Please no paid cosmetic DLC

EBBenjy you can make a poll here to get numbers for that

I'm all for Paid DLC as long as it significantly adds to the game. Cosmetic stuff? Nah.

If at that point they could also invest that time and energy in making a sequel, they should rather do that in my opinion.

gunlord500 Dude, have you seen the owner numbers on steam alone? This game sold incredibly well. They don't NEED paid cosmetic DLC. 505 wants it. It's a game publisher, that's all. Of course they're not going to say no to some extra profits, no matter if they already have more than enough to make a sequel.

Here are my personal reasons.

IGA's metroidvania games encourage obsessive collection and completion.

There are percentages all over the stats screen for items, enemies, techniques and map completion. Obsessive completion is in the nature of the game, and it's an aspect many people enjoy.
These games tend to attract players who enjoy collecting everything - many players will not feel satisfied with their playthrough until they have obtained utterly everything.

Already I am unhappy that the player is limited to only ONE of the secret name-entry password items. (I feel like they should be Boss Rush rewards, or at least SOMETHING that would allow players to get them all in one file).
I also do not like the idea of IGA's Back Pack, but the time to complain about that has long passed, and at least the backers don't have to pay for it.

The main problem is when you consider that cosmetic items don't do anything. With paid cosmetic DLC, you are asking your users to pay extra money for items that only exist to tantalise these completionists into spending extra. And I don't like this.


Paid DLC also cannot be transferred to other people.
If I were somebody who bought the paid DLC, then later realised how sucky the Switch version was and decided to get the game again on PS4, I would have to re-purchase the same DLC on PS4 if I wanted to actually see it. This is just annoying.


The game is currently unfinished.
There is a lot of evidence for cut content (Focalor and the unused Casino location being the main examples), and there are also the currently unmet stretch goals - Roguelike mode, Boss Revenge Mode etc. I feel like asking the backers to pay extra when the developers haven't yet delivered on their end of the bargain is a very bad look.


And lastly, I like it when a game is a single, complete entity. I hate it when a game is fragmented and only exists in its entire form with patches and DLC. I am already extremely unhappy that my Nintendo Switch cartridge will absolutely require an internet connection in order to download a bajillion patches to update it into a decent state. To me, this utterly devalues the cartridge as a useful item. At this point, it may as well be a eShop-only game, since the majority of the gigabytes will be in the patches taking up space on my Switch memory, and not actually on the cartridge itself.

But for the PC version, I know that there are plans to release a physical PC version of the game that has all of the bonus content on-disc. However, the existence of paid DLC will make even this "complete edition" of the game still incomplete, unless they actually decide to include it all for free on just these discs.

Additionally, I also hope that there will eventually be a "complete edition" Switch cartridge, but that is neither here nor there right now.

The people who are working on the Switch version bugs/fixes aren't doing much/anything with creating assets/graphics. This is for the future and isn't taking away from that effort, which is what the teams are focused on right now (current release improvements).

Microtransactions are when the game asks or forces you to buy something to get you through the game or that allows you access to in-game currency via your real $. Cosmetics/skins don't fall under that. "Pay to win" also isn't much of a factor that would apply to a game like this.

I'm all for it because I want to see some of these things, but also because I like supporting them and trust them with the money to do the right things with it. The track record has been clearly positive with that so far (to me/my experience, I know this is not the case with everyone).

I can kind of see the completionist argument, but to say that they're "only selling it to milk completionists" is going a bit far. I don't think it would bump up the % possible and be counted as extra, such as with the code items. You can't have all possible color/hair choices of Miriam at all times, either, and that's fine too. "If it exists, I must have it", is a matter of being OCD and not something the game/content delivery model should be faulted for, imo, when it doesn't count against/for your official completion. Wonder how many DOA players were able to survive being like that heh. Not all things are for all people, and if this isn't for you, I think it should be ignored while other people can consume it and fund more (free) Bloodstained.

I think the game is selling incredibly, but it's also going to be costly still to make free DLC for the next x amount of time that they're planning to, and then however long it takes for the sequel. ArtPlay specifically doesn't have any cash flow besides Bloodstained - this is it, they don't have money funneling in from other projects and things that they've done as if they're all big name Konami employees still, on a set and guaranteed payroll because they're so big and can be put on other things whenever. There are no other things.

Anyway, the main idea here, as the survey says, is to have folks pay for non-essential things to make essential things free (in addition to the already-promised 13 free DLCs). I think people are missing this, because I think I even did or read over that the first time? haha. I was at work and wanted to click my outfits, leave me alone

At this point I just want my complete edition with all the physical rewards so I can sell them and be done with the whole thing.

I personally dislike any form of DLC that isn't big expansions to be honest. Not because I find cosmetic DLCs to be inherently wrong, but just because I don't like them and I wouldn't want them in Iga's games. However it's up to them to do what they want.

Yeah, that'd be vanity slots. And sounds like it's something they'd like to do but can't make any promises on it at the moment.

By your definition there, all DLC are microtransactions if it's not a big story-content expansion etc. That definition fits as technically correct, but the negative connotation of what's being attached to it doesn't. Some DLC practices are good, some are bad.

No, this is where some people are misunderstanding and why I bolded that - the free DLC content, the 13 free things that were the stretch goals - are free and staying that way. As the poll itself states at the beginning, this is for additional free things to be made on top of those that will be game content. If the paid non-essential things perform well, those essential things are free, and if they are not, we'll pay for them.

Clothing items sell and pay for real content. That's the deal - and it's a great setup. It hurts if you don't trust the company to do right after the right they've done for us so far. There's not a slippery slope to worry about here, with "if this, then next that, and before you know it, loot box". I can appreciate if you're passionately against that stuff, but it's not in the cards. The question is "do you want more game content free" rather than how much they can greedily suck out of us.