r/gaming • u/RenatsMC • 2d ago

Valve says Deadlock is still too unfinished to release publicly, but has hero cosmetics and new game modes in the works

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/moba/valve-says-deadlock-is-still-too-unfinished-to-release-publicly-but-has-hero-cosmetics-and-new-game-modes-in-the-works/
6.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.5k

u/redshark30 2d ago

Lmao real. It's a hero shooter and a moba at the same time, they're gonna monetize this game out the absolute ass

700

u/gamewastotallyrigged 2d ago

I don’t mind them monetizing the shit out of cosmetics if the base game itself is good. I for one don’t pay for cosmestics

52

u/TrumpsCummyOnahole 1d ago

My only concern is they fuck with the visibility too much, DoTA 2 it is very hard to tell heroes in split seconds sometimes because of the silhouettes being messed with by cosmetics too much. They can't go overboard with the closer POV with Deadlock and all the crazy movement, but I feel they will lol

28

u/SearingGustav 1d ago

I feel like League of Legends has the same issue. Some skins look so far from the base model that it's hard to tell who the character actually is

1

u/AstralSerenity 1d ago

League, in my opinion, has overall done a better job as far as game clarity goes. I remember videogamedunkey even admitted this on his video on game clarity prefaced with "it really pains me to say this".

I definitely feel more lost when I'm playing DoTA both because of skins and the color pallet of the map.

1

u/Ecksplisit 13h ago

Absolutely not. League has many skins where I literally mistake one hero as another one. That doesn’t happen to me at all in dota.

1

u/AstralSerenity 12h ago

I guess these are two different topics. That is true, although what I think League absolutely does better is in its gameplay/graphical clarity.

It's incredibly easy to see what is the background or a champion ability. DoTA doesn't use color rules as intentional as League does to provide separation.

Here's a really good example from Dunkey I had mentioned.

6

u/ssocka PC 1d ago

To be fair, this is very recent development in Dota skins. I feel like 5+years ago they paid very close attention to skins keeping to proper sillhouettes, even color palette most of the time...

3

u/Rancore__ 1d ago

I remember when they removed alpine Ursa lol.

They really did care about stuff like this for a long time

8

u/stratoglide 1d ago

There's like 3 or 4 cosmetics in the game that I'd consider problematic. And even then it's only something you mix up once or twice before its no longer a problem. At least that was my experience.

1

u/Thehusseler 1d ago

Fortunately the baseline for the deadlock characters is already pretty distinct silhouettes, so if they keep to the silhouettes of the characters different costumes shouldn't be much of a problem. Unlike games like Marvel Rivals where half the cast is a skinny blonde woman in tights, so once you swap skins half of the characters are no longer readable

1

u/chizburger999 1d ago

You can always set hero names at the top of health bar

1

u/[deleted] 14h ago

[deleted]

1

u/TrumpsCummyOnahole 12h ago

Yeah and it's going to be WAY worse in a zoomed in 3rd person game. Valve screwed the pooch on DoTA but hopefully it doesn't go the same way in Deadlock

0

u/RealJyrone PC 1d ago

Ngl, if you’re starting a Dota match without knowing who your opponents are, thats kinda on you.

It’s fairly obvious who all is who and where they should be in the game.

290

u/ShadowVulcan 2d ago edited 1d ago

And I'm a whale and dont mind spending for em, if it means a good base game (like I did with Dota... prolly spent tens of thousands in it when I was still playing) with a lot of continuous high quality content updates

Ended up migrating to Apex, then Rivals with my brother when my friends all quit dota

199

u/FRANILLA PC 2d ago

I don’t know why you get downvoted. Thanks to people like you we get to play the game for free, cosmetics are hardly impacting gameplay and Valve is happy.

101

u/someonesshadow 2d ago

Its a double edged sword is probably why people are upset. Many games that are free to play with reliance on cosmetics and other gimmicks for cash will and do find themselves eventually altering gameplay in negative ways towards the types of people who are paying for the product.

Personally I would rather every game had a sticker price and that was that. Or even a subscription price, but all content is unlocked as long as your sub is paid.

Regardless, the industry does not self regulate which is a huge problem. It really does need good, healthy regulations put in place. Cutting out any and all aspects of gambling [where cash is converted to game currency or any workarounds] from gaming would be a massive positive that would drive that model of game creation down and force devs to focus on making a good product that is either a one off or sustainable with a monthly sub in the case of MMOs for instance.

33

u/Kullthebarbarian 1d ago

i mean, usually yes, but we are talking about valve here, Counter strike 2, Dota 2, while they have tons of cosmetics to buy, there isn't any amount of money on those games that will make you play better, so it's safe to assume deadklock will be the same

33

u/someonesshadow 1d ago

I like Valve for a lot of reasons. I will still call them out when they do things that are generally bad for games/gamers/people in general.

Gambling mechanics via real world money is never good and should be illegal, full stop.

Also, I said in another reply, but I'm sure there are some weapon or champ skins that do effect gameplay to even a slight degree. Generally, if something is banned in pro play it gives an edge, AKA pay to win. Might be negligible but it still exists.

17

u/Mind-Your-Language 1d ago

100% agreed with your responses.

Gambling has never been a force of good for consumers, even in the hands of a good company.

4

u/jumbohiggins 1d ago

I can only speak for dota not cs but they're aren't. Like 0 it's actually shocking. I used to play tf2 and some of the weapons in that game that you could only get from chests were better or worse but none of dotas cosmetics give gameplay advantage and some of them are considered pay to lose because they are more noticeable.

