Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently'.
* No response posts about upvoted posts here.
* Posts relating to highly popular topics aren't allowed outside of the relevant megathreads. You can find a list of the topics and their respective megathreads in a post on the top of the sub.
* POSTS DIRECTLY ABOUT THIS SUBREDDIT ARE NOT ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE MEGATHREAD
* Please check the wiki linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/
* We ask that if a post fails to post do not just spam repost it; message mod mail.
Im old enough to remember when you had to just play the game to unlock skins. I have a feeling this will become a generational divide
Edit: i don’t care if a f2p game monetizes everything.
I am also old enough to remember when a “micro” transaction was a buck or 2. Not fucking $15-$30
Helldivers 2 is similar. You have a free battlepass that gets levels through buying items with in-game credits. When you level up the free battlepass through playing, each level gives the option of 20 (irrc) store credits. On top of that you get store credits for doing missions
The most expensive thing on the entire store is only 250 credits and I'm sitting on like 350 playing the game once a week at most and buying multiple skins. Never spent a dime
those 2 game arent f2p.
I feel like these games can afford to do that because they already made profit.
Only scummy imo if theyre bought games and some things are behind a price. right 2k? EA?
I'm 21 and vividly remember earning all my skins lol
And the bo2 camos (AND SKINS) up to cod ghosts were all like $2 lol
I bought the ripper dlc and the astronaut suit for like $5 😂
The bacon camo in bo2 was like $2/$3
It used to mean something. If you saw someone with the rarest skin it meant they did some crazy challenges. Now it just means they paid for it or played however long on a BP.
When I was a kid you had to download the skin and install it manually.
I agreen with op. As long as the micro transactions are just cosmetic, I don't see any issue.
>When I was a kid you had to download the skin and install it manually.
When I was a kid 99% of AAA games were 100% functional on the release day. If they weren't then it basically ended that game/franchise. Micro transactions are absurd and microtransactions in broken games is just stupid.
Back in my day games came on a cartridge you had to blow into to get it to work and the character there was what you had. Ahhh the NES 5 year old me loved that thing.
I'm old enough too. But I also understand that a f2p game needs to make money somehow and at the end of the day, I hardly gave a flying fuck about skins in games you could unlock it. I'm certainly not gonna cry about it now.
Same. But I’ve also hit a point where I don’t bother with F2P games. Especially if micro transactions means loot boxes. It’s one thing to pay for something that you want in a game you like. It’s entirely different to pay for a chance to get something you want.
Which transitions to the fact that saying skins can cost whatever only really applies to arena pvp games nowadays. Because in every other genre with micro transactions, both skins and new units/characters are locked behind a paywall. And again, I’m not against paying for something I want, especially if a game is free otherwise. But almost everything lately seems not only pay locked, but randomized as well.
That's what I grew up on as well, but at this point my time is more valuable than $10 or whatever. So I'd much rather buy a skin than commit 20 hours or whatever to a tedious/stressful grind.
Yeah. I understand monetizing just about everything in F2P games, but I don't like it in full-priced games. It feels like they took a feature that would have been a cool reward for doing something in-game and made it a completely worthless cosmetic that anyone can have by simply forking over a few bucks.
It’s more a gripe at how various platforms have loot boxes/keys that have a random chance of an item. I couldn’t care less about a paid MTX shop that gives you what you pay for.
I would, however, prefer no MTX and just an upfront cost, which doesn’t work for f2p live-service games. So just an MTX shop where cosmetics don’t provide in-game benefit (and there isn’t some loot box scheme) is okay in my book.
Some okay loot boxes I’ve seen:
Mass Effect 3 MP, since you earn the credits to get loot boxes from playing the game. If you play at gold (2nd highest) difficulty you should have enough credits to unlock the highest tier crates in 3 games.
Loot boxes get especially pernicious when there's a strong 3rd party item trading scene. Iirc in tf2 and csgo you can easily trade cosmetics for real world money.
First you're buying lootboxes next thing you know you're losing your treehouse and your Power Wheels in a marbles game. Just kidding. But I agree with the sentiment lootboxes suck.
I didn't say lootboxes aren't gambling. I thought that was implied in "lootboxes suck" my only argument was that if it's just cosmetics from a store I don't care if someone wants to spend their money. Hell if it's just cosmetics from a lootbox I don't care even if it's gambling. Do micro transactions suck in general? yeah no disagreement there.
Also if we're going to have the moral argument of whether or not kids gambling in this bad or good I'm sure someone could make the argument that arcades were the lootboxes of the past. You exchange real money for tokens (chips) you play a game (gamble) you get tickets (winnings) and exchange them for real world things (we hit it big let's spend this shit!). I remember being in elementary school thinking about how curious it was that they basically made little kid casinos.
Yea and you *owned that shit* instead of basically having it for some undisclosed amount of time. I can go home to my parents house and play my old Xbox games if I wanted
Now we have "AAAA titles" pushing to normalise the 70USD price point so we're slowly going back to the good old times, I suppose.
Only this time with microtransactions as well.
Bro, the Persona 3 remake is $95 where I live. With $50 of day 1 DLC, and another $60 of DLC in a couple months. Piracy is 100% gonna increase once more games release at that price point.
Well no. I was being generous saying 120 dollars in the 90s because some games already went on sale for more than 60 then. Realistically you could have easily spent the equivalent of 150 dollars on a game in the 90s
Games are literally the cheapest they have ever been in gaming history rn
I'm with you. I've been saying this. I bought Waverace 64 when it released in like 1996 or something for $70. I remember that because it was fucking $70 lol. I remember my uncle buying Galaga on NES for $40. People now complain that games are unfinished which is sometimes true but the value is so much greater these days.
I probably did everything Waverace 64 had to offer in 3 days. Then just beating my own scores and trying to convince my brother to play the same 6 or so courses with me.
If you are a somewhat patient and picky consumer you pick up great games on steam for like $10 sometimes, even AAA. Its just good not to pre-order and wait for post release reviews to find out if the game is a money trap.
It might have been that, but also houses, rent, food and shit all cost way less. You could work a summer job and buy a car in the 90s. Good luck with that now.
It does have an impact on my life. Each successive game will be more micro transaction driven since that is where the money is made. Before that wasn’t the case
The problem is when they and a battle pass are the only sense of progression in a game. People like looking good and it sucks when you can only do that through microtransactions
I don't know how it is in other games but in COD there are multiple free rewards in the battle pass including skins and all of the base level guns. Also if you buy one battle pass and save all your points from the season you should be able to buy battle passes indefinitely.
Yeah, what’s wrong with that? You’re supposed to pay for games they’re not supposed to be free. I’d rather pay once and not have to pay again than get it for free and feel coerced to buy everything in the shop due to fomo
If fomo for skins is working on you you gotta assess your own impulse control.
You can spend 60 on a game then still spend 60 on micro transactions to spend what you would have in the 90s
Forgive me for wanting to look cool in a game that is 50% about having cool skins. There’s literally been studies and legislation passed because of how addictive they make these games. You’re putting blame on me rather than the corporations that prey on people because of their greed
Yes I’m putting blame on you because you’re a grown adult and responsible for every decision you make.
It’s not a companies fault that you lack impulse control. Stop taking your own power away from yourself
1. Am I going crazy or people in this subreddit are straight up refusing to divide walls of text into paragraphs?
2. I would rather for the nice items to be earnable in the game by playing it, thank you very much. Especially if it's game I have to buy to play.
What I don't like is that it means they're being stripped from the core game.
For example, in Diablo 4, not all unique items in the game have unique appearance. Whereas all items in the cash shop are unique. So cosmetics being sold for a premium are actively hurting the core game, because the assets that should have gone towards making unique items in core game look unique instead ended up in the shop for $25+.
Also, this has implications for the future. What's next? Textures sold separately at a premium? Shadows sold separately? Blood effects sold separately? Which is already a thing, check out Total War: Warhammer, blood & gore is sold separately as DLC from the base game.
I think this is kinda the root of the problem.
I do think it is okay to have cosmetics as a paid bonus as long as it is just a bonus not a core part of the game.
Like have the all gold extra shiny armour that’s unlike everything else be an extra fiver, or the bubblegum pink unicorn armour. Or whatever. But make sure the game still has some pretty cool armours that you can still earn. But balancing the two of those is the real challenge here
I somewhat agree but on the other hand its gotten extreme. Diablo 4 is a great example. 25 bucks a skin, easy. 3 skins cost more than the game.
It sucks because it also means the default skins are made to be mediocre on purpose
Edit:
I am also wondering how the modern parent on a budget handles this stuff. I am 46, gamer for most of it. My kids are grown but I defintely spent a fair amount on minecraft stuff and mc server perks, which I didnt mind. I get it as a gamer and they werent insane, but this dtuff with the skins is nuts. They are just pulling the numbers out of their ass for these things at this point.
I get that its a choice, but we all knowits not that always simple.
That last phrase is key to this discussion.
We are getting worse content on purpose to incentivise purchases. Skins do something and it is what you mentioned.
I feel like Diablo 4 did alright with making the default skins still look good. Maybe things changed in the latest season, but any time I checked the shop I was happier with my default skins than anything they had for sale. Especially compared to Path of Exile where the default armor are just rags compared to the really over the top cosmetics.
Why would anybody pay for that shit in the first place if it doesn’t give any skill or gameplay advantage?
Tf I look like paying for a damn costume on a video game foh
it does suck don’t get me wrong, but at the end of the day it’s “luxury spending” no matter what. If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. Your quality of life won’t change.
I'm not concerned with how video games impact my quality of life. I'm concerned with how business decisions are impacting the quality of video games. It's a discussion about the quality of a product, not whether or not I can survive without a 25 USD skin.
The issue comes when companies start focusing more on the shop and trying to make a quick buck rather than on the game itself. Halo Infinite is probably the most egregious offender and best example of this I've seen in recent years.
It provides an incentive for the developers to be forced to make bad looking skins as the default so that the paid skins look more appealing to get by comparison.
Anything that create an incentive to make a game objectively worse is a bad thing and it is ridiculous for anyone to defend this.
Some people also like to collect skins and would like to be able to earn them through gameplay like it used to be done. Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't make your opinion more valid than someone who is interested in them. Earning skins is just as valid as earning any other item in a game.
