I wish I could say, “Released this Friday to incredible sales and extensive criticism, as is tradition,” but this time, it’s different. It’s not often you reference such things when talking about Call of Duty, of all things, but it fits excruciatingly well with Black Ops 7.
In the United Kingdom, physical sales are down 61 percent from last year’s Black Ops 6 and pale in comparison to Battlefield 6. The Call of Duty app, where all things Call of Duty are primarily accessible, barely scraped by 100,000 peak concurrent players this past weekend on Steam. Compare that to last year’s Black Ops 6, which still managed 306,460 players at launch while also being available on Game Pass.
It currently has a “Mixed” rating on the platform – out of a meager 1,432 user reviews, only 41 percent recommend you go anywhere near this disaster. “I despise the fact that someone else paid 79.99 EUR to gift me the game,” says one review. “It doesn’t deserve to be at such a high price.” Another says, “I’ve had viruses on my computer that were more pleasant to install than this,” possibly referring to the laundry list of components you need to deselect to begin installation (including, for some reason, the Black Ops 6 beta).
But there’s one that truly stands out to me. “This game is bad. Feels so cheap yet charges full price. It plays and feels terrible. I don’t know, maybe I’m just getting old. Glad I could get a refund.”
Frustration, bafflement, acceptance and finally, moving on. To say that Call of Duty is inspiring those emotions more and more with each passing year would be an understatement, but Black Ops 7 feels like a new low for the franchise. You should usually take user scores on Metacritic with a grain of salt, but the fact that it currently has the lowest in the series, even below Modern Warfare 3 and Infinite Warfare at 1.7, is saying something.
By now, you probably already know what went wrong. The campaign, which features four-player co-op, is an atrocity. A jumbled mess of sci-fi, hallucinogenic sequences, and Open Combat missions where you “make your own fun” in the blandest maps ever created. No checkpoints, no AI teammates when playing solo – no pausing when solo either. And you better not get disconnected, or else it’s back to the beginning.
Multiplayer offers better maps than last year but still suffers from terrible spawn logic, desync, and overall shoddy netcode, which pairs horribly with its inconsistent time-to-kill and slide-heavy movement. Zombies…works, but it’s surprisingly barebones if you’re only interested in Survival, with only one map. Otherwise, have fun driving around a series of interconnected areas with little by way of new enemies, power-ups or gameplay mechanics.
How did this all happen? It honestly stems from Modern Warfare 3. Reportedly meant to serve as a post-launch DLC for Modern Warfare 2 2022, it was expanded into a full game. Bloomberg’s Jason Schreier reported that Sledgehammer had 16 months to develop the title, which meant overtime and working weekends to meet the deadline. The studio would go on to deny those reports, but the results spoke for themselves.
As did the sales. Despite becoming the worst-reviewed mainline entry – which is still the case after all these years, so breathe easy, Black Ops 7 – it was still a success. In its debut month, it became the second-best-selling game of 2023 in the United States, even with the number of heavy hitters that the year had. That was all the confirmation that Activision needed, apparently, because it’s now embracing this pattern of turning follow-ups that should have been DLC – or an email, really – into bloated numbered sequels.
The problem with this strategy is, surprise, Game Pass. Modern Warfare 3 wasn’t available on the service until about eight months later, when it would have already made the majority of its sales. Black Ops 6 was available at launch on the service, and despite a better reception, both from critics and fans, it reportedly cost Microsoft about $300 million in lost sales. And that was without worthy competition like ARC Raiders and Battlefield 6 hanging around, hogging all the attention (even if they have their own share of problems).
The company seemingly raised Game Pass prices in response, while ensuring that only Ultimate and PC Game Pass subscribers received access to it at launch. The jury is still out on whether the extra cost helped shore up any losses, but I’m not sure it will, given the negative word of mouth surrounding Black Ops 7.
Of course, as many will note, it’s pointless to complain about Call of Duty and what went wrong because it will still sell. Call of Duty HQ will still top engagement charts in the United States on consoles, regardless of its performance on PC (which you can attribute to Warzone more, but some people aren’t ready for that conversation). But will Activision really carry on like it’s no big deal?
After all, Treyarch did cave to matchmaking changes after years of complaints, finally leaning away from skill-based matchmaking and bringing back persistent lobbies, even if netcode issues persist. There was also that whole attempt to drive attention away from Battlefield 6’s launch by making Black Ops 6 free for a week, including the entirety of its campaign.
Call of Duty will forever exist in its own bubble, where the overwhelming majority of its players buy it year after year, regardless of criticism, as seen with the likes of EA Sports FC or NBA 2K. But if everything is so hunky dory, even with better releases like Black Ops 6, would Microsoft bother with its Game Pass price hikes? Would it have removed discounts on DLC and games for subscribers, simply to get every last nickel and dime from those purchasing Call of Duty Points?
Where Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 isn’t an awfully made game, it’s painfully bland. Look at Avalon, the so-called endgame map for the campaign. Look at the number of remastered maps in multiplayer or the number of returning weapons from last year. Look at Zombies, where the biggest “innovation”, if you could call it that, is driving a truck.
However, longtime fans want to spin it, there’s a concerted effort from Activision to really look inward and examine everything wrong with the series (and no, that doesn’t mean cutting back on the number of goofy skins). It can’t, quite frankly, because it’s not motivated by how you enjoyed the campaign, whether you care about these characters, or if you’re having fun. All it cares about are monthly active user milestones and microtransaction revenue, and in the triple-A industry, that’s never enough.
Until it looks inward and admits there’s a problem, expect any answers to long-running questions to be no better than lies. But if you’re a long-time fan, why ask questions? Simply consume product and then get excited for more product. Activision and Microsoft won’t mind, so long as you’re ponying up the cash year in and year out, regardless of the stress on its development teams, layoffs, and AI usage. And really, isn’t that all that matters?
Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.
