Now you're playing semantics. Want and need in this context are interchangeable. There are non-pay options which Mike detailed. People buy them because they want what's inside. That's just a fact. Playing the victim card doesn't change that.
This sounds more like envy than issue. You're upset because you'll have to spend game time to get what someone spent money on. The second half of your post is just an attempt at justifying your envy. I get that you don't like it. You don't have to jump through hoops to convince me. I'm not a fan of them either. That doesn't change the reality that the publisher is going to charge for the game one way or another.
What's your alternative suggestion to recouping the revenue lost from loot crates?
Yes, you're right, they want to play the game, but people don't want their games ruined for the sake of loot boxes and further more be pushed into using them, that's why there is such an uproar about it. So I disagree that they're interchangeable in this circumstances
I'm sorry that's the most cop-out argument. Because of envy? It's got nothing to do with envy, Myself and maybe many others are willing to drop however much money into a game, if it's worth it. My point still stands, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "envy".
My answer would be, if they so desperately need loot boxes to be in the game, then take the in-game advantages out of the paid boxes.You'll have more people willing to buy your game and more people willing to buy boxes.
It's not about making profit. It's about making the profit they need/want/have projected to make.
Well getting this back to the root of this whole little side-trip in this thread, it is also most definitely and absolutely not about "...cover the costs of development in the 21st Century" unless "cost of development" for you encompasses profit projection.
But getting back on point... where the heck (other than in Mike's article) did this gaming evil of player fragmentation through DLC come from? If it were such a huge problem I should have seen many anti-DLC articles here before... maybe I missed them.
It just seems too convenient to demonize DLC in an article that tries to love loot boxes.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I've already named one twice. Activision Blizzard. And they even sold the base game box for less than $60 USD.
I work in an industry that the government regulated to avoid companies making unethical business decisions to increase profits, down to us having to submit new products to the government for review prior to being able to offer them to the public. Those regulations didn't arise out of a vacuum.
That's not needed here, as video games aren't as central to the financial well-being of consumers, but the point remains: the idea that they're doing this necessarily means they, in any reasonable definition of the word, "need" the additional revenue is unsupported by both comparable titles on the market, past history, and multiple externally linked sites presenting data or analysis of the company's other or previous franchise title.
But getting back on point... where the heck (other than in Mike's article) did this gaming evil of player fragmentation through DLC come from? If it were such a huge problem I should have seen many anti-DLC articles here before... maybe I missed them.
It used to be a bigger issue back in the days of the "BF is king of all" where maps and modes where split in to DLC and thus created "buckets" of players unable to interact due to not owning this or that DLC.
In MMO´s it has been pretty much the norm with expansions.
But you are correct in that it never really got any traction in the press. Mostly because at the time it was also the standard and much fever people cared.
Since then it has pretty much been established that it is smarter to keep new maps and modes free and charge for other stuff as it keeps players playing together. EA is sort the main exception with the Battle series of gun play as all of them employ the "New maps as paid DLC" angle. Splitting and dividing their players in to smaller and smaller buckets.
I've already named one twice. Activision Blizzard. And they even sold the base game box for less than $60 USD.
I work in an industry that the government regulated to avoid companies making unethical business decisions to increase profits, down to us having to submit new products to the government for review prior to being able to offer them to the public. Those regulations didn't arise out of a vacuum.
That's not needed here, as video games aren't as central to the financial well-being of consumers, but the point remains: the idea that they're doing this necessarily means they, in any reasonable definition of the word, "need" the additional revenue is unsupported by both comparable titles on the market, past history, and multiple externally linked sites presenting data or analysis of the company's other or previous franchise title.
EDIT- I should add, it's also circular logic.
Ok but doesn't Activision/Blizzard now have a cash shop in World of Warcraft? I mean, are you actually going back to the beginning of World of Warcraft's development to prove your point?
Because now they include additional revenue streams to make money.
Overwatch has loot boxes Hearthstone seem to be free to play but you buy card packs
Older games like Diablo III seem to just have expansions. Destiny 2 is on their site and I wonder if it will have additional revenue streams?
And I said "they decide need". If they set their projections to x, y and z then they "need" that money. The issue here is that you are looking at "need" as "company might not be able to cover costs" and I'm saying in a publicly traded company that "need' is decided by them. REmember they "need" to grow the company and they "need" to make money. And as we all know, such companies would love not to have regulation but since there is regulation they do have to stay within the law. Still not going to stop them from saying that they "need" to make x dollars.
