Possible goodbye to lootboxes?

[Barefootstallion]

My one and only serious experience with the purchase of additional content in a game, was with Plants Vs Zombies 2.

 

Of course, I'd heard of the practice by then (I got the game back in the late ought years), but I was absolutely floored when I saw how much the game was asking for additional content (extra coins in this case).  There was a threshold of $100 for those purchases.

 

I could only sit and boggle.  A $100 to play this, admittedly cool, little game?  Are they serious?  They can't be serious, right?  I mean like, I paid $20 for the whole original game, right?  A $100 just for coins?  They are serious, aren't they?!

 

I could only categorize it as blatant and unmitigated greed.  Then after that, I took a hard look at who had published the game.  I wasn't too shocked to see that it was EA Games who had done it.  I removed the game from my device, and vowed from that moment forward, to never purchase an EA title again.

 

And to this day, I still haven't.  Any Activision titles, either - since I became aware that they've decided that the same practices were right for them, too.

 

It doesn't surprise me that these companies (especially EA) is now facing legal troubles over it.  From the very moment I saw it (in Plants Vs Zombies 2), I knew that it was very likely to go down a very dark road.  Junior gets mommy's or daddy's credit card and goes to town, and suddenly mommy and daddy are suing the game company.   I could see other very likely legal problems with it, too.  It comes as little surprise to me that whole countries have decided to become involved.  Because on the face of it, this is just pure and simple greed and nothing more.  It is exploiting youth.  It is lure and predation.

 

I heard somewhere recently that EA may be facing some tough financial challenges over their decisions in the near future.  They're on very rocky ground with Disney over it, their games have become the spotlight of lawmakers in more than one country.

 

Greed is stupid.  It is only ever rewarded in the short term.  History has proven this again and again.  That companies like EA and Activision can believe that they are immune to history, only goes to show just how greedy and how shortsighted they are.

[Graf Zahl]

9 minutes ago, Barefootstallion said:

Greed is stupid.  It is only ever rewarded in the short term.  History has proven this again and again.  That companies like EA and Activision can believe that they are immune to history, only goes to show just how greedy and how shortsighted they are.

 

That's what happens if predatory capitalists start calling the shots. These people do not care about the company's future, what they want is to make a quick buck with a well-planned exit strategy before things go down the drain. And down the drain things will go with such an attitude sooner or later.

 

You can bet that when EA gets into real trouble these people have long secured their profit and cannot be held accountable anymore.

 

[Loud Silence]

I have played android game with fair freemium system, it was named Mage & Minions, later renamed to Eternium. It's similar to Diablo II, you will never be stopped from playing, only some waiting during upgrades. Premium currency is dropped from enemies and given for achievements. Game is very playable for free, but gets very repetitive, no matter you buy gems or not.

Worst freemium game i have played is Warspear Online. It's MMORPG, you will always be pushed to upgrade equipment, skills and whatnot. Any upgraded player from opposite side can kill you near anywhere, then log to your side's character and PM you just to say HA-HA. Game is full of liars, scammers and complete assholes. World chat is almost always full of worst words you could ever read. You can spend hours by trying to find someone to help you. Pay thousands of dollars to upgrade ONE character to max power, or grind 5+ years 24/7.

Now i don't play anything freemium and never ever will.

[Fonze]

8 hours ago, seed said:

The irony here is that this rationale kinda works, usually. Chances are that a product with the name of a more respectable and "popular" brand slapped on it, with a history of releasing quality products, is in fact the better option. Of course, that isn't always the case.

 

Actually, most generic brands come from the same exact assembly line as the name brands they're based on.

 

On-topic, wrt microtransactions: I've paid for more than a few over the years, though mostly on free-to-play games, like games such as the article's aforementioned candy crush. I think I spent upwards of $50 on silly stuff for an old mobile mmorpg game I used to play called pocket legends, and that was just one game, but also a game I really liked and got many, many hours of enjoyment out of. Hey I wanted my birb to be a wek, do I need much reason beyond that? I don't think so, but then again I don't see it as much different than buying myself a shirt because I think it looks good on me. Having lots of skins to choose from is fun in its own right.

