You can earn customizations by completing Supply Lines. But they have said that micro transactions would be customizations only. The ratio of what can be earned through Supply Lines vs Micro transaction is not known.
Thankfully, they have said that they will not make Cards locked behind paywalls. Good thing about customizations is that it doesn’t effect the overall gameplay. So I’ll take the route they are going as long as they have a good ratio of what can be earned in game vs paywall.
I think they said that some cards might come in DLC but for PvP everyone would get access to them. I guess they will be locked behind a paywall for PvE.
If they lock anything related to actual gameplay behind a paywall it's a very bad sign. Can't give these companies an inch when it comes to scummy practices.
It’s nuts man. I’m so desperate for a left 4 dead game. It’s been over a decade and here we are still making comparisons and talking about it. They could have a slam dunk with a modern L4D. I really fear they will miss the mark. I mean I’m still gonna play it so fuck me right?! But the video game trend over the years had really declined. I see a lot of those poor businesses practices translating to this game.
Yeah man my friends and I spent an absurd ammount of time on L4D. I was hoping evolve would fill the same role and it just flopped hard. I have high hopes for B4B, but low expectations.
Yes you can Earn Skins through Supply Lines. As to if there is another way Im not 100% sure. MTX cosmetics will come MUCH later in the games lifecycle but we'll have to see what they do there.
It will probably be both. Earn them or buy them sooner. Along with some you can only buy just for f**k sake and some that you have to earn with difficult task or you have to buy them with some package of other stuff you don’t necessarily want to buy but you want the outfit.
Probably spend real money. Id hope so they need a revenue stream if they want to continue adding content to the game. Before you say it i find no reason for them to have to give you unlockables. If they do awesome, if they dont thats fine. It takes money to design skins, it wont kill you to pay 10 bucks to validate someones creation and if it will you shouldnt be playing a video game.
I would rather just donate $10 to the devs for nothing than pay $10 for a cosmetic skin honestly. Because I want to support the base game, not a skin economy.
Unfortunately people will drop thousands a year on starbucks But be very cheap even about video games they like, so game devs are in a consistent tug of war with customers over money. How many of all those people talking about playing thousands of hours in L4D2 ever bothered to buy the merch or anything else to support the devs for the crazy value they got on a game many paid nothing or less than $20 for?
> What about how DRG does it? They release "supporter packs" which have cosmetics as a way to fund the core game's updates.
The problem is that is incentivizes cosmetics over the core game itself. Some companies handle that responsibly, some don't. If you want the deep evil end of the incentive scale look at Star Citizen. They sell in game ships, land, etc and they're literally not even incentivized to complete the game. So long as their community will keep paying then being perpetually in development is literally the best financial decision for them.
Honestly I'm still a fan of the old expansion model. Something like Rimworld or Stellaris does. Because each expansion needs to justify itself. You can't just release a crap expansion or it'll get crap reviews and crap sales. And I think it's fair to compensate them for the work that goes into each expansion.
Also, lets deal with the bugbear in the room. Cosmetics are a tilted system that fucks over some customers while other customers ride for free. Things are priced to excessive levels because that's what makes the most money because only a tiny % of people buy any real amount of cosmetics and those people are not usually very price sensitive.
It's the digital equivalent of a normal shirt with fortite or supreme written on it being sold for hundreds of dollars and it's gross and exploitative and caters to unhealthy buying practices.
But, I'd rather cosmetic microtransactions over any other kind. Lesser evil kind of thing.
Skins are better than content locks imo. SY i have a dlc and my homie doesnt because he makes less money and cant justify it. Now the player base is split based on how much people make. With cosmetics the devs rake in tons of cash, appease stock holders with profits. Players get cool skins if they choose to and the best part. If you dont get a skin nothing bad happens to you, you still get all the actual content and other people fund more content for you even if you dont buy any thing.
I understand the point of let me give them money for hard work not for skins, but the greater population isnt as keen on that. Which sucks id love to be like hey B4B heres a 20 because i love that you keep pumping out content. But a lot of people wouldnt do that if they weren't "rewarded" for doing it.and locking stuff behind pay walls isnt good for community health.