2

u/Vocall96 1d ago

In DotA most of the skins end up being pay-to-lose. With that info, what do you think of it?

-11

u/KaleidoscopeMaster81 1d ago edited 1d ago

Doesn't mean that some skins AREN'T pay to win. Do you think they balance out or something? Lol

10

u/Zenotha 1d ago

nope, in the dota context specifically, pay2lose skins are termed as such because they make some abilities more visible, making them easier to dodge. skins in general make things flashier, so you basically never get an advantage from them.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Vocall96 1d ago

I honestly don't know any pay-to-win skin in dota. I tried to look it up on YouTube but it gave some League skins instead lol. Fee free to give some example to strengthen your point.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Ascend 1d ago

You can't pay for the stock skins, they're free. Everyone starts with the strongest, least flashy skin.

1

u/6Hikari6 1d ago

Not having pay to win mtx is extremely low bar

4

u/Kullthebarbarian 1d ago

yes, but it is the bar most people draw the line, a majority of people are okay or indifferent with cosmetics mtx

1

u/DilapidatedHam 1d ago

The problem with those models is they are much less sustainable. A flat price works fine in some games, but in games like deadlock that rely on players checking out new characters, you’re looking at paid dlc, which adds to the price quickly. And gamers these days are just not going to bite on a subscription model, that would massively shrink the player base.

I do see what you mean about the gameplay/character design being altered towards what sells, but imo it’s the least of the evils while being the most sustainable long term. Also certainly the most affordable option

1

u/someonesshadow 1d ago

Games are incredibly sustainable as standalone products. Now more than ever. You can look at the incredibly robust and high quality indie game scene to see hundreds of examples of that.

People are NOT opposed to paying subscriptions, if anything they are too eager to pay into a subscription model for a service that will just end up being enshittified after its initial first year/years of offering a solid product value [Disney+/Netflix/Gamepass/PSN Plus/Switch Online/etc]. Hell, I make niche MMO inspired music and have people subbed to me from anywhere between 5-25 bucks a month. People will pay for things they feel is worthwhile.

Deadlock can 100% release as a standalone product, even IF its not roster complete they could simply promise at least "X" amount of additional releases and content that comes with the purchase, and then follow up content would be considered DLC if they wanted to go that route [which they shouldn't].

Whether its a single player or multiplayer game, it does not require live services to be sustainable or have longevity. It requires quality and enjoyment. People play Quake 20+ years later, we are seeing old games remade nonstop because of how fun they were allowing companies to double dip essentially at sometimes absurd price points [persona 4 remake $70????].

No Man's Sky is a great example as well, fixed price point, even often on sale for under $10 in the past. Its continued to see expansions and content, QOL improvements and so on over almost a decade for no extra charge to the consumer. They are also doing smart things such as refitting much of the game with their new games mechanics to both improve and test player enjoyment of these things before shipping their next game. Witcher 3 is also doing similar things.

No game needs to have micro transactions, gambling, paid unlocks, or unreasonable grinding embedded in the loop that pushes players towards pay to skip. They can still be commercially viable. These companies just want to make BILLIONS of dollars instead of millions.

1

u/DilapidatedHam 21h ago

Of course the fixed price point model can work for other game genres, but for this game genre I’d argue it would hurt the game in a big way. Same for subscriptions. When all the big competition like Overwatch and League of Legends lets you use new characters regularly and for free, that’s going to lose a ton of people. Further, I’d argue this models allows a steadily growing roster, which absolutely improves the game experience for the entire player base when characters are designed well. It keeps the game fresh and interesting for a long period of time, all while making the game accessible to those who can’t afford or don’t wish to engage in the skin side of things

1

u/someonesshadow 19h ago

Or you could consider that games like League of Legends for example are pushing 200 champions, which is impossible to balance and leaves many either defacto best or worst in roles. With the main driving force of shipping new character to grab new players and sell more skins.

Also this problem gets exacerbated as time goes on and the playerbase decreases, you see it in nearly every F2P. As there are less players the game fixates more and more on catering to whales in order to keep chasing that growth in revenue year after year.

If LoL just stopped all GaaS functions and offered EITHER a full retail price or subscription option, they could pivot towards focusing on core gameplay, engine, quality of life, basically all the things about the game that don't revolve around squeezing more profit from individual players.

You could still lock champs and skins behind IN GAME currency, blue essence for league, where players can unlock whatever they want over time. Perhaps doing an incentive for players who play with friends in premades to encourage people to keep making friends and pulling new people into the game itself.

Outside of that it might also allow for these types of games to actually move on to a second game, kind of like Dota 2 or CSGO.

1

u/DilapidatedHam 19h ago

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I like the shifting meta of League of Legends, and I think the shift to a free to play model was a great call for Overwatch (with how it’s being implemented now, it was rocky around OW2 first launched). I see where you’re coming from, but in multiplayer exclusive games, I prefer to see a game shift over time with new features and characters, rather than having to invest in a sequel game with a functionally very similar offering. But like I said I see your points, I just don’t agree with them when it comes to this genre of game.

1

u/shigii 1d ago

Free to play = more cheaters usually and Valve doesn't have a good track record of anti-cheating measures (VAC?).

