I see no problem with anybody selling anything, so long as they don't lie about it, and they don't force anyone to buy it. It does not appear that Activision has crossed either of those lines with these reticles.
As for microtransactions in general, I agree with the general sentiment among gamers that they are annoying. But, the reality is that these companies exist to make money. Games have become exponentially more expensive to produce than they were a couple of decades ago, but the retail prices of games have not changed. So, at the end of the day, those costs have to be recouped somewhere. Some of it came from higher unit sales, as the gaming market grew. But, that growth has stagnated lately as well. That leaves two choices. They either raise the price of the game, or they sell additional stuff to owners of the game. I think selling additional stuff is better for gamers. It gives us the ability to buy games at the same price we've been paying for 25 years, and it gives us the *option* to spend more money to get stuff that adds to the game. Plus, the devs and pubs get the money that they need to continue operating and creating value for their shareholders.
When it comes to "pay-to-win" microtransactions, they bother me a little more. However, as long as the devs and pubs don't lie about it, and they tell us upfront what kind of microtransactions will exist in the game, I have no philosophical problem with it. I may choose not to buy the game, but I won't feel like the companies involved are doing something wrong.
We must remember, these aren't artists' collectives were talking about. These companies exist to make money. They have a legal and moral responsibility to do so. If they see a way to add another 1% to the bottom line, they'd be doing wrong by the shareholders not to take it.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
