Cosmetic should ALWAYS be optional in every video games.

Comments

  • OskooI_007
    1291 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I guess I can understand how someone would be upset if they spent €80 on a pink Tie Fighter and everybody just turns cosmetics off.
  • CT1924
    1308 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Sort of... should have logical and illogical cosmetic groups. Gimme my trench coat for trench combat!
  • Celsi_GER
    789 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    OskooI_007 wrote: »
    I guess I can understand how someone would be upset if they spent €80 on a pink Tie Fighter and everybody just turns cosmetics off.

    I cannot even understand how some could spent 80ct for a pink Tie Fighter...
  • tempo_rarity
    1322 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dear Home ,
    HowareyoufineIhopeI'mdoingwell The War marches onward .
    I saw what I think is the most clumsiest soldier to ever don a uniform this morning .
    The guy kept tripping up every few feet but he must've gotten used to it because he never EVER actually fell down - he'd be up and running again a second later .
    There's also a LOT of freedom fighters fighting for us - for both sides - as we fight from town to town ; it's sometimes really hard to know who's Friend or Foe .
    Science seems to be advancing in leaps and bounds in making this War more wicked as we go along - some of the weapons being used are wildly efficient .
    Medicine too - I watched a guy blown up by a Tank get up pretty quickly when a Medic gave him some . . magic potion I guess . . I dunno what it was .
    Uh-oh I see a sniper off in the distance shining a bright flashlight all over the place - he might try to shoot me .
    Write you again 'Soon' .
    XXOO
  • jroggs
    1222 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    OskooI_007 wrote: »
    EA let's you turn off cosmetics in Star Wars Squadrons.
    EA has confirmed that Star Wars: Squadrons will permit players to decide if they want to see other people's customisation options in their games, as well as revealing that the flight mechanics and HUD elements will be entirely changeable and optional, too.

    "Some players aren't going to want to see any of [other player's customisation choices]," creative director Ian S. Frazier told IGN. "It won't matter how plausible it is, they just want to keep it to exactly what we've seen in the films, no more and no less, and we totally get that. And so we have an option in the game to hide everybody else's cosmetics. So if you flip that on, then all of a sudden, if you want to put a racing stripe or whatever on your own TIE Fighter, you'll see it, but everybody else's is just going to look like a normal boilerplate TIE Fighter for you."

    This also applies to your own cockpit experience, too; you can decide to have the information that's usually fed to your HUD display only available via cockpit instruments, for instance, or decorate the cockpit with your own good luck charms.


    https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-07-04-star-wars-squadrons-hud-and-customisation-options-are-entirely-optional-says-ea

    I never thought EA would allow cosmetics to be turned off. That's their money maker after all.

    With that said, it's too bad BFV doesn't have the option to disable cosmetics for a more authentic WWII experience.

    The difference is that, when it comes to Star Wars, EA is accountable to Disney and their brand protection, whereas with WW2 (in BFV) they're accountable to no one. History isn't a corporation with contract lawyers.

    Still, would be nice if games started implementing default visual toggles in all games with cosmetic customizations.
  • DingoKillr
    4299 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Some of you complaining to much about this. BF3/4 had cosmetic customization.

    If a game offers me customization and I pay for it. I'm thus agreeing to it.

    As for historical accuracy it is a game. Some details will not happen and trying to point out a default uniform colour or details as being wrong is laughable for a war that lasted almost 6 years in different environment around the world.

    It is laughable now where none of this historical accurate don't complain about not having almost the same colour desert uniforms or white clad snow troops on both teams. Yet the wrong shade of brown is so incorrect that the whole game needs to ditched.

    Beside there is no such thing as single accurate uniform in a combat zone.
  • rainkloud
    592 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member

    It's not a weak point as we see in your response once again. People use words like "tasteful" or "fitting" yet nobody actually defines it any further, acting like the definition of these words would be uniform for everyone.

    Also, how do you want to introduce this scarcity? Will one be blocked from spawning if there is too many other people running around with a certain jacket or whatever? That sounds ridiculous.

    I think you are underestimating how much some people care about their own representation in game. In fact, I personally would care more about my character in this game than in sims, simply because to me the character in this game does represent myself, while a sims does not (in my understanding).
    We don't need the definition to be uniform for everyone. Nor does it need to have pinpoint precision. Like many standards we hold in law, business, sports etc. we just need to meet the standard of "what would a reasonable person say?" Good judgement is a both a skill and an innate attribute. Those who excel in it can make these determinations as they've done in countless other endeavours. Among the many issues BF faces, determining what cosmetics should and shouldn't be in the game is barely a blip on the radar.

