Activision: Call of Duty 4 was best-selling game of 2007
Activision's latest claim to #1 fame is based on sales figures obtained from The NPD Group, Chart Track and The GFK Group, which label Infinity Ward's critically acclaimed Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare as the best-selling game for 2007. The frantic first-person shooter is said to have sold in excess of 7 million units worldwide, a particularly impressive victory considering the game's relatively recent November release. Of course, those keen on the shooting of the aliens will recall that Microsoft claimed an 8.1 million sales 'splosion for Halo 3 earlier this month, bringing the title of "Best-selling Game of 2007 OMG" title into minor dispute.
We've contacted both boasters to clarify the figures ... just so we can be sure to stick the air pump into the right ego. Regardless, you'd best take this as a sign to start counting down the months until the inevitable Call of Duty 5 arrives. Let's just hope it's not a #2.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
StarFoxA @ Jan 25th 2008 7:19PM
Lies. Carnival Games was.
jrunta @ Jan 25th 2008 7:22PM
Here's the problem with Call of Duty 5: World War II
Anticrawl @ Jan 25th 2008 8:04PM
Haha, silly boy. It is certainly titled Call of Duty 5: Corporate Warfare.
Cal @ Jan 25th 2008 10:07PM
The problem with Call of Duty 5 is Treyarch...
HighFiveJesus @ Jan 25th 2008 7:26PM
Either way, the industry is going to take note and crank out even more furst purwson sheooters, oh boy! Clever innovation be damned.
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Jan 25th 2008 7:34PM
The popular genre: the enemy of innovation!
HighFiveJesus @ Jan 25th 2008 8:04PM
Well last year shooters got to experience both and it was great to see so many do that but i'm just saying, I'd like to see this success shift to a different genre for next year, maybe action adventure or something. But its not where the money is. :(
MN Guy @ Jan 25th 2008 10:43PM
The shooter genre sees as much good quality games as any other genre. I'd rather play a good game than a crappy game that happened to innovate.
On a side note, I didn't think COD4 was all that good, though I'll be playing it in 5 minutes due to peer pressure.
Jouten @ Jan 25th 2008 11:19PM
Yeah...Riiiiiighhhhht..... ;)
propanol @ Jan 26th 2008 7:16AM
Well, that's at least better than more snorefest JRPGs, most of which were obsolete two console generations ago (if you can't integrate your story line in any other way than putting a fucking text box with exposition on screen, go write a novel - stop designing games).
qbix @ Jan 25th 2008 7:28PM
Yup. It shouldn't take place in WWII. Why not go further back in history, or way into the future? I'm tired of using the same WWII weapons.
eugene @ Jan 25th 2008 8:26PM
Call of Duty: Stone Age
new challenge: knobby stick, unlocked.
Microswirl @ Jan 25th 2008 10:46PM
I think what you're describing is Oblivion (past) and Unreal Tournament (future)... also on the horizon are Project Offset and Fallout 3.
PatrickE @ Jan 25th 2008 7:32PM
Activision: Currently LAST PLACE in getting their COD4 patch out the door!!
AGGG!!!
Steve-o @ Jan 25th 2008 8:15PM
Any idea when the patch is supposed to hit?
ill trooper @ Jan 25th 2008 7:33PM
Joystiq: Why did you have to put in that bit about CoD5 being WWII-based in at the end? You just sent this down a lame, boring complaint-filled path...
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Jan 25th 2008 7:37PM
Your lame, boring complaint is duly noted.
jrunta @ Jan 25th 2008 7:51PM
I still would have made the same comment if they didn't have the part at the end.
ill trooper @ Jan 26th 2008 12:33AM
heh heh... You guys know what I meant. That's not a criticism of the post, only a criticism of where the comment thread will head. I was lamenting how nearly everyone has already quickly decided CoD5's going to suck...