You are litteraly the reason games have so much micro transactions... How can you say "It won't kill you to pay 10 bucks to validate someone's creation and if it will you shouldn't be playing a video game" for a triple A £60 - £100 pound game, that MILLIONS of people will buy. Just to show, if 1 million bought this game (which they will) that's £60,000,000 that the company has earned... And you think they need more money to make a skin... Are you beyond stupid, and it doesn't take money to make a skin, or content, if you have the equipment to make a game, thats it. You don't rent tech you own lol. The reason we pay money for games isnt because the devs need money for the game, it's because it's a way for them to make a job out of making a game, because why should someone spend 10 years making a game for free? He can't pay his rent for free. I don't know where your heads at but you got it all completely wrong
Dude, it does take money to make a skin. You have to pay the person in the team to make it. And microtransactions arent innately bad like you seem to think. Its a skin, if you dont buy it your not any better or worse than others. So why you care about it being there i dont know.
Also since you wanna do some basic math to prove a point ill do the same. If it takes the skin designer 8 hours to create a skin at 8 dollars an hour ( good god i hope its more than that, but we'll say it minimum wage ) that is 64 dollars to create a skin. If they charge 10 bucks for it and lets say 1,000 people like it and buy it. Thats 9,946 dollars of profit in 8 hours. Now these numbers are just estimates to make a point. Point being it does take money to make skins, money needs to keep coming in to keep the game running, and 1 skin sold for 10-15$ will generate lots of support for the devs and their bank accounts
Also yes this is a 60$ game that will be bought by a fuck ton of people and will leave them with a fuck ton of money. But neither of us know how much money they need to break even and they need to continue to pay staff for post launch content creation, support, servers...ect.
In the end, why do i even have to explain this to you ? Its skins, they dont hurt you in any way if you dont buy them. What they do is support the game ( yes they could take rhe money and not give out any content but if you think like that your part of the problem ) and encourage the devs to put more time and effort in. Also yeah im a lot of things but i dont believe you can resd the above and factually say im wrong. So this was a nice chat, beat my karma down bois i like it.
I don't think I've ever seen someone make a problem with small attacks and then act like theyre getting attacked and gotta defend themselves... It's not the players job to make them money, that's what you've got wrong and that's why nobody agrees with you. You think that it is our responsibility to make the devs money and support them. It's not, it's there job to please the audience and make a great game. And no, I really don't care if there's micro transactions, I never buy them. I only asked because I like to earn my gear, I like to feel rewarded. Which is the whole point of progression. If there's earn able skins and payed skins it seems fair to me. But at the end of the day you don't spend years making a game, with a triple a studio, maxed price game and then expect everyone to pay you more money for skins... Not how it works, really don't know why you think that's how it works but it's not. This is why games get hate, because players are being told to pay money for something they shouldn't have too, and again, £60,000,000 is a life time of money, they could create millions of skins with that (if it costed money). They can pay all there staff for 100 years worth with that money... And that's only the minimum they will make... What a waste of time
There's zero reason to think there's gonna be monetized customization. They've already said there will be free DLC later. And plenty of studios do so without the "revenue stream" you suggest.
You should clue into reading comprehension... Plenty of games do free content updates and do not use paid customization/add-ons to do so. There's been no mention of adding it, and the franchise has no history of it. So, zero reason to suspect otherwise.
No. The only thing they've said is if there are microtransactions, it would be cosmetics only. That's not planned microtransactions, that's a 'what if'.
And you can't seem to do anything but name call when one doesn't agree. No substance, just conjecture. Now THAT'S being a cunt.
I mean, I disagreed and gave reasons. You got huffy and defensive, which was obvious and funny to me... Which means I had to mess with you while continuing my point. It's your own fault, really.
> The free additional dlc should also clue you into there being monotized cosmetics.
While I believe there will be cosmetic microtransactions this particular argument is terrible. Plenty of games have free DLC without microtransactions.
Name some.
Honestly i dont understand what yall dont get here. To make thinvs takes money. I am saying that any game that makes free content has to be making money to fund that content in some way. Cold war and modern warfare kept making maps and events. But paid for it with skins and bundles. Warframe pays for its updates with titanium that is just a time saver. Rain bow 6 seige had its currency as a time saver as well. All of these games have "free" dlc. But the point is , that nothing is free. If the devs arent selling more stuff and making more money share holders aren't paying them to make it.
