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

Sephiroth_dude

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

There won't be any companies left to be taken out Wes.
EA has a list and it's working through them like a contract killer

EA are a bunch of *****! I still haven't forgiven them for westwood studios, stupid assholes.

Generic Dreadhead

Command and Conquer 4 though
:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Kimbot

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Yea and it's disgusting. Not surprising however.

Yeah I just had a quick glance, must have a good read into what exactly is going on with it.

Internet Friend

jonnycivic wrote: »

Yeah I just had a quick glance, must have a good read into what exactly is going on with it.

My understanding of it is that they've submitted a patent for a very specific type of matchmaking. That being; I play the multiplayer game like we all used to and try to progress through the ranks and unlock weapons / weapon mods ala Battlefield 4 / older COD games. Another player decides to purchase better weapons that would normally be unobtainable for a long time (if even obtainable in game). The matchmaking system then puts me into a game with this player so I may be killed by them over and over again, with their awesome weapon, with the aim to "encourage" me to also purchase that awesome weapon so I might stand a chance against them.

So it's no longer matchmaking based on similar skill levels, it's matchmaking based on whether I've been sucked in by micro-transactions or not. It's disgusting where the gaming industry has been going the last few years. The main issue being that younger gamers think this is normal and don't see any issue with it at all. There's no longer a sense of achievement attached with organic progression through games.

IvoryTower

Do any shooters have that system at the moment? I haven't noticed any myself or if it was happening it wasn't noticeable. Have played Overwatch, the cods, titanfall, bf1, doom, halos, R6

Sephiroth_dude

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Command and Conquer 4 though
:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

You're dead too me.........

:pac:

Penn

IvoryTower wrote: »

Do any shooters have that system at the moment? I haven't noticed any myself or if it was happening it wasn't noticeable. Have played Overwatch, the cods, titanfall, bf1, doom, halos, R6

I think Activision submitted a patent for it, but say it wasn't actually used. No word on if similar companies have similar matchmaking systems in place.

The fact they considered and patented a system like that at all is sh*tty enough though. Goes to show where their priorities are.

[Deleted User]

IvoryTower wrote: »

Yep you bought a game, completed it and were done with it. Now you can continue playing a game all year, maybe even 2 or 3 years because they keep developing it. You don't even have to pay more cause people are funding it with cosmetic loot boxes.

This isn't new

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4ijwtGCaRg

IvoryTower

Yep, those people had to buy expansion packs, now I can get expansions for free, how cool is that

Angron

Except most games do make you pay for expansion packs.

gizmo

IvoryTower wrote: »

Do any shooters have that system at the moment? I haven't noticed any myself or if it was happening it wasn't noticeable. Have played Overwatch, the cods, titanfall, bf1, doom, halos, R6

Not on Activision's end, they don't have any game that currently supports such a system. Destiny 2 is probably the closest they could do it via the Crucible if they extended the Bright Engram system to include purchasable higher end Legendaries and Exotics.

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't new

Starcraft didn't receive any further content after the release of Brood Wars. The last balance patch was released in 2001 while the rest of the updates which came sporadically over the following years were quality of life and bug patches which were viable as the game was still massively popular in the eSports scene and they were still making money from retail sales.

IvoryTower talks about the lack of need to pay more though which implies new content coming from development. That would mean Overwatch would be a better example where, since release, we've gotten new characters, maps, game modes and skins, all free but supported by the loot box system.

IvoryTower

Good - cosmetic loot boxes that aid in development of game, lots of free content, no dividing of player base due to expansions(online games).
Bad - Loot boxes that give you an advantage in a pvp situation

If people are willing to buy games that promote buying loot boxes to progress quicker than what can you do? just dont buy the game and hope others dont either. Sure we all moan about it here and how many people are still going to buy shadow of mordor? The only way it will stop is if people avoid the games that are abusing it.

Anyway thats probably been said earlier in the thread, ill leave it at that. I wont be buying SOM but I will continue to enjoy opening my loot box after a game of overwatch

Benzino

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This wasn't an issue long before loot boxes. You know, we bought the game and that's where the devs got money.

The cost of development has gone up, the price of games have gone down.

IvoryTower

Benzino wrote: »

The cost of development has gone up, the price of games have gone down.

