-
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
nkarafo
Member
Good game design usually makes a game addictive to play and makes you want to play more. Lootboxes = Get fast access to items without playing the game.
And to force you make that decision, they make the items a chore to get in case you actually ignore lootboxes. Making the game a chore to play on purpose in order to convince the player to get items faster by not bothering to play is bad game design.
It's good marketing/strategy design to earn more money sure. But it's not good game design.
And to force you make that decision, they make the items a chore to get in case you actually ignore lootboxes. Making the game a chore to play on purpose in order to convince the player to get items faster by not bothering to play is bad game design.
It's good marketing/strategy design to earn more money sure. But it's not good game design.
LordRaptor
Member
What are your credentials as a game designer to say this?
Because Rami Ismail has fucking earned his status as an expert on game design.
EA just fucked it up by pushing it too far in key ways:
- progression/level based on # of loot crates opened
- crates contained non-balanced performance uprading items
Take these out, and the entire system is "acceptable" IMO.
Destiny 2 almost got this shitstorm first... but the gear mods in the loot crates (bright engrams) were not good enough to impact performance.
Not sure why LotR/AC got a pass... due to just being single player perhaps?
- progression/level based on # of loot crates opened
- crates contained non-balanced performance uprading items
Take these out, and the entire system is "acceptable" IMO.
Destiny 2 almost got this shitstorm first... but the gear mods in the loot crates (bright engrams) were not good enough to impact performance.
Not sure why LotR/AC got a pass... due to just being single player perhaps?
Bloodporne
Member
"They're not bad" - Guy who sells them
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
"They're not bad" - Guy who sells them
Lol exactly
This thread should be titled
Devs like making money
nkarafo
Member
I play games. So i feel i'm eligible enough to express my opinion on any game design choice.
Crankshaft
Member
Of course people are going to go nuts on EA, because EA doesn't know how to hold back. They always push as much as they can get away with until the public pushes back. EA just released two games back to back with scummy loot box progression and people pointed out. If a stink isn't made then it's only going to get worse.
It's good that EA has gone back and adjusted NFS and Star Wars, but what's going to happen with their next game.
It's good that EA has gone back and adjusted NFS and Star Wars, but what's going to happen with their next game.
Can not wait for the next news "Dev recieves tons of death threat following loot boxes statement"
In reality I think he is right. The thing is how to use it so that it does not feel like scam. For example in China you have to tell people the percentages of droprates. I think this could be a good way to do it. Another way is to do it like Mobile games. Always have special dates with reallly good drop rates, way to earn more currency to buy them without paying etc.
Yeah I love my Japanese mobile Gacha Games and I never ever spent money on it. ^^
In reality I think he is right. The thing is how to use it so that it does not feel like scam. For example in China you have to tell people the percentages of droprates. I think this could be a good way to do it. Another way is to do it like Mobile games. Always have special dates with reallly good drop rates, way to earn more currency to buy them without paying etc.
Yeah I love my Japanese mobile Gacha Games and I never ever spent money on it. ^^
llien
Member
But "loot boxes in grindy games" and "loot boxes that you can either grind OR BUY" is not the same thing.
I don't have anything against former, but the latter leads "grindiness" levels skyrocketing to "pay to win" levels and must die... except FTA, where one could argue along "they gotta make money somehow, else it is dead"
I don't have anything against former, but the latter leads "grindiness" levels skyrocketing to "pay to win" levels and must die... except FTA, where one could argue along "they gotta make money somehow, else it is dead"
dragonyeuw
Member
"In mobile, F2P/MTX are the de facto standard now, and I think PC/console won't be able to avoid it if the economics of game developers or the expectations or sales behaviour of game consumers don't change. This model exists because it apparently sells, and it sells despite the objections to it. Either the people that dislike loot boxes (which includes myself) have stopped being the target audience for games, or we've really messed up our spending habits on video games. Either way, the whole situation is a mess."
