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."

[AspiringProGenji]

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

Morons

[WANNAGETHIGH]

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

[zahdab]

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

[Skull521]

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

[Christopher]

***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.

[Skull521]

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.

[parris]

@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.

[Christopher]

***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.

[parris]

@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.

[opc]

@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.

[RosweeSon]

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

[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.***

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.

[parris]

@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.

[parris]

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-ro]

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.

[dumahim]

@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?

[MoonConquistador]

@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

[parris]

@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-ro]

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

[opc]

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.

[rainslacker]

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.

[GottaBjimmyb]

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.

[TheOptimist]

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

[LucasRuinedChildhood]

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

[Legion21]

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.

[dumahim]

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?"

[WelkinCole]

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.

[MoshA]

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.

[Atomicjuicer]

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)

[parris]

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.

[jaymacx]

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.

[Godmars290]

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?".

[dumahim]

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).

[Godmars290]

@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.

[rainslacker]

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.

[Smitty2020]

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

[eddvdm]

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

[milohighclub]

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!

[FunAndGun]

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.

[Baza]

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

[milohighclub]

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.

[Ricegum]

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.

[CarlDechance]

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

[milohighclub]

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

[2pacalypsenow]

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

[CarlDechance]

@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.

[milohighclub]

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?

[Larrysweet]

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

[rainslacker]

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.

[CarlDechance]

@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.

[milohighclub]

@ 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.

[CarlDechance]

"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.

[Relientk77]

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

[ECHOINFINITY]

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.

[BLUEKNIFE]

So following this argument, it is "OK" then to sell drugs because people is buying it. This is just insane

[FunAndGun]

Well, drugs are illegal.

[Lostbytes]

Actually, 98% of drugs are legal, most are regulated, but still legal.... that's a invalid argument.

[RabbitFly]

And comparing drugs to microtransactions is not an invalid argument?

[FunAndGun]

98% of drugs are legal???? Whaaaaat? .... not sure where you live, but that is a complete falsehood here in America.

Whatever...comparing microtransactions to drugs is asinine anyway and does not prove your point at all.

[DerekTweed]

The medicine you get from the doctor/pharmacy is drugs. Aspirin is a drug, paracetamol is a drug, Nicotine, caffeine are drugs. Hell, even alcohol is a drug.

[InTheZoneAC]

Look at drug dealers or stores that cell cigarettes, they'll never stop because of idiots buying up their product. Exact same principle applies to loot boxes and people will come up with every excuse why they can't stop buying them.

[CarlDechance]

Yes, as long as their is demand for a product then people will buy that product. I'm not sure why anyone here believes they have a right to tell others what they can sell or what they can buy.

Don't want it. Don't buy it. It is a simple concept.

[InTheZoneAC]

Exactly

[rainslacker]

Didn't some major pharmacy stop selling cigarettes about 10.years ago?

[Platformgamer]

yeah, it's better to take advantage of peolpe that like gambling, right ubisoft?
these things should be out of the videogaming industry PERIOD

[FunAndGun]

Personal responsibility. Not a video game company's responsibility to police content because it might affect someone because they have issues.

[InTheZoneAC]

I agree although game companies should take it upon themselves to create the best experience for the player. This is the one thing the government could do good on since these companies will take from us as long as the mentally challenged keep buying

[chris235]

that‘s right. people are only getting what they are screaming for. if people were able to think 2 minutes ahead, we would not have to deal with such cashgrabs *shrugs*

[Yi-Long]

Perhaps those who hate lootboxes don't buy those game sin the first place, so while you might make money from some customers that buy lootboxes, you might be turning away a whole lot of gamers who are completely put off by this practice, skipping the game completely.

[mark_parch]

there's been a few games recently I didn't pick up because of loot boxes and microtransactions, battlefront 2 was one of them. I don't mind so much if it's not pay to win and the money actually goes towards making a better game but the only developer I can think of who has achieved this is rockstar.

[Yi-Long]

Same, and that's been the case with me when it comes to 'normal' DLC: Whenever they announce it will have DLC or in this case MT's, I just shrug my shoulders, "that's a shame", and forget about it, perhaps until 1 day there's a complete edition, which is on sale.

DLC (and MT's), has made me spend far LESS on those games. Not more.

