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

gizmo

M!Ck^ wrote: »

The ending has clearly been seen.
This has been confirmed. The true ending of the game is after act 4.
The source is a quick google or Youtube.

I'm not disputing whether there's an additional ending at the end of Shadow Wars, I posted as much myself in the other thread, I'm saying we've not seen it yet and we just have WB's own statement that it's the "true ending" to go by.

Polygon have posted a follow up article with said ending but as I said in the rest of my post, I still want to know more actual details on how important it is and how long it actually takes to get to without using the micro-transaction system.

[Deleted User]

gizmo wrote: »

Easy now, no one has actually seen the ending yet. Our reference for this comes from articles such as the one we quoted in the Shadow of War thread...

The ending has clearly been seen.
This has been confirmed. The true ending of the game is after act 4.
The source is a quick google or Youtube.

gizmo

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Where is the supposedly coming form? It is confirmed to be locked behind a grind purposely placed int the game mechanics for the sole purpose of tempting in the purchase of loot boxes.
The average player doesn't have 100's of hours to spend or the patience to do so to enjoy everything the game has to offer. What an easy way WB games to make huge amounts of cash.

Easy now, no one has actually seen the ending yet. Our reference for this comes from articles such as the one we quoted in the Shadow of War thread...

First, it’s not just postgame content. While the main plot of Shadow of War wraps up in relatively tidy fashion before act four begins, Monolith has confirmed that there is a “true ending” hidden behind Shadow Wars. I love the idea of offering dozens of hours of grindy yet fun content for players who really adore this game to sink their teeth into. But that works better as an option rather than a looming obligation for completionists. Having the game’s real finale locked away behind those dozens of hours — hours that, while fun, are devoid of story missions, side quests, cutscenes or other distractions that help mix up the pace — is a disappointment.

So we don't know if it's the "true ending" or not, that's just what WB has called it, the presence of such grindy end game content is nothing new, even in games without such micro-transactions in place and the number of hours required to play it is nowhere near the 100s mentioned.

On the other hand, what it most certainly is, or at least should be, is enough of a reason to not buy it until we know more about it. Which makes articles like the one Leif Johnson over at RPS wrote on the subject where he still has a very different opinion on the matter.

Falthyron wrote: »

I know that in casinos the patrons who frequent the place most often or gamble extensively are often treated to perks like an upgraded room, free drinks, extended credit, etc. I wonder if people who spend a lot on loot boxes or MTs get a similar treatment? A loyal customer programme or something of that kind.

Probably only a matter of time such a system will be devised by the more popular titles. Spend €100 on loot boxes and get 5 free boxes. So if someone has spent €90 then they might be more inclined to throw another €10 into the game so they can get 5 more boxes for free. Or those who spend money infrequently could be tempted back in by sending them a free loot box as a loyalty reward. It would be highly insidious, but then again, the games industry is pretty unregulated so someone might do it for as long as they can.

Most of these systems generally offer an increasing discount per item the more money you spend on them. Here's Overwatch's options for instance. I can't see publishers pushing the envelope with them any more for fear of encroaching on related gambling laws in various territories.

Falthyron

I know that in casinos the patrons who frequent the place most often or gamble extensively are often treated to perks like an upgraded room, free drinks, extended credit, etc. I wonder if people who spend a lot on loot boxes or MTs get a similar treatment? A loyal customer programme or something of that kind.

Probably only a matter of time such a system will be devised by the more popular titles. Spend €100 on loot boxes and get 5 free boxes. So if someone has spent €90 then they might be more inclined to throw another €10 into the game so they can get 5 more boxes for free. Or those who spend money infrequently could be tempted back in by sending them a free loot box as a loyalty reward. It would be highly insidious, but then again, the games industry is pretty unregulated so someone might do it for as long as they can.

Devolver Digital (a wonderful PR department with a tremendous satirical approach to the gaming industry) should launch a campaign that mirrors gambling in sport to highlight the gambling characteristics of loot boxes: 'Open boxes responsibly'/'When the fun stops, its time to stop opening boxes'

wes

bigphil2 wrote: »

Vote with your wallets folks.. Dont buy them,theyll get the message

The problem with micro transactions is that there made around the idea that a few idiots will pay for them, and pay a lot. The idea of whales and dolphins. The whole thing is pretty insidious in that there depending on a small group of people, whom either have more money than sense, or who can't help themselves and they exploit them relentlessly.

bigphil2

froog wrote: »

i honestly don't see what the fuss is. no one's forcing you to buy them and you don't need them. i'm playing shadow of war now and i haven't even thought about them. getting cool loot constantly in the game.

i've also played overwatch for 100s of hours, got plenty of gold skins and never bought a loot box.

