The hatred of Call of Duty comes in 3 Delicious Fruit Flavors

Gamers seem to have this love/hate relationship with the Call of Duty series.  I can remember when the first game came out for the PC in October of 2003.  This was during a time period where the console and PC first person shooters were two completely different animals.  While consoles had Halo, and it did very well, many FPS fans were extremely loyal to the PC platform for their gaming needs.  Medal of Honor was extremely popular.  However, the developers of Medal of Honor had left EA in order to create the developer Infinity Ward and join Activision.  Now a days, the FPS market on the consoles is quite popular, but during that time period, the PC market was much much larger.  There was immense support for Call of Duty.  Fast forward 9 years, and we see an intense hatred towards the franchise.  Why is this?  How can a beloved title less than a decade ago have such huge anti-fan base?  In my opinion, there are three reasons.

The Devil, according to some.

First, in 2003, Activision was a different company.  During that time, Electronic Arts as looked at the "Evil Empire."  These days, everyone has a rather negative outlook on Activision's business model (myself included), but there doesn't seem to be much talk about who original developed that business model (which is, EA).  Back then, Activision was much smaller of a developer, and did not have the massive resources that they have now.  They also had a much more positive reputation with the gaming community.  These days, Activision really can't do anything right in the eyes of the gaming community.  While I'm not a fan of their business model, I am also guilty of an intense dislike of the way they carry out their business.  However, they do still have the resources to release some top notch product.  With all due seriousness, though, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick could rescue an orphanage full of underprivileged and mentally ill children from a burning building, and the gaming media would look for a way to slam him for doing so.  

Responsible for the evolution of the console FPS.

Next, let's look at the law suit.  This might not be very well known, but two of the guys responsible for Medal of Honor are also responsible for the Call of Duty series.  Jason West and Vince Zampella are these two guys.  They were responsible for Call of Duty games 1, 2, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2.  Now there are a lot of rumors and speculation out there as to what happened between these two gentlemen and Activision, but there was a long running series of statements made that would make one think that West and Zampella were not happy with Activision's management of the COD series.  After completion of COD2, Activision decided to use the "Madden Effect" (remember that post?) with the series.  However, knowing that West and Zampella's development house, Infinity Ward, could not produce  a Triple A title in one calender year, Activision decided to put another development house on the next game.  Treyarch took he reigns of the next game, and would go on to complete a COD game in the years where Infinity Ward could not (Call of Dutys 3, World at War, Black Ops and Black Ops 2).  I'm guessing West and Zampella were less than thrilled with this turn of events, as they moved to drop the Call of Duty name off of Modern Warfare 2.  Infinity Ward reps would openly insult Treyarch during the development of World at War (I remember one saying that they should stop talking about Modern Warfare in their interviews hyping up World at War, and instead talk about their own game and it's "zombies.)  After the release of Modern Warfare 2, Activision fired both West and Zampella, claiming they had both been scheming with Electronic Arts in order to leave their company.  West and Zampella then sued their former employer for unpaid bonuses and even wanted the "Modern Warfare" name.  Since that time,  the lawsuit grew and got more complicated, but was initially settled in May of 2012.  (I haven't heard the outcome though, if anyone knows, I'd be interested to know?)  Needless to say, this was even more negative press for Activision and Call of Duty, as the accusation that they refused to pay the creators of the franchise was pretty bad.  (It should be noted that since that time, West, Zampella and several former Infinity Ward employees have formed Respawn Entertainment, and signed on to produce games for, big surprise, Electronic Arts!  They have yet to announce anything, but with a new console generation starting, I doubt that will be the case for too much longer..)

Admit it, you love this picture.

The 3rd wonderful fruit flavor is really the one that is responsible for most of the diversity with this series.  Money.  I always say follow the money.  As I discussed in my DLC post a bit ago, you are not longer getting the "full" gaming experience you used to get for your full retail price of $59.99.  Instead, companies are now attempting to maximize their profits by planning up to a year of content that they will continually release either Playstation Network or X-Box Live.  In the case of a COD game, if you buy the "best" deal possible, you're looking at paying nearly double for the entire gaming experience.  I think the problem with COD is that not only has it fully absorbed the "Madden Effect," but now so has the DLC!  Combined with the fact that the COD series hasn't done much evolving, means that there's a lot of room for some high powered competition.  EA has gained some serious ground in this area with their Battlefield franchise.  

Moxxi was 10 bucks, vs 15 per COD map pack.

Furthermore, with the DLC bit, other companies are also copying COD here too.  However, if you look at a first person shooter like Borderlands, their DLC packs are actually full game add-ons, adding to both the first and multiplayer modes (because they are one in the same) rather than just adding multiplayer maps (which is still a very diverse market, half of the gaming audience still doesn't care much for multiplayer).  To further drive the knife deeper, Borderlands DLC ran 33% cheaper than the COD maps ($10 vs. $15).  Of course the big difference with that is also that Borderlands developer, Gearbox, is far more popular of a developer in the eyes of die hard gamers.

All that being said, though, the truth is that no matter how many people bitch and moan about Activision and Call of Duty, it is still the top selling game every year.  No matter how many people complain about how much they had COD, the fact is that people who really care about multiplayer will all end up picking this up in order to play with their friends.  Gamers might be pissy about it, but they will cough up the money for the game and the DLC.  They might talk about how much better Battlefield or whatever game is, but until gamers start speaking with their wallets instead of their mouths, nothing will change.