• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Skinpop
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:34 AM)
Skinpop's Avatar

Originally Posted by MadLaughter

In a game like Overwatch, I am okay with cosmetic loot boxes existing if that revenue means I get free maps and characters, and also earn them at an okay pace.

this is delusional. Overwatch has sold what - 30 mil copies at $40 or so. That's enough money to support the game with "free" content for a decade and still make an enormous profit.

I don't get how you guys can be ok with loot boxes of any form considering the random "gamble" element. You don't have to defend all aspects of a game just because you like it.
ExReey
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:37 AM)
Which was the first game ever to contain loot boxes? Was it CSGO?
Ferrio
Banned
(10-07-2017, 02:38 AM)
Ferrio's Avatar

Originally Posted by ExReey

Which was the first game ever to contain loot boxes? Was it CSGO?

I betting a mobile game did.
hawk2025
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:39 AM)
hawk2025's Avatar
“I’m ok with loot boxes, because *I* get “free” content on the backs of some poor addicted chap! Everybody wins!”
Aztechnology
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:40 AM)
Aztechnology's Avatar
I'd say more than anything the latest trends and moves are more about risk management for the companies. I also don't really mind loot boxes that much, I usually play plenty if its a game I'm invested in and unless it's an egregious offender, I never even feel inclined to buy a loot box. That being said it's allowed a lot of companies to effectively change their content releases to focus primarily on loot boxes and the cosmetic or otherwise items within them.

Destiny, Overwatch etc. Are more focused on creating content to go into their loot packs, than actual content to play. When it's brought up, people defend it by saying "Well the content is free so". No, it's really not, it's just been subsidized in a more profitable way. It also works out that many consumers prefer it, so that's good. But it doesn't give them an excuse to basically not care about putting out real content, especially when they keep stretching out games/milking them for longer and longer.

From a thread I created a while back, feel like it's pertinent here.

My assertion is that publishers have become more reactionary over time. To limit risk in terms of development because of increasing cost, and make up for those "losses" They push out framework, or foundational games at a $60 price tag with an additional cost for Season Pass. In the next year they then release DLC to fill out or round out the content, culminating in a Year one or Definitive edition that amounts to a complete title. This allows pubs/devs to adjust their resources and focus as they see fit over the last year of development depending on sales numbers of both the game and season pass. This is both a good and bad thing IMO. It can prompt developers to listen to community suggestions and then change/re-work parts of the game. However it can also be abused by causing publishers to reduce funding and change goals post release depending on how much value they see in it. I believe many AAA publishers think their "full" games should cost significantly more than $60 but simply don't believe people will be willing to pay the cost upfront for a completed title, thus resulting in a work in progress model of games.

Now it's just changed to the same thing, supplemented by loot crates. But has gotten worse when it comes to actually having to provide real content, because their income as time progresses is tied not as much to additional game sales, but to microtransactions. So selling premium or newer content isn't really the incentive anymore, well it is, but just enough to keep people coming back so they pay out of the newest set of loot crate stuff.
LordRaptor
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:45 AM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by hawk2025

“I’m ok with loot boxes, because *I* get “free” content on the backs of some poor addicted chap! Everybody wins!”

Okay, now reword that as "I'm okay with Patreon funded content, because *I* get "free" content on the backs of people that donate! Everybody wins!" and describe what the problem exactly is
Compsiox
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:47 AM)
Compsiox's Avatar
Cosmetic only boxes are fine.

As long as they at least let us get some cosmetic content/lootboxes without paying money.
O Canada Our Home and Native Land
Banned
(10-07-2017, 02:49 AM)
With the success of f2p mobile and pc games in the amount of players and revenue, people who are against loot boxes are probably a minority now. Unfortunate, but true.
hawk2025
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:52 AM)
hawk2025's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Okay, now reword that as "I'm okay with Patreon funded content, because *I* get "free" content on the backs of people that donate! Everybody wins!" and describe what the problem exactly is

lol

We both know this ridiculous pivot doesn’t work. Surely I don’t have to highlight the Grand Canyon-wide difference between subsidizing a well-defined public good with a fixed monthly fee, and the mountain of academic evidence on the addictive nature of random boxes, right? Right?
Aztechnology
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:53 AM)
Aztechnology's Avatar

Originally Posted by O Canada Our Home and Native Land

With the success of f2p mobile and pc games in the amount of players and revenue, people who are against loot boxes are probably a minority now. Unfortunate, but true.

