Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

Kirby

gizmo wrote: »

In the early 2000s outside of MMOs it would have been practically unheard of for a studio not to move onto their next project for nearly two years while they continued to support their existing one with additional free content so it wouldn't have been an issue really..

Diablo 2 recieved patches and updates for over a decade.

Just saying.....

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

Diablo 2 recieved patches and updates for over a decade.

Just saying.....

Which is true, just irrelevant to what I said.

The Diablo II team moved onto Lords of Destruction after the release of the main game and then onto Diablo III (and probably other projects) save for the folk who left after they were absorbed into the main studio.

What support D2 received in terms of content* over the following decade also pales in comparison to what Overwatch has received in just the past two years.

* and by virtue, the number of staff required to produce that content

EoinHef

So how much has profit has overwatch generated in loot box sales sinece launch?

And how much is enough before they allow players to earn skins in the game or turn off lootboxes?

nix

EoinHef wrote: »

So how much has profit has overwatch generated in loot box sales sinece launch?

And how much is enough before they allow players to earn skins in the game or turn off lootboxes?

You can earn skins in the game, free lootbox every time you level up, which doesnt actually take long to do, like 3-4 games. And when you build up enough coin in game from the lootboxes you can pick and buy whatever skin you want, save the odd special event skin which can only be obtained with lootbox luck.

gizmo

EoinHef wrote: »

So how much has profit has overwatch generated in loot box sales sinece launch?

The only figure we really have to go by is the fact that it became a "billion dollar franchise" in May last year but there was no indication as to whether that was just from sales or also included loot box revenue. The last figure given from the company in general was the $2b one from all digital content sales excluding those from King properties.

EoinHef wrote: »

And how much is enough before they allow players to earn skins in the game or turn off lootboxes?

Personally speaking? I'd say the point at which they stop generating new content for the game is the point at which they either remove the ability to purchase loot boxes entirely or, preferably, retool the system to only give credits for progression and then allow you to purchase all in-game items with said currency.

Falthyron

gizmo wrote: »

Personally speaking? I'd say the point at which they stop generating new content for the game is the point at which they either remove the ability to purchase loot boxes entirely or, preferably, retool the system to only give credits for progression and then allow you to purchase all in-game items with said currency.

Skins and maps do not cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. Considering the troubled development of 'Titan', which eventually became Overwatch, lets imagine the entire project cost 300m across the number of years it took from inception to release. The game has gone on to earn more than one billion dollars, and that is from a report in early 2017. It could be at two billion dollars by now. Does anyone here honestly believe the maps, characters, skins, and modes added to Overwatch amounts to 100 million dollars of costs? 200 million? What are they doing with the remaining 800 million then?

When does it end? What amount equates to covering all costs and spending for ten years of content? The answer is that there is no final amount. They will deliver paltry amounts of content to keep the game 'tipping over' while the coffers flood with money to pay off future project failures and existing ones (Destiny, etc.).

Also, I don't want to know about Overwatch League because I don't play in said league and I suspect nobody else here does either, so it doesn't really offer us anything. If people wanted to watch pros play, then you can do that on Twitch or via invitationals.

This game will go F2P before they consider removing lootboxes. Unless, of course, there is a clampdown on gambling mechanics in games.

Benzino

Falthyron wrote: »

When does it end? What amount equates to covering all costs and spending for ten years of content? The answer is that there is no final amount. They will deliver paltry amounts of content to keep the game 'tipping over' while the coffers flood with money to pay off future project failures and existing ones (Destiny, etc.).

What's the alternative, they start giving stuff away for free? Why would they do that? I'd also argue that the content they have delivered to date is hardly paltry.

Falthyron wrote: »

This game will go F2P before they consider removing lootboxes. Unless, of course, there is a clampdown on gambling mechanics in games.

