Bundling Modern Warfare Remastered With Infinite Warfare Is Just Wrong

OnlySP: Activision and Infinity Ward have slapped us with an ultimatum: if you want Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, then you need to buy Infinite Warfare. No exceptions. That’s just wrong in my book. Yes, the remaster is looking mighty fine (a preview of which you can view at the bottom of this post).

[GOODKylePS]

I have a feeling they did this because of the reaction to Infinite Warfare. They know people want the remaster but are willing to lose money in order to hopefully have high Infinite Ware sales. I mean it would have probably been better to have just sold it separately for like $20 or something.

[DLConspiracy]

Activision is pretty crappy about the cost of any of their old titles regardless of platform. They are always over priced IMO. It's like they never get a real deep discount. Heck Black Ops is $30 bucks on XB1 BC.

I think perhaps they should have released the remaster early and given a discount if you buy it with Infinite warfare bundle. It would have come across better. Although... I have a feeling they don't want their own games to compete with their current ones. Who knows. You could be right. It sure comes across that way.

[Shubhendu_Singh]

They didn't bundled it with codiw AFTER seeing the reaction. On the original reveal of the trailer, it was already bundled BEFORE the bad reception happened. (actually much bad reception happened because of no standalone vserion too)

Second case is more likely that, Activision simply didn't had much confidence in CODIW to begin with, aaand they're greedy turds who might have done this bundling anyway even if COD was on its prime.

It's Acitivion. They just don't give a f*ck.

[morganfell]

@GoodKyle,

If what you say is true then it would mean consumers are partially responsible for the situation about which they are now complaining. It is particularly karmic when we consider the COD hate was in many ways media influenced people going along with the hip trend of hating COD instead of engaging their own brain housing group. Particularly telling was the reaction to COD at the Sony presser where people were loving what they saw...until they realized it was COD. Hypocritical to say the least and more than a little dishonest.

It is machts nichts to me as I already have my preorder in and am looking forward to both titles.

[spicelicka]

I don't think it was hypocritical. That Sony presser was blown way out of proportion. If people were disappointed after the trailer that it was COD, then who's fault is that really? Believe it or not, COD hate stems from COD itself. They've consistently released the same shit over and over again that people are programmed to believe the next COD won't be any different.

And why shouldn't they? I can tell you from my own viewing of that trailer I can relate to those people's reactions. All the concepts look amazing at first, there's a mech walking around, a nice spacecraft sequence, mass effect like galaxy map system, and space combat. It all seems to create exciting possibilities in my imagination, but then I realize it's COD. No that has nothing to do with the media manipulating me into hating it, it's my own intuition telling me that all this presentation doesn't mean anything. All past CODs have shown amazing E3 demos, the trailers always look great, in fact that's what COD does best, LOOKING GREAT but having no substance specially in campaign. I know the space combat is gonna be as linear as COD combat always is, I know that Spacecraft sequence is going to be a narrow fight almost on-rails, yes they said we'll get to "explore" but that doesn't tell me anything, they've made these types of claims in the past.

So judging that demo on the past history of the franchise and that particular team that made Ghosts, I have every right to be disappointed, that's their own fault. I would love to be proven wrong once the game comes out, but until then I have to stay reserved.

[morganfell]

We will have to agree to disagree because people were simply not being honest with their feelings. They obviously were wowed up until the point they realized the truth. That is hypocrisy. And if I had seen one article then I would say there is some truth to the "blown out of proportion" idea. But it wasn't just a single article. Or two. Or three. It has not been merely one or two board comments.

Certainly you and others are entitled to your own opinion, no one is denying that. But the facts are COD is receiving hate when other titles are doing far less with their campaign. EA is getting a pass after the campaign that was in BF4, Hardline, and Battlefront. Oh wait, Battlefront's campaign was cut. Yet here comes BF1 and gamers give EA a clean slate and a pass. Failing to account for the past and properly set expectations are an individuals responsibility, particularly when they claim they know how the past has always functioned. There is a clear line where people cannot pass and say they are the victim of marketing. You remark that COD campaigns are always linear yet they always trick you. If you know they are always straight affairs then you should not be surprised. No one should expect a snadbox game from CoD. They have a measured intense manner in providing action in a game and such a manner demands a more linear campaign progression.

As Jeff Marchiafava stated, "Activision is catering to its fans, not the people that hate Call of Duty and vow never to buy another installment"

http://www.gameinformer.com...

Personally my preorder from Best Buy is in place and I cna't wait for the game to launch.

