Fact: Call of Duty has generated over $3 billion dollars in less than a decade. Very few developers have been able to directly challenge the juggernaut head-on, and many opt to release outside of the holiday window because of this. However, EA is bold, and has consistently battled Activision with its own special first-person shooter franchise: Battlefield. However, the team behind the series sees it as something different.
Executive producer Patrick Bach sees the enduring feud behind his team’s Battlefield series and Activision’s Call of Duty series as something less direct, stating that it’s as if they’re two different sports. In an interview he shared the following:
“Everyone wants there to be a fight between us,”
“and I understand that – but the problem is if you say it’s a ‘fight,’ you’re assuming you’re competing at the same sport.”
In a sense, Battlefield and Call of Duty battle for different territories. Sure, they’re both first-person shooters, and primarily competitive online games, but each has completely different assets and strengths. Call of Duty has thrived on being a highly-polished run-and-gun shooter that throw away the idea of a large battlefield and vehicles for flashy killstreaks and tons of loadouts. Battlefield, on the other hand, is a vehicle-centric series, with helicopters, tanks, rocket launchers, and realistic, outdoor war scenarios.
The strange thing is that EA has consistently attacked the Call of Duty franchise with smear campaigns. If they are really playing two different ball games, why portray it as a head-to-head battle?