The issue here is that players can't wrap their heads around what a publicly traded company actually does.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I've already named one twice. Activision Blizzard. And they even sold the base game box for less than $60 USD.
I work in an industry that the government regulated to avoid companies making unethical business decisions to increase profits, down to us having to submit new products to the government for review prior to being able to offer them to the public. Those regulations didn't arise out of a vacuum.
That's not needed here, as video games aren't as central to the financial well-being of consumers, but the point remains: the idea that they're doing this necessarily means they, in any reasonable definition of the word, "need" the additional revenue is unsupported by both comparable titles on the market, past history, and multiple externally linked sites presenting data or analysis of the company's other or previous franchise title.
EDIT- I should add, it's also circular logic.
Ok but doesn't Activision/Blizzard now have a cash shop in World of Warcraft? I mean, are you actually going back to the beginning of World of Warcraft's development to prove your point?
Because now they include additional revenue streams to make money.
Overwatch has loot boxes Hearthstone seem to be free to play but you buy card packs
Older games like Diablo III seem to just have expansions. Destiny 2 is on their site and I wonder if it will have additional revenue streams?
And I said "they decide need". If they set their projections to x, y and z then they "need" that money. The issue here is that you are looking at "need" as "company might not be able to cover costs" and I'm saying in a publicly traded company that "need' is decided by them. REmember they "need" to grow the company and they "need" to make money. And as we all know, such companies would love not to have regulation but since there is regulation they do have to stay within the law. Still not going to stop them from saying that they "need" to make x dollars.
The issue here is that players can't wrap their heads around what a publicly traded company actually does.
I'm referring specifically to lootboxes that contain nothing bit cosmetics. That adds no performance value to the boxes. It's a huge, canyon-wide difference. Overwatch does not sell upgrades or competitive progression in their loot boxes, charge less per game copy than BF2, and they're doing extraordinarily well by any objective measure.
It's not about making profit. It's about making the profit they need/want/have projected to make.
But getting back on point... where the heck (other than in Mike's article) did this gaming evil of player fragmentation through DLC come from? If it were such a huge problem I should have seen many anti-DLC articles here before... maybe I missed them.
It's mostly a problem specific to multiplayer shooters. We don't cover multiplayer shooters very frequently. I only wrote about it as part of my weekly column. I've been playing these games since I was a teenager and it's always been a massive problem, even before the DLC/season pass craze. It's just gotten a lot worse lately. Paid DLC content can be OK for other genres, but it's hugely problematic for multiplayer shooters because it splits up the community. This is why I state in the beginning of the piece that the context is important when it comes to Battlefront. Losing the season pass is a monumental win for fans of multiplayer shooters and if the trade off involves loot boxes, I think it's worth it if implemented well.
"We decided on that, and it's one of those difficult decisions because it has so many implications all around," he continued. "When we looked at the way Battlefront had evolved over its lifetime, with the DLC and everything, we decided, 'You know what? For this type of game, season passes are not the best thing. We need to [take it apart] and come up with something better."
It's clear that this decision was rooted in a core idea: "We don't want to segment our community," Diemer said.
"I cannot talk about the specifics of this, but we have something different in mind that will allow you to play longer, be [more] invested in the game without having a fragmented community."
Diemer admitted that it's "dangerous" to the health of a game's community when new maps and new modes are locked behind a paywall. It creates a situation where, as he put it, "the community is falling apart because there are simply not many people playing the different modes."
"“[DLC passes can be] really dangerous when it comes to multiplayer,
because what happens is it fractures the community," he explained. "'You
have the maps, I don't have the maps, I didn't buy that map but you
bought that map,' so when we all get together, 'Oh, you couldn't play.'"
It's not about making profit. It's about making the profit they need/want/have projected to make.
Well getting this back to the root of this whole little side-trip in this thread, it is also most definitely and absolutely not about "...cover the costs of development in the 21st Century" unless "cost of development" for you encompasses profit projection.
But getting back on point... where the heck (other than in Mike's article) did this gaming evil of player fragmentation through DLC come from? If it were such a huge problem I should have seen many anti-DLC articles here before... maybe I missed them.
It just seems too convenient to demonize DLC in an article that tries to love loot boxes.
I don't see anywhere in the article where Mike loved on loot crates. I think he presents them as a better of two options. The pay hit will come from somewhere because like Sovrath said, they've set a revenue target.
It can come in the form of DLC packs or loot crates or some third option I'm overlooking at the moment, but it's not going to be "just charge less". It would shock me if that gets put on the table by EA.