[spicelicka]

EA is not getting a pass. Where have you been? Battlefront was absolutely torn apart for having no campaign, months before it even came out. Literally every other article about Battlefront was about the lack of campaign. Hardline was totally dismissed by Battlefield fans and critics alike for being the same as battlefield 4. BOTH those games have low 70s on metacritic for that same reason, whereas all COD have 80 and above.

I'm not the biggest fan of any of the above games so I'm really not trying to be biased. It's true that Battlefield games also have bad campaigns, and following Battlefront last year we can't expect Battlefied 1 to have a good one. But at least Battlefield 1 is coming out 3 years after Battlefield 4, with significant changes in art style, destructibility, graphics that look almost like CGI, and a brand new refreshing theme. The only new thing in infinite warfare is space combat, which they really haven't shown enough of to be excited about. It doesn't have to be a sandbox game, Uncharted is linear and it's considered amazing for a reason.

[morganfell]

Battlefront has been getting a pass. How many articles have you seen ripping them for originally saying there were no space battles because Battlefront wasn't a sequel to BF1 and BF 2 and now they take a feature cut from the game and sell it back to us. Articles written about BF when it launched were ga ga over graphics and gave them a pass on no campaign and no space battles. BF1 has gotten a HUGE HUGE pass. Where is the flood of articles complaining the BF campaign was missing and EA/Dice admitted they cut it in order to make the launch with the movie. Articles surfaced with EA admitting this but by no means were EA/Dice raked over the coals. In fact when it was first announced there would be no Campaign people said "BF games are not about SP" - Instant Pass. Where are all the youtube dislikes for the Space Battles/Death Star trailer? Where? The trailer is 8:1 on likes and dislikes even though this is a feature that was in original BF titles but now is separated and is being sold back to us. It is as if people have forgotten over 6 months of BF4 server issues when EA said "No more DLC until the game is fixed" and then the following week announced DLC. Look at Hardline. Not an Angry Joe fan but boy is he correct about Hardline.

"I'm not the biggest fan of any of the above games so I'm really not trying to be biased."

This is what you are missing. COD isn't made for you. It is made for a huge established audience and I applaud Activision for not abandoning that demographic in the belief they can attract other gamers. BO3 gave me a SP Campaign, MP, co-op. co-op zombie mode, SP unlockables that work in MP just to name some of it. There is a lot of value in that game. And it never has made pretenses to be anything other than COD.

[spicelicka]

I disagree, I have seen way more negative articles and comments on Battlefront than positive ones. The only positive things written about it were regarding the feeling of large scale battles, the presentation, and graphics.

"People said "BF games are not about SP" - Instant Pass". You are picking and choosing comments to make that point. You must have seriously been ignoring the comments section because it was definitely heavily criticized for lack of campaign and space battles. I don't know why you're using youtube likes as a metric, those likes are based on the TRAILER shown, not the actual game. People saw incredible graphics in Battlefront, Star war music, Darth Vader, and clicked 'like'; people saw the infinite warfare trailer (the orginial one), which actually looked horrendous even if the E3 presentation was good. That trailer compared to the Battlefield 1 trailer looked like absolute trash, it's activision's own fault releasing such a terrible trailer, hence why it was most disliked.

There's no grand conspiracy here. Battlefront got a fair amount of criticism (look at the reviews not youtube trailers), Battlefield Hardline got criticism (it just happened to be not popular at all so you don't hear about it), Battlefield 1 got a pass because it had a huge wow factor in the trailer, and they didn't show the campaign yet (although I've seen much disappointment over the leaked missions list). The only reason it appears COD gets all the hate is because it comes out every damn year, it's just the law of large numbers. If Battlefield came out every year for the past 10 years, GUARANTEED it will get just as much hate. COD 4 is one of my most favourite games ever, but I got tired after the next few entries. This doesn't mean Black Ops 3 was a bad game, I agree it had really good value, but just because you liked it doesn't mean it couldn't have been better to other people who want something more.

"And it never has made pretenses to be anything other than COD." Well that exactly answers the argument about people being disappointed with the E3 showing. People know COD doesn't try to be anything other than COD, that's why they were able to gauge what IW will be like versus what they IMAGINED what it would be like from that gameplay, had it not been COD.

[morganfell]

All one need do is search the Battlefront article database here at N4G to see they have not been getting hate. Not at all.

Here: https://www.google.com/sear...

Articles are by and away mostly informative without plus or minus awarded. Those that do carry opinion offer mostly positive views.