Exactly, in FREE TO PLAY mobile games. Console players aren't expecting to have to fork out several more hundred/thousand dollars, to avoid a massive grind or gain tactical advantages in competitive multiplayer, after already spending $60 at the counter. So, go ahead and raise the general price of games to $80, $90. I expect there will then be no further need for lootboxes, season passes, microtransactions, and online passes...... right?
Anyways, create a microtransaction system where the items are cosmetic and not tied to progression and you can still make money. It's the lesser of two evils compared to the shit EA tried to pull here and rightfully got raked over the coals for. If anything, it's jump-started a conversation that needed to be had about the direction of the AAA market. Little did we know what 'horse armor' would lead to.
Exactly, in FREE TO PLAY mobile games. Console players aren't expecting to have to fork out several more hundred/thousand dollars, to avoid a massive grind or gain tactical advantages in competitive multiplayer, after already spending $60 at the counter. So, go ahead and raise the general price of games to $80, $90. I expect there will then be no further need for lootboxes, season passes, microtransactions, and online passes...... right?
Anyways, create a microtransaction system where the items are cosmetic and not tied to progression and you can still make money. It's the lesser of two evils compared to the shit EA tried to pull here and rightfully got raked over the coals for. If anything, it's jump-started a conversation that needed to be had about the direction of the AAA market. Little did we know what 'horse armor' would lead to.
Zog
Banned
If you're ok with cosmetic loot boxes, you are ok with all loot boxes. They are one in the same.
People wonder why the anti-consumer practices get worse and worse, it's because gamers are afraid to outright condemn DLC, microtransactions, loot boxes, pre-order culture and so on.
Saying 'I am ok with cosmetic DLC/microtransactions/loot boxes' is just the foot in the door that these corporations need. It's insane to keep responding in the same way to these practices and expecting different results.
JordanN
Banned
Back in the day, I played TF2 and liked how the system worked.
If you wanted an item, you could; craft it, buy it, or unlock it from a crate.
As long as there are items that could give you an advantage but wasn't hidden behind a paywall, I would be ok with that system.
But if the only way to unlock a new character/weapon etc is by spending $2000 on keys with a 1% chance of getting it, screw that. It's turning video games into a slot machine, but the items you win/unlock have no value in the real world.
Even the "1%" chance rate is BS. I would be more willing to buy those keys if there's a 50/50 chance at unlocking anything. Otherwise, it's just ripe for Publishers to exploit because they can say "wellllll, we made the chance rate 0.98498495489%. But hey, what's wrong with those odds!"
If you wanted an item, you could; craft it, buy it, or unlock it from a crate.
As long as there are items that could give you an advantage but wasn't hidden behind a paywall, I would be ok with that system.
But if the only way to unlock a new character/weapon etc is by spending $2000 on keys with a 1% chance of getting it, screw that. It's turning video games into a slot machine, but the items you win/unlock have no value in the real world.
Even the "1%" chance rate is BS. I would be more willing to buy those keys if there's a 50/50 chance at unlocking anything. Otherwise, it's just ripe for Publishers to exploit because they can say "wellllll, we made the chance rate 0.98498495489%. But hey, what's wrong with those odds!"
LordRaptor
Member
So you don't know shit and have no expert analysis, and you are not offering professional peer review; you are armchair quarterbacking on your limited understanding of a complex issue.
Which is literally the problem with this topic Rami Ismail describes.
Good job living down to the expectation of "us gamerz hurr durr"
they're not bad says guy who doesn't sell them and has done significantly more for the games industry than you ever will.
Memorabilia
Member
Up is down, left is right, on is off, surrendering is strength.
Lootboxes aren't bad game design. Lol Sheeeeeeeiiiiiiit.
Lootboxes aren't bad game design. Lol Sheeeeeeeiiiiiiit.
Hissing Sid
Member
Well, everyones entitled to an opinion of course, just as Im entitled to not buy your shitty, scam-ridden, pile of crap software.
Its all cool.
Its all cool.
