Support NeoGAF

[Lonewulfeus]

They are using the money they get from those lootboxes in order to pay the people who make the games!

Lol, the lootbox profit is trickling down to the developer you say? Well that's refreshing in a corporate environment where all profits stay at the top!

 

[PrimeBeef]

Sure. But, like, if you're the mayor and 5 people are jumping off the bridge every day, you're kind of an asshole if you don't at least put up a guardrail.

Oh I agree. But to play devils advocate, if companies put in limitations on how much you could spend per day/weeek/month on these transactions we would see a ton of threads complaining about that rather that the lootboxes themselves.

 

[Darkstorne]

Do you have a study that shows a lot of people spending their life savings on loot boxes or all this just ‘what ifs’?

Sure, it's all "what ifs", but that is the goal - to target the gamers who will drop thousands rather than offering cosmetics directly so that EVERYONE gets what they want for $5. Most customers are unhappy, but profits are higher.

Elder Scrolls Online is a big issue for this at the moment. There was a thread on their forums about a guy who had spent over three thousand dollars on the latest crates trying to get a specific mount and eventually gave up after spending that much. It's a disgusting business practice that preys on those gamers weak enough to get caught in the "I've already invested X amount trying to get this cosmetic, so I may as well keep spending or all the money I've spent so far has been wasted."

I get that games need new revenue streams, but loot crates are disgusting. Too much emphasis on profits at the expense of the customer. They can sell these cosmetics directly, so we all get exactly what we want straight away at a fixed price. Everyone wins. But too many publishers want to maximise profits regardless of ethics. It's not like loot crates are the only option they have, and certainly not the fairest, so no one should be supporting them. You'd have to be addicted to the gambling sensation to defend this practice, in which case you need serious help.

 

[jelly]

People say it helps publishers with costs but over the years I tend to think they spend more time making content for lootboxes rather than core game content so you basically get less while being exploited or having the game play tailored to maximising loot boxes and that sucks.

 

[LordRaptor]

...What are you talking about? No one ever says that, and moreover, one involves real money and the other doesn't so.... what the hell is even your point

When the rerelease of FFVII specifically added in game 'boosters' to alleviate the inherent grind that was in the original title I think it is fair comment to point out that declaring modern games design is 'compromised' to sell timeskip DLC is taking a nostalgia-tinted viewpoint of older games.

 

[Phatosaurus]

I really don't get it. Loot boxes just add cosmetic items in most games, and I've largely ignored them because they cost money. What's the appeal to them exactly? Why are some people out there blowing their wage on them and why should I even care?

If kids are buying them, then the fault is with their parents for being irresponsible with money and giving them their card details.

If it's because they're designed to be "addictive", then doesn't the same go for old arcade games that were designed to be addictive and difficult, so as to drain more money out of the consumer?

In my completely unqualified opinion, the only regulation needed is that the drop rates for each item be listed clearly. Not to stop these crazies from injecting lootcrates directly into their bloodstream, just for the sake of clarity.

Ok. What you're doing right now is victim blaming. Did you not read the article? Many games with loot boxes (and micro transactions in general) are design to prey and exploit people. Saying that it's their own fault for not controlling themselfs is bullshit.

If somebody walks into a shop and spends all their money on scratchcards, are they a victim? They made a conscious decision to spend all their money in that way.

 

[CrazyHal]

I read articles like this and wonder, 'why should I care how people spend their money'.

If someone wants to waste all their money on loot boxes, that's on them. They're an addict? Then it's on them and their family to get help. Children becoming addict? That's on the parents and why are they're letting their child spend their credit card money without their supervision?

This entire thing reeks of a lack of personal responsibility. Companies want your money. That's all they want from you. It's on the consumer to say no.

I think that’s perfectly fair. I just take offense at people here trying to take responsibliy away from the consumer.