I know you didn't ask, but speaking personally I'm not at all against loot boxes and the dynamic it provides if it means keeping communities from splitting due to gated content through DLC's. I think it's the lesser of two evils. That being said, I think it leads to a prioritization of making stuff for loot boxes, instead of really expanding a game.

I think OW is a pretty good example of this. I mean in terms of loot boxes/rewards without cost it's been pretty good, but the content releases really take a back seat to "Events" for loot. I think Destiny is also kind of trending towards this loop, with the "Events" not being tied to loot boxes necessarily, but there for minimal development effort that brings people back to your game where new cosmetics/shaders/sparrows/ships will be released as well.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:56 AM)
ArkhamFantasy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Compsiox

Cosmetic only boxes are fine.

As long as they at least let us get some cosmetic content/lootboxes without paying money.

They can dramatically inflate the grind needed to get items, then customize the RNG so you almost never get what you want. They hire mental health professionals to help exploit gambling addictions in players.

Titanfall 2 is the one premium game where i find the microtransactions acceptable. They have no season pass, you can buy exactly what you want, the grind is similar to the original game (which doesnt have microtransactions) and they give maps and other stuff free.
autoduelist
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:58 AM)
autoduelist's Avatar

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

Here's my defense: This is better than the alternative, which is $80-$90 games or fewer games.

There is no reason to think our games would suddenly be $80-$90 if loot boxes weren't a thing. That's straight up ridiculous in fact, given the vast majority of $60 games don't have them and... are still $60.

The market supports $60 games. There is no reason games can't be developed with this budget in mind.

There is also no reason to suspect we'll suddenly be getting games with an $90 per unit budget for $60 simply because it has loot boxes. In fact, we're probably getting a less than $60 per unit budget, since time/money was spent designing the loot boxes.

Originally Posted by Aters

People also voted with their wallet for Heroin.

Heroin isn't going anywhere, either.

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Okay, now reword that as "I'm okay with Patreon funded content, because *I* get "free" content on the backs of people that donate! Everybody wins!" and describe what the problem exactly is

Going out of your way to donate towards a project's completion isn't even -close- to a third party abusing addictive mechanics to profit.

I mean, seriously, me giving $50 to the local cat charity is an act of kindness I do every once in awhile when I think of it. When I go to Vegas and drop a couple hundred? That's because I'm gambling and am caught up in the addiction cycle.

Casino's spend a fortune ensuring their various games encourage the most spending [ie, buying more slot lines, ensuring the super payout is linked only to max play, etc]. Likewise, developers using loot boxes are spending a lot of money researching/designing their games to maximize their income from whales.

I have to believe you see the difference.
Compsiox
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:59 AM)
Compsiox's Avatar

Originally Posted by ArkhamFantasy

They can dramatically inflate the grind needed to get items, then customize the RNG so you almost never get what you want. They hire mental health professionals to help exploit gambling addictions in players.

Titanfall 2 is the one premium game where i find the microtransactions acceptable. They have no season pass, you can buy exactly what you want, the grind is similar to the original game (which doesnt have microtransactions) and they give maps and other stuff free.

Im aware of all of this.

I simply don't care much about cosmetics.

My post was more of my opinion. But yeah people with gambling issues should get the help they need.

Its up to the government to regulate this shit though.
tuxfool
Member
(10-07-2017, 03:01 AM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Okay, now reword that as "I'm okay with Patreon funded content, because *I* get "free" content on the backs of people that donate! Everybody wins!" and describe what the problem exactly is

Difference is that people paying on patreon:

1) know what content they are receiving.
2) there is no gambling involved.
3) they don't need to make an additional payment just to join patreon.

The Patreon equivalent to a lootbox would be if you paid for a chance to support the content producer you want to support. Keep spinning that RNG until you get the right person.
Endless Fluff
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 03:23 AM)

Originally Posted by ExReey

Which was the first game ever to contain loot boxes? Was it CSGO?

Originally Posted by Ferrio

I betting a mobile game did.

It was neither, because it started long before that.

Asian F2P games are to blame. The first contact I had with this rng p2w loot was Trickster Online (my first and last F2P where I've spent thousands of dollars over 2 years), the english version came out by the end of 2005 (it was already a few years old and really popular in asia) and it had a so called "Gacha Game".

