Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

Icyseanfitz

oh without a doubt, they know what the full game in totality should be and then they work out what will be in the bare bones game and what will be dlc long before release

ziggyman17

is there going to be any point in buying Battlefield 2, if you have no intention of paying for the loot boxes ? It will be frustrating to play the game with out spending money on loot boxes only to get owned by gamers buying loot boxes..

Falthyron

ziggyman17 wrote: »

is there going to be any point in buying Battlefield 2, if you have no intention of paying for the loot boxes ? It will be frustrating to play the game with out spending money on loot boxes only to get owned by gamers buying loot boxes..

You can grind for lootboxes. You will have the same chance to get a p2w item as someone who pays except that it will take you longer.

Alternatively, boycott it. Hopefully, the game doesn't make costs, sending a strong message to EA and other AAA publishers who like to see how far they can milk customers.

Benzino

Falthyron wrote: »

I would prefer they didn't make garbage skins and cosmetic items that cost a couple of euro or hours to grind out. Instead, real, substantial content would be a better option for the customer.

But what difference does it make to you? You don't have to purchase them, and it's giving the developer of your favourite games more money, enabling them to continue supporting it or make another great game.

Falthyron wrote: »

Again, I ask: do you think micro-transactions for items today is better than games of the past where these things came in the box when you bought it? Wouldn't it be nice to boot up Battlefront II in a couple of weeks where all those star cards are available from the outset and you can spend time deciding your build for each class? Or do you think spending hours upon hours of grinding or paying with real money is a better approach?

Of course I'd prefer to have all the content in the game from the start. But things change, dev costs went up, prices haven't (I know, I will watch Jim Sterling video). The solution is obvious, increase the price of the game, right? No, because people are complaining about the high cost of gaming as it is, and are waiting for sales or to buy second hand.

Maybe they should just cut the content of the game? Again, people complain about how short some games are (see The Order). They tried season passes, people didn't like that. They tried day one DLC, they certainly didn't like that (it killed Evolve). So here they are with loot boxes.

Falthyron wrote: »

To address your question: there have been many games that launch with Day One DLC costumes/skins. See EVOLVE, Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat games, etc. Stuff that was made during production but didn't make it into the final release even though they were ready for release, hence the Day One DLC option. And, of course, additional content is being made post-release, but there is plenty of evidence of content being omitted from release and instead being sold piece meal on launch day or within days of launch.

To be honest, I completely wiped that from my mind. You are correct, but gizmo is also correct in that those items were created specifically for DLC. They didn't decide late on to cut them from the main game (well maybe they did, but that would be an exception in most cases).

If done right, I think loot boxes are a fantastic idea. Overwatch implements it perfectly (seriously, Blizzard must be the best in the business). The loot boxes in no way affect the game, but generate constant revenue which helps cover the costs of their servers, employees would need to be available 24/7, and the ability to add new characters, maps, modes etc to the game for free, preventing splitting the player base (which can kill MP games).

My only objection is pay to win mechanics in a full priced game, I think that is unfair. On the flip side, I do appreciate that it can be very handy for people with limited game time (such as working parents), but that's not the reason pay-to-win exists.

I've a question for you. Say a dev wants to raise the price of the game by 10-15 euro to cover the costs of dev and help ensure they make a profit. But to compensate for that, will have no paid for cosmetic items, they will be all included in the base game at launch. Would you be fine with that? Because Neogaf (if it was around) would lose it's mind.

Benzino

gizmo wrote: »

Full blown studios in the mobile market? They'd die. The damage has been done, mobile gamers voted with their wallets and rejected "premium games", a term used to describe games with any kind of up front cost, a long time ago and have fully embraced the freemium model. That business model simply isn't sustainable for any kind of medium to large scale development in most of cases anymore.

This 100%.

Benzino

Benzino wrote: »

But what difference does it make to you? You don't have to purchase them, and it's giving the developer of your favourite games more money, enabling them to continue supporting it or make another great game.

Of course I'd prefer to have all the content in the game from the start. But things change, dev costs went up, prices haven't (I know, I will watch Jim Sterling video). The solution is obvious, increase the price of the game, right? No, because people are complaining about the high cost of gaming as it is, and are waiting for sales or to buy second hand.

Maybe they should just cut the content of the game? Again, people complain about how short some games are (see The Order). They tried season passes, people didn't like that. They tried day one DLC, they certainly didn't like that (it killed Evolve). So here they are with loot boxes.



