• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Plumpbiscuit
(10-06-2017, 08:28 PM)
Plumpbiscuit's Avatar
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".

Am I out of touch here or is this it? Are [P2W] loot boxes in $60 AAA games here to stay now? When people are saying to me they LIKE loot boxes like this, and I bring up how they could have been free cheat codes or if tournaments and real life events like a football match introduced unfair elements, how that fairs against their argument, they call me out for being ridiculous. For instance, I said, if life isn't fair then would they be okay if goalkeepers paid referees to shorten their goal length as this is P2W and it would make them satisfied having scored a goal in a net that is shorter than their own one. I also said what if tournaments with cash prizes allowed its participants to buy loot boxes over other players for an instant advantage, and at that point, I was thrown with insults and being called ridiculous etc and some of them left.

Is this what the games industry is now? It seems like loot boxes are here for fucking good.
MotionBlue
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:29 PM)
MotionBlue's Avatar
What was this group?
emag
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:29 PM)
emag's Avatar
Complex motives

Actually, pretty simple motives: $$$
Rellik
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:29 PM)
Rellik's Avatar
People buy them so they will stay. People voted with their wallet.
JeffGrubb
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:30 PM)
JeffGrubb's Avatar
Loot boxes are here for good.
ViviOggi
(10-06-2017, 08:30 PM)
ViviOggi's Avatar
Could you link that thread?
Linkark07
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:31 PM)
Linkark07's Avatar
I fail to understand how people can defend loot boxes in single player games.

Sadly, if this proves to be successful, expect them to continue appearing in single player AAA games.
Last edited by Linkark07; 10-06-2017 at 08:33 PM.
Plumpbiscuit
(10-06-2017, 08:31 PM)
Plumpbiscuit's Avatar
Discord channel chat. I mean I guess I could paste the chat but I wouldn't want to reveal names and shite.
MadLaughter
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:31 PM)
MadLaughter's Avatar
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.

Warner isn't subsidizing content with their boxes, and that shit isn't just cosmetic. Battlefront IS subsidizing, but it's not just cosmetic.

So there are different severities.
Transistor
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:33 PM)
Transistor's Avatar
Loot boxes are here to stay until people start talking with their god damn wallets and stop supporting these shitty practices.

Publishers literally looked at games like Clash of Clans and Game of War and said "these suckers will pay for anything. That's the way to go"
Rain City Gamer
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:33 PM)
Rain City Gamer's Avatar
having loot boxes isn't the issue. Just like having Microtransactions isn't an issue.
the issue is how they are implemented. If pubs/devs keep it to cosmetic stuff they are in the clear. When they start invading the balance of the gameplay experience that is where it becomes a problem.
Cess007
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:33 PM)
Cess007's Avatar
People will say anything trying to defend something they like; even if whatever they say doesn't sound very smart
Geddy
Junior Member
(10-06-2017, 08:33 PM)
Geddy's Avatar
Hate to be the cynic (who am I kidding, I love it), but the lowest common denominator determines everything. The idiots who spent money on this voted with their wallet, and the consensus is that most people want to pay for loot boxes. Because most people are morons.

It's the same reason that solid quality games on mobile are now a thing of the past, since it's all free to play crap now. Microtransactions took over in earnings because 99% of the playerbase decided that videogames are worth $0. So now you have 0.001% of the game playing population being the whales who spend so much money that they make up for everyone who doesn't spend any money.

Thanks, idiots who screwed over the mobile gaming market. It was actually fun for a few years way back when.
Nerd_Incognito
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:34 PM)
Nerd_Incognito's Avatar
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.
JeffGrubb
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:34 PM)
JeffGrubb's Avatar

Originally Posted by MotionBlue

What was this group?

Just some of OP's close friends, like Bobby Kotick, Yves Guillemot, the Warner brothers, and some others.
farisr
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:34 PM)
farisr's Avatar
Idiots like those are why we have lootboxes. And yes, they are absolutely idiots. And there's tons of them unfortunately.
Mass Effect
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:34 PM)
Mass Effect'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.

