nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

Kiith

Curious to see what people think about the current trend of having loot boxes in full prices games, as we've seen in some major releases lately (notably Shadow or War and Battlefront). Seems to be a recurring theme now, and any suggestion that they would be kept to only cosmetic has quickly been shown as untrue.

Some examples...

Shadow of War - single player with micro-transactions, with a huge amount of grinding required if you don't buy them, just to get the 'true' ending. Also, gives a clear advantage in the limited multiplayer mode.
Battlefront 2 - Star cards that give a big advantage to people with certain cards (40% damage reduction compared to 100% at top rating), which take a long time to grind if you don't pay.
Borderland 2 - One of the first that i remember was the Golden Crates in Borderlands. One of the earlier examples that i can remember in full priced games. Signle player only though, and absolutely optional though, so not too bad. My bad, these were free. I thought we had to buy them.
Overwatch - purely cosmetic as far as i'm aware?

Are developers/publishers justified in adding micro transactions to full priced games, given the rise in costs of development? Or are they just doing their best to rip people off?

Personally, i don't have an issue with cosmetic loot boxes, though i do miss the days that these were unlockable by playing the game. But i'm against any sort of loot boxes, especially when they are RNG based, that provide gameplay advantages over other people. It's literally the definition of P2W.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Potential-Monke

Something else we need to consider here is the amount of people purchasing the games. For example, Super Mario 64 has sold 11 million copies. GTAV has sold 75 million. The player base has grown, so developers may need more money to bring out a game, but they're also selling a lot more. If your game doesn't sell, it's no ones fault but the developers for making a game that's not good (most of the time).

Maybe an aul complaint to PEGI about gambling in games for kids... If we all sent one, they might notice.

Gingervitis

Timely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSso2vufPM

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Grumpypants wrote: »

It just makes zero difference to me if i get shot by a guy who bought it, compared to getting shot by a guy who got it through gamaplay. The end result is the same.

One spent time, one spent money.

You could argue the guy spending money invested far less than the guy spending time.

If you are able to purchase powerful guns on day one, in game it causes an imbalance, whether it bothers you or not is another thing. Those who are wealthier (or idiots with money) have an "unfair" advantage.

marcbrophy

I reckon RDR2 will be hit with this stuff too!
I fully believe (personal opinion, obviously) that that was why it was delayed.

Once I saw what happened with take2's NBA game and remembered the words from the ceo Zelnick back in the summer. He thinks games should have more micro-transactions. I got a very bad feeling about RDR 2.

Before Benzies left R* North, he said in an interview that the GTA shark cards were forced on them by take2. That's also why the damn casino never opened up in GTA V online :mad: :pac:

gizmo

Digital Solitude wrote: »

I'm not trying to be picky here but isn't €70 EAs new standard? I don't check the stores too often but I recall seeing a good few games priced around €70 for standard editions.

Not being picky at all, you're correct in that the RRP of the current generation console games can be €69.99 from EA. I tried to allow for a bit of wiggle room in my reply with that "essentially" since the price rise only really came in the last generation or so, doesn't apply to all publishers or titles and, most importantly, I'd wager you'd struggle to actually be asked to pay that price in any major retailer other than Gamestop.

Digital Solitude wrote: »

That's why I threw the few bigger companies in there too, I understand its an AAA centric discussion re:MTs, Lootboxes and the likes, they were an example against games costing millions to make, when in reality few games operate such huge budgets.

Cool, we're on the same page then. The thing is though, outside of your smaller indie productions, the overwhelming majority of titles still cost millions to make, just variable amounts of millions. This is just development costs by the way, not including marketing budgets. Sure, as you approach the mid eight-figure development cost range, the number of titles falling into this category is reduced but its these ones which would fall into the category of potentially justifying the kinds of additional revenue streams we're talking about.

