I was responding to a thread that got deleted...not sure why but since my post had little to do with the thread and more to do with a comment, I'll post it in a new topic.
I know there are a lot of hard feelings and hurt ones too on this forum, but I think most of you are fogetting that Zombies was a SIDE GAME for Call of Duty. It was never meant to be the main focus of the game. They will always focus more on the Campaign and MP aspect of their games, it is what it is.
Some of you need to study economics and marketing.....maybe software design as well.
Many of the arguments made excusing Treyarch are devoid of any thought or logic.
First, Breaking off the zombies "Side Game" doesn't appear to hurt COD sales since MW3 seems to compete well without a "side game". So, let's play with the idea that it went to stand alone.
Lets assume that a measley 15% of the sales for B-Ops 2 was zombies only driven. Lets also assume that a measley 15% of MP also like zombies and would buy both. That's 30%
I don't have the total sales earnings for B-Ops2 but I do have the 2012 total....2.67 billion dollars.
30% of 2.67B is $800 million
85% of $2.67B $2.26B
Total is $3.06B....or an increase of almost $400 million just for the first 2 months of sales. Game makers drool over number like this. I'd pay $60 for the disc....I'd buy 4 DLC's even if it was only 2 maps per DLC (versus the MP standard 4).
Second, lets look at development costs. Since most of the diehard apologists have ranted ad nausem that zombies was moved to the MP engine....I'll assume that is the case. If so, that's not a burden is a time saveings. What that means is a good deal of the coding is done. A competing game publisher would need to bear 100% of the programing costs giving Activision/Treyarch an advantage in either gross profit or, if spent on development....a superior product.
One of my businesses is web development. I made a paid online directory for a specific industry in 2012. I never expected it to turn a profit. The return on investment was when I cloned (a good deal of the coding is done) the concept to other industries.
Based on logic and all the excuses, Zombies as a stand alone game would be LESS not MORE work.
Third, there are not very many examples of zombie only games to gauge success. However, I don't think there are any game publishers sitting in the position that Activison/Treyarch are. I think many would hack off their arm to have a cult following of loyal fans with credit cards in hand like they do.
In a recent interview, Valve’s Chet Faliszek threw out a rather impressive bit of info, saying the Left 4 Dead series has sold an incredible 12 million copies to date. It’s no surprise the franchise has been immensely successful, but 12 million is a lot, especially for a zombie game. “
These poor slobs had to code the game from scratch and earn their sales from a cold start. They are tickeled pink and working on a 3rd release.
Activision could own this niche if it wanted to....with little added expense for marketing (the community would go bananas...viral marketing dream).
In conclusion...it appears:
- Activision has an advantage in development costs
- The Zombie niche has a market
- Activision has an existing loyal customer base
- There is a potential to increase profits
The shareholders aught to be fuming!
Perhaps....just maybe, Treyarch needs Zombies? Maybe zombies is just a pawn in the chess game of competing with Infinity Ward. The sales figures seem to suggest this...the zombie only community loyalty seems to as well.
Maybe you are right....its a side game but not for the reasons you think. The side game is trying to hold their own in the market. This would explain why....against all logic, COD Zombies will never go stand alone.
Note: you can pick the numbers apart, I quickly googled them....however, nit picking aside, the point is still valid.