Regarding the cosmetic cash shop and the disappointment many feel in it's existence.

DreohDreoh Member
edited April 30 in General Discussion
I just got done watching one of Asmongold's newest videos where he argues with/rants to Blizzard worshippers about why the new cash shop for Classic WoW is a mistake and a disappointment.



I know that many of us who peruse these forums in addition to myself feel the same way he does. We know even though it's "just cosmetics" it still interferes with the value of the game and things in it. I was personally extremely disheartened when I heard Steven confirm a cosmetic cash shop. I already think these monthly cosmetics are abhorrent enough as it is.

It's also disappointing because Steven says the cash shop is to help with funding more content and expansions, however we already have a monthly subscription fee.

On top of that, I already have little interest in animal husbandry and mount breeding because you can apparently just replace any mount (of the same tier) with a cosmetic skin.
What's the point in a breeding system if you can just magically make any end result into something preset?
Since visuals are a big deal (I know some people who would say "it's just cosmetics" would say otherwise) that mount creature essentially just becomes whatever creature the skin is for all intents and purposes.

No one who comes across you is going to know what special mount you have underneath, they'll just see the skin, and a skin that devalues the rest of the visuals of all other mounts.

I want to hope that it's not going to be as big of a deal as I'm making it out to be, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

Edit: Fixed title

Edit2: Many people have put forth some good arguments in defense of the cash shop. The biggest one I hadn't considered being that it gives Intrepid the financial security to not be bought out by bigger producers like EA or Microsoft.
«134567

Comments

  • maouwmaouw Member
    I can understand the concern, a few people have raised threads saying the same thing.

    There's no avoiding this problem as soon as you introduce the ability to change the appearance of your equipment. So to me I'd rather they go all the way with it, rather than something half-way doing its job.

    There's also a really good reason to have a cash shop: whales exist. And whales generate a huge amount of income these companies that a subscription alone does not. In theory, this gives them more room to be flexible in development.

    If we can open a window to see what functional gear someone has equipped, then I'm personally fine with full blown cosmetics. But I know it's a contentious topic. Intrepid just needs to pick a stance and stick with it.
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Alpha One
    I guess I still don't really understand what your complaint is.
    I've been playing WoW for over a year and pretty much completely ignore the cash shop.
    Though I expect to use the Ashes cash shop fairly often. Well, at least often as I buy a monthly cosmetic.

    Animal Husbandry changes the stats of your mount. I dunno why the appearance of the mount would change the usefulness of Animal Husbandry. Ashes is a high fantasy setting, so we should not be surprised that lots of people will be wielding appearance illusions.

    Other people won't just see the skin of the mount, they should be able to tell how special your mount is by the skills and abilities it has.
  • DreohDreoh Member
    Dygz wrote: »
    I guess I still don't really understand what your complaint is.
    I've been playing WoW for over a year and pretty much completely ignore the cash shop.
    Though I expect to use the Ashes cash shop fairly often. Well, at least often as I buy a monthly cosmetic.

    Animal Husbandry changes the stats of your mount. I dunno why the appearance of the mount would change the usefulness of Animal Husbandry. Ashes is a high fantasy setting, so we should not be surprised that lots of people will be wielding appearance illusions.

    Other people won't just see the skin of the mount, they should be able to tell how special your mount is by the skills and abilities it has.

    Right, but to repeat the good argument Asmongold says regarding your stance in the video, "I don't care" isn't an argument.

    You don't understand the complaint and even admit you ignore the cash shop. Would you care if there wasn't one? Would you ignore the fact that there wasn't one?

    Obviously people care that it does exist, I don't think I've seen more than a select few people arguing that they need or desire a cash shop, but there's so many people who care a lot that there isn't one.

    Visuals matter. Like I said in the original post, people always respond to these topics with "it's just cosmetics". And as Asmongold also tries to reiterate to his audience, there is value in visuals.

    It's nice to know that this pet/mount was bred to be a crocodile, and there's worth in that. The tamer/breeder bred that specific animal. Someone who comes along and adds a cosmetic wipes away any value in that.
    And as stated before, if you (not you specifically) don't care either way, why are you arguing a stance?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    I have to agree with Dygz here.

    I can understand people being upset about the cash shop in WoW - they are paying to buy the game and expansions, paying a subscription, and now there is a cash shop as well.

    I am of the opinon that a game should limit it's monetization to a total of two avenues, and WoW has three.