You don't see fragmentation as a problem at all, especially with MMOs? What are the play options for friends who own ESO base but no DLC or Chapters? You can play the base content with them or leave them behind and also not play with anyone else in a DLC area. If I don't buy the latest EQ2 expac then I can't play with others, not to mention I'm power gated through a monetary purchase. Same with LotRO, WoW, and FF14. It's not a problem in SWTOR, STO, SWL all of which are much more open and use subs with microtransactions to keep their content open.
The only game on that list that is immune to fragmentation is WoW and they have even acknowledge the issue through building cross realm game play and scalable content areas. I say they're immune because of the mass and inertia of their playerbase much like LoL can survive on cosmetics only whereas most other games can't.
It's not that I like any one revenue model, except a straight box fee, but even then I would hate it if a box fee of $150 was standard to cover the costs generate expected revenue (see what I did there? ) for a title. That's just out of my budget justifcation. I seriously balked at $90 for D2. Games are too expensive in my opinion, but my opinion is irrelevant if the industry "needs" to charge more.
I'd like to add that how a game is broken up and sold and how well that works depends on the game. For online multiplayer I probably prefer no expacs, but for single player games I don't mind them but they do affect how I play and purchase games. So too many expensive DLC put me off. I do generally see DLC (like mandatory subs) as more of a restrictive gate that negatively affects gameplay than I do optional loot crates, but again it depends on the type of game.
The difference in most genuine MMOs is that the base and its content is so huge that DLC and expansions truly are optional. Besides, they often apply to just one facet of the game.
ESO PVP for example (and by PVP I mean the real thing in Cyrodiil not the ghost town known as the Imperial City DLC nor the quicky scenarios that are equally unpopular) is just as playable with the base vanilla game today as it was back in 2014.
I'm not familiar with most shooters since I stopped playing them seriously back in the Quake and Halflife days. I can see how fragmentation might be a problem for those if half the maps are behind a paywall.
And come what may I will always be OK with a box price + all-inclusive sub for MMOs. I must be in a minority judging by the hordes that got taken in by the appeal of so-called "Free" to play MMOs and all its variants, but I never resented having to pay a monthly sub. It was and still is the most honest scheme.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
P.S. I don't love loot boxes. I was just having tongue-in-cheek fun with the article title.
I know . It's why I posted the last scene from Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Titanfall 2 had loot boxes? Pretty sure they let you buy the stuff outright rather than a "chance" and it was nothing beyond cosmetic that I saw. If MMORPG is really going to support articles like this then I think I need to find a new place for my gamer news. It's an unacceptable cancer that has taken a new form and seeks to milk gamers. I can understand that stuff costs money to make and cosmetics are a decent route to go to support development costs. RNG loot boxes for progression is simply wrong - and loots boxes in single player games (Dues/Shadows) is poor taste too. Does that mean these games can't be fun? Nope. This is a consumer issue and who your wallet supports. It is a dangerous road for our hobby as it is and it will only get worse if you would rather pay your way out than play your way out. Shallow shallow shallow times ahead friends.
I have no problem with p2w systems in games and enjoy quite a few across multiple games. Exposing children to certain ways of thinking at an early age with these gambling loot boxes may have unforeseen consequences though.
Community fragmentation is a big problem in both Battlefront and Call of Duty. Especially in the latter, which has a small player pool to begin with. DLC maps are only really playable the first few weeks after release. The population falls off rapidly after that.
The sad thing is that if you buy the DLC weeks after release (or god forbid, you buy the 1st DLC when the 3rd just came out), you won't even get to play what you bought. The waiting times for a game are not feasible. Combine this with the fact that people these days can't even wait 2 minutes for a regular lobby to fill up, and your old DLC that would require 20 minutes to fill up is virtually unplayable.
I think people didn't complain because they are part of the problem (not saying it's their fault directly). DLCs become unplayable because not enough people play them. Ergo, people don't really care about it that much anymore.
That said, I don't think lootbox progression is a viable solution. I value competitive integrity in multiplayer shooters. What I love about shooters is the feeling that I did great. "I was 1 against 3 there and I managed to kill them all. That was awesome - the way I switched weapons and overrun them by surprise!"
How lame will it be when your enemy Boba Fett flies into the air with their ultimate and you can't shoot him down, because he threw $500 at loot boxes and got the gold card. Or when you run into an enemy in a tight spot and land 6 shots, but they kill you in 3 using the same weapon. Similar thing was in Call of Duty (a perk called Juggernaut) and people hated it - you'd play out the encounter in a way the enemy should have died, but they didn't because they had double health. Even the developers retrospectively agreed that it was poor design. The big difference is that everyone had access to Juggernaut after a few hours - you knew it was crap, but you also knew you can use it too. In Battlefront, you'll be behind unless you pay silly amounts of money.
