Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Star Wars Battlefront II or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and the Love the Loot Box - Michael Bitt

123468

Comments

  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    Redemp said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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 food business practices.
    Because not everyone can make such a great game. If Michael Jackson gave away his albums for free he would still become a millionaire by just showing up to places. But that solution only would've worked for maybe 50 bands in history. 

    Your solution has to be viable for average titles. A solution by the top dog doesn't necessarily guarantees success for everyone else. 

    Now I'm not saying all monetization models are fine. I am saying average titles do need to get creative with their earnings as well sincr they also cost a lot to develop but ended up with a less box sales.


    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
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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.
    You can't pull a that's capitalism baby on me and nag about monetization in the same post, baby! :)

    I bet I care about much less things than you do, but I wasn't talking about what I like personally. And if you are, why do you care about how the titles you don't care for at all are monetized?
    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
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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.
    You can't pull a that's capitalism baby on me and nag about monetization in the same post, baby! :)

    I bet I care about much less things than you do, but I wasn't talking about what I like personally. And if you are, why do you care about how the titles you don't care for at all are monetized?
    Isn't it obvious?

    1. Capitalism comes in many forms and flavors. From the very simple supply and demand we all hold dear which is typically based on the quality of the product, to the exploitative type that relies on tricks and ads.

    2. Trends are set by what flies and doesn't fly. If we're gaming hobbyists we should care about what's happening in gaming in general whether it's the type of game we focus on or not because, sooner or later, the genre you do care about will be influenced.
    ConstantineMerusCecropiaNildenlaseritMadFrenchie
    "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

  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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.
    You can't pull a that's capitalism baby on me and nag about monetization in the same post, baby! :)

    I bet I care about much less things than you do, but I wasn't talking about what I like personally. And if you are, why do you care about how the titles you don't care for at all are monetized?
    Isn't it obvious?

    1. Capitalism comes in many forms and flavors. From the very simple supply and demand we all hold dear which is typically based on the quality of the product, to the exploitative type that relies on tricks and ads.

    2. Trends are set by what flies and doesn't fly. If we're gaming hobbyists we should care about what's happening in gaming in general whether it's the type of game we focus on or not because, sooner or later, the genre you do care about will be influenced.
    You are completely right. And I never said we shouldn't care. As I said, I believe, in my humble opinion, most titles cannot rely on box-price anymore (for whatever reason, this is the reality we are facing) so we have to support the ones that are fair, to encourage that practice. 
    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
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited October 2017
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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.
    You can't pull a that's capitalism baby on me and nag about monetization in the same post, baby! :)

    I bet I care about much less things than you do, but I wasn't talking about what I like personally. And if you are, why do you care about how the titles you don't care for at all are monetized?
    I think you're confusing capitalism and free market here.  They're most often related, but nothing about capitalism excludes the government from regulating against such predatory monetization methods or from consumers calling them what they are; a handicap to make up for a lack of quality.  Recall my earlier post about my industry (insurance) being regulated to the point of requiring us to get pre-approval of our products before even offering them to the public.  That's because, if we didn't, we could use "legalese" and specific loophole exclusions to heavily monetize shoddy policies by marketing them in a way that's misleading to the consumer.  None of that precludes capitalism, but the regulations do preclude a true free market in the interest of providing a means by which we protect consumers and (through anti-monopoly regulations) protect the rights of others to attempt to compete in the market fairly.  A truly free market would preclude any regulations against monopolies, predatory monetization and advertising schemes, and intimidation tactics by the monopolistic entities to prevent anyone from even entering the industry and competing.

    With that in mind, nothing precludes advocating for capitalism to weed out products of lesser quality while still monitoring for predatory monetization practices and calling those out when we see them.  They're seeking to make profits; capitalism holds only that they do not have to worry about entities like Blizzard using their vast wealth to unfairly and directly disadvantage potential competition; not that they should be given laissez-faire to introduce predatory monetization schemes or that we can't call them out for such perceived schemes when we spot them.

    image
  • RedempRedemp Member UncommonPosts: 1,136
    Redemp said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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 food business practices.
    Because not everyone can make such a great game.

