How Loot Boxes Led to Never-Ending Games (And Always-Paying Players)

[Pringle]

These people complaining that 40 hours of game time is too much to have to work toward something, that's bullshit in my book.

40 hours to unlock a single class, on top of the many hours to unlock the UNLOCKS for that class, is bullshit.

There is a happy median that can please parties who both want the feeling of unlocking/accomplishing something, and don't want to spend hundreds of hours doing it.

This isn't that happy median.

 

[lcpiper]

40 hours to unlock a single class, on top of the many hours to unlock the UNLOCKS for that class, is bullshit.

There is a happy median that can please parties who both want the feeling of unlocking/accomplishing something, and don't want to spend hundreds of hours doing it.

This isn't that happy median.

No, it's the instant gratification generation.

And again, do what people can always do, vote with your wallets. But instead of simply buying or playing something else, people today want to holler and scream and cry because they want this game, now, the way that they want it. So developer, you better get off your ass and shit some new code because we don't like this.

And it's not enough that the people who are playing the game aren't happy. We're going to get REDDIT behind us and hundreds of thousands of other people who don't even play the game to tell the developer how shitty they are and to change their product or suffer dire consequences.

 

[Cyberbeing]

Uhhh didn't micro-trans become super popular in South Korea first? With games like Maple Story?

Yes, South Korean developed MMOs circa 2003 are what come to mind for me as well for where P2W micro-transations both for direct item purchases and random loot boxes really started gaining traction.

 

[HeadRusch]

I really like your synopsis of the environment, well written.

Thanks.

For me, I’ve been playing pc games for well ever and the first big micro transaction game I was involved with was Everquest II. At first it was just skins and mounts and you still had a sub...then everything changed. You could send real money to each other using sony cash, pots for epic fights, temp buffs etc. Thaaaat’s right around the time the game went downhill and lost a ton of subs. I was one, and since then I simply don’t buy loot boxes or anything else. I enjoy the game and play to get what I can get.

Right, when you're paying money or 'grinding' for vanity items, "look I have the red cap, it means I wasted an entire year of my life playing this game", that kind of thing, I believe it's appropriate, a nice-to-have. I can even accept DLC for things like car-packs in racing games, or environment add-ons, or the whole multiplayer map pack even. But this is kind of different. First you are paying $60 dollars for a game that hides much of its content behind random drops and grinding, so what does your $60 actually buy you? It's a cover charge.

Next, the grinding required in the game (for you to win, which allows you to level-up faster I believe which is the norm) is very steep in this game supposedly (someone posted a good blurb about this above, and I think I read before I jumped over here to read this thread that EA has actually made it worse somehow (!?!?), so that is sort of "environmental pressure" to spend more money to level-up quicker.

The harder you make those unlocks, the more the people who already paid $60 bucks for the game will become impatient. It's, basically, psychological manipulation. Hoping people won't have the time to devote..or the patience...to experience 'the full game', so to speak....or like getting slaughtered by the people who "Paid to Win" and leveled up with their wallets.

For BF2, I did pre-order, I love star wars (I mean alot, insert jim carrey) and I don’t care if I’m Vader or have Rey’s super see through walls Epic star card. Even with every epic star card and hero maxxed in this game, I would only do about 10% better, so who cares. They can add as many as they want, I’m not buying. Not to say what they are doing is right AT ALL, it’s very wrong, but the way the world is at this moment.

Hey we like what we like.....the only game I play that checks these boxes is The Division, and I'm mostly a solo player on PS4, sometimes I join-up with randos and most of the time I just get murdered by them. I will never get any of the special named harder-to-get weapons because I can't play the legendary or heroic missions where they (sometimes) drop from.....but I tell you straight up, if I could buy them, one evening after that six pack of beer was gone...I might be inclined to do so. I'm over Star Wars, I'm over the reboots, the telling-the-same-story-with-new-faces stuff...also, I'm not 9 anymore so my tastes have changed (not necessarily for the better, but SW is really not a universe I care to experience any more).

It's just unfortunate that EA releases a game like this, really tries like hell to get you to spend more money immediately based on the weakness of the human condition, and then hides behind the decision by saying "hey it's not required, its all about CHOICE!" and pats themselves on the back for it. For me, I think it's a dick move.

 

[xorbe]

No, it's the instant gratification generation.

Video game is where I relax for an hour. 40 hours is not a game, it's a job.

 

[HeadRusch]

No, it's the instant gratification generation.

Well, the instant gratification is provided for you, the first minute you launch the game: Pay More. If they didn't let you buy this stuff, and could only grind it out....you'd have a very hard-core group of BF2 players and you'd lose a portion of your pre-orders from people going "ugh no way I can devote that much time"....but you wouldn't have people bitching.
Take away the pay part, and deal with the "it takes too long to unlock stuff" crying. That is a game-pacing issue, it has nothing to do with paying more than you have already spent.

