Please no paid cosmetic DLC

I don't think people would have been negative about this if the survey would have had an option to not purchase cosmetic DLC. I picked the lowest amount only because there was no $0 option. To say that someone can just choose not to complete the survey would be a silly way to justify that everyone who took the survey and choose the lowest amount would actually pay for any cosmetic DLC.

If I want a cosmetic skin, I'll just mod the game or wait until someone else does. Sure, that's not an option for console players as far as I know. The cosmetic stuff is tied to items, right? What if you don't like the way the items stats are? That would be wasteful.

The game really needs cosmetic item slots.

They are not asking for money. They are asking what kind of items you are interested in, so they can make them. If you don't want them, you don't have to buy them. It's called taking our opinion in consideration. Entitlement is whining about a publisher not giving away for free things that cost money to make. Entitlement is demanding they not talk about it until disaffected players get something else they want first.

AGAIN: making assets has ZERO to do with how fast they can patch the game. ZERO.

So now you get to define what entitlement means? it's always on the gamer's side and not the developer's side

Great! I think Actiblizz is hiring community manager, you definitely fit for the job.

If they pay well, I'm all for it (j/k)

Guys, let's not throw around accusations of entitlement on either side--both have legitimate points. On the one hand, more revenue from Bloodstained means more money for Bloodstained 2, which a lot of folks want to see. On the other hand, as alluded to by other posters above, nobody wants shady practices like we've seen from EA and whatnot.

With that said, the weight of opinion seems to be against paid cosmetic DLC. While I don't agree with that personally, the people have spoken and it's my responsibility to accede to the democratic will of the community. So I'll tell Angel and the gang that the forum community at least seems to be generally opposed to paying for cosmetic DLC, and by a respectable margin too. However, I have to be honest, I get the feeling the decision has already been made. As of right now there are 54 votes on this survey, the official one from 505 has gotten many more--to put it lightly. If that one didn't have an option for "no cosmetic DLC at all," or an option of zero dollars for the price, I suspect the decision to release paid cosmetic content has already been made and 505 and IGA want to see which ones would be most profitable. But again, for what it's worth I'll convey the community sentiment to Angel and Question, though since I'm a volunteer rather than an employee, it's not as if I'm much more than one more vote on the forums

Oh, right, I oughta specify 'paid' My bad XD

I’m very disappointed in you. If there was going to be one user on this forum that was going to have his feet firmly planted on the ground and be realistic it was going to be you, I thought.

I don't understand your dissapointment. Why would anyone NOT want free DLC?

I feel like everybody is getting too caught up in the weeds and throwing random personal accusations and community accusations instead of the talking about actual subject.

I don't think many people have an issue with paid DLC as a concept for this game. But what is currently being proposed is what people have an issue with. Let's review what people have issues with.

1. Paid DLC is getting floated before any of the free DLC has been released. Hell, before all the baseline quality of life/bug killing patches are done. It's a bad look no matter how anybody wants to spin it. And that's why there is so much fight against this right now. Just speaking for myself, but if this poll came out in the fall after the dust has settled, I would be fine with it. Likely, many more people would be as well. It doesn't have to do with people "liking things" or not, it's a matter of bad timing. Even if the DLCs themselves are a long way off, bringing them up now paints an ugly picture.

2. What's being proposed is five items and a shard per DLC "pack." Anything more than two dollars for a pack is going to be overpriced for the content given. And it's not going to be two dollars. If people want to buy these for five bucks a pop it's on them, but in no universe will it be a good deal.

3. Due to the lack of cosmetic item slots, the DLC items will in fact have stats. So they'll either be high level so people would want to equip them at the cost of unbalancing the hell out of the game. "Pay for these items and never have to use the crafting system again!" Alternatively they'll have low level stats and people will complain that they're gimping themselves gameplay wise by equipping the items that they paid real money for. In a perfect world these DLC items would start low level and could be upgraded somehow to be better as the game goes on, but if I'm being honest, all signs point towards "minimum effort-maximum profit" with what's being proposed, so expecting a system like that is unrealistic. So game balance is at risk of getting fucked sideways.

Personally, and like I said above, I think it's just a bad look all around. At the very least they should have dropped the first post launch "free DLC" before even bringing this up. When it comes to DLC I want value. I want new areas/bosses/enemies/etc. I'll happily drop twenty bucks for two new areas of the castle to be bolted on. Cosmetic DLC packs are not value, and just taking a wild guess at what the votes are going to point towards, I'm not really going to be super interested in playing the game with Miriam dressed in lingerie or fetish outfits in the first place.