Skin transfer requests...

With the introduction of multi-weapon "skin" effects, why can we still not use skin transfers on different types of weapon? All I want are the same rules as the microtransactions -- claw/dagger, one-handed axe/mace/sceptre/sword and two-handed axe/mace/sword.

Please, GGG? There is zero reason at this point why we shouldn't be able to.

Also? Please please please implement a permanent, reusable skin transfer. I would pay 120 points (the same price as the new crypt sword) to be able to turn a Rise of the Phoenix or Aegis Aurora or some unique with really cool 3D art into a reusable skin transfer microtransaction. How many people honestly buy that many points worth of skin transfers for one slot? You'd be making money and encouraging people like me, who hate buying skins knowing he might want to switch equipment later down the road, to take out their wallets.

Bump.

Yeah, I found that very interesting in the new MTX's. So I can use this with other items, and it will still look like a sword?

Perhaps because of the item I found, or the passive tree, I do use an axe, but maybe for my character I want the look of a sword... seems like it would at least get people to use the consumable skin transfers more.


For those who keep asking for crossbows... I keep thinking it should be a wand MTX.

"

For those who keep asking for crossbows... I keep thinking it should be a wand MTX.

Or a bow! :)

GGG, please. :(

Who would find themselves spending a lot more money if this was implemented? I know I would...

"

MosesXIII wrote:

Who would find themselves spending a lot more money if this was implemented? I know I would...

Spend $60 now to get a game, or pay $3 per month so long as you want to play it?

Games tend to have a much, much longer lifespan with subscription-like purchases as opposed to outright purchase. So I doubt that GGG will be making a permanent skin transfer that isn't only to a specific skin. It's probably going to be their biggest money maker in the long run, only after people stop buying stash tabs.

Even if the subscription is $1, I'd rather pay $60 and never worry about another payment. Not much incentive for them to make it a $60 purchase if they know the $1 will yield more than that due to the amount of time invested into the game.

The subscription model argument is not really valid. Subscriptions essentially hold the game for ransom whereas skin transfers are entirely cosmetic.

"

MosesXIII wrote:

The subscription model argument is not really valid. Subscriptions essentially hold the game for ransom whereas skin transfers are entirely cosmetic.

Nice job missing the point. Allow me to try to enlighten you one last time:

Subscriptions = GGG's current skin transfer MTX. These are bought time and time again as players use up their uses.

Purchases = GGG's weapon skins, like the Emerald and Crypt sword effects. These are permanent and are one time sources of income for each player. Depending on the effect, it might be bought twice.

So yes, it was and is valid.

No. It really isn't the same. The subscription model forces players to pay repeatedly just to play the game. It puts the actual content of the game behind a pay wall. Your options are A: Pay and B: Don't play.

This is purely cosmetic stuff. There's no "Give us your money or you can't play." You have the above options but also C: Play without cosmetic effects, which is effectively the same thing with a different look.

I highly doubt that skin transfers are that big a seller, because when you ask yourself, "Am I really gonna get as much use out of this as I will a weapon effect?" the answer is almost certainly no.

Also, with my suggested price point of 120 points per permanent skin transfer, that's the price of 20 skin transfers PER SLOT. Do you really think even the BIG spenders buy that many skins per slot? If they do, don't you think people who are spending that much money would be inclined to buy full sets for multiple characters anyway?