty. Yes, we get a game every year, but as I've stated in my original piece, each game brings a lot of new content to the table and expands significantly on previous titles.

 

I realise that sports fans are happy to pay full price for an updated team sheet, but as primarily a gamer, I find this somewhat a rip off.

 

As I've already stated, this is NOT a defence of Activision, but I concede it is a defence of sorts of their treatment of Call of Duty. I still think the point stands that the mudslinging from EA is hypocritical considering their treatment of franchises and the way they manage to sell millions of copies of games every year just by changing stats and team sheets!

[Ellmeister]

I'd agree it is hypocritical but you've just repeated your point several times that you think COD has lots of new stuff every time, whereas from my perspective I don't think it does, I've enjoyed several COD's yet I could never buy them all since they are too similar and I don't have money to waste!

 

Saying that, I do buy the new Fifa every year like a sucker because I like having the new squad and also the online experience deteriorates incredibly quickly on an old version one the replacement comes out and everyone is playing that!

[Murr]

 

 

 

 

You haven't played it? :p