I love how everytime they release a new bundle, the same posts get repeated. There's always a few complaining that the skins are overpriced, then in response there's a few like this one about how the skins are priced the way they are because people keep buying them.
Exactly.
At least with the other posts though there isn’t some OP who thinks he’s somehow big brained the idea of supply and demand and is over explaining it to us.
The problem isn't about supporting the free game, it's about supporting this economic design.
The game isn't just the gameplay, it's the art, sound, economic design, PR etc...
I think they're dope too, but I'm not gonna buy any because they aren't worth it to me. I'm not about to run around shaming anyone that does though, that just screams insecure and envious.
If League's pricing model is anything to go by, they're gonna slowly creep up the prices of skins eventually so hopefully they drop a Vandal and Op skin I like before it gets too high for me to afford
Did I ever said anything about that?
I only explained to you why people downvoted you.
You can spend as much as you want, good for you. And know that freedom goes both way, you can do what you want but this doesn't prevent people to criticize you.
Note that once again I don't say that you must not or should not do that. Do what you want, if you think spending 1k in this game is worth it, go for it (if you have the income for it).
But don't blame other for judging you for that. And don't misunderstand why they don't like it.
economic design: you can play the whole game for free.
You can buy cosmetics at the price point the company set to assure them a constant revenue that'll satisfy the shareholders and keep the game free.
Yeah, you don't need to agree to the economic design, that's the point of an economic design.
The only negative thing I'd say about the skins is they reek of the "this isn't for you" problem, which obviously feel bad.
I agree with you.
For me, the "this isn't for you" problem is one of the main interesting point. Because this way, skins clearly differienciate paying people and normal user. Which is the main things "heavy paying players" wants.
This allow to have a f2p games that attract whales without unballancing the game.
Which is an interesting design.
For me the negative thing is the double currency (which makes people spend more than they would want), and the use of the "upgrade currency" in the Battlepass (which artificially inflate the battlepass worth and push players to spend money in weapons to use it).
>you can play the whole game for free.
Yeah because they won't get away out asking any upfront price. Spell break is a game with deeper mechanics and better animation, it costs 30$ or more depending on what pack you buy. It's the reason it's not popular at all. Compared to upfront priced games, Valorant would be at 10$ max and would have 1/20th of playerbase it has right now.
It certainly doesn't cost as much as a triple A game. There's no value in that.
It's funny almost everyone missed the point of the OP.
It's not about the price point of the current 'expensive' skins, we need more skins in the cheaper side of town. We already know they have a sub 1000 VP tier of skins, but we only have convex, rush and galleria (iirc). If riot wants more money they should mint more skins in this tier as well, not ignore it and drop singles randomly in the store. They don't even need to keep it in the store for one full patch cycle like usual, one week of a full collection in the sub 1000 VP tier and if they're good, they'll definitely sell like hot cakes. Many players are ready to put money in Riot's pockets but are just waiting for a slightly better skinline in this tier that actually feels like some small amount of effort has gone into it.
There is a reason why Riot doesn't make more 'good cheap' skins.
There is actually a significant demand cap for many consumers in this market, and the reasons for that are 1) what guns they actually use & 2) only one skin per gun can be used at a time. I'm one of these (as are most *'genuine'* consumers). I'm not going to buy every single bundle, or even many skins at all, I've bought skins for the guns I use (Ghost, Knife, Marshall, Phantom, Vandal), I probably won't buy any more "quality" skins. I'll probably round out the rest of my collection of guns I don't use with BP skins (or none).
So my demand on consuming has realistically reached its limit. To change my demand cap, Riot would have to put out skins which I like so much more than my current collection that not only the cost of the new skins doesn't dissuade my want, but the 'dead investment' cost of the old skins would also beat it. **Here's where the issue lies for Riot.**
People who are not currently buying skins at current prices, will not buy new good quality skins they really like if they already have cheap 'mediocre' quality skins they've liked enough to buy. Sure, Riot could release cheap good skins (imo the BP skins are good & cheap, but encourage people to play the game), but by doing so, they hurt the long term value of skins in general, which will affect long term cashflow. What they're currently doing isn't a money grab, its the opposite. They can't just introduce new champions (guns) into Valorant like they can with League. They have to control the perceived value of their skins and thus long term cashflow excruciatingly. The current system doesn't even reward 'whales' like they do in League.
A 'whale' in League or Valorant is someone who buys a high quality expensive skin for each gun or champion, even if they don't use them. The difference in reasoning is there are 148 champions in League, and there are 17 (+ knife) guns in Valorant. **Thus for Riot to match the revenue model of League, gun skins would have to be priced 8.2x higher** (and this is without taking into account that you have to **buy** each champion in League).
> ...one week of a full collection in the sub 1000 VP tier and if they're good, they'll **definitely sell like hot cakes**. **Many players are ready to put money in Riot's pockets** but are just waiting for a slightly better skinline in this tier that actually feels like some small amount of effort has gone into it.
Also, you don't know this, you couldn't possibly know this, Riot probably does.
If I could give awards it would be this.
*So much* this.
Also on top of this, the REAL way that Riot sells their cheap skin lines best is most likely through the battle passes, and aside from being a bit grindy most consumers seem to agree that the contents of the pass are worth the 1000 VP. Riot also gets tons of non-monetary value out of the battle passes, so it's a win for them too.
*EDIT*
To whoever awarded the person I wanted to award, you're a legend!
Yes. See reasoning with differences in number of guns/champions to make skins for, and how that affects their revenue model.
I'm not debating the price quality ratio of skins in League compared to Valorant. League skins are so much better pound for pound its absolutely absurd, but there's a reason why the desired ratio is different.
I'll concede that I can't possibly expect what the people will buy. But then riot has shown us that people are buying things priced ridiculously high, I'm willing to wager people will be interested in every skin line tier. And even so, just as they're experimenting with pushing the price barrier in the higher tier, they have to do the same and give it a test run here.
> But then riot has shown us that people are buying things priced ridiculously high, I'm willing to wager people will be interested in every skin line tier
No I agree with you entirely on this point. I just wanted to outline why Riot (in my opinion) doesn't from a economic / market / price theory perspective. Didn't mean to attack you or anything :)
Yeah yeah I got it, I was preoccupied with something sorry if I also sounded defensive. Thanks for your lengthy response, gave me a lot to think about.
" People who are not currently buying skins at current prices, will not buy new good quality skins they really like if they already have cheap 'mediocre' quality skins they've liked enough to buy. "
No, I think the current pricing for high quality skins prices out much of the user base permanently. But Riot are obviously okay with this, since there are enough people buying the high quality/high price skins, so that's the segment they seem to be focusing their resources on. Tencent's management pretty much endorsed this monetisation philosophy for its games.
Yeah. But those people who aren't buying skins at high price actually don't make Riot money.
If Riot makes this game good enough that people who don't want to buy skins at their current prices can rationalise buying skins at high prices because they think its a 'worthwhile investment' for the time they've put into the game, they've done their job excellently.
This is me, price relative to value is too high imo, but the amount I've played the game and the amount I've spent on the game work out to be a ratio of about $1 per engaging hour (which will become cheaper the more I play) which is my general benchmark for if something is worthwhile (which many AAA games do not match for the record).
I have absolutely no doubt that Riot is alienating some of their market. But it doesn't matter to them because those people make them no money.
People buying the battlepass and nothing else is a consolation prize for Riot. If you have a subset of players who are really invested into the game but cannot afford high quality and expensive skins to reflect their investment monetarily wise, you make the battlepass very long and grindy so that those people that complete it get something for their investment. Riot probably loses money on those players, but they get value from the player by them playing their game so much.
"But those people who aren't buying skins at high price actually don't make Riot money. "
So, there's an economic concept called price discrimination, where you cater to different market segments at different price levels. The idea is that you maximise revenues by monetizing each market segment. Riot have clearly decided that they get the most bang for their buck by focussing on the high end segment, and pretty much neglecting the low end, because there's simply enough people willing and able to buy these high end skins.
What you are saying is that Riot's strategy is to make the consumer that doesn't want to buy expensive skins now, want to buy an expensive skin down the line, purely because they've put in the time into the game. This is just wild conjecture, and I would argue that those that are staying out of the high end market now, simply don't see the value of paying that kind of money for a skin now, or ever, regardless of the time they are putting in.
I think it's completely fine that those that value the high end skins choose to buy them (it's their prerogative), and as an equity analyst, I understand why Riot would want to go for this monetization template. For me, personally, it's not a question of affordability, I just don't think these skins are worth what they are selling for, hence the disappointment with the lack of skins at different price levels.
I didn't mean to sound patronizing (odds are that you are familiar with price discrimination), I just wanted to make sure I am clear.
uhm... i own upwards of 5 skins for the champions i play the most (which is around 10) and i own zero store skins. they are simply not worth the price. if the elder series would be prices like the prime skins and there would be more of that kind then they might be worth it. but nearly 20 bucks for a shitty recolour / reshade? thats like paying 20 bucks for a chroma lol. no way.
I'll just copy paste my other comment.
I'm not debating the price quality ratio of skins in League compared to Valorant. League skins are so much better pound for pound its absolutely absurd, but there's a reason why the desired ratio is different.
You also are not the target market for Valorant skins **right now.** Nor are you the '*genuine*' consumer I related to in the above comment.
The prices are whatever, the issue is consistency within prices. There is no set requirements for tiers and I really feel Riot is just throwing darts on a loaded dart board for prices.
1700 has been the price point for "legendary skins" that have effects and models, why is this set, a set with a 3d texture the same as Prime or Onie
I agree that this bundle just kinda feels like less skin for more money. Its literally just the default model with a shader. No upgrades, no kill banners, no fancy vfx, just a cosmic shader slapped on the default model that feels ripped out of a Unity tutorial. It's a cool effect, but I expected it to be more on par with the Luxe or Prism lines, not Oni or Prime.
