Extra Cosmetics are nice to have but they don't enrich my gaming experiences. With that said I'd like to have the option to unlock the extra stuff in game, as opposed to strictly gaining access by going through a pay wall. However that seems to be a thing of the past for a lot of series/genres.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Cosmetics Don't Matter" and Why They Do
- Thread starter Garlador
- Start date
BravesCountry
Banned
I do think cosmetics matter, anyone who has played an MMO knows that for certain, but if it's the compromise we need to keep games at $60 with continued service I think I'm ok with it. Basically I understand both sides of the argument, I don't think there is a clear solution here.
But is $60 enough for full development and continued service of a game these days when taking inflation into account? If it is I'm against these cosmetic DLC trends and if it's not then I'm for it. I don't want the games I'm paying for to be any more than $60.
But is $60 enough for full development and continued service of a game these days when taking inflation into account? If it is I'm against these cosmetic DLC trends and if it's not then I'm for it. I don't want the games I'm paying for to be any more than $60.
Earthpainting
Member
Monster Hunter has some of my favourite gameplay in any game out there, but I would drop the series like a brick if the armours didn't all look different. I'd confidently say that cosmetics matter a lot to me for that very reason.
I don't have any issue with paying for cosmetics, but I'm not a fan of Blizzard's gashapon system. You aren't paying for something, rather than that you're paying for a chance for something. This lottery is stuffed with sprays and icons that I doubt anyone would be interested in, and you're not even eliminating those pointless drops from future boxes. Duplicates are not only possible, but are quite frequent. I've not even hit level 100 yet, and I've been getting two dupes per box for a long time now. I doubt Overwatch would have put duplicate items in the loot boxes if they weren't monetising them.
I'd respect the system more if you were buying in-game cash directly, rather than boxes.
I don't have any issue with paying for cosmetics, but I'm not a fan of Blizzard's gashapon system. You aren't paying for something, rather than that you're paying for a chance for something. This lottery is stuffed with sprays and icons that I doubt anyone would be interested in, and you're not even eliminating those pointless drops from future boxes. Duplicates are not only possible, but are quite frequent. I've not even hit level 100 yet, and I've been getting two dupes per box for a long time now. I doubt Overwatch would have put duplicate items in the loot boxes if they weren't monetising them.
I'd respect the system more if you were buying in-game cash directly, rather than boxes.
To be fair, this is partially a problem of their own design though. In the pre-games-as-a-service days, you could set up your own servers. On these private servers, using community skins, sprays, weapons, maps and sometimes even entire modes was the norm. Since Blizzard doesn't want people to be able to make their own custom content, and wanted monetise official stuff instead, they have to lock it all down and use their own servers.
Soodanim
Gold Member
That's merely you running on a different definition of gameplay to them (probably most people). You could have a butt ugly game (horrible graphics, no costumes) but the gameplay could be absolutely perfect. Everything needs to be at an acceptable level of quality in a game, but pure gameplay doesn't consider costumes. It considers mechanics.
Daffy Duck
Member
I would be a lot more open to these cosmetic items if I could buy what I want when I want and not have to spend it on an RNG crate that will give me painfully low odds of getting what I want.
I'm not an Overwatch player but the things are worse in BO3, a game I do play, and I really wish I could just buy what I want with real money.
I'm not an Overwatch player but the things are worse in BO3, a game I do play, and I really wish I could just buy what I want with real money.
WiiRevolution1
Member
Yeah, it has stopped me from getting many games, including Overwatch. I still kinda want it, and if I do get it I won't spend money on DLC.
Even my favorite company, Nintendo has done this with Amiibo like in Yoshi's Woolly World and Mario Kart 8 with cosmetics. That won't stop me from playing those due to loving those series put it makes me sad. (Not to mention locking characters/missions in Code Name Steam and Splatoon)
Indies are the best for 100% complete packages. One of the best games this year, Mutant Mudds Super Challenge has 20 character swaps for your playable character with most of them being from other indie games. Games like Runbow and Super Meat Boy also do this.
The games in the past few years have been the funnest but overall the industry has really just turned to shit.