Digital Solitude wrote: »

I don't think pubs say "We can use MTs let's half-arse this", but I'm a cynic and wonder how many companies realise they've pissed away millions they won't get back on an under-par game so throw in a lootbox or MT system close to the finish to try recoup costs. Which I'm fine with once it doesn't affect gameplay, which isn't always the case.

I don't think so either, I think these decisions are made by people at a certain level within the publisher who genuinely believe how they're implemented is acceptable. In some cases they can simply be at a management and/or executive level and be a business decision but there's also been a notable rise in the number of positions requiring a background in economics and psychology within many companies who, I assume, are being used to direct these initiatives.

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Maybe I'm misremembering. But my sister was like, "you can have 1 expensive game or 2 cheaper ones." So as a kid, I went with Goof Troop and Ryan Giggs soccer which were both £20 instead of DKC, thinking i was getting double the fun. Kid me was a f**king dope

There may have been some cheaper games or even cheaper places to buy them alright but since I was only allowed a game at Christmas and Birthday time, I had to be picky with what I went for and between those mentioned and the likes of Super Metroid, Indiana Jones Trilogy amd Earthworm Jim, I believe they all fell into that price bracket. Zero regrets obviously

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Something else we need to consider here is the amount of people purchasing the games. For example, Super Mario 64 has sold 11 million copies. GTAV has sold 75 million. The player base has grown, so developers may need more money to bring out a game, but they're also selling a lot more. If your game doesn't sell, it's no ones fault but the developers for making a game that's not good (most of the time).

It's most definitely something to consider but if you look at sales over time across a broad range of titles, it's only the biggest of hits which have seen sales increases of this magnitude.

Your comparison is skewed too, to be honest, a more accurate one would be Super Mario Galaxy on the Wii which sold 12.75m. I'd use Super Mario 3D World on the Wii U but I imagine the lower install base of the hardware contributed to its considerably lower figure of 5.65m.

You could also look at other high profile, single platform titles like The Last of Us with its 8m sold and Halo 5 with its 5m sales.

Of even more interest is something more current like Horizon: Zero Dawn which we have rough development budget figures on thanks to an interview with Guerrilla Games. This is now sitting at 3.4m copies sold as of June this year.

YouSavedMyLife

Cosmetic only DLC/Lootboxes in full priced games is 100% fine with me. But games being made intentionally grindy with lootboxes to speed up the grind is a joke. Also games with post launch DLC can suck 15 dicks as well. I just wont buy them, **** em.

Jim Sterling is spot on with his videos on the subject. It may not be part of this thread but **** pre-ordering as well. Stop pre-ordering ****! What the difference between pre-ordering a game and buying it on launch day? Nothing, so stop

(I didnt read any posts in this thread bar the OP)

marcbrophy

TB has a 40 minute rant about it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMDGPSWWA18

johnny_ultimate

*Blizzard makes incredibly polished game with an inspired cast of dynamic, interesting characters, tightly honed mechanics, a series of inventive flourishes & systems, and an uncommonly coherent aesthetic identity.*

*Other publishers choose ****ing lootboxes as the lesson to learn from it*

OptimusTractor

Grumpypants wrote: »

Isn't having spare time an unfair advantage so. What about the guy working and raising a family. Who only has 1-2 hours a week.

I believe that guy will enjoy whatever time he gets to game. But he would have more important things to put his money towards than lootboxes.

[Deleted User]

I don't think I've played one game yet where I've been happy with how they handled loot boxes. I despise them in every form. Battlegrounds and Overwatch have come close due to how noninvasive they are. Don't even get me started on the f2p model.

Angron

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

*Blizzard makes incredibly polished game with an inspired cast of dynamic, interesting characters, tightly honed mechanics, a series of inventive flourishes & systems, and an uncommonly coherent aesthetic identity.*

*Other publishers choose ****ing lootboxes as the lesson to learn from it*

There's a streamer I watch who has a real issue with games doing this, learning the wrong lesson from other successful things. A prime example is the list of crappy knock off "simulator" trying to cash in on well made and funny games like Goat Simulator or Surgeon Simulator, where they think ****ty physics is the only thing that makes those games enjoyable.

