Support NeoGAF

[Kinyou]

It's kind of sad how pretty much all optional skins in Arkham Knight were behind a paywall, but I guess there's also the argument that those skins wouldn't exist without the additional money intake.

 

[test_account]

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'.

Have anyone made such arguements though? I honestly cant remember seeing anyone making the arguement that it doesnt matter at all how things look (e.g art direction) when it comes to the enjoyment of the game. Every time i've seen the "cosmetics doesnt matter" arguement regarding payed DLC, its been in regards of getting any advatanges in the game, at least from what i can remember.

 

[MrCunningham]

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.

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.

 

[balohna]

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.

 

[Rudimental]

Have anyone made such arguements though? I honestly cant remember seeing anyone making the arguement that it doesnt matter at all how things look (e.g art direction) when it comes to the enjoyment of the game. Every time i've seen the "cosmetics doesnt matter" arguement regarding payed DLC, its been in regards of getting any advatanges in the game, at least from what i can remember.

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.

 

[SmokedMeat]

To me skins matter most in fighting games. Oddly enough the shitstorm is over Overwatch, despite fighting games also charging money for those extra swanky outfits. Is there a bigger offender then DoA?

Anyways Overwatch's problem is not letting players purchase the fancy duds with in game money. They really should as it's no big deal if someone gets to buy an outfit for their favorite character. You're still going to get diehards that will pay real money for everything.

Hopefully Blizzard changes things for the next event.

 

[StereoVsn]

It was $60 at launch.

Plus they had that real money auction house at launch too which was later removed.

It was $60 at launch, expansion was $40, and yes, they did have the AH which was removed (instead of correcting/fixing it).

I agree with the OP. Fighting and Beat 'M Up games especially used to be all about unlockables. Look at them now . Soul Calibur, DOA series were great for fun and cool ways to unlock costumes.

Now we have DLC store, terrible single player modes, and have folks defending Capcom left and right for freaking pulling actual Arcade mode which would have been inconceivable a few years ago.

Then look at JRPGs. Instead of fun ways to unlock costumes or cool cheats, etc... You have costume packs and cheat codes. Look at the newer Tales games and it's kind of sad

Unfortunately since players (myself included) continued to buy the games and a lot but these sorts of "special" DLCs the industry is pretty much geared to this model in full retail games. Hell, companies outright lie on what's included in he game and we still have costumes defending them in full force.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I think paying for costumes sucks and shouldn't exist.....but I also don't care enough about them to get angry. Would never buy them though

 

[Despera]

What's the difference?

The way I understand it, it seems like "cosmetics" are the "extra" art "designed" to be paid extra for.

Art design is the foundation upon which you can apply these cosmetics. If the foundation is shit no amount of cosmetic additions can fix it.

And as far as I'm concerned Blizzard isn't doing anything wrong with their current loot system.

 

[water_wendi]

Great post. i love this part:

All this stuff? This "optional" stuff that doesn't affect gameplay? That's stuff we just used to call "content". Is music optional? Is color optional? Textures? Are all sound effects really necessary? How much "optional" content would you be willing to take away before you'd have a problem?

 

[Blueblur1]

OP, that is an excellent post. I've always looked at cosmetics as part of the whole game experience since games always included all of their content on the disc/cartridge back in the pre-DLC days.

While I certainly can go without some cosmetics (like skins for Junkrat), I really do want to collect all the special ones like the Summer Games skins in Overwatch. And the way Blizzard has handled that is fucking infuriating.

Sadly, what many warned us about during the horse armor days has come to pass. BlazBlue and Guilty Gear games sell you colors, and Street Fighter V's premium costumes are $4 a piece (compare that to the Street Fighter IV 5 character costume bundle Capcom sold for the same price!!). It's only going to get worse since people are suckers and hand over their money instead of crying foul.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Great post. i love this part:

You mean, if you call something optional it must be true right?

Or wait a second, when people call something optional they are saying it is an optional add on. The music isn't an optional add on. Therefore it's not optional.

 

[zorlaczerohero]

"Cosmetics often don't matter" unless they do.

For 90% of my games that have additional cosmetic content behind a paywall I will not buy it because I just don't care. I would guess most people are the same to a greater or lesser extent. I find a long term social game such as WoW will make me be more willing to pay for cosmetic content than something I'll finish and never play again, but then this is mirrored in game. It took me an age to get the perfect look in WoW, going through old dungeons, looking for a perfect piece of armour to transmog etc. That in game investment was perhaps mirrored in how I was happy to support a Blizzard charity push for a new mount that cost $25 or whatever.

