Call of Duty 4 has 13m players on Live

By Robert Purchese Published 26 May, 2009

That's more than World of Warcraft.

Infinity Ward has revealed that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare has over 13 million players on Xbox Live, which is two million more than in March.

That's more than even World of Warcraft, although Infinity Ward claims no monthly subscription fee from users.

"The Thing we learned the most probably is how much focus goes into multiplayer," Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling told Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb. "I mean Call of Duty 4 on Xbox Live just exploded.

"Right now we're 13 million unique users on [Xbox] 360, and that's insane."

And it's more than triple that of PlayStation Network, according to what Bowling said in March.

His comments come as Infinity Ward lifts the lid on Modern Warfare 2, revealing both trailer and screenshots for the sixth Call of Duty game.

Bowling promises gameplay footage at E3 next week, which we'll be at and on-hand to see.

Modern Warfare 2 is due out for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 on 10th November.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (56) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • menage #1 3 years ago

    Does that mean active?

  • Sir_TimAlot #2 3 years ago

    still impressive, be it active or not.

  • miiiguel #3 3 years ago

    That's more than World of Warcraft.

    Minus the monthly fee.

  • Slabbathepave #4 3 years ago

    Now if only Activision could figure out a way of turning that 13 million into a more constant revenue stream....

    Hhhhmmm

  • BadBoyBonner #5 3 years ago

    Now if only Activision could figure out a way of turning that 13 million into a more constant revenue stream....

    Hhhhmmm

    Well judging by the games chart http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/uk-cha... at number 10 and 13 in the charts they already have done.

  • ben---neb #6 3 years ago

    Impressive. Might actually buy the game to see if 13 million people can be wrong.

  • dr_faulk #7 3 years ago

    CoD4 is hands-down the best online multiplayer FPS on the market. Period.

  • dr_faulk #8 3 years ago

    @ Slabbathepave

    If they bothered to release more map packs, they'd have my money!

  • guybrush #9 3 years ago

    In fact that number probably falls short, a while back Microsoft reported 17 Million Xbox Live accounts, the are nearly 30 M Xbox 360 sold so its safe to assume that a considerable amount of people played CoD4 and never log-on to Live.

    Also the comparison with WoW is bit misleading, as far as I know Blizzard only reports on active accounts they never said the total amount of unique accounts created on the life span of the game.

  • DUFFKING #10 3 years ago

    It's hardly the best MP FPS on the market, it's just a barely-glorified deathmatch game, with zero innovation. It just so happens that basic simplistic but polished FPS games tend to be popular. At least the first 2 games in the series had some form of weapon balance, rather than making them all 100% accurate, have no recoil and kill in 2 shots like in Modern Warfare.

  • alimokrane #11 3 years ago

    That means people who are both Playing SP or MP while connected to live right ? It doesnt mean that 14 million actually played MP. Eitherway, this means more than 10 million people at least have an 360 copy of the game... INSANE!

  • Beek4257 #12 3 years ago

    @ben---neb

    What, you don't own it yet? How?!
    I think I might have even bought it twice. I'm not sure.

  • homerramone #13 3 years ago

    It's hardly the best MP FPS on the market, it's just a barely-glorified deathmatch game, with zero innovation.
    So which ones better - I could do with a new game.

  • kangarootoo #14 3 years ago

    @DUFFKING

    Innovation is overated, and certainly not as important as plain old polish. ESPECIALLY in an FPS, where good controls and combat are really all you need.

  • waggy79 #15 3 years ago

    Theres only one way to find out.... FIIIIGHT!!!

  • brappbrap #16 3 years ago

    "The Thing we learned the most probably is how much focus goes into multiplayer"

    Desperately trying to make a John Carpenter joke here, but I am too bewildered by theis quotes structure. Did he actually say that?

  • lavalant #17 3 years ago

    The multiplayer reminded me of Quake simple run and gun, confined to small maps, zero team work; people spamming air strikes, I prefer a bit more freedom and tactics in my FPS games, if you're looking for something realistic wait for Arama or Op Flashpoint 2.

  • des #18 3 years ago

    Live is going to explode when MW2 comes out...

  • kangarootoo #19 3 years ago

    "The multiplayer reminded me of Quake simple run and gun, confined to small maps, zero team work; people spamming air strikes"

    Much like real life then :)

  • FooAtari #20 3 years ago

    Now if only Activision could figure out a way of turning that 13 million into a more constant revenue stream....

    Hhhhmmm

    They did, re-release the game every year

    If they bothered to release more map packs, they'd have my money!