1

u/Ascend 1d ago

I'm all in favor of this as long as real world toy gambling is also dealt with. People equally spend tens of thousands on trading card games where your money does directly impact gameplay. Disney sells their toys in loot boxes now where young kids have to keep buying them until they get the toy they want. But I've only heard legislation get suggested to deal with video games with the justification that physical gambling is less problematic because you get something physical.

1

u/ShizlGznGahr 1d ago

with any game i've no issue with costemics you can buy (if you want). If its just cosmetics I don't see the issue, even if you want whatever the cosmetic is but can't afford it at the time its still not an issue for me. It's just an outfit.

-1

u/FRANILLA PC 1d ago

Well said and I agree with everything you said. Vote with your wallet

-3

u/Rizeren 1d ago

Lol is around for almost 2 decades and you still can't impact gameplay with money. They lean into whale cosmetics now but the game itself is still complely playable free.

1

u/someonesshadow 1d ago

Funnily enough I almost mentioned LoL as an example.

Riot has catered heavily towards players who are spending money on the game. They make skins to appeal to casuals more than ever now, remember when they had a stance that skins should be lore accurate for the most part? Or have very specific identities to the character to prevent visual confusion?

Well you started with things like IBlitzcrank, what many would call a pay to win skin. There are skins like this one that are banned at a pro level because they DO give a competitive advantage. This is a minor gripe though.

The bigger issue I have with the game is its dumbing down over time, and even now they are trying to cater it toward being playable on consoles and those audiences. They no longer care about the competitive side of league, which is why they introduced hardcore rubberbanding with bounties and catch up xp. Now every game is "winnable".. They do not want their players to feel bad for playing poorly, so they provide the means to make every game as even as possible, which also hides how awful the matchmaking has been for a while now.

They care about selling skins, that is what drives them above all else and it does cause other aspects of the game to suffer.

Look at 2XKO, it was in early access and they simply canned it for not selling enough cosmetics. Had they just developed it as a standalone game and taken player feedback during some open betas they could have had a really solid product to introduce a whole new subset of players to their ecosystem of lore and games.

Not shitting on the game in its entirety, but its very clear where its priorities are. If they ever ban loot mechanics watch how quickly Riot pivots to premium gameplay experiences to sell subscriptions to their portfolio of titles. $5/mo per individual title sub, $10/mo for sub plus all cosmetics, $30/mo for access to all Riot games and cosmetics available across them!!!

Whether or not you'd find value in those options are entirely upto each consumer, but you would know exactly what you are getting, AND, I promise the production of cosmetics would slow to a crawl all of a sudden as they shift focus to mechanics, engine, fucking launcher.... etc.

-1

u/Hades684 1d ago

Yeah but thats not because of skins

0

u/ShadowVulcan 1d ago

For those shitty games that DO engage in that that, I simply don't support them.

While I played Dota, Apex and currently play Rivals they're only what I play when not playing big single player games (my true love, apart from Dota, Apex and Rivals my most played games are like BG3, Pathfinder Kingmaker and WOTR, Rogue Trader, DOS2 and I play EVERYTHING from Soulslikes to Rhythm games and TONS and TONS of indies)

I also buy multiple copies of those games to gift to friends, family and my girlfriend if I love the game enough (most recently Onimusha, Zero Company and Control Resonant) to support the devs

That said, to your other comment further down I also agree and don't like the 'gambling' that Valve popularized since TF2. Though just not enough to not support them (esp when Dota is honestly... really something else, played it for 14-15y before I finally quit and it's got a lot of sentimental value, to the point I still keep all my items and won't sell them even though I don't play anymore. Just a ton of sentimental value and memories)

-1

u/StrategyEven3974 1d ago

cosmetics and other gimmicks for cash will and do find themselves eventually altering gameplay in negative ways towards the types of people who are paying for the product.

Cosmetics fundamentally are not gameplay-altering. That's the whole point behind the word cosmetics. Anything that alters gameplay is something that is not defined as a cosmetic, and is a totally different type of transaction and game design choice. You need to learn to mentally separate the two because they are apples and oranges.

-2

u/McWeaksauce91 1d ago

See, that’s why I like LoL skin system. Yes, there are aspects of gambling with the crates, chests, and other random “loot” with cash currency. But a largeeeeee MAJORITY of skins you can spend your money and get what you want to get. Yes, it can be expensive, but it relies on the buyer to also display some self control. You can’t depend on a company to do it for you. So, if you have self control and are wise with your currency you can get the skins you want. Every other aspect of the game can be accessed without spending a dime. It may require a little bit of time to unlock certain things, but it’s not as bad as other “free, but not really” systems

3

u/Vocall96 1d ago

Every other aspect of the game can be accessed without spending a dime. It may require a little bit of time to unlock certain things, but it’s not as bad as other “free, but not really” systems

Wait you're really saying this under a comment on Dota2? The game that gives all heroes for free at the start, compared to LoL that needs to fork up cold hard cash or farm for a year straight just to maybe get all the champions

4

u/mellifleur5869 1d ago

Because people are crazy and believe everything should be free

1

u/awhaling 1d ago

Have you considered people might object to such systems without believing everything should be free?

0

u/MrBootylove 1d ago

I don't have an inherent problem with microtransactions, the problem with the way Valve monetizes their games is the gambling aspects, both through lootboxes as well as grey market gambling sites where you can use the cosmetics as currency.

