Maybe they don't get as many on going threads but plenty of people complained about loot boxes in Overwatch. I remember it was real loud during the anniversary event in particular.
It got to the point that the developers actually DID change some things about the system. The big ones being you can purchase event costume with gold now and dupes were massively lessened. And even with that a lot of people still would rather just be able to purchase costumes. So no Overwatch is not getting a free pass.
Mmm, sorry OP but I'd go the other way. At least with that stuff you know where you're at. If the publisher or dev has cut content, it's super obvious straight away. With loot boxes, it's really hard to know and trust that they haven't weighed the game towards wanting them to circumvent grinding. At least a dlc is a product. There is x thing and here is x price. Do you want this. The loot Crate thing in general is skeezy. Imo at least. It adds layers of obfuscation when they could just say here's a legendary sword pack, there's a skin l, here is a monetary value. There's literally nothing in it on my end.
"monitisatuon" I initially read this as moneti-saturation, which is about where the industry is heading with lootboxes. Since I will never ever spend any money on them I suppose I'm a freerider, getting free maps/characters in games without paying for them, but I won't be using my dollars to support abusive business practices. I'm all in favor of a games-as-a-service future, but not like this
Overwatch model with just cosmetic items available through loot crates, and all future major content including maps and characters free for all users? Acceptable.
Loot crates featured in non-competitive, free-to-play games that act as time savers/boosters, cosmetics, and maybe even mutators (slight alterations to gameplay)? Example: Jet Pack Joyride on mobile. Acceptable.
Loot crates that are featured as part of a game that has a set retail price, but are only obtainable with in-game currency and dont ask the player to fork over real money? Acceptable.
Fully-priced retail game with a season pass model for future content but also including the option for loot crates via microtransactions? Always questionable and absolutely open to lambasting... But sometimes kind of not a big deal. Destiny 2, IMO, not a big deal some stuff there is certainly nice and provides slightly functional advantage, but nothing that lends a huge advantage, still a bummer due to season pass model co-existing with it, though; Star Wars Battlefront II, kind of a big deal certainly a bummer for the competitive implications, but a bit of a pass because it doesnt have a season pass, too (and is promising content to all users later down the road). Shadow of War A single player, retail-priced game? Boo, get that shit outta there. Also gross: Deus Ex Mankind Divided; Assassins Creed Unity (and several other titles in the AC franchise).
It's pretty bad in multiplayer games too. Call of Duty has map pack DLC, including a day-1 map, and also loot boxes with advantages in various forms: BO3 and MWR have new guns, Infinite Warfare has both new guns and stat boosts to existing guns.
That thinking doesnt work for games like Rainbow Six Seige, its had free maps and characters to play with quality since release. I dont want to move to to something else or buy a sequel and start again.
Yeah I guess Im coming to it from more a multiplayer focused point of view but Im really enjoying these new platform or Games as a service policys to play with friends and to all get the benefits of new stuff for us to keep playing together. Rocket League with its new maps and modes is any other great example.
In the past games have just been left now its constant work, development and improvement and loot boxes seem to be the way they are paying for it.
Ah yes, the GTA V route. So good for players.
It's a pity CD Project didn't follow, so much fun paying for loot crates for a chance of a shiny armor. Instead I have to play some awesome additional campaigns like a sucker.
Games were also cheaper to make back then.
With modern budgets and team sizes I do think it's too much to ask for devs to release tons of new and free maps. The money to make that content has to come from somewhere
The only exception being Sony and MS games. Since I'm already paying them to play online I think they should at least offer free content on their games
Loot crates are 100% fine when it's purely cosmetic. Anything that can impact gameplay stinks too much of 'pay to win' and will instantly put me off.
It's simple really.
In MP games everyone should have access to exactly the same starting weapons. Any new/power weapons, power-ups or vehicles should be items that you pick up on the map or 'unlock' in that match by playing well (number of kills/assists etc.)
Paid DLC should be reserved for single player content and never used to split an online MP community by introducing new MP modes or maps.
Loot crates should always be reserved for cosmetic items or other 'fun' items that do not impact gameplay or game balance.
That way you can have your loot crates and DLC season passes without fucking everyone else over. Seems really obvious to me...
It's not about you, OP. It's about shielding people that have a gambling addiction, or aren't able to be make responsible choices regarding their financial situation. One system exploits bad habits, the other is merely inconvenient.
With lootboxes you're basically forced to gamble for what will be mostly meaningless junk and sometimes content you want
If you want everything you'll have to spend a lot more money than if the dlc was sold in bundles where you know what you're getting. Couple that with making game progression a slog with content hidden in random lootboxes that will make getting through the game less tiresome. Thus the games themselves prod you to buying lootboxes because they huge timesinks are (intentionally) without them.
Publishers know this. That's the point. Its a strategy to squeeze even more money from whales.
Titanfall 2 was 60$ at launch and from my understanding it doesn't have split userbase and doesn't have lootboxes that you pay money for. It also got new MP content this year so it is not like there is no support.
