Apex Legends’ Final Fantasy VII Crossover Prompts Fan Outcry. Players of the battle royale shooter are baffled by the $300+ price for the cosmetics

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.worksmod to Games@sh.itjust.works – 67 points –
Apex Legends’ Final Fantasy VII Crossover Prompts Fan Outcry
kotaku.com
59

You are viewing a single comment

Lmfao $300+?!

What's funny about this stuff, is Apex Legends developers more than likely gets paid to include this cross promotional material in their game, then they turn around and sell it to players. Really this is all just an ad, and if you pay for an ad you're an idiot.

The big price tag is part of the ad! That's how you get mentioned and people speak about it.

Some idiots will also buy it, so there's that, too.

I actually don't care if a free to play game has cosmetics you can buy. They need to make some money some how. As long as you don't get a real advantage by paying money.

I also don't mind being able to purchase cosmetic, non-gameplay affecting items. But I have always felt the prices are wack as fuck, even back when Horse Armor dropped. A skin should not be more than $1, IMO. Especially skins that are nothing more than a color swap.

Or you could mod the game, you know.

I'm not paying so I can see the skin. I'm paying so everyone else can see how cool I look. If it's single player, I would never pay for a skin. At the prices they charge, I don't buy them in MP either. But I might if they were $1 or less.

Exactly, and that's what opponents to cosmetics don't seem to understand. These serve the same function as fashion in clothing.

I am not opposed to cosmetics.

I am opposed to having to pay more real world money for content that already exists in the game, for everyone, that has no other way of accessing it.

You could, for example, have a cosmetic system that works something like the character creation spore:

Design a bunch of modular elements that can be assembled together in many ways, though bounded by various constraints so they would not break gameplay.

An even simpler version would be ok you unlocked this style of say pants, and it has various ways it can be hemmed or rolles up or dyed or have accessories mounted to it, and there are accompanying in game mechanics for being able to do all that.

Honestly PayDay 2 has a fantastic system for its Masks: Some masks you can only get via certain in game achievements, others from luck of the draw (but its not a paid for loot box). Then the game has other similar ways to handle how you get the items to be able to customize your masks.

PayDay 2 does not have microtransactions.

It does have DLC. This is a far better funding and development model than MTX.

Finally, if your sense of fashion in the real world is that you have to pay more to look good, then you have no real sense of fashion beyond signalling 'Look At Me I Am Cool Because I Bought Expensive Thing'.

That is not a sense of fashion, that is just flaunting your wealth in am ostentatious, crude and immature manner.

An even simpler version would be ok you unlocked this style of say pants, and it has various ways it can be hemmed or rolles up or dyed or have accessories mounted to it, and there are accompanying in game mechanics for being able to do all that.

So is your issue that people who don't pay still have to download the content to see it on other players?

Would you be okay with a certain color of pants that's only accessible through outside purchase of a dye (i.e. one that cannot be traded)? That way other users don't need to download the dye, but they do need to have code on their machines to display that color.

The whole point here is to separate yourself from the unwashed masses, it doesn't matter as much what the character looks like. It's why the whole "blue bubble" vs "green bubble" thing is a thing, it's a separation between "classes" of people in a sense.

It does have DLC. This is a far better funding and development model than MTX.

DLC is the same thing, especially since so many are simply enabling a license for existing content. For example, I can play maps I don't have the DLC for provided the host has it, which means one of two things is happening:

  1. I download the map when I connect, but still can't access it w/o the license to do so
  2. The map is already downloaded (that's how most work) and I just load it up when the host verifies their license

The only difference is where the DLC is purchased (and maybe when the data is downloaded), and many games let you buy the DLC directly through the game. DLC can also be delisted, so what you seem to be asking for is for games w/ MTX to just jump through some extra hoops.

That is not a sense of fashion, that is just flaunting your wealth in am ostentatious, crude and immature manner.

That's what fashion is, and why "fashionable" things are expensive. People don't buy Rolex watches because they work better or look cooler than cheaper options, they buy them because they're expensive and others recognize that they're expensive. These usually have a level of quality to them, but they're rarely more durable or have more utility than cheaper options.

