Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

wes

Long term this will eventually back fire. Pleading poverty, while enforcing unpaid over time and insane hours on employees, and raking in bigger and bigger profits is a bit rich from these companies, but to see people who don't directly benefit parroting the poverty line is utterly absurd.

A lot of us are paying customers, and as such we can damn well, call out this crap, that is destroying gaming. The arguments in favor of these pay to win loot boxes are absurd. A lot of people were willing to tolerate cosmetic micro transactions, but that turned out to be big mistake, as the AAA companies took this as a green light to go full pay to win, and infect single player games with micro transactions.

Yes, yes, I know there companies and they want to make as much money as possible. I could care less, and I see no reason why I should. We could turn the argument around, and say as a customer, we want things as high quality as possible, while paying as little as we can get away with. This works both ways if people want to take that position.

Benzino

It's not nonsense, you have to vote with your wallet. These companies exist to make money, if they don't make money then they will have to change things up.

If you want to play a game, but it has micro transactions which you are a against, well then it's a test of how much you really care. If do care, you don't give them your money. It's like been against poor working conditions and then going to buy an iPhone, you are supporting and funding the very thing you are against.

I wanted to play Evolve, but their crazy day one content and season passes etc meant I gave it a pass. Lots of others did too and the game was a huge flop as a result (might have been a flop regardless, but their approach to dlc definitely affected the game).

wes

Benzino wrote: »

It's not nonsense, you have to vote with your wallet. These companies exist to make money, if they don't make money then they will have to change things up.

If you want to play a game, but it has micro transactions which you are a against, well then it's a test of how much you really care. If do care, you don't give them your money. It's like been against poor working conditions and then going to buy an iPhone, you are supporting and funding the very thing you are against.

I wanted to play Evolve, but their crazy day one content and season passes etc meant I gave it a pass. Lots of others did too and the game was a huge flop as a result (might have been a flop regardless, but their approach to dlc definitely affected the game).

I have passed on plenty of garbage micro transaction games. Most recently the Mordor game.

As for companies existing to make money. I could care less. I have yet to see anyone making that argument as to why I should care? Sure, the company can go out of business, but that is not my problem. Plenty of others out there, and maybe EA going down in flames would be a good thing.

As a customer, I want as much as I can get, highest quality I can get, and spend as little as possible. If you take that position in regards to companies, then you need to accept the customer position. I could care less about them making money or not, and have no reason to do so. Its a 2 way street. If these companies want to act like exploitative leeches, and plead poverty, the customer can respond accordingly.

Penn

Benzino wrote: »

It's not nonsense, you have to vote with your wallet. These companies exist to make money, if they don't make money then they will have to change things up.

If you want to play a game, but it has micro transactions which you are a against, well then it's a test of how much you really care. If do care, you don't give them your money. It's like been against poor working conditions and then going to buy an iPhone, you are supporting and funding the very thing you are against.

Not sure if this is referring to one of my previous posts, I just meant it's nonsense to say "Buy this other game if you disagree with the practices of the game you do want". I don't think someone should buy a game just to support them for not including lootbox/MTs in their game if it's not a game you wanted to buy in the first place. Just buy neither.

wes wrote: »

I have passed on plenty of garbage micro transaction games. Most recently the Mordor game.

Same here. I didn't bother getting Shadow of War even though I loved the first one. I'll not be getting Battlefront II unless they change the lootbox system and the grind for unlocking things.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Again where are you making this up from?
What I expect is when I purchase a game outright then there is no free to play model embedded in it trapping what essentially on the face of the game.

Hey, have look who's on the front. But sure pump 40+ hours of grinding into the game first to get near them.


I don't walk into the cinema to watch a movie and pop 2 euro into the seat and then click a button beside my seat to give me a randomized ending for more money either.

The trailer for Predators had a shot of Adrian Brody being covered in lasers but that never happened in the film. By your argument, I should have been disgusted that after paying money to see the film the big scene from the trailer wasn't there. If you have such an issue with loot crates and microtransactions then simply don't buy the game. It really is that simple. If you find it so distasteful go and support a different game.

Penn wrote: »

Sorry but that's complete nonsense. Buy a game you don't want to buy instead of a game you do?

Either way, it does not change the fact people have every right to point out the flaws in these methods of additional revenue and to try and get developers/publishers to aim towards more of a balance between getting additional revenue in a way that a) doesn't put gamers off buying the game in the first place and b) doesn't punish those who choose not to pay the additional money.

