Support NeoGAF

[Nick_C]

I think the problem is a lot more complicated than the writer wants to give it credit for. Simply not buying the games can lead to a slew of different scenarios.

One being that they start to rethink how they are monetizing the experience. Do they double down on loot box mechanics and continue to strip away more and more of the mechanics until the end user is all but forced to engage in the system? Do they pull back and reevaluate whether the lost sales are worth the impact on the future of the business?

Another conclusion that can be reached is that the game itself is no longer desirable. Not buying Forza 7 can lead to MS and Turn 10 thinking that their player base is no longer there.

These are things to consider when people tell you to "vote with your wallet".

---

TL;DR Why I find loot boxes predatory.

I feel that the acceptance of loot boxes was a watershed moment in gaming that really brought to light that things like this can be a viable source of added income, for two reasons.

The first reason is that it showed that people were willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money for the chance[/]i] to acquire things that were usually just sold a la carte preiviosuly. What was once a $3 skin had the potential to bring in exponetially more profit than it originally would have. They have "gamified" a normal transaction, all the while making money hand-over-fist in the process. It's no longer trading currency for an item you want, but trading currency for the possibility to receive said item.

On a conceptual level, this is the very definition of a gamble. The customer is paying real world money, in most cases, to bet on an uncertain outcome. Do they end up with the awesome Mercy skin, or do they open a box containing a bunch of sprays, or worse, the Reaper skin.

The other reason being that Blizzard has seamlessly tied opening loot boxes into the gameplay loop. These things are no longer relegated to a store that you don't have to engage in if ytou don't want to. The XP bar is very prominently displayed as a continued reminder of when you get to open the next box. Early on in your Overwatch career, the games showers you with loot boxes. Levels come and go so rapidly that you'll end up accruing more boxes than you thought imaginable in the time that you played, just screwing around with some friends.

Then, after a certain level, that bar takes longer to fill. You're spending more and more time between those boxes (the games only reward system), being reminded how of far away form a level up you are. That gameplay loop that you got so used to, short session > reward > short session > reward, is interrupted. Here's where the option to pay real money to circumvent that comes into play. You no longer have to wait for that level up to occur. A couple of bucks can get you that satisfaction right now.

It never once crosses your mind that you've essentially been groomed to act on these impulses. It's normalized so early on by throwing so much free stuff at you that you start to find ways to justify it. They're giving you free characters, what's the harm in tossing them a few bucks? New maps, sure, I'll drop a tenner. Halloween update? If I drop $20 now I up my chances at getting the skin I want.

This is most evident in Forza. The gameplay systems are so intertwined with one another that not participating in the loot boxes put you at a severe disadvantage. The game boasts 700 cars, 100+ of which may be tied specifically to boxes. There's a collection page, which shows you what you do and do not have, and how to acquire the cars you need. These cars now have point values that tie directly into progress. The cars that add the most points to to your collection rank are obviously the most expensive. You can't just crank up the difficulty and turn off assists to make the money you need anymore. The fastest way to accumulate Cr is through mods. Mods being only being obtainable through loot boxes. Loot boxes that cost in-game currency now, but will cost Tokens (premium currency) in the future. Again, building up a dependency early on, then pulling the rug out afterward.

As time goes on, traditional gameplay mechanics are being subverted in favor of monetizing as much as possible and we're being taught to accept it.

 

[AndyMoogle]

If you put money into loot box bullshit you are killing gaming one drip at a time.
It's a simple as that.

AAA gaming. Not gaming as a whole. And it's not going to die anytime soon.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'm entirely aware of this, Audioboxer, and I completely agree with you that big games publishers aren't merely making making ends meet (rather posting record profits), however, I think it helps to me pragmatic on this issue and the cynical pragmatic view is that now that publishers have smelled the "gravy train" of dat sweet sweet lootbox revenue there's next to no realistic way that we're going to persuade them to abandon it.

Sure, you can call it a defeatist attitude and I would agree with that. But I see it as better to be defeatist and accept that the best we can hope for is purely cosmetic lootboxes that don't impact gameplay/progression, than try to waste our energy trying to persuade the dog not to eat the perfectly cooked, gourmet 16oz sirloin steak sat right in front of him.

Yeah, you're right like many others say, trying to persuade or push for change/reversal is like trying to climb a mountain blindfolded, nude and with no safety harness. Sometimes it works though. I've purposely made a point in the debate with some posters around here as of late to bring up Forza 7 VIP, Diablo 3 real money AH and a part of what burned MS on the Xbox One original plan (always-online/DRM on steroids/hostile to the physical market). There are examples when vocal outcries and pressure work, even if they can be putting a temporary band-aid on a decapitated limb. Hardcore gamers on forums/social media making a noise are sometimes picked up by the mainstream gaming press/journalists, like with this Metro article, and that occasionally blows downwind to the more casual gamers. Sometimes they get involved. Snowball effect. The publishers will love many of their allies in the gaming community furiously telling others to shut up though, that I can assure you.

If people want to sit out these discussions/feedback/criticism/"boycotts" then go ahead. You do you. Just expect other gamers not to sit it out, because even if the RNG is against us for change happening (get it... RNG of our protests working... har har har), what do we have to lose being vocal? Besides other gamers losing their shit we're criticising games/publishers they like.

 

[RoninChaos]

Not that it will make much of a difference but I'm not buying shadow of war and I decided against buying Forza 7 because of the loot boxes. I can't give money to games that tilt the gameplay with loot boxes.