We treat it differently because we give it a different name, but at the end of the day, those fancy stores (MK, Coach, etc) are the "poor people's" designers and a way to flaunt some level of wealth (e.g. my in-laws gave me a ~$400 wallet from Burberry, which was functionally equivalent to other $50 wallets), and rich people do the same but with more private labels. I think I have successfully convinced my inlaws that I feel incredibly uncomfortable with such things (my current wallet cost $15-20, and I like it much better), but they still like buying that crap for themselves, despite being relatively poor (they live in an apartment, I live in a nice house).

It's the same thing, people like to look successful to other people and flaunt what they have. It's why so many rap songs boast about how much money they have, why celebrity awards ceremonies are largely about the fancy designer clothes they're wearing, and why luxury cars are so popular (I see a lot more luxury cars in apartment complexes than my middle to upper-middle class neighborhood). For certain types of people, flaunting wealth is the point, it makes them feel wealthy, even if they're up to their eyeballs in debt. I see exactly the same thing in upper-middle to upper-class neighborhoods, which is why I prefer to stick to the middle-class neighborhoods.

The same exact thing is happening with these games. People like to flaunt wealth, and that comes in a ton of forms.

My issue is that MTX is an exploitative predatory model for designing games and funding game development that essentially always leads to games that are unoriginal, that allows for and incentivizes very toxic social dynamics amongst its players, and that this often leads to many people with either poor impulse control or those susceptible to aforementioned toxic social dynamics will spend /too much/ of their money to the point it seriously negatively impacts their lives.

No, I would not be ok with a certain color being MTX only.

Not sure what you mean by blue bubble vs green bubble, but there are many ways one can seperate themselves from the masses in many games that feature character customization that do not feature MTX.

So, no DLC is not the same thing.

MTX to a large extent works by incremental gradualism in terms of the actual psychology of how it exploits susceptible people.

DLC on the other hand does not do this. Here is an outlined block of content, it usually features many new things in addition to new cosmetics, and usually all those things are not dependent on further microtransactions, but actual game play of some kind.

This is a much more straightforward and much less manipulative way to expand your games content.

While it still is not very common for games in general to allow players to play on maps they do not have, but a friend does, yes you are correct that a few games feature this.

This is irrelevant to the discussion of MTX, though. I do not have total and complete knowledge of all video games, but I have /never/ heard of playable maps as MTX before. Even if such a phenomenon does exist, maps are not usually tied to the player being able to alter gameplay for themselves /specifically/ or to clothing or weapons that /specifically/ are proven to be crucial elements to the toxic amd exploitative dynic that MTX creates.

The closest thing I can think of would be maybe an MMO with a player customizable house that has many things only obtainable via MTX, but I am not aware of a game with such features, and I would be against it anyway. Just make the things obtainable in game.

As to your views on fashion, I mean yes, many tasteless people view fashion only as a way to flaunt wealth.

That is /not/ what fashion actually is though to anyone with an actual sense of creative style.

This is not my area of expertise by any means but try asking actual character art designers what fashion is and how it works.

Different color schemes, styles of clothes, materials can all be mixed and matched, or paired neatly to convey certain elements of a character trying to be portrayed visually.

People who obsess over branded clothing items are nearlt always tasteless and have absolutely no sense of style.

It is entirely possible in many games, with and without microtransactions, to take different individual pieces of clothing amd make a unique look.

As example, though I dislike RockStar's incorporation of a premium currency mechanic that allows for players to pay real world money for in game content, the games both feature a wide array of clothing choices that can be mixed and matched individually to create your own looks for your character.

Or, you can buy a pre made outfit and immediately be laughed at by everyone for spending money on it, because there are now thousands of other clones that look just like you, and its entirely possible to look good without doing this, you just have to put in some effort and actually, you know, have an actual sense of fashion to determine what looks good or conveys what you want your character's appearance to convey, and when you have done this, it will actually be unique to you and your character.