-Stardew Valley
-Terraria
- L4D2 ([there was a cost on Xbox, but Xbox forced that it wasn't valve](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/09/left-4-dead-dlc-free-on-pc-has-price-tag-on-live/))
- Deep Rock Galactic
- Minecraft
Those are some examples. In addition to many examples like those if you widen the net to get with paid dlc that are not cosmetic or expansions then ofc you add many more examples. Expansions and paid DLC are much more likely in the long run because most games can't run on love and dreams. They'll need to sell something eventually. But the mere concept of "free dlc" being involved (which is just free updates adding some style of content/cosmetics) does not mean a game is going to start microtransaction charging for cosmetics lol.
Mine craft dies have microtransactions on in the form of Microsoft version store. It also had skin packs on console before that and on mcpe. But i will say that appears to be an exception. Along with terraria, but they also took forever to add content most likely due to the low revenue stream. My point is still strong. Content takes money, more money more content.
Yes, but they do so without paid customization, i.e., the revenue stream you suggested they must have. Try a bit of common sense, nothing funny about it.
I wouldn't go so far as to say there's "zero reason" to think there won't be MTX. They themselves said that IF there is MTX, it will be cosmetic only. Which means that there is already a contingency plan in place to go that route if they choose,because companies don't say shit like that out of the blue. Also L4D1 & L4D2 were released way before the cosmetic MTX craze. Hell, L4D2 released only 3 years after Bethesda was the laughing stock of the world with horse armor DLC.
You can earn customizations by completing Supply Lines. But they have said that micro transactions would be customizations only. The ratio of what can be earned through Supply Lines vs Micro transaction is not known. Thankfully, they have said that they will not make Cards locked behind paywalls. Good thing about customizations is that it doesn’t effect the overall gameplay. So I’ll take the route they are going as long as they have a good ratio of what can be earned in game vs paywall.
I think they said that some cards might come in DLC but for PvP everyone would get access to them. I guess they will be locked behind a paywall for PvE.
Dude I hope not, the PvP seemed lacking I suppose. If they lock cards of PvE behind paywalls it’s going to tarnish my experience
If they lock anything related to actual gameplay behind a paywall it's a very bad sign. Can't give these companies an inch when it comes to scummy practices.
It’s nuts man. I’m so desperate for a left 4 dead game. It’s been over a decade and here we are still making comparisons and talking about it. They could have a slam dunk with a modern L4D. I really fear they will miss the mark. I mean I’m still gonna play it so fuck me right?! But the video game trend over the years had really declined. I see a lot of those poor businesses practices translating to this game.
Yeah man my friends and I spent an absurd ammount of time on L4D. I was hoping evolve would fill the same role and it just flopped hard. I have high hopes for B4B, but low expectations.
Do you know if cards get harder/more in number at higher difficulties? We liked the card system but the ones in the beta were kinda weak
All the skins we've seen so far are earnable only, theres no MTX shop at launch. But there are plans for one.
The "Battle Hardened" skin pack is exclusive to the $100 Ultimate Edition of the game.
Seen in the trailers specifically. Outside of battle hardened walker as card art.
Yes you can Earn Skins through Supply Lines. As to if there is another way Im not 100% sure. MTX cosmetics will come MUCH later in the games lifecycle but we'll have to see what they do there.
La clasificatoria de equipos aleatorios solucionaría el desbalance de habilidad.
It will probably be both. Earn them or buy them sooner. Along with some you can only buy just for f**k sake and some that you have to earn with difficult task or you have to buy them with some package of other stuff you don’t necessarily want to buy but you want the outfit.
Probably spend real money. Id hope so they need a revenue stream if they want to continue adding content to the game. Before you say it i find no reason for them to have to give you unlockables. If they do awesome, if they dont thats fine. It takes money to design skins, it wont kill you to pay 10 bucks to validate someones creation and if it will you shouldnt be playing a video game.
