Support NeoGAF

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Funny you should mention that.

It's incredible to me that Soul Blade on PS1 didn't just have a great soundtrack, it also included not one, not two, but THREE soundtrack options you could choose from included in the retail release: the original arcade soundtrack, a studio-recorded version of the arcade soundtrack called "Arrange Soundtrack" and the Khan Super Session, made expressly for the home version.

It's not the only example, either. A lot of games held back some of their best music as optional add-ons.

I didn't say soundtracks are never sold separately. My statement was regarding overwatch specifically.

If that was true, Blizzard themselves wouldn't have had to alter their own website and unlock terms which once stated that "ANY cosmetic could be unlocked with in-game currency"... which is now demonstrably false. That's the rub; they lied and you can legitimately miss out on skins you want because of the limited time nature of certain events and the restrictions in place the prevent you from earning them through alternative means. It's what I stated in the OP; the best and most efficient way to get them isn't to play the game, it's to plunk down cash over and over until you get them. There is no way to use the in-game money system.

At the time what they had up there was true. And when that changed, they changed the marketing material. Are you telling me this is too hard to comprehend, that something once true is removed from display once it is no longer true? As far as I can tell, they never lied. They certainly did not promise that all future cosmetics would be available for free.

It isn't a scandal. We always knew there could be money on skins and the summer stuff isn't even money only. You say the most efficient way is to pay. Okay, so what? You can still get them without paying. And that is still way ahead of being paid only.

You're really stretching thin on these arguments. So what, you miss out on a time limited skin. It's a skin for crying out loud. The fact that you can't use it on yourself, that's what you're upset about? Holy...

 

[Gator86]

Really, the biggest threat to gaming, in the past ten years I've watch it unfold, is player apathy and the slow tolerance of accepted business practices that exploit players, whether it started with horse armor or grew to online passes or pre-order bonuses or retailer exclusive pre-order bonuses or retailer exclusive day one pre-order bonuses or retailer exclusive day one collector's edition-only pre-order bonuses to season passes to on-disc DLC to microtransactions to MACROtransactions to requiring spreadsheets to figure out what in the hell we're actually even getting in our games anymore.

Great post, OP. This part was especially on the nose. It's appalling how gamers consistently lower the bar for consumer practices and, in many cases, fight tooth and nail to justify it. No one is more responsible for the shitty parts of the industry than the consumers themselves, in this case. But please, by all means, keep defending lying devs, removed content, and gambling DLC for cosmetics. You're only degrading your own experiences.

 

[gatti-man]

I didn't say soundtracks are never sold separately. My statement was regarding overwatch specifically.




At the time what they had up there was true. And when that changed, they changed the marketing material. Are you telling me this is too hard to comprehend, that something once true is removed from display once it is no longer true? As far as I can tell, they never lied. They certainly did not promise that all future cosmetics would be available for free.

It isn't a scandal. We always knew there could be money on skins and the summer stuff isn't even money only. You say the most efficient way is to pay. Okay, so what? You can still get them without paying. And that is still way ahead of being paid only.

You're really stretching thin on these arguments. So what, you miss out on a time limited skin. It's a skin for crying out loud. The fact that you can't use it on yourself, that's what you're upset about? Holy...

I don't know why telling your base you can use in game gold to buy any unlockables then changing those rules without notice isn't upsetting to you let me explain why it should be.

In game gold helps validate their whole RNG disaster of a system. Oh don't worry about getting the 100th duplicate this tiny amount of gold you get will add up and you can eventually just buy what you want! People had spent real money or tons of time grinding and accumulating in game gold for future skins because that's what blizzard said would happen.

That was literally EVERYONES understanding and plenty of people used that as a defense of blizzards system which is now pretty much indefensible on all fronts. I personally had 1200 gold saved up and I never even bought a loot box. Good to know that's all worthless but I won't be playing overwatch until they change this system anyways or add a ton more content.

 

[Trup1aya]

Depends.

Street Fighter V had less content than its predecessors. Soul Calibur V was slammed hard for having less content as well (even compared to a game that came out 20 years ago on PS1...). Dead or Alive 5 improved (but it had to have what seems like 4 or 5 different releases to get to that point). Killer Instinct's reboot thrived on a very empty base game that just substantially improved over the course of three seasons.

I have hope for Tekken 7, largely because its director has always been a champion of stuffing his games full of content and overdelivering.

And, of course, despite some issues with DLC practices, Netherrealm Studios continue to stuff Mortal Kombat and Injustice full of content to the breaking point.

Some games are just doing better than others in this regard. SFV is just a big example of a screw up.

