(A ramble)

That title isn't original to me; I've lifted it from a CNet article
(read it here
https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/in-2023-all-the-best-video-games-are-old/)
where the reporter comments on how it seems that, well, all the best
video games are old. It's a conceit that resonates with me
emotionally, even if I don't really agree with it intellectually.
Because - as much as I love my cache of old-timey video games - I also
recognize there are some good titles being made these days. Plus,
having collected a heap of older games, I can assure you that most of
those titles were shitty too. So overall, the quoted article comes
across as an old man yelling at how things were better when he was
young.

Still, I can't help but feel that- while there's the occassional great
game still being made - there's something wrong with the industry as a
whole, that younger gamers are being deprived of a greatness which we
older folks got to experience but has since been ripped out of modern
games. Because while video games have always been about making money,
it never felt so crass and blatant as it does with modern titles;
'back in the day' there seemed to be some respect for the idea of
selling a product on its merits rather than using psychological
trickery to bolster the bottom line with microtransactions. Games were
still allowed to be art - even if overly commercialized pabulum
designed to appeal to a middle-of-the-road audience - rather than a
storefront made to push further sales, be it MTX, DLC, or to push
advertising or gambling mechanics.

It's not that there aren't games that don't follow this trend, but
these tend to be the exceptions, and never seem to reach the same
heights and popularity as the more manipulative titles. There's always
a "Thank God for the Indies", who push the boundaries in a way the
triple-A publishers rarely try.

And I've no idea if younger gamers feel the same as I do. Do kids who
grew up with RoBlox and Fortnite and FIFA XCIV, for whom the endles
hunt for accomplishments and cosmetic hats is ordinary, really care
for how the industry has changed? Do they see it as worse, or do they
look at our old-timey games - which came complete in box without
endless expansions - as boring and limited? Could they find a game
like Gauntlet or Wing Commander (remastered to match modern gamer's
expectations of graphics and controls) entertaining, if it doesn't
have MTX and endless procedural missions that drag the game out
forever? I admit I'm not close enough to the younger generation to
answer that definitively. Maybe I too am an older person grumbling
about the salad days of my youth.

But it still seems a shame that kids aren't given the same
opportunities to experience the same sort of games I played...

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>That title isn't original to me; I've lifted it from a CNet article
>(read it here
>https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/in-2023-all-the-best-video-games-are-old/)
>where the reporter comments on how it seems that, well, all the best
>video games are old. It's a conceit that resonates with me
>emotionally, even if I don't really agree with it intellectually.
>Because - as much as I love my cache of old-timey video games - I also
>recognize there are some good titles being made these days. Plus,
>having collected a heap of older games, I can assure you that most of
>those titles were shitty too. So overall, the quoted article comes
>across as an old man yelling at how things were better when he was
>young.

I think you can make an objective case that it's true. Here are the
years the top ten most played games on Steam right now were released:

2012
2013
2017
2019
2013
2018
2022
2013
2007
2017
There's only one game that could be called new on that list. By the
end of the year half of them will be at least 10 years old. Sure all
those games multiplayer games are still actively being updated, and most
are free-to-play, but it shows you that even kids today aren't all that
distracted by the lastest games. It's not much different when you look at
what people are spending money on in the top 10 global sellers on Steam.
Four "new" games and six "old" games.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:08:57 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>>That title isn't original to me; I've lifted it from a CNet article
>>(read it here
>>https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/in-2023-all-the-best-video-games-are-old/)

>>where the reporter comments on how it seems that, well, all the best
>>video games are old. It's a conceit that resonates with me
>>emotionally, even if I don't really agree with it intellectually.
>>Because - as much as I love my cache of old-timey video games - I also
>>recognize there are some good titles being made these days. Plus,
>>having collected a heap of older games, I can assure you that most of
>>those titles were shitty too. So overall, the quoted article comes
>>across as an old man yelling at how things were better when he was
>>young.

