Cosmetic should ALWAYS be optional in every video games.

«134
Colonel_Clegg
6 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, 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 !

Comments

  • SirBobdk
    5315 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    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.
  • Shrapnel-69
    82 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    100% correct mate and i also would like to see rid of all the stupid camos and have just plain old real uniforms, There are loads of different ones like say british desert army have shorts and germans paratroopers with real camo pattens. I think facial hair should be an option dont you think...
  • TeamHOFF86
    301 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited May 21
    I do get what you're saying, and I really want to agree with you, however...

    I liked BF3 & 4's customisation - nothing OTT, you earn them as you rank up so some were a bit of a badge of honour.

    I disliked the excessive weapon camos in BF1 but some of the player customisation was alright.

    Some of the BF5 character models look terrible, and I'll direct that at a lot of the "elites". I hate seeing Japanese soldiers in Europe/random-desert-setting. I like the idea of BF5's mix and match character models, but they're severely lacking in a lot of respects. I didn't buy the game until 10 months after release after being put off by the pre-release trailer.

    I really dislike the weapon skins and find they're too gimmicky, however given that I don't really see anyone else's weapons, I don't mind if weapon skins are in the game.

    BUT, if DICE want to supplement their income through selling skins, which means that I don't need to purchase a one-off "Premium Pass" to receive DLC, then I can live with that.

    All that I ask is that the paid content is tasteful and not garishly outlandish and completely out of keeping with the setting of the game.

    OR, and here's a thought, save the outlandish skins for the "trendy" Battle Royale game mode.
    Post edited by TeamHOFF86 on
  • heresPaul
    351 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    100% correct mate and i also would like to see rid of all the stupid camos and have just plain old real uniforms, There are loads of different ones like say british desert army have shorts and germans paratroopers with real camo pattens. I think facial hair should be an option dont you think...
    I stand to be corrected but I’ve always thought most WW2 soldiers (not counting U-boat sailors) were notably clean shaven, must of had time for a regular shave 😐
  • fs2097
    87 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    100% correct mate and i also would like to see rid of all the stupid camos and have just plain old real uniforms, There are loads of different ones like say british desert army have shorts and germans paratroopers with real camo pattens. I think facial hair should be an option dont you think...
    WOn't happen because they're selling these stupid skins. Remember when they said this will be the best WW2 game ever???? LOL!!!
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2247 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Won't happen, unless they can monetise it. im sure some been counter has already done the maths to see if money generated would offset the loss of mtx transactions on cosmetics
  • OskooI_007
    1303 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    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.
  • Celsi_GER
    859 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    100% agree. It's a shooter, not a dollhouse. This cosmetic stuff annoys me so much and I cannot understand how anyone could spend real money for it.
  • GeneralXIV
    306 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    There's an easy fix: if you don't want cosmetics in a video game, don't play a video game with cosmetics? It would definitely be a strange POV to knowingly buy a game with a cosmetics feature only to complain that the cosmetics feature exists, especially because it doesn't actually change the gameplay.

    I can understand wanting all soldiers to wear the same uniform, though. From a gameplay perspective it could help with muscle memory and kinda target recognition, and so long as the cosmetic "off" button was uniform only, that's something I could support.

    But, imo, players should keep their character choice - whether their soldiers are black, white, female or male - no matter what option is selected. A poster above mentioned Star Wars Squadrons, and when I shared the news with my friends that cosmetics would be optional, I added the caption "I hope this won't apply to pilots", because I feel that it's important to preserve the person players choose their pilots to be because in many ways, they are our avatars and their appearance is our representation in the eyes of other players and I think it's important we get some influence over the way they appear. In Battlefield V, as was kindly pointed out in the original post, it would be an excuse to "turn off" women and ethnic minorities (I'm not accusing anyone of sexist or racist intentions, I believe for most its an immersion thing, I'm only saying that's what the option would ultimately be if it was included in the game). And I kinda wonder if it's fair to knowingly buy a game with cosmetics options shown even from the first trailer they released, only to complain they exist and want the ability to turn off people you don't want in the game, because to me... it isn't. Not even a little. Imo, it's something that people need to move on from and if it actually ruins the game for someone, I think introspection is needed and maybe some consideration about buying games they know will feature things they don't like that would never change the gameplay.

