Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

EA just bought Respawn so we could be seeing MT's and paid DLC in the next Titanfall title

Awful news

gizmo

gizmo wrote: »

What was most notable about the Battlefront II lootboxes is that the response was so negative it was actually raised as a concern during the recent investor call. This is the kind of sound off that's needed in order to see some meaningful change. You're not going to be able to convince a publicly traded company that they shouldn't include something that matters so much financially, especially when they can point to their peers in the industry who also utilize them with massive success like Take-Two did recently, but if you can point to the implementation of them being so bad that it can actually hurt sales, then you have a chance of accomplishing something.


And this is a major issue. To refer back to the Titanfall 2 thing, the sequel definitely came out at an awful time but it went up against one game which had the most poorly received announcement trailer in history (that'd be Infinite Warfare) and another whose previous entry featured an incredibly poorly received campaign and an utterly broken multiplayer which took ages for it to be fixed (sup, Battlefield 4). Titanfall 2, on the other hand, came out with an incredibly well received campaign and a multiplayer mode which was supplemented not by season passes and paid DLC, but free content designed to not split the userbase.

Now, franchise popularity is never something you can ignore but look at the result of that. The cross platform Titanfall 2 didn't even surpass the sales of its predecessor which only came out on the XBox One, nevermind the utter beating it took from its competition.

EA as a publisher are to blame for poor sales of Titanfall 2
Absolutely **** all promotion while they shoved battlefield 1 in everyones face

gizmo

M!Ck^ wrote: »

EA as a publisher are to blame for poor sales of Titanfall 2
Absolutely **** all promotion while they shoved battlefield 1 in everyones face

Except for the multiple betas, the giant Titans at the major games conferences, the 7-Eleven/Doritos/Mountain Dew promotional tie ins, the TV adverts produced by noted animation house Blur and the fact that nearly every major gaming site was coated in TF2 ad banners?

Sure it wasn't pushed as much as Battlefield 1 but then again, it was never going to be, it's just not as big a franchise. The main failure was, as I said, the launch window chosen. Regardless, when faced with those three games, the point remains, the vast majority of people ultimately voted with their wallets against their own interests.

On that note, the acquisition will have no real direct consequence as to whether or not the third entry has paid content or lootboxes. EA published the last two entries and would have had just as much say in the decision when it came to not including them in TF2 as they will have when it comes to TF3.

Canis Lupus

DeadlyByDesign wrote: »

How in the name of Jayziz did we get to this point? Like can anyone pinpoint the game that brought these systems in and made it acceptable?

Mobile 'games'. Candy crush or maybe more like clash of clans. People are paying over thousands to play shyte like that so why shouldn't AAA get a piece of the action?

The amount of money people drop in 'micro' transactions would make your eyes water. It's the same way slot machines suck people in. You get your case, the more expensive the case the more elaborate and shiny the opening process is the more your brain turns to mush from endorphins. You also lose track of how much you're spending because it's only X each time.

It's a dirty addition and it makes me mad to see it happening to pc gaming but money talks and as long as people throw money away on something that's costs virtually nothing for them to produce then why would they stop....

wheresmahbombs

This. People have become ever so more financially oblivious following the advent of microtransactions in mainstream games. Microtransactions also detract from one of the core points of a game: challenge, and thus fun. Thank god I barely engage in mobile gaming these days (did quite a lot back in my tween years).

K.O.Kiki

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Mobile 'games'. Candy crush or maybe more like clash of clans. People are paying over thousands to play shyte like that so why shouldn't AAA get a piece of the action?

The amount of money people drop in 'micro' transactions would make your eyes water. It's the same way slot machines suck people in. You get your case, the more expensive the case the more elaborate and shiny the opening process is the more your brain turns to mush from endorphins. You also lose track of how much you're spending because it's only X each time.

It's a dirty addition and it makes me mad to see it happening to pc gaming but money talks and as long as people throw money away on something that's costs virtually nothing for them to produce then why would they stop....

Micro-transactions suck because they are detrimental to good game design.
You go from making a "fun" game that rewards "play" (e.g. anything Nintendo), to making an "annoying" game that incentivizes "monetary transactions" to forego "grind".

sryanbruen

gizmo wrote: »

What was most notable about the Battlefront II lootboxes is that the response was so negative it was actually raised as a concern during the recent investor call. This is the kind of sound off that's needed in order to see some meaningful change. You're not going to be able to convince a publicly traded company that they shouldn't include something that matters so much financially, especially when they can point to their peers in the industry who also utilize them with massive success like Take-Two did recently, but if you can point to the implementation of them being so bad that it can actually hurt sales, then you have a chance of accomplishing something.


And this is a major issue. To refer back to the Titanfall 2 thing, the sequel definitely came out at an awful time but it went up against one game which had the most poorly received announcement trailer in history (that'd be Infinite Warfare) and another whose previous entry featured an incredibly poorly received campaign and an utterly broken multiplayer which took ages for it to be fixed (sup, Battlefield 4). Titanfall 2, on the other hand, came out with an incredibly well received campaign and a multiplayer mode which was supplemented not by season passes and paid DLC, but free content designed to not split the userbase.

Now, franchise popularity is never something you can ignore but look at the result of that. The cross platform Titanfall 2 didn't even surpass the sales of its predecessor which only came out on the XBox One, nevermind the utter beating it took from its competition.

