the dlc/microtransaction/lootbox fuckfest is the greatest thing to happen to gaming

[Fishin]

This is particularly funny after the reception for Battlefront 2 around E3 was generally positive, iirc it looked like EA had realized and fixed a lot of the mistakes from the first game.

I never had much interest in it myself thankfully. I don't think that indie and (competently, fairly managed) AAA games can't co-exist though.

 

[Yung Dramps]

This is particularly funny after the reception for Battlefront 2 around E3 was generally positive, iirc it looked like EA had realized and fixed a lot of the mistakes from the first game.

I never had much interest in it myself thankfully. I don't think that indie and (competently, fairly managed) AAA games can't co-exist though.

BF2 is kind of a sad situation. Looking at gameplay, it's clear the developers put so much craft and care into making the arenas feel and look awesome. In addition, people who played the game during Beta said it was really fun. But once again, EA swoops in with their vicious greed and ruins the game with mobile game level paywalls.

 

[Siggu]

While this issue is heating up, this ad shows up in Youtube in regards of StarCraft II's Wings Of Liberty and multiplayer being free-to-play.

The timing couldn't have been better, even if Blizzard isn't exactly a saint on this matter.

(The Twitter and Facebook sites took a few jabs at EA while posting this ad)

 

[Yung Dramps]

Just a heads up: Overwatch and Battlefront 2's lootboxes are being placed under investigation by Belgium's gambling authorities.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/16/battlefront-ii-belgium-gambling-investigation/

Things are about to get spicy.

 

[Tera Melos]

Just a heads up: Overwatch and Battlefront 2's lootboxes are being placed under investigation by Belgium's gambling authorities.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/16/battlefront-ii-belgium-gambling-investigation/

Things are about to get spicy.

This is an article about EA mainly. Blizzard has continued to voice their opinion on their Loot Boxes and you can find such statements on their forums. They're pretty professional about it and are even against the practices EA is presenting. The Gamble claims are more against EA in this case, Overwatch boxes provide nothing and from experience I earn about 4-6 a day which is about 5$ worth of IRL cash and during Arcade Days you can get about 9-11 a day...which again is about 10$...in Overwatch you really do earn you boxes. Someone did the math, it'll take 4000+ hours or 2100$ to earn everything in Battlefront 2 (EA), in Overwatch I managed to get about every cosmetic in about 400 hours of Overwatch play and I've only spent maybe 20$ on boxes during Holiday events.

 

[Pilo]

since there has been a fair bit of discussion on the topic recently does anyone itt have any opinions on how hearthstone has been handling microtransactions? for those unaware, a lot of the community has been up in arms recently about certain changes in the past year that have upped the cost of the game significantly like the switch to 3 expansions a year wherein you have to rely on lootbox rng to obtain all the cards at a reasonable price as opposed to $20 pve adventures that award you all the cards as you complete them (used to have 1/2 a year interspersed between xpacs) and the increase in strong, expensive cards causing the cost of many decks to skyrocket (oh and don't even get me started on the increase in cost of packs outside of the us).

as a new(ish) player i myself wouldn't mind seeing other forms of supplementary gold gain on top of what we already have implemented to ease the grind a little bit because simply put, i don't think the old gold gain system can adequately support the game's cost in 2017. with good enough lootbox rng i can amass a decent collection of cards every xpac but i find i usually need to fork over a bit of money if i want to build more than 2 non-budget decks so having that extra little bit of supplementary gold would go miles in fixing the issues surrounding the game's price. with so many other much more generous competitors undercutting hearthstone just as hearthstone did mtg when it was released team 5 is going to have to be a bit more charitable to hearthstone's playerbase since being the top ccg currently only really gets you so far.

 

[Yung Dramps]

since there has been a fair bit of discussion on the topic recently does anyone itt have any opinions on how hearthstone has been handling microtransactions? for those unaware, a lot of the community has been up in arms recently about certain changes in the past year that have upped the cost of the game significantly like the switch to 3 expansions a year wherein you have to rely on lootbox rng to obtain all the cards at a reasonable price as opposed to $20 pve adventures that award you all the cards as you complete them (used to have 1/2 a year interspersed between xpacs) and the increase in strong, expensive cards causing the cost of many decks to skyrocket (oh and don't even get me started on the increase in cost of packs outside of the us).

as a new(ish) player i myself wouldn't mind seeing other forms of supplementary gold gain on top of what we already have implemented to ease the grind a little bit because simply put, i don't think the old gold gain system can adequately support the game's cost in 2017. with good enough lootbox rng i can amass a decent collection of cards every xpac but i find i usually need to fork over a bit of money if i want to build more than 2 non-budget decks so having that extra little bit of supplementary gold would go miles in fixing the issues surrounding the game's price. with so many other much more generous competitors undercutting hearthstone just as hearthstone did mtg when it was released team 5 is going to have to be a bit more charitable to hearthstone's playerbase since being the top ccg currently only really gets you so far.

