That's only true for overly flashy and distinct units, which make the bulk of the army. Preserving unit shapes is all that's needed to make it work, so we can have:
Subtle unit skins (see SC2 skins)
Recolors (maybe even something like SC2 team color mods, which change the color's value/lightness)
Alternate color patterns (the unit preserves shape and color palette but the colors are drawn in a different pattern)
Even unit cosmetics can work. But they aren't the only cosmetic! We can also have:
Hero skins, hats and colors schemes. With heroes you can go all in with wackiness and customization. They work even better than hero skins in MOBAs, since in MOBAs there's 10 heroes per game and they are the main focus, while in Atlas there's only 6 heroes and units are the main focus.
Taunt, dance, emote animations, as in, you have a button or chat command to make your units or hero do some animation (see SC2 dances). Doesn't affect gameplay at all. Gives a way to show cockiness (and be punished for that) and create some lighthearted drama in spectated games (people love that, see SC2's manner MULES, manner expands, or LiquidHero drawing TL with pylons in a tournament game).
Death animations/effects. Can't recall a game that sells those, even though almost every game has specific death animations for units and heroes. Has almost no impact in gameplay, as the unit/hero is already dead when the animation is shown.
Voice lines for heroes (see any MOBA). No impact in gameplay whatsoever. Gives heroes more personality and uniqueness.
Voice announcers (see DotA2). No impact in gameplay whatsoever. You can even have some famous voice actor make the voice pack and then pay them with a percentage of the proceeds of that voice pack. I would pay for a Day9 voice pack.
HUD skins. Don't affect gameplay.
Map themes and alternate critters and creeps. Again, no effect on gameplay.
With voice announcers, HUD skins and map themes you can do what CSGO does with music kits: if one player in a game has it, other players can "borrow it" for the duration of that game, as a means of letting other people know that you have bought that cosmetic and letting them try it.
If you still think that cosmetics affect gameplay too much, I encourage you to elaborate on why you think so, instead of just saying "uhm, won't work".
Then, the second point against cosmetics-only monetization is:
2. Cosmetics are unsustainable/unprofitable/way less profitable than gameplay unlocks.
Firstly, in order to sell gameplay unlocks they have to be high impact or hard to acquire. That hurts gameplay. A lot. With gameplay unlocks, no matter how you set the grindness scale, you will be trading revenue for competitiveness, fairness and an even playfield that doesn't punish new players. There's no correct place in that scale: you go from pointless and unprofitable unlocks to pay to win game that competitive players hate. It's not black and white, it's choose your poison.
Secondly, the assumption that gameplay unlocks make more money than cosmetics is unfounded.
@Sir said:
I think that the assumption that cosmetics are less profitable than gameplay unlocks comes from people who buy neither of them and think that buying gameplay unlocks is more "rational" than buying cosmetics.
@TakOwa said:
Personally I don't want to spend any money on either gameplay or cosmetics unlocks
That's what I mean. You are arguing from the perspective of someone who buys neither gameplay unlocks nor cosmetics, but somehow you reach the conclusion that cosmetics are less attractive to buyers.
Ask people who do spend money in games with both gameplay unlocks and skins, what are they spending it on. Everyone I know from HotS, LoL or TF2 who spends money buys mostly, if not only, cosmetics. The ones who don't buy cosmetics don't buy gameplay unlocks either.
Name a single game with both gameplay unlocks and cosmetics that isn't totally pay to win and gets more revenue from gameplay unlocks than cosmetics. (I know, I know, we don't have the exact data, but ask the players of the game what are they spending money on). I can name you games that work almost exclusively on cosmetics.
The whole reason that cosmetics are more effective than gameplay unlocks is uniqueness. Everyone eventually gets all gameplay unlocks. Those don't make you more unique. Cosmetics do. Cosmetics let you show off.
Also, people buy cosmetics because they genuinely love them and/or want to support the devs.
On the other hand, people buy gameplay unlocks because they feel coerced into it. They buy them to stay competitive or avoid mindless grinds. If that's happening then their impact and unlock pace is unacceptable.