No, Titanfall 2 had one of the worst release dates ever in video gaming history. It is an awesome game and unfortunately didn't get the reputation it deserved, all due to its release date. It came in between the release of Battlefield 1 and Call of Duty Infinite Warfare. It don't matter if the announcement trailer was the second most disliked video on YouTube, Infinite Warfare was always going to outshine Titanfall 2 in terms of sales because it's Call of Duty. Call of Duty is massively popular on consoles, regardless of the game whether it's Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops 1, Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3 etc. Battlefield is also quite popular.

If you want a game to be successful, do not release it alongside other reiterations/sequels of very popular gaming franchises (such as Battlefield and Call of Duty) in the same range of games i.e. FPS games.

Back to the point of this thread, I agree that microtransactions make games worse than they need to be. They're fine without the bull****.

gizmo

sryanbruen wrote: »

No, Titanfall 2 had one of the worst release dates ever in video gaming history. It is an awesome game and unfortunately didn't get the reputation it deserved, all due to its release date. It came in between the release of Battlefield 1 and Call of Duty Infinite Warfare. It don't matter if the announcement trailer was the second most disliked video on YouTube, Infinite Warfare was always going to outshine Titanfall 2 in terms of sales because it's Call of Duty. Call of Duty is massively popular on consoles, regardless of the game whether it's Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops 1, Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3 etc. Battlefield is also quite popular.

Not only did I bring up the release date issue twice, I specifically said it was horrific and in a follow up said it was the main failure with respect to its launch, I also took the popularity of the respective franchises into account. So yea, if we were focusing on why it under-preformed then I certainly agree but that's not really my point here. I brought up Titanfall 2 in the context of what Kiith had said, that regardless of the furor raised by elements of the community in the lead up to the release of these titles, when it actually comes to sales, they're not following through.

NBA 2K18 was covered extensively as an example of poor implementation of micro-transactions and yet, as per the Take-Two link above, not only are sales of the title up by 20% over the previous iteration, they're also retaining a higher level of users after purchase and seeing spending on said MTs up 57%. Not only that but it has continued to crush NBA Live, it's competition from EA, which doesn't have a comparable micro-transaction system in its career mode.

Titanfall 2, as above, certainly suffered in its launch window but despite the continued support from Respawn, with another free map pack being released in August and significant price cuts since release, has still never found an audience.

The next question is, despite Battlefront II being so deservedly dragged over the coals for its lootbox system, will we see a corresponding sales hit and if we don't, what kind of message is that going to send to EA?

A now deleted tweet from an EA community manager no less

J. Marston

Was reading how it takes 40 hours to unlock characters in Star Wars: Battlefront 2...

By some estimates, the likes of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader could take close to 40 hours each to unlock for the player intent on not spending any money on microtransactions.

Heroes cost credits in Battlefront II. With the average multiplayer match currently netting people somewhere between 250 and 350 for 10-15 minutes of play, the road to buying all of them appears like it will be a long one.

Luke and Vader are two of the most expensive heroes at 60,000 credits each, but even heroes like Leia and Chewbacca still cost 40,000

Not the biggest Star Wars fan but isn't locking Luke Skywalker and Vader in a Star Wars game like locking Real Madrid and Man United in Fifa or Batman and Superman in Injustice? Anyway, it sounds like a grind yeah? According to a Dev who responded to fans (with a post that's been downvoted 7000 times!) on the official subreddit, they're offering a "sense of pride and accomplishment" by doing it this way...

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes.

As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.

We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets.

Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can

https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/seriously_i_paid_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/

They're a greasy bunch but they're too big to fail at this point.

It's only going to get worse folks

If you have such an issue then don't buy any game with loot crates or micro transactions. Game developers and publishers owe you nothing, but if you are going to cry about loot crates then put your money where your mouth is and support other titles that don't have them.

I'll be playing Battlefront II, mainly for the campaign and a little messing about in multiplayer. Doesn't bother me that it will take hours or real money to unlock the most powerful characters.

Games are an odd industry in that the development and marketing costs of games has sky rocketed but the prices remain the same as 10 years ago. I find loot crates and packs and so in utter nonsense and have never bought a single one in any game and will continue to not buy them. I still don't feel entitled enough to cry on the internet about them. The cost of the license, development and marketing for Battlefront II is likely going to exceed half a billion and if loot crates help keep the cost of the game the same as one 10 years back and additional playable content is free then I'm happy for others to spend a fortune on loot crates.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

If you have such an issue then don't buy any game with loot crates or micro transactions. Game developers and publishers owe you nothing, but if you are going to cry about loot crates then put your money where your mouth is and support other titles that don't have them.

I'll be playing Battlefront II, mainly for the campaign and a little messing about in multiplayer. Doesn't bother me that it will take hours or real money to unlock the most powerful characters.

Games are an odd industry in that the development and marketing costs of games has sky rocketed but the prices remain the same as 10 years ago. I find loot crates and packs and so in utter nonsense and have never bought a single one in any game and will continue to not buy them. I still don't feel entitled enough to cry on the internet about them. The cost of the license, development and marketing for Battlefront II is likely going to exceed half a billion and if loot crates help keep the cost of the game the same as one 10 years back and additional playable content is free then I'm happy for others to spend a fortune on loot crates.

