Let's build a better lootbox, together. We're kicking off a 3-part series exploring why the "lootbox model" is so popular these days, why so many publishers are messing it up, and how we can improve this method of monetization so the players are winning too.
Well, few points I have to point out. 1) The high fidelity games argument doesn't seem to hold up, when you look at the success of Nintendo Switch and the games there. High fidelity graphics sell well based on trailers and such (which don't necessarily describe state of the game). If companies focused more on gameplay and not high fidelity graphics, they will sell their game, maybe not day 1, but they will sell their game 2) From the last video, the high marketing price is just... stupid as stated before, the game will sell, if the game is good. It may not sell on day 1, but it will sell. I am not saying you should not market your game, but spending more on marketing than on making the game sounds really stupid. Especially in today's day and age, when people tend to ignore advertisement more and more. 3) I know these points 1 and 2 won't hold up to big publishers, because they need to show low risk high reward scenario to share holders. Marketing a bad game with high fidelity graphics on trailers will sell. It will sell enough most of the time however it leaves sour taste in mouth. It will come back to this industry once, and people will be so skeptic about every game, that marketing and high fidelity graphics will have practically zero impact on the game's success. 4) The cash out argument is... kinda valid in most cases. But the Steam marketplace allows some of these products to be sold. Legally Steam doesn't allow real currency trades, and you just get steam currency, which you can use to buy games. However there's those black markets. 5) I believe that you can make an ethical loot box, but... I don't see how you could do that really. I guess you will be addressing this later, but I'd like to know how exactly do you propose to do a loot box that is not exploitative
The problem is that even if games cost $80 and people are willing to pay it, AAA publishers would not just remove alternate revenue streams. They would charge $80 and STILL have microtransactions and lootboxes. Everything I've read from publisher earnings reports shows that revenue from microtransactions far exceeds the purchase price revenue, so why have the $60 purchase price? If you're going to use the free to play business model, make your game free to play.
Depends on the game, but yes. I assume we are talking about a AAA title with a massive budget to justify the $80 price point. If a game has nexgen graphics, a well written story, great voice acting, engaging gameplay, and impressive sound design, with no microtransactions, I would happily pay $80. When microtransactions are added to a game, it makes the game worse, IMO, as gameplay is adjusted to suit the business model. Just look at how they had to adjust the gameplay for Battlefront 2 after they removed the microtransactions. The game progressed too slowly for most people, showing that the pacing of the gameplay was slowed down to get you to spend money. That's why I'm happy to pay an extra $20 for a well polished, well balanced game. But the sad fact is that microtransactions make way more money than even an $80 price point would make them. So even if you, me, and everybody in the world said "we will happily pay $80", publishers are not going to say "great, guess we don't need microtransactions anymore, even though they make us 10 times as much money as an $80 game without them"
Because these decisions aren’t made by developers as we traditionally imagine the profession, they’re made by executives in an attempt to appease shareholders
@@sjsjsjsjsbagahlwmdbxhamansksms knowing there will not be predatory microtransactions in there and thus no intentional roadblocks to try and manipulate me onto spend8ng??? Happily!!
The thrust of this argument is that aggressive supplemental monetisation is necessary for AAA fidelity and AAA fidelity is necessary, but that's just not true. Monster Hunter World looks fantastic, and there are no lootboxes or microtransactions at all in the game. Nier Automata doesn't have AAA fidelity at all, in fact it looks pretty primitive compared to most similar open world games, and yet it was a big sales success for its budget. Same with Nioh, looks great, only has traditional (and substantial) DLC, Dark Souls, only traditional and substantial DLC. All these games are successful, they make money by selling at a standard price point, using non-exploitative business practices where you pay for a thing and get the thing you paid for, and the value proposition of what you pay for is acceptable to the player. The "but they need it" line is simply wrong, they don't need it. Also, you might not be able to sell that overwatch skin back to Blizzard (yet), but many games allow you to sell the contents of lootboxes to other players, like that $61,000 CS:GO rifle skin, and the marketplaces for those sales kick back to the developers. (Also the reason there are a lot of cheaters on PUBG playing from China, because they're farming lootboxes for items to sell and China already had the "farm digital items for real world sales" infrastructure from the WoW gold farming days). So yes, the ability to cash out is absolutely there for many of these systems.
"Nier Automata doesn't have AAA fidelity at all" And yet, it still looks wonderful - honestly far more visually appealing, interesting, and creatively inspired than a lot of AAA games. Why must these triple A devs insist on spending zillions on shit like ridiculous ultra-fidelity water reflection shaders that show up like once in the whole game, and so rarely bother to come up with an actually interesting look and style rather than generic 'muh gam look gud wauw textures'?
All the games in the Dark Souls series are massive successes and none of them have cutting edge graphics. I would consider Dark Souls 3 a AAA game. Maybe I'm wrong doing that but I love Dark Souls 3 and if it had loot boxes I would still play it but it would be just soul crushing in a way the difficulty curve could never be. :^(
the problem is that the consumers keep demanding higher fidelity graphics, even though what they want is better aesthetics. but you try turning round to your customers and saying "well I know you asked for this thing, but we're going to give you this other thing because that's what you actually wanted even though you never said and oh by the way it's cheaper for us" see how well it goes down on the PR front
GloatingSwine the difference is that these are highly successful games. Often times games like these just won't get everyone buying it and they'll sink. Micro transactions are essential for lesser played games and the studios who created them to stay running and be able to expand.
8:15 "Game companies, please don't be evil about this" It's almost, like ExtraHistory is a complete different channel, completely dislodged from thisone with this logic. As if we never had seen this a thousand times in the past, I mean you guys made whole series about the South Sea Company Bubble and said YOURSELF: "If a system can be exploited by the people who benefit from this system, they WILL do it!" I conclude like I started this comment with your own words: "This is a good lesson, I hope we learn it someday..."
It was rhetorical, because really, all we can do is beg them at this point. It shows how little say we have in the matter. There's always going to be people that buy in to these lootboxes.
Well hardly, at least based on the video. He is specifically talking about apps who target kids, and specifically says that because of backlash and legal issues they aren't common at all.
The "myth" about children stealing their parents' credit and debit cards is true, though. It has been common since the days of Xbox 360 with Fifa. This comes from my own limited experience, admittedly, but as someone who worked customer service for various banks for a good few years, nearly every day would have a call about possible fraudulent activity from Microsoft. It is surprising how many people will defend their kids too; I would start by asking if they had any children, did they have a console, did they own Fifa (or any other games that featured microtransacactions) and after establishing all that, they would still say "My son wouldn't do that!" Worst thing is that the banks I worked for didn't consider it fraud so it would get escalated to Microsoft who rarely refunded, except occasionally as "good faith" and this was usually after a certain threshold had been reached - couldn't say the exact amount, again from limited follow up I was able to do, but a few thousand pounds - refund. A few hundred? Tough luck. tl;dr - shadiness with kids and microtransactions was surprisingly common going all the way back to Xbox360, with the banks and Microsoft both considering this not fraud.
Mash Bash your experience is merely an anectote but I am curious where they got the numbers that say it is a myth. I've tried some googling and haven't found anything firmly supporting their claim
I never stole their credit cards but when i was incredibly young i spent a couple hundred bucks on microtransactions in those mobile games where all you have to do is enter a password
Okay but what James SHOULD have asked is "Who would pay $80 for the usual $60 games but those games are guaranteed to be without micro transactions, day one paid dlc, and loot boxes, and are guaranteed to have a completed campaign?" People don't want to pay $80 because they DONT TRUST THE INDUSTRY TO NOT CONTINUE THE SAME PREDATORY AND INSIDIOUS PRACTICES.
I actually believe a question was missed. It should have been who could afford to pay $80 and then after who would. Since if only 2 hands went up for who could and then the same hands went up for who would it would show if people have enough income to even be able to spare that spending power (where I am wages actually haven't gone up for inflation in a lot of jobs). I know some places are uneffected but some triple A game prices have gone up 20-25% in the last few years for me and that is on top of DLC and microtransactions. This isn't really a case of game developers are in need of more money to survive but how much they can rip from my pokets leading to me honestly avoiding triple A games more or only getting when on discount so I effectively am spending less but having a delay before getting the game (which I don't mind since it actually becomes affordable).
Or asked the question in Australia, where everyone would have put up their hand for ONLY having to pay $80. My copy of Monster hunter world was AU$100 for the DIGITAL version.
pantslesswrock Nah, like most places, digital and physical games almost always cost the same at launch. Publishers have to do it to keep retailers onboard. Although it can be hard to tell sometimes, because Steam charges us in USD (at different prices from the US). Still dumb though. Prices settled at AU$100 back when the Australian Dollar was sinking to around half the US Dollar (back when games were US$50). When the US started doing $60 games, Australian retailers tested the water with $120. When the AU$ was approaching parity with the US$, prices dropped to maybe AU$70-80 at best. There is a long history of Australians getting overcharged for games, and we call it the Australia Tax (despite it having nothing to do with government taxes).
The main problem is that the industry WON'T regulate itself. Some companies will, but others will be as exploitative as possible to siphon money out of people in an unethical manner. These companies are too short sighted or lack enough empathy to not take advantage of people, so there NEEDS to be external regulation.
External vs. internal regulation is a great topic for discussion! We've seen some examples in the past (mostly from the 1990s) where the US Congress tried to regulate what types of content could be in games (e.g. graphic violence and such). Do you (as in, general you, not specifically you) think that there's a difference between this type of content regulation and game mechanic regulation, and if so, why?
@Extra Credits I think there's a legal precedent for both. However, I think the difference between game mechanic regulation and content regulation is that game mechanics can be psychologically addictive, whereas content can't necessarily. However, I would say that whether you think certain game practices should be illegal or not depends on whether you think gambling and similar things should be.
@Extra Credits Thanks for taking the time to reply! Personally, I would prefer internal regulation. Like I believe James has said before, depending on how the laws are written, there can be horrendous unintended consequences to classifying loot boxes as gambling. I'd say the difference between the 1990s, with violence, and the modern 2010's, with loot boxes, is the potential for harm and the importance to expression. There were claims that video games would make people more violent based on correlation, which ended up being unfounded. There was also no financial incentive to add violence into video game content where it would otherwise not belong. Violent games may sell better, but violent content where it doesn't belong (ex: Thunderdomes in Animal Crossing) isn't going to inherently increase revenue from a game (though perhaps I'm wrong here, if so please correct me. You all have more industry experience than me I'm sure). Having violent content in the game resulted in it's message and meaning being influenced which, intended or not, was part of the work's expression. Lootboxes, however, are being specifically designed to take advantage of certain people, like you've mention in the video. Psychologists are brought in to better take advantage of impulses, specifically to try to get more money out of people. You mentioned that there are no large scale, rigorous studies on the psychological impact of loot boxes, but we are already seeing tangible harm that it is causing people. Further, the mechanic is being introduced into video games regardless of what their core engagement is. Lootboxes aren't inherent to a game expressing itself as an artistic work, it's strictly there to increase financial revenue, and so I don't think we can compare them to the kind of regulation that was discussed in the 90's. If there were some internal body like the ESRB that was able to self-regulate the industry, I would be all for it. But there have been horribly exploitative microtransactions in games for several years now, with no kind of internal regulation. Lootboxes are the apex (hopefully) of exploitation when built "correctly", and thus we're now seeing blowback politically. If the industry was going to self regulate to protect gamers, it would have done so before this point. So, even if there is some kind of self regulation introduced now, I don't trust it to be a good faith effort. Rather, it would be the industry trying to cover themselves from government restriction.
How about addressing that Activision/Blizzard patent that outlines how they will alter matchmaking and actual gameplay in order to psychologically manipulate players into purchasing more microtransactions/loot boxes? Or how EA said that suspending lootboxes in Battlefront II wouldn't affect its bottom-line? When you addressed the predatory practices which you call "evil", you downplay them quite a bit. Battlefront, Destiny 2, and Shadow of War aren't niche, minor titles. These are some of the biggest games of the year, which are going to be some of the most played by casual consumers and occupy some of the biggest mindspace in the public. Including "evil" practices in these games is bound to hurt perception of the industry. Remember ET and Pac-Man for the Atari 2600? A handful of high profile games can sink the whole ship. P.S.: If we're not sure if loot boxes are gambling until more study is done, wouldn't the ethical thing be to hold off on them until we ARE sure they're not preying on vulnerable individuals?
Flipping Chips Don't mean "changes?" This is pretty much exactly what happened with tobacco. First, they said it wasn't harmful. It was. Then they reluctantly admitted it was harmful, but they didn't didn't know. They did. Then they said that labeling was unnecessary. They didn't want anyone disrupting the gravy train. It made no nevermind to them that their enormous profits meant people were dying. They even fought the attempts to just inform their own customers that the product they were buying would kill them. This is why AnCaps and libertarians are insane. We have shit like this going on now. With even less oversight it would be exponentially worse.
For one: lootboxes aren't like Magic booster packs. When you buy Magic cards, you can trade with other people to get what you want. When you buy a lootbox that's impossible in all but a handful of games. Second: sure, I agree to an extend that it's a good thing that rich people have the opportunity to pump more money into a game to take more of the financial burden. However: why does that have to be with lootboxes? Why can't you just buy the stuff you want instead of throwing money at a random number generator? Call it what you will, it's still throwing money into a slot machine and I have nothing good to say about that. If you could trade your lootbox loot, then at least you would be reasonably sure you could get what you want with a certain amount of money. As far as I'm concerned: the sooner the lootbox gets eradicated from video games, the better.
To say nothing of the assumption that if the base price went up to 80 bucks, loot boxes would disappear from AAA games. EA makes most of their money from "Live services" right now. Anyone who thinks they'd give up that gravy train...I have a bridge to sell them.
Also MTG booster packs are gambling and highly exploitative, just because they are an older business model and accepted by a lot of peoples doesn't mean that it isn't a really shitty way to treat your customers.
J B For games like MtG, that is part of the game...but in games like battlefield it is a real leech! There is a diff between card games and lootboxes but with how the later is doing things it is clearly marking the card game aspect of getting cards through booster packs. And I will get on Blizzard's case for how they make you win 3 games for 10 gold...and you need 100 gold for a booster.
Yeah, seriously, the way booster packs were sold in Hearthstone, which is all about deckbuilding, is what made me straight up quit the game. I played for a solid 2-3 months, and I still couldn't make a coherent custom deck. :s
No, lootboxes and booster packs ARE equivalent. They're both content where you don't know what you'll get until after the company has your money. What the content happens to be or what you can do with it is irrelevant. What you get for your money is non-deterministic, and that makes it gambling.
I would agree with this stance more if companies like Ubisoft, EA, Warner Bros games, and Activision Blizzard were not posting RECORD HIGH PROFITS EVERY YEAR!
yeah it's really hard to get behind arguments of why games cost so much to make with game publishers posting massive profits, mistreating employees, and taking advantage of every tax shelter loop hole they can find to avoid paying taxes, oh and don't forget literally filing patents for matchmaking systems designed to trick people into spending more money
Terezar 1. You understand that those companies are huge and can throw money around right? 2. Do you understand that those profits *might* be mainly because those the Loot Box system is already implemented? 3. Do you understand that you are making the decision to denounce the Loot box system solely on a few companies?
+Bad Incorporated. 1. Yes, thats why they can afford to make the games without lootboxes. 2. Yes but they have been making a good profit since before lootboxes. 3. Yes, a few companies that hold a huge amount of power over mainstream gaming. Activision-Blizard produces COD, Starcraft, overwatch and WOW. EA produce Battlefield, Sims, EA sports, Need for Speed and starwars. Ubisoft produce Farcry, Assassins Creed, Tom Clancy.
Bad Incorporated the majority of reported profits are coming from the F2P lootbox element, not the initial $60. That's right; major publishers are backing fewer games and posting profit over loss thanks to F2P systems. From this, it would make way more sense for companies to reduce price in favour of attracting more customers. Instead, we have people talking about an $80 price. There's an obvious problem here.
I'm a senior game developer at Inxile Entertainment with 5 years industry experience. I've been watching extra credits on their response and in fact following loot boxes really closely because it directly affects what I code tomorrow and how I feel about what I code tomorrow. A lot of people saying you can't cash out but you can directly sell your CSGO and PUBG skins on the steam marketplace in exchange for USD within your account that you can then exchange for goods sold within the store. It's store credit in the form of USD and as we have seen with Eve, WoW and even steam already, you can always get a third party to pay outside of these software limitations. On top of that steam has one built in. How are people saying you can't cash out? You are exchanging skins in one game for credit on a store that you know you are going to buy from again. Additionally as people pointed out buying a car is not the same as buying a chance to win a car. These are two vastly different things and this is where the gambling separation happens in which Extra Credits seems to have brushed aside. It's like saying walmart could then put a casino anywhere (Such as downtown Seattle) as long as you only allow people to "cash" out using walmart gift cards. This clearly isn't the case and would never be allowed. I fully agree that more studies need to be done on loot boxes but our casino and online gambling laws need to catch up in the US real quick because they are already seeing mass abuse.
Hold on a second. Just hold on. You're saying just because I can't cash out for real money, it isn't gambling? On a slot machine, the *ONLY* thing you can get is money. Which means that you gamble and gamble and gamble to try and get *more* money. AS A PERSON WITH A GAMBLING ADDICTION, OPENING LOOT BOXES HITS ME SEVERAL LEAGUES WORSE THAN ANY CASINO EVER HAS. Because it isn't money I'm chasing. It's the skin that I want, it's the upgrade for something of my equipment; I'm not chasing my money. Which means, I'm not even paying attention to the fact that I put all my fortnightly pay onto buying more boxes, because I never ask myself, "How far down am I and how do I break even?". Instead I tell myself, "Well... I'm already this far in, I'll just keep going until I get it." Chasing my losses at a casino? I get to feel depressed about how far down in my chips I am that I still haven't gotten a return and you know what, maybe it's better idea to leave. Buying lootboxes? I never see anything tangible and never feel anything other than the anxiety of the fact that I haven't gotten what I'm after and that it could be the next instantaneous click that gets it for me... and even then, once I have it, I realise how I've just buggered myself over entirely for something in a game. Does that help stop anything the next time? No. Because I'm friggin' well addicted to it. Look. I love you guys. I really do. But this is just something that you cannot, in any meaningful way, state is, "For the fun of consumers and responsible people!" when they leave it, quite literally, out in the open as they do and REQUIRE you to participate in the RNJesus Boxes to get something cool and shiny that you can't get any other way. I'll concede; you are right. It isn't gambling. It's five hundred thousand times goddamn worse. It doesn't need any further study to figure that out. As much I love you guys, the whole... "Companies are right to shoot for the stars and get as much money and profit as they can", rhetoric that you've been going on with for the last few weeks is really starting to kill the sentiment.
I may pay 1 doller for a 1/100 chance of a 100 doller reward - that is a fair bet, someone else may pay 1 doller for a 1/10000 chance of a 5000 doller prize - that is how casinos work. But with lootboxes you are paying 1 doller for a chance at.... fucking nothing, literally no monetary reward. It is by far the worst gambling odds ever made.
What do you suggest companies do instead of work to attain profits? The genius of the capitalist system is that it taps into human greed to make the situation better for everyone. You pay money, you get what you want, and we'll make more of what you want. While gambling can rely on addiction to get people hooked (though so does alcohol and smoking), eventually anti-consumer practices will cause the business to collapse in on itself. Game companies will be forced to choose a consumer-friendly alternative on way or another; there's no sustainable way to survive otherwise. But if they don't focus on profits, what motive is there for a company to continue existing in the first place?
He explained this quite specifically. Its not like a casino, it is like a crane machine. Though they both use the same systems to get you to pay money, they are different by definition. The EXACT definition of gambling is "play games of chance for money; bet." so no, its not gambling, but because we don't have a very good word for it, people refer to this different mechanism as gambling.
He’s not saying companies should get as much money out of you as he can. He’s saying that companies are in a dilemma of their own creation, and loot boxes are their current idea out of said dilemma. So naturally, he’s exploring the idea if ethical loot boxes *could* exist.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. I have no doubt they are also changing the pay out ratios based on known user habits. Casinos, can't even get away with that.
I want a specific piece of merch in a game, why can't I just buy it? Instead I have to convert my actual money into a unique crypto-currency sold in carefully packaged increments so that you always need to buy a second bundle to stack the right amount of digibitcoins in your wallet for that initial purchase. Now I'm left with a static number of uselesscoin that doesn't purchase anything of interest. If I make one more purchase, tho... It's all by design and intended to reach the lowest common denominator. Just like slots that are designed to always take in more than it gives away and percentages are adjustable. Then we have the randomization on these boxes and that's what makes it complete bullshit. The argument that they are somehow comparative to MTG or baseball cards is also bullshit because the second hand market that exists for collectors of actual cards. Digital purchases outside of the platform they are intended for have no real-world second-hand value to us and is therefore manipulative by design. There really should be no debate.
"You have a conscience" Bold claim, most of the time it is not a developer choice but a company choice, and I'm not sure companies have a conscience...
Yes, companies are controlled by groups of people. When something goes wrong they spread responsibility so thin no one does anything (or dump it all on whoever's lower on them in the corporate ladder) but when something goes right they all clammor to take responsibility. Companies cannot be put in jail or made to do community service. Any fines are passed along to the customer as the talking heads attack the big bad government for stifilying capitalism.
Yes, companies are controlled by groups of people. When something goes wrong they spread responsibility so thin no one does anything (or dump it all on whoever's lower on them in the corporate ladder) but when something goes right they all clammor to take responsibility. Companies cannot be put in jail or made to do community service. Any fines are passed along to the customer as the talking heads attack the big bad government for stifilying capitalism.
Exactly, corporations, as a whole, are only as good as they /have/ to be. They're not evil, they don't have the capacity, they're just following a command of maximize profits. But more success means more layers of bureaucracy and the people at the top won't feel the consequences for the bottom, and will do more harm as a result.
1. Buying a Ferarri doesn't offset the cost of regular cars. 2. Do you think it would be fair of Ferarri to sell their customers a CHANCE to get a Ferarri, but they are much more likely to get an inferior car that doesn't look as cool? See, that's the rub with loot boxes vs traditional microtransactions - at least with them, you get what you pay for. I think microtransactions has its own set of issues, but there's no INHERENT uncertainty built into that system.
You have a good point with the inherent uncertainty. EC did say that big spending in games helps offset the cost of the game, which is a STEP ABOVE the Ferarri example, so they've got you covered there.
I realize that the Ferarri example was to make the point that we generally feel that people are free to spend their money however they wish (which is not really an argument in favor of loot boxes, just an observation of how things are, not how they ought to be), I just pointed out where the analogy breaks down in regards to loot boxes specifically.
One thing I've been noticing a lot with monetization systems is bundling for exclusive content. Which basically forces players into getting content they didn't want to get some content they do want.
It would be valuable if you address Nintendo's (non-mobile) model in the next video, without dismissing it as an outlier. Customers hate lootboxes and microtransactions, which is pushing many of them to embrace Nintendo for: 1. Selling complete games that don't need to be supplemented 2. Supplementing revenue with expanded DLC content that is entirely optional 3. Releasing groundbreaking games with a fraction of the fidelity and marketing costs of other developers 4. Cultivating its own reputation
What i mean is that Nintendo operates in a way no other publisher operates. When you talk about consoles and pc you always compare xbox and ps4 to pc and never Nintendos consoles. Why is that? Its because Nintendo makes way more first party games and is very selective in the games it allows on their systems. Also Nintendo has a name like no other. Super mario and Pokemon are some of the most famous ips on the planet. This is also what allows them to make games that don't follow the graphics arms race. Thats never what Nintendo did. Even when they were on the forefront of innovation they did things to make unique games not more. Beautiful games or bigger games. Ofc i personally prefer this style of business. But you have to admit that what allows Nintendo to operate like this is its name and recognition
Yeah absolutely, Nintendo is a special case. But they resonate with consumers on 4 points I outlined above, and I think that can set an example for other publishers: "This is what you can do right."
Nintendo sells consoles as well. If you want to play a Nintendo game you are already paying 250$ for their console. Also they technically have in-game purchases, they just have dressed them up as Amiibos.
7:36 I think the car analogy is flawed. The big spender isn't purchasing the nice expensive car. They are spending money on a chance to get a nice expensive car. instead giving the big spender the option of purchasing the car he / she wants with all the bells and whistles. They will have to purchase boxes that might have what they want. That isn't pro consumer, its just a cleaver trick to get big spenders to spend even more money on something they could have purchased for less. Its a way to get more money from people who are rich (or have an addiction problem) to spend even more.
To be blunt about it, as long as we have rising income inequality with large portions of the population on static wages (or effectively falling wages due to rising costs of living) in an economy that demands constant growth to function, you will inevitably see the entire economy shifting towards getting as much as it can from those that have money to the detriment of everyone else. Every sector of the economy will manifest this differently, and we can try to lessen the problems with this approach (such as stopping targeting those with emotional vulnerabilities), but this catering to a small percentage of consumers is a systemic problem that will only ultimately be fixed with a revitalizing of the middle class.
I've been reading through a lot of the comments, trying to understand what exactly the people who disagree with the video's main points have been trying to say, and I think you've hit the nail on the head. The system forces people to spend more than they want, because they can't just buy the thing they want.
But loot boxes aren't a luxury . They are tied to progression (battlefront) and are the only way to get the items you've been hunting for (Destiny 2). Even when loot boxes are optional and can be purchased with in game currency like Hearthstone. The gameplay balance can suffer with the introduction to them (Shadow of war 2) and make the game boring and grindy.
I have one problem with this: The AAA games that usually have lootboxes are the games that are going to sell well, Battlefront 2, Shadows Of War, AC Origins, Destiny 2, EA Sports games, those games were going to turn a profit without lootboxes (EA said so), in fact, I'm willing to bet that Battlefront 2 lost a lot of sales because it had lootboxes; we also have to take into account games like Nier: Automata, Ni-Oh, Persona 5, Resident Evil 7 and Wolfenstein 2, all AAA games without lootboxes, and we also have Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, an Indie game without lootboxes that looks on par with AAA games and it's cheaper.
