-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Waypoint: 'Shadow of War' and 'Forza 7' Are Poisoning the Concept of Loot Boxes
- Thread starter Zombie James
- Start date
D
Deleted member 20920
Unconfirmed Member
Game prices haven't increase for years so if it means less predatory practices then go ahead and increase the prices. But of course realistically companies will continue these practices and still have lootboxes.
As if the devs see anything of that money. Those network provide - at best - some p2p matchmaking.
Even that is not handled by PSN/Xboxlive most of the time.
Ridiculous comment. Other developers manage just fine without loot boxes / micro transactions. e.g. The Witcher 2
Thanks for this, I don't usually visit Waypoint, so its great to find an interesting article like this.
Read through it now and it seems that the best way is just to follow the Overwatch example, otherwise people will see it as shady. Although I also like how each game is getting backlash thats leading to the developer rethinking about what they're doing.
Read through it now and it seems that the best way is just to follow the Overwatch example, otherwise people will see it as shady. Although I also like how each game is getting backlash thats leading to the developer rethinking about what they're doing.
Don't the loot boxes still also effect the multiplayer?
BrassDragon
Member
My fear is that the general apathy of critics and gamers causes publishers to consider the backlash a messaging problem rather than a design or business model issue.
'We just need to be more careful how we spin this' instead of 'maybe we should find another value proposition in our game design to increase our revenue'.
I wonder if there is push-back from developers behind the scenes - surely most artists who work grueling hours with precarious job security are in it to create fun experiences rather than psychological traps to milk more money out of their audience.
Or maybe it's being presented to them as the only viable business model to secure their futures, I don't know... might be interesting to have more reporting on this.
I guess it depends who you listen to, it's either being done because certain publishers are 'greedy', or the industry, in it's current state, is genuinely unsustainable in it's current format.
I know from my personal opinion if it's not sustainable, then I would prefer increased prices, but that is a one shot price increase, publishers know that there is a certain section of the gaming community that will keep on paying, if someone is willing to give them money, then you will keep tweaking things to make it more widespread.
Personally, I think these things are here to stay, in games from certain publishers, all I think we can hope for is some kind of regulation to make them more transparent, in the very least visible odds.
Generalpsyduck
Banned
Casinos are Are Poisoning the Concept of gambling.
There's multiplayer in Shadow of War? In Forza 7 I could see it not mattering if when racing you race against cars of the same class, therefore not mattering if you have a higher "rank" car when you meet others of the same type (unless you can upgrade them), unless you actually just get randomly matched against random people and you have to race with your Volve V70 vs. a Ferrari.
Actually it is rather refreshing the gaming community at large is waking up to this loot box wave bs.
BrassDragon
Member
It's hard to shake the notion that there is a lot of 'Hollywood accounting' going on if you look at the industry's shareholder reports, tax evasion strategies and explosive growth in the past decade. Down in the trenches, it might feel like a studio is only a few sales points away from being shuttered but that's because they're trapped by shareholder expectations that these insane returns will keep trending up.
Hey, I love games and don't want high-end, content-rich experiences to die out. If I need to pay more in a way that makes sense, I'm open to it (poured a lot of cash into crowdfunding.)
So I'm sympathetic to developers who roll with the compulsion/gambling based business models because they see no other way of sustaining themselves. Unfortunately, as it stands, we only see that argument made by anonymous people on message boards - all these additional revenue streams are publicly spun as features providing great value and convenience to the end user.
It's a good discussion to have but the industry doesn't seem to be willing to discuss this in terms of sustainability. Mostly it's just 'you'll like this, it's great for you!'
Yes. There is a ranked online mode, where every player has an attackable and conquerable fortress. If your Orcs die in this mode, they are also gone from your SP Campaign forever. The victor also gets Gold to buy even more Lootboxes.
Edit: There is also a social mode, where you keep all of your Orcs, appareantly.
StrikeFirst117
Banned
The loot boxes are poisoning the games more than anything, the whole concept of loot boxes at this stage is frankly disgusting. I can only hope someone steps up and regulate these soon when these boundaries keep getting pushed.
Lol and once that happens they will follow the VC method from NBA 2k18.
So what will happen with for example diablo like games when you remove "gambling systems" like random loot drops?
Random loot is essentially the same concept as loot boxes.
Absolutely this
I can't think of any loot box system that has improved its game versus no system at all. The idea for paying for randomly picked skins, emotes and sprays is utterly ludicrous.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
They're obviously talking about games with microtransactions, especially premium games that you already paid for.
the_milkybar_kid
Member
Fuck. Loot. Boxes.
Good piece? LOOTBOXES ARE POISON!
They are always poison, and always will be. It's gambling! One cannot poison, poison, one can only make worse poison.
You don't pay for a drop with real money. If you do, then yes, it's gambling and thus POISON!
EA makes around $650M annually from FUT/MUT alone. If you think that a publicly traded company will forgo that sort of low overhead high revenue stream because of good PR then you do not understand business. No amount of goodwill will recoup that money.
I should point out that this is exactly the scam PS+ and Live are running.
They have somehow convinced people that what you pay there actually pays for game servers.
It doesn't.
They sell $100 games already, they're called special editions. And they still have lootboxes.
There are no good guys. Companies do bad thing to maximize profits until the law stops them from doing that. In reality, they keep doing it until they are caught years later, have to apologise, pay a tiny fine, then switch to a different bad thing.
Sony just updated their PSN TOS emphasizing no refunds ever because they're not legally obligated to. Companies will never be your friend.
I started reading the first sentence, and for just a microsecond I thought this was the new procedure to buy an actual real life Ferrari.Waypoint Article said:
Imagine if this was the case? Having to buy a Nissan Sentra and an Audi S1 just so you can unlock the privilege of finally buying that 488?