Cosmetics matter to whoever they matter to, i won't deride anyone for buying or not buying them. I'm sure there are many who have never purchased a cosmetic extra, conversely I'm sure there are many who need to get everything for certain titles.

 

[Mozendo]

Great post. i love this part:

That's pretty much a requirement unless it's one of those art games that's trying to do something different.
I personally don't care about the whole situation but comparing to skins to music is incredibly silly.

 

[mclem]

It's kind of sad how pretty much all optional skins in Arkham Knight were behind a paywall, but I guess there's also the argument that those skins wouldn't exist without the additional money intake.

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.

 

[UserDoesNotExist]

glamour is the true endgame

ffxiv has had that as the cornerstone for years

In the 15+ years I've played MMOs, the best rationale I've heard for why people play them is "because it gives nerds an socially approved way to dress up dolls."

I'm convinced 75% of the "lol cosmetics dont matter" crowd do pay money for the cosmetics, they just want to justify it to themselves that they're really just in it for the gameplay, bruh. Even we nerds are obsessed with fashion, though ours skews towards the ironic shirt variety. It's a base human instinct that everyone (yes, you, gentle reader!) has. And once you pretend that you don't really care about fashion and are just in it for the gameplay, ironically you've already lost to the full time psychologists employed by the F2P developers, because you've let your defenses down. Go read the accounts of ex-whales if you don't believe me.

 

[OnimaruXLR]

I can see the point that the people who don't like cosmetic microtransaction nickle and diming have.

But...

What can be done? The people who can afford it probably actually like it, and are too rich a vein of extra cash for the publishers to turn away from. And if the game is actually good enough that the DLC implementation only besmirches it instead of ruining it, most people won't care (like me)

I just don't see a way to put this particular genie back in the bottle.

 

[PedroLumpy]

Funny, the 'Cosmetics DO matter' argument makes me feel old. When I look back, I remember not having to put up with grindy bullshit in games. When I was first complaining against unlock grindy bullshit in games, I was told to get lost. I don't have much sympathy for you cosmetics types now.

 

[Give War A Chance]

Well I got a sick Tracer skin out of a Summer Games loot box and I'm still terrible at playing Tracer.

So, that's cool. Honestly, I think a lot of people that say "cosmetics don't matter" (like myself) aren't making a declaration for all gamers. We're (or at least I am) saying that if we get them for free, cool. If we have to pay for them, then I won't and it won't affect how much I enjoy the game I'm playing, even if everyone else is skin'd to the gills.

They're cosmetic. If they change anything about how the game plays, we're having a different conversation. But I really don't care what Roadhog looks like. He's still a boss.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Cosmetics are a huge part of games for many people, myself included and the whole Overwatch Summer Event scandal definitely hurt my enjoyment of the game, I've barely played it since I opened up the 25 boxes I farmed because I just can't be bothered with it anymore, Competitive is gone and farming Quick Play in the hopes I'll manage to randomly get the item I want isn't an enjoyable thought because I know the odds are stacked so much against me I may as well not bother and get the same result. So instead of playing the game, using the skin I wanted I'm not playing the game at all because Blizzard had to get greedy, I fully supported them adding loot boxes in the start but I guess this is what happens, they always have to go that extra mile to squeeze as much money as possible out of their fans when the game is already doing better than they could have ever imagined, and lets be real, the Summer loot boxes would have still sold massive amounts even if we could buy the skins with currency.

 

[Demoskinos]

Some of what you said is true but also...the industry changes and has changed a lot and for the better IMO. Sure you could earn extra costumes in older DOA titles (and guess what you still can in DOA5!) to pull out a specific example you tipped your hat at. But DLC allows for more costumes to be made than would ever be feasible on a game development timeline. I see all of this as a positive. And I see it as a positive in Overwatch as well. We get free maps and free heroes because Blizzard can offset the development cost with people who gamble on crates. I honestly don't see how people can complain about that.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Some of what you said is true but also...the industry changes and has changed a lot and for the better IMO. Sure you could earn extra costumes in older DOA titles (and guess what you still can in DOA5!) to pull out a specific example you tipped your hat at. But DLC allows for more costumes to be made than would ever be feasible on a game development timeline. I see all of this as a positive. And I see it as a positive in Overwatch as well. We get free maps and free heroes because Blizzard can offset the development cost with people who gamble on crates. I honestly don't see how people can complain about that.

