Enjoy! 00:01:39 - Extended periods where the player character is injured and that slows you down too much 00:04:45 - In-game ads for purchasable goods 00:05:21 - Games as a Service 00:11:26 - In-game ads for purchasable goods 00:13:18 - Disney 00:14:24 - Electronic Arts 00:18:07 - Call of Duty 00:20:39 - WWE 2K/Yuke’s 00:27:50 - Electronic Arts 00:31:14 - Nintendo’s lousy console design 00:47:22 - Blind boxes
I think the idea of Games as a Service is best portrayed with Rainbow 6: Siege and For Honor. They are going to continuously add more content to that game, and you don't have to pay for it. It is something that keeps the game relevant as years pass. This is not loot boxes.
And Division, Wildlands and even Steep are being properly supported. Ubisoft has clearly decided they are willing to commit to games for better or worse, and that's really nice.
I would imagine it would be any Blizzard game, they used to release a new game every couple of years, and now they are in the business of extending the lifespan of all their games.
@@Vub. Ngl bro, this 6 year old comment of mine has not aged well. Both of those games are absolutely shit now and I hate them. Destiny is good rn and a valid example.
The problem with raising the price of games from 60 to 70 is that most people don't pay 60 to begin with. A significant number of people get a game on sale, something that literally never happened ten years ago. A whole lot of others get the games as part of a subscription. And there's still a large number of people picking up games used. Raising the price wouldn't move the needle and it fails to understand that the Online Pass, Season Pass, DLC, and microtransactions were ALWAYS about monetizing the people who don't purchase a game new.
I know this isn't how everyone uses the term, but I want to speak my peace. The problem I have with "games as a service" has less to do with loot boxes, microtransactions, or even multiplayer really. It's more focused on the status quo of unfinished games being acceptable on the basis that they are intended, by way of player feedback, to evolve over time with frequent updates. Where this is ok in my opinion, is Early Access. In that case you are buying into the notion that you as a customer are paying to be a part of that evolution. Where that is not ok in my opinion, is purchasing a full priced game without realizing that you will either have to pay more later or even without paying have to wait years to receive what was assumed. Turns out people are paying for a strong framework plus "service". Example: I buy a game. It is reviewed well because of how critics like the game and see a bright future for it. I discover that in fact it is a buggy half arsed clusterfuck of ideas. Frequent typos, broken systems, curiously absent elements. A year later I'm still checking in after weekly patches to see if it has become the game I read so many nice things about. It hasn't, but thanks for the bug fixes because I've been sending an absurd number of bug reports (unpaid QA). Two years later, I am asked to purchase DLC that I was expecting the base game to include. I don't. Three years later an optional "expansion pack" is sold, but it is not "expanded" content. It is a revamp of the original product now being refereed to as "vanilla". This revamp is what I expected the game to be when I purchased it. And again, even if everything post-launch is free, which it almost never is, the unfortunate fact is that people have grown complacent with the idea that we are paying not for a thing, but for how we think that thing will be regularly serviced. That problem can include, but does not require, subscription fees, paid DLC, seasons, or any in-game community at all.
The only way to fix loot boxes and blind boxes is for the government to regulate that gambling bullshit, when was the last time self regulation worked? on ANY business? they wont stop until someone gets hurt, it will take for blood to show. Gambling is illegal for under age but at least when you win something you own it, on some of these games even when you win you get TIMED loot boxes.....thats just death.
For some, the idea that blind boxes naturally lead to the core game being tuned to the selling of said boxes was an obvious thing from day one. Apparently some at Giant Bomb are only now coming to this realisation. Also, Ben, Activision Blizzard really don't need boxes to financially support the game. They are just a way for AB to get ALL the money, not just some of it.
Brad’s Destiny fetish has resulting in him losing so much credibility for me. “At least you can pay to get what you want?” Uh, no? Jesus christ Brad....
He's right that the ability to essentially buy an in-game currency that you can then spend on specific cosmetics is better than pure blind boxes...but it's still not really good. Especially when Bungie took things like sparrows and ghost shells away from in-game content and put them purely into the cash shop area/blind box crap.
