The system works well for you. That's fine. But it doesn't work for a lot of people. And it's still gambling by any other name.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs
- Thread starter Poetic Injustice
- Start date
The system works well for you. That's fine. But it doesn't work for a lot of people. And it's still gambling by any other name.
I'm just afraid that they would decide that because lootboxes are going away and we're going back to the buy-selected-skin model, its just gonna go back to the old system, where people just straight up can't earn those things in game. If lootboxes go away that is
Also like I said that is a F2P game, which largely lives on microtransactions only.
There are people who love gambling.
There will be people who love lootboxes.
The issue is that this isn't "game design" unless you view it through the lens of gambling monetization, because that's literally all it is. "Game design" as in understanding people's tolerance levels for paying money toward randomized items. Getting the odds right for the money spent. Yay for a developer being good at this? Ugh.
There will be people who love lootboxes.
The issue is that this isn't "game design" unless you view it through the lens of gambling monetization, because that's literally all it is. "Game design" as in understanding people's tolerance levels for paying money toward randomized items. Getting the odds right for the money spent. Yay for a developer being good at this? Ugh.
Meh, devs aren't our friends, we're consumers, we can be pissed at shit and not buy products for all sorts of reasons. Not saying a developer can't have a great relationship with their fans, but it's not like we *owe* them anything as consumers.
I don't mind the actual system pending the game.. But personally I'd just rather an rng system similar to what destiny did in terms of shooters and gear perhaps..
But the idea behind buying crates with real money tryin to up your chances is pure ass and needs to be put to rest.
But the idea behind buying crates with real money tryin to up your chances is pure ass and needs to be put to rest.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of Loot Boxes. There is however something wrong with the idea of paying a premium to unlock items that affect general gameplay. I doubt people would be so vocally against it if loot boxes were set up in a way where the only premium content was purely cosmetic. Any game altering loot boxes, should they decide to include them, should never be so unique that it breaks gameplay vs those without the item, never be locked behind a pay wall, and the grind to unlock the requisite in game currency which unlocks them should be easily attainable for every player to get (i.e. doesn't require hundreds of hours to unlock all the best items).
I just don't care about loot boxes that much. I care enough to get involved in this discussion because everyone is talking about it but I never felt affected by them in Black Ops 3.
I actually loved them because it meant I could always potentially get new content by using the free currency I get in games, so I never felt like I had seen everything there was to see. It felt like an endless sea of content for me.
I never felt disturbed by them, if I was still a teenager I imagine I would be more passionate but as a 30 year old man it seems like a really trivial thing to be concerned about when I have other responsibilities.
I see YouTubers online ranting and raving and I wonder why do they care so much? Today's generation has grown up with horse armour. They never unlocked stealth camo in MGS or got the closet key in RE.
This is just how the industry changes and while I can be old and say "Back in my day...!" I would rather just accept it and not let it bother me.
I actually loved them because it meant I could always potentially get new content by using the free currency I get in games, so I never felt like I had seen everything there was to see. It felt like an endless sea of content for me.
I never felt disturbed by them, if I was still a teenager I imagine I would be more passionate but as a 30 year old man it seems like a really trivial thing to be concerned about when I have other responsibilities.
I see YouTubers online ranting and raving and I wonder why do they care so much? Today's generation has grown up with horse armour. They never unlocked stealth camo in MGS or got the closet key in RE.
This is just how the industry changes and while I can be old and say "Back in my day...!" I would rather just accept it and not let it bother me.
For me, the issue comes into play when everything else around loot boxes is designed in such a way that you really need to spend money on the loot boxes to get past that grind. There's this idea called variable positive reinforcement. The gist of the idea is that anything a person finds rewarding is a positive reinforcer. This in return will make it more likely for that person to do that behavior again in the future. Now, if its variable that means you have to complete tasks and it will give you the reinforcer on a time schedule that is not locked in place. We know that gambling acts on this principle, and we know that trading cards act on this principle as well. Also, this pops up in peoples every day lives as well. I really enjoy Star Crunch cookies, however, they aren't popular and so the likely hood of me finding a gas station that sells them is variable. Your best bet that actually finding the darn cookie makes it taste better because I cant get the cookie whenever I want. That's the trick, its fun to be teased with something you want, and its not fun to be teased with something you need. That's why Overwatch works so well. The task of playing the game and getting enough wins to unlock a chest is variable (You don't know how much XP you'll get or if you'll win the match). You'll still have fun just playing though, and that extra little bit of teasing just makes it better. It's actually a really tough design question, "How can we make the player want something when the game is already fun?"