To be honest, I completely wiped that from my mind. You are correct, but gizmo is also correct in that those items were created specifically for DLC. They didn't decide late on to cut them from the main game (well maybe they did, but that would be an exception in most cases).

If done right, I think loot boxes are a fantastic idea. Overwatch implements it perfectly (seriously, Blizzard must be the best in the business). The loot boxes in no way affect the game, but generate constant revenue which helps cover the costs of their servers, employees would need to be available 24/7, and the ability to add new characters, maps, modes etc to the game for free, preventing splitting the player base (which can kill MP games).

My only objection is pay to win mechanics in a full priced game, I think that is unfair. On the flip side, I do appreciate that it can be very handy for people with limited game time (such as working parents), but that's not the reason pay-to-win exists.

I've a question for you. Say a dev wants to raise the price of the game by 10-15 euro to cover the costs of dev and help ensure they make a profit. But to compensate for that, will have no paid for cosmetic items, they will be all included in the base game at launch. Would you be fine with that? Because Neogaf (if it was around) would lose it's mind.

Yes. This 100%.

Overwatch does it right but isn't the norm unfortunately. Not even close.

Falthyron

Benzino wrote: »

I've a question for you. Say a dev wants to raise the price of the game by 10-15 euro to cover the costs of dev and help ensure they make a profit. But to compensate for that, will have no paid for cosmetic items, they will be all included in the base game at launch. Would you be fine with that? Because Neogaf (if it was around) would lose it's mind.

If I knew the extra 10-15 euro would go towards substantial, warranted, valuable content, then yes. I would pay the extra 10-15 euro. However, I reckon a few years after the price increase we would see yet another attempt to bring back micro-transactions or some form of seedy business model. Call me a cynic, but I have been playing games too long to see the pretty shítty path AAA publishers are going down. Many have been blinded by this notion that AAA publishers have seen their costs going up exponentially, and that is certainly the case, but I would argue that they are to blame for that.

When you have games like PUBG, LIMBO, Bastion, Insurgency, SUPERHOT, Alan Wake, etc., who come from small to moderately sized studios turning profit, you have to ask what in the hell are AAA publishers doing to accrue such massive costs? PUBG has made well over 450m and it will go on to make more on raw sales alone (not including boxes and keys). How can studios like that produce such profitable titles on meager budgets, and yet someone like Activision or EA can't turn a profit* on big titles like Battlefront II or Infinite Warfare?

* = a profit that satisfies their greed.

Its because they are trying to provide something that justifies the exorbitant cost. We don't need CGI scenes that last 10 minutes, we don't need actors like Kevin Spacey or Josh Duhamel, we don't need marketing campaigns that broadcast during major sporting events or in cinemas. Games can find a way to turn a healthy profit without all the pomp and ridiculous marketing budgets. Its very simple, really: make a good game and people will buy it. Make cookie cutter that is safe with a sky-high budget and you are playing with fire and need backup revenue streams in case of emergencies.

AAA publishers are to blame for their high costs. There are no excuses when there are hundreds of 'small' studio games being released every year that turn a healthy profit which allow them to go on and make more games. Fear and greed motivates AAA publishers to get involved with these dirty business models, nothing else. It offers no service to the customer, whatsoever.

Icyseanfitz

I'd easily pay 100euro for a full and complete game with no BS micro transactions or dlc, and I'd still pay for full quality expansions

gizmo

Falthyron wrote: »

If I knew the extra 10-15 euro would go towards substantial, warranted, valuable content, then yes. I would pay the extra 10-15 euro. However, I reckon a few years after the price increase we would see yet another attempt to bring back micro-transactions or some form of seedy business model.

In this case you're not getting anything new or extra for your money, you're getting the same amount of content as you used to get but at the higher quality bar subsequent generations demand. And yes, in the future such an increase may again be necessary if costs continued to rise but you can be damn sure that in the face of such increases, there would be absolutely no one pointing out the need for such systems to be re-added.

As for the "publishers are to blame for their high costs", before I get into that I have an overwhelming need to open with this rather amusing but utterly uncommon occurance. :pac:

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888

Falthyron wrote: »

When you have games like PUBG, LIMBO, Bastion, Insurgency, SUPERHOT, Alan Wake, etc., who come from small to moderately sized studios turning profit, you have to ask what in the hell are AAA publishers doing to accrue such massive costs? PUBG has made well over 450m and it will go on to make more on raw sales alone (not including boxes and keys). How can studios like that produce such profitable titles on meager budgets, and yet someone like Activision or EA can't turn a profit* on big titles like Battlefront II or Infinite Warfare?

