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

vivster said:
Mar1217 said:
It's like people forgot that microtransactions on cosmetics are there to play on the pshycological numbness of the individuals that buys it. That and people going numb over this issue. Y'all given them a sign that they can push forward with their bullshit as long as it doesn't affect your vision of what's allowed.

It shouldn't be there in the first place, but people still wants to give them the pass ...

I'm not going to care much about the microtransaction cat gnawing on my feet when there is a full grown lootbox tiger mauling my face. That's why I give this one a pass and concentrate on the bigger problems.

Diminishing and ignoring a problem for the profit of another one is not a solution to solve this crisis.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Around the Network

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.

Last edited by Barozi - 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.

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.






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.

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.



Mar1217 said:
vivster said:

I'm not going to care much about the microtransaction cat gnawing on my feet when there is a full grown lootbox tiger mauling my face. That's why I give this one a pass and concentrate on the bigger problems.

Diminishing and ignoring a problem for the profit of another one is not a solution to solve this crisis.

Tackling the bigger problem first is more effective, though. That's why you don't clean up the bathroom tiles in a murder scene before you removed all the corpses.

Direct micro transactions are the preferable replacement for lootboxes. If you try to get rid of them, what are lootboxes gonna be replaced with? Which is why you first need to eradicate lootboxes, then you can try to push back against micro transactions in general.

Lootboxes are the cancer that grew from micro transactions, let's cut that shit out first before we deal with the rest.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
Barozi said:
konnichiwa said:

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.

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. 






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.  



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.



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     






pattyboy60 said:
Sadly there's gonna be little kids who beg their parents to buy them these shady microtransactions. This is just going to get worse.

Kids who AREN'T EVEN OLD ENOUGH TO PLAY A GAME WITH A FUCKING M RATING BUT THEIR PARENTS ARE SO FUCKING STUPID!!