Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

Battlefront 2 was starting to interest me but then I saw a comment about play to win - getting early access and guns if you pay extra. That thing about damage reduction is even worse! It's turned me right off it. That's just exploiting your player base to milk as much cash as possible out of it.
I've played BL2 and had no issue with the Golden Keys, didn't affect the gameplay but as you say that was SP only.

I'll genuinely make a point of ensuring if a game comes out that I morally don't agree with in terms ofLoot-Boxes/MTs but still want to play, I'll buy it privately 2nd hand via Adverts (or CEX/Gamestop at a push) to ensure the developer doesn't see any of my money. They can give over with that whole cap-in-hand sthick too.

Overwatch lootboxes are purely cosmetic.
They cost what...10euro for 10 or something ?
BUT...you get a free lootbox for every level up, and you can get 3 others quite quickly per week by playing in Arcade games.
I probably come away with anywhere from 4-7 lootboxes per week.

There is never a need to buy it unless you really want.

Other games...I really don't like the way they go about them.
Micro Transactions are a curse of the gaming world...and have NO PLACE in single player games and little to no place in MP either (if they are anything outside of cosmetic or if they are unobtainable without payment)

There's no excuse for big developers to have P2W systems in their AAA games. It's just wrong. As some have said, cosmetic loot boxes are fine, they don't bother me. But what Shadow of War and BR2 are doing is blatant cash grabbing. It will work against them imo, as the playerbase will fall rapidly because of this, as the consumers, ie: us, are copping onto this fact and protesting with their wallets.

Granted, it will take a lot more before we see changes, but I'm getting the general feel that more and more people are getting annoyed with it.

There are loot boxes in the game I play the most, CoD:IW. I think they're fine. You can use actual money, or unlock via gameplay, which is what I'm doing. Granted, there are some weapon unlocks which may be unfair (dual tri-barrell Model 2187's??? Really!!!), but overall you don't need to spend money to enjoy the game.

P2W games with loot boxes are a massive deciding factor for me now. They should never be in a SP game, or if they are, they shouldn't require a grind to get (ie: Borderlands did it right imo). Most MP games I stay away from anyway for similar reasons.

SeantheMan wrote: »

Overwatch lootboxes are purely cosmetic.
They cost what...10euro for 10 or something ?
BUT...you get a free lootbox for every level up, and you can get 3 others quite quickly per week by playing in Arcade games.
I probably come away with anywhere from 4-7 lootboxes per week.

There is never a need to buy it unless you really want.

Other games...I really don't like the way they go about them.
Micro Transactions are a curse of the gaming world...and have NO PLACE in single player games and little to no place in MP either (if they are anything outside of cosmetic or if they are unobtainable without payment)

50 Lootbox for €40.

I bought 10 boxes in over a year and a half because I wanted the Junkrat skin from last year's Halloween event.

The Specialist wrote: »

Because it goes everything that makes a game competitive - the guy who spent 600 hours to get a better gun deserves to have that upper hand, allowing people with "spare" cash to completely negate that and just buy it from the off is bull****. I don't care if they have money to burn, advantage should be earned not bought.

Isn't having spare time an unfair advantage so. What about the guy working and raising a family. Who only has 1-2 hours a week.

Grumpypants wrote: »

Gaming is the only entertainment medium where the price to consumer has come down.

The cinema is more expensive, football matches, concerts, even a pint etc.

I've SNES games on the shelf here with a £69.99 price tag on it. In todays money that is €120-140.

Yet you can buy Shadow of War online brand new now for under €45 on console.

In this time the cost to make games has gone from thousands into the tens of millions.

So when gamers complain about paying "full price" they aren't even doing that. Then they want no season pass as "all DLC should be free", and then they don't want any micro transactions either.

It is also hilarious to see the same people who boast about buying keys online so the dev doesnt get any money, moan about devs putting in MTX to try and break even.

Companies decide how much to invest in games, and set their own prices.

Look at GTAV still going for €30+ and people are happy to buy and recommend it at that price, whereas most AAAs aren't worth €10 after 18 months, never mind 4 years.