I mean he is totally right with that though. Like the crew I've come more and more cynical about having any kind of blind lootboxes in the games I play. They just should not be there. Absolutely nothing wrong some paid stuff in the game as long as it doesn't impede my gameplay.
tissot233 If he was trying to suggest that loot boxes that allow you to choose what you want are fine, then I agree (insofar as the items are game changing). But it sounded like he was was suggesting Destiny 2 DOES allow you to do that, as opposed to hiding everything in the Eververse as a roll of the dice. That’s my issue. I’d happily be proven wrong though.
I like Overwatch and I'm usually fine with their lootbox system, but there is one thing that seems extremely fishy. I have hundreds of hours in Overwatch. Apart from loot only available during events, I have everything I want. When I open lootboxes, it's all dupes. Then a limited time event rolls around and things change. The boxes are flooded with sprays and voicelines. I get more legendaries, but not the event legendaries. I don't get many dupes, and therefore can't build up my wallet to buy the holiday skins. I can see why Blizzard/Activision don't want to report drop rates. They wouldn't be able to adjust numbers in their favor as easily.
i think [ME3 and] Mass Effect Andromeda's multiplayer is an example of good non-cosmetic loot boxes. For more reasons than I'm going to bother to list.
Loot with re-sale value. I uninstalled Rocket League after putting in hundreds of hours and I'm not going to even bother trying to get into PUBG. Rocket League was ruined by crate farmers that would drive full speed ahead the entire game. PUBG is getting worse every day from hackers. If you couldn't sell loot for real-world money, these problem would go away for the most part.
Yo, can we stop and remember that it isn't just Blizzard, it's Activision Blizzard. Ben's argument that Overwatch needs those loot boxes so they can make money to do other things is so awful because it's Activision Blizzard. They already have millions and millions of dollars...they don't need more from loot boxes after also making everyone purchase the game. I also hate the argument that because it's cosmetic, it's not important. Cosmetics are so important to games and if Overwatch didn't have great looking characters and dope outfits, people wouldn't care. People care about cosmetics because they sure as shit are buying them, so they obviously matter.
Sure, if you remember that Vivendi and Activision merged with Vivendi having a majority 51% stake, and just taking the name Blizzard because it was more recognisable. Blizzard has been owned by a large publisher since the Warcraft 2 days.
Overwatch has a good system, your argument is not good because they have an incentive to make money even if they already have a ton of it. Overwatch has a system that is literally an upside for all parties involved, it would be awesome if every competitive multiplayer game on the planet would just copy its business model. Maybe add more skins that can be acquired from playing very well like LoL's victorious skins but that's about it.
Just cause people are buying lots of cosmetics, doesn't mean that they matter (as far as gameplay is concerned). That says more about the addictive personality of many gamers. As much as I agree that billion dollar corporations don't need even more money, that's the system we live in. It's called capitalism, although it often seems that in reality we're living in a plutocracy (a society ruled or controlled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens).
Yeah because the only reason they do these things is because premium subscribers pay them. Also the add is for a free trial, not a paid upgrade. The stuff they’re discussing is an add for a paid item
First off I'm a GB subscriber and have been for many years and will continue to do so, I just found it funny to see the ad for the trial/subscription pop up right when they start talking about in game ad's. You might as well say that EA provides free DLC maps and things for Battlefront so they also should be allowed to place ad's for the loot boxes that pay them and allow them to do so in the game.
OtterFlash I definitely know I’m in the minority here, but I don’t know that I’d be that upset. As long as I don’t have to push a button to get rid of an ad, I’m fine with there being some consistent advertisement sitting in the corner that I can ignore. I played all through shadow of war and just ignored their ads.
The only game Blizzard has that hasn't been Loot Boxed yet is Diablo 3, the sad little game they tried to have paid auction house that didn't work out.
It was worth the conversation to define what the term should encompass. Do the existence of microtransactions constitute making a game "as a service"? What about games with multiple pieces of DLC?
