reviewers shitting on games because of micro transactions ruins their integrity

[PriestTroit]

You are pretending as if Black Ops 4 does not have other equally effective optic sights. You are also pretending that they took what was once available and suddenly made it accessible only by purchasing it. It literally is nothing as if Ubisoft randomly said you now have to pay for the privilege of using the ACOG sight.

[Hopeless Wombat]

NOT EVEN SURPRISED LOL

The amount of microtransaction absurdity that Black Ops 4 has had AFTER launch is ridiculous. Paying a dollar for something you can get in 10 kills and paying several thousand to access a full catalogue of season pass bullshit, I'm surprised people haven't already done the same.The fact is, this is a purely live game, there's nothing static of note like there would be in a game that tells a story. A reviewer should absolutely be allowed to shift that review as many times as they want to reflect how they feel that game is.

[PriestTroit]

Okay. Here's a challenge for you. Go ahead and do a quick google search or boot up your copy of the game, then come back here with a list of the optic customization options in Black Ops 4. If there are no optics featuring a dot, I'll say you win.

Hint: There are in fact free dots

[PriestTroit]

It's an alternate red dot. There are other reticles in the game

[Noobc0re]

Microtransactions in a priced game is a garbage practice, and should be shat upon from up high.

To add to the scumminess Activision added that shit later to circumvent getting bashed on it by reviewers on release.

I completely support that guy removing his review in light of such behavior.

[R.U.S.E]

I am ok with micro-transactions. Maybe it's because I have studied the business side of the story but I really don't see a problem with them unless they provide an advantage to the buyer in multiplayer games.

That begs the question; "Is selling a sight pay to win?" As a competitive player I would have to say "yes it is" because the sight affects how a person aims and not having access to that gives another player a potential advantage if they know how to use it.

It would be no different if Ubisoft tried to sell the ACOG scope. No you don't need it to win but it's very helpful.

[Irritablesquid]

Monetization is cancerous to the future of video games, the past few years show it to be true.
Some publishers have even made the game have a horrendous grind so they can have micro transactions.

If we allow it to continue then publishers will take every chance they can take separate you from your money.
Publishers then lie about how expensive it is to make games and how they need micro transactions to make profit yet the higher ups make tens of millions every year and when it comes to saving money, instead of cutting their pay they cut the staff.

[JackofTears]

I disagree, monetizing something like a red dot is so egregious, so greedy and disgusting, that I can fully understand it ruining someone's experience. This is something that most games simply include, that required few assets and little work on part of the company, but they want your money so bad that they can't bare giving anything away for free. The presence of any microtransactions in a game doesn't ruin it for me, I'm entirely fine with paying for skins if you want them, but this was scummy.

And contrary to your statement, it is "pay to win" because the people with the red dot will have an advantage over those who do not purchase it.

[xadu]

If the red dot helps to aim, why is not default and free?

If it costs 1$ then the game should be 1$ pricier, or should had a warning "this game was made incomplete by developers to make your purchase of the full game more difficult and bothersome"

[PriestTroit]

Depends on how you look at it. There can only be so much content available at a game's release and RB6 is coming up on it's 4th year. At some point you're gonna need additional cash flows to operate considering almost everything else can be earned in-game. I think I've maybe spent like 5 bucks in all the time I've played on a cool uniform.

Did you ever play Runescape F2P? That was/is probably the best free game of all time. I must have played it for something like 2 years without ever spending a penny way back when. It pales in comparison to the paid-version of the game, but you absolutely get a full game out of the free version.

[MadMummy76]

You have that backwards. AC Odyssey is a good game despite the microtransactions, not because of them. It would be much better if it didn't have any, and there was no paid xp booster but xp and money gain would just be that normally what it is now with boosters.

And no it's not OK To put the cool items behind paywalls, those used to be gameplay rewards. What you get for achieving something in-game, not based on how much you willing to pay.

There is no way in which anyone can convince me that microtransactions are an OK thing in any game. Not even in F2P games. BTW there is no such thing as a F2P game, it's just bait. F2P games are terrible each and everyone of them. They deliberately made bad so you can buy stuff in them for real money to turn them into half decent experiences at best. So Fuck "free to play" games.

[MadMummy76]

And that's why I have a problem with games as a service. The adding of shit later. With the number of games reducing XP gains weeks AFTER release, and adding microtransactions to compensate clearly demonstrates that we can'T trust them to only improve games.

[PriestTroit]

Call me crazy, but I do think there is a place for micro transactions in some games. I use Rainbow Six as an example a lot because it's one of my current favorite multiplayer games, but it implements MTXs pretty well as far as I'm concerned. For instance, they have special operator uniforms players can purchase which are sometimes way cooler than the standard and alternate uniforms. Seems fine to me. Though, I will say it's not exactly perfect since you have to purchase new operators, but they can be earned in-game and the new maps are always free.

I tend to agree that MTXs for single-player games are jacked, but I don't think it generally ruins the experience either. Take the newest Assassins Creed game for example. It has micro transactions, but by most trusted accounts it's an alright game.

[PriestTroit]

Fair points, but the micro transactions don't negatively affect the player all that much. As far as I'm aware, they're just newly added reticles, camos, call signs and other doodads like that. I could see them more severely affecting the score if they were to make new (and better) characters locked behind a pay wall, but as far as I know the MTXs are pretty benign.

Though, I suppose I can respect just removing the review more than docking an insane amount of points from it. Meh. Just hope this trend doesn't evolve into saying games are automatically bad because of the presence of MTXs...

[PriestTroit]

Fair enough, but I would be interested in seeing what his score for the game would be today compared to his previous one.

You may not have played COD online much, but I've played more than my fair share in the past and can tell you the reticle hardly makes much of a difference. Heck, I used to use a giant moustache or a big smiley face as a reticle in BLOPS and nearly had a 2.0 kd. The aim assist kind of removes the edge that certain reticles can provide the player, which can be said to be the polar opposite to a game like Rainbow Six Siege which has no aim assist, even for consoles. Even then, it barely makes a difference.