Sounds like the complaining sometimes works but if you are complaining about something that doesn't bother me then stop doing it.
Lootbox Backlash
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
Sounds like the complaining sometimes works but if you are complaining about something that doesn't bother me then stop doing it.
Hang on, that's not what I said. What I said was, you can do it right, or you can do it wrong. I didn't say everything is hunky dory. Gamers' complaints about SoW, Forza, and SWB2 suggest that they did it wrong, at least to some degree. And based on what I've heard about those games, I'd say there is some justification for concern.
My hope is that the protests will have a similar effect here -- that developers will think twice in the future about pushing farther in this direction (of messing with game design in an attempt to monetize). However, I'm skeptical. I know how important it is for companies to develop new areas of cash flow, and if people buy this stuff (which they will -- the gamers who complain are not the gamers who buy this stuff), protests are going to fall on deaf ears.
No, it's not a good example of "rage of the week." As I've said, this is part of a larger discussion about the influence of GaaS elements on gaming, particularly on SP gaming. That's been going on for at least a year.
Well, you seem to be really upset about other people being really upset. I'm not sure why. If you think it's a non-issue, why not just let it go? If you think it's just "rage of the week," then who cares? It'll be over in a week, right? Heck, the first story on SoW broke about a week ago, so it's bound to be over already.
Loot Boxes Are Designed To Exploit Us
Moment for moment, loot boxes are engineered to capture attention with a mixture of spectacle and psychological trickery not unlike what you might find at a slot machine.
If this sounds s***ty, that’s because it is. The ESRB recently told us that it doesn’t see loot boxes as gambling because players “always guaranteed to receive in-game content.” I find this assessment absurd. Games offer wide rosters of characters and run limited time events to create rarity that drives purchases. Just because you get something, doesn’t mean you aren’t taking a gamble. I believe the ESRB is making an academic distinction to avoid acknowledging the issue and am skeptical of their assessment given that they were created by the Entertainment Software Association, a trade association dedicated to the business interests of game publishers.
To some, loot boxes may be a gameplay issue or a consumerist concern. To me, they’re far more seriously a moral issue. I know, because I have fallen for them. I don’t know how else to say this, but I have a gambling problem. I didn’t find this out at a casino. I found this out playing games.
We need to acknowledge what loot boxes are. They’re slot machines in everything but name, meticulously crafted to encourage player spending and keep them on the hook.
https://kotaku.com/loot-boxes-are-designed-to-exploit-us-1819457592
My thoughts: This isn't really my concern, but I don't disagree with her. Loot boxes are based on the same operant conditioning principles that fuel the casinos and siphon millions of dollars out of people's pockets every day. I've got no doubt that publishers and developers will become very skilled at designing systems that do just that.
However, I don't feel like blaming the developers and publishers, if someone gets carried away and hooked, like the author of the article. Just because there's a casino doesn't mean you have to go in it. Just because there's a liquor store doesn't mean you have to get drunk. Loot boxes are a shady way to make money, but ultimately it's the individual who is responsible for their spending.
Moment for moment, loot boxes are engineered to capture attention with a mixture of spectacle and psychological trickery not unlike what you might find at a slot machine.
If this sounds s***ty, that’s because it is. The ESRB recently told us that it doesn’t see loot boxes as gambling because players “always guaranteed to receive in-game content.” I find this assessment absurd. Games offer wide rosters of characters and run limited time events to create rarity that drives purchases. Just because you get something, doesn’t mean you aren’t taking a gamble. I believe the ESRB is making an academic distinction to avoid acknowledging the issue and am skeptical of their assessment given that they were created by the Entertainment Software Association, a trade association dedicated to the business interests of game publishers.
To some, loot boxes may be a gameplay issue or a consumerist concern. To me, they’re far more seriously a moral issue. I know, because I have fallen for them. I don’t know how else to say this, but I have a gambling problem. I didn’t find this out at a casino. I found this out playing games.
