Jump to content

Loot boxes and microtransactions


Chindie

Recommended Posts

Because the boxes make more money.

If you sell everything straight up, a person goes in and buys what they want. Random box it and theoretically they buy multiple times to get the same thing. And if ditched the loot box but upped the price to buy outright what you want you trim back on the impulse buy factor.

And they scratch the gambling itch. The brain gets off on the idea you might win, and when you do get a dopamine hit, even if you're not an addict.

They're despicable.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/24/2017 at 12:42, Chindie said:

Because the boxes make more money.

If you sell everything straight up, a person goes in and buys what they want. Random box it and theoretically they buy multiple times to get the same thing. And if ditched the loot box but upped the price to buy outright what you want you trim back on the impulse buy factor.

And they scratch the gambling itch. The brain gets off on the idea you might win, and when you do get a dopamine hit, even if you're not an addict.

They're despicable.

The amount of people that miss this extremely important point about loot boxes is amazing. It's gambling plain and simple. A lot of extremely smart people are working on how our brains work and how to create things that are addictive. The most immediate application of this is in video games. Make them "addictive" so that people keep playing and keep buying upgrades/loot boxes. It's how Blizzard made all their money and why random loot drops in games like WoW are so effective at keeping people playing. When you see an item you want and you buy it you get a little dopamine hit that makes you feel good because you got something you wanted. When you tried to get something you wanted 20 times and then on the 21st time you actually got it then you get a huge dopamine hit because you had to "work harder"/wait longer to get it. The fact that it's random means that your will assume that you chances improve the more times you try (just one more try syndrome). If you know something "drops" 5% of the time then you subconsciously think if I have done it 20 times then surely on the 21st time I'll get it, if not there's an even bigger chance on the 22nd time and so on. In reality of course there's just a 5% chance every time.  

Edited by villa89
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said:

still isn't gambling...

That really depends on the context. Being able to buy a skin or a new gun from an online store is not gambling and is a microtransaction.  Purchasing a loot box that gives you a chance of winning something you want is gambling under the terms of UK law anyway. Playing a game for droppable loot is also not gambling so long as their is no option to short cut that by buying a box that gives you a chance to win it:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/6

Quote

Gaming & game of chance

(1)In this Act “gaming” means playing a game of chance for a prize.

(2)In this Act “game of chance”—

(a)includes—

(i)a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill,

(ii)a game that involves an element of chance that can be eliminated by superlative skill, and

(iii)a game that is presented as involving an element of chance, but

(b)does not include a sport.

(3)For the purposes of this Act a person plays a game of chance if he participates in a game of chance—

(a)whether or not there are other participants in the game, and

(b)whether or not a computer generates images or data taken to represent the actions of other participants in the game.

(4)For the purposes of this Act a person plays a game of chance for a prize—

(a)if he plays a game of chance and thereby acquires a chance of winning a prize, and

(b)whether or not he risks losing anything at the game.

(5)In this Act “prize” in relation to gaming (except in the context of a gaming machine)—

(a)means money or money's worth, and

(b)includes both a prize provided by a person organising gaming and winnings of money staked.

(6)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a specified activity, or an activity carried on in specified circumstances, is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this Act as—

(a)a game;

(b)a game of chance;

(c)a sport.

I can't vouch for the rest of the world and their definition of gambling, but that chap from Hawaii calling Star Wars Battlefront a Star Wars themed casino sure makes it sound like gambling.  Anyway regardless of the actual legal definition of gambling, these systems are designed to mimic the effect of gambling so need to be classified in the same way in the parts of the world that this is not already the case.  Having written all this I suppose I have just classified Panini football stickers as gambling.  Are Panini football sticker the original loot box?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2017 at 10:08, 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?

Possibly, but when games are £50 to start with, why should they?  I concur with the post that said if RDR2 is full of micro transactions that they can get to ****.  I like my games, and I like my books and films.  They should all be standalone experiences in terms of you should buy them, and not have to pay any more to get the full experience from them.  If you want cosmetic items, then that's fair enough, it's your choice and if you're silly enough to pay for them, crack on.  But paying for things to make the game playable, AFTER you've already weighed out for the game is most definitely not on.  I never buy any mobile games with in game transactions, and I'll be doing the same with full price titles from now on.  **** rob dogs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Risso said:

 I concur with the post that said if RDR2 is full of micro transactions that they can get to ****.

It  will be. Rockstar are moneygrabbing words removed that'll sell their soul for the cash. We all have our price, but they were raking in hundreds of millions already, it wasn't like they're an indie trying to stay afloat. I've gone from being someone that literally bought an Xbox 360 just for RDR - I bought the console, the game, and never bought another game for it, to being someone that won't buy RDR2, for any price.

It'll be another pile of microtransaction shite like GTA. When it comes to monetisation, they're as bad as EA.

Edited by Davkaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will almost certainly buy RDR2, but if the microtransactions are applicable to the single player for anything but 'extravagant' cosmetic items I'll be very disappointed. If they're particularly bad they will not get my money.