    Battlefield V has already erased some women from the game when they altered the tanker appearance (with no option to revert btw) and changed the cover image for some reason with the launch of the Pacific maps, and I'm not sure things like that will ever be ok in my eyes, no matter how unpopular it is. I support adding options for players to customize their characters, I could support the option to make all players a default uniform, but I can't support players having the option to remove character customization and "turn off" people they don't want to see in the game, and I don't think it would be good for DICE's reputation to offer the choice tbh.
  • PSJackman4
    282 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    they should have at least made the default skins look good, they look NOTHING like the actual uniforms soldiers wore. The british uniforms are sometimes AMERICAN, which is rather stupid. 

    I did like the cosmetics in BFV, and I had fun trying to find a good combo, but I do agree that they didn't feel WW2. I am happy they finally released historically accurate uniforms, and I have been seeing a lot of people running them, so it might put the thought into DICE and EA's mind that people like historically accurate uniforms. 

    I don't think that in the next BF game( if it were historical that is,) they would not add women. It will probably not get anyone mad, if they didn't, but iT mUsT bE pOliTiCaLy CoRrEcT!!!

    Sheesh... 
  • ninjapenquinuk
    2247 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Cosmetics via microtransactions are here to stay, and I'm ok with that, they just need to fit with the games setting
  • Celsi_GER
    859 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    We don't want the cosmetics to completely go away. But some people (including me) are just annoyed to see a guy clothed like Darkwing Duck hopping through the (in other aspects) quite realistic game.
    So we want a switch in our settings to switch them off just for us - we want to decide to see standard skins instead of this childish stuff.
    Like, in some forums, you have a switch in your profile settings to switch on/off the user signatures.
  • The_BERG_366
    2780 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TeamHOFF86 wrote: »
    I do get what you're saying, and I really want to agree with you, however...

    I liked BF3 & 4's customisation - nothing OTT, you earn them as you rank up so some were a bit of a badge of honour.

    I disliked the excessive weapon camos in BF1 but some of the player customisation was alright.

    Some of the BF5 character models look terrible, and I'll direct that at a lot of the "elites". I hate seeing Japanese soldiers in Europe/random-desert-setting. I like the idea of BF5's mix and match character models, but they're severely lacking in a lot of respects. I didn't buy the game until 10 months after release after being put off by the pre-release trailer.

    I really dislike the weapon skins and find they're too gimmicky, however given that I don't really see anyone else's weapons, I don't mind if weapon skins are in the game.

    BUT, if DICE want to supplement their income through selling skins, which means that I don't need to purchase a one-off "Premium Pass" to receive DLC, then I can live with that.

    All that I ask is that the paid content is tasteful and not garishly outlandish and completely out of keeping with the setting of the game.

    OR, and here's a thought, save the outlandish skins for the "trendy" Battle Royale game mode.

    Problem is that the intersection of all the concepts of tasteful of the different players only contains the most standard of all uniforms. Even a tiny badge that doesn't belong there and someone looses their ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ over "hIStoriCaL ACcurAcY".
    Also even if we ignore that, almost nobody wants to spend money for what is considered tasteful by at least a decent amount of such players. A jacket in a slightly different brown or green is hardly worth paying anything for.
    Personally i don't see the issue with costumization in this game (except for the elites of different factions maybe). All the actually crazy stuff that was planned never even made it into the game in the first place.

    @Colonel_Clegg you overestimate the importance of this mater to the community as a whole. Most players don't mind or like costumisation. Making it standard to NOT see it is ridiculous and makes the whole thing even being developed pointless. If anything the default should be to see it with an option to turn it off. But even that could be problematic to a degree, as it degrades the value of the sold skins.
  • rainkloud
    592 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    There's an easy fix: if you don't want cosmetics in a video game, don't play a video game with cosmetics? It would definitely be a strange POV to knowingly buy a game with a cosmetics feature only to complain that the cosmetics feature exists, especially because it doesn't actually change the gameplay.


