AAA Games focus on Lootboxes

[Jon-Patrick-S]

I used to not care that much about this kind of thing thinking it's just there if you want it and it doesn't affect me if I don't want to use it but I've since come around to the fact that when there's microtransactions of any kind being implemented then the game mechanics will be balanced in such a way so as to encourage their purchase.

 

GTA Online does this by releasing expensive in-game content that's technically free with their updates as they can be purchased with in-game currency but the rate of acquiring the money is balanced in such a way that it'll take you a huge amount of time to get it thus encouraging you to purchase shark cards instead, they even released more expensive shark cards a few months after release to accommodate the wealth of expensive content they were creating.

 

Shadow of War's loot chests sell for both in-game currency and a premium currency that can be earned in "small amounts for certain milestones" or purchased with real money, undoubtedly the prices will set at such a rate that it comes down to either spending a lot of time to buy them yourself or spending real money. The drop rates for items you can get from loot chests will also likely be adjusted to be uncommon enough to push people toward buying.

 

I haven't looked too much into Destiny 2 because I'm not that interested in it but based on what I've just read the loot box equivalent is called bright engrams and can either be purchased with a premium currency or earned through levelling up after level 20, the push for purchasing is that the contents include equipment mods that give all kinds of character bonuses thus those that purchase additional bright engrams have an advantage over those who don't.

 

Basically what it comes down to with microtransactions is developers will balance their game to pit your time vs your money so even if it doesn't visibly affect your experience because you don't buy them it's still affecting you in a way because your game experience is adjusted to accommodate for them. I do not support this kind of business practice and certainly not in a full price AAA game, wait for price drops or even better buy second hand if you can because why pay day 1 prices for a game designed to push microtransactions at you?

 

Sources on Shadow of War and Destiny 2:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/08/07/middle-earth-shadow-of-war-details-microtransactions/

https://www.pcgamesn.com/destiny-2/destiny-2-microtransactions

[DuckSwimmer]

The only Loot boxes I'm fine with are Overwatch ones since it's purely for cosmetic reasons. I mean unless you have the new skin, you're obviously a pro. 

 

The series that I feel like killed themselves even more with lootboxes is the Call of Duty series. The fact that you're able to buy lootboxes to get a high end weapon that's better than the stock ones available I find disgusting. In my opinion ever since Advanced Warfare Activision has truly shown how much money grubbing scumbags they are. I mean in the end you have true players stop playing those franchises and you have people who have such a disposable income that they keep playing and feeding them.

 

I also found out like a month ago, that MWR even implemented lootboxes. I was so stunned. This is supposed to be a remastering of a game and yet they tarnish a remake with ridiculous DLC weapons.

[Dreakon13]

I think people hear microtransactions and tend to pitch a fit, when they are more often than not optional (as in there are ways to earn the same content in-game) or they don't really impact the gameplay in a way that matters.  Same with DLC, season passes, etc in a lot of ways.  People hear about content that they may or may not get for the $60 (or less) admission price and just see red... not really considering the context and impact usually.

 

To which I tend to find that kind of irrational, knee-jerk reactionary complaining more irksome, than the handful of truly poor business practices that have come from it.

[Rune2303]

The concept of microtransactions I'm actually completely fine with. After all game companies also needs to make a living and as game cost have increased over the years we the consumers still seems uncomfortable with the thought of paying more than 60 dollars up front for a game so alright, microtransactions are the current solution to the problem, got it. 

 

For me the problem is a lot of games out there (note I said a lot as in not every game out there) manage to completely butcher some aspect of the microtransaction "model".

 

For example lets look at GTA online. While I can't argue that R* has put out a lot of content over the years ( Although I would argue said content is complete garbage in terms of quality compared to the likes of Episodes from Liberty City, this is debatable) I do believe the majority of GTA onlines player base would agree with me when I say that R* has completely fucked up their ingame currency and in turn their microtransactions (shark cards). The perfect example of this can be seen in their newest "dlc" which would cost you 600-740 dollars If you were to buy everything in the dlc. 

