What drives so many to defend lootboxes?

[Unclebenny]

There is a poisonous attitude around lootboxes, exemplified by the OP in this thread.

"Hey guys, care to explain your position? If you do, please know that you are wrong and stupid."

I larrgely check out of these conversations now as they only go one way. Loads of people borw beating anyone who has anything but spite and bile for lootboxes. You can't have a nuanced conversation about this because they have become "the enemy".

If you don't instantly vilify them then you are somehow coming to bat for big companies. It's ridiculous. I was hoping some of this eyperbole was left on the old site but it seems to be here, alive and well and unwilling to listen.

I'm not even saying I'm right but what is the point in talking when I expect this level of treatment.

 

[Shoreu]

All of them aren't the same egregious thing as some try to make them out to be. Games are expensive as hell to make and I like big ass AAA expensive games so I'm part of that problem and I'm kinda over map packs...

Just follow

OW
Halo 5
R6 siege and I don't really have an issue

 

[Deleted member 896]

It's fine if you like loot boxes, but I would caution against feeling like you need to spend money on them in order to "support" AAA gaming. Or using that as an argument for why they need to exist. If loot boxes disappears, I guarantee we would still get AAA games. It's a profitable business to be in.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I mean I don't think loot boxes need to exist. I've never been terribly concerned by John Q. CEO emerging from one of his vacation homes and holding hat in hand about the struggles of keeping the lights on like this is some charity. But I sort of feel like this extends both ways. I don't owe EA a purchase just because they spent a hundred quadrillion dollars making a Star Wars game and I'm a big nerd that likes Star Wars. But they also don't owe it to me to make a game I actually want to buy.

That's sort of what bothers me about some of these consumer rights conversations. I feel like there are definitely ways in which companies can screw over customers. They can manipulate and deceive us and it's good that there are watchdog groups looking out for us. But I also sometimes feel like people inflate what the stakes are to prop up what is ultimately a subjective argument about the soul of the art form. We are potentially just old people yelling at clouds because things are changing and we don't like it. If companies are making money and consumers are happily spending money, is there a problem?

The answer is maybe. I'm honestly, 100% open to cracking down on whaling. I don't want free content updates for me at the expense of others making terrible, self-destructive decisions with their money. I'm not a free market loon who thinks that the invisible hand of the market is infallible or at least capable of self correcting. But I also think some are taking for granted that the argument has been proven. Like this OP in this thread is garbage. It takes for granted that the business model has been studied extensively, dissected, and the widespread devastation consumers suffer is completely understood. From that it pretends to ask a question but is really just making a statement of "all right we know that these are bad and that the companies that implement them and the consumers that like them are all irredeemable pieces of shit, so let us laugh at the dumb defense force arguments they may present."

You can't have an honest or decent conversation from that starting point.

 

[passepied joe]

They love a multi-million dollar corporate that doesn't love them back just because they make cool toys.

 

[CommodoreKong]

Just gonna leave this one here.

Click to shrink...

My guess is that EA will sell enough copies of Battlefront 2 but when they said that removing the ability to pay for lootcrates wouldn't affect their revenue that was a huge lie.

 

[red731]

The Wilsoning.

 

[Dinobot]

My guess is that EA will sell enough copies of Battlefront 2 but when they said that removing the ability to pay for lootcrates wouldn't affect their revenue that was a huge lie.

Click to shrink...

Yup. A huge lie to investors. I posted it because people have been using the quote from EA saying the removal of loot crates wouldn't effect profits as a counter argument to loot crate defenders.

 

[LightEntite]

1) They don't take part in paying for loot boxes, and don't really care about their existence

2) They do take part in paying for loot boxes, don't mind paying, and enjoy the opportunity


Some people don't care enough to see it as "supporting a terrible company". They just see it as a leg up on maybe getting a skin they want.

Everyone doesn't inject the politics of it all into their hobbies. They just play the game and go on about their business. If I look at a game, it's got loot boxes, and the mechanics surrounding them feel too exploitative, then i just don't bother ever touching the game, it's that simple. And that counts for lootboxes, crafting systems, anything.


It doesn't bother me one bit that there may be people out their with unhealthy addictions to spending their money on videogames. Removing the avenue isn't going to erase underlying problem that got them there. You just move it back a step.