Another example of this would be Cyberpunk 2077.

Its entirely possible to have a wardrobe that both looks good and is also effective in game... and is not just a cookie cutter clone of some faction or other character, but this requires actual work.

Much like how actually looking fashionable in real life does.

Further examples would be countless MMOs and even some more clothing heavy Survival Sims and MilSims at this point. Those games less commonly feature outright MTX, and again its entirely possible to do actual fashion by mixing and matching things until you find a 'look'.

The point of true fashion may be said to convey certain things about yourself or the character via their attire, and the art of it comes in to understanding how styles work, how the human form works, how colors work, how materials work, and then all of this is constrained by other factors such as practicality, affordability, etc.

Its more impressive to pull off a good looking cheap dress than a just as good looking but 20x as expensive one, unless your entire goal is projection of wealth /over/ actually looking good.

Work boots are relatively common and know for being useful in hard physically demanding conditions, so both a construction worker and a soldier may wear different versions of them.

But when a construction worker puts on mil grade knee pads and a scavenged carrier rig, and carries a battered rifle, this conveys a very different character than a standard soldier in BDU does:

We can immediately tell that he is doing this not as his profession and as a rather impromptu affair, that he likely did not plan for this.

I list these examples to attempt to show you how fashion and character appearance is far more than a competition of wealth display: In video games and movies it is very often a means of conveying the character through ways other than what they do or say.

As yet another example I once designed basically Sam Fisher in Arma 3, wearing pants utilitarian enough to be practical, but also conventional enough to look like many civilians. Had a button up dress shirt with plate body armor with PRESS emblazoned on it, shades, no helmet.

Practical, Fashionable, Mission Appropriate.

And I did not need any MTX to accomplish this.

blue bubble vs green bubble

The Apple messages thing where iMessage users have a different bubble color vs non-iMessage users (read: Android users). Here's a relevant article that discusses the social impact on children.

DLC on the other hand does not do this. Here is an outlined block of content, it usually features many new things in addition to new cosmetics, and usually all those things are not dependent on further microtransactions, but actual game play of some kind.

That's one form of DLC, sure, but there's no technical reason why MTX couldn't just be transitioned to appear as DLC. For example, you can buy Shark Cards for GTA V as a DLC, and that type of thing would normally be MTX within the game.

MTX is just a special type of DLC that is usually time-limited and is logged in your online account instead of your launcher. That's really it.

I have /never/ heard of playable maps as MTX before

You can buy maps for Risk: Global Domination as an MTX and use them if the host has them. Likewise, you can use any EU4 or CK3 DLC in an MP game if the host has them (only gameplay DLC, not cosmetics like unit packs). It's relatively common for SP games w/ MP mode, but a bit less common to gate maps behind a DLC/MTX for F2P games.

My point is that this is very similar to a cosmetic DLC/MTX. Basically, player A buys the "DLC," and other players can "use" the DLC when they see the player using the cosmetic. That's the same general idea as temporarily "getting" a DLC when joining an MP game. If we make MTX illegal, they'll just call them DLC because on a technical level, it's the same thing.

That said, I don't know of any games with "DLC" cosmetics that are visible but not usable by other players, aside from F2P games w/ MTX. But that's probably because if they're going to go that route, they'll make them time limited instead of permanent like most DLC are, but there's really no technical reason why they can't just make MTX work exactly like DLC (i.e. show up in your launcher under the DLC section). In short, why would they do the more complicated thing if they don't need to?

Thanks for letting me know what the green bubble blue thing is. I have never and will never use an Apple product for many reasons, so, didnt know that.

That being said, yeah, thats another example of an exploitative business decision that has no technical reason for existing whatsoever, and uses peer pressure to get children to waste money, like MTX.

I expanded my post a good bit a couple of times but maybe you missed it: Purchasable premium currency is /also/ a horrible, exploitative practice that is functionally indistinguishable from MTX in almost every way.

The fact that RockStars shark cards and gold for rdr2 are only purchasable on steam in the DLC section does not make premium currency DLC.