Another example where I would say microtransaction have most definitely gone wrong would be the likes of COD where I believe you can buy, supposedly better guns (yeah If you hadn't guessed I actually stopped playing COD games by the time this system was implemented, so no, I dont speak out of experience). I feel like this system speaks for itself and why it should not be promoted as a great one. 

 

In short I dont feel like the concept of microtransactions is a bad one, I do however feel like game developers in general needs to handle their microtransaction systems a lot better than they're currently doing

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Rune2303

[KingGuy420]

8 hours ago, tpepper1985 said:

 

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.

 

I never implied that things were dire for these companies. If your only tool for winning debates is shoving words in peoples mouths than this whole thread us pointless.

 

I said that they're companies that are out to make money, not to be your friend. A companies success is directly based on the profits that it has on the books and a companies ultimate goal is to be as large as possible. It's as simple as that.

 

Again though... If you're not spending money, it effects you in absolutely no way. Except that you're getting the free content for no additional money. Poor baby. Please let me apologize on behalf of the developers for annoying you with free content =/.

 

Yes. Modern Warfare remastered did it in a ridiculous way. Hell, most of the Call of Duty's go a bit overboard with it. But you can't vilify the whole system for the sins of one.

8 hours ago, tpepper1985 said:

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by KingGuy420

[Bloodytears1666]

I have a question. I understand developers and publishers at this point clearly, make money never will be a wrong thing, and I appreciate both gamers and companies for my free DLCs in GTA online.

What is I don't understand a point of buying a free stuff for instantly have the whole thing. I've made all my progress through GTA online updates by myself and it was actually a game, I play game - do progress, obtain new abilities to play the game more and have advantages for make further progress. That's my way. So one does buy progress and abilities, what is next? They're talking about they have not enough time for playing the game and make progress naturally, so is it worth to simply buy a final to actually not be able even use things for what those have been made?

Edited September 7, 2017 by Bloodytears1666

[starcrunch061]

6 hours ago, Bloodytears1666 said:

I have a question. I understand developers and publishers at this point clearly, make money never will be a wrong thing, and I appreciate both gamers and companies for my free DLCs in GTA online.

What is I don't understand a point of buying a free stuff for instantly have the whole thing. I've made all my progress through GTA online updates by myself and it was actually a game, I play game - do progress, obtain new abilities to play the game more and have advantages for make further progress. That's my way. So one does buy progress and abilities, what is next? They're talking about they have not enough time for playing the game and make progress naturally, so is it worth to simply buy a final to actually not be able even use things for what those have been made?

 

I'm sorry; I don't really understand. Are you asking the reasons why people buy this DLC?

 

This might not be relevant, but I'll give you an example. I bought, at full price, Rainbow Moon back in the day. I hated it. I just despised it. It sat on my virtual shelf for years. I would try to get interested every now and again, but it never worked. Then one time, I noticed that some stat-boosting DLC was on sale really cheap (I mean, like 80% off). While I don't usually spend good money after bad, given that each character's boost cost 80 cents, I thought to myself, "What the hell?", and bought the boosters. 

 

At the end of the day, though, it didn't help. I still hate the game, even playing in a sort of God mode. But I can appreciate why people might buy such DLC to avoid hours of mindless grinding.

Edited September 7, 2017 by starcrunch061

[Bloodytears1666]

6 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

I'm sorry; I don't really understand. Are you asking the reasons why people buy this DLC?

 

This might not be relevant, but I'll give you an example. I bought, at full price, Rainbow Moon back in the day. I hated it. I just despised it. It sat on my virtual shelf for years. I would try to get interested every now and again, but it never worked. Then one time, I noticed that some stat-boosting DLC was on sale really cheap (I mean, like 80% off). While I don't usually spend good money after bad, given that each character's boost cost 80 cents, I thought to myself, "What the hell?", and bought the boosters. 

 

At the end of the day, though, it didn't help. I still hate the game, even playing in a sort of God mode. But I can appreciate why people might buy such DLC to avoid hours of mindless grinding.