     In the context of this thread we are talking about EA/Dice : They have the ability and liquidity to do the same thing. Indie studios also don't help the premise because they are producing lower quality games, for lower prices and those are still generally good games otherwise they wouldn't succeed.

    I don't understand why you think they cant make good games....

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited October 2017
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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.
    You can't pull a that's capitalism baby on me and nag about monetization in the same post, baby! :)

    I bet I care about much less things than you do, but I wasn't talking about what I like personally. And if you are, why do you care about how the titles you don't care for at all are monetized?
    Isn't it obvious?

    1. Capitalism comes in many forms and flavors. From the very simple supply and demand we all hold dear which is typically based on the quality of the product, to the exploitative type that relies on tricks and ads.

    2. Trends are set by what flies and doesn't fly. If we're gaming hobbyists we should care about what's happening in gaming in general whether it's the type of game we focus on or not because, sooner or later, the genre you do care about will be influenced.
    You put it much more succinctly than I did.

    As I mentioned before, quality begets profits.  Quality does not require the sort of nickel and diming for progression or power that's being used here.  By all accounts from the prequel to this title, that nickel and diming wasn't needed for EA to make their profits from this title.

    In the grander scheme of things, capitalism only works to elevate quality when products that lack such quality aren't achieving the same results through shady marketing or monetization schemes.  Shady marketing or predatory monetization schemes only serve to reduce the impact the system has on ensuring the competition that elevates the quality of products that make it to market as well as studios that continue to enjoy financial success because they provide such quality, allowing them to provide us with more quality products.


    Allowing these things to fester is the reason why scammers like Sergei Titov thrive.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Torval said:
    Loke666 said:
    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.
    Either you have a game where PvP is a level playing field like GW2, LoL, etc. or you don't. Once newbies can't roll in on an even field with a new character then who cares who you pay for the advantage, time or money, it's irrelevant to me.

    No one complained that ANet sold skill, weapon, and mod unlocks in GW1. It worked great. You could pay $50 to unlock it through game play or you could pay a little extra to skip those pve missions. No one cared and it wasn't OP because anyone could do what they wanted from the get go.

    What is the game selling that pve players can't get?
    Can you unlock all the upgrades in BF2 by simply playing PvE?

    image
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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.
    You can't pull a that's capitalism baby on me and nag about monetization in the same post, baby! :)

    I bet I care about much less things than you do, but I wasn't talking about what I like personally. And if you are, why do you care about how the titles you don't care for at all are monetized?
    Isn't it obvious?

    1. Capitalism comes in many forms and flavors. From the very simple supply and demand we all hold dear which is typically based on the quality of the product, to the exploitative type that relies on tricks and ads.

    2. Trends are set by what flies and doesn't fly. If we're gaming hobbyists we should care about what's happening in gaming in general whether it's the type of game we focus on or not because, sooner or later, the genre you do care about will be influenced.
    You are completely right. And I never said we shouldn't care. As I said, I believe, in my humble opinion, most titles cannot rely on box-price anymore (for whatever reason, this is the reality we are facing) so we have to support the ones that are fair, to encourage that practice. 
    As we are talking specifically about SWBF2...  a game that is based on SWBF1 which sold over $650M in 2015 alone (no lootboxes) ..  what is your position on lootboxes for THIS game?


    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • BizkitNLBizkitNL Member RarePosts: 2,546
    I don't remember this kind of upset back when card games and their booster packs were introduced? I dont see people buying Titanfall 2 out of principle, to support a developer that decides to change things up a bit?

    That's the power of the internet. It's easier to jump on the bandwagon and write a quick negative review on Steam than actually do something.

    What happened to looking at a game for what it is? Are these people even playing games?