I hate that there is "luck" involved. How do i know that games don't have algorithms in lootboxes? If i main some hero in overwatch and new update has new skin fo that hero. How do i know developers aren't messing with odds so i would spend just little more to get that skin? Just look Activision patent where they but you in matches so you can see how good that one weapon would be.
4K - China requires dev list the percentages of "payout" for game lootboxes. Sad thing is, even if you see a list for a World release over there, its no guarantee that the rest of the world gets those same percentages.
If you look into security, a major problen is there is no such thing as "random" in computer science. Programmers try to mitigate that by incorporating extra inputs into their algorithms (e.g. KeePass' password generator gives you the option to add mouse movements and key presses). A company that directly profits from that "chance" cannot be trusted to be honest and use "noise" data to keep the chance random. Heck, if their chance algorithm isn't open-source or regulated, they can literally do whatever they want as long as it "feels" right.
But what if I **don't** want the highest fidelity graphics? I feel as though I may be in the minority here, but for me the peak of graphical power and fidelity was a generation or so ago... I have never cared about a game having the best graphics, just looking good.
THANK YOU!! I wholeheartedly agree! That's why I love my 3DS. It's not the most powerful in graphics, but the games have a great-looking STYLE to them. Ever Oasis' chibi look is a prime example.
Think of all the games that had "cutting-edge photorealistic graphics" over the years. How many of them still look good? Now look at the games that had their own distinctive art style and how many of them still look good. A game with distinctive art direction that stands out from the field of muddy brown cover-shooters will be remembered and remembered fondly.
Magic the Gathering boosters packs have trade value and an economy. Loot boxes for non-transferable digital items... Not so much. Important difference.
MTG cards always have value. Even if you have 100 Hill Giants those 100 hill giants have some value because you can sell them on the secondary market. You cannot resell most of the stuff that comes out of loot boxes as the stuff is tied to the account that opened it. Also you can just buy the rare you want without having to buy packs. For instance I can go out and buy a play set of Lightning bolt right now without having ever seen a pack. The same sort of thing cannot be done with most loot box economies. It seems you're looking at the example EC made to be about the rarity ratio of stuff inside the pack rather than the nature of the pack itself. It has nothing to due with rarity ratios and everything to do with the value of what is actually being sold. MTG sells things of objective value, loot boxes don't. That's why MTG is a bad comparison to loot boxes.
I've seen games that make the loot box items tradable. This just added a new layer to pay to win, which ended up exploding the community. I'm a developer myself and it's hard to see what some people deem as ok and others as absolute the worst idea ever
That or maybe some of these games could offset the need for ultra realism with a good art style. Something that ages well. AAA should innovate and refine rather than copy. No one asked for Ubisoft's huge empty maps. If you made it scalable and interesting odds are you could make a few city blocks just as interesting and the landscape of the division. They have the resources to think smarter but they choose not to. Ergo I won't buy into this alternative revenue model.
There is no way in HELL I'm buying a Tomb Raider game where Lara Croft's hair doesn't have every strand simulated with physics in real time. That's what games are all about! But seriously, well said :)
+mcdrums87 You left out a step between 1 & 2: customers buy that game in large numbers The only reason the lootbox system works is because the CUSTOMER supports it via purchases. I guarantee 99% of this would stop if customers stopped financing it.
Turamwdd that was implied because my assertion is that customers are only buying these games because there aren’t any other options from the publisher. Note some of the 2017 loot box “All Stars”: Destiny 2-sequel to massively popular original. Star Wars Battlefront 2-sequel to 2015’s Battlefront, also a STAR WARS game in a year with a major SW film. Shadow of War-sequel to the popular Shadow of Mordor (praised for its nemesis system) and part of the legendary Lord of the Rings series. Call of Duty WWII-the annual CoD installment returning to WWII for the first time since 2008. All sequels. All guaranteed to sell many, many copies. However, they’s also the only options for some people. CoD is the Big One among annual FPS. Destiny doesn’t have direct competition. Battlefront and Shadow of War are the only real options for games set in those universes. I get that consumers need to get wise, and that is true to an extent, but the main alternative is nothing in most cases. EA is the only SW publisher, LotR games have fizzled out, and even if you find a CoD or Destiny replacement, you will also need to convince enough people to join you. Without an alternative, it’s harder for consumers to show what they REALLY want.
jesus barrera that's justifiable in that context. That same context doesnt work in a place like the division or unless you place it there. They make the games they can make the world feel lived in rather than making it huge but empty
You cannot assume a corporate entity will regulate themselves. They never have and, if left unregulated, they will cut corners and prey on their employees as well as customers.
Yup, look at the banking industry. "Oh, what's that? Fraud is illegal? But it's not being heavily investigated right now? ...Well how about we lie to people about these toxic mortgage packages and cause the sub-prime mortgage crisis, crashing the entire north american economy in the process. And then no one goes to jail for the obvious criminal activity".
Honestly I agree with jim sterling on this one. $60 games with lootboxes should be free. especially the ones where a majority of the money comes from microtransactions.
It doesn't matter what you think it should be. The market clearly accepted it since these games are thriving. The problem with pointing out though is that these games prey upon those who have no self control. Some end up spending thousands on these games for virtual junk. Why charge a flat $5 for a new in-game costume when you can put it behind a 1% chance slot machine and make $100 instead?
The internet is a huge place, and there are already many game devs talking about these issues. Our videos, across all our TH-cam series, have always been intended to be a starting point for discussion reflecting our own industry experiences, rather than a definitive "yes always X" answer.
A discussion with jim would still be really cool to watch though - i'm sure everyone involved would be perfectly able to keep it nice and have a good discussion. (you all seem like nice people willing to properly discuss things and hear other stances, and if jim can keep his composure in an hour long interview with DigiHom, i'm sure there'll be no problems here)
I second this, it seems apparent that there's a consistent back and forth between EC's and Jim's videos. Rather than playing pen pals like this, it would be fantastic to see some one-on-one, if both parties have the time for it at least. I don't care who "wins" or "loses", I'm just here for the discussion - both sides have me thinking about these issue a lot more, which is good.
I second this, the amount of the information and refinement of ideas that can come from a discussion between two parties has so much value compared to just "a starting point".
I third this. I'm a fan of both of your channels, and I would absolutely love to hear a discussion between two very great minds about this. Jim puts on a persona for his Jimquisition, but he's wonderfully civil otherwise. (Unless you're Digital Homicide coming at him with a lawsuit) Fingers crossed!
ubisoft told their investors, that they now make more money from microtransactions than from actual game sales. that means we are paying 120$ per game on average, not 80 or 90. they milk their customers till theres nothing left.
I wonder if when he asked the 80 dollar question if he would have phrased it " would you pay 80 dollars for a game and have no loot boxes or 60 bucks and have microtransactions and loot boxes" wonder how many more hands would have gone up
technically, luxury cars foot the bill for the initial investment on cutting edge tech. This is neither the best way to go about it nor the primary reason luxury cars exist, but there.
This argument is a plain lie from publishers, EA statet that removal of a lootbox mechanic won't affect their income. This means that affordability won't be affected too.
As both a senior student of psychology, and an avid gamer, I believe that the problem with these chance-based monetization methods is not their usage or exclusion as a whole, but the way they are implemented. The very same loot box system can be seen either as very good or inhumanly bad depending on how flexible it is; how much agency you have over what you win. Look at TF2's Crates, for instance, which to me is the best ever. If you don't get what you wanted from that crate, you have a myriad of options at hand. You can either sell it for REAL MONEY or you can trade it to another player for the item you want. And not only that, you can even find the item you want already for sale on the marketplace and not be bound to the whimsies of chance. Heck! Even if you get a super-duper rare item that.... you just don't care about, you can sell it for even MORE than what you initially paid for the crate and the key to open it. That's the kind of agency that makes ppl feel confident about spending, and besides, keep in mind that Valve DOES profit from all of these trasactions; they charge a tiny tax for every marketplace deal made (not to mention this is besides the cost of the crate which the player already paid, which they also keep), just like real life markets do. And this works! However, if you create the Lootbox system, and then build the game AROUND IT, like a fancy coat of game-flavored candy, with no real ''game'' experience and nothing else to add, you are not creating a game; you are creating a game-themed gambling engine, in the same way a casino may choose to decorate a slot machine with a Star Wars theme. And sadly, this is the model 99% of the AAA Games Industry is going towards.
I'm pretty sure the people working on BF2 were working hard to make a good game. Then EA's business side probably stepped in with a huge list of "features" they wanted in the game, including a loot box system that would completely destroy all semblance of fair play. I do not think any of these AAA companies have been building games around lootboxes. Rather, I think the devs were doing their best to make good games, then corporate forced them to shoehorn monetization schemes in regardless of how negatively it impacted the game. Does this mean I think the industry is doing fine? No. No it does not.
Seriously I wouldn't mind loot boxes that much if they were designed like Valve makes them. It's these gambling-lite slot machine simulators with a gimped game attached that piss me off.
You can't really sell the items you get in TF2 for *real* money within their own system. You can sell them for steambucks, sure, but unless you want a new game to play those funbucks are pretty much useless. Also we're assuming you actually get one of those 5 items in the crate that are actually worth something instead of 10 cents out of the 2.50 dollars it costed to even open it in the first place ...how is this not gambling again?
How about the idea of "leaving money on the table"? Something Zharic Zhakeron said and is based on investors not liking the fact that the product is not being monetized enough despite the company making billions of dollars in profit. AAA games are simply printing money today. There is also the problem of loot boxes being Black boxes. There is not a single way currently to know if your chances are screwed for getting rare items and/or that the game company is lying.
This point, of them being black boxes, is one of the biggest problems with lootboxes at the moment. I actually love that china (I think) has created a law that REQUIRES statistics for the boxes to be put front and center.
That moment when you realize that there's no "random chance" involved with lootboxes at all. The developers can manipulate payouts at the drop of a hat, or adjust the payout based on individual users' spending habits. All done behind the scenes without the end user even knowing, let alone being able to prove. It's a whole other dimension of insidiousness to lootboxes that few even know about. It's not random whatsoever.
As someone that does work with video game coding, you don't know how ridiculously hard that would be, do you? What you're trying to say is that Overwatch, instead of just having //Lootbox code (simplified for argument) Item.Drops = 4 Legendary = 0.13 Epic = 0.30 Rare = 0.60 Common = 0.90 You're trying to tell me that it would have basically that code for every account in game. All, for Overwatch's instance, 30 _MILLION_ users. First of all that much code would fry most of the servers and make the game lag like hell, doing that would be counterproductive to costs as you'd need employees to manage it. And if you operated by bot you'd need multiple bots which again, would slow down the game and overwork the servers. The game wouldn't be able to handle: -30 million players -30 million individual loot box statistics -Bots to read individual purchasing habits -Bots to edit loot box statistics All at once, even if they only had a million players it would still cause extreme lag as the game would be constantly ticking that code.
If having a handful of variables per account based on recent loot obtained and spending habits is too complex then I'm surprised that games can be made at all. This should be extremely small potatoes compared to what it takes to make a game function.
@Dusk Ealain You're kidding right? As someone who writes business software that has to handle thousands of requests a second with low latency, i can tell you that you are misinformed. Ok firstly let me make one assertion... the loot box shop code is not a part of the game server code. Your assertion that this change would "slow down the game", "overwork the servers" or "cause extreme lag" is a non-starter as it (just like buying lootboxes) will have zero impact on the server game loop. There is maybe an argument for CoD:WW2 where you open boxes while actually playing but even then the "logic" around what items the lootbox can (and should) be trivially moved elsewhere. Putting the lootbox shop code into the core game loop would make as much sense as putting subscription fee logic into the core game loop of an MMO. Secondly, we know the game can handle statistics for 30 million individuals, they call them metrics (or "the numbers" when they want to nerf the latest flavour of the month). Assuming there exists interesting correlations between gameplay habits and spending habits (and i'd be honestly shocked if there wasn't) that will contain all the information you need. Most likely scenario i can see is there's a "game metric" data feed server that is already collating aggregate data based on data bursts from each completed game, this could trivially forward these data bursts on to a second "shop stats" server which would probably also receive purchasing information (compared to the firehose of game metric data, purchasing data would be cakewalk). You'd want the raw data bursts because the metrics aggregation would be the wrong "grain" (i.e. it would be clustered around character play time and results whereas the shop stats would need to be clustered around specific players). Thirdly, finding those interesting correlations is all about data mining (a.k.a. Deep Learning). This kind of scenario is textbook. However you wouldn't update in real-time, I would update on an adhoc schedule probably approaching daily but anything more than weekly is probably fine. Finally, what are you updating? Well the answer to that is a traditional consultants answer ("it depends") and would certainly be the target of a lot of thoughts and words. Even if it was just "everyone has their own probability breakdown", at 30 million players you're looking at less than 2GB of data which doesn't even really qualify as big data so that would barely even be interesting. This would likely evolve into something more functional in nature. Perhaps with less variables, more likely with more. Given you'll be definitely using distributed servers (because you don't support 30 million clients without using distributed servers, whatever you're trying to do) it would make sense for each distributed shop server to have it's own version of this database as anti-deadlock insurance. I'm not saying that Overwatch or indeed anyone is actually doing this. However don't kid yourself that this is at all technically tricky. The only really difficult bit would involve designing (and demonstrating) an algorithm that gave you more extra revenue than it cost to run.
dantenotavailable After witnessing countless games in the past take player stats into account such as Halo and World of Tanks and store that data with next to no problems, along with the rise of self-teaching bots/algorithms that can be designed for each specific player (like how TH-cam recommends different vids to people based off of search history), it's safe to say that this is in fact completely possible to create without hard weight put onto the shoulders of servers...
Is this regulated on gambling machines ? Their actual chance of winning is of course, but I don't think the *apparent* chance is as many make it deceptive. It will be interesting to see --if-- how loot boxes get regulated (they will, because tax), and if it will propagate back to gambling.
Every positive point like "hey, it makes games cheaper!" were hammered in over and over. Negative things were brushed aside with "hey, there's no science so we can't know!" while there wasn't any more proof that whales are indeed rich people with money to spend. The whales are in fact just as much addicts that don't have the money to spend. Also, why didn't you ask "would you buy as many games if they cost $80 and didn't have any forms of microtransactions?" I bet you would have gotten *way* more than 2 hands.
Whales are rich people ffs. Stop this "exploiting children" bullshit. If you cant afford it, chances are you wont spend money for fucking skins in a video game. Gambling is the perpetual chase of getting rich by luck not buying fucking mystery boxes from the internet to get cool shit.
The most I've ever spent on a game, ever, is $40 on Overwatch. I also don't buy into microtransactions. I would have been reluctant to say the least if Overwatch was $80. I have my doubts it would have been **way** more than 2 hands.
"Games Industry, don't be evil about this." You do know just what industry you are talking to right? Right? Because that's like asking Sauron _not_ to enslave the whole world just because he can. Sure it 'might' be possible in theory, but in practice it ain't gonna happen. Not unless they learn the hard way that _we will not accept_ their BS.
Vvonter That is the great thing about capitalism. It's the clunky and awkward dance between consumer and producer. If the producer wants to take a chance, then they can. No one is forcing them not to. But we as consumers are advising them that if they put this product out, we will not give them our money. So, if the producer wants to make money, then they should make a product that we really want.
Instead of researching ways to make "games as a service" and microtransations as profitable as possible, perhaps gaming companies should research *ways to reduce production costs of games* if this is such an issue. Not to mention: you can always include skins for $$$ if you want. Games have been doing that for ages. Games like Guild Wars 2 (was full price now free) and League of Legends or Warframe (free) *still allow that rich guy to spend 2000$ on skins if he wants* but don't pray on chance. The chance to waste $ and get things you didn't want.
Rick Harris but there are. Not every game needs supreme Final Fantasy 15 graphics. Not every game needs unlimited Just Cause 3 size maps. Not every game needs 300 hours The Witcher 3 story. There are many *MANY* amazing games made on a "quote" budget. And they sell extremely well despite "rising industry costs" these people know what's up. Unless you are talking about the big boys like Call of Duty, Battlefield and all spots games. Funny, because *production becomes more and more expensive, yet these studios put sequel after sequel almost every year.* You would think they would stop that if economy was dire, wouldn't you? *Even if the price of a single video game becomes 150$ companies will never stop with expansions, DLC, microtransactions and what not.* It's just too convenient and profitable. And i am not saying they should. All i am saying is, gambling is not the solution to rising industry costs. Just food for thought.
When a business model is becoming unsustainable, you cannot place the responsibility at the feet of the consumer. The industry must adapt to fit the needs of the consumer, not the other way around.
James Beaumont VG they did. They adopted lootboxes so they can make more money to cover the costs. They 'innovate' with lootboxes. Sure, the consumer don't like them, but if you're making a huge profit just by adding lootboxes, instead of making a good game, you'll do it.
The consumer is still an active factor in the industry, however. Ignoring the consumer isn't going to improve the industry. They're not placing blame at the consumer's feet, just adapting new strategies around them.
The consumer demanded games that cost more and more to produce. There's a hard limit on the ratio of expense to copies sold that means at some point, it becomes unprofitable to just sell the games to people. Whilst I don't agree with the more predatory loot boxes, it's kinda necessary.
Are players really demanding higher and higher fidelity that drives up prices? Mairo, Overwatch, and BoTW all have heavily stylized art, but sold extremely well and are certainly AAA titles. I really don't buy that video game companies need unsustainably high fidelity graphics to make sales and that's not mentioning the fact that the game companies with the most microtransactions and lootboxes tend to be massive megacorps. If EA wants to claim to be a starving artist they're going to need to release all their financial data and prove it for me to believe it. They're demanding a lot of faith, and a lot of money, I don't think its unfair to demand a little evidence in exchange.
Even if the art is not photorealistic, it's definitely by no means necessarily cheaper or easier to produce. If it was really that simple, it would happen more often. And even if you, as a player, don't care too much for photorealistic graphics, that doesn't invalidate the user research these companies are doing to find out what their target audiences want. In general I notice that most Extra Credits viewers are huge indie game fans (unsurprisingly, as we are too!) and don't care too much for Call of Duty (ditto on that one) but we really aren't a major market segment for many AAA titles. --Belinda
SomeIdiot I cant agree more. Most of us cannot even afford to keep up with console or pc market prices. I have just recently been able to properly play skyrim because i could not afford to change my pc.
Those... really aren't good examples. Mario, Overwatch, and BoTW are VERY high fidelity games. they aren't "realisitic" but that doesn't mean they aren't high fidelity. The amount of R&D that goes into those is as high or higher than your Battlefield games and such.
stylized graphics != cheap. just because it isnt photorealistic doesnt mean it was cheap to create stylized graphics can be way more expensive than realistic graphics depending on shaders being used etc. stylized graphics work now more to differentiate your game from the others than to save cost. mario and botw have very expensive shaders and very high fidelity art. overwatch have very stylized characters and worlds that although arent graphically realistic still have incredibly high fidelity.
CD Projekt Red is indeed a good example, yet I cant see other companies adopting the same strategies. I mean imagine EA saying hey guys, perhaps we should treat our buyers with a little decency. Just not going to happen. As long as the strategy is effective, someone will use it.
My problem is the same problem that Jim Sterling brought up. I understand the need for additional monetization models but I struggle with the idea that the games industry needs *all* of these models: dlc, microtransactions, lootboxes limited/collectors editions, season passes, skins, etc. to be successful. I would say just pick 2 maybe even 3 at the most and then leave it at that. In addition, games were successful long before lootboxes. The way these lootboxes are designed are meant to rope in players and trick them into buying them. I'd rather have the system in which I can just pay for which skins that I actually want than feel tricked into paying for the mere chance of actually getting what I wanted.
And that's what sucks about the system. I know that less people will buy skins without loot boxes but I'd much rather have a system in which I can just buy the skins that I want, whether individually or in packs, rather than have to gamble to see if I actually can get what I want.
I think this is a sign of the AAA arms race finally outpacing the consumers. Fewer people have the money necessary to pay for a game with top graphics and even fewer have the hardware needed to enjoy those very graphics they paid for. But hey, I'm just a poor European student with a Linux notebook, so of course I'm biased.
Same here! (Except Canadian. And I have a decent (home-built) desktop too, but it also runs Linux); so it's not like AAA stuff even matters to me, particularly on the DRM-free diet I'm trying to keep recently.
Yeah, diminishing returns are hitting hard when it comes to graphics. I think game console cycles need to slow down. (And should have been as far back as the Wii) You can get plenty of games on steam that don't need the latest hardware to run, so consoles and PCs are starting to swap places between the expensive niche and the more accessible option.
I didn't say I was everyone. Just that I was someone, and someone much like a previous poster. It's nice to know you aren't alone. Also, if you'll read my comment, I _just said_ that I have a PC (two, in fact, one desktop and one laptop), I just don't currently run Windows on either of them because it became more trouble than it was worth. I can even (occasionally) get some AAA games if I choose to, they just aren't interesting me enough that an OS they always come out on (Windows) is a high enough priority to be worth dual-booting any more. If a really good AAA game comes out DRM-free on Linux, I'll happily pick it up (and might even try my hand at running Windows games on Wine if other people report having success, which is how I already play several of the games I've purchased), but the AAA output these days is so formulaic and bland that I don't mind them rarely coming out on my platform of choice any more. If such bland games take so much money to develop, I suggest they explore leaner business models (possibly breaking teams into multiple smaller teams and working on multiple smaller projects at the same time).
HyperNova 200 yeah but they don't screw their consumers for every penny in their wallet, and make actually quality games, instead of glossy shit with nothing new. At least not most of them
And part of why they CAN make that profit is because while games have advanced since the 90s, the total number of people that play games has also exploded since then. You don't need lootboxes for AAA games because the audience is that much larger now that you can sell enough copies to support the game development costs.
I'm okay with most auxiliary monetization models. DLC, Microtransactions, Collector's Editions and the like are fine. Loot Boxes get dicey, and I honestly think eliminating them completely is the best option. Asking big game studios to "just don't be evil about it" is ridiculous. Because it's always been a game of "How evil can I be without people getting mad". The more people accept it, the further they'll push it.
I have to agree, loot boxes are inherently unethical because it's extremely chance based. With DLC, season passes and all that jazz people know what they're paying for, they know if they buy x DLC they'll have x DLC. But not with loot boxes. You pay to have a chance (often an extremely small chance) to have the item you want. You can feed hundreds of dollars into a loot box system because there's one skin you desperately want but you get nothing but low quality shit because loot boxes are always stack the chance against you. The chance you'll get the item you actually want out of a loot box compared to all the other things inside it, especially if there are duplicates is so miniscule you're forced to gamble away your money until you have the item rather than just spending like $10 on some cosmetic DLC which is what a lot of people would be happy to do imo
if i had to pick the "least wrong" way of doing loot boxes it would probably be hearthstone. Booster Packs are already an accepted and organic mechanism to tcg's, so one in a virtual game isn't too far off. And if you get nothing but junk, you can liquidate your crap cards and get the specific ones you want. But when content is locked behind rng on a day one FPS, then it's definitely a very wrong way to do it.
After saying not to be evil about it, EC went on to mention Battlefront 2. There is nothing ridiculous being said there, if you think about it. Battlefront 2 is an example that did not make the money it could have, and also gained severe notoriety, so EC says "don't be evil like that" - and yes, this is advice that literally benefits game developers directly! Don't go that far, or you'll fail at it! ...Game devs are who they are talking to with 100% of their EC videos, after all. I feel that it's a bizarrely strange point to call this stuff out as "How evil can I be without people getting mad". I mean, yes, it's the consumers duty not to just roll over and go along with everything game company's want... but companies aren't doing anything 'evil' here. This is the basics of what happens in the market since the market began (and not even 'game market', I'm talking 'market' in general!) Game devs are not generally evil by trying to make more and more money through their games, and gamers who push back are not 'the good guys' because they do - both sides are just cogs in how markets works. If we need consumers to be more active about something, and calling companies 'evil' will get them off their lazy butts, then I guess I can't argue that at all. The over-dramatization of it just happens to bother me about it.
Every part of this argument fails because it asks for personal restraint on the part of businesses. Not everyone will act badly, but SOMEONE will. And that SOMEONE will set the precedent and others WILL follow.
yeah, asking for peronal restraint of the companies is more than a bit of a stretch. We need to put clear and enforced rules on what is acceptable and what is not. As soon as possible. I think disclosing the odds, having everything attainable through lootboxes be attainable without spending money and possibly a countersystem to the random nature (i.e. in game currency for doubles or in every box to purchase directly) would be a good start.
Maxislithium, I definitely agree with your point about the futility of requesting business entities to have personal restraint, but that doesn't make the arguments fail. This episode is about how ethical lootboxes can be ethically designed, not a prediction if companies will design lootboxes ethically.
If the research isn't clear, why would you take the risk of using a model that's potentially very harmful? That seems downright unethical. It's like smoking back in the day because the research on its harms weren't clear. Just don't do it if you don't know.
There’s a reason tings are called the bleeding edge. This research into ‘Are loot boxes gambling’ wouldn’t exist if lootboxes didn’t exist. We wouldn’t know tobacco was carcinogenic if people weren’t smoking it. It just wouldn’t have come up. They already pushed the limits of acceptable upfront prices for games now, before 4 games becomes the cost of a entire console. Obviously, the easiest answer is to ‘make cheaper games’, but that requires more then just cutting fidelity and quality. It will require us as consumers to actively search and find lower quality games that are still entertaining. Does that sound like Indie games? A bit, doesn’t it. Perhaps this may be the last few years of the AAA industry before they all crash, because of their inability to match what the indie market already provides? Or maybe we’ll see what happens when a game with a half million dollar budget gets made with the same design philosophy as indie studios? Also possible. The game market might become a much more dangerous place soon.
Walter Wilson in addition, MTG boosters have a minimal rarity rule in every pack. So even the worst pack will still have at least one rare. Not all loot box systems abide by this rule.
THIISSSS. I can trade or sell trading cards, or use them as toilet paper if I want. I can't do anything else with my Witch Mercy skin other than use it in Overwatch. If they shut the game down, or everyone moves to Overwatch 2 in about 6 years, then my fancy skin is now completely utterly worthless. I can't even give it away to someone if I want to.
If you don't like the risk involved in loot boxes, you can save up in game currency by playing the game, then buy the skin you want. Granted the exact numbers require a lot of work to get right, but you get the idea.
