Lootbox Backlash

[JinCA]

I think a lot of this stuff is overblown, the cost of game development continues to go up, most MP games are supported with new content well after release and many of them have single player campaigns. I think raising the purchase price is a better option than season passes or micro transactions but for some reason publishers seem to be afraid to do that.

Now of course it depends on which game you are talking about but the flack going on around Star Wars BF2 is overblown based on my experience with the beta. First of all as long as there is unlockable content paid or not you are never going to be on a totally level playing field with other people. There are some out there who play non stop day and night and unlock things days/weeks earlier than most will, you also have people who buy the game well after launch who start from scratch while the vast majority are already using a huge portion of the unlockable content. You don't get exclusive purchased content in this game, hell you aren't even guaranteed anything really useful with how the buffs are generated.

SWBF1 was MP only and had far less MP content yet cost the same price at release as this game which not only has a lot more MP content but also a high production value single player campaign. Now the point can be made that the first game was overpriced but I don't think anyone can really say that SWBF2 is being sold for more than it's worth. Plus there is likely some kind of financial split going on with Disney for the rights to make a Star Wars game to begin with so not only are we getting a lot more content than the last game for the same price but EA also has a licensing deal with this series that likely cost quite a bit on top of the development costs.

 

[Andy]

Lootboxes are all in the news.

A bit hyperbolic, but

Loot boxes are ruining gaming and only you can stop them

This threatens to destroy the whole concept of balanced gameplay, where it’s being designed, not for maximum entertainment but for maximum monetisation. There’s been a number of high profile games this autumn that are especially worrying. Middle-Earth: Shadow Of War, for example, has a peculiar end game scenario where, even though the story has reached a natural conclusion, the difficultly level suddenly spikes and you need to start recruiting much more powerful orcs. Which seems suspiciously as if it’s been added purely to encourage the use of loot boxes.

And while Destiny 2’s microtransactions are less problematic than they first seemed (the extras are mostly cosmetic and the ones that aren’t don’t make much difference) Forza Motorsport 7’s similar system completely changes the customisation system for in-game ‘mods’ so that they have only limited-time uses and are difficult to acquire again unless you pay for them.

Star Wars: Battlefront II creates a different conundrum in that EA has been very upfront about the fact that the game features loot boxes with non-cosmetic extras. To compensate for that intrusion though, they’ve promised that all future DLC, in terms of maps and extra characters, will be free. On paper that sounds like a fair exchange, but after the recent beta it’s become clear that it comes at a considerable price in terms of the balance of the gameplay.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/12/loot-boxes-are-ruining-gaming-and-only-you-can-stop-them-6994190/

 

[menace-uk-]

As a gamer, all I want to know is how much a game is going to realistically cost at the moment I buy. Just as a simple example, buying a COD game for multiplayer means map packs, so let me know how many and how much they are up front. Then, I can make an informed decision with my money. $60 for the base game, plus 4 map packs at $15 each or buy them up front, etc.

Where things get murky is when I don't really know how much I have to spend to fully enjoy a game. So far, the games with loot boxes have not forced me to buy. Forza 7 and Destiny 2? Don't need to buy them and if anything, gives me more enjoyment out of playing as I get an added reward along with the fun of playing.

That's where things start to go downhill. Will Battlefront 2 be fine or a rip off? I don't know. Maybe it will be fine. The not knowing isn't a great place to be for me.

So you aren't all bothered that Forza 7 has had a drastic redisign in order to push the loot boxes for real money? Hell, they added the totally pointless driver customization in a sad attempt to bolster the whole m'transaction ethos. The old ethos of race want you want is dead and now cars are locked behind a tier system, this change is also to bolster the m'transaction ethos. The VIP extra stuff has been wrecked in order to bolster the m'transaction ethos.

This is only the start too.

This is what Games as a Service looks like..and it isn't good.

 

[menace-uk-]

Games as a service has "tripled the industry's value"

"A study from monetisation service company Digital River found that games as a service has tripled the industry's value."

According to Digital River, this change from up-front costs to protracted spending means that revenue per user is expected to grow twice as fast than the rest of the market.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-10-10-games-as-a-service-has-tripled-the-industrys-value

Games are getting worse though.

