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

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'

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.

[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: »

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.

bigphil2

wes wrote: »

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.

Its up to the rest of us to just not buy the base game then,it may be difficult if its a game you are really looking forward to,but its the only way this will stop.
on another point,it must be pretty **** for Monolith and Dice ,if you are working for 2 or 3 years on a game and all people are talking about its a pay to win system forced upon you be the Publishers..

Both games look great and i really want to play them,but i wont be getting them as long as the current MT's are in place

[Deleted User]

Now you can treat Shadow of War like the f2p game it was trying to be

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/denuvo-seems-useless-middle-earth-shadow-war-also-cracked-just-day/

wes

bigphil2 wrote: »

Its up to the rest of us to just not buy the base game then

Yeah, that may be the only solution. Haven't bothered with Shadow of War already. Plenty of good games coming out in without this micro transaction nonsense.

Its sad for the devs, but this kind of micro transaction grinding nonsense will wreck gaming otherwise.

froog

bigphil2 wrote:

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

if it's kids people are worried about spending money, then parents should control their credit cards more no? if some 7 year old is pumping 100s into some computer game it's the parents fault. same as if a parent buys every sweet in the shop cause the kids want them all.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Now you can treat Shadow of War like the f2p game it was trying to be

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/denuvo-seems-useless-middle-earth-shadow-war-also-cracked-just-day/

Time for the lads at Denuvo to start signing on I'd say. Three release groups releasing day 0 cracks for games utilising it now

gizmo

https://twitter.com/devolverdigital/status/918521223117770752

On point, as per usual :pac:

Venom

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.

Except for the fact a game is designed to drag out a players progression to really inforce the idea of spending cash to reach the next goal. Battlefront 2 requires something like 3000 hours to unlock all the add on cards. The latest 2k basketball game has core game elements so gimped, it requires the player to spend money on nearly every aspect of its gameplay. Shadow of War forces the player to grind out ranks and orcs to get the real ending.

[Deleted User]

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I never thought I'd 100% agree with Jim Sterling but he's right; all loot box systems are complete horse ****. It's been a slippery slope for some time now. Once we accepted any form of bull**** MT's and LB's, we were ****ed. Just imagine what will be acceptable 10 years from now.

Gunmonkey

gizmo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/devolverdigital/status/918521223117770752

On point, as per usual :pac:

Best part is if you dared Devolver to make that game...they would, and it would be amazing.

J. Marston

The ESRB and PEGI have both come out and said they can't/won't do anything about labelling them as gambling.

For the little it's worth I emailed both of them and the Department of Justice and Equality (http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/WP15000254, they cover gambling apparently) and gambleaware.ie over the last 2 weeks outlining how lootboxes use gambling mechanics just to see what their thoughts were.

Only PEGI got back to me and said something like games have to "teach and encourage" gambling and/or have casino-related elements before they attach gambling warnings to games.

Robert ninja

Rating boards like those have always been unregulated do-nothings so it's no surprise that this is their attitude.

marcbrophy

The ratings boards are afraid to rock the boat, and I don't blame them really.
Lots of countries have a tax on gambling, and that would mean publishers having to class their game in the age bracket that allows gambling in the particular country, then if necessary paying the government of these countries the associated tax on any purchases!

Alternatively, they could stop doing it altogether, but it will most certainly raise the base price of these games at launch, if there's no future easy revenue streams!

Whole thing is a pain in me hole

[Deleted User]

marcbrophy wrote: »

The ratings boards are afraid to rock the boat, and I don't blame them really.
Lots of countries have a tax on gambling, and that would mean publishers having to class their game in the age bracket that allows gambling in the particular country, then if necessary paying the government of these countries the associated tax on any purchases!

Alternatively, they could stop doing it altogether, but it will most certainly raise the base price of these games at launch, if there's no future easy revenue streams!

Whole thing is a pain in me hole

I don't think this is a certainty

IvoryTower

I'm glad they have them in overwatch, it provides an income and as such a reason to keep improving the game. I've never bought any nor would I so it's great to see the game constantly evolving off the back of people buying clothes for their fave characters

gizmo

marcbrophy wrote: »

The ratings boards are afraid to rock the boat, and I don't blame them really.
Lots of countries have a tax on gambling, and that would mean publishers having to class their game in the age bracket that allows gambling in the particular country, then if necessary paying the government of these countries the associated tax on any purchases!

Alternatively, they could stop doing it altogether, but it will most certainly raise the base price of these games at launch, if there's no future easy revenue streams!

