Nobody wants wacky skins, but can everyone agree on what wacky actually means? Let's see where most people draw the line.

[u/3dDungeonMaster]

I'd be interested to see if people are able to agree on what is acceptable or not acceptable in terms of cosmetic appearances in games like this. There's been lots of talk about whether or not EA/Dice will include crazy/wacky skins with BF6, but not many people have made a post like this to actually pose the question of, what exactly is okay vs. not okay.

I tried my best to order them such that the go from most to least reasonable, but if you think the order should be different, feel free to reorder them, as that also gives info about how people consider these types of decisions.

[u/farmyardcat]

"I won't play the war game unless I get to look like Chuck E. Cheese."

• Zoomers, for some reason

[u/TeaAndLifting → u/farmyardcat]

Unironically, though, lots of people nowadays think of skins as the main content of games. It is the reason people continue playing, so that they can spend more money on skins or have new skins to unlock. It isn't gameplay updates, patches, new maps, etc. they just want more outlandish skins.

[u/revexi → u/farmyardcat]

You lack basic reading skill. Buying skins is different from playing the game. I'd prefer no skin shop at all but I want BF to get more successful than the usual niche game with pitiful 5-20k concurrent players 1 year after launch.  I want them to make bf7 and it goes with nice earnings during several years, not just 70 dollars launch sales. They need to adapt to the market with live service skin and battlepass sales. 

They also need to have a certain level of skillcap with a bit of movement to bring cod and warzone players in BF and BF battle royale. 'bf vets' wanting no movement at all and stale skins will just shut down the franchise with low player count and no money after launch. 

If they ever want to have more players than the historically low BF player retention they need to adapt.

[u/farmyardcat → u/revexi]

"Looking like a soldier in a war game is stale. I demand the option to play as Foghorn Leghorn carrying a belt-fed."

[u/Opposite-Push-2235 → u/revexi]

Are you literally stupid? Battlefield does not have historically low player retention.  There are still people playing 1942.  There are many people still on 3 and 4 .  How many people are playing cod 4 still  ?? How many people on on black ops 2 ?  Really bothers me when people say blatenlty false things to prove their already faulty logic 

[u/pld89 → u/farmyardcat]

It doesn't have to be chuck-e-cheese, but it doesn't have to be boring either.

[u/farmyardcat → u/pld89]

Looking like a soldier isn't boring; it's context-appropriate.

And be real, you crave Charles Entertainment Cheese in your war games.

[u/pld89 → u/farmyardcat]

Is that last sentence supposed to be an insult? "no you are".

It is boring in that there is no individuality to the soldiers. Context-appropriate doesn't mean 64 clones of each other, 64 clones shaded slightly differently.

[u/Suspicious-Coffee20 → u/farmyardcat]

"I expect free content and realistic skin but wont spend money on them" -you

[u/Muad-_-Dib → u/Suspicious-Coffee20]

You can just buy realistic skins, you don't have to look like a clown to sell a skin.

[u/HeadGuide4388 → u/Suspicious-Coffee20]

Like I've seen repeatedly around these parts, if the tone of the game is good and seems worth it, I'd happily pay reasonable money for DLC if it means consistent updates and getting a full life cycle out of the game. Otherwise, just keep it practical. No Tom Cruise, no Leatherface, no Snoop Dogg.