Top
550°

Ubisoft says that "if players didn’t buy loot boxes/crates, they would not be added into games"

From GameWatcher: "Trials Rising is the next game in Ubisoft's popular bike-riding series, and as it turns out, it's going to feature cosmetic loot boxes. Fans have not taken the news well, with many of them bringing hell and brimstone to the game's Steam Discussions thread."

Read Full Story >>
gamewatcher.com
The story is too old to be commented.
AspiringProGenji26d ago

Yeah because you really wish whales 🐋 didn’t buy loot boxes. Why then you stop adding them in the first place?

Morons

WANNAGETHIGH26d ago

Add that to DLC also. I hate how they just cut out of the campaign and sell it to you later.

zahdab26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

thas not always fair, Many DLCs get developed after a fame releases to extend it ... take the witcher DLC or spiderman dlc ... they are basically mini campaigns
Even Ubisoft with far cry 5 DLC that is basically not related to the main game

Skull52126d ago

Kinda funny, because if you didn’t put them in the game, no one would buy them Ubisoft.

Christopher26d ago

***Kinda funny, because if you didn’t put them in the game, no one would buy them Ubisoft.***

And yet people then ask for more ways to customize characters in games, or more loot, or the like. They're listening to the people who ask for such things, the people who don't are bitching that the people who want it are getting what they want.

I'm fine with cosmetic gear being extra stuff, not like their games lack for customization as it is. It's when actual vital gear gets put in them as a lotto that I mind. Or when it's the only source for a necessary resource.

Skull52126d ago

I don’t want to look at other people’s cosmetics. Gears of War was a dark gritty awesome shooter. If I try to go play a multiplayer game now it looks like I’m playing Gears on an acid trip. These companies need to get this under control and give an option to people to display default artwork within the games options, customization is ruining the immersive experience in favor of quick cash.

parris25d ago

@Christopher

That kind of stuff used to be free...

Have you played DQ XI? It's got 5+ costumes for all the different characters and all of it is free.

Christopher25d ago

***That kind of stuff used to be free... ***

It still is. As this is an Ubisoft discussion, I'm talking specifically about Ubisoft. There is a shit ton of customization in their games. We're not talking about a game like Fortnite or Overwatch, where cosmetics are only unlocked. Origins/Odyssey had tons of cosmetics you just earned and leveled up. Far Cry 5 had a ton of cosmetics. And, both latest games allowed for both male and female characters. AC Odyssey had over 100 different full armor sets at least. Yes, some are similar, but it's all based on specific regions, but it all also looks different. And that's not counting the legendary gear sets. Same with weapons. Heck, over 100 hours in and I was still finding new looking gear in the game often.

This stuff is still free. But, there's a point beyond that.

parris25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

@Christopher

What your saying defeats itself, if all that stuff is free then why do they need to sell more? Just add it for free.

There is only a point beyond if you let them get away with it.

Again this type of stuff was free in older games and even some modern games, the only reason pay stuff was added was because people became willing to pay for things that were already free (just like Ubisoft is saying). It's like when companies obviously cut content to sell as dlc, people bought it so they kept doing it. If people had said wait a sec your trying to rip me off and zero people had bought it they would have stopped doing it.

Look at the fallout from Battlefront 2 at least temporarily gamers stopped pay to win loot boxes in games by simply saying no. If people had been equally outraged about DLC maybe we wouldn't be in the place where we are no where people *cough* like you just throw up their hands and say "well if it's only this thing or it's only that thing". No, no things, no more things that's the correct answer.

opc25d ago

@parris

AC:O is absolutely massive though. Who's even looking at the MTs in that game? just play the stock game until you get bored and you still won't see everything

They add these extras because they can make a bit of easy money from the people that want even more than the stock game that provides 100+hours of content. I feel like anyone complaining about the amount of content in the stock AC games is being a bit nutty. Especially when they drop in price so quickly.

"150 hours of gameplay, 9453 pieces or armor and weapons, daily challenges, 99487 square miles of terrain just isn't enough!" It's goofy.

RosweeSon25d ago

Yeah assassins creed the worst for it love a bit of assassins but sequence is pre order dlc with this shop this sequence is part of the season pass which starts at £39,99 then by time content is out it’s barely £19.99 zzz lol

Christopher25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

***What your saying defeats itself, if all that stuff is free then why do they need to sell more? Just add it for free.***

Because keeping artists on hand to develop new content on a weekly basis costs money.

It doesn't defeat itself at all, btw.

Before: Here's our game, this is it.