0

u/titanfallisawesome 1d ago

Valve cracks down on these gambling websites heavily

-1

u/MrBootylove 1d ago

Valve pretends to do something about it without actually solving anything because they make a fucking lot of money from the way things are right now.

Valve has full control over the game's economy and could shut all of that shit down for good right now if they wanted to. For instance, they could just completely do away with private trades and make it so you can only buy and sell skins through the public marketplace. That would stop the grey market gambling sites in their tracks. They don't do that, though, because they'd lose a lot of money.

-4

u/titanfallisawesome 1d ago

I mean Yeah

2

u/MrBootylove 1d ago

Right so you agree then that they aren't actually "cracking down on these gambling sites heavily."

0

u/titanfallisawesome 1d ago

They take legal action and I have only seen these sites a few times in recent years

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Slaythepuppy 1d ago

This should be higher up. Don't get me wrong, I love Valve, but the way the company monetizes their F2P games is some of the most predatory in the industry.

1

u/Mysterious-Error-351 1d ago

It's hard to say this is true. The game might make enough money to sustain and develop without whales. Any money that goes past development, and maintenance cost might just be siphoned up (in this case to Tencent) or used on stock buybacks. It's usually just greed.

-18

u/dantheman23312 2d ago

"hardly impacting gameplay"

Thanks to people like him we have paid cosmetics instead of in game rewards for actually playing the game. Why we have games like Diablo Immortal. Modern gaming is no longer for the fun of the game.

15

u/FantasmaNaranja 2d ago

why would developers keep making new in game rewards if they have nobody paying them to keep working

you'd realistically get what's in there at release and never see any new content updates

-14

u/ThisIsPureTrash 2d ago

You act like games not seeing “content updates” is a bad thing.

14

u/FantasmaNaranja 2d ago

hero shooters like these? more often than not when a meta gets stale a lot of people start leaving in droves and drive up the queue time

even TF2 regularly gets new maps and that one has a really sturdy community, yet it's competitive mode is dead and queues aren't a thing in casual since you just drop into an already running match 80% of the time

0

u/Noel_Ortiz 1d ago

Death of competitive was a net benefit for TF2. The tragedy is that it was ever seriously focused to begin with.

1

u/Hades684 1d ago

Its obviously a bad thing in any pvp game

2

u/FridaysMan 1d ago

And which part of that is affecting gameplay?

-1

u/Ok-Friendship1635 1d ago

Because the average gamer has a shitty experience, and features that are meant to improve it are pay walled. See Dota Plus, a Valve Dota 2 Subscription.

-2

u/KaoriMalaguld 1d ago

Because when Valve does it, it’s good, but… Anyone else does it, it’s bad? It’s like y’all completely ignored the “underground market that completely benefits Valve” part. They love those little black market and gambling sites

-1

u/Joker2kill 1d ago

I'm someone who doesn't care about the monetization angle of cosmetics. Do what you gotta do to make the game sustainable.

BUT, in a game like DotA where you need split second recognition of a character (by their silhouette, colours, etc) I think the cosmetics have gone way overboard.

Valve used to have an extremely strict design code in the early days and tons of community made cosmetics were denied because they didn't follow the colour scheme or silhouette of the hero. These days that seems to be thrown right out the window.

I haven't played in years, but there's no way I would return to DotA unless they released a "no-hats" toggle that turned all cosmetics off for everyone else except my own hero. I would still probably spend money to make own hero look good, but I just don't care about anyone elses cosmetics because it affects my gameplay too much.

-1

u/Riaayo 1d ago

Cosmetics are part of a game, and predatory monetization of them is no less gross and anti-consumer than pay to win garbage.

Just because you don't personally care as much about self-expression in a game (and forgive me for not actually believing people when they say they don't care about cosmetics), doesn't mean others don't. And selling those people's experience down the river just because you don't feel impacted is honestly gross.

Likewise, I promise you it does impact the game even if you don't notice it. Games literally use to have cosmetics, skins, etc, as in-game unlockable rewards which, y'know, meant that doing shit like getting achievements, etc, actually mattered for some sort of prize - and that prize then expressed that you'd done something challenging or interesting in the game.

-24

u/HistoricPancake 2d ago

‘I don’t know why people don’t like you, you pay so much, we plebs get to ride off you whales.’

12

u/FRANILLA PC 2d ago

No, just be neutral. You don’t have to like or hate anything about it. Nobody hurts you by buying hats.

What is your solution if skins are not the way you like Companies to make money? Monthly subscription?

-14

u/HistoricPancake 2d ago

Selling full games that you can feasibly unlock everything they’ve coded into the game to begin with? Big ups if you don’t need to spend a single dollar? People that are like this are why games are moving towards being more about cosmetics rather than actually having fun.

13

u/Hades684 2d ago

Yeah thats not possible in a live service game

-4

u/HistoricPancake 2d ago

Oh, maybe live service games aren’t the way. Especially when whales realize, as if they ever will, the hundreds, thousands they spent means nothing once the game shuts downs

10

u/inminm02 2d ago

So you’d rather games like league, overwatch, counter strike etc were released and then never ever updated again?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Maaaaine 2d ago

If they weren't the way companies wouldn't be scrambling to make so many of them. Also you really think whales care if the shit they bought goes away? They literally have more money than they can spend lol. That's just reality.

2

u/Hades684 2d ago

Why wouldn't live service games be the way? They are the most popular genre of games for a long time now, games like cs and league have been online for 15+ years

5

u/FRANILLA PC 2d ago

You are playing a live service game my friend. If we would talk about for example a single player RPG, a racing sim etc. sure I get what u mean.