People are short sighted. Or selfish. And maybe both. The benefits of selling cosmetics long term are absolutely great for the game community. No map DLCs to split people up. No worrying about how much you have to spend every year just to play alongside your friends. No worrying about having to buy new characters to be able to play competitively. I haven't been able to play OW lately due to a busted GPU. But I know I can jump back into the game years down the road and I won't have to buy expansion packs or DLC packs to have access to all the content. So this sort of business model is great for getting people back to the game, keeping the community vibrant, etc..

I see people call it a scandal and I chuckle a bit. Going into OW, many hoped that the retail fee would be the only paid requirement to enjoy all the characters, maps, modes. We knew cosmetics would be sold from the start. There is no scandal here. We knew there could be cash only skins in the game and the summer skins aren't even that.

 

[Garlador]

You mean, if you call something optional it must be true right?

Or wait a second, when people call something optional they are saying it is an optional add on. The music isn't an optional add on. Therefore it's not optional.

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 see people call it a scandal and I chuckle a bit. Going into OW, many hoped that the retail fee would be the only paid requirement to enjoy all the characters, maps, modes. We knew cosmetics would be sold from the start. There is no scandal here. We knew there could be cash only skins in the game and the summer skins aren't even that.

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.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

I feel that there is a distinct difference between first person games and 3rd person games when it comes to this matter. If it's cosmetics on a character I spend most of my time not seeing then it doesn't change the way I feel about a game.

 

[Garlador]

I feel that there is a distinct difference between first person games and 3rd person games when it comes to this matter. If it's cosmetics on a character I spend most of my time not seeing then it doesn't change the way I feel about a game.

Partially, but I still see my characters out of the game sessions or during kill-cams and replays.

I mean, I cared a lot about unlocking some of this stuff in Halo 3 for that very reason.

Getting that katana was one of the highlights of my time with the game.

 

[Darryl M R]

Partially, but I still see my characters out of the game sessions or during kill-cams and replays.

I mean, I cared a lot about unlocking some of this stuff in Halo 3 for that very reason.


Getting that katana was one of the highlights of my time with the game.

I wanted the Recon helmet so bad in Halo 3

 

[Affeinvasion]

Witcher 3 only had unlockable armor and even had free dlc to change certain npc costumes.

 

[Keihart]

In an online game where this micro transactions don't imbalance the game and fund the future content, awesome.

In a single player game i want them all to be part of the main game or be included in an expansion, it's not like you are winning anything if extra costumes are kept paid.

They do matter, i agree.

 

[The Lamonster]

This thread is amazing, nice job.

 

[Weltall Zero]

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.

 

[Garlador]

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.

Not all visual designs are cosmetics, but all cosmetics are part of the visual design.

Simpler?

And I had several points where I mentioned how alternate costumes matter to people and can affect their game experience. Entire games often wrap their mechanics and player-feedback loop around unlockables such as cosmetics.

It's one reason why so many people joke that "glamour" is the endgame of Final Fantasy XIV; to work hard so you can look the coolest.

 

[cakely]

I knew this would be about Overwatch.

I like cosmetics, but I don't feel that Overwatch is crossing a line by putting them in loot crates, even if the loot crates are only available for a limited time.

 

[zma1013]

I put cosmetics on my Overwatch guy and I can only see the arms. They should be like 80% cheaper.

 

[Garlador]

I knew this would be about Overwatch.

I like cosmetics, but I don't feel that Overwatch is crossing a line by putting them in loot crates, even if the loot crates are only available for a limited time.

Here's something though; I'm mostly alright with Overwatch's approach, because for the most part you CAN earn them by playing the game and, more importantly, every session gives you currency you can stockpile to spend on the one cosmetic or skin you have your eyes on. Through enough hard work and patience, you can get whatever you want through gameplay.

But the Summer Games doesn't use in-game currency. It's useless. You only have two options; hope you get it through repeated playthroughs during a limited duration (to date, I have not received ONE skin I want), or punch in your credit card info and keep clicking on loot box purchases with the HOPE you get what you want (which, again, you could waste $100 and still not get it).

It's problematic and runs counter to even Blizzard's own official statements regarding acquiring skins and cosmetics.

 

[Conkerkid11]

I mean, you can bring up all the older games that used to have all these neat unlockables that you liked, but games also used to release with their content and bugs set in stone, with no post-release support. The devs pushed the game out the door and that was it.

Is that actually true? I bought D3 for 40$, also by Blizzard, and still get new patches with new content.

D3 was also largely funded by the RMAH that existed for quite awhile when it initially released on PC.

For a moment there it looked like they were going to start up a microtransaction shop like they've got in WoW, but that never happened as far as I'm aware.

It also helped that it had a paid expansion and two generations of console releases.