 

[menace-uk-]

Path of Exile gets it right. I actually spent some money to get stash tabs even though I probably won't play enough to really need them, just because I appreciate that they're doing it right.

Nope. Path of Exiles content is grossley overpriced. And making people pay to sell on the market is a s***ty move.

But PoE is a different kettle of fish entirely and doesn't belong in this discussion, imo.

 

[menace-uk-]

If you aren't happy with a game, don't buy it.

No-one is forcing you to buy the game. It's not restricting your gameplay experience in anyway, other than offering an option for expediating a few things.

And I thought I was the drama queen.

Are you pissy about DLC too?

More small minded ignorance.

 

[Kerosene31]

Hell, they added the totally pointless driver customization in a sad attempt to bolster the whole m'transaction ethos. The old ethos of race want you want is dead and now cars are locked behind a tier system, this change is also to bolster the m'transaction ethos. The VIP extra stuff has been wrecked in order to bolster the m'transaction ethos.

"Totally pointless driver customization"... so if it is totally pointless why should I be raged about "m'transactions"? "m'transactions" sound so sinister!

Just another thing for the angry gamer to get enraged about. You don't even own the game.

 

[JinCA]

Lootboxes are all in the news.

A bit hyperbolic, but

Loot boxes are ruining gaming and only you can stop them

This threatens to destroy the whole concept of balanced gameplay, where it’s being designed, not for maximum entertainment but for maximum monetisation. There’s been a number of high profile games this autumn that are especially worrying. Middle-Earth: Shadow Of War, for example, has a peculiar end game scenario where, even though the story has reached a natural conclusion, the difficultly level suddenly spikes and you need to start recruiting much more powerful orcs. Which seems suspiciously as if it’s been added purely to encourage the use of loot boxes.

And while Destiny 2’s microtransactions are less problematic than they first seemed (the extras are mostly cosmetic and the ones that aren’t don’t make much difference) Forza Motorsport 7’s similar system completely changes the customisation system for in-game ‘mods’ so that they have only limited-time uses and are difficult to acquire again unless you pay for them.

Star Wars: Battlefront II creates a different conundrum in that EA has been very upfront about the fact that the game features loot boxes with non-cosmetic extras. To compensate for that intrusion though, they’ve promised that all future DLC, in terms of maps and extra characters, will be free. On paper that sounds like a fair exchange, but after the recent beta it’s become clear that it comes at a considerable price in terms of the balance of the gameplay.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/12/loot-boxes-are-ruining-gaming-and-only-you-can-stop-them-6994190/

I found most of the upgrades in BF2 to be pretty minimal, plus there is no guarantee on what you'll get when you open a crate. If someone is dumb enough to spend a small fortune to unlock chances at a small advantage that's on them. I guess I'm just not that concerned with winning the top spot as I rarely ever do that in any MP game, I just want my team to win and as long as you play the objective you have a good chance at doing just that. Maybe it's more important in non team based stuff like say a racing game where it's all about you winning as an individual but when it's teams I think it sort of lessens the impact of a small advantage that a minority of players may have.

 

[Frozpot]

So you aren't all bothered that Forza 7 has had a drastic redisign in order to push the loot boxes for real money? Hell, they added the totally pointless driver customization in a sad attempt to bolster the whole m'transaction ethos. The old ethos of race want you want is dead and now cars are locked behind a tier system, this change is also to bolster the m'transaction ethos. The VIP extra stuff has been wrecked in order to bolster the m'transaction ethos.

This is only the start too.

This is what Games as a Service looks like..and it isn't good.

Eh, the tier system is hardly new, and existed before all the MTs. It's just one way to structure a game. Some people prefer it, as it aids that feeling of progression. You don't have to use MTs to get your money's worth from the game. I'd argue that they are able to put these things (ie MORE content) in there because they have an avenue to pay for the work involved to make it.

I'm now seeing people bitching about some Gamespot ad about pre-order content. Talking about content locked out of the game and bla bla greedy companies bla bla. The Game is huge without it. That pre-order stuff is made to specifically entice players. Nothing wrong, and if you really must have it, then pre-order!

So much entitlement leeching from cry baby pores by, I can only assume, people who don't make anything themselves- because if they did, they understand the desire to get paid for the work they do. All of these base games are friggin' huge. So what if there is more s*** you may have to pay for.