    See above. They release a map pack every year
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/09 @ 15:55

  • DUFFKING #21 3 years ago

    Heh, I never said CoD 4's MP was bad but in terms of balanced, competitive play CoD 1 and 2 are both better, particularly when it comes to weapon balance. and it is admittedly polished which is what IW are very good at, but the actual gameplay is fun for a while but quickly became very samey and is nothing that's been done before... it's just refining a proven formula, albeit pretty well. But for me, stuff like Team Fortress 2 offer a far more entertaining multiplayer package, or if you go back further, Wolfenstein Enemy Territory is possibly the best MP shooter I've ever played.

    I'd sooner jump in for a game of BF:BC than CoD 4, despite the comparative lack of polish, too. CoD 4 is a good game, but I see so many people proclaim it as the be all and end all of FPS games, but for me it's just dull, and a little *too* accessible, if you know what I mean. In the time that I played it never really felt like it took much actual skill to get kills. Also, I hated the spawn system that keeps spawning you on top of live grenades or enemies spawning 5 meters behind you. Nothing like going from 7-0 to 7-7 in about 60 seconds flat because you got killed before you can get your bearings :p

  • Breach #22 3 years ago

    @ DUFFKING

    "I'd sooner jump in for a game of BF:BC than CoD 4, despite the comparative lack of polish, too."

    I agree with that.
    I appreciate why CoD4 is popular - but it doesnt do it for me.
    It is just a Fast Finger Freddy game and i aint that fast.

    I much prefer the slower paced, more tactical BF:BC
    Edited by 2 at 26/05/09 @ 16:39

  • Quint2020 #23 3 years ago

    Bloody hell, that's quite an achievement, considering all of those people will be paying a Live subscription to be playing online MS must be absolutely raking it in!

  • Zaltan #24 3 years ago

    Really that can't be right. It hasn't sold that many copies.

  • AphoticCosmos #25 3 years ago

    After MW2:

    World of Warfare

  • Feanor #26 3 years ago

    "Really that can't be right. It hasn't sold that many copies."

    It probably has when you include re-sales. Something like 8 million buy it new and play online, and 5 million buy it used and play online.

  • Xerx3s #27 3 years ago

    "CoD4 is hands-down the best online multiplayer FPS on the market. Period. "

    Competent, yes. Best? No.

  • RedSparrows #28 3 years ago

    What Xerx3s said.

  • DugBriderider #29 3 years ago

    I don't think it has to be the best, but it does have to be good enough to reach critical mass and be a must game in the collection, it's the only game I know everyone on my friends list has. As a former PC FPS fan I have played better games, but not many on the 360.
    It has:
    -Accessibility
    -Good use of console controls
    -None geeky setting
    -Rewards for long term play

    Just a few more tweaks in balance, higher player count, less nade spamming and it would be digital crack. Personally I would want something else to be beat it down. But for some reason Dev's can't seem to manage it.

  • AphoticCosmos #30 3 years ago

    @ dr_faulk

    Oh? Forgetting quality offerings like BF2/2142, Team Fortress 2 and Halo 3 [yes, whatever you may think of it as a single-player game, it is successful and very enjoyable online, and actually competes with CoD4 for numbers online] there methinks. CoD4 has a mediocre-at-best singleplayer campaign, and online it's basically taken elements from other major online FPSes of the last few years and put them in a CoD environment.

    Part of the success of CoD's multiplayer is down to clans from CoD 1 picking up every single iteration since, regardless of whether they're actually any good or not.

    I'm not saying that CoD4's online component isn't good, but by no means is it the best.

  • homerramone #31 3 years ago

    Well for me BF:BC was ick. Gameplay went...

    You will spawn in 15 secs...
    (15 secs later)
    Spawn... [miles from anywhere]
    walk down the map (or drive if someone aint nicked all the vehicles) for 2 mins.....
    Get sniped on route to the action by someone that has setup a tent somewhere out of sight.

    You will spawn in 15 secs.....
    (etc)

    I find the times I respawn and die at once in COD4 much less of a problem (except of course on shipment in a HQ game - which is just mayhem).

    Still - to each their own.

  • skillian #32 3 years ago

    What CoD4 does what it does to a very high standard. It's a purist FPS, almost as pure as CS:S, and I think DugBridebrider does a good job of explaining it's popularity.

    But just because this FPS is simple and refined it doesn't mean they all have to be. I'm surprised to see kangarootoo suggest all an FPS needs is good controls and combat - many others make use of other gameplay elements like strategy, tactics and teamwork, and while that might not appeal to huge numbers like a simpler game such as CoD4 or CS:S, they certainly fill a niche and the FPS genre would be much worse off without them.

    edit: I guess I'm saying TF2 and BF2 rule too :D and they aren't any worse just because they have fewer players.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/09 @ 17:42

  • RedSparrows #33 3 years ago

    CoD4 is a lot of fun, but for exhilarating and fun/exciting play, Halo 3 winz. That's ignoring the teamwork aspect as well, and individual skills required.

