Wow, I never knew that there was downloadable content for Morrowind. What kind of content was it?

They're perfectly justified in charging the consumer for a pause menu and for each save slot. That doesn't make it good or right however.

Gameplay elements are far different than a cosmetic skin.

If micro transactions/dlc are here to stay, which they are, cosmetic content is the least evil version of it.

Very small additions - http://www.nexusmods.com/morrowind/mods/3882/?


An armor set, an atmospheric sound mod, a bad dungeon mod, and some other cool stuff.

"Bloodmoon" gave you access to Solstheim and would let you be a werewolf before it was L33T.

"Tribunal" gave you access to Mournhold, the Clockwork City of Sotha Sli and then capital of Morrowind at the time.

You can check out Solstheim again in the "Dragonborn" DLC for "Skyrim" and these expansions functioned pretty much like that; i.e. new area with many associated quests and new gear.

These both "Tribunal" and "Bloodmoon" were included in the "Morrowind: Game Of The Year Edition" which was my introduction to "The Elder Scrolls" series.

Apart from "Horse Armor" in "Oblivion", Bethesda seem to generally do good Add Ons / DLC /Expansions so we'll give them a pass for "Horse Armor".

It's more of an argument dealing with the concept of justification, for which they need none at all.

If you'd rather discuss "gameplay Vs cosmetics" along the lines of "charging for cosmetics is more acceptable than charging for gameplay", then by all means, state your case.

It must be said however, that the exact opposite is more probable, considering the amount of effort and development time required for new gameplay content versus some cosmetic stuff. Also, it's worth bearing in mind how games used to be with unlockables as opposed to walling off content behind paywalls.

I'm sure most people would be happy to pay for (and I stipulate) genuinely new content with just gameplay, rather than just cosmetics, which only boggles the mind further if they love money so much. I guess PR is helping profits more if this is actually "better for business", though that's likely just a matter of perspective.

I don't know if it's just because it's fashionable to be contrary on the internet or if some people are actually stupid enough to believe that paying more for less is a good thing.

Always puzzles me how people try and defend being taken advantage of by Publishers on internet Forums.

Is it some misguided sense of loyalty? Perceiving an attack on a Publisher who made a game they liked as a personal attack on them?

Is it a refusal to admit that they've done something daft themselves? Paid for an expensive DLC in the past and feel acknowledging that they were taken advantage of is a sleight against their Cyber-Pride?

It doesn't matter what kind of spin you put on it.

As plainly as 2 + 2 = 4....

Get less + Get charged more for getting less = You are being taken advantage of.