All of this completely breaks what I love about shooters.
I wouldn't say all lootboxes are cancer per se- I see a large difference between Overwatch loot boxes and the ones being used here.
Thing is, though, those of us who were always against the idea of lootboxes specifically called this as the next step for producers. We were debated and derided at the time. I specifically remember @Iselin making the point a few times that it opens up the possibility of this very evolution in lootbox content.
Producers aren't aching for ways to recoup costs or even turn a profit. But they will continue edging the line along, slowly, to see just how much more they can make by nickel and diming their players. The folks who were looking at the rising prevalence of lootboxes and tried to claim there was nothing really to be concerned about were being blissfully and naively optimistic towards an industry that had never earned such optimism.
Cash grabs similar to mobile throwaway games indicate a mentality of a product that will be dead in 3 months time.
I'll bide my time and wait and see what happens. It's not the first product that all the red flags justified the decision to wait and ultimate avoid the purchase.
I wouldn't say all lootboxes are cancer per se- I see a large difference between Overwatch loot boxes and the ones being used here.
Thing is, though, those of us who were always against the idea of lootboxes specifically called this as the next step for producers. We were debated and derided at the time. I specifically remember @Iselin making the point a few times that it opens up the possibility of this very evolution in lootbox content.
Producers aren't aching for ways to recoup costs or even turn a profit. But they will continue edging the line along, slowly, to see just how much more they can make by nickel and diming their players. The folks who were looking at the rising prevalence of lootboxes and tried to claim there was nothing really to be concerned about were being blissfully and naively optimistic towards an industry that had never earned such optimism.
I agree, the thing is DLC/loot boxes aren't inherently bad, they just exploited by companies to nickle and dime, like you said. So gamers don't see them any other way than a "cancer".
Instead of making a game as good as it can be they focus on how can we milk more money out of it. Which, imho, is a bit ironic as they would probably make more money making a better gamer.
Make a good game worth playing, people will buy it, make a good game worth playing and sell DLC, people will won't hesitate to buy it (Example Horizon Dawn), but when you do shit like this and butcher your base game for the sake of the two, it's only obvious people are going to skip it, pirate or wait till it's like $9 and people will now your games as games that try nickle and dime their players, killing some of the hype for any future games.
I have no problem with p2w systems in games and enjoy quite a few across multiple games. Exposing children to certain ways of thinking at an early age with these gambling loot boxes may have unforeseen consequences though.
I entirely agree, i think personally that the game should be rated as being 'Adult' rated content because of the games dependency on loot boxes for progression, i think 100% this represents a form of gambling and i think its something that younger players may be damaged by.
I wouldn't say all lootboxes are cancer per se- I see a large difference between Overwatch loot boxes and the ones being used here.
Thing is, though, those of us who were always against the idea of lootboxes specifically called this as the next step for producers. We were debated and derided at the time. I specifically remember @Iselin making the point a few times that it opens up the possibility of this very evolution in lootbox content.
Producers aren't aching for ways to recoup costs or even turn a profit. But they will continue edging the line along, slowly, to see just how much more they can make by nickel and diming their players. The folks who were looking at the rising prevalence of lootboxes and tried to claim there was nothing really to be concerned about were being blissfully and naively optimistic towards an industry that had never earned such optimism.
So what do the poor victims of ridicule and injury suggest as an answer. Always lots of soapbox ranting, never any practical solutions amid the finger pointing.
The real answer is that these people are a minority that will be passed by by both companies and regular gamers. Most players just want to play a game, lootboxes or not. There will be no breaking point or gamer revolt, this will simply continue and evolve. In which direction things will go? Who knows, the market dictates.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Ea's response is lip service. I see people hailing it as a compromise to the p2w lootbox problem. It's not .. they essentially said " Our system is fine, you just didn't see it complete". On top of this they are deliberately misleading people by stating you have to have rank to upgrade or unlock weapons. Star cards from loot boxes increases your class rank and if you buy star cards you can get already upgraded star cards. They float the premise that you may get higher "loot" but you won't be able to use it and I call Bullshit. They've done nothing to smooth this problem over .. they are buying time until launch. They aren't idiots ... they know darn well people just want a fun game to play. The games going to sell massively .. and one of the final bastions of non pay to win ( FPS's ) will be completely eroded. (By completely I mean that it's been chipped away at for years already now)
I understand Battlefields been moving in this direction for awhile now. While not justifying battlepacks ( because I hate them) you couldn't purchase abilities or combat changing passives. These are unique to Battlefront.