And again, do what people can always do, vote with your wallets. But instead of simply buying or playing something else, people today want to holler and scream and cry because they want this game, now, the way that they want it. So developer, you better get off your ass and shit some new code because we don't like this.

Agreed, people should vote with their wallets. I'd never buy a game like this (or Destiny or Titanfall or any other multi-only game where the SP is basically just botmatch) for anything even approaching full price...

 

[lcpiper]

Video game is where I relax for an hour. 40 hours is not a game, it's a job.

I have over 1,000 hours, over 6 years, into World of Tanks. I don't have all the tanks yet. In fact, as soon as I get another Tier X tank unlocked guess what, they add an entire new country with two or three more Tier X tanks to work on. I can't keep up with that.

If just playing the game isn't fun, you are putty your time and money into the wrong game. There are many more games that I won''t play, why you might ask? Cause they suck, they suck big balls. I don't play them. I also don't cry about it and wine to the world and demand the developer rewrite their product the way I want it. Why does this game mean so much to you that you feel that it has to be changed for you?

Is it because it's a Star Wars game that you and probably many thousands of other people were all so stoked to play but you are all struggling with the grind? Is that the problem? It's OK if you say yes. It's disappointing as hell when a new game title in a franchise you love fails to live up to expectations. Diablo3 anyone?

Yes, I was so completely disappointed in Diablo3 I wouldn't play it. But I didn't go cry about it everywhere and try to get the gaming media to pressure Blizzard to change it. I just chalked it up to a fail on Blizzard's part and moved on. Even when my kids told me how it was different now and Blizzard had fixed it, I tried it, it wasn't fixed, so I dropped it again.

I wish a steep grind was the only problem I had had with Diablo3 but I hated the entire restructuring of the game. Guess who can't wait for a remaster Diablo2.

If BattleFront II is beautiful, smooth, gun play etc is a dream, if the only problem is that you have to play your beautiful game for a long time to unlock classes, etc, then I think your lucky because it could have been so much worse.

And if the only thing good about the game is unlocking new shit and if it takes awhile to do it so it's not worth playing. Then shit man, it's just not worth playing anyway.

 

[MavericK]

If just playing the game isn't fun, you are putty your time and money into the wrong game. There are many more games that I won''t play, why you might ask? Cause they suck, they suck big balls. I don't play them. I also don't cry about it and wine to the world and demand the developer rewrite their product the way I want it. Why does this game mean so much to you that you feel that it has to be changed for you?

The problem as I see it, is that if we all just capitulate to this microtransaction nonsense, eventually there will be no games without it. If you value gaming as a hobby, there is no reason to remain silent.

 

[lcpiper]

The problem as I see it, is that if we all just capitulate to this microtransaction nonsense, eventually there will be no games without it. If you value gaming as a hobby, there is no reason to remain silent.

I get where you are coming from but I'll raise you a point.

I don't have a problem with microtransactions, but I do have a problem when it's done wrong.

Any decent game deserves compensation from players. If it's a one time retail cost then fine, get your $60 purchase price or whatever it costs and everyone get's what they want. Expansions were rarely free, today they are called DLC, same thing and I have no problem with paying for that content as long as my initial game was worth the price then the expansion might be as well. A one time retail cost is perfect for some types of games, like a singleplayer game like Fallout4. A multiplayer game that requires server hosting by the developer, that's a fair deal for subscription or premium time model. Microtransactions can be added as well if they are done right but I think pay-to-win is something most people want to avoid.

But regardless of the payment model, it should be reasonable. But reasonable is up to the consumer and the consumer has the power to decide for themselves what that is. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. As for remaining silent, the loudest voice you have is your wallet. A game that has microtransactions as it's sole payment option better not suck because it will lose money if it does and that really is the bottom line.

I just don't think it requires mobilization of the people as a sign of protest. But you don't have to agree with me so knock yourself out if you feel like it.

 

[MavericK]

I get where you are coming from but I'll raise you a point.

I don't have a problem with microtransactions, but I do have a problem when it's done wrong.

Any decent game deserves compensation from players. If it's a one time retail cost then fine, get your $60 purchase price or whatever it costs and everyone get's what they want. Expansions were rarely free, today they are called DLC, same thing and I have no problem with paying for that content as long as my initial game was worth the price then the expansion might be as well. A one time retail cost is perfect for some types of games, like a singleplayer game like Fallout4. A multiplayer game that requires server hosting by the developer, that's a fair deal for subscription or premium time model. Microtransactions can be added as well if they are done right but I think pay-to-win is something most people want to avoid.

