Kotaku: After The Loot Box Fury, The People Behind The Next Battlefield Are Being Very Cautious

[Charamiwa]

I don't think the controversies ultimately matter to sales. It sold 9 million in three months. It sold one million under what they'd hoped, but I'd chalk that up more to issues with the first game and market trends in general. I truly believe the lootbox controversy does not matter to sales. The media stories don't matter to sales. Toxic, often very ignorant discourse about this game from internet trolls who wouldn't have purchased the game in any case does not matter to sales.

Ultimately, if a game is good, and it's what people want, they'll buy it. Game buyers don't really care about much else. There may be a few people who thought the game looked great and wanted to buy it but passed because of their lootbox principles, but I think that number is negligible

Also they'll still make money off of microtransactions

Click to shrink...

The 9 million number was false, it was 7 million. They had a prediction already massively down from the first game, and they still didn't make it.

And the controversy led to the microtransactions being completely removed. This is huge, this is EA's bread and butter and it was gone. Sure they'll bring it back in, when 95% of the online population will have moved on. That's a very concrete effect of the backlash.

BF2 is not a success story.

 

[Kudo]

Almost like "no loot boxes" possibility doesn't even exist to these companies, smh.

 

[DGS]

I'm a big Battlefield / Star Wars fan and bought Battlefront on launch day. I was pissed because of the lack of content, but after the second BF2 trailer I was hyped again.

Nevertheless, after the first previews revealed the loot box mess, we (four friends) decided not to buy the game. Now Battlefield (V/2?) is also under surveillance.

 

[Yukinari]

Imagine being a developer in this day and age and having to even think "Are our loot boxes as bad as battlefront 2?"

What a time. You could just, you know, not have them.

 

[Kaxi]

Good, make them think twice every time they want to do something suspicious.

 

[Shortsoptional]

I'll wait for Andrew House to come out and say these things instead of anonymous devs that don't have as much say over these matters.

And even then, I still won't buy in all likelihood.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

I never understand the gaming community, Loot boxes are bad news no matter what form they come in.

But people are saying they "hope their cosmetic only" that's like saying "vote trump because hillary is scum".. just because one is a lesser evil does not make it any better, fuck them overall.

 

[ChrisJSY]

I never understand the gaming community, Loot boxes are bad news no matter what form they come in.

But people are saying they "hope their cosmetic only" that's like saying "vote trump because hillary is scum".. just because one is a lesser evil does not make it any better, fuck them overall.

Click to shrink...

One is absolutely better than the other, because when I buy and play a game I don't want to have to unlock any content, items, weapons, perks, upgrades, skills; whatever and feel like I'm falling behind if I don't play for weeks or months. (I'd play MMO's for that)

But make the boxes do shirts, hats; etc? Yeah I don't give a toss. I'm vehemently against loot boxes that do anything other than the aforementioned.

Not being able to distinguish or seperate the differences is more on you than anything else.

 

[Vic Damone Jr.]

"it's just cosmetic" is still a shit excuse for allowing this garbage.

Click to shrink...

Yup, but so many parrot how awesome it is.

 

[Dragonelite]

If going the lootbox way better make maps free.

 

[Eumi]

I never understand the gaming community, Loot boxes are bad news no matter what form they come in.

But people are saying they "hope their cosmetic only" that's like saying "vote trump because hillary is scum".. just because one is a lesser evil does not make it any better, fuck them overall.

Click to shrink...

You're comparing people who are ok with cosmetic lootboxes to... Trump supporters?

That's a hell of a thing to do.

 

[Deleted member 31423]

I'd like to thank everyone who bitched about loot boxes. Because it means each Battlefield going forward will continue to have premium. Which is what I want. I'd rather pay for guaranteed map packs then to have what Battlefront 2 has. Which is nothing going forward.

 

[Deleted member 896]

I never understand the gaming community, Loot boxes are bad news no matter what form they come in.

But people are saying they "hope their cosmetic only" that's like saying "vote trump because hillary is scum".. just because one is a lesser evil does not make it any better, fuck them overall.

