Call of Duty: Black Ops 6’s Squid Game crossover is in its second week and dredging up familiar, thorny questions around the series’ microtransactions.
As players run around the virtual battlefield of Black Ops 6 and Warzone dressed as not only Squid Game contestants but the masked-up soldiers who keep them in line, the Call of Duty community is questioning Activision’s aggressive monetization of its hugely popular money-spinner.
Fans had already hit out at the Squid Game event pass, which includes a paid premium track. Call of Duty has never locked event rewards behind a paywall before, and this 1,100 CP ($9.99) battle pass within a battle pass has certainly proven controversial.
Now, the first Squid Game premium bundle is on sale, and as expected, it’s expensive. The 2,800 CP ($24) bundle includes three new skins (the triangle, circle, and square Squid Game workers), two weapon skins, and other digital gubbins. 2,800 CP is in-line with some of the most expensive bundles Call of Duty already offers, but there’s more than the up-front cost here that’s upsetting fans.
The three Squid Game operators included are all restricted to the same “side.” This means that in Black Ops 6 Multiplayer, you only use them if you’re on the Crimson One team. So, it may be the case that you have a run of games in which you can’t use the skin you’ve paid for.
While this makes sense on one hand (having these skins available for use on both sides would probably create visual confusion), Call of Duty players have expressed frustration at the restriction. “2,800 COD Points for operators on the same faction... Can’t even use more than one at a time,” redditor mrdounut101 complained.
I’ve seen many familiar counter arguments pop up in response to this complaint. Just don’t buy Call of Duty skins, some say. If you do, you're part of the problem. Some can’t understand why anyone would buy a Call of Duty soldier skin in the first place, given the game is first-person.
Unlike, for example, Fortnite, which is third-person and thus lets you see your character during gameplay, Call of Duty only lets you see your character skin’s hands and forearms as you’re fighting, or in their entirety during executions. Black Ops 6’s Winner’s Circle, itself the focus of some frustration within the community, shows off your skins in all their glory after the end of a Multiplayer match. Activision certainly knows what it’s doing here.
Players are also complaining that Black Ops 6 is currently packed with players wearing Squid Game skins, but that was inevitable. For a start, one of the skins made available as part of this event is free to all players, so that was always going to prove a popular option, especially given the internet's obsession with Squid Game itself. Squid Game has overrun Call of Duty, yes, but it will pass.
Inevitably we arrive at the endpoint of the Call of Duty microtransaction debate: Activision monetizes the game like it’s free-to-play, like it’s Fortnite, and while that’s true for Warzone players, it very much is not for Black Ops 6 players, most of whom have forked out at least $70 just to start playing Multiplayer or Zombies.
This gets to the issue at the heart of Call of Duty and why it continues to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars through microtransactions alongside the huge amount of money generated by sales of the game itself. Activision has created this cross-progression monetization system that means the free-to-play Warzone has the same microtransactions as the $70 Black Ops 6. But players do not necessarily play both games. If you play Black Ops 6 Multiplayer only, for example, a cosmetics bundle that costs a third of the full price of the game is probably going to feel unfairly expensive. But if you play Warzone only, then you probably feel like the price is justified.
And then there’s all the positions in-between. Perhaps you play both games. How do you feel about the monetization then? Perhaps you play Black Ops 6 via your Game Pass subscription. Are the microtransactions good value for you now? Did you pay extra for the BlackCell version of the premium battle pass? If so, perhaps you feel all the Squid Game event pass rewards should be yours without having to hand over even more cash.
It really does feel like Activision is pushing the boundary of what it can get away with when it comes to the cost of Call of Duty cosmetics. In truth, the mega publisher has added new types of battle passes and bundles multiple times over the years. But now Call of Duty is in the hands of Microsoft and the pressure is on Phil Spencer to deliver a return on that huge $69 billion acquisition, fans will likely find themselves having to contend with even more new and potentially controversial types of monetization as they struggle to improve their K/D ratio. The Squid Game event pass is probably just the beginning.
Wesley is the UK News Editor for IGN. Find him on Twitter at @wyp100. You can reach Wesley at [email protected] or confidentially at [email protected].
