I wanna talk about Lootboxes

[MonsterCrit]

I hear ya OP. But hey apparently it works. From the publisher stand point. That's sorta how capitalism works. You want sprinkles on your ice cream. Gotta pay extra. Want herring on your pizza. gotta pay extra. What to supersize your fries.. you .. say it with me, gotta pay extra.

Personally I've never really been bothered. I meanlet's face it. if a game is going to gate off content then I will judge it by the content i'm given not by the content I have the potential to get..

Hence why I've honestly never had an uissue. Minute I hear anything that I consider key or such being gated off... I just skip that game and buyt something else.

Let those who don't mind ity, buy it. ANd the rest of us can buy what we want. I mean I never understood why people feel cheated, when the disclosure is up front in most cases. I can understand the mechanics from the developer and publisher perspectives. EVven if you chase off some customers what you're left with is a smaller group of big spenders. Small customer bases are easier to cater to and please than larger ones and if they spend well enough well.. you can make a good business.

 

[Kerg3927]

Microtransactions in full priced titles are simply a greedy business model. PERIOD.

I don't like them, either, but I don't think there are such things as greedy and non-greedy business models. A business model is greedy by definition. Its goal is to maximize profits. Period. If it doesn't set out to do that, it's a bad business model.

Nobody draws up a business model with the intention of simply making a "good enough" profit. They try to maximize it. And if they don't, the shareholders will complain, management will end up getting fired, and someone else will be brought in who WILL maximize profits.

Now if enough people stop buying certain games because they push things too far and piss people off, then that is also a bad business model, and the MT's will likely be removed or scaled back to increase sales. As a consumer, that's all you can hope for.

For people who have ever asked the question: 'What makes these companies think anti-consumer behavior is ok in the name of maximizing profit', this is the attitude that encourages them.

These companies have no choice but to maximize profits. That is their purpose, the reason they exist. If they do not do so, people get fired. Shareholders are not investing just for fun.

Anything goes eh?

If it's legal, yeah. But companies aren't stupid. They are not going to push things so far as to completely piss off all their consumers and lose their business. So they usually ride the fine line between extracting as much money as possible from each consumer while not extracting quite so much that it kills the golden goose. In economics, that's called a state of equilibrium.

 

[Zendariel]

Dont like them? Dont buy them. Easy.

You are not a magpie, just say no.

"Loot boxes are optional" is probably the biggest misconception of the industry, right now.

If somebody offers you something for sale, they are going to want you to buy it, and that often means comprimising the rest of the game to compensate.

So yes, it is true that when I play Overwatch, the game doesnt force me to go into the store, open my wallet, and purchase 50 lootboxes, but dont you think the leveling system (ie, the only way to get boxes without paying) is awfully slow?

I played a lot of overwatch. I never paid for a lootbox. I played a lot of ME3 online. Never bought a lootbox. Ive even played a lot of Heathstone and never bought a pack (same thing).

I still got the full experience from all 3 games. That makes paying for loot boxes seem pretty optional to me.

And yet, you conveniently crop out the paragraph that mostly proves my point.

Even then, lets say I'm playing EA's Battlefront 2: again, nothing is forcing me to throw my wallet at the screen for precious boxes, but what if I join a match with someone who just blew $500 to unlock everything, and is now running around with level 4 Star Cards in every slot, a few hours after the game just launched? Having to deal with that doesnt sound optional to me.

There we go. Much better.

In Overwatch, the leveling system is incredibly slow. Thats not optional.

In Mass Effect 3, the rate in which you earn credits is incredibly slow. Thats not optional.

In Hearthstone, daily quests give you less gold than you need to buy a pack, and it takes 3 wins to earn 10 gold. Thats not optional.

Not to mention that when a new Hearthstone expansion comes out, you could immediately face someone who just spent $100 on packs, and has all of the new best cards. Thats not optional.

Whether or not you spend money on microtransactions is optional, but the way the developers comprimise their game to make room for it is not optional. You are kidding yourself if you think that you are somehow magically exempt from these artificially slow progression mechanics.

Just sharing an experience, but i played quite a bit of mass effect 3 multiplayer back when the game was newer, was a little annoyed by the lootbox system, though after you had grinded enough to be able to beat tougher level missions you generally got a max level lootbox after a match or two if you actually survived the ordeal. At this point I wasn't that much against the system, it was mostly minor annoyance.

Then I played a game where one of the people playing was a hacker, I thought it was a boring match and my friend left the game early as it wasn't fun. I stayed, and after the match i got enough credits for maybe about 500 - 1000 highest price boxes(I think it was like few euros a box if bought). I had played the game enough that i thought i'd make an experiment as I was running out of stuff to get and see how far that ridiculous amount of boxes would unlock things.