If your game isn't good enough to sell well enough to cover its own costs, that's no ones fault but the Devs or publishers. Including MTs to try make profit your game isn't fit to make on its own is a reflection on the game.

Look at Stardew Valley, The Binding of Issac, Fez and Minecraft. None of them had budgets of millions but were good enough to sell millions of copies and make lots and lots of money for the dev/pub.

For bigger examples, FromSoft, R*, Firaxis, Nintendo all make huge AAA games that are top notch, hold value and don't need MTs and grind to help them recoup their investment.

The "games cost millions to make" argument is a load of crap, games cost as much as people are willing to invest, great games will make that back through sales alone, lesser ones need crap like MTs, paywalls and P2W situations.

I don't even mind lootboxes once their cosmetic, if it affects game play or brings about p2w then I am 100% against it.

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Companies decide how much to invest in games, and set their own prices.

Look at GTAV still going for €30+ and people are happy to buy and recommend it at that price, whereas most AAAs aren't worth €10 after 18 months, never mind 4 years.

If your game isn't good enough to sell well enough to cover its own costs, that's no ones fault but the Devs or publishers. Including MTs to try make profit your game isn't fit to make on its own is a reflection on the game.

Why do you think games still have essentially the same retail price as they did back in the early 90s though? Development costs have quite obviously risen dramatically. Sales for all but the most mega of hits haven't increased to allow for it either. I mean, we have quantifiable numbers for these things, they can't be just denied.

Do you think it may have something to do with the fact that the last time a publisher changed the retail price of a product at launch was when Activision raised the price of Modern Warfare 2 back in 2009, at the time blaming the weak pound and rising development costs, and it generated an absolute ton of bad press which they were dealing with right up to the launch of the game?

GTA V is an odd choice to bring up in this respect too. While the sheer size and quality of the game makes it notable in itself, it's also one of the poster children for the gigantic development costs required for a such a game, the huge marketing costs required to ensure it's in front as many eyeballs as possible and as of this iteration, has seen the addition of a micro-transaction based multiplayer mode that has brought in at least half a billion dollars in additional revenue due to it's active userbase.

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Look at Stardew Valley, The Binding of Issac, Fez and Minecraft. None of them had budgets of millions but were good enough to sell millions of copies and make lots and lots of money for the dev/pub.

For bigger examples, FromSoft, R*, Firaxis, Nintendo all make huge AAA games that are top notch, hold value and don't need MTs and grind to help them recoup their investment.

The "games cost millions to make" argument is a load of crap, games cost as much as people are willing to invest, great games will make that back through sales alone, lesser ones need crap like MTs, paywalls and P2W situations.

I don't even mind lootboxes once their cosmetic, if it affects game play or brings about p2w then I am 100% against it.

Of course not all games require astronomical budgets, I assumed it was obvious that this discussion revolved around the kinds of AAA games which did? Similarly, in attempting to explain the existence of micro-transactions et al in modern games, I can't imagine anyone would argue that the 2D pixel-art based indie title built by a small team is suddenly going to require such invasive systems. The games that can attempt to justify their inclusion are the ones which feature Credits that go on for around the same length as the average blockbuster movie.

Since there seems to be some confusion on this subject though, I guess it's important to clarify that no one in their right might should consider the budget of a title to be a primary factor in how good it is nor, and I can't emphasise this enough, does the argument in favour of micro-transactions as a means of off-setting development costs give either a publisher or a developer free reign in compromising the design of the game to allow for them.

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

I remember SNES games being £50 in Smyths Software Zone at "launch", at least Donkey Kong was.
Most games now are €70 for the Basic Version and €100 - €120 for the full "experience"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Lucky you, Mario Kart cost me £70 in Virgin on the Quays when I was a kid and Street Fighter II Turbo was £75 in the local Dunnes.

That, however, was late 1992. If you adjust those prices for inflation that £75 would be around €153.51 today.

