• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
(10-06-2017, 10:58 PM)
WhiteRabbitEXE's Avatar

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

Loot boxes are here for good.

We thought multiplayer access passes were too. I don’t think they’ll necessarily stay around, but there will always be something.
Audioboxer
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:08 PM)
Audioboxer's Avatar
Learning the "life isn't fair" line is supposed to come from money problems, struggling to get a job, being born with shitty genes/something debilitating, suffering tough loss, breakups, general illness, stress and over 9,000 other things the average human will come up against from time to time. Some of us far more than others, hence, "life isn't fair".

Trying to enjoy a $60+ product you paid for and expect it not to take the piss out of you is nothing to do with life being fair (not getting at you OP). This week+ has been testing with some of the craziest defences of loot boxes/MTs I've ever seen.
Nick_C
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:08 PM)
Nick_C's Avatar
I clicked this thread thinking that the OP would try to provide an argument for this line of thought.

I ran into this phrase in the Jim Sterling/Forza 7 thread a couple of days ago. The exact quote was:

I mean... yeah, lifes unfair, some people have more than they need and some people don't get what they want, AAA videogames isn't the place I expect to solve that

It's fucking mindblowing knowing that people are fine with the predatory nature of loot boxes and using real money to gamble for in-game goods because it pays for the content that they're unwilling to shell out for in the first place.
Van Bur3n
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:10 PM)
Van Bur3n's Avatar
The lengths people have gone to distort their minds in order to accept shitty business practices is beyond words.
TheYanger
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:13 PM)
TheYanger'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.

Pretty much this. I'm ok with getting 4 cosmetics an hour in a game that otherwise gives 100% free content, OR paying tos peed up those cosmetics.

I'm not ok with feeling like I have to pay to speed up actually gearing a character in an rpg-like stat system, or to get a better gun just to compete (Even if you CAN compete with a worse one, that's not a fucking good feeling).
Papo Swing
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:13 PM)
Papo Swing's Avatar
Then shitty business practices are the future of software.

The lengths people go to whine about change. Even change not directly affecting them at the moment.

Software as a service has been the future of software for a while. Loot Boxes are just video games version of it. Let's make better suggestions as a community but to ask them to "kill"
this business model is stupid.
forrest
formerly nacire
(10-06-2017, 11:16 PM)
forrest's Avatar
Shitty cash grab based on the psychological manipulation of people.

Regulation incoming.
RooMHM
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:19 PM)
RooMHM's Avatar
Life hasn't been fair for those who say that.
Tapejara
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:20 PM)
Tapejara's Avatar

Originally Posted by Papo Swing

Then shitty business practices are the future of software.

The lengths people go to whine about change. Even change not directly affecting them at the moment.

Software as a service has been the future of software for a while. Loot Boxes are just video games version of it. Let's make better suggestions as a community but to ask them to "kill"
this business model is stupid.

There's a difference between software as a service and implementing completely anti-consumer methods though. Office transitioning to a yearly subscription model is to be expected, but it'd be ridiculous if Microsoft made it so you had to buy lootboxes for the chance to unlock new fonts.
czarship
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:22 PM)
czarship's Avatar
I strongly believe governments should categorize this practice as online gambling and apply the same laws to it (such as age limits, marketing transparency, and disclosing odds). Those arguing in favor of unrestricted loot boxes may not be familiar with the very real dangers of gambling addiction.
E_Darkness
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:23 PM)
E_Darkness's Avatar
We can pay to make it fairer!
Plumpbiscuit
(10-06-2017, 11:25 PM)
Plumpbiscuit's Avatar

Originally Posted by E_Darkness

We can pay to make it fairer!

This made me laugh quite hard. Ugh...
Sygma
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:25 PM)
Sygma'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".

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.

Originally they re coming from Chinese f2p mmos. They re designed around whales throwing money at their screen, literally. The goal is to keep those who pay all the time and orientating the whole pvp endgame and stuff around them, while every other player (the f2p ones) be damned, even if it means shutting / merging servers

In the west they kept some of the principles in non mmo games. But I mean, if you followed Skyforge / Blade and Soul / some other games before it, it was bound to happen sooner or later

+ the complete blowout of gatcha games on mobiles didn't really help either. Nor f2p success like HoT. Now the business is orientating it in single player games or anything that could potentially give you advantage (sports games). Not every publisher is greedy as fuck tho
farisr
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:26 PM)
farisr's Avatar

Originally Posted by czarship

I strongly believe governments should categorize this practice as online gambling and apply the same laws to it (such as age limits, marketing transparency, and disclosing odds). Those arguing in favor of unrestricted loot boxes may not be familiar with the very real dangers of gambling addiction.