Koala Driving a Ferrari
Member
I strongly disagree. EA deserve the shitstorm that is coming their way. Malicious game design practices (loot boxes, mtx's etc) have no place in modern console/PC gaming. Other publishers should be watching very carefully.
Toadthemushroom
Member
I find it bizaare that one of the quotes was about how random-reward progression systems are fine if they are eventually accepted by younger generations. That doesn't make it fine - if anything the way these systems are designed by psychologists and business analysts and are optimised in realtime to maximise player engagement is what makes them too easy to be accepted. They aren't transparent in ways that other game systems are.
And while random reward systems have indeed been part of games going years back, there's a big difference between:
-Games made with random rewards (e.g. card packs) on systems that were never connected to the internet
-Games made with internet connectivity as the expectation, like multiplayer games operated as a service with milestones determining that service's success.
Two very different circumstances that mean the balancing would never be the same since the objective is no longer maximum entertainment (unit sold) but maximum retention and revenue (average or monthly recurring revenue per user). For instance, in the former, let's say it's a game made for the PS2 or Wii, there is no expectation that this game mechanic need to produce any recurring revenue, there aren't analysts hired by the publisher to fulfil revenue objectives pertaining to this mechanic, the developer doesn't have the capability to retrieve player data and tweak this mechanic. This can still happen today, but for the games that most people play it's not the case and the distinction should not be glossed over.
A good point was made about how a lot of the complaints about these mechanics are often ill-informed, but I just see it as the breaking point of the debate - the one where at least more people end up learning about how *not* to implement it. Ignorant opinions being voiced by influential people is an issue, but I don't think it should be brought up in this context since it doesn't excuse the publisher in question (EA) and their games (Battlefront 2 and NFS: Payback).
And while random reward systems have indeed been part of games going years back, there's a big difference between:
-Games made with random rewards (e.g. card packs) on systems that were never connected to the internet
-Games made with internet connectivity as the expectation, like multiplayer games operated as a service with milestones determining that service's success.
Two very different circumstances that mean the balancing would never be the same since the objective is no longer maximum entertainment (unit sold) but maximum retention and revenue (average or monthly recurring revenue per user). For instance, in the former, let's say it's a game made for the PS2 or Wii, there is no expectation that this game mechanic need to produce any recurring revenue, there aren't analysts hired by the publisher to fulfil revenue objectives pertaining to this mechanic, the developer doesn't have the capability to retrieve player data and tweak this mechanic. This can still happen today, but for the games that most people play it's not the case and the distinction should not be glossed over.
A good point was made about how a lot of the complaints about these mechanics are often ill-informed, but I just see it as the breaking point of the debate - the one where at least more people end up learning about how *not* to implement it. Ignorant opinions being voiced by influential people is an issue, but I don't think it should be brought up in this context since it doesn't excuse the publisher in question (EA) and their games (Battlefront 2 and NFS: Payback).
CadetMahoney
Member
dsier
Member
Yeah I dont know about that. I dont think I have ever seen a loot box system in a game that didnt feel like a way for publishers to take a couple of extra dollars from gamers. I understand the business reasons for implementing them, with games remaining at $60 while development costs have increased significantly. If devs can find a way to make loot boxes fun, great. But until that happens I remain doubtful.
Bloodporne
Member
A) The man is directly involved and benefits from these products raking it in.
B) I've bought their products for decades, I do plenty.
C) Don't criticize gambling schemes in already full priced products because you don't work in the games industry, got it.
We're expected to pay for this shit, we get to bash it when it's clearly sleazy trash. End of story. What does "us gamerz hurr durr" thing even mean? And did they send you to some sort of Clockwork Orange styled EA camp?
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
I can convince a kid to give me anything if I encourage him that he'll get what he wants once he does. Often times kids don't know the value of money. Hell some adults don't even understand it. It's like Halloween. I know parents who will give their kid a sucker or a doll for their entire bag of candy. The kid only sees the one special item and they're willing to part with their huge bag of candy.