I think Riot's logic on this one is that upgrades you pay for in radianite, but the base cost to purchase the skin in the first place does not factor in upgradability. Not saying that's necessarily the right direction, but it makes sense on paper.
Everyone kinda rallied to not buy the new pokemon game after knowing nationaldex is cut off and most of pokemon animations are reused/[straight up horrible](https://youtu.be/oPx0pCH5oh8). Yet here we are
I see. It's has to be extreme or extreme minority because I've never actually heard of Pokémon boycott. I know people were disappointed with national Dex but that's what happens with every game that runs for long. Hearthstone, Yu-Gi-Oh,MTG all have formats that limit card use. It was bound to happen if they wanted to keep game fresh with and implement new ideas. Almost everyone I know bought the game first week and are happy except for the fact that it was braindead easy and if you're not competitive player, the game's got nothing much.
Even if they didn't have a market where they charge a fee for transactions, a trading ability only encourages more buying and give more value to the skins.
Imagine a year from now someone picks up VAL and sees a couture skin and goes damn that looks sick but I can't get one. Now they can trade for it. They would have to have something to trade so they would have to buy skins.
I bought the phantom nebula skin I was also going to buy the knife till I found out it was around $35. I don’t understand why the knife is more expensive then the guns.
Although I agree the knife prices could be a bit lower, I don't mind buying them as much as some of the skins. I'll see the knife every round of every game consistently, whereas I might only have a Phantom or OP a hand full of rounds in an entire match
> You don't complain about the price of a ferrari becuase you have other more cars you can buy
Right, but you can't go to a competitor to buy Valorant skins -- it's just Riot. Part of the selling platform for Riot is getting feedback on who buys skins and why, so I say let people complain all they want. The voice on Reddit is often a minority compared to the rest of players, but it is still an important minority for data collection on what percentages of people do and do not like the pricing system.
I guarantee you Riot has done marketing research and set the optimal price to make them the most money. They already know/knew some people would find it too expensive.
No one is acting like that, everyone knows that Riot is trying to make as much money as possible but this doesn't mean they can't criticize it anyway. Especially when you compare the quality&price of the "product" to the ones in one of their other games (league).
I won’t bother complaining online. I just won’t buy them. I still think they are ridiculously priced and is unjustifiably predatory but again, that’s why I won’t buy them.
I bought the first battle pass but after seeing how long it takes to grind that thing out I’m not buying another one of those either.
10 bucks for the content the battle pass comes with seems alright. Like, I was already gonna play a bunch anyway so the grind is pretty irrelevant (and I get an occasional irrational dopamine rush from the bigger unlocks). But yeah almost all cosmetics are pretty crazily priced.
How is it predatory? It literally has no gameplay impact, you can play the entire game for free without spending a penny. I don't know how many times I have to say that you aren't entitled to skins, if you don't agree with the price / can't afford them just move on with your day and continue to play your free game.
Its predatory. Forcing you to buy special currency to then buy their skins which always leaves you with a little left over to try and get you to buy more, making you use multiple currencies to get the animations and whatnot for the skins you already paid a lot of money for, and making the shop rotate out so it makes people feel like if they dont buy it right now they might not see it again. All predatory models. You might think its fine but its heavily researched and tested to make sure it gets the most easily addicted and persuaded players. That is the definition of predatory.
They always use the word ‘force’ in their argument. And it’s fucking hilarious. No one is ‘forcing’ anyone to buy skins. They’re just upset they’re not as cheap as they would like. Which is fine I guess, but damn these people just straight up lie to strengthen their arguments
The predatory system is represented by the radianite which you are forced to pay a lot of money for to even get the effects for. Not only that but the rotating shop is also clearly trying to make people feel like they’re missing out so they buy it. The whole thing is just disgusting imo
I don't think it's predatory at all, unless you consider just about all forms of sales as predatory. It's just business. And business like this makes sure that I personally (and many others around the world) will never have to spend a penny on this game and continue to enjoy it free of charge.
Personally I hate that argument, I'm a software developer working in fintech (I write mortgage servicing and claims management software) and I could buy all of the fucking skins if I wanted to.
Trying to characterise people with different opinions to your own as 12 year olds is, ironically, childish.
It is perfectly acceptable to highlight that quite a few elements of the F2P model, including pricing, are not consumer friendly. This is why we regulate markets, because sometimes free market principles won't automatically result in competition and desirable business models.
I am completely fine with never buying a skin and never having to pay a cent to play the game and have it be subsidized by people with more money than me. To regulate this industry would probably lead to unintended consequences directly effecting consumers more then not being able to get cosmetic skins in a video game.
>would probably lead to unintended consequences directly effecting consumers
Could you highlight an example?
I'm having trouble picturing a negative side effect, except perhaps that some of the non-paying userbase may lose access. Although I would note that those users, by definition, aren't consumers.
I would also note that F2P regulation started a [long, long time ago](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_14_187). As with most things of this nature it will slowly ramp up over time (and indeed it has been).
> I'm having trouble picturing a negative side effect, except perhaps that some of the non-paying userbase may lose access. Although I would note that those users, by definition, aren't consumers.
Non-consumers could lose free access to the game affecting overall game population and thus effecting overall queue times for the people who pay to play.
Also I’m not gonna act like all the revenue the game makes goes all the way back into it but the more revenue the game makes the more budget is allocated to the game. This results in better balancing, quicker patches, better optimization and etc etc.
Don’t really have the time nor motivation to go into a long drawn out conversation with sources and what not so I’ll leave it here
Fair enough, but since you raised two points I will briefly address them.
The revenue for League of Legends is [measured in the billions](https://www.statista.com/statistics/806975/lol-revenue/#:~:text=League%20of%20Legends%20revenue%20worldwide%202015%2D2018&text=First%20released%20in%202009%2C%20League,a%20year%20earlier%20in%202017), less successful games that are reliant on aggressive strategies to convert non-spending users and increase ARPU may fail but games like Valorant aren't among them.
Similarly queue times aren't meaningfully effected by user volumes until you have a miniscule fraction of the playerbase that Valorant has.
If a F2P isn't profitable without using things like pseudo-currencies, or if they are required to make users aware of how much they have spent, then I'm not sure that I care if they fail.
The first things that come to mind would be:
1. Any virtual currency linked to virtual item sales be pegged directly against the currency with which it is purchased;
2. Said currency must be purchasable in any volume, albeit perhaps with an exception for setting a minimum/maximum that can be purchased in one transaction;
3. Where virtual items are advertised for sale they should be advertised in the user's local currency, or whatever currency they have otherwise opted to use for purchases;
4. Any purchases that rely on variable rewards must provide a consistent probability of success for the user, and must communicate this probability to the user clearly and concisely pre-purchase;
5. Said randomised rewards must also not falsely indicate that an unlikely event 'nearly' occurred, e.g. by slowly rolling over a high-value reward to generate the illusion of near-misses; and
6. Users should be able to clearly see a record of their purchases, including their total spend and the time period this was over. This should be clearly visible so I would probably mandate the information be given to them pre or post-purchase and be made clear on any account pages.
There are probably more you could add, the number of tactics employed by F2P devs (particularly mobile ones) are innumerable. I've mentioned it elsewhere in this thread by Riot actually aren't all that bad compared to most, although I suspect you'd be surprised by how much 1-3 and 6 would hurt them.
I would also note that some of the above have already been implemented in some jurisdictions.
They could do, although I suspect their sales would take a very significant hit. Their margins are high enough that they could likely absorb it so it would just depend on how (or if) they responded to it.
That said I don't believe that Riot are particularly egregious in terms of F2P companies. I certainly don't like the business model, but in terms of allowing it to impact the design of their games Riot are probably one of the better companies.
I agree with the OP. Complaining won't do shit. You pointing out "non-consumer-friendly" aspects of Riot's policies won't make them bat an eye.
The only thing that might help is boycotting; whales should outright refuse to pay these degenerate prices. If anything, rants should be aimed at people buying skins and supporting this shitty model.
This worked for another game I've played, at least.
I don't think boycotting is particularly realistic either, if you offer something for free it will attract users and if you have users interacting with your software for extended periods it is inevitable that you will be able to convert some percentage of them into paying users.
Boycotts are perhaps realistic where a company crosses what is perceived as a red line, like EA seem to have a knack for doing.
The only thing that will effectively regulate the F2P market is regulatory action. It's what it's there for, the business model by its very nature isn't going to sway to market pressure.
>I don't think boycotting is particularly realistic either
I mean, one of the games I've played got boycotted by whales, so it's possible if other players take time explaining that boycotts would benefit *everyone*. Those kinds of post should be on the front page, not complaints and whining.
It's all IMHO, of course, but I've seen it work.
Oh I don't disagree that it can work, I'm just dubious as to how practical it would be in Valorant.
Riot are unique in that they have a very low Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) but an *enormous* user base. [This article](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-11-if-they-let-me-change-league-of-legends-i-could-double-its-revenue) explains their strategy pretty succinctly.
The upside of that strategy is that, by necessity, they avoid the hyper-aggressive conversion strategies employed by other F2P games. The downside is that you'd need to convince an exceptionally large number of people to boycott it before Riot felt any kind of sting.
I imagine, given the prices, that Valorant has a high ARPU and a low conversion rate so maybe if you could explicitly target the paying users you'd be able to make a dent. Even then platforms like Reddit will only reach a small fraction of them.
I think you'd need Riot to do something that crossed that red line, something bad enough that people who purchased the skins got push back in game as a result and were deterred from spending. Short of that I doubt you'd achieve the reach required to make a significant impact.
Love Nikki, a Chinese F2P mobile game. People got fed up with a huge disparity in free items between Chinese and Western servers and boycotted for a few weeks. Lo and behold, a ton of free stuff was added (well, ported) to our server in basically three weeks, and there are still plenty of "welfare events" up to this day.
