I remember the days when you could buy a game, and be able to actually play it after you bought it.
I think that is unrelated to loot boxes.
I can play BF2 after buying it just fine. I can buy Metroid on SNES and play it just fine. The grey areas are real and should be recognized.
The game is designed with a 4k hr grind to unlock. It's not designed for you to simply buy the game and play it like games used to be. It's designed so you will always be thinking...."I could just buy this" because otherwise, most people will probably never see the full content.
And that is the grey area. And that is what should be discussed in my opinion. I don't think that because you used to be able to just purchase a game and play it without any further content that it makes it superior in some way.
There are many examples of games coming out with expansions in my youth that I personally thought completely worthwhile and fair. And there are examples of that today. Each version of monetization needs to be considered individually in my opinion.
The whole industry needs to come up with a way to restrict minors
Most did...it was called credit cards. Then it became parents that were not...well parents.
Just a small criticism.
The assumption that credit cards were a way to restrict minors buying habits is an uneducated version of history. The sentence with "most did" in it is nearly unintelligible, so I'm wondering what you actually meant in response to, "the whole industry needs to come up with ways to restrict minors."
How old do you have to be for a credit card? Do not know any minors with their own credit card. Instead they use mommy and daddy's. Then mommy and daddy do not pay attention. The games responsibility is to create limits or checks for purchases. The parents are responsible for what their kids are using those credit cards for.
I hope this kills the F2P model and brings back subs and B2P games. Oh that would be nice to have real games again.
what makes you think B2P would survive?
If you need a predatory business model to survive, maybe you shouldn't survive.
If you have a model that people do lot like and will not invest money in, then you do not deserve to survive.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened to an industry. Industry finds a great but questionable way to generate revenue. Industry takes full advantage, Industry can't regulate itself and takes things a little too far. Government has to step in.
Gaming industry has nobody but themselves to blame.
It certainly isn't the customer's fault.
customer's fault for buying the products.
When a guy can't get any fresh bread, he's got no choice but to buy the stale loaf being offered.
Gamers need to game.
They don't just raise the price of all food to whatever they want because we all need to buy it, do they?
hope that is a joke.
lol kind of.
Seriously though, you miss a lot these days if you avoid all games with micro transactions. Simply saying you're going to avoid them all just doesn't work, that would make us unhappy because we'd have less to play and less options for what we want to play. We're being forced to accept them because they are attached to something we want. The industry knows this and that's why it's exploitation. They are taking advantage of our weakness.
these threads are all about games feeding and using addictions against people so that the government should step in and protect people. From that perspective you just described gaming addiction. Maybe the government should protect you.
I hope this kills the F2P model and brings back subs and B2P games. Oh that would be nice to have real games again.
what makes you think B2P would survive?
If you need a predatory business model to survive, maybe you shouldn't survive.
If you have a model that people do lot like and will not invest money in, then you do not deserve to survive.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened to an industry. Industry finds a great but questionable way to generate revenue. Industry takes full advantage, Industry can't regulate itself and takes things a little too far. Government has to step in.
Gaming industry has nobody but themselves to blame.
It certainly isn't the customer's fault.
customer's fault for buying the products.
It seems the customer was only able to put up with so much
Blame your customers for your issues and see how long you stay in business.
The law is an age barrier to buying...no problem many games have them and it does not stop the games success. I think that is a great idea. The informed consumer gets to pick what they want to buy. Much better than a blanket ban on a product. As to the first part that is the customer doing their part and not buying bad products. Bad products keep coming out because customers are lemmings that buy pre-orders without actually knowing anything about the games and buying hype.
Sounds great
The whole industry needs to come up with a way to restrict minors
Most did...it was called credit cards. Then it became parents that were not...well parents.
They do have those little cards in the corner store
And yes there sure are a lot of shitty parents, but does that mean we can take financial advantage of their children?
I hope this kills the F2P model and brings back subs and B2P games. Oh that would be nice to have real games again.
what makes you think B2P would survive?
If you need a predatory business model to survive, maybe you shouldn't survive.
If you have a model that people do lot like and will not invest money in, then you do not deserve to survive.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened to an industry. Industry finds a great but questionable way to generate revenue. Industry takes full advantage, Industry can't regulate itself and takes things a little too far. Government has to step in.
Gaming industry has nobody but themselves to blame.
It certainly isn't the customer's fault.
customer's fault for buying the products.
It seems the customer was only able to put up with so much
Blame your customers for your issues and see how long you stay in business.
