I wanna talk about Lootboxes

[laggyteabag]

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.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

Purchasable loot boxes are a form of gambling and should up the age restriction of a game to an adult 18/21 yo (whatever local law dictates). This would solve at least part of the problem (adult individual needs to take responsibility in every venue of life anyway and they are constantly exposed to be swindled).

To be dead honest, any form of game, which includes microtransactions or where product doesn't have a final price tag on product or periodical subscription model should be illegal, when it comes to sales to children (with parents getting automatically money reimbursed and perpetrator getting a hefty fine for the sales; so risk pushed on seller's side completely).

It's mind boggling that mass media, 4th power that should be citizen and consumer shield from state and corporate abuse in free market, devolved into being a thorn in side of consumers instead. Especially in this industry. They play key role in discharging discontent around loot boxes and normalising this form of gambling. I have yet to see one of the outlets just start hysteria around the predatory practices of publishers on minors the way they do when, some form of spatial harassment, virtual violance or other form of teen notoriety happens.

Had they just wrote a warning: 'do not purchase Overwatch/Shadow of mordor/Mass effect Andromeda/Destiny 2/Battlefront 2 etc. to your children, game includes predatory practices aimed to extort money from minors via sudo-gambling' but nope. Instead it's always 'yeah loot boxes are annoying but you don't need to buy them and game is soooooo good' - followed by marketing campaign hype material re-iteration and irrationally high review score.

edit:
Not to mention that for transparency sake virtual gambling should have EXACT chance and EV given with every item included in lottery. It's there in the system anyway, so there is absolutely no excuse for obfuscation other than a purposeful attempt to swindle someone. Like i.e. listing that you have a chance to win 10-10000 pieces of 'parts' but holding back the information that available lots are 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 100 and 10000. And even if that information is provided it is often left to guessing that probability distribution is even ...but in practise it isn't i.e. goes like 10-19 9.9% each , 20 0.555% and 30 0.444% then you have a glorious 0.001% chance for 10000.

 

[FalloutJack]

I don't even like them in free-to-play games, so my opinion is 'Screw 'em all'.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

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.

Ok but why at all in the first place?
Why not just line up whatever is in boxes, give it a price and let customers get what they would like at the set price point. What part of having your head in the bag while blindly trying to get what you want, is better than having things you want available openly with rule set of obtaining them shown transparently?
Do you guys really do not see or understand, that you are being swindled this way? Or you do realise it but there's is something appealing to it which I don't see.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

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.

Ok but why at all in the first place?
Why not just line up whatever is in boxes, give it a price and let customers get what they would like at the set price point. What part of having your head in the bag while blindly trying to get what you want, is better than having things you want available openly with rule set of obtaining them shown transparently?
Do you guys really do not see or understand, that you are being swindled this way? Or you do realise it but there's is something appealing to it which I don't see.

As Fappy pointed out - Overwatch does allow you to purchase these things. A given skin for a character might cost 250 credits, and can be freely purchased at any time by anyone for said credit cost - or you might be randomly awarded the same skin for free in a loot box. It's not like the Halo 5 REQ system where you can only obtain these thing through blind luck, with Overwatch there is a more direct way of obtaining precisely the cosmetic content you desire at any time. And I have yet to be "swindled" by any loot box system as I never part with real-world money for them - I earn them through in-game play or I don't bother with them.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

(skip boss)
As Fappy pointed out - Overwatch does allow you to purchase these things. A given skin for a character might cost 250 credits, and can be freely purchased at any time by anyone for said credit cost - or you might be randomly awarded the same skin for free in a loot box. It's not like the Halo 5 REQ system where you can only obtain these thing through blind luck, with Overwatch there is a more direct way of obtaining precisely the cosmetic content you desire at any time. And I have yet to be "swindled" by any loot box system as I never part with real-world money for them - I earn them through in-game play or I don't bother with them.

Being swindled is basically being unable to tell what and for how much you purchase, so unless they just sell currency for which you can purchase these items, which would allow to establish semi-transparent price, it is still a shady practise. Especially if there is no given guarantee that probability distribution is not being altered. My honest question though which you left unanswered, do you prefer that blind luck over transparent pricing and if yes why?

One clarification. You don't get anything for free in loot boxes. You get items priced at EV. EV is how much money you need to spend in order to get given item at random, and is tied directly to probability of it being in the box and price of the box. EV isn't disclosed but Blizzard no doubt have it calculated down to single cent. If you can obtain currency needed to get loot boxes or items in game then you have also a ratio at which you can earn money in game. As far as I know Blizzard doesn't provide a constant ratio at which you can exchange effort/time to currency but use diminishing returns. Other words the longer you play the less you will get for your time in return and the higher level your characters are the lesser opportuunities you will have to get currency via gameplay. Both practices are devious and should be illegal to deploy them on children.