Just because you dont have a problem with it,doesnt mean its not a ****ty way to a:get more money out of people for a full price SINGLE PLAYER game
b:Bring Gambling into Video Games,Shadow of War may not be a kids game but Battlefront 2 certainly is and it is confirmed as Pay to Win

Vote with your wallets folks.. Dont buy them,theyll get the message

[Deleted User]

Where is the supposedly coming form? It is confirmed to be locked behind a grind purposely placed int the game mechanics for the sole purpose of tempting in the purchase of loot boxes.
The average player doesn't have 100's of hours to spend or the patience to do so to enjoy everything the game has to offer. What an easy way WB games to make huge amounts of cash.

As for Battlefront II, that's even worse.

Icyseanfitz

froog wrote: »

i honestly don't see what the fuss is. no one's forcing you to buy them and you don't need them. i'm playing shadow of war now and i haven't even thought about them. getting cool loot constantly in the game.

i've also played overwatch for 100s of hours, got plenty of gold skins and never bought a loot box.

supposedly the the true ending of shadow of war is locked behind a long monotonous grind for orcs that can be bought with loot crates.

Gamer Bhoy 89

Crosby Sour Pigeon wrote: »

Playing Super Metroid at the moment, fantastic stuff.

Playing Final Fantasy 6 myself. Blissfully derailed from all of this crap for a while.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I only play single player games these days so I tend not to encounter this much.

However if they put this crap into single player games I just won't buy them and if needed just go back to older retro games. Playing Super Metroid at the moment, fantastic stuff.

Gamer Bhoy 89

The ESRB had something to say about it. They said they don't class lootboxes as a form of gambling.

http://screenrant.com/esrb-loot-boxes-gambling/

The article also pointed out something contradictory in the ESRB's statement, though.

"The ratings board has always increased the rating of any game if it has gambling in it, like slot machines or poker. But now that actual, real gambling is involved, they don’t seem to mind. And make no mistake, that’s what loot boxes are – gambling."

Whether it's gambling or not is irrelevant, I believe.
I'm not against loot boxes as a whole (cosmetics are fine in my books), but once you start locking items and weapons that you can use in-game behind it, and have it be a central form of progression instead of, I don't know - ACTUAL progression, it's a huuuuge problem in my opinion.

What started off as a fantastic year for gaming -probably the best in a while - is almost becoming one of the worst just as quick.

Unfortunately companies like EA only look at the numbers and the silent ones are those that have no problem shelling out money for these lootboxes. The loud ones are those that have either not bought the game (and boycotting it) or are those that have bought the game but haven't bought the loot boxes.

They can ignore the former because they aren't a consumer. And they can ignore the latter because they already forked out 60 for the game. It's a win/win for EA and it's utter ****e.

[Deleted User]

Or pretty much any f2p mobile game for that matter

[Deleted User]

froog wrote: »

i honestly don't see what the fuss is. no one's forcing you to buy them and you don't need them. i'm playing shadow of war now and i haven't even thought about them. getting cool loot constantly in the game.

i've also played overwatch for 100s of hours, got plenty of gold skins and never bought a loot box.

Have you played the Dungeon Keeper mobile game by any chance?

froog

i honestly don't see what the fuss is. no one's forcing you to buy them and you don't need them. i'm playing shadow of war now and i haven't even thought about them. getting cool loot constantly in the game.

i've also played overwatch for 100s of hours, got plenty of gold skins and never bought a loot box.

Icyseanfitz

if developers and publishers just started charging more for complete games id be happy out, 100 euro for a full complete title with no bs cash shops or micro transactions. One can dream

ShadowHearth

I used to play a bit of heroes of the storm and I liked hiw you earn gold tp buy stuff or just buy a skin you want with cash. I bought a few skins over time.
I logged in to it recently and I noticed loot boxes... at least they still had options to buy skins with cash or win characters and skins in loot boxes. Or I am wrong?
If thats the case, I dont mind loot boxes. It could be an extra that you can throw a few quid, but not when the only way of getting skin is going in to gambling machine.

Forza 7, got a lot of **** for loot boxes lately, but I did not mind it as you could not buy them with cash. Though looks like they will introduce cash coins again. So that good idea went to ****.

_CreeD_

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Most narrow minded, uniformed, developer-apologist attitude I've read in this entire thread tbh

...Most presumptious lack of understanding-fueled reply?

I didn't apologise at all for developers, want to point out where I did? I just removed them from the equation, so companies are willing to be unethical to make money...shock, horror, amazement at...well absolutely nothing new. It sucks, so how should the consumer respond to change the behaviour - simply don't pay for them.
In reality if you ignore that you're being apologist for the consumers out there who do buy into this idiocy and fuel the market, just making it worse. A point I made very clear in the statement.
As gamers we need to take responsibility for our own actions and our ability to enact change, and stop ignoring the fact that while many will happily complain about the situation they will still spend money on it.