There's no real evidence I've seen that CoD5 is set in WWII, other than a job posting saying you would benefit from being 'a fan of WWII shooters,' but many people have taken that as the guiding parameter for the game that's being made, when it's possible that it's only looking for people with experience in or ideas for the war-fps genre. The fact that CoD4 has been such a success in 2007 without being set in WWII tells me that Activision, the company that milked WWII and Tony Hawk for so long and so hard, WON'T change their newfound, recently-successful 'Modern Warfare' formula - my prediction: CoD5 won't be WWII.
I'll wait until I see for certain it's set in WWII to complain about it. However, I suppose the massive waves of negativity toward a WWII setting might be helpful in getting the devs to realize that's not an interesting path to present gamers anymore. So carry on...
playwhutyalike @ Jan 27th 2008 10:33AM
Off topic,
I just read where you ripped into my ass for some comments I made in a rock band forum, and I apologize for being a dick. I deserved the verbal slamming.
Just so you know, FL has come a long way from being a cornball program to where it is now. I just use FL as my sequencer/arranger with Reason rewired into it. Still need to upgrade though. The sweet thing about FL is that everytime there is an update (new version) you can get it for free, no strings attached.
Peace.
Sam406 @ Jan 25th 2008 7:35PM
I'm sceptical, regarding Activision so called "success" 2/3 of the Guitar Hero franchise were Harmmonix's, and people didn't like GH3 as much as GH1 or GH2 and the future of the Call of Duty franchise looks grim...
Carl Abrams @ Jan 25th 2008 7:36PM
Call of Duty 5 - the American Civil War
Now THAT would be a fun game. You could pick your side (Union or Confederacy), pick your battle (Shiloh, Gettysburg, Fredricksburg, Vicksburg - whatever), and then have fun. It's not like the weapons were that accurate early on - or even later on, which is why you'd have battle lines of 500 men standing 50 yards apart shooting at each other and maybe 10 or 20 would get hit with each volley. Or you could be a sniper with a Whitworth, and try to pick off the opposing officers. Be an artilleryman during a charge, and see how quickly you can load double cannister.
Or simply be a flag bearer and see how long you lived during battle. (Hint - not very long!)
Jerk Face @ Jan 25th 2008 7:40PM
That actually would be Pretty Fracking Cool.
Kendall B @ Jan 25th 2008 8:12PM
History Channel: Civil War already tried this. It seems that all the fun gets sucked out of FPS' when it takes 15 seconds to reload one shot.
TWIMTBP @ Jan 25th 2008 8:59PM
muahahaha might as well throw the gun at your opponent and hope he dies of shock.
Ted @ Jan 26th 2008 8:25AM
I for one would love to play at the battle of the crater at Petersburg... You can play as a confederate starving in his trench for a few hours and then all of a sudden blow up.
PatrickE @ Jan 25th 2008 7:37PM
Also, it seems that COD5 is going to be suckily put together by none other than TreyArch. The same meat-hats that produced a game hardly worthy of carrying the COD namesake. So no wonder they're sticking with WW2 theme.. why make new content when you can re-package the same suck you sent out for cod3?
MarMar @ Jan 25th 2008 9:09PM
Have you even played COD3? It's multiplayer had playable vehicles, pioneered the UAV ---> airstrike ---> helo in-game thing (each class had its own unique 3 steps, additionally), included sprinting, and supported more players per gamethan COD 2 or 4 (24). It also had better maps and friendlier people playing. COD4 multiplayer is COD3 multiplayer with a few extra bells and whistles like custom classes and perks, but everyone has a hard on for it just because infinity ward made it... oh please...
Kendall B @ Jan 25th 2008 7:40PM
Well deserved. The guys at Infinity Ward put out an absolutely awesome game, and deserve every bit of the success they are having. If CoD4 isn't the best FPS experience I've ever had, it certainly comes damn close.