After opening all of them I had unlocked rest of the classes, and maxed out all of the non spectre weapons, but i think the highest level spectre weapon i had after the whole ordeal was level 7 out of 10. So even few thousand euros would not have unlocked everything, or somewhat similar amount of hours grinding. So, for someone who would want to get those to max level, it would be insane amount of grinding or money, and i know it's not necessary content to have to enjoy the game, even if in this case it actually gave advantage. But it's a shitty trap for any completionist or someone who wants to experience most of what game has to offer to lock the "coolest" stuff away to nearly unattainable levels. I think i stopped playing the next day and didn't touch the multiplayer again.

 

[CritialGaming]

Microtransactions in full priced titles are simply a greedy business model. PERIOD.

I don't like them, either, but I don't think there are such things as greedy and non-greedy business models. A business model is greedy by definition. Its goal is to maximize profits. Period. If it doesn't set out to do that, it's a bad business model.

Nobody draws up a business model with the intention of simply making a "good enough" profit. They try to maximize it. And if they don't, the shareholders will complain, management will end up getting fired, and someone else will be brought in who WILL maximize profits.

Now if enough people stop buying certain games because they push things too far and piss people off, then that is also a bad business model, and the MT's will likely be removed or scaled back to increase sales. As a consumer, that's all you can hope for.

That?s the long and short of it. It?s a viscious cycle far too often though. Funny so many of these companies never seem to learn from history. Avoid all this shady bs and give consumers reasonably great value from the get go so you don?t violate their long term trust, and reap the benefits of increased sales indefinitely. Even if the market is crap, it?s better than nickeling and diming which is always bound to backfire.

 

[laggyteabag]

I played a game where one of the people playing was a hacker, I thought it was a boring match and my friend left the game early as it wasn't fun. I stayed, and after the match i got enough credits for maybe about 500 - 1000 highest price boxes(I think it was like few euros a box if bought). I had played the game enough that i thought i'd make an experiment as I was running out of stuff to get and see how far that ridiculous amount of boxes would unlock things.

After opening all of them I had unlocked rest of the classes, and maxed out all of the non spectre weapons, but i think the highest level spectre weapon i had after the whole ordeal was level 7 out of 10. So even few thousand euros would not have unlocked everything, or somewhat similar amount of hours grinding. So, for someone who would want to get those to max level, it would be insane amount of grinding or money, and i know it's not necessary content to have to enjoy the game, even if in this case it actually gave advantage. But it's a shitty trap for any completionist or someone who wants to experience most of what game has to offer to lock the "coolest" stuff away to nearly unattainable levels. I think i stopped playing the next day and didn't touch the multiplayer again.

I suppose it is a bit of a double edged sword -

On one hand, there are so many things to unlock, that you are always working towards something. Whether it be a new class, or skin, or gun, there is always something to unlock.

In my experience with Heroes of the Storm, the game is updated every 3 weeks, and that brings along a new Hero, as well as a smattering of new skins/recolours/sprays/etc, and it always feels like there is something new and cool to get, and it never feels like my time in HotS is wasted.

[small]Its also funny that Heroes of the Storm - a free to play game, by the same company - does lootboxes better than Overwatch - a premium game[/small]

On the other hand, it is a real bane for completionists, or people who just want *one* thing. There is so much stuff that unlocking everything is unrealistic, and as a result, it can mean that the one thing that you want may forever be out of your hands. Hence why these systems can be predatory.

In my experience with Halo 5, I still haven't unlocked the Helljumper helmet, and It is impossible to tell when I might unlock it. Without a static progression system, I might get it in my next REQ pack, or my last. Frustrating to say the least.

 

[RaikuFA]

I told my dad(who gambles) about lootboxes. He responded with "That's gambling. No question".

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

SNIP

SNIP

Well that's the difference between the decent use of loot boxes, and the shitty use of loot boxes.

In overwatch nothing is forcing you to buy loot boxes because nothing you can get in a loot box confers any advantage to you. You just get a spray, a skin, a voiceline, etc. These have no gameplay advantage to have, it's just a thing that looks cool. Yes, the leveling system is pretty slow, but you don't actually need any of those skins or anything else to enjoy the game. Those skins don't change the game in any way.

Compare that to something like Battlefront where the loot boxes give players direct advantage over other players, or call of duty where they lock away new weapons in loot boxes (not necessarily good weapons, but weapons that tend to be pretty different from what's in the base game), and you see the problem.

Overwatch uses its loot boxes to fund further development of free content and doesn't really inconvenience you in any way if you just want to play the game. Your overall experience with the gameplay doesn't become worse because you choose not to pay for loot boxes. It's only a slightly scummy system, whereas something like Battlefront goes the full scumbag route by making your overall experience with the game worse for not shelling out extra money.