 

[Kerosene31]

So much entitlement leeching from cry baby pores by, I can only assume, people who don't make anything themselves- because if they did, they understand the desire to get paid for the work they do. All of these base games are friggin' huge. So what if there is more s*** you may have to pay for.

It is definitely the "entitlement generation" at work. Don't forget the "let's get angry at everyone" group either. So much drama over a hobby that is supposed to be "fun".

Just look on Steam and other places as games get "negative review bombed" before they are even out and/or people who haven't played. All over some "social injustice". My guess is that the people who rage about it the most are the ones buying all the loot boxes in the first place.

 

[Kerosene31]

Think this comic nails it pretty well (and isn't even talking about loot boxes)

 

[yankeessuck]

I don't think that nails anything other than maybe being the worst comic I have ever seen

 

[Kerosene31]

I don't think that nails anything other than maybe being the worst comic I have ever seen

It is spot on actually. There's a bandwagon of hate that goes from social justice cause to the next. Last week it was steam sniping in PUBG (look at recent Steam reviews). This week, it is loot boxes. Next week? Who knows. Before long a legit complaint turns into the hate train.

Meanwhile former gamer justice league causes go ignored in major releases. Remember always online? That was a killer! We fought that back... right? Except that some major games are getting released with always online components and nobody cares (not talking about MMO type games obviously).

What happened to that cause? Or will that be next week's "cause"? The real cause gets lost and the point is just to pile on as much as possible.

 

[Viktor]

I think the always online aspect of some games still get s*** on.

 

[Andy]

We got some corporate apologists up in here.*

I think there is a reason to be concerned. I don't think it's smart to dismiss it all as just one thing in the latest parade of things that gamers get upset about. I mean, it is that, yeah, but it's something more. Mixed in with all the hyperbole are some legitimate concerns, which are getting brushed off in this thread as just entitled whining. I think that's kind of shortsighted.

This isn't just a flash in the pan. People have been concerned about the effects of the GaaS model both generally and specifically on SP gaming, for quite some time. This is an extension of that discussion/concern.

If you take specific examples and isolate them, it's not anything to get too worked up about. But if you look at the direction that these examples are pointing, it's not a great sign for the future of AAA SP gaming.

It may be hard to grasp if you do a lot of MP gaming. If you're big into MP, you've adjusted a long time ago to this sort of thing. You've accepted it. It's nothing new. But to SP gamers, these are relatively new incursions -- or at least, at a new level. Some SP gamers see it as a harbinger of things to come.

Speaking as an almost-exclusively SP gamer who is dubious about GaaS's effect on the industry, this extension of these sort of GaaS-techniques to SP gaming is not filling my heart with joy. I'm not super worked up about it, but I do see the reason for concern, in a way others here do not. To me, it's part of a broader picture.

*j/k

 

[JinCA]

Eh, the tier system is hardly new, and existed before all the MTs. It's just one way to structure a game. Some people prefer it, as it aids that feeling of progression. You don't have to use MTs to get your money's worth from the game. I'd argue that they are able to put these things (ie MORE content) in there because they have an avenue to pay for the work involved to make it.

I'm now seeing people b****ing about some Gamespot ad about pre-order content. Talking about content locked out of the game and bla bla greedy companies bla bla. The Game is huge without it. That pre-order stuff is made to specifically entice players. Nothing wrong, and if you really must have it, then pre-order!

So much entitlement leeching from cry baby pores by, I can only assume, people who don't make anything themselves- because if they did, they understand the desire to get paid for the work they do. All of these base games are friggin' huge. So what if there is more s*** you may have to pay for.

I think the pre-order issue stems more from the ad it's self and how it's throwing it out there that the mission is locked unless you buy it from them. At first I was kind of annoyed too but really paid exclusive content isn't new, MS and Sony have done it and continue to do it and nobody cares for it in those situations either but when it's a retailer doing it for some reason it just seems even more shady. I wish that particular practice would end, fortunately though those types of deals tend to be temporary and that content ends up becoming available to everyone at a later date. I buy digital only now which is my choice, I always have the option to buy physical if I want to so I can't say they are stopping me from getting that content but I do wish digital purchases were rewarded more than retail simply because it would benefit me more yeah I'm being selfish but I'm up front about it lol.

