Evolution of Metal
Member
3 maps/year is lacking compared to COD/BF season passes. Overwatch focuses on what is profitable: skins and events promoting skins.
-
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.
Id take loot crates over dlc, season passes, online passes and split userbases
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
3 maps/year is lacking compared to COD/BF season passes. Overwatch focuses on what is profitable: skins and events promoting skins.
Do not agree. TF2 went downhill with loot boxes introduction, not to mention it led to Valve realizing it was a very good business model and spreading it out to most their games.
But the worst has been Overwatch, which I jumped to from TF2 thinking hey no keys to open boxes and they don't drop randomly (the boxes, I mean). And it was ok for a few months then Blizzard really showed their intentions with the first summer game event. They were chasing whales and with the cosmetics not being purchasable directly it was obvious people with no patience would spent a lot to get what they wanted.
You might say, hey all heroes and maps are free because of it, but the new heroes have been few and underwhelming and none of the new maps are good. And PVP mode on a game that was designed with team play in mind does not fit well.
The biggest efforts were focused on events for the first year of the game, with the clear objective of getting a surge in revenue and with the limited time, tap into compulsive/gambling behavior which is gross.
So no, loot boxes suck. Even though I've learned my lesson from TF2 and have not spent a dime on them in OW, I'd rather they charged real money for the skins and let people buy what they want without the random aspect. And I'm not happy that fellow gamers that have less control are "funding my content" because that will just cause the content creation to be geared towards triggering them and it will suffer in quality.
But the worst has been Overwatch, which I jumped to from TF2 thinking hey no keys to open boxes and they don't drop randomly (the boxes, I mean). And it was ok for a few months then Blizzard really showed their intentions with the first summer game event. They were chasing whales and with the cosmetics not being purchasable directly it was obvious people with no patience would spent a lot to get what they wanted.
You might say, hey all heroes and maps are free because of it, but the new heroes have been few and underwhelming and none of the new maps are good. And PVP mode on a game that was designed with team play in mind does not fit well.
The biggest efforts were focused on events for the first year of the game, with the clear objective of getting a surge in revenue and with the limited time, tap into compulsive/gambling behavior which is gross.
So no, loot boxes suck. Even though I've learned my lesson from TF2 and have not spent a dime on them in OW, I'd rather they charged real money for the skins and let people buy what they want without the random aspect. And I'm not happy that fellow gamers that have less control are "funding my content" because that will just cause the content creation to be geared towards triggering them and it will suffer in quality.
Same, and even in Multiplayer games, it should not affect gameplay, (for a full priced game)
RowdyReverb
Member
I agree. I dont miss the days where buying DLC maps was a gamble because you might never get to play them outside of custom matches or specialized playlists
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
The workflow for creating skins from concept art to modeling to finally being implemented in-game is a lot faster compared to creating fully fleshed out maps, (just based on asset creation alone), meant to be fun to play on for every character in a large cast of vastly different characters.
For every game I've seen it done in, I find it to be the case. I'd gladly be pointed in the direction of something that proves that wrong.
People don't complain though because it's free so be grateful.
Actually I think that's enough time to get people to sink their teeth into the content.
Mass Effect
Member
No. Some people were just (incorrectly) making the presupposition that just because Overwatch did cosmetic lootboxes and it was successful, that's what other companies were going to do.
And anyone who thought that was fooling themselves.
LordRaptor
Member
There's also the fact that female gamers particularly enjoy cosmetics and customisation in the games they play, so cries for "I want REAL content FOR ME, not stupid cosmetics" have that obnoxious "real gamers" subtext
legacyzero
Banned
People attacking the OP seem to now want to remember that the big pubs are going to hit you with shitty post monetezation schemes, like it or not. If theyre gonna give a lesser of two evils choice, Id rather have that.
Aim your anger at Activision that insists on both.
Aim your anger at Activision that insists on both.
One could argue that was already a thing in gen 1 rby with Mew
2blackcats
Member
Yeah, I way prefer that system.
If they ended up splitting the community that's because the map packs weren't seen as good enough value not because the idea itself is flawed.
I think when a new map is released the base game should be updated to always include the latest maps. That should help.
I like how people are so captured by the industry they don't even consider the crazy idea of direct sales. Turns out, selling things to people they actually want is a good way to make money too! It's just lootboxes or total collapse of AAA gaming.