Click to shrink...

I've got a lot of questions about this analogy.

 

[TheGhost]

They need better loot boxes than battlefield one though.....which 100% boring cosmetics.

They had it right with battlefield 4, with attachments, camo's and dog tags.

 

[Seldon]

I will admit that for myself, I like cosmetic loot boxes because I have zero psychological desire to purchase them and therefore I appreciate that others that do subsidize my game content lol. I just started playing fornite, and I can completely ignore that mess of an interface and just play my free game cause other people are buying that shit.

I know it is shitty and inconsistent of me, but there it is lol.

 

[Falchion]

Glad they learned their lesson, stick to the cosmetics and still make it possible to unlock stuff through regular play.

 

[disparate]

No. No lootboxes, not cosmetic, not P2W, none. Full stop. Otherwise fuck off.

 

[Deleted member 16576]

I still just can't understand why anyone would find it acceptable to pay money for a chance to unlock something in a video game. I'm not against the idea of microtransactions, DLC, or even pre-ordering to get early access to a game. The idea of RNG for a costume in a game that could very well (and often does) end up costing the consumer 1/4th to 1/3rd the price of the retail game is sickening.

I personally found Battlefield 1's method to be frustrating, but tolerable purely due to the setting and me having no desire to carry around a frivolous looking golden weapon on a WWI battlefied. However, the fact that cosmetic items are locked being lootboxes is still not ok in any capacity, because of the RNG. Especially considering that the game already has a premium pass for all DLC. Battlefield 1 is not nearly as bad as Battlefront 2 or FIFA though, due to the lack of pay to win options. I also appreciate that the shortcut kits available to purchase do not unlock new items released in the DLC so those guns still need to be unlocked through assignments.

 

[Mirabai]

If they make maps free but add lootboxes. Can we get our mapeditors back? ;(

They just took them away cause nobody would buy there overpriced map dlcs.

 

[CrypticSlayer]

Good to hear that everyone is looking at their mtx models and are trying to make sure they're not egregious, pretty much the best thing to come out of Battlefront 2.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

No. No lootboxes, not cosmetic, not P2W, none. Full stop. Otherwise fuck off.

Click to shrink...

Lmao.

Absolutist attitudes like this are such tired horseshit.

Gamers will do everything they can to avoid paying full value for games whether be it taking advantage of massive Steam/PSN sales, waiting for post-launch discounts or looking for literal price errors. But then they cry about some loot boxes and claim they'd pay full value for cosmetics without RNG.

As if anyone believes that a fixed-price cosmetic store wouldn't be met with the usual moronic litany of "I just want the whole game on the disc" type comments.

 

[Uno Venova]

Lmao.

Absolutist attitudes like this are such tired horseshit.

Gamers will do everything they can to avoid paying full value for games whether be it taking advantage of massive Steam/PSN sales, waiting for post-launch discounts or looking for literal price errors. But then they cry about some loot boxes and claim they'd pay full value for cosmetics without RNG.

As if anyone believes that a fixed-price cosmetic store wouldn't be met with the usual moronic litany of "I just want the whole game on the disc" type comments.

Click to shrink...

That's quite the nonexistent, hypocritical gamer you've constructed.

 

[Iucidium]

Return of the season pass?

 

[Iucidium]

Lmao.

Absolutist attitudes like this are such tired horseshit.

Gamers will do everything they can to avoid paying full value for games whether be it taking advantage of massive Steam/PSN sales, waiting for post-launch discounts or looking for literal price errors. But then they cry about some loot boxes and claim they'd pay full value for cosmetics without RNG.

As if anyone believes that a fixed-price cosmetic store wouldn't be met with the usual moronic litany of "I just want the whole game on the disc" type comments.

Click to shrink...

What is your preferred gaming platform?

 

[NoWayOut]

Loot boxes in all their forms are a shitty way to monetize a game, period. They are anti consumer and I can't understand how anyone could defend them.

