By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Greedy Activi$ion strikes again: Acti starts charging for RETICLES in CoD BO4

KManX89 on 02 January 2019
DakonBlackblade said:
pokoko said:
Were these previously available and they put them behind a paywall or are they new to the game? If they're new then there is no problem.

How can you possibily think that selling a pixel is not a problem. I guess thats why these companies don't go out of business, they sell ppl a pixel for 1$ and they actualy buy it.

This.

CaptainExplosion said:
jason1637 said:
What's the issue?

The issue is selling reticles, as in something that's free in every shooter besides this one. EVERY! SINGLE! ONE!

And this.

Jesus fucking Christ, people are actually defending Activi$ion selling them reticles in an FPS game, WTF?! I'll bet if they actually did charge for ammo like I talked about earlier (which I wouldn't put it past Activi$ion), they'd try to defend that as well. 

This is why modern day gaming is in the state it's in, because of people letting greedy companies like EA, Activi$ion, Konami, Ubisoft, WB, Take Two, etc. get away with it. Some people tried to defend Konami selling them $10 save slots as well, fucking SAVE SLOTS, a basic feature that's been free in every game since the NES days. What next? Charging to load the game up? Oh wait, I'll bet they'd try to defend THAT as well SMGDMFH. 

Let me spell it out in simple terms: if it's a basic feature, YOU DON'T FUCKING CHARGE FOR IT! Just like if it's on the disc, you don't fucking charge for it. That's like record companies saying "we'll charge you $5 extra for tracks 5, 10 and 11 on that CD you just bought".



Around the Network
kirby007 on 02 January 2019

Honestly there is a free red dot you dont need this. This is like moaning the new f50 has 2 cupholders and the option to make the cupholders pink for 200 bucks.
.

Raging just for the rage



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Pemalite on 02 January 2019

I remember gaming before DLC/Microtransactions/Passes became a thing. It was glorious.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

flashfire926 on 02 January 2019

I dont really see the problem here. It's completely cosmetic.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

pattyboy60 on 02 January 2019

How can people defend Activision selling pixels? What a joke.



Around the Network
jason1637 on 02 January 2019
CaptainExplosion said:
jason1637 said:
What's the issue?

The issue is selling reticles, as in something that's free in every shooter besides this one. EVERY! SINGLE! ONE!

There are free reticles that launched with the game.



jason1637 on 02 January 2019
KManX89 said:
DakonBlackblade said:

How can you possibily think that selling a pixel is not a problem. I guess thats why these companies don't go out of business, they sell ppl a pixel for 1$ and they actualy buy it.

This.

CaptainExplosion said:

The issue is selling reticles, as in something that's free in every shooter besides this one. EVERY! SINGLE! ONE!

And this.

Jesus fucking Christ, people are actually defending Activi$ion selling them reticles in an FPS game, WTF?! I'll bet if they actually did charge for ammo like I talked about earlier (which I wouldn't put it past Activi$ion), they'd try to defend that as well. 

This is why modern day gaming is in the state it's in, because of people letting greedy companies like EA, Activi$ion, Konami, Ubisoft, WB, Take Two, etc. get away with it. Some people tried to defend Konami selling them $10 save slots as well, fucking SAVE SLOTS, a basic feature that's been free in every game since the NES days. What next? Charging to load the game up? Oh wait, I'll bet they'd try to defend THAT as well SMGDMFH. 

Let me spell it out in simple terms: if it's a basic feature, YOU DON'T FUCKING CHARGE FOR IT! Just like if it's on the disc, you don't fucking charge for it. That's like record companies saying "we'll charge you $5 extra for tracks 5, 10 and 11 on that CD you just bought".

There are free reticles in the game so I don't see how this is an issue. They made extra reticles and decided to charge for something they didn't need to make.



pokoko on 02 January 2019
DakonBlackblade said:
pokoko said:
Were these previously available and they put them behind a paywall or are they new to the game? If they're new then there is no problem.

How can you possibily think that selling a pixel is not a problem. I guess thats why these companies don't go out of business, they sell ppl a pixel for 1$ and they actualy buy it.

What do you think a videogame is made of?  Cheese?  



pokoko on 02 January 2019
KManX89 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

The issue is selling reticles, as in something that's free in every shooter besides this one. EVERY! SINGLE! ONE!

And this.

Jesus fucking Christ, people are actually defending Activi$ion selling them reticles in an FPS game, WTF?! I'll bet if they actually did charge for ammo like I talked about earlier (which I wouldn't put it past Activi$ion), they'd try to defend that as well. 

This is why modern day gaming is in the state it's in, because of people letting greedy companies like EA, Activi$ion, Konami, Ubisoft, WB, Take Two, etc. get away with it. Some people tried to defend Konami selling them $10 save slots as well, fucking SAVE SLOTS, a basic feature that's been free in every game since the NES days. What next? Charging to load the game up? Oh wait, I'll bet they'd try to defend THAT as well SMGDMFH. 

Let me spell it out in simple terms: if it's a basic feature, YOU DON'T FUCKING CHARGE FOR IT! Just like if it's on the disc, you don't fucking charge for it. That's like record companies saying "we'll charge you $5 extra for tracks 5, 10 and 11 on that CD you just bought".

This kind of socialist entitlement is ridiculous.  You are not automatically entitled to everything a company makes for free.  You're just not.  I don't care how much you whine that you should get it or how much you did that silly little "replace the letter S with $" thing.  Someone else's work has a much value as they can get for it.  If you don't like capitalism then you should probably give up videogames entirely.  Maybe there are some socialist videogame companies out there for you?



jason1637 on 02 January 2019
pokoko said:
KManX89 said:

And this.

Jesus fucking Christ, people are actually defending Activi$ion selling them reticles in an FPS game, WTF?! I'll bet if they actually did charge for ammo like I talked about earlier (which I wouldn't put it past Activi$ion), they'd try to defend that as well. 

This is why modern day gaming is in the state it's in, because of people letting greedy companies like EA, Activi$ion, Konami, Ubisoft, WB, Take Two, etc. get away with it. Some people tried to defend Konami selling them $10 save slots as well, fucking SAVE SLOTS, a basic feature that's been free in every game since the NES days. What next? Charging to load the game up? Oh wait, I'll bet they'd try to defend THAT as well SMGDMFH. 

Let me spell it out in simple terms: if it's a basic feature, YOU DON'T FUCKING CHARGE FOR IT! Just like if it's on the disc, you don't fucking charge for it. That's like record companies saying "we'll charge you $5 extra for tracks 5, 10 and 11 on that CD you just bought".

This kind of socialist entitlement is ridiculous.  You are not automatically entitled to everything a company makes for free.  You're just not.  I don't care how much you whine that you should get it or how much you did that silly little "replace the letter S with $" thing.  Someone else's work has a much value as they can get for it.  If you don't like capitalism then you should probably give up videogames entirely.  Maybe there are some socialist videogame companies out there for you?

This. When you pay $60 for BO4 you know what you're getting. Anything extra they can charge for.