That's fair. I know a lot of times on Halo I would get tired of the stressful organized team play too, that's when I would play social matches and other gametypes where I didn't care as much about my rating. Hell if I had a CoD game back then I might have even popped one of those in every once in a while too. But when I played team slayer on Halo I only queued with a team of players on my friend list who I knew were good

See I have friends in a bunch of different timezones, so it's always been terrible organizing any more than 2 people to play at a time. Team games in general would be much more fun for me if my friends and I weren't so spread out.

See I have friends in a bunch of different timezones, so it's always been terrible organizing any more than 2 people to play at a time. Team games in general would be much more fun for me if my friends and I weren't so spread out.

Yeah I definitely hear ya on that, I have plenty of nearby friends but only a couple are really on my level. That's why I had to find people in the game who I could play with, and the clan system in Halo 2 made it easy to find people too. It was a lot more work than just being able to quickly jump into a game though, which I know is a lot of people's goal


Edit:
Thanks a lot, your insight was helpful

And if you think I'm wrong than I welcome you to provide actual game details that you think attract people to buy the same CoD game time and time again instead of other games. (keep in mind, I say "instead of other games" because CoD is the top selling FPS franchise of all time)

Erm, you are working under a flawed assumption that buying one game will prevent someone from buying another. Given that most publishers stagger game releases to remove this 'one or other' setup your assumption is garbage.

As for the first bit is it that hard to understand that someone might just enjoy the game? I mean, you've had a go at the modern warfare games, going so far as to call MW3 a map pack, but is it that hard to believe that people like the games for nothing more than what they are; hollywood style over the top action shooters which provide a very polished and fun experiance?

I've played all 3 Modern warfare games (I came to CoD4: MW quite late but got 2 and 3 on release for the PC) and as an 15 to 18h chunk of entertainment goes I found it very fun because it delivered what I was after; about 6 hours of polished entertainment with enough of a story line to keep me intrested (and to be fair when a couple of the characters died I was guttered in the 2nd and 3rd ones), some quality set pieces and all in all a good gaming experiance.

And no, I'm not some hyper 14 year old gamer who 'doesnt know better'; I'm nearly 32 and have played hundreds of games in my time so it's not like I've nothing to compare it against either.

All of which brings me back to my earlier post that the idea of things being 'over rated' are basically elitist bull shit on behalf of those who want to be 'seen to be different'.
(Which, as someone who has spent most of their adult life as part of the metal/alt music community is quite use to seeing in other walks of life too.)

[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1334954882' post='4933346']
And if you think I'm wrong than I welcome you to provide actual game details that you think attract people to buy the same CoD game time and time again instead of other games. (keep in mind, I say "instead of other games" because CoD is the top selling FPS franchise of all time)

Erm, you are working under a flawed assumption that buying one game will prevent someone from buying another. Given that most publishers stagger game releases to remove this 'one or other' setup your assumption is garbage.
[/quote]

Oh hey look, I directly proved you wrong in the exact text that you quoted. But maybe I didn't elaborate enough again...... I am not assuming that buying one game will in any way prevent someone from buying another. What I am saying is that people do buy Call of Duty instead of other games. I say this because Call of Duty sells more than other games. Statistically speaking, most FPS players buy Call of Duty instead of Halo. Most FPS players buy CoD instead of Mag. Most FPS players buy CoD instead of Gears of War. Most FPS players buy CoD instead of Battlefield 3. Is that "to" hard to understand?

As for the rest, I understand that you apparently buy the games mostly for the campaign and you value them at $60 but I think you are unique in that regard. I'm not going to argue that the campaigns aren't fun or that they aren't worth buying every time, because although I haven't played them all they seem pretty fun. However, me and probably a majority of the FPS community buy games mainly for the multiplayer and spend much more time playing it than the campaign. There are hundreds of thousands of matches played online per day in Halo and probably Call of Duty, and I'm sure that the math behind that would prove that most players spend more time on the multiplayer(I don't feel like figuring it out)


And just to clarify, I play PLENTY of mainstream games, Halo for one is the second top selling FPS after CoD and World of Warcraft is the biggest MMO of all time. I could list many more, but I assure you that I judge games purely on entertainment value. Hell, I fully agree that Angry Birds is well worth a dollar to play and that the creators deserve my dollar if I were to buy it. However, I would much sooner pay more than that for Crush the Castle on Armorgames.com, wouldn't you? You've probably played Angry Birds but have you ever played Crush the Castle?

Oh and in this case, I would not buy Angry Birds. The reason is that I got tired of that style of game because I played Crush the Castle so much. And if I were to only buy one of a game like that (which I'm sure the average gamer does), it would be Crush the Castle. This does not necessarily apply to FPS games, but if I were to buy every FPS game that I wanted, it would be Halo, then BF3, then Mag, then Crysis, then CoD. Unfortunately I don't have the money for all of those so I only have Halo and BF3 now.


Sorry for such an extensive post, but when I try to be brief I get remarks like "I'm assuming that you are assuming this" or "I'm assuming you're a hipster"

Statistically speaking, most FPS players buy Call of Duty instead of Halo. Most FPS players buy CoD instead of Mag. Most FPS players buy CoD instead of Gears of War. Most FPS players buy CoD instead of Battlefield 3. Is that "to" hard to understand?

Is it so hard to understand that most people buy CoD and Halo and Gears of War and Battlefield 3? I have all 4 sitting next to my XBox.

most people buy CoD and Halo and Gears of War and Battlefield 3? I have all 4 sitting next to my XBox.

Am I being trolled now?

Am I not making sense or something?

Is this real life?

Edit:
I can't believe I'm explaining this...

As an example, let's say Sally has a lemonade stand and she is selling small medium and large sizes. She began the day with 28 large 12 medium and 9 small. Even if everyone bought one of each until she ran out, only 32% would have bought all 3. Now let's say each person bought 2, with at least a large, until both small and medium ran out (and then bought only one large each). 43% would have bought large+medium, while 57% bought a large with no medium. Also, 32% bought a large+small, while 68% bought a large with no small. In every situation, the average customer bought a large instead of a medium, and/or a large instead of a small.

In any combination of sales, people will statistically buy large instead of either medium or small, even if YOU are one of the people who bought all 3. The same would apply if you add in any other sizes that sold less than half of large.

FYI, these numbers represent the sales (in units of millions) of Call of Duty, Battlefield 3, and Halo Reach consecutively from http://www.vgchartz.com/

Am I not making sense or something?

I think that's a safe assumption.

[quote name='J03_b' timestamp='1335035864' post='4933575']
Am I not making sense or something?

I think that's a safe assumption.
[/quote]

See my edits

In any combination of sales, people will statistically buy large instead of either medium or small, even if YOU are one of the people who bought all 3. The same would apply if you add in any other sizes that sold less than half of large.

Your sales figures merely demonstrate that CoD sells better than any other shooter. That was not at issue.

Would all those consumers go out and buy Halo if CoD didn't exist? Possibly. But we can't in any way infer that from the data at hand.

blah

The problem you're describing rises from you thinking that CoD, Halo, etc are substitute goods. There is little evidence suggesting CoD and Halo are substitute goods. It's a logical explanation to jump to, but the data just doesn't back it up.