PCG Article The Next Call of Duty is 70 for the base game

[DXCHASE]

Its already a best seller on Steam at 69.99 (comes with beta access). I think im good on that. Probably wont hit game pass either considering Microsoft would honor whatever deals are in place for current CoD games.

Just sad seeing a base CoD game selling for 70 bucks and it being a best seller but to each their own with their money.

Call of Duty® on Steam

Welcome to Call of Duty® HQ, the home of Call of Duty®: Modern Warfare® III, Call of Duty®: Modern Warfare® II and Warzone™.

store.steampowered.com

Edit: I did not see the article PCG posted about this until after i put this up.

 

[Brian Boru]

The PCG article:

https://www.pcgamer.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2-2022-reveal-trailer/

Console pricing comes to PC, oh good.

PS isn't this from the same crowd doing the Diablo Immoral gouge?

 

[Pifanjr]

Console pricing comes to PC, oh good.

Considering how long video games have stayed at 60 (over 15 years now?), it was inevitable that they would increase in price at some point. Sure, developers tried just releasing the game earlier for a while instead of raising the price, regardless of whether the game was actually playable already, but I assume that's no longer working as well after several disastrous launches.

 

[DXCHASE]

Considering how long video games have stayed at 60 (over 15 years now?), it was inevitable that they would increase in price at some point. Sure, developers tried just releasing the game earlier for a while instead of raising the price, regardless of whether the game was actually playable already, but I assume that's no longer working as well after several disastrous launches.

I can understand this for a physical copy for sure. The extra money covering the cost nowadays for making something, shipping it etc. but digital codes take nothing to get into peoples hands. I agree, it is def. inevitable pricing would increase because Activision absolutely knows that its fanbase will pay that and from what ive seen, they are a 100% accurate. I see this reasoning being more the true reason than the whole "making a game is more expensive nowadays". Activision could charge 50 or 45 for their game and still make bank even after paying all employees salaries etc.

 

[Pifanjr]

I can understand this for a physical copy for sure. The extra money covering the cost nowadays for making something, shipping it etc. but digital codes take nothing to get into peoples hands. I agree, it is def. inevitable pricing would increase because Activision absolutely knows that its fanbase will pay that and from what ive seen, they are a 100% accurate. I see this reasoning being more the true reason than the whole "making a game is more expensive nowadays". Activision could charge 50 or 45 for their game and still make bank even after paying all employees salaries etc.

Digital codes do get something to get into people's hands: you got to make the game first before you can give out codes. And you have to pay people if you want to make a game. And those people expect raises, otherwise they'll find a different job, so your expenses will increase unless you hire them for shorter amounts of time (but then we get back to releasing a game that wasn't done yet).

 

[Brian Boru]

Considering how long video games have stayed at 60 (over 15 years now?), it was inevitable that they would increase in price at some point

Not inevitable, other than for the raw market reason DX mentioned—ie people are willing to be gouged.

Apart from the switch to digital distro, there is also the huge increase in player numbers. Those 2 factors would almost definitely cover the higher dev costs imo.

Problem is the main companies are public, and therefore locked into a profit growth paradigm if the top dogs want to keep their jobs. So gouge it is, for as long as it works.

 

[Pifanjr]

Not inevitable, other than for the raw market reason DX mentioned—ie people are willing to be gouged.

Apart from the switch to digital distro, there is also the huge increase in player numbers. Those 2 factors would almost definitely cover the higher dev costs imo.

Problem is the main companies are public, and therefore locked into a profit growth paradigm if the top dogs want to keep their jobs. So gouge it is, for as long as it works.

Yes, it was only inevitable because of greed of course. If we could only dismantle capitalism we wouldn't have to pay this much.

 

[Colif]

I wish prices were that low here. I can remember paying about $80 for Nintendo 64 carts about 25 years ago

I wonder if our prices will increase since yours did.
$70 would be nice

Not that I would buy it anyway.

 

[Brian Boru]

I can remember paying about $80

Dunno rate 25 years ago, but that's $57~USD today—100AUD=72USD.

If we could only dismantle capitalism we wouldn't have to pay this much

Double-edged sword. Without Capitalism the games we have today probably wouldn't exist

 

[Colif]

Double-edged sword. Without Capitalism the games we have today probably wouldn't exist

you say that as if its a bad thing

 

[Pifanjr]

Double-edged sword. Without Capitalism the games we have today probably wouldn't exist

The indie games would still be there. I don't think most indie game makers are in it for the money.

 

[ZedClampet]

Considering how long video games have stayed at 60 (over 15 years now?), it was inevitable that they would increase in price at some point. Sure, developers tried just releasing the game earlier for a while instead of raising the price, regardless of whether the game was actually playable already, but I assume that's no longer working as well after several disastrous launches.

If you look at average game sales over the last 15 years, they are still making a lot more money than they were 15 years ago selling at $60. Gaming has exploded during that time.

The fact is, CoD makes over a billion dollars a year ($1.93 billion last year). They are just consumed with greed.

 

[DXCHASE]

The fact is, CoD makes over a billion dollars a year ($1.93 billion last year). They are just consumed with greed.

100% agree. You can try to dress up charging more for games, but i personally think it just comes down to this from the company selling it. Hell even if you charged 50 for a game, that company is still going to make bank even after paying its employees and paying taxes etc. etc.

