Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

Penn

cherryghost wrote: »

Questions for the audience here:
1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue?
2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game?
3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?

1) I haven't bought Battlefront 2 primarily because of the lootbox system. I also didn't buy Shadow of War, however I already know I'm getting it for Xmas anyway.
2) No, I've generally known in advance
3) Only Overwatch. Usually if I've bought a few things on the PS Store and I only have a few euro left in the wallet, I might bung it on a few lootboxes.

K.O.Kiki

cherryghost wrote: »

Questions for the audience here:
1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue?
2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game?
3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?

1. Thankfully I don't like most of the franchises with lootboxes.
2. Not sure if Quake Champions counts, it's F2P with the option to buy characters, but lootboxes are for weapon skins (not actual weapons)
3. I bought a pack of lootboxes for Overwatch on the 1yr anniversary, because I was still enjoying the game & want to fund further development.

Sonics2k

cherryghost wrote: »

Questions for the audience here:
1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue?
2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game?
3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?

1/ I never pre-order anyway, but I refused to purchase Shadows of War and Battlefront 2 because of this. I'm a massive fan of both series so I was looking forward to playing them. I got Shadows of War via 'other methods'. I might purchase it when the price drops massively on Steam.

2/ Not that I know of. I'm not a fan of lootboxes myself.

3/ Not yet. The only additional transactions I've paid out to companies would be Blizzard for things like server transfers and faction changes. I've never been happy about the price for them.

cherryghost

cherryghost wrote: »

Questions for the audience here:
1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue?
2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game?
3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?

1. No, but I haven't been interested in any games that have them as a problem
2. Yes, the new south park implemented micro transactions for skins. Skins were dotted around the world as items to pick up. Utterly useless to the game other than cosmetics. If lootboxes and microtransactions weren't so prevalent today, they wouldn't have designed a game world with nothing but skins as collectables to encourage the player to explore. The world felt fcuking empty.
3. Yes, I bought a key for a box in counter-strike:go once or twice with money I had from selling free skins ingame. I once spent a little on the dungeon keeper mobile game.

wheresmahbombs

cherryghost wrote: »

Questions for the audience here:
1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue?
2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game?
3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?

1) Don't think so, but Battlefront II would have been a candidate. It's EA anyways, so what'd you expect from them?
2) I don't usually buy games with lootbox/MT systems implemented into them, so I'm not actually sure.
3) Not in recent years, and never will.

Stone Deaf 4evr

cherryghost wrote: »

Questions for the audience here:
1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue?
2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game?
3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?



/QUOTE]

1) I don't prerder games, In the days of all digital downloads, its not like theres going to be a shortage, and I've been burned by buggy games in the past.
2) Yes, gears of war 4 is rotten with Cards that give boosts / skills in horde mode, and unless you get enough of them, you're going to have a very hard time, Also, they can be broken down for crafting - which is also tied into a number of achievements. I didnt spend any money, but I did hamper my enjoyment somewhat by being the person who gets downed / killed more often by virtue of not having an armour /damage boost on.
3) Yes, I bought halo 5 at launch and took to it like a duck to water, played over 300 hours of it, had a few euros sitting in a US account from the old days of foreign region shopping and I bought a few card packs purely as a sort of 'tip'. that being said, those cards and their contents had zero gameplay impact.

AlmightyCushion

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the new south park implemented micro transactions for skins. Skins were dotted around the world as items to pick up. Utterly useless to the game other than cosmetics. If lootboxes and microtransactions weren't so prevalent today, they wouldn't have designed a game world with nothing but skins as collectables to encourage the player to explore. The world felt fcuking empty.

That was with in game money. You couldn't use real money to purchase them. Plus, didn't the SoT have loads of clothing to collect as well?

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

1. No, but I haven't been interested in any games that have them as a problem
2. Yes, the new south park implemented micro transactions for skins. Skins were dotted around the world as items to pick up. Utterly useless to the game other than cosmetics. If lootboxes and microtransactions weren't so prevalent today, they wouldn't have designed a game world with nothing but skins as collectables to encourage the player to explore. The world felt fcuking empty.
3. Yes, I bought a key for a box in counter-strike:go once or twice with money I had from selling free skins ingame. I once spent a little on the dungeon keeper mobile game.

Just on point no.2 there, that has nothing to do with lootboxes or microtransactions. Costume parts were part of the original game too, and are collectibles within the game but there are no lootboxes or microtransactions in the game.