 

[MikeyB]

It is a good article that lays out the serious issues with loot boxes. Two of those issues relate to DLC more generally while one is specific to loot boxes. What they didn't do is get into the policy background of those issues, which is worth doing here as so many seem to think the issue is of no concern.

1. Added cost of a game. This applies to all DLC. Depending on the implementation, it could be considered drip pricing, which has been prohibited in other industries. Drip pricing is where you pay for a service or good, but find out later that to actually use that service or good, there are additional mandatory fees. In many jurisdictions, hotel have been forbidden from adding a "hospitality fee" and airlines have to show the full cost. It is where the push for "all-in" pricing comes from.

With DLC, whether it is drip pricing depends on how clear they were about what the product is. If they advertised a game with all the skins, purchaseable unlocks, etc with the base game price, I would argue that it is drip pricing and should be regulated. But it has a lot of room for interpretation.

2. Game design. This affects all DLC. If the game design is hobbled without the use of DLC, then DLC has negatively impacted the game. DLC that confers clear advantages in multiplayer is such a feature. Other examples seem debatable and I don't think you could ever regulate it well. Voting with your wallet is the way to go here.

3. Gambling. This is loot box specific. This is the knock down argument in my opinion. Gambling paws get very specific about what gambling is and there is all sorts of room to interpret whether definition in jurisdiction x covers the practice. That's not particularly interesting, since the laws represent the risk of harm at the time. Courts have reinterpreted these laws on the basis of a question about whether a practice draws on a gambling impulse. It is clear that loot boxes do. Psychologists know this, game designers know this, and publishers know this. If you know or are a whale, you know this. And this stuff is marketed to children. It is clearly wrong.

As for the argument that "it doesn't affect me", well, who gives a shit? This is about a small segment of the market that is vulnerable due to impulsivity issues, be it addiction or being a minor. They ought to be protected.

 

[Coxy100]

The biggest lie that gamers have ever sold themselves is "cosmetics do not matter".

Cosmetics, character creation, armour, weapons, dyes/colours and all that jazz is arguably one of the most important things since gaming has had the technical ability to introduce self-chosen visual diversity. Why does anyone think the modding scene for Fallout/The Elder Scrolls has been dominated by cosmetic mods for characters/scenery/weapons/items/clothing/etc for years? Some of that was to improve ugly character models, yeah, but a lot of it was adding to visual diversity. Which Bethesda are even now trying to cashin on with paid mods.

The vast majority of the gaming market goes fucking gaga for the ability and dopamine rush to look good/wear swish armour and stand out from the crowd. People post endless pictures of their in-game avatars and the loot or cosmetics they have. Dark Souls, one of the most "hardcore" series you can get is more concerned about Fashion Souls half the time. What looks good/cool. Again, one of the biggest lies gamers convinced themselves is cosmetics don't really matter and they're not really part of the experience. Tragic really. It's more a "lesser evils" signup sheet than anything (oh, but if my friends at company X need to put food on their table as long as they just uproot the whole cosmetic part of the game I'm happy as can be!). Yes, gameplay is always arguably going to be king, but some of the words uttered by some to genuinely try and completely downplay cosmetics are outrageous in an industry where cosmetics generate soo much money. They do matter, and we should be having more conversations about games that really take the piss with cosmetic monetization gone too far. It should not be off the table for discussion just because you don't want people discussing cosmetics (this sentence is a neutral statement, not aimed at you TheThreadsThatBindUs).

Now you've even got haircuts locked behind virtual currency with the ability to buy that currency (NBA 2K18) ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ I need not point out the crazy amounts of money people pay for CSGO skins. A whole website gambling industry has been built off the back of it. TmarTn and ProSyndicate anyone? Visual diversity and feeling that you look unique is one of the largest dopamine rushes some gamers can have. Hence why that is soo meticulously exploited/targetted for monetary gain, to the point where it's now PAY TO GAMBLE for your CHANCE to get the cosmetics you want. Jesus Christ. We thought it was bad simply paying FOR the cosmetics you wanted, such as horse armour. Now you have to fucking gamble for them. Pay us $20~50 for loot boxes, don't necessarily get anything you actually want. Not only that, we're not going to tell you any drop rates or chance %s, so you have no fucking idea about your odds before gambling your money for what you'd like to get.

Excuse the f-bombs and cursing, but it's hard sometimes not to feel exacerbated in this industry at times around the tight-rope that is walked between consumer and publisher/developer. Yes, it's all business transactions at the end of the day, but some of us know for a fact there are pubs and devs out there who still operate with some soul and passion/artistic pride for gaming, not just only thinking about cold hard cash no matter the cost to the end product. We'd like to hang onto more of them rather than just let the industry steamroll ahead to "everything operates like F2P, but it's not really F2P".

Great post.

 

[Nick_C]

Not that it will make much of a difference but I'm not buying shadow of war and I decided against buying Forza 7 because of the loot boxes. I can't give money to games that tilt the gameplay with loot boxes.

And this is one of the worst parts. Shadow of War looks like a lot of fun. I know firsthand that Forza is a fantastic game, PC issues aside. These devs are putting out phenomenal work, only to be tarnished by the implementation of loot boxes.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I think the problem is a lot more complicated than the writer wants to give it credit for. Simply not buying the games can lead to a slew of different scenarios.

