Liam @ GamingOnLinux 🐧🎮I find it *really* weird people actually like and defend paid cosmetics in full price games. When did this become accepted to the point that gamers will argue for it?
Vivian "Bigou"@gamingonlinux Good question. I honstly don't understand either.
tonytins@gamingonlinux I miss the days of expansion packs.
C.W. Smith 🇺🇲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.
teamtuck@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.
Noah Campbell@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.
@noahcampbell i grew up with the Amiga… 😅, I’m not actually completely against paid for extras but I do find it odd for full price games to have paid cosmetics
@gamingonlinux I should have specified the early 2000s or earlier lol. Obviously those who grew up in the 80s or 90s would be in the same boat.
And I agree with you. In a game like Fortnite it's fine because it's free and doesn't affect gameplay. In a game like Madden or COD, these microtransactions have no place in my opinion.
Oblomov@gamingonlinux @noahcampbell but honestly, if the choice is between paying for cosmetics, and paying for content, or worse gambling mechanics, I'd say cosmetics are preferable
LadyUnicornEJG@noahcampbell @gamingonlinux I do very much miss games being complete at launch and not dependant on a dozen patches in the first week for huge bugs. Even local/single player games do this crap now.
But we are in a different world of gaming. One where they get to largely control what you do once you buy, and everything is expected to be online and multiplayer in some way.
Raptor 
@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
Mobile Suit Golem@raptor85
IIRC didn't the DRG devs only add the first paid cosmetics after people asked them to so they could continue to fund development?
@gamingonlinux
IIRC didn't the DRG devs only add the first paid cosmetics after people asked them to so they could continue to fund development?
@gamingonlinux
oberhamsi@gamingonlinux i bought it for indy multiplayer games if we really liked it
Ertain@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.
phi1997@gamingonlinux
I think that kids who think this is normal is a large part of it
I think that kids who think this is normal is a large part of it
Riley S. Faelan@gamingonlinux: It's one of those endless "compromises".
doragasu@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.
Salva@doragasu @gamingonlinux this is the only income of Fortnite 😐. And too many games have paid cosmetics.
@doragasu @gamingonlinux yes, in Street Fighter VI you have only a 18 Fighters roster, but on The King of Fighters 39 by default. So wait for years of fighters and cosmetics DLC. They charge for all 😑
@salva_pl @gamingonlinux The OP talked about full price games. It's clear F2P games have to make money somehow, but paying for cosmetics on full price games feels like paying twice for that content.
fbievan@gamingonlinux
If i pay for a game, I own that game.
Thus I can modify and edit the game to get those cosmetics.
The online to me is a separate experience where those rules aren't as applicable.
The online part of a game is a constant expense, unless you are something like MineCraft where you outsource the servers.
Good example is GTA V: Good offline game, online game with paid options.
I will not pay for a solely online experience.
I get DLC... it's not part of the game, and has a different story line. '
Can you give me an example?
If i pay for a game, I own that game.
Thus I can modify and edit the game to get those cosmetics.
The online to me is a separate experience where those rules aren't as applicable.
The online part of a game is a constant expense, unless you are something like MineCraft where you outsource the servers.
Good example is GTA V: Good offline game, online game with paid options.
I will not pay for a solely online experience.
I get DLC... it's not part of the game, and has a different story line. '
Can you give me an example?
@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 put another way, I'll take rich people showing off cosmetics to my game becoming (semi)broken any day. And the companies aren't about to accept one and done incomes if they have to keep supporting the product after release.
@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.
Zakarya 
@gamingonlinux *clears throat* Microsoft
Smalls@gamingonlinux I will say that I will take it over a "pay to win" scenario. In a free-to-play game, it’s understandable since that’s one source of revenue for them; however, in a $70 game, it can get muddy real quick.
As long as there are a lot of unlockable cosmetics without paying it’s "fine". Even then it’s not really ideal. I don’t like the idea of it, but it’s the state of AAA games at this point and I don’t see it going away anytime soon or at all. 🙁
That’s all in the context of a multiplayer focused game. It should never be in a singleplayer game.
withoutclass@gamingonlinux well nobody has to buy them. If you want to buy one, who cares?
BigglesFor me, it was Path of Exile who normalized pay for cosmetics - then WoW with the shop for cosmetics where you can also pay with gold earned in-game.
It's a compromise position - not ideal for either side, but it works, and you can live with it - and it certainly increases cosmetic options, which is fun. As always - people can vote with their wallets, but so long as the cosmetics don't affect power or gameplay - it's hard to fault it as an option. Don't like it, don't buy them.
iopq@gamingonlinux because it's the only thing the company for the game in years, so I'm happy they did anything