>big company that's a subsidiary of Activision caring about their fanbase

Shitposts aside, has membership/simultaneous online player count decreased? Have mass boycotts of the game been taking place? Because if not, then you're not gonna get anywhere, and nothing will change. The harsh truth is these companies do not care what they do as long as they maximize profits. The only way you're gonna make a change for the better is by hitting them right in the money bag. And the way you do that is by not only boycotting the microtransactions, but convincing others to do the same. Giving in and handing them cash only enables this behavior further. This weakness is only highlighted by the fact you said yourself there are better, more generous card games out there.

 

[earl]

>big company that's a subsidiary of EA caring about their fanbase

Blizzard is owned by Activision, not EA.

 

[Yung Dramps]

Blizzard is owned by Activision, not EA.

Same thing, really. Both are greedy asshats. Have fixed.

 

[Tera Melos]

Same thing, really. Both are greedy asshats. Have fixed.

All of your post in this thread are /r/IAmVerySmart level of debating. You don't even know who owns Blizzard but you're attacking their business practices.

Your entire argument comes down to "If A Game has in game purchases it's EVIL and owned by EA", you're absolutely ignoring the fact that some of these game's micro-transactions are harmless ( Overwatch, Deciet, Brave Frontier, to name a few).


Your argument is one sided, biased, and based entirely off current negative backlash towards a SINGLE Entity (EA/Battlefront 2, your claims against other entities always go back to EA in one way or another.

If you're going to post a thread on a topic like this and attempt to host you should at least understand the market you're talking about. We know you're very young so you most likely weren't around when Micro-transactions/In Game/App purchases became a thing (Sega was infamous for downloadable content decades ago)... I suggest you do some research for a bit, read other's opinions here, then conclude some actual thoughts and a strong arguable opinion.

EDIT: I mean all of that with no offense, I feel like you'd have a much better time in general if you had more educated stances on things you argued against / for and things you generally see as evil/wrong.

 

[Karxrida]

Hawaii is getting involved and are looking into legislation against lootboxes and such. Other states might follow.

 

[Tera Melos]

Hawaii is getting involved and are looking into legislation against lootboxes and such. Other states might follow.

I'm going to be absolutely baffled if people find this to be some form of dangerous gambling in regards to games like OW where there's absolutely zero value in the things you spend money on, you're agreeing to give your money in exchange for in game outfits...as opposed to Battlefront 2 where you literally need to spend 2160$ for the full game.

 

[earl]

I'm going to be absolutely baffled if people find this to be some form of dangerous gambling in regards to games like OW where there's absolutely zero value in the things you spend money on, you're agreeing to give your money in exchange for in game outfits...as opposed to Battlefront 2 where you literally need to spend 2160$ for the full game.

It is still a bit predatory that the drops are randomized, which leads to people spending more to get that one wanted item and also hitting them with a dopamine rush that doesn't come from a regular purchase. It may be only cosmetic, but I'd rather that it was upfront about buying the items for real money. In game lootbox drops are fine imo. Duplicates are even more offensive.

 

[Tera Melos]

It is still a bit predatory that the drops are randomized, which leads to people spending more to get that one wanted item and also hitting them with a dopamine rush that doesn't come from a regular purchase. It may be only cosmetic, but I'd rather that it was upfront about buying the items for real money. In game lootbox drops are fine imo. Duplicates are even more offensive.

But Overwatch makes it 100% clear you're paying for more Cosmetics. They have never implied anything else, they've always been 100% upfront.

This issue comes from Battlefront 2, where after paying 60-120$ you're than asked to spend another 2000$+ for the rest of the game..THAT's the issue to me, not lootboxes or microtransactions.

 

[earl]

But Overwatch makes it 100% clear you're paying for more Cosmetics. They have never implied anything else, they've always been 100% upfront.

100% upfront about what? You have a CHANCE of getting what you want out of those 100 lootboxes, but no guarantee? I never mentioned anything about the fact that they're cosmetic, it doesn't matter as it's still a predatory system. P2W is a different issue that isn't limited to lootboxes.

