They were pretty bad in Mass Effect 3.
I like the League of Legends solution... you can do both.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs
- Thread starter Poetic Injustice
- Start date
They were pretty bad in Mass Effect 3.
I like the League of Legends solution... you can do both.
Sorry guys, but you're reading things into my post that isnt there. All i wanted to say was that i agree with the notion that having random drops through a lot of grinding (thats been the case for several of games for ages, as the article mention), that this type of design can be fun. You're talking about an implementation of a system designed where chances of getting things are lower in an attempt to make more people pay for loot boxes. I didnt mention anything like this, and not anything about if the drop rates are fair or not. Just because i dont mention it in this case doesnt mean that i'm ignoring anything. All i said was a random musling regarding the design itself around random drops, thats really the only arguement to be had with what i said.
I can answer this though. No, i dont think that the current loot box system would be used as much as it is if it wasnt very profitable. I wouldnt mind to see an implementation like this design wise that isnt there just to make more money though.
Last edited:
So you are cool with exploiting people as long as you are being subsidized by their purchases.
I have yet to see or experience a lootbox implementation that felt "good" or otherwise enriched my game experience.
At best, they served as carrots to keep me playing a game longer or more often...but I don't need to be baited to play a game and its blocking me from getting access to something I want behind an RNG wall. On average, they are simply attempts to get me to spend more money. At worst, they give players who do spend money an actual advantage in the game by having access to superior weaponry or a stronger character.
RNG lootboxes bother me because a lot because their contents aren't locked behind skill. Nothing the player did made them deserve an item more than the next person; they simply got lucky. Something that may RNG drop for player X in week 1 may not drop until week 71 for player Y. I'm *still* getting yellow skin drops in Overwatch for LAUNCH skins that I never had. There's no clear and defined way to work towards a particular item in these lootbox scenarios. You just play and pray. Unless you have some money to spend to improve your odds.
I understand the desire for further monetization, so I am fine with cosmetics being for sale. Sell your individual skins, skin packs or whatever. I'll buy what I want. Make them limited edition and I'll buy even more. Lootboxes, however, suck for everyone other than the developer and publisher.
At best, they served as carrots to keep me playing a game longer or more often...but I don't need to be baited to play a game and its blocking me from getting access to something I want behind an RNG wall. On average, they are simply attempts to get me to spend more money. At worst, they give players who do spend money an actual advantage in the game by having access to superior weaponry or a stronger character.
RNG lootboxes bother me because a lot because their contents aren't locked behind skill. Nothing the player did made them deserve an item more than the next person; they simply got lucky. Something that may RNG drop for player X in week 1 may not drop until week 71 for player Y. I'm *still* getting yellow skin drops in Overwatch for LAUNCH skins that I never had. There's no clear and defined way to work towards a particular item in these lootbox scenarios. You just play and pray. Unless you have some money to spend to improve your odds.
I understand the desire for further monetization, so I am fine with cosmetics being for sale. Sell your individual skins, skin packs or whatever. I'll buy what I want. Make them limited edition and I'll buy even more. Lootboxes, however, suck for everyone other than the developer and publisher.
Because while booster packs for a card game could net you some great stuff you couldn't find in a starter deck, the $60 "starter deck" game has the in-game item already on the disc, and you're just expected to keep pumping more money into it in the hopes that it finally gives you the thing you're after, because it's (purposefully) a much faster and easier option than playing the game for hundreds of hours on end with lower-tier equipment that will negate your level of skill against moneyed opponents.
Hope that helps.
The point of our replies was your focus on this element, like the article has merit. We weren't extrapolating assumptions from your own posts.
The argument you made is a part of the deflection people use to justify this stuff, which is what we were responding to specifically.
I like how he starts that sentence crying foul at the lack of informed opinions on the internet, spouting "facts" without doing any real investigation or research. He then ends the sentence by throwing out his own little "fact," without any source or research to back him up. GTFO.
Movies and music still count as art and they are definetly want to make money. Heck most of the great arts in history where produced under patronage, where guys who wanted to show off their wealth told artists what they wanted them to paint. Most artist don't just create what they want, they create what the audiences want. They create what will make them money.