Sure, the lootboxes in Overwatch are not as inherently shitty as they are in Battlefront II, but they are still pretty shitty.

Yes, if you see a Genji running around with the Blackwatch skin from the Anniversary event, that Genji has no different abilities or powers than someone running around with the young or vanilla variants, but it still creates a "haves and have-nots" ecosystem.

The Halloween event has rolled around once again, and a bunch of new skins with it, but still, without spending money on the game, you are still doomed to unlocking one box every level, or a 3 per week playing the arcade, but with a limited time event, that is absolutely damning to your chances of unlocking the skin that you actually want. Not to mention the fact that loot boxes are filled with tat and duplicates that you aren't even guaranteed a skin in each box, and in-game currency doesn't even help, because seasonal items in Overwatch cost 3x the amount of a normal legendary.

Systems like this erode your will to the point where you either grind the game like crazy, miss the skin until next year, or fork out $$$ until the RNG gods bless you with what you are looking for, or you could end up spending $20 and just get shit for characters that you never use.

Besides, just because lootboxes may not tempt you in the slightest, it doesn't mean that nobody else can avoid the urges. A friend of mine swore off microtransactions in Hearthstone, and he would never buy a skin in Heroes of the Storm. Then Overwatch rolled around, and the first seasonal event kicked off, and everything changed. "If I miss these skins now, I will never get a chance to get them again!". $80 later, for every event from then on.

Its just predatory, whichever way you slice it. Mechanical impact or not.

I think it's wonderful that you friend has so much money to spend on something so stupid.

He doesn't need all those skins, and just because you WANT something it doesn't mean that's something you have to have, and it certainly doesn't mean you have to spend an obscene amount of money to get it.

If your friend has spent literally hundreds of dollars on the game for items that are purely cosmetic and which he does not at all need then that's his choice, and I really don't consider it predatory at all. These are skins that confer no advantages and which are in no way required. You don't have to have them, and if your friend is choosing to spend his money on this, and clearly he has enough money to keep spending on this that it's not a problem because he continues to do so.

I would like to thank your friend for spending money to subsidize the making of free content for the rest of us who do not choose to pay money for loot boxes.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Overwatch is as far as I am willing to go in terms of lootboxes. Here's why:

- All cosmetic/No power or progression advantage
- No subscription cost for active dev support/ongoing patches/competitive balancing/new free characters, maps, and other content
- Multiplayer (and by that I mean it's not a loot boxes in a single player game scenario)
- You can buy things directly with in-game currency

Typically I am against loot boxes in $60 games, but if it offers a lot of longevity, isn't pay to win, and you don't need to pay for new content, I give it a pass. I do think OW gold should be earned as you level rather than obtained randomly in loot boxes, however.

I agree with most of this, but I think that loot boxes can be vastly improved by introducing a feature that very few games (in fact only one that I can think of - Rocket League) have actually bothered to implement - trading. That way you can trade skins/victory poses/highlight intros etc for characters you never play to your friends in return for their items that they never use and that you want. If devs were willing to make their loot box systems more accurately mimic actual trading card systems then I would actually be fully alongside the idea of loot boxes - but as they stand in their current implementation they are a real sticking point for me.

TF2 also allowed you to trade and give away items.

 

[Zendariel]

SNIP

SNIP

Well that's the difference between the decent use of loot boxes, and the shitty use of loot boxes.

In overwatch nothing is forcing you to buy loot boxes because nothing you can get in a loot box confers any advantage to you. You just get a spray, a skin, a voiceline, etc. These have no gameplay advantage to have, it's just a thing that looks cool. Yes, the leveling system is pretty slow, but you don't actually need any of those skins or anything else to enjoy the game. Those skins don't change the game in any way.

Compare that to something like Battlefront where the loot boxes give players direct advantage over other players, or call of duty where they lock away new weapons in loot boxes (not necessarily good weapons, but weapons that tend to be pretty different from what's in the base game), and you see the problem.

Overwatch uses its loot boxes to fund further development of free content and doesn't really inconvenience you in any way if you just want to play the game. Your overall experience with the gameplay doesn't become worse because you choose not to pay for loot boxes. It's only a slightly scummy system, whereas something like Battlefront goes the full scumbag route by making your overall experience with the game worse for not shelling out extra money.

Sure, the lootboxes in Overwatch are not as inherently shitty as they are in Battlefront II, but they are still pretty shitty.

Yes, if you see a Genji running around with the Blackwatch skin from the Anniversary event, that Genji has no different abilities or powers than someone running around with the young or vanilla variants, but it still creates a "haves and have-nots" ecosystem.