And finally:
3. There's no progression system without gameplay unlocks.
Not at all. Progression systems work with cosmetics, and even better than with gameplay unlocks. Eventually you get all gameplay unlocks (otherwise it's a filthy p2w game not worth playing), but you cannot and shouldn't ever get all cosmetics, even if you were able to unlock some of them with in-game currency.
In such a system, you can have:
Some cosmetics that can be eventually unlocked via in-game currency. This is how you make progression work. This encourages playing more. Add daily quests to incentive daily play. Add currency gain bonus for groups to encourage bringing in friends. Add randomness (loot crates or random drops) to satisfy gamblers and add additional scarcity and uniqueness to cosmetics. It should be adjusted so you have to really grind to unlock those cosmetics, and it's perfectly fine to do that, as they don't affect gameplay.
Some cosmetics that are unreasonable to unlock without spending money. Here's where randomness comes into play, or seasonal unlocks. This is where you pretty much have to spend money. This is how you get truly unique cosmetics.
Actually expensive stuff. To target the thousand dollar spenders. Bundles of regular cosmetics plus some unique cosmetic that you only get if you buy the bundle. In-game or forum special titles/badges. Out of game stuff: soundtrack, clothes, stuffed animals, posters, signed drawings, whatever. This is for people who truly want to support the game, in a Patreon sense.
I feel that detractors and skeptics of cosmetic-based monetization aren't proving enough points as to why they think it doesn't work. Or haven't really thought it through and are only scratching the surface. Or are arguing against strawmen such as "cosmetics must seriously affect gameplay" and "can't have a progression system and paywalled cosmetics at the same time". Or arguing from misconceptions like "since I don't buy cosmetics (and ironically, neither gameplay unlocks) cosmetics mustn't be profitable". So by all means, I encourage you to elaborate on your concerns.
By the way, I wouldn't be against hero-only unlocks, because those don't create strictly-betters and unfair situations like "Celesta + all White units available" vs "Celesta + only the 3 default White units", and they don't gimp new players nearly as much as unit unlocks do. Hero unlocks are just extra options, not something you must change every game to adapt to your opponents (in a future draft) and allies.
I'm just trying to acknowledge an audience that might enjoy gameplay unlocks? And that that audience should also be catered to? I'm not trying to put the whole audience under the same umbrella, and assume that all people will have the same set of preferences. I absolutely think you are very right for a large part of the audience. But you being right doesn't make me wrong, and vice versa. League, Smite, and Hearthstone as well as other card games are evidence that gameplay monetization has a potential customer base. I don't think going the whole way to make the monetization as punishing as some of the games is necessary.
I don't think having all units unlocked guarantees people not bringing sub-optimal compositions into games.
I also think that a strong gameplay can overcome gameplay unlocks. Heroes being monetized did not stop BLC (pre-runes) from being an awesome game. The same can be said for Smite and League.
I am totally aware of Dota2 and CSGO's systems. These are very successful games. But that doesn't mean that success hinges on not having gameplay unlocks.
I feel that detractors and skeptics of cosmetic-based monetization aren't proving enough points as to why they think it doesn't work. Or haven't really thought it through and are only scratching the surface. Or are arguing against strawmen such as "cosmetics must seriously affect gameplay" and "can't have a progression system and paywalled cosmetics at the same time". Or arguing from misconceptions like "since I don't buy cosmetics (and ironically, neither gameplay unlocks) cosmetics mustn't be profitable". So by all means, I encourage you to elaborate on your concerns.
The arguments that you bring up are not the same as the ones I've brought up. "cosmetics must seriously affect gameplay" : Nobody claimed that they must affect gameplay. They could affect gameplay, and this would be undesirable. I also think that the more subtle and inobtrusive the cosmetics are, the less they are worth (how much I don't know). "can't have a progression system and paywalled cosmetics at the same time" I don't think anyone was against this, most people on either side of the argument agreed that having a progression system was good, as well as that there should be paywalled cosmetics. "since I don't buy cosmetics (and ironically, neither gameplay unlocks) cosmetics mustn't be profitable" To be honest I find this slightly insulting (but that's okey), I never tried to insinuate that cosmetics not being profitable followed from by own spending preferences.
