Modern Warfare 3 Beats Avatar: Passes $1 Billion in 16 Days
That's a lot of dough.
Fresh off of a win for Best Shooter at the VGAs, Activision's Modern Warfare 3 has clocked up another big achievement. The company has announced that the game has hit the billion-dollar milestone after just 16 days.
Shortly after Modern Warfare 3 was announced, we learned that the game raked in $400 million in its first 24 hours of availability. Now, a little over two weeks later, that figure has jumped to one billion dollars.
"Engagement of our Call of Duty audience continues to rise around the world" said Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard. "Call of Duty as an entertainment franchise has made an indelible mark on popular culture and its broad and continued success is further validation that audiences increasingly value interactive experiences over passive experiences."
"Call of Duty has become that rare entertainment franchise that transcends its own genre. Core gamers love it, as our stellar reviews show. But every year, new people are drawn into Call of Duty," said Eric Hirshberg, CEO of Activision Publishing. "And while the franchise continues to set records, our fans still seem to want more, demonstrated by our record setting start on Call of Duty Elite. We are committed to helping everyone connect, compete and improve their game, Call of Duty style."
Activision's achievement means the company has Avatar's record of 17 days to a $1 billion bet by just one day. The company's $400 million in 24 hours marked the third consecutive year that the COD franchise has set day-one launch records across all forms of entertainment. Last year, Call of Duty: Black Ops had estimated day-one sell-through of $360 million (U.S. and UK), and in 2009, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 raked in $310 million on the first day.
- Online Holiday Spending in U.S. is Nearing $25 Billion
- Unmanned Drones Are Already Being Used in the U.S.
- Microsoft Launches Silverlight 5; Could Be Last One
- VIDEO: iPad 2 Says "Temp Too High" When Dumped in Lava
- Qualcomm Demonstrates Gesture-Controlled Screen
- Some Amazon Kindle Fires Brick Right Out of the Box
- Toshiba's 7-inch Tablet Now on Sale Starting at $379
- Indonesia Threatens to Ban BlackBerry Services
- Megaupload Threatens to Sue Universal Music Group
- Verizon May Soon Get a 4G Xperia PLAY Too
- Costco and Verizon Point to Dec. 15 Arrival for Galaxy Nexus
- FBI May Be Using Carrier IQ Too; Carrier IQ Issues Report
- Verizon May Simply Purchase Netflix Rather Than Compete
- Kindle Fire Tablet Getting Major UI Update Soon
- Isaac Newton's Papers Move To The Web
- MIT Shows Trillion-Frames-per-Second Video
- Facebook is Unequivocally the Most Popular Android App
- Nokia Says That Young People Are Bored of the iPhone
- Security Firm Questions Google Wallet Data Storage
Pure profit since there was little done to the game engine itself and basically just dev'ing new skins, throw in a new story line, and gaming zones. Good for them and hope this helps the gaming industry as a whole to continue producing quality games. Also no one can say COD MW does not have the best commercials!!! lol
Shows how many people have it all wrong. BF3 is where it's at.
I think the only way COD can keep this up for the next game that comes out is to be on the next generation consoles. 60 frames is nice but there needs to be something different to the game. The only way i see this working is for next generations bump the graphics, make it coop and to see the theather mode have more than one person viewing at a time. Alot of this is limited because of our current generation of consoles but soon we will start to see some crazy games...
this info is just sad.... people buy the same game 3 times .....
Wow.. Tom's is starting to really suck at getting "news' out when it is actually still news.
Way to be 2 days old there Toms.
Proving once and for all, that the human race is truly, deeply retarded.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
I think the only way COD can keep this up for the next game that comes out is to be on the next generation consoles. 60 frames is nice but there needs to be something different to the game. The only way i see this working is for next generations bump the graphics, make it coop and to see the theather mode have more than one person viewing at a time. Alot of this is limited because of our current generation of consoles but soon we will start to see some crazy games...
