Microtransactions: the Future of Games? (LootBoxes and Gambling)

[Billy Idol]

It is very easy, do not buy something if you do not think its valued correctly.

Except when it is not easy: gambling aspects, addiction, completionist gamers etc etc. You know that there is strong psychology involved in this and devs are learning better and better to "play the right tunes".

Remember that young adults or kids are playing these games without regulation and without control about how much money they spend...imo, this could be a problem. We have already many documentations about teenagers/young adults are in the depth due to their excessive mobile phone usage...

I have to admit to myself, that I have a hard time not to buy SW:BF2: the videos about the gorgeous graphics, the solid gameplay, the perfect sound design. It is currently indeed the negative posts in forums which re-iterate that the grind is so extreme, that you basically feel no progression. This is a real bummer to me, as I do like the feel of progression the most in a computer game . Furthermore, there are many videos that show how rich kids with their star cards and heros destroy and dominate in MP. So, right now, this keeps me away from it. But I do feel the urge to find reasons to buy it...I already fear the minutes after watching the new Star Wars movie when I look at the PSN store screen

 

[Nesh]

Except when it is not easy: gambling aspects, addiction, completionist gamers etc etc. You know that there is strong psychology involved in this and devs are learning better and better to "play the right tunes".

Remember that young adults or kids are playing these games without regulation and without control about how much money they spend...imo, this could be a problem. We have already many documentations about teenagers/young adults are in the depth due to their excessive mobile phone usage...

I have to admit to myself, that I have a hard time not to buy SW:BF2: the videos about the gorgeous graphics, the solid gameplay, the perfect sound design. It is currently indeed the negative posts in forums which re-iterate that the grind is so extreme, that you basically feel no progression. This is a real bummer to me, as I do like the feel of progression the most in a computer game . Furthermore, there are many videos that show how rich kids with their star cards and heros destroy and dominate in MP. So, right now, this keeps me away from it. But I do feel the urge to find reasons to buy it...I already fear the minutes after watching the new Star Wars movie when I look at the PSN store screen

Which means they are sprerading social inequality in the the gaming social space as well. Rewarding and progression in gaming is leaning towards those that have more money. The rest will not progress as fast, as much or at all regardless if they are the more skillfull players. The implications are more complex.
You have money? You are rewarded instantly. Doesn't matter if you are mediocre in life. You dont have money? Go f*ck yourself. You have to "work and sacrifice" more to prove your worth for the basic features. You want the good rewards? It is a race you will never win. You will be constantly obliterated by those that paid for extra powers. Meanwhile the rich are enjoying the fruit of gaming we used to considered given.
It is a micrography of real life's social inequality.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I can agree with those arguments and sentiments. However, that's the way of the world. People with money get more opportunities and more success. People with less money have to work harder. Discussions on if games and gaming business models should follow capitalistic ideologies belong in the RSPCA forum. I think here, the discussion should focus on whether/what types of MTs are necessary for Gaming to remain a healthy industry supporting the games we want to play. Plus personal rants against them or in favour.

 

[Nesh]

I can agree with those arguments and sentiments. However, that's the way of the world. People with money get more opportunities and more success. People with less money have to work harder. Discussions on if games and gaming business models should follow capitalistic ideologies belong in the RSPCA forum. I think here, the discussion should focus on whether/what types of MTs are necessary for Gaming to remain a healthy industry supporting the games we want to play. Plus personal rants against them or in favour.

Capitalism is no godly or natural law that defines how unquestionably things should strive in. It is a human subjective construct of economic evolution. It should be dynamic and subject of change for the better. If certain aspects of capitalism are outdated and have negative implications they should be dealt with. If this is how gaming is evolving too due to microtransactions, which takes away from the benefit/utility that a wider crowd was originally enjoying, it shouldn't continue. This is the reason why we create economic systems. To serve the needs of society. This is why economies that have proper regulations enjoy growth and better welfare at large.
Just as regulations for consumer protection exist in various products, some form of regulation should exist in gaming as well.

This is related because the term microtransactions is directly related to the negative side of the capitalistic model (when profit becomes more important than what the consumer/gamer gets) and affects how gaming is evolving (see title). The initial appearance of DLC was not a synonym with microtransactions and didnt necessary raise much an issue because the consumer's initial purchase was getting a complete experience without the requirement of extra "transactions" to unlock it. Online gaming was properly competitive too. Add ons and expansions were exactly that. An expansion of the complete experience. We got a few cases where developers deliberately withheld content to make people pay extra later on which is an unfair practice against the consumer and is a problem of transparency. This also raises concerns.
Some rules must be set in order to make DLC work.
Such as not selling content that give unfair advantage to a player, access to content to be equal to all, in game progress to be tied to skill and time not with monetary spending. Sure they can be more but thats a good start

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Are we more forgiving when a game is f2p instead of having a premium price entry?