 

Well, what can I say, if I got it correct it was not worth. Avoiding hours of mindless grinding = avoiding hours of gameplay, then grinding ingame currency for nothing.

 

I has had been through those thoughts thousand times, when I get low after buying new expensive stuff, but every time at the end I'm always having the same millions of ingame money that I don't know where to spent, and no grinding, have obtained  them by naturally playing the game without much care of a profit.

[Slipknot_rooney]

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?

Yup. After I heard about Shadow of War micro-transactions I decided I wouldn't play the game. Chances are loot boxes containing XP boosts for a single player game means the game will be altered in a way that makes the game a little grindy, thus nudging us towards purchasing some XP boosts. I'm not into that so it's a no from me. Shame, I was looking forward to it, although not massively, Shadow of Mordor got an "It's okay" from me. I won't be missing much. Their loss.

 

Once I was someone who said "It's only cosmetic DLC, it doesn't affect the game" but things are getting out of hand. Games are never released fully complete anymore, nowadays I wait for the "Ultimate/GOTY/Gold editions", also known as "the finished game at long fucking last". Usually worth it though, it drops in price pretty quick and I end up saving a small fortune.

 

On 06/09/2017 at 9:45 PM, KingGuy420 said:

I never implied that things were dire for these companies

This is a thread about AAA games, of which you mentioned Destiny, Call of Duty, Minecraft and Overwatch. You then went on to tell us that a company needs to make a profit, otherwise they become bankrupt (Well duh) which sounded as if unless these companies release micro-transactions/DLC they will become bankrupt.  If you think these games don't make a profit from base sales alone (Including the various editions) and need to add DLC in order to make a profit you're kidding yourself. These guys are rolling in dosh from day one. Maybe I've misunderstood what you said, in which case, sorry.

 

On 06/09/2017 at 9:45 PM, KingGuy420 said:

If you're not spending money, it effects you in absolutely no way. Except that you're getting the free content for no additional money

Yes it does. People bought micro-transactions, so now WB is adding it into Shadow of War for the sake of making a quick buck, which will most likely make the game grindy. Guess what? That affects me. What free content am I getting? 

 

 

Micro-transactions (in my opinion) is a problem, and because people keep buying the shit, it's going to make things worse. People just like being ripped off I guess. Must be some benefit to it, 2.50 for a skin eh? ? 

[tpepper1985]

@Slipknot_rooney Well said!

 

I have been playing Rise of the Tomb Raider the last few weeks and I never even realised it but this game has them aswell. I had heard about expedition mode and cards but I never realised they were one use, and of course you can buy more with real money! Thankfully you can copy someone elses card set for an expedition in order to get the score attack trophies but the whole mode seems so out of place and is obviously only there to support the card marketplace.

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by tpepper1985

[Dreakon13]

Is there any proof out there that micro-transactions in a single player game automatically means the game will be a grind?  Or are we just assuming that because XP boosts exist that they must've changed the games mechanics in an attempt to force people to buy them?

 

Because I get the thought process behind it, but I think people are often too quick to bust out the tin-foil hats.  Especially in the gaming community.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Dreakon13

[Dangisuckatgamin]

I refuse to buy microtransactions especially since I usually lose interest in the game after month or so. I've never understood the ones that spend hundreds though. GTAO is a good example lol

Guess whatever floats your boat. ?

[AuzzieWingman]

I don't have a problem with any of these practices. I do agree that there are some unspoken rules that come with them, like advantages in multiplayer games, but they aren't going to turn me off from playing the game. I don't go into this thinking "I'm buying this because monetised loot system." My thinking is "I want to play this game and so I will".

 

Still, I will come across opportunities that do peak my interest and I will add more to the cost of my gaming experience for it. In the end I discern what I believe is giving me value, and I think everyone else does that too. This is one of those things where 'vote with your wallet' won't solve, because there is nothing inherently wrong with these practices, just how much a publisher is willing to make a raw deal out of it. So, I don't boycott. I simply stay away from the shit that I find doesn't make sense.

