Support NeoGAF

[Santar]

The problem here is most people just don't give a shit.
They get satisfaction from opening loot boxes and getting stuff and don't care about how this affects gaming going forward,
The fact that the wast majority of loot box games are online only just makes things even worse.
We're heading toward a feature where we no longer own and control our own games.

Imagine if you could no longer play your original PS2 copy of Silent Hill 2 because Konami shut down the servers for the game years ago.
Or when Shadow of War looses two game features, because the online market where you buy the loot boxes with those features for the game is shut down.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

I don't think you can call it a crutch when it's often just an intrinsic part of the game design and was chosen to be so. I mean that's how most roguelikes work. Would spelunky be anywhere near as fun without the random drops?

Of course there's no micro transactions there though, thankfully.

You're right about Splelunky. I was referring to Borderlands 2 which you cited.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

I mean, if it bothers you just don't buy the games? There's plenty of stuff to play these days.

That's literally the point the piece is trying to make, that there's no point in complaining at publishers and instead voting with your wallet, since the next 3 months of game sales, and revenue within those games, will probably determine where publishers take their yearly AAA franchises next.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

I love the arguments you saw in the other threads like:
"It wont go away, so stop criticising it."
I will keep that in mind the next time I see racist shit somewhere.

 

[ExoSoul]

Always fun to see consumers at the ready to wave their rights because they don't see a problem with the current situation, meanwhile the issue is so pervasive that it becomes the norm.

 

[Murkas]

Dude in the video paid for 101 lootboxes?

Only game I got that has lootboxes is Uncharted 4, and if I remember rightly you can buy the items outright and you don't get duplicates?

 

[Toadthemushroom]

The problem here is most people just don't give a shit.
They get satisfaction from opening loot boxes and getting stuff and don't care about how this affects gaming going forward,
The fact that the wast majority of loot box games are online only just makes things even worse.
We're heading toward a feature where we no longer own and control our own games.

The other thing worth noting is that loot boxes and gacha are probably quickly becoming the 'normal' for a new generation of players who pick up their smartphone or new AAA console game (as opposed to say, a Game Boy and a PS2) and have random-reward mechanics shoved in their face. Which is a shame.

People may have thought Nintendo phoned it in with New Super Mario Bros Wii (which went on to sell 30m copies) but I'd rather the masses played that over an addiction simulator.

 

[oti]

I love the arguments you saw in the other threads like:
"It wont go away, so stop criticising it."
I will keep that in mind the next time I see racist shit somewhere.

Bringing up racism in a conversation about loot boxes in video games doesn't do you any favours.

 

[Santar]

The other thing worth noting is that loot boxes and gacha are probably quickly becoming the 'normal' for a new generation of players who pick up their smartphone or new AAA console game (as opposed to say, a Game Boy and a PS2) and have random-reward mechanics shoved in their face. Which is a shame.

People may have thought Nintendo phoned it in with New Super Mario Bros Wii (which went on to sell 30m copies) but I'd rather the masses played that over an addiction simulator.

Sigh, yeah, it's so depressing to think of...

 

[ViviOggi]

Always fun to see consumers at the ready to wave their rights because they don't see a problem with the current situation, meanwhile the issue is so pervasive that it becomes the norm.

Just like being unable to buy the skins you want has already become the norm. Only took one hugely successful game with that system for people to invoke it as the gold standard of microtransactions whenever they see the chance to play devil's advocate on the internet.

 

[Jimnymebob]

As someone who hasn't and will never buy a lootbox, I'm torn on the idea of them. It's like, I do like how a lot of games that have them are providing free meaningful updates, such as extra characters, levels etc., and just leaving customisation and other nonessential things behind them, as last gen suffered a huge problem with split playerbases on multiplayer games.

On the other hand, it's when it starts edging into the pay to win category that I have a problem with.