The law is an age barrier to buying...no problem many games have them and it does not stop the games success. I think that is a great idea. The informed consumer gets to pick what they want to buy. Much better than a blanket ban on a product. As to the first part that is the customer doing their part and not buying bad products. Bad products keep coming out because customers are lemmings that buy pre-orders without actually knowing anything about the games and buying hype.
Sounds great
The whole industry needs to come up with a way to restrict minors
Most did...it was called credit cards. Then it became parents that were not...well parents.
They do have those little cards in the corner store
And yes there sure are a lot of shitty parents, but does that mean we can take financial advantage of their children?
Those little cards have limits.
They are taking advantage...if at all...of bad parents. The systems work fine for the majority of the population.
I hope this kills the F2P model and brings back subs and B2P games. Oh that would be nice to have real games again.
what makes you think B2P would survive?
If you need a predatory business model to survive, maybe you shouldn't survive.
If you have a model that people do lot like and will not invest money in, then you do not deserve to survive.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened to an industry. Industry finds a great but questionable way to generate revenue. Industry takes full advantage, Industry can't regulate itself and takes things a little too far. Government has to step in.
Gaming industry has nobody but themselves to blame.
It certainly isn't the customer's fault.
customer's fault for buying the products.
When a guy can't get any fresh bread, he's got no choice but to buy the stale loaf being offered.
Gamers need to game.
They don't just raise the price of all food to whatever they want because we all need to buy it, do they?
hope that is a joke.
lol kind of.
Seriously though, you miss a lot these days if you avoid all games with micro transactions. Simply saying you're going to avoid them all just doesn't work, that would make us unhappy because we'd have less to play and less options for what we want to play. We're being forced to accept them because they are attached to something we want. The industry knows this and that's why it's exploitation. They are taking advantage of our weakness.
these threads are all about games feeding and using addictions against people so that the government should step in and protect people. From that perspective you just described gaming addiction. Maybe the government should protect you.
Lol what an extreme and exaggerated reply. We're hobbyists, not addicts. I specifically said want, not need.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I hope this kills the F2P model and brings back subs and B2P games. Oh that would be nice to have real games again.
what makes you think B2P would survive?
If you need a predatory business model to survive, maybe you shouldn't survive.
If you have a model that people do lot like and will not invest money in, then you do not deserve to survive.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened to an industry. Industry finds a great but questionable way to generate revenue. Industry takes full advantage, Industry can't regulate itself and takes things a little too far. Government has to step in.
Gaming industry has nobody but themselves to blame.
It certainly isn't the customer's fault.
customer's fault for buying the products.
It seems the customer was only able to put up with so much
Blame your customers for your issues and see how long you stay in business.
The law is an age barrier to buying...no problem many games have them and it does not stop the games success. I think that is a great idea. The informed consumer gets to pick what they want to buy. Much better than a blanket ban on a product. As to the first part that is the customer doing their part and not buying bad products. Bad products keep coming out because customers are lemmings that buy pre-orders without actually knowing anything about the games and buying hype.
Sounds great
The whole industry needs to come up with a way to restrict minors
Most did...it was called credit cards. Then it became parents that were not...well parents.
They do have those little cards in the corner store
And yes there sure are a lot of shitty parents, but does that mean we can take financial advantage of their children?
Those little cards have limits.
They are taking advantage...if at all...of bad parents. The systems work fine for the majority of the population.
Come come now , is there a limit to how many cards they can buy.
So this is all the kids fault?
So it's ok to take financial advantage of children because it's all their fault.
It's not so much that children have access to credit cards. Its introducing them to a system that is gambling which they will accept as being the norm as they get older.
Beautiful! US is also finally waking up for this, check out fresh news:
EA, Blizzard and friends are being stopped. Companies can't continue feeding gambling addictions on of games that are played by kids.
So does this mean the collapse of the mobile market? There are so many of these models in mobile I wouldn't be surprised if this is a multi billion dollar decision.
oh! And since it's a multi billion dollar decision you know there will be a loophole or alternative monetization scheme.
There is an alternative monetization scheme: Direct sales. Say hello to super overpriced items. Swtor had a 60$ Lightsaber...
If they have to rely on direct sales and not loot boxes, you can bet that there will be market corrections at a level where it's most profitable for them. If they want to sell more lightsabers, I suspect they will need to lower the price.
Games with lootboxes don't give much of a crap about having the correct price for direct sales because that's not where they make their money, loot boxes are.