 

That said, I don't see much problem with microtransactions as a means of supporting devs of free-to-play games, however for games that are paid for I think stuff like this, or dlc for that matter because its essentially just a microtransaction in larger form, are a bit underhanded and shady for devs to make, merely spreading out the overall cost to hide how much it's gone up to get a game with everything it comes with, though I also understand that the logistics of funding an entire team of people is a bit tricky and can see how it would be helpful to companies to make some of the game's content after they've cashed in their chips. Not that I like it though. Still, buying dlc at the store or wherever is ultimately the same as buying a package of stuff in-game.

 

One last thought on this, the phrase pay-to-win is a shitty, politicized load of nonsense in all but the most extreme cases, yet it is overapplied to every game that has anything you can purchase which has a measurable effect on the game, even when the effect it has just comes down to saving time off the grind, or whatever. I've played more than a few games people would term as play-to-win and had no troubles advancing and winning myself, though I also didn't try to make it a goal to be the #1 in the world; I just play to have fun. Still, as it's cited in the article with a $100-150 loot box full of goodies for candy crush, i should point out that most mobile games that fall under this category of freemium/etc are really just charging you for your own time, so instead of waiting to accumulate gold in clash of clans I can buy some, or I can skip this 2 week wait on building 1 out of 30 available buildings. At that point if paying money makes the game more fun then instead ask yourself why you are playing that game in the first place.

 

There's no denying that microtransactions are a giant industry/market to themselves, but that also doesn't make them inherently bad, nor will getting rid of them solve much in the grand scheme of things, especially wrt stuff like skins and silly hats. Giving the player a better sense of identity is huge, and people like to use stuff that isn't given at the start of the game so they don't have that "stock" look. Just a sense of semi-uniqueness is a powerful thing, and also can make the game more fun. As a non-lootbox example: look at WoW and pets. (let alone the BoE's) But if you're gonna spend real money to buy gold to buy a pet in-game then what is at all different to directly buying that coveted aesthetic doodad, other than that the money is going to the devs which made the whole thing possible as opposed to somebody who got lucky, farmed their brains out, or is running a racket.

 

Otoh I will also call any sort of purely chance game, such as buying a lot crate with x% chance of getting what you wanted to spend money on,

 

2 hours ago, Ichor said:

Everything wrong with microtransactions in a nutshell:

 

I see nothing wrong with that.

 

 

[Nine Inch Heels]

14 minutes ago, Fonze said:

One last thought on this, the phrase pay-to-win is a shitty, politicized load of nonsense in all but the most extreme cases, yet it is overapplied to every game that has anything you can purchase which has a measurable effect on the game, even when the effect it has just comes down to saving time off the grind, or whatever. I've played more than a few games people would term as play-to-win and had no troubles advancing and winning myself, though I also didn't try to make it a goal to be the #1 in the world; I just play to have fun. Still, as it's cited in the article with a $100-150 loot box full of goodies for candy crush, i should point out that most mobile games that fall under this category of freemium/etc are really just charging you for your own time, so instead of waiting to accumulate gold in clash of clans I can buy some, or I can skip this 2 week wait on building 1 out of 30 available buildings. At that point if paying money makes the game more fun then instead ask yourself why you are playing that game in the first place.

I hate to do this, but I kinda have to. Arguably the single most deceiving fallacy to entertain when it comes to microtransactions is to believe that f2p or "freemium" games are balanced around not spending money. It turns out most games simply aren't made like that.

Let's look at hearthstone. Can you play for free? Yeah. Can you win a few matches? Yeah. Are you gonna be able to compete longterm without excessive grind or laying down money? Fuck no. It's grind or pay, and you're not really given an option because every time you win you move up the ranks, meaning you will eventually and inevitably run into decks with higher powerlevels. At that point you can do what I did, which is "getting gud at arena" to get packs discounted or even for free, but the flipside is that when you get a pack for free in arena (getting a card pack, plus getting the entry-fee back as well), which means usually like 8-9 wins or so, you've also generated that many losses elsewhere, meaning others pay for your packs because 3 losses means the run is over. Basically me getting a free pack also means somebody else needs to pay extra for their packs. And while all the payers or arena grinders get to enjoy all kinds of different decks when competing on the ladder, your sorry F2P-ass is gonna be limited to one, maybe two decks entirely, meaning you'll play the same stuff every day you log in, no variety whatsoever. And god help you if the meta ever swings such that your best deck becomes invalid all of a sudden.