One being that they start to rethink how they are monetizing the experience. Do they double down on loot box mechanics and continue to strip away more and more of the mechanics until the end user is all but forced to engage in the system? Do they pull back and reevaluate whether the lost sales are worth the impact on the future of the business?

Another conclusion that can be reached is that the game itself is no longer desirable. Not buying Forza 7 can lead to MS and Turn 10 thinking that their player base is no longer there.

These are things to consider when people tell you to "vote with your wallet".

I don't buy this. Within a single generation, the Forza series has sold reasonably well. So if the most recent game release to a strongly positive critical reception, but gamers refuse to buy it, then the clear course of review would be to look at what changed in the game between F7 and F6 (clearly MTs), and so this coupled with the current strongly negative growling sentiment among the gaming press and gamers, paints a clear and lucid picture of why F7 failed commercially.

Publishers have access to more data and analytics than we do. So if gamers were turned away from a recent entry in a long running franchise whose recent entry was the first to implement exploitative and grossly implemented lootboxes, then I think the reason will be crystal clear to publishers.

Let's not forget that the entire reason for lootboxes is to reduce financial risk. So if the inclusion of lootboxes suddenly starts having the opposite effect, through gamers voting with their wallets, then these systems will be quickly patched out of existing and abandoned for future endeavors.

Of course, publishers will look for some new gravytrain to hop onto, to monetize gamers, however, the hope is that whatever new method they come up with will be less invasive and less abhorrent than non-cosmetic lootboxes.

 

[fabricated backlash]

I think it depends on the lootboxes.

In Valve games, PUBG and some other games on Steam you can sell the lootbox and the items after openting it.

You are still bound to one specific economy and can only spend that money there.

That is a significant difference.

 

[Audioboxer]

I don't buy this. Within a single generation, the Forza series has sold reasonably well. So if the most recent game release to a strongly positive critical reception, but gamers refuse to buy it, then the clear course of review would be to look at what changed in the game between F7 and F6 (clearly MTs), and so this coupled with the current strongly negative growling sentiment among the gaming press and gamers, paints a clear and lucid picture of why F7 failed commercially.

Publishers have access to more data and analytics than we do. So if gamers were turned away from a recent entry in a long running franchise whose recent entry was the first to implement exploitative and grossly implemented lootboxes, then I think the reason will be crystal clear to publishers.

Let's not forget that the entire reason for lootboxes is to reduce financial risk. So if the inclusion of lootboxes suddenly starts having the opposite effect, through gamers voting with their wallets, then these systems will be quickly patched out of existing and abandoned for future endeavors.

Of course, publishers will look for some new gravytrain to hop onto, to monetize gamers, however, the hope is that whatever new method they come up with will be less invasive and less abhorrent than non-cosmetic lootboxes.

The points you made did partially work in Forza 7 though. Reviewers are giving it 8/9's out of 10 (as well as calling loot boxes exciting, and winning shit just to occasionally get something good exquisite), but people on GAF and Reddit and I assume other places were refunding digital purchases of Forza 7 Ultimate Edition and telling customer service why they were doing it. Dan Greenawalt's tweet about carefully choosing when to use the VIP consumables "went viral" and got savagely mocked/ridiculed and satirised. Yeah, Forza will make millions regardless of some vocal protest and some refunds, but Turn 10/MS clearly decided the better "PR win" here was to make it appear they listened and changed VIP back. Just like Blizzard were laughing to the bank with people paying $100~500 for weapons in Diablo 3, but caved as their official forums/customer service/public image got dragged through the mud.

Now, no one is stupid. From Forza 7 being initially designed in a boardroom, the change to VIP will have gone through a process of risk management. It will have been discussed how it would potentially elicit a negative response, but that weighed against wanting to monetize the shit out of the game and a permanent 100% more exp/currency benefit is detrimental. I think the bait and switch on the MS store for the VIP description was one real oversight from the design/marketing team. That probably worried them a little about "false marketing". You cannot change something to a consumable and not make buyers aware in the description. Or you can, but it's the height of scummy and might indeed get you into trouble for advertising deceptively. Who knows, at the end of the day the "outrage of the week" as some call it got a change made that benefits everyone playing Forza 7. So even those who choose to sit these topics out whilst moaning that others won't shut up still get to benefit from the Forza 7 VIP change. I've yet to find one person that has tried to argue VIP changing to a consumable was a benefit/good for the game/needed (I might find that person one day).

Gran Turismo introduced MTs in GT6 and they got railed on pretty decently. Kaz went on record to say GT Sport will have no MTs. We'll see. Sport has enough wrong with it in other ways, but if it stays MT free then we can maybe assume some of the backlashes to GT6 were taken on board at PD. Not that they take other sorts of feedback on board, but that's another topic.

Ultimately, however, the Metro editor is right, in that it's not forum goers shouting and media outlets condemning that will get publishers to take notice. It's gamers voting with their wallet when a game they would have otherwise bought gets bogged down by a shitty and gameplay-degrading lootbox/MT implementation.

