• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Mr_F_Snowman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,881
Full game with lots of D1 content is 60$
How do you suppose to support a game with free content without selling skins?

This has been the model since early this gen and now people are surprised, we have even worse monetization schemes but they flew under ERA radar.

I mean Splatoon 2 had years of free content, its not exactly impossible when you sell 5-10 million copies of a game to support it for more than 5 minutes considering the hundreds of millions of dollars you have already generated selling a game at $60.
 

Haze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,785
Detroit, MI
Reading this thread just confirms I'm old and out of touch....is value for money an outdated concept around here?
Full game with lots of content = $60(or Gamepass,whatever).
Character skin = $10.
Microsoft/Coalition are taking the piss.

I love final Fantasy XIV to death and I have no qualms with paying a subscription. But what really bothers me with that game is the optimal items you can buy that can cost upwards of $40, the same price as the most recent expansion.
 

Deleted member 20297

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
6,943
Reading this thread just confirms I'm old and out of touch....is value for money an outdated concept around here?
Full game with lots of content = $60(or Gamepass,whatever).
Character skin = $10.
Microsoft/Coalition are taking the piss.
I feel exactly the same, old and out of touch.
Can't people decide on their own what to buy? Is this old concept gone for gamers? Or in general? Why not let the gamers themselves decide whether it's too expansive like with every other thing on the market?
 
Oct 26, 2017
9,859
I mean Splatoon 2 had years of free content, its not exactly impossible when you sell 5-10 million copies of a game to support it for more than 5 minutes considering the hundreds of millions of dollars you have already generated selling a game at $60.

That's the exception but not the rule.
You can't find an AAA MP game not asking for MTX and offering free content at the same time, it's not possible.
 

hanmik

Editor/Writer at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
1,436
I remember the pre-launch interview with the devs, who said they were 'ahead of the curve' of the industry when it comes to microtransactions. They were really up their own ass with that one, what nonsense.

The only thing they meant with that sentence was that they wouldn´t implement PAID loot boxes.

The multiplayer design director reiterated that Gears 5 will have no loot boxes, but does have a store in which players can spend real money on in-game currency Iron, which can be used to purchase cosmetics.

There are also two separate systems for gaining content: an unlockable customisation system called Tour of Duty, and then Supply where players get free content just for playing the game. The two content pools are separate.


 

Deleted member 20297

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
6,943
I mean Splatoon 2 had years of free content, its not exactly impossible when you sell 5-10 million copies of a game to support it for more than 5 minutes considering the hundreds of millions of dollars you have already generated selling a game at $60.
That is a good one actually because it is also quite different as Nintendo games are not on sale that often or get a permanent price reduction.
Another GaaS game as an example is GT Sport. The price dropped hard after launch because of negative reviews and sales numbers and the game is now very often to get for $20 but the "free" DLC updates people every once in a while could not be sustainable in the long run so they introduced monetization to the game where you can buy cars with real money.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,960
But I mean, if people don't think they're worth the cost they won't buy them. And then that sends the message to Coalition to either make them cheaper, or make better skins. What are we even complaining about here. Half of ERA is "game won't make any money, everyone using trial/$1 game pass subs to play" and the other half saying "why should I have to pay for cosmetics". Should they just make no money and make everything free?

Game companies are constantly fumbling with pricing, shooting themselves in the foot either missing quantity in sales, ir pissing on players like Nba 2k or Ea with their lootboxes.

It is absolutely in the players rights to demand lower cost, higher quality or longer availability.

Or be frank upfront instead having bullshit articles how Gears5 is leading monetization by example: Gears 5 is going to try to squeeze more money from microtransactions because the base game is accessible from GP.
 

Skel

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,030
France
Honestly the Tour of Duty system is great, but there are just too many useless rewards (like OP said, emotes and marks) and grind is required. The Coalition can easily pick in previous games to fill one entire Operation and lower the requirements, it would be better.

Keep the Chrome / eSports skins as expensive microtransactions so I can enjoy fan tears when they learn it won't transfer to the next game.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
Because I've seen the argument many times that 3rd parties have to have MTX because they solely rely on software revenues, don't have any incentive to sell hardware and have to pay 30% tax to console makers. Every time someone brings up a 1st party game with nil in-game MTX (like aforementioned Splatoon 2) they're shot down by saying "because its first party and they can afford it". So which is it?

Many 3rd parties have MTX because it's a decent way to maintain a revenue stream to ensure the post-launch support that insatiable consumers keep clamoring for. That's all there is to this. Your fault if you let yourself get distracted by answers that don't make sense.

