The Catastrophic Crisis of Call of Duty and Battlefield
advertisement
VOICE OVER: Ty Richardson
WRITTEN BY: Ty Richardson
Welcome to MojoPlays, and this is the Catastrophic Crisis of “Call of Duty” & “Battlefield”. In this essay, Ty takes us through the problematic release formula utilized by Activision and EA for their military shooter franchises. Has the overindulgence of these studios finally caught up with them?
Script written by Ty Richardson
“Too much of something is never a good thing.” It’s a phrase we become familiar with early on in life, yet fail to comprehend later on. Overindulging can lead to many problems whether those problems are financial, health-related, or in some cases, both. Military shooters, more specifically “Call of Duty” and “Battlefield”, have been overindulging for well over a decade with each new release trying to hype up the crowds. We see it every year - logo and title “leaks”, cinematic trailers with slow and deep percussion covers of licensed songs, celebrity endorsements, it’s the same noise every year for what many consider as the same exact games every year. Given the alarmingly low sales and poor reception of “Call of Duty: Vanguard” and “Battlefield 2042”, has the indulgence finally caught up to Activision and EA?
Welcome to MojoPlays, and this is the Catastrophic Crisis of “Call of Duty” & “Battlefield”.
Since the late 2000’s, we’ve seen a new game from these two franchises every single year (or in “Battlefield’s” case, every other year). The annual releases have been so consistent for so long that it’s always expected. The only mystery behind each game has been when the exact release date is. While “Call of Duty: Vanguard” looked like it was going to be the same as any other game, “Battlefield 2042” was dropping after the franchise took a three-year break. Now, both are out in the wild, and audiences are less than thrilled. And that’s putting it gently.
“Battlefield 2042” would become marred with controversy weeks before launch. Those who played the beta reported numerous bugs and glitches while developer DICE tried to perform damage control and state the betas were using old builds. The game would work as intended at launch. If even more bugs and glitches were intended, then “2042” was working just fine. That didn’t stop users from blowing up social media feeds with their own broken gameplay moments and review-bombing the crap out of the game on Metacritic and Steam. At the time of this video, “2042” has already lost seventy percent of its initial playerbase, and the Steam reviews show why.
“Call of Duty: Vanguard”, on the other hand, had more balls than it could juggle. Right before the game’s reveal, Activision Blizzard found itself embroiled in controversy after the State of California filed a lawsuit against the mega-conglomerate, claiming Activision Blizzard had been fostering a workplace that discriminated against its female staff. From everything involving the infamous “Cosby Suite” to the death of one female employee, “Vanguard” could not get away from the wrongdoings of its executive staff. As for the game itself, the betas did not perform any better than “Battlefield’s”. Players and pundits reported the game had shown nothing interesting, nothing that made this “Call of Duty” any different from previous titles. At the time of this video, we have yet to see hard sales numbers for “Vanguard”, though the lack thereof implies it is significantly lower than the sales of “Black Ops - Cold War”, which was released in 2020. And to top it all off, there is already a free-to-play “Call of Duty” that millions of people are choosing to play instead of paying sixty to seventy dollars for a new one. Remember, “Warzone” still exists and is getting support to this day.
Considering how successful both of these IPs have been before, it’s almost shocking to see how badly both games are performing. One could make the same case for “Call of Duty” as we’ve heard before: it’s the same exact game every year. As for “Battlefield”, well, DICE had at least three years to get “2042” right. The last game we had was “Battlefield V” in 2018, and it launched without much fanfare, at least compared to 2016’s “Battlefield 1”. So, what happened exactly that made these two giants fall off so quickly?
We can safely lay “Battlefield” to rest for the most part - the game was buggy as hell, the maps don’t really offer much challenge and excitement, and environmental hazards aren’t anything new in video games. The lack of a single-player campaign doesn’t make things any better, and given the amount of time DICE had to make “2042”, we’re left to wonder why there wasn’t any time for a single-player mode. After all, “Battlefield 1” was praised for what it set out to do, dedicating its campaign to telling real stories about World War I. One would think that DICE and EA would have found a new direction to take the “Battlefield” franchise, a path not taken by Activision and “Call of Duty”.