    Ashes doesn't have a purchase cost, so you only have the subscription and cash shop.

    I am fine with this.

    As to the animal husbandry, if WoW is your main influence, you would look at mounts as being basically just cosmetic options of ways to move around the world at set speeds.

    In Ashes, mounts will be more than that. Mounts will be fighting beside the player, and will even have their own equipment slots to equip barding and such. As such, a mount in Ashes is not just a cosmetic extension of your character, it is an extension of your characters combat ability.

    Additionally, different mounts will have vastly different uses - some mounts may be good at faster travel, some may be better at fighting, and some may have a larger inventory for harvesting.

    Cosmetics will not have an effect on any of that - animal husbandry will.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Alpha One
    edited April 29
    The tamer/breeder bred the animal for stats. Again, in a high fantasy setting, people are likely to be using illusions extensively, so it doesn't really matter what the breeder wanted the animal to look like. What will matter is the appearance the owner will want others to see.

    I haven't made the argument, "I don't care." I don't understand what your argument is, so I'm asking you to go into more detail about the aspects you deem most crucial.
    "I don't like illusions" is not a compelling argument for me.

    Asmongold is complaining about having cosmetics available in Classic WoW that were not available in Vanilla WoW. He doesn't seem to be complaining about cosmetic shops in general.

    Oh, finally got to the point where he says he's been against shop mounts since 2012, but I still don't understand why I should care just because he thinks the game is better without shop mounts.
    His reasons for not liking shop mounts haven't convinced me to not like shop mounts.
    "Here's how I feel about it: I have always hated store mounts since 2012 and I have always gotten hate about it. And I'm tired of it."
  • DreohDreoh Member
    edited April 29
    Noaani wrote: »
    I have to agree with Dygz here.

    I can understand people being upset about the cash shop in WoW - they are paying to buy the game and expansions, paying a subscription, and now there is a cash shop as well.

    I am of the opinon that a game should limit it's monetization to a total of two avenues, and WoW has three.

    Ashes doesn't have a purchase cost, so you only have the subscription and cash shop.

    I am fine with this.

    As to the animal husbandry, if WoW is your main influence, you would look at mounts as being basically just cosmetic options of ways to move around the world at set speeds.

    In Ashes, mounts will be more than that. Mounts will be fighting beside the player, and will even have their own equipment slots to equip barding and such. As such, a mount in Ashes is not just a cosmetic extension of your character, it is an extension of your characters combat ability.

    Additionally, different mounts will have vastly different uses - some mounts may be good at faster travel, some may be better at fighting, and some may have a larger inventory for harvesting.

    Cosmetics will not have an effect on any of that - animal husbandry will.

    I play guild wars 2, I know how ability-based mounts work and cosmetics related to them.

    Ironically, I'm ok with the GW2 cash shop mounts, but that's because GW2 mount cosmetics are all cash shop items and are for specific mounts, and since there's no skins earned in-game, the cash shop skins don't devalue anything. Also pretty much everyone is guaranteed every base mount.
    If there were skins earned in game, that would be a different story.

    My point on breeding/taming also still stands. Any unique/high-tier tamed/bred pet/mount is going to lose value when next to players who equipped cash shop skins to their less unique/exotic pet/mount.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Dreoh wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    I have to agree with Dygz here.

    I can understand people being upset about the cash shop in WoW - they are paying to buy the game and expansions, paying a subscription, and now there is a cash shop as well.

    I am of the opinon that a game should limit it's monetization to a total of two avenues, and WoW has three.

    Ashes doesn't have a purchase cost, so you only have the subscription and cash shop.

    I am fine with this.

    As to the animal husbandry, if WoW is your main influence, you would look at mounts as being basically just cosmetic options of ways to move around the world at set speeds.

    In Ashes, mounts will be more than that. Mounts will be fighting beside the player, and will even have their own equipment slots to equip barding and such. As such, a mount in Ashes is not just a cosmetic extension of your character, it is an extension of your characters combat ability.

    Additionally, different mounts will have vastly different uses - some mounts may be good at faster travel, some may be better at fighting, and some may have a larger inventory for harvesting.

    Cosmetics will not have an effect on any of that - animal husbandry will.

    I play guild wars 2, I know how ability-based mounts work and cosmetics related to them.

