About KLEI: Crabpack and the Giveaway experience.

[Maxil20]

I agree with the notion that the skins should be accessible to everyone. As a "collector" who has comfortably dumped ~1K+$, with half of that easily being plushes, I do not agree with the notion of the plush skins being sold for absurd prices.

I get there's a bit of a status symbol that is fair, but also... you get that from owning the collectible itself. I love my myraid of Klei Plushes I've gotten, and I like having the authentic ones. Owning the plush should be 90% of the value, the skin you get with it is just a bonus.

I don't like the idea that collectors would Gatekeep skins because otherwise they would "lose value" and discourage collectors. It's a terrible mentality that has ruined a lot of games and the like because Whales will scourge up all the "rare" items and sell them for jacked up prices. Heck, this is already proven with the funko pop skins, some of the only skins that you have to trade to get compared to the ones that still drop ingame.

[hhh2]

41 minutes ago, lowercase skye said:

People posted a lot about how much it would be disrespecting dedicated fans for new players to be able to get the Bottomless Pit for Klei points, and they still did that

This is interesting because that skin had no price attached to it, at least not price that concerned your bank account, time maybe.  This is a different debate to exclusive items that required a monetary investment.

41 minutes ago, lowercase skye said:

Being a "collector" of cosmetics in a live service game is a fool's errand that boils down to just being willing to spend money as fast as possible on a digital license that says you're allowed to use this set of pixels now. To be clear, you aren't even owning anything! There is no physical good that you're collecting, you can't display it on a shelf, and if Klei's servers ever go kaput then any "ownership" you have of your skins will go with it, because you're just purchasing a digital license that says you're allowed to give your character a purple shirt instead of a red one

So you're saying that collectors should just give it because there is the possibility that Klei's office gets devoured by a sinkhole one afternoon and with it the records of their ownership?  If you collected baseball cards, you can get hit by a bus and die.  If you didn't have children, your ownership of those baseball cards also disappears and they go to auction.  I don't see your point. Nothing lasts forever.

23 minutes ago, Maxil20 said:

I don't like the idea that collectors would Gatekeep skins because otherwise they would "lose value" and discourage collectors. It's a terrible mentality that has ruined a lot of games and the like because Whales will scourge up all the "rare" items and sell them for jacked up prices. Heck, this is already proven with the funko pop skins, some of the only skins that you have to trade to get compared to the ones that still drop ingame.

You don't like collectors basically.  That's fair, but this topic is mostly about the fate of existing collectors of DST, which is why the funko skin's value hangs in the balance right now.  Does Klei really want to send off the collectors they accidentally cultivated?  As @Kaioh put it, "it's a bad business move."  By the prices of the funko skins, somebody is going to be unhappy at the conclusion of this all.  It seems as if Klei has the interest of casual player if the steam patch notes are any suggestion.

24 minutes ago, Maxil20 said:

I get there's a bit of a status symbol that is fair, but also... you get that from owning the collectible itself. I love my myraid of Klei Plushes I've gotten, and I like having the authentic ones. Owning the plush should be 90% of the value, the skin you get with it is just a bonus.

The status symbol should be in both the real and digital world.  Especially as time goes on and almost everybody has stock in the digital world.  When we read the screen of a social scenario of DST, it's important that status can be conveyed. 

Edited May 11, 2025 by hhh2

[00petar00]

4 hours ago, Kaioh said:

By your own logic, skins have zero value - should Klei then give them all out for free? They would go bankrupt pretty quickly if they did that, so that's a bad idea. Klei literally stated "We want to make these available to players but do not want to disrupt the inherent value that they have by their rarity and cost to acquire" in regards to the situation with proof of purchase skins, so it's clear they understand the situation well, so I don't see what's so bad about wanting Klei to give these skins the proper respect they deserve?

When have I said that skins should be free? I have even said that DST skin prices have been reasonable considering that the game is still getting regular updates. Skins are worthless but support for developer is something that is needed for game to keep getting updates. What If your steam account or klei account was banned  tomorrow? You'd lose everything because you literally don't own it and you were given a license as @lowercase skyesaid but even If you did own it every single game developer will eventually stop running game servers when there is not enough players to make it worth it for them.

