Players are concerned about monthly "skin sales".

Prescience · June 2018

In a recent reddit post players addressed concerns regarding the sale of skins. Here is an image of the skins.

The poster commented:

The constant coverage of skins have not made me more excited about the game if anything it makes me more cautious and less excited, consider also if people are looking into the game fresh and just about every new video that comes out is constantly talking about monthly skin sales in a day that many companies use monetization how it impacts potential new people.

Kyleran · June 2018

I would have never guessed but clearly skin sales are a huge money maker.

My friend of mine has a neighbor whose 12 year old son grabbed his parents credit card and purchased several thousand dollars worth for some game....again.

The game company let the parents off the hook, again, but said a police report would be filed if it happened a 3rd time.

So clearly these things have a huge draw, so not surprising Ashes intends to cash in.

After all, they are just cosmetics, right?

MadFrenchie · June 2018

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

timtrack · June 2018

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

Yeah... this argument keeps popping up and this mindset is why they keep getting away with these things. The upper bar is moved upwards in small increments and we keep saying "well, it's still slightly better than cancer", until it's literally cancer, and then they back off a nanometer and we feel like we won somehow. Then it restarts with the lower bar permanently moved forward to a point we are now used to and accept as the norm. And this will keep happening until our beloved hobby becomes an unrecognizable mess in the likes of the gambling industry. That's where the top investors want to go, and they are most likely not gamers with a passion for the art.

Cosmetic items are an important part of a game and they should be tied to achievements and deeds accomplished in the game, not wallets, in my opinion.

The only cosmetic item that i could fully accept being sold in a game is something like a mount with 100% of the winnings going to charity. That's the only way you could ride a cash-shop mount with some pride, because buying it had meaning, and you replaced personal effort with a contribution to making the world a better place.

jusomdude · June 2018

Don't really care... I'd be happy running around in rags as long as they were rags of the grand ultra uber dragon noob wrecker. As long as I'm not stuck with a mismatched clown suit I'll be ok.

kitarad · June 2018

Could be the 'frog in the boiling pot' thing but these games need to make money so this is the lesser of the evils. I don't buy skins period but will sub if there is an option to sub.

Prescience · June 2018

timtrack said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

Yeah... this argument keeps popping up and this mindset is why they keep getting away with these things. The upper bar is moved upwards in small increments and we keep saying "well, it's still slightly better than cancer", until it's literally cancer, and then they back off a nanometer and we feel like we won somehow. Then it restarts with the lower bar permanently moved forward to a point we are now used to and accept as the norm. And this will keep happening until our beloved hobby becomes an unrecognizable mess in the likes of the gambling industry. That's where the top investors want to go, and they are most likely not gamers with a passion for the art.

Cosmetic items are an important part of a game and they should be tied to achievements and deeds accomplished in the game, not wallets, in my opinion.

The only cosmetic item that i could fully accept being sold in a game is something like a mount with 100% of the winnings going to charity. That's the only way you could ride a cash-shop mount with some pride, because buying it had meaning, and you replaced personal effort with a contribution to making the world a better place.

This is exactly how I feel. Your description was spot on, thanks for that.

Keller · June 2018

timtrack said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

Yeah... this argument keeps popping up and this mindset is why they keep getting away with these things. The upper bar is moved upwards in small increments and we keep saying "well, it's still slightly better than cancer", until it's literally cancer, and then they back off a nanometer and we feel like we won somehow. Then it restarts with the lower bar permanently moved forward to a point we are now used to and accept as the norm. And this will keep happening until our beloved hobby becomes an unrecognizable mess in the likes of the gambling industry. That's where the top investors want to go, and they are most likely not gamers with a passion for the art.

Cosmetic items are an important part of a game and they should be tied to achievements and deeds accomplished in the game, not wallets, in my opinion.

The only cosmetic item that i could fully accept being sold in a game is something like a mount with 100% of the winnings going to charity. That's the only way you could ride a cash-shop mount with some pride, because buying it had meaning, and you replaced personal effort with a contribution to making the world a better place.

this! I dislike it when games sell the good looking outfits and skins in the cash store. Why can't I simply play the game and earn the things I like?

Zorlofe · June 2018

I can understand the concerns but I too don't really care. If it gave a real advantage then I would be really angry as I backed this game with the promise that would never happen. I know they hired a huge team and I'm sure they'll want to keep the game updated and fresh which takes money. If doing this helps keep that going then it's no skin off my back.