I think people are recognizing when cost and value match up.

KI was content limited when compared to MK, but you could buy KI a la carte, and it's hard to argue that any specific season wasn't worth the $20 asking price. IMO it's an example of MTs done perfectly for a fighting game.

SFV on the other hand, charged $60 for a product that simply wasn't worth that much $ for many people.

So I actually think that since Horse Armor, the market has generally done a fine job of accepting/rejecting the best/worst practices

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Yep.

You'd think such a long OP would have paused for a second to understand what people are saying, but nope.

Maybe if 90% of the people saying 'it's just cosmetics' didn't stop there maybe there would be more understanding.

Just because it's not as bad as microtransactions that affect the gameplay doesn't mean people can't object when it gets worse than it was at launch, which is what started this furor in the first place.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the crowd the second Kaplan dares to mention loot boxes at BlizzCon.

 

[pizzasqueeze]

I seriously cannot wrap my head around a world where pay to win items are ok but not being able to put an american flag on McCree results in nuclear levels of butthurt.

You and me both. If we can agree that continued develop of a game requires more inputs of money, I'll take cosmetics over literally any other possible idea.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I would argue that the perception of what cosmetic DLC means is actually backwards from what they actually are from a budgeting point of view.

The perception is generally:
"This cosmetic item DLC wouldn't be produced unless it was profitable"

...which isn't exactly the case, and is easily counteracted by pointing at older - and some not-so-old - games which had ample cosmetic bonusses at no extra cost. Besides, it really doesn't take much effort to produce an extra skin, not compared to the effort involved in producing the game itself.

The reality is something a bit closer to:
"The budget for the game we would like to produce has an expectation of requiring $x revenue per unit sold. We can increase the revenue per unit sold by offering cosmetic DLC"


Cosmetic DLC is a low-budget, low-risk, high-profit item that can go some way towards reducing the financial risk involved in the high-budget, high-risk, low-profit nature of the game itself.


In short: Cosmetic DLC helps to pay for the game itself.

That's always been my stance. Some people who aren't me are basically willing to pay more for the game than I am, and DLC of this sort allows them to.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I don't know why telling your base you can use in game gold to buy any unlockables then changing those rules without notice isn't upsetting to you let me explain why it should be.

In game gold helps validate their whole RNG disaster of a system. Oh don't worry about getting the 100th duplicate this tiny amount of gold you get will add up and you can eventually just buy what you want! People had spent real money or tons of time grinding and accumulating in game gold for future skins because that's what blizzard said would happen.

That was literally EVERYONES understanding and plenty of people used that as a defense of blizzards system which is now pretty much indefensible on all fronts. I personally had 1200 gold saved up and I never even bought a loot box. Good to know that's all worthless but I won't be playing overwatch until they change this system anyways or add a ton more content.

I wanna see this source from Blizzard stating that all future cosmetics would be purchase-able by coins. Also hilarious how you think you speak for everyone.

 

[KdylanR92]

It feels like you have more of a bone to pick with Blizzards business practices then you do with those optional cosmetics that don't matter(to the majority of us anyway).

 

[Gentleman Jack]

That Blizzard didn't promise their gachapon lottery system would not get worse doesn't excuse them for when it does.

As things stand, consumers have little incentive to buy the non-event loot boxes going forward. They will inevitably find the duplicates inside worth less than nothing when the next event boxes are announced.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Honestly if skins is how they are funding their games you are mostly coming out on top. I havent played overwatch but if skins in the game are done by random loot boxes all I can say is people paying money for it have some dedication. If I am spending money on digital skins I wanna know exactly wtf I am getting. This is like buying a pack of yu gi oh or pokemon cards but you cant even trade em or give em away.

 

[Garlador]

I wanna see this source from Blizzard stating that all future cosmetics would be purchase-able by coins. Also hilarious how you think you speak for everyone.

Well, even Blizzard got spooked by it and changed the descriptions because, you know, they weren't actually true (since, you know, you couldn't unlock those skins of your choice like you wanted)...

It feels like you have more of a bone to pick with Blizzards business practices then you do with those optional cosmetics that don't matter(to the majority of us anyway).

I called out many companies, but Blizzard is the freshest example with the Summer Games controversy. I was there criticizing Horse Armor back in the day, Capcom throughout most of last generation, and plenty of other companies this generation.

But the "majority doesn't care" is precisely my problem. The "I got mine, too bad about yours" mindset. It's why I used examples of things that gamers once protested against with a passion, but the masses rolled over and accepted, leading to a downward spiral and many, many shoddy business practices, because the minority voice wasn't strong enough. You shouldn't have to be a "majority" to matter, precisely because history has shown a majority doesn't always have everyone's best interests in mind (there are a lot of terrible things a majority was once in favor of).