    Ironically, I'm ok with the GW2 cash shop mounts, but that's because GW2 mount cosmetics are all cash shop items and are for specific mounts, and since there's no skins earned in-game, the cash shop skins don't devalue anything. Also pretty much everyone gets every mount.
    If there were skins earned in game, that would be a different story.

    My point on breeding/taming also still stands. Any unique/high-tier tamed/bred pet/mount is going to lose value when next to players who equipped cash shop skins to their less unique/exotic pet/mount.

    Are you aware that the skins available for mounts are tier restricted?

    You can't equip a tier 3 skin unless you have a royal mount - and only 20 or so of them will exist on a given server at a time.
  • Littlekenny21Littlekenny21 Member
    edited April 29
    Noaani wrote: »
    I have to agree with Dygz here.

    I can understand people being upset about the cash shop in WoW - they are paying to buy the game and expansions, paying a subscription, and now there is a cash shop as well.

    I am of the opinon that a game should limit it's monetization to a total of two avenues, and WoW has three.

    Ashes doesn't have a purchase cost, so you only have the subscription and cash shop.

    I am fine with this.

    As to the animal husbandry, if WoW is your main influence, you would look at mounts as being basically just cosmetic options of ways to move around the world at set speeds.

    In Ashes, mounts will be more than that. Mounts will be fighting beside the player, and will even have their own equipment slots to equip barding and such. As such, a mount in Ashes is not just a cosmetic extension of your character, it is an extension of your characters combat ability.

    Additionally, different mounts will have vastly different uses - some mounts may be good at faster travel, some may be better at fighting, and some may have a larger inventory for harvesting.

    Cosmetics will not have an effect on any of that - animal husbandry will.


    If player 1 has a very rare and powerful mount, and player 2 has a basic one with a flashy skin on it, then the mount player 2 has will get more attention and the effort that went into player 1s mount won't be appreciated unless the person passing by looks at its stats and moves. (this is entirely dependant on the implementation of tier restrictions)

    A cosmetic shop means the rare gear that was obtained through effort or luck won't be given a second thought as even if it looks on par with high tier cash shop cosmetics, it would just be assumed to be a cosmetic unless somebody takes a look at its stats.
  • VhaeyneVhaeyne Member
    To me the context is different.

    Blizzard is large company owned by a large cooperation trying to maximize profits. Blizzard and Activision have shown that they will monetize as much as they can get away with to make their investors and company heads wealthy beyond reason at the expense of the games integrity and the players wallets.

    Intrepid is a small company trying to compete with the rest of the MMO market while offering cash shop items to keep them in a position where they can afford to not be bought out by larger company's. They are trying to not have pay2win and they are at least doing a fair job of this (Aside from early start and monster coins).

    There was a time when WOW was the most successful MMO on the market and they still managed to be bought out by Activision. In order for Intrepid to do better they have to be able to afford it. Intrepid has chosen a cosmetic cash shop as their tactic to stay financially strong. It is not my favorite thing in the world, but I can't think of a better way for Intrepid to be able to afford the word "No" when buy out offers start coming their way.

    I agree with Asmon on this when he talks about WOW, but it is not the same for every game. Context is king here. I don't want EA or Activision to knock on Intrepid door with a offer that they can't afford to refuse. I want them to stay independent and make the game they want. Without all of the restrictions that come from investors and parent company's. Right now we are the investors. I want to keep it that way.
    CctsKnC.png Verra-similitude
  • DreohDreoh Member
    Dygz wrote: »
    The tamer/breeder bred the animal for stats. Again, in a high fantasy setting, people are likely to be using illusions extensively, so it doesn't really matter what the breeder wanted the animal to look like. What will matter is the appearance the owner will want others to see.

    I haven't made the argument, "I don't care." I don't understand what your argument is, so I'm asking you to go into more detail about the aspects you deem most crucial.
    "I don't like illusions" is not a compelling argument for me.

    Asmongold is complaining about having cosmetics available in Classic WoW that were not available in Vanilla WoW. He doesn't seem to be complaining about cosmetic shops in general.

    I'm guessing you didn't watch the whole video then? Because that's only like the first 5 minutes.

    If you're going to use the "people are likely to be using illusions extensively" then why does any visual matter? Why not disguise my fireballs as icicles. Why not just let every visual in the game be customizable?
  • DreohDreoh Member
    edited April 29
    Noaani wrote: »
    Are you aware that the skins available for mounts are tier restricted?
    Dreoh wrote: »
    ...
    because you can apparently just replace any mount (of the same tier) with a cosmetic skin.
    ...

