The reason it won't go away is because the publishers can earn 10 times the money for 10% of the work designing new stuff, simply by giving you a 1 in 100 chance of winning it in a loot raffle, rather than offering it up for purchase outright.
I fear that it is far more then 10 times the money, some people just can't help themselves and buy until they get what they want even if that means they have to live on water and bread the rest of the month.
Big money maker, and people seem to have no issue with getting 90% of the crap they don't want, just to get the one item they do want. I would rather just buy the item outright then subject myself to a game of chance. To each his own I guess but I really feel like we on the verge of this getting even more out of control, and many folks don't seem to mind it.
Keep in mind in GW2 you can can do the gold conversion which works out to be around 2300 gold in this case, but someone had to purchase that 9000 gems with cash at some point. I can now see why more and more companies have moved away from the sub based model. This seems way more lucrative. Back in the day that would buy you a years worth of gaming to a subscription based game. Can't say I see an increase in quality on the flip side either. They still charge you for expansions either way.
I don't agree with your reasoning - a willingness to spend money does not equate to having to keep lockboxes in games.
Raph Koster did a recent blog post relating to game monetisation. It's well worth a read if you have the time:
Gamers no longer buy "b-games", its basically too hard to sell a game on it's mechanics. This has forced the majority of developers to spend big and waste money on flashy graphics
A box price only or a sub-only is too risky - if you've made a good game, you'll make a profit, but not a big one. This means a single bad game can ruin an entire studio
Upfront prices also put off players and reduce your potential market
F2P and microtransactions are a way to maximise potential market whilst removing the spending ceiling - players can now spend as much as they want, no limits
People have illogical spending habits - they are unwilling to spend $100 on a game upfront, but are more than happy to spend $100 on a game through microtransactions.
A good quote from his post:
"When games are cheaper to make, we get indies and creativity and explosions of awesome in the market. When games are expensive to make, we get predatory business models, sequels, and clones. People are complaining about predatory business models, sequels, and clones — so, games are too expensive."
The sad thing is that MMORPGs tend to have the worst F2P models - so restrictive, that they're more of a deterrent than an attraction; though some are changing this.
nah .. there are plenty of games that are fun (to me) free. Warframe. The now defunct marvel heroes. Star Control for may be an hour.
I think our problem is you "need" everything. Think of it this way, if i only get a level of a single player game for free, that is some free entertainment i would not otherwise have. So why complain?
Just enjoy the free part and move on.
But..."I need to finish..." Christian Wolff, the Accountant
he he .. good one. You don't think most gamers are autistic, do you? There is a one solution for that too .. just finish the free parts.
Comments
Raph Koster did a recent blog post relating to game monetisation. It's well worth a read if you have the time:
https://www.raphkoster.com/2017/11/27/some-current-game-economics/
The highlights from his blog post:
A good quote from his post:
"When games are cheaper to make, we get indies and creativity and explosions of awesome in the market. When games are expensive to make, we get predatory business models, sequels, and clones. People are complaining about predatory business models, sequels, and clones — so, games are too expensive."