nib95 did a better and more comprehensive job than I can at dismantling your post, and the fact you can't see a difference between live services and lootboxes means there isn't much point continuing down this path
I do think you're generally a quality poster and I respect your opinion, views and technical knowledge a lot, but as with many people on the first pages of this thread, you commented before watching the video and now find yourself in a position where you need to back peddle to argue your way out of making that mistake
I don't like Yong or this type of YouTuber either, and everyone makes mistakes, I've posted stupid comments or made incorrect assumptions before too. No one is prefect
Right. A live service model, microtransactions and lootboxes are all separate things. Yes, you could argue there is overlap, and that lootboxes can (keyword
can) be a form of microtransaction, or can (keyword
can) be part of a live service game, but just as easily they may not.
To once again clarify the distinction, lootboxes entail an element of chance or luck, at least that is what they are popularised and defined for. Microtransactions might not, and can instead be for very specific items, eg a particular gun, helmet, emblem etc, with no element of chance or luck involved.
"In
video games, a
loot box (sometimes
loot crate or
prize crate, among other names) is a consumable virtual item which
can be redeemed to receive a randomised selection of further virtual items, ranging from simple customization options for a player's avatar or character, to game-changing equipment such as weapons and armor. A loot box is typically a form of
monetization, with players either buying the boxes directly or receiving the boxes during play and later buying "keys" with which to redeem them. These systems may also be known as
gacha (based on
gashapon - capsule toys) and integrated into
gacha games."
Crossing Eden said:
This distinction makes no sense because there's no information concluding that MP games aren't finished as a base at launch.
Sure enough in terms of semantics, but the fact of the matter is that a live service game of the kind most people refer and presumably Halo Infinite will be, are going get a constant slew of major content updates, modes, features etc, whereas something like Spider-Man isn't, outside of the pre-determined DLC and one, maybe two minor feature patches.
More important than that though, is that a game like Spider-Man does not feature any microtransactions, nor any sort of psychologically tested and tried design implementation of them, with the sole purpose of getting people to constantly buy said microtransactions over a prologued period of engagement. Now those psychologically tested means could be by complicating or unfairly prolonging progression, making progression take much longer, limiting rewards to greatly incentivise pay to skip, incentivising purchases through other exploitative means and so on and so on (see Fifa or NBA 2K).
These kinds of things are the reasons why microtransactions generally have a worse rep than say DLC. I'm not personally completely anti-microtransaction, depending on the implementation and balance, but I can absolutely see why some are more averse to them, or even the idea of them, especially after reading these sorts of job listings or EA patents (regarding psychologically manipulative algorithms to get people to spend more money etc).
