Current Events > Microtransactions in a $60 game aren't okay even if they're cosmetic only.

(+) Yeah! (+)

What do you guys think?

Like, in Borderlands 3, there's gonna be microtransactions. In a $60 game. But they say it's okay because it's 'cosmetic only'

Cosmetics are part of the game, though. I want the full experience for $60.
---

Disagree, if it doesn't affect gameplay I don't care
---

I think I had like 300 different skins in borderlands 2 and used maybe 5 of them
---

It depends on whether the original game feels complete without using microtransactions. If it's worth it's money without them, I don't care if it offers.

Irony posted...

Disagree, if it doesn't affect gameplay I don't care

this

EA does it the wrong way where their games are p2w

games with microtransactions that are purely cosmetic and don't influence gameplay at all? Sure, knock yourself out, let people spend $15 on that dance or reskin if they want.
---

Depends if post-release maps, updates, characters etc. are free.
---

Irony posted...

Disagree, if it doesn't affect gameplay I don't care

Cosmetics are part of the gameplay.
---

Darmik posted...

Depends if post-release maps, updates, characters etc. are free.

This is huge. I'm so glad battlefield stopped doing paid maps, it improved it massively.

Paying for virtual cosmetics is dumb

The only way I'll even consider cosmetic microtransactions to be 'vaguely okay'

is if they're bundled in with some other type of DLC.
---

I don't know, I'm leaning towards them being shitty even if solely cosmetic

Games used to give you skins for doing challenges and shit in game and now you have to get lucky to get them

Steve Nick posted...

Irony posted...

Disagree, if it doesn't affect gameplay I don't care

Cosmetics are part of the gameplay.

you don't even see your own cosmetics most of the time in an FPS
---

DarthAragorn posted...

I don't know, I'm leaning towards them being shitty even if solely cosmetic

Games used to give you skins for doing challenges and shit in game and now you have to get lucky to get them

Yeah, this is what I'm saying.

I didn't have to buy my hats in Super Mario Odyssey.

Well I did..but...with mushroom kingdom coins...
---

DarthAragorn posted...

I don't know, I'm leaning towards them being shitty even if solely cosmetic

Games used to give you skins for doing challenges and shit in game and now you have to get lucky to get them

A lot of free to play games let you earn skins.

Honestly, much as I used to consider it bad PTW design, League has improved tons and regularly gives out free content to players that earn it.

Steve Nick posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

I don't know, I'm leaning towards them being shitty even if solely cosmetic

Games used to give you skins for doing challenges and shit in game and now you have to get lucky to get them

Yeah, this is what I'm saying.

I didn't have to buy my hats in Super Mario Odyssey.

Well I did..but...with mushroom kingdom coins...

So since you were satisfied with SMO now, would you say adding more hats you can buy would make it worse?

Irony posted...

Disagree, if it doesn't affect gameplay I don't care

---

Spider-Man gave out skins for free.

Most single player games use some sort of loot system instead of skins these days.
---

agree.
---

If I'm buying a game, I want all the content under the one price. If you release anything more, it better be free.

Watch as this industry starts making game updates cost money because people bent over and took it from them.
---

If it is cosmetic, I do not care.
---

Agree, unless they also provide the option to acquire these items with in-game currency (and make this currency not too slow/difficult to attain).
---

Gamers didn't push back hard enough when they introduced horse armor.

So here we are.
---

Imagine paying money for borderlands 3 at all
---

pogo_rabid posted...

Imagine paying money for borderlands 3 at all

Just because you don't like Randy doesn't mean you need to screw over other's

---

inloveanddeath0 posted...

Just because you don't like Randy doesn't mean you need to screw over other's

It's not cause of Randy, but because Tim Sweetlips already paid for your copy.

---

DarthAragorn posted...

I don't know, I'm leaning towards them being shitty even if solely cosmetic

Games used to give you skins for doing challenges and shit in game and now you have to get lucky to get them

doa2 had up to 20 unlockable costumes for characters. doa6 has like 3 $100 costume packs

---

Don't care as long as it doesn't effect the game play.
---

Irony posted...

Disagree, if it doesn't affect gameplay I don't care

TreyFlowers posted...

Irony posted...

Disagree, if it doesn't affect gameplay I don't care

this

EA does it the wrong way where their games are p2w

games with microtransactions that are purely cosmetic and don't influence gameplay at all? Sure, knock yourself out, let people spend $15 on that dance or reskin if they want.

This.
---

They should cost less.
---

http://orig15.deviantart.net/8c7d/f/2010/248/3/6/chun_li_wip_09_by_toxic929-d2y1xql.jpg

it's purely cosmetic guys, it don't affect gameplay.

have fun with gray models.

---

agree. take me back to the days when microtransactions were unlockables.

Bethesda Game Studios had the sheer audacity to add dozens of useless, expensive microtransactions to one of the most maligned full-priced launch games in video game history and is probably the only other company besides EA to make Gearbox look like a charity with this level of anti-consumer bullshit.

I don't know the full extent of BL3's microtransaction scheme but if it's on par with BL2's, then I'm like ehhh it's in the grey area of criticism where paying $1 for a skin is totally on the player, not Gearbox.
---

The people that say "it's only cosmetic" are the ones ok with more and more content being stripped and sold separately. And that's bad.

