Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered now sold seperately

Activision have finally released Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered [official site] by itself, no longer restricted to being an extra in an expensive edition of CoD: Infinite Warfare. Not that the revamp of 2007’s seminal Call of Duty 4 is much more affordable now it’s sold seperately, mind. If you want to relive the good old days, it’ll cost you £35. And extra for the multiplayer map pack, of course.

So! Call of Duty 4. The first game since Half-Life to have a huge impact on other first-person shooters [Update: I am reminded that something named ‘Halo’ happened?]. It was fast and exciting and often surprising, leaping from person to person and place to place. Its format inspired many imitators. Its multiplayer was hugely impactful too – you can thank it for the helping spread the irritating unlocks and progression tracks that still linger. I certainly enjoyed CoD 4 back in the day so I am glad it’s been spruced up. I absolutely will not buy it at this price.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered is £34.99/39,99€/$39.99 on Steam. Or, right now on sale, you can get it bundled with the regular edition of Infinite Warfare for £37.19/49,59€/$49.59. I still won’t go for that. Oh, and the CoD4 map pack which was free on PC (thanks to Nvidia sponsoring it) is paid DLC for us in Remastered.

Activision held Modern Warfare Remastered to ransom for eight months, making it available only in an expensive edition of an unpopular. Over those months, the playercount has fallen dramatically. When Call of Duty: WWII comes out in four months, even more players will vanish. I’m sure numbers will climb a little now MWR isn’t chained to Infinite Warfare but a large chunk of the game’s playerbase — and therefore its multiplayer lifespan — is already gone.

The bundling was such a greedy and unpleasant decision from Activision and their unbundling plan isn’t much better. Especially as the PlayStation 4 release came a month ago, thanks to one of those unpleasant platform exclusivity arrangements.

It is such a shame that Activision have muffed up the re-release of a fine game. What should’ve been exciting is mired in irritation.

23 Comments

  1. Durrok says:

    Not to mention the crammed in micro-transactions… uhg.

  2. Troubletcat says:

    “So! Call of Duty 4. The first game since Half-Life to have a huge impact on other first-person shooters.”

    Hey now friend, you’re a little bit wrong – Halo was in there and also had a huge impact on other first-person shooters by showing us it was possible with a thumbstick.

    …But I’m STILL waiting for the first next one to make a difference for the past 10 bloody years. Come on now game developer friends! Show us something that’s actually exciting!

    • Premium User Badge

      Nauallis says:

      Titanfall, for successfully integrating fast-paced mech combat with fast-paced FPS shooting, as well as parkour, and a seamless transfer of scale? All of the CoD games since have included wall-running and double jump, emulating Titanfall. Even Halo 5 went that direction (no wallrunning) with the increased mobility. So did new Doom.

      Destiny, for making a successful FPS-as-an-MMO-with-raids, built around co-op and loot? Other studios have tried to do something similar, so far with not-great results: The Division, Space Hulk: Deathwing, GR: Wildlands.

      Borderlands, for showing us that FPS games can be silly, fun, and serious at the same time, and that random-generated FPS loot actually works? That kinda inspired Destiny, as well as The Division.

      ‘Course, those first two were made by the same people as CoD4 and Halo, respectively, so I might be a wee bit biased.

      • Troubletcat says:

        All those games are still too new to really assess their impact on the genre as a whole.

        My personal opinion – Titanfall, too much of a flop commerically to be called truly influential (also, movement was much freer in the old arena shooter days than it was cira 2001 anyway, so if anything Titanfall could be seen as a return to an older paradigm in that respect). Destiny, really just building on what Borderlands did. Borderlands… Maybe? It kind of stapled Diablo onto a shooter rather than bringing anything truly unique, but melding genres is still its own kind of innovation. Time will tell. But in terms of raw mechanics I don’t think it’s a revelation on the same level as Half-Life or CoD or Halo.

        EDIT: I think what it really comes down to is this: There were like 3-4 years there where literally nobody I knew that played games wasn’t talking about Half-Life. same with Cod 4 and Halo. None of the games you mentioned had that same reach. Plenty of gamers never played Borderlands, never played Titanfall, never played Destiny. They aren’t era-defining games in the same way.

        In 1998 anyone who cared about games was playing half-life. Same for Halo and CoD4. Not so for Titanfall or Destiny or Borderlands.

