Poll: Season pass vs micro transaction vs loot boxes; Which one is SALVAGEABLE?

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

If season passes entail new content that is developed post release only and at a better price than buying each thing individually and they are not pay to win in any form, I have no issues with them. Cosmetic microtransactions are also fine. Lootboxes have an added gambling aspect which is distasteful, just let people spend real money on what they desire to purchase.

 

[Avnger]

I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

Wow! You'd better get on the phone to EA's stockholders because they have one hell of easy lawsuit against the company's leadership then because according to an official release to investors

The publisher accompanied [the announcement of removing microtransactions from Battlefront 2] with an expedient security report to investors, in which EA assured them that the change to the game?s economy would likely not have a ?material impact? on its financial projections for the fiscal year.

The US version of capitalism is relatively anything goes regarding the stock market, but the largest legal no-no is lying to investors regarding profits.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Season Passes. Pound for Pound, they are the closest we get to the Expansion Packs of Yesteryear. And given the amount of content you might get per game, even a better value than what Expansion Packs were.

I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

The problem with this is.... what is actually being tallied?

Take the case of those Companies who are working on DLC while working on the final product [https://nowloading.co/p/why-game-developers-release-dlc-right-after-launch/4199962].

This is a case of bad business in theory. The idea of concurrent work on DLC while finishing the main game is somewhat disgusting. Especially given that these people are being paid by the main budget of the Game Development. They aren't contracted for free and work months at a time to produce DLC with hopes that they'll paid for their time once the day one DLC is shipped. Their salary and work comes from whatever funds they raised to make the game.

What does this matter? Ok. Say you had 30 people working on the DLC while making the main game. If you DIDN'T... That's 30 people less you have to pay, less coordination between management, IT solutions, product testing, bug searches... In short, less billable hours all around. That concurrent DLC suddenly costs a lot.

Thus, games like this (and really all games because everything has a DLC or season pass now) are somewhat creating their own problems.

Advertisements? Why do you need millions upon millions to do advisement campaigns any more? We live in the age of Twitch. Of the Youtube star. Five Nights of Freddies' should have never taken off the way it did. The first two had a compelling story once you got deep into it, but a few youtube superstars screaming their heads off and one man took a glorified Flash Game and amassed a worth of $27,000,000 [https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-does-Five-Nights-at-Freddys-make], and this is starting at the shallow end. Do we even need to talk about minecraft?

More over, it feels like people are taking outdated business plans and faulty practices and putting the cost on the customers. Oh, I know engines and ip franchises, and what not are a big deal. Those things cost money. But if mishandled, they cost even more.

 

[demoman_chaos]

I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

EA outright said to their investors the removal of microtransactions from Battlefront 4 will have no impact on revenue, so the publishers themselves have admitted they are not needed. That "games are too expensive to make" nonsense is utter nonsense.

 

[CaitSeith]

If they want, it's possible to make all salvageable:
- Season passes should disclose the full DLCs and content that will be included with a deadline (with a full money-back guarantee if they aren't released).
- Lootboxes should either disclose the odds of winning each item, or stop monetizing them in the first place.
- Microtransactions should be removed of games paid upfront, and have a disclosed top limit. After the player hits the limit, that game shouldn't get any more money out of that player, ever.

 

[Trunkage]

-Loot boxes: I like loot boxes least of all 3 but even they can be done well enough to reward players for playing the game. The main problem I have with loot boxes is the fact that you can't just pay in-game currency (most of the time) to buy specifically what you want. I thought the loot boxes in Mass Effect 3 would be perfectly fine if I could've just bought what I wanted with in-game credits. I did stop playing the multiplayer of ME3 because of the loot boxes because it was so frustrating trying to unlock new characters via random chance. If I could've just saved up to buy them, it wouldn't have been an issue honestly. Then the loot boxes could be there to try your hand to get something you want on the cheap if you get lucky enough.

I remember being in the top 150 of ME3 multiplayer. I remember seeing the people above me having exponentially higher numbers. I was wondering how they could get so high number as I was literally playing 8hrs a day at minimum. I spent money to catch up. It gave quite a dump in the numbers but clearly people were spending thousands on this. I realised that lootboxes were what is now termed as pay to win. I got out of competitive multiplayer in general because of them. They make the competitive scene pointless.

I thought about having a thread for this but might as well put it here: The existence of all those can be attributed to the price of games remaining the same despite inflation: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power.

So for example, let's compare with 2010 prices of 60$ (since not a lot have changed in the gaming sphere). Rather than paying 68$ for a game (if adjusted for inflation) USA consumers pay 60$ and likely give around those 8$ on average through DLC and microtransactions.

Wow! You'd better get on the phone to EA's stockholders because they have one hell of easy lawsuit against the company's leadership then because according to an official release to investors

The publisher accompanied [the announcement of removing microtransactions from Battlefront 2] with an expedient security report to investors, in which EA assured them that the change to the game?s economy would likely not have a ?material impact? on its financial projections for the fiscal year.

The US version of capitalism is relatively anything goes regarding the stock market, but the largest legal no-no is lying to investors regarding profits.

