Support NeoGAF

[Windu]

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

 

[Crossing Eden]

So sad, too bad. If your poor spending habits are having a detrimental impact on game development, don't be surprised if people tell you to knock it off.

Feel free to avoid Internet discussion forums if that bothers you.

What's sad is your stupid assumptions. Newsflash:The only game where i've purchased MTs is Let It Die. Hell that's straight up the only game where paying felt incentivised and vital to the design. And once I hit that wall, I stopped playing. Because it's not that hard to actually do that. It wasn't the end of the world.

I'll see you both in the next review thread for a game you're interested in

So AC:Origins, a game in a series that has had four games that weren't affected despite MT inclusion and Wolfenstein, a game that doesn't have MTs whatsoever. Ok, see you there buddy.

 

[TGMIII]

I can't help but feel like with most doomsday articles surrounding the games industry, the long term effects that lootboxes pose aren't exactly as detrimental as some make it out to be but this is possibly due to PC being my main platform and loot boxes are nothing new to the PC market which have been around for almost 10 years in some form at this point. While there's been plenty of gross and exploitative box systems in the PC space, mainly in Korean/Chinese F2P MMOs/FPS titles, the majority of these games eventually burned out due to consumer dissatisfaction. Given that this is fairly fresh to the console space, I feel that it may pan out the same way but there's still some cause for concern.

The issue with asking people to vote with their wallet is that the average game consumer either doesn't care or they have no backbone to follow up on their words. Many a time we've seen numerous people claim to boycott a publisher or game for various reasons but the amount of people that follow through always seems to be negligible. This however doesn't mean people shouldn't opt out of buying the product just because they'll have little to no impact but I do feel like it is a lost battle in a lot of ways. It's even more true in the AAA space which the article is focused on and I feel like if you as a consumer are only focused on the AAA space then you're setting yourself up to eat shit in some form. It would be interesting to see just how many people who complain about exploitative box systems then go on to post in OTs for those very same titles.

This also carries through to those who work in the games media industry. Are Metro/Gamecentral or any other site going to give up coverage of a game in order to not promote titles with what they deem to be exploitative box systems, are they going to spend the time to figure out how exactly the systems may have influenced the design or run integrity of the game itself, are lootboxes going to influence reviews negatively? You can't have a call to arms for consumers yet continue to promote the same monetization systems you're decrying.

Personally, so long as lootboxes are cosmetic only then I don't have an issue. Once they cross that threshold of effecting balance, no matter how little, then I'm personally not interested.

 

[GHG]

What's sad is your stupid assumptions. Newsflash:The only game where i've purchased MTs is Let It Die. Hell that's straight up the only game where paying felt incentivised and vital to the design. And once I hit that wall, I stopped playing. Because it's not that hard to actually do that. It wasn't the end of the world.


So AC:Origins, a game in a series that has had four games that weren't affected despite MT inclusion and Wolfenstein, a game that doesn't have MTs whatsoever. Ok, see you there buddy.

You completely missed the point.

 

[Crossing Eden]

You completely missed the point.

There's a difference between a recommendation via review reception and "Pls don't buy these games!"

 

[Teeth]

There's a difference between a recommendation via review reception and "Pls don't buy these games!"

"If you don't want to continue seeing these business practices, don't buy these games."

 

[GHG]

There's a difference between a recommendation via review reception and "Pls don't buy these games!"

If a game reviewer gives a game a bad score/rating they are literally telling you "don't buy this game, it's not very good", or "don't buy this game in its current state" etc.

You have no issue with that but you're taking issue with somebody suggesting you don't buy games involving these practices that the author feels are having a negative impact on gaming.

 

[Bakercat]

Thank god I don't care for any of those games coming out, so not buying this gambling bullshit won't be that hard to do for me. I'll just play mario odyssey and sonic forces this holiday and play my backlog or some retro games until next year.

 

[Crossing Eden]

"If you don't want to continue seeing these business practices, don't buy these games."

