Support NeoGAF

[CountAntonius]

See, I'd gladly buy a skin pack for heroes in Battlefront II, or a themed customization set for troopers, or even a direct shortcut kit to bypass rank requirements for weapons and abilities.

Lootcrates are an absolutely unneeded obfuscation.

I don't think people realize how much more money these things make than standard microtransactions. Entire economies and communities have been built around trading items, crates and keys.It adds what is basically an infinite revenue stream for the developer. It will stop only if one of two things happen. The law gets involved and/or people stop buying them.


Where where all these news stories years ago CSGO, TF2, Dota 2, Smite have had loot crates for years. Is it because AAA publishers have begun shoehorning them into full priced story driven games and MP games as P2W? Cause these sites and bloggers didn't really seem to care before .

 

[Servbot24]

Loot boxes at their very best are ignorable but needless bloat hanging off a game's body like a giant wart. You can play the game and ignore it, but damn it would be nice if it were removed.

At their worst, loot boxes are a cancer that are eating the fundamental tissue of the game design from within.

I'm glad there are a million great games without loot boxes and I don't have to buy games with them.

 

[Zombie James]

I’m glad that gaming websites have taken up this task of informing the public of this shitty practice. There are still way too many lootbox apologists on GAF.

Completely agree. I only hope all this negative attention does something to actually change things for the better because they're getting pretty shit right now.

 

[gatti-man]

You want to see something gamers are vehemently against? More than loot boxes? Monthly fees.

Psn and Xbl say what?

Loot boxes at their very best are ignorable but needless bloat hanging off a game's body like a giant wart. You can play the game and ignore it, but damn it would be nice if it were removed.

At their worst, loot boxes are a cancer that are eating the fundamental tissue of the game design from within.

I'm glad there are a million great games without loot boxes and I don't have to buy games with them.

Not to pick on you but no at worst they all are exploitative and drain funds from psychologically susceptible people who can't help themselves around gambling (prize opening) mechanics. Loot boxes, especially like overwatch with timed exclusives, are incredibly exploitative to those individuals and the got to have them all crowd.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Say what you will about Kotaku, but this was extremely well written and captures the problem with loot boxes precisely. The fact that so many are dismissive of loot boxes is exactly what the publishers want - hook in the addicts and let everyone else justify their existence with "just cosmetic".

The article cites herself and a rat experiment from the 1930s as proof the lootbox system is broken.

Gambling addiction and harm is actually really easy to find at casinos or just googling it but it's different with gamers. Try finding an addict of OW who lost enough financially to do harm IE 20% of savings at least, or that they need to buy lootboxes and that urge has caused them to gamble at slot machines. It's difficult because we want to say exploitive practices are similar to gambling when the effects of gambling aren't in these games like OW or whatever AAA lootbox game is out there.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Psychology is used in every business plan/model. Social media sites are blue because it stimulates your brain more and keeps you awake, you’re more likely to feel comfortable and shop longer in a store that has music playing, if something has a sale or limited sticker on it you’re more likely to buy it even if it’s not limited or the sale sucks. This is like when everyone suddenly came to that realization that big companies aren’t their friends and Arby’s doesn’t actually care about anime and video games like they post on twitter, they just want you to think they’re hip so you’ll buy a sandwich, no duh.

Still better than having to buy an online pass and season pass for every MP game I own.

 

[LordRaptor]

I still haven't seen a good argument as to why loot crates are better than just being able to buy the thing you want.

From the individualistic perspective that detractors cite - that they have insufficient reasons to be playing the game for fun anymore and are playing for unlocks - there obviously isn't.

You buy the thing you want, you are now sated, and can move onto the next game.

From a publishers perspective, it removes (or lessens) the spending cap; there are people out there that enjoy your game enough that they want to pay more than their entry sticker price, but if you put a fixed price tag on everything, those people literally cannot pay more then that ever.
And if you think that is ludicrous, I ask you genuinely - have you ever played a game you enjoyed enough that you thought that the price you paid was actually too good of a deal, and you wouldn't begrudge kicking the makers a little bit more than they asked?

Because I have.

Real World Example, I blind preordered the most expensive edition of Natural Selection 2, because I enjoyed Natural Selection 1 so much (and it was free) that it felt like the very least I could do was back the developers, because they were doing something I liked that nobody else is.

If you've never felt like you've got more than your moneys worth in any game you've ever played, then okay, I'm not judging you, but have the courtesy to do the same.

From a game health perspective, if you can't pick the one skin you want for the one character you main, you continue playing the game until you do.
Maybe you get an amazing skin for a character you never really played as much, and give that character a shot because you have that skin, and maybe you grow to like that character and get to play the game a bit longer with 'fresh eyes' as a new gameplay style.
Playerbases sticking around are good for a games overall health because it means games are easy to find, and you can find fun games without getting owned because all that is left are the diehard superfans.

 

[pakkit]

Say what you will about Kotaku, but this was extremely well written and captures the problem with loot boxes precisely. The fact that so many are dismissive of loot boxes is exactly what the publishers want - hook in the addicts and let everyone else justify their existence with "just cosmetic".

Has Kotaku done something particularly bad lately? I find their coverage to be consistently interesting, and only they and Rock Paper Shotgun tend to highlight a lot of really interesting indies. Heather, the writer in the OPs, weekly "indie picks of the week" have helped me grow my Steam library substantially.

