Why the fuck are you losing your shit over these posts? Your replies in this thread are embarrassing as hell. Of course people pay for them, they want the content and its stuck behind a paywall. Its just exploitative.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
Why the fuck are you losing your shit over these posts? Your replies in this thread are embarrassing as hell. Of course people pay for them, they want the content and its stuck behind a paywall. Its just exploitative.
It says right in the OP.
Domstercool
Member
Not bad game design? Hmm I disagree with that. There are better ways to implement such ideas, such as sticking it into gameplay mechanics, rather than opting for a simple, easy way out and giving loot boxes.
Imagine if Diablo's loot was all loot box based and you only earned credits to buy them, rather than drops....
Imagine if Diablo's loot was all loot box based and you only earned credits to buy them, rather than drops....
Stormblessed
Member
Rami Ismail fairly routinely goes to bat for the larger industry and its more questionable decisions in pursuit of profit. It would be more surprising if he took a pro-consumer position on something.
LordRaptor
Member
No it doesn't.
It says that the people who are super butthurt about it are the people who were playing PS2s in 2001 and want everything to be like it was in 2001 because thats when everyone bent over backwards to cater to them.
https://www.realitymine.com/myth-busting-mobile-gaming-demographics/
Thats what the demographics of people who are absolutely fine with F2P, MTX, DLC, Lootcrates and all the other things the "real gamers" get their panties in a bunch over.
Its not kids.
https://www.realitymine.com/myth-busting-mobile-gaming-demographics/
Thats what the demographics of people who are absolutely fine with F2P, MTX, DLC, Lootcrates and all the other things the "real gamers" get their panties in a bunch over.
Its not kids.
So, looking at this pie chart, I learned today that person with less than 16 years old don't play mobile games.
OKAY.gif
LordRaptor
Member
People under 16 don't generally have disposable income to spend, I don't know what to tell you
If you want to pretend theres a second piechart and its all under 16s with their paper round monies and Apple factory wages that eclipses that one, whatever.
But kids dont have purchasing power. at best they have nagging power for their parents.
GermanZepp
Member
Lootboxes are shit. IMO maybe could be well implemented if only cosmetics sillyness ala Rocket League. EA fucked up and now LOOTBOX is the new bad word, like DLC was, like Season Pass.. Downgrade, etc. Sorry for other devs.
tell that to all the stories of kids playing on platforms with their parents' CC details saved in that service
Yah like WTF??? They conveniently left out a VERY large % of the userbase there...
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
It works very well for overwatch.
N1tr0sOx1d3
Given another chance
What happened to the days when you paid £50 for a game and just got EVeRY ThInG YOu PaID FoR!?!?!?
You wouldn't buy a new car and a loot box with the hope a frickin engine was inside.
You wouldn't buy a new car and a loot box with the hope a frickin engine was inside.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
True. I would say that is one of the few cases it works in an AAA game, though.
Also, OW was available for 40 bucks on PC at launch
It may be a bit devil's advocate, but perhaps nobody wanted people to run around with Neon Pink/Green costumes in Star Wars so they needed to find "something else" to loot crate... you can't look at the success of Overwatch and not want to tap into that model one way or another... but they went the WRONG way...
A great game will sell. If the crates contained nothing but emotes, some "traditional looking" character skins, player tags, emblem customization options perhaps... there would have been no problem and the game would likely be a smashing critical / financial success.
Edit: I say "no problem", but i just mean there would have been no immediate controversy. Anything where a player can say "Shit, I didn't get what I want... spend another $5 I go!" is a problem in terms of minors/gambling. Even in Overwatch.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I like the excuse todays kids will grow screwed over by predatory loot boxes and other gambling like practices so they will not know any better... it is just older people that know how much of a raw deal we are giving people... sigh :/.
Tumle
Member
I have no problem with loot boxes.. I have a problem in how some companies try an implement them..
As others have said, if you make your game a chore to play just to get people to buy loot boxes, then there is a problem with your game design..
Your money making design how ever, is top notch predatory
As others have said, if you make your game a chore to play just to get people to buy loot boxes, then there is a problem with your game design..
Your money making design how ever, is top notch predatory
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
To me loot box are piece of shit no matter how well they think they implement. If dev put it in their games then to me it's going make their games look cheap just like Candy Crush and I won't touch it. Thankfully for now loot boxes are not in the games I care about.
LordRaptor
Member
Thats not what its saying.
Its saying that self proclaimed "gamers" are incredibly reactionary and vocal about things most people literally do not consider an issue at all.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Because those other people, like a lot of consumers, do not know any better in some cases and cannot resist the urge in others.
