"It's only cosmetics"

[Echo of Soul]

Well if we ignore the P2W aspect of it all it's about ruining the entire experience. Have you ever played a single player game and put in a cheat code or use an exploit to give you more power, it's pretty much the same thing.
Working your way to get better and more powerful is the heart of most games. Skipping to the end just ruins it.

[Pull My Finger]

Well to be honest, "it's only cosmetics" isn't really an argument. I'm aware that some people play games like an Excel sheet and only obsess themselves with min-maxing. That's their choice and something that gets them going I guess. But that's certainly not the norm. Video games are all about looking, feeling and sounding cool and exciting - every bit as much as they're about great gameplay and interactivity. It's a creative medium and not a performance test.

Cash shop stuff is problematic and contradictory to the whole idea of gaming period, no matter if it's "just" aesthetic or "performance-enhancing". I'm certainly not gonna throw a fit about every little thing that for example Blizzard puts in their cash shop, but I'd rather live in a world where that whole crap isn't a thing, and stuff that's being made for the game is available through the game. At the end of the day, everything cash-shop related is just a cash-in and technically a rip off.

[Deleted]

What if it's a PVE game though?

The argument stays valid, no matter if PvP or PvE. There is a different form of competition in PvE (like CMs, world or server firsts), so a gaming advantage would screw with that, but cosmetics not.

The only thing where cosmetics matter at all is the roleplaying aspect, in getting the perfect look to express your character concept. And for this, long grinds or difficult circumstances can bring a sense of accomplishment, but are not needed ultimately. This is especially ture if you would like to use a special look on a low level character for RP purposes only (like creating an arch-mage for a RP sessions which would later be deleted, possibly).

[Yriel]

Looking cool doesn't give someone an advantage over anyone else.

I beg to differ. Someone with a cool looking armor/weapon/character skin will get much more attention and respect than someone with slightly better stats in MMO environments. And yes, in the context of a 1:1 fight that won't benefit you but when it gets to matters of prestige on a server or something good looks will benefit you. People will notice you, people will remember you.

I bet that the majority of gamers would choose a cool looking item with slightliy worse stats over a bland looking item with slightly better stats.

"It's only cosmetics" is a moot argument for (i'd say) the majority of gamers.

[Nutri]

Someone with a cool looking armor/weapon/character skin will get much more attention and respect than someone with slightly better stats in MMO environments.

Respect in an MMO? Which one is that, I'd love to try that one.

[Graeham]

Looking cool doesn't give someone an advantage over anyone else.

Debatable, really. A lot of people are only interested in collecting interesting looking weapons and armour after all. If all the best looking stuff is locked behind a pay wall then there's a major problem.

[unholytestament]

I beg to differ. Someone with a cool looking armor/weapon/character skin will get much more attention and respect than someone with slightly better stats in MMO environments.

Beg whatever you wish, but most players tend to either not care or look down on people who purchase the cosmetic items from the store.

And yes, in the context of a 1:1 fight that won't benefit you but when it gets to matters of prestige on a server or something good looks will benefit you. People will notice you, people will remember you.

Citation needed.

The fact of the matter is that if a cosmetic item can be bought then people will know it's one that is bought. Those items carry no prestige.

I bet that the majority of gamers would choose a cool looking item with slightliy worse stats over a bland looking item with slightly better stats.

This statement is lacking important details. Did that cool looking item cost them 15 bucks? If not then it has nothing to do with this topic.

Debatable, really. A lot of people are only interested in collecting interesting looking weapons and armour after all. If all the best looking stuff is locked behind a pay wall then there's a major problem.

Well that's a pretty big "if" there, isn't it?

I'm willing to bet any game that applies to isn't very popular to begin with.

[ro9ue]

Well to be honest, "it's only cosmetics" isn't really an argument. I'm aware that some people play games like an Excel sheet and only obsess themselves with min-maxing. That's their choice and something that gets them going I guess. But that's certainly not the norm. Video games are all about looking, feeling and sounding cool and exciting - every bit as much as they're about great gameplay and interactivity. It's a creative medium and not a performance test.