As far as OP, I'm glad that the growing clamor in the community is now being reflected by journalists. I know, when I was in a particularly low feeling week, I crumbled and spent $20 bucks on Rocket League cosmetics, and when I came out I just felt like I had really wasted $20. I understand it more in online games, especially since maintaining communities that large takes a lot of expenditure, but it still feels icky presenting kids with games that seem like they're built with them in mind (e.g. the aesthetic cuteness of Overwatch and Rocket League) and then have predatory gambling systems built into them.

 

[Strangelove77]

Well I'm expecting to get shitted on, but I feel I need to express myself on this-
I think lootboxes should be changed to make it clear exactly what it is and I think you should be able to buy any particular thing you want. If you want to gamble that's up to you or you can pay a bit more and get exactly what you want.
Also, I think this should be left up to the individual. It's your personal responsibility to deal with this kind of thing.
Also you're an idiot for leaving your credit card information on the same system you let your kids play on. That's 100% your fault.

And I guess it's all chalked up to me being selfish and thinking that as long as this doesn't affect me it doesn't matter and maybe that's the case, but I personally think this is something we should all deal with. I've never paid for a lootbox in my life and I've played a ton of games that have them. And you know what? I don't look down on others who do.
Gaming is a huge luxury in the grand scheme of things. It's a $300 tv, a $400 game system and $60 games. It's all necessary to enjoy this hobby at minimum. Surely you can afford $10 on some stupid lootboxes. We're not poor or even close to it. And if you are, you need to get your priorities straight.

And I don't think I'm a selfish person who can't understand or empathize with the problems of others - I've donated blood, I've donated money to the hurricane relief effort a few weeks back and I've given homeless people money and/or food. I do it all the time when I can afford it. That's what really matters to me. That's what I think about when I think of unfair treatment.
I dunno. Maybe I'm not trying hard enough.

 

[Falk]

it’s standard that a game with lootboxes allows the players to earn keys in game.

It is? I mean, yeah, sure, other games typically drop crates which can then also be bought with cash, but I don't think there ever really was a hard and fast rule about it. Outside of the realm of loot boxes specifically, microtransactions in general also vary in whether they are unique to being purchasable-only or a fast-track for something earnable in-game. That's really splitting hairs though, other than pointing out that any individual implementation of a lootbox variant really is up to supply and demand.

In the case of overwatch, you see people excited to spend a bunch of money on lootboxes that aren’t guaranteed to give them the skin they want every event. Plus there’s the constant excuse that many don’t care about this cause others are subsidizing new content when the content hasn’t even really been substantial, just a bunch of time fates content. Few things have been added to the base game.

I think in both circumstances, what people do with their money, as long as they are completely okay with it, is their concern. Calling them apologists is a bit of a mean stretch. They're there in the OT to discuss the game, not discuss the pros and cons and regulations and legislations and surveys and everything else, which is what threads like these are for.

 

[Zombie James]

The article cites herself and a rat experiment from the 1930s as proof the lootbox system is broken.

Gambling addiction and harm is actually really easy to find at casinos or just googling it but it's different with gamers. Try finding an addict of OW who lost enough financially to do harm IE 20% of savings at least, or that they need to buy lootboxes and that urge has caused them to gamble at slot machines. It's difficult because we want to say exploitive practices are similar to gambling when the effects of gambling aren't in these games like OW or whatever AAA lootbox game is out there.

These are the extremes we need to go before we acknowledge the problem? It's just like that Twitter exchange with the IGN guy who reviewed Shadow of War (paraphrase): "Once loot boxes become too much of a problem, THEN we'll call out publishers." By then it'll be too damn late to do anything about it! This is a problem we need to nip in the bud before it gets worse, and you know it's going to get worse.

 

[JABEE]

Does it have to go that far specifically? No. But I think if the argument is one of public safety, we have to do better than merely making subjective assessments about how other people tend to spend their money. I don't deny that victims of whaling are out there. How widespread is this problem? Can we mitigate it? This issue is more complex than me simply surmising ”I don't like loot boxes and they should go away."

My explanation is more complex than "I don't like loot boxes and they should go away." Though, it is probably accurate on a surface level.

As you said there are multiple reasons to dislike loot boxes.

The impact on game design.

The way they change the relationship between player and designer in-game.

And finally the unethical and I will say immoral way it preys on gamers, children or adult addicts. It uses transparent psychological tricks and fast credit to exploit players.

They want to purposefully make their players make impulsive, grifter-like wagers using the fast money their players have access to using the systems embedded in the game.

The game-maker provides as little information as possible about the potential rewards except for tiers represented by valuable minerals. This creates value through hiding information and using psychologically pleasing stand-ins.

You appear to be under the impression that a game has to be heroin, cigarettes, or sports betting in order for society to care about these people. My bar is a little lower than yours. It may take that for governments to intervene, but that is a separate question.

Commercials are regulated too. Commericals can be unethical or manipulative or misleading.

The marketing set-up for many of these games, the product, place, promotion, and price all contribute to what I feel is exploitative. It's not just "I hate the lootboxes."

I think game companies are getting away with exploiting people in this way and it is getting more and more ubiquitous. No one saying anything will lead to even more exploitative systems.

Do you believe the marketing around lootboxes are unethical?

