We've got another microtransaction controversy on our hands folks, so out come the pitchforks! The latest scandal sees Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 selling a cosmetic item known as the Home Wrecker for a whopping 2800 CoD Points, which works out at roughly £25/$28.
It comes as part of a bundle known as the Triple Play, which includes the aforementioned cosmetic item, Battle Pass tier skips, and loot boxes. To make matters worse, at the time of writing, it looks like this purchasable bundle is the only way to get your hands on the Home Wrecker. It cannot be found in loot boxes. It's also worth noting that is purely a cosmetic skin that doesn't affect gameplay in the slightest, it has the same range and damage output as the standard knife.
So, while this is a microtransaction that still won't have an effect on how the game plays, it's a rather egregious price, isn't it? Is something you'd consider purchasing? Whip your wallets out in the comments below.
[source resetera.com, via youtube.com]
Comments 26
There does seem to be a bit of a trend in crazily-priced microtransactions lately, to the point where there's nothing remotely "micro" about them.
They’re getting hammered in the comments
Are people really surprised at this point? Activision have zero shame when it comes to this stuff.
And im sure there will be enough idiots buying it. 😃 👍
They will start trying to sell you a warranty for it soon.
@ShogunRok Maybe change it to massivetransaction.
This article wasn’t intended for Monday - April fool’s day - was it?
So with the fact that "..it has the same range and damage output as the standard knife..." - something I can't say I've noticed being pointed out elsewhere reporting on this.
It's a bundle for standard loot box type stuff and some cosmetics?
So what?
I mean, having such a large scale post-sale micro transaction model is one thing, but it's literally just a skin for the knife that being reported as a 'new weapon' that you can only get via the bundle.
Sensationalism at work.
Well done @LiamCroft for pointing that out prominently in the article - but the headline here, as elsewhere, is pretty misleading.
Can Activision please just die already?!
If people wouldn't buy this crap, we wouldn't have to deal with these absurd prices. But alas, the cycle continues. It will never change.
@KALofKRYPTON The price is the problem i hope you can understand that?
This is probably just about the biggest "because f*ck you" that they could give people without actually saying the words.
@Flaming_Kaiser
For a non-essential cosmetic upgrade, tier skips and some loot boxes? Again, so what? Don't buy them.
The 'outrage' generated here stems from the notion (as pushed by sensationalist headlines) that there's a new game changing weapon in BO4 and it costs £25. There are plenty of FTP games with cosmetics and loot boxes that can run to that.
Don't buy it. You lose nothing, not even competitive advantage.
This in a nutshell is why I don't buy these games in the first place, locking items that are rewarding behind extra paywalls, many seem to forget that we paid for the games in the first place. Now adding extra content further down the line for a reasonable price is fine by me and if the game is engaging and already rewarding I'm more than happy to splash a little extra cash. However things like this and that £8 skin that briefly appeared in Anthem, a game that has shockingly bad customisation available anyway are big red flags for me
@Flaming_Kaiser Yeah, I’m not sure what’s confusing for people. Loot boxes and these exclusive locked items were bad enough but at £25 it’s gone too far “don’t buy them then” is a pretty weak argument in allowing this sort of behaviour
Utterly disgusting exploitation.
@Flaming_Kaiser @Stocksy
How much do the Battle Pass, tier skips and loot boxes sell for separately?
Not buying them is literally the only way they become nonviable as a business model
@Kyroki No, as the article says, it's just cosmetic.
Honestly, anyone stupid enough to buy this deserves to be £25 poorer.
This is a cosmetic skin, it should be free or at most 50pence if it's a free to play game, defending the price point is simply moronic.
@carlos82 It's so weird, because these games are already incredibly profitable on their own. And Monster Hunter World and TW3 were supported with a ton of free content post-launch; and neither CDPR or Capcom is going bankrupt any time soon.
"It's only cosmetic, it doesn't affect the game!"
Well, balls to that. If you want £25 - half the price of the game again - I want something which will affect the game. Massively. In my favour. 🤣
@Kyroki It's not just the hammer that they get though...
When you only have 1 game on the market - now that Destiny has gone from Activision - that has the ability to have Micro-Transactions because of the way it was designed, is it any wonder that they are trying to bleed their fanbase for every penny they have?
Apart from the remakes/remasters of games like Spyro and Crash, games that would be very contentious (more so than this) if they found away to add MTX, and of course their 'Blizzard' games like Overwatch (is that still going?) Activision seem to have all the developer studio's working on just CoD - whether that's the current, the next or the one after that.
Unlike Ubisoft for example, they really do seem to be putting all their eggs into one basket. I know Ubisoft may get criticism for churning out some games annually - the likes of AC or FC but also have 'new' IP's (Division, Watchdogs, Skull n Bones, the Crew etc) releasing too. Whether they do all get sequels, the point is that Ubisoft are not relying on the success of one franchise. They have multiple titles, new titles (not all remakes/remasters but they do have the odd 1 or 2 of these too - AC3 for example) releasing periodically. If we don't get an AC game this year for example, they can fill that gap with countless other IP's, If CoD doesn't release or is a major flop, Activision could well be 'screwed'.
EA do rely heavily on Fifa but they also have other games that 'may' succeed, may be profitable enough to have been worth the investment. Even with flops like Mass Effect or Need for Speed, even their Star Wars Battlefront 'flops' - compared to what they forecast or hoped for before the angering the gaming community with rushed to release, ridiculous and game changing MTX etc that made a 'dent' in their sales predictions, they have at least been 'profitable' compared to the investment they put in - just nowhere near the profit margins they forecast or maybe should of attained IF they didn't screw up. That at least gives them a bit more flexibility and not overly reliant on just 1 title to make/break their year.
The more Activision screw up, the more fans they will alienate. This has been the 'first' year since CoD4:MW that I have NOT bought a CoD game. The first year since MW2 that I have not bought ALL the DLC (I didn't buy W@W DLC but did buy CoD4's). They have 'lost' me, not just from the 'base' game but also all the potential post release content too. The first year since MW3 that I have not bought the Season Pass, the 'Prestige' edition game. I have also been known to buy this twice too - Xbox and Playstation versions!
It would be interesting to see how Activision would cope if the 'new' CoD really flops if they alienate all their loyal fanbase...
I'd rather it doesn't effect game play than have it actually be pay to win. This is just Activision/Treyarch saying "We know a bunch of you will throw money at us for next to nothing, so we're gonna cash in!"
@Stocksy Its sick i can buy two nice indies for that or a game in discount. 😑
@KALofKRYPTON I really liked how it looked the game but at €60 without a campaing and a seasonpass and microtransactions and lootboxes. 😑
Made me say im done
And dont buy the microtransaction does not get my message across.
Tap here to load 26 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...