Let's talk about Loot Boxes

[Stanley]

It's indicative of where we are today that someone would describe paying for cosmetic items as 'fun'. 

[TehStu]

See, I was ready to buy BF II just because it's Star Wars, but everyone should be shouting about this sort of stuff until either enough people vote with their wallets () or publishers change their tune.

 

[MW_Jimmy]

12 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. 

 

If Overwatch cosmetics are so fun and earnable then make them an honest part of the game design. Don't allow real world currency into that portion of the game.

 

This excusing of gambling mechanics is baffling.

[Nate Dogg III]

28 minutes ago, Hexx said:

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

 

 

There's an entire generation of kids for whom FIFA Ultimate Team is the new Panini sticker album, so yes, probably. 

 

Introducing real-world currency to Overwatch allows Blizzard to make every post-release map, mode and character available to everyone for free, while also ensuring non-paying players get the occasional free quid in the fruity too. I struggle to see a friendlier implementation of the idea than that.

 

I fully realise this is an ideological thing for many people, but I think you have to see it from both sides. We are paying roughly the same for games today that we were 20 years ago, but in that time team sizes and development costs on big-budget games have increased, at a conservative estimate, tenfold. The size of the audience has grown, yes, but not by enough to fully close that gap. There is always going to be a way in which publishers seek to make up the shortfall. Currently, their focus is loot boxes. Some implementations of that idea are better than others. Some are much worse. I agree there needs to be some form of regulation around it, but that regulation will only limit it; it will not ban it outright. So I don't think 'fuck all this stuff' is a productive stance to take, sorry, because the chances of it all getting fucked are slim to none.

[MW_Jimmy]

17 minutes ago, Nate Dogg III said:

Introducing real-world currency to Overwatch allows Blizzard to make every post-release map, mode and character available to everyone for free, while also ensuring non-paying players get the occasional free quid in the fruity too. I struggle to see a friendlier implementation of the idea than that.

 

I understand that multiplayer games need some sort of ongoing financial support to keep going, and traditionally this was through buying expansions/map packs. People didn't like this because it splits the user-base but I still think there is a place for this model (Destiny/World of Warcraft)

 

For Overwatch they could implement the Rocket League/DoA model. Loot boxes are there, tied into the game with pretend money only. Any real money items should be completely purchasable outright and no need for second currencies.

 

If somebody wants to spend £6 to dress up their superhero like Captain Planet then let them without pulling a virtual real money slot machine where it might cost them £1-£100 instead. One purchase - done.

[TehStu]

Taking a stance against anything in this industry certainly feels like pissing into the wind. Even I've succumbed to buying PS4 games again (I checked out after Customer Service-gate), although picking up discs cheap from Amazon as the game goes out of fashion.

 

I don't think we have to tolerate every implementation as "rising costs of development", though. I've actually been happy chipping away at paid DLC for things like Forza Horizon. Some season passes are occasionally worth it too, when someone has a track record of delivering. So many do not.

 

edit - meant to say, it's the RNG aspect that needs to be automatically stamped out. In a fit of stupidity, I once spent a stupid amount of money on little return in a F2P game, thanks to the random nature of it. Paying to win - well, we've had that for a long time, although it previously felt limited to F2P.

[K]

I struggle to get really worked up about loot boxes, if only because it reminds me of the fuss over DLC, microtransactions, online passes, IAPs, season passes, etc etc, none of which ended up killing off AAA games, or even really negatively affecting them in any meaningful way. The majority of game developers and publishers seem to be very conscious of the need to offer value for money with their games, and don’t want their audience to think they’re being mugged off – if you’re offering a £40 product, then the obvious way to position this sort of thing is as an extra for people who are happy to pay for extra stuff, or to get stuff more quickly. That seems to be roughly where these things have landed - games still seem to be balanced in a way that rewards people who don’t pay for extras, because that’s the obvious way to structure something like this if you want it to actually appeal to people.

 

Look at how quickly Microsoft reacted to the perception of Forza 5 and Forza 7 as offering a shit deal to players. They rebalanced the in-game economy of Forza 5 just after launch, and they reworked the way the VIP passes work before Forza 7 even came out. I suspect that publishers and developers are acutely conscious of how potential customers view their games, and that seems to create an incentive not to take the piss.