I don't care about the multiplayer (and there will be something like GTA Online in this, RDR Online has registered for months) but I'd hope they would balance them there, even if I'd prefer no microtransactions at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Davkaus said:

It'll be another pile of microtransaction shite like Gta Online. When it comes to monetisation, they're as bad as EA.

Very important fix here 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Davkaus said:

It  will be. Rockstar are moneygrabbing words removed that'll sell their soul for the cash. We all have our price, but they were raking in hundreds of millions already, it wasn't like they're an indie trying to stay afloat. I've gone from being someone that literally bought an Xbox 360 just for RDR - I bought the console, the game, and never bought another game for it, to being someone that won't buy RDR2, for any price.

It'll be another pile of microtransaction shite like GTA. When it comes to monetisation, they're as bad as EA.

It's not necessarily Rockstar Games I think it's easy to forget that Rockstar Games answer to an owner and that owner is Take Two Interactive.

It's the CEO of Take Two Interactive that has stated every game they finance going forward will have microtransactions. Take Two own Rockstar Games, they own 2K Games so anyone looking forward to anything that group of studios works on is going to be disappointed. I think if this was a decision made by Rockstar Games then Red Dead Redemption 2 wouldn't have a single player, I mean why would it? GTA V has made several billion dollars and 90% of that is from GTA: Online, they have no reason to make another single player game except they want to. 

Rockstar Games answer to Take Two Interactive. At this point blaming Rockstar Games for this shit is like blaming DICE for Battlefront 2 when it's clearly not their decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not directly related to this topic, but related - Destiny 2 has been patched in conjunction with new DLC, which now locks out the platinum trophy for those who haven't purchased the new content. I would be shocked if this isn't fixed ASAP, but it's still shitty. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hogso said:

Not directly related to this topic, but related - Destiny 2 has been patched in conjunction with new DLC, which now locks out the platinum trophy for those who haven't purchased the new content. I would be shocked if this isn't fixed ASAP, but it's still shitty. 

Bungie are also hiring for someone to look into ways to create "player progression behind loot boxes" which sounds very Battlefront 2 to me so this may be the least of their issues going forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay for modern gaming!!!! Bought the game already and expect to keep content that has been available since day one? Tough ****. You got to stump up to get it back now.

It’s a ransom. It’s no different to the photobucket sham. I blame the people that give their money to these crooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On ‎07‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 07:38, Daweii said:

It's not necessarily Rockstar Games I think it's easy to forget that Rockstar Games answer to an owner and that owner is Take Two Interactive.

It's the CEO of Take Two Interactive that has stated every game they finance going forward will have microtransactions. Take Two own Rockstar Games, they own 2K Games so anyone looking forward to anything that group of studios works on is going to be disappointed. I think if this was a decision made by Rockstar Games then Red Dead Redemption 2 wouldn't have a single player, I mean why would it? GTA V has made several billion dollars and 90% of that is from GTA: Online, they have no reason to make another single player game except they want to. 

Rockstar Games answer to Take Two Interactive. At this point blaming Rockstar Games for this shit is like blaming DICE for Battlefront 2 when it's clearly not their decision. 

I can't really buy this - Rockstar aren't Bioware. They're Rockstar. They can tell Take Two what they want and Take Two have to shut up and play along. I don't doubt that Take Two state every game needs microtransactions but if Rockstar felt so strongly about it they could tell them to get **** and Take Two can't do anything about it. Rockstar print money like no other game company and that gives them power over any publisher.

 

While Rockstar might not want to push as heavily into microtransactions as they do some people seem to support this idea that Rockstar are infallible, a victim of the big bad corporations. They're as greedy as anybody else - they just push a better product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rockstar make money hand over fist because of microtransactions in fairness.

The new Red Dead will have them. You just have to hope they follow the GTA5 playbook and riddle the multiplayer with them and leave the single as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rino8 said:

I can't really buy this - Rockstar aren't Bioware. They're Rockstar. They can tell Take Two what they want and Take Two have to shut up and play along. I don't doubt that Take Two state every game needs microtransactions but if Rockstar felt so strongly about it they could tell them to get **** and Take Two can't do anything about it. Rockstar print money like no other game company and that gives them power over any publisher.

 

While Rockstar might not want to push as heavily into microtransactions as they do some people seem to support this idea that Rockstar are infallible, a victim of the big bad corporations. They're as greedy as anybody else - they just push a better product.

No company can tell their owner what to do. Rockstar Games may be one of the biggest studios out there, but that doesn't mean they are safe. If Rockstar rock the boat too much then Take-Two own plenty of other studios that would love to make a new Grand Theft Auto. Would that be a bad decision? Likely, but as of right now the only company that has come out and actively stated they are pushing microtransactions in everything is Take-Two Interactive. You could be right, Rockstar Games could be the monsters here, but I am going off of publicised facts and until Rockstar Games publish something to a similar effect then the blame is solely on Take-Two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

For those of you that thought battlefront 2 was bad i give you metal gear survive...

