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

EA won't even accurately state the odds in FIFA. Legislation for this can't come soon enough.


https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...pack-odds-the-true-horror-of-fut-is-laid-bare

According to EA, there's less than one per cent chance of getting a Ones to Watch player from a pack in FIFA 19. Less than one per cent.

This may be an even more dire situation than it looks at first glance. The wording of "less than one per cent" probability is clearly deliberate - it may be 0.01 per cent, for all players know.

jpg
 
Battlefield V has the potential to be a huge setback for gameplay microtransactions, if they just eat up BLOPS4 audience it will scare/scar shareholders and CEOs. The biggest problems with audiences from a publisher point of view is that you can't just chain them up, the skinner box has doors ... you actually have to compete for them.

Even with sports games the underdog can just look away when modders put in licensed teams through the backdoor.
 
MfA said:
Battlefield V has the potential to be a huge setback for gameplay microtransactions, if they just eat up BLOPS4 audience it will scare/scar shareholders and CEOs. The biggest problems with audiences from a publisher point of view is that you can't just chain them up, the skinner box has doors ... you actually have to compete for them.

Even with sports games the underdog can just look away when modders put in licensed teams through the backdoor.
Click to expand...

Setback in what way? Because it will be or won't be successful? From what I can tell, Battlefield V is all cosmetics, and you get all of the maps and real content for free, where BLOPS4 has an expensive season pass to continue to get new maps. Battlefield V is definitely the preferable option from a consumer standpoint, so I hope it succeeds.
 
If it's successful at stealing their audience it will be a problem for Activision. Of course that also depends on the quality of the game and marketing, also they need to get that coop mode out ASAP.
 
FTC are now starting the process of reviewing the issue as it relates to gambling. US being what it is, nothing will happen here though. Way too much money involved for corporations.
 
Scott_Arm said:
Battlefield V is definitely the preferable option from a consumer standpoint, so I hope it succeeds.
Click to expand...
If only DICE's boss hadn't insulted his audience and told them not to buy the game... and then got promptly fired when pre-order numbers started to come in..


Malo said:
FTC are now starting the process of reviewing the issue as it relates to gambling. US being what it is, nothing will happen here though. Way too much money involved for corporations.
Click to expand...
The FTC was probably trying to see if the ESRB could put their shit together before DC takes notice of the stats claiming a rise of infant+teen addiction to gambling.
They clearly couldn't, so now the hammer is probably coming down hard and fast.

What people are (or should be) concerned about is how the ESRB will be rendered virtually useless in the process, and getting the feds to micromanage videogame laws is a terrible idea.
The last thing you want is politicians going after videogame violence again.


The same is happening in Europe with PEGI. FIFA 19 has paid lootboxes and is PEGI fucking 3. Three!
 
MTx are killing the AAA industry. Most AAA devs are not experienced enough to implement them in a subtle way, such that the natural ignore progress is not completely destroyed. RDR2 comes to mind as the most recent example. R* promise to look into the progression system. What where they thinking when they implemented the system?

I play BF5 regularly, and lot's of people are unhappy with the progression system being tied to an ingame currency. You need coins to upgrade weapons, on top of playing and scoring with the weapon to unlock the potential upgrades. Once you hit max level, the coins you can obtain daily are very limited via assignments. DICE changed the progression system already a bit in the newest update, due to the backlash. It seems to me that the original plan of DICE for BF5 was an economy similar to Battlefront 2. Due to the enormous backlash this game caused, it seems to me that they ripped out MTx from BF5 without really changing the natural ingame progression system. On top of this, BF5 pretends to be generous and offer all additional DLC for free. Fact is that there has never been less content in a BF release as in BF5. It feels to me that I play the same 3 maps over and over again. It seems again that the DLC we'll get in the next couple of month is just ripped out of the full game.

The newest trend by AAA devs is to release the game without MTx, to cash in on positive reviews and increase Metacrit, to only release MTx a couple of weeks later when the hot launch phase is over. COD, RDR2 being prominent examples. Fun fact: PS4 got "exclusive" early access to the MTx update...ha ha ha, that is kinda funny as it is so stupid.

Game economy, gameplay, game story, game content is negatively influenced by MTx already in 90% of AAA releases for me personally. I fear that this current trend in extreme and reckless monetisation destroys my beloved hobby.
 
Billy Idol said:
What where they thinking when they implemented the system?
Click to expand...
um, hordes of cash like they get with GTA5 Online? RDR2 Online is completely designed to reap as much cash from whales as possible. As you said, the big games are mostly designed around MTx now with all progression adjusted for it.

R*/TakeTwo know what they're doing and release Online in beta with terrible progression and showing what MTx is going to be like. Then during beta they "listen to the community" and adjust... to what they know was the target in the first place but they look like the good guys. It's not as bad as it was in beta! Right?

Billy Idol said:
Fun fact: PS4 got "exclusive" early access to the MTx update...ha ha ha, that is kinda funny as it is so stupid.
Click to expand...
Yep it's ridiculous. There are players that want to have a lot more than the rest and if they don't have to grind for it by spending some $$$, they will. Somehow when they destroy other players with their better weapons, faster horse, whatever then they actually feel satisfied as if they've accomplished something? It's a mentality these huge publishers love taking advantage of.

The biggest problem is this mentality is prominent in the younger players and thus the problem of in-game gambling mechanics combined with the feeling of satisfaction from besting your opponent with better equipment causing a lot more spending in youth.
 