 

Are there any games that have been ruined by this sort of thing? It doesn’t seem to have ruined Shadow of War, any more than microtransactions ruined Forza Horizon, Assassins Creed, Elite: Dangerous, Destiny, Halo 5, etc etc.

[Harsin]

Are there any shitty mobile F2P practices left that are yet to be crammed into full price games?  The only one that I can think of that the likes of EA haven’t yet implemented is watching adverts for an in-game reward.

[Benny]

It's really simple: allow an inch and publishers take a mile, which is why there are ever more shitty implementations of these practices happening. Game journos will continue to insist there are reasons they can be justified because they know which way their bread is buttered and do not have a vested interest in taking a stand against it.

[Stanley]

So we're saying now that unless Overwatch charges people real money for lootboxes it wouldn't be profitable? Blizzard would go bust? That's Activision Blizzard Inc btw. Yes the same Activision that bought King Digital for $5.9 billion. King Digital make delights such as Candy Crush Saga in case you didn't know.

 

Although perhaps the shit is about to hit the fan. 

 

http://m.nasdaq.com/article/todays-research-reports-on-stocks-to-watch-electronic-arts-and-activision-blizzard-20171010-00512

 

Quote

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / October 10, 2017 / Cowen analysts were less than kind on Monday about the gaming industry in a report, which had traders cautious about gaming companies like Activision Blizzard and Electronic Arts. The analysts argue that, "after a tremendous five-year run, we think the video game stocks are heading into choppy waters." 

 

[Benny]

Microtransations and Lootboxes are, at best, anti-consumer and, at worst, anti-art.

 

I cannot get on board with anyone in the "industry" that would defend either.

 

 

[K]

5 minutes ago, Benny said:

It's really simple: allow an inch and publishers take a mile, which is why there are ever more shitty implementations of these practices happening. Game journos will continue to insist there are reasons they can be justified because they know which way their bread is buttered and do not have a vested interest in taking a stand against it.

 

Which games have been ruined by this practice to date, though? It sounds like Shadow of War isn't really affected; nobody really has a problem with Overwatch's implementation of loot boxes. They didn't break Mass Effect 3, Halo 5, Gears 4, Team Fortress 2 or CoD: Infinite Warfare.  Isn't it possible that purchasable loot boxes aren't that big a deal? On the evidence to date, it feels like they can co-exist with the traditional AAA structure without turning it into Candy Crush Saga.

 

And it doesn't really seem likely that games journos are maintaining some kind of conspiracy of silence about this.

[Broker]

Nah, the only way for the industry to survive and be art is if all games journalists start screaming the same ill informed points about gambling and slippery slopes as Stanley and Benny, otherwise they’re all just shills.

[Benny]

I could take a shit on your roof. I doubt it would break it either, but I'm pretty sure you'd rather it didn't happen again and would rather I didn't start taking even bigger dumps all over it.

[Stanley]

It depends what you mean by ruined. In your face dual currency systems linked to lootboxes immediately spoils the immersion for me. 

 

Also, how did you conclude that nobody really has a problem with them? I'm sure people with gambling habits have a pretty big problem with them.

[DC Lemon]

Some did have a problem with Overwatch's implementation of loot boxes. China being one.

 

Which was nice because they were exposed as being thoroughly stingy and I went from getting four duplicates in every box to still waiting for my first duplicate since Blizzard was forced to make changes to them.

[Benny]

4 minutes ago, Broker said:

Nah, the only way for the industry to survive and be art is if all games journalists start screaming the same ill informed points about gambling and slippery slopes as Stanley and Benny, otherwise they’re all just shills.

 

Ill-informed how exactly? What greater knowledge of the subject do you have that you can enlighten me with? K is making an effort to argue a counterpoint, so where is yours, if you're going to call out ignorance?

[Stanley]

Worth signing if you're uninformed like myself

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/201300

[Stanley]

15 minutes ago, DC LEMON said:

Some did have a problem with Overwatch's implementation of loot boxes. China being one.

