Doom Eternal has added paid skins, despite previous assurances it wouldn’t

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,912
That, and user-controlled servers. Without opening up the server hosting to users a game is guaranteed to die in less than 6 months if you're not COD or Battlefield these days. And I believe that was the whole purpose of P2P to begin with: Ensure games die quickly so people will buy the next game. "Dedicated servers" has just been reduced to a marketing term that means the P2P service is hosted server side instead of client side.

The presence of good servers dedicated to the performance of a game is still hugely important (running any game P2P is ass), but the glory days certainly ended with the loss of user control. Now we get matchmakers organizing shitty teams instead.
 

OutOfPhase

2[H]4U
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,793
If someone can pay money to alter *my* gaming experience, then it's exactly the same thing as pay to win.
That is a pretty clean distillation of where I like lines drawn as well.

Although, I suppose personally would like a delineation even with cosmetic items. I love that there are some things / looks you can only get from in-game accomplishments, period. These shoulders with glowing bits of a different color? I did something really tricky to earn it!

I was in world/server first guilds in EQ and WoW, and it was kinda cool having some acoutrements to prove I had chops. Does it really matter? No, but, it made victories have that little extra tangible trophy.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,124
This. I don’t understand the visceral hatred of cosmetic microtransactions. They’re voluntary and don’t affect the gameplay. Pay to win type microtransactions, sure, those are justifiably hated, but cosmetic ones, who gives a crap?
They look very similar to fans buying soundtrack or poster of the games, it is hard to understand the hatred or any sentiment toward them.

I have a larger grievance against them than most. Making the comparison "its better than pay to win types" is kind of beside the point, because neither should exist - its just a plain exploitative monetization system. Essentially the issue is that cosmetic content is somehow treated as "lesser" or not a core part of the game experience and thus can be offered at a surcharge. This is an unacceptable categorization as it is greed cloaked in contradictory assertions; cosmetics are somehow less important and not part of the game experience you should expect for your investment, yet they're also the most flagrantly monetized aspect which is only successful if players do put value on the cosmetic part of the game experience!

In almost every game type cosmetics matter to the experience on some level. Its a way to show player progress and strength, individuality, social elements etc... its a major part of most graphical title though some more so than others. Thus, monetizing them ahead of other content is prejudicial against those who enjoy that part of the experience. For instance, MMOs are the biggest example here. I've always advocated that a subscription (+ expansion packs and other one off services / large content etc) system is preferable to an "item mall" full of often some exclusively cosmetic options. In a subscription MMO everyone pays their monthly sub and because of that gets access to all game content. So someone who just wants to run the highest end raids or make it to the top of PVP ladders can do that without paying extra, but so can the roleplayer who wants to collect every set of fashionable clothing and decorate their home just-so. In an "item mall / cosmetics" , the second type of player here gets shafted - they can't unlock every fashionable outfit because some of them have been taken out to sell a la carte exclusively, often for a considerable amount. We wouldn't think of telling the first group of players that they needed to, atop their subscription especially, pay for consumable "dungeon keys" to access each dungeon and/or pay a fee to unlock each PVP campaign map (or even something like a "revealing token" to make your ultra rare drop item show its true end-game appearance, as opposed to looking like a generic low level rusty iron breastplate) , but it has become normalized that players who enjoy the cosmetic part of the experience are not worthy of the same respect for their playstyle - they can't get access to ALL of the game experiences and content without surcharge.

