Skip to main content

Crackdown 3 was the most-played new game at launch, beating Far Cry New Dawn and Metro Exodus

Crackdown 3 was supposed to launch many months ago, but was pushed back to February 15 to polish up the experience. Luckily, it's available right now through the Microsoft Store. You can buy it for $60, or you can grab it with Xbox Game Pass, for $10 a month.

Crackdown 3 is split into two different downloads and supports Xbox Play Anywhere and Xbox One X. The campaign is separate from the "Wrecking Zone" multiplayer mode. The campaign doesn't feature the cloud-powered destruction, so you'll have to battle other players if you want a taste of that.

According to a report by GamesIndustry, despite launching with heavy-hitters like Metro Exodus, the title has managed to beat them all and was one of the most-played games at launch. It only lost out to free-to-play games like Apex Legends and Fortnite. You can read an excerpt from the article below.

While its physical launch sales were somewhat disappointing... there is data to suggest Crackdown 3 has still been a hit on Xbox One. TrueAchievements has released its latest weekly chart of the platform's most played games, which shows Crackdown 3 was the third most popular title of the week. It was only surpassed by Apex Legends and Fortnite, in terms of the number... that played it, and both of those are free-to-play... it's the single-player campaign specifically that reached No. 3 in the charts. The multiplayer... placed much lower at No. 22. TrueAchievements' chart is calculated by scanning user accounts... more than half a million... for which games they have played in the previous week... It's worth emphasising that these are games actively played, not just ones where achievements have been unlocked... Metro Exodus was only the 32nd most-played game of the week, while Far Cry New Dawn was 37th. Both were beaten by the beta for Black Desert... and... Jump Force didn't even place.

The success of Crackdown 3 can be attributed to Xbox Game Pass, because reviews weren't positive at all. In our review, we said, "Crackdown 3 just doesn't meet contemporary standards as a premium $60 title, with dated visuals, thin gameplay features, and an under-delivered story. There are too many open world superhero-style games that simply do it better. That said, it's not a bad game, by any means."

Hopefully Crackdown 3 will see continued success in the coming months as more gamers join Xbox Game Pass. According to Microsoft's Executive Vice President of Gaming Phil Spencer, the subscription service already numbers millions of members.

Asher Madan handles gaming news for Windows Central. Before joining Windows Central in 2017, Asher worked for a number of different gaming outlets. He has a background in medical science and is passionate about all forms of entertainment, cooking, and antiquing.