Let's look at path of exile, a game I played competitively for a few years, because it was the only way to actually enjoy that turd at all. Yeah it's possible to play for free. And you can see all the content for free. But it's gonna be a fuck ass fumble to manage your resources, if you don't get additional stash tabs to keep your shit organized. What's more is that stash tabs also enable you to participate in the global economy much better, by listing your items and the respective selling price, and you can't do that without premium tabs as easily. So, to make the game more enjoyable and spend less of your valuable spare time on "clerical work" you're gonna have to lay down the money, because tabs can't be earned. And the game is made such that the few free tabs you're given at the start are gonna fill up real fast if you can't translate items into currency efficiently. Why? Because it tosses you incredible amounts of items, basically all of wich are useful in some way shape or form eventually. Wanna outsmart the system? Use your characters as additional tabs to hold items, that works.... until you realize that even character slots are limited and additional ones cost money.

 

See the common denominator? All F2P games are built such that they constantly tempt you into stumping up the cash, and most F2P games are even made such that they get you to spend more money than a full prize game would cost you eventually. All these games literally contain hurdles of some sort that you can skip if you pay, and all these hurdles are put in deliberately to get you to pay. Imagine how much better these games would be, if they didn't have these "walls" in them where it says grind/wait or pay to proceed.

 

Let's do a thought experiment, just for fun. Let's say the BFG was gated behind a paywall... Now you're put in a map where it's either an SSG grind against a flock of barons, or 5$ to get a BFG and plow through... Which is more fun to do? And would the meatwall be there if the BFG was available for free?

[Graf Zahl]

26 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I hate to do this, but I kinda have to. Arguably the single most deceiving fallacy to entertain when it comes to microtransactions is to believe that f2p or "freemium" games are balanced around not spending money. It turns out most games simply aren't made like that.
 

 

Touché!

 

In fact, most freemium games are specifically designed to make people spend money. In the end that's their entire purpose. Lure the players in deep enough so that at some point they HAVE to buy something in order to continue.

 

Somehow the developers of these games need to earn money as well...

 

[Barefootstallion]

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

Somehow the developers of these games need to earn money as well...

 

Yes, and for years previous to this whole 'freemium' thing, they were.  Developers made games, people bought them.  That's just the way it was.  And it worked.  If a company paid attention to what customers wanted and made great games, they made money.

 

This whole 'freemium' thing is a relatively recent development.  Somebody in a board room somewhere got this big grin and said, "Damn.  I think I just thought of a way to skyrocket our profits!"  And this being the only thing board members heard, 'profits', they closed their eyes to any potential backlash that pursuing it might generate.  There is no way they could not have known that doing it would be immediately decried as sleazy.  They just chose to ignore that it was.  And now, they're starting to pay the price for it.

[Mr. Freeze]

9 minutes ago, Barefootstallion said:

Yes, and for years previous to this whole 'freemium' thing, they were.  Developers made games, people bought them.  That's just the way it was.  And it worked.  If a company paid attention to what customers wanted and made great games, they made money.

 

 

This is a hideously over-simplistic revision of history. The reality is that the industry ballooned, game development costs skyrocketed while the price of games stayed $60. Additional funding has to come from somewhere and DLC/lootboxes provided an easy way to keep the content rolling. 

[Fonze]

I agree with your points NiH. Of course they're designed to make you want to spend money, but for a freemium game I can't fault the dev for trying to make something for their work, and often I'll spend like 5 bucks on a game if I'm enjoying it for long enough just for the sake of supporting the dev and getting something nice in the process. That said, I've never spent money on something I couldn't have gotten with just more time.

 

I don't know how hearthstone is; I'm picky about mobile/casual games I play and anything that involves cards in any sense usually hits that button for me that screams of %chances to get an epic card, or a rare card, or a piece of garbage, and maybe you'll have to collect a bunch of each to level them up which makes those already bad chances of getting something you want insignificantly small.

 

Idk about PoE either, but it sounds like you really just needed to buy the tabs to enjoy the full game. At which point I'd have to ask if that price is what you'd be willing to spend on the game itself. If it is then perhaps it'd be better to look at it as a different way of distributing shareware. But I'm sure it's prolly $5-10 itself and character exclusive, so having multiple characters would cost more money for the additional tabs for each. If that's the case then yeah that's a bit shitty. Honestly it sucks and is shady when stuff is put behind a paywall with no free means of achieving it, but we chose what games to play so why would you waste your time on a game that does that? If you start it and enjoy it up to that point of pay or stop playing, then at least you've enjoyed the journey and that's not bad for something free.

