@tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:
@troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:
@tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:
@troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:
@tre-oni said in How much would you pay for a pet?:
@troubled-cells said in How much would you pay for a pet?:
Personally i refuse to pay for them.
I feel it opens the door to all sorts.
whatever next emotes, vaulted cosmetics or god forbid loot boxes?
call me old fashioned but i instead believe that if you keep improving your game and adding decent content you can translate that in to sales of your game with the correct marketing and exposure.
it worked a treat for shrouded spoils.
Except.. selling a game for a one off price, and then still having those people buy more things they like, while improving the game, translating to more new sales, and again more potential micropurchases is still way more money made for long term improvements than single sales, and waiting around for something to stick, and more people to buy your game.
The beautiful thing about option 1.. you don't actually have to purchase anything yourself.
No, but let's be honest, microtransactions ruin In game economies, shadow of war, mortal Kombat x, halo 5, call of duty, battlefront 2 and even the upcoming anthem.
Being real here.. SoT doesn't exactly have an economy or "meta" to break by selling cosmetic pets.
Because they don't currently exist, but there would be once introduced.
To which I'll refer you to my original point, it opens the door for many more.
I don't believe for one moment these MTX's would be exclusive to pets In the long run, it would be naive to think they are.
Whats your point? Other than simply being vehemently against it?
No. There wouldn't suddenly be some meta, or economic destruction because people who wanted to buy cosmetics decided to do so.
Maybe not exclusively pets, but exclusively cosmetics.. which pets fall under in this instance with how they're intended to be implemented..
So again.. aside from being obviously against optional cosmetic purchases where is your point?
"It opens the door for many more"
Yet you don't see Overwatch for example selling EXP boost, or a Reaper skin with a +immunity to rocket damage.. granted, being rng based it doesn't change that everything they've ever sold was still just cosmetic lootboxes. And they make plenty of money doing so, yet still haven't crossed the alleged inevitable "gateway" selling boost and buffs per match.
Ah if I had a dime for everytime a person made the "player choice" and "it's just cosmetic" arguement lol
Overwatch based it's economy on loot boxes with odds being lower on higher tier rewards in the hopes of pushing the player to buy loot box packs. They even use the time old " fear of missing out" tactic with "seasonal" items that are time limited to push purchases of loot box packs. Who else uses time limited cosmetics ?
Thanks for using a example, that just reaffirms my suspicions.
We can agree to disagree, but rare definitely ain't going out of business and ceasing development if MTX's aren't added, like some people would try to imply.