That said, the existence of lootboxes does lead to some greedy ass design decisions. But I feel like gamers actually can vote with their wallets on that front.

 

[RockmanBN]

Bought $50 of boxes the first time in the Overwatch Halloween event so that I could the Zenyatta skin. About 20 levels and 9 boxes from arcade and I still didn't get the skin I wanted. Not even all the boxes gave me the credits I needed to purchase it. With no option to purchase it other than buying a "chance" to get it. At the end I never got it and wasted $50. Not doing that again.

 

[Illusion]

Some points on the argument that loot boxes are similar to collectible cards or stickers (or kinder surprise eggs and similar toys) and thus harmless:

in general

• cards are physical not digital
• cards can be traded with others
• cards have real money value and can be sold
• specific cards can be bought to complete your card collection
• like in overwatch for example, loot boxes are the only option getting a specific item
• you always keep your cards and they still have value, even if the printing company closes
• on the other hand, if the servers of a game close - you have no access to your digital goods anymore
• in case of card packs, the odds of rarities are listed on the back

But the main reasons why loot boxes are so different and problematic is that they are predatory and manipulative:

• loot boxes are specifically designed to maximize profit using lots of psychological tricks (e.g. exciting visual and sound effects, similar to slot machines)
• loots box odds can be rigged and adjusted anytime in such a way to make individual players open as many loot boxes as possible (through data analysis)

• loot boxes are not really "completely optional" - your option is a either a grindwall or paywall
• your game experience can become purposefully unpleasent in order to manipulate you into buying them (turning players into payers), by:

a) tying them to game progression and adding pay2win elements - players can get into disadvantage (example: SWBFII)
b) making the game more grindy and tedious (example: end game of Shadow of War)​

• timed events can force players to spend lots of money on loot boxes for a desired item as that's the only obtainable way and their last chance before the event is over
• high addicting factor - video example / reaction of a kid (addictiveness could be even higher than actual gambling in some cases - needs to be researched by psychologists)
• loot boxes are shoved in into the main product (the video game) - the average consumer might buy the full price game without even knowing that a loot boxes system is included (which of course preys on the consumer to spend even more money on the game)
• On the other hand, when you buy a card pack, the actual product are just that, the cards
• Loot boxes prey on people with addictive tendencies and uncontrolled spending behaviors - there are lots of cases where children or adult players spend houndreds or even thousands of dollars on in-game purchases: examples of children/ releated article / example of a young adult / another example

Click to shrink...

Will be requoting this for days.

 

[Uno Venova]

Just gonna leave this one here.

Click to shrink...

Is whos saying this credible? If so, sounds like they need to change their business model to make money without predatory micro transactions.

 

[jelly]

Some points on the argument that loot boxes are similar to collectible cards or stickers (or kinder surprise eggs and similar toys) and thus harmless:

in general

• cards are physical not digital
• cards can be traded with others
• cards have real money value and can be sold
• specific cards can be bought to complete your card collection
• like in overwatch for example, loot boxes are the only option getting a specific item
• you always keep your cards and they still have value, even if the printing company closes
• on the other hand, if the servers of a game close - you have no access to your digital goods anymore
• in case of card packs, the odds of rarities are listed on the back

But the main reasons why loot boxes are so different and problematic is that they are predatory and manipulative:

• loot boxes are specifically designed to maximize profit using lots of psychological tricks (e.g. exciting visual and sound effects, similar to slot machines)
• loots box odds can be rigged and adjusted anytime in such a way to make individual players open as many loot boxes as possible (through data analysis)

• loot boxes are not really "completely optional" - your option is a either a grindwall or paywall
• your game experience can become purposefully unpleasent in order to manipulate you into buying them (turning players into payers), by:

a) tying them to game progression and adding pay2win elements - players can get into disadvantage (example: SWBFII)
b) making the game more grindy and tedious (example: end game of Shadow of War)​

• timed events can force players to spend lots of money on loot boxes for a desired item as that's the only obtainable way and their last chance before the event is over
• high addicting factor - video example / reaction of a kid (addictiveness could be even higher than actual gambling in some cases - needs to be researched by psychologists)
• loot boxes are shoved in into the main product (the video game) - the average consumer might buy the full price game without even knowing that a loot boxes system is included (which of course preys on the consumer to spend even more money on the game)
• On the other hand, when you buy a card pack, the actual product are just that, the cards
• Loot boxes prey on people with addictive tendencies and uncontrolled spending behaviors - there are lots of cases where children or adult players spend houndreds or even thousands of dollars on in-game purchases: examples of children/ releated article / example of a young adult / another example

Click to shrink...