My bar for regulating the industry is lower. I can see the systems in place and the petty harm sparking industry growth. I don't need to wait for years and years of abuse before saying this system is set-up to exploit classes of people.

 

[Exploratory]

I disagree but frankly, this is a fundamental argument that can't be debated or won. This is like trying to have a discussion about something fundamental that you believe in (usually of much greater importance). If you believe that lootboxes are exploitative or wrong no matter what I don't believe there's a discussion to even be had.

I just disagree.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

These are the extremes we need to go before we acknowledge the problem? It's just like that Twitter exchange with the IGN guy who reviewed Shadow of War (paraphrase): "Once loot boxes become too much of a problem, THEN we'll call out publishers." By then it'll be too damn late to do anything about it! This is a problem we need to nip in the bud before it gets worse, and you know it's going to get worse.

Those are not extreme examples. If lootboxes cause this type of gateway to cash gambling then there'd be stories of this by now cause lootboxes are not new.

People miss one of the huuuuuge draws for gambling: pleasure and profit. The highs of winning a sizable, relative gain is arguably more addicting than getting the skin you want.

Go to any casino and you will see the effects of gambling addiction. This isn't to say lootboxes aren't exploitive but they don't have the nasty consequences in abundance like cash gambling does.

 

[formasymphonic]

I honestly don't expect loot crates to go anywhere, but I think more can be done to keep people informed and make informed decisions for if they want to play games that include them. I don't expect any of these to be implemented but I've been considering some rough ideas for legislation:

1) Implementations of lootcrates and other pseudo-gambling systems to be included as part of PEGI / ESRB / USK / CERO ratings system. ”This game contains psuedo-gambling elements" / ”This game contains mechanics designed to induce addictive behaviours" - idk, the exact wording can be debated but something along those lines. Perhaps separate definitions for:
- simple RNG mechanisms (random chance to receive an item) akin to CCG packs? (This gets the first warning)
- stronger language / rating for systems intrinsically designed to encourage behaviour? (This would get both warnings)

2) Inclusion will automatically raise the rating of your game. I'm not one of those people who think it should make your game AO but I definitely think Overwatch getting by with a ”12" is too low under proposed scheme. Kids shouldn't be exposed to this stuff at all. If you as a parent want to allow this and think your children can deal with the behavioural psych targeting, then that's up to you. (Yes I can hear the CCG fans groaning)

3) Inclusion of pseudo gambling systems at a later date will require a recertification of your game. This is to deincentivise publishers who like to launch without this stuff to evade it showing in reviews and add them in later.

4) Drop rates for all items must be clearly and easily available for access both in-game and on a company's website. I don't just mean:
- ”bronze items have a 20-30% drop rate"
- ”silver items have a 8-13% drop rate"
- ”gold items have a 0.01-0.7% drop rate"
...I mean you need to be able to go to a page online, and a menu item in-game (like if you want to re-watch credits) and see that ”Mjolnir hammer, Son-of-Odin Limited Winter Exclusive Edition™" is a 0.01% drop. I understand that UI space is at a premium while playing a game and the more general figures may occur there but the full figures must always be disclosed, easily available, and updated whenever the rates are updated.

5) Drop rates must be consistent across all territories a game is available in. No lowering the odds in specific regions except for testing & diagnostic reasons. Eg, right now there are several games that we think we know the rates of because disclosure is required in China. But what is stopping a publisher from improving the rates in regions they are required to disclose in, but lowering them elsewhere?

6) If crate systems can be obtained with real money currency directly, or an intermediary current obtained with real money the game is required to disclose a running total of how much a player has spent. This must be shown both at time of purchase and available for later viewing via a menu item (similar to if a player wishes to re-watch credits).

7) Parental options to limit or block purchases should be implemented by both platform vendors and publishers for best practice. They have collaborated in order to enable these systems — it would not be an undue burden on either side to collaborate to provide monitoring mechanisms. Ideally a global option for blocking with an opt-in system per game to control limits. Eg you can allow a player to limit themselves to say £5/$5 a month increments or something. (I can already see publishers adjusting pricing to get to Incentivise you to go beyond that though).

Anyways those are just some rough ideas. I'm sure you guys can come up with better ones. I'd rather publishers toned this stuff down in the first place but if these systems aren't going to go away, we can at least encourage some more responsibility from publishers on them — as well as ask for some tools to better protect ourselves from their effects.

 

[Orca]

In rocket league you can’t earn keys to unlock lootboxes unless you buy them wish cash or trade another player. People defend it vehemently even though it’s standard that a game with lootboxes allows the players to earn keys in game.

The first game I remember encountering loot boxes in was TF2, and it doesn't allow you to earn keys at all - at least from what I recall.

 

[nicoga3000]

I disagree but frankly, this is a fundamental argument that can't be debated or won. This is like trying to have a discussion about something fundamental that you believe in (usually of much greater importance). If you believe that lootboxes are exploitative or wrong no matter what I don't believe there's a discussion to even be had.

I just disagree.

Fact.

I'd say a majority of the people on GAF in particular will never change their mind on anything. Lootboxes are a really good example of that fact.

 

[LordRaptor]

I disagree but frankly, this is a fundamental argument that can't be debated or won.