Age limits and verification is honestly the one thing that could put a stop to this.

I mean over here, it tales a good while to setup and have your account verified to be able to participate in online casinos with real money. imagine having that barrier for every single game you release, and devs/publishers will think twice before adding this stuff in. Even if they do a centralized one off account verification for a signle PSN account, parents would have to do that to enable their children to have access to that functionality, and that is a good enough barrier as well.
Forward
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:26 PM)
Forward's Avatar

Originally Posted by Papo Swing

Then shitty business practices are the future of software.

The lengths people go to whine about change. Even change not directly affecting them at the moment.

Software as a service has been the future of software for a while. Loot Boxes are just video games version of it. Let's make better suggestions as a community but to ask them to "kill"
this business model is stupid.

Such anti-heroic nonsense.

The lengths some people will go to try and shame consumers for not wanted to be screwed by corporations... smh.

Software as a service is a shite model for the consumer. It is as anti-consumer as it can get. Let's kill this anti-us business model, by not caving in to the demands of corporations wilfuly attempting to shove that which is antithetical to consumer interest, upon us. We have free will. We can make a stand and not buy products with horrible design principles. Less apologies, more hard boycots.
eso76
(10-06-2017, 11:28 PM)
eso76's Avatar
You know, I'm so out of the loop I don't even know what loot boxes are, exactly.
I imagine they are kinda like scratch cards ?

Eh, people like to throw money at those things. People are thrilled at the possibility of winning prizes or obtaining advantages with little effort, even though the chances are next to zero.
It's a well known weakness companies have always taken advantage of. As long as it doesn't affect my experience, go ahead.
As long as you don't lock certain things behind loot boxes, go ahead I don't care.
I don't care if it gives my enemy an unfair advantage.

Like I didn't care when this guy I know, who's filthy rich to begin with, won the unfair advantage of 200.000€ with a scratch card.
I didn't.
No sir.
czarship
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:31 PM)
czarship's Avatar

Originally Posted by farisr

Age limits and verification is honestly the one thing that could put a stop to this.

I mean over here, it tales a good while to setup and have your account verified to be able to participate in online casinos with real money. imagine having that barrier for every single game you release, and devs/publishers will think twice before adding this stuff in. Even if they do a centralized one off account verification for a signle PSN account, parents would have to do that to enable their children to have access to that functionality, and that is a good enough barrier as well.

True, that would work as a great deterrent without scraping the mechanic entirely, but could you imagine the lengths a 30 billion dollar industry would go to in order to lobby against such laws? I'm aware that China has started taking steps against this sort of thing, but from where I am in the United States, it seems completely unregulated.
Sidewinder
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:36 PM)
Sidewinder's Avatar
My mom always said life is like a loot box. You never know what you're gonna get.
Aztechnology
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:36 PM)
Aztechnology'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.

I'm not ok when it gives them an excuse to drip feed or give sub par content though, even when they're making profits far in excess of normal DLC content.
nuclearaddict
Banned
(10-06-2017, 11:40 PM)

Originally Posted by Papo Swing


Oh come on. Arcade game where doing this 20 years ago and it is impossible it would get this bad. I don't get the exaggeration, it is not realistic. I'll et a lead pipe if it ever gets that bad.

It was in part hyperbole, but to continue the discussion: Arcade games back then only cost around a $.25-$1 a game. It isn't fair to compare an arcade game to my hypothetical $60 game using these tactics on its players.

When I went to the arcade back in the day I went with a few bucks and a couple of games in mind to try my hand at. I knew what I was getting into, I never felt like I was being worked, because if I wanted a game without all that pay wall stuff I'd come back home and hop on my NES/SNES. But now days? There are pay walls slowly creeping into full priced games and it honestly makes me feel uneasy.

You may say it's not realistic, but just look back at the Playstation/PS2 era. MT's weren't even a thought that crossed our minds, but now we're surprised when a game doesn't have them. 20 years from now I would not be surprised if we were hit with my hyperbolic idea of "energy credits". Shit, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw something similar in under 5 years.
RalchAC
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:42 PM)
RalchAC's Avatar
I can get lootboxes in multi-player focused games with no Season Pass. They need a way to earn money, not just to cover the costs, but actually making financially worth to have a few dozens of people working on updates instead of a new game. Publishers need to justify why that people isnt working on new games and money is the best answer.

If a single player focused game has loot boxes that impact said single player experience, I will respectfully ask you to fuck off and never buy your game. A single player game won't have a long support from a 50 people team working on new and free updates for its players. Maybe an expansion, or a few DLC pieces. Which will probably be paid.

