Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Where is the supposedly coming form? It is confirmed to be locked behind a grind purposely placed int the game mechanics for the sole purpose of tempting in the purchase of loot boxes.
The average player doesn't have 100's of hours to spend or the patience to do so to enjoy everything the game has to offer. What an easy way WB games to make huge amounts of cash.

Easy now, no one has actually seen the ending yet. Our reference for this comes from articles such as the one we quoted in the Shadow of War thread...

First, it’s not just postgame content. While the main plot of Shadow of War wraps up in relatively tidy fashion before act four begins, Monolith has confirmed that there is a “true ending” hidden behind Shadow Wars. I love the idea of offering dozens of hours of grindy yet fun content for players who really adore this game to sink their teeth into. But that works better as an option rather than a looming obligation for completionists. Having the game’s real finale locked away behind those dozens of hours — hours that, while fun, are devoid of story missions, side quests, cutscenes or other distractions that help mix up the pace — is a disappointment.

So we don't know if it's the "true ending" or not, that's just what WB has called it, the presence of such grindy end game content is nothing new, even in games without such micro-transactions in place and the number of hours required to play it is nowhere near the 100s mentioned.

On the other hand, what it most certainly is, or at least should be, is enough of a reason to not buy it until we know more about it. Which makes articles like the one Leif Johnson over at RPS wrote on the subject where he still has a very different opinion on the matter.

Falthyron wrote: »

I know that in casinos the patrons who frequent the place most often or gamble extensively are often treated to perks like an upgraded room, free drinks, extended credit, etc. I wonder if people who spend a lot on loot boxes or MTs get a similar treatment? A loyal customer programme or something of that kind.

Probably only a matter of time such a system will be devised by the more popular titles. Spend €100 on loot boxes and get 5 free boxes. So if someone has spent €90 then they might be more inclined to throw another €10 into the game so they can get 5 more boxes for free. Or those who spend money infrequently could be tempted back in by sending them a free loot box as a loyalty reward. It would be highly insidious, but then again, the games industry is pretty unregulated so someone might do it for as long as they can.

Most of these systems generally offer an increasing discount per item the more money you spend on them. Here's Overwatch's options for instance. I can't see publishers pushing the envelope with them any more for fear of encroaching on related gambling laws in various territories.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

The ending has clearly been seen.
This has been confirmed. The true ending of the game is after act 4.
The source is a quick google or Youtube.

I'm not disputing whether there's an additional ending at the end of Shadow Wars, I posted as much myself in the other thread, I'm saying we've not seen it yet and we just have WB's own statement that it's the "true ending" to go by.

Polygon have posted a follow up article with said ending but as I said in the rest of my post, I still want to know more actual details on how important it is and how long it actually takes to get to without using the micro-transaction system.

bigphil2 wrote:

Just because you dont have a problem with it,doesnt mean its not a ****ty way to a:get more money out of people for a full price SINGLE PLAYER game b:Bring Gambling into Video Games,Shadow of War may not be a kids game but Battlefront 2 certainly is and it is confirmed as Pay to Win

if it's kids people are worried about spending money, then parents should control their credit cards more no? if some 7 year old is pumping 100s into some computer game it's the parents fault. same as if a parent buys every sweet in the shop cause the kids want them all.

https://twitter.com/devolverdigital/status/918521223117770752

On point, as per usual :pac:

gizmo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/devolverdigital/status/918521223117770752

On point, as per usual :pac:

Best part is if you dared Devolver to make that game...they would, and it would be amazing.

Rating boards like those have always been unregulated do-nothings so it's no surprise that this is their attitude.

marcbrophy wrote: »

The ratings boards are afraid to rock the boat, and I don't blame them really.
Lots of countries have a tax on gambling, and that would mean publishers having to class their game in the age bracket that allows gambling in the particular country, then if necessary paying the government of these countries the associated tax on any purchases!

Alternatively, they could stop doing it altogether, but it will most certainly raise the base price of these games at launch, if there's no future easy revenue streams!

Whole thing is a pain in me hole

Is the more logical answer simply that they're not gambling, at least no more so than the football sticker packs Saruhashi mentioned earlier or the Kinder Surprise I joked about?

Price wise, I'd tend to go with partyjungle on this one, the base price won't rise, they'll just move to a different idea to generate additional revenue. Alternatively, we could see a decline in the types of titles which generally command the kind of huge budgets we see these systems in or perhaps less severe, a reduction in the amount of content in these kinds of titles.

