Until that part is handled correctly, the market did alleviate most of the false advertising by having an abundant amount of reviews and to me that's a not so bad way to deal with this. Now, when you bought that game, if you were expecting a specific amount of content, and you didn't get that content without paying more, I agree completely, that would be false advertising and that would be definitely wrong.įalse advertising is definitely an issue in video games, there's so much overpromising and under-delivering but IAP isn't the issue there (though it definitely can be the reason for your false advertising). Just like I didn't pay for Elden Ring but plenty did. Some did want them, and did pay for them individually. I didn't pay for the one not included, as I didn't want them. I do have to pay for the textures and shaders. > if games shipped without textures and shaders and people would have to pay to unlock them. I don't disagree that they do add something, but theses ones are not something that I want, nor that I need. > Yes, I really hate this argument that cosmetics are not gameplay.
> why are you surprised that some people want to look cool in a video game? The game is compromised by the introduction of the monetisation strategies. However, the goal of such parts is not aligned with that of the others. Monetisation strategies like microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. Generally speaking, having all of the elements working together makes for a better game. However you divide up the parts of a game, they all affect each other. You could argue about the difference between "gameplay" and "visuals" but each supports/influences the other and both are critical elements of almost every videogame. They are unlockable, collectable, wearable items.įurther, visuals do impact the gameplay. > The items that you buy have absolutely no impact on gameplay and are just visualsĬosmetic items are not just visual though. The whole 'preying on the vulnerable' thing kind of puts me off.
0 kommentar(er)
