Character customization and cosmetic rewards aren't part of the gameplay

the 1 percent of gamers are paying enough for dlc and extras to justify this business model, and why do they have so much money to spend and ruin things for others? Capitalism.

except some people do have to get cancer you absolutely retarded nigger. you should feel bad for posting this downs syndrome inspired comic

That`s offensive, some people have to get down syndrome

>it's not rough and with mspaint stickmen
10/10 it's shit

ftfy

Attached: 1566125274933.png (639x758, 379K)

not the guy that posted it, but I'm pretty sure thats the point of the comic retard

you being diagnosed with a bad case of ass cancer doesn't give you the excuse to be rude nigger

There are people who also pay for cheating software.

just ignore them and play good games

GET GOOD
GET LMAOBOX

They pay twice once their shit gets added to the bot network too for good measure

not if its vac

are you autistic and/or disabled?

Current gamers see character customization as a completely different thing than the boomers did. They have absolutely no concept of the intrinsic value of their characters appearance (as in its display of their power or achievements). They just want to play barbie dress up to make an arbitrarily cool looking naruto character.

It's fucking depressing but it's been the case for a good few years now and it was a long time coming, with the "cosmetics only" argument, popularity of competitive games and transmog.

>he thinks mobile freemium kids are ever going to pay $60 for anything

>Posted June 7th, 2009

What is the point if you can just buy it.

while i get what you're saying, it honestly sucks when the best armor looks like an awful mash of aesthetics. i also hate how endgame armor is always edgy spiky shit.

I work on machine learning specifically to eliminate the sort of low-IQ jobs those brainlets would otherwise have held, ensuring that my purchasing power will always outpace their own.

This is the argument for transmog. Transmog might have seemed like a good idea, but it was a huge step towards the complete abolition of intrinsic value of character appearance and skins. It killed the idea of looking at a character and thinking "damn that's strong" or "damn that dude killed a lot of guys", and replaced it with "he looks neat". And once you're there you're practically already in the store.

Shitty armor design needed better armor design, not transmog.

How is it a secret if you can pay for it?

>we'll have mobile-tier microtransactions in our $60 games

Attached: news.jpg (960x720, 83K)

i think a mix of both is needed; good armor and a seperate cosemtic slot for armor. even if the endgame armor looks good, everybody ends up looking roughly the same

Attached: 1553455090016.png (625x605, 103K)

I can't think of a case of compromised transmog. The only scenario I could think of is if armor came in a few cosmetic variants you could choose between, which were all exclusive to that one piece of armor. Once you let people cover up armor with completely separate piece of armor intrinsic value is entirely gone.

>dude, its just one horse armor, calm down. Whats the worse that could happen?

Attached: The-Elder-Scrolls-IV-Oblivion_EDIIMA20150306_0171_4[1].jpg (643x362, 52K)

>And once you're there you're practically already in the store.
You say that like there aren't modern games with non paid transmog.

why did this have to happen? if only faggots didnt go out in droves to buy horse armor

It wasn't so much that people bought it as much as it was people didn't but acknowledged it. So they had to raise the stakes making the dlc desirable by giving players something of worth like mission packs, characters etc.

I'm talking about the macro effect of transmog. People stop seeing character appearance as anything but aesthetic, which opens the door for "MTX are ok as long as it's just cosmetic" argument. That argument makes 0 fuckin sense if you see characters as more than dress up mannequins.

>which opens the door for "MTX are ok as long as it's just cosmetic" argument. That argument makes 0 fuckin sense if you see characters as more than dress up mannequins.
That argument is the result of F2P games, and only of F2P games, entirely.

Everyone acknowledged early on that if a multiplayer game is going to be "free" but be financially successful, they have to sell you SOMETHING. And one of the earliest criterion of the right way to do this was cosmetics, because cosmetics don't affect game balance. Back in the early god-awful days of F2P multiplayer games you just paid cash for better shit and it broke game balance, and the games that people lauded for playing fair were the ones where ONLY cosmetic items were available as microtransactions.

This just became a sort of mantra. The microtransactions were acceptable if they existed only in the cosmetic realm.. because that was the only kind that didn't affect competitive balance.