Absolutely disgusting.
Imagine this kind of talk in any over industry. Just remplace lootboxes and microtransaction with fast food, or soda or anything that could negatively impact someone mentally, phyically or economically.
How is this way of thinking acceptable?
The problem with that is there are a ton more gamers then previous generations.
Costs to make triple A games have gone up, yet so have sales.
These are publicly traded companies.. so we know for damn sure they are making very healthy profits. You'd have a point if companies like EA were financially struggling to turn a profit and had to turn to lootboxes to supplement the higher development costs. We know that's patently false however. They are doing it to increase profits even higher.
Disagree for 90% of games. Randomized progression of any in-game thing is more likely to be frustrating than not in my experience. Whether unlocking moves in Smash, arms in Arms, super low drop rates from enemies, hunting for perfect IVs in Pokemon, its rarely fun or rewarding. RNG is good when it challenges the player and gives them clear opportunities to learn and adapt. The only enjoyable uses of it are in really good Diablo loot games, where it is balanced so you are constantly being fed worthwhile things or when you don't feel like you are being held back. Most examples serve largely as a way of making a player spend inordinate amounts of time and grind for something of any value.
This isn't getting called out enough in the article. It's pretty amazing and down right insidious they just outright say that they want to normalize this behavior and addiction in children. This is probably that one single time where you could use "please think of the children."
EDIT: And MTs and lootboxes aren't even 20 years old too. Dunno how you can call people dinosaurs.
Yeah no, and i cant freaking believe that hes pointing to younger players being ok with, maybe those have the misfortune of not knowing any better, hell, the way he speaks on this makes you think lootboxes was a thing 10 or more years ago
And people cant talk on how well or bad implemented this bull is, its still one of the most scummy practices in this industry
And people cant talk on how well or bad implemented this bull is, its still one of the most scummy practices in this industry
Resetera hates gambling it seems. I feel like I'm in a church in some ways with all this "gambling is evil" talk. :)
I'm actually in favor of loot boxes being Mature rated or even 18+. Not in favor of banning though. If an adult can blow money on lottery tickets(which the government is thrilled if you do btw), then who the hell cares if they buy loot boxes.
Are these companies preying on gambling addicts? Absolutely. So are private casinos and 45 out of 50 state governments.
I'm actually in favor of loot boxes being Mature rated or even 18+. Not in favor of banning though. If an adult can blow money on lottery tickets(which the government is thrilled if you do btw), then who the hell cares if they buy loot boxes.
Are these companies preying on gambling addicts? Absolutely. So are private casinos and 45 out of 50 state governments.
more companies to put on my boycott list.
seems like a legit thing to hate on. it's a net negative for society overall.
If by entertainment you mean gambling, yes?
Do I go randomly select a movie, I want to watch it, hoping I get the right movie?
When I want to read a certain book do I just say bring me a book and hope it is the right book?
When I buy the game and want to play as a certain character do I randomly purchase a character hoping I get the right one, oh wait...
Just because a developer says, "Oh, it isn't a bad practice" does not mean it is not a bad practice. It is predatory and it needs restrictions.
Loot Boxes are bad design. The only possible reason for their existence is to cheaply incentivise the spending of extra money. Even if you're not paying directly for the loot boxes, say for example WWE2K18 the fact that you can buy the dlc/season pass equivalent to unlock all the moves is a clear mechanism to make sales, reinforced by having the unlocks in the game be largely randomized and unreliable via loot boxes. It's literally designed to make the game less fun if you don't spend, which is probably where the article from the OP is trying to argue. They're rephrasing "Players who bought had more fun than players who didn't" from "Players who don't buy have significantly less fun than players who paid money to have the actual experience"
If your game is good, people will spend money on it. I bought Rocket League for myself and 3 friends, I bought the dlc cars and packs initially. Then loot boxes came and it was just around the time that I was getting tired of the game, and then I think "well I love this game, I love these devs. I'll drop a couple bucks" and then end up getting crap I already have or a different coloured version that I'll never use anyway. Completely turned me off and while it's not the sole reason it's a huge contributor as to why I haven't returned to it. (and no it's not just because I was salty about what I got, but moreso that after the fact I realised how they got me to make the decision to gamble on them)
I would gladly pay directly for many of these cosmetic changes (at reasonable prices) but paying for a chance at something you might be interested in is just scummy to the nth degree. I want to support a game that I love, I do not want to support a mechanic that is exploitative and disappointing in most cases.