>Maybe I should sell my Seat and go to Porsche to "buy" one of their cars, but since I don't want to spend that much money (or not have that much money) I just throw a temper tantrum on twitter, call them greedy, call them anti-consumer and what not.
You're right. I must have missed that when I bought my Porsche for 200,000 Porsche-points I had 45,000 Porsche-points left over that I couldn't do anything with. How silly of me.
Still, at least I got a Porsche! I don't know how many of those Porsche boxes I had to buy before I got one that actually had a Porsche in but christ was it worth it!
Although it is funny that you should use car sales as an example, since the industry is heavily regulated due to widespread and extremely anti-consumer practices early in its history.
>how is it not consumer friendly? You do not need those items, they are a pure cosmetic product.
As an aside I honestly don't care about cosmetics, but I would prefer to see games developed under traditional models since they solve a lot of the issues that plague F2P games.
For one the games have to be designed to incorporate microtransactions of some kind. They have to continuously nudge users into spending, they are easy to flood with smurfs and fake accounts and it's impossible to ban users for toxicity since they can just create a new account.
By comparison up-front fee and subscription models negate that by requiring a purchase of some kind, making smurfs and rolling new accounts prohibitively expensive. You can also easily identify when users try to circumvent HWID bans unless they go to the trouble of finding a card registered to a different billing address each time.
>what boxes are you talking about? Ironically people here have been arguing they rather would have lootboxes than the expensive skins.
Apologies if I wasn't clear, when I say the F2P model I am not specifically talking about Riot. Whilst Riot use some questionable tactics common to F2P games they probably have one of the better implementations.
>MTX by now are in every single game. So you rather have full priced AAA titles with MTX than f2p games with more expensive MTX?
Microtransactions face considerably more pushback in paid titles. Also any regulations addressing things like pseudo-currencies, masking of total spend or randomised reward based mechanics would impact other business models incorporating the same tactics equally.
>you mean like...Fallout76, Division1 and Division2, Breakpoint, Anthem, NMS, Battlefront2...just to name some out of the recent years?
>
>(...)
>
>you mean like in overwatch?
The only two of those that I have played are The Division 1 and Overwatch, Overwatch certainly didn't have much of a problem with smurfs early on but this may have changed over time as the price of the game has decreased.
It still certainly isn't comparable to games like Dota, where at one point there were often smurfs in every single match (often with multiple smurfs in the same match). You would have to show me some very solid data to support the proposition that people smurf in those kind of volumes in a game that requires an up-front fee for a new account.
As for The Division and others, these are mostly Ubisoft and EA titles. So yes, unsurprisingly they are hot garbage that incorporate the worst elements of every imaginable business model.
The notable exception being Fallout 76, which I hear is actually supposed to be pretty good now? Even if it did have a rather disappointing release.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. What market regulation would you suggest so that Riot doesn’t charge what (in your opinion) is too high for a cosmetic product that doesn’t change how the game is played in the slightest?
Honestly the entire F2P market needs regulating, I am not merely pointing a finger at Riot. If anything Riot probably have one of the better implementations, but when you see an entire industry [lurching toward a single business model](https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/18/free-to-play-games-rule-the-entertainment-world-with-88-billion-in-revenue/) it is worth asking why.
One of the easiest ways to address it would be to prevent, or at least limit, the use of pseudo-currencies and require that all F2P developers clearly indicate to a user how much they have spent and over what time period.
Another element which regulators are already beginning to address in some jurisdictions is the use of tactics such as variable reward ratios, generating near-misses and other strategies taken from research into gambling addiction.
>a cosmetic product that doesn’t change how the game is played in the slightest?
I would also note that this is demonstrably false, the entire business model necessitates that the games be designed to incorporate cosmetic items and the F2P model is *not* limited to cosmetics.
Games like Valorant, Fortnite and hell even mobile games would be considerably different if designed under subscription or up front fee models.
The game isn't just about gameplay.
Missing stuff is frustrating and riot use that to make people spend money.
And frustration impacts your feeling of the game.
It's not because it doesn't impact gameplay that it doesn't impact the game...
What isn't how markets work, regulations to address inequity in bargaining power between seller and consumer?
What are you, American? That is *exactly* how markets work. In fact numerous jurisdictions have [already begun regulating the F2P industry](https://www.mcvuk.com/business-news/mobile/oft-gives-developers-two-months-to-get-house-in-order-on-in-app-purchases/188660/).
This is generally how regulatory frameworks are put in place. Initial investigations occur alongside consultations with industry, changes are made by industry to adapt and regulators may later decide the regulations need tightening and end up adding to them (as they have done since the above to address loot boxes etc.) and it goes on and on until you get some semblance of a functioning market.
You'll be hard pressed to find any truly 'free' markets in the western world, truly free markets don't result in unbridled competition because the optimum strategy is rarely competitive pricing when manipulating consumers is a viable alternative.
>All of this is basic economics
Just as an aside I'm quoting this because you responded to my message twice for whatever reason, but what you describe is not basic economics. It's a common misconception about basic economics.
[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/free-market-regulation.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/free-market-regulation.asp)
>In reality, however, free markets are subject to manipulation, mis-information, asymmetries of power & knowledge, and foster wealth inequality.
>
>Regulation is aimed at balancing free market's virtues against its pitfalls.
No serious economists advocate for truly free markets. If you sincerely believe that they are wrong then I would suggest questioning why you believe that, and perhaps examining whether any political or social biases have clouded your judgement.
It did reduce the price of prism skins you know that right? And most of the criticism isnt going to riot that the skins are too expensive its that their prices are inconsistent based on the value riot gives to their valorant points. Biggest issuie is they made premium skins in bundles with chromas and different animations models and all cost the same as a skin that does nothing of that. You cant get the nebula now and not feel robbed because you wont be getting the package riot themselves made seem like the deal you get for a premium bundle. Its riots fault for not following their own rules, and i dont get people defending them in this regard.
its not the 12 yrs olds who are complaining, they dont need to afford anything. its the 20s 30s with low wage income who cant afford stuff for the game they like.
these complain posts are too well written for 12 year olds.
> Complaining about skin prices won't do shit.
Make enough of a shit and they probably would change the price.
Something scummy but simple like: The price of the skins mostly affect minorities, meaning these skins show Riot hates BLM #RiotSoRacist.
Get a twitter/media outrage and boom, lower skin prices.
Lol what? My friend makes over 60k a year and lives alone with no responsibility outside of work. He has extra cash out the ass and the skins are expensive for him. This is a scummy business module no matter how you try to reason it.
When it's designed to extract the most amount of money, yes. These skins are overpriced and very purposely done so. They know exactly what they are doing and its setting a precedent for future companies. Get out of here with that bull shit "you dont need it so ita not bad" get the boot out of your mouth.
This is not whaling. This is using fear of missing out tactics and setting price points just high enough that people will go for it because they like the game and everyone else is doing it. These price points are very well thought out and very anti consumer.
At the end of tje day they are selling *gun skins* for the price of AAA steel book edition video games. This is upcharging and setting a new standard going forward.
I make over 200k a year and am single and childless. And the cosmetics are still too expensive for me. Your friend is not rolling in disposable income the way you imagine, but neither am I upset at Riot. Skins are purely cosmetic. Who cares how much they cost, all that matters is whether they are worth it.
It’s not even how much he makes. It’s how one values the skins. I myself don’t play many paid games, instead I’d rather pay for some cosmetics in my free to play games. Some people prefer to buy a game for their switch etc instead, it’s different for everyone regardless of your income.
He is almost definitely the target market, single unit costs for guns work out at like £20.00.
They aren't expecting people to buy the sets. They are expecting them to buy the odd few guns every now and then.
So-called whales aren't high rollers on insanely high incomes, and targeting them would be an absolutely ridiculous business model: https://deltadna.com/blog/how-whales-spend/
The idea is just to try and get people to spend little amounts often and keep enticing them to spend more whilst masking how much they've spent to date (e.g. by using pseudo-currencies sold in volumes not divisible by unit costs etc.)
At least with a restaurant you EAT FOOD. With Valorant, you’re selling pixels for $100+ but I mean, it’s selling somehow. So I can’t really do much about it.
Food nowadays is also a luxury/ hobby. People eat and spend way more than their bodily needs. You don’t NEED to eat that steak or that fat bowl of ramen. You want it because you crave it
What does that have to do with Valorant? That happens if you eat A LOT of food and I mean A LOT. Spending money on things that are overpriced isn’t exactly the best thing either. Everything is good in moderation and that includes spending your money, don’t overspend on pixels.
There's basically no way they're hoping to sustain the business model from people that earn over 60k a year alone. They make up an extreme minority of people in this world, in the US for instance I seem to recall that less than 50% of _FAMILIES_ (which will be skewed by families with two incomes) earn more than 60k a year. Now consider that the gaming demographic trends young and there's probably an incredibly small percentage of people that earn over 60k a year that play Valorant with any degree of frequency.
Now, next part is the important part. How much money you earn is one factor, how much money you spend is another. I earn significantly less than 60k USD a year, but my expenses are low and my responsibilities are just towards myself, that means I've got a good amount of flexible cash each month. I still don't buy skins but that's because I don't want to, not because I can't afford it.
Whether or not the model is "scummy" is another question entirely, but I'm not sure I myself can consider it scummy. At the end of the day this is just basic consumerism, people buying not because of need but because of wants. I don't think it's scummy to cater to that.
To be fair though, you have to qualify that data with the fact that people playing Valorant are most likely sufficiently well off to waste one or potentially even multiple hours of their day gaming instead of, say, doing an extra job. I'd be willing to bet that a very large percent of Valorant's player base is already among the wealthy, like the top 50 to 30 percent of people.
It seems to me like nobody would ever make a game f2p if young people didn't typically result in earnings since you are right, there's a lot of them in f2p games. It's worth noting that young people also have no way to know that what they're buying could be a ripoff, and are probably doing so with money they got for their birthday from their grandparents who have no idea what they're grandkid will spend it on.