34 Comments
  • great example why Xbox Game Pass is good for developers and their games. I dont understand why people bash the service, thinking that playing games on Xbox Game Pass is a bad thing when u dont buy the same game for full price. A game played is a game played.
  • We all know which “group” bashes the service.
  • Haha yup. And I haven't seen that one specific person from that 'group' on here in a while either.
  • Don’t jinx it. Xbox Game Pass isn’t being forced onto anyone. If you don’t want to pay $1 or $2 or whatever the price is right now for access to numerous “AAA” games, then that’s your choice. But somehow the argument is that that choice is bad for consumers? What? I’ve played Forza Horizon 4 and Crackdown 3 with the service and I’ve saved so much money.
  • No, you don't understand Asher Madan.
    Choice isn't bad for consumers. It's good.
    What's bad however is that quality is not the priority but quantity. Most Game pass or PSNow ads focus on the number of games. In the case of game pass, if we exclude the yearly forza game, the last 3 major MS published games were SoT (empty and unfinished game), SoD2 (full of bugs) and Crackdown 3 (MASSIVE downgrade, incomplete, missing key features + bugs). There is no real accountability. These company can launch a game with major feature missing just because they can get away with it. The priority is no longer make a good game so that people buys it. And ofc there is the question of how much is a company making. If crackdown 3 sells badly but most people just rent it for 1$, how profitable is it? Are companies going to keep investing huge amount in new games?
  • Your last paragraph is an interesting one, I guess it really depends on how much money Microsoft is passing onto developers from the Game Pass service. I'm guessing, it's not enough, because there aren't really any HUGE recent AAA games on there outside of Microsoft Studios titles.
  • Yes, it doesn't make sense for these games to go on game pass if they can sell the games at 60 bucks.
    I was looking at the games of game pass and besides the MS games most of the rest are old arcade games that are probably struggling to sell. The few AAA games sold are old games or older versions of a current franchise. I've quickly looked at all the games currently on game pass and personally there is only one game that I would play. And that's LiS 2 episode 1. But I can buy it right now on steam for just 4 bucks. Or I'll just wait for the complete game to come out.
  • Oh i know.. I think the lack of such a service that offers $1, $2 deals next to the standard $10 is creating jealousy. They completely ignore the fact that not everyone can spend big on games, and a game reaching players is bigger thanks to XGP.
  • Oh yes Asher Madan, the group of people that likes to own their games rather than renting them.
    The group of people who aren't company fanboy and who will trash game pass just as much as they would trash the ******* PSNow. The group of people who prefers quality over quantity.
    The group of people who want to play what they want to play and don't want companies to decide what we play.
    The group of people who likes to reward quality games and punish rushed incomplete, buggy and massively downgraded games.
    The group of people who likes to lend or borrow games to their friends and family.
    ... ofc there is that other group of people who will praise the service no matter what just because it's done by a certain company they worship... :)
  • I actually do agree with a lot of what you say there, but I do need to point out, you do not own the games you buy, you merely own a license to use it. Whether you consider those things separate is up to you, but the fact of the matter is, when you purchase a game disc you actually are not free to do with it whatever you want. As an aside, I do enjoy Game Pass, simply because it means I have access to a lot of games I would never have bought (for lack of funds, or just that I thought they wouldn't interest me) and have since been pleasantly surprised. Honestly anyone who has a television/movie streaming service, should definitely jump on Game Pass (or PS Now), but I guess if you disagree with those services as well it's not for you. Also Game Pass isn't what is affecting game quality, it's lazy developers and stupid customers preordering games. The quality (in regards to bugs and general polish) of games have been decreasing this generation long before game rental services were in the mix.
  • Yes, we only own a license to the game. But there is still advantages. If you own a copy of a game, you can play the game whenever you want. You are not dependent on a company will to keep the game or not in the service. You don't need to keep paying to play the game. In case of physical copy you can lend or borrow games and even buy/sell it.
    When you pay monthly for a service, there is that feeling you constantly need to play what's there so that you feel like you are getting your money's worth. I've been a PS+ member since mid 2013. I must be having around 400 games from that, but the thing is I only played an handful of these games. In the last 2 years, I've finished on average 34 games per year. That's about 2-3 per month. The way I see it, is that this number is really small and I'd rather play games that I want to play than choose from a collection of games that a company tells me to play. Value wise a lot of the games in the service are old games, many already given through GWG or PS+. Often I see some of these games selling for what you pay to rent them for 15 days (5 bucks). I don't think this is like netflix because families tend to watch a lot more movies, series and TV programs in a year than gamers with games. Another thing is the concept of games as a service. Letting players rent games that are designed to make you spend more money through microtransactions. Putting unfinished games in a service and telling you we'll keep adding content, just so that you can keep paying the subscription fee... The base version of the latest Forza game had slower progression. You had to pay more cash if you wanted to double your progression speed.