It was essentially what lootboxes are nowadays, you were just spinning an rng wheel to get p2w loot. They introduced real boxes (you could only buy with bullshit currency) a year after launch, with better and better gear. This was on a bi-weekly basis and got me addicted. I ended up spending $500-700 each month before I quit.

I remember that more or less all F2P games had rng real money gambling, at least the ones I've played.

To me it looks like AAA games have completely changed into F2P games from 10 years ago.
LAM09
Member
(10-07-2017, 03:25 AM)
LAM09's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nerd_Incognito

I'm fine with loot boxes only if they provide cosmetic items. Anything to do with providing an advantage over other players needs to be abolished.

This is my stance too. Pay to win should never be a thing
Kin5290
Member
(10-07-2017, 03:32 AM)
Kin5290's Avatar

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

Games went from $50 to $60 with the Xbox 360 in 2005. $60 in 2005 is worth $76 today. So games have essentially seen a significant price cut and publishers have eaten that. On top of that, games are more expensive to make today than they were in 2005. So game creators are feeling it on both sides. This is why they try to drive up the average value of each player by introducing collector's editions, season passes, and loot boxes -- $60 isn't enough for games.

This doesn't explain why publisher profits have skyrocketed if they are feeling so much pressure costwise.
LordRaptor
Member
(10-07-2017, 03:34 AM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by tuxfool

Difference is that people paying on patreon:

1) know what content they are receiving.
2) there is no gambling involved.
3) they don't need to make an additional payment just to join patreon.

The Patreon equivalent to a lootbox would be if you paid for a chance to support the content producer you want to support. Keep spinning that RNG until you get the right person.

People buying loot boxes know what they are receiving, in any of the many F2P games available there is no extra purchase beyond lootboxes, and many patreons there is no assurance that whatever it is you believe you are funding actually gets made, because thats not the point of patreon.

You can feel how you like about lootboxes, but it is patently absurd to suggest that a system where a few who are willing to pay subsidise the many who don't is somehow automatically sinister or abusive, when there are numerous examples of that at work, patreon being an extremely obvious one.
Dick Justice
Banned
(10-07-2017, 03:53 AM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

People buying loot boxes know what they are receiving, in any of the many F2P games available there is no extra purchase beyond lootboxes, and many patreons there is no assurance that whatever it is you believe you are funding actually gets made, because thats not the point of patreon.

You can feel how you like about lootboxes, but it is patently absurd to suggest that a system where a few who are willing to pay subsidise the many who don't is somehow automatically sinister or abusive, when there are numerous examples of that at work, patreon being an extremely obvious one.

Wut?
LordRaptor
Member
(10-07-2017, 04:04 AM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dick Justice

Wut?

Shockingly your overwatch lootcrate bought you items for use in Overwatch....?
Tapejara
Member
(10-07-2017, 04:43 AM)
Tapejara's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Shockingly your overwatch lootcrate bought you items for use in Overwatch....?

- I want the Witch Mercy skin, in order to do so I need to keep grinding so I can get lootboxes, which does not actually guarantee me the skin I want. I can buy more lootboxes with real cash, but once again this does not actually guarantee me the Witch Mercy skin, only the chance of getting it.

vs.

- I like someone's podcast/writing/YouTube videos, so I contribute a few dollars a month to support them.

How is this comparable? Yes, in both cases it's a small group subsidizing content for a greater audience, but there's a huge difference in how lootboxes are implemented (randomized content designed to take as much money from players as possible) vs. Patreon, which is essentially just a donation service.
Nick_C
Member
(10-07-2017, 05:03 AM)
Nick_C's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

.

The mental gymnastics on display here are astounding.

People buying loot boxes know what they are receiving,

The people buying loot boxes know what they want and, oftentimes, the only way to get what they want is to pay for the chance to get that.

in any of the many F2P games available there is no extra purchase beyond lootboxes,

There are a couple of problems with this statement. A large portion of this conversation revolves around loot box systems, and the economies to maximize the end user engaging with them, being designed for full-priced, "AAA" titles. Another issue with your statement is that many f2p games also offer the purchase of heroes, skins, mounts, etc to offset the cost of keeping new content coming and ensurig that they can pay for the overhead to continually support the game.

and many patreons there is no assurance that whatever it is you believe you are funding actually gets made, because thats not the point of patreon.