 

[Lothars]

Here's something though; I'm mostly alright with Overwatch's approach, because for the most part you CAN earn them by playing the game and, more importantly, every session gives you currency you can stockpile to spend on the one cosmetic or skin you have your eyes on. Through enough hard work and patience, you can get whatever you want through gameplay.

But the Summer Games doesn't use in-game currency. It's useless. You only have two options; hope you get it through repeated playthroughs during a limited duration (to date, I have not received ONE skin I want), or punch in your credit card info and keep clicking on loot box purchases with the HOPE you get what you want (which, again, you could waste $100 and still not get it).

It's problematic and runs counter to even Blizzard's own official statements regarding acquiring skins and cosmetics.

I don't agree with the majority of your OP and think most of it is complete overreaction but the one part I agree with is that. The Summer Games should have used in game currency as well instead of just having it earnable from the boxes.

I mean, you can bring up all the older games that used to have all these neat unlockables that you liked, but games also used to release with their content and bugs set in stone, with no post-release support. The devs pushed the game out the door and that was it.

exactly, which is why I don't think the OP is very good.

 

[Manac0r]

*Slow clap... slowly escalating to a standing ovation*

Great read. Well thought out and appealed to this old timer. Thank you!

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Is this like a poor man's Cracked article.

 

[cakely]

Here's something though; I'm mostly alright with Overwatch's approach, because for the most part you CAN earn them by playing the game and, more importantly, every session gives you currency you can stockpile to spend on the one cosmetic or skin you have your eyes on. Through enough hard work and patience, you can get whatever you want through gameplay.

But the Summer Games doesn't use in-game currency. It's useless. You only have two options; hope you get it through repeated playthroughs during a limited duration (to date, I have not received ONE skin I want), or punch in your credit card info and keep clicking on loot box purchases with the HOPE you get what you want (which, again, you could waste $100 and still not get it).

It's problematic and runs counter to even Blizzard's own official statements regarding acquiring skins and cosmetics.

Yes, there are cosmetics that are in loot crates that are only available for a limited time, and yes, you can't buy those with the in-game currency.

I'm still OK with it. I will clearly not be able to acquire every single cosmetic item for Overwatch, or even come close. I've got exactly three legendary skins after 52 hours of play. For me, it's nice variety to see the skins on other players ... I imagine that after a year of special events like the Summer Games the variety of gear visible in a match will be pretty amazing.

 

[Garlador]

Yes, there are cosmetics that are in loot crates that are only available for a limited time, and yes, you can't buy those with the in-game currency.

I'm still OK with it. I will clearly not be able to acquire every single cosmetic item for Overwatch, or even come close. I've got exactly three legendary skins after 52 hours of play. For me, it's nice variety to see the skins on other players ... I imagine that after a year of special events like the Summer Games the variety of gear visible in a match will be pretty amazing.

And, quite simply, I'm not okay with it. Different players have different priorities and value different things over others.

Some people, again, just say that "they're just cosmetics. I don't care about them. Whatever". Someone else is going "Wow! That's an AWESOME costume! I'm going to work my butt off and rock that skin!" Simply preference, but while I may not care about someone else's preference, I won't dismiss their complaints if they feel a company botched it for them, even if it doesn't affect me personally.

Is this like a poor man's Cracked article.

Yes, though I've been a poor man's Cracked writer since Cracked was a just a MAD magazine rip-off.

 

[Octavia]

I have three major thoughts about the whole thing:

A:
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In a game like Smite, you spend in-game currency to unlock the cosmetics. It takes a lot longer than just buying them, but that in itself is a good balance to make them rare and sought after rather than just a dress up shop. It also generally shows you're good with a character if you've worked for the costumes, so a nice status symbol as well.

B:
If they're gonna assholes and lock something behind a paywall, I'd rather it just be aesthetic stuff than tangible game content. I value being able to find all the weapons in a game, for example, more than having the option to dress up in a mercenary outfit. One has elements that change how the game plays, the other is just for looks

C:
Just like free to play games, as soon as you add in locked away content that's meant for 'whales' and not the average player, you throw off game balance. Who's to say those new shorts you just unlocked wouldn't have had some kind of stat boost or ability if the game didn't make cosmetics a paywall feature?

 

[Trup1aya]

You can put me in the "it's optional" camp.

When I buy a game, cosmetic options aren't a part of the value proposition AT ALL.

So for example if "Interesting Action Game A" launched with 1000 costumes, I wouldn't think it's worth more than "Interesting Action Game A" that launched with 0 costumes.

I came to play the game, and the costumes add nothing to my experience. So devs can charge w/e they want for the stuff, and it'll never bother me.