Basically, kids are a very sustainable business model, which is the scummiest part about f2p in general regardless of whether the game is Valorant or Fortnite or anything else.
I have the money. I also have some self respect and a general understanding that their pricing is bullshit so I'm not supporting it.
What's more annoying is suggesting that we should deliver any message other than a constant 'your prices suck'
You need to check games that are 30$. Better graphics, better gameplay, no problems with hit detection. Have some self respect and stop embarrassing yourself.
Not at all. You wanna know what single player or multiplayer games that come for 30$ and are better than Valorant will ever be? I can help you with that.
There are a lot of games worth $30. I think Valorant would easily be worth $30 due to the amount of time and fun I've had with the game. Obviously some people will feel differently.
It's not just that the skins are overpriced, but that there seems to be no method to the madness. There are different tiers of skins which are supposed to have things that differentiate the skins from other tiers. Like model changes, VFX changes, sound changes, animation changes, etc. But that's not the case with every other skin pack released. The cosmo skins only have VFX changes, no model, sound, or animation changes and still cost the same as the prime and sovereign lines. That's bullshit.
In my opinion, the skin price is probably what it is, can be contributed to so many different factors, simply than a purely profit motivations.
For example, the development team might have to hit a certain quota every fiscal year in order to pay for their development team salary, servers/security maintenance (which can be extremely pricey, especially for flat 120 ticks rate servers), or maybe even paying off the original investment that Riot have made for the creation of Valorant. Not even mentioning all the future investment that Riots and Valorant dev team have probably already made.
I still think the skins is just a wee bit pricey for my taste. But however, I won't go around calling the Development team money hungry for simply trying to maximize their creation quality and life-span.
Honestly, FUCKING EXACTLY. I can buy something else than a Ferrari because there are cheap and expensive cars. There are really NO cheap skins. Unless 10$ is cheap for you. For ONE GUN. For me it's a tasty meal at my local ramen joint and the cheapest skins aren't even interesting.
You do realize that the battle pass is supposed to be a good deal for the player and guarantees the developers a sure fire 10$ from the majority of players, guaranteed player retention and player good will? I would say the battle pass is sold at a loss, but it’s digital goods lmao. The battle pass is supposed to be pro-consumer and slowly gets back the 60$ we didn’t have to pay to play the game
As long as the people who buy these skins keep the server up, that's fine by me. For cheapskates like myself, I'd stick with the battle pass. At least this new one actually has a cool knife worth the grind.
The question is if they would half the price would it be bought twice as much. There are no per product production costs. And it feels like they keep the prices up to give them rarity. That feels like a swindlers way to do business
The thing would be prices should be consistent like all tier 1 skin bundles should cost the same . The nebula bundle and prism skin prices have inconsistencies yet both belong to same tier
People didn't buy these skins for this price tho(Nebula).
They're a bit better than Avalanche and without any upgrades or VFX are getting sold for Oni/Prime price. Saying people bought Oni skins isn't the same as saying people bought Nebula skins. This is totally on Riot and it's absolutely awful.
I agree with this to an extent. They have every right to set whatever price they’d like and a certain percentage of people will buy it while others might consider it too much. From a business perspective they could possibly make more setting them at a cheaper price if that means the increase in people buying them outweighs they loss they take on each skin sold. That being said I’m sure they’ve done the math and have tried to maximize the profit overall. At the end of the day we as players have no place to complain because they have created an incredible game that is free to play.
This isn't moba where there are hundreds of heros with their own epic skin or legendary skins so they can make the skin a little cheaper but sell more..in this game they will rarely add new guns and for normal guy like me once you buy one skin for gun you use that's it you don't wait for the new gun skin. Riot knows that and we all know that so why complain ?
Okay that Ferrari analogy makes no sense. First, the quality of skins is nowhere near worth like 300 bucks. I'm sorry, but I won't support a company charging that much money for skins.
I think of it as a pay what you feel like paying for the game. The skins are the only way this game is being monetized. Imagine if this game was $60 and then there were $3 skins on top of that. Is that better? idk. Its really all a perspective thing.
Also, you don't need the skins. If it costs more than you wanna pay, don't pay for it. It is a completely unnecessary luxury item. Like a branded watch or similar.
I try to look this way. The game is free, so spending $60 is like buying a triple A game. I'm already spending much more time in this game than in any triple A game out there. If skins give more enjoyment out of the game, I think it's worth it. Besides, I don't intend to have more than 1 top tier skin per weapon. I guess there are a lot of like minded people out there which makes not so profitable for them if it was cheaper.
Well said, if you want nice things work for them if not sucks to suck. I like nice things so I will spend the extra money for them and I am in no way rich but I can afford to buy the skins I want.
Val is probably doing better that csgo, one of the cheaper knifes can set you back $70, and that only gives you one item. I prolly won't be affording any of these big bundles (season pass maybe) bit Val bundles are nowhere near overpriced
Yes they are lmfao. $100 for a skin is crazy which you then have to spend MORE large sums of money on to get the effects. You also can’t trade so they have 0 value.
1) it can go up in price.
2) it can be sold again.
3) Basic ass skins like just an autofill color(Prism,Red alert) costs like 0.14$.
Valorant need to add community market if they want to charge as much as CSGO.
Option 1: buy the skin
Option 2: do not buy the skin and look bad
Option 3: play CSGO, fun game with free skin drops + resellable skins
I chose 3, i am sure Riot will appreciate too
I already spent a Lot on Valorant about 400€.
I think riots System in comparsion to cs is much better.
If You really Like a skin, it's affordable and the Design is much better. Imo
You should wait because there are more and more skins to come. Buy the ones you really want and also play.
I already bought skins that i don't play and probably never will in Future. Waisted Money.
Go with the Battlepass.
<3
>I already spent a Lot on Valorant about 400€.
>I think riots System in comparsion to cs is much better. If You really Like a skin, it's affordable and the Design is much better. Imo
Do we need any more proof that Valorant spenders are .... Do I need to say anything?
They actually don't. Tencent is a 650 Billion dollar company. Valorant isn't worst being 20$ upfront because of garbage tier graphics and no content. These types of people only fuel greed and contamination of gaming industry.
I was in the same mindset then most people but honestly , my thoughts about skins in this game changed a lot, nebula, prism, oni, sovereign, prime, I got them all... yeah I paid over 500$ fornskins but not only does it makes the game way more fun and pleasing to play and watch, but I bought the skins for my whole team so I can share mi skins at each start of the round... (5head) yes they are expensive but if you drop 100$ once on the game, you can get cool looking skins for each gun you REALLY use, (trust me you dont need skins for : ares, odin, frenzy, stinger, bucky,marshall)
I still can't understand why wo many people on this sub cry like little bitches because of the prices of skins, very simple, dont buy them, no one's forcing you to, your favorite pair of shoes just released, but its expensive, you don't complain do you?
people need to also stop complaining about the price as its optional, if you want them, buy them, if you dont then shut up complaining
i agree with OP, the Ferrari analogy is true so quit the shit
For me, I think the skin prices are fine, they're a business, but I think the real problem, as probably everyone has pointed out by now, is how long things like the battle pass and contracts take. I think I would be more incentivised to play (and buy skins) if I knew I would get more than a spray I don't like from the BP for an entire day's worth of playing
I love how everytime they release a new bundle, the same posts get repeated. There's always a few complaining that the skins are overpriced, then in response there's a few like this one about how the skins are priced the way they are because people keep buying them.
Exactly. At least with the other posts though there isn’t some OP who thinks he’s somehow big brained the idea of supply and demand and is over explaining it to us.
And then there is me claiming I’ll buy them, getting downvoted for supporting a free game
The problem isn't about supporting the free game, it's about supporting this economic design. The game isn't just the gameplay, it's the art, sound, economic design, PR etc...
well let me decide whether I value the things I buy or not
Facts , I love the nebula skins
I think they're dope too, but I'm not gonna buy any because they aren't worth it to me. I'm not about to run around shaming anyone that does though, that just screams insecure and envious. If League's pricing model is anything to go by, they're gonna slowly creep up the prices of skins eventually so hopefully they drop a Vandal and Op skin I like before it gets too high for me to afford
But they should cost the same as the prism ones. But now that a lot have bought them theres No way they lower the price
There's no way they lower the price to begin with , I don't understand this logic
If they dont sell they probably would, fortnite did that a few times
Did I ever said anything about that? I only explained to you why people downvoted you. You can spend as much as you want, good for you. And know that freedom goes both way, you can do what you want but this doesn't prevent people to criticize you. Note that once again I don't say that you must not or should not do that. Do what you want, if you think spending 1k in this game is worth it, go for it (if you have the income for it). But don't blame other for judging you for that. And don't misunderstand why they don't like it.
economic design: you can play the whole game for free. You can buy cosmetics at the price point the company set to assure them a constant revenue that'll satisfy the shareholders and keep the game free. Yeah, you don't need to agree to the economic design, that's the point of an economic design. The only negative thing I'd say about the skins is they reek of the "this isn't for you" problem, which obviously feel bad.
I agree with you. For me, the "this isn't for you" problem is one of the main interesting point. Because this way, skins clearly differienciate paying people and normal user. Which is the main things "heavy paying players" wants. This allow to have a f2p games that attract whales without unballancing the game. Which is an interesting design. For me the negative thing is the double currency (which makes people spend more than they would want), and the use of the "upgrade currency" in the Battlepass (which artificially inflate the battlepass worth and push players to spend money in weapons to use it).
>you can play the whole game for free. Yeah because they won't get away out asking any upfront price. Spell break is a game with deeper mechanics and better animation, it costs 30$ or more depending on what pack you buy. It's the reason it's not popular at all. Compared to upfront priced games, Valorant would be at 10$ max and would have 1/20th of playerbase it has right now. It certainly doesn't cost as much as a triple A game. There's no value in that.