Because they're making games of a considerably greater scale and visual fidelity than any of the games listed there. Don't get me wrong, the games on that list are all varying degrees of great but they're in no way comparable to the likes of Battlefront II or even Infinite Warfare.

And good lord man, Alan Wake spent five years in development, a chunk of which deemed development hell as they struggled with their technology, the limitations of console and their initial design. It then went on to feature poor sales, eventually hitting two million sales about two years after release and its subsequent release on the PC. I absolutely adored the game but it has no place in that list.

Falthyron wrote: »

Its because they are trying to provide something that justifies the exorbitant cost. We don't need CGI scenes that last 10 minutes, we don't need actors like Kevin Spacey or Josh Duhamel, we don't need marketing campaigns that broadcast during major sporting events or in cinemas. Games can find a way to turn a healthy profit without all the pomp and ridiculous marketing budgets. Its very simple, really: make a good game and people will buy it. Make cookie cutter that is safe with a sky-high budget and you are playing with fire and need backup revenue streams in case of emergencies.

Big games need big budgets. Big budgets need big sales. Big sales come from getting your game in front of as many eyes and making it look at as appealing as possible. That's why all of these things are done. Do the games themselves need them? Of course not but one always requires the other. As an aside, CoD is on the extreme end of this with such excessive examples that I tend to dislike using it in examples. I mean christ, remember CoD Elite?

That being said, is there any expectation for Kevin Spacey to be in Infinite Warfare? Nope. But is there an expectation for Battlefront II to feature as many of the voices from the movies as possible? To feature fights on both land and in space with a wide variety of highly detailed characters, special abilities, vehicles, sounds and effects? Most definitely and, to be honest, I believe its disingenuous to suggest otherwise from a AAA game based on the Star Wars licence.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are most definitely legitimate ways for budgets to be reduced by creating leaner, more focused experiences that can arguably result in better games but there's always going to be a market for big blockbuster titles, which smaller developers and publishers simply can't afford to build, alongside them.


EDIT: On a more general note and since a few people have said it already in various ways, "make a good game and people will buy it" simply isn't true anymore. There are plenty of examples out there but I'll give one based on a game I was looking forward to for the last number of years, was eventually released to excellent reviews and yet has gone nowhere, Aztez.

What makes this particularly notable is that the devs have since talked about it and the possible reasons behind its lack of success in an interview with Engadget, 'Aztez': The bloody indie brawler that should've been big.

Falthyron

gizmo wrote: »

In this case you're not getting anything new or extra for your money, you're getting the same amount of content as you used to get but at the higher quality bar subsequent generations demand. And yes, in the future such an increase may again be necessary if costs continued to rise but you can be damn sure that in the face of such increases, there would be absolutely no one pointing out the need for such systems to be re-added.

As for the "publishers are to blame for their high costs", before I get into that I have an overwhelming need to open with this rather amusing but utterly uncommon occurance. :pac:

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888


Because they're making games of a considerably greater scale and visual fidelity than any of the games listed there. Don't get me wrong, the games on that list are all varying degrees of great but they're in no way comparable to the likes of Battlefront II or even Infinite Warfare.

And good lord man, Alan Wake spent five years in development, a chunk of which deemed development hell as they struggled with their technology, the limitations of console and their initial design. It then went on to feature poor sales, eventually hitting two million sales about two years after release and its subsequent release on the PC. I absolutely adored the game but it has no place in that list.


Big games need big budgets. Big budgets need big sales. Big sales come from getting your game in front of as many eyes and making it look at as appealing as possible. That's why all of these things are done. Do the games themselves need them? Of course not but one always requires the other. As an aside, CoD is on the extreme end of this with such excessive examples that I tend to dislike using it in examples. I mean christ, remember CoD Elite?

That being said, is there any expectation for Kevin Spacey to be in Infinite Warfare? Nope. But is there an expectation for Battlefront II to feature as many of the voices from the movies as possible? To feature fights on both land and in space with a wide variety of highly detailed characters, special abilities, vehicles, sounds and effects? Most definitely and, to be honest, I believe its disingenuous to suggest otherwise from a AAA game based on the Star Wars licence.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are most definitely legitimate ways for budgets to be reduced by creating leaner, more focused experiences that can arguably result in better games but there's always going to be a market for big blockbuster titles, which smaller developers and publishers simply can't afford to build, alongside them.