Yes, we are.
It's the difference between $60+microtransactions and $0+microtransactions.
Not sure if this was a legitimate question, though.

 

[JPT]

Some rules must be set in order to make DLC work.
Such as not selling content that give unfair advantage to a player, access to content to be equal to all, in game progress to be tied to skill and time not with monetary spending. Sure they can be more but thats a good start

I think we also should regulate how many hours you can spend playing, because the more you play, the better you get and since I do not have the time to play as much as others, its unfair and it should be regulated......

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Capitalism is no godly or natural law that defines how unquestionably things should strive in. It is a human subjective construct of economic evolution.

It is a topic for the Religion, Politics, and Socioeconimc Climate forum. You cannot discuss Capitalism without discussing ethics, morality, and philosophy. Those subjects don't belong here as they're too contentious.

Such as not selling content that give unfair advantage to a player, access to content to be equal to all, in game progress to be tied to skill and time not with monetary spending. Sure they can be more but thats a good start

That's only according to one ideology. Other ideologies will say it's fine how it is because the market is free to choose itself. That discussion, which ideology is right, doesn't belong here.

Edit: The principles and values we have can be expressed here. We can say what we would prefer individually. We can't assume any ethical standard nor judge values different from our own. If someone here thinks Pay-to-win is perfectly fair, they can express that and it shouldn't be argued with here as that's an ideological discussion.

Trying to find where to draw the line that allows ideas to be shared without this turning into a big mess or needing to be closed.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

How about changing the title to "EA/DICE Battlefront 2 Disaster Watch"?


EDIT:

For example, after the Belgian government going after Battlefront 2 and Overwatch (though the latter is probably safe because their stuff is purely cosmetic), now we have a french senator proposing legislation on loot boxes, where he specifically mentions Battlefront 2:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931184414909923329

And the Dutch government is also looking into loot boxes:

http://www.clockworkstorybook.net/games/dutch-authorities-investigating-loot-boxes/


And now investor websites are making the recommendation to sell EA stock before the game comes out:
https://investorplace.com/2017/11/p...-electronic-arts-stock/view-all/#.Wg4gN7p2t1M


After BBC, CNN is also running the story. But now they're taking the "gambling for children" approach and asking Disney to comment on the story.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/16/technology/battlefront-ii-star-wars-game-gambling/index.html
I'm sure Disney isn't happy to be appearing on news that associate Star Wars to gambling. Much less when we're less than a month from Ep.VIII release.




I'm starting to wonder if there will actually be a worldwide release tomorrow.


I can't help but feel sorry for all the talented people at DICE. EA has a history of keeping their executives who demand stupid stuff (like omg we can charge infinite money this way!!111one) and then fire the whole dev team of the game that went wrong.
The reddit AMA was a sad thing to watch. Everyone was saying "the problem is the loot box progression, you need to remove that", and the devs sounded like a broken record, "we'll analyse the data and make adjustments". Everyone wanted to address the pay-for-progression, but none of the 3 devs dared to touch that subject.

 

[Nesh]

I dont follow ideol

That's only according to one ideology. Other ideologies will say it's fine how it is because the market is free to choose itself. That discussion, which ideology is right, doesn't belong here.

I dont believe in ideologies

 

[BRiT]

I doubt this has anything to do with the mass level of gamer feedback but more of the hassles of various agencies looking into the gambling aspects. It seems like EA has turned off the in-game purchases.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931341714656284672

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931332890717143040

 

[Billy Idol]

What?!? So how does it work now? According to all reviews I read the lootboxes were an integral part of the game, not just an additional mechanism.

Lol, disney and child gambling....I think that this bomb exploded right in someones face!

 

[Billy Idol]

Regarding poor talented devs at DICE who get forced by EA to be evil and anti-children (lol): I know that it is B3D ideology to never question a dev and blindly defend every action they do, as they are apparently some entities made out of pure light without failure.

But I don‘t.

DICE made a shitty product. They stand for it with their names when the credits role...

PS: it will take now even longer until they fix the many bugs

 

[Nesh]

I doubt this has anything to do with the mass level of gamer feedback but more of the hassles of various agencies looking into the gambling aspects. It seems like EA has turned off the in-game purchases.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931341714656284672

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931332890717143040

So. F*ck the consumer, as long as no regulatory body will potentially stand against it. Only when agencies do their work properly, bad practices are abandonned. Good.

Sent from my SM-J320F using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I doubt this has anything to do with the mass level of gamer feedback but more of the hassles of various agencies looking into the gambling aspects. It seems like EA has turned off the in-game purchases.

Temporarily.
- First, this is a blatant attempt at "making the outrage outdated". Turn it off now, then double down as soon as Christmas is here.
- Second, they're not giving up on pay2win. EA very specifically said to USGamer that microtransactions for player progression (they now have a nicer name to it: gameplay accelerators) will be coming back. Then blablabla balanced blablabla looking at data blablabla adjusting.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/931367497831366657

The temporarily statement and the refusal to address everyone's main concern - pay2win - made everyone look at it for what it was.
If anything, this half-assed attempt to temporarily dispel the outrage has made everyone even angrier. Right on release date.


The governments won't be stepping out of this one either. The concern that is gambling in games persists, and regulations will probably be put in place anyways.

 

[Billy Idol]

Uh. That is brutal. So they temp shut down mt to take out fuel now that media is jumping on it....sales go up because of positive press stating that EA agrees with mistakes...system comes back with minor tweaks after dust settles and initial sale rush finished

Would be quite the move from EA.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Uh. That is brutal. So they temp shut down mt to take out fuel now that media is jumping on it....sales go up because of positive press stating that EA agrees with mistakes...system comes back with minor tweaks after dust settles and initial sale rush finished

Would be quite the move from EA.

I don't think they're securing anything. EA's statement basically says "we reserve the right to push pay2win gambling after we secure initial sales", and the whole press and communities seem to be doubling down on it.

What's really awkward is how much EA is pushing for the pay2win gambling, even after all the damage they're taking, along with Disney and the Star Wars franchise.
It's like they're completely desperate to get this into motion. These are unprecedented levels of bullish against consumer wishes.

 

[McHuj]

Personally I am terrified for the Battlefield game, I hope that franchise doesn’t become what Battlefront is.

 

[Malo]

What?!? So how does it work now? According to all reviews I read the lootboxes were an integral part of the game, not just an additional mechanism.

I assume you'll still be able to purchase loot boxes with credits like before, you just can't make purchases with real money?

 

[CSI PC]

The question is "do (AAA) games cost more to make now than they used to?" The answer is 'yes' hence publishers are managing costs by producing less games.

No, that's publishers spending less per year.

I buy 10 packs of Maoam a month at £1 a pack for a cost of £10.
Maoam price increases to £2 a pack.
I decide to spend less on Maoam, only buying four packs a month for £8.
Does that mean the price of eating Maoam has decreased? No. The price has increased so I've adjusted my spending to reduce my costs.

The way I see it, MT (from the perspective of additional content) had to happen to fund development, but publishers are finding they can be pushed in profitability and are taking advantage of that. I think it fairly reckless to suggest pubs and devs could ditch MTs and carry on producing games as they used to 20 years ago. If gamers actually believed that and boycotted content, the market would have a crash and turn into something very different. Though that's never going to happen because gamers whinge a lot but don't act.

Complaints against MT's need to be moderate and fair, criticising the exploitative and poorly balanced ones but accepting and supporting the fair ones that are good value.

Sorry for late response just catching up.
This misses a fundamental aspect of product marketing and business strategy that ties into what we see in the gaming industry albeit more notably with the worst offending games.
Specifically a modern strategy is to charge same price or a little more, but they adjust the way the product is used or packaged by 20-30%.
Modern examples include toothpast tube nozzle being wider or toilet roll paper being thicker and this can increase usage easily by 20% especially if marketed in a specific way, so they are selling for the same price but consumers are going through it quicker as they rarely adjust behaviour to offset these changes.
These are just a couple of real world business strategy examples on how to increase profit without seeming to increase price, other strategies that tie into this discussion is how you get less in a packet/packaging per gram than in the past but for the same price; this applies heavily to sweets that are then can also be advertised as being ironically less fat per packet than in the past
So greater profit due to less in the packet (again usually try to hit 15-25%) along with improved consumer perception about quality/health/blah blah (whatever marketing/business strategy consultants can come up with).

For games, this can mean less core gameplay content than in the past combined with recycling aspects repeatedly or include mechanisms to give the perception of gameplay content longevity (albeit content in this context is cheaper to do such as what is usually offered with modern recurring cost services/some), or moving aspects of gameplay from core game with its AAA cost to paying DLC, bring in a "delux" or season pass type cost but may not actually include everything and it is an upfront cost without knowing what will be coming down the line or its quality,etc as the list can be quite lengthy or flexible.
I appreciate there are good games out there, but also plenty that adopt such strategies full on; Battlefield 2 Star Wars continues to make headlines all for the wrong reasons being the latest and currently most visible where EA keeps trying to push the boundaries in that beta game until it finds one that it thinks is optimal revenue vs what consumers will balk at.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't think that's a new thing. Back in the days, there was plenty of shovelware of the same game with repackaged assets (many Disney platforming tie-ins for example). There are plenty of games predating DLC that have recycled content to add longevity due to technical and cost limits. I'm not convinced it's an intrinsically worsening problem. Also, as mentioned, the need to move content from the main title to DLC could be economically driven. If pubs didn't do that, would they be able to sustain themselves? Some are happy to assert that it's not a financial requirement and these pubs would be plenty well off enough, pleasing the share holders too I guess, just selling $60 games. At the moment the arguments all seem very personal speculation. Like so many on B3D!