We need to acknowledge what loot boxes are. They’re slot machines in everything but name, meticulously crafted to encourage player spending and keep them on the hook.
https://kotaku.com/loot-boxes-are-designed-to-exploit-us-1819457592
My thoughts: This isn't really my concern, but I don't disagree with her. Loot boxes are based on the same operant conditioning principles that fuel the casinos and siphon millions of dollars out of people's pockets every day. I've got no doubt that publishers and developers will become very skilled at designing systems that do just that.
However, I don't feel like blaming the developers and publishers, if someone gets carried away and hooked, like the author of the article. Just because there's a casino doesn't mean you have to go in it. Just because there's a liquor store doesn't mean you have to get drunk. Loot boxes are a shady way to make money, but ultimately it's the individual who is responsible for their spending.
Last edited:
I can definitely see the gambling angle, though it is slightly different in that at a slot machine, you get Nothing in return for your money unless you win. This is more akin to buying playing cards- it's gamble getting what you want, but you do get something.
I absolutely agree that people need to control themselves. It's hard to blame a developer for providing something that people are saying they want (as evidenced by spending).
Self control seems to be a hard thing nowadays, and as long as they have someone to point fingers at, they'll never understand (or at least accept) that the true catalyst lies in themselves.
like someone said earlier I don’t like how they’re not giving out full information on what Season passes cover. It’s like “give us $40 and you get any content we put out.” I would like to know what I’m buying in the future.
People complain about microtrans, lootboxes, DLC and such, but let's face it. Us gamers are to blame. Devs do it because we buy it.
Not me in particular, since the only thing I've ever bought are CoD map packs.... which I haven't even bought any since I think MW3 or BO2.
Other than those downloads, any kind of dashboard theme, loot crate, cosmetic costume, EA Sports card packs, etc...... $0 from my pockets. I don't even renew Gold online. I wait for a store to sell a 12 month card for cheap and I buy 2 cards.
I have no idea how many people spend $$$ on these kinds of things (loot crates being the new fad), but it's big. All the game companies brag about big increases in digital content and microtrans, so people are buying them.
Most gamers say on forums they hate it and don't do it, but someone is lying. Activision and the other big companies aren't doing this stuff if hardly anyone buys it and the revenue stream is piddly. People just don't want to admit they part of the cycle of microtrans.
Hey, I'll admit I am one of the people who made map packs a big thing. While PC gamers get free maps, I was one of the guys buying $10-15 CoD packs 5 years ago. But that's it from my end.
Not me in particular, since the only thing I've ever bought are CoD map packs.... which I haven't even bought any since I think MW3 or BO2.
Other than those downloads, any kind of dashboard theme, loot crate, cosmetic costume, EA Sports card packs, etc...... $0 from my pockets. I don't even renew Gold online. I wait for a store to sell a 12 month card for cheap and I buy 2 cards.
I have no idea how many people spend $$$ on these kinds of things (loot crates being the new fad), but it's big. All the game companies brag about big increases in digital content and microtrans, so people are buying them.
Most gamers say on forums they hate it and don't do it, but someone is lying. Activision and the other big companies aren't doing this stuff if hardly anyone buys it and the revenue stream is piddly. People just don't want to admit they part of the cycle of microtrans.
Hey, I'll admit I am one of the people who made map packs a big thing. While PC gamers get free maps, I was one of the guys buying $10-15 CoD packs 5 years ago. But that's it from my end.
Nothing more to add. This seems like a problem that gamers created and companies ran with it. And with the industry slowly shifting to GaaS, lootboxes and the like are more than likely here to stay. Doesn't mean we have to like it though.
There's a big difference between having a patent and putting something in a game. Putting pay to win alone in a game would be an instant no buy for me, and a lot of gamers feel the same way. This is the point I was kind of poorly trying to make. The Gamespot article shows pictures of Destiny and makes it sound like something that is in place, yet Destiny 2 doesn't even have pay to win transactions.
Lots of companies have patents that freak people out. Amazon has a patent on tech that allows brick and mortar stores to block your phone from checking competitor's prices online. Are they holding it to use it in their stores or just to keep it out of the hands of someone else?