    I agree your proposal about scarcity is ridiculous and I am refreshed you had the good sense to self recognize that. Instead I would propose scarcity as it is traditionally understood: A finite amount of cosmetic X would be available. Just like a limited edition of basketball shoes or anything limited edition for that matter. That would dramatically increase the value of items worthy of this distinction.

    I don't doubt that many place a high value on their appearance and I am not diametrically opposed to those who do. However, Battlefield (as I envision it) should concern itself first and foremost with its theme and its gameplay. If it becomes a consumption fest with players more focussed on loot, fashion, and having 100 poorly balanced guns rather than 50 well balanced ones then it will devolve into something not worthy of the Battlefield name. 

    To be clear, I want microtransactions in the game and I'm totally fine with cosmetic customizations so long as the present a reasonable value to consumers and they fit with the theme of the game. And if you are right that most people don't really care that much about strict or semi-strict theme adherence then few people will likely take advantage of option to disable the more exotic items and thus this value degradation that you speak of will be negligible as there will be hoards of players still able to view them.

    I think EA recognizes that they can have their cake and eat it too with cosmetics with the SW Squadrons template. I would only venture that it can be improved by having 3 settings rather than just a binary on/off
  • 123loreni
    115 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If you are the kind of guy who think cosmetic don't completely ruin the atmosphere of a game you are blind !
    We all know cosmetic only purposes is money. Ok!
    But ... We should always have a option to turn them OFF.
    The default option should always be the most " Classic" setting the game can't  offer.
    Everyone wear a helmet.
    Everyone wear a original uniform. 
    The uniform should match the map design ( forest = green camo, winter = winter uniform, desert = desert camo ect...
    The weapon should look original, made of wood and steel.
    You know what i mean here. 


    And for all the others who like the cosmetic thing, turn it ON and enjoy your self.
    Go run in the desert of North Africa.
    At 40° degree celsius.
    With a British black woman. 
    Who wear a white ski suit.
    And a gaz mask.
    Who shot Japanese woman. 
    With a German bolt action rifle, painted in golden plate.
    And finish her off with a criket bat.
    Who constantly say. Hello old friend !
    I also don't use cosmetics. However I steal other peoples weapons when I kill them and it's a nice surprise to see what others use....

    First game that offered silly cosmetics I think was Rainbow six Division I think....
  • The_BERG_366
    2763 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    rainkloud said:

    It's not a weak point as we see in your response once again. People use words like "tasteful" or "fitting" yet nobody actually defines it any further, acting like the definition of these words would be uniform for everyone.

    Also, how do you want to introduce this scarcity? Will one be blocked from spawning if there is too many other people running around with a certain jacket or whatever? That sounds ridiculous.

    I think you are underestimating how much some people care about their own representation in game. In fact, I personally would care more about my character in this game than in sims, simply because to me the character in this game does represent myself, while a sims does not (in my understanding).
    We don't need the definition to be uniform for everyone. Nor does it need to have pinpoint precision. Like many standards we hold in law, business, sports etc. we just need to meet the standard of "what would a reasonable person say?" Good judgement is a both a skill and an innate attribute. Those who excel in it can make these determinations as they've done in countless other endeavours. Among the many issues BF faces, determining what cosmetics should and shouldn't be in the game is barely a blip on the radar.

    I agree your proposal about scarcity is ridiculous and I am refreshed you had the good sense to self recognize that. Instead I would propose scarcity as it is traditionally understood: A finite amount of cosmetic X would be available. Just like a limited edition of basketball shoes or anything limited edition for that matter. That would dramatically increase the value of items worthy of this distinction.

    I don't doubt that many place a high value on their appearance and I am not diametrically opposed to those who do. However, Battlefield (as I envision it) should concern itself first and foremost with its theme and its gameplay. If it becomes a consumption fest with players more focussed on loot, fashion, and having 100 poorly balanced guns rather than 50 well balanced ones then it will devolve into something not worthy of the Battlefield name. 

    To be clear, I want microtransactions in the game and I'm totally fine with cosmetic customizations so long as the present a reasonable value to consumers and they fit with the theme of the game. And if you are right that most people don't really care that much about strict or semi-strict theme adherence then few people will likely take advantage of option to disable the more exotic items and thus this value degradation that you speak of will be negligible as there will be hoards of players still able to view them.