Loot boxes and the like exist because people buy them. If they’re being rip off, all you can do is spread the information. If they still buy the produce despite knowing they’re being rip off, that’s on them. You can’t save people from themselves if they don’t want to be save. Anyone who dealt with an addict knows this as a fact.

It isn’t society place to keep you from doing something stupid. It’s their money. They have the right to do whatever they want with it as long as they’re not causing harm to others.

And there’s an entire thread about why loot boxes isn’t the same as gambling.

Ok. What you're doing right now is victim blaming. Did you not read the article? Many games with loot boxes (and micro transactions in general) are design to prey and exploit people. Saying that it's their own fault for not controlling themselfs is bullshit.

 

[ZangBa]

I don't remember microtransactions getting this much pushback from the gaming media and they were/are way worse than lootboxes. Games journalists must hate mobile games. I completely support cosmetic lootboxes. They are just new age unlockables to me, and if they help support a game with new, free content, then I'm all for it. If people want to spend money on cosmetics then let them, it's their responsibility.

P2W lootboxes are a real problem for game balance and game design, those are garbage and deserve to be trashed.

 

[Falk]

I will gladly support any games that rejects these practices

das a lot of games to play bro

 

[jelly]

I wonder what is going to happen with games realising in a year or two or three. Loot boxes can't have gone unnoticed and are no doubt in their DNA but are we starting to see a push back, could that scupper a few games and publishers, developers need to think carefully what their direction is. I do fear for Halo 6, REQs were a success and any smart business would double down, expand and spread it everywhere for maximum return. Could consumers have turned their back on loot boxes in a few years?

 

[CookTrain]

das a lot of games to play bro

Support doesn't have to mean play! It can also be a... "Woo... go you!"... sort of deal.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I don't remember microtransactions getting this much pushback from the gaming media and they were/are way worse than lootboxes. Games journalists must hate mobile games. I completely support cosmetic lootboxes. They are just new age unlockables to me, and if they help support a game with new, free content, then I'm all for it. If people want to spend money on cosmetics then let them, it's their responsibility.

P2W lootboxes are a real problem for game balance and game design, those are garbage and deserve to be trashed.

They dont need lootboxes to fund new content, titanfall 2 has the same business model as overwatch but they take the RNG out of the equation, if you see a skin you want you can earn it in game or buy it.

 

[Plague Doctor]

Support doesn't have to mean play! It can also be a... "Woo... go you!"... sort of deal.

lol I was thinking more of a digital bump fist.

But seriously, I am more predisposed to game companies that outright reject these practices now. Consider me a potential fanboy for them,

 

[CreateNowSleepLater]

Threads like these make me wonder how many astroturfers are hiding on GAF. Seriously, loot box apologists are rationalizing gambling for children, why else would someone rationalize that?

Im following this thread and I agree with you 100%. There are some moles here. How can you defend this really? How do I buy BF II and let my kid who loves Star Wars play it? What the fuck are we teaching our kids here? You are basically telling them its ok to spend money for a chance to randomly win something that will help you beat someone else becuse they dont have it. Its a game of chance, by spending money you have a CHANCE. Its fucking gambling. The only implementation I dont mind really is Halo 5 because you can grind to it and its dedicated to Warzone.

I wonder, this is the biggest gaming forum out there. What would the CEO of Disney and Lucas film think of this. I doubt they pay much attention to this stuff and turning their fans into gamblers is probably not what they had in mind. We should organize something, At least a high profile communication, petition even that gets their attention. These pubs are scum bags, they have been pulling game content out for years and reselling it. At least you knew what you were buying. This provides and endless stream of money whth no guarantee you will get what you want.

 

[jelly]

They dont need lootboxes to fund new content, titanfall 2 has the same business model as overwatch but they take the RNG out of the equation, if you see a skin you want you can earn it in game or buy it.

Yep, a good alternative way to do it.

 

[Grindlefly]

Playing a week of snes mini without any games trying to sell me shit has been a real treat.

