Unneeded Monetization and FOMO

Bostaurus
Bostaurus Member Posts: 6
in Feedback and Suggestions

Hi, I just watched a video on this by Mintskull, who brought up some very good points on this matter. You’ll find it if you go in his channel, but I don’t wanna get in trouble for sharing to other platforms. The issue is, as some may know, is the limited-time cosmetics epidemic affecting the cosmetic shop. Some skins from even 2019 are soon to be removed after Jan. 4, limiting people from buying the skins they think are cool. You cant use iridescent shards either, meaning BHVR is just doing this to scrape in extra cash. Remember, DBD is a free game, so why see they treating it like it’s free? We spend a ton on licenses, the rift, overpriced cosmetics, and the game itself already.

(And there is no problem for limited skins for reasons such as the community-earned ones on holidays, or the rift skins. They may be limited, but you can still get some or all for free. )

It’s a scummy tactic to say the least, as Mintskull says in his video, and it’s likely here to stay unless we stop it while it’s a small issue.

I know it’s a measly chance for anything to change now, but maybe if we complain enough about it, we might be able to keep cosmetics available to all.

Comments

  • DeathwingDuck
    DeathwingDuck Member Posts: 68

    Yea I saw this and I already knew about the FOMO stuff before that video popped. Didn't realize they were also removing cosmetics that have been in the game for awhile.

    Because of this I'm not buying anymore cosmetics regardless. This is predatory monetization and I'll have no part in it.

  • Xord
    Xord Member Posts: 517

    I don't necesarily have a problem with FOMO by itself, but:

    It should be moderate.

    In a game that isn't F2P, it should be available with in game currency.

    It's not like Making them available in Iridescend shards wouldn't earn them money anyway, most players who don't play that much do need to make choices with their shards, if they use it for skins they're more likely to buy other content.

  • AssortedSorting
    AssortedSorting Member Posts: 1,326

    The 20$ buy-in cost serves as a barrier to entry that means mass production of bot accounts will be costly for whoever would be inclined to do so. (And people WILL do so)

    This game is technically free to play given the sustained development model SHOULD be subscription based. But it isn’t.

    Given everyone complaining that $20 is more than enough to sustain a game indefinitely and they want to unlock everything for free because “they already paid”, I can see why they’re moving into some more on-the-nose monetization tactics.

    And hey, you want more and better maps in the game, right? Those are literally going to be the largest loss-leader the game has, to a very, very significant degree. IMO to the point that the only funding maps should receive is from cosmetic sales.

  • Bran
    Bran Member Posts: 2,096

    It's a shame people could put this energy in shaming battlepasses, like myself, but instead they choose this. Honestly, I don't like it myself, but I understand it to a degree...not really. It is pretty stupid, but idk if I'm willing to call it a big deal just yet.