>I think you can make an objective case that it's true. Here are the
>years the top ten most played games on Steam right now were released:
>
> 2012
> 2013
> 2017
> 2019
> 2013
> 2018
> 2022
> 2013
> 2007
> 2017
>
>There's only one game that could be called new on that list. By the
>end of the year half of them will be at least 10 years old. Sure all
>those games multiplayer games are still actively being updated, and most
>are free-to-play, but it shows you that even kids today aren't all that
>distracted by the lastest games. It's not much different when you look at
>what people are spending money on in the top 10 global sellers on Steam.
>Four "new" games and six "old" games.

Man, you can't put up a list like that and NOT tell us the names of
the games ;-) So, for the curious (like me), here are the games Ross
was referencing:

1. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (2012)
2. Dota 2 (2013)
3. PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS (2017)
4. Apex Legends (2019) (Steam lists 2020 but Moby agrees with you)
5. Rust (2013) (Steam says 2018)
6. Path of Exile (2013 according to both Steam and Moby)
7. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II Warzone 2.0 (2022)
8. Team Fortress 2 (2007)
9. Destiny 2 (2017)
10. Grand Theft Auto V (2015, although console versions were 2013)

But beyond that, many of the "newest" popular games are -as the
original linked article pointed out - remakes or reboots of existing
titles (e.g., "Dead Space"). So even when a game is new, it's still
old.

Still, Steam is just PC games, and it could be argued that PC games
tend to attract an older audience who have less interest in 'new'
titles. So maybe we're just cherry picking our data? Let's widen our
net and see what we get.*

01. Call of Duty: Warzone (2020)
02. Minecraft (2010)
03. Fortnite (2017)
04. Grand Theft Auto V (2015)
05. Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege (2015)
06. Super Smash Bros: Ultimate (2018)
07. Red Dead Redemption II (2018)
08. Overwatch (2016)**
09. Rocket League (2015)
10. Roblox (2005)
11. League of Legends (2009)
12. PUBG (PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds) (2017)
13. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (2012)
14. Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII (2018)
15. Super Mario Odyssey (2017)
16. The Legend of Zelda: Breath Of The Wild (2017)
17. Spider-Man (2018)
18. Call of Duty: Black Ops II (2012)
19. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (2011)
20. Super Smash Bros: For Wii U (2014)

And here we see that while there are more 'newer' games, not one of
the top-twenty is younger than 3 years old, and some date back over a
decade.

You might be onto something, Ross.

And maybe the games industry should take note of this too.

-------------------------
* information gleaned from here. I've no idea how accurate it is but
it was convenient ;-)
https://gaminggorilla.com/most-popular-video-games-now/
** wow, I didn't know anyone was still playing Overwatch, much less
that it was still this popular

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:32:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Still, I can't help but feel that- while there's the occassional great
>game still being made - there's something wrong with the industry as a
>whole,

Oh yes there is.
Fuck, yes there is.
I will just quote American McGee here for a moment:

"For my part, I have also reached an endpoint with "Alice" and with
game production in general. I have no other ideas or energy left to
apply toward getting a new Alice game made. Nor do I have any interest
in pursuing new game ideas within the context of the current
environment for game development."

source: https://www.patreon.com/posts/end-of-adventure-81049672

The political correctness, the snowflakes, the marketing douchebags,
the requirement to give everyone a chance regardless of whether they
are talented in the name of equal opportunity, etc. has shoved a
serrated hot poker up the ass of the gaming industry, and at the
current rate I don't see any real recovery in sight.

It's hard for me to even find a decent online multiplayer shooter that
doesn't REQUIRE (not allow, require) me to role play a pink-haired
transgendered character or at least limit my choices of character to
some sort of role I cannot possibly imagine myself in enough to become
immersed. Not that I mind games providing the opportunity for
pink-haired transgendered players to craft their character in their
own likeness (in fact I think all games should provide such character
customization). I just don't like the agenda of snowflake designers
trying to force their ideals on me (and that is present in just about
every story, gaming or movie, that I've seen written in the last 5
years).

