1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sticking it to the greedy publishers.

Discussion in 'Console Games & Hardware' started by biron_w, 23 Oct 2017.

  1. spoffle

    Capodecina

    Joined: 4 Jul 2012

    Posts: 16,909

    That's not how things work at all. Your stance is based on hearsay and over inflated assumed figures.
     
  2. biron_w

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 10 Apr 2009

    Posts: 8,268

    Location: Super Leeds

    They didn't put ****** lootboxes in their games with game balance altering items in them. I thought that was pretty clear? If they were cosmetic only I'd be fine with them.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 29 Oct 2017
  3. Raymond Lin

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 20 Oct 2002

    Posts: 68,184

    Location: Wish i was in .Lethal's house

    I know but the reality is that this is happening and of the 2 options above, which one would you pick?
     
  4. megalomanic

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 4 Mar 2008

    Posts: 1,418

    Location: Scotland

    But in these specific few cases, unlike loot boxes you are not given the option to pay more for another chance, you just wait a day... or just reload your last save and scan the Amiibo again, repeat until you get what you want. Amiibo is still a one-off cost for additional content.

    I'm not a big fan of amiibo either and how they gate DLC behind something you may not want (the figurine), but they are very different from loot boxes, giving you fixed additional content on top of the core progression and metagame instead of being integrated with said systems and/or giving you a one-off random chance to get something good.
    It's a gamble with loot boxes and that's where the main controversy lies.

    Using Overwatch as an example, the whole unlock/reward system is based on loot boxes - offering random rewards that you may or may not want. You can grind and slowly earn more boxes, or spend more money to try and get the stuff you want faster. The latter is the approach Blizzard hope customers will take, the reason loot boxes were implemented in the first place, and consequently the reason why the unlock system can be slow and frustrating for many.
    So, I'd argue that if micro-transactions were never considered then loot boxes probably wouldn't have been either, and without loot boxes a better system could exist. A system that rewards the player more directly, for their skill or for milestones hit, with rewards given for the characters they play.
    I like Overwatch a lot and have played a fair bit since release, but lootboxes always felt a little shoddy and an uncompelling way to reward the player.
    It's just cosmetics in Overwatch so I don't care too much at all, but there are games now where loot boxes appear to directly influence your chances or ability to win, or the time you need to spend to win or reach a core milestone; and that feels more than a little shoddy, that ultimately means balancing the core experience between those that do and don't spend extra.
     
    Last edited: 25 Oct 2017
  5. biron_w

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 10 Apr 2009

    Posts: 8,268

    Location: Super Leeds

    But it doesn't HAVE to happen. If people stood up to them then they'd rethink. Looks at online passes: players hated them so they stopped doing them. Loot crates haven't been put into games to keep the retail price DOWN, they've been added to put their profits UP. They know full well there are people that will spend £100s just to get one item. It's exploitation. They're not in there for our benefit.
     
  6. Raymond Lin

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 20 Oct 2002

    Posts: 68,184

    Location: Wish i was in .Lethal's house

    You haven’t answered.

    If gamers stand up to loot boxes then games could well be £90, £100. Then it’s a case of you either buy it or not.

    They want their profit, loot boxes get them that margin of profit without the need of the extra sales figures.

    If £50 game + loot boxes get them a level of profit they are after.

    Next game without loot boxes, to get the same level of profit, all things being equal (development, Marketing etc), they would have to raise the prices unless they can see a significant jump in sales.

    They already have tasted the nectar, they won’t go back on it now, it’s too late.
     
  7. biron_w

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 10 Apr 2009

    Posts: 8,268

    Location: Super Leeds

    I didn't answer because at no point has anybody ever said that these loot boxes are here so we can keep paying the same RRP for a game. I've also never seen any evidence supporting this either.

    And as I've said before it's not loot boxes as such that I have an issue with. It's the way that they're going that bothers me. I also don't mind micro transactions but I want to know what I'm buying.
     