To re-iterate, there is absolutely no game design use for loot boxes other than to incentivise the spending of money. If you make a good game, those who are willing and able will pay more to support it. Allow those people to support companies that value them as consumers and as people.
If your game is good, people will spend money on it. I bought Rocket League for myself and 3 friends, I bought the dlc cars and packs initially. Then loot boxes came and it was just around the time that I was getting tired of the game, and then I think "well I love this game, I love these devs. I'll drop a couple bucks" and then end up getting crap I already have or a different coloured version that I'll never use anyway. Completely turned me off and while it's not the sole reason it's a huge contributor as to why I haven't returned to it. (and no it's not just because I was salty about what I got, but moreso that after the fact I realised how they got me to make the decision to gamble on them)
I would gladly pay directly for many of these cosmetic changes (at reasonable prices) but paying for a chance at something you might be interested in is just scummy to the nth degree. I want to support a game that I love, I do not want to support a mechanic that is exploitative and disappointing in most cases.
To re-iterate, there is absolutely no game design use for loot boxes other than to incentivise the spending of money. If you make a good game, those who are willing and able will pay more to support it. Allow those people to support companies that value them as consumers and as people.
Last edited:
So you have an issue with revenue share between developers and publishers?
Sorry to burst your bubble but that does not change the fact that the loot boxes are predatory. It just shows an unequal relationship.
Please.
I enjoy gambling. In principal I would be ok with real gambling in games. But loot boxes make video games less fun to play and is not gambling. Basically they are like Chuck E. Cheese ticket redemption games - except the "prizes" you win are digital and turn the FPS genre into a grind fest designed to annoy people into paying. Get ready for more $60 games with the same annoyances of free-to-play mobile games thanks to hopelessly addicted whales.
The thing about the lootboxes stuff recently that really rubs me the wrong way is not that they exist, and it's not even that they exist in a paid form really(I play Overwatch and RL, and those games have random loot boxes with cosmetic stuff. Although I never actually buy them).
It's more about the balance and feature being so blatantly directed toward 'whales' and monetizing whales and getting a very small group of people to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars. In addition to the ethical concerns, it's also just shitty game design.
It's more about the balance and feature being so blatantly directed toward 'whales' and monetizing whales and getting a very small group of people to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars. In addition to the ethical concerns, it's also just shitty game design.
Maybe they should get a new job if they have issues paying rent with their current job.
Also the "people have been buying packs of cards since forever" argument, while valid, isn't comparable. No matter how much they try to claim there isn't, there is a difference between buying a physical thing you own, a thing you can sell, a thing you can trade, a thing you can give to your kids in 20 years, and buying a piece of digital equipment for your personal profile. You own the cards you buy for Magic, The Gathering. You don't own anything you buy in a game.
I tend to agree, although it certainly can target a similar addiction as gambling. Although like you I would be ok with real gambling in 18+ video games.
I actually miss online poker in the United States.
Lootboxes themselves are no different than random loot drops from enemies. It can be enjoyable to open something up and see if you got good shit.
But gouging people with real money lootboxes that have very real P2W effects on games is a two pronged bullshit attack and developers can go fuck themselves with that whole "kids won't see it that way in the future" argument.
But gouging people with real money lootboxes that have very real P2W effects on games is a two pronged bullshit attack and developers can go fuck themselves with that whole "kids won't see it that way in the future" argument.
"It's fantastic design because it lines our pockets!" It's about the implementation and always has been! Both RNG and "Grind" have always been a part of loot-based games and NOT to their detriment. Dare I say those elements were fun. The issue is when a payment option is offered to speed up "tedium". It's then obvious that there was a conscious effort to crank up the grind and severely lower the acquisition of items through standard play. Look no further than games released this year like Destiny 2 and Forza where features were fucked with just to add "value" to their loot-box solutions. I use these examples because systemic changes were made in order to become more lucrative for the creator whilst tedious for the end-user.
Lootboxes are just a random funnel for unlockables. If the RNG rates are forgiving, the content in line with game progression and the boxes tied naturally to the core mechanics, then yes Lootboxes are completely fine!
People are feral in the wake of BF2.
People are feral in the wake of BF2.
You're telling me the people with a vested interest in loot boxes think there's nothing wrong with them? Well color me -ing surprised.