Tremendous post.

I would also add children's brains are more malleable and exposing kids, young adults to this lootbox manipulation may have bad consequences going forward, rewiring and setting norms, addictions at a young age is very bad because it very much sets them for life. Doesn't excuse targetting adults either.

 

[CozMick]

Are we totally against all instances of loot boxes or are those that are found in f2p games acceptable?

If I pay 55 quid for a game I want all the content, no exceptions, however my most played game ever is paragon which wouldn't exist without loot boxes.

 

[Azriell]

I don't buy loot boxes, but they are perfectly fine when they are cosmetic only. Overwatch does a pretty good job of walking the line imo:

• Loot boxes have no impact on gameplay
• Loot boxes are fairly easy to earn (about an hour per box)
• Credits are slow to earn, but if you play regularly it's not difficult to have enough to buy 2-3 legendary skins per event.
• If you play regularly it's not difficult to earn an additional 2-3 legendary skins per event
• Most importantly, all new maps, modes, and characters are free

I've played Overwatch regularly since launch. I've logged roughly 550 hours. I've never bought a loot box. I've thought about it a few times, but the value isn't there for me. Most characters also have enough good skins at this point that you don't have to have every new skin that comes out. I also think it's good that there are so many good skins and that everybody doesn't get every skin, because it means that you don't see the same (new) skins all the time.

Overwatch could do it better though. There is a sad shortage of non-event legendaries. Event legendaries never getting added to the pool of always-buyable skins seems like a mistake. 250 credits instead of 750 for 3k dupes is not right.

But despite these shortcomings, Overwatch is a fun game with fairly inoffensive loot boxes. I've gotten my money's worth several times over. And part of that is because of loot boxes that other people are buying.

Other loot boxes, like those in SWBF2, have no defense. Pay2win is not something I will support.

 

[TheFurizzlyBear]

Why is it all or nothing? I think Star Wars did em shitty. I think Smite does em well. I think Overwatch could use some improvement. OP really got this thread to a good start.

 

[haozz]

From Call of Duty, I can see how the boxes have enabled more post-release content then ever before. CoD Ghosts had basically 2 or 3 extra weapons that could be purchased directly $3 or included with a $15 DLC. The game had some cosmetic customization for your character (headwear and outfit), and the customization had to be earned by doing things in multiplayer. Additionally, you could purchase a few weapon camos (skins) for a few dollars.

Lootboxes were introduced in Advanced Warfare, and ever since, the number of both postrelease weapons and cosmetic items has increased by an order of magnitude. All items are accessible through the free boxes earned through playing, but money can also be spent to acquire premium boxes with better chances for items.

Obviously, the boxes are profitable. The additional content requires more development resources, and so they must be earning more money than those resources cost.

One "positive" effect to note, in so far as playing CoD multiplayer is a good, is that player retention over the year has improved (although maybe Infinite Warfare wasn't so good for those numbers). I believe that more people are playing the game to obtain the boxes or crafting points or whatever. Fact of the matter is that in-game customization often increases a multiplayer game's appeal (see skins in CSGO).

On one hand, extra content that used to be free with the season pass or available for a few dollars are now only available through random chance through the boxes. On the other, the amount of this extra content really has increased by like 10x.

So the way I see it

+ more content
+ additional reasons to engage with the gameplay loop

- you gotta pay for the content, either with time or money or both
- not everyone appreciates the cosmetic and non-cosmetic extra items; they do change the game in some way from the original, cosmetic-free game
- think of the children!

 

[Budi]

I've never bought a loot box. I've thought about it a few times, but the value isn't there for me.

Click to shrink...

This right here. You do acknowledge yourself that it's bad value proposition. So even if we left out the concern for kids and gambling addicts and would just look what the paying customer is getting for their money, it most likely wont be satisfaction. As the future updates for everyone are dependant on the paying customer why not give them a fair and transparent deal on what they would be getting with their money. The paying customer and their satisfaction should be prioritized. In a way I'd take p2w microtransactions over random chance ones, atleast then the customer is given something desirable in exchange for their support. But ofcourse I'd rather have neither of those. No random chance or pay to win microtransactions.

