News Article

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered May Require Infinite Warfare Disc

Posted by Sammy Barker

War never changes

If you were hoping to download your copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered and then sell Infinite Warfare on, you may want to think again: legal wording on the game's official website suggests that physical copies of the double-pack will require the Infinite Warfare disc to be inserted in order to play the re-released game.

This only applies to the physical packages – the Legacy and Legacy Pro editions – as the digital version will be tied to your PlayStation Network account anyway. Activision is clearly trying to crack down on trade-ins here, though we're not quite sure why it feels it has to resort to these measures – Infinite Warfare looks and plays great on its own, after all.

[via callofduty.com, charlieintel.com]

Related Games

User Comments (43)

Plainsville

#1

Plainsville said:

I guess it makes sense: they don't want people returning it and basically getting a free game. But still stupid. They should sell it separately; clearly lots of people want to.

Melucine

#2

Melucine said:

I think its the logic thing to do. If not I could rent the disc, or simply borrow it form a friend and keep the game.

BAMozzy

#3

BAMozzy said:

I have no issue with this at all. It is after all essentially a 'bonus' (much better than a statue or artbook) for the special editions of Infinite Warfare.

I hope they add a 'menu' option inside IW so that you can load up CoD4, just like you would go to the Campaign, Zombies or MP.

I have the Legacy Pro edition on pre-order (physical) and whilst CoD4 will always hold a special place in my 'gaming' heart, I am looking forward to IW a bit more as its 'new'. I doubt CoD4's campaign will have the same impact as it did in 2007 and the MP has in a lot of ways has changed for the better (no more stopping power, last stand, fragx3, as well as better balance and more flexible customisation). Advanced Warfare has done a lot of harm to Advanced Movement but I prefer the more freedom and pace it can bring if handled right - BO3 showed it can still be effective and keep the traditional flow. I still find it funny that people were complaining about CoD being the same game every year yet when they evolved the only area they could to change it up, people want it to go back to the 'same' thing each year. I prefer this option where we have something old and something new. Will be interesting to see what happens next year as Sledgehammer (I know Raven are handling the remaster but I think it would be odd to have a IW remaster with a Treyarch or vice versa release which could happen if they follow the sequence of releases) haven't got an 'old' game to remaster - MW2 maybe?

Tasuki

#4

Tasuki said:

I saw the advertisement but I also wonder if it's a miss print. Still I wouldn't be surprised but it kinda sucks for people who were thinking of looking for just a code on sites like Ebay or Craigslist. Although I guess this proves that it won't ever be sold seperate.

REIGNOFDEATH

#6

REIGNOFDEATH said:

I'm sure it's due to the many people saying there going to trade in the game at launch and keep the download of COD MW. I agree that IW looks good, but unfortunately there are alot of people that dislike future fighting games. Honestly, I could be wrong here but IMO if there was an option to use classic weaponry ie M4, M16 etc. in these new campaigns some people may feel better about buying. Just food for thought.

Constable_What

#7

Constable_What said:

It gets easier and easier for meto ignore CoD, and harder and harder for me to justify it anymore. I guess Black Ops 3 is a good a place as any for me to just stop. IW also looks like hot garbage in my opinion.

HyperBigBlack

#8

HyperBigBlack said:

@BAMozzy You said that they got rid of stopping power, last stand and frag x3 but they didn't get rid of these things. Every perk, attachment, gun, and lethal is back in the remastered version so we still have to deal with stopping power, last stand , and drag x3. But it doesn't matter cause cod 4 is the greatest cod of all time

JaxonH

#9

JaxonH said:

I just want Modern Warfare Remastered, on its own disc. Is that too much to ask from one of the biggest multi-billion dollar publishing conglomerates on Earth?

GlynCR

#11

GlynCR said:

@Plainsville they wont except returns unless the the code for the remaster is unused

if thats the case how will the 30 day early access work?

JaxonH

#14

JaxonH said:

@DerMeister
And why is that a problem?

If Advanced Warfare isn't good enough to get people to buy it, maybe they should delay it and release it when it is.