Minority voices often have good points and are worth listening to, even if what they feel is important is something you don't care about. I mean, just because I'm not gay doesn't mean I didn't stand with my friend in support of gay-marriage, even though at one point a majority was against it and it doesn't affect me in any way. It mattered to him, and thus it mattered to me. It's basic human empathy.

 

[JCX]

Great OP, thanks for putting so much thought into it.

"Just cosmetics" is great in a F2P game. Ideal, even. I think people forget that Overwatch costs money to play to begin with. It shouldn't get to act like a F2P game.

Regular OW lootboxes could probably be slightly more lenient (get them a bit more often, more gold for doubles, true random chance) and I'd be fine. As it is, I guess it's not too bad, but I'd hardly defend it. But timed loot you can't buy with gold is some whale-hunting bullshit.

At the base price of $60, I've more than gotten my money's worth. This game could be all wireframes shooting at each as and it would still be crazy fun. I didn't even open loot boxes for my first few weeks since they don't offer any new skills or weapons.

Now I could see the argument that the whales who bought summer games lootboxes subsidized lucio ball (which I didn't care for, since rocket league did it better), but even then, you don't have to buy it. If this is such a violation of consumer rights or whatever, don't buy the boxes and let blizzard know why. If you buy them, they'll keep selling them.

 

[Skinpop]

IAP/microtransactions create bad incentives. with a single upfront cost studios are incentivized to create good products(or at least market them as such). With microtransactions they are incentivized to create monetized dopamine rewards. So if you believe that the lions share of money made from IAP are put back into actually improving the game(maps, modes, and so on) you are a fool that should take a moment and think hard about how that makes any sense at all. The money is put into making more stuff for you to buy and developing the store to be more addicting and effective at selling you stuff, a small fraction is used to sprinkle in new meaningful content once in a while to keep the player base docile. Don't for one second believe that the company you like so much and care about is a special snowflake that will put ethical practices before inherent incentives.

in other words, it's the worst thing that has happened to gaming, with the one positive that it provides a stable business model for esports.

 

[TimeEffect]

When games make maps free, and offer gameplay DLC as possibly earnable in game, I dont mind cosmetic DLC.

The only game that really does this well is Rainbow 6 Siege.

You can earn the gameplay character DLC in-game with some grinding. It's really not bad because your alternative is to buy them, which is not as expensive as people think.

They also keep the maps free. Admiteddly, they really didnt have a choice, because split maps would have killed the game.

Still, I expect them to make money off of the MP, and they choose to charge for a variety of cosmetics. The season pass is focused more so around this than locked gameplay DLC, to the point where the season pass feels useless.

 

[clockworkinyou]

I don't get how people are so up in arms over this, but something like Heroes of the Storm or League of Legends, which hide actual gameplay behind money or absolute grinding, doesn't catch any flack.

 

[stargateheaven]

I always thought when people said cosmetics dlc don't matter is because they give no advantage to any player.

So it doesn't matter.

 

[ViciousAnchovy]

The use of the word "cosmetics" in this thread seems to me like a disingenuous attempt to conflate two complete different things.
1) The visual design of a game.
2) Alternate outfits.
The attempt to leverage general feelings of the former obviously mattering, as a way to assert the latter mattering by association, bypassing actual debate, leaves me unimpressed. If you have a case to make for alternate outfits being important, defend it honestly, not by abusing terminology.

I can see how the OP's message comes off as conflating the overall aesthetics of a game and alternate outfits, but the OP does in fact make a case for alternate outfits being important. The point was that alternate outfits made the transition from being a reward for playing a game to being something that you could just buy.

I personally don't mind not having access to every alternate costume in most games because I was never the type of gamer to unlock anything that had a particularly demanding challenge associated with it, but I can see why someone would be put off by it.

A couple of examples that might help: The different characters in Rayman Origins and Spelunky all play in the exact same way, but I favor playing as the Teensy King in Rayman and as the golden man in Spelunky. If these outfits had been behind a paywall, I would have still enjoyed the games, but I pick them over and over because I feel like they add something to the experience.

I've seen plenty of DLC outfits that I don't think fit the design of their own games as well as the outfits for Rayman and Spelunky do, so I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything with those games, but other people go for that sort of thing.

 

[Clockwork5]

That wasn't a bad read OP! I appreciate the work you put into this; however, I have a pretty simplistic view on this that you will not agree with.

