That's just an appeal to tradition, not an argument against the funding policy itself. It's more of an argument for why you don't support the funding and why you believe people should not support it, rather than an argument against the policy.
Welp EA did it with Anthem
- Thread starter DontTouchMyHoHos
- Start date
Entirely possible, depends on how EA goes with it and how much leeway Bioware has on production and monitization. I think 20$ is a bit much for skins, I wont be buying any but they may see a market for them.
supitza
Vault Dweller
I'm with @DontTouchMyHoHos on this one. Guys, you know that's not how it works. You don't need to buy skins or any other cosmetic items, but everybody wants them. It's the fact that they have the nerve to ask that much for it that's concerning.
"Yes, but you can buy it with in game currency." Of course, if you want to grind for years: https://kotaku.com/players-are-trying-to-calculate-how-long-it-takes-to-un-1820373111
For those $20 you could buy, during a Steam sale, all of the following:
Borderlands 2 + Portal 2 + Dishonored + FTL + Fallout: New Vegas and have some money left over. It's either these 5 masterpieces or a fucking EA skin.
I'm really angry.
And before you say that the price of the Anthem skins is speculation, it's not. It's an educated guess, considering the dollar to coin parity from the last dozens of microtransaction games.
Ive already stated that it alters gameplay and how it alters gameplay. Case n point to give an example is Assassins creed odyssey and their exp boost.
For honor was calculated to take 2 years of 8 hours a day grinding to unlock everything or that was star wars battlefront 2, both are absurd.
My stance is an argument against policy. It first started out as 5$ for horse armor. When the people who only know how to make money start running the companies and the people who makes the games are no longer running it, the envelop on how to abuse consumers for money begins to open up and for people to accept that you slowly increase the price over time. Its basic of marketing and manipulating people to accept things that would have otherwise been 100% acceptable years ago. Its softening the blow. They would ha e loved to chsrge 20$ 10 years ago but not a single soul would have touched it.
Last edited:
I would like to add im not against comsmetics per say but there is a limit.
This is our fault all. We keep paying for this, and we've demonstrated we are willing to fund a game to the tune of 200 MILLION bucks before it's even been developed. WoW pets, EQ online store with Sony cash (now daybreak cash), Minecraft addons, the whole mobile phone micropayments, etc.
If we didn't pay for it, they would not do it.
If you don't like it, vote with your wallet and don't buy the game or don't buy the skins, etc.
If we didn't pay for it, they would not do it.
If you don't like it, vote with your wallet and don't buy the game or don't buy the skins, etc.
Ridiculous. For 20 dollars I can almost get a get a mystic runesaber mount in WoW
We can agree to disagree.
I see it differently. BioWare needs to make a good return on their investment so they can continue hiring great talent and cranking out amazing games.
If one way to help that happen is for them to offer completely optional, cosmetic items that DO NOT affect your gamplay AT ALL, then great, I support it. I'm pretty open on how games raise additional funds as long as it doesn't significantly alter the game.
Your objection seems to be that they've now introduced more gear, and for some reason there are a few folks out there so completely obsessed with earning anything/everything they can possibly get in a game that they can't possibly stand to do otherwise, and that for these 5 guys it's somehow unfair that others can change the color of their suit?
I can't say I sympathize with this 5 guys even though I respect our differences. Games can't be built and sold to those 5 guys at rates that make game companies successful. It has been tried and failed.
Paying for purely cosmetic items is definitely the most player-friendly solution to the question of how to get additional revenue for reinvestment. Anyone who is crying about it is entirely missing the point about how the gaming industry works.
I'm assuming then that you don't play or back Star Citizen? Or if you do you only have the basic Aurora or Mustang pack and haven't spent hundreds if dollers on digital ships that give you and unfair advantage when the game is released? CIG to alot of people are the biggest scamers if them all and find it crazy spending that sort of money ....on a game in Alpha no less. I agree that things like this are getting silly but it's hard to complain when you follow a game like SC
I've always been of the mind set, if it's cosmetic then they can sell it for whatever. As long as there are no gameplay advantages or pay to win scenarios then who cares. Yeah, it looks awesome, yeah I really wish I had one, but we can keep voting with our wallets. As long as it doesn't turn into a battlefront 2 situation where you were hamstrung if you didn't drop large amounts of cash on loot boxes, you were not competitive.