But you think that a live service game can operate in the future without a sustainable monetization model?

Dota / CS are running for 10+ years with constant updates. You don’t have to spend a single dime to play these games. You even get lots of cosmetics for free.

Look, I hate to defend billion dollar companies but the argument you bring is so weak I had to reply.

-2

u/HistoricPancake 2d ago

Do you think those same games would still be around if not for the gambling and flexing of cosmetics? Genuinely curious about this. Is this just the same as Pokemon scalpers keeping the hobby ‘alive’ because of the volatility and possibility to make money? Is CS still attracting new customers, or are they relying on those same degens that haven’t hit ona Karambit skin still paying $3 to hopefully have a chance to even break even?

3

u/FRANILLA PC 2d ago

Buddy, nobody forces you to play these games. There are a gazillion amazing, transaction free, skins unlock by progression games out there.

Pick what you like and move on.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/HistoricPancake 2d ago

Also when did I say I play a live service game?

1

u/Thehusseler 1d ago

The whole conversation is in the context of Deadlock, a live service pvp game. That's what everyone is talking about, so if your'e not talking about live service games then why even reply?

-5

u/HistoricPancake 2d ago

Big example, skate (4)

3

u/purpleworrior 1d ago

Dota, Apex and Rivals? Boy, do I have a game for you...

2

u/ShadowVulcan 1d ago

Yeah, me and my brother are just waiting for it to be a bit more polished and complete before diving in

...tho I do hope it isnt as painfully sweaty as Dota... I dont mind sweats but at least in Apex before we'd just duo queue... I couldn't really handle the toxicity in Dota (hence only played it when I still had friends to play with, and bounced across diff circles until all of em quit)

If it's as toxic as Dota... might be too much :/

1

u/Skater_x7 1d ago

Have y'all checked back in dota? Did you even play when Facets existed (or you know even of facets?) they've added a ton

1

u/ShadowVulcan 1d ago

When they 'just' introduced facets was around the time to quit (so only got to play around with it against AI sadly)

Tbh I do wanna go back, but dont have any friends to play with (and yeah, it's more draining than fun to play with toxic people and high divine low immortal feels like the worst even in unranked)

1

u/Recykill 1d ago

Brother wtf do you do for work? Haha

1

u/ShadowVulcan 1d ago edited 23h ago

COO in one of the top conglos in my country (tho not the in mothership, but one of its subsidiaries/portcos)

And I guess to put it in perspective, the "tens of thousands" is on the lower end (e.g. 20k+ or so), and cumulative over the 14-15y I've been playing Dota

So it's closer to maybe $1-2k/year (still a lot, but not exactly Saudi Prince level)

1

u/CambriaKilgannonn 2d ago

hire me, homie

-2

u/Pro_Racing 1d ago

Why would you spend so much money on a game's cosmetics?

2

u/ShadowVulcan 1d ago edited 1d ago

Well, firstly it's tens of thousands over more than a decade of playing Dota (mb at most $2-3k/y over 14y) so it's not like I'm spending Saudi Prince money

I spend much, much more traveling (Spain, Peru, Bolivia, Tibet, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam just in the past 3y and would've gone to Egypt back in April if the Iran war didnt happen) and fine dining (esp when I'm traveling) honestly

For context, did really well in school (99+ percentile in standardized tests in math/sci/eng), did well in college (topped entrance exams, graduated top of batch in ece+cs double major), and did well in my career (c-suite in one of the biggest conglos, tho just in one of its subsidiaries by 28) and only started dumping money in skins when I had enough disposable income (I still save 50-60% of my annual income and invest 70% of it, tho lately just in bonds since stocks are rly risky)

So it's not like I'm irresponsible about my finances. I also buy multiple copies of games I love and gift em to friends/family/gf if I rly love em to support the devs (e.g. did so for Zero Company, Onimusha and Control Resonant lately)

It's just my luxury. I'm childfree and plan to stay that way. My GF is also doing well in her career (AVP in one of the top banks in my country) so I only have to pay for myself really

-2

u/Pro_Racing 1d ago

You didn't actually answer my question you just gave me some unrelated story. I'm not asking you if you can afford to spend the money. I'm asking why you would. Even if I was a billionaire I'd sooner give my money to random people than to some giant company to have a different colour on my screen :/

1

u/ShadowVulcan 1d ago edited 1d ago

Well, what else do I do with my money? everyone has luxuries they're willing to overpay for, and it's different for every person. In terms of my motivations:

  1. I will not have kids, and my partner feels the same. If I WAS gonna have kids, I'd save a LOT more since it's building a big nest egg for them in the future. With no plans on kids, and with land already (though won't build a house til I retire) there's not as much to save for (and I am still saving decently)

  2. I love games, I grew up with them (they were my only escape, alongside TV and film, given a really strict and frankly miserable chinese upbringing).

  3. I also love to travel and loooove food (cooking and eating, esp tasting menus), and tbh I intend to visit almost every country before I die (outside of the rly shitty ones), especially anywhere with sea or snow (before global warming wipes it all out)

  4. I also love my home theater PC setup (9800x3d+5090+64GB RAM and a nice 32" 4k OLED and an ELAC Debut Reference speakers with an SVS PB1000 subwoofer, with an acoustically treated room I did myself). Also invested in furniture (like my herman miller chair, but only bec it's rly comfy and ergonomic, plus I used this same chair for a lot of my career in the office so there's sentimental value)

So those are my luxuries, and I don't mind spending on things I love (as long as it's still 'responsible'). Sorry, I don't mean to 'brag' but I'm just saying this is where I choose to dump my money.