    You make a powerful point that I think is lost on a lot of people. As many of you are younger you may not be aware, in game cosmetics are regulated by U.C.L. 9863-02 which dictates how cosmetics are to be handled. This was created by a really smart consortium of ethical, spiritual and business leaders and is, dare I say, infallible. The mere suggestion that it could be improved upon is preposterous and can immediately and outrightly dismissed. Truly, anyone who buys a video game with cosmetics should simply self silence and focus all of their negative energy instead on grabbing their wallet and purchasing cosmetics as fast as their reflexes will allow for. Many people operate under a false notion that because these products come from the entertainment industry that they, as consumers, are entitled to be entertained. That's the old outdated model that has been retired to the dustbin of history. In the new model, we exist solely for the entertainment of corporations. And if you buy a ww2 inspired game with cosmetics thinking that there will be certain modicum of adherence to historical representation only to see that hope jettisoned into the void, then too bad! You'll think twice next time before buying a game with cosmetics in it! 

    /s

    Let's the tackle the themes I inferred from your post:

    If you don't like the way something is implemented in a game, don't buy it. Feedback, especially yours, is worthless and futile. 

    In a franchise which has drawn so much from its community when determining its direction it is bewildering to suggest that we simply accept or don't buy a game. Great, so BF is doing cosmetics. Like anything else though, just because they are doing something doesn't mean they are doing it the best way. Especially something like cosmetics which they're relatively new to and themselves are fairly new to the industry. Imagine if I said, "It's strange to buy a game with machine guns and then complain about how machine guns are implemented." Your statement is equal if not more absurd than that.

    High quality feedback is vital to the growth and prosperity of the franchise. This is not a scenario where someone can simply find the alternative brand who is offering an equivalent experience. BF is unique in what it offers: A middle ground between a purley arcade experience and hardcore simulations - featuring land, sea, air vehicles and infantry fighting on the same map simultaneously. If the game offers them 75% of what they are looking for and the remaining 25% they seek to improve, then I see nothing strange about it. In fact few things, given that cosmetics are not an integral part of the BF experience, are more natural.

    Cosmetics don't affect gameplay and therefore they have a minimal impact.

    What is a cosmetic? It's a visual customization. 
    What is the primary mode of communicating information to the player? Visuals

    Therefore we can conclude that cosmetics DO directly impact gameplay.

    Now just because they have an impact that doesn't mean it is positive or negative. It can be one, the other or even negligible. For example, a customization that blends you into the map ala camouflage can be said to have a big impact. While something like a custom utility belt or uniform emblem might be negligible. But let's also talk about another kind of impact. The psychological one. If someone is playing a game and their expectations are subverted by large swaths of players wearing thematically conflicting attire then that can have a significantly adverse affect on their game experience. And having a poor experience can detract from your focus on the game which, in turn, DOES affect gameplay. For example, if while you are playing, I put a foul smelling fish dish a few feet away from you, or bang away at the drums you would likely suffer distractions and have a worse gameplay experience which would detract from your ability to perform in game.

    For players sensitive unorthodox implementations of cosmetics they are like the stinky fish or throbbing drums.

    People need to get over this. Having a preference for the series to more closely conform to conventional military theme is weird and your opposition to the producers vision is morally wrong.

    CONTEXT MATTERS 

    In determining what is reasonable and what is not we have to look at the environment in which it exists. BF markets itself with with highly realistic human CG models using vehicles and weapons with staggering amounts of detail. Look at the single player campaigns. These were serious stories that tackled mature themes. Listen to the soundtracks. They were patriotic, inspirational, dramatic, tense but never comical, never light hearted.

    Despite the trailer, someone buying the game at launch based on previous entries in the franchise and on available info at the time had a reasonable expectation that cosmetics would not stray too far from convention. 

    Further, there are PLENTY of options for players looking for fantastical, whimsical and wacky themes. It is much more reasonable for someone to be advocating for more conventional implementations than to be chastising them especially when the rest of the franchises pedigree and current presentation is so closely aligned with a gritty semi realistic theme.

    But maybe the argument is "Hey I don't want Fortnite, but I also don't want plain vanilla WW2 style. I want an acid trip, anime inspired customization fest replete with soldiers wearing not just a historical gear but with long white hair, cyberntic eyes and medals that cover half their bodies."

    My gut reaction is to say that it is you not I who are out of line. If DICE wants to create such a franchise then they should create a new one or put that in to Bad Company where it would more aptly fit. But perhaps we can find a happy medium. I think the Star Wars Squadrons model (which many players suggested) is a great start but can be improved upon even further in the case of BF. We can have a default mode that allows for some cosmetics that generally adhere to the theme (but may stray slightly). This would likely appeal to the broadest set of players. Then we have a mode that doesn't allow for any cosmetics (or perhaps only those that are 100% conventional). And finally we have a mode that allows for some of the more exotic and least theme adherent cosmetics. 

