Some game companies are going overboard with loot boxes, but that raises the question: can you make a loot box that isn't manipulative and predatory?
I always hated lootboxes (as do many others), but out of all the games I have played I feel Uncharted 4 does them at least properly in a sense that you will eventually get the item you want. The system works just like any other one, except they get rid of the possibility of pulling in a duplicate item, and while I've never spent money with UC4 (or any lootboxes for any game), I will say if I did I wouldn't be as frustrated as say with Overwatch, where you can get duplicates for a small amount of credits. To me, if you are gonna do the whole Loot box system, IMO do it like UC4 because at least you know you will get X item. But of course that doesn't sit well with many publishers because that style of microtransaction puts a "cap" on their earnings However, Nothing beats the good old progression system games had so long ago that seems to be going out for Multiplayer games in favor of a loot system
Now the thing is that government got involved with this, two things will happen : Number one : publishers and developers will have to remove microtransaction and loot boxes in order to change their behavior to consumers. Number two : publishers and developers will have to change the PG Rating into adult if their games have microtransaction and loot boxes (gambling). Adults rating which is not game companies favorite because it will sell less. Like seriously, this is what happened major publishers gone too far and it got government attention. “Sigh” microtransaction in AAA games shouldn’t belong in first place.
Actually, the notion that an AO rated title won't sell well is extremely outdated. That may have been true in the 90s, but most gamers are adults now, and it has been that way for a while. In most circumstances it would be beneficial for studios to stop fearing an AO rating. We'd see a lot less censorship for one. Heck, it's almost guaranteed that the first title to actually use such a rating would sell a lot for the novelty alone. On the other hand, we may have actually stumbled upon one instance of a silver lining, as eloquently outlined in your post. If fear of a non-existent boogeyman causes companies to denounce some unethical practices, then so much the better.
@Tross it's not about adults buying AO titles or not, but many outlets such as Gamestop and Walmart blatantly refuse to sell a game bearing the rating. Yes, you can use the "then buy digital" excuse, but even then Sony or MS wouldn't allow for heavy marketing in their websites for a game restricted solely to adults. the AO rating is still a death sentence to a game, wanting or not.
UCForce You forgot option 3: publishers and consumers will find more insidious ways of putting microtransactions into their games.
They won't get rid of MT's lol Nothing legally wrong with MT's
@Jinger Sure, but they will be force to change their PG rating into adult if they had loot boxes (gambling) and microtransaction in it even the game companies like it or not.
@aarogree that was meant for @UCForce and i very well aware that people have tried to ban sports cards and Pokemon cards. The reason they failed is because based on US gambling laws, they can't be considered gambling. Just like lootboxes can't be considered gambling because you can't lose. My thing is, if all of these people are suddenly so concern with protecting children from gambling, why are they not bitching about those things as well. Also I believe that parents should just be better parents and not give your 12 year old their credit card.
@TimmyTurnersDad People aren't that concerned because we've had time to condition ourselves and teach our children to not go overboard with trading cards (plus they aren't that popular anymore), which is something we haven't been able to do with loot boxes because they are relatively new. That and it's easier to buy loot boxes than trading cards, since all you need to do is literally click one button and not drive out to your nearest Target or Walgreens and pray there isn't traffic. In other words, people aren't complaining about trading cards because buying them is infinitely less inconvenient than buying loot boxes.
Never played Uncharted 4 so I never got to witness that loot box first hand.
By us gambling laws lootboxes are not gambling because you never lose. You may not get the thing you want but your still getting something, much like Pokemon cards and baseball cards. By your logic we should have trading cards and sports cards banned.
@TimmyTurnersDad 1. That's not my logic. 2. You treat that as a joke, but people have actually tried that in the past.
Just show me what I'm getting and that'll work out for all of us.
Showing you what you're getting isn't the problem, it's knowing the odds of what you want to get.
Yes. One that is in game and costs zero real life money.
Not in a full priced game. There are some free to play games like South Park Phone Destroyer though that I think do it the right way. Loot boxes have no place in 60 dollar games though.
I agree with ya.
Id rather have a "please insert disc 2" messege then one lootbox
damn, that's pretty hardcore
No, there isn't. In the end, they are all using the "haves" and "have nots" approach, to psychologically bombard users to pay money into the loot box. Cosmetic doesn't give this garbage a pass. Again, it still turns into the "haves" and "have nots". Get rid of this garbage, make a good game, make good and worthwhile dlc (if that's even possible), the money will come.
You are aware that the way the author is tackling this is basically suggesting have Loot boxes come as a bonus from buying things like Amiibos instead of the predatory practices we have now?
Short answer: No Long answer: Not good, but some are more tolerated. Cosmetics are more tolerated than seen as good. They don't effect gameplay so are not massively negative, however as Nitrowolf2 says, the duplicate return on coins is poor. A skin costs 250 coins, you get it once cool, the second time you get it you get 25 gold (maybe 50) on Overwatch. That's a HUGE loss. Even if you got half of what the item is worth for a duplicate would be better than what you currently get. Or better still you could trade a skin for any other skin, a voice line for another etc.
Some games genuinely can justify them for continued support for years on end. Rocket league is a great implementation of loot boxes, and well justified. It's still being supported years after launch with tons of new content, and the only things loot boxes unlock are cosmetic, completely ignorable. Not to mention it's not a full price game, and many people got it for free on PS+. I don't expect developers to keep adding new content to multilayer games for 2-3 years after launch, not for nothing more than they get for the original game. It doesn't make sense business wise, and they might as well just make a sequel. Map packs are probably more harmful for online communities, as it divides the playerbase. Well done microtransactions make it so you aren't at all required to pay for anything extra, while the creators get more money and can continue to add to their game for it. Battlefront 2 got it wrong because it locked out too much, and that's where microtransactions can ruin a game.
Sure. They have to be only cosmetic and not tied to progression. You should never get duplicates. They should not be purchasable with real money at all, they should be only obtainable via in game activity. If companies want extra money then they can work for it by making new content that consumers can just buy without dealing with RNG BS. Instead they would rather gate existing and future content behind a virtual slot machine.
Is there such thing as good cancer? I didn't think so.
Best implementation of loot boxes I’ve see so far was back in Halo 5. Cosmetics and Warzone items.
And you could see your doubles. Halo 5 had perfectly fine microtransacions.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.