Just went over to Patreon to take a look at some of the most successful pages they have. Randomly chose Video & FIlm Top 20 and, with the exception of 3 pages*, every other creator has clearly defined goals as to what their supporters money brings to their content. If a creator fails to meet the terms of the agreement the audience pulls their money out. Set up a Patreon, fail to deliver on that promise and then tell your supporters, "Hey, I missed it this month, but if you keep giving me money maybe I'll get around to it next time!" This doesn't even take into consideration that many have set up user pladge levels, much like Kickstarter, where each level comes with direct benefits like access to special post and the forums.

You can feel how you like about lootboxes, but it is patently absurd to suggest that a system where a few who are willing to pay subsidise the many who don't is somehow automatically sinister or abusive, when there are numerous examples of that at work, patreon being an extremely obvious one.

Look, this isn't a tax system, where the government takes money from the people that are much better off to help out the people that are unable to support themselves for myriad reasons. These are deliberately designed mechanisms to maximize payout from a group of people that really want that one Mercy Halloween skin, whom either can't be bothered to grind away for hours, or simply have a compulsion to hit their jackpot. Stop reminding players that the "easy option" is a few mouse clicks away and remove this shit entirely from games, put it up on WB Interactive's website and, all of the sudden, they've set up a gambling site that rewards players with digital goods at the cost of real money.

Patreon doesn't ask for a $40-$60 cover charge before you can even access their site either.

* The three being Blind Wave, Leo Moracchioli and Strange mysteries (they offer a poll).
DZ_b_EZ
Member
(10-07-2017, 05:23 AM)
DZ_b_EZ's Avatar
People are idiots.

(controversial rage ensues)
JABEE
Member
(10-07-2017, 05:34 AM)
JABEE's Avatar
It’s not about subsidizing the price of games. That’s the biggest lie around. Games are priced the way they are based off what they believe customers would honestly pay for a game. Collectors editions and gold editions access more money from invested players.

Publishers do and will charge more than $60 as soon as the numbers work. They already sell new product at more than $60.

It will only get worse because the name of the game is growth. Anyone telling you it has to do with costs of production is buying the spin. It’s about growth and finding new ways to increase profits.

Cost matters when it comes to paying their temp employees, negotiating with all non-union labor, outsourcing, and re-using assets and middleware engines utilized in previous games.

Game publishers aren’t just getting by. They are stacking cash and the whales and children they exploit without care are fueling this system.
Sanctuary
Member
(10-07-2017, 05:35 AM)
Sanctuary's Avatar
Sändersson
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:06 AM)

Originally Posted by Skinpop

this is delusional. Overwatch has sold what - 30 mil copies at $40 or so. That's enough money to support the game with "free" content for a decade and still make an enormous profit.

I don't get how you guys can be ok with loot boxes of any form considering the random "gamble" element. You don't have to defend all aspects of a game just because you like it.

Also why cant I decide which cosmetics I want? Why on earth does it need to be random? It doesnt add any value to me that I get skin drops which I never use.
Nick_C
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:08 AM)
Nick_C's Avatar

Originally Posted by JABEE

It’s not about subsidizing the price of games. That’s the biggest lie around. Games are priced the way they are based off what they believe customers would honestly pay for a game. Collectors editions and gold editions access more money from invested players.

Publishers do and will charge more than $60 as soon as the numbers work. They already sell new product at more than $60.

It will only get worse because the name of the game is growth. Anyone telling you it has to do with costs of production is buying the spin. It’s about growth and finding new ways to increase profits.

Cost matters when it comes to paying their temp employees, negotiating with all non-union labor, outsourcing, and re-using assets and middleware engines utilized in previous games.

Game publishers aren’t just getting by. They are stacking cash and the whales and children they exploit without care are fueling this system.

This. If it was about remaining profitable there are way less egregious ways of doing it. Namely providing content that the playerbase wants to buy without attaching it to a digital lottery ticket.

If it's about making money hand over fist then you remove the spending ceiling for the players that want the item by sticking in the aforementioned digital lottery ticket.
///PATRIOT
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:12 AM)
///PATRIOT's Avatar
My mom always said life was like a lootbox. You never know what you're gonna get.
OrbitalBeard
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:14 AM)
OrbitalBeard's Avatar

Originally Posted by Plumpbiscuit

It seems like loot boxes are here for fucking good.