All of this comes from a particular sort of greed and exploitative monetization which has its heritage from Korean "free2play item mall" MMOs in the late 90s and early 2000s to all of the ghastly protocols brought into the medium thanks to the "mobile style" game paradigms of skinner boxes and psychological tricks. I can remember back with the first major "cosmetic DLC" controversy whereas Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion offered "horse armor" that you had to pay to unlock (in significant part motivated by its release on Xbox Live and the desire to have something to sell as DLC) as compared to Morrowind which was all free patches and mods, outside of expansion packs. Promises over the years of "micro" transactions under a dollar never came to fruition and its common these days in games like Fortnite or even Apex Legends for a single skin to cost $18 , be jammed into a lootbox with low drop rate, or in some cases be part of FOMO-tinged collection events - and this is atop the "Battle Pass" (a feature I'm okay with independently if reasonably priced and content heavy, justifying paying for a mini-expansion every few months. However, most titles stack multiple monetization strategies atop each other) ! I'd love the option to simply pay for a game and then expansions/DLC of content if it would mean I could get ALL the items including cosmetics, but they don't ever let that happen - why? They know that they can get some people to spend inordinate amounts of money to unlock all this content instead. From item mall MMOs to Battle Royales where it would cost at minimum around $300 to get all of the skins/items and limited time collectibles in a single week-long event (most seasons have multiples!), to the frustration of paying for the last of a major subscription MMO like WoW or FFXIV at $15/month and still having cosmetics for sale, its a frustrating relatively recent development meant to exploit for maximum profit. Its worth mentioning that during the heyday of MMOs (at least in the West) the vast majority of them thrived on subscription only, from EverQuest to the primacy of WoW during its unchallenged golden era (note that even today WoW is the "least bad" - there are relatively few cosmetics for sale and many of them are at least charity related, but it is still a frustrating issue. ), all of this skin sales and a la carte nonsense wasn't a problem. When Final Fantasy XIV launched and in its early years it too had an excellent and very limited "item mall" that was made up primarily of old in-game holiday items you could have unlocked in game for free but if you missed them, they were $1-3. Aside from a handful of Japan only or other promotional items that were sold for a reasonable $20, that was it aside from game services (like server transfers or things to remake your character's appearance from scratch) ; now however, there are tons of mounts, emotes, clothing sets, housing items and more.

Saying that they're "voluntary" or that they dont' affect gameplay misses the point - all in game content should be valued equally and normalizing some play styles or whatnot so that multi billion dollar companies can make even more money should not be justified. Things like soundtracks or posters are external collectibles that are not part of the game itself or the experience of playing it. Ultimately, there are other ways to monetize in a more equitable method (ie How many MMOs have even thought of offering a tier that's double the subscription price even, but included ALL the cosmetics and other bonuses? The $10-15/month has been a staple since the late 90s and they would rather try to hide how much you are spending with "optional" transactions or gambling mechanics for hundreds of dollars instead of just offering a raised subscription price or tier! EverQuest was one of the last to do this in their Legends server which gave lots of extra benefits for around $40/month including special live events done by GMs, new content first, the ability to have items named after you etc.., but even the base subscription didn't have any item mall nonsense at the time), but the industry overall is not interested in such things - its easier to keep the psychological tricks and handwaves to keep the cash rolling in while blaming people who object as "entitled" or saying "just don't buy it". Its gotten really, really old to watch the way most games have evolved but there are much better solutions out there. No matter what, making cosmetic content treated as simultaneously "lesser" and thus able to be charged extra while also depending on it for a "greater" share of revenue must stop.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,747
Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion offered "horse armor" that you had to pay to unlock
The funny part about this is that by the time it was available, Gamestop had piles and piles of cards they'd give out for free that gave you the armor.

he second type of player here gets shafted - they can't unlock every fashionable outfit because some of them have been taken out to sell a la carte exclusively

One of the things I like about Guild Wars 2 is there's almost[1] none of that. Anything you can buy in the store via gems, you can earn in-game, because there's a conversion between in-game gold and premium gems.

[1] there are a very few exceptions. The only ones I know of are stuff you get with the higher-tier versions of the expansions, like an extra pet or title..
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,470
One of the things I like about Guild Wars 2 is there's almost[1] none of that. Anything you can buy in the store via gems, you can earn in-game, because there's a conversion between in-game gold and premium gems.
I'm not a fan of that either as that just results in a grind. That's basically what's hurting Shadow Lands as Blizzards idea of content is farming. Azerite farming is what killed BFA. If what I need to do takes hours instead of instantly then you don't need the grind. Just wasting my time and potential consumers as people just leave the game when they find out how long it takes to accomplish something in the game.

 

Axman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
7,761
Does it really matter? No, but, it made victories have that little extra tangible trophy.

Back in the day Verdun had a leveling system that would get your squad late-war uniforms if you had enough rank. You could tell how much experience your enemy had just by looking at them.

It's still in the game, but they changed the leveling system so that you can hit level 100 in about a day, a weekend at most, even with casuals. I think I put in about 500 hours with my squad before we hit 100.

It was. So. Satisfying. To post up in a match, in the immortal words of Bert Kreischer, like a big dick in a locker room.

