Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

OptimusTractor

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Playing Tess Everis' Eververse I mean Destiny 2 right now and the psychological warfare being waged against me by her pinging icon is starting to wear me down.

She pings every weekly reset once you check her inventory it stops. Except when you have an engram to turn in.

EoinHef

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

She pings for me even when I check. One time I got so fed up of the harrassment I took a look. The store said I have 0 silver...still I selected one of the items and it asked if I wanted to purchase. Out of curiosity I took a look. The max amount of silver (5000) is 40 - count it - 40 quid lol
Unbelieveable. I love how there's a limit on how many bounties you can do for her as well.

"Eververse is here for all guardians." Yeah, I bet she is. :rolleyes:

Everyone that gives bounties has a limited amount,in that sense eververse is no different to any other vendor that give bounties.

Also you can use bright dust to buy stuff from her. Thats earned through gameplay and levelling.

More on the FTC investigation now

The juicy goods start from minute 2.30

SolvableKnave

Fred The Red wrote: »

More on the FTC investigation now

The juicy goods start from minute 2.30

His opening two words where exactly my reaction when I saw who it was in the video. Promptly stopped it there.

Grumpypants

Fred The Red wrote: »

More on the FTC investigation now

The juicy goods start from minute 2.30

lol another Youtuber that uses preditory pratices (false and misleading click bait headlines) to nickle and dime their veiwers (three seperate ad breaks in one 15 min video ffs).

But from looking at the views these clowns get I can see why they keep doing it, I can't understand why people keep watching and posting this utter garbage though.

We know how you feel about Jim and co Grumpy :P

Kiith

I watched it, and thought it was pretty interesting to be honest. I didn't know the trade commission were investigating it, nor had i read the ridiculous ESA statement. Those are not small things. Could i have gotten that news elsewhere? Sure, but watching that video cost me absolutely nothing, and i got some interesting info. If they make some money from that video, good for them.

Grumpypants

Kiith wrote: »

I watched it, and thought it was pretty interesting to be honest. I didn't know the trade commission were investigating it, nor had i read the ridiculous ESA statement. Those are not small things. Could i have gotten that news elsewhere? Sure, but watching that video cost me absolutely nothing, and i got some interesting info. If they make some money from that video, good for them.

It only cost you nothing if you consider your time worthless.

Penn

Grumpypants wrote: »

It only cost you nothing if you consider your time worthless.

We post on Boards.ie. Of course we do

kunst nugget

Grumpypants wrote: »

It only cost you nothing if you consider your time worthless.

You really seem to have a major issue with anyone producing content discussing the negatives of loot boxes.

Kiith

Kiith wrote: »

I watched it, and thought it was pretty interesting to be honest. I didn't know the trade commission were investigating it, nor had i read the ridiculous ESA statement. Those are not small things. Could i have gotten that news elsewhere? Sure, but watching that video cost me absolutely nothing, and i got some interesting info. If they make some money from that video, good for them.

Sure free-to-play games cost me absolutely nothing, and I got some gameplay out of them :pac:

gizmo

kunst nugget wrote: »

You really seem to have a major issue with anyone producing content discussing the negatives of loot boxes.

Well YongYea is an interesting one in this respect. His older content was quite positive and generally focused on game reveals, news, gameplay footage and analysis of certain aspects of titles he seemed particularly interested in, however, around a year or so ago, he switched things up.

While he began to create more content with himself in front of the camera, the style of his delivery itself thankfully didn't change, his matter-of-fact approach being a nice alternative to the more, shall we say, hyper-kinetic one so common on Youtube. What he did change, however, was the subject of his coverage which shifted to more general industry news, with a rather noticeable focus on the negative stories. Obviously this led to a lot of content regarding lootboxes, micro-transactions et al but also to negative stories relating to games featuring them and the publishers responsible for them. Over time the language he used both in the videos and in the titles/thumbnails began to take a more snarky and negative spin too.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, however, this change has led to a rather large increase in his subscribers. It's rather easy to understand why some people may view these things in a somewhat cynical manner.

gizmo

A further follow up to the recent FTC announcement...

ESRB Wasn’t Aware of Pending FTC Investigation Into Loot Boxes

I have a sneaking suspicion that the ESRB believed they had fobbed Hassan and her requests for "meaningful action" on the matter off with the introduction of their one-size-fits-all content descriptor and piss poor website as a means to educate parents on the subject. The comment from them about not being in contact with the Senator since February is also rather interesting. I wonder was that before or after they acted upon her initial request.

Nody

Remember how EA was not going to comply with Belgium law because "loot boxes are not gambling"? Well they have given up on the idea since the gambling authorities did not back down to almighty EA's wishes.

Venom

Nody wrote: »

Remember how EA was not going to comply with Belgium law because "loot boxes are not gambling"? Well they have given up on the idea since the gambling authorities did not back down to almighty EA's wishes.

EA apologise to Belgian customers for now longer letting them gamble with real money on loot boxes because of this ruling!
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-01-29-ea-buckles-in-belgium-stops-selling-fifa-points-following-loot-box-gambling-pressure
"After further discussions with the Belgian authorities, we have decided to stop offering FIFA Points for sale in Belgium," EA said.
This change will come into effect by 31st January, which means from then players in Belgium will not be able to buy points to buy FUT packs. They'll still be able to play Ultimate Team and use their existing players, and they'll still be able to obtain FUT packs with FUT Coins, the virtual currency you earn through playing the game. But they will no longer be able to pay to get ahead.
"We apologise to our players in Belgium for any inconvenience caused by this change," EA said.

J. Marston

Brazen arseholes.