"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
It's not so much that children have access to credit cards. Its introducing them to a system that is gambling which they will accept as being the norm as they get older.
Maybe parents should properly assume their educational role, and:
1) don't give the kid a way to pay for stuff on the Internet.
2) explain why those boxes are bad.
But that would mean parents taking their responsibility towards their kids seriously... and those last generations prefer to blame others for their own failure to properly educate their kids.
It's not so much that children have access to credit cards. Its introducing them to a system that is gambling which they will accept as being the norm as they get older.
Maybe parents should properly assume their educational role, and:
1) don't give the kid a way to pay for stuff on the Internet.
2) explain why those boxes are bad.
But that would mean parents taking their responsibility towards their kids seriously... and those last generations prefer to blame others for their own failure to properly educate their kids.
Seems like you dont got kids
Seems like I may have been more successful at educating them than others, maybe because my own education predates the one of today's "I want it all now for free" generation?
I hope so
Its education, school, friends, love etc etc.
But they stay kids and will try things. And nowdays they are pretty smart on all the gadgets. And if they wont try anything stupid I would be confused. And im no talking about the "free stuff" but just in general. n1 and 2 just dont make sense.
"Smoking is bad you let them see nasty pictures, take away money. You think that will stop them if they really want it :O"
As long as the loot boxes only contain cosmetic stuff (GW2, ESO, Overwatch, etc...), I don't see the problem. It's not like you can convert those character or account bound items into real money.
And for those poor souls with OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), don't worry, they'll find other ways to get rid of their money if the can no longer do it with loot boxes.
As long as the loot boxes only contain cosmetic stuff (GW2, ESO, Overwatch, etc...), I don't see the problem. It's not like you can convert those character or account bound items into real money.
And for those poor souls with OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), don't worry, they'll find other ways to get rid of their money if the can no longer do it with loot boxes.
As long as the loot boxes only contain cosmetic stuff (GW2, ESO, Overwatch, etc...), I don't see the problem. It's not like you can convert those character or account bound items into real money.
And for those poor souls with OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), don't worry, they'll find other ways to get rid of their money if the can no longer do it with loot boxes.
I remember the days when you could buy a game, and be able to actually play it after you bought it.
I think that is unrelated to loot boxes.
I can play BF2 after buying it just fine. I can buy Metroid on SNES and play it just fine. The grey areas are real and should be recognized.
The game is designed with a 4k hr grind to unlock. It's not designed for you to simply buy the game and play it like games used to be. It's designed so you will always be thinking...."I could just buy this" because otherwise, most people will probably never see the full content.
And that is the grey area. And that is what should be discussed in my opinion. I don't think that because you used to be able to just purchase a game and play it without any further content that it makes it superior in some way.
There are many examples of games coming out with expansions in my youth that I personally thought completely worthwhile and fair. And there are examples of that today. Each version of monetization needs to be considered individually in my opinion.
Expansions are great when they are indicated. But DLC can also be nothing more than an excuse to milk consumers. The key is to know out which is which.
I am fairly certain that if I see new content that combines RNG with RMT, it's not going to make for a superior game experience.
It's true parents don't pay enough attention but your business model is based on taking advantage of that inattention parents may or may not have. Targeting the children who aren't so closely guarded seems predatory and what is worse the sector of the population you are targeting are the ones who need the most protection because their parents already do not pay enough attention to them.
I remember the days when you could buy a game, and be able to actually play it after you bought it.
I think that is unrelated to loot boxes.
I can play BF2 after buying it just fine. I can buy Metroid on SNES and play it just fine. The grey areas are real and should be recognized.
The game is designed with a 4k hr grind to unlock. It's not designed for you to simply buy the game and play it like games used to be. It's designed so you will always be thinking...."I could just buy this" because otherwise, most people will probably never see the full content.
And that is the grey area. And that is what should be discussed in my opinion. I don't think that because you used to be able to just purchase a game and play it without any further content that it makes it superior in some way.
There are many examples of games coming out with expansions in my youth that I personally thought completely worthwhile and fair. And there are examples of that today. Each version of monetization needs to be considered individually in my opinion.
Expansions are great when they are indicated. But DLC can also be nothing more than an excuse to milk consumers. The key is to know out which is which.
I am fairly certain that if I see new content that combines RNG with RMT, it's not going to make for a superior game experience.
so Cities Skylines has DLCs you can buy that expands the core game. You do not have to buy those DLCs and in fact with each DLC they create some of that content is free for the players regardless of if they buy a DLC or not and that content comes in the next automatic update.