I Really wanted to buy and play this game. I'm a huge Battlefield/Front fan. They fixed most of what I hated in BF2015, but I can't support this cancerous inclusion of pay to win mechanics in a genre where skill should be the prevailing factor in success. ( And I'm getting old and slow )
I wouldn't say all lootboxes are cancer per se- I see a large difference between Overwatch loot boxes and the ones being used here.
Thing is, though, those of us who were always against the idea of lootboxes specifically called this as the next step for producers. We were debated and derided at the time. I specifically remember @Iselin making the point a few times that it opens up the possibility of this very evolution in lootbox content.
Producers aren't aching for ways to recoup costs or even turn a profit. But they will continue edging the line along, slowly, to see just how much more they can make by nickel and diming their players. The folks who were looking at the rising prevalence of lootboxes and tried to claim there was nothing really to be concerned about were being blissfully and naively optimistic towards an industry that had never earned such optimism.
So what do the poor victims of ridicule and injury suggest as an answer. Always lots of soapbox ranting, never any practical solutions amid the finger pointing.
Again. I'll point this out for the 4th time... No "answer," other than focusing on creating a game people want to play continually, is needed.
Blizzard hasn't had to budge from the cosmetic only lootbox system since releasing Overwatch. They're selling the game for less per copy. They're releasing new maps for free and giving it to everyone at once. They're making guap. Fin.
Another example: Witcher 3. They made a great game. They're releasing DLC that's worth the asking price as its a singleplayer game so they don't have to worry about fragmentation. They made guap. Fin.
A 3rd example, this time Indie: Lariat released a great single/multiplayer RPG game. They're allowing mods to create and supply their gamers, free of charge. They made guap. Fin.
I don't think the argument that season passes are pay2win as well helps, 2 wrongs don't make a right.
The problem here is that using this system and charging money to get the game is greedy, charging full price is even worse so.
What I am worrying about though is that everyone will do this soon, skipping a game because I think the publishers is greedy is no biggie but if all games are that way it just sucks.
I wouldn't say all lootboxes are cancer per se- I see a large difference between Overwatch loot boxes and the ones being used here.
Thing is, though, those of us who were always against the idea of lootboxes specifically called this as the next step for producers. We were debated and derided at the time. I specifically remember @Iselin making the point a few times that it opens up the possibility of this very evolution in lootbox content.
Producers aren't aching for ways to recoup costs or even turn a profit. But they will continue edging the line along, slowly, to see just how much more they can make by nickel and diming their players. The folks who were looking at the rising prevalence of lootboxes and tried to claim there was nothing really to be concerned about were being blissfully and naively optimistic towards an industry that had never earned such optimism.
So what do the poor victims of ridicule and injury suggest as an answer. Always lots of soapbox ranting, never any practical solutions amid the finger pointing.
Again. I'll point this out for the 4th time... No "answer," other than focusing on creating a game people want to play continually, is needed.
Blizzard hasn't had to budge from the cosmetic only lootbox system since releasing Overwatch. They're selling the game for less per copy. They're releasing new maps for free and giving it to everyone at once. They're making guap. Fin.
Another example: Witcher 3. They made a great game. They're releasing DLC that's worth the asking price as its a singleplayer game so they don't have to worry about fragmentation. They made guap. Fin.
A 3rd example, this time Indie: Lariat released a great single/multiplayer RPG game. They're allowing mods to create and supply their gamers, free of charge. They made guap. Fin.
Blizzard and Witcher 3 are not a good examples. You always have to remove the top and the bottom if you are suggesting a solution that would work for everything else.
A game that has pawned endless awards will sell well however the fuck they monetize it.
Problem is with those average titles that we would all love to play and they cost a lot, even more to develop. I prefer to have all sorts of monetization and so many games to play instead of playing one game every 5 years with the best monetization.
Of course we need to vote with our wallets and support the systems we find more fair. But also have to accept the fact that we can't have so many AAA titles every year and good old box price to rule them all together anymore.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I wouldn't say all lootboxes are cancer per se- I see a large difference between Overwatch loot boxes and the ones being used here.
Thing is, though, those of us who were always against the idea of lootboxes specifically called this as the next step for producers. We were debated and derided at the time. I specifically remember @Iselin making the point a few times that it opens up the possibility of this very evolution in lootbox content.