Not saying you're wrong regarding how the world felt a bit empty and collecting items such as costumes was little more than padding/busywork as they had no effect on gameplay, but that's completely separate to lootboxes/microtransactions and it was the same in the first game.

gizmo

cherryghost wrote: »

Questions for the audience here:
1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue?
2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game?
3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?

1. Was looking forward to playing Battlefront II solely for the campaign. No intention of going anywhere near it now after the approach taken by EA/Disney. Not going near NFS: Payback either judging by what I've seen from their Garage system alone.

2. Nope.

3. Not as of yet although I'll most likely grab something in Overwatch at some point if I continue to play it.

Potential-Monke

1) Yes, Shadow of War.
2) Yes, NFS Payback. Ruined the game.
3) I believe I bought some keys for Rocket League, but no more than a fiver. And I once bought something for one of the CoD's. But that's it. In general, I don't buy cosmetic items.

A big issue I have with some of the cosmetic only loot boxes is the currency required to buy then. Take CoD for example. You need X keys, but they only come in certain batches. Say, you need 900C, you can only buy in 250, 600, 1200, etc, so you're always left with more than you need but can't buy anything else with it unless you buy more... That's blatant!

AlmightyCushion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

That was with in game money. You couldn't use real money to purchase them. Plus, didn't the SoT have loads of clothing to collect as well?

Penn wrote: »

Just on point no.2 there, that has nothing to do with lootboxes or microtransactions. Costume parts were part of the original game too, and are collectibles within the game but there are no lootboxes or microtransactions in the game.

Not saying you're wrong regarding how the world felt a bit empty and collecting items such as costumes was little more than padding/busywork as they had no effect on gameplay, but that's completely separate to lootboxes/microtransactions and it was the same in the first game.

I was under the impression that they could also be bought through the UPlay store. I think you are given some free "uplay money" at the start so you can get the hang of it thus leading to microtransactions.

If microtransactions didn't exist, they wouldn't be trying to push this online store, they wouldn't have designed a game so focused around skins. Ergo, microtransactions affected this game for the worse.

ShadowHearth

cherryghost wrote: »

Questions for the audience here:
1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue?
2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game?
3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?
.

1. I bought xbox one s for my ratty as xmas present in smyths. Deal was xbox, minecraft crap and battlefront 2. Kept xbox and took battlefront 2 right to cex counter. It was unwrapped and all. Technically Ea got a sale, but I didn't even bothered keeping it for myself as my ratty wouldn't even play it. Main reason for me not keeping it was lootboxes and EAs bullcrap.
2. Funny enough I bought Forza 7 too, but didn't really payed attention to loot boxes stuff. Thing is, I really don't mind them in there. For me racing games were always about grind, so I dont notice them. Main thing is though, those are sold only with credits. So I buy only the lower tier boxes, which give mods only. As general rule, I dont mind those games, that have cosmetics only. Really hated BF4 and those crates. Playing your favourite weapon and hope that attachements will come out of loot boxes, not by just doing tasks.
3. Haven't bought a single lootbox in any game, but I have spent games in free to play games like warframe, world of tanks, LoL. Only payed for items I knew I am getting, like premium tanks and premium in wot, currency packs in warframe, for cosmetics or forma/reactors, in Lol bought skins only. Never ever buy anything where it has a chance of getting.

Venom

cherryghost wrote: »

Questions for the audience here:
1) Has anyone decided against purchase or cancelled a preorder primarily because of the lootbox issue?
2) Has anyone bought a game unbeknownst to the fact that a lootbox-type system was baked into the game and caused a hinderance to their enjoyment of the game?
3) Has anyone played a game where you paid willingly on a lootbox-type system?


1) I never pre-order but refused to buy Shadows of War and BF2 due to them having lootboxes. Both of games these were on my buy list until the play2win element about them came out.
2) No. I usually check out reviews/forum comments prior to buying a game.
3) I play Star Trek online, a F2P game that has lootboxes. Never paid real money for any of the them tho. Saying that, I have bought cosmetic DLC items in various MMO's.

Penn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was under the impression that they could also be bought through the UPlay store. I think you are given some free "uplay money" at the start so you can get the hang of it thus leading to microtransactions.

If microtransactions didn't exist, they wouldn't be trying to push this online store, they wouldn't have designed a game so focused around skins. Ergo, microtransactions affected this game for the worse.