Is that a bad use of DLC?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It's not so much that children have access to credit cards. Its introducing them to a system that is gambling which they will accept as being the norm as they get older.
Maybe parents should properly assume their educational role, and:
1) don't give the kid a way to pay for stuff on the Internet.
2) explain why those boxes are bad.
But that would mean parents taking their responsibility towards their kids seriously... and those last generations prefer to blame others for their own failure to properly educate their kids.
Seems like you dont got kids
Seems like I may have been more successful at educating them than others, maybe because my own education predates the one of today's "I want it all now for free" generation?
I hope so
Its education, school, friends, love etc etc.
But they stay kids and will try things. And nowdays they are pretty smart on all the gadgets. And if they wont try anything stupid I would be confused. And im no talking about the "free stuff" but just in general. n1 and 2 just dont make sense.
"Smoking is bad you let them see nasty pictures, take away money. You think that will stop them if they really want it :O"
You're right, they are educated on technology. I have 4 kids + my niece and I can count on one hand the number of issues we've had to deal with. Furthermore, I can attest that my kids do, openly, identify the lootbox mechanic and they actually talk about how it's not worth it to them. I think that if you teach your kids the value of money, it really isn't an issue. If your kids think an ATM is just a machine that gives out free money, then may you have more of a problem.
I think that putting the issue onto kids is really irresponsible because you're essentially saying that kids are retarded and can't think for themselves. I clearly remember asking my 8 year old (at the time) whether he REALLY wanted to spend $10 on something in a mobile game, because he might not get what he wants, and he thought about it and said no. If these people are really worried about the children, then take the money they plan on spending on a team to implement restrictions and, instead, create a team to implement an educational program for youth. It's probably much more worthwhile.
I remember the days when you could buy a game, and be able to actually play it after you bought it.
I think that is unrelated to loot boxes.
I can play BF2 after buying it just fine. I can buy Metroid on SNES and play it just fine. The grey areas are real and should be recognized.
The game is designed with a 4k hr grind to unlock. It's not designed for you to simply buy the game and play it like games used to be. It's designed so you will always be thinking...."I could just buy this" because otherwise, most people will probably never see the full content.
And that is the grey area. And that is what should be discussed in my opinion. I don't think that because you used to be able to just purchase a game and play it without any further content that it makes it superior in some way.
There are many examples of games coming out with expansions in my youth that I personally thought completely worthwhile and fair. And there are examples of that today. Each version of monetization needs to be considered individually in my opinion.
Expansions are great when they are indicated. But DLC can also be nothing more than an excuse to milk consumers. The key is to know out which is which.
I am fairly certain that if I see new content that combines RNG with RMT, it's not going to make for a superior game experience.
so Cities Skylines has DLCs you can buy that expands the core game. You do not have to buy those DLCs and in fact with each DLC they create some of that content is free for the players regardless of if they buy a DLC or not and that content comes in the next automatic update.
Is that a bad use of DLC?
No that's the text book example of how DLCs are supposed to work. Smaller quicker to release game updates rather than having to wait a long time for one large expansion. Players get new content quicker, companies get a faster return on their investment.
Day One DLCs. Games holding hostage content already created by game launch and charging customers an extra fee for it, would be my example of a bad, cash grab DLC.
I remember the days when you could buy a game, and be able to actually play it after you bought it.
I think that is unrelated to loot boxes.
I can play BF2 after buying it just fine. I can buy Metroid on SNES and play it just fine. The grey areas are real and should be recognized.
The game is designed with a 4k hr grind to unlock. It's not designed for you to simply buy the game and play it like games used to be. It's designed so you will always be thinking...."I could just buy this" because otherwise, most people will probably never see the full content.
And that is the grey area. And that is what should be discussed in my opinion. I don't think that because you used to be able to just purchase a game and play it without any further content that it makes it superior in some way.
There are many examples of games coming out with expansions in my youth that I personally thought completely worthwhile and fair. And there are examples of that today. Each version of monetization needs to be considered individually in my opinion.
Expansions are great when they are indicated. But DLC can also be nothing more than an excuse to milk consumers. The key is to know out which is which.
I am fairly certain that if I see new content that combines RNG with RMT, it's not going to make for a superior game experience.
so Cities Skylines has DLCs you can buy that expands the core game. You do not have to buy those DLCs and in fact with each DLC they create some of that content is free for the players regardless of if they buy a DLC or not and that content comes in the next automatic update.
