Charging for cosmetics? Why?

@m4dkraut said in Charging for pets?:

all dlc ever released will be for free

They announced a premium shop where you will have to purchase pets. Pets are the only thing mentioned.
The term "DLC" is open to interpretation. In this context micro transactions are an exclusion.

All content that was not in at launch, that must be downloaded, is “DLC”.

In a game where the cosmetic content IS the games progression, you are essentially gating off content behind a paywall by having paid cosmetics.

The slippery slope of claiming that “all” DLC will be free, then charging for some of it, is going to result in numerous negative articles on gaming websites, which will outweigh these few pets sold in loss of sales.

@lowbei You are technically corrected. Which is the best kind of correct.

I agree with you but that doesn't mean that a company with a TOS written in legalese does.
I think the premium shop is bull. Before, I said "pets are the only thing mentioned." I should have ended that with "for now."

Its a 60 dollar game with not much content and negative press so far. Why, other than excessive greed, are they going to charge for a parrot or monkey?

Why wouldnt a pirate game come with a parrot? How about pegleg or hook hand? Would it be ok for those to he paid content only too? By this logic, literally all cosmetic content could be like this.

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

There will be no lootbox style purchases you will know exactly what you get when you buy it. Beyond that, they have also said there will be pets unlockable through in game quests but premium/special/ ones you will be personally attached to can be bought with real moneys.

Its a 60 dollar game with not much content and negative press so far. Why, other than excessive greed, are they going to charge for a parrot or monkey?

Why wouldnt a pirate game come with a parrot? How about pegleg or hook hand? Would it be ok for those to he paid content only too? By this logic, literally all cosmetic content could be like this.

Again there will be pets available through missions

Only ones you want to buy will need to be bought

Then why make paid ones? Everyone knows that the cosmetics here are simply recolored skins of the same model. If they arent, then you will end up with all the best skins behind a paywall, because they need incentive to make people buy it. The result, a year later, is a game where all the coolest skins are paid for, resulting in the actual games content becoming trivial and seen as useless.

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

There will be no lootbox style purchases you will know exactly what you get when you buy it. Beyond that, they have also said there will be pets unlockable through in game quests but premium/special/ ones you will be personally attached to can be bought with real moneys.

Its a 60 dollar game with not much content and negative press so far. Why, other than excessive greed, are they going to charge for a parrot or monkey?

Why wouldnt a pirate game come with a parrot? How about pegleg or hook hand? Would it be ok for those to he paid content only too? By this logic, literally all cosmetic content could be like this.

Again there will be pets available through missions

Only ones you want to buy will need to be bought

Then why make paid ones? Everyone knows that the cosmetics here are simply recolored skins of the same model. If they arent, then you will end up with all the best skins behind a paywall, because they need incentive to make people buy it. The result, a year later, is a game where all the coolest skins are paid for, resulting in the actual games content becoming trivial and seen as useless.

Eh, Fortnite does it well, although they are a bit overpriced they are upfront with what you're getting.

Rare hasn't impressed me with their customer service and their skins are trash.

Fortnite skins started out as trash too though, with basic recolors until they got laughed off the internet with their lazy BS. Epic apologized, refunded early access people who were unhappy and corrected their mistake.

Given time, they should be able to pull it off. This isn't the Rare of old. It's a bunch of eager idealistic new kids. It's going to take time for them to realize their grandiose vision will not change the industry or player habits and adapt accordingly.

Implemented correctly, there's no real problem with microtransactions. Get a job yo. We'll see what they can do. Hopefully something good.

@rattlyfob said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

There will be no lootbox style purchases you will know exactly what you get when you buy it. Beyond that, they have also said there will be pets unlockable through in game quests but premium/special/ ones you will be personally attached to can be bought with real moneys.

Its a 60 dollar game with not much content and negative press so far. Why, other than excessive greed, are they going to charge for a parrot or monkey?

Why wouldnt a pirate game come with a parrot? How about pegleg or hook hand? Would it be ok for those to he paid content only too? By this logic, literally all cosmetic content could be like this.

Again there will be pets available through missions

Only ones you want to buy will need to be bought

Then why make paid ones? Everyone knows that the cosmetics here are simply recolored skins of the same model. If they arent, then you will end up with all the best skins behind a paywall, because they need incentive to make people buy it. The result, a year later, is a game where all the coolest skins are paid for, resulting in the actual games content becoming trivial and seen as useless.

In the case of say a dog, you will buy the skin for the dog that most appeals to you. So you either get the free one or one with trye sentimental value to you

Better or worse skins are based purely on your own personal preference. As such, there is no harm here.

when asked about the 60 price tag and lack of content, they responded by saying that all dlc will be free, then negating their own statement by saying that theres some dlc content they will charge for.

the “harm” is to their brand, when the gaming sites drop negative articles about it and hurt sales.

@mrgrim67686 said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

There will be no lootbox style purchases you will know exactly what you get when you buy it. Beyond that, they have also said there will be pets unlockable through in game quests but premium/special/ ones you will be personally attached to can be bought with real moneys.

Its a 60 dollar game with not much content and negative press so far. Why, other than excessive greed, are they going to charge for a parrot or monkey?

Why wouldnt a pirate game come with a parrot? How about pegleg or hook hand? Would it be ok for those to he paid content only too? By this logic, literally all cosmetic content could be like this.

