No, Call Of Duty: Ghosts Did Not Make $US1 Billion On Its First Day

Call of Duty: Ghosts didn't get the usual triumphal announcement from Activision that it was the biggest entertainment launch of the year. Because, one assumes, it was not. Activision did say that $US1 billion worth of Call of Duty was on retailers' shelves. Why is that worth bragging about? Well, this video is why.

Here are a bunch of TV journalists and Lou Dobbs failing to pick up on the fact that the $US1 billion mentioned by Activision in Wednesday's press release is "sold-in", a delightful piece of industry jargon that no one ever cares to define, because it's basically bullshit. "Sold in" means, more or less, the value of merchandise retailers have ordered, in this case from a publisher — as CNBC correctly points out at the end of this supercut.

"Sold through" is the operative term. That means "stuff people actually bought". Call of Duty has never sold $US1 billion on its first day. Not even close. Its record first day was last year — $US500 million on day one for Black Ops 2, which, hell yes is amazing. But it didn't punk Grand Theft Auto V's three-day total in a single day, as these folks keep claiming.

So, that's why Activision told us what retailers bought. They put out an accurate press release; maybe it was self-serving but hell, it's a press release. Mainstream media just took Call of Duty and $US1 billion and swallowed it whole, which is great PR and brand extension, even if it's not the biggest entertainment launch of the year.


Comments

    they should work for the Liberal Party. They're also masters of making up bullshit figures and successfully selling it to the media who then sells it to the public as truth

      "There will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead"

        So idiotic when people mention this. They show they have no idea how the parliamentary system works.

        I'll see that and raise you John Howards 1998 "There is no way the GST will ever be part of our policy!" "Never ever?" "Never ever. It's dead."

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixn9fFatdcs

          The difference being Gillard straight up lied about the carbon tax. She went to the polls saying no carbon tax, then the instant she got in she back flipped.
          Howard originally said no GST. He won the election on that.
          Then, he changed his mind, but instead of just introducing it he took it to an election... And won.
          Then won the next election too. He didn't lie. He let the people vote on it.
          Big difference. So you just lost that hand.

            Erm. Howard straight up lied about the GST. Goes and says 'Never ever.' Five minutes later he backflips and says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Doesn't matter if he went to an election, or if he did it post election, politicians on both sides are bullshit artists. You can't have it both ways man, sorry to tell you that. No imaginary 'hand' was lost. If you think you're winning with any sort of politician it's comparitive to willingly bending over and asking them to pleasantly ream you with a spiked dildo. Of sorts.

            Last edited 10/11/13 11:00 pm

            Gillard also didn't win the election outright. No party had a clear mandate to implement their election policies in full. Both parties tried to negotiate with the minor parties, and obviously Labor was the more successful negotiator.
            What Greens managed to get from Gillard in exchange for their support and confidence, was to delay the emissions trading scheme for a few years in favour of the carbon tax. And yes the emissions trading scheme was part of Labor's policy during that election, even though the Coalition would have you believe it was a carbon tax by another name.

            Here's a quote from Julia before the 2010 election: "“I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”"

      Wayne Swan "Surplus".

        Wayne Swan, the guy that helped keep Australia out of recession when the rest of the world was having extreme economic problems, also the guy that wanted a sensible way to return to surplus instead of the idiotic Liberals way which is just selling off public companies and cutting essential things.

          My god some people are idiots. You don't actually believe that do you? I'm going to assume there was a joke I didn't get in there somewhere.

            Explain how I am wrong, please. The Abbott government will do what the Howard government did, neglect vital infrastructure and sell off government owned services like HECS, Aus Post and Medibank Private.. it's what they do, if you don't believe me then
            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/05/opinion-poll-abbott-audit
            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/abbott-confirms-plan-privatise-medibank

            Why is it that we MUST get rid of the carbon tax because apparently the public don't like it, but when it comes to the Libs wanting to sell off important things that people don't want sold off Abbott says. “There will be some things the public don't like but I think the public understands the government has been living beyond its means." All Abbott wants is to make the rich richer, that's all any conservative wants.

            They have no concern for the future, it's all about the now and for some odd reason a surplus is what they want and they will do whatever to get it. They ran a political campaign on lies, 100% pure BS, that's all their strategy was and the media was there every step of the way to back them up.