It depends, most of the time refunds/drop in sales will be the only way. Diablo 3 wasn't refunds though, it was just consistent outrage for days on end probably driving Blizzard into meltdown of trying to handle PR. I would say gamers are getting apathetic though, it's hard to keep people loud and vocal every other week as every dev/pub piles onto the monetization gravy train. Diablo 3 was one of a kind in its time, so it was easier for the whole gaming scene to go ham at one dev/pub. Now Valve run an eBay like marketplace for goodness knows how many games. This is why apathy is absolutely adored by the industry overall though, they love it when gamers are simply subservient, or even better, gamers attack other gamers telling the noisy and vocal ones to sit down, shut up, stop creating topics and just accept everything. It genuinely is like unpaid and free PR at times, and even better, it's coming from individuals who aren't even employed by the company.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Yeah, you're right like many others say, trying to persuade or push for change/reversal is like trying to climb a mountain blindfolded, nude and with no safety harness. Sometimes it works though. I've purposely made a point in the debate with some posters around here as of late to bring up Forza 7 VIP, Diablo 3 real money AH and a part of what burned MS on the Xbox One original plan (always-online/DRM on steroids/hostile to the physical market). There are examples when vocal outcries and pressure work, even if they can be putting a temporary band-aid on a decapitated limb. Hardcore gamers on forums/social media making a noise are sometimes picked up by the mainstream gaming press/journalists, like with this Metro article, and that occasionally blows downwind to the more casual gamers. Sometimes they get involved. Snowball effect. The publishers will love many of their allies in the gaming community furiously telling others to shut up though, that I can assure you.

If people want to sit out these discussions/feedback/criticism/"boycotts" then go ahead. You do you. Just expect other gamers not to sit it out, because even if the RNG is against us for change happening (get it... RNG of our protests working... har har har), what do we have to lose being vocal? Besides other gamers losing their shit we're criticising games/publishers they like.

I agree and am all for pushing the narrative of "fuck lootboxes". They're gross and exploitative from a moral standpoint, and when shittily implemented ruin the gameplay experience for gamer who won't ever even use them. They're the worst kind of predatory monetization systems in games.

I hope that more gaming media outlets push this, not because they alone will make a difference, but rather they'll extend the reach and get the messaging out to the casuals who would otherwise go out buy games like Battlefront II, entirely unaware of the dumbfuckery contained within.

Ultimately, however, the Metro editor is right, in that it's not forum goers shouting and media outlets condemning that will get publishers to take notice. It's gamers voting with their wallet when a game they would have otherwise bought gets bogged down by a shitty and gameplay-degrading lootbox/MT implementation.

 

[Nick_C]

I don't buy this. Within a single generation, the Forza series has sold reasonably well. So if the most recent game release to a strongly positive critical reception, but gamers refuse to buy it, then the clear course of review would be to look at what changed in the game between F7 and F6 (clearly MTs), and so this coupled with the current strongly negative growling sentiment among the gaming press and gamers, paints a clear and lucid picture of why F7 failed commercially.

Publishers have access to more data and analytics than we do. So if gamers were turned away from a recent entry in a long running franchise whose recent entry was the first to implement exploitative and grossly implemented lootboxes, then I think the reason will be crystal clear to publishers.

Let's not forget that the entire reason for lootboxes is to reduce financial risk. So if the inclusion of lootboxes suddenly starts having the opposite effect, through gamers voting with their wallets, then these systems will be quickly patched out of existing and abandoned for future endeavors.

Of course, publishers will look for some new gravytrain to hop onto, to monetize gamers, however, the hope is that whatever new method they come up with will be less invasive and less abhorrent than non-cosmetic lootboxes.

Okay, poor example. Let's substitute Forza for Shadow of War.

To entertain your last point, historically speaking, the monetization has gotten worse and more invasive over time. I know horse armor is a meme at this point, but it was the first instance of insubstantial content being put out that cost way more than it was worth. Over the years we've seen online passes come and go, on-disc DLC, Capcom straight up charging for the ending of a game, WBI leaving Arkham Origins in a poor state because there was more money in producing DLC than there was in putting out patches...

Voting with your wallet is only one piece of the larger puzzle. Customers need to start being more vocal if they want any major changes moving forward.

 

[delta_reg]

Unless consumers stand up against it this practice is only going to get worse before it gets better. History proves this. It is a serious issue and should be treated as such by us gamers. Personally I will definitely not be buying games before I've thoroughly researched their practice on loot boxes and how they compromise the game in question, and if I find they exist and compromise the gameplay experience I will not be purchasing those games, simple as that.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Okay, poor example. Let's substitute Forza for Shadow of War.

To entertain your last point, historically speaking, the monetization has gotten worse and more invasive over time. I know horse armor is a meme at this point, but it was the first instance of insubstantial content being put out that cost way more than it was worth. Over the years we've seen online passes come and go, on-disc DLC, Capcom straight up charging for the ending of a game, WBI leaving Arkham Origins in a poor state because there was more money in producing DLC than there was in putting out patches...

Voting with your wallet is only one piece of the larger puzzle. Customers need to start being more vocal if they want any major changes moving forward.

To a publisher, however, it's really the only way they'll sit up and take notice. Publishers care far more about their bottom line, and so whilst yes gamers need to be more vocal about what they don't like, they need to also boycott those titles to send a clear and final message to publishers.

 

[aygomyownroad]

Completely agree and I am not buying Forza, Destiny 2 , Battlefront 2 or Call of Duty because of it.

I didn't mind Overwatch, but it has started something very sinister.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

What is this "for the children" stance on loot boxes? Umm... it's not like kids are out here constantly purchasing additional content, for tons of games, out the wazoo like they might on mobile games, so why is this like an argument for concern? Parental controls are there for a reason...full pause on that.

