Bondrewd
Veteran
Opening a TCG booster nets you cards, physical, actual cards. You can trade them.
Opening a lootbox nets you nothing of value. It's 0s and 1s. You can't even trade whatever the lootbox contains unless it's Valve games.
Microtransactions: the Future of Games? (LootBoxes and Gambling)
Opening a lootbox nets you nothing of value. It's 0s and 1s. You can't even trade whatever the lootbox contains unless it's Valve games.
Whether virtual goods are worth anything is... probably another thread.
Considering some games enable you to exchange currency for in game play time like EVE Online does, then yes. Currency does matter. The largest stories always deals with ship loss in USD which can be upwards to 17K IIRC.
Considering some games enable you to exchange currency for in game play time like EVE Online does, then yes. Currency does matter. The largest stories always deals with ship loss in USD which can be upwards to 17K IIRC.
Bondrewd
Veteran
If it's untradable and is chained to your account, then no. It's basically nothing. You can't transform it back into any real currency.
EVE is a very special case.
Even then, RMT works (and boy did russians love doing it), even if it violates the ToS.
Strongly disagree. It still has value to the consumer. It might not have value to you, but it still has value to the consumer who bought it.
Bondrewd
Veteran
What value? Someone gambled their money away, got something unwanted, yet can't sell/trade it.
The only way is to gamble more money away.
I see what you're saying, but I was taking Malo's question more broadly and not as a direct response to your talk about loot-box gambling. My disagreement is that I was applying the question of value to buying specific and wanted items such as Songs, Pinbal Tables, DOA Costumes.
I think we're both in agreement then.
Yeah. If it was an in-game purchase, then the lack of resellability doesn't matter because you have the value from it. The problem is the gambling where you spend money to get nothing you want, and can't even trade that on. That said, with Trading Cards etc you also end up with loads of unwanted cards that haven't trading value. The law should probably be extended to cover odds and costs, and maybe really inform people of average price of the thing they want. And/or make it compulsory that items can be bought, including rare trading cards. That'd completely change those physical industries, but in gaming it won't make a difference I think because, if the contents were worth buying, more people would actually buy them.
OT: were magic cards etc only available to ppl over the age of 16/18? cause it really was gambling and there are generally age limits
Sure you good perhaps make a flimsy case that a toy in a cereal box is gambling (do they still do this?) but I'ld say thats different cause the toy aint the main reason ppl generally buy the cereal box
Sure you good perhaps make a flimsy case that a toy in a cereal box is gambling (do they still do this?) but I'ld say thats different cause the toy aint the main reason ppl generally buy the cereal box
OK so they never had an age limit in some places.
Im not sure about sports cards, no idea how they work. I assumed you had an equal chance of getting any player, is this not how they work? i.e. out of a team of say 20 players, you'ld have one player that you only have a 1/1000 chance of randomly getting in a pack.
With magic cards you had cards that were very rare, thus like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratchcard so I could see how that would be gambling
Im not sure about sports cards, no idea how they work. I assumed you had an equal chance of getting any player, is this not how they work? i.e. out of a team of say 20 players, you'ld have one player that you only have a 1/1000 chance of randomly getting in a pack.
With magic cards you had cards that were very rare, thus like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratchcard so I could see how that would be gambling
It would seem the origins were as an additional freebie with other products, so I presume not. Somewhere from the introduction of collectibles to the development of collectible industries (lots of toys are randomised collectibles along with cards like Pokemon), the value of the collectible and the psychological need to 'complete the set' were identified and exploited.
So there's talk going around that SW:BFII Micro-transactions were vastly different. However everything changed at the request of Disney's Lucasfilm Star Wars division.
https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/17/...most-had-way-more-overwatch-style-hero-skins/
During the development of Star Wars: Battlefront II (read our review), developer DICE began work on a mode that played like Overwatch and featured a similar business model to Blizzard’s team-based hero shooter, according to sources familiar with the production (who asked that I not print their names or titles to protect their employment). The mode would have focused on teamwork and squad composition, and — more importantly — it would have favored cosmetic items like hero costumes in its loot boxes over perks and weapons. Most of these ideas were dropped from Battlefront II due, at least in part, to a request from Disney’s Star Wars division Lucasfilm.
I’ve contacted Electronic Arts and Lucasfilm to ask if they would like to comment for this story. Neither company responded to multiple requests. I will update this post if either company decides to provide more information.
https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/17/...most-had-way-more-overwatch-style-hero-skins/
During the development of Star Wars: Battlefront II (read our review), developer DICE began work on a mode that played like Overwatch and featured a similar business model to Blizzard’s team-based hero shooter, according to sources familiar with the production (who asked that I not print their names or titles to protect their employment). The mode would have focused on teamwork and squad composition, and — more importantly — it would have favored cosmetic items like hero costumes in its loot boxes over perks and weapons. Most of these ideas were dropped from Battlefront II due, at least in part, to a request from Disney’s Star Wars division Lucasfilm.
I’ve contacted Electronic Arts and Lucasfilm to ask if they would like to comment for this story. Neither company responded to multiple requests. I will update this post if either company decides to provide more information.
Not sure what you are asking for, seems you are pointing out you position on benefit of recurring revenue while I am posting the negative aspects of recurring revenue, somewhere between the two views is the balance required by studios/publishers; IMO anyway.
Or are you asking for more information about the EA/Respawn situation and Titanfall 2?
In the mean time.
Axiom 1) Well point 1 also comes back to then if they bought the game.
A game can be very average in terms of content/sold but the recurring revenue is what can save the game in terms of financial analysts; it does not necessarily encourage or promote good game content.
Classic example of average game would be Evolve and it was recurring revenue that helped to save that one, while it continued having critical comments about content and extra cost related DLC content - this was before the current strategy took off with online recurring revenue but fits Axiom 1 IMO.
Axiom 2) Look to how well Borderlands and Borderlands 2 did with the core game and DLC content, or Witcher 3 and its DLC along with the provision of interesting free content.
The key is providing value in terms of playing the game whether that be worthwhile detailed side-quests/levelling structures with NG+ replayability and beyond/structure to items/crafting/etc.
Where levelling per se is not part of it, well look back to Far Cry 3 with how they provided lengthy game play.
The downside of Axiom 2 is that seems your rationalising the reason to create superficial recurring costs content to gain more revenue beyond the x million games sold and importantly x million worthwhile DLCs.
All games have a lifespan but it comes down to whether the revenue earned from sales is enough for a big publisher or if they want even more money.by extending its life and encourage players to use the recurring revenue related services (helps to slow down development costs anecdotally I accept and cycle of franchise releases).
Axiom 3) that has been around before the more aggressive aspect of the current testing of recurring cost services, look back to Borderlands 1 and 2 which is primarily a single player game but also designed to be a fun small team game as well (at epic type levels).
But not all games are designed that way but still make a lot of money or seen as very succesful; Witcher 3.
Axiom 4) content does not need to be free as long as it is deemed worthwhile; again Borderlands 2 did very well with the various DLC or most of them anyway.
The concept of free content is mostly an illusion because they will balance the price with other mechanisms whether tied into gameplay content or encouragement to pursue recurring cost/DLCs.
But to just clarify you post and mine is in response to the context of single player games that are also being targetted for recurring cost revenue even if it does not necessarily fit well, furthermore where the focus seems to be on this aspect can be to the detriment/focus of the gameplay; example is that the single player campaign in Battlefront 2 is very average with the purpose of pushing people towards cheaper pvp map online fps and the recurring revenue (albeit disabled for now) - cheaper than making a good content single player game.
TBH I think a good proposition is a balance between the two views, but the concern is the giant publishers are there to make a serious amount of money, and there is just more money reducing decent single player campaigns in general and create a sort of smallish MMO game ala Destiny/Destiny 2 or PvP maps around a concept (Battlefront), or a publisher may grudgingly support a single player game but push for the game mechanics to tie into some online recurring revenue cost (has two benefits one of revenue and also to encourage younger gamers to buy the a legitimate copy of the game rather than use pirate copies missing said services).
This does not apply to all games, 1st look seems latest Assassins Creed game is nice even with its recurring revenue, but I am yet to see any comments about very late game, which is one area it seems the recurring revenue hits Shadow of War and is kinda in your face with regards to game mechanics.
I was looking for an example in which MTX was put into a single player game and they added no content (so it was just there to exploit the players)
But your points are great, i mean, myself personally, I like to pay for content. I don't like lootboxes and the free content they provide is not necessarily something I care for. I'll try it, but it's not always the best.
That being said, I think for me, my axioms at least were to show that it was a different way to do the same thing. If i was a publisher and I only looked to maximize revenue / cost to create, then loot boxes will probably net a higher rate of return per player than building content would and having them to pay for it separately (maybe, probably). I don't necessarily agree with the idea, but the video games industry doesn't exactly work in a silo either, everything goes up in expenses, salaries, tools, number of workers, testing, etc. Things are more expensive now than ever, labour is more expensive now than ever.
I'm not sure if i can necessarily blame them. Money drives investment to make more games, enough money can help with creating new IPs.
There was a lot of uproar about Shadow War and their loot boxes tied to progression with orcs, just not here.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
The way I see it, the only reason why LucasFilm would suggest EA or DICE to drop the cosmetic lootboxes is because every single asset in the Star Wars universe must go through extreme vetting, so creating hundreds of different costume variations would mean a real hassle to everyone involved.
The process of how the game went from "it can't be MT-for-cosmetics" to "the only way to unlock the most charismatic heroes/villains is to pay hundreds in gambling or grind for hundreds of hours" might be a story that deserves its own movie, though.
There has had to be lots of people opposing most of the steps taken to reach that level, but somehow that extreme made its way to release.
Something in that Star Wars Battlefront narrative does not make sense to me, 5 months ago with a working game they had shown quite clearly how integral loot/star cards were to the game mechanics, meaning this is not something one adds after but is integral to the core game scope and focus/development-business strategy.
In fact AngryJoe interviewed one of the Dice managers back 5 months ago on this topic and they said the reason was in my own words "to offset the loss of revenue from DLC and its complexity that also split the community", so it seems it was always meant to be there and makes sense considering how integral to the game mechanics it seems to be.
The negative aspect is that it looks like EA was pushing this for as much recurring revenue as possible and possibly did not expect the backlash it experienced as their experience to date with other high profile games did not garner nearly as much negative/hostile sustained response such as Madden that has insane levels of recurring revenue for EA.
I would say they expected the usual complaints but did not put into the equation of how the Star Wars community not just gaming but seen as a whole would snowball into its worst PR situation in a very long time with it generating news also with general media outletts.
Starting at the most relevant point (around 3min30s) that highlights how integral the design choices were with regards to recurring revenue, albeit if it started initially from good intentions; comes back to finding the right balance between being exploitive and not splitting the community with various DLCs; core game content could be deemed to overlap into such factors.
That said it raises questions about just how much core content there actually is with Battlefront 2, those who review in depth seem to think it would be quite average without the recurring revenue content, which is at its worst designed to push most or the average consumer into buying from the service along with the initial AAA price they paid for the game.
In fact AngryJoe interviewed one of the Dice managers back 5 months ago on this topic and they said the reason was in my own words "to offset the loss of revenue from DLC and its complexity that also split the community", so it seems it was always meant to be there and makes sense considering how integral to the game mechanics it seems to be.
The negative aspect is that it looks like EA was pushing this for as much recurring revenue as possible and possibly did not expect the backlash it experienced as their experience to date with other high profile games did not garner nearly as much negative/hostile sustained response such as Madden that has insane levels of recurring revenue for EA.
I would say they expected the usual complaints but did not put into the equation of how the Star Wars community not just gaming but seen as a whole would snowball into its worst PR situation in a very long time with it generating news also with general media outletts.
Starting at the most relevant point (around 3min30s) that highlights how integral the design choices were with regards to recurring revenue, albeit if it started initially from good intentions; comes back to finding the right balance between being exploitive and not splitting the community with various DLCs; core game content could be deemed to overlap into such factors.
That said it raises questions about just how much core content there actually is with Battlefront 2, those who review in depth seem to think it would be quite average without the recurring revenue content, which is at its worst designed to push most or the average consumer into buying from the service along with the initial AAA price they paid for the game.
Last edited:
Designing for in-game consumables has, in all I've seen on the subject, accepted that only a small part of your audience will buy notably into ongoing purchases and you capitalise on the Whales, not the minnows. I guess EA have their own experiences with their sports games, but it'd be quite the stretch to think they could push IGCs onto most of their audience. I could believe the balance was very different, with IGCs a lot less aggressive, before some management choice decided to turn them up to 11. eg. What if originally it was ~5 hours play with 100% saving to unlock a major character, so maybe 10 hours with realistic spend? The complaints wouldn't be anything as high. Then maybe some schmuck said, "hang on, why's that 5,000 credits to buy? Can't we make that anything? Whack it up much higher - then we'll get more people buying the thing. We're not bloody giving this stuff away!"