Warner isn't subsidizing content with their boxes, and that shit isn't just cosmetic. Battlefront IS subsidizing, but it's not just cosmetic.

So there are different severities.

People need to understand that "only cosmetics" lootboxes were never going to be the norm. Most AAA publishers will be taking the Shadow of War/Battlefront 2 route.

The reason it works so well in Overwatch is because Blizzard learns hard into having its fans buy into the characters. Things like waifu wars are as much of a part of Overwatch as playing the game itself.
Last edited by Mass Effect; 10-06-2017 at 08:38 PM.
Griss
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:34 PM)

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

Loot boxes are here for good.

People said this about online passes and all sorts of other nonsense that was ultimately rejected.
stan423321
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:34 PM)
stan423321's Avatar
I think that what you really have is a bunch of friends that have a higher Defense Against Gambling stat, so to say. So they're fine with others sucking up and paying the publisher while they don't. Life isn't fair, and that's great when you're not on the short stick side.
Maintenance
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:35 PM)
Maintenance's Avatar

Originally Posted by Griss

People said this about online passes and all sorts of other nonsense that was ultimately rejected.

Because they found other ways to get money.

Way more money.
theechrisfox
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:35 PM)
theechrisfox's Avatar
Remember back when life used to be fair? That must have been such a woeful nightmare for game publishing corporations.
JeffGrubb
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:35 PM)
JeffGrubb's Avatar

Originally Posted by Linkark07

I fail to understand how people can defend loot boxes in single player games.

Sadly, if this proves to be successful, expect them to continue appearing in single player AAA games.

Here's my defense: This is better than the alternative, which is $80-$90 games or fewer games.
Boss X
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:35 PM)
Boss X's Avatar
Loot boxes are a phase that gaming has to overcome
Ferr986
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:36 PM)
Ferr986's Avatar
IMO loot boxes in single player games are really a scummy practice.

For multiplayer... it's more complicated, because it's either that or pay for DLCs. Depending who you ask some may prefer one or the other.
bennyc12
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:36 PM)
bennyc12's Avatar

Originally Posted by Plumpbiscuit

Discord channel chat. I mean I guess I could paste the chat but I wouldn't want to reveal names and shite.

You could always screenshot it and MS Paint over the names.
Maintenance
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:36 PM)
Maintenance's Avatar

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

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

First defense is utter garbage, second I would totally be fine with.
ViviOggi
(10-06-2017, 08:36 PM)
ViviOggi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Griss

People said this about online passes and all sorts of other nonsense that was ultimately rejected.

Wait what's that other nonsense because all I'm coming up with is (arguably) Xbone DRM
BibiMaghoo
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:36 PM)
BibiMaghoo's Avatar
Loot boxes stay until a more lucrative and possibly less noticeable method of extracting cash from you is invented or becomes available. Loot boxes are like attempt number 23432532432465874584 or something.
Ahasverus
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:36 PM)
Ahasverus's Avatar
People are dicks, news at 11
Aters
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:36 PM)
Aters's Avatar

Originally Posted by Transistor

Loot boxes are here to stay until people start talking with their god damn wallets and stop supporting these shitty practices.

Publishers literally looked at games like Clash of Clans and Game of War and said "these suckers will pay for anything. That's the way to go"

Don't blame f2p games for the shit publishers do in their $60 games. Loot boxes are perfectly fine in f2p games.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
(10-06-2017, 08:36 PM)
Rockandrollclown's Avatar
Lootboxes suck. Companies are out to squeeze every dime they can out of you. its expected. Unless the government classifies it as gambling and subjects it to regulation (they won't), the only way to win is not to play. unfortunately it only takes a few whales to fuck it up for everyone.
Gestault
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:37 PM)
Gestault's Avatar
The trophy vending machine in Smash Brothers Melee is total bullshit, and I love it as a game design element.
JeffGrubb
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:37 PM)
JeffGrubb's Avatar

Originally Posted by Griss

People said this about online passes and all sorts of other nonsense that was ultimately rejected.