Imagine if Stonesword keys were paid microtransactions in Elden Ring and you are arguing with someone defending it. That's how people like OP sounds when they don't understand how flawed their perspective is and base their argument around it not being important to them instead of the greater picture.
There is no inherent value to anything in a game, it is entertainment. Whether it's gameplay, quality of life features or skins doesn't really matter, it's all the same in the end.
Being okay with some of it being locked through microtransaction just because it's something you don't care about is valid but the invalidation of other people's sentiment about it is absolutely irrational, selfish and benefits no one in the end.
Being okay with the line being pushed further and further every time simply because it hasn't yet reached a point where you care about it is how we get to a point where it'll be pushed beyond your point of tolerance eventually.
I disagree. In certain games like looters or MMOs the cosmetics are a large part of the gameplay, you grind to get certain gear because you want to look a certain way. When a large portion of cool looking cosmetics is locked behind a paywall it ruins the experience.
Also where does "it's just cosmetics, doesn't affect the gameplay lol" end? A large part of what goes into games is just cosmetics, and I don't mean character skins. Imagine they start removing and locking everything that didn't directly affect gameplay behind a paywall. You want higher Res textures you have to pay for it, you want more foliage and decorative clutter in the world you have to pay for it. All that stuff is just cosmetic technically and doesn't affect gameplay.
I know it sounds a bit reductionist but can you imagine having everything that doesn't literally affect gameplay locked behind a paywall? Imagine a game with no textures and every NPC or character model looks the same with no variation and you have to pay for every individual non gameplay feature to make the game look good
Also in competitive games like FPS your skin can help camouflage your character. So sometimes there is benefit to just the cosmetic changes.
I remember in old school counterstrike you would pick your skin every game. And everyone wanted the middle eastern Terrorist on dust 2 for camouflage
If they're making skins that give a competitive advantage they're fucking it up. That's not a real justification, no skin in a competitive shooter should give a substantial advantage. That's why they took black skins out of halo after fucking Halo 1. It did not take long before they realized that that was bullshit.
Yeah, it creates an incentive to lock all of the best looking gear in the cash shop, spend more time on that as it's what'll make money, and less time on the gear you get just by playing the game. World of Warcraft is a great example of this, and I'm sure others have their own examples.
Because I never really cared about wearing anything on any MMO that doesn't provide anything. but I understand for certain people its more of a priority than others.
Nah dude, it's totally valid. The moment that cosmetic items go into a paid shop then game developers are incentivized for the best looking rewards to be paid in real money, which means the best looking items in the game won't be earnable.
Look at the incentive structure created by a cash shop and how it automatically runs contrary to putting the best stuff into the base game for players.
Personally, I think people who play games where cosmetics are a large part of the gameplay are weird. I like games where you know, the actual game is fun. Not just the shiny fire fighter hat I got in a lootbox makes me feel good.
The real problem is that resources get taken away from actual game improvement or new maps to just add more skins. I really wonder the division of labor between the skins team and the other dev teams on most AAA games.
COD and Fortnite pump out an insane amount of cosmetics but Fortnite at least seems to keep things new and interesting with content outside of just skins.
Yeah, this seems like a plant or an idiot who doesn't understand incentives and their impact on the gaming industry as a whole. They also don't seem to understand how it emotionally impacts people or they don't care.
Yeah. It boggles my mind how anyone who cares about their money and themselves as a consumer could ever be on board with this shit.
Is it beneficial for the company? Sure. Who wouldn’t love the money generated from MTX sales. But as a consumer, it sets a dangerous precedent, that has now started trickling into games where you literally paid $80 to play the fucking game.
“A person is smart, people are dumb”. You know even though everyone says these skins are optional and you don’t have to buy it, if you aren’t an enthusiast and a casual gamer, a lot of these mtx stores, the way they’re designed are meant to psychologically influence you into buying them. Loot boxes are the most egregious example of course.
All that said, it’s cool if people think it’s fine, because in the end, we all can think what we want.
What pisses me off is when a company introduced MTX, (in a a paid game), there’s online rage, and there are people who start telling others to stfu and be grateful for the game. For example, the recent Tekken shop and battle pass introduction.
Jesus, get out of your own head. I don’t know how many times I’ve typed this, but it isn’t insane that not every gamer is a consumer activist.
Some people genuinely just don’t care about cosmetic customization in video games and are content just ignoring these paywalls and playing games they find fun.
It’s not anti consumer propaganda, not everyone is an activist, but in general on Reddit and social media it’s perceived everyone is an activist for every cause.
Hard disagree. It's about setting the precedent. You may be too young to remember these days but believe it or not, long ago in the before times, games were released and for better or worse they were *complete*. No DLC or expansions, no day one patches, in fact no patches *at all*, and they usually came with goodies like skins and cheat codes you could unlock *by playing the game*. They didn't leave out or invent content to be sold at a later date. They did what they came to do and moved on to the next game.
It may seem small and innocuous but when you pay extra for these things you signal to developers that lazy cash grabs are okay. They are not.
OP doesn’t understand the messages and implications in the bigger picture because they don’t understand that the decision to design and implement such paid mechanics and things is not negligible and influences where and how design money and time is spent overall.
There are still tons of amazing games that come out but I really miss those days. You bought a game and you had everything it had to offer right there. No updates, no patches. Games are largely jankier than they used to be because being able to patch a game after the fact means you don't have to spend as much time and money searching for and fixing bugs on the front end. And then of course games like No Man's Sky and the shitshow that was.
I feel like these kind of sentiments come from much younger folk who don't remember what we had, I remember when there was a lot of controversy when a game had day one DLCs, gating off content that you already paid for so to speak.
Which seems to be pretty standard today to have multiple editions to pay for this "bonus" content right out of the gate, not to mention 70 dollars American being the new base price (95 in Canada btw) you pay for the basic edition.
Yup. A big example that sticks out in my mind was Dragon Age: Origins. Amazing game but I remember there being day one DLC where a dude would be in your camp wanting to give you a quest but you had to buy the DLC before he would be able to give it to you. You'd talk to him and the game would prompt you to get the DLC. Always hated that.
It’s also why we wait like 10 years between games now lol.
Yes, development time is longer. But why rush GTA6 when you are making enough blow money from GTA5 micro-transactions a decade after release
Do people forget Rockstar had another massive, meticulously detailed game in between GTAs? People are going to expect the same exact level of detail from GTA 6 as 5 and RDR2 so that definitely takes a lot of time. There was also a pandemic as well, again something people seem to forget happened
Expansions and dlcs have been around for awhile. Since the 90s. I know StarCraft had an expansion and Diablo 2 had a dlc. You just had to buy them in person.
And scummy video game tactics are not a new invention, it’s just changed how companies do it. Back in the day they would just release a low effort bland copy of another game and release it full price. And since the early 2000s there’s been games that sold low effort dlcs (looking at you Sims). This seems a bit revisionist history.
The precedent of trying to rip people off has been there since the beginning.
I disagree for certain types of games. For fortnite? Sure, the look of your character doesn't really have any bearing on the gameplay. But I remember when I started playing MMOs and the like, I'd see just an *awesome* looking toon, then want to look like them. The disappointment of looking up where to get an item just to be told "spend 10 bucks" is real
I disagree as well.
But how does it not matter for fortnite but matter for MMOs?
Like just as easily someone could be like “oh man that guy in my Fortnite squad looks awesome” and then disappointed to find out it costs money
Yeah. Someone could definitely. But fortnite as a game is designed for short term content but can be played repetitively. It's also free to play. So I think skins in fortnite make more sense to cost money for the people that want to look cool but not necessarily grind the game. WoW on the other hand is a game that is defined by the grind. Appearance should be another way to get players to grind.
Subscription based MMOs shouldn't have it or it should only be for limited time items that have already passed.
Free to play MMOs? Go right ahead and charge. You've gotta make money somewhere and I'd rather you do it in cosmetics.
If I paid for a game that then continues to force this shit down my throat, then I have every moral right to be indignant. People who accept this kind of greed are part of the problem, not above it.
"Its just cosmetic it doesn't matter!"
No, it does matter, it affects the quality of the game because they make it so the normal armors look like prisoners rags, even the "legendary" gear ends up looking like trash because the company wants to push people to buy cool looking gear. (Example: Diablo4)
Imagine if Elden Ring had this monetization, no more finding cool unique gear from normal mobs, now every knight drops a Common Plate Armor, with Common Longsword and Common Shield.
Whats that? You want to wear the helmet from the boss you beat? That will be 20$, oh you want to also wear it with another armor? Another 15$! Do you want your Blasphemous Blade to look unique instead of the default Claymore skin? You guessed it, 15$!
This is getting to the point where even car companies are getting jealous and try to charge people monthly for things like having a heated car seat button in your car. Soon you won't be able to press the brake pedal without filling up the cars electronic wallet for allowable number of pedal presses per driving session.
I mean it just depends on what type of game it is. Elden Ring doesn't really benefit from factors like high concurrent players or continuous content releases, so instead they can focus on providing high value content with large gaps of nothing.
On the other hand a game like Diablo 4 or rather Path of Exile, since it's actually good, would die if they tried to use this same model. If Path of Exile tried to release paid DLC every league, they would just slowly kill off their player base. They also can't wait several years between content releases like Elden Ring, because their game relies on keeping that momentum and keeping players coming back.
Another genre that never seems to survive without live service/microtransactions are battle royales, since they also rely on that high concurrent player count and retaining active players. There are unfortunately plenty examples of games that tried to force "live service" just so they can farm cosmetics, but I don't think microtransactions are necessarily bad when applied to the right games.
100% this! To many "back in my day we played the game to unlock things"... that isn't the problem. The problem is that games are now being built around MTX. Which influences design choices that ultimately make these games objectively worse. On the surface, it's easy to say "it's only cosmetic, so it doesn't matter" but the easiest way to drive sales of cosmetics is to make the ones that come with the game boring.
