Let's talk about Loot Boxes

[Stanley]

39 minutes ago, Harsin said:

It’s not random though is it? They do set things in set games?

 

i really don’t like gating off parts of games behind some plastic tat, but it’s nowhere near as pernicious as the loot boxes being discussed in this thread.

Well in Zelda for example different Amiibos give you different things, but it's random each day. 

 

It's nowhere near as bad as loot boxes but it's still tempting you to spend more money to be able to gain items in game that you'd otherwise only get by actually playing the game - food, shields, weapons and the like. 

 

So while they're different they do bear similarities. 

[sprite]

9 hours ago, Stanley said:

Well in Zelda for example different Amiibos give you different things, but it's random each day. 

 

It's nowhere near as bad as loot boxes but it's still tempting you to spend more money to be able to gain items in game that you'd otherwise only get by actually playing the game - food, shields, weapons and the like. 

 

So while they're different they do bear similarities. 

 

But in Zelda, each amiibo has a chance of particular kit.  Eg the OoT 30th Anniversary Link has a chance to drop an OoT outfit item.

 

So if you want that kit, you buy THAT Amiibo.  You don’t need to buy 10 different ones for ten chances.  If you don’t want that kit, you don’t buy it.

 

The food and stuff is also slightly random but slightly not.  Each amiibo again will do either meat, muhrooms, arrows, etc etc.  This is all well documented.

 

With Amiibo you know what you’re going to get.  And the figurines are IMO worth the £10.99 asking price.

 

People who don’t want to buy them aren’t missing out on a huge advantage in game, especially not one over other people.  That’s the key - Overwatch’s loot is purely cosmetic because it’s a multiplayer game. Offering upgraded weapons behind a paywall in a competitive multiplayer game is ridiculous.

[footle]

The rock paper shotgun reviewer makes a reasonable case that Shadow of Wars loot boxes are only relevant if you don’t actually want to play the game.

(if, say, you’re a reviewer for Polygon and have a load of games to get through in September/October)

 

Have to admit that the SW Battlefront 2 boxes though sound quite unbalanced, unless they’re going to just throw high cards at beginners.

[Stanley]

14 minutes ago, sprite said:

 

But in Zelda, each amiibo has a chance of particular kit.  Eg the OoT 30th Anniversary Link has a chance to drop an OoT outfit item.

 

So if you want that kit, you buy THAT Amiibo.  You don’t need to buy 10 different ones for ten chances.  If you don’t want that kit, you don’t buy it.

 

The food and stuff is also slightly random but slightly not.  Each amiibo again will do either meat, muhrooms, arrows, etc etc.  This is all well documented.

 

With Amiibo you know what you’re going to get.  And the figurines are IMO worth the £10.99 asking price.

 

People who don’t want to buy them aren’t missing out on a huge advantage in game, especially not one over other people.  That’s the key - Overwatch’s loot is purely cosmetic because it’s a multiplayer game. Offering upgraded weapons behind a paywall in a competitive multiplayer game is ridiculous.

"has a chance" is the pertinent bit there. Like I said they're not exactly the same but they appeal to that part of the brain.

[mdn2]

The thing with amiibos is that it's a one time payment as well. You buy your figure and can use it continually, unlike loot boxes.

 

I have about a dozen amiibo and have never used them once for an in game item. They sit on a display shelf. 

[Opinionated Ham Scarecrow]

All the talk on forums of boycotting Shadow of War cos of the loot boxes and straight to the top of the Steam charts zooming past pubg it goes! Haha.

[Broker]

11 hours ago, Stanley said:

Well in Zelda for example different Amiibos give you different things, but it's random each day. 

 

It's nowhere near as bad as loot boxes but it's still tempting you to spend more money to be able to gain items in game that you'd otherwise only get by actually playing the game - food, shields, weapons and the like. 

 

So while they're different they do bear similarities. 

 

It seems like you’re struggling with the concept of gambling. You pay once for Amiibo and then you know what you’re going to get. You can either scan once a day in Zelda, or if you really want to then you can repeatedly reload and rescan until you get the item you want. Either way, you’re paying ONCE and you’re told what the items you can get are. It is not the same as loot boxes, and no matter how many times you ignore the explanations of that and repeat the same thing it’s not going to become the same thing.