I've been doing and thinking the exact same thing

 

[ZangBa]

They dont need lootboxes to fund new content, titanfall 2 has the same business model as overwatch but they take the RNG out of the equation, if you see a skin you want you can earn it in game or buy it.

Of course they don't need to, but if it helps then I'm all for it. Also, you can buy skins you want in Overwatch with coins which everyone has plenty of by now if they played consistently. I still have about 12k after buying most of the summer skins.

 

[Bill R Boggess]

If you want the situation to change then I'd say yes you and lots of others would need to decide not to support games with these sorts of practices at all. Buying the base game is still a sort of tacit approval of these monetization systems whether or not you participate in them because you are populating their servers making these games and these systems more appealing to others. At least that's the way I see it anyway

I'm ambivalent to the situation because I don't buy loot boxes.

I understand the argument against them (and agree they are a piss poor idea) but given the many other ways this (and every other) industry nickel and dimes the consumer, the notion that I should pass on playing some of my most anticipated games seems excessive.

Actually, given that most consumers don't care either way, boycotting something like Battlefront II will accomplish precisely one thing:

I won't get to play Battlefield II.

Personally, I think buying the game and entirely ignoring the loot box model sends a much stronger individualistic message than an anonymous boycotting but in reality, even if I'm perpetuating the problem, I'm not going to deny myself something I very much want to play just because some people out there are foolish enough to pump money into loot boxes.

 

[Bill R Boggess]

If somebody walks into a shop and spends all their money on scratchcards, are they a victim? They made a conscious decision to spend all their money in that way.

In our current society, everybody is a victim.

Nobody is responsible for their actions and everything is an addiction, disorder, etc.

 

[CrazyHal]

If somebody walks into a shop and spends all their money on scratchcards, are they a victim? They made a conscious decision to spend all their money in that way.

Scratchcards are not design to physiologically manipulate and exploit the vulnerable. Not to mention they are nothing like a video game. Stop making these ridiculous comparisons.

Look, i encourage everyone to watch this extra credits video to see how bad micro transactions can get. While the video is 3 years old and talks specifically about free to play games, many of what it says now apply to premium AAA games.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I'm ambivalent to the situation because I don't buy loot boxes.

I understand the argument against them (and agree they are a piss poor idea) but given the many other ways this (and every other) industry nickel and dimes the consumer, the notion that I should pass on playing some of my most anticipated games seems excessive.

Actually, given that most consumers don't care either way, boycotting something like Battlefront II will accomplish precisely one thing:

I won't get to play Battlefield II.

Personally, I think buying the game and entirely ignoring the loot box model sends a much stronger individualistic message than an anonymous boycotting but in reality, even if I'm perpetuating the problem, I'm not going to deny myself something I very much want to play just because some people out there are foolish enough to pump money into loot boxes.

If you want to play the games i cant fault for that, but i do disagree with you about buying the game but not. Using the boxes strategy.

If they get your 60 then theres no reason for them not to put the lootboxes in there, lootboxes arent going to be expensive to put in, they only need a small percentage of players to buy them to make it worh it.

But if say, 20% of their fanbase boycotts the game, all of a sudden EA is probably going to take them out because they stand to lose something from putting them in there.

Thats my strategy anyways, i admit that im on the losing side of this battle though.

 

[ComputerBlue]

I wonder what is going to happen with games realising in a year or two or three. Loot boxes can't have gone unnoticed and are no doubt in their DNA but are we starting to see a push back, could that scupper a few games and publishers, developers need to think carefully what their direction is. I do fear for Halo 6, REQs were a success and any smart business would double down, expand and spread it everywhere for maximum return. Could consumers have turned their back on loot boxes in a few years?

I'd like to hope that they'll have to be careful. The past month especially has seen a lot of people being very vocal about them in games. There was always those with problems with them, there was even a vocal majority I would say. But it never really started hitting even news outlets and outrage levels like it has over the past few weeks. I just hope that it continues if devs and pubs continue shoving them into their games.

First it was online passes, people started to push back, so they got rid of them.