    Shadow of War is a great game. Even though it has lootboxes, I have yet to open a single one, let alone buy more. It even tucks them away in a market menu and doesn't even mention them in the game. But here you are, throwing it out of the window "out of principle". You're fake. You don't play games. You just want to jump on the latest controversy and feel relevant. Like a bunch of teenage girls drooling at the newest boyband.
    10
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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.
    You can't pull a that's capitalism baby on me and nag about monetization in the same post, baby! :)

    I bet I care about much less things than you do, but I wasn't talking about what I like personally. And if you are, why do you care about how the titles you don't care for at all are monetized?
    Isn't it obvious?

    1. Capitalism comes in many forms and flavors. From the very simple supply and demand we all hold dear which is typically based on the quality of the product, to the exploitative type that relies on tricks and ads.

    2. Trends are set by what flies and doesn't fly. If we're gaming hobbyists we should care about what's happening in gaming in general whether it's the type of game we focus on or not because, sooner or later, the genre you do care about will be influenced.
    You are completely right. And I never said we shouldn't care. As I said, I believe, in my humble opinion, most titles cannot rely on box-price anymore (for whatever reason, this is the reality we are facing) so we have to support the ones that are fair, to encourage that practice. 
    As we are talking specifically about SWBF2...  a game that is based on SWBF1 which sold over $650M in 2015 alone (no lootboxes) ..  what is your position on lootboxes for THIS game?


    Total BS. 
    Nilden
    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
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    edited October 2017
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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.
    You can't pull a that's capitalism baby on me and nag about monetization in the same post, baby! :)

    I bet I care about much less things than you do, but I wasn't talking about what I like personally. And if you are, why do you care about how the titles you don't care for at all are monetized?
    Isn't it obvious?

    1. Capitalism comes in many forms and flavors. From the very simple supply and demand we all hold dear which is typically based on the quality of the product, to the exploitative type that relies on tricks and ads.

    2. Trends are set by what flies and doesn't fly. If we're gaming hobbyists we should care about what's happening in gaming in general whether it's the type of game we focus on or not because, sooner or later, the genre you do care about will be influenced.
    You are completely right. And I never said we shouldn't care. As I said, I believe, in my humble opinion, most titles cannot rely on box-price anymore (for whatever reason, this is the reality we are facing) so we have to support the ones that are fair, to encourage that practice. 
    As we are talking specifically about SWBF2...  a game that is based on SWBF1 which sold over $650M in 2015 alone (no lootboxes) ..  what is your position on lootboxes for THIS game?


    Total BS. 
    Can you clarify that?  What is total BS?  The $650M in 2015 is in fact a number given by multiple reliable sources...
    Earlier in the thread there is even a link to an article analyzing the financial performance.

    Were you referring to something else?


    PS... in addition to the earlier link, here is another article stating the $650,000,000 number for just Nov and Dec 2015.  Not including any sales from 2016

    http://gazettereview.com/2016/01/estimates-say-star-wars-battlefront-has-sold-millions-of-copies/


    Or were you in fact saying that you felt Lootboxes in this particular game were BS?  If so... we agree

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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.
    You can't pull a that's capitalism baby on me and nag about monetization in the same post, baby! :)

    I bet I care about much less things than you do, but I wasn't talking about what I like personally. And if you are, why do you care about how the titles you don't care for at all are monetized?
    Isn't it obvious?

    1. Capitalism comes in many forms and flavors. From the very simple supply and demand we all hold dear which is typically based on the quality of the product, to the exploitative type that relies on tricks and ads.

    2. Trends are set by what flies and doesn't fly. If we're gaming hobbyists we should care about what's happening in gaming in general whether it's the type of game we focus on or not because, sooner or later, the genre you do care about will be influenced.
    You are completely right. And I never said we shouldn't care. As I said, I believe, in my humble opinion, most titles cannot rely on box-price anymore (for whatever reason, this is the reality we are facing) so we have to support the ones that are fair, to encourage that practice. 
    As we are talking specifically about SWBF2...  a game that is based on SWBF1 which sold over $650M in 2015 alone (no lootboxes) ..  what is your position on lootboxes for THIS game?