 

Which was nice because they were exposed as being thoroughly stingy and I went from getting four duplicates in every box to still waiting for my first duplicate since Blizzard was forced to make changes to them.

Didn't they just force them to disclose the odds, rather actually alter the parameters?

[TehStu]

22 minutes ago, K said:

I struggle to get really worked up about loot boxes, if only because it reminds me of the fuss over DLC, microtransactions, online passes, IAPs, season passes, etc etc, none of which ended up killing off AAA games, or even really negatively affecting them in any meaningful way. The majority of game developers and publishers seem to be very conscious of the need to offer value for money with their games, and don’t want their audience to think they’re being mugged off – if you’re offering a £40 product, then the obvious way to position this sort of thing is as an extra for people who are happy to pay for extra stuff, or to get stuff more quickly. That seems to be roughly where these things have landed - games still seem to be balanced in a way that rewards people who don’t pay for extras, because that’s the obvious way to structure something like this if you want it to actually appeal to people.

 

Look at how quickly Microsoft reacted to the perception of Forza 5 and Forza 7 as offering a shit deal to players. They rebalanced the in-game economy of Forza 5 just after launch, and they reworked the way the VIP passes work before Forza 7 even came out. I suspect that publishers and developers are acutely conscious of how potential customers view their games, and that seems to create an incentive not to take the piss.

 

Are there any games that have been ruined by this sort of thing? It doesn’t seem to have ruined Shadow of War, any more than microtransactions ruined Forza Horizon, Assassins Creed, Elite: Dangerous, Destiny, Halo 5, etc etc.

 

To be fair K, it's surely only because some people got worked up that said changes to Forza happened.

 

Having said that, the FM7 stuff was more that the VIP membership was quietly altered to be time limited, rather than perpetual 2x credits/XP. That's just plain dick stuff from Turn 10 and/or Microsoft, and they were right to put it back. Although of course, $20 for something which gives you two $6 car packs and twice the credits is weird anyway. I've only ever picked up VIP memberships with Bing rewards when they're on sale for a fiver.

[Talk Show Host]

 

1 hour ago, K said:

 

Which games have been ruined by this practice to date, though? It sounds like Shadow of War isn't really affected; nobody really has a problem with Overwatch's implementation of loot boxes. They didn't break Mass Effect 3, Halo 5, Gears 4, Team Fortress 2 or CoD: Infinite Warfare.  Isn't it possible that purchasable loot boxes aren't that big a deal? On the evidence to date, it feels like they can co-exist with the traditional AAA structure without turning it into Candy Crush Saga.

 

And it doesn't really seem likely that games journos are maintaining some kind of conspiracy of silence about this.

 

Surely the question should be why they're there in the first place though, right? If they are not blatantly exploiting the customers, what are they? What real value do they bring to the table that couldn't be included in the game in the first place? Myself I would much prefer a full and complete Mass Effect 3 than the shit we got, for example, if it meant putting all the dlc into one complete game.

 

Season passes, DLCs, etc have changed how games are being developed in a quite substantial way, and it is not for the better. Look how mainstream series like FIFA, PES, CoD, Battlefront, etc offer the same gameplay over and over again without ANY real innovation, choosing instead to focus their resources on offering a steady drip of dlc of any kind. The fact that people buy these series and the publishers make millions doesn't mean that everything is right and dandy. 

[carlospie]

I love loot boxes

[Broker]

2 hours ago, Benny said:

 

Ill-informed how exactly? What greater knowledge of the subject do you have that you can enlighten me with? K is making an effort to argue a counterpoint, so where is yours, if you're going to call out ignorance?

 

Well my assumption is that you're ill informed because the argument you're making is entirely free of logic and bears no resemblance to the real world. So let's break it down:

 

Firstly, your argument is that this is the thin end of the wedge, essentially the classic slippery slope argument. The first thing to note here is that something happening does not indicate that it will axiomatically continue to happen at an escalating rate. There were a lot of arguments that if we accepted season passes, pre-order DLC and such that they would continue to increase in scope, but that hasn't really happened. Season passes are still basically ways to pay in advance for chunks of DLC that are similar sizes to when these ideas were implemented. Battlefield Premium cost roughly the same for Battlefield 3, 4, Hardline and 1 for instance, rather than increasing in cost each time. The amount of content has varied, but when it has been lower consumers have been unhappy and often, as K has pointed out, there is a proportional response from the developers when people are unhappy, because it is not in their interest to anger their audience. 