Then it was season passes, people stopped paying, so you don't see them as often in games, especially with passes that split the online communities.

Now it's loot crates, and I fear that until they find something to replace them with, they're going to stay. If they do then hopefully of the cosmetic kind only, but I doubt it. If you read the comments here, most are still not okay with the changes DICE is making, rightfully so, because they're still not only cosmetic. Then go to r/Starwarsbattlefront and be amazed at how many people are not only okay with the changes, but fucking grateful, and thankful...It's depressing.

 

[Dyle]

I will never pay for any loot boxes. I bought two back in the early days of TF2, got shitty stranges for classes I didn't really use, and have never looked back. I have some tolerance for them in f2p games, Fire Emblem Heroes being my one weakness, but will never actually spend money to buy them. At best they make the game feel cheap and shitty, at worst (and most commonly) they're abusive manipulations of the human psyche designed solely for profit

 

[Gator86]

In our current society, everybody is a victim.

Nobody is responsible for their actions and everything is an addiction, disorder, etc.

Thanks, Paul Ryan. This is exactly what everyone is saying. You totally nailed it.

 

[Phatosaurus]

Scratchcards are not design to physiologically manipulate and exploit the vulnerable. Not to mention they are nothing like a video game. Stop making these ridiculous comparisons.

Look, i encourage everyone to watch this extra credits video to see how bad micro transactions can get. While the video is 3 years old and talks specifically about free to play games, many of what it says now apply to premium AAA games.

Oh yeah, scratch cards are a form of gambling and lootcrates are a virtual form of this:

Despite that, seems like a lot people want to class lootcrates as gambling. At this point, I think the majority are just salty they spent 400 quid on loot crates and didn't get what they wanted.

 

[Anne]

Scratchcards are not design to physiologically manipulate and exploit the vulnerable. Not to mention they are nothing like a video game. Stop making these ridiculous comparisons.

Look, i encourage everyone to watch this extra credits video to see how bad micro transactions can get. While the video is 3 years old and talks specifically about free to play games, many of what it says now apply to premium AAA games.

I like how you link to a video that uses Hearthstone as an example of how to do things right in a discussion where many think the random packs are the problem. It actually kind of highlights why this discussion is really weird to have around here.

 

[Bill R Boggess]

Thanks, Paul Ryan. This is exactly what everyone is saying. You totally nailed it.

Really?

Because I happen to think that at some point, people do have to take a wee bit of responsibility for themselves you compare me to some GOP shitbag?

We're not talking about welfare or income disparity or the anti-union sentiment that has permeated corporate America for decades.

We're talking about loot boxes in a fucking videogame and some people are making the argument that these poor souls just can't help themselves, which I find a bit disingenuous if not downright silly.

 

[Aureon]

Think this is one of the points the author was addressing in her tweets that just because you don't care about cosmetics it doesn't mean everybody else feels the same way and it is just as exploitative to people who do care as gameplay-affecting items.

I've said in the past that I don't care if all lootboxes contain is cosmetic items because I have and never will care about what my character looks like that much but I realise this is pretty selfish of me. It's a bit like me saying I don't care about lootboxes in Battlefront 2 because I'm not going to play it. Your point is also slightly irrelevant because these games aren't charging $40 instead of $60.

You... entirely sure that they don't?


I understand cosmetics are a big draw - but for how much a draw they are, they do not cause balance issues or create perverse incentives in making excessively difficult gameplay loops.

Also dropping 50-100$ a month isn't addiction-level money if you're affluent.
Saying this is "gambling" kind of trivializes the real danger actual gambling, where the main draw is the chance to win real money, rather than a skin - poses.

Games are a good where the cost per unit is substantially nil, and i'm kind of okay with varying cost per consumer, honestly.

 

[Bill R Boggess]

If you want to play the games i cant fault for that, but i do disagree with you about buying the game but not. Using the boxes strategy.