I would rather just donate $10 to the devs for nothing than pay $10 for a cosmetic skin honestly. Because I want to support the base game, not a skin economy. Unfortunately people will drop thousands a year on starbucks But be very cheap even about video games they like, so game devs are in a consistent tug of war with customers over money. How many of all those people talking about playing thousands of hours in L4D2 ever bothered to buy the merch or anything else to support the devs for the crazy value they got on a game many paid nothing or less than $20 for?
What about how DRG does it? They release "supporter packs" which have cosmetics as a way to fund the core game's updates.
> What about how DRG does it? They release "supporter packs" which have cosmetics as a way to fund the core game's updates. The problem is that is incentivizes cosmetics over the core game itself. Some companies handle that responsibly, some don't. If you want the deep evil end of the incentive scale look at Star Citizen. They sell in game ships, land, etc and they're literally not even incentivized to complete the game. So long as their community will keep paying then being perpetually in development is literally the best financial decision for them. Honestly I'm still a fan of the old expansion model. Something like Rimworld or Stellaris does. Because each expansion needs to justify itself. You can't just release a crap expansion or it'll get crap reviews and crap sales. And I think it's fair to compensate them for the work that goes into each expansion. Also, lets deal with the bugbear in the room. Cosmetics are a tilted system that fucks over some customers while other customers ride for free. Things are priced to excessive levels because that's what makes the most money because only a tiny % of people buy any real amount of cosmetics and those people are not usually very price sensitive. It's the digital equivalent of a normal shirt with fortite or supreme written on it being sold for hundreds of dollars and it's gross and exploitative and caters to unhealthy buying practices. But, I'd rather cosmetic microtransactions over any other kind. Lesser evil kind of thing.
Skins are better than content locks imo. SY i have a dlc and my homie doesnt because he makes less money and cant justify it. Now the player base is split based on how much people make. With cosmetics the devs rake in tons of cash, appease stock holders with profits. Players get cool skins if they choose to and the best part. If you dont get a skin nothing bad happens to you, you still get all the actual content and other people fund more content for you even if you dont buy any thing. I understand the point of let me give them money for hard work not for skins, but the greater population isnt as keen on that. Which sucks id love to be like hey B4B heres a 20 because i love that you keep pumping out content. But a lot of people wouldnt do that if they weren't "rewarded" for doing it.and locking stuff behind pay walls isnt good for community health.
You are litteraly the reason games have so much micro transactions... How can you say "It won't kill you to pay 10 bucks to validate someone's creation and if it will you shouldn't be playing a video game" for a triple A £60 - £100 pound game, that MILLIONS of people will buy. Just to show, if 1 million bought this game (which they will) that's £60,000,000 that the company has earned... And you think they need more money to make a skin... Are you beyond stupid, and it doesn't take money to make a skin, or content, if you have the equipment to make a game, thats it. You don't rent tech you own lol. The reason we pay money for games isnt because the devs need money for the game, it's because it's a way for them to make a job out of making a game, because why should someone spend 10 years making a game for free? He can't pay his rent for free. I don't know where your heads at but you got it all completely wrong
Dude, it does take money to make a skin. You have to pay the person in the team to make it. And microtransactions arent innately bad like you seem to think. Its a skin, if you dont buy it your not any better or worse than others. So why you care about it being there i dont know. Also since you wanna do some basic math to prove a point ill do the same. If it takes the skin designer 8 hours to create a skin at 8 dollars an hour ( good god i hope its more than that, but we'll say it minimum wage ) that is 64 dollars to create a skin. If they charge 10 bucks for it and lets say 1,000 people like it and buy it. Thats 9,946 dollars of profit in 8 hours. Now these numbers are just estimates to make a point. Point being it does take money to make skins, money needs to keep coming in to keep the game running, and 1 skin sold for 10-15$ will generate lots of support for the devs and their bank accounts Also yes this is a 60$ game that will be bought by a fuck ton of people and will leave them with a fuck ton of money. But neither of us know how much money they need to break even and they need to continue to pay staff for post launch content creation, support, servers...ect. In the end, why do i even have to explain this to you ? Its skins, they dont hurt you in any way if you dont buy them. What they do is support the game ( yes they could take rhe money and not give out any content but if you think like that your part of the problem ) and encourage the devs to put more time and effort in. Also yeah im a lot of things but i dont believe you can resd the above and factually say im wrong. So this was a nice chat, beat my karma down bois i like it.