I can't help but pin the blame on some of the customers though. Take Overwatch for example: every event, you always get some people saying they've not touched the game since the previous event, but then they log on at the start of the new one, throw money away on 50 lootboxes, complain that they didn't get anything good and that lootboxes are a scam, then don't play the game until they do the same thing during the following event.

My main question is what would they replace lootboxes with?

 

[jelly]

It's really sad to read GAF posts that just accept it or don't think it's a problem. The article is spot on and I do fear what comes next year etc. I'm hopeful there will be a push back. Maybe it's just young people growing up with DLC but I can't believe what I read on here sometimes.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Bringing up racism in a conversation about loot boxes in video games doesn't do you any favours.

Thing is that you can use that argument about everything.

"Its normal so live with it."

Be it a shitty human behaviour, a bad business practice or just lootboxes. Why should people not criticise something they dont agree with just because "its normal"?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Nothing the enthusiast crowd does matters to publishers. At best you can get the devs to listen to enthusiast feedback, but there are millions of more casual gamers who never set foot into the enthusiast sphere and don't care.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Nothing the enthusiast crowd does matters to publishers. At best you can get the devs to listen to enthusiast feedback, but there are millions of more casual gamers who never set foot into the enthusiast sphere and don't care.

I think it depends how "loud" the noise is. Look at the Xbox One always-online stuff.

Or Arkhams Knights piece of shit port.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'm a little confused by the "Don't tell me how to spend my money" responses.

The statement is: if you don't like these business practices, don't buy the products, it's the only way publishers will listen.

So if you're saying "don't tell me how to spend my money" you're essentially saying "I don't want these business practices and I will continue to give them money".

Because if you like these business practices, the statement doesn't apply to you.

Also, people tell you how to spend your money all the time. A recommendation, advice, warnings, etc. Do you scream back in their face I SPEND MY MONEY HOW I WANT DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD

?

Self-quoting is generally viewed as quite a dick move on GAF, but I made a lengthy post yesterday in here around my personal views on why people get so hostile and seek out topics that ask them not to gamble/hand over money ~ http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=251675618&postcount=388

I think you're seeing that in this topic. People seek out/enter the topic due to the title and instantly respond with "don't tell me what to do with my money".

Metro for as decent as the editorial is written is simply making a "vote with your wallet" plea. Or it's aiming to encourage consumers to speak out as well. You can do you with YOUR money, duh, but like any industry with reviews/buyer recommendations, there will be editorials or advice on what to buy and what not to buy.

 

[VariantX]

That's the thing. Even if every enthusiast avoided these games , the general audience will buy them and only a few of those players need to spend the money to keep it going. Completely tying progression to rng loot boxes just makes it all the more easy for them to buy in because of the real effect of getting something that makes your character perform better.

 

[jelly]

Nothing the enthusiast crowd does matters to publishers. At best you can get the devs to listen to enthusiast feedback, but there are millions of more casual gamers who never set foot into the enthusiast sphere and don't care.

Nah, not always.

$10 online pass
Xbox One
Forza 5 or was it 6 and now 7, they've rolled back things.
Halo MCC, ODST.

Our voices do matter and can make changes. We need to try.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Nah, not always.

$10 online pass
Xbox One
Forza 5 or was it 6 and now 7, they've rolled back things.
Halo MCC, ODST.

Our voices do matter and can make changes. We need to try.

Online passes were a pushback from console makers.

Xbox One was a special case that was a massive PR disaster that spread far outside the enthusiast circle.

The latter two are dev issues. In the case of Forza and what I expect with SWBFII, the devs will come out with some changes to the lootcrates and will say "look, its better now". People will eat it up, crates will still be in the game, and the pubs make boatloads of money on them still.

 

[Donniewahlberg]

I never buy dlc etc... so i don't see the difference. Whatever.

Mmm I think the sentiment is that whether you buy or don't buy, that's more room for the actual game design and balance to be impacted by the change in nature of the microtransaction. Obviously it's your own judgment if you agree or disagree with that assessment, but that's the difference.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

There have been multiple examples the last few years of publishers relenting on a shitty business practice.