[chris on the moon]

I thought loot crates were those subscription things where you'd pay a monthly fee to get some promotional tat like some comic book keyring and a funko pop and a bad t-shirt for whatever thing you were tragically obsessed with.

 So it's something in games now, like, buying a pack of booster cards where you don't know what's in it, but it could potentially be something that benefits you playing the game in some way as well as cosmetic additions that don't affect gameplay?

[Cosmic_Guru]

2 minutes ago, chris on the moon said:

I thought loot crates were those subscription things where you'd pay a monthly fee to get some promotional tat like some comic book keyring and a funko pop and a bad t-shirt for whatever thing you were tragically obsessed with.

 So it's something in games now, like, buying a pack of booster cards where you don't know what's in it, but it could potentially be something that benefits you playing the game in some way as well as cosmetic additions that don't affect gameplay?

 

It's both.  They had some physical loot boxes on sale for £30 or something at EGX too.

[Stanley]

32 minutes ago, Broker said:

 

It seems like you’re struggling with the concept of gambling. You pay once for Amiibo and then you know what you’re going to get. You can either scan once a day in Zelda, or if you really want to then you can repeatedly reload and rescan until you get the item you want. Either way, you’re paying ONCE and you’re told what the items you can get are. It is not the same as loot boxes, and no matter how many times you ignore the explanations of that and repeat the same thing it’s not going to become the same thing.

The items you get are randomised from a subset aren't they? With a guaranteed chance of getting a high value type, such as hylian shield or whatever, depending on which type of Amiibo you are using.

 

I never said It was exactly the same as loot boxes, I said they appeal to the same part of the brain and ultimately serve the same purpose. And the way they get you to purchase more Amiibos is by offering the chance to get different kinds of loot, or increasing your chances and the frequency with which you can use them i.e. the more you own the more chances you get, daily, to obtain the loot. So there's this compulsion to carry on buying more Amiibos.

 

It's like cigarettes. You're addicted to the nicotine. The cigarettes are just the delivery device. 

[El Spatula]

Amiibos are more like horse armour. Only you have to make do with having plastic tat cluttering up the house as well. 

[Harsin]

1 hour ago, Gizamaluke said:

All the talk on forums of boycotting Shadow of War cos of the loot boxes and straight to the top of the Steam charts zooming past pubg it goes! Haha.

 

Of couse it did. The gaming market has proved time and time again they’re willing to get shafted by publishers. Go on NeoGAF and you'll find plenty of people defending the loot boxes in BF2 and SoM.

 

The games media help with this. I see Kotaku has put up a front page article about not letting loot boxes put you off buying Shadow of Mordor, that might as well have a picture of Bugs Bunny handing over a bag with a dollar symbol as the header.

 

Of course a disable contingent of gamers don’t seem to care about 'ethics' unless it’s uppity women acting above their station by doing things like making games and not sleeping with them.

[Stanley]

 

[sprite]

46 minutes ago, Stanley said:

The items you get are randomised from a subset aren't they? With a guaranteed chance of getting a high value type, such as hylian shield or whatever, depending on which type of Amiibo you are using.

 

I never said It was exactly the same as loot boxes, I said they appeal to the same part of the brain and ultimately serve the same purpose. And the way they get you to purchase more Amiibos is by offering the chance to get different kinds of loot, or increasing your chances and the frequency with which you can use them i.e. the more you own the more chances you get, daily, to obtain the loot. So there's this compulsion to carry on buying more Amiibos.

 

It's like cigarettes. You're addicted to the nicotine. The cigarettes are just the delivery device. 

 

Well you're again only really talking about Zelda.  The Mario amiibo for example as documented previously - one of them gives you a one up.  Not a chance of a one up.

 

In Zelda, the items are randomised from a subset but they really don't mean much.  You're talking about whether you're going to get raw meat or a raw drumstick, or a fire mushroom rather than a lightning mushroom, as opposed to whether you have a chance of getting a new sword or a new shield.  Even then, amiibo A will give you meat, whilst amiibo B will give you mushrooms.  I really don't think people are buying loads of amiibo because they want extra mushrooms and meat and flowers and.... 

 

Or maybe they are, I may be completely wrong.  There's just a huge difference between gambling on a chance of a weapon upgrade versus a few extra apples in Zelda.

