• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

(10-07-2017, 12:16 PM)
Stygr's Avatar
I'd take lootboxes in multiplayer games, only for cosmetics to get FREE updates, i'm good with that, like Halo 5 and Overwatch.

Having lootboxes + DLC + Day one DLC + Season Pass in a single player game at 70Ä is bullshit, Shadow of War is bullshit for that shit.
(10-07-2017, 12:17 PM)
Shengar's Avatar
Literally hundreds of games from SMALLER DEVELOPERS able to provide contents without all of those shits.

Seriously what with gamers and this "choice between two evils" shit coming from?
(10-07-2017, 12:18 PM)
NullPointer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stygr

I'd take lootboxes in multiplayer games, only for cosmetics to get FREE updates, i'm good with that, like Halo 5 and Overwatch.

Halo 5 arena? Works fine as a cosmetic only system.

Halo 5 Warzone on the other hand is a clusterfuck of stat-buff, legendary and power item consumables though, worse than Battlefront 2.
Star Orpheus
(10-07-2017, 12:19 PM)
Star Orpheus's Avatar

Originally Posted by FairyEmpire

, other fan favourites like Overwatch have been getting a pass for these things.

No. Not at all.

Maybe they don't get as many on going threads but plenty of people complained about loot boxes in Overwatch. I remember it was real loud during the anniversary event in particular.

It got to the point that the developers actually DID change some things about the system. The big ones being you can purchase event costume with gold now and dupes were massively lessened. And even with that a lot of people still would rather just be able to purchase costumes. So no Overwatch is not getting a free pass.
(10-07-2017, 12:19 PM)
Chinner's Avatar
The comparison is kind of bullshit because we can already see publishers putting in loot boxes AND dlc, microtransactions and Season passes.
(10-07-2017, 12:19 PM)
Donniewahlberg's Avatar
Mmm, sorry OP but I'd go the other way. At least with that stuff you know where you're at. If the publisher or dev has cut content, it's super obvious straight away. With loot boxes, it's really hard to know and trust that they haven't weighed the game towards wanting them to circumvent grinding. At least a dlc is a product. There is x thing and here is x price. Do you want this. The loot Crate thing in general is skeezy. Imo at least. It adds layers of obfuscation when they could just say here's a legendary sword pack, there's a skin l, here is a monetary value. There's literally nothing in it on my end.

And of course we have games doing it all.
(10-07-2017, 12:20 PM)
Dyle's Avatar
"monitisatuon" I initially read this as moneti-saturation, which is about where the industry is heading with lootboxes. Since I will never ever spend any money on them I suppose I'm a freerider, getting free maps/characters in games without paying for them, but I won't be using my dollars to support abusive business practices. I'm all in favor of a games-as-a-service future, but not like this
(10-07-2017, 12:20 PM)
J_ToSaveTheDay's Avatar
Hereís what I think of loot crates.

Overwatch model with just cosmetic items available through loot crates, and all future major content including maps and characters free for all users? Acceptable.

Loot crates featured in non-competitive, free-to-play games that act as time savers/boosters, cosmetics, and maybe even ďmutatorsĒ (slight alterations to gameplay)? Example: Jet Pack Joyride on mobile. Acceptable.

Loot crates that are featured as part of a game that has a set retail price, but are only obtainable with in-game currency and donít ask the player to fork over real money? Acceptable.

Fully-priced retail game with a season pass model for future content but also including the option for loot crates via microtransactions? Always questionable and absolutely open to lambasting... But sometimes kind of not a big deal. Destiny 2, IMO, not a big deal ó some stuff there is certainly nice and provides slightly functional advantage, but nothing that lends a huge advantage, still a bummer due to season pass model co-existing with it, though; Star Wars Battlefront II, kind of a big deal ó certainly a bummer for the competitive implications, but a bit of a pass because it doesnít have a season pass, too (and is promising content to all users later down the road). Shadow of War ó A single player, retail-priced game? Boo, get that shit outta there. Also gross: Deus Ex Mankind Divided; Assassinís Creed Unity (and several other titles in the AC franchise).
(10-07-2017, 12:20 PM)
lastplayed's Avatar
I'd rather just be able to buy what I want. Fuck this "might or might not" mentality.

