Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

ShadowHearth

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Do you have a stock in EA and you are just angry, because it is going down harder then hookers knickers in brothel?

I can't even see sense how you can compare amiibos to loot boxes. Amiibo is a small toy that gives little bit as an extra in games. And lets be clear, in all games that amiibos supported. You pay and you know what you get. You dont buy a pack of ammibos and have a chance to get a random amiibo. So how the hell you got to conclusion its ad bad as Ea loot boxes is beyond reason.
Not a single nintendo game gave a feeling that I am missing out, by not buying amiibo. Its just little junk, which is take it or leave it. And you still ignore the major idea, that its a little statue of a character, that people collect and majority of people buy it just for that.
What kind of advantages you talking about. In fairness I genuinely dont know.
Another thing. Ea and all other games just openly push it down your throat with loot boxes! Constant reminder and openly in menus to try to temp you with. I havent seen a single amiibo mentioning in any nintendo game I played so far. Then again, it would be relevant comparison, if the amiibos would be anything even comparable to lootboxes!!!!

No stock or vested interest but even if I did have stock I would hardly be upset as the stock is still 39% higher than last year and if you look at the market you will see that the drop is to July 2017 levels.

So you have no problem with Nintendo locking difficult levels behind Amiibos? Maybe it is just me but if I cannot play a game on the most difficult level without additional purchases then I am missing out. People defend Nintendo no matter what when they are just as bad if not worse than the rest, Zelda locked the difficutly level behind a season pass and then Metroid locked it behind an amiibo.

You seem to have a lot of views on Battlefront 2 and how the Loot Crates are evil but from your own posts refuse to play it and more power to you but don't bash Battlefront 2 while defending others with Loot Crates and then try and say that amiibos are anything other than a cash grab.

ShadowHearth

Deleted User wrote: »

No stock or vested interest but even if I did have stock I would hardly be upset as the stock is still 39% higher than last year and if you look at the market you will see that the drop is to July 2017 levels.

So you have no problem with Nintendo locking difficult levels behind Amiibos? Maybe it is just me but if I cannot play a game on the most difficult level without additional purchases then I am missing out. People defend Nintendo no matter what when they are just as bad if not worse than the rest, Zelda locked the difficutly level behind a season pass and then Metroid locked it behind an amiibo.

You seem to have a lot of views on Battlefront 2 and how the Loot Crates are evil but from your own posts refuse to play it and more power to you but don't bash Battlefront 2 while defending others with Loot Crates and then try and say that amiibos are anything other than a cash grab.

As I said, amiibos is not my thing, and I never encountered where I felt forced in to buying one to unlock content. I did not knew about locking difficulty level behind it, and I will agree, that is ****. In general its a **** practice, amiibo or not, locking difficulty levels behind dlc. So I agree with your point on this, its **** practice. Even if it does not effect me directly, as I tend to play harder modes, but not the super " **** you, thats why" difficulty levels.
And yes, Battlefront 2 is getting **** deserved. They tailored game not on being fun, but to be frustrating and make you pay. The concept of game changed due to it. They dont even reward skill. They focused on time played to give rewards. Its all calculated to play with players patient. Hence people just taking a piss with rubber bands on controllers to farm currency.
Nintendo is not perfect and they have their own skeletons in a closet, but when it comes to this issue, they are at least decent when it comes to all this micro transactions, loot boxes and dlc. As you proved me today, they have their own asshole ways. Thing is, I will take Nintendo way of doing it over EA any day!

Saying that, Nintendo doing first babysteps of modern bull**** gaming industry. Season passes being advertised and pushed on a lot.

ShadowHearth

ShadowHearth wrote: »

As I said, amiibos is not my thing, and I never encountered where I felt forced in to buying one to unlock content. I did not knew about locking difficulty level behind it, and I will agree, that is ****. In general its a **** practice, amiibo or not, locking difficulty levels behind dlc. So I agree with your point on this, its **** practice. Even if it does not effect me directly, as I tend to play harder modes, but not the super " **** you, thats why" difficulty levels.
And yes, Battlefront 2 is getting **** deserved. They tailored game not on being fun, but to be frustrating and make you pay. The concept of game changed due to it. They dont even reward skill. They focused on time played to give rewards. Its all calculated to play with players patient. Hence people just taking a piss with rubber bands on controllers to farm currency.
Nintendo is not perfect and they have their own skeletons in a closet, but when it comes to this issue, they are at least decent when it comes to all this micro transactions, loot boxes and dlc. As you proved me today, they have their own asshole ways. Thing is, I will take Nintendo way of doing it over EA any day!

