Cosmetics yep it is so harmless am I right when something looks so good that you cant have it but you have to buy it.
Sounds like those people should get some help if they are physically incapable of not having something just because it is available. I've had many games with straight cosmetics dlc. Off the top of my head I've bought 3 in games that weren't free to play:
- The ones from GT5 that were included as part of a larger DLC package.
- All of of the character costumes in RWBY: Grimm Eclipse.
- One of the costume packs from Ultra Street Fighter IV
Lol those that keep saying "the price is the same but development cost has skyrocketed so its ok they're just trying to make their money back". Keep letting the game industry play the victim for you.
They "aren't playing the victim." The price for the typical games
have skyrocketed in the past decade. This should not at all be news and was discussed quite a bit before this current console generation even started (which itself was already nearly 6 years ago); nor is it only limited to blockbuster titles like CoD or GTA with 100+ million dollars thrown at them. There have been games that have sold millions of copies where they still underperformed enough to make the publisher take breaks from continuing the franchise. There have been games that have sold millions of copies that have underperformed so much that the publisher considered it an outright failure and shuttered/merged the development studio. There have been games that have sold consistently well, but the rapidly increasing cost of each installment has become so concerning that the developer has given up and sold off the IP to a bigger publisher. It's why even actual game publishers have turned to Kickstarter to try and cover part of development before considering development of some games.
If you have 20 million dollars to throw at something (which is probably pretty good estimate for the typical development floor in 2019), there's nothing at all wrong with hoping that your return on investment is not less than what you initially spent in the first place. A typical game with a 20 million dollar development costs could tank a smaller developer outright if it doesn't profit enough to keep the developer afloat while the next game is being made. This also shouldn't be news, since the movie industry has grappled with the same thing as their development costs have also increased over the same span. It's why sales projections for games are frequently instead sales
expectations that the publisher is demanding; because the more the initial investment the greater the risk. Microtransactions and DLC and Season Passes mitigate that risk significantly in a way that a $60 purchase price for a game that costs 4 times or whatever as much to make as it might have in 2006 doesn't.
These gaming companies are making 5x -10x what they invest on game sales alone.
Yet these companies try to justify microtransactions as if their game that cost them on average 20 - 60million$$ didn't just net them 400 - 700million on game sales alone. I smell bulls***
Typical game companies are absolutely
not making "5x -10x what they invest on game sales alone." Typical videogames are absolutely
not making "400 - 700million on game sales alone". Even if you don't want to consider how much of a game's gross sales actually goes to a publisher/developer, stop and think for just a second how many copies a game actually needs to
sell to clear 400 million dollars in revenue before trying to string together arguments of how much profit a game publisher
must be making if they only spent 20-60 million developing the game in question. How many games
actually sell over 6 million copies? Sure as hell none of Codemasters F1 games have.
It only damages whatever point you're trying to make to act as if Codemasters is clearing hundreds of millions of dollars on each F1 game they sell. It only damages whatever point you're trying to make to act as if
any typical publisher is clearing hundreds of millions of dollars on any typical game they sell.
