AAA Games focus on Lootboxes

[tpepper1985]

Hi All

 

Has anyone else just stopped caring about a game they were thinking about trying because of this Lootbox thing that nearly all AAA games seem to be going for these days? Hell some even make you pay 60 for the game, have a season pass, and throw in a Loot Box Casino just for extra measure. I just saw a video today that Destiny 2 has Microtransactions in it. I know why they are doing it, it makes them money people buy a game for 60 Euros / Bucks and then buy costumes and all the other crap they sell in the loot box casino but I remember when this model was used for Free to Play games, and I'm so sick of this crap being in day one AAA games I just can't even be bothered to get invested in them anymore.

 

Season Passes and DLC never really bothered me that much, usually it was a small piece of content and overpriced usually ... But at least you know what you are paying for (If you waited for the content to come out before buying it.) The sad thing is and as we have seen in recent trends this is only going to get worse and become more and more common. People are buying into this loot box economy, and it is making millions for the publishers

 

I have never purchased a loot box / key in my life and never will - Unless it was for a FTP game which makes sense for the business model, and am getting sick of supporting publishers that implement this shit into thier games. Evidently I'm in the minority, what do you think about the situation and the way things are heading in the future? Is anyone else getting put off of buying AAA games that include loot boxes?

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by tpepper1985

[SolarCat02]

If they want to sell cosmetics for a set up front price, I don't really care. Some people enjoy the game more when they can also play dress up, and it's clear what you are getting for that money.

 

But I am very much against games selling gambling boxes and (for multi-player games) useful items with in-game functionality. The first one turns a game into an unregulated casino for the sake of a quick profit and the second makes the size of a player's wallet more important than their skill of the game, forcing them to buy stuff if they want to fare well in PvP or get into the best raid groups.

[Super-Fly Spider-Guy]

To me, "games as a service" is when you get a base game, and then instead of a sequel, you get add ons for that game. If that meaning is wrong then ignore me, but as far as I know, that's the meaning.

 

I think that's awesome.

 

Way back when, that's how shit was a lot of the time. Remember expansion passes? I'd prefer that shit immensely. With how similar a lot of sequels are to their predecessors nowadays, it only makes more sense to do this now more than ever. I think GTA would be a good example. I'd rather pay 30/40 odd for another Episodes from Liberty City style thing now than wait another 5 years and fork out 100 for GTA 6. I mean, I'd end up buying both anyways, but that's not the point.

 

I think the big one to do this lately is Destiny. 

 

And I think it's a great idea. I don't give a fuck about Destiny, but if I can buy Destiny for X amount, then buy the season pass for however much, and know that I'll be getting significant content updates for a good year or two, that's more cool to me than the idea of waiting for a sequel to come out a few years later and pay full price. Ideally this kind of approach can lead to pumping out more content quicker than a traditional sequel as lots of assets and things can be reused, it can keep hype alive for a franchise while waiting for the next full installment, and it can keep the player cost lower as a season pass style approach is cheaper usually than buying a full follow up.

 

- Quicker drops of more content

- Keeps the fanbase active and engaged longer

- Cheaper method of getting more content

- Less expensive development cycle = more profit for studio. More profit = higher likelihood of continued support to series. 

 

Seems win win to me.

_______________________

However...

 

If you mean games, free to play or otherwise, that have a shitload of micro transactions, in game cash purchasable, upgrades, DLC, etc. then they can fuck right off.

[tpepper1985]

10 minutes ago, Super-Fly Spider-Guy said:

To me, "games as a service" is when you get a base game, and then instead of a sequel, you get add ons for that game. If that meaning is wrong then ignore me, but as far as I know, that's the meaning.

 

I think that's awesome.

 

Way back when, that's how shit was a lot of the time. Remember expansion passes? I'd prefer that shit immensely. With how similar a lot of sequels are to their predecessors nowadays, it only makes more sense to do this now more than ever. I think GTA would be a good example. I'd rather pay 30/40 odd for another Episodes from Liberty City style thing now than wait another 5 years and fork out 100 for GTA 6. I mean, I'd end up buying both anyways, but that's not the point.

 

I think the big one to do this lately is Destiny. 

 

And I think it's a great idea. I don't give a fuck about Destiny, but if I can buy Destiny for X amount, then buy the season pass for however much, and know that I'll be getting significant content updates for a good year or two, that's more cool to me than the idea of waiting for a sequel to come out a few years later and pay full price. Ideally this kind of approach can lead to pumping out more content quicker than a traditional sequel as lots of assets and things can be reused, it can keep hype alive for a franchise while waiting for the next full installment, and it can keep the player cost lower as a season pass style approach is cheaper usually than buying a full follow up.