Secondly, it is not gambling to gain currency. It's gambling on chance, which is the least offensive way of dealing. You already know what you are guaranteed to get in said box, but no one said you are guaranteed to get all of them in a number of boxes...it's at random like any other type of mystery box out there?

I agree that loot boxes can be problematic if it starts moving away from cosmetic items to now in game items to put you at an advantage. However I don't think the whole system needs to die all of a sudden because that COULD happen. How about tackling the companies that does take it upon themselves to do that rather than punish those who are doing it the right way? Some of this is way overblown imo.


Tbh, the VC issue with 2K18 is far more disgusting than Loot boxes can ever get and I don't understand why more journalist are not more concerned about that? We got like, what? Maybe 3 articles? But this loot boxes mess that just started is more headache inducing than the microtransaction that has festered beyond return for 2k?

 

[Wiped89]

The only lootbox game I'm going to buy is Forza 7, and I have no plans to buy any lootboxes whatsoever. Hell, I've never even paid for any DLC that wasn't a direct expansion (Burnout Paradise's Big Surf Island and Forza Horizon 3's Snow and Hot wheels expansions being the only ones).

 

[OléGunner]

I'll say the Star Wars BF 2 beta pushed me towards that game getting fucked specifically thanks to lootboxes being tied to progression.

That's just a mad way to hamstring game design.

I really wish these publishers could keep loot boxes to cosmetic only.
I'm not against them but we all know Tripple Ayyy publishers are the greediest of motherfuckers who'll use every trick in the book down the line to eek out as much from our wallets as possible.

Psychological analysts working on lootboxes for game devs must be minting.

 

[Audioboxer]

To a publisher, however, it's really the only way they'll sit up and take notice. Publishers care far more about their bottom line, and so whilst yes gamers need to be more vocal about what they don't like, they need to also boycott those titles to send a clear and final message to publishers.

As I said to you above, it's not the only way, even if it's often the most powerful way. Companies don't like bad PR, why do you think 2K acted like a fucking mafia protection mob when they hassled TheSixthAxis into taking down their NBA 2K18 3/10 review for "behind the scenes email communication"? That is fucking petty and it borderlines on "polite harassment". An oxymoron, but I think it's a powerful way to satirise this kind of shady excercion of power/force a company tries to apply to critics under the guise of "just communicating with you bro". Journalists aren't supposed to be your "employed" PR/marketing outlets. I still can't get over Bethesda emailing Jim Sterling about a 7/10 Rage review.

Why do you think they turn off MTs for launch for reviews to get concreted in on Metacritic, then turn them on a few weeks later?

Continued bad press, social media lambasting their media accounts and many people everywhere they look bad mouthing them does rustle their jimmies. Even if it's just corporate egos getting hurt, aka Konami having a meltdown/blacklistathon as the world was calling out its bullshit. This is why some of us gamers get incredibly frustrated when fellow gamers get so damn hostile to us voicing our concerns/opinions. Open expression can work, it just often needs to be continuous and noisy. I think that's why some gamers want to shut it up, because they know it hurts the egos of their favourite games companies/devs.

 

[amdb00mer]

I have a problem with the Forza 7 reference in the editorial. You do NOT pay real money for prize crates in Forza 7. They can only be bought with in-game currency. Until there is a patch released that allows you to pay real-world cash for prize crates gamers and gaming sites need to stop saying or implying it has microtransactions. Or that it is a "pay to earn" scenario.

 

[Nick_C]

To a publisher, however, it's really the only way they'll sit up and take notice. Publishers care far more about their bottom line, and so whilst yes gamers need to be more vocal about what they don't like, they need to also boycott those titles to send a clear and final message to publishers.

I agree with you. These things go hand in hand.

 

[Uthred]

with last year's Overwatch being roundly praised for its implementation of the idea.

Was it? Because I recall several very lengthy threads on numerous forums arguing about it. They were as problematic at inception as they are now. While random loot that doesnt directly give a superior mechanical advantage is "better" than "P2W" for competitive games cosmetic items clearly do affect the enjoyment of the game and suggesting that cosmetics arent part of the game experience (which clearly consists of more than the players engagement with the mechanics of the game) is absurdly reductionist. In short, if you glibly accept that cosmetic lootboxes are fine you are perpetuating a lie thats in the companies interest as it normalises the inclusion of cosmetic lootboxes. Though realistically speaking it feels that lootboxes are probably, and unfortunately, here to stay.

 

[Astral Dog]

Is, is there some kind of loot Box outbreak ? 😦

 

[AndyMoogle]

Was it? Because I recall several very lengthy threads on numerous forums arguing about it

It was mostly their algorithm that people complained about. You got way too many dupes before. They have fixed that now though. I'd say it's the best implementation out there.

 

[Audioboxer]

I have a problem with the Forza 7 reference in the editorial. You do NOT pay real money for prize crates in Forza 7. They can only be bought with in-game currency. Until there is a patch released that allows you to pay real-world cash for prize crates gamers and gaming sites need to stop saying or implying it has microtransactions. Or that it is a "pay to earn" scenario.

Forza devs (Turn 10) have confirmed MTs are getting turned on soon. They just have them off for reviews.