Of course they are, at least in the majority of AAA and service based games going forward. Consumers at large have fully embraced them. The good thing about the modern video game landscape is AAA is far from your only option anymore when it comes to playing great titles.
FlaygletheBagel
Banned
(10-07-2017, 06:16 AM)
How is this even an argument? Genuinely stunned at the scoliosis people are getting from bending over backwards to outright defend P2W microtransactions. Even cosmetic-only lootboxes are morally grey but P2W lootboxes should be pretty clearly one of the most disdainful, corrupt practices in the video game industry. And now they're the norm for Western AAAs and not the exception.

Fuck this shit. I'm not buying a single game that has lootboxes from now on. I'll take Mario Odyssey and Wolfenstein this holiday, along with some great indies, and I'll bow out for the rest of the year while every other AAA publisher stumbles over each other in the race to be the shittiest entity in the entire medium.
Shengar
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:16 AM)
Shengar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Plumpbiscuit

That was the argument that was said to me in response to the whole Shadow of War/NBA/Forza/Battlefront controversy with loot boxes. To cut a long, long argument short: I am against loot boxes in paid-for AAA games, and in fact the only one who was in the group conversation, and everyone else were okay with loot boxes. However, a collective agreement by them concluded that loot boxes are good and that they are fine with it because "life isn't fair" and that they PREFER people to buy P2W loot boxes for their advantage because "it's more satisfying to kill them knowing they have an advantage over me".

This isn't just about the game industry, but rather how fucked up the US as society really is.
Unknown One
F'n LOVES Jonas Brothers
(10-07-2017, 06:22 AM)
Unknown One's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cess007

I bet that games would cost that much and they will still have loot boxes, my friend.

Originally Posted by Maintenance

Count the expansions, dlcs, etc. They already do.

It'll be 80-90 with expansions, dlc, lootboxes, and many other micro-transactions. Foolish to think otherwise.
PayaV87
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:24 AM)

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

Games went from $50 to $60 with the Xbox 360 in 2005. $60 in 2005 is worth $76 today. So games have essentially seen a significant price cut and publishers have eaten that. On top of that, games are more expensive to make today than they were in 2005. So game creators are feeling it on both sides. This is why they try to drive up the average value of each player by introducing collector's editions, season passes, and loot boxes -- $60 isn't enough for games.

The natural growth should solve this problem, but until big markets like china and india won’t open up significantly, game industry wont grow. Of course after that we would be talking about their influence on games as a side effect...
gogosox82
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:25 AM)
gogosox82's Avatar

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

Here's my defense: This is better than the alternative, which is $80-$90 games or fewer games.

Counter point: They basically cost $80-$90 now and they have loot boxes.
Archanfel
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:27 AM)
Archanfel's Avatar
Any software with gambling features that have the option for you to spend real money should be rated AO. Imo. Get this shit regulated.
Glendemonium
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:28 AM)
Glendemonium's Avatar
Not sure why anyone's surprised, it started with Facebook games with in app purchases, farmville etc, then migrated to cellphone freemiums and now full priced AAA games.

Honestly it's no different than in real life, if someone had the money and want to take a huge shortcut they'd probably take it, pride be damned. Money speaks louder than words to these companies. Of course there's downright dirty greed and maliciousness in the smartphone industry that may eventually make it's way to AAA.
almostjuliuscaesar
Member
(10-07-2017, 06:45 AM)
almostjuliuscaesar's Avatar
Loot boxes featuring anything but cosmetic items that *werent* already easily obtainable werent an issue. But we’re long past those simpler times because people chose to support P2W ones
Nick_C
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:12 AM)
Nick_C's Avatar
All of this talk about loot boxes and gambling in AAA games and I haven't seen anyone post something so obvious. Konami all but stopped publishing AAA games and has instead used their stable of much-loved IP to promote their pachinko machines. They save a bunch of money not having to design a game around it, and they don't even have to try and hide their true motivations to their base. It's brilliant, actually.