Battlefront is considered by the press to be a good game. Not a great game mind you, but a good game. Anything 70 and over lands in the good. No great but good. That is pass territory. Even more unforgivable from the press are not the scores but rather the previews. It doesn't help a gamer when they read previews, then purchase a game only to discover in the reviews that their now spent money provides them a broken game. And these are not bugs hidden from previewers but often it is a mtter of the standard modus operandi whereby those behind articles are loathe to slam a company like EA until review time. Personally I never, but never follow anyone's previews and especially not reviews because no one these days knows how to write a review. They also haven't a clue concerning how reviews were once written. Ask anyone on this board and they will tell you that reviews are just an opinion. It was not always so but those with only 10 or 15 years gaming experience do not know any better and you cannot inform them of how matters once proceeded.

[morganfell]

I am not ignoring the comments section at all. I clearly remember getting ripped apart here for my protests. I railed against this game on every level from day one and was repeatedly attacked - lost bubbles under the old system and mostly for 3 issues.

1 - This history of broken Battlefield games. I did not forget BF4 or Hardline. But as soon as that first trailer hit it was OMG!!! FORGIVE AND FORGET!!! My warning also included the likelihood of a graphics downgrade. Putting In-Engine on a trailer rather than In-Game is deceptive to the general public.

2 - No SP Campaign. Again I was ripped...in the comments section. I was told repeatedly here and at places such as Reddit that I was stupid to expect a Campaign. These games are all about MP and I should know that.

3 - No Space Battles. This was where I warned it would be sold back to us later as DLC. It is clearly stated several times in my post history. And again, often because responding teens here that never actually played hours into the night with Battlefront 1 and 2, I was shouted down and told this isn't a sequel to those games because EA was doing their own thing...and I love this...it didn't matter. Absurd.

I didn't just look at the comment sections. I participated in them and took a beating in them. Not that I care as I can take a hit. But there were far more disagrees than agrees. It isn't about a conspiracy. It is about people stumbling toward certain shiny things. Look when the Watchdogs 2 trailer came out. People lost their minds and forgot how Ubi lied. Then when we complained we were called racists for not liking the new main character. When that Battlefront trailer premiered people were gushing and history went out the window. That isn't conspiracy, it is a fact. Look at the responses. Call of Duty trailer premiers...instant attack.

People are in general idiots. They love something but if you give it to them every year they hate it. Yet they buy it. Call of Duty IW will sell like crazy and thus gamers actions will demonstrate either they are hypocrites, or else only the naysayers were disliking the trailer. Personally I find it to be the former. Many people that will purchase the game clicked dislike because it was hip and and they are little more than social lemmings. But they will in the end buy the game. The Sony presser gameplay was pure Call of Duty. There was nothing in there that was not straight up familiar. Anyone that has played a few of the games would have recognized the flow of events from intermediary cutscenes to gameplay. Including the pacing. Typical, wonderful CoD. I love it. It is merely in the middle of the Sony conference they forgot to don their hate hat and instead looked at CoD honestly without prepossession. Anyone that knew CoD and didn't immediately recognize it can go back and look at the gameplay and have an ah ha moment as they clearly see CoD in every aspect of the video.

[spicelicka]

It's pretty simple, they don't want to segregate their demographic by competing with themselves. This way they've amalgamated their playerbase who will pay for both and can switch between the two games without affecting the profits. It's a sleazy policy but that's Activision for you.

Mark my words, even when it's separated the remaster won't cost less than $40.

[IamTylerDurden1]

It's sleezy to give an extra game to those who buy Infinite Warfare?

[IamTylerDurden1]

Reaction to Infinite Warfare? U mean how everyone loved the gameplay demo at e3?

[sampson3121]

yes, until they realized it was Infinite Warfare. funny how ignorant people can be.

[81BX]

Thought it was crap then as well. Tell me how youre judging that everyone loved it until the cod logo popped up?

[gangsta_red]

It's just more incentive to buy Infinite Warfare deluxe version ultra. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially since IW looks fantastic anyways.

But I would have a problem if people bought that version and then later on Activision decides to release Modern Warfare Remastered on its own.

[ScorpiusX]

Eventually they will sell as a stand alone due to greed , so till then will pass.

[Gaming_Cousin]

Of course they will. They just want to steal money from the early adopters

[Summons75]

How's it "stealing money". It's literally $20 extra bucks which unless Activision is more greedy than we expect will be the price of the standalone when that eventually comes out.

[Gaming_Cousin]

You need to stop taking it in literal terms. Obviously they aren't forcing taking money out of you but they make you pay more for something you don't want. Imagine if you were only able to buy an Xbox One or PS4 if you bought it with an extra controller and with a Netflix subscription. Not everyone wants that crap

[Gaming_Cousin]

Activision: "Hey guys, since we listened to you we are giving you a Call of Duty remaster from one of your favorite Call of Dutys."