Online passes went away pretty quickly, the quality of DLC improved and they stopped putting endings behind them, Look at all the changes Destiny 1 had to make over the years, Vita's memory cards, XBLG having to add free games, Street Fighter 5 getting crushed by being rushed out for EVO, Xbox One having to be completely redesigned.

The best thing we can do is be open and honest about what this does, thats the best way to get this message to spread that F2P economies and progression systems in premium games is unacceptable and that predatory lootboxes should never be tolerated.

Coming in here and telling people thats its happening and you should "get over it" is some fucking bullshit. Pretending like these mechanics aren't going to get more and more intrusive over time is intentionally ignoring how businesses work. It doesn't matter if you ignore microtransactions right now, all Shadow of War is doing is normalizing it, then they slowly normalize a bit of extra grinding every year until you have a full blown F2P economy in a premium game, complete with unregulated lootcrates. You aren't going to wake up one day, find out that publishers have taken it too far, and be able to do anything about it. By the time that happens it will have been normalized, it will be years too late. This is the time to raise your voice about it.

 

[Drencrom]

If you put money into loot box bullshit you are killing gaming one drip at a time.
It's a simple as that.

Bingo

 

[bigbaldwolf86]

We can try and fight it but the problem is the amount of people that are willing to buy these crates. Activision and EA make an absurd amount of money on these things so it's going to take something massive for them to change their mind about putting them in as many games as they can

 

[Kill3r7]

Yeah, Gamecentral is really great. They do excellent reviews and amazing interviews as well.

Agreed on both points.

 

[Yukinari]

I saw people in various twitch stream chats try to deny that Battlefront 2's beta has pay 2 win loot boxes. (Which i dont have faith in EA to remove)

Whether its because that person happens to like the game or just blind corporate shilling this is a fight thats harder to win than the Xbone DRM was.

 

[oti]

Thing is that you can use that argument about everything.

"Its normal so live with it."

Be it a shitty human behaviour, a bad business practice or just lootboxes. Why should people not criticise something they dont agree with just because "its normal"?

My friend, if you think bringing up racism in any shape or form in a discussion about video game monetisation is reasonable, I'd advice you to set your priorities straight. In another thread another poster brought up a poem about the Holocaust. In a thread about loot boxes.

Come on.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

My friend, if you think bringing up racism in any shape or form in a discussion about video game monetisation is reasonable, I'd advice you to set your priorities straight. In another thread another poster brought up a poem about the Holocaust. In a thread about loot boxes.

Come on.

It is not about racism, but about that general argument that can be brought in every discussion where people say "Well. Its normal. Cant do anything about it."
If people dont like it, you can make your voice heard, whether it is about racism, a bad business practice or just lootboxes.

Why should people be quiet about a thing they find troubling, just because it might be the new normal or already is?

 

[TerryLee81]

The majority of people, so people not browsing gaf or other forums, wont even know that the game they are buying has loot boxes.

This will be hard to get rid of.

 

[Hashmal_Bringer_of_Order]

I've yet to have this "practice" harm my experience in any way. I won't change anything about my purchase practices until it does.

 

[Soul of the Beast]

Don't worry, I will never buy any game with lootboxes, but I would still play them if you know what I mean (wink).

Just kidding tho, I won't actually do that, but many will.

 

[Lime]

Organize the gamers!

 

[Drackhorn]

Man, I feel so left out of this whole debate, and it seems pretty serious. My gaming life of the past year is replaying the Arkham games and playing Nintendo's stuff. How do you even box a loot?

Nintendo locking difficulty modes behind Amiibo's does not deserve to get a free pass.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I've yet to have this "practice" harm my experience in any way. I won't change anything about my purchase practices until it does.

They dont harm your experience until they do, and by the time that happens it will have been normalized and it will be too late.

The time to raise your voice about this is right now, not 5 years from now when its out of control.