First, the market has spoken, loud and clear. As you said, cosmetics are valuable to some people and the industry has figured how much some players value that stuff and put a price tag on it. If people will pay, it's kind of hard to blame the publishers for charging.

Second, as someone who wants to see the industry remain successful, I am certainly not going to get upset that someone else spent a bunch of money on costumes. I certainly won't but I'm glad some people do.

 

[Skinpop]

I don't get how people are so up in arms over this, but something like Heroes of the Storm or League of Legends, which hide actual gameplay behind money or absolute grinding, doesn't catch any flack.

except they do, and OP did bring up other companies in his post. But even if he didn't why is it so important for you as a consumer to defend the unethical practices of blizzard? maybe because you like their games? take a moment and think about that.

 

[typist]

I suspect that once streaming games become the norm we will just pay per minute

 

[Clockwork5]

except they do, and OP did bring up other companies in his post. But even if he didn't why is it so important for you as a consumer to defend the unethical practices of blizzard? maybe because you like their games? take a moment and think about that.

What are they doing that is unethical? Charging money for something people are willing to buy?

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Well, even Blizzard got spooked by it and changed the descriptions because, you know, they weren't actually true (since, you know, you couldn't unlock those skins of your choice like you wanted)...

Don't be a broken record. You already pointed out that the descriptions changed when the old description was no longer accurate.

And you know that is not what I was asking for.

except they do, and OP did bring up other companies in his post. But even if he didn't why is it so important for you as a consumer to defend the unethical practices of blizzard? maybe because you like their games? take a moment and think about that.

Unethical? How?

 

[Garlador]

Don't be a broken record. You already pointed out that the descriptions changed when the old description was no longer accurate.

They changed it AFTER the backlash and midway through the Summer Games event.

And it was that way from multiple official outlets and channels.

Even then, I can pull up countless interviews with Blizzard's developers talking about the most important thing when it comes to paid content (like loot boxes) is that players feel they got enough VALUE out of them. "Value" is a word they used over and over and over again in these interviews (and I am more than happy to cite these for you if you so desire), and that their goal and aim was to find the balance of content versus value propositions. If that didn't happen, and, say, players felt ripped-off or scammed or goaded into purchases they didn't actually want to make, than they had screwed up, by their own admission.

Unethical? How?

Preying on compulsive gambling tendencies, reworking a game's economy system post-launch to encourage loot box purchases determined by RNG, being deceptive in the description of the mechanics (until they changed it after being called out), and even being openly dismissive of the complaints themselves (the infamous "it is being received well once you remove the debate over the items not being available for credits" statement still makes me laugh and roll my eyes).

Predatory microtransaction practices are OFTEN geared into creating a sensation of "haves and have nots" which pressure players to spend real-world money to catch up to others or get the thing they've struggled over and over to get but haven't received. I'm a good case for this, of playing the Summer Games stuff since the first day and receiving NOTHING of particular value because the RNG just was not in my favor and they removed any ability to acquire it through attrition and stockpiled currency. It's either sink an undetermined amount of time into the game and hope you get it but better hurry 'cause there's a time limit attached (didn't happen) or spend an undetermined amount of money on the microtransactions and hope you get it (which also may not happen).

Just because they did it that way doesn't mean it's ethical. A lot of accepted business practices are predatory and unethical, but legal and permitted. That still doesn't make them any less anti-consumer.

 

[Skinpop]

What are they doing that is unethical? Charging money for something people are willing to buy?

people can be made to be willing to buy stuff. for example if you have gambler genes you're "willing" to spend all your money on getting less money back overall. Point is that it's possible to manipulate low level behavior in a way that most people can't defend themselves against. How can exploiting that not be unethical?

 

[Garlador]

people can be made to be willing to buy stuff. for example if you have gambler genes you're "willing" to spend all your money on getting less money back overall. The point is that there are ways to manipulate behavior that most people can't defend themselves against effectively. How is it not unethical to exploit such a thing?

As someone who has struggled with various addictions, I can empathize with those with a compulsion to gamble.

It's so easy to just say "just don't do it" or "c'mon, get some willpower!" when it's not that simple and many people's brains just don't work like that. While someone may be able to just "quit" smoking, you have others that struggle to quit and try their hardest for years, or a family member who has been sober gets the wrong push and falls of the wagon.

Companies thrive on finding people with compulsive or addictive behavior and exploiting them until they're dried up. While that doesn't absolve a person of personal responsibilities, it's also pretty wrong to exploit a person's mental and psychological problems or compulsions to sucker money out of them. It's great business, but it can still be exploitative and even life-ruining.

