We should be able to pay to turn off other people's skins/decals - Page 9

Psi · 2012-07-03, 08:21 PM

Last time I did, you ignored it. But you didn't ignore that. So I must be doing something right.

Right?

The Kush · 2012-07-03, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Oh wow, you didn't even read the title.

You'd have to pay to turn off other peoples' skins. No one could "just turn it off".

Also, what say you to the point that if there's not only enough people that want them off, but enough people willing to pay money to turn them off that it becomes a problem for them, that the skins aren't good enough? The skins shouldn't be so bad that even 10% of the population wants to pay to turn them off, let alone "everyone".

No shit Sherlock. Your paying to turn off the customizations the game is making money off. They don't care about a few kids like you who cry over camo. If you don't like it don't buy it but the devs arent going to give you an option to pay to turn off the skins. Then it will turn people away from buying it for the reasons I put in my other posts.

BorisBlade · 2012-07-03, 11:15 PM

doesnt matter if you can turn off camo or not, its totally pointless in this game. Whether you are red and black or covered in camo, you still have a giant red name over your head and because of lame spotting, you will even have that too following you behind objects and terrain. People seem to miss this. Same reason night combat is not even remotely as cool as it could be. Giant red names along lame spotting markers will make you stand out like a sore thumb no matter what you wear or look like.

Baneblade · 2012-07-04, 12:15 AM

Like I said before, let me buy an override for your override and we can call it settled.

Player A buys Skin, Player B sees new skin.
Player B buys Skin Defaulter, Player B sees old skin.
Player A buys Skin Override, Player B sees new skin again.

LostAlgorithm · 2012-07-04, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Like I said before, let me buy an override for your override and we can call it settled.

Player A buys Skin, Player B sees new skin.
Player B buys Skin Defaulter, Player B sees old skin.
Player A buys Skin Override, Player B sees new skin again.

I don't understand why you and the others feel so adamant about forcing your poor taste upon others who really don't care to see it. You won't even know they can't see the skins you bought.

Airanuva · 2012-07-04, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by LostAlgorithm

You're looking at it wrong.

If a player doesn't like or want to see your skin, that purchase is effectively already nullified. It's actually more of a net negative effect because the player who doesn't want to see it is forced to play a game experience that is less fun than what they could enjoy were they able to disable that skin.

The option to disable would just be another micro-transaction that functions as both a boost to profits and to the gameplay experience of those who choose to purchase it.

A player that is bothered by the skins so much already won't be paying anything, so it isn't a loss. It is neutral.
A player that wants the skin, but knows that people disable them, won't want it as much. THAT is a loss.
Look, unless the ability to disable skins becomes the sole source of income, the vast number of skins will be a bigger income than the ability to disable them.

Think like this: on one server there are 6000 people. Now, let's be generous and say there are 3 completely full servers. 18,000 people.
If there is an option to turn the skins off, and everyone goes for it, assuming everyone else is going to get the silly skins the production team said they won't have... Let's say it's equal to the price of the skins, and at about 4 dollars. That is only 72,000 dollars. Probably not even close to production cost.
Now, let's say two thirds of the population buys skins. Half of that one third buys two. That's 72,000 dollars still. Same amount, but...
That $72,000 could be recurring, if they, for example, put out at least two new skins per month, and the same amount of players buy the same amount.
Skin disable is a one-time buy, while more skins = more profit.

Now, if skins had an obscenely high price and a time limit, then you might have something. Like, if you paid 4 dollars to not see the skins for a day. 100 dollars for a month as a deal.
But, even this carries a negative. If people in a large enough number consistently buy this, despite being good in the short term for PS2, in the long term it means less people will buy skins since people are not able to see them. and if less people buy skins, less people will buy the disable. It'd be a severe downward spiral from there.

This game is F2P, but the company still needs to make money, otherwise it is shut down.
Conversely, they can go back to the subscription system... But that will decrease the player base.

There is a lot of economics behind this problem, and unless you can magically think of a system where the game makes money, the player-base is very large, and it doesn't involve skins or other micro transactions, I'm sure the gaming industry would love to hear it.

Originally Posted by LostAlgorithm

I don't understand why you and the others feel so adamant about forcing your poor taste upon others who really don't care to see it. You won't even know they can't see the skins you bought.

