It's almost impossible to overstate just how popular Call Of Duty is. Black Ops becoming the most successful video game of all time in just three months is one thing, but recent estimates suggest that 25 per cent of all Xbox Live and PlayStation Network usage is devoted to the series. It is almost a video games industry all to itself, but are things always going to be that way?
Angry Birds recently announced its 100 millionth download, but not only are the majority of these for the free version but the ones that aren't wouldn't even buy you a map pack for Call Of Duty. As keen as some companies (like Angry Birds developer Rovio) are to pretend that console gaming is dying, Call Of Duty proves that the most successful games are still on an upward curve.
But as a result it's beginning to create a divide, with high budget sequels at one end of the spectrum and low budget casual and indie games on the other - with almost nothing in between. This is not a new phenomenon, but one that's been going on all generation - as medium budget titles from medium size developers suddenly find themselves without an audience willing to pay for them.
This is creating innumerable problems for the industry, but one of the less well advertised is that it's making it easier and easier for big budget games to dominate a particular genre.
Consider FIFA, which before this generation of consoles competed neck-and-neck with Pro Evolution Soccer. Once both games entered the current generation though Konami's challenger was suddenly relegated to second division minnow. That's not because the developers suddenly became incompetent overnight, it's because they didn't have the near infinite coffers of EA backing them up.
Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit did very well for itself last year, and rightly so, but the almost equally good, and really very similar, Split/Second and Blur made no impact whatsoever on the charts. Purely it seems because they weren't a known franchise, backed by years of brand awareness.
So is that what Call Of Duty has become? An unassailable monolith that cannot be toppled no matter the quality of its rivals? If current evidence is anything to go by you'd have to say the answer was probably yes.
It's important to note that the success of these games is by no means undeserved, all are excellent titles that deserve to do well. It's the gulf between them and their nearest rival that's worrying.
The only console shooters that come anywhere close to Call Of Duty in terms of popularity are the Xbox 360 exclusives Halo and Gears Of War. Halo: Reach didn't do anything but tread water and certainly hasn't put any kind of stop to Call Of Duty's increasing dominance. And despite its general popularity the third person Gears Of War has never been anything but a passing fad when it comes to multiplayer.
The new multiformat games from Bungie (creators of Halo) and Respawn Entertainment (creators of Call Of Duty) could well be the ones to break the monopoly, but neither game has been officially announced yet and they are likely to be at least a year or two from release.
Baring any break-out hits all that leaves is Electronic Arts' Medal Of Honor and Battlefield. Despite all EA's attempts at controversy, last year's Medal Of Honor reboot became nothing more than a middling hit. This year they've switched to plan B and Battlefield 3.
If you've seen the Battlefield 3 trailer you'll know that in terms of graphics it seems to have Call Of Duty (and everything else) easily beaten. But everything that's been shown so far is from the PC version and we can't help thinking that when gamers see the inevitably less impressive-looking console versions EA is going to be on the receiving end of a controversy it did not intend.
That still doesn't mean the graphics won't be better than Call Of Duty though, but is that alone enough? Probably not, considering Call Of Duty has never been the most technologically advanced shooter. Certainly not compared to something like the forthcoming Crysis 2 - which will likely see only a fraction of the same sales.
But if graphics are no help then what else? Innovation? It'd be nice to think so but the basic formula behind Call Of Duty hasn't changed since the first Modern Warfare in 2007. Black Ops proves that the majority of people aren't tired of this blueprint and if there's one thing you can say about Activision is that they're not ones to mess with a successful formula while it's still doing good business.
On the other hand Battlefield 3 developers DICE are very keen to talk about innovation, especially after their success with the Bad Company spin-offs. 'Our competitors keep building very, very high tempo games. We want to tell a story with more drama curves. It's not about pumping round after round for six hours,' they said in a recent interview.
But this seems to ignore the fact that being very high tempo, with a very low learning curve is precisely why Call Of Duty is so popular. Indeed the most popular games have always been that way, whether you're talking about decades ago with Super Mario Bros. or Need For Speed at its peak last generation.
To be as popular as Call Of Duty currently is you need to be uncomplicated, fast-paced and accessible. DICE may end up making a better game but they're very unlikely to make a more successful one.
Unless of course Activision drop the ball. Although this year's Call Of Duty still hasn't been announced everyone expects it to be Modern Warfare 3 by what's left of Infinity Ward - plus whatever other studios have been drafted in to make up for the fact that most of the key creators left to set-up Respawn Entertainment last year.
If this year's Call Of Duty is below par, and if Battlefield 3 is as good as DICE is promising, then it might be the best ever chance for the status quo to shift.
Of course you'll just be swapping one shooter for another, but unless you want to count Angry Birds (or even FarmVille) as the world's most popular video game that seems to be the one factor in the video game industry that really can't be changed.