 

Extrapolating further, do you feel this way about other things? Do you believe that the 3D surcharge on movies will automatically lead on to further additional charges? Do you assume that if someone steals a single loaf of bread that they would murder someone? Plenty of historical governments have considered "criminals" a slippery slope and zero tolerance the only option. Should we be throwing people in jail for having a fraction of a gram of weed because otherwise they will definitely start selling coke?

 

The slippery slope argument is total, utter bullshit. If you accept something, it might then increase, or it might decrease, or it might stay roughly level. Similarly, stating that every single publisher is exactly the same is a similarly illogical argument, but other people have offered explanations for the difference between different implementations of this idea, and you have dismissed them because you seem to genuinely believe that every company and person in the entire industry can be boiled down to being identical. That's an attitude that is not just stupid, it's dangerous when applied outside of this example, and is again fundamentally illogical.

 

If you'd like me to explain why Stanley's Gamergate "all of the games press are the same and they should be more ethical and objective" bullshit is ill-informed, just let me know.

[TehStu]

I wouldn't liken 3D surcharge to the increased prevalence of micro transactions on full price games. I don't think you're comparing like to like. Maybe if they charged extra for 4k assets, then you might be on to something.

[Broker]

My point is that a single increased charge did not automatically lead to that charge increasing or them adding more charges.

[Stanley]

It's ok it's broker. He gets himself worked up and then starts insulting people. He's a good kid though really.

 

@Broker we're not so much on the slippery slope as flailing around in a vat of shit. That slope has slipped.

 

Btw, well done in completely ignoring loot boxes altogether there.

[chamberlago]

I'm really uncomfortable having my "free" extra content being paid for by a company exploiting other people's gambling addictions. There will be people paying more than they can afford because they are susceptible to these things that are designed to be as addictive as possible. That's why people should be angry in my humble opinion.

 

If companies want to make extra money selling cosmetic items I don't really care that much but just let people buy them for a set price rather than making them gamble an indeterminate amount of money on a slot machine.

 

It's seedy and unethical and needs regulating like any other form of gambling.

[TehStu]

4 minutes ago, Broker said:

My point is that a single increased charge did not automatically lead to that charge increasing or them adding more charges.

They couldn't, I don't think the model lends itself towards incremental charges. Gaming is ripe for it, and I really don't understand anyone who hasn't seen them increase. I don't buy that many games, but it's absolutely obvious to me that it's happening.

 

edit: you've implied increased development costs - are you saying we can no longer produce some of these big titles without a microtransaction model post-launch? Like, I hand over my $60, one set of monies, and that's not enough to cover the development costs and whatever profit devs/publishers determined that game needed?

[Captain Kelsten]

2 minutes ago, TehStu said:

 

edit: you've implied increased development costs - are you saying we can no longer produce some of these big titles without a microtransaction model post-launch? Like, I hand over my $60, one set of monies, and that's not enough to cover the development costs and whatever profit devs/publishers determined that game needed?

 

Probably not, if some of the frankly ridiculous sales targets set by publishers are anything to go by. Games selling in the hundreds of thousands considered commercial failures or not performing as expected, that kind of thing. 

[TehStu]

1 minute ago, Doctor Shark said:

 

Probably not, if some of the frankly ridiculous sales targets set by publishers are anything to go by. Games selling in the hundreds of thousands considered commercial failures or not performing as expected, that kind of thing. 

I guess viability may differ quite a bit from expected return, mind. One is to appease shareholders, investors, etc., the other literally covers your run rate for development, right? I mean, what we're saying is that it's not possible to produce a title like SW BFII without $60 upfront + an average amount of $ over the expected lifecycle of the game. And then, is that only because of the development costs, or because it's primarily online? Supporting something online which hangs around for years, surviving only on that initial purchase, seems like a big ask. If it's because the retail price isn't enough to recoup on development, then we should be asking ourselves deeper questions.