But regardless of the payment model, it should be reasonable. But reasonable is up to the consumer and the consumer has the power to decide for themselves what that is. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. As for remaining silent, the loudest voice you have is your wallet. A game that has microtransactions as it's sole payment option better not suck because it will lose money if it does and that really is the bottom line.

I just don't think it requires mobilization of the people as a sign of protest. But you don't have to agree with me so knock yourself out if you feel like it.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here. And ultimately, yes, voting with your wallet is what will get these companies to change, if at all.

As an addition to your point about multiplayer servers - these companies have forced games to use their servers for awhile now, it used to be that anyone could run a server on their own hardware. So trying to claim that is a justification for a subscription model or microtransactions is pretty disingenuous (not saying you, just saying that argument in general). Given the choice I think a lot of people would opt to run their own servers. Something like an MMO that requires massive server hardware? Sure, subscription for that makes more sense.

Expansions were not free, no, but they arguably featured a lot more content than what you get in a typical DLC pack these days, yet cost-wise they seem to be about the same.

Now we go even further with loot boxes, where you get randomized (potentially useless) rewards for real-world money. And with SWBF2, those rewards can equate to in-game advantages. The value for the consumer just keeps getting worse and worse.

 

[lcpiper]

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here. And ultimately, yes, voting with your wallet is what will get these companies to change, if at all.

As an addition to your point about multiplayer servers - these companies have forced games to use their servers for awhile now, it used to be that anyone could run a server on their own hardware. So trying to claim that is a justification for a subscription model or microtransactions is pretty disingenuous (not saying you, just saying that argument in general). Given the choice I think a lot of people would opt to run their own servers. Something like an MMO that requires massive server hardware? Sure, subscription for that makes more sense.

Expansions were not free, no, but they arguably featured a lot more content than what you get in a typical DLC pack these days, yet cost-wise they seem to be about the same.

Now we go even further with loot boxes, where you get randomized (potentially useless) rewards for real-world money. And with SWBF2, those rewards can equate to in-game advantages. The value for the consumer just keeps getting worse and worse.

I follow, but there are pros and cons and it's not just about forcing people to pay to play on your game servers although that could factor into design requirements.

I have seen two different private server hosting models that I can think of.

One is that any user can start up a hosted game and allow players to join in. For the game to run smooth though, it took a very good connection and system. The best actually were servers and not gaming computers, and they were on nice connections close to a backbone. Another limit of these servers was how many players they could accommodate and usually they topped out at 16 or 32.

Then there was that was a complete cluster fuck, I remember a Warhammer 40K title that made every player a possible host for the game and depending on network connections the game host would jump from one computer to the next, but unless all players were pretty close to each other, there was always someone getting left out in the cold. You couldn't just find and have a server that always hosted a good game for you, you had to put up with constant reconnects as the server jumped from player to player mid game. It was not good at all. Again, max player count was very limited, even worse than the first model.

Then there was private game hosting that people could rent server time for. It was mostly the same as the first one but had better machines and connections so I can't call it a different model, just a greater commitment usually as a clan server.

And by the way, in the earliest multiplayer days, it was game developers that hosted the game servers because dial-up was pretty damn slow and nobody could host a game without ISDN or a T-1 so. Just go back to Doom and Descent to see what I mean. Private hosting (Peer to Peer) got started with CounterStrike if I remember right, if Counter Strike was the first, then it was at least around the same time from what I remember.

Then you have games like big MMO titles that run so many people on a single server farm that most personal computers can't even draw all the players and projectiles etc. Players are running and shooting and frequently are killed by things that were invisible to them at the time. PlanetSide, Seiges in Lineage 2 are examples.

Even today with our much more powerful personal computers, who's going to privately host a game of PUBG with 100 players ?

 

[rudy]

The problem as I see it, is that if we all just capitulate to this microtransaction nonsense, eventually there will be no games without it. If you value gaming as a hobby, there is no reason to remain silent.

The thing is that you running around complaining isn't going to do anything. The only thing that matters is money. The irony of everyone complaining about micro transactions is that many of the most popular games in the world that contain them have very little or no pay 2 win elements. This means that none of the players need to pay for micro transactions. It is 100% voluntary. So I would ask you this why are people paying? Maybe the answer is because they want to. It's just like going to a restaurant to buy a meal, you can certainly walk in, buy just the entrée, and walk out. But even so tons of people pile on the extra money making add ons, desert, drinks, appetizers and so on. In the case of these games I see it pretty much as an all around win for everyone. Some games do have pay 2 win elements and those games I generally stay away from unless the game is just something I really want to play. Tribes ascend was such a title, where it had no competition at all like it with players. So I just had to buy in. But for other Pay 2 win games I just play something else.