Again there will be pets available through missions

Only ones you want to buy will need to be bought

Then why make paid ones? Everyone knows that the cosmetics here are simply recolored skins of the same model. If they arent, then you will end up with all the best skins behind a paywall, because they need incentive to make people buy it. The result, a year later, is a game where all the coolest skins are paid for, resulting in the actual games content becoming trivial and seen as useless.

Implemented correctly, there's no real problem with microtransactions. Get a job yo. We'll see what they can do. Hopefully something good.

i have a job, im pirate legend, and I think that if they were confident in their product, they wouldnt be trying to nickel and dime people on the side.

@rattlyfob said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

@lowbei said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@rattlyfob said in Charging for pets?:

There will be no lootbox style purchases you will know exactly what you get when you buy it. Beyond that, they have also said there will be pets unlockable through in game quests but premium/special/ ones you will be personally attached to can be bought with real moneys.

Its a 60 dollar game with not much content and negative press so far. Why, other than excessive greed, are they going to charge for a parrot or monkey?

Why wouldnt a pirate game come with a parrot? How about pegleg or hook hand? Would it be ok for those to he paid content only too? By this logic, literally all cosmetic content could be like this.

Again there will be pets available through missions

Only ones you want to buy will need to be bought

Then why make paid ones? Everyone knows that the cosmetics here are simply recolored skins of the same model. If they arent, then you will end up with all the best skins behind a paywall, because they need incentive to make people buy it. The result, a year later, is a game where all the coolest skins are paid for, resulting in the actual games content becoming trivial and seen as useless.

In the case of say a dog, you will buy the skin for the dog that most appeals to you. So you either get the free one or one with trye sentimental value to you

Better or worse skins are based purely on your own personal preference. As such, there is no harm here.

when asked about the 60 price tag and lack of content, they responded by saying that all dlc will be free, then negating their own statement by saying that theres some dlc content they will charge for.

the “harm” is to their brand, when the gaming sites drop negative articles about it and hurt sales.

Major DLC is free with minor micro transactions. Yeah, seems consistant.
Considering they have yet to add any micro transactions nor have said when they would be released it seems foolish to bring this up now.

... thats not what they said. they said all dlc would be free.

@lowbei Microtransactions are not DLC in the traditional sense.

I don't care if Goofy McGooberson wants to spend 20 bucks on a monkey. Good for him. That's his choice. There's no advantage for spending money, so I don't see the issue. Hell, I applaud it if it will add diversity to the game.

The only way to continue to sustain the game will be through microtransactions. They can't run the servers perpetually or pay the development team for this game without some form of continuous income.

If they want to secure that income, they're going to have to step their game up way above pallet swaps.

@shuoink said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

I do think its a bit of a slipper slope..
First they start with just pets.. they are cosmetic so it doesnt matter..
then suddenly you can also just pay for in game gold instead of grinding for it, watch those captain chests suddenly be worth 200 gold a piece...

exactly.

if all content is just cosmetic, then why shouldnt gold be sold in the store, since its only used for cosmetic purchases?

hes absolutely correct. if people let them get away with this, then they will sell gold packs on the website soon afterwards, and sell pirate legend status, because it would be fiscally irresponsible of them not to, because who cares, its all just cosmetic, right?

@mrgrim67686 Because the game sure as heck didn't sell, least not as much as I'd bet MS was hoping for. MT's are going to be the only thing that hopefully keeps the game afloat, but if they have what most companies do and have one pet that you get from questing, dull and silly looking, vs the shiny sword wielding pet with flames on its tail. You might get a bit of backlash.

... when they announce the paid cosmetic shop, it better not have the dozens of missing clothes that they advertised the game with in beta.

thats like me showing you a picture of a big beefy cheeseburger and charging you 10 bucks, then giving you two pieces of bread and telling you to come back to the counter to order the meat and cheese seperately.

@argus-leadhead said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@kashaarafall said in Charging for cosmetics? Why?:

@mrgrim67686 Because the game sure as heck didn't sell.

Nope, didn't sell at all... Unless you count the nearly two million copies, excluding game pass players.

I guess around $120,000,000 is chump change for you. Wanna send some dosh my pay if that's you're idea of "didn't sell"?

Ah yes, I knew one would pop up sooner or later, the person quoting the multitude of sites on the few days after release stating "The game sold 2 million copies without Xbox pass!" Those same sites also say "The game had a 2 million player base without Xbox pass." etc. Basically, they are saying all of this without proof and the decline in numbers which wasn't too high to begin with outside of the pass(Which you can clearly see caused quite the decline, but 2 million, eh?) butttt, you're ok to believe some article that was sent out to multiple sites over and over with the same story.

You know, if I told you the sea was purple and got enough sites to post it with a photoshopped version, would you believe it too? Tell RARE/MS to show you graphs of players and their sales and then you can come back with your defending statement, but as it has shown, the playerbase was there, it isn't now and the fact people got refunds on MS store with well over 50 hours, kinda shows the botch, don't ya think?

Rare want see what happened when EA tried to fleece gamers with BF2. Publishers really need to start listening to the actual people who pay their wages and use their products.

If rare charges anything for content imho the backlash would finish the game for good as only a moron wouldn't see it as an exploit.