That's where your wrong. They haven't changed anything since MW1 and the game is setting new records each year. It doesn't make sense. It's like the idiots are multiplying by osmosis or something.
That's where your wrong. They haven't changed anything since MW1 and the game is setting new records each year. It doesn't make sense. It's like the idiots are multiplying by osmosis or something.
Speaking of idiots: you're*
However, crap like this is going to ruin the gaming industry. "If it sells well, don't change it," will be the new slogan. EA's going to see this money and be jealous, so they're going to consolize titles even further and recycle their content since it apparently works.
Just a question...why are they comparing how much money is earned on a game to a movie?
That's where your wrong. They haven't changed anything since MW1 and the game is setting new records each year. It doesn't make sense. It's like the idiots are multiplying by osmosis or something.
You btw digitalzom-b are wrong, they have changed a LOT since MW1. The multiplayer was totally revamped for each release of the game. They added new game styles and changed the ranking system with each release. Graphics haven't changed much, except for skins and textures but quality is almost the same as MW2 (MW1 had much worse graphics). The single player sucks, just like it did in the last 5 COD games. But people buy it for the multi-player not the single player, I haven't even started the single player campaign but I've played probably a hundred hours on multiplayer (on PC).
Shows how many people have it all wrong. BF3 is where it's at.
BF3 isn't the great PC FPS most people make it out to be, too many bad design choices. For now I chose neither.
Why do they compare a game to a movie. The game cost 60 fuckign dollars. How much is a movie. Avatar is still much more impressive especially considering they didn't brainwash us all with retarded hype and phony reviews.
this info is just sad.... people buy the same game 3 times .....
What makes you think everyone that bought MW3 played the previous COD titles? Think about all the new people coming of age that are getting in to gaming. I find it funny and sophomoric that there are so many posts eluding to the fact the game is SO similar to the previous ones. Well guess what.....there are many people, like myself, that never played the previous titles. For the record, I own BF3 and MW3 now. I like both. So ha
What makes you think everyone that bought MW3 played the previous COD titles? Think about all the new people coming of age that are getting in to gaming. I find it funny and sophomoric that there are so many posts eluding to the fact the game is SO similar to the previous ones. Well guess what.....there are many people, like myself, that never played the previous titles. For the record, I own BF3 and MW3 now. I like both. So ha
If you're on PC you should have bought 4 instead. 'tis a better game.
Look at the sheep following each other into a money sucking black hole that has become the MW franchise.
MW3 or BF3 or Resistance3 or whatever F**k You!
Is no one else getting a little bored with FPS?? Seriously.
If you're on PC you should have bought 4 instead. 'tis a better game.
well i bought cod 4 and it was a good game after that it was the same game...every year and year after year and the graphics are the same to ...
it must be a lie... none of my friends bought MW3
I'm sure this will lead other companies to get $$$-signs in their eyes and start work on even MORE FSP games, just to flood the market. On one hand, it might lead to companies producing better titles in this field, however I fear the focus will leave other gaming models to "go where the money is at".
Well props to Activision I guess. Personally I think its all gone downhill since COD4. BF3 is the first Battlefield game that I've played and it is a lot better than the last few entries in the COD series.
Personally, I haven't played anything but Skyrim since it came out.
That's where your wrong. They haven't changed anything since MW1 and the game is setting new records each year. It doesn't make sense. It's like the idiots are multiplying by osmosis or something.
Dont get me wrong there are other games that are great. Just the smoothest game right now for me is COD the 60 fps really makes all the difference for me and if halo or any other game upgraded or downgraded to 60 fps either way you wanna look at it. I will gladly switch to it. The ONLY reason i love COD is for the smoothness of the game.
Have a hard time believing these numbers. Everyone I game with skipped MW3. Overall impression I'm getting, lots are not buying it.
Have a hard time believing these numbers. Everyone I game with skipped MW3. Overall impression I'm getting, lots are not buying it.
Yeah but are you a PC gamer?
