8 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

I don't think paid lootboxes are here to stay for that reason.

I doubt lootboxes will ever fade away. Booster packs and loot chests have been part of games from the dawn of games.

The only difference between lootboxes and chests that players find in dungeons is that you can pay for them instead of searching for them. Any law that removes loot boxes, removes a significant part of games.

Loot boxes won't keep that name but they are never going away.

One thing that could happen is that no one would be allowed to sell loot boxes in a digital game, it would have to be limited to digital only products.

8 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

Maybe its the others, people not well informed, people ignorant of gaming news that pay the publishers all that cash for subpar releases and the microtransactions tied to them.

Or maybe there are people who work hard each day, don't have the reflexes and skill they use to have and still want to play along with there friends.

Just maybe the people who don't complain about micro transactions, enjoy the freedom and opportunity they bring.

Micro transactions aren't good or bad, Loot boxes aren't good or bad. They are what developers choose to make them and how players choose to use them.

Maybe we should just abandon the old pricing systems. Developers should just base there sales on how much it cost to make the game.

41 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

I doubt lootboxes will ever fade away. Booster packs and loot chests have been part of games from the dawn of games.

The only difference between lootboxes and chests that players find in dungeons is that you can pay for them instead of searching for them. Any law that removes loot boxes, removes a significant part of games.

Well, I don't want to get into another nitpick war here, but as soon as you have to PAY for random loot, you change A LOT about chests found in dungeons.

Sure, it works the exact same save the way you get access to the box. And sure, as much as some people might not LIKE getting only random rewards in a game outside of RPGs, we all know how addictive the random rewards in games can be. Yes, they have been in there for a long time and they work very well to keep that item-grind-loop going in Diablo and similar games.

But don't you think now adding in the simple fact people pay real money for it changes the whole deal more than just a little bit? Before we were talking about a mechanic to hook players to your game... which in turn some companies could use to then charge them for the time spent in the game (like in WoW), or for speeding up the process (like in some F2P games)...

Now we are talking about giving people the opportunity to get extra spins at the wheel for a fee. And it doesn't stop there (because if it would stop there, I don't think there would be much of an outrage), because the game is now built to urge players to want to spin the wheel as often as they can.

So yes, it is a difference if you ask me.

And the biggest difference here is: this is not a f2p game we are talking about. Where people that play it accepted the grindy parts, the timegating and whatnot as part of the play for free deal, and either cough up the money to pay for it (hopefully because they like the game and want to support it), or just deal with the additional grind and inconvienience as free players.

We are talking about full price AAA titles that are doing it here. Does it matter? It will not matter to everyone... some people will accept the grindiness, skip those parts, or simply don't mind spending extra. Some people will not mind the p2w elements (I didn't in some f2p games either, as long as the elements where rather tame and didn't completly took skill out of the equation)... a lot of people do. And I can understand why they do.

To clarify: I don't expect random loot chests (or lootboxes) to dissapear... only the option to aquire lootboxes with real money.

I am sure devs and publishers will find ways around it. Probably officials will then call it out again, and potentially regulators will have to step in. Probably an endless game of catching up...

But paid lootboxes in the current iteration are probably having a hard time in the coming months... and I for one expect that to be dropped by publishers at some point (probably in favour of the next monetization craze).

41 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Or maybe there are people who work hard each day, don't have the reflexes and skill they use to have and still want to play along with there friends.

Just maybe the people who don't complain about micro transactions, enjoy the freedom and opportunity they bring.

Well, then you didn't got the context of what I was saying. Again, I have nothing against well implemented microtransactions in AAA games. I have nothing against non-P2W microtransactions in F2P games.

What I do object to is publishers and devs creating their games around microtransactions and gambling mechanics. Which has nothing to do with speeding up progress in a F2P game, which of course HAS to be built around microtransactions. When I buy an AAA game for 60$, I expect to be able to play the game without having timegates and paywalls and other inconviniences at every corner urging me to put more money into the arcade machine. That is not why I pay full price for a game to play on my console or PC.