4 hours ago, Kaioh said:

"Someone can buy everything in a few minutes" - Sure, if they have the money to do so, but buying it all at once is way too expensive, most people take years to get all of the skins, and if we're talking loyal skins and proof of purchase skins those are hamstrung by time too regardless of money (for example by having to wait for klei points to drop, or long delivery times with physical merch).

So you conceded this point which means that skins only hold value for you because they are exclusive but they are only exclusive because they are expensive and these skins literally aren't worth a damn when someone can swipe and buy everything instantly. Time gated skins are terrible and prey on people's psyche so they buy them before they are removed from stores and players feel like they are missing out. Delivery times don't matter because you can buy the skin codes for funko pops.

1 hour ago, hhh2 said:

It doesn't matter than those Jordans are made for pennies in Vietnamese sweatshops, their scarcity makes them a status good.

How you don't know that only poor people buy goods from expensive brands to show off as a wealthy person when they are middle class is beyond me. Real rich people don't wear flashy clothes at all, this just exists to drain the bank account of poor or middle class people that usually make poor choices when it comes to finances.

A lot of these goods are made for basically free labour in poor countries and the only thing valuable on it is the brand and material so the final cost is 10-30x less without the brand as some factories sell the same bags, shoes and everything else in these countries without the brand purely for material and craftsmanship cost and it is usually 20x cheaper.

 

Edited May 11, 2025 by 00petar00

[lowercase skye]

22 hours ago, hhh2 said:

So you're saying that collectors should just give it because there is the possibility that Klei's office gets devoured by a sinkhole one afternoon and with it the records of their ownership?  If you collected baseball cards, you can get hit by a bus and die.  If you didn't have children, your ownership of those baseball cards also disappears and they go to auction.  I don't see your point. Nothing lasts forever.

I guess it's pointless to ever care about anything if you could randomly get hit by a bus and die, good point.

Anyways, I think it's pretty easy to see the difference between collecting a physical good, and collecting the digital licenses for a video game cosmetic.
For a physical object, like baseball cards, the likely ways to lose them are:
- You die, and have no friends or family to keep them.
- You desperately need money, so sell some or all of them away.
- They get stolen and there's nothing you can do to get them back
All of these are things taking place in our physical, material world, because they're a physical, material object, and involve physical, material people and conditions.

Now in comparison, what are the likely ways to lose the digital license for a video game cosmetic?
- The company is bought by a larger one and shut down, leaving no one to maintain the servers which contain that information that you "own" a license for those skins.
- The game is deemed unprofitable to continue running the servers for, and they're shut down.
- Support for your region is ended.
- A sequel to DST comes out, and you don't like it, but the original game's servers are shut down in favor of an account transfer to DST2. You choose not to do this, because you don't want to play DST2, or maybe were simply taking a break and didn't know it existed, and now your skins are gone.
- Your Steam account is banned without you having linked it to another platform, meaning all your skins are gone.
- Klei's office gets devoured by a sinkhole.

Notice, if you will, that none of these come from other people, akin to your baseball cards being stolen or you being run over by a bus, but instead are many many ways that the systems in place here could screw you over without it being anyone's fault. You aren't buying a physical thing that you can put in a case and know is safe, you're buying a string of code in a database that tells a video game you own the rights to have your backpack turn blue. The stakes aren't "you might literally die", they're as simple as "any of the many pieces holding this live service game together could crumble even a little bit, and now you've lost hundreds of things you never actually owned in the first place."

Just buy the skins you like because you like how they look. Try to collect as many as you can, if you want! But you need to acknowledge that you aren't actually purchasing a physical object with any inherent value, you're buying permission to turn your shirt purple in a game where the shirt is usually red. Any trace of you being allowed to use this is purely digital and temporary, and can be revoked at any moment. They do not have value as a collector, and it would be ideal for everyone to be able to get them affordably, so we can support Klei as long as the game's life lasts. And whenever all the Klei devs inevitably get ran over by buses and die, we'll feel good about the fact that we weren't spending thousands of dollars on rare skins to show our "social status" in a video game, now that no one's around to keep the servers up.