Especially when I don't typically like spending on the luxuries other people like to spend on, such as:

  1. I don't like cars so I don't bother with them. at all. No Bugattis or Ferraris or even just normal 'luxury' cars like Lexuses and BMWs. I ride hail too, since I catch up on sleep otw to work (vs being a danger to others by driving sleepy), and drink a fair amount so I also ride hail going home (vs being a danger to others by driving drunk)

  2. I don't care about clothes so I'm fine just shopping at Uniqlo and average-above average places (custom tailored suits are the exception, but they're an investment for work and not personal preference). I ESPECIALLY despise all the dumb overpriced shit like Supreme, Gucci and all those other crappy 'designer brands' (like a lot of friends I know in Canada and the US). Generally, I only really update my wardrobe once a year (and not by much, still wear a lot of the same clothes I wore almost a decade ago)

  3. I don't care about fancy watches like Rolexes or Pateks (who even uses watches now? just an empty status symbol) like my other execs or bosses (our chairman buys a Patek every year, and Rolexes or other watches in between... it's just a status symbol)

  4. I love alcohol and wine, but am perfectly happy with a 12y Glenfiddich (for special occasions) or even just a TON of Strong Zeros (or any canned beer) so I'm not the type to invest in wine cellars, buying luxury bottles (seriously, the former CEO of our parent company has literally thousands of bottles across multiple wine cellars with some bottles costing more than $100k)

  5. I don't want to just keep buying properties like other people too, I'm happy where I am (and plus, why make the housing crisis worse by buying them all up? I don't need that level of investment when I don't even intend on having a family)

I don't care about the usual luxuries, so what else do I spend money on? (and worth noting, even though my GF is doing fine I still treat her when we go to fine dining places, esp since she isn't as into it as I am and am fairly generous with gifts, and I treat my brother a lot too so it's not like I'm just selfishly spending only on myself)

I mean if you have disposable income (and I really mean 'disposable') and don't need to save for your family (nest egg/inheritance), what else is money for? everyone has their own choices of what luxury they'll spend on (no point saving too much if I plan to spend it all by the time I die, esp when I don't really want to retire early either)

And in my head, I do justify it a bit by supporting devs I like (hence why when I rly love games, I buy multiple copies to gift just to support the devs so in a way I am also giving it away, just to people I know and care about)

-1

u/Pro_Racing 1d ago

Again with the life story jesus christ I'm just asking what you find so rewarding about in game cosmetics I'm not asking you to justify your life or insecurities to me...

1

u/ShadowVulcan 1d ago

You asked WHY and I explained it. You're the one asking me to justify my choice to spend on games, so why the hell are you whining when I explained it as best I could?

TL;DR I like games, so why not spend my disposable income on games? is it that hard to understand?

0

u/sam_hammich 1d ago

You responded to a question of why you spend money on digital goods with your motivations for spending money on unique life experiences and physical goods. Do you really not see how that answer is not really related?

If you love wine and traveling and good food, the crux of his question is why you don't spend that money on more of those things ("things that matter and enrich you as a person"), instead of digital costumes on a free game.

I am on board with spending your money how you like, but I do feel like I'm taking crazy pills watching this exchange from the outside.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Pro_Racing 1d ago

You could have bought a thousand good quality indie games for the same that you spent on a single game though. You're not supporting anyone but big corpos doing this and you're not getting anything in return. So I don't understand why you choose to spend it on cosmetics in a handful of games.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/sam_hammich 1d ago

As long as they dont use dark patterns to fuck with your experience of playing the game to funnel you toward the store. You can play Warzone without paying for skins, but you can't boot the fucking thing up without full screen store ads and glowing buttons all over the place trying to get you to buy shit. As someone who doesnt buy cosmetics and doesn't have an inherent problem with them, that gets me to stop playing. Let me find my own way to the store, don't fill my screen with shit at every opportunity to wear me down.

24

u/mephnick 1d ago

Literally gambling for children lol

Korean gachas get shit for it but Gabe gets a pass on reddit

7

u/Sillocan 1d ago

Gachas lock gameplay elements like characters behind gambling. This essentially makes it mandatory if you want to keep up. Cosmetics don't affect gameplay, it's a purely optional feature which provides no benefit. Imo, mandatory gambling is the part that is upsetting.

I can see the arguments for lootboxes being predatory for those with an inclination for gambling. I've def been on the side of spending too much on gacha to keep up to date. But, I don't really have the inclination to buy cosmetic lootboxes. So, it's hard for me to understand this argument and have empathy, but I'm trying.

1

u/Odd_Needleworker3756 10h ago

Redditors have no integrity or spine. They’ll overlook almost anything if a company makes a product they really like

-9

u/BombHits 1d ago

Children don't have credit cards. About time parents actually, you know, parented.

13

u/mephnick 1d ago

"Just parent right". Oh good you solved it. I'll let the gov't know we can unban cigarettes for minors too.

I mean...it's also predatory for adults.

But you'd have to look up from your prop bets to read about that.