DLC is essentially an addon pack, an expansion of the original game with new levels, characters, maps, weapons, equipment, new gameplay modes, etc.

Another way of looking at DLC is that in the old days before it was practical to download more than around 100mbs as a patch, and a game developer wanted to release an expansion pack, they would sell a whole new cd at stores for maybe 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the base game.

Now, for the rest of your comment:

I am not saying that outlawing MTX would be 100% effective. My point is that MTX is /bad/, games that heavily rely on MTX are often bad, that it is exploitative, blah blah blah already wrote everything.

That being said: Your reasoning here is not certainly wrong, but likely not very good. Loot Boxes have been functionally banned after the EU figured out how to precisely define them, and shortly thereafter many games had to alter their mechanics to not explicitly be loot boxes, and these days it is rare for new games to come out that feature them.

Should a law be sufficiently well worded and have the teeth to be enforced, I would say its actually pretty likely that the practice of designing MTX into games could functionally be ended, though of course not totally, not perfectly.

I personally do not care if F2P games with MTX are affected, as being F2P is the equivalent of a crack dealer offering you your first hit free of charge. Enough people get addicted that to the game that its profitable to just sell them new cosmetics.

Further, nearly all F2P MTX games are based around extremely boring, simplistic and repetitive gameplay, which is itself designed to actually be effectively random in terms of your skill level having anything to do with your actual success at the game. Less mature players will believe that they can actually get good at the game by playing it enough, because either they have not played many games before or they basically become addicted to the gameplay loop itself, which is /also/ knowingly designed to be both addictive and rage inducing.

So with F2P MTX you generally get the absolute worst possible situation from the standpoint of a child or a person susceptible to peer pressure or with basically the same personality of a gambling addict.

The technical implementation of MTX just shifting everything over to being outside of the game itself /would actually be a significant success/ from the standpoint of preventing impulse purchases quite literally because it forces the user to undergo more steps before making their purchase.

Another thing that could potentially be done from a legal standpoint is to quite literally make it illegal for a game to allow you to spend more than so much on MTX or Premium currency in a certain amount of time, and/or only allow a purchase every so often, and or display government mandated warning placards in the same vein as cigarettes must display every time you access any in game or out of game market for the game.

These things are all definitely legally and technically possible to implement.

It does not matter what section of some menu has what UI label to a well written law. Such tbings are laughably easy for any competent programmer to alter within at most a month.

What matters is the functional workings of the entire system in its totality, and the precedent for this approach working has, again, already been established by the EU's ban on lootboxes.

exploitative business decision that has no technical reason for existing whatsoever

There is a technical reason, actually. The messages from Android are SMS, whereas the messages from immediate iMessage are encrypted and sent over a different channel.

But the net result is a lot of social pressure.

DLC is essentially an addon pack, an expansion of the original game with new levels, characters, maps, weapons, equipment, new gameplay modes, etc.

It sounds like you're explaining what you want it to be. Some DLC is certainly like that, but quite often it's not. Sometimes you get that kind of content as a MTX. People try to draw a line here, but there really isn't one because it's all convention. Some DLC require a download (e.g. the D part), many do not (i.e. just a DRM check when you launch).

Yeah, in the old days, you'd buy your expansions as a separate product (e.g. Brood War for Starcraft), but these days there's a lot less formality and variety to it.

So if we try to craft some kind of law against MTX, companies will just call them DLC. The only difference is how they're marketed; on a technical level, there's no clear separation between the "good" and the "bad," it comes down to how it's marketed and the value you get. The only clear separation I can think of is things that are time limited (i.e. you can only buy it for the next X days), but that's a practice in pretty much every industry and a practical necessity for copyright law (e.g. music is usually licensed for a set number of years, hence why older GTAs aren't available for purchase).

I'm guessing there's a mechanism to buy DLC from within a game, and if there isn't, game studios would push for that to be created.

worst possible situation from the standpoint of a child or a person susceptible to peer pressure or with basically the same personality of a gambling addict.