As for “Vanguard”, the question isn’t just “where did it go wrong”, but “where do we even begin?” First, you had months of allegations, scandals, and employee walkouts, so much so that it resulted in Activision removing their logo from marketing material for a time. Then, you had the poorly received betas. However, the problems with “Vanguard” lie beyond those recent events, the biggest one being that it is a “Call of Duty” game set in World War II. It’s a theme that has been beaten to death by the IP itself for years, the first three games being set in World War II. Thing is that we already had a new WWII “Call of Duty” in 2017, and it wasn’t all that great. Couple this with “Battlefield V”, which was set in an alternate reality of WWII, and you have quickly soiled the well once again. At this point, you wouldn’t be blamed for thinking the games industry is obsessed with the historical time period, and you’re not entirely wrong either.
This sort of fatigue is especially evident in a poll conducted by GamesIndustry dot biz. Results of said poll were published in late November 2021, and while the six hundred seventy-one people only represent a small fraction of the gaming community, their numbers are still something to consider. Only eight percent of those polled said they had bought “Vanguard”. The rest chose varying responses, two of which revolved around not being interested in WWII games and/or having played too much “Call of Duty”. Indeed, an annualized franchise set in an era that’s all too common isn’t really a formula for success. Another response (and the one that was selected the most) was that the folks polled are too busy playing other games. Admittedly, the holiday season has grown to be a bit crowded with Square Enix’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” being a surprise hit and Xbox seeing massive launches with “Forza Horizon 5” and “Halo Infinite”. So, understandable here.
Brand fatigue, topic fatigue, and a surprisingly packed season of game launches. These have all contributed to fumbles of “Call of Duty: Vanguard” and “Battlefield 2042”, who were already facing their own problems from the very beginning. Does this spell the end of “Call of Duty” and “Battlefield”, though? Absolutely not. They may not be making as much as they did five or ten years ago, but they still make a ton of money. EA is finally starting to see the true value in its IPs and giving devs time to make the best products, and Activision is still making bank and laying off staff after putting them through excessive crunch time.
Still, there is one way to save both IPs and it’s a very simple solution - let loose and have fun. Let your devs take the IP in new and interesting directions. What would “Call of Duty” look like with a steampunk style or some kind of dark fantasy setting? Why not set a “Battlefield” game in the American Civil War or Vietnam and tell those stories that aren’t widely heard about? Better yet, give fans a break. Let us miss these games. Let us see what your studios can do without the “Call of Duty” IP. Maybe we get an alternate-history franchise to rival “Wolfenstein”, or something to go toe-to-toe with the “Sniper Elite” franchise. There are other ways to make “Call of Duty” and “Battlefield” massive hits, and annualized franchises is not the answer, nor has it ever been. Identity, fatigue, and excessiveness - these are what make up the catastrophic crisis of “Call of Duty” & “Battlefield”.
The Catastrophic Crisis of “Call of Duty” & “Battlefield”
“Too much of something is never a good thing.” It’s a phrase we become familiar with early on in life, yet fail to comprehend later on. Overindulging can lead to many problems whether those problems are financial, health-related, or in some cases, both. Military shooters, more specifically “Call of Duty” and “Battlefield”, have been overindulging for well over a decade with each new release trying to hype up the crowds. We see it every year - logo and title “leaks”, cinematic trailers with slow and deep percussion covers of licensed songs, celebrity endorsements, it’s the same noise every year for what many consider as the same exact games every year. Given the alarmingly low sales and poor reception of “Call of Duty: Vanguard” and “Battlefield 2042”, has the indulgence finally caught up to Activision and EA?
Welcome to MojoPlays, and this is the Catastrophic Crisis of “Call of Duty” & “Battlefield”.
Since the late 2000’s, we’ve seen a new game from these two franchises every single year (or in “Battlefield’s” case, every other year). The annual releases have been so consistent for so long that it’s always expected. The only mystery behind each game has been when the exact release date is. While “Call of Duty: Vanguard” looked like it was going to be the same as any other game, “Battlefield 2042” was dropping after the franchise took a three-year break. Now, both are out in the wild, and audiences are less than thrilled. And that’s putting it gently.
“Battlefield 2042” would become marred with controversy weeks before launch. Those who played the beta reported numerous bugs and glitches while developer DICE tried to perform damage control and state the betas were using old builds. The game would work as intended at launch. If even more bugs and glitches were intended, then “2042” was working just fine. That didn’t stop users from blowing up social media feeds with their own broken gameplay moments and review-bombing the crap out of the game on Metacritic and Steam. At the time of this video, “2042” has already lost seventy percent of its initial playerbase, and the Steam reviews show why.