Sam406 @ Jan 25th 2008 7:59PM
Kinda makes you think:
Infinity Ward: Wait, so we make a game that gets game of the year awards left and right, surpasses Halo 3 in sales an xbox live activity and is regarded as the best FPS experience ever and...We CAN'T make Call of Duty 5
Activision: No, we belive they Treyarch can do better.
Treyarch: Yeah, we'll give fans what they really want! more WWII shooters!
Kendall B @ Jan 25th 2008 8:05PM
Well, I think you could look at that two different ways. Having Treyarch do the sequel gives Infinity Ward a good bit of time to complete the inevitable CoD6. I'm sure Activision is the guilty party pushing for the yearly sequels ($$$), and they don't want to rush Infinity Ward's game. Treyarch's game will sell well enough on name alone and provide a decent enough stopgap until Infinity Ward can release their game.
On the other hand, Activision could just enjoy being dicks to Infinity Ward. But I find the first scenario more plausible.
FraGNeM @ Jan 25th 2008 8:06PM
It's not that Infinity Ward is being pulled from the CoD franchise. It's that Activision values money more than protecting the CoD brand.
I'm sure that, if Infinity Ward wishes, they'll be hard at work on Call of Duty 6, set for late '09,
Sam406 @ Jan 25th 2008 9:09PM
If CoD5 is just a stall for time so that Infinity gets time to make CoD6 then, they are stupider than I thought.
Do you really think all the casual gamers will be able to tell the difference between Treyarch and Infinity?
No, they will see CoD5 and say "Hey, CoD4 was awesome, this should be too..."
Then it sucks (or it's not as good) and they go "Waaaah they ruined the franchise" and nobody buys CoD6 the "good game" except us, the well informed gamers.
MarMar @ Jan 25th 2008 9:15PM
instead of judging by how well informed you are you should judge the actual game. A LOT of people like call of duty 3, more people played it online than cod2 multiplayer, and its still a popular live game even though its sequel is out. it had a cool campaign with polish and canadian ally representation, a story that finally didn't involve D-day like every WW2 game out there, and lets not forget it had VEHICLES in multiplayer too!
Kendall B @ Jan 26th 2008 12:43AM
I played through CoD3 and enjoyed it. Multiplayer was certainly more involved than CoD2's. However, the single player campaign really dragged in a lot of areas and started to feel very repetitive toward the end. Judged against a run of the mill FPS, CoD3 is up there, but judged against CoD2 (and 4) it just doesn't hold up as well in the campaign department. By the end of CoD3 I was really really ready for the game to be over.
playwhutyalike @ Jan 25th 2008 7:54PM
Call of Duty 4 is one game I am looking foward to playing, besides GTA IV. Look for me in battle. I'll be the guy who pulls pins on grenades and drops them at my feet.
NvM @ Jan 25th 2008 8:32PM
Plenty of people do that considering it's a perk.
Mr.ESC @ Jan 25th 2008 8:58PM
Call of duty 4 is indeed a good game but well it doesn’t feels new or exciting. The graphics are good, the story is solid, the effects going on in the screen are very impressive, the action is constant, the enemy AI is challenging and well everything in COD4 is perfectly executed and it counts with a more wider repertoire than the average shooter but it never feels unique like Half-life or Bioshock.
Is still a solid selection but I can’t really say is the best game ever, the multiplayer is great and Infinity ward should be proud of themselves but the game feels a bit dry.
If you haven’t played “COD4” by now (seriously what the hell?) I recommend the PS3 or PC versions over the XB360 version, the xb360 version is still great but the best way to play COD4 is with a keyboard and mouse especially if you want to play on veteran because the last mission is extremely frustrating and the XB360 controller doesn’t offers the accuracy necessary also start in regular and leave Veteran for later. Believe starting on Veteran will only make the game feel like work.
I had a great time with COD4 and the Charlie Chaplin mode was something that I really appreciated also that collecting stuff in a game finally does something fun, most of the intelligence unlocks meaningless things but when you have them all you will have a great time.