To force the player into some sort of weird fucking snowflake realm
that cannot possibly be immersive.. Well they deserve whatever they
get, which in the case of my own spending habits will be some amount
of lost revenue.

There are still a few gems out there but they are getting harder to
find.

It's funny because some of the best game design that ever happened
took place in the 80's. But nowdays, someone will find something
wrong with those old games:

"Donkey Kong objectifies women by portraying them in dresses and
helpless at the hands of a monkey, and is equally racist in suggesting
that a brown skinned male should feel need to sniff the skirt of a
fairer skinned female". *
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/miyamoto-donkey-kong-secrets/

*(the quote above did not come from the wired article, it was
derivative of a humorous discussion on a recently popular Discord
discussion. But I didn't need to explain that to you. Everyone here
knows exactly what the fuck I'm talking about)

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:58:22 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:32:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Still, I can't help but feel that- while there's the occassional great
>>game still being made - there's something wrong with the industry as a
>>whole,
>
>Oh yes there is.
>Fuck, yes there is.
>I will just quote American McGee here for a moment:
>
>"For my part, I have also reached an endpoint with "Alice" and with
>game production in general. I have no other ideas or energy left to
>apply toward getting a new Alice game made. Nor do I have any interest
>in pursuing new game ideas within the context of the current
>environment for game development."
>source: https://www.patreon.com/posts/end-of-adventure-81049672

Wow, good way to take McGee's comments out of context. McGee was
commenting on the difficulty on getting a creative game funded, and
said nothing about "wokeness" being forced on him (however that term
is is defined today). In fact, given how the last Alice game featured
an 'emo' teen fighting against sexual molestation, his games would
probably qualify as "woke" by current right-wing standards.

I'm sorry you feel so threatened by games that feature a wider range
of colors, genders and lifestyles, instead of only using Big White
Straight Men like in the 'good old days'. Of course, most games still
allow you to play that sort of character if you so desire. And
honestly, I don't have a problem with that if you do. But, equally, I
don't have a problem with letting other people play the sort of
characters that better reflects them either.

You make a lot of interesting comments in this newsgroup and - even
though I might not always agree with you - I am usually happy to hear
from your viewpoint, but on this particular topic we cannot agree.
There are many things wrong with the games industry, but making the
games more accessible to other lifestyles is not one of them, and your
rage against the idea is very troubling. To dismiss them all as
'snowflakes' is insulting and wrong.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:07:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>You make a lot of interesting comments in this newsgroup and - even
>though I might not always agree with you - I am usually happy to hear
>from your viewpoint, but on this particular topic we cannot agree.

Which is absolutely fine, as I've never been one to need (much less
seek out) validation from others; and I'm not the least bit bothered
by disagreement. There are enough folks that do agree with me that
would provide the validation that my opinions about what has happened
to the gaming industry are not isolated or unusual.

>There are many things wrong with the games industry, but making the
>games more accessible to other lifestyles is not one of them, and your
>rage against the idea is very troubling. To dismiss them all as
>'snowflakes' is insulting and wrong.

I think distinguishing opinion from fact isn't your strongest suit.
But of course that's my opinion :)

FWIW, I have no issue with making games more accessible to varying
lifestyles or demographics, but when "diversity" is made a mandatory
game design feature, to the detriment of what the game could be itself
(for example unrealistic portrayals of women in historic combat roles
such as WWII), then things have gone too far and it takes away from
the fun factor of the game.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:07:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Wow, good way to take McGee's comments out of context.

Not at all. It was known that the theme and design of his new game
was going to be the darkest, most violent and non-politcally correct
version of Alice ever.

EA rejected it because of the combination of the design and what they
see as market conditions. They didn't want to be the vendor for
something that falls out of the political parameters their marketing
douchebags created for them.

This is why he announced his retirement. Those are the facts, not
opinion.