You can't imagine how scared I was when I got a chest in Horizon. For a few hours I was honestly expecting the game to have loot boxes.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
(10-06-2017, 11:54 PM)
Shin-Ra's Avatar

Originally Posted by Papo Swing

Then shitty business practices are the future of software.

The lengths people go to whine about change. Even change not directly affecting them at the moment.

I don’t follow, why wouldn’t you complain about deliberately bad game design that could easily spread to games you do care about?
IISANDERII
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:58 PM)
IISANDERII'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".

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.

"more satisfying to kill them"?
Sounds like it's an excuse for bad players because they'll be 3 kills/12 deaths and tell themselves "oh it must be because they bought better weapons"
ArkhamFantasy
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:59 PM)
ArkhamFantasy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Papo Swing

Then shitty business practices are the future of software.

The lengths people go to whine about change. Even change not directly affecting them at the moment.

Software as a service has been the future of software for a while. Loot Boxes are just video games version of it. Let's make better suggestions as a community but to ask them to "kill"
this business model is stupid.

Microtransactions dont have to be hidden behind lootcrates, you know that right? You could actually just let the player pick what they want like they do in Titanfall 2, you know that right?

Why does it HAVE to be hidden and random? Can you explain that to me?
Zojirushi
Member
(10-07-2017, 12:01 AM)
I mean yeah you seem to be out of touch regarding the fact that most trends in AAA gaming suck nowadays and that you should wait until GOTY editions go on sale for like 10$ on key reselling sites.

That's basically what you can do these days while you watch dumb kids get their loot boxing on.
CountAntonius
Member
(10-07-2017, 12:01 AM)
CountAntonius's Avatar

Originally Posted by ArkhamFantasy

Microtransactions dont have to be hidden behind lootcrates, you know that right? You could actually just let the player pick what they want like they do in Titanfall 2, you know that right?

Why does it HAVE to be hidden and random? Can you explain that to me?

Azure Phoenix
Member
(10-07-2017, 12:03 AM)
Azure Phoenix's Avatar

Originally Posted by Griss

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

Online passes died because publishers realised the immense amount of money they can make from extra multiplayer-based revenue streams, and that cutting off a large portion of your potential buyers from even getting to interact with those was doing them more harm than good. They just spun it look like they were listening to feedback and caring about gamers, and it worked.

Originally Posted by Zojirushi

Wait sesaon passes died? Are you guys from the future?

That's a whoopsie. I mean they are getting close though, to be fair.

Originally Posted by ArkhamFantasy

Why does it HAVE to be hidden and random? Can you explain that to me?

Because letting you buy what you want doesn't hook in the whales, the sort that will gladly drop $1k trying to pull a specific super rare card of their favourite character. If governments aren't going to class and regulate it as the gambling it is, are you surprised that companies are exploiting it?
Zojirushi
Member
(10-07-2017, 12:04 AM)

Originally Posted by Azure Phoenix

Season passes died because publishers realised the immense amount of money they can make from extra multiplayer-based revenue streams, and that cutting off a large portion of your potential buyers from even getting to interact with those was doing them more harm than good. They just spun it look like they were listening to feedback and caring about gamers, and it worked.

Wait sesaon passes died? Are you guys from the future?
Demacabre
Member
(10-07-2017, 12:04 AM)
Demacabre's Avatar

Originally Posted by ArkhamFantasy


Why does it HAVE to be hidden and random? Can you explain that to me?

Because... Games as a Service and we need to get with the program and stop whining because gamer/consumer entitlement or something to that effect. ...
..Publishers are poor too. need lootboxes to prevent a video game crash.

I think I covered all the bases.

Oh wait. Cosmetic. Optional.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
(10-07-2017, 12:06 AM)
ArkhamFantasy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Demacabre

Because... Games as a Service and we need to get with the program and stop whining because gamer/consumer entitlement or something to that effect. ...
..Publishers are poor too. need lootboxes to prevent a video game crash.

I think I covered all the bases.

Oh wait. Cosmetic. Optional.

They're in every one of these threads, its infuriating.
nuclearaddict
Banned
(10-07-2017, 12:06 AM)

Originally Posted by Azure Phoenix

Season passes died because publishers realised the immense amount of money they can make from extra multiplayer-based revenue streams, and that cutting off a large portion of your potential buyers from even getting to interact with those was doing them more harm than good. They just spun it look like they were listening to feedback and caring about gamers, and it worked.

Exactly. Also, who's to say a game series that previously had a season pass system in place will receive as good of content without the premium pass.