Yes I paid for Horse Armour, but at least I knew what I was getting.
Hamster Plugin
(10-07-2017, 12:22 PM)
Hamster Plugin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stygr

Having lootboxes + DLC + Day one DLC + Season Pass in a single player game at 70Ä is bullshit, Shadow of War is bullshit for that shit.

It's pretty bad in multiplayer games too. Call of Duty has map pack DLC, including a day-1 map, and also loot boxes with advantages in various forms: BO3 and MWR have new guns, Infinite Warfare has both new guns and stat boosts to existing guns.
(10-07-2017, 12:22 PM)
Cess007's Avatar
I didn't know it I was forced to choose one. Is too much to ask for a game to have none of those? I mean, MP games used to be able to have post-launch support before without any of those
(10-07-2017, 12:22 PM)
Toe-Knee's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gowans

That thinking doesnít work for games like Rainbow Six Seige, itís had free maps and characters to play with quality since release. I donít want to move to to something else or buy a sequel and start again.

Yeah I guess Iím coming to it from more a multiplayer focused point of view but Iím really enjoying these new platform or Games as a service policyís to play with friends and to all get the benefits of new stuff for us to keep playing together. Rocket League with its new maps and modes is any other great example.

In the past games have just been left now itís constant work, development and improvement and loot boxes seem to be the way they are paying for it.

I totally get that but wouldn't you rather the game have taken a bit longer and had everything from the start?

I guess I'm a little out of touch with these things as I typically don't play mp games beyond destiny but I'll be out once I've finished the raid as i got scammed with the previous game haha.
(10-07-2017, 12:24 PM)
CEJames's Avatar
And now we're arguing over the lesser of two evils.

Fast Forward 10 more years, what will the gaming industry be like.....

I shudder to think of the possibility.
(10-07-2017, 12:24 PM)
Chairmanchuck's Avatar

Originally Posted by CEJames

And now we're arguing over the lesser of two evils.

Fast Forward 10 more years, what will the gaming industry be like.....

I shudder to think of the possibility.

Try to tell 2004 Jimmy that in 2017 you can gamble for skins in MP games ;)

Jimmy: "I dont believe you. Modders just make skins and models for free."
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 12:25 PM)
Egida's Avatar
Ah yes, the GTA V route. So good for players.
It's a pity CD Project didn't follow, so much fun paying for loot crates for a chance of a shiny armor. Instead I have to play some awesome additional campaigns like a sucker.
Last edited by Egida; 10-07-2017 at 12:28 PM.
(10-07-2017, 12:26 PM)
Xando's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rmagnus

So don't have have loot boxes and don't split the user base. How is it weird?

So basically instead you want them to raise the price to 100$ for the standard edition and keep making the same content?
(10-07-2017, 12:26 PM)
jsnepo's Avatar
There's nothing wrong with DLCs as long as they are beefy. I always considered them downloadable expansions.
Saint Titanfall
(10-07-2017, 12:28 PM)
Principate's Avatar

Originally Posted by Theorry

The money to support after launch content with new maps needs to come from somewhere.

I guess, though the Splatoon and ARMS model does exist and it's not even like those games created that model.
(10-07-2017, 12:28 PM)
Bustanen's Avatar

Originally Posted by Youth Crew

I get what youíre saying, and I wish I could agree, but game prices havenít raised ($50->$60) in ~12 years while the average AAA game budget has increased by a significant amount.

DLC, microtransactions, and lootboxes are there to cover the extra cost needed for development, I would think.

It just matters if a game does it right.

Overwatch does Loot Boxes perfect with cosmetics only.

Witcher 3 or The Last of Us does DLC perfect with their expansions.

But microtransactions... keep those for F2P games please.

Game sales have also increased significantly. Most games don't come with these scam mechanics and seem to do just fine financially.

High quality DLCs I agree are worth the extra price.
(10-07-2017, 12:29 PM)
Fbh's Avatar

Originally Posted by Theorry

The beta thread of Battlefront is weird also. People saying they are not gonna buy it because of crates. But when it has a season pass they are not gonna buy it because of split userbase,

Is it the same people saying this though?.