    Total BS. 
    Can you clarify that?  What is total BS?  The $650M in 2015 is in fact a number given by multiple reliable sources...
    Earlier in the thread there is even a link to an article analyzing the financial performance.

    Were you referring to something else?


    PS... in addition to the earlier link, here is another article stating the $650,000,000 number for just Nov and Dec 2015.  Not including any sales from 2016

    http://gazettereview.com/2016/01/estimates-say-star-wars-battlefront-has-sold-millions-of-copies/


    Or were you in fact saying that you felt Lootboxes in this particular game were BS?  If so... we agree
    Yeah mate, I meant the lootboxes are total BS. :)
    Nilden
    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
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    I couldn't get into details before because I was drinking and driving, and you all know how that dampens the quality of one's forum-warrior abilities. I know you are all anxious to know why I think this is total BS--sorry for keep you waiting! (btw when I say stuff like this I am being funny and not suffering from delusions of grandeur, you worthless mortals)

    My post history is a witness to my love for the staff on this site. I'd never attacked any of them and never accused anyone of the getting paid for an article they wrote, even reacted to the people whom made such claims from time to time.

    But man oh man, you do sound like the company's PR trying to put a positive spin on a very shitty practice. I am sure you weren't paid to write this article, but you should've been! ;) With all those ifs and hopes, I believe you are reaching for a silver-lining that you'd hope would turn into something positive. It is obvious that you like this game and you want it to be good. Well mate, we can kneel down and pray, but we both know who we are dealing with here. This is like me inviting you over for a Poker game and tell ya my intention is because I miss the color of your eyes and am in no way after your money.

    You addressed the problems with DLC and fragmented communities correctly. But what an unexpected turn of events to fix that issue. That's like considering a barbarian invasion a better alternative to our current somewhat demanding monarch. 

    Yes we have been feeding RNG with our subscriptions for decades now--but along many an other thing, not JUST for RNG and you couldn't pay more sub fee to advance faster. This is like saying we are paying salaries of all the corrupt cops with our taxes, so paying them directly and purely for their corruption is also fine. Yeah I know I am a bit reaching out there with my example but exaggeration helps. 

    In the end you're trying to justify this practice because not many people would use it? And players can catch up? Well how about they did it the other way around. No loot-boxes at the beginning and introduced them a year after the release. Let those fat whales catch-up instead, eh?

    And this is a PvP game, yes they have added a predictable lousy SP campaign, but most people would play this for the PvP. How a new element to uneven the grounds in a PvP match-based game can be a good thing? That's the most important factor in this type of game. 

    We have this saying back in my home country "They wanted to fix the eyebrow, instead they blinded the eye." This should've been the title of your article. :P

    As I said before, I believe it is okay for games to expand beyond box-price. And we should support the games that do this fair, this ain't one of them. 

    Love, 
    Connie <3
    MadFrenchie
    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
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    Redemp said:
    Redemp said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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 food business practices.
    Because not everyone can make such a great game.

     In the context of this thread we are talking about EA/Dice : They have the ability and liquidity to do the same thing. Indie studios also don't help the premise because they are producing lower quality games, for lower prices and those are still generally good games otherwise they wouldn't succeed.

    I don't understand why you think they cant make good games....

    Mine was a general statement, not about DICE. We get a couple of very good titles ever year, and loads of (above) average games. That's why people calling gamespot, eightspot for the past few years. Those average games don't sell well enough to justify the costs--which can be the same or even more than those very good titles. 

    The formula that is working for those creme de la creme would not necessarily work for the average ones. And average has a big share in the market, they won't just die because it is capitalism, they adapt. And that they did through micro-fucking-transactions. 

