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

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."

Around the Network
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. 



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

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. 



Faelco 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.

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. 

Depends, if they integrated the cost of marketing/advertising into the cost of dev itself, then it just means they're probably blowing all that cash with some fancy ads on TV/Internet.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Around the Network

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.

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?



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. 



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

Do you even amiibo?

You mean an amiibo which can be collected is the same as a pixel red dot? LMAO



Cosmetic DLC is fine imo.