Of course there are a few situations where something purely cosmetic did affect gameplay, I seem to recall a few champions in league of legends where with a different costume, it made just slight enough changes to the hit box, it was a player advantage.
Of course there are a few situations where something purely cosmetic did affect gameplay, I seem to recall a few champions in league of legends where with a different costume, it made just slight enough changes to the hit box, it was a player advantage.
Wait. Anthem costs like $59.
That's not "full price" on it's own. It might've been several years ago, but it's not today.
You can't expect the production values of the games to go up and the price to go down (if you paid ²⁰¹⁷$50 for a product that cost ¹⁹⁹⁰$50 , that's 50% off).
Honestly, all these "This full price game has microtransactions!" -rants are no different than "This coffee costs $2!? Back in my day we used to get a cup for a nickel with unlimited refills and a shoeshine to sweeten the deal!"
$20 for an ingame skin? I'm fine with that. It doesn't affect gameplay.
TLDR: you should probably skip the rest past this point, lol
Hell, I bought a Caterpillar for $300 and I could have earned one in game and saved the money.
Having expensive skins doesn't hurt gameplay and it's the gameplay that makes a great game, not skins.
So completionists have to have absolutely everything. That does make things more challenging for them since it requires a fat wallet. For some, completion is unachievable because some things are locked behind pay walls or limited time only walls.
I think that as a completionist, you should set your own goals since some things will always be out of reach. Competative people can't all be #1 in the world, so they lower their standards to be in the top 10% or even 5%. I think that it's fair that completionists do this as well. You can get everything earnable in game, or everything at the time, or everything except your small list of unobtainable items.
Skins have been a part of games for a long time, including paid skins. Certain skins are not avalible anymore. Like if I wanted an F7A mod kit for my Super Hornet, I can't get one anymore. I cannot complete a skin collection for Star Citizen unless I find someone willing to sell it for probably a couple hundred dollars. Still, this doesn't ruin my experience with Star Citizen or make it a bad game. The gameplay is unchanged, only the experience is slightly different. I don't have a golden ticket either but that's ok too.
If people want to give EA $20 for a skin, then let EA sell $20 skins. It's not an underhanded business practice to sell skins.
Some people complain about not having a complete game when they get it because they don't have the skins. That's like me buying a truck and saying it's not complete unless I get leather seats thrown in for the same price. A truck with default fabric seats is still a complete truck even without the leather seats.
Most games sold are complete (exceptions like No Man's Sky and stuff left out for simplicity). If the game functions and has content, then you could argue that it's complete.
Some games have lots of content held back on purpose so that it can be held randsom for extra money. If this is upsetting to you, then you should really be looking at if the game is even worth playing. In this capitalistic setup, companies can charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it you can either not support them or demand that laws be placed to keep this from happening.
As long as paywalls are not placed to stop gameplay or progress, I'm fine with $20 skins. Hell, sell me a $50 skin that I think is totally amazing, but don't make it a pay to win skin with extra bonuses that others cannot get without paying. Pay to win is not ok.
People can set their own goals. If you want all the skins, then you need to understand what thst means. Money, dedication to sales or times events, and more. Just like people who strive to be number 1 in ranking understand that they need the best skills, experience, and gear to be number 1.
Companies need money, so they charge for various things. It's ok to charge for a different experience, like skins, but not ok to charge for gameplay, like better gear. That's just where we are at right now and if you don't support this idea, then don't support the games that are built on this idea. The loudest voice you have with companies is your wallet, so if $20 skins upsets you, then don't buy the game.
I used to love the battlefield series. I loved 2, 2142, 3, and 4. I didn't buy Hardline, 1, or 5 because I did not agree with EA holding half the game behind season passes or constantly making more games that I would have to buy again and climb the ranks all over again. I don't support that idea, so I stopped supporting them.
I don't agree with OP, though I respect that he's drawn a line where he thinks it is no longer ok for game companies to do. It takes a bit of effort to do this but more effort to change things.