You're right, because they are a commonplace standard in the Webgames space, in the Mobile space, and in the PC space.
Its now that they're entering the console space - the space of the angry vocal minority - its suddenly a Big Huge Deal That Must Be Addressed

 

[CountAntonius]

These are the extremes we need to go before we acknowledge the problem? It's just like that Twitter exchange with the IGN guy who reviewed Shadow of War (paraphrase): "Once loot boxes become too much of a problem, THEN we'll call out publishers." By then it'll be too damn late to do anything about it! This is a problem we need to nip in the bud before it gets worse, and you know it's going to get worse.

It's not a problem for most people though. The people who have played CSGO, TF2, Dota, Rocket League have overwhelmingly embraced loot boxes and have made them a huge success which is why you are now seeing huge publishers take interest.

Why have they been successful? Because from the mp gamers perspective the games we play long term have never had more updates, support, free content, active competitive scenes and communities then we have now. They have this because developers found an infinite revenue stream that makes it more profitable to support a game long term rather than abandon it and churn out a sequel or another game which is what people have wanted for years. It's a better alternative to map packs that divide the communities, pay to win unlocks that have always been rejected and season passes which most people simply won't tolerate.

This is a moral dilemma and it's simply something most people will never care about because their gaming experiences have benefited greatly by them and unless they are gambling addicts they are unlikely to change, be affected by it or care.

What we are seeing now is bigger developers desperate for that revenue stream stick it into games where it simply doesn't make sense and actually negatively affects the game by balancing the game in a way where people feel frustrated or underpowered and buy loot boxes to eliminate some grind or being flat out pay to win. I don't believe these will be a success not because of morality but because their inclusions will make the games flat out worse and less enjoyable to the consumer.

 

[Klotera]

If you can get literally all of the cosmetics without paying a dime, then yeah, I'm okay with that.

Time is money. If the grind is excessive, I'd rather buy, but instead I'm forced to gamble. You think publishers don't make the grind harder to encourage people to buy loot boxes? Just look at the way in-game unlockables worked before DLC and how they work now.

Again, for me, it's better to have the boxes as long as they can be unlocked for free.

What you're asking for would make a game like Overwatch worse for me.

So, let there be loot boxes you can grind for in-game, but let people buy what they want for real money. Best of both worlds. You can still work your way to it and I can buy it. Unless specifically forcing other people to either grind or gamble makes it better for you.

From the individualistic perspective that detractors cite - that they have insufficient reasons to be playing the game for fun anymore and are playing for unlocks - there obviously isn't.

You buy the thing you want, you are now sated, and can move onto the next game.

From a publishers perspective, it removes (or lessens) the spending cap; there are people out there that enjoy your game enough that they want to pay more than their entry sticker price, but if you put a fixed price tag on everything, those people literally cannot pay more then that ever.
And if you think that is ludicrous, I ask you genuinely - have you ever played a game you enjoyed enough that you thought that the price you paid was actually too good of a deal, and you wouldn't begrudge kicking the makers a little bit more than they asked?

Because I have.

Real World Example, I blind preordered the most expensive edition of Natural Selection 2, because I enjoyed Natural Selection 1 so much (and it was free) that it felt like the very least I could do was back the developers, because they were doing something I liked that nobody else is.

If you've never felt like you've got more than your moneys worth in any game you've ever played, then okay, I'm not judging you, but have the courtesy to do the same.

From a game health perspective, if you can't pick the one skin you want for the one character you main, you continue playing the game until you do.
Maybe you get an amazing skin for a character you never really played as much, and give that character a shot because you have that skin, and maybe you grow to like that character and get to play the game a bit longer with 'fresh eyes' as a new gameplay style.
Playerbases sticking around are good for a games overall health because it means games are easy to find, and you can find fun games without getting owned because all that is left are the diehard superfans.

As far as being sated because I bought the thing I want, that doesn't make sense. Why did I buy a costume just to quit the game and not use it? Plus, many people actually play a game because it's fun, not just because we're earning something. I played tons of Unreal Tournament in college with no incentives besides the fact that it was fun.

If you're treating it as a virtual tip jar, then why not have literally a virtual tip jar? I'd guess people who have that mindset are a small minority, so why force everyone else to gamble?

Besides, it's not like paid content is that cheap, and you're still giving the publisher the secondary revenue stream. Add up all the extra characters, costumes, and stages in SFV. If you don't think you've given Capcom plenty after you've bought all that, then I question your sense of "value".

 

[Mass Effect]

See, I'd gladly buy a skin pack for heroes in Battlefront II, or a themed customization set for troopers, or even a direct shortcut kit to bypass rank requirements for weapons and abilities.

Lootcrates are an absolutely unneeded obfuscation.

Which is exactly why they exist, to keep you buying in. Because odds are you won't get what you're looking for the first, second, 5th, or even 10th time.

If you could just buy that one skin pack or shortcut kit and be content, then you wouldn't be spending any more money.

Obviously this isn't new to you or anyone else in this thread. We all know this. It's unfortunate, but this is how things will be going forward. You won't simply be able to buy what you want, you'll have to roll the dice every time.

And I'm not even inherently against loot boxes, but I just don't want to see progression in every game, particularly with multiplayer games, turned into a tedious slog determined by randomization, with this carrot being constantly dangled in front of you that basically says "you can make this go so much faster if you just drop $19.99 (best value)!"