Now: HEre's our game. It has more than our last game but we're going to continue to support it because that's what our players want, but we will ask for you to spend some money if you want some new cosmetics or you can get lucky with the limited in-game orachalcum (sp?) stuff as well.

***There is only a point beyond if you let them get away with it. ***

You should realize that Ubisoft has backed _way_ off of where they were with microtransactions and loot boxes. They already went there and then switched directions entirely based on community feedback.

I get you're worried of where these things go, but I think you're misinformed on Ubisoft in general.

***Look at the fallout from Battlefront 2 at least temporarily gamers stopped pay to win loot boxes in games by simply saying no.***

Ubisoft stopped before they got that far and backtracked their concepts of MTX. While Ubisoft isn't a 'good guy' they're 'one of the better guys' out there currently.

Not as good as CDPR, but not even close to as bad as EA or WB.

parris25d ago

@Christopher

All I'm reading is "well if it's only this thing or it's only that thing" it's ok.

We got to this point because people said the same types of things about DLC. If you accept it no matter how you accept it they will continue doing it and it will get worse. It's only been dialed back because of Battlefront 2's fiasco. Given time they will slowly dial it back up, from their perspective it wasn't that they added MT's and loot boxes that was the problem it was they pushed it too fast.

And this isn't just an Ubisoft issue it's an industry issue, look at Activision they have dialed back zero percent and they still have one of the top selling franchises. I guarantee you there are people in EA who are like we should have just stuck with our plan and just forced it. Given time I can say with certainty that any gains gamers won in 2017 will return but worse given time.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 25d ago
parris26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

At least they are honest. While I am not saying it's not their fault, it's absolutely the fault of the people who buy this crap as well.

Myself and lots of others tried to say this kind of stuff would happen when Microsoft brought DLC to the market with the 360. But people didn't listen and bought DLC anyways. Now it's the same, people say don't buy loot boxes and MT's but people by them anyways. And things will only get worse in the future... whats next pay by the minute gaming?

Rude-ro26d ago

No.
Players spent the money per habits and passions and being the only way to get the items per corporate decisions and marketing.
That’s like saying “if people did not buy food, businesses would not charge for it”...
you are petting the corporations and blaming the victims in this situation.
Multi BILLION dollar businesses are not looking out for your interest, they are trying to figure out how to get your money and put a value on everything.
Period.

dumahim26d ago

@Rude-ro

"businesses are not looking out for your interest, they are trying to figure out how to get your money and put a value on everything."

You are aware that that is why businesses exist, right?

MoonConquistador26d ago

@Rude-ro

You couldn't have picked a worse example if you tried. Food is essential to survive, loot boxes in games are not. Consumers have a choice over their need for loot boxes and therefore the point the guy is making is valid no matter if you like it or not.

There are two parties at fault for the proliferation of loot boxes and two parties who can stop it (unless a government steps in to legislate that they are a form of gambling).

The companies making and selling the content (the supply) AND the consumers who are paying for it (the demand).

As parris said, at least he is being honest

parris26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

@Rude-ro

First off, I am not defending the companies. Second, food is different, people need food to live, no one needs dlc, mt's, loot boxes or games for that matter.

The point is if gamers had said no to DLC and not bought the early games that had it and rejected it DLC and thus MT's and loot boxes wouldn't exist today. Consumers decide what gets sold, plenty (millions) of products don't exist anymore because people didn't buy them.

Basically I am blaming everyone involved. The companies and the consumers, there is plenty of blame to go around.

For example you could count the number of games I have bought DLC for during the past two generations on your fingers. I said no last gen and I haven't bought it except in a few rare cases mostly really niche Japanese games like Atelier just because I know the games don't sell well. And I have bought zero MT's and zero loot boxes. I don't even think I own any games that have them because i simply decided I didn't want to give those companies my money.

So, I feel perfectly justified in blaming consumers who lack self control and good judgement.

Rude-ro25d ago

Food is free for those that will make.
Any individual can HAVE food and not spend tons of money like we do.
It is the prime example.
Yes, I know why businesses exist, but how abusive to its consumers is the topic.
Gaming is hobby. The fun extras and rewards use to be a passion project that someone said hey, players obsess on it, let’s captilize on it. The Domino effect that marketing thirsts after.
I realize the topic is deep, but not wrong

opc25d ago

be fair, some DLC is worth good money. Borderlands 2, Witcher 3, Red Dead Redemption all had solid DLC on top of absolutely massive games. It's absurd to think that they should be free simply because they are an expansion of an existing game.

rainslacker25d ago

If it wasn't loot boxes, it would be something else. There is no chicken and egg. People weren't buying mt before they started getting added. They brought them because they started getting added.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 25d ago
GottaBjimmyb25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

They didn't say they wish people didn't buy them, they just said they are added because people do. Not really that impossible to understand.