Producers aren't aching for ways to recoup costs or even turn a profit. But they will continue edging the line along, slowly, to see just how much more they can make by nickel and diming their players. The folks who were looking at the rising prevalence of lootboxes and tried to claim there was nothing really to be concerned about were being blissfully and naively optimistic towards an industry that had never earned such optimism.
So what do the poor victims of ridicule and injury suggest as an answer. Always lots of soapbox ranting, never any practical solutions amid the finger pointing.
Again. I'll point this out for the 4th time... No "answer," other than focusing on creating a game people want to play continually, is needed.
Blizzard hasn't had to budge from the cosmetic only lootbox system since releasing Overwatch. They're selling the game for less per copy. They're releasing new maps for free and giving it to everyone at once. They're making guap. Fin.
Another example: Witcher 3. They made a great game. They're releasing DLC that's worth the asking price as its a singleplayer game so they don't have to worry about fragmentation. They made guap. Fin.
A 3rd example, this time Indie: Lariat released a great single/multiplayer RPG game. They're allowing mods to create and supply their gamers, free of charge. They made guap. Fin.
Blizzard and Witcher 3 are not a good examples. You always have to remove the top and the bottom if you are suggesting a solution that would work for everything else.
A game that has pawned endless awards will sell well however the fuck they monetize it.
Problem is with those average titles that we would all love to play and they cost a lot, even more to develop. I prefer to have all sorts of monetization and so many games to play instead of playing one game every 5 years with the best monetization.
Of course we need to vote with our wallets and support the systems we find more fair. But also have to accept the fact that we can't have so many AAA titles every year and good old box price to rule them all together anymore.
The point is that quality begets profit, not tricky monetization schemes.
The market's saturated, so only the most quality titles will make great profits. That's capitalism, baby.
I don't care for dozens and dozens of releases every month if they use predatory monetization tactics and mediocre experiences to keep themselves afloat.
I wouldn't say all lootboxes are cancer per se- I see a large difference between Overwatch loot boxes and the ones being used here.
Thing is, though, those of us who were always against the idea of lootboxes specifically called this as the next step for producers. We were debated and derided at the time. I specifically remember @Iselin making the point a few times that it opens up the possibility of this very evolution in lootbox content.
Producers aren't aching for ways to recoup costs or even turn a profit. But they will continue edging the line along, slowly, to see just how much more they can make by nickel and diming their players. The folks who were looking at the rising prevalence of lootboxes and tried to claim there was nothing really to be concerned about were being blissfully and naively optimistic towards an industry that had never earned such optimism.
So what do the poor victims of ridicule and injury suggest as an answer. Always lots of soapbox ranting, never any practical solutions amid the finger pointing.
Again. I'll point this out for the 4th time... No "answer," other than focusing on creating a game people want to play continually, is needed.
Blizzard hasn't had to budge from the cosmetic only lootbox system since releasing Overwatch. They're selling the game for less per copy. They're releasing new maps for free and giving it to everyone at once. They're making guap. Fin.
Another example: Witcher 3. They made a great game. They're releasing DLC that's worth the asking price as its a singleplayer game so they don't have to worry about fragmentation. They made guap. Fin.
A 3rd example, this time Indie: Lariat released a great single/multiplayer RPG game. They're allowing mods to create and supply their gamers, free of charge. They made guap. Fin.
Blizzard and Witcher 3 are not a good examples. You always have to remove the top and the bottom if you are suggesting a solution that would work for everything else.
Why do we need to remove Witcher 3 as a solution? They made a wonderful game and didn't slap as many cash grab features as they could into it, even after their successful series.
What made Witcher a successful game? It was good ... which is the metric we all hold games to at its base. Is it a good game or is it bad. The secondary metric comes in after we determine if a games good or not, and that's the cost. The witcher has been successful on both front .. it's a prime example of how to deliver a product. There isn't a reason to remove it from examples of success. It's not doing anything differently that other Devs/Pubs could do ... it's good and doesn't nickle and dime the consumer. I'd go a step further that the game simply being good isn't the only determining factor of its success - I'll support the Witcher Devs every release because of their good business practices.
Comments
I'm sorry that's the most cop-out argument. Because of envy? It's got nothing to do with envy, Myself and maybe many others are willing to drop however much money into a game, if it's worth it. My point still stands, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "envy".
My answer would be, if they so desperately need loot boxes to be in the game, then take the in-game advantages out of the paid boxes.You'll have more people willing to buy your game and more people willing to buy boxes.
But getting back on point... where the heck (other than in Mike's article) did this gaming evil of player fragmentation through DLC come from? If it were such a huge problem I should have seen many anti-DLC articles here before... maybe I missed them.