I think Battlefront 2 will see just a handful of free maps whereas that season pass price pretty much forced the publishers/developers to pump out content. Now though? Well, they're getting their money without any promise of content. It's a win-win for them.
Lime
Member
(10-07-2017, 12:11 AM)
Lime's Avatar
I'm just waiting until they put PCs and consoles in casinos alongside the slot machines.
Demacabre
Member
(10-07-2017, 12:11 AM)
Demacabre's Avatar

Originally Posted by ArkhamFantasy

They're in every one of these threads, its infuriating.

It really is infuriating because if something positive happens because of outcry, it only helps them as fellow consumers. I am struggling to see the negative if RNG MT are at the very least halted and applied with caution because of public criticism.

If games are really that expensive to develop, base prices have to go up. Because as it is right now, base prices will eventually go up and MT will get more invasive. So the current inclusion of lootboxes isn't guaranteeing games will always be $60.

And if this is a lost cause, I'd rather the gaming community go down swinging and know they made their voices heard.
Pokemaniac
Member
(10-07-2017, 01:19 AM)
Pokemaniac's Avatar
That is a really bizarre stance. You could justify pretty much anything with that.

It is really frustrating too see people defending lootboxes with arguments like this. There is really nothing about them which is defensible.
Iorv3th
Member
(10-07-2017, 01:27 AM)
Iorv3th's Avatar

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

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

How is that a defense? Remember PS2 gen when not all games were 50$ some launched at 20 or 30 or 40. Then last gen almost every game launched at 60$ and while game sales had increased substantially with a much bigger market, they still aren't making enough?

Expansion passes or map packs are no longer enough?

hint, nothing is ever enough as long as their is money on the table for publishers to grab they are going to try for it. It's not a cost issue
Brat-Sampson
Member
(10-07-2017, 01:35 AM)
Brat-Sampson's Avatar
Software as a service is a valid thing. You pay for your AV software license, your MatLAB license, your CAD software license on the basis that you can use it in perpetuity while behind the scenes people work to upgrade and improve it and you can always stay up to date with the newest version and features.

Games have also been made that run close to this model, they're called MMOs. FFXIV is a 'game as a service' because you have to pay for access but in return you get large patches of added content every few months.

Overwatch could run on this model with few complaints. Pay a low fee monthly and they add in new maps, stories, characters and skins over time. No problem. The reason they use Loot boxes instead is because it's a lot more profitable. No more, no less.

If you're argument is that you don't care because you enjoy the free updates and don't buy them yourself, then that's fine, but know that others do. Others pay for those packs and skins and then some, a hundred fold. Either because they're young, or they're mentally predisposed to gambling, or they're just flat-out rich, but someone's fucking paying, and way more than the average sub cost or the cost of producing the content.

These are big multinational companies, they did the maths.
tuxfool
Member
(10-07-2017, 01:38 AM)

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

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

I'd prefer to pay for games.

I don't like gambling.
TLZ
Member
(10-07-2017, 01:41 AM)
TLZ'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".

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.

How old are they?
Plumpbiscuit
(10-07-2017, 01:45 AM)
Plumpbiscuit's Avatar

Originally Posted by TLZ

How old are they?

A range of young adult to middle aged, so quite a variety.
Budi
Member
(10-07-2017, 01:46 AM)
Budi'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.

Why are you accepting something so exploitative just because you benefit from it. There are more fair ways than baiting people paying extra for cosmetics they want, to fund continuing development of multiplayer games. And Blizzard also asks 40/60 bucks upfront.

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

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

That's not THE alternative, there are many like selling the damn cosmetic items as a direct purchase. You pay for the item you want not a minuscule chance of it.

Originally Posted by Azure Phoenix

Because letting you buy what you want doesn't hook in the whales, the sort that will gladly drop $1k trying to pull a specific super rare card of their favourite character. If governments aren't going to class and regulate it as the gambling it is, are you surprised that companies are exploiting it?

Probably surprised that so many here are defending it and acting like it's the only way to go.
Spukc
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:09 AM)
Spukc's Avatar
Tbh lootboxes are not an issue to me in destiny 2.
I get them for free if i just play the game.
And i allready got 15+ boxes while playing.

But games like forza 7 and that lord of the rings game scare me a bit.

Oh and i completly stoped buying ubisoft games.
Budi
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:12 AM)
Budi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Spukc

Tbh lootboxes are not an issue to me in destiny 2.
I get them for free if i just play the game.
And i allready got 15+ boxes while playing.

But games like forza 7 and that lord of the rings game scare me a bit.

Oh and i completly stoped buying ubisoft games.

