@gamingonlinux

I would be more willing to defend it if the cosmetics was something a third party could create like as a commission. Similar to the current creator economy.

@gamingonlinux I miss the days of buying a game for $60 and that’s it: a complete game with some love and passion behind it, no BS. Rare to find that in the AAA space these days. DLCs, MTX and the like have killed gaming for me.

@gamingonlinux to a lot of people, that's just how video games are. You would have to have grown up in the early 2000s before online gaming was a big thing to really appreciate how it used to be. Think of people who only play sports games. Sports games cost $70 yet are filled with microtransactions. For a lot of people, unfortunately those are the only games they play, and most sports games have no competition. Madden is the only NFL game. NBA 2K is the only NBA game.

@gamingonlinux the only real two games I felt did it in a respectable way were monster hunter world which sold just little things to hang off your weapons but used that directly to constantly add new stuff to the game for everyone (they probably quadrupled the content in the game from launch, which was already complete, all entirely playable offline, plus hosted tons of online events) and Deep Rock Galactic who do much the same.

Not the biggest fan, but better than how other devs did it

@gamingonlinux For online service games I can totally understand and for games like Resi 4 Remake I found it odd but if people dig it I guess. Things like the pay2win of Resi 4, a Singleplayer Game, are much more irritating honestly. And games like DBD, which got a ton of cosmetics up for purchase, I like it. Also because most DLC's that aren't third-party can be bought without real currency.

@gamingonlinux i bought it for indy multiplayer games if we really liked it

@gamingonlinux I'm not the biggest fan of paid cosmetics that are tacked on to a full-price game. That stuff should be included in the base game. I guess some people think that game companies don't get paid enough. I'm willing to wager that most of the revenue from the cosmetics goes to publishers, or some big company connected to the developers.

@gamingonlinux
I think that kids who think this is normal is a large part of it

@gamingonlinux marketing (propaganda) works on a non insignificant number of people.

@gamingonlinux: It's one of those endless "compromises".

@gamingonlinux I miss the days of spending full price and having a working game with few bugs in them. Almost all of them needs x number of patches these days just to work.

@gamingonlinux Paid cosmetics in Full price retail games? That, for me, is outrageous. In a F2P? Yeah, excellent.
Well, there is also this horrible practice in AAA companys to make full price half-made games, then asking you to pay 20 bucks more for a fvcking thing that should be in the game from the start!

@gamingonlinux It's not OK, but it's maybe the less harmful type of DLC. Much more harmful is for example paid characters in fighting games. So bad, but not too bad.

@gamingonlinux I mean, it's better than full priced games charging you dozens of times for "new" features that should have been in the game to begin with. It's especially better than full priced games having rolling subscriptions or DLC that you have to get to continue really playing because it was meant to be multiplayer and you can't play together if you don't all have it.

@gamingonlinux
I think it depends on the game.
Especially for online games it can be:
I played this game for 500h+ so paying a little more and showing your appreciation for the game development through a skin.
Also it's nice to have some change in your game if you play it for 500h+ hours.

I don't understand it for single player games, but no one looses anything if it's just a visual instead of actual gameplay being paywalled.
Additionally game developers being heavily underpaid.

@gamingonlinux capitalism

@gamingonlinux *clears throat* Microsoft

@gamingonlinux well nobody has to buy them. If you want to buy one, who cares?

@gamingonlinux There's a vocal group that seems to argue for _whatever_ their favourite company is doing.

I heard that Stellaris development is funded by expansion packs, and of course there are online games that have server costs, and a funding source for that at least makes sense. But most of the games I play you just buy the game and then play the game. Then you finish the game and buy another game. I don't want to play the same game for years

@gamingonlinux because it's the only thing the company for the game in years, so I'm happy they did anything