Call of Duty: Black Ops Hits $1,000,000,000

Is Call of Duty one of the biggest franchises in the world? Yes, it seems so. Activision was proud to announce that Call of Duty: Black Ops has crossed the the $1 billion mark in sales worldwide since its launch in November, according to internal company estimates.

In its first five days alone, the game sold more than $650 million worldwide, outpacing theatrical box office, book and video game sales records for five-day worldwide sell through in dollars, according to internal Activision estimates and boxofficemojo.com. The game exceeded Activision's previous five-day worldwide record of $550 million set by last year's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

To date, more than 600 million hours have been logged playing Call of Duty: Black Ops since the game launched on November 9, 2010. According to Microsoft, the average player logs on more than once a day and plays for more than one hour each time. Over half of that time is spent playing online with and against friends, illustrating the unique social characteristics of the game.

"In all of entertainment, only Call of Duty and "Avatar" have ever achieved the billion dollar revenue milestone this quickly," said Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard.

And CoD4 is still the best. I repeatedly still go 35-5 with a shotgun. I love it.

B-but CoD is full of casuals. >_>

Lol. Oh you silly, silly, elitist.

Consoles are full of casuals. :3

I would think that a true gamer could excel at all forms of electronic gaming. I am the jack of all trades of gaming which makes me a little more then a casual.

Consoles... I don't see it as being more competitive than PC gaming.

Then you don't see very well. Or are not looking, either one.

I haven't looked--my onset on how console gaming is for casuals should be true. It has always been a enjoyment type of thing, and you see with releases like the Wii and Kinect--these technologies are targeted towards the casual base, and I can only see games that CAN be competitive are the FPS titles like CoD.

However, I've always been more of a CSS person, and in an old point that I've made, the mouse is a heavenly device that cannot be challenged in terms of FPS, RTS, etc.

I understand that there's a competitive console base, but I just see the PC as being more purposed for that.

I would actually consider a console to be more purposed toward gaming then a PC, as that is what consoles are specifically designed for. You seem to forget that FPS are not the only competitive games.

If you could see the dedication and precision to some of the top chart racers on Forza or PGR you would be impressed. They have every turn, every gearshit, every vehicle down to a science. And as you probably know, racing games on the PC are always trash.

And as for FPS, the competitive base is actually growing. Sure you have things like Wii and Kinect, but those were always meant for casuals and specifically designed to be gimmicky. It certainly does not represent the majority of the console gaming community. And you can bet your ass those technology will find there way to the PC, especially as technology converges and becomes more accessible.

Sure most of the online is little kids who think they are l337 and pro. But hell, that is not much different then CSS honestly. At least from what I have seen in my stint. Just read the article you posted. That is a lot of money and A LOT of people. You can't say they are all casuals. And that is just for CoD:BO.

By that point the means of gaming make no difference, it is clear what is more popular among gamers. It is just elitism for the sake of elitism to disregard all other methods of gaming.

Anyways what defines a casual or a hardcore gamer? Is it time and effort put into the game? If that is so I now friends who literally spend hours upon hours each day mastering CoD. People who spend hundreds of dollars on fancy headsets and TV's to get an edge. Just insane amounts of commitment.

Mmm, good points there--apparently, I've totally forgotten that the racing game genre exists. :p

For me, the point of becoming a hardcore gamer is where you personally make the distinction of whether or not are you serious about gaming, where your focus is on improving their own skill, and of course, playing in tournaments or finding matches instead of pubbing.

With CS/1.6/etc., people find matches on IRC; they're not organized, and so you'll have to make an effort in obtaining the software and learning how to use it--it's a very proactive and "traditional" way of finding a competitive match. I would say those who play frequently may not be involved with competitive activities--typically, most of these pub. I think another distinction is when you play for fun, and when you decide to take it to another 'level.'

Oh I can assure you. Some people take it very seriously, to my lamentations of course.

I have heard of competitions with prizes and stuff but have never really been into that type of stuff. My game play style favors more of a tactical lone wolf approach. I prefer to sneak around widely on most games and instigate a guerrilla war type battle. That is kind of hard to do on CSS. Basically that doesn't work well for clans, but ive never been a real clan player anyways.

Mmm, well, I suppose we all play for different reasons.

But do you still think all outside your little niche of gaming are "casuals"?

They're varying degrees of casuals. :p

But all casuals non the less?

Simplistically, I believe everyone is a casual who isn't in some sort of active organization against people of their own competitive level.

I'm definitely one. :p

I guess I can accept that. That definition isn't so derogative.

What did you have in mind?