Scot · June 2018

Just put this way of making dodgy revenue in the bin were it belongs. There was a reason we once had bind on equip or bind to account, but that was back in the day when we made those creaky old school MMOs (up to about five years ago for the purposes of this post) that have been replaced by the brilliant MMOs of today.

cheyane · June 2018

Keller said:

timtrack said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

Yeah... this argument keeps popping up and this mindset is why they keep getting away with these things. The upper bar is moved upwards in small increments and we keep saying "well, it's still slightly better than cancer", until it's literally cancer, and then they back off a nanometer and we feel like we won somehow. Then it restarts with the lower bar permanently moved forward to a point we are now used to and accept as the norm. And this will keep happening until our beloved hobby becomes an unrecognizable mess in the likes of the gambling industry. That's where the top investors want to go, and they are most likely not gamers with a passion for the art.

Cosmetic items are an important part of a game and they should be tied to achievements and deeds accomplished in the game, not wallets, in my opinion.

The only cosmetic item that i could fully accept being sold in a game is something like a mount with 100% of the winnings going to charity. That's the only way you could ride a cash-shop mount with some pride, because buying it had meaning, and you replaced personal effort with a contribution to making the world a better place.

this! I dislike it when games sell the good looking outfits and skins in the cash store. Why can't I simply play the game and earn the things I like?

They realised you will not spend enough if they let you do that. So they have moved the nice stuff into the cash shop.

Prescience · June 2018

Fortunately, we have several titles coming out in the near future that aren't using cash shops.

MagikarpsGhost · June 2018

honestly why must people constantly complain? I rather a game free or sub sell cosmetic items then advantage items.

Prescience · June 2018

MagikarpsGhost said:

honestly why must people constantly complain? I rather a game free or sub sell cosmetic items then advantage items.

Think of it, not only as a dodgy practice, but a gateway into more terrible things. For example, Elder Scrolls Online started with a "cosmetic" cash shop. Then they started selling loot crates. Following that they started selling "research scrolls" and now they sanction gifting items for gold.

mgilbrtsn · June 2018

If the worry is about the sale of cosmetic items, then the rest of the game must be pretty good. The companies have to make money...have to, despite the common misconception that the interwebs should provide free entertainment. Other than porn, that's obviously an exception and one I agree with.

xion12121 · June 2018

timtrack said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

Yeah... this argument keeps popping up and this mindset is why they keep getting away with these things. The upper bar is moved upwards in small increments and we keep saying "well, it's still slightly better than cancer", until it's literally cancer, and then they back off a nanometer and we feel like we won somehow. Then it restarts with the lower bar permanently moved forward to a point we are now used to and accept as the norm. And this will keep happening until our beloved hobby becomes an unrecognizable mess in the likes of the gambling industry. That's where the top investors want to go, and they are most likely not gamers with a passion for the art.

Cosmetic items are an important part of a game and they should be tied to achievements and deeds accomplished in the game, not wallets, in my opinion.

The only cosmetic item that i could fully accept being sold in a game is something like a mount with 100% of the winnings going to charity. That's the only way you could ride a cash-shop mount with some pride, because buying it had meaning, and you replaced personal effort with a contribution to making the world a better place.

But if its just a skin and doesn't affect gameplay in any way there shouldn't really be a problem. If people want to spend their money on that then fine. So many people spend money on many other dumb things at stores anyways they don't really need. if it doesn't affect the gameplay in anyway or give an advantage there is nothing wrong with it.

some-clueless-guy · June 2018

mgilbrtsn said:

If the worry is about the sale of cosmetic items, then the rest of the game must be pretty good. The companies have to make money...have to, despite the common misconception that the interwebs should provide free entertainment. Other than porn, that's obviously an exception and one I agree with.

AFAIK Ashes of Creations is supposed to be one of those few upcoming games using a subscription model. The fact that players are complaining doesn't mean they expect the game for free. I might be wrong but, unless the devs backed away from their promises, everything was supposed to be obtainable in-game in AOC; the cash shop might serve as a short cut for those willing to fork the dough and save time. I wouldn't like it but hey, I can't say I am interested in this game anyway.

Why can't we just have a game with a monthly sub with no strings attached though? It seems that nowadays even a subscription based model implies having a cash shop...