Edit:
Not to mention what rationale do they have to run this gambling scheme? If they need to pay for servers and services, they could ask for a set subscription fee, if they need money for further development, just prepare it and sell an expansion pack at a set price. None of these models, unlike gambling and in game currency earning, has any reason to impact gameplay other than making it attractive to gamers.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

(skip boss)
As Fappy pointed out - Overwatch does allow you to purchase these things. A given skin for a character might cost 250 credits, and can be freely purchased at any time by anyone for said credit cost - or you might be randomly awarded the same skin for free in a loot box. It's not like the Halo 5 REQ system where you can only obtain these thing through blind luck, with Overwatch there is a more direct way of obtaining precisely the cosmetic content you desire at any time. And I have yet to be "swindled" by any loot box system as I never part with real-world money for them - I earn them through in-game play or I don't bother with them.

Being swindled is basically being unable to tell what and for how much you purchase, so unless they just sell currency for which you can purchase these items, which would allow to establish semi-transparent price, it is still a shady practise. Especially if there is no given guarantee that probability distribution is not being altered. My honest question though which you left unanswered, do you prefer that blind luck over transparent pricing and if yes why?

One clarification. You don't get anything for free in loot boxes. You get items priced at EV. EV is how much money you need to spend in order to get given item at random, and is tied directly to probability of it being in the box and price of the box. EV isn't disclosed but Blizzard no doubt have it calculated down to single cent. If you can obtain currency needed to get loot boxes or items in game then you have also a ratio at which you can earn money in game. As far as I know Blizzard doesn't provide a constant ratio at which you can exchange effort/time to currency but use diminishing returns. Other words the longer you play the less you will get for your time in return and the higher level your characters are the lesser opportuunities you will have to get currency via gameplay. Both practices are devious and should be illegal to deploy them on children.

Edit:
Not to mention what rationale do they have to run this gambling scheme? If they need to pay for servers and services, they could ask for a set subscription fee, if they need money for further development, just prepare it and sell an expansion pack at a set price. None of these models, unlike gambling and in game currency earning, has any reason to impact gameplay other than making it attractive to gamers.

Look, I'm just pointing out how the current system could be changed to be more beneficial to the player. I know the current system is a crock, I know the current system is exploitative, I know the current system needs changing, that's why I'm talking about how it could/should be changed. Countering the discussion about how the loot box system could be changed with complaints about how the current system works is kinda missing the point.

To give you the answer you've requested: I prefer the Overwatch system because it is not just blind luck. It presents players with a price for every unlockable and allows each player to choose whether or not they want to purchase said item at stated value or to play on in the hope of getting the item through the 'lucky dip' system. It's not perfect, and as both Fappy and I suggested there are ways it could be better, but at least it allows players the option of targeting the items they want, rather than just granting pot-luck items the way Halo 5 did.

 

[gxs]

You are not a magpie, just say no.

Just because you say no doesn't mean others are going to.

Although, if mainstream gamers are really this stupid these days then maybe we do deserve loot boxes...

PC player base excluded. Because why would anyone purchase a box when you can just use a trainer and open unlimited number of silver boxes for free. The odds are that the same orcs will drop in silver as in gold with a minor difference in drop rates/quality.

And that's why I love PCs.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

(...)

Look, I'm just pointing out how the current system could be changed to be more beneficial to the player. I know the current system is a crock, I know the current system is exploitative, I know the current system needs changing, that's why I'm talking about how it could/should be changed. Countering the discussion about how the loot box system could be changed with complaints about how the current system works is kinda missing the point.

To give you the answer you've requested: I prefer the Overwatch system because it is not just blind luck. It presents players with a price for every unlockable and allows each player to choose whether or not they want to purchase said item at stated value or to play on in the hope of getting the item through the 'lucky dip' system. It's not perfect, and as both Fappy and I suggested there are ways it could be better, but at least it allows players the option of targeting the items they want, rather than just granting pot-luck items the way Halo 5 did.

Ok, got that. If you aim to find a way to alleviate current system, then I make a simple point. Ban it.
Only reason for it right now is criminal grade of exploitation. It isn't counter productive to discussing changes, unless someone is abale to point to an advantage to customers in given system unattainable to customers in other models.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Not true. A business model gets greedy when you start charging customers extra for what they should have gotten off the initial purchase. There are greedy practices and fair business practices, this is commonly called Business Ethics.