            They already lied about the "budget emergency" and now they are in power they raised the debt ceiling and there is no longer an emergency, people like you buy it all up and this is why Australia is now in the situation where we have incompetent fools running it. Cutting 1400 government workers is a GREAT plan, well done Tony, well done. http://www.smh.com.au/national/prime-minister-tony-abbott-cuts-14000-government-jobs-20131108-2x731.html

            Oh and let me link you a great website that you should read every time a Lib speaks http://www.politifact.com.au/ oh and a nice link about the budget and Wayne Swan http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/23/tony-abbott/abbott-says-swan-delivered-five-biggest-deficits-e/

            EDIT: can someone please approve this comment? surely its not breaking any rules

            EDIT2: seriously, just approve the comment already, it isn't breaking rules.

            Last edited 10/11/13 8:33 pm

            I did reply to this with a lengthy response, but apparently the mods that be don't want it posted...

            here's a nice link for the mods to read http://bit.ly/HMtMn8

            Last edited 11/11/13 2:25 pm

            i didnt realise newscorp owned kotaku, must be why they wont approve my comment

          Chestbrah, you actually believe that?
          Where do you think that money came from? It took the Howard government ten years to get Australia $40 billion dollars in surplus after the Hawk/Keating government drove us into debt, only to have Rudd and Swan piss it all up against the wall. And you want to credit Swan because he spent it?
          Not to mention that Australia didn't need "saving" from the recession.
          I think you need to do some political homework.

            Howard government were the most wasteful government Australia ever had. They were in surplus because they privatized everything and neglect infrastructure. But anyway, dont let facts get in your way. Also, a surplus is mostly unnecessary as long as you keep the debt in control and atm australias debt is pretty small. I have another comment awaiting moderation. It explains why you guys have no idea what youre talking about.

            You'll find that government deficit tends to grow in times of recession given there is a combination of job losses and attempts by the government to stimulate the economy. It didn't need saving? Perhaps you need to realise that the impacts on Australia's economy extend further than just the local market.

          You are wrong because government doesn't create wealth, they only have the power to forcibly take it away from someone and re-distribute it. So when they cut these so called 'vital' public jobs its more like lifting the burden of the tax payer.

          Wayne Swan had nothing to do with keeping Australia out of a recession, stimulus spending doesn't work and will never work, in fact, you're better off just letting people keep their money and allowing them to spend it as they will because that' what the economy revolves around, individuals pursuing their self interest.

          To sum it up, government is probably the most useless entity that exists today, they have no moral authority on telling people how they should live their lives, they start wars and they (the US government) were responsible for creating the housing bubble and causing a global recession. So when people cry out for the government to so anything it leaves me baffled because they are more clueless than the people they supposedly govern.

      Your statement is both irrelevant and inflammatory, at least pretend you're trying to add something of worth to the comments.

      Liberal Party? All political parties renege on promises, your statement isn't even particularly valid for a political post.

      Cufcfan616 - You certainly opened a can of worms here :P

        http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/342/129969639840.gif

    ...and? What do you want from us? We know your dipshit media industry in the US is dumb as fuck, with a long history of sensationalist reporting where the sizzle has long been more important than the proverbial steak. How is it even a surprise that a misleading, self serving media release is being reported as fact?

    Here are a bunch of TV journalists and Lou Dobbs...

    Nice. Colbert would be proud ; )

    did one of them say GTA 5 made 800mil in it's first year, and then crossed 1billion in 3days.

    gw. wrong facts to begin with AND then f*** it up again.

    Last edited 10/11/13 2:23 pm

    Have been a constant 480,000 players online since about day 2. Surely that is some serious money?

      I'm sure it did make big bucks but probably not as much as what figures are being cited as 'sold'. Call of Duty is still a successful franchise as (in my opinion) recycled as it is and a large part of it's success is it's profitability.

      That's only $57.6 million worth of players at $120 a pop

    I wonder what the real figures are, & if it's lower, or higher than that of Blops 2...

    Either way Activision still got a billion dollars. So what's everybody's fucking point? Unless this stock was all sold on consignment...

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now