There's also the added benefit that the player may walk away from the machine much better off than when they dropped in their initial token.
Skinpop
Member
(10-07-2017, 09:37 AM)
Skinpop's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sändersson

Also why cant I decide which cosmetics I want? Why on earth does it need to be random? It doesnt add any value to me that I get skin drops which I never use.

exactly, I don't get these people who defend loot boxes in f2p. Whether the game is free to play or not is not the issue, that's just another dimension of shittiness.
Yukinari
Member
(10-07-2017, 09:53 AM)
Yukinari's Avatar
I basically have to buy boxes every OW event because i got sick of grinding out EXP every chance i could in a 3 week timespan to hopefully get the skin i want.
Mung
Member
(10-07-2017, 10:14 AM)
The 'life isn't fair' argument has always been bullshit.

It's a dismissive, deflective point which is basically saying 'deal with it', and you could use it for anything.

Slavery? Deal with it, life isn't fair.
Bluth54
Member
(10-07-2017, 10:19 AM)
Bluth54's Avatar

Originally Posted by ExReey

Which was the first game ever to contain loot boxes? Was it CSGO?

Team Fortress 2 had loot boxes 2 years before CSGO was released so CSGO isn't even the first Valve game to have loot boxes.

In another thread someone thought the first lootbox type thing in a major game was the Fifa 2008 which had random card packs you could buy.
Rellik
Member
(10-07-2017, 10:59 AM)
Rellik's Avatar

Originally Posted by Yukinari

I basically have to buy boxes every OW event because i got sick of grinding out EXP every chance i could in a 3 week timespan to hopefully get the skin i want.

Thanks for contributing to the cancer in gaming known as loot boxes.
pelican
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:05 AM)
pelican's Avatar
I recognise why people don't like loot boxes, but I personally don't mind them.

For me it all depends on the implementation. In the past I have bought some in OW, which I know compounds the problem for many.
Mr_Moogle
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:12 AM)
Mr_Moogle's Avatar
I don't mind the way Overwatch handles loot boxes. You get to a point where your unlock so many duplicates you end up swimming in in-game currency. I have 5000 gold saved and I'm not even playing the game all that much. Every time an event comes around, I have more than enough currency to buy the skins I want....well most of them anyway. I have never once paid actual money for a loot box because that's a chumps game. I wish people wouldn't support that kind of bs.
Jingo
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:14 AM)
Jingo's Avatar
I feel blessed, never felt the urge to buy microtransations, even with metal gear solid 5 heavy customization, i had fun until it was not fun, finished the game and moved on, back in the day i was never a fan of cheat modes and they were free! Imagine now!

There was a sense of achievment playinh tekken and unblocking the secret characters and costumes, what a rush

Ps: i lied about cheat code, ABACABB was the best thing back in the day.
Chao
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:15 AM)
Chao's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rellik

People buy them so they will stay. People voted with their wallet.

If I could have a superpower I would like the ability to punch every one who at some point spend money on a loot box, all at the same time, no matter the time zone or what they were doing at that time. Just an instantaneous punch.
Audioboxer
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:15 AM)
Audioboxer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Yukinari

I basically have to buy boxes every OW event because i got sick of grinding out EXP every chance i could in a 3 week timespan to hopefully get the skin i want.

This is why Blizzard and others run timed events such as Halloween and Christmas.

Then my usual sinister speculation applies of will they tweak drop rates to be even lower during timed events to up the pressure even more? We'll never know as there's no regulation to have drop rates known. Plus Blizzard were scummy enough to circumvent the Chinese laws around drop rates.

While I have no proof the above would be legal to happen as is. It would be like a slot machine that had on the fly winnings odds and you never knew when it changed. As things stand slot machines have listed payout odds and they cannot change just because it's Christmas.
duckroll
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:21 AM)
duckroll's Avatar
Gambling is fun. Being able to pay for a perceived advantage is fun. Not everyone cares about total fairness in games and there is something inherently attractive about the chance to win something rare. These are just some of the facts of psychology. People are like this and if isn't the end of the world. Companies would be able to take advantage of this for profit if people didn't honestly enjoy this stuff on some level.
Zertez
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:30 AM)

Originally Posted by Skinpop

this is delusional. Overwatch has sold what - 30 mil copies at $40 or so. That's enough money to support the game with "free" content for a decade and still make an enormous profit.

I don't get how you guys can be ok with loot boxes of any form considering the random "gamble" element. You don't have to defend all aspects of a game just because you like it.

Overwatch was full price 60$ on consoles at release. Blizzard said at that time the cost of the game would pay for all future updates.

Thread Tools