 

amiibo also chiefly appeal to a completely different part of the brain IMO since you actually have a physical item.  One you can look at.  Or play with (here I assume child, but anything goes)!

 

With amiibo Nintendo really jumped on board the Skylanders etc train rather than the gambling train.  And as said previously what they offer gives you no direct advantage over the next person; the really awful thing about Battlefront 2 is that if you have more money to spend, you will basically be at an advantage against other people who haven't spent on the lootboxes.  So £50-60 to enter and play a game and then you have a shit time because you're repeatedly destroyed by people who have spent £100 instead.  Or kids who come away from it and then start crying at their parents that they need X, Y and Z because the game isn't fun for them.

 

It's not the same at all as amiibo.

 

PS: my little koopa troopa looks so cute, I'm happy just to have him as is.  I have no idea what he offers in games.  There's plenty of people who feel that way - if we're addicted to anything, it's having cool yet ultimately pointless gaming tat in our house.

[Stanley]

21 minutes ago, sprite said:

 

Well you're again only really talking about Zelda.  The Mario amiibo for example as documented previously - one of them gives you a one up.  Not a chance of a one up.

 

In Zelda, the items are randomised from a subset but they really don't mean much.  You're talking about whether you're going to get raw meat or a raw drumstick, or a fire mushroom rather than a lightning mushroom, as opposed to whether you have a chance of getting a new sword or a new shield.  Even then, amiibo A will give you meat, whilst amiibo B will give you mushrooms.  I really don't think people are buying loads of amiibo because they want extra mushrooms and meat and flowers and.... 

 

Or maybe they are, I may be completely wrong.  There's just a huge difference between gambling on a chance of a weapon upgrade versus a few extra apples in Zelda.

 

amiibo also chiefly appeal to a completely different part of the brain IMO since you actually have a physical item.  One you can look at.  Or play with (here I assume child, but anything goes)!

 

With amiibo Nintendo really jumped on board the Skylanders etc train rather than the gambling train.  And as said previously what they offer gives you no direct advantage over the next person; the really awful thing about Battlefront 2 is that if you have more money to spend, you will basically be at an advantage against other people who haven't spent on the lootboxes.  So £50-60 to enter and play a game and then you have a shit time because you're repeatedly destroyed by people who have spent £100 instead.  Or kids who come away from it and then start crying at their parents that they need X, Y and Z because the game isn't fun for them.

 

It's not the same at all as amiibo.

 

PS: my little koopa troopa looks so cute, I'm happy just to have him as is.  I have no idea what he offers in games.  There's plenty of people who feel that way - if we're addicted to anything, it's having cool yet ultimately pointless gaming tat in our house.

I accept what you're saying, and the differences, but I do disagree on the part about them not appealing to the same part of the brain. I believe that people with obsessive compulsive tendencies are more likely to buy Amiibos, just in the same way they are likely to buy lootboxes. 

 

I think it's a clever move from Nintendo, from a business standpoint at least. They keep it hidden  (in Zelda especially you have to delve deep into menus and what have you) and at the end of the day it's just plastic toys right. What's the harm in that? But just how other publishers have moved from online passes to DLC & IAP to loot boxes, there's nothing to stop Nintendo from, in future, limiting your Amiibo uses, or offering ones that give players a measurable advantage in, say, Splatoon. The systems are in place now, and once you've got people hooked on them..

 

Loot boxes are currently the worst example of IAP's on the market, but it didn't happen overnight. 

[sprite]

2 minutes ago, Stanley said:

I accept what you're saying, and the differences, but I do disagree on the part about them not appealing to the same part of the brain. I believe that people with obsessive compulsive tendencies are more likely to buy Amiibos, just in the same way they are likely to buy lootboxes. 

 

I think it's a clever move from Nintendo. They keep it hidden  (in Zelda especially you have delve deep into menus and what you) and at the end of the day it's just plastic toys right. What's the harm in that? But just how other publishers have moved from online passes to DLC & IAP to loot boxes, there's nothing to stop Nintendo from, in future, limiting your Amiibo uses, or offering ones that give players a measurable advantage in, say, Splatoon. The systems are in place now, and once you've got people hooked on them..