It just seems too convenient to demonize DLC in an article that tries to love loot boxes.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I've already named one twice. Activision Blizzard. And they even sold the base game box for less than $60 USD.
I work in an industry that the government regulated to avoid companies making unethical business decisions to increase profits, down to us having to submit new products to the government for review prior to being able to offer them to the public. Those regulations didn't arise out of a vacuum.
That's not needed here, as video games aren't as central to the financial well-being of consumers, but the point remains: the idea that they're doing this necessarily means they, in any reasonable definition of the word, "need" the additional revenue is unsupported by both comparable titles on the market, past history, and multiple externally linked sites presenting data or analysis of the company's other or previous franchise title.
EDIT- I should add, it's also circular logic.
In MMO´s it has been pretty much the norm with expansions.
But you are correct in that it never really got any traction in the press. Mostly because at the time it was also the standard and much fever people cared.
Since then it has pretty much been established that it is smarter to keep new maps and modes free and charge for other stuff as it keeps players playing together. EA is sort the main exception with the Battle series of gun play as all of them employ the "New maps as paid DLC" angle. Splitting and dividing their players in to smaller and smaller buckets.
This have been a good conversation
Because now they include additional revenue streams to make money.
Overwatch has loot boxes
Hearthstone seem to be free to play but you buy card packs
Older games like Diablo III seem to just have expansions. Destiny 2 is on their site and I wonder if it will have additional revenue streams?
And I said "they decide need". If they set their projections to x, y and z then they "need" that money. The issue here is that you are looking at "need" as "company might not be able to cover costs" and I'm saying in a publicly traded company that "need' is decided by them. REmember they "need" to grow the company and they "need" to make money. And as we all know, such companies would love not to have regulation but since there is regulation they do have to stay within the law. Still not going to stop them from saying that they "need" to make x dollars.
The issue here is that players can't wrap their heads around what a publicly traded company actually does.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
http://mashable.com/2017/04/15/star-wars-battlefront-2-season-pass-no-more/
"We decided on that, and it's one of those difficult decisions because it has so many implications all around," he continued. "When we looked at the way Battlefront had evolved over its lifetime, with the DLC and everything, we decided, 'You know what? For this type of game, season passes are not the best thing. We need to [take it apart] and come up with something better."
It's clear that this decision was rooted in a core idea: "We don't want to segment our community," Diemer said.
"I cannot talk about the specifics of this, but we have something different in mind that will allow you to play longer, be [more] invested in the game without having a fragmented community."
Diemer admitted that it's "dangerous" to the health of a game's community when new maps and new modes are locked behind a paywall. It creates a situation where, as he put it, "the community is falling apart because there are simply not many people playing the different modes."
"So we definitely want to avoid that."
Decent discussion on this on NeoGAF: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1149750http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/major-nelson-says-season-pass-dlc-is-dangerous-for-multiplayer-games/0163122
"“[DLC passes can be] really dangerous when it comes to multiplayer, because what happens is it fractures the community," he explained. "'You have the maps, I don't have the maps, I didn't buy that map but you bought that map,' so when we all get together, 'Oh, you couldn't play.'"
http://www.gamezone.com/news/treyarch-looking-to-address-call-of-duty-s-dlc-problem-with-black-ops-3-3417271
Lots more out there if you're curious!
P.S. I don't love loot boxes. I was just having tongue-in-cheek fun with the article title.
ESO PVP for example (and by PVP I mean the real thing in Cyrodiil not the ghost town known as the Imperial City DLC nor the quicky scenarios that are equally unpopular) is just as playable with the base vanilla game today as it was back in 2014.
I'm not familiar with most shooters since I stopped playing them seriously back in the Quake and Halflife days. I can see how fragmentation might be a problem for those if half the maps are behind a paywall.
And come what may I will always be OK with a box price + all-inclusive sub for MMOs. I must be in a minority judging by the hordes that got taken in by the appeal of so-called "Free" to play MMOs and all its variants, but I never resented having to pay a monthly sub. It was and still is the most honest scheme.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Community fragmentation is a big problem in both Battlefront and Call of Duty. Especially in the latter, which has a small player pool to begin with. DLC maps are only really playable the first few weeks after release. The population falls off rapidly after that.
The sad thing is that if you buy the DLC weeks after release (or god forbid, you buy the 1st DLC when the 3rd just came out), you won't even get to play what you bought. The waiting times for a game are not feasible. Combine this with the fact that people these days can't even wait 2 minutes for a regular lobby to fill up, and your old DLC that would require 20 minutes to fill up is virtually unplayable.