Honestly, when only implemented for cosmetics I really have no issue with MTs. I just don't buy them, and even better most of the items are able to be earned via playing, so it actually diversifies my experience because others do pay.

TheOptimist26d ago

They are not wrong. Dumb people on the planet are just waiting to get exploited.

LucasRuinedChildhood26d ago

It doesn't excuse their excessive monetization practices, but there really is a lot of morons out there that buy this crap.

Legion2126d ago

I hate lootboxes as much as anyone here but from a business perspective why would they leave money on the table if the know people buy them? I just wish people would stop buying them.

dumahim26d ago

If you're running a business and come up with a way to get people to send you more money for little investment, you're going to say, "no thanks?"

WelkinCole25d ago

Yes but thats free market for ya. If there was no market for it MT's would not have survived. Sucks for most of us but apparently there is a market full of suckers.

Gahl1k25d ago

Especially gaming 'journalists' who make articles about being addicted to buying Fortnite $5 skins, for example.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 25d ago
MoshA26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

It's a good thing. Stupid people deserve to be exploited. That is why I respect Microsoft & Nvidia. They don't deserve the highest rated and best looking games if they give companies that would ruin this industry money.

Atomicjuicer26d ago

Gullible people end up homeless - is that cool with you too?

We have to stop predatory practices or society collapses

We’re all in this together. (Except you Ubisoft, fuck your bullshit)

parris26d ago

Microsoft had Mt's in their games all generation and it was going ot be loot box city for them until EA and WB screwed it up for everyone. Sony and Nintendo have had by far the least MT loot boxes and DLC this generation.

jaymacx26d ago

What is wrong with people these days... it’s never a good thing to take advantage of another human being. This is almost on the level of casinos taking advantage of people with addictions.

Godmars29026d ago

Thing is its a minority of gamers doing this. Spending hundreds if not thousands just to make a game easier, or even worse, cosmetic items that really add nothing to a game or were once offered for free. And Ubisoft and others only continue to tailor games towards this minority under the excuse of, "if you don't want it, then why are *YOU* buying it?".

dumahim26d ago

On the flip side, these people are providing the pub/devs with extra funding that is fending off rising development costs. They need to make this up in some way. People don't want to pay more then $60 for a new game (that's even too much for some people).

Godmars29025d ago

@dumahim:
One: its not about production costs. Or rather, they're the ones raising production costs which has come to include marketing.

Two: Its only about profits. When publishers said the industry was recession proof, they weren't talking to gamers but investors and stockholders. They were guaranteeing exponential profit. Stating that they were entitled to make money.

Three: By what's being done the fundamental nature of games is being effected. Abusively tailored to appeal to whales, addictive personalities and exploit the nature of community and socializing. If it meant having something that's basically engaging interactive and honestly involving while being worth the money, I'd gladly pay $80.

But the point is: we're paying $60 for product that's incomplete yet made to make you turn over another $60+ to actually play it.

rainslacker25d ago

What sucks most is it still affects those who don't partake. Some games aren't bad, but some shove this stuff in your face, or build the game design around it.

Smitty202026d ago

I agree with you, I hate loot boxes it’s annoys the hell out of me but on a business point of few if stupid people r willing to buy skins for real money then why would they get rid? It’s these people why they exist

wirapuru25d ago

Best Name + Comment combination I've seen in some time.

Tiqila25d ago

But they are those who exploit vulnerable people and seem to be proud of it...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 25d ago
milohighclub26d ago

So that's you're excuse for exploiting people? Including children! How about taking the moral high ground? Here's a thought, don't put them in your games so people can't buy them!

FunAndGun26d ago

Come on....moral high ground? They are supplying a product for sale to make money. You either buy it or you don't. I absolutely hate microtransactions, but if they want to sell it like that, that's their choice. If we don't want our soda intake regulated, or the content in the game regulated, why should we demand this be regulated? This comes down to consumer choice, as it should. The market is just dictating how it has evolved. The few whales will ruin it for most, just like the people who pirate games have an affect on regular players.

