Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

M!Ck^ wrote: »

If you trying to imply that standing up against this is not helping then no I don't agree with that at all.

I don't think the standing up against it directly affects whats happening its the resulting media coverage and potential intervention by governments that will cause change.

Any changes EA has made are very well calculated by them, again i truly believe this entire thing was a ploy to see what exactly they could get away with. Maybe they didn't anticipate such a storm of sh1t but it won't change anything in the long term and unless something legal happens around lootboxes they or another dev will try this all again once the furore has quieted down.

EA are still gonna sell a lot of copies as theres a hell of a lot more people who have no clue whats going on that will still buy the game and be none the wiser.

VinLieger wrote: »

I don't think the standing up against it directly affects whats happening its the resulting media coverage and potential intervention by governments that will cause change.

Any changes EA has made are very well calculated by them, again i truly believe this entire thing was a ploy to see what exactly they could get away with. Maybe they didn't anticipate such a storm of sh1t but it won't change anything in the long term and unless something legal happens around lootboxes they or another dev will try this all again once the furore has quieted down.

EA are still gonna sell a lot of copies as theres a hell of a lot more people who have no clue whats going on that will still buy the game and be none the wiser.

I think we can all agree here.

VinLieger wrote: »

Kinda makes their statement of earning a sense of achievement and accomplishment even more ridiculous though as they are reducing the sense of achievement and accomplishment for finishing the campaign

Again, not really as the amount of reward was directly proportional to the item the reward was intended to be used on. Finish the main campaign, earn enough to unlock the main campaign character.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's the rod to beat their backs with as I think the reasoning behind it is fair enough.

Penn wrote: »

Again, not really as the amount of reward was directly proportional to the item the reward was intended to be used on. Finish the main campaign, earn enough to unlock the main campaign character.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's the rod to beat their backs with as I think the reasoning behind it is fair enough.

I disagree, they could have just unlocked the main character automatically once the campaign is finished, this way of linking it to the credit system means they were also giving people the option to save that reward for someone else they wanted to unlock which is why they dropped the reward.

With regard to the news in Belgium, it's worth bearing in mind that companies can always pivot to avoid new laws implemented or existing ones being enforced more rigorously rather than abandoning the idea altogether.

Blizzard avoids China's loot laws by selling Overwatch in-game currency

From what I can tell, this change occurred only a month after the law came into effect.

gizmo wrote: »

With regard to the news in Belgium, it's worth bearing in mind that companies can always pivot to avoid new laws implemented or existing ones being enforced more rigorously rather than abandoning the idea altogether.

Blizzard avoids China's loot laws by selling Overwatch in-game currency

From what I can tell, this change occurred only a month after the law came into effect.

True but in Disney's case they cant be seen to have a franchise advertising gambling of any kind to kid's and that's how it will be branded if any kind of law comes in, it doesn't matter the kind of loophole they come up with

VinLieger wrote: »

True but in Disney's case they cant be seen to have a franchise advertising gambling of any kind to kid's and that's how it will be branded if any kind of law comes in, it doesn't matter the kind of loophole they come up with

While you're definitely correct in saying that raising the ire of the Mouse is a sure fire way to see major changes, if a potential loophole means they're not classed as gambling then the problem goes away. Remember, Disney have always been happy to embrace F2P with these mechanics on mobile platforms, both when they handled development internally and subsequently via their licencees, so if their bottom line isn't affected by restrictions resulting from any judgement or the potential blowback from fans, then I can't see them changing their stance on the subject any time soon.

Venom

Penn wrote: »

Again, not really as the amount of reward was directly proportional to the item the reward was intended to be used on. Finish the main campaign, earn enough to unlock the main campaign character.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's the rod to beat their backs with as I think the reasoning behind it is fair enough.

That may be the case for the campaign character pricing/reward payout but it doesn't explain why arcade mode rewards stop being given after a set amount of games and players then need to wait x amount of hours for them to start again, just like with free to play mobile games!

Except BF2 is not a free to play game, its a full priced AAA title

gizmo wrote: »

While you're definitely correct in saying that raising the ire of the Mouse is a sure fire way to see major changes, if a potential loophole means they're not classed as gambling then the problem goes away. Remember, Disney have always been happy to embrace F2P with these mechanics on mobile platforms, both when they handled development internally and subsequently via their licencees, so if their bottom line isn't affected by restrictions resulting from any judgement or the potential blowback from fans, then I can't see them changing their stance on the subject any time soon.

There's never been headlines of "Disney is pushing gambling on your children" obviously that example is hyperbolic, but there is no way they will continue with the practice if legally they are found to be doing exactly that and papers start running with it.

Venom wrote: »

That may be the case for the campaign character pricing/reward payout but it doesn't explain why arcade mode rewards stop being given after a set amount of games and players then need to wait x amount of hours for them to start again, just like with free to play mobile games!