If you're 'affected' by cosmetic microtransactions in overwatch or buying card packs in hearthstone I think you should consider a new hobby.
Look, Maybe that's a little harsh. But conversely I'd like to see you make a strong case for why cosmetic loot boxes are harmful or in what way they effect you. There are plenty of games that can cause addictive, compulsive behavior without money involved that still have real life consquences. MMO's ruin peoples lives. People get addicted to counterstrike to the point that they don't eat and have to be taken to the hospital. Does this mean those games should be banned?
What I'm saying is yes, put these companies to the curb for their ridiculous practices but lets not pretend that the loot boxes in Battlefront 2 and card pack in hearthstone/loot boxes in overwatch are even in the same hemisphere.
Last edited:
A couple things:
what I said, if you read it again, is that microtransactions and specifically loot boxes aren't inherently bad. Then I gave examples of where I consider them to be completely fine. So no, I didn't 'state all the terrible things that they are'
and second, I never said anything about overwatch not being worth playing without the 'trinkets'. I said I like the business model wherein people can pay money for useless trinkets and in return I get free dlc, forever for a game with no annual releases. So yeah.
Also LOL at the idea of gating overwatch behind a monthly subscription. Wow.
I definitely understand and sympathize. I think the least egregious way to do it would be through play and also through a direct store. Let people play to get them (in a reasonable time frame) or just buy it (within a reasonable price range). From your example, it seems that skins were just too expensive with no other way of getting them. My solution would be to fix these problems instead of creating new ones. But, like i said, i do sympathize with your situation. It would kinda suck to go back.
i can't find a legitimate reason why anyone would think they were better than alternative means of distributing content. as a consumer, spending money on something i want works. spending money on something i want, but might not get because of some random generation of content is not good. image if supermarkets worked like that. you go in because you want a steak and a 6 pack of beers and you leave spending 5 times as much with arms full of shit you never wanted in the first place.
even when the currency is entirely in-game why would people want to spend 20 hours of "grind points" on a lootbox that might give them a skin for a character they don't use or ironsights for guns they don't even have unlocked.
devs need to just make a store, stick all their micro transaction bollocks on there, let people spend a couple of quid on what they actually want to buy, and accept that they can't leach a constant revenue stream from those people.
even when the currency is entirely in-game why would people want to spend 20 hours of "grind points" on a lootbox that might give them a skin for a character they don't use or ironsights for guns they don't even have unlocked.
devs need to just make a store, stick all their micro transaction bollocks on there, let people spend a couple of quid on what they actually want to buy, and accept that they can't leach a constant revenue stream from those people.
That's all fine, let's just have games rated 18/21 and have winnings odds clearly displayed like slot machines do, and then everyone can gamble in peace.
By being "banned", what it more so means is banned in their current implementation, with zero regulation and zero transparency. I'm sure if they're reworked like the above they'll be allowed just fine. Lets see if the pubs and devs sign up to everything being rated for 18/21, and also actually be okay displaying their winnings odds, unlike Blizzard's compliance with that attempt as things stand http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...nas-loot-box-laws-by-selling-in-game-currency
I dunno look at how many studios are folding. There is obviously a sustainability issue in the industry right now. All mid-sized developers are vanishing. Ballooning budgets and a crowded market make it near impossible to make money. Developers are looking for stable sources of income and I can blame them for thinking loot boxes look like an attractive model. Especially for F2P games.
I refuse to pay for a $60 game and be limited out of my enjoyment of the game and grind years so I can get beat by someone who just bought 100 lootboxes so no. Unless it's purely cosmetic lootboxes are trash.
I refuse to purchase a game with loot boxes. Especially a full price game. Anybody that says the loot box revenue doesn't get factored in when they design the game is straight up lying. The grind is enchanted, the downtime is lengthened, bad stuff happens to get people to pay real money for things.
If the games industry wants to do it they can but I can stick with retro games or purchase products from companies that don't participate.
If the games industry wants to do it they can but I can stick with retro games or purchase products from companies that don't participate.
First post essentially nails it. It really does depend on how it is implemented. Lootboxes and micro-transactions that give users an unfair advantage over others are a BAD method. But Lootboxes and micro-transactions that either give everyone the same perks or just a visual difference are a GOOD method.
I mean, it is not for me, i dont care that much if i could buy those fancy Zelda socks for my character, but for a ton of people they are relevant, so if it is implemented like that, its all fine and dandy.