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

pokoko on 03 January 2019
bigjon said:
CaptainExplosion said:

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

you do realize you can use reticules outside of this 1 that is available through microtransactions right?

 

I have enjoyed BO4, and I like the way they have handled microtransactions. I mean they have not tempted me to buy anything. So to me that is good. I am a sucker for them if I they will aid me in any way. So the fact I have not even felt the need to use the free COD points they gave me tells me they truly are cosmetic. 

 

There are many many other games I have played that need their microtransaction policies questioned. BO4 is not one. For me the line is clear. If it is an item needed to compete evenly then it is a sure fire hell no. If it has no effect on your effectiveness I don't care what they do, I am sure some idiots buy it, but that is their prerogative. I feel no need to.

This is the crux of such situations for me.  If a company takes something away and then begins to charge for it to be added back into the game, that is clearly something to complain about.  However, if a company creates something outside the game and then charges for it to be added into the game, then I have no issue, as long as it does not give those who purchase it a distinct advantage.  Can I play the game just fine without this new thing?  By all means, then, offer this to those that want it and are willing to pay for it.  

For me to say, "no, I don't want other customers to have this thing and I don't want this company to make money off of it, even though it has no effect on me whatsoever," is pure selfishness and entitlement to a ridiculous degree.  

Now, someone is going to say, "but it's the same thing as selling SAVE SLOTS!"  No, it's not, no matter how many times they keep trying to compare it to something worse.  This is false equivalence, they are not the same thing, and trying to present them as the same thing is dishonest.  If you're going to argue against this, then argue against this.  



Around the Network
Barozi on 03 January 2019
konnichiwa said:
Barozi said:

Well obviously they have to change their business models when they make less and less money for every single game sale.
That includes reusing the same engine for every game or focussing on cheaper mobile games.

Doesn't change the fact that 1m games sold in 2018 is worth far less than 1m in 2008.
If game prices were $75 instead of $60 maybe EA and Activision would release more games again and didn't have to rely on adding microtransactions into every game.

But they don't...

They earn more than 130$ from every fifa game sold while at the same time the dev cost of those games have been decreasing. 

But you just proved that they have changed their business model. That's what I've been saying. They had to do it because the money they were getting was worth less. Looking at the chart, it seems to have started slowly somewhere between 2011 and 2012. At least for EA. Also from when is that chart? It also shows projected revenue for future years. Hard to make out what data is real and what is just projected.

Selling 10m FIFA games in 2018 is not the same as selling 10m in 2008. The money is worth less in 2018. The reason they make more money per FIFA game IN THE END is because the average FIFA player is paying more for microtransactions. Exactly the reason why they had to introduce them. If it wasn't for them they would get the same amount of money, just that it's worth far less. They could've skipped introducing microtransactions (or stopped pushing them so aggressively) if game prices were $75 today or $70 a few years ago. That way they would've made the same amount of money for every game sale as back in the days.



konnichiwa on 03 January 2019
Barozi said:
konnichiwa said:

But they don't...

They earn more than 130$ from every fifa game sold while at the same time the dev cost of those games have been decreasing. 

But you just proved that they have changed their business model. That's what I've been saying. They had to do it because the money they were getting was worth less. Looking at the chart, it seems to have started slowly somewhere between 2011 and 2012. At least for EA. Also from when is that chart? It also shows projected revenue for future years. Hard to make out what data is real and what is just projected.

Selling 10m FIFA games in 2018 is not the same as selling 10m in 2008. The money is worth less in 2018. The reason they make more money per FIFA game IN THE END is because the average FIFA player is paying more for microtransactions. Exactly the reason why they had to introduce them. If it wasn't for them they would get the same amount of money, just that it's worth far less. They could've skipped introducing microtransactions (or stopped pushing them so aggressively) if game prices were $75 today or $70 a few years ago. That way they would've made the same amount of money for every game sale as back in the days.

They don't needed to introduce them they wanted to introduce them. If they can cancel games and use that staff to make more lootboxes they will and did. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTLFNlu2N_M     






DonFerrari on 03 January 2019

They can sell you the 4 megapixels of the game for 4M USD =p



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

KManX89 on 03 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?

Because it takes a hell of a lot of manpower and resources to put a tiny red dot in an FPS game.

And it's not entitlement to say that a basic feature that's free in every other FPS game should be free in this one. I was right, some people really would defend Activi$ion (they will forever be called Activi$ion after all their shenanigans) selling them ammo, and I get the feeling just by reading your posts that you'd be one of the people defending them on that, and you know what? Given everything else they've done, I wouldn't put it past Acti. 



Around the Network
KManX89 on 03 January 2019
Barozi said:

Where's the problem?
It's purely cosmetic, on top of what is already in the game and not overpriced.
I've never bought any cosemtic stuff ever, but there are many that do.