It feels like Kellyanne Conways rethoric at times: why do you investigate issues that are not known and popular to people?!? as if problematic issues should only be addressed if they are popular lol.
Winters_Solace
Member
Bad game design will push players away. Ever since Rocket League brought in crates I've played less and less. Uncharted 4 is my least played Uncharted multiplayer. Not saying loot boxes are the only reasoning, but yeah not a fan regardless.
After the latest fiasco I'm considering just not supporting developers who use them and hope the practice eventually disappears like Online Passes did.
After the latest fiasco I'm considering just not supporting developers who use them and hope the practice eventually disappears like Online Passes did.
LordRaptor
Member
I entirely reject the notion that "real gamers" - as exemplified for example by GAF - are 'more canny' than the average consumer, and I find that sort of attitude responsible for most of the distasteful actions of that self-proclaimed community, whether that console wars or just shitting on games that aren't aimed at them.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
I love it how the general public were buying Wii consoles for their grandparents about a decade ago and now they're mad because aspects of gaming are coming off as being forms of gambling.
These developers shouldn't come off as some glorified toy maker either.
These developers shouldn't come off as some glorified toy maker either.
Loot boxes are fine, for cosmetics.
So here's how the trend went:
Lootboxes earned in game for cosmetics - People loved them, it was a little extra fun
Lootboxes bought for in game cosmetics - People were OK with that.
Lootboxes hindering progression and offering in game advantage - People are pissed, rightfully so.
The devs pushed and pushed as far as they could, just to see what they could get away with. People are pissed at EA, and rightfully so, I am too. But I'm happy they went the route they did since it started up a shitstorm against one of the most hated publishers ever doing something like this to one of the biggest games of the year, with the most prolific franchise.
It's a shame that DICE, their most beloved dev got their name smeared in the shit. That'll teach them. DICE seems pretty prideful of their work. I wonder what fallout is going to become of this though. Will we see some key players leave and do their own thing or go to another dev?
So here's how the trend went:
Lootboxes earned in game for cosmetics - People loved them, it was a little extra fun
Lootboxes bought for in game cosmetics - People were OK with that.
Lootboxes hindering progression and offering in game advantage - People are pissed, rightfully so.
The devs pushed and pushed as far as they could, just to see what they could get away with. People are pissed at EA, and rightfully so, I am too. But I'm happy they went the route they did since it started up a shitstorm against one of the most hated publishers ever doing something like this to one of the biggest games of the year, with the most prolific franchise.
It's a shame that DICE, their most beloved dev got their name smeared in the shit. That'll teach them. DICE seems pretty prideful of their work. I wonder what fallout is going to become of this though. Will we see some key players leave and do their own thing or go to another dev?
martinstraka8282
Member
Corporate greed has infested everything, we live in a modern day oligarchy.
Sändersson
Member
It really can feel very out of place. Imagine skyrim with loot boxes. Instead of scouring dungeons for weapons, you complete mmo like instances and tahah, a lootbox appears in the middle of the screen.
Dont really have a huge problem with games like heroes of the storm having them but it would still be better if I could just buy what I want with ingame gold.
Also stuff like "adaptive odds" etc are fucking bullshit.
recursive
Member
I would guess a consumer that doesn't like them? Don't have to be a chef to say a dish sucks...
Kalamari
Member
Even experts can get it wrong. I am sure there are a lot of experts saying the exact opposite.
Loot boxes are just a way to use rng to extract more cash from the consumer. There are other far less devious ways to sell content to consumers.
Loot boxes aren't exactly deep. It's an annoying business practice they way it's implemented in bf 2.
Mohonky
Member
Hows "get fucked" sound?
Thankfully loot boxes havent really been a thing for gamess I play as I mostly play single player and the single player games with loot boxes havent encroached on the need to finisb a game.....yet.
If you want you game to have a loot box system, the game had better damn well be free to play, because Im not paying for parts of a game.
Thankfully loot boxes havent really been a thing for gamess I play as I mostly play single player and the single player games with loot boxes havent encroached on the need to finisb a game.....yet.
If you want you game to have a loot box system, the game had better damn well be free to play, because Im not paying for parts of a game.
MadNinjaZero
Member
I disagree that the concept of the loot box is a bad design choice but I concede that there are bad designs that utilize loot boxes.
I am grasping for an example of the "best" implementation largely due To the fact that it is relative to the game it's implemented in but I concede that the choice for Battlefront 2 is an example of aggressively poor execution.
