That cost grants meaning to everything.
EG. Add a lives system to the game, and have the character die permanently if you couldn’t bother farming enough.
Boom. Meaning.
Well if lives are very easy to get, then the cost has no meaning.
ok, well that doesn’t even approach addressing what I was asking, but I don’t find meaning in repetition, so I’m just not going to.
What the fuck, dude xD Did you seriously compare adjusting accessibility settings in a software program to core gameplay systems that are meant to create an engaging experience? Send help, I’m dying 
On a more serious note, try imagining this:
You’re playing an RPG with a heavy emphasis on story. The game presents you with difficult choices that meaningfully shape the narrative. Now imagine you make an important decision and it leads to a bad outcome - one you’re not happy about.
If you could just click a button and instantly revert that choice, then the decision itself would lose all weight. It would stop being a choice and turn into a temporary toggle. And at that point, the entire system would feel hollow.
That’s the difference. Systems that are meant to carry consequence and tension can’t be treated like simple settings sliders without undermining their purpose.
In terms of gear and character building - once you remove the importance of choices and their consequences, what’s even the point? At that stage, you might as well implement a full character editor directly into the game and let players generate and tweak whatever they want for free. I’m sure such game would be a smashing hit.
2 Likes
It’s called warframe and it’s doing great.
I don’t care what it meant to, I care what it does. And, no, it’s not more engaging.
No. I rhetorically compared.
That IS funny.
NO.. Not Warframe, Im Pretty Sure The Game Is Called SPORE and at Every NEW Stage In SPORE you can Customize Your Character, Boats, Cars, House, Spaceship and your War FRAME..
-EDIT 
Im Just Adding To It! 
So… Are you okay lol?
1 Like
Well you wanted to know when adding a cost doesn’t add meaning. I feel like I answered that question - i.e. when the cost is irrelevant/too low. I am pretty sure I addressed what you were asking. Maybe you didn’t like the answer.
In regards to repeating yourself, words can be interpreted and taken differently by different people, and rewording something to enhance the audiences understanding is a better strategy than simply repeating what you have already said, especially if you get any sort of indication or feeling that you have been misunderstood.
I think I’ve elaborated maybe 5 different times in this thread, and I keep getting answers to the addendum as opposed to the original question.
This would mean more cost is always better. You know this doesn’t work.
(I just realized this is literally the brute force argument lol: If it’s not working it’s because you’re not using enough)
Final attempt:
What are the counter arguments? When and Why would this NOT work?
(Every time I’ve asked this, I’ve gotten a hefty resupply of the opposite of what I’m asking for. I’m not asking you to tell me again why you think it works. Nor how amazing weight and meaning is, nor how great it is to add inconvenience in the same way that every other game tends to, nor how hollow it feels without it, nor how you prefer it, nor how I’m supposed to pretend it’s true…)
Maybe it’s more helpful to actually state the purpose of the question, instead: There’s always conflicting forces to be considered when making any decision. I’m asking you to identify them. currently, basically all the arguments lead in one direction, and they currently take you to the absurd conclusion that less convenience is always better in the cost to your resources, time and sanity.
Maybe you’d like to give that conclusion your stamp of approval?
You are taking arguments as “always” arguments when that word is never used. It’s a question of balance. No cost, you may have no meaning. Too much cost and it becomes a burden. Meaning is not necessary. It is something I like.
Using “this” back to back can get confusing because I think your reference is changing without you specifying. I assume you mean - When and why would adding a cost not create meaning? I feel like my argument on lives answers that question - when the cost is too low, it does not create meaning. But I’m a bit lost here because we are arguing for having a cost, and I thought you were arguing for not having one. So we think having a cost works, but you want us to argue for why it would not work, when I thought that was your position to begin with.
A great example of not having any cost being better, in which case adding a cost would create meaning, but not in a good way, is Wuchang. The talent tree is absolutely massive. Trying to make changes to it, especially once you have a lot of points in it, is a burden all by itself. Changing which weapon you specialize in is a pain, even though it’s absolutely free and you can do it any time. Certain weapon abilities don’t work against certain bosses, so there is value to being able to change things at any time. Adding a cost in this particular example adds no value and only hinders the player in an area that is already a hindrance.
I think this was the crux. I don’t want to argue at all. I’m trying to get you to explore the idea, by stating the whole picture of the idea, which is why I didn’t see a point in continuing if all I’ll keep getting is half a picture.
The reason it frustrates me is that the edge cases are the ones that matter. but when you don’t explore the whole idea, it has no shape and there is no edge. And when you’re designing a game, the edge is what you’re balancing around.
This is when I’d try to invent rules to land me on the edge.
And the things you described aren’t actually the things I observed. Cost granting value isn’t entirely wrong, but there’s often an cost that’s unavoidable in most games that’s not to be underestimated that makes any additional resources redundant in my eyes. Want to venture a guess?
I’m apparently speaking like a wizard protecting a bridge with riddles now. Bear with me lol