 

[Yukinari]

Nintendo locking difficulty modes behind Amiibo's does not deserve to get a free pass.

How Nintendo use amiibo is a whole different discussion.

At least savvy people are able to circumvent amiibo by making custom cards or using save devices. Hell will freeze over when Nintendo does loot boxes.

 

[Petrae]

Paying for online play, then paid DLC maps, then DLC on disc, then season passes.. Gamers just let companies steamroll over them, you get used to it

¯_(&#12484_/¯

It’s very much a consumer thing. Online passes died with the 7th generation because consumers (for once) didn’t throw their money at them. Everything else, though— paid online subs, preorder-specific DLC, season passes, microtransactions, and now loot boxes— has been overwhelmingly supported by consumers, who jump at the chance to buy these things and throw truckloads of money at publishers.

Without governmental regulation (good luck with that), loot boxes are going away anytime soon. Instead, you’ll see more of them in more games.

 

[Audioboxer]

How Nintendo use amiibo is a whole different discussion.

At least savvy people are able to circumvent amiibo by making custom cards or using save devices. Hell will freeze over when Nintendo does loot boxes.

The next real Animal Crossing *shudder*

As for the Amiibo save devices and NFC cards

As for the ethical concerns, I'm torn. Occasionally, when playing Breath of the Wild these past few days, I've felt a pang of guilt. I think perhaps I've exploited some dark, slot-machine mechanism in an otherwise brilliant game, tarnishing an experience I already cherish deeply. But then I mount Epona, don the Hero's Shield and my Tunic of Time, and set out into Hyrule. I think that this was how my own version of Link was always meant to look and how the game was always meant to be played. If only Nintendo would let more players in on the fun.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/12/15223338/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-nintendo-amiibo-hacking-ethics

As someone who owns some Amiibos primarily for figurine collecting, chalk me up to someone with 0 sympathies for Nintendo that NFC cards and save readers exist. Not when they start locking something like Epona behind an Amiibo.

Mods, cheats, trainers, save game editing and all of that was always going to be the war devs and pubs waged against hard ever since the practice of "GaaS" kicked off. Why let people have fun/modify what they buy when we can sell it to them? The caveat being anyone modding or cheating in MP has always been frowned upon, even in the older PC gaming days. SP games though? It's always been you do you and have as much fun with a game you've bought as possible. Consoles themselves largely walled off cheating completely (closed environments), besides the cheat codes days or when action replay and others were a thing. PC has always historically been where you had to play if you wanted mods/cheats. The benefit to consoles was always MP cheaters are nearly non-existent versus PC. However, we're beginning to see some of the real downsides to walled off environments when it comes to the consumer's ability to circumvent bullshit.

 

[texhnolyze]

Organize the gamers!

change.org?

 

[Sad Affleck]

Excellent, more coverage on this issue is very good news.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I think it helps the discussion immensely to properly qualify what we mean when we talk about problematic loot boxes as predatory and exploitative publisher practices.

Just like in the (excellent) Metro article, our focus here should be "non-cosmetic" lootboxes. Thus, the lootboxes in Overwatch and Destiny, whilst still reminiscent of gambling, are purely architected around cosmetic vanity items in-game. Since these do not affect the game's progression system design, gameplay mechanics or SP/MP balance, from a gamer perspective these are perfectly fine and not really a problem beyond exploiting the addiction behaviors of whales.

Non-cosmetic lootboxes, however, just like in BFII and Shadows of War, have a real tangible and detrimental effect on gameplay, specifically the design of a game's progression system. So from a gamer's perspective, even gamers who choose not to indulge in the practice of purchasing lootboxes will invariably be affected by their inclusion in a game (by games requiring more grind to progress, to an often unreasonable extent). Thus lootboxes in this sense are punitive to everyone who doesn't spend extra money on them.

 

[Nilaul]

The EU needs to classify it as gambling, that would basically kill off loot boxes forever.

