Microsoft is sending notifications out to Xbox Game Pass members reminding them that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 won’t be in the subscription service this year, so if they want to play the game at launch, they’ll have to buy it.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 launches globally on Xbox Series X and S, PlayStation 5, PC via Battle.net, Xbox on PC, and Steam, and Nintendo Switch 2 on Friday, October 23, 2026. Microsoft has decided to stick with $70 as the standard edition price point for Call of Duty this year, resisting the temptation to go to $80 or beyond. The Vault Edition costs $100.

With Modern Warfare 4, Call of Duty is certainly changing tactics. For one, Activision has a Switch 2 version ready. Two, it’s finally leaving the last generation of consoles behind. And three, Modern Warfare 4 will not launch day one on Game Pass, after mainline Call of Duty games had done so in previous years.

One of the first decisions new Xbox boss Asha Sharma made after she replaced Phil Spencer at the top of Microsoft’s gaming business was to pull new Call of Duty launches out of Game Pass, instead adding them in a year later, while cutting the price of a subscription as part of a wider effort to rebuild the brand in the eyes of hardcore fans.

Casual Game Pass subscribers had become accustomed to new Call of Duty games popping up in their libraries on day one, so you can understand Microsoft’s thinking here. With the pressure to maximize revenue at Xbox perhaps greater than it’s ever been, Microsoft wants to make sure it captures as many Call of Duty fans as possible at launch.

The change with Call of Duty is an outlier — other first-party Xbox games remain day one launches on Game Pass, such as Gears of War: E-Day, Clockwork Revolution, and Fable. Call of Duty, though, is a bigger release than all three of those games combined, and Microsoft clearly felt it needed to move the needle back towards game sales and the revenue it brings in for its biggest franchise.

This all ties into the ongoing debate about whether Game Pass day one launches cannibalize sales. It’s an issue that has snapped at Microsoft’s heels ever since it launched the subscription service. Perhaps you could take the removal of Call of Duty as the final word on the debate — if Call of Duty can’t make Game Pass make sense, what can? But it will be interesting to see what Sharma does with Game Pass going forward. Amid rumors of a pause on new Game Pass deals with third parties, next to no growth on console, and the ongoing Xbox business “reset” that looks set to result in a handful of game studios either closing or being sold off, the future is unclear for Microsoft’s subscription service.

Wesley is Director, News at IGN. Find him on Twitter at @wyp100. You can reach Wesley at wesley_yinpoole@ign.com or confidentially at wyp100@proton.me.

After a long hiatus from Civilization 7 following my original review – after which I wasn't exactly in love with it – I decided to give it another go with the big 1.4 Test of Time update, and more specifically the 1.4.1 patch that came out in late June 2026. Firaxis has made pretty big changes across the board, including some much-needed quality-of-life improvements here. But I don't know if I agree with the overall philosophy of making it more like older, existing Civ games.

In May, Take-Two' Strauss Zelnick told Game File that Civilization 7 had been a "bridge too far" for existing fans of the series. That's definitely the guiding star the Test of Time update was based on. And man, from my perspective, that was completely the wrong message to take from the negative feedback to Civ 7's launch. There's a quote I keep coming back to from No Man's Sky developer Sean Murray that goes, "Players are normally almost always right about problems … [but] they're almost never right about the solutions." I think Firaxis has put too much faith in the solutions certain vocal portions of the player base were calling for.

With Civilization 7, the desire to streamline and simplify this legendary 4X series feels like it has gone a bit too far, particularly when it comes to the interface. It’s frustratingly inadequate at providing me with the information I need to play well, or even understand what's going on sometimes. Even so, it does have improved warfare and diplomacy, a bit of added narrative flair, as well as mostly gorgeous graphics and sound, so it can still give me reasons to keep clicking one more turn late into the night. There’s good reason to believe that with Firaxis’s usual pace of patches and expansions it can refine its new ideas and become everything it ought to be, and while what’s here right now is at least still a fun time, it’s also a bigger step backward for the series than we’re accustomed to when a new age dawns. - Leana Hafer, February 3, 2025

Score: 7

Read the full Civilization 7 review.