Everyone should just copy Titanfall 2 in all things at all times. I bought stuff for that game just to contribute to a stellar game with direct sales and consistent, ongoing support.
Sorry for the late reply. I edited my original post before your reply and removed the part about Hots, since I myself understood I wasn't being accurate with my depiction of the changes. It's bit complicated to get the full grasp of it with it's 3 different in-game currencies, so I was unsure how it actually goes and posted hastily since I was in a hurry. But let's say I want to buy Legendary Lucky Azmodunk skin. It's only available with a random chance from a box or to buy with shards, I can only get shards from loot boxes. Which are acquired either by playing matches (a lot of matches) or by buying lootboxes (with gems that is adressed later) and getting those shards by a chance, like from those duplicates people love. Instead there should also be an option to drop 5 bucks to the game and play with the skin I want. That's what I would call a fair transaction, with lootboxes I'm buying a pig in a poke.
Unlocking heroes and buying lootboxes is done by gems or gold, these gems you can buy with real money. These heroes are priced on different tiers, some cost 750, some 500 and some are 300 etc. But the game doesn't offer me the option to buy just the right amount of gems to unlock the hero I want. It's 260 gems, 565, 1,170 etc. This is also designed to make the customer spend unnecessary extra money to get what they want.
Also with the lootboxes they added a lot of fluff to the game to fill the boxes with something else than skins, which is usually the primary reason for someone to want those boxes. It's possible that when you buy a loot box, you wont get any new skins at all. It can just be sprays, voice lines and maybe a banner.
Hots has better model than OW since it's F2P. I was happy to support the game and I've spent some money in few bundles and even specific skins earlier. Right now, I don't see a good value proposition for me in the game and can't really support it anymore. I still play it, it's a good game.
I enjoyed Borderlands and some loot games.
But then after a while the entire meta of the game changed from:
Borderlands 1: Having fun with friends beating crazy bosses and going through crazy levels
Borderlands 2: I need better weapon stats, Speed through levels and grind the boss to get a certain weapon drop, shield or buff.
Monster Hunter is the worst of them all. I thought the game was about co-op boss killing game. Turns out it was just all about grinding and grinding for RNG drops, and multiple co-op runs focusing on killing a single boss over and over again waiting for that one rare drop.
Fuck these games.
Weltall Zero
Member
"I'd rather be fucked in the ass than having a tooth punched out".
I mean, sure, everyone has their preferences when it comes to being screwed over. I think not standing for any shitty practice is more practical than discussing how you prefer to be abused.
Imagine this discussion in movies. "I'd rather pay a little for a chance to see the parts I want, than having to pay more for seeing the second half of the movie".
But no; it's us, gamers, the ones who are entitled. *rolleyes*
I mean, sure, everyone has their preferences when it comes to being screwed over. I think not standing for any shitty practice is more practical than discussing how you prefer to be abused.
Imagine this discussion in movies. "I'd rather pay a little for a chance to see the parts I want, than having to pay more for seeing the second half of the movie".
But no; it's us, gamers, the ones who are entitled. *rolleyes*
yeah I hated that about Borderlands 2 as well. Felt like I had to rush to end game to get good weapons. Never felt like my weapons were shit in Borderlands 1 and just had fun playing the game.
That was the scaling.
Almost every single weapon became completely ineffectual with a 3-5 level gap between it and the mobs.
Which ruined any cool factor an Orange or above might have had.
Also: I agree 100% with both of you.
Borderlands 1 did it far and away better than 2.
But BL2 had a lot of cool guns.
If anything, I hope for BL1's parts system and lack of scaling, for BL3. Also we need a Pitchfork-based in-game boss villain to mirror real life.
paperspace
Member
⁣
![[Sigma]](/data/avatars/m/701/701747.jpg?1685439978){kind=avatar}
[Sigma]
Member
Yeah when it comes to that, id just rather pay for the season pass.
Calling it "three maps" is really really disenginous. Overwatch got quite a bit more than that, unless you're one of these weird people that count all of the maps in one location as one single map.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Titanfall 2 does it right, their MTs let you pick exactly what you want and the grind isnt bad.
Titanfall 2 does it wrong, they don't let you get most of those for free no matter how much you play AFAIK
For online games best scenario to me is rotating character roster, DLC to permanently unlock, no loot boxes, all maps are free updates. Keep users from being separated but provide something for the money. Im okay with lootboxes if can only use in game coins cosmetic only or chance to win DLC buyable characters. Anything thats non-cosmetic and loot box only I am against.