That's because it's a nebulous term that means different things to different people. It's not something as well defined and straight forward as first-person-shooter. And after listening to the "best world" category, it's probably best that they make sure that they're all on the same page from the get go.
Jeff is quickly becoming a corporate apologist. How does it affect you???! Maybe in the way that you won't be able to play any more games, because they've run all their franchises into the ground?
There is a major point I think they're missing with loot boxes. It's not just that you don't have to buy them, it's that you can get them without spending any money at all. I would hate if Overwatch boxes were changed to paid DLC skin packs, because then i'd have to buy them to get that content. Instead I enjoy the progression system that I have unlocking content on a regular basis. I prefer the exchange of time for content, and in most well tuned systems people are paying for shot-cuts more than anything else.
I'd argue that I prefer Overwatch and similar games that have it balanced that way to ones that are setup the way you suggest. It's bland and empty when you can immediately get only one thing you think you want. For example, black ops 2 was pretty boring because you had so much choice you essentially could ignore most of the unlocks. Sometimes you need a stick with your carrot. It's just purely about how well they balance it.
The bad thing with what you want is that the system you want will not be applicable because it doesn't generate money in the long run which is the entire point of lootboxes. Lets say we use your system for overwatch, tell me how you progress to earn skins for champions if you remove lootboxes. Key things that need to be answered, how the system will provide constant income for the company to create free content for the players, how the company can introduce more content to the game without alienating players by paywalls or blocking any content.
Enjoy!
00:01:39 - Extended periods where the player character is injured and that slows you down too much
00:04:45 - In-game ads for purchasable goods
00:05:21 - Games as a Service
00:11:26 - In-game ads for purchasable goods
00:13:18 - Disney
00:14:24 - Electronic Arts
00:18:07 - Call of Duty
00:20:39 - WWE 2K/Yuke’s
00:27:50 - Electronic Arts
00:31:14 - Nintendo’s lousy console design
00:47:22 - Blind boxes
I think the idea of Games as a Service is best portrayed with Rainbow 6: Siege and For Honor. They are going to continuously add more content to that game, and you don't have to pay for it. It is something that keeps the game relevant as years pass. This is not loot boxes.
And Division, Wildlands and even Steep are being properly supported. Ubisoft has clearly decided they are willing to commit to games for better or worse, and that's really nice.
Crazy to think Ubisoft was thought of as the terrible company a few years ago and now they are really getting their shit together
I would imagine it would be any Blizzard game, they used to release a new game every couple of years, and now they are in the business of extending the lifespan of all their games.
Destiny
@@Vub. Ngl bro, this 6 year old comment of mine has not aged well. Both of those games are absolutely shit now and I hate them. Destiny is good rn and a valid example.
I thought the winner would be the "Best World" category :P
The problem with raising the price of games from 60 to 70 is that most people don't pay 60 to begin with. A significant number of people get a game on sale, something that literally never happened ten years ago. A whole lot of others get the games as part of a subscription. And there's still a large number of people picking up games used. Raising the price wouldn't move the needle and it fails to understand that the Online Pass, Season Pass, DLC, and microtransactions were ALWAYS about monetizing the people who don't purchase a game new.
Ben's defence of lootboxes was an embarrassment.
I know this isn't how everyone uses the term, but I want to speak my peace.
The problem I have with "games as a service" has less to do with loot boxes, microtransactions, or even multiplayer really. It's more focused on the status quo of unfinished games being acceptable on the basis that they are intended, by way of player feedback, to evolve over time with frequent updates. Where this is ok in my opinion, is Early Access. In that case you are buying into the notion that you as a customer are paying to be a part of that evolution. Where that is not ok in my opinion, is purchasing a full priced game without realizing that you will either have to pay more later or even without paying have to wait years to receive what was assumed. Turns out people are paying for a strong framework plus "service".
Example: I buy a game. It is reviewed well because of how critics like the game and see a bright future for it. I discover that in fact it is a buggy half arsed clusterfuck of ideas. Frequent typos, broken systems, curiously absent elements. A year later I'm still checking in after weekly patches to see if it has become the game I read so many nice things about. It hasn't, but thanks for the bug fixes because I've been sending an absurd number of bug reports (unpaid QA). Two years later, I am asked to purchase DLC that I was expecting the base game to include. I don't. Three years later an optional "expansion pack" is sold, but it is not "expanded" content. It is a revamp of the original product now being refereed to as "vanilla". This revamp is what I expected the game to be when I purchased it.