I wouldn't call us dinosaurs because we don't dance around the value of something.
I agree in that it can help with larger games where people want some legendary or rare weapon type for $5.
I can't say the newer generation is smarter for simply agreeing with it. Game designers calling us dinosaurs because their tactics are positively received by a newer generation is just tacky. We've grown up with these games too. This is really the first gen where it's happening. Last gen and the gen before that didn't have powerful enough consoles to run their auction houses or whatever.
A lot of it is technology. I probably won't boycott over it, but I think that the "new generation" will catch on eventually.
Gotcha games do well with it, but $60 is quite a bit. Especially if you're living in Canada or Australia where prices are $75 and $99 a game. That's awful.
These are holiday sales!
I wouldn't call us dinosaurs because we don't dance around the value of something.
I agree in that it can help with larger games where people want some legendary or rare weapon type for $5.
I can't say the newer generation is smarter for simply agreeing with it. Game designers calling us dinosaurs because their tactics are positively received by a newer generation is just tacky. We've grown up with these games too. This is really the first gen where it's happening. Last gen and the gen before that didn't have powerful enough consoles to run their auction houses or whatever.
A lot of it is technology. I probably won't boycott over it, but I think that the "new generation" will catch on eventually.
Gotcha games do well with it, but $60 is quite a bit. Especially if you're living in Canada or Australia where prices are $75 and $99 a game. That's awful.
These are holiday sales!
Martinski43
Member
Why are you defending these business practices? Do you have stake in this or are you just a shill?
LordRaptor
Member
Rami Ismail doesn't make shit from lootcrates.
Here let me highlight it for you form the damn OP;
"WHY YOU DEFEND EA? EA BAD, YOUTUBE SAY SO"
No, but I play games that have lootcrates in them and enjoy free ongoing updates, have no worries that someone is buying a competitive advantage, and can always find a match quickly because all players have access to all of the same content.
I've also played games that don't have lootcrates, and most of those games are just not played anymore.
Sometimes those games were made by studios that no longer even exist.
Zog
Banned
That line was always going to be crossed, it was just a matter of when.
Bloodporne
Member
His paycheck may not directly have a sub-line of "$200 for lootcrates" on it but you don't see a pattern here of consumers feeling revolted and only people involved in the industry that sells said consumers this garbage telling them that it really isn't bad?
You like them, you're upset that people are mocking something you like, fair enough I've done it many times. Doesn't change what kind of business practices these are.
I like occasionally gambling in Vegas, doesn't mean it's not sleazy ass industry.
Martinski43
Member
Well you can have ongoing updates to games without having to have loot crates and other shit game design.
Atleast that is how it used to work.
Players had the same access to content without having to buy season passes as well.
Stop defending shitty business practices. Because it is just what it is, they just want more money money money and they realized they can get more money by having pay walls. Such as season passed, grindy progression and so on.
Memorabilia
Member
Pretty much. I've yet to actually hear/read a good argument defending loot crates that adequately addresses the inherent problem of gambling or the unavoidable impact on core game design. But these keyboard warriors key giving it a go. Lol
Allnamestakenlol
Member
Paid loot crates are gambling plain and simple. Devs gotta make money, I get that, but this is not the way to do it.
Lootboxes as a mechanic isn't bad just look at Horizon Zero Dawn, however I do raise an eye brow when devs give you the option to pay them to bypass playing the game like they know that natural progression isn't adequate enough by playing normally.
Basically while lootboxes isn't bad game design it is an influencer on game design.
Basically while lootboxes isn't bad game design it is an influencer on game design.
LordRaptor
Member
I see a specific vocal minority complaining about them.
Do you know why they are so profitable?
because most people are fine with them and pay for them.
that's why "real gamers" are so enraged about this now; because its in their games now, not just "casuals" games.
Meanwhile theres a giant fucking list of dead studios that couldn't afford to pay their bills and keep the lights on.
If your complaint is that its not 2001 anymore, well, worlds smallest violin plays just for you.
