Hacker News Reader

I grew up in England in the 80's and the label on one's shirt was a big deal. It seems to me that this behaviour may be a part of the creation of 'self' that adolescents go through, and that this is the same thing across a different medium. It's tribal, it shows implicit approval of one's decisions (namely to spend money on a costume), and I'm prepared to bet it's cross cultural too...

The cost of football replica kit (home and away strips change each year) did start to become an issue as well as kids potentially carrying adverts for Drink and Gambling firms.

I wonder if anyone suggested regulation of Nike for creating a fashion fetish of Air Jordans, with the same kinds of money being thrown at Fortnite.

The difference is that I still have my 20 year old Nike shirt in my closet but skins and other digital items aren't likely to exist for anywhere near as long.

The digital cosmetics will probably exist longer, and definitely can be "worn" for a much longer time before "wearing out"

You are assuming that there will be people playing Fortnite in its current incarnation in 20 years. I don't think Fortnite is quite at the level of NetHack or even Minecraft yet.

Or second life! Oh... wait....

Fortnight is a watered-down online-only GTA V Online clone that's bankrupting a generation of kids who aren't smart enough to play better games. There's no way that keeps going for 20 years.

Fortnite will never be NetHack or Minecraft because it's centralized. When Epic goes, Fortnite goes with it.

Do you wear that Nike shirt? Might be time to Marie Kondo that shirt

this article is about kids though. how many grown men are still wearing the same fresh pair of nikes they got at age 13? things can be handed down to younger children of course, but with the wear and tear faced by kids' shoes and clothes, I doubt many of them last much longer than the average AAA multiplayer game.

Your 20 year old Nike shirt was also 20x more expensive...

The durability of the item is sort of a side issue - I guarantee that back in the day (and maybe still a bit today) that kids were bullied for not having the hot brand of shoes, or the right clothes, or listening to the right music.

My theory is relatively simple: skins/costumes are signals and signals are important. Fortnite has matchmaking, and the majority of players use the matchmaking function in the two-/four-player modes rather than with a premade group. The average player you are matched with will be Fortnite-matchmaking replacement level[1]. If that player doesn't have a skin, they are more likely to underperform, from your perspective, since the pool of "non-skinned" players also includes new players and marginally-invested players (i.e. players who rarely play). I think a lot of comparisons to fashion are trying to solve the symptom, rather than this deeper problem.

Youth sports has a similar phenomenon. If you show up to the first day of practice with "default" athletic gear (running shoes instead of cleats, cargo shorts instead of athletic shorts etc.) you would face a similar type of shunning. The reason why there isn't a push to ban expensive athletic equipment is due to 1) The equipment manufacturers have huge sway over youth sports organizations via sponsorship 2) kids like athletic equipment because its one of the few outlets of individual identity available to them. That's why you are more likely to see displays of individual or group altruism (e.g. what happened to your son) rather than questioning the ethics/fairness of this phenomenon.

That is also why I prefer Apex Legends' freemium model to Fortnite's. Yes, it does include loot boxes (which are intrinsically exploitative), but it also includes ways to signal gaming ability without paying money, such as opt-in game statistics (how many wins with a character, how many kills, etc). More explicit signals of competency make weaker secondary signals (having the right skin/kit/cleats) a lot less relevant, even counterproductive (being labelled a poser).

[1]https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml

This is a thing with Fortnite, but is not a phenomenon with all games that have a similar revenue model. A few years ago I played DotA 2 a lot (like, 10 hours a day every day, while enrolled in school). I did eventually buy some skins to show off, but ultimately it was pointless and everyone knew it. When you saw another player in the game, you didn't think about their skins, aside from maybe ogling at the fancy particle FX for a bit, or maybe some complaining in chat about how it unfairly made hero X look like hero Y, etc. My friends similarly bought skins but ultimately didn't care.

The situation is similar in the MMOFPS Planetside 2. In that game skins are more correlated with skill, and I have gotten a few comments about playing well for someone with no skins. But there is absolutely no negativity.

My younger brother plays Fortnite, and they (he + his friends) have some impressively horrifying obsession with skins. Labeling something or some action as a 'default' is an insult commonly used in real life. I have only played the game a tiny bit, and have no idea why this is the case. Even my college aged friends really care a lot about the skins.

>I did eventually buy some skins to show off, but ultimately it was pointless and everyone knew it.

This was my experience with League of Legends as well. Skins were admired but not considered a mark of skill. I personally didn't play with many skins and was not judged for not having them.

I recently had this discussion here regarding CSGO, more regarding loot boxes, but a similar enough conversation.