“Once we confirm that the game economy is balanced and fun for our players out in the wild, we plan to offer Tokens [a real-money currency that works like CR] as a matter of player choice. Some players appreciate using Tokens as a way of gaining immediate access to content that may take many hours to acquire in the normal course of play. There will also be an option within the in-game menu to turn off Tokens entirely.”

https://www.gtplanet.net/turn-10-confirms-microtransaction-plans-forza-7/

 

[Uthred]

It was mostly their algorithm that people complained about. You got way too many dupes before. They have fixed that now though. I'd say it's the best implementation out there.

The best implementation of lootboxes? Perhaps, but I would suggest that being the best implementation of an inherently shitty practice isnt particularly laudable.

 

[kiguel182]

So basically your argument boils down to "don't whine about it, just avoid it if you don't like it." I shudder to think what the world would be like if everyone shared such a dismissive mentality.

Video games aren't "the world" is a superfluous thing that in no way seriously impacts your life.

Like, have some context.

 

[Gator86]

As someone who hasn't and will never buy a lootbox, I'm torn on the idea of them. It's like, I do like how a lot of games that have them are providing free meaningful updates, such as extra characters, levels etc., and just leaving customisation and other nonessential things behind them, as last gen suffered a huge problem with split playerbases on multiplayer games.

On the other hand, it's when it starts edging into the pay to win category that I have a problem with.

I can't help but pin the blame on some of the customers though. Take Overwatch for example: every event, you always get some people saying they've not touched the game since the previous event, but then they log on at the start of the new one, throw money away on 50 lootboxes, complain that they didn't get anything good and that lootboxes are a scam, then don't play the game until they do the same thing during the following event.

My main question is what would they replace lootboxes with?

How do you buy literally any other product? I don't buy groceries or shoes that come in a box of randomly determined items. Just sell the skins and whatnot directly if you're so reliant on the revenue.

 

[Kill3r7]

It was mostly their algorithm that people complained about. You got way too many dupes before. They have fixed that now though. I'd say it's the best implementation out there.

I will continue to say that loot boxes are an all or nothing proposition. If individuals takes the stance that lootboxes can be implemented properly, such as in Overwatch, then they have already lost the argument because these individuals are fundamentally arguing that they are okay with others subsidizing the cost of additional content unless it negatively impacts their experience. At best it makes them sound like hypocrites.

 

[amdb00mer]

Forza devs (Turn 10) have confirmed MTs are getting turned on soon. They just have them off for reviews.



https://www.gtplanet.net/turn-10-confirms-microtransaction-plans-forza-7/

That's fine. Until they turn them on the game does not have them.

 

[Toxi]

Honestly, the furor over loot boxes specifically feels bizarre when they're just part of a broader problem of microtransactions that has had a quieter response.

The problem here has always been publishers nickel and diming you for content, not whether you can see the reward for a microtransaction beforehand or not. Targeting "whales" (what a fucking gross term) to spend ungodly amounts of money didn't start with loot boxes. Those stories of kids spending a ludicrous amount of money on mobile games didn't start with loot boxes.

And it feels like people are just willing to throw the shade at loot boxes when it's not the games they play. I don't see people throwing shit at Overwatch despite it being one of the popular games that likely inspired this massive movement.

Overall, it feels like people are finally smelling the fire after it has already roasted them to the bone here. No wonder game publishers think they can cook us slowly.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

As I said to you above, it's not the only way, even if it's often the most powerful way. Companies don't like bad PR, why do you think 2K acted like a fucking mafia protection mob when they hassled TheSixthAxis into taking down their NBA 2K18 3/10 review for "behind the scenes email communication"? That is fucking petty and it borderlines on "polite harassment". An oxymoron, but I think it's a powerful way to satirise this kind of shady excercion of power/force a company tries to apply to critics under the guise of "just communicating with you bro". Journalists aren't supposed to be your "employed" PR/marketing outlets. I still can't get over Bethesda emailing Jim Sterling about a 7/10 Rage review.

Why do you think they turn off MTs for launch for reviews to get concreted in on Metacritic, then turn them on a few weeks later?

Continued bad press, social media lambasting their media accounts and many people everywhere they look bad mouthing them does rustle their jimmies. Even if it's just corporate egos getting hurt, aka Konami having a meltdown/blacklistathon as the world was calling out its bullshit. This is why some of us gamers get incredibly frustrated when fellow gamers get so damn hostile to us voicing our concerns/opinions. Open expression can work, it just often needs to be continuous and noisy. I think that's why some gamers want to shut it up, because they know it hurts the egos of their favourite games companies/devs.

You're not wrong here.

 

[ScientificPizza]

Honestly, the furor over loot boxes specifically feels bizarre when they're just part of a broader problem of microtransactions.

The difference is the element of random chance

It seemingly becoming a staple of single player AAA games this year deserves to be criticised, even if the general criticism of loot boxes is long overdue

 

[Audioboxer]

That's fine. Until they turn them on the game does not have them.

That's a bit of a schrodingers cat rebuttal. Okay, you're right, but they're coming and were always planned. The reason they aren't on right now is simply for reviews.

Another pretty disgusting bait and switch some developers are going ahead with to exploit the day 1 hysteria of the review industry for article clicks. I somewhat understand the pressures of online media and needing clicks, but the pubs and devs exploiting that is just scummy. Metacritic need to stop their we don't modify review scores bullshit.

A change needs to be added that if a game turns on MTs and a reviewer feels that modifies their original score, Metacritic will accept a change in score on that basis.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

That's fine. Until they turn them on the game does not have them.

As has been explained many times before, the biggest problem with lootboxes is not so much the lootboxes themselves but their impact on game design.