Well, loot boxes have replaced online passes, season passes, and content DLC. And maybe this will get replaced by something else, but it's not going to go back to what we considered normal game pricing on the Nintendo 64 or whatever.

The future of media is finding a way to let the most enthusiastic fans to spend unlimited amounts of money. If anything, I would expect film and music to try to figure out how to bring something like loot boxes to their markets.
NoblesseOblige
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:38 PM)
NoblesseOblige's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rellik

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

Gambling mechanics that preys on a subset of people isn't exactly the same as 'voting with your wallet'.
hbkdx12
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:38 PM)

Originally Posted by Griss

People said this about online passes and all sorts of other nonsense that was ultimately rejected.

Acti made 3 billion dollars last year in MTs alone and GTA:O makes enough money on it's MTs that it can probably rival a small country

Publishers aren't about to walk away from that unless they find something that makes them even more money with even less effort
MisterHero
Super Member
(10-06-2017, 08:38 PM)
MisterHero's Avatar
At least with gambling you have a chance of making your money back

I don't see the positive at losing in video game microtransactions
To Far Away Times
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:38 PM)
To Far Away Times's Avatar
How good can a game realistically be if it has loot boxes? What's the ceiling? 7/10 maybe?
Nif
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:39 PM)
Nif's Avatar
If they're not ridiculous and hiding some items exclusively behind a paywall, I don't really care. They're drop rates with a prettier veneer that makes the weaker among us want to buy them.
SephLuis
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:39 PM)
SephLuis's Avatar

Originally Posted by Plumpbiscuit

Is this what the games industry is now? It seems like loot boxes are here for fucking good.

Unfortunately, it isn't something where logical reasoning can explain. It's a simple gambling addiction and most people are fooled into thinking it's "fair".

Even when it isn't fair and explicit told, some people will simply not care.
MisterHero
Super Member
(10-06-2017, 08:40 PM)
MisterHero's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gestault

The trophy vending machine in Smash Brothers Melee is total bullshit, and I love it as a game design element.

It's not, you're guaranteed a brand new trophy with a max bet, and getting coins was dead easy
Mass Effect
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:40 PM)
Mass Effect's Avatar

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

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

But the potential result for games, particularly middling AAA games, means yeah there are bigger winners, but there are also bigger losers.

Which means we'll probably have fewer games regardless. That's been the trend for the last 7-8 years anyway.
Cess007
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:40 PM)
Cess007's Avatar

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

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

I bet that games would cost that much and they will still have loot boxes, my friend.
JeffGrubb
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:41 PM)
JeffGrubb's Avatar

Originally Posted by Maintenance

First defense is utter garbage, second I would totally be fine with.

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.
shimon
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:41 PM)
shimon's Avatar
As long as people buy them they will be part of gaming now. And people DO buy them. Don't expect them to go away EVER.
Maintenance
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:41 PM)
Maintenance's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cess007

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

Count the expansions, dlcs, etc. They already do.
Aters
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:42 PM)
Aters's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rellik

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

People also voted with their wallet for Heroin.
JeffGrubb
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:42 PM)
JeffGrubb's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cess007

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

But they're not that price, which is the point.
shira
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:42 PM)
shira's Avatar
The next step is amiibos/Dota2 merch

Pay to win code/enshanced shader cosmetics inside your $100-1000 statue/doll
MrTroubleMaker
(10-06-2017, 08:43 PM)
MrTroubleMaker's Avatar
I hate this trend in gaming. I do not use them in games and I am actively avoiding buying games with them.
2n2
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:44 PM)
2n2's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rain City Gamer

having loot boxes isn't the issue. Just like having Microtransactions isn't an issue.
the issue is how they are implemented. If pubs/devs keep it to cosmetic stuff they are in the clear. When they start invading the balance of the gameplay experience that is where it becomes a problem.

I stongly disagree with this statement. Just because they are cosmetic doesn't mean they should get a pass on predatory practices. Also, this is how they creep into the areas you're concerned about.

Thread Tools