 

I have a friend who spends money on skins and emotes all the time. We see the value differently. He's happy to buy the x50 Loot Boxes for every Overwatch season, and has all the Elite skins from R6 Siege. It's his satisfaction, and I totally judge him for it.

[starcrunch061]

On 9/13/2017 at 0:53 PM, Dreakon13 said:

Is there any proof out there that micro-transactions in a single player game automatically means the game will be a grind?  Or are we just assuming that because XP boosts exist that they must've changed the games mechanics in an attempt to force people to buy them?

 

Because I get the thought process behind it, but I think people are often too quick to bust out the tin-foil hats.  Especially in the gaming community.

 

Not always, of course. The Tales games often offer XP Boosts, but they don't really shorten the game a lick, since there is very little grinding anyway (or, more to the point, the grinding is in the form of playing the game multiple times, which XP Boosts don't really help).

7 hours ago, AuzzieWingman said:

I don't have a problem with any of these practices. I do agree that there are some unspoken rules that come with them, like advantages in multiplayer games, but they aren't going to turn me off from playing the game. I don't go into this thinking "I'm buying this because monetised loot system." My thinking is "I want to play this game and so I will".

 

Still, I will come across opportunities that do peak my interest and I will add more to the cost of my gaming experience for it. In the end I discern what I believe is giving me value, and I think everyone else does that too. This is one of those things where 'vote with your wallet' won't solve, because there is nothing inherently wrong with these practices, just how much a publisher is willing to make a raw deal out of it. So, I don't boycott. I simply stay away from the shit that I find doesn't make sense.

 

I have a friend who spends money on skins and emotes all the time. We see the value differently. He's happy to buy the x50 Loot Boxes for every Overwatch season, and has all the Elite skins from R6 Siege. It's his satisfaction, and I totally judge him for it.

 

This post is very strange to me. What does "voting with your wallet" have to do with the morality or ethic of a practice? And why do you equate "boycotting" with "voting with your wallet"? I

 

I do get a kick out of the fact that you totally judge your friend for his practice, but not the community. That sounds like me. 

[AuzzieWingman]

13 hours ago, starcrunch061 said:

This post is very strange to me. What does "voting with your wallet" have to do with the morality or ethic of a practice? And why do you equate "boycotting" with "voting with your wallet"? I

 

I do get a kick out of the fact that you totally judge your friend for his practice, but not the community. That sounds like me. 

 

I noticed a couple of posts which basically went along the lines of "if it has micros I won't buy the game or anything from them". I was throwing my opinion in.

 

And the only reason I judge him is because half the time he could just do a lowkey grind to get them. Instead he burns money on cosmetics like he's gotta catch 'em all. At least I burn that money on other games.

[Leaderboards]

Online passes

Loot boxes

Microtransactions

Online subscriptions

Day-one DLC

Season pass announced months/weeks before game release

Day-one edition physical games

Digital "deluxe" editions

Pre-order bonuses catered to a specific store

 

 

Just die

Edited September 30, 2017 by TurdFlingingApe

[Gotakibono]

The problem for me arises from the fact that DLC or lootboxes used to add extra content on top of an established base game, whereas over the last few years they're being used as part of the established base. When I see content that I know is (or used to be in regards to yearly releases) free and simply a core feature being hidden behind a pay wall, I can't help but feel cheated. 

 

It takes away the sense of value that comes from naturally unlocking new features, skins, weapons, etc, and simply negates everything down to a random act of gambling. I want to know what I'm paying for, and I want to feel like the content that's costing extra isn't just being held back to make extra profit.

 

As this point, for the sake of transparency, I'd rather the cost of AAA games goes up to €70, if it means developes don't need to rely on drip-feeding consumers content in order to either make ends meet or make millions for no extra effort or work. However, now that the industry has had a taste of the delicious fruit, I really see no way back.

 

 

[Natsuu24]

I'm more worried about the DLCS / Seaons Pass ... In this days, we can't buy any full game at day one, because it will come only 70% of the game! Its sad, but is true!