And there are other issues with them I've expressed concern about as well, like having publicly displayed odds, how they affect game design, what are their effects on the disadvantaged, those with addiction issues, and children, which is what this thread is about. But I'm not even sure what can be done at this point.

 

[Klotera]

I dhonestly don’t expect loot crates to go anywhere, but I think more can be done to keep people informed and make informed decisions for if they want to play games that include them. I don’t expect any of these to be implemented but I’ve been considering some rough ideas for legislation:

If loot crates must exist, I think these are all fantastic and perfectly reasonable rules.

 

[LordRaptor]

If you're treating it as a virtual tip jar, then why not have literally a virtual tip jar? I'd guess people who have that mindset are a small minority, so why force everyone else to gamble?

Besides, it's not like paid content is that cheap, and you're still giving the publisher the secondary revenue stream. Add up all the extra characters, costumes, and stages in SFV. If you don't think you've given Capcom plenty after you've bought all that, then I question your sense of "value".

I don't know why you think a donation button would have as many contributors as having things to purchase would, or that if SFV was offered in a piecemeal Pay What You Want model it wouldn't mostly consist of poeple owning one or two Shotos?
The "I don't think people carry on playing games when they're not fun" isn't my argument, its the argument by lootbox detractors.
If people stop playing games when they're not fun, they're obviously not being 'manipulated' into buying lootboxes because they have a compulsion to see a bar go up.

 

[Gator86]

I will add to the argument

"It's not legally gambling"

-Just because it doesn't legally meet the definition of gambling doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated. Regulations are suppose to adapt to new predatory schemes, not ignore them because its not "technically" illegal.

"I get free updates in overwatch"

-Microtransactions dont have to be hidden behind an RNG designed by mental health professionals for maximum exploitation, Titanfall 2 gives you the option of buying whatever skin you want, and they give free DLC

"The game gives plenty of boxes in game"

-They didnt go through the trouble of putting them in there if they didnt think people would buy them, and if you keep supporting games that do this publishers will see how far they can go, how much they can get away with. "Its cosmetic only" very quickly turned into P2W lootboxes in Battlefront, and this is just the start of it.

"Game development costs have gone up, they need lootcrates to survive!"

-The struggling and smaller publishers aren't the ones pushing lootcrates in their premium games, its the biggest and most successful publishers in the history of the industry. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and Take Two are by far the biggest publishers, and they're the ones pushing this stuff. How could they have become so successful if prices stay the same and development costs went up? Because they make a ton of money selling DLC and the size of these companies make it hard for other publisher to compete with them, so they sell tens of millions of copies. And i'll point out again, they can have microtransactions WITHOUT putting them behind blind boxes.

"Its not that bad, just ignore them"

-If "Its not that bad" or "Just ignore them" is the absolute best defense you can come up with for a mechanic, then that mechanic has no business being in a video game.

Good post. Lootboxes are shit and people should demand better. The industry does bad stuff because consumers accept it.

 

[Gotchaye]

These are the extremes we need to go before we acknowledge the problem? It's just like that Twitter exchange with the IGN guy who reviewed Shadow of War (paraphrase): "Once loot boxes become too much of a problem, THEN we'll call out publishers." By then it'll be too damn late to do anything about it! This is a problem we need to nip in the bud before it gets worse, and you know it's going to get worse.

This isn't obvious to me. Especially when we're talking about something like Shadow of War which has an up-front cost, these games want to strike a balance between getting as much as possible from whales and still being appealing to people who are less willing to engage with a post-purchase monetization scheme. Free to play games really, really need to maintain a large population of free players. I think there's also been a trend in the last couple years towards aiming to lightly monetize a relatively large number of players rather than relying on a small number paying tons of money each.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Time is money. If the grind is excessive, I'd rather buy, but instead I'm forced to gamble. You think publishers don't make the grind harder to encourage people to buy loot boxes? Just look at the way in-game unlockables worked before DLC and how they work now.

Neat. You can like what you want. I'm just saying, when people say things like "loot boxes are always bad" I'm here to say that I wouldn't have bought Overwatch without them.

So, let there be loot boxes you can grind for in-game, but let people buy what they want for real money. Best of both worlds. You can still work your way to it and I can buy it. Unless specifically forcing other people to either grind or gamble makes it better for you.

Fine by me. As long as updates continue without me having to pay for anything, I'm good.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

I still haven't seen a good argument as to why loot crates are better than just being able to buy the thing you want. It still provides the secondary revenue stream for the dev while being more fair to players.

Rarity. That cool looking skin or emote isn't as cool if everyone has it.

 

[MikeE21286]

I don’t know. I mean it’s a free market. Vote with your dollars. If you don’t like it don’t buy it.

Personally I don’t buy any of that nonsense but have no problem with companies putting them in games.

 

[Applebite]

I think the question that isn't being asked enough is, what do we gain from lootboxes? And I'm asking this as a consumer. If your argument is "The developer and publisher can make more money this way", fine, that's a corporations side of the argument. But take your own side for a second here. What do you gain from loot boxes as a way to unlock content? What do you gain from "I will randomly get an item and maybe get what I want" vs. "I'm going to do this thing to unlock the specific thing I want" as a player?

 

[CookTrain]

Rarity. That cool looking skin or emote isn't as cool if everyone has it.

Why not sell limited amounts then?