Just be careful of the slippery slope fallacy. Imagine a game that just let people buy a better online gun without this patent - that game is going to get crushed by everyone.
Lots of companies have patents that freak people out. Amazon has a patent on tech that allows brick and mortar stores to block your phone from checking competitor's prices online. Are they holding it to use it in their stores or just to keep it out of the hands of someone else?
Just be careful of the slippery slope fallacy. Imagine a game that just let people buy a better online gun without this patent - that game is going to get crushed by everyone.
Game Informer:
The Design Failure Of The Loot Box
"Microtransactions make a great game worse. The concept of small (or not so small) real-money transactions rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but increasingly, the business move is shrugged away by both creators and consumers as an inevitability of the times. The way that game publishers and developers make money is a complex issue, and I’m certainly not ready to wholesale condemn a business for trying to find a route to solvency. But with the increasing rise in the practice, especially in triple-A games that already have a hefty price tag attached, I find myself returning to the biggest reason these money exchanges frustrate me: Building in a money-making scheme in the midst of an otherwise great game design weakens the entire experience, harms immersion, and diminishes the broader meaning and strength of in-game reward systems."
Much of the conversation around in-game microtransactions in recent months has moved toward whether something is “pay-to-win” or not, or dissolves into a defense of the unfortunate gamer with too little time who just wants a chance to keep up with his friends. I think those arguments fail an important litmus test of whether these systems make a given game experience better or worse.
Imagine going to a movie theater, watching part of a film, and then having the film paused to ask if you’d like to pay an additional three dollars to see the main characters in their coolest outfits. Would you like to shell out some cash to see Luke Skywalker level up his Jedi skills a little faster? What if Wonder Woman could add a cool new flourish to her sword attacks for the low price of a cup of coffee? For most of us, entertainment is an opportunity to escape into a world that immerses us in its wonders, and it’s only when that experience is over that we step back into the real world. In-game stores break that immersion, and remind us that our fantasy only carries us to another trip into our wallets.
The more subtle and more significant problem is the way microtransactions subvert smart design and progression dynamics. Whether you consider it on a conscious level or not, most games are built on reward loops inherent to our psychology. The best game designers capitalize on that human desire for improvement and the benefits of success. Beat a boss? Receive a powerful new toy that excites you, but one that also often helps to carry you forward to subsequent victories. The desire for mastery and recompense for mastery is deeply coded into us, and games do a better job than any other entertainment medium of providing that structure.
In-game money purchases disrupt that dynamic, taking what are often some of the most desired rewards and hiding them behind a paywall. Suddenly, the illusion of merit-based improvement breaks down, and even the other in-game rewards are diminished in comparison. Perhaps the developer defends the practice, building in a way to earn those same loot boxes or drops in-game, but at a glacial pace that they would never have introduced if that was meant to be the preferred method for acquisition.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2017/10/19/the-design-failure-of-the-loot-box.aspx
The Design Failure Of The Loot Box
"Microtransactions make a great game worse. The concept of small (or not so small) real-money transactions rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but increasingly, the business move is shrugged away by both creators and consumers as an inevitability of the times. The way that game publishers and developers make money is a complex issue, and I’m certainly not ready to wholesale condemn a business for trying to find a route to solvency. But with the increasing rise in the practice, especially in triple-A games that already have a hefty price tag attached, I find myself returning to the biggest reason these money exchanges frustrate me: Building in a money-making scheme in the midst of an otherwise great game design weakens the entire experience, harms immersion, and diminishes the broader meaning and strength of in-game reward systems."
Much of the conversation around in-game microtransactions in recent months has moved toward whether something is “pay-to-win” or not, or dissolves into a defense of the unfortunate gamer with too little time who just wants a chance to keep up with his friends. I think those arguments fail an important litmus test of whether these systems make a given game experience better or worse.