 

- Quicker drops of more content

- Keeps the fanbase active and engaged longer

- Cheaper method of getting more content

- Less expensive development cycle = more profit for studio. More profit = higher likelihood of continued support to series. 

 

Seems win win to me.

 

Heh sorry, I realised half way through my post I was ranting on Loot Boxes more than the "Games as Service" part of it (I changed the title). Destiny 2's extra content will be paid DLC by the way just like the original.

 

Quote

but if I can buy Destiny for X amount, then buy the season pass for however much, and know that I'll be getting significant content updates for a good year or two, that's more cool to me than the idea of waiting for a sequel to come out a few years later

 

This is literally the oppostie of what just happened, they supported Destiny for 3 years then hit the reset button. New game, new DLC, new microtransactions. Yay

Edited September 6, 2017 by tpepper1985

[Broni1337]

I refuse to buy a game with lootboxes or microtransactions (i borrow them or buy them used) i wont support those publishers.

[Avalynch]

I'll buy, and play whatever I find fun, but I'm not going to go out of my way to buy loot boxes, or cosmetics.

[DrBloodmoney]

It doesn't particularly bother me, as I know I won't buy them, but knowing the publisher / developer has additional revenue coming from the people who will potentially keeps the prices from increasing for people like me.

 

If the maths says that a dev needs to either increase the base cost of the game, or include cosmetic micro-transactions, then I'd rather have the latter, as that means the extra cost is being applied only to those with so much cash it doesn't matter to them, or idiots. 

 

On the other hand, if the micro-transactions are non-cosmetic, and actually affect the game in a material way, it gets a bit gross, and feels more of a money grab.

 

That, of course, only applied to multiplayer games, where buying items gives an advantage, resulting in a pay-to-win situation. That sucks, obviously. 

 

If, on the other hand, its a single player experience where you can by-pass the desined progression and skip straight to the end-game levels/ items via micro-transactions, then whatever. I think it's an odd idea to pay more money to play less game, but it doesn't affect me if others want to do it, and doesn't affect me if the dev includes it.

Edited September 6, 2017 by DrBloodmoney

[KingGuy420]

1. Most games with loot boxes offer in game methods of unlocking them for free. They're not forced on you in anyway. They're there for the people that can't dedicate large chunks of time to unlocking things.

 

Remember a few years ago when everyone was whining that unlockables weren't a thing anymore? I sure do. Now the devs find a way to bring them back with an option for people that didn't want them back... And people are still whining lol. Video game community in a nutshell lol. If you can't put the time into unlocking the stuff and you don't want to buy it, than you shouldn't have it anyways. Just like games used to be

 

2. Most AAA developers use some of the extra money to add free content to the game and allow them to keep a more steady stream of support. I can count on one hand the amount of studios that don't use the money for this *cough*Netherrealm*cough*.

 

If free content and increased support isn't worth ignoring something optional, than I don't know what to say.

 

3. You made a point of singling out Destiny 2... but again, it's all cosmetic, nothing that gives an advantage, and it can be earned in game without paying. Plus when they added microtransactions into Destiny 1 it led to multiple free dlc's.

 

To sum up, if you don't want them, ignore them. They have a lot of great benefits and if you think that your slight annoyance outweighs all those benefits for the rest of the community than that makes you a bit of a narcissist lol.

 

(Sorry for the long post, I'm just so tired of people complaining about things that benefit tons of people and impact them in no way and yet they still feel the need to whine about it >.<)

[Zenpai]

I don't generally get games that have casino-style lootboxes and micro-transactions (I don't think I ever have, now that I think about it), just because they're not generally the games that attract me (too focused on multiplayer), but to be honest, even if it doesn't affect me, I still think it's an absolutely abhorrent practice. If you paid full price for the game, you shouldn't have to pay even more to enjoy it fully or to have a competitive advantage.

 

Even DLC, which I don't think is a bad practice in theory, gets exploited so much these days that the mere mention of the word is like poison to me, with season passes that frequently don't even cover all of the DLC to a game and excessive numbers of content packs that just turns you off of the entire thing.

 

I don't want to rant on for too long right now, but I once wrote an entire blog post here in the forums if you want to go check it out. It's regarding my disappointment with the current state of the industry and it touches upon some of the things you mentioned.

