Black Ops 6 “pay to lose” blueprint actually makes it impossible to aim

Black Ops 6 character holding guns to chestTreyarch

Black Ops 6 players have hit out at Treyarch for releasing a “pay to lose” blueprint that actually makes it impossible for them to aim down sight.

Over the last few years, as Call of Duty has gotten deeper into the cosmetics side of things, players have gotten annoyed. Why? Well, there have been quite a few “pay to win” items. These have ranged from weapon blueprints, character skins, and even buying the BlackCell battle pass so you get more XP in Black Ops 6

Article continues after ad

There have, also, been a few “pay to lose” ones too. These are a little bit rarer than their overpowered counterparts, but affect players all the same. We’ve some weapon blueprints where the recoil is increased, visual clutter is horrific, and character skins make you stand out.

Well, you can add another to that list now too. 

Saug blueprint has Black Ops 6 players furious

Players have hit out at Treyarch over the Salutations BlackCell blueprint for the Saug, claiming it is “pay to lose” because of the iron sight.

Article continues after ad

“No wonder why blueprints are broken, they don’t even attempt to use or test these. All you have to do is ADS and you can see the fundamental flaw with this design,” Redditor … said, questioning if the devs test blueprints before sending them live. 

“There’s just no chance Treyarch test these blueprints.”

“I find it funny there’s so many pay 2 lose skins in this game,” another Redditor quickly chimed in. “Nearly all of the blueprints with special effects are pay-to-lose this year,” another added. 

Article continues after ad

Some players argued that the problem can be fixed pretty simply.

“If it comes with a sight (which I don’t know if it does) then that’s probably why. Still a bit of an afterthought though,” one commented. “Use akimbo and you don’t have to look down sights,” another suggested. 

In the past, a few of the buggy skins have been fixed by the devs. Yet, it remains to be seen if this one will be looked at.

Article continues after ad