There's very little in the uplay store, they have no effect on anything and you can't use any real money to get them. Uplay has been around for about 10 years and is just an internal reward system for playing Ubisoft games. You complete certain actions in a Ubisoft game, you get uplay points and can use them to buy items in other Ubisoft games. Plus as explained, the costume parts were part of the first game too.

Microtransactions is a term used for using real money to buy in-game currency. It simply doesn't apply to this situation. You can't buy Uplay points with real money.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

There's very little in the uplay store, they have no effect on anything and you can't use any real money to get them. Uplay has been around for about 10 years and is just an internal reward system for playing Ubisoft games. You complete certain actions in a Ubisoft game, you get uplay points and can use them to buy items in other Ubisoft games. Plus as explained, the costume parts were part of the first game too.

Microtransactions is a term used for using real money to buy in-game currency. It simply doesn't apply to this situation. You can't buy Uplay points with real money.

My mistake. I clicked out of that uplay store in disgust and jumped to conclusions.

The Uplay one is actually one of the better things around over the years. It's pretty much like a rewards scheme. Every time I start a new Ubi game I check it for anything of use like most recently some weapons and an outfit for Assassin's Creed Origins that I made good use of early on in the game.

Andrew76

Another great video from Skill Up, it discusses the source of the lootbox phenomenon - EA's CEO Andrew Wilson and Fifa 09.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTLFNlu2N_M

gimli2112

@2.13
EA Sports presents F. I. F. A. Inter-National Sokker the most realistic sokker game..... glorious

Saruhashi

Penn wrote: »

1) I haven't bought Battlefront 2 primarily because of the lootbox system. I also didn't buy Shadow of War, however I already know I'm getting it for Xmas anyway.

I wouldn't worry about Shadow of War. I've been playing the hell out of it since release and have never once used the lootbox system (except for the 2 I got along with the game).

With Shadow of War I don't really even know who the lootboxes are for or who would seriously wants to buy them. The only reason to buy them would be to finish the game quicker. Mad to think that people would spend extra money to finish the game faster rather than just play the game.

I'd love to see what kind of income they make from these things and what kind of money people are spending on them.

Penn

Saruhashi wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about Shadow of War. I've been playing the hell out of it since release and have never once used the lootbox system (except for the 2 I got along with the game).

With Shadow of War I don't really even know who the lootboxes are for or who would seriously wants to buy them. The only reason to buy them would be to finish the game quicker. Mad to think that people would spend extra money to finish the game faster rather than just play the game.

It was mostly the concept behind it that annoyed me. I loved the first game, and finding & controlling an orc you want in the wild etc.

To simply be rewarded with boxes containing random orcs... it just completely ruined the idea of the game for me. I know you can ignore them and still do as you did in the first game, but just the idea and concept of getting random orcs in loot drops just really annoyed me.

Saruhashi

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you imagine they banned loot boxes outright

http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/

Wouldn't it be more likely that they are just forced to put "18" ratings on these games and maybe customers who want to use the lootbox systems have to do some verification similar to other online gambling platforms?

After all, online gambling isn't illegal. It's just regulated.

Clearly companies like EA are taking advantage of the lack of regulation surrounding these aspects of their games but I can't see lootboxes being completely banned.

More than likely you will one day be able to sign up for an EA account that asks you to verify your identity before allowing you to gamble money for prizes.

The best thing really is for customers to not buy the game.

Competitive online play will always put players who don't have time to invest in the game at a disadvantage but that's a fair disadvantage, in my opinion. Allowing players to pay to win (or at least to pay for advantages) creates an unfair game. It would be better if customers just refused to play.

It's a shame for Battlefront 2 as it was looking like a really great game. I'd be worried that in future the removal of these systems will lead to higher prices for the base game.

If EA is making 100s of millions from micro-transactions then removal of the revenue stream pretty much guarantees they will try to make that money elsewhere.

Lootboxes and microtransactions are rubbish but, as a customer, I'm not sure that I wouldn't rather pay 60 for a game and just ignore the micro-transactions. What if the alternative is being asked to pay 100 for the game but resting easy knowing they won't be trying to upsell me other stuff.

gimli2112

Lootboxes have never really bothered me. They're in some games I've played a lot Destiny, the Division, Battlefield. With the exception of one dance I just had to have in Destiny I've never bought anything.
Tying them into progression however would kill a game for me.