You also physically OWN the cards. You can SELL ALL of your cards, should you desire. Hell, you can draw penises on all of them, if that's your thing; they are yours. A loot box, and its contents, disappear when the server does... or when the next game is released. You are merely leasing them. As to Dapper's point that you can grind until you can afford the thing you want... yes & no. I played about 40 hours of Overwatch. I think I made something like 500 credits or coins or whatever the fuck in that time. There was many, MANY skins that I wanted, and as I recall, they all cost 1,000+. (The good skins -- I'm not talking about the recolors of the base skins.) If 40 fucking hours isn't enough to get just ONE of the things I want in a game, fuck that game. I was rolling in sprays I never even once used, though. That's... generous of Blizzard?
I am not sure the players deserve the "blame" for wanting a better quality product from companies that make money off of their product especially when those companies are the ones pushing how shiny their product is. Honestly I remember when the PS 3 was coming out and my first thought was "Imagine what this system can do for the games we played last gen. How much better the game play will be and how much more we will have." In the end... They released games with less features that might have looked better. We still have games with generally less features.... They still look better by far now sure... But I never asked for that. I wanted better games, not prettier ones (specifically). I didn't want to pay more for less, and then pay even more for... Still less.
Algie Evan DeWitt V To be fair the better graphics part does boost sales. I disagree with you about the feats part prettier games are a safer bet when it comes to making a profit. Does this morally justify loot boxes? No.
Brandonious15987 Graphics csn boost sales yes but they hardly are a predictor of success. A lack of graphics with a solid art direction (not always the same thing) can do just as well. I do not believe I said that features guarantee more sales, but more features should have been part of more ability to add features. One of the excuses in the past for lack of features and graphics or what ever other combinations was that hardware hadn't caught up. But when hardware did... We saw far less gameplay, especially at first, to make room for graphics. If all you want is to watch something pretty, movies exist. If all you want is a fantastic story, books exist. This is an interactive medium. Interaction should be the primary aspect of it.
Brandonious15987 There isn't a moral justification for lootboxes regardless because it is not a moral issue in and of itself. The gaming industry is doing far worse in the moral spectrum than making people pay for the chance at extra or in game power. My arguement when it comes to loot boxes is simply that it is taking the worst parts of RNG and making you pay for it. It is not how the concept of "loot" is even suppossed to work. Imagine playing Borderlands and having to pay when ever you beat a boss or opened up a weapon crate in order to get your guns. Arguably the whole point of the game is to EARN that loot. Paying for it is counter productive from the start. If you are going to pay for a gun or prize... You just pay for that gun or prize (DLC or micrtrans in gaming terms i guess).
I think we need to prove our assertion that companies can't afford to make games when the publishers keep crowing about massive profits. And the developers who presumably need this the most, the little guys, the ones who actually go out of business, they are not as likely to be putting DLC, MT, loot boxes, season passes and online passes into their games. The evidence doesn't support this is a need, it points to greed instead.
So the companies that *aren't* using additional monetization streams are suffering and going out of business, and that somehow suggests that those revenue streams aren't necessary? The companies that *have* been using things like microtransactions and day-one DLC for years now and have disgustingly huge marketing budgets are boasting about their profits. How do you read into that that AAA devs should do more to emulate their struggling indie dev counterparts?
Because "struggling indie devs" have actually been doing really well as of late. Devolver Digital has been publishing cheaply made games for cheap prices and they've been doing incredibly well. The idea that all consumers want are the shiniest graphics is just blatantly untrue.
Gumball perhaps in some respects. Maybe the industry is finally coming around to lower fidelity games that have a wide appeal. But, for most of the last decade, most of most games sold were console shooters/platformers/whatever that has always been compared by the graphical quality of the game. We even had videos comparing the graphics of the different new gen consoles to side-by-side games to show how pretty they are. PC games may have a flying Indy market, where connoisseurs of games look for fun and different mechanics to play with, but the high volume AAA sales that are the face of gaming to the non gaming masses are still of the graphical arms race shooters. The number of indies that make it big are still dwarfed by the AAA shelf fillers.
How does Humble Bundles and steam sales exist if games should cost 70$ or more? Personally I do not need insanely detailed graphics, I want gameplay. Plus there are way more people buying games these days and no physical distribution. So I support the smaller games. Like Kerbal Space Program and Subnautica. Fully fledged fun with reasonable price tags.
here is the joke: I won't pay $60 now let alone $80 in the future. For me that argument is mute, I just wait til the steam/holiday sales as well as reviews/consumer reactions/patch time before buying these days. Also as for the whole gambling triggers verses social anxiety argument, I suffered from the gambling part and was just lucky enough to recognize that before I was $1000s in debt. I believe, and this may just be for me, that loot boxes are predatory in nature and cannot be redeem or justified in any way. However, I am open to micro-transactions that are more akin to walking into a digitized store, picking what I want to buy then, and having the option to buy the other stuff later when I can like I buy the actual games themselves now.
the last one I did was witcher 3 and I saved up thought long and hard about it, their work was amazing and so, for my part, I decided they deserved full price as one of the rare exceptions to the rule, but generally I have not seen a game worth that since
before steam was used games, as a kid I would buy used because I didnt have much money, when I was old enough to get a job I started buy games at release full price. this was during the sweet spot before everything had to have a season pass and dlc where most of the time when you bought you got the whole game. a little after entering college is when I started using steam. the idea of buying games cheaper then full price has been around since the beginning, difference is that now more and more gamers are starting to believe that many games today dont deserve full price and the loot boxes are part of that.
I think my 2 main problems with this viewpoint are that; 1) Just because loot boxes are not identical to gambling, doesn't mean it's not just as harmful. 2) I feel like this development cost issue could be solves a million other ways that are infinity more ethical, but aren't. Companies, even AAA ones no longer need to push for the very highest in graphical fidelity. It's the fact they are still ALL competing for this insanely expensive goalpost. The difference in cost between a graphically intense game, and one that looks pretty much as good, but isn't literally top of the line, is insane. The concept that companies need loot boxes to make money is the main issue here, because, they don't. There are plenty of solutions to this problem, the most notable being, don't put in the highest fidelity graphics. Yes, a relatively small group of people will care, but not nearly enough to make up that cost disparity. By making more, smaller scale games, you can potentially hold the market for multiple genre at once. I don't see the reasoning panning out on holding this fairly ancient mentality that graphics are all that matter. Hell, even years ago when that had some reasoning to be the case, because graphics looked so bad people would take anything they got, Gameplay was still (and always will be) the most important element of any game.. In fact, I could point out a million examples where this would be the case, namely semi-indie games on steam, and Nintendo games (both console and handheld). The bottom line is, if almost no one is going to tell the difference between a game with a $300,000,000 budget, and a $50,000,000, its bad business to make one that's $300,000,000. If your not earning enough money back on your games but can't raise the price, this means like ANY other business model, it's the job of the businesses in question to make a better business plan, not find ways to exploit people to cover the cost. PS: I'm aware graphical fidelity works on an advertising front, helping to grab peoples attention in a sea of games, but there are many other ways to do this same thing.without spending your budget 6 times over.
If lootboxes aren't gambling, then why are they using gambling tricks? Also if they're not gambling then what is the games industry doing to prove that? Are they supporting more studies be done (by "supporting" I mean "more than lip service")? Plus the whole "you can payout" is just sidestepping the issue. Church raffles are gambling as well and we don't let children enter them either. And you do know that EA's stock price is back up to where it was before BF2 so it didn't really affect them at all. There is no such thing as an "ethical" lootbox system. If a game wants to put that into their monitization scheme, make it a free to play game.
If all loot boxes are gambling, then having very rare drops from repeatable content in an MMO is also gambling. The in-game content is designed to keep you replaying it to try and get the rare loot and keep you paying your subscription fee. That is fundamentally no different to giving loot boxes rare drops that make you keep paying to try and get them.
Not really. With rare drops you still have to actually play the game (beat the certain enemy, maybe in a certain way.) Whereas lootboxes are instant gratification.
Alan2002: In poker or blackjack, you pay in and still have to play the game before you see whether you succeeded or failed. Everyone still considers them gambling. The gratification isn't instant with those games either. A lottery or betting on horse racing is definitely gambling, but you have to wait for hours or days before you see whether you won or not. Neither of them are instant gratification, but they're still gambling.
Saying loot boxes aren't gambling because you can't cash out is like saying, "I didn't kill him, the bullet did." It's a technicality that doesn't impress anyone who's intellectually honest.
I love you guys. I really do but the more I listen to you guys talk on this subject the more I think I should just avoid AAA games all together. I'm sure that's not your intention but its definitely what I'm hearing.
That Black Guy Who Loves Cute Shit I've stopped playing AAA entirely. The game just grew too pricey whilst my budget aren't getting better either and you can get more games by buying cheaper games instead.
yeah I don't play "AAA" anymore either for the most part. and it wasn't even a conscious decision, it's just that this kind of toxic crap reeks so bad I don't want anything to do with it. it's SO antithetical to what gaming is about.
I don't generally buy AAA games anyway, especially the annual franchises such as Call of Duty, various sports games series etc. They're generally much more expensive than games made by smaller teams, and in the case of annual franchises, they will lose a significant portion of their userbase come the next year with the next game in the series. I've bought games on Steam during sales years ago for as little as £3 - £5, and for those prices I've got hundreds of hours of gameplay out of games that people are still playing to this day. It doesn't make sense any more to buy games at full price, much less games that cost £50 and will lose players after the next annual instalment.
I appreciate your ongoing examination of this horrible, horrible pit that the industry has dug for itself, of its own will, by its own volition, on its own advice, over several decades. The study regarding peer pressure needed to be mentioned, and more will arrive soon enough. Quick point-- Crane games in Western countries have been mechanically rigged for nearly 100 years, legality be damned. Generations of children have said, "I swear this game is cheating," and they were right to suspect. As for lootboxes going forward: In my case, years of abuse, trickery, and big signs that read, "NO REFUNDS LOL WE'RE BASED IN CHINA," have closed my wallet forever. Any creator brave or stupid enough to use lootboxes can count me as a lost sale, thanks to the actions of their predecessors. I won't go near them; I have no trust left.
The crane game being fair isn't really the point of that analogy. It's still not the same thing as gambling; it's just an obfuscation of the odds and rules of a game you're playing.
CentipedeXII Not so. If I tell you that you have a 5% chance to win $1,000,000, and the exact rules of the game, you are still gambling if you agree. To gamble is just to take a risk that the 5% chance will favor you. Obfuscation of the odds or rules are very unnecessary for that. Conversely, just because you're playing a game with an obfuscated ruleset and odds doesn't mean that you're gambling. Is an old NES era RPG like Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy gambling because they don't tell you how stat calculations or crit rates work?
Look, I hate a lot of the practices of these companies as well but please don't pretend like the consumer holds no blame for the situation the industry is in right now. Money speaks. And if consumers continue to consume products that exploit them they are not without responsibility. The company producing said exploitative product is also to blame but so are the consumers.
RoseColoredIris Well, yes, buyer beware. Boldfaced lies and active mental warfare generated the most money, so the market followed. This gravy train moves until consumers pull the brake. However, consider people snared the most thoroughly by lootbox systems, famously having spent thousands on a stupid video game that they hate: Even though they know it's a terrible idea, they cannot stop. They can't just make a clean break like anyone else. These people are prized by the industry for certain pliable mental traits. They're goaded and coaxed through a honed, tested, highly-refined maze of smoke and mirrors, laser-focused to pierce their minds and extract as much of their life savings as possible, as fast as possible. Unbound by law, these cash extractions process consumers with no regard for personal safety, historically rendering targets destitute, emotionally scarred, and unable to retaliate against system operators. The industry continues to evaluate and improve this form of mental warfare, even as EA, Warner Brothers, Disney, etc. make headlines for testing the limits of what a wider consumer base will tolerate. Buyer beware indeed.
I don't agree with you. Loot boxes and such are fine in f2p games because like you say, they're subsidizing your game. When you pay for a game, one of the things you're paying for is not to have to deal with f2p bs. I shouldn't have to deal with an exploitative system in my premium game. And money is inefficiently spent on marketing and they're overprioritizing graphics over aesthetics. Just look at Nintendo. People want pretty games, they don't need to be the most photorealistic
You completely missed the main point they were making in the video, which is that you are not paying premium for a game. You are paying a fraction of the price of a game which contains additional income systems because the price they charge consumers is not enough to turn a stable profit. And who are you to say that this could all be avoided if game companies just started spending money differently? Do you think that the only thing which makes games cost more money is photo-realistic graphics? Do you not think that new systems, new mechanics, better AI, more content, online support, new engines, R+D for innovative hardware like VR and Motion Control could also contribute to cost in games? Not even that inflation should have accounted for an increase in price? That the money they spend on marketing actually increases their profit and has nothing to do with raising the retail price on their game because if more people buy their game they don't have to charge as much. If you are saying that you think we should all just start paying 80 to 100 dollars for a AAA game that's one thing, but it appears you just want to continue underpaying while also destroying the supplementary income which allows for you to underpay. It almost seems like you didn't watch the previous video which they referenced several times and was integral to understanding this one...
There's actually a lot of things that Video Game companies ARE responsible for that increases bloat or requires them to spend more money for problems that THEY created. That's also not even getting into how much companies SAVE. It costs a LOT more to create an engine 100% from scratch. Which used to be the case, but now they just RENT a game engine like Unreal. Hollywood Voice Actors. There's been multiple cases of this not even being needed or even downright FAILURES. In fact let's not forget they had an Actor from GoT who they had to REPLACE his lines in the Destiny Game Series. That's a LOT of bloat. Hollywood Guest Apperances. For instance, paying Robert Downey Jr for a game that isn't about Iron Man and such. Creating trailers that use graphics that are Unrealistic to even IMPOSSIBLE. Which then leads to increased demands in consumers. The fact that even EA told their Investors that they do NOT require all this extra money from things like DLC & lootboxes. That the $60 is enough, which means that they DO have the money required to make it F2P. Let's not forget how many RPGs that you had to pay $60 or more now have Free to Play versions, like Star Wars The Old Republic. The problem is that Game Companies want ALL of the benefits of a Free to Play Economy, while FORCING players to spend OVER $60, all while claiming "Oh we can't afford to have players pay ONLY $60. Just ignore the fact that we make you spend $30+ on DLC and/or Season Passes." This COMPLETELY ignores games like Witcher 3 that have $100+ worth of Game & DLC/Season Pass content for $60. Hell look at Warframe as another great example of what ACTUAL Player Choice & F2P on a AAA game looks like. The biggest problem is that you act like the Customers are the ones that Companies are beholden to, instead of their Investors. Investors are, more often than not, the REAL customers. Last but not oleast, you are ignoring the fact that any time a Company screws up, it is the COSTOMERS who have to pay for their mistakes, rather than the company as a whole. That or one of their subsidiaries, like how EA has killed game company after game company after game company for FORCING them to conform to their "We need to squeeze every dollar out of Gamers" with their Business Model.
Alaharon123 that does not make the text any less valid, if people are allowed to use the same tired argument for loot boxes then i see no problem why this guy can't use a counter argument he heard from someone else. And before anyone accuses this guy of being a "sheep" to Jim then provide a counter argument of your own.
"When you pay for a game, one of the things you're paying for is not to have to deal with f2p bs." Where does it state this? Where is this rule? Sorry I had no idea the law of buying stuff meant there could no in-game purchases as well, if you could kindly redirect me to respected document stating this then I could agree.
One of the flaws in your pro-lootbox argument is the absurd notion that lootboxes are only targeted at and therefore only being designed for rich people who can blow tons of money on them. We are seeing fundamental changes in how games function when microtransactions and lootboxes are in them. Do you remember games from 10 or 15 years ago? Do you remember PLAYING to unlock things? Do you remember how many hours it took to complete a game 100%? Well those days are gone, because you can't complete a game 100% anymore. At least not in any kind of reasonable time (i.e. the lifespan of a human being :P). You can't even reliably unlock only the things you want because lootboxes systems are specifically designed around keeping the content you want in a massive pile of stuff you don't want, and randomly drawing from that. When EA took paid lootboxes out of Battlefront 2, they had to radically alter the game's reward system because it simply was not built for grinding your way to success. It was built for paying your way to success, as are many games. Take the paid lootboxes out of Overwatch and what sort of system is left? One lootbox per level up with a high chance of duplicates. You can NEVER unlock even half of the skins, sprays, voice lines, emotes, etc in Overwatch because the game is designed around lootboxes. It's made even more sinister when you have content that can only be unlocked once per year during a certain event. Want that Mercy skin? Prepare to grind 24/7 during the event for a handful of chances at an extremely rare drop....or you can spend money for a bunch of chances at it. If lootboxes were only for those that can afford to blow tons of money on a game, we would see zero effect on a game's structure, progression, and rewards system. But that's not what's going on. Increasingly we're seeing games built around lootbox systems where meaningful progression and rewards are linked directly to how much money you can spend.
So what about EA telling its investors that removing lootboxes will not stop Battlefront II from turning a profit? And how are these "supplements," if they are making more money than sales of copies of games? And don't tell me it's alright in some cases, because they are "just cosmetic," as if cosmetics means nothing. I don't even play Overwatch, and seeing Arin from GameGrumps' Sombra skin made me think "damn I want that." If I had Overwatch and not that skin, I would probably put a few bucks down trying to get it. And as for the Ferrari comparison, at least you are guaranteed to get a Ferrari when you put down several thousand dollars for a Ferrari. For a rare skin, you could pay the price of 1 loot box or thousands of loot boxes to get that skin, and it's never guaranteed. What's stopping everyone from going broke on buying a Ferrari is the money is the realization of this one thing costing a huge amount of money that they can't realistically put down. What's stopping people from getting the skins they want is random chance, since anyone "can" get the ultra rare thing for cheap, but not guaranteed. People say it's just one more, and it's justified since the price of one is negligible. But it is never just *one* more. Hell, I have the same problem with watching youtube videos when I need to do work. I say, "it's only 5 minutes, and it seems really interesting. What's the harm in one more?" Then I have to rush together assignments, since the recommended on the side of that one 5 minute video chained into a million (hyperbole) more interesting 5 minute videos.
Zarxxis Zapscratch All serialized "AAA games" have brand recognition. Maybe not to the extent of Star Wars, but the average person who doesn't own a console or gaming computer isn't going to drop a few hundred bucks for one, then another 60 dollars just for a Star Wars game that they'll play for a few weeks, then never game again. If you put out a game, you are not going to pull a lot of non-gamers, especially not those who still think violent games make violent people (my dad is one of them). So a serialized "AAA game," like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Far Cry (although I do not know if they are associated with loot boxes yet), and Middle Earth, will make its money back on sales alone, as they all sell millions of copies. If it is enough for Battle Front 2 to turn a profit, it is enough for all AAA games (I think BF2 "only" sold 8 million copies and EA told investors it turned a profit). So putting in loot boxes into 60 dollar AAA games, where people will be buying large amounts of emotionally, but not financially, infinitesimally priced roulettes, when the 60 bucks makes a profit, is just squeezing people for cash, blocking off content that would normally be free in the game. Imagine if Pokemon started selling in game loot boxes for increased chance of shinies and perfect IV pokemon, since "Oh it's too hard to make an affordable Pokemon game for the (insert portable console here)." People would be outraged. Imagine if it were Ratchet and Clank for different traversal boots, ship skins, or the RYNO and it's ammunition.
That's about 20 bucks worth of loot boxes right? For when you really only wanted one rare skin? Okay, not as bad as CSGO's weapon skins being traded for thousands of dollars, but still not good. Wouldn't you rather be able to see a skin, say "I want that," and buy it, like you would normal clothing? I still think 7 dollars is an outrageous amount to pay for a bundle of skins, but at least Persona 5 allowed you to buy the skins you wanted (and you generally got more than 1 skin that you wanted for the $7). I'd personally prefer if all these skins were in game and not locked behind random chance, where the opportunity to participate in free random chance events becomes rarer the longer you play the game (I believe I remember you either get one or a few free loot boxes per level, which become harder to level up the higher your level is, but they may have changed that. I don't own the game, so I dunno).
ThatGamerDude9000 in ow when you reach a certain level the xp bar caps, I think it might be 30-40 and the rest takes just 4-5 games of quickplay to get. And every week you have the opportunity to get 3 lootboxes. I fully agree with you I would love to buy skins like how I did in borderlands. Where I didn’t need to go and get 100 dollars worth of lootboxes just to get shitty skins that I would never use. But keep in mind that it’s highly profitable so unless it stops making them money they won’t stop adding them into games. My favorite company right now is Nintendo, probably the biggest company that hasn’t had micro transactions on any games. I was scared for splatoon 2 but it didn’t, it had free dlc and no micro transactions with the 60 dollars price tag. I also love rockstar since they don’t add nico Lootboxes but they do have micro transactions, but that’s only for online and no one plays that anymore.
5:04 "It's not gambling cause you can't cash out and sell the items..." - FAIL - in many games you can. Either directly, indirectly through trading to other direct cash equivalent (keys) or through third parties that manage the transactions. Thus your comment turns against you - they ARE gambling.
And it also counts against trading cards like magic the gathering. Those cards are now effectively able to be counted as child gambling but oddly while the government where I am effectively ruled lootboxes weren't gambling due to this logic of not able to cash out they didn't mention how this ruling should make those cards gambling...
I believe there is a big difference in creating real money, and creating virtual currency that can't be transferred as real money. Just my opinion, I guess. :)
You are absolutely correct! There is a huge psychological difference in how people treat proxies for money vs. the real thing. There is a reason why Casinos change your real money into plastic tokens at the entrance... also why games have virtual currency vs. maintaining a bank of real life money (that would come with its own controlled system).
Well, this is why... When it comes to real money, everything changes. The stakes are much higher. Every single penny matters! You make a living to survive! But when it comes to virtual money, sure, you can buy some things available, but you can't convert it to real money. The stakes are less important. You make a living for your own personal desires.
I'd argue that we're already there. Entire games are designed around the additional monitization strategies now, and you can't play the game without them being in your face the whole time.
I mean, I've played plenty of mobile games that weren't as bad as some of the AAA games that came out last year... Some of those games didn't even have microtransactions or were at least limited to a bare minimum and mostly just asked of an occasional ad.
That's what Loot Boxes in AAA games are. Especially like the ones in Battlefront 2. It is the mobile skinner box model brought over almost wholesale to reward Whales and punish/guilt/trick everyone else.
You say that loot boxes are more like raffles than gambling, but raffles are legally considered a form of gambling. I get your larger point, they are not as obvious as a slot machine or a roulette wheel, but legally they ARE gambling. Your description of gambling as requiring a cashing out is wrong: the US Code defines bets and wagers as "(A) the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome; (B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance);" Loot boxes are only considered not gambling if "participation in any game or contest in which participants do not stake or risk anything of value other than- (I) personal efforts of the participants in playing the game or contest or obtaining access to the Internet; or (II) points or credits that the sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor;" If you can pay real money for a loot box, it is legally gambling, even if it is a "lesser" form.
The only reason Lootboxes are not considered gambling is the same reason why Magic card opening isn't considered it. Wizards of the Coast(Creators of Magic the Gathering Card Game)have *explicitly* stated that the price of every card inside the booster packs is equal value of $0.50 and that's what 15 card booster packs are sold for $8. Because of this loophole in what is considered the risking of something of value on chance is gone because you will "always" receive equal compensation for the cost. But in reality not every card is equal because some cards are stronger than others so players set their own prices or their own standards to the cards which is what happens with loot boxes.
But that's not true: Wizards of the Coast KNOWS that its cards carry different real values based on their rarity, and their defense would disintegrate in a court of law. Booster packs are almost certainly gambling, but cases where their status has been contested have been thrown out of court for other reasons. That's why it's so important to realize this is all gambling and treat it as such, so we can take steps to keep it out of the courts so that they're not regulating our gaming markets.
and all i did was post the technical reason why they are not considered gambling though even though they are. WotC does nothing to monitor the secondary market of their cards. it's not different than Car dealerships, they have nothing to do with the product once they are out of their store. Cards are sold through official WotC dispensaries at $8 a booster pack because the price of every card is $0.50 Brand new regardless of it's rarity or relative power level. It doesn't matter to WotC what happens to the cards after they are opened because they have no say in the matter. you *are* getting what you paid for according to WotC and they have been as well as Nintendo have been sued in the past for alleged gambling inside their booster packs for Magic and Pokemon respectively and all of them have failed to prove that it is infact gambling because the sale price of each individual card is the same, just because other people think it should be something different and sell it for that price doesn't mean it wasn't originally sold at equal value.
It's totally different from a car dealership: gambling has three components: consideration, chance, and prize. Consideration: do you have to put something up, money or otherwise? Chance: is the outcome known/skill based or up to chance? Prize: do you get something of easily quantified value? You know what car you'll get at a dealership, but not what cards you get out of a booster pack.
But you also know you will get a certain number of cards, in most gambling you can come out with nothing. EDIT: I'll actually alter that to be 'In gambling you can come out with nothing' (aka chance), as far as the market (and the law) is concerned, what you are buying is a pack containing 'X' cards. If you could open a pack and have a random number of rewards (especially if 0 rewards was possible) then it would be gambling.
The whole premise is false. Publishers have been making big bucks on games despite how much they cost to make. Whether they add loot boxes or micro transactions depending on the price of the game is completely irrelevant. They could charge $100 for each new AAA game and they would STILL loot box/micro transaction it to hell and back.
The problem with your statement is that publishers (specifically their shareholders and executives) don't actually care how much money they're making. They only care that they're making more money than they were yesterday. They don't want to sustain their business model- they want to expand, by any means necessary. The problems that gaming is facing are rooted in societal problems- publishers are exploitative because their investors are constantly pursuing higher profits, gamers are unwilling to buy more expensive games because they aren't being paid more. When most businesses are confronted by these problems, they look to expand their distribution or create new products. But for whatever reason, game publishers have decided that the best way to satisfy investors is to squeeze their customers for every last penny. Those are artificial profits, a bubble that will burst, and we can only hope there will be game companies other than Nintendo and Valve left after it does.
drunky1993 it's just common sense. All these publishers care about is profit. They have all been making hand over fist in money even without micro transactions and loot boxes. They don't really "need" them to be profitable. They just want to nickel and dime you to death.