 

[JinCA]

We got some corporate apologists up in here.*

I think there is a reason to be concerned. I don't think it's smart to dismiss it all as just one thing in the latest parade of things that gamers get upset about. I mean, it is that, yeah, but it's something more. Mixed in with all the hyperbole are some legitimate concerns, which are getting brushed off in this thread as just entitled whining. I think that's kind of shortsighted.

This isn't just a flash in the pan. People have been concerned about the effects of the GaaS model both generally and specifically on SP gaming, for quite some time. This is an extension of that discussion/concern.

If you take specific examples and isolate them, it's not anything to get too worked up about. But if you look at the direction that these examples are pointing, it's not a great sign for the future of AAA gaming.

I think it's more startling for SP gamers, too. If you're a MP guy, you've adjusted a long time ago to this sort of thing. You've accepted it. But these are relatively new incursions into SP gaming -- or at least at a new level. Harbinger of things to come.

Speaking as an almost-exclusively SP gamer who is dubious about GaaS's effect on the industry, this extension of GaaS-techniques to SP gaming is not filling my heart with joy.

*j/k

I do think adding all this stuff to single player is a bit much I'd agree there, if the game cost more to make because it's so big and is full of content then charge more for it up front. I also don't mind them doing season passes for SP only stuff because it covers story expansions, since it's SP only it really doesn't matter how many other buyers get the expanded content, in MP games it makes it much harder to find other people to play with beyond the games initial big rush.

 

[Andy]

I do think adding all this stuff to single player is a bit much I'd agree there, if the game cost more to make because it's so big and is full of content then charge more for it up front. I also don't mind them doing season passes for SP only stuff because it covers story expansions, since it's SP only it really doesn't matter how many other buyers get the expanded content, in MP games it makes it much harder to find other people to play with beyond the games initial big rush.

I'm okay if it doesn't affect game design. I've been beating that drum for a while. Insert all the MTs and loot crates and optional content packs and swimsuits you want -- just keep them truly optional, i.e., don't alter the basic game design to motivate people to buy them. Give me a complete, unadulterated game for my $60.

If the practice becomes prevalent*, what I'd like to see is reviewers telling us how much extra money you'll have to spend, in order to enjoy the basic game. That way, at least I know going in that my $60 game is really an $80 game.

*by which I mean altering game design to motivate spending.

 

[hrudey]

I think there is a reason to be concerned. I don't think it's smart to dismiss it all as just one thing in the latest parade of things that gamers get upset about. I mean, it is that, yeah, but it's something more. Mixed in with all the hyperbole are some legitimate concerns, which are getting brushed off in this thread as just entitled whining. I think that's kind of shortsighted.

Sir, your attempts to sell me nuance fail. My old ance still works fine.

 

[Kerosene31]

We got some corporate apologists up in here.*

I think there is a reason to be concerned. I don't think it's smart to dismiss it all as just one thing in the latest parade of things that gamers get upset about. I mean, it is that, yeah, but it's something more. Mixed in with all the hyperbole are some legitimate concerns, which are getting brushed off in this thread as just entitled whining. I think that's kind of shortsighted.

This isn't just a flash in the pan. People have been concerned about the effects of the GaaS model both generally and specifically on SP gaming, for quite some time. This is an extension of that discussion/concern.

If you take specific examples and isolate them, it's not anything to get too worked up about. But if you look at the direction that these examples are pointing, it's not a great sign for the future of AAA SP gaming.

It may be hard to grasp if you do a lot of MP gaming. If you're big into MP, you've adjusted a long time ago to this sort of thing. You've accepted it. It's nothing new. But to SP gamers, these are relatively new incursions -- or at least, at a new level. Some SP gamers see it as a harbinger of things to come.

Speaking as an almost-exclusively SP gamer who is dubious about GaaS's effect on the industry, this extension of these sort of GaaS-techniques to SP gaming is not filling my heart with joy. I'm not super worked up about it, but I do see the reason for concern, in a way others here do not. To me, it's part of a broader picture.

*j/k

I certainly don't mean to dismiss all concerns (although I see how that comes across). The problem is that the mob quickly shouts down the legit complaints. The internet mob not only doesn't help, they hurt.

