It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It depends on whether a "better" developer / publisher can come up with a better model for monetisation.Kyleran said:As the article defines micro-transactions as player recurring investment, or the sale of in-game items, DLC, season passes, and subscriptions, since developers are shifting increasing amounts of content out from the base game does it surprise anyone revenues from them are increasing?
In my example above, in Fallout NV the ability to make your own ammo was part of the core gameplay, in Fallout IV I have buy a $4.95 DLC to gain access to a module which includes a bunch of other content I don't really care about to do so.
As for complaining about it not impacting the bottom line, these are clever folks, I'm likely to give in at some point and pay the fee as it's a pittance, and that's what they are relying on others to do.
But if people did stop buying (and they might, the recent EA example is a decent test) then perhaps developers would once again consider not nickle-diming us to death.
Yeah, that's not the way to bet.
Its important to distinguish between gambling as a concept, and types of gambling that are regulated by law.So should trading cards then as well, they need to adhere to gambling regulations.Many casinos offer free VIP cards that accrue points as you lose that can be redeemed for items/comps. So you technically never lose there, either. Doesn't affect the regulations they must adhere to.But labeling loot boxes gambling is also inaccurate and misleading.It's not, but it's a key difference that makes the comparison to physical trading cards inaccurate and misleading.That's not unique to lootboxes. Look at the amount of MMO's people own that they can't play due to being shutdown.And all that without even acknowledging the elephant in the room that makes digital lootbox much, much worse than any physical trading card game:
If Magic stops making cards, you still have the cards in your possession. In fact, those cards are likely to objectively increase in value.
If EA shutters BF2, they can literally reduce the value of the items won to abso-fucking-lutely nothing, to the point of legally and actively preventing you from enjoying any value out of them. Just as the lootbox winnings in Overwatch, and just as the lootbox winnings in any other online game. Wizards of the Coast can't force you to send them their cards back.
You can argue that many games with purchasable loot boxes are prolonging the life of the product they've purchased.
Gambling implies you can lose, you never lose with loot boxes. Whether you got what you wanted from it is irrelevant. You get something of cash value regardless.
If it is classed as gambling it's the best form of gambling as you always win.
Despite their differences there's more in common with loot boxes and trading cards than casinos.
Whether your "winnings" last forever or not is irrelevant.
The backlash against BF2 is what has directly caused micro-transactions to be turned off.cheyane said:I see so the celebrations are premature and what prompted it was not the backlash but real fines.Phry said:Belguim? i think it is that is currently looking into this game as gambling, if they determine it is, and with the terminology they were using it seems possible that it will be, then EA faces huge fines. It may be that they don't intend to reintroduce microtransactions until after the case is resolved, one way or the other.
This tends to be the main focus on investigations against individual games, but the consequences aren't great. This law basically allows gambling in lootboxes as long as the devs aren't pushing their players to buy them, and even if you are found to be pushing them you generally just have to change your marketing messages. Its rare that you get fined.
With all that said, there are many governments around the world who have now acknowledged gambling within computer games as a problem and are considering new legislation. The UK secretary of state is currently running a commission with the goal of coming up with new consumer protections against lootboxes and microtransactions. So, from my point of view, the writing is on the wall. Whatever new legislation comes through won't remove microtransactions or lootboxes entirely but they will likely protect us against their overly predatory nature. I expect to see more items being sold directly in shops or simply other monetisation methods (more expensive games) to cover the loss of income.
Skyrim is an interesting one and is great for debating sandbox vs themepark.Sovrath said:hmm, skyrim doesn't fall into that category, it is for some (myself included) a sandbox game. At least one can "live a life" in it.cameltosis said:You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
If you are talking about hunting down rare achievements/bosses then you are only playing it as a "game".
A guy came to the forums years ago and couldn't understand why people were playing 100 hours as "you could beat the game in 5 hours".
I have well into 1500 hours and I know Geezer Gamer has well above 2000 hours.
I suspect that replay-ability might more up to the person playing for some of these games.
But then now we are arguing what a sandbox is as i do agree that a "sandbox" allows for a greater amount of time in game over, say, "Dishonored".
On the weekend I played a bit of the Morrowind Expansion for Elder Scrolls Online. After a few quests I was "done". Then, I got the bug to reinstall the single player game and played for hours exploring, at one point I was in pitch dark trying to figure out how to get out of a sunken boat while drowning.
Was a great gaming session.
As I said, "replay-ability" might be more up to the players with some of these games.
I should add that survival games are "sandbox game" as you are allowed to build what you need to survive/live in the world.