---

It depends on how its set up. In stuff like Overwatch or HotS I never felt compelled to spend real world money because you can earn currency by playing the game. It isn't ideal but it's way better than something that affects gameplay.

---

ModLogic posted...

http://orig15.deviantart.net/8c7d/f/2010/248/3/6/chun_li_wip_09_by_toxic929-d2y1xql.jpg

it's purely cosmetic guys, it don't affect gameplay.

have fun with gray models.

Lmao

Middle hope posted...

The people that say "it's only cosmetic" are the ones ok with more and more content being stripped and sold separately. And that's bad.

This. I'm sick of this trend of instead of earning things through game play you now have to pay even more money to get them.
---

Agreed. I hate penny pinchers. If youre just gonna nickle and dime your customers, make the game free to begin with
---

I mean, for me, I miss when fewer games were online and you could just put in a cheat to unlock everything lol

---

Middle hope posted...

The people that say "it's only cosmetic" are the ones ok with more and more content being stripped and sold separately. And that's bad.

I truly don't understand those fools. They're being willfully extorted. Imagine.

Anyways, if additional skins and content are developed post-release, and are expansions to the game, I'm fine with it. If content is held back at launch to be sold back to the consumer, that is truly awful. Especially when the content is displayed in-game but "locked" until you throw more money at the developer. "Day-1 DLC" is complete bullshit.

I think it makes developers look bad. Maybe people will see that in time, but they're just businessmen, looking to extract every single undeserved dollar they can from the gaming public, while painting themselves as victims of an unfair market to justify everything. Gamers, as a community, are totally complacent and just drink whichever kool-aid is being poured from the anuses of these greedy scum.

Very disappointing.

Idk how Im being willfully extorted, I dont buy cosmetics for real money because they dont affect gameplay.
---

unlocking cosmetics used to be part of the gameplay, until gamers were conditioned into accepting paying for previously free content
---

If it's the same as it was in Borderlands 2 with the costumes, I'm fine with that. Artists need to get paid too, and I could pick and choose to buy whatever I wanted, which was none of the costumes to my recollection. If it uses loot box cash grab mechanics, then that's not ok.
---

Steve Nick posted...

What do you guys think?

Like, in Borderlands 3, there's gonna be microtransactions. In a $60 game. But they say it's okay because it's 'cosmetic only'

Cosmetics are part of the game, though. I want the full experience for $60.

I have to agree, especially in terms of like fan favorite skins. It does suck to buy a full price game and then have half the character skins locked out. Do you really want to pay full price for a Star Wars game and then learn you have to pay another $10 for the "Darth Vader" pack? Or buy a Transformers game where you have to pay $5 for the G1 Optimus Prime skin? It doesn't affect game play, but don't you feel ripped off?
---

Agreed bc now the cosmetics you get in game are complete garbage w zero effort

Whales ruined gaming
---

I miss the days where you could buy a game and unlock every last piece of content through just playing game.


---

It's not ideal, I mean sure I wish that there was just one price and you got all this content for just that price, but I also realize that in many cases it's not realistic.

Like for example, I'm totally fine with the way that Rainbow Six Siege is set up. There are cosmetics (that don't affect gameplay whatsoever) that cost money. The vast majority of those cosmetics can be bought with in game currency, but also people buying these cosmetics allows them to release content I actually care about for free. They've been updating the game constantly for 3+ years with new characters and maps (you know, stuff I actually care about) and that all comes free. I can't pretend like that doesn't cost them extra money to develop. I'm assuming the only reason it's free is because it's basically funded with the cosmetics. So for me, I bought the game once a long time ago at less than half price, have not spent a dime on cosmetics or anything else, and I get the content that I actually care about for free. As far as I'm concerned, it's a win.

Also, it's definitely better than what Battlefield used to do. You would have to buy season passes/ map packs in order to play on new maps, but the problem is that as time goes on, less and less people buy the map packs. So it would be difficult to get a good full game going on the newer maps. If they are able to release the maps to everyone, but fund it with the people buying cosmetics, again, that's a win for me. I'm basically free riding on the content that I actually care about.

---

Disagree.
---

would you rather have cosmetic MTXs or a higher price point?
---

Chicken_Butt posted...

I truly don't understand those fools. They're being willfully extorted. Imagine.

Anyways, if additional skins and content are developed post-release, and are expansions to the game, I'm fine with it. If content is held back at launch to be sold back to the consumer, that is truly awful. Especially when the content is displayed in-game but "locked" until you throw more money at the developer. "Day-1 DLC" is complete bullshit.

I think it makes developers look bad. Maybe people will see that in time, but they're just businessmen, looking to extract every single undeserved dollar they can from the gaming public, while painting themselves as victims of an unfair market to justify everything. Gamers, as a community, are totally complacent and just drink whichever kool-aid is being poured from the anuses of these greedy scum.

Very disappointing.

normal consumers don't. fanboys are the ones undermining gamers. apply any of their bullshit defenses to any other industry and you can see just how dumb their reasoning is.

---