Films are made by just as large a team as games, yet we have no problem attributing artistic agency to the director.

This is getting off topic, but for the record: a lot of people have a problem with auteur theory.

I'd almost rather have the option of buying a $50 cosmetic item add-on pack that gives me access to all the in game cosmetic stuff I would like to have but doesn't affect gameplay in any manner.

Hell, I paid for an appearance pack for ME2 just to give Jack a shirt. No regrets, it genuinely improved my enjoyment of that game.

That actually helped me make the decision to buy that game, no joke. Shirts FTW. Best shirt DLC.

Lol. That's strange because it makes perfect sense to me. Hell, it even made sense to other people when they spoke about Ken Levine and his direction for Bioshock Infinite for example. And that was a big game with a big team!

I'd kind of buy your argument in a game like Bioshock. A microtransaction to change the look of the Little Sisters could change the meaning of the game. But you can't seriously think that's comparable to adding a new class item to Destiny. This isn't a Kubrick masterpiece where the positioning of the cans of baking powder in the background of a shot has meaning. It's a game where you can wear a hat with flames coming out of it that look like horns, or a hat that actually has horns on it, or a hat that looks like Sam Fisher. I fail to see how a new butt-cape or new dance moves impinge on its artistic integrity.

RPG games almost ALWAYS exclusively sell cosmetic items via micro transactions of some kind because players have the sense of "this is my guardian, I want them to look pretty and feel personal to me" which is EXACTLY what bungie has said multiple times before release and during its current life span.

Films are made by just as large a team as games, yet we have no problem attributing artistic agency to the director. Similarly, Destiny has a project lead. Jason if I'm not mistaken. I don't see the two as any different.

That pretty much kills any discussion, since we are looking at different realities. I don't feel like you're even making sense any more.

I don't get why giving the consumer more options is a bad thing. It helped me out in this situation. :/

The answer is because games are art, and art is the product of the artist. Being able to mix and match what's in that art goes directly against the integrity of the work and the statement. Everybody should get the same game. I am sure you would be less than thrilled if someone only got a portion of your illustrations, rather than the whole thing as you intended it to be seen.

If a game is being made by one person, I'd totally agree with you here.

But games (and this game in particular) are made by huge studios - and I really, really doubt that all of the hundreds of people who've contributed to the awesome product that is Destiny has the same artistic vision.

There is no monolith 'statement' that Destiny is making - it makes LOTS of statements. Some of them might say "we'd love it if you enjoyed our core experience" and some say "hey, isn't this shader cool? We know not everyone thinks so, and we don't want to force it on the character we said you could make your own... but we thought we'd make it available to folks who absolutely love it."

You're even okay with that, if I've understood your prior arguments. What you're NOT okay with is when they decide to put a price tag on it.

I think that's where we'll always disagree.

I understand if the payments makes you uncomfortable. But I don't see the distinction based on the arguments you are making. In fact, if we're going to be vague about what inputs are and what effect they have why not just consider paying money one of the inputs that unlocks and result for everyone who plays the game?

There are things you don't like but can't (at least so far) come up with consistent logical reasons why. That' s fine. We all have things like that. But it's useful to be able to identify them, which you basically did up thread with the DLC exclusives and Tibet shaders and all other examples. Now just let it be that?

I'd almost rather have the option of buying a $50 cosmetic item add-on pack that gives me access to all the in game cosmetic stuff I would like to have but doesn't affect gameplay in any manner.

Hell, I paid for an appearance pack for ME2 just to give Jack a shirt. No regrets, it genuinely improved my enjoyment of that game.

How is the extra emote in the Collector's Edition not charging for cosmetics? Part of the added value is the exclusive cosmetic.

It's all about how it's sold. I just wish there was some honesty in the advertising of products. I'd rather buy the base game and then have the option to purchase cosmetic items if I fall in love with the game. At least then they it's a pretty simple transaction without trying to hide what it really is.

I'm a collector at heart so I feel like I "need" all of the items. If you look at Halo 4 I had to jump through a ton of hoops to get all of the preorder bonuses that were purely cosmetic. I think I preordered 4-5 different versions of the game at all retailers plus one collectors'/limited edition. Then they package new McFarlane action figures with DLC codes to give you in game skins. Of course I wanted those also. it just goes on and on.

I'd almost rather have the option of buying a $50 cosmetic item add-on pack that gives me access to all the in game cosmetic stuff I would like to have but doesn't affect gameplay in any manner.

I'm prepping myself to fully switch to the xbone once TTK launches. I don't feel like purchasing yet another copy of destiny for the 360. Hopefully my 360 buddies decide to make the switch. You know who I'm looking at....

Way too broke right now.

Ditto. Plus I apparently missed the Collector's Edition so now I'm kinda sad. :(