TLDR: you should probably skip the rest past this point, lol
Hell, I bought a Caterpillar for $300 and I could have earned one in game and saved the money.
Having expensive skins doesn't hurt gameplay and it's the gameplay that makes a great game, not skins.
So completionists have to have absolutely everything. That does make things more challenging for them since it requires a fat wallet. For some, completion is unachievable because some things are locked behind pay walls or limited time only walls.
I think that as a completionist, you should set your own goals since some things will always be out of reach. Competative people can't all be #1 in the world, so they lower their standards to be in the top 10% or even 5%. I think that it's fair that completionists do this as well. You can get everything earnable in game, or everything at the time, or everything except your small list of unobtainable items.
Skins have been a part of games for a long time, including paid skins. Certain skins are not avalible anymore. Like if I wanted an F7A mod kit for my Super Hornet, I can't get one anymore. I cannot complete a skin collection for Star Citizen unless I find someone willing to sell it for probably a couple hundred dollars. Still, this doesn't ruin my experience with Star Citizen or make it a bad game. The gameplay is unchanged, only the experience is slightly different. I don't have a golden ticket either but that's ok too.
If people want to give EA $20 for a skin, then let EA sell $20 skins. It's not an underhanded business practice to sell skins.
Some people complain about not having a complete game when they get it because they don't have the skins. That's like me buying a truck and saying it's not complete unless I get leather seats thrown in for the same price. A truck with default fabric seats is still a complete truck even without the leather seats.
Most games sold are complete (exceptions like No Man's Sky and stuff left out for simplicity). If the game functions and has content, then you could argue that it's complete.
Some games have lots of content held back on purpose so that it can be held randsom for extra money. If this is upsetting to you, then you should really be looking at if the game is even worth playing. In this capitalistic setup, companies can charge whatever they want for their product. If you don't like it you can either not support them or demand that laws be placed to keep this from happening.
As long as paywalls are not placed to stop gameplay or progress, I'm fine with $20 skins. Hell, sell me a $50 skin that I think is totally amazing, but don't make it a pay to win skin with extra bonuses that others cannot get without paying. Pay to win is not ok.
People can set their own goals. If you want all the skins, then you need to understand what thst means. Money, dedication to sales or times events, and more. Just like people who strive to be number 1 in ranking understand that they need the best skills, experience, and gear to be number 1.
Companies need money, so they charge for various things. It's ok to charge for a different experience, like skins, but not ok to charge for gameplay, like better gear. That's just where we are at right now and if you don't support this idea, then don't support the games that are built on this idea. The loudest voice you have with companies is your wallet, so if $20 skins upsets you, then don't buy the game.
I used to love the battlefield series. I loved 2, 2142, 3, and 4. I didn't buy Hardline, 1, or 5 because I did not agree with EA holding half the game behind season passes or constantly making more games that I would have to buy again and climb the ranks all over again. I don't support that idea, so I stopped supporting them.
I don't agree with OP, though I respect that he's drawn a line where he thinks it is no longer ok for game companies to do. It takes a bit of effort to do this but more effort to change things.
Wish i could have a coffee and a shoeshine for a nickle
Bet your fingers are aching and 10/10 for grammar lol
I also have spellcheck turned off on my phone, so I'm sure there are some missed steaks.
supitza
Vault Dweller
It's not the $20 skins that hurt the game, it's the community being upset at the high price of a purely cosmetic item that's hurting the game.
If you think that charging $20 for a skin is okay, that's fine, but the amount of YouTubers and streamers that are currently speaking against EA and their monetization tactics disagree, and it's their huge fanbases that will decide the success or failure of Anthem.
So it's not about whether a skin in actually worth $20. It's about the huge part of the community that thinks they're not worth $20. They are the ones who won't buy the game out of spite for the publisher, who is now arguably the least trusted in the industry.
If you think that charging $20 for a skin is okay, that's fine, but the amount of YouTubers and streamers that are currently speaking against EA and their monetization tactics disagree, and it's their huge fanbases that will decide the success or failure of Anthem.
So it's not about whether a skin in actually worth $20. It's about the huge part of the community that thinks they're not worth $20. They are the ones who won't buy the game out of spite for the publisher, who is now arguably the least trusted in the industry.