"These business practices haven't been affecting me as a consumer and evidently the medium itself hasn't been affected in a major way due to the "controversy" being seemingly restricted to enthusiasts who keep spreading doom and gloom, so stop making a blanket statement about every game with them and/or telling me what to purchase."

If a game reviewer gives a game a bad score/rating they are literally telling you "don't buy this game, it's not very good", or "don't buy this game in its current state" etc.

You have no issue with that but you're taking issue with somebody suggesting you don't buy games involving these practices that the author feels are having a negative impact on gaming.

It seems you're missing the point of me saying "Don't tell me what to do with my money." A blatant statement like "Don't support any game with loot boxes" without any sort of breakdown on how they affect the game design whatsoever is absolutely useless to me as a consumer. A review stating whether or not a game is good through text absolutely is. There's a clear difference that for some reason you're ignoring.

 

[Kill3r7]

I got to give credit to the gaming outlets that are taking a stand if only because it is not often you see folks in the industry directly attacking a publisher's bottom line.

 

[Crayon]

Should be easy to avoid because it's so fucking tacky. Seriously. Even in horizon, where it should be harmless because there is no money involved or even anything good in the boxes, it just screams "i heard you kids like ipad games"...

 

[GHG]

"These business practices haven't been affecting me as a consumer and evidently the medium itself hasn't been affected in a major way due to the "controversy" being seemingly restricted to enthusiasts who keep spreading doom and gloom, so stop making a blanket statement about every game with them and/or telling me what to purchase."


It seems you're missing the point of me saying "Don't tell me what to do with my money." A blatant statement like "Don't support any game with loot boxes" without any sort of breakdown on how they affect the game design whatsoever is absolutely useless to me as a consumer. A review stating whether or not a game is good through text absolutely is. There's a clear difference that for some reason you're ignoring.

If the article literally read "don't support any game with lootboxes. /end" then you'd have a point but there are a number of paragraphs here explaining the "because".

Saying "Don't tell me what to do" after reading any article you disagree with is an immature and defensive response. If games you like have lootboxes but you still want to buy them (and would like other people to still buy them) then wouldn't it be better to provide counter points to the article rather than dismiss it with "don't tell me what to do"?

 

[WetWaffle]

Unfortunately, these corporations that produce AAA games have nothing to fear. Gamers have already proven over the years that you can **** them in the ass with anything, and they'll love it.

 

[Teeth]

"These business practices haven't been affecting me as a consumer and evidently the medium itself hasn't been affected in a major way due to the "controversy" being seemingly restricted to enthusiasts who keep spreading doom and gloom, so stop making a blanket statement about every game with them and/or telling me what to purchase."

The proposal is, if you don't like it, don't put money into it. That's not telling you what to purchase.

"If you don't want Republicans enacting their political platform, don't vote for them"
DON'T TELL ME WHO TO VOTE FOR

"If you want your hair to be shinier and more manageable, use conditioner"
DON'T TELL ME HOW TO GROOM MYSELF

"If you don't want to get wet, don't walk outside during the rain"
DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO ON MY DAY OFF

Like, you can dress it up however you want; you could say that not voting for Republicans won't stop them from enacting their political platform due to the convoluted nature of politics; or that you can use natural oils to make your hair shinier and more manageable; or that jumping into a bath tub gets you even more wet than walking in the rain and you aren't even getting that wet in the rain because you wear a rain slicker and rubber boots...but...these aren't statements of someone telling you how to live your life and the insecurity attached to the implication that they are seems misguided.

Regardless of whether the statement is factually correct, it's not a expressed demand of your future actions.

 

[Crossing Eden]

If the article literally read "don't support any game with lootboxes. /end" then you'd have a point but there are a number of paragraphs here explaining the "because"

You'll notice that my post was addressed specifically to posters ITT. The article specifically mentions that if you don't like loot boxes, then you don't buy them. I haven't been buying loot boxes.