 

I will level that if your goal is to be competitive, to be among the top tier, then you'll have either a long haul or a large bill, and it's not made easier when that top tier constantly is pushed further away by new updates that add more powerful whatevers than what was there before and bonus points when the new stuff is behind a paywall. (which means it's time to find a new game) But to simply enjoy the game for what it is; if you can progress through the game without spending a dime then I don't see the fault in it, though again I'll level that I would rather pay a set price for a game that doesn't do that bullshit and that these games would be better without the need for grinding/dedication or spending money. Though to a large degree you have to expect some element of waiting to be built into all casual games, which also means that time becomes a currency worth real money, etc.

 

Another related point of interest wrt the grind and rewarding dedication, such as with games that give you a reward for coming back every day, etc, is the sad fact that some games are straight up designed to be addicting. Coming back once a day isn't bad for a casual game, but some games also reward players every few hours, which encourages a level of constant returning that creates and feeds an addiction. A good example is: I played the rollercoaster tycoon app for a little while. This game has rewards that refresh every day, every 8 hours, 6 hours, and 4 hours. On top of that, there is a separate water park with different currency you can get. Soon after building stuff in it I realized that literally everything fills up in barely over 2 hours, but they don't hold all that much or make a whole lot, yet stuff costs a lot, so I either return back every 2 hours like a frenzied crack fiend needing mah blue chips or whatever or I just resign to ultra slow progress. Or I spend money >.< The one saving grace to this game though was that the premium currency flowed well enough without spending real money, but still a good enough example.

 

Again, I agree with your points, and the facts are what they are, plus our own individual experiences are different from one another, so for example you may have (and did with hearthstone, heh) played some games I specifically avoided based on my own set of red flags, but I suppose I look at it a bit more benignly.

[Graf Zahl]

16 minutes ago, Barefootstallion said:

 

Yes, and for years previous to this whole 'freemium' thing, they were.  Developers made games, people bought them.  That's just the way it was.  And it worked.  If a company paid attention to what customers wanted and made great games, they made money.

 

This whole 'freemium' thing is a relatively recent development.  Somebody in a board room somewhere got this big grin and said, "Damn.  I think I just thought of a way to skyrocket our profits!"  And this being the only thing board members heard, 'profits', they closed their eyes to any potential backlash that pursuing it might generate.  There is no way they could not have known that doing it would be immediately decried as sleazy.  They just chose to ignore that it was.  And now, they're starting to pay the price for it.

 

It's not that easy. That whole freemium thing originated in the mobile world and can be explained as a direct consequence of the app store business model.

Previously you could sell a game for $/€40/50 and up, but the entire app store thing got conditioned to expect prices of $.99 or $1.99. That's a lousy revenue for the work invested, you need a runaway success to recoup your investment. So games developers had the idea to add constant monetization to their games to get a little more money for their effort. And because it's so easy to just click a button and pay a small amount - helped by built-in systems in the operating systems - this was a success.

 

So far, so good, and if it had stayed in the mobile realm with casual gaming it'd have been acceptable.

 

But now enter some greedy capitalists in charge of the large game publishers who see that there's money to be made here. So they added the same schemes to their already expensive games and from that point on it's straight downhill.

 

[Barefootstallion]

21 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

This is a hideously over-simplistic revision of history.

 

 

'Hideously'?  Haha!  Really?  Wow!

 

Man, I say anything and I get jumped on from all sides!  I'm 'hideous' now!  OMG!  It's awesome, ain't it? :D

 

But seriously, it's not.  It's not in any part an exaggeration.  Gaming companies found a way to fleece people who are easily addicted to games.

 

As to skyrocketing costs... well, that's happening pretty much everywhere.  The video game industry has no monopoly on this misery.  But do you see other companies trying to exploit their customer base this way?  Say a restaurant for instance.  How long does anyone think one would last if it suddenly started adding these fun little extra charges to their customers' bills?  "Well, you asked for ketchup, Sir.  That's an extra fifty cents.  And extra bread?  That was $1.50."  This for stuff that was always provided for free with a purchased meal.  One would very quickly see that restaurant out of business, is what.