Imagine going to a movie theater, watching part of a film, and then having the film paused to ask if you’d like to pay an additional three dollars to see the main characters in their coolest outfits. Would you like to shell out some cash to see Luke Skywalker level up his Jedi skills a little faster? What if Wonder Woman could add a cool new flourish to her sword attacks for the low price of a cup of coffee? For most of us, entertainment is an opportunity to escape into a world that immerses us in its wonders, and it’s only when that experience is over that we step back into the real world. In-game stores break that immersion, and remind us that our fantasy only carries us to another trip into our wallets.
The more subtle and more significant problem is the way microtransactions subvert smart design and progression dynamics. Whether you consider it on a conscious level or not, most games are built on reward loops inherent to our psychology. The best game designers capitalize on that human desire for improvement and the benefits of success. Beat a boss? Receive a powerful new toy that excites you, but one that also often helps to carry you forward to subsequent victories. The desire for mastery and recompense for mastery is deeply coded into us, and games do a better job than any other entertainment medium of providing that structure.
In-game money purchases disrupt that dynamic, taking what are often some of the most desired rewards and hiding them behind a paywall. Suddenly, the illusion of merit-based improvement breaks down, and even the other in-game rewards are diminished in comparison. Perhaps the developer defends the practice, building in a way to earn those same loot boxes or drops in-game, but at a glacial pace that they would never have introduced if that was meant to be the preferred method for acquisition.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2017/10/19/the-design-failure-of-the-loot-box.aspx
I have so many problems with that.
AAA Games have a "hefty price tag" attached? The cost of making games goes up and up, yet prices have stayed completely flat. Did we get variable game pricing for AAA titles?
Money making schemes harms "immersion" - The games I play all offer loot boxes for free just for playing. I would disagree with that statement completely. I get a reward for playing a game that normally would cost real money? I fail to see how I'm being harmed in this. I would say that loot boxes help extend the life of the game.
The whole movie analogy is just silly as well.
I said I would drop this and well I guess I lied. Honest question - would people just rather games cost $70-80 US instead of $60? Isn't it possible for the loot boxes to make sense? Gamer A can buy a game at $60, play for a bit and then move on, while Gamer B plays a ton more and either earns and/or buys loot boxes to enhance their experience.
Take Destiny 2. I'm sure there are gamers who bought the game, played through the SP and then sold it back to Gamestop a week or two later. Was their experience harmed by microtransactions? I'm sure there are people who played who don't even know what the Eververse is. Meanwhile, a bigger Destiny fan can play regularly and be rewarded with loot boxes (I get at least 2 per week and I barely play). Take those away and honestly, I play the game EVEN LESS.
Maybe I'm just not running into the games that the author refers to. Every article I see has pictures of Overwatch, Destiny 2, or BF2, so I'm not sure where these "ruining experiences" come in. The only game that has been mentioned is the new LOTR one.
It's cool. I'll post articles expressing concern, and you will reply that you see nothing to be concerned about. Okay.
No, $60 is the preferred price.
Yes. I already covered this. Are you listening?
Question for you -- do you see nothing to be concerned about here?
This author exaggerates, but there is reason to be concerned that games will be compromised by this. At least that's my belief.
Yeah, I've heard Shadow of War, Forza 7, and I think SWB being criticized.
Is there potential for a problem? Sure. Of course I'm no fool and going to say "they'll never try and rip us off". I wouldn't buy a game that I had concerns over. I've passed on many a game because I didn't like something (usually 3rd party DRM on PC). I don't exaggerate about it, I just don't buy.
Exaggerate is a good way to describe it. The author exaggerates the impact of some skins... by a whole lot.
Shadow of War = I know nothing about. I rarely pay $60 for SP games, with or without microtransactions.
Forza 7 = I own this game and the microtransactions are fine. You get free stuff all the time. So there's different colored racing suits that I don't own yet. Would my game be better with zero customization? I'd say no. The mod system is not necessary and I haven't used mods in FM6 or 7.