On 20/04/2023 15:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> (A ramble)
>
> That title isn't original to me; I've lifted it from a CNet article
> (read it here
> https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/in-2023-all-the-best-video-games-are-old/)
> where the reporter comments on how it seems that, well, all the best
> video games are old. It's a conceit that resonates with me
> emotionally, even if I don't really agree with it intellectually.
> Because - as much as I love my cache of old-timey video games - I also
> recognize there are some good titles being made these days. Plus,
> having collected a heap of older games, I can assure you that most of
> those titles were shitty too. So overall, the quoted article comes
> across as an old man yelling at how things were better when he was
> young.
>
> Still, I can't help but feel that- while there's the occassional great
> game still being made - there's something wrong with the industry as a
> whole, that younger gamers are being deprived of a greatness which we
> older folks got to experience but has since been ripped out of modern
> games. Because while video games have always been about making money,
> it never felt so crass and blatant as it does with modern titles;
> 'back in the day' there seemed to be some respect for the idea of
> selling a product on its merits rather than using psychological
> trickery to bolster the bottom line with microtransactions. Games were
> still allowed to be art - even if overly commercialized pabulum
> designed to appeal to a middle-of-the-road audience - rather than a
> storefront made to push further sales, be it MTX, DLC, or to push
> advertising or gambling mechanics.
>
> It's not that there aren't games that don't follow this trend, but
> these tend to be the exceptions, and never seem to reach the same
> heights and popularity as the more manipulative titles. There's always
> a "Thank God for the Indies", who push the boundaries in a way the
> triple-A publishers rarely try.
>
> And I've no idea if younger gamers feel the same as I do. Do kids who
> grew up with RoBlox and Fortnite and FIFA XCIV, for whom the endles
> hunt for accomplishments and cosmetic hats is ordinary, really care
> for how the industry has changed? Do they see it as worse, or do they
> look at our old-timey games - which came complete in box without
> endless expansions - as boring and limited? Could they find a game
> like Gauntlet or Wing Commander (remastered to match modern gamer's
> expectations of graphics and controls) entertaining, if it doesn't
> have MTX and endless procedural missions that drag the game out
> forever? I admit I'm not close enough to the younger generation to
> answer that definitively. Maybe I too am an older person grumbling
> about the salad days of my youth.
>
> But it still seems a shame that kids aren't given the same
> opportunities to experience the same sort of games I played...
>

The article is a bit it was so much better in my day forgetting about
all the trash that was released in that period. Saying that I basically
agree with your point though that it's not the games industry as a whole
where the problem really lies but instead what's happened to the big
budget releases. As for younger gamers (horrible generalisation there
but anyway) do they even realise there's a whole sector that isn't based
around psychological warfare on it's own customers?

On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 11:39:34 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>The article is a bit it was so much better in my day forgetting about
>all the trash that was released in that period.

There really was.

It will surprise nobody here, I am sure, to learn that I've amassed a
huge collection of DOS-era games, ranging all the way back to the
early '80s and right up to the end of the millenium. Part of the
reason for this is, undeniably, my collector's (hoarder's) instinct,
but equally, I enjoy seeing how the games change and developed over
that period. And whatever year I look at, there are some really
impressive games (at least for their time. It is sometimes hard for my
modern eye, jaundiced by modern games, to appreciate 4-color sound and
1-bit speaker squawks). But whether it's "Shogun" or "'Vette" or
"Darklands", there's a lot of awesome games from that period.

But surrounding those gems are a lot of titles that are - at best -
forgetabble, and as often cattle excrement. But since nobody remembers
classics such as 1997's "Jurassic War" or 1992's "Midwinter II" or
1984's "Microsurgeon", it's only the good games we remember. Thus, the
past always looks brighter in comparison to the dingy present.

>Saying that I basically
>agree with your point though that it's not the games industry as a whole
>where the problem really lies but instead what's happened to the big
>budget releases. As for younger gamers (horrible generalisation there
>but anyway) do they even realise there's a whole sector that isn't based
>around psychological warfare on it's own customers?

