Friday, December 2nd 2016

Activision Blizzard Announces Sale of Special Call of Duty: WWII Bravery Pack

Activision Blizzard today announced the newest iteration in its award-winning in-game program to support the Call of Duty Endowment's efforts to help unemployed veterans find high-quality careers in the United States and United Kingdom. The Call of Duty: WWII - Call of Duty Endowment (C.O.D.E.) Bravery Pack (PS4/XboxOne/PC), developed by Sledgehammer Games, includes a special Call of Duty Endowment in-game helmet, calling card, and emblem.

The pack will be available for a suggested retail price of $4.99 in the in-game store and the Sony and Microsoft online stores. For the first time, a personalization pack benefitting the Call of Duty Endowment will also be available at all GameStop stores across the U.S. as well as online through BestBuy.com and Amazon.com. One hundred percent of the proceeds received by Activision through the Bravery Pack will directly fund the Endowment's mission to help veterans secure quality careers when they leave military service. More than 4,800 veterans have been placed in high quality jobs through Call of Duty personalization packs to-date, which is a brigade-sized group of vets.
"Through Activision's previous calling card and personalization pack programs, we have raised more than $2.8 million towards helping veterans beat unemployment and underemployment as they transition back into civilian life," said Dan Goldenberg, executive director of the Call of Duty Endowment. "We want to thank the studio team at Sledgehammer Games for their dedication in creating the Bravery Pack, and their continued devotion to the Endowment's mission of supporting those who served in uniform. We'd also like to thank our partners Activision, Sony, Microsoft, GameStop, Amazon, and Best Buy for their invaluable support of our ongoing mission."

The Call of Duty Endowment is a non-profit foundation created in 2009 by Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick. With a mission to identify and fund the most effective and efficient employment-focused veteran-serving organizations, the Endowment was initially established in the U.S. with a goal to place 25,000 veterans in jobs by the end of 2018. That goal was met two years early, and has subsequently and ambitiously been revised to placing 50,000 veterans into high-quality jobs by 2019. To date, the Endowment has funded the job placement of more than 40,000 veterans. The program has also recently announced the expansion of its efforts to help veterans in the United Kingdom.
Add your own comment

9 Comments on Activision Blizzard Announces Sale of Special Call of Duty: WWII Bravery Pack

#1
RejZoR
Well, finally something I can support. It's a visual accessory thing only, it's not that expensive considering people spend 10x as much for really ugly skins in CS:GO in a heartbeat and it helps veterans. It gives you sense of pride and accomplishment if you have it. But doesn't affect your gameplay if you decide not to buy it. Get it EA?
Posted on Reply
#2
Totally
Many e-peens are going to be...








well endowed. /cringe


I couldn't help myself, I'll see myself out.
Posted on Reply
#3
the54thvoid
I hope all funds from such packs go to that cause on a 100% non-profit (after costs) basis. That being said, a % of all profits from war games (hey EA!) should go to veteran services.
Posted on Reply
#4
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
the54thvoid said:
I hope all funds from such packs go to that cause on a 100% non-profit (after costs) basis. That being said, a % of all profits from war games (hey EA!) should go to veteran services.
Not trying to give EA ideas but maybe their lootboxs would be semi-acceptable if a percentage of the profits went to charities too....

EA could turn a negative thing into a semi not-so-bad thing. It would give people some real incentive to jump on microtransactions that way.
Posted on Reply
#5
PowerPC
It's very ironic that when CoD was being developed for the first time, the veteran (or was it general?) who they took advice from for how to make the game, wasn't very happy with how the game turned out to be an arcade style shooter instead of a realistic depiction of WW2 events...
Posted on Reply
#6
the54thvoid
PowerPC said:
It's very ironic that when CoD was being developed for the first time, the veteran (or was it general?) who they took advice from for how to make the game, wasn't very happy with how the game turned out to be an arcade style shooter instead of a realistic depiction of WW2 events...
The rewardless brutality of war doesn't make for a very enjoyable game. You can't make war fun so I guess the general wasn't briefed very well.

Now, WW1 Dark Souls edition - that would work. A game that wants you to smash your keyboard and punch your monitor.
Posted on Reply
#7
RejZoR
FreedomEclipse said:
Not trying to give EA ideas but maybe their lootboxs would be semi-acceptable if a percentage of the profits went to charities too....

EA could turn a negative thing into a semi not-so-bad thing. It would give people some real incentive to jump on microtransactions that way.
I still wouldn't give them a pass if it interfered with the gameplay mechanics. If it's entirely separate and optional thing, yes, if it's integral part of the game, still no, even if for good cause. Games are primarily for the consumer who buys it and secondarily for everyone else. If they screw up primary point of games, then I have no interest in the second one. Because in that case I might just as well donate directly to the charities...
Posted on Reply
#8
gaphiltfish
Between the loot boxes, shitty cosmetics, gamification and glaring historical inaccuracies, CoD is a disgrace to all those who fought in war. At least they are doing a tiny bit to offset it here, I suppose.
Posted on Reply
#9
Vayra86
FreedomEclipse said:
Not trying to give EA ideas but maybe their lootboxs would be semi-acceptable if a percentage of the profits went to charities too....

EA could turn a negative thing into a semi not-so-bad thing. It would give people some real incentive to jump on microtransactions that way.
NO. Just no. It would give people an excuse for gambling and make it socially acceptable as well. Worst thing that could happen.
Posted on Reply