 

[Audioboxer]

I think it helps the discussion immensely to properly qualify what we mean when we talk about problematic loot boxes as predatory and exploitative publisher practices.

Just like in the (excellent) Metro article, our focus here should be "non-cosmetic" lootboxes. Thus, the lootboxes in Overwatch and Destiny, whilst still reminiscent of gambling, are purely architected around cosmetic vanity items in-game. Since these do not affect the game's progression system design, gameplay mechanics or SP/MP balance, from a gamer perspective these are perfectly fine and not really a problem beyond exploiting the addiction behaviors of whales.

Non-cosmetic lootboxes, however, just like in BFII and Shadows of War, have a real tangible and detrimental effect on gameplay, specifically the design of a game's progression system. So from a gamer's perspective, even gamers who choose not to indulge in the practice of purchasing lootboxes will invariably be affected by their inclusion in a game (by games requiring more grind to progress, to an often unreasonable extent). Thus lootboxes in this sense are punitive to everyone who doesn't spend extra money on them.

The biggest lie that gamers have ever sold themselves is "cosmetics do not matter".

Cosmetics, character creation, armour, weapons, dyes/colours and all that jazz is arguably one of the most important things since gaming has had the technical ability to introduce self-chosen visual diversity. Why does anyone think the modding scene for Fallout/The Elder Scrolls has been dominated by cosmetic mods for characters/scenery/weapons/items/clothing/etc for years? Some of that was to improve ugly character models, yeah, but a lot of it was adding to visual diversity. Which Bethesda are even now trying to cashin on with paid mods.

The vast majority of the gaming market goes fucking gaga for the ability and dopamine rush to look good/wear swish armour and stand out from the crowd. People post endless pictures of their in-game avatars and the loot or cosmetics they have. Dark Souls, one of the most "hardcore" series you can get is more concerned about Fashion Souls half the time. What looks good/cool. Again, one of the biggest lies gamers convinced themselves is cosmetics don't really matter and they're not really part of the experience. Tragic really. It's more a "lesser evils" signup sheet than anything (oh, but if my friends at company X need to put food on their table as long as they just uproot the whole cosmetic part of the game I'm happy as can be!). Yes, gameplay is always arguably going to be king, but some of the words uttered by some to genuinely try and completely downplay cosmetics are outrageous in an industry where cosmetics generate soo much money. They do matter, and we should be having more conversations about games that really take the piss with cosmetic monetization gone too far. It should not be off the table for discussion just because you don't want people discussing cosmetics (this sentence is a neutral statement, not aimed at you TheThreadsThatBindUs).

Now you've even got haircuts locked behind virtual currency with the ability to buy that currency (NBA 2K18) ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ I need not point out the crazy amounts of money people pay for CSGO skins. A whole website gambling industry has been built off the back of it. TmarTn and ProSyndicate anyone? Visual diversity and feeling that you look unique is one of the largest dopamine rushes some gamers can have. Hence why that is soo meticulously exploited/targetted for monetary gain, to the point where it's now PAY TO GAMBLE for your CHANCE to get the cosmetics you want. Jesus Christ. We thought it was bad simply paying FOR the cosmetics you wanted, such as horse armour. Now you have to fucking gamble for them. Pay us $20~50 for loot boxes, don't necessarily get anything you actually want. Not only that, we're not going to tell you any drop rates or chance %s, so you have no fucking idea about your odds before gambling your money for what you'd like to get.

Excuse the f-bombs and cursing, but it's hard sometimes not to feel exacerbated in this industry at times around the tight-rope that is walked between consumer and publisher/developer. Yes, it's all business transactions at the end of the day, but some of us know for a fact there are pubs and devs out there who still operate with some soul and passion/artistic pride for gaming, not just only thinking about cold hard cash no matter the cost to the end product. We'd like to hang onto more of them rather than just let the industry steamroll ahead to "everything operates like F2P, but it's not really F2P".