I question the use of predatory. I didn't feel like prey buying into card packs as a child, in fact not knowing what I could get was the neat part. Just buying a card directly felt lackluster.
No regulations exist for blind box items outside of putting up drop rates. I don't see how that regulation would block people from being predated upon as it hasn't stopped any previous blind box market.
Maybe if Blizzard allowed me to trade my dupes or even non dupes with other players I'd be more forgiving of their greed.
When did we ever make our own maps and run servers on consoles. The world you are describing hasn't existed in this space.
Prey on children with gambling triggers.. They shouldn't have access to make purchases without a parent. Maybe that's the bigger issue. Game design is simply more expensive and riskier then it used to be to create and compete. Its not greed, its security. Milk it
You'd almost forget this fact, with the way some corporation aligned gamers act like we forced them to do this.
Time to decide whether our voice on the internet means everything, or nothing to publishers, can't be both.
I don't disagree. Developers want money and videogame is not art are separated arguments. I shouldn't have put them into the same sentence.
I quoted one line from the article, and i interpreted this as being from a design standpoint only.
I see what you're getting at though, but the assumption being made here is that you think i used this as a deflection of the more aggressive microtransaction systems. Your replies are based around that i'm using this as a deflection, but that wasnt my point. I just wanted to point that out that such design regarding random drops (or loot boxes) can make games more fun. I think i have purchased like 3-4 microtranscations regarding loot boxes in my life, and i'm not a person that will advocate for such system. Thats also a reason why there isnt any more arguements to have about what i said :)
Blind box markets get away with it more as well, because they offer complete factory sets at the same time. There is no complete 'purchase all items sets' in the current systems EA and others are employing, nor can you 'trade' like 'trading cards' description implies.
http://www.mlbshop.com/league/MLB/t...tnerid/12725/source/ak1944mlb-pla?sku=9231918
Because you couldn't get a lot of the best cards without buying booster packs, which would be akin to having things you couldn't get in-game be sold to you in lootboxes.
This sort of mechanic would also disrupt the skill-based aspect of any competitive shooter, since a luck-based booster pack could give you a gun that completely overpowered someone who was a better player, while denying them the ability to even the playing field in any fashion that didn't involve paying money to chase the same RNG dragon.
Is this really the future you want?
ME3 had a good payout rate of the virtual currency. A gold match victory would net you enough points to buy a big loot box. Heroes were locked behind loot boxes but once you unlocked them they could be used at full ablitity with duplicate cards just unlocking color options. In Andromeda skill points are locked behind duplicate character cards.
Doesn't help bc I've never cared for the on the disc argument, nor do all instances of loot boxes factor in to skill improvements.
It is predatory in this instance, because the game is expecting you to suffer at length or pay up front for something already on the media you've purchased, whereas a CCG expects you to pay for things that would almost never be included in a starter deck.
In retrospect, I think Valve's Team Fortress 2 model was pretty good.
Their approach: Random loot drops in game + an option to buy an item you like from the store outright.
This way, you can keep a system like Overwatch's let's say...where you get a box reward every level up like you do now, OR you can buy more chests and keys to open them, OR you can buy it directly from the store if you want it immediately and know you want it.
This would also make it similar to League of Legends system, which I am also cool with. You can get a skin via RNG drop OR from an RNG blind box OR from buying directly for more than the blind box price. Options are good.
Their approach: Random loot drops in game + an option to buy an item you like from the store outright.
This way, you can keep a system like Overwatch's let's say...where you get a box reward every level up like you do now, OR you can buy more chests and keys to open them, OR you can buy it directly from the store if you want it immediately and know you want it.
This would also make it similar to League of Legends system, which I am also cool with. You can get a skin via RNG drop OR from an RNG blind box OR from buying directly for more than the blind box price. Options are good.
One way in which loot boxes are bad game design: developers rarely if ever bother to theme them in a way that fits the game. Why am I collecting cards in a Star Wars shooter? How did the orcs get into those boxes? Who thought racing drivers buy car parts in crates? None of this makes sense in universe and so these loot boxes actively pull you out of whatever fantasy the game is trying to evoke.
As much as I hate to admit it, I find myself agreeing with this. I'd rather have fewer, smaller lower-budget games that didn't resort to this bullshit than what we're heading into now.