I think it's great that companies can find additional revenue streams without me personally having to spend extra to play the game or without my gameplay experience becoming second tier.

That said, I understand people who see things differently. So I say, buy the games that don't practice this and/or don't buy the DLC, and be happy with the games you end up with.

 

[Orayn]

Cosmetics do matter, but selling cosmetics is usually less corrosive to the game than selling other things, particularly if the game is not overly restrictive with cosmetic options available without buying stuff.

This is where I'm at. The fact that they don't split up the community or affect game balance makes it hard for me to get too worked up about them.

 

[Pompadour]

I haven't seen a reasonable proposed solution to this "problem" other than "it should all come on the disc for $60."

I'm a big proponent of DLC, games as a service, and a la carte content. I don't understand how a game like Dead or Alive 5, for example, that has hundreds of DLC costumes could reasonably be sold at launch with all that content. Should it's price straight up be $300 with no other editions available? Should it just not produce that extra content and sell for $60 because DLC is morally indefensible?

I'm not a fan of the high pricing of some DLC but I never feel the need to have everything so if in a fighting game I play one character then buying one overpriced costume for that character is an easy pill to swallow. The idea of being forced to pay for it all, including tons of content I don't care about, is unappealing. The idea that hundreds of dollars of DLC should come standard on a $60 disc is naive. Even Smash 4, one of the most content rich games ever released, has a metric fuckton of DLC.

Throughout my gaming life there's been so many times a game was released that was just about perfect that all I wanted was more content for that game. Inevitably, the sequel would come out with more content but they screwed up something that made that original game so fantastic. It happens all the time in fighting games and shooters but with the advent of DLC the games that happen to do right can have extended lives with more content. I would have been very unhappy if Battlefield 4 had no DLC and I was just expected to play Hardline to get my fix.

 

[danmaku]

It was $60 at launch, expansion was $40, and yes, they did have the AH which was removed (instead of correcting/fixing it).

I agree with the OP. Fighting and Beat 'M Up games especially used to be all about unlockables. Look at them now . Soul Calibur, DOA series were great for fun and cool ways to unlock costumes.

Now we have DLC store, terrible single player modes, and have folks defending Capcom left and right for freaking pulling actual Arcade mode which would have been inconceivable a few years ago.

This post is like tales from bizarro world. SFV bombed hard exactly because it didn't have enough content and received a TON of criticism for that. Yes, some fans defended their choice, but most people didn't suck it up like you seem to imply. Fighting games, for the most part, are loaded to the brim with content. There are DLCs of course, but even without them a game like BlazBlue offers much more than your average PS1 fighting game. Things are getting better, not worse. Look at Tekken 7 and tell me if it seems like a game that will be super light on content and super heavy on DLCs.

 

[Pompadour]

This post is like tales from bizarro world. SFV bombed hard exactly because it didn't have enough content and received a TON of criticism for that. Yes, some fans defended their choice, but most people didn't suck it up like you seem to imply. Fighting games, for the most part, are loaded to the brim with content. There are DLCs of course, but even without them a game like BlazBlue offers much more than your average PS1 fighting game. Things are getting better, not worse. Look at Tekken 7 and tell me if it seems like a game that will be super light on content and super heavy on DLCs.

All those fighting games you mentioned, except SFV, have multiple versions (including Tekken 7). The arcade versions are the barebones versions and the console versions are effectively DLC packed in with the game. It's just no one really knows or thinks of it this way because arcades are dead in the West.

 

[Garlador]

This post is like tales from bizarro world. SFV bombed hard exactly because it didn't have enough content and received a TON of criticism for that. Yes, some fans defended their choice, but most people didn't suck it up like you seem to imply. Fighting games, for the most part, are loaded to the brim with content. There are DLCs of course, but even without them a game like BlazBlue offers much more than your average PS1 fighting game. Things are getting better, not worse. Look at Tekken 7 and tell me if it seems like a game that will be super light on content and super heavy on DLCs.

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.

 

[Peltz]

In 2016 dollars, this game cost about $110.00 and had a dev team of only about 15 people max.

That's a good point. Dev costs have gone up and games are generally cheaper than ever.

 

[cakely]

And, quite simply, I'm not okay with it. Different players have different priorities and value different things over others.

If you absolutely have to have a particular cosmetic item, Overwatch is either going to be very expensive or very frustrating now that limited-time items that can't be bought with currency are in the game.

I sympathize with you, but I would also guess that the majority of players don't fall into that particular category. This policy is making it difficult for people in that category.

Also, this a great thread, thanks for making it.

 

[Mupod]

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.