Continue reading...
As players run around the virtual battlefield of Black Ops 6 and Warzone dressed as not only Squid Game contestants but the masked-up soldiers who keep them in line, the Call of Duty community is questioning Activision’s aggressive monetization of its hugely popular money-spinner.
Fans had already hit out at the Squid Game event pass, which includes a paid premium track. Call of Duty has never locked event rewards behind a paywall before, and this 1,100 CP ($9.99) battle pass within a battle pass has certainly proven controversial.
Now, the first Squid Game premium bundle is on sale, and as expected, it’s expensive. The 2,800 CP ($24) bundle includes three new skins (the triangle, circle, and square Squid Game workers), two weapon skins, and other digital gubbins. 2,800 CP is in-line with some of the most expensive bundles Call of Duty already offers, but there’s more than the up-front cost here that’s upsetting fans.
The three Squid Game operators included are all restricted to the same “side.” This means that in Black Ops 6 Multiplayer, you only use them if you’re on the Crimson One team. So, it may be the case that you have a run of games in which you can’t use the skin you’ve paid for.
While this makes sense on one hand (having these skins available for use on both sides would probably create visual confusion), Call of Duty players have expressed frustration at the restriction. “2,800 COD Points for operators on the same faction... Can’t even use more than one at a time,” redditor mrdounut101 complained.
I’ve seen many familiar counter arguments pop up in response to this complaint. Just don’t buy Call of Duty skins, some say. If you do, you're part of the problem. Some can’t understand why anyone would buy a Call of Duty soldier skin in the first place, given the game is first-person.
Unlike, for example, Fortnite, which is third-person and thus lets you see your character during gameplay, Call of Duty only lets you see your character skin’s hands and forearms as you’re fighting, or in their entirety during executions. Black Ops 6’s Winner’s Circle, itself the focus of some frustration within the community, shows off your skins in all their glory after the end of a Multiplayer match. Activision certainly knows what it’s doing here.
Players are also complaining that Black Ops 6 is currently packed with players wearing Squid Game skins, but that was inevitable. For a start, one of the skins made available as part of this event is free to all players, so that was always going to prove a popular option, especially given the internet's obsession with Squid Game itself. Squid Game has overrun Call of Duty, yes, but it will pass.
Inevitably we arrive at the endpoint of the Call of Duty microtransaction debate: Activision monetizes the game like it’s free-to-play, like it’s Fortnite, and while that’s true for Warzone players, it very much is not for Black Ops 6 players, most of whom have forked out at least $70 just to start playing Multiplayer or Zombies.
This gets to the issue at the heart of Call of Duty and why it continues to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars through microtransactions alongside the huge amount of money generated by sales of the game itself. Activision has created this cross-progression monetization system that means the free-to-play Warzone has the same microtransactions as the $70 Black Ops 6. But players do not necessarily play both games. If you play Black Ops 6 Multiplayer only, for example, a cosmetics bundle that costs a third of the full price of the game is probably going to feel unfairly expensive. But if you play Warzone only, then you probably feel like the price is justified.
And then there’s all the positions in-between. Perhaps you play both games. How do you feel about the monetization then? Perhaps you play Black Ops 6 via your Game Pass subscription. Are the microtransactions good value for you now? Did you pay extra for the BlackCell version of the premium battle pass? If so, perhaps you feel all the Squid Game event pass rewards should be yours without having to hand over even more cash.
It really does feel like Activision is pushing the boundary of what it can get away with when it comes to the cost of Call of Duty cosmetics. In truth, the mega publisher has added new types of battle passes and bundles multiple times over the years. But now Call of Duty is in the hands of Microsoft and the pressure is on Phil Spencer to deliver a return on that huge $69 billion acquisition, fans will likely find themselves having to contend with even more new and potentially controversial types of monetization as they struggle to improve their K/D ratio. The Squid Game event pass is probably just the beginning.
Wesley is the UK News Editor for IGN. Find him on Twitter at @wyp100. You can reach Wesley at [email protected] or confidentially at [email protected].
Continue reading...