But holding a perfectly good remastered game hostage? Tsk tsk tsk...

DerMeister

#16

DerMeister said:

@JaxonH To clarify, I was joking when I said yes.

Honestly, I do want the game to be released separately, and I think it should be. They just want the two to be together so Infinite Warfare can get guaranteed sales. Maybe I'm slightly off, but COD4 remastered would be a good seller in it's own right, especially since even people who don't like modern COD want it.

Tasuki

#17

Tasuki said:

@JaxonH Its called a business and newsflash they are created to make money. Is that a bad thing? I am sure you would like to get payed for the things you do.

xMEADx

#18

xMEADx said:

That's right unfortunately it's a buisness they don't care about the gamer's just the money they make from us, how could you not know this already.

JaxonH

#19

JaxonH said:

@Tasuki
"I am sure you would like to get payed for the things you do"

newsflash
I didn't ask them to hand out free copies, did I?

There is no reason to cop such an attitude when responding to someone. Ya, they're a business. And businesses should provide products customers want, no? And customers clearly want this game sold separately, no? But I guess being for-profit justifies any and all goof decisions?

I guess hey, they're a business right? So let's chop games up and sell it piecemeal too. After all, you like to get paid for your work, right?

@xMEADx
See above. I am fully aware of this as a business. How could you not know this already? But just because they're a business doesn't justify holding games people want as hostage to sell generic, worn out annualized releases people are getting sick of.

But I guess people will defend just about anything. It's a business, so everything they do is just dandy!

xMEADx

#20

xMEADx said:

@JaxonH Sorry you took my response (even though I didn't tag you) wrongly I hate what Dev's have become, Damn we should just stop calling em Dev's and call em Buisnessmen. I'm with you I think it's a damn p**s take not to sell it seperatly it's clearly what most people want but they know they would lose money. Profit make's every decision acceptable.....apparantly. Suck's. Not buying the game anyway btw BO3 was my last. Yeah I just read my post, I didn't mean anything by it it's just my dry sarcastic personality doesn't look good on paper, happen's alot.

Tasuki

#21

Tasuki said:

@JaxonH No you didn't ask them to hand out free copies, but let's be honest would people have bought IW if MWRM was not offered? Maybe, maybe not.

Thing is we dont know but given the backlash Activision received from the trailer and such probably not and the sole purpose of Activision and other game developers is to make money for their stockholders and such. After all the bad publicity Activision couldn't take that gamble. They have to recoup the money spent on IW and get people to buy it somehow. And they found away.

Curse them for wanting to make a profit to feed their families and such

JaxonH

#22

JaxonH said:

@DerMeister
Gotchya. Another lost in translation moment

@xMEADx
Been a concerning trend lately of people responding without tagging in an effort to avoid notifying the person. Clearly that one was my mistake.

I did hear somewhere that they're going to sell it separately (digitally). Which is cool (if that proves true). But if they're gonna do that, might as well print a few discs for the retail guys, like me. It's not like they won't sell. Heck it'll probably increase their bottom line.

I'm thinking that's exactly what they're gonna do, they're just bluffing right now to drum up oreorders. After the dust settles, I'm thinking we may see a release after all.

JaxonH

#23

JaxonH said:

@Tasuki

That's totally unreasonable.

I would hardly equate "hey can I give you my hard earned money for this game- I'm begging to purchase a product you have" to being the same thing as saying "curse you for trying to feed your families"

And I think just about anyone here would agree with me on that.

These people are probably richer than our entire community combined. And I promise you that holding this game hostage is not going to make or break whether they have bread on their table at night. Maybe whether they can afford their 7th Porche or not, sure, but these people are not poor peasants struggling to put food on the table.

By your logic, they can use whatever backhanded tactics they want. And don't you dare speak against it because they're just "trying to feed their poor families". Suuuuure. Go ahead. Break off half the game, then split it into 2 $35 post-release expansions. After all, they're just trying to feed their poor families. Hit us with $100 day one DLC. They're just trying to feed their poor families. Hold games hostage to sell crap nobody wants, after all they're just trying to feed their poor families.

