DLC skin prices are out of control (PUBG)

Oct 27, 2017
447
#5
People are going to buy it, and that's why they charge that much.

I'm more concerned for the people who buy Suicide Squad skins for 25 dollars personally.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,537
#6
Those are some good temps you're rolling with, man.

(Yep, that licence DLC cost. Any other examples though in PUBG? I'd imagine crossover stuff would be the outlier.)
 
Jul 25, 2018
3,297
#11
People wanted this.

They don't want game prices going up. They don't want lootboxes to exist at all. They wanted optional things to be sold directly. Well, there it is.
 

Vipu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,008
#13
People wanted this.

They don't want game prices going up. They don't want lootboxes to exist at all. They wanted optional things to be sold directly. Well, there it is.
And i take this over more expensive games or games split into 3 dlc:s
 
Nov 16, 2017
266
#14
Crazily overpriced.

Some people will buy it anyway, folks will say it's fine and the next round will be $30 because fuck you pay me.
 
Oct 28, 2017
289
Germany
#17
And it looks like utter shite. I mean, just look at that face. It looks like they've plastered the woman's face onto the man's. Unless that's the point? Either way, looks like utter crap.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,019
#26
People wanted this.

They don't want game prices going up. They don't want lootboxes to exist at all. They wanted optional things to be sold directly. Well, there it is.
Skins and whole new characters were being sold directly before and prices were generally somewhere in the realm of semi-reasonable (2-5$ per character). This is not ok. This is greedy pricing that preys on the weaknesses of the human mind.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,019
#27
People wanted this.

They don't want game prices going up. They don't want lootboxes to exist at all. They wanted optional things to be sold directly. Well, there it is.
Skins and whole new characters were being sold directly before and prices were generally somewhere in the realm of semi-reasonable (2-5$ per character). This is not ok. This is greedy pricing that preys on the weaknesses of the human mind.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,172
#28
Buying a $25 skin, and playing in FPP is perhaps the key determination in proving a person lost their marbles. LOOK AT THOSE ARMS! :)
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,327
#29
People wanted this.

They don't want game prices going up. They don't want lootboxes to exist at all. They wanted optional things to be sold directly. Well, there it is.
This is a ridiculous take. This is just pure greed plain and simple. There's plenty of other games that sell skins directly for far, far less than 20 dollars
 

Hollywood Pescado

Self-requested ban
Member
Apr 28, 2018
305
#30
That's expensive.

I also think a lot of DLC skins/costumes are expensive in general. I wouldn't pay $25, $20, $15, or $10 for a single skin. I don't think I'd pay $5 for a single skin either.

The only costumes I remember buying were for Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and I only bought it because it was Metal Gear. I wanted to have everything in the game. It was part of a bundle and the costumes individually cost $1 I think. I don't remember using the costumes much.

I won't make that mistake again with any game.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,826
#31
This is what happens when people keep saying "but [anti-consumer thing] really isn't that bad, you're overreacting" for long enough. They'll just keep pushing the envelope further and further. Can't wait to see what people will be defending on here 5 years from now.
 
Oct 27, 2017
952
Brazil
#34
I mean, that's why I prefer the way HotS or Overwatch go about things right now. Rather get some cool skins for free than having to pay an absurd amount for one.
 

XSX

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,094
#41
How far we've come from horse armor.
We just get desensitised more and more.
Nah, I'm just not entitled enough to think I can decide whats fair for a developer to charge. Especially crossover content in a $30 game.

Don't like it, don't buy it. It's not a necessary component of the game.
 
Oct 16, 2018
676
#43
Don't try to regulate prices on a free market. Buuuut, saying that, whoever buys this is a complete... ly rich person.
 
Jul 25, 2018
3,297
#44
Skins and whole new characters were being sold directly before and prices were generally somewhere in the realm of semi-reasonable (2-5$ per character). This is not ok. This is greedy pricing that preys on the weaknesses of the human mind.
Then don't buy it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,252
USA
#45
I should be upset, but I'm not. People buy overpriced, pointless add-ons for their cars all the time, etc. (yes, that's me) I don't really see how things like this are that much different. I'd rather it cost more and just outright be purchasable vs. being locked behind random lootboxes. It's why I'll pay $20 for that Pokemon full art card vs. a bunch of booster packs and risk getting a bunch of crap I don't want and maybe luck out and get something I do.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,394
#46
This is what happens when people keep saying "but [anti-consumer thing] really isn't that bad, you're overreacting" for long enough. They'll just keep pushing the envelope further and further. Can't wait to see what people will be defending on here 5 years from now.
In 30 years people will pay more for virtual bullets than for real ones.
 
May 4, 2018
207
#47
Skins and whole new characters were being sold directly before and prices were generally somewhere in the realm of semi-reasonable (2-5$ per character). This is not ok. This is greedy pricing that preys on the weaknesses of the human mind.
What weakness is it preying on exactly? The customer knows the price, they know exactly the product they're getting (in their local currency, no less), and they're free to walk away at any time.

You already concede that cosmetic microtransactions are not fundamentally immoral, so there is nothing inherently predatory about this practice. We're just haggling about the price at this point.
 
Nov 1, 2017
2,039
#49
What weakness is it preying on exactly? The customer knows the price, they know exactly the product they're getting (in their local currency, no less), and they're free to walk away at any time.

You already concede that cosmetic microtransactions are not fundamentally immoral, so there is nothing inherently predatory about this practice. We're just haggling about the price at this point.
Exactly this, which makes the whole premise of the discussion utterly pointless given that price will largely equate to perceived value on a per-consumer basis, which is an entirely subjective metric.

Don't try to regulate prices on a free market. Buuuut, saying that, whoever buys this is a complete... ly rich person.
This seems like a bad take. Not having money wouldn't necessarily exclude people from buying this sort of thing.