I can't see how any developers think that pay-to-anything makes games more enjoyable. It just makes them less. And I think they know it, but they -- or the publishers -- couldn't care less.
 

c@Nc3r

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
301
I have a larger grievance against them than most. Making the comparison "its better than pay to win types" is kind of beside the point, because neither should exist - its just a plain exploitative monetization system. Essentially the issue is that cosmetic content is somehow treated as "lesser" or not a core part of the game experience and thus can be offered at a surcharge. This is an unacceptable categorization as it is greed cloaked in contradictory assertions; cosmetics are somehow less important and not part of the game experience you should expect for your investment, yet they're also the most flagrantly monetized aspect which is only successful if players do put value on the cosmetic part of the game experience!

In almost every game type cosmetics matter to the experience on some level. Its a way to show player progress and strength, individuality, social elements etc... its a major part of most graphical title though some more so than others. Thus, monetizing them ahead of other content is prejudicial against those who enjoy that part of the experience. For instance, MMOs are the biggest example here. I've always advocated that a subscription (+ expansion packs and other one off services / large content etc) system is preferable to an "item mall" full of often some exclusively cosmetic options. In a subscription MMO everyone pays their monthly sub and because of that gets access to all game content. So someone who just wants to run the highest end raids or make it to the top of PVP ladders can do that without paying extra, but so can the roleplayer who wants to collect every set of fashionable clothing and decorate their home just-so. In an "item mall / cosmetics" , the second type of player here gets shafted - they can't unlock every fashionable outfit because some of them have been taken out to sell a la carte exclusively, often for a considerable amount. We wouldn't think of telling the first group of players that they needed to, atop their subscription especially, pay for consumable "dungeon keys" to access each dungeon and/or pay a fee to unlock each PVP campaign map (or even something like a "revealing token" to make your ultra rare drop item show its true end-game appearance, as opposed to looking like a generic low level rusty iron breastplate) , but it has become normalized that players who enjoy the cosmetic part of the experience are not worthy of the same respect for their playstyle - they can't get access to ALL of the game experiences and content without surcharge.

All of this comes from a particular sort of greed and exploitative monetization which has its heritage from Korean "free2play item mall" MMOs in the late 90s and early 2000s to all of the ghastly protocols brought into the medium thanks to the "mobile style" game paradigms of skinner boxes and psychological tricks. I can remember back with the first major "cosmetic DLC" controversy whereas Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion offered "horse armor" that you had to pay to unlock (in significant part motivated by its release on Xbox Live and the desire to have something to sell as DLC) as compared to Morrowind which was all free patches and mods, outside of expansion packs. Promises over the years of "micro" transactions under a dollar never came to fruition and its common these days in games like Fortnite or even Apex Legends for a single skin to cost $18 , be jammed into a lootbox with low drop rate, or in some cases be part of FOMO-tinged collection events - and this is atop the "Battle Pass" (a feature I'm okay with independently if reasonably priced and content heavy, justifying paying for a mini-expansion every few months. However, most titles stack multiple monetization strategies atop each other) ! I'd love the option to simply pay for a game and then expansions/DLC of content if it would mean I could get ALL the items including cosmetics, but they don't ever let that happen - why? They know that they can get some people to spend inordinate amounts of money to unlock all this content instead. From item mall MMOs to Battle Royales where it would cost at minimum around $300 to get all of the skins/items and limited time collectibles in a single week-long event (most seasons have multiples!), to the frustration of paying for the last of a major subscription MMO like WoW or FFXIV at $15/month and still having cosmetics for sale, its a frustrating relatively recent development meant to exploit for maximum profit. Its worth mentioning that during the heyday of MMOs (at least in the West) the vast majority of them thrived on subscription only, from EverQuest to the primacy of WoW during its unchallenged golden era (note that even today WoW is the "least bad" - there are relatively few cosmetics for sale and many of them are at least charity related, but it is still a frustrating issue. ), all of this skin sales and a la carte nonsense wasn't a problem. When Final Fantasy XIV launched and in its early years it too had an excellent and very limited "item mall" that was made up primarily of old in-game holiday items you could have unlocked in game for free but if you missed them, they were $1-3. Aside from a handful of Japan only or other promotional items that were sold for a reasonable $20, that was it aside from game services (like server transfers or things to remake your character's appearance from scratch) ; now however, there are tons of mounts, emotes, clothing sets, housing items and more.