The Last of Us is being charged 70 and its a remaster. Diablo Immortal is free but costs thousands to max ranks (which plenty of people have been doing), CoD is 70. All of these are examples of companies making efforts (last ditch efforts for Activision/Blizzard) to make as much money as possible from gamers and the kicker is...gamers will pay this price willingly and think they arent being overcharged.

 

[Brian Boru]

The Last of Us is being charged 70 and its a remaster

See TLoU thread—Wiki says it's a remake.

 

[Why_Me]

Yes, it was only inevitable because of greed of course. If we could only dismantle capitalism we wouldn't have to pay this much.

I hear Belarus, Cuba and Venezuela are nice this time of year.

 

[HenrykForkbeard]

The pricing, the micro transactions, the quality of the game, the bugs, the delays, the unfinished projects, the remaster after remaster after remaster..

It's all getting a bit beyond a joke now.

 

[Frindis]

@HenrykForkbeard Truer words have never been spoken!

As for the game, I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole, even if it was free. This is coming from someone who has played a lot of Warzone, loved MW2, and enjoyed the early COD games with Call of Duty 2 being my all-time favorite. I'm not going into any lengthy monolog about why, so I'm just going to say that times in the gaming industry have changed and so have I. I do hope the game will live up to the exception for those who play it.

 

[DXCHASE]

See TLoU thread—Wiki says it's a remake.

Yep i saw my mistake, i mentioned it i think in the other thread related to TLOU, but my position still stands

 

[Zloth]

Whoah, hold the phone... errr modem.... errrr network router thing!

NOBODY is being gouged. Not even close! Gouging involves raising the price on something people need. They have to pay whatever is asked because they don't have a choice. Games are pure luxury! None of us need to buy any game of any sort. What's more, there's massive competition out there in the gaming world. If you don't want to buy CoD for that price, you could buy any of thousands of other games for cheaper.

Could Activision charge less for it? Possibly. So what? If you don't like the price, go somewhere else. If you think it's worth $70, pay up and (hopefully) have fun. But you can forget any B.S. about how you are being wronged in some way.

 

[Brian Boru]

forget any B.S. about how you are being wronged in some way

We don't HAVE to buy NFTs or spend thousands on in-game purchases either—are you saying no one's being wronged with those either?

You're ignoring the cynical preying on human nature's weakness. Call it bad judgment or addiction or being a kid—vulnerable people are being scalped by these predatory practices.

there's massive competition

Not in the target demographic, not when there's a massive marketing budget behind the chosen few titles. Marketing = mainly deception and manipulation, and it works a treat—again, targeting human weaknesses.

Games are pure luxury!

Umm… Okay, let's take away games, TV, movies, books, music, paintings & sculptures, sport—I'm sure I'm forgetting some other pure luxuries.

Is your life / the world now a better place? Have a peek at Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

People have needs beyond the basics of food, shelter etc.

 

[Zloth]

Wow!

Let's see here, NFTs.... you're changing my statement that a game raising its price by $10 doesn't count as gouging into a statement that any luxury item is free of all legal responsibility? Straw man argument. Or are you saying that what is wrong with NFTs is price gouging??

For the second paragraph: Call of Duty is not the only video game, it's not the only shooter, it's not the only big-budget shooter, it's not the only big-budget multi-player shooter, and I don't think it's even the only Call of Duty that's still active! I'm sorry, but the idea that somebody needs to buy the latest Call of Duty this Fall is ludicrous.

Finally, a definite straw man argument. I'm saying it's OK if Call of Duty raises its price by $10. You're changing that into ALL luxury items stop selling their products completely!?

If Call of Duty were to raise its price a LOT to, say, $300, it's still going to be just fine and dandy. When the game comes out, very few people will buy it. Being an online shooter with pretty serious overhead, the company will lose tons of money and very likely go bankrupt. It won't be because gamers are suing them, though, and it sure won't be because law enforcement comes down on them for price gouging. It will be because the company tried to price gouge when it CAN'T DO SO!

 

[Brian Boru]

Wow

Who brought World of Warcraft into this?—obvious attempt to divert the topic, will not work!!

Straw man

Yes, true dat—exaggerating for effect

NOBODY is being gouged. Not even close!

Agree to disagree, I say everyone's being gouged

You're looking from consumer perspective, I'm looking from company view.

 

[Why_Me]

Call of Duty rolls out additional mitigations to frustrate cheaters

In short, devs are constantly coming up with new ways to detect and block those who don't play by the rules; the cheaters respond with new tactics...

www.techspot.com

 

[redmark_]

Call of Duty rolls out additional mitigations to frustrate cheaters

In short, devs are constantly coming up with new ways to detect and block those who don't play by the rules; the cheaters respond with new tactics...

www.techspot.com

This was an interesting read regarding anti-cheat methods for COD...

🤔 slightly off-topic but still related, I wonder if these kinds of anti-cheat methods would be suitable to deploy in battle royale mode games, like Fortnite, PUBG, etc.

I can't imagine seeing this "glitchy" anti-cheat solution while playing a battle royale. it could be off-putting as an experience. 🤨🤷‍♂️ ah well...