  8. Raymond Lin

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 20 Oct 2002

    Posts: 68,184

    Location: Wish i was in .Lethal's house

    Well, that is the reality you are faced with, the publisher has now tasted the nectar, they know how much these can add to their bottomline, unless the law changes, they are here to stay.

    So you have a choice, suck it up or suck it up.

    That is the reality. The choice of not buying any games, of course, that is a choice, but it doesn't remove the fact that loot boxes are here to stay, just like Day 1 Patches.

    And if people just STOP buying loot boxes 100%, if that actually happens, then I can see prices of games go up because if they can't get money from you one way, they will get money from you another way, the way that you have to part with in order to play it, then it will apply to everyone.
     
    Last edited: 24 Oct 2017
  9. sg0

    Associate

    Joined: 10 Jan 2013

    Posts: 77

    How did we get to here ???


    You got to love when someone just shuts down the discussion “So you have a choice, suck it up or suck it up”. Yeh he’s making a choice he’s not going to suck it up.

    There is a reason why games are not £90+. In my opinion it’s nothing to do with loot boxes, like you say about understanding human greed well if they can sell at that price they would, AND have dlc, loot boxes on top of that. In my opinion dlc and loot boxes do not keep prices low.

    I believe the turning point was world of Warcraft. When publishers/developers saw the amount of money being thrown at the Chinese to beef up or buy characters at god like levels was mind blowing, now they want a piece of that action. It’s very similar to the creation of the App Store because of the existence of Cydia and jailbreaking.
     
    Last edited: 25 Oct 2017
  10. [email protected]

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Nov 2005

    Posts: 11,641

    Don't play Modern games anymore.
    1, don't have enough spare time at the moment, young family.
    2, the whole unlock/grind rubbish is totally unappealing to me.
    3, too much hand holding, simplification.

    I still buy the odd indie game if it's unusual or dirt cheap. The last game I purchased was pillars of eternity, and the last game in played was quake 3.
     
  11. Kreeeee

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 13 Jul 2004

    Posts: 43,732

    Location: /* */

    Bingo!
     
  12. ps3ud0

    Caporegime

    Joined: 27 Sep 2004

    Posts: 27,590

    Location: Luton ;)

    I'll gloss over the whole financial arguments as I think it's mostly been covered, though I'd like to add if you think not partaking in opening lootboxes in a game means you haven't been affected by them existing in said game you are likely to be wrong - no doubt the gaming loop has been altered to encourage spending real money (normally by having physiologists/economists consulting during development).

    Personally I find most AAA ideas for monetisation deplorable but have to say lootboxes seem so be the worst so far from a moral standpoint. At least with other ways to increase spending you are guaranteed your purchase; having this randomiser doesn't benefit the purchaser in the slightest - it wholly does the publisher.

    Anyway back to my point, while lootboxes aren't legally considered gambling (lawmakers/governments are dinosaurs) I think having them in games that are available to/target minors is distasteful. A great example is FUT and you can look at the threads here to see how much grown men spend on that, let alone what kids could potential get up to (see BBC Watchdog). I also can't see how this pseudo-gambling doesn't stir up the same issues, like addiction, that it so readily apes.

    That's my main concern and while I don't think lootboxes should exist (even in cosmetic form only) it's up to adults to decide how they spend their money.

    ps3ud0 :cool:
     
  13. Plainsong

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 5 May 2008

    Posts: 8,357

    Location: Chester

  14. fez

    Capodecina

    Joined: 22 Aug 2008

    Posts: 17,057

    Location: Tunbridge Wells

    I'm sorry raymond but if lootboxes were made illegal tomorrow games wouldn't go up a single penny. Companies are profiteering from the inability of a small section of the gaming community to resist them. Look at how freemium games work. 90% of the players spend nothing on the game. Its that other 10% that bankroll the game. You will always have people that are willing to spend more than others on something but that doesn't mean you can expect everyone to do the same.