Saying that they're "voluntary" or that they dont' affect gameplay misses the point - all in game content should be valued equally and normalizing some play styles or whatnot so that multi billion dollar companies can make even more money should not be justified. Things like soundtracks or posters are external collectibles that are not part of the game itself or the experience of playing it. Ultimately, there are other ways to monetize in a more equitable method (ie How many MMOs have even thought of offering a tier that's double the subscription price even, but included ALL the cosmetics and other bonuses? The $10-15/month has been a staple since the late 90s and they would rather try to hide how much you are spending with "optional" transactions or gambling mechanics for hundreds of dollars instead of just offering a raised subscription price or tier! EverQuest was one of the last to do this in their Legends server which gave lots of extra benefits for around $40/month including special live events done by GMs, new content first, the ability to have items named after you etc.., but even the base subscription didn't have any item mall nonsense at the time), but the industry overall is not interested in such things - its easier to keep the psychological tricks and handwaves to keep the cash rolling in while blaming people who object as "entitled" or saying "just don't buy it". Its gotten really, really old to watch the way most games have evolved but there are much better solutions out there. No matter what, making cosmetic content treated as simultaneously "lesser" and thus able to be charged extra while also depending on it for a "greater" share of revenue must stop.
I agree with all of this. I have always championed the subscription +expansion model for mmos and pure expansion model for games like Battlefield. One of the things newer generations don't know is that back before the microtransaction craze when it was just buy the game and buy the expansions, was that you were able to have your own dedicated servers and your own player mods and skins. Both of which are gone all because to have microtransactions they have to lock it down. And don't let anyone tell you that the development studio content is better. The Galactic Conquest and Desert Combat mods were amazing player made mods for BF1942 that easily out did the developers and made the developers have to up their level of quality to sell expansions and new versions of the game.
 

Staypuft

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
892
I played this game all the way through, searched for every secret, platformed ad nauseum. Uninstalled it when done. It wasn't as good as Doom 2016, but it wasn't trash either. Just different. No idea skins were even a thing for this game. With all the glory killing and scrambling for ammo, there wasn't really any time to stop and admire my battle suit.

I've paid for additional content on a few games... usually where new maps/campaigns are added (season passes, etc). Skins only? Nope.
 

emphy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2016
Messages
256
This. I don’t understand the visceral hatred of cosmetic microtransactions. They’re voluntary and don’t affect the gameplay. Pay to win type microtransactions, sure, those are justifiably hated, but cosmetic ones, who gives a crap?
Obviously, enough people do care that the promise of their non-inclusion was a big thing.

Even if you don't care about the cosmetics, you should about the bait and switch.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
7,891
Obviously, enough people do care that the promise of their non-inclusion was a big thing.

Even if you don't care about the cosmetics, you should about the bait and switch.

It's not a bait and switch. It literally doesn't affect the game experience for someone who doesn't want to buy this stuff, at all.
Someone running around in a dildo unicorn skin doesn't affect my ability to pwn n00bs.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,310
Heh, saw this just now, a ID dev talks about the differences between 2016 and Eternal:

1m20s, he says "you're into it or not" regarding the glory kill system vs just shooting stuff. If you prefer the latter, Doom Eternal may not be for you.

 

OutOfPhase

2[H]4U
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,793
Heh, saw this just now, a ID dev talks about the differences between 2016 and Eternal:

1m20s, he says "you're into it or not" regarding the glory kill system vs just shooting stuff. If you prefer the latter, Doom Eternal may not be for you.

I was iffy on Eternal until the DLC came out.
Now I hate it. "may not be for me", I suppose.

They absolutely doubled down on everything I didn't like, and which ruins the cool mobility shooting dance.
More jumping puzzles, more things to do in them. Sometimes, not super clear things to do for even moving forward in the level with no enemies.
A zillion more enemies with one magic weakness and clearly forcing you to use the weird mods which kinda sucked on the guns before. I really don't find that fun. They started with the marauder (which is irritating), got together and asked themselves "how can we make ALL future enemies annoying?"

Mission accomplished!
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
7,891
I was iffy on Eternal until the DLC came out.
Now I hate it. "may not be for me", I suppose.

They absolutely doubled down on everything I didn't like, and which ruins the cool mobility shooting dance.
More jumping puzzles, more things to do in them. Sometimes, not super clear things to do for even moving forward in the level with no enemies.
A zillion more enemies with one magic weakness and clearly forcing you to use the weird mods which kinda sucked on the guns before. I really don't find that fun. They started with the marauder (which is irritating), got together and asked themselves "how can we make ALL future enemies annoying?"

Mission accomplished!

Exactly this.
There is only one way to play the game, and I don't find that to be very DooM. I like watching people play it, but I don't enjoy playing it even in the slightest. The gameplay style required doesn't feel DooM-y.
 
Top