    For me, games are being designed that way and that to me is very worrying... If you look at Game pass or PSNow ads, most of these focus on the quantity of games vs the "low price" per month. Even though we can't finish "over a 100 games" in a month?
    The point is that it's always quantity that is the most important thing. I've called it from the start of game pass. Look at my posts of 2 years back... Since game pass launched (excluding the yearly Forza) it's 3 in 3. 3 major MS published games having major flaws and problems.
    The common thing between all these games is 1) poor ratings and 2) company fans using "Game pass" to defend the quality of the game. Company fans will quickly defend the game by criticising professional reviews, using the subjective argument "it's a fun game" and ignore whatever flaws it has. Devs don't have to bother about critics or even launching a complete game because of game pass. With game pass they can sell the idea that they'll keep supporting the game. This is just like games in early access.
    From what I've seen, game pass allows you to rent old games, rent base game with slow progression and let you rent early access games. Personally, I'm really worried. I'm just hoping the future of gaming isn't services like game pass and PS Now...
  • Just like music and movies....everyone wants to own them, lend them, trade them, etc. Ever heard of Netflix, Spotify, Apple Music, Hulu, DO I NEED to go on. Not every person is like you or me! Streaming/renting what ever you wanna call it is the future!!!!!!!!!!
    BTW Didn't read your story. LOL
  • Maybe if you read my "story" you would have known the difference and my views on that. LOL
    I'll make it simple because it looks like you're having problems reading few paragraphs... How many movies, series, songs... does a family watch or listen per year? Now compare that to how many games a gamer finishes per year.
    I want to choose the 1-2 games I play per month. I don't want a company to tell me what to play.
    So you know what? I'll let you rent all those old arcade games, I'll let you rent all those old games that were already given on GWG or PS+, I'll let you rent all these unfinished, buggy and massively downgraded MS games.
    I'll just keep playing the RDR 2, Spider-man, Zelda botw, Dead cells, Battlefield V, Cuphead, Horizon ZD, DDLC, The witcher 3...
  • @ISO
    Oh yeah, it's wonderful. You can rush an unfinished/missing key feature (SoT/Crackdown 3), buggy (SoD2) or massively downgraded (Crackdown 3) game and get away with it.
    Company "fans" who want to damage control the product will only say "Who cares it's on game pass" or "It doesn't matter, just try it on game pass"...
    And when people try it, these same people will call it successful even though it sold poorly. It's great for dev. Quality is no longer an issue. LOL
    Excluding the yearly Forza, these last 3 major MS published games had major flaws and low ratings. But who cares about quality... LOL
  • I'm loving Crackdown 3. It's a ton of fun. Playing as Terry Crews, collecting orbs, getting increasingly more powerful and agile, getting bigger and badder weapons, and just blowing $%&# up is exactly what I wanted from the game. I would've loved more cutscenes with Terry, but that's no deal breaker. I highly recommend people who were intrigued by the game but then didn't give it a shot due to review scores to check it out for yourself. The poor reception that Crackdown 3 got is basically the final straw that convinced me that the games I enjoy the and the games most reviewers enjoy are pretty much the opposite (which is fine--I'm not criticizing them for having different opinions, just pointing out that it has made me realize we have different opinions and I should embrace that instead). I love games that are refreshingly simple and focused like Crackdown 3, Ryse, and Sea of Thieves. Crackdown 3 has similar gameplay to Sunset Overdrive (which was ironically praised for its gameplay even though there was nothing innovative about it), but without the needless, forced complexity (like equipping weapons with "amps"). I'm not playing games to micro-manage a bunch of stuff; I'm playing games to have fun, and that's what Crackdown 3 is all about.
  • I feel like the final and penultimate paragraphs are at odds with each other. If the game is missing some things, or if it is dated by today's standards - basically mediocre, why would we hope for it to "do better?" Great games should be celebrated. Not-so-great games can be pass times, but we shouldn't wish them anything in particular. Right? If a subscription service is what it takes to a make a game worth playing, well, I feel like the studio and it's developers have failed. The gaming industry is fiercely competitive. We shouldn't be celebrating mediocrity unless we just have low standards.