What I did attempt to say was: Assuming that cosmetics have a limited amount of obtrusiveness, and that a proportion (1/4-1/3) of cosmetics are unlockable for free. I would not think that such a style of cosmetics monetization would be able to cover the development costs of additional content as well as development in general. Cosmetics would probably be profitable in vacuum, but I don't think it would be enough for all the future non-cosmetic content that the team has hinted at.
I am totally aware of Dota2 and CSGO's systems. These are very successful games. But that doesn't mean that success hinges on not having gameplay unlocks.
I also think that the more subtle and inobtrusive the cosmetics are, the less they are worth (how much I don't know).
Assuming that cosmetics have a limited amount of obtrusiveness, and that a proportion (1/4-1/3) of cosmetics are unlockable for free. I would not think that such a style of cosmetics monetization would be able to cover the development costs of additional content as well as development in general. Cosmetics would probably be profitable in vacuum, but I don't think it would be enough for all the future non-cosmetic content that the team has hinted at.
I am totally aware of Smite and LoL's systems. These are very successful games. But that doesn't mean that success hinges on having gameplay unlocks.
I also think that the more fair, competitive, reasonable and inobtrusive the gameplay unlocks are, the less they are worth (how much I don't know).
Assuming that gameplay unlocks have a limited amount of obtrusiveness, and that (all) gameplay unlockables are unlockable for free. I would not think that such a style of gameplay unlockables monetization would be able to cover the development costs of additional content as well as development in general. Gameplay unlocks would probably be profitable in vacuum, but I don't think it would be enough for all the future non-cosmetic content that the team has hinted at.
(I don't mean to offend you @TokOwa, I'm just questioning the assumption that adding gameplay unlocks significantly increases revenue over cosmetics-only)
I think that everyone agrees that it's either cosmetics + gameplay unlocks or cosmetics-only. Both can have progression systems. Both can be profitable. Cosmetics + gameplay unlocks is not necessary more profitable than cosmetics only.
Game developers often commit the fallacy of thinking that the revenue they get from gameplay unlocks is net gain. It's not. You can easily measure gameplay unlocks revenue, but you can't easily measure its opportunity cost. Gameplay unlocks may be reducing your player base and you may be getting less revenue from cosmetics because of them.
The more players spend on gameplay unlocks the less "leftover" money they have to spend on cosmetics. What I've experienced is that in games with gameplay unlocks + cosmetics there are two typical types of players, the completely f2p ones, who don't spend money at all, and the cosmetic-buyers, who spend mostly on cosmetics. Personally I don't know anyone whose spending goes mostly to gameplay unlocks. I see LoL players with 1/4 of the legends unlocked (by grinding) and many skins, not the other way around. Don't take my word for it, ask the players. Maybe polling LoL, HotS, and Smite players on that matter would be interesting.
If you can make significant money form gameplay unlocks it's because they are worth buying, that is, they have meaningful impact, be it gameplay advantages or avoiding unpleasant grinds. If that's true, you may be reducing the amount of people who are willing to play the game and end up spending money on it, because they may see the game as unfair/anti-competitive/grindy/uneven playfield or whatever negative connotation gameplay unlocks have.
What do you think is more likely, a player rejecting a game because it has gameplay unlocks or a player rejecting a game because it has no gameplay unlocks?
@TokOwa said:
I also think that a strong gameplay can overcome gameplay unlocks. Heroes being monetized did not stop BLC (pre-runes) from being an awesome game. The same can be said for Smite and League.
But why bother overcoming them when they could be removed in the first place?
@TokOwa said:
I'm just trying to acknowledge an audience that might enjoy gameplay unlocks? And that that audience should also be catered to? I'm not trying to put the whole audience under the same umbrella, and assume that all people will have the same set of preferences.
People like gameplay unlocks because of the unlocks part, not because of the gameplay part. People like having progression and objectives. That's how we're wired. People feel good when rewarded, even if the rewards are "fake" (virtual). It doesn't matter if they are gameplay unlocks or cosmetic unlocks (unless it's a pay to win game, which I think anyone here would hate).
TL;DR: Gameplay unlocks aren't necessarily more profitable than cosmetics. People value progression and unlockables in general. Progression systems are important, and work both with gameplay unlocks and cosmetics. Gameplay unlocks aren't "free extra money", they have negative effects on revenue that are harder to measure than their positive effects. Hence, people assume gameplay unlocks are more profitable than cosmetics.