What I do pay for, and gladly do so:

- getting a day of premium every sunday in World of Warships when playing with my friends for some hours. Speeds up the progress in the little time I have to play the game, and evens out the progress I loose somewhat to my friends who have less timewasting hobbies besides gaming like me

- every few months, I buy a premium ship, when wargaming releases one that is well balanced, having a good looking model and is of some historical relevance or just an interesting concept. I feel like wargaming deserves more of my money than what I pay them with the little premium time I buy, and the premium vehicles I bought from Wargaming to date have been well implemented and handled by them.

- Getting additional characters and DLC in games I like, which seem like complete products from the start. When I don't feel like the game has been chopped to pieces, I gladly buy additional characters or pay for other DLC.

41 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Maybe we should just abandon the old pricing systems. Developers should just base there sales on how much it cost to make the game.

I would totally agree to this. I think there should be room for different prices in the market, without people screaming bloody murder because some game they really would like to play is more expensive than another game.

To some extent we already have this... Indie games being cheaper come to mind, and some less successfull games going down in price over time, while more successfull ones being kept at a higher price.

Now the base price should also be open in the other direction. Because as much as some people might not WANT to understand it, not all games cost the same to make. And a system with a flat price does not only incentivice the publishers to add more and more microtransactions and other monetization to their games beyond the base price, it also incentivices devs and publishers to cut corners, maybe beyond what is good for the game.

12 hours ago, Gian-Reto said:

I have a hard time understanding how you can hate on the practices of a publisher so much and still buy their games. How, in this day and age, ANYONE can still pre-order games and be disappointed when the game turns out buggy, overhyped or just not as good as expected. How much of an ADDICT do you have to be to not be able to wait some weeks and months for reviews to come out and bugs to be fixed before buying the newest AAA title.

But there is an alternative theory: maybe the die hard fans are NOT as hypocritical as I expressed in my last paragraph. Maybe the people being outrage do NOT buy the games, and do NOT pre-order them. Maybe its the others, people not well informed, people ignorant of gaming news that pay the publishers all that cash for subpar releases

That's the famous example. During the Pre-orders phase, all these people boycotted a AAA sequel because a feature was being removed. A few days after release, most are playing it anyway. 

#hypetraintoostrong

10 hours ago, Hodgman said:

That's the famous example. During the Pre-orders phase, all these people boycotted a AAA sequel because a feature was being removed. A few days after release, most are playing it anyway. 

#hypetraintoostrong

Well... as said, it was a theory. But then, this is one of the lamest reasons I have heard to boycott a game, until the game has been reviewed and the networking is found wanting (like in For Honor)... which is kind of hard to do with a game not out yet. So maybe they just had a change of mind on the matter and that game once it was out (and networking wasn't an issue)?

Didn't really play MW2 over the net, have there been any issues with the networked part of it? Don't remember much controversy around that game back then.

I'm likely one of the few people in existence who think microtransactions are bad, especially cosmetic ones. Cosmetics absolutely affect the game experience and has been the greatest lie told in our video game industry. I don't know who started that myth that cosmetics do not affect the game, but any intelligent person, or rather business person, could clearly see that cosmetics are the most profitable area of the business and for the single reason that people love having them, meaning it affects their game experience.

8 hours ago, Zido_Z said:

I'm likely one of the few people in existence who think microtransactions are bad, especially cosmetic ones. Cosmetics absolutely affect the game experience and has been the greatest lie told in our video game industry. I don't know who started that myth that cosmetics do not affect the game, but any intelligent person, or rather business person, could clearly see that cosmetics are the most profitable area of the business and for the single reason that people love having them, meaning it affects their game experience.

So... you are basically saying that cosmetic microtransactions are dangerous because they are a profitable market for businesses? Once again, "how dare those companies make extra money off of their game, the greedy bastards." eh?

Oh, and this is completely unrelated but Happy Thanksgiving guys!

2 hours ago, Novadude987 said:

So... you are basically saying that cosmetic microtransactions are dangerous because they are a profitable market for businesses? Once again, "how dare those companies make extra money off of their game, the greedy bastards." eh?

 

Oh, and this is completely unrelated but Happy Thanksgiving guys!