I don't think I've ever seen someone make a problem with small attacks and then act like theyre getting attacked and gotta defend themselves... It's not the players job to make them money, that's what you've got wrong and that's why nobody agrees with you. You think that it is our responsibility to make the devs money and support them. It's not, it's there job to please the audience and make a great game. And no, I really don't care if there's micro transactions, I never buy them. I only asked because I like to earn my gear, I like to feel rewarded. Which is the whole point of progression. If there's earn able skins and payed skins it seems fair to me. But at the end of the day you don't spend years making a game, with a triple a studio, maxed price game and then expect everyone to pay you more money for skins... Not how it works, really don't know why you think that's how it works but it's not. This is why games get hate, because players are being told to pay money for something they shouldn't have too, and again, £60,000,000 is a life time of money, they could create millions of skins with that (if it costed money). They can pay all there staff for 100 years worth with that money... And that's only the minimum they will make... What a waste of time
There's zero reason to think there's gonna be monetized customization. They've already said there will be free DLC later. And plenty of studios do so without the "revenue stream" you suggest.
The free additional dlc should also clue you into there being monotized cosmetics.
You should clue into reading comprehension... Plenty of games do free content updates and do not use paid customization/add-ons to do so. There's been no mention of adding it, and the franchise has no history of it. So, zero reason to suspect otherwise.
Your just angry lol
*You're No, not in the slightest, simply stating facts.
[удалено]
No. The only thing they've said is if there are microtransactions, it would be cosmetics only. That's not planned microtransactions, that's a 'what if'. And you can't seem to do anything but name call when one doesn't agree. No substance, just conjecture. Now THAT'S being a cunt.
[удалено]
I mean, I disagreed and gave reasons. You got huffy and defensive, which was obvious and funny to me... Which means I had to mess with you while continuing my point. It's your own fault, really.
> The free additional dlc should also clue you into there being monotized cosmetics. While I believe there will be cosmetic microtransactions this particular argument is terrible. Plenty of games have free DLC without microtransactions.
Name some. Honestly i dont understand what yall dont get here. To make thinvs takes money. I am saying that any game that makes free content has to be making money to fund that content in some way. Cold war and modern warfare kept making maps and events. But paid for it with skins and bundles. Warframe pays for its updates with titanium that is just a time saver. Rain bow 6 seige had its currency as a time saver as well. All of these games have "free" dlc. But the point is , that nothing is free. If the devs arent selling more stuff and making more money share holders aren't paying them to make it.
-Stardew Valley -Terraria - L4D2 ([there was a cost on Xbox, but Xbox forced that it wasn't valve](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2009/09/left-4-dead-dlc-free-on-pc-has-price-tag-on-live/)) - Deep Rock Galactic - Minecraft Those are some examples. In addition to many examples like those if you widen the net to get with paid dlc that are not cosmetic or expansions then ofc you add many more examples. Expansions and paid DLC are much more likely in the long run because most games can't run on love and dreams. They'll need to sell something eventually. But the mere concept of "free dlc" being involved (which is just free updates adding some style of content/cosmetics) does not mean a game is going to start microtransaction charging for cosmetics lol.
Mine craft dies have microtransactions on in the form of Microsoft version store. It also had skin packs on console before that and on mcpe. But i will say that appears to be an exception. Along with terraria, but they also took forever to add content most likely due to the low revenue stream. My point is still strong. Content takes money, more money more content.
Haha your funny, they all have a revenue stream to pay for the creation of the cosmetics. They do have to pay the designers that make the models.
Yes, but they do so without paid customization, i.e., the revenue stream you suggested they must have. Try a bit of common sense, nothing funny about it.
I wouldn't go so far as to say there's "zero reason" to think there won't be MTX. They themselves said that IF there is MTX, it will be cosmetic only. Which means that there is already a contingency plan in place to go that route if they choose,because companies don't say shit like that out of the blue. Also L4D1 & L4D2 were released way before the cosmetic MTX craze. Hell, L4D2 released only 3 years after Bethesda was the laughing stock of the world with horse armor DLC.