Home Dead by Daylight Forums Discussions General Discussions

A Logical Response to the Cosmetic Sets Drama

beachedbeached Member Posts: 302
edited June 2021 in General Discussions

I wanted to make it clear that I am somebody who did glitch my sets. I won’t pretend that I’m completely unbiased, but I will try to be in writing this.

”Integrity of the License”- I’m sorry but honestly I had to laugh when I heard this. The fact that they made Cybil Benet look like a critter and never even went back and revised it is honestly hilarious. They are pulling the “integrity” card as if they have EVER lived up to doing the characters they create justice in certain situations. Please look up what cybil benet looked like in silent hill 1, I promise you that it is not even remotely close to what is found in the game.

Secondly, why is the integrity of the characters all of a sudden important. Laurie Strode, Detective Tapp, Quentin, etc. have been in the game for YEARS and none of them ever prevented you from mixing up their cosmetics in outfits FAR different from what they were wearing in their creations. Sets are a fairly new option in the game, it was a way for Behavior to force a player to buy an entire outfit rather than individual pieces. They have a lot of power in the negotiating room when discussing these contracts. You cannot look at me in the eyes and tell me that Capcom said to Behavior “if a player can put a bloody head cosmetic on Leon’s re4 jacket we’re throwing our deal out the window”. Granted the specifics of these contracts are hidden from public view but I can almost promise you that Capcom and these other game companies gave a rat’s you know what about being about to change the look of an outfit.

Thirdly, even if these Intellectual property holders enforced these stupid rules about the specific look of a character why in God’s name does that have anything to do with your ORIGINAL CHARACTERS. Behavior has 100% control over their original characters, multiple of which have sets at this point. The only integrity they’re upholding is the integrity of their wallet. These IP’s are big names, but I really doubt they care if there is a SMALL fraction of people slightly changing the look of a character in dead by daylight. It’s just laughable that Behavior thinks the horror world is looking at this game in regard to integrity.

They can’t even release a functioning map despite the fact that there hasn’t been a new one in over a YEAR. The integrity is severely lacking as is but it is only the integrity of their profit margins that concern them and their investors. Overall it’s not a good look for the game in general, and a lot of people have been hurt by the decision making of Behavior, I mean for god’s sake they fixed the cosmetic glitch before console players could even play the game without it crashing. Their actions speak a lot louder than whatever their rhetoric is.

TLDR; The integrity claim is weak at best, most IP’s have not cared for as long as the game has been out so why is it only now recently an issue and why has the introduction of sets come so late after many iconic IP introductions such as Laurie strode. Original characters have nothing to do with licensing and their argument doesn’t even hold up as to why you can’t mix the sets of original characters.


  • beachedbeached Member Posts: 302

    they can be selective as they want, it’s their video game. Especially in regards to their original characters they can EASILY unlink the sets in the game. They’re deliberately choosing not to. It isn’t necessarily them upholding the integrity clause of their contracts, it’s that they don’t even do it themselves.

  • Aven_FallenAven_Fallen Member Posts: 12,429

    Or they can just keep them linked because it is their video game.

  • SupernautSupernaut Member Posts: 1,461

    If they weren't designed to be unlinked, then they're not going to go back and unlink them.

  • UnifallUnifall Member Posts: 749

    Ghostface is a good example of how fast behaviour changed. If ghostface came out now I can 100% guarantee all his outfits would be legendary. The whole licensed agreements is just an excuse to keep milking money.

  • BioXBioX Member Posts: 1,378
    edited June 2021

    Lets be honest, the sets are a cashgrab and one of the worst ones ever, its also completely transparant how evil it is regarding it unintentionally being shown that they dont have to be sets.

    And think of the logic even, Capcom only wants money, they could not care less if Leon in this game wears a clown nose if that means they get money from skins sold (like you mentioned, the quality of many characters is extremely lacking) but hey, "if we lock it we can make people ignore the fact that we did not change the head at all and make them pay more money because the head is now just part of the package"! brilliant!

    Leatherface was a set and suddenly...oh our bad, not a set teehee.

    So many dont have to be sets like the one for the twins....but no.

    And want to get to the most disgusting part? people being afraid to be banned for glitching sets in order to mix n match (which already says a LOT about the relationship and trust between the community and the devteam) so the devs say you wont be banned, players happy, investing WAY too much money to show off their combinations they are proud of (my friend included) and now....oh sorry, its all undone, after collecting the money......

    Honestly this company....I wish this game was bought out be LITERALLY any publisher that would set matters straight, EA was once voted worst company but I would EASLY rank BHVR above it for these kind of anti consumer practices, its honestly just a scam for which they cannot be punished by law, ez money.

    Now if only the community would see them for what they are and stop being atleast sets......