There are a lot of good games available these days. Even if I don't
care for some of them - Roblox? Dredge? Call of Duty XXXXXIV? I'd
argue that they've got a lot more skill and care put into them than
the average game of the 80s and 90s. And the selection is so vast that
pretty much anyone these days can find a game that appeals to their
particular taste and style. It's not the core games I fault so much as
the mechanics added to those games (or worse, stripped away) by the
publishers to suck out every last dime from their customers.

TL;DR: I miss games where you could earn bonus costumes for your
characters simply by finishing the game.

;-)

On 24/04/2023 20:29, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Saying that I basically
>> agree with your point though that it's not the games industry as a whole
>> where the problem really lies but instead what's happened to the big
>> budget releases. As for younger gamers (horrible generalisation there
>> but anyway) do they even realise there's a whole sector that isn't based
>> around psychological warfare on it's own customers?
>
>
> There are a lot of good games available these days. Even if I don't
> care for some of them - Roblox? Dredge? Call of Duty XXXXXIV? I'd
> argue that they've got a lot more skill and care put into them than
> the average game of the 80s and 90s. And the selection is so vast that
> pretty much anyone these days can find a game that appeals to their
> particular taste and style. It's not the core games I fault so much as
> the mechanics added to those games (or worse, stripped away) by the
> publishers to suck out every last dime from their customers.
>

Putting the MTX issue to one side I still find a problem with the big
publishers is that even that the core games are well polished (well
generally anyway) the innovation side seems to be, shall we say somewhat
lacking. As always though, I can't blame them as I'm pretty sure I'd do
the same in their position considering the cost of developing a triple-A
game.

Then again, it could be argued that they are saving me from spending £60
on a game when I can be spending £10-£20 on one which I'll probably
enjoy more!

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 11:08:34 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 24/04/2023 20:29, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> Saying that I basically
>>> agree with your point though that it's not the games industry as a whole
>>> where the problem really lies but instead what's happened to the big
>>> budget releases. As for younger gamers (horrible generalisation there
>>> but anyway) do they even realise there's a whole sector that isn't based
>>> around psychological warfare on it's own customers?
>>
>>
>> There are a lot of good games available these days. Even if I don't
>> care for some of them - Roblox? Dredge? Call of Duty XXXXXIV? I'd
>> argue that they've got a lot more skill and care put into them than
>> the average game of the 80s and 90s. And the selection is so vast that
>> pretty much anyone these days can find a game that appeals to their
>> particular taste and style. It's not the core games I fault so much as
>> the mechanics added to those games (or worse, stripped away) by the
>> publishers to suck out every last dime from their customers.
>>
>
>Putting the MTX issue to one side I still find a problem with the big
>publishers is that even that the core games are well polished (well
>generally anyway) the innovation side seems to be, shall we say somewhat
>lacking. As always though, I can't blame them as I'm pretty sure I'd do
>the same in their position considering the cost of developing a triple-A
>game.

Fair argument, although I'd counter - historically - that really isn't
all that unusual either. Again, a lot of the older games were rehashes
of the popular trend of the day too (the number of terrible brawlers
I've waded through following the release of Street Fighter and Mortal
Kombat... ugh!).

Arguably it's a bit more notable today because - forty years ago -
there were a lot more obvious and untried ideas, whereas these days
many genres have crystalized to the point where most novelty comes
from blending genres rather than creating new ones.

And - like you pointed out - the finances of the situation greatly
affect the amount of risk you're willing to take. A garage-programmer
whos success (or lack thereof) will only affect him is probably going
to be more willing to do something different than a multi-billion
dollar company that not only has thousands of employees but also
shareholders to keep happy. A known quanity like "Call of Duty CLXIV"
will sell a guaranteed million units, while a new game like "Mirrors
Edge" might do gangbusters, or might get ignored; it's easy to see why
the former is chosen more often by the triple-A publishers. Large
business prefer certainty and predictibility. But the Indies can - and
often have to, in order to stand out - take chances.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: thank god for Indies. They
are the engine of creativity that keeps game development evolving.
Sure, a lot of their games are low quaility but they do the
experimenting that - once their ideas are tested and tried out -
triple-A publishers build upon.

