WW2 only sold 885k on PC in the first 6 weeks, so safe to assume week 1 sales were around 500k on PC. Double that only puts first week PC sales at 1m. That does not even come close to compensating for console physical sales being down by 50%. WW2 sold over 5m in the first week physically, if this 50% decrease in the UK holds true for other markets, that means that first week physical sales are down by 2.5m. 

First of all, it's a decrease in physical sales. Second of all, you must be crazy to even think that as a possibility. Your thread throws a negative vibe over the game's launch, but every article on the internet is positively stating more people are playing COD than ever, but that doesn't mean anything to you I guess. Like, your thread doesn't even (conveniently) mention PC sales have been more than doubled.

AngryLittleAlchemist said: Lol, PC finally matters to COD

The Forbes article states that PC digital sales are more than doubled compared to last year. And since pretty much no one buys physical copies of games on PC anymore, that's a pretty big deal.

This thread is about the physical sales because that is what the article is about. 

I mentioned that PC sales were up in my 2nd post of this thread. 

It's the biggest digital launch in the history of gaming and yet you are saying things like " I hope activision learned their lesson". Your OP is a mess of a text and you could've easily edited in the fact that it's huge on PC  if you wanted to. Instead you chose to write it down in a separate post, because no one reads that.

I personally know alot of early Christmas shoppers, I even know a few people who start shopping for Christmas as early as late October, so that they can avoid the crowds. 

None of what I just listed exists today. Batman style grappling hooks are physically impossible, we lack materials with the tensile strength and rigidity to make it work. We do not have riot shields that can grow in size with robotics and are capable of unleashing a ground pound attack that kills multiple people. We do not have sonic incapacitating devices like the one from the trailer. We do not have trip mines that can form a triangular detection grid. We do not radar darts. And we do not have devices that let you paint targets and send out a drone to shoot them with a healing dart. And those are just things that I saw in the multiplayer reveal trailer, who knows how many more futuristic devices and gadgets are in the full game.

Yes, because sales are almost assuredly below Activision expectations. Black Ops is the biggest CoD sub-series, Black Ops 4's launch should have been absolutely massive compared to WW2, as WW2's launch was smaller than Black Ops 1, Black Ops 2, and Black Ops 3 by a fair margin. Black Ops 4's launch being around the same level as WW2 means that it's the smallest launch within the Black Ops sub-series.

Activision's response today was filled with PR spin. Saying that it was the biggest digital launch, but not where it fell in terms of overall sales or revenue compared to other games in the series. For many previous games in the series they announced 24 hour, 3 day, and 5 day revenue, we got no 24 hour info with Activision's announcement today. Why do you thinkthat is? The most likely case is that 24 hour revenue is down compared to the first 3 Black Ops games and they don't want people to know that.

Everything I listed was in the multiplayer reveal trailer. I was mistaken on the riot shield ground pound, the ground pound is something different, but the two were featured in the same scene, which confused me. Let me give you time stamps:

0:19 Batman style grappling hook

0:23 Unrealistic, futuristic ground pound vs futuristic robotic growing riot shield

Ground pounding someone with a hard object is not unrealistic. The sheild does not glow its like the sheild in rainbow 6.

1:00 Robotic, growing barricade

The baracade does not glow it just stings someone when an enemy is in front.

1:11 Some kind of sonic incapacitating device

Stun guns exist. This is just a stun gun on a toy car type thing.

1:24 Radar vision that lets you see through walls

Not in the final game.

1:31 Radar dart that lets you see enemies through walls within a radius of where the dart sticks at

Sensors have been in other CoDs without futuristic settings.

1:37 Trip mines with a triangular detection grid

These exist in real life.

1:49 A device which let's you "paint" a friendly target and heal them 

Does not work like that. It just somethign that gives 50 extra hp to your teampaints.

All of that is tech that doesn't exist today to my knowledge, and it makes the game feel less grounded and realistic than the Modern Warfare series imo, and I've spoken to alot of others that feel the same way. 

These thing exists in certain forms today though. Also these devices make the game more interesting and more fun to play.

As for my source for saying that WW2 launch is smaller than the earlier Black Ops games. Activision announced $1 billion in revenue for WW2 7 weeks after it released, and that included revenue from lootboxes that Black Ops 1 and 2 didn't have. Black Ops 1 took 1 week less to hit $1 billion in revenue, it did it in 6 weeks. Black Ops 2 only took 15 days to hit $1 billion in revenue. Activision never announced how long it took for Black Ops 3 to hit $1 billion in revenue, most likely because it took longer to hit $1 Billion than Black Ops 2 took, but we know that it took 3 days for Black Ops 3 to hit $500m, which is comparable to Black Ops 1, so most likely Black Ops 3 hit $1 billion in around 6 weeks, 1 week less than CoD WW2. It's worth noting though that both WW2 and Black Ops 3 had lootboxes, so their $1 billion in revenue accomplishments are much less impressive than Black Ops 1 and 2. 

WW2 actually did not have loot boxes at launch. It came a few weeks later. So that means it actually outperformed BO1, BO2 and BO3 based on revenue without the microtransactions in the game.