Why would they consider removing lootboxes? They have a very large and active community who clearly have no problem with lootboxes.

gizmo

Falthyron wrote: »

Skins and maps do not cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. Considering the troubled development of 'Titan', which eventually became Overwatch, lets imagine the entire project cost 300m across the number of years it took from inception to release. The game has gone on to earn more than one billion dollars, and that is from a report in early 2017. It could be at two billion dollars by now. Does anyone here honestly believe the maps, characters, skins, and modes added to Overwatch amounts to 100 million dollars of costs? 200 million? What are they doing with the remaining 800 million then?

Nope and I do hope no one does either because it'd be bonkers. :P

Falthyron wrote: »

When does it end? What amount equates to covering all costs and spending for ten years of content? The answer is that there is no final amount. They will deliver paltry amounts of content to keep the game 'tipping over' while the coffers flood with money to pay off future project failures and existing ones (Destiny, etc.).

Well you've kind of answered your own question there. If they continue to release the kind of content they've been doing over the last two years then they'll probably continue to make their fairly substantial playerbase happy and keep the 100 or so on the team employed. In the meantime, the rest of the teams in the company are probably working on whatever their next project is. Honestly, after six years working on Titan and a further three years on Overwatch, I find it hard to begrudge all the success they've had given the quality of what they eventually released.

The idea that they should suddenly stop charging for content because they've already made enough from previous sales is, imo, a nonsensical one. How they charge for it while they continue to work on it and release new stuff is something I'd have plenty of opinions on though.

TheBoyFromAus

Falthyron wrote: »

Skins and maps do not cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. Considering the troubled development of 'Titan', which eventually became Overwatch, lets imagine the entire project cost 300m across the number of years it took from inception to release. The game has gone on to earn more than one billion dollars, and that is from a report in early 2017. It could be at two billion dollars by now. Does anyone here honestly believe the maps, characters, skins, and modes added to Overwatch amounts to 100 million dollars of costs? 200 million? What are they doing with the remaining 800 million then?

When does it end? What amount equates to covering all costs and spending for ten years of content? The answer is that there is no final amount. They will deliver paltry amounts of content to keep the game 'tipping over' while the coffers flood with money to pay off future project failures and existing ones (Destiny, etc.).

Also, I don't want to know about Overwatch League because I don't play in said league and I suspect nobody else here does either, so it doesn't really offer us anything. If people wanted to watch pros play, then you can do that on Twitch or via invitationals.

This game will go F2P before they consider removing lootboxes. Unless, of course, there is a clampdown on gambling mechanics in games.

We live in a capitalist society, why should they only earn enough money to cover their costs? Do you go to work each day and on Wednesday go "right, thats enough money for food and rent, boss ill work the rest of the week free"?

nix

I myself actually like cosmetics, im all for them if it helps the developers pump out content. Blizzard have it perfected as far as Overwatch goes to give em props. I only see a point in getting them in games that will be around for years, spending money on cosmetics for battlefield or battlefront is just a gigantic waste of money.

A game im playing for years now, Smite, i have been known to dump in the odd €20 every few months to buy gems, which you can use for cosmetics or voice packs. I get enjoyment and a laugh out of the voice packs that come with each skin. The money goes towards future content and the Smite pro league, which i actually watch alot when i can..

However, every year/season, Smite roll out one or two events that last months/year. And it works like overwatch in that you earn xp and you level up and unlock a chest or an exclusive skin. Now the max level exclusive skin this year is pretty badass and alot of smite players will want it.. Now, the thing is, you can level up by playing loads and loads of smite, predicting the outcome of the smite pro league matches OR you can use gems to unlock a level. You get gems mainly from real money purchases, you can get gems other ways but only at a really slow rate.

So this badass skin, from the get go costs a crazy amount of gems to unlock it at this early stage in the year. I done the math, to just outright buy the skin would cost roughly €480. Which is insane if ya ask me, so yes of course ill chip away at it throughout the year earning xp from playing games and predicting which pro teams will win, and try unlock it come 2019, if im not far off i might throw a lil money at it.