Edited May 12, 2025 by lowercase skye

[hhh2]

23 hours ago, lowercase skye said:

Now in comparison, what are the likely ways to lose the digital license for a video game cosmetic?

The ways you 'lose' your license are subject to T&C's.

 

23 hours ago, lowercase skye said:

Notice, if you will, that none of these come from other people, akin to your baseball cards being stolen or you being run over by a bus, but instead are many many ways that the systems in place here could screw you over without it being anyone's fault. You aren't buying a physical thing that you can put in a case and know is safe, you're buying a string of code in a database that tells a video game you own the rights to have your backpack turn blue. The stakes aren't "you might literally die", they're as simple as "any of the many pieces holding this live service game together could crumble even a little bit, and now you've lost hundreds of things you never actually owned in the first place."

 

A house fire is a way that you can be screwed over without it being anyone's fault.  In the future and as the billion-dollar video game industry grows, there's going to be some kind of insurance.  Steam support already acts like MI5 in recovering stolen property.

 

23 hours ago, lowercase skye said:

if you want! But you need to acknowledge that you aren't actually purchasing a physical object with any inherent value, you're buying permission to turn your shirt purple in a game where the shirt is usually red. Any trace of you being allowed to use this is purely digital and temporary, and can be revoked at any moment

It cannot be revoked at any moment.  That would be illegal. As soon as there's money tied to licenses, digital whatever, legal departments get involved and you sign a EULA.  The topic of evil, illegal EULAs is beyond the scope of this debate.  Into the future, law is going to change however.  Human civilization has changed so quickly legal systems are having a hard time keeping up, especially when MPs don't have any stake in this new digital world and are caught up with eCommerce.

As I was writing my reply, I realised this is actually a very complex and modern issue.  But something does not have to be tangible for it to be valuable.  You disagree about this premise, which means you aren't going to give a crap about those who do and the existing economy of valuable things that you can't touch.  You must think the existing economy of DST's skins are a joke and don't care about the state of that economy.  You could be a little more open-minded, there are many of us that do believe in this premise and form an economy by it.  We're getting off-topic and into mockery, anyway...

Basically, this debate is believing that information cannot be a commodity against believing that it can, hardly unique, I think.  The real mistake was made a long time ago just as Klei introduced DST items to the Steam Marketplace.  If they could undo that, then we wouldn't even be having this debate, it would not be as there would be no trade. Items would have no market value because there would be no market.  Klei wouldn't hurt an economy that did not exist.  This is spilled milk.

And, don't blame the consumer, don't blame the collector.  Access to commodified sprites being limited because they have become a commodity is not the fault of the consumer.  

Klei is going to hurt collectors and the economy.  But its up in the air if they are going to choose the spear or the darksword...  

@Kaioh

[lowercase skye]

2 hours ago, hhh2 said:

It cannot be revoked at any moment.  That would be illegal.

9. Virtual Property
You have no property interest in any virtual currency, items or other property (collectively “Virtual Property”) that you obtain or purchase through or in connection with the Game. Any purchase or acquisition of Virtual Property is the purchase of a limited, non-transferable, revocable licence to use that Virtual Property within the Game. You may not transfer or resell Virtual Property for commercial gain. Virtual Property has no monetary value, and cannot be refunded or exchanged for cash or any other tangible value. If your Account is terminated or suspended for any reason, or if we discontinue the Game, all Virtual Property is unconditionally forfeited.

We have no liability for hacking or loss of your Virtual Property, and we have no obligation to (and will not) reimburse you for any Virtual Property lost due to your breach of this Agreement.

- Don't Starve Together EULA

[00petar00]

3 hours ago, hhh2 said:

illegal EULAs is beyond the scope of this debate

It is not illegal and it is very illogical to think that you have any rights when it comes to micro transactions because you can be banned for any reason either by steam or game company.