Comments
There seems to be three main points against a cosmetics-only business model. Let me tackle them.
1. Cosmetics interfere too much with gameplay. @Spartak, @Rodick, @HoolaBandoola and @TakOwa have concerns about that.
That's only true for overly flashy and distinct units, which make the bulk of the army. Preserving unit shapes is all that's needed to make it work, so we can have:
Even unit cosmetics can work. But they aren't the only cosmetic! We can also have:
With voice announcers, HUD skins and map themes you can do what CSGO does with music kits: if one player in a game has it, other players can "borrow it" for the duration of that game, as a means of letting other people know that you have bought that cosmetic and letting them try it.
If you still think that cosmetics affect gameplay too much, I encourage you to elaborate on why you think so, instead of just saying "uhm, won't work".
Then, the second point against cosmetics-only monetization is:
2. Cosmetics are unsustainable/unprofitable/way less profitable than gameplay unlocks.
Firstly, in order to sell gameplay unlocks they have to be high impact or hard to acquire. That hurts gameplay. A lot. With gameplay unlocks, no matter how you set the grindness scale, you will be trading revenue for competitiveness, fairness and an even playfield that doesn't punish new players. There's no correct place in that scale: you go from pointless and unprofitable unlocks to pay to win game that competitive players hate. It's not black and white, it's choose your poison.
Secondly, the assumption that gameplay unlocks make more money than cosmetics is unfounded.
That's what I mean. You are arguing from the perspective of someone who buys neither gameplay unlocks nor cosmetics, but somehow you reach the conclusion that cosmetics are less attractive to buyers.
Ask people who do spend money in games with both gameplay unlocks and skins, what are they spending it on. Everyone I know from HotS, LoL or TF2 who spends money buys mostly, if not only, cosmetics. The ones who don't buy cosmetics don't buy gameplay unlocks either.
Name a single game with both gameplay unlocks and cosmetics that isn't totally pay to win and gets more revenue from gameplay unlocks than cosmetics. (I know, I know, we don't have the exact data, but ask the players of the game what are they spending money on). I can name you games that work almost exclusively on cosmetics.
The whole reason that cosmetics are more effective than gameplay unlocks is uniqueness. Everyone eventually gets all gameplay unlocks. Those don't make you more unique. Cosmetics do. Cosmetics let you show off.
Also, people buy cosmetics because they genuinely love them and/or want to support the devs.
On the other hand, people buy gameplay unlocks because they feel coerced into it. They buy them to stay competitive or avoid mindless grinds. If that's happening then their impact and unlock pace is unacceptable.
And finally:
3. There's no progression system without gameplay unlocks.
Not at all. Progression systems work with cosmetics, and even better than with gameplay unlocks. Eventually you get all gameplay unlocks (otherwise it's a filthy p2w game not worth playing), but you cannot and shouldn't ever get all cosmetics, even if you were able to unlock some of them with in-game currency.
In such a system, you can have:
I feel that detractors and skeptics of cosmetic-based monetization aren't proving enough points as to why they think it doesn't work. Or haven't really thought it through and are only scratching the surface. Or are arguing against strawmen such as "cosmetics must seriously affect gameplay" and "can't have a progression system and paywalled cosmetics at the same time". Or arguing from misconceptions like "since I don't buy cosmetics (and ironically, neither gameplay unlocks) cosmetics mustn't be profitable". So by all means, I encourage you to elaborate on your concerns.
By the way, I wouldn't be against hero-only unlocks, because those don't create strictly-betters and unfair situations like "Celesta + all White units available" vs "Celesta + only the 3 default White units", and they don't gimp new players nearly as much as unit unlocks do. Hero unlocks are just extra options, not something you must change every game to adapt to your opponents (in a future draft) and allies.
Great post @Sir.
Is there a tl;dr?
I'm just trying to acknowledge an audience that might enjoy gameplay unlocks? And that that audience should also be catered to? I'm not trying to put the whole audience under the same umbrella, and assume that all people will have the same set of preferences. I absolutely think you are very right for a large part of the audience. But you being right doesn't make me wrong, and vice versa. League, Smite, and Hearthstone as well as other card games are evidence that gameplay monetization has a potential customer base. I don't think going the whole way to make the monetization as punishing as some of the games is necessary.