So off i go to start the grind, and the first game i join, someone is rocking the badass skin... Fecker kicks up €480 to get a skin, what a mad bastard.. what makes it even more sad, he was terrible at the game, lol, and ive seen a few more people with it since.. Blows my mind, now in his defense, you get alot of cosmetic content for the 480, theres like 32 levels and you get something each level, but its still crazy to be using that much money on a game and in my opinion in no way worth that much money :eek:

So yeah, i can see why companies are focusing on loot boxes more.. And as long as we get free content out of it to improve the game, im all for it :pac:

Maximilian

So the new MGS game is charging €10 for a second save slot.

No reason for it at all. No technical reason why they couldn't give you multiple slots. No additional work has gone into it. It's €40, not FTP. Just a normal, run of the mill game feature locked away behind a paywall for no other reason than "**** you, give me money".

Akrasia

Maximilian wrote: »

So the new MGS game is charging €10 for a second save slot.

No reason for it at all. No technical reason why they couldn't give you multiple slots. No additional work has gone into it. It's €40, not FTP. Just a normal, run of the mill game feature locked away behind a paywall for no other reason than "**** you, give me money".

wow, this is a new low.

Varik

Maximilian wrote: »

So the new MGS game is charging €10 for a second save slot.

No reason for it at all. No technical reason why they couldn't give you multiple slots. No additional work has gone into it. It's €40, not FTP. Just a normal, run of the mill game feature locked away behind a paywall for no other reason than "**** you, give me money".

The reason they don't give you multiple slots is the same as with DayZ, H1Z1 and any number of those survival games. It's so you don't have a backup, and can't just pass any extra stuff to a second character to be ready in the case of death.

The reason they've a €10 to bypass that is cuz they're *****. It removes a pretty big penalty that other games had to add to balance things.

Plenty of games have slots behind a pay wall, in this case it's worse due to the advantage you get; MMOs and FPS loadouts.

nix

Makes sense, but eh, maybe just done put in the option for a second slot at all?

wes

Maximilian wrote: »

So the new MGS game is charging €10 for a second save slot.

No reason for it at all. No technical reason why they couldn't give you multiple slots. No additional work has gone into it. It's €40, not FTP. Just a normal, run of the mill game feature locked away behind a paywall for no other reason than "**** you, give me money".

They get away with this, because people keep defending and paying for it. Simple as that.

Varik

Varik wrote: »

The reason they don't give you multiple slots is the same as with DayZ, H1Z1 and any number of those survival games. It's so you don't have a backup, and can't just pass any extra stuff to a second character to be ready in the case of death.

The reason they've a €10 to bypass that is cuz they're *****. It removes a pretty big penalty that other games had to add to balance things.

Plenty of games have slots behind a pay wall, in this case it's worse due to the advantage you get; MMOs and FPS loadouts.

Day Z? H1Z1?
This is meant to be a bloody full release title that's supposedly in a finished state and costs 40 euros.
Locking saves behind a paywall is pathetic.

gizmo

It's an utterly bizarre move, even for Konami. I mean over the last year or so there's been plenty of examples of releases whose initial launches, never mind their longer term viability, have been affected by bad publicity from questionable decisions such as this and this is the hill they want to die on?

There's literally no justification for it. I'm not familiar with the item trading Varik mentioned but the last game I can remember which offered anything approaching this was Guild Wars who allowed you to buy additional character slots in addition to the two you got starting out. That game was essentially an MMORPG with no subscription though so at least NCSOFT could point to that as a means of paying for the upkeep of the service, Konami have no such excuses with Survive.

On top of that, judging by some of the comments in the review on Eurogamer, the progression system has also been compromised due to balance issues with regards purchasable XP progression bonuses. Oh, and while your single character save has four loadout slots by default, if you want to unlock any more, that's another $3 each.

#****onami indeed.

ancapailldorcha

This is basically why I don't feel even a little bit bad in waiting for Steam Sales anymore. Between the DLC-whoring micro-transactions I think I'm avoiding these sorts of games from now on.