 

Loot boxes are currently the worst example of IAP's on the market, but it didn't happen overnight. 

 

You are probably right on this, but I have to disagree that it's because of the electronic content one may get.  I do have such tendencies - as indeed a lot of folk here do I am sure, that's what makes us collectors - but I don't buy amiibo I don't like the look of.  That to me says it's more about the aesthetics of them, and I bought amiibo before I even had any games they did anything with! My first purchases were Fox McCloud who I've since misplaced and Pikachu from SSB because they were the characters my brother and I always used to play.

 

Maybe Nintendo do have some big masterplan but I seriously doubt it, they can't even get online gaming right at this stage, let alone trying to exploit people who actually do play against each other   I may eat my words but I will be very surprised if they go down that road because part of Nintendo's appeal is and has always been that they are more of a pure gamers' choice, an alternative to all the other craziness that goes on.  So let's not tar them with the same brush just yet.

 

Loot boxes are shit.  

[Stanley]

Regardless whether you buy them for the content or not, other people will. 

 

As you say, Nintendo are behind the curve generally when it comes to online. But they dabble in this stuff already as evidenced by Fire Embem Heroes, which to be fair is free to play, but they do it in that game. And let's be honest, the only reason they moved into the mobile space at all was due to pressure from shareholders.

 

I think it's wishful thinking to believe that Nintendo won't follow the route of other big publishers in future. The revenue is too big to be ignored. Whether they'll use Amiibos to facilitate this or more aggressive IAP's remains to be seen. But the systems are all in place.

[DC Lemon]

If what I've read about Battlefront 2 is correct and loot boxes play a role to the extent they're said to, they've lost my interest.

 

Online shooters are frustrating enough without P2W. I'm not playing ones where I die to something that I have to pay for a slim chance of obtaining. That, rather than exosuits, is why I stopped playing COD.

 

It's not even some moral stance or sense of indignation, I'm just not putting myself through such an experience. Again, there are few level playing fields in the genre as it is. Overwatch being one. Overwatch would be the same experience if I'd never opened a single loot box. The exact same horrible, soul-destroying experience, but I digress.

 

[Corranga]

Prior to this thread, I also, thought loot boxes were those things you subscribed to online, which were essentially giant versions of blind bags that kids get.

I see now they are something more.

If they are restricted to cosmetic crap I'll never buy, then I have no problem with them.

When they start affecting game play it becomes more of an issue.

 

The Amiibo comparison is interesting.  I own a few ammibos, 35 or so.  They are all still nicely sealed in their boxes looking pretty in a nice OCD manner.  They are collectables, and I am a collector (though not specifically of Amibos).

 

I have a set of yarr Amiibo cards Zelda cards, and also a set of blank cards and an android phone that I've used for some abilities in games perhaps, so have an idea of what they might do.

I've only used them in 3 games, all on Switch:

Splatoon - you can save a weapon set up to the Amiibo which is useful.

 

Mario + Rabbids - you get 1 weapon per character that is better than the default weapon you get for that character, but isn't that great and is quickly replaced as you play.  I think you get the weapon for free though so perhaps you could skip past a weapon / save the credit and buy a better one quicker so it would benefit the single player campaign.  I used them too late to benefit.

 

and Zelda... - there is a luck element in there and you do get exclusive items of clothing and strong / exclusive weapons.  The difference for me is that the luck element isn't gambling.  You haven't paid money (or even credits) to get a chance to get something.  You can continue to use the Amiibo day after day, and you will end up with all of the exclusive stuff.  Loot boxes don't seem to offer that.  It's like a straight up scratch card.  You win, or you loose.

 

I don't like loot boxes, but then I also don't like  launch day DLC, or season passes, or in game advertisements for DLC, or any game that forces you to see DLC time after time (e.g Forza car selection screens) - those virtual blanked off buttons on your cars dashboard.

 

I still play a lot of Pokemon Go, and whilst I'm a free player - it's clear to me that if people enjoy something and want more, they will pay, and continue to pay more and more and more.  That's the world we live in, and I have a feeling its all going to get much worse before it gets better.

 

I do wonder if we'll see some press spun headlines about gambling and kids though, not good for the industry we all love.