Even without the lootboxes turned on, the games was designed around their inclusion, which invariably compromises the experience even when the lootboxes themselves are disabled.

Think about the change in the way the shaders work in Destiny from D1 to D2. Even if D2 launched without the ability to buy silver to purchase bright engrams, the shittier consumable shader implementation still exists and is in every way worse than the non-lootbox-designed implementation in the previous game.

 

[IXI FalcoN]

I've yet to buy any game that egregiously abuses loot boxes and I don't plan to start doing so this fall. I don't even play Overwatch. I think Halo 5 was the worst I put up with and it thankfully only compromised one mode.

There's enough quality games coming out that aren't doing this nonsense to keep us entertained (Mario Odyssey, Evil Within 2, Wolfenstein 2, South Park...jury is out on how bad AC Origins' crates will be). I'll be supporting those guys and working through my backlog. There's been tons of great releases just this year that aren't drinking the loot box kool-aid.

It's a shame because most of these games doing this are good games underneath the huge layer of bullshit. But I don't need to play them. And you don't either.

 

[AndyMoogle]

I will continue to say that loot boxes are an all or nothing proposition. If individuals takes the stance that lootboxes can be implemented properly, such as in Overwatch, then they have already lost the argument because these individuals are fundamentally arguing that they are okay with others subsidizing the cost of additional content unless it negatively impacts their experience. At best it makes them sound like hypocrites.

Getting a lootbox every time you level up and then also every three wins in Arcade modes is pretty fair. If people with too much money feel that they want to purchase boxes to get stuff faster, then that's up to them.

I don't understand your stance on it being hypocritical though.

 

[Tahnit]

Honestly I think buying the games you want even if they have boxes is fine. Just don’t buy ANY lootboxes. That may send a better message.

If sales for shadow of war are high but no one is buying loot boxes maybe next time they won’t waste time and resources on them

I’ll admit it. I bought shadow of war. I quite like it. I will never buy a single loot box.

If the special ending is so hard to get I’ll watch the damn thing on YouTube.

 

[Papacheeks]

As someone who hasn't and will never buy a lootbox, I'm torn on the idea of them. It's like, I do like how a lot of games that have them are providing free meaningful updates, such as extra characters, levels etc., and just leaving customisation and other nonessential things behind them, as last gen suffered a huge problem with split playerbases on multiplayer games.

On the other hand, it's when it starts edging into the pay to win category that I have a problem with.

I can't help but pin the blame on some of the customers though. Take Overwatch for example: every event, you always get some people saying they've not touched the game since the previous event, but then they log on at the start of the new one, throw money away on 50 lootboxes, complain that they didn't get anything good and that lootboxes are a scam, then don't play the game until they do the same thing during the following event.

My main question is what would they replace lootboxes with?

Regular DLC?

To me the blame is on games like CS:GO which became popular a lot more after the skins had a market place.

Loot crates make sense for F2P games, and a game designed around it being a continual service. Like most Moba's, MMO's, competitive supported games.
But no it's becoming part of regular games like sports games, AAA shooters, even single player campaign games.

That's where this just needs to stop. They are un-needed. Games like Fortnite, PUBG even though they have crates are not where the majority of profits are coming from. It's from the millions upon millions buying the game itself, or in fortnite's case buying the different tiers of the game.
The rest of the industry is up for a rude wake up call very soon. Loot crates work for certain games where it's part of the design. Destiny is a weird beast because Loot is the main driving factor like in most MMO's.

But the way they design that game content wise leaves a lot to be desired.
Expansions to games like what Blizzard does, Naughty Dog, Witcher 3 and the likes are completely fine. The same can be said to an extent for destiny even though I think they charge too much for little content.(my opinion)

I hope more games start getting made by smaller developers like BlueHole and start selling well. Because they hopefully will show that the game can still sell by itself and make a lot of money.
GTA V though it has MT's has sold copies wise 65 million. And that's because of support. The game didn't have MT's up in your face when people first bought it back in 2013. Wasn't until online really took off that they shifted efforts to support the community.
They keep the MT's where they need to be for the most part and that's multiplayer portion of it.
They didn't shove MT's, crates all over your screen when you booted up the campaign like a lot of these developers are doing with some of the fall games this year.

I'm glad in a way big Publishers are ruining their games and possibly franchises or at least ruining relationships with some of their customers. Because other smaller games like PUBG, and single player games from Japan, and western can take the spotlight and show these dumbfucks how bad they are screwing up their products.

 

[Complicated]

Loot boxes have only made the games I play better (one playerbase with all the multiplayer content and free updates). Developers who provide awesome updates and cool stuff in loot boxes get some extra money from me. Simple as that.

 

[amdb00mer]

That's a bit of a schrodingers cat rebuttal. Okay, you're right, but they're coming and were always planned. The reason they aren't on right now is simply for reviews.

Another pretty disgusting bait and switch some developers are going ahead with to exploit the day 1 hysteria of the review industry for article clicks. I somewhat understand the pressures of online media and needing clicks, but the pubs and devs exploiting that is just scummy. Metacritic need to stop their we don't modify review scores bullshit.

A changed needs to be added that if a game turns on MTs and a reviewer feels that modifies their original score, Metacritic will accept a changed in score on that basis.