Gamers need to learn they cannot eat their cake and have it. If you want substantial post launch support, someone has got to pay for it.

Every game has its own business model, so the comparisons with Splatoon 2 may not be apt.
It all boils down to revenue, cost and profitability. Aside from the fact that Splatoon 2 pales in comparison to a game like Gears 5 in Terms of content, it cost a good deal cheaper to make, and as a Nintendo first party game, it hovers around $60 for ages before any minor discounts.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
Or be frank upfront instead having bullshit articles how Gears5 is leading monetization by example: Gears 5 is going to try to squeeze more money from microtransactions because the base game is accessible from GP.

This has nothing to do with the game being on Gamepass, and everything to do with the game being a GaaS where robust post-launch support is expected and demanded by consumers.

Nobody is being 'squeezed' to buy optional cosmetic micro transactions.
 

kiguel182

Member
Oct 31, 2017
9,441
They can price the skins how they want and people can buy them or not.

Gambling mechanics are bad but skins are just a normal purchase to sustain the development of more maps and stuff.
 

Deleted member 1726

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,661
I feel exactly the same, old and out of touch.
Can't people decide on their own what to buy? Is this old concept gone for gamers? Or in general? Why not let the gamers themselves decide whether it's too expansive like with every other thing on the market?

People think they have to have all this content though, they can't let go of that concept.

OP says content is mostly filler, yet it upset they can't get it all, why the hell do you want filler content? Just ignore it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,654
I really don't have any issue with the MTX in the game. You are totally free to ignore it and just enjoy the game regardless. If you do decide to buy a skin you don't need to buy them all. They aren't charging for any of the actual content they're putting out, eg maps, which is awesome.

But really, just don't buy them.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,960
This has nothing to do with the game being on Gamepass, and everything to do with the game being a GaaS where robust post-launch support is expected and demanded by consumers.

Nobody is being 'squeezed' to buy optional cosmetic micro transactions.

Read the thread again, look up for any comments which talk about Gamepass. Respond to them if you don't think that GP should be discussed regarding Gears 5 monetization.

People think they have to have all this content though, they can't let go of that concept.

OP says content is mostly filler, yet it upset they can't get it all, why the hell do you want filler content? Just ignore it.

Filler content for the high price is a problem. If you come from League, Fornite or Overwatch, you are suddently presented with the worse cosmetic content for higher price*.

There are people who actually want to have cool looking cosmetics for the affordable price. If the game cannot offer that, you can of course ignore it, but you can also state how it is a problem and why it doesn't benefit neither MS or the players. And even for the players who don't give a fuck about comestics: the revenue from cosmetics will determine the lenght/quality of the service. So you better not advocate for the model where purchasing cosmetics is not attractive (price, quality, availability) because it will bite you in the ass.
 

Ethifury

Member
Dec 4, 2017
1,802
None of the MTX are Pay to Win and the game gives tons of content for the asking price. You can earn Iron by playing the game and use the in-game currency to buy the banner or skin you want.

You have to grind ALOT in Tour of Duty to EARN iron, and even then, it takes wayyy too long for in-game currency. So iron is not that easy to earn. And you only earn 500 iron total. All the skins and bundles are 1000+ iron. So you HAVE to spend money to buy skins and other cosmetics.
 

Dog of Bork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,989
Texas
Eh, I don't really care about cosmetic MTX. Especially when they subsidise content updates for the game. As long as it's not P2W or exploitative lootbox horseshit, I'm pretty much OK with it.

Basically, cosmetic MTX are fine with me.
 

Ethifury

Member
Dec 4, 2017
1,802
If they are worthless then why would you want to spend anything on them?

The game offers in-game currency that can be used to purchase them. And you can earn skins, emotes and banners by ranking up from Private to Private II and so forth. If you really want to buy a skin for $5 then that is your choice but the game doesn't force it upon you.

Skins are not "just $5". The Coalition just released a bundle for $25........$25. And no, you don't earn skins from Private I to Private II. You earn executions, blood sprays, marks and generic banners. Skins take MUCH longer. I'm on Sergeant and I need to be almost a Major to earn my first skin. And the selection of skins in this game is atrocious compared to EVEN Gears 4.
 