I think people didn't complain because they are part of the problem (not saying it's their fault directly). DLCs become unplayable because not enough people play them. Ergo, people don't really care about it that much anymore.
That said, I don't think lootbox progression is a viable solution. I value competitive integrity in multiplayer shooters. What I love about shooters is the feeling that I did great. "I was 1 against 3 there and I managed to kill them all. That was awesome - the way I switched weapons and overrun them by surprise!"
How lame will it be when your enemy Boba Fett flies into the air with their ultimate and you can't shoot him down, because he threw $500 at loot boxes and got the gold card. Or when you run into an enemy in a tight spot and land 6 shots, but they kill you in 3 using the same weapon. Similar thing was in Call of Duty (a perk called Juggernaut) and people hated it - you'd play out the encounter in a way the enemy should have died, but they didn't because they had double health. Even the developers retrospectively agreed that it was poor design. The big difference is that everyone had access to Juggernaut after a few hours - you knew it was crap, but you also knew you can use it too. In Battlefront, you'll be behind unless you pay silly amounts of money.
All of this completely breaks what I love about shooters.
I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Thing is, though, those of us who were always against the idea of lootboxes specifically called this as the next step for producers. We were debated and derided at the time. I specifically remember @Iselin making the point a few times that it opens up the possibility of this very evolution in lootbox content.
Producers aren't aching for ways to recoup costs or even turn a profit. But they will continue edging the line along, slowly, to see just how much more they can make by nickel and diming their players. The folks who were looking at the rising prevalence of lootboxes and tried to claim there was nothing really to be concerned about were being blissfully and naively optimistic towards an industry that had never earned such optimism.
I'll bide my time and wait and see what happens. It's not the first product that all the red flags justified the decision to wait and ultimate avoid the purchase.
Instead of making a game as good as it can be they focus on how can we milk more money out of it. Which, imho, is a bit ironic as they would probably make more money making a better gamer.
Make a good game worth playing, people will buy it, make a good game worth playing and sell DLC, people will won't hesitate to buy it (Example Horizon Dawn), but when you do shit like this and butcher your base game for the sake of the two, it's only obvious people are going to skip it, pirate or wait till it's like $9 and people will now your games as games that try nickle and dime their players, killing some of the hype for any future games.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I understand Battlefields been moving in this direction for awhile now. While not justifying battlepacks ( because I hate them) you couldn't purchase abilities or combat changing passives. These are unique to Battlefront.
I Really wanted to buy and play this game. I'm a huge Battlefield/Front fan. They fixed most of what I hated in BF2015, but I can't support this cancerous inclusion of pay to win mechanics in a genre where skill should be the prevailing factor in success. ( And I'm getting old and slow )
Blizzard hasn't had to budge from the cosmetic only lootbox system since releasing Overwatch. They're selling the game for less per copy. They're releasing new maps for free and giving it to everyone at once. They're making guap. Fin.
Another example: Witcher 3. They made a great game. They're releasing DLC that's worth the asking price as its a singleplayer game so they don't have to worry about fragmentation. They made guap. Fin.
A 3rd example, this time Indie: Lariat released a great single/multiplayer RPG game. They're allowing mods to create and supply their gamers, free of charge. They made guap. Fin.
The problem here is that using this system and charging money to get the game is greedy, charging full price is even worse so.
What I am worrying about though is that everyone will do this soon, skipping a game because I think the publishers is greedy is no biggie but if all games are that way it just sucks.
A game that has pawned endless awards will sell well however the fuck they monetize it.
Problem is with those average titles that we would all love to play and they cost a lot, even more to develop. I prefer to have all sorts of monetization and so many games to play instead of playing one game every 5 years with the best monetization.
Of course we need to vote with our wallets and support the systems we find more fair. But also have to accept the fact that we can't have so many AAA titles every year and good old box price to rule them all together anymore.
The market's saturated, so only the most quality titles will make great profits. That's capitalism, baby.
I don't care for dozens and dozens of releases every month if they use predatory monetization tactics and mediocre experiences to keep themselves afloat.
What made Witcher a successful game? It was good ... which is the metric we all hold games to at its base. Is it a good game or is it bad. The secondary metric comes in after we determine if a games good or not, and that's the cost. The witcher has been successful on both front .. it's a prime example of how to deliver a product. There isn't a reason to remove it from examples of success. It's not doing anything differently that other Devs/Pubs could do ... it's good and doesn't nickle and dime the consumer. I'd go a step further that the game simply being good isn't the only determining factor of its success - I'll support the Witcher Devs every release because of their good business practices.