-
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.
[Eurogamer] Shadow of War developer talks about loot boxes
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
This comes from the same spirit as giving a product an expected lifespan that just exceeds its warranty.
It's bilking people. They don't want to trade a product/service for money - they think of their consumers as piggybanks.
It isn't enough that you paid upfront for a product. Even after that transaction the game won't stop trying to reach its hands into your pockets. If they're already willing to do that there's no reason to think they haven't tailored the experience to push you towards microtransactions.
Fuck that. Fuck this game.
It's bilking people. They don't want to trade a product/service for money - they think of their consumers as piggybanks.
It isn't enough that you paid upfront for a product. Even after that transaction the game won't stop trying to reach its hands into your pockets. If they're already willing to do that there's no reason to think they haven't tailored the experience to push you towards microtransactions.
Fuck that. Fuck this game.
If their goal was genuinely to save you time then simple cheat codes would suffice. The goal here is to make money, as is blindingly obvious to everyone.
It is a slippery rope. Firs you tolerate something assuming(possibly correctly) it wo'tn impact your experience, then they become more daring.
Or devs could not make their games grindy.
If you want to pay money to play less of a game, the content youre skipping isnt worth playing. Devs would work on fixing that if they actually cared about saving players time.
Optics are a big thing with news outlets. "Asking the question" is something they do in order to look good. Even if it's a topic that has an obvious non-answer, they just ask it to cover their own asses because if they don't, people will call them out on it.
I've worked for news outlets (TV) that would put a reporter on a story simply because it was something people were talking about, even if they knew it was a dead end. They'd make sure to record the reporter walking up to the building, knocking on the door, then getting turned away, but the whole thing was documented so they could claim in the newscast, "We go straight to ________ and ask..."
It's useless fluff, but it's done for a reason.
Yeah, no. That's not how buisness works. Publishers want the banker to spend additional money. They don't care how many times they play through their game or how tightly desgined the banker perceives it. That's irrelevant.
And what those people see as filler it just gameplay to us. Side quests, exploring the world. Stuff like that. I'd say it's perfectly possible to just enjoy a video game and ignore all that whale bait, that's clearly not aimed at the general consumer. People are free to hate that stuff regardless, I hate that stuff too, but from a company's perspective it makes zero sense to not let rich bored people pay them more money.
That's really interesting insight. Thanks.
Daffy Duck
Member
Heckler456
Banned
Not necessarily though. They'll only go as far as the market allows, and you can't really fault them for that.
Or you make it fun enough for people who enjoy that type of stuff, so that they actually enjoy doing it; but grindy enough for people who don't have the time to be incentivized to buy lootboxes. And then you make a mint. If what those lootboxes are meant to skip is just more of the combat/hieracy gameplay that was in Shadow of Mordor, I can see them having been able to achieve this kind of balance.
Human Trashcan
Banned
There's a difference between "this game is bloated/poorly paced" and "I don't have time for long games"
Well, there's a multiplayer part that involves your single player army. So playing multiplayer would probably depletes your army and impact your solo compaign.
Therefore, buying lootboxes would become pay to win those matches. And losing too much would be tempting you to open your wallet to replenish your troops.
I don't care because i don't really play online anymore these days. But i can see that being a big deal for others.
MegaSackman
Member
Isn't this what every other developer/producer say about this? I'm pretty sure I've read this excuse quite a few times.
The Last Wizard
Member
This is why pubs will keep taking more and more, stop giving them an inch theyve shown they want more time and time again.Deeke[VRZ];249936858 said:
Novel Mike
Member
You built the game to be grindy so you could sell the idea: "we are doing these fancy loot boxes for the gamers who wants the full experience but dont want to invest the time, but rather take a chance on our in game gambling scam".
So sick off these developers trying to justify their greed by saying "this is for the gamer". Tell the truth, its for you bottom line, nothing more nothing less.
So sick off these developers trying to justify their greed by saying "this is for the gamer". Tell the truth, its for you bottom line, nothing more nothing less.
You really shouldn't aim your anger at the developers. They don't want any of this shit. Imagine working at your game and a manager walks in telling you you need to implement some shitty way to monetize the game further. I don't think any developer is stoked about implementing a gambling scheme into their game.
Of course we never get interviews with those managers, unfortunately.
Heckler456
Banned
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. They can't just come out and say "It's because our goal as a developer is to remain solvent and as profitable as possible", but people keep asking the question, so... What do you want them to do?
They're trying to sell a product, and last I heard, it isn't really illegal or at all unusual to embellish an uglier truth. Happens all the time in fact.
Papo Swing
Member
And it started with trophies/achievements. At least that is when I recall seing cheats go away.
We acted all rewarded over an empty pop up that they rebranded all that into DLC.
Mr.Deadshot
Member
But to be perfectly honest, it was only a matter of time that this happens. Will probably be the norm in 1-2 years.
Teletraan1
Banned
The only reviews that will mention loot boxes as a negative will be the ones that potentially get that reviewer and site in hot water with the publisher. A recent example very few NBA2K reviews mentioned the VC grind in that game or how it negatively impacted the balance of the game.
One thing that I would like to clarify from people who review games from large sites is doesn't the review copy of the game or your handler from the publisher occasionally include a bunch of whatever currency the game has so the reviewer can play around with these systems. I know I have seen this on Giantbomb a number of times. If this is the case it might explain why these type of shit transactions never really appear as a negative in the review.