 

[Spades]

I find myself in a slightly odd position on this debate because, while I do feel like loot boxes should be regulated, I end up spending far more time arguing with the anti loot box group than the pro loot box group. These discussions have become deeply hyperbolic, and comedians like Jim Sterling are being held up as bastions of truth. It feels like a lot of people have allowed confirmation bias to well and truly get the better of them. There is a bandwagon mentality here that is riding roughshod over accuracy, honesty, and respect.

Click to shrink...

Bravo, great post. 100% agree.

 

[Nanashrew]

Let me contextualise that statement into simpsons memes so that you correctly understand it.

Click to shrink...

Tbh, I'm not really sure what this means seeing as this also works against whatever you may be saying. The implication of the quote is that change is inherently good when it's not always, and calling people dinosaurs though this system and its increasingly rampant use is not even 20 years old. It's a way to side-step the problems by calling people who criticize it old people and that kids are perfectly okay with it and have no qualms with it because they don't know much better.

Not to mention, you're agreeing with a man in a suit, not a dev. The person who said that was VP in business. That article has a few of PR and businessmen defending lootboxes alongside a couple devs which only makes the article come off pretty disingenuous.

 

[LordofPwn]

Claw games are a regulated form of gambling, like slot machines, or regulated without calling it gambling per se in several parts of the world, even US. So rest easy, your claw games are not going to get changed. Also, what would be so bad if the non loot box things you listed would actually be changed?
I don't know why people think regulations are bad. Without regulation there is nothing stopping loot box sellers to cheat you into spending more money. There are no listed odds and no one is checking them. So they can just withhold the item you really want to keep you spending. Until publishers prove otherwise, it is best to think of all loot boxes as deliberate scams.

Click to shrink...

In the US they are not classified as gambling because it's a game of "Skill" it's the loophole they use. And I wasn't saying that if all those things went away that it would be a bad thing.

So if I were to develop a slot machine that always guaranteed at least a penny, that would get around gambling regulation? That would be quite the loophole and I absolutely guarantee they've tried that and it wasn't allowed by the gambling commissions.


https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gambling/



I posted the legal definition in the post you quoted me in. How do loot boxes not qualify as gambling? I'll post it here again.

Click to shrink...

According to that legal definition Lootboxes would not be gambling because a Lootbox is a purchase, buying a loot box isn't playing a game for money or value.

 

[Fairy Godmother]

I understand loot boxes are gambling but not for real life currency. With that being said, they enable the company to continue supporting the game for a long time. I'm not against cosmetic only boxes myself, although I understand it also has negative impact towards people who have problems with self control or children.

I personally spent around $40 on Overwatch boxes. Since overwatch was paid and shared to me by another person, and I've enjoyed my 350+ hours on it, I don't feel bad spending that much on it.

There is a poisonous attitude around lootboxes, exemplified by the OP in this thread.

"Hey guys, care to explain your position? If you do, please know that you are wrong and stupid."

Click to shrink...

My thought exactly. They want opinions but only ones that on their sides.

 

[DarkFlame92]

Imo there should be no lootbox earned with money. It's fun if you farm some XP in an online game,but having the option to pay for lootboxes is atrocious imo. It's just baiting consumers on the gambling instinct.

 

[Zing]

I personally spent around $40 on Overwatch boxes. Since overwatch was paid and shared to me by another person, and I've enjoyed my 350+ hours on it, I don't feel bad spending that much on it.

Click to shrink...

This is not an attack on you; I am sincerely curious. What, in Overwatch, did you feel was worth $40? I can understand wanting to support a developer, but I have trouble understanding why anyone buys Overwatch loot boxes. Amongst the thousands of virtually useless sprays, emotes, and voice lines, what drove you to purchase boxes?

I am level 316. I have received likely 500 loot boxes for free without a single extra purchase. I was able to find cool stuff for each character in these boxes and spent some of the currency to buy specific skins I wanted. I would think that a similar person with hundreds of hours would be the last person to buy even more loot boxes.