Deleted member 20297

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
6,943
There are people who actually want to have cool looking cosmetics for the affordable price. If the game cannot offer that, you can of course ignore it, but you can also state how it is a problem and why it doesn't benefit neither MS or the players. And even for the players who don't give a fuck about comestics: the revenue from cosmetics will determine the lenght/quality of the service. So you better not advocate for the model where purchasing cosmetics is not attractive (price, quality, availability) because it will bite you in the ass.
MS will most likely watch how much money they can make from the cosmetics and will change it accordingly.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,654
For everyone who's all aboard the faux-outrage bandwagon, what's your preference here?

Just no skins at all?
Free skins but paid maps?
If it's free skins AND free maps, well that isn't a realistic expectation.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,960
MS will most likely watch how much money they can make from the cosmetics and will change it accordingly.

That should be the goal of this thread: the balance between maximizing the cosmetic revenue and maximizing player satisfaction. People will purchase a $30 DJ Sona if you can justify the price. Selling the quality shit for the right price is what maximizes revenue.

The solution is not posting dumb shit like "I don't care about cosmetics" or "Don't buy it if you don't like it"
 

Deleted member 20297

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
6,943
That should be the goal of this thread: the balance between maximizing the cosmetic revenue and maximizing player satisfaction. People will purchase a $30 DJ Sona if you can justify the price. Selling the quality shit for the right price is what maximizes revenue.

The solution is not posting dumb shit like "I don't care about cosmetics" or "Don't buy it if you don't like it"
Thing is that many don't even see the problem so there is no need for a solution and I don't see these two different standpoints changing.
Edit: and dismissing other opinions as "dumb" is not a good base for a discussion. Not in this thread or in any other thread.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,361
The solution is for people to stop spending ridiculous amounts of money for useless shit.

It'll never cease to amaze me - the disproportionately high value people put in dressing up their avatar compared to the gameplay experience itself. As long as there is demand, companies will gladly supply.
 

jem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,757
I want games to stop charging full price then having in place monetisation schemes especially when MS/Sony/Nintendo now charge for online play.

And no I don't bealive this sort of monetisation is to cover costs, it's pure profit seeking.
Of course it's profit seeking.

Games are a business, not charity.

Those profits are needed to justify spending the resources required to fund continued support. It's not merely a matter of covering costs, they need to make sure that continued support is actually worth it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,960
Thing is that many don't even see the problem so there is no need for a solution and I don't see these two different standpoints changing.
Edit: and dismissing other opinions as "dumb" is not a good base for a discussion. Not in this thread or in any other thread.

I would like to know the way on how to engage with the same "It is just cosmetics, who cares" comment 5 years ago. I don't think that explaining how cosmetics matter on the grand scheme is winning any kind of support in this forum.


 

monmagman

Member
Dec 6, 2018
4,126
England,UK
For everyone who's all aboard the faux-outrage bandwagon, what's your preference here?

Just no skins at all?
Free skins but paid maps?
If it's free skins AND free maps, well that isn't a realistic expectation.
I guess skins that aren't grossly overpriced isn't a realistic expectation either,as they didn't make your list.
But in all honesty it does look like I'm in a minority thinking $10 for a character skin is taking the piss,so idk.
As I said in another post....I'm out of touch,obviously,lol.
 

Wamb0wneD

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
18,735
It's 2019. Can you actually articulate a reason that I should be upset about this? People have the option to pay money to change their character's appearance in Gears 5. So what?
Because people are literally behaving like the frog in slowly boiling water. By accpeting what is now you only make it worse, every single time. It's been that way since forever. First it was horse armor, then people were upset and then told to get over the ingame shop in Dead Space 3, and now we have the travesty of a monetization model in NBA20K that is literally an ingame casino.

Just because Gears 5 isn't as bad as the worst these days that doesn't mean it's ok. "It's 2019" is such a weird excuse for this shit. Will you be defending the literal casino emulators in a few years by saying "it's 2025" just because there's something even worse on the market by then?
 

ShinUltramanJ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,950
I'm saying MTX would exist with or without it, and doesn't exist because of it.

Maybe things will change going into the future. What we have now, though, is nothing different from the industry at large. The 1$/promotional subs are irrelevant to this discussion.

While MTX would likely have been in regardless, I feel as though they're going to go harder because of Game Pass.

At least with games where they can get away with it, and shooters are the perfect example. Halo will likely be loaded with MTX.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
Reading this thread just confirms I'm old and out of touch....is value for money an outdated concept around here?
Full game with lots of content = $60(or Gamepass,whatever).
Character skin = $10.
Microsoft/Coalition are taking the piss.


Only a fraction of people buy these skins, so there's no guarantee you'll make enough if you price them for $1.