    Yes, I've already stated I was aware.
  • DreohDreoh Member
    Vhaeyne wrote: »
    To me the context is different.

    Blizzard is large company owned by a large cooperation trying to maximize profits. Blizzard and Activision have shown that they will monetize as much as they can get away with to make their investors and company heads wealthy beyond reason at the expense of the games integrity and the players wallets.

    Intrepid is a small company trying to compete with the rest of the MMO market while offering cash shop items to keep them in a position where they can afford to not be bought out by larger company's. They are trying to not have pay2win and they are at least doing a fair job of this (Aside from early start and monster coins).

    There was a time when WOW was the most successful MMO on the market and they still managed to be bought out by Activision. In order for Intrepid to do better they have to be able to afford it. Intrepid has chosen a cosmetic cash shop as their tactic to stay financially strong. It is not my favorite thing in the world, but I can't think of a better way for Intrepid to be able to afford the word "No" when buy out offers start coming their way.

    I agree with Asmon on this when he talks about WOW, but it is not the same for every game. Context is king here. I don't want EA or Activision to knock on Intrepid door with a offer that they can't afford to refuse. I want them to stay independent and make the game they want. Without all of the restrictions that come from investors and parent company's. Right now we are the investors. I want to keep it that way.

    That's fair. In this sense it is indeed a better alternative, and if it really is a necessary evil I really hope Intrepid can resist the call of the cash grab.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited April 29
    Dreoh wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Are you aware that the skins available for mounts are tier restricted?
    Dreoh wrote: »
    ...
    because you can apparently just replace any mount (of the same tier) with a cosmetic skin.
    ...

    Yes, I've already stated I was aware.

    Then I fail to see your issue.

    If your issue is purely that of cosmetics, the people with the higher tier mounts will always have the better looking mounts regardless of cosmetics used.

    If your issue is not purely cosmetic... I just don't get it.
    Dreoh wrote: »
    why does any visual matter
    They don't.

    The sooner people realize that the better.

    That is why it is the aspect games are always happy to sell off - visuals don't matter.
  • VhaeyneVhaeyne Member
    Dreoh wrote: »
    That's fair. In this sense it is indeed a better alternative, and if it really is a necessary evil I really hope Intrepid can resist the call of the cash grab.

    Me too, I want to at least give them the chance to fail. If I can give ArcheAge Unchained the second chance that ArcheAge did not deserve. I can give Ashes a first chance.
    CctsKnC.png Verra-similitude
  • DreohDreoh Member
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dreoh wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Are you aware that the skins available for mounts are tier restricted?
    Dreoh wrote: »
    ...
    because you can apparently just replace any mount (of the same tier) with a cosmetic skin.
    ...

    Yes, I've already stated I was aware.

    Then I fail to see your issue.

    If your issue is purely that of cosmetics, the people with the higher tier mounts will always have the better looking mounts regardless of cosmetics used.

    If your issue is not purely cosmetic... I just don't get it.
    Dreoh wrote: »
    why does any visual matter
    They don't.

    The sooner people realize that the better.

    That is why it is the aspect games are always happy to sell off - visuals don't matter.

    Then why are you arguing a case here.

    Why does anyone even bother arguing "visuals don't matter".

    You obviously couldn't care either way, so let it be the way that other people DO care about.
  • WarthWarth Member
    Cosmetic Cash Shop > Box and expansion cost > Higher Priced Sub
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Alpha One
    Dreoh wrote: »
    Why does anyone even bother arguing "visuals don't matter".
    Visuals do matter to me - which is why I love cosmetic shops.
    Though, I can pretty much find anything I want in WoW in game.
    Asmongold says the people who don't like cosmetic shops are outnumbered.
    I dunno what kinds of arguments you can offer that will convince people who like cosmetic shops to change their minds.
  • WarthWarth Member
    Boxcosts reduce the amount of players that try the game.

    Higher sub costs reduce the amount of player that can justify playing the game and paying for the game each month.

    Cosmetic only cash shop generate the funding needee from those that have they money to spare.

    Its not so much that we don't care. Its just the best option for the overall long-term health of the game.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Dreoh wrote: »
    why does any visual matter
    Dreoh wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dreoh wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Are you aware that the skins available for mounts are tier restricted?
    Dreoh wrote: »
    ...
    because you can apparently just replace any mount (of the same tier) with a cosmetic skin.
    ...