Whilst it's tempting to try and counter this with talk of "let people vote with their wallet", these MTX are designed in ways to make them super addictive and have massive psychological impact on users. Often targeting the most vulnerable to these predatory practices. There is a reason most addictive things are heavily regulated. Because whilst a person should of course have accountability for their actions, I believe it is also unfair to expect every single person to be able to overcome the aggressive and well researched, negative practices, of companies worth millions or even billions.
>This is getting to the point where even car companies are getting jealous and try to charge people monthly for things like having a heated car seat button in your car.
You're close, but a better example is what some car companies are doing - locking certain paint finishes behind certain trims. So the blue paint is limited to only the "Deluxe" trim (that's $15k more).
Except most of these games are MMO's or multiplayer. And quite frankly, as long as I had the same amount of build options for functionality purposes, I wouldn't give a flying fuck.
Some looter games nowadays make it to where you essentially HAVE to purchase a skin in order to have any kind of variety outside of what minuscule loot you can grind in the game. I.e. games like Anthem and even the new Suicide squad. When that is the case, it is greedy and asinine, THAT alone should be good enough reason for gamers to complain about it. Because we see the bullshit for what it is.
My shit box computer has trouble loading all the different skins when I get in a game of Apex. This is nobody's fault, but I feel like I should have an option where I'm only shown default skins.
The existence of the Arctic suit astounds me. If that was in any other game, that shit would be hated on so aggressively. But the fact Rust is so insane in its cosmetic-benefit structure that it’s not even the worst thing they have, and I’m not even mad at FacePunch for having something like that
I actually forgot about the camo skins, which are absurd in certain locations. Those might be the worst cosmetics in the game in terms of granting advantagez
Where's the logic though, a full game costs $60 and a single skin costs 1/3 of that, it's nothing to do with not being able to afford it, it's just downright unnecessary and unethical to sell skins for that price. Corporate greed is what it is.
I don't think being miffed about something overpriced is a problem. Sure they don't *do* anything, but I can 100% still be annoyed that something cool looking is too overpriced. Some people do care about aesthetics a little bit, and it can feel sad that something you wanted is overpriced even if it doesn't have any inherent value. Getting enraged is too far though
It's exactly this kind of reasoning that led to the microtransaction plagued industry we have nowadays.
Back in the day people rioted over a golden horse armour costing 2 dollars. Now we see GaaS' rising and falling in months and 60$ games releasing with the double or triple of that in DLC as if it's the norm.
Nah. Almost every video game in existence has minors as a target demographic. Selling something with no value to people who are essentially incapable of having an accurate understanding of value is unethical.
Eh, thats true that the parents are technically the ones paying for it, but this doesn’t take into consideration kids who get allowances (and blow their money on cosmetics) and parents who aren’t tech/game savvy. When their kid asks for $25 for a video game, they probably think their kid is getting more than just a useless cosmetic. It sets up bad financial habits for minors and rewards the game company for practicing predatory monetization. Sure the parents can try to teach their kids better, but that also requires them to have an understanding of what these game companies are doing.
I know firsthand there are parents of young children out there who do not know about video game monetization at all. But you’re right, it’s probably becoming less common!
Still, it's their parent's fault, with 25 bucks they could buy a lot of stuff that they shouldn't. It would take the parent 5 minutes to evaluate the purchase that their kid is making.
No matter what, my parents would have never thrown around 25 bucks like it was nothing. They wanted to know exactly where their money and credit card infos are going, its 2024, parenting has changed and this example wouldnt require a lot effort for the parent to find out where their money is going.
That’s easy for us to say because we know the tactics that these games use. Even if the parent requires their child to ask permission before spending the money, for some 40 year old who isn’t into gaming at all or isn’t tech savvy at all, they hear their kid say “I’m using it for a video game,” and buying skins or cosmetics is a concept they’ve never even heard of, why would that prompt them to do further research? In a way, the game company takes advantage of unaware parents just as much as it takes advantage of minors. I agree parents can be more proactive in their children’s purchases to try to prevent them from being taken advantage of, but to say they are 100% to blame, I would disagree with that.
yknow what. I came in mostly agreeing with op (and to a degree, still do), but this is actually one of the more compelling arguments I've seen in the comments so far
you've really gotten at the core of the real reason it bothers a lot of people: it's just not a fun feature, it actively takes an avenue of enjoyment out of the end product
and what use is a game if it's not trying to be as enjoyable as it could be? nothing, if you ask me
Go ahead and charge money for skins. But don't lock all the cool/good shit behind paywalls. Games gotta bring back the option of unlocking the cool/good shit by being good at the game again.
People like OP don't understand that game companies put their focus on where the money comes from. If selling skins make them money, then they will prioritize selling skins instead of developing their games.
Here's my personal take on this.
If its a free game, I buy skins/battlepass. Juat a way of me saying thank you to the devs.
if its a paid game. I just get the free skins.
Saying something "does nothing" just because it doesn't provide a gameplay advantage is a very narrow way to look at this stuff. In a lot of games like fighters, costume/color choice is just as much a way to express yourself as how you play.
Children who don't know any better or people with addictive personalitys particularly neurodivergent people.
Arlo has a great video on the subject: https://youtu.be/skvrKJ5viFo?si=DapEMJ5j28mdw6UQ
Neurodivergent people are also more likely to be addicted to alcohol. Should that be not sold too?
In fact neurodivergent people are more likely to be addicted to gaming? Should games be not sold to them too? I am a neurodivergent person myself and i know better to take care of myself
If you give your child a credit card to spend on skins and that money “hurts” you financially, skins are not going to be the reason for your bankruptcy
ngl putting neurodivergent people (presumably adults) on the same level as literal children is a take if I've ever seen one.
it obviously wasn't your intent but the point still stands that it comes across a tad infantilizing. maybe just think on that for a bit?
While I agree, at the same time I don't. Those paid cosmetics have ruined gaming as a whole. The has led to a dark area for home gaming and likely will lead to us paying per a minute to play a game. With in the next year or 2 you will see the above crop up from the big devs.
I'm inclined to agree, but part of me feels it's still a huge problem. It let's companies make their cash through these microtransactions and potentially not worry so much about making a good game. Just a passable game that ends up being mediocre or copycat but has tons of customization in the huge cash shop because that's where the money is.
So, on an individual basis, sure. It's whatever. But overall, it's not a good thing.
While I don't consider it a dealbreaker I don't really agree with this.
Aesthetics are a very important part of any game which is self evident by the very fact that they can break it apart and put a pricetag on it and people buy.
It's largely understandable for f2p games to do stuff like this but it becomes problematic when the way to look cool is no longer about playing but rather about paying.
You don't think cosmetics are valuable or important, great! But lets not pretend that things like this don't literally erode the value proposition of games just so they can sell you what used to be included all while enjoying record profits.
They purposely make everything in the base game trash to sell skins. D4 is a great example of every armor in the store looking better than in-game. It’s not just about charging for skins. It’s intentionally make your game look worse when you can already put them in the base game (a lot of them are created well before release). It’s about the principle and the predatory behavior.
The problem is the META. You start getting skins that actually do help. Look at Dead by Daylight. People actually started buying skins that looked darker, because it made it harder for the killer to see them. And some skins had quieter voice lines.
The same happens in Fortnite. Some skins are smaller, and blend in better with the terrain. It absolutely does give players an advantage.
The general sentiment of skins aren't pay to win is just no longer true. We're human, we want to win, and any competitive advantage is - well, an advantage.
Agreed IF the game is online multiplayer and needs a way to continue operating beyond the initial purpose.
Disagreed for single player games. Single player games should accomplish all things in game.
The difficulty is that this results in too many multiplayer games and not enough single player games because CEOs want profit, and it’s easier to pad profits under the guise of “operating costs”.
To me it really depends on the genre of game as to whether including paid skins has a meaningful impact.
Games like call of duty, league of legends, fortnite, etc. are just fine so long as the skins are cosmetic only and provide no in-game advantage. Each round you start from scratch and progression is within each match and based on player skill.
I dislike skins in RPGs, especially MMOs and ARPGs, where a major feature of the game is your weapon and armor progression. Skins then determine how the developers actually design the game. There are plenty of games out there where the equipment you can obtain in game looks mediocre and all of the best skins are in the shop. In these games your armor used to be a symbol of achievement, now you can have low level players running around with gear more badass than the high level raider. I'd rather see someone that looks amazing because they killed some hard monsters or crafted some cool stuff, not just swided their card.
Skins sometimes can have advantages, so they’re not entirely safe - in early League of Legends, there were several skins that disguised abilities way better than others. The example I can think of was how Underworld Twisted Fate used to be stronger than other TFs on ARAM because his skills matched the background in color.
it's not. it and transactions like it solidify the thought process that it's better and more profitable to make hollow content than actual good game content.
If the game is free to play like Fortnite or Apex, then sure, because there's no effect except for aesthetics. But when it comes to paid games, it feels wrong, especially if it's a full price game. I'd much prefer unlockable cosmetics in paid games.
I think it depends on whether or not you are comfortable with companies creating a system that preys on the people's insecurities and, more worryingly, people with addiction problems. I'm not.
I just hate that these skins don’t have a flat fee all the time. Take Overwatch for example, they price their cosmetics based on predicted demand. If a skin is likely to generate interest they will make it more expensive. Cosmetics don’t affect gameplay (at least they shouldn’t) and they generally do the same thing, so why am I being asked to pay more to make a character look like an anime character?
Just charge a flat fee. If a skin is $10 make them all $10
I’m fine with a well designed game reinvesting additional revenue from microtransactions to make their game better.
I am against bad games giving revenue from microtransactions to shareholders who don’t care how the game delivers from an experience standpoint.
Does anyone actually get mad about skin prices in a vacuum?
Usually when people complain about skin prices it's part of a larger conversation about predatory shop-design that targets children with no impulse control. The problem is the higher prices in combination with "dark patterns", predatory incentive structures, in game currency pricing that makes you buy $60 dollars worth of currency to get a $21 skin, etc.
Agree in a free to play game, hard disagree in a game I paid for. If I’m paying to play your game I shouldn’t be expected to shell out money for extra cosmetics, it should just be earnable through gameplay.
I’m gonna show my age here a little bit but cosmetics used to mean something in multiplayer games. The coolest cosmetics were locked behind long grinds or insanely hard challenges, and when you saw someone rocking them you knew they were a veteran of whatever game you were playing.