 

[Taruranto]

I don't get how people are so up in arms over this, but something like Heroes of the Storm or League of Legends, which hide actual gameplay behind money or absolute grinding, doesn't catch any flack.

Did you read ANY word of the OP?

 

[Malice215]

Cosmetics matter in video games, especially in a game like Overwatch, where cosmetics is the game for many people.

People are using the cosmetics don't matter/it's only cosmetic argument to justify Blizzard's actions of screwing over people because cosmetics doesn't impact their particular enjoyment of the game. Who cares is Johnny Donuts gets screwed on RNG and duplicates if they can get maps for free.

It's fine if you don't care are about cosmetics, but that also shouldn't give a company free reign to do whatever. Ultimately it's up to the consumer to decide what's best for them.

 

[Thin White Duke]

I figured people said they don't matter in the sense that they don't really affect the gameplay itself, not that the concept of looks is irrelevant to the game.

 

[Garlador]

I figured people said they don't matter in the sense that they don't really affect the gameplay itself, not that the concept of looks is irrelevant to the game.

It's beyond just "looks". In short, cosmetics don't affect gameplay, but they absolutely can affect game EXPERIENCE.

I know I've had many moments in a game where getting the right threads to wear boosted my personal enjoyment of a game.

 

[clockworkinyou]

Did you read ANY word of the OP?

Sure I did. I'm not defending anyone, I said HOTS hides gameplay behind this, which is Blizzard if I'm not mistaking. I'm asking why posts like this aren't made about those games and their practices of putting actual gameplay behind purchases.

except they do, and OP did bring up other companies in his post. But even if he didn't why is it so important for you as a consumer to defend the unethical practices of blizzard? maybe because you like their games? take a moment and think about that.

I listed HOTS in the same post, so if you take that as defending Blizzard and trying to be remotely smart about your point, you have other problems.

 

[CountAntonius]

I like my online games to have continued support for as long as possible. Either F2P or with an entry fee it's unrealistic to expect continued content without a steady revenue stream. Cosmetics are a great way to do it because they are optional no matter what anyone says and they don't affect the balance of the game. Crate and key systems aren't liked but they make the developers a lot more money than simple premium content. The games I play now are mostly funded by cosmetics and thanks to that I have an endless stream of updates, fixes and content. Worth it for not being able to own every piece of cosmetic DLC.


As far as the OP is concerned I lived through the glory days of expansion packs and zero continued support post release for many games. No thank you I prefer this. Also you speak as if there is no options aside from premium skins. Most games have plenty or a way to unlock them(or some of them) through gameplay.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

What I hear from a lot of people in this thread is that cosmetic DLC is OK as long as the content is actually extra. Or as long as you are getting your money's worth with your initial purchase and you have a healthy amount of collectibles through gameplay alone. Then, if there are extra paid unlockables after that, then it's OK.

I kinda agree with that. I understand that people are demanding static game prices, but dev costs are going up, so they have to make their money somehow. Personally I would prefer that devs make challenging games and make their money by selling codes/boosters for players too impatient to overcome the challenge. Call it a content tourism fee, if you will. That way the unlockables are all there through normal gameplay and you have a financial incentive to "get good".

 

[Skinpop]

I listed HOTS in the same post, so if you take that as defending Blizzard and trying to be remotely smart about your point, you have other problems.

I guess my problem is that I don't know anything about HOTS.

 

[JCX]

Cosmetics matter in video games, especially in a game like Overwatch, where cosmetics is the game for many people.

People are using the cosmetics don't matter/it's only cosmetic argument to justify Blizzard's actions of screwing over people because cosmetics doesn't impact their particular enjoyment of the game. Who cares is Johnny Donuts gets screwed on RNG and duplicates if they can get maps for free.

It's fine if you don't care are about cosmetics, but that also shouldn't give a company free reign to do whatever. Ultimately it's up to the consumer to decide what's best for them.

Wait, there are people who buy OW solely to dress up characters in costumes and not to play the game? Is this really a large number of people?

 

[Skii]

Great OP. Cosmetics matter immensely, especially in games like Overwatch where it's the ONLY way to customise your character.

 

[Garlador]

Wait, there are people who buy OW solely to dress up characters in costumes and not to play the game? Is this really a large number of people?

When he says cosmetics is 'the game', I think he means that cosmetics are the PRIMARY thing you earn and unlock in the game. It's the "content treadmill" where your main reward is cool costumes and skins, so you play more to unlock more cool costumes and gear, rinse and repeat.

"The game" is, for many people, playing to unlock content and cosmetics.

 

[clockworkinyou]

I guess my problem is that I don't know anything about HOTS.