"Don't tell me what to do" after reading any article is an immature and defensive response. If games you like have lootboxes but you still want to buy them (and would like other people to still buy them) then wouldn't it be better to provide counter points to the article rather than dismiss the article (because you're in disagreement) with "don't tell me what to do"?

My counterpoint is that I haven't been anywhere near as affected as o many gamers and articles keep saying I am. Publishers so far have been incredibly smart in their implementation by A)Only having them added at the very end of development instead of like a mobile game where the design is very specifically around making the player spend as much money as possible and B)Due to A, having them be negligible enough to not have a very drastic effect on the design of the game thus avoiding larger backlash from anyone other than those that don't like loot boxes or MTs on principle.

That's likely a very large contributor to the fact that they've been incredibly profitable this gen. And why the more egregious examples, haven't been as successful.

The proposal is, if you don't like it, don't put money into it. That's not telling you what to purchase.

Read above.

 

[prag16]

If a game reviewer gives a game a bad score/rating they are literally telling you "don't buy this game, it's not very good", or "don't buy this game in its current state" etc.

You have no issue with that but you're taking issue with somebody suggesting you don't buy games involving these practices that the author feels are having a negative impact on gaming.

It's more the concept of telling people to deprive themselves of something that they want, for some idea of 'the greater good'. (And people in this topic aren't just saying "don't buy loot boxes"; they're saying if we buy the games at all even if we never send a cent on a microtransaction, that we're still part of the problem and deserving of scorn.)

Video games are luxury items; entertainment. That type of argument doesn't work nearly as well there compared to when applied to actual life or death situations.

And regardless, in a game like Battlefront, what percentage of the elite dominant players you see in the field are going to be microtransaction whales? I'd bet the ranch that that tier of player will mostly be comprised those who don't buy 'real money' credits, and just got to where they by sinking tons of hours into the game to earn loot boxes that way. Progression by time played, the old fashioned way will still be king when you boil it down.

In order of importance:

1. Skill
2. Time played
3. RNG
4. Money spent on microtransactions

None of this means I like loot boxes and microtransactions. It just means I"m not going to forego a highly anticipated game in order to join gaf's damn fool idealistic crusade.

 

[Teeth]

My counterpoint is that I haven't been anywhere near as affected as o many gamers and articles keep saying I am. Publishers so far have been incredibly smart in their implementation by A)Only having them added at the very end of development instead of like a mobile game where the design is very specifically around making the player spend as much money as possible and B)Due to A, having them be negligible enough to not have a very drastic effect on the design of the game thus avoiding larger backlash from anyone other than those that don't like loot boxes or MTs on principle.

Then the statement* doesn't apply to you.

Also, to a lot of people, this is a selection pressure built on numbers that affects everyone. You may not feel the effects of these business practices, but it does feel bad to others. Like anything, the ones who are okay with "modern developments" aren't the only ones who are affected. The collective selection power (or in this specific case, the possible colossal selection power of the over-represented few) shapes the future of what everyone gets.

Same culture war as with anything.





*"The statement" being: "If you don't want any more of this, don't buy them"

 

[Toadthemushroom]

GameCentral warns of the dangers of loot boxes, and how unless gamers take a stand against them gaming itself will never be the same.

Article.

GameCentral join in the loot box criticism this week in the run up to the winter games rush where, no doubt, a large quantity of AAA titles will be bought and played, many of which are adopting more mechanics and design from successful games-as-a-service mobile and PC games.

Much more at the link above so I advise you to read through the whole piece as it covers a lot, but here are a few choice quotes...

This threatens to destroy the whole concept of balanced gameplay, where it’s being designed, not for maximum entertainment but for maximum monetisation. There’s been a number of high profile games this autumn that are especially worrying

Even if the loot boxes were bought entirely using earned in-game currency you’re still upgrading your character through luck, not judgement. Which flies in the face of almost every established norm of modern game design.