I think we are both coming at this from different perspectives. You appear to be of the school of thought that AAA games and their budgets are necessary because these are the type of games people want. I subscribe to Steve Jobs' adage: people don't know what they want, so tell them what they want. AAA publishers are doing the same. They could make better games on a leaner budgets, but they choose not to because they go for the eye-catching spectacular to draw in the average gamer. Actors, music, incredible graphics, and a massive marketing campaign to show all of that off. Invariably that leads to a stupid amount of cash being spent. Does it make it a guaranteed 'good' game? No, but it might make it financially successful.

If they spent more time focusing on making a good game, they wouldn't need 100m to advertise a mediocre one.

gizmo

Falthyron wrote: »

I think we are both coming at this from different perspectives. You appear to be of the school of thought that AAA games and their budgets are necessary because these are the type of games people want. I subscribe to Steve Jobs' adage: people don't know what they want, so tell them what they want. AAA publishers are doing the same. They could make better games on a leaner budgets, but they choose not to because they go for the eye-catching spectacular to draw in the average gamer. Actors, music, incredible graphics, and a massive marketing campaign to show all of that off. Invariably that leads to a stupid amount of cash being spent. Does it make it a guaranteed 'good' game? No, but it might make it financially successful.

If they spent more time focusing on making a good game, they wouldn't need 100m to advertise a mediocre one.

I think there's a market for all types of games* but we're talking about a very specific one here, the AAA space, a space defined by not only its high production values and associated budgets but also its demonstrably large audience. Because of this, it's also the space where we find the loot boxes and micro-transactions we're discussing here. That being said, not every game in this space needs a mega budget and similarly, not every game in this space can in any way justify loot boxes and micro-transactions. Most importantly, and I completely agree with you here, a games existence in this space does not, in any way, indicate its quality.

But there are most definitely expectations in this market though, I outlined the ones for Battlefront II above which I feel shouldn't be glossed over in this context but as a general rule, people expect at least the same if not more content as found in previous examples of games in the series or genre, expect that content to be higher quality than previous entries and again, most importantly, they don't expect to pay more for it. This is quite simply an untenable position.

As for that last point, it again hinges on the "make a good game and they will come" argument. As I've said before, this sadly isn't always true. They didn't come for Alan Wake, they didn't come for Mirrors Edge and they didn't come for Dead Space to name but a few. Now, a generation later, where costs are even higher still, if they're going to make a Star Wars game to a standard that their audience (and let's not forget, shareholders and licence holders) expects, you can be damn sure they're going to make sure everyone knows about it.

*As for my own tastes, well I mean when it comes to EA, while I'm intrigued to see what they do with Anthem and what Respawn are doing with their Star Wars adventure game, the title from them I'm most looking forward to is Fe, an indie game they're publishing via their EA Originals label. Go figure.

Benzino

Falthyron wrote: »

If I knew the extra 10-15 euro would go towards substantial, warranted, valuable content, then yes. I would pay the extra 10-15 euro.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

I'd easily pay 100euro for a full and complete game with no BS micro transactions or dlc, and I'd still pay for full quality expansions

But why? As gizmo said, you are not actually getting any more content for that extra money.

Also Falthyron, while those games you have listed have been hugely successfully, for every one of them, there are 100's that go unnoticed. There is a huge element of luck involved when you don't have a big marketing budget. When done right, it can have a big impact on sales (see Dead Island).

Falthyron wrote: »

If they spent more time focusing on making a good game, they wouldn't need 100m to advertise a mediocre one.

Again, that's not true. There are plenty of examples of great games doing very poorly in sales. Psychonauts, Titanfall, Okami, Jet Set Radio to just a few that popped into my head. Unfortunately, this is not Wayne's World

Icyseanfitz

Benzino wrote: »

But why? As gizmo said, you are not actually getting any more content for that extra money.

Also Falthyron, while those games you have listed have been hugely successfully, for every one of them, there are 100's that go unnoticed. There is a huge element of luck involved when you don't have a big marketing budget. When done right, it can have a big impact on sales (see Dead Island).



