The increasingly ridiculous war of words between EA and Activision might be rolling a few eyeballs here and there, but in the bigger picture, it’s just marketing.
That’s according to Techsavvy Global’s Scott Steinberg, who describes it as a “clever plot” to get attention.
“It reflects just how seriously Electronic Arts and Activision take the coming clash of the titans – and how much each side has invested in the conflict’s outcome,” he tells Industry Gamers.
“Modern Warfare 3 enjoys tremendous brand recognition and a massive fan following, giving it a marked advantage over Battlefield 3 at the cash register… but Battlefield 3 may very well be the more ambitious, polished and critically-acclaimed of the two titles,” he said. “Moreover, each side plans to spend well into the eight or nine figures promoting the titles, reinforcing just how high the stakes are they’re playing for.
“From a broader perspective, tasteful or no, the mudslinging means little from the perspective of semantics – subtlety’s never been an industry strong suit, as gaming rivals have been hurling insults since the days of ‘Genesis does what Nintendon’t.’ But what such smack-talk does do is galvanize attention around the coming showdown: A win-win for both sides from the perspective of pure publicity,” he adds.
He’s got a point. Look, EA and Activision are back in the headlines. Same time tomorrow? See you then.
Discuss Modern Warfare 3 vs Battlefield 3 rivalry in the forums
Loading ...