The more interesting part of the piece is how it encourages players to make a stand against it - but not necessarily by asking them to complain to execs or analysts at publishers since they'll still continue doing their jobs in maximising potential revenue:

And this is just the start. It’s not hard to imagine how this system can be made more unfair and more addictive. And considering how quickly publishers have latched onto the concept this year it’s almost frightening to think what form it will have morphed into by next Christmas

But there’s no point trying to pin the blame for any of this on publishers. The people in charge of these companies aren’t gamers, they’re business executives whose only concern is to make profits for their shareholders. They don’t care how those profits are made and they don’t care what people say about their games, especially because what people complain about online often bears little relationship to how they spend their money.

Some will call this an exaggeration, and it’s true we are currently only at the thin end of the wedge. But now – over the course of the current Christmas gift-buying season – may be the only opportunity to reverse the trend. And that’s easier done than you might imagine. Just consider how quickly Microsoft changed their original plans for the Xbox One, once they realised that people weren’t pre-ordering it. If publishers think people are being put off from buying their games because of microtransactions they’ll get rid of them just as quickly. That puts the power to change the games industry squarely in your hands, as a gamer and a consumer. If you don’t like loot boxes and the influence they’re having on games – and the people that play them – then don’t buy them. That’s the only thing that will stop publishers. And yet at the moment they’re only getting the opposite message.

The success of non-cosmetic loot boxes tells them that people don’t really care about the games they play as long as they have the illusion of being cheap, and a few milliseconds of endorphin rush from opening a virtual blind bag. But if you don’t agree with that then you have the power to stop it. By not paying for loot boxes, by avoiding games that are irrevocably ruined by them, and by telling publishers exactly why you’re not spending your money with them.

Are you going to avoid games which have adopted this business model over the next three months? I plan to play the likes of Mario Odyssey, The Evil Within 2 and a few games from independent developers before the year's out, so I'll be doing so by default. Almost makes me sad that the 3DS is on the way out - 'big' games for the system like Superstar Saga and Culdcept Revolt feel refreshingly simple in the modern age of game design as a business science...

 

[ZeroGravity]

I'm good, thanks.

 

[Compsiox]

Ill blame the publishers all I want. Business is business but I'm still giving them the blame.

With that being said, everyone stop supporting shitty lootbox mechanics.

The only lootboxes that should be allowed to exist are cosmetics only that can also be bought with in-game currency.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

http://www.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1446503

 

[WaterAstro]

Replace EA with loot crates.

 

[Compsiox]

Ill blame the publishers all I want. Business is business but I'm still giving them the blame.

With that being said, everyone stop supporting shitty lootbox mechanics.

The only lootboxes that should be allowed to exist are cosmetics only that can also be bought with in-game currency.

 

[benzopil]

I understand that Metro wants to generate clicks by writing about a popular topic, but where were they in 2010 when Team Fortress 2 introduced lootboxes with buyable keys?

 

[kiguel182]

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

This whole "we must fight!" for something as inconsequential as video games will always make me roll my eyes and make it hard to take it seriously.

Like, writing about it is one thing but this hyperbole and "protesting" is ridiculous.

If loot boxes ruin a game for you then don't play it or, if you are a reviewer or writer, write about it with sense but nobody is forcing you to buy this shit.

 

[meirl]

Vote with your Wallet.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

http://www.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1446503

Whoops. Thanks for sharing!

 

[ViviOggi]

I'm good, thanks.

Shit tier first post

 

[Toadthemushroom]

I can't help but feel like with most doomsday articles surrounding the games industry, the long term effects that lootboxes pose aren't exactly as detrimental as some make it out to be but this is possibly due to PC being my main platform and loot boxes are nothing new to the PC market which have been around for almost 10 years in some form at this point. While there's been plenty of gross and exploitative box systems in the PC space, mainly in Korean/Chinese F2P MMOs/FPS titles, the majority of these games eventually burned out due to consumer dissatisfaction. Given that this is fairly fresh to the console space, I feel that it may pan out the same way but there's still some cause for concern.