SWB = We'll see. Now random loot boxes that help in game is a concern for me from a competitive standpoint. I have the game preordered so as you can guess I'm not too worried. If they really are a problem, I will be right there to complain. Based on the beta it isn't a super skill game, but more of a casual, fun game so I'm not concerned.
Believe it or not, I'm a pretty frugal gamer, mostly because a little patience will allow me to find lots of sales. On Steam I buy nothing that isn't on sale, because everything goes on sale eventually. I have tons of games in my PS4 wishlist and check regularly for sales (and find them). I rarely get ripped off because I don't allow myself to. Will Battlefront 2 get me? Time will tell in a month or so.
Absolutely. Really my beef is (and always is) with the gaming media. They love to make potential mole hills into mountains. This clickbait world we live in is just annoying. Everyone jumps on the let's get offended train.
I guess some people get bothered by them more than others. I guess what bugs me is the over-dramatic gaming media. If you have to lie to get your point across, you aren't doing it right.
People need to speak with their wallets more than their internet rage. Guess what? People must be buying lots of these things or companies wouldn't bother with them. A little self control goes a long way.
Go look at Activisions patent for matchmaking driven m'transactions. Talk about insidious s***.
You seriously need to get off the business is my friend train. This stuff is going to get a hell of alot worse...
People do buy the s*** out lf it, which is why II blame gamers. FIFA makes 800 million from this s*** in about 9 months. Activission generates over 3 billion a year from this s***.
That right there is the problem... They will most likely make the grind far worse to push people into buying loot boxes instead... That to me is making the game worse to influence gamers in supporting the easy button
Everyone should have an issue with this
Yes, I think that is inevitable -- devs will becoming increasingly creative in altering game design to soak players. The incentive is just too strong, and the opportunities are too easy.
These recent games are the "foot in the door." I expect it will get worse over time.
It's not hurting games.
Fifa makes over $800m a year from them
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...ntroversy-having-no-impact-on-sales-potential
Fifa makes over $800m a year from them
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...ntroversy-having-no-impact-on-sales-potential
It's just weird because Grinding has always been a part of gaming.... now people can buy their way through it to skip part of the game. Dumb, but who cares? I see a lot of HUGE games nowadays. I doubt we'd continue to see them if this revenue stream hadn't surfaced. Still a big shug at this point for me.
It's only a matter of time. This should worry you too. I mean if it starts hurting sales then what will they do next? They have started a ever descending road that there is no real way back from...short of a reeboot after the crash.
Some mainstream coverage of the issue.
Loot box brouhaha: Are video games becoming too much like gambling?
Gamers have become increasingly critical of highly anticipated new releases — such as Forza Motorsport 7, Middle-Earth: Shadow of War and Star Wars Battlefront II — locking items and features that in previous instalments were free.
Many players have likened it to gambling — and some are even calling for government regulation on the matter.
...
'I've seen people literally spend $15,000'
Manveer Heir, a game designer who previously worked with EA, told Vice's gaming site Waypoint he had seen people "literally spend $15,000 on Mass Effect multiplayer cards."
Gabe Zichermann, an expert in gamification and people's addiction to technology, said loot boxes use "operant conditioning," doling out the most coveted rewards at irregular intervals, preventing us from recognizing a pattern.
"It is literally, exactly, a slot machine," said Zichermann. "They're all based on the same basic fundamental behaviour pattern: When people cannot predict how much they're going to get, they often get very focused and fixated on it, and want to do it over and over again, past the point of rationality."
....
"According to developer Rami Ismail, whether you want to buy them or not, loot boxes change the design of a game.
"If you add loot boxes, you're gonna have to adjust the game's economy, and the game's design, to make those interesting. Which means that you're effectively designing a game for things that aren't in it — unless you pay," he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/video-games-loot-boxes-1.4373079
Loot box brouhaha: Are video games becoming too much like gambling?
Gamers have become increasingly critical of highly anticipated new releases — such as Forza Motorsport 7, Middle-Earth: Shadow of War and Star Wars Battlefront II — locking items and features that in previous instalments were free.
Many players have likened it to gambling — and some are even calling for government regulation on the matter.