I'm not totally against micro transactions as long as they are cosmetic only and they are offered in an clear ann transparent way. By that I mean, there should be a way to buy exactly what you are interested in and not this shady RNG bullshit that leverage casino tactics.

 

[Inuhanyou]

that means consumers already won

 

[BDubsLegend]

Lmao.

Absolutist attitudes like this are such tired horseshit.

Gamers will do everything they can to avoid paying full value for games whether be it taking advantage of massive Steam/PSN sales, waiting for post-launch discounts or looking for literal price errors. But then they cry about some loot boxes and claim they'd pay full value for cosmetics without RNG.

As if anyone believes that a fixed-price cosmetic store wouldn't be met with the usual moronic litany of "I just want the whole game on the disc" type comments.

Click to shrink...

This, this so much. People on these boards are so hypocritical. I'm willing to bet half of the "no buy" people don't even intend to buy anyway.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

That's quite the nonexistent, hypocritical gamer you've constructed.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it is. It's more than a little hilarious to have threads on a forum arguing for "fairness" for the consumer alongside threads about price errors and mistaken listings. "Gamers" want to be treated fairly, yet there is a significant portion of that community that will do everything they can to avoid paying a fair, listed price for a game.

Give me a break.

If every game switched to a fixed-price cash shop, there would absolutely still be people complaining. You really think $5-10 skins would be met with unanimous cries of approval? No, there would absolutely still be people saying that "Everything should be on disc" and that "Live services are a cancer."

What is your preferred gaming platform?

Click to shrink...

That has no relevance to anything.

But to answer the question, I game primarily on PC and PS4. Although I own every major system.

 

[Mass Effect]

Maybe they can start by fixing their garbage-ass unlock system for guns, attachments and abilities.

That would help.

 

[Nirolak]

that means consumers already won

Click to shrink...

I mean, the fact that the biggest console publisher in the industry pulled the system before the game even launched pretty much signaled that was going to be the immediate end of pay 2 win lootcrates in non-sports console games.

Similarly, once EA backed out, that was the deathknell of online passes.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I mean, the fact that the biggest console publisher in the industry pulled the system before the game even launched pretty much signaled that was going to be the immediate end of pay 2 win lootcrates in non-sports console games.

Similarly, once EA backed out, that was the deathknell of online passes.

Click to shrink...

<_< WHich means consumers already won. Online passes i dunno what they were couched for, cause PS+ became a thing?

 

[Mass Effect]

I don't think it is. It's more than a little hilarious to have threads on a forum arguing for "fairness" for the consumer alongside threads about price errors and mistaken listings. "Gamers" want to be treated fairly, yet there is a significant portion of that community that will do everything they can to avoid paying a fair, listed price for a game.

Give me a break.

If every game switched to a fixed-price cash shop, there would absolutely still be people complaining. You really think $5-10 skins would be met with unanimous cries of approval? No, there would absolutely still be people saying that "Everything should be on disc" and that "Live services are a cancer."

That has no relevance to anything.

But to answer the question, I game primarily on PC and PS4. Although I own every major system.

Click to shrink...

"Entitled gamer" arguments in 2018. Yeah, how dare consumers look out for their best interests. The nerve I swear.

And I'm willing to bet there are far more "gamers" who are willing to accept cosmetic-only microtransactions and lootboxes than castigate them. In fact, the numbers show us this.

For every Jim Sterling, there are 10 TotalBiscuits. In other words, for every person who shuns lootboxes entirely, there are 10 others who are fine with them.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

<_< WHich means consumers already won. Online passes i dunno what they were couched for, cause PS+ became a thing?

Click to shrink...

They killed online passes because Sony (and presumably MS) did not wantthemanymore due to PS+ becoming mandatory. It basically would have been a double charge per game.

We've already come right out and said we're not going to allow online pass. And the word "allow" is key there. Specifically with online, with PS+ requiring a charge to play online, we would not want any publisher [to charge.]

