Wut???

hat’s two-thirds of what Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 took in from the North American and U.K. markets in its first day last year, but it’s still a number that’s nothing to sneeze at. The one-day take already eclipses the three-day opening weekends of “Iron Man 2,” “Toy Story 3” and “Alice in Wonderland.”

While Microsoft is doing cartwheels, though, the rest of the gaming industry is nervously shuffling its feet. Despite a number of high profile releases, it hasn’t exactly been a banner year for game sales -- and the success of Reach might not help things.

The slump is due, in part, to the ongoing recession. But also deserving some of the credit is the lingering effect of Modern Warfare 2 – a game whose multiplayer component was so deep and so rich that it kept players hooked, reducing their need and desire to buy other titles.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/why-halo-reach-s-success-could-be-bad-news-for-business/1411083

Hasn't kept my desire to not get another game. I can't stand MW2 for long periods of time.

lol, I love when people use words like "deep" and "rich" to describe things about a FPS's multiplayer...or for that matter, anything related to videogames in general.

Not that videogames can't be "deep" and "rich," but it take a special style of terrible unimaginative writing to describe them as such.

Since when did Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer take on the properties of a bowl of soup?

Also, it's such a load of shit to imply that somehow Modern Warfare 2 has "deep"er or "rich"er multiplayer than the games that  came before it. Give me a damn break. We've been playing counterstrike  and starcraft for a billion years. Did Goldeneye cause a crash in the gaming market because it's multiplayer was so good? My next point, even if MW2's multiplayer was deeper and richer than everything before it, would that really effect the sales of EVERY OTHER big game? or the gaming industry as a whole?