The predatory contemporary design of lootboxes in games is not compatible to buying packs of cards as a kid. I mean, those card packs were designed in a way to hook people, but it's not the same as selling a $60 game that has all of its progression system tuned toward getting you stuck into a gambling loop.
Also I don't think how you felt as a kid buying packs is really relevant unless we actually use it as a counter point; of course you liked the thrill of maybe getting something, that's the exact kind of emotional response they're preying on currently.
"I've never cared for" doesn't invalidate its logical basis, though.
Also, "nor do all instances" fails to excuse the instances that stand in direct contrast to that statement, i.e. Battlefront II.
Is predatory because is deliberately aiming those weak to gambling addiction and make them spent as much money as they can.
I think I live in the real world and its a game you play as a hobby. Don't buy it in the first place if this is how you really feel. Don't buy it for your kids if they can't control themselves.
My experience has gotten better, and I'd love to hear how many others agree. Vote with your dollars and just opt out if you feel so strongly about it.
Thank you lootboxes!
Yeah, ever since Blizzard bought Magic: The Gathering from Wizards of the Coast it's been a real shitshow.
/s
My point is that there are so obviously egregious examples of abusive lootbox gaming, but to ignore any and all examples of them done well is as ill-thought out as saying "All video games are bad influences on our societies' children". Lootboxes are not flat out, across the board counter-intuitive to a game's experience. Many are, and many can be a slippery slope, but they are not always, which is the point many developers make.
Notice how I never claimed this. People have been far too quick to dismiss any other train of thought that isn't "Lootboxes are pure evil".
EDIT: Just to be crystal clear, I do not believe every single game needs lootboxes, and I do not want every single game to have lootboxes.
Expecting you to "suffer" seems like a bit biased. Again the on the disc thing means little to me.
That's assuming that the smaller lower-budget games are more economically viable. I'm not actually sure that's necessarily true. Hellblade Senua's Sacrafice would be a fantastic example of a good quality game of a smaller scope and it took 3 months to breakeven and is only now starting to make a profit. And that's a really good game which is innovative and recieved a lot of attention from various game outlets - it also did better then they expected it to. Lowering the budget doesn't always mean more viable.
Extremely good advice for people who loot boxes explicitly target: "Just don't do it!"
The fact that the only reason lootboxes have become so common is that they're a lucrative business is telling.
They're not a great gamepalay mechanic that's been adopted by the industry because it's fun, and just because they've exists before doesn't make the monetised ones any less predatory.
There's not a single example of lootboxes "done right" where money is involved, anyway. They're always an exploitative extreme in that context. Just because some have less impact on gameplay doesn't make this any less true.
Well, think about it this way. With game budgets now pushing sometimes over $200 million for a single title, you could break that into four $50 titles, or eight $25 million titles, etc.
Those kind of numbers are insane and completely unsustainable. Some of these things are rushed out the door and ship busted, as well. There is simply no reason for budgets to be that ridiculously high, especially considering what indie titles can pull off with a tiny fraction of that amount.
Not only that, but what gets me is how Nintendo can do $100M+ development budgets and somehow not include micro-transactions without going bankrupt. Clearly there is something amiss here.
Translation: It's unrealistic to expect paying for a complete product if you're having fun with it.
Translation: You don't have the right to question the ethics behind the business of your hobby's industry. You either agree or leave.
Translation: Your children shouldn't be taught to expect anything with sound ethical grounding from their entertainment.
Translation: I'm only interested in hearing the opinions that sync up with mine, regardless of how well thought out or grounded they are.
Translation:
Translation: Thank you lootboxes!
Games could be so much better if developer / publisher / marketing people / etc would insert all the lootbox & greed "creativity" into the actual game(play).
I don't think making me excited about unknown makes me prey. I just find the use of predator/prey loaded and it paints the one side as "bad".
I couldn't help but laugh when Blizzard took a shot at EA's loot boxes the other day.
They are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else.
Being cosmetic doesn't change the fact that they are still a Cash-for-RNG item, aka Gambling.
Blizzard did a little bit of projecting there. Not a good look.
They are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else.
Being cosmetic doesn't change the fact that they are still a Cash-for-RNG item, aka Gambling.
Blizzard did a little bit of projecting there. Not a good look.