And again, even if everything post-launch is free, which it almost never is, the unfortunate fact is that people have grown complacent with the idea that we are paying not for a thing, but for how we think that thing will be regularly serviced. That problem can include, but does not require, subscription fees, paid DLC, seasons, or any in-game community at all.
The only way to fix loot boxes and blind boxes is for the government to regulate that gambling bullshit, when was the last time self regulation worked? on ANY business? they wont stop until someone gets hurt, it will take for blood to show. Gambling is illegal for under age but at least when you win something you own it, on some of these games even when you win you get TIMED loot boxes.....thats just death.
For some, the idea that blind boxes naturally lead to the core game being tuned to the selling of said boxes was an obvious thing from day one. Apparently some at Giant Bomb are only now coming to this realisation. Also, Ben, Activision Blizzard really don't need boxes to financially support the game. They are just a way for AB to get ALL the money, not just some of it.
WE GOT THE "C" IN SUBSCRIBERS!
Alex explained my frustration with the WWE games perfectly! FirePro is great!
I do like that they touched on the fact the Switch is basically a full priced console with 10+ year old features that still don't work right.
The worst thing about overwatch Loot boxes is when you give up and buy the item just to roll it a few boxes later
Brad’s Destiny fetish has resulting in him losing so much credibility for me.
“At least you can pay to get what you want?”
Uh, no? Jesus christ Brad....
He's right that the ability to essentially buy an in-game currency that you can then spend on specific cosmetics is better than pure blind boxes...but it's still not really good. Especially when Bungie took things like sparrows and ghost shells away from in-game content and put them purely into the cash shop area/blind box crap.
I mean he is totally right with that though. Like the crew I've come more and more cynical about having any kind of blind lootboxes in the games I play. They just should not be there. Absolutely nothing wrong some paid stuff in the game as long as it doesn't impede my gameplay.
tissot233 If he was trying to suggest that loot boxes that allow you to choose what you want are fine, then I agree (insofar as the items are game changing).
But it sounded like he was was suggesting Destiny 2 DOES allow you to do that, as opposed to hiding everything in the Eververse as a roll of the dice. That’s my issue.
I’d happily be proven wrong though.
Or these people could stop crying about destiny
Is Ben really defending lootboxes on the PR basis of "well it helps us pay for other stuff guys"?
Fuck the "is just cosmetics" argument. Cosmetics affects your gaming experience.
abby was oddly silent
I like Overwatch and I'm usually fine with their lootbox system, but there is one thing that seems extremely fishy.
I have hundreds of hours in Overwatch. Apart from loot only available during events, I have everything I want. When I open lootboxes, it's all dupes. Then a limited time event rolls around and things change.
The boxes are flooded with sprays and voicelines. I get more legendaries, but not the event legendaries. I don't get many dupes, and therefore can't build up my wallet to buy the holiday skins.
I can see why Blizzard/Activision don't want to report drop rates. They wouldn't be able to adjust numbers in their favor as easily.
i think [ME3 and] Mass Effect Andromeda's multiplayer is an example of good non-cosmetic loot boxes. For more reasons than I'm going to bother to list.
Loot with re-sale value. I uninstalled Rocket League after putting in hundreds of hours and I'm not going to even bother trying to get into PUBG. Rocket League was ruined by crate farmers that would drive full speed ahead the entire game. PUBG is getting worse every day from hackers. If you couldn't sell loot for real-world money, these problem would go away for the most part.
Yo, can we stop and remember that it isn't just Blizzard, it's Activision Blizzard. Ben's argument that Overwatch needs those loot boxes so they can make money to do other things is so awful because it's Activision Blizzard. They already have millions and millions of dollars...they don't need more from loot boxes after also making everyone purchase the game. I also hate the argument that because it's cosmetic, it's not important. Cosmetics are so important to games and if Overwatch didn't have great looking characters and dope outfits, people wouldn't care. People care about cosmetics because they sure as shit are buying them, so they obviously matter.