How do you think most shareholders get conned into paying for low ROI things? Its your job as a CEO to lie so you can get the big bucks. I mean, Amazon was taking huge losses over a decade and its shipping department looks like it will never turn a profit. Its only limping with the Web Services division and wasting shareholder money. Bezos lied all those years about how well Amazon would do and he's never been sued. Good luck trying to sue EA over this trifle little thing

 

[Cold Shiny]

Wow

Poison, bullet, or knife, take your pick.

 

[Mothro]

This thread is like asking us which we prefer, the plate of turds or the bowl of soupy diarrhea. As if any option is tolerable. We can say no to all of it.

 

[PapaGreg096]

Wow

Poison, bullet, or knife, take your pick.

I choose poison, if you survive you can develop antibodies.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

-Microtransactions: There's nothing really wrong with someone wanting to fast-forward the grind for a bit of money.

for a bit of money.

That's why it's wrong. Cheat codes used to do the same thing for no money. If people are willing to pay to skip portions of your game then maybe something is very wrong with your game in the first place. But even that aside, there's no excuse for charging for basic cheat code functionality. It's complete shit.

There is one exception to microtransactions and that is a game that provides a TRUE online service for free or a one-time fee. And even then, it only works with cosmetic things.

-

Season passes are forgivable ASSUMING that the publisher ACTUALLY DELIVERS THE QUALITY CONTENT PROMISED. Also, it needs to act like a freaking SEASON PASS. Not it only giving you some of the DLC and then you have to pay for the rest again. That's complete shit too.

-

Loot boxes are totally unsalvageable and are also complete shit unless they're all made completely free.

 

[Erttheking]

A season pass is the least terrible. At least when all the content is out and you can look at reviews for it, you can buy all the DLC and save a few bucks. Though this only works if you were going to buy all the DLC in the first place.

And even then companies are talented at fucking this up. Quite a few games have DLC that isn't covered by the season pass, making the whole thing a moot point, some games have DLC that was supposed to be part of the main game but was cut out, which can go die in a fire, and companies are always charting new ground in being shit heads about DLC. Like when Fallout 4 had a price jump to 30 to 50 for its season pass. My memory is a little fuzzy on whether or not any of the DLC for that game was out when this happened, but if there was there was only one bit of it. So it pressured people to buy in early to save money and then it turned out two thirds of the DLC for Fallout 4 were really badly received. Half of it was settlement building stuff most people felt should've been in the base game, and Nuka-World got slammed because no one liked a DLC where you have to be a Chaotic Evil fuckwad if you want to get most of the content. And that's the main problem with the season pass. It's trying to pressure you into buying something when you don't know if it'll be any good yet.

 

[Jeroenr]

For season passes: (or story/gameplay expanding DLC in general)
As long as they don't intentionally remove gameplay from the core game to sell it separately, but add to it.
I don't mind them charging a fair amount for it.
And they have to be crystal clear about what will be included and what not.

If i know i will buy the expansions when released and they offer a little discount, sure i might buy it.

Microtransactions:
In a free to play game, as long as prices a sensible and the items not game/balance breaking. Sure they have to pay the bills somehow.
In a low price game, acceptable but don't get greedy.
In High price/AAA, purchase price should cover it.
In Single Player, you would basically be paying to not play the game, so game progresion unlock only.

Loot Boxes:
No, Just no.

 

[Avnger]

I voted lootboxes because as long as they are kept in game and not connected to any kind of microtransaction or real world money, they're not really any different than any other type of RNG loot in games. I mean look at Horizon: Zero Dawn, for example; it has lootboxes but because they're entirely tied into the game world, they're completely harmless and no different than the randomized chests or randomized loot taken from the dead robosauruses (other than the extra menu steps).

 

[Jeroenr]

I voted lootboxes because as long as they are kept in game and not connected to any kind of microtransaction or real world money, they're not really any different than any other type of RNG loot in games. I mean look at Horizon: Zero Dawn, for example; it has lootboxes but because they're entirely tied into the game world, they're completely harmless and no different than the randomized chests or randomized loot taken from the dead robosauruses (other than the extra menu steps).

In that case i would prefer the random drop/chest, because those stay in the flow of the game.
As for lootboxes, those are as immersive as a Car comercial during a Game of Thrones episode.

 

[Aerosteam]

Season passes at least feels like you're getting a more tangible thing than microtransactions or lootboxes.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I could stomach any of these except for the loot boxes if it weren't for how they're implemented by corporate assholes.
Season Passes - Well I hate the idea of paying for something sight unseen and I still can't wrap my head around the idea of video games having "seasons" but I suppose it's relatively harmless as long as the DLC is still available outside of the season pass.

Microtransactions - If used to generate revenue for a F2P games and don't give any sort of in-game advantage then I don't have a problem with this. However as it is implemented by AAA Publishers is unacceptable.