    (also I really cant see how these people can life with themselves)

  • Katie_metKatie_met Member Posts: 422

    I think that the sets should be sort of undone. First of all, why are Cheryl’s green outfits a set? Every piece works well when glitched out. Anyway, I think that the legendaries should stay as a set, but outfits like the goddess Jane should be half sets. The dress should be a set, the skirt doesn’t look right by itself. The top looks good by itself but no one would buy the individual skirt, however there’s no need for the head to be a part of the set. Same with the Kate outfit, the dress should be linked but the head shouldn’t. It would actually encourage players to buy cosmetics because I want the head from Kate’s Oktoberfest outfit but I don’t want the dress.

  • TragicSolitudeTragicSolitude Member Posts: 6,026
    edited June 2021

    They could at least make P3 versions of those two sets. If BHVR is going to charge so much money when Leon's head is almost the same as his default and Jill's head is actually the same, then they should make it worth the money. Make P3 versions of the old-school sets for people who prestige the characters. That would be something.

    Yeah, I wish they'd fix Claire. Her face is a huge disappointment. BHVR has a big problem sculpting heads, they need to bring in someone new to get them to stop giving all their characters long faces. The modelers try to put some spackle and paint on the girls to hide the bad foundations, but it's still noticeably "off" and BHVR needs to fix their characters' skulls.

  • MooksMooks Member Posts: 10,935
    edited June 2021

    This is just about optional cosmetic skins, you are obsessing way too much over this topic and it seems really unhealthy what you are writing here.

    if it’s just a cashgrab, don’t give them money for it. If other people like those cosmetics and think they are worth their money - who are you to judge them?

    BHVR never promised to let the glitch in the game and buying and assuming it won’t get fixed was just foolish. They just said nobody gets banned because of it, they never said it is now a feature anyone should expect to stay.

    There are actual issues in this game, especially with this update such as console performance issues. optional cosmetics -that by the way all exist for cashgrabs, not only the sets- are may be a minor inconvenience, but nothing as bad as you make it out to be here.

  • BioXBioX Member Posts: 1,378

    I only agree with you that there are more actual issues with the game, but atleast that involves a product you already paid money for, not milking consumers for more money under false promises.

    And like I said, its a scam, not something you can sue them for because they are smart enough to indeed not state anything, they make sure the idea is conveyed without committing, that is what is sooo dang scummy and slimey and simple dishonest about it.

    They should have said "we are not going to ban you but we are working on making sure you cannot mix and match sets so dont buy anything on that assumption" that would have been the open and fair thing to do.

    And again, under these super silly and weak excuses they could just lock these "licensed skins" of which they claim the dev has an issue with but leave the rest, like Jane's skins, or Kate etc, alone, but nope.

    It saddens me that you are so agreeing with these kinds of practices, it says a lot about you really that you would rather claim the people trusting the company are stupid, victim blaming at its finest.

  • MooksMooks Member Posts: 10,935

    No, mixing sets was always a glitch and everybody knew that. Don’t make a fool out of yourself. This has nothing to do with them being scummy or whatever insult you want to use here. Sets were always meant to be sets, they are advertised as such before you buy them, when buying you are forced to buy it as a set. There is no excuse for anyone to now act like something was taken away from them.

    And you know what? I knew that and I didn’t buy those sets because of it. I am not agreeing with sets being sets without a reason. But I don’t act like I didn’t have the info

  • DragonMasterDarrenDragonMasterDarren Member Posts: 2,272
    edited June 2021

    i mean, i can understand fixing it since it was a bug

    but at the same time i am willing to wager it actually made BHVR more money since people like mixing and matching cosmetics

  • miketheratguymiketheratguy Member Posts: 2,719

    There have been several threads complaining about this but I'll clarify things once more:

    BHVR is legally obligated to represent licensed characters in whatever way their respective rights holders demand. It doesn't matter how the character may have looked in this other game or that one old movie. If BHVR wants a license to a character, and the owner says "okay but they have to look like this and act like that", then those are the terms that BHVR is legally obligated to uphold. They can quite literally be sued if they allow the characters that they license to be portrayed in a way that the rights holder does not approve of.

    I'm not just speaking from the perspective of common legal sense, I'm speaking from actual experience of having personally met and worked for high-ranking staff and various developers of THQ and 2K Games, all of whom were quite familiar with the legal restrictions of using licensed characters (in this case WWE wrestlers) and all of whom confirmed explicitly that the decision to alter said characters was NOT UP TO THEM. Not only could they not implement a feature which allowed the player to change the appearance of the characters in the game (at that time), they were required to prevent attempts to do so.

    The only issue here is that BHVR seems to have decided that it's easier and / or more preferable to have a catch-all system that prevents ALL characters, licensed AND unlicensed, from being altered beyond what BVHR feels is appropriate. For unlicensed characters, this is their right. For licensed characters, this is their LEGAL OBLIGATION. Period.

    I get not liking the "integrity" explanation, but I'm getting tired of people deciding for themselves that it's just a made-up excuse.