...
'I've seen people literally spend $15,000'
Manveer Heir, a game designer who previously worked with EA, told Vice's gaming site Waypoint he had seen people "literally spend $15,000 on Mass Effect multiplayer cards."
Gabe Zichermann, an expert in gamification and people's addiction to technology, said loot boxes use "operant conditioning," doling out the most coveted rewards at irregular intervals, preventing us from recognizing a pattern.
"It is literally, exactly, a slot machine," said Zichermann. "They're all based on the same basic fundamental behaviour pattern: When people cannot predict how much they're going to get, they often get very focused and fixated on it, and want to do it over and over again, past the point of rationality."
....
"According to developer Rami Ismail, whether you want to buy them or not, loot boxes change the design of a game.
"If you add loot boxes, you're gonna have to adjust the game's economy, and the game's design, to make those interesting. Which means that you're effectively designing a game for things that aren't in it — unless you pay," he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/video-games-loot-boxes-1.4373079
Like most things... If you don't go against it in it's infancy, you will only get exploited more & more as time moves forward.
This stuff may not seem like a problem to you now, but just you wait... You will be in for a rude awakening when reality slaps your face
This stuff may not seem like a problem to you now, but just you wait... You will be in for a rude awakening when reality slaps your face
Monster Hunter World won’t have loot boxes or microtransactions, as they would make the game less satisfying
In any interview with Gamespot, series producer Ryozo Tsujimoto and game director Yuuya Tokuda have opined on what loot boxes would mean for their series, and neither had good things to say about the idea.
”I think that Monster Hunter has already built that kind of randomized, item reward into the gameplay”, Tsujimoto told them. “You’ve already kind of got loot as a core gameplay aspect without having to shove a microtransaction version of it in”. He also does not like the idea of players paying to skip through portions of the game. “”We want people to have the experience that we’ve made for them rather than the option to skip the experience”.
Tokuda was even more blunt on the matter: “I wouldn’t see a paid loot box or paid system for getting random items as fitting Monster Hunter because it isn’t a game where the strength of the items is the key aspect of how you proceed”, he said.
Both men believe that microtransactions would unbalance the systems the game is based around. “We’d have to have a substantial re-think, which is not something we’re particularly planning to do at this time”, Tokuda said.
https://www.vg247.com/2017/11/02/mo...-as-they-would-make-the-game-less-satisfying/
Good. They say it quite clearly -- including loot crates and MTs affects the basic design of the game. To include them would require a substantial revision of the way the game's systems operate.
In any interview with Gamespot, series producer Ryozo Tsujimoto and game director Yuuya Tokuda have opined on what loot boxes would mean for their series, and neither had good things to say about the idea.
”I think that Monster Hunter has already built that kind of randomized, item reward into the gameplay”, Tsujimoto told them. “You’ve already kind of got loot as a core gameplay aspect without having to shove a microtransaction version of it in”. He also does not like the idea of players paying to skip through portions of the game. “”We want people to have the experience that we’ve made for them rather than the option to skip the experience”.
Tokuda was even more blunt on the matter: “I wouldn’t see a paid loot box or paid system for getting random items as fitting Monster Hunter because it isn’t a game where the strength of the items is the key aspect of how you proceed”, he said.
Both men believe that microtransactions would unbalance the systems the game is based around. “We’d have to have a substantial re-think, which is not something we’re particularly planning to do at this time”, Tokuda said.
https://www.vg247.com/2017/11/02/mo...-as-they-would-make-the-game-less-satisfying/
Good. They say it quite clearly -- including loot crates and MTs affects the basic design of the game. To include them would require a substantial revision of the way the game's systems operate.
Brilliant post and I agree with 100% of it.
The one thing I would like to hear from critics of this. Game budgets have skyrocketed over the last 20 years. Game prices have remained flat, even with inflation. Additionally, games now keep player interest longer than ever. What strategy would you like to see game makers pursue to offset this clear imbalance? I just think loot boxes are our best option at this point.
Last edited: