So Guitar Hero is done. Because many blame publisher Activision of over-saturation, and considering the multiple upcoming Call of Duty projects, some think we'll see a repeat of history…
But in addition to some obvious differences between the two genres in question, top industry analysts don't see the megaton shooter franchise going the way of the dodo. Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter told IndustryGamers that the two franchises really aren't comparable, and CoD continues to thrive on its gigantic community:
"I don’t think they are comparable at all. GH is a franchise that people buy once, because the peripherals are great. As it saturated the installed base, the only buyers were people who are new console purchasers, and the ‘fad’ appeared to wear off at the same time.
CoD, on the other hand, has a vibrant online community that keeps growing. When a new version comes out, the ‘network effect’ kicks in, and many people buy it because their friends have done so. The risk to the franchise is competition, not people tiring of the gameplay… CoD won’t fade unless Activision opens the door to competition by making a bad game."
This sounds about right. Although many are quick to point out the flaws in each title, there's no denying the decent level of quality and provided that remains, the fans will keep coming back. It also doesn't seem to matter that other arguably superior shooters exist; the likes of Battlefield , Halo , and Killzone haven't managed to derail the CoD train. In fact, CoD seems immune to competition.
And there are other reasons Call of Duty is very different in comparison to Guitar Hero . No, CoD ain't going anywhere.