After the resounding success of Fortnite’s The Simpsons collaboration, the question arises: why are Call of Duty fans so against the concept?
In-game cosmetics have always been a delicate topic with gamers. Over the years, there have been a myriad of varieties. Some games give away skins for free, others come in special bundles, often tied to temporary events or updates. Other games had loot boxes that offered a random assortment of cosmetics or a battle pass that showed what players were working towards. But perhaps the most contentious of all, and for good reason, is player skins. Nearly all modern shooter games have skins available for purchase, from Overwatch 2 to Helldivers 2, Call of Duty, and, of course, Fortnite. But not all fan bases react the same way.
Fortnite’s Simpson update draws in millions while Call of Duty players complain about skins
On social media, the immensely popular battle royale shooter, Fortnite, shared a monumental achievement: “In 48 hours, we welcomed the biggest number of new and returning Fortnite players since last holiday season.” This is thanks to the new collaboration with The Simpsons, which introduces a new map based on the iconic animated series’ Springfield and skins for many of the show’s favorite characters. Initially spotted by the German site MeinMMO, the well-known Fortnite leaker Shiina shared the peak concurrent player count on social media, claiming the The Simpsons update brought in 2,620,000 concurrent players on November 2nd. For comparison, according to SteamDB, the most popular game on Steam, Counter-Strike 2, hit a 24-hour peak of roughly 1.5 million on the same day.
Also spotted by MeinMMO, this prompted Call of Duty fans to ask an important question on Reddit: “Why do skins create negativity in Call of Duty, while in other games they break records?” This appears to be a common sentiment among fans of Call of Duty and the similar franchise, Battlefield. To the point that, leading up to the launch of Black Ops 7 this month, the team at Activision has made a point to say that they won’t be doing any more unusual skins. But why? Why does this work so well for games like Fortnite, but not for Call of Duty?
Thankfully, the fans were happy to answer on Reddit. The top comment puts it plainly: “Because CoD is supposed to be a military game and Fortnite is meant to have these skins.” To unpack this, a common sentiment in the replies is the visual differences and intentions of both games. Look at games like Fortnite and even Overwatch. These games are colorful, cartoonish, and full of fantastical characters. Meanwhile, Call of Duty and Battlefield are much more muted in their color palette, focusing on gritty action and brutal, explosive warfare. Games like Fortnite have set themselves up from the beginning as the perfect place to put any kind of pop culture phenomenon. Plus, it’s been doing it since the beginning, while Call of Duty had already established itself as a dominant franchise before trying to jump into the skins game.
For more insights into your favorite games, join our community on Google News. There, you can find updates on the newest releases and more insights into the gaming industry.
Many users added their two cents to the Reddit post, saying that Call of Duty is more of a military simulator than Fortnite, which simply means it’s not the place for goofy characters, superheroes, or other collaborations. Another key difference between the two games is that Fortnite is a free-to-play, constantly updating service, while Call of Duty still sticks to a paid annual release, often with a campaign mode as well.
Unfortunately, this is likely not the end of microtransactions in Call of Duty games. The team will instead have to figure out how to pivot to something that appeals better to their fans. These kinds of transactions bring players back to the game, and when they work, they can be highly lucrative. So, it’s safe to expect something else in the future.
