reviewers shitting on games because of micro transactions ruins their integrity

[R.U.S.E]

Maybe the other sights are better, maybe they aren't, it doesn't matter. Like it or not this does affect gameplay, that's bad. It may not seem like much now but people didn't think much of microtransactions at first when they started becoming a thing either. Now look where we are.

You underestimate just how far a motivated player will go to have an advantage over everyone else. When you are facing people who know every inch of the game, every obscure corner, every exploit, every hitbox pixel by pixel, they will take whatever advantages they can get. They would not hesitate a second to pay for a new sight if they thought it was provide just such an advantage no matter what anyone else thinks. Just because some people might say it sucks wouldn't dissuade them.

[RepentantSky]

I'm sorry, OP, but your complaints to me basically come off as "how dare someone change their opinion when a game has changed the way it presents it's content" which is perfectly fine to do. Even if he still thinks the game is good, not liking microtransactions and not promoting the purchase of the game because they exist, is perfectly fine to do. People are allowed to react unfavorably to something they don't like, and you seem mad at this guy for doing that which is unreasonable.

[Aidy]

Easier said than done when developers (probably forced by publishers) are adding mtxs to already released games.

What games have done that?

[PriestTroit]

And the red reticle for 1$? That is as scummy as it can get. It should cost not more than a few cents...

It's not really that bad in comparison to Oblivion's Horse Armor Pack which was sold for $2.50, and you had to pay 500 gold in-game to unlock each one after the first! :O

[monnef]

Also, i am still trying to understand why micro transactions make people so mad.

It was already mentioned several times - mtxs usually damage game play (grinding) and restrict access to content players paid for in initial price (objectively it should be "players perceive they paid for it", but realistically speaking, I am pretty sure all that work has already been done, so the content should have been included in a base game and if costs were too high, the price of a game should have been higher).

Dont like them? Just dont buy them, or in case you get so upset, just dont fucking play the fucking game, is really not that difficult. .

Easier said than done when developers (probably forced by publishers) are adding mtxs to already released games. If you stop playing a game you already paid for, you aren't getting money back, so you unintentionally supporting such scummy practices.

I, personally, am fine with DLCs, so mtxs with good ratio of content and gameplay per money spent. I don't buy anything in cash shops and try to avoid any game which has microtransactions. And the red reticle for 1$? That is as scummy as it can get. It should cost not more than a few cents...

[PriestTroit]

You must have a vastly different definition of what predatory means than the standard one I have.

[Spect3r]

I dont read or watch reviews. At most i watch a gameplay trailer for a game i am not sure i want to play or not, but thats about it and i never played a game where micro transactions bothered me.
Anyway. i agree with you. If the implementation of micro transactions doesnt change the game itself then it should not affect the already made review of the game, nor should a review be deleted because of this.

Also, i am still trying to understand why micro transactions make people so mad. Dont like them? Just dont buy them, or in case you get so upset, just dont fucking play the fucking game, is really not that difficult. .

[Zeno]

Yeah, I do mean any microtransactions on a game that you have already paid for, but especially those with subscriptions and/or Season Pass/Expansions.

Microtransactions are predatory, because they are things that are taken out of or held from a product to be sold separately but still require that product in order to use them. A pizzaria charging for toppings has a list of all products they offer before you order your pizza, they don't just call you halfway through eating your pizza and say "Hey, you enjoying your pizza? You know what would make it even better? Bacon." Pizza is sold as a base product that you add which toppings you want to it before you order it, it isn't sent out to you as cheese, then toppings offered to you at undisclosed intervals.

[Aidy]

Yes, you can do that (add overlays), but the original version remains and the guy in question obviously thought he'd rather not take the risk. It was just a stunt anyway, if he really wanted to simply amend his review he would have done what you suggested, updated the title etc.

[PriestTroit]

"scummy microtransactions"
You mean to say literally any micro transactions. Just admit it.

"If an game company preys on those that buy their game..."
If you think micro transactions are predatory, when it's literally just a customer purchasing a good, then how is a pizzeria charging for toppings any different?

[PriestTroit]

I've seen videos before which have a link right at the beginning informing the viewer that that particular video is an outdated version and links to the updated one once clicked. It's a thing.

[PriestTroit]

Wrong.

He's reviewed previous games which included micro transactions, so it's false that it's a deal breaker for him in the past.

[PriestTroit]

So very insignificantly. Besides, the reflex sight in the game is essentially the same exact sight, but it's actually smaller (more precise) and a different color. The "red dot" isn't likely the sight you're thinking of because it's not only a bigger reticle (less precise) but also is more of an open reticle as well (even less precise). Not to mention you also have the free option of choosing the EOTECH Holographic sight which has a wider sight picture than either of the other ones we're talking about.

Here's a video detailing how to change your reticle in-game. Pay close attention and you might notice that there is in fact a dot reticle.... but it's not red and is actually more precise than the brand new dlc one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW3fkduOsgU

[Zeno]

How many times should someone be expected to update their review of a game then?

I think that a company adding scummy microtransactions after you have already reviewed the game at launch, is a perfectly legitimate reason to pull your positive review of a game.
Reviewers have no obligation to the developers/publishers of games, they only have an obligation to the consumer that they are potentially influencing.
If a game company preys on those that buy their game, then the reviewer who leaves a positive review of that game could potentially feel complicit in abusing the trust of their audience. It is up to the reviewer how they choose to handle their own content.
I for one would be much more open to trusting someone that is willing sacrifice their own financial gain, to uphold their moral convictions.

[R.U.S.E]

Maybe a better way to put it would be "Ubisoft added a new scope that you have to buy". And not every scope is equally effective otherwise there would be no reason to have more then one. Having a different reticle on your scope changes the way you aim. Some people prefer the red dot because it's small thus less distracting for them. Others prefer the more detailed target reticles to keep their aim precise. Either way it does affect the way people play, which is not something I want microtransactions to affect.