Falthyron

Saruhashi wrote: »

In the end if it's all optional for the player then I am OK with it. If you need to pay up extra to complete the game, or to win, then I would say that's a bad thing.

In theory and in an ideal world, yes, that would be fine. But, this is the gaming industry and it loves to lubricate the slippery slope to avarice. The loot boxes in Shadow of War make the game easier. Therefore, it is the developers (as instructed by the publisher) to make the game more difficult for those who don't buy loot boxes to coerce them into buying loot boxes. Basically, a player with no interest (or means) in buying loot boxes faces a more difficult path to beat the game or do the things he/she would like than the person who bought the extra stuff. This puts the onus on developers to give reasons to buy the loot boxes. They want you to fail and struggle because they would hope that you will turn to loot boxes to help you overcome the difficulty. Back in ye olde days, these things were known as cheats and they were free. :pac:

I should add, if publishers decided to have games in the following difficulties: Normal, Hard, Realistic, but added an 'Easy' mode for €5, they would probably make money. Loot boxes are just a more protracted and profitable approach, but the point still stands. Imagine paying to make the game easier? Except with loot boxes, the level of simplification varies based on pot luck.

Saruhashi

I think it depends on how much these things cost the player.

I keep thinking about those old Panini sticker albums from back in the day.

My mother would buy me a few packets of those stickers and I'd end up getting a bunch of stickers that I already had and couldn't trade cos all the other kids had them already. A 50 pack box of FIFA stickers costs around 30 euro now. 5 stickers per pack. It could be seen as "gambling" too and plenty of people have long criticized Panini as being gambling for kids.

See also trading cards etc.

I don't exactly know HOW this fits into a video game context though.

In Shadow of War, for example, if there were X number of individual unique orcs to collect and lets say they were offering 1 pack of 5 orcs for a euro and maybe a 50 pack set for 30 euro then I'd be OK with that in theory.

In practice it's a bit rubbish though. You aren't getting anything of any physical value outside of the in game unlocking of a particular item or character. It's not a good deal, in my opinion. If they were selling trading cards and each card had a code to unlock that orc in the game then I'd be more willing to accept it.

If the current situation is that you are just getting some gear and some orcs in each lootbox/chest then to be honest I'd be expecting at least 50 items per euro spent. Not just two orcs and one item for 5 euro. Thats a ripoff.

I think the best method I've seen so far is the Nintendo Amiibo approach. The buyer gets a statue, some of them are very nice, and some in-game content too. In the case of Amiibo though you don't get very much in-game content for your money.

In the end if it's all optional for the player then I am OK with it. If you need to pay up extra to complete the game, or to win, then I would say that's a bad thing.

Falthyron

gizmo wrote: »

To take a stab at answering this question, the reason seems to be that it's simply not classed as gambling in a legal sense because the known monetary value of what you're buying is zero. To make a humorous comparison, it'd be like calling the purchase of a Kinder Suprise "gambling" because, while you know you're going to get some chocolate and a toy from a possible range, you don't know which one.

Things get more complicated in cases where users can then sell these virtual items in a marketplace as that attaches a monetary value to them. I believe this was one of the critical factors in the NepentheZ/FUT Galaxy case in the UK last year.

Fair point and I guess it becomes even more messy when trying to quantify digital items. These things don't exist so assigning value/meaning to them is even more difficult.

gizmo

Falthyron wrote: »

To put it bluntly, loot boxes which you can purchase with real world money is gambling. You are being invited to make a purchase which will guarantee you something, but not necessarily the item you want. This is further compounded by the fact that there is no option to purchase the item you want directly. Generally speaking, you must purchase many raffle tickets to ensure you get enough duplicates which can be traded for a controlled currency to purchase the item you actually want.

Star Wars Battlefront II is rated 'Teen' in the U.S. The game has a feature that allows for real money gambling. How can teenagers be allowed to engage with a game that features real world gambling? If you want to enter a casino to drink a drink or have something to eat, or chat with friends you have to be 18 to enter the premises because there is gambling taking place. I fear publishers have managed to muddle the definition of gambling under the auspices of 'a game'; in that, the gambling element is purely a part of the game (i.e. harmless).

To take a stab at answering this question, the reason seems to be that it's simply not classed as gambling in a legal sense because the known monetary value of what you're buying is zero. To make a humorous comparison, it'd be like calling the purchase of a Kinder Suprise "gambling" because, while you know you're going to get some chocolate and a toy from a possible range, you don't know which one.

Things get more complicated in cases where users can then sell these virtual items in a marketplace as that attaches a monetary value to them. I believe this was one of the critical factors in the NepentheZ/FUT Galaxy case in the UK last year.