For comparison sake, look at the food industry where the term "shrinkflation" is often used there to describe the shrinking size of products while the price remains the same. The reason generally given is that manufacturing costs rise but due to price sensitivity in the marketplace, it's unwise to just increase the price.

It's funny how very profitable games like Witcher 3 and Minecraft (before it went to Microsoft anyway) have loads of content and no microtransactions or loot boxes.

It's almost as if spending up to 3/4s of you budget on marketing as you do on actually making the game is not a sensible financial strategy:

EA now typically spends two or three times as much on marketing and advertising as it does on developing a game.

Source

marcbrophy wrote: »

Thing is Gizmo, I do really agree with you here, we are saying the same thing, except I think it's gambling. I don't have a problem with gambling at all either, I just don't want these mechanics in "mainstream" games.

Oh for sure, my opinion is just that if you explicitly call it gambling it introduces a moral argument that can distract from the point of whether they should exist at all in games. As we've seen in this thread alone, people have very different opinions on their validity in certain games. Some find no problem with Overwatch for instance while others completely reject it and to be fair, there are valid arguments on both sides. I tend to view it a bit more pragmatically from the money side of things, not the most popular view point of course, so I can see why they're there and understand the need for an alternate source of revenue but its their various implementations that I find more objectionable.

marcbrophy wrote: »

I love playing Forza Horizon 3. I get pissed off with it every time I level up and a wheelspin appears on my screen, giving me a "chance" to win a rare car. Why not award me the damn car for levelling up? :mad:

The usual three reasons really, they want to drip feed content at a slower pace maximising the use for the least amount of content possible, keep you playing and not trading in and moving on to other games and also to allow them to sell other things to speed up the process one way or the other that appeal to the smaller audience who don't mind spending more money.

marcbrophy wrote: »

It's a shítty side of gaming, that those who are willing to let it happen , get as vocal as those who want to take a stand against it

No problem with this at all, but I feel if folk are going to have a useful discussion about it, they need to also talk about a viable alternative to them, something that can often get lost in the din of general anger on the subject.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's funny how very profitable games like Witcher 3 and Minecraft (before it went to Microsoft anyway) have loads of content and no microtransactions or loot boxes.

The Witcher 3 is actually a good example when discussing this stuff. The budget for that game was $81m including marketing which was self funded by CDP, within the first six months on sale it had sold 6m copies and by the end of the financial year had sold around 10m copies. This has resulted in a profit of around $64m.

What needs to be considered though is that said profit is off the back of nearly four years of work for a team of around 200 people on the development side alone and was based on an existing and highly acclaimed franchise whose previous games had already sold 15m combined since the release of the original game in 2007. It's these kinds of figures which show why funding any of these kinds of big budget games can be incredibly risky.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's almost as if spending up to 3/4s of you budget on marketing as you do on actually making the game is not a sensible financial strategy

There's an important line in that article you linked. "That’s because advertising is critical to getting a game in the top ten rankings." As discussed earlier, these big budget games need to see big sales in order to earn their development costs back and one of the primary means of doing that is to get as many eyes on them as possible. Word of mouth will only get you so far and the percentage of the potential audience who read games magazines, peruse gaming sites and, even moreso nowadays, use Youtube for news is only a fraction of what these big games sell.

dudeeile wrote: »

Loot box money is just gravy in overwatch, the multimillion dollar esports scene is keeping the game alive.

Is that speculation of are there figures? Would have thought loot boxes were brining in more moolah

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's funny how very profitable games like Witcher 3 and Minecraft (before it went to Microsoft anyway) have loads of content and no microtransactions or loot boxes.

It's almost as if spending up to 3/4s of you budget on marketing as you do on actually making the game is not a sensible financial strategy:

Source

It really is puzzling. Witcher 3 made stupid amounts of money and at the same time, untold amounts of goodwill from gamers because CDPR didn't take the piss. 16 free pieces of DLC when the game came out blew my mind. Those Triss, Yenn and Ciri alternative outfits for instance, any other company and those outfits would have been €1.99 each.

Then the excellent expansions which were brilliant value for money.

If Cyberpunk 2077 has lootboxes and microtransactions, it will be the biggest heel turn in gaming.