Is that a bad use of DLC?
No that's the text book example of how DLCs are supposed to work. Smaller quicker to release game updates rather than having to wait a long time for one large expansion. Players get new content quicker, companies get a faster return on their investment.
Day One DLCs. Games holding hostage content already created by game launch and charging customers an extra fee for it, would be my example of a bad, cash grab DLC.
I would say only if they advertised that content in away that suggests its part of the core game.
otherwise the only difference between cities skylines and what you are talking about is the timeline
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I remember the days when you could buy a game, and be able to actually play it after you bought it.
I think that is unrelated to loot boxes.
I can play BF2 after buying it just fine. I can buy Metroid on SNES and play it just fine. The grey areas are real and should be recognized.
The game is designed with a 4k hr grind to unlock. It's not designed for you to simply buy the game and play it like games used to be. It's designed so you will always be thinking...."I could just buy this" because otherwise, most people will probably never see the full content.
And that is the grey area. And that is what should be discussed in my opinion. I don't think that because you used to be able to just purchase a game and play it without any further content that it makes it superior in some way.
There are many examples of games coming out with expansions in my youth that I personally thought completely worthwhile and fair. And there are examples of that today. Each version of monetization needs to be considered individually in my opinion.
Expansions are great when they are indicated. But DLC can also be nothing more than an excuse to milk consumers. The key is to know out which is which.
I am fairly certain that if I see new content that combines RNG with RMT, it's not going to make for a superior game experience.
so Cities Skylines has DLCs you can buy that expands the core game. You do not have to buy those DLCs and in fact with each DLC they create some of that content is free for the players regardless of if they buy a DLC or not and that content comes in the next automatic update.
Is that a bad use of DLC?
Is there RNG associated with something you have to purchase in hopes to get some form of desired content?
Comments
There are many examples of games coming out with expansions in my youth that I personally thought completely worthwhile and fair. And there are examples of that today. Each version of monetization needs to be considered individually in my opinion.
And yes there sure are a lot of shitty parents, but does that mean we can take financial advantage of their children?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
They are taking advantage...if at all...of bad parents. The systems work fine for the majority of the population.
So this is all the kids fault?
So it's ok to take financial advantage of children because it's all their fault.
You don't think that sounds a little predatory?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Netherlands also investigate it.
Games with lootboxes don't give much of a crap about having the correct price for direct sales because that's not where they make their money, loot boxes are.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Its education, school, friends, love etc etc.
But they stay kids and will try things. And nowdays they are pretty smart on all the gadgets. And if they wont try anything stupid I would be confused. And im no talking about the "free stuff" but just in general. n1 and 2 just dont make sense.
"Smoking is bad you let them see nasty pictures, take away money. You think that will stop them if they really want it :O"
I just can't see it going back to how it used to be when that didn't work. In regard to MMO's primarily, will SWTOR be a thing in Europe?
But xp potions and any boost would have to be removed from any loot boxes...those are not cosmetic.
I am fairly certain that if I see new content that combines RNG with RMT, it's not going to make for a superior game experience.
Is that a bad use of DLC?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You're right, they are educated on technology. I have 4 kids + my niece and I can count on one hand the number of issues we've had to deal with. Furthermore, I can attest that my kids do, openly, identify the lootbox mechanic and they actually talk about how it's not worth it to them. I think that if you teach your kids the value of money, it really isn't an issue. If your kids think an ATM is just a machine that gives out free money, then may you have more of a problem.
I think that putting the issue onto kids is really irresponsible because you're essentially saying that kids are retarded and can't think for themselves. I clearly remember asking my 8 year old (at the time) whether he REALLY wanted to spend $10 on something in a mobile game, because he might not get what he wants, and he thought about it and said no. If these people are really worried about the children, then take the money they plan on spending on a team to implement restrictions and, instead, create a team to implement an educational program for youth. It's probably much more worthwhile.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Day One DLCs. Games holding hostage content already created by game launch and charging customers an extra fee for it, would be my example of a bad, cash grab DLC.
otherwise the only difference between cities skylines and what you are talking about is the timeline
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
http://www.pcgamer.com/ea-tells-investors-turning-off-battlefront-2s-microtransactions-will-not-affect-earnings/#comment-jump
Pretty much saying that B2P would have been fine, they just wanted to squeeze that little extra out.
Overall kills the argument that companies need to do it to survive