Cost of heroes - (spoiler: you control a 'hero' in the game, but have to buy them (by grinding in-game or purchasing currency to play, otherwise just play the free ones each week) - http://heroesofthestorm.gamepedia.com/Hero_Prices

And if you don't know what HOTS is, here you go - http://eu.battle.net/heroes/en/

Again - the OP doesn't delve into this aspect - so I'm asking why there aren't threads and posts about the non-cosmetic features/gameplay that people pay for?

 

[Chezzymann]

I agree with you but unless we all form the industry consensus that games should now cost $100 instead of $60, there isn't a lot which can be done about it.

The $60 base price is about enough to cover the development cost of a game without fun unlockables, so that's what we get these days.

It's actually correct that you mention SC3 and then SCV, because SC3 was a PS2 game and SCV was a PS3 game and it was that generation change from PS2 era to PS3 era where game development costs just exploded.

Honestly game sales would plummet if they were $100. The next CoD probably wouldn't sell over 10 million (they usually sell over 20). The average consumer simply can't afford it at all. So yeah it's just stuck this way.

 

[CountAntonius]

Great OP. Cosmetics matter immensely, especially in games like Overwatch where it's the ONLY way to customise your character.

Does it matter that you can get nearly all the skins in the game through saving up in game currency and never spending a dime on cases? I could understand the argument being made if every single item was loot box only but most of them are not.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Does it matter that you can get nearly all the skins in the game through saving up in game currency and never spending a dime on cases? I could understand the argument being made if every single item was loot box only but most of them are not.

I want the Tracer GBR skin, it's my favourite skin for her and as a Brit I really want it, but I can't get it because I can't afford to pump £30 - £60 into cases for a CHANCE to get it, and I can't play 24/7 due to problems with my back. During this event I have farmed 25 boxes and I didn't get it (nor the GBR player icon which I also wanted) so now I'm honestly bummed because I know I can't try again for another year. If they let us buy it with currency I could get it as I have about 1500. It's more about the fact that they lied to us, and they made that very clear when they updated the description of the loot boxes after the event had already started which means all future events will be a source of frustration for the average player.

 

[Kintaro]

Companies thrive on finding people with compulsive or addictive behavior and exploiting them until they're dried up.

This pretty much sums up the Industry's relationships with gamers as a whole. Gamers tend to have addictive behavior and are prone to being exploited quite easily. This doesn't even factor in gambling tendencies.

This goes back to all of the games in your OP. All of those hidden goodies you grinded for (and are happily nostalgic about) were simply padding to keep you playing and distracted you from realized that...well, those games were actually pretty simple in nature (helps that we were kids or teenagers during those years, didn't see this fact, and had all the time in the world to waste).

In fact, you got down to it.

From the get go, gamers were manipulated into putting value into cosmetics because they were meant to give you a perception of value in the product. It kept you from realizing that you have long since seen everything the game had to offer. This has not changed.

What has changed is time. We're older now. We have less time. More responsibilities. Also, more cash to toss around. What Bethesda did with horse armor was simply confirm the fact that if given the option, a big segment of gamers would skip all of the time consuming grindy bullshit in those old, beloved games and get what they want quicker and enjoy it. With technology, this was made easier.

So, now, in a lot of games, gamers are given a choice. Grind for the goodies or skip and pay for it. Some grind, some pay. However, those seeds planted so many years ago have taken root. The seeds that cosmetics/extra do matter and are a vital part of the game. Some even value them over the game itself. What started as a ploy to distract us from noticed how simple our games were in the past (and keep us from selling said games and helping the budding used market) has evolved into big business (and to keep us from selling said games to GameStop/used market).

Yeah, some companies go too far like Blizzard here. However, it hasn't made people stop playing the game. In fact, people are pissed off they can't outright pay money for them. So, here we remain. Manipulated and controlled by the industry still.

Cosmetics do matter. They were made to matter. We were told they matter. We believed they matter. Either way we paid. Back then, we paid with our time. We were kids. Kids are cheap and wasteful with their time. Now, we're adults. We were cheap and wasteful with our money. =)

 

[Garlador]

Again - the OP doesn't delve into this aspect - so I'm asking why there aren't threads and posts about the non-cosmetic features/gameplay that people pay for?

I didn't delve into it because I haven't PLAYED it nor am I knowledgeable enough about HOTS to make an educated discussion over how it handles gameplay. Not being selective, just ignorant of how the economy and gameplay there works. Others with more experience or knowledge of the subject can address it.

But if it does lock important gameplay features behind arbitrary paywalls, then you can mark me down as a detractor of that decision as well.

I simply don't know enough about it to offer my opinion.