... not that artificiality limiting digital stock is much better

 

[LordRaptor]

I think the question that isn't being asked enough is, what do we gain from lootboxes? And I'm asking this as a consumer. If your argument is "The developer and publisher can make more money this way", fine, that's a corporations side of the argument. But take your own side for a second here. What do you gain from loot boxes as a way to unlock content? What do you gain from "I will randomly get an item and maybe get what I want" vs. "I'm going to do this thing to unlock the specific thing I want" as a player?

stickier playerbases, which may or may not be a good thing from your perspective as a player.

 

[Falk]

I think the question that isn't being asked enough is, what do we gain from lootboxes? And I'm asking this as a consumer. If your argument is "The developer and publisher can make more money this way", fine, that's a corporations side of the argument. But take your own side for a second here. What do you gain from loot boxes as a way to unlock content? What do you gain from "I will randomly get an item and maybe get what I want" vs. "I'm going to do this thing to unlock the specific thing I want" as a player?

you get shiny crate opening animations and sparkly noises you wouldnt otherwise get if the game didnt have lootboxes

babam

 

[Klotera]

I don't know why you think a donation button would have as many contributors as having things to purchase would, or that if SFV was offered in a piecemeal Pay What You Want model it wouldn't mostly consist of poeple owning one or two Shotos?

Exactly my point, you're obfuscating the value the player is getting. Why is it a bad thing to have that value proposition as clear as possible? I want X costume and it's worth a certain amount to me. I'll pay that or less. It's how most people make purchasing decisions. Loot boxes are a shady way of getting them to pay more than what they actually think something is worth.

 

[Stallion Dan]

So many places calling lootboxes out as bad, is all a bunch of consumer pandering bullshit because they still gives the games high scores like pubs want.

Put review scores where your mouth is.

 

[MikeE21286]

I think the question that isn't being asked enough is, what do we gain from lootboxes? And I'm asking this as a consumer. If your argument is "The developer and publisher can make more money this way", fine, that's a corporations side of the argument. But take your own side for a second here. What do you gain from loot boxes as a way to unlock content? What do you gain from "I will randomly get an item and maybe get what I want" vs. "I'm going to do this thing to unlock the specific thing I want" as a player?

This seems like a hard conversation to be had because the answer is very individualized. And as a result difficult to have on a large scale.

I get nothing. But Person A may get a lot of enjoyment or save time (in their mind) by buying.

 

[CountAntonius]

I think the question that isn't being asked enough is, what do we gain from lootboxes? And I'm asking this as a consumer. If your argument is "The developer and publisher can make more money this way", fine, that's a corporations side of the argument. But take your own side for a second here. What do you gain from loot boxes as a way to unlock content? What do you gain from "I will randomly get an item and maybe get what I want" vs. "I'm going to do this thing to unlock the specific thing I want" as a player?

I'll quote what I said earlier.

Why have they been successful? Because from the mp gamers perspective the games we play long term have never had more updates, support, free content, active competitive scenes and communities then we have now. They have this because developers found an infinite revenue stream that makes it more profitable to support a game long term rather than abandon it and churn out a sequel or another game which is what people have wanted for years. It's a better alternative to map packs that divide the communities, pay to win unlocks that have always been rejected and season passes which most people simply won't tolerate.

Multiplayer gaming has never been better for me. On top of the reasons listed CSGO, H1Z1, PUBG, Rocket League have all paid for themselves and have actually funded my gaming completely for over two years because I don't open crates and just sell/trade them when they are in high demand. So to answer your question I and many others have gained plenty.

 

[Applebite]

stickier playerbases, which may or may not be a good thing from your perspective as a player.

Do you have anything to support this? I'm not saying your argument is illegitimate but it is, to my knowledge, at the very least unfounded. I think it's continuous updates that keeps the playerbase returning, not the lootboxes. If you had to, say, beat a certain challenge to unlock the new Zenyatta Halloween skin for example, wouldn't that have players coming back just as much? Sure, they might not play for as long because unlocking what they want might be faster, but is the tradeoff not worth it? Would the amount of players not playing really be that different?

 

[Klotera]

Neat. You can like what you want. I'm just saying, when people say things like "loot boxes are always bad" I'm here to say that I wouldn't have bought Overwatch without them.

So, what if it had both loot boxes and the option to purchase stuff outright? You still wouldn't buy it?

Rarity. That cool looking skin or emote isn't as cool if everyone has it.

Well, having something be harder to unlock and more expensive to buy would make it more rare.

Plus, I think it's a pretty sad mindset that something is only good if other people don't have it.

 

[Gotchaye]

I think the question that isn't being asked enough is, what do we gain from lootboxes? And I'm asking this as a consumer. If your argument is "The developer and publisher can make more money this way", fine, that's a corporations side of the argument. But take your own side for a second here. What do you gain from loot boxes as a way to unlock content? What do you gain from "I will randomly get an item and maybe get what I want" vs. "I'm going to do this thing to unlock the specific thing I want" as a player?

Two things, I think. The randomness is itself appealing. People like opening card packs in Hearthstone, right? It's fun when you randomly get something really cool. But also it means that you'll have different stuff than the next player. I started playing Overwatch and quickly got a legendary D.Va skin, so I played with it. I almost never saw anyone else using that skin. I sometimes saw other people with neat, rare skins. That everyone randomly gets a couple rare things tends to result in there being more variety of stuff actually present in the game than if everyone could buy exactly what they wanted (which would often be the same as what everyone else wanted, especially for stuff with gameplay effects), and makes your particular thing (and everyone else's particular thing) seem more special.

