General Gaming Thread

[Draevyn]

I don't mind optional loot boxes on things where you don't pay a subscription. However, if you offer a subscription service then additional things should not be sold outside of that. So if you purchase a "Season Pass" for a game, then everything should be included in that.

[apsham]

1 minute ago, BuddyAwesome said:

I honestly think so long as you don't HAVE to pay to win, optional loot boxes and microtransactions are fine. It really is easy to just not buy something you don't want.

I generally tend to agree with this. Sometimes games have microtransactions for speeding up certain things that only have an impact on single player, and that I am entirely fine with - the time saver kind of stuff is fine, and even some cosmetic stuff is fine. It starts to kind of walk a line if you make the entire economy of the game based around what cosmetic you have, and then start stacking the odds of getting anything useful heavily in favour of... not happening without you spending money.

It's not perfect, but I think it can be done right.

[BuddyAwesome]

I think the newer Assassins Creed games are prime examples of how that's perfect. You can buy time saver stuff, or you can buy cosmetics that don't make a difference to the gameplay. And of course they have a feature in game where you can actually get those cosmetics without spending real money.

[apsham]

I actually think that Mortal Kombat 11 does it pretty well re; skins and stuff as well.

I remember back when Overwatch came out and people would makes articles stating "if you want particular cosmetics you can spend X amount of time or X amount of dollars to do so" and they're always be some astronomical values that just didn't make it worth it. When you're playing MK11 - every cosmetic you might want has a note of how you can earn it, and if you want something for a particular character - you just play that character more throughout the towers and you'll keep getting things for specifically them.

[RPS]

17 minutes ago, apsham said:

I actually think that Mortal Kombat 11 does it pretty well re; skins and stuff as well.

I remember back when Overwatch came out and people would makes articles stating "if you want particular cosmetics you can spend X amount of time or X amount of dollars to do so" and they're always be some astronomical values that just didn't make it worth it. When you're playing MK11 - every cosmetic you might want has a note of how you can earn it, and if you want something for a particular character - you just play that character more throughout the towers and you'll keep getting things for specifically them.

I have played Overwatch since day 1 and have never had an issue with the loot boxes. There are so many interesting and cool skins that there is no need to have every one or even one exact skin. Even so, you obtain gold for duplicate skins and you can buy the skins you want with that gold. Never put a dollar into the game and never considered doing it. 

[The Lusophone]

There is nothing 'optional' about loot boxes for a lot of people with potential gambling addictions - which is something that is increasing in both adults and children - and they certainly should not be in games rated for children.

Also if I hear that 'cosmetics don't effect gameplay' again I might just be sick. They're part of the gameplay experience.

[apsham]

Just now, RPS said:

I have played Overwatch since day 1 and have never had an issue with the loot boxes. There are so many interesting and cool skins that there is no need to have every one or even one exact skin. Even so, you obtain gold for duplicate skins and you can buy the skins you want with that gold. Never put a dollar into the game and never considered doing it. 

I was thinking more along the lines of "oh, I mostly play as 'X' character but I never get skins for them" which is pretty much the situation that I was in at the time. I don't know what Overwatch is like now, but at launch I was absolutely never getting skins for the characters that I was playing (luck of the draw) and money for duplicates is nice and all but never really balanced out to helping that much in the long run. A system where if I play as Roadhog, I am more likely to received Roadhog skins is something that would motivate me to play more than "oh, another DVA skin - cool I guess?" in the long run.

[Bobfoc]

I'm against paid loot boxes because they prey on people with addictive personalities. There have been stories of gambling addicts who have been advised to play video games instead of going to casinos, only to get sucked in by loot boxes.

Moreover, massive publishers like EA, Ubisoft and Activision don't even need microtransactions to stay afloat. They have a lot of the biggest franchises around and have hugely wealthy owners. Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision, is a billionaire, and the company has avoided paying billions of dollars in taxes. The wealth could easily be spread around the company without packing popular games with inside purchases, but we're talking about a set of higher-ups who care about nothing but making as much money as possible.

The ability to unlock items instantly or speed up progress used to be freely accessible in games through cheat codes. Frankly, when we're talking about massive corporations like these, I can't see any reason why that isn't still the case other than greed. The Assassin's Creed brand wouldn't go under if it didn't have in-game purchases, and neither would Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, FIFA and all the rest. I could maybe understand if a small independent studio did it, but the fact is that they're the ones who aren't doing it, and they're still turning profits if they sell reasonably well.

[RPS]

13 minutes ago, Bobfoc said:

There have been stories of gambling addicts who have been advised to play video games instead of going to casinos, only to get sucked in by loot boxes.

That seems like negligent advice. 

[Draevyn]

It is 100% greed and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is ridiculous and trying to play devils advocate. Anything you get should be freely accessible in the game that you pay money for. It just develops a habit within game companies to provide half assed games and then provide other stuff for more money. It's a stupid practice by money hungry individuals.

[OctoberRaven]

4 minutes ago, RPS said:

That seems like negligent advice. 

 

[gunnar hendershow]

I have legitimately seen people I'd otherwise think are totally sensible and rational spend hundreds of dollars for a limited edition character in Love Live or Fate/Grand Order. Gambling addiction is real shit.

Mobile gacha is the far end of the spectrum, gambling vehicles with an exterior paint job of a "game". But it's so prevalent everywhere in gaming that isn't free-to-play in one way or another and not regulating everything that smells like it might be gambling as gambling is, at its kindest, predatory. This isn't to say you take out something like "buy this to save 15 hours of gameplay" since that's not gambling but you do regulate/remove "buy this for a 5% chance at getting a cool cosmetic upgrade and a 95% chance of getting a cosmetic upgrade you already have".

[FLiam]

4 hours ago, 9 to 5 said:

So TNM is still a thing in 2020.

http://www.tnmte.com/

$30!

[Bobfoc]

14 minutes ago, RPS said:

That seems like negligent advice. 

It's supposed to be a way for people with addictive personalities to put their time into something that won't cost them huge amounts of money. Unfortunately, those who have given such advice have been unaware of in-game purchases.

[apsham]

1 minute ago, Bobfoc said:

It's supposed to be a way for people with addictive personalities to put their time into something that won't cost them huge amounts of money. Unfortunately, those who have given such advice have been unaware of in-game purchases.

I don't know who is steering people towards things like this but... it just seems like a terrible idea in general? Especially because any game that can grab your time that effectively - microtransactions or not - has just about the same chance to grab you and ruin your life in other ways as well.

17 minutes ago, Forked Out said:

It is 100% greed and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is ridiculous and trying to play devils advocate. Anything you get should be freely accessible in the game that you pay money for. It just develops a habit within game companies to provide half assed games and then provide other stuff for more money. It's a stupid practice by money hungry individuals.

Is this regarding loot boxes and stuff?

I'd never argue for loot boxes in any direct way if it came off like that. I think there's a fine line between providing something to players just because it's there or having a system to earn (another reason why I like MK11 so much, as there's a huge swath of content with each release they do and it's there to earn) - because if I'm enjoying a game, I like player engagement just as much as the studio who made the game should. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe on the Switch was kind of a bummer for me because everything comes pre-unlocked. But none of that really falls into stuff that is covered by microtransactions in a gambly way so eh.

On another note, this has all reminded me - remember a decade back when it seemed that every game had a one-time code in it, some of the time legitimately locking you out from certain things if you bought it secondhand?

[gunnar hendershow]

8 minutes ago, apsham said:

I don't know who is steering people towards things like this but... it just seems like a terrible idea in general? Especially because any game that can grab your time that effectively - microtransactions or not - has just about the same chance to grab you and ruin your life in other ways as well.

Addicts often get something "substituted" for them if that's a good word, idk. Like instead of doing drugs all day they find a new outlet for that part of their personality that doesn't cause the same level of physical harm. For gambling addicts a lot is about substituting the thrill of real, financial stakes with something like a video game that has stakes but they aren't real nor financial.

This might not be the perfect approach for recovery without the gambling elements of games, that much is agreed. Like many things there are different schools of thought and approaches to treating addiction. But regardless it's just made even worse by the fact gambling addicts are being fed gambling in their video games.

[Draevyn]

10 minutes ago, apsham said:

Is this regarding loot boxes and stuff?

I'd never argue for loot boxes in any direct way if it came off like that. I think there's a fine line between providing something to players just because it's there or having a system to earn (another reason why I like MK11 so much, as there's a huge swath of content with each release they do and it's there to earn) - because if I'm enjoying a game, I like player engagement just as much as the studio who made the game should. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe on the Switch was kind of a bummer for me because everything comes pre-unlocked. But none of that really falls into stuff that is covered by microtransactions in a gambly way so eh.

On another note, this has all reminded me - remember a decade back when it seemed that every game had a one-time code in it, some of the time legitimately locking you out from certain things if you bought it secondhand?

It's regarding loot boxes and any other type of in game content.

Take World Of Warcraft for example as that's the most recent game that I played. While the things sold on the in-game store won't neccessarily help you win, Blizzard has fallen into the form of creating really cool looking unique mounts and other things, while the ones that you can earn in game have become nothing but recolors of past ones that you were able to get by things that you did in the game.

Making things unobtainable in game that are extensively better than the things you can purchase with money is nothing but greed. Put the content in the game. That's why people purchase the game. Not to mention WoW itself has a subscription fee that you pay every month. You should not need to pay more on top of that to get things.

[RPS]

29 minutes ago, Forked Out said:

It is 100% greed and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is ridiculous and trying to play devils advocate. Anything you get should be freely accessible in the game that you pay money for. It just develops a habit within game companies to provide half assed games and then provide other stuff for more money. It's a stupid practice by money hungry individuals.

I agree, but I also think that that games are incredibly expensive and time consuming to create and maintain and that if people want games to be free of micro-transactions, they should expect potential negative consequences - the costs of games will go down, the scope of games will diminish, the people who make games will be paid less and work more, etc. I am okay with that, but I don't think most people are. 

[gunnar hendershow]

6 minutes ago, RPS said:

I agree, but I also think that that games are incredibly expensive and time consuming to create and maintain and that if people want games to be free of micro-transactions, they should expect potential negative consequences - the costs of games will go down, the scope of games will diminish, the people who make games will be paid less and work more, etc. I am okay with that, but I don't think most people are. 

Regarding the last point, how much worse can it get than the overwork scenario we've got in the industry now? I know these companies work for their shareholders first so microtransactions are huge for them as it helps financial reporting. And if they have to please shareholders while still undertaking these massively demanding projects then, yeah, they're gonna need to keep finding new and even more exploitative practices for both labor and consumer.

[Draevyn]

16 minutes ago, RPS said:

I agree, but I also think that that games are incredibly expensive and time consuming to create and maintain and that if people want games to be free of micro-transactions, they should expect potential negative consequences - the costs of games will go down, the scope of games will diminish, the people who make games will be paid less and work more, etc. I am okay with that, but I don't think most people are. 

I'd be willing to pay a bit more for individual games if I knew that everything involved in that price was included in game and I wouldn't have to pay extra for other things later on down the line.