Top
360°

Loot boxes are not bad game design, say devs

Star Wars aside, loot boxes are here to stay; "It's just us dinosaurs that remember buying a game once for a fixed price and getting a set experience".

Read Full Story >>
gamesindustry.biz
The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot336d ago (Edited 336d ago )

Urm...yes they are. I would prefer it if we could just earn money in the game and browse the unlockables to select what to buy

I just want a good third person shooter which only unlockables are cosmetic, like Uncharted 2. No gimmicks or other shit...just pure skill.

Funny because I don't think any of these devs in the article have made constant flows of good AAA games.

"It's just us dinosaurs that remember buying a game once for a fixed price and getting a set experience"

REALLY? You want to just blame it on gamers getting old and being "out of touch"....f**** off with that shit, we remember because the gaming industry wasn't so awful and shitty back then. It felt like a lovable enviroment and now it's just becoming toxic.

thorstein336d ago (Edited 336d ago )

IF THEY ARE FREE, loot boxes aren't bad game design.

I don't have a problem with opening a box and getting something out of it that I can either trade or use, if I don't have to pay real money for it.

I believe Black Ops III had loot boxes... and for real money... where was the unmitigated hate for that?

Mikelarry336d ago (Edited 336d ago )

EA has just being doing so much anti consumer things lately, first it was mass effect andromeda followed by the close of visceral games was the tipping point and then the lootbox fiasco and pay to win was what broke the DAM

COD's time is coming they have already started laying the ground work for gamers backlash, cod points and the patent are just the foundation

rainslacker336d ago

The loot box paradigm is just another way to do random loot. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the premise of random loot, although it can be annoying at times. But charging people for random loot, which they may not want is just wrong. If you want to charge, at least let the people know what they're getting for their money. Worse, designing the game around making people want to buy them just to avoid the grind, because the grind itself becomes too tedious, is extremely poor game design.

spicelicka336d ago

"I believe Black Ops III had loot boxes... and for real money unmitigated hate for that?"

There is always hate for COD, and rightfully so. Battlefront 2 hate picked up momentum, and it was great.

DragonKnight336d ago

Loot boxes that have any impact on gameplay are bad game design. The reason is simple. A dev that implements loot boxes that are tied to progression are saying that their game is not worth playing through on its own merit. They have designed a method in which you don't even have to play the game in order to progress. That is the very definition of bad game design. When you yourself know your game is so bad that you design a way to circumvent playing it, how can you say your game is good?

Ittoittosai336d ago

Everyone focused like a lazer on the loot boxes but its actually not the loot boxes its what the loot boxes did, namely let you skip the grind of lvling your MP character and grinding star cards, they also limited your ability to earn credits in arcade mode because didnt want it "abused" but had no problem with people buying crystals to skip lvling but the free way to earn stuff yeah that was a problem. That was what the out cry was about because it was pay to win not specifically the loot boxes, it kind of changed to outrage at loot boxes after because now gamers see where its going finally.

CrimsonWing69336d ago

Omg they are free you just had the option to also use real money to buy more if you didn’t have enough in-game currency.

This whole fiasco has gotten out of hand and people are complaining more about the unfair balance of paying to win rather than the model of loot boxes’ purpose.

Lamboomington335d ago (Edited 335d ago )

Not really true. They can be horrible design. I don't like the Battlefront 2 design after trying it out. I don't want to unlock things by having a chance of getting some components or whatever. Depends on the game. This is regardless of microtransactions and so on.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 335d ago
--Onilink--336d ago (Edited 336d ago )

If they had been cosmetic only and gave the dev the option to not release a season pass which heavily fragments a player base, im all for them to do loot boxes. Unfortunately some devs have been making really bad choices in how to implement them

Because I honestly dont see how they would support adding content for a year or more without a continuous source of revenue, specially now that game prices drop so quickly after launch.

That is probably the only part that I agree that gamers now havent really changed in mindset, yes, we used to get a fixed price and fixed experience, but we then had to wait years for an expansion or new game altogether, which to me is honestly fine, but a lot of people these days want a constant stream of content, just look at a game like Destiny 2, being eating alive because people would play hundreds of hours in less than a week and then complain there was no more content.

Sure we can agree on the ethics of how loot boxes might incentivise purchase through visual cues and stuff like that, but as long as it doesnt affect gameplay, if someone wants to spend hundreds of $ in cosmetic stuff, then go crazy, its not my money.

badz149336d ago

if they are purely cosmetics, I don't think they are bad design. that is really giving players a choice to customize the looks of their characters as they want (meh...maybe not really how they want it as lootboxes give items in random but still...that's how lootboxes work, right?), but pay to win? that's crossing the line in the douchebaggest way possible! and then on top of THAT, purposely making in-game credits hard to come by while offering credits that can be bought with real money? that's a SCAM! and then also purposely limiting credits per day for playing offline modes while not limiting credit purchase with real money? that's INSULTING to those who bought your game! and this guy has the guts to defend these decisions as "not bad game design"??

seriously GO F*** YOURSELF!

rainslacker336d ago (Edited 336d ago )

Wow...this guy comes off more of a douche than CliffyB did when he said digital was the future.

It's not about us dinosaurs remembering the good ol' days. It's about us, AS CONSUMERS, that want a complete finished game, at a set price.

It's not the customers that are the problem. It's the publishers that push this crap and expect us to just accept it as a forgone conclusion.

Make a complete game, at a set price, and have customers that appreciate your hard work. Don't just make games with the intent to fleece the customer, relying on those who are willing to pay, which amount to less than 10% of your customers.

It's not exactly rocket science.

Dark_Knightmare2336d ago (Edited 336d ago )

I'm physical all the way and hate digital but what Cliffy b said is absolutely true. I mean it sucks but it's true and I dread the day when physical goes away

Rachel_Alucard336d ago (Edited 336d ago )

Rod Fergusson the creative director of Gears 4 and the one who was second in command when Cliff was around stated that, giving the ability to let players pick what they want resulted in them just getting enough to get what they wanted and never touching the system again or exposing the player. With loot-boxes people are constantly using it. He compared it like, "If I could just pick the Magic:The Gathering cards I wanted then I would pick the ones I need and never open another pack."

Its underhanded but its smart and keeps people using the system, as long as using the system is enjoyable that is. When you start pulling what EA, Warner bros, and Ubisoft did with their last few games you've gone too far.

traumadisaster336d ago

It's smart and scientists have been examining this for decades because it works...in Vegas, it's gambling addiction. Now that brought that from Vegas to mobile to our games.

zerocarnage336d ago

I agree,devs used to create as a hobby and for fans now they create just to be greedy.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 335d ago
336d ago
chrisx336d ago

This guy is the joker of the year.

336d ago
Mikelarry336d ago (Edited 336d ago )

They seem to want to try an spin this, gamers dont have an issue with loot boxes in F2P games, its greedy publishers who are asking for premium prices and then locking content in lootboxes that are the problem. one must ask themselves if it such a gauranteed business practices that offers gamers " choice" why is it hidden behind a lootbox why not let gamers know all the facts and then choose what they want to buy but noooooo, it all falls down to not wanting money but wanting ALL the money. the fucking greed of AAA industry is really getting old now.

the statement below is why the goverment needs to come regulate the hell out of this shit and then noone will have fun since the game devs and publishers cant curb thier greed as ppl have been saying they seem to be targeting the kids who really dont understand and are just paying from mummy and daddies credit card

"Do we really think the kids growing up today will be complaining about loot boxes and micro transactions - that have been an ingrained part of how they played games ever since they were born?" "

rainslacker336d ago

Funny thing about those kids, is that they grow up, and when they have to spend their own money for such things, they start to see the problems with MT, and ultimately, start to ask why they aren't getting a full game for their intiial purchase.

There is a huge difference between these kids(which isn't even who is really buying these things), and those that actually work to make their money, have other bills to pay, and ultimately, tend to look at the value of what they're getting for their money. They start to look at the way it used to be before publishers realized they could fleece them, and wonder why it can't still be that way.

The reality of the situation is is that less than 10% of any given games player base purchases micro-transactions. So to me, the bigger question is, "are the other 90% of the gamers going to keep being content with getting these games which push MT constantly, and continuously feel like they are getting less and less for their money.

To answer the question, look at why gaming is becoming so popular? It's a very cheap form of entertainment. When you look at movies, they're quite expensive for what you get. 2 hours for around $8-10 per person. When the value in gaming starts to be question, actual sales will go down, kind of like how fewer people are going to the movies nowadays, because the content isn't as good as it used to be, and it's becoming more expensive.

Anyways, as far as this dev is concerned, don't worry about what these kids will be saying years from now. Worry about what your customers are saying now. If you don't, chances are, your studio won't be around in the future to actually worry about what the kids will say 10-20 years from now.

fenome336d ago

For real though, they think we'll just roll over "because that's just the way it is". No it's not, and there's plenty of choice without this bullshit. Plenty of developers still just create games with passion and let them stand up on their own accord. Those are also the ones I choose to support 100%.

XiNatsuDragnel336d ago (Edited 336d ago )

Hell naw that's lie when you implement crap like P2W INTO IT .

Show all comments (64)
The story is too old to be commented.