    With regards to race, I agree that being able to edit those out entirely should not be an option however, given that the game is historically inspired, there should be an option that allows for historically accurate ratios. For gender, I do think it is entirely reasonable to have an option to be able to eliminate female combat representation in the context of a WW2 game.

    For a modern BF, female soldiers should assuredly be represented although the ratios should be roughly proportional. I said as much 5+ years ago when it wasn't popular at all to advocate for their inclusion. In contrast, for a Star Wars game all races and genders should be totally unlocked and unrestricted. 

    Diversity and inclusion never meant abandoning all logic and simply making anything and everything conform to one cookie cutter model. Doing so is a horrible and exclusionary business AND ethical model. I think with Star Wars Squadrons EA is learning that nuance is required when handling customization. Just like with weapons and gadgets, a proper balance needs to be achieved where players who want more uniform, conventional theme adherence can have that and happily coexist with those who want more creative freedom in how they express themselves.
  • rainkloud
    592 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TeamHOFF86 wrote: »
    I do get what you're saying, and I really want to agree with you, however...

    I liked BF3 & 4's customisation - nothing OTT, you earn them as you rank up so some were a bit of a badge of honour.

    I disliked the excessive weapon camos in BF1 but some of the player customisation was alright.

    Some of the BF5 character models look terrible, and I'll direct that at a lot of the "elites". I hate seeing Japanese soldiers in Europe/random-desert-setting. I like the idea of BF5's mix and match character models, but they're severely lacking in a lot of respects. I didn't buy the game until 10 months after release after being put off by the pre-release trailer.

    I really dislike the weapon skins and find they're too gimmicky, however given that I don't really see anyone else's weapons, I don't mind if weapon skins are in the game.

    BUT, if DICE want to supplement their income through selling skins, which means that I don't need to purchase a one-off "Premium Pass" to receive DLC, then I can live with that.

    All that I ask is that the paid content is tasteful and not garishly outlandish and completely out of keeping with the setting of the game.

    OR, and here's a thought, save the outlandish skins for the "trendy" Battle Royale game mode.

    Problem is that the intersection of all the concepts of tasteful of the different players only contains the most standard of all uniforms. Even a tiny badge that doesn't belong there and someone looses their ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ over "hIStoriCaL ACcurAcY".
    Also even if we ignore that, almost nobody wants to spend money for what is considered tasteful by at least a decent amount of such players. A jacket in a slightly different brown or green is hardly worth paying anything for.
    Personally i don't see the issue with costumization in this game (except for the elites of different factions maybe). All the actually crazy stuff that was planned never even made it into the game in the first place.

    @Colonel_Clegg you overestimate the importance of this mater to the community as a whole. Most players don't mind or like costumisation. Making it standard to NOT see it is ridiculous and makes the whole thing even being developed pointless. If anything the default should be to see it with an option to turn it off. But even that could be problematic to a degree, as it degrades the value of the sold skins.
    There's a much larger scope of cosmetics than just color swaps of existing gear that you can include without transitioning into absurdity. I suspect you know this and are using hyperbole to bolster a weak position.

    WW2 is absolutely teaming with things that can be included. And yes there are those who go crazy over even the slightest deviation from history, but those are a tiny minority. The sweet spot is in making cosmetics that adhere with the theme as a whole which is a semi realistic military conflict game. That means you can have sensible and plausible deviations from history but should draw a line at some point. Further, I think scarcity should be introduced for those items that were in real life more rare which in turn will result in a more accurate representation. 

    With regard to the degradation of value of cosmetics, in a game like BF where the focus is on gameplay and the gameplay revolves around combat, I put the value of them to be a low priority. So long as the purchasing player can see them on their vehicle or on themselves in the customization screen then that to me is sufficient. Cosmetics in BF must remain subservient to the core theme of the franchise and to gameplay. It is not unreasonable to expect some uniformity in a series about historical and modern militaries.

    Now for a game like the SIMS (or any type of game where the cosmetics are part of the core experience) I would look at it differently and place a much higher value on cosmetics and how they are portrayed and restricted. In that series it makes much more sense to limit the restrictions such that most things cannot be avoided.
  • LegoDudeGuy1
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    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
    Only thing with Squadrons is that at launch their wont be any MTX, not even for cosmetics. So they can do this without having it affect anything that's paid for.