Also. I think the problem people have with loot boxes in battlefront is that they offer gameplay advantages. I think reactions would be different if they were limited to cosmetic stuff

Originally Posted by Cess007

I didn't know it I was forced to choose one. Is too much to ask for a game to have none of those? I mean, MP games used to be able to have post-launch support before without any of those

Games were also cheaper to make back then.
With modern budgets and team sizes I do think it's too much to ask for devs to release tons of new and free maps. The money to make that content has to come from somewhere

The only exception being Sony and MS games. Since I'm already paying them to play online I think they should at least offer free content on their games
Last edited by Fbh; 10-07-2017 at 12:35 PM.
(10-07-2017, 12:32 PM)
NutJobJim's Avatar
Loot crates are 100% fine when it's purely cosmetic. Anything that can impact gameplay stinks too much of 'pay to win' and will instantly put me off.

It's simple really.

In MP games everyone should have access to exactly the same starting weapons. Any new/power weapons, power-ups or vehicles should be items that you pick up on the map or 'unlock' in that match by playing well (number of kills/assists etc.)

Paid DLC should be reserved for single player content and never used to split an online MP community by introducing new MP modes or maps.

Loot crates should always be reserved for cosmetic items or other 'fun' items that do not impact gameplay or game balance.

That way you can have your loot crates and DLC season passes without fucking everyone else over. Seems really obvious to me...
(10-07-2017, 12:36 PM)
le.phat's Avatar
It's not about you, OP. It's about shielding people that have a gambling addiction, or aren't able to be make responsible choices regarding their financial situation. One system exploits bad habits, the other is merely inconvenient.
(10-07-2017, 12:38 PM)
Budi's Avatar
Honestly, I think I don't. I know exactly what I'm paying for when buying a map pack, those aren't delivered in boxes where there might be a new map or just a voice line saying "I got swindled!".
Last edited by Budi; 10-07-2017 at 12:48 PM.
(10-07-2017, 12:41 PM)
nailbombxx's Avatar
With lootboxes you're basically forced to gamble for what will be mostly meaningless junk and sometimes content you want

If you want everything you'll have to spend a lot more money than if the dlc was sold in bundles where you know what you're getting. Couple that with making game progression a slog with content hidden in random lootboxes that will make getting through the game less tiresome. Thus the games themselves prod you to buying lootboxes because they huge timesinks are (intentionally) without them.

Publishers know this. That's the point. Its a strategy to squeeze even more money from whales.

The most predatory, manipulitive form of DLC.
Last edited by nailbombxx; 10-07-2017 at 12:49 PM.
(10-07-2017, 12:43 PM)
myco666's Avatar

Originally Posted by Xando

So basically instead you want them to raise the price to 100$ for the standard edition and keep making the same content?

Titanfall 2 was 60$ at launch and from my understanding it doesn't have split userbase and doesn't have lootboxes that you pay money for. It also got new MP content this year so it is not like there is no support.
always crazy bacon
(10-07-2017, 12:43 PM)

Originally Posted by Gowans

paying for pieces

free content for everyone

Loot boxes / crates News seems to becoming click bait outrage at the moment but honestly games like Smite, Halo 5, Rainbow Six Seige, Overwatch, Rocket League, Warframe, Dota 2 etc. have kept me playing longer and longer due to the playerbase supporting the platform and free content extending there lives.

Hold on. Loot boxes are good because someone else is paying for the "free" content you are getting? before you had to pay for map packs but now you don't because they are "Free" due to loot boxes.

You like loot boxes because you benefit from a gambling system without having to pay into it.
(10-07-2017, 12:44 PM)
Markoman's Avatar
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong but DLC and season passes are not replaced by loot boxes and never will.
This is why everyone's complaining:
60-70$ base game
20-30$ season pass
x$ ingame currency
(10-07-2017, 12:49 PM)
Roshin's Avatar
In the future, your full price games will essentially be vehicles for microtransactions barely covered in a sprinkling of "game" to hide what it really is. You'll get loot boxes, DLC, season passes, *and* whatever else they can shoehorn in there, because why give up on potential profit? Lots of people will defend it to the death, claiming it's the best thing ever.