You don't even know if they have poor taste! Hell, they probably won't!
the PS team has said they are avoiding anything overly silly. There is a zebra skin, but believe it or not, that is actually a camouflage! Granted no one is colorblind and there isn't any tall grass yet, but it is still camouflage. Same with the giraffe skin.
If they do come out with a pink skin option... Well then you have an easier target! Oh, except in the desert, since pink is actually light enough to start blending with the surrounding area.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-04, 12:51 AM

I thought i had a pretty good solution to this. Any skin that you buy, you will have the option to turn that skin off. Course that would just go for the purely cosmetic not the semi useful like desert cammo and such.

Ratstomper · 2012-07-04, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by LostAlgorithm

I don't understand why you and the others feel so adamant about forcing your poor taste upon others who really don't care to see it.

Welcome to life, friendo.

Flaropri · 2012-07-04, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by LostAlgorithm

I don't understand why you and the others feel so adamant about forcing your poor taste upon others who really don't care to see it.

I'm curious, do you realize that many people buy cosmetic items (in games and physical reality) as much to project an image as for personal enjoyment of the image?

Followup: do you want to be able to over-ride what you see people wear in real life when you think their choices are in poor taste?

FPClark · 2012-07-04, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by Trafalgar

Yes, we should go back to dressing like Redcoats, because people in camo are obviously easier to spot.

I played a scenario game in hawaii once with 200ish people on either side in a pink tuxedo jersey. I got shot once in the entire 48 hour period (I went through 10 cases of paint ;P so I wasnt chillin on the back lines either).

What I mean to say is that camo isnt nearly as effective as people are making it out to be and it certainly is no substitute for skill.

Honestly being in the Air Force has made me pretty jaded AGAINST camo as the only thing our camo blends into is cubicles and ugly couches...

People want the ability to stand out (and if that makes them an easier target why are you guys even complaining?)

Vancha · 2012-07-04, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by The Kush

No shit Sherlock. Your paying to turn off the customizations the game is making money off. They don't care about a few kids like you who cry over camo. If you don't like it don't buy it but the devs arent going to give you an option to pay to turn off the skins. Then it will turn people away from buying it for the reasons I put in my other posts.

Okay, once again, slowly...

If there's enough people PAYING to turn off the skins that it turns the rest of the player-base away from buying those skins, how bad are those skins?

The items in the cash shop should look BETTER than the defaults, if so many people are giving money to SOE to disable those skins because they look so much worse than the defaults, their business model has already failed. The point of cash shop items is to be more appealing than the standard.

If enough people bought the "skin disabler" to the point it stopped people buying the skins themselves, there would be a BIG, BIG problem and it wouldn't be with the disabler.

Are you getting it yet? The skins should not look so bad as to make the existence of a skin disabler a financial detriment. If the skins look half-decent and fit within the game, a skin disabler would only mean profit for SOE.

Originally Posted by Psi

Best quote I've seen in this entire thread. I think I'll start using this for every argument around here now.

I don't have to make sense, I can just flat out tell people they're wrong.

Yeah, pick him up on the badly-worded first line and ignore the perfectly valid point.

If someone thinks you look worse in a cash shop item then there's already a problem, but that aside, you've already wasted money if someone doesn't think you look better. I understand the enjoyment of showing off a cosmetic cash shop item, but only as far as other people thinking it's cool. If I know there's someone who thinks it looks ridiculous to the point of paying to turn it off, what enjoyment does one get from forcing them to see it?

Landtank · 2012-07-04, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by FPClark

I played a scenario game in hawaii once

Ughhhh I want to go to Hawaii... super jealous

FPClark · 2012-07-04, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Landtank

Ughhhh I want to go to Hawaii... super jealous

Visit...Never EVER choose to live here.

Landtank · 2012-07-04, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by FPClark

Visit...Never EVER choose to live here.

Hah, noted. Live in NY! It's a great place.

Anyways, I can handle people's customizations as long as they aren't asinine or stupid, like totalbiscuits loverator.

Ps! Happy Birthday America!

LostAlgorithm · 2012-07-04, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Flaropri

I'm curious, do you realize that many people buy cosmetic items (in games and physical reality) as much to project an image as for personal enjoyment of the image?

Of course I do, I just don't care about their personal image if it doesn't suit my tastes.

Followup: do you want to be able to over-ride what you see people wear in real life when you think their choices are in poor taste?

No, because those are people I have to deal with in real situations. Their poor choices give me advance warning about what kind of person I'm dealing with.

I really don't care to be forced to see those poor choices in a video game though because I'm not forced to interact with any of them if I don't want to. I'd rather be able to scrub the game of those things I think are stupid and have it fit my idealized vision of what the game should look like, which is largely the same vision Planetside 1 had: faction colors and no stupid accessories / camos / hats.