 

[george_us]

Eh, what are you going to do? People at large have already accepted this practice. Only thing I can do is avoid games with these kinds of lootboxes. Luckily most of the games I'm interested in don't have loot boxes so I'm good, but I feel for people who were looking forward to Forza 7, Shadow of War, and Battlefront 2 though. It wouldn't be bad if it was purely cosmetic but when they start affecting gameplay balance is where I draw the line.

 

[jelly]

The biggest lie that gamers have ever sold themselves is "cosmetics do not matter".

Cosmetics, character creation, armour, weapons, dyes/colours and all that jazz is arguably one of the most important things since gaming has had the technical ability to introduce self-chosen visual diversity. Why does anyone think the modding scene for Fallout/The Elder Scrolls has been dominated by cosmetic mods for characters/scenery/weapons/items/clothing/etc for years? Some of that was to improve ugly character models, yeah, but a lot of it was adding to visual diversity. Which Bethesda are even now trying to cashin on with paid mods.

The vast majority of the gaming market goes fucking gaga for the ability and dopamine rush to look good/wear swish armour and stand out from the crowd. People post endless pictures of their in-game avatars and the loot or cosmetics they have. Dark Souls, one of the most "hardcore" series you can get is more concerned about Fashion Souls half the time. What looks good/cool. Again, one of the biggest lies gamers convinced themselves is cosmetics don't really matter and they're not really part of the experience. Tragic really. It's more a "lesser evils" signup sheet than anything (oh, but if my friends at company X need to put food on their table as long as they just uproot the whole cosmetic part of the game I'm happy as can be!). Yes, gameplay is always arguably going to be king, but some of the words uttered by some to genuinely try and completely downplay cosmetics are outrageous in an industry where cosmetics generate soo much money. They do matter, and we should be having more conversations about games that really take the piss with cosmetic monetization gone too far. It should not be off the table for discussion just because you don't want people discussing cosmetics (this sentence is a neutral statement, not aimed at you TheThreadsThatBindUs).

Now you've even got haircuts locked behind virtual currency with the ability to buy that currency (NBA 2K18) ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ I need not point out the crazy amounts of money people pay for CSGO skins. A whole website gambling industry has been built off the back of it. TmarTn and ProSyndicate anyone? Visual diversity and feeling that you look unique is one of the largest dopamine rushes some gamers can have. Hence why that is soo meticulously exploited/targetted for monetary gain, to the point where it's now PAY TO GAMBLE for your CHANCE to get the cosmetics you want. Jesus Christ. We thought it was bad simply paying FOR the cosmetics you wanted, such as horse armour. Now you have to fucking gamble for them. Pay us $20~50 for loot boxes, don't necessarily get anything you actually want.

Great post, I sometimes forget cosmetics still matter and compromise them in discussions about DLC, lootbox etc.. Can you imagine if Dark Souls went that way, I think people would rage. It's such a big part of the experience, your own character, what you find throughout the game world, imagine changing that to random loot boxes, sucking the soul out.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

The biggest lie that gamers have ever sold themselves is "cosmetics do not matter".

Cosmetics, character creation, armour, weapons, dyes/colours and all that jazz is arguably one of the most important things since gaming has had the technical ability to introduce self-chosen visual diversity. Why does anyone think the modding scene for Fallout/The Elder Scrolls has been dominated by cosmetic mods for characters/scenery/weapons/items/clothing/etc for years? Some of that was to improve ugly character models, yeah, but a lot of it was adding to visual diversity. Which Bethesda are even now trying to cashin on with paid mods.