3 hours ago, hhh2 said:

Into the future, law is going to change however

So you are guessing how laws will change but you are fundamentally ignoring the biggest reason gaming is popular which is to escape reality because majority of gamers are young and it is the only part in their life where everyone is equal to them. Games that have micro transactions that are unreasonable or allow for players to spend ludicrous amounts of money would negatively impact most gamers.

3 hours ago, hhh2 said:

As I was writing my reply, I realised this is actually a very complex and modern issue.  But something does not have to be tangible for it to be valuable. 

I don't understand what is the value when developers themselves say that it holds no value as @lowercase skyereplied to you with the exact wording, it is literally similar for every single game with micro transactions.

3 hours ago, hhh2 said:

You disagree about this premise, which means you aren't going to give a crap about those who do and the existing economy of valuable things that you can't touch.

So If you can buy a picture that anyone else can buy in the world what value does it hold? It is not tangible and there was no effort when it comes to copying it so the value is very minimal. Artist can be paid off with a specific amount of purchases but why does the art hold value after in the game? Another big point to bring up is AI which will replace most artists so the art will be almost free.

3 hours ago, hhh2 said:

You must think the existing economy of DST's skins are a joke and don't care about the state of that economy. 

Players profiting from buying funko pops and selling skins for much more? Why should there even be economy for game skins?

3 hours ago, hhh2 said:

The real mistake was made a long time ago just as Klei introduced DST items to the Steam Marketplace.  If they could undo that, then we wouldn't even be having this debate, it would not be as there would be no trade. Items would have no market value because there would be no market.  Klei wouldn't hurt an economy that did not exist.  This is spilled milk.

It wouldn't solve the issue with skin exclusivity that shouldn't exist at all in games. I really don't see how this matters at all.

3 hours ago, hhh2 said:

Klei is going to hurt collectors and the economy.  But its up in the air if they are going to choose the spear or the darksword...  

Good, that's what I want to happen.

[hhh2]

@lowercase skye@00petar00

OK.  I made an assumption.  Klei can erase our inventories whenever they feel like it.  But it's stipulated like that because if Klei could be held accountable and be responsible for the survival of player's inventory and potentially pay retributions they would go bankrupt.  I assume that most EULAs look like that, but practically Klei would only do it if you somehow violate the terms of service and Klei terminates your account, sort of like how bailiffs repossess your stuff if you have fines of criminality.  Klei is incentivized to keep up the live service.  The term about discontinuing the game is so they don't go bankrupt.  In this age, if Klei did discontinue DST, some other live service game would replace it.

You're quite right, it's not illegal.  And maybe it is a little unwise to invest in items like this.

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

because you can be banned for any reason either by steam or game company.

That's exaggerating.  There's not anarchy at Valve.

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

the biggest reason gaming is popular which is to escape reality because majority of gamers are young and it is the only part in their life where everyone is equal to them

I think the reason gaming is popular is the reason that sports was popular before the transistor was invented.  Gaming is a fantastic medium for storytelling and experiences.  I was thinking the other day that the interactivity and immersion of horror games is unique to video gaming and can't be replicated with film.

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

Games that have micro transactions that are unreasonable or allow for players to spend ludicrous amounts of money would negatively impact most gamers.

Maybe.  I guess it depends on what the micro transaction is for.  As long as it isn't pay to win, I don't see the problem.  The only other use of micro transactions are status goods.  That's I think of.  I agree that status goods shouldn't exist in video games, but here we are.

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

because majority of gamers are young

That's because video games are relatively new.  The prevalence of arcades only came about forty or so years ago.  That's only half of modern life expectancy and barely a lifetime ago.

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

I don't understand what is the value when developers themselves say that it holds no value

I think it has value as soon as gamers are willing to pay for it.  I think this is similar to why the dollar is worth anything when it's not tied to gold any longer.  There's not much stopping inflation, yet we haven't ditched currency.

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

So If you can buy a picture that anyone else can buy in the world what value does it hold?