Prescience · June 2018

some-clueless-guy said:

mgilbrtsn said:

If the worry is about the sale of cosmetic items, then the rest of the game must be pretty good. The companies have to make money...have to, despite the common misconception that the interwebs should provide free entertainment. Other than porn, that's obviously an exception and one I agree with.

AFAIK Ashes of Creations is supposed to be one of those few upcoming games using a subscription model. The fact that players are complaining doesn't mean they expect the game for free. I might be wrong but, unless the devs backed away from their promises, everything was supposed to be obtainable in-game in AOC; the cash shop might serve as a short cut for those willing to fork the dough and save time. I wouldn't like it but hey, I can't say I am interested in this game anyway.

Why can't we just have a game with a monthly sub with no strings attached though? It seems that nowadays even a subscription based model implies having a cash shop...

Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen and Camelot Unchained won't have a cash shop. Subscription only.

WoW and FFXIV are pretty "close" to having no cash shop and just a sub.

Kyleran · June 2018

Prescience said:

some-clueless-guy said:

mgilbrtsn said:

If the worry is about the sale of cosmetic items, then the rest of the game must be pretty good. The companies have to make money...have to, despite the common misconception that the interwebs should provide free entertainment. Other than porn, that's obviously an exception and one I agree with.

AFAIK Ashes of Creations is supposed to be one of those few upcoming games using a subscription model. The fact that players are complaining doesn't mean they expect the game for free. I might be wrong but, unless the devs backed away from their promises, everything was supposed to be obtainable in-game in AOC; the cash shop might serve as a short cut for those willing to fork the dough and save time. I wouldn't like it but hey, I can't say I am interested in this game anyway.

Why can't we just have a game with a monthly sub with no strings attached though? It seems that nowadays even a subscription based model implies having a cash shop...

Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen and Camelot Unchained won't have a cash shop. Subscription only.

WoW and FFXIV are pretty "close" to having no cash shop and just a sub.

They won't have a cash shop at launch... probably.

Nothing is guaranteed to never change, even when a Dev lead says "read my lips."

Kyleran · June 2018

some-clueless-guy said:

mgilbrtsn said:

If the worry is about the sale of cosmetic items, then the rest of the game must be pretty good. The companies have to make money...have to, despite the common misconception that the interwebs should provide free entertainment. Other than porn, that's obviously an exception and one I agree with.

AFAIK Ashes of Creations is supposed to be one of those few upcoming games using a subscription model. The fact that players are complaining doesn't mean they expect the game for free. I might be wrong but, unless the devs backed away from their promises, everything was supposed to be obtainable in-game in AOC; the cash shop might serve as a short cut for those willing to fork the dough and save time. I wouldn't like it but hey, I can't say I am interested in this game anyway.

Why can't we just have a game with a monthly sub with no strings attached though? It seems that nowadays even a subscription based model implies having a cash shop...

Why? It leaves money on the table that some players are willing to give the firm for services rendered.

Foolish to do so, especially for cosmetics or other services which don't negatively impact others from playing.

Brunlin · June 2018

timtrack said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

Yeah... this argument keeps popping up and this mindset is why they keep getting away with these things. The upper bar is moved upwards in small increments and we keep saying "well, it's still slightly better than cancer", until it's literally cancer, and then they back off a nanometer and we feel like we won somehow. Then it restarts with the lower bar permanently moved forward to a point we are now used to and accept as the norm. And this will keep happening until our beloved hobby becomes an unrecognizable mess in the likes of the gambling industry. That's where the top investors want to go, and they are most likely not gamers with a passion for the art.

Cosmetic items are an important part of a game and they should be tied to achievements and deeds accomplished in the game, not wallets, in my opinion.

The only cosmetic item that i could fully accept being sold in a game is something like a mount with 100% of the winnings going to charity. That's the only way you could ride a cash-shop mount with some pride, because buying it had meaning, and you replaced personal effort with a contribution to making the world a better place.

Selling cosmetics in games including mmos is not a new practice, most mmos i play have them in their cash shop. I still play Everquest whose been selling skins for a long time now, they sell player made skins up until recently as well. Its just looks and has no power in game.

Now, if they attached stats or some kind of different advantage, thats a completely different story. Also,I dont like it when games make in-game items ugly, in order to put pressure on you to buy cosmetics.