    So we have a new type of species in our jungle of gaming market. And these fuckers, do have a store which sells in-game items/currency in exchange for real money. We can't wish them disappear. And we don't want 90% of the industry to die, again, because it is capitalism. We want them to be fair in their new evolved state. Hence, we should support the ones that are fair, to encourage at least a more fair sort of practice when it comes down to micro-transactions. 

    Of course, all this, is my humble opinion. Yeah I also preferred the days when I paid for the box-price then a full expansion. I also miss the days when indie rock wasn't a thing, but what you're gonna do. We also need to adapt. 
    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
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Redemp said:
    Redemp said:
    Torval said:
    Nilden said:
    Loot boxes are cancer.

    I love ice cream just like Rick and Morty.



    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 food business practices.
    Because not everyone can make such a great game.

     In the context of this thread we are talking about EA/Dice : They have the ability and liquidity to do the same thing. Indie studios also don't help the premise because they are producing lower quality games, for lower prices and those are still generally good games otherwise they wouldn't succeed.

    I don't understand why you think they cant make good games....

    Mine was a general statement, not about DICE. We get a couple of very good titles ever year, and loads of (above) average games. That's why people calling gamespot, eightspot for the past few years. Those average games don't sell well enough to justify the costs--which can be the same or even more than those very good titles. 

    The formula that is working for those creme de la creme would not necessarily work for the average ones. And average has a big share in the market, they won't just die because it is capitalism, they adapt. And that they did through micro-fucking-transactions. 

    So we have a new type of species in our jungle of gaming market. And these fuckers, do have a store which sells in-game items/currency in exchange for real money. We can't wish them disappear. And we don't want 90% of the industry to die, again, because it is capitalism. We want them to be fair in their new evolved state. Hence, we should support the ones that are fair, to encourage at least a more fair sort of practice when it comes down to micro-transactions. 

    Of course, all this, is my humble opinion. Yeah I also preferred the days when I paid for the box-price then a full expansion. I also miss the days when indie rock wasn't a thing, but what you're gonna do. We also need to adapt. 
    That's where I can see and accept the difference between cosmetic lootboxes (Overwatch) and the ones used here.  It's a huge difference.

    And totally agreed with your previous post that, yes, we paid for RNG through a sub, but it was to experience the game first and foremost, defeat those bosses, and then get the RNG thrill for a great item dropping.  These newer games have skipped the gameplay associated and went straight to taxing us, directly and deliberately, on the roll of the RNG dice.  I find that hugely disappointing compared to the older system.  I've said it elsewhere that RNG is the holy grail of modern RPGs, for better or worse.  However, it's being offered up in many titles these days like a common whore in a GoT brothel (not trying to offend anyone, that's just the way they're referred to and valued in the show).  There's a significant difference there in how that "tax" is presented and assessed.


    I'm conflicted about your comments on mediocre games; most gamers do not have the time to complete or fully enjoy most of the deluge of titles being released these days.  Weeding out some of the lesser quality ones doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.
    ConstantineMerus

    image
  • LackingMMOLackingMMO Member RarePosts: 664
    Sum of article, I don't like loot boxes just like you but in this game its ok because not everyone will buy them and that is ok!
    ConstantineMerus[Deleted User]FrodoFragins
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,823
    edited October 2017
    Rhoklaw said:
    Completely disagree with the article, sorry. Please don't compare Battlefield's P2W format with Battlefront's RNG loot boxes. Neither are good, but Battlefield's approach would definitely be the lesser of 2 evils.

    Yes, I noticed the "even BF" argument and thought that argument grasped at straws to make loot boxes sound not so bad. But yhe game altering items there are in BF, are as always only the start. Will we see loot boxes in BF by 2018? No. Will we see loot boxes in BF by 2020? The direction gaming is heading in I really could not say.
  • AshaiaAshaia Member UncommonPosts: 42

    I am absolutely against and do not support the development of Lootbox + F2P + any kind of Ingame Cashshops + Paywall models requiring payments with real money in video games. 