If they get your 60 then theres no reason for them not to put the lootboxes in there, lootboxes arent going to be expensive to put in, they only need a small percentage of players to buy them to make it worh it.

But if say, 20% of their fanbase boycotts the game, all of a sudden EA is probably going to take them out because they stand to lose something from putting them in there.

Thats my strategy anyways, i admit that im on the losing side of this battle though.

You might be right but sincerely, I don't think it much matters either way.

That said, if you could actually organize and effectively implement a boycott that would actually cut them that deeply, it might be worth doing.

But in reality, that's probably not going to happen.

 

[KingV]

People say it helps publishers with costs but over the years I tend to think they spend more time making content for lootboxes rather than core game content so you basically get less while being exploited or having the game play tailored to maximising loot boxes and that sucks.

Even overwatch, which almost definitely the best supported of these type of games, has only about as much new stuff as one would of expected with a season pass and it’s been put for like 18 months

 

[Cocaloch]

See, this is what I think is just kinda dumb. Like, I don't give a fuck what you wanna say with "good arguing" or whatever.

Well that's a shame. I feel like we should be putting a lot of critical thought into arguing when we arguing, so I also feel like we should be putting a lot of critical thought into what arguing is. If you have a problem, by all means make your points against what I'm saying. One way to start doing that might be to stop reducing down what I'm saying to one sentence and talking about that. Even if that's all you want to address looking at the entirety of what I'm saying is probably useful.

I'm just gonna lay out an opinion real quick. I think the game design issues on this have close to 0 bearing on what the actual issue is.

Well obviously you don't feel that, because of how you're choosing to look at the issue, just like how someone that thinks it's importance thinks it does have bearing on the issue.

As Steve said, if you don't like the design but lots of other people do, that's really on you. If people love lootboxes and think they are fun, then that's kind of just it. Whether or not you personally like that really does not and should not matter.

I agree with your first two sentences, but I don't see how you got to that last one from that. That warrant is key to what you're arguing here, it'd be useful to spell it out. Personally I think the moral issue is far more important here, but I'm not going to tell someone that cares about design that they are wrong to care about it. Moreover I'm certainly not going to say what people like should have no impact on the products we create, that seems odd.

What I would like to matter a whole lot more is specifically pinning down when and where the moral stuff kicks in.

Alright, but you're on a gaming forum that skews centre-right on economic issues. Just be aware of that. A good chuck of people here will ardently reject the idea that the moral sphere and the market have any overlap.

Where does it become the individual's responsibility, where does it become the publishers, and at what point does it stop being healthy to interact with.

These are all interesting questions, and I'd like to see people talk about them sure.

I don't see those arguments coming up.

I saw, I haven't had the chance to read past this post yet, those arguments coming up. What do you think vote with your wallet means? They could be better developed yes, but as it is, unthinking libertarianism and knee-jerk rejection offer the easiest paths for each respective side, so that's what you're going to see the most of.

The way the argument is framed is also not particularly conducive to asking these questions. Since the board, understandably, has generally understood the topic to be should they or should they not be regulated. That doesn't lend itself to questions of implementation and degree. Those are more relevant questions once we've accepted some regulation might be a good thing.

I do see a lot of all or nothing or hiding them behind games suffering or thinking of the children.

The former isn't an attempt to obscure it, it's fundamentally a different point. The later is lazy more than obscuring.

All I see is "this is morally bad" or "I never liked this" or something like that. If it's going to be a moral issue, talk about the specific morals.

I've seen some more complex arguments around than you seem to be thinking, but yes more nuance is generally a good thing. I certainly haven't been calling for less nuance anywhere on this board.

 

[marlowesghost]

Scratchcards are not design to physiologically manipulate and exploit the vulnerable. Not to mention they are nothing like a video game. Stop making these ridiculous comparisons.

Look, i encourage everyone to watch this extra credits video to see how bad micro transactions can get. While the video is 3 years old and talks specifically about free to play games, many of what it says now apply to premium AAA games.

