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.