Yeah, some companies go too far like Blizzard here. However, it hasn't made people stop playing the game. In fact, people are pissed off they can't outright pay money for them. So, here we remain. Manipulated and controlled by the industry still.

For all the time I spent on my righteous high-horse, but I actually don't mind paying for post-release content created after a game's launch most of the time (if it's worthwhile). And you're right, that you either pay with time or with money. The problem is always finding a balance.

For instance, I'll openly admit that, during those "glory days" of the NES and SNES, I bought a little something called a "Game Genie" to help me out. To unlock the weapons I needed, to survive the levels that killed me, and to experience more than just f***Ing Turbo Tunnel in Battletoads. And I used devices like Game Genies, Gamesharks, and Action Replays all the way up until online infrastructure made them problematic. My time, even as a kid, was limited, and thus I used codes to speed through story-driven RPGs like Final Fantasy VII (and now, wisely, Square Enix actually includes free boosters in re-releases of the game!). I've moved more to PC gaming lately primarily due to my ability to go in and mod a game to tailor the experience more readily to my preferences, up to and including cutting out or boosting through problematic areas of a game.

So I understand it and I get it. A business will look at anything a player does and go "how can we MONETIZE that?", and they'll push and push and often step over the line. But we, as consumers and customers, have admittedly moved the line back further and further, making it increasingly harder for them to actually cross that line unless they do something blatantly stupid or greedy (and even then, there's still a good chance they could get away with it). Many gamers stick to companies and franchises like loyal sports teams, championing them and defending them even when those companies screw up or exploit their own customer base.

I don't think it's impossible to walk the line, but it requires a semblance of mutual respect and intelligence. But that also requires work and effort, and it's just way, way easier to go for the lowest hanging fruit.

 

[clockworkinyou]

I didn't delve into it because I haven't PLAYED it nor am I knowledgeable enough about HOTS to make an educated discussion over how it handles gameplay. Not being selective, just ignorant of how the economy and gameplay there works. Others with more experience or knowledge of the subject can address it.

But if it does lock important gameplay features behind arbitrary paywalls, then you can mark me down as a detractor of that decision as well.

I simply don't know enough about it to offer my opinion.

I know OP, I was simply trying to say that there are games that do this practice for actual gameplay features, but I don't see any threads about them and I was voicing my thought out loud. I feel your pain and understand that you can be irritated about the practice, but wanted to ponder out loud as to why other practices, within the same company, aren't as discussed.

 

[JCX]

When he says cosmetics is 'the game', I think he means that cosmetics are the PRIMARY thing you earn and unlock in the game. It's the "content treadmill" where your main reward is cool costumes and skins, so you play more to unlock more cool costumes and gear, rinse and repeat.

"The game" is, for many people, playing to unlock content and cosmetics.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I can understand that.

For me, the game is its own reward. I viewed the coins as a cool bonus on top of a satisfying game, not the carrot urging me to play something I'd rather not play.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

They changed it AFTER the backlash and midway through the Summer Games event.

And it was that way from multiple official outlets and channels.


Even then, I can pull up countless interviews with Blizzard's developers talking about the most important thing when it comes to paid content (like loot boxes) is that players feel they got enough VALUE out of them. "Value" is a word they used over and over and over again in these interviews (and I am more than happy to cite these for you if you so desire), and that their goal and aim was to find the balance of content versus value propositions. If that didn't happen, and, say, players felt ripped-off or scammed or goaded into purchases they didn't actually want to make, than they had screwed up, by their own admission.


Preying on compulsive gambling tendencies, reworking a game's economy system post-launch to encourage loot box purchases determined by RNG, being deceptive in the description of the mechanics (until they changed it after being called out), and even being openly dismissive of the complaints themselves (the infamous "it is being received well once you remove the debate over the items not being available for credits" statement still makes me laugh and roll my eyes).

Predatory microtransaction practices are OFTEN geared into creating a sensation of "haves and have nots" which pressure players to spend real-world money to catch up to others or get the thing they've struggled over and over to get but haven't received. I'm a good case for this, of playing the Summer Games stuff since the first day and receiving NOTHING of particular value because the RNG just was not in my favor and they removed any ability to acquire it through attrition and stockpiled currency. It's either sink an undetermined amount of time into the game and hope you get it but better hurry 'cause there's a time limit attached (didn't happen) or spend an undetermined amount of money on the microtransactions and hope you get it (which also may not happen).

Just because they did it that way doesn't mean it's ethical. A lot of accepted business practices are predatory and unethical, but legal and permitted. That still doesn't make them any less anti-consumer.

Again, you're saying they changed the text after the summer games event started, to a more accurate statement. Broken record here. We're over that.

I want a source of blizzard stating they promised to make all future content purchaseable using in game coins earned from the start of the game. That is what I asked for. Not whatever you keep showing.

How is this not clear enough? I mean, it's obvious you can't show what I was originally asking, by now. So why keep pressing the point and acting like you're answering the request for a source when you clearly aren't. Are you that into strawmanning?


I don't buy your ethics argument for a second. But in any event, I was only wondering why that person thought it was unethical. Not because I feel like there is any point or value in debating over it, but out of curiosity. I had momentarily forgotten that some people view micro-transactions as evil, literally.

 

[Skii]

Does it matter that you can get nearly all the skins in the game through saving up in game currency and never spending a dime on cases? I could understand the argument being made if every single item was loot box only but most of them are not.

As someone has already pointed out, seasonal content will always be restricted to that time of year and you will never have a chance of getting it outside that time or with the currency you earn from the game. It's a disgraceful decision. The options are to spend loads of money to POTENTIALLY get what you want or forfeit real life to grind to get the loot boxes to POTENTIALLY get those items.

They've basically said to you, you either get lucky or you'll pay until luck isnt a factor.

 

[test_account]

Yeah, I guess there could be more to it than that. I'm pretty sure Nintendo had all officially licensed first and third party cartridges (at least for North America) manufactured in Japan and then shipped overseas, I could only imagine a lot of additional costs involved here with international shipping. Then there was the cut that the retailers took out of each cartridges. In third party cases, Nintendo would take a cut along with retailers out of each cart sold.

Unlicensed games on the other hand would generally use much cheaper labour, didn't have to deal with shipping overseas or give a cut to Nintendo.

But then again Nintendo was accused of price fixing as well.

Yeah, thats true. I remember the old NES games saying "printed/made in Japan", i think everything was made in Japan.

Maybe I should have been clearer in how I laid out the argument, but you can change it to this and it is still the same:

1) Only DLC that gives you a gameplay advantage matters.
2) Cosmetic DLC doesn't give you a gameplay advantage.
3) Therefore, cosmetic DLC doesn't matter.

It still commits the same fallacy of begging the question. Part of the reason is what you point out in your post, that how things look can matter, which is what the op goes into.

Sure, i'm just saying that i dont think anyone has argued against that how things look in general doesnt matter at all. The quote in the OP ("Cosmentics Don't Matter") is likely referring to the arguement regarding what people say about payed DLC that only alters appearances, that this is much better than DLC that gives you a gameplay advantage. How things look in game matters a lot (what looks best etc. is of course subjective), but a game can be just a fun even if i get e.g 10 skins instead of 12 skins, in my opinion.

Really, the biggest threat to gaming, in the past ten years I've watch it unfold, is player apathy and the slow tolerance of accepted business practices that exploit players, whether it started with horse armor or grew to online passes or pre-order bonuses or retailer exclusive pre-order bonuses or retailer exclusive day one pre-order bonuses or retailer exclusive day one collector's edition-only pre-order bonuses to season passes to on-disc DLC to microtransactions to MACROtransactions to requiring spreadsheets to figure out what in the hell we're actually even getting in our games anymore.

Do you have any suggestion to how to battle the rising cost of game developement?

 

[Nickle]

I'd rather have $60 games with payable skins then $70-80 games with free side content. Our standards for AAA game production will only get higher and higher, and its getting harder and harder for the average dev to make a profit from only game sales.

 

[Night Angel]

I enjoy cosmetics. But I enjoy balanced gameplay independent of pay 2 win advantage more than I like skins.

The mistake I've seen people making is framing the "cosmetics don't matter" argument as if people are actually saying they don't enjoy cosmetic options in games. I've never seen this argument posed by anyone.

The argument most commonly stated by the CDM camp is that cosmetic DLC doesn't impact the gameplay, and therefore it is the lesser of two evils. DLC is rapidly becoming a necessary evil with the way game budgets and dev costs are exploding while the price for games remains stagnant. As such, many people recognize the necessity for a publisher to increase their revenue stream, especially if they continually update their game. Locking away cosmetics doesn't impact the moment to moment gameplay of the game and "doesn't matter" in the sense that people who spend $0 experience the same mechanics and are just as competitive as whales. It is also commonly seen as a much better alternative to paid maps in multiplayer games that split the userbase.

TL;DR
No one thinks cosmetics don't matter in a vacuum. They think cosmetics don't matter in terms of mechanics and keeping all players on a level playing field as an alternative to DLC that would give advantage or split the userbase.