Get ready for the future.
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 12:50 PM)
InterMusketeer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Budi

Blizzard also fucked up with HoTs in 2.0 update when they added lootboxes as a reward. I don't mind getting them as a reward, but they also sell them and they REMOVED the option to buy some skins directly which I was able to do earlier (and I did). You can only buy rotating featured skins directly, which is ofcourse also done to encourage impulse buys. "Get it while you can!". It sucks.

Wait what? HOTS had practically no rewards for players who didn't spend money. All you could do was earn in-game gold used to buy new heroes and a small selection of mastery skins and mounts. Most of the cool stuff was behind a paywall.

HOTS 2.0 is absolutely an improvement, as even players who don't spend any money can get cool skins for free. I don't know what you're talking about in terms of skins that you can't buy. What skin is unavailable for purchase with shards? I've seen none. Are you talking about the seasonal skins? Because those existed prior to 2.0 as well. Holiday skins were only available during the holiday season. Same goes for the Halloween ones. Their lootbox system is pretty much identical to Overwatch now, only that you didn't have to buy the game itself first. How is that a bad model?
(10-07-2017, 12:53 PM)
Ahasverus's Avatar
Well you're insane, good DLC is great and a way to get more out of a Beloved game. It doesn't ruin your normal game either.

Now, micro DLC is not even a thing right now, because it became.. Lootboxes.
(10-07-2017, 12:54 PM)
Hazanko's Avatar
Don't worry when people start accepting loot boxes i'm sure you'll get all of that stuff on top of it too!
(10-07-2017, 12:55 PM)
TheChamp's Avatar
I would rather have neither if the DLC is already there and its just a 100kb unlock key you download.....

back in the old days we used to have cheat codes for half this micro transaction crap today
(10-07-2017, 12:56 PM)
NightShift's Avatar
I agree with wanting loot boxes over spliting the userbase of multiplayer games. It's why I accepted it in Overwatch even though it was poorly implemented. Just having cosmetic DLC you can just straight up buy is preferred but whatever.

Loot boxes in single player games are unacceptable though and I will not buy a game that does that shit. There are zero advantages.
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 12:56 PM)
Brotherhood93's Avatar
You'll get no argument from me that there is a lot of terrible examples of DLC/season passes and they, like loot boxes, can often be exploitative too. However, give me additional content designed to be fun and enjoyable for the player over a pay-to-win, gambling mechanic any day of the week.

If I don't think DLC or a season pass is worth it I can choose not to pay for it but even if there's something in a loot box I might want then I might not be able to get it without spending a fortune. That sucks and there's really no good justification for it. Just let me pay for the content I want.
(10-07-2017, 01:01 PM)
travisbickle's Avatar
When I see articles about kids spending $5000 on a season pass like I've seen for FIFA gambling packs I'll agree.
(10-07-2017, 01:03 PM)
Im still waiting for developers to nail execution.

I do appreciate having maps be free. In my case, It has prolonged the life of several mp games.

I understand that using these schemes to extend the life of these games makes sense from a business standpoint- it increases the opportunity to sell MTs.

It doesn't HAVE to be lootcrates though. They could just place set prices on cosmetic content. And even if companies do use lootcrates, they dont have to design the ingame economy such that players are pushed towards spending $ by intentional tedium or MP advantages.

Basically, lootcrates are not some prerequisite for free basic content distribution. There are less predatory ways to justify the cost of an extended sustain model.
Last edited by Trup1aya; 10-07-2017 at 01:11 PM.
(10-07-2017, 01:03 PM)
Playsage's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stygr

I'd take lootboxes in multiplayer games, only for cosmetics to get FREE updates, i'm good with that, like Halo 5 and Overwatch.

Having lootboxes + DLC + Day one DLC + Season Pass in a single player game at 70Ä is bullshit, Shadow of War is bullshit for that shit.