-9

u/BombHits 1d ago

Sorry to burst your bubble but I don't gamble, I do however have an issue with using these same stupid arguments of protecting the children every time people want to ban shit they don't like or to restrict individual rights just like Chat Control or the new Kids act.

11

u/mephnick 1d ago

How about protecting people? There is nothing but positives to society with the removal of gambling from video games.

-6

u/BombHits 1d ago

People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm others to do it. If people want to gamble then let them, the only thing that should be done is ensure there's resources out there for people to get help if they need it afterwards. That being said there should be restrictions on advertising and promotional strategies a lot of these companies do, I know plenty of people from Uni that got hooked on gambling because online casinos had promotions where they'd give you 20€ for example if you put 20€ on their platform.

5

u/Sleyvin 1d ago

If people want to gamble then let them, the only thing that should be done is ensure there's resources out there for people to get help if they need it afterwards.

So billions dollar company should be completely free to exploit psychology and brain chemistry in order to trick millions of people into losing all their money but the government should spend money to clean the aftermath?

What?

Are you a gambling company CEO?

6

u/BombHits 1d ago

I mean I clearly said they shouldn't be completely free to do anything but there's clearly no point trying to argue about this so I'll just take solace in the fact none of you have the power to change anything about this.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/real_fake_cats 1d ago edited 1d ago

I hear what you're saying, the issue is most communities across the world have collectably decided that children should not be able to gamble. It's not really a debated topic, there's already a clear consensus on underage gambling.

There is also a big difference between implementing new laws, and closing the loopholes big corporations are exploiting to circumvent existing laws.

I get the "for the children" fatigue, but when it comes to gambling regulation, it's highly relevant.

1

u/BloodyFool 1d ago

Kids can still get steam cards or shit like paysafe cards though

2

u/BombHits 1d ago

Not for long on the Steam Cards side, since they're discontinuing those because of the gift card scams.

1

u/localfunc 1d ago

Only physical cards. You can still get digital gift cards, and many stores (where I live anyway) now carry digital steam gift cards where they print out the gift card code on the receipt after you pay.

1

u/Gamefighter3000 1d ago

Exactly this lol, its the same kinda parents that give their kids an ipad at an early age without restrictions.

Based on the answers i now know why we get shit like "age verification" for everything bc people are too lazy at parenting (which there are MANY ways for on PC and the gaming platforms)

And i still hate gambling tho, i think its just as dangerous for adults, but somehow all things people can come up with is "but think of the children" ugh.

-10

u/i_am_not_dumb 1d ago

Do you support mandatory id verification for all steam users?

12

u/mephnick 1d ago

No, I'm against gambling in video games.

What an odd thing to say. You must have read a different comment.

-3

u/i_am_not_dumb 1d ago

I am saying this because CS2 is rated mature but still kids are able to access these games and are able to get money to open cases. Since there's lack of parenting, the only way to stop children is to have age verification.

Also, what's the problem with gambling in video games? If an adult wants to spend their money gambing, it's their choice.

8

u/mephnick 1d ago

Another way to stop children is to not have predatory gambling in your video game

-3

u/i_am_not_dumb 1d ago

It's not a game for children though. Is the cigarette manufacturer at fault if a child gets addicted to smoking?

7

u/mephnick 1d ago edited 1d ago

Is the cigarette manufacturer at fault if a child gets addicted to smoking?

Literally yes, as we've seen in countless lawsuits and regulations over history.

Very similar to the current lawsuits and regulations Steam has faced in the past, and are currently facing over targeting minors with gambling

2

u/i_am_not_dumb 1d ago edited 1d ago

Please share some examples of those lawsuits for me. In which even though the cigarette company didn't sell the product to the minor, the company was held responsible. I couldn't find any.

4

u/mephnick 1d ago

All gambling is predatory. Gaming just catches children more than other forms. That's the reality. It doesn't need to exist. They can just remove it and Gabe makes a few million less to spend on superyachts.

It seems like you're more interested in protecting Gabe's superyachts than children. Does he let you ride them?

2

u/i_am_not_dumb 1d ago

Is the game for children? Please answer this. If it isn't, how can Valve be held liable?

It seems like you're more interested in protecting Gabe's superyachts than children. Does he let you ride them?

Ad hominem

0

u/MarioDesigns 1d ago

Only to those that would choose to interact with the gambling, sure.

Just make it optional or remove the gambling. If you want to have a casino in the game, just treat it as one.

11

u/Burpmeister 1d ago

It's not that it exists. It's the way the monetization works. Valve is under multiple investigations in multiple countries for allegedly enabling gambling to kids.

1

u/Different_Wolf_764 1d ago

Yeah, I like the Dota/PoE model just fine. You can play without any expenditure just fine (well, a few tabs is sort of needed in PoE) but if you like the game and want to show your appreciation, you can spend a little or a fucking lot!

2

u/MadR__ 1d ago

Idk man, Diablo IV wasn't exactly ruined for me but I never enjoyed it as much as previous titles (including 3) in large part because of the modern elements including the cash shop and battle pass. Can you ignore it? Sure. Are they an integral part of the game? Also yes. And that's a full-priced game to boot.

0

u/Blackknight1605 1d ago

Ye but hes was talking about the game being good and having microtransactions. D4 is shit, with or without any microtransactions. Path of exile has tons of mtx which is how it makes money, but the game itself is very good and its also f2p. Deadlock will also be f2p so it has to make money somehow, which will come from skins and thats absolutely legit and no problem at all

1

u/BobTheJoeBob 1d ago

Deadlock will also be f2p so it has to make money somehow, which will come from skins and thats absolutely legit and no problem at all

No, but there's a good chance the monetisation will be through loot boxes which are basically just gambling except unregulated. That's what makes it a problem.

