Hacker News Reader

Comment by nemothekid | Hacker News Reader

>Fortnite is its own evil. They only show an extremely small fraction of the items available each day,

They're skins. They have no in-game effect. If your need for social validation is so great that you would spend your life savings on skins then that should be a personal problem. Unlike lootboxes, the transactions is clear as day and there's no gambling aspect. I wouldn't call Nike evil because they refuse to re-release Jordan 1s.

View on HN

>They're skins. They have no in-game effect.

This is true in exactly the sense that the brand and type of sneakers you wear has no-in school effect.

There's a huge difference between the two. Shoes and shoe culture can matter a huge amount to some people. Skins aren't really in the same category. Skins literally do nothing, and don't have the same value or impact on a person's identity or social standing. Shoes do. Not to me, but some people do care.

It may surprise you to know that there's a similar culture that revolves around skins. That's why people buy them and trade them.

I don't know a lot about it and it isn't as clearly visible as sneaker culture but I know it exists, because I used to play that game and there were people in various discords and steam chats who were obsessed with skins to the point it was all they could talk about.

This is a "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" take. Ok, both Nike and Epic are evil; Nike & every other luxury brand should now be banned from any artificial scarcity.

That wasn't really the point I was making.

I was making the point that goods which practically affect one's appearance in reality affect more than just one's appearance due to the nature of human personality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com