I don't think having all units unlocked guarantees people not bringing sub-optimal compositions into games.
I also think that a strong gameplay can overcome gameplay unlocks. Heroes being monetized did not stop BLC (pre-runes) from being an awesome game. The same can be said for Smite and League.
I am totally aware of Dota2 and CSGO's systems. These are very successful games. But that doesn't mean that success hinges on not having gameplay unlocks.
The arguments that you bring up are not the same as the ones I've brought up. "cosmetics must seriously affect gameplay" : Nobody claimed that they must affect gameplay. They could affect gameplay, and this would be undesirable. I also think that the more subtle and inobtrusive the cosmetics are, the less they are worth (how much I don't know). "can't have a progression system and paywalled cosmetics at the same time" I don't think anyone was against this, most people on either side of the argument agreed that having a progression system was good, as well as that there should be paywalled cosmetics. "since I don't buy cosmetics (and ironically, neither gameplay unlocks) cosmetics mustn't be profitable" To be honest I find this slightly insulting (but that's okey), I never tried to insinuate that cosmetics not being profitable followed from by own spending preferences.
What I did attempt to say was: Assuming that cosmetics have a limited amount of obtrusiveness, and that a proportion (1/4-1/3) of cosmetics are unlockable for free. I would not think that such a style of cosmetics monetization would be able to cover the development costs of additional content as well as development in general. Cosmetics would probably be profitable in vacuum, but I don't think it would be enough for all the future non-cosmetic content that the team has hinted at.
(I don't mean to offend you @TokOwa, I'm just questioning the assumption that adding gameplay unlocks significantly increases revenue over cosmetics-only)
I think that everyone agrees that it's either cosmetics + gameplay unlocks or cosmetics-only. Both can have progression systems. Both can be profitable. Cosmetics + gameplay unlocks is not necessary more profitable than cosmetics only.
Game developers often commit the fallacy of thinking that the revenue they get from gameplay unlocks is net gain. It's not. You can easily measure gameplay unlocks revenue, but you can't easily measure its opportunity cost. Gameplay unlocks may be reducing your player base and you may be getting less revenue from cosmetics because of them.
The more players spend on gameplay unlocks the less "leftover" money they have to spend on cosmetics. What I've experienced is that in games with gameplay unlocks + cosmetics there are two typical types of players, the completely f2p ones, who don't spend money at all, and the cosmetic-buyers, who spend mostly on cosmetics. Personally I don't know anyone whose spending goes mostly to gameplay unlocks. I see LoL players with 1/4 of the legends unlocked (by grinding) and many skins, not the other way around. Don't take my word for it, ask the players. Maybe polling LoL, HotS, and Smite players on that matter would be interesting.
If you can make significant money form gameplay unlocks it's because they are worth buying, that is, they have meaningful impact, be it gameplay advantages or avoiding unpleasant grinds. If that's true, you may be reducing the amount of people who are willing to play the game and end up spending money on it, because they may see the game as unfair/anti-competitive/grindy/uneven playfield or whatever negative connotation gameplay unlocks have.
What do you think is more likely, a player rejecting a game because it has gameplay unlocks or a player rejecting a game because it has no gameplay unlocks?
But why bother overcoming them when they could be removed in the first place?
People like gameplay unlocks because of the unlocks part, not because of the gameplay part. People like having progression and objectives. That's how we're wired. People feel good when rewarded, even if the rewards are "fake" (virtual). It doesn't matter if they are gameplay unlocks or cosmetic unlocks (unless it's a pay to win game, which I think anyone here would hate).
TL;DR: Gameplay unlocks aren't necessarily more profitable than cosmetics. People value progression and unlockables in general. Progression systems are important, and work both with gameplay unlocks and cosmetics. Gameplay unlocks aren't "free extra money", they have negative effects on revenue that are harder to measure than their positive effects. Hence, people assume gameplay unlocks are more profitable than cosmetics.
I agree with everything you say, but I don't know enough to be 100% sure about the assumptions that support your arguments.
(Also, don't be sorry! It's internet discussion, slightly offended is better than can be asked of anyone)