The vast majority of the gaming market goes fucking gaga for the ability and dopamine rush to look good/wear swish armour and stand out from the crowd. People post endless pictures of their in-game avatars and the loot or cosmetics they have. Dark Souls, one of the most "hardcore" series you can get is more concerned about Fashion Souls half the time. What looks good/cool. Again, one of the biggest lies gamers convinced themselves is cosmetics don't really matter and they're not really part of the experience. Tragic really. It's more a "lesser evils" signup sheet than anything (oh, but if my friends at company X need to put food on their table as long as they just uproot the whole cosmetic part of the game I'm happy as can be!). Yes, gameplay is always arguably going to be king, but some of the words uttered by some to genuinely try and completely downplay cosmetics are outrageous in an industry where cosmetics generate soo much money. They do matter, and we should be having more conversations about games that really take the piss with cosmetic monetization gone too far. It should not be off the table for discussion just because you don't want people discussing cosmetics (this sentence is a neutral statement, not aimed at you TheThreadsThatBindUs).

Now you've even got haircuts locked behind virtual currency with the ability to buy that currency (NBA 2K18) ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ I need not point out the crazy amounts of money people pay for CSGO skins. A whole website gambling industry has been built off the back of it. TmarTn and ProSyndicate anyone? Visual diversity and feeling that you look unique is one of the largest dopamine rushes some gamers can have. Hence why that is soo meticulously exploited/targetted for monetary gain, to the point where it's now PAY TO GAMBLE for your CHANCE to get the cosmetics you want. Jesus Christ. We thought it was bad simply paying FOR the cosmetics you wanted, such as horse armour. Now you have to fucking gamble for them. Pay us $20~50 for loot boxes, don't necessarily get anything you actually want. Not only that, we're not going to tell you any drop rates or chance %s, so you have no fucking idea about your odds before gambling your money for what you'd like to get.

I don't think the argument is that cosmetics "don't matter" or that they're of no value to gamers. It's more that, if publishers absolutely must further monetize games beyond; special editions, season passes and the like, then MTs and lootboxes for purely cosmetic items feels like the most obvious, most appropriate and least damaging option, with respect to its impact on the gameplay loops and overall game's design.

Sure gamers all love cosmetics, as that's precisely why so many are willing to pay so much for cosmetic items in game to strut around like virtual peacocks and parade their wares. On the other hand, lootbox implementations like in Destiny 2 have shown and proven to provide a nice balance between cosmetics available in game without having to spend real money and the provision of lootboxes to spend real money on a randomized chance to get the ones you actually want quicker.

I personally have little problem with D2's version of lootboxes (i.e. bright engrams). They're much better than BFII's "P2W" BS that actually completely ruins the game for all players.

 

[Audioboxer]

I don't think the argument is that cosmetics "don't matter" or that they're of no value to gamers. It's more that, if publishers absolutely must further monetize games beyond; special editions, season passes and the like, then MTs and lootboxes for purely cosmetic items feels like the most obvious, most appropriate and least damaging option, with respect to its impact on the gameplay loops and overall game's design.

Sure gamers all love cosmetics, as that's precisely why so many are willing to pay so much for cosmetic items in game to strut around like virtual peacocks and parade their wares. On the other hand, lootbox implementations like in Destiny 2 have shown and proven to provide a nice balance between cosmetics available in game without having to spend real money and the provision of lootboxes to spend real money on a randomized chance to get the ones you actually want quicker.

I personally have little problem with D2's version of lootboxes (i.e. bright engrams). They're much better than BFII's "P2W" BS that actually completely ruins the game for all players.

That then loops us back around to questioning what I bolded. We're on a forum where people have unironically started putting forward the argument that the AAA industry is on its knees with shoestring budgets and poverty if anyone suggests games don't need some of the observable monetization pursuits. You'll be met with outright shock that you even suggest a AAA game can be made and come out and NOT act like a F2P game.

As I said it's really just getting framed as a "lesser of two evils" argument now. Some of us still think that isn't actually how it needs to be going forward in just about every game. It's quite the strongarm play from the publishers to successfully manage to feed gamers arguably two flawed choices and see gamers run with arms open wide to the "lesser evil" whilst thanking their corporate overlords and saying they are one of the good guys.