  • Not all games can or should be 'AAA' titles. I mean, what if I just want to play Tetris or something? Does it mean it should not be 'celebrated'? There should be a diverse availability of titles from simple mindless fun, to photorealistic awesomeness, so that everyone that wants to play would find something that suits his/her taste. I anyways don't read or watch any game 'reviews' (same with movies, novels etc. reviews). I'll take my chances on anything I find intriguing. For example, I cannot stand FPS games, yet so many acclaimed titles are FPS games, even Halo. So from my point of view, is Halo mediocre, or not worth 'celebrating'?
  • @kaymd
    He isn't talking about the budget. There are so many low budget games that are highly rated because they are good for what they are. He is talking about objective flaws in the game.
    Massive downgrade, broken promises, bugs and missing feature.
    Why do so many of you ignore the massive downgrade and flaws?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulmkyqFoMhU
  • Not all great games need to be critical darlings.
  • @RayWP7
    Totally agree. The game is missing basic feature. It is one of the most downgraded (if not the most) in history. And people are celebrating it hoping that it's successful.
    These same people probably were the same who were trashing NMS for broken promises but here so many of these people criticise professional game reviewers (like Jez of this site) and just ignores the flaws. Ignore the lies and the massive downgrade.
    Gamers should not celebrate broken promises and companies taking gamers for granted just because they are fans of the company publishing the game. We should criticise them for their failure and ask for more quality so that they improve in their next game.
  • I read that co-op is actually really fun. Maybe they should have focused on that aspect of the game and just left out wrecking zone all together.
  • Maybe they shouldn't have hype the cloud so much in 2013-2015.
    But at the time, they were trying to sell XB1 console, by selling that this mysterious POWER of the CLOUD.
    When I read old comments about this cloud tech, it's hilarious how much bs was coming from company fanboys. Fanboys will tell anything to mislead real gamers... LOL
  • This is 100% due to Game Pass, and I'm happy about that, it's the only reason why I would play the game. Especially seeing as I cannot get into a game of multiplayer, at all. But that's to be expected nowadays since I don't live in America, I've gotten used to that from Microsoft titles. So since I can only play half the game, I'm glad I didn't pay $60 for it. In regards to the campaign, it's basically Crackdown 1, it feels like they haven't made any real improvements to traversal or combat at all. So it's enjoyable for what it is, but yeah, I'd feel cheated outside of Game Pass.
  • But the question Sin Ogaris, is it ok to launch a game in this state? Don't we gamers deserve quality games?
    Crackdown 3 is probably one of the most downgraded game in history. It's missing basic feature (party multiplayer).
    Just because we can rent it for 10 bucks a month does this mean they can get away with the lies of 2015 and launching without basic features?
  • As I mentioned, for me the party multiplayer is a moot point because being in Australia basically means I don't play Microsoft games online because their matchmaking is atrocious and never finds a game. I'm playing it for the campaign, and that is worth the $1 I paid for a month of Game Pass (it's not going to take me longer than a month to finish). To answer your question though, yes, we do deserve quality games, but I don't think Game Pass is to blame for the quality of this particular game, it's developers trying something new and being in WAY over their heads and instead of backing out gracefully deciding to power through even though the level of quality just simply isn't there.
  • I think they decided to power through because they knew there was game pass. And since game pass is more about quantity than quality, it'll just be another "latest AAA game" launching straight into game pass.
    I think that if there was no game pass and people paid 60 bucks for it, there would have been a lot more criticism.
  • It is worth mentioning that the single player campaign IS actually fun, like a Hell of a lot of fun. It doesn't bring anything new to the Crackdown franchise really, but it's still heaps of fun running around blowing things up, collecting orbs, and taking out members of the corporation. Just because I don't think it's worth $60 doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing the game.
  • People have fun with a game. On the other hand, critics say it's "bad".
  • how ironic. Its always been the other way around
  • More ironic, critics say Last Guardian is good, but the sales...
  • @eddie
    Really always?
    So you say that badly rated games sell well and most high rated games sell poorly?
    I guess devs should do like what they did with Crackdown 3. Break promises, massive downgrade, missing feature. Delay the game multiple time for years and introduce bugs.
    Like that it'll get a poor rating but it'll sell well. The bonus is that you'll have people celebrating it. :)
  • People are playing/trying the game (mostly on game pass). It doesn't mean they are having fun or not.
    Critics says it's missing basic features, it has bugs and it is a massive downgrade from what was promised in 2015. Maybe they should not criticise the game because some MS fans find the game "fun".
  • This why I don't follow game reviewers.
    So much hate for games these days. I like every single one of them;")
  • Crackdown 3 is probably one of the most downgraded game in history. It's missing basic feature (party multiplayer).
    But yeah, reviewers should not mention it because a bunch of game pass members are trying the game.
    You guys are so funny... :)