Jaguar Victory
Member
Yeah, but look at which game sold more. People like and are incentivized by loot boxes. My friends play Arcade in Overwatch to get their loot boxes. I can probably comfortably say that loot boxes and new event skins are a huge reason why you don't have huge player attrition in that game.
It's just like the grind in Destiny 2. We play to keep getting better loot and to increase our power level. People will buy the DLC to keep that loop going. But the journey is fun and you make a lot of friends so it's ok.
Agreed. No better way to make me lose interest.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Im not denying that casinos and gambling are popular. Im saying that as a player, id much rather just buy the skin i want than buy a box that might have what i want.
paperspace
Member
⁣
joecanada
Member
Do you have a budget breakdown showing how game companies just can't make ends meet without milking their customers?
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I cant remember how much a titanfall 2 skin is, but im confident its not 300 dollars.
Jaguar Victory
Member
Im missing some context here. Where are we buying skins from players for $300?
We have to remember that this is not a charity. These companies need to make money to survive/ fund new development. I think drawing the line between obtrusive and unobtrusive is fair.
In other words, OP wants companies to continue to exploit gambling addictions to so affected customers subsidize their free content.
That's fine, I just find it gross.
Also, there are plenty of well-reasoned points against it, and labeling it click-bait outrage is flippantly dismissing valid criticism.
Of couse people will get hooked on the gambling aspect, making it popular, selling more. That's the psychological hook. That doesn't make it healthy for the player or industry.
You can still have fun and make friends without a gambling hook if the game is good.
That's fine, I just find it gross.
Also, there are plenty of well-reasoned points against it, and labeling it click-bait outrage is flippantly dismissing valid criticism.
Of couse people will get hooked on the gambling aspect, making it popular, selling more. That's the psychological hook. That doesn't make it healthy for the player or industry.
You can still have fun and make friends without a gambling hook if the game is good.
MasterMenace
Member
The amount of these threads popping up with OP's supporting loot boxes in their ridiculous arguments is hilarious...but damn, is it disappointing to see on NeoGaf of all places...
Edit:
Want me to buy your game in 2017?
Follow CD Project Red, Larian Studios, Obsidian, etc. on how to support the longevity of the their games (hint: proper expansion and consistent feedback and patches and communication through many channels of social media)
Edit:
Want me to buy your game in 2017?
Follow CD Project Red, Larian Studios, Obsidian, etc. on how to support the longevity of the their games (hint: proper expansion and consistent feedback and patches and communication through many channels of social media)
Citation?
LordRaptor
Member
It is a recurring theme in most studies relating to videogame demographics, but they tend to be paywalled.
Heres one I could find on Google/
e:
Here is a better one, with chart illustrating the point.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
Season passes for single player games. Loot crates for online multiplayer focused games.
Because season passes always end up splitting the community and no one ends up playing the Downloadable maps anyways...
Because season passes always end up splitting the community and no one ends up playing the Downloadable maps anyways...
Zomba13
Member
I would rather stuff like OW where the lootboxes are for cosmetics and everyone gets everything else.
Sadly, publishers would rather have lootboxes (with cosmetics or gameplay enhancements) AND Season Passes AND DLC AND splitting userbases.
So it's just another layer in the shit sandwhich.
Sadly, publishers would rather have lootboxes (with cosmetics or gameplay enhancements) AND Season Passes AND DLC AND splitting userbases.
So it's just another layer in the shit sandwhich.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
It's so sad publishers can put this f2p shit in their $60 games and ppl eat it up. I guess u can have ur cake and eat it too.
InterMusketeer
Gold Member
Can't disagree with that. Ever since 2.0 hit I just don't see a reason to make any purchase. I've gotten so many cool skins and mounts for free, why would I ever buy anything? Personally I don't mind grinding a bit for some gold to buy another character, and I'm very careful with what I spend my shards on. I feel there's a steady supply of loot for players who don't spend a dime. Can't ask for much more than that.
AzureFlame
Member
They're all BS.
So in an online multiplayer game you'd rather have people get exclusive access to weapons by paying extra money, effectively breaking the game, than optional additional content that people who love the game can buy to extend replayability?
I never had a problem with DLC packs, just DLC packs not worth the price of admission.
I never had a problem with DLC packs, just DLC packs not worth the price of admission.
paperspace
Member
⁣
