cherryghost wrote: » Questions for the audience here: 1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue? 2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game? 3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?
cherryghost wrote: » Questions for the audience here: 1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue? 2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game? 3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system? /QUOTE] 1) I don't prerder games, In the days of all digital downloads, its not like theres going to be a shortage, and I've been burned by buggy games in the past. 2) Yes, gears of war 4 is rotten with Cards that give boosts / skills in horde mode, and unless you get enough of them, you're going to have a very hard time, Also, they can be broken down for crafting - which is also tied into a number of achievements. I didnt spend any money, but I did hamper my enjoyment somewhat by being the person who gets downed / killed more often by virtue of not having an armour /damage boost on. 3) Yes, I bought halo 5 at launch and took to it like a duck to water, played over 300 hours of it, had a few euros sitting in a US account from the old days of foreign region shopping and I bought a few card packs purely as a sort of 'tip'. that being said, those cards and their contents had zero gameplay impact.
Deleted User wrote: » Yes, the new south park implemented micro transactions for skins. Skins were dotted around the world as items to pick up. Utterly useless to the game other than cosmetics. If lootboxes and microtransactions weren't so prevalent today, they wouldn't have designed a game world with nothing but skins as collectables to encourage the player to explore. The world felt fcuking empty.
Deleted User wrote: » No, but I haven't been interested in any games that have them as a problem Yes, the new south park implemented micro transactions for skins. Skins were dotted around the world as items to pick up. Utterly useless to the game other than cosmetics. If lootboxes and microtransactions weren't so prevalent today, they wouldn't have designed a game world with nothing but skins as collectables to encourage the player to explore. The world felt fcuking empty. Yes, I bought a key for a box in counter-strike:go once or twice with money I had from selling free skins ingame. I once spent a little on the dungeon keeper mobile game.
AlmightyCushion wrote: » That was with in game money. You couldn't use real money to purchase them. Plus, didn't the SoT have loads of clothing to collect as well?
Penn wrote: » Just on point no.2 there, that has nothing to do with lootboxes or microtransactions. Costume parts were part of the original game too, and are collectibles within the game but there are no lootboxes or microtransactions in the game. Not saying you're wrong regarding how the world felt a bit empty and collecting items such as costumes was little more than padding/busywork as they had no effect on gameplay, but that's completely separate to lootboxes/microtransactions and it was the same in the first game.
cherryghost wrote: » Questions for the audience here: 1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue? 2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game? 3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system? .
cherryghost wrote: » Questions for the audience here: 1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue? 2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game? 3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system? 1) I never pre-order but refused to buy Shadows of War and BF2 due to them having lootboxes. Both of games these were on my buy list until the play2win element about them came out. 2) No. I usually check out reviews/forum comments prior to buying a game. 3) I play Star Trek online, a F2P game that has lootboxes. Never paid real money for any of the them tho. Saying that, I have bought cosmetic DLC items in various MMO's.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I was under the impression that they could also be bought through the UPlay store. I think you are given some free "uplay money" at the start so you can get the hang of it thus leading to microtransactions. If microtransactions didn't exist, they wouldn't be trying to push this online store, they wouldn't have designed a game so focused around skins. Ergo, microtransactions affected this game for the worse.
Penn wrote: » There's very little in the uplay store, they have no effect on anything and you can't use any real money to get them. Uplay has been around for about 10 years and is just an internal reward system for playing Ubisoft games. You complete certain actions in a Ubisoft game, you get uplay points and can use them to buy items in other Ubisoft games. Plus as explained, the costume parts were part of the first game too. Microtransactions is a term used for using real money to buy in-game currency. It simply doesn't apply to this situation. You can't buy Uplay points with real money.
Penn wrote: » 1) I haven't bought Battlefront 2 primarily because of the lootbox system. I also didn't buy Shadow of War, however I already know I'm getting it for Xmas anyway.
Saruhashi wrote: » I wouldn't worry about Shadow of War. I've been playing the hell out of it since release and have never once used the lootbox system (except for the 2 I got along with the game). With Shadow of War I don't really even know who the lootboxes are for or who would seriously wants to buy them. The only reason to buy them would be to finish the game quicker. Mad to think that people would spend extra money to finish the game faster rather than just play the game.
Deleted User wrote: » Could you imagine they banned loot boxes outrighthttp://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/
Penn wrote: » It was mostly the concept behind it that annoyed me. I loved the first game, and finding & controlling an orc you want in the wild etc. To simply be rewarded with boxes containing random orcs... it just completely ruined the idea of the game for me. I know you can ignore them and still do as you did in the first game, but just the idea and concept of getting random orcs in loot drops just really annoyed me.
Saruhashi wrote: » Wouldn't it be more likely that they are just forced to put "18" ratings on these games and maybe customers who want to use the lootbox systems have to do some verification similar to other online gambling platforms? After all, online gambling isn't illegal. It's just regulated. Clearly companies like EA are taking advantage of the lack of regulation surrounding these aspects of their games but I can't see lootboxes being completely banned.
johnny_ultimate wrote: » If a paid game, single player or multiplayer, has in any way had its core 'content' artificially stretched to allow for additional paid shortcuts, than the micro transactions deserve all the scorn we can direct their way. It's the kind of attitude that breeds bad design, unnecessary filler and a general lack of respect for both the players and the people who made the game.
Electronic Arts' shareholders are running for the hills this month and for good reason. The company's profitable business model is now at risk after angry gamers revolted over its aggressive in-game moneymaking strategy in "Star Wars Battlefront II." EA's stock is down 8.5 percent month to date through Tuesday compared with the S&P 500's 2 percent gain, wiping out $3.1 billion of shareholder value. Its competitors Take-Two and Activision Blizzard shares are up 5 percent and 0.7 percent respectively during the same time period. After EA gave a December quarter sales forecast slightly below Wall Street estimates on Oct. 31, some analysts suspected it was due to the "Stars Wars" title. The shares fell 4 percent the following day. ... "Battlefront II is the pointy tip of the iceberg. … The biggest recent controversy has centered around EA's Star Wars Battlefront II, where early evidence suggests player anger over a mishandled loot box economy may in fact be impacting initial sales," Cowen's Doug Creutz wrote in a note to clients Monday. "We think the time has come for the industry to collectively establish a set of standards for MTX implementation, both to repair damaged player perceptions and avoid the threat of regulation." However, with the increasing spotlight from the media and gaming community on the issue, Electronic Arts will likely be forced to dial back its extreme monetization strategies across its franchises, hurting future profitability. EA chief financial officer Blake Jorgensen told investors in February its "Ultimate Team" sports micro-transactions business generated $800 million in high-profit margin sales for the company during the previous year. He added EA intended to extend a "similar mechanic" to its other franchises such as "Battlefield" and "Battlefront." Now that whole strategy is at risk.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/892f365931e5cb4ba5c9d4ce2c7da299.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/26b068742f9f8d6966cd56c45527e149.svg)
