I don't believe I am 'owed' all the content on a disc or a patch, but I do believe that cosmetics are important like Austin does.

I think it's fine, especially when it enables the developer and publisher to keep releasing meaningful gameplay updates for free. The slot machine system some games opt for can be a bit gross if you consider it in the context of it exploiting addictive personality traits some people might have, but for better or worse, it's pretty easy for most people to overlook that.

I also didn't really mind the way the Overwatch Summer Games stuff was handled. I do wish I'd managed to get that Mercy skin, but in general, I like the way their system kept those items exclusive and special.

I had no problem with what OW did because it's a timed event where you can indeed earn the skins through lottery loot boxes, which I really don't mind. If they were only available to buy with money and that's it, then I'd be a bit more uneasy about the situation but I wouldn't actively be upset about it.

It depends on the game and certain factors like the value of the package as a whole and how hard it is to get the cosmetics without paying.

I don't generally mind in Overwatch, which is a game that I think Blizzard will be supporting for years with additional free content and patches, and where there's a reasonably fair system for getting the cosmetic items without paying anything for them (even if I wish it were easier to earn loot boxes.) I think it's less cool in something like Umbrella Corps.* where the value proposition of the overall package isn't nearly as good.

It's also not cool in Call of Duty, which sells a $100 version and then adds microtransactions on top of it, though CoD does have 3 distinct major game modes which helps reduce my sense of outrage.

Frankly I think a large part of why I don't get too outraged about it is that I don't care much about cosmetics in multiplayer games. I think that if it were something that actually mattered to me I'd be closer to Jim Sterling's position that "Fee to Pay" is never okay. I basically don't buy cosmetic items though (there may be an exception somewhere) so generally if the value proposition for what I do get is good I'm content to let those who do buy such things subsidize my experience.

*I don't even know if it has microtransactions, but it's the sort of game that sometimes does and doesn't 'earn' them.

I was okay with it in OW until I got multiple duplicates of the same legendary Lucio skin. I hope the next time they do an event, they are disabling the possibility of event item duplicates.

No, as long as I can buy the exact cosmetic item I want. I hate lootboxes with a burning passion. You wanna talk about shitty practices in video games, there's one. "Give us money and you might get something you want or you might get a bunch of shit." Fuck that. Let me just buy the one thing I want and leave me in peace.

They're terrible in all games as far as I'm concerned. F2P and non-F2P.

I wouldnt say that the content is owed to me, but if a game charges full price and then tries to nickle and dime me for dumb cosmetic stuff, I usually dont play it. It comes across as begging to me, and seems fickle. I dont really care about future dlc being free, because sequels are released one or two years later so I'll just stop playing the old one anyways. All of my cosmetics will be gone and no one really cares what i look like if i had to pay for it (unlike those halo 3 armor sets you had to unlock).

Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Battlefront release their dlc packs so slow that I usually get tired of the game before the third one. I dont think developers can release content for a multiplayer game fast enough to keep it fresh for more than a couple months, so when they charge for cosmetics there is even less incentive to keep playing.

You're not OWED anything, ever (as long as you're informed about what you are purchasing in a fair and honest way). It's up to you to evaluate the value propositions of each thing individually and decide whether you're comfortable with them.

I voted for the last one - I'm generally okay with them selling cosmetics (though I'd like at least a handful of nice ones available to everyone, whether from the get-go or unlockable). But if they're using it to fund further development and support, that's even more acceptable to me.

In a paid game I think I should be provided a hefty amount of cosmetic items, unless I feel like them not being free is really offset by the developer constantly releasing new features. As I think is the case with Overwatch.

It's becoming clear the best way to maintain a multiplayer community is to ensure things like maps are available to everyone so as to avoid splitting the userbase. Likewise locking out anything gameplay relevant behind a paywall makes everyone else feel like the game is 'pay to win'. For these reasons it seems like cosmetic stuff is the most viable area for most devs to make extra money from after a game is released.

The only DLC I will ever buy is cosmetics. If that means the only way for companies to get my money is to lock them away, so be it I guess. That's far better than gameplay impacting garbage.

Owed is a strong word. But I sorely miss unlocks as gameplay incentive in most games.

Now if a game is going for the free to play model and uses them as microtransaction leverage without impacting the core gameplay, it is the best way to go about it.

However, it has no place in full priced games. In a $60 dollar game, if i'm paying for extra content I want it to be a significant addition to the story/campaign/whatever and not be nickel-and-dimed on what should just be in game unlocks.

In full price games, I think the fair price for cosmetics is a buck or two. In F2P games, I'm willing to accept 5.

When it's done well it's fine. Halo 5 is an example of a game that does it well. You get random cosmetic items and consumables for war zone which is their big dumb mode that's just pure chaos so it doesn't really matter what weapons and vehicles you get. They've also released a ton of content since launch. That game is 87gb on my hard drive.

Overwatch is an example of a game that does a shit job. It takes about 10 matches to get a chest that gives you 4 items and there is a very good chance that you'll get MULTIPlE duplicates that barely get you any coins. Even during the limited edition Olympic thing you could get duplicates which was stupid.

I don't have a problem with how Halo 5 does it, partially because that game has a huge amount of content with a lot of post-launch support and partially because it's not too hard to earn REQ packs, but it should be noted that the cosmetic unlocks aren't just for Warzone (which maybe you didn't intend to say) but apply to all of the multiplayer modes. There are a ton of them though.

Yea, sorry, I meant to say that you get cosmetic stuff for all modes as well as unique gear for warzone. There is a lot to unlock and the game is constantly rewarding you

As long as cosmetics are being sold to give everyone free updates and content then I have no problem with it at all.

Yes and no. Im fine with paid for cosmetics but I would also like some free cosmetic options as well. Even just simple changes and leaving the wacky outfits for micropayments.