Hacker News Reader

Comment by kmlx | Hacker News Reader

i've played apex legend for more than 50 hours, and had no idea you could actually spend money in that game.

but i also think there's a generational divide: while i would gladly pay games for a leg up (better weapons, higher jumps, that sort of thing), i would never ever buy a "skin" for my character, or anything superficial for that matter. but I see kids getting completely hooked on this. and i don't really get it. i mean, from a young age i would hack the game and add whatever i wanted (including skins), so maybe that's why asking me to pay for something as useless as a "skin" will never fly with me.

View on HN

Well, to be blunt, that's cos you're not a kid.

I've known teachers who specifically have had to have words with kids who are bullying their classmate for not having a skin in fortnite. I'm sure that's rare but the point is that these kids are not yet equipped to deal with the kind of manipulation companies throw at you to try to get you to buy into this economy. "Hacking" skins into the game is pointless, because it's not about looking good to yourself, it's about showing off your shiny trinket to your peers.

In Australia they had these stupid figurines they were giving to parents that were inside packets, with varying rarity. Kids were going mental for them, and were begging parents to buy more groceries to get more packs.

It's definitely gambling by another name, and kids are susceptible to it massively.

That isn't generational, it is part of your personality though. You just described two of the four player profiles in this talk on monetizing games:

https://youtu.be/xNjI03CGkb4

Blech. Torulf Jernstrom. I'm surprised they left that one up. It's not going to age well.

Why do you say that? The content seems fine and generally applicable to a variety of games, even though mobile gaming was his focus. And yeah, he's not as successful as others in the area, but that doesn't mean the information is bad.

He's teaching people how to profit off of getting people (including kids) into virtual gambling, microtransactions and other addictive behaviour, and exploiting "whales" (who are actual human beings).

Historically, there was a way for people to make successful, interesting, exciting and fun games that didn't require horrific financial exploitation of vulnerable players.

To quote the Dude: "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole."

>i would gladly pay games for a leg up (better weapons, higher jumps, that sort of thing)

Why?? What is the point of a game, if you can buy advantages? It reduces the competitive aspect to who can spend more money.

I wonder if there's mileage in a multiplayer version of the "I'm rich" app.

I'm with you, and I feel the same about 'unlockable' junk in multiplayer games. It's one of the many trends that I cite as a reason I don't play competitive online multiplayer anymore.

Not the original poster, but paying for advantages in games is pretty common. I think of golf, where people will pay big money for expensive equipment that marginally improves performance. Or even more so the Sailing World Cup Series where the main differentiator is the cost of the boat. I assume F1 racing is like that as well.

There is a dual aspect to that psychology: e.g. the person who succeeds despite having less expensive equipment. I remember reading a fishing forum where a guy was bragging about all the fish he caught with budget gear and how all the guys with premium setups were jealous of him. And sport fishing is really just a type of game (as is hunting).

Another point to consider is people who pay money for hacks. e.g. see through walls, highlight opposing team characters, or auto-follow (like a when your sights stay sticky on a player). I've seen high-level competitors get banned from Twitch for using these exploits. Yet I have no trouble understanding why they would do so any more than I have trouble understanding why a lot of athletes use doping.

I think cosmetics are a much better alternative to purchasing advantages (that'd never work for a PC game anyway) but keep kids away from gambling absolutely.

The problem is that for a lot of games you can't just directly purchase the cosmetic items, you have to open many loot boxes in order to try and "win" the cosmetic item that you desire.

That's a problem for the business people to figure out. Items which make it easier to play are a massive red flag to avoid a game and they're always right.

Yeah, and all it takes for the business people to figure it out is for everyone to stop buying those games and those items within the game. Unfortunately these sorts of things are put into games because they work and because the games are already popular. I mean why is EA still making yearly sports games?

Yeah I was in the same boat. Had no idea how the coins worked and have zero interest in purchasing cosmetics.

I can kind of identify with it though. I remember going to a lot of bother to update the player DB in Sensible World of Soccer to reflect the most recent season. I also patched it and didn't pay (not even sure if there was a paid update). But it's not a stretch to imagine that if I didn't understand how to do it myself and someone offered me a pound for the floppy disk I may have bought it!