I agree children should be protected here because they cannot consent. However, we don't prevent people with gambling addictions from gambling provided they're adults, because they are responsible for their actions even if they suffer from addiction. Adults are expected to take measures to protect themselves, children are not.

So I'm absolutely in favor of banning children from F2P games where profit comes from manipulative practices (either they're being manipulated, or they're being used to manipulate others, both of which are wrong). Maybe that's enough to dramatically reduce these games, maybe it's not, but that's not the goal; the goal is to protect those who cannot consent.

make it illegal for a game to allow you to spend more than so much on MTX or Premium currency in a certain amount of time

That sounds overly restrictive. If I want to buy an expensive item, I would need to make that MTX several times over the course of days in order to get it? Why?

A better solution, imo, is to provide a mechanism for customers to set their own limits so they can self regulate. It would be up to them to decide what that limit is, so they get to decide what they're comfortable with. But they should also be allowed to disable that limit as well, though perhaps with a multi-day waiting period so they don't just disable it while drunk and render the whole thing useless.

No, there's no technical reason.

Apple designed their different protocol early on for no actual reason other than to intentionally be incompatible with the standards used by the entire rest of the industry, entirely to use as a peer pressure and marketing tactic to make less technically knowledgable users believe that it is somehow better or has more features or is more secure or somethimg.

It isnt, it doesnt, and it isnt more secure.

They easily could have used existing standards, but again, decided to develop their own exclusive standard and them basically lie and make misleading statements that would promote exclusivity and a superiority complex amongst its user base.

Your quibbling about the definition of DLC is irrelevant and pointless, and you do not seem to know what DLC is if you think DRM is DLC. Its not.

I already outlined substantive definitions of what constitutes DLC and MTX, and you are just repeating yourself saying the line between them is blurry. It is no where near as blurry as you think it is, and its now becoming clear that you do not appear to be able to comprehend what I have written.

The only difference is absolutely not how they are marketed. I think you are referring to how they presented in a UI.

  1. I already addressed this, MTX is a system that has identifiable characteristics and properties that make it distinct from DLC, regardless of UI labelling.

  2. Thats not marketing. Marketing is promotional material, trailers, paid game reviews, statements made by the company selling the product for the purpose of getting you to buy the product, a demo held at a convention, that sort of stuff.

As to your preference for allowing customers to self regulate:

Congrats, you have missed the entire concept that large demographics of people do not have the ability to self regulate their addiction problem, because an addiction problem literally is the lack of the ability to self regulate in regards to a certain activity or substance.

Anyway, I was not saying I would be necesarilly for or against such a measure, I was merely proving to you that it can legally be done, with examples.

Its clear your reading comprehension is not that good and you have at no point acknowledged that basically I have disproved everything you think you understand about how anything we have talked about works, functions, is actually defined, etc.

I will likely not be responding to you on this matter further as it is evident you basically have no idea what you are talking about.

3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...

Yes, thats the point.

Here you are, considering whether it is worth a dollar to show off your fashion to those you compete against and or cooperate with.

This is literally how it starts.

I cannot say with certainty that you in particular will become addicted to buying more and more cosmetics, but I can say with certainty that many, many people do, especially when combined with the feedback loop of peer pressure.

Further, there are many other alternative funding models that would easily allow for lots of in game content to be added to a game, and then you can make it unlockable via achievements or specific missions or something.

Any one who tells you that games /have/ to do microtransactions to exist in some cases is basically nearly always lying. You can prove this easily by saying: What if all these game studios cut the pay of their executives in half or down to 1/10th?

Its not like they need the money, and its not like they usually even make good decisions in terms of game design, when you are talking about larger studios or those beholden to large funding entities for recognizable IP rights, or some new unique graphical technology or something.

MTX is also astonishingly easy to recognize as a deplorable joke from those who have been playing a wide breadth of games for a while.

A phenomenon that originally started in MMOs and has since spread to other genres is this:

When content becomes stale, when gameplay becomes boring due to those who are not good st the game leaving and those who are good basically becoming near god like, these situations often devolve into the game simply becoming a fashion contest.

