>>9258578>>9258612Going to speculate aloud for a bit but it's reasonable speculation, I think. The CoD line having limited success can be nailed down to these factors (and probably more but these stand out):
-as mentioned there's likely not much overlap between gamers in general and toy collectors
-relatively little marketing: Mega has been notorious for its lack of advertising, not helped by the longstanding stigma that Mega is "just an inferior Lego knockoff"
-the haphazard distribution we're all too fond of
-straddling the line between kids toys and teen+ collectibles with a Mature-rated series (Halo also falls under this but has managed to sidestep it for the most part due to the far-off future sci-fi setting)
-the focus of the CoD line itself
Want to expand on that last one a bit. The CoD franchise is mostly known for its multiplayer; sure there's memorable moments in some of the campaigns, certainly a fair share of memorable characters. But lets face it, the single-player stuff has been increasingly phoned in while most effort is put into multiplayer. The CoD sets meanwhile have been mostly campaign-inspired; granted there's overlap with generic things like troop packs but overall the focus is single-player.
The newest CoD stuff is finally shifting more attention to multiplayer-based characters, gear and even locales. Whether this is incidental (much of it coming from the all-multiplayer Warzone), research-based or some of both, perhaps there will be an uptick in interest (not holding my breath though).
When the line first came out I wasn't really interested, not caring for most of the games and being quite content with the Halo line already. When I did give them a try it was more for the new style of figs, which was what sold me in the end. In my mind this has felt like more of a Battlefield line of pbb sets: most of themcould've been released under that name and no-one would've been the wiser, hell most of the named characters are generic enough to pass.