Are Ubi games really that egregious with this? Atleast Rainbow Six isn't that bad from what I remember about it, I don't think you even can buy loot boxes with real money. Or you just don't like Ubisoft games?
carlsojo
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:14 AM)
carlsojo's Avatar
I love when everyone in this thread calling people idiots because they spend money on lootboxes. I throw a few bucks at lootboxes or card packs or new heroes on HotS every now and then. So what? It's my money, I worked hard for it, I'll spend it how I want.

PS the "it could have been free cheat codes!" argument is pretty naive. I vaguely remember buying gum or cards or something with the codes on them. There were magazines with cheat codes. Tips and Tricks? Game Genies. They monetized that stuff how they could. And you or your parents paid for it!
Dipper145
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:15 AM)
Dipper145's Avatar
I'm down for whatever allows big games to keep games at the same cost they've been for way too long now. I'm okay with it being cosmetics, or giving minor advantages to players who buy them, or a time saving method for players. I understand that's not fair, I just don't really care and haven't ever had my play noticeably effected by it.

I can understand being frustrated with loot boxes if you were the type of player who is really into how the character you play looks and the cosmetics coming out randomly through loot boxes. That would be frustrating.

Originally Posted by carlsojo

I love when everyone in this thread calling people idiots because they spend money on lootboxes. I throw a few bucks at lootboxes or card packs or new heroes on HotS every now and then. So what? It's my money, I worked hard for it, I'll spend it how I want.

Surely I would hope people would see differences between loot boxes in free games, and games with an initial upfront cost as being different things. There's nothing dumb about spending money on loot boxes, especially in free to play games, at all.
Spukc
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:16 AM)
Spukc's Avatar

Originally Posted by Budi

Are Ubi games really that egregious with this? Atleast Rainbow Six isn't that bad from what I remember about it.

Buggy releases ,downgrade in gfx and game prices drop like crazy. Funny you said rainbow six that was the game that made me never buy games from them again.
Being slapped in the face with skinnerbox crap.
Seasonpass whatever.
Zafir
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:16 AM)
Zafir'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.

Originally Posted by RalchAC

I can get lootboxes in multi-player focused games with no Season Pass. They need a way to earn money, not just to cover the costs, but actually making financially worth to have a few dozens of people working on updates instead of a new game. Publishers need to justify why that people isnt working on new games and money is the best answer.

You can add in microtransactions that doesn't affect gameplay (or at worst just expedites getting something) but still allows them to earn money, while not using the shitty loot box way of doing it(a system which is designed to be exploitative/get the most money from people).
Whales
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:17 AM)
Whales's Avatar
ill only defend lootboxes if they make additionnal dlc content free, like in OW, halo 5 and games like that ( and if the lootboxes contents are cosmetics only, not sure if thats the case with halo)


games with lootboxes AND paid dlc expansions? fuck you
Budi
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:20 AM)
Budi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Spukc

Buggy releases ,downgrade in gfx and game prices drop like crazy. Funny you said rainbow six that was the game that made me never buy games from them again.
Being slapped in the face with skinnerbox crap.
Seasonpass whatever.

Have they changed it so that you can buy lootboxes with money? It's been really long since I played the game, so I might remember things wrong or something could have changed. I do feel you don't hold every dev to the same standard regarding "downgrades" and buggy releases.

Originally Posted by Phrozenflame500

Defending P2W on the grounds of "it's more satisfying to be at a disadvantage!" feels like a gigantic bait argument to me.


Probably the best implementation of lootboxes, albeit it doesn't really fit OP's example cause it's all cosmetic.

Probably not. There are free to play games with cosmetic loot boxes only. Some of them also let you buy specific cosmetics directly and not just gamble, even sell those you don't want to keep. All this while being free to play game and not 40/60 bucks. Overwatch is a far cry from best MT implementation.
statham
Banned
(10-07-2017, 02:20 AM)
statham's Avatar
game prices have't gone up in awhile, while cost has. If I'm enjoying a game and a loot box I think is worth it, eh. I have no issues.
Aztechnology
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:29 AM)
Aztechnology's Avatar

Originally Posted by statham

game prices have't gone up in awhile, while cost has. If I'm enjoying a game and a loot box I think is worth it, eh. I have no issues.

Cost really hasn't increased that much comparative to revenues and profits some of the more egregious offenders are/were taking in, even prior to the latest pushes.

What has increased a lot is marketing costs. But still it's kind of misleading to say game companies are making less on average overall. There's a lot of other factors aside from just inflation and development costs. Digital game sales increasing has contributed greatly to their coffers for instance.

It's similar to the argument that is made about why Sony and Microsoft charge for online services, but the foundation for their arguments usually isn't based on fact. It really just comes down to, they do it because they can and it will increase their profits.

Thread Tools