Cash shop stuff is problematic and contradictory to the whole idea of gaming period, no matter if it's "just" aesthetic or "performance-enhancing". I'm certainly not gonna throw a fit about every little thing that for example Blizzard puts in their cash shop, but I'd rather live in a world where that whole crap isn't a thing, and stuff that's being made for the game is available through the game. At the end of the day, everything cash-shop related is just a cash-in and technically a rip off.

I agree with you 100% and this is sort of what I was trying to discuss before the thread got derailed into a P2W definition argument.

The bottom line is, people often say "it's just cosmetics" as if that makes it totally okay to just sell on a shop. A lot of the motivating factors of playing a game for some people is aesthetic rewards, titles, mounts and things like skins. Just because there is no way to quantify subjective desire, doesn't mean it's somehow lesser than a stat advantage. Both of these things, aesthetic and statistical, living outside the realm of the game's reward structure are bad.

[unholytestament]

I agree with you 100% and this is sort of what I was trying to discuss before the thread got derailed into a P2W definition argument.

You asked why people don't care when it's cosmetic but do care when it has stats. If you can't see how that feeds into the pay to win argument then you're not paying attention.

The bottom line is, people often say "it's just cosmetics" as if that makes it totally okay to just sell on a shop. A lot of the motivating factors of playing a game for some people is aesthetic rewards, titles, mounts and things like skins.

But those people aren't going to stop playing once they buy a cosmetic item, even if they think it's the best one available.

When it comes to appearances the kinds of people who think it is a big deal aren't going to get the thing they think is the best and then never change it. They tend to tire of using the same thing over and over and will pour over new items added to the game for a new look. The same goes with mounts, as using the same one all the time makes even the coolest ones lose their appeal.

Whereas if a raider could buy the best weapon of that patch they wouldn't change it because it's the best.

Just because there is no way to quantify subjective desire, doesn't mean it's somehow lesser than a stat advantage. Both of these things, aesthetic and statistical, living outside the realm of the game's reward structure are bad.

Except cosmetic rewards have always been on different rules than statistical ones. You get scores of random items of no statistical value from holiday events, special promotions, the collectors' editions, and so on. That is clearly outside the reward structure you're talking about.

Imagine if instead of a mount and pet you instead got the (statistical) best armor in the game when you bought the collector's edition. You can see the difference here, right?

[ro9ue]

You can see the difference here, right?

No, no I can totally see the difference. I just wonder why there aren't more people upset about selling cosmetics, it's almost like they are worthless. Like what if the MoP CM gold sets were cash shop sets?

[unholytestament]

No, no I can totally see the difference. I just wonder why there aren't more people upset about selling cosmetics, it's almost like they are worthless. Like what if the MoP CM gold sets were cash shop sets?

Stop asking why and then ignoring everyone who gives you an answer.

[Edge-]

A good example for well hidden Pay 2 win would be Aion. You can get everything in the shop via in game efforts ( a few cosmetics aside ) but it takes a lot of time, an awful lot of time.

NA or EU version? I know EU is pretty shit because of Gameforge, but last I remember the NA version isn't bad at all.

[ro9ue]

Stop asking why and then ignoring everyone who gives you an answer.

Let me pose this to you in a different way.

What if a game only had stat increases in game, but ALL of your character's aesthetic changes and customizations had to be purchased. Is that okay from your perspective? It's hyperbolic and hypothetical, but I think it's the best way to illustrate my point. At some point there should be a line for selling cosmetic items, which are a primary reward for many players. But how do you judge where that line is?

Maybe you think it doesn't matter at all if there are no aesthetic rewards in the game and it's just all in the cash shop?

[Mad_Murdock]

No, no I can totally see the difference. I just wonder why there aren't more people upset about selling cosmetics, it's almost like they are worthless. Like what if the MoP CM gold sets were cash shop sets?

People pay for weapon skins and outfits in Call of Duty. Most of the time I can't even tell they have a weapon skin, so I can't imagine why anyone would pay for it. But they do, so they can be unique and special only to see they are like everyone else.

I and many others hated the start of the whole DLC movement years ago, but it's here and people are embracing it whole heartedly. The days of getting all bent over it are past. Until you get 99% of the players to pass on all the frills, what could be part of the game will be sold later as DLC.

