There’s a lot going on at the moment in the first-person shooter game space. On the one side we’ve got Call of Duty, the biggest name in the shooter genre and one of the biggest in all of gaming, returning with its standard yearly releases that always perform well. Then on the other side we’ve got Battlefield, a franchise that has struggled in recent years but is promising to return with a vengeance, following years of lessons learned and an intent to once again rival Call of Duty. Despite the looming threat of Battlefield’s imminent success however, Call of Duty seems to be unfazed by its competition following years of success.
According to an exclusive report from Insider Gaming, leadership at Activision allegedly “are not worried” about the upcoming Battlefield 6 releasing just a month before Call of Duty, because the series is just “too big to fail”. Whilst the Call of Duty franchise is enormous, and it will always be successful to some degree regardless of the state of its releases, I think it’s a crucial oversight from Activision to not see threat from EA’s Battlefield. Whilst they may be too big to fail, the audience that’s holding them up is growing weary of their repeated criticisms falling on deaf ears, and Battlefield 6 might just be enticing enough to shake the foundational audience that Activision has been taking for granted.
Perhaps the single biggest issue that Activision has failed to address and has caused massive upset in the Call of Duty community has been the excessive use of monetization. At this point, we’re all used to multiplayer games coming with paid additional purchases, even if we bought them at full price in the first place. Whilst the paid Battle Pass in a premium price game is indeed still very greedy, it’s a battle that we’ve already lost – Battlefield is implementing it too, and nobody really minds. However, Activision has been pushing it far further than it had any right to go in the first place.
Alongside the paid Battle Pass purchased within the fully-priced game, Activision have also started to add a “Premium Event Pass” for select collaborations with other franchises. You might think this is okay if it gives you everything the collaboration has to offer – but it doesn’t! Let’s take the recent Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles collaboration as an example. This had a Premium Event Pass that cost $10 to purchase, functioning as a separate Battle Pass to the other that was already running at the time. However, this only gave a limited selection of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles-themed items, as there were four other bundles to purchase, each being priced at $20. Yes, to get the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles entire collection in Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 or Warzone, you’d have needed to pay $90. That’s more than the price of the game!
What’s even worse is this isn’t the first time it happened. Just a month prior, Call of Duty did the exact same thing in a collaboration with Squid Game 2. There was a Premium Event Pass, and three cosmetic bundles that all added up to approximately $90 of microtransactions. Fans were outraged at the time, and no changes were made later down the line. There’s still a constant flow of high-priced cosmetics, including some locked behind a Premium Event Pass such as the most recent Beavis & Butt-Head collaboration.
Activision have been doing their best to drain Call of Duty gamers of every possible cent they have, and even then they push it beyond usually acceptable limits. Special events have their own paid Event Passes, collaborations are broken into smaller bundles to earn the most they can, and it’s all overpriced for what it is. Fans are tired of the constant and extremely transparent greed demonstrated by the company, and whilst EA’s Battlefield is surely not going to be cheap, we’ve also seen no signs of ridiculous collaborations, additional Premium Event Passes and desperation to take every last cent from players quite yet.
This leads us quite nicely to the second key issue that has been spoken loudly by the Call of Duty community, especially following the reveal of Battlefield 6. Not only are cosmetics expensive, but they’re also increasingly more ridiculous in their aesthetics and collaboration choices too. Call of Duty isn’t set on the wacky island of Fortnite with its cartoonish and multiversal elements baked into its DNA, it’s just a shooter set in the real world. It presents itself as a serious game, with a dramatic story and showing respect for real-world veterans. Why then can I load into a game and be squadding up with Nicki Minaj, an anime girl, a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle and Roger the alien from American Dad?
There was a moment in time where the crossovers between icons of pop culture was really fun to experience. Fortnite did build an entire empire from that, after all. But Call of Duty’s implementation seems to be tone-deaf and absurdist in its approach, and that’s proven to not be to everyone’s taste. With an increasing fatigue towards these collaborations, it’s getting harder not to see them as cynical cash-grabs with no deeper meaning. What ties does American Dad have to Call of Duty, and why would the cast of the show find themselves here in-game? There’s no artistic intent and there’s no creative vision, it’s purely IP-based cosmetic slop that might pick up some sales from novelty value. That cycle has been going on for some time now, and I think many players are tired of it.
Interestingly, it’s not just me or the fans who are getting tired of it, as EA themselves are positioning Battlefield to stand in opposition to Call of Duty’s ludicrous cosmetics. Whilst Call of Duty are adding more guns that can turn into rollercoaster animations, EA have emphasized their desire to keep cosmetics in Battlefield 6 realistic. In their own incredibly refreshing words, Battlefield 6 design director Shashank Uchil told DBLTAP that “it has to be grounded […] soldiers, on the ground”, before adding “I don’t think it needs Nicki Minaj, let’s keep it real”.
This was a relief to see, especially with the direct callout to Call of Duty’s addition of Nicki Minaj. It’s ridiculous the direction that Call of Duty has taken things, and there’s no signs of stopping either with the upcoming Black Ops 7. We’ve already seen the cosmetics that are included in the Vault Edition of the game, and they’re mostly ridiculous, goofy and unrealistic. Battlefield are positioning themselves in direct opposition to Call of Duty’s antics, and I think that could hurt them more than they realize.
These two may be the biggest issues, but the list really is endless of frustrations that Call of Duty has that Battlefield are looking to do differently. For example there’s the Skill-Based Matchmaking system used in Call of Duty that many players are incredibly frustrated with. Even casual matches can quickly become stressful and needlessly punishing thanks to a poorly optimized system for creating matches that Activision refuses to back down on. Meanwhile, EA are giving Battlefield a multi-sided matchmaking system that prioritizes ping and speed to load up a game, with just a slight consideration for trying to match up skilled players further down the list of factors taken into account. This should create more diverse games with a more diverse skillset, giving casual players a chance to get some kills, talented players a chance to flex their abilities and making each game feel different.
There’s also the issue of cheating and hacking. Whilst this is inevitable in any online game eventually, Battlefield 6 is at least trying to take a firmer hand on it with the requirement of Secure Boot to be able to play the game. This theoretically means that cheating software can’t hide in the boot-up of the computer, making it either impossible to run or much easier to detect. How successful this will be remains to be seen, but it’s refreshing to see a security solution that has no impact on performance and potentially a big impact on those trying to game maliciously.
Whilst Activision and Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 may not be scared of Battlefield 6, I think they should be. Fan outcry has been ignored time and time again in the Call of Duty community, and it’s always in favor of more aggressive monetization. EA and Battlefield though are clearly trying to listen to these criticisms and create a game that’s more grounded, realistic, and most importantly, fun to play. Activision has taken for granted all the goodwill they’ve been given by their players, and whilst they might not be scared of Battlefield’s impressive beta figures and immense audience hype, perhaps they’ll be in for a shock when Black Ops 7 releases.
Do you agree with our opinions on the current state of Call of Duty and the threat Battlefield poses? Do you think Call of Duty is too big to fail, and do you think it will? Let us know all your thoughts in the comments down below, and keep your eyes on GameLuster for more gaming news and analysis like this.