Whole thing is a pain in me hole

Is the more logical answer simply that they're not gambling, at least no more so than the football sticker packs Saruhashi mentioned earlier or the Kinder Surprise I joked about?

Price wise, I'd tend to go with partyjungle on this one, the base price won't rise, they'll just move to a different idea to generate additional revenue. Alternatively, we could see a decline in the types of titles which generally command the kind of huge budgets we see these systems in or perhaps less severe, a reduction in the amount of content in these kinds of titles.

For comparison sake, look at the food industry where the term "shrinkflation" is often used there to describe the shrinking size of products while the price remains the same. The reason generally given is that manufacturing costs rise but due to price sensitivity in the marketplace, it's unwise to just increase the price.

bigphil2

gizmo wrote: »

Is the more logical answer simply that they're not gambling, at least no more so than the football sticker packs Saruhashi mentioned earlier or the Kinder Surprise I joked about?

Price wise, I'd tend to go with partyjungle on this one, the base price won't rise, they'll just move to a different idea to generate additional revenue. Alternatively, we could see a decline in the types of titles which generally command the kind of huge budgets we see these systems in or perhaps less severe, a reduction in the amount of content in these kinds of titles.

For comparison sake, look at the food industry where the term "shrinkflation" is often used there to describe the shrinking size of products while the price remains the same. The reason generally given is that manufacturing costs rise but due to price sensitivity in the marketplace, it's unwise to just increase the price.

If you need to add this **** onto your game,maybe the games you are making are not good enough for me to spend my money on..

That would be my attitude to the whole thing.. Hopefully others start thinking along the same lines but i doubt it unfortunately..

um7y1h83ge06nx

With regards the whole game prices haven't risen with inflation it might be much better if the industry released less games. Focus more on quality games that will sell big.

I currently have 22 games on my wishlist, almost all released in the past year.

marcbrophy

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think this is a certainty

No, it's not a certainty at all, perhaps they just straight up start selling these items as dlc, rather than hiding them behind a game of chance. But then they get the dreaded "Pay to Win" label form fans

gizmo wrote: »

Is the more logical answer simply that they're not gambling, at least no more so than the football sticker packs Saruhashi mentioned earlier or the Kinder Surprise I joked about?

Price wise, I'd tend to go with partyjungle on this one, the base price won't rise, they'll just move to a different idea to generate additional revenue. Alternatively, we could see a decline in the types of titles which generally command the kind of huge budgets we see these systems in or perhaps less severe, a reduction in the amount of content in these kinds of titles.

For comparison sake, look at the food industry where the term "shrinkflation" is often used there to describe the shrinking size of products while the price remains the same. The reason generally given is that manufacturing costs rise but due to price sensitivity in the marketplace, it's unwise to just increase the price.

Thing is Gizmo, I do really agree with you here, we are saying the same thing, except I think it's gambling. I don't have a problem with gambling at all either, I just don't want these mechanics in "mainstream" games.

I love playing Forza Horizon 3. I get pissed off with it every time I level up and a wheelspin appears on my screen, giving me a "chance" to win a rare car. Why not award me the damn car for levelling up? :mad:

I'm playing Pro Evo 2018 at the moment, and in the myclub mode, I can't buy players to play football for me. I have to buy coaches who will give me the "chance" to scout out particular players, and even when you put 3 of these coaches together, you get a chance to sign completely random , usually made up footballers to your team. Fifa FUT works similar and it's annoying as all hell :mad:

I don't want to buy RDR2 next year, and have to buy a lootbox to get a better fcuking horse! :mad: :pac:

It's a shítty side of gaming, that those who are willing to let it happen , get as vocal as those who want to take a stand against it

Mark Hamill

It's funny how very profitable games like Witcher 3 and Minecraft (before it went to Microsoft anyway) have loads of content and no microtransactions or loot boxes.

It's almost as if spending up to 3/4s of you budget on marketing as you do on actually making the game is not a sensible financial strategy:

EA now typically spends two or three times as much on marketing and advertising as it does on developing a game.

Source

Dcully

Maybe this was mentioned already but SOW pc users can get infinite silver tier loot boxes thanks to a script cheat lol,

gizmo

marcbrophy wrote: »

Thing is Gizmo, I do really agree with you here, we are saying the same thing, except I think it's gambling. I don't have a problem with gambling at all either, I just don't want these mechanics in "mainstream" games.