 

[Altera]

I am the ones that listed SFV. I wouldn't have if I was only looking for high priced games. I listed LoL prices because it is the game that is always brought up when people say lootboxes aren't needed. Even though I offered up SFIV prices from the first post you latched on to the LoL prices and said they weren't a fair comparison.I offered an alternative for a reason and I take back my standard comment in regards to LoL process.

to your second point no they wouldn't have to but they would either offer premium only skins that can't be earned like SF or make it harder to get free skins in the first place to make up for the huge loss in revenue that would be caused by moving away from the current system.. Sure fixed prices and free boxes would be ideal will they do it? Doubtful. You said I would be worse off though when as it stands I am feeling pretty good with the amount of free content I have gotten for free. What you have is an opinion. Stop going in circles trying to prove you are right. It doesn't work that way.
.

Click to shrink...

Yep, and I said the SFV comparison is fine. Yet again, the LoL comparison is completely irrelevant, because, again, you can't name any retail games that have similar pricing for skins. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Yet you so strongly disagree and say it's the standard.

And to your second point, again your living in the world of "me, myself, and I", you aren't looking at the bigger picture and seem incapable of doing so. since you keep going back to ME, ME, ME.

 

[CountAntonio]

Yep, and I said the SFV comparison is fine. Yet again, the LoL comparison is completely irrelevant, because, again, you can't name any retail games that have similar pricing for skins. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Yet you so strongly disagree and say it's the standard.

And to your second point, again your living in the world of "me, myself, and I", you aren't looking at the bigger picture and seem incapable of doing so. since you keep going back to ME, ME, ME.

Click to shrink...

Aren't you doing the same thing? You prefer that I forfeit my dozens of free skins so you can by the ones you want for 4$ each. You and many others want it one way me and plenty others like it as is. Pretty much all there is to say. Done going back and forth with you and your patronizing attitude.

 

[ColonelForbin]

Because then something like Overwatch wouldn't be capable of providing free heroes, maps, and content post-launch?

Go ask the Rocket League devs why they went from having no lootboxes to adding lootboxes. One's significantly more profitable than the other.

How would you propose the devs pay for dedicated servers and free post launch game content?

If your beef with it is "think of the children!" Why do the children have your payment information?

Click to shrink...

This is my argument essentially. If its not cosmetic loot boxes then it will be paid DLC for new maps, modes, character skins, music, decals, dances, whatever....I prefer the cosmetic loot boxes because i can choose to continue to support the devs. If they put out paid DLC then it fragments the community and if i want to stay relevant (have the new maps/modes) i HAVE to pay for the DLC. Overwatch continues to pump out new characters and maps. I can not play for months and come back to a bunch of new stuff. This is all thanks to the loot boxes because the alternative is that the game gets a skeleton dev crew and its just put on autopilot

 

[ColonelForbin]

This is pretty much it in a nutshell, to be honest.


Well, how about figuring out a more ethical business model that doesn't exploit weak-willed consumers and minors? And not it's not our job to think of one.
S
Even though I get the "games are expensive and need other source of revenue" angle despite sincerely doubting every publisher using MTX actually needs them, lootboxes are such a shitty practice that by supporting them you guys give the impression that you'd accept any model no matter how slimy as long as games remain as is for you, which comes off as super selfish.

Click to shrink...

Whats the other alternative? Fragmentation DLC? I prefer the overwatch model and i'm sure it sucks for people who have an addictive personality. However, i would hope that these people would get professional help and not succumb to addictive devices in any part of their life.

I guess i defend it because its the type of revenue stream i appreciate in my games that doesn't affect me personally. Its not that i don't have sympathy for someone who has addictive tendencies, but like i said above, those people have bigger issues in their lives than loot boxes.

 

[BernardoOne]

My guess is that EA will sell enough copies of Battlefront 2 but when they said that removing the ability to pay for lootcrates wouldn't affect their revenue that was a huge lie.

Click to shrink...

Well yeah. Did anyone actually thought they were telling the truth to their investors? That would be a really dumb move. Every communication about this to investors would always be downplaying the whole thing.

 

[legacyzero]

All of them aren't the same egregious thing as some try to make them out to be. Games are expensive as hell to make and I like big ass AAA expensive games so I'm part of that problem and I'm kinda over map packs...