If a game is a complete game, with out having to buy anything off the store to compete , and has good looking skins in game through achievements, drops, quest, etc and than has exclusive skins in their game store....well thats just smart game design.The game developers do want to find different ways to make their money. There are a lot of players willing to give cash for cosmetics, especially on sales, or seasons. I know alot of players, mostly woman who likes that new dress on the game store. I myself dont care about all that. I gave them money for the game, i might be optional subbing. If the game is good, I am happy, they are happy(money),the whales are happy. God Bless Capitalism, its BOSS!!!

I can agree with you if you were talking about gambling boxes, skins that have some king of game advantage attached, items that decreases RNG, etc......but cosmetics...c'mon man...thats just whinning.

MadFrenchie · June 2018

timtrack said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

Yeah... this argument keeps popping up and this mindset is why they keep getting away with these things. The upper bar is moved upwards in small increments and we keep saying "well, it's still slightly better than cancer", until it's literally cancer, and then they back off a nanometer and we feel like we won somehow. Then it restarts with the lower bar permanently moved forward to a point we are now used to and accept as the norm. And this will keep happening until our beloved hobby becomes an unrecognizable mess in the likes of the gambling industry. That's where the top investors want to go, and they are most likely not gamers with a passion for the art.

Cosmetic items are an important part of a game and they should be tied to achievements and deeds accomplished in the game, not wallets, in my opinion.

The only cosmetic item that i could fully accept being sold in a game is something like a mount with 100% of the winnings going to charity. That's the only way you could ride a cash-shop mount with some pride, because buying it had meaning, and you replaced personal effort with a contribution to making the world a better place.

I don't disagree, but you're raging against the machine here. Microtransactions are, sadly, here to stay, at least until there's a more effective way for games to open those wallets that won't get backlash like we saw against EA. I don't see gamers mustering that kind of backlash against a cosmetic shop.

Folks pay for them and they have little effect on the power level of the player relative to others. That's about as good as you're gonna get these days. Any game dev/pub that chooses to forego that stream will be doing it solely out of principle and will be forfeiting extra cash in doing so. Those will be few and far between.

I'd prefer there be no microtransactions, but I don't see it going the way of the dodo anytime soon.

Iselin · June 2018

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

This is true but they're also not completely harmless. Selling cosmetics does a few things that can negatively impact a game:

The financial incentive to sell it instead of letting players earn it tends to lower the quantity and quality of those sort of items that can be earned in parallel to the cash shop offerings.
That same incentive prompts developers to overdo the quantity of available skins since they are so easy to develop and sell and they go to progressively more and more ridiculous extremes with those skins that are quite often incongruous with the rest of the game's setting and lore.
By the same token it creates a disincentive to work on core game play since that core takes a lot more work and effort for lower returns compared to the easy to do skins.
It also attracts a different type of player to the games that go heavily down this route. It attracts the "Sims Online" and "Second Life" crowd that obsesses about collecting all those different outfits as their primary reason for being there. That crowd quickly becomes the most valued customer since the developer's metrics will show they're willing to spend much more than the ones who are there to quest and kill. They become overt time, the primary development target reinforcing points 1-3 above in a vicious cycle

MadFrenchie · June 2018

Iselin said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

This is true but they're also not completely harmless. Selling cosmetics does a few things that can negatively impact a game:

The financial incentive to sell it instead of letting players earn it tends to lower the quantity and quality of those sort of items that can be earned in parallel to the cash shop offerings.
That same incentive prompts developers to overdo the quantity of available skins since they are so easy to develop and sell and they go to progressively more and more ridiculous extremes with those skins that are quite often incongruous with the rest of the game's setting and lore.
By the same token it creates a disincentive to work on core game play since that core takes a lot more work and effort for lower returns compared to the easy to do skins.
It also attracts a different type of player to the games that go heavily down this route. It attracts the "Sims Online" and "Second Life" crowd that obsesses about collecting all those different outfits as their primary reason for being there. That crowd quickly becomes the most valued customer since the developer's metrics will show they're willing to spend much more than the ones who are there to quest and kill. They become overt time, the primary development target reinforcing points 1-3 above in a vicious cycle

It does, but again, good luck getting players to amount an offensive against cosmetics like we saw against EA with lootbox progression. You saw just how atrocious that had to be to even garner a response worth noting by EA/Disney (literal "you fire 20% faster, your starship is 20% more manueverable" etc.). Apathy will win the day here.