Saruhashi

Penn wrote: »

It was mostly the concept behind it that annoyed me. I loved the first game, and finding & controlling an orc you want in the wild etc.

To simply be rewarded with boxes containing random orcs... it just completely ruined the idea of the game for me. I know you can ignore them and still do as you did in the first game, but just the idea and concept of getting random orcs in loot drops just really annoyed me.

Oh yeah. It's completely stupid. Even in the context of the game it's stupid. Sure, I'm just bringing in all these new orcs from... somewhere.

It's mental that they implemented a system that basically takes the fun, and the whole point, out of the game.

If you spent 40 GBP you could get 28 gold chests which would give you around 80 Orcs. So probably enough to get you through the entire game without really trying if you started buying and opening lootboxes when you hit level 45 and get to Act IV.

Outside of "to make more money" I don't understand the logic behind it at all.

Are they trying to keep the cost of their base game down and the micro-transactions are how they make up for this?

johnny_ultimate

If a paid game, single player or multiplayer, has in any way had its core 'content' artificially stretched to allow for additional paid shortcuts, than the micro transactions deserve all the scorn we can direct their way. It's the kind of attitude that breeds bad design, unnecessary filler and a general lack of respect for both the players and the people who made the game.

SolvableKnave

Saruhashi wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more likely that they are just forced to put "18" ratings on these games and maybe customers who want to use the lootbox systems have to do some verification similar to other online gambling platforms?

After all, online gambling isn't illegal. It's just regulated.

Clearly companies like EA are taking advantage of the lack of regulation surrounding these aspects of their games but I can't see lootboxes being completely banned.

Online Gambling is Legal here in Europe, and most other regions, apart from the US. Online Gambling, on a Federal Level is not Illegal, but pretty much every State outlaws online gambling IIRC. That is a major negative if Lootboxes are ever classed as a form of Gambling. Either a concerted effort is made to make Online Gambling Legal at a state level, or they go the way of the dodo in their current guise as any game with them would, by default, be impossible to sell in the US market.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If a paid game, single player or multiplayer, has in any way had its core 'content' artificially stretched to allow for additional paid shortcuts, than the micro transactions deserve all the scorn we can direct their way. It's the kind of attitude that breeds bad design, unnecessary filler and a general lack of respect for both the players and the people who made the game.

I feel like it's just a matter of time before this is every game

Penn

EA loses $3bn in stock price

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/eas-day-of-reckoning-is-here-after-star-wars-game-uproar.html

Electronic Arts' shareholders are running for the hills this month and for good reason.

The company's profitable business model is now at risk after angry gamers revolted over its aggressive in-game moneymaking strategy in "Star Wars Battlefront II."

EA's stock is down 8.5 percent month to date through Tuesday compared with the S&P 500's 2 percent gain, wiping out $3.1 billion of shareholder value. Its competitors Take-Two and Activision Blizzard shares are up 5 percent and 0.7 percent respectively during the same time period.

After EA gave a December quarter sales forecast slightly below Wall Street estimates on Oct. 31, some analysts suspected it was due to the "Stars Wars" title. The shares fell 4 percent the following day.

...

"Battlefront II is the pointy tip of the iceberg. … The biggest recent controversy has centered around EA's Star Wars Battlefront II, where early evidence suggests player anger over a mishandled loot box economy may in fact be impacting initial sales," Cowen's Doug Creutz wrote in a note to clients Monday. "We think the time has come for the industry to collectively establish a set of standards for MTX implementation, both to repair damaged player perceptions and avoid the threat of regulation."

However, with the increasing spotlight from the media and gaming community on the issue, Electronic Arts will likely be forced to dial back its extreme monetization strategies across its franchises, hurting future profitability.

EA chief financial officer Blake Jorgensen told investors in February its "Ultimate Team" sports micro-transactions business generated $800 million in high-profit margin sales for the company during the previous year. He added EA intended to extend a "similar mechanic" to its other franchises such as "Battlefield" and "Battlefront."

Now that whole strategy is at risk.

^

Gregk961

So people are just investing in Take Two and their money grabbing titles instead.

Dcully

Only one way to stop this utter BS ,thankfully i have never or never will indulge.
Similar to loot crates im sick of devs releasing paid DLC a month after release.
Destiny 2 DLC incoming early December , they have some neck after deceiving players all this time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2gKbE9RbeM