Conversely, Shadow of War costs €54.99 in Smyths today for the Standard Edition.

gizmo wrote: »

Why do you think games still have essentially the same retail price as they did back in the early 90s though? Development costs have quite obviously risen dramatically. Sales for all but the most mega of hits haven't increased to allow for it either. I mean, we have quantifiable numbers for these things, they can't be just denied.

Do you think it may have something to do with the fact that the last time a publisher changed the retail price of a product at launch was when Activision raised the price of Modern Warfare 2 back in 2009, at the time blaming the weak pound and rising development costs, and it generated an absolute ton of bad press which they were dealing with right up to the launch of the game?

I'm not trying to be picky here but isn't €70 EAs new standard? I don't check the stores too often but I recall seeing a good few games priced around €70 for standard editions.

GTA V is an odd choice to bring up in this respect too. While the sheer size and quality of the game makes it notable in itself, it's also one of the poster children for the gigantic development costs required for a such a game, the huge marketing costs required to ensure it's in front as many eyeballs as possible and as of this iteration, has seen the addition of a micro-transaction based multiplayer mode that has brought in at least half a billion dollars in additional revenue due to it's active userbase.

GTAV wasn't the best example because of the online aspect, its primarily a single player game however, which is why I chose it.

Of course not all games require astronomical budgets, I assumed it was obvious that this discussion revolved around the kinds of AAA games which did? Similarly, in attempting to explain the existence of micro-transactions et al in modern games, I can't imagine anyone would argue that the 2D pixel-art based indie title built by a small team is suddenly going to require such invasive systems. The games that can attempt to justify their inclusion are the ones which feature Credits that go on for around the same length as the average blockbuster movie.

Since there seems to be some confusion on this subject though, I guess it's important to clarify that no one in their right might should consider the budget of a title to be a primary factor in how good it is nor, and I can't emphasise this enough, does the argument in favour of micro-transactions as a means of off-setting development costs give either a publisher or a developer free reign in compromising the design of the game to allow for them.

That's why I threw the few bigger companies in there too, I understand its an AAA centric discussion re:MTs, Lootboxes and the likes, they were an example against games costing millions to make, when in reality few games operate such huge budgets.

I don't think pubs say "We can use MTs let's half-arse this", but I'm a cynic and wonder how many companies realise they've pissed away millions they won't get back on an under-par game so throw in a lootbox or MT system close to the finish to try recoup costs. Which I'm fine with once it doesn't affect gameplay, which isn't always the case.

Something else we need to consider here is the amount of people purchasing the games. For example, Super Mario 64 has sold 11 million copies. GTAV has sold 75 million. The player base has grown, so developers may need more money to bring out a game, but they're also selling a lot more. If your game doesn't sell, it's no ones fault but the developers for making a game that's not good (most of the time).

Maybe an aul complaint to PEGI about gambling in games for kids... If we all sent one, they might notice.

Digital Solitude wrote: »

I'm not trying to be picky here but isn't €70 EAs new standard? I don't check the stores too often but I recall seeing a good few games priced around €70 for standard editions.

Not being picky at all, you're correct in that the RRP of the current generation console games can be €69.99 from EA. I tried to allow for a bit of wiggle room in my reply with that "essentially" since the price rise only really came in the last generation or so, doesn't apply to all publishers or titles and, most importantly, I'd wager you'd struggle to actually be asked to pay that price in any major retailer other than Gamestop.

Digital Solitude wrote: »

That's why I threw the few bigger companies in there too, I understand its an AAA centric discussion re:MTs, Lootboxes and the likes, they were an example against games costing millions to make, when in reality few games operate such huge budgets.

Cool, we're on the same page then. The thing is though, outside of your smaller indie productions, the overwhelming majority of titles still cost millions to make, just variable amounts of millions. This is just development costs by the way, not including marketing budgets. Sure, as you approach the mid eight-figure development cost range, the number of titles falling into this category is reduced but its these ones which would fall into the category of potentially justifying the kinds of additional revenue streams we're talking about.