I also think the term GaaS gets way misused, at least in the games I play. Forza 6 had no uniform customization. 7 has them, mostly in loot boxes. Is that GaaS? I would say absolutely not. It is a loot box with cosmetics.

A better example of GaaS is a game like Rainbow Six Siege. They haven't put out a sequel, but instead keep selling new maps and operators. You can unlock them without paying, but not easily or quick. (that said you can also get the base game for like $10 now). That's a service you need to keep up with if you want to play regularly. There's no sequel anywhere on their roadmap.

Loot boxes are really not GaaS, unless they are really badly done.

 

[Frozpot]

We got some corporate apologists up in here.*

I think there is a reason to be concerned. I don't think it's smart to dismiss it all as just one thing in the latest parade of things that gamers get upset about. I mean, it is that, yeah, but it's something more. Mixed in with all the hyperbole are some legitimate concerns, which are getting brushed off in this thread as just entitled whining. I think that's kind of shortsighted.

This isn't just a flash in the pan. People have been concerned about the effects of the GaaS model both generally and specifically on SP gaming, for quite some time. This is an extension of that discussion/concern.

If you take specific examples and isolate them, it's not anything to get too worked up about. But if you look at the direction that these examples are pointing, it's not a great sign for the future of AAA SP gaming.

It may be hard to grasp if you do a lot of MP gaming. If you're big into MP, you've adjusted a long time ago to this sort of thing. You've accepted it. It's nothing new. But to SP gamers, these are relatively new incursions -- or at least, at a new level. Some SP gamers see it as a harbinger of things to come.

Speaking as an almost-exclusively SP gamer who is dubious about GaaS's effect on the industry, this extension of these sort of GaaS-techniques to SP gaming is not filling my heart with joy. I'm not super worked up about it, but I do see the reason for concern, in a way others here do not. To me, it's part of a broader picture.

*j/k

You do have a point, my issue is that so many people get into this weird over-reacting mob mentality. I mean, just go look at the Giant Bomb vid for Mordor. It was incessant thoughtout even though the guy who actually played it said it was a non-issue outside of a picture in the menus screen.

I agree that there can be a tipping point, and indeed some games seem to cross it. I also believe that the health of the industry is absolutely tied to them getting the balance right. Unless gamers are willing to fork out 80 or 90 bucks for their games. People act like we get these empty shells of games, but in fact, they are usually dripping with content. An example being the bitching about loot crates in Forza 7. The game has 700 cars, and you don't have to pay a dime over 60 bucks (NOT counting tax!!) if you don't want to.

As important as it is to not rip off your customer, it's also important to not expect people/companies to not get paid for the work they do. So what if DLC is developed in tandem, say- those hours are billed along with a budget and content timeline of their own. Games are more than their base release, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing at all.

 

[Andy]

I certainly don't mean to dismiss all concerns (although I see how that comes across). The problem is that the mob quickly shouts down the legit complaints. The internet mob not only doesn't help, they hurt.

I know that some people do get carried away, and a sort of mob mentality can develop around some of these issues. Otoh, it's not all torches and pitchforks. There are people out there making intelligent comments and having somewhat interesting discussions about this.

I guess I'm just trying to remind people that behind the admittedly exaggerated uproar, there is actually a real issue here, and it's not just flash in the pan; it's been going on a while.

I also think the term GaaS gets way misused, at least in the games I play. Forza 6 had no uniform customization. 7 has them, mostly in loot boxes. Is that GaaS? I would say absolutely not. It is a loot box with cosmetics.

According to Mat Piscatala from NPD, the industry definition of GaaS is anything that extends the life of a game beyond the $60 price tag. That could be DLC, content updates, MTs, loot boxes, paid skins, map packs, whatever. Anything that extends the game's life beyond the initial release -- that makes it a "service."

I objected to that definition, saying it was far too broad. Mat initially held his ground, but he eventually saw my point and admitted the industry needs more specific terms to differentiate the various levels of GaaS-type implementation.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1439984&page=8
(see post 364 and following)

The industry hasn't gotten there yet. These elements are too new. My suggestion (more at the link) was an analogy to the way we talk about RPGs vs. games with RPG elements. Likewise we could talk about GaaS games -- Destiny, Overwatch, GTA, CoD -- vs. games with GaaS elements -- Horizon, Forza, Shadow of War, etc.