     I was fine to pay the full prize to get the full game and I am also fine to pay for an addon which deserves the name of "extension". I am also fine to pay monthly / subscription fees for running servers of online games, all that knowing I got the full game and the same possibilities as every other player who pay the same prize and which makes competition more fun and gives also more motivation to play the game. Me as player want the full game and ALL its contents in order to enjoy the game to the fullest and not to find myself directly in front of a non-accessible area , a " lockbox " or to have the impression the developers put limits on purpose, just to suck more and more money of our wallets, PayPal accounts or cash cards. Particularly, this becomes ridiculous when affecting core game mechanics like equipment. where is the fun and competition here, when I have to think permanently on real money investments?

    Maybe I am too old, as I play video games since late 1980s.

    You have already paid the full prize. If they need a regular income, then they should introduce a fair subscription model (for example for running costs of servers and development of addons) and/or a fair addon prize.

    It is no real fun any more. Instead it is more and more a personal feeling of publisher's populism + mockery of customers and robbery driven by increase of commercialism in this branch when I am thinking to buy a game in our days. That's sad for this hobby.

    But as long as players pay for this, this will continue or even get worse.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Completely disagree with the article, sorry. Please don't compare Battlefield's P2W format with Battlefront's RNG loot boxes. Neither are good, but Battlefield's approach would definitely be the lesser of 2 evils.

    Yes, I noticed the "even BF" argument and thought that argument grasped at straws to make loot boxes sound not so bad. But yhe game altering items there are in BF, are as always only the start. Will we see loot boxes in BF by 2018? No. Will we see loot boxes in BF by 2020? The direction gaming is heading in I really could not say.
    Better question is how will that cost be passed on and in what way if there aren't loot crates.
    The better question is why do you assume we should just bend over and allow them to push extra costs on us?  Again, the first game sold $650,000,000 worth of copies in just the first 2 months. Sure they can try to raise more money, but it's up to us to push back and call them on it.  Meekly accepting it will just encourage more of the same behavior.


    Even if you did make that assumption that they needed more revenue... 
    • Lootcrates with non game impacting items... just like Overwatch
    • Raise the box price to what they feel is justified.  If consumers agree they will pay it
    • How about a model like LoL? I haven'y played that in a long time but it seemed like a pretty good way to monetize.  Horizontal progression... play to earn points or skip the time and buy (or buy skins), but not buying in game powerups and items.

    Scot

    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here.  It's not like the previous title released a decade ago..  So, inflation, I guess?

    image
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 16,947
    I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here.  It's not like the previous title released a decade ago..  So, inflation, I guess?
    It's just an excuse for apologists to apologize.


    All time classic  MY NEW FAVORITE POST!  (Keep laying those bricks)

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here.  It's not like the previous title released a decade ago..  So, inflation, I guess?
    It's just an excuse for apologists to apologize.


    Well, in this case specifically, it's a sequel to a less than 2 year old game of the same setting, art style, and general gameplay, using the same studio and same engine...  So yeah, I highly doubt there was some huge increase in development cost between the two.  I mean, unless they decided to throw all old models, textures, and other art assets out to start from scratch.  But that would, quite frankly, be a piss poor decision for what amounts to a large expansion title to the first.
    Ozmodan

    image
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here.  It's not like the previous title released a decade ago..  So, inflation, I guess?
    I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion :) )

    When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.

    Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.

    Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.

    These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play. 
    ConstantineMerusMadFrenchielaseritGdemami
    "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

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Iselin said:
    I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here.  It's not like the previous title released a decade ago..  So, inflation, I guess?
    I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion :) )

    When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.

    Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.

    Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.

    These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play. 
    Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA.  And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually.  So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies.  All this contributes to your point.
    IselinConstantineMeruslaserit

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.