  • BranBran Member Posts: 1,707

    i don't see how this is such a problem, i guess i'm just built different.

  • WulfasgerWulfasger Member Posts: 67
    edited June 2021

    Legendary sets can be understandable since they are a "different character" but rest of it just bullshit. Why Cheryl has linked skins, why laurie has linked skins just because they are licenced? hah, why kate has linked ones then? Even Jill's costume wasn't linked at the beginning and her hair is just same as default, i didn't bought the hair at the beginning but now its linked, i can use it with default hair which causes some costume glitches but i dont care. This linked ######### needs to be stopped. I love cosmetics and i pay ton for them but if BHVR continues to do some shits like that, i won't buy any of them. Cosmetic things big part is mixing them and creating unique sets with them. As always BHVR doing and focusing on wrong things again.

  • BioXBioX Member Posts: 1,378
  • miketheratguymiketheratguy Member Posts: 2,719

    Matter of fact, you're throwing around a lot of conjecture and presenting it as evidence.

    You do not know the details of BHVR's licensing agreement with Capcom. You weren't there, you aren't involved. None of us are. We can look at Claire and assume that Capcom wouldn't approve all we want, but our assumptions do not make something fact. That Claire exists in her current state without any alterations or announcements from either Capcom or BHVR suggests that Capcom approved her design before release (almost guaranteed), gave BHVR some flexibility in designing her character model, or are - at worst - upset and working things out behind the scenes. The idea of BHVR just slapping together a design without Capcom's consent - a presumable breach of contract in complete defiance of their intellectual property rights - is absurd.

  • gendossgendoss Member Posts: 2,270

    Literally the only reason I ever bought legendary cosmetic sets was so they could be glitched. Of course it's still a glitch but I know for a fact that they were making more money because of this. You had to go way out of your way to do it, it wasn't like it was a standard option.

  • MooksMooks Member Posts: 10,935

    It’s better this way. Your ‚arguments‘ didn’t hold any grounds and throwing around the term ‚victim blaming‘ for people that knowingly and intentionally used a glitch to get cosmetics broken wasn’t helping your point either. the term most fitting here would have been ‚victimizing yourself‘ for the ones that act like they had a right for sets to be broken

  • BranBran Member Posts: 1,707

    these people who're really upset need to grow up and move on.

  • Freddy96Freddy96 Member Posts: 734

    Who was gonna sue bhvr for glitched minotaur skin? Homer

  • miketheratguymiketheratguy Member Posts: 2,719


    Even if we just assume (as many have been, so why not) that BHVR is evil, or inept, or cares only for profit (while simultaneously doing things that make them less money, apparently), the simple fact is this: People are angry that an unintended bug was fixed and that they can no longer exploit it for their own enjoyment. Does it suck that something fun isn't possible anymore? I didn't use the glitch but sure, I'll grant that most players would either be in favor of it or just not care one way or another. But do I feel bad for people who are lashing out with unbridled spite at the company for somehow wronging them, when what actually happened is that the company exercised its right to alter the game as they see fit, up to and reasonably including the choice to fix glitches that were never intended to be in the game to begin with AND potentially open them up to the possibility of a lawsuit? No.

    Let's pretend that I made a habit of sneaking a cooler into McDonalds and filling it with ice so I didn't have to buy my own. McDonalds has ice machines for a reason, right? It's free. So why should they care if I use their ice machines in a way that they didn't intend? Why should it matter to them if I'm doing something that doesn't hurt anybody, regardless of the fact that it's exploiting a feature of their restaurant which I'm only getting away with because they haven't done something to stop me? Now let's pretend that today I went in there and they said "hey, you can't do that. You're not allowed to bring a cooler in here anymore". Man, that would make them MASSIVE jerks, wouldn't it?

  • beachedbeached Member Posts: 302

    Thank you for drawing out the entire pint of me saying “I am unsure of what actually went down but we can assume”. It’s a video game forum, not the New York post. There’s going to be speculation.

  • miketheratguymiketheratguy Member Posts: 2,719

    Of course there is. That doesn't change the point that when you throw out something that is the type complete and utter speculation that you mention, it's irresponsible to phrase it is as some kind of known fact.

  • neonblushneonblush Member Posts: 68

    I understand the licensed character thing because Capcom may have asked in the contract that their characters look true to how they are supposed to look.

    The thing I can’t understand is why do DBD’s have to be included in that?

    I understand why certain cosmetics are a set (like Kate’s Oktoberfest dress) because the torso is higher and it causes a gap in her body. Just breaking some of the sets into 2 pieces would be so much better. There is no reason why the head cosmetic can’t be used separately. I guess they just don’t want to change the code.

    So many people paid full price for a set to use ONE piece of it with the glitch, so I definitely think they’ll lose money if they continue to release linked cosmetics because no one will buy them for 1 piece anymore, and people did that a lot.

Sign In or Register to comment.