Ah yes, discussing the issue is crying. Great point :rolleyes:
Buy you felt the need to moan and people moaning about micro-transactions in a thread about micro-transactions.
When it effects actual game-play and these systems are built around them then it's a real problem for alot of people who you know, play games. Regardless of someone buying the crates or not.

The average time it takes to unlock a Hero character in SWBF2 has been worked out. 40 hours.
Will consumers be disappointed if you don't get to play as a hero character? I'd say so.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Ah yes, discussing the issue is crying. Great point :rolleyes:
Buy you felt the need to moan and people moaning about micro-transactions in a thread about micro-transactions.
When it effects actual game-play and these systems are built around them then it's a real problem for alot of people who you know, play games. Regardless of someone buying the crates or not.

Gamers are amongst the most entitled group of people in the world, it all gives me, give me, give me. With production costs rising rapidly and no rise in retail prices, what do people expect to happen? I hate season passes and find micro transactions the most ridiculous things imaginable but I understand why they exist. They are a necessary evil. We all know that the big companies are worth billions but the cost of licensing, developing and marketing a Triple A titles can be double that of an Avengers film. And companies have to make a profit, it's the games business. And when it comes to loot crates, just because they are there does not mean that you have to use them. I have games from the early 90s with the prices still on the covers, back then some games were costing £60 and £70 which in today's value is around 120 to 140 euro. We are paying almost half for a game than we were paying back then, and yes it is now less of a niche market but still, gamers aren't coming off too bad.

Does it affect gameplay though in this title? You can still get all the content through playing the game, sure it takes a lot of time but at the same time, if you want to play as the games most powerful character it should do. At the minute it looks like it will take too long and from the statements released it does appear to be something they are looking into. I'm sure Jim Sterling has a poorly thought out, factually inaccurate hate piece designed to get fan boys into a rage over how evil game developers are on the way. One of the big problems with the recent trend in damning loot crates is that the people behind a lot of the anger have a vested interest, people like Jim Sterling are not doing it because they care but rather because it makes them money.

I agree that loot crates are a crappy thing and hiding content behind them is an awful thing but at the same time I'd rather pay 60 euro for a game than 120. The cost of everything else has risen, a ticket for Guns N Roses at Slane in 1992 was £22.75 which is under 30 euro in todays value. Tickets to see thim at Slane this year cost 89.50, that's an increase of 60 euro. Compare that to games which are cheaper now than they were in 1992 and loot crates make a hell of a lot more sense.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree that loot crates are a crappy thing and hiding content behind them is an awful thing but at the same time I'd rather pay 60 euro for a game than 120. The cost of everything else has risen, a ticket for Guns N Roses at Slane in 1992 was £22.75 which is under 30 euro in todays value. Tickets to see thim at Slane this year cost 89.50, that's an increase of 60 euro. Compare that to games which are cheaper now than they were in 1992 and loot crates make a hell of a lot more sense.

Difference being with a Guns N Roses concert, you get a Guns N Roses concert. Regardless how much you pay for the ticket, you get the full concert.

Locking so much content (particularly content which the vast majority of the players want) behind either having to pay for it or go through an insane grind, is akin to paying €89.50 to go see GNR at Slane, only hearing songs from Chinese Democracy and the Use Your Illusion albums, then being ushered out and hearing the opening chords of Sweet Child O Mine as you drive away from Slane, while the people who get to stay and listen to the good songs do so because they paid the security guys an extra €30 or camped out at the venue 3 days earlier.

I think, when done right, loot boxes and microtransactions can be okay. When done right. This is not a case where they are being done right, not by a long shot. As much as the game is about non-hero gameplay, people obviously want to be able to play as the heroes. It's one of the biggest selling points of the game, very prominent in all the ads (which as you point out are so expensive). Locking them behind such an insane grind or paywall like they are is one of the worst ways lootboxes and microtransactions can be implemented.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Difference being with a Guns N Roses concert, you get a Guns N Roses concert. Regardless how much you pay for the ticket, you get the full concert.

Locking so much content (particularly content which the vast majority of the players want) behind either having to pay for it or go through an insane grind, is akin to paying €89.50 to go see GNR at Slane, only hearing songs from Chinese Democracy and the Use Your Illusion albums, then being ushered out and hearing the opening chords of Sweet Child O Mine as you drive away from Slane, while the people who get to stay and listen to the good songs do so because they paid the security guys an extra €30 or camped out at the venue 3 days earlier.

I think, when done right, loot boxes and microtransactions can be okay. When done right. This is not a case where they are being done right, not by a long shot. As much as the game is about non-hero gameplay, people obviously want to be able to play as the heroes. It's one of the biggest selling points of the game, very prominent in all the ads (which as you point out are so expensive). Locking them behind such an insane grind or paywall like they are is one of the worst ways lootboxes and microtransactions can be implemented.

A better comparison is going to Guns N Roses and them not playing your favorite song. The point remains that while the cost of the cinema, concerts, food, hotels and everything else has risen with inflation the cost of gaming is cheaper than it was 25 years ago. Had Battlefront 2 been a 1992 release it would have cost £60 which is about 120 euro today.

