I'm not the one saying COD IV sold well BECAUSE it ran at 60 FPS and don't hit back with the partly crap either. PARTLY wasn't in BIG Captial letters and worded before BECAUSE it ran at 60FPS
Informed?
Don't hit back with the "partly" crap? I've clarified what I meant by that in like three different posts. In fact, I've already clarified and elaborated on it in the following response before you even joined this discussion. You're just trying to play 'Gotcha!' now. But two can play that game. Go ahead and quote the part where I explicitly said that Call of Duty 4 sold well solely due to the fact that it ran at 60 FPS. Actually, don't bother. Let me save you the trouble: You won't find it. It's not there because that's not what my post said.
Sorry, mate, but all of your 'arguments' easily refuted. 'Well, Halo now runs at 120 Hz, so that would mean it would be the most played game, right!? Hah! Checkmate!'
No. The jump from 60 FPS to 120 FPS is noticeable but less substantial than the jump from 30 fps to 60 fps due to the laws of diminishing returns. But more importantly, the vast majority of people don't own TVs capable of 120 FPS output.
Then you bring up previous Call of Duty games, seemingly completely unaware that Call of Duty 2 is one of the most successful launch games with one of the highest attach rates of any launch games. I'm more than happy to engage in an actual, good faith discussion with you about this. But if your idea of a discussion is silly 'gotcha' games over wording and phrasing, and you think taking circumstances and the big picture into account are 'excuses,' then you have nothing of value to contribute.
But which others developers did?
So the developer you're referring to is not as successful as Call of Duty and makes primarily single player game. A dev who's games, mind you, now run at 60 FPS across the board. But you could probably make the argument that framerates are more important in multiplayer games than singleplayer games.
But let's explore that question for a bit: What other developers did? Well, during that era of games when Call of Duty hit the scene: Not many. Games running at 60 FPS in single or multiplayer were rare. Halo, Gears of War, Rainbow Six, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, etc etc. All ran at 30 FPS. Yet it was Call of Duty, the one that ran at 60 FPS, that became mega popular.
But what's even more interesting is if we look one generation ahead: To the Xbone/PS4 era. Most singleplayer games still ran at 30 FPS, at least on base consoles. Not much has changed there. But Multiplayer games? Multiplayer games suddenly embraced 60 FPS in the post Call of Duty Boom. Halo? 60 FPS. Battlefield? 60 FPS (Sorta..) Rainbow six? 60 FPS. Gears of War? 60 FPS for multiplayer. Fortnite? Apex Legends? Warzone? Rocket League? Titan Fall? All target 60 FPS.
Is it a coincidence that multiplayer games that came out after the gen in which CoD took the market run at 60 FPS? You tell me.
Like I'm not saying that the framerate is the sole defining factor to Call of Duty's success, but I don't understand how anyone could argue that it wasn't a large contributing factor to it.