The problem is, now, that argument has just sort of ballooned into games that aren't F2P. Cosmetic microtransactions are the most acceptable kind for a specific class of games: multiplayer, free-to-play games that have to monetize some aspect of the gameplay with MTX purchases. In that limited band of criteria, the best approach is cosmetics. The argument stops making sense when applied to any game that is not a competitive multiplayer game, OR when applied to any game that doesn't have a good justification for including MTX at all.

>arcade gaming
Pay to play more.
>mobile gaming
Pay to play less.

Explain??

>mobile players paying for anything
They assume all games should be free. None of them is ever going to pay even 1$ to buy a game.

The secret trick of mobile gaming is that it's designed to not be fun. Actively. The game is supposed to be annoying and unfun, which is why you will pay money for the privilege of not playing it. The secret of mobile game design is the secret of psychological addiction; the developer needs to find a way to get you to want to play less, without ever considering the possibility of just not playing the game, because that's how they sell you permission to not play it.

stop lying faggot, LOADS of people bought it, thats why they made more
>making DLC desirable
you mean like every game before it with their expansion packs that where like a whole new game?

>GaaS
>MTXs
>The fucking outrage culture
I just have no idea how people have the patience, time or energy for modern gaming or the community that's developed around it.
Maybe I'm just getting too old for this at 25.

Anyone remember cheat codes? Those were fun, weren't they?
You did fine user. I aprpeci

>Cut off my post
I appreciate new OC that is more than wojacks and frogs.

>LOADS of people bought it
Not really no.

Not him but let's be fair, very few people bought it. In fact way more people downloaded the mod that just put it into the game. There was no reason to buy cosmetic armor in a Bethesda game.

But that's just it: It costs nothing to make for Todd. If even ten kids and boomers who weren't aware mods existed bought it: then they made their money back.

That's basically the model behind microtransactions. These are skins that they would put into the game anyway being cut out to be sold separately. There's no downside for them to do this, no one buying it would just mean that a skin someone made in an afternoon would go wasted.

Why would that argument make sense if people expected their gear to reflect their character's ability and your accomplisments? Why would a $5 hat be profitable in the slightest if it was the norm to wear your hard-earned crown there? You're right, F2P games were also relevant. But you've made no compelling argument for the "entirely" bit.

yes they did newfag

many people bought it you newfag

What makes you think a lot of people bought it?

You're really going to call people newfags when you don't even know how horse armor even went down?

>many people bought it you newfag
no they didn't. Way, way more people downloaded the mod or got free horse armor that looked way better.

gamesindustry.biz/articles/bethesda-announces-new-oblivion-content

It got such backlash that it was eventually included for free.

en.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Horse_Armor_Pack

That's not "many people bought it", that's "Okay we pissed way more people off and turned away more customers doing this than we could have gained by simply giving it away for free. We'll capitulate this time."

But that's not what Horse Armor was about. It was about getting Bethesda's foot in the door on microtransactions. The whole point of it was to make people warm up to the idea of buying little bits of things like this inside of their games so they could break out content and sell them piecemeal to the player.
That's all Horse Armor was about, it didn't have to sell well. It just had to be the first time someone had thought that it could be sold to them.

Things have gotten really out of hand.

Why don't people just make a good game with like an ending anymore?

>deluded newfags
Just because you werent alive back then doesnt mean you have to lie

I’m pretty sure GTAO is designed the same way. Or at least they don’t add more entertaining alternatives to making money, as that would be counter-productive to selling shark cards b

please kill me, i chuckled at a stonetoss joke.

slowly or quick?

Attached: war-thunder-listing-thumb-02-ps4-us-04nov16.png (1600x900, 2.44M)

haha us gamers, right?

>muh zoomer boogeyman

It was clearly designed that way, redoing missions lower the max amount of money you get from them each time, cops can cap you from across the map, everything fun is utterly expensive, you need to repeat the same heists a shitton of times to grind money, etc... On the other hand, buy enough shark cards and you eventually get free money and the ability to buy anything quickly.