Even my favorite company, Nintendo has done this with Amiibo like in Yoshi's Woolly World and Mario Kart 8 with cosmetics. That won't stop me from playing those due to loving those series put it makes me sad. (Not to mention locking characters/missions in Code Name Steam and Splatoon)
Indies are the best for 100% complete packages. One of the best games this year, Mutant Mudds Super Challenge has 20 character swaps for your playable character with most of them being from other indie games. Games like Runbow and Super Meat Boy also do this.
The games in the past few years have been the funnest but overall the industry has really just turned to shit.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Cosmetics matter because people care about them. But the fact that cosmetics are being sold, that doesn't matter to many people. And basically the entire OP is one incredibly convoluted strawman argument.
They even go on to argue that the cosmetics if removed is a significantly worse game, as if people without the ability to use the X costume on their own character are playing a worse game. In fact, no - that is wrong. If someone uses X costume against someone who doesn't "own" that costume, they don't show up as grey blobs, they still have that costume on. The visuals aren't changed when you don't own those costumes.
Sure, cosmetics matter. What doesn't matter is that costumes are being sold. Call it apathy if you want, I think that is a bit of a lowbrow attack that oversimplifies a much more complex issue. Just because not everyone cares about the same things you care about...
Regardless, OW doesn't owe you free content updates. And the paid portion is just the right to use a costume on yourself, that you can only barely see while you're using it. It's for the feels. But it would feel a lot worse if they were selling heavier content, in more than one way.
They even go on to argue that the cosmetics if removed is a significantly worse game, as if people without the ability to use the X costume on their own character are playing a worse game. In fact, no - that is wrong. If someone uses X costume against someone who doesn't "own" that costume, they don't show up as grey blobs, they still have that costume on. The visuals aren't changed when you don't own those costumes.
Sure, cosmetics matter. What doesn't matter is that costumes are being sold. Call it apathy if you want, I think that is a bit of a lowbrow attack that oversimplifies a much more complex issue. Just because not everyone cares about the same things you care about...
Regardless, OW doesn't owe you free content updates. And the paid portion is just the right to use a costume on yourself, that you can only barely see while you're using it. It's for the feels. But it would feel a lot worse if they were selling heavier content, in more than one way.
Coffee Dog
Banned
It is entirely up to the developer what the budget of the game they are developing is.
If it is not viable to release games that will make a profit at sixty dollars a pop then there are unbelievably beyond serious issues with the economics involved. A phrase about eggs and baskets comes to mind.
What's the difference?
The way I understand it, it seems like "cosmetics" are the "extra" art "designed" to be paid extra for.
SomedayTheFire
Member
Uh "Cosmetics don't matter" means they don't matter compared to microtransactions that actually affect gameplay...
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Yep.
You'd think such a long OP would have paused for a second to understand what people are saying, but nope.
Rudimental
Member
This is more accurate than you think.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/08/users-treat-criticism-of-favorite-brands-as-threat-to-self-image/
LouisaFerre
Member
I don't agree. The entire reason this practice happens is that it's more profitable for the companies to follow that route. The current state of the industry isn't something that was forced. It's voluntary. Game budgets are rising because publishers are choosing to put more money into the game, because they believe that if they market it well, the increased budget and production values will provide a larger payoff. The industry wouldn't collapse if the revenue stream from consumers decreased because they stopped buying DLC. If there was no way for the companies to make more than 60 dollars per consumer, then they would lower the budgets for the games accordingly. The financial barrier of entry into the marketplace is incredibly low, and the standards that consumers have regarding production values aren't an absolute across the industry, they vary by market and genre. Companies only have to spend AAA budgets and only need AAA visuals if they make it a goal to make a AAA game. Also, on top of that, the standards consumers have for AAA games is set by AAA games! People get disappointed in the visuals of one game if it falls below what they've grown to expect from other developers, which means that the standards aren't really capable of getting higher than what a significant amount of developers are capable of reaching.
Anyway, I know that last line wasn't entirely serious, but unless I'm one of the people who wants and demands features that make the game so expensive it needs microtransactions to be profitable at the entry fee Im willing to pay, there's no hypocrisy or issue with me complaining about or not wanting to support those kinds of practices. I, and I'm sure plenty of other people who genuinely care about this stuff, are more than willing to buy the lower budget games that don't have loot crates. I was not done some kind of favor if a pricing model I find annoying or anti-consumer was put in place to finance the inclusion of a feature I never even asked for.
Cosmetics mean crap to me. To take the latest example of Overwatch, the game plays the same whether I have blue skin or bronze skin, whether my character has a sombrero or a fedora. I don't give a damn.
And especially don't give a damn to pay real money for a digital piece of clothing.
But I am so happy there are people that are willing to pay for cosmetics. I don't understand them, but I certainly don't judge them.
It's their money, they can do what they want with it. And the more people there are willing to pay good money for cosmetics, the happier I am because it means that I will be getting more free content at their expense. New characters, new maps, new modes, all available to me for free because someone somewhere just had to have that emote.
I wish this business model becomes dominant. I'm always happy when other people pay for my games.
And especially don't give a damn to pay real money for a digital piece of clothing.
But I am so happy there are people that are willing to pay for cosmetics. I don't understand them, but I certainly don't judge them.
It's their money, they can do what they want with it. And the more people there are willing to pay good money for cosmetics, the happier I am because it means that I will be getting more free content at their expense. New characters, new maps, new modes, all available to me for free because someone somewhere just had to have that emote.
I wish this business model becomes dominant. I'm always happy when other people pay for my games.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
As much as I was annoyed by not being able to just flat out purchase those summer skins (either with money or coins), I think they've stated that's exactly the point. Even if they bring that event back next year or in a few, there will presumably be enough events like that to make you "stand out."
Pejo
Gold Member
Great OP. I've been silently disgusted with DLC for years now.
What I am ok with - Souls DLC, expansions, new areas, bosses, weapons, armor. Hell, I'll even go so far as Asura's Wrath DLC. At least there was actual content there, despite them holding the true ending hostage.
What I am not ok with - Street Fighter V "season pass" that doesn't even include everything from the season. Costumes only attainable via real money, instead of the in-game currency like they originally stated. DoA costumes that in total equal like 5x the cost of the game.
I agree with a lot of your points, especially that publishers will push as far as they can until they get a significant pushback from consumers. I feel like Microsoft specifically is the worst offender of this in all of gaming. The shit they've done, tried to do, or are trying to do always reeks of "let's see if we can get this one by them!"
Anyways, great read, and I wish there was a way to reverse a lot of these practices, but I do understand what some posters are saying about increasing costs with the same base game prices creates a need for supplemental revenue.
What I am ok with - Souls DLC, expansions, new areas, bosses, weapons, armor. Hell, I'll even go so far as Asura's Wrath DLC. At least there was actual content there, despite them holding the true ending hostage.
What I am not ok with - Street Fighter V "season pass" that doesn't even include everything from the season. Costumes only attainable via real money, instead of the in-game currency like they originally stated. DoA costumes that in total equal like 5x the cost of the game.
I agree with a lot of your points, especially that publishers will push as far as they can until they get a significant pushback from consumers. I feel like Microsoft specifically is the worst offender of this in all of gaming. The shit they've done, tried to do, or are trying to do always reeks of "let's see if we can get this one by them!"
Anyways, great read, and I wish there was a way to reverse a lot of these practices, but I do understand what some posters are saying about increasing costs with the same base game prices creates a need for supplemental revenue.
CS:GO proves player-hosted servers can co-exist with monetized content, but I think the move toward company-hosted servers is player-driven. Server browsers have fallen out of favor. Players want to click a button and be dropped in a match and that's where company-hosted servers become more of a requirement.
Rudimental
Member
So then you are agreeing with the op. If 'cosmetics don't matter' means that cosmetics only don't matter in comparison to gameplay, then cosmetics must matter in themselves. The op is about how cosmetics matter in themselves.
anothertech
Member
I think the controversy isn't that people don't think cosmetics matter so much as some people are ok with paying for cosmetics and some aren't.
There's a large portion of gamers that think any extra tick made for a game they've paid full price for should be free, or automatically included. But there's even more I believe that think devs should be paid for extra time spent on cosmetics if it means they can get somthing thru really want.
Of course there's the Devs that exploit the hell out of such mechanics (doa5, mgsv I'm looking at you) but much less so in a game like Overwatch IMO.
There's a large portion of gamers that think any extra tick made for a game they've paid full price for should be free, or automatically included. But there's even more I believe that think devs should be paid for extra time spent on cosmetics if it means they can get somthing thru really want.
Of course there's the Devs that exploit the hell out of such mechanics (doa5, mgsv I'm looking at you) but much less so in a game like Overwatch IMO.
MrCunningham
Member
FallenGrace
Member
Cosmetics very much matter. Everyone wants to either look great or stupid in a funny way. I personally refuse to buy any such things though. The PSN store is full of DOA costume packs and other slightly creepy Japanese games with similar. It's a waste of my time looking most of the time.
The sad thing is I like DLC. Meaningful DLC though. This is where CDProjeckt just got it right with Witcher 3. They released some cosmetic costumes and things for free, then released two big expansion packs I happily threw my money at. Quality DLC there just isn't enough of though in the industry. It's just throw away stuff to make a quick pound from fans.
The sad thing is I like DLC. Meaningful DLC though. This is where CDProjeckt just got it right with Witcher 3. They released some cosmetic costumes and things for free, then released two big expansion packs I happily threw my money at. Quality DLC there just isn't enough of though in the industry. It's just throw away stuff to make a quick pound from fans.
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
To be honest, I'm not sure how these things work, with regards to offline single player games. People say that games in general should cost more these days, so if that's true and someone who knows what they're talking about could give me a one-off price for an average game that's fair on the devs who made it, I'll happily pay more. With these games, I don't believe we should be asked to pay again for anything except an expansion.
But games like Overwatch and Destiny are different. You're asked to pay full price, then pay again for updates, then again for character skins or bloody dance moves ("They're just cosmetics!)...I simply don't understand why these games, which are online multiplayer experiences that are obviously designed to be played for months, even years on end, don't come with a monthly subscription fee. Wouldn't that work, wouldn't that money keep the servers running and cover the cost of a couple of big updates a year? Isn't that what World of Warcraft did?
PC games like Zork were similarly priced and came on cheaper floppy disks, so...
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
Why not?
To be clear, you don't pay full price for the game, then again and again for various updates and cosmetic items. You just pay a monthly subscription.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Wow, you were serious. You think optional costumes with the option to pay for them rather than earn them is not preferable than having to pay a monthly subscription fee. You also don't seem to understand that they are not charging for content updates. Maps, modes, and new characters are all free, yes, get your facts straight. And even cosmetics don't need to be bought with cash. It's all optional. But you think a subscription is preferable.
SatoAilDarko
Member
Tekken Tag Tournament 2 included hundreds of DLC costumes for free. Yet it sold less than DOA 5 which sold hundreds of costumes for DLC.
I wouldn't blame Tekken for abandoning free DLC.
I wouldn't blame Tekken for abandoning free DLC.
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
There's no need to talk to me like that.
I've never played Overwatch, if I misunderstand how it all works I apologise. I assumed it works the same as Destiny, where you pay full price for the game then pay again for any updates then pay again for alternate character costume and other cosmetic items. You pay for everything and the argument to justify it is that it covers the cost of keeping servers running so people can play the game. I'm asking if a monthly subscription would be a fairer alternative.
And again, please don't talk to me like I'm some half-wit.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Your lack of knowledge on the subject and your willingness to make assumptions is your problem.
Check your facts before making posts like these.
The SP clearly stated before the game was coming out on what you would be getting, the 6 DLC characters and their respective release DLC costume. If you don't read the product description it's YOUR fault.
They never said all costumes would be earnable with in-game money, they clearly stated there would be costumes you can pay with real money, and others you could get with in-game money, and guess what? That's HOW it is in the game.
I'm sick and tired of people spreading misinformation and lies about a product that they didn't even read the description of.
Fbh
Member
I don't mind skins being paid not because I think they don't matter but because I like this new trend of having free maps, characters, game modes, etc at the cost of paying for skins.
Yeah sure in an ideal world games would get years of post launch content updates for free.
But in the current industry devs will only continue to support a game that gives them money. If it's not by selling map packs, weapons and modes , then by selling skins and cosmetic items which in the end is the better option IMO
Yeah sure in an ideal world games would get years of post launch content updates for free.
But in the current industry devs will only continue to support a game that gives them money. If it's not by selling map packs, weapons and modes , then by selling skins and cosmetic items which in the end is the better option IMO
SomedayTheFire
Member
The argument of cosmetics don't matter stems from F2P games and microtransactions. These games would generally have MT's that affect gameplay and make it easier for some, some games don't. They only have cosmetic items for sale that don't change gameplay or alter the power structures.
Like if you could buy powered up weapons in a game that completely changes the game and makes it unfair on players that don't buy them. If it's just cosmetics, nothing changes, one player just looks slightly different. That is the cosmetics don't matter argument.
BlitzerRadic
Member
You had to purchase the Reaper of Souls expansion to get that content.
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
And your attitude is your problem.
A simple, "Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree with Overwatch, it works different", would have been fine. But no, straight to the Jon Stewart gifs and snarky, condescending comments.
test_account
XP-39C²
How much did that add to the cost? But i doubt this is the main reason. Unlicensed games back then were usually noticeably cheaper and they faced the same thing regarding ROM chips and manufacturing costs. I think it was more a case of that you got what you could get. The gaming market back then was also a lot smaller, but at the same time, the games were also a lot cheaper to make.
Games have become much more expensive to make. And now that mobile gaming is taking over as the main gaming platform for many, the risk for other traditional games is even higher. Having additional and optional offer is the best way to go to gain extra income instead of increasing the base price from $60 to $70.
Overwatch "only" charges for boxes with randomized cosmetics. Updates of characters, maps etc are free (for now anyway).
Concerning the subscription fee: That's not a model players like. There's only a handful of MMO's that can sustain a subscription fee. Everyone else has given up. The reason is obvious: people aren't willing to pay subscriptions to multiple games.
Hell, MS and Sony only managed success with their own subscirption services because they denied access to all multiplayergames without it. Now imagine individual games charging for that.
test_account
XP-39C²
The better way of saying would be "They do not impact the gameplay like Pay to Win, but do matter to me"
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
I never thought about the bolded. Yeah, multiple subscriptions to multiple games would probably be too much for the average gamer to afford. It could work if you just picked the one game and stuck with it, but I know a lot of people enjoy playing all the games.
Rudimental
Member
First, there is no such thing as the argument of cosmetics don't matter. There are a number of different ones. This is actually a different argument to the one in your first post.
Second, this one is the 'cosmetics don't matter' that the op is talking about:
1) Only things that confer a gameplay advantage matter.
2) Cosmetics don't confer a gameplay advantage.
3) Therefore, cosmetics don't matter.
This argument begs the question. The first claim (1) is only true if cosmetics do not matter, and so this argument has to start by assuming that its conclusion is true. In order for gameplay to be the only thing that matters, cosmetics have to not matter, but gameplay being the only thing that matters is used to entail the conclusion that cosmetics do not matter. So, there is in fact no real argument here, just the assertion of the claim 'cosmetics don't matter'.
This is what the op is about, countering the assertion that 'cosmetics don't matter'.
Pretty much. Pay2win mechanics objectively degrade the quality of the game and give an unfair advantage to people who are willing to pay more. Cosmetics subjectively change the game and people who pay or don't pay are still on the same level competitively.
Monocle
Member
Excellent post, OP. You're right, cosmetics matter very much, as I'm reminded when a game like Bayonetta 2 comes along and gives players huge visual variety for free. Or when I look at something like DOA5 and see the opposite: dozens upon dozens of costume packs sold for prices that can quickly approach what other games charge for a season pass.
I really wish more game companies would charge reasonable prices for cosmetic options. Right now you seem to get either an abundance of cosmetic options parceled out as relatively expensive microtransactions, or almost no consmetic content at all. Games like Sunset Overdrive are rare and wonderful exceptions to the rule.
I really wish more game companies would charge reasonable prices for cosmetic options. Right now you seem to get either an abundance of cosmetic options parceled out as relatively expensive microtransactions, or almost no consmetic content at all. Games like Sunset Overdrive are rare and wonderful exceptions to the rule.