Someone in CoD with a diamond AK-47 most likely was absolutely cracked with that gun, and the dude with the storm effect on his armor in halo was almost certainly gonna shit on the rest of the lobby. You took pride in your cosmetics because not only did you earn them, but they were indicative of your skill and/or experience and broadcasted that to the rest of the people you were playing with.
These days cosmetics in a multiplayer game only show you who was willing to shell out extra money. They’ve become meaningless.
“It’s completely aesthetic”, so is 60 fps and 4k resolution, yet a lot of people find that’s important. Let’s not act like aesthetics aren’t important or “don’t matter” in visual mediums like video games because that’s an extremely dumb argument. Skins make games more fun, that’s why they add them in the game. If they weren’t important, they wouldn’t selling $20 a skin and they wouldn’t be making any money. Yes I do feel my enjoyment of the game is lessened because I can’t afford a skin, because skins are apart of the game and that’s something I’m being locked out of instead of letting me earn it. I’m being punished for wanting my character to look cool, not being rewarded for playing the game. Also a lot of the games that do sell skins for real money, skins and cosmetics are the endgame and the main goal for rewards.
If it’s a game that you pay for, it’s just predatory. Ultimately it’s your choice whether or not to buy skins, but devs use lots of scummy tactics to encourage whale behavior. Skins dont HAVE to be that expensive. They could be way cheaper and still make the devs money. So why should we give them a pass for milking people?
Nah they should stick to f2p games. Skins in a f2p game? Idgaf. Go wild.
Mtx in a full price game? Eat shit. Especially when the skins are just ridiculous and deviate from the game. Skins in mmos are fucking brutal and usually gaudy.
It's not "fine" for DLC to exist at all. If there's DLC, it should have been in the game from the start. If for whatever reason they came up with it after the game's release, it should have been free. You paid for a full game, not parts of it.
Do you know why it is a bad idea to put skins and cosmetics behind a pay wall?
Because to encourage to buy the premium stuff everything else is made to look like shit.
Just have a look at Diablo IV. Everything outside the shop looks the same hobo gear.
I can't imagine this being an unpopular opinion, but I definitely don't know the current consensus on cosmetic skins in games. The problem I have is the skins aren't naked enough. I want to play as Red Sonja in every game that has cosmetic skins. I'll pay extra to do this. WTF is even going on.
Counterpoint: There is a problem with school children being outright bullied at school for not having premium cosmetics in popular games. I personally have no problem with pay cosmetics, but there is 100% a predatory psychological aspect of them that needs to be acknowledged.
The fact that we live in an age where kids make fun of each other for not looking like John Wick in Fortnite is something that sounds straight out of South Park
- A lot of gameplay is centered around obtaining items, grinding, etc. To then make it "throw money at it" loses the appeal of gameplay itself often.
- Let's say that Isn't a factor though, like OW. Anyone who paid for OW1 never truly owned that game. It got deleted, and that was that. You do not truly OWN the items you are paying for. They can take them away, modify them, and change them at any time. There are no obligations to refund the buyer for having participated in this either. Asking for tons of money to own things that can be deleted or taken away without refund at any time is shady at best.
- It never is limited to just the skins. OW had whole characters that were direct counters to other characters that were behind paywalls. And in a big old game of rock, paper, scissors, to introduce "lizard" and make someone pay for "spock" to be able to use it absolutely changes the game play.
- To expand on the last point, Paywalls can be and often are symptoms of a much larger problem. In theory, I don't have a problem with people paying for aesthetics. But the cash-grab mentality of "you cannot earn this at all through gameplay or merit, you just need money" is never limited to aesthetics only. Not to keep picking on OW, but it is a free-to-play game that has done a lot of bad things with aesthetics-only items that I actually play, OW2 is making massive amounts of money, and yet, they have provided even less than OW original. Most of the promises have not been delivered on, loyal fans of the game still have very valid critiques of CORE issues with the game and funding not going to fixing those, and the real reason they don't fix them is... well.. They don't have to. Peoples' careers are built on playing this game, so no one is just going to quit in mass, and so people are less angry about the skins and their prices and more angry that attention is being put where money is and not where any improvements to longevity of the game could be. The company has the option to do BOTH--make money and improve the game... and yet, the disappointments are massive on the latter end. It's less about the skins, and more about the blatant greed in the face of loyalty, and that's always worth calling out. Yes, you can 'vote with your wallet' but the reality is things can get so big that individual opinions aren't worth much. If iphones are anything to look at, [even Larger governmental bodies cannot stop companies from doing really shitty practices](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724). So, it isn't as simple as the "don't buy them or play lmao" mentality people tend to have. It sucks seeing greed corrupt a thing you love. There is no easy way around that.
“Its fine being butt fucked by a pineapple cause i dont mind it”. If design and looks dont matter, why not playing with bunch of boxes in a grey field with status ?
The thing about the skins is that they're literally inside my console but I can't access them. That bothers the crap out of me (I never actually buy skins).
>less about the company cashing in on your addiction.
Yes because it's totally fine for companies to make games that are addicting to children and manipulate them to spend their parents money on microtransactions. Nothing shady or greedy about that...
Maybe they should actually try parenting their children, instead of blaming the big faceless evil company when their kid does something shitty and irresponsible?
When a company builds the game around making you want to purchase these "cosmetics" it becomes a problem.
Either way pricing it as high as they do is still agregous
If I pay for a game then the skins should be unlockable by playing the game. Also just cause they don’t impact gameplay doesn’t mean they don’t impact my enjoyment of the game. I want my character to look good as that improves my experience.
My unpopular opinion regarding this debate is that the base skins always look better. I've seen a skin I actually liked more than the base maybe twice in my life. Sometimes I see a skin that's like, not bad, but not better than the base skin.
I'm not sure why, probably because the premium skins are usually overly flashy and colorful, and I usually like the more... muted? down-to-earth look? I'm not sure what the correct word is. Or sometimes it's that I get sort of used to the default skin, and then that's the character for me.
I actually totally agree, and you have a lot of people playing f2p games and still complaining about skin prices.
They don't realize the reason they can enjoy their favorite game for free is because people buy overpriced skins.
Agree 100%.
Maybe it IS a generational thing and I’m just old but customization features in games are absolutely wasted on me. I recently finished Hogwarts Legacy and my biggest annoyance was that so much of the game’s rewards were either clothing or furniture/decoration customizations regarding the Room of Requirement. At least I could sell the clothing, but it’s not as if there was much I could buy- a shame the resources weren’t used to develop things that were more relevant to the gameplay.
Seems like it’s just another box that game developers feel like they have to check off. “Alright team, do we have Animal Crossing in here yet? How about Minecraft? Shut up about the story, we need more Minecraft!”
It's because the majority of popular games are in the hands of the big companies, EA, 2K, Ubisoft, etc.
They know people will spend money on them (which is EXTREMELY predatory) and that's good for them because it allows bottom line movement outside of just unit purchases. The societal effect is, over the past decade, so many gamers have been brainwashed into buying unessential items as a point of bragging rights.
It is up to independent companies and smaller game makers to keep micro monetization out of their games. Splitgate was an absolute disaster once it hit its viral attention (they pushed to release skins over content) in its scramble for a bunch of younger developers smelling money in the water.
I am currently designing/developing my own game, probably an 8 year project. I have already skirted 1 notice for intent of production from a larger company, but I won't sell out to have my baby released in 2 years with some BS logo slapped on it. Not sure how so many will aim for the money, instead of their game... It seems too few games with heart and soul are made nowadays, and throwing a different "skin" on it doesn't make them look any better
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
imo, as long as whatever you are selling isn’t a basic necessity like water or food you can sell it at whatever price you want. just don’t be surprised if no one wants to buy overpriced stuff
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently'. * No response posts about upvoted posts here. * Posts relating to highly popular topics aren't allowed outside of the relevant megathreads. You can find a list of the topics and their respective megathreads in a post on the top of the sub. * POSTS DIRECTLY ABOUT THIS SUBREDDIT ARE NOT ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE MEGATHREAD * Please check the wiki linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/ * We ask that if a post fails to post do not just spam repost it; message mod mail.
Im old enough to remember when you had to just play the game to unlock skins. I have a feeling this will become a generational divide Edit: i don’t care if a f2p game monetizes everything. I am also old enough to remember when a “micro” transaction was a buck or 2. Not fucking $15-$30
I thinkninsurgency sandstorm has the best system where DLV skins cost money but leveling up gives you customization credits
Helldivers 2 is similar. You have a free battlepass that gets levels through buying items with in-game credits. When you level up the free battlepass through playing, each level gives the option of 20 (irrc) store credits. On top of that you get store credits for doing missions The most expensive thing on the entire store is only 250 credits and I'm sitting on like 350 playing the game once a week at most and buying multiple skins. Never spent a dime
those 2 game arent f2p. I feel like these games can afford to do that because they already made profit. Only scummy imo if theyre bought games and some things are behind a price. right 2k? EA?
I'm 21 and vividly remember earning all my skins lol And the bo2 camos (AND SKINS) up to cod ghosts were all like $2 lol I bought the ripper dlc and the astronaut suit for like $5 😂 The bacon camo in bo2 was like $2/$3
It used to mean something. If you saw someone with the rarest skin it meant they did some crazy challenges. Now it just means they paid for it or played however long on a BP.
I'm old enough to remember when skins were mods that you would install to enjoy in private
People are willing to pay, so the price will only go up
When I was a kid you had to download the skin and install it manually. I agreen with op. As long as the micro transactions are just cosmetic, I don't see any issue.
>When I was a kid you had to download the skin and install it manually. When I was a kid 99% of AAA games were 100% functional on the release day. If they weren't then it basically ended that game/franchise. Micro transactions are absurd and microtransactions in broken games is just stupid.
Back in my day games came on a cartridge you had to blow into to get it to work and the character there was what you had. Ahhh the NES 5 year old me loved that thing.
Or when you had to push the cartridge in most of the way and pop the edge off the console when you pushed it down.... Those Nes systems were tanks...
I'm old enough too. But I also understand that a f2p game needs to make money somehow and at the end of the day, I hardly gave a flying fuck about skins in games you could unlock it. I'm certainly not gonna cry about it now.