    I think EA recognizes that they can have their cake and eat it too with cosmetics with the SW Squadrons template. I would only venture that it can be improved by having 3 settings rather than just a binary on/off
    If you want to change something then you absolutely do. If you want people to understand what you want to be changed then its in your own best interest to explain as precisely as possible WHAT should be changed and HOW it should be changed. Using spongy terminology and just relying on the existence of someone that understands what you actually want to express with it is simply lazy, nothing else. 
    "what would a reasonable person say" is just as much of an imprecise spongy and subjective maxim as well. If you know what you want to change then go ahead and explain it precisely and if you don't then think about it first and ONLY THEN do the same. if one can't be bothered to really think about what he wants to be changed about the a certain subject, he doesnt have the right to complain about the state of that subject not fitting his preferences. Its as easy as that. 
    Now of course there are such inaccuracies in law for example but whenever they are present they induce problems naturally. You can only expect information to be transferred if you send it. Relying on some underlying common ground more than really necessary just induces errors in the transferred information. Hence it should be in everyones best interest to avoid them as much as possible. And simply talking about "tasteful customization" leaves a lot of room for improvement in terms of precision, thats the point. 

    The problem with scarcity in this sense, is that the value of items doesnt just raise infinitely with decreasing available units. The item itself also impacts how valuable it is and right now i can't think of a single piece of soldier customization (apart from some elites) that anyone would pay a significant amount of money for (which would be necessary to not make this complete economical nonsense), even if they were very rare. 

    Probably yes, but i don't see this happening in bfv at all right now. Also customisation is a thing that is expected from AAA games nowadays and hence shouldn't be ignored. It deosnt have to be super excessive but that isn't the case in this game anyways. 

    Thats not how it works. The degradation is not dependent on how many people would actually disable it as players don't know if others have it on or not, due to the valuation being purely subjective. Hence the amount of people that actually WOULD disable it is completely irrelevant to how a possible buyer values an item. All that matters is how many player he thinks have it disabled and how much it matters to him if someone doesnt see his special item. The biggest impact has the fact that it is possible in the first place though. If one can basically force everyone to see it, it is much more worth than if even 99.9% see it. 
    Its hard to tell how much it would matter to the buyers, but it having an impact is certain. 


  • ragnarok013
    3816 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    SirBobdk said:
    Would be nice to be able to turn it off.
    But I think it should be done seperatly for infantry and vehicles. I find vehicles ok.

    SirBobdk I'm definitely a fan of a client side customization kill switch that impacts nobody but your own experience.  My preference would be a granular kill switches so if I don't want to see a particular crazy piece of kit like the burning outfit I can only disable that specific outfit or elite while still seeing the others. I'm not sure how much work that'd be compared to a universal kill switch but I'd like one.
  • GenCuster
    187 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 14
    Personally I am not unfavorable to customization....
    the 'only thing is ' to maintain some good taste by those who design these customization skins....
    if we begin to propose skin fluo for weapons or pink tanks shoking....
    would turn into a country fair...a sort of    "More ' people enter...more ' animals you see"
    I think Bf would lose its "serious" game feature, historically interpretive.. but fundamentally serious... AAA game....
    only to monkey Cod.... bad way to please a narrow array of players.
    If we want to see girls in corset and garter belt yellow fluo...we already ' Apex.


  • rainkloud
    592 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @The_BERG_366

    Your problem isn't with me so much as it is with basic economics and perhaps reality. Historically, the bulk of microtransactions come from a small percentage of players. I suspect that out of that small portion a very high percentage of them have a healthy amount of disposable income which would make sense in that wealth distribution, as it is currently across the world, means that most gamers are not particularly affluent and therefore need to maximize their gaming dollars by adopting a strategy of frugality. Purchasing cosmetics would not generally be part of such a strategy. Therefore, all you need to do is make something reasonably cool looking and then plop that Limited Edition logo on it and presto it will be sold out in short order. History has often shown that people WITH money are predisposed towards flaunting their wealth to others. In real life they can do that with expensive trendy brands whereas in BF they could do it with expensive and rare cosmetics.