The Halloween event has rolled around once again, and a bunch of new skins with it, but still, without spending money on the game, you are still doomed to unlocking one box every level, or a 3 per week playing the arcade, but with a limited time event, that is absolutely damning to your chances of unlocking the skin that you actually want. Not to mention the fact that loot boxes are filled with tat and duplicates that you aren't even guaranteed a skin in each box, and in-game currency doesn't even help, because seasonal items in Overwatch cost 3x the amount of a normal legendary.

Systems like this erode your will to the point where you either grind the game like crazy, miss the skin until next year, or fork out $$$ until the RNG gods bless you with what you are looking for, or you could end up spending $20 and just get shit for characters that you never use.

Besides, just because lootboxes may not tempt you in the slightest, it doesn't mean that nobody else can avoid the urges. A friend of mine swore off microtransactions in Hearthstone, and he would never buy a skin in Heroes of the Storm. Then Overwatch rolled around, and the first seasonal event kicked off, and everything changed. "If I miss these skins now, I will never get a chance to get them again!". $80 later, for every event from then on.

Its just predatory, whichever way you slice it. Mechanical impact or not.

I think it's wonderful that you friend has so much money to spend on something so stupid.

He doesn't need all those skins, and just because you WANT something it doesn't mean that's something you have to have, and it certainly doesn't mean you have to spend an obscene amount of money to get it.

If your friend has spent literally hundreds of dollars on the game for items that are purely cosmetic and which he does not at all need then that's his choice, and I really don't consider it predatory at all. These are skins that confer no advantages and which are in no way required. You don't have to have them, and if your friend is choosing to spend his money on this, and clearly he has enough money to keep spending on this that it's not a problem because he continues to do so.

I would like to thank your friend for spending money to subsidize the making of free content for the rest of us who do not choose to pay money for loot boxes.

You wouldn't consider it predatory that a system requires you to pay random amount of money to maybe get a thing that it tells you you might maybe never get again. Going back in time a bit there wasn't a quarantee that the skins would open again later. And if there was a straight way to pay it might have been a quarter of the price to get the skins they wanted, also less of the excitement/dopamine rush causing gambling mechanics. You wouldn't actually need the items but your sense of want and psychological sense of need can be fueled if you're so inclined, for example by giving you a time limit.

You also don't know the person spending 80 bucks an event, neither do I, but pretty often people who do partake in gambling couldn't really afford it and it takes it's toll somewhere else.

 

[Zendariel]

I played a game where one of the people playing was a hacker, I thought it was a boring match and my friend left the game early as it wasn't fun. I stayed, and after the match i got enough credits for maybe about 500 - 1000 highest price boxes(I think it was like few euros a box if bought). I had played the game enough that i thought i'd make an experiment as I was running out of stuff to get and see how far that ridiculous amount of boxes would unlock things.

After opening all of them I had unlocked rest of the classes, and maxed out all of the non spectre weapons, but i think the highest level spectre weapon i had after the whole ordeal was level 7 out of 10. So even few thousand euros would not have unlocked everything, or somewhat similar amount of hours grinding. So, for someone who would want to get those to max level, it would be insane amount of grinding or money, and i know it's not necessary content to have to enjoy the game, even if in this case it actually gave advantage. But it's a shitty trap for any completionist or someone who wants to experience most of what game has to offer to lock the "coolest" stuff away to nearly unattainable levels. I think i stopped playing the next day and didn't touch the multiplayer again.

I suppose it is a bit of a double edged sword -

On one hand, there are so many things to unlock, that you are always working towards something. Whether it be a new class, or skin, or gun, there is always something to unlock.

In my experience with Heroes of the Storm, the game is updated every 3 weeks, and that brings along a new Hero, as well as a smattering of new skins/recolours/sprays/etc, and it always feels like there is something new and cool to get, and it never feels like my time in HotS is wasted.

[small]Its also funny that Heroes of the Storm - a free to play game, by the same company - does lootboxes better than Overwatch - a premium game[/small]

On the other hand, it is a real bane for completionists, or people who just want *one* thing. There is so much stuff that unlocking everything is unrealistic, and as a result, it can mean that the one thing that you want may forever be out of your hands. Hence why these systems can be predatory.

In my experience with Halo 5, I still haven't unlocked the Helljumper helmet, and It is impossible to tell when I might unlock it. Without a static progression system, I might get it in my next REQ pack, or my last. Frustrating to say the least.