Thing is, publishers have been undoubtedly influenced by the PC and mobile space this generation, which is why games have shifted to a service model, and more GaaS-style mechanics are creeping into AAA console/multiplatform titles.

The consoles themselves are technologically at a stage where these mechanics can fly due to a large proportion of them being connected online, and there being ample storage space, so the success of GaaS elsewhere is a clear influence on games which are still being sold in shops.

 

[Kanann]

Post millennial gamers are really rich?
My wife will file me a divorce paper and I will hang myself in shame if I adopt this kind of consuming habit.

 

[Sentenza]

Replace EA with loot crates.

Depressingly on point (not just about loot boxes).

 

[Azusa]

Just buy other games. There are more games released in a year than we have time to play them. Pick a game without loot boxes if you hate them.

 

[MikeBison]

Even if the loot boxes were bought entirely using earned in-game currency you’re still upgrading your character through luck, not judgement. Which flies in the face of almost every established norm of modern game design.

So I guess I'll go take a read of the articles about Diablo, Wow, Borderlands, Dark souls or any other game with randomised drops. Oh wait...

 

[Tony Redgrave]

Sadly, it won't happen. The hardcore barely mean anything to the AAA sphere and this kind of news simply don't reach the general public. This is also different from always online because they've been testing the water and slowly desensitizing us about it.

Of course, if you're against it you shouldn't buy it, period, but it's going to take something more than a "vote with your wallet" mentality from the hardcore gamers to take this down.

Personally, I hope this shit gets ridiculous and overly intrusive and simply implodes though I know it's mostly wishful thinking. Barring that I simply don't know what we can do.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

*double post*

 

[Magic Mushroom]

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

This whole "we must fight!" for something as inconsequential as video games will always make me roll my eyes and make it hard to take it seriously.

Like, writing about it is one thing but this hyperbole and "protesting" is ridiculous.

If loot boxes ruin a game for you then don't play it or, if you are a reviewer or writer, write about it with sense but nobody is forcing you to buy this shit.

It's good to be outspoken against these practices, but yeah, I play lots of games and none have loot boxes. Most games don't even have them so to say they are ruining gaming is hyberbole.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

So I guess I'll go take a read of the articles about Diablo, Wow, Borderlands, Dark souls or any other game with randomised drops. Oh wait...

If you read the source that segment was referring specifically to Battlefront 2, rather than games in general.

Still, you raise a good point - some developers have been using random loot as a crutch to keep players engaged long after they've stopped learning anything. While I find that lazy in some cases, these mechanics are used for good reasons and are often accompanied by fixed-weapon drops (i.e. the game will have a weapon that's been designed to appear in a certain location in a certain level).

In multiplayer GaaS games, having most, or all, of weapon upgrades be at the mercy of RNG is a very different story.

 

[Mr.Deadshot]

Are you going to avoid games which have adopted this business model over the next three months? I plan to play the likes of Mario Odyssey, The Evil Within 2 and a few games from independent developers before the year's out, so I'll be doing so by default.

I am not going to avoid games with lootboxes when I enjoy them. I will buy Battlefront 2 day 1 and Shadow of War in a complete edition next year.

Almost makes me sad that the 3DS is on the way out - 'big' games for the system like Superstar Saga and Culdcept Revolt feel refreshingly simple in the modern age of game design as a business science...

You can find those games on other platforms, too. Also there are 3DS games with season passes, microtransactions and content locked behind Amiibos. It's just as "modern" as other systems.

 

[MikeBison]

Or you could read the source since that segment was referring specifically to Battlefront 2, rather than games in general.

I mean, i read the op. Even still, if their statement just applies to BF2, it's a bit over the top. No? Flies in the face of established games design? Little dramatic.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

He's right.