Unbelievable.

gingerfrog

#24

gingerfrog said:

This game will sell by the ship load whatever they do. I was packing for my house move and got distracted and had to have a few goes on black ops 1. There were 22,349 playing on a late Sunday afternoon, that's still crazy numbers new games would dream of having 6 months after launch.

DerMeister

#25

DerMeister said:

@JaxonH More my bad, really. I should have been more clear I was messing around. I normally do, but everyone trips over their shoelaces eventually!

Tasuki

#26

Tasuki said:

@JaxonH Wow you don't have a clue do you? I am not talking about the C.E.O.s they are never effected. But the small guys are. Let's say IW bombs who gets the rough end of the stick? The CEO no its the developers, the programmers etc. Yeah I understand they aren't the ones that made that decision the uppers are but still again they are a business. Yeah it sucks but I don't honestly understand why it's hard for gamers to understand that.

JaxonH

#28

JaxonH said:

@Tasuki
I never said I don't understand though- I understand why they're doing it perfectly well.

Just as I understand why they butcher games into pieces and sell as DLC expansions, just as I understand why they force DRM and online connections. I understand why Microsoft wanted to enforce online checks every 24 hours. I understand why Sony started charging for multiplayer even though 3rd parties pay for their own servers... I understand a lot of things.

Doesn't mean I agree with them though, and just because it works to the benefit of the company's bottom line (which btw, doesn't necessarily mean it benefits the average developer employed by Activision- but even if it did) it doesn't make it right in my eyes.

edit
And, I would add, that even if they're not "wrong" for doing this, does that make me in the wrong for asking for a product I desire? Is it so shameful to you that I would dare say I want them to sell a game separately? God forbid...

Tasuki

#31

Tasuki said:

@JaxonH It might be wrong, it might not be bt bottom line they needed IW to make a profit. Due to the community's we want tradition CoD boots on the ground combat it didn't look like it was, so what would you have Activision wanted to do just say oh well we lost money on IW so we have to cut some jobs but hey MWRM is selling great. Bottom line is Activision (as well as most companies) try and project the next big thing. When IW was in the development stages people were hyped for games like Titanfall, Destiny, Halo 5 etc so it looked like futuristic military shooters were the next hot thing. Sadly by the time the community went vocal about it Activision already spent X amount of dollars and it was too late to turn back without taking a huge financial hit. Was it a smart thing for CoD to go that route probably not from my experiences CoD was always looked at a the old school boots on the round shooter where other games like Titanfall and Halo filled the space, future genre nicely. But they did and as I said they already were two far in development to change. So in response they brought out MWRM. Now given the community now and reaction as I said would the community by IW by itself, probably not and again it would cause Activision to loss money on it. By packaging MWRM with it it's making sure IW turns a profit. Is it right maybe, maybe not but it works.

Another reason I can see them doing this is to block scalpers from buying IW and selling the MWRM code sperately for an inflated price but that's another subject all together.

BAMozzy

#32

BAMozzy said:

@HyperBigBlack What I said is that CoD has got rid of those things from its subsequent releases! I know those awful (being polite) are in the remaster (unfortunately) but back then it was novel to have the option to even select a perk!

It certainly wasn't the greatest CoD of all time but what it did was change the FPS game. It was the first to add things like perks, killstreaks etc and the first to jump to the modern era. Just because it was the first to do these and probably first you played, doesn't make it the best. I had great memories and a lot of it was down to the community and social aspect more than just the game itself. There is a reason that a lot of aspect no longer remains in CoD. All the things that annoy the CoD Community, like quick/no scoping, Camping behind claymores, Last stand BS all really started with this game.

I recognise what CoD4 did for online gaming and the franchise but I can also see a lot of the flaws that it also had and why these flaws have been removed - not saying they haven't always replaced one flaw with another (one man's army for example) but I also remember how much hate Robert Browning got when he said there would be no more last stand and then it was still in the game. Death streaks, rewarding players for performing badly, haven't been in the game since MW3 - thankfully! Very little actually remains in CoD these days from CoD4 and for very good reason. No longer is Steady Aim a perk so snipers can benefit - its still in the game as a laser sight but that attachment can't be equipped on snipers to aid their no scoping montages. I could go on and explain why so much no longer appears in CoD4 and why other items have appeared - like lock-on launchers to counter the constant UAV spam and to try and counter the helicopters too - but that would take too long listing everything.