Digital Solitude wrote: »

I don't think pubs say "We can use MTs let's half-arse this", but I'm a cynic and wonder how many companies realise they've pissed away millions they won't get back on an under-par game so throw in a lootbox or MT system close to the finish to try recoup costs. Which I'm fine with once it doesn't affect gameplay, which isn't always the case.

I don't think so either, I think these decisions are made by people at a certain level within the publisher who genuinely believe how they're implemented is acceptable. In some cases they can simply be at a management and/or executive level and be a business decision but there's also been a notable rise in the number of positions requiring a background in economics and psychology within many companies who, I assume, are being used to direct these initiatives.

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Maybe I'm misremembering. But my sister was like, "you can have 1 expensive game or 2 cheaper ones." So as a kid, I went with Goof Troop and Ryan Giggs soccer which were both £20 instead of DKC, thinking i was getting double the fun. Kid me was a f**king dope

There may have been some cheaper games or even cheaper places to buy them alright but since I was only allowed a game at Christmas and Birthday time, I had to be picky with what I went for and between those mentioned and the likes of Super Metroid, Indiana Jones Trilogy amd Earthworm Jim, I believe they all fell into that price bracket. Zero regrets obviously

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Something else we need to consider here is the amount of people purchasing the games. For example, Super Mario 64 has sold 11 million copies. GTAV has sold 75 million. The player base has grown, so developers may need more money to bring out a game, but they're also selling a lot more. If your game doesn't sell, it's no ones fault but the developers for making a game that's not good (most of the time).

It's most definitely something to consider but if you look at sales over time across a broad range of titles, it's only the biggest of hits which have seen sales increases of this magnitude.

Your comparison is skewed too, to be honest, a more accurate one would be Super Mario Galaxy on the Wii which sold 12.75m. I'd use Super Mario 3D World on the Wii U but I imagine the lower install base of the hardware contributed to its considerably lower figure of 5.65m.

You could also look at other high profile, single platform titles like The Last of Us with its 8m sold and Halo 5 with its 5m sales.

Of even more interest is something more current like Horizon: Zero Dawn which we have rough development budget figures on thanks to an interview with Guerrilla Games. This is now sitting at 3.4m copies sold as of June this year.

TB has a 40 minute rant about it here

death1234567 wrote: »

The implementation in Overwatch is close to how it should be done IMO. All players get 1-2 nice cosmetic items free every now and then and if you want specific ones then you can pay for them. The problem in Overwatch is that they are essentially selling scratch cards where you can get lucky and get the item you want but if not you have to buy more. There should just be an individual price for each and you buy the what you want, if you want any, and if you don't it doesn't affect your playing of the game at all.

No you can't.

Tbf, it does take a fair whack of dupes or gold chest drops to accumulate 3k gold for the best skins in OW

SeantheMan wrote: »

Which is earned from drops...at a really really slow rate.

I just bought 24 loot crates myself for Haloween skins.
Add that to the 6 boxes I 'earned' this week...that's 30.
1 got 800 coins. over the course of those 30 lootboxes...that's not even 1/3rd of what's needed for an Ultimate Skin.

It's pretty difficult to outright buy them.

Also....I only got 2 Legendary skins outta all them boxes ...not even the ones I wanted.

I know I'm a sucker, but it's just cosmetic, and I get a lot of enjoyment from the game itself, so I don't mind throwing 20 at it maybe once or twice a year.

Do you play many games a week? I seem to get plenty of currency. I bought two of the expensive skins last event and still have lots of currency.

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Yeah, but that's you.
I'm in the same boat regarding coins/level but you nee to look at this from the fresh lvl4 player who bought that game yesterday, logs in and is like "oh Cool Mercy Skin, I want that" they cannot pay real money to get it. They need to roll the dice on a slot machine 1st, or play CONSIDERABLY to earn it.

Bare in mind everytime you get a loot box, it narrows the loot pool more and more. Some 500 loot boxes later the game can only give me player icons as i've gotten most of the other stuff. A fresh player will need a lot more loot drops to get the skin, and the likelyhood o getting coins is actually lower now since they almost never give dupes anymore
You're being subjective

The loot pool update was only recent. Before that you could get duplicates.