If EA had made the radical choice of releasing Battlefront 2 as a F2P title I question whether we would be having this exact conversation. There would be some conversation to be sure but not this one because the system they are employing is a match in that business model moreso than the premium one it presently is.
All said, I am hopeful that this moment in time will lead to meaningful conversation inside of developers/publishers to be mindful when trying these hybrid business models and even more to evaluate the practice itself.
I am grasping for an example of the "best" implementation largely due To the fact that it is relative to the game it's implemented in but I concede that the choice for Battlefront 2 is an example of aggressively poor execution.
If EA had made the radical choice of releasing Battlefront 2 as a F2P title I question whether we would be having this exact conversation. There would be some conversation to be sure but not this one because the system they are employing is a match in that business model moreso than the premium one it presently is.
All said, I am hopeful that this moment in time will lead to meaningful conversation inside of developers/publishers to be mindful when trying these hybrid business models and even more to evaluate the practice itself.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I would still say that is a user wise bad design concept: switching from a fully featured compete game meant to be fully enjoyable and entertaining post purchase (where the developer and publisher already got their money) to a model where by design you should be compelled to spend... where the game by design cannot be as entertaining and compete as before unless you spend real money in the game.
F2P partially contributed to the race to the bottom on mobile, price wise, which devalued software in the eyes of many (especially the whale optimised games). Now, it is extremely difficult, nigh impossible, to convince the average mobile users that games can be worth $30-40-60 at all.
F2P also by necessity influences game design, getting users excited about the game and downloading it still leaves you with no money in your pocket. You need to ensure that on average each user spends X amount of money to break even and offering a full and rewarding and entertaining experience instead of compulsion to buy and progress is out of the question. The game needs to be designed to make you spend while playing it.
Toadthemushroom
Member
No it doesn't.
It says that the people who are super butthurt about it are the people who were playing PS2s in 2001 and want everything to be like it was in 2001 because thats when everyone bent over backwards to cater to them.
https://www.realitymine.com/myth-busting-mobile-gaming-demographics/
Thats what the demographics of people who are absolutely fine with F2P, MTX, DLC, Lootcrates and all the other things the "real gamers" get their panties in a bunch over.
Its not kids.
Huh, back in 2001 the notion of listening to continuous feedback and making a game as a service was a very distant thing. You might have had focus groups, but by and large a lot of the big games were auteur-directed, and publishers even listened to their auteurs to make business decisions. It's amazing how Capcom trusted Mikami to move Resident Evil away from the incoming PlayStation 2 juggernaut for example. That wouldn't happen today because the risk is too great and the market dynamics have changed.
It's not entirely fair to claim that because a lot of people are OK with playing service games funded by microtransactions and randomly sold cosmetics etc. that anyone who complains doesn't have a valid reason to and are out of touch. Of course a chunk of the furore is misguided, but given loot boxes in particular use psychological traps to encourage people to spend (why else do publishers and devs utilise business analysts and psychologists to design these progression systems?) it's a bit unfair to say that people are just fine with them when some may well not know any better about how they've been tempted to spending in the Skinner Box.
A lot of people get that development costs have risen, salaries have risen (good), and that crunch-driven conditions need to change (good). At the same time though, the AAA space has been pitching ever better graphics as a means of progress and convincing customers that these are things which are necessary for the future. I'm not going to say anyone who buys a game because it looks visually amazing is wrong, but I do think it's part of the problem. This is where I may well feel out of touch - I have no trouble with having my imagination fill in the gaps, I don't necessarily need my Star Wars game to look authentic to the films when I know what Darth Vadar or a Tie Fighter looks like...or at least what I want it to look like.
I can't say I'm fond of the change in metrics from units sold (make a game for maximum entertainment or store appeal) to recurring revenue and engagement. Game design as a business science just doesn't sit well with me. When I sit down with some modern games with their unnecessarily convoluted progression systems it feels like some publishers are making addictions, not games.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Loot crates are fine until you start selling them for $$$. It is just a random drop that you get to open when you want otherwise.
Start selling them for money and it is gambling. Start using them to gate progression while selling them for money and it is pay-to-win.
Any dev who says EA didn't cross a line is a dev who wants to cross that same line as often and as far as possible.
Start selling them for money and it is gambling. Start using them to gate progression while selling them for money and it is pay-to-win.
Any dev who says EA didn't cross a line is a dev who wants to cross that same line as often and as far as possible.
Loot crates are ok - it all depends on how you dress them, and use them.
Hell, Diablo is a game in which you constantly open loot crates - with each category of loot crate having their specific shapes & animations to make them look monstrous, and requiring the user to input a specific sequence of actions to overcome the threshold for opening it.