 

[Gator86]

I still haven't seen a good argument as to why loot crates are better than just being able to buy the thing you want. It still provides the secondary revenue stream for the dev while being more fair to players.

It's just a way to trick you into paying more for something. If I want a costume in Street Fighter V, I can go to the store, see the price and decide if I'm willing to pay it. Fair. They can charge more if it's more desirable or lower the price if it's not selling.

Now, these publishers know you wouldn't pay, say, $15 dollars for a certain item, so they hold out the carrot that you might be able to get it for the price of a loot box. But, you may end up spending $30 in loot boxes to get what you want. And, there's definitely going to be a "sunk cost" mentality among some players to keep going until they get what they want, since they've already put money in.

The next argument will be that you still get something. But, if it's not the thing I want, I might as well have gotten nothing.

Put it this way. If I want to buy a Milky-way, I go the store, hand them 99 cents and they give me a Milky-way. I don't hand them 99 cents and they hand me a random candy and I have to keep giving them 99 cents each time hoping to get it or just give up, having given them $5 dollars already for things I don't want. Meanwhile I'm stuck with 3 bags of candy corn and 2 bags of circus peanuts. Sure, I could try sell someone the candy corn and circus peanuts, but I'll be lucky if they'd give me a few cents each.

I consistently make this point and it's ignored entirely 95% of the time. Lootboxes are always defended on the most disingenuous premise that it's lootboxes, some season pass 2.0 shit, or the complete and total collapse of the industry, forcing devs to eat their pets for survival while living on the streets.

 

[TheXbox]

stickier playerbases, which may or may not be a good thing from your perspective as a player.

Good games with meaningful post-launch support have sticky playerbases. There may be a correlation between loot boxes and MP longevity, but it's not a causal relationship. The loot boxes fund the live team, who then provide updates and content that keep players going.

Not that there aren't some obsessive players who need their neurons tickled by crate animations, but they're outliers. Most people don't pay for that shit.

 

[Candescence]

"Made buyable individually" would fall apart unless they were priced insanely high. There would literally be no point to have purchaseable loot boxes (not a bad thing mind you) if you could get something for 5 bucks.

Valve already made it work in TF2 and DOTA, the cheeky part is that you can't get special variants of stuff via direct purchase, you'll need to get them as drops or buy them via the marketplace (and some special stuff can be worth thousands). If you want a fancy effect to go with your hat or a 'strange' variant of a weapon, you can't just buy them directly from Valve.

Of course, on the flipside, you need to buy keys to open up boxes in any of their games, though there are free drops, they're just separate from the crates.

But what I do like about how Valve's games, especially TF2, handle this sort of thing is that it's more personal than, say, Overwatch, which gives you permanent unlocks. You can customize your items, give them names, paint jobs, etc. And if you get strange variants with special effects, you'll have items that are less likely other people also have. It feels more worthwhile if you can actually make the stuff you acquire your own in different ways.

 

[Falk]

I think the question that isn't being asked enough is, what do we gain from lootboxes? And I'm asking this as a consumer. If your argument is "The developer and publisher can make more money this way", fine, that's a corporations side of the argument. But take your own side for a second here. What do you gain from loot boxes as a way to unlock content? What do you gain from "I will randomly get an item and maybe get what I want" vs. "I'm going to do this thing to unlock the specific thing I want" as a player?

Serious answer time: This applies more to games that are built around random pulls for progression, rather than a game with it tacked on as a subsystem - In many gacha games, your first strong pull essentially decides what kind of team you build around to start with.

You also see this peripherally in trading card games, although obviously getting a starter deck of a specific color is much easier.

I think some level of RNG adds spice to a game. You could see this in WoW raiding, for example, where different guilds of equal skill could end up with different loot from their weekly runs. A decked out tank team would employ different tactics than a guild that had tricked out DPS.

Now, whether that still holds true when it gets conflated to a monetization system where people can spend themselves silly for more chances at what they want, is up to discussion.

Valve already made it work in TF2 and DOTA, the cheeky part is that you can't get special variants of stuff via direct purchase, you'll need to get them as drops or buy them via the marketplace (and some special stuff can be worth thousands). If you want a fancy effect to go with your hat or a 'strange' variant of a weapon, you can't just buy them directly from Valve.

Of course, on the flipside, you need to buy keys to open up boxes in any of their games, though there are free drops, they're just separate from the crates.

Well, the post I was replying to specifically said "all in-game items that are avaliable in a loot box". ;p

 

[LordRaptor]

Exactly my point, you're obfuscating the value the player is getting. Why is it a bad thing to have that value proposition as clear as possible? I want X costume and it's worth a certain amount to me. I'll pay that or less. It's how most people make purchasing decisions. Loot boxes are a shady way of getting them to pay more than what they actually think something is worth.

Your point is that your hypothetical system where a game allows you to pick and choose specific piecemeal parts a la carte to allow you to pay the least minimum possible only for the specific parts you personally want is better than real life?

e:

Do you have anything to support this? I'm not saying your argument is illegitimate but it is, to my knowledge, at the very least unfounded. I think it's continuous updates that keeps the playerbase returning, not the lootboxes.