Just a question...why are they comparing how much money is earned on a game to a movie?You btw digitalzom-b are wrong, they have changed a LOT since MW1. The multiplayer was totally revamped for each release of the game. They added new game styles and changed the ranking system with each release. Graphics haven't changed much, except for skins and textures but quality is almost the same as MW2 (MW1 had much worse graphics). The single player sucks, just like it did in the last 5 COD games. But people buy it for the multi-player not the single player, I haven't even started the single player campaign but I've played probably a hundred hours on multiplayer (on PC).
Changed the ranking system? New game styles? Yeah, sounds like a total revamp... Sorry but you're blinded by fanboyism. I've played every MW up to BLOPS and I will not be buying MW3 because I'm not paying 60 dollars for a shoddy expansion slopped together by a shell of a team.
"Call of Duty has become that rare entertainment franchise that transcends its own genre. Core gamers love it, as our stellar reviews show. But every year, new people are drawn into Call of Duty," User Metacritic Score is 2.1 ....http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3... So this let me kown that those reviewers are some kind of lickers...
Until the last four years or so, a top notch gaming sequel in the PC world was released to take advantage of the new technology that had come out since the last release. PC gamers generally didn't favor a game that looked the same as the previous title, unless there were DRAMATIC differences. However, now games are being developed for 360 and PS3, machines that have had their hardware virtually frozen in time for the last six to five years. At the time of their release, the gpu was over a year old and the cpu was laughable. BF3 and MW3 are brand new five year old games. There's very little difference between the console and PC versions of the same game. Jesus, you can't even LEAN like you could in COD:MW. The saddest and funniest thing about the whole situation is that console fanboys and people newer to PC gaming don't even know how bad they have it. Hardcore gamers have been gibbed...
What's the budget of MW3 compared to Avatar? I'd also like to know the ratio of people reaping the benefits vs people working on the project for pay. This could be our tie to call for better game budgets or smaller budgets for movies.
When I ask my friends why they like MW3 instead of Battlefield, they never say why unless I press them for an answer, to which they reply, "The maps are too big!"
1. No, they aren't if you're looking for gameplay similar to CoD.
2. That's like saying your girlfriend likes sex too much.
3. If you're being allowed 64 freaking players, You're going to want a map big enough to support that many people wrecking havok!
Oh man, 2012 is coming...
Because 1 billion / 60$ = 16 millions people bought this game,
too much stupidity for 1 planet...
I bought COD1, 2, MW and MW2, there was no more dedicated servers in MW2,
that's when it started to fall, now the game that had been bought to an other level because of competitive PC harcore gamers left them on their ass,
I shall never buy from Call of Duty franchise again and (will) do everything to discourage people who want to buy it.
That is my mission.
BF3 isn't the great PC FPS most people make it out to be, too many bad design choices. For now I chose neither.
As someone who bought BF3, I concur... Glad I got it for $30 and not $60
There are several things that make this comparison flawed:
1. MW3 used an established engine that was upgraded little (if at all for the new game).
2. Avatar on the other hand, saw James Cameron pioneering a new method of filming and the overall production took well over 10 years with hundreds of millions of dollars in investment and time. Say what you will, but they didn't just push this movie out.
3. MW3 on the other hand is the 16th call of duty game released in less than 10 years, and people say games like Halo are too numerous in sequels?
4. A movie ticket for a 3D movie costs between $10 - 18 dollars where I live. Assuming that's the high end, it's still nothing compared to $60 + tax, and plus the "COD Elite" subscription. If a million people buy a movie ticket, that's $18 million dollars, if a million people buy a game, that's 60 million dollars! See why you can't compare them?
/rant
In conclusion, MW3 brings nothing new to the table and only furthers the FPS
genre into the pit of mediocrity into which it's been slipping these last few years.
Average movie ticket price $15...Average game price $60 (not counting special editions). Time to create Avatar, 5 years. Time to create MWF3 under 1 year. MWF3 is CLEARLY the winner. /facepalm