I hope all games remove the RNG Lootboxes. This isn't the desired end-state, but a move in that direction.


https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/01/fortnite-puts-an-end-to-random-loot-boxes-purchases/

Fortnite puts an end to random loot box purchases
Save the World's "X-Ray Llamas" will soon show their contents before you buy.

Epic Games is getting rid of Fortnite's version of paid, randomized loot boxes with its next update. As of the upcoming Patch 7.30, "Save the World" mode's usual daily randomized offering of a "V-Bucks Llama" will be replaced with a new "X-Ray Llama," which has its contents visible before you buy it.

Players can either purchase those items for 50 V-Bucks (roughly 50 cents, depending on bulk purchase) or wait for the Llama selection to refresh the next day. Similar item-filled llamas earned solely through gameplay will still hold random items. Fortnite's more popular Battle Royale mode does not use paid randomized loot boxes.
 
Billy Idol said:
MTx are killing the AAA industry. Most AAA devs are not experienced enough to implement them in a subtle way, such that the natural ignore progress is not completely destroyed. RDR2 comes to mind as the most recent example. R* promise to look into the progression system. What where they thinking when they implemented the system?

I play BF5 regularly, and lot's of people are unhappy with the progression system being tied to an ingame currency. You need coins to upgrade weapons, on top of playing and scoring with the weapon to unlock the potential upgrades. Once you hit max level, the coins you can obtain daily are very limited via assignments. DICE changed the progression system already a bit in the newest update, due to the backlash. It seems to me that the original plan of DICE for BF5 was an economy similar to Battlefront 2. Due to the enormous backlash this game caused, it seems to me that they ripped out MTx from BF5 without really changing the natural ingame progression system. On top of this, BF5 pretends to be generous and offer all additional DLC for free. Fact is that there has never been less content in a BF release as in BF5. It feels to me that I play the same 3 maps over and over again. It seems again that the DLC we'll get in the next couple of month is just ripped out of the full game.
Click to expand...

You can get the gun accessories not faster than you can unlock things at all and therefore I don't see a problem there. Before I can buy the stuff I have to go up a level and I usually have the ingame credits at that point.
What annoys me is that they want to force me to play game modes (like this 8 vs. 8 conquest) which I have to play to unlock certain things.


Which makes me angry in contrast to optional microtransactions is the fact that I have to do annoying challenges to get ingame weapons even when I bought these weapons with real money (Battlefront I DLCs). For example: "kill 10 enemies with the gunstock of this weapon to unlock this weapon". Because on these challenges I didn't even get most of these ingame Battlefront I weapons I bought with real money.

Nothing bothers me more than forced play styles.
 
Last edited:
U.S. Senator Introduces Bill To Ban Loot Boxes And Pay-To-Win Microtransactions

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) today announced a bill that would ban loot boxes and pay-to-win microtransactions in “games played by minors,” a broad label that the senator says will include both games designed for kids under 18 and games “whose developers knowingly allow minor players to engage in microtransactions.”

Hawley will introduce the bill, “The Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act,” to the U.S. Senate soon. In press materials announcing the bill, Hawley’s team brought up the Activision game Candy Crush as an egregious example of pay-to-win microtransactions thanks to its $150 “Luscious Bundle” that comes with a whole bunch of goodies. This bill will also likely apply to a host of online games that feature loot boxes and other ways in which players can spend money for real benefits.
 
“whose developers knowingly allow minor players to engage in microtransactions.”

If they aren't clear on wording, they'll regulate fair and legitimate use of MTs. By all means ban lootboxes and in-game consumables (though how do you ban loot-boxes but not then regulate normal retail 'collectibles' - gacha and LOL dolls etc?) but the term 'MT' includes DLC and subscriptions which are fair and reasonable ways to finance games.

Use the term IGCs if talking about the toxic forms, not MTs.
 
Last edited:
iroboto said:
i want them banned too
what a plague on poeple's wallets and a plague on the environment.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Retail kids toys should be included in loot-box regulation. It's the same thing basically and designed for the same purpose, create enticement for minors to increase sales. That would also carry over to card games like Magic and impact an entire CCG market. Imagine having age requirements for buying a card booster pack?

The main difference with digital is the focus by game creators on the presentation, audio, graphics etc. to greatly enhance that enticement, in addition to the ease of obtaining the loot boxes and repeating purchases.
 
Malo said:
Agreed. Retail kids toys should be included in loot-box regulation. It's the same thing basically and designed for the same purpose, create enticement for minors to increase sales. That would also carry over to card games like Magic and impact an entire CCG market. Imagine having age requirements for buying a card booster pack?

The main difference with digital is the focus by game creators on the presentation, audio, graphics etc. to greatly enhance that enticement, in addition to the ease of obtaining the loot boxes and repeating purchases.
Click to expand...
I mean there are certain things like magic/trading/collectible cards etc. Those are somewhat minimal in environmental damage, perhaps with better materials they could become recyclable in the future. LOL dolls, good god. How much plastic wrap do the children need to go through to get to something the size of a dime. So much garbage, such a waste of plastic. There's a lot of value in things that are inherently not full of labour. It's a bit weird when I think about how humans value things.

Part of me says that I should let it go because it brings people joy. The other half says, opening stuff should not be considered the type of fun we are trying to sell.
 
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