Also no it’s not because of MTs that we still have game prices the way they are. It’s because the consumer wouldnt pay anymore than the current price. What you actually think publishers wouldn’t raise the base price if they knew they could make MORE money?
I don't think even one time in history has a marketplace been changed by a small community of people consciously limiting their own options and fun for the sake of principle. You're free to do it if you want of course, I just don't think I'd advise anyone else hamper their own lives for something that unlikely to succeed. If lootboxes fall, they'll fall because the vast majority of people are disgusted enough by them to provoke a big enough backlash. Just not buying games that happen to practice an industry standard isn't gonna accomplish that.
Grassroots boycotting on principle isn't going to put a dent in the sales of a single one of these AAA games. The BF2 backlash barely even accomplished that. It's not like the voting argument where if everyone thought their vote didn't matter then of course it won't, because unlike voting I think it's asking a lot for people to go out of their way to not play certain games on a principle held by a minority. You're just hurting yourself, not these big companies or these practices.
I used to watch your videos when you were with the escapist as a teen, I used to look up to you. I truly hope you come to realize how badly these attempts at monitisation are making the games industry look, all i can hope for is that governments across the world ban these methods of income. maybe then I'll start buying AAA games again upon release.
You are using MtG as an arguement? Okay. There is one benefit in TCG/CCG that many lootbox systems including Overwatch fail in. Even if we ignore the blackmarket selling for money. The point it to trade with other players. It strengthen the community with an internal market. Don´t like your loot give it a friend that like it. Trade it for something you like or you know others love so you can trade it later. Is there some junk that noone likes? Yes, but you rarely can not negotiate. As to how to make lootboxes better: 1) Make all the loot tradeable. 2) Sell all the stuff in the Lootboxes at a higher price directly (you already designed it so why not put it in the shop.) 3) Never ever sell power (yes that is from you guys)
It is an easy cassh grab, that is why it happens. It is not like we can enforce it in the industry. Designer and Publisher need to restrain themself to not do it. And that is hard.
The problem comes to player (like me ) who don't spend extra money but are like level 600 so we like everything then we are forced to pay real money for something we were going to get anyway.
Sorry, but after getting burned a couple times, the mere presence of loot boxes just makes me averse to any game that has them now. I'm fine with DLC and if I like a game enough I'd be happy to pay more than $60 for it, but just the knowledge that there's lootboxes in a game and that the developer is likely going to try to shove in front of my face at every opportunity it can get away with is enough for me to just say "no thanks", and every Shadow of War and Battlefront 2 is making that bad taste in my mouth more and more bitter.
It’s a strange day that people say ‘you know, I’m fine with DLC’ Not a few years ago it was the single most hated thing in games. I can’t help but wonder if that it’s not ‘I liked DLC better then loot boxes’ instead of actually liking DLC.
+Meeko1001 Not for everyone. I thought the idea of DLC was great from the moment I first encountered it- and I still do (save a few exceptions like Sims 3 and 4 packs, and the infamous Train game dlc), and until I personally experienced what predatory loot boxes do to people and how they're almost the only kind out there that devs will try, I had the same opinion as EC. I can't look at them the same way as DLC any more when my worst splurge on DLC was about $40, compared to the nearly $500 I dropped in the middle of a rare medal campaign. That game wasn't even considered bad as far as lootboxes go, they're just designed to do that to people, to get people to spend on items they could use to "get ahead" in the game while making sure through multiplayer elements or other mechanics that they never will, because they want players to keep buying them. Because of that, they can't be killed by spending money elsewhere. DLC almost never has that issue. Long story short (sorry for the long comment), there's more to it than just not liking the new thing- lootboxes have a measurable effect on people in a way DLC can rarely replicate.
Mist Sonata agree just a greedy way to make money, dlc is one thing (if said dlc was not part of the game all ready and was cut to make it dlc) but loot boxes hell no I don't want to see it in any of my games and hope to see it go away one day.
I'm sorry, but, no. Locking content behind an randomizing paywall (whether it be gameplay tweaks or a pallette swap) just feels wrong, like i am being punished for not having the cash. I'm not going to buy bunches of games a year. I am an adult, with just enough cash to get by alright i guess. If i buy a game, i want it to be something that is complete, not bare bones, so i can enjoy playing it for time and time to come. At this point, If things don't change, I am not sure I'll even be a gamer anymore. I'm sorry Dan :(
Buy indie! There are so many good games that don't use explotative models. If you like games, don't let big industry bullshit drive you out of a hobby. Some high-profile devs also generally avoid these practices too (Nintendo, for example).
I bought many lootboxes in moments of weakness. Sometimes I wanted that shiny timed exclusive Mercy Halloween skin that was prominently advertised in the start menu of the game. Another time it was a miniskirt that ended up being so rare people are willing to spend hundreds of dollars for one. One thing was almost always the same when I bought lootboxes though. A feeling of disappointment and regret. For example when I spent 40€ on Overwatch lootboxes and didn't get what I actually wanted. You could argue that as a consumer it is my responsibility to controll my spending behavior. Which I kind of did. End of last year I decided to just not buy games with loot boxes anymore to protect my self against the temtation of buying more then I can afford just to get stuff I don't need. Which basically means I'm not playing AAA games anymore. I feel like people defending cosmetic lootboxes are never the ones who are suceptible to them. Please stop pretending only rich people who can afford it are buing this stuff.
My story is similar ish, I wanted a certain weapon in mass effect 3, I would have needed it 10 times!!! to get the full power out of it and after spending like 100-200 odd I didn't even see it once. I have never ever bought a loot box after that. At least with scratch cards I stopped after spending like 20 odd... (likely due to lootboxes coming to me first). At the end of the day it was exactly the same feeling between those scratch cards and those loot boxes in fact I think the feeling was worse with the loot boxes because it actually effected my ability to do well at the game by not having the weapon (and I had played a seriously amount for the game to earn it without spending, I reached the point my multipler effectively instantly won my single player point requirements).
There's a Cyanide and Happiness comic where someone goes to vegas and asks if he can buy a sandwich, handing over the cash. The cashier then spins a giant roulette wheel and says "no". That's lootboxes. A typical microtransaction, you can't get the good but you're guaranteed to get it. That's not the case, and that's partly why it's so annoying.
There's a real pizza chain called Hell, which ran a promotion called "pizza roulette". If you asked for it, they would (for no extra charge, I presume) add a few drops of an extremely hot chili sauce to one of the eight slices of the pizza. So, there's a random element, which you can make a 'fun' game out of, yet there's nothing random about the contents of the box - one pizza.
Well, there are games that allow to do that. Like Team Fortress 2 lootboxes (one of the first to exist, mind you) or CS:GO ones. The trick is: they are chance based... But if you have the chance - you can go to steam market and buy the skin you're interested in dirrectly. It might cost you x10 more than opening a crate... Could cost a dollar less... Now here's a real choice of "to gamble or not". You can gamble... Or you can just overpay for someone's else gambling and get it straight. Unfortunately Star Wars and Overwatch - from what i know - dont share the same philosophy. Their lootboxes are echo chambers. And that sucks.
you have a small chance of slipping when walking on a dirt road, do you consider that gambling? ok that was a extreme example here is a simpler one, when you play a shooter and you go around a corner there is a "chance" that a person is around that corner. is going around that corner now gambling?
MidgardEagle TL,DR magic cards have value and can be used to get what you want even if you gambled with a pack have you even played magic the gathering or any other tcg. 1. Yes some people buy packs for a chance (gamble) of getting said card. Opening a box increase your chances of getting what you want. (Minus some super rare card with insane pull rate. Get those crates rolling) Here's where 2 comes in 2. I can sell the cards I don't want and directly buy from a seller with the profits from cards I didn't want. 3. Video games loot boxes have no value and you cannot make a pauper format (Commons only) so your trash stay trash
NoESanity Afraid you're wrong pal. neoikake's analogy works, you just changed it by saying "unless you want to be competitive". What about Shadow of War? 60 bucks for the game and it asks you to buy booster packs. No competitive mindset there. Just because you add some details doesnt make his original analogy absolete.
I still can't believe you ENTIRELY ignore improper management direction and leadership in explaining why games cost so much to develop. Also, you CAN "cash out" of loot box winnings in many games (ie- PUBG)
In this video multiple times you make arguements along the lines of "whales/people paying for loot boxes allow the rest of us to pay less" I understand how in thoery that makes perfect sense buut ive yet to come across any hard data that shows that to be true but i have seen companies like EA claim that lack of loot boxes doesnt hurt them, i believe they even said that in an investor meeting whwre they would be legally compelled to tell the truth to thier investors. Its hard to see any of these potentially abusable sourses of income as anything but abusive when we cant see the effects they have for companies.
EC actually said this in a previous video. I find it strange that they're contradicting that previous position. (Granted, they didn't say accepting money from whales isn't OK... they said relying primarily on whales for income isn't OK. But I'd argue that balancing two income sources is unstable - one of them will have to become primary.)
EC seems to reserve their criticism for exploitative practices like personally contacting whales to keep them hooked, or cases where players put themselves in financial difficulty by spending too much of their income on the game. That said, it still bugs me when games offer rather expensive, non-cosmetic packages. EVE offers a $500 package, and while EVE is nominally subscription-based, and that's enough for 2 1/2 years of subscription, it's also $500 worth of tradeable goods in the main in-game economy.
It's frustrating listening to this because it feels like despite quite explicitly saying "we'd rather pay a little more up front than deal with microtransactions" that's all invalidated because _actually_ we secretly enjoy them, or they don't really matter despite us clearly communicating verbally that they do matter. The celebration that the entire model exists on the backs of whales and serves as a way for those wealthier to hold something over everyone else is particularly worrying, I took that as a particularly damning argument against the supposed potential moral good of the model. It's one thing to argue the economics of lootboxes, but it's another to then claim that critics are... what, lying about finding frustration with the inherent presence of mechanics meant to pester you for more money over what was previously a simple purchase? And I really don't like the constant implication that this all happened because we somehow asked for it by not altruistically offering up our wallets and demanding game prices be increased. If nothing else, at least let us choose how to feel about lootboxes. People aren't complaining _just_ about Battlefront and there were lots of complaints well before that became a wide reaching issue.
It's not that the people who dislike lootboxes are lying. More so that they are, in the eyes of these AAA developers, the minority, albeit a very VERY vocal minority. Because of this they don't want to cut costs to make a worse looking game because that is very scary for them. It is a dangerous option to make a game that looks sub-par, especially when you are trying to run with the "gritty" aesthetics of a lot of our big fps games.
One Cube Man First of all this has no empirical validity at all. And second its all about the question itself: if i ask you if you are willing to pay more for something you will always say no but in this case the question asked should be: "are you willing to pay more up front or do you want us to include hidden costs to the full experience that are much harder to keep track of?" - this would be a honest question with maybe a different outcome. I'm really disapointed by the cheep trickts that are pulled of here - you can do much better extra credits - thats sadly below you dignety - other videos are so well done - but this one looks more like you have to force something through...
And by the way i dont get it - you always talk about the 60$ pricetag as it was a law of nature... Fact is in europe we pay the full pice - eg. Ufc3, madden and so on cost about 65€ = 80$ - and still there is all that lootbox-goodness in it. - It is simply not true what you are talking about - why do we have to pay the fair price here and still have to deal with this? Fix your market in the us... People pay for it if they see value in it...
People buy lootboxes which means there is demand for them. Some people manage to spend crazy sums of money like $10000 on lootboxes to get soem rare digital asset. Every person like that outweight 200 people not buying the game for $50, every person who spends $1000 on lootboxes outweights 20 people whou would buy the game for $50. I do not know the numbers but I think that inveestors are not stupid and they know where the profit is. And if that profit turns out to be short teerm, they can invest next time to movies or real estates, they do not need games to make money anyway.
Yeah. I'm with you. The only reason why nobody raised their hands in that room is the cold hard truth that the question was phrased poorly. I'd pay more money upfront if that meant I got everything. However, I don't trust the game industries triple A companies. They'd just go on and put all these extra monetization options into games regardless of them charging more upfront.
That is the reason I have only bought indie or Nintendo games for the last year and a half. I am willing to pay but I only want to pay once. If you can't give me a fun AND complete game then I don't want it
Id rather buy Amiibo than a freaking loot box. At least I know what I'm getting, and for what cost, with the addition of a physical object to look at at the very least. No amount of rationalizing will ever make loot boxes okay. Sorry, but I have to give this video a thumbs down, and I do love this channel. There's a reason why actually good games don't go anywhere near this model. If I ever see From Soft implement a loot box model, I will legitimately eat my shoe.
Lootboxes have no right being in full priced games. They will without fail warp some component of the game to become objectively worse for the consumer. Even cosmetic only cases like Overwatch, because players enjoy cosmetics and lootboxes erect a gigantic wall between those players and their enjoyment. Not to mention that they are manipulative by design. The reason I view TF2 as the greatest example of player friendly lootboxes is because it is a free to play game and you can bypass the rng through the steam market place and player trading. The player economy also compensates big spenders with the chance to aquire items that are worth far more than the average items. You may tell us that they exist to ensure the stability of the industry, but if the industry cannot sustain itself, it does not deserve to exist and it has no right to push its failure onto its consumers. No matter how much you defend it, you cannot deny that the publisher trend is to design them against the players and given the rampup of anti consumer practices over the last decade, there is no reason to assume that AAA publishers will become nice out of the blue. Look, I know I probably sound harsh on you and I want to reaffirm that I think you run on of the best gaming centred shows on youtube, I really think so, but your viewpoint on these matters are clearly shaped by the fact that you are part of the triple AAA industry. I love video games and I hate the idea of the industry crashing or recessing, but it is not the players job to prevent that and if the industry cannot prevent it, then it must crash and make room for a new way of doing busniess.
The Witcher and Horizon Zero Dawn were created in countries where their government subsidies game development or have social security policies that make the development a lower risk venture than in the US, and Nintendo has Amiibos and console licensing fees which serve the same end goal of adding revenue streams beyond normal game purchases.
Witcher 3, developed in a country where games are cheaper to make, with good Government subsidisation. CD Projekt also is a part of GOG, hence owning a well established and financially strong PC platform (like Steam, but imo better). Horizon (and many Sony games) and Nintendo don't use those business strategies because they're not needed, they're 1st party. Most of the money made comes from 3rd parties, and 1st parties help boost console sales, and make the systems more desirable. The only exception to that rule is MicroSoft, who want ALL THE MONEY! like EA and most of the AAA industry.
Moving is expensive, moving to another country is even more so. Never mind going through all the legal issues, but potentially moving/laying-off staff could be company closing. Then add in personal families, responsibilities, and so much more. If it was that easy to just up-root and leave, companies would never be started in places where they could get a better deal elsewhere, it'd never make sense. As for companies like EA, they already do finance/own studios in other countries, but then as they're a US company owning a foreign one they face different fees/issues their too. Though, with (legal?) tax evasion I'd imagine this argument is moot for some of the AAA game publishers.
My problem is this: They are afraid of raising the base price, because it might turn people off. Okay, fair point. But they don't care that microtransactions and loot boxes might turn people off? I have stopped buying games that contain microtransactions, cosmetic or not, I don't want to buy a game if I don't know up front how much the experience will cost me. Loot boxes and microtransactions have already turned people off, but the industry still insists on pushing them, yet raising the base price is unthinkable?
I mean, you are not every consumer. Microtransactions, especially ones that only add supplemental (cosmetic) items are a hell of a lot more discreet than an upfront $20 price increase. I would consider you the exception rather than the norm.
I know no one will ever read this, but the second to last point is invalid if you ask me: any other example of someone spending a lot of money in something is justified because a Ferrari does cost that much to make, and if we had the tecnology to make a car that drives as good as one at a budget I don't think others would not buy it. However the extra enjoyement you get from microtransactions/loot boxes etc is already in the game, but locked behind that pay wall/ridicolous grinding, is not something that has that actual cost to add, it can cost more than another game and offer less, it's blocked not because it costs that much fr the devs to make, it's there because they know they can charge that much for that. This might be basic marketing but again the Ferrari comparison(the only real way you justified it) does not apply. Also you said earlier that games will stay 60 dollars, so the fact that it's helping keeping that price low is invalid too.
When Rolls Royce first came out literally the only thing separating their cars from others was the exorbitant cost. This made the car a status symbol. It was only after they started making a bunch of money that they actually started making the cars noticeably better. This is to say, I disagree with your point that the Ferrari costs that much to make. I have no comment for the rest.
I would argue that 'This can be done in an exploitative and unethical way' is a good enough argument to remove loot boxes entirely when they exist in an environment with no regulation to prevent exploitation or enforcement of said regulation.
Hey exrta credits, really love this series of episodes and getting perspective on all this. Your core community is with you on this, so if anyone is slogging through the comments I just hope you know you did a really good job explaining an inflammatory subject in a very understandable and positive manor. THANKS!
There nothing ethical about gambling Needs to be a warning sticker on games now if they contain loot boxes. I wont ever buy a game with this crap in it.
I'm old enough but want nothing to do with this type of garbage. Rather developers spend time making good games rather than video poker machines on steam.
4:42 - Wish granted. Over fifteen countries are conducting studies right now and at least TWO have found the Gambling and gambling compulsion claim to be valid.
You know, I was rather... salty about the issue during the last couple of videos. Simply put, I still find that this whole alternative monetization system is just a way to patch and hide a bigger problem that videogames, as all tech-based commodities, would eventually have to face. All technology in the market eventually has to reduce the speed of its development because it just becomes impossible to sustain in relation to the price to make it. That is why even if we have the technology, we don't have common space travel, megastructures or super cars. Until new systems to make them easier to produce appear, technology cannot just be sold better and better after a certain point. And it disgust me to such a level that people are destroying the work a lot of them are probably passionate about because the market cannot get this and us as consumers keep asking for more graphics, more content, more, more and more. Sure, a good, well designed and not intrusive alternative monetization might solve the problem in the short run, but it won't get rid of the core issue. And five or ten years down the line a new, worse system will pop up and we will have the same discussion, unless we stop relating quality with amount of cash thrown into it.
That would be right if loot boxes weren't on games that has nothing super innovative nor are graphically hyper realistic, like Blizzard games, for instance. I think that even if gamer's demands were lowered as you say, game companies greed would still be predatory.
Andres Arancio the best game I've played in the last 3 months is enter the gungeon low resolution game so good my favorite game is cryteks timespliters I can't bring my self to care much about high resolution games I don't have a system to play it on I do like making sfm models and playing with Skyrim skse and the clothing programs so I know kinda what it's like to work within a games ecosystems kinda I'm a pleb for sure but I feel like passion has to drive this industry and any other one not money the lootboxs is just a bold face spite to me I don't need it I bot hell blade because I hear it's amazing I can't play it but I got it I'll be buying neir atamida soon and the attack on Titan game don't lie to me and say there is no money if you make something good in your spare time wile working other projects not putting all your eggs in one basket you'll be and keep working on games don't stop at realise if you love it you should still love it but thats how passion can drive you
The point of the lootboxes in overwatch is to keep the game going without fragmenting the community. The free updates are a direct result of the system that benefits everyone that likes the games and wants to continue to grow. Overwatch would not be able to survive as long as I hope it will with extra money.
I was going to point out "It's just Cosmetics" is a bullsh*t, dead argument, but I learned something far bigger today. Companies are required by US law to maximize profits for shareholders. That is an actual thing. Google "Dodge V Ford Motor", the Supreme Court of America actually declared companies MUST maximize profits over charity and public benefits. This isn't saying they're not allowed to be nice to their workers, but this is still quite a big deal.
Isn't that the case where the Dodge brother's forced Ford to pay a large amount in dividends, and then used that money to form the Dodge car company to compete with Ford?
Correct. Dodge brothers where shareholders in Ford, and were upset that Ford was using most of it's profits on employees and community works. So they sued Ford for not putting the interests and profits of the shareholders first, and that actually worked. They then founded their own company.
Lootboxes have demonstrably ruined certain games, and I think any additional money bulking after already dropping $60 on the game is not cool no matter what.
if you believe that extra money is being taken to improve the game solely or even majorly, then yes quality drops. but we live in reality and it is not so.
The issue is that saying that you "already dropped $60 on a game" is a matter of saying... "so what?". $60 just isn't enough per customer anymore. It's the addition of additional lootboxes, and other paid DLC content, which *some* players buy, which allows the game to remain $60 for those who don't want to buy additional stuff afterwards. By all means complain when a company does lootboxes wrong (Battlefront is on everyone's lips there), but you can't say that lootboxes are "not cool no matter what". Because that just isn't true.
Let's build a better lootbox, together. We're kicking off a 3-part series exploring why the "lootbox model" is so popular these days, why so many publishers are messing it up, and how we can improve this method of monetization so the players are winning too.
Extra Credits hi
I'd rather a better product that does not try to manipulate me.
Extra Credits
great video, looking forward to the rest of the series
What can I do as a consumer to promote more scientific research into monetization models?
Well, few points I have to point out.
1) The high fidelity games argument doesn't seem to hold up, when you look at the success of Nintendo Switch and the games there. High fidelity graphics sell well based on trailers and such (which don't necessarily describe state of the game). If companies focused more on gameplay and not high fidelity graphics, they will sell their game, maybe not day 1, but they will sell their game
2) From the last video, the high marketing price is just... stupid as stated before, the game will sell, if the game is good. It may not sell on day 1, but it will sell. I am not saying you should not market your game, but spending more on marketing than on making the game sounds really stupid. Especially in today's day and age, when people tend to ignore advertisement more and more.
3) I know these points 1 and 2 won't hold up to big publishers, because they need to show low risk high reward scenario to share holders. Marketing a bad game with high fidelity graphics on trailers will sell. It will sell enough most of the time however it leaves sour taste in mouth. It will come back to this industry once, and people will be so skeptic about every game, that marketing and high fidelity graphics will have practically zero impact on the game's success.
4) The cash out argument is... kinda valid in most cases. But the Steam marketplace allows some of these products to be sold. Legally Steam doesn't allow real currency trades, and you just get steam currency, which you can use to buy games. However there's those black markets.
5) I believe that you can make an ethical loot box, but... I don't see how you could do that really. I guess you will be addressing this later, but I'd like to know how exactly do you propose to do a loot box that is not exploitative
The problem is that even if games cost $80 and people are willing to pay it, AAA publishers would not just remove alternate revenue streams. They would charge $80 and STILL have microtransactions and lootboxes. Everything I've read from publisher earnings reports shows that revenue from microtransactions far exceeds the purchase price revenue, so why have the $60 purchase price? If you're going to use the free to play business model, make your game free to play.
Would you buy a game for 80$ that doesn't include microtransactions of any kind?
Depends on the game, but yes. I assume we are talking about a AAA title with a massive budget to justify the $80 price point. If a game has nexgen graphics, a well written story, great voice acting, engaging gameplay, and impressive sound design, with no microtransactions, I would happily pay $80. When microtransactions are added to a game, it makes the game worse, IMO, as gameplay is adjusted to suit the business model. Just look at how they had to adjust the gameplay for Battlefront 2 after they removed the microtransactions. The game progressed too slowly for most people, showing that the pacing of the gameplay was slowed down to get you to spend money. That's why I'm happy to pay an extra $20 for a well polished, well balanced game. But the sad fact is that microtransactions make way more money than even an $80 price point would make them. So even if you, me, and everybody in the world said "we will happily pay $80", publishers are not going to say "great, guess we don't need microtransactions anymore, even though they make us 10 times as much money as an $80 game without them"
Because these decisions aren’t made by developers as we traditionally imagine the profession, they’re made by executives in an attempt to appease shareholders
There are a lot of good games that cost nothing to play. Go play them if you dont want to give your money to big companies.
@@sjsjsjsjsbagahlwmdbxhamansksms knowing there will not be predatory microtransactions in there and thus no intentional roadblocks to try and manipulate me onto spend8ng??? Happily!!
Thank you for citing a study and then putting no link to it in the description.
Could you provide a link to the study that you looked at? It would have been a good addition to the description.
I dont think he can show his asshole in a youtube description
The thrust of this argument is that aggressive supplemental monetisation is necessary for AAA fidelity and AAA fidelity is necessary, but that's just not true. Monster Hunter World looks fantastic, and there are no lootboxes or microtransactions at all in the game. Nier Automata doesn't have AAA fidelity at all, in fact it looks pretty primitive compared to most similar open world games, and yet it was a big sales success for its budget. Same with Nioh, looks great, only has traditional (and substantial) DLC, Dark Souls, only traditional and substantial DLC.
All these games are successful, they make money by selling at a standard price point, using non-exploitative business practices where you pay for a thing and get the thing you paid for, and the value proposition of what you pay for is acceptable to the player.
The "but they need it" line is simply wrong, they don't need it.
Also, you might not be able to sell that overwatch skin back to Blizzard (yet), but many games allow you to sell the contents of lootboxes to other players, like that $61,000 CS:GO rifle skin, and the marketplaces for those sales kick back to the developers. (Also the reason there are a lot of cheaters on PUBG playing from China, because they're farming lootboxes for items to sell and China already had the "farm digital items for real world sales" infrastructure from the WoW gold farming days). So yes, the ability to cash out is absolutely there for many of these systems.
"Nier Automata doesn't have AAA fidelity at all"
And yet, it still looks wonderful - honestly far more visually appealing, interesting, and creatively inspired than a lot of AAA games. Why must these triple A devs insist on spending zillions on shit like ridiculous ultra-fidelity water reflection shaders that show up like once in the whole game, and so rarely bother to come up with an actually interesting look and style rather than generic 'muh gam look gud wauw textures'?
All the games in the Dark Souls series are massive successes and none of them have cutting edge graphics. I would consider Dark Souls 3 a AAA game. Maybe I'm wrong doing that but I love Dark Souls 3 and if it had loot boxes I would still play it but it would be just soul crushing in a way the difficulty curve could never be. :^(
the problem is that the consumers keep demanding higher fidelity graphics, even though what they want is better aesthetics. but you try turning round to your customers and saying "well I know you asked for this thing, but we're going to give you this other thing because that's what you actually wanted even though you never said and oh by the way it's cheaper for us" see how well it goes down on the PR front
Minor correction, but Monster Hunter World does contain microtransactions. Other than that, *this 100%*
GloatingSwine the difference is that these are highly successful games. Often times games like these just won't get everyone buying it and they'll sink. Micro transactions are essential for lesser played games and the studios who created them to stay running and be able to expand.
