A New Chapter for The Fun Pimps and 7 Days to Die

[InfiniteWarrior]

You think TFP is doing microtransactions just because they made some cosmetic DLC

Yes. "Cosmetic DLC" are microtransactions and are largely considered socially acceptable at present for some inexplicable reason. People most often don't have to buy pay to win items or loot boxes in full priced games, either, but they do and, comparatively-speaking, those are widely considered anathema. The concern with how one's avatar is "dressed" and/or impatience and/or fomo and/or obsessive-compulsive disorder, among other neurological-psychological disorders, is strong with them, if they're not just too young to know any better how to use their platform gift cards and/or parents' credit cards wisely. That's why there are psyops experts...I mean, "monetization managers"...in the video game industry today.

If you look up BI, you'll see that they...are really focused on adding microtransactions to games.

That's much of the reason why BI and TFP are such a "good fit." Both companies want the same things, including the revenue from micro- and macrotransactions, which includes "skins" -- outfits, armor, weapon, etc. "skins". It takes very little time and effort to retexture and/or recolor a model than it did to create it in the first place, yet many players pay upwards of $30-40 -- the price of a reasonably sized and complete game -- for the power armor skins of FO76, for example. Such used to be the exclusive province of the modding community. Some argue they're "supporting the developers"...of games that have accrued multimillions of dollars in revenue from sales of the game itself and should be paying their employees a living wage...by "purchasing" skins, which are no more physical or "theirs" than the game itself.

However it's justified, it's impacting game design for everyone. FromSoftware does things differently, for the moment, i.e. how all other development studios used to do things before private equity took over. Imagine if every weapon, set of armor, etc. in Elden Ring, aside from your starting gear, had been made available for purchase in an in-game store. Yet, they weren't. They're all included in the base game. Obviously, that's becoming less and less the case.

 

[khzmusik]

Yes. "Cosmetic DLC" are microtransactions and are largely considered socially acceptable at present for some inexplicable reason.

DLC (cosmetic or otherwise) should never be confused with microtransactions.

For example, the original Borderlands had a huge amount of DLC. That consisted of new campaigns, new items, etc. It was not (and should not be) considered "cosmetic." But it was fine, because it was upfront about what it was offering and what it costs.

This is not even in the same neighborhood as microtransactions, which are "micro" in a deliberate attempt to be small enough that players aren't immediately aware of what they're spending. DLC can possibly be OK. Microtransactions cannot.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

DLC (cosmetic or otherwise) should never be confused with microtransactions.

For example, the original Borderlands had a huge amount of DLC. That consisted of new campaigns, new items, etc. It was not (and should not be) considered "cosmetic." But it was fine, because it was upfront about what it was offering and what it costs.

This is not even in the same neighborhood as microtransactions, which are "micro" in a deliberate attempt to be small enough that players aren't immediately aware of what they're spending. DLC can possibly be OK. Microtransactions cannot.

You and I, no doubt, have been around since DLC was actually DLC -- significant expansions. Shadow of the Erdtree is obviously a DLC for Elden Ring, for example. Blood and Wine for the Witcher 3. Et cetera.

The definition of DLC, however, has been muddied. In the industry, it's come to mean anything that has to be downloaded by the end user, which is pretty much everything now. "Skins" are not being called "cosmetic DLC" for nothing. Downloadable content is not the same as a veneer. The public confusion over what constitutes a DLC is intended, imo. That's why I put the phrase in parentheses.

 

[Dead Smarty]

The definition of DLC, however, has been muddied. In the industry, it's come to mean anything that has to be downloaded by the end user, which is pretty much everything now. "Skins" are not being called "cosmetic DLC" for nothing. Downloadable content is not the same as a veneer. The public confusion over what constitutes a DLC is intended, imo. That's why I put the phrase in parentheses.

The definition is not muddied, the (ab)use is not corrected enough by the community. Too many people try to sound smart by copying business talk too often and too many wannabees follow blind.
Personaly I realy like your "content/veneer" example, it's brilliant in its simplicity!

 

[Matt115]

You think TFP is doing microtransactions just because they made some cosmetic DLC that you could get if you felt like it? If you look up BI, you'll see that they are the ones who are really focused on adding microtransactions to games. I think you'll see a shift towards microtransactions with them. It's unfortunate, but likely what we'll see.

DLC (cosmetic or otherwise) should never be confused with microtransactions.

For example, the original Borderlands had a huge amount of DLC. That consisted of new campaigns, new items, etc. It was not (and should not be) considered "cosmetic." But it was fine, because it was upfront about what it was offering and what it costs.

This is not even in the same neighborhood as microtransactions, which are "micro" in a deliberate attempt to be small enough that players aren't immediately aware of what they're spending. DLC can possibly be OK. Microtransactions cannot.

Khzmusik is right here - skins are microstransations. DLC are for example expansion packs. Was mentioned Bordelands 1 - THE ZOMBIE ISLAND OF DOCTOR NED: was realy cool DLC.
While just adding Skins to 7dtd is... weak. They woudn't need more cash if they added bandits during A16/17 ( it was soo long time ago that i don't longer rember) and focus on finished game not reworking things over and over. How many we got skills, crafting, models etc. reworks? It would be better if they stopped and instead made 7DTD2. Well... at least i hope that deal with Behaviour will cause they will start to make something serious not another goffy stuff like Blood moons xd

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

Khzmusik is right here - skins are microstransations.

That's not what he said. What he said was that DLC -- cosmetic (skins) or otherwise -- should not be confused with microtransactions.

DLC (cosmetic or otherwise) should never be confused with microtransactions.

Iow, he considers "cosmetics" DLC as do a plethora of others and not microtransactions. I said they're microtransactions because they are. Does everyone have them available for use on their character or avatar? No. Was extra money paid for them on the part of those who do? Yes. That constitutes a micro-(financial)-transaction. If I have to repeat the FromSoftware example of everyone having access to the wide variety of armors and weapons and talismans and incantations and sorceries as everyone else at no extra charge in Elden Ring, I will. They're not being sold separately and that's how it used to be across the board, period, until...the advent of MMOs.

The idea that cosmetics are DLC no different than significant expansions, e.g. Shadow of the Erdtree, has been normalized by the industry. The practice of charging extra for reskins, recolors and remodels -- widely considered "content" despite that they're veneers -- has, therefore, widely become acceptable among the public.

I don't expect the public confusion over what constitutes a DLC to change. I expect it to get worse. As the sale of "cosmetics" has widely become considered acceptable by both the industry and many members of the public, I don't expect the practice of selling them to change. I will nonetheless continue to call things by their true names, so I don't get confused about what constitutes a DLC and what doesn't.