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.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

It would be better if they stopped and instead made 7DTD2.

I'd say it would have been consistent with TFP's old, product-oriented business model had the basic survival game been completed and TFP moved onto something else, not even necessarily 7DTD2. Hindsight, however, is 20/20. The new business model is obviously not product-oriented (produce a finished product, sell the finished product) but service oriented (produce the product and add onto it on an ongoing basis for the purpose of recurring revenue).

The change in business model is unfortunate from my perspective, but not unexpected as that's the business model that's being adopted in the industry at large.

 

[meganoth]

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.

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.

I am pretty sure that BI wants a higher level of microtransactions than TFP has done or announced to do. For cosmetic DLCs, no matter how you define them, you would not need a community manager with service-game experience.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

I am pretty sure that BI wants a higher level of microtransactions than TFP has done or announced to do. For cosmetic DLCs, no matter how you define them, you would not need a community manager with service-game experience.

I'm pretty sure both companies want that higher level. Why would they not? Just because TFP never announced any and has only implemented a few doesn't really have any bearing on that or how many, if any, there are to come.

 

[Riamus]

There will likely always be people who have different opinions about what constitutes a microtransaction and what doesn't. It really doesn't matter, though. The real question is what people consider acceptable and what they do not. So here is my view...

Pay to Win - Never acceptable. If you have to spend money in order to complete a game without it taking significantly longer or in order to be on a level playing ground with other players, that's not okay. I avoid such games.

In-game purchases using real money - Rarely acceptable. If the purchases are not needed in order to play the game and so are entirely optional, AND the purchasing system is not directly in your face, then I don't really care. If I constantly have a button or ads or something popping up or always on the screen for buying stuff, then that's not okay. An example of something that I don't mind is Idle Champions. The in-game purchases aren't necessary to play everything in the game and don't have any significant impact on how you play the game. The location to purchase it is a small button in the "menu" and you don't ever have to click it and it isn't obtrusive. That format is something I can live with, and I might even consider the occasional purchase from that kind of setup if the game and devs are good.

DLC of any kind other than Pay to Win stuff - Acceptable. A DLC that is sold outside of the game, no matter what kind of DLC it is (other than Pay to Win), is fine. It doesn't matter if it's an expansion or a cosmetic item. If people want cosmetics, let them have them. It has no impact on my ability to play the game. There isn't anything wrong with such things being made for sale or with some people wanting to buy every cosmetic item they can get their hands on. I don't do that, but if others want to, good for them.

Again, those are my opinions only. Some will have the same or similar opinions, and others will have different opinions. There's nothing wrong with that.

But what I originally responded to was the idea that TFP is the one promoting microtransactions and that BI will change that. The fact is that BI is the one who will be pushing microtransactions so much that TFP will look like they never even considered it in comparison. In other words, if you thought TFP's cosmetic DLC were bad, you're in for much worse from BI. That is an assumption based on their track record, and may be incorrect, of course.

 

[grz__]

There will likely always be people who have different opinions about what constitutes a microtransaction and what doesn't. It really doesn't matter, though. The real question is what people consider acceptable and what they do not. So here is my view...

Pay to Win - Never acceptable. If you have to spend money in order to complete a game without it taking significantly longer or in order to be on a level playing ground with other players, that's not okay. I avoid such games.

In-game purchases using real money - Rarely acceptable. If the purchases are not needed in order to play the game and so are entirely optional, AND the purchasing system is not directly in your face, then I don't really care. If I constantly have a button or ads or something popping up or always on the screen for buying stuff, then that's not okay. An example of something that I don't mind is Idle Champions. The in-game purchases aren't necessary to play everything in the game and don't have any significant impact on how you play the game. The location to purchase it is a small button in the "menu" and you don't ever have to click it and it isn't obtrusive. That format is something I can live with, and I might even consider the occasional purchase from that kind of setup if the game and devs are good.

DLC of any kind other than Pay to Win stuff - Acceptable. A DLC that is sold outside of the game, no matter what kind of DLC it is (other than Pay to Win), is fine. It doesn't matter if it's an expansion or a cosmetic item. If people want cosmetics, let them have them. It has no impact on my ability to play the game. There isn't anything wrong with such things being made for sale or with some people wanting to buy every cosmetic item they can get their hands on. I don't do that, but if others want to, good for them.

Again, those are my opinions only. Some will have the same or similar opinions, and others will have different opinions. There's nothing wrong with that.

But what I originally responded to was the idea that TFP is the one promoting microtransactions and that BI will change that. The fact is that BI is the one who will be pushing microtransactions so much that TFP will look like they never even considered it in comparison. In other words, if you thought TFP's cosmetic DLC were bad, you're in for much worse from BI. That is an assumption based on their track record, and may be incorrect, of course.

I don't mind if there are a couple of DLCs that are worth it based on what they offer and how much they cost, but the issue here is: how many DLCs are considered acceptable? At the end of the day, it's content that's been cut from the game [which you paid full price for] so it can be sold separately and monetized, whether it's skins or whatever.

 

[meganoth]

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

I don't think there needs to be any effort of the industry to normalize or redefine the name DLC. There was already a large range of game addons released before the first skin DLC appeared with bethesdas horse armor in 2006. From single maps to large expansions, from free to single digit dollar values to something like $25 expansions everything was called DLC if you could download it. And that practice started even before 2000, with the dreamcast and the xbox. Sometimes the addons were available as download (aka DLC) and physically (CD etc.), especially if it was larger content. But DLCs had a large size range from the start.
I only remember that expansions at that time were often called expansions in contrast to DLCs, but I would assume this was also the case because expansions were much bigger than the download capacity of typical players allowed and therefore still sold on disc only. But when the internet got faster, everyone added digital distribution and finally switched over, even for the largest expansions.

