I would also like to reiterate my intense dislike of loot boxes. It is literally just less regulated gambling. The mechanics are no different than a modern slot machine, but children and NEETs are the target audience.

I have no problem with collectors and speculative markets, but there has to be a line somewhere. s&box can and should be better.

@Bloodmasked Tldr you don’t want the economy to prosper. Got it.

This guy doesn't contribute anything meaningful to conversations, just ignore him.

What does this have to do with Valve exactly? Take your schizo rants elsewhere.

I'm fine with allowing people to resell their collectables, as long as those collectables weren't obtained via Skinner box. Things get dark fast when you mix dopamine and money.

it kinda depends on what types of games you guys are hoping to see on the S&box platform, imo.

I have to imagine most of the big serious games will be using custom content, so would the accessories even retain much real value outside some sort of fomo-level speculative investment (people buying hoping they go up in price later), if a lot of the popular games don't even utilize them? (I suppose it still does in roblox but idk I don't play roblox, never have)

If you look at the current charts, a good number of the games don't even use anything that can utilize the baseline cosmetics as they are, that to me is a big turn off from buying any cosmetics from you guys. I will also end up using my own assets for my games anyways most likely.

Being able to sell my own cosmetics in a separate section on my game page (shop tab when people click on game on sbox.game ?) could be nice, but obviously you'd have to vet a lot of stuff for that, but  I believe roblox has that functionality baked in as well.

As for your cut, I mean it depends on if the game is f2p or paid and how much all of these servers even cost you to run. Personally, I would say make your cut more than you think it should be at first before release, and later on lower your cut if needed. That would feel a lot better than if you found out later you needed to increase your cut to help with operation costs or w/e.

Another random thought, might be cool if there was an incentive to sort of recreate some facepunch cosmetics in your games style and sync it with the customization/steaminventory stuff to display on their character in your own game, in your own way, if they have it equipped. An example would be recreating say, the hard hat as a 2d sprite for sausage survivors, and just putting it on the sprite if you detect they have that equipped on their avatar. 

Having some bonus play-fund splits based on verified re-integrations of paid cosmetics (only showing if the person owns 'em) I think could be cool, makes cosmetics more valuable and sort of helps all involved with 'em.

Might be cool to have random drops from playing games as part of the economy too, as long as it doesn't just encourage afk botting.

Calling cosmetics "microtransactions" is misleading because they don’t impact gameplay and exist purely as optional vanity items. The market determines their value based on demand, not some arbitrary price set in isolation. If a skin sells for $2,000, it’s because enough players see it as worth that amount. Whether or not you personally agree with that valuation is irrelevant, the market has already spoken. No one is forced to buy them, and their existence doesn’t harm anyone who chooses not to participate. Complaining about their price ignores the fundamental principle of supply, demand, and personal choice.

Cosmetics are microtransactions, it's not misleading, it's literally what they are

Here let me help you with that

Calling microtransactions 'cosmetics' is misleading.

As someone who's not terribly active in these circles at the moment, take my opinion with a grain of salt but,
If the purpose of skins and the like is to drive transactions to fund creators (for both skins created and games), then there's lots of evidence to suggest the most sustainable market style is very very similar to how Rust functions at the moment. 
In reality people can be critical of expensive skins that climb over time, but this retains interest in the market, and encourages players who can afford to purchase skins they like to purchase them when they see them, and not just sit on it since there's no incentive to transact. 

Since the entire system relies on consistent sales any kind of permanent store with permanent skins would likely lead to far less sales overall which means less revenue for the creator, less revenue for Facepunch and less revenue for the play fund. 

Crates as a mechanism can certainly be predatory, and I can understand that people will be against the idea.
I think it doesn't work at all in a permanent market since the bad crate items will essentially be lost money, if you can do it in a way that's limited, and those items retain value/climb in value over time due to their limited purchase window, then it's marginally less predatory, but it's very polarising, for sure. 

TLDR: If purchased skins retain value/climb in value through a limited time market, the overall economy is healthier and purchasing parties are always able to get some value in return for their investment (if they don't want the skin anymore for whatever reason)

I disagree with crates, it's just gambling for kids and I don't think they should be allowed at all. I think having them sold with some being limited and the rest not is the best way to go with it

Crates in my country are illegal anyways , and I think for good reason.
If people wants crates they could make them in their own game. But even if this game isn't targeting to childeren everyone knows they can get their hands on anything if they really wanted.

Other than that I think a 30% 30% 40% cut is fine. I would like it more if the creator got 50% but having Valve earn more than FP from a sale would also be pretty weird.

Thanks for the nuanced response and for providing the definition of microtransaction. I now see that you're right and will concede solely on the grounds of semantics. 

Maybe Valve should stop selling games on Steam via very small financial transactions conducted online.

To be clear, crates, tradable items, and microtransactions are three entirely separate things. I am not sure I am sold on the idea that tradable items with market value is inherently predatory. 

i agree i think i have lower than 80 iq

Late to the discussion but,
Super exciting stuff!

I am really looking forward to the loot crates, I think they will make an excellent addition. I think all the arguments about "gambling" and "children" are just mainly people who don't know the first thing about investing (and likely do not own any cryptocurrency.)

Question for the developers- when can we expect full blockchain NFT integration in S&Box? Users would feel a lot more safe purchasing large sums of money and buying expensive keys if they were on a decentralized blockchain. Might I recommend you look into the Solana network for its low fees? 

Keep up the great work!
(Up over 100% on my $5,000 Christmas Skin investment, love you guys!)

S&box will get NFT support only so that they'll get a free review from Jauwn out of it.
They'll remove all NFT's after that.

ZigZag congratulation on your investment. People don't really think NFT games are good.
Most of them are slop.

But the thing is cosmetics  are a form a micro-transaction. (Buying the game and after that you have micro-payments for features. (the features being the cosmetics)
Yes it doesn't provide p2w advantages. 

Most people don't really mind the micro-transactions because on average only around 10% people purchase them. (or even less.)

This is not a simple situation when cosmetics = bad , or cosmetics = good.
Most of the success is based on the public interesting in S&box and public understanding of S&box.

Proud-Devote
That's the best ad that S&box can have!

Plus there's already an NFT game called "The Sandbox" that tries to be a Roblox successor. When talking about S&box about friends some already did confuse the two and thought I bought into a Crypto sceme lol.

Yea. This will be a bit confusing for people.
I call the game S[Q]Box. Because a lot of people heard about "The Sandbox' they think about that crypto game.

S&box without NFTs = Dead on arrival

S&box with NFTs = Rivals NYSE 

I think the second-hand skin economy in general is a bad idea and creates the wrong incentives for people purchasing these skins. They shouldn't be purchased as a form of investment, but as a cool looking skin.

I like TF2's implementation of the store, for example. If I see a new taunt released that I think is cool, I don't have to buy it immediately or else the price will go up by a gazillion due to artificial scarcity. I can purchase it when I feel like using it and feel good about my purchase since I didn't have to open a crate to try and get access to it, nor did I have to purchase it on the community market second-hand for a crazy expensive price.

I do understand that FOMO generates more profits though as more money comes in, but I think it's coming in for the wrong reasons and people are buying skins they don't want, they're buying skins as an investment or they're getting ripped off and buying a skin for way more than it was originally priced at. Contrast to crates, where people are buying for a gambling chance of making more money, which isn't great either but I think it's marginally better.

Sbox without TF2 = Dead on arrival

Sbox with TF2 = Rivals internet providers