The 60 or so euro you pay for Battlefront 2 will give you the full game, you have access to the campaign and all multiplayer modes but not instant access to the games most overpowered characters. Is it an ideal situation in that you can pay to unlock it, no it's not but saying that you are not getting a full game just because you can't play as your favorite character is a little ridiculous. It's like saying that FIFA 18 is unfair and you don't get a full game because you can't just get Messi. If you are buying Battlefront 2 just to play as Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader and are angry that you will have to buy loo crates or grind, then simply don't buy it. Go out and support a loot crate free title instead.

I'd understand the anger over loot crates from gamers a hell of a lot more if they actually voted with their wallets. You read all these threads across the internet from angry gamers complaining about how their games are being ruined but then go out and buy the game on launch anyway.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

A better comparison is going to Guns N Roses and them not playing your favorite song. The point remains that while the cost of the cinema, concerts, food, hotels and everything else has risen with inflation the cost of gaming is cheaper than it was 25 years ago. Had Battlefront 2 been a 1992 release it would have cost £60 which is about 120 euro today.

The 60 or so euro you pay for Battlefront 2 will give you the full game, you have access to the campaign and all multiplayer modes but not instant access to the games most overpowered characters. Is it an ideal situation in that you can pay to unlock it, no it's not but saying that you are not getting a full game just because you can't play as your favorite character is a little ridiculous. It's like saying that FIFA 18 is unfair and you don't get a full game because you can't just get Messi. If you are buying Battlefront 2 just to play as Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader and are angry that you will have to buy loo crates or grind, then simply don't buy it. Go out and support a loot crate free title instead.

I'd understand the anger over loot crates from gamers a hell of a lot more if they actually voted with their wallets. You read all these threads across the internet from angry gamers complaining about how their games are being ruined but then go out and buy the game on launch anyway.

Unfortunately the fact remains it's becoming less and less likely to find games that won't contain them.
Grand to say, don't buy them, don't support them.
If it's going to be in say 90% of AAA titles should we be expected to not play any of them anymore?

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Difference being with a Guns N Roses concert, you get a Guns N Roses concert. Regardless how much you pay for the ticket, you get the full concert.

Locking so much content (particularly content which the vast majority of the players want) behind either having to pay for it or go through an insane grind, is akin to paying €89.50 to go see GNR at Slane, only hearing songs from Chinese Democracy and the Use Your Illusion albums, then being ushered out and hearing the opening chords of Sweet Child O Mine as you drive away from Slane, while the people who get to stay and listen to the good songs do so because they paid the security guys an extra €30 or camped out at the venue 3 days earlier.

I think, when done right, loot boxes and microtransactions can be okay. When done right. This is not a case where they are being done right, not by a long shot. As much as the game is about non-hero gameplay, people obviously want to be able to play as the heroes. It's one of the biggest selling points of the game, very prominent in all the ads (which as you point out are so expensive). Locking them behind such an insane grind or paywall like they are is one of the worst ways lootboxes and microtransactions can be implemented.

This +1

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

A better comparison is going to Guns N Roses and them not playing your favorite song. The point remains that while the cost of the cinema, concerts, food, hotels and everything else has risen with inflation the cost of gaming is cheaper than it was 25 years ago. Had Battlefront 2 been a 1992 release it would have cost £60 which is about 120 euro today.

The 60 or so euro you pay for Battlefront 2 will give you the full game, you have access to the campaign and all multiplayer modes but not instant access to the games most overpowered characters. Is it an ideal situation in that you can pay to unlock it, no it's not but saying that you are not getting a full game just because you can't play as your favorite character is a little ridiculous. It's like saying that FIFA 18 is unfair and you don't get a full game because you can't just get Messi. If you are buying Battlefront 2 just to play as Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader and are angry that you will have to buy loo crates or grind, then simply don't buy it. Go out and support a loot crate free title instead.

I'd understand the anger over loot crates from gamers a hell of a lot more if they actually voted with their wallets. You read all these threads across the internet from angry gamers complaining about how their games are being ruined but then go out and buy the game on launch anyway.

But that's what people are complaining about. We want to play these games, but the practices of these companies are turning people away from buying the games. That means sales figures take a hit (see Shadow of War, which given the reception and reviews for the first game should have sold far more than it did). Which means developers/publishers look for ways to increase revenue from those who do buy the game. Which means even worse methods of getting money from consumers occur. Which puts more people off the next game.

It's not just about complaining about "Boo hoo I might not get to play as Luke Skywalker...", it's about the actual practice and implementation of these methods of getting more money out of people and the changes in game design to facilitate it which ultimately punish people who don't want to pay more money, either through forcing them through a huge grind, or putting them off playing the game altogether. That's what people are complaining about.

johnny_ultimate

M!Ck^ wrote: »

If it's going to be in say 90% of AAA titles should we be expected to not play any of them anymore?

While I have serious issues with the commodification of gameplay... this also isn't exactly the hardest thing to do, since a significant majority of AAA titles are derivative bollocks Purging the microtransaction riddled ones and spending the money on interesting indie games or those occasional big-budget gems instead seems like a win-win solution to me!

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Unfortunately the fact remains it's becoming less and less likely to find games that won't contain them.
Grand to say, don't buy them, don't support them.
If it's going to be in say 90% of AAA titles should we be expected to not play any of them anymore?

You have to remember that developers and publishers owe you nothing. If you have an issue with a developers use of loot crates then you have three options.
You can just not buy the game and then not feel forced to spend money in-game. Secondly, you can buy the game and just not pay for any loot creates. Or finally, you can buy the game and then buy loot crates. It's that simple really and while it is not an ideal situation no one is forcing you to buy anything.