Except BF2 is not a free to play game, its a full priced AAA title

I completely agree, and I think that is definitely a rod to beat their backs with, and far more so than tying the reward for completing the campaign to the price of unlocking the campaign character.

VinLieger wrote: »

There's never been headlines of "Disney is pushing gambling on your children" obviously that example is hyperbolic, but there is no way they will continue with the practice if legally they are found to be doing exactly that and papers start running with it.

Yup, there's been concern before, see this article for some interesting commentary on their own mobile titles from a few years back, but never anything like the public focus we're seeing right now. The unknown in this case is how far would they need to react to fully extricate themselves from the accusations of gambling even if they do avoid the legal restrictions.

What I mean is, if Battlefront II was changed to mirror the Chinese Overwatch system, would that be enough? Would the contents of the lootboxes need to be changed to only include cosmetic items or would they need to be removed entirely?

This is the issue I find most interesting at the moment, if lootboxes are gambling and gambling is wrong then the method of their implementation is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if the game they're in is F2P or if it's just cosmetics or not, they should be removed. Even looking at this thread though, nevermind the wider internet, it's difficult to find a broad consensus on the matter.

Venom

gizmo wrote: »

Yup, there's been concern before, see this article for some interesting commentary on their own mobile titles from a few years back, but never anything like the public focus we're seeing right now. The unknown in this case is how far would they need to react to fully extricate themselves from the accusations of gambling even if they do avoid the legal restrictions.

What I mean is, if Battlefront II was changed to mirror the Chinese Overwatch system, would that be enough? Would the contents of the lootboxes need to be changed to only include cosmetic items or would they need to be removed entirely?

This is the issue I find most interesting at the moment, if lootboxes are gambling and gambling is wrong then the method of their implementation is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if the game they're in is F2P or if it's just cosmetics or not, they should be removed. Even looking at this thread though, nevermind the wider internet, it's difficult to find a broad consensus on the matter.

Lootboxes are 100% gambling as getting the item you want is based purely on chance. I could deal with cosmetic items at a stretch but ability effecting stuff in a PVP game is just BS.

Benzino

Venom wrote: »

Lootboxes are 100% gambling as getting the item you want is based purely on chance. I could deal with cosmetic items at a stretch but ability effecting stuff in a PVP game is just BS.

Premier League stickers, Pokemon, Yu-gi-oh card packs should all be banned too in that case. And Kinder Surprises probably.

Happy meals too, McDonalds getting kids into gambling early, the feckers!

Benzino wrote: »

Premier League stickers, Pokemon, Yu-gi-oh card packs should all be banned too in that case. And Kinder Surprises probably.

Happy meals too, McDonalds getting kids into gambling early, the feckers!

You can sell them

kunst nugget

Happy Meals are a set toy every week as well iirc.

K.O.Kiki

Benzino wrote: »

Premier League stickers, Pokemon, Yu-gi-oh card packs should all be banned too in that case. And Kinder Surprises probably.

Happy meals too, McDonalds getting kids into gambling early, the feckers!

M!Ck^ wrote: »

You can sell them

Man you guys have no idea how big Kinder Surprise toys were (are?) in Germany.

My dad's friend used to go to markets to buy & swap every time they brought out a new line of those blue hippos, and buy 2 dozen eggs a month minimum.

We got all the chocolate...

So while there's been positive moves on the Battlefront II side of things, October's NPD figures are out and the results are not as positive.

Not only did Shadow of War top the charts but more importantly, it also sold 20% more than it's predecessor during its launch month. While longer term figures could still be affected by the negative press generated by their lootbox implementation, they're not really the kind of figures we want to see if the goal is to get WB to change direction.

Both NBA and WWE 2K18 are there as well and while the latter once again has virtual currency, it's still not purchasable. With the massive success of NBA this year though and Take-Two's previous statements, I'd wager that's gona change with the next iteration.

Generally speaking, while the makeup of that list is unsurprising given the scale of those releases, the fact that 7/10 of them have some form of notable lootbox system is quite disconcerting. Doubly so when you have two single player-centric titles which don't have such systems from the same publisher, The Evil Within 2 and Wolfenstein 2, languishing outside of the Top 10. The only caveat to this being, Bethesda haven't released digital sales information for these titles so hopefully figures will be more positive when they releases their own numbers.

On the subject of this shift towards more service-orientated games built around multiplayer components, CD Projekt Red’s CEO Adam Kiciński gave an interview to a Polish investment site recently where he spoke about the proposed online elements in Cyberpunk 2077.

When asked about online multiplayer, Kiciński was quick to point that it is a way for the company to meet their commercial expectations for Cyberpunk. “Online is necessary, or very recommended if you wish to achieve a long-term success,” noted Kiciński. “At some point, we have mentioned that there will be a certain online element related to Cyberpunk.”