JaxonH

#33

JaxonH said:

@Tasuki
"Another reason I can see them doing this is to block scalpers from buying IW and selling the MWRM code sperately for an inflated price but that's another subject all together."

If they sold it separately there wouldn't be scalpers. Anyone who wanted could just buy the game separately.

I'll admit, Im struggling to entertain the notion that Call of Duty Infinite Warefare needed this remaster to make a profit. Call of Duty is consistently one of the top-grossing games of the modern era. Even a bad Call of Duty game will still make more money than nearly every other game releasing this holiday season.

That would make it the first Call of Duty to ever actually lose money. I don't see that happening, and I'd be shocked if anyone else did either.

hadlee73

#34

hadlee73 said:

I can see the business reasons as to why Activision did this, however that doesn't excuse it from being a stupid move. I'd have a different opinion if the Remaster was actually on the disc, but as a download code it shouldn't have required a disc to run. Its similar to the crap that Telltale have been pulling lately when they release a physical version of an episodic game, and you only get the one episode on the disc; the rest are downloads.

Its Activision though, so no one should really be surprised, lol

Language -Tasuki-

Pink_Floyd

#35

Pink_Floyd said:

I think why people are upset is because it gives publishers more tactics to use against the consumer and put even more of a hold on gamers. Does anyone remember online passes? Well we all know how at one time you couldn't buy a game without entering a code just to play online. I can only imagine if this became implemented as a standard practice, then everyone would have a different tone.

Tasuki

#36

Tasuki said:

@JaxonH Problem is, Activision is afraid to take that gamble especially when it comes to Infinity Ward CoD. Let's remember the last IW CoD game wasn't to much of it hit with players so while I agree it will probably sell well Activision can't afford to take that gamble in the eyes of its stock holders.

Boerewors

#37

Boerewors said:

If only there was a way to get some sort of Infinite Warfare with better shooting mechanics, better traversal and huge mechs. And that it would be made by the same guys that brought us the original Modern Warfare that Activision is wh*ring out now...

If only there was such a game....

daveofduncan

#38

daveofduncan said:

Sell the remaster with EVERY version of IW then that's a guaranteed profit. None of this special edition bonus BS. People won't pay £60 for a game they don't want just to play a RM. Sell it with the standard edition for saying £35-£40 and then certain doubters will probably bite.

leucocyte

#39

leucocyte said:

there are a number of retailers offering the 30-days early access to CoD 4:MW-Remastered campaign if you pre-pay for the legacy edition, and they're not shipping the discs out early. i assume this might only work (if at all) for the multiplayer component which doesn't have early access. or else there are several retailers that have just broken trading standards laws.

dryrain

#40

dryrain said:

This has just made up my mind to cancel my order. The only reason I was buying the package was for the remaster

GlynCR

#41

GlynCR said:

@leucocyte its a code - not a disc, i got mine when i preordered it goes live on wednesday, this is why i dont understamd why this news of it needing the disc doesnt make sense to me

its not the retailers breaking any rules either it said on the last CoD4RM trailer that its 30 days early access on ps4 if you prepurchase

Rudy_Manchego

#42

Rudy_Manchego said:

I can see reasons for releasing as such and this policy is in line with an attempt to tie the two games together.

My feelings are that we are consumers but we are not sheep. If you don't agree with a marketing or sales strategy, vote with your wallets and don't buy or pre-order.

dryrain

#43

dryrain said:

Its very sneaky of them because even when you look at the FAQ for the remaster game they make no mention of the fact you need to have the disc inserted for the remaster to work. I would think that is a major point. Also it should be mentioned on the websites where you are buying the game. Its a month before launch lots of people have made pre-orders for this game. I think gamers should have been made aware of this.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...