[tpepper1985]

1 hour ago, KingGuy420 said:

1. Most games with loot boxes offer in game methods of unlocking them for free. They're not forced on you in anyway. They're there for the people that can't dedicate large chunks of time to unlocking things.

 

Remember a few years ago when everyone was whining that unlockables weren't a thing anymore? I sure do. Now the devs find a way to bring them back with an option for people that didn't want them back... And people are still whining lol. Video game community in a nutshell lol. If you can't put the time into unlocking the stuff and you don't want to buy it, than you shouldn't have it anyways. Just like games used to be

 

2. Most AAA developers use some of the extra money to add free content to the game and allow them to keep a more steady stream of support. I can count on one hand the amount of studios that don't use the money for this *cough*Netherrealm*cough*.

 

If free content and increased support isn't worth ignoring something optional, than I don't know what to say.

 

3. You made a point of singling out Destiny 2... but again, it's all cosmetic, nothing that gives an advantage, and it can be earned in game without paying. Plus when they added microtransactions into Destiny 1 it led to multiple free dlc's.

 

To sum up, if you don't want them, ignore them. They have a lot of great benefits and if you think that your slight annoyance outweighs all those benefits for the rest of the community than that makes you a bit of a narcissist lol.

 

(Sorry for the long post, I'm just so tired of people complaining about things that benefit tons of people and impact them in no way and yet they still feel the need to whine about it >.<)

 

I think your are bit delusional about what publishers do with the money they make from Microtransactions in paid games with season passed and DLC. If you want to see an example of a game that actually does what you describe this is good one: Path of Exile it's a FTP dungeon crawler on PC and soon on XBOX, microtransactions are how that game lives and dies the game is free, you do not pay for expansions or new content the community supports the game via Microtransactions. Warframe is also another example, you can buy power in that one but still the game is free and all new content is free the game runs off of money made by Microtransactions.

 

Going back to Destiny then - I didn't play it that much but from what I remember it was Destiny for 60, Dark Below 20, House of Wolves 20, The Taken King 40, and Rise of Iron 40. This was not enough money for them so they added in Microtransactions for good measure. If your game costs a combined total 180 Euros / Dollars and your company is in such dire need of money it also needs Microtransactions something is seriously wrong. Yes as time goes by the game and expansions become cheaper or get bundled but if you were in from the start that was the cost of entry.

 

Look at Diablo 3, it has no Microtransactions and Blizzard have been supporting it for years on Console and PC this is an old school way of thinking but supporting your games usually means more sales. Diablo 3 was maybe the last Blizzard game "Of Old" now we have Overwatch a one mode (on launch) 60 dollar MP only game filled with 1000s of items locked behind a casino loot box system. At least Hearthstone is FTP which is where the Microtransaction model belongs.

 

How people can defend Destiny and not see the difference between a game like Destiny, Diablo 3 or Path of Exile is beyond me. But as I already knew I must be the minority or it would have stopped instead of becoming more and more common. Hell look at Call of Duty Mordern Warfare: Remastered if you want an even worse example of where we are headed for:

 

Quote

all those benefits for the rest of the community

 

Those are your benefits, Microtransactions and Map DLC for a Remastered 10 year old game. 

 

But so far this thread has been helpful it is interesting to see the point of view from other people ... It never bothered me much either a few years ago but seeing it in more and more games as time goes by makes me want no longer want to support them.

 

There are still developers and publishers out there that release a game and maybe some DLC and leave it at that and I would much rather support them instead support the rise of the Casino Lootbox in all games - becuase this is where things are heading.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by tpepper1985

[SnowxSakura]

Have you seen the way people lose their minds over lootboxes in counterstrike global offensive or any FIFA title? There's quite a few people that absolutely love them, even in full price titles. No one's forcing you to buy anything though

[tpepper1985]

6 minutes ago, SnowxSakura said:

Have you seen the way people lose their minds over lootboxes in counterstrike global offensive or any FIFA title? There's quite a few people that absolutely love them, even in full price titles. No one's forcing you to buy anything though

 

Each to thier own I guess, though remember that it is well known these systems are implemented to catch "Whales" and "Dolphins" hook people and get them addicted to the system in the same way a Casino does, even if it is a smaller percentage of the player base.

 

Yes they refer to people who pay for Microtransactions as classes of Sea Life. ?

