It's been almost a week since the population has hit over 100k, so even that's not true. And good usage of throwing seemingly big numbers that may or may not mean anything. If the population was 10 million and went down to 1 million, you could repeat what you just said with the exact same success.
Obviously I can't prove the game sucks without some sort of massive survey or as long as the population isn't extremely low, but come on. Look at those numbers. Tell me they're what they should be if the game was actually good.
I think that you can't prove a game sucks with population numbers. There are fantastic, amazing games with small populations, and mediocre games with huge populations. Also, population drops aren't necessarily indicative of player dissatisfaction after a game's launch, but are a natural part of online gaming. Most people that buy games like Call of Duty or Halo move on to other games, or play them rather sporadically.
Also, there's a difference between peak concurrent players and players per day. I think it's safe to assume that if peak concurrent players are near 100,000, that the game is easily pulling more than 100k players per day.
Played some Call of Duty 9: Modern Warfare 6: Black Ops 2 on PS3. There is so much stuff in this game, it's overwhelming, and if I loved Call of Duty, I would love exploring every aspect the game has to offer. I adjusted to the initially awful-feeling convex analog sticks after a few matches, and the game otherwise felt identical to previous 360 entries that I've played. If I was an exclusive CoD player akin to my Halo play, I would totally go for the PS3 version. They totally need party chat, though. It's too great a convenience for coordinating with friends to simply ignore. There has to be some technical limitation for them not to have implemented it yet.