Sorry, it was a bit of an emotional response. However, the point is, it does not have them at the moment and the pre-game release headlines were making it seem as though it did. Also, that article is from 9/29. A few days before the release and the gaming community's backlash. Hopefully, that backlash will change their plan.
As far as I know, the only thing you will be able to pay real-world cash for is tokens, which has been a feature in Forza for a while, as you could use it to buy cars you did not have enough credits for or a time boost to your in-game XP. I do have a problem with it being used for prize crates in Forza 7 as you are not guaranteed a particular car or mod.
When it's all said and done though, I agree with you and just about everybody else, they should have never been put in the game in the first place.
The fact is the change they made to the VIP DLC and removing credit boost for driver assists stopped me from getting the game on day one.
So now I'm on the fence on whether I will get GT Sport, which the beta was ok, or wait and see if Turn 10 fixes the other issues with Forza and pick it up later.

 

[Sjefen]

I will do my part this holiday, not supporting any of these loot boxes in 60$ AAA games.

 

[amdb00mer]

As has been explained many times before, the biggest problem with lootboxes is not so much the lootboxes themselves but their impact on game design.

Even without the lootboxes turned on, the games was designed around their inclusion, which invariably compromises the experience even when the lootboxes themselves are disabled.

Think about the change in the way the shaders work in Destiny from D1 to D2. Even if D2 launched without the ability to buy silver to purchase bright engrams, the shittier consumable shader implementation still exists and is in every way worse than the non-lootbox-designed implementation in the previous game.

I agree they did make some design changes around the mod system and credit system (changing VIP status and removing driver assists credit boosts). That was inevitably tied to including those damn prize crates. Unfortunately, it did lead to the misinformation of MTs already being in the game and it being a "pay to earn" setup.

 

[charlequin]

these individuals are fundamentally arguing that they are okay with others subsidizing the cost of additional content unless it negatively impacts their experience.

People are and should be okay with this, especially since it's already true for a lot more scenarios than games with lootbox mechanics. Any time you wait it out on a sale to grab a game you're letting other people subsidize the cost for you. Same thing any time you buy a game that offered a special collector's edition.

 

[Clockwork5]

How do you buy literally any other product? I don't buy groceries or shoes that come in a box of randomly determined items. Just sell the skins and whatnot directly if you're so reliant on the revenue.

But they would be leaving money on the table... it's pretty clear selling lootboxes generates more revenue than selling items directly.

I don't buy lootboxes or cosmetics or anything really, I can't remember the last micro transaction, dic or expansion I purchased. Despite what a lot of folks around here say, I have enjoyed most all of the games I have played that had lootboxes without engaging with them. Some games I have actually enjoyed more because of the existence of lootboxes, still without purchasing one due to continuous free updates and content funded by lootboxes revenue.

I just don't get all the outrage and slippery slope rhetoric surrounding something that really has had close to no effect (and maybe even a net positive one) on my enjoyment of the medium.

 

[Kill3r7]

Getting a lootbox every time you level up and then also every three wins in Arcade modes is pretty fair. If people with too much money feel that they want to purchase boxes to get stuff faster, then that's up to them.

I don't understand your stance on it being hypocritical though.

Lootboxes for the most part have replaced season passes, yes I am aware that COD does not give a fuck. So the folks who pay for lootboxes are subsidizing the cost of creating additional content. Gamers have become more vocal over the last few weeks because developers are skirting the p2w line. My argument is that an individual sounds like a hypocrite if he is okay with others subsidizing the cost of additional content but take issue with it when these individuals receive a material benefit for their money.

 

[Kill3r7]

People are and should be okay with this, especially since it's already true for a lot more scenarios than games with lootbox mechanics. Any time you wait it out on a sale to grab a game you're letting other people subsidize the cost for you. Same thing any time you buy a game that offered a special collector's edition.

That's fine but you can't then complain about preorder DLC or other such practices. If you want to wait and buy a game on sale, you are making certain concessions.

 

[Whitephantomzx]

We should make a list of people who say it doesn't affect them now and see what happens when the real push starts, i cant believe how naive gaf is do really expect that its gonna stop here do you really not expect that its gonna get worse?

 

[charlequin]

That's fine but you can't then complain about preorder DLC or other such practices. If you want to wait and buy a game on sale, you are making certain concessions.

Yes, I think it's better if people accept upfront that strategies for price discrimination are happening with every game across the industry and that a serious argument against it in one particular case needs to make a clear case for why the details of that approach are worse than comparable options. There's a lot of people who are really mad about lootboxes who aren't thinking clearly about how they're replacing a system where it cost you $120/yr to play a new, popular competitive shooter due to forced map packs and such.

We should make a list of people who say it doesn't affect them now and see what happens when the real push starts, i cant believe how naive gaf is do really expect that its gonna stop here do you really not expect that its gonna get worse?

Post-launch monetized content (DLC, microtransactions, etc.) has gotten better (in the sense of more consumer-friendly) across every segment of the industry since they really started showing up in the late aughts, largely because it's a cutthroat marketplace and if your model is obviously bad people will happily switch to other, more generous games. You can even see this on individual titles -- most games get more generous as they become more successful, not less.

 

[Kill3r7]

Yes, I think it's better if people accept upfront that strategies for price discrimination are happening with every game across the industry and that a serious argument against it in one particular case needs to make a clear case for why the details of that approach are worse than comparable options. There's a lot of people who are really mad about lootboxes who aren't thinking clearly about how they're replacing a system where it cost you $120/yr to play a new, popular competitive shooter due to forced map packs and such.

Agreed.