 

This new scheme isn't to support companies during rising costs woes.  What about Bethesda?  They made a crapton of money on Doom 2016.  It wasn't freemium.  They did their homework, found out what customers wanted most and then did their best to deliver it.  They charged one flat price for it and they made bank on it.

 

That's where companies like EA and Activision have lost their way.  They want to make what is cheapest for them to make and then try to make as much money as they can on it.

 

Check it out.  There's a host of videos about it on YouTube.  Almost every single one you watch, will repeat, almost verbatim, what I've asserted here.

[Doctor_Spengler]

Though a good thing, I can see how this could be a bad thing too. Developers wont be wanting to make new content for the the game if they arent making a crapton of money.

Lets just hope they make it DLC

[Nine Inch Heels]

19 minutes ago, Barefootstallion said:

How long does anyone think one would last if it suddenly started adding these fun little extra charges to their customers' bills?  "Well, you asked for ketchup, Sir.  That's an extra fifty cents.  And extra bread?  That was $1.50."  This for stuff that was always provided for free with a purchased meal.

And now go to that very same restaurant, buy the same meal, and ask for 30 loafs of bread and a large bucket of ketchup. See the problem? Stuff like this is baked into the cost of the meal already, if it isn't a seperate item, and that's how it always was, at least in restaurants where people knew how to run a profitable business. Basically, if you're not charged anything extra, you've already paid for it.

[Barefootstallion]

10 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

And now go to that very same restaurant, buy the same meal, and ask for 30 loafs of bread and a large bucket of ketchup. See the problem?

 

Yep.  I see the problem.  You're being ridiculous. :o

[Daryn]

If the US regulates loot boxes it will be a step in the right direction to rein in some of the nonsense that's going on in the games industry right now.

 

Loot boxes are exploitative and manipulative, not to mention they actually detract from the overall enjoyment of a game.

 

Case in point: Shadow of War. A game whose key feature, the Nemesis system was turned into a pointless mechanic since Orcs were now turned into random drops. What happened to that game? It kept its loot boxes for a little under a year, and then the entire loot box mechanic was pulled from it. The result was a game that's actually enjoyable to play, now.

 

I'm currently playing Mortal Kombat 11, and that's a game that is so full of microtransactions that it's actually irritating to play it. The game itself, when you're in and fighting is nothing short of brilliant, but it's wrapped in a film of filth that I'm finding myself not wanting to bother with it anymore.

 

This is the biggest issue I have with loot boxes. They wear thin. They get annoying, and they drive people to do one of two things. Either they give up, or they spend far too much money on items that don't really do much to enhance the game. Publishers know this. They know that the majority of the money spent on their microtransactions and loot boxes is being spent by a small percentage of their user base. It's a calculus they make ahead of time.

 

There is a real human cost, though. All these cosmetic outfits, glamours, shaders, props, etc. All of those need to be created by artists. Artists and contract workers that end up having to work 80+ hour weeks.

 

Do we really need to be running around a game world in a chicken suit? Does having 26+ outfits per character make the game better?

 

I'd love to see loot boxes go away, but until people actually start seeing what the real cost of the items is, they won't. Regulation may be the only option, who knows. What I do know is that this has been brewing for years, and the AAA industry is about to go through a really bad time. Even if regulation doesn't happen, the threat of it is going to make waves.

 

 

[Kills Alone]

My main concern with regulation is more aggressive DRM becoming mandatory. IMO the best answer is to provide ways of unlocking all paid content ingame via barter/trade, random drops, and grind/accomplishments.

[Barefootstallion]

45 minutes ago, Kills Alone said:

My main concern with regulation is more aggressive DRM becoming mandatory. IMO the best answer is to provide ways of unlocking all paid content ingame via barter/trade, random drops, and grind/accomplishments.

 

I kind of have a problem with this notion.  Of 'grind', I mean.  When I, and I believe, most people, play a video game, it is for relaxation, enjoyment and entertainment.  'Grind' is something one does at work.  'The Daily Grind' and all that.  Something people usually have to be paid to want to do.  It is pretty much the opposite of enjoyment and relaxation.

 

Now as to this regulation business, I agree.  Governments can take things too far.  Get a soccer-mom lobbying group decrying how badly video games affect our youth, and before you know it, Congress is throwing all kinds of regulations around.  But I do think something needs to be done.

