Is Medal Of Honor Dead?
Hoo lord, Medal of Honor: Warfighter really did land like a limp body last week, didn’t it? Buggy as hell despite the hugenormous patch issued the day it launched, it also received middling reviews from fans and absolutely abysmal critical ratings. It’s almost as if Electronic Arts just didn’t care, though of course we know they did since they rushed the damn thing out, completion be damned, to meet their release window.
So why did they release a shoddy game? Did they want to kill the series off? Probably not, but that might be what happens anyway, if the analysis by Wedbush Securities’ Michael Pachter is correct. As he sees it, Warfighter builds upon an already bad foundation, and along with its own poor performance, it’s practically begging for the virtual guillotine. “The last iteration of Medal of Honor received an average Metacritic score of 75 in 2010 (after its predecessor received an average score of 73 in 2007),” he noted. “EA management committed to improving quality with this year’s release. Instead, with an average score of only 50, the game is likely to fall short of revenue expectations by $100 million or more. Perhaps more importantly, the poor performance of Medal of Honor makes it highly unlikely that EA can deliver significant digital revenues from DLC subscriptions next year, and sets the company up for a disappointing comparison to the $204 million in digital revenues it expects from Battlefield this year.”
Pachter goes on to add that in his opinion, “EA is unlikely to take Activision’s mantle as the leading developer of first-person shooters for several years.” Or ever, probably. At least as long as the company insists on making everything they release a hodgepodge of conflicting genres, rushed out regardless of quality. Medal of Honor isn’t exactly the kind of franchise that sparks intense loyalty, but it would be sad to see it die just because its owner can’t figure out that players will buy your game if it’s actually good.