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

[Malo]

Heavier discounts with the more expensive subscription?

Possibly yeah, 10% isn't much of a discount.

I'm sure they can work out the finances. They also have the option of just releasing directly onto EA Access only, which requires you to pay to play and remove ownership from the equation entirely.

I think they'd need a steady flow of new games to keep subscriptions, or new content for existing games. With subscriptions only they can go back to the DLC model and slowly release new maps and content over time and factor in the continuing subscription revenue from that. With something like Sims 4 I'm not sure it would work as they make an ass ton of money from the DLCs.

 

[iroboto]

Australia and Belgium gambling committees agree that lootboxes are gambling.
This is a pretty big precedent. Lots of collectible industries (CCG) could be impacted as a result of this and has large implications to mobile games industry if this continues on course.
Most interesting to see how this plays out and how all the industries adapt to this change. MTG was always a great game on it's own, but the way cards are artificially controlled was always annoying to me. Some decks could never get completed unless you continually paid more to have those cards.

https://powerup-gaming.com/2017/11/22/victorian-gambling-authority-loot-boxes-gambling/
http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/

 

[BRiT]

Wooohoo! Go Europe go! Make it illegal for all games to lock game play related item behind gambling.

The worst part of some games isnt in the long grind, but the extreme randomness of the payout. There's still skills in Gears 4 that I dont have not because I dont have enough material to craft the skill card but because I have never been awarded it through a loot box. Random Number Generator is horrible, especially for me. It prevents many from being able to enjoy the game.

 

[iroboto]

Wooohoo! Go Europe go! Make it illegal for all games to lock game play related item behind gambling.

The worst part of some games isnt in the long grind, but the extreme randomness of the payout. There's still skills in Gears 4 that I dont have not because I dont have enough material to craft the skill card but because I have never been awarded it through a loot box. Random Number Generator is horrible, especially for me. It prevents many from being able to enjoy the game.

yea that's a pretty big annoyance. I actually stopped playing gears unconsciously because of it.
Progression without buying packs was just too slow. In many ways this is probably what playing BFII feels like. We used to play hours of horde mode for no reward. It was pretty brutal.

 

[iroboto]

Hawaii on board

wow... that one guy just likened cigarettes to star wars. holy shit.. game over.

 

[Malo]

That's some fast responses and it's great these official bodies are looking at this. Could be some real change in the industry. GG EA

However, the idea that (genuine) progression in a game could be reliant on the outcome of a random number generator is at odds with responsible gambling and the objectives of our acts.

More importantly, the normalisation of gambling vernacular and mechanics targeted at vulnerable persons (minors), is not just morally reprehensible but is also legally questionable.”

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

What would people here think if there was a means of buying, or grinding to exactly what you want - characters, weapons, skins etc - but loot crates exist as a means of potentially accelerating that process?

Everything I've heard about Battlefront 2 seems to come down to a really poorly designed progression system that demands you keep pumping money in if you want to have any hope of unlocking content for a game that's already releasing at full price.

I don't really bother with multiplayer, so I'm not really effected by these goings on and can't form much of an opinion.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If they get rid of the random, they lose the gambling aspect. So BFII could become 40 hours play to unlock Darth Vader, or $3. The argument then would become one of gamers complaining they are locked out of access to something they paid for, but there'd be no government intervention is such cases. The idea of paid accelerants is of course ludicrous to those who experienced free cheat codes back in the day. But to another section of gamers, it's perfectly acceptable.

 

[AlNom]

yea that's a pretty big annoyance. I actually stopped playing gears unconsciously because of it.
Progression without buying packs was just too slow. In many ways this is probably what playing BFII feels like. We used to play hours of horde mode for no reward. It was pretty brutal.