Billy86

"But they will no longer be able to pay to get ahead"

Who the fu*k wrote this!? Even EA should be asking who wrote that bloody line, Jesus h. Christ!

gizmo

Billy86 wrote: »

"But they will no longer be able to pay to get ahead"

Who the fu*k wrote this!? Even EA should be asking who wrote that bloody line, Jesus h. Christ!

Note the location of the quotation marks.

Is EA short for Electronic Assholes?

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/01/anthem_microtransaction_controversy_starts_early_bioware_says_pricing_isnt_finalised

Potential-Monke

Does anyone expect this to be anything other than a cash grab? Seriously? There may be a good game behind it (personally, I doubt it), but it's going to be ruined by MTs, anyone can see that.

Penn

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Does anyone expect this to be anything other than a cash grab? Seriously? There may be a good game behind it (personally, I doubt it), but it's going to be ruined by MTs, anyone can see that.

I disagree. I think given what happened with Battlefront 2 and the pushback against lootboxes/mtx in general, I think EA might reduce it down as much as possible for this game, and at least get the franchise up and running with as minimal blowback and negative press as possible. There'll definitely be MTXs for cosmetic items, but I doubt they'll go full-bore with the monetisation, at least not as much as they were likely originally planning to.

nix

Penn wrote: »

I disagree. I think given what happened with Battlefront 2 and the pushback against lootboxes/mtx in general, I think EA might reduce it down as much as possible for this game, and at least get the franchise up and running with as minimal blowback and negative press as possible. There'll definitely be MTXs for cosmetic items, but I doubt they'll go full-bore with the monetisation, at least not as much as they were likely originally planning to.

haha, its EA, what makes you think that?

They will just remove the random aspect, you will be able to purchase what you see, my bet is they will just copy the fortnite model, but keep the prices at a ridiculous amount, and likely offer more at a time or rotate whats on offer in the store more frequently.

The thing about it is though, Fortnite will be around for years, over a decade at least, thats why buying skins on that isnt so bad, they will last for years and years to come. But Anthem, will be around, what, 2 years max? before they start pumping out a sequel, making any cosmetic purchases redundant.

raze_them_all_

Penn wrote: »

I disagree. I think given what happened with Battlefront 2 and the pushback against lootboxes/mtx in general, I think EA might reduce it down as much as possible for this game, and at least get the franchise up and running with as minimal blowback and negative press as possible. There'll definitely be MTXs for cosmetic items, but I doubt they'll go full-bore with the monetisation, at least not as much as they were likely originally planning to.

It'll be a 70euro game. You shouldn't get to charge full price for a game then 20 quid for a ****ing skin

Venom

Penn wrote: »

I disagree. I think given what happened with Battlefront 2 and the pushback against lootboxes/mtx in general, I think EA might reduce it down as much as possible for this game, and at least get the franchise up and running with as minimal blowback and negative press as possible. There'll definitely be MTXs for cosmetic items, but I doubt they'll go full-bore with the monetisation, at least not as much as they were likely originally planning to.

Sorry but that's either wishful thinking or your out and out delusional. Do you honestly think EA doesn't have the Anthem cash shop pricing finalised three weeks prior to the game's release? Please, pull the other one it got bells on it. EA leaked that screenshot so when the game launches with $5-10 skin packs, the media will shill some BS about how much they listened to customers. What I find most worrying about the cash shop screen is the crafting tab in it, as that could easily screw up the game's economy if you can buy the parts needed for crafting high-end gear.

gizmo

nix wrote: »

They will just remove the random aspect, you will be able to purchase what you see, my bet is they will just copy the fortnite model, but keep the prices at a ridiculous amount, and likely offer more at a time or rotate whats on offer in the store more frequently.

From the screenshot of the store we've seen, they already have the time limited "Featured" items and their pricing for the 'Epic' grade item is the same as Fortnite's 'Legendary' ones.

The contents of the Crafting sub-menu will probably be the differentiating factor between it and Epic's game.

nix wrote: »

The thing about it is though, Fortnite will be around for years, over a decade at least, thats why buying skins on that isnt so bad, they will last for years and years to come. But Anthem, will be around, what, 2 years max? before they start pumping out a sequel, making any cosmetic purchases redundant.

See this is the kicker with these particular games. Is it really a "game as a service" if that service has a lifespan of a year or two? Absolutely not, imo.

Granted Anthem could be different but since EA have no prior form in this particular sub-genre and their primary source of inspiration, Destiny, still only had a lifespan of three years, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Penn

Venom wrote: »

Sorry but that's either wishful thinking or your out and out delusional. Do you honestly think EA doesn't have the Anthem cash shop pricing finalised three weeks prior to the game's release? Please, pull the other one it got bells on it. EA leaked that screenshot so when the game launches with $5-10 skin packs, the media will shill some BS about how much they listened to customers. What I find most worrying about the cash shop screen is the crafting tab in it, as that could easily screw up the game's economy if you can buy the parts needed for crafting high-end gear.

I think they've already climbed down on their proposed monetisation for the game. It's clearly a game that was geared towards lootboxes, aiming at the Destiny model. Given the blowback to Battlefront, Battlefield and even Destiny 2, I think EA probably realise that their best bet is to reduce the monetisation in the hopes of hooking more people into the game from the start and get better reviews/reception, keep mtxs as cosmetic-only (even like you say, release screenshot of high-prices, reduce the prices before launch and make it seem like they're balancing out of fairness).

I think they'll keep the monetisation low certainly at the start to get as many people playing the game as possible. After that, once they have the whales on the hook they might push it a bit further, but this seems to be EA trying to start off a brand new cash-cow of a franchise. One that they could make a bi-annual release. Going too hard at monetisation at the start will do huge damage to both the game and the franchise.