As I've said before, I have no issue with lootboxes & microtransactions when they're done right, and I think Overwatch got the balance spot on, and Blizzard are making a lot of additional revenue with their fair lootbox system, which doesn't impact on the game. The items are purely cosmetic and they put a lot of work into them. An argument can be made about the gambling aspect of it, but I don't see it as that big an issue.

Battlefront II has gone completely the wrong direction with their system, as did Shadow of War and others. It needs to be about more than just not buying the game. It needs to be a case where gamers voice their opinions on it and the developers listen and take it on board. It needs to be pointed out that some of the biggest selling points of the game are locked behind a grind/paywall to bring it to the attention of those who may not know it.

There is the problem, there are plenty of great games without loot crates and rather than support them you come online to complain about a game that has them. No one is forcing you to buy any game and no game will force you to buy additional content. If loot crates are so offputting to you then simply don't buy games that use them. It really is that simple. There are loads of things I like that I simply don't support due to business practices that I don't agree with. I don't feel the need to complain about it, I just don't support it.

We all know that most of the people up in arms complaining about loot crates and microtransactions will still buy the game upon launch and most likely spend more ingame. And then when the next game with loot crates pops up the same people will complain and still support it.

wes

Penn wrote: »

Same here. I didn't bother getting Shadow of War even though I loved the first one. I'll not be getting Battlefront II unless they change the lootbox system and the grind for unlocking things.

I don't even want to play the multiplayer on Battlefront II, but the whole loot box things leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I have decided to not buy it, unless I can get a steep discount, as all I care about is the campaign.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

There is the problem, there are plenty of great games without loot crates and rather than support them you come online to complain about a game that has them. No one is forcing you to buy any game and no game will force you to buy additional content. If loot crates are so offputting to you then simply don't buy games that use them. It really is that simple. There are loads of things I like that I simply don't support due to business practices that I don't agree with. I don't feel the need to complain about it, I just don't support it.

We all know that most of the people up in arms complaining about loot crates and microtransactions will still buy the game upon launch and most likely spend more ingame. And then when the next game with loot crates pops up the same people will complain and still support it.

I think I've clarified that in the post above yours. I'm not buying games that have systems I don't agree with, but I'm also not going to buy games who don't have those systems if they're not games I want to buy anyway, because that's just wasting money.

Either way, it's not an "either/or" system. You can refuse to buy the game, and also complain in order to voice the reason why you're not buying the game and why the devs/publishers have lost your sale, in the hopes it brings the system to the attention of someone who might not be aware of it, and hope if enough people voice those concerns, the devs/publishers will listen and change things.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The trailer for Predators had a shot of Adrian Brody being covered in lasers but that never happened in the film. By your argument, I should have been disgusted that after paying money to see the film the big scene from the trailer wasn't there. If you have such an issue with loot crates and microtransactions then simply don't buy the game. It really is that simple. If you find it so distasteful go and support a different game.

I will continue to complain and continue to share news and views on this subject as it's currently buried into the heart of gaming, a pass time I love and have invested heavily in throughout my lifetime.
And complaining and discussing this sort of ****e in games does make a difference.
I mentioned earlier in this thread Angry Joe managed to get EA to come on and address there system and answer some hard questions.
It even made them slightly adjust and remove epic cards from lootboxes. So the community do make a difference.
Simply repeating "don't buy it" isn't good enough. Creating awareness and speaking out against it does.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

I think I've clarified that in the post above yours. I'm not buying games that have systems I don't agree with, but I'm also not going to buy games who don't have those systems if they're not games I want to buy anyway, because that's just wasting money.

Either way, it's not an "either/or" system. You can refuse to buy the game, and also complain in order to voice the reason why you're not buying the game and why the devs/publishers have lost your sale, in the hopes it brings the system to the attention of someone who might not be aware of it, and hope if enough people voice those concerns, the devs/publishers will listen and change things.

Voicing concerns will change nothing, the only thing that will see any change is voting with your wallet. It's that simple but then the question that has to be asked is what are people willing to pay for a game. With production, licensing and marketing costs of games passing half a billion a price point of 60 euro won't cut it anymore. Without loot crates and season passes, I would expect to see most Triple A titles cost 100+ euro. Are people willing to pay that for a game is the question?

johnny_ultimate

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I also enjoy the likes of Forza, COD, Gears, Battlefield, Shadow of Mordor ect
So I should just expect to stop playing and enjoying these types of titles now?

Entirely your call, and we all like what we like - and it's up to you whether that outweighs your ethical or moral purchasing decisions We all have to choose our battles, and suck up some uncomfortable decisions (clothes shopping is a living hell if you want to try and do the 'right thing').