Loot boxes / crates News seems to becoming click bait outrage at the moment but honestly games like Smite, Halo 5, Rainbow Six Seige, Overwatch, Rocket League, Warframe, Dota 2 etc. have kept me playing longer and longer due to the playerbase supporting the platform and free content extending there lives.
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong but DLC and season passes are not replaced by loot boxes and never will.
This is why everyone's complaining:
60-70$ base game
20-30$ season pass
x$ ingame currency
In the future, your full price games will essentially be vehicles for microtransactions barely covered in a sprinkling of "game" to hide what it really is. You'll get loot boxes, DLC, season passes, *and* whatever else they can shoehorn in there, because why give up on potential profit? Lots of people will defend it to the death, claiming it's the best thing ever.
Blizzard also fucked up with HoTs in 2.0 update when they added lootboxes as a reward. I don't mind getting them as a reward, but they also sell them and they REMOVED the option to buy some skins directly which I was able to do earlier (and I did). You can only buy rotating featured skins directly, which is ofcourse also done to encourage impulse buys. "Get it while you can!". It sucks.
Wait what? HOTS had practically no rewards for players who didn't spend money. All you could do was earn in-game gold used to buy new heroes and a small selection of mastery skins and mounts. Most of the cool stuff was behind a paywall.
HOTS 2.0 is absolutely an improvement, as even players who don't spend any money can get cool skins for free. I don't know what you're talking about in terms of skins that you can't buy. What skin is unavailable for purchase with shards? I've seen none. Are you talking about the seasonal skins? Because those existed prior to 2.0 as well. Holiday skins were only available during the holiday season. Same goes for the Halloween ones. Their lootbox system is pretty much identical to Overwatch now, only that you didn't have to buy the game itself first. How is that a bad model?
I agree with wanting loot boxes over spliting the userbase of multiplayer games. It's why I accepted it in Overwatch even though it was poorly implemented. Just having cosmetic DLC you can just straight up buy is preferred but whatever.
Loot boxes in single player games are unacceptable though and I will not buy a game that does that shit. There are zero advantages.
You'll get no argument from me that there is a lot of terrible examples of DLC/season passes and they, like loot boxes, can often be exploitative too. However, give me additional content designed to be fun and enjoyable for the player over a pay-to-win, gambling mechanic any day of the week.
If I don't think DLC or a season pass is worth it I can choose not to pay for it but even if there's something in a loot box I might want then I might not be able to get it without spending a fortune. That sucks and there's really no good justification for it. Just let me pay for the content I want.
Im still waiting for developers to nail execution.
I do appreciate having maps be free. In my case, It has prolonged the life of several mp games.
I understand that using these schemes to extend the life of these games makes sense from a business standpoint- it increases the opportunity to sell MTs.
It doesn't HAVE to be lootcrates though. They could just place set prices on cosmetic content. And even if companies do use lootcrates, they dont have to design the ingame economy such that players are pushed towards spending $ by intentional tedium or MP advantages.
Basically, lootcrates are not some prerequisite for free basic content distribution. There are less predatory ways to justify the cost of an extended sustain model.
I'd take GTA V Single Player DLC, sob, over loot boxes any day. New Vegas DLC's - so good. Horizon's got DLC coming up - gimme. Give me a good game and then make good story DLC and I am down. Gambling in single player games - no thank you.
My thoughts exactly. Id take well thought out DLC any day over loot boxes. Even though it splits the user base, I still think paying for expansions is a fair exchange for the developer working to provide extra content. And its not a guarantee that the developer wont charge for DLC if they have loot boxes. A lot of games choose to charge for both.
If DLC meant to every other developer what it means to CDPR, things would be great. Witcher 3 has REAL dlc that is actually worth what you pay for it. The issue is that dlc and season passes for most other games are pathetic ploys to get more than $60 out of people.
Loot boxes are awful and shouldn't be accepted in any capacity.
Extra modes included in the base game. No DLC/microtransaction.
Unlockable characters earned/rewarded by playing the game. No DLC/microtransaction.
My £40 got me the full finished game.
I know it's not the same anymore, and games are services and they want to retain your interest for longer/get more cash from you plus with the advent of online play more day to day costs are involved especially with patches. It was all once such simpler times. I liked it.
I'm fine with DLC/Loot Boxes and added bits of fun it's just there is a point where I feel like I'm being taken advantage of or it's assumed I'm too stupid to notice. Yet there are enough of those who play video games that clearly have money to spend so should I really be disappointed that businesses capitalise on it?
Halo 5 execution was good in a few ways, bad in others.
Guarunteed unlocks- opening silver/gold pack guarunteed items of specific rarities. So you were always pushing towards completion with each pack.
Purely cosmetics in Arena
Most of the content was useless filler
People who only wanted cosmetics had to wade through mountains of warzone content
People who only wanted warzone content had to wade through mountains of cosmetics
Warzone Firefight was designed to require high level reqs to succeed.
The post launch content was mostly low quality or should have been in at launch.
Then there's Warzone- which was SUPPOSED to create matches based on the size of players inventory so that well equipped players weren't destroying those with less- but it's hard for me to say how well the system has worked becauss there are so many factors.