We're deffo going around in circles now

Benzino

IvoryTower wrote: »

We're deffo going around in circles now

Definitely, but at the end of the day, that's the reason. Sure some games go overboard, whereas others do it brilliantly (Overwatch).

It's the same on mobile. People would spend between 600-800 on an iPhone but ask them to pay 1.50 for a game, and they would laugh in your face. So freemium was born to counter this mindset.

[Deleted User]

Counter the Mindset perhaps but the mindset is being exploited.

Benzino

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Counter the Mindset perhaps but the mindset is being exploited.

Perhaps, but you are not forced to participate. If you don't participate in it, then they will have to change it up.

To a degree, we exploit the system when we buy second hand games, that's money only the retailer gets, so you are giving nothing to the people who spent years working on the game you enjoy.

Generic Dreadhead

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Counter the Mindset perhaps but the mindset is being exploited.

I'm gonna start compiling your 1-liner posts now and send them on RATM as lyrics

[Deleted User]

Benzino wrote: »

Perhaps, but you are not forced to participate. If you don't participate in it, then they will have to change it up.

To a degree, we exploit the system when we buy second hand games, that's money only the retailer gets, so you are giving nothing to the people who spent years working on the game you enjoy.

But the business models indicate that data is being used to exploit and drive you towards purchase. It's holding your hand and dragging you towards it without actually holding a gun to your neck.

It's even worse in the mobile business model indicated by Jim Sterling.
If something like that is put into AAA titles (which I fully expect to happen at this stage) then it's curtains.

[Deleted User]

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

I'm gonna start compiling your 1-liner posts now and send them on RATM as lyrics

I had to google RATM and then copped that I have three of there albums already :pac:

Benzino

M!Ck^ wrote: »

But the business models indicate that data is being used to exploit and drive you towards purchase. It's holding your hand and dragging you towards it without actually holding a gun to your neck.

But the choice is still yours, it's ****ty practice but never the less people have to have some will power.

This happens with everything these days. Everything you searched is tracked, google hard-drives and suddenly you start seeing ads for them in facebook, twitter etc.

Go to book flights or hotel? Oh, better grab this one quick as it's been booked 46 times in last 24 hours and there is only 2 left!! It's all to manipulate you into buying their products/services. Ultimately, the decision is yours.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

It's even worse in the mobile business model indicated by Jim Sterling.
If something like that is put into AAA titles (which I fully expect to happen at this stage) then it's curtains.

I haven't seen Jim Sterling's video, but the mobile market is where it is because of us. Seriously, the amount of people who won't pay 1-2 euro for a game on 500+ phone is insane, it doesn't make sense. They expect stuff for free. See the release of Mario, the amount of negative comments and down ratings it got because they had the audacity to charge to play the game beyond the first few levels.

If people won't pay up front for the product, what is the alternative? Freemium solves the problem, people who don't want to pay can still play the game, and people who are willing to pay can and they get an advantage. Seems fair to me.

Falthyron

Benzino wrote: »

But the choice is still yours, it's ****ty practice but never the less people have to have some will power.

This happens with everything these days. Everything you searched is tracked, google hard-drives and suddenly you start seeing ads for them in facebook, twitter etc.

Go to book flights or hotel? Oh, better grab this one quick as it's been booked 46 times in last 24 hours and there is only 2 left!! It's all to manipulate you into buying their products/services. Ultimately, the decision is yours.

I haven't seen Jim Sterling's video, but the mobile market is where it is because of us. Seriously, the amount of people who won't pay 1-2 euro for a game on 500+ phone is insane, it doesn't make sense. They expect stuff for free. See the release of Mario, the amount of negative comments and down ratings it got because they had the audacity to charge to play the game beyond the first few levels.

If people won't pay up front for the product, what is the alternative? Freemium solves the problem, people who don't want to pay can still play the game, and people who are willing to pay can and they get an advantage. Seems fair to me.

What if developers stopped making free-to-play games? Charge for your product. If you think your product isn't going to sell then what are you doing in the games development business? Or, go and make a good product instead.

Ultimately its fear that drives this market. Publishers are pouring millions into development and even more into marketing so they need a safe bet. Diluting games down to a common denominator style makes it easy to sell to a broad palette of customers. If the game poses some sort of risk (no multiplayer, i.e. longevity) then there has to be a backup option for revenue that may not be earned (I don't mean revenue lost, I mean potential earnings not earned - the avarice is in the difference). Micro-transactions is considered to be the best solution right now because there are people with addictive tendencies and pay into these schemes by the hundreds and thousands.