Just follow

OW
Halo 5
R6 siege and I don't really have an issue

Click to shrink...

Pretty much my stance as well.

Micros are here to stay, folks. If it's inevitable, celebrate the ones that make the best comprimise

 

[Altera]

Aren't you doing the same thing? You prefer that I forfeit my dozens of free skins so you can by the ones you want for 4$ each. You and many others want it one way me and plenty others like it as is. Pretty much all there is to say. Done going back and forth with you and your patronizing attitude.

Click to shrink...

Are you also done putting words into my mouth? Where did I say they should stop giving skins via loot boxes? I'm saying if people spend actual money, they should be getting exactly what they want. You're right, they'd probably lose money that way, because the way it is now is so scummy and made to get every possible cent they can out of people who want the skins enough that they're willing to spend money on them.

 

[CountAntonio]

Are you also done putting words into my mouth? Where did I say they should stop giving skins via loot boxes? I'm saying if people spend actual money, they should be getting exactly what they want. You're right, they'd probably lose money that way, because the way it is now is so scummy and made to get every possible cent they can out of people who want the skins enough that they're willing to spend money on them.

Click to shrink...

I still love you and I agree that would be ideal if one could choose the best implementation.

 

[daegan]

I wonder how much non-chance cosmetic DLC is profitable. Because those skins aren't free to make but obviously some are far more popular/desired than others...

 

[Deleted member 16452]

I wonder how much non-chance cosmetic DLC is profitable. Because those skins aren't free to make but obviously some are far more popular/desired than others...

Click to shrink...

I think for some people part of the allure of cosmetics in lootboxes is the rarity of them.

 

[Ailanthium]

This is not an attack on you; I am sincerely curious. What, in Overwatch, did you feel was worth $40? I can understand wanting to support a developer, but I have trouble understanding why anyone buys Overwatch loot boxes. Amongst the thousands of virtually useless sprays, emotes, and voice lines, what drove you to purchase boxes?

I am level 316. I have received likely 500 loot boxes for free without a single extra purchase. I was able to find cool stuff for each character in these boxes and spent some of the currency to buy specific skins I wanted. I would think that a similar person with hundreds of hours would be the last person to buy even more loot boxes.

Click to shrink...

Two words: Witch Mercy.

Timed exclusives are the number one reason that friends and I have purchased lootboxes. No matter how much you play you can't absolutely guarantee that your next lootbox will be the fancy holiday skin you like, and the limited amount of time to get the item makes you more likely to pay for a few more. Maybe there are items that you want, but don't want to spend the gold on because you're saving for the skin you really want; so, you decide to buy a handful of lootboxes. I've only bought like a dozen at any time myself, but some of my friends have spent $20 or more just to make sure they get that one skin. Even then they might not get it, but if they only need a couple more hundred gold then they may as well buy a dozen more. It's a good deal, they might think, because they'll have some extra gold left over for the next skin they really want and some holiday emotes and sprays to go with it.

Looking back, it's obvious that none of that was worth $40 or more. Even I've regretted rolling the ten-dollar dice on lootboxes because I didn't get anything I really really wanted and would have rather paid $10 upfront for the skin I wanted. Then again, I wouldn't have gotten all those common, rare, and epic cosmetics that make it feel like a good value proposition... before I realize that I hardly ever use them.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

"Free" substantive updates to games like Overwatch vs. having to buy season passes/map packs in the past.

Simple as that really. Plenty, myself included, don't care about the whales or gambling addicts and just like getting the free content. I'm not a people person and couldn't care less what people do to themselves or how corporations monetize susceptible people.

Click to shrink...

Funny is when people think lootboxes and things like that are necessary to fund updates. Seems the marketing spin doctors succeeded in sone peoples mind share.

Online games like Splatoon2 for example manage to get substantial content updates regularly without any kind of microtransactions or gambling, with the good "old" thinking: "make your games interesting so new people buy them".

Overwatch & Co would still be successful and profitably and would get updates without loot.

 

[Perona]

Splatoon is a game that Nintendo is using to sell their console so they have more incentive to do free updates. Not to mention that the first Splatoon only had like a year of updates and then we got a sequel, whereas Overwatch will be around for a much longer time without a sequel.