8:15 "Game companies, please don't be evil about this"
It's almost, like ExtraHistory is a complete different channel, completely dislodged from thisone with this logic.
As if we never had seen this a thousand times in the past, I mean you guys made whole series about the South Sea Company Bubble and said YOURSELF: "If a system can be exploited by the people who benefit from this system, they WILL do it!"
I conclude like I started this comment with your own words: "This is a good lesson, I hope we learn it someday..."
I'm pretty sure that was a joke
It was rhetorical, because really, all we can do is beg them at this point. It shows how little say we have in the matter. There's always going to be people that buy in to these lootboxes.
Like this video
No, it's really not. Extra History is biased as hell.
Well hardly, at least based on the video. He is specifically talking about apps who target kids, and specifically says that because of backlash and legal issues they aren't common at all.
The "myth" about children stealing their parents' credit and debit cards is true, though. It has been common since the days of Xbox 360 with Fifa. This comes from my own limited experience, admittedly, but as someone who worked customer service for various banks for a good few years, nearly every day would have a call about possible fraudulent activity from Microsoft. It is surprising how many people will defend their kids too; I would start by asking if they had any children, did they have a console, did they own Fifa (or any other games that featured microtransacactions) and after establishing all that, they would still say "My son wouldn't do that!" Worst thing is that the banks I worked for didn't consider it fraud so it would get escalated to Microsoft who rarely refunded, except occasionally as "good faith" and this was usually after a certain threshold had been reached - couldn't say the exact amount, again from limited follow up I was able to do, but a few thousand pounds - refund. A few hundred? Tough luck.
tl;dr - shadiness with kids and microtransactions was surprisingly common going all the way back to Xbox360, with the banks and Microsoft both considering this not fraud.
Mash Bash your experience is merely an anectote but I am curious where they got the numbers that say it is a myth. I've tried some googling and haven't found anything firmly supporting their claim
That's true. I couldn't finding any stats supporting that in app purchases by children are a big problem so it is indeed baseless. Thanks for that.
I never stole their credit cards but when i was incredibly young i spent a couple hundred bucks on microtransactions in those mobile games where all you have to do is enter a password
Okay but what James SHOULD have asked is "Who would pay $80 for the usual $60 games but those games are guaranteed to be without micro transactions, day one paid dlc, and loot boxes, and are guaranteed to have a completed campaign?"
People don't want to pay $80 because they DONT TRUST THE INDUSTRY TO NOT CONTINUE THE SAME PREDATORY AND INSIDIOUS PRACTICES.
I actually believe a question was missed. It should have been who could afford to pay $80 and then after who would. Since if only 2 hands went up for who could and then the same hands went up for who would it would show if people have enough income to even be able to spare that spending power (where I am wages actually haven't gone up for inflation in a lot of jobs). I know some places are uneffected but some triple A game prices have gone up 20-25% in the last few years for me and that is on top of DLC and microtransactions. This isn't really a case of game developers are in need of more money to survive but how much they can rip from my pokets leading to me honestly avoiding triple A games more or only getting when on discount so I effectively am spending less but having a delay before getting the game (which I don't mind since it actually becomes affordable).
Or asked the question in Australia, where everyone would have put up their hand for ONLY having to pay $80. My copy of Monster hunter world was AU$100 for the DIGITAL version.
Question - is the Digital version usually less than physical in Australia? Because in the states it's pretty much always the same.
Yeah, I also thought you couldnt have asked this question in a less leading way. That one was incredibly unhelpul^^
pantslesswrock
Nah, like most places, digital and physical games almost always cost the same at launch. Publishers have to do it to keep retailers onboard. Although it can be hard to tell sometimes, because Steam charges us in USD (at different prices from the US).
Still dumb though. Prices settled at AU$100 back when the Australian Dollar was sinking to around half the US Dollar (back when games were US$50). When the US started doing $60 games, Australian retailers tested the water with $120. When the AU$ was approaching parity with the US$, prices dropped to maybe AU$70-80 at best.
There is a long history of Australians getting overcharged for games, and we call it the Australia Tax (despite it having nothing to do with government taxes).
The main problem is that the industry WON'T regulate itself. Some companies will, but others will be as exploitative as possible to siphon money out of people in an unethical manner. These companies are too short sighted or lack enough empathy to not take advantage of people, so there NEEDS to be external regulation.
External vs. internal regulation is a great topic for discussion! We've seen some examples in the past (mostly from the 1990s) where the US Congress tried to regulate what types of content could be in games (e.g. graphic violence and such). Do you (as in, general you, not specifically you) think that there's a difference between this type of content regulation and game mechanic regulation, and if so, why?
@Extra Credits I think there's a legal precedent for both. However, I think the difference between game mechanic regulation and content regulation is that game mechanics can be psychologically addictive, whereas content can't necessarily. However, I would say that whether you think certain game practices should be illegal or not depends on whether you think gambling and similar things should be.
@Extra Credits Thanks for taking the time to reply! Personally, I would prefer internal regulation. Like I believe James has said before, depending on how the laws are written, there can be horrendous unintended consequences to classifying loot boxes as gambling.
I'd say the difference between the 1990s, with violence, and the modern 2010's, with loot boxes, is the potential for harm and the importance to expression. There were claims that video games would make people more violent based on correlation, which ended up being unfounded. There was also no financial incentive to add violence into video game content where it would otherwise not belong. Violent games may sell better, but violent content where it doesn't belong (ex: Thunderdomes in Animal Crossing) isn't going to inherently increase revenue from a game (though perhaps I'm wrong here, if so please correct me. You all have more industry experience than me I'm sure). Having violent content in the game resulted in it's message and meaning being influenced which, intended or not, was part of the work's expression.
Lootboxes, however, are being specifically designed to take advantage of certain people, like you've mention in the video. Psychologists are brought in to better take advantage of impulses, specifically to try to get more money out of people. You mentioned that there are no large scale, rigorous studies on the psychological impact of loot boxes, but we are already seeing tangible harm that it is causing people. Further, the mechanic is being introduced into video games regardless of what their core engagement is. Lootboxes aren't inherent to a game expressing itself as an artistic work, it's strictly there to increase financial revenue, and so I don't think we can compare them to the kind of regulation that was discussed in the 90's.
If there were some internal body like the ESRB that was able to self-regulate the industry, I would be all for it. But there have been horribly exploitative microtransactions in games for several years now, with no kind of internal regulation. Lootboxes are the apex (hopefully) of exploitation when built "correctly", and thus we're now seeing blowback politically. If the industry was going to self regulate to protect gamers, it would have done so before this point. So, even if there is some kind of self regulation introduced now, I don't trust it to be a good faith effort. Rather, it would be the industry trying to cover themselves from government restriction.
How about addressing that Activision/Blizzard patent that outlines how they will alter matchmaking and actual gameplay in order to psychologically manipulate players into purchasing more microtransactions/loot boxes? Or how EA said that suspending lootboxes in Battlefront II wouldn't affect its bottom-line?
When you addressed the predatory practices which you call "evil", you downplay them quite a bit. Battlefront, Destiny 2, and Shadow of War aren't niche, minor titles. These are some of the biggest games of the year, which are going to be some of the most played by casual consumers and occupy some of the biggest mindspace in the public. Including "evil" practices in these games is bound to hurt perception of the industry. Remember ET and Pac-Man for the Atari 2600? A handful of high profile games can sink the whole ship.
P.S.: If we're not sure if loot boxes are gambling until more study is done, wouldn't the ethical thing be to hold off on them until we ARE sure they're not preying on vulnerable individuals?
Greed. Greed never ends.
Flipping Chips Don't mean "changes?"
This is pretty much exactly what happened with tobacco. First, they said it wasn't harmful. It was. Then they reluctantly admitted it was harmful, but they didn't didn't know. They did. Then they said that labeling was unnecessary. They didn't want anyone disrupting the gravy train. It made no nevermind to them that their enormous profits meant people were dying. They even fought the attempts to just inform their own customers that the product they were buying would kill them.
This is why AnCaps and libertarians are insane. We have shit like this going on now. With even less oversight it would be exponentially worse.
but in overwatch they are cosmetic and you can earn loot boxes without paying
For one: lootboxes aren't like Magic booster packs. When you buy Magic cards, you can trade with other people to get what you want. When you buy a lootbox that's impossible in all but a handful of games.
Second: sure, I agree to an extend that it's a good thing that rich people have the opportunity to pump more money into a game to take more of the financial burden. However: why does that have to be with lootboxes? Why can't you just buy the stuff you want instead of throwing money at a random number generator?
Call it what you will, it's still throwing money into a slot machine and I have nothing good to say about that. If you could trade your lootbox loot, then at least you would be reasonably sure you could get what you want with a certain amount of money. As far as I'm concerned: the sooner the lootbox gets eradicated from video games, the better.
To say nothing of the assumption that if the base price went up to 80 bucks, loot boxes would disappear from AAA games.
EA makes most of their money from "Live services" right now. Anyone who thinks they'd give up that gravy train...I have a bridge to sell them.
Also MTG booster packs are gambling and highly exploitative, just because they are an older business model and accepted by a lot of peoples doesn't mean that it isn't a really shitty way to treat your customers.
J B For games like MtG, that is part of the game...but in games like battlefield it is a real leech! There is a diff between card games and lootboxes but with how the later is doing things it is clearly marking the card game aspect of getting cards through booster packs. And I will get on Blizzard's case for how they make you win 3 games for 10 gold...and you need 100 gold for a booster.
Yeah, seriously, the way booster packs were sold in Hearthstone, which is all about deckbuilding, is what made me straight up quit the game. I played for a solid 2-3 months, and I still couldn't make a coherent custom deck. :s
No, lootboxes and booster packs ARE equivalent. They're both content where you don't know what you'll get until after the company has your money. What the content happens to be or what you can do with it is irrelevant. What you get for your money is non-deterministic, and that makes it gambling.
I would agree with this stance more if companies like Ubisoft, EA, Warner Bros games, and Activision Blizzard were not posting RECORD HIGH PROFITS EVERY YEAR!
yeah it's really hard to get behind arguments of why games cost so much to make with game publishers posting massive profits, mistreating employees, and taking advantage of every tax shelter loop hole they can find to avoid paying taxes, oh and don't forget literally filing patents for matchmaking systems designed to trick people into spending more money
Terezar
1. You understand that those companies are huge and can throw money around right?
2. Do you understand that those profits *might* be mainly because those the Loot Box system is already implemented?
3. Do you understand that you are making the decision to denounce the Loot box system solely on a few companies?
Because... shareholders. If they don't make their shareholders happy by making enough money, they can potentially lose a lot more.
+Bad Incorporated. 1. Yes, thats why they can afford to make the games without lootboxes.
2. Yes but they have been making a good profit since before lootboxes.
3. Yes, a few companies that hold a huge amount of power over mainstream gaming. Activision-Blizard produces COD, Starcraft, overwatch and WOW. EA produce Battlefield, Sims, EA sports, Need for Speed and starwars. Ubisoft produce Farcry, Assassins Creed, Tom Clancy.
Bad Incorporated the majority of reported profits are coming from the F2P lootbox element, not the initial $60. That's right; major publishers are backing fewer games and posting profit over loss thanks to F2P systems. From this, it would make way more sense for companies to reduce price in favour of attracting more customers. Instead, we have people talking about an $80 price. There's an obvious problem here.
I'm a senior game developer at Inxile Entertainment with 5 years industry experience. I've been watching extra credits on their response and in fact following loot boxes really closely because it directly affects what I code tomorrow and how I feel about what I code tomorrow.
A lot of people saying you can't cash out but you can directly sell your CSGO and PUBG skins on the steam marketplace in exchange for USD within your account that you can then exchange for goods sold within the store. It's store credit in the form of USD and as we have seen with Eve, WoW and even steam already, you can always get a third party to pay outside of these software limitations. On top of that steam has one built in. How are people saying you can't cash out? You are exchanging skins in one game for credit on a store that you know you are going to buy from again.
Additionally as people pointed out buying a car is not the same as buying a chance to win a car. These are two vastly different things and this is where the gambling separation happens in which Extra Credits seems to have brushed aside.
It's like saying walmart could then put a casino anywhere (Such as downtown Seattle) as long as you only allow people to "cash" out using walmart gift cards. This clearly isn't the case and would never be allowed.
I fully agree that more studies need to be done on loot boxes but our casino and online gambling laws need to catch up in the US real quick because they are already seeing mass abuse.
Michael Brune those are merely a few specific examples where you can cash out.
Thank you so much for Wasteland 2 , best kickstarter I ever backed
Hold on a second. Just hold on. You're saying just because I can't cash out for real money, it isn't gambling?
On a slot machine, the *ONLY* thing you can get is money. Which means that you gamble and gamble and gamble to try and get *more* money.
AS A PERSON WITH A GAMBLING ADDICTION, OPENING LOOT BOXES HITS ME SEVERAL LEAGUES WORSE THAN ANY CASINO EVER HAS. Because it isn't money I'm chasing. It's the skin that I want, it's the upgrade for something of my equipment; I'm not chasing my money. Which means, I'm not even paying attention to the fact that I put all my fortnightly pay onto buying more boxes, because I never ask myself, "How far down am I and how do I break even?".
Instead I tell myself, "Well... I'm already this far in, I'll just keep going until I get it."
Chasing my losses at a casino? I get to feel depressed about how far down in my chips I am that I still haven't gotten a return and you know what, maybe it's better idea to leave.
Buying lootboxes? I never see anything tangible and never feel anything other than the anxiety of the fact that I haven't gotten what I'm after and that it could be the next instantaneous click that gets it for me... and even then, once I have it, I realise how I've just buggered myself over entirely for something in a game. Does that help stop anything the next time? No. Because I'm friggin' well addicted to it.
Look. I love you guys. I really do. But this is just something that you cannot, in any meaningful way, state is, "For the fun of consumers and responsible people!" when they leave it, quite literally, out in the open as they do and REQUIRE you to participate in the RNJesus Boxes to get something cool and shiny that you can't get any other way.
I'll concede; you are right. It isn't gambling.
It's five hundred thousand times goddamn worse. It doesn't need any further study to figure that out.
As much I love you guys, the whole... "Companies are right to shoot for the stars and get as much money and profit as they can", rhetoric that you've been going on with for the last few weeks is really starting to kill the sentiment.
I may pay 1 doller for a 1/100 chance of a 100 doller reward - that is a fair bet, someone else may pay 1 doller for a 1/10000 chance of a 5000 doller prize - that is how casinos work. But with lootboxes you are paying 1 doller for a chance at.... fucking nothing, literally no monetary reward. It is by far the worst gambling odds ever made.
What do you suggest companies do instead of work to attain profits? The genius of the capitalist system is that it taps into human greed to make the situation better for everyone. You pay money, you get what you want, and we'll make more of what you want. While gambling can rely on addiction to get people hooked (though so does alcohol and smoking), eventually anti-consumer practices will cause the business to collapse in on itself. Game companies will be forced to choose a consumer-friendly alternative on way or another; there's no sustainable way to survive otherwise. But if they don't focus on profits, what motive is there for a company to continue existing in the first place?
He explained this quite specifically. Its not like a casino, it is like a crane machine. Though they both use the same systems to get you to pay money, they are different by definition. The EXACT definition of gambling is "play games of chance for money; bet." so no, its not gambling, but because we don't have a very good word for it, people refer to this different mechanism as gambling.
He’s not saying companies should get as much money out of you as he can.
He’s saying that companies are in a dilemma of their own creation, and loot boxes are their current idea out of said dilemma.
So naturally, he’s exploring the idea if ethical loot boxes *could* exist.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. I have no doubt they are also changing the pay out ratios based on known user habits. Casinos, can't even get away with that.
Lootboxes lead to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering....
I want a specific piece of merch in a game, why can't I just buy it? Instead I have to convert my actual money into a unique crypto-currency sold in carefully packaged increments so that you always need to buy a second bundle to stack the right amount of digibitcoins in your wallet for that initial purchase. Now I'm left with a static number of uselesscoin that doesn't purchase anything of interest. If I make one more purchase, tho...
It's all by design and intended to reach the lowest common denominator. Just like slots that are designed to always take in more than it gives away and percentages are adjustable.
Then we have the randomization on these boxes and that's what makes it complete bullshit. The argument that they are somehow comparative to MTG or baseball cards is also bullshit because the second hand market that exists for collectors of actual cards. Digital purchases outside of the platform they are intended for have no real-world second-hand value to us and is therefore manipulative by design. There really should be no debate.
"You have a conscience" Bold claim, most of the time it is not a developer choice but a company choice, and I'm not sure companies have a conscience...
Companys aren't real. They're an organization that exists in the abstract only. It cannot have a conscience.
Yes but companies are controlled by people, or groups of people, which is who they were referring to.
Yes, companies are controlled by groups of people. When something goes wrong they spread responsibility so thin no one does anything (or dump it all on whoever's lower on them in the corporate ladder) but when something goes right they all clammor to take responsibility.
Companies cannot be put in jail or made to do community service. Any fines are passed along to the customer as the talking heads attack the big bad government for stifilying capitalism.
Yes, companies are controlled by groups of people. When something goes wrong they spread responsibility so thin no one does anything (or dump it all on whoever's lower on them in the corporate ladder) but when something goes right they all clammor to take responsibility.
Companies cannot be put in jail or made to do community service. Any fines are passed along to the customer as the talking heads attack the big bad government for stifilying capitalism.
Exactly, corporations, as a whole, are only as good as they /have/ to be. They're not evil, they don't have the capacity, they're just following a command of maximize profits. But more success means more layers of bureaucracy and the people at the top won't feel the consequences for the bottom, and will do more harm as a result.
"dont be evil"
HA...HA...HA
said no company ever lmao
Dan: "Use your conscience."
EA: "What's that, and how much money can I make off of it?"
*Unlimited POWER!*
Aye, that gave me a good laugh.
isn't "don't be evil" google's company motto... at least when they first started.
1. Buying a Ferarri doesn't offset the cost of regular cars.
2. Do you think it would be fair of Ferarri to sell their customers a CHANCE to get a Ferarri, but they are much more likely to get an inferior car that doesn't look as cool?
See, that's the rub with loot boxes vs traditional microtransactions - at least with them, you get what you pay for. I think microtransactions has its own set of issues, but there's no INHERENT uncertainty built into that system.
You have a good point with the inherent uncertainty. EC did say that big spending in games helps offset the cost of the game, which is a STEP ABOVE the Ferarri example, so they've got you covered there.
I realize that the Ferarri example was to make the point that we generally feel that people are free to spend their money however they wish (which is not really an argument in favor of loot boxes, just an observation of how things are, not how they ought to be), I just pointed out where the analogy breaks down in regards to loot boxes specifically.
One thing I've been noticing a lot with monetization systems is bundling for exclusive content. Which basically forces players into getting content they didn't want to get some content they do want.
There isn't a single person "forced" to buy a video game, or it's content.
It would be valuable if you address Nintendo's (non-mobile) model in the next video, without dismissing it as an outlier. Customers hate lootboxes and microtransactions, which is pushing many of them to embrace Nintendo for:
1. Selling complete games that don't need to be supplemented
2. Supplementing revenue with expanded DLC content that is entirely optional
3. Releasing groundbreaking games with a fraction of the fidelity and marketing costs of other developers
4. Cultivating its own reputation
halafoo36 yes but you have to take in account the fact that Nintendo is well Nintendo
What i mean is that Nintendo operates in a way no other publisher operates. When you talk about consoles and pc you always compare xbox and ps4 to pc and never Nintendos consoles. Why is that? Its because Nintendo makes way more first party games and is very selective in the games it allows on their systems. Also Nintendo has a name like no other. Super mario and Pokemon are some of the most famous ips on the planet. This is also what allows them to make games that don't follow the graphics arms race. Thats never what Nintendo did. Even when they were on the forefront of innovation they did things to make unique games not more. Beautiful games or bigger games. Ofc i personally prefer this style of business. But you have to admit that what allows Nintendo to operate like this is its name and recognition
Yeah absolutely, Nintendo is a special case. But they resonate with consumers on 4 points I outlined above, and I think that can set an example for other publishers: "This is what you can do right."
oh right. The bethesda sony hybrid. Locks their games on their platform like sony and just sues anybody that makes a fangame
Nintendo sells consoles as well. If you want to play a Nintendo game you are already paying 250$ for their console. Also they technically have in-game purchases, they just have dressed them up as Amiibos.
7:36 I think the car analogy is flawed. The big spender isn't purchasing the nice expensive car. They are spending money on a chance to get a nice expensive car. instead giving the big spender the option of purchasing the car he / she wants with all the bells and whistles. They will have to purchase boxes that might have what they want. That isn't pro consumer, its just a cleaver trick to get big spenders to spend even more money on something they could have purchased for less. Its a way to get more money from people who are rich (or have an addiction problem) to spend even more.
Or to phrase it more concisely: They're not buying a car, they're buying raffle tickets to try and WIN a car.
To be blunt about it, as long as we have rising income inequality with large portions of the population on static wages (or effectively falling wages due to rising costs of living) in an economy that demands constant growth to function, you will inevitably see the entire economy shifting towards getting as much as it can from those that have money to the detriment of everyone else.
Every sector of the economy will manifest this differently, and we can try to lessen the problems with this approach (such as stopping targeting those with emotional vulnerabilities), but this catering to a small percentage of consumers is a systemic problem that will only ultimately be fixed with a revitalizing of the middle class.
Except it's not an analogy about lootboxes at all, but about the perception of wasteful spending.
I've been reading through a lot of the comments, trying to understand what exactly the people who disagree with the video's main points have been trying to say, and I think you've hit the nail on the head. The system forces people to spend more than they want, because they can't just buy the thing they want.
But loot boxes aren't a luxury . They are tied to progression (battlefront) and are the only way to get the items you've been hunting for (Destiny 2). Even when loot boxes are optional and can be purchased with in game currency like Hearthstone. The gameplay balance can suffer with the introduction to them (Shadow of war 2) and make the game boring and grindy.
I have one problem with this: The AAA games that usually have lootboxes are the games that are going to sell well, Battlefront 2, Shadows Of War, AC Origins, Destiny 2, EA Sports games, those games were going to turn a profit without lootboxes (EA said so), in fact, I'm willing to bet that Battlefront 2 lost a lot of sales because it had lootboxes; we also have to take into account games like Nier: Automata, Ni-Oh, Persona 5, Resident Evil 7 and Wolfenstein 2, all AAA games without lootboxes, and we also have Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, an Indie game without lootboxes that looks on par with AAA games and it's cheaper.
A LOT of goodwill has already been lost on lootboxes. You're going to be fighting an uphill battle here.
Honestly I'd love to see a "Good" lootbox. Because i've only seen terrible ones so far. like you said
I think it likely that a "good lootbox" would not even be identified as a lootbox.
that was his money anyway.
I hate that there is "luck" involved. How do i know that games don't have algorithms in lootboxes? If i main some hero in overwatch and new update has new skin fo that hero. How do i know developers aren't messing with odds so i would spend just little more to get that skin? Just look Activision patent where they but you in matches so you can see how good that one weapon would be.
4K - China requires dev list the percentages of "payout" for game lootboxes. Sad thing is, even if you see a list for a World release over there, its no guarantee that the rest of the world gets those same percentages.
If you look into security, a major problen is there is no such thing as "random" in computer science.
Programmers try to mitigate that by incorporating extra inputs into their algorithms (e.g. KeePass' password generator gives you the option to add mouse movements and key presses).
A company that directly profits from that "chance" cannot be trusted to be honest and use "noise" data to keep the chance random. Heck, if their chance algorithm isn't open-source or regulated, they can literally do whatever they want as long as it "feels" right.
But what if I **don't** want the highest fidelity graphics?
I feel as though I may be in the minority here, but for me the peak of graphical power and fidelity was a generation or so ago... I have never cared about a game having the best graphics, just looking good.
THANK YOU!! I wholeheartedly agree! That's why I love my 3DS. It's not the most powerful in graphics, but the games have a great-looking STYLE to them. Ever Oasis' chibi look is a prime example.
Think of all the games that had "cutting-edge photorealistic graphics" over the years. How many of them still look good? Now look at the games that had their own distinctive art style and how many of them still look good. A game with distinctive art direction that stands out from the field of muddy brown cover-shooters will be remembered and remembered fondly.
James Kaplan then buy the hundreds of indie games that don't rely on graphical fidelity.
You're not in the minority.The two top selling video games of all time are Tetris and Minecraft.
As someone who actively seeks out pixel art and has something like 900 hours into Minecraft in the last four years I can say that you are not alone.
Magic the Gathering boosters packs have trade value and an economy. Loot boxes for non-transferable digital items... Not so much. Important difference.
Rare does not equate to value though. There are far more 25 cent rares than $20 rares in any set.
MTG cards always have value. Even if you have 100 Hill Giants those 100 hill giants have some value because you can sell them on the secondary market. You cannot resell most of the stuff that comes out of loot boxes as the stuff is tied to the account that opened it. Also you can just buy the rare you want without having to buy packs. For instance I can go out and buy a play set of Lightning bolt right now without having ever seen a pack. The same sort of thing cannot be done with most loot box economies.
It seems you're looking at the example EC made to be about the rarity ratio of stuff inside the pack rather than the nature of the pack itself. It has nothing to due with rarity ratios and everything to do with the value of what is actually being sold.
MTG sells things of objective value, loot boxes don't. That's why MTG is a bad comparison to loot boxes.
There is a game format associated with booster packs as well, it’s called Draft :).
King_Oskar acally many games do garente a Serrano rearity
I've seen games that make the loot box items tradable. This just added a new layer to pay to win, which ended up exploding the community. I'm a developer myself and it's hard to see what some people deem as ok and others as absolute the worst idea ever
That or maybe some of these games could offset the need for ultra realism with a good art style. Something that ages well.
AAA should innovate and refine rather than copy. No one asked for Ubisoft's huge empty maps. If you made it scalable and interesting odds are you could make a few city blocks just as interesting and the landscape of the division.