And then it will get worse. It will always get worse as long as there are apologists among gamers who support practices like these. Only when a broad spectrum of gamers understand this cycle and start to oppose it, it will change. But since we are talking about gamers, a demographic I overall do not consider as forward-thinking to put it mildly, I'm not keeping my hopes up.
By now I've realized my only escape from this shit is to turn away from most AAA productions.
The only reason I am not buying this game is because of this business practice, the is no room for Loot crates in a single player game. Stupid thing is... WB must think that I'm the only one. We will see how that works out for you. Sad thing is... we might not see another because of this. I miss Dead Space.
wesleyshark
Banned
Still don't see a problem with optional MTs. Don't like em, don't buy em.
Zombie James
Banned
Warner Exec: "If you do this interview for us and spin loot boxes as a good thing, we'll let you go home to see your family this weekend."
You can blame xbox achievements/PSN trophies.
Plague Doctor
Member
Really, just cut the loot boxes out or be quiet about this. You are doing the game no favors prior to release by trying to explain or justify it.
mullet2000
Member
One thing about this too:
Even if you take at face value that being able to buy your way past parts of the game is a "time saver"...how is a fucking loot box a time saver?
A time saver would be buying something you specifically need. "Oh I'm out of gold ore, fuck it I'll pay 2 bucks for it I don't want to grind".
With a loot box you don't know what the hell you're even buying. You can easily end up with both money and time wasted.
Even if you take at face value that being able to buy your way past parts of the game is a "time saver"...how is a fucking loot box a time saver?
A time saver would be buying something you specifically need. "Oh I'm out of gold ore, fuck it I'll pay 2 bucks for it I don't want to grind".
With a loot box you don't know what the hell you're even buying. You can easily end up with both money and time wasted.
For now.
Although some game has used paid difficulties. (Like Metro Last Light for example).
Bit of a silly question that ask the design director. The answer is almost certainly well, the publisher says they want the game to make X amount of money, and theres no way that will happen with unit sales. So we did what we had to do
Not gonna give that answer in an interview though.
Not gonna give that answer in an interview though.
If you close servers, there is deadline and it won't be complete after that.
Because this does have online mode, you could say there is indeed deadline.
well, online mode in this, is probably just for encourage to buy lootboxes,
so it might be better that way.
so it might be better that way.
Huh? That is exactly what you can do. You fault them, you cry about it, you make as big splash as you can about it, and hopefully the backlash will get them to change.
You CAN fault them, and you SHOULD. WE ARE the market. Not only gaf, but everyone that buys games.
Also: Simply sitting silent and hoping for sales to be the only factor to make them change is a crappy solution for two BIG reasons:
1. If the sales aren't good there's a very big chance the execs fault something else than microtransactions. Probably thinks the genre isn't what people want, and just focus om card games and PUBG clones for a few years.
2. Do you think the market has the same tolerance for this shit as you do? Probably not. The market probably tolerates much more. So instead of letting them make the call, go out there and make yourself heard.
I don't care about Mordor but the implementation of micro's here is the very antithesis of what I expect from a full priced SP only game.
All this game and WB have done is make me fucking nervous for Rocksteady's next title.
It'll no doubt have microtransactions out the wazoo and if they are as scummy as they look here, I'll be contributing with a used game sale.
All this game and WB have done is make me fucking nervous for Rocksteady's next title.
It'll no doubt have microtransactions out the wazoo and if they are as scummy as they look here, I'll be contributing with a used game sale.
Zombie James
Banned
If a game can't make its money back by selling millions of copies + premium editions + season passes + DLC across three platforms - to the point where they have to turn the whole thing into a paid free-to-play game - that makes Warner look worse than it already does. That's beyond incompetence.
Shifty
Member
Same. Maybe we could just wait for someone to do one of those four hour long edited "movie" versions that has all the cutscenes and in game dialogue without the fluff.
And it's free!
This interview is valuable to me because of Roberts' statement that the game is balanced and playtested to be played without microtransactions. (Only way he could make a stronger statement is if he were to say the microtransactions have been designed independently by a separate designer who has no input on the underlying design.)
That's a factual statement, it doesn't have wiggle room like discussion of motivations of the design. Either he's telling the truth and in that case you can simply ignore the microtransactions, or he's very explicitly lying, which I think reviewers would be able to observe with reasonable certainty from the final game. I doubt he'd choose to tell that lie when he could surely dress up the truth in a relatively inoffensive form.
That's a factual statement, it doesn't have wiggle room like discussion of motivations of the design. Either he's telling the truth and in that case you can simply ignore the microtransactions, or he's very explicitly lying, which I think reviewers would be able to observe with reasonable certainty from the final game. I doubt he'd choose to tell that lie when he could surely dress up the truth in a relatively inoffensive form.
Dead Space 3 actually had MT's that had zero impact on my enjoyment of the game. I don't see how this game will be any different. Will the game feel like you're playing an under-powered character unless you buy into loot boxes? If not, i'll still enjoy this as much as i enjoyed Dead Space 3.
Instead they followed what Nintendo did with FE Heroes and Miitomo
No joke: if they had answered like that I'd probably buy this game out of respect for their honesty.
adversarial
Member
I feel like your anger is raging towards the wrong group of people.
Do most people not realize that even the devs themselves know it's shitty, but they are forced to do this?
Nice, you'd pay $60 and he would be out of a job.