But personally I don't play many major franchise games outside Nintendo these days, and don't really feel like I'm missing out a whole lot as a result - still have an ENDLESS supply of interesting, fun and unusual games of all types & sizes to get through.

If anything the 'nickle 'n' diming' + increasingly time-wasting design philosophy of most big-budget titles has only made me more willing to ignore a lot of them, and frankly I feel like I'm playing far better games more regularly as a result!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Voicing concerns will change nothing, the only thing that will see any change is voting with your wallet. It's that simple but then the question that has to be asked is what are people willing to pay for a game. With production, licensing and marketing costs of games passing half a billion a price point of 60 euro won't cut it anymore. Without loot crates and season passes, I would expect to see most Triple A titles cost 100+ euro. Are people willing to pay that for a game is the question?

Wrong

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Wrong

You are so right, all the concerns voiced over the past number of years in relation to microtransactions and loot crates has not seen them become the norm but rather fade away. You can shout all you want but if you are are still buying the games you are moaning about then you are part of the problem.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You are so right, all the concerns voiced over the past number of years in relation to microtransactions and loot crates has not seen them become the norm but rather fade away. You can shout all you want but if you are are still buying the games you are moaning about then you are part of the problem.

I've just pointed out to you why it makes a difference.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

You are so right, all the concerns voiced over the past number of years in relation to microtransactions and loot crates has not seen them become the norm but rather fade away. You can shout all you want but if you are are still buying the games you are moaning about then you are part of the problem.

I think its the whales and dolphins that are the real problem. It only take a few of those people to make EA and there ilk a lot of money. At the same time, EA etc are actively psychologically exploiting vulnerable people to get them to spend money on loot boxes etc.

I also, think that the tolerances of fairly inoffensive micro transactions, was a screw up on the part of gamers. Some of us were to fair minded, and of course these companies decided to take advantage.

If micro transctions were more along the Overwatch model, I doubt anyone would care nearly as much. Instead we have pay 2 win in full priced games. Its unfortunate that EA etc are trying to destroy the hobby, with this garbage.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Voicing concerns will change nothing, the only thing that will see any change is voting with your wallet. It's that simple but then the question that has to be asked is what are people willing to pay for a game. With production, licensing and marketing costs of games passing half a billion a price point of 60 euro won't cut it anymore. Without loot crates and season passes, I would expect to see most Triple A titles cost 100+ euro. Are people willing to pay that for a game is the question?

Again, it's not an either/or system. You can voice concerns and also not buy the game.

As for increasing the cost of games, I'd actually be fine with that. Most base games are €70, not €60. I'd have no issue with it going to €80 (cut out the whole Standard/Gold/Deluxe/Ultimate) editions sh*te, and have the game at €75-80, with optional add-ons (lootboxes/MTs which don't affect anything to do with gameplay eg. cosmetic items for those who choose to buy them) or additional DLC which doesn't fragment the player base but merely adds new stuff into the game for those who want to continue playing it (eg. I'm currently playing the Horizon DLC, a game which had no lootboxes or microtransactions).

Again, I don't think anyone has an issue with developers/publishers making money and making a profit. It's how they do it. Some companies do it brilliantly, but some don't, and the ones that don't should be called out for it as well as people simply not buying the game.

It's also a self-defeating circle, because by putting people off buying the game, the publishers then have to try recoup that cost from those who did buy the game, which means they're targeting a smaller number of people who'll pay more for and within the game, rather than appealing to a larger group to increase pure sales figures for the game itself.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I've just pointed out to you why it makes a difference.

What difference does it make? More games are adopting them not less and those games are making huge profits. If you complain about microtransactions and then support a game with them then you are part of the problem. Anyways, this is just going around in circles so I'm done with it.

Penn

wes wrote: »

If micro transctions were more along the Overwatch model, I doubt anyone would care nearly as much. Instead we have pay 2 win in full priced games. Its unfortunate that EA etc are trying to destroy the hobby, with this garbage.

Completely agree. Gamers can accept lootboxes/MTs when done right, and many of the games who did do it right (like Overwatch imo) have made a lot of money from it. But other companies saw that, tried their own version of it, and keep getting greedy, making the lootboxes more of a need than a want.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What difference does it make? More games are adopting them not less and those games are making huge profits. If you complain about microtransactions and then support a game with them then you are part of the problem. Anyways, this is just going around in circles so I'm done with it.