In general, we're all businesses. Sony or Microsoft is never going to be able to tell EA or Activision exactly what they can do. What we like to say at PlayStation is that we set the precedent. The way we are approaching this is that we want this to be extremely consumer-friendly, extremely retailer-friendly, and extremely publisher-friendly. My personal opinion is that it's hard for me to believe that any major publisher is going to put an extra set of used DRM onto game titles because that wouldn't put them in a good spot, right?

Click to shrink...

I suppose it's also possible that MS's proposed DRM policies for the X1 convinced them to drop it as well.

"Entitled gamer" arguments in 2018. Yeah, how dare consumers look out for their best interests. The nerve I swear.

And I'm willing to bet there are far more "gamers" who are willing to accept cosmetic-only microtransactions and lootboxes than castigate them. In fact, the numbers show us this.

For every Jim Sterling, there are 10 TotalBiscuits. In other words, for every person who shuns lootboxes entirely, there are 10 others who are fine with them.

Click to shrink...

If "looking out for your interests" consists of actively attempting to avoid a fair price for a product, you don't have much of a moral high ground to stand on.

And yeah, it is true that a significant portion, if not a majority, accepts cosmetic MTX and loot boxes. I'm not talking about them though. I'm discussing the people who are in the "no loot box ever camp," and whether they would actually ever accept a fixed price shop.

 

[Nirolak]

<_< WHich means consumers already won. Online passes i dunno what they were couched for, cause PS+ became a thing?

Click to shrink...

It was a mix of three factors:

1.) Consumers hated them and weren't spending much money on them.

2.) Places like GameStop were demanding to be able to give them out for free or at way reduced cost to protect their used business, and at the time physical retailers had a lot of power.

3.) And, perhaps most of all, it makes way more sense to let people get online and spend more money on DLC and microtransactions than it does to hate them off from that.

Generally it's just a really bad idea to offend your primary customers and partners. Gamers really do have tons of power by just not spending money or no longer playing the games in question. Just look at the extent to which Bungie is redesigning Destiny 2 to player requests because retention and player satisfaction is so key to monetization or even selling the game in the first place.

This even happens with less business oriented things. Gamers got really upset about a lack of diversity and representation, and there was a huge upswing in both in response.

 

[Wetwork]

Hey, go ahead. Put in cosmetic loot boxes, but I better still be able to customize my own emblem and I'd really love it if Battlefield map packs were free.

 

[Nirolak]

Hey, go ahead. Put in cosmetic loot boxes, but I better still be able to customize my own emblem and I'd really love it if Battlefield map packs were free.

Click to shrink...

The main reason EA is switching to lootboxes is that the paid map packs were killing retention, so I don't think you need to worry about that.

 

[Inuhanyou]

It was a mix of three factors:

1.) Consumers hated them and weren't spending much money on them.

2.) Places like GameStop were demanding to be able to give them out for free or at way reduced cost to protect their used business, and at the time physical retailers had a lot of power.

3.) And, perhaps most of all, it makes way more sense to let people get online and spend more money on DLC and microtransactions than it does to hate them off from that.

Generally it's just a really bad idea to offend your primary customers and partners. Gamers really do have tons of power by just not spending money or no longer playing the games in question. Just look at the extent to which Bungie is redesigning Destiny 2 to player requests because retention and player satisfaction is so key to monetization or even selling the game in the first place.

This even happens with less business oriented things. Gamers got really upset about a lack of diversity and representation, and there was a huge upswing in both in response.

Click to shrink...

very very true. excellent points

 

[Iucidium]

That has no relevance to anything.

But to answer the question, I game primarily on PC and PS4. Although I own every major system.

Click to shrink...

It kinda does as you paint a particular picture of a "gamer" yet you fall in those very parameters, that's all.

The main reason EA is switching to lootboxes is that the paid map packs were killing retention, so I don't think you need to worry about that.

Click to shrink...

now free map packs are made out to be this goodwill gesture while they wait in the shadows ready to get those psychological hooks in ready to milk you.