This thread is permanently archived
Valorants weapon skins are fucking ridiculous
| Yeah it's ridiculous
| Yeah it's ridiculous
| Yeah it's ridiculous
| Yeag it's ridiculous
| Yeag gt's ridiculous
| Yeag gt's ridicilious
| Yeag gt's ridigilious
| Yggh gd's rigidiliois
| Uggh gh's rrggdrlrrgs
| Uggh gh's rrggdrllrgg
| Ogggh gh's rrggdrllii
| That's what we get for enabling "just cosmetic" excuse for games like fortine and ovewratch.
| We all knew this was going to happen. And it's the NPCs that continue to buy and protect. If you have any opinion against the fact or even mention "Sure, but dlc..." You get flamed and ignored.
This is why modern games suck so much dick. Just go emulate something, or find a SW BF II private server.
| >>680992 most franchises wouldn't be runied if companies left them alone, or had original ideas.
Instead we get more of the same, but with the sameness taken out and repackaged as "DLC" for more $$$
It's so bad you can't even talk about games without mentioning DLC. Remember when that wasn't even a thing? When you could talk about stories or shipping?
| Just wanted to let you know that the 'Uggh gh's rrggdrlrrgs'-part had me in stitches.
>>680991
I think paid cosmetics is a proven way of supporting a game you like that is either F2P or too old to sell well. Usually the income generated from sells have a direct influence on future patches.
It's just when big AAA companies did it that it's sketchy.
| I think majority of anyone would call out absurd $300 priced skins, be it from indie or AAA.
And that's $300 dollars at maximum tier. You pay more for each tier for a colour variant? Fuck outta here.
| To be honest I could care less about cosmetics so I don't care if it's a $100 or $1000 I'm not gonna buy them nor am I gonna be jealous though I'd think that anyone who does buy them really enjoys the game and wants to support the devs especially for f2p games.
| the reply above me is why these greedy fags can do $300 dollar skins smh
| Both replies tbh.
Remember when cosmetics were unlockable? What a joke.
| >>681447 YES
Remember when we only paid for the geme and nothing more? No DLC, no microtransactions and no lazy polishing that would come in a later pach, those were the times
Also hot take: if a game has a certain amount of microtransactions it should be free to play
| Another hot take: I'm not waiting a fuckin year for a game to "get better".
If your game is buggier than all get out, I'm not putting money in your damn product.
| >>681465 so true, it feels like No Man Sky and Fallout76 launched one year after the actual launch
| Tbh I wasn't thinking of those when I said that. It's been too long and I can't be bothered.
But it brings up another point; I remember talking about games longer than the month they were released in.
Lately I've been hearing a joke from others, and the more I hear it the less of a joke it becomes.
"Get excited for product, then get excited for next product"
| Why, does it matter? Is it a problem that companies do this? They're not blocking content. They're not giving people who spend more money advantages. It has literally no impact on the game at all.
It's like complaining about designer clothes. It's funny to joke about "haha person spent $500 on t-shirt with a word on it", but it's just retarded to get outraged about it. The people who have the money to waste on that shit can do it. It doesn't impact anyone else.
| But it does have impact on the game. With people willing to pay for basic stuff like colors and even music tracks, companies have no incentive to leave it in the game as unlockable. They'll literally take it out to be resold.
Your example is poor. It's actually more like complaining about quality of food. If a place gives less food for more money than another restaurant, why would I bother spending money.
| >>681579
But it doesn't matter if it's unlockable since it doesn't give you any advantage. Most of you probably don't even want to use the skins. Are you sure you're not just jelly for being poor?
In many cases(not AAA) the sales of cosmetics directly influences future patches. People who like the game and want to continue playing it can pay their chosen amount and in return they get something extra.
| >>681579
>Your example is poor. It's actually more like complaining about quality of food. If a place gives less food for more money than another restaurant, why would I bother spending money.
This site can be so fucking dumb at times. The food is completely redundant in your chosen example.
| Should I compare it to buying cars? Or models? Makes more sense than clothes.
Unless retailers have found a way to make you pay for sleeves on your t-shirts.
| Wait my bad forget my post I'm dumb
| >>681571 "it has no impact on the game" I wouldn't say that. If you say "It doesn't give adventages", then you are right, but cosmetics does have an impact on your enjoyment.
If you go play MMOs, most of them put so much effort in their character creator (which is "just cosmetics") and players enjoy making their character looks pretty/stand out. Now imagine the outrage if MMO like Black Desert Online suddenly only allow you to start with stock characters and pay to constumize them
| *customize
Also, DLC is not entirely bad. Before companies know DLC, they make you pay multiple times for a little differences version of then game. Example: Guitar hero games and a lot if Atlus games like Persona 3-5
| >>681611
I still don't understand how cosmetics have a significant impact on the game from your post.
A character creator isn't DLC cosmetics. And your example is weird since it's taken directly from the air with no real life examples.
| >>681648 cosmetics = content. Impact not in terms of gameplay, but in terms of enjoyment.
People enjoy making their characters look pretty, if you lock the cosmetics behind a paywall, they won't enjoy the game as much unless they pay.
How games incorporate more and more sophisticated character creator and how much player cares about their shiny armor/items indicates that cosmetics play an integral parts as a content that affects your experiences in playing the game.
| I am mostly a single-player gurl, if my example weren't acceptable, that's probably why. Not sure if this is better, but I think Dead Or Alive games can be the example for this.
I thunk DOA has accepted the fact that they are "relying" on the sexual appeal of their characters. People who play DOA games, most likely play it for the girls more than the fighting mechanics.
| Now, the publisher of course know this, so they add cure/sexy costumes and bikinis DLCs. Naturally, players that play DOA for the girls will have to purchase these costume DLCs to actually get what they are playing for.
This costumes don't give any advantages when you fight, but to get the most out of your boob simulator fighting game, you'll have to buy those "just cosmetics" DLCs.
| >>0796db
It is very clear that you're a single-player g/u/rl, yeah. Games like Valorant and CS:GO are not RPGs. They're shooters. Not being able to customize your character that much doesn't make the game less immersive, because you're just another counterterrorist or terrorist (or in Valorant, you're the character you select).
So, again, how does it ruin the enjoyment? If people play games just for customising their character and not the gameplay, they shouldn't play Valorant.
This thread is permanently archived
| I understand that you don't need to purchase them, and it's optional--but who the hell would shell out hundreds of dollars to buy a pack? https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/hoxxh4/the_new_dragon_pack_cost_about_292_fully_upgraded/