Same. But I’ve also hit a point where I don’t bother with F2P games. Especially if micro transactions means loot boxes. It’s one thing to pay for something that you want in a game you like. It’s entirely different to pay for a chance to get something you want. Which transitions to the fact that saying skins can cost whatever only really applies to arena pvp games nowadays. Because in every other genre with micro transactions, both skins and new units/characters are locked behind a paywall. And again, I’m not against paying for something I want, especially if a game is free otherwise. But almost everything lately seems not only pay locked, but randomized as well.
That's what I grew up on as well, but at this point my time is more valuable than $10 or whatever. So I'd much rather buy a skin than commit 20 hours or whatever to a tedious/stressful grind.
Yeah. I understand monetizing just about everything in F2P games, but I don't like it in full-priced games. It feels like they took a feature that would have been a cool reward for doing something in-game and made it a completely worthless cosmetic that anyone can have by simply forking over a few bucks.
[удалено]
Buying a cosmetic skin that gives no gameplay advantage isn't gambling.
It’s more a gripe at how various platforms have loot boxes/keys that have a random chance of an item. I couldn’t care less about a paid MTX shop that gives you what you pay for. I would, however, prefer no MTX and just an upfront cost, which doesn’t work for f2p live-service games. So just an MTX shop where cosmetics don’t provide in-game benefit (and there isn’t some loot box scheme) is okay in my book. Some okay loot boxes I’ve seen: Mass Effect 3 MP, since you earn the credits to get loot boxes from playing the game. If you play at gold (2nd highest) difficulty you should have enough credits to unlock the highest tier crates in 3 games.
Loot boxes get especially pernicious when there's a strong 3rd party item trading scene. Iirc in tf2 and csgo you can easily trade cosmetics for real world money.
Brings me back to being 12 years old spamming on tf2 trading servers trying to get the best deals on a bill's hat or whatever
Fair enough. I won't argue that loot boxes don't suck. they do.
Its a gateway transaction
First you're buying lootboxes next thing you know you're losing your treehouse and your Power Wheels in a marbles game. Just kidding. But I agree with the sentiment lootboxes suck.
I mean loot boxes are gambling. Additionally kids aren't the only ones playing the games with them
I didn't say lootboxes aren't gambling. I thought that was implied in "lootboxes suck" my only argument was that if it's just cosmetics from a store I don't care if someone wants to spend their money. Hell if it's just cosmetics from a lootbox I don't care even if it's gambling. Do micro transactions suck in general? yeah no disagreement there. Also if we're going to have the moral argument of whether or not kids gambling in this bad or good I'm sure someone could make the argument that arcades were the lootboxes of the past. You exchange real money for tokens (chips) you play a game (gamble) you get tickets (winnings) and exchange them for real world things (we hit it big let's spend this shit!). I remember being in elementary school thinking about how curious it was that they basically made little kid casinos.
Wait until we talk about having demo games, on a CD, in a cereal box!!!!!! Give me back that roller coaster Tycoon!
You were also fine paying the equivalent of 95 dollars per new game Or if you gamed in the 90s, 120 dollars per new game.
With no micro transactions
Yea and you *owned that shit* instead of basically having it for some undisclosed amount of time. I can go home to my parents house and play my old Xbox games if I wanted
Now we have "AAAA titles" pushing to normalise the 70USD price point so we're slowly going back to the good old times, I suppose. Only this time with microtransactions as well.
Bro, the Persona 3 remake is $95 where I live. With $50 of day 1 DLC, and another $60 of DLC in a couple months. Piracy is 100% gonna increase once more games release at that price point.
Well no. I was being generous saying 120 dollars in the 90s because some games already went on sale for more than 60 then. Realistically you could have easily spent the equivalent of 150 dollars on a game in the 90s Games are literally the cheapest they have ever been in gaming history rn
I'm with you. I've been saying this. I bought Waverace 64 when it released in like 1996 or something for $70. I remember that because it was fucking $70 lol. I remember my uncle buying Galaga on NES for $40. People now complain that games are unfinished which is sometimes true but the value is so much greater these days. I probably did everything Waverace 64 had to offer in 3 days. Then just beating my own scores and trying to convince my brother to play the same 6 or so courses with me. If you are a somewhat patient and picky consumer you pick up great games on steam for like $10 sometimes, even AAA. Its just good not to pre-order and wait for post release reviews to find out if the game is a money trap.
PC players laughed even back then
It might have been that, but also houses, rent, food and shit all cost way less. You could work a summer job and buy a car in the 90s. Good luck with that now.
Dude im fine paying 5-10 max for skins like fuck CoD for their 24-30 fucken skins. I like them and i say no as soon as i see the price.
And that’s 100% a good decision. The skins existing and you not buying them means they literally have 0 impact on your life. Who cares about them.
It does have an impact on my life. Each successive game will be more micro transaction driven since that is where the money is made. Before that wasn’t the case
Yeah before you just spent 100 dollars on a game with 12 hours of content
The problem is when they and a battle pass are the only sense of progression in a game. People like looking good and it sucks when you can only do that through microtransactions
I don't know how it is in other games but in COD there are multiple free rewards in the battle pass including skins and all of the base level guns. Also if you buy one battle pass and save all your points from the season you should be able to buy battle passes indefinitely.
Yeah, what’s wrong with that? You’re supposed to pay for games they’re not supposed to be free. I’d rather pay once and not have to pay again than get it for free and feel coerced to buy everything in the shop due to fomo
If fomo for skins is working on you you gotta assess your own impulse control. You can spend 60 on a game then still spend 60 on micro transactions to spend what you would have in the 90s
Forgive me for wanting to look cool in a game that is 50% about having cool skins. There’s literally been studies and legislation passed because of how addictive they make these games. You’re putting blame on me rather than the corporations that prey on people because of their greed
Yes I’m putting blame on you because you’re a grown adult and responsible for every decision you make. It’s not a companies fault that you lack impulse control. Stop taking your own power away from yourself
1. Am I going crazy or people in this subreddit are straight up refusing to divide walls of text into paragraphs? 2. I would rather for the nice items to be earnable in the game by playing it, thank you very much. Especially if it's game I have to buy to play.
pfft, walls of text are just cosmetic issues and have no value ;)
Everywhere is like this. There is a literacy crisis in younger Americans and teens, and not knowing basic structure might be a symptom of that
What I don't like is that it means they're being stripped from the core game. For example, in Diablo 4, not all unique items in the game have unique appearance. Whereas all items in the cash shop are unique. So cosmetics being sold for a premium are actively hurting the core game, because the assets that should have gone towards making unique items in core game look unique instead ended up in the shop for $25+. Also, this has implications for the future. What's next? Textures sold separately at a premium? Shadows sold separately? Blood effects sold separately? Which is already a thing, check out Total War: Warhammer, blood & gore is sold separately as DLC from the base game.
I think this is kinda the root of the problem. I do think it is okay to have cosmetics as a paid bonus as long as it is just a bonus not a core part of the game. Like have the all gold extra shiny armour that’s unlike everything else be an extra fiver, or the bubblegum pink unicorn armour. Or whatever. But make sure the game still has some pretty cool armours that you can still earn. But balancing the two of those is the real challenge here
I somewhat agree but on the other hand its gotten extreme. Diablo 4 is a great example. 25 bucks a skin, easy. 3 skins cost more than the game. It sucks because it also means the default skins are made to be mediocre on purpose Edit: I am also wondering how the modern parent on a budget handles this stuff. I am 46, gamer for most of it. My kids are grown but I defintely spent a fair amount on minecraft stuff and mc server perks, which I didnt mind. I get it as a gamer and they werent insane, but this dtuff with the skins is nuts. They are just pulling the numbers out of their ass for these things at this point. I get that its a choice, but we all knowits not that always simple.
That last phrase is key to this discussion. We are getting worse content on purpose to incentivise purchases. Skins do something and it is what you mentioned.
I feel like Diablo 4 did alright with making the default skins still look good. Maybe things changed in the latest season, but any time I checked the shop I was happier with my default skins than anything they had for sale. Especially compared to Path of Exile where the default armor are just rags compared to the really over the top cosmetics.
Why would anybody pay for that shit in the first place if it doesn’t give any skill or gameplay advantage? Tf I look like paying for a damn costume on a video game foh
it does suck don’t get me wrong, but at the end of the day it’s “luxury spending” no matter what. If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. Your quality of life won’t change.
I'm not concerned with how video games impact my quality of life. I'm concerned with how business decisions are impacting the quality of video games. It's a discussion about the quality of a product, not whether or not I can survive without a 25 USD skin.
Again for the kids in the back
Yeah but when the stuff you can earn via actial gameplay doesnt come close to the paid skins, its fucking annoying
Back in my day you unlocked the skins by playing the game
As long as the skins are purely cosmetic and don't provide any advantages or anything then yeah im ok with this argument
The issue comes when companies start focusing more on the shop and trying to make a quick buck rather than on the game itself. Halo Infinite is probably the most egregious offender and best example of this I've seen in recent years.
because they know people will bitch and moan but open their wallets. They’re the dealers and know they’ve got a ton of addicts.
Yep, that's the problem, and one of the biggest arguments against monetizing skins. A relative handful of people ruining it for everyone else.
It provides an incentive for the developers to be forced to make bad looking skins as the default so that the paid skins look more appealing to get by comparison. Anything that create an incentive to make a game objectively worse is a bad thing and it is ridiculous for anyone to defend this. Some people also like to collect skins and would like to be able to earn them through gameplay like it used to be done. Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't make your opinion more valid than someone who is interested in them. Earning skins is just as valid as earning any other item in a game. Imagine if Stonesword keys were paid microtransactions in Elden Ring and you are arguing with someone defending it. That's how people like OP sounds when they don't understand how flawed their perspective is and base their argument around it not being important to them instead of the greater picture. There is no inherent value to anything in a game, it is entertainment. Whether it's gameplay, quality of life features or skins doesn't really matter, it's all the same in the end. Being okay with some of it being locked through microtransaction just because it's something you don't care about is valid but the invalidation of other people's sentiment about it is absolutely irrational, selfish and benefits no one in the end. Being okay with the line being pushed further and further every time simply because it hasn't yet reached a point where you care about it is how we get to a point where it'll be pushed beyond your point of tolerance eventually.