You do have a point, my issue is that so many people get into this weird over-reacting mob mentality.

I understand, and I agree that some people do behave that way. Gaming forums can get pretty incensed about trivia sometimes.

My problem is that the counter-reaction to the "mob" is not helpful, either, because it fails to distinguish between the mob and those who have legitimate concerns and are expressing them coherently. It just brands everyone a whiner and wants to throw the whole discussion out the door.

.... important as it is to not rip off your customer, it's also important to not expect people/companies to not get paid for the work they do. So what if DLC is developed in tandem, say- those hours are billed along with a budget and content timeline of their own. Games are more than their base release, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing at all.

I don't think anyone is saying it's wrong for companies to get paid for their work. I've got no problem with companies charging extra for extra content.

My concern is that, with the way things are trending, it is not at all hard to imagine (in fact it's hard not to imagine) companies altering the design of the base game, so that players are artificially motivated to pay extra, just to bypass the annoyances that they have intentionally built into their game, to motivate you to pay extra. That's just a bastardization of the game design.

If you're buying an SP game for $60, you are paying full price for a one-time experience that lasts maybe 15 to 30 hours (on average) and is then done. You don't want that experience cheapened, in an effort to get more money out of you.

SP games depend a lot on storytelling, pacing, and tight plotting. If they inserted some artificial grind into a game like Horizon or Uncharted, just to get me to pay extra, I'd lose respect for the game and the designers.

 

[menace-uk-]

"Totally pointless driver customization"... so if it is totally pointless why should I be raged about "m'transactions"? "m'transactions" sound so sinister!

Just another thing for the angry gamer to get enraged about. You don't even own the game.

I already told you. Try reading and responsding to everything not just a small snippet you can throw nonsense replies at. And me owning the game is irrelevant.

Eh, the tier system is hardly new, and existed before all the MTs. It's just one way to structure a game. Some people prefer it, as it aids that feeling of progression. You don't have to use MTs to get your money's worth from the game. I'd argue that they are able to put these things (ie MORE content) in there because they have an avenue to pay for the work involved to make it.

I'm now seeing people b****ing about some Gamespot ad about pre-order content. Talking about content locked out of the game and bla bla greedy companies bla bla. The Game is huge without it. That pre-order stuff is made to specifically entice players. Nothing wrong, and if you really must have it, then pre-order!

So much entitlement leeching from cry baby pores by, I can only assume, people who don't make anything themselves- because if they did, they understand the desire to get paid for the work they do. All of these base games are friggin' huge. So what if there is more s*** you may have to pay for.

The tier system isn't new but then that wasn't the point,was it. Point is m'transactions caused them to fundamentally change the game designe and gated content that was never gated in order to push lootboxes.

Pre-order content is bulls***. Especially in this fast growing digital era.

It is a big thing.

It is definitely the "entitlement generation" at work. Don't forget the "let's get angry at everyone" group either. So much drama over a hobby that is supposed to be "fun".

Just look on Steam and other places as games get "negative review bombed" before they are even out and/or people who haven't played. All over some "social injustice". My guess is that the people who rage about it the most are the ones buying all the loot boxes in the first place.

That is your answer for everything.

It isn't self entitlement at all. These m'transactions have no place in full price games, they were designed and created for F2P games to have a revenue source.

People get angry because people like you just ignore this stuff and throw around comments like self entitlement, Don't like it don't buy it, It's only cosmetic, in an attempt to dismiss comments.

 

[menace-uk-]

I do think adding all this stuff to single player is a bit much I'd agree there, if the game cost more to make because it's so big and is full of content then charge more for it up front. I also don't mind them doing season passes for SP only stuff because it covers story expansions, since it's SP only it really doesn't matter how many other buyers get the expanded content, in MP games it makes it much harder to find other people to play with beyond the games initial big rush.

Season passes are fine, but only if you get a detailed description of the content it covers. The vague descriptions we get for most right now isn't good enough.

 

[Kerosene31]

According to Mat Piscatala from NPD, the industry definition of GaaS is anything that extends the life of a game beyond the $60 price tag. That could be DLC, content updates, MTs, loot boxes, paid skins, map packs, whatever. Anything that extends the game's life beyond the initial release -- that makes it a "service."

I objected to that definition, saying it was far too broad.