        • Premium User Badge

          Nauallis says:

          By that logic, there’s nothing particularly impressive about CoD4 then, other than it being the next-most-polished game in a series of games. CoD2 was damned impressive in its day, and inspired most of the concepts found in CoD4. By any account MW2 was more influential by far, financially speaking and by game concept.

          Responding to your edit: I was in college when CoD4 released, and it was either that or Halo 3 at that point. Nobody was playing anything else, and if you were playing on PC it was TF2, and that was it. I can’t speak for ’98 though, I was all about Starcraft then.

          • Premium User Badge

            Nauallis says:

            I mean, nobody was playing anything else as far as FPS games were concerned. Obviously games like civilization, supreme commander, guitar hero etc were still very popular. I assumed that was implicit given what we were commenting on, and the absurd hyperbole.

          • Poor People says:

            Doom and Quake were kings of multiplayer FPS in the pre-HL days. And even in the immediate year before Counter-Strike became a staple, Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament were really popular.

        • Flopper says:

          Then by your definition, PUBG is the game of the current generation. Most explosive growth of any game in recent memory. Only people living under a rock don’t know what it is. Based on Steam stats probably everyone who reads this has a few people on their Steam friends currently in game right now.

          It took inspiration from film. But so did your two examples of Half Life and CoD 4.

    • Alice O'Connor says:

      Oh, that was a thing wasn’t it.

      • Premium User Badge

        Godwhacker says:

        Yeah, after Halo you weren’t allowed more than two guns

    • poliovaccine says:

      I mean, I’d say Fallout 3 or Fallout 4, depending how you assess it, might kinda fit that bill. As far as mixing FPS and RPG, in specific, and that being a majorly influential design innovation. I mean that had been done to some extent in dribs and drabs before, but until FO3 it had never been done in quite such a thoroughly committed way. The shooting in FO3 is janky, no doubt, but the combination was still inarguably successful.

      Reason I say you might give the influence-honors to FO4 instead is that FO4 is where the conceptual balance that’s most broadly imitated thus far was finally, evenly struck – that is, gunplay being very important to get correct, and RPG elements being allowed to go a bit “lite.” It’s getting rarer and rarer since then that shooters are entirely linear, entirely without choice, or entirely without stats and the kind of inventories where you can actually drop objects – yknow, instead of just running over stuff to automatically pick it up. I’d say that whole design convention is easily getting old enough by now to safely estimate that’ll have had at least a ten-year impact. So like I say, fits the bill, tho whether you give it to FO3 for the concept, or say that in spite of FO3’s overall success, the concept didnt really come together in manifest form til FO4 is legitimately debatable.

      • ChromeBallz says:

        No clue why you would think that. FO3 was ‘Oblivion with guns’ and FO4 was ‘Skyrim with guns’, nothing more than that. Their gunplay was pathetic compared to actual shooters.

        There’s very few truly influential shooters.

        – Doom: For breathing life into the genre. Yes, Doom over Wolfenstein, because Wolfenstein was at the tail end of the era where games still had scores and were pretty much singleplayer only affairs.
        – Quake: For establishing m+kb as *the* way to play. Yes, this is more important than its 3d gimmicks.
        – Half-life: For bringing an truly immersive and continuous narrative into shooters, proving that even early 3d games could work like this.
        – Goldeneye: This game did for console shooters what Quake did for PC shooters, creating a new way to play and finally justifying the then-odd dual stick controller. Without its success it’s unlikely there’d have ever been other console shooters.
        – Halo: For revolutionizing the way shooters were designed and played, forcing choice and removing healthpacks from the equation.

        I really hesitate to put other titles on this list. Since Halo there hasn’t really been a shooter which truly brought something new.

        Even in your example, you seem to have forgotten about Deus Ex, which did FO3’s and FO4’s gameplay better a decade or more beforehand. Yet i won’t include it here, since it mostly follows a much more archaic style of game design. It has more in common with Sin than any other shooter, really, and Sin was basically an attempt to follow Half-Life.

        Of course System Shock should not be forgotten here either, which was the progenitor of these RPG/shooter hybrids, but that game in turn was more based on the Ultima Underworld style of gameplay rather than being a shooter.

        Gears of War? That game actually soured the shooter genre. It sucks the speed out of it with its cover mechanic, and was otherwise a Halo clone with much smaller and cramped levels.

        Unreal? It was a technical achievement and had decent AI, but as a *shooter* it had nothing really new to add.