This is a very philosophical question that I can't answer.  You're asking me to explain the very rudiments of economics.  I didn't major in that.  If I had to guess it's that rare skins are valuable because of scarcity value.  This is like a question to ask a professor of economics.  I dunno!

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

It is not tangible and there was no effort when it comes to copying it so the value is very minimal

I feel this is a non sequitur.  We are missing something strange about human nature, I'm not sure what.

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

Another big point to bring up is AI which will replace most artists so the art will be almost free.

Yeah, but this is out of scope and related to the value of labor in the first place.  Maybe I'm just a hipster or philanthropic, but I would pay to see MEATGOOD's artwork over a perfect imitation that an AI produces, because I would savor knowing that MEATGOOD has benefited and he eats, and I think MEATGOOD is a good man. 

I would enter this debate and hopefully learn something, but I think I'm straining the gears of my head too much too quickly.

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

Players profiting from buying funko pops and selling skins for much more? Why should there even be economy for game skins?

I think for the reasons that Klei made the funko skins.  Gamers want them.  Some gamers would buy the funkos for the skins alone.  The price of manufacturing the plush and its markup make those funko skins have scarcity value and those funko skins effectively inherit the cost of manufacturing and the markup.

As to why there should be an economy?  I don't know.  The why isn't important.  The market of games skins can't be destroyed softly and some group will be worse for wear afterward.  Defer to where I wrote "spilled milk."

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

I really don't see how this matters at all.

You don't see how the state of things matter?  Everything begins with a state, there must be a state.  Either the chicken is first or the egg.  The state which pertains to this topic the most is that of the skin market and its the fact that it exists. 

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

skin exclusivity that shouldn't exist at all in games

I would agree, if status goods weren't a notation you can make in real life.  Some women and men wear jewellery and want to buy new clothes because they are status goods.  And you seem to agree:

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

the biggest reason gaming is popular ...  is to escape reality because it is the only part in their life where everyone is equal to them

So you must disagree with my premise that social status is a vital function of human civilization.  I need to think more about the function of social status.  It must be a developed civilization thingy, because isolated tribes like the Hazda don't exhibit it.  If that's true, can a civilization that is developed enough to develop computers and the Internet be seen without social status?

I'm unsure if opinions matter.  Ether developed civilizations eventually develop and display social status or they don't, which I think is the should or shouldn't of if skin exclusivity should exist.

On 5/13/2025 at 5:44 AM, 00petar00 said:

Good, that's what I want to happen.

I'm glad I'm not your neighbor.

Edited May 16, 2025 by hhh2

[00petar00]

7 hours ago, hhh2 said:

OK.  I made an assumption.  Klei can erase our inventories whenever they feel like it.  But it's stipulated like that because if Klei could be held accountable and be responsible for the survival of player's inventory and potentially pay retributions they would go bankrupt.  I assume that most EULAs look like that, but practically Klei would only do it if you somehow violate the terms of service and Klei terminates your account, sort of like how bailiffs repossess your stuff if you have fines of criminality.  Klei is incentivized to keep up the live service.  The term about discontinuing the game is so they don't go bankrupt.  In this age, if Klei did discontinue DST, some other live service game would replace it.

You're quite right, it's not illegal.  And maybe it is a little unwise to invest in items like this.

Games shut down and developer studios go out of business. I don't understand how you can cope so much and expect for there to be any lawsuit or pushback when game server shut down which they eventually will. I don't believe any players would hold klei legally accountable If DST servers went offline tomorrow as you get what you pay for and the outcome for every live service game is the same.

7 hours ago, hhh2 said:

That's exaggerating.  There's not anarchy at Valve.

Obviously valve is a big company and I don't need to speak much about this but If you did get banned as an exception you wouldn't be able to do anything. 

7 hours ago, hhh2 said:

That's because video games are relatively new.  The prevalence of arcades only came about forty or so years ago.  That's only half of modern life expectancy and barely a lifetime ago.

It was over 40 years ago and it still doesn't matter because the appeal of games is that everyone is on the equal playing field and skins are included here not just p2w games. A decent amount of players are already jaded and are moving to single player games and older titles because they want to buy a game and own it.