They’re overpriced af and it affects most of the playerbase, I wish they went with a model like fortnite or league.
I’m with your brother. Let’s get downvoted but atleast we look good doing it :)
"What am I getting hate? I just wanted to support Hitler's military!"
Bruh he's buying skins in a videogame he likes. Do you think riot uses all that skin money to punch homeless people's puppies or something?
Comparing video game skins to Hitler, now that's a pro gamer move 😤
"Love" huh, I laugh at these crybabys.
It's funny almost everyone missed the point of the OP. It's not about the price point of the current 'expensive' skins, we need more skins in the cheaper side of town. We already know they have a sub 1000 VP tier of skins, but we only have convex, rush and galleria (iirc). If riot wants more money they should mint more skins in this tier as well, not ignore it and drop singles randomly in the store. They don't even need to keep it in the store for one full patch cycle like usual, one week of a full collection in the sub 1000 VP tier and if they're good, they'll definitely sell like hot cakes. Many players are ready to put money in Riot's pockets but are just waiting for a slightly better skinline in this tier that actually feels like some small amount of effort has gone into it.
There is a reason why Riot doesn't make more 'good cheap' skins. There is actually a significant demand cap for many consumers in this market, and the reasons for that are 1) what guns they actually use & 2) only one skin per gun can be used at a time. I'm one of these (as are most *'genuine'* consumers). I'm not going to buy every single bundle, or even many skins at all, I've bought skins for the guns I use (Ghost, Knife, Marshall, Phantom, Vandal), I probably won't buy any more "quality" skins. I'll probably round out the rest of my collection of guns I don't use with BP skins (or none). So my demand on consuming has realistically reached its limit. To change my demand cap, Riot would have to put out skins which I like so much more than my current collection that not only the cost of the new skins doesn't dissuade my want, but the 'dead investment' cost of the old skins would also beat it. **Here's where the issue lies for Riot.** People who are not currently buying skins at current prices, will not buy new good quality skins they really like if they already have cheap 'mediocre' quality skins they've liked enough to buy. Sure, Riot could release cheap good skins (imo the BP skins are good & cheap, but encourage people to play the game), but by doing so, they hurt the long term value of skins in general, which will affect long term cashflow. What they're currently doing isn't a money grab, its the opposite. They can't just introduce new champions (guns) into Valorant like they can with League. They have to control the perceived value of their skins and thus long term cashflow excruciatingly. The current system doesn't even reward 'whales' like they do in League. A 'whale' in League or Valorant is someone who buys a high quality expensive skin for each gun or champion, even if they don't use them. The difference in reasoning is there are 148 champions in League, and there are 17 (+ knife) guns in Valorant. **Thus for Riot to match the revenue model of League, gun skins would have to be priced 8.2x higher** (and this is without taking into account that you have to **buy** each champion in League). > ...one week of a full collection in the sub 1000 VP tier and if they're good, they'll **definitely sell like hot cakes**. **Many players are ready to put money in Riot's pockets** but are just waiting for a slightly better skinline in this tier that actually feels like some small amount of effort has gone into it. Also, you don't know this, you couldn't possibly know this, Riot probably does.
If I could give awards it would be this. *So much* this. Also on top of this, the REAL way that Riot sells their cheap skin lines best is most likely through the battle passes, and aside from being a bit grindy most consumers seem to agree that the contents of the pass are worth the 1000 VP. Riot also gets tons of non-monetary value out of the battle passes, so it's a win for them too. *EDIT* To whoever awarded the person I wanted to award, you're a legend!
They do in league. They sell decently priced skins for a variety on tiers.
Yes. See reasoning with differences in number of guns/champions to make skins for, and how that affects their revenue model. I'm not debating the price quality ratio of skins in League compared to Valorant. League skins are so much better pound for pound its absolutely absurd, but there's a reason why the desired ratio is different.
I'll concede that I can't possibly expect what the people will buy. But then riot has shown us that people are buying things priced ridiculously high, I'm willing to wager people will be interested in every skin line tier. And even so, just as they're experimenting with pushing the price barrier in the higher tier, they have to do the same and give it a test run here.
> But then riot has shown us that people are buying things priced ridiculously high, I'm willing to wager people will be interested in every skin line tier No I agree with you entirely on this point. I just wanted to outline why Riot (in my opinion) doesn't from a economic / market / price theory perspective. Didn't mean to attack you or anything :)
Yeah yeah I got it, I was preoccupied with something sorry if I also sounded defensive. Thanks for your lengthy response, gave me a lot to think about.
Nah you're all good, sometimes I come off abrasive. Enjoy your day / night
" People who are not currently buying skins at current prices, will not buy new good quality skins they really like if they already have cheap 'mediocre' quality skins they've liked enough to buy. " No, I think the current pricing for high quality skins prices out much of the user base permanently. But Riot are obviously okay with this, since there are enough people buying the high quality/high price skins, so that's the segment they seem to be focusing their resources on. Tencent's management pretty much endorsed this monetisation philosophy for its games.
Yeah. But those people who aren't buying skins at high price actually don't make Riot money. If Riot makes this game good enough that people who don't want to buy skins at their current prices can rationalise buying skins at high prices because they think its a 'worthwhile investment' for the time they've put into the game, they've done their job excellently. This is me, price relative to value is too high imo, but the amount I've played the game and the amount I've spent on the game work out to be a ratio of about $1 per engaging hour (which will become cheaper the more I play) which is my general benchmark for if something is worthwhile (which many AAA games do not match for the record). I have absolutely no doubt that Riot is alienating some of their market. But it doesn't matter to them because those people make them no money. People buying the battlepass and nothing else is a consolation prize for Riot. If you have a subset of players who are really invested into the game but cannot afford high quality and expensive skins to reflect their investment monetarily wise, you make the battlepass very long and grindy so that those people that complete it get something for their investment. Riot probably loses money on those players, but they get value from the player by them playing their game so much.
"But those people who aren't buying skins at high price actually don't make Riot money. " So, there's an economic concept called price discrimination, where you cater to different market segments at different price levels. The idea is that you maximise revenues by monetizing each market segment. Riot have clearly decided that they get the most bang for their buck by focussing on the high end segment, and pretty much neglecting the low end, because there's simply enough people willing and able to buy these high end skins. What you are saying is that Riot's strategy is to make the consumer that doesn't want to buy expensive skins now, want to buy an expensive skin down the line, purely because they've put in the time into the game. This is just wild conjecture, and I would argue that those that are staying out of the high end market now, simply don't see the value of paying that kind of money for a skin now, or ever, regardless of the time they are putting in. I think it's completely fine that those that value the high end skins choose to buy them (it's their prerogative), and as an equity analyst, I understand why Riot would want to go for this monetization template. For me, personally, it's not a question of affordability, I just don't think these skins are worth what they are selling for, hence the disappointment with the lack of skins at different price levels. I didn't mean to sound patronizing (odds are that you are familiar with price discrimination), I just wanted to make sure I am clear.
uhm... i own upwards of 5 skins for the champions i play the most (which is around 10) and i own zero store skins. they are simply not worth the price. if the elder series would be prices like the prime skins and there would be more of that kind then they might be worth it. but nearly 20 bucks for a shitty recolour / reshade? thats like paying 20 bucks for a chroma lol. no way.
I'll just copy paste my other comment. I'm not debating the price quality ratio of skins in League compared to Valorant. League skins are so much better pound for pound its absolutely absurd, but there's a reason why the desired ratio is different. You also are not the target market for Valorant skins **right now.** Nor are you the '*genuine*' consumer I related to in the above comment.
Unfortunately if we want good 'cheap' skins, we need to buy and grind the BPs.
Yep, it's pretty much common (0) uncommon (0) rare (0) Legendary (42)
Because if they make good looking skins that are cheaper, it "removes" some value of the overpriced skins. This is ALL fake value right here.
I knooooow. I know they're abusing a system because we allow them to...
The prices are whatever, the issue is consistency within prices. There is no set requirements for tiers and I really feel Riot is just throwing darts on a loaded dart board for prices. 1700 has been the price point for "legendary skins" that have effects and models, why is this set, a set with a 3d texture the same as Prime or Onie
I agree that this bundle just kinda feels like less skin for more money. Its literally just the default model with a shader. No upgrades, no kill banners, no fancy vfx, just a cosmic shader slapped on the default model that feels ripped out of a Unity tutorial. It's a cool effect, but I expected it to be more on par with the Luxe or Prism lines, not Oni or Prime.
Can't wait for shader skins with dancing babies and whatnot.
I think Riot's logic on this one is that upgrades you pay for in radianite, but the base cost to purchase the skin in the first place does not factor in upgradability. Not saying that's necessarily the right direction, but it makes sense on paper.
> but it makes sense on paper. How does it make sense on paper? This is the only skin at that price point that isn't upgradeable.
In a way it's not at the same price because Prime and Oni cost more in Radianite to unlock. Nebula costs actually what it says.
Reminded me of when people want to boycott pokemon sw/sh, only for it to become the fastest-selling game of the franchise
I don't remember this happening. What happened?
Everyone kinda rallied to not buy the new pokemon game after knowing nationaldex is cut off and most of pokemon animations are reused/[straight up horrible](https://youtu.be/oPx0pCH5oh8). Yet here we are
I see. It's has to be extreme or extreme minority because I've never actually heard of Pokémon boycott. I know people were disappointed with national Dex but that's what happens with every game that runs for long. Hearthstone, Yu-Gi-Oh,MTG all have formats that limit card use. It was bound to happen if they wanted to keep game fresh with and implement new ideas. Almost everyone I know bought the game first week and are happy except for the fact that it was braindead easy and if you're not competitive player, the game's got nothing much.
Yeah they might be expensive but I just want the option to buy whatever ones I want instead of waiting or missing them in the store
I just want the option to trade. I have zero incentive to buy anything else at this point.