True, though one of the things i neglected to mention was that mass effect boxes wouldn't necessarily give you anything new, towards the end i could open 10 boxes in a row that only had one time boosters or experience for one of the maxed out classes. Someone could argue that overwatch does similarly with it's duplicates but they do give tiny amounts of currency towards opening something specific. There was a system in mass effect that it wouldn't give the same gun after it was maxed out, but it could always replace it with a booster and the guaranteed rarity item could always be experience for one of the classes as those techically didn't max out. So the end reward pool become something like 12 spectre weapons with really low drop rates, and experience for the maybe 20-40 more common classes. If you'd had maxed out some of the weapons, the drop rate for actual new weapon level would have been even lower.

Also the system could keep you playing a game you otherwise would want to move on from, because getting new stuff is exciting even if the thing you get the stuff for might not be anymore.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

I hear ya OP. But hey apparently it works. From the publisher stand point. That's sorta how capitalism works. You want sprinkles on your ice cream. Gotta pay extra. Want herring on your pizza. gotta pay extra. What to supersize your fries.. you .. say it with me, gotta pay extra.

Personally I've never really been bothered. I meanlet's face it. if a game is going to gate off content then I will judge it by the content i'm given not by the content I have the potential to get..

Hence why I've honestly never had an uissue. Minute I hear anything that I consider key or such being gated off... I just skip that game and buyt something else.

Let those who don't mind ity, buy it. And the rest of us can buy what we want. I mean I never understood why people feel cheated, when the disclosure is up front in most cases. I can understand the mechanics from the developer and publisher perspectives. EVven if you chase off some customers what you're left with is a smaller group of big spenders. Small customer bases are easier to cater to and please than larger ones and if they spend well enough well.. you can make a good business.

That has nothing to do with capitalism. If anything in your example under capitalism someone is likely to offer that figurative herring on pizza 'for free' and take away all customers to which that herring matters. What you gave away from single unit profit on that herring's cost you got back on volume and scale. Plus you bled your competition and pushed them off the market, if only slightly. Accumulated capital and made the stream of it go your way not theirs.

The 'failing' of most economical models is assumption that all consumers have equal access to information (and that is never true) and over generalising customer preferences (it's also not true, each individual has their own set of needs and preferances). This is why it is important to point your finger at proverbial bastard overcharging you for the toppings on your pizza and scream 'bloody murder'. You equalise the information flow to more of people sharing your preferances and you skew demand flow towards things which are better suited to customer group you are part of. This is also necessary part of capitalism.

And about CDPR, I found a documentary series by noclip on YT if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZkTk5gLuo
gives a bit of insight into where they come from and why they make decisions as company, that stand pretty much in opposition to everything rest of industry does.

 

[Hawki]

Originally I had some big speech planned, but I think I can do it better with the following points:

-If lootboxes are "gambling," then so are the Kinder Surprises and Pokemon card game packs I used to purchase. Also, unlike said suprises/packs, all the lootboxes I get are for free, whereas I had to spend money on the other things.

-I've no sympathy for the "would someone please think of the children argument?!" argument. Spending money is personal responsibility (as an adult) or parental responsibility if one has a child. If a child can't be trusted with credit card details, then don't give them said details. There's a reason why I didn't get a credit card until my late teens after all, and there's a reason why I didn't immediately go on a spending spree when I did, because I had over 1.5 decades worth of learning the value of money. Also, there's little distinction between lootboxes and direct purchases in this area, because anyone can still splurge on direct purchases (e.g. I think it would cost $300 dollars to buy all the champions in LoL at this time of writing) in the same manner as lootboxes.

-In the subject of lootboxes vs. direct transactions, honestly, it's down to specific games - I think direct purchases work fine in something like SC2 (where a skin costs around $2.50 AUD, and a commander costs around $7 AUD), whereas lootboxes in HotS are preferable to the old system where cosmetics could only be bought with real money - least with lootboxes I'm guaranteed to get something (also preferable to LoL in that you can potentially get every hero without spending a dime, whereas in LoL you need to grind for influence points, and spend money on Riot points). So far, I've never encountered lootboxes that directly affect gameplay (Halo 5 is arguably the closest, but even if you get more 'upper tier' cards than someone else, you still need to earn the right to use them per match, so everyone still starts out on the same playing field), and if they do...well, certainly against P2W mechanics, but on the personal level, I haven't encountered them.

At the end of the day, I'd rather it come down to personal responsibility than regulation. People can spend their money how they want, just as I can.

 

[Siyano_v1legacy]

Personally I just don't understand loot boxes and the fun of it, but the randomness is crazy, like in Heroes of the storm, you can get so many "crap", spray that barely anyone care, banner that barely is ok, voice line that you wont really notice, icons that can be seen only on the loading screen and what not.
And let say I want to buy a skin directly, 3$ to 15$, I just don't get how its can cost 15$!! Its just don't make sense to me that such a virtual item that can basically be replicated thousand of time cost so much per unit!