It is way too broad, and also I would even argue that real loot boxes don't "Extend the life of the game". We're talking cosmetics here, not pay to play content. I haven't played Overwatch in forever. If I do, I'm not going to care that I don't have the latest skins. I can just pop in and play and who cares about some skins? So what if someone who does play a ton has a few bucks on their account and buys some loot? I don't see anyone losing.

The only person griping is the OCD collector who needs to own every skin in the game for some bizarre reason.

Most gamers like loot, and it gives them more reason to play. The Destiny crowd is all up in arms right now not because of loot boxes, but because of the lack of loot. Everyone has everything already and they are bored. Nobody who actually plays Destiny 2 cares about loot boxes because that's not what they are even talking about. (go look at the Destiny thread here or on Reddit). The people griping loot boxes probably aren't even playing the game, because the eververse has nothing to do with the end game issues.

 

[Frozpot]

Season passes are fine, but only if you get a detailed description of the content it covers. The vague descriptions we get for most right now isn't good enough.

I agree with this. I would never buy something that I didn't know exactly what I was getting. When it comes to loot crates, I actually think there are people who like the chance aspect. Like gamblers.

 

[Andy]

It is way too broad, and also I would even argue that real loot boxes don't "Extend the life of the game". We're talking cosmetics here, not pay to play content. I haven't played Overwatch in forever. If I do, I'm not going to care that I don't have the latest skins. I can just pop in and play and who cares about some skins? So what if someone who does play a ton has a few bucks on their account and buys some loot? I don't see anyone losing.

Overwatch is typically upheld as an example of a game that does GaaS right. As you say, everything is just cosmetic. That doesn't really matter to gameplay, so it doesn't rankle people.

That goes to what I'm trying to say -- you can do this stuff (MTs, loot boxes, DLC, etc.) right, or you can do it wrong. You can do it well, or you can do it poorly.

So, as a corollary of that -- it doesn't make sense to take a stance "against" MTs or loot boxes or whatever. The better approach is to asking the question, "Have they implemented this (MTs, loot boxes, etc.) well or poorly?" I think there's plenty of room for developers to do it well. Doing it poorly would involve including some monetization strategy that affects the basic game design.

 

[Kerosene31]

Overwatch is typically upheld as an example of a game that does GaaS right. As you say, everything is just cosmetic. That doesn't really matter to gameplay, so it doesn't rankle people.

That goes to what I'm trying to say -- you can do this stuff (MTs, loot boxes, DLC, etc.) right, or you can do it wrong. You can do it well, or you can do it poorly.

So, as a corollary of that -- it doesn't make sense to take a stance "against" MTs or loot boxes or whatever. The better approach is to asking the question, "Have they implemented this (MTs, loot boxes, etc.) well or poorly?" I think there's plenty of room for developers to do it well. Doing it poorly would involve including some monetization strategy that affects the basic game design.

That's the problem exactly - the community is raging at something that might happen. The slippery slope fallacy.

They turn ugly against something without even thinking if it has any benefits or maybe, just maybe is better than other models?

R6 Siege is really GaaS and it works great. The base game was a bit empty at $60 (as so many are today) but now the community is much stronger than it was at launch. (and the base game is dirt cheap as it should be given the current model). Personally I've enjoyed that way better than basically releasing a "new" game every year for $60. Yet gamers in this thread will toss personal insults around at fellow gamers and that's ok because certainly some gamer knows better what I should spend my money on.

We've seen plenty of examples of the gaming community doing good opposing something. The Forza VIP thing is a great example. People complained, and the company responded.

Too much though we get the "rage of the week" and everyone piles on. This is a perfect example. The whining and rage for the sake or rage silences the people who want to have a grown up discussion about it.

The entitlement definitely creeps in too. If someone does something I don't like, I don't buy it. Plain and simple. I don't cry. I'm not "entitled" to something. I'm free to buy or free to pass. That's not enough for some though, they feel that something's very existence is an affront to them. Not only do they need to loudly and repeatedly state their rage, they need to rage at their fellow gamers too because that's a big thing.

 

[Almighty_bob]

This is a little long, but he's got some great points.

 

[Kerosene31]

40 minutes??? I think instead I will use 42 minutes and play a game with loot boxes in it so I can earn a few more free ones.