[unfilteredJW]

No, no I can totally see the difference. I just wonder why there aren't more people upset about selling cosmetics, it's almost like they are worthless. Like what if the MoP CM gold sets were cash shop sets?

If those sets didn't come with achievements there is no issue.

But I'm still one of those people that get confused by the whole "I want my gear to carry prestige" crowd. But that's mostly due to the way I'm wired.

Games like Marvel Heroes do it right, I love buying the costumes, especially the enhanced ones (Superior Spider Man is awesome).

[Edge-]

What if a game only had stat increases in game, but ALL of your character's aesthetic changes and customizations had to be purchased. Is that okay from your perspective? It's hyperbolic and hypothetical, but I think it's the best way to illustrate my point.

Actually, because it's so hyperbolic it's not a good way to illustrate your point. In that far, far, far extreme that will never happen, yes, players wouldn't be happy. But no game is going to do that, so it's not worth considering as part of the current discussion.

At some point there should be a line for selling cosmetic items, which are a primary reward for many players. But how do you judge where that line is?

Players do on a game by game basis, voicing their complaints through official channels and "voting" with their wallets.

Maybe you think it doesn't matter at all if there are no aesthetic rewards in the game and it's just all in the cash shop?

Nobody has said that in this thread. But folks have been pretty unified in their acceptance of the monetization of non-gameplay impacting elements like cosmetics. There are criticisms over pricing in some games, there are criticisms that too many of the "cool" cosmetics are locked in the cash shop rather than being accessible in-game, there are criticisms of just about any aspect you can think of.

But the general consensus is, and has been, that monetizing cosmetics is infinitely more preferable bot monetizing in-game power.

[Queen of Hamsters]

"Best looking appearance"...well that's assuming everyone agrees on what looks the best, which is quite impossible.

[Deleted]

Some people are upset, especially when they seem to be blatantly content related mounts like the iron horde reaver mount or the WOD bug mount that feel like they should have been ingame, instead we have rep factions giving us our 18th wolf and 9th pig.

Things like the star pony felt passable since they were kinda silly and whatever, the hats I've never liked the look of and they're small.

Cash shop isn't something I particularly like, especially when it feels like it's taking content that should be in the game and WOD makes you wonder where the money's going, but it could have been done a lot worse and thankfully isn't being flooded with things, it's infrequently updated which helps the playerbase feel like it's unimportant, there are a lot worse ways to do it, even if far from perfect and probably unwanted by most people.

[unholytestament]

Let me pose this to you in a different way.

How about you address what people have said instead?

It's hyperbolic and hypothetical,

So it shall be ignored. There are a lot of people talking about the way things are right now and you seem to prefer to ignore it for some reason...

Maybe you think it doesn't matter at all if there are no aesthetic rewards in the game and it's just all in the cash shop?

It seems we have already reached the point where people will put words in my mouth...

What game are you talking about that has no aesthetic rewards available through gameplay? Is this a real game or can you only present hypotheticals and hyperbole?

[ro9ue]

But I'm still one of those people that get confused by the whole "I want my gear to carry prestige" crowd. But that's mostly due to the way I'm wired.

It's one thing if you don't care about it, but it by no means should be confusing or surprising to you. It's very common for humans to want distinguishing marks to express their life experiences whether it be through tattoos or buying a luxury car even though it just basically has a logo difference from another car 20,000 cheaper.

Is it a little vain? Sure. But I personally like it in games. There's something to be said by killing a hard boss and then being able to show it off. There's a reason many players will use the most prestigious titles and mounts over something they like visually. (I'm mixed on this.) Like I love the title Dragonslayer, but it hasn't really meant anything for a few years because the content you get it from is super easy now and the title is pretty ubiquitous.

I like distinguishing myself from others. I like wearing my HWL xmog once and a while even though it looks like shit. Basically says hey I did this thing.

- - - Updated - - -

How about you address what people have said instead?

So it shall be ignored. There are a lot of people talking about the way things are right now and you seem to prefer to ignore it for some reason...

It seems we have already reached the point where people will put words in my mouth...

What game are you talking about that has no aesthetic rewards available through gameplay? Is this a real game or can you only present hypotheticals and hyperbole?

You aren't actually answering anything you're just saying I'm ignoring stuff? Guess I'm done with this conversation.