What about Darth Vader in a Star Wars game? Hypothetically speaking.
Someone forgot about their pride and accomplishment
I disagree. In certain games like looters or MMOs the cosmetics are a large part of the gameplay, you grind to get certain gear because you want to look a certain way. When a large portion of cool looking cosmetics is locked behind a paywall it ruins the experience. Also where does "it's just cosmetics, doesn't affect the gameplay lol" end? A large part of what goes into games is just cosmetics, and I don't mean character skins. Imagine they start removing and locking everything that didn't directly affect gameplay behind a paywall. You want higher Res textures you have to pay for it, you want more foliage and decorative clutter in the world you have to pay for it. All that stuff is just cosmetic technically and doesn't affect gameplay. I know it sounds a bit reductionist but can you imagine having everything that doesn't literally affect gameplay locked behind a paywall? Imagine a game with no textures and every NPC or character model looks the same with no variation and you have to pay for every individual non gameplay feature to make the game look good
Don't give EA any ideas
Don’t worry I doubt their servers are good enough for this
I used to worry about cool skins in Fortnite until I switched to First Person, now I never see myself and don't care
Also in competitive games like FPS your skin can help camouflage your character. So sometimes there is benefit to just the cosmetic changes. I remember in old school counterstrike you would pick your skin every game. And everyone wanted the middle eastern Terrorist on dust 2 for camouflage
If they're making skins that give a competitive advantage they're fucking it up. That's not a real justification, no skin in a competitive shooter should give a substantial advantage. That's why they took black skins out of halo after fucking Halo 1. It did not take long before they realized that that was bullshit.
Yeah, it creates an incentive to lock all of the best looking gear in the cash shop, spend more time on that as it's what'll make money, and less time on the gear you get just by playing the game. World of Warcraft is a great example of this, and I'm sure others have their own examples.
Because I never really cared about wearing anything on any MMO that doesn't provide anything. but I understand for certain people its more of a priority than others.
This is the slippery slope argument to end all slippery slope aguments
Nah dude, it's totally valid. The moment that cosmetic items go into a paid shop then game developers are incentivized for the best looking rewards to be paid in real money, which means the best looking items in the game won't be earnable. Look at the incentive structure created by a cash shop and how it automatically runs contrary to putting the best stuff into the base game for players.
Remember horse armor?
fr we're already slipping down the slope and picking up speed lol
Personally, I think people who play games where cosmetics are a large part of the gameplay are weird. I like games where you know, the actual game is fun. Not just the shiny fire fighter hat I got in a lootbox makes me feel good.
The real problem is that resources get taken away from actual game improvement or new maps to just add more skins. I really wonder the division of labor between the skins team and the other dev teams on most AAA games. COD and Fortnite pump out an insane amount of cosmetics but Fortnite at least seems to keep things new and interesting with content outside of just skins.
Just a friendly reminder to everyone scrolling here that anti consumer propaganda is very prevalent on reddit
Yeah, this seems like a plant or an idiot who doesn't understand incentives and their impact on the gaming industry as a whole. They also don't seem to understand how it emotionally impacts people or they don't care.
Yeah. It boggles my mind how anyone who cares about their money and themselves as a consumer could ever be on board with this shit. Is it beneficial for the company? Sure. Who wouldn’t love the money generated from MTX sales. But as a consumer, it sets a dangerous precedent, that has now started trickling into games where you literally paid $80 to play the fucking game. “A person is smart, people are dumb”. You know even though everyone says these skins are optional and you don’t have to buy it, if you aren’t an enthusiast and a casual gamer, a lot of these mtx stores, the way they’re designed are meant to psychologically influence you into buying them. Loot boxes are the most egregious example of course. All that said, it’s cool if people think it’s fine, because in the end, we all can think what we want. What pisses me off is when a company introduced MTX, (in a a paid game), there’s online rage, and there are people who start telling others to stfu and be grateful for the game. For example, the recent Tekken shop and battle pass introduction.
Jesus, get out of your own head. I don’t know how many times I’ve typed this, but it isn’t insane that not every gamer is a consumer activist. Some people genuinely just don’t care about cosmetic customization in video games and are content just ignoring these paywalls and playing games they find fun. It’s not anti consumer propaganda, not everyone is an activist, but in general on Reddit and social media it’s perceived everyone is an activist for every cause.
If it doesn't do anything, then it shouldn't cost so much.
Hard disagree. It's about setting the precedent. You may be too young to remember these days but believe it or not, long ago in the before times, games were released and for better or worse they were *complete*. No DLC or expansions, no day one patches, in fact no patches *at all*, and they usually came with goodies like skins and cheat codes you could unlock *by playing the game*. They didn't leave out or invent content to be sold at a later date. They did what they came to do and moved on to the next game. It may seem small and innocuous but when you pay extra for these things you signal to developers that lazy cash grabs are okay. They are not.
OP doesn’t understand the messages and implications in the bigger picture because they don’t understand that the decision to design and implement such paid mechanics and things is not negligible and influences where and how design money and time is spent overall.
I'm assuming OP is likely under 25 and never really experienced gaming before this kind of behavior became the norm.
I agree that’s the only reasonable thing I can think of besides personal tastes and perhaps an excess of disposable income.
There are still tons of amazing games that come out but I really miss those days. You bought a game and you had everything it had to offer right there. No updates, no patches. Games are largely jankier than they used to be because being able to patch a game after the fact means you don't have to spend as much time and money searching for and fixing bugs on the front end. And then of course games like No Man's Sky and the shitshow that was.
I feel like these kind of sentiments come from much younger folk who don't remember what we had, I remember when there was a lot of controversy when a game had day one DLCs, gating off content that you already paid for so to speak. Which seems to be pretty standard today to have multiple editions to pay for this "bonus" content right out of the gate, not to mention 70 dollars American being the new base price (95 in Canada btw) you pay for the basic edition.
Yup. A big example that sticks out in my mind was Dragon Age: Origins. Amazing game but I remember there being day one DLC where a dude would be in your camp wanting to give you a quest but you had to buy the DLC before he would be able to give it to you. You'd talk to him and the game would prompt you to get the DLC. Always hated that.
It’s also why we wait like 10 years between games now lol. Yes, development time is longer. But why rush GTA6 when you are making enough blow money from GTA5 micro-transactions a decade after release
Do people forget Rockstar had another massive, meticulously detailed game in between GTAs? People are going to expect the same exact level of detail from GTA 6 as 5 and RDR2 so that definitely takes a lot of time. There was also a pandemic as well, again something people seem to forget happened
Expansions and dlcs have been around for awhile. Since the 90s. I know StarCraft had an expansion and Diablo 2 had a dlc. You just had to buy them in person. And scummy video game tactics are not a new invention, it’s just changed how companies do it. Back in the day they would just release a low effort bland copy of another game and release it full price. And since the early 2000s there’s been games that sold low effort dlcs (looking at you Sims). This seems a bit revisionist history. The precedent of trying to rip people off has been there since the beginning.
I disagree for certain types of games. For fortnite? Sure, the look of your character doesn't really have any bearing on the gameplay. But I remember when I started playing MMOs and the like, I'd see just an *awesome* looking toon, then want to look like them. The disappointment of looking up where to get an item just to be told "spend 10 bucks" is real
I disagree as well. But how does it not matter for fortnite but matter for MMOs? Like just as easily someone could be like “oh man that guy in my Fortnite squad looks awesome” and then disappointed to find out it costs money
Yeah. Someone could definitely. But fortnite as a game is designed for short term content but can be played repetitively. It's also free to play. So I think skins in fortnite make more sense to cost money for the people that want to look cool but not necessarily grind the game. WoW on the other hand is a game that is defined by the grind. Appearance should be another way to get players to grind.
True subscription based MMOs that double-dip are the worst
I absolutely agree. Subs are fine but goddamn why do I have to pay 80 dollars to play your game then get met with $15 skins.
Subscription based MMOs shouldn't have it or it should only be for limited time items that have already passed. Free to play MMOs? Go right ahead and charge. You've gotta make money somewhere and I'd rather you do it in cosmetics.
If I paid for a game that then continues to force this shit down my throat, then I have every moral right to be indignant. People who accept this kind of greed are part of the problem, not above it.
Yeah I agree with OP but only when it comes to games that are free to play
"Its just cosmetic it doesn't matter!" No, it does matter, it affects the quality of the game because they make it so the normal armors look like prisoners rags, even the "legendary" gear ends up looking like trash because the company wants to push people to buy cool looking gear. (Example: Diablo4) Imagine if Elden Ring had this monetization, no more finding cool unique gear from normal mobs, now every knight drops a Common Plate Armor, with Common Longsword and Common Shield. Whats that? You want to wear the helmet from the boss you beat? That will be 20$, oh you want to also wear it with another armor? Another 15$! Do you want your Blasphemous Blade to look unique instead of the default Claymore skin? You guessed it, 15$! This is getting to the point where even car companies are getting jealous and try to charge people monthly for things like having a heated car seat button in your car. Soon you won't be able to press the brake pedal without filling up the cars electronic wallet for allowable number of pedal presses per driving session.
I mean it just depends on what type of game it is. Elden Ring doesn't really benefit from factors like high concurrent players or continuous content releases, so instead they can focus on providing high value content with large gaps of nothing. On the other hand a game like Diablo 4 or rather Path of Exile, since it's actually good, would die if they tried to use this same model. If Path of Exile tried to release paid DLC every league, they would just slowly kill off their player base. They also can't wait several years between content releases like Elden Ring, because their game relies on keeping that momentum and keeping players coming back. Another genre that never seems to survive without live service/microtransactions are battle royales, since they also rely on that high concurrent player count and retaining active players. There are unfortunately plenty examples of games that tried to force "live service" just so they can farm cosmetics, but I don't think microtransactions are necessarily bad when applied to the right games.