I'm a fan of civ switching. It's very contentious, and I get that. And it hasn't gone away or anything. You can still switch civilizations every age if you want to. You can set the AI to change civilizations every age. I don't even hate the way "timeless" civs have been implemented, necessarily – which let you play the same civ through all three ages like in previous games. There are unique policy cards for each one even when they're not in their native "apex" age. And I especially love the Syncretism feature that lets you borrow unique units or improvements from a civ you're aware of that’s in its apex age.

I played one campaign as Iceland through all three ages, and in the modern age I picked up American Marines as a unique unit through Syncretism, which felt very appropriate. You know, we used to be vikings, so of course we'd be good at amphibious warfare. I don't hate that it's an option. It's more the principle of the thing. I don't feel like Civ 7 puts its best foot forward when it backs off of some of its most interesting ideas.

Where this really turns out to be a bummer is in the victory conditions, with each one having been converted into a really simplistic race for points that may or may not include some vestigial nods to the age-specific objectives from 1.0. A lot of those objectives were a total mess. I'm not denying that at all. But rather than getting refined, they've been replaced with something far less interesting.

Tourism is back, but it doesn't work anything like it did in Civ 6. It's just the name for cultural victory points, and it hasn't done anything to break up the wonder spam meta. There's also Domination for military, GDP for economic, and Innovation for science, and they're functionally almost identical. The science victory has a small, interesting wrinkle that you need to build and defend a launch pad.

But all of the victories now work by requiring you to get your score in one of the four categories to a certain threshold above the civ in second place, which starts a five turn countdown before ending the game. 1.0 mechanics like factories and treasure fleets now simply give you GDP points, which also looks at things like how much gold your cities are producing and how many trade routes you have. Domination mostly comes from owning conquered cities. Innovation comes from special projects and the tech tree.

The victory threshold shrinks over time from 5x in Antiquity to, at the lowest I've seen, 1.5x about 60% of the way through the Modern Age. This means you can end the campaign quite early if no one else is really competing with you for the same victory objective. And while that can be a welcome way to wrap things up instead of playing out 50 more turns of a foregone conclusion, it also feels like an admission that they just couldn't make the late game fun, so they might as well give you a way to skip it.

The 1.4 patch notes talk about the fact that you can now focus on one victory condition from the very beginning like it's a huge improvement, but I actually liked the ability to change up my strategy between ages, too. And there's no longer any reward for doing that. My Icelandic Empire was the terror of the seas during the Exploration Age, as they should be, and I just ended up continuing my momentum into a Domination victory in the Modern Age even though it might have been more interesting to settle down and go for Tourism with all my bonuses to natural wonders. It was too late to change my mind, really.

The quality-of-life changes are significant, at least. The interface and tooltips have been greatly expanded with ways to quickly access more information. You can pin tooltips using… the K key? Okay. Weird choice, but you can rebind it at least. The Civlopedia is still missing plenty of features I'd want, like clickable hyperlinks that take you to a relevant article. But it's a lot easier to locate relevant details or dig deeper for more information on how a specific figure is calculated.

Game setup options have been expanded as well, and are a bit better explained. They're still not quite as robust as older Civ games. But certain map types come with additional variables you can tweak like sea level. Archipelago actually looks like an archipelago, though I still think it's a bit too land dense on the high sea level setting. There's a bunch of custom difficulty modifiers as well, if you don't mind the AI getting free money but don't want their units to get arbitrary combat bonuses, which is nice. You can even set whether they stick with their starting civilization or pick a new one every age.

So where am I at with Civ 7 after all these updates? Does it finally have the juice? Well, I started a new campaign while I was writing this that I plan to keep playing just for fun, so like I said in my initial review, it's not lacking in that “just one more turn” quality the series is known for. It's a huge relief to have an interface that doesn't hide important details from me. But here's the thing: I would still rather be playing Civ 5 or Civ 6. Civ 7 still isn’t able to compete with their years of patches and expansions, especially since it has backtracked on some of its more daring ideas, which makes it feel even more like a stripped-down Civ 6.

The Test of Time update didn't suddenly make this my go-to Civ. I think it's going to take at least a big expansion or two to find out if it ever crosses that line. And while I disagree with the design philosophy that has guided a lot of its changes since launch – victory conditions in particular feel like a step back – there are at least meaningful improvements I can point to as well.