Good games with meaningful post-launch support have sticky playerbases. There may be a correlation between loot boxes and MP longevity, but it's not a causal relationship.

For games like Overwatch, lootboxes are part of the player progression system, not a completely seperate system that has no links to any other part of the game.
By 'levelling' you get lootboxes. It is not inherently any different to a CoD progression system, except CoDs progression has 'gameplay affecting' static unlocks, and Overwatch has 'cosmetic' random unlocks.

The stickiness comes from the progression system.

 

[PhantomThief]

It's unfortunate, but this is how things will be going forward.

This is imo such a bullshit defeatist argument.. many people said this when Xbox One was going to be always online and required DRM checkins.

This bullshit only sticks if we as gamers let the publishers set the rules and regulations. Like an addict coming to his dealer, they decide all the rules.

 

[Applebite]

I'll quote what I said earlier.



Multiplayer gaming has never been better for me. On top of the reasons listed CSGO, H1Z1, PUBG, Rocket League have all paid for themselves and have actually funded my gaming completely for over two years because I don't open crates and just sell/trade them when they are in high demand. So to answer your question I and many others have gained plenty.

I think this is the strongest argument yet, that it might potentially be worth it for developers to continue to be engaged in making new content. So it's sort of a both sides argument, and less of a consumers or corporations argument. But is this the only way to have a developer engaged in making new content? Is there no alternative, aside from something like map packs? And, as cliche as this question is, is it worth it?

And as someone with 1400+ hours in CS:GO, you're right, it can sort of pay for itself if you just sell the items that are dropped and don't buy any. But I'm more in favor of the CS:GO system because it inherently has value, whereas the Overwatch skins can't be resold or bought.

Two things, I think. The randomness is itself appealing. People like opening card packs in Hearthstone, right? It's fun when you randomly get something really cool. But also it means that you'll have different stuff than the next player. I started playing Overwatch and quickly got a legendary D.Va skin, so I played with it. I almost never saw anyone else using that skin. I sometimes saw other people with neat, rare skins. That everyone randomly gets a couple rare things tends to result in there being more variety of stuff actually present in the game than if everyone could buy exactly what they wanted (which would often be the same as what everyone else wanted, especially for stuff with gameplay effects), and makes your particular thing (and everyone else's particular thing) seem more special.

Again, I can see the value this might hold, the excitement of "opening a pack" essentially. But I guess you just have to weigh that against the frustration of not getting the thing that you want while potentially sinking hundreds of hours into the game. I don't know that I can say if it is or isn't worth it for everyone, but for me personally, I'm not a fan.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

This isn't obvious to me. Especially when we're talking about something like Shadow of War which has an up-front cost, these games want to strike a balance between getting as much as possible from whales and still being appealing to people who are less willing to engage with a post-purchase monetization scheme. Free to play games really, really need to maintain a large population of free players. I think there's also been a trend in the last couple years towards aiming to lightly monetize a relatively large number of players rather than relying on a small number paying tons of money each.

Financially it makes more sense to target everyone and not whales. Whales are nice but game whales are not casino whales that spend $10k a night or $500k a night. Whale territory could mean $5k for that entire player's history with that single game. $5k isn't a lot over 3 years in the grand scheme. Game whales are more like cherries to put on top of that delicious cupcake.

 

[CookTrain]

This is imo such a bullshit defeatist argument.. many people said this when Xbox One was going to be always online and required DRM checkins.

This bullshit only sticks if we as gamers let the publishers set the rules and regulations. Like an addict coming to his dealer, they decide all the rules.

That changed because the tide suggested people were going to pull their money out of the proposition. It was so damaging that they're still struggling to find their feet 4 years in the generation.

As a collective, gamers are throwing money hand over fist at loot boxes. All the moral indignation in the world isn't going to move that needle when so much money is being enthusiastically handed over.

Fortunately it seems a movement of influence is starting. Time will tell if people will take heed.

 

[CountAntonius]

I think this is the strongest argument yet, that it might potentially be worth it for developers to continue to be engaged in making new content. So it's sort of a both sides argument, and less of a consumers or corporations argument. But is this the only way? Is there no alternative, aside from something like map packs? And, as cliche as this question is, is it worth it?

And as someone with 1400+ hours in CS:GO, you're right, it can sort of pay for itself if you just sell the items that are dropped and don't buy any. But I'm more in favor of the CS:GO system because it inherently has value, whereas the Overwatch skins can't be resold or bought.

Honestly no clue if there is an alternative. If they were more transparent about the odds, made the fact they are included very visible along with an addiction warning and stuff like that I would be okay with it. If they found a way to keep the updates, free content community sizes growing with something that wasn't a so shady I'd be all for it.

 

[kirblar]

Lootboxes, Card Packs, Diablo Bosses, WoW Raid Bosses, Opening Birthday Presents - people like not knowing what they're going to get. (This is also part of the reason games like Poker, MTG, Pokemon TCG and Hearthstone are so successful, the RNG is a huge factor!)

And because of that, people are willing to pay money or invest time in order to get these types of experiences. As long as you have a decent crafting or Real Money system attached, I don't have an issue w/ this. Exploitative practices absolutely do exist and should be called out, but but saying "I don't like this, it should be banned" doesn't help anything.

Transparency should absolutely be there- it's there w/ TCG packs in physical games, no reason not to have it be explicit in digital ones as well.