What if they offered you a sealed envelope that might or might not have contained the floppy disk?

It’s exactly the same reason people pay for fashion. The clothes don’t provide practical benefit, yet people still pay 100x more for branding.

And you can’t hack this because these are multiplayer games.

yes, but fashion in games? paying for worthless pixels?

i do get what you're saying thou...

People play these games with their friends online. They also stream to potentially millions of people.

Their online persona is part of their identity. For some people, buying an expensive in game item makes them feel rich/successful/whatever, and some people will complement/judge them on their taste/expenditure etc.

It’s no different to buying a Rolex, a fast car or Louis vuitton hand bag. All of them are functionally the same but convey something about the owner

Online multiplayer games are how kids socialise online these days. They don't meet up on Facebook, they meet up on Fortnite or Minecraft. Appearance is an important status indicator.

At least Minecraft doesn't charge you to change your skin.

Are you into fashion IRL? I mean for a lot of people, flaunting their online looks is important, it pleases them - and they see others rocking a unique skin and appreciate that as well.

I mean I play FFXIV casually, but there's a huge subculture in that game for making looks, combinations and colorings of its huge library of clothing items.

All I'm saying is, withhold your judgment a bit on things you're not into yourself.

When it’s an online game played with friends, many will want their character to look cool/unique just as much as they want items/equipment that may give a competitive advantage

Fashion smells like classism to me. I don't see anyone below a certain tax bracket playing the fashion game. Fortnite has already become kind of classist, with the well-off kids bullying people who don't gamble their parent's money for skins. I think the whole system is name-brand evil.

> I don't see anyone below a certain tax bracket playing the fashion game.

I grew up in lower middle class area and i saw it A LOT. To me it seems less like classism and more tribal or human nature.

Unless by certain tax bracket you mean poverty in which case yeah _maybe_ fashion stops mattering then, but I don't have any experience with that.

> I don't see anyone below a certain tax bracket playing the fashion game.

How do you know they are in certain tax bracket though? Do you ask everyone on the street about their taxes? Or maybe you're assuming their tax bracket on how they dress? :)

> Fashion smells like classism to me.

That's because that's pretty much exactly what it is. It's a signaling mechanism.

You don't gamble for skins in Fortnite, you buy them directly.

I don’t think the analogy carries because there are no “default” clothes. You have to make some sort of decision about what to wear, even the decision to avoid fashion trends is a form of fashion itself.

>same reason people pay for fashion.

Except when I buy a shirt or jacket or shoes, I don't buy a ticket and get something random with a minor chance to get what I actually want.

Then immediately I can sell it back (WOW!) for less than I have bought it and try again and again, yeah.

Your analogy is totally off.

Honestly, I wouldn't even play a game where paying for power-ups was the norm. It's not something I'm interested in.

Skins, on the other hand... so, to start with, I play FF14, which has a cash shop for things like special outfits and emotes. While I wouldn't dump all my disposable income into cosmetic stuff, and I sure as hell don't trawl the cash shop looking for stuff to buy, I'll buy stuff here and there if it really catches my eye or if it could be useful. For example, I went to an in-game wedding over the weekend, and I didn't have anything to wear that was really appropriate, so I hopped on the cash shop, looked at a couple of dresses, asked my friends for advice on which one looks better, and bought exactly one outfit. And then there was when I was first setting up by subscription after my free month ran out, and I stumbled on a set of emotes inspired by one of my favorite television franchises of all time. Those were the only things I bought from the cash shop... though I have to admit I'm tempted to buy the new cat ear hood (which was heavily advertised when it came out) just because cat ears are kind of my thing.

So I'm definitely not in the "buy all the skins" camp, but I'm fine with buying a couple of items here and there that enhance my enjoyment of the game. And, of course, this leads into why lootboxes are evil. In a game that uses lootboxes, you can't just buy one or two cool things. You have to keep buying lootboxes and opening them again and again and again and again until you get the thing you're looking for. It's exploitative, and it trains the mind to derive enjoyment from addictive behaviors.

analytics suggest that the only generational divide is the one where people admit to buying “superficial” things in game, or at all

for the generation that admits to buying these things without qualm, think about the social benefits as much as having the right console/toy/action figure had

do you ever buy clothes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com