End of the story.
(10-07-2017, 01:05 PM)
dose's Avatar
I'll have none thanks. And no, I wouldn't have loot crates over those.
(10-07-2017, 01:05 PM)
Lagamorph's Avatar
With DLC you at least know what you're getting and make a purchase decision based on a definite outcome.

Lootboxes though are just gambling under another name where the odds are against you getting what you actually want and you typically end up with random junk in exchange for your money.
(10-07-2017, 01:10 PM)
Where is this either/or presumption coming from? More likely this will be addition to other things.
(10-07-2017, 01:10 PM)
Unaha-Closp's Avatar
I'd take GTA V Single Player DLC, sob, over loot boxes any day. New Vegas DLC's - so good. Horizon's got DLC coming up - gimme. Give me a good game and then make good story DLC and I am down. Gambling in single player games - no thank you.
(10-07-2017, 01:12 PM)
jdmonmou's Avatar

Originally Posted by purseowner

Wait - you'd rather have loot crates than substantial DLC that adds meaty content to the game for a reasonable price?

My thoughts exactly. Iíd take well thought out DLC any day over loot boxes. Even though it splits the user base, I still think paying for expansions is a fair exchange for the developer working to provide extra content. And itís not a guarantee that the developer wonít charge for DLC if they have loot boxes. A lot of games choose to charge for both.
(10-07-2017, 01:13 PM)
Yarbskoo's Avatar
It is entirely possible to release a game without loot crates, season passes, online passes or split userbases. It's so easy even fucking Nintendo can do it.
(10-07-2017, 01:14 PM)
Eumi's Avatar
So rather than paying for a product, youíd rather give them money and hope you get the product you want?
I prefer DLC (expansions), season pass (2-3 expansions) over loot boxes.

It is not even a question.
(10-07-2017, 01:15 PM)
Hazanko's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mung

Where is this either/or presumption coming from? More likely this will be addition to other things.

Naivety probably or at worst trying to defend this bull shit.
(10-07-2017, 01:15 PM)
Lockjaw333's Avatar
If DLC meant to every other developer what it means to CDPR, things would be great. Witcher 3 has REAL dlc that is actually worth what you pay for it. The issue is that dlc and season passes for most other games are pathetic ploys to get more than $60 out of people.

Loot boxes are awful and shouldn't be accepted in any capacity.
(10-07-2017, 01:16 PM)
texhnolyze's Avatar
But some games already have all of them, MT, loot box, DLC, and map packs/expansion.
(10-07-2017, 01:20 PM)
Recall's Avatar
In these moments I just think about Tekken 3.

Extra modes included in the base game. No DLC/microtransaction.

Unlockable characters earned/rewarded by playing the game. No DLC/microtransaction.

My £40 got me the full finished game.

I know it's not the same anymore, and games are services and they want to retain your interest for longer/get more cash from you plus with the advent of online play more day to day costs are involved especially with patches. It was all once such simpler times. I liked it.

I'm fine with DLC/Loot Boxes and added bits of fun it's just there is a point where I feel like I'm being taken advantage of or it's assumed I'm too stupid to notice. Yet there are enough of those who play video games that clearly have money to spend so should I really be disappointed that businesses capitalise on it?
(10-07-2017, 01:26 PM)

Originally Posted by Stygr

I'd take lootboxes in multiplayer games, only for cosmetics to get FREE updates, i'm good with that, like Halo 5 and Overwatch.

Having lootboxes + DLC + Day one DLC + Season Pass in a single player game at 70Ä is bullshit, Shadow of War is bullshit for that shit.

Halo 5 execution was good in a few ways, bad in others.

Guarunteed unlocks- opening silver/gold pack guarunteed items of specific rarities. So you were always pushing towards completion with each pack.
Purely cosmetics in Arena

Most of the content was useless filler
People who only wanted cosmetics had to wade through mountains of warzone content
People who only wanted warzone content had to wade through mountains of cosmetics
Warzone Firefight was designed to require high level reqs to succeed.
The post launch content was mostly low quality or should have been in at launch.

Then there's Warzone- which was SUPPOSED to create matches based on the size of players inventory so that well equipped players weren't destroying those with less- but it's hard for me to say how well the system has worked becauss there are so many factors.

Thread Tools