Saying that, Nintendo doing first babysteps of modern bull**** gaming industry. Season passes being advertised and pushed on a lot.

How do you know the game changed because of loot crates? Were you part of the development team who and have information that originally the end of match rewards were tied to skill? A lot of people who never played the game seem to know a lot about the game. While I think that end of match rewards should be reworked to acknowledge Kill/Death ratio it's not like you are starved of credits.

Bad as Loot Crates are I'd rather see them in a game than some bull in which difficulty levels are hidden behind Season Passes and the purchasing of plastic tat. Honestly, what Nintendo are doing is as bad if not worse than EA and the like. I love Metroid but didn't bother with the last one due to the simple fact that if I want to play it on the hardest setting I have to buy an amiibo.

ShadowHearth

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you know the game changed because of loot crates? Were you part of the development team who and have information that originally the end of match rewards were tied to skill? A lot of people who never played the game seem to know a lot about the game. While I think that end of match rewards should be reworked to acknowledge Kill/Death ratio it's not like you are starved of credits.

Bad as Loot Crates are I'd rather see them in a game than some bull in which difficulty levels are hidden behind Season Passes and the purchasing of plastic tat. Honestly, what Nintendo are doing is as bad if not worse than EA and the like. I love Metroid but didn't bother with the last one due to the simple fact that if I want to play it on the hardest setting I have to buy an amiibo.

You are very Naive if you think they did not messed around with progression to make loot boxes be appealing. Bungie got cough rotten doing exact thing just few days ago.

Thats your personal opinion, but its not mine. I hate lootbox as a concept, and thats coming from someone who spent about 150eu on premium tanks in Wot and even more then that on Premium sub, I Spent about 100eu+ on Warframe between ps4 and pc versions. Its free to play games that game me stupid amount of gameplay hours and I knew what I pay for, I did not gambled for a chance to get what I want.
Dont forget that Wot and warframe is still same game updated for so many years. The stuff I bought few years ago, is still there and I will be able to use it even few years later. There is no yearly Warframe 2, 3, 4 etc, like Battlefield franchise. I pay 60eu for game, spend 100eu on lootboxes to try get a skin, then next year new battlefield is out, your **** is useless, get 60eu more, buy new one.

I hate lootboxes, but they are here. EA decided to double dip in cookie jar. Sell you a game for full price and shove lootboxes free to play concept on top of it. Do one or another.
BF2 is F2P game? Cool, do whatever you want with those loot boxes.

In the shape that BF2 is now, the only way I would see it fair, is to put it on EA access right of the bat now. You pay sub for a year with all those games and if you want something extra in BF2, you can throw a few quid. I wouldnt be shocked to find out that when EA made this game, EA access was part of design concept.

ShadowHearth

ShadowHearth wrote: »

You are very Naive if you think they did not messed around with progression to make loot boxes be appealing. Bungie got cough rotten doing exact thing just few days ago.

Thats your personal opinion, but its not mine. I hate lootbox as a concept, and thats coming from someone who spent about 150eu on premium tanks in Wot and even more then that on Premium sub, I Spent about 100eu+ on Warframe between ps4 and pc versions. Its free to play games that game me stupid amount of gameplay hours and I knew what I pay for, I did not gambled for a chance to get what I want.
Dont forget that Wot and warframe is still same game updated for so many years. The stuff I bought few years ago, is still there and I will be able to use it even few years later. There is no yearly Warframe 2, 3, 4 etc, like Battlefield franchise. I pay 60eu for game, spend 100eu on lootboxes to try get a skin, then next year new battlefield is out, your **** is useless, get 60eu more, buy new one.

I hate lootboxes, but they are here. EA decided to double dip in cookie jar. Sell you a game for full price and shove lootboxes free to play concept on top of it. Do one or another.
BF2 is F2P game? Cool, do whatever you want with those loot boxes.

In the shape that BF2 is now, the only way I would see it fair, is to put it on EA access right of the bat now. You pay sub for a year with all those games and if you want something extra in BF2, you can throw a few quid. I wouldnt be shocked to find out that when EA made this game, EA access was part of design concept.

Naive maybe, but I have never felt like they had messed around to force me to buy Loot Crates and even when you could buy them with real money never felt like the trail was forcing me or trying to get me to spend money on them. You've not even played the trial but seem to be an expert on the game and what went on behind the scenes.