I think what I despise in loot box or booster pack and what not, is the randomness and the low value its really worth.
For example in hearthstone I am not buying packs because like 70-80% of the time I feel cheated of the value by getting common card that 70% of them are basically useless.

Yes they are optional, but I know for a fact that some game a been cannibalized because those thing exist, because obviously you never getting anything for free.

And when you start comparing, take the sims, where you can hundred of possible skins you can use and the full game cost now 40$ or so, play quake 3 arena, you get 15-20 model for free. Now you have to give 5, 10 15 and up to 20$ just to "look" better, its just pixel at the end, no thanks!

 

[laggyteabag]

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

I think it's wonderful that you friend has so much money to spend on something so stupid.

He doesn't need all those skins, and just because you WANT something it doesn't mean that's something you have to have, and it certainly doesn't mean you have to spend an obscene amount of money to get it.

If your friend has spent literally hundreds of dollars on the game for items that are purely cosmetic and which he does not at all need then that's his choice, and I really don't consider it predatory at all. These are skins that confer no advantages and which are in no way required. You don't have to have them, and if your friend is choosing to spend his money on this, and clearly he has enough money to keep spending on this that it's not a problem because he continues to do so.

I would like to thank your friend for spending money to subsidize the making of free content for the rest of us who do not choose to pay money for loot boxes.

You wouldn't consider it predatory that a system requires you to pay random amount of money to maybe get a thing that it tells you you might maybe never get again. Going back in time a bit there wasn't a quarantee that the skins would open again later. And if there was a straight way to pay it might have been a quarter of the price to get the skins they wanted, also less of the excitement/dopamine rush causing gambling mechanics. You wouldn't actually need the items but your sense of want and psychological sense of need can be fueled if you're so inclined, for example by giving you a time limit.

You also don't know the person spending 80 bucks an event, neither do I, but pretty often people who do partake in gambling couldn't really afford it and it takes it's toll somewhere else.

Yep, thats pretty much it. He didn't really have the disposable income to spend however much he did on Overwatch. Truth be told, that was about a week's wages for him, and maybe a dig into his student loan.

The way he described it to me was that he saw the skins, and thought that they would never be obtainable again after the event, so he decided to buy a few loot boxes, and a few more, and a few more, until he unlocked what he wanted. It was only really after he looked at his bank balance afterwards that he realised how much he spent. The dopamine rush of opening a crate full of goodies really carries you away.

You cannot imagine how angry and utterly pissed off he was when he found out that the Summer event rolled around again, with all of the skins available once again.

At no point was it communicated by Blizzard that the skins would roll back around with each event, and as you say, if the skins were available as individual purchases, he would have spent not nearly as much as he ended up spending on lootboxes.

Predatory.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

-If lootboxes are "gambling," then so are the Kinder Surprises and Pokemon card game packs I used to purchase. Also, unlike said suprises/packs, all the lootboxes I get are for free, whereas I had to spend money on the other things.

Actually yes these, are similar predatory tactics just on smaller scale, as real products require time and resources to produce and once they're off assembly line you don't control the odds anymore to alter and maximize your profit or crank up addiction pressure.
However in the end it is just a cheap, shitty bauble at roughly 600-800% margin price over its actual material costs sold to children as collectible at random to drive up the volume of sales and pump up demand for more sales (artificial, internal disparity of supply). Would you honestly argue that kids cry for kinder surprise, because they like the chocolate or because they want to get that one last bs-whatever to finish their collection?

In theory, premise is adding something extra and appealing to a child to make them convince their parents to buy given sweet over another. In practise it went to a point where they could pack in their collectibles in dried faeces and children would still nag parents to buy one (thank you brain washing marketing campaigns...).
It is also predatory tactic abusing gambling addiction and inciting compulsive behaviour in kids.
You misunderstand if you believe that this is 'think of the children' argument. It's strictly think of the parents (don't make parenting any harder than it needs to be) and f-off my children you bastard predators argument.

Edit:
And hell imagine if other enterprises started to maximize their profit like that. You go to local bakery to get bread? Nope. You can buy 'B-Boxes' which may include bread or a bun or sweet roll or bread crumbs or some fragrant hot air or a toast. You didn't get what you wanted? You can buy another one! Can't afford it? You can always work at our bakery for few hours baking bread to earn a chance to open another box... FOR FREE! Brilliant, self-propelled business model, right? Or a scam that needs a legislative ban = recognition of it being criminal activity.