Penn wrote: »

But that's what people are complaining about. We want to play these games, but the practices of these companies are turning people away from buying the games. That means sales figures take a hit (see Shadow of War, which given the reception and reviews for the first game should have sold far more than it did). Which means developers/publishers look for ways to increase revenue from those who do buy the game. Which means even worse methods of getting money from consumers occur. Which puts more people off the next game.

It's not just about complaining about "Boo hoo I might not get to play as Luke Skywalker...", it's about the actual practice and implementation of these methods of getting more money out of people and the changes in game design to facilitate it which ultimately punish people who don't want to pay more money, either through forcing them through a huge grind, or putting them off playing the game altogether. That's what people are complaining about.

The alternate to loot crates in modern games which cost upwards of half a billion to make is to raise the price of the game. Would people pay 120 to 140 euro to play Battlefront 2 or GTA 6? I think loot crates are an awful addition to modern gaming and if I feel that I will not be able to play a game without buying them I just don't buy said title. Gamers have no one to blame for loot crates but themselves. Everyone remembers horse armour as a big joke but in the years since we have had gamers rushing out to pre-order games simply to get a different costume or weapon skin.

Gaming has some shady business practices but they never force anyone to buy anything. If you are unhappy with the idea that in order to play as the most overpowered characters in a game you have to grind to get them or else pay real money then simply don't. Sure you may only want to play as Luck Skywalker and if that is the case then vote with your wallet and get something else. Why not buy the new Wolfenstein game which gives you a complete game without the need to pay for additional content instead.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

While I have serious issues with the commodification of gameplay... this also isn't exactly the hardest thing to do, since a significant majority of AAA titles are derivative bollocks Purging the microtransaction riddled ones and spending the money on interesting indie games or those occasional big-budget gems instead seems like a win-win solution to me!

Is Super Mario Odyssey or Zelda considered AAA titles?
Yes they are IMO, and they don't contain **** micro-transactions.

That's the acceptation tho, not the norm.

I also enjoy the likes of Forza, COD, Gears, Battlefield, Shadow of Mordor ect
So I should just expect to stop playing and enjoying these types of titles now?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to remember that developers and publishers owe you nothing. If you have an issue with a developers use of loot crates then you have three options.
You can just not buy the game and then not feel forced to spend money in-game. Secondly, you can buy the game and just not pay for any loot creates. Or finally, you can buy the game and then buy loot crates. It's that simple really and while it is not an ideal situation no one is forcing you to buy anything.



The alternate to loot crates in modern games which cost upwards of half a billion to make is to raise the price of the game. Would people pay 120 to 140 euro to play Battlefront 2 or GTA 6? I think loot crates are an awful addition to modern gaming and if I feel that I will not be able to play a game without buying them I just don't buy said title. Gamers have no one to blame for loot crates but themselves. Everyone remembers horse armour as a big joke but in the years since we have had gamers rushing out to pre-order games simply to get a different costume or weapon skin.

Gaming has some shady business practices but they never force anyone to buy anything. If you are unhappy with the idea that in order to play as the most overpowered characters in a game you have to grind to get them or else pay real money then simply don't. Sure you may only want to play as Luck Skywalker and if that is the case then vote with your wallet and get something else. Why not buy the new Wolfenstein game which gives you a complete game without the need to pay for additional content instead.

Where does this come from? Who's been saying this?

It won't matter regardless, this week the name "Star Wars" is what will sell no matter what the outcome of any backlash.
Has an argument been made that publishers should be obliged to indicate and detail on physical copies of games that in-game micro-transactions, loot-boxes and in-game currency requires real world money?

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Is Super Mario Odyssey or Zelda considered AAA titles?
Yes they are IMO, and they don't contain **** micro-transactions.

That's the acceptation tho, not the norm.

I also enjoy the likes of Forza, COD, Gears, Battlefield, Shadow of Mordor ect
So I should just expect to stop playing and enjoying these types of titles now?

If you find their use of loot crates and microtransactions offensive then yes you would be expected not to support them. Also, Nintendo have plenty of their own additional content to purchase, hell they put the hard mode of Zelda behind a season pass. And lets not forget the manner in which they pimp Amiboos with the selling point of additional in-game content.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Where does this come from? Who's been saying this?

The manner in which people are so outraged by a developer or publisher doing something they dislike. You seem to think that developers owe you a game that does everything you want from it, hence why you are enraged over Battlefront making heroes hard to attain.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

If you find their use of loot crates and microtransactions offensive then yes you would be expected not to support them. Also, Nintendo have plenty of their own additional content to purchase, hell they put the hard mode of Zelda behind a season pass. And lets not forget the manner in which they pimp Amiboos with the selling point of additional in-game content.



The manner in which people are so outraged by a developer or publisher doing something they dislike. You seem to think that developers owe you a game that does everything you want from it, hence why you are enraged over Battlefront making heroes hard to attain.

Again where are you making this up from?
What I expect is when I purchase a game outright then there is no free to play model embedded in it trapping what essentially on the face of the game.

Hey, have look who's on the front. But sure pump 40+ hours of grinding into the game first to get near them.