[Deleted User]

Battlefront 2 is riddled with it.
Pay to win in fact.

SeantheMan

death1234567 wrote: »

The implementation in Overwatch is close to how it should be done IMO. All players get 1-2 nice cosmetic items free every now and then and if you want specific ones then you can pay for them. The problem in Overwatch is that they are essentially selling scratch cards where you can get lucky and get the item you want but if not you have to buy more. There should just be an individual price for each and you buy the what you want, if you want any, and if you don't it doesn't affect your playing of the game at all.

No you can't.

TitianGerm

SeantheMan wrote: »

No you can't.

You can pay for them with in game currency

Generic Dreadhead

Tbf, it does take a fair whack of dupes or gold chest drops to accumulate 3k gold for the best skins in OW

SeantheMan

emmetkenny wrote: »

You can pay for them with in game currency

Which is earned from drops...at a really really slow rate.

I just bought 24 loot crates myself for Haloween skins.
Add that to the 6 boxes I 'earned' this week...that's 30.
1 got 800 coins. over the course of those 30 lootboxes...that's not even 1/3rd of what's needed for an Ultimate Skin.

It's pretty difficult to outright buy them.

Also....I only got 2 Legendary skins outta all them boxes

...not even the ones I wanted.

I know I'm a sucker, but it's just cosmetic, and I get a lot of enjoyment from the game itself, so I don't mind throwing 20 at it maybe once or twice a year.

TitianGerm

SeantheMan wrote: »

Which is earned from drops...at a really really slow rate.

I just bought 24 loot crates myself for Haloween skins.
Add that to the 6 boxes I 'earned' this week...that's 30.
1 got 800 coins. over the course of those 30 lootboxes...that's not even 1/3rd of what's needed for an Ultimate Skin.

It's pretty difficult to outright buy them.

Also....I only got 2 Legendary skins outta all them boxes ...not even the ones I wanted.

I know I'm a sucker, but it's just cosmetic, and I get a lot of enjoyment from the game itself, so I don't mind throwing 20 at it maybe once or twice a year.

Do you play many games a week? I seem to get plenty of currency. I bought two of the expensive skins last event and still have lots of currency.

Generic Dreadhead

emmetkenny wrote: »

Do you play many games a week? I seem to get plenty of currency. I bought two of the expensive skins last event and still have lots of currency.

Yeah, but that's you.
I'm in the same boat regarding coins/level but you nee to look at this from the fresh lvl4 player who bought that game yesterday, logs in and is like "oh Cool Mercy Skin, I want that" they cannot pay real money to get it. They need to roll the dice on a slot machine 1st, or play CONSIDERABLY to earn it.

Bare in mind everytime you get a loot box, it narrows the loot pool more and more. Some 500 loot boxes later the game can only give me player icons as i've gotten most of the other stuff. A fresh player will need a lot more loot drops to get the skin, and the likelyhood o getting coins is actually lower now since they almost never give dupes anymore
You're being subjective

TitianGerm

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Yeah, but that's you.
I'm in the same boat regarding coins/level but you nee to look at this from the fresh lvl4 player who bought that game yesterday, logs in and is like "oh Cool Mercy Skin, I want that" they cannot pay real money to get it. They need to roll the dice on a slot machine 1st, or play CONSIDERABLY to earn it.

Bare in mind everytime you get a loot box, it narrows the loot pool more and more. Some 500 loot boxes later the game can only give me player icons as i've gotten most of the other stuff. A fresh player will need a lot more loot drops to get the skin, and the likelyhood o getting coins is actually lower now since they almost never give dupes anymore
You're being subjective

The loot pool update was only recent. Before that you could get duplicates.