In CSGO, people really do care about skins. Now, you normally don't get flamed for having default skins, but people look closely at your knife, your AWP, your gloves, etc. If you have good skins, people generally like you more (in a random queue context). You are also expected to generally not suck.

On the flip side, you set yourself up for pressure by having nicer skins, because people then say "all skins, no skill". So oddly enough the skins in CSGO do play into the culture. Especially because the running joke is the better the skins, the better the player.

I played the original CS quite a bit in college, some 20 years ago, when you didn't have any customization. If you were good, people would accuse you of hacking and/or rage quit. The community got so toxic, I stopped playing the game. Wasnt fun anymore.

These days, I rarely play anything online that isn't pure coop. I dont like the toxicity that competition brings out in games online (in the US, in my experience). I'm playing a game to relax after work or on the weekend. I am nearly 40, and don't need or want that negativity in my life.

I remember when it was "gg" after every match, but now it's more likely a racist or sexicist comment, followed by "get guud". Fuck that. Don't want to be screamed at by a little shit spouting racial epithets or questioning someones sexuality.

They removed the end/half time voice chat, so that is no longer an issue. People still call you a hacker, especially if you start the first couple rounds out doing well.

The game is now F2P so the number of hackers is also way up as it is. I still enjoy the game, but I basically mute my team unless they are cool and helpful. I prefer to play on Faceit and with my friends. And I no longer am invested in rank or winning, just trying to improve individually.

You're point is dead on about the game though, I understand why people hate it. Voice chat is full of kids thinking they are edgy by dropping racial slurs or homophobic stuff, people don't work together, and there are hackers in so many games. If there was a better competitive shooter for PC I would probably play it. R6 Siege just doesn't do it for me, and all the other games are king of the hill style games now (Apex, PUBG, Fortnite, even CSGO Danger Zone). COD on PC was never fun for me. Really it's Battlefield but people don't really play that as competitively. If there was another option I would probably play it.

I just don't play competitively anymore. Online co-op can still be lots of fun, and even competitive in some ways (showing off along the lines of, "look what I can do!"), but it takes off the vicious edge that produces all that toxicity. Although you still get griefers.

In Dota2 they just silently think that you know what you're doing if you've got an unusual cosmetic. So they flame you less.

Fortnite doesn't have lootboxes. The Save The World mode did but they recently removed them so you always know what you are buying if you decide to spend money.

I'd say it's not pay-to-win either because most of the skins people buy in the shop are more flashy and easier to spot than the dreaded default skins.

I think this is less about Fortnite and more about people finding another way others are different and using it as a lever to make themselves feel better about their own insecurities.

> Fortnite doesn't have lootboxes.

> I think this is less about Fortnite ... make themselves feel better about their own insecurities.

Sure, I got that, I'm just saying that I felt okay letting kids play Fortnite because it didn't have the hallmarks of the well-publicized dangers from other free to play games. But regardless of whether the problem comes from people and culture surrounding the game or the designer of the game, I think I'll restrict my kids' access to it if it starts to look like a hazard.

Anything that's free to play and requires a credit card is potentially dangerous for kids.

Kids don't actually care about the token (skins, clothing brands, basketball shoes, ...) in question. They just care that the token is scarce enough to differentiate the haves from the have-nots. It's all about status.

Sadly, this is the one thing that people keep forgetting about. This isn't a new phenomena; it's just bullies finding an excuse to be assholes to others.

The Overton window seems to have shifted a lot since That Retarded Horse[0]. :/

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCjuFpQ3EeA

Ironically this makes the default skins the most rare. I've never played Fortnite, but this was true in Overwatch which was kind of interesting. I've never seen anyone get picked on for not having a non-default skin though. It's hard to believe this happens in Fortnite, but I don't interact with people in their teens or younger.

I think the difference with Overwatch is, Overwatch does have proper proxy for skill level, skill rating. You wouldn't deride a grandmaster player for using default skins.

In fortnite, you don't know if your squad member is good or not, but if they don't have any skins, chances are they haven't invested in the game. So even if you are good at the game, there isn't any other way to signal to other players that you are good without skins

If you need a skin to signal that you're good then you're not very good

Overwatch also has a proper proxy for how experienced a player is -- the player's account level, which is displayed prominently on the scoreboard. Skins are a lot less visible, the game gives them away pretty liberally, and the default skins aren't radically different in appearance from most of the paid ones.

You can get vbucks by playing Save The World. Simply logging into STW gets you vbucks about every week or so.

The game is engineered not to attract parent's attention (e.g. no visual "extremes") and to attract youngsters and make them spend money - in this context I'm happy not to be a parent right now :)

Respect for your efforts :)

I think they're usually called "no skins"