They have the resources to think smarter but they choose not to. Ergo I won't buy into this alternative revenue model.
Step 1: only make a certain type of game.
Step 2: claim that your customers only buy that specific type of game.
Step 3: justify continued repetition.
There is no way in HELL I'm buying a Tomb Raider game where Lara Croft's hair doesn't have every strand simulated with physics in real time. That's what games are all about!
But seriously, well said :)
+mcdrums87 You left out a step between 1 & 2: customers buy that game in large numbers
The only reason the lootbox system works is because the CUSTOMER supports it via purchases. I guarantee 99% of this would stop if customers stopped financing it.
Turamwdd that was implied because my assertion is that customers are only buying these games because there aren’t any other options from the publisher.
Note some of the 2017 loot box “All Stars”:
Destiny 2-sequel to massively popular original.
Star Wars Battlefront 2-sequel to 2015’s Battlefront, also a STAR WARS game in a year with a major SW film.
Shadow of War-sequel to the popular Shadow of Mordor (praised for its nemesis system) and part of the legendary Lord of the Rings series.
Call of Duty WWII-the annual CoD installment returning to WWII for the first time since 2008.
All sequels. All guaranteed to sell many, many copies. However, they’s also the only options for some people. CoD is the Big One among annual FPS. Destiny doesn’t have direct competition. Battlefront and Shadow of War are the only real options for games set in those universes.
I get that consumers need to get wise, and that is true to an extent, but the main alternative is nothing in most cases. EA is the only SW publisher, LotR games have fizzled out, and even if you find a CoD or Destiny replacement, you will also need to convince enough people to join you. Without an alternative, it’s harder for consumers to show what they REALLY want.
jesus barrera that's justifiable in that context. That same context doesnt work in a place like the division or unless you place it there. They make the games they can make the world feel lived in rather than making it huge but empty
You cannot assume a corporate entity will regulate themselves. They never have and, if left unregulated, they will cut corners and prey on their employees as well as customers.
Yup, look at the banking industry. "Oh, what's that? Fraud is illegal? But it's not being heavily investigated right now? ...Well how about we lie to people about these toxic mortgage packages and cause the sub-prime mortgage crisis, crashing the entire north american economy in the process. And then no one goes to jail for the obvious criminal activity".
Honestly I agree with jim sterling on this one. $60 games with lootboxes should be free. especially the ones where a majority of the money comes from microtransactions.
Rick Harris thing is i didnt parrot his entire statement, rather that I agree with the principal.
Trevor Marshall I agree too if you’re going to make our game like mobile games be a man and go all the way
do you need to be informed to have an opinion on whats moral, whats gambling, etc?
It doesn't matter what you think it should be. The market clearly accepted it since these games are thriving.
The problem with pointing out though is that these games prey upon those who have no self control. Some end up spending thousands on these games for virtual junk. Why charge a flat $5 for a new in-game costume when you can put it behind a 1% chance slot machine and make $100 instead?
yes this is why countries have gambling regulations.
You guys should have a debate with Jim, or another channel, just for a better exploration of the debate.
The internet is a huge place, and there are already many game devs talking about these issues. Our videos, across all our TH-cam series, have always been intended to be a starting point for discussion reflecting our own industry experiences, rather than a definitive "yes always X" answer.
A discussion with jim would still be really cool to watch though - i'm sure everyone involved would be perfectly able to keep it nice and have a good discussion. (you all seem like nice people willing to properly discuss things and hear other stances, and if jim can keep his composure in an hour long interview with DigiHom, i'm sure there'll be no problems here)
I second this, it seems apparent that there's a consistent back and forth between EC's and Jim's videos. Rather than playing pen pals like this, it would be fantastic to see some one-on-one, if both parties have the time for it at least. I don't care who "wins" or "loses", I'm just here for the discussion - both sides have me thinking about these issue a lot more, which is good.
I second this, the amount of the information and refinement of ideas that can come from a discussion between two parties has so much value compared to just "a starting point".
I third this. I'm a fan of both of your channels, and I would absolutely love to hear a discussion between two very great minds about this. Jim puts on a persona for his Jimquisition, but he's wonderfully civil otherwise. (Unless you're Digital Homicide coming at him with a lawsuit) Fingers crossed!
ubisoft told their investors, that they now make more money from microtransactions than from actual game sales. that means we are paying 120$ per game on average, not 80 or 90. they milk their customers till theres nothing left.
And don't forget you have to pay a 60$ premium pass as well! Otherwise you can't play with your friends! And you will miss out on loads of gear.
The MODE cost is still probablly $60 and I think thats the best way to represent end user costs.
I wonder if when he asked the 80 dollar question if he would have phrased it " would you pay 80 dollars for a game and have no loot boxes or 60 bucks and have microtransactions and loot boxes" wonder how many more hands would have gone up
When a company hires psychologists/psychiatrists before they start putting out lootboxes... that needs close examination
Oh yeah, definitely NOT gambling ExtraCredits \s
Boy, if companies hiring psychologists to help them sell a product is unethical for you, don't read into the advertising industry.
They're unethical too. They would exploit everybody anyway they could if legal.
Jimmy Fins guess what? No one has ever accused advertisers of being ethical either
Difference between buying a ludicrous car and lootbox is in the fact that you get what you paid for, not a CHANCE to MAYBE get what you really want/
technically, luxury cars foot the bill for the initial investment on cutting edge tech. This is neither the best way to go about it nor the primary reason luxury cars exist, but there.
Paul Sheldon also when car company collapses they dont take your car with them
That is actually issue not only with microtransactions but with game-as-service as a whole (and even digital copies of the games).
This argument is a plain lie from publishers, EA statet that removal of a lootbox mechanic won't affect their income. This means that affordability won't be affected too.
"When designed ethically"
_shows footage of an EA game_
As both a senior student of psychology, and an avid gamer, I believe that the problem with these chance-based monetization methods is not their usage or exclusion as a whole, but the way they are implemented. The very same loot box system can be seen either as very good or inhumanly bad depending on how flexible it is; how much agency you have over what you win.
Look at TF2's Crates, for instance, which to me is the best ever. If you don't get what you wanted from that crate, you have a myriad of options at hand. You can either sell it for REAL MONEY or you can trade it to another player for the item you want. And not only that, you can even find the item you want already for sale on the marketplace and not be bound to the whimsies of chance. Heck! Even if you get a super-duper rare item that.... you just don't care about, you can sell it for even MORE than what you initially paid for the crate and the key to open it. That's the kind of agency that makes ppl feel confident about spending, and besides, keep in mind that Valve DOES profit from all of these trasactions; they charge a tiny tax for every marketplace deal made (not to mention this is besides the cost of the crate which the player already paid, which they also keep), just like real life markets do. And this works!
However, if you create the Lootbox system, and then build the game AROUND IT, like a fancy coat of game-flavored candy, with no real ''game'' experience and nothing else to add, you are not creating a game; you are creating a game-themed gambling engine, in the same way a casino may choose to decorate a slot machine with a Star Wars theme. And sadly, this is the model 99% of the AAA Games Industry is going towards.
I'm pretty sure the people working on BF2 were working hard to make a good game. Then EA's business side probably stepped in with a huge list of "features" they wanted in the game, including a loot box system that would completely destroy all semblance of fair play. I do not think any of these AAA companies have been building games around lootboxes. Rather, I think the devs were doing their best to make good games, then corporate forced them to shoehorn monetization schemes in regardless of how negatively it impacted the game. Does this mean I think the industry is doing fine? No. No it does not.
You hit the nail on the head with your points. Could not have said it better myself.
Seriously I wouldn't mind loot boxes that much if they were designed like Valve makes them. It's these gambling-lite slot machine simulators with a gimped game attached that piss me off.
+
You can't really sell the items you get in TF2 for *real* money within their own system. You can sell them for steambucks, sure, but unless you want a new game to play those funbucks are pretty much useless. Also we're assuming you actually get one of those 5 items in the crate that are actually worth something instead of 10 cents out of the 2.50 dollars it costed to even open it in the first place
...how is this not gambling again?
How about the idea of "leaving money on the table"? Something Zharic Zhakeron said and is based on investors not liking the fact that the product is not being monetized enough despite the company making billions of dollars in profit. AAA games are simply printing money today.
There is also the problem of loot boxes being Black boxes. There is not a single way currently to know if your chances are screwed for getting rare items and/or that the game company is lying.
This point, of them being black boxes, is one of the biggest problems with lootboxes at the moment. I actually love that china (I think) has created a law that REQUIRES statistics for the boxes to be put front and center.
That moment when you realize that there's no "random chance" involved with lootboxes at all. The developers can manipulate payouts at the drop of a hat, or adjust the payout based on individual users' spending habits. All done behind the scenes without the end user even knowing, let alone being able to prove. It's a whole other dimension of insidiousness to lootboxes that few even know about. It's not random whatsoever.
As someone that does work with video game coding, you don't know how ridiculously hard that would be, do you?
What you're trying to say is that Overwatch, instead of just having
//Lootbox code (simplified for argument)
Item.Drops = 4
Legendary = 0.13
Epic = 0.30
Rare = 0.60
Common = 0.90
You're trying to tell me that it would have basically that code for every account in game. All, for Overwatch's instance, 30 _MILLION_ users.
First of all that much code would fry most of the servers and make the game lag like hell, doing that would be counterproductive to costs as you'd need employees to manage it.
And if you operated by bot you'd need multiple bots which again, would slow down the game and overwork the servers.
The game wouldn't be able to handle:
-30 million players
-30 million individual loot box statistics
-Bots to read individual purchasing habits
-Bots to edit loot box statistics
All at once, even if they only had a million players it would still cause extreme lag as the game would be constantly ticking that code.
If having a handful of variables per account based on recent loot obtained and spending habits is too complex then I'm surprised that games can be made at all. This should be extremely small potatoes compared to what it takes to make a game function.
@Dusk Ealain
You're kidding right? As someone who writes business software that has to handle thousands of requests a second with low latency, i can tell you that you are misinformed.
Ok firstly let me make one assertion... the loot box shop code is not a part of the game server code. Your assertion that this change would "slow down the game", "overwork the servers" or "cause extreme lag" is a non-starter as it (just like buying lootboxes) will have zero impact on the server game loop. There is maybe an argument for CoD:WW2 where you open boxes while actually playing but even then the "logic" around what items the lootbox can (and should) be trivially moved elsewhere. Putting the lootbox shop code into the core game loop would make as much sense as putting subscription fee logic into the core game loop of an MMO.
Secondly, we know the game can handle statistics for 30 million individuals, they call them metrics (or "the numbers" when they want to nerf the latest flavour of the month). Assuming there exists interesting correlations between gameplay habits and spending habits (and i'd be honestly shocked if there wasn't) that will contain all the information you need. Most likely scenario i can see is there's a "game metric" data feed server that is already collating aggregate data based on data bursts from each completed game, this could trivially forward these data bursts on to a second "shop stats" server which would probably also receive purchasing information (compared to the firehose of game metric data, purchasing data would be cakewalk). You'd want the raw data bursts because the metrics aggregation would be the wrong "grain" (i.e. it would be clustered around character play time and results whereas the shop stats would need to be clustered around specific players).
Thirdly, finding those interesting correlations is all about data mining (a.k.a. Deep Learning). This kind of scenario is textbook. However you wouldn't update in real-time, I would update on an adhoc schedule probably approaching daily but anything more than weekly is probably fine.
Finally, what are you updating? Well the answer to that is a traditional consultants answer ("it depends") and would certainly be the target of a lot of thoughts and words. Even if it was just "everyone has their own probability breakdown", at 30 million players you're looking at less than 2GB of data which doesn't even really qualify as big data so that would barely even be interesting. This would likely evolve into something more functional in nature. Perhaps with less variables, more likely with more. Given you'll be definitely using distributed servers (because you don't support 30 million clients without using distributed servers, whatever you're trying to do) it would make sense for each distributed shop server to have it's own version of this database as anti-deadlock insurance.
I'm not saying that Overwatch or indeed anyone is actually doing this. However don't kid yourself that this is at all technically tricky. The only really difficult bit would involve designing (and demonstrating) an algorithm that gave you more extra revenue than it cost to run.
dantenotavailable After witnessing countless games in the past take player stats into account such as Halo and World of Tanks and store that data with next to no problems, along with the rise of self-teaching bots/algorithms that can be designed for each specific player (like how TH-cam recommends different vids to people based off of search history), it's safe to say that this is in fact completely possible to create without hard weight put onto the shoulders of servers...
Is this regulated on gambling machines ?
Their actual chance of winning is of course, but I don't think the *apparent* chance is as many make it deceptive.
It will be interesting to see --if-- how loot boxes get regulated (they will, because tax), and if it will propagate back to gambling.
Every positive point like "hey, it makes games cheaper!" were hammered in over and over. Negative things were brushed aside with "hey, there's no science so we can't know!" while there wasn't any more proof that whales are indeed rich people with money to spend. The whales are in fact just as much addicts that don't have the money to spend.
Also, why didn't you ask "would you buy as many games if they cost $80 and didn't have any forms of microtransactions?" I bet you would have gotten *way* more than 2 hands.
julian1000 wish I could like this twice
People don't want to spend 80 dollars on games period. He'll, I don't even wanna spend 60. I usually get them 20% off for 50
Whales are rich people ffs. Stop this "exploiting children" bullshit. If you cant afford it, chances are you wont spend money for fucking skins in a video game. Gambling is the perpetual chase of getting rich by luck not buying fucking mystery boxes from the internet to get cool shit.
The most I've ever spent on a game, ever, is $40 on Overwatch. I also don't buy into microtransactions. I would have been reluctant to say the least if Overwatch was $80.
I have my doubts it would have been **way** more than 2 hands.
"If you cant afford it, chances are you wont spend money for fucking skins in a video game."
Then were the people EC mentioned at 6:40 just made up?
"Games Industry, don't be evil about this."
You do know just what industry you are talking to right? Right? Because that's like asking Sauron _not_ to enslave the whole world just because he can. Sure it 'might' be possible in theory, but in practice it ain't gonna happen. Not unless they learn the hard way that _we will not accept_ their BS.
I mean isn't capitalism all about taking chances?
Vvonter
Capitalism has become all about taking. Period.
Vvonter That is the great thing about capitalism. It's the clunky and awkward dance between consumer and producer. If the producer wants to take a chance, then they can. No one is forcing them not to. But we as consumers are advising them that if they put this product out, we will not give them our money. So, if the producer wants to make money, then they should make a product that we really want.
Instead of researching ways to make "games as a service" and microtransations as profitable as possible, perhaps gaming companies should research *ways to reduce production costs of games* if this is such an issue.
Not to mention: you can always include skins for $$$ if you want. Games have been doing that for ages.
Games like Guild Wars 2 (was full price now free) and League of Legends or Warframe (free) *still allow that rich guy to spend 2000$ on skins if he wants* but don't pray on chance.
The chance to waste $ and get things you didn't want.
Rick Harris but there are.
Not every game needs supreme Final Fantasy 15 graphics.
Not every game needs unlimited Just Cause 3 size maps.
Not every game needs 300 hours The Witcher 3 story.
There are many *MANY* amazing games made on a "quote" budget. And they sell extremely well despite "rising industry costs" these people know what's up.
Unless you are talking about the big boys like Call of Duty, Battlefield and all spots games.
Funny, because *production becomes more and more expensive, yet these studios put sequel after sequel almost every year.* You would think they would stop that if economy was dire, wouldn't you?
*Even if the price of a single video game becomes 150$ companies will never stop with expansions, DLC, microtransactions and what not.* It's just too convenient and profitable. And i am not saying they should. All i am saying is, gambling is not the solution to rising industry costs.
Just food for thought.
When a business model is becoming unsustainable, you cannot place the responsibility at the feet of the consumer. The industry must adapt to fit the needs of the consumer, not the other way around.
James Beaumont VG they did. They adopted lootboxes so they can make more money to cover the costs. They 'innovate' with lootboxes. Sure, the consumer don't like them, but if you're making a huge profit just by adding lootboxes, instead of making a good game, you'll do it.
Thats literally what they are doing with Lootboxes, DLC and Season passes.
The consumer is still an active factor in the industry, however. Ignoring the consumer isn't going to improve the industry. They're not placing blame at the consumer's feet, just adapting new strategies around them.
The consumer demanded games that cost more and more to produce. There's a hard limit on the ratio of expense to copies sold that means at some point, it becomes unprofitable to just sell the games to people. Whilst I don't agree with the more predatory loot boxes, it's kinda necessary.
Which Is why the various legislative branches are getting involved, to protect the consumer from abuse.
Are players really demanding higher and higher fidelity that drives up prices? Mairo, Overwatch, and BoTW all have heavily stylized art, but sold extremely well and are certainly AAA titles. I really don't buy that video game companies need unsustainably high fidelity graphics to make sales and that's not mentioning the fact that the game companies with the most microtransactions and lootboxes tend to be massive megacorps. If EA wants to claim to be a starving artist they're going to need to release all their financial data and prove it for me to believe it. They're demanding a lot of faith, and a lot of money, I don't think its unfair to demand a little evidence in exchange.
Even if the art is not photorealistic, it's definitely by no means necessarily cheaper or easier to produce. If it was really that simple, it would happen more often.
And even if you, as a player, don't care too much for photorealistic graphics, that doesn't invalidate the user research these companies are doing to find out what their target audiences want. In general I notice that most Extra Credits viewers are huge indie game fans (unsurprisingly, as we are too!) and don't care too much for Call of Duty (ditto on that one) but we really aren't a major market segment for many AAA titles. --Belinda
SomeIdiot I cant agree more. Most of us cannot even afford to keep up with console or pc market prices. I have just recently been able to properly play skyrim because i could not afford to change my pc.
Those... really aren't good examples.
Mario, Overwatch, and BoTW are VERY high fidelity games. they aren't "realisitic" but that doesn't mean they aren't high fidelity.
The amount of R&D that goes into those is as high or higher than your Battlefield games and such.
My bad. I misunderstood the definition of a fairly simple word, which is kinda embarrassing.
stylized graphics != cheap. just because it isnt photorealistic doesnt mean it was cheap to create stylized graphics can be way more expensive than realistic graphics depending on shaders being used etc. stylized graphics work now more to differentiate your game from the others than to save cost. mario and botw have very expensive shaders and very high fidelity art. overwatch have very stylized characters and worlds that although arent graphically realistic still have incredibly high fidelity.
The thing is, you ask companies to be humane... Good... Luck... With... That.
Don't they qualify for the same legal rights as actual people?
CD Projekt Red
CD Projekt Red is indeed a good example, yet I cant see other companies adopting the same strategies. I mean imagine EA saying hey guys, perhaps we should treat our buyers with a little decency. Just not going to happen. As long as the strategy is effective, someone will use it.
they aren't really. In the second part of the vid they give more info on this. this is simply the base of it
The heck are you talking about? Most of the companies are incredibly charitable.
My problem is the same problem that Jim Sterling brought up. I understand the need for additional monetization models but I struggle with the idea that the games industry needs *all* of these models: dlc, microtransactions, lootboxes limited/collectors editions, season passes, skins, etc. to be successful. I would say just pick 2 maybe even 3 at the most and then leave it at that. In addition, games were successful long before lootboxes. The way these lootboxes are designed are meant to rope in players and trick them into buying them. I'd rather have the system in which I can just pay for which skins that I actually want than feel tricked into paying for the mere chance of actually getting what I wanted.
And that's what sucks about the system. I know that less people will buy skins without loot boxes but I'd much rather have a system in which I can just buy the skins that I want, whether individually or in packs, rather than have to gamble to see if I actually can get what I want.
I think this is a sign of the AAA arms race finally outpacing the consumers. Fewer people have the money necessary to pay for a game with top graphics and even fewer have the hardware needed to enjoy those very graphics they paid for.
But hey, I'm just a poor European student with a Linux notebook, so of course I'm biased.
Same here! (Except Canadian. And I have a decent (home-built) desktop too, but it also runs Linux); so it's not like AAA stuff even matters to me, particularly on the DRM-free diet I'm trying to keep recently.
millions of people have PCs, ps4s and xboxes, more people than ever have access to AAA games. You aren't everyone.
Yeah, diminishing returns are hitting hard when it comes to graphics. I think game console cycles need to slow down. (And should have been as far back as the Wii) You can get plenty of games on steam that don't need the latest hardware to run, so consoles and PCs are starting to swap places between the expensive niche and the more accessible option.
I didn't say I was everyone. Just that I was someone, and someone much like a previous poster. It's nice to know you aren't alone.
Also, if you'll read my comment, I _just said_ that I have a PC (two, in fact, one desktop and one laptop), I just don't currently run Windows on either of them because it became more trouble than it was worth. I can even (occasionally) get some AAA games if I choose to, they just aren't interesting me enough that an OS they always come out on (Windows) is a high enough priority to be worth dual-booting any more. If a really good AAA game comes out DRM-free on Linux, I'll happily pick it up (and might even try my hand at running Windows games on Wine if other people report having success, which is how I already play several of the games I've purchased), but the AAA output these days is so formulaic and bland that I don't mind them rarely coming out on my platform of choice any more. If such bland games take so much money to develop, I suggest they explore leaner business models (possibly breaking teams into multiple smaller teams and working on multiple smaller projects at the same time).
You can make profit without loot boxes. Capcom, Nintendo, Bethesda, CD project Red and a lot more company's make money without tarnishing their games.
Thomas Gedak half those companies have other problems with them. Like constant lawsuits/ locking games to platform.
HyperNova 200 yeah but they don't screw their consumers for every penny in their wallet, and make actually quality games, instead of glossy shit with nothing new. At least not most of them
Only took a little under 2 years for Bethesda that make your words look like a fallacy with that hole Fallout 76 subscription service
@Rose Skye That's only for the mobile market
And part of why they CAN make that profit is because while games have advanced since the 90s, the total number of people that play games has also exploded since then. You don't need lootboxes for AAA games because the audience is that much larger now that you can sell enough copies to support the game development costs.
I'm okay with most auxiliary monetization models. DLC, Microtransactions, Collector's Editions and the like are fine.
Loot Boxes get dicey, and I honestly think eliminating them completely is the best option. Asking big game studios to "just don't be evil about it" is ridiculous. Because it's always been a game of "How evil can I be without people getting mad". The more people accept it, the further they'll push it.
I have to agree, loot boxes are inherently unethical because it's extremely chance based. With DLC, season passes and all that jazz people know what they're paying for, they know if they buy x DLC they'll have x DLC. But not with loot boxes. You pay to have a chance (often an extremely small chance) to have the item you want. You can feed hundreds of dollars into a loot box system because there's one skin you desperately want but you get nothing but low quality shit because loot boxes are always stack the chance against you.
The chance you'll get the item you actually want out of a loot box compared to all the other things inside it, especially if there are duplicates is so miniscule you're forced to gamble away your money until you have the item rather than just spending like $10 on some cosmetic DLC which is what a lot of people would be happy to do imo
Take 2 steps forward, then take 1 backwards. By the time you have lootboxes people will consider horse armor to be fair.
if i had to pick the "least wrong" way of doing loot boxes it would probably be hearthstone.
Booster Packs are already an accepted and organic mechanism to tcg's, so one in a virtual game isn't too far off. And if you get nothing but junk, you can liquidate your crap cards and get the specific ones you want.
But when content is locked behind rng on a day one FPS, then it's definitely a very wrong way to do it.
At very least they should make % chance to get each item public. That's bare minimum.
After saying not to be evil about it, EC went on to mention Battlefront 2. There is nothing ridiculous being said there, if you think about it. Battlefront 2 is an example that did not make the money it could have, and also gained severe notoriety, so EC says "don't be evil like that" - and yes, this is advice that literally benefits game developers directly! Don't go that far, or you'll fail at it! ...Game devs are who they are talking to with 100% of their EC videos, after all.
I feel that it's a bizarrely strange point to call this stuff out as "How evil can I be without people getting mad". I mean, yes, it's the consumers duty not to just roll over and go along with everything game company's want... but companies aren't doing anything 'evil' here. This is the basics of what happens in the market since the market began (and not even 'game market', I'm talking 'market' in general!) Game devs are not generally evil by trying to make more and more money through their games, and gamers who push back are not 'the good guys' because they do - both sides are just cogs in how markets works. If we need consumers to be more active about something, and calling companies 'evil' will get them off their lazy butts, then I guess I can't argue that at all. The over-dramatization of it just happens to bother me about it.
Every part of this argument fails because it asks for personal restraint on the part of businesses. Not everyone will act badly, but SOMEONE will. And that SOMEONE will set the precedent and others WILL follow.
yeah, asking for peronal restraint of the companies is more than a bit of a stretch. We need to put clear and enforced rules on what is acceptable and what is not. As soon as possible.
I think disclosing the odds, having everything attainable through lootboxes be attainable without spending money and possibly a countersystem to the random nature (i.e. in game currency for doubles or in every box to purchase directly) would be a good start.
Maxislithium, I definitely agree with your point about the futility of requesting business entities to have personal restraint, but that doesn't make the arguments fail. This episode is about how ethical lootboxes can be ethically designed, not a prediction if companies will design lootboxes ethically.
If the research isn't clear, why would you take the risk of using a model that's potentially very harmful? That seems downright unethical. It's like smoking back in the day because the research on its harms weren't clear. Just don't do it if you don't know.
There’s a reason tings are called the bleeding edge. This research into ‘Are loot boxes gambling’ wouldn’t exist if lootboxes didn’t exist. We wouldn’t know tobacco was carcinogenic if people weren’t smoking it. It just wouldn’t have come up.
They already pushed the limits of acceptable upfront prices for games now, before 4 games becomes the cost of a entire console. Obviously, the easiest answer is to ‘make cheaper games’, but that requires more then just cutting fidelity and quality. It will require us as consumers to actively search and find lower quality games that are still entertaining. Does that sound like Indie games? A bit, doesn’t it.
Perhaps this may be the last few years of the AAA industry before they all crash, because of their inability to match what the indie market already provides? Or maybe we’ll see what happens when a game with a half million dollar budget gets made with the same design philosophy as indie studios? Also possible. The game market might become a much more dangerous place soon.
Loot Boxes are not the same as MTG boosters. If I don't like the risk involved with a booster pack I can trade or buy specific cards online.