Gears 4 Horde is a curious one:

• You need to play lots to level up to unlock ability to use multiple cards simultaneously
• You gain in-game currency while playing
• You can buy card packs with the free currency

1. There's no point in casuals buying the card packs if they haven't reached a high enough level to make best use of all the free card packs they'd gain from playing normally
   
2. Once players eventually reach a decent level, your playing experience is good enough (IMO) since you'll have gained a fair amount of free currency & free packs
   
3. The really hardcore players will need the ultra rare cards for higher difficulty, but by the time they get there (all classes level 10), they probably should have enough scrap and free card packs to get some of the decent ones
4. @BRiT just isn't hardcore enough to need those cards

Gears 3:

• ability progression is by playing lots and spending in-session points towards an ability

 

[Malo]

I have no doubt games are expensive to make, far more nowadays, though I believe there's a lot of fat that could be cut away from these companies and that ludicrous amounts are spent on marketing. I also believe that microtransactions are a viable way to increase revenue and create a post-sale revenue stream for ongoing support and development of a game. I play some PC and mobile games with my son and occasionally I'll throw a few $$ at the game for some [insert game currency] for my boy to get something cool he's been working at for awhile.

I also play PvZ:GW2 with my boy which has card packs that contain helpful stuff, though far far from real advantages and are mostly cosmetic. However I have never and will never pay real money for those because they're random. He loves buying the packs and opening them to see if he gets some rare part of a new plant/zombie character and he's 6.

 

[BRiT]

I'm allright with cosmetic only MicroTransactions, but the users should be able to buy exactly what they want.

I'm all for randomness in rewards for cosmetic only, but the game shouldn't thrive on real money being involved to get more.

I'd be alright with the Gears of War 4 Loot boxes for Horde if and only if all skills are unlocked from the get go, then you only need to grind to get enough material to build more cards to level the skill cards up. I will never be alright with abilities being so outright locked behind RNG.

I'm fine with the card system un TitanFall 1 because the reward was so plentiful and not obviously based off of greed.

I'm fine with the card system in Halo 5 Firefight modes because it seems so plentiful, but I could see aspects of it being borderline.

 

[CSI PC]

On the subject of games costing more to make, here's Ninja Theory:

$13 million for 20 people. And they've broken even, not made a massive profit to please investors (although they will profit in long term). At the same scale, 50 people, a small team, would cost over $30 million. Increase size and scope...I hope people can see that games are expensive to make!

Although one also needs to consider sales achieved.
Senua Hellblade was an unusual title and context so possibly would not appeal to the majority nor is it getting any DLC anytime soon or possibly ever, that aside its sales figures are a fraction of the main AAA games and so that also affects break even-profit point context.

I do think most of us accept there needs to be a balance between the game development and financial structure, but some implementations have become questionable as they are truly integral to the game mechanics; Battlefront 2 and Shadow of War biggest examples in how it integrates with game mechanics/gameplay, then there are plenty examples of the continue push for greater profit beyond what has been achieved before (meaning the scope is now pushing well beyond the idea of covering development costs with moderate profits).

My concern is that the new trend does nothing to encourage or promote good core game development content/gameplay, along with the need for ever greater profits by the largest publishers.
Evolve was one example I provided that was part of the turning point where it was a very average game but sustained by the recurring payment structure for its content.

 

[CSI PC]

The Belgium news may be jumping the gun.
Title: No, Belgium did not qualify Battlefront II lootboxes as a game of chance
Will need to translate it in whichever way one prefers.

We have contacted Etienne Marique, the chairman of the Gaming Commission in the House, who completely denies this statement: no conclusions were reached on the ongoing investigation in Battlefront II and Overwatch. For now, only an informative note on the issue of money in online games was developed e , so no final decision has yet been taken.

https://www.rtbf.be/info/medias/det...rs-battlefront-ii-de-jeu-de-hasard?id=9769751

But glad there is momentum from some other countries.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'll add that I think RNG can be acceptable to a degree as long as it's smart, so not giving you duplicates. If a game had 20 LeetThings that you add for money, giving the option of a cheaper gamble (50c a random LeetThing) or a fixed payment ($3 for a specific LeetThing), you'd give the user the option of playing with a gamble and at least getting something, or saving money and buying a specific item of their choosing.

Not saying I'd go with, nor even that I might not change my mind and think it unfair after a bit! But trying to introduce shades of grey into the discussion to illustrate there are many more options that those currently being used. I've been playing Fallout Shelter on Android and initially I was going to buy a few things just to give the devs same cash. But after a little while I realised the stuff you get from the Lunchboxes is utter crap and totally not worth the costs. The legendary Dwellers can only be obtained from Lunchboxes, but in maybe 50 of things obtained for free, I've not had any Legendary Dweller. The more lootboxes I open, the less I'm interested in buying them because they aren't worth the crazy asking price. Literally, they want hundreds of dollars to complete the set.

I think many players must feel the same, that there's no reward or value from a Lunchbox so no point in buying one. If every single lootbox contained something you wanted, of value, they'd be a far easier sell! I think my current feelings as a dev is if you can get an extra ten bucks from every player over the initial price, you're doing well and not overcharging. If SWBFII wants me to spend $100 on RNG until I unlock 20 heroes, they can sod off. If I can spend 50 cents to unlock a random hero, be sure to get one I haven't got before, and complete the set for $10, or if there's a new hero added every two weeks for 50 cents, EA will get infinitely more money from me. Ask for too much and get nothing instead.

Perhaps the real enemy here is actually F2P mobile games, giving far too much away for free and polarising gamers into freeloaders and whales?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Although one also needs to consider sales achieved.
Senua Hellblade was an unusual title and context so possibly would not appeal to the majority nor is it getting any DLC anytime soon or possibly ever, that aside its sales figures are a fraction of the main AAA games and so that also affects break even-profit point context.

There's lots to consider. It was priced lower, adding lots to its sales. It was built from the ground up, adding to its costs. It's sold way less than many big titles, and was also a highly recommended game. A slightly less well received game could have tanked hard against the competition. For me, 500k sales is a big target for a pricey Indie, and that with such great sales they only broke even, it really highlights the risks versus rewards. In the meantime, PUBG is making stupid money...

 

[Malo]

In the meantime, PUBG is making stupid money...

They're just flukes that can't really be planned though. Every publisher wants to create the Next Big Thing but it doesn't work that way. And even though they're making stupid money, they have every intention of adding RNG loot boxes to the game.

 

[CSI PC]

There's lots to consider. It was priced lower, adding lots to its sales. It was built from the ground up, adding to its costs. It's sold way less than many big titles, and was also a highly recommended game. A slightly less well received game could have tanked hard against the competition. For me, 500k sales is a big target for a pricey Indie, and that with such great sales they only broke even, it really highlights the risks versus rewards. In the meantime, PUBG is making stupid money...

Sure but the context was the cost of development and risk/break even point; they sold 500k at a lower price and managed to break even, AAA games do have much bigger budgets and resource commitments but then they sell millions on each platform along with a price that is 2x to 3x higher than Senua Hellblade.
I added a bit more to my OP to convey more of my perspective after you responded, sorry I was a bit slow putting it all in.

 

[Clukos]

Hawaii on board

wow... that one guy just likened cigarettes to star wars. holy shit.. game over.

Good. This thing needs to be regulated, it should be clear by now that there's no end to this. Publishers want to make money (and they do make a ton through microtransactions), if this isn't regulated they'll just keep adding more and more until there's nothing left but microtransactions.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They're just flukes that can't really be planned though.

Precisely! There's a lot of gambling by developers. You put in the work never knowing how much you'll get back. It's all very well for gamers to say costs should be managed etc., and point to a few successes, but there's a lot of Business going on that makes it harder than that, harder than appreciated.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sure but the context was the cost of development and risk/break even point; they sold 500k at a lower price and managed to break even, AAA games do have much bigger budgets and resource commitments but then they sell millions on each platform along with a price that is 2x to 3x higher than Senua Hellblade.

I think the risk is still the same. Making a smaller game, the number needed to be sold to break even is less, but the chance of selling is less too. In evolutionary terms, if you can be the biggest creature, you can dominate the smaller creature. In gaming, if you game is the biggest, most spectacular one garnering all the attention, you'll overshadows your competition and land the sales and the big bucks. Knowing your rivals are trying to make bigger, badder games than you, you had better spend more to make a bigger, badder game than them to win the limelight. It's the same in many creative industries. You are either small and niche, or epic and unstable. You either make a cheap rom-com and be sure of a few million women watchers, or you spend hundreds of millions on an effects extravaganza like a super-hero epic or Transformers and be more likely to get epic viewing figures, though also more out of pocket if it flops.

Hellblade wasn't 'safe' and isn't intrinsically a model other devs can trust for security and stability. We'll need a lot more A-tier games to show if the model is sustainable or not.