A lot of microtransactions have been moving towards chance-based purchasing systems for more profit and a stronger psychological reaction, and I don't blame them. Lootboxes are hype. But they're also preying on the consumer, and that doesn't sit well with me (even if they are cosmetic, which really doesn't matter in this context (see TF2)).

 

[Acklow]

imo, if this goes the way of State-level intervention, we'll probably see this treated much the way current gambling laws are handled by states. It's actually not surprising that Hawaii has been looking into it since gambling in Hawaii and in Utah are completely outlawed. Heavier legislation might scare video game companies away from including randomized microtransactions or in the very least inhibit their inclusion. I personally would like to see randomized microtransactions have an ESRB rating applied to them.

If EA really wanted to include a microtransaction based progression system, all they had to do would be put an actual dollar amount on each weapon/item that they consider part of the progression to the game and also make those weapons individually purchasable through in-game currency that players can obtain naturally playing the game. Instead, we have what we have now and EA is presently seeing the backlash from their actions.

 

[Tera Melos]

100% upfront about what? You have a CHANCE of getting what you want out of those 100 lootboxes, but no guarantee? I never mentioned anything about the fact that they're cosmetic, it doesn't matter as it's still a predatory system. P2W is a different issue that isn't limited to lootboxes.

A lot of microtransactions have been moving towards chance-based purchasing systems for more profit and a stronger psychological reaction, and I don't blame them. Lootboxes are hype. But they're also preying on the consumer, and that doesn't sit well with me (even if they are cosmetic, which really doesn't matter in this context (see TF2)).

What kind of person buys 100 Overwatch loot boxes (60$) and goes "Man I hope I get everything I want too because I totally got everything I want in Lootboxes." ?

That mentality implies that the person is either a child or has some sort of tendency to gamble prior to being shown Lootboxes in a video game. Overwatch doesn't belong in this argument, no game where the boxes are literally thrown at you every hour of playtime and boxes only gift cosmetics should be in this "are they evil/gambling" argument. To my knowledge and from info from OW related polls, people only buy lootboxes during events because the event lootboxes promise event skins, and those loot boxes offer a different algorithm for getting those skins, which overlaps on the normal loot pool, you have a really high chance of getting event items during the event essentially, so you're paying to have event exclusive cosmetics which is fine to me since people do it in League of Legends and Smite...

Speaking of which...Where is the MOBA argument here? League of Legends, Smite, ect...you literally have to pay for characters...you literally PAY TO WIN.

 

[Yung Dramps]

I'm sure some people on this thread already know about this, but I figured I would bring it up anyway.

Remember about a week ago when Belgium started investigating lootboxes in Battlefront? Well, they just finished that investigation, and have ruled that lootboxes are gambling. They are now taking the first steps to get them banned.

Source: http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/

 

[Acklow]

Speaking of which...Where is the MOBA argument here? League of Legends, Smite, ect...you literally have to pay for characters...you literally PAY TO WIN.

The argument is that microtransactions are not illegal. It's randomized chance (i.e. gambling) that could be illegal. In the examples you provided, you can play to obtain ingame currency to play as those characters, or you pay for SPECIFIC characters. In other words it's a completely legal transaction that is not naturally predatory in nature.

You saying that is like saying that earning points via credit card use is okay, but using that credit card to purchase items from Amazon is not.

 

[Acklow]

And if you are looking at the other form of transactions in MOBAs that involve randomized chance (such as League's skin/champion dust thing or whatever it is now), then yes that is naturally predatory and should be looked at if and once gambling legislation is ruled to include lootboxes and whatnot.

 

[earl]

What kind of person buys 100 Overwatch loot boxes (60$) and goes "Man I hope I get everything I want too because I totally got everything I want in Lootboxes." ?

That mentality implies that the person is either a child or has some sort of tendency to gamble prior to being shown Lootboxes in a video game. Overwatch doesn't belong in this argument, no game where the boxes are literally thrown at you every hour of playtime and boxes only gift cosmetics should be in this "are they evil/gambling" argument. To my knowledge and from info from OW related polls, people only buy lootboxes during events because the event lootboxes promise event skins, and those loot boxes offer a different algorithm for getting those skins, which overlaps on the normal loot pool, you have a really high chance of getting event items during the event essentially, so you're paying to have event exclusive cosmetics which is fine to me since people do it in League of Legends and Smite...