I don't walk into the cinema to watch a movie and pop 2 euro into the seat and then click a button beside my seat to give me a randomized ending for more money either.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not buy the new Wolfenstein game which gives you a complete game without the need to pay for additional content instead.

Sorry but that's complete nonsense. Buy a game you don't want to buy instead of a game you do?

Either way, it does not change the fact people have every right to point out the flaws in these methods of additional revenue and to try and get developers/publishers to aim towards more of a balance between getting additional revenue in a way that a) doesn't put gamers off buying the game in the first place and b) doesn't punish those who choose not to pay the additional money.

As I've said before, I have no issue with lootboxes & microtransactions when they're done right, and I think Overwatch got the balance spot on, and Blizzard are making a lot of additional revenue with their fair lootbox system, which doesn't impact on the game. The items are purely cosmetic and they put a lot of work into them. An argument can be made about the gambling aspect of it, but I don't see it as that big an issue.

Battlefront II has gone completely the wrong direction with their system, as did Shadow of War and others. It needs to be about more than just not buying the game. It needs to be a case where gamers voice their opinions on it and the developers listen and take it on board. It needs to be pointed out that some of the biggest selling points of the game are locked behind a grind/paywall to bring it to the attention of those who may not know it.

Varik

Gamer will voice their opinion and then the majority will still buy it, with a sizable portion spending more on these to negate any lost sales.

Penn

Varik wrote: »

Gamer will voice their opinion and then the majority will still buy it, with a sizable portion spending more on these to negate any lost sales.

But the negative publicity may still help change things going forward, or detract other devs/publishers from doing similar or toning it back.

Right now it's one of the biggest stories on Reddit, which means it's bringing it to the attention of people who might not visit games websites.

wes

Long term this will eventually back fire. Pleading poverty, while enforcing unpaid over time and insane hours on employees, and raking in bigger and bigger profits is a bit rich from these companies, but to see people who don't directly benefit parroting the poverty line is utterly absurd.

A lot of us are paying customers, and as such we can damn well, call out this crap, that is destroying gaming. The arguments in favor of these pay to win loot boxes are absurd. A lot of people were willing to tolerate cosmetic micro transactions, but that turned out to be big mistake, as the AAA companies took this as a green light to go full pay to win, and infect single player games with micro transactions.

Yes, yes, I know there companies and they want to make as much money as possible. I could care less, and I see no reason why I should. We could turn the argument around, and say as a customer, we want things as high quality as possible, while paying as little as we can get away with. This works both ways if people want to take that position.

Benzino

It's not nonsense, you have to vote with your wallet. These companies exist to make money, if they don't make money then they will have to change things up.

If you want to play a game, but it has micro transactions which you are a against, well then it's a test of how much you really care. If do care, you don't give them your money. It's like been against poor working conditions and then going to buy an iPhone, you are supporting and funding the very thing you are against.

I wanted to play Evolve, but their crazy day one content and season passes etc meant I gave it a pass. Lots of others did too and the game was a huge flop as a result (might have been a flop regardless, but their approach to dlc definitely affected the game).

wes

Benzino wrote: »

It's not nonsense, you have to vote with your wallet. These companies exist to make money, if they don't make money then they will have to change things up.

If you want to play a game, but it has micro transactions which you are a against, well then it's a test of how much you really care. If do care, you don't give them your money. It's like been against poor working conditions and then going to buy an iPhone, you are supporting and funding the very thing you are against.

I wanted to play Evolve, but their crazy day one content and season passes etc meant I gave it a pass. Lots of others did too and the game was a huge flop as a result (might have been a flop regardless, but their approach to dlc definitely affected the game).

I have passed on plenty of garbage micro transaction games. Most recently the Mordor game.

As for companies existing to make money. I could care less. I have yet to see anyone making that argument as to why I should care? Sure, the company can go out of business, but that is not my problem. Plenty of others out there, and maybe EA going down in flames would be a good thing.

As a customer, I want as much as I can get, highest quality I can get, and spend as little as possible. If you take that position in regards to companies, then you need to accept the customer position. I could care less about them making money or not, and have no reason to do so. Its a 2 way street. If these companies want to act like exploitative leeches, and plead poverty, the customer can respond accordingly.

Penn

Benzino wrote: »

It's not nonsense, you have to vote with your wallet. These companies exist to make money, if they don't make money then they will have to change things up.

If you want to play a game, but it has micro transactions which you are a against, well then it's a test of how much you really care. If do care, you don't give them your money. It's like been against poor working conditions and then going to buy an iPhone, you are supporting and funding the very thing you are against.

Not sure if this is referring to one of my previous posts, I just meant it's nonsense to say "Buy this other game if you disagree with the practices of the game you do want". I don't think someone should buy a game just to support them for not including lootbox/MTs in their game if it's not a game you wanted to buy in the first place. Just buy neither.

wes wrote: »

I have passed on plenty of garbage micro transaction games. Most recently the Mordor game.

Same here. I didn't bother getting Shadow of War even though I loved the first one. I'll not be getting Battlefront II unless they change the lootbox system and the grind for unlocking things.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Again where are you making this up from?
What I expect is when I purchase a game outright then there is no free to play model embedded in it trapping what essentially on the face of the game.

Hey, have look who's on the front. But sure pump 40+ hours of grinding into the game first to get near them.


