COD vs BF3 sales war: who's the real victor?

Honours are even, reckon analysts.

Barely a month has passed in the last year without EA reiterating its intent for Battlefield to steal a significant share of the FPS market from Activision's Call of Duty, and in the long term to eventually overtake it.

With both games now on shelves and early sales figures in (Battlefield 3 did five million in a week, Modern Warfare 3 did more than 6.5 million in a day), a number of industry analysts have offered Eurogamer their thoughts on just how that strategy is panning out.

The consensus? Everyone's a winner.

Screen Digest's Piers Harding-Rolls explained that though Battlefield 3 hasn't taken a significant number of sales away from Activision, it has successfully increased EA's share of the shooter market.

"Enabled by aggressive retailer trade-in sweeteners and the well timed release schedule, gamers have been able to enjoy both of these titles for not much more than the cost of a single game," he said.

"This has helped in expanding the market significantly in the opening weeks from launch. This also means that even though Battlefield 3 has not dented Modern Warfare 3 sales significantly, EA has definitely managed to increase its share of the shooter opportunity overall. As such both companies will be happy - as will the retailers."

He went on to argue that going forward, Activision will retain the upper hand by offering customers greater value and long term engagement.

"The new measurement of success for these titles is their longevity enabled through online play and ongoing engagement with gamers over a period of months," he argued.

"This helps these titles to continue to sell and to maintain their ASP, to shift large volumes of DLC and to maintain a user base ready for the next major iteration.

"Activision Blizzard leads the way here with CoD Elite and will, I believe, enjoy better online engagement as a result. At this point EA appears around a year behind with regards to its online strategy for Battlefield."

Wedbush Morgan's Michael Pachter agreed that Battlefield hasn't dented Call of Duty's sales, but has been a big success for EA nonetheless. He argued that the only hope EA has of taking the FPS crown is if Activision drops the ball.

"I think it's reasonable to assume that Call of Duty will peak eventually, but to pass Call of Duty, Battelfield would have to sell 25 million units (at last year's Call of Duty rate), or Call of Duty would have to decline.

"I don't think it's 'doable' that Battlefield will become the best-selling game of all time, since in order for that to happen, Battlefield would have to build as large and vibrant a multiplayer community as Call of Duty currently has. This is a stretch, as the Call of Duty community is unprecedented in its size and allegiance.

"I think that EA's claim is analogous to someone saying that their mobile phone will outsell the iPhone; it's 'doable' only if the iPhone falters. By that logic, Battlefield will pass Call of Duty only if Call of Duty falters."

Pachter went on to suggest that EA's pre-release bluster was just that, and that the publisher never really anticipated toppling Call of Duty.

"The numbers were what I expected. I'm not sure that EA really expected to impact Call of Duty at all, they just want their share of a really big market. Battlefield will probably be EA's biggest game this year, so I'm sure that EA is happy."

M2 Research's Billy Pidgeon suggested that EA can reap further rewards in the future by focusing on one of Battlefield's key strength - its strong PC presence.

"I think Battlefield 3 can continue to expand particularly on the PC, and that also gives EA greater reach in markets with negligible console penetration," he argued.

"To the extent that EA can maximise the PC base for Battlefield 3, ideally with free-to-play, pay per session and other low friction business models, Battlefield 3 could definitely increase overall share.

"As for the Battlefield franchise overtaking Call of Duty, anything is possible. It's possible, if not likely, that Battlefield 3 could outsell Modern Warfare 3. It's far more likely that Battlefield 3 could end up on more systems via freely distributed copies."

Finally, Pidgeon noted that Call of Duty has another weapon in its arsenal that hasn't been widely taken into account in revenue discussions: the Elite subscription service

"The released unit and revenue numbers don't represent the full retail impact of Modern Warfare 3, as these don't include numbers for Premium Elite sales, which should be considerable," he said.

"If a fifth of the 6.5 million units sold on day one were accompanied by Premium Elite sales, for instance, that would be about the equivalent of an additional million units in revenue."

Comments (30) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Trillion #1 6 months ago

    All these sales war stories are getting boring.

    I don't care about the sales. I care about the games.