J. Marston

Problem solved, everything will be labelled with "in-game purchases" from now on...

https://twitter.com/ESRBRatings/status/968516416742805504

Apparently games with DLC get the label too so games like Witcher 3 or Horizon Zero Dawn get the same tag as games who take the piss like Fifa.

marcbrophy

That'll appease the masses!
Fcuking spanners :mad:

wes

J. Marston wrote: »

Problem solved, everything will be labelled with "in-game purchases" from now on...

https://twitter.com/ESRBRatings/status/968516416742805504

Apparently games with DLC get the label too so games like Witcher 3 or Horizon Zero Dawn get the same tag as games who take the piss like Fifa.

Pretty blatant attempt to skirt around the issue. Do they really think people are this stupid? Loot boxes are rather different than a defined piece of content, where you know what your getting as opposed to the pseudo gambling of loot boxes. Lumping clearly defined dlc together with loot boxes is nonsense.

Maximilian

Thankfully, it appears MG:S is proving to be a commercial failure. How much is attributable to it simply not being a great game as opposed to gamer anger at ****ty MTX's (and Konami in general) is anyone's guess. I have no confidence in gamers actually sending the message that needs to be sent to these companies and not buying these games.

Penn

Following on from what happened to EA and the backlash against Lootboxes in Battlefront 2 (and their complete reversal on same), other companies are now starting to see the light. Starting with WB and Shadow of War

https://community.wbgames.com/t5/Official-Announcements/Important-Free-Updates-Coming-to-Shadow-of-War-FAQ/m-p/1831027/thread-id/761

Why are Gold and the Market being removed from Shadow of War?
The core promise of the Nemesis System is the ability to build relationships with your personal allies and enemies in a dynamic open world. While purchasing Orcs in the Market is more immediate and provides additional player options, we have come to realize that providing this choice risked undermining the heart of our game, the Nemesis System. It allows you to miss out on the awesome player stories you would have otherwise created, and it compromises those same stories even if you don’t buy anything. Simply being aware that they are available for purchase reduces the immersion in the world and takes away from the challenge of building your personal army and your fortresses. In order to fully restore the core promise of the Nemesis System, we’ll be permanently removing Gold, War Chests and the Market from Shadow of War. This means the option to purchase Gold with real-world money and the ability to gain Orc Followers from War Chests will be removed.

For what it was worth, I liked the main campaign of the game but it absolutely had lost something from the first game. Having so many different areas, and therefore 5 different sets of Nemesis hierarchies, just meant that the vast majority of the orcs were completely interchangeable and replaceable. After the first while, I barely remembered any of them, or had any favourites or ones I absolutely hated. The Sieges were far too easy in the main game, as you could just control the warchiefs in advance and practically just walk through the castles until you got to the Overlord.

I never found the lootbox mechanics to be too bad in the game as I never went near them (bar one or two using in-game earnings just to see what they were like), but I definitely think they'd be vital in the second part of the game. By that point though, I just never bothered with them, and can't be bothered with any DLC either.

Still though, at least they're removing them now. I think they'll have to in order to try and get players back into the game. Sucks for anyone who did spend money on them though. Shouldn't have been in the game in the first place. It was a real bastardisation of the Nemesis system.

Retr0gamer

If you translate the press release from Corporatese to English it pretty much says that the loot boxes weren't selling so they are turning off the servers to save money.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

If you translate the press release from Corporatese to English it pretty much says that the loot boxes weren't selling so they are turning off the servers to save money.

Exactly, I'd say they squeezed what they could out of it. When the well dried up it's turn it off and try and look good.

Retr0gamer

Have to laugh about the comment about how it affected game balance. F*ck right off. Making it out as if they are doing people a favour. I would put money on the next WB game being full of this **** as well. It's like they are trying to over take Zenimax as the worst company in videogames.

wes

I wonder will this become a trend for WB at least. Release a game crippled with micro transactions and removed them later, to get people to buy the game, when they release the complete edition or the when it goes on sale.