Walter Wilson in addition, MTG boosters have a minimal rarity rule in every pack. So even the worst pack will still have at least one rare. Not all loot box systems abide by this rule.
THIISSSS. I can trade or sell trading cards, or use them as toilet paper if I want. I can't do anything else with my Witch Mercy skin other than use it in Overwatch. If they shut the game down, or everyone moves to Overwatch 2 in about 6 years, then my fancy skin is now completely utterly worthless. I can't even give it away to someone if I want to.
Which is why it isn't gambling.
If you don't like the risk involved in loot boxes, you can save up in game currency by playing the game, then buy the skin you want. Granted the exact numbers require a lot of work to get right, but you get the idea.
You also physically OWN the cards. You can SELL ALL of your cards, should you desire. Hell, you can draw penises on all of them, if that's your thing; they are yours. A loot box, and its contents, disappear when the server does... or when the next game is released. You are merely leasing them.
As to Dapper's point that you can grind until you can afford the thing you want... yes & no. I played about 40 hours of Overwatch. I think I made something like 500 credits or coins or whatever the fuck in that time. There was many, MANY skins that I wanted, and as I recall, they all cost 1,000+. (The good skins -- I'm not talking about the recolors of the base skins.) If 40 fucking hours isn't enough to get just ONE of the things I want in a game, fuck that game. I was rolling in sprays I never even once used, though. That's... generous of Blizzard?
I am not sure the players deserve the "blame" for wanting a better quality product from companies that make money off of their product especially when those companies are the ones pushing how shiny their product is. Honestly I remember when the PS 3 was coming out and my first thought was "Imagine what this system can do for the games we played last gen. How much better the game play will be and how much more we will have."
In the end... They released games with less features that might have looked better. We still have games with generally less features.... They still look better by far now sure... But I never asked for that. I wanted better games, not prettier ones (specifically). I didn't want to pay more for less, and then pay even more for... Still less.
Algie Evan DeWitt V To be fair the better graphics part does boost sales. I disagree with you about the feats part prettier games are a safer bet when it comes to making a profit. Does this morally justify loot boxes? No.
Brandonious15987 Graphics csn boost sales yes but they hardly are a predictor of success. A lack of graphics with a solid art direction (not always the same thing) can do just as well.
I do not believe I said that features guarantee more sales, but more features should have been part of more ability to add features. One of the excuses in the past for lack of features and graphics or what ever other combinations was that hardware hadn't caught up. But when hardware did... We saw far less gameplay, especially at first, to make room for graphics. If all you want is to watch something pretty, movies exist. If all you want is a fantastic story, books exist. This is an interactive medium. Interaction should be the primary aspect of it.
Brandonious15987 There isn't a moral justification for lootboxes regardless because it is not a moral issue in and of itself. The gaming industry is doing far worse in the moral spectrum than making people pay for the chance at extra or in game power. My arguement when it comes to loot boxes is simply that it is taking the worst parts of RNG and making you pay for it. It is not how the concept of "loot" is even suppossed to work. Imagine playing Borderlands and having to pay when ever you beat a boss or opened up a weapon crate in order to get your guns. Arguably the whole point of the game is to EARN that loot. Paying for it is counter productive from the start. If you are going to pay for a gun or prize... You just pay for that gun or prize (DLC or micrtrans in gaming terms i guess).
Love your extra history, guys. But this series keeps overlooking people outside the US, to hold up its argument.
Considering they don't know the nature of the Iron Cross, I wouldn't trust the Extra History series either.
@@viyhexe131 With each "oops" video they show more and more how detached they are. A bunch of hacks.
I think we need to prove our assertion that companies can't afford to make games when the publishers keep crowing about massive profits.
And the developers who presumably need this the most, the little guys, the ones who actually go out of business, they are not as likely to be putting DLC, MT, loot boxes, season passes and online passes into their games.
The evidence doesn't support this is a need, it points to greed instead.
EA, Activision, and Ubisoft are not in danger of going out of business, not close, not even a little true.
The little guys usually isn't the one making AAA games, and EC is actually bashing predatory practices in support for better-designed systems.
So the companies that *aren't* using additional monetization streams are suffering and going out of business, and that somehow suggests that those revenue streams aren't necessary? The companies that *have* been using things like microtransactions and day-one DLC for years now and have disgustingly huge marketing budgets are boasting about their profits. How do you read into that that AAA devs should do more to emulate their struggling indie dev counterparts?
Because "struggling indie devs" have actually been doing really well as of late. Devolver Digital has been publishing cheaply made games for cheap prices and they've been doing incredibly well. The idea that all consumers want are the shiniest graphics is just blatantly untrue.
Gumball perhaps in some respects. Maybe the industry is finally coming around to lower fidelity games that have a wide appeal. But, for most of the last decade, most of most games sold were console shooters/platformers/whatever that has always been compared by the graphical quality of the game. We even had videos comparing the graphics of the different new gen consoles to side-by-side games to show how pretty they are.
PC games may have a flying Indy market, where connoisseurs of games look for fun and different mechanics to play with, but the high volume AAA sales that are the face of gaming to the non gaming masses are still of the graphical arms race shooters. The number of indies that make it big are still dwarfed by the AAA shelf fillers.
How does Humble Bundles and steam sales exist if games should cost 70$ or more?
Personally I do not need insanely detailed graphics, I want gameplay.
Plus there are way more people buying games these days and no physical distribution.
So I support the smaller games.
Like Kerbal Space Program and Subnautica.
Fully fledged fun with reasonable price tags.
here is the joke: I won't pay $60 now let alone $80 in the future. For me that argument is mute, I just wait til the steam/holiday sales as well as reviews/consumer reactions/patch time before buying these days. Also as for the whole gambling triggers verses social anxiety argument, I suffered from the gambling part and was just lucky enough to recognize that before I was $1000s in debt. I believe, and this may just be for me, that loot boxes are predatory in nature and cannot be redeem or justified in any way. However, I am open to micro-transactions that are more akin to walking into a digitized store, picking what I want to buy then, and having the option to buy the other stuff later when I can like I buy the actual games themselves now.
The last major title game I bought at full price I regretted immensely.
the last one I did was witcher 3 and I saved up thought long and hard about it, their work was amazing and so, for my part, I decided they deserved full price as one of the rare exceptions to the rule, but generally I have not seen a game worth that since
before steam was used games, as a kid I would buy used because I didnt have much money, when I was old enough to get a job I started buy games at release full price. this was during the sweet spot before everything had to have a season pass and dlc where most of the time when you bought you got the whole game. a little after entering college is when I started using steam. the idea of buying games cheaper then full price has been around since the beginning, difference is that now more and more gamers are starting to believe that many games today dont deserve full price and the loot boxes are part of that.
I think my 2 main problems with this viewpoint are that;
1) Just because loot boxes are not identical to gambling, doesn't mean it's not just as harmful.
2) I feel like this development cost issue could be solves a million other ways that are infinity more ethical, but aren't. Companies, even AAA ones no longer need to push for the very highest in graphical fidelity. It's the fact they are still ALL competing for this insanely expensive goalpost. The difference in cost between a graphically intense game, and one that looks pretty much as good, but isn't literally top of the line, is insane. The concept that companies need loot boxes to make money is the main issue here, because, they don't. There are plenty of solutions to this problem, the most notable being, don't put in the highest fidelity graphics. Yes, a relatively small group of people will care, but not nearly enough to make up that cost disparity. By making more, smaller scale games, you can potentially hold the market for multiple genre at once.
I don't see the reasoning panning out on holding this fairly ancient mentality that graphics are all that matter. Hell, even years ago when that had some reasoning to be the case, because graphics looked so bad people would take anything they got, Gameplay was still (and always will be) the most important element of any game.. In fact, I could point out a million examples where this would be the case, namely semi-indie games on steam, and Nintendo games (both console and handheld).
The bottom line is, if almost no one is going to tell the difference between a game with a $300,000,000 budget, and a $50,000,000, its bad business to make one that's $300,000,000. If your not earning enough money back on your games but can't raise the price, this means like ANY other business model, it's the job of the businesses in question to make a better business plan, not find ways to exploit people to cover the cost.
PS: I'm aware graphical fidelity works on an advertising front, helping to grab peoples attention in a sea of games, but there are many other ways to do this same thing.without spending your budget 6 times over.
If lootboxes aren't gambling, then why are they using gambling tricks? Also if they're not gambling then what is the games industry doing to prove that? Are they supporting more studies be done (by "supporting" I mean "more than lip service")? Plus the whole "you can payout" is just sidestepping the issue. Church raffles are gambling as well and we don't let children enter them either. And you do know that EA's stock price is back up to where it was before BF2 so it didn't really affect them at all.
There is no such thing as an "ethical" lootbox system. If a game wants to put that into their monitization scheme, make it a free to play game.
Not to mention you can sell CSGO skins, rare weapons etc that go into your steam wallet, which basically means saving money on future game purchases.
If all loot boxes are gambling, then having very rare drops from repeatable content in an MMO is also gambling. The in-game content is designed to keep you replaying it to try and get the rare loot and keep you paying your subscription fee. That is fundamentally no different to giving loot boxes rare drops that make you keep paying to try and get them.
Not really. With rare drops you still have to actually play the game (beat the certain enemy, maybe in a certain way.) Whereas lootboxes are instant gratification.
+Alan2022
Yeah instant gratification that you still get. When you d that fora slot machine you get nothing in eturn.
Alan2002: In poker or blackjack, you pay in and still have to play the game before you see whether you succeeded or failed. Everyone still considers them gambling. The gratification isn't instant with those games either. A lottery or betting on horse racing is definitely gambling, but you have to wait for hours or days before you see whether you won or not. Neither of them are instant gratification, but they're still gambling.
Saying loot boxes aren't gambling because you can't cash out is like saying, "I didn't kill him, the bullet did." It's a technicality that doesn't impress anyone who's intellectually honest.
I love you guys. I really do but the more I listen to you guys talk on this subject the more I think I should just avoid AAA games all together. I'm sure that's not your intention but its definitely what I'm hearing.
That Black Guy Who Loves Cute Shit I've stopped playing AAA entirely. The game just grew too pricey whilst my budget aren't getting better either and you can get more games by buying cheaper games instead.
That Black Guy Who Loves Cute Shit Hey, there are always good AAA games like Monster Hunter
yeah I don't play "AAA" anymore either for the most part. and it wasn't even a conscious decision, it's just that this kind of toxic crap reeks so bad I don't want anything to do with it. it's SO antithetical to what gaming is about.
I don't generally buy AAA games anyway, especially the annual franchises such as Call of Duty, various sports games series etc. They're generally much more expensive than games made by smaller teams, and in the case of annual franchises, they will lose a significant portion of their userbase come the next year with the next game in the series.
I've bought games on Steam during sales years ago for as little as £3 - £5, and for those prices I've got hundreds of hours of gameplay out of games that people are still playing to this day. It doesn't make sense any more to buy games at full price, much less games that cost £50 and will lose players after the next annual instalment.
Ifeel ya, I rarely play top-shelf games anymore and focus on the Indy scene, which often produce better games with a much lower price tag...
I appreciate your ongoing examination of this horrible, horrible pit that the industry has dug for itself, of its own will, by its own volition, on its own advice, over several decades. The study regarding peer pressure needed to be mentioned, and more will arrive soon enough.
Quick point-- Crane games in Western countries have been mechanically rigged for nearly 100 years, legality be damned. Generations of children have said, "I swear this game is cheating," and they were right to suspect.
As for lootboxes going forward: In my case, years of abuse, trickery, and big signs that read, "NO REFUNDS LOL WE'RE BASED IN CHINA," have closed my wallet forever. Any creator brave or stupid enough to use lootboxes can count me as a lost sale, thanks to the actions of their predecessors. I won't go near them; I have no trust left.
The crane game being fair isn't really the point of that analogy. It's still not the same thing as gambling; it's just an obfuscation of the odds and rules of a game you're playing.
Gh0st, you just gave a literal definition of gambling....
CentipedeXII Not so. If I tell you that you have a 5% chance to win $1,000,000, and the exact rules of the game, you are still gambling if you agree. To gamble is just to take a risk that the 5% chance will favor you. Obfuscation of the odds or rules are very unnecessary for that. Conversely, just because you're playing a game with an obfuscated ruleset and odds doesn't mean that you're gambling. Is an old NES era RPG like Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy gambling because they don't tell you how stat calculations or crit rates work?
Look, I hate a lot of the practices of these companies as well but please don't pretend like the consumer holds no blame for the situation the industry is in right now. Money speaks. And if consumers continue to consume products that exploit them they are not without responsibility. The company producing said exploitative product is also to blame but so are the consumers.
RoseColoredIris Well, yes, buyer beware. Boldfaced lies and active mental warfare generated the most money, so the market followed. This gravy train moves until consumers pull the brake.
However, consider people snared the most thoroughly by lootbox systems, famously having spent thousands on a stupid video game that they hate: Even though they know it's a terrible idea, they cannot stop. They can't just make a clean break like anyone else. These people are prized by the industry for certain pliable mental traits. They're goaded and coaxed through a honed, tested, highly-refined maze of smoke and mirrors, laser-focused to pierce their minds and extract as much of their life savings as possible, as fast as possible.
Unbound by law, these cash extractions process consumers with no regard for personal safety, historically rendering targets destitute, emotionally scarred, and unable to retaliate against system operators. The industry continues to evaluate and improve this form of mental warfare, even as EA, Warner Brothers, Disney, etc. make headlines for testing the limits of what a wider consumer base will tolerate. Buyer beware indeed.
I don't agree with you. Loot boxes and such are fine in f2p games because like you say, they're subsidizing your game. When you pay for a game, one of the things you're paying for is not to have to deal with f2p bs. I shouldn't have to deal with an exploitative system in my premium game. And money is inefficiently spent on marketing and they're overprioritizing graphics over aesthetics. Just look at Nintendo. People want pretty games, they don't need to be the most photorealistic
You completely missed the main point they were making in the video, which is that you are not paying premium for a game. You are paying a fraction of the price of a game which contains additional income systems because the price they charge consumers is not enough to turn a stable profit. And who are you to say that this could all be avoided if game companies just started spending money differently? Do you think that the only thing which makes games cost more money is photo-realistic graphics? Do you not think that new systems, new mechanics, better AI, more content, online support, new engines, R+D for innovative hardware like VR and Motion Control could also contribute to cost in games? Not even that inflation should have accounted for an increase in price? That the money they spend on marketing actually increases their profit and has nothing to do with raising the retail price on their game because if more people buy their game they don't have to charge as much. If you are saying that you think we should all just start paying 80 to 100 dollars for a AAA game that's one thing, but it appears you just want to continue underpaying while also destroying the supplementary income which allows for you to underpay. It almost seems like you didn't watch the previous video which they referenced several times and was integral to understanding this one...
There's actually a lot of things that Video Game companies ARE responsible for that increases bloat or requires them to spend more money for problems that THEY created. That's also not even getting into how much companies SAVE.
It costs a LOT more to create an engine 100% from scratch. Which used to be the case, but now they just RENT a game engine like Unreal.
Hollywood Voice Actors. There's been multiple cases of this not even being needed or even downright FAILURES. In fact let's not forget they had an Actor from GoT who they had to REPLACE his lines in the Destiny Game Series. That's a LOT of bloat.
Hollywood Guest Apperances. For instance, paying Robert Downey Jr for a game that isn't about Iron Man and such.
Creating trailers that use graphics that are Unrealistic to even IMPOSSIBLE. Which then leads to increased demands in consumers.
The fact that even EA told their Investors that they do NOT require all this extra money from things like DLC & lootboxes. That the $60 is enough, which means that they DO have the money required to make it F2P. Let's not forget how many RPGs that you had to pay $60 or more now have Free to Play versions, like Star Wars The Old Republic.
The problem is that Game Companies want ALL of the benefits of a Free to Play Economy, while FORCING players to spend OVER $60, all while claiming "Oh we can't afford to have players pay ONLY $60. Just ignore the fact that we make you spend $30+ on DLC and/or Season Passes." This COMPLETELY ignores games like Witcher 3 that have $100+ worth of Game & DLC/Season Pass content for $60. Hell look at Warframe as another great example of what ACTUAL Player Choice & F2P on a AAA game looks like.
The biggest problem is that you act like the Customers are the ones that Companies are beholden to, instead of their Investors. Investors are, more often than not, the REAL customers.
Last but not oleast, you are ignoring the fact that any time a Company screws up, it is the COSTOMERS who have to pay for their mistakes, rather than the company as a whole. That or one of their subsidiaries, like how EA has killed game company after game company after game company for FORCING them to conform to their "We need to squeeze every dollar out of Gamers" with their Business Model.
This is basically a text version of the Jimquisition video
Alaharon123 that does not make the text any less valid, if people are allowed to use the same tired argument for loot boxes then i see no problem why this guy can't use a counter argument he heard from someone else.
And before anyone accuses this guy of being a "sheep" to Jim then provide a counter argument of your own.
"When you pay for a game, one of the things you're paying for is not to have to deal with f2p bs." Where does it state this? Where is this rule? Sorry I had no idea the law of buying stuff meant there could no in-game purchases as well, if you could kindly redirect me to respected document stating this then I could agree.
One of the flaws in your pro-lootbox argument is the absurd notion that lootboxes are only targeted at and therefore only being designed for rich people who can blow tons of money on them. We are seeing fundamental changes in how games function when microtransactions and lootboxes are in them. Do you remember games from 10 or 15 years ago? Do you remember PLAYING to unlock things? Do you remember how many hours it took to complete a game 100%? Well those days are gone, because you can't complete a game 100% anymore. At least not in any kind of reasonable time (i.e. the lifespan of a human being :P). You can't even reliably unlock only the things you want because lootboxes systems are specifically designed around keeping the content you want in a massive pile of stuff you don't want, and randomly drawing from that.
When EA took paid lootboxes out of Battlefront 2, they had to radically alter the game's reward system because it simply was not built for grinding your way to success. It was built for paying your way to success, as are many games. Take the paid lootboxes out of Overwatch and what sort of system is left? One lootbox per level up with a high chance of duplicates. You can NEVER unlock even half of the skins, sprays, voice lines, emotes, etc in Overwatch because the game is designed around lootboxes. It's made even more sinister when you have content that can only be unlocked once per year during a certain event. Want that Mercy skin? Prepare to grind 24/7 during the event for a handful of chances at an extremely rare drop....or you can spend money for a bunch of chances at it.
If lootboxes were only for those that can afford to blow tons of money on a game, we would see zero effect on a game's structure, progression, and rewards system. But that's not what's going on. Increasingly we're seeing games built around lootbox systems where meaningful progression and rewards are linked directly to how much money you can spend.
@WearyKatie Perfect explanation
The video is more about how lootboxes should be used. The problem is, most companies don't use them that way
This is actually a rather poignant thing because Resident Evil 2 remake you can literally buy all the unlocks
So what about EA telling its investors that removing lootboxes will not stop Battlefront II from turning a profit? And how are these "supplements," if they are making more money than sales of copies of games? And don't tell me it's alright in some cases, because they are "just cosmetic," as if cosmetics means nothing. I don't even play Overwatch, and seeing Arin from GameGrumps' Sombra skin made me think "damn I want that." If I had Overwatch and not that skin, I would probably put a few bucks down trying to get it.
And as for the Ferrari comparison, at least you are guaranteed to get a Ferrari when you put down several thousand dollars for a Ferrari. For a rare skin, you could pay the price of 1 loot box or thousands of loot boxes to get that skin, and it's never guaranteed. What's stopping everyone from going broke on buying a Ferrari is the money is the realization of this one thing costing a huge amount of money that they can't realistically put down. What's stopping people from getting the skins they want is random chance, since anyone "can" get the ultra rare thing for cheap, but not guaranteed. People say it's just one more, and it's justified since the price of one is negligible. But it is never just *one* more. Hell, I have the same problem with watching youtube videos when I need to do work. I say, "it's only 5 minutes, and it seems really interesting. What's the harm in one more?" Then I have to rush together assignments, since the recommended on the side of that one 5 minute video chained into a million (hyperbole) more interesting 5 minute videos.
That is because brand recognition is the Plan B of EA for Star Wars Battlefront. It's a fallback in case their lootbox model does not work out.
Zarxxis Zapscratch All serialized "AAA games" have brand recognition. Maybe not to the extent of Star Wars, but the average person who doesn't own a console or gaming computer isn't going to drop a few hundred bucks for one, then another 60 dollars just for a Star Wars game that they'll play for a few weeks, then never game again. If you put out a game, you are not going to pull a lot of non-gamers, especially not those who still think violent games make violent people (my dad is one of them). So a serialized "AAA game," like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Far Cry (although I do not know if they are associated with loot boxes yet), and Middle Earth, will make its money back on sales alone, as they all sell millions of copies. If it is enough for Battle Front 2 to turn a profit, it is enough for all AAA games (I think BF2 "only" sold 8 million copies and EA told investors it turned a profit). So putting in loot boxes into 60 dollar AAA games, where people will be buying large amounts of emotionally, but not financially, infinitesimally priced roulettes, when the 60 bucks makes a profit, is just squeezing people for cash, blocking off content that would normally be free in the game. Imagine if Pokemon started selling in game loot boxes for increased chance of shinies and perfect IV pokemon, since "Oh it's too hard to make an affordable Pokemon game for the (insert portable console here)." People would be outraged. Imagine if it were Ratchet and Clank for different traversal boots, ship skins, or the RYNO and it's ammunition.
ThatGamerDude9000 at least in ow 20 loot boxes can sometimes give you enough to get a rare skin
That's about 20 bucks worth of loot boxes right? For when you really only wanted one rare skin? Okay, not as bad as CSGO's weapon skins being traded for thousands of dollars, but still not good. Wouldn't you rather be able to see a skin, say "I want that," and buy it, like you would normal clothing? I still think 7 dollars is an outrageous amount to pay for a bundle of skins, but at least Persona 5 allowed you to buy the skins you wanted (and you generally got more than 1 skin that you wanted for the $7). I'd personally prefer if all these skins were in game and not locked behind random chance, where the opportunity to participate in free random chance events becomes rarer the longer you play the game (I believe I remember you either get one or a few free loot boxes per level, which become harder to level up the higher your level is, but they may have changed that. I don't own the game, so I dunno).
ThatGamerDude9000 in ow when you reach a certain level the xp bar caps, I think it might be 30-40 and the rest takes just 4-5 games of quickplay to get. And every week you have the opportunity to get 3 lootboxes. I fully agree with you I would love to buy skins like how I did in borderlands. Where I didn’t need to go and get 100 dollars worth of lootboxes just to get shitty skins that I would never use. But keep in mind that it’s highly profitable so unless it stops making them money they won’t stop adding them into games. My favorite company right now is Nintendo, probably the biggest company that hasn’t had micro transactions on any games. I was scared for splatoon 2 but it didn’t, it had free dlc and no micro transactions with the 60 dollars price tag. I also love rockstar since they don’t add nico Lootboxes but they do have micro transactions, but that’s only for online and no one plays that anymore.
5:04 "It's not gambling cause you can't cash out and sell the items..." - FAIL - in many games you can. Either directly, indirectly through trading to other direct cash equivalent (keys) or through third parties that manage the transactions. Thus your comment turns against you - they ARE gambling.
And it also counts against trading cards like magic the gathering. Those cards are now effectively able to be counted as child gambling but oddly while the government where I am effectively ruled lootboxes weren't gambling due to this logic of not able to cash out they didn't mention how this ruling should make those cards gambling...
I believe there is a big difference in creating real money, and creating virtual currency that can't be transferred as real money. Just my opinion, I guess. :)
You are absolutely correct! There is a huge psychological difference in how people treat proxies for money vs. the real thing. There is a reason why Casinos change your real money into plastic tokens at the entrance... also why games have virtual currency vs. maintaining a bank of real life money (that would come with its own controlled system).
Well, this is why... When it comes to real money, everything changes. The stakes are much higher. Every single penny matters! You make a living to survive!
But when it comes to virtual money, sure, you can buy some things available, but you can't convert it to real money. The stakes are less important. You make a living for your own personal desires.
4:58 Citation needed on the major study that didn't find loot boxes had similar psychological effects to gambling.
So whales now fund everything? Can't wait for this whole thing to go full Mobile Game and start fucking with players not paying.
I'd argue that we're already there. Entire games are designed around the additional monitization strategies now, and you can't play the game without them being in your face the whole time.
I mean, I've played plenty of mobile games that weren't as bad as some of the AAA games that came out last year... Some of those games didn't even have microtransactions or were at least limited to a bare minimum and mostly just asked of an occasional ad.
That's what Loot Boxes in AAA games are. Especially like the ones in Battlefront 2. It is the mobile skinner box model brought over almost wholesale to reward Whales and punish/guilt/trick everyone else.
You say that loot boxes are more like raffles than gambling, but raffles are legally considered a form of gambling. I get your larger point, they are not as obvious as a slot machine or a roulette wheel, but legally they ARE gambling. Your description of gambling as requiring a cashing out is wrong: the US Code defines bets and wagers as
"(A) the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;
(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance);"
Loot boxes are only considered not gambling if
"participation in any game or contest in which participants do not stake or risk anything of value other than-
(I) personal efforts of the participants in playing the game or contest or obtaining access to the Internet; or
(II) points or credits that the sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor;"
If you can pay real money for a loot box, it is legally gambling, even if it is a "lesser" form.
The only reason Lootboxes are not considered gambling is the same reason why Magic card opening isn't considered it. Wizards of the Coast(Creators of Magic the Gathering Card Game)have *explicitly* stated that the price of every card inside the booster packs is equal value of $0.50 and that's what 15 card booster packs are sold for $8.
Because of this loophole in what is considered the risking of something of value on chance is gone because you will "always" receive equal compensation for the cost. But in reality not every card is equal because some cards are stronger than others so players set their own prices or their own standards to the cards which is what happens with loot boxes.
But that's not true: Wizards of the Coast KNOWS that its cards carry different real values based on their rarity, and their defense would disintegrate in a court of law. Booster packs are almost certainly gambling, but cases where their status has been contested have been thrown out of court for other reasons. That's why it's so important to realize this is all gambling and treat it as such, so we can take steps to keep it out of the courts so that they're not regulating our gaming markets.
and all i did was post the technical reason why they are not considered gambling though even though they are. WotC does nothing to monitor the secondary market of their cards. it's not different than Car dealerships, they have nothing to do with the product once they are out of their store. Cards are sold through official WotC dispensaries at $8 a booster pack because the price of every card is $0.50 Brand new regardless of it's rarity or relative power level.