Thats exactly what scratchcards do, and even a small bit of research would have told you that. For example:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X12003199

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10899-010-9194-0?LI=true

 

[kirblar]

No, it's not "both". Developers don't see a single cent of royalties from loot box revenue.

If something is not earning income, the company will not pay people to make more of it.

This is not a complicated concept.

 

[NimbusD]

This feels obvious but I guess it's worth saying regularly and explicitly.

I'm pretty affluent. Me and my friends don't buy any micro transactions in mobile games or loot boxes or any of it. Even if we have "addictive" personalities we apparently have other avenues for that.

We also don't borrow from payday lenders or buy cars on subprime, repo-prone loans. Even if we need money we have other avenues for that.

This whole thing just feels like example #999 of preying mostly on people who can't afford it for the benefit of people who are much better off. After all, I play a bunch of micro transaction-supported games and pay zero of them

I'm not sure I'm sold on this. I understand that people who are in a poor economic state and have addictive personalities can get caught up in it,but making the experience of opening a lootbox an anticipatory experience I don't think is necessarily geared towards solely exploiting them. It can be a fun thing to see if your new loot boxes gets something cool.

It's feeling to me like the argument is like people saying that not everyone can deal with alcohol in a safe manner, so it should be banned.

Games in general can be addictive. If loot boxes didn't exist, people would still be buying games because they're addicted to them.

I'm certainly down with trying to limit them in some way, whether it's limiting purchases, or giving some kind of warnings I. Game or through earn, o don't know. But it's weird to me that it's catching on as a thing that people just want gone.

 

[border]

How did people even come to the conclusion that loot boxes are meant to exploit the poor and disadvantaged? Prior to the Kotaku author making such a claim, even the most vehement anti-lootbox people never went that far.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

If it's because they're designed to be "addictive", then doesn't the same go for old arcade games that were designed to be addictive and difficult, so as to drain more money out of the consumer?

Most arcade games weren't games of chance.

 

[kirblar]

How did people even come to the conclusion that loot boxes are meant to exploit the poor and disadvantaged? Prior to the Kotaku author making such a claim, even the most vehement anti-lootbox people never went that far.

They're copy-pasting anti-lottery arguments onto anti-lootbox arguments when the situations aren't analogous.

 

[LordRaptor]

How did people even come to the conclusion that loot boxes are meant to exploit the poor and disadvantaged? Prior to the Kotaku author making such a claim, even the most vehement anti-lootbox people never went that far.

The biggest victims of a gambling problem are - due to money and gambling being fairly intrinsically linked - correspondingly poor and disadvantaged.
People that are compulsive gamblers but routinely win are not generally considered to have a gambling 'problem'.

 

[Phatosaurus]

Most arcade games weren't games of chance.

Loot crates aren't really a game of chance. You're guaranteed to win something. It might not be what you wanted, but you're still getting something back for your money.

The main point of that question however, was that old arcade games were designed to promote consumer to spend more money on them. Similarly, lootcrates are also designed in a way to promote consumers to spend more money on them.
One is seen as okay, whereas the other isn't. Why?

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

If something is not earning income, the company will not pay people to make more of it.

This is not a complicated concept.

The publishers pushing the lootcrates are EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and Take two. These are the biggest and richest publishers in the history of the industry, with or without loot boxes.

 

[ZangBa]

The biggest victims of a gambling problem are - due to money and gambling being fairly intrinsically linked - correspondingly poor and disadvantaged.
People that are compulsive gamblers but routinely win are not generally considered to have a gambling 'problem'.

I'm not buying this. Poor people aren't buying new games and lootboxes, whales are. Poor people probably don't even have a current gen console in the first place, and if they did they would sell it. If they are addicted to gambling they aren't doing it in a game, they are selling that and doing actual real gambling for money because they want to win big money and not be broke anymore. That's why lootboxes aren't gamblimg, you always get what you pay for; worthless virtual cosmetics or P2W junk.