Destiny 2 had absolutely no need to rework how it operated from Destiny 1, it was simply done out of playing fast and hard to join the loot box train. There are even actual F2P games where dyes remain permanent once unlocked lol. Let alone times in gaming history where dyes were like a colour choice wheel, as part of the paid product. Shouldn't be too surprising when you sell your soul to Activision, but the framing of the argument is around what I bolded in your post. The debate of what determines "absolutely must/absolutely need to".

 

[fabricated backlash]

I feel like anyone equating loot boxes to trading cards willfully ignores the fact that with trading cards you can actually sell the things you didn't want/need, without being locked into the same economic treadmill.

Loot boxes are nothing more than cheap psychological ploys to suck dry addictive personalities.

 

[specdot]

So this is the current hot topic for hits and the titles will keep getting more hyperbolic?

NeoGaf in a nutshell.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

I feel like anyone equating loot boxes to trading cards willfully ignores the fact that with trading cards you can actually sell the things you didn't want/need, without being locked into the same economic treadmill.

Loot boxes are nothing more than cheap psychological ploys to suck dry addictive personalities.

I think it depends on the lootboxes.

In Valve games, PUBG and some other games on Steam you can sell the lootbox and the items after openting it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

That then loops us back around to questioning what I bolded. We're on a forum where people have unironically started putting forward the argument that the AAA industry is on its knees with shoestring budgets and poverty if anyone suggests games don't need some of the observable monetization pursuits. You'll be met with outright shock that you even suggest a AAA game can be made and come out and NOT act like a F2P game.

As I said it's really just getting framed as a "lesser of two evils" argument now. Some of us still think that isn't actually how it needs to be going forward in just about every game. It's quite the strongarm play from the publishers to successfully manage to feed gamers arguably two flawed choices and see gamers run with arms open wide to the "lesser evil" whilst thanking their corporate overlords and saying they are one of the good guys.

Destiny 2 had absolutely no need to rework how it operated from Destiny 1, it was simply done out of playing fast and hard to join the loot box train. There are even actual F2P games were dyes remain permanent once unlocked lol. Shouldn't be too surprising when you sell your soul to Activision, but the framing of the argument is around what I bolded in your post. The debate of what determines "absolutely must/absolutely need to".

I'm entirely aware of this, Audioboxer, and I completely agree with you that big games publishers aren't merely making making ends meet (rather posting record profits), however, I think it helps to me pragmatic on this issue and the cynical pragmatic view is that now that publishers have smelled the "gravy train" of dat sweet sweet lootbox revenue there's next to no realistic way that we're going to persuade them to abandon it.

Sure, you can call it a defeatist attitude and I would agree with that. But I see it as better to be defeatist and accept that the best we can hope for is purely cosmetic lootboxes that don't impact gameplay/progression, than try to waste our energy trying to persuade the dog not to eat the perfectly cooked, gourmet 16oz sirloin steak sat right in front of him.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

I have owned at one point in my life the six previous Forza Motorsport games, I refuse to buy number 7 because of the loot box functionality and the somewhat random PC version performance.

Off the top of my head I own two games with loot boxes, Overwatch and Rocket League, I've never paid with real life money for a loot box in Overwatch and with Rocket League I occasionally buy five keys, I've done that once in the last six months and I have twenty un-opened boxes at the moment.

I'm alarmed at how suddenly the use of loot boxes in games seems to have exploded, earlier this year it was basically unheard of for an AAA game to have them and now they are coming thick and fast. What makes it worse is that these developers and publishers are not exactly skint yet they seem to think it's a good idea even if it affects the way that their game can be played, opponents in Battlefront 2 could get a competive edge because they have bought these shitty loot boxes etc

Everyone needs to worry about loot boxes, it marks a sudden shift in developers and publishers priorities, yes they need to make a profit in order to fund more games but surely the sudden rise in development costs are their fault? If they churning out the same shit with minor improvements every two years then of course people will eventually stop buying the games.