What this actually means is the game needs something new to keep it interesting, or it needs to be gently put into retirement phase, perhaps open sourcing some server material for the truly dedicated to be able to continue playing it.

What MTX represents, with the knowledge I just outlined, is that you basically have a cookie cutter core game whose general gameplay loop is known to appeal to a certain demographic, but you /know/ the only new real content you can expect is the fashion contest, maybe a broken or OP item or weapon from a patch that will be heavily rebalanced by the next patch.

You can also know the game will never add anything that really radically forces players to re evaluate the way they play it, because that would alienate the core player base.

So, any game that embraces MTX heavily from the get go is thus usually always a very boring game anyway, at least to those who are interested in novel and challenging experiences, and there will be many slight variations of the same game with slightly different art, characters, or gameplay, but usually very similar core mechanics and general experience.

2 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...

Whats funny about this is /people still play games with microtransactions at all/.

It's complicated.

The game itself can be extremely good, well made, and fun. You can choose not to participate in the MTX stuff.

Kinda wonder what would happen if such a game came out, was insanely popular, but literally nobody bought any MTX in it ever. Obviously a FTP game would just die, but would they take the hint if it was a $60-70 AAA game that also included BS MTX systems?

It's not like MTX is popular. They specifically go after the small percentage of players that get addicted and spend their life savings on that shit.

I game with people who just cannot help themselves and must buy everything. One guy spent nearly a thousand on Overwatch before he was able to walk away.

I just don't even tempt these guys anymore, I only ever play games that don't abuse them. We've enjoyed plenty of Factorio, Valheim, Avorion, Volcanoids, Deep Rock Galactic, etc.. I had to stop playing Vermintide/Darktide with them along with a few others, which has honestly pissed me off.

Now they're all eyeing Helldivers 2 and I'm spooked that the game is going to be MTX hell and we can't touch it, because I've enjoyed a lot of Arrowhead's previous stuff.

This is a perfect example of my above reply to another user:

Multiplayer games with a certain blend of either competitive play, or cooperative play that lends itself to competition amongst the cooperative players as to who is carrying the team vs who is getting the whole team wipe, these kinds of games /are known and understood by game developers/ to cause a toxic social dynamic amongst many of its players that escalates into basically an extremely expensive fashion competition.

This can also be accomplished by basically nailing some niche art style, by being a very popular established brand, or by simply using cartoony graphics and appealing to basically children with poor impulse control.

Its not complicated at all.

Microtransactions are well known to be an extremely effective psychological manipulation technique that is both highly effective against basically a certain market demographic/psychological profile of players (whales), and also when combined with the social dynamics of a certain set of games with certain attributes (which are also designed and targeted through market research and psychological profiling) create an atmosphere of peer pressure that is known to be effective on basically bullying many other players into at least some MTX.

It is a highly predatory and ethically repulsive practice that is done with precision and intent.

You say 'you can choose not to' which is fine from a theoretical perspective of basically a libertarian economist, where you assume that all human beings only make rational decisions that would benefit them and do not have human emotions, desires, you know, psychology.

The fact is there are now many documented cases of people having their lives literally ruined by spending too much money on these things. And I mean documented as in journalism on more extreme, individual cases as well as more comprehensive scientific studies.

Further, many MTX games are also obviously marketed at children with cartoony graphics and other marketing amd stylistic techniques that are, again, market researched to understand their viability in appealing to the demographics that will be most likely to make irresponsible spending decisions.

You claim that MTX is not popular and this basically baffles me as MTX is astoundingly popular in mobile phone games and there have been many popular games in the last few years that have featured MTX.

Case in point to your hypothetical example of a AAA 60 or 70 dollar game with MTX would be the buggy catastrophic mess that was/is Fallout 76.

So there is your answer: Video Gamers in general are highly susceptible to brand loyalty, and will often, very often pay for broken unfinished games, even with MTX, if those games have a sufficiently popular brand.

5 more...