Again, that's not true. There are plenty of examples of great games doing very poorly in sales. Psychonauts, Titanfall, Okami, Jet Set Radio to just a few that popped into my head. Unfortunately, this is not Wayne's World

of course you would if the developer decided not to remove massive chunks of game to resell as dlc, i can still remember when multiple costumes/customisation options where just in a damn game and not locked behind a paywall

the only dev in recent years i can remember doing dlc right is cdprojectred with the witcher 3

gizmo

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

of course you would if the developer decided not to remove massive chunks of game to resell as dlc, i can still remember when multiple costumes/customisation options where just in a damn game and not locked behind a paywall

Could this maybe have something to do with the fact that a game like Resident Evil 4, with all its additional unlockable skins and content outside the main campaign, had on its team 4 Character and Creature modellers while the newer Resident Evil 7 had 9 Character Artists on the core Capcom development team as well as a further 37 credited via the outsourcers, XPEC Art Center Inc?

Benzino

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

of course you would if the developer decided not to remove massive chunks of game to resell as dlc, i can still remember when multiple costumes/customisation options where just in a damn game and not locked behind a paywall

But unless you actually want the costumes and stuff, you are literally paying more money for content you don't want. Why would you do that? The current system allows you to still get that content, at an additional price of course, without having to pay more for the base game if you are not interested.

I'm talking purely cosmetic stuff by the way, maps etc are traditionally just paid DLC, which I don't really have a problem with as DLC is just a modern version of expansion packs.

Look, there is no doubt that devs/publishers are abusing the system to gain extra profit. Nobody should be surprised by this, their very existence is to make money for their shareholders. Just like gamers wait to buy games second hand, so which marketplace to get the game cheaper. We are all looking out for our wallets at the end of the day. But the system can be done right as seen with games like Overwatch. Just like mobile users, we need to vote with our wallets. Support the games that do it right, and avoid the games that don't (even if you really want the new Battlefront), otherwise nothing will change.

But if loot boxes do go, they will just do something else to get that revenue back. I think loot boxes, when done right, is fair for everybody.

Mark Hamill

Forgot about this thread...

gizmo wrote: »

I didn't say they won't have enough money,

Sorry, I meant enough money to make a bigger game. By your argument, if these companies don't make >100% profit, then they can't make bigger games. You ignored what I said about the retailer selling the games. Retailers don't make more than 100% profit, so by your argument they cannot grow. This is clearly wrong.

gizmo wrote: »

What the financials do show, however, is the net result of what I've been talking about with regard to the balancing of rising development budgets and measures designed to reduce them.

Again, what they show is that overall developmental budgets have dropped yearly the last 5 years and revenue and profits have increased at the same times. That is self-reported by these companies, read the financials again (EA, Activision). Would you like to actually present some evidence that actually contradicts EA's and Activision's own reported financials?

gizmo wrote: »

I haven't given my opinion on any of this. I've just stated that the reason they haven't been classed as gambling is because they appear to fail the litmus test for what the various bodies actually considered gambling. If they did, then their marketing would have to follow existing legislation and the Ratings Boards would probably have to rate accordingly too.

So, if you want this to change then the test needs to be adjusted to allow for the act of paying for an known quantity of unknown virtual items, items which in the absence of a means to resell or trade have no real world value. How they're marketed doesn't appear to be factored into this test, it's solely based on the core act and in light of that, I'm curious as to how people can differentiate the loot box from the Kinder Surprise.

We are going in cirlces :rolleyes: To repeat myself:
When the question is why gambling that can't give you something with cash value isn't gambling, saying because it doesn't give you something with cash value is moot. What the governments, that twitter user and you fail to realise is that the monetary value of all gambling is ultimately always less than 0. Sure, individuals may sometimes win sometimes, but over time all gambling is always in favour of the house. Gamblers, as a whole, always lose money.

gizmo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sorry, I meant enough money to make a bigger game. By your argument, if these companies don't make >100% profit, then they can't make bigger games. You ignored what I said about the retailer selling the games. Retailers don't make more than 100% profit, so by your argument they cannot grow. This is clearly wrong.

Again, the wording is important here, I didn't say they can't make, I said the publisher would be unlikely to give them more money unless it can be shown they can make more profit from their next title.

Sorry for skipping over the retailer bit, I didn't understand what you meant in the previous post. Retailers aren't a particularly valid example as they tend to run on a system of credit with wholesalers and distributors before selling at high enough margins to customers to cover their costs. Publishers don't have this luxury, development costs are ongoing and non-refundable, it's more akin to an actual investment in this respect.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Again, what they show is that overall developmental budgets have dropped yearly the last 5 years and revenue and profits have increased at the same times. That is self-reported by these companies, read the financials again (EA, Activision). Would you like to actually present some evidence that actually contradicts EA's and Activision's own reported financials?