Loot Boxes - Unacceptable.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

-Loot boxes: I like loot boxes least of all 3 but even they can be done well enough to reward players for playing the game. The main problem I have with loot boxes is the fact that you can't just pay in-game currency (most of the time) to buy specifically what you want. I thought the loot boxes in Mass Effect 3 would be perfectly fine if I could've just bought what I wanted with in-game credits. I did stop playing the multiplayer of ME3 because of the loot boxes because it was so frustrating trying to unlock new characters via random chance. If I could've just saved up to buy them, it wouldn't have been an issue honestly. Then the loot boxes could be there to try your hand to get something you want on the cheap if you get lucky enough.

I remember being in the top 150 of ME3 multiplayer. I remember seeing the people above me having exponentially higher numbers. I was wondering how they could get so high number as I was literally playing 8hrs a day at minimum. I spent money to catch up. It gave quite a dump in the numbers but clearly people were spending thousands on this. I realised that lootboxes were what is now termed as pay to win. I got out of competitive multiplayer in general because of them. They make the competitive scene pointless.

But what did it matter being top 150 in ME3 multiplayer? As long as you had characters leveled up, which I recall not taking long at all, you can play just fine on the hardest difficulty. The only thing that your character would ever-so-slightly improve at over time is getting more of your primary weapon, which slightly lowers weight of said weapon making your cooldowns very slightly faster. It wasn't crucial for say an Infiltrator to have a level 10 Widow for example, just as long as you had one was fine enough. Some character/class combos didn't even need guns. I quit playing ME3 because I realized I was just playing to earn credits to buy packs so I could possibly get a new character I wanted to try out vs just playing for fun. I never spent any money on packs because of their random nature.

-Microtransactions: There's nothing really wrong with someone wanting to fast-forward the grind for a bit of money.

for a bit of money.

That's why it's wrong. Cheat codes used to do the same thing for no money. If people are willing to pay to skip portions of your game then maybe something is very wrong with your game in the first place. But even that aside, there's no excuse for charging for basic cheat code functionality. It's complete shit.

Even in the heyday of cheat codes, you kinda had to pay for the device whether it was a Game Genie, GameShark, Action Replay, etc. If someone wants to play a game in an unintended fashion, why shouldn't a company make some money off that when it's not affecting anyone else? RPGs are intended to start at level 1 and some people will grind in the opening area because they like being OPed, why not allow people to pay to not grind? As long as the game is developed in a normal fashion where progression isn't made slower just to get more microtransaction sales, then I have no problem with it. It is obviously a slippery slope and it can turn bad, really bad as already seen but there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It's sorta like the idea of DLC is perfectly fine, but then pubs/devs started doing on-disc DLC and Day-1 DLC and we start asking if that was just cut content or legit DLC.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Even in the heyday of cheat codes, you kinda had to pay for the device whether it was a Game Genie, GameShark, Action Replay, etc.

Sorry but this is just wrong. Native cheat codes have been in games since... Doom 95? Most famously, Saints Row 2 had so many hidden cheats in it that mod authors actually ran out of space for theirs when they added more. Morrowind had native cheats. Contra had native cheats. Skyrim had native cheats. Half Life 2 had native cheats. Perfect Dark had native cheats. Timesplitters: Future Perfect had native cheats. Banjo-Kazooie freaking had native cheats.

And even IF that wasn't the case at all, the time it takes to make cheats (practically no time at all) does NOT justify cutting them off from the game and selling them as DLC. At all.

 

[Trunkage]

-Loot boxes: I like loot boxes least of all 3 but even they can be done well enough to reward players for playing the game. The main problem I have with loot boxes is the fact that you can't just pay in-game currency (most of the time) to buy specifically what you want. I thought the loot boxes in Mass Effect 3 would be perfectly fine if I could've just bought what I wanted with in-game credits. I did stop playing the multiplayer of ME3 because of the loot boxes because it was so frustrating trying to unlock new characters via random chance. If I could've just saved up to buy them, it wouldn't have been an issue honestly. Then the loot boxes could be there to try your hand to get something you want on the cheap if you get lucky enough.

I remember being in the top 150 of ME3 multiplayer. I remember seeing the people above me having exponentially higher numbers. I was wondering how they could get so high number as I was literally playing 8hrs a day at minimum. I spent money to catch up. It gave quite a dump in the numbers but clearly people were spending thousands on this. I realised that lootboxes were what is now termed as pay to win. I got out of competitive multiplayer in general because of them. They make the competitive scene pointless.

But what did it matter being top 150 in ME3 multiplayer? As long as you had characters leveled up, which I recall not taking long at all, you can play just fine on the hardest difficulty. The only thing that your character would ever-so-slightly improve at over time is getting more of your primary weapon, which slightly lowers weight of said weapon making your cooldowns very slightly faster. It wasn't crucial for say an Infiltrator to have a level 10 Widow for example, just as long as you had one was fine enough. Some character/class combos didn't even need guns. I quit playing ME3 because I realized I was just playing to earn credits to buy packs so I could possibly get a new character I wanted to try out vs just playing for fun. I never spent any money on packs because of their random nature.

I had a desire to be in the top 100. I realised that skill allow wouldn't get me there. That moment killed a lot of desire to competitive multiplayer in me.

Before Payday 2 screwed things up, the had something similar. It only was screwed up with microtranactions. The lootboxes weren't the problem, per se. It was the possibility of buying them with real moey