You're heading down a slippery slope with an argument where you try to justify pricing based on effort and scope.

We accept that MARIO Tennis and New Super Mario Bros U can cost the same $60 as Witcher 3, Gears 5 and TLOU 2 but it's an unforgivable sin for a new character skin to cost $10?
 

Mr_F_Snowman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,881
That is a good one actually because it is also quite different as Nintendo games are not on sale that often or get a permanent price reduction.
Another GaaS game as an example is GT Sport. The price dropped hard after launch because of negative reviews and sales numbers and the game is now very often to get for $20 but the "free" DLC updates people every once in a while could not be sustainable in the long run so they introduced monetization to the game where you can buy cars with real money.

Most tent pole AAA titles are making hundreds of millions of dollars weeks after release. I hardly think sustainability is relevant, these companies aren't trying to eek out a small profit, they're trying to go from hundreds of millions in profit to adding on another few hundred million.
 

Rhowm

Member
Nov 27, 2017
1,669
Because people are literally behaving like the frog in slowly boiling water. By accpeting what is now you only make it worse, every single time. It's been that way since forever. First it was horse armor, then people were upset and then told to get over the ingame shop in Dead Space 3, and now we have the travesty of a monetization model in NBA20K that is literally an ingame casino.

Just because Gears 5 isn't as bad as the worst these days that doesn't mean it's ok. "It's 2019" is such a weird excuse for this shit. Will you be defending the literal casino emulators in a few years by saying "it's 2025" just because there's something even worse on the market by then?
These are reasonable points but I think they should also be taken in the context of a commensurate increase in demand for post launch services and content. In the late 00's these were often in the form of DLC packs, and prior to that time period, were in the form of higher priced expansion packs.(which were admittedly meatier in content).

But in any case, with post launch support, a momentezation scheme beyond the projected budget for the intial game, is reasonable in my opinion. The question then becomes, which is the "least bad of the options". For me, and for others, skins are an answer, although we can all have differing opinions about that. I think each example should be individually scrutinized and we should careful of the slippery slope fallacy, when some games, relatively speaking, are going back up the slope.
 

Defect

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,699
I don't care about cosmetics so I don't care about cosmetic microtransactions. As long as I can earn a good amount of items just by playing the game then it's fine by me. I do think that they need to offer better rewards in the tour of duty and make the store prices more reasonable.

What was it, $10 each for a bloodspray and a thumbs up emote? Even Fortnite knows to price the dumb weird items low. I feel like people would be more accepting of those items if they were like 2-3 dollars and character skins 5-15 depending on their "coolness".
 

monmagman

Member
Dec 6, 2018
4,126
England,UK
Only a fraction of people buy these skins, so there's no guarantee you'll make enough if you price them for $1.

You're heading down a slippery slope with an argument where you try to justify pricing based on effort and scope.

We accept that MARIO Tennis and New Super Mario Bros U can cost the same $60 as Witcher 3, Gears 5 and TLOU 2 but it's an unforgivable sin for a new character skin to cost $10?
Yea,like I said I'm pretty out of touch tbh......there is no way I would ever consider paying $10 for a skin,I think it's awful value for money...it's a skin!
You're trying to justify it to me but it ain't happening....I can't get my head around paying 1/6th of the price of a full game for one character skin....can't do it,lol.
 

Chixdiggit

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
1,447
Free gameplay content in exchange for overpriced cosmetic skins that nobody has to buy? Yes sign me up. I wish every game did it like this.
You will always find people to buy overpriced things they don't need as some sort of fashion statement. It's like buying a $1000 Palm Angels hoodie or a $500 pair of Yeezy shoes.
Me personally I'm cool with the default skins as well as I'm fine wearing a Champion hoodie and a pair of Adidas.
 

Wamb0wneD

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
18,735
These are reasonable points but I think they should also be taken in the context of a commensurate increase in demand for post launch services and content. In the late 00's these were often in the form of DLC packs, and prior to that time period, were in the form of higher priced expansion packs.(which were admittedly meatier in content).

But in any case, with post launch support, a momentezation scheme beyond the projected budget for the intial game, is reasonable in my opinion. The question then becomes, which is the "least bad of the options". For me, and for others, skins are an answer, although we can all have differing opinions about that. I think each example should be individually scrutinized and we should careful of the slippery slope fallacy, when some games, relatively speaking, are going back up the slope.
The thing is, nobody forced every publisher on earth to want live service games. These games aren't made because they think it's the best gaming experience, they are made to keep people longer engaged/spending money. That demand was created by these publishers, not the other way round. And it's not like expansion packs don't exist anymore. Blood and Wine or The Old Hunters are some of the best content out there, for a fixed price. But that's not profitable enough for a lot of these companies these days.