But ultimately, each enemy is a loot crate.
Hell, Diablo is a game in which you constantly open loot crates - with each category of loot crate having their specific shapes & animations to make them look monstrous, and requiring the user to input a specific sequence of actions to overcome the threshold for opening it.
But ultimately, each enemy is a loot crate.
TannerDemoz
Member
Nailed it.
down 2 orth
Member
"They're not bad" - Guy who sells them
Such a good post, it deserves another repeating.
recursive
Member
A random paywall at that. I would happily outright buy the skins, camos, guns, etc. for games that are worth a shit. Now these shitboxes are put into everything needlessly complicating the system in hopes people will drop $100 trying to get the skin they could purchase for $5 just 5 years ago. It is bullshit.
Everyone's favorite gaming company, Blizzard, can do no wrong.
Petrae
Member
Younger game players have been conditioned to accept shit like paying for online play, preorder DLC bonuses, Day One patches, and more. Conditioning the next generation of players to accept loot boxes and microtransactions in $60+ dollar games as standard is already happening, and in another year or two, the outrage will be quieted.
Ismail has pointed out in the past that video games arent necessarily for dinosaurs (like me, for example) who dont subscribe to modern revenue standards and that the industry wont miss us when were gone. Hes right. When modern video gaming finally pushes me away for good, there wont be a Holy shit, weve alienated people who have been buying games for 40 years! response.
Its sad that I think the industry has gone to complete and utter shit, but whether its small voices like mine or louder voices like Jim Sterlings, it matters not. The die has been cast and the direction has been set. Those who dont like that direction will either have to learn to live with it or move on to different pastures (like retro gaming, for me).
Ismail has pointed out in the past that video games arent necessarily for dinosaurs (like me, for example) who dont subscribe to modern revenue standards and that the industry wont miss us when were gone. Hes right. When modern video gaming finally pushes me away for good, there wont be a Holy shit, weve alienated people who have been buying games for 40 years! response.
Its sad that I think the industry has gone to complete and utter shit, but whether its small voices like mine or louder voices like Jim Sterlings, it matters not. The die has been cast and the direction has been set. Those who dont like that direction will either have to learn to live with it or move on to different pastures (like retro gaming, for me).
Toadthemushroom
Member
The other thing I dislike as much as selling items or cosmetics behind blind boxes are modern progression systems. They are often tooled to monetise games with IAP or loot boxes. Monetisation aside, they really just exist to normalise some sort of grind or schedule and keep you hooked to the game. Be it levels, upgrades, daily challenges, rewards, tasks, I find it just gets in the way. Gone were the days where multiplayer was a mirror of single player and you'd be expected to hone your skills in single player before heading online. Now you can't even head online and be competitive on day one since the expectation is that you spend a few dozen hours before you're on equal footing with other players. Or keep up the grind expectation to continue to be competitive.
This. Imagine walking into a clothes store, and you wanted this one desirable pair of trousers, but the store:
-only sold trousers in blind bags
-determined that the trousers you wanted were of "epic" rarity
-didn't disclose what the odds were of getting those trousers
-you could pay $10 a go to get a pair of trousers, or spend 10,000 loyalty points, loyalty points of which are accumulated at an incredibly slow rate from busywork
Wonder how that would fly.
This. Imagine walking into a clothes store, and you wanted this one desirable pair of trousers, but the store:
-only sold trousers in blind bags
-determined that the trousers you wanted were of "epic" rarity
-didn't disclose what the odds were of getting those trousers
-you could pay $10 a go to get a pair of trousers, or spend 10,000 loyalty points, loyalty points of which are accumulated at an incredibly slow rate from busywork
Wonder how that would fly.
zackmorris
Member
Even still, just let me spend my money or in game currency on the items I want. Its what turned me off overwatch so quickly. Grind for a level, oh a skin for a character I never play. Awesome...
mikezilla2
Member
Toadthemushroom
Member
Yeah, I get it if you're personally not bothered by cosmetics being behind random unlocks in a grindy progression system, but the developers know that it affects some people and there will be some cosmetics that those people will eventually care about.
There's a reason why you see so many people sharing loot or their character online - they care and the developers know this. Heck, some games even include a share button on the prize screens.
Koala Driving a Ferrari
Member
I agree with all of this. On a more positive note: if the modern gaming industry doesn't want my business going forwards, I'll happily enjoy the last three decades of game releases across a multitude of systems. Hell, just the PS2 library alone could keep me occupied for most of my gaming years.
oldergamer
Member
Age distribution doesn't reflect who is actually making/paying for purchases. It's different for every mobile game.
Similar threads
- Poll