 

[border]

The biggest victims of a gambling problem are - due to money and gambling being fairly intrinsically linked - correspondingly poor and disadvantaged.

Surely you realize it's disingenuous at best to assume that lootboxes carry all the same social ills as bigger more high stakes forms of gambling? Not all gambling is the same. When a church runs a raffle or bingo game, is your immediate reaction "Oh look, they've deliberately designed a system to exploit the economically disadvantaged!"?

 

[NullPointer]

Alright, but you're on a gaming forum that skews centre-right on economic issues. Just be aware of that. A good chuck of people here will ardently reject the idea that the moral sphere and the market have any overlap.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I'll be honest I kind of struggle to empathize with people who apparently have gambling addictions so intense that apparently they can't stop dumping money on the equivalent of toys. I can accept it, but the premise is pretty far removed from me.

Alright, but you're on a gaming forum that skews centre-right on economic issues. Just be aware of that. A good chuck of people here will ardently reject the idea that the moral sphere and the market have any overlap.

What country do you live in that NeoGAF skews center-right?

 

[kirblar]

The publishers pushing the lootcrates are EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and Take two. These are the biggest and richest publishers in the history of the industry, with or without loot boxes.

And they are not going to pay people to produce content if they are not making a profit on said content.

Their level of wealth is irrelevant. This is how business works.

 

[Clockwork5]

Informative article, not sure how much effect it'll have. Every new OW event has dozens of people in this forum talking about the $50 in boxes they spent for it. No publisher will ever turn down that kind of money.

Zero effect.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

And they are not going to pay people to produce content if they are not making a profit on said content.

Their level of wealth is irrelevant. This is how business works.

Is it verifiably false that they need lootboxes to make profits, if you're talking about free dlc they can do the titanfall 2 model, which has no loot boxes.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

If something is not earning income, the company will not pay people to make more of it.

This is not a complicated concept.

???
It's not the struggling indies who have loot crates, it's the already incredibly wealthy publishers.

When the rerelease of FFVII specifically added in game 'boosters' to alleviate the inherent grind that was in the original title I think it is fair comment to point out that declaring modern games design is 'compromised' to sell timeskip DLC is taking a nostalgia-tinted viewpoint of older games.

Huh? Those boosters are free and in no way comparable to paid DLC, for one, they're essentially the equivalent of cheat codes back in the day, and are really for people who just want to break the game for the lulz, they completely break game balance, they don't re-balance the game. What an inept analogy.

 

[kirblar]

Is it verifiably false that they need lootboxes to make profits, if you're talking about free dlc they can do the titanfall 2 model, which has no loot boxes.

They could do that. At the consequence of there being less free DLC.

Different models and population sizes come with trade-offs. What works for one game that's only expecting to be "THE game" for a year or two before being replaced is different from another that's expecting to need to sustain itself for a decade+.

 

[omgwtfbentime]

In our current society, everybody is a victim.

Nobody is responsible for their actions and everything is an addiction, disorder, etc.

Your inability to empathize with individuals falling victim to a predatory practice and instead side with massive corporations doing a practice that benefits no one but the profits of a company makes me a bit sick.

Seriously. How can you blame individuals suffering from real addiction (seriously, there’s proven psychology behind gambling addiction) and instead take the stance of people needing to have some accountability for things out of their control? When someone is an alcoholic do you tell them they can just stop drinking. When someone is depressed do you tell them to stop feeling sad? Gambling by its nature is predatory and makes its money on people coming out on the bottom, lootboxes are no different. If lootboxes weren’t making more money than honest to goodness cosmetic stores, publishers would have ditched them long ago, there’s a proven psychology to these predatory practices and probably a disgusting gross amount of research and statistics they have about how to make as much money as possible off these things. They don’t help developers, as far as I know no publisher is getting bonuses tied to selling loot boxes, they’re simply making giant corporations more giant, because simply making money isn’t enough when you could make MORE money by any means possible.