Tomorrow is the day. It will be the anniversary of the Marine Corps.' formation and most commonly, the release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Sometimes it's weird to say or type that whole phrase instead of just having Modern Warfare 2. Ever since it's announcement back at the Game Developers Conference in early 2009, people have been in debate if the game should be placed under Call of Duty or try to be separated from the main series as now part of the Modern Warfare. If you see something like Wikipedia, they were debating about the names and constantly moving to each one in between the announcement and now. Recently Activision finalized the public title on the regular edition of the game by adding the Call of Duty name to likely get customers who would buy Modern Warfare 2 if it had the franchise title.
I know the gaming industry just commonly says it Modern Warfare 2 and it's fine because I say so too but there's an interesting question lingering in my head... Would the game sold more copies with just Modern Warfare 2?
I guess people who might not be the most hardcore gaming fanatics in a local Wal-Mart would question Modern Warfare 2 when they seemingly never heard of Modern Warfare 1. If they added the Call of Duty name, it would have reminded them of the previous two games which were CoD 4: Modern Warfare and CoD: World At War. It would have likely gave them the initiative to buy it.
Just having Modern Warfare 2 doesn't equal bad sales but a majority of fans of the series will get it and will be strong nonetheless, although lesser than what you would compare now with having the largest quantity of pre-sales in retailer GameStop. Just like Call of Duty 4, the sales would increase by game reviews and word of mouth from a fan to one who is curious of what is up. But for the case of Activision, it's not enough for them to earn more money as opposed to just slapping Call of Duty and frolic in their pool of cash.
For the sake of success, having the name is necessary because gamers of different stages know what Call of Duty is and will get it but to get the sales from a crowd who are just playing whatever is popular or not very knowledgeable in gaming yet wanting to enjoy something. People though will still just call it Modern Warfare 2.
I know the gaming industry just commonly says it Modern Warfare 2 and it's fine because I say so too but there's an interesting question lingering in my head... Would the game sold more copies with just Modern Warfare 2?
I guess people who might not be the most hardcore gaming fanatics in a local Wal-Mart would question Modern Warfare 2 when they seemingly never heard of Modern Warfare 1. If they added the Call of Duty name, it would have reminded them of the previous two games which were CoD 4: Modern Warfare and CoD: World At War. It would have likely gave them the initiative to buy it.
Just having Modern Warfare 2 doesn't equal bad sales but a majority of fans of the series will get it and will be strong nonetheless, although lesser than what you would compare now with having the largest quantity of pre-sales in retailer GameStop. Just like Call of Duty 4, the sales would increase by game reviews and word of mouth from a fan to one who is curious of what is up. But for the case of Activision, it's not enough for them to earn more money as opposed to just slapping Call of Duty and frolic in their pool of cash.
For the sake of success, having the name is necessary because gamers of different stages know what Call of Duty is and will get it but to get the sales from a crowd who are just playing whatever is popular or not very knowledgeable in gaming yet wanting to enjoy something. People though will still just call it Modern Warfare 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment