Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Modern Warfare 2 day-one sales could total 7 million - Analyst

Broadpoint AmTech's Ben Schachter says game could top 11.7 million units globally in first week--nearly as much as analysts believed it would take in all quarter.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is barely two days old, but it is already breaking records. This morning, research firm Gfk Chart-Track reported that the game sold over 1.23 million units in the UK in 24 hours, nearly twice that of Grand Theft Auto IV's 631,000-unit day-one take in 2008.

Siberian retail sales figures for Modern Warfare 2 are not yet available.

Siberian retail sales figures for Modern Warfare 2 are not yet available.

Using UK sales as a basis, Broadpoint AmTech analyst Ben Schachter has extrapolated Modern Warfare 2's day-one global sales could total about 7 million units. Then, using GTAIV's sales history as a model, he concludes that first-week worldwide sales of the military shooter could top around 11.7 million units. That's nearly as much as the 12 million units a consensus of analysts estimated the game would sell during the entire October-December quarter.

"While the two-times week-one tally for GTA IV may seem aggressive, the bottom line is that we believe current consensus estimates of around 12 million for the December quarter may end up being conservative," he wrote in a note sent to investors this morning.

However, Schachter cautioned that the extrapolated figure may be less for a variety of reasons. First, shooters historically perform better in the US and UK, as opposed to territories, such as violence-averse Germany, where the game's controversial terrorist sequence was reportedly censored.

Second, Schachter pointed out that Modern Warfare 2 sales may have been inflated due to a price war between UK supermarkets and retailers. Several nationwide outlets had drastically marked down the Activision game as a loss leader to draw in customers.

For more information on Modern Warfare 2, visit GameSpot's launch center.

434 Comments

  • TheRealUser101

    Posted Aug 8, 2011 8:35 am GMT

    Activision, being Modern Warfare 3's publisher, is showing the games multiplayer at the Call of Duty XP convention on September 2. All of the Modern Warfare 3 perks, weapons, maps will be shown there. MW3 is going to be great.

  • BladeTrinity114

    Posted Nov 19, 2009 9:04 am GMT

    @willauqs Fair enough PCs are more powerful. But to be honest, I would rather know that I can run any game any time with a console, than spending an incredible amount of money on something that is going to be out of date as soon as a new version of it comes out. PCs may have been the kings of gaming in the past, but consoles are the future.

  • willauqs

    Posted Nov 19, 2009 7:30 am GMT

    @BladeTrinity114 Its not that PC gamers just randomly "think they should have privileges console gamers don't" PC game have a STANDARD. Things like dedicated servers and mods are why PC gamers spend time and money on PC rigs. IW totally disregarded all that. But honestly, PC gamers SHOULD have privileges that console gamers don't because PCs are more powerful, they are easier to develop for, and the gamers pay more money on PC rigs than an xbox for a reason.

  • KaizerJinn

    Posted Nov 16, 2009 7:23 am GMT

    this game is A-M-A-Z-I-N-G! LoL. may be exaggerating a bit, but it is pretty good. and that's coming from a person who dont like FPS. *thumbs up* =D

  • BladeTrinity114

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 5:57 pm GMT

    @plasmachild2k So explain to me why the game is pathetic because they didn't bend over backwards for the PC game? Yeh it is a bit irresponsible of them, but it doesn't make the game pathetic. You have to remember that this game wasn't just aimed at PC gamers, it is also on PS3 and Xbox 360. Why is it that PC gamers always think they should have priveleges consoles gamers don't?

  • frazzle00

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 3:30 pm GMT

    @knoetgen

    - If Iraq broke UN sanctions, why did the UN not intervene? Why in fact did the UN hold that the American invasion was illegal?

    - The first Gulf War was sanctioned by the UN. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the international community intervened. The 2003 war is hardly the same situation. Iraq had not perpetrated any acts of aggression. The evidence used to justify the war proved to be false! Despite the crippling US imposed embargo, Saddam remained in power. Why didn't the Iraqi military stage a coup and get rid of Saddam since that would have ended the embargo? Why didn't the people resort to the violence you see in Iraq today to liberate themselves? It seems pretty clear to me who the greater evil is!

    - America is one country out of many in this world. The UN did not sanction the 2003 invasion of Iraq simply because there were plenty of countries that did not AGREE with American opinion. What gives America the right to take their MINORITY opinion over the rest of the world's? There are plenty of people in this world that think America has made the world a more dangerous place to live in. Why is your American opinion more valid than our non-American one?

    - Try and look at it from the other end of the conflict. If Iraq had the superior fire power and they (obviously) do not view the American way of life as being just, and America (also obviously) has plenty of WMDs. Let's also not forget America's past expansionistic foreign policy. Would that justify their invasion of America?

  • knoetgen

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 9:48 am GMT

    @frazzle00 I unlike you served my country that to me and most Americans is you giving yourself for your country and helping make the world a better place, I understand that most people dont care for Americas actions in the current war but like polarwiseman said the UN was denied full access this was before the war. Everyone knows that we didnt find what we thought was there but why the hell didnt Iraq follow the UN I say again UN sanctions they broke them. The UN was only given access to what Iraq said they could see, and I know your going to say "well what gives us the right to look" how about the fact that Iraq invaded another country (Kuwait) I THINK THAT GIVES US AND THE UN THE RIGHT. So then you say but they didnt do that this time and no they didnt but they started breaking the UN sanctions right after 9-11 and I saw some of the war briefs all the transports moving large amounts of who the hell knows because for some reason all of a sudden the UN couldnt look at them anymore, so thats why we had the right!

  • frazzle00

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 9:38 am GMT

    @Knoetgen

    Actually only a few people seem to disagree with me. Most of my comments have a positive score. Your comments on the other hand are negative. I'm not fighting with anyone. I am simply postulating something that's completely logical; that American actions which you see so positively, can just as easily be seen in a negative light. I don't hear the Koreans or Vietnamese singing your praises. The Iraqis definitely aren't. Why is that? And what have you done to make the world a better place?

  • frazzle00

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 4:21 am GMT

    I don't think this political discussion is out of context here. After all isn't such politics one of the major selling points of both the MW titles? Playing as big brave American/Brit soldiers laying the smack down on evil Russian terrorists, to a bombastic soundtrack of explosions and screams, and embellished by quotes from the venerable Dick Cheney, is a wet dream for many. If this political discussion was being held on a Dragon Age article, then yes that would be off topic indeed .

  • frazzle00

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 4:16 am GMT

    @dograw75

    Can you prove that the figures you quote are more "factual" than the ones I quote? And what treaties was Iraq violating? You don't believe that a major peer-reviewed and world renown medical journal is "respected". Wow you've got some high standards 8).

  • Arkady_Husky

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 2:29 am GMT

    Hey, it's a shame trillions of Iraqi civilians (mostly women, children, kittens and unicorns) have been rounded up and shot in the backs of their heads by nasty American imperialists (and their British sycophants) intent to steal their backwardness and falafel recipes, but you can't make an omlette without breaking a few imaginary eggs.
    But enough about fantasy, this is about Modern Warare 2, and how awesome it is. Nice job Infinity Ward.

  • PresidentDman

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 2:06 am GMT

    The point many people seem to miss here is that xbox live is a social environment where people come to play games together. The fact is that Call of Duty is probably the most simple multiplayer format for people to do that. Its a domino effect, if the majority of peoples friends have the game they don't want to be left out of that experience. Most people are casual gamers, its not about being the best game all of time to justify the sales.

  • dograw75

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 1:19 am GMT

    @ frazzle00 Lol, Lancet has the civilian casualty rate almost 6 times of other reports that cover three more years. That's not objective, it's obviously skewed, ORB is way worse showing ten times most reports. Such as AP, Iraq Body Count and Iraq Family Health Survey. I am not debating the cause for war, because although the Iraqi was in violation of treaties, wether or not regime change and full scale war was the answer is a matter of opinion, and I can respect both sides of the argument. I was merely pointing out the things you report as facts are not so. Your reports given from "respected" sources show numbers anywhere between 6 to 10 times the numbers given by other sources, even ones from anti war groups.

  • eastwoodmaniac

    Posted Nov 13, 2009 12:20 am GMT

    Proving once more that you don't need a good game to sell loads just a disproportionate amount of hyperbole.

  • frazzle00

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 11:36 pm GMT

    @dograw75

    What have you cited? Are you denying that the country is in the grips of a civil war, one that's fueled by religion? Do you honestly think that they are now a-ok without Saddam, and they'll start living in suburbs and watching MTV just like their American counterparts?

    Did the American government not say that they had evidence that Iraq had WMDs? Why did this evidence not pan out? Surely if you invade a country on the basis of some evidence it should be pretty darn solid. Or is it alright to invade a country simply because their system of government does not meet with your approval?

    And as for the figures both ORB (a UK market research company whose figures I have provided) and Lancet (a respected British medical journal) have done surveys that paint a scary picture of the casualties the Iraqi public have suffered. The Lancet survey has even been peer reviewed. Where do you get your numbers from? What is your unbiased source?

  • dograw75

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 9:22 pm GMT

    @ frazzle00 First of all those casualty statistics were grossly inflated and any unbiased party would agree to that. Secondly as far as wmd is concerned, it is not surprisning that they have not been found, if they were there to begin with, because of time given to hide and disperse them. Imagine looking for something the size of a small house buried in a desert environment the size of California. They could never be found. Thirdly, if the Iraqui people by and large supported the insurgents over the coalition forces the wouldnt have come out under the threat of death to support the election process by voting.

    It was a mistake for the American Government to boldy claim they knew exactly where the wmd was and that they woud be acquired quickly, it was inaccurate and misleading, I don't agree with all that has happened, but you are giving opinions and false facts as if they were proven to be true.

    The Iraqi government denied access to un inspectors that were allowed under UN Treaties. Sanctions were imposed by the UN. The American government issued an ultimatum offering a timeline of 48 hrs to comply with previously agreed upon treaties or face military action, they failed to comply. Wether or not that is justification for an all out war is arguable. Each is entitled to their own opinion, but you cite a lot of factual inaccuracies.

  • frazzle00

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 7:41 pm GMT

    @polarwiseman

    The Coalition forces have not found any WMDs even after they overthrew Saddam's regime. Surely they had full access then.

  • Dumper1

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 5:53 pm GMT

    I cannot believe the hype and the sheep that bought it. It's a good game that's all. The multiplayer is practically the same as before and the single player is ridiculously short. A pity people buy the same thing year after year and let other quality games go by.

  • polarwiseman

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 4:36 pm GMT

    Actually Iraq told the UN they would give full acces but in reality most UN inspectors were given a 'guided tour' and ultimately thrown out of the country. Not that it justifies war, but it certaintly isn't 'full access'.

  • frazzle00

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 4:06 pm GMT

    @knoetgen

    And as to terrorism, well that definition is pretty subjective. It depends on who the subject of the terrorism is. Are you telling me that the Iraqi public have not been terrorized by the American invasion? What about Vietnam? I guess all warfare you waged against them (including chemical warfare) was not an act of terrorism. To add insult to injury this was a scant 2 decades after Ho Chi Minh helped the US battle the Japanese in South East Asia.

    No I am not in the military; I am a civilian as you have pointed out. Having spent large periods of time in Islamic countries (and no I am not Muslim either) I have a much more intimate knowledge of their culture and religion than do you. Saddam's secular regime brutal as it was, was better for the Iraqi people than the civil war fuel by religion that America has unleashed. Saddam may be gone, but hundreds of thousands of people, most of them civilians have died in the last 6 years, and the future is looking far from rosy. Go read the Lancet journal article if you don't believe me. American actions have taken the Iraqi public from the frying pan and dropped them into the fire!

  • frazzle00

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 4:06 pm GMT

    @knoetgen

    Wow just wow knoetgen. Your arrogance knows no bounds. I seriously hope you don't represent the average American. The world is doomed otherwise.

    Firstly whose gives America the right to decide what is "garbage" and what isn't? Why is American opinion the only valid opinion? And as for "saving" countries, are you trying to suggest that Iraq is the only place in need of intervention? What about Myanmar? What about Zimbabwe? What about the dozens of violent and genocidal conflicts around the globe that the US has done nothing about? Why Iraq? Are you suggesting that the fact that Iraq has the 2nd largest oil field in the world, and that the US consumes the most oil is purely coincidental?

    As to serving my country, I wouldn't if I felt that my country's actions were morally wrong. I feel that the US invasion of Iraq is morally wrong. There was no justification to invade Iraq. America declared war on a country crippled by over a decade worth of sanctions (also imposed by America). No evidence has ever been presented to the public linking Saddam's regime to 9-11. The weapons America claimed that Iraq was hiding were also not uncovered (even though Iraq gave the UN full access). So what was the pretext?

  • harrysboy

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 4:02 pm GMT

    Best game of all time? not even the best game this month! Ok its a really good shooter but thats all, its just mindless non stop shooter and doesnt last that long, for me it can't touch mgs, gta or fallout..

  • LozzyRoxx

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 2:50 pm GMT

    Infinity Ward deserve those figures. It is an awesome game which will be remebered and played for a long time

  • funnysplay

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 2:49 pm GMT

    Getting my copy tuesday looking forward to it.
    Can't help notice though, whenever a game gets to popular people start hating, first halo now this lol.

  • ecw1983

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 1:36 pm GMT

    Playing FPS on console is like jer king off with your left hand . It feels good but its not the same. Sorry PC all the way

  • PixelAddict

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 1:10 pm GMT

    Amazing numbers. 95% of games produced don't even crack 500,000. Publishers (not named Activision) everywhere have MW envy.

  • gameking5000

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 12:39 pm GMT

    That's really big numbers but whadya expect?

  • shadyelf

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 12:31 pm GMT

    Great game but over hyped and overrated. That's my opinion anyway.

  • bm1212

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 12:18 pm GMT

    I think that it is pretty amazing all the things that modern warfare 2 has achieved and to say that it was highly anticipated is an understatement. I will soon be one of the millions to purchase the epic game as I have not yet bought it. The overall reception to the games is nothing less than staggering.

  • SicklySunStorm

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 12:05 pm GMT

    Yeah, it's all fun speculating, but that's all these figures are right now - SPECULATION.

    Lets see what the actual figures are when they're released, then get excited if necessary

  • plasmachild2k

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 12:01 pm GMT

    @BladeTrinity114 - Why would I want to buy a console just to get this game? There's a reason as to why I bought the PC version - because I'm a PCGAMER. With that logic, I should just forget about my PC and just start playing everything on a console. The reason I'm moaning is because I have a 12MB connection and there is no reason as to why I should be getting 500ms. The game is pathetic. And besides the reason I play on a PC is because a mouse and keyboard have way more precision than a console controller and the fact that I was hoping to join a competitive league (that's out of the question now).

    @Death_Masta - Haha, I was in no way railing on Serious Sam, I love those games. I was just saying the way you can completely take out idiot enemies makes it feel like you're playing a really bad version of Serious Sam (without your screen getting filled to the last pixel with monsters haha). Guess it was a bad example.

  • knoetgen

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 11:42 am GMT

    @taylormadederek yes calling a Marine a Soldier is offensive but I took no offense because people not affiliated with the Military often do not even know the difference between the two. I just have to say that war is not the easy way out man, I understand people have different opinions but your outlook on war is way too well "it is never the answer" and history has shown us otherwise. I have to jet because I have a Metallica concert to attend but you were civil about the topic and I do respect that. Out.

  • drewciferpike

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 11:42 am GMT

    @knoetgen

    I have some friends in various branches of the armed forces, but most of them don't game; my question for you is:

    What changes/differences would you like to see in first-person shooters? My father served in Vietnam, and he got this funny look on his face when I showed him World at War. He said that he was glad people could see that there's nothing glorious or fun about war, and that the harsh reality is that it's noisy, smelly, bloody, and scary. would you like the gaming public to experience one side of the spectrum, or the other? i.e. filter the experience so there's a lot of "distance" between the gamer and what inspired the game, or let the gamer see/feel the impacts of his actions (like seeing the injured Japanese soldiers crawling on the beach after the bombardment in WaW)?

    I know there's a lot of discussion regarding this topic, but I've never heard enough opinions from the people that actually fight the wars.

  • taylormadederek

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 11:25 am GMT

    @ knoetgen

    I was wondering if calling a Marine a soldier was offensive....now I know. You seem like a decent guy...add me to Live if you want to...LIVE DEREK.
    \
    \
    Seeing that I am a statistics major I can tell you that extrapolation is crap. The sample that they are using is not representative of the population as a whole. However they do acknowledge this. I am excited to see the NDP results for this month...and last.

  • C00LK1DjeromE

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 11:17 am GMT

    they posted 4.7 million already, take this off the news reel..

  • knoetgen

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 11:11 am GMT

    @taylormadederek I disagree with you but we can just agree to disagree, as far as realism nothing will ever come close enough to actually make you a better soldier/Marine (not the same) short of doing the real thing.

  • Ares_hot

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 11:10 am GMT

    Why the f*ck does people argue about religions here? All religions sucks... period.

  • taylormadederek

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 11:04 am GMT

    @ knoetgen

    Don't think that I am some green hippie liberal, just war is never necessary. As with most things it is the "easy" way out.
    \
    \
    Now on to the serious question. You, unlike most people in here have likely fired many weapons. How accurate is COD? Does COD make you a better soldier? Does being a soldier make you better at COD?

  • knoetgen

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:59 am GMT

    @Taylormadederek war is not garbage it is an unfortunate requirement, and as far as my GS goes I didnt know I couldnt play xbox when I was home we dont stay deployed forever you know, not to mention the fact that I served from 2003 and 2008 but hey I guess your the authority on my gaming schedule lol.

  • tarikm92f

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:53 am GMT

    it's not suprising for blockbuster game such as cod

  • torbonator

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:51 am GMT

    @ DexCasas
    or you could just get both MW2 and Dragon Age like i did so you can have single player fun and multi-player fun

  • OptimusNachos

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:41 am GMT

    To all gamers posting stupid comments about right or wrong are idiots for the reason that this is a game and it is rated for people 18 or older and should know that everyone has there perspective in life and should not care what others say because its a dam game not politics.

  • omarsh94

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:40 am GMT

    today i played with a guy he had 30 kills 1 death but he didnt nuke the game lol i guess he didnt unlock it yet lol

  • alexnollent

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:35 am GMT

    @mjsmears amen

  • taylormadederek

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:35 am GMT

    @ knoetgen

    No disrespect but war is garbage, conservatism is garbage, and you have a pretty high Gamerscore considering you are a "defender". \
    \
    That being said I still thank you for everything that you have done.

  • mjsmears

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:34 am GMT

    gta 4 life

  • alexnollent

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:33 am GMT

    got this for £26 from sainsburys

  • brendanhunt1

    Posted Nov 12, 2009 10:31 am GMT

    pointless game if you dont have internet

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Boxshot
Follow:
  1. Not Following
    Xbox 360: Follow
  2. Not Following
    PC: Follow
  3. Not Following
    PlayStation 3: Follow
Add to List
  1. Xbox 360
  2. PC
  3. PlayStation 3

Follow for the latest news, videos, & tips from experts & insiders

GameSpot Fuse
    Platforms:

    Site Blogs