Mom refuses 10-year-old son's Christmas gift request for $300 video game cosmetic item: 'I am not a fan of buying things in video games'

Cosmetic items in games continue to reach new highs—when it comes to pricing—and lows in terms of the actual value you're getting for what you're paying for. Back when we were playing Nintendo 64s, the last thing any of us would have imagined was that one day, we'd be paying for unfinished games and senseless cosmetics. Now, thanks to the rise of updates and downloadable content, even our favorite and storied developers are shipping games that are missing content to be added later as "updates" or DLC.

But it can be a way for those who enjoy a game to show their appreciation and even continue to support the developer of their favorite games—even if the skins are "meaningless" cosmetics that do little to actually change the game. I have games I paid $50 for that I've spent thousands of hours playing, which, comparatively speaking, is a way better deal than the cable TV my parents were paying for monthly in the 1990s.

The problem is that many developers continue to increase prices while offering less, knowing that dedicated player bases and die-hard fans will buy skins for their player models and favorite characters without a second thought—no matter the price. But, arguing that virtual goods have no value because they're "not real" was the same argument that was being made over the 90s and 00s about trading cards, and those who "read the cards right" back then had the last laugh.