Generic Dreadhead

OptimusTractor wrote: »

You know what lads f*ck console gaming altogether. Pop around to mine tonight for some Cluedo and Monopoly. B.Y.O.B

"Nice attempt with the Microtrasaction Optimus"

*Scooby Doo detective scene voice*

"Now let's see who you really are?"

*whips off mask!*

"Old Mr AAA Gaming Industry!!!"

Falthyron

OptimusTractor wrote: »

You know what lads f*ck console gaming altogether. Pop around to mine tonight for some Cluedo and Monopoly. B.Y.O.B

I have the Simpsons/London/Belfast/Dublin/Classic Monopoly boards. If you pay €5 you can have the option to play on whichever skin you like? Also, the monopoly playing characters have been updated with 2017 models, for €2.50 each you can use them to beat your friends and their older, inferior versions. :pac:

OptimusTractor

You know what lads f*ck console gaming altogether. Pop around to mine tonight for some Cluedo and Monopoly. B.Y.O.B

Falthyron

To put it bluntly, loot boxes which you can purchase with real world money is gambling. You are being invited to make a purchase which will guarantee you something, but not necessarily the item you want. This is further compounded by the fact that there is no option to purchase the item you want directly. Generally speaking, you must purchase many raffle tickets to ensure you get enough duplicates which can be traded for a controlled currency to purchase the item you actually want.

Star Wars Battlefront II is rated 'Teen' in the U.S. The game has a feature that allows for real money gambling. How can teenagers be allowed to engage with a game that features real world gambling? If you want to enter a casino to drink a drink or have something to eat, or chat with friends you have to be 18 to enter the premises because there is gambling taking place. I fear publishers have managed to muddle the definition of gambling under the auspices of 'a game'; in that, the gambling element is purely a part of the game (i.e. harmless).

If Battlefront II is a huge success (I sincerely doubt it will be as I reckon reviews will smash it with 5s and 6s, citing the imbalance caused by loot boxes) then it will set a precedent for AAA developed games with p2w features apparently being in demand and desired by gamers. In part, I do agree with one poster who said gamers themselves are to blame as well. But, unfortunately, there will always be morons with too much money and get their dopamine hits from being able to effectively troll average players who don't have the money to compete. If these loot boxes didn't exist in the first place, gamers would be forced to 'get good' and it would put everyone on an equal footing. Hmmm, I find it interesting that the economic inequalities in the gaming community mirrors the economic inequality in the real world. There will always be those who will use money to get their way. Loot boxes and p2w features are simply another way to achieve an advantage in gaming, but again, through money.

If gamers really wanted to protest this behaviour by publishers then the more extreme approach would be to hack. Use every hack, cheat, glitch possible to make these p2w boosts redundant. Publishers have always been slow in combating cheaters and hackers, it wouldn't take long to put an end to people buying boosts in loot boxes if it didn't change their experience of being destroyed in every game by cheaters.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Allow people to buy the skins outright would fix the apparent problem. I would absolutely hate if they added a trading system though.

Correct, Loot-boxes wouldn't be an issue if you know exactly what you are buying. I've said this all along.

The way it is now, it's the same as buying a scratch card.

And that's how publishers make the most money on it.
Pushing them into the games and keeping them RNG thus meaning you are still getting that additive feeling of going again "maybe this time I will get something good".

It's a blight in games. Pushing it further by allowing people who spend more an advantage over standard players only makes this worse.

If I want to gamble I can use my Betfair / Paddy Powers account on an actual gambling website and look to win some real money.

[Deleted User]

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?

Allow people to buy the skins outright would fix the apparent problem. I would absolutely hate if they added a trading system though.

Falthyron

To quote Field of Dreams: "If you build it, they will come." Gamers have never asked for micro-transactions or loot boxes. They ask for things like: more content, new features, better optimisation, etc. The combination of an increase to dopamine levels as a result of opening a box and finding that magical item you have wanted, mixed with the competitive urge to better other players either in skill or appearance, is a toxic, exploitative combination. Publishers have tapped into this unlimited source of money and will keep extracting from it until the outcry begins to affect hard sales (physical copies) or, most likely, lead to government regulation.

Generic Dreadhead

_CreeD_ wrote: »

Lootboxes and MTs are not the problem. People paying for them are.

Most narrow minded, uniformed, developer-apologist attitude I've read in this entire thread tbh

_CreeD_

Lootboxes and MTs are not the problem. People paying for them are.

I picked up Shadow of War yesterday and so far it looks pretty fun, I have absolutely no intent what so ever of buying anything else for it, problem solved....Except for the folks who will and then embolden publishers to withhold (even more) release-ready content for additional fees.