Charging this much for PS3-era games with paid DLC sounds absurd
When two beloved entries in the Call of Duty franchise were finally announced for modern PlayStation hardware, the gaming community's long-awaited homecoming quickly turned into a reckoning with value. Activision's pricing structure — $40 per base game, with DLC potentially pushing the total past $160 — has forced players to weigh nostalgia against the uncomfortable reality that these are unaltered ports of fifteen-year-old software. It is a familiar tension in the digital age: the price of access to the past, and who gets to set it.
- PlayStation players who had been locked out of Black Ops and Black Ops 2 for years finally saw a return date — then saw the price tags.
- At $40 per base game and $10 per DLC pack, a complete collection could cost over $160 for games originally built on PS3-era hardware with no upgrades whatsoever.
- Social media and Reddit erupted with frustration, with fans calling the pricing indefensible for straight ports lacking improved visuals, better servers, or any modern enhancements.
- The backlash now puts Activision in a precarious position — the community wanted to return to these games, but not at a cost that outpaces what many pay for brand-new titles.
When Treyarch announced that Black Ops and Black Ops 2 would arrive on modern PlayStation consoles this July, it felt like a genuine victory for a fanbase that had spent years watching Xbox and PC players enjoy easy access to two of the franchise's most beloved entries. That goodwill evaporated quickly once pricing details surfaced.
Store listings on PC and Xbox revealed each base game at $40, individual DLC packs at $10 apiece, and season passes at $30. Across both titles, eight DLC packs exist in total — meaning a player seeking the complete experience could spend upward of $160, assuming PlayStation pricing mirrors the other platforms. The sting comes from what these releases actually are: unmodified ports of games from 2010 and 2012, with no visual upgrades, no frame-rate improvements, no new content, and no modern server infrastructure.
The response online was swift. On X and Reddit, players questioned the logic of paying premium prices for PS3-era software delivered without meaningful enhancement. The frustration was less about the games themselves — which remain genuinely cherished — and more about the gap between what was being charged and what was being offered.
Activision now faces a community that wanted to come home to these titles, only to find the door priced higher than expected. Whether fan resistance reshapes the strategy, or nostalgia proves strong enough to carry sales regardless, remains the open question heading into July.
Call of Duty fans had reason to celebrate when Treyarch announced that Black Ops and Black Ops 2 would finally arrive on modern PlayStation consoles this July. For years, PlayStation players had been shut out of these two pillars of the franchise—games that defined a generation of online multiplayer and remain among the most cherished entries in the series. The return felt like a genuine win for a community that had watched Xbox and PC players enjoy easy access while they were forced to dust off old hardware or go without.
Then the pricing appeared, and the mood shifted.
When Black Ops and Black Ops 2 recently received store updates on PC and Xbox, the numbers became visible. Each base game carries a $40 price tag. Individual DLC packs—and there are eight of them across both games—cost $10 apiece. Season passes run $30. Microtransaction cosmetics are free. On its surface, this is straightforward pricing for a digital re-release. But the math tells a different story when you do it out loud: $40 plus $40 equals $80 before you own a single piece of additional content. Add in the four major DLC packs for the original Black Ops—First Strike, Escalation, Annihilation, and Rezurrection—and the four for Black Ops 2—Revolution, Uprising, Vengeance, and Apocalypse—and you're looking at another $80 in DLC costs. A complete collection, if Activision prices the PlayStation versions identically, could run $160.
What makes this difficult to justify is what these games actually are. Black Ops launched in 2010. Black Ops 2 came out in 2012. They are straight ports of PS3-era software, not remakes or remasters. Activision has been explicit about this: these are re-releases, which means players should expect no significant visual overhaul, no new content, no frame-rate improvements, no upgraded textures, no modern server infrastructure. They are the games as they existed fifteen years ago, now playable on newer hardware.
The backlash has been swift and unforgiving. On X, replies to pricing announcements filled with complaints about paying premium rates for decade-old ports. Reddit users were harsher still. Commenters in r/gaming pointed out the obvious: these are straight ports with no meaningful upgrades. Others noted the absence of improved textures, better servers, or frame-rate enhancements. The frustration is not hard to understand. In 2026, charging this much for PS3-era games with paid DLC structures intact feels, by any reasonable measure, indefensible.
What happens next will likely depend on whether PlayStation players decide the nostalgia is worth the price, or whether the backlash becomes loud enough to force Activision to reconsider. For now, the company has a problem on its hands: a community that wanted to come home to these games, only to discover that home costs more than they expected to pay.
Citas Notables
These are straight ports with no upgraded textures, better servers, or frame-rate improvements— r/gaming commenters
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would Activision price fifteen-year-old games at $40 each? That seems deliberately provocative.
The pricing isn't arbitrary—it's consistent with what they're charging on PC and Xbox right now. But you're right that it feels tone-deaf. These aren't new games, they're not enhanced, they're just available on a new platform.
So the DLC is still $10 per pack? Even though those packs are ancient?
Yes. Eight packs total across both games. If someone wants the full experience, they're looking at $160. That's the number that broke the internet.
Is there any argument in Activision's favor here? Storage costs, licensing, anything?
Not really. These are digital re-releases. The infrastructure is already built. The licensing for the content is already paid. Charging premium prices for zero new work feels like pure extraction.
Will people actually pay it?
That's the real question. Nostalgia is powerful, but $160 is a lot of money for games you can remember playing for free. The backlash suggests players feel disrespected.
What would fair pricing look like?
Probably $20 for both base games, maybe $5 for DLC packs, or bundle everything for $40-50. Something that acknowledges what these actually are: legacy content, not new products.