I just posted it in the previous page. Read back.

wes

Penn wrote: »

Completely agree. Gamers can accept lootboxes/MTs when done right, and many of the games who did do it right (like Overwatch imo) have made a lot of money from it. But other companies saw that, tried their own version of it, and keep getting greedy, making the lootboxes more of a need than a want.

Sadly, I think the position, really needs to be, we are against them all the time, and don't pay a single penny on them. Its unfortunate that the EA's have ruined this for everyone.

A game like Overwatch, where you get new maps and characters for free, and those new maps and characters are supported by micro transactions was pretty much a sweet spot imo. I don't like micro transactions at all personally, but something inoffensive like what Overwatch does, were the people who choose not to buy them still benefit from new characters and maps was the best way to implement the system in a full priced game.

Its to bad that the pay 2 win model seems to result from gamers trusting publishers like that.

Benzino

wes wrote: »

As for companies existing to make money. I could care less. I have yet to see anyone making that argument as to why I should care? Sure, the company can go out of business, but that is not my problem. Plenty of others out there, and maybe EA going down in flames would be a good thing.

As a customer, I want as much as I can get, highest quality I can get, and spend as little as possible. If you take that position in regards to companies, then you need to accept the customer position. I could care less about them making money or not, and have no reason to do so. Its a 2 way street. If these companies want to act like exploitative leeches, and plead poverty, the customer can respond accordingly.

First of all, you keep saying you could care less. That means you do care somewhat

Nobody is asking you to care about a company making money. That's not the point of the argument. People are complaining that companies are greedy, points have been made here that EA for example are making so much profit, they should cut out the loot boxes as they don't need anymore money, it's just greed on their part. But that's exactly why EA exist, their sole purpose is to make money for their shareholders. That's the way the world is. You don't have to care about it, but you should acknowledge it and how ridiculous it is to except a company not to pursue avenues of generating the maximum profit possible when that's the sole purpose of their existence.

Penn wrote: »

Not sure if this is referring to one of my previous posts, I just meant it's nonsense to say "Buy this other game if you disagree with the practices of the game you do want". I don't think someone should buy a game just to support them for not including lootbox/MTs in their game if it's not a game you wanted to buy in the first place. Just buy neither.

I agree with this, you don't need to purchase a game you don't want, but you probably shouldn't purchase a game that does the very thing you hate and you want out of gaming.

johnny_ultimate

I have a lot of ironic respect for how Playerunknown's Battlegrounds handles loot boxes - the economy is so scabby and the actual 'rewards' so crappy that I consider the micro-transactions an optional tax on those who have more money than sense :pac:

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I have a lot of ironic respect for how Playerunknown's Battlegrounds handles loot boxes - the economy is so scabby and the actual 'rewards' so crappy that I consider the micro-transactions an optional tax on those who have more money than sense :pac:

I make about a euro a week on not opening them :pac:

wes

Benzino wrote: »

First of all, you keep saying you could care less. That means you do care somewhat

Yeah, yeah, :P.

Benzino wrote: »

Nobody is asking you to care about a company making money. That's not the point of the argument. People are complaining that companies are greedy, points have been made here that EA for example are making so much profit, they should cut out the loot boxes as they don't need anymore money, it's just greed on their part. But that's exactly why EA exist, their sole purpose is to make money for their shareholders. That's the way the world is. You don't have to care about it, but you should acknowledge it and how ridiculous it is to except a company not to pursue avenues of generating the maximum profit possible when that's the sole purpose of their existence.

Except that isn't the whole argument being made, now is it. People are pleading poverty on behalf of the companies to provide a justification for there nonsense.

Benzino

wes wrote: »

Except that isn't the whole argument being made, now is it. People are pleading poverty on behalf of the companies to provide a justification for there nonsense.

Not at all. People are pointing out that the retail price of the game isn't enough, and that they need to make additional revenue from other avenues. They had been doing this with season passes and day one content, but this seems to be dying off a bit as they have moved on to loot boxes etc. Which is proving to be very profitable for them.

gizmo

Penn wrote: »

Difference being with a Guns N Roses concert, you get a Guns N Roses concert. Regardless how much you pay for the ticket, you get the full concert.

Assuming you didn't go to see them in 2010 when they turned up two hours late, left the stage after 20mins due to the booing and then returned after 35mins to finish their set despite the fact people had already abandoned the gig and gone home. :pac:

Penn wrote: »

I think, when done right, loot boxes and microtransactions can be okay. When done right. This is not a case where they are being done right, not by a long shot. As much as the game is about non-hero gameplay, people obviously want to be able to play as the heroes. It's one of the biggest selling points of the game, very prominent in all the ads (which as you point out are so expensive). Locking them behind such an insane grind or paywall like they are is one of the worst ways lootboxes and microtransactions can be implemented.