Edited September 6, 2017 by tpepper1985

[KingGuy420]

40 minutes ago, tpepper1985 said:

 

I think your are bit delusional about what publishers do with the money they make from Microtransactions in paid games with season passed and DLC. 

 

I stopped reading after that. That one sentence shows how little you know about the topic.

 

Destiny, micro transactions allowed 3 free dlc's. Mass Effect 3, add 5 free expansions. Andromeda, damn near weekly free content. DAI, free expansions. Call of Duty AW - IW, tons of free new guns and skins. Overwatch, free maps. Minecraft, damn near monthly free content (like it or not skin packs are micro transactions). I can keep listing more but I think that's enough.

 

And people can say "why don't they just take the money from the initial sales and make this content?"... That question makes me very very sad. Just shows how horribly the school systems are failing when it comes to basic economics. Let me try to explain it in simple terms...

 

A company makes a product to sell. Then they take some of the $ they make off it as profit (which companies need to survive) and put a percentage of the $ towards the next $ making venture.

 

The gaming community though, thinks they should take the $ from their next project and give it away as charity, then take the initial profits and use that for the next project... But you know what they call companies with no profits on the books? Bankrupt =).

 

So instead they add in micro transactions, use some of the money for free content, pay the additional employees to stick around and support it, and the rest as a little more profit, which they need to make to justify the additional man power. That way they don't have to worry about hijacking the $ from the next $ making venture since the money for the free content and support is already there.

 

Companies need to make $. They're not your friends lol.

 

The lack of understanding basic economics that seems to run rampant in the gaming community bums me out =/.

 

And you can point to Diablo all you want but that had micro transactions for the first cycle of it's life too. Micro transactions that were insanely popular and Blizzard made BOATLOADS of money off them.

Edited September 6, 2017 by KingGuy420

[PooPooBlast]

It's just one of those things that I grew to absorb and not care about anymore. By not caring I meant not really getting annoyed over them anymore and boycotting those games ( never bought an Activision game after MW3, and Destiny 1 on my profile was from my friend who used to come over to my house). I might make an exception for an Activision game if it was a SP only game meaning it wouldn't have any additional cost.

 

I mean we can complain all we want about it, waste our breath and energy but at the end of the day, this business model generates a CRAP ton of money and there's a great audience that's buying into it because successfully games like Destiny has a lot of fans and people who will support the game no matter what( I.e my friend who spent about $200 on Destiny 1 buying every expansion there is as it was released). From a business standpoint, you'd be stupid to not adopt this model if your product will have a steady flow of income for years to come. For us customers( or most of us I should say) we get screwed..

[tpepper1985]

Quote

I stopped reading after that. That one sentence shows how little you know about the topic.

 

All right well that's your choice, I don't agree with you either but I still read your post. I just don't beleive things are as dire for these companies as you make out. If they are in that much of a mess they need to sell Map DLC and Cosmetics for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered then the whole thing is probably going to come crashing down at some point anyway.

Edited September 6, 2017 by tpepper1985

[starcrunch061]

Younger me would have probably railed against this, but older me doesn't really care.

 

That being said, it is unclear to me that this kind of model is sustainable on a grand scale within AAA-level games. Perhaps it's my own lack of understanding of "basic economics". 

[tpepper1985]

Quote

Younger me would have probably railed against this, but older me doesn't really care.

 

I mean I don't really care about it that much either in the grand scale of things, I don't like it but realise the only thing I can do about it is not buy those games. I was just more interested in seeing what other people think about it here on the forum. it seems to be split between don't care / hate them / support them quite evenly. I actually expected there to be more people against it on a dedicated gaming forum but it's interesting to see the split.

[starcrunch061]

2 minutes ago, tpepper1985 said:

 

I mean I don't really care about it that much either in the grand scale of things, I don't like it but realise the only thing I can do about it is not buy those games. I was just more interested in seeing what other people think about it here on the forum. it seems to be split between don't care / hate them / support them quite evenly. I actually expected there to be more people against it on a dedicated gaming forum but it's interesting to see the split.

 

Yeah. I'm not sure I like my apathy towards the issue, but honestly, I've shifted away from AAA games (at least when it comes to day 1 buys and whatnot) so much that it's not really a bother to me. 

 

Probably, a lot of other people have, too, which pushes these companies to look for new revenue streams.

 

[Gibbo_0113]

I despise micro transactions. They are the reason why Rockstar has decided to move into more online focused games and why we never got that single player DLC that was promised for GTA V. 