It doesn't matter to WotC what happens to the cards after they are opened because they have no say in the matter. you *are* getting what you paid for according to WotC and they have been as well as Nintendo have been sued in the past for alleged gambling inside their booster packs for Magic and Pokemon respectively and all of them have failed to prove that it is infact gambling because the sale price of each individual card is the same, just because other people think it should be something different and sell it for that price doesn't mean it wasn't originally sold at equal value.
It's totally different from a car dealership: gambling has three components: consideration, chance, and prize. Consideration: do you have to put something up, money or otherwise? Chance: is the outcome known/skill based or up to chance? Prize: do you get something of easily quantified value?
You know what car you'll get at a dealership, but not what cards you get out of a booster pack.
But you also know you will get a certain number of cards, in most gambling you can come out with nothing.
EDIT: I'll actually alter that to be 'In gambling you can come out with nothing' (aka chance), as far as the market (and the law) is concerned, what you are buying is a pack containing 'X' cards. If you could open a pack and have a random number of rewards (especially if 0 rewards was possible) then it would be gambling.
So if rising costs in AAA games is the issue...
...I'd honestly have less of those and more mid-tier/smaller games instead.
The problem is that multiple games smaller games will just be crashed by other bigger budget AAA games.
The whole premise is false. Publishers have been making big bucks on games despite how much they cost to make. Whether they add loot boxes or micro transactions depending on the price of the game is completely irrelevant. They could charge $100 for each new AAA game and they would STILL loot box/micro transaction it to hell and back.
The problem with your statement is that publishers (specifically their shareholders and executives) don't actually care how much money they're making. They only care that they're making more money than they were yesterday. They don't want to sustain their business model- they want to expand, by any means necessary. The problems that gaming is facing are rooted in societal problems- publishers are exploitative because their investors are constantly pursuing higher profits, gamers are unwilling to buy more expensive games because they aren't being paid more. When most businesses are confronted by these problems, they look to expand their distribution or create new products. But for whatever reason, game publishers have decided that the best way to satisfy investors is to squeeze their customers for every last penny. Those are artificial profits, a bubble that will burst, and we can only hope there will be game companies other than Nintendo and Valve left after it does.
Evidence?
drunky1993 it's just common sense. All these publishers care about is profit. They have all been making hand over fist in money even without micro transactions and loot boxes. They don't really "need" them to be profitable. They just want to nickel and dime you to death.
Also no it’s not because of MTs that we still have game prices the way they are. It’s because the consumer wouldnt pay anymore than the current price. What you actually think publishers wouldn’t raise the base price if they knew they could make MORE money?
They can make more money with lootboxes.
I have not been supporting any games with lootboxes and the like. Vote with your wallets my friends.
I don't think even one time in history has a marketplace been changed by a small community of people consciously limiting their own options and fun for the sake of principle. You're free to do it if you want of course, I just don't think I'd advise anyone else hamper their own lives for something that unlikely to succeed.
If lootboxes fall, they'll fall because the vast majority of people are disgusted enough by them to provoke a big enough backlash. Just not buying games that happen to practice an industry standard isn't gonna accomplish that.
I think you need both. A huge backlash may be worthless if a business sees that it is not affecting their sales numbers at all.
Grassroots boycotting on principle isn't going to put a dent in the sales of a single one of these AAA games. The BF2 backlash barely even accomplished that.
It's not like the voting argument where if everyone thought their vote didn't matter then of course it won't, because unlike voting I think it's asking a lot for people to go out of their way to not play certain games on a principle held by a minority. You're just hurting yourself, not these big companies or these practices.
I used to watch your videos when you were with the escapist as a teen, I used to look up to you.
I truly hope you come to realize how badly these attempts at monitisation are making the games industry look, all i can hope for is that governments across the world ban these methods of income. maybe then I'll start buying AAA games again upon release.
You are using MtG as an arguement?
Okay.
There is one benefit in TCG/CCG that many lootbox systems including Overwatch fail in.
Even if we ignore the blackmarket selling for money.
The point it to trade with other players. It strengthen the community with an internal market. Don´t like your loot give it a friend that like it. Trade it for something you like or you know others love so you can trade it later.
Is there some junk that noone likes? Yes, but you rarely can not negotiate.
As to how to make lootboxes better:
1) Make all the loot tradeable.
2) Sell all the stuff in the Lootboxes at a higher price directly (you already designed it so why not put it in the shop.)
3) Never ever sell power (yes that is from you guys)
It is an easy cassh grab, that is why it happens.
It is not like we can enforce it in the industry. Designer and Publisher need to restrain themself to not do it. And that is hard.
The problem comes to player (like me ) who don't spend extra money but are like level 600 so we like everything then we are forced to pay real money for something we were going to get anyway.
Could you phrase it different?
I have a hard time to understand what you want to say and I don´t want to guess.
Verzeih Turncoat what I am saying is that it would hurt the established community by making items we were able to get easily by playing harder to get.
Sorry, but after getting burned a couple times, the mere presence of loot boxes just makes me averse to any game that has them now. I'm fine with DLC and if I like a game enough I'd be happy to pay more than $60 for it, but just the knowledge that there's lootboxes in a game and that the developer is likely going to try to shove in front of my face at every opportunity it can get away with is enough for me to just say "no thanks", and every Shadow of War and Battlefront 2 is making that bad taste in my mouth more and more bitter.
good for you mate. I for one have yet play any game with loot boxes in them and I plan on keeping it that way.
It’s a strange day that people say ‘you know, I’m fine with DLC’
Not a few years ago it was the single most hated thing in games. I can’t help but wonder if that it’s not ‘I liked DLC better then loot boxes’ instead of actually liking DLC.
+Meeko1001
Not for everyone. I thought the idea of DLC was great from the moment I first encountered it- and I still do (save a few exceptions like Sims 3 and 4 packs, and the infamous Train game dlc), and until I personally experienced what predatory loot boxes do to people and how they're almost the only kind out there that devs will try, I had the same opinion as EC. I can't look at them the same way as DLC any more when my worst splurge on DLC was about $40, compared to the nearly $500 I dropped in the middle of a rare medal campaign.
That game wasn't even considered bad as far as lootboxes go, they're just designed to do that to people, to get people to spend on items they could use to "get ahead" in the game while making sure through multiplayer elements or other mechanics that they never will, because they want players to keep buying them. Because of that, they can't be killed by spending money elsewhere. DLC almost never has that issue.
Long story short (sorry for the long comment), there's more to it than just not liking the new thing- lootboxes have a measurable effect on people in a way DLC can rarely replicate.
+Meeko1001
It depends, actually. There's good and bad DLC.
Bad DLC = horse armor. Good DLC = virtual expansion pack with lots of cool stuff.
Mist Sonata agree just a greedy way to make money, dlc is one thing (if said dlc was not part of the game all ready and was cut to make it dlc) but loot boxes hell no I don't want to see it in any of my games and hope to see it go away one day.
"You have a conscience, use the dang thing."
Uh... you guys have worked with a large business before, right?
I'm sorry, but, no. Locking content behind an randomizing paywall (whether it be gameplay tweaks or a pallette swap) just feels wrong, like i am being punished for not having the cash. I'm not going to buy bunches of games a year. I am an adult, with just enough cash to get by alright i guess. If i buy a game, i want it to be something that is complete, not bare bones, so i can enjoy playing it for time and time to come. At this point, If things don't change, I am not sure I'll even be a gamer anymore. I'm sorry Dan :(
Buy indie! There are so many good games that don't use explotative models. If you like games, don't let big industry bullshit drive you out of a hobby. Some high-profile devs also generally avoid these practices too (Nintendo, for example).
i know how you feel. Even if Overwatch is the "rightest," it still feels wrong on every level. Or should i say; every 'level up?'
I agree :3
I bought many lootboxes in moments of weakness. Sometimes I wanted that shiny timed exclusive Mercy Halloween skin that was prominently advertised in the start menu of the game. Another time it was a miniskirt that ended up being so rare people are willing to spend hundreds of dollars for one. One thing was almost always the same when I bought lootboxes though. A feeling of disappointment and regret. For example when I spent 40€ on Overwatch lootboxes and didn't get what I actually wanted. You could argue that as a consumer it is my responsibility to controll my spending behavior. Which I kind of did. End of last year I decided to just not buy games with loot boxes anymore to protect my self against the temtation of buying more then I can afford just to get stuff I don't need. Which basically means I'm not playing AAA games anymore. I feel like people defending cosmetic lootboxes are never the ones who are suceptible to them. Please stop pretending only rich people who can afford it are buing this stuff.
My story is similar ish, I wanted a certain weapon in mass effect 3, I would have needed it 10 times!!! to get the full power out of it and after spending like 100-200 odd I didn't even see it once. I have never ever bought a loot box after that. At least with scratch cards I stopped after spending like 20 odd... (likely due to lootboxes coming to me first).
At the end of the day it was exactly the same feeling between those scratch cards and those loot boxes in fact I think the feeling was worse with the loot boxes because it actually effected my ability to do well at the game by not having the weapon (and I had played a seriously amount for the game to earn it without spending, I reached the point my multipler effectively instantly won my single player point requirements).
There's a Cyanide and Happiness comic where someone goes to vegas and asks if he can buy a sandwich, handing over the cash. The cashier then spins a giant roulette wheel and says "no". That's lootboxes. A typical microtransaction, you can't get the good but you're guaranteed to get it. That's not the case, and that's partly why it's so annoying.
There's a real pizza chain called Hell, which ran a promotion called "pizza roulette". If you asked for it, they would (for no extra charge, I presume) add a few drops of an extremely hot chili sauce to one of the eight slices of the pizza.
So, there's a random element, which you can make a 'fun' game out of, yet there's nothing random about the contents of the box - one pizza.
If loot crates aren't gambling then why do they use chance? Let them buy the in game Ferrari directly.
spoddie this
Well, there are games that allow to do that.
Like Team Fortress 2 lootboxes (one of the first to exist, mind you) or CS:GO ones.
The trick is: they are chance based... But if you have the chance - you can go to steam market and buy the skin you're interested in dirrectly. It might cost you x10 more than opening a crate... Could cost a dollar less... Now here's a real choice of "to gamble or not". You can gamble... Or you can just overpay for someone's else gambling and get it straight.
Unfortunately Star Wars and Overwatch - from what i know - dont share the same philosophy. Their lootboxes are echo chambers. And that sucks.
And let us sell it to other players for real money too.
you have a small chance of slipping when walking on a dirt road, do you consider that gambling? ok that was a extreme example here is a simpler one, when you play a shooter and you go around a corner there is a "chance" that a person is around that corner. is going around that corner now gambling?
MidgardEagle
TL,DR magic cards have value and can be used to get what you want even if you gambled with a pack
have you even played magic the gathering or any other tcg.
1. Yes some people buy packs for a chance (gamble) of getting said card. Opening a box increase your chances of getting what you want. (Minus some super rare card with insane pull rate. Get those crates rolling)
Here's where 2 comes in
2. I can sell the cards I don't want and directly buy from a seller with the profits from cards I didn't want.
3. Video games loot boxes have no value and you cannot make a pauper format (Commons only) so your trash stay trash
You dont need to pay 60$ to buy booster packs afterward.
That the point, if you whant a lootbox economie, dont charge me for the entry fee has well!
NoESanity
Afraid you're wrong pal. neoikake's analogy works, you just changed it by saying "unless you want to be competitive". What about Shadow of War? 60 bucks for the game and it asks you to buy booster packs. No competitive mindset there. Just because you add some details doesnt make his original analogy absolete.
I still can't believe you ENTIRELY ignore improper management direction and leadership in explaining why games cost so much to develop. Also, you CAN "cash out" of loot box winnings in many games (ie- PUBG)
We should praise a game with good loot boxes. NO we should praise a good game without loot boxes.
NO. We should expect a game without lootboxes. We should praise a game that integrates aesthetics, story, world, and mechanics seamlessly.
We should praise games if they're good. That's it.
In this video multiple times you make arguements along the lines of "whales/people paying for loot boxes allow the rest of us to pay less" I understand how in thoery that makes perfect sense buut ive yet to come across any hard data that shows that to be true but i have seen companies like EA claim that lack of loot boxes doesnt hurt them, i believe they even said that in an investor meeting whwre they would be legally compelled to tell the truth to thier investors. Its hard to see any of these potentially abusable sourses of income as anything but abusive when we cant see the effects they have for companies.
You want to look at casino data. They have a ton of research on this topic.
Aadit Doshi that wouldnt help me to understnad how much money triple A game studios make from loot boxes or how neccesary that inckme is to them.
Capitalizing off whales is still not okay.
You'd be surprised at how many mobile games are doing just that.
Mobile games are not okay :p
EC actually said this in a previous video. I find it strange that they're contradicting that previous position. (Granted, they didn't say accepting money from whales isn't OK... they said relying primarily on whales for income isn't OK. But I'd argue that balancing two income sources is unstable - one of them will have to become primary.)
EC seems to reserve their criticism for exploitative practices like personally contacting whales to keep them hooked, or cases where players put themselves in financial difficulty by spending too much of their income on the game. That said, it still bugs me when games offer rather expensive, non-cosmetic packages. EVE offers a $500 package, and while EVE is nominally subscription-based, and that's enough for 2 1/2 years of subscription, it's also $500 worth of tradeable goods in the main in-game economy.
sure it is. As my dad (who opens loot boxes) told me about this. "It's my money, I worked my ass off all week, I can spend however I want to."
It's frustrating listening to this because it feels like despite quite explicitly saying "we'd rather pay a little more up front than deal with microtransactions" that's all invalidated because _actually_ we secretly enjoy them, or they don't really matter despite us clearly communicating verbally that they do matter. The celebration that the entire model exists on the backs of whales and serves as a way for those wealthier to hold something over everyone else is particularly worrying, I took that as a particularly damning argument against the supposed potential moral good of the model.
It's one thing to argue the economics of lootboxes, but it's another to then claim that critics are... what, lying about finding frustration with the inherent presence of mechanics meant to pester you for more money over what was previously a simple purchase? And I really don't like the constant implication that this all happened because we somehow asked for it by not altruistically offering up our wallets and demanding game prices be increased.
If nothing else, at least let us choose how to feel about lootboxes. People aren't complaining _just_ about Battlefront and there were lots of complaints well before that became a wide reaching issue.
It's not that the people who dislike lootboxes are lying. More so that they are, in the eyes of these AAA developers, the minority, albeit a very VERY vocal minority. Because of this they don't want to cut costs to make a worse looking game because that is very scary for them. It is a dangerous option to make a game that looks sub-par, especially when you are trying to run with the "gritty" aesthetics of a lot of our big fps games.
One Cube Man
First of all this has no empirical validity at all.
And second its all about the question itself: if i ask you if you are willing to pay more for something you will always say no but in this case the question asked should be:
"are you willing to pay more up front or do you want us to include hidden costs to the full experience that are much harder to keep track of?" - this would be a honest question with maybe a different outcome.
I'm really disapointed by the cheep trickts that are pulled of here - you can do much better extra credits - thats sadly below you dignety - other videos are so well done - but this one looks more like you have to force something through...
And by the way i dont get it - you always talk about the 60$ pricetag as it was a law of nature...
Fact is in europe we pay the full pice - eg. Ufc3, madden and so on cost about 65€ = 80$ - and still there is all that lootbox-goodness in it. - It is simply not true what you are talking about - why do we have to pay the fair price here and still have to deal with this?
Fix your market in the us... People pay for it if they see value in it...
People buy lootboxes which means there is demand for them. Some people manage to spend crazy sums of money like $10000 on lootboxes to get soem rare digital asset. Every person like that outweight 200 people not buying the game for $50, every person who spends $1000 on lootboxes outweights 20 people whou would buy the game for $50. I do not know the numbers but I think that inveestors are not stupid and they know where the profit is. And if that profit turns out to be short teerm, they can invest next time to movies or real estates, they do not need games to make money anyway.
So, I'm the only one who would rather pay everything up front and would never spend money on any extras in game?
Keith Chamley I’m right there with you.
Yeah. I'm with you. The only reason why nobody raised their hands in that room is the cold hard truth that the question was phrased poorly. I'd pay more money upfront if that meant I got everything.
However, I don't trust the game industries triple A companies. They'd just go on and put all these extra monetization options into games regardless of them charging more upfront.
That is the reason I have only bought indie or Nintendo games for the last year and a half. I am willing to pay but I only want to pay once. If you can't give me a fun AND complete game then I don't want it
No.
Im here with you
Id rather buy Amiibo than a freaking loot box. At least I know what I'm getting, and for what cost, with the addition of a physical object to look at at the very least. No amount of rationalizing will ever make loot boxes okay. Sorry, but I have to give this video a thumbs down, and I do love this channel.
There's a reason why actually good games don't go anywhere near this model. If I ever see From Soft implement a loot box model, I will legitimately eat my shoe.
And even better, amiibo (yes, spelled with all lowercase letters) can often be used for more than one game with different effects in each game.
Lootboxes have no right being in full priced games. They will without fail warp some component of the game to become objectively worse for the consumer. Even cosmetic only cases like Overwatch, because players enjoy cosmetics and lootboxes erect a gigantic wall between those players and their enjoyment. Not to mention that they are manipulative by design.
The reason I view TF2 as the greatest example of player friendly lootboxes is because it is a free to play game and you can bypass the rng through the steam market place and player trading. The player economy also compensates big spenders with the chance to aquire items that are worth far more than the average items.
You may tell us that they exist to ensure the stability of the industry, but if the industry cannot sustain itself, it does not deserve to exist and it has no right to push its failure onto its consumers. No matter how much you defend it, you cannot deny that the publisher trend is to design them against the players and given the rampup of anti consumer practices over the last decade, there is no reason to assume that AAA publishers will become nice out of the blue.
Look, I know I probably sound harsh on you and I want to reaffirm that I think you run on of the best gaming centred shows on youtube, I really think so, but your viewpoint on these matters are clearly shaped by the fact that you are part of the triple AAA industry.
I love video games and I hate the idea of the industry crashing or recessing, but it is not the players job to prevent that and if the industry cannot prevent it, then it must crash and make room for a new way of doing busniess.
Why doesnt the witcher 3, horizon zero dawn or any nintendo game have loot boxes 🤔
because they are well built games made by people who know what their audience wants and know how to follow a budget.
The Witcher and Horizon Zero Dawn were created in countries where their government subsidies game development or have social security policies that make the development a lower risk venture than in the US, and Nintendo has Amiibos and console licensing fees which serve the same end goal of adding revenue streams beyond normal game purchases.
Witcher 3, developed in a country where games are cheaper to make, with good Government subsidisation. CD Projekt also is a part of GOG, hence owning a well established and financially strong PC platform (like Steam, but imo better). Horizon (and many Sony games) and Nintendo don't use those business strategies because they're not needed, they're 1st party. Most of the money made comes from 3rd parties, and 1st parties help boost console sales, and make the systems more desirable. The only exception to that rule is MicroSoft, who want ALL THE MONEY! like EA and most of the AAA industry.
If US companies can't compete because of their location then they should move, and if that really was the issue they would.
Moving is expensive, moving to another country is even more so. Never mind going through all the legal issues, but potentially moving/laying-off staff could be company closing. Then add in personal families, responsibilities, and so much more. If it was that easy to just up-root and leave, companies would never be started in places where they could get a better deal elsewhere, it'd never make sense. As for companies like EA, they already do finance/own studios in other countries, but then as they're a US company owning a foreign one they face different fees/issues their too. Though, with (legal?) tax evasion I'd imagine this argument is moot for some of the AAA game publishers.
My problem is this:
They are afraid of raising the base price, because it might turn people off. Okay, fair point.
But they don't care that microtransactions and loot boxes might turn people off? I have stopped buying games that contain microtransactions, cosmetic or not, I don't want to buy a game if I don't know up front how much the experience will cost me. Loot boxes and microtransactions have already turned people off, but the industry still insists on pushing them, yet raising the base price is unthinkable?
I mean, you are not every consumer. Microtransactions, especially ones that only add supplemental (cosmetic) items are a hell of a lot more discreet than an upfront $20 price increase. I would consider you the exception rather than the norm.
I know no one will ever read this, but the second to last point is invalid if you ask me: any other example of someone spending a lot of money in something is justified because a Ferrari does cost that much to make, and if we had the tecnology to make a car that drives as good as one at a budget I don't think others would not buy it. However the extra enjoyement you get from microtransactions/loot boxes etc is already in the game, but locked behind that pay wall/ridicolous grinding, is not something that has that actual cost to add, it can cost more than another game and offer less, it's blocked not because it costs that much fr the devs to make, it's there because they know they can charge that much for that. This might be basic marketing but again the Ferrari comparison(the only real way you justified it) does not apply. Also you said earlier that games will stay 60 dollars, so the fact that it's helping keeping that price low is invalid too.
When Rolls Royce first came out literally the only thing separating their cars from others was the exorbitant cost. This made the car a status symbol. It was only after they started making a bunch of money that they actually started making the cars noticeably better.
This is to say, I disagree with your point that the Ferrari costs that much to make. I have no comment for the rest.
Also, nobody is selling $2 boxes with a 0.001% chance if there being a Ferrari in them
I would argue that 'This can be done in an exploitative and unethical way' is a good enough argument to remove loot boxes entirely when they exist in an environment with no regulation to prevent exploitation or enforcement of said regulation.
Hey exrta credits, really love this series of episodes and getting perspective on all this. Your core community is with you on this, so if anyone is slogging through the comments I just hope you know you did a really good job explaining an inflammatory subject in a very understandable and positive manor. THANKS!
There nothing ethical about gambling
Needs to be a warning sticker on games now if they contain loot boxes. I wont ever buy a game with this crap in it.
Yeah. And not sold to anyone that's not old enough to gamble. Different in other countries but you get the deal.
I'm old enough but want nothing to do with this type of garbage. Rather developers spend time making good games rather than video poker machines on steam.
All games with Loot boxes should be labelled AO and all games with Microtransactions should be M regardless of content.
4:42 - Wish granted. Over fifteen countries are conducting studies right now and at least TWO have found the Gambling and gambling compulsion claim to be valid.
You know, I was rather... salty about the issue during the last couple of videos. Simply put, I still find that this whole alternative monetization system is just a way to patch and hide a bigger problem that videogames, as all tech-based commodities, would eventually have to face. All technology in the market eventually has to reduce the speed of its development because it just becomes impossible to sustain in relation to the price to make it. That is why even if we have the technology, we don't have common space travel, megastructures or super cars. Until new systems to make them easier to produce appear, technology cannot just be sold better and better after a certain point.
And it disgust me to such a level that people are destroying the work a lot of them are probably passionate about because the market cannot get this and us as consumers keep asking for more graphics, more content, more, more and more. Sure, a good, well designed and not intrusive alternative monetization might solve the problem in the short run, but it won't get rid of the core issue. And five or ten years down the line a new, worse system will pop up and we will have the same discussion, unless we stop relating quality with amount of cash thrown into it.
That would be right if loot boxes weren't on games that has nothing super innovative nor are graphically hyper realistic, like Blizzard games, for instance. I think that even if gamer's demands were lowered as you say, game companies greed would still be predatory.
+AAndres Arancio - "I was rather... salty"
I'm not surprised, gamers are a particularly salty bunch recently :P
Andres Arancio the best game I've played in the last 3 months is enter the gungeon low resolution game so good my favorite game is cryteks timespliters I can't bring my self to care much about high resolution games I don't have a system to play it on I do like making sfm models and playing with Skyrim skse and the clothing programs so I know kinda what it's like to work within a games ecosystems kinda I'm a pleb for sure but I feel like passion has to drive this industry and any other one not money the lootboxs is just a bold face spite to me I don't need it I bot hell blade because I hear it's amazing I can't play it but I got it I'll be buying neir atamida soon and the attack on Titan game don't lie to me and say there is no money if you make something good in your spare time wile working other projects not putting all your eggs in one basket you'll be and keep working on games don't stop at realise if you love it you should still love it but thats how passion can drive you
The point of the lootboxes in overwatch is to keep the game going without fragmenting the community. The free updates are a direct result of the system that benefits everyone that likes the games and wants to continue to grow. Overwatch would not be able to survive as long as I hope it will with extra money.
If you think the gaming industry can be trusted to design loot boxes ethically, then I've got a bridge to sell you...
I was going to point out "It's just Cosmetics" is a bullsh*t, dead argument, but I learned something far bigger today.
Companies are required by US law to maximize profits for shareholders. That is an actual thing. Google "Dodge V Ford Motor", the Supreme Court of America actually declared companies MUST maximize profits over charity and public benefits.
This isn't saying they're not allowed to be nice to their workers, but this is still quite a big deal.
Isn't that the case where the Dodge brother's forced Ford to pay a large amount in dividends, and then used that money to form the Dodge car company to compete with Ford?
Correct. Dodge brothers where shareholders in Ford, and were upset that Ford was using most of it's profits on employees and community works. So they sued Ford for not putting the interests and profits of the shareholders first, and that actually worked. They then founded their own company.
Lootboxes have demonstrably ruined certain games, and I think any additional money bulking after already dropping $60 on the game is not cool no matter what.
So you would prefer the quality dropping?
if you believe that extra money is being taken to improve the game solely or even majorly, then yes quality drops. but we live in reality and it is not so.
The issue is that saying that you "already dropped $60 on a game" is a matter of saying... "so what?". $60 just isn't enough per customer anymore.
It's the addition of additional lootboxes, and other paid DLC content, which *some* players buy, which allows the game to remain $60 for those who don't want to buy additional stuff afterwards.
By all means complain when a company does lootboxes wrong (Battlefront is on everyone's lips there), but you can't say that lootboxes are "not cool no matter what".
Because that just isn't true.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: if $60 isn't enough per customer anymore, then this industry shouldn't be here.
A. Cruz did you WATCH THE episode? LITERALLY JUST SAID IT'S NOT A FACT BECAUSE WE NEED RESEARCH