The Division’s Premium Vendor might be the worst example of microtransactions yet - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=NitronikALT;51970286]Base price being 60$ (which is NOT irrelevant, even with a decent income) and the offer being kinda bad (1 to 5$ for barely visible patterns and flat recolours) are the two major issues here. Just to go back on Overwatch, at least there are skins that completely alter your look at a decent price, rather than just recolouring your trousers in neon orange for 3$[/QUOTE] Then just don't buy them. How does this impact you if you choose not to buy them?

[QUOTE=geel9;51970439]Then just don't buy them. How does this impact you if you choose not to buy them?[/QUOTE] and how is this related to my criticism?

[QUOTE=NitronikALT;51970445]and how is this related to my criticism?[/QUOTE] You state that the "two major issues" are that the base game costs $60 and the offer is bad. If the offer is bad, don't take it. Wow, congratulations. There's one issue immediately taken care of with absolutely no repercussions whatsoever. The base game's price has nothing to do with the content that in no way impacts your gameplay. You're still playing the same game you paid $60 for, and not taking the bad deal for literal optional cosmetics doesn't change your game in any way whatsoever.

this is giving me flashbacks to that one guy who legit argued that cosmetics in CS:GO affected gameplay because he used to be able to "identify guns by looking at them"

[QUOTE=geel9;51970451]You state that the "two major issues" are that the base game costs $60 and the offer is bad. If the offer is bad, don't take it. Wow, congratulations. There's one issue immediately taken care of with absolutely no repercussions whatsoever. The base game's price has nothing to do with the content that in no way impacts your gameplay. You're still playing the same game you paid $60 for, and not taking the bad deal for literal optional cosmetics doesn't change your game in any way whatsoever.[/QUOTE] but those are indeed the two major issues with this change. Doesn't change the fact that it's lazy for the most part lmao

[QUOTE=NitronikALT;51970463]but those are indeed the two major issues with this change. Doesn't change the fact that it's lazy for the most part lmao[/QUOTE] But it just doesn't matter. It doesn't impact you at all. Is it flawed? Yes. Does it matter? Not really, no.

[QUOTE=NitronikALT;51970463]but those are indeed the two major issues with this change. Doesn't change the fact that it's lazy for the most part lmao[/QUOTE] but one of those "issues" was already there, not part of the change, and you were always able to buy cosmetics for The Division, they just added an extra vendor for it now.

[QUOTE=geel9;51970467]But it just doesn't matter. It doesn't impact you at all. Is it flawed? Yes. Does it matter? Not really, no.[/QUOTE] Yea sure, the game might mechanically be the same, but aesthetical integrity often goes into the crapper with cosmetic MTs, because everyone is running around with their special snowflake neon skins, that wouldn't really exist if it weren't for the fact that you can milk it excellently. Character customization used to be a free feature until the industry discovered that some people obsess enough over this shit to pay 300$ for a fucking virtual knife.

[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;51970549]Yea sure, the game might mechanically be the same, but aesthetical integrity often goes into the crapper with cosmetic MTs, because everyone is running around with their special snowflake neon skins, that wouldn't really exist if it weren't for the fact that you can milk it excellently. Character customization used to be a free feature until the industry discovered that some people obsess enough over this shit to pay 300$ for a fucking virtual knife.[/QUOTE] You can already get a fair amount of cosmetics with in-game currency anyway so your point is invalid. Most of them are butt-ugly as well.

Not really? I was arguing against cosmetic MTs in general, and even in this specific case it doesn't invalidate my point entirely, there still is a consciously placed incentive to buy this stuff, even if you just pay to get it faster. And most of them being butt-ugly was more or less specifically part of my argument (even though my wording was focussed on another aspect).

[QUOTE=ThatSprite;51968836]If they were so optional and ignorable then why were they in a $60 game to begin with? They had no purpose being there other than for greedy executives wanting to squeeze even more money out of the game. So yes, I think they were[I] that[/I] bad. Also, if they were "cosmetic", how would they make you "way too powerful early-game"? That's literally pay to win what you described that has absolutely no purpose in its existence. [editline]16th March 2017[/editline] The fact that people are completely okay with microtransactions in their fully-priced games and handwaving them off as "just cosmetic" is frankly absurd. [B]They should not be there to begin with.[/B][/QUOTE] What I was saying, yeah the motive is just as bad as with p much any game featuring microtransactions, ie greed, especially those with p2w/gameplay-affecting items exclusive to the system. In DS3's case you're not affecting anyone's experience but your own (And a buddy if you're playing coop), and do not gain access to anything not already included in the game, or otherwise unavailable at whatever point you decide to buy those resources [quote]Also, if they were "cosmetic", how would they make you "way too powerful early-game"? That's literally pay to win what you described that has absolutely no purpose in its existence.[/quote] To clarify, you gain access to the weapons with those cosmetic skins only slightly earlier than you'd reasonably be able craft/assemble them without, but they're otherwise the same. The suits are again, purely cosmetic - damage resistance/health/air and their upgrades are universal across suits. Generally I despise microtransactions, cosmetic or otherwise, but DS3 is a bad example to use since 1: The cosmetics fit the theme and 2: use of the gameplay-effecting microtransactions won't help you that much, just expand the options available

Why is everyone complaining. If the game makes money while it's live, it gets continued support. And it's optional and cosmetic only, in a game where you already have a fuck ton of cosmetic choices within the game, so what's the big deal. People aren't having a shit fit because WoW does it, and not only does WoW make you pay out of the ass for its expansions, you have to pay every month just to play it even though you bought the game for $60, and each expansion for $40 as they came out. Now if they were selling armor sets with specific rolls on stats, or gear caches, or unique weapons, sure, That would be total horse shit. But it's a fucking pair of virtual pants. Come on guys. Cosmetic Microtransactions are the only acceptable form of microtransactions, And Quality of Life is okay if it's a Free to Play game.

[QUOTE=geel9;51965161]It's just fucking cosmetic items who gives a shit[/QUOTE] People who paid for a game.

[QUOTE=LaTrefle;51978398]People who paid for a game.[/QUOTE] Enjoy only a 6~month lifespan for updates and support then.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;51981233]Enjoy only a 6~month lifespan for updates and support then.[/QUOTE] Not like microtransactions are the only thing that would provide additional revenue. Example, Season Pass and other game updates apart from microtransactions.

[QUOTE=geel9;51965161]It's just fucking cosmetic items who gives a shit[/QUOTE] Yeah who cares about visuals in a video game.