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

Ah, now I finally see where this confusion is coming from, and this ultra aggressive behavior towards ol Billy. I admit, I should have clarified some things:

I am not against DLC. I think I never stated this, if so, it was by accident. It is not my opinion. It seems to me that our opinions might not be so different after all (?!? Shocker).

I think DLC is fine, in fact I‘d be also absolutely fine to pay more for a game from the start, no need to hide...I often buy the premium special editions with season pass anyway of most my games. I am also ok with episodic content for instance, where part by part of the games are released. I back games upfront to support certain ideas I hope work out (SC, where are though?). But I did stop pre-ordering games from certain devs, as I got burned to often.

I agree with irobot that DLC is indeed increasing the risk by splitting price, also a reason I buy the season pass combo for a game I want to support the devs specifically.

So in my case, typically, I spend 90€ for a new AAA game. And this not since yesterday only...

I am even fine with MT, if MT do not depend on RNG and if the ingame system has fast progression.

Maybe here comes the confusion I cause, as I admittedly use MT and lootboxes synonymous for a rng based MT/lootbox system in combination with a on purposedly slow ass (maybe daily xp caps) system. This is where I believe the industry is steering towards to and this is a direction I have troubles to follow. As this gambling aspect just doesn‘t feel fair anymore, when grinding is only a theoretical option because of super slow progression.

E.g. Battlefield always had fast track option to unlock full classes by buying exactly the package one wants. No rng. Perfect, imo! Really good for players without much time. But the good news here was that it was quite fast to unlock everything. Furthermore, the game had some form of balance that made it playable without paying.

RNG based monetization, however we want to call it, in which form it may come (cosmetics, p2w, fast track, etc) in combo with slow progression is imo pure greed from publishers that can‘t suck enough money out of their customers and that even count on addiction mechanisms of some poor beings and count on young people without feeling for real money.

PS: the origin of the thread is the BF SW MT and lootbox system, that feature rng and super slow progression, with parts having even a daily cap. That is the reason I thought we where talking specifically about these kind of MTs/Lootboxes...and it seemed to me that people defended these as being necessary for the industry to survive, which I do not agree with...
 
Last edited:
Billy Idol said:
I am not against DLC. I think I never stated this, if so, it was by accident. It is not my opinion. It seems to me that our opinions might not be so different after all (?!? Shocker).
Click to expand...
:) it’s not all that different at all.
We don’t like MT for the reasons you stated. It’s a poor model and it’s unfairly penalizes the population and thus their enjoyment of their game.

It’s an entirely different reason why it came to be. It’s something we must acknowledge as both gamers and developers that a big part of our love for our hobby is getting more expensive to wow us. That folks are no longer willing to work in terrible conditions and little pay for my enjoyment, and so the mature thing to do is to also pay more; yet the market is at cross roads for getting over that $60 limit.

The exploration of new methods imo is ideal. Subscription models like Netflix work better IMO. It’s a large investment to pay increased prices into a single game vs have access to many games for your family and pay a monthly sub. Depending on your situation one model will work better than the other.

I just ponied up for destiny 2 expansion the other day, I could have waited I guess but I also recognize that I purchased the game at 45.99 for the E3 sale (in Canada games are now 79.99). So... yea it was a good bargain and I could afford eating the expansion cost of.. 49.99 even though it’s less content, I wanted to do the right thing here and support a model that wasnt Lootboxes.
 
iroboto said:
:) it’s not all that different at all.
We don’t like MT for the reasons you stated. It’s a poor model and it’s unfairly penalizes the population and thus their enjoyment of their game.

It’s an entirely different reason why it came to be. It’s something we must acknowledge as both gamers and developers that a big part of our love for our hobby is getting more expensive to wow us. That folks are no longer willing to work in terrible conditions and little pay for my enjoyment, and so the mature thing to do is to also pay more; yet the market is at cross roads for getting over that $60 limit.

