Some games have an option to lower character quality to the point where a default armor set is shown and was wondering if that is a possibility for this game, I know this is an unpopular opinion but the revealing costumes and constant flashing of this stuff in my face when walking around town/PvP is a massive turn off of this game for myself and many people I know. Many of us just want to enjoy the amazing gameplay, PvP, and story this game has to offer without constantly seeing skimpy clothed females. Is there any chance there could be an option to hide costumes or lower quality for those of us who do not want to always see this and just want to enjoy the rest of this amazing game? And before anyone attacks, I’m not saying get rid of anything, just wondering if the option to hide them is a possibility/has been considered as it may open the door for many players to enjoy this game that otherwise wouldn’t. Thank you for reading and have a wonderful day.
I will gladly let the OP have this if would prevent any and all censorship of the game. I don’t care if he/she/it/alien wishes to have things censored just for him/her/it/alien as long as it doesn’t affect me. Actually I’ve suggested something similar. Have a toggle to censor avatars. With it on all characters will wear a body suit under their costume. With it off you see the original design.
It’s like having a chat filter toggle… Which should be in the game instead of a forced chat filter for everyone.
Would never personally use this, but no harm in adding an option for it.
Do you cover your eyes downtown because the people wear yoga pants?
I believe this is a much better solution than applying censorship in the game. It’s an actual act of giving players more options, rather than forcing one on everyone.
With that being said, considering the fact that seeing these cosmetics serves as a bit of an ingame advertisement, prompting other players to purchase cosmetics themselves, and is directly linked to revenue, I think it is unlikely for them to devote resources to add an option that may cause potential harm to their revenue.
Also the amount of labor required is so much more than the average person thinks. A code monkey and and engineer would have to debug this for months.
At the end of the day, this is still a decent suggestion. You’re probably right that it would take up too much dev time to realistically implement, but if they are willing to expend the resources for it, is there any real harm to the player? Especially since they have already developed three years of content for NA/EU to go through that will be released on a consistent schedule. I highly doubt adding this feature would slow down NA/EU’s content schedule at all.
Exactly, it wouldn’t affect anyone except those who do not wish to see it. It is a win-win in my opinion.
But it would open the door to many more players who would potentially purchase non-cosmetic things like Crystalline Aura and Pets. Their revenue sources from people who enjoy the cosmetics would remain while also adding a new potential source of revenue from the players who may not have played this game without an option such as this. It’s not like the people who really value and love the costume are going to disappear or use the option, and the people who do use it clearly would have never bought the costumes to begin with, so I don’t see how it will impact their revenue. I do understand your point of the advertising though - but I think typically people who love the costumes will check out the shop regardless and this will have minimal impact.
That’s treating people’s purchasing like a zero sum game. Just because people did not spend on cosmetics, it doesn’t guarantee that they will purchase other things instead. To suggest it would somehow create new revenue is a fallacy.
On the other hand, if you add in an option that removes all cosmetics from the game from appearing, surely, the person who uses that option will not be purchasing cosmetics. It removes an enticement or urges of purchasing cosmetics altogether.
Again, it’s a potential harm to their revenue, not a definite one. Remember, I’m all for having more options available to players, and support having this option in the game. What I’m saying is merely discussing the matters from business perspective, where they don’t really have any incentive to spend resources to implement such option.
I’m in two minds about this suggestion. On one hand I think it’s completely reasonable and you should be entitled to play the game with such a preference if other people’s costumes are not to your liking, as turning them off for you alone would not affect nor harm anybody else. On the other hand, I think it just further injects more vitriol into the public censorship discussion which would have a negative impact on the game. I’d probably lean more towards siding with your request as I value personal preference however.
But if someone is using this feature, they likely would never have had the urge to buy the cosmetics they are intentionally hiding to begin with, no? You are assuming that somehow the people who are intentionally hiding the cosmetics they dont want to see will be convinced to buy them by being forced to look at them. If anything they would quit the game instead.
Just as you specified you think it is potential harm to their revenue, I would say it is a potential increase to their revenue in the sense that players who otherwise wouldn’t play the game would now play, and there is no guarantee they won’t purchase anything. It would only increase the player base which would increase the potential revenue.
Do you honestly think people at AGS would look at it that way though? I would be happy to make the assumption that any data that may exist surrounding this would lean towards a loss in revenue. Not being able to turn off costumes in almost all cases will not turn a player off from playing the game, but having a person feel like other people cannot see their purchases would dissuade them from spending money on such items. Source: none, just going off gut feeling here.
It’s entirely possible. People’s minds change all the time and can be quite easily influenced. In marketing, those who are not your current customers are all potential customers, which is why they run advertisements and campaigns. By providing an option that eliminates any potential of market penetration wouldn’t be something that businesses would be doing backflips to put in.
We’re talking about something that has a high probability of occurrence along with correlation to another thing that has very weak correlating factors and low probability. New point you’re stating in this post makes sense that if this option somehow attracts players who would have otherwise not played the game, then that is certainly capturing new potential revenue, and that’s certainly a much stronger argument than the one you previously presented. Although, the question remains whether or not amount of this potential new player base capture would matter in terms of revenue increase, especially considering they will not be spending any money on one of their key monetization to justify resource investment to create the option is another thing.
Personally, I think it would be great to see them actually put in more options, because so far it’s all been taking our choices away.
I agree that the resource investment in creating it is definitely something to weigh against the potential increase in the player base/revenue. I know for a fact I’m not alone in a desire for such an option and I personally have had trouble convincing many to try this game because of the factors I’ve previously mentioned. I obviously won’t claim to know these numbers. And I think saying this option would “eliminate any potential of market penetration” is a fallacy, but anyway, there is no point in us going back and forth about this - that is up to the company to decide. We can both agree that more options for players are not a bad thing. I do appreciate your input and logical way of thinking about this rather than just shutting down an idea because you disagree/don’t like it.
It’s because I don’t disagree or dislike the idea. I’ve already said that clearly multiple times. Besides, whether or not I like or dislike something has nothing to do with discussion on practicality of the idea.
Also, you’re kind of taking the quoted phrase out of context when it was purely talking about cosmetics sales.
Main reason why I like the idea aside from giving players more choice is that I’m fully aware that there is a segment RPG player base out there that dislike seeing immersion breaking cosmetics in the game. Having this option could be something that could appeal to said playerbase.
With that being said, even without cosmetics, I don’t think the general aesthetics of the game would appeal to those in that segment.
Apologies, I mistakenly implied you disagree or dislike it - what I meant to say was that I appreciate your responses compared to others who have shut it down because they disagreed/disliked it.
Well, it’s a sensitive topic, especially these days, and even good intentions could easily get misunderstood in such climate.
I still think my suggestion works for everyone.
Hide skin off: All characters appear as the original KR design. For example
Hide skin on: All characters get a body suit under the costumes. For example
This way those who do not wish to see the more racy outfits avoid it and at the same time the company gets the design out for everyone to see to advertise and encourage the purchase of said costumes. It’s a win/win.
That statement kind of contradicts AGS previous statements and the fact that they modified the Starting Gear and the look of your character while your gear is unequipped. They seem to want to try to serve this (as you say) very small sensitive audience.
What I don’t get is (and I could be wrong) why you appear to be so against this idea?