[rainslacker]

Given how much some of these companies are making odd mt, I don't think the small boycott is going to bother them that much. Ea probably saw the worst boycott of their products with sw: bf, and they still sold tons of copies, and would have probably made a ton off my at launch if they didn't backtrack.

[staticall]

Same logic - «If maniacs would stop killing people, i will stop killing them too»
If someone's doing something wrong, doesn't mean you have to. You have a choice. And you chose.. poorly.

[Ricegum]

It's not the same logic at all 😂 that's obviously too extreme to be comparable to what Ubisoft is saying.

[FungLip]

I don’t see a problem with that logic. Who minds getting rid of maniacs that kill random innocent people? 😅

[Muzikguy]

Ideas like this are why I’ve stayed away from their games this gen.

[zodiac909]

Remember when you could buy a masterpiece like Super Mario 64, Ocarina of time, or MGS and not have to worry about microtransactions? Its the devs fault for throwing them in, in the first place.

[bluefox755]

Well, no !@#$ Sherlock.

[King_Noctis]

Chicken and egg really. If you hadn’t put MT in to the game to bait and push gamer into buying them (like the XP booster in AC), then no one would have bought them.

[CarlDechance]

Bait and push? lol.....so no one has a choice huh? They are "pushed"? What in the world happen to "free will"? That's no longer a thing in video games, huh?

[ziggurcat]

They are knudged, yes. Their last two AC games have design choices that are very blatantly meant to lead people into buying their MTs.

[King_Noctis]

Maybe you don’t understand what bait and push mean.

[CarlDechance]

@ziggurcat

Commercials are blatantly meant to lead you to buy products. Whether you actually buy them is up to you. Same with video games. As much as you try, there is no getting around the free will EVERY video gamer has at every given moment.

@king_noctis

The context is clear. Maybe you are dodging the point since you are being evasive.

[ziggurcat]

@carl:

That's a bit of a strawman. When they remove the passive method of generating money in the game that has been there since at least ACII, make the game more of a grind or put things like treasure maps behind their Helix Credit paywall (these maps, by the way, were available from in-game merchants for in-game money prior to Origins), that's making design decisions that are meant to lead people into purchasing things like their XP/money booster packs, the treasure maps packs, etc... they're preying on the impatience of some people, really.

Hell, they even put the real release date of Odyssey behind the higher-priced editions (it's no coincidence that the "early access" date fell on the usual store content update day).

[FullmetalRoyale]

Crack dealer: “If people didn’t buy crack...”

[PapaBop]

Could add digital turds to games and some idiot would still buy them, that doesn't mean they should.

[Atomicjuicer]

I’m sure there are buyers for stolen organs too Ubisoft- go go go!

[FloydianAndroid]

That’s like saying if I didn’t aim that gun at that guy he wouldn’t have given me his wallet and the watch his grandfather gave him........Ubisoft makes good games but they need a new pr person.

[C-H-E-F]

I've been saying this all this time especially being a "no skin" on Fortnite, a skin isn't going to make you play better, used to get W's on fortnite until like April when I deleted it for h1z1. However, it's true all those dudes buying VCs on NBA 2k then complain about it being in the game, like bruh that's like you got cheated on by some girl and you take her back knowing she will cheat again and again and again and again and again etc.

[obidanshinobi]

In the tone of Jim Sterling - "Oh Ubisoft"

[Bhuahahaha]

if publisher/developers didnt add loot box players wont be exploited

[e3kehoe]

I for one haven’t ever bought any..I’ve gotten expansions but not loot boxes..

[Cobra951]

And if junkies didn't finance the drug cartels, they wouldn't exist either. Does Ubisoft want to be developers, or pushers?

Edit: I mistakenly said "Blizzard" initially instead of Ubi. Same question to them.

[ziggurcat]

BS, ubisoft...

[xRacer74x]

That is why I do not care if they are there I do not buy em.

[Chexs1990]

If the developers didn't design progress around MT solutions, then maybe people wouldn't

[Brave_Losers_Unite]

Not everyone can afford Pay2Win garbage. Keep it cosmetics only

[Smokehouse]

Truth bomb.

[Outlawzz]

I only support loot boxes in games that are free. Bought some mammoth coins for brawlhalla just because I liked the game and wanted to support it.