While in all probability, you're unlikely to want a second character save slot in Metal Gear Survive, for some we imagine it's still nice to have the option. Which is why some fans haven't taken kindly to the fact that Konami is charging the equivalent of $10 in in-game currency to unlock an extra save slot.

You can unlock up to three additional character save slots for 1,000 SV each, SV Coins being Metal Gear Survive's in-game currency. SV Coins have started to be handed out by Konami as a daily login bonus for a limited time, but only in batches of 30. To purchase the currency, which can also be used to purchase additional items and resources, it'll set you back 99 cents for 100 SV Coins and up to $49.99 for a batch of 6,000. 1,150 SV costs $9.99.

"The in-game currency may be used to increase the productivity of Exploration Teams, increase food production and boost other features in the game," Konami's official description of SV Coins states. There's no way of earning the currency through standard gameplay.

SV Coins can also be used to boost the speed at which your character gains Kuban Energy (essentially XP) for levelling up. A 24-hour Premium Boost Pass for 200 SV will see enemies dropping more energy, while a 60-day Boost Pass costs 2,400 SV. Storage for custom weapons and extra loadouts for co-op are also available in exchange for SV Coins, and if you want to upgrade your weapons storehouse, it'll cost you 500 SV.

 

https://www.xboxachievements.com/news/news-29253-In-Metal-Gear-Survive--It-Really-Does-Cost-Money-to-Unlock-an-Extra-Save-Slot.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2017 at 10:59, Straggler said:

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

I like the idea but the mode or the median would be a truer representation of what the man on the street will likely end up paying for the game rather than using the average. The addicts at the higher end would skew the mean considerably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

EA and Epic were up in front of the Digital Culture Sports and Media Select Committee this week and it's become a bit of a worldwide meme. Representatives were grilled for nearly 3 hours over various aspects of the game industry, but most notably they were asked about loot boxes. And the result was farcical. From Epic trying to claim that because Fortnite is free they don't make money on it (leading to an MP somewhat incredulously saying 'You're not a charity are you?') to then literally admitting to breaking the law by not complying with a need to have users confirm ages. But the highlight? Loot boxes.

EA were asked about the ethical implications of loot boxes, and the response was brilliant. EA doesn't have 'loot boxes' in it's games. It has surprise mechanics. The MP asking the question actually sniggered at the response. It appears EA has realised the term loot boxes is toxic so think they can pull the wool over perks people's eyes by rebranding it. They also pull the completely false equivalence to kinder eggs and the like.

Epic were asked about the the numbers they deal with with Fortnite, from what they consider frequent players to the kind of figures they expect the average player to spend, which they avoided to the extent the MP asking the question, to his credit, pointed out they were obviously lying and by lying actually made the committee much more suspicious of them.

It's a complete car crash, and hopefully will speed legislation to come about that consigns this bullshit to the bin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chindie said:

EA and Epic were up in front of the Digital Culture Sports and Media Select Committee this week and it's become a bit of a worldwide meme. Representatives were grilled for nearly 3 hours over various aspects of the game industry, but most notably they were asked about loot boxes. And the result was farcical. From Epic trying to claim that because Fortnite is free they don't make money on it (leading to an MP somewhat incredulously saying 'You're not a charity are you?') to then literally admitting to breaking the law by not complying with a need to have users confirm ages. But the highlight? Loot boxes.

EA were asked about the ethical implications of loot boxes, and the response was brilliant. EA doesn't have 'loot boxes' in it's games. It has surprise mechanics. The MP asking the question actually sniggered at the response. It appears EA has realised the term loot boxes is toxic so think they can pull the wool over perks people's eyes by rebranding it. They also pull the completely false equivalence to kinder eggs and the like.

Epic were asked about the the numbers they deal with with Fortnite, from what they consider frequent players to the kind of figures they expect the average player to spend, which they avoided to the extent the MP asking the question, to his credit, pointed out they were obviously lying and by lying actually made the committee much more suspicious of them.

It's a complete car crash, and hopefully will speed legislation to come about that consigns this bullshit to the bin.

I love Ultimate Team on FIFA.  I don't get to play the actual game much because of family commitments, but I can still interact by trading players etc.

The cash investment, though, in order to have a really competitive team is ridiculous.  I've not invested a penny and have a good team but I'm miles away from being able to afford, say, Ronaldo even if I sold my whole squad.

A few years ago, pre-kids, I got heavily involved in coin-buying for the game.  Whilst not allowed it was better for me than buying packs and hoping for the best.  Even so, my expenditure must have run into the hundreds over the course of each game.  It was madness.

If I'd spent the same on packs, though, I'd have been absolutely miles off the players/coins I got through cheating because the likelihood of packing a decent player is so low.

Get it all banned and find a fairer way to allow people to progress.  It's frightening the amount of cash some of these players must be spending.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â