 

[Nate Dogg III]

2 hours ago, Harsin said:

The games media help with this. I see Kotaku has put up a front page article about not letting loot boxes put you off buying Shadow of Mordor, that might as well have a picture of Bugs Bunny handing over a bag with a dollar symbol as the header.

 

Ah c'mon. You can't have people asking for a more thorough press on one hand, then complain when they actually do the work and find out the truth of it. That article is intended specifically to correct the misconception that was flung around when the embargo lifted that you couldn't see the ending without paying up or grinding for dozens of hours.

 

I don't think a kneejerk 'this is bad' response is going to help at all, because it ends up putting the inoffensive in the same basket as the truly gross. The fuss around Destiny's microtransactions was misguided; now it sounds like the furore around Shadow Of War was off the mark as well. Yet the Battlefront stuff, assuming the final game works the same way as the beta, sounds absolutely horrific. Until we can have a sensible conversation about this stuff we're not going to get anywhere, I don't think.

[Benny]

Let's have a conversation about it right now:

 

Don't put loot boxes and microtransations in full priced games or make apologies for publishers who do it.

 

There, that was easy. What's next?

[Oz]

12 minutes ago, Benny said:

Let's have a conversation about it right now:

 

Don't put loot boxes and microtransations in full priced games or make apologies for publishers who do it.

 

There, that was easy. What's next?

they should not be on any game (full price or not) without a mature rating and a warning. same as when an internet connection is required or memory on your hard drive. "additional payments/purchases may be required to access some of this game's content" "some people may suffer seizures, other may become addicted to loot boxes" "warning: this game takes place in the Tolkien universe"

[Benny]

This sort of "as a service" shit is the death of games as an art form and should be shouted down the plughole by everyone in the gaming press. Just because it's widespread doesn't mean journalists should accept it.

[Stanley]

31 minutes ago, Benny said:

Let's have a conversation about it right now:

 

Don't put loot boxes and microtransations in full priced games or make apologies for publishers who do it.

 

There, that was easy. What's next?

Fucking A. 

[Benny]

I might have to count how many games in the Rllmuk top 100 have loot boxes or microtransations actually so that I can strip them of their placing.

 

Spoiler

I'm half joking.

 

[Stanley]

23 minutes ago, Benny said:

This sort of "as a service" shit is the death of games as an art form and should be shouted down the plughole by everyone in the gaming press. Just because it's widespread doesn't mean journalists should accept it.

I couldn't agree with you more. The only thing that will stop it now is boycotting the games entirely. No previews, reviews, nothing. 

 

But that won't happen because games industry PR and games journalism is interchangeable. 

[Benny]

1 hour ago, Nate Dogg III said:

I don't think a kneejerk 'this is bad' response is going to help at all, because it ends up putting the inoffensive in the same basket as the truly gross.

 

I also completely disagree with this. "Inoffensive" inclusion of this shite still doesn't mean it's acceptable, and it opens the door for other publishers including it in worse ways because less intrusive versions of the practice were glossed over by the press. The only way it's ever going to improve is if people in the gaming press and consumers take a stand against all forms of it and call it out for the cynical practice it is.

[Nate Dogg III]

51 minutes ago, Benny said:

Let's have a conversation about it right now:

 

Don't put loot boxes and microtransations in full priced games or make apologies for publishers who do it.

 

There, that was easy. What's next?

 

Guess you missed the 'sensible' bit. You're putting Overwatch's fun earnable cosmetics on an even keel with the worst kind of game-breaking P2W shit imaginable, and that doesn't get you anywhere. 

[Hexx]

Has anyone ever actually looked at a game and gone "Oooo goody Microtransactions/Loot Boxes!"?

 

[Benny]

6 minutes ago, Nate Dogg III said:

 

Guess you missed the 'sensible' bit. You're putting Overwatch's fun earnable cosmetics on an even keel with the worst kind of game-breaking P2W shit imaginable, and that doesn't get you anywhere. 

 

See my post above: I don't think the lootboxes in Overwatch are acceptable either. Though they are the thinnest end of the wedge. It's not like they were necessary either.

 

Any dopamine rush focused addictive technique that can be harvested for real money should be banned from games, especially those marketed at children. The gaming press can make a start by refusing to review them.

 

Do you review gambling machines? If not why not?