Oh for sure, my opinion is just that if you explicitly call it gambling it introduces a moral argument that can distract from the point of whether they should exist at all in games. As we've seen in this thread alone, people have very different opinions on their validity in certain games. Some find no problem with Overwatch for instance while others completely reject it and to be fair, there are valid arguments on both sides. I tend to view it a bit more pragmatically from the money side of things, not the most popular view point of course, so I can see why they're there and understand the need for an alternate source of revenue but its their various implementations that I find more objectionable.

marcbrophy wrote: »

I love playing Forza Horizon 3. I get pissed off with it every time I level up and a wheelspin appears on my screen, giving me a "chance" to win a rare car. Why not award me the damn car for levelling up? :mad:

The usual three reasons really, they want to drip feed content at a slower pace maximising the use for the least amount of content possible, keep you playing and not trading in and moving on to other games and also to allow them to sell other things to speed up the process one way or the other that appeal to the smaller audience who don't mind spending more money.

marcbrophy wrote: »

It's a shítty side of gaming, that those who are willing to let it happen , get as vocal as those who want to take a stand against it

No problem with this at all, but I feel if folk are going to have a useful discussion about it, they need to also talk about a viable alternative to them, something that can often get lost in the din of general anger on the subject.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's funny how very profitable games like Witcher 3 and Minecraft (before it went to Microsoft anyway) have loads of content and no microtransactions or loot boxes.

The Witcher 3 is actually a good example when discussing this stuff. The budget for that game was $81m including marketing which was self funded by CDP, within the first six months on sale it had sold 6m copies and by the end of the financial year had sold around 10m copies. This has resulted in a profit of around $64m.

What needs to be considered though is that said profit is off the back of nearly four years of work for a team of around 200 people on the development side alone and was based on an existing and highly acclaimed franchise whose previous games had already sold 15m combined since the release of the original game in 2007. It's these kinds of figures which show why funding any of these kinds of big budget games can be incredibly risky.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's almost as if spending up to 3/4s of you budget on marketing as you do on actually making the game is not a sensible financial strategy

There's an important line in that article you linked. "That’s because advertising is critical to getting a game in the top ten rankings." As discussed earlier, these big budget games need to see big sales in order to earn their development costs back and one of the primary means of doing that is to get as many eyes on them as possible. Word of mouth will only get you so far and the percentage of the potential audience who read games magazines, peruse gaming sites and, even moreso nowadays, use Youtube for news is only a fraction of what these big games sell.

dudeeile

IvoryTower wrote: »

I'm glad they have them in overwatch, it provides an income and as such a reason to keep improving the game. I've never bought any nor would I so it's great to see the game constantly evolving off the back of people buying clothes for their fave characters

Loot box money is just gravy in overwatch, the multimillion dollar esports scene is keeping the game alive.

Generic Dreadhead

dudeeile wrote: »

Loot box money is just gravy in overwatch, the multimillion dollar esports scene is keeping the game alive.

Is that speculation of are there figures? Would have thought loot boxes were brining in more moolah

bigphil2

marcbrophy wrote: »

I don't want to buy RDR2 next year, and have to buy a lootbox to get a better fcuking horse! :mad: :pac:

Thing is with Rockstar,at least they are straight swaps,real money for ingame currency.you know where you stand with it,and for a narrative based game like RDR2 like GTAV,it will have zero impact on enjoying the base game.

SOW2 has done something new here by actively hindering the single player game to a certain degree with lootboxes,and random ones at that..

As for Battlefront 2? what was going on in the demo looked disgraceful if you look at the time it would take to actually earn the ingame loot by playing versus buying the boxes.. I imagine after the backlash they will do a bit of back peddling but the fact that with these 2 games the main chat online is about a system that most people dont want and not the actual gameplay itself is a ****ing digrace..

J. Marston

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's funny how very profitable games like Witcher 3 and Minecraft (before it went to Microsoft anyway) have loads of content and no microtransactions or loot boxes.

It's almost as if spending up to 3/4s of you budget on marketing as you do on actually making the game is not a sensible financial strategy:

Source

It really is puzzling. Witcher 3 made stupid amounts of money and at the same time, untold amounts of goodwill from gamers because CDPR didn't take the piss. 16 free pieces of DLC when the game came out blew my mind. Those Triss, Yenn and Ciri alternative outfits for instance, any other company and those outfits would have been €1.99 each.

Then the excellent expansions which were brilliant value for money.

If Cyberpunk 2077 has lootboxes and microtransactions, it will be the biggest heel turn in gaming.