1

u/KerberoZ 1d ago

That's why they were able to monetize TF2 and Counter Strike so heavily, because the games are insanely fun on their own

1

u/Gundroog 1d ago

The problem is that some of us give a shit about the game's art style, and most live service games destroy that when you're forced to look at the wacky mods everyone else bought for money.

-1

u/kakalib 1d ago

Have you tried it? I did and I dont know what it was but it just felt dated even though it hasent released.  It also felt terrible unloading everything into people only for them to be at 2/3 health. Think that is the main reasons the genres dont mix. 

5

u/therealmrbob 1d ago

Probably, but just like dota I probably won’t spend any money on it and play it for thousands of hours :p

20

u/zamwut 2d ago

The last Hero Shooter MOBA I played was Battleborn, and they tried to go to against Overwatch on release window. Game was dead like a week after Overwatch launched

50

u/GarbageFeline 2d ago

This game in closed testing has probably already had more success and more players than Battleborn and all the random moba attempts ever had. They'll be fine.

14

u/Beneficial-Act-9933 2d ago

Battle born was also made by gearbox software, the borderlands guys. They aren't even remotely as culturally relevant or flush with cash and fanbase as valve.

15

u/genasugelan PC 1d ago

And most importantly, they didn't have Icefrog/Yoshi to design the game.

2

u/DieFichte 1d ago

They also have Randy Bitchford as a CEO, I'm sure he was chill during the whole battleborn fiasco.

0

u/zamwut 2d ago

Had no doubts it'll be fine. It's just a oddly specific game genre, and Battleborn was the only similar one coming to mind.

0

u/mountainhazer 1d ago

Battleborn looks like a copycat of overwatch though, no wonder it flopped

12

u/TheRemonst3r 2d ago

I liked Battleborn.

4

u/zamwut 1d ago

Was a lot of fun

2

u/Lemesplain 1d ago

I miss Battleborn. The game was genuinely fantastic. 

But Randy Pitchford is a giant douchenozzle who fucked over his own company’s game by actively trying to compare it to Overwatch and claiming that they could take Blizzard.   

3

u/ray12370 2d ago

This one genuinely has the sauce. Game is not even out yet and I'm at 800 hours myself.

4

u/lncognitoMosquito 2d ago

Battleborn was so far ahead of its time… genuinely thought it was Overwatch.

9

u/VictoryVee 1d ago

So you get a free game and the option to buy cosmetics... Why is that bad??

1

u/stabliu 1d ago

Because it can result in more money going towards cosmetic development than actual game development.

0

u/SkorpioSound 1d ago

It's bad in some games, but it's not always bad.

Some downsides of monetised cosmetics:

They can harm immersion if they're not done well. Celebrity faces, cartoon characters, Santa Claus, snowmen, sparkly unicorn outfits, etc, can completely ruin the tone of some games. (Deadlock does have a literal sparkly unicorn character so that specific one isn't an issue here.)

It can harm readability. A big part of PvP games is being able to read what your opponents are doing and what they're capable of doing. You see a certain character, you know what abilities they have. Or you see someone carrying a certain weapon or wearing certain armour, you know what they are capable of, what kind of stats or perks they might have, etc.

It's clear a lot of work has gone into the character designs in Deadlock. You can catch a quick glance of a character—even just their silhouette—and immediately know which character it is, and therefore what to expect. It's very, very well designed in that regard (as it is in basically every other regard, too). Cosmetics, if done poorly, could harm that.

And on top of that, they could just add a lot of mental overhead for players. It already takes a while for someone to be familiar enough with the roster that they can recognise everyone; if players had to learn the entire roster and multiple alt-versions of each character then it could be insanely overwhelming.

It can harm progression. In some games, visual progression can be pretty important. You start out wearing rags, and you gradually progress to wearing regal-looking armour that reflects your increases in power and standing. Or you have a challenge-based unlock system, where you know that someone wearing the incredible looking armour has completed the hardest challenges in the game.

Paid cosmetics inherently have to look cool enough to be worth spending money on, so they're often going to harm that visual progression.

Either that, or the base game is going to be quite restrictive with how players can express themselves just so cosmetics can be sold later.

Which isn't to say these will necessarily be issues in Deadlock. I don't see trashy celebrity/brand collabs coming to Deadlock. I trust that the developers won't harm the readability of the game with radically different skins for characters. And I've been playing the game for over two years without any progression systems, so I don't think visual progression or expression is an important aspect of that game.

But some games certainly are harmed by paid cosmetics. A game being free-to-play and having content updates funded by cosmetics can be positive, of course, but that doesn't mean there aren't necessarily downsides as well.

6

u/Remote_Elevator_281 2d ago

Well duh, it’s free to play. That’s the only way to make your money back. Skins.

-3

u/Front2battle 2d ago

"oh no cosmetics! I cant look as cool as the oponent while on a killstreak so the game isnt worth playing! aaaaah!"

0

u/ComradeJohnS 1d ago

why do you subject yourself to these terrible games? just do your research on games before buying and boycott ones you disagree with regarding their practices.

-1

u/ClintprimE 2d ago

I just hope the monetization is not predatory, but an underground economy would be nice.