 

I dont blame them though after all it makes them millions. Just the people that cave in and buy them. It also promotes "pay to win" which isn't fair.

[tpepper1985]

11 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Yeah. I'm not sure I like my apathy towards the issue, but honestly, I've shifted away from AAA games (at least when it comes to day 1 buys and whatnot) so much that it's not really a bother to me. 

 

Probably, a lot of other people have, too, which pushes these companies to look for new revenue streams.

 

 

You make a good point, I very rarely buy day 1 anymore either simply because quite often the game is simply improved if you wait another 6 months for bug fixes and often cheaper. The last game I purchased day 1 was The Witcher 3 I finished it and months after they were still improving the games performance, and mechanics which made me think - Why didn't I just wait? I almost got FFXV on launch and was glad I didn't ... They have fixed / improved big sections of it since launch.

 

It would be interesting to see if day 1 sales have gone down over the years since everything became more and more digital.

 

7 minutes ago, Gibbo_0113 said:

I despise micro transactions. They are the reason why Rockstar has decided to move into more online focused games and why we never got that single player DLC that was promised for GTA V. 

 

I dont blame them though after all it makes them millions. Just the people that cave in and buy them. It also promotes "pay to win" which isn't fair.

 

GTA Online is a tough one, you can't deny that Rockstar have made ALOT of content for GTA Online and never charged anything for it. But the content they create is to drive sales for the in game currency, I mean you know what you are getting into there ... Really GTA Online is a seperate entity from GTA V and if they want to make that instead of a story driven content that's thier choice. The market speaks as they say, and apparently the market wants Shark Cards. Maybe they should have called them Whale Cards in keeping with the theme haha

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by tpepper1985

[Broni1337]

I recommend a recent video from Superbunnyhop (Youtuber) about activisions practices.  Activison produces games on a lower cost, abusing tax systems and charging more money for games...

[damon8r351]

This doesn't bother me. If a game has a feature I don't like, I don't use it.

[AlphaTrash]

Any game that has awful DLC practices just doesn't get my money. 

I'll buy the game used and then sell it used; just to make sure the publisher sees none of my money. 

Or I'll just rent the game. If I have to buy DLC for trophies, I'll buy it when it's on sale or again just buy a used 'ulimate edition' or whatever. 

 

Warner Brothers Have been so disgusting with their latest DLC shenanigans that there's absolutely no way they're getting my money.

They went from getting my money day 1, to getting 0. Good job WB. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by AlphaTrash

[tpepper1985]

3 minutes ago, AlphaTrash said:

Any game that has awful DLC practices just doesn't get my money. 

I'll buy the game used and then sell it used; just to make sure the publisher sees none of my money. 

Or I'll just rent the game. If I have to buy DLC for trophies, I'll buy it when it's on sale or again just buy a used 'ulimate edition' or whatever. 

 

Warner Brothers Have been so disgusting with their latest DLC shenanigans that there's absolutely no way they're getting my money.

They went from getting my money day 1, to getting 0. Good job WB. 

 

Out of interest in the Shadow of War example: Is it the Season Pass / DLC you don't like, Pre Order DLC, or are we talking about the Marketplace? Or a combination of these?

[Super-Fly Spider-Guy]

4 hours ago, tpepper1985 said:

 

Heh sorry, I realised half way through my post I was ranting on Loot Boxes more than the "Games as Service" part of it (I changed the title). Destiny 2's extra content will be paid DLC by the way just like the original.

 

 

This is literally the oppostie of what just happened, they supported Destiny for 3 years then hit the reset button. New game, new DLC, new microtransactions. Yay

And I realized halfway through mine that I was thinking of the wrong thing and kinda stopped ranting. This whole lootbox mentality can fuck right off. I understand it and all, but I need you guys to understand that if you're not happy with me paying full price day one anymore, well, if I'm not happy with your game I'll return the fucking thing to the store and then you get no money. If ever there was a game that made these sort of things essential to the thing, then I'm taking that as them not being happy with what I as a customer bring to the table, and I in turn, am not happy with what they bring to the table. Go ahead if you want, push the limit, try your luck, wait and see how many people buy your game only to return it a few days later.

 

Is it though? I mean, Destiny is an FPS released by Activision. It got 3 years before a sequel. It was kept alive with constant major DLC updates for those years. The fact it wasn't instantly annualized is probably due to the DLC still making them money, I'd rather that approach 38 times out of 50.