The exploration of new methods imo is ideal. Subscription models like Netflix work better IMO. It’s a large investment to pay increased prices into a single game vs have access to many games for your family and pay a monthly sub. Depending on your situation one model will work better than the other.

I just ponied up for destiny 2 expansion the other day, I could have waited I guess but I also recognize that I purchased the game at 45.99 for the E3 sale (in Canada games are now 79.99). So... yea it was a good bargain and I could afford eating the expansion cost of.. 49.99 even though it’s less content, I wanted to do the right thing here and support a model that wasnt Lootboxes.
Click to expand...
MT such as loot boxes (or anything resembling gambling) or mechanics that prevent the player from progressing or from accessing content that should have been free has nothing to do with increasing costs.
Yes costs have raised compared to the PS2 days, but we are using our own made up correlations because it seems logical.
These types of MT are "convenient" money generating mechanics and nothing more. They flourish in low budget games and probably thats where devs saw the money generating potential for the big franchises where the consumer can't "live without".
Expansions and other related DLC on the other hand are a viable mechanic, good for the economy in general where both developer and consumer can benefit. It is a form of economy of scale for the developer which reduces costs for the additional developed content and a pleased consumer can further expand his enjoyment by rewarding the developer.
 
I guess it depends whether sales pick up with a realistic end to RNG boxes or not. Or worse, if those 50% of sales result in greater profits because of IGCs.
 
The writing was on the wall for this one. I've even seen people commenting on BF MT fiasco on facebook groups that are completely unrelated to gaming. EA decided to take the risk and not compromise on their vision, and see if their shit would stick. It didn't.
 
I love the daily order for COD WWII where you get bonuses from viewing other players opening loot boxes 3 times. They want you to watch loot boxes being opened 3 times a day to push you into buying them.
 
Yeah I mentioned it earlier, great way (their perspective) to exploit behaviour and just as bad as what we see in Battlefront 2 IMO as it is designed to encourage/reinforce the recurring cost consumer behaviour.
Like I have been saying the studios/devs will continue to fine tune-target this to the point it will have negative behaviour repercussions on quite a few gamers, just same way the "best" (or worst depending upon ones view) implemented mechanisms on mobile earned those studios a ridiculous amount of cash and stock value to the company.
You can see mobile is an area that EA is heavily interested in as well when looking back the financial chart I provided showing revenue near enough matching full game purchases, this just exacerbates the culture within EA that is pushing this generally IMO.
But I doubt they will be the only ones.
 
24909633_1442658255833322_332239828613286593_n.jpg
 
If you want to run with that analogy, back then the entire burger cost $1 to make. Now the bun alone costs $2 because gamers are demanding far better ingredients, more sesame seeds, and larger buns. The burger is now 100% pure premium ground beef where before if was mechanically reclaimed meat padded out with fat and flavourings. You also have the choice of which DLC you want to pay for instead of being charged for all of it. Pretty stupid to be charged for adding tomato and lettuce if you're just going to pick them out. And that's at the major chains. You can either spend more at the main fast food chain to get a premium product, or go down the local independent greasy burger joint and get a "THEN" quality burger all inclusive at a fraction of the price and a fraction of the nutritional value.

Looking forwards, customers are wanting their burgers to be sourced only from the best cuts of prime, organic Highland beef. They're wanting chia-enriched bread, square tomatoes, rare greenery from the depths of the Amazon, Pule cheese instead of cheddar, and the whole thing to be twice as big.

(Not saying I agree or disagree, but the argument is poorly considered for the sake of wit and needs counterarguments. Customers always want to have more and to pay less. Producers always want to spend less and earn more. And the funniest part is when a person has both mentalities - at work they wish they could make more money from their clients and do less work, and at home they want all their products as cheap and awesome as possible)
 
Shifty Geezer said:
If you want to run with that analogy, back then the entire burger cost $1 to make. Now the bun alone costs $2 because gamers are demanding far better ingredients, more sesame seeds, and larger buns. The burger is now 100% pure premium ground beef where before if was mechanically reclaimed meat padded out with fat and flavourings. You also have the choice of which DLC you want to pay for instead of being charged for all of it. Pretty stupid to be charged for adding tomato and lettuce if you're just going to pick them out. And that's at the major chains. You can either spend more at the main fast food chain to get a premium product, or go down the local independent greasy burger joint and get a "THEN" quality burger all inclusive at a fraction of the price and a fraction of the nutritional value.

Looking forwards, customers are wanting their burgers to be sourced only from the best cuts of prime, organic Highland beef. They're wanting chia-enriched bread, square tomatoes, rare greenery from the depths of the Amazon, Pule cheese instead of cheddar, and the whole thing to be twice as big.

(Not saying I agree or disagree, but the argument is poorly considered for the sake of wit and needs counterarguments. Customers always want to have more and to pay less. Producers always want to spend less and earn more. And the funniest part is when a person has both mentalities - at work they wish they could make more money from their clients and do less work, and at home they want all their products as cheap and awesome as possible)
Click to expand...
I will obliterate your argument by simply stating that fast food have always been overpriced, and now their consumption is in an all time high (see huge obesity problem) so there is a lot of overhead especially with the side dish expansion packs and the refreshment drink which is mere cents (its a syrup mixed afterwards with water) sold for dollars [emoji14]

Sent from my SM-J320F using Tapatalk
 
Shifty Geezer said:
(Not saying I agree or disagree, but the argument is poorly considered for the sake of wit and needs counterarguments. Customers always want to have more and to pay less. Producers always want to spend less and earn more. And the funniest part is when a person has both mentalities - at work they wish they could make more money from their clients and do less work, and at home they want all their products as cheap and awesome as possible)
Click to expand...
10/10 this man speaks the truth.

Consumers will always find a way to wiggle out of paying more if they can pay less.
 
Sigfried1977 said:
Not sure in this case. Gamers are notoriously sycophantic and will usually defend even the shadiest of business practices.
Click to expand...
That type of behaviour isn't exclusive to gamers. There are supporters of all types.
Shifty isn't pro loot boxes or pro microtransactions. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be re-stated.
 
Sigfried1977 said:
Not talking about his pragmatism at all. It just seems to me that gaming has the most fervent fanboys.
Click to expand...
anytime tribalism is involved, it gets this way.
Cars, Sports, ie Football, Cell phones, video cards, politics etc.
For women I'm sure they can get tribalistic as well.

No one is immune to it, the issue with gamers is that's their just better with the internet than most other groups lol
 
Sigfried1977 said:
Not talking about his pragmatism at all. It just seems to me that gaming has the most fervent fanboys.
Click to expand...
You genuinely believe a large contingent of gamers are refusing to buy games in sales, instead preferring to spend more because it's better for the devs? There's a tiddly fraction of enthusiasts who are targeted with collectibles releases. The rest weigh up how cheap they can get the game versus how long they can wait without it, like all consumers considering all products. Even crazy arse Apple fanbots will jump headlong at the chance to get an iPhone New for $100 off if Apple gave them the chance. Release the latest COD/SWBF/PUBG etc at both $50 and $60 with no difference other than $60 is the minimum needed to cover a fair wage while $50 is too low and the product will lose money...who's going to spend $60 out of the goodness of their heart?

There is virtually no-one going through life thinking, "what does it cost them to produce this and so what should I pay to be fair?", certainly not as a habit (some will stop to think that way for a Humble Bundle, though of course pay far under the initial asking price none-the-less). Which is why we have Black Friday. And there's virtually no-one going through life thinking, "what's a fair price for me to charge so I don't take too much money?" which is why we have large mark-ups and profits expected to increase YOY to pay the investors. Those same investors are one minute wanting more money from their investments, and the next wanting to pay less for their goods! To the point that you can't realistically operate idealistically even if you want to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Full transcript of John Carmack's QuakeCon 2005 Keynote
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
34K
nemisis
N
Back
Top