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

The issue with DLC or any DLC for that matter... Is that it's not a regulated concept by any governing bodies. - And because of such... It's open for companies to abuse.

And we have consistently seen that abuse time and time again over the years.

It hasn't done the consumer any favors, it hasn't done the industry any favors. - Publishers claim "increased development costs" - Yet their profits are constantly on the increase, outstripping any such increase in development costs... The Publishers are just trying to make every single cent they can at the expense of all others, even development studios.

Heck, we have seen some high-profile studios close down in recent years.

Just stop buying DLC and spending money on useless Microtransactions, go back to enjoying a game for what it is.



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

Around the Network
Faelco said:

 

HoangNhatAnh said:

Since when Nintendo did anything like giving others a lesson when it comes to DLC or additional content? "And stop trying to do the ridiculous comparison "one pixel is not the same value as a figure". Are they sold the same price?". A lot people get amiibo as their figures collection, not because to unlock anything. In fact, many people only buy the amiibo and skip the game, can't say the same for the pixel red dot.

Then you should read more carefully when you want to argue with people. The original comment involving Nintendo was saying that they were not like the other publishers in term of DLCs.

kirby007 said: 
Ehm how is this activision only? Its purely cosmetic which every dev does outside of nintendo

And when someone said that Nintendo wasn't that different, you attacked him with "stop attacking Nintendo". Do you realize how ridiculous your intervention is? A user says "Nintendo is not like the others", another answer "Nintendo is like the others", and you arrive with "STOP ATTACKING NINTENDO!!!!"... Calm down.

Personally, I'll stop discussing about this off-topic stuff, and I'm sure it would be better to go back on tracks.

Because Awakening DLCs or Amiibo have way better value than a pixel red dot, come up with better example next time



Replicant said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

I will right after your do the same

Great. Let's wake up together then. Well, not literally together. But yeah..

Heh, right after you



LudicrousSpeed said:
Amiibos are even worse than this because Amiibos unlock stuff that’s already in the game you bought. If you don’t go out and buy the stupid figures, you don’t get the content you already paid for.

Every company I can think of off the top of my head have done shady DLC shenanigans, including Nintendo. Excluding CDPR, they seem just about perfect, though I may be forgetting something with them.

Don't forget many people get amiibo only for collection purpose, they completely skip the game



Bofferbrauer2 said: 

I see the day where they gonna start selling guns in FPS. As in, you'll have to start with just your fists and if you want more bang, shell out the bucks!

With the way things are going, I can definitely see it getting to that point sadly. The corporate sheep's response: "It's optional! I don't care because I'm not poor! Companies need to make money! Entitlement!"



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
The issue with DLC or any DLC for that matter... Is that it's not a regulated concept by any governing bodies. - And because of such... It's open for companies to abuse.

And we have consistently seen that abuse time and time again over the years.

It hasn't done the consumer any favors, it hasn't done the industry any favors. - Publishers claim "increased development costs" - Yet their profits are constantly on the increase, outstripping any such increase in development costs... The Publishers are just trying to make every single cent they can at the expense of all others, even development studios.

Heck, we have seen some high-profile studios close down in recent years.

Just stop buying DLC and spending money on useless Microtransactions, go back to enjoying a game for what it is.

No.  Some of the best content I've played has been DLC, content that would not have existed otherwise.  If I really like a game then I want more of it.  Sometimes the DLC is better than the actual game or improves the base game greatly.  If you don't want that, that's fine, don't buy it, but you don't get to take that away from anyone else.  The logical approach would be to buy content based on quality and value, no matter if it's DLC or the original game itself.  

KManX89 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said: 

I see the day where they gonna start selling guns in FPS. As in, you'll have to start with just your fists and if you want more bang, shell out the bucks!

With the way things are going, I can definitely see it getting to that point sadly. The corporate sheep's response: "It's optional! I don't care because I'm not poor! Companies need to make money! Entitlement!"

Still trying to change the argument to something else because you failed at this one. 

See, an adult is able to say, "this is okay, but that is not okay."  Your premise that someone who is fine with situation A will automatically support situation B is complete bullshit.  It's a childish, idiotic argument.  While you kick and scream throw a tantrum over every little thing, like some kind of bleeding heart SJW, other people can rationally analyse each situation on an individual basis.  



Spike0503 said:
flashfire926 said:

No one defended what they did with the MW remaster.  Not only did the charge for the DLC again, the price of the DLC was higher than it was before. To top it all of they locked off the remaster as DLC behind Infinite Warfare, meaning that you had to buy Infinite Warfare just to get MWR. So that dlc pack was basically DLC for a DLC. Not only that, when they finally did release, the MWR standalone they released it as timed exclusive for PS4 even though the Xbox version was already done too. I stand by my opinion of that Activsion is a bunch of money hungry bastards, period. Even now.

No one defended them. That was actually a big cause of concern, unlike this pointless reticle thing. I doubt most people defending them here even like Activision.

Read the comment above yours on this very same thread. There are always people defending this kind of stuff. This reticle thing is laughable and while it doesn't deserve as much criticism as the MW fiasco, it deserves mockery. Activision deserves constant, pure mockery on every website for their greed and nickle and dime BS.