  • DUFFKING #34 3 years ago

    BF takes getting into. Once you've got your head around how not to die (takes a while...), it really opens up. If you've come from CoD games I imagine it would be really, really tough to start with, because you simply can't just sprint every where like a headless chicken. You need individual strategy and a knowledge of which routes offer more cover. Even on the most open BFBC maps, there's multiple routes you can take where 9/10 nobody will see you coming.

    I'd like CoD4 more if the guns had some recoil or something, but they all handled the same to me. I kept playing it mind, ended up with about 17000/5500 kills and deaths. Partly because at the time that was all anyone on my friends list played. BF ain't accessible, but once you start learning to stay a live it's much deeper and a lot more fun :D I disagree about waiting forever to spawn too, by the time I've checked the map, check where my squad are and picked a class it's time to go anyway, and if you really want to be in the middle of the action straight away you can squad spawn rather than travelling.

  • bad09 #35 3 years ago

    Only Battlefront 1/2 stole my multiplaying heart more than MW (although COD2 and L4D come bloody close!). Absolutely awesome MP game. Didn't like the enemy spamming SP though, never even finished it!

    Although of those 13M players, a hell of a lot are young American males.....

    / Shudders, screams "gay noob!" over live.

  • Grayvern #36 3 years ago

    The quote about the amount of focus into multiplayer could be construed as missing the point that while multiplayer is a focus for game companies, its only a focus in play time for 3-4 of the three gazillion games that offer it.

    Still maybe with these figures some companies will finally figure out that tacking on a multiplayer is nigh on pointless.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/09 @ 18:53

  • E-Raz0r #37 3 years ago

    I hate the spawn system in this game. It prevents teamplay,creates chaos, encourages camping and causes lots of spawnkilling.

    But I still like it on hardcore.

  • bad09 #38 3 years ago

    I've never played Hardcore, one of the guys in my local games shop swears by it but I played one game in hardcore, got a load of twats who were far too serious and abusive about a bloody computer game, never went back and stuck with TDM. Might try it on MW2 tho...

  • MightyMouse #39 3 years ago

    BF1942 was of course the best, but the maps really make CoD4 better than things like Halo 3, as it has an extremely good balance of cover and open areas.

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #40 3 years ago

    I would have been just as happy if IW released a load more maps for MW1 instead of an entirely new game. But i guess more money for the devs is a good thing, so a yearly Call of Duty isn't so bad.

    It's not that I'm not excited about a slightly more refined version, it's that COD4 didn't get the post-release support it/the community deserved, probably because of the pre-arranged bi-annual update.

    So you have 13million players milling about the same old maps; which, in a way, is testament to the perfect storm that was COD4. Hopefully Modern Warfare 2 will be a worthy sequel.

    COD4 = Counter Strike for consoles (erm, and PC)

  • chessboxer #41 3 years ago

    I wouldn't put COD4 in the same league as CS (be it 1.6 or Source), or even Quake or the UT series. I bought the GOTY Edition of COD4 and I couldn't see why people were going nuts about it. The SP was ok but the MP was very meh. Even with its faults, CS:S is a superior game (especially with the vast amount of custom maps/mods) and it's actually fun to play.

    I refused to touch WAW on PS3 or PC and MW2 will be a bargain bucket purchase for me, if at all. Bad Company 2 on the other hand, has me somewhat excited.

  • DUFFKING #42 3 years ago

    Search and Destroy is basically the de_ mode from CS, and I'd choose the CS version every time, even if CoD has a hardcore version of it. Gunplay in CS is more satisfying by far, even if I do suck at it.

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #43 3 years ago

    Yeah, i guess it may not be as pure as CS, but - for me - it was the multiplatform game that seemed to successfully group all the best bits of the competitive shooters inspired by CS and brought that to the consoles. There really isn't much fat that could be trimmed from it, imho.

    Agree that mod community maps were a massive part of CS's continued success. That is the shame of a closed environment like Live or PSN; we have to rely on the devs to put in the extra work if the community takes a liking to it. :'(
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/09 @ 20:32

  • Xerx3s #44 3 years ago

    ""I've never played Hardcore, one of the guys in my local games shop swears by it but I played one game in hardcore, got a load of twats who were far too serious and abusive about a bloody computer game, never went back and stuck with TDM. Might try it on MW2 tho..."

    Well, it's the only thing we do as all the other modes are for grenade spamming n00bs. TH is the only mode that forces the player to play tactical and play as a team (or die). We've played since release and needless to say that we are a well oiled machine that has a very high win ratio. The gameplay is much slower and better than that grenade frag fest that is normal dm.

    Teamplay and tactics are the way to win that mode.

  • Xerx3s #45 3 years ago

    "BF1942 was of course the best, but the maps really make CoD4 better than things like Halo 3, as it has an extremely good balance of cover and open areas."