 

[4859]

I wonder how much non-chance cosmetic DLC is profitable. Because those skins aren't free to make but obviously some are far more popular/desired than others...

Click to shrink...

That really depends on whose making them, UbiSoft boasts because it employs thousands of workers in reduced cost countries, it can create cometemt for 2/3s the cost of its competition.

But its peanuts compared to the cost of making another game.

 

[Sampson]

Never bought one. Probably never will.

I like free DLC.

Without loot boxes, Blizzard would've probably charged for each additional OW hero for example.

 

[Sampson]

Funny is when people think lootboxes and things like that are necessary to fund updates. Seems the marketing spin doctors succeeded in sone peoples mind share.

Online games like Splatoon2 for example manage to get substantial content updates regularly without any kind of microtransactions or gambling, with the good "old" thinking: "make your games interesting so new people buy them".

Overwatch & Co would still be successful and profitably and would get updates without loot.

Click to shrink...

Blizzard has released a paid expansion for all of their games within 1-2 years.

Except OW. It's not a coincidence.

 

[Gold Arsene]

I'm curious l, how profitable could Overwatch still be if they kept everything as is but gave the option to buy things directly with real money?

Because honestly I would be mostly fine with OW if I could have that option.

 

[ExpandedKang]

Funny is when people think lootboxes and things like that are necessary to fund updates. Seems the marketing spin doctors succeeded in sone peoples mind share.

Online games like Splatoon2 for example manage to get substantial content updates regularly without any kind of microtransactions or gambling, with the good "old" thinking: "make your games interesting so new people buy them".

Overwatch & Co would still be successful and profitably and would get updates without loot.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading about games needing this particular revenue stream to be successful, they swallowed the PR hook line and sinker. It's like they just ignore every single example of games that can make plenty of money without resorting to these kind of predatory behaviours just because the likes of EA and activision blizzard (so trustworthy lol) said so. We're talking about a potential player base larger than its ever been, we have 3 strong consoles and a strong PC platform, emerging markets in developing countries, higher digital sales meaning the publishers get a greater cut, (all of the cut in the case of PC sales of EA and blizzard and their own stores), DLCs, season passes, deluxe packs, yada yada yet despite all this they can't make a game profitable without putting in underhanded gambling elements? And do people actually think this kind of stuff helps fund games that otherwise might not be funded, if anything it seems like they will just put more attention towards the gambling elements which will ultimately lead to an even more fragmented, lesser experience for those who don't even buy the lootboxes who will be pushed towards them by every possible means in game. Most of the justification from gamers is just pure, pervasive selfishness on their behalf because they feel like it doesn't affect them.

Part of the problem is companies like EA also have ridiculous, unhealthy ideas of what is "profitable" in the case of their games. The only reason that EA feel that lootboxes are necessary for success is because their business model has been heading in this direction for a while now and now they are hugely reliant on it, they are trying to incorporate these ideas into everything they make. It is absolutely unsurprising that they have drawn the ire of gambling regulators, they have pushed this way too hard as they were always going to. There are a lot of countries extremely worried about the economic and social costs of gambling, if there is a crackdown on this kind of stuff, including the stuff they put in F2P this will have a huge effect on them.

 

[astroglide]

I dont defend them but there are some good reasons for them. I movie ticket use to cost $7 when movies wee cheaper to make. as the cost went up so did tickets. $12 in chicago burbs. Game development has gone up but the cost is the same for them. Im not surprised they do this. Now if you went ahead and made the cost of game 80 to 100 that wouldnt stop the problem. companies liek ea would still sell you the game at 100 plus the season pass pus loot crates. I say still if you dont like them dont buy them. I have only bought one loot crate my whole lfe. gears 4. People have spoken with star wars. Dont support that garbage. Im ok with micro transactions like path of exile or overwatch. all cosmetic. People dont complain about that because its not messing with progression.

 

[Ganzlinger]

I think there is a lot of overreacting towards lootboxes. Like many people said here, it's not a fallacy that games costs a lot of money these days. I think it's fair if the companies want to implement some content to keep people playing the game and to get some revenue. As long as it's reasonable and the content is just extra, not core, it shouldn't be a problem.

I for one complete ignore anything related to lootboxes in the games I play. They don't interest me.

