Uno Venova
Banned
OpenCritic, take my fucking sword.
-
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.
OpenCritic wants to take a stand against loot boxes
- Thread starter The_Super_Inframan
- Start date
Eh, I'm no fan of loot-boxes, but I personally think a review aggregator should be impartial and avoid editorialising the results of the aggregation too much.
I'm happy to have that information surfaced, but the wording they're using suggestions they're taking a 'side' - which is something I mostly wouldn't want a review aggregator to do.
I'm happy to have that information surfaced, but the wording they're using suggestions they're taking a 'side' - which is something I mostly wouldn't want a review aggregator to do.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
It has substantial viewership with a number of partneships so yes?
ChaosSmurf
Member
_/¯What next? Why stop at loot boxes?
List "how long to beat" hours and hours/price values. Then add information about locked pre order content and dont forget to mention DRM and if the game has always online requirement...
Also will they mark all CCG with loot boxes label or its will be used only for AAA games that they feel right to add it?
Interesting to see how they will implement it and how they ensure that information is 100% correct.
List "how long to beat" hours and hours/price values. Then add information about locked pre order content and dont forget to mention DRM and if the game has always online requirement...
Also will they mark all CCG with loot boxes label or its will be used only for AAA games that they feel right to add it?
Interesting to see how they will implement it and how they ensure that information is 100% correct.
Then don't call it a "review aggregator". Post info about lenght, engine, price etc. Why just lootboxes?
HotchieMotchie
Neo Member
They have a partnership with Humble to show their aggregate scores/review quotes on Humble Store pages. They're slowly becoming more and more relevant.
I don't think it's ever going to have the same amount of traction that Metacritic has, but hey, you never know — there was a point where GameRankings was more popular than Metacritic but nowadays I'm sure there's people who have no idea what GameRankings is.
This is one of the ways for them to differentiate and get more gamers to look at Opencritic over Metacritic. If gamers start putting more trust on Opencritics score than Metacritic score because of things like this than industry will have to take them more seriously. At the end of the day as much as it will helps the consumers, it might also help their business. Good things all around.
LordBaztion
Member
So, are they going to arbitrarily reduce the value of a review because they don't like the implementation of lootboxes?
There are pretty obvious reasons why this is a complete non starter, the main one being they'd be altering the review scores of a review someone else did.
The scores will still be exactly the same.
I know some of you are getting excited at big bad AAA getting marked down, but the only way this can feasibly work is a simple *has lootbox* tag beside the review.
The minute they started changing other sites reviews based on how OC rates micro transactions, other sites would simply start banning their work being used in the site.
In Service
Member
This.
I can check GAF for the news about Lootboxes in games but this info would be good.
LordRaptor
Member
I questioned why OpenCritic needed to compile a dossier on a review site.
Today I question why OpenCritic need to "take a stand" against this months moral panic.
Today I question why OpenCritic need to "take a stand" against this months moral panic.
MontyBrown
Banned
Fantastic idea.
I hope the backlash against this scummy business method continues. It's a giant cancer of the industry.
Good work OpenCritic.
I hope the backlash against this scummy business method continues. It's a giant cancer of the industry.
Good work OpenCritic.
Yeah. I realize it's a pretty fucking stupid idea.
I agree, this sets a dangerous precedent for the site in terms of fairness. Not their job.
I'm not against giving visibility but who determines if a business model is intrusive or not? I'm not bothered by mordor's implementation but there's plenty of people here that is, so who decides to put the label or not?
This is overstepping from open critic and while I agree with the cause I dont think it's their job to do this.
Edit: DRM label is perfect in comparison, that's a boolean and its fact, it has or it hasnt. A "dangerous business model label" (whether that is lootboxes or otherwise) it's in many ways tied to the opinion of an individual and thus I dont think its a good idea.
Glass Shark
Banned
.
Baleoce
Member
This. I'm all for giving the consumer more info. Just have to do it right.
No offense friend, but why would you complain that a review aggregator is willing to provide important information about a game that the publisher would often omit? I mean, it's a plus, review aggregators usually don't have that kind of info, i get it, but i can't see the problem if they want to feed the users with more information.
This needs to be a ESRB/PEGI -type thing to curb it at all.
If a game has microtransactions the type/severity should be marked clearly on every game case and digital storefront. And, just like an ESRB rating, all patches/DLC cannot exceed that initial rating.
Good on OpenCritic in any case.
If a game has microtransactions the type/severity should be marked clearly on every game case and digital storefront. And, just like an ESRB rating, all patches/DLC cannot exceed that initial rating.
Good on OpenCritic in any case.
entremet
Member
Nope. Metacritic rules the roost for now.
Yea. Information is fine. But taking a stand "against" it? I'm not sure.
yup.....major outlets are a fucking joke at this point
see nba2k18 and how little anyone cared outside 1 outlet
Information, yes, interpretation, absolutely not. This is another form of "curation".
Again, read their tweets, this is not a label for lootboxes, this is a label for "dangerous business model". Who gets to be the judge of that?
Exactly, what a nonsense way of them phrasing it to clearly take advantage of the hyperbole going around
ClosingADoor
Member
Strange for an aggregate site to "take a stand". But more info about what is in a game is always good.
Uno Venova
Banned
Why is this a negative exactly? They already provide information about the genre and the publisher for every game, why would more information about their loot boxes be any different? The iOS atore had to do this as well when games with in game purchases started running amok.
.
You can also add info about optimization. Like Unity games are often poorly optimized on PS4.
CannonFodder52
Member
Hey, that's pretty cool.
I don't think people have any strong issue with the addition of objective truths (e.g. a list of 'features'. which would include lootboxes, etc). It's that they're picking a side - they're "taking a stand against loot boxes".
I don't think it's on a review aggregator to take a stand against anything like that and it makes me question their trustworthiness if they do believe it's their job.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Im glad they're doing this, but it says alot that they have to do this in the first place, reviewers are not docking points for free to play progression in 60 dollar games (with season passes).
Im not trying to rip all the press, but they dropped the ball here, badly.
Im not trying to rip all the press, but they dropped the ball here, badly.
It's pretty transparent. They know their audience is the type of person that posts on places like GAF and love their little industry dramas. Can't really blame them for trying to exploit it too drive traffic to their site.
Maximus P
Member
This.
I'd applaud review sites for adding as much info as possible, but this just feels like opencritic are trying to jump on this weeks popular topic to look like the 'good guy'
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Judging by the amount of people defending the exploitation of gambling addictions im gonna say it wont do much.
EA is laughing their asses off reading these threads, they dont even have to pay community managers or PR to defend this.
Jeff Freecss
Member
Let's just call this as what it is. Propaganda.
I am not against this practice. I am just saying people embracing this policy should also be at least open minded when reviewers, gaming sites, or score sites take a stance in some issues.
I am not against this practice. I am just saying people embracing this policy should also be at least open minded when reviewers, gaming sites, or score sites take a stance in some issues.
