Loot boxes and microtransactions

[Daweii]

16 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Even the new Need for Speed has loot, because of course it does.

And that Star Wars game has been cancelled (killing Visceral in the process) because they're going to make a Star Wars Destiny game. All old news of course.

**** microtransactions and loot boxes.

 

It's going to get worse Chindie, it's going to get worse.

Quote

We are currently at a point in gaming where most major publishers are keen to push micro-transaction sales and gain consistent revenue from games past the initial sale price. A lot of gamers might not be fond of this strategy, but unfortunately for them, it seems to be working. This week during Ubisoft’s earnings call, the publisher revealed that micro-transaction revenue surpassed digital game sales for the first time.

UbiSoft's microtransaction revenue surpasses digital game sale revenue

This situation is only going to get worse. UbiSoft have already shifted around how their games work to make microtransactions even more viable and we are seeing other companies doing the same.

Also touched on in that article is Take Two Interactive stating that all their future games will have microtransactions too. Deep down I was hoping that Red Dead Redemption 2 would be free of this bullshit even after Grand Theft Auto Online being full of them, but it's not going to happen. I just hope they do it in the least egregious way possible as I really want to enjoy Red Dead Redemption 2.

[Ingram85]

If RDR2 has loot boxes then I'm out. As much as I love RDR I'm not supporting the way things are going in any way by buying a sequel that encourages this modern cancer of gaming. It's a shame but I'm prepared to do it.

[hogso]

1 hour ago, Ingram85 said:

If RDR2 has loot boxes then I'm out. As much as I love RDR I'm not supporting the way things are going in any way by buying a sequel that encourages this modern cancer of gaming. It's a shame but I'm prepared to do it.

In it full stop? Or in the multiplayer? 

[Daweii]

10 hours ago, hogso said:

In it full stop? Or in the multiplayer? 

That's where I am making my distinction. If previews start picking up on the fact that there is a microtransaction vendor in every major town in single player I won't buy it, but if they confined to Red Dead Online which I likely won't play then I can deal with that.

That said my fight with microtransactions is only until it is at the point where microtransactions have won or lost. If microtransactions win and every game has them I can't see myself giving up gaming, so while I have the option to not support microtransactions I will, but my stance isn't permanent as I am fully aware that I'm on the losing team here.

[hogso]

Yeah, if they're in multiplayer only I won't mind at all. I'm going to assume (hope) that they use basically the exact same model as GTA Online, and as such I might dip in to it, but I won't ever feel compelled to spend any money on loot boxes to get more horses/guns/houses/clothes or whatever. I'll buy them with in game cash. Assuming I can...

[Straggler]

Micro transactions on full price single player games have gone too far.  The latest Mordor game being the most obvious case.  They clearly have made the game a little more grindy than it needed to be to encourage players to invest.  I think that they should be forced to advertise the game at the true price ie:  the price of the game plus the average that is spent on micro transactions by the community.  They can wear it on the cover like sugar and fat content warnings on food.  I know it cannot be an exact amount as you can't know the future, but EA sure as crap have a forecast amount of revenue they are looking to hit from loot boxes, I think it is fair fur the consumer to have a better idea of how much they are expecting us to pay overall to receive the perceived ideal gaming experience.

With Christmas coming up I will be buying a game or two for the kids, I'd like to know if I'm investing in a full game for them or just putting down a deposit

[Raver50032]

Read the thing about matchmaking newbs against the high rank players with the best weapons. That sucks if that is happening. Nothing more demoralising than being cannon fodder for the first few hours to make me just switch off and go and polish my rocket instead.

Utter, utter words removed.

[Daweii]

24 minutes ago, Raver50032 said:

Read the thing about matchmaking newbs against the high rank players with the best weapons. That sucks if that is happening. Nothing more demoralising than being cannon fodder for the first few hours to make me just switch off and go and polish my rocket instead.

Utter, utter words removed.

Currently or apparently the feature isn't in games yet, but the fact that a company even came up with the idea is beyond concerning.

My main issue is how stealthily will it be implemented if they implement it. Could it already be in a game? Could it be being used differently than initially outlined? I mean Call of Duty: World War 2 now makes opening loot crates a public thing so everyone in the lobby sees it. Seems like it's a perfect fit for a matchmaking feature like this. I mean what is stopping them matchmaking people with players that have three or more loot crates in their inventory? I know if I was an impressionable teen I would want some loot crates if I saw 20 people back to back to back opening theirs. 

I feel this whole situation will have to get a lot worse before it gets better which is a shame.

[Raver50032]

38 minutes ago, Daweii said:

I feel this whole situation will have to get a lot worse before it gets better which is a shame.

The peer pressure on impressionable younglings is bad enough in society without having to push 'must have... I need' items as well in a game.

I remember how proud I was to have a pair of Simod trainers for my 12th birthday. Only for the richer kids to mock them for not being Reeboks or Nike. (I was fifteen before I could afford full ankle depth Reeboks with my pocket money)

[StefanAVFC]

Give me Battlefront 1 on the PS2 again

[Daweii]

Quote

Elsewhere, Jorgensen suggests EA's rolling initiatives, such as FIFA and Madden's respective Ultimate Team features, create scope for "uncapped monetisation".  

He says: "If you have a live service component to [games on EA Access and Origins Access], you can have a subscription that's uncapped," he said. "Give people a way to spend money on things they want to do and that they enjoy doing [versus] simply capping them at $9 or $10 per month and that's all they can ever spend.

Quote

CFO Blake Jorgensen discusses unannounced projects, and scope for "uncapped monetisation".