No, what you're seeing is various Operating Costs reported in those financials coming down. I've addressed the reasons for this repeatedly; a lower number of games in active development, reduced headcounts across studios and numbers of active studios full stop and something I didn't mention previously that's more specific in the case of EA, a consolidation of technology across their studio group with regard to the widespread use of Frostbite.

This is different from development budgets being lower though. Let me put it like this, if it previously cost them €25m to make a game, and they made 6 for a total cost of €150m, and it now costs them €100m to make one and they chose to make 1, development costs are still increasing but their basic operating costs are going to be reduced. Doing this, however, introduces more risk as you have less leeway for individual titles to fail which is what ties into everything we're talking about on this thread.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We are going in cirlces :rolleyes: To repeat myself:
When the question is why gambling that can't give you something with cash value isn't gambling, saying because it doesn't give you something with cash value is moot. What the governments, that twitter user and you fail to realise is that the monetary value of all gambling is ultimately always less than 0. Sure, individuals may sometimes win sometimes, but over time all gambling is always in favour of the house. Gamblers, as a whole, always lose money.

And as I said, if people want loot boxes to be classed as gambling then they need to lobby the relevant Gambling Commission and/or Government agencies to change the rules. The reason they haven't has been explained in their Position Paper here, specifically in paragraphs 3.17 and 3.18.

I avoided answering your point directly before because I didn't want to come across as being harsh given everything else we were disagreeing on but if you must, it's a nonsense argument so weak that it'd be laughed off by such bodies.

dudeeile

I'm just gonna wait for the season recap to be brought up to speed on this topic

Mark Hamill

gizmo wrote: »

Again, the wording is important here, I didn't say they can't make, I said the publisher would be unlikely to give them more money unless it can be shown they can make more profit from their next title.

Sorry for skipping over the retailer bit, I didn't understand what you meant in the previous post. Retailers aren't a particularly valid example as they tend to run on a system of credit with wholesalers and distributors before selling at high enough margins to customers to cover their costs. Publishers don't have this luxury, development costs are ongoing and non-refundable, it's more akin to an actual investment in this respect.

If the publisher is willing to pump 3 to 4 times as much money into marketing as they into actually making the game, what makes you think they wouldn't invest more in making a sequel to a popular game? They may only make 100% profit on that game, but 100% profit on a $100m dollar sequel is more than 100% profit on the $50m dollar original.

gizmo wrote: »

Doing this, however, introduces more risk as you have less leeway for individual titles to fail which is what ties into everything we're talking about on this thread.

Even accepting this, even accepting that it introduces more risk, we see from their own reported financials that they are making more revenue and profit each year, and that is before they introduced loot boxes and micro-transactions. No matter what level of your claims we accept, it is still a fact that these companies are massively profitable and more and more profitable each year. The argument that these companies need to introduce forms of money making like loot boxes is naive at best.

gizmo wrote: »

And as I said, if people want loot boxes to be classed as gambling then they need to lobby the relevant Gambling Commission and/or Government agencies to change the rules. The reason they haven't has been explained in their Position Paper here, specifically in paragraphs 3.17 and 3.18.

I avoided answering your point directly before because I didn't want to come across as being harsh given everything else we were disagreeing on but if you must, it's a nonsense argument so weak that it'd be laughed off by such bodies.

They might laugh, but they have yet to actually answer the question. When the question is why gambling that can't give you something with cash value isn't gambling, saying because it doesn't give you something with cash value is moot. So why does the resell-ability of the outcome of an act of gambling determine whether or not it counts as gambling? You aren't presenting any argument why. The government bodies in your link are presenting any argument why. You are just repeating the assertion that it doesn't. Do you want to actually try and explain why?

OptimusTractor

dudeeile wrote: »

I'm just gonna wait for the season recap to be brought up to speed on this topic

There'll also be behind the scenes footage for an extra €5.99.

Disclaimer: Behind the scenes content is not included in Seasons Pass.

gizmo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the publisher is willing to pump 3 to 4 times as much money into marketing as they into actually making the game, what makes you think they wouldn't invest more in making a sequel to a popular game? They may only make 100% profit on that game, but 100% profit on a $100m dollar sequel is more than 100% profit on the $50m dollar original.