        Call of Duty? It was an amalgam of Half-Life and Halo more than anything else. It’s innovation was that it was basically the first game to make historical scenarios half-way immersive in a videogame.

        Crysis? Just a technical achievement, but didn’t really add anything to *shooters*. It’s open approach was knicked from its predecessor, which was novel at the time, but i hesitate to call it an innovation since it was mostly a natural result from improved tech.

        Maybe there’s a special mention for Max Payne because of the bullet time mechanic, but im not entirely sure about it. Its a gimmick, just like SuperHot’s time mechanic.

        And so on. We haven’t had a truly innovative shooter since Halo in my opinion. The genre has stagnated to a point where it’s just trying to half-assedly smash other genres into itself with little thought. I can’t recall a shooter after Halo which made that one innovation which every game after it followed.

        So where does Call of Duty 4 fit in all of this?

        Well, what it does, it does *well*. In some way, CoD did for shooters what WoW did for MMO’s, making it accessible and polished as hell. I do think that one thing CoD4 has going for it is that it was the final nail in the coffin of the ‘oldskool’ shooter gameplay which was started in Doom, reached its peak during the UT/Q3 fued and started fizzling out after UT2004. It also polished the class/loadout based gameplay introduced in (i think) BF1942, or even Delta Force if you want to go back further.

        It didn’t, however, do something truly new. It did become a template for the lazy though, just like WoW became the template for themepark MMO’s 3 years before it.

        • Leaufai says:

          You might not like the cover mechanic but it, together with better camera control, definitely had wide-ranging implications and helped third-person shooters move away from auto-lock aiming.

          I think Gears of War was the first major success with this type, so I’m going to give it credit for inspiring all these games:
          -GTA 4 and 5
          -Red Dead Redemption
          -Mass Effect series
          -Watch_Dogs series
          -Uncharted series
          -The Last of Us
          -Mafia 2 and 3
          -Max Payne 3

        • theSAiNT says:

          I like your shortlist but why Halo?

          I only played Halo on the PC but found it insufferably dull. Singleplayer had boring enemies, vacant level design, and a story I didn’t care about. Maybe cars were new? Multiplayer was stodgy and slow.

          I would include CS on that list, as distinct from HL. It created the squad shooter as we know it and heavily influenced COD etc.

    • vorador says:

      Team Fortress 2?

      Basically after it’s release almost every multiplayer focused game game either copies several features of it, or copies from COD4. Or both.

      Also, while it’s still not on the same level Destiny is a gaming phenomenon on consoles that has started sparking me-too titles like Anthem.

      • poliovaccine says:

        Yknow, I havent even played it, but just the fact that Destiny’s been discussed on this site since before there was even word of a PC-inclusive sequel seems to really say something in its favor…

      • ChromeBallz says:

        Team Fortress 2 was a more polished version of TF1, which in turn was one of the emerging class-based shooter (mods) in the late 90’s/early 2000’s, something that (imho) Delta Force really kicked off at the time and got popularized by Battlefield way before Team Fortress 2 became a thing.

        It does have a very stylized approach to the game, and it’s polished as fuck. Or it was anyway, the current version is just shite.

        The only game it directly influenced was Overwatch i think, and its clones, but it wasnt an innovation onto itself.

  3. yogibbear says:

    Keep in mind that the original had dedicated servers and modding support and was designed by people that wanted to make a good game. None of which this remaster has. It’s not a remaster. It’s a cash grab.

  4. keefybabe says:

    If people keep falling for this shit and paying the cash, Activision will keep doing it.

    In order to learn a lesson it has to first go wrong.

  5. JimDiGritz says:

    My thoughts:

    Battlezone – the daddy of FPS’s
    Counter Strike – surely the seminal PvP FPS?
    return to castle wolfenstein – massively influenced team PvP FPS’s

  6. sneetch says:

    I can’t believe that the price is this ridiculous and on top of that they expect us to pay for the mp maps separately!

    You can shove it up yer exhaust port, Activision. I own the original and that’ll do.

  7. wombatron says:

    If i were to pen a post on this subject,it would probably run very close to yours.
    The diabolical price gouging is eye watering.The market misjudged by Activision i venture. Patience comes with age ;)Last Call of Duty game i played and i absolutely loved its boys own adventuring,over the top heroics.
    MP was good too for a while.Squad and Arma for me now.
    I will eventually buy this on a steam sale to replay the campaign,(Glory Days);)