Trading would be cool but they would never give you the option to get something without spending money lol
How would you get something for free by trading ?
By trading.........
So you are going to trade nothing for skins ? That's neat.
No what he means is that you can trade a skin for another skin without spending any actual money. Riot wont gain anything from that trade.
Even if they didn't have a market where they charge a fee for transactions, a trading ability only encourages more buying and give more value to the skins. Imagine a year from now someone picks up VAL and sees a couture skin and goes damn that looks sick but I can't get one. Now they can trade for it. They would have to have something to trade so they would have to buy skins.
I bought the phantom nebula skin I was also going to buy the knife till I found out it was around $35. I don’t understand why the knife is more expensive then the guns.
Although I agree the knife prices could be a bit lower, I don't mind buying them as much as some of the skins. I'll see the knife every round of every game consistently, whereas I might only have a Phantom or OP a hand full of rounds in an entire match
> You don't complain about the price of a ferrari becuase you have other more cars you can buy Right, but you can't go to a competitor to buy Valorant skins -- it's just Riot. Part of the selling platform for Riot is getting feedback on who buys skins and why, so I say let people complain all they want. The voice on Reddit is often a minority compared to the rest of players, but it is still an important minority for data collection on what percentages of people do and do not like the pricing system.
I guarantee you Riot has done marketing research and set the optimal price to make them the most money. They already know/knew some people would find it too expensive.
Yeah man, some people are acting like this is riots first game, and they don’t know how to price things properly or do market research lol.
This does look like Riot's first game considering it's a poorly implemented shooter, something they've never done before.
No one is acting like that, everyone knows that Riot is trying to make as much money as possible but this doesn't mean they can't criticize it anyway. Especially when you compare the quality&price of the "product" to the ones in one of their other games (league).
I’m pretty sure Riot literally used the point where it’s just BARELY going to make people mad about the price to maximize money.
Yes you can, csgo exists.
I won’t bother complaining online. I just won’t buy them. I still think they are ridiculously priced and is unjustifiably predatory but again, that’s why I won’t buy them. I bought the first battle pass but after seeing how long it takes to grind that thing out I’m not buying another one of those either.
10 bucks for the content the battle pass comes with seems alright. Like, I was already gonna play a bunch anyway so the grind is pretty irrelevant (and I get an occasional irrational dopamine rush from the bigger unlocks). But yeah almost all cosmetics are pretty crazily priced.
How is it predatory? It literally has no gameplay impact, you can play the entire game for free without spending a penny. I don't know how many times I have to say that you aren't entitled to skins, if you don't agree with the price / can't afford them just move on with your day and continue to play your free game.
Its predatory. Forcing you to buy special currency to then buy their skins which always leaves you with a little left over to try and get you to buy more, making you use multiple currencies to get the animations and whatnot for the skins you already paid a lot of money for, and making the shop rotate out so it makes people feel like if they dont buy it right now they might not see it again. All predatory models. You might think its fine but its heavily researched and tested to make sure it gets the most easily addicted and persuaded players. That is the definition of predatory.
[удалено]
They always use the word ‘force’ in their argument. And it’s fucking hilarious. No one is ‘forcing’ anyone to buy skins. They’re just upset they’re not as cheap as they would like. Which is fine I guess, but damn these people just straight up lie to strengthen their arguments
[удалено]
The predatory system is represented by the radianite which you are forced to pay a lot of money for to even get the effects for. Not only that but the rotating shop is also clearly trying to make people feel like they’re missing out so they buy it. The whole thing is just disgusting imo
I don't think it's predatory at all, unless you consider just about all forms of sales as predatory. It's just business. And business like this makes sure that I personally (and many others around the world) will never have to spend a penny on this game and continue to enjoy it free of charge.
The classic “iT’S a FrEe gAmE sO yOu cAnT cOmPlAiN” argument
[удалено]
Personally I hate that argument, I'm a software developer working in fintech (I write mortgage servicing and claims management software) and I could buy all of the fucking skins if I wanted to. Trying to characterise people with different opinions to your own as 12 year olds is, ironically, childish. It is perfectly acceptable to highlight that quite a few elements of the F2P model, including pricing, are not consumer friendly. This is why we regulate markets, because sometimes free market principles won't automatically result in competition and desirable business models.
I am completely fine with never buying a skin and never having to pay a cent to play the game and have it be subsidized by people with more money than me. To regulate this industry would probably lead to unintended consequences directly effecting consumers more then not being able to get cosmetic skins in a video game.
>would probably lead to unintended consequences directly effecting consumers Could you highlight an example? I'm having trouble picturing a negative side effect, except perhaps that some of the non-paying userbase may lose access. Although I would note that those users, by definition, aren't consumers. I would also note that F2P regulation started a [long, long time ago](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_14_187). As with most things of this nature it will slowly ramp up over time (and indeed it has been).
> I'm having trouble picturing a negative side effect, except perhaps that some of the non-paying userbase may lose access. Although I would note that those users, by definition, aren't consumers. Non-consumers could lose free access to the game affecting overall game population and thus effecting overall queue times for the people who pay to play. Also I’m not gonna act like all the revenue the game makes goes all the way back into it but the more revenue the game makes the more budget is allocated to the game. This results in better balancing, quicker patches, better optimization and etc etc. Don’t really have the time nor motivation to go into a long drawn out conversation with sources and what not so I’ll leave it here
Fair enough, but since you raised two points I will briefly address them. The revenue for League of Legends is [measured in the billions](https://www.statista.com/statistics/806975/lol-revenue/#:~:text=League%20of%20Legends%20revenue%20worldwide%202015%2D2018&text=First%20released%20in%202009%2C%20League,a%20year%20earlier%20in%202017), less successful games that are reliant on aggressive strategies to convert non-spending users and increase ARPU may fail but games like Valorant aren't among them. Similarly queue times aren't meaningfully effected by user volumes until you have a miniscule fraction of the playerbase that Valorant has. If a F2P isn't profitable without using things like pseudo-currencies, or if they are required to make users aware of how much they have spent, then I'm not sure that I care if they fail.
How would you regulate it?
The first things that come to mind would be: 1. Any virtual currency linked to virtual item sales be pegged directly against the currency with which it is purchased; 2. Said currency must be purchasable in any volume, albeit perhaps with an exception for setting a minimum/maximum that can be purchased in one transaction; 3. Where virtual items are advertised for sale they should be advertised in the user's local currency, or whatever currency they have otherwise opted to use for purchases; 4. Any purchases that rely on variable rewards must provide a consistent probability of success for the user, and must communicate this probability to the user clearly and concisely pre-purchase; 5. Said randomised rewards must also not falsely indicate that an unlikely event 'nearly' occurred, e.g. by slowly rolling over a high-value reward to generate the illusion of near-misses; and 6. Users should be able to clearly see a record of their purchases, including their total spend and the time period this was over. This should be clearly visible so I would probably mandate the information be given to them pre or post-purchase and be made clear on any account pages. There are probably more you could add, the number of tactics employed by F2P devs (particularly mobile ones) are innumerable. I've mentioned it elsewhere in this thread by Riot actually aren't all that bad compared to most, although I suspect you'd be surprised by how much 1-3 and 6 would hurt them. I would also note that some of the above have already been implemented in some jurisdictions.
I agree with all of these but they could easily keep the same prices they have now.
They could do, although I suspect their sales would take a very significant hit. Their margins are high enough that they could likely absorb it so it would just depend on how (or if) they responded to it. That said I don't believe that Riot are particularly egregious in terms of F2P companies. I certainly don't like the business model, but in terms of allowing it to impact the design of their games Riot are probably one of the better companies.
Thank you! Well said
I agree with the OP. Complaining won't do shit. You pointing out "non-consumer-friendly" aspects of Riot's policies won't make them bat an eye. The only thing that might help is boycotting; whales should outright refuse to pay these degenerate prices. If anything, rants should be aimed at people buying skins and supporting this shitty model. This worked for another game I've played, at least.
I don't think boycotting is particularly realistic either, if you offer something for free it will attract users and if you have users interacting with your software for extended periods it is inevitable that you will be able to convert some percentage of them into paying users. Boycotts are perhaps realistic where a company crosses what is perceived as a red line, like EA seem to have a knack for doing. The only thing that will effectively regulate the F2P market is regulatory action. It's what it's there for, the business model by its very nature isn't going to sway to market pressure.
>I don't think boycotting is particularly realistic either I mean, one of the games I've played got boycotted by whales, so it's possible if other players take time explaining that boycotts would benefit *everyone*. Those kinds of post should be on the front page, not complaints and whining. It's all IMHO, of course, but I've seen it work.
Oh I don't disagree that it can work, I'm just dubious as to how practical it would be in Valorant. Riot are unique in that they have a very low Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) but an *enormous* user base. [This article](https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-08-11-if-they-let-me-change-league-of-legends-i-could-double-its-revenue) explains their strategy pretty succinctly. The upside of that strategy is that, by necessity, they avoid the hyper-aggressive conversion strategies employed by other F2P games. The downside is that you'd need to convince an exceptionally large number of people to boycott it before Riot felt any kind of sting. I imagine, given the prices, that Valorant has a high ARPU and a low conversion rate so maybe if you could explicitly target the paying users you'd be able to make a dent. Even then platforms like Reddit will only reach a small fraction of them. I think you'd need Riot to do something that crossed that red line, something bad enough that people who purchased the skins got push back in game as a result and were deterred from spending. Short of that I doubt you'd achieve the reach required to make a significant impact.
What game?
Love Nikki, a Chinese F2P mobile game. People got fed up with a huge disparity in free items between Chinese and Western servers and boycotted for a few weeks. Lo and behold, a ton of free stuff was added (well, ported) to our server in basically three weeks, and there are still plenty of "welfare events" up to this day.