    Yes, I've already stated I was aware.

    Then I fail to see your issue.

    If your issue is purely that of cosmetics, the people with the higher tier mounts will always have the better looking mounts regardless of cosmetics used.

    If your issue is not purely cosmetic... I just don't get it.
    Dreoh wrote: »
    why does any visual matter
    They don't.

    The sooner people realize that the better.

    That is why it is the aspect games are always happy to sell off - visuals don't matter.

    Then why are you arguing a case here.

    Why does anyone even bother arguing "visuals don't matter".

    You obviously couldn't care either way, so let it be the way that other people DO care about.

    Because your issue was very much one of not understanding - I just couldn't work out what it was you didn't understand.

    Turns out it was just business basics you were not understanding, but Vhaeyne has filled you in there.

    If you consider Intrepid to be a for profit business, and you look at their monetization scheme as a whole, there is literally no reason at all to complain about anything as yet. The only complaints come - at this stage - if you forget that Intrepid need to actually make money.

    It may well be that some cosmetic items end up out of place (looking too good or not good enough for where they are obtained and used), but that is not something we can comment on yet.
  • FerniFerni Member
    For people who care about visuals I think the problem is that most of the items you can buy from a MMORPG cash shops use to look better than most of the items you can get ingame.

    If in Ashes they care about this issue they won't make cash shop mounts look better than the rare mounts you can earn ingame so we are going to be fine.
  • To the OP: Speak for yourself and don't say 'we'. A lot of us feel that the cosmetic shop is fine.

    You don't want to use it? Don't. For those of us that do want to support the company, 'we' want it.
  • IronhammerIronhammer Member
    edited April 29
    Visuals in MMORPGS do matter, I think people kid them selves when they use the argument "This is helping us get more content" I mean maybe it is or isn't, but there's never any way we're going to know if this money is helping improve the game at an increased rate more so than the 15 a month does.

    I also think we need to be candid with our selves and the ashes of creation team in acknowledging that their cosmetic output has been near aggressive at this point. I could accept the initial kick starter packages, it made sense to help fund the game. But now we have so many cosmetic mounts and skins before the game is even released, I mean I don't know this for sure but I think there's already more than there is in WoW and we don't even have basic armor sets for players out yet, I don't believe that these are being used as NPC skins either or w.e. There's alot to be concerned with.

    In older MMORPGs Visuals and Progression went hand in hand and this FELT GREAT nothing was cooler than enchanting your weapon in vanilla WoW and getting that power upgrade along with a now shiny weapon. The other negative of cosmetics is they detract from the believe-ability of the world. If almost every player is running around looking like a molten dwarf or deity like figure you're gonna be VERY aware that you're playing a game, this can be compounded by outrageous and loud mount cosmetics as well, one could argue this is the art in generals fault and it is but cosmetics tend to need to outdue the last.

    Point is cosmetics have alot of negative effects, they are often over looked and not consciously realized. I would argue many players who think cosmetics aren't a problem have suffered from these negatives with out even realizing it. I personally just miss playing a believable MMORPG and having people look cool because they earned it, not because they are a whale and if there are going to be cosmetics, they need to be toned down and kept in line with the theme of the game, currently this is not being achieved.

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Ironhammer wrote: »
    Now we have so many cosmetic mounts and skins before the game is even released, I mean I don't know this for sure but I think there's already more than there is in WoW and we don't even have basic armor sets for players out yet
    Most of what we have so far are just concept designs.

    However, it makes perfect sense for an MMO to develop a lot of cosmetics during it's initial development rather than when the game is out. The development team is significantly larger on an MMO in it's initial development than it is at any other time, so Intrepid may as well make use of all of those additional concept and character artists.
    If almost every player is running around looking like a molten dwarf or deity like figure you're gonna be VERY aware that you're playing a game
    Since I don't generally walk around with a giant axe on my back, or with armor, nor am I able to throw fireballs at people, I am reminded of the fact that I am playing a game basically every second I am playing a game.

    A character running around like a molten dwarf isn't going to change that one way of the other. I can't see how anyone could think they are not playing a game (or even not be acutely aware that they are playing a game) when there are fireballs and such.