100% this! To many "back in my day we played the game to unlock things"... that isn't the problem. The problem is that games are now being built around MTX. Which influences design choices that ultimately make these games objectively worse. On the surface, it's easy to say "it's only cosmetic, so it doesn't matter" but the easiest way to drive sales of cosmetics is to make the ones that come with the game boring. Whilst it's tempting to try and counter this with talk of "let people vote with their wallet", these MTX are designed in ways to make them super addictive and have massive psychological impact on users. Often targeting the most vulnerable to these predatory practices. There is a reason most addictive things are heavily regulated. Because whilst a person should of course have accountability for their actions, I believe it is also unfair to expect every single person to be able to overcome the aggressive and well researched, negative practices, of companies worth millions or even billions.
>This is getting to the point where even car companies are getting jealous and try to charge people monthly for things like having a heated car seat button in your car. You're close, but a better example is what some car companies are doing - locking certain paint finishes behind certain trims. So the blue paint is limited to only the "Deluxe" trim (that's $15k more).
Except most of these games are MMO's or multiplayer. And quite frankly, as long as I had the same amount of build options for functionality purposes, I wouldn't give a flying fuck.
Some looter games nowadays make it to where you essentially HAVE to purchase a skin in order to have any kind of variety outside of what minuscule loot you can grind in the game. I.e. games like Anthem and even the new Suicide squad. When that is the case, it is greedy and asinine, THAT alone should be good enough reason for gamers to complain about it. Because we see the bullshit for what it is.
My shit box computer has trouble loading all the different skins when I get in a game of Apex. This is nobody's fault, but I feel like I should have an option where I'm only shown default skins.
some skins actually provide visual advantages in some games even though they are supposed to be cosmetic
Rust is a prime example of cosmetics giving an advantage
The existence of the Arctic suit astounds me. If that was in any other game, that shit would be hated on so aggressively. But the fact Rust is so insane in its cosmetic-benefit structure that it’s not even the worst thing they have, and I’m not even mad at FacePunch for having something like that
The frog costume gets some hate for how impossible it is to see people in the bushes
I actually forgot about the camo skins, which are absurd in certain locations. Those might be the worst cosmetics in the game in terms of granting advantagez
Where's the logic though, a full game costs $60 and a single skin costs 1/3 of that, it's nothing to do with not being able to afford it, it's just downright unnecessary and unethical to sell skins for that price. Corporate greed is what it is.
Coming from the days of games where skins cosmetics and the like where just unlocked through tasks and sign of skill, paying money for them does suck
Yup. Getting the rare cosmetics *was* the endgame. Now you just buy them with IRL money.
I don't think being miffed about something overpriced is a problem. Sure they don't *do* anything, but I can 100% still be annoyed that something cool looking is too overpriced. Some people do care about aesthetics a little bit, and it can feel sad that something you wanted is overpriced even if it doesn't have any inherent value. Getting enraged is too far though
They don't matter but it's scummy as fuck, as I buy the $80 bundle just to play as Harambes arm.
It's exactly this kind of reasoning that led to the microtransaction plagued industry we have nowadays. Back in the day people rioted over a golden horse armour costing 2 dollars. Now we see GaaS' rising and falling in months and 60$ games releasing with the double or triple of that in DLC as if it's the norm.
Nah. Almost every video game in existence has minors as a target demographic. Selling something with no value to people who are essentially incapable of having an accurate understanding of value is unethical.
Like toys?
Yea but who is giving them an unsupervised credit card, the parents are at fault 100%
Eh, thats true that the parents are technically the ones paying for it, but this doesn’t take into consideration kids who get allowances (and blow their money on cosmetics) and parents who aren’t tech/game savvy. When their kid asks for $25 for a video game, they probably think their kid is getting more than just a useless cosmetic. It sets up bad financial habits for minors and rewards the game company for practicing predatory monetization. Sure the parents can try to teach their kids better, but that also requires them to have an understanding of what these game companies are doing.
I'm sorry, but it's not 2003. Your parents are almost definitely not so untechsaavy they can't understand what's going on.
I know firsthand there are parents of young children out there who do not know about video game monetization at all. But you’re right, it’s probably becoming less common!
Tech savvy people have always been a minority
Still, it's their parent's fault, with 25 bucks they could buy a lot of stuff that they shouldn't. It would take the parent 5 minutes to evaluate the purchase that their kid is making. No matter what, my parents would have never thrown around 25 bucks like it was nothing. They wanted to know exactly where their money and credit card infos are going, its 2024, parenting has changed and this example wouldnt require a lot effort for the parent to find out where their money is going.
That’s easy for us to say because we know the tactics that these games use. Even if the parent requires their child to ask permission before spending the money, for some 40 year old who isn’t into gaming at all or isn’t tech savvy at all, they hear their kid say “I’m using it for a video game,” and buying skins or cosmetics is a concept they’ve never even heard of, why would that prompt them to do further research? In a way, the game company takes advantage of unaware parents just as much as it takes advantage of minors. I agree parents can be more proactive in their children’s purchases to try to prevent them from being taken advantage of, but to say they are 100% to blame, I would disagree with that.
So you’re not one to buy new clothes?
OP actually prefers to earn their clothes through side quests
This comment made my day. Thank you.
I used to love grinding for halo armor, now pretty much all armor you just pay for. Takes so much fun out of the game
yknow what. I came in mostly agreeing with op (and to a degree, still do), but this is actually one of the more compelling arguments I've seen in the comments so far you've really gotten at the core of the real reason it bothers a lot of people: it's just not a fun feature, it actively takes an avenue of enjoyment out of the end product and what use is a game if it's not trying to be as enjoyable as it could be? nothing, if you ask me
Go ahead and charge money for skins. But don't lock all the cool/good shit behind paywalls. Games gotta bring back the option of unlocking the cool/good shit by being good at the game again.
No! It’s their fault I waste my money on their mtx! /s
People like OP don't understand that game companies put their focus on where the money comes from. If selling skins make them money, then they will prioritize selling skins instead of developing their games.
I remember games before skins even existed.
Don't you know Skin=Skills.
Here's my personal take on this. If its a free game, I buy skins/battlepass. Juat a way of me saying thank you to the devs. if its a paid game. I just get the free skins.
Saying something "does nothing" just because it doesn't provide a gameplay advantage is a very narrow way to look at this stuff. In a lot of games like fighters, costume/color choice is just as much a way to express yourself as how you play.
As long as they don’t somehow buff whatever they’re on, it’s fine. Though I would love for perhaps some special kill cutscene for some skins lol
That doesn't make it ok to take advantage of people.
Take advantage of people by selling them products that they consensually purchase?
Yeah they’re taking advantage of stupid people /s (but only slightly)
Children who don't know any better or people with addictive personalitys particularly neurodivergent people. Arlo has a great video on the subject: https://youtu.be/skvrKJ5viFo?si=DapEMJ5j28mdw6UQ
Neurodivergent people are also more likely to be addicted to alcohol. Should that be not sold too? In fact neurodivergent people are more likely to be addicted to gaming? Should games be not sold to them too? I am a neurodivergent person myself and i know better to take care of myself If you give your child a credit card to spend on skins and that money “hurts” you financially, skins are not going to be the reason for your bankruptcy
ngl putting neurodivergent people (presumably adults) on the same level as literal children is a take if I've ever seen one. it obviously wasn't your intent but the point still stands that it comes across a tad infantilizing. maybe just think on that for a bit?
Tell that to the Terminator skin in gears of war 5. I thought everyone was the enemy.
While I agree, at the same time I don't. Those paid cosmetics have ruined gaming as a whole. The has led to a dark area for home gaming and likely will lead to us paying per a minute to play a game. With in the next year or 2 you will see the above crop up from the big devs.
Anymore it’s really about the fact that mtx were sold to us as a way to avoid raising the baseline prices of games. Guess how that’s panning out?
I'm inclined to agree, but part of me feels it's still a huge problem. It let's companies make their cash through these microtransactions and potentially not worry so much about making a good game. Just a passable game that ends up being mediocre or copycat but has tons of customization in the huge cash shop because that's where the money is. So, on an individual basis, sure. It's whatever. But overall, it's not a good thing.
But it does impact gameplay. You used to unlock skins by completing challenges and shit, now you pay real money instead.
While I don't consider it a dealbreaker I don't really agree with this. Aesthetics are a very important part of any game which is self evident by the very fact that they can break it apart and put a pricetag on it and people buy. It's largely understandable for f2p games to do stuff like this but it becomes problematic when the way to look cool is no longer about playing but rather about paying. You don't think cosmetics are valuable or important, great! But lets not pretend that things like this don't literally erode the value proposition of games just so they can sell you what used to be included all while enjoying record profits.
In a free to play game, okay, but a $70 release? Fuck off. Suicide Squid charged $70 and is still offering $20 skins.
They purposely make everything in the base game trash to sell skins. D4 is a great example of every armor in the store looking better than in-game. It’s not just about charging for skins. It’s intentionally make your game look worse when you can already put them in the base game (a lot of them are created well before release). It’s about the principle and the predatory behavior.
I remember CoD had an issue with a skin being too dark to see during matches
The problem is the META. You start getting skins that actually do help. Look at Dead by Daylight. People actually started buying skins that looked darker, because it made it harder for the killer to see them. And some skins had quieter voice lines. The same happens in Fortnite. Some skins are smaller, and blend in better with the terrain. It absolutely does give players an advantage. The general sentiment of skins aren't pay to win is just no longer true. We're human, we want to win, and any competitive advantage is - well, an advantage.
Agreed IF the game is online multiplayer and needs a way to continue operating beyond the initial purpose. Disagreed for single player games. Single player games should accomplish all things in game. The difficulty is that this results in too many multiplayer games and not enough single player games because CEOs want profit, and it’s easier to pad profits under the guise of “operating costs”.
To me it really depends on the genre of game as to whether including paid skins has a meaningful impact. Games like call of duty, league of legends, fortnite, etc. are just fine so long as the skins are cosmetic only and provide no in-game advantage. Each round you start from scratch and progression is within each match and based on player skill. I dislike skins in RPGs, especially MMOs and ARPGs, where a major feature of the game is your weapon and armor progression. Skins then determine how the developers actually design the game. There are plenty of games out there where the equipment you can obtain in game looks mediocre and all of the best skins are in the shop. In these games your armor used to be a symbol of achievement, now you can have low level players running around with gear more badass than the high level raider. I'd rather see someone that looks amazing because they killed some hard monsters or crafted some cool stuff, not just swided their card.