Speaking of which...Where is the MOBA argument here? League of Legends, Smite, ect...you literally have to pay for characters...you literally PAY TO WIN.

I wasn't talking about getting EVERY wanted cosmetic (which would be reasonable to expect for 60 bucks during an event but w/e), I'm talking about that one cool legendary that the youtuber or whatever doesn't get in their 100 boxes. That's dumb. Nobody wants the event sprays and voicelines, they just want the legendary skins and maybe emotes. And making that all hinge on a chance (however high that may be) is really dumb and anti-consumer. I have no issue with naturally earned lootboxes. Also you've spent like half this thread defending OW's decision to include lootboxes (with no real reason other than more $$$ for a game that already costs $40+ lol) and basically birthed this whole craze (look at the statistics in games with lootboxes before and after OW) on the basis that it's earned in-game at a reasonable pace and is only cosmetic. That doesn't matter when I'm arguing that it's a bullshit system that literally revolves around a chance to get what you even want to buy if you do decide to spend money. Just give me what I want, you're still getting money, Blizzard.

 

[Tera Melos]

I wasn't talking about getting EVERY wanted cosmetic (which would be reasonable to expect for 60 bucks during an event but w/e), I'm talking about that one cool legendary that the youtuber or whatever doesn't get in their 100 boxes. That's dumb. Nobody wants the event sprays and voicelines, they just want the legendary skins and maybe emotes. And making that all hinge on a chance (however high that may be) is really dumb and anti-consumer. I have no issue with naturally earned lootboxes. Also you've spent like half this thread defending OW's decision to include lootboxes (with no real reason other than more $$$ for a game that already costs $40+ lol) and basically birthed this whole craze (look at the statistics in games with lootboxes before and after OW) on the basis that it's earned in-game at a reasonable pace and is only cosmetic. That doesn't matter when I'm arguing that it's a bullshit system that literally revolves around a chance to get what you even want to buy if you do decide to spend money. Just give me what I want, you're still getting money, Blizzard.

I keep bringing up OW because it has nothing to do with the issues EA is presenting, the only people who cry about OW lootboxes are people who spend tons of money on them when they first buy the game not realizing that in about 20 hours they'll have everything they want in terms of skins/voice lines/sprays..

Also if you think people in OW don't care about Sprays/Skins than you're crazy.

 

[earl]

I keep bringing up OW because it has nothing to do with the issues EA is presenting, the only people who cry about OW lootboxes are people who spend tons of money on them when they first buy the game not realizing that in about 20 hours they'll have everything they want in terms of skins/voice lines/sprays..

Also if you think people in OW don't care about Sprays/Skins than you're crazy.

(The bold stuff so you don't cherrypick a counterpoint like "That wrestling Rein spray was cool!")

I have a hundred hours or so in the game, most sprays/voicelines are pretty much shit drops let's be honest. I never once said skins weren't cared about, they're the main draw.

Anyhow, the people who "cry" about OW lootboxes are people who value the consumer and would rather companies give us what we want up front instead of putting it up to chance and pyschological exploitation. I really don't understand why you're defending this system, it's fun and all when contained inside the game but when microtransactions come into play it's a dishonest system that can basically waste the consumer's money on a luck based system.

All of this applies mostly to events btw, base game stuff isn't a huge issue (although it is worth mentioning that I, a level 200 player, still do not have a Roadhog legendary, and I would like one. Too bad events make spending in-game coins on the plain stuff feel like a waste...)

And who ever said I was defending EA? EA is much worse than Blizzard rn, but the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

 

[Aladyyn]

So literally every CCG is gambling now?

 

[Fishin]

The randomized nature of it is definitely designed to encourage spending more than you would otherwise. The Japanese side seems to be worse than the Western side with a lot of mobile games that lock nearly all playable characters behind the roll of a die, article that may be interesting:
https://www.geek.com/games/japanese-gamer-spends-6065-unlocking-mobile-rpg-character-1649554/


That said, there's definitely some fun to the surprise of seeing what you get. Xenoblade 2 is apparently including a system where you roll generic support characters or one of several unique ones that's completely non-monetized.

So literally every CCG is gambling now?

To some extent, but there is one large, critical difference in that there's an open market for the cards themselves. If I want a specific card like a Charizard or w/e, I can go on the internet and buy one for $5 or whatever. afaik in a lot of games like these, if you want something specific, your only choice is to gamble for it.