 

[TheFinish]

Originally I had some big speech planned, but I think I can do it better with the following points:

-If lootboxes are "gambling," then so are the Kinder Surprises and Pokemon card game packs I used to purchase. Also, unlike said suprises/packs, all the lootboxes I get are for free, whereas I had to spend money on the other things.

-I've no sympathy for the "would someone please think of the children argument?!" argument. Spending money is personal responsibility (as an adult) or parental responsibility if one has a child. If a child can't be trusted with credit card details, then don't give them said details. There's a reason why I didn't get a credit card until my late teens after all, and there's a reason why I didn't immediately go on a spending spree when I did, because I had over 1.5 decades worth of learning the value of money. Also, there's little distinction between lootboxes and direct purchases in this area, because anyone can still splurge on direct purchases (e.g. I think it would cost $300 dollars to buy all the champions in LoL at this time of writing) in the same manner as lootboxes.

-In the subject of lootboxes vs. direct transactions, honestly, it's down to specific games - I think direct purchases work fine in something like SC2 (where a skin costs around $2.50 AUD, and a commander costs around $7 AUD), whereas lootboxes in HotS are preferable to the old system where cosmetics could only be bought with real money - least with lootboxes I'm guaranteed to get something (also preferable to LoL in that you can potentially get every hero without spending a dime, whereas in LoL you need to grind for influence points, and spend money on Riot points). So far, I've never encountered lootboxes that directly affect gameplay (Halo 5 is arguably the closest, but even if you get more 'upper tier' cards than someone else, you still need to earn the right to use them per match, so everyone still starts out on the same playing field), and if they do...well, certainly against P2W mechanics, but on the personal level, I haven't encountered them.

At the end of the day, I'd rather it come down to personal responsibility than regulation. People can spend their money how they want, just as I can.

The main difference here is you can re-sell your Kinder Surprises/Pokemon cards when you're done with them therefore recouping some of the cost, whereas that is impossible with most current loot box systems (I think TF2 and CS:GO do let you trade). Further, AFAIK Overwatch doesn't let you keep duplicates, it just turns them into in-game currency and I'm willing to bet donuts to dollars that it is NOT an equivalent exchange (IE, if I have a skin that normally costs 3,000 and I get a duplicate, I will not get 3,000 coins or whatever Overwatch uses).

In Pokemon/Magic/TCGs/Kinder surprise, if I get a duplicate, I get a duplicate. Worth as much on the market as others of its kind. It doesn't get replaced by something worth 1/10th it's actual value or however much Overwatch does it.

I agree with your point about children, actually.

Regarding direct purchase, it's a preferable method for the consumer because they can get what they want, when they want it, with no fuss. Loot boxes add nothing except gambling-like practices and an average spending increase. Yeah, you can splurge on a direct purchase game, but you get what you want, the difference is you can splurge on a loot box game and not get what you want. There's a chance, of course, of getting what you want paying less than in direct purchase, but considering the developers control drop rate you bet your sweet posterior they are manipulating it so that the most desireable stuff drops way less, necessitating more money.

I'm not calling for it to be outlawed I just want people to realise it's a horrible business practice that has a dubious place in F2P games an no place at all in premium games.

Off Topic: I think buying every champion in League is now something like 700+ dollars, or so google tells me. Probably way more with skins and such. But then SMITE has all champions for 40 bucks or so. Obviously stuff varies, but it's still better for the consumer to be able to buy what they want instead of relying on RNG.

EDIT: Sorry Hawki, I did a dumb and erased most of your quote. Should be fixed now.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

Anyone still remember this?

Spoiler

 

[Quellist]

Dont like them? Dont buy them. Easy.

You are not a magpie, just say no.

You honestly think its ok to make a game super grindy just to encourage people to spend real money?

I don't care when it's cosmetic but when game design suffers for the sake of monetizing the product, that's fucking wrong!

 

[Kerg3927]

Originally I had some big speech planned, but I think I can do it better with the following points:

-If lootboxes are "gambling," then so are the Kinder Surprises and Pokemon card game packs I used to purchase. Also, unlike said suprises/packs, all the lootboxes I get are for free, whereas I had to spend money on the other things.

-I've no sympathy for the "would someone please think of the children argument?!" argument. Spending money is personal responsibility (as an adult) or parental responsibility if one has a child. If a child can't be trusted with credit card details, then don't give them said details. There's a reason why I didn't get a credit card until my late teens after all, and there's a reason why I didn't immediately go on a spending spree when I did, because I had over 1.5 decades worth of learning the value of money. Also, there's little distinction between lootboxes and direct purchases in this area, because anyone can still splurge on direct purchases (e.g. I think it would cost $300 dollars to buy all the champions in LoL at this time of writing) in the same manner as lootboxes.

