Call of Duty goes to Korea and Steam Deck prices skyrocket: May 27-June 2

Hey, readers.

Late yesterday, Sony streamed a “State of Play” presentation, showing off several big games coming to PlayStation 5. I already had this issue all planned out before the stream, so I won’t go too deep into what was shown off. But here’s a summary of some of the highlights:

Now, let’s hit the news of the week, and don’t forget to submit any questions for me to answer if you have any “What’s the deal with [insert gaming topic here]”-type curiosities.

Regular as clockwork, a new Call of Duty is due to release in the fall. Series creator Infinity Ward is taking the reins this year, and the studio is taking the franchise to a new locale. Modern Warfare 4 follows a unit of young South Korean soldiers on the frontlines when North Korea launches a surprise attack. (Infinity Ward seems particularly interested in exploring South Korea’s policy of mandatory military service in the story.)

It’s not a particularly original premise, but it’s been a while since a Call of Duty game put you in the boots of a grunt instead of some super-experienced special ops dude. That being said, you’ll still also be playing as legacy character Captain Price, who’s on the run after the events of Modern Warfare 3. The storylines will converge, probably in explosive fashion, per series tradition.

On the multiplayer side, Modern Warfare 4 promises some improvements with movement fluidity and gunplay, with techniques like slide-canceling in the mix. The studio promised that it wouldn’t add any stupid crossover skins that would break immersion, which is hugely disappointing for anyone hoping to play as Beavis and Butthead in Modern Warfare 4.

The game is out on October 23, avoiding the wrath of Grand Theft Auto 6. For the first time in over a decade, the series is skipping PlayStation 4 and Xbox One (Warzone is leaving those platforms, too). Additionally, Modern Warfare 4 will have a Switch 2 version, being the first Call of Duty game on a Nintendo platform since 2013’s Call of Duty: Ghosts.

Like any long-running franchise, Call of Duty has had its ups and downs, but the military shooter series has had some fairly low lows recently. 2023’s Modern Warfare III, which was primarily overseen by Sledgehammer Games, had a controversially short, unstructured, and unceremonious campaign.

While Treyarch’s Black Ops 6 was a decent return to form (at least, in my personal opinion), last year’s Black Ops 7 (which I skipped) was poorly received for its always-online campaign, nonsensical story, and use of AI-generated assets. The sales figures reflected that, with Black Ops 7 underperforming compared to usual Call of Duty fare.

Okay, let’s take a step back. In 2007, Infinity Ward released Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which was the first Modern Warfare game, but the fourth overall mainline Call of Duty entry. Then, they made Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 in 2009, and co-developed Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 in 2011.

Where things get complicated is when Infinity Ward decided to reboot the series, with a game simply called Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in 2019. The sequel to the reboot, released in 2022, was titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II (with Roman numerals!), and it was immediately followed up with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III a year later. Modern Warfare 4 is the sequel to that 2023 game.

Ergo, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007) and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 (2026) are totally different games. And people think Kingdom Hearts titles are ridiculous. I mean, they are still, but you know what I mean.

Nothing lasts forever, and that’s especially true of online multiplayer video games. But advocates for game preservation and irate consumers (there’s probably overlap between the two) have been rallying against the practice of companies shutting down online games. That “Stop Killing Games” movement, which originated in Europe, has made its way stateside.

The California State Assembly passed a bill called the Protect Our Games Act, which “require[s] video game companies to give players advance notice before shutting down server-dependent games” and to keep purchased games playable in some state, whether it be through an offline mode or private servers.

The bill moves on to the California State Senate, and the Stop Killing Games movement called the development a “big update for game preservation.” Of course, there are a few caveats: For one, such a measure would only apply to paid games and not free-to-play titles like Fortnite. And should the bill pass the State Senate, it would only apply to games published in California released on or after January 1, 2027. Still, given the large foothold the games industry has in the state, it would still be quite a big deal.

Regardless, there’s an evident outcry for preserving online games—I’m sure that anyone reading remembers a beloved online game from their past that they can no longer access or play.

The Stop Killing Games movement began in 2024 when a YouTuber named Ross Scott criticized Ubisoft for its shutdown of The Crew, a 2014 racing game. Though The Crew had single-player capabilities, it was a game that required a constant internet connection, and the game not only had its servers taken offline, but it was removed entirely from storefronts.

Scott then launched a campaign website, and petitions to the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Union asking lawmakers to intervene grew in traction, even garnering a (mostly non-)response from the UK Parliament.

Publishers and trade groups like the Entertainment Software Association have mostly been opposed to the movement, arguing that discontinuing online games “must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer commercially viable” and that restrictions would “curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create.”

There are spirited debates to be had, but none can be worse than some Slovakian member of the European Parliament arguing that “woke ideology and political correctness” is what’s killing games. Yeesh.

Thanks for reading this week’s issue! As you might have noticed, I’m skipping my usual “On Deck” backlog diary (I originally planned a blurb about Kena: Bridge of Spirits for this week). I’m contemplating a tighter newsletter and stripping out any content that feels like a personal blog and isn’t focused on the news.

But let me know how you feel about that. Is it interesting to hear which old games I’ve been playing, or do you prefer quicker news digests?

Peace out,
Chris Compendio