 

It's been a recent craze that has gripped not only the video game industry, but businesses almost worldwide.  Make as much money as we can in as short of time we can and damn any consequences.  Just do it and let god sort it out.  Human greed at its absolute worst.  But finally, I think, this approach is starting to catch up with a lot of industries.  Customers are outcrying.  And governments are starting to feel the need to step in.  People are starting to pay attention.

 

Most businesses wouldn't be able to get away with it at the level that the video game industry has, though.  Most people who enjoy financial and fiscal power view video games as something the masses enjoy, and so long as they're enjoying it, leave well enough alone.  But now regulators and lawmakers are starting to take notice.  Why?  Yep, if you guessed that companies like EA pushed things just a bit too far, then you guessed right.  And therein lies the crux.  Companies like EA were enjoying their under-the-radar status.  So they started smirking and rubbing their hands together and started asking each other how far they can push this thing.  And the next thing you know, they got sixteen countries looking at them with very jaundiced eyes.  They went too far.

 

Greed is the historically proven dumbest thing imaginable.  But companies. so long as they think they might be able to get away with it, will continue to practice it.  I've seen restaurant chains close.  I've seen megastores close.  Their owners got greedy.  They started ripping customers off or demanded prices customers didn't want to pay, the company leading itself to believe, incorrectly, that nobody would be able to see how greedy they'd become.

 

People aren't dumb, EA.  Some may be more tolerant of some things than others, but no matter how tolerant, if you press too much, you're eventually gonna find yourself in trouble.

[-TDRR-]

Makes me miss the times when DLCs weren't as garbage.

For instance, CoD: Modern Warfare 2 has a pretty big selection of built-in maps, and they all are really high quality with the best designs ever seen in CoD. There are map packs that have 5 or more maps which also have great design and overall polish, perfectly worth the money.

Literally nothing else in MW2 had you spend money on it.

And then there's CoD: Black Ops 4 which makes Black Market progression extremely tedious and practically forces you to spend your way through it if you want to finish the same year you started. Which, costs more than 100 bucks.
Not only that, but you could get lots of class customization in previous games, but now you got to pay for most of them. Nice job, Treyarch!

[HavoX]

Honestly, I'd be relieved if this bill gets passed. Why were lootboxes introduced again?

[Fonze]

16 hours ago, Barefootstallion said:

Say a restaurant for instance.  How long does anyone think one would last if it suddenly started adding these fun little extra charges to their customers' bills?  "Well, you asked for ketchup, Sir.  That's an extra fifty cents.  And extra bread?  That was $1.50." 

 

You're an idiot; fast food places go through phases all the time if charging customers for extra condiments and yet they are still in business and those customers who complain about a petty 50 cents still come back the next day.

 

16 hours ago, Barefootstallion said:

What about Bethesda?  They made a crapton of money on Doom 2016.  It wasn't freemium.  They did their homework, found out what customers wanted most and then did their best to deliver it.  They charged one flat price for it and they made bank on it.

 

One flat price huh, what about the dlc? 

 

16 hours ago, Barefootstallion said:

Check it out.  There's a host of videos about it on YouTube.  Almost every single one you watch, will repeat, almost verbatim, what I've asserted here.

 

And no amount of idiots repeating the same talking points makes those talking points true. What is science even?

 

As another person doing physical labor for a living, I'd like to like you but you have your head shoved so far up your ass I wonder how you can see over the steering wheel as you drive.

 

15 hours ago, Barefootstallion said:

 Yep.  I see the problem.  You're being ridiculous. :o

 

I would take more time to try to respond to you like a respectful person but you prove consistently that you're not worth having a conversation with, especially with remarks like this.

[Barefootstallion]

Umm, Fonze, wow...

 

Seldom do I get to meet a person who can turn a discussion of opinions into a personal attack.  And one malicious at unbelievable levels, too.

 

Well done.

[Barefootstallion]

3 hours ago, HavoX said:

Honestly, I'd be relieved if this bill gets passed. Why were lootboxes introduced again?

 

EA introduced them with one of their football (soccer) games.  Back when they were first added, they were free.  Here's a video on it:

 

 

 

Later in the video (or possibly another one - I've watched a lot of videos on the subject), one of their games with lootboxes is characterized as 'A gambling casino disguised as a video game'.