On 25/04/2023 14:46, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 11:08:34 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/04/2023 20:29, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> Saying that I basically
>>>> agree with your point though that it's not the games industry as a whole
>>>> where the problem really lies but instead what's happened to the big
>>>> budget releases. As for younger gamers (horrible generalisation there
>>>> but anyway) do they even realise there's a whole sector that isn't based
>>>> around psychological warfare on it's own customers?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are a lot of good games available these days. Even if I don't
>>> care for some of them - Roblox? Dredge? Call of Duty XXXXXIV? I'd
>>> argue that they've got a lot more skill and care put into them than
>>> the average game of the 80s and 90s. And the selection is so vast that
>>> pretty much anyone these days can find a game that appeals to their
>>> particular taste and style. It's not the core games I fault so much as
>>> the mechanics added to those games (or worse, stripped away) by the
>>> publishers to suck out every last dime from their customers.
>>>
>>
>> Putting the MTX issue to one side I still find a problem with the big
>> publishers is that even that the core games are well polished (well
>> generally anyway) the innovation side seems to be, shall we say somewhat
>> lacking. As always though, I can't blame them as I'm pretty sure I'd do
>> the same in their position considering the cost of developing a triple-A
>> game.
>
>
> Fair argument, although I'd counter - historically - that really isn't
> all that unusual either. Again, a lot of the older games were rehashes
> of the popular trend of the day too (the number of terrible brawlers
> I've waded through following the release of Street Fighter and Mortal
> Kombat... ugh!).
>

Oh I agree and there certainly was a noticeable number of games jumping
on the band wagon of the next big thing. I do have a certainly level of
rose tinted spectacles for the early days but even I have to say that it
was only a few years after I get my Speccky 48k that big (relative to
the time) game studios where already established although there still
was teenager in his bedroom games.

> Arguably it's a bit more notable today because - forty years ago -
> there were a lot more obvious and untried ideas, whereas these days
> many genres have crystalized to the point where most novelty comes
> from blending genres rather than creating new ones.
>

Possibly I'd add to that, it wasn't just untried ideas but also games
were often pushing the boundaries of what was considered possible with
the hardware available which does foster that innovation mind-set. Now
I'm not sure it's even practical to push the boundaries of a decent PC.

> And - like you pointed out - the finances of the situation greatly
> affect the amount of risk you're willing to take. A garage-programmer
> whos success (or lack thereof) will only affect him is probably going
> to be more willing to do something different than a multi-billion
> dollar company that not only has thousands of employees but also
> shareholders to keep happy. A known quanity like "Call of Duty CLXIV"
> will sell a guaranteed million units, while a new game like "Mirrors
> Edge" might do gangbusters, or might get ignored; it's easy to see why
> the former is chosen more often by the triple-A publishers. Large
> business prefer certainty and predictibility. But the Indies can - and
> often have to, in order to stand out - take chances.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again: thank god for Indies. They
> are the engine of creativity that keeps game development evolving.
> Sure, a lot of their games are low quaility but they do the
> experimenting that - once their ideas are tested and tried out -
> triple-A publishers build upon.
>

Part of me actually says does it really matter when you've got smaller
budget studios which still have that feeling of the devs are producing
the type of games they want to play and not just what sells. I'd also
say that the constrained budgets can help focus the mind on distilling a
game down into its fundamental concepts and not what is supposed to be
in a game. Roadwarden comes to mind here, the game is all about the
writing and story and the graphics having taken a complete backseat and
I don't think it's anything the worse for it. To go up in the budget
scale, Disco Elysium. I dread to think what would have happened if one
of the big publishers had got hold of that. What do you mean it's not
80hrs+ of playtime and where's the combat and crafting. Ah, in-game
cosmetic items now were are talking. So what sort of cost are you going
to put on these in the store - *devs get manhandled out of the building
when they explain they are free*.