There is no yearly Battlefront either and I'm pretty certain that the items you buy will be there in a few years. I know that when I go back to Battlefield 3 all my in-game items are still there. It's also a unfair to say the game forces Loot Crates on you, I never once felt like I needed to get one to compete or level the playing field and I'm not even that good a player. I think Loot Crates are the worst addition to modern gaming in years but feel that the outrage over Battlefront 2 is way overblown and being fueled by people just looking to be offended because it's EA. You yourself were defending other full price games with Loot Crates earlier as well as making excuses for Nintendo offering in-game advantages if you buy additional content.

I feel like I'm almost defending Battlefront 2 here but honestly, the reaction to the game so far has been ridiculous. I would love to see all Loot Crates removed from games but that includes the likes of Overwatch.

nix

Can't we all just come together and say they're all crap? :pac:

kingtiger

Once lootboxes don't give any gameplay advantage, who cares?

Let eejits buy that pink lightsabre if they fancy it

EA further embarrassing themselves. Blaming 'cannon' for lootboxes now bwhuahah

nix

nix wrote: »

Can't we all just come together and say they're all crap? :pac:

You would think that wouldn't you. The strange defense of this practice when it comes to certain franchises is just odd.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

EA further embarrassing themselves. Blaming 'cannon' for lootboxes now bwhuahah

I'd well believe that Disney vetoed any cosmetic changes to any of the characters. But then again, no doubt Jim Sterling has the inside track on what goes on behind closed doors.

It's amazing that Sterling has turned click bait videos and faux outrage into a viable business model.




It will be interesting to see how far-reaching any possibly regulation goes. If governments do decide to crack down on Loot Crates as so many gamers do where does it end? Are Kinder eggs or the monthly Loot Crate a form of gambling? Are toys which come in Blind boxes a form of gambling?

Lots of people have been saying Loot Crates in Battlefront 2 are gambling and comparing them to going to a casino. It really isn't and the gambling comparison is a weak on. The difference that most ignore is that that in a casino I can pay money and hope for a return whereas if I buy a Loot Crate I know I will get something in return. That is the main distinctions between the two, with a Loot Crate you are guaranteed something the question is, is it something you want. In a casino, you are guaranteed nothing in return for your money.

I would love to see Loot Crates removed from every game bar free to play titles, but I do not want to see government bodies introduce regulation. Where does a game like Gwent or Hearthstone stand in relation to Loot Crates? Buying packs is like buying a blind box toy, you know you'll get something, just not sure what it is and if legislation comes in you may not be able to buy anything without first seeing what's in it. And surely half the fun of those type of games is slowly building your deck over time.

And if governments get involved in legislation for Loot Crates then where does it stop, hell Trump has in the past tweeted about stopping video game violence so don't be surprised if after emailing your elected officials you end up seeing new regulatory bodies formed to monitor games.

The biggest take away from this entire thing is that in all the conversations about Loot Crates and gambling, the biggest issue people appear to have is the purchasing of Loot Crates with real money, all the while ignoring the mobile model in which real world money is used to purchase in-game currency. Until you tackle that business model then devs will be able to skirt any possible regulations in regards Loot Crates. All they have to do is move the goal posts so to speak, instead of buying a Loot Crate you are buying game cash which you can use on a variety of items including Loot Crates.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel like I'm almost defending Battlefront 2 here but honestly, the reaction to the game so far has been ridiculous. I would love to see all Loot Crates removed from games but that includes the likes of Overwatch.

But does it have to be all or nothing? You've rightly said about how expensive game development is and how they need to recoup costs of making AAA games. I don't see why lootboxes can't be a way for devs to do so provided it's done in a reasonable way (ie. items not affecting gameplay or putting someone at a disadvantage for not buying them).

Same way if devs want to include a season pass. I'd have no issue with that so long as it's done in a reasonable way (ie. not in a way which could split or fragment player bases when it comes to multiplayer as some maps etc might not be available, and making the extra content worthwhile, not just content cut from what should have been in the main game).

The issue with Battlefront 2 is that in most people's opinion, the lootboxes were not implemented in a reasonable way.

Again, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Gamers will accept lootboxes to a point. Gamers will accept season passes to a point. But lines in the sand for both need to be drawn, and the furore of Battlefront 2 is gamers trying to draw the line in the sand when it comes to lootboxes. It doesn't mean the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater.

EoinHef

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How do you know the game changed because of loot crates? Were you part of the development team who and have information that originally the end of match rewards were tied to skill? A lot of people who never played the game seem to know a lot about the game. While I think that end of match rewards should be reworked to acknowledge Kill/Death ratio it's not like you are starved of credits.

