Nah, screw zombies. A better suited gameplay type for Battlefield would be Dinosaurs.

i believe you have no clue what they were saying or what market share is.

Market share is the share of the whole market.

I think BF3 mostly overlapped the same consumers of COD. Therefore no real market-share 'capture' from COD.

Now if you take market-share like VGC does and just count each sale as independent, then yes COD's market-share naturally went down and the BF3 sales were added. However, that is just wrong. The FPS market didn't gain 15m new users. COD didn't lose 15m distinct sales.

Just like PS3 and 360 don't really have the % of market-share really labelled on VGC home page. Instead you really need to account for multiple product owners and reduce the actual market's overall size to create a real sense of market share.

battlefield gained marketsahre and cod lost marketshare because of battlefield, period. seriously, wtf are you talking? even with growing cod sales it's still losing markesthare as long as it isn't growing as fast as the competition percentual.

honestly it actually has, quite a few people traded in MW3 to pick up battlefield

That being said COD keeps adding new users so overall it hasn't really harmed the franchise at all but Battlefield has definatly taken some user from COD.
 

Not if they share the same customers. You're confusing it with total individual sales, which is what the % on VGC home page is referring to and often touted as market-share. But that is incorrectly defining the size of the market as a much larger figure than it really is.

In other words, its not directly related unless you cannot own two competing products. So in reality with games, EA can have 40% of the market, while Activision has 40%, while ubisoft has 40%, while Nintendo has 40%.... etc all tallying up to way over 100% and its still accurate.

Look at VGC home page for console numbers for clarification. If you add them up you get 226.2m consoles sold. They then divide each console sold by that number to get the %. But that is inaccurate and not true marketshare as there are not 226.2m actual individual users because a very large portion of them own two or all three consoles. To get the real market-share you have to determine what the real estimated market size is and use that as your base.

So while EA can claim they increased their market share in FPS with BF3, if COD sales don't decrease over time, there is no way they can say they stole market-share from Activision.

even if they have the same customers they lost marketshare because battlefield gained marketshare with for them new customers (even if they are old customers for cod). just because battlefield players bought cod as well doesn't mean battlefield didn't gain market share.

and if all 13 million have cod as well, it doesn't change anything. more people buy the product of activisons competition. cod will grow maybe 10%-20%, battlefield will grow 100%-xxx% but cod still didn't lose marketshare in your opinion? yeah right...

i understand what you mean, call it customer share then (or how you call it in english) if you think some customers buy now bf and cod who only bought cod before with the whole number of customers not increasing more than cod sales but ea is right saying they gained market share and cod lost market share growing slower than the competition.

In that case I happily admit I was wrong about 1.

(I have to admit, I almost never take game trade-ins into consideration due to the fact it's something I've only done once and don't really intend to again).

(I'll quickly add that that is more due to the fact that I rather have games I don't really care about collecting dust on my shelve rather than being against the concept of game trading)

i could have used google chart but since i'm able to draw unbelievable good i used paint.

Why? All they have to do is to reduce the characters to 20 poly stickmen and use 2004 type enviroments and it should run like a beaut on next-gen consoles...

Yiiihaaawwwwww!