The issue here is, this isn't the argument being made by their most vociferous critics. Their position is that they shouldn't exist in any way, shape or form in a full price title. When questioned on this, the likes of Sterling have doubled down by making ridiculous arguments that games don't actually cost $60 anymore while others have made similar content about them not actually being too expensive to develop using similarly janky logic.

I don't think there's even anyone on this thread who has said they have no objection to the unfettered use of lootboxes. Darko has come close but I'd definitely disagree with his position since there are demonstrably sane uses of lootboxes in games which are still capable of generating significant revenue without negatively impacting the design of the game.

Penn wrote: »

But that's what people are complaining about. We want to play these games, but the practices of these companies are turning people away from buying the games. That means sales figures take a hit (see Shadow of War, which given the reception and reviews for the first game should have sold far more than it did). Which means developers/publishers look for ways to increase revenue from those who do buy the game. Which means even worse methods of getting money from consumers occur. Which puts more people off the next game.

This isn't exactly correct despite some of the headlines that have accompanied it. We know two things about Shadow of War so far, its pre-orders outstripped Batman: Arkham Knight and its retail sales in the same launch week period were a fraction of the same game. The former is probably the most important since the furor over the game begun well before launch and it still managed to maintain those figures. The latter are less conclusive since they're only retail, not digital, and most importantly, they're being compared to an Arkham game rather than the previous iteration. What will be important to see is total sales figures for the full launch window and how they compare to its predecessor.

In the meantime, I posted the figures for NBA2K18 here which, along with GTA Online, formed the basis for Take-Two to announce it was going to include "recurrent consumer spending" methods into every future title. Not only is that news utterly unsurprising given those figures but it's also a fairly obvious example that no amount of downvoted responses on Reddit or angry Youtube videos is going to change their mind.

wes

Benzino wrote: »

Not at all. People are pointing out that the retail price of the game isn't enough, and that they need to make additional revenue from other avenues.

Your doing exactly that just now. Your now arguing on there behalf, as they can't make enough money. Your exactly pleading poverty on there behalf, immediately after denying it. It boggles the mind :eek:.

Again, I see no reason to care about there finances. In a capitalist society, the customer has 0 incentive to care about the vendor of a product. I don't care about there finances.

Benzino wrote: »

They had been doing this with season passes and day one content, but this seems to be dying off a bit as they have moved on to loot boxes etc. Which is proving to be very profitable for them.

Good for them, and again there profits don't matter to me. Much like a company exists to maximize profit, the customers interests are served, by paying as little as possible to get what they want. Again, its a 2 way street, I don't much care for EA, and have no reason to do so.

Benzino

wes wrote: »

Your doing exactly that just now. Your now arguing on there behalf, as they can't make enough money.

Please don't twist what I say, I never said they aren't making enough money. I explained why they have gone the route they have. It's clear EA and Acti are well minted.

wes wrote: »

Your exactly pleading poverty on there behalf, immediately after denying it.

Again, where have I said that?

wes wrote: »

It boggles the mind :eek:.

Well maybe if you didn't twist everything I said, your mind wouldn't boggle :P

wes wrote: »

Again, I see no reason to care about there finances. In a capitalist society, the customer has 0 incentive to care about the vendor of a product. I don't care about there finances.

Good for them, and again there profits don't matter to me. Much like a company exists to maximize profit, the customers interests are served, by paying as little as possible to get what they want. Again, its a 2 way street, I don't much care for EA, and have no reason to do so.

I never said you should care about their finances, I don't know why you keep mis-representing what I am saying.

Love the first line

wes

Benzino wrote: »

Please don't twist what I say, I never said they aren't making enough money. I explained why they have gone the route they have. It's clear EA and Acti are well minted.

Again, where have I said that?

Well maybe if you didn't twist everything I said, your mind wouldn't boggle :P

I don't see how I am twisting anything, exactly. Making that argument at all, is exactly what I said pleading poverty. Sorry, I can't call what your saying anything else, other that what I see it to be.

Benzino wrote: »

I never said you should care about their finances, I don't know why you keep mis-representing what I am saying.

I am well aware of the motivations of companies, and I am making a simple counter argument of, I don't care about them making money. Its irrelevant to me and what I want. I am taking the same capitalist position they take.