Bad as Loot Crates are I'd rather see them in a game than some bull in which difficulty levels are hidden behind Season Passes and the purchasing of plastic tat. Honestly, what Nintendo are doing is as bad if not worse than EA and the like. I love Metroid but didn't bother with the last one due to the simple fact that if I want to play it on the hardest setting I have to buy an amiibo.

And yet for someone who doesnt own the game you seem to have played a lot of it too and are quite informed about its content and how it plays.

Hmmmm.....

Penn

Penn wrote: »

But does it have to be all or nothing? You've rightly said about how expensive game development is and how they need to recoup costs of making AAA games. I don't see why lootboxes can't be a way for devs to do so provided it's done in a reasonable way (ie. items not affecting gameplay or putting someone at a disadvantage for not buying them).

Same way if devs want to include a season pass. I'd have no issue with that so long as it's done in a reasonable way (ie. not in a way which could split or fragment player bases when it comes to multiplayer as some maps etc might not be available, and making the extra content worthwhile, not just content cut from what should have been in the main game).

The issue with Battlefront 2 is that in most people's opinion, the lootboxes were not implemented in a reasonable way.

Again, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Gamers will accept lootboxes to a point. Gamers will accept season passes to a point. But lines in the sand for both need to be drawn, and the furore of Battlefront 2 is gamers trying to draw the line in the sand when it comes to lootboxes. It doesn't mean the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater.

I agree I've already said in this thread that I have no real issue with Loot Crates being in a game. I may still play the game, I just won't support it.

My point is that so many people are claiming that Loot Crates are gambling and that EA is the devil as they demand that Loot Crates be removed from Battlefront 2 but if that happens then Loot Crates should be removed from all games. You can't really pick and choose, either Loot Crates are the worst thing to happen to gaming or they're not. I think that had Battlefront 2 been exactly as it was by say Valve or Blizzard then people would be far more welcoming of it and even go so far as to defend it.

I've never bought a Loot Crate and will avoid games that have them but at the same time have no issue with them being included in a game. Especially if it means that things like the Season Pass are free. I think that with Battlefront 2 a lot of people who never played the game read a couple of Reddit posts and heard a little of a poorly thought out and researched Jim Sterling video suddenly had an opinion and wanted to feel like their voice mattered.

I played the trial of Battlefront 2 and never felt like I was at a disadvantage by not buying Loot Crates. Sure a lot of people on the internet who never played the game told me I was but I was never pressured into getting crates or felt like I needed them in order to level the playing field. I do wonder how Battlefront 2 would have played out had we not seen Reddit and youtube personalities up in arms, I do think that the furor would have been rather muted once people realised that it was nowhere near as bad as made out.

I still think that they are a crappy practice but gamers have to decide what they want, do they want to continue paying less for games than we were 20 years ago and getting season passes for free or do we want to see base game prices increase and the paid for additional content.

The more I think about it the less I care about Loot Crates and even play to win. At the end of the day is a game is nothing but a pay to win Loot Crate heaven then I vote with my wallet and get something else. I don't think devs or publishers owe us anything and can do with their games as they feel fit.

EoinHef

EoinHef wrote: »

And yet for someone who doesnt own the game you seem to have played a lot of it too and are quite informed about its content and how it plays.

Hmmmm.....

If only there was a way to play games without owning them, if only say there was a thing like Origin or EA access.

Dcully

The more I think about it the less I care about Loot Crates and even play to win

Yet your doing your utmost to defend EA on here :eek:

I don't think devs or publishers owe us anything and can do with their games as they feel fit

No wonder the gaming industry is in the state its in :rolleyes:

EoinHef

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If only there was a way to play games without owning them, if only say there was a thing like Origin or EA access.

EA access isnt on PS4. You stated you played it on all the platforms its released on.

You must like the game if you played through at least 20hrs of Access on PC and Xbox. Could that be why your disapponited with the reaction of others?

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

The more I think about it the less I care about Loot Crates and even play to win. At the end of the day is a game is nothing but a pay to win Loot Crate heaven then I vote with my wallet and get something else. I don't think devs or publishers owe us anything and can do with their games as they feel fit.

I'm not sure im reading your post right or if you made a typo, It's outrageous.

This is how it is, if the contents of a loot crate is cosmetic fluff, i couldn't care less, its in no way game altering in terms of fairness. Which to my understanding has been how loot crates work up until SW Battlefront 2.

If you get items in a lootcrate which effect your attacks/abilities giving you an advantage over others, even if its just a teeny tiny marginal increase, then that is pay to win and bull**** and EA deserve every ounce of slack from this fiasco.


Ask yourself this to put it in a mindset to how i see it, should people who can afford steroids be allowed to use steroids in sports games?

Dcully

Dcully wrote: »

Yet your doing your utmost to defend EA on here :eek:

No wonder the gaming industry is in the state its in :rolleyes:

Not defending them, just not sure why they are taking the brunt of this when others have used crates for some time. I think Overwatch is equally to blame for normalising the idea of Loto Crates.

It's in the state it's in because we have people crying about things like Loot Crates and then supporting the game. Remember that Steam group of people boycotting one of the Call of Duty games and it showed that hundreds of the members were in game.

EoinHef wrote: »

EA access isnt on PS4. You stated you played it on all the platforms its released on.

You must like the game if you played through at least 20hrs of Access on PC and Xbox. Could that be why your disapponited with the reaction of others?

Plenty of people I know have it on PS4 so I did what I do with many games I don't want to buy, I set a friends account as my primary for a weekend to see what it looked and played like on the Pro.

Could not care less how others react to it, I think Loot Crates in any game are wrong though I do understand why they are there. Far as the game goes, I cleared the single player on the PS4 and thought it was grand, looked great but felt it could have been stronger. Played 5 hours all in on the PC and about the same on the Xbox so all in all about 12-13 hours across all consoles.

Never said I didn't like the game, for what it is it's pretty good and plays well. I don't even like Star Wars, find it rather banal and boring and feel that it lacked the spark of say the Kinect game with dancing Han Solo.

nix

nix wrote: »

I'm not sure im reading your post right or if you made a typo, It's outrageous.

This is how it is, if the contents of a loot crate is cosmetic fluff, i couldn't care less, its in no way game altering in terms of fairness. Which to my understanding has been how loot crates work up until SW Battlefront 2.

If you get items in a lootcrate which effect your attacks/abilities giving you an advantage over others, even if its just a teeny tiny marginal increase, then that is pay to win and bull**** and EA deserve every ounce of slack from this fiasco.


Ask yourself this to put it in a mindset to how i see it, should people who can afford steroids be allowed to use steroids in sports games?

I have no problem with people using steroids in sports and have in the past hoped to see the Olympics do dual modes, one for clean athletes and one for those off their tits.

After about 5 hours of multiplayer on PC I had Vader unlocked and loads of other things, a friend of mine spent a fortune on Loot Crates and has pumped hours into the game. He's pretty awful at it and only on two occasions has he earned enough ingame credits to spawn as Vader. Is it pay to win if skill is still such a major factor? It's like when people say that if you have a Messi in FIFA you can't be beaten, I've seen an all bronze team destroy one with Messi and others on it as people seem to think that having the best means you are the best.

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no problem with people using steroids in sports and have in the past hoped to see the Olympics do dual modes, one for clean athletes and one for those off their tits.

Riiiiiiight, lunacy aside, they aren't separated in BF2, all in the same pool.

nix

nix wrote: »

Riiiiiiight, lunacy aside, they aren't separated in BF2, all in the same pool.

Not currently separated in sports either given the number of cyclists who were doping. The comparison doesn't really work given that matchmaking is no doubt part of how Battlefront works whereas in sports beyond random drug tests there is no way of knowing what is in an athletes system.

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

Not currently separated in sports either given the number of cyclists who were doping. The comparison doesn't really work given that matchmaking is no doubt part of how Battlefront works whereas in sports beyond random drug tests there is no way of knowing what is in an athletes system.

Well yeah the whole point of doping is to win, so even if you have a doping olympics and a normal one, it wont fix the issue at hand. As people will still try get away with it in the normal one. So doing it that way wouldnt work.

And allowing it in the computer game world just so you can make an insane profit off it is woeful carry on, it completely compromises the integrity of the game and player base.

