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

VAMatt said:
Spike0503 said:
To the people defending this. Forget the reticle for a sec. How about the time when Activision put microtransactions in the MW remaster while also increasing the original prices for the multiplayer maps?. Shouldn't a remaster include everything from the original game? Or at least not include nickle and dime BS like that into a game that didn't have that?

I'm so glad Activision/Blizzard doesn't own a single franchise I give a shit about.

A remaster should include whatever the developer and publisher want it to include, end of story. You don't have to buy it if you don't like it. But they're not under any obligation to give you whatever it is you want for whatever price it is you want to pay.

Holy shit I can't believe there are people who could actually defend that fiasco. Congrats on being the exact type of costumer gaming companies want. Of course they make the games so they get to decide whatever they want to do with them, I'm not denying that, but monetizing every single thing in a game is simply distasteful. It breaks whatever immersion and fun you're having with the game when every single thing is either monetized or grind-heavy to entice you to buy stuff.  Adding microtransactions AND increasing the price for the DLC from the original prices is simply inexcusable. Pure unadulterated insulting greed.

This is not the way to market your products and your "Don't buy it if you don't like it" attitude, while completely understandable, isn't enough. You gotta make some noise and let the gaming companies know how shitty they are so they stop and become better. EA's Battlefront II loot box fiasco is the perfect example. Don't buy if you don't like, of course, but vocalize your distaste as well, that's my view on it.



Around the Network
flashfire926 said:
Spike0503 said:
To the people defending this. Forget the reticle for a sec. How about the time when Activision put microtransactions in the MW remaster while also increasing the original prices for the multiplayer maps?. Shouldn't a remaster include everything from the original game? Or at least not include nickle and dime BS like that into a game that didn't have that?

I'm so glad Activision/Blizzard doesn't own a single franchise I give a shit about.

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.



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}::--

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



Around the Network
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!"



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.