[AizenSosuke]

I agree to an extent, but these devs know that people will still buy lootboxes/crates regardless so this argument doesn't solve the issue either monetize with good DLC with that always has "value" or don't add it and make a complete product like PS2 nothing more, nothing less.

[-Gespenst-]

"Players" meaning a relatively tiny minority with money to burn who need to compensate for something.

[franwex]

You guys are such hypocrites. Many of you have purchase these MTs, yet hate them? Smh

[rainslacker]

I only brought a mt once. It was for one of the tales games. It was by mistake because I added it along with some other small things they were offering for free. Since I was also buying some games I didn't notice the extra few dollars. Since then, I don't put free stuff and purchases in the same cart. Luckily, the tales mt was some cool outfits, and I played the game long enough I wasn't upset, since theyndont actually force it on me.

I have brought dlc some times, but only if i feel it's worth it, and that tends to be actual game play content.

[franwex]

I don’t mind if people buy them. It’s their money. What I dislike is the active participation in the practice, but then complain about it.

[MetroidFREAK21]

Just stop adding them? I would seriously be okay with spending $70-80 for a game without these loot boxes or any other form of micro-transactions... I would have to buy less games, but it would be better for the industry I think

[Kosic]

Wow F*** me what a reply.... If loot boxes were truly optional then it's fair. But when you hinder your game to force the hand for loot boxes. That's where you've crossed the line.

If sometime took a reasonable time to unlock or you could by pass it with a buck that's a fair balance. But now it's taking people weeks to unlock something minor or 5 bucks.

[nommers]

If you put a turd on sale people will buy that too.

[isarai]

People keep buying crack too, doesn't make it fine to sell

[Ol_Boy]

They had to first be added into games before gamers could buy them. Now that gamers won't stop buying them they want to pull this B's statement lol.

[Nicknasty]

Gamers do need to stop buying into all that crap and dlc. Teach these greedy developers a lesson! If nobody bought it, they wouldn't exist. I'd make a stand. I'm probably one of the only ones outta my buddies that refuses to buy anything extra than the actual game.

[quenomamen]

Hear that you “I spent $1000 on COD Wack Ops “ dummy

[nibblo]

If it's cosmetics I don't care, people are free to spend their money how they want, but if it affects gameplay or game design in any way then keep it out of games.

[Bebedora]

Try to do loot boxes in tetris.

[franwex]

A straight line whenever you want!
Wait. That’s more pay to win...

[Moe-Gunz]

Although that statement is true, they fail to acknowledge the fact that they deliberately hinder progression to make people feel like they need to buy loot crates. They create a problem and sell you the solution.

[Tonykid]

Ha.

They are seething because Ubisoft is right.

[zachyBROosevelt]

Cosmetics in loot boxes A okay with me , I might even buy some if I like the game and the price is right. Its things like what battlefront 2 tried to do that is garbage

[Sirk7x]

Cosmetic stuff and whatnot, ask yourself, if these loot boxes didn't exist, would the publishers even bother allowing the devs to spend the time and resources necessary to create such things in the first place? If you're running a business and not making a return on investment, you're wasting time and money. Go work in management, your uppers will give you shit if you waste a single hour of labor that wasn't necessary (literally; you're talking cost control across all expenses not exceeding 1 percent over projected or you're getting reprimanded and called into meetings). There is passion in smaller publishers, bigger ones are businesses before anything.

[KillBill]

The supplier blaming the drug users on their addictions. Go figure...

[Da12RespectA]

Don't add them then

[Nicaragua]

By that logic its OK to sell nuclear bombs and weaponised anthrax to ISIS.

... I mean they want to buy them, so whats the problem?

[XxINFERNUSxX]

It's ok I got Assassin's Creed Odyssey for free thank you to CPY :D Next... \o/

[Tross]

Gee, I never thought I'd say this, but they have a point. Screw idiots who buy MTs, they're literally the reason why subpar third party devs keep adding them in their games.

[mogwaii]

Exactly.

[bellome]

Oh yeah ubisoft, and if addicted people didn’t buy crack, pushers would not be selling on the streets.

[CrimsonWing69]

Ok so if people didn’t buy drugs they wouldn’t exist so it makes it ok then?

[T2X]

There's a big difference between loot boxes and extra dlc. But they are correct, if there was no audience for them they would ditch them for the most part.

[Father Murder X]

Been saying that for years.