Br4tPr1nc3

Deleted User wrote: »

Not currently separated in sports either given the number of cyclists who were doping. The comparison doesn't really work given that matchmaking is no doubt part of how Battlefront works whereas in sports beyond random drug tests there is no way of knowing what is in an athletes system.

yes but cyclists who are caught doping are punished.
and the doping shows a clear pay to win model when used, lesser athletes suddenly perform better than someone better than them.

you seem to be trying your best to say pay to win is completely fine,
cosmetic loot crates can be tolerable, but being given advantage over others because you are willing to pay more is not right.

developers in gaming industry have spent years playing cat and mouse with cheat engine developers trying to remove an advantage given from cheats. and now companies like EA are trying to monetize it for themselves in another fashion.

would you say its fine to use auto aim or wall hacking programs, simply because you were willing to pay for them?

nix

nix wrote: »

Well yeah the whole point of doping is to win, so even if you have a doping olympics and a normal one, it wont fix the issue at hand. As people will still try get away with it in the normal one. So doing it that way wouldnt work.

And allowing it in the computer game world just so you can make an insane profit off it is woeful carry on, it completely compromises the integrity of the game and player base.

You can't even really compare the two, when it comes to online games matchmaking should ensure that you are not coming up against someone who has that huge an advantage.

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

yes but cyclists who are caught doping are punished.
and the doping shows a clear pay to win model when used, lesser athletes suddenly perform better than someone better than them.

you seem to be trying your best to say pay to win is completely fine,
cosmetic loot crates can be tolerable, but being given advantage over others because you are willing to pay more is not right.

developers in gaming industry have spent years playing cat and mouse with cheat engine developers trying to remove an advantage given from cheats. and now companies like EA are trying to monetize it for themselves in another fashion.

would you say its fine to use auto aim or wall hacking programs, simply because you were willing to pay for them?

You can't compare someone using an aimbot or wallhack to them getting ability cards slightly earlier than other people. It's this kind of hysteria that results in gamers coming across looking a little mental.

Are Loot Crates a bad thing, yes they are. They are the worst thing to happen to gaming since companies realised that they could charge for DLC, Season Passes and other ingame content. The one saving grace of Loot Crates is that at least some companies using them are offering free season passes so the trade off isn't too bad. But again, as I have repeatedly said, if you think Loot Crates are so wrong then vote with your wallet and don't buy a game with them.

I was reading some open letter about some lad addicted to gambling and the comments from gamers was repeated demands for government regulation. That is not the answer and the kind of drastic move which could seriously damage gaming as an industry as governments have proven time and time again that them regualting something is rarely a good idea.

I think for gaming to continue as it is with prices remainng the same then two things will happen. Either Loot Crates stay so as to help with development costs for the base game and free DLC, or they are removed from games and replaced with more expensive base prices and paid for DLC. What Activision is doing with Destiny 2 and COD:WWII is far, far more deplorable than what happened with Battlefront. Full price base game, a season, pass, additional dlc and then Loot Crates, that's having your cake, eating it and then taking someone elses cake too.

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd well believe that Disney vetoed any cosmetic changes to any of the characters.

Because Disney wouldn't approve of cosmetic changes to their characters?

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

You can't even really compare the two, when it comes to online games matchmaking should ensure that you are not coming up against someone who has that huge an advantage.

You can, it's the same thing, a game. The only sway should be a persons skill itself, changing the rules/nature of the game for some and not others, is giving an advantage. It just shouldn't be meddled with, it doesn't need to be for them to make the profit they want, they just need to add cosmetic fluff.

Here we go

As farm ss I'm concerned there fine if you give the game for free i.e. Dc live
Clash of clans ect but once you pay for a game your transaction is for the full game same as anyone else who pays for it end of

nix

nix wrote: »

You can, it's the same thing, a game. The only sway should be a persons skill itself, changing the rules/nature of the game for some and not others, is giving an advantage. It just shouldn't be meddled with, it doesn't need to be for them to make the profit they want, they just need to add cosmetic fluff.

If you want to compare sports versus online gaming then when it comes to sport Loot Crates are already a thing given that the more money you have the better player or athlete you can buy. Soccer is a great example of this, the top teams can spend billions on great players giving them a huge advantage over other teams with less money.

Gregk961

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you want to compare sports versus online gaming then when it comes to sport Loot Crates are already a thing given that the more money you have the better player or athlete you can buy. Soccer is a great example of this, the top teams can spend billions on great players giving them a huge advantage over other teams with less money.

Oh lord. Please say you were drunk and take that back. You may aswell be saying stronger people should have an advantage in Street Fighter because they can punch harder in real life. Its a game for gods sake.

Gregk961

Gregk961 wrote:

Oh lord. Please say you were drunk and take that back. You may aswell be saying stronger people should have an advantage in Street Fighter because they can punch harder in real life. Its a game for gods sake.

I wasn't the one who started comparing loot crates in games to doping in sport.