7 hours ago, hhh2 said:

I think it has value as soon as gamers are willing to pay for it.  I think this is similar to why the dollar is worth anything when it's not tied to gold any longer.  There's not much stopping inflation, yet we haven't ditched currency.

Why do you bring up fiat currency here? I don't think I ever said that dollar or any other paper currency holds any value besides the imaginary one that is enforced by governments. 

7 hours ago, hhh2 said:

This is a very philosophical question that I can't answer.  You're asking me to explain the very rudiments of economics.  I didn't major in that.  If I had to guess it's that rare skins are valuable because of scarcity value.  This is like a question to ask a professor of economics.  I dunno!

The value is enforced by the seller like NFTs that have literally failed.

8 hours ago, hhh2 said:

So you must disagree with my premise that social status is a vital function of human civilization.  I need to think more about the function of social status.  It must be a developed civilization thingy, because isolated tribes like the Hazda don't exhibit it.  If that's true, can a civilization that is developed enough to develop computers and the Internet be seen without social status?

Status seems to only matter to poor and middle class people to pretend to be wealthy. Can you explain to me why don't truly rich people buy designer brand goods? It is obviously a deception and exists to satisfy vanity but rich people don't need to care about that.

8 hours ago, hhh2 said:

I'm glad I'm not your neighbor.

I don't really understand this, wanting exclusivity gone for a picture in a video game is somehow bad? If you are trying to profit from a game by price gouging others I think that you should lose money.

[Kaioh]

On the matter of EULA, the EULA is there to give Klei legal protection so they don't get mass sued by disgruntled players in the event something goes wrong (such as if the game ends and the players lose all their inventory), as that would potentially bankrupt the company. It also gives Klei the ability to dismiss support requests from players asking them to recover accounts they might lose because of their own fault (i.e. they share account with someone untrustworthy and it gets stolen), which saves them resources and allows them to focus those on more important problems, it's not meant to be a tool to coerce players into giving up their potential collectionist ambitions. This is actually a standard practice in gaming and not exclusive to DST.

Theoretically speaking, yes Klei can devalue skins as they please, but in practice this kind of move is dangerous, so it rarely gets used, as players have the right to vote and their voting tools are their wallets. If Klei suddenly massively devalued expensive skins, players would lose consumer confidence and they would withhold investments to force such concessions in the future again, or they might even be angered enough to leave the game completely with a major distaste for the company, it would also basically lower the demand for Klei's merch as skin collectors would see no point in buying a skin for expensive amount if they can get it much cheaper later.

In my personal experience, I used to play a game that was pay to win and whose economy revolved around selling gear that was both rare and fancy but also significantly more powerful than common gear, this rare stuff was mainly purchased with real money as opposed to the common stuff that could be obtained easily with in-game currency. One day, the company developing the game decided they would dismantle the pay to win aspect of the game and make it fair for everyone, regardless of real money investments, this involved massive nerfing of the rare stuff, making it cheaper and obtainable with in-game currency and boosting common stuff to be competitive. These changes were so hated by the community that they all left in droves, and the company was forced to sell the game to a different company. By the way, the game I'm talking about had the same EULA as DST does in regards to virtual property.

Now I know that Klei mainly makes money off of pure cosmetic skins and there are barely any P2W elements in the game, but I have no doubt that this kind of devaluation of rare proof of purchase skins could have a similar devastating effect, perhaps on a lesser scale but still strong enough to affect the company. I dunno about you, but I'd rather that Klei still owns the game and isn't forced to sell it to companies such as Valofe, Gamigo etc. who have no regard for player satisfaction and instead rip off people with massive P2W elements while barely keeping the game in a zombified state. This is why a fair compromise needs to be reached between all camps of players so they're at least somewhat satisfied and no grave consequences happen as a result of siding with one side over the other.

"Gifts may result in bragging, unexpected delight, and/or enhanced gameplay experiences." - You are greeted with this text when redeeming codes in the game, it's clear Klei understands that collectors value rare skins, so let's hope they will come up with a good solution.