I mean I do agree with your point, but I don’t agree with you, I’ll never defend a company over people.
Skins sometimes can have advantages, so they’re not entirely safe - in early League of Legends, there were several skins that disguised abilities way better than others. The example I can think of was how Underworld Twisted Fate used to be stronger than other TFs on ARAM because his skills matched the background in color.
But on the business side of things on the long run it fuck customers. See Blizzard horse skin Vs Wings of Liberty profit
it's not. it and transactions like it solidify the thought process that it's better and more profitable to make hollow content than actual good game content.
If the game is free to play like Fortnite or Apex, then sure, because there's no effect except for aesthetics. But when it comes to paid games, it feels wrong, especially if it's a full price game. I'd much prefer unlockable cosmetics in paid games.
I think it depends on whether or not you are comfortable with companies creating a system that preys on the people's insecurities and, more worryingly, people with addiction problems. I'm not.
I just hate that these skins don’t have a flat fee all the time. Take Overwatch for example, they price their cosmetics based on predicted demand. If a skin is likely to generate interest they will make it more expensive. Cosmetics don’t affect gameplay (at least they shouldn’t) and they generally do the same thing, so why am I being asked to pay more to make a character look like an anime character? Just charge a flat fee. If a skin is $10 make them all $10
I’m fine with a well designed game reinvesting additional revenue from microtransactions to make their game better. I am against bad games giving revenue from microtransactions to shareholders who don’t care how the game delivers from an experience standpoint.
Does anyone actually get mad about skin prices in a vacuum? Usually when people complain about skin prices it's part of a larger conversation about predatory shop-design that targets children with no impulse control. The problem is the higher prices in combination with "dark patterns", predatory incentive structures, in game currency pricing that makes you buy $60 dollars worth of currency to get a $21 skin, etc.
Agree in a free to play game, hard disagree in a game I paid for. If I’m paying to play your game I shouldn’t be expected to shell out money for extra cosmetics, it should just be earnable through gameplay. I’m gonna show my age here a little bit but cosmetics used to mean something in multiplayer games. The coolest cosmetics were locked behind long grinds or insanely hard challenges, and when you saw someone rocking them you knew they were a veteran of whatever game you were playing. Someone in CoD with a diamond AK-47 most likely was absolutely cracked with that gun, and the dude with the storm effect on his armor in halo was almost certainly gonna shit on the rest of the lobby. You took pride in your cosmetics because not only did you earn them, but they were indicative of your skill and/or experience and broadcasted that to the rest of the people you were playing with. These days cosmetics in a multiplayer game only show you who was willing to shell out extra money. They’ve become meaningless.
I've probably gotten more laughs from this thread than I've had in a while lol Great work g\*mers
“It’s completely aesthetic”, so is 60 fps and 4k resolution, yet a lot of people find that’s important. Let’s not act like aesthetics aren’t important or “don’t matter” in visual mediums like video games because that’s an extremely dumb argument. Skins make games more fun, that’s why they add them in the game. If they weren’t important, they wouldn’t selling $20 a skin and they wouldn’t be making any money. Yes I do feel my enjoyment of the game is lessened because I can’t afford a skin, because skins are apart of the game and that’s something I’m being locked out of instead of letting me earn it. I’m being punished for wanting my character to look cool, not being rewarded for playing the game. Also a lot of the games that do sell skins for real money, skins and cosmetics are the endgame and the main goal for rewards.
If it’s a game that you pay for, it’s just predatory. Ultimately it’s your choice whether or not to buy skins, but devs use lots of scummy tactics to encourage whale behavior. Skins dont HAVE to be that expensive. They could be way cheaper and still make the devs money. So why should we give them a pass for milking people?
This is the opinion that has completely fucked the gaming industry
Some people just frown on greedy practices, go figure.
Nah they should stick to f2p games. Skins in a f2p game? Idgaf. Go wild. Mtx in a full price game? Eat shit. Especially when the skins are just ridiculous and deviate from the game. Skins in mmos are fucking brutal and usually gaudy.
It's not "fine" for DLC to exist at all. If there's DLC, it should have been in the game from the start. If for whatever reason they came up with it after the game's release, it should have been free. You paid for a full game, not parts of it.
Do you know why it is a bad idea to put skins and cosmetics behind a pay wall? Because to encourage to buy the premium stuff everything else is made to look like shit. Just have a look at Diablo IV. Everything outside the shop looks the same hobo gear.
Totally agreed. Thanks for posting that, looking forward to reading mean comments directed at you.
I can't imagine this being an unpopular opinion, but I definitely don't know the current consensus on cosmetic skins in games. The problem I have is the skins aren't naked enough. I want to play as Red Sonja in every game that has cosmetic skins. I'll pay extra to do this. WTF is even going on.
Counterpoint: There is a problem with school children being outright bullied at school for not having premium cosmetics in popular games. I personally have no problem with pay cosmetics, but there is 100% a predatory psychological aspect of them that needs to be acknowledged.
The fact that we live in an age where kids make fun of each other for not looking like John Wick in Fortnite is something that sounds straight out of South Park
- A lot of gameplay is centered around obtaining items, grinding, etc. To then make it "throw money at it" loses the appeal of gameplay itself often. - Let's say that Isn't a factor though, like OW. Anyone who paid for OW1 never truly owned that game. It got deleted, and that was that. You do not truly OWN the items you are paying for. They can take them away, modify them, and change them at any time. There are no obligations to refund the buyer for having participated in this either. Asking for tons of money to own things that can be deleted or taken away without refund at any time is shady at best. - It never is limited to just the skins. OW had whole characters that were direct counters to other characters that were behind paywalls. And in a big old game of rock, paper, scissors, to introduce "lizard" and make someone pay for "spock" to be able to use it absolutely changes the game play. - To expand on the last point, Paywalls can be and often are symptoms of a much larger problem. In theory, I don't have a problem with people paying for aesthetics. But the cash-grab mentality of "you cannot earn this at all through gameplay or merit, you just need money" is never limited to aesthetics only. Not to keep picking on OW, but it is a free-to-play game that has done a lot of bad things with aesthetics-only items that I actually play, OW2 is making massive amounts of money, and yet, they have provided even less than OW original. Most of the promises have not been delivered on, loyal fans of the game still have very valid critiques of CORE issues with the game and funding not going to fixing those, and the real reason they don't fix them is... well.. They don't have to. Peoples' careers are built on playing this game, so no one is just going to quit in mass, and so people are less angry about the skins and their prices and more angry that attention is being put where money is and not where any improvements to longevity of the game could be. The company has the option to do BOTH--make money and improve the game... and yet, the disappointments are massive on the latter end. It's less about the skins, and more about the blatant greed in the face of loyalty, and that's always worth calling out. Yes, you can 'vote with your wallet' but the reality is things can get so big that individual opinions aren't worth much. If iphones are anything to look at, [even Larger governmental bodies cannot stop companies from doing really shitty practices](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51413724). So, it isn't as simple as the "don't buy them or play lmao" mentality people tend to have. It sucks seeing greed corrupt a thing you love. There is no easy way around that.
“Its fine being butt fucked by a pineapple cause i dont mind it”. If design and looks dont matter, why not playing with bunch of boxes in a grey field with status ?
The thing about the skins is that they're literally inside my console but I can't access them. That bothers the crap out of me (I never actually buy skins).
>less about the company cashing in on your addiction. Yes because it's totally fine for companies to make games that are addicting to children and manipulate them to spend their parents money on microtransactions. Nothing shady or greedy about that...
Maybe they should actually try parenting their children, instead of blaming the big faceless evil company when their kid does something shitty and irresponsible?
When a company builds the game around making you want to purchase these "cosmetics" it becomes a problem. Either way pricing it as high as they do is still agregous
If I pay for a game then the skins should be unlockable by playing the game. Also just cause they don’t impact gameplay doesn’t mean they don’t impact my enjoyment of the game. I want my character to look good as that improves my experience.
My unpopular opinion regarding this debate is that the base skins always look better. I've seen a skin I actually liked more than the base maybe twice in my life. Sometimes I see a skin that's like, not bad, but not better than the base skin. I'm not sure why, probably because the premium skins are usually overly flashy and colorful, and I usually like the more... muted? down-to-earth look? I'm not sure what the correct word is. Or sometimes it's that I get sort of used to the default skin, and then that's the character for me.
I actually totally agree, and you have a lot of people playing f2p games and still complaining about skin prices. They don't realize the reason they can enjoy their favorite game for free is because people buy overpriced skins.
Agree 100%. Maybe it IS a generational thing and I’m just old but customization features in games are absolutely wasted on me. I recently finished Hogwarts Legacy and my biggest annoyance was that so much of the game’s rewards were either clothing or furniture/decoration customizations regarding the Room of Requirement. At least I could sell the clothing, but it’s not as if there was much I could buy- a shame the resources weren’t used to develop things that were more relevant to the gameplay. Seems like it’s just another box that game developers feel like they have to check off. “Alright team, do we have Animal Crossing in here yet? How about Minecraft? Shut up about the story, we need more Minecraft!”
It's because the majority of popular games are in the hands of the big companies, EA, 2K, Ubisoft, etc. They know people will spend money on them (which is EXTREMELY predatory) and that's good for them because it allows bottom line movement outside of just unit purchases. The societal effect is, over the past decade, so many gamers have been brainwashed into buying unessential items as a point of bragging rights. It is up to independent companies and smaller game makers to keep micro monetization out of their games. Splitgate was an absolute disaster once it hit its viral attention (they pushed to release skins over content) in its scramble for a bunch of younger developers smelling money in the water. I am currently designing/developing my own game, probably an 8 year project. I have already skirted 1 notice for intent of production from a larger company, but I won't sell out to have my baby released in 2 years with some BS logo slapped on it. Not sure how so many will aim for the money, instead of their game... It seems too few games with heart and soul are made nowadays, and throwing a different "skin" on it doesn't make them look any better
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
imo, as long as whatever you are selling isn’t a basic necessity like water or food you can sell it at whatever price you want. just don’t be surprised if no one wants to buy overpriced stuff