“Call of Duty: Vanguard”, on the other hand, had more balls than it could juggle. Right before the game’s reveal, Activision Blizzard found itself embroiled in controversy after the State of California filed a lawsuit against the mega-conglomerate, claiming Activision Blizzard had been fostering a workplace that discriminated against its female staff. From everything involving the infamous “Cosby Suite” to the death of one female employee, “Vanguard” could not get away from the wrongdoings of its executive staff. As for the game itself, the betas did not perform any better than “Battlefield’s”. Players and pundits reported the game had shown nothing interesting, nothing that made this “Call of Duty” any different from previous titles. At the time of this video, we have yet to see hard sales numbers for “Vanguard”, though the lack thereof implies it is significantly lower than the sales of “Black Ops - Cold War”, which was released in 2020. And to top it all off, there is already a free-to-play “Call of Duty” that millions of people are choosing to play instead of paying sixty to seventy dollars for a new one. Remember, “Warzone” still exists and is getting support to this day.
Considering how successful both of these IPs have been before, it’s almost shocking to see how badly both games are performing. One could make the same case for “Call of Duty” as we’ve heard before: it’s the same exact game every year. As for “Battlefield”, well, DICE had at least three years to get “2042” right. The last game we had was “Battlefield V” in 2018, and it launched without much fanfare, at least compared to 2016’s “Battlefield 1”. So, what happened exactly that made these two giants fall off so quickly?
We can safely lay “Battlefield” to rest for the most part - the game was buggy as hell, the maps don’t really offer much challenge and excitement, and environmental hazards aren’t anything new in video games. The lack of a single-player campaign doesn’t make things any better, and given the amount of time DICE had to make “2042”, we’re left to wonder why there wasn’t any time for a single-player mode. After all, “Battlefield 1” was praised for what it set out to do, dedicating its campaign to telling real stories about World War I. One would think that DICE and EA would have found a new direction to take the “Battlefield” franchise, a path not taken by Activision and “Call of Duty”.
As for “Vanguard”, the question isn’t just “where did it go wrong”, but “where do we even begin?” First, you had months of allegations, scandals, and employee walkouts, so much so that it resulted in Activision removing their logo from marketing material for a time. Then, you had the poorly received betas. However, the problems with “Vanguard” lie beyond those recent events, the biggest one being that it is a “Call of Duty” game set in World War II. It’s a theme that has been beaten to death by the IP itself for years, the first three games being set in World War II. Thing is that we already had a new WWII “Call of Duty” in 2017, and it wasn’t all that great. Couple this with “Battlefield V”, which was set in an alternate reality of WWII, and you have quickly soiled the well once again. At this point, you wouldn’t be blamed for thinking the games industry is obsessed with the historical time period, and you’re not entirely wrong either.
This sort of fatigue is especially evident in a poll conducted by GamesIndustry dot biz. Results of said poll were published in late November 2021, and while the six hundred seventy-one people only represent a small fraction of the gaming community, their numbers are still something to consider. Only eight percent of those polled said they had bought “Vanguard”. The rest chose varying responses, two of which revolved around not being interested in WWII games and/or having played too much “Call of Duty”. Indeed, an annualized franchise set in an era that’s all too common isn’t really a formula for success. Another response (and the one that was selected the most) was that the folks polled are too busy playing other games. Admittedly, the holiday season has grown to be a bit crowded with Square Enix’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” being a surprise hit and Xbox seeing massive launches with “Forza Horizon 5” and “Halo Infinite”. So, understandable here.
Brand fatigue, topic fatigue, and a surprisingly packed season of game launches. These have all contributed to fumbles of “Call of Duty: Vanguard” and “Battlefield 2042”, who were already facing their own problems from the very beginning. Does this spell the end of “Call of Duty” and “Battlefield”, though? Absolutely not. They may not be making as much as they did five or ten years ago, but they still make a ton of money. EA is finally starting to see the true value in its IPs and giving devs time to make the best products, and Activision is still making bank and laying off staff after putting them through excessive crunch time.
Still, there is one way to save both IPs and it’s a very simple solution - let loose and have fun. Let your devs take the IP in new and interesting directions. What would “Call of Duty” look like with a steampunk style or some kind of dark fantasy setting? Why not set a “Battlefield” game in the American Civil War or Vietnam and tell those stories that aren’t widely heard about? Better yet, give fans a break. Let us miss these games. Let us see what your studios can do without the “Call of Duty” IP. Maybe we get an alternate-history franchise to rival “Wolfenstein”, or something to go toe-to-toe with the “Sniper Elite” franchise. There are other ways to make “Call of Duty” and “Battlefield” massive hits, and annualized franchises is not the answer, nor has it ever been. Identity, fatigue, and excessiveness - these are what make up the catastrophic crisis of “Call of Duty” & “Battlefield”.