All of this however, doesn't change the simple fact that the items from micro-transactions should be in the game from the outset. People like Jim Sterling are highlighting where all of this may lead. Pay to win is starting to emerge in big budget AAA €60 games where it did not exist before and if it works, and more importantly, makes a lot of money, then what next? There really is no end.

For example: role playing games. The game only has three hair style customisation options; you want more? Buy a hairstyle pack for €3. Blue eyes? Nah, too rare. Buy the ultra rare blue eyes DLC for €1.50. Want piercings and tattoos to show off? Buy the cosmetic pack for €5.

COSMETIC ITEMS EXISTED IN GAMES WITHOUT COST BEFORE MICRO-TRANSACTIONS. If you can sit there and honestly say you are okay with this change, then you are a part of the problem and are willing to be milked for every penny. It doesn't cost money to develop cosmetic items that were already made during the production of the game and is expected to be covered by the entry ticket, i.e. the flat price you pay on release.

[Deleted User]

@Benzi

You really need to watch it

A simple one but: When I watch a movie I don't expect to have to pay another 5 euro to watch the ending.

Falthyron

M!Ck^ wrote: »

@Benzi

You really need to watch it

A simple one but: When I watch a movie I don't expect to have to pay another 5 euro to watch the ending.

A more accurate example would be: I don't expect to pay an extra 5 euro to watch the deleted scenes. Most cosmetic items were originally created during development, but didn't make the cut.

Benzino

Falthyron wrote: »

A more accurate example would be: I don't expect to pay an extra 5 euro to watch the deleted scenes. Most cosmetic items were originally created during development, but didn't make the cut.

I'll watch the Sterling video later and respond in depth to your reply, but just on this bit. Have you anything to back it up? Cause I work in the industry and this has never been the case. Do you think Blizz have a vault of maps, skins, sprays, emotes etc and are just slowly releasing them? Nah, they are making them post release.

Now some items may be made before the game is out, but this tends to happen when art side of the game is pretty much done and 99% of effort is from a coding/polishing side of things. No point having your artists there twiddling their thumbs, get them working on future content (traditionally before the internet, dlc, patches etc, I'd imagine they would just have moved on do concept stuff for the next game).

Falthyron

Benzino wrote: »

I'll watch the Sterling video later and respond in depth to your reply, but just on this bit. Have you anything to back it up? Cause I work in the industry and this has never been the case. Do you think Blizz have a vault of maps, skins, sprays, emotes etc and are just slowly releasing them? Nah, they are making them post release.

Now some items may be made before the game is out, but this tends to happen when art side of the game is pretty much done and 99% of effort is from a coding/polishing side of things. No point having your artists there twiddling their thumbs, get them working on future content (traditionally before the internet, dlc, patches etc, I'd imagine they would just have moved on do concept stuff for the next game).

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.

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?

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.

gizmo

Falthyron wrote: »

What if developers stopped making free-to-play games? Charge for your product. If you think your product isn't going to sell then what are you doing in the games development business? Or, go and make a good product instead.

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.

Sure there are still some excellent premium games that come out and do well every once in awhile from solo developers or even tiny teams but these are not only excellent games but also got lucky enough to generate enough attention that they were able to break out of the pack and generate reasonable sales. That pack is up to 500 games released per day on the iTunes store now by the way. There's no formula for that kind of luck though. In most cases now, those games that do manage to break out have done so with the backing of a publisher who can handle the promotional and markeing side of things and let the developer focus on what they know best. The two best examples I can think of that would be of interest to folk around here would be Reigns and Downwell, both ace games from solo developers who signed up with Devolver Digital.

Falthyron wrote: »

Micro-transactions is considered to be the best solution right now because there are people with addictive tendencies and pay into these schemes by the hundreds and thousands.

And because previous measures have been rejected to varying degrees by gamers. DLC and Season Passes have each generated their own forms of controversy but are still decent sellers. Pre-orders and the incentives created to push them are on a downward trend and Online Passes have already been confined to dustbin of history.