J. Marston

Just means whaling season is over.

J. Marston

The Dutch Gaming Authority has completed an investigation into lootboxes. Someone on Reddit has done a TLDR and translation of it...

TLDR and English translation of the article below.

TL;DR: The Dutch gambling authority looked into 10 games with lootboxes (game names not disclosed yet) and found that 4 of them attach a certain monetary value to their lootbox items because they can be sold on digital marketplaces.

The publishers of these four games have received a letter where they are asked to change their game within the next 8 weeks. If they fail to change the nature of their lootboxes, the gambling authority can fine those companies and eventually prohibit their sale in the Netherlands.

Article translated to English with Google translate:

Popular games violate gambling rules

Popular games violate Dutch gambling rules. They have elements in them that can also be found in the gambling world, judges the Gaming Authority.

It is about the phenomenon of loot boxes. These are treasure chests that players can buy with extra items in them, such as clothing or weapons. Players who buy the treasure boxes do not know in advance what object they will receive. Anyone who wants to get a very rare object, has to buy a lot of treasure boxes.

The Dutch Gaming Authority investigated ten popular games with these loot boxes. In four of the games examined, digital prices were sold for real money via external trading marketplaces.

Because the prizes can be traded, they get an economic value. Players can earn money if they get a rare item. As a result, the games violate the rules of gambling.

"They are designed as classic gambling games are designed, with the feeling that you have almost won," says Marja Appelman, director of the Gaming Authority. "There are all sorts of sound effects and visual effects when you open such a loot box, so you have a tendency to play through and through."

The Gaming Authority gives the game makers eight weeks to adjust their games. If this is not followed, the regulator can impose fines or prohibit the sale of the game in due course.

In the study, the Gaming Authority does not mention names of games that violate the rules. If the games are not modified, the names will be announced.

The regulator has looked at the most popular games with loot boxes. If the items can be traded, the games are in violation. This applies in any case to these popular games: Fifa18, Dota2, PubG and Rocket League. Behind those games are the companies EA, Valve, PubG Corporation and Psyonix.

In the six other games, the prizes from the loot boxes can not be traded and therefore do not violate the gambling law. Nevertheless, the Gaming Authority also criticizes these games. Opening the virtual boxes is very similar to gambling with a fruit machine or roulette.

Young people in particular would be particularly vulnerable because their brains are still developing. They could later become gambling addicts sooner. Game makers do nothing to protect young people against themselves, concludes the Gaming Authority.

Game makers now have to take responsibility themselves to protect children better, according to the regulator. "I call on all game companies not to make loot boxes accessible to children anymore and to remove addictive elements," says Appelman.

For game companies, the loot boxes are a great source of income. According to research agency Juniper Research, large companies are earning some 24 billion euros this year from the virtual treasuries. If no regulation takes place, the market is expected to grow in 2022 to a turnover of 40 billion euros per year.

Abroad

Research into loot boxes is also being carried out in other European countries. "This is the subject that gambling authorities across Europe are talking about", says Appelman. "From Scandinavia, Germany to Britain."

The gambling Authority wants to go along with European colleagues to counter the lottery boxes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/8dcrrz/popular_games_violate_gambling_rules_dutch_gaming/

Shorter TLDR; 10 games were investigated (games not revealed) 4 were found to have broken their rules for gambling and are being given 8 weeks to address the issues. If not, they can be fined or they could prohibit the sale of the game in due course. The report is more concerned with games that have items that can be traded for real money after opening the boxes.

Netherlands is probably too small a market to make an actual difference but it's cool to see what seems like an ultimatum being given.

Mickeroo

Are Valve the only ones that allow trading for "real" money? (I can't think of any others) Strange they've been left out of this conversation funnily enough as steam is probably the worst enabler of all for this sort of thing.