Thats an outlier, there will always be people who will go great lengths to defend. During the Infinite Warfare time their decisions with MWR were met with unanimous negativity from mostly everyone.

This is a mere COSMETIC microstransaction. Several reticles are already available in the base game. Buying this doesnt give you a competitive advantage, doesnt affect the gameplay balance whatsoever. Nickel and Diming? Is the gaming pushing you to buy the reticle? No. The game launched feature complete with a lot of content (thats what people say anyways, I havent played it myself). This is the most pointless rage I've ever seen. It's like getting mad for the sake of getting mad and nothing else.



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.

KManX89 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said: 

I see the day where they gonna start selling guns in FPS. As in, you'll have to start with just your fists and if you want more bang, shell out the bucks!

With the way things are going, I can definitely see it getting to that point sadly. The corporate sheep's response: "It's optional! I don't care because I'm not poor! Companies need to make money! Entitlement!"

Its almost like you're being obtuse on purpose. 

How do you not understand the difference between:

a) reticles, that are purely cosmetic items that wont serve any purpose in combat. The game plays fairly as there is no way to get a competive advantage by buying purely cosmetic reticles.

b) starting with your fists and having to buy guns. This would be pay to win and will unfairly favour the person who paid for gun, having a better chance to win against the people will bare hands.

Though nice try trying to move goalposts. The two arent nearly the same thing.



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.

flashfire926 said:
KManX89 said:

With the way things are going, I can definitely see it getting to that point sadly. The corporate sheep's response: "It's optional! I don't care because I'm not poor! Companies need to make money! Entitlement!"

Its almost like you're being obtuse on purpose. 

How do you not understand the difference between:

a) reticles, that are purely cosmetic items that wont serve any purpose in combat. The game plays fairly as there is no way to get a competive advantage by buying purely cosmetic reticles.

b) starting with your fists and having to buy guns. This would be pay to win and will unfairly favour the person who paid for gun, having a better chance to win against the people will bare hands.

Though nice try trying to move goalposts. The two arent nearly the same thing.

Okay, then let's remove all reticle for all non-paying players. See if you can hit your expected target without any reticle.

I do agree you won't get any competitive advantage from having another reticle than the standard one - but this stuff used to be free! I just played some Serious Sam: TFE the other day again and it comes with over 2 dozen different reticles. It's not pay to win, but it's pure greed! Keep in mind that you shell out 110$ (Game + Season Pass) already, that should be more than enough to finance this game, especially without the singleplayer campaign and it's expensive voice actors.

This is why I barely buy new games from those big publishers anymore. They just got way too greedy.

About both graphs konnichiva posted:

Yes, development costs are stagnating. The publishers are producing less games than in the past, that's also true. But the correlation between the 2 is wrong.

Publishers needed to produce at least one game or expansion pack every quarter to not have a huge gap in their revenue charts. With DLC though, that need vanished, as the spendings from those are not mostly limited to the release quarter, but are spread out throughout the year, thus providing a nice baseline without the need for those niche offerings, hence why they cut them out. They didn't get cut to reduce development costs, they got cut just because they weren't necessary anymore, since with DLC whey got the same income from much less effort.

And that's where it took a turn for the worse. Things that were in games in the past got cut out to be sold as DLC. Unlockables got grindier and grindier for you shell out the money instead. And then came the lootboxes and other Gatcha schemes where you don't even know what you'll get for your money - and most of the time what you get is trash you already have or don't need. Hence why on the second graph the income keeps growing and growing - pretty much exclusively from DLC. The publishers have mostly consolidated onto their core series, with sometimes a new IP to catch a market their core IP are not covering. But since they only cut out smaller games and their new IP are almost always something big, it's telling that their development budgets are not increasing: they don't spend much on their core IP anymore; just look at all the recycling in CoD or Fifa. And no, that's ot necessary for them to break even, it's just cheaper for them and thus even more profitable.

Like I said in an earlier post here, Dragon Age: Origins was the last game from EA that I bought, and it had the writings on the wall. I bought the steelbook edition with the Stone prisoner DLC and Blood Dragon Armor. But during gameplay iy got very obvious that both Shale and the infamous Warden's Keep (infamous due to the questgiver is with you in camp and wants you to accept his mission. If you do, you get sent to the shop to buy said mission, something unthinkable at the time but sadly not today anymore) were just cut out of the finished game to sell them separately and make an extra buck out of them.

But DA:O also had the right kind of DLC, the kind I can agree with: Prequel missions for several characters, a perspective flip where you play as the Blight instead of trying to stop it, a mission specially for experienced players with high difficulty and an entire Expansion pack with a new storyline. Those all can give a game more value - but how often do we see those kinds nowadays?



HoangNhatAnh said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Amiibos are even worse than this because Amiibos unlock stuff that’s already in the game you bought. If you don’t go out and buy the stupid figures, you don’t get the content you already paid for.

Every company I can think of off the top of my head have done shady DLC shenanigans, including Nintendo. Excluding CDPR, they seem just about perfect, though I may be forgetting something with them.

Don't forget many people get amiibo only for collection purpose, they completely skip the game

So what? Irrelevant to what I said.

Many people also skip DLC and microtransactions.