    Save the stats for http://gamesindustry.biz/
    Edited by Trillion at 14/11/11 @ 22:24
  • Genyus #2 6 months ago

    You aren't forced to read this article, it's you who clicked on the link and then started complaining really..
  • joeymoto108 #3 6 months ago

    I know this goes against the general consensus on this site at the moment but here it goes:

    I fully expected to only buy BF3 and to leave COD this year. The beta for BF3 actually did make me lose confidence in DICE's game, even if it was not meant to be representative of the actual finished product.
    I honestly feel that Battlefield 3 should have had a few more months of polish... I have the 360 version and feel that it's no way near as refined or polished as it could have been (however patches may sort out many of these problems).
    Not to mention the SP is pretty poor, especially when compared to MW3, as it tends to be a degenerative COD clone at the best of times. To me it felt like an incomplete sorta package, an amazing multiplayer with a tacked on singleplayer and co-op just for the hell of it.

    MW3 personally to me feels a lot more like a complete package; solid singleplayer, co-op and multiplayer means that customers feel like they're getting value for money.

    Don't get me wrong, I LOVE both of these games, but if EA wish for Battlefield to truly take down COD, they've really gotta focus on bringing an overall complete package and not just a good multiplayer with a poor SP tacked on.
  • metalangel #4 6 months ago

    Pachter went on to suggest that EA's pre-release bluster was just that, and that the publisher never really anticipated toppling Call of Duty.

    Seriously, I want his job, stating the fucking obvious every week and being paid thousands for it.
  • SaintDaveUK #5 6 months ago

    Oh god no, free-to-play gaming is awful.
  • digitalash #6 6 months ago

    @metalangel EA even said, in investor calls, that they did not expect to outsell Call of Duty. A good marketing ploy, though, considering they're only superficially similar games.

    Pachter does have a pretty sweet job. It's funny how right he is after the event. Make enough guesses and one of them will end up being right.
  • paketep #7 6 months ago

    EA, Activision, Battlefield, Call of Duty and Pachter, all the worst of gaming together in one news item.

    Be careful, EG. Posting things like this could make the website explode.
  • DRUNK3N-_-DRAGON #8 6 months ago

    played the 1st and 2nd Mw to death...bin playing Mw3 for a couple of days and man i have got to say i am bored shittles already, has got to be the most shocking let down ever. why has it gone all b-ops on me?, i expected it to look and play better than Mw2..just cements the deal for me and i can say i will never buy another cod game as long as i live! but who am i eh!!
  • rotmm #9 6 months ago

    I didn't buy either game - I am the real victor!
  • steviepunk #10 6 months ago

    "I think that EA's claim is analogous to someone saying that their mobile phone will outsell the iPhone; it's 'doable' only if the iPhone falters. By that logic, Battlefield will pass Call of Duty only if Call of Duty falters."

    Isn't Samsung outselling the iPhone now?
    Assuming so, not a very good analogy ;)
  • jablonski #11 6 months ago

    I don't really feel like being negative after all the cool reviews and articles on here lately, but this story has everything that is wrong with Eurogamer from the last couple of years:

    • Obsession with sales figures
    • Tabloid-style stirring to create fake rivalries
    • Quotes from the moronic Pachter

    I don't care who the winner is between COD & BF3.
    All I know is who the losers are. The EG readership.
  • yoomazir #12 6 months ago

    The real victor? Skyrim
  • bad09 #13 6 months ago

    Sales "war"?

    Christ and people wonder why this industry is seen as something for children.
  • coolbritannia #14 6 months ago

    There's a lot of fawned elitism in these comments so far. The fact is neither game really came out on top. I play MW3 for campaign and survival mode, Battlefield 3 for multiplayer. COD has the better gunplay, Battlefield has the more involving gameplay.