Now if COD:MW series continues they will need a style of its own since we have enough fantasy WWIII games already I mean they could add some music or puzzles into the mix better yet more Air sections, I loved “Death from above” chapter and “Mile high club” is very satisfying when you finally get it right.
Going back to the WWII thing will be a let down because that would mean will never see the full potential of the MW series but the truth is that I liked the first COD and it was a lot of fun, I never bought the 2nd or the 3rd installment but I don’t see why “Call of Duty: is about to make the nazis his bitches” and “Call of duty:Final Fantasy War V” can’t live together. Why don’t have both? I mean activision is not going to deliver another Mech Warrior Soon.
playwhutyalike @ Jan 25th 2008 9:03PM
The reason I haven't played it yet is due to the fact I don't own a PS3 or 360. Yet. Waiting on the GTA. As for the PC, I use mine for internet and music production/remixing. I do have plenty of resources to run the it but choose not to put any video games on my system.
Dustin @ Jan 25th 2008 8:04PM
The COD roller coaster of quality predicts that the next game will suck...
Sooooooooo...
Ya.
wootman @ Jan 25th 2008 8:42PM
think of it this way, we can either get a pretty good semi sequel by trearch, or we can wait the same span from COD2 to 4.
NSanity @ Jan 25th 2008 8:10PM
Did it beat WoW in terms of earnings for 2007?
Best selling is one thing, but most profitable is another.
COD4 rocked, but any COD game NOT done by Infinity Ward blows chunks.
Austin Hobson @ Jan 25th 2008 8:14PM
Wait so halo did beat this in sales?
Brian Fantana @ Jan 25th 2008 8:18PM
How does 7.1 million beat 8.1 million?
wootman @ Jan 25th 2008 8:41PM
majik.
Cyro @ Jan 25th 2008 11:38PM
Exactly what I was thinking.....
heckthor @ Jan 26th 2008 2:03AM
Here's my take on this: COD 4 sells almost as much as Halo even though COD came out almost 2 months after Halo and those sales for COD 4 without all that ridiculous propaganda MS pulled off, and to TOP IT OFF when it comes to games most played LIVE, COD ends it 1st, so yeah, COD is better, ergo, it will sell more...... oh yeah and Halo Sucks... Lol I Kid.....
Lone Starr @ Jan 25th 2008 8:20PM
But this dispute is less of a dispute if we remember that one is multi-platform and the other isn't. And that one of them sold a "Legendary Edition" for $130. While COD4 is certainly impressive in both sales and gameplay, I think in terms of all the factors, Halo 3 sales are still more impressive.
Oh, and for all of you again complaining that FPS's lack innovation blah blah blah, don't play them and never speak on the subject again. kthx.
Spartacus @ Jan 25th 2008 9:16PM
Agreed. But Halo has haters, CoD4 does not, so it is more politically correct within the gaming community to sing the praises of Infinity Ward.
Mr.ESC @ Jan 25th 2008 9:59PM
"FPS's lack innovation blah blah blah, don't play them and never speak on the subject again. kthx."
Yeah let’s just ignore the problem and play more WWII shooters.
There is a difference between complaining and bitching, I’m complaining. Not about COD4 I mean is great but it could use some style like Half-life 2 or Bioshock.
I’m not a big fan of shooters but games like The Darkness, Bioshock, Half-life 2 even Halo and Timeshift proved that FPS can still be great and the Genera is not done for.
The problem with COD4 is while is still great it just feels dry.
Anyway back on topic you are right the game is multiplatform that means XB360,Ps3 and PC fanboys are already playing and having fun with COD4 while Halo belongs to the XB360 fanboys and it’s hated by the PC fanboys because they are elitist pricks okay I’m a elitist PC gamer as well but I like Halo and Ps3 fanboys which hate XB360 fanboys because they don’t get their exclusives on time or they are just jealous?, who knows Ps3 fanboys are haters..