Baza26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

I totally understand Ubisoft is a for profit company, however, these business practices of how to make money can be toxic to games. Random loot boxes, pay to win model, holding back content for dlc, deception.. When you design a game around micro transactions that’s a big problem. People are getting sick of the antics of Ubisoft, EA and Activison and it’s catching up to them. Their actual games haven’t been that great lately but they damn sure have micro transactions

milohighclub26d ago

Why are you making excuses for them? You may as well be buying them yourself. It's exploiting naive people/chidren and is ruining gaming. That's why we want this regulating.

Unreal0126d ago (Edited 26d ago )

milohighclub

You can say that that about any business though, look at Apple. They're number one in terms of exploiting people with their half-arsed phone upgrades. The fault doesn't lie with Ubisoft, it's the people that buy them unfortunately. Obviously if there is money to be made, any business will want in on that. And you mention children, surely that responsibility rests with the parents no?

Business has always been about exoloiting.

CarlDechance26d ago

So much for people taking responsibility for their own actions. Ubisoft made me do it. Exploiting people, my ass.

milohighclub26d ago

When they're as adictive as gambling then they lock all the content behind then yeah it's exploiting people.

2pacalypsenow26d ago

People are responsible for themselves, they need to stop blaming others for their own stupidity.

CarlDechance26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

@milohighclub

lol....you might as well not allow anyone to buy anything. You think impulse buying is limited to video games? Talk about naive. And even if it were. There is this little thing called "freedom". That freedom includes the freedom to make dumbass decisions. Naive is thinking you can regulate that out of existence.

milohighclub26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

You call me naive but I never once implied impulse buying was limited to video games. We're not talking about impulse buying here tho, we're talking about gambling addiction and blatantly ripping people off.
Look at the whole black ops thing a dude spent 1k and got a weapon skin. It's going out of your way to rip off the consumer.

Also the whole taking responsibility for their actions remark you made in your first comment, how about ubisoft take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming gamers for buying them?

So what's your suggestion we all continue turning a blind eye and allow games to be ruined by this shit?

Larrysweet26d ago

Bs stop selling em is it ok to sell kids crack cause they just keep buying it

rainslacker25d ago

People are responsible for themselves, and these publishers are responsible for including mt in their games. No one is forcing them. Certainly the people buying these things aren't demanding them, and for sure, the people not buying them aren't asking for them.

I understand that loot boxes wouldn't exist if people didn't buy them, but that wouldn't mean that these publishers wouldn't put in anything they could if they thought it would make them a buck. Blaming the customer through a generalized statement like this just passes the buck.

Publishers are going to find some way to exploit the customers. They have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. If people stopped buying this stuff, they'd just find other ways to make more money off their games, instead of just making better games.

CarlDechance25d ago

@milohighclub

My suggestion is simple. Don't buy loot boxes if you don't want to. Let others buy loot boxes if they want to. This isn't exploitation or addiction. it is just a choice

@rainslacker

Not sure who you are responding to, but I'm not blaming anyone for anything. The word "exploitation" is being thrown around so casually it is ridiculous. This is like equating loot boxes to forced labor camps in some countries. The hyperbole is damn near obscene.

milohighclub25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

@ Carl i don't buy them but when content is locked behind them it sucks, either pay more money on top of the initial cost of game or miss out on a large chunk of the game.

Look at what they did in odyssey made it a massive grind then charged to unlock a standard level of grind.

CarlDechance25d ago

"Look at what they did in odyssey made it a massive grind then charged to unlock a standard level of grind."

And you were forced to buy that? Oh....no. So where is this exploitation? Answer: it doesn't exist. Buy or don't buy. That unlock caused them negative PR and probably some sales. They made that choice as is their freedom to do. Whether you buy it is up to you. How many times does it have to be explained that these are all free choices.

And that grind was hardly "massive". I finished Odyssey. I know.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 25d ago
Relientk7726d ago

I don't buy that trash, keep them out of the games

ECHOINFINITY26d ago

That's fine, but I will never buy a single player game that contains any form of loot box, period. MP at this point is a lost cause.

Ciporta198026d ago

I think it will not be long till you have to give up gaming. I havent ever bought one and I never will but I just try to just ignore them as best I can. Eventually though this will become impossible and I'll also have to give up gaming. I hope kindle books never get them or I'm screwed

Larrysweet26d ago

Or just play ur game and not worry bought em...do u not eat cuz groc store sells liquor and u hate it? No u dont buy it and u get ur food..same thing quit crying go read

rainslacker25d ago

I really don't care so long as they don't affect the game, or game design. Sp games tend to be cosmetic, or the boost items won't affect me either way if they're not there.

But games where the design forces them front and center, or would be more fun with them, then that's just bad design.