Even if I had the money, I'd just give up and take the bus.
And I am gonna take a guess that having those Legendary Orcs help a lot in that mode.
Zombie James
Banned
At this point, I'm just happy there are some people willing to acknowledge the problem. Looking at these Shadow of War reviews, I'll take baby steps over complete dismissal right now.
I'm honestly surprised that games are still even $60. I remember when they used to be $40, then they raised to $50, and then $60. I feel like games should be $70. Maybe that might entice devs to stop with the loot boxes. If they did that, they'd make another $30 million easily and wouldn't have to shove stuff like this into the game.
I despise all gambling boxes in any game.
In $60 it's even worse.
Even a game like Overwatch where it was $40 on PC and loot boxes only give cosmetics is still scummy to me because I bought a game and have to gamble to unlock costumes that were on disc.
If games are too expensive to make these days to turn a profit then increase the cost. I would gladly spend $80 on a game to not have to gamble to unlock content.
If games continue to go down this gambling route I hope they start being regulated like slot machines.
In $60 it's even worse.
Even a game like Overwatch where it was $40 on PC and loot boxes only give cosmetics is still scummy to me because I bought a game and have to gamble to unlock costumes that were on disc.
If games are too expensive to make these days to turn a profit then increase the cost. I would gladly spend $80 on a game to not have to gamble to unlock content.
If games continue to go down this gambling route I hope they start being regulated like slot machines.
PeskyToaster
Member
I like battlefield one ones. Just earn them by playing. They only give skins and XP boosts. I feel no obligation to buy them.
What's wrong with gambling in games? They've gone together for centuries.
What's wrong with gambling in games? They've gone together for centuries.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
"Poisoning the concept of loot box" is quite rich considering loot boxes are poison to begin with. It was a poison when first introduced and it's still a poison.
It's just that the poison is more mainstream, that and being applied to genres outside of shooters that's bugging them. Straight up.
Loot boxes are poison, and always will be. Neither does it help me play the game more, nor does it help sustain the life of the title. All it does is shows me that developers want me to grind and waste my precious time that I'm dedicating to their entertainment of creation; it's not entertainment if I'm not entertained.
I dedicate 2 hours to gaming daily, and if I'm spending that grinding for a very small possibility of acquiring something in loot boxes without paying more, then I want none of it whatsoever.
I rather jerk off; at least there's no disappointing ending to the hour.
It's just that the poison is more mainstream, that and being applied to genres outside of shooters that's bugging them. Straight up.
Loot boxes are poison, and always will be. Neither does it help me play the game more, nor does it help sustain the life of the title. All it does is shows me that developers want me to grind and waste my precious time that I'm dedicating to their entertainment of creation; it's not entertainment if I'm not entertained.
I dedicate 2 hours to gaming daily, and if I'm spending that grinding for a very small possibility of acquiring something in loot boxes without paying more, then I want none of it whatsoever.
I rather jerk off; at least there's no disappointing ending to the hour.
Crazy Diamond
Member
I like them in Overwatch, like the in-game ones in PUBG, hate nearly every other instance of them. The key is the frequency and how easily attainable they are by way of in-game means. Overwatch, you level up. Fair. PUBG, I got around 825 BP in a single solo loss the other night (level 1 crates are 700BP, level 2 are 1400, level 3 are 2800, so on). Not overly time-consuming nor unfair. This reportedly massive grind for Shadow of War, on the other hand, just sounds like they intentionally bone the die-hards who look to complete it all. It penalizes players by hitting their time or hitting their wallets, and that is absolutely the worst.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
So apparently there's an 'ending' in the campaign, and after that, there's another mode(Shadow Wars?) that has another ending behind it. Shadow Wars seems to be the replayable portion of the game.
Yeah, I just stumbled on this thread while trying to answer my own question. I enjoyed the first game, but I'm skipping this one.
autoduelist
Member
I'm not even sure it's okay in TCG-like games. I know it's become acceptable to buy a set of mystery cards, but that entire gambling mechanic is the source for this [though I suppose it traces back to very innocent beginnings, with stuff included with bubblegum and crackerjacks]. Now everything needs to be a mystery -- even legos and other brands sell mystery packs, 'collect them all', which is just another form of gambling. They could just as easily sell a special line of minifigs for a limited time that aren't hidden in mystery packs, but this gets people buying duplicates...
sarcasm my friend. sarcasm.
And then when you realize that Acti made over 3 billion dollars in a single year just off MTs you quickly realize that going back to a world where MTs in full priced games don't exist, isn't going to happen.
And even more unfortunate than that is that i don't think having MTs in game entices publishers to keep games at $60 for the indeterminate future. I have absolutely no problem believe they'd easily boost the price of a premium game all the while shoving MTs down our throats
I just wrote the ESRB asking them to take into account loot boxes for ratings. It took two minutes at ESRB.org.
I would urge others to do the same.
Edit: Im pretty much fine with them raising prices, since the flip side is that the prices for game also come down quicker than ever. So if gams start at $69.99, it will only be a matter of time before they drop to 59.99 and below.
I would urge others to do the same.
Edit: Im pretty much fine with them raising prices, since the flip side is that the prices for game also come down quicker than ever. So if gams start at $69.99, it will only be a matter of time before they drop to 59.99 and below.
2blackcats
Member
I wrote to PEGI yesterday, no response yet.
Edit : I disagree on the price. I think games should be cheaper but then not so crazily discounted.
I don't expect either ESRB or PEGI to do anything since items gained from loot boxes "does not amount to a prize of money or money's worth" from gambling laws perspective and hence loot boxes don't count as gambling. Source
IMO one solution is for the gaming community to come together and do our own age rating for games. Some concepts I made: E3 C7 T13 M17 A18