It's also the only way for companies to make a decent amount of money nowadays as video games are far too cheap. They are still $60 when they should be closer to $75.
So you should rather thank anyone who is buying stuff like this, as this keeps the costs down for all of us.

What's the problem? THEY'RE SELLING YOU A BASIC FEATURE THAT'S FREE IN EVERY GAME EXCEPT THIS ONE! Just like when Konami tried selling $10 save slots in Metal Gear Survive, people were up in arms about that shit (and for good reason) because of all the shady shit companies would start pulling afterward if people let them get away with it. Imagine if people actually did let Konami get away with that shit (and some people actually defended them doing that with no regard for the consequences), it would only be a matter of time before other companies would start charging just to load the game up or have any saves at all or, god forbid, locking stuff needed to progress the game behind loot box minigames. The possibilities are endless. 

It's just like when we were told "don't like it? Don't buy it" when we tried to warn the corporate sheep of the slippery slope the paid horse armor in Oblivion would cause, yet here we are: on-disc DLC, selling DLC for DLC, loot boxes and half-baked games being sold at full price, and that's just the tip of the iceberg of what companies have been trying to nickel-and-dime us for ever since. 

And don't even give me that bullshit inflation excuse. Movie studios make far less on movies with far bigger budgets to recoup to boot, yet you don't see them do shit like charging an extra $5 to see the ending (which is essentially what many publishers are doing with their games nowadays), now do you? Didn't think so. Plus, if you actually think companies like EA and Activi$ion would stop selling DLC, season passes, SEs, loot boxes, microtransactions, etc. if they raised the prices of games, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you. The fact that they weren't happy with BO4 making half a billion dollars in 3 days should tell you everything you need to know. 

Last edited by KManX89 - on 03 January 2019

Faelco on 03 January 2019
konnichiwa said:
Barozi said:

Where's the problem?
It's purely cosmetic, on top of what is already in the game and not overpriced.
I've never bought any cosemtic stuff ever, but there are many that do.

It's also the only way for companies to make a decent amount of money nowadays as video games are far too cheap. They are still $60 when they should be closer to $75.
So you should rather thank anyone who is buying stuff like this, as this keeps the costs down for all of us.

But that's false informations from those same companies.




Companies make less games => Spend less money on games => And make a ton more profit.  EA is just one of the examples but most companies try to do the same. 

2017 was more expensive for EA because of SWBFII 'free' dlc where they lovely used the 'you can earn anything but it needs 100 hours for a costume or buy some lootboxes fiasco'

I don't know who it was but it was EA or activision who were trying to come up with a new idea:   People who buy more DLC/extra's/costumes will be lined up online against weaker players, while people who buy nothing will play against stronger players and hopefully feel the need to buy something.

Is the "development cost" graph an average by game? 

Otherwise, do you realize that it proves the exact opposite of what you're saying?

If the wiki is accurate, EA developed or published (EA sports excluded, same every year) 8 games and one extension in 2009. Same thing in 2010. In 2017, they published 4 games. For almost the same development costs. It just proves that one game costs more to make, and that they need more sales or another way to make money.

 

By the way, I just noticed that the French wiki I used is incomplete. I won't compare perfectly, but in a complete list (EA sports included) you have 13 results for 2017 and 72 results for 2009. If you compare this to your graph, the answer is obvious. 



kirby007 on 03 January 2019

Fun fact this wasnt on the disc at launch



 "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.

pokoko on 04 January 2019
KManX89 said:
pokoko said:

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?

Because it takes a hell of a lot of manpower and resources to put a tiny red dot in an FPS game.

And it's not entitlement to say that a basic feature that's free in every other FPS game should be free in this one. I was right, some people really would defend Activi$ion (they will forever be called Activi$ion after all their shenanigans) selling them ammo, and I get the feeling just by reading your posts that you'd be one of the people defending them on that, and you know what? Given everything else they've done, I wouldn't put it past Acti. 

More of that false equivalency bullshit.  Stop that, it's dumb.  You keep trying to change the argument to something a lot worse so you can feel like you're winning.  That's fucking bush league.  Either stick to the argument in the OP or make another thread if you want to argue about something else.  Selling ammunition, which you need, and selling a red dot, which you don't need, ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME THING.  Can you not understand that?  Or do you just want to wallow in your victim culture that badly?



Faelco on 04 January 2019
KManX89 said:
pokoko said:

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?

Because it takes a hell of a lot of manpower and resources to put a tiny red dot in an FPS game.

And it's not entitlement to say that a basic feature that's free in every other FPS game should be free in this one. I was right, some people really would defend Activi$ion (they will forever be called Activi$ion after all their shenanigans) selling them ammo, and I get the feeling just by reading your posts that you'd be one of the people defending them on that, and you know what? Given everything else they've done, I wouldn't put it past Acti. 

What are you even talking about... I just played Call of for a few days and I have like 3 or 4 different reticles for the weapons I use, and it's perfectly free.