And maybe it's unreasonable to expect this from every pub, but Nintendo managed to support Splatoon 2 with new skins, weapons and maps for free for like 2 years. And let me tell you, there was a metric fuckton of new stuff added regularly. Maybe they can do that by selling the game for 50 to 60 bucks years after it launched, but I prefer that to microtransaction bullshit any day.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
Because people are literally behaving like the frog in slowly boiling water. By accpeting what is now you only make it worse, every single time. It's been that way since forever. First it was horse armor, then people were upset and then told to get over the ingame shop in Dead Space 3, and now we have the travesty of a monetization model in NBA20K that is literally an ingame casino.

Just because Gears 5 isn't as bad as the worst these days that doesn't mean it's ok. "It's 2019" is such a weird excuse for this shit. Will you be defending the literal casino emulators in a few years by saying "it's 2025" just because there's something even worse on the market by then?


The part you're missing is where you fail to acknowledge that there are two sides of the equation. The consumers and the developers/publishers.

Just the same way as you paint a picture of graduallly worsening MTX schemes, so too does the other side of the spectrum. See gradually untenable realities. Games that used to cost $5mln to make in 2001 now routinely cost over $50mln to pull off. At the same time, consumers continue to demand for MORE. Bigger open worlds, more polished graphics, more content and significant post launch content.

Personally, I feel that Anyone who Sees the spiraling cost of game development, the sheer incredulity of the fixed $60 price point over two decades and the strident demand for post-launch content from consumers and still complains about benign, cosmetic MTX is being somewhat disingenuous.
 

Wamb0wneD

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
18,735
The part you're missing is where you fail to acknowledge that there are two sides of the equation. The consumers and the developers/publishers.

Just the same way as you paint a picture of graduallly worsening MTX schemes, so too does the other side of the spectrum. See gradually untenable realities. Games that used to cost $5mln to make in 2001 now routinely cost over $50mln to pull off. At the same time, consumers continue to demand for MORE. Bigger open worlds, more polished graphics, more content and significant post launch content.

Personally, I feel that Anyone who Sees the spiraling cost of game development, the sheer incredulity of the fixed $60 price point over two decades and the strident demand for post-launch content from consumers and still complains about benign, cosmetic MTX is being somewhat disingenuous.
You are talking about companies that try to scam their employees out of their healthcare plan, commit severe tax evasion and announce record profits year after year. This idea that these companies would go under without microtransactions will not get less ridiculous the more often it is brought up. The gaming market is bigger than ever, sales for AAA games are higher than ever. To stay with your example, the game that cost 5 million back then and now 50 to make also sells triple or more the amount of copies these days. Not to mention things like digital distribution which nets publishers an even higher profit margin than anything in 2001 did. Talk about being disingenuous.

This strategy of making fewer and fewer games while having people longer and longer engaged (aka spending money) in the few games you make is a publisher idea, not the ones of consumers. This is their plan:
ubisoft3.jpg



Noone forces them to go down this route. And even if they go down that route, even freaking Gearbox under freaking 2K managed to make a game that has not only anything gameplay relevant but also cosmetics in game. Without additional spending. I know, crazy right? Gearbox will file for bankruptcy any minute now.

This notion that these companies are forced to be greedy scumbags is nonsense. They choose to be.
 
Last edited:

JaggedSac

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,988
Burbs of Atlanta
Please show me skins you get for completing challenges sir. I haven't seen ANY for that matter.

Click left trigger on the main menu, go down to the ratio at the bottom left, click it, go right and and you'll see that most of those sections offer skins for completing them. Levelling up the tour of duty also gives skins. To see those, click left trigger, click Y, scroll right.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2017
15,278
The base game offers a wealth of content and the entry price is ridiculously cheap if you're a GP subscriber. Hell, $60 isn't bad considering the amount of game you're getting for the price.

They price cosmetics as such because people are willing to pay that amount for a bunch of tacky looking character and weapon skins. MS knows there is a precedence to how cosmetics are priced and they are aware of how much they can push before buyer dropoff. Everyone complaining about the MTX costs should also understand that this practice has been going on for years and it will not change until people stop paying for it. You all are a vocal minority; a swarm of krill in a sea of whales.