Charlie of Xboxer360 writes, "Every time we boot into one of those austere blemishes of mediocrity known as a ‘first person shooter multiplayer’, we are affronted with the glories of the sniper rifle. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, Crysis – the list goes on and on, and in all of these we have the dreaded sniper rifle. It’s a one shot wonder, befitting many of the people that choose it as their primary weapon (personal gripe, but camping weapons are not fun). But why do these titillate my frustration so, why do I and many others become so riled by what should be considered just a part of the game."
Starting today, Game Pass Ultimate drops from $29.99 to $22.99 a month. PC Game Pass will also drop from $16.49 to $13.99 a month. Prices may vary by region.
Beginning this year, future Call of Duty titles won’t join Game Pass Ultimate or PC Game Pass at launch. New Call of Duty games will be added to Game Pass Ultimate and PC Game Pass during the following holiday season (about a year later), while existing Call of Duty titles already in the library will continue to be available.
Its nice there is some kind of drop... but is that all they really value CoD to be, a lousy $7 a month?
I was hoping it would drop by $10.
That $7 equates to $84 per year - which is more than COD new ($69.99 + tax).
So - you can get the exact same thing - and save a few bucks - or you can skip COD and pocket the savings or use toward another game - or games if on sale.
That’s how I’m taking it - and is enough for me to sign back up after canceling the day it went to $29.99.
It's unlikely that COD is going to be the only title they stop offering day one, but we'll see how they play their hand.
Including Call of Duty in Game Pass is just leaving money on the table. When the Elder Scrolls VI releases hopefully Microsoft doesn’t launch it into Game Pass. Then it can make more profits and use it give more value to Xbox console owners!
Can’t wait to hear how this will be spun extremely positive. 🤣
I wonder why knowing Microsoft thick head something must has happened in the background in the levels of Xbox one and Kinect 🤷🏿
Any price cut is a good thing in this day and age, but it also reveals a flaw in GamePass' design that we've all been calling out for years... it's unsustainable, especially with day and date releases on new games. COD won't be the only game they exclude, they're setting a precedent with it that they'll likely expand upon in the future.
At least they're being realistic about it now. I bet in the future we're going to start seeing them try to subsidize the high price of new consoles by making you buy 2-3 years of gamepass with it to get the console cheaper. I'm still not sure that'll be enough to save either the hardware or gamepass, but we'll see.
price cuts are good, the removal of Call of Duty is clearly something they are planning to leverage. But considering everyone around N4G claims Call of Duty sucks, it's not a big loss now is it?
Well, they're removing their biggest game from being Day 1 on the service so GamePass users can buy it instead. That's the intention.
They increased the price to $30, then removed COD and dropped it to still be above the old price.
It's an understandable compromise but the consumer Ultimately is getting less.
Think the calculation is that *most* COD users don't play that many games and aren't interested in GamePass. The GamePass users who do like COD would just buy it anyway. MS reportedly lost out a lot of money last year putting COD on GamePass.
Well Call of duty could just be the beginning. What other games can they trim from the service to get the price down? How long before it's just the Xbox core first party studio games and not the one to everquired?
Create an interesting scenario with Call of duty as well. Will people wait a year to play it? Does that split the fan base? Will it hurt to Call of duty more than a benefits Game pass? These are all legitimate questions which we will find the answers to in the coming years
And I don't consider my post negative spin just realistic observation. At the very least this backtracking can be seen as an admittance that the previous strategy of gamepass was not sustainable as most of us said.
I'd get rid of the EA and Ubisoft+ too. That should bring the price down more. The only game from either of those parts of the service i played was jedi Fallen order / survivor. both of which i also bought on disc so it was more of a convenience i didnt have to put the disc in to play when i was playing them via remote play. And really that is why i still use GPU and PS+. its the convenience of having the games ready to play from a remote location. I havent picked up my consoles controllers in at least a few years. I guess that makes me a bad gamer, but so what. i'm still playing the games, just not physically on the machines themselves. GCloud and Portal are my go to now.
They’ll say no one is buying game pass so they had to drop the price , even though it’s been extremely profitable.
Why remove CoD if it's *extremely* profitable then? Why even increase it to begin with?
Always funny seeing those that defended the price hike go "how you gonna spin this now!" after the price drops.
You should be thanking those that called it out. Obviously this is a good thing especially with everything increasing nowadays.
Also, what happened to the reason why that the Activision acquisition was good for gaming was that CoD would be day one on GamePass? Another backtrack on that I guess...
What removing CoD on GamePass shows, is that it's not sustainable for for the more popular and/or bigger budget games because of the sales you lose out on like people have been saying since inception. It never made sense to put CoD on there unless you thought it's popularity would draw in a lot of subscribers which it obviously didn't. And if it was as sustainable as people claim they wouldn't have increased the price while putting it on there in the first place.
In my region, it’s still more expensive than it was before the last price hike, but it’s a far more viable price point.
Losing Call of Duty from the service, honestly, has zero effect on me, and given they chose to make it so, it’s probably not the big seller they originally thought. Overall, it’s really good news, but I still think they have work to do on the tier structure, having Premium and PC at the same price point with different features feels odd.
Yep take COD out. Them waiting a year is interesting but it make sense. They don't want certain ppl waiting 4 to 6 months they want fomo and maximum sales. Wait a year while the new one releases.
Ok so far so good.
A new Call of Duty game that isn't Modern Warfare 4 may be coming, and the surprise re-emergence of Warzone Mobile could be crucial to it.
Halo will make its PS5 debut with a massively modernised remake of the original Xbox game, Combat Evolved.
That’s according to the Halo Leaks account on X (or Twitter), which has accurately outed information about the franchise in the past.
Replies(1)I expect this to be announced pretty soon. Can't wait, this game was awesome. I wonder how of a remake it'll be though, hopefully not a remaster because we already have that lol.
it will be running on unreal engine 5, so it will look good. The question is will it run as good as it looks
I think they teased it a few months back when they announced Halo studios. It does look quite incredible graphically but as Hennessy says above, how it runs is gonna be a different story given UE5 track record.
it would probably be like the gears of war reloaded. Which was a remake of the remaster of the original.
...this gen is getting confusing with so many re-whatevers.
@S2K: “ It needs to be a complete redo of graphics or else it’s not my cup of tea.”
I completely agree with you and would add a VR mode as well🥺
oh yeh, theres like a showcase soon, maybe they'll announce it there.
or at the game awards
but ue5 only looks pretty. the games run ..
abit weird.
It's being shown at the Halo World Championships which they had already announced a few weeks ago.
Better reboot than another re-touch (remake after an already remaster) .... but 343/Halo is incompetent now, so .... guess this is best they can do with help of Coalition
So much memories with halo.
The original Xbox was my first console (actually 64 but barely played) and the first game was halo. Me and my brother use to play coop almost everyday.
We eventually traded in for a PS2 because of kingdom hearts lol
I played the first 2 Halo games. That's Bungie's Halo.. I do not know whether 343's Halo is as good as Bungie's.
Either ways Halo is one of Microsoft's big franchises. So many rumours so it's becoming more likely it'll come to PS5
Halo 3 is Bungie's game... so is Reach and ODST. 4, 5 & 6 (Infinite) are 343's. They aren't bad... just different. The original trilogy story ended and should have finished there. But MS wanted to 'Star Wars' this franchise and came up with new stories that sort of just sit there.
Because COD made them grossly overpowered to sell games to no-talent hacks that like believing they are awesome at something when it's really just 90% broken game mechanics and 10% luck, the way they abuse it. Battlefield however shouldn't be on your list. Battlefield is perfect. I haven't read your article yet, getting to it now.
EDIT: Okay, I read your article. Short and sweet reply is : That's what you get for playing a shitty game like COD on a terribly immature and casual system like a 360. And Battlefield isn't plagued with these issues at all. Being a sniper is rather difficult in BF, and also quite flexible with the option of taking a M417 with a Holographic in close quarters while still not being overpowered. Also, Aim Assist is for pussies. I and none of my friends use it. It's actually annoying and causes me to play worse when I'm aiming at someone and it clings and moves off my target when someone else runs by. It's stupid and unnecessary. Controllers have perfect sensitivity as it is, in my opinion.