    With regard to reasonableness, it's not my job to go through the entire encyclopedia of military gear and determine what is appropriate and what is not. A DICE employee should be able to exercise good judgment and tag cosmetics into one of my 3 proposed categories within an acceptable margin of error. Among the many difficult tasks in creating a BF game this should reside near the bottom. By your fatally flawed logic no one should ever submit a bug report unless they know how to code the fix since to do otherwise would be "lazy". To be clear, I haven't played the game in well over a year so my suggestion is based from a zoomed out view and directed at the series in general now and moving forward. I was around long enough to see the direction they seemed to be headed towards and my understanding is that they reevaluated and scaled back the craziness. I fear if Firestorm were a larger success then we'd have seen a lot more wacky stuff introduced so it's failure was most welcome. Especially as age demographics widen it is important that DICE institutes a solution that is able to satisfy the widest swath of people as possible.

    "The degradation is not dependent on how many people would actually disable it as players don't know if others have it on or not, due to the valuation being purely subjective."

    This is true, but I doubt that many people would be under the impression that the people with "no cosmetics" turned on would be significant enough to dissuade them from a purchase. I reckon most would just care what settings their friends had. Others who post their games online don't really care much as they get to show their cosmetics in their highlight reels regardless. In my estimation, the main factors in determining whether they buy or not will be:

    • How cool does this look?
    • How much does it cost? (Good value Y/N)
    • Does it mesh with my character type and other cosmetics?
    • How invested in this game am I?
    • How invested are my friends?
    • How many friends do I have playing the game?
    • How many total people are playing the game?
    • Is this a semi exclusive item or somehow give me prestige?

    I don't doubt that there are some who will try to make the calculation about how many people will have cosmetics turned off, but I really struggle seeing that take precedence over these other questions. And I'm not sure they would care that they can't show off their cosmetics to people who don't want to see them in the first place. Given that the bulk of players are "casual" I predict most players who are concerned with cosmetics won't even be aware of the option for others to turn them off. 

    The only scenario where I can see "cosmetics off" being a detriment to sales is if something went viral like DICE put out a bunch a poor quality ones or ones that were just absurdly priced. 



  • rainkloud
    592 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    @The_BERG_366

    Your problem isn't with me so much as it is with basic economics and perhaps reality. Historically, the bulk of microtransactions come from a small percentage of players. I suspect that out of that small portion a very high percentage of them have a healthy amount of disposable income which would make sense in that wealth distribution, as it is currently across the world, means that most gamers are not particularly affluent and therefore need to maximize their gaming dollars by adopting a strategy of frugality. Purchasing cosmetics would not generally be part of such a strategy. Therefore, all you need to do is make something reasonably cool looking and then plop that Limited Edition logo on it and presto it will be sold out in short order. History has often shown that people WITH money are predisposed towards flaunting their wealth to others. In real life they can do that with expensive trendy brands whereas in BF they could do it with expensive and rare cosmetics.

    With regard to reasonableness, it's not my job to go through the entire encyclopedia of military gear and determine what is appropriate and what is not. A DICE employee should be able to exercise good judgment and tag cosmetics into one of my 3 proposed categories within an acceptable margin of error. Among the many difficult tasks in creating a BF game this should reside near the bottom. By your fatally flawed logic no one should ever submit a bug report unless they know how to code the fix since to do otherwise would be "lazy". To be clear, I haven't played the game in well over a year so my suggestion is based from a zoomed out view and directed at the series in general now and moving forward. I was around long enough to see the direction they seemed to be headed towards and my understanding is that they reevaluated and scaled back the craziness. I fear if Firestorm were a larger success then we'd have seen a lot more wacky stuff introduced so it's failure was most welcome. Especially as age demographics widen it is important that DICE institutes a solution that is able to satisfy the widest swath of people as possible.

    "The degradation is not dependent on how many people would actually disable it as players don't know if others have it on or not, due to the valuation being purely subjective."

    This is true, but I doubt that many people would be under the impression that the people with "no cosmetics" turned on would be significant enough to dissuade them from a purchase. I reckon most would just care what settings their friends had. Others who post their games online don't really care much as they get to show their cosmetics in their highlight reels regardless. In my estimation, the main factors in determining whether they buy or not will be:

    • How cool does this look?
    • How much does it cost? (Good value Y/N)
    • Does it mesh with my character type and other cosmetics?
    • How invested in this game am I?
    • How invested are my friends?
    • How many friends do I have playing the game?
    • How many total people are playing the game?
    • Is this a semi exclusive item or somehow give me prestige?

    I don't doubt that there are some who will try to make the calculation about how many people will have cosmetics turned off, but I really struggle seeing that take precedence over these other questions. And I'm not sure they would care that they can't show off their cosmetics to people who don't want to see them in the first place. Given that the bulk of players are "casual" I predict most players who are concerned with cosmetics won't even be aware of the option for others to turn them off. 