Robot Carnival
Member
dude, chill out man. you're getting a little personal on this.
to the topic, like it or not, loot boxes are here to stay, just like DLCs (and I hated DLCs). the main point is how to make it better and more consumer friendly without overstepping it like what EA did. make it beneficial to the game and it's community would be the goal here I suppose. I kinda like what DOTA2 has, everything is pure cosmetic and mostly design by community, with the designer taking a part of the sales too. of course one can argue that DOTA2 is a F2P game so it should be different from a full price title, but that's where you vote with your wallet I guess.
LordRaptor
Member
I'm annoyed at the "Disagree? SHILL!" and "I guess you HATE CHILDREN" rhetoric this subject raises
Martinski43
Member
Many of them because they were shut down by publishers like EA.
You can still make good games without shitty practices, indie developers prove this. CDPR proves this. Ninja Theory proved this and so on.
Also calm the fuck down, please.
There's one game in the industry that has done this right that i have played. League of Legends does it right and it is F2P. You dont have to buy anything and still enjoy the full game.
Memorabilia
Member
The defense force is strong with this one....
Lol Man, you're embarrassing yourself.
BlitzerRadic
Member
See, this is a good example of how the anti-loot box crusade is really just people jumping on the EA hate bandwagon.
Progression in NFS is tied to speed cards. Speed cards are earned by winning races or by purchasing them at shops from w/ in game money, from winning races or by crafting from parts tokens. Loot boxes contain cosmetics, money and parts tokens. Sure you can progress using loot boxes, but you are FAR better off just winning races as the game will eventually give you plenty of money to buy from shops. The issue with progression is tied to the speed cards RNG - cards in shops and from winning races are worse than what you have. The game is also generous with loot boxes, you can earn 3 every day from daily challenges and from earning exp. You can get a car to max level without opening a single loot box.
BebopMcJigglypuff
Member
I honestly don't mind them in systems where they have nothing to do with gameplay like DotA2, but I'm never buying another DICE game again with the system they tried to push with battlefront.
I'm probably a psychopath but I don't actually care if someone can't control their urge to buy costumes through gambling, or can't stop going to a casino and ruins their life, that's their choice and lack of self control/respect. I also think things like drugs should be legal and we should spend our money on treatment for people who can't handle them vs punishment rather than ruining everything for everyone because some people are imbeciles. I don't think we should ban sugar because some people can't control their appetites.
I care if they make the game (especially one you pay for) an artificial grind just to encourage you to buy them to unlock the content of the game. I will never support those games or companies again, there are no second chances.
I'm probably a psychopath but I don't actually care if someone can't control their urge to buy costumes through gambling, or can't stop going to a casino and ruins their life, that's their choice and lack of self control/respect. I also think things like drugs should be legal and we should spend our money on treatment for people who can't handle them vs punishment rather than ruining everything for everyone because some people are imbeciles. I don't think we should ban sugar because some people can't control their appetites.
I care if they make the game (especially one you pay for) an artificial grind just to encourage you to buy them to unlock the content of the game. I will never support those games or companies again, there are no second chances.
LordRaptor
Member
But you can't say this without knowing the costs involved, and the examples of studios that didn't make it vastly outweight the numbers that did.
Studios that have been around since the NES days shuttering, and where new studios emerged from the ashes.... they went to the mobile space to make F2P titles.
not to the console space to sell one off purchases with everything included for a flat fee.
And LOL has lootcrates.
Like, I literally just got a lootcrate drop.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Lootboxes are contrived and were developed specifically to exploit you. Publishers are leveraging an understanding of psychology and human behavior and using our own nature against us for profit. It has nothing to do with making a game more fun. The games that have lootboxes have more longevity because of how we're wired, not because it's more fun.
No. It's because people (kids mostly) are manipulated to buy and accept it.
Lootboxes ARE gambling and as such, it must be regulated.
BebopMcJigglypuff
Member
So you think most whales are kids and their parents just don't care?
Similar threads
- Poll