Well for starters, if that game didn't make a reasonable return on that investment and if they didn't see scope for the series to grow regardless of whether the development budget was increased. It's not exactly a transparent process, I mean Dead Space and Mirrors Edge had similarly disappointing sales when they first came out yet DS got a sequel greenlit almost immediately whereas we had to wait nine years for ME: Catalyst. There are certainly reasonable guesses as to why this happened but in any case, the former became a great example of how to run a franchise into the ground due to chasing a market that was never really there.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even accepting this, even accepting that it introduces more risk, we see from their own reported financials that they are making more revenue and profit each year, and that is before they introduced loot boxes and micro-transactions. No matter what level of your claims we accept, it is still a fact that these companies are massively profitable and more and more profitable each year. The argument that these companies need to introduce forms of money making like loot boxes is naive at best.

EA have been experimenting with micro-transactions since 2013 and the Ultimate Team system was introduced in 2009. These things aren't new, they've just gained greater prominence this generation. This time period is also where we've seen all of the factors I described in my previous post come into play. They're quantifiable factors at that and, to be honest, whether you accept them or not is irrelevant. As an aside, the goal of all of these companies, large or small, is to maintain growth. These measures wouldn't be seen as successful if they simply offset the other costs and revenue didn't continue to grow.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They might laugh, but they have yet to actually answer the question. When the question is why gambling that can't give you something with cash value isn't gambling, saying because it doesn't give you something with cash value is moot. So why does the resell-ability of the outcome of an act of gambling determine whether or not it counts as gambling? You aren't presenting any argument why. The government bodies in your link are presenting any argument why. You are just repeating the assertion that it doesn't. Do you want to actually try and explain why?

I'm not trying to present an argument as to why, it's completely outside of my area of expertise. I'm simply pointing at the existing rules and saying this is why it's not classed as gambling so calling it such while wondering why it's allowed to exist in its current state is pointless.

ShadowHearth

I dont think people who say: "how does it effect you, just dont buy it and keep playing the game", Fully understand the core problem.

The games mechanics, length, style and the core concept is being changed to be profitable, instead of being fun. You think, that you are not effected and you wont be part of it, but the game is already different to what it would be if it had no loot boxes and these micro transactions.
Us normal players boycotting it will do feck all difference, because publishers are looking to make money not from us, but from whales, who dont give a ****.

I liked idea of free to play games, where you just go and buy skin you want. Now you buy keys and hope for the best to get it. I played a good lash of f2p games and if I enjoyed the game, I would buy at least something just to give developer some money. Whole casino stuff really just annoys me and puts me off.

I was very recently asked to talk to one of my friends by their family member, because it was discovered that he spends 50-250eu every month on f2p game. I checked the game and it had loot boxes too now! There is an issue of gambling by other family member there already and looks like my friend got the taste too. I was sickened. These ****y loot boxes are pure unregulated gambling and I dont know how can you see it any differently.

Mark Hamill

gizmo wrote: »

Well for starters, if that game didn't make a reasonable return on that investment and if they didn't see scope for the series to grow regardless of whether the development budget was increased. It's not exactly a transparent process, I mean Dead Space and Mirrors Edge had similarly disappointing sales when they first came out yet DS got a sequel greenlit almost immediately whereas we had to wait nine years for ME: Catalyst. There are certainly reasonable guesses as to why this happened but in any case, the former became a great example of how to run a franchise into the ground due to chasing a market that was never really there.

What are you talking about? What has this got to do with my example?
I'm specifically talking about a game that was 100% profitable. You keep brushing things aside as if they have no bearing on the discussion. The fact that game companies spend up to 75% of the budget on marketing. The fact that game companies have saved millions if not 100s of million because (up to the Switch) they no longer use expensive cartridges. You keep moving the goalposts to suit your argument.

gizmo wrote: »

EA have been experimenting with micro-transactions since 2013 and the Ultimate Team system was introduced in 2009. These things aren't new, they've just gained greater prominence this generation. This time period is also where we've seen all of the factors I described in my previous post come into play. They're quantifiable factors at that and, to be honest, whether you accept them or not is irrelevant. As an aside, the goal of all of these companies, large or small, is to maintain growth. These measures wouldn't be seen as successful if they simply offset the other costs and revenue didn't continue to grow.