Generic Dreadhead

emmetkenny wrote: »

The loot pool update was only recent. Before that you could get duplicates.

Yeah. I'm talking about the here and now. I agree OW is the best of the worst in terms of MTs (imho, by far and away)
But being objective Timmy-New-Hanzo-Main just logged in, he cannot get that sweet skin unless he grind time or pays money and both those systems give rewards from a HUGE loot pool meaning very low % chance of success. Life is very different if you're a lvl300+ player as your potential loot pool chance is much smaller, like I cannot NOT get seasonal event stuff now if i log in, cause thats all thats left to reward me (I did but a lot of loot boxes previously though, full disclosure)

gizmo

So in the case of Overwatch, what do people feel would be an improvement?

Allowing players to purchase individual items they want with real money while keeping the loot box system and the random content drops for folk happy to get them as rewards for play but removing the ability to buy them?

Generic Dreadhead

gizmo wrote: »

So in the case of Overwatch, what do people feel would be an improvement?

Allowing players to purchase individual items they want with real money while keeping the loot box system and the random content drops for folk happy to get them as rewards for play but removing the ability to buy them?

Take anything worth 3000 coins at it's launch and add it to the store and whack an big price tag on it (like €7.99).

super_furry

Have no problem whatsoever with Overwatch or any loot box that doesn’t effect gameplay in any way. Something like Shadow of War’s system puts me off a game entirely and as someone who loved the first game, I won’t be buying the sequel.

There’s a good discussion on this on this weeks Giant Bombcast and they say that it feels like the Shadow Of War endgame feels like it’s been built and designed towards forcing you to spend money on boxes.

Doctor Nick

Reviews on amazon for Shadow of War are terrible. Its average rating is 2.6 and every one of the bad reviews mention the MT's.

[Deleted User]

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Reviews on amazon for Shadow of War are terrible. Its average rating is 2.6 and every one of the bad reviews mention the MT's.

Just had a look on amazon there, heres a snippet of one of the positive reviews

"Microtransactions - if you need to boycott a game because of them then stop going to petrol stations which also sell chocolate, stop going to the cinema and buying popcorn, stop going to the supermarket and buying a dvd or t-shirt. Avoid anywhere that sells things other than it's main business. Microtransactions are everywhere in life, just because the games industry is joining in isn't a reason to boycott a game that is polished, sounds good, looks good and is fun to play."

I truly cannot get my head around this way of thinking

Generic Dreadhead

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Reviews on amazon for Shadow of War are terrible. Its average rating is 2.6 and every one of the bad reviews mention the MT's.

And guaranteed not one of those players have even reached the part of the game where they are even relevant.
As much as I hate MT's, trying to tank review scores for something you haven't experienced for something you may not have bought is a bit rich

Mickeroo

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Reviews on amazon for Shadow of War are terrible. Its average rating is 2.6 and every one of the bad reviews mention the MT's.

It's clearly getting flamed due to the MT controversy, majority of those "reviews" are one liners from people who likely didn't play the game.

gizmo

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Take anything worth 3000 coins at it's launch and add it to the store and whack an big price tag on it (like €7.99).

Woah, €7.99 per Event or Golden Weapon skin? There'd be bloody war if they set the price that high, no?

johnny_ultimate

If ever a game is embroiled in some controversy - manufactured or genuine - user reviews become effectively worthless.

Well, they're worthless a lot of the time anyway, but more worthless in these situations :pac:

Doctor Nick

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

And guaranteed not one of those players have even reached the part of the game where they are even relevant.
As much as I hate MT's, trying to tank review scores for something you haven't experienced for something you may not have bought is a bit rich

Agree you shouldn't review something you haven't bought or tried. I also understand people being annoyed about MT' and not wanting to support them. I wouldn't buy loot boxes personally.

There were a few verified purchases that specifically called out the MT's as the reason for their 1* review.

I hope that developers stop with this kind of stuff in games.