    My best guess is that these people must all be from Russia, and Russia is way worse than we have been led to believe.
  • IronhammerIronhammer Member
    edited April 29
    So if you're playing a fantasy based game and some one pulls out a laser rifle you're not going to be like, uhh? the fuck? Yes it's a game but there's a believe-ability that needs to be set in accordance to it's own universe to be believable. There's a reason people liked tolkien so much and that's because it's believable within the rules it sets for it's self.

    Again it tends to be subconscious in effect and if you're unable to see the bigger picture of it you're going to end up making simple arguments like "Game has axe and fireballs i'm aware it's game"
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Alpha One
    As a wise man once said.

    You don't like it don't buy it.
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • Nagash wrote: »
    As a wise man once said.

    You don't like it don't buy it.

    You can't make that argument. Saying that implies that it only effects you if you choose to partake in it, but that's not the case. Cosmetics have an impact on the entire world whether you choose to buy them or not. HOWEVER, if they give us the ability to toggle cosmetics off, then you would be correct in saying this.
  • DreohDreoh Member
    edited April 29
    Nagash wrote: »
    As a wise man once said.

    You don't like it don't buy it.

    That's a nice ideal, but not how it works in practice.

    In the same vein as "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game", people will spend money on things that are perceived as valuable if they have the opportunity.

    In the same way it's on the developer to make optimizing fun out of a game harder to accomplish, it's on the developer to reduce the availability for people to spend money on cosmetics that diminish the value of the inherent values in the game.

    Edit: If you want a simple catchphrase akin to your "don't like it don't buy it"

    "Given the opportunity, players will disregard effort in lieu of simple purchase"
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Alpha One
    Ironhammer wrote: »
    Nagash wrote: »
    As a wise man once said.

    You don't like it don't buy it.

    You can't make that argument. Saying that implies that it only effects you if you choose to partake in it, but that's not the case. Cosmetics have an impact on the entire world whether you choose to buy them or not. HOWEVER, if they give us the ability to toggle cosmetics off, then you would be correct in saying this.

    I can and I did.

    Ashes of creation has skins nothing more nothing less. they do not effect the game and if you don't like that then don't play


    Dreoh wrote: »
    Nagash wrote: »
    As a wise man once said.

    You don't like it don't buy it.

    That's a nice ideal, but not how it works in practice.

    In the same vein as "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game", people will spend money on things that are perceived as valuable if they have the opportunity.

    In the same way it's on the developer to make optimizing fun out of a game harder to accomplish, it's on the developer to reduce the availability for people to spend money on cosmetics that diminish the value of the inherent values in the game.

    See that's more about Pay to win or pay for convenience and ashes has none of that. All they have is skins and steven has already said that the items in-game will look just as good if not better then the items in the store
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • IronhammerIronhammer Member
    edited April 29
    Pro cosmetics crowd can never offer anything past "Don't like it don't buy it" or "I'm already aware it's a game" There's never a meaningful or well thought out post about how it's a good thing, because there isn't one to be made other than it helps cash flow and it still will NEVER be known to the players if cosmetics past kick starter will actually aid in improved/increased content. Even if the developer says it does, you don't know that and they have every incentive to overlook the negatives to get a pay raise, I just don't trust human nature here I genuinely need solid proof that the money from these is helping past launch.

    At the end of the day it's a conscious decision to degrade the visual aspect of the game to make money when you other wise could have really satisfying power progression that is tied into visuals. but it's not seen that way unless you've junkied enough MMORPGs and take a step back to look at how negative they are.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited April 29
    Ironhammer wrote: »
    So if you're playing a fantasy based game and some one pulls out a laser rifle you're not going to be like, uhh? the fuck?
    I'm going to assume that laser rifle behaves like a laser rifle should - in which case yeah, I will be like, uhh? the fuck?
    Ironhammer wrote: »

    Again it tends to be subconscious in effect and if you're unable to see the bigger picture of it you're going to end up making simple arguments like "Game has axe and fireballs i'm aware it's game"
    I'd rather make arguments like that than arguments like
    Ironhammer wrote: »
    If almost every player is running around looking like a molten dwarf or deity like figure you're gonna be VERY aware that you're playing a game
    I mean, if I am playing a game and I am not aware that I am playing a game, I would argue that the game in question fails at being a good game. Being VERY aware that I am playing a game is a pre-requisite for me to consider a game to be a good game.
Sign In or Register to comment.