Surprising that this is being framed as a negative thing. Nothing of much value will be lost by banning these kinds of predatory practices. Sure maybe it can turn into an overreach situation, and I already see people here envisioning slippery slopes, but people will fight back against that. I'd rather companies that want to succeed be forced to design a compelling game that's worth the price of entry than to create a barren, repetitive experience, and then try to cash in by making it into a shallow gambling fest. It's on the industry for not regulating itself but it's also a little bit on consumers for playing these games as if they're actually worth anyone's time. People will boycott a razor company for saying "don't be a dick", but some things don't get that many boycotts. And I expect game prices to rise as time goes on. It's not the end of the world. Prices of EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD rise as time goes on. However, they do need to cap a bit at some point when the reality is I can have just as much fun playing a Mega Drive game as I can playing a current-gen release. And current gen games are getting more and more samey so there's really not that much incentive to buy many of them, except from Nintendo and indie devs. Maybe that should be a revelation for companies to put some variety into their resumes.
If development is too expensive and costs need to be recouped? Boo hoo, then stop obsessing over graphical advancements and realism and make something actually interesting instead that costs less money to produce. You'll lose a few graphics whores along the way but the industry will be in a better place for it. It's not tiny indie companies making the majority of lootboxes because they can't afford to produce, it's big ones being greedy and building boring games while relying on psychological manipulation to make $$$. These companies aren't starving artists, so I'm not really gonna feel bad for them if they're not constantly raking in dough. Plenty of games don't require this nonsense to be successful and make money, even big name games with long development cycles. Game development costs really don't need to be on an unsustainably upward curve forever, considering the success of indies. That's entirely the choice of companies making games being too competitive and pursuing the wrong paths. Can we just stop at HD or 4K or whatever it is and just chill for awhile? Games look and play just fine as they are now. I'd rather developers focus on churning out more games with more variety than making every game bigger than the last in some way while trying to appeal to a common denominator.
If development is too expensive and costs need to be recouped? Boo hoo, then stop obsessing over graphical advancements and realism and make something actually interesting instead that costs less money to produce. You'll lose a few graphics whores along the way but the industry will be in a better place for it. It's not tiny indie companies making the majority of lootboxes because they can't afford to produce, it's big ones being greedy and building boring games while relying on psychological manipulation to make $$$. These companies aren't starving artists, so I'm not really gonna feel bad for them if they're not constantly raking in dough. Plenty of games don't require this nonsense to be successful and make money, even big name games with long development cycles. Game development costs really don't need to be on an unsustainably upward curve forever, considering the success of indies. That's entirely the choice of companies making games being too competitive and pursuing the wrong paths. Can we just stop at HD or 4K or whatever it is and just chill for awhile? Games look and play just fine as they are now. I'd rather developers focus on churning out more games with more variety than making every game bigger than the last in some way while trying to appeal to a common denominator.