“Multiplayer is strategically important, playing online is strategically important, because we want to have a commercial leg for service type games, games which generate stable income, period to period, which are built. Of course, every game ends after a number of years, some service type games function even after 10 years, but outside our main source of income, meaning big names, it’s building a stable source of income. And in the future, we can imagine a lot of connections between big games and service type games – We have to acknowledge it, it is obvious.”

gizmo wrote: »

So while there's been positive moves on the Battlefront II side of things, October's NPD figures are out and the results are not as positive.

Not only did Shadow of War top the charts but more importantly, it also sold 20% more than it's predecessor during its launch month. While longer term figures could still be affected by the negative press generated by their lootbox implementation, they're not really the kind of figures we want to see if the goal is to get WB to change direction.

Both NBA and WWE 2K18 are there as well and while the latter once again has virtual currency, it's still not purchasable. With the massive success of NBA this year though and Take-Two's previous statements, I'd wager that's gona change with the next iteration.

Generally speaking, while the makeup of that list is unsurprising given the scale of those releases, the fact that 7/10 of them have some form of notable lootbox system is quite disconcerting. Doubly so when you have two single player-centric titles which don't have such systems from the same publisher, The Evil Within 2 and Wolfenstein 2, languishing outside of the Top 10. The only caveat to this being, Bethesda haven't released digital sales information for these titles so hopefully figures will be more positive when they releases their own numbers.

On the subject of this shift towards more service-orientated games built around multiplayer components, CD Projekt Red’s CEO Adam Kiciński gave an interview to a Polish investment site recently where he spoke about the proposed online elements in Cyberpunk 2077.

Tbf Wolf 2 & The Evil Within 2 have no multiplayer component. What are the titles within the top 10?
Shadow of War has social conquest mode (multiplayer) directly built around it's lootbox / nemesis system.

Also as you say this is all before Xmas sales and no digital sales indicated

The thing is Battlefront 2 has the most prevalent, intrusive P2W system built into it with one of the most high profile licenses attached to it

gizmo wrote: »

Not only did Shadow of War top the charts but more importantly, it also sold 20% more than it's predecessor during its launch month. While longer term figures could still be affected by the negative press generated by their lootbox implementation, they're not really the kind of figures we want to see if the goal is to get WB to change direction.

I think I read that it still didn't meet the figures WB had anticipated for it. I know it sold more than the first game, but that was a new IP. Shadow of War should always have sold more anyway given it's a sequel to a highly rated and successful game.

The question is if it took a noticeable enough hit in sales off the back of people's complaints about it.

cherryghost

Hey guys this isn't gambling!

Just wow

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Tbf Wolf 2 & The Evil Within 2 have no multiplayer component. What are the titles within the top 10?
Shadow of War has social conquest mode (multiplayer) directly built around it's lootbox / nemesis system.

Also as you say this is all before Xmas sales and no digital sales indicated

The thing is Battlefront 2 has the most prevalent, intrusive P2W system built into it with one of the most high profile licenses attached to it

Yup, that's what I meant when I mentioned those two specifically, they buck the trend of "everything needs multiplayer" and unfortunately, based on figures available, they're just not doing as well. We'll hopefully hear more when the Q4 financials come out as that'll be Oct-Dec numbers and they will include all sales.

The seven titles I mentioned are Shadow of War, Assassin’s Creed: Origins, NBA 2K18, FIFA 18, Madden NFL 18, Destiny 2 and Forza 7 which each have either lootboxes or other significant micro-transaction elements.

As for Battlefront II and the approach taken with EA, that's what makes it so bizarre, it was as if every decision they made as part of their implementation was designed to cause the maximum amount of upset possible rather than even attempting to ease folk into it.

Penn wrote: »

I think I read that it still didn't meet the figures WB had anticipated for it. I know it sold more than the first game, but that was a new IP. Shadow of War should always have sold more anyway given it's a sequel to a highly rated and successful game.

The question is if it took a noticeable enough hit in sales off the back of people's complaints about it.

Pretty sure we saw the same thing and if so, I replied to it here.

K.O.Kiki

cherryghost wrote: »

Hey guys this isn't gambling!

Just wow

Jesus... :eek:

Potential-Monke

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Jesus... :eek:

Yup. They have ruined an otherwise good game with this Speed Card nonsense. Only thing is, you don't have to spend real money to get them, you just need to grind, grind, grind...

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Yup. They have ruined an otherwise good game with this Speed Card nonsense. Only thing is, you don't have to spend real money to get them, you just need to grind, grind, grind...

Is this an accurate description of what's going on there and how it works in-game, Potential-Monke?

Potential-Monke

That is 100% accurate!

Could you imagine they banned loot boxes outright

http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/