Sure, if you remember that Vivendi and Activision merged with Vivendi having a majority 51% stake, and just taking the name Blizzard because it was more recognisable. Blizzard has been owned by a large publisher since the Warcraft 2 days.
Overwatch has a good system, your argument is not good because they have an incentive to make money even if they already have a ton of it. Overwatch has a system that is literally an upside for all parties involved, it would be awesome if every competitive multiplayer game on the planet would just copy its business model. Maybe add more skins that can be acquired from playing very well like LoL's victorious skins but that's about it.
Just cause people are buying lots of cosmetics, doesn't mean that they matter (as far as gameplay is concerned). That says more about the addictive personality of many gamers.
As much as I agree that billion dollar corporations don't need even more money, that's the system we live in. It's called capitalism, although it often seems that in reality we're living in a plutocracy (a society ruled or controlled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens).
Ironic that when first discussing in game ads for stuff that the GB subscribtion message pop's up?
Yeah because the only reason they do these things is because premium subscribers pay them. Also the add is for a free trial, not a paid upgrade. The stuff they’re discussing is an add for a paid item
First off I'm a GB subscriber and have been for many years and will continue to do so, I just found it funny to see the ad for the trial/subscription pop up right when they start talking about in game ad's. You might as well say that EA provides free DLC maps and things for Battlefront so they also should be allowed to place ad's for the loot boxes that pay them and allow them to do so in the game.
OtterFlash I definitely know I’m in the minority here, but I don’t know that I’d be that upset. As long as I don’t have to push a button to get rid of an ad, I’m fine with there being some consistent advertisement sitting in the corner that I can ignore. I played all through shadow of war and just ignored their ads.
EA presents hottest mess lol
The only game Blizzard has that hasn't been Loot Boxed yet is Diablo 3, the sad little game they tried to have paid auction house that didn't work out.
A group of professional video game journalists having to explain to one of their number what games as a service is.
It was worth the conversation to define what the term should encompass. Do the existence of microtransactions constitute making a game "as a service"? What about games with multiple pieces of DLC?
+emanc93 I think a lot of them are actually as their website has reviews of games credited to many of the staff. I could be wrong though.
Eh, it doesn't seem like that big of deal to explain it. The terms "games as a service" is such a nebulous term that it's worth defining.
That's because it's a nebulous term that means different things to different people. It's not something as well defined and straight forward as first-person-shooter. And after listening to the "best world" category, it's probably best that they make sure that they're all on the same page from the get go.
Jeff is quickly becoming a corporate apologist. How does it affect you???! Maybe in the way that you won't be able to play any more games, because they've run all their franchises into the ground?
48:18 A "corporate apologist" wouldn't respond like this.
There is a major point I think they're missing with loot boxes. It's not just that you don't have to buy them, it's that you can get them without spending any money at all. I would hate if Overwatch boxes were changed to paid DLC skin packs, because then i'd have to buy them to get that content. Instead I enjoy the progression system that I have unlocking content on a regular basis. I prefer the exchange of time for content, and in most well tuned systems people are paying for shot-cuts more than anything else.
I'd argue that I prefer Overwatch and similar games that have it balanced that way to ones that are setup the way you suggest. It's bland and empty when you can immediately get only one thing you think you want. For example, black ops 2 was pretty boring because you had so much choice you essentially could ignore most of the unlocks. Sometimes you need a stick with your carrot. It's just purely about how well they balance it.
The bad thing with what you want is that the system you want will not be applicable because it doesn't generate money in the long run which is the entire point of lootboxes. Lets say we use your system for overwatch, tell me how you progress to earn skins for champions if you remove lootboxes. Key things that need to be answered, how the system will provide constant income for the company to create free content for the players, how the company can introduce more content to the game without alienating players by paywalls or blocking any content.
First.
A first comment in the "Please stop" category is quite meta. I liked the irony.