 

[Deleted member 21094]

I'm curious l, how profitable could Overwatch still be if they kept everything as is but gave the option to buy things directly with real money?

Because honestly I would be mostly fine with OW if I could have that option.

Click to shrink...

They'd probably need to decrease the amount of free lootboxes given out to incentivize skin purchases or make the skins more expensive than you'd like. I can't see legendary skins being less than 10 dollars and I can't see epic being less than 7.99. Think fighting game costume dlc and that's probably the price it's gonna be at at the very least.

 

[gogosox82]

I think there is a lot of overreacting towards lootboxes. Like many people said here, it's not a fallacy that games costs a lot of money these days. I think it's fair if the companies want to implement some content to keep people playing the game and to get some revenue. As long as it's reasonable and the content is just extra, not core, it shouldn't be a problem.

I for one complete ignore anything related to lootboxes in the games I play. They don't interest me.

Click to shrink...

But aren't most of the complaints about lootboxes are when they are tied to progression like BF2 and Need for Speed? If they were this thing off to the side that you don't have to deal with then I think there would be a lot less complaining about them

 

[Kewlmyc]

In an age where games are getting more and more expensive to make, I don't mind lootboxes as long as they're somewhat fair. Keep it to minor shit that doesn't affect gameplay and give plenty of ways to earn lootboxes other than paying cash. Battlefront 2 and to a lesser extent Shadow of War took it way too far.

 

[OuterLimits]

Tremendous post.

I would also add children's brains are more malleable and exposing kids, young adults to this lootbox manipulation may have bad consequences going forward, rewiring and setting norms, addictions at a young age is very bad because it very much sets them for life. Doesn't excuse targetting adults either.

Click to shrink...

So make loot boxes an automatic M rating then. I would argue though that a parent letting a 10 year old play a game like GTA is probably worse than loot boxes.

Also, who cares if adults are targeted? Gambling is not some evil thing. Governments raise a ton of money each year from those gambling in lotteries they run and taxes from private casinos. Do some become addicted to it? Unfortunately yes, but many things in life can cross the line from fun entertainment to life destroying. Even video games themselves become an addiction for some.

Btw, I'm not a fan of loot boxes and tend to ignore them. I'm sure some like them though, and I personally have no issue with them being in Mature rated games that aren't intended for kids to play anyway. Putting them in E or T rated games isn't a good thing though I agree.

 

[BernardoOne]

Funny is when people think lootboxes and things like that are necessary to fund updates. Seems the marketing spin doctors succeeded in sone peoples mind share.

Online games like Splatoon2 for example manage to get substantial content updates regularly without any kind of microtransactions or gambling, with the good "old" thinking: "make your games interesting so new people buy them".

Overwatch & Co would still be successful and profitably and would get updates without loot.

Click to shrink...

Splatoon 2 is a terrible fucking example so i don't think you thought this through. The game was barebones as fuck at launch and will stop receiving content updates way,way,way before Overwatch does. Not to mention Nintendo have a console to sell so they need to sunk costs to make it more appealing.

 

[OuterLimits]

Splatoon 2 is a terrible fucking example so i don't think you thought this through. The game was barebones as fuck at launch and will stop receiving content updates way,way,way before Overwatch does. Not to mention Nintendo have a console to sell so they need to sunk costs to make it more appealing.

Click to shrink...

Splatoon 2 had a decent amount of content at release(especially compared to the first) but agree with your point. Nintendo will only doing updates for a year or so and splatfests for two years. So I wouldn't be surprised if they release a Splatoon 3 in a couple years.

 

[Mona]

no additional post launch content at all is better than hamstringing the games progression system like EA and DICE did imo

If I'm paying 60$ I want you to make the best game you possibly can, not intentionally make it worse with the promise of making up that gap in other places later on down the road while I'm still grinding away to access the original content, that's stupid

I'd rather just buy the game and be able to access the stuff I paid for without excessive grind

With the current system I don't even know

1. If I'll like the additional content
Or
2. If I'll like the game enough to even stick around until enough of the new stuff comes out

So why in the hell would I want to bet the quality of the base game on this big unknown, people argue over gambling in these threads, but betting the base game on the promise of future content is the biggest gamble of them all.

I sure as shit don't want to help promote that practice

That's how I personally see this issue