Potential customer: "How come I don't see it for pre-order?"

Activision: "Oh because we included it with Infinite Warfare! Look at that DEAL!

Customer: "But I don't want the new Call of Duty... Do you know how much it will cost?"

Activision: "Only $79.99"

Customer: "Ehh that is a bit expensive. Hey when are you releasing just the remaster? I don't need Infinite Warfare"

Activision: "Checks phone. I got a meeting in 1 minute. I have to go! (Walks away with fresh poop stain on pants)

[lildudexst]

They going sell it solo when Xmas is done. After major holiday your golden. Only thing you really missing just to rank up fast.

[trouble_bubble]

They see there's a demand for it, they'd be silly to keep it locked away behind an infinite warfare paywall forever. It's not gonna make them money sitting on a server with no one playing.

Once a couple months have gone by and no one's buying the infinite warfare mega bubba boom boom pow edition or whatever the #%^* it's called, it'd be in their best interest to re-release cod4 on psn and xbl.

[sampson3121]

the bundle will rule the charts for a few month, not only because of the remaster, but because the majority of people that watched the E3 gameplay were impressed, until the name came on the screen.

[Pro_TactX]

Why is it wrong? Activision doesn't owe us a COD4 remaster, and it's a luxury, not a need. No one will suffer if they don't have it. Like all luxury items, the consumers will either decide that it is worth the purchase (in this case the purchase of Infinite Warfare), or they will decide that it isn't.

[TheColbertinator]

Its Activision. Enough said.

[Tankbusta40]

It will likely cost 65 bucks with Amazon prime, so I'm not to upset. Really if infinite Warfare sucks you can sell it for 30-40 bucks depending on method. For me, I'll give infinite Warfare a chance but I will be buying it for the remaster, so if both games are good I have no issue with the price, and if IW sucks I can sell it no biggy

[LA_Zeo]

Honestly I'm tired of COD anyway. The last 3 titles aren't even based on real War events. All they want is money and I'm tired of spending my money on these crap as games. I will support Titanfall thou it seems like you only get good quality from devs that need to make a name for themselves.

[MetroidFREAK21]

I'm just waiting for the MP reveal of Infinite Warfare before I make the call on if I'm going to buy it or not. The CoD4 remaster is a nice incentive, and almost made me pre-order Infinite Warfare, but then Battlefield 1 happened. Maybe the MP will be good in Infinite Warfare, and if not this will be the first Call of Duty game I don't buy in 9 years.

[EpicSandwich]

It was done because infinite warfare would have bombed this time around imo it looks really bad. I personally pre ordered because of cod 4 so their plan worked.

Just imagine how dead the infinite warfare servers would be!

[sampson3121]

"it looks really bad"? most people that watched the E3 gameplay were saying how good it looks, even the ones that wanted to complain about it had to admit they think it looks pretty good.

they are smart to release the games together, seeing how remarkably ignorant some of these comments are.

[Goldby]

ya behind all the B.S., Infinity Ward did some pretty Genius things.
1)guarentee a record number of sales fro IW by packaging MW:R into it so if people did want to play that game they had to buy IW
2)successfuly raised the price of a basic game by an additional 20$, probably give them a record for total amount of money spent on new CoD.

the 1-2 punch

[Skankinruby]

Good lord just give it a rest already. We get it, you loudmouth kids hate the direction infinite warfare took. This does nothing to change the fact that call of duty is a much stronger franchise and the majority will still favor it.

[sampson3121]

Infinite Warfare looks better than the remaster. E3 gameplay looked great.

[neutralgamer1992]

in a perfect world activision would have just released a MW trilogy remaster

i don't know what's so different when someone spends $100 on a special edition so by spending $20 extra you can get the FPS that really jump started this FPS craze( i am not saying COD made FPSI i am just talking from a sales impact point of view

i think COD:IW is getting a lot of hate because of BF1 fanboys. end of the day COD will outsellf BF1
end of the days millions will buy $80 game to get the remastered version of MW
end of the day there are millions of gamers who buy COD,Madden,Fifa every year no matter the reviews

and let's be honest that E3 demo for COD was actually really good

I don't buy/nor play COD or any other FPS for that matter(mostly into story driven type games)

but as a gamer i understand the impact of these FPS

BF1 and TF2 releasing within a week of each other is just one more stupid move by ea. no other company would release 2 of it's biggest games competing against each other

also for those only wanting MW1 just buy it from ebay for 30

[MetroidFREAK21]

Sales don't make it the better game... CoD sells more because it's accessible, easy, and mindless... That's the reason I buy it at least.