In summary: DLCs of all sizes existed before skins were sold, the defining criteria was distribution by download. When the first skin was sold with the horse armor, it was only consequential to call it a DLC as well, and because it was not changing the game at all "cosmetic". No need for spin doctors or any industry effort, the name is absolutely fitting.

This says nothing about whether such a cosmetic DLC is or is not a micro-transaction. If someone wants to do that he probably should define some (size or cost?) limit to differentiate a micro-transaction from bigger addons and expansion sized DLC.

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.

 

[meganoth]

I don't mind if there are a couple of DLCs that are worth it based on what they offer and how much they cost, but the issue here is: how many DLCs are considered acceptable? At the end of the day, it's content that's been cut from the game [which you paid full price for] so it can be sold separately and monetized, whether it's skins or whatever.

I can't speak for the armor skins in 7D2D, but I don't think this is universally true that it is cut content. There are DLCs/addons of all types released for games that were never planned for the main game and would never be produced if not as an addon.
Usually developers plan ahead what content they can add to a game and how long it takes to add that (that defines the cost of the game). And at what price and how many copies sold they would enter profitability. Even when a feature is thought of at that time and they would like to add it won't be added if it doesn't fit in the time frame they think for production of the game. Only if the game is successful, they might add that feature as a DLC.

From the outside it is very hard to determine whether content was actually cut for later release or not.

 

[grz__]

I can't speak for the armor skins in 7D2D, but I don't think this is universally true that it is cut content. There are DLCs/addons of all types released for games that were never planned for the main game and would never be produced if not as an addon.
Usually developers plan ahead what content they can add to a game and how long it takes to add that (that defines the cost of the game). And at what price and how many copies sold they would enter profitability. Even when a feature is thought of at that time and they would like to add it won't be added if it doesn't fit in the time frame they think for production of the game. Only if the game is successful, they might add that feature as a DLC.

From the outside it is very hard to determine whether content was actually cut for later release or not.

It’s true that we can’t know for sure whether this is cut content from the game or not, but considering that there used to be a clothing system that was replaced by armor—perhaps this might seem suspicious to some. However, generally speaking, in other games it’s clear that developers create content with the intention of selling it separately, which is why there are early access games that already have DLCs.


When a game has too many DLCs, it’s not “pay-to-win”—it’s “pay again to play the full game.”

 

[meganoth]

It’s true that we can’t know for sure whether this is cut content from the game or not, but considering that there used to be a clothing system that was replaced by armor—perhaps this might seem suspicious to some. However, generally speaking, in other games it’s clear that developers create content with the intention of selling it separately, which is why there are early access games that already have DLCs.

Even those cases are not clear. It is possible that the content used for the DLCs, even in EA, was never intended for the base game. But the other question is then: Did the developers doing the DLC nothing else to do, or did they stop development of the base game to do the DLC?

I would guess in some cases it could have been a necessary measure to keep development going when the development takes a lot longer and the money dwindles away. And sometimes it might even be a method to keep developers working who are finished with the base game and have nothing else to do.

Anyway, even if well justificated it always leaves a bad after taste

When a game has too many DLCs, it’s not “pay-to-win”—it’s “pay again to play the full game.”

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

Welcome to the future of gaming. I believe all this pretzelitizing calls for the Viva la Dirt League treatment.

 

[grz__]

Even those cases are not clear. It is possible that the content used for the DLCs, even in EA, was never intended for the base game. But the other question is then: Did the developers doing the DLC nothing else to do, or did they stop development of the base game to do the DLC?

I would guess in some cases it could have been a necessary measure to keep development going when the development takes a lot longer and the money dwindles away. And sometimes it might even be a method to keep developers working who are finished with the base game and have nothing else to do.

Anyway, even if well justificated it always leaves a bad after taste

I’m no expert on how the video game industry works behind the scenes or what they need to do to fund development, and I’m not against them releasing some DLC as long as they don’t go too far. 7DTD currently has 4 DLCs; €40 for the game plus €35 for DLCs seems reasonable to me, but how many more could there be in 2 or more years? For me, it all comes down to that. Many games divide their community between those who have the paid content and those who don’t; I wouldn’t want 7D to have endless DLCs.


I also think the game should finish its development and not transform into whatever is trendy in the future, but that’s another debate.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

as long as they don’t go too far. 7DTD currently has 4 DLCs; €40 for the game plus €35 for DLCs

How far is too far is not the point. All the armors (including Hoarder, Marauder, and Desert) were featured in a presentation by TFP of the new armor system replacing the clothing system, leading many in the community to believe they would all be included in the base game, including those three. Those three were later carved out for sale separately at $10/pc, which was probably planned all along, but caused a bit of a kerfuffle in the community along with trader Joel seeming to be "selling" people on the hoarder set when that was probably a generic voice line recorded before the armor system was implemented. Did anyone really think the "cosmetic DLCs" would stop there? The demon armor has been added since. BI no doubt will be continuing to add them and not changing the fact the game has them at all as Raimus suggests. It's obviously part of the future both companies envision for the game. How is the fact they share that vision lost on anyone?

 

[Dead Smarty]

€40 for the game plus €35 for DLCs seems reasonable to me.

No that is not reasonable.
In every case, the base game is where all the real heavy lifting in creation is done. No addition could ever demand so much work that it would cost nearly the same as the base game. Even at 50% of base game's cost DLC can be considered expensive for nearly every game.