No. My thoughts were that cosmetic microtransactions are not forgivable compared to ones that affect in-game functions like mechanics. Most people believe that they do not affect gameplay when it's far from the truth. Graphics is the primary function of a video game. Without it, it becomes a text game. Every color, shape, and texture determines how someone experiences a game. Some will increase said pleasure or entertainment, which is a major reason why we play video games in the first place. 

Cosmetic microtransactions do, in fact, affect gameplay as much as purchasing guns or characters, if not more.

53 minutes ago, Zido_Z said:

Graphics is the primary function of a video game.

As a artist I wish this was true. Art in games is just feedback, like sound.

53 minutes ago, Zido_Z said:

My thoughts were that cosmetic microtransactions are not forgivable compared to ones that affect in-game functions

I agree cosmetics have a huge effect on the game, just not primary, but why would they not be forgivable? Is expecting payment for hard work not forgivable?

Implementing digital art is as difficult to do as implementing real world art. A digital card for a digital game is in fact more expensive to make that a real world one. As your paying the artist, a programmer and have to maintain a game.

The problem I see with micro-transactions is that players don't realize the money is paying for the game. They buy a cosmetic item and think they are paying for that item. So we as developers have to make them think that the item is worth buying, this leads to items that effects game play.

Developers should just put little cards in the shop for players to buy, cards named "Want servers to run smooth? $5", "Want us to add more content to the game, show interest $1", "Want more guns? $2.50 towards guns.", "Want more characters? $20" and "Fully animated and detailed hero characters $60". Instead of selling stuff the players could use.

Then developers could use the money made from the cards to cover the costs of making these things and give them to all the players when done.

1 hour ago, Scouting Ninja said:

As a artist I wish this was true. Art in games is just feedback, like sound.

I agree cosmetics have a huge effect on the game, just not primary, but why would they not be forgivable? Is expecting payment for hard work not forgivable?

Implementing digital art is as difficult to do as implementing real world art. A digital card for a digital game is in fact more expensive to make that a real world one. As your paying the artist, a programmer and have to maintain a game.

 

 

The problem I see with micro-transactions is that players don't realize the money is paying for the game. They buy a cosmetic item and think they are paying for that item. So we as developers have to make them think that the item is worth buying, this leads to items that effects game play.

Developers should just put little cards in the shop for players to buy, cards named "Want servers to run smooth? $5", "Want us to add more content to the game, show interest $1", "Want more guns? $2.50 towards guns.", "Want more characters? $20" and "Fully animated and detailed hero characters $60". Instead of selling stuff the players could use.

Then developers could use the money made from the cards to cover the costs of making these things and give them to all the players when done.

The item is worth buying, which is why developers already make a fortune off cosmetic based microtransactions. It's not a coincidence that happened. Mobile games and even League of Legends already figured out ages ago that cosmetics keep players feeling like they're dressing up or special, and the social aspect of having a specific skin is the core of social interactions online. When the game is singleplayer, players use it as a way to show off to other people in real life. For instance, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas is a great example of this concept in action. Video games, in the end, are about a player expressing their identity. The more customization options a game has, the more immersive and fun it is for the player.

2 hours ago, Zido_Z said:

The item is worth buying, which is why developers already make a fortune off cosmetic based microtransactions.

Where is your proof of devs "making a fortune" off of comsetic microtransactions?

2 hours ago, Zido_Z said:

The more customization options a game has, the more immersive and fun it is for the player.

This is true, but there have been ENTIRE GAMES based off of cosmetic microtransactions such as PSHome, Second Life, etc. Cosmetic microtransactions are the easiest way for devs to generate extra revenue without the risk of pay-to-win microtransactions. 

The game industry has the luxury of having an incredibly active and vocal community. If a microtransaction is unfair or exploitative, there will be LOADS of refunds, lost customers, backlash, and just overall bad PR. Just look at EA, who is hairs away from losing their contract with Disney, as well as most of the Battlefront fan base.

To sum it up: Microtransactions aren't going to "destroy the game industry" for the simple fact that consumers won't let it.