Critics aren't going to fight this for us, ESRB isnt going to fight this for us, the government isnt going to fight this for us. The only way to stop this is to stop buying games with predatory mechanics.

I agree. I don't have any plans to buy any of these loot box games. Maybe down the line when they're cheap and pre-owned, but right now the simple inclusion of them makes me disinclined to buy the games at all. I've got a big backlog of games that aren't monetised up the wazoo.

 

[disappeared]

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

This whole "we must fight!" for something as inconsequential as video games will always make me roll my eyes and make it hard to take it seriously.

Like, writing about it is one thing but this hyperbole and "protesting" is ridiculous.

If loot boxes ruin a game for you then don't play it or, if you are a reviewer or writer, write about it with sense but nobody is forcing you to buy this shit.

So because it doesn't affect you it's not a problem.

Right.

 

[Glass Rebel]

People love shoving money up companies' asses so it's no surprise that a system where you get to give them money without knowing what you'll get in return would be even more enticing. It happened with intransparent season passes that were sold months before we even knew what they were gonna include and people lapped it up.

Personally, this shit doesn't affect me. I'm not interested in any of these games in the first place, loot boxes or not, I just wish people wouldn't defend or support this garbage because other publishers will get the same idea and put lootboxes in full-priced games with expensive season passes.

 

[MikeBison]

If you read the source that segment was referring specifically to Battlefront 2, rather than games in general.

Still, you raise a good point - some developers have been using random loot as a crutch to keep players engaged long after they've stopped learning anything. While I find that lazy in some cases, these mechanics are used for good reasons and are often accompanied by fixed-weapon drops (i.e. the game will have a weapon that's been designed to appear in a certain location in a certain level).

In multiplayer GaaS games, having most, or all, of weapon upgrades be at the mercy of RNG is a very different story.

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.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I got to give credit to the gaming outlets that are taking a stand if only because it is not often you see folks in the industry directly attacking a publisher's bottom line.

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

 

[meppi]

.

 

[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.

 

[Spikematic]

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

This whole "we must fight!" for something as inconsequential as video games will always make me roll my eyes and make it hard to take it seriously.

Like, writing about it is one thing but this hyperbole and "protesting" is ridiculous.

If loot boxes ruin a game for you then don't play it or, if you are a reviewer or writer, write about it with sense but nobody is forcing you to buy this shit.

So basically your argument boils down to "don't whine about it, just avoid it if you don't like it." I shudder to think what the world would be like if everyone shared such a dismissive mentality.

 

[texhnolyze]

Even if every enthusiast that actually pays attention to sites like this stopped buying loot boxes from then on, it still wouldn't be enough. The model works and generates massive revenue across the entire industry. (As demonstrated by the recent thread on the effect it has had on the industry's worth)

Right or wrong, this isn't a fight that can be won with morality or sermons. The only way I see out of this is devising and supporting other revenue stream ideas that can actually compete with the level of revenue generated by loot boxes, if such a thing even exists.

Yup, pretty much this. Even if the whole 200k GAF users agree to never support games with loot boxes, it won't be enough.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Jesus, way to be overly dramatic.

I don't need other people telling me what I should and shouldn't spend my money on. Fuck off with this fear mongering bullshit.

Head —> Sand

 

[rochellepaws]

It might be nice if games journalists reflected the inclusion of exploitative mechanics like lootboxes in their review scores in a more significant way as a means of informing and highlighting this to the consumer (i.e. the actual role of the media). Ultimately looking at the metacritic score between Shadow or Mordor and Shadow of War it can probably be safely concluded that lootboxes did not affect the reviewing of the latter in a significant way.

The kind of people who play the EA, Activision, Ubisoft, WB type games are very often the kind of people who only play extremely mainstream games and have very little awareness of gaming outside of that bubble. While that type of person doesn't like lootboxes they certainly tolerate them on the grounds of believing such practices are commonplace in gaming now. The truth is they aren't common but certainly are prevalent within those few very mainstream companies.