Falthyron wrote: »

All of this however, doesn't change the simple fact that the items from micro-transactions should be in the game from the outset. People like Jim Sterling are highlighting where all of this may lead. Pay to win is starting to emerge in big budget AAA €60 games where it did not exist before and if it works, and more importantly, makes a lot of money, then what next? There really is no end.

No, they shouldn't. They were created with the explicit purpose of being resold as additional content. Separately from that, Pay-To-Win systems can **** right off.

Falthyron wrote: »

COSMETIC ITEMS EXISTED IN GAMES WITHOUT COST BEFORE MICRO-TRANSACTIONS. If you can sit there and honestly say you are okay with this change, then you are a part of the problem and are willing to be milked for every penny. It doesn't cost money to develop cosmetic items that were already made during the production of the game and is expected to be covered by the entry ticket, i.e. the flat price you pay on release.

Because cosmetic items in generations past cost considerably less time and money to produce than nowadays. I'm not talking about simple palette swaps here by the way, I'm talking about unique skins generated for characters and weapons. I used to use this image to demonstrate the point years ago and now that Unreal Engine 4 is out, it's even more relevant. Look at the difference in complexity between those skins on their new meshes, do you really think you can have the same selection of alternate skins as before, all for the same end price?

Falthyron wrote: »

A more accurate example would be: I don't expect to pay an extra 5 euro to watch the deleted scenes. Most cosmetic items were originally created during development, but didn't make the cut.

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.

As above, this is fundamentally not true. It's not that most of this content didn't make it into the final release or is being purposefully omitted, it was simply created for the purposes of Day One DLC.

Falthyron

As above, this is fundamentally not true. It's not that most of this content didn't make it into the final release or is being purposefully omitted, it was simply created for the purposes of Day One DLC.

Yes, but the point remains the same: it's fúcking greed. Those skins were ready to go for launch day, they should have been included with the base game. Loot boxes are just one degree more insidious as they don't guarantee you the item you want, where as micro-transactions can (in some cases). Its gambling. Irrespective of whether or not the item is cosmetic or functional as some sort of in-game advantage, you are gambling to earn such a thing when real world money is involved. If you want to grind out the box then it really is just another mechanic to keep you playing the game.

I do wonder (when the science is considered) if the dopamine hit of opening a lootbox and getting a much desired item equal to or greater than the fun derived from playing the game itself. If publishers really want to maximise their returns then they should be striving to equal that hit. You play the game to get the box, opening the box makes you want more boxes so you go back to the source of boxes, the game, and then the cycle continues. Personally speaking, I think this mechanism is being used to paint over a poor or repetitive game's mechanics.

Icyseanfitz

its naive to think developers dont cut content out of games to sell as dlc. Just remember mass effect 3 with the prothean team member that was dlc, a bloody prothean ffs.

Its all bs these days, just finding every possible way to milk more and more money out of people.

damn it my 5k post is on micro transactions

gizmo

Falthyron wrote: »

Yes, but the point remains the same: it's fúcking greed. Those skins were ready to go for launch day, they should have been included with the base game.

How on earth could it be considered greed? The content team is tasked with creating X number of assets in Y amount of time, this will be based on what the budget allows for and will be calculated at the beginning of the project. X will contain assets for the main game and, in this example, Day One content. If there is no Day One content then X will be reduced which means Y will be lower and result in a reduced budget allocation.

Falthyron wrote: »

Loot boxes are just one degree more insidious as they don't guarantee you the item you want, where as micro-transactions can (in some cases). Its gambling. Irrespective of whether or not the item is cosmetic or functional as some sort of in-game advantage, you are gambling to earn such a thing when real world money is involved. If you want to grind out the box then it really is just another mechanic to keep you playing the game.

Absolutely no disagreement here.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

its naive to think developers dont cut content out of games to sell as dlc. Just remember mass effect 3 with the prothean team member that was dlc, a bloody prothean ffs.

Its all bs these days, just finding every possible way to milk more and more money out of people.

What's naive is to think that a publisher like EA would greenlight a project and associated budget without knowing, with the greatest degree of accuracy possible, exactly what content is going to be shipping in the main game and what content will be available for DLC given the revenue it knows it can generate from both.

The absence of Javik from the core game of ME3 is many things but an afterthought during production is most definitely not one of them.