New EA Game And "Uncapped Monetisation"

So hot on the heels of all the Battlefront 2 controversy you'd think EA would lay low for a bit, but no their CFO in his infinite wisdom starts chatting about UNCAPPED **** MONETISATION in future video games. I can't think of a more business sounding feature for future games than uncapped monetisation. They want to give us a choice to pay for "what we want to do" and "what we enjoy" which sounds concerning to me, it sounds like more and more content will be removed and sold back to us based on what aspects of games we enjoy, I always joke that one day they will sell us games by the level or by the quest, but it seems that this is where they want it to go, at least to some extent. Games as a service is potentially going to lead us down a path that will leave future games unrecognisable to the games we played 2-3 years ago. 

[PieFacE]

No doubt EA will release that game with their new controller too....

 

 

[Fowlersrs]

This has hit EA with a massive backlash, im looking for a review of bf2 which looks past the loot crates and literally EVERYONE has blasted this game because of them. Ive seen many a mature player saying the game is good if your sensible enough to ignore the peer pressure. Rumours disney are super pissed at EA too for tarnishing the franchise.

[Daweii]

3 hours ago, Fowlersrs said:

This has hit EA with a massive backlash, im looking for a review of bf2 which looks past the loot crates and literally EVERYONE has blasted this game because of them. Ive seen many a mature player saying the game is good if your sensible enough to ignore the peer pressure. Rumours disney are super pissed at EA too for tarnishing the franchise.

I heard that Disney were the reason the premium currency was removed from Battlefront 2. The game was meant to lead an advertising push for the Star Wars movie out in a few weeks, but negative press forced Disney's hand as they can't afford a video game hurting the sales of the movie. EA **** up and Disney have every right to be pissed as while I am sure the new Star Wars movie will be unaffected it's just not great press for the franchise. 

I can also imagine that other game Publishers are pissed as well. EA pushed the limits and now Belgium have ruled that Loot Crates are gambling, they're now pushing for an all out EU ban on them. Two legislators in Hawaii have jumped on the Loot Crate fiasco and are looking into it. While I am firmly against Loot Crates and applaud the progress being made against them, I can't imagine EA have made many friends in the industry thanks to this. EA may have single handedly destroyed a ludicrously profitable business model due to their insatiable greed.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Daweii

[StefanAVFC]

I don't have a problem with loot crates as a whole - Two of my favourite games have them (RL and OW) but loot crates should only be cosmetic items.

[lapal_fan]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

I don't have a problem with loot crates as a whole - Two of my favourite games have them (RL and OW) but loot crates should only be cosmetic items.

Fully agree.

Companies have to make money - that's fine.  Charge for things that look different.  Don't charge for items that enhance your stance over everyone else - by pure chance.

Seen a couple of YT videos of people dropping $100 on them - only to get nothing of any "value", purely cosmetic items. 

I mean, they could even have gotten around it by having and charging for different TYPES of loot box.  99p for cosmetic stuff, you get 2 or 3 items 1.99 for enhancements.

It's the complete lack of clarity which is irking people.  Imagine needing, or wanting a certain star card, dropping £50 on loot boxes and you don't get one.  You've paid £100 for the game and a few other items. 

And when you leave things down to "chance" - that's when it becomes gambling.  

Although I must say, I've seen videos and it's been discussed how much input DICE have etc.  EVERYTHING has to get signed off by Disney.  Which is why cosmetic items, like coloured weapons, coloured storm troopers etc aren't in the game - because Disney won't "water down" the franchise.  So essentially, we can't have pink storm troopers because Disney don't want that to be associated with Star Wars.  

So maybe that's why EA have taken the other (worse) route?  

[hogso]

How would people feel about the RRP of games raising say, £20 across the board if it meant the end of season passes, loot boxes and microtransactions?

[Chindie]

I refuse to accept that EA has to riddle a Star Wars shooter with micro transactions to make money on it. It's the biggest franchise around. They built it on a engine they've had for a while and used across games. This game having microtransactions is greed, pure and simple IMO. FIFA showed people will pay microtransactions to absurd degrees on console titles, and EA saw this as a chance to mine another major release for every last penny they could.

Thankfully it appears to be backfiring.

[Stevo985]

24 minutes ago, hogso said:

How would people feel about the RRP of games raising say, £20 across the board if it meant the end of season passes, loot boxes and microtransactions?

It would be a better solution, but still totally unnecessary. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Stevo985

[Daweii]

My question is why do they have to be loot boxes? Why add systems to games that clearly prey on those with gambling addictions?

These games could very easily just sell players the cosmetic they want for real money without the random chance, without the gambling-lite element. Is it less effective? Possibly, but £5 to get the exact Tracer skin you want? I know people that play Overwatch that would buy every skin, every spray and every voice line for the characters they main if they could. I mean the only reason they don't have everything is because of random chance loot boxes, but in that scenario which makes more money? Boxes being bought by the 5-10%? Or skins being bought for £5 each by the overall majority? 

My issue with loot boxes is two fold. Firstly its the fact that it's yet another monetisation scheme when publishers already have plenty of monetisation schemes, I don't like that the publishers are insatiable as it concerns me not knowing what they will try and monetise next. Secondly its the gambling aspect, I just don't like that gambling is tucked away in video games to prey on those with addictions. Those with gambling addictions that know they have an addiction do their best to stay away from casinos, betting shops and other gambling establishments, but what do they do when the gambling is in FIFA, or Assassins Creed, or Shadow of War, or Battlefront 2? These publishers just shipped the casino right into their home and that doesn't sit well with me. I am fortunate that I don't have a gambling addiction, but I feel for anyone that does as gaming is a minefield of temptation now. 

So my question is why do they have to be loot boxes?