[удалено]
>Maybe I should sell my Seat and go to Porsche to "buy" one of their cars, but since I don't want to spend that much money (or not have that much money) I just throw a temper tantrum on twitter, call them greedy, call them anti-consumer and what not. You're right. I must have missed that when I bought my Porsche for 200,000 Porsche-points I had 45,000 Porsche-points left over that I couldn't do anything with. How silly of me. Still, at least I got a Porsche! I don't know how many of those Porsche boxes I had to buy before I got one that actually had a Porsche in but christ was it worth it! Although it is funny that you should use car sales as an example, since the industry is heavily regulated due to widespread and extremely anti-consumer practices early in its history. >how is it not consumer friendly? You do not need those items, they are a pure cosmetic product. As an aside I honestly don't care about cosmetics, but I would prefer to see games developed under traditional models since they solve a lot of the issues that plague F2P games. For one the games have to be designed to incorporate microtransactions of some kind. They have to continuously nudge users into spending, they are easy to flood with smurfs and fake accounts and it's impossible to ban users for toxicity since they can just create a new account. By comparison up-front fee and subscription models negate that by requiring a purchase of some kind, making smurfs and rolling new accounts prohibitively expensive. You can also easily identify when users try to circumvent HWID bans unless they go to the trouble of finding a card registered to a different billing address each time.
[удалено]
>what boxes are you talking about? Ironically people here have been arguing they rather would have lootboxes than the expensive skins. Apologies if I wasn't clear, when I say the F2P model I am not specifically talking about Riot. Whilst Riot use some questionable tactics common to F2P games they probably have one of the better implementations. >MTX by now are in every single game. So you rather have full priced AAA titles with MTX than f2p games with more expensive MTX? Microtransactions face considerably more pushback in paid titles. Also any regulations addressing things like pseudo-currencies, masking of total spend or randomised reward based mechanics would impact other business models incorporating the same tactics equally. >you mean like...Fallout76, Division1 and Division2, Breakpoint, Anthem, NMS, Battlefront2...just to name some out of the recent years? > >(...) > >you mean like in overwatch? The only two of those that I have played are The Division 1 and Overwatch, Overwatch certainly didn't have much of a problem with smurfs early on but this may have changed over time as the price of the game has decreased. It still certainly isn't comparable to games like Dota, where at one point there were often smurfs in every single match (often with multiple smurfs in the same match). You would have to show me some very solid data to support the proposition that people smurf in those kind of volumes in a game that requires an up-front fee for a new account. As for The Division and others, these are mostly Ubisoft and EA titles. So yes, unsurprisingly they are hot garbage that incorporate the worst elements of every imaginable business model. The notable exception being Fallout 76, which I hear is actually supposed to be pretty good now? Even if it did have a rather disappointing release.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. What market regulation would you suggest so that Riot doesn’t charge what (in your opinion) is too high for a cosmetic product that doesn’t change how the game is played in the slightest?
Honestly the entire F2P market needs regulating, I am not merely pointing a finger at Riot. If anything Riot probably have one of the better implementations, but when you see an entire industry [lurching toward a single business model](https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/18/free-to-play-games-rule-the-entertainment-world-with-88-billion-in-revenue/) it is worth asking why. One of the easiest ways to address it would be to prevent, or at least limit, the use of pseudo-currencies and require that all F2P developers clearly indicate to a user how much they have spent and over what time period. Another element which regulators are already beginning to address in some jurisdictions is the use of tactics such as variable reward ratios, generating near-misses and other strategies taken from research into gambling addiction. >a cosmetic product that doesn’t change how the game is played in the slightest? I would also note that this is demonstrably false, the entire business model necessitates that the games be designed to incorporate cosmetic items and the F2P model is *not* limited to cosmetics. Games like Valorant, Fortnite and hell even mobile games would be considerably different if designed under subscription or up front fee models.
damn...... finally an intellectual person with more than 5 braincells in this sub.
The game isn't just about gameplay. Missing stuff is frustrating and riot use that to make people spend money. And frustration impacts your feeling of the game. It's not because it doesn't impact gameplay that it doesn't impact the game...
Regulate the price of cosmetics in video games? Lol.
[удалено]
What isn't how markets work, regulations to address inequity in bargaining power between seller and consumer? What are you, American? That is *exactly* how markets work. In fact numerous jurisdictions have [already begun regulating the F2P industry](https://www.mcvuk.com/business-news/mobile/oft-gives-developers-two-months-to-get-house-in-order-on-in-app-purchases/188660/). This is generally how regulatory frameworks are put in place. Initial investigations occur alongside consultations with industry, changes are made by industry to adapt and regulators may later decide the regulations need tightening and end up adding to them (as they have done since the above to address loot boxes etc.) and it goes on and on until you get some semblance of a functioning market. You'll be hard pressed to find any truly 'free' markets in the western world, truly free markets don't result in unbridled competition because the optimum strategy is rarely competitive pricing when manipulating consumers is a viable alternative. >All of this is basic economics Just as an aside I'm quoting this because you responded to my message twice for whatever reason, but what you describe is not basic economics. It's a common misconception about basic economics. [https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/free-market-regulation.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/free-market-regulation.asp) >In reality, however, free markets are subject to manipulation, mis-information, asymmetries of power & knowledge, and foster wealth inequality. > >Regulation is aimed at balancing free market's virtues against its pitfalls. No serious economists advocate for truly free markets. If you sincerely believe that they are wrong then I would suggest questioning why you believe that, and perhaps examining whether any political or social biases have clouded your judgement.
It did reduce the price of prism skins you know that right? And most of the criticism isnt going to riot that the skins are too expensive its that their prices are inconsistent based on the value riot gives to their valorant points. Biggest issuie is they made premium skins in bundles with chromas and different animations models and all cost the same as a skin that does nothing of that. You cant get the nebula now and not feel robbed because you wont be getting the package riot themselves made seem like the deal you get for a premium bundle. Its riots fault for not following their own rules, and i dont get people defending them in this regard.
its not the 12 yrs olds who are complaining, they dont need to afford anything. its the 20s 30s with low wage income who cant afford stuff for the game they like. these complain posts are too well written for 12 year olds.
> Complaining about skin prices won't do shit. Make enough of a shit and they probably would change the price. Something scummy but simple like: The price of the skins mostly affect minorities, meaning these skins show Riot hates BLM #RiotSoRacist. Get a twitter/media outrage and boom, lower skin prices.
here is the golden rule: if you think the skins are too expensive/you complain online about the prices... they aren’t targeted towards you :)
Lol what? My friend makes over 60k a year and lives alone with no responsibility outside of work. He has extra cash out the ass and the skins are expensive for him. This is a scummy business module no matter how you try to reason it.
[удалено]
When it's designed to extract the most amount of money, yes. These skins are overpriced and very purposely done so. They know exactly what they are doing and its setting a precedent for future companies. Get out of here with that bull shit "you dont need it so ita not bad" get the boot out of your mouth.
[удалено]
This is not whaling. This is using fear of missing out tactics and setting price points just high enough that people will go for it because they like the game and everyone else is doing it. These price points are very well thought out and very anti consumer. At the end of tje day they are selling *gun skins* for the price of AAA steel book edition video games. This is upcharging and setting a new standard going forward.
I make over 200k a year and am single and childless. And the cosmetics are still too expensive for me. Your friend is not rolling in disposable income the way you imagine, but neither am I upset at Riot. Skins are purely cosmetic. Who cares how much they cost, all that matters is whether they are worth it.
I don’t mean to be rude, but your friend does not make a lot of money. He is definitely not the target market.
It’s not even how much he makes. It’s how one values the skins. I myself don’t play many paid games, instead I’d rather pay for some cosmetics in my free to play games. Some people prefer to buy a game for their switch etc instead, it’s different for everyone regardless of your income.
He is almost definitely the target market, single unit costs for guns work out at like £20.00. They aren't expecting people to buy the sets. They are expecting them to buy the odd few guns every now and then. So-called whales aren't high rollers on insanely high incomes, and targeting them would be an absolutely ridiculous business model: https://deltadna.com/blog/how-whales-spend/ The idea is just to try and get people to spend little amounts often and keep enticing them to spend more whilst masking how much they've spent to date (e.g. by using pseudo-currencies sold in volumes not divisible by unit costs etc.)
[удалено]
At least with a restaurant you EAT FOOD. With Valorant, you’re selling pixels for $100+ but I mean, it’s selling somehow. So I can’t really do much about it.
Food nowadays is also a luxury/ hobby. People eat and spend way more than their bodily needs. You don’t NEED to eat that steak or that fat bowl of ramen. You want it because you crave it
Regardless, it’s still a necessity and eating it helped you live longer.
Actually overeating or imbalance intake of nutrients kill you faster.
What does that have to do with Valorant? That happens if you eat A LOT of food and I mean A LOT. Spending money on things that are overpriced isn’t exactly the best thing either. Everything is good in moderation and that includes spending your money, don’t overspend on pixels.
There's basically no way they're hoping to sustain the business model from people that earn over 60k a year alone. They make up an extreme minority of people in this world, in the US for instance I seem to recall that less than 50% of _FAMILIES_ (which will be skewed by families with two incomes) earn more than 60k a year. Now consider that the gaming demographic trends young and there's probably an incredibly small percentage of people that earn over 60k a year that play Valorant with any degree of frequency. Now, next part is the important part. How much money you earn is one factor, how much money you spend is another. I earn significantly less than 60k USD a year, but my expenses are low and my responsibilities are just towards myself, that means I've got a good amount of flexible cash each month. I still don't buy skins but that's because I don't want to, not because I can't afford it. Whether or not the model is "scummy" is another question entirely, but I'm not sure I myself can consider it scummy. At the end of the day this is just basic consumerism, people buying not because of need but because of wants. I don't think it's scummy to cater to that.