    BFV cosmetics can be purchased with IRL money, and if they can be turned off by other players it just devalues the cosmetics from the store and makes the store-bought cosmetics not worth buying since you can't show off to others. Yeah sure you can see yourself, but the times you do are very limited (such as if you get top squad or in the menu's).

    So for BFV it will never happen since it will affect the bottom line, and if purchasable cosmetics come to BF6 they certainly wont do it then.

    TF2 (Team Fortress 2) has had the same "problem" for years and the only way to turn them off is a server-side toggle, which very few server operators use anyway since 99% of people wouldnt go to their server because their fancy cosmetics get turned off.
  • The_BERG_366
    2780 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    rainkloud wrote: »
    (Quote)
    There's a much larger scope of cosmetics than just color swaps of existing gear that you can include without transitioning into absurdity. I suspect you know this and are using hyperbole to bolster a weak position.

    WW2 is absolutely teaming with things that can be included. And yes there are those who go crazy over even the slightest deviation from history, but those are a tiny minority. The sweet spot is in making cosmetics that adhere with the theme as a whole which is a semi realistic military conflict game. That means you can have sensible and plausible deviations from history but should draw a line at some point. Further, I think scarcity should be introduced for those items that were in real life more rare which in turn will result in a more accurate representation. 

    With regard to the degradation of value of cosmetics, in a game like BF where the focus is on gameplay and the gameplay revolves around combat, I put the value of them to be a low priority. So long as the purchasing player can see them on their vehicle or on themselves in the customization screen then that to me is sufficient. Cosmetics in BF must remain subservient to the core theme of the franchise and to gameplay. It is not unreasonable to expect some uniformity in a series about historical and modern militaries.

    Now for a game like the SIMS (or any type of game where the cosmetics are part of the core experience) I would look at it differently and place a much higher value on cosmetics and how they are portrayed and restricted. In that series it makes much more sense to limit the restrictions such that most things cannot be avoided.

    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.
    People keep claiming that apparently a lot of the customisation is not fitting for them, but apart from the non fitting elites I don't know where they are coming from. Where is this line you talk about? None of the normal soldier customisations crosses any line for me. For me there is a lot of things already existing in the game that go beyond a simple change of colour which are perfectly acceptable, but apparently that isnt the case for a lot of others. Hence why I say the intersection is so small. I highly doubt that your understanding of what is acceptable is as widely accepted as you think.

    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.

    Well just because you deem it not as significant doesn't mean the degradation in value is any lower. What matter is the value that people who buy cosmetics think they have. Obviously, those rate this value higher than those who don't buy them (in general) and being able to display the cosmetic is a big part of it as you can't see your own soldier skin while playing in the first place.
    It's not unreasonable in deed, doesn't change my argument though. I'm not claiming that it should be done one way or another, I'm just stating that there is good reasons why it's not handled one way.

    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).
  • SunnyTheWerewolf
    392 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    GeneralXIV wrote: »
    There's an easy fix: if you don't want cosmetics in a video game, don't play a video game with cosmetics? It would definitely be a strange POV to knowingly buy a game with a cosmetics feature only to complain that the cosmetics feature exists, especially because it doesn't actually change the gameplay.


    In theory that statement is valid, but when soldier customization hasn't been a part of the DNA of the franchise in the past - I think it's more than fair to criticize how it's implemented if you don't agree with it.

    Also, many people pre-ordered the game and it was not clear at all how cosmetics would be implemented into the game pre-release, except for some marketing spiel, which never came to be.
  • doctorrocktor
    1954 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    fs2097 said:
    100% correct mate and i also would like to see rid of all the stupid camos and have just plain old real uniforms, There are loads of different ones like say british desert army have shorts and germans paratroopers with real camo pattens. I think facial hair should be an option dont you think...
    WOn't happen because they're selling these stupid skins. Remember when they said this will be the best WW2 game ever???? LOL!!!
    Remember when they said uniforms would be unlocked by playing mp,biggest BS ever.All cosmetics should now be free as there clearly not supporting it anymore,yet they have the cheek to keep selling stuff for boins and idiots are paying for them.
Sign In or Register to comment.