[ericsoderstrom]

I think it is a problem though when a game's revenue mostly comes from cosmetics, as it shifts the developer incentives away from "developing a game that lots of people want to buy and play" to "making the type of game that lends itself well to lots of cosmetic micro transactions". These are often pretty different types of games and it would be sad if the former were entirely replaced by the latter.

[tomtheelder]

Fundamentally the biggest driver of selling cosmetics is still just the size of your player base. Companies are still really out there trying to make sure people play their games. Exceptions exist (I'm looking at you mobile games), but for the most part I don't see a massive shift in incentives.

IMO the big change is to do with the lifecycle of games. Previously you release a new title, maybe a few DLCs, and then you move on. The game is done, you have to do something else, a sequel, a new IP, whatever. That was true for all games, multiplayer included. Now (for multiplayer) the idea is to try different releases until one sticks, and then try and make that game evergreen. The dream being something like League of Legends, which has been printing money for over a decade.

Whether that's a good or bad thing is up for debate I suppose.

[AlwaysRock]

Yeah but if the game isnt interesting than the cosmetics dont sell.