I don't enjoy buying cosmetics, so I don't do it. But, considering how cheap and easy it is to crank them out, from a business perspecrive, you'd gotta be outta your damn mind to skip it.

Iselin · June 2018

MadFrenchie said:

Iselin said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

This is true but they're also not completely harmless. Selling cosmetics does a few things that can negatively impact a game:

The financial incentive to sell it instead of letting players earn it tends to lower the quantity and quality of those sort of items that can be earned in parallel to the cash shop offerings.
That same incentive prompts developers to overdo the quantity of available skins since they are so easy to develop and sell and they go to progressively more and more ridiculous extremes with those skins that are quite often incongruous with the rest of the game's setting and lore.
By the same token it creates a disincentive to work on core game play since that core takes a lot more work and effort for lower returns compared to the easy to do skins.
It also attracts a different type of player to the games that go heavily down this route. It attracts the "Sims Online" and "Second Life" crowd that obsesses about collecting all those different outfits as their primary reason for being there. That crowd quickly becomes the most valued customer since the developer's metrics will show they're willing to spend much more than the ones who are there to quest and kill. They become overt time, the primary development target reinforcing points 1-3 above in a vicious cycle

It does, but again, good luck getting players to amount an offensive against cosmetics like we saw against EA with lootbox progression. You saw just how atrocious that had to be to even garner a response worth noting by EA/Disney (literal "you fire 20% faster, your starship is 20% more manueverable" etc.). Apathy will win the day here.

I don't enjoy buying cosmetics, so I don't do it. But, considering how cheap and easy it is to crank them out, from a business perspecrive, you'd gotta be outta your damn mind to skip it.

I don't know about mounting offensives but I do know that dismissing their impact on the game on the usual basis that "it's just cosmetics" misses a large part of what it does to games that go heavily down this easy money route.

It's not like there aren't any examples of sub-only MMOs we can look at and compare their clear game development focus vs. the ones that go heavily into "got be out of your damn mind to skip it" land. IDK but WOW seemed to be doing just fine last I looked despite being apparently nuts to leave all that other extra money behind.

MadFrenchie · June 2018

Iselin said:

MadFrenchie said:

Iselin said:

MadFrenchie said:

It's better than selling actual items of power, so I wouldn't sabre-rattle about it too much, if I were backers.

This is true but they're also not completely harmless. Selling cosmetics does a few things that can negatively impact a game:

The financial incentive to sell it instead of letting players earn it tends to lower the quantity and quality of those sort of items that can be earned in parallel to the cash shop offerings.
That same incentive prompts developers to overdo the quantity of available skins since they are so easy to develop and sell and they go to progressively more and more ridiculous extremes with those skins that are quite often incongruous with the rest of the game's setting and lore.
By the same token it creates a disincentive to work on core game play since that core takes a lot more work and effort for lower returns compared to the easy to do skins.
It also attracts a different type of player to the games that go heavily down this route. It attracts the "Sims Online" and "Second Life" crowd that obsesses about collecting all those different outfits as their primary reason for being there. That crowd quickly becomes the most valued customer since the developer's metrics will show they're willing to spend much more than the ones who are there to quest and kill. They become overt time, the primary development target reinforcing points 1-3 above in a vicious cycle

It does, but again, good luck getting players to amount an offensive against cosmetics like we saw against EA with lootbox progression. You saw just how atrocious that had to be to even garner a response worth noting by EA/Disney (literal "you fire 20% faster, your starship is 20% more manueverable" etc.). Apathy will win the day here.

I don't enjoy buying cosmetics, so I don't do it. But, considering how cheap and easy it is to crank them out, from a business perspecrive, you'd gotta be outta your damn mind to skip it.

I don't know about mounting offensives but I do know that dismissing their impact on the game on the usual basis that "it's just cosmetics" misses a large part of what it does to games that go heavily down this easy money route.

It's not like there aren't any examples of sub-only MMOs we can look at and compare their clear game development focus vs. the ones that go heavily into "got be out of your damn mind to skip it" land. IDK but WOW seemed to be doing just fine last I looked despite being apparently nuts to leave all that other extra money behind.

WoW sells mounts and pets. They aren't just taking subs.

EDIT- and they aren't priced cheap. Mounts can cost as much as $25 a pop, pets up to $10 a pop.

Howdy, Stranger!

Players are concerned about monthly "skin sales".

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Players are concerned about monthly "skin sales".

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV