I wanna talk about Lootboxes

Quellist

Migratory coconut
Oct 7, 2010
1,443
0
0
Mothro said:
Quellist said:
bjj hero said:
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?
Yeah I know, gateway drug and all, I came late to the party because i never played CS:GO, Overwatch or anything else that had them. Once they started appearing in genres that interested me i sat up and took notice but by that time Cosmetic only wasn't even a thing anymore
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
The point were your argument falls apart is the old "the are locking away content". They are not, lootboxes and Orc stats are random. They are dice rolls, only loaded dice rolls.

Yeah, from what I heard, the Orcs you might get from loot boxes are more powerful than the ones you get on the field, but they are not "new content" if all Orc content is controlled by a random generator.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
7,000
1,164
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Laggyteabag said:
Zendariel said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
Laggyteabag said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
Laggyteabag said:
bjj hero said:
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.
If he was so unhappy after the first event then why did he continue spending money on the other events?
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
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.
You clearly don't understand capitalism or business.. Yeah, they will give introductorory samples. Slices (and usually rather small slices at that). And the herring pizza is not figurative in the least. That's actually a thing in my country, as is Conch pizza.

The 'failing' of most economical models is assumption that all consumers have equal access to information (and that is never true)
If ytou know about the game, chances are you have the internet. You have the internet you have equal access to information. That many choose not to make use of theis access to information is not the same as them not having access.

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'.
And all you'd do is get dirty looks from the people you're holding up who will likely tell you to payfor it or leave it but get the hell out of their way.

HIt's not like you didn't know how much the toppings cost when you ordered the pizza. The retailer is free to charge whatever they want. That's seller's rights. Just like you can say how much you will consent to be paid for your work.

The balance is the porspective buyer has the liberty to either refect or affirm your price and take their business elsewhere.

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.
Yup but again, it doesn't always work that way and what you're more apt to do is just relegate yourself to the plutocratic minority.

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.
And you will note that they are not exactly the top of the heap in that industry. They act pretty much like every other company. Just look at how they Manage GoG.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
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.
You clearly don't understand capitalism or business.. Yeah, they will give introductorory samples. Slices (and usually rather small slices at that). And the herring pizza is not figurative in the least. That's actually a thing in my country, as is Conch pizza.

The 'failing' of most economical models is assumption that all consumers have equal access to information (and that is never true)
If ytou know about the game, chances are you have the internet. You have the internet you have equal access to information. That many choose not to make use of theis access to information is not the same as them not having access.

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'.
And all you'd do is get dirty looks from the people you're holding up who will likely tell you to payfor it or leave it but get the hell out of their way.

HIt's not like you didn't know how much the toppings cost when you ordered the pizza. The retailer is free to charge whatever they want. That's seller's rights. Just like you can say how much you will consent to be paid for your work.

The balance is the porspective buyer has the liberty to either refect or affirm your price and take their business elsewhere.

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.
Yup but again, it doesn't always work that way and what you're more apt to do is just relegate yourself to the plutocratic minority.

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.
And you will note that they are not exactly the top of the heap in that industry. They act pretty much like every other company. Just look at how they Manage GoG.
Ok. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and/or what I wrote about. Probably you either never studied economics or just trolling. Not gonna bite this bait mate.
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
Ok. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and/or what I wrote about. Probably you either never studied economics or just trolling. Not gonna bite this bait mate.
I think you're the bait in this situation. Fundamental rule of commerce. Seller sets the price, Buyer agrees or disagrees. To sellers. People who do not buy are simply the plutocratic minority. Trying to appeal to such tends to get entertainment companies in hot water. It's what lead to the seady dumbing down of WoW and the subsequent haemoraging of the player base (I think we've actually reached the point where there are more people on the private servers now. Certainly didn't work for MArvel when they went all SJW.

Key business strategy is to identify the most profitable part of your customer base and appeal to them. The fewer customers you have to please the easier it is for you to maintain a happy customer base.

UIn the case of the lootboxes. Well is it surprising that publishers opt to cater to big spenders as opposed to non-spenders.
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
Ok. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and/or what I wrote about. Probably you either never studied economics or just trolling. Not gonna bite this bait mate.
I think you're the bait in this situation. Fundamental rule of commerce. Seller sets the price, Buyer agrees or disagrees. To sellers. People who do not buy are simply the plutocratic minority. Trying to appeal to such tends to get entertainment companies in hot water. It's what lead to the seady dumbing down of WoW and the subsequent haemoraging of the player base (I think we've actually reached the point where there are more people on the private servers now. Certainly didn't work for MArvel when they went all SJW.

Key business strategy is to identify the most profitable part of your customer base and appeal to them. The fewer customers you have to please the easier it is for you to maintain a happy customer base.

UIn the case of the lootboxes. Well is it surprising that publishers opt to cater to big spenders as opposed to non-spenders.
Ok serious question. Are you drunk?
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
MonsterCrit said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
Ok. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and/or what I wrote about. Probably you either never studied economics or just trolling. Not gonna bite this bait mate.
I think you're the bait in this situation. Fundamental rule of commerce. Seller sets the price, Buyer agrees or disagrees. To sellers. People who do not buy are simply the plutocratic minority. Trying to appeal to such tends to get entertainment companies in hot water. It's what lead to the seady dumbing down of WoW and the subsequent haemoraging of the player base (I think we've actually reached the point where there are more people on the private servers now. Certainly didn't work for MArvel when they went all SJW.

Key business strategy is to identify the most profitable part of your customer base and appeal to them. The fewer customers you have to please the easier it is for you to maintain a happy customer base.

UIn the case of the lootboxes. Well is it surprising that publishers opt to cater to big spenders as opposed to non-spenders.
Ok serious question. Are you drunk?
Really?
That's the best you can come up with?
 

Jamcie Kerbizz

New member
Feb 27, 2013
302
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
MonsterCrit said:
Jamcie Kerbizz said:
Ok. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and/or what I wrote about. Probably you either never studied economics or just trolling. Not gonna bite this bait mate.
I think you're the bait in this situation. Fundamental rule of commerce. Seller sets the price, Buyer agrees or disagrees. To sellers. People who do not buy are simply the plutocratic minority. Trying to appeal to such tends to get entertainment companies in hot water. It's what lead to the seady dumbing down of WoW and the subsequent haemoraging of the player base (I think we've actually reached the point where there are more people on the private servers now. Certainly didn't work for MArvel when they went all SJW.

Key business strategy is to identify the most profitable part of your customer base and appeal to them. The fewer customers you have to please the easier it is for you to maintain a happy customer base.

UIn the case of the lootboxes. Well is it surprising that publishers opt to cater to big spenders as opposed to non-spenders.
Ok serious question. Are you drunk?
Really?
That's the best you can come up with?
Read what you wrote.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,058
1,718
118
Country
United Kingdom
Dirty Hipsters said:
If he was so unhappy after the first event then why did he continue spending money on the other events?
That's gambling in a nutshell. People leave casinos unhappy routinely, but go back because gambling prompts compulsive behaviour, or even addiction.

Loot boxes are gambling.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
Silvanus said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
If he was so unhappy after the first event then why did he continue spending money on the other events?
That's gambling in a nutshell. People leave casinos unhappy routinely, but go back because gambling prompts compulsive behaviour, or even addiction.

Loot boxes are gambling.
Agreed.
ESRB and PEGI seem to disagree because... with gambling you don't always get something out of it, while with loot boxes you do?
Even if that is temporary and immaterial!
 

Kerg3927

New member
Jun 8, 2015
496
0
0
Vendor-Lazarus said:
Silvanus said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
If he was so unhappy after the first event then why did he continue spending money on the other events?
That's gambling in a nutshell. People leave casinos unhappy routinely, but go back because gambling prompts compulsive behaviour, or even addiction.

Loot boxes are gambling.
Agreed.
ESRB and PEGI seem to disagree because... with gambling you don't always get something out of it, while with loot boxes you do?
Even if that is temporary and immaterial!
I haven't researched it or anything, but I've heard that for people who have a gambling addiction, it's harder for them to quit than any addictive drug. The success rates for quitting long term are lower and the relapse rates higher than for say, heroin addicts. Gambling addiction is a real thing.
 

The Gnome King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
685
0
0
Thankfully, I am not interested in any of the games currently offering loot boxes, which I consider an unnecessary cash grab from the industry. I wouldn't purchase a game that required them, or even purchase a game where the use of them made the game "easier" to complete. It's not a practice I'll support with my gaming dollars. (shrug)
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
7,000
1,164
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Silvanus said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
If he was so unhappy after the first event then why did he continue spending money on the other events?
That's gambling in a nutshell. People leave casinos unhappy routinely, but go back because gambling prompts compulsive behaviour, or even addiction.

Loot boxes are gambling.
In actual gambling there's always the chance of "turning it around" and recouping your losses. With loot boxes there's no such thing, especially in Overwatch. There's no recouping the money that you spent on the boxes, you can't make that money back therefore loot boxes are an exact logical calculation of how much you're willing to spend on the possibility of gaining something you want. There's nothing driving you continue spending your money other than your own stupidity at the fact that you prize a virtual item so highly.

Gambling in a casino might be just as toxic a behavior, but it's a hell of a lot more logical.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,058
1,718
118
Country
United Kingdom
Dirty Hipsters said:
In actual gambling there's always the chance of "turning it around" and recouping your losses. With loot boxes there's no such thing, especially in Overwatch. There's no recouping the money that you spent on the boxes, you can't make that money back therefore loot boxes are an exact logical calculation of how much you're willing to spend on the possibility of gaining something you want. There's nothing driving you continue spending your money other than your own stupidity at the fact that you prize a virtual item so highly.

Gambling in a casino might be just as toxic a behavior, but it's a hell of a lot more logical.
The virtual item has value to the person, equivalent to some amount of money. I don't think this is a substantial difference. They still exploit the same compulsive behaviour, which explains why people do it.
 

Nedoras

New member
Jan 8, 2010
506
0
0
I think overall they're harmful. Even if you're fine with them, even if you see no problem with them at all, they're still shit. They're slowly replacing just buying the damn thing you want outright. I'm personally not tempted by them, if I see an item I would want and I can only get it from a lootbox, well then I guess they're not getting any of my damn money. I'm not paying to spin a nonexistent slot machine to get a skin or something. I'd rather just buy the damn item, but no no no, buying a chance at getting something is clearly the better option because they could potentially get more out of me....the pricks. Honestly though, they are rather predatory. Even if it's technically not legally gambling, it emulates the living hell out of it. The thing is it doesn't even need to. That little slot machine animation doesn't need to exist. The item you got was determined right when you clicked to open the damn thing. The slot reel exists to tempt people. "Awww look, you ALMOST got that legendary item!!! You were SOOO CLOOOSEE!!! Why not give it another spin champ? :D" It's just scummy as hell, because there are people who do fall prey to that. The shiny lights, the colors, the illusion you ALMOST got that sweet item, it makes people come back for more...just one more...just one more...just one more this time, really I mean it. Next thing you know, that person spent fifty bucks trying to get an item that if it was just sold as it's own thing, it'd be worth five. So basically, I'm not okay with them at all.
 

Savryc

NAPs, Spooks and Poz. Oh my!
Aug 4, 2011
395
0
0
It?s pure predatory bullshit. No different from mobile games fishing for whales, but it?s AAA devs doing it so of course there?s plenty of brand loyal morons to defend it.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Kerg3927 said:
I haven't researched it or anything, but I've heard that for people who have a gambling addiction, it's harder for them to quit than any addictive drug. The success rates for quitting long term are lower and the relapse rates higher than for say, heroin addicts. Gambling addiction is a real thing.
A key component to kicking any addiction is the ability to sever the ties to the lifestyle you had when addicted. For a drug addict, this usually means cutting ties to old friends, moving to a new neighborhood (or even city) and ditching your dealers number. All of this helps prevent the temptation of relapsing, as does finding a daily routine that doesn't put you in situations when you might feel tempted to hit up. For a gambling addict, in modern society when gambling is as easy as downloading an app on your smartphone, it is next to impossible to actually re-purpose their daily life to avoid the temptation of re-lapsing. The opportunity to re-lapse is ever present and it can be done so quick that you won't have time to think about it. Which goes a long way to explain why it is so hard, coupled with the fact that gambling isn't illegal, which means that gambling companies are free to market to you all they like.
 

Wintermute_v1legacy

New member
Mar 16, 2012
1,829
0
0
I'm curious to see how far they'll push this, to be honest. Even stupid shit like haircuts and skins, they're a one time thing now. You have to buy them again if you change it. That's just absurd and hilarious because some people actually spend money on this.

Oh well, gamers in general apparently can't control themselves and they'll continue to buy these AAA games no matter what, and this is what you get when you keep defending companies that don't give a shit about you.

In a few years games will have a basic multiplayer mode, and other modes will cost extra. Then every match will cost some money too. And every time you start a game, instead of a "Press Start" message, you'll get a "Insert Coin", and so on.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
Wintermute said:
I'm curious to see how far they'll push this, to be honest. Even stupid shit like haircuts and skins, they're a one time thing now. You have to buy them again if you change it. That's just absurd and hilarious because some people actually spend money on this.

Oh well, gamers in general apparently can't control themselves and they'll continue to buy these AAA games no matter what, and this is what you get when you keep defending companies that don't give a shit about you.

In a few years games will have a basic multiplayer mode, and other modes will cost extra. Then every match will cost some money too. And every time you start a game, instead of a "Press Start" message, you'll get a "Insert Coin", and so on.
Going back full circle! Hah! That would be hilarious (sadlarious?).
It's really no more those buying in to such practices deserve, though I would weep for the state of gaming.