    Skyrim aside, the battle between these two titles defines gaming right now, EG can't just look the other way because it doesn't sit right with some commentators here.
  • eviroboy #15 6 months ago

    Pointless. Only if they had been released on the same day would sales for each even count. They weren't, so they don't. Each to their own.
  • _LarZen_ #16 6 months ago

    @Trillion Then I got a tip for you. Dont read articles like this...and for God's sake...dont leave a comment.
  • Quixz #17 6 months ago

    The gamers! BF3 is better IMHO.
  • gooner77 #18 6 months ago

    I enjoy both. BF3 for multiplayer and MW3 for single player (on veteran !)
  • skunkfish #19 6 months ago

    Isn't Wedbush Morgan just called Wedbush now?
  • TelexStar #20 6 months ago

    ""Enabled by aggressive retailer trade-in sweeteners and the well timed release schedule, gamers have been able to enjoy both of these titles for not much more than the cost of a single game," he said…."

    Unless my eyes deceive me, I think I just read a positive view on the 2nd hand retail market promoting sales of a game?

    Personally, I traded BF3 in and got CoD for a tenner. I'm hoping this will maybe wake publishers up to the fact that the 2nd market isn't a "bad" thing and that it can actually help promote more sales. People can only afford so many AAA games at the same time and some people will buy used regardless. For me, I'm happy to have the freedom to be able to walk into a store and get a good trade in price for a game I no longer want to play.
  • Cobalt_Jackal #21 6 months ago

  • BillyBrush #22 6 months ago

    Well...seems to me both games are a bit of a dissapointment, which is ok for ea and acti this year, but eventually it may wear off a bit...imagine a year where it's bf vs cod again, but there's a (full) halo or a half life game out too...i know i wouldn't be so interested in these two again.
  • gruntboy #23 6 months ago

    @skunkfish yeah, I think Morgan couldn't take any more of Pachter's insufferable gob and sold his share back to Wedbush.

    @DRUNK3N-_-DRAGON "shittles"? Sounds nasty, like Skittles but minus the rainbow of fruit flavours. Ewww.
  • benjerry #24 6 months ago

    2 cents:

    While setting up a BF3 vs MW3 PR war might have been a good publicity stunt for EA, these two games occupy two rather separate niches in the all-important multiplayer area.

    When it comes to the SP, I feel that DICE should have a little more faith in their core strengths (large-scale combat, vehicles), and create some more open engagements, perhaps with more vehicle elements, and leave the pure monster closet stuff to CoD... Still, BF should copy the uber-slick presentation of the CoD campaign (I.e. no load screens, only cutscenes), etc.

    What BF could learn from CoD in the MP area lies in the customization and progression areas. The interface for class customization, etc. is just a bit unwieldy in BF3 (on console, at least). Also, the series would probably do well to aim for 60 FPS on next-gen consoles instead of just upping the amount of pretty on the screen.

    Meanwhile, CoD will face the challenge of moving to a Next-Gen engine successfully. That one will be really interesting.
  • ThaneKrios #25 6 months ago

    @SaintDaveUK It depends. Say that to League of Legends or HoN. I can't see any problem with these games.
  • scuffpuppies #26 6 months ago

    @Trillion

    If you have no interest in articles such as this DON'T READ THEM? It's not "rocket science".
    But if you are as into games as you suggest, sales reports should be of relative importance to you. It is "sales" figures after all, that dictate the market you enjoy.
  • PaletteSwap #27 6 months ago

    "Enabled by aggressive retailer trade-in sweeteners and the well timed release schedule, gamers have been able to enjoy both of these titles for not much more than the cost of a single game," he said.
    Wait, the very same industry taught me the used market was worse than piracy ?
  • Raptaur #28 6 months ago

    where is my ignore button gone!
  • Stratix #29 6 months ago

    I have played both and come to a conclusion.

    Battlefield 3 blew me away, and I was amazed at how good it looks, and how well it plays. Some bugs and connection issues mar the experience but they are certainly fixable in the long run. Singleplayer was a bit crap, but who buys these games for that?

    I was largely underwhelmed by MW3, the graphics are seriously dated and the arcadey gameplay is getting a bit tired. I like the idea of pointstreaks for players that can't get decent kill streaks consistently, and the survival mode, but it isn't enough to keep me playing.

    Battlefield is where my heart lies.... Once I am done with Skyrim....
  • DwarfyP #30 6 months ago

    Everyone is a winner but Activision is more of a winner than the others.