 

But coming back to Fonze, I urge you to ask yourself this question: If lawmakers are getting involved and at state and country levels, doesn't that possibly indicate that there really is a problem?  Where there's smoke there's fire.  Whole countries don't usually get involved unless they really think there is something that demands their involvement.

[HavoX]

3 hours ago, Fonze said:

*nonsense*

dude, calm down

[Barry Burton]

On 5/9/2019 at 3:45 PM, Graf Zahl said:

 

Touché!

 

In fact, most freemium games are specifically designed to make people spend money. In the end that's their entire purpose. Lure the players in deep enough so that at some point they HAVE to buy something in order to continue.

 

Somehow the developers of these games need to earn money as well...

 

 

I used to play a F2P class-based FPS game called War Rock a long time ago. Very similar to CS:GO but with 2 extra modes where you could pilot some vehicles. The base weapons for classes were okay, but if you bought a premium package, you had a serious advantage over F2P players. Certain maps could only be played with premium, and even game lobbies could be locked to only allow premium members. Weapons could be purchased at certain levels, but some still remained locked unless you had premium, and often these weapons had vastly superior stats over the free ones.

 

On top of getting double XP and money per match with premium, you also could buy special items like stamina packs. These would let you refill your stamina bar instantly, in no time. You could also buy mines, which are invisible when dropped IIRC, and if you ran over them, your stamina was drained for the round, meaning no rolling or running. You're practically fucked for the round if you hit one. Even the medic class on premium gets an upgraded heath syringe, which refills 80% of your health bar in a second.

 

And then there's the loadout slots. You get 5 with F2P. If you have premium, you get 8 IIRC. If you play as a medic, you can carry the upgraded syringe and the normal syringe, which means you can heal fully in no time, MANY times in a match. You can carry more than one type of grenade too. It was completely fucked for the F2P user.

[insertwackynamehere]

On 5/9/2019 at 11:43 AM, DooM_RO said:

One of the perks of being a 30 Year Old Boomer is that you are immune to lootboxes.

 

Baby boomers aren’t 30 year olds. Baby boomers were born in the 50s and 60s. 30 year olds are millennials. But as a fellow 30 year old who is out of it with games and can’t fathom why people buy fake goods to have fun, I agree.

[Doomkid]

30 year old boomer is a popular bad meme (I’m assuming you’re not feigning ignorance for lulz, but the meme is seemingly everywhere)

[insertwackynamehere]

Ah lol I didn’t know that :D

 

I guess today I truly am the out of touch 30 year old

[GuyMcBrofist]

Aren't 30 year olds Doomers? And then 18-25 are Zoomers.

[Barefootstallion]

I hit the last most part of the Boomer era.  Born in 1964. (:

[Nine Inch Heels]

On 5/9/2019 at 6:06 PM, Barefootstallion said:

As to skyrocketing costs... well, that's happening pretty much everywhere.  The video game industry has no monopoly on this misery.

Here's the problem though: While all kinds of things tend to get more expensive for one reason or another, the rising production costs of video games is a "self-invented" problem to a very large degree. Sure, you can argue that devs need higher pay, because "the cost of life" increases and their time at work must carry more financial weight as a result, but that's still a drop in the ocean when you look at where the big players like EA, bethesda et al really put their money in the end. And when it comes to  self-invented problems like this, the video game industry is spearheading that entire thing.

 

And that's also the reason why your "restaurants don't do this and that example" doesn't apply. Not only is it incorrect because many restaurants do charge extra for stuff like ketchup and mayo, restaurants also can't magically make their food more expensive as much as they please while hoping to still compete in their market segment. Don't believe me? Go order a pizza and ask for extra toppings, chances are you'll pay some extra.

If I suddenly started charging 35 bucks for 5 chicken wings in a fast food joint, there's no way that'd work, because there's a fast food joint across the street that sells chicken wings for chump change. But it does work with video games, because that shit is licensed. And if you are the only company able to make a starwars game, you have no competition in that market segment, and therefore you can make more decisions, such as: "How many microtransactions are we gonna put in, how powerful will those be, and how much will they cost?" And licensed stuff like this not something you can apply to just any other kind of product as easily, because exclusive licenses can be used and abused to hell and back in the gaming world, which EA did with reckless abandon, but it doesn't work as easily everywhere else.