I don't walk into the cinema to watch a movie and pop 2 euro into the seat and then click a button beside my seat to give me a randomized ending for more money either.

The trailer for Predators had a shot of Adrian Brody being covered in lasers but that never happened in the film. By your argument, I should have been disgusted that after paying money to see the film the big scene from the trailer wasn't there. If you have such an issue with loot crates and microtransactions then simply don't buy the game. It really is that simple. If you find it so distasteful go and support a different game.

Penn wrote: »

Sorry but that's complete nonsense. Buy a game you don't want to buy instead of a game you do?

Either way, it does not change the fact people have every right to point out the flaws in these methods of additional revenue and to try and get developers/publishers to aim towards more of a balance between getting additional revenue in a way that a) doesn't put gamers off buying the game in the first place and b) doesn't punish those who choose not to pay the additional money.

As I've said before, I have no issue with lootboxes & microtransactions when they're done right, and I think Overwatch got the balance spot on, and Blizzard are making a lot of additional revenue with their fair lootbox system, which doesn't impact on the game. The items are purely cosmetic and they put a lot of work into them. An argument can be made about the gambling aspect of it, but I don't see it as that big an issue.

Battlefront II has gone completely the wrong direction with their system, as did Shadow of War and others. It needs to be about more than just not buying the game. It needs to be a case where gamers voice their opinions on it and the developers listen and take it on board. It needs to be pointed out that some of the biggest selling points of the game are locked behind a grind/paywall to bring it to the attention of those who may not know it.

There is the problem, there are plenty of great games without loot crates and rather than support them you come online to complain about a game that has them. No one is forcing you to buy any game and no game will force you to buy additional content. If loot crates are so offputting to you then simply don't buy games that use them. It really is that simple. There are loads of things I like that I simply don't support due to business practices that I don't agree with. I don't feel the need to complain about it, I just don't support it.

We all know that most of the people up in arms complaining about loot crates and microtransactions will still buy the game upon launch and most likely spend more ingame. And then when the next game with loot crates pops up the same people will complain and still support it.

wes

Penn wrote: »

Same here. I didn't bother getting Shadow of War even though I loved the first one. I'll not be getting Battlefront II unless they change the lootbox system and the grind for unlocking things.

I don't even want to play the multiplayer on Battlefront II, but the whole loot box things leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I have decided to not buy it, unless I can get a steep discount, as all I care about is the campaign.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

There is the problem, there are plenty of great games without loot crates and rather than support them you come online to complain about a game that has them. No one is forcing you to buy any game and no game will force you to buy additional content. If loot crates are so offputting to you then simply don't buy games that use them. It really is that simple. There are loads of things I like that I simply don't support due to business practices that I don't agree with. I don't feel the need to complain about it, I just don't support it.

We all know that most of the people up in arms complaining about loot crates and microtransactions will still buy the game upon launch and most likely spend more ingame. And then when the next game with loot crates pops up the same people will complain and still support it.

I think I've clarified that in the post above yours. I'm not buying games that have systems I don't agree with, but I'm also not going to buy games who don't have those systems if they're not games I want to buy anyway, because that's just wasting money.

Either way, it's not an "either/or" system. You can refuse to buy the game, and also complain in order to voice the reason why you're not buying the game and why the devs/publishers have lost your sale, in the hopes it brings the system to the attention of someone who might not be aware of it, and hope if enough people voice those concerns, the devs/publishers will listen and change things.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The trailer for Predators had a shot of Adrian Brody being covered in lasers but that never happened in the film. By your argument, I should have been disgusted that after paying money to see the film the big scene from the trailer wasn't there. If you have such an issue with loot crates and microtransactions then simply don't buy the game. It really is that simple. If you find it so distasteful go and support a different game.

I will continue to complain and continue to share news and views on this subject as it's currently buried into the heart of gaming, a pass time I love and have invested heavily in throughout my lifetime.
And complaining and discussing this sort of ****e in games does make a difference.
I mentioned earlier in this thread Angry Joe managed to get EA to come on and address there system and answer some hard questions.
It even made them slightly adjust and remove epic cards from lootboxes. So the community do make a difference.
Simply repeating "don't buy it" isn't good enough. Creating awareness and speaking out against it does.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

I think I've clarified that in the post above yours. I'm not buying games that have systems I don't agree with, but I'm also not going to buy games who don't have those systems if they're not games I want to buy anyway, because that's just wasting money.

Either way, it's not an "either/or" system. You can refuse to buy the game, and also complain in order to voice the reason why you're not buying the game and why the devs/publishers have lost your sale, in the hopes it brings the system to the attention of someone who might not be aware of it, and hope if enough people voice those concerns, the devs/publishers will listen and change things.

Voicing concerns will change nothing, the only thing that will see any change is voting with your wallet. It's that simple but then the question that has to be asked is what are people willing to pay for a game. With production, licensing and marketing costs of games passing half a billion a price point of 60 euro won't cut it anymore. Without loot crates and season passes, I would expect to see most Triple A titles cost 100+ euro. Are people willing to pay that for a game is the question?

johnny_ultimate

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I also enjoy the likes of Forza, COD, Gears, Battlefield, Shadow of Mordor ect
So I should just expect to stop playing and enjoying these types of titles now?

Entirely your call, and we all like what we like - and it's up to you whether that outweighs your ethical or moral purchasing decisions We all have to choose our battles, and suck up some uncomfortable decisions (clothes shopping is a living hell if you want to try and do the 'right thing').

But personally I don't play many major franchise games outside Nintendo these days, and don't really feel like I'm missing out a whole lot as a result - still have an ENDLESS supply of interesting, fun and unusual games of all types & sizes to get through.

If anything the 'nickle 'n' diming' + increasingly time-wasting design philosophy of most big-budget titles has only made me more willing to ignore a lot of them, and frankly I feel like I'm playing far better games more regularly as a result!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Voicing concerns will change nothing, the only thing that will see any change is voting with your wallet. It's that simple but then the question that has to be asked is what are people willing to pay for a game. With production, licensing and marketing costs of games passing half a billion a price point of 60 euro won't cut it anymore. Without loot crates and season passes, I would expect to see most Triple A titles cost 100+ euro. Are people willing to pay that for a game is the question?

Wrong

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Wrong

You are so right, all the concerns voiced over the past number of years in relation to microtransactions and loot crates has not seen them become the norm but rather fade away. You can shout all you want but if you are are still buying the games you are moaning about then you are part of the problem.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You are so right, all the concerns voiced over the past number of years in relation to microtransactions and loot crates has not seen them become the norm but rather fade away. You can shout all you want but if you are are still buying the games you are moaning about then you are part of the problem.

I've just pointed out to you why it makes a difference.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

You are so right, all the concerns voiced over the past number of years in relation to microtransactions and loot crates has not seen them become the norm but rather fade away. You can shout all you want but if you are are still buying the games you are moaning about then you are part of the problem.

I think its the whales and dolphins that are the real problem. It only take a few of those people to make EA and there ilk a lot of money. At the same time, EA etc are actively psychologically exploiting vulnerable people to get them to spend money on loot boxes etc.

I also, think that the tolerances of fairly inoffensive micro transactions, was a screw up on the part of gamers. Some of us were to fair minded, and of course these companies decided to take advantage.

If micro transctions were more along the Overwatch model, I doubt anyone would care nearly as much. Instead we have pay 2 win in full priced games. Its unfortunate that EA etc are trying to destroy the hobby, with this garbage.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Voicing concerns will change nothing, the only thing that will see any change is voting with your wallet. It's that simple but then the question that has to be asked is what are people willing to pay for a game. With production, licensing and marketing costs of games passing half a billion a price point of 60 euro won't cut it anymore. Without loot crates and season passes, I would expect to see most Triple A titles cost 100+ euro. Are people willing to pay that for a game is the question?

Again, it's not an either/or system. You can voice concerns and also not buy the game.

As for increasing the cost of games, I'd actually be fine with that. Most base games are €70, not €60. I'd have no issue with it going to €80 (cut out the whole Standard/Gold/Deluxe/Ultimate) editions sh*te, and have the game at €75-80, with optional add-ons (lootboxes/MTs which don't affect anything to do with gameplay eg. cosmetic items for those who choose to buy them) or additional DLC which doesn't fragment the player base but merely adds new stuff into the game for those who want to continue playing it (eg. I'm currently playing the Horizon DLC, a game which had no lootboxes or microtransactions).

Again, I don't think anyone has an issue with developers/publishers making money and making a profit. It's how they do it. Some companies do it brilliantly, but some don't, and the ones that don't should be called out for it as well as people simply not buying the game.

It's also a self-defeating circle, because by putting people off buying the game, the publishers then have to try recoup that cost from those who did buy the game, which means they're targeting a smaller number of people who'll pay more for and within the game, rather than appealing to a larger group to increase pure sales figures for the game itself.

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I've just pointed out to you why it makes a difference.

What difference does it make? More games are adopting them not less and those games are making huge profits. If you complain about microtransactions and then support a game with them then you are part of the problem. Anyways, this is just going around in circles so I'm done with it.

Penn

wes wrote: »

If micro transctions were more along the Overwatch model, I doubt anyone would care nearly as much. Instead we have pay 2 win in full priced games. Its unfortunate that EA etc are trying to destroy the hobby, with this garbage.

Completely agree. Gamers can accept lootboxes/MTs when done right, and many of the games who did do it right (like Overwatch imo) have made a lot of money from it. But other companies saw that, tried their own version of it, and keep getting greedy, making the lootboxes more of a need than a want.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What difference does it make? More games are adopting them not less and those games are making huge profits. If you complain about microtransactions and then support a game with them then you are part of the problem. Anyways, this is just going around in circles so I'm done with it.

I just posted it in the previous page. Read back.

wes

Penn wrote: »

Completely agree. Gamers can accept lootboxes/MTs when done right, and many of the games who did do it right (like Overwatch imo) have made a lot of money from it. But other companies saw that, tried their own version of it, and keep getting greedy, making the lootboxes more of a need than a want.

Sadly, I think the position, really needs to be, we are against them all the time, and don't pay a single penny on them. Its unfortunate that the EA's have ruined this for everyone.

A game like Overwatch, where you get new maps and characters for free, and those new maps and characters are supported by micro transactions was pretty much a sweet spot imo. I don't like micro transactions at all personally, but something inoffensive like what Overwatch does, were the people who choose not to buy them still benefit from new characters and maps was the best way to implement the system in a full priced game.

Its to bad that the pay 2 win model seems to result from gamers trusting publishers like that.