Look at a game like The Witcher 3. A 60 dollar title that provide 16 pieces of free DLC, and didn't hold content back from the customer in their original purchase. DLC's then released that were paid but provide the player over a dozen extra hours of story, new monsters, new locations, expansions really. Again in each piece their is no mictrotransactions, no nickel and diming players to get the full experience.

In Shadow of War, you pay 60-100 bucks for the game. But you don't get the whole game, instead if you want to get the full experience, you then have to buy into lootboxes for who know how much extra cash needed to get all the game has to offer.

Capcom is another company guilty of this in fighting games. Where you buy a game, and there are characters on that disc that you paid for that you can't use until you pay more for them.

That shit is greed.

I'm not saying that you can't have lootboxes or MT's in a game and still be fair, because you absolutely can. These Mt's and these boxes can't hold back any of the game though. Cosemetics like in Overwatch are fine, because they do nothing to take away or add to the experience of playing the game. Not really at least, skins you never see in game and only affect other players and your ending screens. Sure they are cool to see and have, but none of it really takes away from the gameplay experience without them.

 

[Mothro]

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.

 

[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.

Not true. A business model gets greedy when you start charging customers extra for what they should have gotten off the initial purchase. There are greedy practices and fair business practices, this is commonly called Business Ethics.

Look at a game like The Witcher 3. A 60 dollar title that provide 16 pieces of free DLC, and didn't hold content back from the customer in their original purchase. DLC's then released that were paid but provide the player over a dozen extra hours of story, new monsters, new locations, expansions really. Again in each piece their is no mictrotransactions, no nickel and diming players to get the full experience.

In Shadow of War, you pay 60-100 bucks for the game. But you don't get the whole game, instead if you want to get the full experience, you then have to buy into lootboxes for who know how much extra cash needed to get all the game has to offer.

Capcom is another company guilty of this in fighting games. Where you buy a game, and there are characters on that disc that you paid for that you can't use until you pay more for them.

That shit is greed.

I'm not saying that you can't have lootboxes or MT's in a game and still be fair, because you absolutely can. These Mt's and these boxes can't hold back any of the game though. Cosemetics like in Overwatch are fine, because they do nothing to take away or add to the experience of playing the game. Not really at least, skins you never see in game and only affect other players and your ending screens. Sure they are cool to see and have, but none of it really takes away from the gameplay experience without them.

I am a cynic, but I don't think CDPR did what they did out of kindness or a sense of fairness. It's just a different business model. CDPR's goal is to maximize profits, just like everyone else.

Gamers appreciate being able to play a game without it constantly trying to sell them shit while they play. And that in itself can increase base game sales and profits, and propagate consumer loyalty which pays off in future game sales. Whereas a different business model with microtransactions will lose sales from people who don't like them, but make up for it by bringing in more money from those who buy the game anyway, and then spend money on shit while they play.

CDPR also famously doesn't believe in DRM to prevent piracy. They sell the game. After you buy it, you can do what you want with it. But again, I don't think this is done out of kindness. It allows them to cut costs, and not have to spend anything on anti-piracy measures, which increases profits. They don't believe the costs are worth it. It's just a different model.

We're talking about a free market here, and businesses are slaves to that market. There are no ethics when money is involved, IMO. Not really. Oh, there may be the appearance of ethics, but if so, it is all part of a carefully crafted plan to maximize profits. There is no should and should not. There is only what one can or cannot get away with legally. And there are no laws against microtransactions or loot boxes. (I wish there were.)

 

[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.

 

[CritialGaming]

@kerg3927 You are right up to a point, but there are laws in place that prevent businesses from being completely dirty. At the end of the day the AAA industry is going to put as many MT's and lootboxes into games as they can, until there is some kind of market colapse that forces them to back out of it. But so long as people buy them, publishers will put them there.

Sadly that's the truth of all of this. You can look on every single issue people have had with gaming on this (and every other) website forum. Diversity, MT's, sexy shelob, etc. It all boils down to, don't buy it if you don't like it. Because you can preach and criticize all you want, but it wont change a goddamn thing until you hit publishers in the pocket book.

Don't like Mt's? Don't buy them.

Don't like anime girls getting naked for your amusement? Don't buy that game.

Not buying into the thing you don't like is the ONLY thing you can do. Because if you ***** but still buy, then no publisher gives a flying fuck what you say.

 

[Kerg3927]

@kerg3927 You are right up to a point, but there are laws in place that prevent businesses from being completely dirty.

Right. For example, I think most countries have laws against deceptive trade practices. It is usually against the law to make outright false or misleading representations to consumers. And if enough consumers get harmed by those practices, the state can and will sue the company for damages.

 

[Mothro]

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?

 

[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.