    Its like cars. A small percentage of people spend the extra for leather trim, fancy wheels etc but the vast majority take it from the manufacturer at stock. If you suddenly made everyone pay for these upgrades and upped the price accordingly you would lose sales and overall profit.

    The people who spend hundreds on loot boxes would still do so if you charged £90 for a game. People who seriously use them spend a huge amount on them. The vast majority of people are unwilling to spend on lootboxes and a large proportion aren't even willing to pay £50 for a game. Almost everyone I know gets almost all their games for around £40 brand new.
     
  15. KraniX

    Mobster

    Joined: 23 Mar 2004

    Posts: 3,197

    Location: Leeds

    Think it's a few years late to be having this argument, add-ons, DLC, microtransactions etc. are here to stay as they are making developers and publishers a lot of money and helping to reduce the second-hand market.

    But it all comes down to choice, if you don't want to buy anything extra that's up to you, some people like to to show support for the game, as long as it is profitable then it'll keep going but if everyone just played for free then very quickly the model would change and you mind find some games disappear.

    I don't agree with pay to win but if I can shortcut hours of grinding for a couple of quid then I'd be tempted to shell out.

    I think of what I've spent on Zelda this year:

    Game - £40
    DLC - £16
    Hardback guide - £20
    Amiibo - £64

    So about £140, that's without the Switch itself which I didn't really need as had a Wii U, that's kinda nuts but I'll be honest I don't regret a penny of it as Zelda is without doubt one of the best games I've ever played and I just hope they release more DLC!
     
  16. House

    Mobster

    Joined: 16 Jun 2005

    Posts: 2,892

    Location: Back in the UK

    People could be right if loot boxes were banned would games go up? maybe some cases but they like the low head line price.

    Think of the "beer and a burger deals" at some grotty chain pubs, basic beer & basic burger is cheap and gets you through the door, then you end up paying £1 for a slice of cheese and £1 for a bit of bacon and £2 for onion rings.
    The much used image joking about how games are now applies to burgers as well, Why? cause its a marketing technique that works, be that making your meal large in a fast food join, paying for those extra sides or buy an extended warranty on your freaking toaster.
    I would imagine most people here wouldn't think of paying £15 to give your new toaster cover but people do it, if they didn't the service wouldn't exist, and while people have complained for years about extended warranties they haven't gone anywhere.

    Ban loot boxes and we will just see online passes come back or some other way to milk the cash cow,

    Its the double standard about the whole thing that bugs me, Nintendo get a free pass on Zelda even when i believe they locked "Hard mode" in the DLC? Metro Last Light got torn apart for putting ranger mode as a preorder bonus. not even paid DLC.
     
  17. TallPaul1878

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 21 Oct 2012

    Posts: 2,332

    So long as people are buying loot boxes and spending money on in game micro-transactions then the practice will continue.

    If people want them to go away then we have to stop buying them and stop playing the games that use them.

    Publishers will only take note when their servers are empty because players aren't bothering with their games and the warehouses are stacked with unsold copies.
     
  18. VincentHanna

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Jul 2013

    Posts: 23,693

    It doesn't help that physical sales of games like Wolfenstein 2 are down by half compared to the original 'Wolfenstein: The New Order'

    That's a single player game with no loot boxes...

    As a publisher - What would you be investing in at the moment?
     
  19. mid_gen

    Capodecina

    Joined: 20 Dec 2004

    Posts: 11,793

    Physical sales....you'd expect them to be down. And launching the same day as a critically acclaimed Mario and a well received Assassins Creed refresh....

    Point is valid though. These days you're looking at a starting point of $100,000,000 budget required to develop a AAA title....that sort of money needs all the risks minimised. EA, Activision, Bethesda and Ubisoft can probably soak up a AAA flop. Anyone else is filing for bankruptcy.
     
  20. vintage-x

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 7 May 2004

    Posts: 1,951


    yeah but are there digital sales accounted in that drop?