And we can see that they have grown consistently for the last 5 years (at least) without the recent batch of gambling-based loot boxes and micro-transactions. All of your claims that they need to offset increasing costs and they need to grow more and more? Well, we can see they have been doing just that since at least 2012, and reaping in the profits.

gizmo wrote: »

I'm not trying to present an argument as to why,

Then stop dragging the discussion in circles! If you wont even pretend to try and answer the obvious question of why should a definition of gambling should rely on there being a potential monetary value of outcome then don't act like your responses add anything to the discussion. All you are doing is repeating an unjustified and unexplained assertion without any elaboration. This is a discussion forum, discuss or don't post at all.

gizmo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What are you talking about? What has this got to do with my example?
I'm specifically talking about a game that was 100% profitable. You keep brushing things aside as if they have no bearing on the discussion. The fact that game companies spend up to 75% of the budget on marketing. The fact that game companies have saved millions if not 100s of million because (up to the Switch) they no longer use expensive cartridges. You keep moving the goalposts to suit your argument.

I was answering the question in the first part of your post, "...what makes you think they wouldn't invest more in making a sequel to a popular game?".

The reason I then brought up Dead Space (and Mirrors Edge as a contrast) was because it gives a more practical example of the rough figures we're using, what the expectations from the likes of EA are and what can happen to a game when unrealistic expectations are foisted upon it. From what we know, Dead Space 2 had a development budget of $60m and a marketing budget of a further $60m. It sold four million copies and was deemed to have underpreformed. When it came to Dead Space 3, while we don't have any budget figures, we do have a statement from the EA Label President at the time stating it needed to sell 5 million copies to survive so I think it's reasonable to assume that some aspect of their budget was increased. The problem was that in order to justify all of this, they ended up completely compromising the core design of the game before they even got around to adding the micro-transactions and mucking with the crafting system.

I've already addressed the cartridge issue. Assuming that information is correct and using the Switch cartridge premium as a guideline, the $10 saved per sale by dumping the format after the N64-era has been completely overshadowed by the rise in development costs and other platform costs.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And we can see that they have grown consistently for the last 5 years (at least) without the recent batch of gambling-based loot boxes and micro-transactions. All of your claims that they need to offset increasing costs and they need to grow more and more? Well, we can see they have been doing just that since at least 2012, and reaping in the profits.

Yes, by enacting the measures I described below they've managed to continue to grow. And as the scale of production continues to grow they're taking further action to ensure that profitability in certain projects.

Does a lot of this suck? Sure does but it's also unexpected given the money involved.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then stop dragging the discussion in circles! If you wont even pretend to try and answer the obvious question of why should a definition of gambling should rely on there being a potential monetary value of outcome then don't act like your responses add anything to the discussion. All you are doing is repeating an unjustified and unexplained assertion without any elaboration. This is a discussion forum, discuss or don't post at all.

Kindly don't attempt to tell me what I can or can't discuss given my original response to the subject was a polite reply to Falthyron and it was you who then took issue with my summation when I added the reply from the Government as a related update.

If it makes you feel any better my gut reaction is that it is a form of gambling but I'm also acutely aware of how complex the topic is given not only the contents of the Position Paper I linked but the existence of things such as coin-pushers, claw machines in regular arcades which are open to kids and the somewhat more facetious example of Kindle Surprises.

Falthyron

Jim's additional thoughts on the issue and a reaction to a NPD analyst's report.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoZYIYiUyxA

When a game makes 450m in raw sales alone (PUBG), there is no justification for adding gambling to your game. It is pure greed.

It's snook its way into the new Assassins creed. Another single player game.
Make it stop ffs

https://youtu.be/5OydhFhZCQ0

OptimusTractor

M!Ck^ wrote: »

It's snook its way into the new Assassins creed. Another single player game.
Make it stop ffs

https://youtu.be/5OydhFhZCQ0

You can buy a unicorn with helix credits. I sh1t you not.

Falthyron

M!Ck^ wrote: »

It's snook its way into the new Assassins creed. Another single player game.
Make it stop ffs

https://youtu.be/5OydhFhZCQ0

It was in Assassin's Creed: Unity until they removed them, but I am hardly surprised they brought it back for Origins. Fresh start, new beginnings, etc. Make them the new norm for future games of the franchise.

Kiith

It's no surprise to be honest. Black Flag had them as well, didn't it?

The usual arguments will apply here, with people saying you don't need to buy them to enjoy the game properly. But it's just a matter of time before they go full mobile and require you to buy these sorts of things to properly progress. It's easy money for the publisher, and people clearly still buy the games. I'm just as guilty, as i bought Shadow of War.

Angron

Oh yeah, I remember that. I think between hearing about that and how much I hated Assassin's Creed 3, I ended up not buying Black Flag on release as a result.