    Rubbish. COD4 has about 2 or 3 good maps. The rest is mediocre at best.

  • GreyBeard #46 3 years ago

    I'm not a fan myself, but I imagine the key thing that separates WoW from stuff like this -despite the similarly humongous numbers- is that Wow is a real community, or cluster of communities, whereas the vast majority of players on online FPS are "independents" who flit between multiple similar games.

    Oh, and isnt the number a bit squiffy, I mean I doubt that they've shifted 13+ million units of CoD4... which begs the question how "unique" are their unique users...

    I mean, MS said their Live subscriber base was only at 17m in January this year.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/09 @ 21:37

  • Spekingur #47 3 years ago

    CoD4 MP is simple and has an easy to recognize leveling system. This is what sets it apart from most shooters.

    I enjoy it alot. But I also enjoy TF2, which has a completely diffirent type and speed of gameplay. The thing that I hate the most about CoD4 MP are the airstrikes and helis (there should have been an option to turn them off in game setup and still have it a ranked server) and the fact that there isn't a single night-map in MP (why have the nightvision googles as an option if there aren't going to be any night-maps).

    BF1942 is of course the marker that most associate with a beginning of an era of FPS. That game was great. Hopefully BF1943 will deliver us some of the same greatness.

  • hiddenranbir #48 3 years ago

    How many of that 13 million are playing, right now...

    I'd like to know the concurrent number of users.

    I wish more would offer stats publically, I enjoy seeing how many steam users are doing whatever at that moment in time. One guy on Rainbow Six Vegas!! Hehe.

  • onyx_elite #49 3 years ago

    COD4 is awesome and gets a damn sight more of my play hours than Halo 3. Good luck to those who plan to get MW2 in a bargain bin because it'll be hard to find a bargain bin after MW2 MAKES YOUR EYES POP IN YOUR FACE!

  • onyx_elite #50 3 years ago

    Also, to refine this thread down to a single post, all old games are great, all new games are shit, PC FPS are great, console FPS are shit cos they're not played with a mouse and keyboard, Quake Quake Quake Doom Quake CS CS CS Gears of War Valve TF2 Halo Halo Halo Wolfenstein Quake

  • MightyMouse #51 3 years ago

    "Rubbish. COD4 has about 2 or 3 good maps. The rest is mediocre at best."

    Garbage, they're some of the best multiplayer maps ever made.

  • Brianstorm #52 3 years ago

    '"Rubbish. COD4 has about 2 or 3 good maps. The rest is mediocre at best."

    Garbage, they're some of the best multiplayer maps ever made.'

    +1

  • onyx_elite #53 3 years ago

    I personally can't wait for the brand to split as it is blatantly on it's way to doing. The Modern Warfare games, made by Infinity Ward will be awesome as they always have been. The Call of Duty games, made by Treyarch, will be poor cousins that fail to innovate.

    COD - Infinity Ward - Awesome
    COD2 - Infinity Ward - Awesome
    COD3 - Treyarch - Bag of Shite
    COD4:MW - Infinity Ward - Awesome
    COD:WaW - Treyarch - Bag of Shite
    MW2 - Infinity Ward - POWER AWESOME!!!

  • AphoticCosmos #54 3 years ago

    ""Rubbish. COD4 has about 2 or 3 good maps. The rest is mediocre at best."

    Garbage, they're some of the best multiplayer maps ever made."

    You're kidding, right?

    The maps really are average at best. I don't usually blow Halo 3's trumpet these days, but Bungie is respected most in this post-Halo 3 world for their map-making ability. It shows. Levels aren't just rejgged, lazy ports of campaign levels - in many cases they're actually new environments, and they're all extremely well balanced after months of testing. In CoD4 they basically said "Right, that's the SP component done, now what can we tack on to make it seem as if we give a shit about MP still?" and took sections of the campaign and transmogrified them into some pretty average, standard FPS maps. Some of the maps either received a little more care and attention, or just turned out better, but most are average or even sub-par. The one on the ship is truly awful [any map that allows that kind of rape is not a good map IMHO], which reeks of lazy balance testing. And none of them are really interesting maps, because we've seen it all before in almost exactly the same way in the campaign.

    If I had to nominate a single map for the greatest of relatively recent games, it would have to be Strike at Karkand in BF2.
    Edited by 1 at 27/05/09 @ 08:35

  • AphoticCosmos #55 3 years ago

    "Pfff, game X has much better maps than game Y and even game Z beats your game Y hands down in multiplayer.

    Game Y, pah!! You Y-ites make me want to barf up my kedgeree.

    Game X for life!!"

    Think you just summed up the entire internet ;)

  • onyx_elite #56 3 years ago

    I think AphoticCosmos lost one too many rounds on the boat level.