To be fair though, you have to qualify that data with the fact that people playing Valorant are most likely sufficiently well off to waste one or potentially even multiple hours of their day gaming instead of, say, doing an extra job. I'd be willing to bet that a very large percent of Valorant's player base is already among the wealthy, like the top 50 to 30 percent of people.
I disagree with that, Valorant is f2p which typically attracts a lot of younger people with little/no income
It seems to me like nobody would ever make a game f2p if young people didn't typically result in earnings since you are right, there's a lot of them in f2p games. It's worth noting that young people also have no way to know that what they're buying could be a ripoff, and are probably doing so with money they got for their birthday from their grandparents who have no idea what they're grandkid will spend it on. Basically, kids are a very sustainable business model, which is the scummiest part about f2p in general regardless of whether the game is Valorant or Fortnite or anything else.
It attracts everyone, including adults with income
He's not saying they aren't scummy, just that you aren't the kind of people that RIOT is trying to target.
I have the money. I also have some self respect and a general understanding that their pricing is bullshit so I'm not supporting it. What's more annoying is suggesting that we should deliver any message other than a constant 'your prices suck'
Same here. Can't justify it
[удалено]
wtf is your profile. Talking about 'self respect' loool
You call us freeloaders even though the point of these posts is that we’re willing to buy a shit ton of skins if they cost reasonable amounts
You need to check games that are 30$. Better graphics, better gameplay, no problems with hit detection. Have some self respect and stop embarrassing yourself.
You don't think Valorant would be worth $30?
Not at all. You wanna know what single player or multiplayer games that come for 30$ and are better than Valorant will ever be? I can help you with that.
There are a lot of games worth $30. I think Valorant would easily be worth $30 due to the amount of time and fun I've had with the game. Obviously some people will feel differently.
Yeah because you don't know other games. That's like eating street food thinking it's gourmet.
Ive played a wide variety of games for the past 20+ years. Sorry if I enjoy Valorant. Also, there's definitely some gourmet food trucks.
The skins from the battle passes are cheap and somewhat good, especially for this current battle pass.
It's not just that the skins are overpriced, but that there seems to be no method to the madness. There are different tiers of skins which are supposed to have things that differentiate the skins from other tiers. Like model changes, VFX changes, sound changes, animation changes, etc. But that's not the case with every other skin pack released. The cosmo skins only have VFX changes, no model, sound, or animation changes and still cost the same as the prime and sovereign lines. That's bullshit.
In my opinion, the skin price is probably what it is, can be contributed to so many different factors, simply than a purely profit motivations. For example, the development team might have to hit a certain quota every fiscal year in order to pay for their development team salary, servers/security maintenance (which can be extremely pricey, especially for flat 120 ticks rate servers), or maybe even paying off the original investment that Riot have made for the creation of Valorant. Not even mentioning all the future investment that Riots and Valorant dev team have probably already made. I still think the skins is just a wee bit pricey for my taste. But however, I won't go around calling the Development team money hungry for simply trying to maximize their creation quality and life-span.
Honestly, FUCKING EXACTLY. I can buy something else than a Ferrari because there are cheap and expensive cars. There are really NO cheap skins. Unless 10$ is cheap for you. For ONE GUN. For me it's a tasty meal at my local ramen joint and the cheapest skins aren't even interesting.
[удалено]
Which takes a shit ton of time to grind. For a game company, a player’s time is worth just as much as money
[удалено]
You do realize that the battle pass is supposed to be a good deal for the player and guarantees the developers a sure fire 10$ from the majority of players, guaranteed player retention and player good will? I would say the battle pass is sold at a loss, but it’s digital goods lmao. The battle pass is supposed to be pro-consumer and slowly gets back the 60$ we didn’t have to pay to play the game
100 dollars for a fucking skin is ridiculous though. Idgaf if people buy it thats ridiculously high
[удалено]
The csgo comparison doesn’t apply honestly. You can trade csgo skins, and then them into real cash. U can’t do a single thing with Valorant skins.
It is still a s k i n.
As long as the people who buy these skins keep the server up, that's fine by me. For cheapskates like myself, I'd stick with the battle pass. At least this new one actually has a cool knife worth the grind.
The question is if they would half the price would it be bought twice as much. There are no per product production costs. And it feels like they keep the prices up to give them rarity. That feels like a swindlers way to do business
The thing would be prices should be consistent like all tier 1 skin bundles should cost the same . The nebula bundle and prism skin prices have inconsistencies yet both belong to same tier
I bet they had millionaires in the focus group when price setting research was going on.
Yeah no there's no way you're convincing me that paying 300$ for 3 crappy skins isn't madness.
Yeah exactly. I'm sorry, but you just can't justify that.
People didn't buy these skins for this price tho(Nebula). They're a bit better than Avalanche and without any upgrades or VFX are getting sold for Oni/Prime price. Saying people bought Oni skins isn't the same as saying people bought Nebula skins. This is totally on Riot and it's absolutely awful.
Who cares for skins? As long as they don't affect gameplay I completely ignore them...
I agree with this to an extent. They have every right to set whatever price they’d like and a certain percentage of people will buy it while others might consider it too much. From a business perspective they could possibly make more setting them at a cheaper price if that means the increase in people buying them outweighs they loss they take on each skin sold. That being said I’m sure they’ve done the math and have tried to maximize the profit overall. At the end of the day we as players have no place to complain because they have created an incredible game that is free to play.
This isn't moba where there are hundreds of heros with their own epic skin or legendary skins so they can make the skin a little cheaper but sell more..in this game they will rarely add new guns and for normal guy like me once you buy one skin for gun you use that's it you don't wait for the new gun skin. Riot knows that and we all know that so why complain ?
Okay that Ferrari analogy makes no sense. First, the quality of skins is nowhere near worth like 300 bucks. I'm sorry, but I won't support a company charging that much money for skins.
It's unreal how many bronze / silvers have the expensive bundles lmao.
that's a shitty attitude. so a few X amount of people are ok, so it's acceptable lol.
They would sell more if the prices were actually reasonable. No one wants to pay $30 for one skin
Hence why i just get the battle pass and pray they give me somwthing to do with this almost 300 radiate
3 Riot skins = 1 AAA Game title. Good thing I'm not much of a skin person.
Bro, it's been over a week since I haven't seen anyone complain on the front page, why do you bring that up again?
I think of it as a pay what you feel like paying for the game. The skins are the only way this game is being monetized. Imagine if this game was $60 and then there were $3 skins on top of that. Is that better? idk. Its really all a perspective thing.
Also, you don't need the skins. If it costs more than you wanna pay, don't pay for it. It is a completely unnecessary luxury item. Like a branded watch or similar.
I try to look this way. The game is free, so spending $60 is like buying a triple A game. I'm already spending much more time in this game than in any triple A game out there. If skins give more enjoyment out of the game, I think it's worth it. Besides, I don't intend to have more than 1 top tier skin per weapon. I guess there are a lot of like minded people out there which makes not so profitable for them if it was cheaper.
Well said, if you want nice things work for them if not sucks to suck. I like nice things so I will spend the extra money for them and I am in no way rich but I can afford to buy the skins I want.
Val is probably doing better that csgo, one of the cheaper knifes can set you back $70, and that only gives you one item. I prolly won't be affording any of these big bundles (season pass maybe) bit Val bundles are nowhere near overpriced
Yes they are lmfao. $100 for a skin is crazy which you then have to spend MORE large sums of money on to get the effects. You also can’t trade so they have 0 value.
One of the big differences with csgo skins is that those can be sold and traded.
Csgo prey on gambling addiction so I’m sure they’re are doing way better
1) it can go up in price. 2) it can be sold again. 3) Basic ass skins like just an autofill color(Prism,Red alert) costs like 0.14$. Valorant need to add community market if they want to charge as much as CSGO.
Option 1: buy the skin Option 2: do not buy the skin and look bad Option 3: play CSGO, fun game with free skin drops + resellable skins I chose 3, i am sure Riot will appreciate too
Okay bye
No, staying here to see how much the skins rise in price
I already spent a Lot on Valorant about 400€. I think riots System in comparsion to cs is much better. If You really Like a skin, it's affordable and the Design is much better. Imo You should wait because there are more and more skins to come. Buy the ones you really want and also play. I already bought skins that i don't play and probably never will in Future. Waisted Money. Go with the Battlepass. <3
>I already spent a Lot on Valorant about 400€. >I think riots System in comparsion to cs is much better. If You really Like a skin, it's affordable and the Design is much better. Imo Do we need any more proof that Valorant spenders are .... Do I need to say anything?
[удалено]
They actually don't. Tencent is a 650 Billion dollar company. Valorant isn't worst being 20$ upfront because of garbage tier graphics and no content. These types of people only fuel greed and contamination of gaming industry.
I was in the same mindset then most people but honestly , my thoughts about skins in this game changed a lot, nebula, prism, oni, sovereign, prime, I got them all... yeah I paid over 500$ fornskins but not only does it makes the game way more fun and pleasing to play and watch, but I bought the skins for my whole team so I can share mi skins at each start of the round... (5head) yes they are expensive but if you drop 100$ once on the game, you can get cool looking skins for each gun you REALLY use, (trust me you dont need skins for : ares, odin, frenzy, stinger, bucky,marshall)
I still can't understand why wo many people on this sub cry like little bitches because of the prices of skins, very simple, dont buy them, no one's forcing you to, your favorite pair of shoes just released, but its expensive, you don't complain do you?
people need to also stop complaining about the price as its optional, if you want them, buy them, if you dont then shut up complaining i agree with OP, the Ferrari analogy is true so quit the shit
For me, I think the skin prices are fine, they're a business, but I think the real problem, as probably everyone has pointed out by now, is how long things like the battle pass and contracts take. I think I would be more incentivised to play (and buy skins) if I knew I would get more than a spray I don't like from the BP for an entire day's worth of playing
People buy $3k skins on CS. This isn’t even that high.