-In the subject of lootboxes vs. direct transactions, honestly, it's down to specific games - I think direct purchases work fine in something like SC2 (where a skin costs around $2.50 AUD, and a commander costs around $7 AUD), whereas lootboxes in HotS are preferable to the old system where cosmetics could only be bought with real money - least with lootboxes I'm guaranteed to get something (also preferable to LoL in that you can potentially get every hero without spending a dime, whereas in LoL you need to grind for influence points, and spend money on Riot points). So far, I've never encountered lootboxes that directly affect gameplay (Halo 5 is arguably the closest, but even if you get more 'upper tier' cards than someone else, you still need to earn the right to use them per match, so everyone still starts out on the same playing field), and if they do...well, certainly against P2W mechanics, but on the personal level, I haven't encountered them.

At the end of the day, I'd rather it come down to personal responsibility than regulation. People can spend their money how they want, just as I can.

The main difference here is you can re-sell your Kinder Surprises/Pokemon cards when you're done with them therefore recouping some of the cost, whereas that is impossible with most current loot box systems (I think TF2 and CS:GO do let you trade). Further, AFAIK Overwatch doesn't let you keep duplicates, it just turns them into in-game currency and I'm willing to bet donuts to dollars that it is NOT an equivalent exchange (IE, if I have a skin that normally costs 3,000 and I get a duplicate, I will not get 3,000 coins or whatever Overwatch uses).

In Pokemon/Magic/TCGs/Kinder surprise, if I get a duplicate, I get a duplicate. Worth as much on the market as others of its kind. It doesn't get replaced by something worth 1/10th it's actual value or however much Overwatch does it.

I agree with your point about children, actually.

Regarding direct purchase, it's a preferable method for the consumer because they can get what they want, when they want it, with no fuss. Loot boxes add nothing except gambling-like practices and an average spending increase. Yeah, you can splurge on a direct purchase game, but you get what you want, the difference is you can splurge on a loot box game and not get what you want. There's a chance, of course, of getting what you want paying less than in direct purchase, but considering the developers control drop rate you bet your sweet posterior they are manipulating it so that the most desireable stuff drops way less, necessitating more money.

I'm not calling for it to be outlawed I just want people to realise it's a horrible business practice that has a dubious place in F2P games an no place at all in premium games.

Off Topic: I think buying every champion in League is now something like 700+ dollars, or so google tells me. Probably way more with skins and such. But then SMITE has all champions for 40 bucks or so. Obviously stuff varies, but it's still better for the consumer to be able to buy what they want instead of relying on RNG.

EDIT: Sorry Hawki, I did a dumb and erased most of your quote. Should be fixed now.

This business model is nothing new. Baseball cards have been around since the 1950's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_card]. Same thing as loot boxes. It's very similar to gambling in that it presses all the same buttons in people. The "value" is the thrill and anticipation of possibly getting a card you don't have or a rare card. If you directly buy each card or a full set, no RNG, no thrill. Without that thrill, the cards probably wouldn't even exist.

Although as you point out, a difference is that the tangible duplicate cards can be traded or sold. They are called "trading cards" after all. Still, most duplicate trading cards are worth little.

Anyway, I don't think this is something that can be legislated out of games, so it's here to stay, just like trading cards.

I am playing Guild Wars 2 right now, and it has loot boxes that drop throughout play. They supposedly only contain cosmetic or convenience items. To open them, you need a key that you can only buy with gems, which can be obtained with either real money or in-game gold. I have just been sticking them in the bank and basically ignoring them. Maybe at some point I'll have excess gold and will spend it to get keys, but it is a very low priority and I refuse to spend real money on them. You can also straight out buy gold in the game, and I refuse to do that, too. Earning gold is part of the game, so buying it feels like cheating to me, plus it would rob me of the challenge of learning how to earn it myself.

I remember in WoW there were BoE (bind on equip) epics that were world drops (not farmable... like a 0.001% drop rate from any mob). They were very expensive to buy on the AH, and usually weren't the best gear anyway as compared to what dropped in raids. If I saw someone using those items, my first thought is young noob with daddy's credit card, bought gold from a Chinese farmer. I didn't consider it prestige-worthy, more like noob alert.

When I played WoW, spending real money to buy anything was something to be ashamed of, not proud of. I know some people I played with probably bought gold for convenience, but if so, they never advertised the fact.

 

[Mothro]

Dont like them? Dont buy them. Easy.

You are not a magpie, just say no.

You honestly think its ok to make a game super grindy just to encourage people to spend real money?

I don't care when it's cosmetic but when game design suffers for the sake of monetizing the product, that's fucking wrong!

Surely you know that 'only cosmetic' is the foot in the door eventually leading to worse?