    The only scenario where I can see "cosmetics off" being a detriment to sales is if something went viral like DICE put out a bunch a poor quality ones or ones that were just absurdly priced. 



  • Celsi_GER
    789 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GenCuster wrote: »
    Personally I am not unfavorable to customization....
    the
    'only thing is ' to maintain some good taste by those who design these
    customization skins.... if we begin to propose skin fluo for weapons or
    pink tanks shoking.... would turn into a country fair...a sort of    "More '
    people enter...more ' animals you see"
    I think Bf would lose its
    "serious" game feature, historically interpretive.. but fundamentally
    serious... AAA game....
    only to monkey Cod.... bad way to please a narrow array of players.If we want to see girls in corset and garter belt yellow fluo...we already ' Apex.

    The problem with good taste is it's in the eye of the beholder. This is why we would like to be able to switch off other people's "good taste" :)
  • Halcyon_Creed_N7
    1543 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    While I think that some of the cosmetics are a little outlandish, I also know that people paying for cosmetics is the reason we got any kind of post-launch content. I think it would be in bad faith if DICE used a cosmetics only microtransaction model while simultaneously allowing players to disable those cosmetics since this is a first person game.

    How about you quietly accept them and appreciate the people paying money so that we can have more maps and weapons? This is why I didn't want a WWII game. All the "historical accuracy" nerds trying to ruin a VIDEO GAME while simultaneously demanding more weapons, items, vehicles etc.
  • PSJackman4
    252 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    While I think that some of the cosmetics are a little outlandish, I also know that people paying for cosmetics is the reason we got any kind of post-launch content. I think it would be in bad faith if DICE used a cosmetics only microtransaction model while simultaneously allowing players to disable those cosmetics since this is a first person game.

    How about you quietly accept them and appreciate the people paying money so that we can have more maps and weapons? This is why I didn't want a WWII game. All the "historical accuracy" nerds trying to ruin a VIDEO GAME while simultaneously demanding more weapons, items, vehicles etc.

    As one of the "historical accuracy nerds", we don't ruin video games, we want to make them more enjoyable. We play historical video games because we want to be immersed in a time period that we enjoy to learn. If it isn't immersive, and doesn't feel like WW2, then yes we will complain, because we want that authentic WW2 experience, which is hard to get nowadays with triple A games. 
     
  • MarxistDictator
    5231 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Some of you complaining to much about this. BF3/4 had cosmetic customization.

    I didn’t realize that changing the colour of the soldier camouflage was the same as turning your character into the phantom of the opera or any of the other god awful elite skins that blur the already bad class differentials in this game.
  • DingoKillr
    4299 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    DingoKillr wrote: »
    Some of you complaining to much about this. BF3/4 had cosmetic customization.

    I didn’t realize that changing the colour of the soldier camouflage was the same as turning your character into the phantom of the opera or any of the other god awful elite skins that blur the already bad class differentials in this game.

    Cosmetic is cosmetic. What you like is irrelevant it is what the majority like. If you want to hold polls on what cosmetic people liked or did not go ahead. Personal I found the cosmetics in BF3, BF4 and BF1 limiting.

    Whether you buy or grind there is always something someone does not like.

    Class differentiation can be achieved even while everyone wears the same uniform. Lack of it has nothing to do with the more flexible cosmetic of BFV.
  • Celsi_GER
    789 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    As 9ne
    While I think that some of the cosmetics are a little outlandish, I also know that people paying for cosmetics is the reason we got any kind of post-launch content. I think it would be in bad faith if DICE used a cosmetics only microtransaction model while simultaneously allowing players to disable those cosmetics since this is a first person game.

    How about you quietly accept them and appreciate the people paying money so that we can have more maps and weapons? This is why I didn't want a WWII game. All the "historical accuracy" nerds trying to ruin a VIDEO GAME while simultaneously demanding more weapons, items, vehicles etc.

    As one of the "historical accuracy nerds" I would like to reply that former Battlefields managed to get along (financially) without silly cosmetics. Microtransactions are not the solution, they are part of the problem!
    Instead of forcing questionable content on us (silly skin), EA should return to "pay for additional content". In BF2, this concept was called "booster packs", and everybody I know happily payed the price (I think it way 15 or 25 EUR) for this additional content.

    If not, what's the next step? Ingame ads, real ads on house wall and vehicles? Would you still "quietly accept" this, if the ads look reasonably vintage? Where is the limit?
Sign In or Register to comment.